What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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! )

[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.

[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.]

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.