The Two Towers (Spoilers for our mates down under!)

[Rigel]

Still, as soon as Faramir showed up...aaargh! I never liked his character in the movie the first time around, but now he seemed even worse, now that I knew what he was like in the book - a compassionate and wise man every bit the equal of his brother Boromir.

Faramir's not the only character I think they shafted. As far as he goes, though... it's not like he didn't feel the lure of the ring, but he didn't listen to it. The writers seem to be saying that it's impossible to have self control.

In fact, Frodo's descent into madness was rather overdone, I thought. But, that's just me.

The scene of the uruk-hai sprinting into the tunnel to set off the bombs still makes me smile; it's like a parody of an Olympic torch relay.

You're doing a good job of picking out the things that bug me most

Jackson claims he approached this with as much "authenticity" as possible; that he told his crew, "We're going to film this as if it's a documentary for something that really happened." Then, he goes and throws in stunts like this.

Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with that little guy diving in. It's the whole setup that's a problem. Why risk something like this with the little pipsqueak? Why shield the guys carrying the powder, but not him? It would be a lot easier for them to just fire a bunch of flaming arrows at it.

For that matter, why would one guy with a torch stand out to Aragorn as a danger? It's not like he knows what the gunpowder is.

The other thing I liked about Helm's Deep was the presence of the Elves fighting alongside Men. That was a welcome deviation from the book, though it still didn't make up for turning Faramir into a nitwit.

Wow, you're really good at this This is probably my number one grievance with TTT.

In general, Jackson treated the Dwarves (and Gimli in particular) as comic relief. In this case, though, what does the arrival of the Elves say about the Dwarves? That the Elves are friendly and helpful, while the Dwarves are selfish and uncaring?

The fact is, the Elves were just as willing as the Dwarves to not get involved, and for a good reason. They were all under attack from Sauron at roughly the same time; it's not like the army at Minas Tirith was the only one marching.

[Zarathustra]

I understand the writers' points, but it still bugs me. Gandalf refused the ring. Galadriel refused the ring. Aragorn refused the ring. Elrond refused the ring. What's wrong with one more? (And in the end, Faramir refused it, too. So the point is moot.)

The more valid point is one of storytelling. If Faramir refused it right from the beginning, he wouldn't have a story. He wouldn't have anywhere to go from there (at least in TTT). So they changed it just to have a little story arc for him in that movie. It's not really too bad of a move, considering how they butchered the Frodo-Sam-Gollum triangle in ROTK. Faramir still ends up doing the same thing. But they could have shortened the movie if this weren't in there--which would have improved it, IMO.

[matrixman]

Thanks for all your thoughts, everyone! Yes, I know I'm very late to this conversation about TTT (my November post notwithstanding). I didn't speak my mind back when TTT came out because I didn't want to be a party pooper to those Watchers who really enjoyed the film.

But, yes, I came out of TTT numb - that movie sapped the energy out of me. Which is why I said it took me a long time, even as I was there in the video store, to decide to buy it. In my defense, I think it should count for something that after all this time, I was still willing to give the movie a second chance. And why? Because I loved the book. It was such a page-turner that I blazed through it in just a few days. So I had to see the film again, to learn where it went wrong - how it turned what should have been a thrilling story into a (mostly) depressing cinematic experience.

I see wayfriend's point about Faramir's resistance to the Ring potentially undermining the sense of its danger to all who come near it. But I like ItisWritten's and Malik's answers, too. Maybe all I can say is I think Jackson and company became a tad too zealous in wanting to portray how "Men are weak" - zealous to the point of changing the basic nature of a main character, Faramir.

Rigel's rebuttals against what I imagined were the "good" moments have left me tottering like a maimed Orc. I have no good rebuttal of my own to give, but to say that I still think the "Olympic" sprint into the tunnel was darn funny! Let's just pretend it's a sly commentary on athletes and steroid use...

[wayfriend]

Malik makes a good point: they gave Faramir an arc, which he didn't really have in the book. If you're a Faramir fan, that's a good thing.

It's the honor of Faramir that defeated the Ring. He made this vow to Frodo, and he would not betray it. He saw Frodo and Sam's fear and figured out Boromir's failure in an instant. How hard would it really be to portray that in a movie?

And, as Malik pointed out, in the end he did demonstrate his honor, and his honor did effect the defeat of the ring.

It would not have been hard to portray it like the book at all. But it would have jarred noticably with everything else in the movie. We'd be left wondering, if the ring doesn't tempt everyone, what's all the fuss about? And, why did it tempt Boromir and Denethor, but not Faramir?

Not to mention that a lot of Frodo time would have been chopped from the movie.

Two things worth mentioning: Faramir did not covet the ring for its power; he was honoring the wishes of his father and desperately trying to redeem himself in his fathers eyes, and also trying to save Gondor; so he was NOT portrayed as a craven ring slave. Second, by portraying a very real temptation, and overcoming it, Faramir earns our respect the hard way, rather than just walking into the movie a flat character.

Sorry. I liked the movie Faramir. He had more depth than book Faramir.

(There were things I did seriously hate in the movie.)

[Zarathustra]

WF, good points about Faramir and his father. That played directly into the 3rd movie.

While I agree that this isn't necessarily bad, I never had a problem with Tolkien presenting a character who held enough of the old Numenorean glory to simply not be tempted. And this played into the fear of Frodo being captured, by providing surprise in how noble Faramir was.

But since the movie already did this with Aragorn (arguably a better choice), that role had already been filled.

[wayfriend]

Then let's talk about what really sucks in TT ... this scene!!!!!

[Zarathustra]

You're absolutely right, that scene is horrible. But it looks so freakin' awesome that I feel like I'm offering up the ring to a Nazgul, or something, in liking it.

I still haven't seen a movie--in 5 years--looks as good as this one. [Woops, I meant ROTK, it would be 6 years for this one . . . though still true, if you ignore ROTK.]

[ItisWritten]

WF, good points about Faramir and his father. That played directly into the 3rd movie.

While I agree that this isn't necessarily bad, I never had a problem with Tolkien presenting a character who held enough of the old Numenorean glory to simply not be tempted. And this played into the fear of Frodo being captured, by providing surprise in how noble Faramir was.

But since the movie already did this with Aragorn (arguably a better choice), that role had already been filled.

Giving Aragorn that moment of nobility was one of the reasons I liked FOTR more than the others, yet it shouldn't have cost Faramir his moment.

But wait, you say, he did release Frodo. Yes, but this act was reduced to correcting a mistake, though not quite to the point of Boromir realizing his ring-madness too late.

Which brings me to a separate rant. Why was it so important to make all the secondary characters appear lost until our Fellowship heroes came along?

--The ents got to bring down Isengard, but only after Pippin tricks them into acting hasty. Wait a minute. Weren't the ents the shepherds of the trees, and aware of everything that went on in Fangorn? Guess not, since Treebeard didn't know Saruman had been cutting down trees for months.

--Theoden made his ride from the Hornburg, but only after Aragorn gives him a better reason than suicide. Forgetting that earlier Theoden had to school Aragorn on a king's demeanor facing long odds and defeatism.

--Faramir has to have everything about Boromir explained to him by Sam. I always thought one of the points of Faramir was that he was different from Boromir, not the same.

--Pippin (and Gandalf) burns the watch fires because Denethor is too foolish and grief mad to do his duty? Cinematically, I understand why, but that just added spectacle to a movie that didn't need more, and reduced a wonderful, tragic character to a pitiful moron.

Certainly, the fellowship made a big difference in the book, but only Theoden and Rohan were actually paralyzed into inaction.

[matrixman]

--The ents got to bring down Isengard, but only after Pippin tricks them into acting hasty. Wait a minute. Weren't the ents the shepherds of the trees, and aware of everything that went on in Fangorn? Guess not, since Treebeard didn't know Saruman had been cutting down trees for months.

Yeah, I was unhappy with the treatment of the Ents in the film even before I had read the book, but finally reading it made me even more unhappy with how Treebeard and his brethren were handled.

--Faramir has to have everything about Boromir explained to him by Sam. I always thought one of the points of Faramir was that he was different from Boromir, not the same.

*nods vigorously in agreement*

I also want to add that I thought Merry and Pippin were also made to look rather ignorant in the movies, whereas in the books they were fairly smart and cognizant about what was going on. I know, Jackson wanted the focus to be squarely on Frodo (and Sam), but I feel bad for the other two Hobbits.

[Cagliostro]

The scene of the uruk-hai sprinting into the tunnel to set off the bombs still makes me smile; it's like a parody of an Olympic torch relay.

You're doing a good job of picking out the things that bug me most

Actually, this is an in-joke that I think should have remained only in the extended edition, but I think egos got a bit huge. Peter Jackson, while filming all of this, got to run with the Olympic torch for a little while. I don't think this is even mentioned in the commentaries, but it might be. I heard about while I was hopelessly addicted to finding any and all details about the production while it was being done.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

After watching each extended film a bazillian times, I'd say I love em all equal, each for different reasons.

They couldn't leave Faramir a static character because, no real person is ever static and it's very uninteresting and bad storytelling to have the Ring not affect him.

Gimli learning to love the Elves wouldn't work on film because Joe Cinema doesn't know all the extra info from da Hobbit and the fleshed out book that would help him care or understand.

If you told the story from the strict POV as the books, wouldn't Froto's be really boring compared to everyone else's, pacing and such? Plus, flashbacks are very, very risky in film, so doing multiple flashbacks over and over is bad bad bad, and IMO, a cop out when a writer doesn't like to do "action", killing the tension.

I didn't like how flat Gandalf the White was, and Denethor became a weannie...meh.

Overall, Fellowship is turning out to be my favorite, Towers is the one I watch for fun, and Return is the best overall, but I love all of them.

I hated the ending to Return. It's simple, you cut the beginning of Fellowship featuring Bilbo and the Hobbits from the cinema release, so you then cut the ending featuring Bilbo and the Hobbits from the cinema release. The elves weren't featured so you don't do the Grey Havens ending and while I felt Austin's Sam was the best acted along with McKellen's Gandalf the Grey, he wasn't featured in the beginning so you don't feature him in the end. Film is different and far more simplistic: The title is Lord of the Rings, so the trilogy ends when the Lord of the Rings is destroyed-the inherent promise in the title; The title is Return of the King, so the film ends with...the Aragorn's coronation, which had the people bowing to the Hobbits, which was the perfect point IMO.

I know fans of the books want to see these other scenes that they cared about, but Jackson should have cut them and reinserted them in the Extended Edition.

[Rigel]

They couldn't leave Faramir a static character because, no real person is ever static and it's very uninteresting and bad storytelling to have the Ring not affect him.

Gimli learning to love the Elves wouldn't work on film because Joe Cinema doesn't know all the extra info from da Hobbit and the fleshed out book that would help him care or understand.

First you say that characters have to change because static characters are "uninteresting," then in the very next breath you say that Gimli can't change?

[wayfriend]

Actually, this is an in-joke that I think should have remained only in the extended edition, but I think egos got a bit huge. Peter Jackson, while filming all of this, got to run with the Olympic torch for a little while. I don't think this is even mentioned in the commentaries, but it might be. I heard about while I was hopelessly addicted to finding any and all details about the production while it was being done.

You really need to check out Chariots of Mordor (Youtube, 1:41) if you haven't seen it yet.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

They couldn't leave Faramir a static character because, no real person is ever static and it's very uninteresting and bad storytelling to have the Ring not affect him.

Gimli learning to love the Elves wouldn't work on film because Joe Cinema doesn't know all the extra info from da Hobbit and the fleshed out book that would help him care or understand.

First you say that characters have to change because static characters are "uninteresting," then in the very next breath you say that Gimli can't change?

Oh, no...see, what I meant was:

There simply wasn't more screen time for Jackson to go more indepth with Gimli's character and the added scenes or background concerning Dwarves and a little more on the Elves to make it pay off-all from a Director's POV. Any character development is great.