Peter Jackson REMOVED Faramir's Greatest Moment | LOTR Explained

[@factorfantasyweekly]

Read along with me! 📖 Claim “The Two Towers” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/twotowers 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!

[@knghtbrd]

The way Faramir behaves in the film from the first until the very moment he frees the hobbits in Osgiliath does indeed show movie Faramir's quality, and it is not the very highest. Faramir was careful and kindly, educated and slow to judge. Movie Faramir is none of these things. Boromir was honestly a much more likable character in the film, and the movie makes a scoundrel of him too. Another comment last week probably said that Peter Jackson was absolutely brutal to the noble family of the Stewards, and that is VERY true. Denethor was a good leader who fell into madness at the end. Boromir was a great man with a small flaw that was corrupted by the ring using that flaw against him. And Faramir … Faramir is indeed a man of quality worthy to inherit his father's noble title, truly of the blood of Numenor! Another commenter here this week notes that Tolkien showed the way even here: Faramir could have withheld his decision until Osgiliath and said he had already made up his mind earlier at that time. (Might've helped Gollum had been better treated, even if it was thought for a time this was an attempt to pump Gollum for information…) The character assassination of Faramir did harm to a good man needlessly.

[@JackChurchill101]

Regarding Faramir, I think there's an extra subtlety that you missed. I always felt... That Faramir wanted information from these mystery Hobbits and wanted the truth. Knowing that they must be there for a serious and secret reason, they wouldn't just tell him, and he's not the sort to torture innocent travellers. So he invites them in, feeds them, tells them stories and plasters them with wine... Until they accidentally spill the truth. Then he has them, and has the complete truth. He would not snare even an orc with a falsehood, but he would seduce strangers with friendship... "And now we have it..." he says. That's his true character. Smarter, greater, and more subtle and honourable than normal men.

[@Big_Tex]

15:20 something I noticed in the book, it’s Sam himself who’s the first person to use the word “quality” for Faramir, here in that exchange. That’s why Faramir then talks about the chance to show his quality. And then a bit later Sam proclaims Faramir had indeed showed his quality - the very highest. And these are the only 3 occurrences of the word “quality” in the whole LOTR narrative (thanks Kindle search).

[@JackChurchill101]

This is the greatest deviation, but I think Denethor was done the greatest injustice. Denethor did everything fathomable to protect Gondor, and had many counter attacks planned. Rallying every army and ally he could. To have Gandalf arrive and demand "Where are Gondor's armies?!" was a cruel change to one of the story's best characters.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

Same with Gandalf attacking Denethor.

[@kathybetancourt4147]

@@JackChurchill101 I can see your point but I can at least understand why the change. I think he was trying to emphasize his dislike for Faramir and the love and loyalty between the two brothers. It had to be done quickly. Jackson changed many of the characters, and not for the better, but I can see why for most of them. You have to expect changes between a book and a movie. I don't agree with all of them, but you have to admit, he put together one heck of a movie.

[@willlastnameguy8329]

They needed a bad guy. It's been a long time since I read the books, but Denethor was not a nice guy, as I recall. When it comes to movies, a lot of things have to be stupidly exaggerated to keep the audience happy. That's why they had the scene with him eating like a gross pig. So the audience would know right away. "This is a bad guy, and you should dislike him."

[@keithtorgersen9664]

@willlastnameguy8329, there are a few reasons for this according to the book. He had lost his wife, he had come under immense strain trying to mentally battle Sauron for use of the Palantir, and thirdly, he resented Aragorn because in Aragorn’s youth he served Denethor’s father under another name, and Aragorn became as a beloved son, and Denethor felt much envy.

[@willlastnameguy8329]

@@keithtorgersen9664 I don't really remember that at all because it's been so long since I read it. And I only read it once. But I remember that Denethor was a much better character in the books. Thanks for the info.

[@henrikg1388]

Yes. This is without a doubt the movie change that rubs me the wrong way most of all. Not just the changing of Faramir's character and the 180 decision. At the point when that arc ended in Osgiliath with Frodo flashing the Ring in front of a Nazgul, I was furious. It destroys the entire plot.

[@chroboe]

100% agree, although Gandalf vs the Witch King in The Return of the King is a very close 2nd

[@JackChurchill101]

At least that was cut from the theatrical version. Though yes, seeing Gandalf shaking in fear, about to be terminated by a man bearing a ring of power, was silly. If that's how strong a ring made a mortal man over 4000 years, imagine how powerful Elrond must have been. Could have evaporated Gandalf with a song (apparently).

[@henrikg1388]

@@JackChurchill101 I don't share that evaluation. The Witch-King was a really tough thing for Gandalf. He even admitted to it in his own words in the book. Being "immortal" doesn't automatically make you far superior. He was a Numenorean sorcerer in his actual life and even Sauron feared them, for good reason. Ring or no ring. Still, breaking his staff and making him tremble for his life was utterly silly. Gandalf may have had the upper hand, but the WK was empowered by Sauron and had a vast army in his back at that point. The scene should have been as in the book. It was a perfect scene, that needed no adaptation. But it was one stupid scene. It didn't break the entire plot arc. I still think Faramir and the Osgiliath scene is far worse.

[@junglemoose2164]

This is one of the primary reasons I can't watch the films. I get compressed time and hurried events to fit the story into three films. What I don't understand is the character assassinations. Every character suffered at the hands of Jackson. Faramir (and Gimli) most of all.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

One thing that rubs me the wrong way about any of the film confrontations with the Witch King is that his power is LIMITED in the books when ANYONE has the staunchest of courage and are VERY strong willed; he cannot dominate them and occasionally is AFRAID himself. This kind of bravery is absolutely needed in the face of fear.

[@TheGFeather]

One of the key differences in the characters between book and movie comes from our contemporary view of what traits are admirable. It is desirable in modern media to portray reluctant heroes with feet of clay. We see this in changes made to both Aragorn and Faramir. It is also apparent in the perception of Boromir who underwent somewhat less of a change and is not viewed nearly so favourably by most. Movie Faramir is very empathetic to a modern audience. It plays very well to contemporary sensibilities for him to be more highly flawed and find redemption rather than an unblemished good guy from start to finish. If he was portrayed as virtuous and noble as in the books, a modern audience would scoff. Being *too* perfect gets you labelled as a one dimensional goodie-two-shoes rather than an ideal of heroism. Boromir, who is confident and assertive comes off very poorly in comparison. When you look solely at the book and consider him in the context of his culture, he is highly honourable, and pretty diplomatic, all things considered. He occasionally sticks his foot in it, and he falters, but his established actions and virtue allow us to feel greater empathy and sorrow at his fall. Those same characteristics portrayed in the movie, admittedly enhanced to a greater degree, come across as arrogance, excessive pride and overall combativeness. We talk about the assassination of Faramir's character very readily, but what is chosen to be highlighted about Boromir and the way a contemporary audience views those things is a rather significant blow to Boromir as well.

[@rikhuravidansker]

I don't think they would seem him as perfect, but the CEOs (Harvey Weinstein and whoever was in charge of Time Warner and Wingnut Films), wanted drama.

[@Mr_Timi1]

Since Faramir, in the movie, ultimately let the hobbits go, I think they could have easily shortened the scenes and left Faramir's character in tact. If he wanted to make some changes to build up tension, he could have simply kept Faramir's intentions secret until he released the hobbits. Letting Sam and Frodo believe he was going to take them to Minas Tirith and instead of changing his mind show/say he intended to let them go all along and given him his lines back about finding the ring along the road. I just don't think there was any need to actually change his character.

[@henrikg1388]

But it was such a poor decision. The real cliff hanger was the encounter with Shelob. You had to read the next book to find out what really happened. Instead we got this pointless waste of time.

[@rikhuravidansker]

That was in the book as well: we didn't know what he wanted to do with the hobbits.

[@Monkeyboy2457]

In the books Faramir was very wise and skillful at questioning Frodo.

[@headrockbeats]

"As the movie is halfway through, he's a point of contention - as we witness *yet another man* fall victim to the power of the Ring." ^^^ Intentionally or otherwise, those three words outline why Faramir's character assassination was pointless. He's just another Boromir, with the exception that Boromir didn't get to see the Ring's corrupting influence soon enough. There's nothing new about this Faramir (at least at this stage, until he re-merges with where Book-Faramir is, later on); he's just a repeat of the same story as Boromir. It's an incredible waste. Many of Jackson's changes follow a similar pattern: *Problem: Character or event does not translate well to a cinematic format.* *Solution: Reuse something from elsewhere in the book to plug the hole, or invent something "new" that the general audience won't notice, but which has zero actual subtance of its own.* They did this to nearly every character, and to every story point that was altered or removed. The end result is a masterpiece in terms of the artistry of filmmaking; but it leaves "holes" in the subtance of The Lord of the Rings itself. You can literally feel where Tolkien's values, ideas, and message shine through (which is, thankfully, much of the film), but it's inter-cut with these bizarre moments of trite Hollywood emptiness, where you can pretty much turn your brain off for a minute or two because nothing meaningful is happening; nothing you haven't seen before in countless other movies. While Faramir is a great example of this (the entire trip to Osgiliath is literally nothing but filler), there are countless other examples. Merry and Pippin's firework shenanigans. Aragorn's constant hand-wringing. Legolas and the Mumakil. Anduril's revelation. The Army of the Dead at Minas Tirith. Every solution they've come up with is one that adds... nothing.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

@headrockbeats, it occurred to me recently that PJ is guilty of this in his adaptation of King Kong.

[@simonkoster]

In the whole trilogy there are two scenes that always tempt me to press Fast Forward, one we'll get to in ROTK but here we have Faramir's men roughing up of Gollum. This is excessive mob violence, and I feel out of character even for Movie Faramir. Enrages me every time.

[@rikhuravidansker]

Before the Age of Enlightenment, torture was seen as necessary, and it seemed to be Faramir's men who were in charge of the torture and then Faramir took matters into his own hands to get information as quickly as possible. However, Tolkien said in "The History of Middle-Earth" that elves were not allowed to torture orcs, and since Numenoreans are part elf and lived among them in Beleriand and Ithilien, they would not have tortured Gollum, indeed since Faramir gave him wine, they would have gotten him drunk!

[@irena4545]

I thoroughly and utterly despise the change to Faramir's character, and I don't think his movie version works particularly well on its own, either. If his main motivation is to prove himself to his father and gain his approval, I don't see how seeing Frodo expose himself and the Ring to the nazgul could have changed that. His 180° turn didn't feel like an organic outcome of his arc but simply something orchestrated by the writers because the story required it. He's not inspiring or admirable, instead he comes off as unnecessarily harsh towards those weaker than him, while his behaviour in Denethor's presence doesn't show much spine. Which actually makes him look kind of villainish, in a not very appealing way.

[@rikhuravidansker]

It was because Faramir would have thought the Witch-King could have gotten the Ring entirely because of Faramir.

[@robhogg68]

"As many of you will say, they couldn't have included everything from the book, or else the movie would be 10 hours long..." I don't think this argument holds weight, when immediately after these scenes they added in a trip to Osgiliath. The mangling of Faramir was, to my mind, was a wholly unnecessary change. There didn't need to be another point of contention - Frodo and Sam have just come from the Black Gate and nearly getting caught up in a skirmish, and they're about to face the Morgul Vale and Cirith Ungol. An occasional point of rest can be good for pacing too. I think it partly comes down to a misanthropy of Peter Jackson's. Humans are all corrupt (a view he puts into the mouth of Elrond), as opposed to Elves, who are all pure and good (something that's undermined by any deeper familiarity with the lore). In fact, apart from the ring bearers, we see few characters being corrupted by proximity to the evil of the ring. Aside from Bombadil, there's no sign that Aragorn has any trouble resisting its temptation. Nor do any of the Hobbits, Dwaves or Elves, even Galadriel, who is offered it (OK, she might have been a little tempted, but she resists). What indication is there, from Tolkien, that any other honourable human (e.g. Eomer or Beregond) would have behaved differently to Faramir, in a similar situation?

[@JackChurchill101]

Yes, the big issue with the film is that Jackson wanted to end it after helm's deep and also not combine that with shelob ("as it would be too much for the audience"). So he then needed to add an extra 40 minutes of non-canon filler to pad the runtime out, and instead of building towards Gollums betrayal and shelob organically, he needed to add in some "drama" for Frodo/Sam - seeing as half their book was now cut.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

Thank you for addressing the misanthropy. Many of the characters in the books had nobility and courage as inherent virtues but these were taken away to make people seem weak willed and indecisive.

[@rikhuravidansker]

Jackson filmed a 8.5 day version, which means everything in the books were filmed, but only the parts the CEOs thought would appeal to audiences made it to the screen.

[@rikhuravidansker]

@@JackChurchill101 Jackson should have told the CEOs that to create drama, there was no need to make things up but instead just show the bleak cosmic horror (in the sense of fear of the unknown, not the primal fear of the primitive like slimy water-creatures), of Minas Morgul: "the meads" (which is a double entendre since it could mean "meadows," jars of mead drunk by orcs, or plants used to make natural teas), of saccharine edelweiss and the dimly-lit city, with briars of roses and pine, along with brambles (which would be home to lagomorphs, bears, wolves, rats, squirrels, and mice), which could indicate a temperate jungle (imagine the temperate rainforest of Sweden, which actually does exist, but imagine it overgrown). Everything I described sounds normal, but somehow OFF, like how R'lyeh is cyclopean like many ancient cities but is WRONG because of the non-Euclidean geometry. This kind of cosmic horror was used in the opening of the 1980 "The Shining," in the scenes of the outside of the nighttime hotel before the winter, and when Jack is staring off into space.

[@robhogg68]

@@rikhuravidansker The BBC recorded a radio play that came in at under 13 hours (so about the same as the extended edition), and included everything of significance in the books apart from Tom Bombadil. What they didn't do was add in things like long detours to Osgiliath.

[@fristi61]

I think it's worth noting that even movie Faramir never takes the ring. He stupidly takes Frodo prisoner, but still allows him to keep bearing it in his captivity. It shows that unlike Boromir, Faramir is not trying to claim the ring for himself, but is rather acting like a blindly loyal soldier. I think much like with Aragorn Peter Jackson wanted to show the "becoming" of the character during the story itself. Aragorn starts off hesitant but becomes ready to accept the mantle of kingship. Faramir starts off insecure but learns to embrace his own wisdom. In the books, these transformations have already taken place prior to the story. Although I think this approach worked out much better for Aragorn than for Faramir.

[@stephaniechristensen6018]

They didn't insert anything in the films that suggested any real character development in Faramir as a result of this encounter with Frodo and Sam. No. He's just a big bully who hasn't a mind or morals of his own and is dominated by his father and then inexplicably suddenly decides they can go into an orc-infested Ithilien. But the whole point of his character in the books was that he was actually stronger than Boromir and in control of Ithilien when Frodo and Sam come through; Denethor dumped on Faramir exactly because he couldn't control him. The kind of syncophant Jackson envisages would never defy orders and exercise his own judgment enough to let Frodo and Sam go.

[@Hannah-hq8ne]

I still fully believe that the entire Steward’s family, but Faramir in particular, were made to look weaker, less competent and less ‘special’ to make Aragorn stand out. In the books, Aragorn doesn’t seem quite as spectacular when you’ve got the likes of Faramir and Denethor who have similar heritage, especially to Faramir who is as close to Aragorn in stature than anyone (plus completely omission of Imrahil). They needed Aragorn to really stand out in the movies, and quite a few of Faramir’s moments (basically all his relationship with Eowyn) went to Aragorn

[@AgewolfWorkout]

Very true words

[@AJ0223]

"Death on film" is what philippa boyens said during the audio commentary of the two towers. "Death to the ring, never would have worked, would have fallen flat on its face" David wenham, during the cast audio commentary, regretted the choice and acknowledged the disdain that the "purists" would have toward it. A lot to be learned listening to the commentaries, much of which is not so obvious.

[@simonkoster]

"Death to the ring", just as when they had Aragorn refuse it? Which they themselves made up for the movie? Sounds a bit iffy.

[@Welverin]

At one point she in the commentary tracks she talked about the changes and if you followed them back you would see they were necessary. Of course doing that at the time I found them to originate in something that didn't need to be done or gave the impression that they thought they were better storytellers and simple didn't get why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.

[@AJ0223]

@Welverin yes. There is one example, maybe it was the same bit while they were discussing faramir, or maybe it was something else, but I remember Fran Walsh lamenting some of the more notable departures but kind of justifying those choices by saying they had a task they wanted to live up to and that with more time and deeper insight they may have chosen other ways. I'll have to re listen for sure, but that bit from fran always comforts me. The hard truth of the matter - these movies were not made for Tolkien scholars or even readers in general, they were made to be massively successful blockbusters. I actually have all 12 of the audio commentaries saved on my phone storage as mp3s and listen to them fairly often. Design team, followed by production team are my favorites. Then it's writers/director, and lastly the cast (who are in general the furthest out of touch) from listening to them i feel confident saying that Peter Jackson's adaptations work because he truly does love the source material but also because he doesn't seem to love it quite enough to be timid about reworking it. It's kind of like, I don't know what, dropping your kids off at private daycare or something like this, or paying to enroll them in a private school: never as good as home schooling but beats the hell out of public school (rings of power)

[@rikhuravidansker]

@@AJ0223 Homeschooling, public school, private school, and daycare are all awful: the education system has declined almost since the beginning of the High Middle Ages by my reckoning. The 8.5 day version can work as a television series.

[@nielsebbesen7821]

I was quite surprised - despite having enjoyed this series for a while - by just how excited I was, to find a new episode had just been released 😄

[@LostHorizons0]

My favorite character in the books… and one of my least favorite in the films

[@rebelalien5523]

As you suggested at the beginning of this 2 parter, the change of Faramir's character is generally the thing from the movies that I dislike the most. While you make a valid point when you suggest that this character arc could potentially suit the medium of film better than the original arc, it still bugs me.

[@palerider7171]

To borrow from another IP “You were so preoccupied if you could you didn’t stop think if you should!” In the case here Jackson was so preoccupied with creating flawed weaken characters to create drama where none was needed that he didn’t stop to think if he should and how much he alternated the story of virtue and integrity. Was it a successful character assassination? If you’re counting the success of the movie I guess it was, but at what cost? A compromised feckless Faramir, an aimless indecisive Aragorn, a fraidy-cat Frodo who later on abandoned his best friend? I am not so sure it was worth it.

[@reeceemms1643]

Almost completely missed this episode I forgot to check my phone for the notifications.

[@octaviusmigtonius2965]

It's not only the decision that Faramir made, but that "chance for Faramir captain of Gondor" line was said sarcastically in the book, but quite seriously in the movie.

[@selwynevonbeereskow8053]

Getting more and more information about the reasons for changing Faramirs character (comparison to Aragorn, movie pacing, some suspension after the big battle but not too much) helped me disliking film Faramir less. I do understand the reasons for the changes. I still don't love film Faramir as I love book Faramir but I'm reasonably okay with him now. Thanks for all your lovingly elaborated and detailed thoughts and explanations.

[@CynthiaWarren]

Book Faramir is, far and away, the better man. Movie Faramir let his hurt over his father’s lack of respect for who he is control his choices. Book Faramir has an integrity that movie Faramir could never have.

[@TheWanderingFire]

Filmamir is a poorly sketched out character, especially when you consider how much sympathy they try to generate for him regarding his family relationships as portrayed in the movies. Even if they had wanted to show it's hard to resist the Ring, his and his men's callousness and cruelty were unjustified. That being said, I also agree with most commentors who touch upon the poor treatment the House of Stewards receives in the films. Denethor and Faramir are actually two men cut from the same cloth, studious, well versed in the history of Gondor, and wise. Denethor was more like Faramir until the death of his wife, when he became more withdrawn, but he only became mad after he started using the Palantir to keep an eye on Sauron (Sauron couldn't deceive him, but ensured that Denethor saw what Sauron wanted him to see, overwhelming enemies and no hope for victory). Denethor favoured Boromir because he was different from himself (think of a nerd dad who has somehow raised a popular high school football star), and while he loved both his sons, Faramir was left feeling like the lesser of the two. Boromir clearly didn't inherit the "Elvish air" of Denethor and Faramir, and who knows, if the War of the Ring hadn't happened just then, he might have inherited the seat of the Steward and tried to change it into a throne. Faramir had a greater understanding of what Gondor was and should be.

[@dionysiacosmos]

Jackson said he changed Faramir's lack of temptation by the ring because that might make the audience think it was easy to do, plus gets Frodo to Osgiliath so the Ringwraith can nearly get him. I always just thought it was lazy writing. How much more effective would it have been if Faramir's reaction to the ring had followed the book, but all Ithilian Rangers started looking at Frodo with a kind of dangerous desire, caused by the ring, though they didn't know why. Faramire could have pretended to his men that he was taking them to Osgiliath, but let them go ASAP instead. Everything that Jackson wanted could still be done.

[@Hannah-hq8ne]

Very lazy writing when you consider they literally invented a scene where Aragorn is offered the ring and rejects it

[@rikhuravidansker]

It is implied the Ring only tempts people who possess desire and are not powerful enough to not need the Ring: Tom Bombadil and Shelob are immune. I would think this means Buddhist saints would be immune, as would people who think they can get away with anything (i.e. Donald Trump and Rick Sanchez), and Buddhist monks would be temporarily immune, but would have to shift guardianship of the Ring to avoid being corrupted. Voldemort and Megatron would be immune, as they do not wish to rely on anything, and indolent people like Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin would be immune. Thus the Ring only works on people who know their limitations but have not purged themselves of desire, and on people with master morality: it would work on the Last Man (who lives by slave morality but rejects it), but not on the Superman or the knight of faith (the Superman who has decided slave morality is right), and it would not work on people with slave IMMORALITY (i.e. people who do EVERYTHING that Abrahamism condemns, including indolence).

[@Evi_Evi86]

If you haven't read the books, then movie Faramir isn't that bad I think. It kinda works in the story. But I had read the books before I saw the movies and book Faramir was one of my favourite characters. I love both the book and the movies, but I was pretty upset by this massive character change.

[@Hannah-hq8ne]

I watched the film first, so I always liked film Faramir, still do. He always seemed like a decent guy who did the right thing in the end. But then I read the books and he went from an alright character who doesn’t make my top 5 favourites to an amazing character who’s in the top 3. And I think that’s the difference. In the films, he’s alright, in the books he’s one of the best

[@RaynmanPlays]

Peter Jackson had a much dimmer view of men than Tolkien. That much is made clear from the changes made.

[@phosphorus4]

I guess it’s mostly that hobbits are also like us, and things got shifted a bit, making more negative stuff concentrated on the men in the story.

[@rikhuravidansker]

@@phosphorus4 Jess of the Shire commented in her video "Hobbits: the Races of Middle Earth," that hobbits were the most humanlike: I suppose it is because the men are from a more primitive time whereas countryfolk from Late Antiquity to Brutalist French peasants share cultural continuity, and are more akin to us.

[@raimat66]

I would like to add that even Treebeard is a character we meet that we don't have to worry about.

[@jakewilliamson2991]

Lol plot twist: Boromir would’ve survived if he wasn’t cast as Sean Bean. All jokes aside, I love both characters as flawed as they might be in the movies in comparison to the books. I believe Faramir wouldn’t have fallen like Boromir. Perhaps Faramir’s wisdom in the book could have yielded a different outcome for Gandalf as well. That’s simply not how Tolkien wrote it so it almost doesn’t matter, but it is interesting to think about.

[@SpeedandSplendor]

Faramir is one of my favorite book characters and was shocked by his dialogue and actions in the movie. Boromir was valiant .. Faramir was honorable. In the movie they tried to draw a parallel to create tension.

[@billywydola3388]

The video we've all been waiting for! Such a shame, it easily ruins four characters to snub Faramir: Faramir, Denethor, and Boromir, and Eowyn.

[@JumboJim54]

You're the cat's pajamas, kid. Keep up the good work 👏😎

[@factorfantasyweekly]

Aye aye 🫡🙏🏼 thanks for watching!

[@CampNou1999]

Faramir's behaviour in the movie actually makes more sense but only because men of honour and compassion like Faramir in the book are just extremely rare, especially among men of power

[@missingnola3823]

I saw the films before ever reading anything from Tolkien. I greatly enjoyed the movies and, because of them, then read the trilogy, the Hobbit, Silmarillion, and several other posthumously printed works of his. Because of the movies, I dug deeper and became quite the fan of his work. I will say that, upon first reading the books, I was initially quite critical and disappointed with many changes for the movie, Faramir's treatment being but one example. However, I later thought about each change and how a more faithful recount would work on film as opposed to a novel format. Also, considering Peter Jackson may well have been trying to both be faithful to the source while also creating something accessible and engaging to those unfamiliar with it. I've come to understand his choices. When considering both objectives, I think that he chose wisely and succeeded. Without Peter Jackson, I may never have picked up the books. What a miss that would have been for me.

[@jachyra9]

Sophistry.

[@AgewolfWorkout]

Faramir is a complex character. Although he was tempted by the ring, he never attempted to take it, even though he had ample opportunity. Instead, he instructed his men to escort Frodo and Sam to his father.

[@rklatven]

As you intimate, this change by PJ of Faramir's role at Henneth Annun is one of the most egregious changes the director has made in his film. It changes one's perception of Faramir, for the worse. His repentance at Osgiliath does not remove the bad taste one gets for the hero Faramir. As a pre-film Ringer, I've consumed, many times over all the lore extant and produced by JRR and his faithful son Christopher. I'm not necessarily tuned in to the KZbin interpretations available on the Net. This one was complete and thoughtful, and not the first 'Nerds' video I've seen. You are probably aware of Foster's "Complete Guide to Middle-earth", although I have not heard you reference it, like Christopher has done several times in "Unfinished Tales". I think it would be good for your audience to be aware of Foster, as well as another primary source, "The Letters of JRR Tolkien". Dr. RKL

[@versionslongues48]

I must say that it had the opposite effect for me as I saw the movie before the book when I was at this passage in the audiobook and he said « and an host of men at my grasp » I was like « …oh no » bit when he did not even think about it, I became Faramir’s biggest fan.

[@wonder_sr_land]

in the movie, the ones you don't worry about is almost all of the fellowship (besides Boromir), so Faramir, I imagine, goes as the one who had his struggle with the ring and won, which is important. Otherwise, thanks for you detailed and very interesting video.

[@barbarakey554]

Book Faramir was also a great leader of men. With the retreat, as long as he was able to fight defending his retreating men, the men stayed in formation. It was only after an arrow brought him down, that his men panicked. Also, Denethor stayed by Faramir's side hoping his son would wake up. I think he went up and looked into the Palantir which showed him Faramir on the burning logs that finishing driving Denethor insane.

[@jonathanartemispierce8429]

Before I dive in to this latest episode, I would like to say that I love your channel. It inspired me to read again, and that is one of my greatest loves. I put it aside due to the responsibilities of “adulting,” and Tolkien is my favorite author. Once I began watching your channel I devoured the trilogy once again and have been continuing to devour Christopher Tolkien’s works. Now as it pertains to this segment on the character assassination of Faramir, I think that Peter Jackson did completely gut the character and left us with a thin 2-dimensional shell of the book character; however I think that your analysis is myopic. Jackson changed the dynamic of the entire family - Denethor, Boromir and Faramir - to fit the story he was telling in the films. I am aware that you are focusing on a chapter by chapter analysis, so I can’t fault you for your format or context. Much of the family dynamic isn’t revealed until the first book of the next volume. Jackson took the entire trilogy and filmed it as a three-part series, rearranging parts as needed for that method of storytelling; but his deconstruction of many characters, such as Faramir, does trouble me deeply. I love the movies. I think that Peter Jackson and his team captured the spirit of the tale as a whole; however, I love the books more. Keep up the great work on this channel.

[@factorfantasyweekly]

That’s awesome to hear! Always great to revisit a legendary story. I am shaking in my boots to begin uncovering Denethor in the next book. 💀 Wish me luck.

[@moeburhanimeez7354]

The only thing I dislike from the movie Faramir, is how he treats Smeagolat first. In the movie, this is when Smeagol TRULY became against Frodo cuz before he had told his evil side, Gollum, to go away and never come back. But Faramir capturing and treating him badly made Gollum return, and Smeagol back into his influence.

[@Rezkeshdadesh]

When I saw this movie way back in 2002, the worst thing about Faramir taking the Hobbits was that it meant that we didn't get to see Shelob at the end of Two Towers like I expected going into the movie.

[@TheWanderingFire]

This actually made sense to me (not seeing Shelob) as Books 3 thru 6 have overlapping timelines. As the movies switch back and forth between locations rather than sticking with Frodo/Sam and then following Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli/Gandalf/Merry/Pippin, it made sense. It was also a relief - I was in no rush to see Shelob. 😊

[@rikhuravidansker]

@@TheWanderingFire I was disappointed that she did not look like an actual spider: when I read the book, I found it she is supposed to look like she is HEAVILY pregnant (since she is of "spider-form" as opposed to being a spider, this implies she has scorpion - backed up by her having a sting - sand-spider, and octopus traits: the "beak," since we don't know if it is horizontal or vertical, indicates isopod traits).

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

I like your final analysis but I'm still sad that we lost book Faramir

[@mr.s2005]

Why i get why...since it would have made Faramir look superior to Aragorn, it still irritated me at first how different he was, at least the extended version had a bit more of his book character.

[@kathybetancourt4147]

No, I don't think this was a good idea. I give a pass to most of the changes between the books and the movies, but this one I think is unnecessary and completely misses what I see is Tolkien's reason for not only the scene but the inclusion of the character. The scene in Henneth Annun shows a contrast between Boromir and Faramir. Earlier in the book Gandalf said that the blood of Numinor runs almost true in Faramir but not in Boromir. This scene emphasizes the difference between them and their "blood". It also shows the difference between a good man and a noble man. Boromir wasn't bad, but neither was he noble. This was Jackson's last chance to include a truly noble man, not just someone of noble blood. Aragorn missed because he tried to refuse birthright and duty, but I understand that change for a number of reasons. There was no reason to change Faramir that I can see and it cut out an aspect of Men that was important to Tolkien and was present in all his works. You can be good without being noble, but there will come a time when personal agenda will win out over the greater good. You can't, however, be truly noble and not good. It also involves the ability to see things from different perspectives. In the bonus material for the extended version, one of the writers - I think it was Pillipa - said they made the change because through the whole movie, everyone falls to the lure of the ring in one way or another, so Faramir being completely unmoved didn't make sense. It's a shame one of the writers missed such an important aspect of the story.

[@stephaniechristensen6018]

So, basically like always, you seem to take the position that storytelling in different formats basically has nothing in common and that nothing that works for the characters in the books can or does work in film. That is absolutely ridiculous. Film is a visual medium, yes, but this isn't a question of medium. It's a question of character. You admit that the portrayal of Faramir in the books serves a narrative function as respite from the tension and stress and bleakness of the journey/the events going on. A deep breath before the plunge into Mordor. I'd add that Faramir's nobility and willingness to follow Frodo's lead 1.) helps establish Frodo as a wise and good character, justifying why he as a person is meaningful and critical to the unfolding of events; 2.) tips the uneasy balance between Stinker/Slinker and reinforces why Gollum is indebted to Frodo for his mercy, explaining both why Gollum betrays Frodo and why Gollum is wrong to betray him; and 3.) reassures that the present isn't held hostage to the past and that Aragorn isn't alone in fleeing temptation and showing true nobility and men deserve the victory to come. Faramir is a challenge to the modernist nonsense that people are inherently flawed and corrupt and nothing better can or should be expected or asked of people, despite their flaws. You seem to argue that there can be such a thing as a "successful" character assassination, but I fail to see how this serves the movies in any way, nor did you make any serious argument that it did somehow serve the movies. All this does is make the movies standard-issue, like every other show out there, where the filmmakers have to trot out some gimmick that somehow suddenly reverses things and resolves the situation. Instead of having to deal with real characters who may not make decisions on your timeline/must be respected, the need for persuasion is basically brushed aside by events or gimmicks. Worse, it's annoyingly repetitive. Run into Treebeard. He refuses to help until...suddenly he does? Merry and Pippin trick him? Run into Theoden. He refuses to follow sound counsel, but insists on taking all of his people to Helm's Deep and nearly gives up the whole game for absolutely no good reason. (Can't say how ridiculous this is, tactically, logistically, and otherwise.) Then he again refuses to help, even after the Battle of Helm's Deep, until some ridiculous beacons are lit. Run into Denathor. He won't call for aid, so Pippin has to go against orders and trick the whole thing into motion. Run into Faramir. He won't help and sends Frodo and Sam back towards Denethor until...suddenly...an attack makes it utterly clear how stupid he is being. You see what I mean? Especially the way Jackson and his writers wrote it, it's like the same rut...over...and over...and over. I don't know what you think in the movies redeemed Faramir in any degree. There should be no need for redemption in the first place. Jackson just can't stand the idea that anyone might flee or resist temptation rather than fall to it. You asked if there is anything we like better in the movies because of these changes involving Faramir. No. I'm left seriously convinced that Faramir wasn't fit to be a leader of Gondor. He's an idiot who insisted on moving the Ring into a war zone where it was going to get taken. Supposedly, he didn't entirely screw things up. But that's only because of Jackson's ipse dixit; if you look at the situation halfway rationally the Ring has been delayed, the enemy has moved into Ithilien, and even if you somehow handwave the absurd encounter with the Nazgul, there shouldn't be any way Frodo and Sam get through to Mount Doom. Oh, and the destruction of the Ring was delayed for days. Days in which how many people died and how many were destroyed? Faramir's best stuff is given to another character...Aragorn. Which makes the films worse in my opinion. Some people argue that Faramir doing what he does is unrealistic if the Ring is as dangerous as it seems. But remember, book Faramir never sees it. Book Faramir doesn't even know much about the nature or abilities of the Ring for certain, though he could make shrewd and educated guesses. Boromir heard at the Council of Elrond how the Ring gave power of command and could be the means of dominating all other Ringbearers and break down all resistance; Faramir likely didn't know that information. In fact, the elves probably kept that tidbit pretty darn quiet, for obvious reasons. In any event, Boromir knew it all and traveled alongside the Ring for many weeks. The Ring had to work on him for weeks before it could make any real progress. Yet Faramir basically succumbs instantly? Maybe he didn't take it directly, but he was sure keeping close tabs on it and on the cusp of doing so, which makes him far worse than his brother, and far faster and sure serves the Enemy's purposes. In the book, Faramir was a kind of eucatastrophe for the hobbits, providing relief, help, and sanctuary when they badly needed it. It could even be argued that running into Faramir was the kind of fortunate accident by which Eru Iluvatar countered Sauron and orchestrated the Ring's destruction and we can even guess that higher powers bolstered Faramir when he needed most to be at his best. But we can't have anything like that in Jackson's movies, can we? There are reasons why so many people are taken out of the movies by and criticize these changes. So no, I don't think these changes work at all for the movies. In fact, I think it takes a lot of turning off your brain to overlook the issues. But the biggest problem is in the logistics and logic of the story. It would be one thing if Faramir initially threatened to take the hobbits back to Minas Tirith, but reconsidered shortly afterwards after a suitably powerful interaction between the characters, leaving Frodo and Sam still close to Mordor. But Jackson didn't stop there. He had to have orcs taking over Ithilien and Osgiliath and Nazgul nearly on top of the Ringbearer. All of which should have delayed Frodo and Sam by how many days and miles and put paid to any chance that they could slip through and succeed in taking the Ring to the Fire. Movie Faramir delays the destruction of the Ring by days and is responsible for everything that happens as a result. And that I can't in any degree excuse.

[@jachyra9]

You are engaging with The Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson's adaptation of it intelligently, with discernment and critical thinking. I have no idea what planet you're from, but I would love to live there... or at least enjoy and extended vacation there.

[@HeatherAllen]

When movie Faramir said "The Ring will go to Gondor" I seriously debated getting up and leaving the theater.

[@bolchinsky]

Both are great, but film Faramir wouldn't be the same without THAT performance

[@PanTranPhee]

I just want to say, sorry to hear you got Covid but, uh, your voice is always super cute so I wouldn't have known if you didn't tell us. That aside, I have to say, I kind of love book Faramir but movie Faramir is played brilliantly by a gorgeous actor.

[@jonnyreb3032]

Even with thw redemption Arc, they could have done Farimer better, if they stuck to the original going to Minus tirith to report before heading back out to Osgiliath before it is overrun to man the defenses, rather then doing the suicide charge. It would have been better for Denathor to. Being a grumpy Curmungine rather than a Madman. It would have shown jis worth as a captain, and they could have shown a fighting retreat before falling in front of the walls for Farimer.

[@joejoyce8031]

People are mad they showed too little on LOTR, and mad they showed too much on the Hobbit. I love them all, and Peter Jackson and crew did a masterclass in adaption.

[@rikhuravidansker]

Actually they don't like the filler for either, but Peter Jackson did record a 8.5 day version of "The Lord of the Rings," and I would think he did the same thing for "The Hobbit" (albeit I think it would be half the time, since he only had three months instead of six). Thus I think we will see a 4.25 day version of "The Rings of Power" which will fix the mistakes which originate from it being a prequel to the Jacksonverse.

[@jachyra9]

Correction: Peter Jackson and crew did a masterclass in how to screw up an adaptation and show total disrespect to a source.

[@jemwand2530]

The books stand as a feat of literacy, the films stand as a feat of cinematography, they are both absolute masterworks. We don't need to compare them to enjoy them.

[@jachyra9]

True. But the films wouldn't exist without the book( singular, it's not a series of books ). So you can't separate them from the book.

[@kerickwalters2749]

Scouring of the Shire needs to happen in real life . Which was why he omitted it

[@Niko-hi5my]

Yes, the character assassination serves two major plot changes of the movies. 1) Gollum's sense of betrayal is sold more convincingly (whereas he is never portrayed as loyal in the books anyway). 2) it gives the hobbits a challenge for the movie finale, which is needed because the plot ends prematurely. However, that finale is a weak one, and honestly Faramir's redemption doesn't convince me. It would have needed much more, a better arc for him to justify his initial brashness for plot convenience.

[@DisFantasy]

It's not just the temptation of the Ring that movie Faramir sells. The impending doom approaching Gondor is also enhanced. Book Faramir can say he'd leave the Ring by the road given the choice, and he'd be wise to do so, but there's also no hint of the situation his homeland is facing. The movies sell the threat posed by Isengard and Mordor very well. Do the books?

[@jachyra9]

🙄

[@Hannah-hq8ne]

Yes. The books do sell the threat his homeland is facing since it’s been facing the threat for his whole life and he’s been fighting for 15+ years including the men fighting for Sauron just before this conversation with Frodo

[@khartog01]

My friend explained that they did this to avoid to avoid diminishing the evil of the ring like how did this one guy resist it.

[@robhogg68]

It's not just one guy. Aragorn also resisted. As did several hobbits, several elves and a dwarf. In fact, of the non-ringbearers, it's this one guy who gets corrupted by it.

[@henrikg1388]

​@@robhogg68 They would all have fallen for the temptation eventually, except for Sam and possibly the other hobbits. That's pretty clear and the reason why Frodo abandoned the Fellowship.

[@robhogg68]

​@@henrikg1388 It's only clear with Jackson's misanthropy added in. In the book, there's no conversation between Frodo and Aragorn on Amon Hen, no "can you protect me from yourself?" They're looking for Frodo when the Orcs attack, and get back to find one of the boats and two packs missing. Aragorn's comment is that "Frodo did not wish to lead any friend to death in Mordor, but knew he must go himself." Even in the movie, I don't think it's really clear. Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel all know that that temptation is something to be feared. Two of them successfully resist - what suggests the other wouldn't?

[@henrikg1388]

@@robhogg68 Precisely, and with extended exposure? I say that Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel and even Gandalf would have fallen like Boromir in the long run. Hell, even Legolas and Gimli. That is the whole point.

[@henrikg1388]

@@robhogg68 Because they weren't hobbits. Galadriel passed the test after a short exposure. So did Gandalf and Aragorn, and... Elrond. I still think it is pretty obvious that the entire Fellowship would eventually fall to temptation. Otherwise Frodo wouldn't set out on his own with only his gardener. Frodo understood that it was the story going forward, if he didn't take matters into his own hands. Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas and even Gandalf, would have fallen to temptation eventually. I cannot think of a more central theme in the overarching plot.

[@mugi2595]

I like movie Faramir, but I like book Faramir more. Movie Faramir feels too much like a temporary hurdle for Frodo and Sam to overcome, so simply a plot device. In the books he is way more fleshed out and is just more interesting overall. Of course, you couldn't give movie Faramir everything the books gave him, even in a 12 hour long movie series, so it couldn't be helped anyway, so I don't think PJ did a bad job per se.

[@valerynorth]

The reason the changes to Faramir in the movies rub me the wrong way particularly, is that they fundamentally change one of the most intriguing features of the book's grand arc. One by one in the book, the great and powerful, both those who have ruled and those who will rule, are tested. Those who fail, fall while those who pass, are uplifted. First, Gandalf is tested and refuses the Ring. Gandalf passes into the West at the end. Then, Aragorn is offered the Ring and likewise refuses. He goes on to become the King of Men. We hear next of how Saruman The White fell into temptation of the Ring's power - his fate is ignominious. Galadriel refuses to become a Queen whom all shall worship and despair. This feels like her final repentance for her part in the rebellion of the Noldor in Valinor, and she, too, is finally re-admitted to the Undying Lands. (Boromir succumbs to the Ring's temptation, and though he repents, his weakness leads to his fall.) Faramir is tested and proves himself fit to be a leader, and so he is appointed eventually. And finally (spoilers!) Samwise Gamgee faces the test, and passes with flying colours. He goes on to become Mayor of Hobbiton, the highest office in the Shire. Peter Jackson sweeps all that away to present what feels like a broad brush narrative of "Men are flawed and craven, Elves are pure and wise." Movie Faramir is the point at which that cheaper, flatter version becomes starkly clear against the book. It becomes a case of racial stereotyping instead of showing that there can be variation among all the Races of Middle-Earth.

[@johnknoop42]

He may not have been AS good in the movies and maybe its because I usually only watch the Extended Edition so there could be some extra stuff there, but I did still feel like the movie got it across that Faramir was a more wise, and learned and quite an honorable person. For me the hardest part in the movies is his treatment of Gollum, I really think if he had shown more kindness to Smeagol then he would have had a better chance against Gollum. Of course in the end Smeagol was always going to lose himself because thats the story but still I would have preferred it not be the way it was in the movie.

[@Hannah-hq8ne]

Yeah, at least the extended edition has parts of book Faramir that come out. The theatrical edition does him so unbelievably dirty. For a character who has all his best scenes cut anyway, to then cut the best of the scenes within the movie was insane

[@donwilliams6712]

Faramir is actually my favorite character from the books, so I am not really a fan of the movie version until he frees Frodo and Sam.

[@RoboSteave]

Forgive the length, but I am paying for it. First off, Boromir was right. Take the Ring and use it against Sauron. That Fellowship plan was folly, and stupid. Now if Elrond or Gandalf could see the future and see that it would work, okay. But it was never said that they could. Here, let me play Boromir: Aragorn: “You can’t wield it. Nobody can. It is altogether evil”. Boromir: “Didn’t you tell me that old Hobbit in there had it for 60 years and wielded it often? Is he evil? Aside from dodging annoying relatives, what evil did he do with it?” Aragorn: “Er, well, uh…” Boromir: “And didn’t this young Hobbit here have it for 17 years and wielded it at least twice? What evil did he do, startle some people at a bar and get stabbed?” Point me and Boromir. Obviously, you can have the Ring and even use it and not be seduced to evil. I mean even Gollum didn’t do anything with the ring except hide out in a cave for 500 years. Not everyone is corrupted by power. If you disagree with me, I’ll ban you from this comments section. No wait, I’ll ban you from the internet! I RULE! And, and, I… I. Oops, guess I don’t pass the test. I refuse to diminish and go to Ohio (west of here)!

[@factorfantasyweekly]

💀😂 Well apart from murdering his best friend for the ring and then murdering orcs and eating them raw…. Gollum was a great person. Very noble indeed! Here’s my plan… give the ring to an eagle. Eagle wears the ring and flies into Mordor and then dive bombs into the volcano. Easy. Sure the eagle needs to be on board with sacrificing themselves for the mission, but hey, a hobbit was on board with that so surely an eagle can muster up the courage.

[@RoboSteave]

@@factorfantasyweekly I would point out that he didn't have the ring when he murdered his "best friend". His friend had it and that's probably what made him so evil that he wouldn't give his friend something he wanted on his birthday. And are we now saying that killing Orcs was a bad thing in Middle Earth???

[@rikhuravidansker]

@@factorfantasyweekly To be fair, Gollum ate the goblins because "he was careful" to "not let the goblins find him out," remember, they would have eaten him too. His real crimes are being a menace to his home community, which he was implied to be BEFORE he found the Ring: "tunneling into mounds of fresh earth" to find "roots and beginnings" implies he already worshipped Shelob before meeting her, he was already a thief who BROKE INTO HOBBIT-HOLES to find old records and prized possessions, he was a grave-robber, and he could have awakened the Anduin version of the Barrow-wights! He would have been protected due to his aristocratic status and the fact Tolkien said in one of his letters everyone would "have been related in a small community of course," like the Fallowhide elite of the Shire.

[@AJ0223]

Bro did you read the book

[@RoboSteave]

@@AJ0223 There's a book?!

[@willlastnameguy8329]

I can't stand watching scenes that were cut from movies. It's almost always something that gives extra context, and it ruins the movie for me when I know it could have been better. But producers are just like, "nah. The audience won't care, and we need to make this movie less than two and a half hours."

[@williamhervey6409]

One of my 2 biggest complaints about Jackson's masterful work!

[@phosphorus4]

, Faramir asked calmly.

[@shereemcclelland2186]

David Wenham did a fantastic job, perfect casting, we all fell in love with Faramir, he is one of my favourite characters, sorry David but Legolas and Aragorn come in as 1 then 2, behind Faramir is Eowyn and Eomer. ❤️

[@XoXo475]

It’s farra Meer not far ameer

[@doctorprepper8106]

Faramir in the movies is a lot more realistic

[@kojinaoftheinvertedeye810]

Honestly yes I like him, he's downright blasphemous to the books you could say but I think David plays him brilliantly and he does have his moments of quality, just here he's a lot more flawed a Character, I like to thinks it's to do with being the lesser child so he craves Denethor's affection even though he knows it will never happen, that said I do think that he deviates a little too much to be the same Faramir in a different situation, still love him equally, I imagine had he been raised better he'd be more like the book because let's not forget the films play a lot on the family drama

[@flight007keith2]

Exactly! Not a fan of Faramir in the movie.

[@gregmason2434]

As a die hard life long fan of The lord of the rings (I had read the books 4 or 5 times through by the time of watching the movie) - This issue was the only thing I disliked. I loved the movies, do not get me wrong. But I do not think Faramir needed to be demonized to emphasize the power of the ring.

[@jaygbardo8781]

Not quite true. Yes, at first he has the ring go to gondor...But during the seen when his was driven by the overwhelming Orc army in Osgiliath, he tells his father, that Boromir would have "taken the ring for himself"...He understood the evil of the ring at the end of the Two Towers..So, Jackson pays homage to what happened earlier in the books. And, we don't fault him for that, as it does indeed play better for the character journey via the storying telling in Cinema. Lovers of the film accept this "deviation" as OK, perhaps even good.

[@Hannah-hq8ne]

But the sudden change in his character to say his line from the book ‘I would not use the ring if Minas Tirith were falling and I alone could save her’ just after wanting to take the ring is such a crazy 180 in a short space of time. But everything that happens before he has that talk with Denethor deviates from the book so much the character is unrecognisable

[@kolec76]

No clue wether my stance would remain the same, had I read the books first, but I haven't. And I truly do like the movie Faramir. Showing him not as already "wisest" let's say, but rather being put in a situation where he has the option, to grow and choose to do the right thing. In it's own way, rather than already being great, improving by such events is pretty grand in it's own way.

[@michelepurington3227]

The portrayal of Faramir is by far my biggest disappointment with the movies after the omission of Tom Bombadil.

[@SecularGeek]

Peter Jackson messed this one up. Even if nobody cares about Tolkien's theme of mercy winning out over evil, Faramir has to show his wisdom and mercy here. This is because later, when he is back at Gondor and has taken sick, Denethor tries to kill him and burn him alive. It is a point of high tension in the book, and there is a great race against time to dave Faramir. But in the movies, all of that tension is gone, pointlessly dissipated by the fact that wehave no reason to care about Faramir. In the movie, Faramir is a dick, just like his brother and his father. Let him burn! I still have no idea why Jackson did this. Laziness isn't enough of an excuse. This was the point at which I decided that Jackson doesn't actually understand the sources, and has utter contempt for Tolkien and his readers.

[@AJ0223]

Talk about contempt for Tolkien using that username lol

[@Bodharas]

I see no problems

[@WMalven]

Peter Jackson is a Vandal. Virtually every single event, character, and behavior that is in the book was altered in some way to the detriment of Tolkien’s intentions. His treatment of Faramir is only a small example of his departures. His abominable portrayal of the interactions between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum stands out as a gross perversion of what actually happens in the book. The unfaltering friendship and bond of trust between Sam and Frodo in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges is one of the underlying themes of the book. Frodo never lost faith in Sam and never was seduced by Gollum’s lies. Again, the gross alterations in the events in Fanghorn made the Ents look pathetic. Again and again Jackson applied his not so subtle, heavy hand to the script and turned literary gold into comic book dreck…low IQ pablum for the masses.

[@ChristianEdwards-i9r]

Right? Beating the seduction of the ring is a big deal.

[@theehumanshield]

Movie Faramir works perfectly for the pacing of film. If book Faramir was in the movie it would have had to be cut down so much people would wonder what the point was. Book Faramir works in the book because in a book it is easier to info dump in interesting ways. Movie Faramir works because it keeps the tension up while moving the plot forward.

[@cerboris521]

Answer. No, you cannot have a successful character assassination. If the Character change was better, it would not be referred to as an assassination.

[@senseathletics]

these have inspired me to re-read LOTR maybe try some of the other books on the lore.

[@jaredmarkham7300]

It's been about a year or 2 since I've read the books but. If I remember correctly It's not that bore. Mary didn't want to go to the council. It's more or less than death or didn't trust sending fairmare to the council Due to the fact that farmer Was always. It's more more open to gandalyes. Guidance the dinosaur and boremirror.

[@JackChurchill101]

I think your autocorrect is letting you down a little.

[@jaredmarkham7300]

@@JackChurchill101 How so? i'm not sure how to change it

[@FoolsMasque]

PUT DOWN THE BONG

[@jaredmarkham7300]

@@FoolsMasque I don't do drugs

[@jenniedarling3710]

Do you use text to speak? I use it sometimes if I'm having a very dislexic day. I recommend asking someone you know and trust to have a look at your comment, it's a bit confusing to read.

[@drawartpony6880]

I'm a outlier becaues I like the moves better then the book. For me the book human were just not as intresting as the movies.