You keep spelling it that way...it's Faramir, not Faromir...
And I don't see how your post answers our points about it being boring if put into the movie exactly like that book.
Mike
Have not seen Two Towers or ROTK yet
- Thread starter Prindel
- Start date
You keep spelling it that way...it's Faramir, not Faromir...
And I don't see how your post answers our points about it being boring if put into the movie exactly like that book.
Mike
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
In the last movie, he was done very well. I'm talking about the TT. He was supposed to be all Boromir was too weak to be, but they made him damn near a mirror image of his brother. Not cool, IMO, and though it matches the CONCLUSION, it gets there poorly. I mean, all he does is at the last second go, 'oh, wait a tic, maybe I shouldn't do this?' No good, IMO.
Plus, he did do cool stuff in the last book. Not a ton, granted, but he wasn't an action-oriented character.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
My bad on the spelling!
Okay, in the book...Faramir says he would not take it even were it laying by the side of the road, or some such. He then bandies words (easily shortened-as per the BBC version), learns about Boromir, tricks Sam into telling more than he should, and through his cunning, discovers Frodo has the One Ring.
At this point, everyone reading for the first time (myself included) thinks he's going to take it...he goes misty eyed and says something like, 'A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality!' Frodo and Sam draw, prepared to fight to the death, but Faramir DOES show his quality, and stays true to his word.
Lots of suspense, a bit of action at the end, and Faramir is STILL Faramir, not some hollow character. Even better, it would be about 10 minutes less screen time, leaving them free to do something else. Even better, it stays true to the story.
I mean, Galadriel did just about the same damn thing, lending an air of suspense for first-timers (readers or viewers-it was pretty much word-for-word, if memory serves). How come all of a sudden when it's Faramir, it would be too boring? In Faramir's instance, there's even MORE suspense, because of the drawing of the swords, and being in a cave surrounded by Faramir's troops.
I simply cannot understand how this can be too 'boring' for the screen? After all, it's not like the movie is hurting for action. Is this a need to turn it into a purely action-based movie? Is that all? IMO, Jackson did it exactly for that reason...people need to see the cool action at the fall of Osgiliath.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Are you kidding? Boromir was weak--he let the ring take over his mind. Faramir, on the other hand was tempted, and was strong enough to deny it. He went so far as to want to use the ring against Sauron, but instead he made up his own mind to let Frodo go. I'd say that's a hell of a lot more noble than Boromir was. (Suffice to say, I loved Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir)
The point is, Boromir and Denethor both succombed to the madness, while Faramir did not. If that doesn't say that he's noble, I don't know what does.
There was NO way that Faramir was a mirror image of Boromir--I'm surprised you came away with that conclusion--Faramir was much stronger mentally than Boromir, and because of that, more noble.
That's why I can't understand your opinion. Everything you're talking about is just wrong--Faramir is NOT Boromir, and while it would have been easier for him to take the ring, unlike Boromir, he consciously chose not to--something Boromir could NOT do. How is that bad?
Chaplin
Better off silent
Now I'm confused. Faramir remains Faramir--you described the book well, but the movie does not go away from that all that much. You quote "A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality!" That quote is expressly SHOWN in the movie in his early yearning for the ring, and then later at his decision to take it to his father. How is that against the book?
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Chap, are you SERIOUS that you think the TT made him out to be the Faramir of the books? Are you legitimately trying to say that?
Everyone I've talked to, EVERYONE, agrees with me. I mean, even the people that completely apologize away the mistakes wince when I mention Faramir in the TT. Here, I'll give you a quick summary...
I'm Boromir (he acts like his bro for a while), I'm Boromir (and fools them into saying what they didn't want to), theeeeeeen, when it's time for him to show his quality, I'M BOROMIR! Wait, no, surely Faramir doesn't look Frodo directly in the eye and tell him he's going to Osgiliath? Sounds like something someone else would do. Who might that be? No, can't be, Jackson's fooling with us, and when Frodo protests the 'folly' of this path, surely...but no, once again, we get the weakness of Boromir.
Only when they are on the brink, the very brink, does Faramir go, 'oh no, well, gee, I guess I'll let you go.' It's like Iago all of a sudden, at the end of Othello, go, 'guys, I'm sorry I caused such a fuss', or Oliver Cromwell telling the Irish, 'eh, guess I shouldn't have burned and raped and pillaged so much...anyone for a pint?' They would have been just as believable.
I mean, the guy's a hellacious actor, but he was painted into a corner. That moment was about as believable as...well, see above. What was his impetus for letting Frodo go at the end? The destruction at Osgiliath? Seeing the Wringwraiths at hand? Because, with the Faramir we'd seen to that point, that Faramir would have run straight back to Denethor so they could smite their enemies with the ring. Jackson gave him no reason. He just kind of remembered Faramir was NOT supposed to be Boromir, Faramir snapped out of it, and all was *supposedly* well.
I'm sorry I'm so driven on this, Chaplain, but you WILL NOT ADMIT that Jackson made ANY mistakes!!! Jeez, man, are you on his payroll or something? The movies were good, one of them very good, the other great. Does that mean they were perfect? Far from it! One of the best ever? Those reviewers are smoking crack. It was one of the best trilogies ever, yes, but Jackson would have probably had to burn the books on screen for me to not feel that way.
I know you feel the movies shouldn't be judged against the book, man, but when you do compare them and fail to see the realities, well then, I must take offense.
*Calming down* Whew! I went on there for a while, didn't I? I'm sorry if I come off as condescending, but I feel your views of the movie come from a very specific, biased angle. I know you probably feel the same way about my views, but I'm trying to keep the story at heart. That's all I wanted. Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath? In what world is that explainable?
PS: Yeah, the quote was exactly out of the book...in friggin' Osgiliath! Just a teensy bit out of context, IMO.
I don't see how you can say Jackson made mistakes with the adaption at all...how do you quantify a mistake? Because YOU didn't like it?
It's his adaptation, his interpretation, so there cannot be any mistakes.
You may think it was one, yet others don't. It's an opinion, not a mistake.
Mike
It's his adaptation, his interpretation, so there cannot be any mistakes.
You may think it was one, yet others don't. It's an opinion, not a mistake.
Mike
Chaplin
Better off silent
Dude, you are unbelievable. When you have to calm yourself down after writing several paragraphs of unitelligible gibberish, you know you have to chill out man.
When did I say that Jackson made no mistakes? Please point that out to me. I will admit, however, that he changed some things. Just because I don't consider them "mistakes" doesn't mean you have to continue talking down to me. I'm getting pretty tired of it Stout.
When did I say that Jackson made no mistakes? Please point that out to me. I will admit, however, that he changed some things. Just because I don't consider them "mistakes" doesn't mean you have to continue talking down to me. I'm getting pretty tired of it Stout.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Yeah, I had to calm myself down. I shouldn't have had to. My bad in getting overenthusiastic in pointing something out.
But gibberish? Unintelligible gibberish? And I'M talking down to YOU? Hi, pot.
When did you say that Jackson made no mistakes? You didn't say it. You never do. Every time, every last time, that I point out something he did wrong, you're all over yourself to offer an excuse. Any kind of excuse.
You simply cannot get past the fact that a movie can actually include real moments from a book. You're too quick to take the easy out and forgive everything. I'm not.
Chap, you're a very knowledgable movie critic. You see more movies than I do (no small feat!), you study them closer, and you know more about them. And therein lies the rub. Whenever it comes down to it, you're putting your trust in Jackson and the movies. Normally, I'm all for that. I love many of the changes made, because they were necessary and/or good.
But Jackson made mistakes in dealing with the material in the books. I don't mean mistakes in not sticking completely to the book. I mean changing things he needn't have changed. You came close to admitting it above (in asking 'when did you say he made no mistakes?') but then refuse to acknowledge them.
Tell me then, Chap, please (I promise, I'm not talking down-I really want to know), do you feel that Jackson made perfect movies and nothing at all he did in the movies needlessly diverged from Tolkien's story?
Chaplin
Better off silent
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
In otherwords, it's Jackson of the Rings, and you're okay with that? I know I wouldn't be okay with it!
If he diverged from the book when he did not have to, I consider that a mistake. He did this on more than one occasion, of that there is no doubt. Jackson therefore did make mistakes.
It's his adaptation and interpretation of something that already exists. That gives him a certain amount of license, to be sure (Arwen, anyone? I had no problem with the majority of her stuff), but it doesn't mean he cannot make mistakes.
And if many, many people that read the books and understand what you can and cannot do in movies think it's a mistake, I'd define it as a mistake.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
I love it! I come back from this movie Chaplain 'knew' I'd hate, and everyone thought I'd hate, and I thought it was very good and loved watching it. And yet it continues. Simply because I refuse to give Peter Jackson a carte blanche 'pass' on the trilogy, I must be wrong. As Mel Brooks would say, 'What a wooooorld!'
Chaplin
Better off silent
What are you talking about? I never said they were "perfect" movies.
Depends what you call needless. He diverted from the books in several instances. So what? What's the big deal? I think I get it, but correct me if this is wrong:
Peter Jackson should have made these movies according to what the public would want, not what he himself wants. IMO, he did a combination of both--he did what the audience wants (for example, expanding the female roles), and he did what he wants (for example, omitting the Scouring).
I'm sorry, but I do support directors and their "vision". If this is Jackson's vision of the books, who are you to tell him he's wrong?
Chaplin
Better off silent
Originally posted by Stout
I love it! I come back from this movie Chaplain 'knew' I'd hate, and everyone thought I'd hate, and I thought it was very good and loved watching it. And yet it continues. Simply because I refuse to give Peter Jackson a carte blanche 'pass' on the trilogy, I must be wrong. As Mel Brooks would say, 'What a wooooorld!'
Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Bingo. I think we've found exactly where we differ (as opposed to bickering all day, every day!). I agree with all the beginning. He combined changes for the good of the movie, and also choices for the good of himself.
You think it's all right for him to do that, because it was his vision. Who am I to tell him he's wrong? Me? A concerned fan, but I see my voice matters little. Tolkien? If he were alive, and someone told him something to this effect, I'm sure he wouldn't like it.
The fact is, it never was supposed to be Jackson's 'vision', IMO. It was supposed to be him relaying Tolkien's story. When he starts injecting his own opinions not on what needs changed for film purposes, but what he personally felt was wrong with the books...well, that's just plain wrong. IMO, and that of many others.
But hey, I can see where you're coming from. You're a film guy, and I really can't expect you to come down on the other side on this one. And trust me, I'm not being condescending, or snide, or anything else. I'm saying we finally hit on the issue, and we'll never agree on it (as far as Jackson of the Ri-er, I mean, LOTR, that is). Pax?
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Nope, not a guilt trip. I just figured I'd post how I liked the movie, get no real response, but if I said even one thing in response to someone else on this subject, what has happened would happen. It doesn't bother me, and I'm not looking for pity, so no, it's not a guilt trip. Call it a wry observation, if you will.
Chaplin
Better off silent
You can't be serious. If you go by that philosophy, you wouldn't care if it was Merchant & Ivory or Michael Bay that directed the thing. If you want an unbiased view of the books--read the books themselves.
Adaptations, remakes, whatever--they really are never very good unless there is a director's personal stamp on them. Have you seen Kenneth Branagh's Henry V or Much Ado About Nothing? There are numerous changes, are you going to complain because he left some stuff out of Shakespeare? Does it mean he doesn't have any respect for Shakespeare?
Ian McKellan was in a tremendous version of Richard III, which was set in a WWII-like world. Really amazing. But would you say it would stink because it wasn't what Shakespeare really wrote?
But hey, I can see where you're coming from. You're a film guy, and I really can't expect you to come down on the other side on this one. And trust me, I'm not being condescending, or snide, or anything else. I'm saying we finally hit on the issue, and we'll never agree on it (as far as Jackson of the Ri-er, I mean, LOTR, that is). Pax?
Look, I agree, on this point there is absolutely no need to be at each other's throats. In fact, I have somewhat enjoyed going back and forth because it actually, IMO, is fascinating. I mean, read over the posts over the last few days--it's really interesting.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
I enjoy both of Branagh's movies...Henry captured very much what the character of Henry was really written as. Yes, it had bad points...a few very bad. Same with Much Ado. But I still enjoyed them immensely because, no matter what you do, you HAVE to make changes to most stage plays, especially Shakespeare, when you film it. Same as with books. Of course, I really hate those bad points about the movies but, like in Fellowship and ROTK, I can still enjoy the movie while shaking my head over it.
Ian McKellan's Richard III was unreal, it was that good! Of course, it wasn't too much in line with the play. Still, I knew that going in. I didn't realize going into Two Towers the distortions there would be. S'okay, I'm *mostly* over them now. Except when it's discussed on messageboards
Now, if we were talking about Shakespeare on stage...then whoa! Don't get me started! Terry Hands, one of the biggest directors of Shakespeare in history, really raised my ire when I read one of his quotes. It was something to the effect that they often changed things in Henry V because they felt they knew more about the play than the author did. Exsqueeze me? They knew better than not only the author, but THE BARD? Aaaaaargh! Needless to say, they were only trying to make it a heroic tone poem, so they absolutely had to distort it.
Bottom line: Yes, you're right in that there can be adaptations that are waaaaay off the mark but still good. Hell, even Two Towers was a damn good movie, completely disregarding the book. I personally can't do that, and so when the story is lost, I don't like it.
I still don't feel as though he should have tried to make it 'Jackson of the Rings'
Chaplin
Better off silent
Well, ok, you make some good points there.
But, tell me seriously, what do you think makes it "Jackson of the Rings"? I've seen most of Peter Jackson's earlier work, and it really isn't anything distinctive like, say, Sam Raimi or even Steven Spielberg. Other than the really well-written character development, there is nothing that distinguishes this as a "Peter Jackson Film" other than the fact that we now associate him with it. If I saw Spider-Man and somebody asked me who directed it, I wouldn't guess Sam Raimi.
I just think this is a version of the books that is damn good, no matter how much anyone complains about pieces that were changed or left out. It was a conscious decision by the writers (of which Jackson was only one) to make the film as they made it--I see absolutely no problem with the finished product. Why? Because even as adaptations, they are still damn good, whether you've read the books or not.
Hell, I wish Braveheart had better character development, and I wish English Patient was a bit shorter, but that doesn't mean I don't think both are damn fine films.
But, tell me seriously, what do you think makes it "Jackson of the Rings"? I've seen most of Peter Jackson's earlier work, and it really isn't anything distinctive like, say, Sam Raimi or even Steven Spielberg. Other than the really well-written character development, there is nothing that distinguishes this as a "Peter Jackson Film" other than the fact that we now associate him with it. If I saw Spider-Man and somebody asked me who directed it, I wouldn't guess Sam Raimi.
I just think this is a version of the books that is damn good, no matter how much anyone complains about pieces that were changed or left out. It was a conscious decision by the writers (of which Jackson was only one) to make the film as they made it--I see absolutely no problem with the finished product. Why? Because even as adaptations, they are still damn good, whether you've read the books or not.
Hell, I wish Braveheart had better character development, and I wish English Patient was a bit shorter, but that doesn't mean I don't think both are damn fine films.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Oh, I know. It's just that if he's allowed to make LOTR into his own vision, I figure that makes it JOTR Just being obtuse.
Just being obtuse.
Chaplin
Better off silent
"What? What was that? Solitary! A month!"
(Paraphrasing) (Ok, not so great paraphrasing, but you get the idea)
Originally posted by Chaplin
"What? What was that? Solitary! A month!"
(Paraphrasing) (Ok, not so great paraphrasing, but you get the idea)
Not great at all...you might as well vanish, like a fart in the wind...
Mike
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Still, I'll give him a great reference. That movie was classic.
And I don't think it was much of an accident that when we were holdovers in reception at Basic Training, that's the movie they showed us
And I don't think it was much of an accident that when we were holdovers in reception at Basic Training, that's the movie they showed us
C'mon! The cameos by Lucy Lawless and Bruce Campbell give away that much.
