Spoilers from the Photo Guide

What do you think of Tolkien on the silver screen...? Whether Bakshi, Jackson, Amazon, BBC radio play, or whoever else, come on in and discuss your reflections, opinions, and memories...

Postby EcthelionII » Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:45 pm

Diamond, I confess that at first, the Nuclear Galadriel part disappointed me too: but, ironically, that is one of the few scenes that was based almost exclusively on the text from the book.<BR><BR>However that may stand, I try to keep positive about Faramir. Look at Boromir, and what PJ did to him. IMHO, the film Boromir was a much more humane character than the book version (partly because Sean Bean did such a tremendous job of bringing him to screen.)<BR><BR>In that regard, I still hope that Faramir, though his scenes may be changed, will still shine through as a man with great nobility and strenght of character. As you said:<BR> <i>If Dave Wenham nails Faramir's nobility and Numenorean sensibility (by which I mean wisdom and 'far seeing', among other things), then I will be forgiving ... </i><BR><BR>Regarding the VoS, I'm quietely optimistic about it featuring in some form in TTT.<BR><BR>Also, Diamond, I note you are from Namibia - I'm from South Africa. I didn't think I'd find many people from this part of the world on these boards, en yet on my first posting I do. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>
User avatar
EcthelionII
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:43 am
Top

Postby jsavfusco » Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:46 pm

<BR> I just had a striking thought. People here have been assuming that if VoS is in Rotk, that PJ would put it in at the beginning. What if it's near the end? Here's a possible scenario:<BR><BR> Gandalf, instead of going with Aragorn, goes to Isengard to depose Saruman, while Aragorn, Elrond and the Elves march to the Black Gates to face Sauron. Perhaps Gandalf takes a small contingent with him. Both Saruman and Sauron are defeated at the end, in a kind of double simultaneous climax (no snide remarks, please!)<BR><BR> This involves an even greater departure from the novel and may be some of what Jersey was hinting at. When Gandalf deposes Saruman, he dies on the RSWD, an ironic death since the RSWD is the very symbol of industrialization that Saruman/Sauron have used to defile Middle Earth. <BR><BR> Of course, this doesn't explain how the palantir is acquired, which presumably still happens in TTT. <BR><BR> Just some thoughts.<BR><BR>
User avatar
jsavfusco
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 7:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Top

Postby Queen_Beruthiel » Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:00 pm

Namibia??????!!!!!!!!!!!<BR>I thought you were a fellow Englishwoman, Di.
User avatar
Queen_Beruthiel
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 12:28 pm
Top

Postby The_Red_Avenger » Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:09 pm

Abut VoS - I think logically it has to be after Helm's Deep and before Gandalf rides to MT.<BR><BR>Pippin has to look in the Palantir, Theoden has to be present - it is part of Saruman's failing to convince him - It is a wonderful scene where after all of Wormtongues poison and Saruman still thinks he has an influence on him that Theoden shows his true nobility when he rebukes Saruman.<BR><BR>As for moving it to ROTK - I think this will happen - and why it is a god idea - If PJ goes with an ending in Hobbiton for Saruman - the audience has to remember him from the beginning of the film, otherwise we have a villain that no-one can remember from a year ago (not everyone who watches the movie will have read the books or buy the DVD - you know) so a scene with Saruman near the beginning of ROTK would go a long way - <BR><BR>As for shifting other things to to ROTK - the timeline has to follow - I keep hammering this one home - and if Shelob is in TTT then there really is not a lot for Frodo and Sam to do (cinematically) Okay - rescue from Cirith Ungol, dodge a few Nazgul, get captured by Orcs, Go to Mount Doom - before they meet up with the rest of the story - On the other hand the other side of the story is "epic" and well drawn out - However as has been pointed out - ROTK is the shortest of the books - and although a lot happens, it is still shorter - so I do not see a problem with moving things to ROTK from TTT.<BR><BR>As for TTT itself - these picture books are not that accurate - I know I have the FOTR one as well as the Visual Companion and there are a number of inaccuracies.<BR><BR>Faramir - I do not think will be harmed by shifting some scenes to Osgiliath - I think it sets up the fact that Osgiliath is where Sauron's forces will cross the river, for the Pelennor Battle - so I see a point in adding some scenes there - I don't think Faramir will be lessened by his temptation of the Ring - I also think he will not find out until Sam blurts it out - and his decision to go to Osgiliath will be after Gollum's capture. Faramir did muse over the fact of taking Frodo to Minas Tirith and it was not until he spared Gollum's life did he let Frodo carry on - I just think the Osgiliath additions will flesh out that stories arc - as well as beefing up the action - I do not think Faramir will be harmed by prolonging his decision about what to do about Frodo. <BR>...<BR>RA
User avatar
The_Red_Avenger
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 2:24 pm
Top

Postby EcthelionII » Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:14 pm

QB, I may be in error, but that's what the profile says.
User avatar
EcthelionII
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:43 am
Top

Postby Ethel » Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:32 pm

<i>Ethel, why should Faramir be so special in relation to the Ring? I look at the Ring as something that you're only safe from if you are totally at peace with yourself, with no internal conflicts or insecurities for it to prey on. Now, Faramir is not at peace with himself. His brother has recently died, his relationship with his father is not good. Is it so bad that these insecurities make him atleast slightly at risk from the Ring?</i><BR><BR>Well, here's the thing, Iavas. Faramir is one of Tolkien's more complex and rounded characters. The entire point of him is that he is <i>different</i> from Boromir and Denethor - he was always open to Mithrandir's guidance, he was a good scholar, and he has a very delicate sense of honor. To subdue Frodo and force him to go to Minas Tirith - however much he repents of it later - seems like the polar opposite of the character I know from the books. And I really <i>like</i> the Faramir of the books. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-crying.gif"border=0> (BTW - go, Errin!)<BR><BR><i>I'm_this_close to starting a thread entitled, "Why I'm becoming a purist." </i><BR><BR>Vynaca - amen, sister!<BR><BR><i>GANDALF<BR>Who do you work for???//<BR><BR>DENETHOR<BR>Go to hell, scum!<BR><BR>GANDALF<BR>Shoots Denethor in the chest.<BR><BR><BR>taht wuld b sooo kewl!!1</i><BR><BR>Wouldn't it, though? It would be even kewler if Gandalf used two guns and there were some doves flying around!<BR><BR>PS - I'm pretty sure Di divides her time between London and her vacation cottage on Tol Eressëa! <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
Ethel
Mariner

 
Posts: 6385
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 5:53 pm
Top

Postby Foghorn » Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:47 pm

Regarding why Faramir should be so special in relation to the Ring...<BR><BR>Because that is the way Tolkien created him? Surely that's a good enough reason. Book Faramir never was tempted by the ring--he only thought about taking Frodo/Sam to MT because that is his charge (much like Eomer and the 3 hunters). Actually, his charge is to kill anything he finds in that area but he does not do so recklessly (one of several great passages).<BR><BR>If Movie Faramir is indeed tempted for whatever reason to take Frodo/Sam/Ring back to MT, it is a significant departure from Book Faramir--much like making Aragorn a reluctant King. <BR><BR>It may work, it may not. PJ can certainly shape the characters to suit his purpose, it is his movie. But let's not pretend it isn't a significant departure. It certainly is.
User avatar
Foghorn
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2001 11:13 am
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:48 pm

I'm with red_avenger, I don't understand peoples fear of Faramir being tempted by the Ring, and don't think it will have a negative impact on his character. His defining moment will be his change of heart, something Boromir could not achieve. Being able to freely admit his original error in judgement and let Frodo go after all and in good faith will show his nobility perfectly well. I don't see how being tempted lessens him.. does it lessen Gandalf? The Ring is far more powerful than any one man. A persons strength comes from controlling their desire for it, not from having no desire at all, because the Ring tries to offer solutions to whoever might be in need of them. I don't want Faramir to be perfect. As long as he gets the better of his personal demons in the end, and comes to understand the nature of the Ring, then I think he can be the same Faramir.<BR><BR><BR><i>Faramir is not at peace, but he has the strength of character to rise above that.</i><BR><BR>You would effectively be putting Faramir on a pedastal above all other good characters in the story; Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn. I don't think this is wise, and will risk appearing inconsistent. It also lessens the power of the Ring, the ultimate symbol of evil. I say again, what's important is how a character deals with the calling of the Ring, not whether it calls to them to begin with. Where is Faramirs victory if he doesn't actually have to contend with a strong desire to put the Ring to good use?<BR><BR><BR><i>The entire point of him is that he is different from Boromir and Denethor - he was always open to Mithrandir's guidance, he was a good scholar, and he has a very delicate sense of honor. To subdue Frodo and force him to go to Minas Tirith - however much he repents of it later - seems like the polar opposite of the character I know from the books.</i><BR><BR>Firstly, the difference with Boromir and Denethor will still be apparant if he is able to let Frodo go. Secondly, I think 'subdue' and 'force' are a bit speculatory. We can't be sure what dynamics will occur that will lead to Frodo accepting the journey to Osgiliath. If Faramir uses physical force to achieve this then I will be disappointed too. I hope it will be a gentler form of persuasion.<BR><BR>And I'm not sure I agree about the book Faramir being a complex character. To me, it all seems very easy for him to be good. This is not a criticism of Tolkien, I do like Faramir, but I think 'complex' is going a bit far, he's pretty easy to work out.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 3:09 pm

<i>Regarding why Faramir should be so special in relation to the Ring...<BR><BR>Because that is the way Tolkien created him? Surely that's a good enough reason.</i><BR><BR>I don't think you can just say that. An author cannot always be 100% self-consistent, and questions can be asked of their intent. That is almost like saying that authors should be beyond criticism... that they must have had their reasons so just go with whatever they wrote.<BR><BR><BR><i>But let's not pretend it isn't a significant departure. It certainly is.</i><BR><BR>It depends on whether you think that being tempted is a defining part of someones character. I think one can take the view that being tempted is a natural part of the human condition, and so actually feeling tempted should not count for or against anyone. What should count is how the character reacts to the temptation. And Faramir will clearly overcome it and be the better for it. The only worry I do have is that while he is feeling conflicted about what to do he will physically force Frodo to come to Osgiliath, and that I would not like because the Rings temptation would be affecting him more than it should.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby Foghorn » Thu Nov 07, 2002 3:31 pm

"I don't think you can just say that. An author cannot always be 100% self-consistent, and questions can be asked of their intent. That is almost like saying that authors should be beyond criticism... that they must have had their reasons so just go with whatever they wrote."<BR><BR>Perhaps I did not make my point clearly. The question that was asked was: why should Faramir be so special in relation to the ring? The answer is: because that is the way he is; that is the way he was written. <BR><BR>To think that Tolkien would create a world of such complexity and detail--full of back history, song, myth, language--and then sort of haphazardly create a character like Faramir is absurd. Faramir is shown to be 100% "good". Frodo likens him to Gandalf and to the men of Westernesse. That is what he is. To pretend he is not that way is silly. You can argue that Faramir *should* have been tempted by the ring. That is a valid exercise, but that is not what is being discussed here. (Truth is, this isn't the forum for that discussion but I disagree that he *should* have been tempted). What is being discussed here is the reaction to a fundamental change (from the book to the movie) in a character's being. <BR><BR><BR>"It depends on whether you think that being tempted is a defining part of someones character. I think one can take the view that being tempted is a natural part of the human condition, and so actually feeling tempted should not count for or against anyone. What should count is how the character reacts to the temptation. And Faramir will clearly overcome it and be the better for it. The only worry I do have is that while he is feeling conflicted about what to do he will physically force Frodo to come to Osgiliath, and that I would not like because the Rings temptation would be affecting him more than it should."<BR><BR>Sure, your point makes sense. One can take the view that being tempted should not count against anyone. At the same time, one can take the view that being tempted should count against someone. Certainly your view isn't the only viable one.<BR><BR>And that is what is happening. People, like myself, who feel that Faramir's lack of temptation is a huge defining trait of the character, are upset that Movie Faramir does not seem to possess that characteristic.
User avatar
Foghorn
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2001 11:13 am
Top

Postby NiennaSorrowing » Thu Nov 07, 2002 3:58 pm

<i>You would effectively be putting Faramir on a pedastal above all other good characters in the story; Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn. I don't think this is wise, and will risk appearing inconsistent.</i><BR><BR>So in other words, Tolkien was wrong about his characterization of Faramir, and PJ's going to fix that? What, like he "fixed" Aragorn's character?<BR><BR>I'm sorry, Iavas, but I just don't see your argument.
User avatar
NiennaSorrowing
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 9:34 pm
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:01 pm

<i>The question that was asked was: why should Faramir be so special in relation to the ring? The answer is: because that is the way he is; that is the way he was written.</i><BR><BR>But is that consistent with other things that Tolkien wrote about the nature of the Ring? I got the impression from reading the book that only Tom Bombadil was in a special position regarding being totally unaffected by the Ring.<BR><BR><BR><i>Faramir is shown to be 100% "good".</i><BR><BR>Noone is 100% good, and if they are that's boring!<BR><BR><BR><i>Frodo likens him to Gandalf...</i><BR><BR>And Gandalf felt the temptation of the Ring.<BR><BR><BR><i>People, like myself, who feel that Faramir's lack of temptation is a huge defining trait of the character, are upset that Movie Faramir does not seem to possess that characteristic.</i><BR><BR>I can accept that. And I hope PJ hasn't ruined your personal vision of Faramir.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:05 pm

Erm ... I am not from Namibia!!!!!!!!!!! Where does it say I am from Namibia???????????????????? <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Must check personal profile! What is going on?????????? <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>I live in London, UK.<BR><BR>Faramir, on the other hand, is descended from Numenor.<BR>But I ain't from Namibia. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:09 pm

<i>So in other words, Tolkien was wrong about his characterization of Faramir, and PJ's going to fix that? What, like he "fixed" Aragorn's character?</i><BR><BR>I wouldn't call Tolkien 'wrong', but if, as people claim, Faramir felt no temptation at all towards the Ring, that does raise questions about the fundamental nature of the Rings power on the human psyche, questions which PJ may want to avoid, and not leave people scratching their heads. One question I could see arising if Faramir felt no temptation would be why Aragorn should become King when Faramir seemed to be more pure.<BR><BR>And again, 'fix' isn't the right word. It's a different Aragorn, and one PJ personally felt was more interesting. Whether you agree with him or not is entirely down to personal taste, the same as whether being able to empathize with the book Aragorn is an entirely subjective thing.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby Angbasdil » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:10 pm

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so I apologize if this has been brought up already.<BR><BR>Mithfanion,<BR><BR><i>"Anyone who will claim this is good in the name of "character development" will find out that Sequoia's are NOT the highest trees in the world after all."</i><BR><BR>Mt. Kinley, in the Sequoia National Forest, is the highest point in the 48 contiguous states. The treeline on Mt. Kinley is approximately 10,500 feet. It's reasonable to assume that the treelines on the nearby peaks are about the same elevation, so if you add in the height of the Sequoia trees themselves, you get an elevation at the treetops of a little less than 11,00 feet.<BR>The highest treeline in the world is on Pico de Orizaba in Mexico, a semi-active volcano, with a treeline of about 13,000 feet. Those trees are <b>higher</b> than the sequoia redwoods.<BR>The sequoias, however are taller.<BR><BR><img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0><img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0><img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Angbasdil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:21 pm
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:15 pm

I think Anarianar's post in another thread is worth repeating here:<BR><BR>-------------------<BR><BR>I agree that it is not clear that Faramir is *directly* tempted to take the ring in the book. But Faramir is very much excited when he learns about the ring ("Here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of my men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune? A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality! Ha! He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting).<BR>Then he says that he is bound by the vow he took earlier ["not if I found it on the highway would I take it"], even though he did not know what this thing was when he spoke those words.<BR>He also says that he is "not such a man as to desire this thing. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee".<BR>As I interpret it, Faramir is not above temptation. Rather, he deals with temptation by trying to remove temptation. He even says to Frodo "do not even name this thing again. Once is enough". As I read it, Faramir is afraid he could be tempted to take the ring.<BR><BR>Then of course, we need to remember that this is all dialogue. Faramir *says* he isn't tempted to take the ring. So what? We all know about the power of the ring - that it is capable of corrupting anyone. So why should we take Faramir's word for it, when he says "not if I found it on the highway would I take it"? That is a bold, but hollow, statement. I say let's give PJ some lee-way on this.
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:21 pm

My personal profile does say I am from Namibia! For crying out loud ... I suppose I have to become a premiere member to fix this, do I? Sheesh ...<BR><BR><i>I wouldn't call Tolkien 'wrong', but if, as people claim, Faramir felt no temptation at all towards the Ring, that does raise questions about the fundamental nature of the Rings power on the human psyche, questions which PJ may want to avoid, and not leave people scratching their heads. </i><BR><BR>Oh blimey, Iavas. If PJ didn't want people to be left scratching their heads, he wouldn't have included Galadriel's enigmatic line, which made NO concessions to newbies WHATSOEVER, 'I will diminish and go into the West and remain Galadriel.' Do you honestly think your average movie audience is going to be thinking that deeply, Iavas? If PJ presented them with a Book Canon Faramir, would it trouble them? Would they leave the cinema agonising over why he wasn't tempted by the Ring? Of course they wouldn't. <BR><BR><i> One question I could see arising if Faramir felt no temptation would be why Aragorn should become King when Faramir seemed to be more pure.</i><BR><BR>Eh? That question never occurred to me when I read the book, why the hell should I, a Tolkien devotee, let alone Mr Jo or Ms Joanne Public, question it in the film either? Jo and Joanne Public want to be entertained by a cracking good story when they go to the cinema this Christmas. I want to be moved by a cracking good film which follows my beloved book closely. Don't tell me that PJ can't please both parties. He did pretty well with FOTR.<BR><BR>David Wenham said that he played the part of 'an ideal man' in LOTR.<BR>Well, that sounds hopeful ... because few men come as ideal as Captain Faramir. I've always loved him far, far more than Aragorn! Book Faramir is much more human and warm to me than Book Aragorn ever is.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Foghorn » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:25 pm

"But is that consistent with other things that Tolkien wrote about the nature of the Ring? I got the impression from reading the book that only Tom Bombadil was in a special position regarding being totally unaffected by the Ring."<BR><BR>I don't think it is inconsistent. Leave Faramir and the ring together in a room for 10 days, and next thing you know Faramir is invisible and making a B line to try to fight Sauron single handedly. Leave Tom in a room with the ring for 100 years, and he would have forgotten all about it. <BR><BR>In other words, Faramir not being tempted to claim the ring for himself/his brother/his father/Gondor/the greater good is not to say he is "totally unaffected" by the Ring. Rather, he knows he would be affected and knows not to try to claim it--much like Book Gandalf and Book Aragorn. And unlike Book Saruman, Book Boromir, Book Denethor, Book Isildur.<BR><BR><BR>"Noone is 100% good, and if they are that's boring!"<BR><BR>I disagree. I think Gandalf fits in the vein of 100% good. (What is the most evil thing he does? Threaten Bilbo?) I think Aragon fits in that vein. Similarly, Sauron is 100% bad. <BR><BR><BR>"And Gandalf felt the temptation of the Ring." <BR><BR>Again, I think there is a difference between feeling the temptation of the ring, and being tempted to claim the ring as his own. If Gandalf wanted the ring, it could have been his. He was wise enough to not claim it. Even then, I don't recall a moment when Gandalf is thinking, "I want the ring, I can defeat Sauron, I want the ring---oh wait, what am I saying...". Rather it is a, "please don't tempt me, I don't fully trust myself around that thing.." Not sure if this is coming across as I intend it to.<BR><BR>"I can accept that. And I hope PJ hasn't ruined your personal vision of Faramir. "<BR><BR>Oh, no worries there. While I may not like what he does to "my" characters, its just a movie. I liked FOTR, gave it maybe 3 *'s out of 4 (mainly for the technical aspect and epic feel of the film. I wasn't really hooked into the story that was being told.) I just hope for the best movie possible, and to me that means keeping the characters as true to their book version as possible. <BR><BR>
User avatar
Foghorn
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2001 11:13 am
Top

Postby NiennaSorrowing » Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:34 pm

<i>I wouldn't call Tolkien 'wrong', but if, as people claim, Faramir felt no temptation at all towards the Ring, that does raise questions about the fundamental nature of the Rings power on the human psyche, questions which PJ may want to avoid, and not leave people scratching their heads.</i><BR><BR>I wouldn't claim Faramir wasn't <i>tempted</i>. Of course he was tempted. Bloody hell, <i><b>Sam</b></i> was tempted, and he's more "pure" than Aragorn by far. But the *entire point* of Faramir's character was that he did <b>not</b> let that temptation lead him anywhere. Quote: <i>"But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. <b>No, I do not wish for such triumphs</b>, Frodo son of Drogo."</i> Quote: <i>"Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what htis thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them. <b>But I am not such a man.</b> Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee."</i> Quote: <i>"Fear not! <b>I do not wish to see it, or touch it, or know more of it than I know</b> (which is enough), lest peril perchance waylay me and I fall lower in the test than Frodo son of Drogo."</i><BR><BR>Faramir is wise enough -- in an interesting parallel, almost exactly as movie-Aragorn is wise enough -- to know that he must not reach for this thing. To alter that inherent knowledge is to alter Faramir.<BR><BR><BR><i>It's a different Aragorn, and one PJ personally felt was more interesting.</i><BR><BR>Oh, I'm sorry! This whole time I thought PJ was making a movie of J.R.R. Tokien's "The Lord of the Rings", not "Peter Jackson's version of a story based somewhat off of a book called 'The Lord of the Rings' and incoporating many of the same character names". My mistake. I will approach everything differently now. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0>
User avatar
NiennaSorrowing
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 9:34 pm
Top

Postby Radagast-the-Ruddy » Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:22 pm

I enjoy blindy defending PJ as much as the next guy ( <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> ), but this whole Faramir thing looks like a rather cheap suspense-enhancement gambit to me. One has to hope Faramir won't be too much the heavy initially, because that would do great damage, in my view, to one of Tolkien's better-realized characters.
User avatar
Radagast-the-Ruddy
Mariner


 
Posts: 8870
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 9:58 pm
Top

Postby TolkienLover » Thu Nov 07, 2002 6:09 pm

Di, a few months ago TORC's database got an error and many people's countries got changed to Namibia. You'll have to manually change it back to your correct country.
User avatar
TolkienLover
Mariner

 
Posts: 6451
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:01 pm
Top

Postby jsavfusco » Thu Nov 07, 2002 6:34 pm

<i> wouldn't call Tolkien 'wrong', but if, as people claim, Faramir felt no temptation at all towards the Ring, that does raise questions about the fundamental nature of the Rings power on the human psyche, questions which PJ may want to avoid, and not leave people scratching their heads. One question I could see arising if Faramir felt no temptation would be why Aragorn should become King when Faramir seemed to be more pure.</i><BR><BR> I have to agree with Iavas here. Tolkien's portrayal of Faramir as easily resisting, or perhaps not even being tempted by the Ring, really is at variance with some of the underlying themes of Tolkien. In a way, I do think that Tolkien got Faramir "wrong" if I can borrow Nienna's statement. An astute audience might well, upon reflection, think it odd that Faramir could so easily resist the Ring when other men could not. To elaborate on something I wrote in an earlier post at the beginning of the Faramir discussion on this thread, the innocence of the Hobbits, their pureness and lack of desire for power is what gives them their big advantage over men in terms of resisting the Ring's temptation. This underlying theme is threatened by Tolkien's inconsistent portrayal of Faramir easily resisting the Ring. If he could so easily do so, an audience might wonder why wouldn't he, a brave, strong and courageous soldier of Gondor, be a better person to take the Ring into Mordor than Frodo? It's also inconsistent with Galadriel's statement to Frodo.(Elrond's in the book) "If you do not find a way, no one will"<BR><BR> I think this is one of the several mistakes and inconsistencies in Tolkien's Lotr than PJ astutely picked up on and "corrected" for the movie. TTT will be the better for it, IMHO.
User avatar
jsavfusco
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 7:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Top

Postby bessthebard » Thu Nov 07, 2002 6:37 pm

While I think this one issue is probably getting a lot more attention than we will think it deserves after we have seen the movie, it has been interesting. So I will heap my little bit of fuel on the Faramir fire (or is that pyre? No, that's ROTK.) <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR>In an interview with someone connected with TTT quite awhile ago, it was mentioned that the encounter with Faramir would be more tense and even a little "rougher" than in the book. From that, I expected Faramir's threatening moment after Sam mentions the Ring to be quite drawn out. Check the passage in the book. Tolkien wants us to have a bad moment or two, while it appears Faramir could turn into his brother. It's called dramatic tension, suspense. The hobbits jump up and stand with the backs to the wall and go for their swords. All the voices of the other rangers go silent. What's going to happen? The hobbits don't know, in that moment, what Faramir will do--he's clearly being tempted by the Ring. Then he recovers, showing he is a better man than Boromir. <BR><BR>It doesn't bother me that PJ wants to extend that moment, even over a few scenes, before Faramir comes to his senses. I have to admit I did not expect it to become The Tempation of Faramir, the Roadshow to Osgiliath! That seems to draw the moment of suspense out too far. Because if Faramir goes too far on that road, in time or distance, it's not going to be believable when he steps back from the temptation at last. <BR><BR>But I did want to point out that Tolkien himself, (for the space of about a paragraph), wanted us, and Frodo to doubt what Faramir would do. PJ is enlarging that moment, but not inventing it out of whole cloth.<BR><BR>Bess the Bard
User avatar
bessthebard
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 6:29 pm
Top

Postby Angbasdil » Thu Nov 07, 2002 6:56 pm

Balto,<BR><BR><i>"I am now going to go and beat myself repeatedly about the neck and head for engaging in Revisionism."</i><BR><BR>Please, allow me. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-devil.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Angbasdil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:21 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:00 pm

<i>Di, a few months ago TORC's database got an error and many people's countries got changed to Namibia. You'll have to manually change it back to your correct country. </i><BR><BR>Darn those Namibian hackers! <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0>
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby NiennaSorrowing » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:26 pm

<i>I think this is one of the several mistakes and inconsistencies in Tolkien's Lotr than PJ astutely picked up on and "corrected" for the movie.</i><BR><BR>I think it's preposterous to assume that the process of adapting a book to film gives one the right to fundementally alter the book in the name of "correcting" alleged inconsistencies.<BR><BR>But we all know film adapters (and Revisionists) don't agree with me. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR><i>TTT will be the better for it, IMHO.</i><BR><BR>Perhaps, but it won't be The Two Towers. Just something called that.
User avatar
NiennaSorrowing
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 9:34 pm
Top

Postby EuroGollum » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:27 pm

BTW, regarding the length of the TTT theatrical cut, both the Norwegian and Swedish distributors now claim that TTT will be <b>179 minutes</b> long, barely under 3 hrs. That would of course be a good thing. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>I'm getting less and less sure of the oft-quoted 2hr 43 min figure...<BR><BR><b>Saranthir</b> - Is there possibility that your source could actually be the originator of this figure, with that information eventually being submitted to IMDB by a reader of these forums, and then picked up by Fandango, mistaking it as a fact? It would certainly explain the extremely unlikely coincidence of him/her predicting the final running time so far ahead of a finished cut.
User avatar
EuroGollum
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:34 am
Top

Postby Iavas_Saar » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:46 pm

<i>Do you honestly think your average movie audience is going to be thinking that deeply, Iavas?</i><BR><BR>Many of them won't no. But a lot of people do like to go into detail and analyse films after they've seen them, PJ isn't just catering to those who want thrills and spills and no depth. He also cares about putting across themes, morals and deeper meanings. And if his depiction of the Ring is to perform consistently, he may see book Faramir as a problem.<BR><BR><BR><i>Jo and Joanne Public want to be entertained by a cracking good story when they go to the cinema this Christmas. I want to be moved by a cracking good film which follows my beloved book closely.</i><BR><BR>And PJ doesn't just want to make a 'cracking good film', he wants to make the <i>best</i> cracking good film he can, which means changing things if he doesn't think Tolkiens concepts work as well as he'd like them to.<BR><BR><BR><i>I've always loved him far, far more than Aragorn! Book Faramir is much more human and warm to me than Book Aragorn ever is.</i><BR><BR>I totally agree with that, but that's just as much a fault of book Aragorn as a triumph of book Faramir.<BR><BR><BR><i>Rather, he knows he would be affected and knows not to try to claim it--much like Book Gandalf and Book Aragorn.</i><BR><BR>But from the sounds of it he doesn't try to claim it in the film either, he could just want it to go to Minas Tirith and not want it for himself at all.<BR><BR><BR><i>I think Gandalf fits in the vein of 100% good.</i><BR><BR>Gandalf is a higher being though (as are the 100% evil baddies). I was talking about the race of Men specifically, who are by nature imperfect, and if they're not, then they're not human.<BR><BR><BR><i>Again, I think there is a difference between feeling the temptation of the ring, and being tempted to claim the ring as his own.</i><BR><BR>I totally agree, but again, we do not know that he wants to claim the Ring for himself, only that he vows to get it to Minas Tirith.<BR><BR><BR><i>But the *entire point* of Faramir's character was that he did not let that temptation lead him anywhere.</i><BR><BR>Well, I can personally buy into PJs more influential Ring causing a slightly more troubled Faramir to not let that temptation lead him anywhere <b>for long</b>.<BR><BR><BR><i>Faramir is wise enough -- in an interesting parallel, almost exactly as movie-Aragorn is wise enough -- to know that he must not reach for this thing. To alter that inherent knowledge is to alter Faramir.</i><BR><BR>Is wanting the Ring to go to Minas Tirith the same as reaching for it himself?<BR><BR><BR><i>I think it's preposterous to assume that the process of adapting a book to film gives one the right to fundementally alter the book in the name of "correcting" alleged inconsistencies.</i><BR><BR>Depends on how you define "fundamentally alter". Faramir's feelings of temptation having practical manifestations for a brief period of time does nothing fundamental for me.<BR><BR><BR><i>Perhaps, but it won't be The Two Towers. Just something called that.</i><BR><BR>The same way that FOTR is not really FOTR because of an Aragorn with one different facet to his character? One facet of one character makes it a different story?
User avatar
Iavas_Saar
Mariner


 
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:39 pm
Top

Postby jsavfusco » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:53 pm

<i>I think it's preposterous to assume that the process of adapting a book to film gives one the right to fundementally alter the book in the name of "correcting" alleged inconsistencies.</i><BR><BR><BR> Why is it preposterous Nienna, as this is in part what adaptation involves? I know that you don't like the term "adaptation", but it has been done throughout the ages by great artists adapting the works of other great artists who have gone before, with wonderful results. <BR><BR> Besides that, Tolkien himself wrote in the Foreword to Lotr that he saw many mistakes or inconsistencies in the text, major and minor, but felt under no obligation to correct them. I'm not saying that he was thinking of Faramir here, but it certainly is possible. Why can't an adapter, and one who so obviously has a deep insight into Lotr as PJ does, take a few liberties then?
User avatar
jsavfusco
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 7:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Top

Postby NiennaSorrowing » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:23 pm

*Nienna blows steam out of her ears*<BR><BR>*Di douses her with a large bucket of cold water*<BR><BR>It's ok, I can handle this. Really. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR>jsav:<BR><i>Why is it preposterous Nienna, as this is in part what adaptation involves?</i><BR><BR>Why does adaptation involve that? Is not the precept of adaptation taking an original work and altering it so it will fit another medium? What part of that involves 'fixing' the original work? Does not an adapter, when agreeing to adapt a work, acknowledge that that work is as it is, and take it as such? What gives the adapter the right to alter a section simply because it was a 'flaw'? Is that not as integral a part of the original work as any?<BR><BR>And I don't give a damn how bloody well Shakespeare 'adapted', it doesn't mean I approve of the process one iota more.<BR><BR>*Nienna bashes head against wall*<BR><BR>Sorry.<BR><BR><BR>Iavas:<BR><i>And if his depiction of the Ring is to perform consistently, he may see book Faramir as a problem.</i><BR><BR>I still don't see how book-Faramir was inconsistant. In fact, I seem him much like Sam.<BR><BR><i>which means changing things if he doesn't think Tolkiens concepts work as well as he'd like them to.</i><BR><BR>See above rant on process of adaptation.<BR><BR><i>But from the sounds of it he doesn't try to claim it in the film either, he could just want it to go to Minas Tirith and not want it for himself at all.</i><BR><BR>Huh? So <i>he's</i> not claiming it, <i>Minas Tirith</i> (or rather, Denethor) is claiming it instead, and this is somehow more consistant with his character?<BR><BR><i>Well, I can personally buy into PJs more influential Ring causing a slightly more troubled Faramir to not let that temptation lead him anywhere for long.</i><BR><BR>PJ seems to have misplaced my story somewhere in this 'process of adaptation'.<BR><BR><i>Is wanting the Ring to go to Minas Tirith the same as reaching for it himself?</i><BR><BR>See above.<BR><BR><i>The same way that FOTR is not really FOTR because of an Aragorn with one different facet to his character? One facet of one character makes it a different story?</i><BR><BR>Except that in this case there is virtually no other facet to Faramir's character. He is defined primarily through his refusal to attempt to claim the Ring (or hinder the bearer in his quest). Any further definition to Faramir's character comes later -- in RotK.<BR><BR>And, to answer your question, I would say that every altering of any facet of any character moves the movie farther and farther away from what I know LotR to be. FotR danced on both sides of the line of "being another story with the same name". TTT is leaning more towards the other side of that line, from what I see so far -- and Faramir is one part of that.<BR><BR>Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go dry off now. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0> <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>--Nienna
User avatar
NiennaSorrowing
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 9:34 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Movies and Media: Tolkien

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests