Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Berandor" data-source="post: 1231665" data-attributes="member: 225">Possible Spoilers ahead!Also, I use "PJ" to mean Peter Jackson & crew (notably Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens)Reasons: 1) Faramir is a noble character from beginning to end. He's got no personal journey in him. He is not conflicted, and doesn't have to make difficult decisions, because he is who he is. In cinema terms, he is boring, a cutout character. Now, he's got a development towards being the hero he becomes. This is much more gratifying and interesting for both the actor and the audience.2) The danger of the ring would be downplayed, to PJ's thinking. Spending two whole movies trying to show its power, showing how much Frodo suffers from it, to bring up a character who is immune to its influence harms the overall story. Why doesn't Frodo give Faramir the ring to bring to Mt. Doom? He seems better suited. Not now.3) As they put Shelob into film 3, they needed an obstacle for Frodo's journey. They decided Faramir would be that obstacle, a sound choice in connection with the reasons above. Did it have to be that way? No. Do I agree with their choices? Not necessarily. Does it work? Yes.1) But he wasn't. With 10,000 Uruks, Theoden's army would have been destroyed on the field, elves or no elves. 2) Theoden also clearly resents being told what to do, shortly after being dominated by Saruman/Wormtongue. 3) Also, in the book, Aragorn is a much less conflicted character (again, see Faramir), and therefore Theoden can be, too, without harming his character. Now, they use Theoden as a means for Aragorn to find his confidence as a leader, a king.4) Theoden suffers from the domination. At first, he is rather weak still, but gradually through the film, he gains more and more strength and confidence, even as he is losing hope. To PJ, this is a more believable approach.1) Why not? How many are they? Not much. It shows that some elves see that there is something worth fighting for, and indeed, in the books the elves fight against Morder, even if they don't do it at Helm's Deep.2) It is reminiscent of the battle in the beginning of the movie, when the forces of elves and man stood together.3) It brings a shimmer of hope into the dark situation.4) They are used to great cinematic effect, or "cool scenes".1) Well, I sort of agree. However, PJ wanted to give Merry and Pippin a more active role, to show the fundaments of heroism even before they are squired (Well, sort of, when riding in disguise instead of staying home counts). Instead of only waking the Balrog and stealing fireworks, they actually acted instead of reacted to something.2) Also, it's soemwhat boring when you cut back and forth between an Entmoot where Ents are discussion sssllllooooowwwlllyyy, and then come to the decision of helping. You don't get to see drama in the decision, which is what he wanted to provide. I agree, though, that this is a change that likely could have been avoided without much harm. However, PJ had his reasons for it.Yes, and I believe PJ when he says he miscalculated the effect of the scene.You probably mean, instead of Pippin, right? Isn't it he who thinks of the solution? It's because they wanted to bring Frodo a little more to the foreground, instead of just being the ringbearer giving him something useful to do, and clearly show him as a/the main character of the series (I know, Sam may be regarded as even more important).As you can see, I feel different. BErandor</blockquote>

Verification