Quote:
but there were some changes that I was dissapointed in. Like how Faramir takes Frodo to Gondor. Honestly, where did that come from?  If I remember correctly, he wasn't even tempted by the ring was he? I think it ruined Faramir's character and made it seem that all men are easily corrupted which isn't true.
|
I think the TTT EE version did a pretty good job of explaining things, and I have mostly gotten over the Faramir business (if only because I'm trying to keep the movie & book versions seperate, for the most part). But I am not interested in Philipa Boyen's (one of the writers) explanation. She esentially says that they couldn't have Faramir the way he was in the book because they'd spent all of the first movie & a half trying to show how powerful the Ring was, & how Frodo could barely resist it; and if Faramir was like he was in the books, it would strip the Ring of all the power they were trying to build up. I disagree with this on several counts. Most importantly, it did nothing of the sort (for me) in the books. Granted, literature and film are two completely different things, but I think that excuse doesn't apply in this particular case. Secondly, as was already brought up, they had Aragorn refuse to take it (barely) at the end of the Fellowship, so Faramir would not join any exclusive club. Add on to that that the Ring does not hold nearly as much power over anyone when he (or she) has not spent a great deal of time around it (it took It a long time to finally wholly corrupt Boromir, if only for a fateful moment), & you see that it is no great stretch for Faramir to pass on it. Having said all that, I repeat that it is the writer's 'reasons' (excuses) for movie Faramir that bother me the most about the character.