Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
But in the Battle of Mirkwood and the assaults upon Lorien, the Elves were defending their homeland, not actively coming to anyones aid.

Yep, which fits my point that by the time the War of the Ring had rolled around, the elves had become increasingly internally driven, and socially isolated; concerned with preserving their realms, and butressing them from outside attack rather than actively going out amongst men to fight against Sauron. The Last Alliance is called such for a reason. And this all ties in with the theme of fading.

[Elf Girl]

Thank you, BoP.

A penny for your thoughts, BB.

[Black Breathalizer]

Okie dokie, Elf Girl.

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner The elves in the film do not square at all with Tolkien's analysis in Letters.

With all due respect to squinty, his analysis is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with book purists when it comes to discussing the films. With them, there is always an underlying sense of "if you unwashed movie-going baboons -- and Peter Jackson -- would learn to READ, then maybe you'd begin to understand Tolkien."

First and foremost, Jackson's films and Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us. The movies were developed to tell us an entertaining story about characters and themes that excite, move, and inspire us like the books did. I have nothing against people who enjoy the books so much that they become Tolkien scholars. But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

For all the detailed analysis of Tolkien's personal correspondence and writings to acertain what he "really" intended to say in LOTR, Tolkien himself is on record as saying his story was simply "an attempt to tell a long tale." To me, recreating LOTR on film depends upon a screenplay that recreates the book's emotions by capturing its most compelling themes, not one that gets an "A" from Tolkien scholars for its expert scholarly research.

This film series isn't about JRR Tolkien's brain -- it's about his heart.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
With all due respect to squinty, his analysis is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with book purists when it comes to discussing the films. With them, there is always an underlying sense of "if you unwashed movie-going baboons -- and Peter Jackson -- would learn to READ, then maybe you'd begin to understand Tolkien."

First and foremost, Jackson's films and Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us. The movies were developed to tell us an entertaining story about characters and themes that excite, move, and inspire us like the books did. I have nothing against people who enjoy the books so much that they become Tolkien scholars. But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

For all the detailed analysis of Tolkien's personal correspondence and writings to acertain what he "really" intended to say in LOTR, Tolkien himself is on record as saying his story was simply "an attempt to tell a long tale." To me, recreating LOTR on film depends upon a screenplay that recreates the book's emotions by capturing its most compelling themes, not one that gets an "A" from Tolkien scholars for its expert scholarly research.

This film series isn't about JRR Tolkien's brain -- it's about his heart.

Ah, so those of us who don't agree with you are wrong...in the head, I suppose? And no you are just plain wrong about that.

In response to the rest:

Translation: Um...shut up!

P. S. We have given you many themes, and you basically ignored us. Then, saying that the important thing is that it captures the themes strikes me as hypocritical.

I don't think anyone denied its research value...it is rather well researched. But they still did not do it well, IMO.

But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

Do you mean to say that you and Jackson know Tolkien better than Tolkien did? Heck, Jackson to truer to Tolkien than Tolkien was, so he probably knew him better, too.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Do you mean to say that you and Jackson know Tolkien better than Tolkien did?

You people are the ones attempting to "prove" Jackson had it all wrong using Tolkien's letters. I'm saying the themes you've highlighted were also addressed by Jackson. What I get in response is "yes, but..." We're talking about a freakin' film adaptation and I'm supposed to ignore the evidence of Jackson's efforts to illustrated the fading of the elves and their sadness because of some obscure reference about the "inherent nature of the elves" in a book on Tolkien's correspondence?!?!?!?!

I'll give your team one point for scholarly research and take away one point for lack of common sense.

[Mrs. Maggott]

There are two very important matters which put the lie to any claim that Mr. Jackson "captured the spirit" of LOTR.

The first is the fact that he made serious changes to several of Tolkien's most important characters. When one changes the nature of any character, perforce one changes the story itself. For instance, the character who suffers most in the first film is Aragorn. In the book, Aragorn is at once a vulnerable rather lonely man (remember his interaction with the hobbits in Bree when he says that "a hunted man" longs for friendship) and a stern, almost mythic personality who pursues the servants of the Enemy throughout Middle-earth waiting and hoping for the time when he might be able to claim his heritage - the kingship of the remaining kingdom founded by Elendil, his ancestor. Aragorn has fallen in love with the daughter of his foster father, Elrond, and has been betrothed to her for years but with the caveat that they could only marry when he is proclaimed king not only of the lost Arnor, but of Gondor as well.

When Aragorn (in his persona as Strider the Ranger) is forced to take over the obligation of leading the hobbits - and the Ring - to Rivendell, he shows no problem with the proximity of the Ring even though it was his ancestor - Isildur - who claimed the Ring after the defeat of Sauron. When, during the Council of Elrond, Frodo "offers" the Ring to him by acknowledging his claim through Isildur ("Then it belongs to you!"), Aragorn makes no claim to the Ring nor does he at any time say or do anything that might lead anyone to suspect that he desired the Ring or was personally afraid that he might succumb at some point by virtue of his ancestor's actions.

Now, consider how Jackson presented that same character: he begins well enough in Bree but he begins to denigrate the character when he has Aragorn permit Arwen to ride off into the night with the severely injured Ringbearer and into the clutches of the Nazgul with only token resistance. Tolkien's Aragorn would have done no such thing. From there on out, it is downhill all the way. In Rivendell we discover that Aragorn is terrified of a "weakness in his blood", has abandoned his heritage and denounced his birthright, "choosing exile" in Elrond's words. The only backbone he seems to have has to be sustained by his lady-love who is constantly reminding him of who is - and who he isn't. And how does he treat this rather love-sick maiden? Frankly, he tells her to "ship out" and go to the Undying Lands. Even by the end of TTT, Aragorn still has not accepted his birthright and as a result, the shards of Narsil are still back in Rivendell (unless, of course, Mr. Jackson had Arwen bring it with her when she appeared-didn't appear at the battle of Helm's Deep [see small glimpses of the lady during that battle which Jackson failed to edit out]).

And Aragorn is only one of several characters to suffer at Jackson's hands. Elrond became a spiteful, nasty, cynical fellow without warmth or charm. Saruman became a mere mouthpiece of Sauron, a puppet rather than the very complex fellow he actually was in the book. Merry and Pippin were reduced to comic relief, a pair of scapegraces who become involved in the quest accidentally instead of the staunch and brave friends who choose to accompany Frodo and Sam into danger and exile. Treebeard was dimmer than his forest - and, of course, the travesty of Faramir needs no recounting.

Another sure sign that Jackson either didn't understand or didn't care about Tolkien's vision was his rather unhappy habit of putting one charcter's words into another character's mouth. Elrond mouths Saruman, Faramir mouths Denethor and so forth. When you do this, the words may be the same, but the meaning is often diametric to the intention of the author.

As film, FOTR was good but TTT was considerably less good. But as Tolkien, neither film succeeded - and I strongly suspect that Mr. Jackson was not really desirous that they should.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1)You people are the ones attempting to "prove" Jackson had it all wrong using Tolkien's letters. 2)I'm saying the themes you've highlighted were also addressed by Jackson. What I get in response is "yes, but..." We're talking about a freakin' film adaptation and 3)I'm supposed to ignore the evidence of Jackson's efforts to illustrated the fading of the elves and their sadness because of some obscure reference about the "inherent nature of the elves" in a book on Tolkien's correspondence?!?!?!?!

4)I'll give your team one point for scholarly research and take away one point for lack of common sense.

1) Note: using Tolkien's letters. Do you see no difference between showing where Tolkien said something and disregarding his will? Or are they just an invalid source, because they don't line up with Jackson's canon?

2) And you give little to no basis for some, and others were not consistently portrayed.

3) Firstly, Jacksopn did attempt to illustrate the fading of the Elves. But he also portrayed them as powerful fighters on completely unfamiliar terrain, and invalidated The Last Alliance of Men and Elves. And also, since Tolkien wrote the book, why does his say matter so very little? You say that PJ does a perfect/near-perfect job of capturing Tolkien, yet discount the very sources which tell Tolkien's thoughts in the purest, most unadulterated form. This makes no sense at all, in my opinion.

4) Pffft, like anyone who doesn't Jackson is the true Christ got any points from you in the first place...

Good post, Mrs. Maggott, and welcome to the Entmoot.

[Elf Girl]

GW, thank you. My opinion exactly, however I would like to try my debating hand myself. *loves to debate*

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
With all due respect to squinty, his analysis is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with book purists when it comes to discussing the films. With them, there is always an underlying sense of "if you unwashed movie-going baboons -- and Peter Jackson -- would learn to READ, then maybe you'd begin to understand Tolkien."

I don't recall saying or implying anything of the sort. We are talking about themes. You claim to be talking about themes, but if we bring one up, you resort to personal attacks.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
First and foremost, Jackson's films and Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us. The movies were developed to tell us an entertaining story about characters and themes that excite, move, and inspire us like the books did. I have nothing against people who enjoy the books so much that they become Tolkien scholars. But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

Tolkien's analysis of the Elves seems like the best evidence of what his "vision" was as we are going to get.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
For all the detailed analysis of Tolkien's personal correspondence and writings to acertain what he "really" intended to say in LOTR, Tolkien himself is on record as saying his story was simply "an attempt to tell a long tale." To me, recreating LOTR on film depends upon a screenplay that recreates the book's emotions by capturing its most compelling themes, not one that gets an "A" from Tolkien scholars for its expert scholarly research.

I think you misunderstand us. We are reading Tolkien's analysis, not analysing it ourselves.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This film series isn't about JRR Tolkien's brain -- it's about his heart.

That's the point you are supposed to be defending. We disagree.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You people are the ones attempting to "prove" Jackson had it all wrong using Tolkien's letters. I'm saying the themes you've highlighted were also addressed by Jackson. What I get in response is "yes, but..." We're talking about a freakin' film adaptation and I'm supposed to ignore the evidence of Jackson's efforts to illustrated the fading of the elves and their sadness because of some obscure reference about the "inherent nature of the elves" in a book on Tolkien's correspondence?!?!?!?!

I rather think what we've gotten is "yes, but...". We have given you many clear posts addressing this theme by theme, point by point.

Look, will you answer the themes we've put to you? Let's start with one. In my last post, I've heavily backed up our opinion on the fading of the Elves. For the benefit of us who you seem to think are idiots, will you kindly debate that post point by point?

[BeardofPants]

BB: For that matter, could you also have a look over some of the other themes I brought up? You did say that you were going to address them.

[Mrs. Maggott]

For the sake of "argument/debate", let's look at the crux of Tolkien's underlying vision for LOTR: unlike the Silmarillion which was "told" from the vantage point of the elves, LOTR is centered on the worldview of hobbits which is why the climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring or even Aragorn's coronation and wedding, but the "scouring of the Shire" when that race "comes of age" and overcomes the forces of evil within its own borders. This chapter is seminal to the book! It presents both the positive and the negative aspects of self-determination, the consequences of apathy and the definite angst of the lead character - Frodo - when it becomes necessary to once again take up arms to defeat evil. Of all the chapters in the book, SoS is illustrative of many of Tolkien's own moral struggles (as, say, between Frodo's pacifism and Merry's more realistic view that blood will probably have to be spilt before the Shire is free again).

In the films, despite the fact that four central characters are hobbits, it is obvious that Jackson has centered the story on the race of men. The "love story" of Aragorn and Arwen has been greatly enhanced from its place in the book as part of that change of focus. Of course, once men and not hobbits are the central theme, SoS becomes anti-climactic and Jackson finds no problem in editing it out of the film. Indeed, so dramatic is the change of focus, that in TTT, what I thought would be a very well developed thread - the Ents - was treated almost as a throwaway. Jackson even lost interest in his earlier "comic relief" - Merry and Pippin - since he had replaced them with Gimli! So the plot thread of the Ents was give exceeding short shrift even to the point of leaving out the huorns who actually won the battle of Helm's Deep. Instead, Jackson gives us an interminable cinematic video game with an ending that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And, of course, as I mentioned in my previous post, making Tolkien's hero Aragorn into a "modern" conflicted wuss (in my opinion) is merely another attempt to appeal to audiences in our current therapeutic culture. Mr. Jackson is obviously of the opinion that strong, heroic men are nothing more than cardboard cutouts without interest or depth and lacking in audience appeal. However, anyone who reads LOTR knows that Aragorn is certainly not any such "comic book" superhero without foibles or weaknesses. He is a "mythic hero" but his character loses nothing thereby. On the other hand, Jackson's Aragorn has rejected his obligation to his people stating that he didn't ask for it and he never wanted it. Frankly, in my opinion, he doesn't deserve it either!

[Elf Girl]

Excellent post, Mrs. Maggot!

[analyveth]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
For the sake of "argument/debate", let's look at the crux of Tolkien's underlying vision for LOTR: unlike the Silmarillion which was "told" from the vantage point of the elves, LOTR is centered on the worldview of hobbits which is why the climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring or even Aragorn's coronation and wedding, but the "scouring of the Shire" when that race "comes of age" and overcomes the forces of evil within its own borders. This chapter is seminal to the book!

i agree to some extent, in that of course the scouring underlines that the shire is inextricably connected to everything else, a point hammered home throughout the books, the question of universal responsibility, but then if this is to be the case surely the destruction of the ring is the 'climax' of the story, if there is one at all.
but then again tolkien's message throughout has been that nothing is clear-cut; the very essence of evil confused as the danger of the ring comes from 'evil' being an interal, as opposed to external (and therefore far more easily resisted,) force. the fact is that tolkien himself shifted the protagonism slightly when he split up the fellowship and hence the stories, so the story of aragorn and backstory of the world of men in general comes greatly to the fore.

i see exactly what you're saying about aragorn's apparent 'change' in character, but the fact remains that there is no 'correct' interpretation, and that jackson and co bring with them - as do, it must be said, the filmgoing public - their own presuppositions to tolkien's work. we are inevitably influenced by the world and society in which we live and the 'mythic hero' to the letter just does not work in modern cinema. he is likely to leave a contemporary audience apathetic, or at least having to work a lot harder and rethink the manner in which they approach the work. not that this would be a bad thing, just completely unmarketable, which i think is the main problem with the movies, if indeed it is a problem.

the variation in construction of both is indeed why the books are books, and the films are films.
and i've spent far too much time on this!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by analyveth
i agree to some extent, in that of course the scouring underlines that the shire is inextricably connected to everything else, a point hammered home throughout the books, the question of universal responsibility, but then if this is to be the case surely the destruction of the ring is the 'climax' of the story, if there is one at all.
but then again tolkien's message throughout has been that nothing is clear-cut; the very essence of evil confused as the danger of the ring comes from 'evil' being an interal, as opposed to external (and therefore far more easily resisted,) force. the fact is that tolkien himself shifted the protagonism slightly when he split up the fellowship and hence the stories, so the story of aragorn and backstory of the world of men in general comes greatly to the fore.

i see exactly what you're saying about aragorn's apparent 'change' in character, but the fact remains that there is no 'correct' interpretation, and that jackson and co bring with them - as do, it must be said, the filmgoing public - their own presuppositions to tolkien's work. we are inevitably influenced by the world and society in which we live and the 'mythic hero' to the letter just does not work in modern cinema. he is likely to leave a contemporary audience apathetic, or at least having to work a lot harder and rethink the manner in which they approach the work. not that this would be a bad thing, just completely unmarketable, which i think is the main problem with the movies, if indeed it is a problem.

the variation in construction of both is indeed why the books are books, and the films are films.
and i've spent far too much time on this!

But the simple fact is that the climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring, nor is it Aragorn's crowning and wedding. These are climaxes to certain portions of the story. But in the end, the hobbits return first to Bree and then the Shire - and interestingly enough, Gandalf does not go with them to the end. In fact, he tells them that all they have gone through has been a period of preparation so that they will be able to handle all of the dangers in the Shire by themselves and without his assistance. And, of course, they do just that.

This final "maturation process" of the hobbits is the actual climax of the story. The Ring was not any part of them except that two of them possessed it for a short period in its history. The reunion of the two kingdoms and the revelation of the "hidden king" was also no part of them; four of them were part of these great events, but as a race, these things were alien to them. However, the tyranny of Saruman and his ruffians were a definite part of them and in fact was to a certain extent initiated by one of their own - Lotho Sackville-Baggins.

Finally, I am very tired indeed of the constant argument that book is book and film is film and that somehow this excuses Mr. Jackson's egregious deviations and revisions. Yes, the two media are different, but that does not mean that a film of a book cannot remain faithful to the author's vision as presented in the book. Editing necessary for time considerations (such as the removal of the Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrow Downs plot ploy) was quite acceptable as was the effort to limit the number of characters for the sake of clarity. However, there was no reason whatsoever to fundamentally change the characters, nor did it help time constraints for Mr. Jackson to add plot ploys such as the warg riders, Aragorn's "death" and the side trip to Osgiliath. In fact, so much was added to TTT (including the interminable battle of Helm's Deep which took less than 10 pages in the original story) that a great deal of the book had to be left for the third film: Shelob, the overthrow of Saruman, the capture of the palantir to name three.

One cannot help but wonder how this "exchange" of Jackson's plot inventions for Tolkien's original plot is going to "help" the third film especially given how much will have to be covered therein. I don't think it can all be "made up" by editing SoS although Mr. Jackson doubtless will try.

[Elfhelm]

Just weighing in one one point. I think Sam, not Aragorn, is the hero of the story. Aragorn doesn't carry Frodo up Mt. Doom. The return of the king is a sub-plot, in my opinion. (And don't say Tolkien title the books because he didn't.)

I also happen to think that Sean Astin is doing a great job as Samwise. And I especially think the Scouring is fundamental to the story. Four boys leave in fear, four men come home and kick butt.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Just weighing in one one point. I think Sam, not Aragorn, is the hero of the story. Aragorn doesn't carry Frodo up Mt. Doom. The return of the king is a sub-plot, in my opinion. (And don't say Tolkien title the books because he didn't.)

I also happen to think that Sean Astin is doing a great job as Samwise. And I especially think the Scouring is fundamental to the story. Four boys leave in fear, four men come home and kick butt.

In his letters, Tolkien names Frodo as the main protagonist and hero, but he admits that Samwise represents the type of military aide-de-camp he found in the foxholes of WWI. These were "lower born" individuals whose personal integrity, courage and loyalty made them, as Tolkien put it, "better than any of us" (meaning those of "higher" birth). Sam is certainly a hero, but Frodo is the hero. In fact, Aragorn recognizes this since he has Frodo bring his crown and Gandalf place it upon his head at the ceremony, thus recognizing the fact that his kingship was the result of the labor of many and not just himself.

Unfortunately, I guess Jackson did not believe that film audiences would accept the central figures being hobbits and so he changed the focus of the film to men with Aragorn and Arwen in the primary positions within the new hierarchy of the story. It makes a difference in the real meaning of the tale even though it doesn't appear to affect the flow of the plot overmuch. Still, it's a shame that Jackson refused to trust his source and felt the need to "retell" the story himself - and in a far inferior manner to my way of thinking!

[Elfhelm]

I don't think writers always know their own works. I don't think Tolkien has the final say, any more than any writer does, on the interpretation of his work. I object to the very idea. If we readers aren't allowed to read the stories with our own active minds, then that just makes us automatons. Tolkien knew a lot about language, and he knew simple hero stories like Beowulf. That doesn't qualify him to be the one to have the last word about which character is the hero or which scenes should be deleted when making a movie.

Drama has different requirements than fiction. All ideas must be expressed through action as well as dialogue.

But we do agree about the Scouring. I don't think there is a true dramatic resolution without the Scouring.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I don't think writers always know their own works. I don't think Tolkien has the final say, any more than any writer does, on the interpretation of his work. I object to the very idea. If we readers aren't allowed to read the stories with our own active minds, then that just makes us automatons. Tolkien knew a lot about language, and he knew simple hero stories like Beowulf. That doesn't qualify him to be the one to have the last word about which character is the hero or which scenes should be deleted when making a movie.

Drama has different requirements than fiction. All ideas must be expressed through action as well as dialogue.

But we do agree about the Scouring. I don't think there is a true dramatic resolution without the Scouring.

If by "last word" you mean how best to translate his work into film, then you are right. A writer knows how to present his ideas on paper, but sometimes he might not be able to see how best to bring his ideas to the screen. But the effort should always be - especially in a work such as LOTR - to bring the author's vision to the screen. If I wanted to see Peter Jackson's "vision" of LOTR, I would have no problem with whatever he did. However, I - and I suspect most everyone else including Jackson's financial backers - wanted to see Tolkien's LOTR on screen. Not only did Jackson fail to do that, but he made it quite clear from many print and electronic interviews, that he thought that he could "tell the story" better than Tolkien! Frankly, from what I have seen of both films, I strongly disagree.

Oh, and by the way, Tolkien was no slouch when it came to efforts to film LOTR. His "Letters" has a considerable correspondence about an early animated effort which illustrates quite clearly that the good Professor was hardly a dolt when it came to cinematic matters - and he was quite vocal in his disapproval of that particular director's "vision" of the story! I have no doubt were he alive today, Mr. Jackson would also have been sent away with a 'flea in his ear' for his "interpretation" of the work!

[Elfhelm]

Yes, his comments to other filmmakers have been posted and discussed a lot in this context. To me those comments just show that he didn't understand drama. Consider that he didn't even consider drama literature! And he had harsh words about Shakespeare. I mean, Aristotle said drama is one of the three forms of poetry. Tolkien didn't even consider it literature. Why should I side with a guy whose work sold massive amounts over a 50 year period instead of a guy whose works withstood many attempts to destroy it over 2500 years?

I recently tried to make an operatic libretto of the Beren and Luthien chapter from Silmarillion. The task was impossible! Drama has requirements of action. You can't have people disguised as vampires and big bad wolf characters... impossible to do on stage.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Yes, his comments to other filmmakers have been posted and discussed a lot in this context. To me those comments just show that he didn't understand drama. Consider that he didn't even consider drama literature! And he had harsh words about Shakespeare. I mean, Aristotle said drama is one of the three forms of poetry. Tolkien didn't even consider it literature. Why should I side with a guy whose work sold massive amounts over a 50 year period instead of a guy whose works withstood many attempts to destroy it over 2500 years?

I recently tried to make an operatic libretto of the Beren and Luthien chapter from Silmarillion. The task was nearly impossible! Drama has requirements of action...

Tolkien did not care for plays (although I think he liked musicals). That is a personal preference. Many people don't care for sports (I am one although I used to root for the old New York Giants in my youth). None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the matter. The fact that Tolkien did not like Shakespeare or disagreed with Aristotle does not give carte blanche to Jackson to screw up LOTR! I went to see the films because I liked the book. I am not big on Shakespeare myself and probably wouldn't go to see a play or a film based upon his work. Are they great? Absolutely. Do I like them? Not really. Do I like Tolkien? Yes, although I found Silmarillion depressing - which is probably apostasy itself.

As I said, if I wanted to see Peter Jackson's "version" of LOTR, I would have no problem with whatever he did. I did not! I wanted Tolkien's work presented on film as faithfully as possible given the difference in the medium. Am I disappointed? You bet I am. And if I am anywhere near as disappointed with ROTK as I was with TTT, I shall gift my daughter my EE version of FOTR and count the whole thing as a colossal waste of my time and my money!

[Elfhelm]

Tolkien's work presented on film as faithfully as possible

Well, that's never going to happen.

I was disappointed in TTT, too. I was one of the people who laughed when Sam said "By right's Mr. Frodo, we shouldn't oughta be here." in Osgiliath. I wish I could edit that scene out completely. And I wonder if they could have found a better Faramir. It just irks me that they turned the most noble man of Gondor into a scruffy sweathog who beats up little hobbits.