Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpM
I do not see film Faramir as succumbing to the Ring. He does not want it for himself, but to prove himself to his father. The fact that he takes the Hobbits by force to Osgiliath and subsequently decides to let them go free is little different to the series of events in the book, when he takes them to force to Henneth Annun and then decides to let them go free. It just takes place over a longer period and wider geography. The incident with Frodo and the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.
|
Yet to have New Faramir wish to take the Ring to his father does not work either. The way that Denethor is portrayed in the films makes him come across as the kind of father that Faramir would if anything wish to defy and distance himself from. Real Denethor is a noble man who a son could be proud of, who has lately gone 'bad' as he has fallen under a bad influence. Yet New Denethor just comes across as a negative, bad-tempered man who would never have such an influence over a son he so clearly despised. Time and again I have people ask why Faramir did not just tell his father "where to stick it". This is funny, as if the scriptwriting team indeed intended to update and make more relevant Tolkien's words then they have failed in this aim. Tolkien actually had this right in the first place when his own Faramir hoped to win back the love and respect of a father who had clearly once showed him love and respect; the modern audience just see a horrible man who they would tell where to get off (or something to that effect
). The whole Faramir episode would only have worked if Denethor had been presented as a man worthy of such sacrifice.
To have done the Faramir sections properly would not have taken up any longer than they did when changed.
The Nazgul incident might have been intended to show the effect of the Ring on Frodo, but not only did it come across as confusing and 'break the rules' that have been set in place (whereby all along we have been told that the Nazgul's 'every thought is bent on getting the Ring'), but it also made Frodo look like a mere victim yet again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpM
If you don’t agree, just ask yourself whether you would feel as strongly about a film adaptation of another classic novel, one which you don’t have particularly strong feelings for? Would you see it as a source of irritation? A bastardisation? A failure of a moral duty? Or would it not really bother you, on the basis that the original novel is still there for its aficionados to enjoy?
|
I can think of one adaptation which offended me, and that was the version of Possession, which failed miserably. It actually does bother me a lot that someone might see this as a terrible film and assume the book is the same. And remakes of classic films have bothered me intensely. The rather famous composer of the musical version of Whistle Down The Wind ought to be shot at dawn for what he did to eradicate the simple joy of the classic film. But this all boils down to whether the 'new version' or 'adaptation' sets out to be definitive or not. My reasons for getting up in arms about LotR are that some of the changes simply weren't necessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpM
And people who do not enjoy “high falutin’” art are not necessarily “dumber” than those who do. They simply have different tastes. I am a great fan of many aspects of pop culture.
|
I totally agree with this. I hate ballet, in fact dance in all its forms bores me to tears. But I think that there is a very fine line to be trod as regards possibly denying people the chance to see if they do like the high brow. I remember someone once reacting very peculiarly because I mentioned Goethe's Faust in a conversation and realised that they had assumed due to my accent that I would never have contemplated reading such a thing. But that's my chip frying itself up again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the phantom
The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.
|
My final thought (for now, as I have domestic matters to attend to) is that I agree with what the phantom says (shock!
). I do not see how the changes made the movies more accessible, as everything in the books is incredibly potent today, just as it was when they were written and published. Why else would we all be here hotly debating them right now? Those characters are archetypes. We do not need to 'update' King Arthur or Robin Hood, why do we need to update Aragorn or Frodo or Faramir?