Yes but they would have been able to get out an additional 5 fake out endings out of it.
THE HOBBIT
- Thread starter checkeredhat
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I thought Faramir was well handled in the movies. Only thing I have any issue with at all regarding him is that his falling in love with Eowyn seems very forced. Another scene or two where they actually share dialogue would have been nice. But neither are central to the Fellowship, so their stories are allowed to get whittled down a little, I think.
Yeah, it makes sense they did it, with all those multiple endings piling up, but some of the stuff covered in those endings is much more epilogue style material that really we could have done without. The transition from scene to scene was really the main issue with that, I think.
But the Scouring of the Shire, that was the Climax of the character arcs for Merry and Pippin, and sort of the falling action for Sam and Frodo. It completed all four of their transformations of character, I feel like that was just too important to leave out.
Hmmm...
See I haven't seen the theatrical version since it was out, so I don't really remember any issue with Faramir. The extended edition is the definitive release for me.
fade
Staff member
They completely inverted his character! He was good to Frodo and untempted by the Ring in the book. In the book, I think the whole purpose of that scene is to give Frodo the motivation to go on as he was beginning to drag. To show him there was good in the world and nobility worth saving. When they make him nasty and tempted by the ring, he loses his purpose and becomes redundant with Boromir. I'm surprised that you didn't know what I was getting at, because I think it was the biggest fan gripe with the films.
Yeah, but to build up the ring as this all powerful, evil-tempting force, and to say "hearts of men are easily corrupted", build up that this is why a man could not have been ring-bearer, have even Gandalf and Galadriel tempted by the rin in the first movie, then to meet a man who is just like "Oh. That's cool. No thanks, you can keep it" completely strips the ring of all it's power. To have him tempted but ultimately able to overcome that for the good of his race successfully shows his strength of character while simultaneously further empowering the ring and cementing Frodo as the ringbearer. It's one of those story points where I look at the books, and I think Tolkien made a mistake writing it the way he did.
fade
Staff member
See, I disliked the way Jackson handled it. I preferred Tolkien's view that there were some people who just didn't have it in them to be corrupted. It just wasn't like the Faramir introduced in the book to be tempted at all. He served as a motivator and example for Frodo, and as a foil for his brother. I didn't ever get the feeling that Gandalf and Galadriel were truly tempted, just more cautious should they be ensnared once they had it. Faramir wasn't the only one not to be tempted in the books. Sam wasn't either--another weak point of the movies in my opinion. The only small hesitation Sam had in the book for not returning the ring was personal concern for Frodo, which didn't seem to be connected to the ring at all. In the first chapter of the first book, Gandalf makes it clear that character counts when dealing with the ring's temptation. Hence Bilbo's resistance vs. Gollum's corruption (hated Bilbo's gollum face in Rivendell, too).
All of things I disliked about the films concern weakening characters, sometimes dramatically. Faramir was weakened for his initial temptation. Frodo was weakened both at Weathertop and at the Ford of Rivendell for not standing up to the wraiths. Sam was weakened in his best scene at Shelob's pass. I understand why Jackson did what he did. He wanted to press the point that Sauron was indominatably evil and the ring was ultimately corrupting, but I think that was already clear. Faramir, Frodo, and Sam are heroes because of their resistance of the ring. I disagree with you completely that this strips the ring of power. It's pretty clear by this point how bad the ring is. It's more about how ideal Faramir is than about the ring at all in my opinion. It's not even about how powerful Faramir is--he isn't. It's more about how much his ideals matter. I think it strips the entire Faramir scene of its point when he's tempted. I would've preferred they leave it out entirely. It was one of my favorite scenes in the book.
All of things I disliked about the films concern weakening characters, sometimes dramatically. Faramir was weakened for his initial temptation. Frodo was weakened both at Weathertop and at the Ford of Rivendell for not standing up to the wraiths. Sam was weakened in his best scene at Shelob's pass. I understand why Jackson did what he did. He wanted to press the point that Sauron was indominatably evil and the ring was ultimately corrupting, but I think that was already clear. Faramir, Frodo, and Sam are heroes because of their resistance of the ring. I disagree with you completely that this strips the ring of power. It's pretty clear by this point how bad the ring is. It's more about how ideal Faramir is than about the ring at all in my opinion. It's not even about how powerful Faramir is--he isn't. It's more about how much his ideals matter. I think it strips the entire Faramir scene of its point when he's tempted. I would've preferred they leave it out entirely. It was one of my favorite scenes in the book.
I actually completely agree with you about Faramir Fade.
Necronic
Staff member
From what I understood the only character that really had zero temptation from the ring was Tom Bombadil. And that's the exact reason that he couldn't be entrusted with it's safety because "He would probably just loose it since it's meaningless to him" (gandalf said something like this I believe).
Personally I preferred Jacksons take on it. It's not about the ring itself. The ring is simply the McGuffin. What it is is about corruption and purity/good and evil, and how those concepts are not always black and white (hence the complexity of the Golem character), among other things. Pure characters are boring because they lack depth. If Tolkein needed to invent a depthless character to provide motivation for Frodo then that's simply bad writing. And moreover, Faramir can still provide that motivation even while being tempted.
A character that is not actually tested is not noble.
Personally I preferred Jacksons take on it. It's not about the ring itself. The ring is simply the McGuffin. What it is is about corruption and purity/good and evil, and how those concepts are not always black and white (hence the complexity of the Golem character), among other things. Pure characters are boring because they lack depth. If Tolkein needed to invent a depthless character to provide motivation for Frodo then that's simply bad writing. And moreover, Faramir can still provide that motivation even while being tempted.
A character that is not actually tested is not noble.
fade
Staff member
Hmm, I can't say I agree with a foil character being bad writing, or there's a lot of classic bad literature out there. It also doesn't really matter to me if he is boring--he's a set piece with a singular purpose. In the book, Faramir's appearance comes right after a bunch of soul-searching and being down in the dumps about why he's even doing this. Then there's this noble ideal who affirms his need to press on. When Faramir is tempted, that takes the medicinal nature of the scene away.
EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong. Like I said, I see what Jackson was going for and it's not really a bad thing. I just prefer Tolkien's version. The ring being all-corrupting seems to dilute the story to me.
EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong. Like I said, I see what Jackson was going for and it's not really a bad thing. I just prefer Tolkien's version. The ring being all-corrupting seems to dilute the story to me.
This is huge, so bare with me.
You mean Goblins?
yes, goblins... time for bed, i think.You mean Goblins?
Sting is glowing , so they should be around
North_Ranger
Staff member
Eep... 
Dude, Faramir was the least favoured son doing the right thing way better then his daddy's favourite brother... i'll take that over ""daddy will love me if i give him the ring" any day when it comes to depth.
SYNONYM FIGHT!!!!You mean Goblins?
Another production blog:
!
Tells us a bit more about what we're going to see in the first movie.
The Pencil stub bit with John Howe is all too familiar. In 2nd , 3rd, and 4th year we kept bottles in the studio for people to drop their pencil stubs in. Amassed huge collections by the end of the year.
!
Tells us a bit more about what we're going to see in the first movie.
The Pencil stub bit with John Howe is all too familiar. In 2nd , 3rd, and 4th year we kept bottles in the studio for people to drop their pencil stubs in. Amassed huge collections by the end of the year.
Hell yes Radagast.
That's not a synonym, since orcs and goblins are two entirely different creatures. It's not like the words battle and combat meaning the same.
In Lord of the Rings I'm almost certain that orcs and goblins refer to the same thing, corrupted elves. Uruk-hai are the different thing.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND this is lame.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/hobbit-third-movie-warner-bros-353719
Peter Jackson really does want to make the Hobbit into a trilogy.
He's trying to get his hands on the other Tolkien books to fill in the gap between the two sets of movies.
What would be the cut off then? Leaving the Goblin Caves and Leaving Mirkwood? I know they already filmed the barrel scene.
They have already filmed the battle of the five armies.
Uruk-hai are pretty much just a new, better breed of orcs (bred with men i believe the main theory was).
As for the orcs origin, that was never actually settled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#The_origin_of_Orcs
Tolkien was never 100% clear on what, if any, distinction, there was between goblins and orcs, but it's become pretty much accepted that Misty Mountain goblins are smaller than their Mordor counterparts. Uruk Hai is pretty well established as being a crossbreed of men and orc, which is why they are able to travel during the day, and in the books, its hinted at that a few of them may have even been able to pass as men, in Bree (The description of them in the book is not really what they wound up looking like in the movies.)
Looks like that's just Saruman's uruks that are definitely bred with men: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_Hai#Literature
Haven't clicked the link yet, but if I recall correctly, Saruman fielded "Uruk Hai", Sauron had "Uruks".
Nah, Uruk Hai is the full name, Uruks is a shortening...
And according to the link orc-men might be different from Uruk-Hai...
Then again Tolkien liked his myths, and myth don't use very precise definitions of monsters... the same might have different names of two might have the same name but be very different...
Where were the Halflings from?
Yeah, Reading the wiki article I see that I was mistaken.[DOUBLEPOST=1343328534][/DOUBLEPOST]
"Halfling" was just what men east of Bree referred to the Hobbits as, since to them they were creatures of myth.
It is confusing though since there were actually different breeds of hobbits. The type of hobbit Smeagol was was more closely related to Merry than to Frodo, I think.
Man, you guys don't go for the obvious these days.
Lord of the Rings is what is known on the internet as "Serious Business" (Or, more commonly, by people who shun the English language and praise cats in its stead, as "SRS BIZNES")
S
Soliloquy
Fun fact: in Norse mythology, there's even less distinction between mythical creatures. For instance, terms for dwarfs and elves were used pretty much interchangeably.
North_Ranger
Staff member
It gets worse in Finnish. There is, for instance, no word that could even closely translate the word "hobgoblin", as in a bigger breed of goblin.
Even the word "goblin" is a bitch to translate. In Finnish mythology, the usual translation, hiisi, is more of an evil forest spirit than a mook.
- Status