Re: Faramir and the Ring
>Yeah, truly! The way I saw it, Jackson et al. saw that
> One of the constant themes in LOTR is the test of the Ring: Boromir failed it
> and Faramir passed it. How could the contrast between them not be important
> to the story?
> Steve Gaddis
Towers would run long, too long. So they decided to delay
some stuff and put it in King instead. Unfortunately,
putting Shelob in King robs Towers of its climax!
So what to do - fabricate a crisis that can stand in as a
(rather weak) climax for Towers. This is why they had
Faramir decide to take the Ring, for very good (to him)
reasons (thereby changing his character completely, and
undermining the upcoming conflict between Faramir and
Denethor) and then decide NOT to take the Ring, for reasons
that, well, why? It doesn't make any sense to me, even
watching the extended DVD version. The only palpable reason
*might* be that Faramir is impressed by Frodo's bravery in
withstanding the Nazgul call atop the Osgiliath tower. But
that in itself is a huge problem, since Frodo reveals to the
Nazgul "Look! Here's that ring you've been looking for! It's
right here in Osgiliath!" - and after that the whole story
structure falls apart; IF that had happened in the "real
life" of the book, then the Enemy would have drawn back all
his forces from Gondor and piled up Nazgul, Orcs and all
right outside his gates and Osgiliath! And he wouldn't have
cared a fig for Aragorn (who he believes might be holding
the Ring, in the book) or Gandalf or any men, until after he
had won back his precious...
To me, this is the only tripping-stone the moviemakers
committed, that breaks the deal for me. I will abide by Liv
Tyler's star power and trying to boost "femme appeal" and
all that, and getting Cate Blanchett into Towers (for all of
30 seconds) in order to be able to include her in the
credits, etc. I'll live with that, since it doesn't wreck
the sense in the storyline.
But this whole deal with Faramir substantially impairs the
story, and weakens what we'll see in King.