Council of Elrond

Welcome Guest
Username: Password: Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » The Truth About Faramir?

1 2

Author	Topic:

Faramirs_first_kiss

Mearhwine NamsmiÃ°
Posts: 390
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: May 30, 2003 05:58

I am competely happy with movie Faramir... David Wenham is a great actor

I think that David Wenham goes a long way to salvaging the position the script left him in. I (I see the films then read the respective books) felt that he was doing everything he did against his will, better judgement, instincts, something like that, the first time I watched the film. When he announced he is Boromir's brother I was worried that he would go the same way, but somehow I didn't really think he would. He managed not to completely flip even when he had the Ring right in front of his eyes with his sword to Frodo's throat, and I think he shows as much restraint as anyone else in the film would in that situation. I wonder what would have happened without the interruption. Someone suggested that might be in the EE.

There are two things which affect the way Faramir acts:
1) He doesn't know about the Ring until much later than the books and doesn't seem to know as much about it then.
2) The Ring is weighing much heavier on Frodo than it does in the books. He's secretive and distrustful and acts very suspiciously. Frodo is the character who has really changed here, and Faramir act in response.

Hmm, this post may be edited in the next few days as I'm just about to re-read that part of the book, but for now there's my two cents.
Kiss

ladylirenel

Council Member
Posts: 58
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: June 10, 2003 11:14

Boromir tried to physically take the Ring. Faramir is tempted, and then decides, "no, I'll take it to my father," for the reason that he's trying to please his father. So really, Faramir resists the temptation of the Ring himself, but takes it (partway) to his father because he desperately wants his father's love.

Sorry if someone already said this, but I just skimmed what other people said.

As I've said on another post, I think that shows the main difference between Faramir and Boromir and how Faramir is still kinda like Book Faramir. Movie Faramir had the Ring in his grasp, but he decided to give it to his father instead. But as for Boromir, as Gandalf says in the books "taking it he would have fallen and you would not have recognized your own son" or something to that effect. Boromir tried to take it for himself. Faramir didn't try to take it for himself at all after that first bit.

meerkat_ladie

Council Member
Posts: 2
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:46

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I want to be a little more specific.

I had always admired Faramir in the LOTR books because he was (to me anyway) noble, honest, understanding, etc. despite the fact his father saw him as less than Boromir. But in the movies he was a total stranger. He seemed... weaker and spiteful.

Does anyone have any idea why his character changed so drastically in the movies? Or is it just my imagination?

Thanks for your time and eyes.

Ariel_of_The_Numenoreans

Council Member
Posts: 2
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:48

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I want to be a little more specific.

I had always admired Faramir in the LOTR books because he was (to me anyway) noble, honest, understanding, etc. despite the fact his father saw him as less than Boromir. But in the movies he was a total stranger. He seemed... weaker and spiteful.

Does anyone have any idea why his character changed so drastically in the movies? Or is it just my imagination?

Thanks for your time and eyes.

I agree fullwell. I have always abhorred the ways in which good people are scorned and transformed into omething which they are not. I believe that Faramir is one of the last Numenoreans of a bloodline noble as in the days of old. His courage and valour in battle are equal to his brother Boromir, and therefore I fully disagree with the change in the movie.

_mithrim

Council Member
Posts: 144
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:48

I totally agree!I to always admired Faramir for his judgment, wisdom and strong resistance to temptation. In the book Sam even commented about how Faramir was like Gandalf in wisdom. The way Faramir was portrayed in the movie was not even remotely close to the Faramir that Tolkien created. I personally think he would have been very upset about the way that his character had been twisted to be weaker and less noble.

Faramirs_first_kiss

Mearhwine NamsmiÃ°
Posts: 390
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:48

I assume you've read the other threads on this subject. The general opinion in them is that Faramir's character hasn't really changed, just the situation he is in and I agree with that. However, that doesn't change the fact that he now comes across as a lesser man. It is a real shame that his wisdom and most noble characteristics diminish in the film and I agree that it probably would upset Tolkien quite considerably.

I would just like to offer this statement, though, as I am reading each book after seeing the respective film. It comes across through David Wenham's acting that there is something more to Faramir than the script shows, that the character is deeper than he seems to be. Anyone who thinks I might be biased (and let's face it, I'd think I was biased looking at my user name and avvie) should know that I didn't develop my faramir fixation until after reading the book and seeing the film twice more. It's lovely to find out that you were right.

A closing thought, there's more Faramir coming in the EE DVD and I and lots of others have our fingers crossed for a redemption!
Kiss

Gandalf_theGrey

Council Member
Posts: 12
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:49

Regarding Faramir's being presented with an opportunity to take the Ring, here's his reaction from the book:

Not if I found it on the highway would I take it.

Regarding Faramir's reaction from the movie:

Faramir's eyes were narrowed with cold, pragmatic cynicism ... the only "melting" of this coldness came when he realized that keeping the Ring meant getting dive-bombed by Nazgûl. And yes, he at last stood ready to forfeit his life ... All well and good, but this one good act had now become a fractured exception of an alien changeling Faramir, instead of fitting in with the wholesome integrity of the book Faramir.

It was as if movie-version Faramir were being "dumbed down" morality-wise, as though someone patronizingly thought perhaps modern audiences have now all become so conditioned or programmed to consume displays of greed, explosions and special effects that we no longer have the patience to witness, on screen, the more gentle attributes of simple decency, when such simple decency is considered unglamorous.

Realizing it can be said that in this movie, Frodo displayed pity for Gollum, and Sam displayed his endearing loyalty to Frodo ... being presented with the Ruling Ring is a test ... movie-version Faramir was disallowed the same courtesy of reacting towards the temptation of the Ring in character that was allowed to Bilbo, Gandalf, Galadriel, and yes, Boromir and Gollum.

Fascinating topic. Alternative viewpoints leading to an exchange of ideas and conversation quite welcome!

* bows *

Gandalf the Grey

Scothia

CoE Elder Sister
Posts: 800
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:51

I am delighted to see this worthy discussion surface yet again.

It is not unusual for me to stand in the minority, so count me as one of the apparent few who "gets" why Peter Jackson altered this character--and indeed Faramir was altered.

I believe the reasons for this "alien changeling Faramir" as our friend Gandalf_theGrey put it, were threefold:

**To demonstrate the incredible tension and chaos of a time of impending war, the outcome of which would determine the future or even
continued existence of all Middle-earth. It is as if we walk in on Movie Faramir at just the worst moment, our introduction thus prejudicing our opinion of his actions in future scenes. But is it an accurate impression we get? It is a hideous, dark, evil time, and we see only partially the character and nothing of his background.

**To prove that power of the Ring, terrible beyond comprehension. So far, the noblest in Middle-earth--Aragorn, Gandalf, Galdriel-- have been sorely tempted to take and use the Ring to their doom and that of all. Are we now to believe that, aside from the absent Tom Bombadil, there is another being in M-e whose purity and nobility outdistances theirs?

At the risk of iring Tolkien purists, I suggest that Movie Faramir is a more believable character at this point: having him impervious to the power of the Ring, as portrayed in the book, is inconsistent with the entire concept of the Ring's awesome evil and would not have made any sense at all in the film.

**From a filmmaking POV, it was necessary to change Faramir, because as presented in the book, he would have been somewhat redundant next to Aragorn. To properly build tension between characters, the filmmaker must employ contrast--thus eliminating the idea of a Faramir who would never be tempted by the Ring, making the Isildur's heir look weak; and instead making him a more complex character in order to see the innate goodness of the man emerge even through the most difficult of circumstances, and at the highest personal cost.

CoE member sepdet wrote a most thought-provoking article on the changed Faramir, entitled What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir? which can be viewed here.The summary paragraph reads:

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."

Indeed.

[Edited on 7/19/03 by Scothia]

Faramirs_first_kiss

Mearhwine NamsmiÃ°
Posts: 390
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 19, 2003 07:51

Go Scothia! I've just re-read my own earlier post and it comes across a lot more negative than I intended. I "get" the changes too, and I think they add depth and reality to the film that following the books to the letter wouldn't give. I spent ages on other Faramir threads when I first came to CoE reading, agreeing with and posting just the same thing.

All I'm saying, in the interest of not repeating myself, is that it's a shame it was necessary to make these changes. The Faramir of the book wouldn't have fitted in with all the other changes made to the movies and once you change one thing you have to change everything that follows. I think Faramir is a victim of circumstance, he hasn't changed but we're seeing him in a different light, in the darker, more threatening world that PJ has created. I adore Faramir, not for his looks or anything like that, but for his character, and it's a pity that people who won't read the books will have come out of TTT with the wrong impression.
Kiss

Cressida

Council Member
Posts: 160
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: July 29, 2003 10:33

Scothia,

I enjoyed your article but I respecfully disagree with several points. To identify my basic position, I believe that Faramir's storyline was edited to the point of incomprehensibility in the TTT Theatrical Edition and I have strong hopes that when the cut material is restored, the differences between the book and movie versions will be largely in circumstance, not character or even level of corruptibility.

**To prove that power of the Ring, terrible beyond comprehension. So far, the noblest in Middle-earth--Aragorn, Gandalf, Galdriel--have been sorely tempted to take and use the Ring to their doom and that of all. Are we now to believe that, aside from the absent Tom Bombadil, there is another being in M-e whose purity and nobility outdistances theirs?

Naturally not, but book-Faramir's reaction was almost identical to movie-Gandalf's: "I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must fly." In the theatrical cut, it appears that movie-Faramir has been deliberately made less noble than movie-Gandalf or movie-Aragorn--or even, for that matter, movie-Boromir, since the Ring appears to get control of him much more quickly. (Galadriel is a somewhat different case, and anyway, a lot of people weren't really sure she was good and noble in the theatrical cut of FOTR either.)

I have never yet heard a good explanation of why the filmmakers felt it was believable for Aragorn to travel with the Ring for weeks and then simply push it away when he had a perfect opportunity to take it, yet it would not be believable for Faramir to say (paraphrase) "I know enough about that thing to know it's bad news and I don't want anything to do with it."

Now, granted, that would be less dramatic and suspenseful, but that's not what the filmmakers say. They insist it would not be believable, and I firmly disagree with that.

At the risk of iring Tolkien purists, I suggest that Movie Faramir is a more believable character at this point: having him impervious to the power of the Ring, as portrayed in the book, is inconsistent with the entire concept of the Ring's awesome evil and would not have made any sense at all in the film.

Again, this is very similar to what Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens have said in interviews, which leads me to wonder whether they really get the character of Faramir in the book. He is not portrayed as "impervious"; see the moment at the end of "The Window on the West" when he finds out that Frodo has the Ring and he stands up looking quite scary for a moment before he gets a grip on himself. But he knows that the Ring is evil and he is wise enough not to mess with it. He is also helped by the vow he made not to take whatever Frodo was carrying (and although he didn't know exactly what the item was at that time, he had a shrewd idea that it was something pretty powerful). Again, I don't see anything there that is out of line with how the good and wise have reacted to the Ring in the movies.

**From a filmmaking POV, it was necessary to change Faramir, because as presented in the book, he would have been somewhat redundant next to Aragorn. To properly build tension between characters, the filmmaker must employ contrast--thus eliminating the idea of a Faramir who would never be tempted by the Ring, making the Isildur's heir look weak;

The problem with that theory is that the scene where Aragorn was tempted was invented purely for the movie, so if anyone is redundant, it's him. And frankly, I doubt that most people see that scene as one of weakness for Aragorn, particularly since it comes right after Boromir's failure to resist the temptation. That makes him look all the more shining and virtuous by comparison, and the audience not only believes in it but cheers when it happens. I am deeply disappointed that--at least in the theatrical cut--we are not able to do the same for Faramir. My hope is that the EE will restore our ability to do so.

I agree that Sepdet's essay is excellent, and I recommend it to anyone reading this thread who hasn't checked it out yet. (As a side point, though, I'm not sure that movie-Faramir really risks more than book-Faramir; book-Faramir does express his wllingness in ROTK for his "gentleness" to be "repaid with death." They've simply moved that statement to TTT and made the situation more concrete.)

For more on what I think is happening with movie-Faramir, please see my posts in the "Faramir's Line" thread. I suspect a lot is going to turn on the question of knowledge. Or, if you would prefer a fanfictional version, see Contemplations by Sue; I feel that her reconstruction of the character is probably quite close to the original intention for the film. We'll know more in November, of course.

[Edited on 4/8/2003 by Cressida]

Gwenhwyfar

Council Member
Posts: 28
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: August 18, 2003 06:26

Okay, most points on this subject have been made, but I'm going to add my $.02 anyway, because this really bothered me! It wasn't just that Faramir's character was so altered, it was that he became incomprehensible.

Even conceding the need to show Faramir tempted by the ring, and some sort of character arc (which means, I guess, that characters have to become noble, instead of just being noble), I think PJ screwed up -- screw ups itemized as follows:

1. Faramir says he is going to bring his father a "mighty gift" (or something like that), and many on this board have defended FF by talking about his relationship with his father. However, that all comes from your knowledge of the books, it is entirely absent in the film. If the need to please his father were such an important part of his motivation, why not show it?

2. The temptation of the ring is for personal power, not as a gift for others, so Faramir's resistance comes when he allows Frodo to keep wearing it, not when he releases Frodo. So why does he resist taking it from Frodo, even, ostensibly, to bring it to his Father? I think PJ should have either shown us that Faramir knows why the ring is dangerous, and thus resists out of wisdom, or else that Faramir has promised not to take what Frodo has, and thus resists to keep his word.

3. Why Osgiliath? Or at least, why the west bank? That just needlessly introduces the whole problem of crossing the river and then getting Frodo & co back again.

4. Why is Faramir's life "forfeit"? Would it really have taken too much time to insert a line somewhere (like immediately after capturing the hobbits) that says something to the effect that Faramir's father, the Steward of Gondor has ruled that no one is allowed to travel in Gondor or Ithilien without his leave, and that to disobey his orders brings the penalty of death? A simple line like that would explain both why Faramir has to bring the hobbits to his father and why letting them go meant forfeiting his life.

5. Does it bother no one that Faramir let Frodo go in the midst of a battle with the minions of the Dark Lord, including the Nazgul, all around? After witnessing how the Nazgul are drawn to the ring, and how the ring draws Frodo to them? Does that seem wise? It's like, all PJ wanted to show was Faramir going noble at the end and letting Frodo go, with no regard for the very circumstances he had put them in in order create that climactic moment. Climactic moment over, lets pretend all dangers have disappeared.

6. Not only did PJ seem to have misunderstood BF's character (as Cressida said in her excellent post), he also seems to have missed some of the essential points of the Quest itself. Like the fact that their only hope lies in secrecy, in drawing Sauron's attention elsewhere. I wanted to see Faramir truly getting the point of the Quest, the way Boromir never did. I wanted to see that he understood not only that the ring must be destroyed, but that the only hope of it's destruction lay in the sort of preposterous (and therefore unforeseeable) idea of two little hobbit nobodies sneaking into Mordor without Sauron noticing. I wanted to see him help them sneak off while drawing Sauron's forces away, thus truly joining in the Quest in his own way.

7. Faramir should have black hair. Not to nitpick or anything.

I think (hope) some of these issues will be addressed in the EE and so I may think better of FF after seeing that, but it still bugs me that PJ left us with such a confusing characterization of Faramir, and with so many plot holes.

Cressida

Council Member
Posts: 160
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: August 19, 2003 08:44

Thank you for your kind words, Gwenhwyfar! I enjoyed reading your post and overall, I agree that movie-Faramir doesn't work as well as he should. The viewer has to make an unreasonable number of leaps to figure him out at all.

Even conceding the need to show Faramir tempted by the ring, and some sort of character arc (which means, I guess, that characters have to become noble, instead of just being noble)

Yes, basically. Also it's a very common device in adapting a book to a movie to take something that a character already knows in the book--for example, that the Ring is evil--and show them learning that fact in the movie. (A similar example is Arwen's decision to give up her immortality. In the book she already decided that a long time ago, but in the movie, the decision has not been irrevocably made.)

However, that all comes from your knowledge of the books, it is entirely absent in the film. If the need to please his father were such an important part of his motivation, why not show it?

From what I understand, much of this is explained in the flashback sequence, which was apparently cut very late in the editing process. The rest of Faramir's part was written assuming that the viewer would already have the information about his family situation which was shown there. Without it, a lot of bits (like that one) don't make sense.

2. The temptation of the ring is for personal power, not as a gift for others, so Faramir's resistance comes when he allows Frodo to keep wearing it, not when he releases Frodo. So why does he resist taking it from Frodo, even, ostensibly, to bring it to his Father?

Excellent question. I still can't figure out that scene based on the theatrical cut. Maybe we're supposed to think that Frodo pulled the Ring away before it could take him over completely?

I think PJ should have either shown us that Faramir knows why the ring is dangerous, and thus resists out of wisdom, or else that Faramir has promised not to take what Frodo has, and thus resists to keep his word.

I'm not so sure that movie-Faramir does know the Ring is evil, though. The promise might be in. I really don't know.

3. Why Osgiliath? Or at least, why the west bank? That just needlessly introduces the whole problem of crossing the river and then getting Frodo & co back again.

Sounds like the extended edition will explain that. It doesn't seem to bother people who haven't read the book. "Why Osgiliath in the first place?" is a harder question. I think it was originally supposed to contrast with the Osgiliath scenes in the flashback. Either that or they just thought the set was cool.

4. Why is Faramir's life "forfeit"? Would it really have taken too much time to insert a line somewhere (like immediately after capturing the hobbits) that says something to the effect that Faramir's father, the Steward of Gondor has ruled that no one is allowed to travel in Gondor or Ithilien without his leave, and that to disobey his orders brings the penalty of death?

A line like that apparently was in the movie at some point, either in the flashback or possibly in the map scene, but it was cut. Again, they were doing a lot of cutting up to the last second, so there probably was no way to insert a new line at the time. I agree that cutting it in the first place was a stupid idea, though.

5. Does it bother no one that Faramir let Frodo go in the midst of a battle with the minions of the Dark Lord, including the Nazgul, all around?

If reports can be believed, he'll at least see Frodo and Sam out of Osgiliath in the Extended version.

I wanted to see Faramir truly getting the point of the Quest, the way Boromir never did.

Yes, I did too. He really was not well served by the theatrical cut.

7. Faramir should have black hair. Not to nitpick or anything.

Here, I'm going to disagree. In a movie with this many characters, I think it was smart of them to differentiate. If they went directly by the book, almost all the Men would look pretty much alike. Besides, it makes it easier to keep the book and movie versions of the characters separate!

I think (hope) some of these issues will be addressed in the EE and so I may think better of FF after seeing that, but it still bugs me that PJ left us with such a confusing characterization of Faramir, and with so many plot holes.

Absolutely. I am pinning a lot of hope to the EE, and I'm thankful that we have it to look forward to. But that doesn't change the fact that Faramir makes no sense in the TC.

I'm sure we'll all want to revisit this topic after we see the EE.

[Edited on 19/8/2003 by Cressida]

Gwenhwyfar

Council Member
Posts: 28
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: August 19, 2003 12:46

Cressida, I really appreciate your post because you have given me reason to believe (not just hope) that many of the probs with Faramir were, in fact, just a matter of over zealous editing, which will be rectified in the EE. It still bugs me that these crucial scenes were cut in the first place, though, but I will bite my lip and refrain from further criticism until November!

As far as the black hair goes.. I know, I know, you are right. I do believe Faramir was well cast, because actually does look like he could be Boromir's brother (my husband thought he was Boromir the first time he saw him) and if he had black hair he would look more like Aragorn's brother. Still, it is hard, when one has imagined him with black hair for the past 20 years, to accept the blond look!

ethuiliel

Council Member
Posts: 292
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: December 11, 2003 03:36

He did not have the love of his father, his people barely knew him, he only had the respect of those under his direction.

Are you referring to Book Faramir? Because if you are, he was loved and respected by most of the city. Didn't you notice Beregond and his son in RotK?

Anyone who thinks I might be biased (and let's face it, I'd think I was biased looking at my user name and avvie) should know that I didn't develop my faramir fixation until after reading the book and seeing the film twice more

I think that most, if not all, of the deepest, most devoted fans of Faramir, myself included, fell in love with him while reading the book, whether or not they saw the movie first. As for myself, I fell in love with him while reading RotK, and had already seen TTT, but only once, and hadn't paid much attention to Faramir.

As far as the black hair goes.. I know, I know, you are right. I do believe Faramir was well cast, because actually does look like he could be Boromir's brother (my husband thought he was Boromir the first time he saw him) and if he had black hair he would look more like Aragorn's brother. Still, it is hard, when one has imagined him with black hair for the past 20 years, to accept the blond look!

Well, I guess it makes sense to be able to tell the humans apart, but if you read carefully, Boromir should have dark hair too, in the beggining of the Council of Elrond chapter in FotR there is this quote: "...a tall man with a fair and noble face, dark-haired and grey-eyed, proud and stern of glance", and not much later this is revealled to be Boromir.

My personal opinion on Faramir is that book Faramir will always be better than movie Faramir. However, I read What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir? and then looked at the extended movie. It seems to me that the major changes are:
Frodo is more secretive in the movie.
They don't have lengthy discussions in the movie, so Faramir knows less.
Faramir's knowledge of the ring is different.
Faramir is as determined to prove himself to his father, but more willing to use any means.

GirlJockey17

Council Member
Posts: 76
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: December 12, 2003 01:23

Okya...I'm a fairly lazy person, so I did not read this entire thread, and I only read like the first paragraph of the first post, so someone might have already said this, but anyway, this is what I think:

Peter, Fran, and Phillipa changed Faramir's character for these reasons, if not more:

1. They wanted Faramir to seem more vulnerable to the ring. I mean, if his brother, Gandalf, and Galadriel, could be tempted by the ring, why not Faramir? He knows how much his father wants it, and does he not want to please Denethor?

2. They had to do something with Faramir, because they did not want to put Shelob into TTT. I watched the EE of TTT, and they said they didn't want two extremely climactic scenes to be going on at the same time. Phillipa put it best. She said that they'd, "cancel eachother out", as it were. And the Shelob part in the book, if you look at the time line, doesn't happen while the battle of Helms Deep is taking place. Gandalf is actually at Minas Tirith, gathering the troops and what not, almost at the exact same time Frodo is running from Shelob. I believe that they made a good choice in doing this in the movie.

Dissagree with me or don't, this is what I think...

ladylirenel

Council Member
Posts: 58
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: December 12, 2003 11:23

Faramir says he is going to bring his father a "mighty gift" (or something like that), and many on this board have defended FF by talking about his relationship with his father. However, that all comes from your knowledge of the books, it is entirely absent in the film. If the need to please his father were such an important part of his motivation, why not show it?

And we finally have! The EE DVD shed so much more light on Faramir and why he is the way he is. I started throwing things at my TV when Denethor started on his whole 'Always you cast a poor reflection on me' line. grrr. I also liked how Faramir's 'show his quality' line was used in the flashback. Certainly, these added scenes made Faramir much easier to understand. Though I did not like the extended Smeagol interogation scene. They should have kept that out.

ethuiliel

Council Member
Posts: 292
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: December 13, 2003 05:41

I don't think I mentioned this in my earlier post, but I do think that Faramir was greatly improved in the extended version, and now that I have watched it I have less to complain about. Still, Book Faramir will always be my favorite character, and in the movie I like Sam better than Faramir.

Gilwen_the_Sorceress

Council Member
Posts: 89
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: December 13, 2003 09:38

My two cents about Faramir :heart: vs Filmamir.
I just love Book Faramir, also like Wenham as Filmamir :heart:, hes a good actor indeed! all this about Filmamir is not actor´s blame, blame is on movie-cuts and first portrayal of the character, that was terrible for Filmamir, and I see there will be many cuts about him in Rotk, bad bad.
Hope to see some EE sooner or later

ah, still there{s no EE anywhere Are they in VHS or something?
Yes, he was a little bit evil in TTT, a big mistake for Faramir to my eyes, with or without EE, because Faramir never act violent or agresive, never, hes a sweet soul since the begining ,no mather of his father. Anyway, I still like him:heart: But I´m dissapointed with Rotk too, more cuts, and he will not be impostant as in book, wish they could had the chance to show more how he really is.

Gilwen_the_Sorceress

Council Member
Posts: 89
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: December 13, 2003 09:46

Boromir was better, even tough, the movie created the whole thing about the Ring and Denny looking for it..So far, in books, Boromir´s travel to Rivendell was because of a dream, a Faramir´s vision , anything to do with the One Ring (I was bothered movie wasn´t that way)... it was a kind of riddle they (Denny, Faramir and Boromir) wanted to know about. That riddle talked about the king of Gondor, Boromir realize that then at the council.
But when Book Boromir tried to take the ring at the end of Fotr book, he was even more evil with Frodo than Boromir in movies.

In fact, Boromir in movies is Book Faramir

and Filmamir is Bookamir:dizzy:

[Edited on 13/12/2003 by Gilwen_the_Sorceress]

Faramirsgirl73

Council Member
Posts: 21
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: August 09, 2006 02:24

Personally I think that people should watch the "appendix" discs especially the section in which Phillipa explains that Faramir saying in the book that he wouldn't touch it if he found it by the side of the road would destroy the choice to show that the ring was powerful enough to tempt anyone.Plus they also wanted Faramir to grow as a character.

Celebne

Council Member
Posts: 26
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: August 10, 2006 09:43

But when Book Boromir tried to take the ring at the end of Fotr book, he was even more evil with Frodo than Boromir in movies.

In fact, Boromir in movies is Book Faramir and Filmamir is Bookamir:dizzy:

This is nonsense! Faramir in the movies is a much better character as his brother. At last he doesn't take the ring. He releases Frodo and Sam.
Boromir had never Frodo let go, if Frodo didn't use the Ring. I am sure, that Boromir had killed Frodo. Faramir had the possibility to take the Ring from Frodo, but he didn't it.
Faramir's actions in the movies are much more understabler than in the books. Why can a man claim, he wouldn't take the Ring, if he lays on the highway? I am sure, Book!Faramir would be tempted be the Ring, if he had seen it like his alter ege in the movies.
And I like this idea with growing the charakter in the movies.
This are my two cents about this theme.

Edelweiss

Council Member
Posts: 3
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: September 11, 2006 10:27

I too believe that the change in Faramir's character was way too drastic. But the thing that really bothered me about this part of the movie was that Frodo shows the ring to the Nazgul. Sauron at this point does not know where the ring is, and as Saruman has captured two Hobbits, he would think that the ring is on its way to Isengard. And at around this point Saruman loses his Palantir and therefore Sauron would be thinking that Saruman must already have the ring and is not communicating. All stuff that keeps Sauron's eye firmly away from Frodo and Sam. In the movie Frodo stands on the parapet and shows the ring to the Nazgul. Obviously he would have reported back to his master. This really bothered me!

Fattybolger

Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: September 11, 2006 10:52

the thing that really bothered me about this part of the movie was that Frodo shows the ring to the Nazgul. Sauron at this point does not know where the ring is, and as Saruman has captured two Hobbits, he would think that the ring is on its way to Isengard. And at around this point Saruman loses his Palantir and therefore Sauron would be thinking that Saruman must already have the ring and is not communicating. All stuff that keeps Sauron's eye firmly away from Frodo and Sam. In the movie Frodo stands on the parapet and shows the ring to the Nazgul. Obviously he would have reported back to his master. This really bothered me!

Too right. The whole Osgiilath episode was imbecilic, but this floating Nazgul was probably the most imbecilic thing about it.

The scriptwriters could, I suppose, have made some sort of sense of it by making it clear that Sauron's subsequent attack on Osgiliath was motivated by a desire to get the Ring back, but I suppose that to make that simple connection was beyond them, even on their own terms.

Mind, I always wondered about the episode in the book where Frodo gets captured and Shagrat reports this capture to Sauron. Since Sauron knows that the Ring is 'borne by a hobbit', you'd think that the capture of a hobbit on his very borders would give Sauron a whacking great hint about what his enemies were up to. But maybe by that time he was convinced that Aragorn had it?

Book Faramir for ever! What the movie people did to him was tantamount to literary assassination.

[Edited on 12/9/2006 by Fattybolger]

Celebne

Council Member
Posts: 26
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: September 12, 2006 01:42

Book Faramir for ever! What the movie people did to him was tantamount to literary assassination.

Book Faramir is great, but I don't agree, that the movies are like a literery assassination to him. All characters are weaker in the movies. The worst change is the change of Aragorn's character, because he is a main character, and I really wonder why people don't rant about it. Perhaps, people have a problem with David Wenham. He is a very unknown actor from Australia, while Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean are very well known for their roles in Hollywood movies. DW doesn't seem to be the ideal of a handsome man like Faramir was described in the books. But while rereading the books I must notice, that Boromir was described much more handsomer than Sean Bean is. Viggo Mortensen seems to look much more handsomer than the ole, nasty ranger in the books. I think, that's the reason why fans forgive him the character changes.

But back to Faramir:
Faramir is only a supporting character. Tolkien himself let dissappear Faramir suddenly, when the 'Great Elessar' becomes King and spreads in Minas Tiritih. We don't know, if Faramir was really Elessar's busy Steward or lived only in retirement on Emyn Arnen. Tolkien doesn't mention our beloved Steward in the appendices, so we don't know anything about his future. We only know, that he and Éowyn had a son, called Elboron. And Faramir's grandson was Barahir. We don't know, if Barahir was Elboron's son. Perhaps, he was the son of another child of Faramir and Éowyn. I hope, Faramir was very happy with Éowyn in Ithilien.

peamaps

Council Member
Posts: 15
Send Message

RE: The Truth About Faramir?
on: October 23, 2011 03:04

I actually don't know any changes that it was good, necessary or that I liked. Specially pretending Glorfindel never existed. I wanted to see the twins too.
To put Haldir there for us to love him and then kill was also unacceptable.
Let's go to the FB page of Peter Jackson and ask him to give up an elf he is making. He's no good in changing things, let along creating, he's no tolkien.
Faramir should have been more him self, i'd love to see that in the movie. They already had found a good actor...what a shame.

1 2

Members Online

UserOnline

Messages

Forum

Welcome Guest