What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

they're supposed to be Tolkien's story.

That is simply not accurate. The movies are, as noted expressly in the credits, "based on" Tolkien. That is quite different from saying they are Tolkien.

I have posted here before how even Tolkien's version of the books is, in the author's words, also "based on" an earlier version - the Red Book of Westmarch - and why that is significant in terms of the idealization, by the Hobbits, of characters such as Aragorn and Faramir.

Re: Faramir: if you haven't already read this excellent analysis, you may find it interesting if for no other reason than as a mind-opener as to how to understand and reconcile artistic differences in character development (though this page is for Faramir, the same basic type of approach is possible when comparing any of characters in the movie versus the book): http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

But in the end, we are each as comfortable and flexible with change and interpretation as we choose to be. I long ago gave up judging others on this score. Viva la differance (so to speak).

[minor spelling edits]

[Curufin]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien is like saying the sun is not the moon. Now that we've settled that, why not enjoy the movies for what they are? That's my approach and, not surprisingly, it works for me without detracting an iota from my love of the books.

I agree with both DPR and BeardofPants - the movies are supposed to be Tolkien's story. Now if it said "loosely based" or "inspired by" I might be able to move on a bit, but they don't. It's "JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings." And it really isn't. And you'd be suprised how many people find out I'm a Tolkien nut and tell me they haven't read the books but they've seen the movies, so it's the same thing.

And BoP's right too - the second and the third movies don't even work as movies, independently of Tolkien's work...

[Jon S.]

I have little to add other than, as someone who does check this forum usually every day and often sees days to weeks go by without even a single new post anywhere in the entire Tolkien section, at least this discussion is prompting a new post or two in this thread.

It's something I find continually amusing on internet forums, the predictable arguments over whether something is truly inspired or not inspired by something else. For example, I came here from a guitar forum where the arguments over whether the Fender Custom Shop Stratocaster Reissues are truly worthy of that title or not make our discussions here look tame.

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon. The reason people who see the movies only typically enjoy them and don't react like you to them, Cur, is precisely because they take the movies on their own terms ... under which they work quite well.

All counterpoints welcome and invited - let's keep the action going on Entmoot! :dude:

[The Gaffer]

OK

Clearly, some people enjoyed the movies. However, the vast majority of people I know thought they were "meh" at best. My wife falls invariably falls asleep within 10 minutes.

And these aren't people who are particularly averse to the fantasy genre. They might well appreciate the Harry Potter movies, or the likes of Pan's Labyrinth.

[Jon S.]

Look, they certainly weren't Academy Award winners but they didn't totally suck either. I personally saw all three at least twice apiece in theatres on "the big screen" and if the crowds for every single show were faking their enjoyment, all I can say is they were doing a damn good job of it.

Repeat views, home on a small screen, after you've already seen them in theatres, for these types of movies, what can I say, we need to be real.

[Curufin]

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon.

Well, I would agree with you on this and also say that I think this should be obvious. For those who don't care about Tolkien's works, or Tolkien's intentions, or the themes and ideals that his legendarium was created to express, a Hollywood-ized, cardboard, over-CGI'd, low-brow action movie that retains nothing of the original magic and beauty of Tolkien's world would be just fine. For those of us who respect Tolkien and the 50+ years that he put into the creation of his world, seeing it so ruthlessly exploited by PJ and company is a bit vomit-inducing.

The reason people who see the movies only typically enjoy them and don't react like you to them, Cur, is precisely because they take the movies on their own terms ... under which they work quite well.

For Fellowship, I would agree with this. I disagree that the last two films, especially The Two Towers, which I thought was a terrible movie on its own terms. What did that warg attack add to the film? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was corny, cheesy, ridiculous, and a waste of ten minutes that would have been better spent portraying Faramir as he was supposed to be. Why the Elves at Helm's Deep, in direct contradiction to Tolkien's theme? Helm's Deep was the first battle in which men triumphed. The first indication that the power of men was finally overcoming the power of the elves, and further indication of Elven fading. The Last Alliance was called the Last Alliance for a reason.

And why should Lord of the Rings be taken on its own terms? It's an adaptation - which by definition is based on another work. A comparison with that original work should be an integral part of its definition.

[tolkienfan]

I agree with Jon S. I was a big fan of the books before the movies. I'm still a big fan.
While there are parts of the movies that make me cringe, they are actually my favorite movies. The first time I watched them, all I could focus on was the bad and annoying parts. But with repeat viewings, I've found that I can just ignore those parts and enjoy those that I do like (about nine hours worth). I feel that certain parts very well capture the spirit Tolkien intended. I understand that many disagree, and that's fine with me. It gives us more discussion. I just feel unhappy that a few people I know think that I'm not a "real" fan and I'm selling out, just because I like the movies. Some of these same people think the Silmarillion is boring.

A great thing that has come of the movies is an interest in Tolkien from people who may not have otherwise read the books at all. Sure, there are those who think they know Tolkien because they watched the movies, but isn't that annoyance a small price to pay for new friends who have read the books because of the movies?

Plus, the movies give us more material to discuss here.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Well, I would agree with you on this and also say that I think this should be obvious. For those who don't care about Tolkien's works, or Tolkien's intentions, or the themes and ideals that his legendarium was created to express, a Hollywood-ized, cardboard, over-CGI'd, low-brow action movie that retains nothing of the original magic and beauty of Tolkien's world would be just fine. For those of us who respect Tolkien and the 50+ years that he put into the creation of his world, seeing it so ruthlessly exploited by PJ and company is a bit vomit-inducing.

Not that she has an opinion, nor nuthin'. Don't be shy, Curu, tell us how you really feel.

[Curufin]

First of all, let me say that no matter how adamantly I hate the movies (and sometimes my speech gets rather strong) - I would never tell someone or imply that they're not a fan because they like the movies. I hope you don't get that feeling from my post.

A great thing that has come of the movies is an interest in Tolkien from people who may not have otherwise read the books at all. Sure, there are those who think they know Tolkien because they watched the movies, but isn't that annoyance a small price to pay for new friends who have read the books because of the movies?

Yes, and I must admit that I am one of these. Fellowship inspired me to read the books in the first place.

Sis - Do I seem the type to withold my opinion? :P

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

First of all, let me say that no matter how adamantly I hate the movies (and sometimes my speech gets rather strong) - I would never tell someone or imply that they're not a fan because they like the movies. I hope you don't get that feeling from my post.



Yes, and I must admit that I am one of these. Fellowship inspired me to read the books in the first place.

Sis - Do I seem the type to withold my opinion? :P

Naw, but pot-stirring is my life.

*Double, double, toil and trouble...*

[Curufin]

Glad to know I'm not the only one. Together, we can keep this place continuously stirred.

[Jon S.]

I prefer my threads shaken, not stirred.

Look, I don't usually quote myself

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon.

but my emphasis is on "emotionally." In my case, for example, I love the LOTR. I have re-read the book(s) at least twice from beginning to end at least twice a year for over 30 years. The next day after I first learned that the films would be made, I sat down with my daughter, then 5 years old, and literally read the Hobbit through the end of the Return of the King + selected Appendices, out loud in the evenings, over an 18 month period, just so she would have the wonderful experience of having read (or in this case, heard) the books before seeing the films.

I love the books but I am not emotionally so caught up with them that I make myself unable to enjoy another talented person riffing on Tolkien's themes.

But then again, I'm optimistic by nature (one of my colleagues is always saying that if someone left a load of horse **** on my front stoop, I'd open the door and say, "How nice! Someone gave me a pony but it ran away.").

[More spelling edits - I'm atrocious that way. ]

[Curufin]

I love the books but I am not emotionally so caught up with them that I make myself unable to enjoy another talented person riffing on Tolkien's themes.

See, I don't think PJ is talented at all, but that's an opinion, of course.

And it's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

[EowynRocks]

Another quick rant:
You wonder what happened in the production studios -
x: Hey, PJ, how about adding a bit about Faramir kidnapping Frodo and Sam and taking them to Osgiliath?
PJ: Even though it will totally alter the point of the story?
x: Yep
PJ: Even though it will completely change Faramir's character and make him look EVIL
x: Yep
PJ: Even though there was never anything about it in the book?
x: Yep
PJ: Even thought it is totally against the point of the meeting with Faramir, which was symbolic that Boromir succumbed to the temptation of the ring but Faramir didn't?
x: Yep
PJ: Wow! I love it! I always liked the name Osgiliath, anyway...

And then there's the elves at Helms Deep (the perfect opportunity for Aragorn to do his old sob and clutch dying chap's hand thing again...)
Aragorn falling off a cliff (when did that happen? *flicks through book* It doesn't happen! It doesn't happen!)

Need I go on? It makes you wonder what the human race is coming to, really... (ok, that's just slightly extreme, but I am a lunatic! )

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Curufin

See, I don't think PJ is talented at all, but that's an opinion, of course.

And it's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

Oh, I think he was some talent. Just not exhibiting it in the LOTRs. Have you seen Heavenly Creatures? It's a great movie. And the one I'd recommend to people who want to watch a Peter Jackson movie. His earlier movies are great too (Bad Taste, et alia).

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Look, they certainly weren't Academy Award winners but they didn't totally suck either. I personally saw all three at least twice apiece in theatres on "the big screen" and if the crowds for every single show were faking their enjoyment, all I can say is they were doing a damn good job of it.

Repeat views, home on a small screen, after you've already seen them in theatres, for these types of movies, what can I say, we need to be real.

One word: TITANIC

[shesabrandybuck]

I personally love the movies. Having read the books and everything. It may not be "exactly Tolkien", but I think that PJ did a fantastic job. I do have to say that Frodo's character isnt exactly my favorite, and Legolas's lines arent the best, but overall I think that it was wonderful, and I enjoy watching them very much

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by EowynRocks

Another quick rant:
You wonder what happened in the production studios -
x: Hey, PJ, how about adding a bit about Faramir kidnapping Frodo and Sam and taking them to Osgiliath?
PJ: Even though it will totally alter the point of the story?
x: Yep
PJ: Even though it will completely change Faramir's character and make him look EVIL
x: Yep
PJ: Even though there was never anything about it in the book?
x: Yep
PJ: Even thought it is totally against the point of the meeting with Faramir, which was symbolic that Boromir succumbed to the temptation of the ring but Faramir didn't?
x: Yep
PJ: Wow! I love it! I always liked the name Osgiliath, anyway...

Just curious - did you read the article I linked to earlier and disagree with the analysis or simply ignore it entirely?

What the hey, let's see if the whole darn thing will fit here ...

Faramir is one of the noblest, finest, and bravest characters in Tolkien, and for many people, the Faramir of Jackson's TTT is the biggest mistake of the films. He seems cold, cruel, greedy, and far less noble than Boromir in FOTR.

I was one of many longtime Tolkien-fans who had trouble understanding how Jackson could possibly do this to one of my heroes. However, after taking into consideration the different way events unfold in the movie, and what the movie-Faramir learns when, I have some answers, and have found he is still (mostly) Faramir. Whether or not those changes are justified is fodder for a very heated discussion, but let me give you my take on...

What Happened To Gallant Captain Faramir?
The character of Faramir in Peter Jackson's TTT

In short, movie-Faramir does not get enough information, early on, to have any reason to trust the hobbits, and in fact gets a lot of hints that he should not. Let's follow this from his perspective.

I. The Hobbits Discovered

Book: Frodo and Sam are found cooking rabbit, camping out, and apparently oblivious to the activities of Faramir's company.

Movie: Frodo and Sam are found spying on Faramir's company in the middle of the battle.

II. Introductions

Book: Frodo immediately tells Faramir who he is, where he came from, and quotes two lines from the "sword that was broken" prophecy as part of his introduction, which Faramir accepts, saying, "it is some token of your truth that you know them." Frodo admits Isildur's bane is part of his errand, reveals that the sword that was broken is coming to serve Gondor, says he would like to serve Gondor himself "if my errand permitted it," and wishes Faramir good luck on their ambush, impressing Faramir with his courteous speech.

Movie: First we get a Middle Earth Geography 101 lesson, in which Faramir learns that Rohan's under attack and can't aid Gondor, Mordor's gathering yet more armies, and, as he says, "The fight will come to men on both fronts. Gondor is weak. Sauron will strike us soon. And he will strike hard. He knows now we do not have the strength to repel him." After this grim realization, he turns to ask the "spies" about themselves. Frodo and Sam refuse to tell Faramir anything, until prodded, and then they are evasive and tightlipped.

III. Where's your third companion?

Book: Frodo says he's a "chance companion" they found on the road, makes it clear he's got misgivings, but begs Faramir to "bring him to us" rather than slay him, saying he's a "wretched gangrel creature... under my care for a while."

Movie: Frodo lies to Faramir almost the moment Faramir meets him, claiming there's no third member of their party. Sam's expression shows Frodo is lying. So Faramir's first information about Frodo in Sam in the movie is that they are hiding something.

IV. Boromir

Book: Frodo tells about Boromir before they get to Henneth Annun, and in fact answers all of Faramir's questions as much as he possibly can, stating there's some things he can't answer because he's under oath by the Council of Elrond (at which Boromir was present). When Faramir describes seeing Boromir in the boat, Frodo is shocked, recognizing the belt Boromir picked up in Lórien: again another sign of truthfulness. Frodo is crushed, saying he fears his kinsman and friends are dead, with which Faramir can sympathize (since he has already been given enough to believe Frodo is being honest with him).

Movie: Frodo mentions Boromir was in their party, but when Faramir reveals his brother's death, Frodo stammers: "Dead? How?" Someone with something to hide might well feign ignorance in exactly that manner. Perhaps in the EE we'll see more, but as it stands, Frodo shows no sadness for Boromir's death, and if anything he and Sam recoil from Faramir when they learn he's Boromir's brother. The revelation sows more mistrust, rather than mutual sympathy.

The movie's Faramir is clearly mourning his brother's loss intensely; he seems almost shellshocked. The scene ends with a close-up of his face, and he looks numb. That is not the Faramir of the books, but a somewhat younger one, stricken with sorrow and beginning to lose hope much earlier than in the novels (much like Frodo succombing to the Ring earlier).

V. Catching Gollum

Book: Frodo had told Faramir about Gollum earlier, and begged him to be spared, so Faramir breaks his own rules (he should kill Gollum) and asks Frodo to fetch him. At this point, Faramir and Frodo have had a long full day of talking together about everything from their friendship with Gandalf to elves, and Faramir already has promised to help Frodo with his errand: he's just trying to reconcile his marching orders with Frodo's. They have come to like and respect one another. "The praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards," Faramir says, when complimented.

So when Gollum shows up, Faramir does Frodo's bidding and captures the creature, interviews it mainly to test whether it's really serving Frodo or planning to hurt him.

Movie: All Faramir knows is that Frodo's hiding something and in particular trying to conceal Gollum's identity. Faramir has orders to kill anything that comes near the pool, but instead of doing that, he sees Gollum as his only opportunity to get concrete information. So he tests Frodo. He's still trying to understand Frodo, and seeing how Frodo treats this wretched creature is as much of a lab experiment as anything, trying to work out Frodo's motives and character.

VI. Learning About the Ring

Book: Frodo had as much as told Faramir he had Isildur's Bane the moment they met, and that he couldn't explain everything because he was under oath— an oath he had given to Boromir as much as anyone else at the counsel. After they had become friends, Sam accidentally blurted out that it was the Ring which Boromir wanted.

Movie: Frodo and Sam have concealed their errand. Faramir learns about the Ring first from Gollum. We don't know everything he heard or learned by reading Gollum's mind, but this is NOT the best way for Faramir to learn about what Frodo is carrying.

V. Deciding What to Do About It

Book: Faramir realizes immediately from Sam's words that his brother tried to kill Frodo over it, and even so for a moment the Ring has him in its power before he comes to his senses, grieving, and offers to help the hobbits. He already knows the Ring has destroyed his brother, so needs no proof to see its peril. And he had sworn a vow not to take it.

Movie: Faramir confronts Frodo with his discovery, and the Ring attempts to control Faramir. Faramir snaps out of it, but instead of giving any coherent answer, Frodo goes insane and starts trying to crawl through the walls. Sam begs for Faramir to have a little pity, and finally reveals their errand, to destroy the Ring.

But the movie's Faramir has come by a very different route to that vital bit of information. So far, the hobbits have only admitted truths when pressed very hard, when they're trying to wheedle their way to freedom; they've also lied to him. And Frodo is not in control of himself, clearly.

Just a little while before this, Faramir had concluded during the Geography Lesson that Gondor, the world of Men, and probably all of Middle Earth are doomed. The Ring tips the scales. Does he trust Frodo to succeed in his errand? Or does he see the Ring falling into his hands as a last chance, the only weapon that might possibly save his people, since they have no other hope at this point?

So far, Frodo has not done much to inspire confidence in him.

On the other side of the equation, Faramir is a Captain of Gondor, under orders to apprehend tresspassers and spies. He is presently sending his men into no-win situations, fighting a war they simply can't win. How can he expect them to obey the chain of command when he defies standing orders whenever it suits him?

His decision is logical. And it's actually fair for Frodo's sake too, since as far as Faramir knows, if Gondor falls (which it certainly will), "poor Mr. Frodo" will be one of countless victims once Gondor's defense of Middle Earth is eliminated.

VI. To Osgiliath

Book: They part ways, then Faramir goes back to Osgiliath.

Movie: Faramir hasn't gotten reason enough to trust Frodo, so he takes him to Osgiliath.

VII. The Turning Point

Now the movie charts its own course. Frodo hysterically begs Faramir to let him go, claiming the Ring will destroy Gondor, but he simply hasn't got much clout based on his actions so far. What happens to change Faramir's mind?

Sam finally blurts out a bit more information: that the Ring drove Boromir mad and Boromir tried to kill Frodo. Again, not the best way for Faramir to learn the news. Sam was foolish but more tactful in the book. However, before Faramir can even react to this shocking revelation, the Nazgûl arrives. Faramir quickly orders Frodo to stay out of sight for his own protection and rushes to deal with the problem.

Frodo, unfortunately, disobeys, and nearly betrays them all by giving in to the Ringwraith's summons. Only Sam prevents him (and Faramir saves him too, by shooting the Ringwraith's steed; if Faramir had run away with the other men the story would've been over). After this, Frodo nearly kills Sam, but Sam manages to snap him back to reality. Frodo starts weeping, horrified at what the Ring nearly made him do, and he says, "I can't do this." Sam has to give him a pep talk, at the end of which Frodo shakily agrees they've got to keep trying for the sake of others.

Now Faramir has seen evidence that Frodo and Sam are good-natured and truthful at heart, but that the Ring is affecting Frodo's mind, so he can believe the shocking news he's just received that such madness killed his brother. Faramir has finally discovered Frodo's true character and motives. He could have decided Frodo's actions with the Ringwraith are yet more evidence that the hobbit is incapable of finishing his task. Surprisingly, he does not. He says:

"At last we understand one another."

Frodo and Sam have been assuming he's just like Boromir, which he's not. He's more of a thinker and a philosopher. Currently, he's a very depressed young man, dealing with his brother's death and the weight of responsibility for Gondor's safety and by extension all that of Middle Earth. Faramir knows that the world is depending on him, but that he does not have the strength or resources to succeed. He, also, "cannot do this". Yet he is persisting in his mission anyway, knowing the odds to be hopeless. Frodo is evidently doing much the same thing, for the same reasons. And both of them are mourning the death of a loved one: Frodo in the movie is desperately shaken by the loss of his father figure, Gandalf, and Faramir has lost the brother he loved and admired so much.

So Faramir decides to sacrifice his own life on the slim chance that Frodo can succeed where he can't. "Then my life is forfeit." Noble and soft-spoken and brave: that's exactly what we'd expect of book-Faramir (who, incidentally, is not under a death sentence: he just said he would deserve to die if he made a decision that proved ill for Gondor). When the movie characters finally part ways, Frodo is going to Mount Doom with a duty he's been given by his superiors which — as Galadriel tells Elrond — he knows will claim his life. Faramir is going back to Minas Tirith with a death sentence stapled to his forehead.

They do understand one another. For they are the same.

And perhaps Faramir sees in Sam, who has more hope than they do, a little of the brother he misses so much.

Conclusion

If 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."

[Jon S.]

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.

As for Haldir and the Elves showing up at Helms Deep to fight alongside of men, I loved it. Even the Elves in the book were fighting Sauron at the same time as the men of Helms Deep, merely elsewhere. The movie didn't change what they were doing, they merely moved them a hundred miles or so south.

Our nation and our world is rife with racial hatred, misunderstanding, and strife, just as it was in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Kudos to you, PJ, to edit the plot to emphasize that the races can come together, put aside old emnities, remember what unites us rather than divides us, and fight evil together. It was wonderful how you put this in your movie, I respect your choice tremendously.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

It's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

Better to put it this way: love is often mistaken with control. True love involves letting go as much as hanging onto. I love and trust the Professor's books enough to be able to let go of them for others to reinterpret.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'm afraid now there really is nothing more I can add on this subject so at this point I'll do the "NPR caller thang," hang up, and listen to your replies.