Why does Frodo reveal the Ring? [Archive]

Odo Proudfoot

12-20-2002, 05:11 PM

I have seen the movie once, and I must admit that I was probably not paying attention to the details of the scene towards the end where Frodo confronts the flying Nazgul. Some here say that he actually revealed the Ring at this point - I am not sure it really happens, but if so, why?
Also, movie-Faramir goes against strict orders by releasing Frodo with the Ring instead of taking him back to Denethor. This appears to be out of character for him - an unexpected act.

We all wonder about these scenes. Here's a bit of speculation:

In the book, Sauron unleashes his armies after Aragorn revealed himself to him in the Palantir. Suppose that scene is not in the movie - how then do you trigger Sauron's response?

By showing the Ring to be in Osgiliath, in control of Faramir. Sauron would not expect that Faramir would do anything else than take the ring to Minas Tirith and his father. He suddenly realises that he has run out of time, and needs to strike immediately. The host of Minas Morgul will ride out.

I hoped that in RotK we would get to see the parley with Saruman, the throwing of the Palantir and Pippin's temptation. I'm not so sure now :(

fG

Éomond

12-20-2002, 05:57 PM

I believe that Frodo revealed the Ring to the Winged Nazgul because the Ring is, and was, taking control of him, if Faramir han't shot the Winged Beast, the Ring would have been taken.

Kiroshar

12-20-2002, 06:45 PM

It looked to me like Frodo was going to put the ring on, as the power of the One Ring was going to will him to use its power but fall into oblivion by doing so and reveal him to Sauron at the same time.

Galadhwen

12-20-2002, 07:54 PM

I agree Kiroshar, poor Mister Frodo! Does anyone else think Faramir was portrayed a bit too harshly?
I thought it was clever how they took Faramir to Osgiliath cause as has been said he needs to be there for his retreat to Pelannor.
Them Nazgul steeds were perfect just the right mix of repulsion and all the rest of it. Shouldn't there have been a bigger deal with the whole "I'm gonner become really depressed, all hope has gone and try and hide somewhere" thing?

Odo Proudfoot

12-21-2002, 05:46 PM

In her review in the TTT Review thrad, Mrs. Maggot said:

Furthermore, the business of Frodo and the Nazgul was not even good action. Sauron knew (or at least suspected) that a "hobbit" had the Ring which is why in all instances, orcs serving both Sauron and Saruman had strict orders to capture hobbits alive, unsearched and unspoiled. However, Sauron never knew that any hobbit was east of the Anduin. For had that fact been discovered, the Dark Lord might have seen at last what the intention of the Fellowship was and he would have guarded all entrances into Mordor and put all of his efforts into a search for the Ring. Jackson's "vision" in this instance is unbelieveable and fatal to the plot line that he himself has adopted.

I am not convinced that Sauron would ever suspect that the Free people would want to destroy the Ring rather than use it themselves against him. In the Council of Elrond (Book 2, Chapter 2), Gandalf says:

"Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety on the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we put him out of reckoning."

Revealing the Ring in Osgiliath will lead Sauron to think that Gondor will start to use it very soon. I believe it would trigger him to release his armies immediately, before they have reached their full strength. As I said, in the book this is caused by Aragorn revealing himself as Isildur's heir in the Palantir (Book 5, Chapter 2).

It is different, but I don't think it is fatal to the storyline.

fG

Mrs. Maggott

12-21-2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by faded_Glory
In her review in the TTT Review thrad, Mrs. Maggot said:

I am not convinced that Sauron would ever suspect that the Free people would want to destroy the Ring rather than use it themselves against him. In the Council of Elrond (Book 2, Chapter 2), Gandalf says:

"Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety on the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we put him out of reckoning."

Revealing the Ring in Osgiliath will lead Sauron to think that Gondor will start to use it very soon. I believe it would trigger him to release his armies immediately, before they have reached their full strength. As I said, in the book this is caused by Aragorn revealing himself as Isildur's heir in the Palantir (Book 5, Chapter 2).
It is different, but I don't think it is fatal to the storyline.

That would be the case only as long as those suspected of possessing the Ring remained west of the Anduin! If the eventual single possessor intended to keep and use the Ring, what reason would he have for being east of the River? There could only be one conclusion drawn from the fact that the Ring is east of the Anduin and that is the obvious one: the intention is to destroy the Ring. Any other conclusion is nonsense! Why would the new Ring Lord bring the thing any closer to Sauron than was necessary and place himself and the Ring in danger of capture? No, Frodo's presence east of the River is kept a secret until he claims the Ring in Sammath Naur and the Dark Lord's folly - believing that the Ring is going to be used against him - is revealed. But had he known that the Ring bearer was east of the River, everything would have changed.

Niniel

12-21-2002, 05:56 PM

I don't really understand the purpose of introducing this scene. In the book, the only chance of deceiving Sauron was to make him believe that tehy wanted to use the Ring for themselves, and making Sauron think that Aragorn had returned to claim his kingship. In the meanwhile, Frodo could go into Mordor unseen. Now that the Nazgul has seen Frodo very close to Mordo, wearing the Ring, the whole idea of stealth has been destroyed. I would expect that all the Nazgul would return to pursue Frodo, instead of devoting all their attention to the battle with Aragorn.

Odo Proudfoot

12-21-2002, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
That would be the case only as long as those suspected of possessing the Ring remained west of the Anduin! If the eventual single possessor intended to keep and use the Ring, what reason would he have for being east of the River? There could only be one conclusion drawn from the fact that the Ring is east of the Anduin and that is the obvious one: the intention is to destroy the Ring. Any other conclusion is nonsense! Why would the new Ring Lord bring the thing any closer to Sauron than was necessary and place himself and the Ring in danger of capture? No, Frodo's presence east of the River is kept a secret until he claims the Ring in Sammath Naur and the Dark Lord's folly - believing that the Ring is going to be used against him - is revealed. But had he known that the Ring bearer was east of the River, everything would have changed.

You obviously feel strongly about this, but I am not so convinced that East or West of the Anduin really matters that much. In fact, Osgiliath lies right on the river, so as far as Sauron would know Frodo could have travelled down there by boat over the river itself, as the fastest way to Minas Tirith! One can also argue that going overland via the Eastern shore would avoid encounters with Saruman's forces - exactly what happened when they disembarked on the Western shore!

It doesn't appear so clear cut. As I said above, I will reserve my judgement to see how this aspect develops in RotK. There may be reasons for this change that we cannot see yet.

fG

Odo Proudfoot

12-21-2002, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Niniel
I don't really understand the purpose of introducing this scene. In the book, the only chance of deceiving Sauron was to make him believe that tehy wanted to use the Ring for themselves, and making Sauron think that Aragorn had returned to claim his kingship. In the meanwhile, Frodo could go into Mordor unseen. Now that the Nazgul has seen Frodo very close to Mordo, wearing the Ring, the whole idea of stealth has been destroyed. I would expect that all the Nazgul would return to pursue Frodo, instead of devoting all their attention to the battle with Aragorn.

But Osgiliath is only 20 miles from Minas Tirith! It would take Faramir less than a couple of hours to get the Ring to Denethor. This is what Sauron would expect him to do. Him releasing Frodo so that he can continue on the route to destroy the Ring is following exactly the strategy that Gandalf proposed at the Council of Elrond (although he wouldn't know that).

Faramir's about-face in the movie is caused by him seeing the destructive effects of the Ring on it's bearer first-hand, and that is why he lets Frodo go. In the book he doesn't need to see it to understand it -that is really the whole extent of the change. I suspect PJ wanted a visual clue for the benefit of non-readers, rather than some dialogue leading to the same end result.

The more I think about it, the less it seems to matter for the storyline.

fG

PeregrinT

12-22-2002, 12:31 AM

As with the rest of the movie, Mr. Jackson, has taken broad license, changing things here and there to suit his vision. It is very possible that the scene with Frodo and the Winged Nazgul was just a convenient way for Mr. Jackson to move the plot along in another gratifying action-packed way (grrrr). My theory is that the scene will not have any impact on the overall storyline, that the Nazgul's direct mental link to Sauron wasn't working when Frodo revealed the ring to it. (Didn't you notice the Nazgul banging his head, trying to reestablish the connection? Where's the pink Eveready bunny when you need him?) Then (this isn't seen in the movie--maybe later in the extended version), the Nazgul falls from his wounded mount, sustaining a concussion that results in amnesia, wiping away all memory of the Ring and it's location.

Odo Proudfoot

12-22-2002, 01:14 AM

Read my post immediately above yours.

fG

aragil

12-22-2002, 01:18 AM

Nazgul can't see much of anything. They can sense the proximity of the Ring, but anyone without amnesia will recall that their 'Ring-dar' isn't too well tuned based on their performances in the Shire and in Bree (both movie and books here). There is no indication that the Nazgul recognized who was carrying the Ring in Osgiliath, though doubtlessly this would have changed had Frodo actually put the Ring on (good save, Sam).

*************Book Spoilers*************

MM- before you go around beating up the movie too much on this point, let's remember what happens in the books:From Appendix B, the tale of years Third Age 3019
March 17th: Shagrat brings Frodo's cloak, mail-shirt, and sword to Barad-dur.
March 25th: Frodo and Samwise reach the Sammath Naur. Gollum seizes the Ring and falls in the Cracks of Doom. Downfall of Barad-dur and passing of Sauron Hmm. What sort of information do you think Shagrat could have passed along to ol' Sauron, along with the cloak, mail-shirt, and sword set? From the Choices of Master Samwise
{Shagrat}'And we've struck a bit of luck at last: got something that Lugbúrz wants.'
{Gorbag}'Lugbúrz wants it, eh? What is it, d'you think? Elvish it looked to me, but undersized. What' the danger in a thing like that?'
...
{Shagrat}'About an hour ago, just before you saw us. A message came: Nazgul uneasy. Spies feared on Stairs. Double vigilance. Patrol to head of Stairs.
...
{Shagrat}'Yes, very funny: lights and shouting and all. But Shelob was on the go. My lads saw her and her Sneak.'
{Gorbag}'Her Sneak? What's that?'
{Shagrat}'You must have seen him: little thin black fellow; like a spider himself, or perhaps more like a starved frog. He's been here before. Came out of Lugbúrz the first time, years ago, and we had word from High Up to let him pass.'
...
{Gorbag}'Who cut the cords she'd put round him, Shagrat? Same one as cut the web. Didn't you see that? And who stuck a pin into Her Ladyship? Same one, I reckon. And where is he? Where is he, Shagrat?'
...
{Shagrat}'Now now. I have my orders. And it's more than my belly's worth, or yours, to break 'em. Any trespasser found by the guard is to be held at the tower. Prisoner is to be stripped. Full description of every article, garment, weapon, letter, ring or trinket is to be sent to Lugbúrz at once, and to Lugbúrz only.'From the Tower of Cirith Ungol
He sprang out to meet Shagrat with a shout. he was no longer holding the Ring, but it was there, a hidden power, a cowing menace to the slaves of Mordor;
Hmm. So the info that likely got to Sauron was that an 'undersized, elvish-looking' spy was captured on the stair, and he was accompanied by 'her ladyship's sneak'. All of this after the Nazgul were uneasy down in Morgul vale. In the ensuing struggle the spy was rescued by his other companion, who wielded a 'hidden power' that cowed Shagrat. And, lest there can be any doubt, Sauron had instructed his captains to search prisoners for any Rings they might be carrying into Mordor. Hmmm. Suffice it to say that if we're going to let Tolkien get away with this stuff in the book, then we shouldn't be too critical about PJ and Osgiliath.

FREEDOM!

12-22-2002, 01:31 AM

Frodo revealed th ring because it had taken over his mind, and because he is the abscent minded ring-bearer.:D ;) :rolleyes:

PeregrinT

12-22-2002, 02:07 AM

I guess it is a question of how faithful you want the movie to be to the book. I can understand a bit of modifying to transform a book into a movie. That's the challenge. Adding parts to further illuminate the story (such as the love story between Aragorn and Arwen in the 1st movie) are certainly acceptable because it isn't changing the map of the story. (I use the word "map," because when I read LOTR, I always feel like I am traveling with the Fellowship.)

At what point, though, do these changes get out of hand? At what point does one stop rationalizing over the changes that were made ("Aragorn's fall from the cliff is a great way to segue to Arwen & Elrond's conflict;" "Mr. Jackson introduces the Elves to Helms Deep to show that they honor their past alliances with Men"--huuhh??? Is it really necessary? And at the expense of the rich story available from the book?) and realize that Mr. Tolkien's story is getting obscured? The depth of the original novel, like Faramir's character, is lost.

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 02:21 AM

MM- before you go around beating up the movie too much on this point, let's remember what happens in the books:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Appendix B, the tale of years Third Age 3019
March 17th: Shagrat brings Frodo's cloak, mail-shirt, and sword to Barad-dur.
March 25th: Frodo and Samwise reach the Sammath Naur. Gollum seizes the Ring and falls in the Cracks of Doom. Downfall of Barad-dur and passing of Sauron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but by that time, Aragorn has revealed himself and Sauron is sure that this, Isildur's heir, is the new Ring Lord. As much is said at the Council that convenes after the victory before the gates of Minas Tirith: that Sauron will try to "trap the fly and pull the sting", meaning that Sauron will try to capture Aragorn and retrieve the Ring.

His assumption, therefore, is that the hobbit is a spy (as noted). Perhaps Sauron believes that hobbits possess some sort of talent that makes them good spies (after all, Bilbo managed to get in and out of an orc stronghold alive!). But by the time Frodo's gear reaches the Black Throne, Sauron is convinced that Aragorn has the Ring and so thinks nothing of Frodo, especially as he was searched (FOR THE RING, remember) and nothing was found!

However, at the time that Frodo shows the Ring in the film, not only doesn't Sauron know that Aragorn is king, according to Jackson,
Aragorn doesn't know it! :rolleyes:

FREEDOM!

12-22-2002, 02:28 AM

What??????? U just totaly lost me????:confused: :confused: :confused:

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
What??????? U just totaly lost me????:confused: :confused: :confused:
I must assume that you are referring to my subtle reference to Jackson's Aragorn who has rejected his heritage and "doesn't want to be king".

Anyway, to put it more plainly, at the time in the film that Frodo reveals the Ring to the Nazgul, that information would probably have spelled doom for the Quest. Later on in the book, when a hobbit (Frodo) is captured and stipped of his belongings, the Dark Lord has already learned that an heir to Elendil lives and believes that he has the Ring, so Frodo's presence in Mordor is not seen as anything other than the presence of a spy.

Goro Shimura

12-22-2002, 02:41 AM

Way to go, Mrs. Maggot!

Your logic is unassailable.

***

One things sure. In all the stuff I've seen about the director and the actors... they never talk about how great Tolkien is. It's always we worked so hard... we gambled so much... the other actors are so wonderful....

For most of them this is just another production. Another job.

They do not acknowledge whose shoulders they're standing on.

***

And another thing.... If we took the same sort of liberties in putting Bible stories to the screen... would we have the same trouble in seeing how badly the themes are altered/destroyed?

Ah, but this is just a rip-roaring good story you say. But I say that Tolkien has written more than just a plot-- and more than just great characters. He's made an elaborate cycle of myths. He's made an incredibly detailed sub-creation.

A movie of Tolkien's books can be successful only if they are treated as history. That's what the LotR is, after all. Can you imagine the confusion that would be wrought if you made a movie about Robert E. Lee and made changes of the same scale?

Unbelievable!

aragil

12-22-2002, 02:42 AM

You're saying that when Sauron hears that there's "A hobbit-size spy on the borders of Mordor travelling with Gollum and another companion bearing a 'nameless menace of power and doom'; the three of whom have managed to fight off Shelob and tricked two entire Orc battallions into anhilating eachother", that after hearing this he shouldn't even think of the Ring- not even place a solitary guard at the Sammath Naur? Just because Aragorn has looked in the Palantir and (obviously) never used the Ring?
However at the same time you believe that after the Nazgul report to Sauron that the "City of Men with the Captains of Gondor in it" also contains the Ring, that Sauron'll immediately assume the Ring is coming his way? I'm sorry, I just don't follow that logic.

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by aragil
You're saying that when Sauron hears that there's "A hobbit-size spy on the borders of Mordor travelling with Gollum and another companion bearing a 'nameless menace of power and doom'; the three of whom have managed to fight off Shelob and tricked two entire Orc battallions into anhilating eachother", that after hearing this he shouldn't even think of the Ring- not even place a solitary guard at the Sammath Naur? Just because Aragorn has looked in the Palantir and (obviously) never used the Ring?
However at the same time you believe that after the Nazgul report to Sauron that the "City of Men with the Captains of Gondor in it" also contains the Ring, that Sauron'll immediately assume the Ring is coming his way? I'm sorry, I just don't follow that logic.

My dear Aragil: Why not? You are more than willing to accept every idiocy Mr. Jackson foists upon us, why not assume that Sauron might believe that the hobbits have some unique power (after all, he knows nothing about them), but not necessarily that of the Ring?!

For one thing, he could never accept the fact that Aragorn, heir to Isildur who took the Ring in the first place, would give it up to someone like Frodo, much less seek to destroy it using the weak and feeble hobbit. Gandalf has said as much. For another thing, his Nazgul have not sensed the Ring's presence in Mordor which might have alerted him to what was going on. I don't know why this is true, but it probably has something to do with everyone's preoccupation with the war. Then you have the downfall of the Witch King and Sauron's defeat at Minas Tirith. Knowing how Sauron thinks, why is it so hard for you to believe that he assumes that Aragorn has used the Ring, or else how could such things have happened?

No, I think that my logic is dead on. Frodo walking around Ithilien with the Ring desplayed like a sorority girl's love token, offering it to every winged Nazgul that flies by is a study in silliness.:rolleyes:

Mindy_O_Lluin

12-22-2002, 03:14 AM

It is very possible that the scene with Frodo and the Winged Nazgul was just a convenient way for Mr. Jackson to move the plot along in another gratifying action-packed way (grrrr). My theory is that the scene will not have any impact on the overall storyline

Ah, but by that time, Aragorn has revealed himself and Sauron is sure that this, Isildur's heir, is the new Ring Lord.

In movie version TTT, this is why, as I feared after reading early reviews weeks ago, I believe we will see no more of Saruman's palantir. Neither will Pippin or Aragorn. This scene is specifically inserted to give Sauron cause to move on Gondor now. (This is what I suspect anyway. If I am proven wrong, then this scene will be gratuitous.)

aragil

12-22-2002, 03:24 AM

Once again I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe it in the books, I'm saying that if we do believe it in the books then we should also give some leeway to the movies, which, you might have forgotten, are based on the books.
In any case, Frodo in the movie DOES NOT OFFER THE RING TO THE NAZGUL!!! I thought we'd been over this before- he tries to put it on, doubtlessly in response to the will of the Black Rider, just like at Weathertop. Before we go around complaining about what a bunch of silliness this is, we should consider what the source is: From the Stairs of Cirith Ungol
Frodo felt his senses reeling and his mind darkening. Then suddenly, as if some force were at work other than his own wil, he began to hurry, tottering forward, his groping hands held out, his head lolling from side to side.
...
Even as these thoughts pierced him {Frodo} with dread and held him bound as with a spell, the Rider halted suddenly, right before the entrance of the bridge, and behind him all the host stood still. There was a pause, a dead silence. Maybe it was the Ring that called to the Wraith-lord, and for a moment he was troubled, sensing some other power whithin his valley. This way and that turned the dark head helmed and crowned with fear, sweeping the shadows with its unseen eyes. Frodo waited, like a bird at the approach of a snake, unable to move. And as he waited, he felt, more urgent than ever before, the command that he should put on the Ring. But great as the pressure was, he felt no inclination now to yield to it. He knew that the Ring would only betray him, and that he had not, even if he put it on, the power to face the Morgul-king--not yet. There was no longer any answer to that command in his own will, dismayed by terror though it was, and he felt only the beating upon him of a great power from outside. It took his hand, and as Frodo watched with his mind, not willing it but in suspense (as if he looked on some old story far away), it moved the hand inch by inch toward the chain upon his neck.
This is a Nazgul sensing the Ring on the borders of Mordor, rather more dangerous than sensing it in Osgiliath where at least the Nazgul could assume men of Gondor possessed it.

Goro Shimura

12-22-2002, 03:35 AM

Aragil... that's such a different scene!

If the Nazgul had known that the Ring was in the valley... that would have been GAME OVER for the Free Peoples. He knew something was wrong... but he couldn't put his finger on what it was. "For a moment he was troubled, sensing some other power whithin his valley."

And I don't think Frodo tried to kill Sam after that scene, either! Oh no... at this point Frodo is much more able to resist the Nazgul than he had been at Weathertop.

Action Jackson has not only murdered a great many characters... he's also redefined the nature of the Ring and the Nazgul. Such changes may be small... and they may be inspired by other bits and fragments in Tolkien's works... but the consequences of these changes can only mushroom larger and larger.

This leads ultimately to tragic results in Tone, Texture, Theme, and Meaning.

FREEDOM!

12-22-2002, 04:01 AM

All jakcsons trying to do is to make the movie more interesting, but the book is interesting enough so who knows.

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Goroshimura
Aragil... that's such a different scene!

If the Nazgul had known that the Ring was in the valley... that would have been GAME OVER for the Free Peoples. He knew something was wrong... but he couldn't put his finger on what it was. "For a moment he was troubled, sensing some other power whithin his valley."

And I don't think Frodo tried to kill Sam after that scene, either! Oh no... at this point Frodo is much more able to resist the Nazgul than he had been at Weathertop.

Action Jackson has not only murdered a great many characters... he's also redefined the nature of the Ring and the Nazgul. Such changes may be small... and they may be inspired by other bits and fragments in Tolkien's works... but the consequences of these changes can only mushroom larger and larger.

This leads ultimately to tragic results in Tone, Texture, Theme, and Meaning.
Yes, Jackson has weakened Frodo greatly which is going to make it even more difficult for ROTK to be anywhere near to the book. From the beginning, Jackson has devalued the hobbit: he took his moment of "glory" from him at the fords, giving it instead to Arwen while Frodo lay inert and dying in her arms, saved only by her intervention and her exchange of her grace for his life.

By the time Frodo reaches Osgiliath (of all places!) he is comparing himself in his own mind to Gollum. Frodo has possessed the Ring for how long? Under a year (as opposed to the 17 years he possessed it in the book)? Gollum possessed the Ring for 500 years even in the film and Frodo can already see himself in the wretched creature! I would not say by any means that Frodo is "the best hobbit in the Shire" as Bilbo and Gandalf have stated.

Ancalagon

12-22-2002, 05:09 AM

Personally, I am worried about Frodo terrible 'rolling-inward-eye' affliction that seemed to happen every few minutes. I mean, one moment you are watching a conversation, next thing he seems to be trying to peer inside his own head...what's up with that?

Frodo's character from the outset has been weak, and as the film progresses it has become steadily weaker. Don't get me wrong, his relationship with Gollum was excellent IMHO. However, the general failure for him to actually manage anything alone by virtue of his own wisdom, learning and initiative leaves him generally the poorer relation to his 'actual' character as we would understand him.

Isenho

12-22-2002, 05:32 AM

yeah i agree with Ancalagon about Frodo's eye rolls. also, somtimes you hear his voice as being REALLY deep and scary!

aragil

12-22-2002, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Ancalogon
Frodo's character from the outset has been weak, and as the film progresses it has become steadily weaker. Don't get me wrong, his relationship with Gollum was excellent IMHO. However, the general failure for him to actually manage anything alone by virtue of his own wisdom, learning and initiative leaves him generally the poorer relation to his 'actual' character as we would understand him.Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
By the time Frodo reaches Osgiliath (of all places!) he is comparing himself in his own mind to Gollum. Frodo has possessed the Ring for how long? Under a year (as opposed to the 17 years he possessed it in the book)? Gollum possessed the Ring for 500 years even in the film and Frodo can already see himself in the wretched creature! I would not say by any means that Frodo is "the best hobbit in the Shire" as Bilbo and Gandalf have stated. Anc and MM- What's the fear here? That Frodo is so weak now that he won't be credible as a failure at the cracks of doom? Lest we forget, Frodo is fighting the long (or not so long in this case) defeat- in the end he does not succeed due to his own innate strength. What is the problem if he looks compartively weaker at an earlier part in the story? The fact of the matter is that his will still fails him at the cracks, and he is saved (in part) because of the mercy he has shown to Gollum. And THAT has been very well conveyed in the film, IMO.
For those of you complaining about the strength of his character he had three very strong moments in the films already- the first in Bag End where he accepts the mission to take the Ring out of the Shire, the second in Rivendell when he volunteers to take the Ring to Morrrdorrr, and the third at Amon Hen when he decides to leave the rest of the Fellowship. Add to that the way in which he handles Gollum in the second movie. This does take strength, just not the same type you use to attack a Nazgul. I guess this sort of strength of character is not enough for you- you all want him fighting Nazgul as well? Is this the same crowd the complains so loudly about there being "too much action and not enough character development" in Two Towers? Frankly, I don't know what would please you all, other than the movie having not been made in the first place. If it's Jackson's invention, then it is a travesty. If it's a scene that Jackson has moved from a different part of the books, then it is a butchering. If it's the same dialogue in the same place then it is poorly acted, poorly executed, or misinterpreted. If it's something different, but equally unbelievable to an event that happens in the books then suddenly it defies all laws of logic and would immediately result in the end of the Ring quest. I suppose that if Frodo and Sam are mistaken for men instead of Orcs in Mordor in the movie version of RotK, then you guys will once again be up in arms. "How could anyone think that Hobbits are men? Orcs are completely understandable and that doesn't in the least stretch believability because Orcs are mindless hive creatures that can't tell a Stoor from spoor. But for Jackson to have the Hobbits mistaken for short men? Please."
The facts of the movie are thus: Frodo almost put on the Ring due to the will of the Nazgul. He did not offer it to the Nazgul, and for all the Nazgul know the Ring is now heading from Osgiliath to Minas Tirith. Faramir did not steal the Ring or succomb to it's temptation in any way, thus showing the difference between himself and a man like Boromir. Frodo's resistance to the Ring is decreasing, exactly as it did in the books. Gollum for a time seemed to be changed, but because of perceived injustice towards him he never fully repented.
The facts of the book are thus: Frodo almost put on the Ring due to the will of the Nazgul. He did not put on the Ring when prompted by the Witch-King, and for whatever reason the Witch-King did not realize that the Ring was present in his valley. Faramir did not steal he Ring or in any way succomb to it's powers, thus redessing the mis-deeds of his brother. The Ring is getting hold of Frodo- slowing him down and changing him. The mercy and pity shown by Frodo to Gollum for a while reformed the wretch, but in the end his lust for the Ring (combined with a poorly-timed comment by Sam) erases what good had come over the creature.
Between Goro and MM I have little doubt that none of the above will seem to be significantly related between book and movie, and I'm sure that the details which I didn't mention will seem to be far the more important in terms of exposition. Oh well, perhaps somebody out there understands me (I can only hope).

Odo Proudfoot

12-22-2002, 02:15 PM

I am with you, Aragil. It seems there are people here who would resent any change to the book, without acknowledging that without changes we would never see a LotR movie in the first place.

I have outlined similar logic to yours earlier in this thread, about the film events triggering Sauron's premature attack on Minas Tirith. Yet none of these vocal critics have acknowledged the logic of this argument.

Never mind.

fG

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 02:47 PM

You know, I get a bit of a pain when those who believe that everything Mr. Jackson does is "just fine, thank you" (no matter how idiotic it is) constantly attempt to bolster their argument by saying, "and if he hadn't done "that" (whatever it is), you wouldn't have had a film! So there!!" To begin with, who cares? If we have lived this long without a film - and we have - we could live longer, perhaps forever without one. Certainly blind people who have read the book in braile are doing nicely without Mr. Jackson's version, thank you.

But, to get back to the question under debate, you are mistaking weakness of character with physical weakness. Yes, Frodo takes the Ring implying strength of character, but Jackson is weakening him far too fast physically for him to make credible the last haul through Mordor. Remember, Frodo still has to encounter Shelob whose wound will inflict an even further physical weakening and he must also undergo capture and torture by the orcs - if that is in fact in the last film. Then there is the long march through Mordor in which he suffers hunger, thirst, exhaustion and the torment of the Ring.

I said of the business at the Prancing Pony when Frodo receives the frightening vision of the Burning Eye, that it was far too early for the Ring to be exhibiting any such demonstrations of power. Remember, Bilbo used it for years. Don't tell me every time he put it on he saw that! In the book, although Frodo has been affected by the power of the Ring, his real "deterioration" begins when he enters the Morgul Vale and it continues until Mount Doom. However, he still possesses enough strength that his fall to the Ring at the climax is usually a surprise to first-time readers.

However, by the time Mr. Jackson gets his Frodo to Sammath Naur, he's going to have to perform yet another "resurrection".

Odo Proudfoot

12-22-2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
You know, I get a bit of a pain when those who believe that everything Mr. Jackson does is "just fine, thank you" (no matter how idiotic it is) constantly attempt to bolster their argument by saying, "and if he hadn't done "that" (whatever it is), you wouldn't have had a film! So there!!" To begin with, who cares? If we have lived this long without a film - and we have - we could live longer, perhaps forever without one. Certainly blind people who have read the book in braile are doing nicely without Mr. Jackson's version, thank you.

Well, I for one would care - a lot. I really enjoy these movies and I am grateful that I have the chance to see them. Would you want to deny me that opportunity?
A lot of people have lived happily without having had the chance to read Tolkien's books. Does that mean that they might as well never have been written?
Let me tell you a little secret: you don't actually have to go and see PJ's films if you don't like them. It would save you a bit of money and a lot of agony.

Also, I have not seen that many people who believe that everything that PJ does is just fine. I certainly have a few issues with TTT, the main one being the Aragorn-over-the-cliff-and-apparently-dying scene. I could well have done without it because I don't think the movie would have been very different if that entire thing had been cut (I am not against the warg attack itself, I thought that was actually pretty cool).

But the Faramir thing, now that I have thought a lot more about it, is to me at least really not a big deal anymore.

Finally, I would like to suggest that those who have such vehement objections to certain changes could spend a bit of time thinking about how they would have handled the issues differently if they had been the ones making a movie of LotR. I am really interested in alternatives to PJ's decisions. Obviously, such alternatives need to be realistic and cinematographically plausible.

But, to get back to the question under debate, you are mistaking weakness of character with physical weakness. Yes, Frodo takes the Ring implying strength of character, but Jackson is weakening him far too fast physically for him to make credible the last haul through Mordor. Remember, Frodo still has to encounter Shelob whose wound will inflict an even further physical weakening and he must also undergo capture and torture by the orcs - if that is in fact in the last film. Then there is the long march through Mordor in which he suffers hunger, thirst, exhaustion and the torment of the Ring.

I think I'd rather wait until I have seen the actual RotK film before commenting on it one way or another.

I said of the business at the Prancing Pony when Frodo receives the frightening vision of the Burning Eye, that it was far too early for the Ring to be exhibiting any such demonstrations of power. Remember, Bilbo used it for years. Don't tell me every time he put it on he saw that!

It is called cinema.
Also, the Ring affects different people in different ways. I can see how it may have had a greater effect on Frodo, especially because he knows what it is, whereas Bilbo never did.

In the book, although Frodo has been affected by the power of the Ring, his real "deterioration" begins when he enters the Morgul Vale and it continues until Mount Doom. However, he still possesses enough strength that his fall to the Ring at the climax is usually a surprise to first-time readers.

I think it is a gradual process in the book as well, starting in the Emyn Muil. Your interpretation is different. That is fine, there is nothing wrong with different people having different interpretations, whether it is me, you or PJ. Maybe you could have liked the film a bit more if PJ had bothered to consult you during the shooting?

However, by the time Mr. Jackson gets his Frodo to Sammath Naur, he's going to have to perform yet another "resurrection".

I don't hope so. But I prefer to wait until I have seen that film before pouring scorn on it.

fG

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 08:41 PM

No one has said that the films are "no good". However, attempting to "shut down" criticism, debate and discussion by saying that we "wouldn't have had a film otherwise", or "why don't you stay home" shows nothing more than a total acceptance of whatever Mr. Jackson chooses to do even to the point of declaring his deviations "superior" to the book upon which is it based.

What I wish to know is this: do those who espouse this odd position mean that we wouldn't have had a successful film without Mr. Jackson's particular revisions or, rather, that we wouldn't have had a successful film if Professor Tolkien's story had been more faithfully followed?

And please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to why you believe your particular position so that at least I, too, can "see the light"?

Odo Proudfoot

12-22-2002, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
No one has said that the films are "no good". However, attempting to "shut down" criticism, debate and discussion by saying that we "wouldn't have had a film otherwise", or "why don't you stay home" shows nothing more than a total acceptance of whatever Mr. Jackson chooses to do even to the point of declaring his deviations "superior" to the book upon which is it based.

1. I am not at all trying to shut down the debate. I do, however, feel the need to point out that criticising should be a balancing act, weighing the ideal against the possible. My view is that some here don't show sufficient appreciation of this dichotomy. Hence my suggestion that the critics propose alternatives for those things in the films they don't like. I think that would be fair to PJ, the film makers and anyone here who has not yet seen the movie.

2. I would appreciate if you could try and respond to what I actually write, and not your interpretation of my thoughts. Nowhere in my posts have I shown 'a total acceptance of whatever Mr. Jackson chooses to do'.

3. I don't think I have declared that his deviations are superior, but I do feel that changes are sometimes, if not often, required when transposing a story from book to film. I try to judge his changes against more criteria than just faithfulness to the written text - we must also consider the challenge to produce an effective film.

What I wish to know is this: do those who espouse this odd position mean that we wouldn't have had a successful film without Mr. Jackson's particular revisions or, rather, that we wouldn't have had a successful film if Professor Tolkien's story had been more faithfully followed?

Not necessarily. I do believe though that PJ has his reasons for making the changes, that they were carefully considered, and I think that knowing, or at the very least exploring, these reasons may help in forming a considered opinion as to their need and effectiveness (or lack thereof). I do think that literally following Tolkiens text would not result in a watcheable movie, quite apart from the fact that it would never be an economic proposition.

And please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to why you believe your particular position so that at least I, too, can "see the light"?

I hope the above helps. We can always discuss individual changes in more detail. The discussion in this thread has certainly helped me in forming an opinion on the Faramir changes. Straight after my first viewing I was quite upset about them, but by now I have come to realise that they are nowhere as damaging and far-fetched as I initially thought. In fact my re-evaluation has benefited from your contributions, which helped me in understanding the various issues involved, and I want to thank you for that. I still need to see the next film to be able to come to a final conclusion on their merit.

fG

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 10:27 PM

You see, my problem is that when Mr. Jackson began his (at the time very slight) deviations in FOTR, we were told that they were being done for reasons of time and budget constraints. That made sense, but when some of his changes did not seem to be necessary for either reason and did apparently change the characters (seldom for the better, I might add), there were those of us who wondered why if no time was saved by the change, Mr. Jackson just didn't stick with the original theme.

Well, of course, as we have come to know, time and budget reasons obviously were not the reasons for many of these changes, especially in TTT where whole invented plot lines and scenes are added. Indeed, so grievous are the changes in TTT, that FOTR appears to be an almost word-for-word rendering of the book! One can only wait in dire anticipation of what TTT means for ROTK! And my question remains, WHY? If time and money were not the reasons - and obviously they weren't, what part of Tolkien's story did Mr. Jackson think worthy of translation to film?

I am confused, really I am. If you love the story, its moral and literary theme and its characters, if you think it's the best thing that has ever been written, why would you go off on such incredibly useless and, frankly, dramatically inferior "plot lines"? If you don't trust your source, why use it in the first place? Yes, edit. You have to. Yes, consolidate and shorten when and if necessary. But don't change the meaning of the story! and that is what has happened even if the Ring does go into the Fire and Aragorn is crowned and he and Arwen marry. LOTR is far more than such narrowly defined plot themes but apparently, Mr. Jackson either can't see that - or doesn't want to. :(

Odo Proudfoot

12-22-2002, 11:14 PM

Mrs. Maggot, I want to reply to your post in some detail, but I think it is better if I do that in a new thread on the 'Tolkien's LotR versus Peter Jackson's LotR' forum instead of here. Please give me a bit of time to get my thoughts together.

fG

KingOfAngmar

12-22-2002, 11:27 PM

In some of the posts I have read, people have said that when Frodo reveals the ring to the Nazgul, that Sauron will simply assume that the ring is on the way to Minas Tirith. I agree that this is a logical conclusion to draw from this scene. However, what has been worrying me is that this will lead to other annoying plot changes.

If Pippin now looks into the palantier, what is Sauron going to think? In the book he assumes Saruman has captured the ring-bearing hobbit and is torturing him by exposing him to Sauron, thus he hastily dispatches a Nazgul to capture him and doesn't bother probing deeply into his mind. But now in the film he will no longer assume that this hobbit is the ring-bearer and will not release him quite so quickly and will spend some time reading his mind and discover all of Gandalf's plans (possibly). One way around this possible plot hole would be not to include the palantier scene in RotK but then you are left with there being no real reason for Gandalf to take Pippen to Minas Tirith.

This is why I don’t understand the changes PJ has made to story, surely by altering the plot in this way he’s creating more problems for himself and in effect now has to rewrite more aspects of Tolkien’s masterpiece.

Mrs. Maggott

12-22-2002, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by KingOfAngmar

If Pippin now looks into the palantier, what is Sauron going to think?

I don't think you'll have to worry about that! If Jackson tries to put in all the stuff he has left out, he'll need another two movies especially if he continues to put in his own plot elements already so well known on this forum. No, I don't think we're going to have the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman (at least not as it was in the book), nor Pippin's experiment with the palantir - and all that stems from that (or at least as they appear in the book). Yes, there will be a confrontation between the wizards, but certainly not the "intellectual" one Tolkien presented. No doubt it will be another "shoot-em-up" such as we have been treated to so far in the films. Intellectual debate apparently is not a Jackson film strongpoint.

What this means for the third film is not clear, but somehow at the very least, Mr. Jackson will have to sufficiently get "back on track" to have the large plot elements in place at the end - or it will have all been for nothing.

KingOfAngmar

12-23-2002, 12:12 AM

Yes, I have a feeling that the confrontation scene will be cut short but, as I said, with no palantier what reason would Gandalf have for taking Pippin to Gondor? Hopefully Merry and Pippin won't stay together as that would destroy, or at least interfere, with their development into the warriors of Rohan and Gondor. I suppose it's not too important with respect to the grand scheme of things but it would give them both their much needed character growth.

Mrs. Maggott

12-23-2002, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by KingOfAngmar
Yes, I have a feeling that the confrontation scene will be cut short but, as I said, with no palantier what reason would Gandalf have for taking Pippin to Gondor? Hopefully Merry and Pippin won't stay together as that would destroy, or at least interfere, with their development into the warriors of Rohan and Gondor. I suppose it's not too important with respect to the grand scheme of things but it would give them both their much needed character growth.
I don't know, in TTT I got the very sneaking suspicion that Mr. Jackson - having found comic relief in Gimli - is losing interest in the two hobbits. They were very poorly developed in the TTT and almost seemed to be an "excuse" for having the cg Ents. I am probably wrong, but I do not see the Director spending much more time on them in the last film.

Odo Proudfoot

12-23-2002, 12:53 AM

I think Merry and Pippin are poorly developed in the TTT book as well. Apart from their initial escape they are quite passive, sitting around doing nothing whilst the Ents are making up their mind, and having a meal and a smoke at the end. In fact, they have a greater impact on the course of events in the film than in the book!

Critisising PJ for downplaying the two hobbits role isn't fair when he does in fact the opposite.

fG

aragil

12-23-2002, 12:59 AM

Hmm, MM. Seems like you're working yourself into a bit of a tizzy, there. Before you get too upset with the lack of Palantir and intellectual Saruman/Gandalf discussion, remember that you're assuming that these don't happen, without one credible bit of evidence to support your assumption. Given what you've earlier said about Sauron and his assumptions on the whereabouts of the Ring, I'd think that you would know better.

Personally I did see a Merry and Pippin growth in this picture. MM has already alluded to one of the aspects of this growth- they are not nearly as funny this time. Much of their humor in the first one came from stuff that the characters would think of as funny- stuff they were doing to amuse themselves. This is immature, and the very fact that it doesn't occur in the second movie shows us that they are maturing (although I'm sure MM prefers to colour it as "PJ forgot about them"). Next off, we have the bit between Merry and Pippin- Pippin says that they can always go back to the Shire- to which Merry replies that if things keep up there will be no Shire to go back to. This is great stuff, and clearly shows a growth from the two Hobbits who were setting off fireworks and stealing crops in the first film. This line really hits home for Pippin, and it is he who resolves to do something about it (Merry being presumably too downtrodden at this time). This is one of the first glimmers of "intelligence" (as Pippin called it back in Rivendell) that the young Took has shown in the movies thus far- the other glimmers coming when he removes his brooch as a sign for Strider and where is able to cut his bonds and free himself during the Uruk-hai/Rohirrim fracas. These bits are all growth from Pippin in the first film, and nicely mirror his growth in the second novel. Considering how seldome we see the duo in the second film, I thought that they got a considerable amount of growth. Can't wait to see the next film, as I'm sure the trend will continue.

KingOfAngmar

12-23-2002, 01:11 AM

I think Merry and Pippin are poorly developed in the TTT book as well. Apart from their initial escape they are quite passive, sitting around doing nothing whilst the Ents are making up their mind, and having a meal and a smoke at the end. In fact, they have a greater impact on the course of events in the film than in the book!

I agree but to be honest, I think this is actually the main problem of TTT film. PJ seems to be downplaying the 'secondary' characters (Theoden, Faramir, Treebeard mainly) in order to make the fellowship characters seem even more important, which IMO is completely unnecessary.

Mrs. Maggott

12-23-2002, 01:14 AM

Oh, no! I agree with you, Faded Glory. The "twins" are definitely much more mature in TTT. But, after all, they have seen Boromir (whom they loved) die in their defense and been dragged across Rohan by creatures whom they never in their life thought to meet, so I would suppose a certain amount of maturity would result in that kind of experience.

I am not "upset" about the palantir, but you must remember that Tolkien's story is like a great mosaic or puzzle. Each pieces leads to three or four other pieces. If you take out one, it is not just that "one" that is affected, but all the other pieces that arose from that one piece. Given what Jackson has left out up until now - and that is in two three hour films - if he tries to put even a fraction of it back in the third film, we are looking at about 5 hours - and that simply isn't going to happen.

Now, we know he has deep-sixed SoS but he will have the Gray Havens. He certainly has to have the Battle of the Pelannor and probably the pseudo-battle before the Black Gates (which, by the way, in TTT were spectacular). He also, of course,will have Shelob and the taking of the Ring to the Fire although he is probably going to have the crossing of Mordor be more of a sprint than a marathon. And he will have Aragorn's crowning and wedding, and somewhere along the line, Saruman has to get his "comeuppence", so right there you're looking at a film that's well over three hours without the palantir or the Paths of the Dead which probably will not be included. How he has arranged Pelannor, I don't know, but Mr. Jackson kept pushing things out of TTT and into ROTK to make room for warg riders and elvish dreams, so heaven only knows how he's going to fit in the necessary plot ingredients in the final film.

Odo Proudfoot

12-23-2002, 01:23 AM

Yes, it will be a challenge. The coming year is going to be a long one for all of us!

fG

Ancalagon

12-23-2002, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by aragil

Personally I did see a Merry and Pippin growth in this picture. This is great stuff, and clearly shows a growth from the two Hobbits who were setting off fireworks and stealing crops in the first film. This line really hits home for Pippin, and it is he who resolves to do something about it (Merry being presumably too downtrodden at this time). This is one of the first glimmers of "intelligence" (as Pippin called it back in Rivendell) that the young Took has shown in the movies thus far- the other glimmers coming when he removes his brooch as a sign for Strider and where is able to cut his bonds and free himself during the Uruk-hai/Rohirrim fracas. These bits are all growth from Pippin in the first film, and nicely mirror his growth in the second novel. Considering how seldome we see the duo in the second film, I thought that they got a considerable amount of growth. Can't wait to see the next film, as I'm sure the trend will continue.

Do you see their petition to the Ents, egging them on to battle with Saruman as character growth also? Thank God almighty we have these halflings to send Fangorn into battle! Absolute drivel, nearly as much as Sam's rousing speech in Osgiliath! How can you or anyone actually defend this tripe?

Aldarion

12-29-2002, 11:06 PM

Surely it was madness to depict the revelation of the whereabouts of the Ring? The whole plot of TLofR depends on keeping Sauron guessing as to the potential ringbearer/wielder. A justifiable criticism of PJ's plot diversion?

Mrs. Maggott

12-29-2002, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Aldarion
Surely it was madness to depict the revelation of the whereabouts of the Ring? The whole plot of TLofR depends on keeping Sauron guessing as to the potential ringbearer/wielder. A justifiable criticism of PJ's plot diversion?

I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, it is quite annoying seeing Frodo going about with the Ring displayed like a sorority girl's "love token". The chain has already broken or come undone once (in the mountains when Boromir picks it up out of the snow), yet the hobbit seems to have no concern about it getting "lost" again!

Nevertheless, doubtless Mr. Jackson's apologists will find a very credible reason for the entire incident. Yeah!
:rolleyes:

Mindy_O_Lluin

12-30-2002, 06:28 AM

Thank God almighty we have these halflings to send Fangorn into battle! Absolute drivel, nearly as much as Sam's rousing speech in Osgiliath! How can you or anyone actually defend this tripe?

:rolleyes: :mad: :p

"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."

:) :) :)

If you want drivel - what was that with Frodo 'petting' the ring. Yuk, give me a break.

lilhobo

12-30-2002, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Ancalagon
Do you see their petition to the Ents, egging them on to battle with Saruman as character growth also? Thank God almighty we have these halflings to send Fangorn into battle! Absolute drivel, nearly as much as Sam's rousing speech in Osgiliath! How can you or anyone actually defend this tripe?

hehehehe. COuldnt put it better meself !!! PJ 's idea of char development is to not show the char on screen at all and then completely out of the blue change the char, knowing that in the 3 hrs of the previous film ppl would have slept thru his horse manure

Aragorns_girl00

12-30-2002, 05:05 PM

the ring is getting to him. i guess he is showing the nazgul the ring and offer it or something.

Archon

12-31-2002, 12:11 AM

PJ has said that he "needed" to change Faramir, and send F and S to Osgiliath, in order to "remind the audience of the power of the ring"
PJs defenders ask the critics to provide a workable alternative.

So here it is, and what's more, it's largely in the book.

We could simply have Faramir *not find out* that they carry the ring. The book itself takes this tack for several pages. The "power of the ring" could be shown by the urgency and concern on the part of Sam and Frodo to not reveal it. Faramir's good nature remains intact, and does not have to be reconstructed if he is to be accepted in RotK. 15 minutes of PJ-invented plot can be removed. In its place we could have Aragorn and the Palantir (and maybe even end the battle at Helm's Deep properly) The idea that Sam and Frodo could sneak into Mordor now makes sense again, because like in the book Sauron would be led to believe that Aragorn carried the ring.

It took me all of 2 minutes to think of this alternative.

I think, perhaps, they should have "beta tested" this release :)

Mrs. Maggott

12-31-2002, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Archon
PJ has said that he "needed" to change Faramir, and send F and S to Osgiliath, in order to "remind the audience of the power of the ring"
PJs defenders ask the critics to provide a workable alternative.

So here it is, and what's more, it's largely in the book.

We could simply have Faramir *not find out* that they carry the ring. The book itself takes this tack for several pages. The "power of the ring" could be shown by the urgency and concern on the part of Sam and Frodo to not reveal it. Faramir's good nature remains intact, and does not have to be reconstructed if he is to be accepted in RotK. 15 minutes of PJ-invented plot can be removed. In its place we could have Aragorn and the Palantir (and maybe even end the battle at Helm's Deep properly) The idea that Sam and Frodo could sneak into Mordor now makes sense again, because like in the book Sauron would be led to believe that Aragorn carried the ring.

It took me all of 2 minutes to think of this alternative.

I think, perhaps, they should have "beta tested" this release :)
Or we could have what actually was in the book: Faramir questions the hobbits, learns they were with Boromir and also that there was some sort of conflict between Boromir and Frodo (also in the film). Faramir recounts the dream and remembers "Isildur's bane" (Faramir did have the dream in the film as well), but decides that their condition is too dangerous to continue questioning Frodo. At that point, to gain the hobbits confidence (and thus their cooperation), he makes the vow not to touch the object even if it were lying by the side of the road! Once that is done, the matter is settled. No need to drag the hobbits anywhere because Faramir has vowed not to take the Ring and once he learns of his brother's downfall, the last thing an intelligent person would do would be to bring such a dangerous thing into Minas Tirith. It would be a virtual "Trojan horse" in the city.

This is essentially Tolkien's plot and I still cannot see what was "wrong" with it since it could have been accomplished easier and quicker than the re-write as well as keeping Faramir decent and noble. Or perhaps that was the problem? :rolleyes:

colin

12-31-2002, 02:29 AM

I have to agree with the people who object to the change in Faramir's character in the film. In fact for me I would go even further - that Faramir does not do the obvious thing and seize a potentially powerful weapon is one of the key parts of the story. He felt that his oath not to touch it made it impossible.

By doing so Faramir is in effect sentencing his country to death.

His father Denethor is clearly of the opinion that Faramir did the wrong thing and chastises him for failing to bring the deliverance that Minas Tirith so desperately needs. Faramir however puts personal morality above realpolitik.

In the film Faramir's motives are completely inexplicable, to me at any rate. Does he only release Frodo once he realises the ring is not any use to Gondor after all? I just couldn't tell.

I think this has undermined one of the key themes of the book, ie that we have to behave properly all the time. The end does not justify the means. Leave that out and all you have left is a Hollywood action movie.....

Mrs. Maggott

12-31-2002, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by colin
I have to agree with the people who object to the change in Faramir's character in the film. In fact for me I would go even further - that Faramir does not do the obvious thing and seize a potentially powerful weapon is one of the key parts of the story. He felt that his oath not to touch it made it impossible.

By doing so Faramir is in effect sentencing his country to death.

His father Denethor is clearly of the opinion that Faramir did the wrong thing and chastises him for failing to bring the deliverance that Minas Tirith so desperately needs. Faramir however puts personal morality above realpolitik.

In the film Faramir's motives are completely inexplicable, to me at any rate. Does he only release Frodo once he realises the ring is not any use to Gondor after all? I just couldn't tell.

I think this has undermined one of the key themes of the book, ie that we have to behave properly all the time. The end does not justify the means. Leave that out and all you have left is a Hollywood action movie.....

Perhaps there is hope that even big budgets and hi-tech special effects can't overcome intelligence and virtue!

God bless Colin for a clarity of vision unconfounded by either glitz or gore.