What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

f anything, lovers of Faramir should object more strongly to the changes in Frodo and Sam than in Faramir. Because of their deceptiveness, and the greatly enhanced power of the Ring to make Frodo lose his grip on reality, Faramir in the movie could not in good conscience let them go. But in the end he decides to risk far more than his book-counterpart for their sake, having reached that point where "hope and despair are akin."

This article is no defense of PJ. At all. It merely shows that PJ's Faramir is in line with the other multitude of corruptions of characters and plot he committed.

Personally, I really, really appreciate and understand the PJ version of these events. I never found the Faramir of the book believable. Here's a ring that corrupts every man who comes anywhere near it and Faramir barely sniffs at it. If you want to point to a ridiculous plot, sorry, the book version is it.

That isn't true about The One Ring so your conclusion is based on incorrect evidence. The book isn't ridiculous. Thinking an artifact like a ring would affect all people the exact same way is a bit, though.

[Curufin]

I agree with everything DPR said.

And if Tolkien had wanted the Elves at Helm's Deep, he would have had them there. And yes, the Elves were fighting - but not in the same way. They were in a 'supporting' role - they weren't fighting battles. The War of the Ring was the war in which men triumphed. The war in which the supremacy of men was established. The war in which Elves pretty much realized they weren't needed anymore.

The 'Last Alliance' was called the 'Last Alliance' for a reason.

Multiculturalism is all fine and good, but not when it comes at the price of one of Tolkien's major themes.

[Jon S.]

Whether any glass is half empty or half full always depends more on the drinker than the glass.

Whatever you do, don't watch the film version of the Wizard of Oz - or since you almost certainly have, never read Baum's books as the film version of WoO compared to the books makes PJ's movies look like literal copies of LOTR. And certainly never watch the film version of The Ten Commandments, you'll be highly insulted by the transparent Christianization of the Hebrew hero. And ... [uh ... better stop here - if I continue with this I'll never make it to the office!]

[The Gaffer]

The Faramir incident is an interesting one. I think Jon S is right, in that the film makers thought through that encounter and thought it made more sense for Faramir to be tempted by the ring.

However, that presupposes their inability to convey his nobler spirit, as compared to his brother. His rejection of the ring makes sense only when we understand more about his character. I can see that the filmmakers doubted their ability to portray this subtlety, or chose not to bother, preferring more nazgul.

This is separate from the fact that what they then chose to do was crass and ridiculous. That he should suddenly "find" redemption at Osgiliath, presumably because he saw Frodo doing his "ring-waving" exercise to the levitating nazgul, beggars belief. Here is the bearer of this Great Weapon trying to give it away to the enemy, so his reaction is "Ah, I see... it is SO powerful that it makes EVEN YOU (a creature I've only just met) hand it over to the enemy. Clearly the best course of action is to... let you wander off towards the enemy."

No wonder his father was apolectic and took out his rage on a bunch of brambles.

It would have been far better, IMO, to stick with it, and have Faramir not gain his redemption. They could always have had Frodo escape at Osgiliath by, say, deploying his wits, sadly lacking elsewhere in the films. Faramir could then have been blamed unjustly for losing the Ring by Denethor. Bob's your uncle.

But it seems that they attempted to appease the purists by having him triumph and give up on the Ring willingly.

This is a good example of what I meant by "they should have changed it more".

[Jon S.]

You're right in many respects, Gaf, though - and this is a point that is consistent between the book and movies - the goal always was to have Sauron believe the ring was traveling to and ending up in Minas Tirith so as to deflect his attention from who truly had it.

If you think carefully about it in this context, the strange hobbit freakout in Osgiliath and Faramir's reaction to it are not at all inconsistent with this goal. Having sensed the ring on the bridge, the Nazgul there, if anything, would suspect that Faramir would take it with him back to papa. Just as was pointed out in Rivendell that the good folk would seek to destroy the ring rather than claim it as their own would not be something Sauron could even imagine in his power-crazed wickedness, so allowing that weak little hobbit and his sidekick to retain it in Osgilliath and head in the opposite direction from what was left of Faramir's army would not occur to the evil ones, either. BUT ...

It would significantly decrease Sauron's and his minions focus on the 2 small hobbits sneaking into Mordor through the back door. This certainly did occur to the movie Faramir who, by then, also finally understood - READ CAREFULLY NOW! - that the greater danger existed in Faramir attempting to return it to dad rather than to trust in what appeared externally like a fool's mission.

Factor in also that, by then, Faramir would have grasped that faith in this fool's mission was explicitly shared by none less than the ME power trio of Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf - who certainly could not be dismissed as foolish - and the scene begins to make sense.

The bottom line is that Faramir was indeed noble and his nobility was ultimately retained in the movies with the Osgiliath scene evidencing his true nobility in action. This is why, above, I cut and pasted the full text of, "What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir" into this thread.

P.S. Hey, I see my new, first-ever here sig line is now showing up. My thanks to the folks in this thread who provided the inspiration.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, without wetting my waders in the whole mire, here, I'll say that although I was, personally, outraged at the treatment of Faramir in the movie (and Eowyn, as well), I think that much of what one sees as important depends on where they sit.

I live in the Shire, and I've just never been too concerned with stuff those Gondorians do. I mean, thanks, and all that, but it's foreign to me. I never run into elves, at home, and all this business about wizards is just blah-blah. From that point of view, the whole story is just filler waiting for Sam to finally get off the stick with Rosie Cotton.

But PJ is from a place whose arses would have been on the line at Osgiliath. I would think, from an emotional place, that would be enough reason to picture that.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you misunderstand both Curufin and I, Jon. It isn't change that is bad about the movies, it is bad changes. The Wizard of Oz was a wonderful adaptation with changes and omissions to the story that did not fundamentally alter the main characters and their motivations.

No Bombadil? Fine.
Replace Radagast with a moth? No problem.
Make all the major characters say and do things they didn't do in the book? Big problem. Why? Because it alters who they are thereby changing the identity of the entire movie.

The Wizard of Oz did no such thing. Dorothy was still ostensibly Dorothy. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion were the same three guys. Yes, the story was shortened a great deal, but the main characters retained their identities and motivations.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

I think you misunderstand both Curufin and I, Jon. It isn't change that is bad about the movies, it is bad changes. The Wizard of Oz was a wonderful adaptation with changes and omissions to the story that did not fundamentally alter the main characters and their motivations.

No Bombadil? Fine.
Replace Radagast with a moth? No problem.
Make all the major characters say and do things they didn't do in the book? Big problem. Why? Because it alters who they are thereby changing the identity of the entire movie.

The Wizard of Oz did no such thing. Dorothy was still ostensibly Dorothy. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion were the same three guys. Yes, the story was shortened a great deal, but the main characters retained their identities and motivations.

I completely disagree, here. There's essentially, no chance in the world that you read the Wizard of Oz before seeing the movie. And the likelihood is that you've haven't read many of the other Oz books, either. But I can assure you, neither the incidents nor the characters in the movie bear ANY sincere resemblance to the books.

The same is true of the LOTR movies. You referred to them earlier as "desecration". There is no desecration without an acknowledgement of the sacred, and really, what might be sacred is up for debate.

I'm pretty neutral on Harry Potter, for example. You just can't desecrate it, for me. You can only adapt it, successfully, or less.

[EowynRocks]

I really think Faramir was just NASTY. Yeah, OK, Frodo and Sam were a bit more deceitful and dodgy, but it doesn't mean he was nice!

[Jon S.]

Well, I will certainly admit to many misunderstandings in my day. I do, though, appreciate the difference between objecting to changes per se and being troubled by changes perceived as being poor. The former is more a philosophical orientation, the latter personal taste (in which the individual is pretty much always right for him or herself!).

Frankly, there are changes in the movies from the books that I, too, dislike. There are also many I like, including many that involve personality changes to main characters that (in my purely subjective view) are overly idealized by Tolkien in the book (Faramir and Elrond are two characters along those lines for me).

Benjamin Franklin said many years ago, "There are two kinds of fools. One says, 'Old and therefore good.' The other says, 'New and therefore better.' " I believe essentially the same thing about film differences vis-a-vis the books.

P.S. At this very moment, I'm 2/3 of the way through Philip Jose Farmer's take on Oz, A Barnstormer in Oz. Different from both the Baum's books and the movie and very cool!
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...._AA240_.L.jpg

I also absolutely love Fred Saberhagen's take on the Arthurian legends in Merlin's Bones (would love to see a movie made out of that one!).
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...A240_SH20_.jpg

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by EowynRocks

I really think Faramir was just NASTY.

The movie Eowyn certainly didn't share your take on F (even if we lacked the EE, just check 'em out together in the A-A scene towards the end ). F was also shown as close to his brother and more respectful towards his father than anyone has a right to expect of him. I respectfully believe you're wrong to judge a man NASTY based only on him acting like a real man in a combat setting, few men could survive that level of judgment.

[Curufin]

Again, I agree with DPR.

There were plenty of changes I was fine with:

1. Bombadil.
2. Cutting Gildor (I know this is minor, but I like the guy. ).
3. Arwen at the Ford (I know this is a big issue for some, and while I don't particularly like it, I understand why he replaced her with Glorfindel...)

I even understand why he felt he had to restage 'Window on the West' - it was all talking in the book and would have been dead boring on screen.

But none of these things changed essential themes. None of these things (with the possible exception of Arwen, which is debatable) changed any characters. They condensed, perhaps, but they didn't change Tolkien's ideas.

Faramir, on the other hand, and the inclusion of Elves at Helm's Deep, did.

There are also many I like, including many that involve personality changes to main characters that (in my purely subjective view) are overly idealized by Tolkien in the book (Faramir and Elrond are two characters along those lines for me).

Two things - First, I don't quite understand what you mean by 'over-idealized.' Faramir's just a noble guy, and Elrond is the son of Elwing and Eärendil, descendant of the House of Finwë and the race of the Maiar. He's not just Arwen's protective father, or some annoying elf. He's the culmination of all three races, and something of a special-case. I don't like how PJ portrayed him at all. Very badly done.

Secondly - if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Secondly - if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

That's not necessarily a fair analogy. It would be more akin to someone making a historical movie on the Civil War, and interpreting Robert E. Lee's personality and motivations for fighting for Virginia in a different way, say, because of a personal vendetta with someone, or something. Things like that happen all the time. Gladiator was hardly an extremely historically correct movie, from what I hear. But it was still a good movie.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I confess I haven't read Baum's complete series in a number of years and The Wizard of Oz was maybe a year ago. I never claimed to read these books before seeing the movie. I don't think it matters which was done first.

One thing this thread has done successfully is motivated me to go back and revisit the Oz books. So there's something positive here.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

This is one of those "OMG moments" for me. Before I type another word, please tell me you are not seriously comparing the reality of the American Civil War to the LOTR fiction. Because if you are, brother, it explains almost everything. Though not entirely everything, because even so, the genre of "alternative history" fiction (where the author riffs off of reality but changes an event here or there to generate an alternative world view, e.g., a book I read recently premised on the Spanish Armada defeating the British as opposed to being defeated) is a quite well-established genre that is anything but libel.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

One thing this thread has done successfully is motivated me to go back and revisit the Oz books. So there's something positive here.

If I may wax Olde English, niggardly art thou with thy assessment of this thread, Dread PR, to find only this positive aspect of our ongoing dialogue.

[Curufin]

This is one of those "OMG moments" for me. Before I type another word, please tell me you are not seriously comparing the reality of the American Civil War to the LOTR fiction. Because if you are, brother, it explains almost everything. Though not entirely everything, because even so, the genre of "alternative history" fiction (where the author riffs off of reality but changes an event here or there to generate an alternative world view, e.g., a book I read recently premised on the Spanish Armada defeating the British as opposed to being defeated) is a quite well-established genre that is anything but libel.

It was simply an example, and I'm afraid you've missed my point. Moving it back into fiction for easier analogy, let's say that someone made a movie of, oh, Les Misérables, and had Javert, instead of killing himself because his overly-simplistic notions of good and evil have been violated, kills himself because he was secretly in love with Cosette and was broken-hearted that she didn't return his love. People are going to be mad, because this is interfering with one of Hugo's major themes, therefore changing the story irrevocably. That is what those of us who complain about the changes to the characters (particularly Faramir, but there are others as well) are complaining about. A change in the character that drastically changes what Tolkien meant to express with that character.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

A change in the character that drastically changes what Tolkien meant to express with that character.

hummm. On what would one base "what Tolkien meant to express with that character?" I'm suspecting you'll reference some of those tedious books by Christopher.

[Curufin]

Well, I won't now, as they're thousands of miles away and I'm knackered.

But yes, there are comments and notes written by Tolkien in The Histories of Middle Earth volumes as well as letters that can be found in Letters (shockingly ) that can give us a pretty good idea of Tolkien's intentions.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not only that but the text itself, the context if you will, is hardly ambiguous about the motivations of the characters and the points that are being made.