The indecisive Nazgul
 

OK, this is one moment that really bugged me. It's a good example to me of P.J. deciding to go with a "wouldn't-this-look-cool" moment, which doesn't advance the story, and frankly didn't even make sense. <P>It's Frodo's "Mexican Stand-Off" scene with the Nazgul. Here's Frodo standing a bare six feet away from a hovering Ring-Wraith. It's suppose to be a moment of supreme tension, a true battle of wills. <P>But instead, all I can think is: "Hey, he's right there. Snatch him up and take him off to Mordor. Get him!" It's as if the Nazgul is afraid to touch Frodo.<P>The scene seemed so false and silly to me, such a contrived moment of menace, that I almost expected "Todd Evil" to pop up and say "You want me to shoot him?"

I agree with you Birdie. There was no way Frodo would be able to reveal himself to a Ringwraith and survive. It would be basically giving up the Quest. <P>I think that it's PJ's way of showing the hopelessness of the Quest, and the pain and suffering Frodo had to go through. But still, he would not just waltz on up to a Nazgul and offer it the Ring. How ridiculous!

you remember in fotr some scenes didn't make sense because of scenes from the extended edition were left out? maybe it's the same case with thi1s scene, or maybe it's just silly and out of place.

Bird,<P>No, it did not make sense, either in terms of the original book or even seen by itself in the movie. It was obviously put in to underline the portrayal of Frodo as victim.<P>I think, however, it's not unexpected given the way Frodo was shown in the Fellowship as already being paralyzed by fear, and with a constant look of terror in his face. PJ had pushed Frodo so far in that direction in the Fellowship that he had to come up with some device to underline to the viewer that the hobbit had gone even further over the edge. So I do not like it, but I'm not surprised.<P>I wonder what he'll do in RotK to show us that he's in even worse shape?<P>sharon

Maybe he'll show Sam dragging Frodo into Mordor with the Elven rope. ("Nooooo. I don't wanna <I>gooooo</I>")

Bird, that was the most disappointing moment in the whole movie for me. The Faramir thing I can (sort of) comprehend, if PJ was trying to give Faramir room to grow. But the Mexican Standoff made me wonder several times-- had PJ ever actually read the books after all????? Where did PJ invent this pathetic Frodo??? And the Nazgul was even more pathetic-- The Nazgul let Frodo GET AWAY. Please!!! <P>I came away from this movie convinced that PJ does not understand nobility. At all. He just doesn't get it. Where is the nobility in either of his movies? It's not there. Aragorn doesn't have it; Frodo doesn't have it; Elrond doesn't have it; even Gandalf doesn't have it. And Faramir has been dragged through the GUTTER.<P>Faramir!! Frodo!!! <P>(Helen erupts into Stitch-style growling, snarling, and gnashing of teeth)<P>Okay, Helen, take a deep breath. You loved 95% of the movie. That's a good grade. Calm down... (Yes, I'm already planning to see it again.)

mark12_30: Oh no. Don't even get me started on the nobility thing! My family has given up listening to me. Seriously!<P>I was explaining things to my grandma who went to the midnight showing and she said "Frodo's going to be even <I>more</I> depressed? <I>How?</I>"

Why do I always have to start by saying I agree with everyone?! Wouldn't it be way cooler to start with: "no, you've got it all wrong! I'm right!" <BR>Ah, well: I agree with you all. <P>I could've forgiven everything else, but the Nazgul-scene...*shakes her head* Still, it has one good thing to it: it leads to a fine scene with Frodo, Sting and Sam. (I know, I know. Too soon, too everything. But boy did I still love it.)<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nenya ]

Didnt like the "mexican stand off" but i must admit i loved getting a closer look at a winged nazgul i love them!

Maybe the "closer look" at the Nazgul's steed was supposed to set up Eowyn's slaying in RotK. Then again, maybe not.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I came away from this movie convinced that PJ does not understand nobility. At all. He just doesn't get it. Where is the nobility in either of his movies? It's not there. Aragorn doesn't have it; Frodo doesn't have it; Elrond doesn't have it; even Gandalf doesn't have it. And Faramir has been dragged through the GUTTER. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's it! I knew there was <I>something</I> very deeply and intrinsically wrong with all of it, from beginning to end. The Rohirrim, Gandalf the White, Faramir, they've all been robbed of that high beauty and melancholy elation that belongs to myth. The Elves don't have it - they're just a pack of machines with pretty armor. I do think that Aragorn has a touch of it. <I>Despite</I> PJ, Viggo definitely lends a sort of transcendence and grace to Aragorn's movie character.

I don't know, I can see Frodo getting even more depressed than he is now (scary thought). Bet we're going to be seeing a LOT of Sam carrying Frodo in the third movie; though how Frodo will ever have the strength to hold up the Phial to Shelob is kind of beyond me...<P>I'm probably going to get smacked for this, but I didn't think the Nazgul scene was a total disaster (any more than that whole Osgiliath scene was a disaster, but anyway). I think it was supposed to be an echo of the scenes in FOTR where Frodo is three feet away from a sniffing Nazgul and only gets saved at the last second by somebody. In those scenes he tries to resist, at least sort of, but in the TTT scene he's just offering the friggin' thing. "Here! Take it!" It looks like it's supposed to show how the Ring is taking him over. The reason the Nazgul wouldn't pounce right away (and he did actually pounce pretty fast) is that he's blind. I definitely agree that the movie would have been better off without it, though.

Personally, I totally give up on the movie, and my only concern was making everything less boring while I was watching, and, wow, those Nazgul were cool, and I want one for a pet!!<P>You see, I gave up on the movie, the moment they turned my favorite character into a BIG JOKE!! Gollum/Smeagol is my absolute favorite character, and I was really dissapointed when they made him into a joke. A lot of people may have liked him, but I like Smeagol because I pity him, and I do not picture him dancing around with a dead fish.<P>But that Nazgul was really cool. I actually loved that scene, but only because the words I made up for it, which you can find on the thread in Middle Earth Mayem called "Turning the drama funny" (sorry for the lack of a link) and is the very first statement there. (It basically had Frodo offering to sell the one Ring to the Nazgul, and it's pretty funny).<P>But, you guys are really correct, and if I hadnt given up on the movie so much, maybe I would have minded too. I mean, what kind of pathetic Nazgul lets Frodo stand there instead of just taking up a nice big, sharp claw and smooshing him??<P>Oh well....

This scene didn't quite sit right with me either. I think PJ was going for the beauty shot (which it was) showing the hopelessness of little Frodo standing up to the strength of Mordor, but logistically, I'm don't think it works that well. Oh well.<P>Seeing the movie for the third, and likely last, time on Saturday with the kids. Hopefully this will hold me over to the DVD comes out. It's gonna be a long wait. <P>H.C.

Just to put in another 2 cents.<P>This change is obviously connected to the change of location to Osgiliath, change in Faramir and change in the results of the Entmoot. All of these changes, whether you agree with them or not, were done for essentially the same reason.<P>TTT basically has action on three fronts. PJ had to decide whether to deal with these scenes concurently or consecutively. Tolkien chose consecutively. Showing us, essentially, Merry's & Pippin's story first (I know there was a taste of Aragorn and company before that), then the Rohan story and then Frodo, Sam and Gollum. PJ chose concurrently where the three stories more or less appear to be happening simultaneously and he cuts from one to the other. This choice is definately more appropriate for film but it has a major limitation. You have to develop the stories in parallel for pacing reasons. For instance, you can't give the impression of things looking hopeless at Helm's Deep and then cut to Faramir having a, more or less, tension free lunch with Frodo and Sam. The emotions of the stories are contradicting each other and all the work you did building tension at Helm's Deep can be lost by not having similar tension in the other scenes. The scenes <B>must</B> complement eachother.<P>PJ decided to use the dramatic line of Helm's Deep as his model. As we all know, the idea here is that things look blackest before the dawn (literally in this case). If he was going to intercut scenes with the hobbits, he has to parallel this theme. This means that things have to be looking hopeless for Merry and Pippin (Ents decide not to go to war), and for Frodo and Sam (Faramir decides to take them to Minas Tirith). He then needs a fulcrum to turn the stories on. An event in which all the stories turn around. In this film the first signs of the fulcrum is when Pippin gets Treebeard to head south towards Isengard. After this all there stories turn around almost simultaneously. Purists will balk, but it's a very dramatic technique and personally, I like that he gave this important moment to Pippin. His alternative is to show the stories more consecutively, where he could stay truer to the book but would sacrifice the power of the climax.<P>Another obvious film that does this is Return of the Jedi (I'm only picking this because almost everyone has seen it) where the fulcrum is when Chewbaca gains access to one of the walkers. Actually, Lucas modelled Phantom Menace this way and I would expect the same out of the third movie.<P>In my opinion, a much better film that does this is Magnolia which came out a couple of years ago. In this the fulcrum can't be missed. It's the rain of frogs that no one who has seen the film will ever forget, though I know some that would like to. <P>H.C.

HC I could not agree more. I hadn't actually thought of how Tolkien had arranged the switching between the different companies in the book(s). Very good point. Which makes me wonder if that might have been one of the reasons Merry and Pippin and their scenes with Treebeard didn't get as much screen time as many of us would have wished(?). It might have distracted us from the whole feeling of TTT. <P>~*Laialthriel*~

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Which makes me wonder if that might have been one of the reasons Merry and Pippin and their scenes with Treebeard didn't get as much screen time as many of us would have wished(?). It might have distracted us from the whole feeling of TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm hoping on the Special Edition here. <P>H.C.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> HC I could not agree more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ditto.

Yes, I think the Extended Edition will reveal quite a bit to the not-so-satisfied fans and answer a lot of questions...at least that's what I'm hoping. I really hope they make it good. I'm sure I could find out with research but hey, who wants to research when someone here might know already? Do we know the exact date for TTT release to dvd?<P><BR>Laial

HC,<P>I am enormously impressed with your analysis. I think you have put your finger on the problem quite well. Isn't it amazing what this little change in structure entailed? <P>Yet I still wonder if PJ couldn't have achieved the same goal somewhat differently. For example, the Ents could have decided to go to war, but they could have spent a lot of time moaning that this would likely be the last march that they would ever undertake and stressed that they are dying out. <P>Similarly, with Faramir, you might show him as one tiny gleeming light of integrity in an otherwise grim situation. This could be done by contrasting him with his father, perhaps even using flashbacks or some such thing.<P>I think you've put your finger on the problem, but there might have been other ways to get around it rather than the one PJ chose.<P>Having said this, and with all the flaws in the movie that deeply bothered me, I will admit I've seen it 4 times. There were still things I could take away and treasure, particularly the visual depiction of Middle-earth. Sometimes I felt as if I was staring at an Alan Lee print that had somehow come alive. I thought that was especially true at the Black Gate. It perfectly matched one of my book covers!<P>sharon<p>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

I have to say, that after everything I heard about this scene from everyone who had seen the film, it was not as bad as I thought it would be. Everyone said that it was a Frodo trying to give the ring to the Nazgul, it did not look like that to me, it looked like he was trying to put the ring on and give up on the quest, overall it still was not a good scene though.

<B>HC, Fulcrum of the Thread</B><P>I of course agree with your well-crafted analysis of PJ's reasons, HC. I think that this technique is too overpowering, though. While most movies will not have three plots running at the same time, we have recently seen several that do, all in the action genre (please correct me if I'm wrong). GL completely ruined this technique of Simultaneous Climax (as you can tell, I ain't been to no film school) for me. Episode 1 has four, count 'em four, different scenes to switch back and forth from, and it's just plain ridiculous. <P>At the moment where all four scenes come to a break in tension at exactly the same time, independent of each other, realism gets thrown out the window. Admittedly the film is targeted at a young audience, but I think that some effort needs to be made to gain the acceptance of older, cannier viewers as well. Ditto, LOTR.<P>I think that the Treebeard thread was not used as effectively as it could have been. To have the Ents arrive at Isengard earlier, as the timing in the book, would provide an earlier minor climax. And subsequently the huorns could have been sent out after Saruman's army, as per the book (also making the "My business is with Isengard tonight" line more logical). The huorns would have served to tie two of the three threads together, in the final few winning moments of Helm's Deep. We could even have had Gandalf leading them there, to cut out the Grimbold factor that seemed to annoy the filmmakers so much.<P>This still would have left plenty of space to run the Frodo and Aragorn threads at the same pace. They could even have safely shown Shelob instead of The Indecisive Nazgûl (Skippy, I believe). PJ complains of Frodo and Sam not having enough to do in ROTK without his relocating Shelob, but I think there were definitely better solutions to this problem out there.

Although I greatly enjoyed the movie, I'm certainly not claiming the movie is perfect. At the same time, I'm not claiming to have the solutions to making the movie better. Frodo and the Nazgul really didn't work for me either and Faramir suddenly letting the Hobbits go also didn't quite ring true. I would have loved to see more Ents. I liked the way they did Treebeard, but I would have certainly wanted to see more as well as Quickbeam.<P>Certainly different decisions could have been made. Would they have made a better film? I don't know. It's possible these are insolvable problems. Remember that LoTR was widely regarded as being unfilmable (and with good reason) before Jackson was brave enough to take it on.<P>For better or worse, Jackson decided to make Helm's Deep the focus of the movie and that drove most of his other decisions. Considering the enormously popular reaction this sequence has gained, it makes it tough to argue with, but personally I would have liked to see more Hobbits. Do I dislike the movie because of this? Absolutely not.<P>I was just trying to get across that these decisions are not easy ones and are not made callously or for cheap Hollywood reasons. Every decision is fraught with their own problems. Intercutting Shelob with Helm's Deep is a problem because the dramatic line ends differently. Helm's Deep goes from hopelessness to victory. Shelob ends in hopelessness. Perhaps Shelob should have been the climax as it is in the book and Helm's Deep should have been earlier? Well then you have to down play Helm's Deep so as to not overpower the actual climax. You would also have to get by Faramir pretty fast, which perhaps some people would have prefered when compared to what they did do to Faramir, but then Faramir would have been pretty forgetable and he is a fairly important in the next film. PJ had to have Faramir have an impact on the audience.<P>Are there solutions to these problems? Probably, but they likely lead to more problems. It's fun to discuss alternative, but I think people should realize how difficult all this is. <P>H.C.

After watching the movie for the third time, I think I understand the way PJ and co. were intending the scene to play. I still don't agree with it, and it took me three times to notice (which isn't very effective in my book), but here it is.<P>I think Kalimac is definitely on the right track:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The reason the Nazgul wouldn't pounce right away (and he did actually pounce pretty fast) is that he's blind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think the Nazgul *doesn't know the Ring is there*. Wait! Just bear with me a moment. <P>1) The Ring senses the Nazgul and takes over Frodo's mind, making him climb to a conspicuous spot where he can be carried off. (There's a parasite that does this to ants, but that's another topic altogether.)<P>2) The Fell Beast sees Frodo and thinks: "Oooh, snacks!"<P>3) The Ring tries to make Frodo put it on, because otherwise the Nazgul won't know it's there. (When I looked closer, Frodo wasn't holding out the Ring to offer it as I had originally thought, but was holding it in one hand, ready to plunge his other forefinger into it.)<P>4) As the Fell Beast swoops lower to carry off his creme-filled morsel, the Nazgul looks totally relaxed, as if it's thinking: "Oh well, the stupid thing is eating another Gondorian. I wonder what's on TV tonight?" It doesn't have the focused attention it should have if it feels the presence of the Ring. (It's not sniffing, etc.)<P>5) Sam tackles Frodo, stopping him from putting on the Ring. At the same instant, Faramir shoots the Fell Beast, which decides that the Hobbit would have given it hairballs anyway.<P>6) The Fell Beast flies off, peeved, and the Nazgul (and by extension, Sauron) is none the wiser.<P>This is what I think PJ intended. It's the only way the scene can make any kind of sense. Otherwise, the Ringwraith is just a big dumb slacker as I originally thought. (I griped about this on the TTT - Osgiliath thread already.) <P>Of course, this makes Aragorn's use of the palantir essential again, which I think is a good thing.<P>HCIsland, thanks for your insightful and enlightening post! It certainly puts PJ's choices in a different light and makes a lot of sense. I still wish Osgiliath hadn't happened and that the turning point had been at Henneth Annun, though. I also wish Frodo and Sam had had a glorious dawn filled with hope just like the other members of the Fellowship.<P>"Most gracious host," said Frodo, "it was said to me by Elrond Halfelven that I should find friendship upon the way, secret and unlooked for. Certainly I looked for no such friendship as you have shown. To have found it turns evil to great good." <P>What do you think?<P>-Lily<p>[ January 26, 2003: Message edited by: Lily Bracegirdle ]

Lily, that's exactly what I thought. I went to see it just last friday and I completely agree with you. It makes perfect sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course, this makes Aragorn's use of the palantir essential again, which I think is a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And perhaps it makes Pippin's use of the palantir more likely too! (crosses fingers and toes). After all, the prevailing wisdom in the Dark Side's neck fo the woods is that the Ring is carried by a halfling; then the Aragorn episode with the palantir following Pippin's would make Sauron think that Aragorn has taken the Ring from Pippin. Of course, I've heard these scenes may be played out at Edoras, which would confuse things again, not sure though...<P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta

At Weathertop (in the book), Aragorn makes it clear that the Ring draws the Nazgul whether someone has it on or not.

I too thought that this scene was one of the weaker ones in the film. But my problem with it came more from the point of view that the unveiling of the Ring so close to Mordor would draw the Eye towards Osgiliath. Indeed, it would draw the Eye in a line that took it pretty much through the pass of Cirith Ungol. Not a desirable situation for the Ringbearer given his route. Of course, PJ may well clear some aspects of this up in the next film by using the Palantir to make Sauron believe that Gondor and more specifically the returned King of Men has the ring. But we will see.<P>As for the Ringwraith being too hesitant and that he should have snatched it at this point, I am uncertain. During the whole of the LOTR the only time the Nazgul actually physically threaten Frodo they do so with a Morgul Knife. They never try to dispatch him with their swords at Weathertop despite this likely being a better and quicker method. Instead they strike him with a Morgul Knife and rely on this turning Frodo into a wraith that would come at the bidding once he had succumbed. So the question is, can the Nazgul actually try to physically kill the Ringbearer?<BR>Tolkien himself addressed an aspect of this in his letters when he speculates what the Nazgul may have done if Frodo had not been attacked by Gollum at Mount Doom and had instead been allowed to claim the Ring for himself. Tolkien suggests that although Sauron urged the Nazgul to Mount Doom they would not have attempted to attack Frodo and claim the ring. Instead they would have seemed fair to him and kept him occupied, perhaps showing him the realm he now commanded, until Sauron could arrive to deal with Frodo in person. At which point, being the Ringbearer would not avail him. Tolkien makes it clear that it is likely that the Nazgul would not be able to attack the bearer of the Ring and perhaps this is reflected in the scene in the Two Towers.<BR>As I see it, the Nazgul never attempt to slay the Ringbearer by conventional means. Perhaps they can’t. And as Tolkien indicates, by the time Frodo claims the Ring at Mount Doom they would be unable to attack him at all, showing how much Frodo had grown since the night on Weathertop. Perhaps the hesitation of the Nazgul at Osgiliath is a reflection of Frodo’s increased symbiosis with the Ring and of course the Nazgul was not in position to use his Morgul Knife.<BR>Lastly, Tolkien also indicates in his writings that the Nazgul (with the exception of the Witchking) were of limited initiative. They could not be relied on to direct armies for example (again with the exception of the Witchking). This also could have caused its hesitation. In the Fellowship of the Ring their mission was clear, seize the ring. At this time its mission was to harry the forces of Gondor at Osgiliath. The introduction of this item of power, of their alternative master if you will, creates a situation where someone with initiative would seize the Ring and end the War at a stroke. Unfortunately for Sauron, initiative is the one thing that he has not included in the Nazgul’s make up. In fact, initiative would be largely detrimental to Sauron’s use of them. He wants them as a physical extension of his will and largely nothing more.<BR>I believe that this moment of hesitation at Osgiliath was born out of all these factors and whilst I would have preferred the scene to be absent. I can understand it.<P>As a side-note. I notice that another source of complaint is Faramir. I didn’t think too highly of him but some of that was due to his limited screen time, something I hope will be improved in the Extended Edition. As regards his temptation by the Ring, I actually think this was a correct alteration by PJ. My reasoning is that, in the books, Tolkien makes Faramir too good and totally immune to the Ring. Maybe this was because Tolkien saw something of himself in Faramir but it rings false.<BR>In the books characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel are tempted by the ring, even just being in the presence of it. There is an awareness that if Frodo stays with the fellowship then even Aragorn could be tempted by the end. And then you have this character, Faramir, who is not tempted in the slightest. Even though he has had the same dream as Boromir wherein the Ring is presented as a possible solution to the War (albeit not in the way Boromir interpreted it) and with his own people facing destruction. It just doesn’t ring true that he would not be tempted at all. I have faith in PJ in this and I believe that once all the Extended Editions are available to watch it will be clear that Faramir has been well dealt with.

Wow Eurytus. I almost totally agree with you. But...I'd like to elaborate a bit.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Indeed, it would draw the Eye in a line that took it pretty much through the pass of Cirith Ungol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I don't think Sauron would devote much of his energy to watching his western border. He has Cirith Ungol AND Minus Morgul there to help him keep track of things. Furthermore, Sauron can't even conceive of anyone trying to destray the ring so it seems unlikely that it would occur to him to "watch out" for infiltrating hobbits.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Unfortunately for Sauron, initiative is the one thing that he has not included in the Nazgul’s make up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>One of the main themes in the books was the monochromatic, for lack of a better term, aspect of evil. Nothing under Sauron's control retained its idea of "self." Everything was assimilated by Sauron. The Mouth of Sauron is a perfect example. I can't remember the exact quote but it said something about how he had long forgotten what his true name even was. He is no longer an individual; he is just a part of Sauron: Sauron's mouth. Similarly a lack of initiative on the Nazgul's part fits very well into this idea of uniformity. They were merely an extension of their master, with no will or real conscious of their own.<P>Now I'm going to stop my incessant rambling and go get a drink. <p>[ October 08, 2003: Message edited by: Dwalin ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>3) The Ring tries to make Frodo put it on, because otherwise the Nazgul won't know it's there. (When I looked closer, Frodo wasn't holding out the Ring to offer it as I had originally thought, but was holding it in one hand, ready to plunge his other forefinger into it.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm afraid I must disagree with this on sevral points.<P>#1. If you look even closer, Frodo intentionally pulls out the Ring as if to offer it, then he tries to put it on, or at least that's what the scene conveyed to me.<P>#2. Although in the books the Nazgul were pretty much blind & could vaugly 'sense' the Ring when it was put on, PJ changed that. In the movies, Aragorn says that, "At all times they feel the presence of the Ring, drawn to the power of the One...". I think that the Nazgul should've been able to sense it from that close under PJ's interpretation.

Eurytus, that was amazing. But I feel compelled to disagree with you on one point: Faramir. You claimed that he was not tempted "at all" by the Ring. It could be that perhaps he was, and maybe greatly. However, he might have been able to keep the struggle internal and unseen. There is obvious tension between him and his father--maybe Faramir has experience at masking his emotions from Denethor. People can keep a very calm face but still have emotional turmoil inside. As to his speech on "if this thing were lying by the road, I would not pick it up..." etc., he may have been saying that stuff partially as a promise to Frodo and partially to make himself believe that he wouldn't do it. Speech, when you consider it, is a powerful thing; and in my own (admittedly very limited) experience, if you say something enough you tend to believe it. Faramir's repeated verbal refusals might have helped strengthen his will, so that he would not take it. <BR>I hope that was coherent. My semi-rants can turn into rambling more quickly than a flying Nazgûl's reaction time (oh wait, that isn't too quick, is it? )

Yep, that's a fair point. It's just that for the average movie goer, internal struggle is something that doesn't always play well on the big screen. I guess that's why emotions end up being expressed by statements or whatever.<BR>I think maybe PJ saw the same internal struggle that you saw in the book and felt it necessary to show it on the big screen more expressly.<P>However I do think that those people who violently dislike the movie Faramir are those who did see him as being an almost flawless character.

1/ It seems to me, in the film version, that the nazgul can only 'see' the ring when it is put on. ie they couldn't see frodo had the ring at osgiliath because he didn't put it on.<P>2/ Faramir (in the books) is a master interrogator. He weedles the truth out of Sam expertly. Faramir WAS tempted by the ring, you can sense his internal struggles. I believe this could have been shown in TT, but Mr Jackson loves his action scenes, and as he couldn't fit shelob in (don't know why) he put an action detour for frodo and sam to osgilliath instead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1/ It seems to me, in the film version, that the nazgul can only 'see' the ring when it is put on. ie they couldn't see frodo had the ring at osgiliath because he didn't put it on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Possilbe, -but-, remember on Weathertop? Once Frodo pulled out the ring, the Witch-King (presumably) turned toward him, as if he had seen the Ring...<P>On Faramir: Inwardly struggling in the books, & outwardly struggling (& failing for awhile) in the movies isn't even <I>close</I> to the same thing, as I'm interpreting a few people posts here.

Hehe... thats really a profound thought (you see I never think of this stuff by myself...) but I agree with you Birdland and every time I see that I am going to laugh...