Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1308700" data-attributes="member: 13654">Which is why the movies simply omit the connection between the destruction of the ring and their fading from Middle Earth, thus not needing to get viewers to understand it.In the books Denethor despaired because he was duped by Sauron, who controlled what he saw when using the palantir, into believing that there truly was no choice but to find a good way to die.  In the movie Denethor despairs because he's fought Sauron for so long and believes there's no longer any way to win, it's just that the palantir isn't the instrument that brings him to believe it.A minor character who in the larger scheme of the story was unnecessary.Did we see the same movies?  Did you miss the ENDLESS repetition of Frodos pained face, his looks at the ring, clutching it under his shirt, his outbursts at Sam, etc.?And thus largely a matter of timing only, and the timing and pacing of a movie is not the same as a book.I wouldn't say "messed up", although they DID assign Faramir a different role in the story.  It's just that he then reinforces the corruptive power of the ring instead of highlighting the differences between himself and Boromir and Denethor.  Faramirs charge is then added to serve the purpose of demonstrating the gulf between he and Denethor.This wasn't to show that nobody outside the Fellowship could do anything right, but to bring down the lofty, Awful Lawful Good, tone of the characters to something more flawed.  Essentially, making the character more believeable and palatable to a wider audience.Apples and oranges.  The book had the luxury of presenting Treebeard as a very patient, wise creature.  The movie does not have the luxury of being free with the time being spent in the seat.  While I agree that the decision could have, and should have, been made in the same way as the book your criticism here takes an aspect of Treebeards character that isn't ESTABLISHED in the movie and criticizes the film for being contrary to that aspect of character.No, just the first part.  On this one I agree with you that they could have and should have played it the same way as in the book, and it's a change largely necessitated by the shorter shrift that's given to Denethors character.Good thing the movies don't attempt to present it that way then.  If they had then that criticism would have merit.  It IS presented essentially as just the story of the Fellowship, with most of the larger, subtler overtones of the book dealt with only superficially.Not "lost".  That implies that they tried to put it in there.  They didn't.  They largely just omitted it.You almost had it there.  It IS explained almost entirely by the differences in medium.   They changed the story BECAUSE a mass-market series of films has different requirements than a book and some of Tolkiens original story was OMITTED as unnecessary and even problematic.  Had Tolkien done the screenplay adaptation himself he would undoubtedly have taken many of the same axe blows to his own work.</blockquote>

Verification