Khrisar
Squire
Peasant
Ruler of Numenor, Citadel Doorwarden of Gondor, and Beren Erchamion.
Posts: 97
|
Post by Khrisar on Jan 9, 2004 21:27:23 GMT -5
I would definently have to agree with Majsu, Faramir was better in the books...
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elessar on Jan 10, 2004 15:38:31 GMT -5
i like both...they are both good
|
|
|
Post by skittles on Feb 22, 2004 3:22:28 GMT -5
er....yeah both faramirs were great....but i understand PJ's reasoning for changing him....and it makes sense to me. you couldn't really show on the screen a man resisting the Ring so easily, after building up all this tension about how tempting and evil the Ring is. it just wouldn't work.
|
|
psychoknight
Knight
When the moon is dead, the dragons will rise...
Posts: 144
|
Post by psychoknight on Aug 25, 2004 13:26:01 GMT -5
I can't beleive they left out the house of healing! That was essential to Eowyn and Faramir's characters.
Also, hated "XenArwen" in the first film.
|
|
|
Post by Calenfalathiel on Aug 25, 2004 20:24:23 GMT -5
look on the bright side! The houses of healing will be in the EE...i'm looking forward to that.
Yeah, the whole making Arwen a hero thing was.......unnecessary. I don't think that's the right way to "incorporate women more" in the movies...
|
|
psychoknight
Knight
When the moon is dead, the dragons will rise...
Posts: 144
|
Post by psychoknight on Sept 23, 2004 13:41:02 GMT -5
Is Saruman going to die in the EE? I really don't care if he gets mauled to death by a schizophrenic goat, just as long as he gets a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Calenfalathiel on Sept 25, 2004 8:45:32 GMT -5
I found this information on a site that gives sneak previews on upcoming DVDS...
"Saruman's disempowerment: Saruman's last dialog with Gandalf, Theoden and the others will only be seen on the SEE. Saruman is going to appear on the balcony, trying to bewitch the fellowship one last time by talking to them. But Gandalf breaks Saruman's wand. After that Wormtongue and Saruman appear on the roof of the Orthanc. Saruman treats his servant like a dog and threatens him with a knife. But Wormtongue fights back, grabs the knife and throws Saruman from the Orthanc. His own weapons pierce Saruman and Legolas kills Wormtongue with one of his arrows."
So, since they couldn't put the Scouring of the Shire in there, they improvised and resorted to this. I guess its not that bad of an ending for him...
|
|
|
Post by .:Luthien:. on Aug 15, 2005 20:35:58 GMT -5
i'm gonna rivie this thread (different members=different opinions) what do you all think of the changes made from the books to the movies?
|
|
|
Post by Allison on Aug 16, 2005 10:31:55 GMT -5
I'm a purist and therefore cannot enjoy the movies thoroughly unless I ignore the books. Heh. Something about Arwen being in the movies and Elrond hating men grates on my nerves. Plus Frodo is a better character in the books, and Faramir was actually cool.
|
|
|
Post by Calenfalathiel on Aug 17, 2005 9:48:19 GMT -5
Hmmm....I'm not so much of a purist, mainly because I would've never known the books existed if it wasn't for the movies. So, I read FOTR after I saw the movie, but then read TTT and ROTK before the movies. With that said, I do have a few issues with the movies...
-Arwen in FotR: I think we all know where I'm going here... -Haldir dying........um, what? (my reaction after seeing that scene) -Um...I haven't read the books in awhile so I can't really remember much else that's significant...
I understand the change of Faramir in the movies, but I think it would've been better if they didn't actually go to Osigiliath...it would've been better if Faramir had taken them halfway but then finally let them go. It sorta shows how he gave in a little to the Ring's power, but not too much. I don't remember how exactly it happened in the books, maybe it was similar...
The Scouring of the Shire, I really like that chapter but there really was no way it could have been in the theatrical release or EE....it would've added well over 30 minutes to the movie, and they really couldn't afford to make ROTK any longer.
That's all I can think of for now, but when I remember more, I'll post them up.
|
|
|
Post by Allison on Aug 17, 2005 14:40:58 GMT -5
Ah, but the whole point to Faramir's character was that he was depicting what a true Numenorean would be like, and how he would have more will power against the Ring. He is like Aragorn, and when PJ changed the character in the movies, Faramir lost what he stood for. Sure, he gave up his lust for the Ring in the end, but I don't think it was for the same reasons at all. Personally, I think the change in character would have ruined his chance with Eowyn as well, but hey... Didn't happen that way. I don't really like hobbits (yes, that does make me a bit of an odd LOTR fan ), so I was a little grateful that the Scouring of the Shire was not included in the movies, but I definitely didn't like how they changed Saruman's death. They made it seem inconsequential when really, it was an important part of the storyline... With or without the Shire being involved. I almost had a heart attack in the theatre when Haldir died. lol My first thought was "Nooooo!" followed by "Wait, he's not even supposed to be in this movie." Haha. They brought in the Elves, and not the Dunedain. That was disappointing. I will admit that I enjoyed Gollum much more in the movies than I did in the books, even though he seemed a little more... schizophrenic. I've come to the conclusion that I don't like the changes made to any of the main characters. Thankfully Sam and Pippin stayed the same and were still likeable.
|
|
|
Post by Calenfalathiel on Aug 21, 2005 9:09:42 GMT -5
Hmmm...this makes me want to read LotR again, haven't done so in a few years... I do agree that Sam was basically the same, some other characters I think were portrayed well are Eowyn, Denethor, Legolas, and Galadriel, to name a few... With Saruman's death, I can't really say anything about it...I mean, they had to do what they had to do....
|
|
elerrina
Knight
[P:0]
M.G. Creator
Posts: 400
|
Post by elerrina on Aug 25, 2005 18:17:19 GMT -5
The changes from the books to the movies . . . well, they left out a lot of things that I think they should have left in. As in Eowyn and Faramir in the Houses of Healing (that scene was cut off and put only in the Extended Editions . . .) and of course, they also added a lot more Arwen scenes - a lot compared to the tiny amount of appearances she had in the books . . . but I suppose Peter Jackson saw her as a very important character, seeing as how she gave up her immortality.
|
|
|
Post by Allison on Aug 26, 2005 10:13:41 GMT -5
I agree with that. Arwen is an important character, and it's almost a shame Tolkien didn't write more of her in the books, but he didn't really do much with female characters anyways, except for maybe Eowyn. But Arwen was never a warrior, and I highly doubt Elrond would ever let her go out hunting for Aragorn in FOTR. He loved her too much to chance her getting hurt.
So, just wondering, but was anyone else disappointed in how wimpy PJ made Frodo in the movies? At least in the books he had a backbone.
|
|