I agree about this. I've seen a lot of claims that some element(s) of the story had to be changed because it was a movie and not a book. I don't think this holds water though when it involves changing elements of the story (for instance, characters) since that defeats the purpose of adapting an existing story. I may be biased since I'm a huge Faramir fan, but I'd've liked to see him make an appearance.

Was that directed at Odo or I?

Eldorion

I've gone back and I don't really know who GB is Touche-ing to!

Odo

Both . Your counterpoints are all perfectly valid arguments for purity.

But for the record, I think Faramir from the films is, in all essentials, the character from the books. The only real change is the externalizing and expanding of his struggle with the Ring. And yes, changes like that are necessary when adapting books to "show" the narrative, rather than "telling" it. And letter perfect adaptations aren't always better. The Dune miniseries was closer to the book than the 80s movie with Sting and Kyle McLachlan. Yet it was dull, flat and boring. The film was much more fun, and truer to the spirit of the book.

Further reflections after sleeping on it:
Consider that the others who pass on the Ring are either Elves (Elrond who stayed at a distance, Galadriel, who still has Hissy Fit so near to the vicinity of the Ring , and the other Elves such as Legolas and Arwen, who though near the Ring Bearer at times are motivated by such noble purposes the Ring has little effect on them), Gandalf, who himself admits he has to resist the inexorable pull of the Ring, Gimli, who is single-minded of purpose and never really gets too close to the Ring, and Aragorn, again his Nobility of Spirit and Purity of Purpose make him Resistant to the Ring.

That other Bloke, Bombadil, in the book is mentioned as the only being on Middle Earth who is wholly unaffected by the Ring. He can touch it, hold it, do a jig with it, eat it for breakfast, and it still won't affect him .

And speaking of Bombadil, I love that section of the book. But it would be the first section I would axe if I were adapting the film. Bombadil looks like Gandalf and acts like Treebeard, and is largely extraneous to the plot.

Films have to be more efficient in conveying the themes and plots of stories. It's the nature of the medium. What works well in print may bog a narrative down in film. There is only a limited amount of time to convey the story. Extraneous characters can be confusing (especially to non-book readers). And the fact that the audience will consist of a large percentage of non-book readers makes conveying internal struggles in an overt way necessary.

Then there's the fact that any adaptation of anything is basically a "Remix". The new Artist must alter certain elements to suit the medium as described above. The things they choose to alter reflect their own artistic judgments, and make whatever they are working on their own. Some people might like the Hildebrandts more than the Howes of the world (I like both). But each artist puts their own spin on things, which is as it should be.

All I ask is that a film be cohesive, and remain true to the Spirit of a Book, without Butchering it too badly (as was done to Goblet of Fire).

GB

EDIT:
I should mention that I used to be a "purist" myself regarding film adaptations, but I got over it many years ago because I was tired of being disappointed. So I learned to appreciate films own their own merits.

I still bridle at certain artistic choices directors make from time to time, but I recognize their need and right to make those choices. So if I argue against hatchet jobs (and there are many), it is based on the merits of the changes made, not on any sense of "purity".

GB

I find myself in the uncomfortable position (I do admire you) of disagreeing with your last post at almost every point!

LOTR could have been filmed much closer to the overall plot with the characters as depicted in the book. The characters are interesting for anyone whether folk have actually read the book or not. They're great characters! Good acting and directing is all that is required. (A case in point is Gandalf. He was the least 'altered' character in the film in my opinion - and the best! Great actor for a great part!)

I would have put Tom in FIRST before worrying about the rest, well, not really, but I don't think him irrelevant at all. The Ring is different things to different people. It affects them in different ways - some don't even seem to notice they're in its presence (like Gimli and Legolas for instance). A bit like people seeing different things the same person.

Films can be remixed, but they don't have to be. I'm a Purity man here.

Not everything could be done - but contrariwise much of what PJ added creatively could have been replaced by what T already had and was omitted. Poor Tom. Poor Farmer Maggot. Poor Old Man Willow. I still think of you! Your memory lives!

Part One, Book One, now I think of it, seems to me to be the most neglected part of the book filmwise.

Odo

Oh well then, I tried . But agreement isn't necessary, as long as I feel I got my point across. In fact this site would be deadly dull if we all agreed all the time .

GB

Another Faramir debate! I want to start first though by saying that even when I dislike films as adaptations I can still like them as films (though not always - the Harry Potter films are an example of ones I dislike both as adaptations and as cinema). For LOTR though I find the films when considered solely as cinema to be quite good. However, I think the films get far too much credit as good adaptations, and I think that they should have stuck closer to the book since they were, after all, called The Lord of the Rings. I don't hate them though.



Faramir in the book does not really have much of a struggle with the Ring. If he had had one I could understand wanting to show it more obviously, but the filmmakers essentially created one (or you could say drastically expanded from the small germ of a struggle in the book). I for one don't think that changing a major part of a character's storyline is necessary when adapting a book since it changes the story.

For reference here is what Faramir says after discovering that Frodo is carrying the Ring in the book: "Not if I found it on the highway would I take itI said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I whould take these words as a vow, and be held by them. But I am not such a man. Or I am wise neough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace!" (TTT, The Window on the West).



I have never suggested (nor have I met someone who has suggested) an exact carbon copy adaptation of the book. Obviously there will have to be cuts and maybe even a few changes. But drastic cuts of major elements, preferential or otherwise unwarranted changes, and outright additions are not necessary though either to make an adaptation period or to make a good one. If a filmmaker changes a story that much he might as well just make his own one from scratch instead of trying to pass off his work as a version of someone else's.

We already went over the difference between Faramir and others before, I'll just give a link to that



Unlike many I don't really mind Bombadil being cut - I hesitate to use the phrase "expendable" but he's certainly not that important. However, neither was the Battle of Helm's Deep (according to Tolkien in Letter 210), if you want to talk about that.



None of this, however, necessitates actually making outright changes and additions (beyond the trimming down process) the story.



I disagree. wordnet.princeton.edu defines adaptation as "a written work (as a novel) that has been recast in a new form". If someone wants to create a story with their own ideas in it they should make their own story. Obviously they will have some affect on their work, but that is no reason for them to change a story that is ostensibly an existing ones.

I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but the matter really comes down to this for me: Jackson changed LOTR far beyond what was necessitated by adaptation to the point where the story is not really the same as the one Tolkien wrote even taking into account the difference of medium.

EDIT: this seems to have become a bit more than just a Faramir debate.

I have noticed watching the films that the Uruk-Hai have really cool kind of Cockney voices whereas the noble characters like Aragorn and the peoples of Gondor and Rohan speak in fine english accents. I think this corresponds with the book aswell because the Uruk-Hai band in the book are equally indecent and corse!

Eldorion...Uncle . I've made my best arguments, you've made yours. I'm throwing in the towel . I think many of your points are perfectly valid, I just differ .

GB

I think of all the parts of the book I most missed it was the rangers going to war.

I would have loved to have seen a cohort of rangers together with Elronds sons, Elladan and Elrohir, joining up with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to beat the crap out of the orcs and men of Harad in Pelennor fields.

Firstly this would remove the need for the undead trump card, and secondly it would thoroughly emphasise the fact that Gondor isnt a tiny little nation with a cast in stone culture.

I would have loved to have seen some more of the soldiers join the battle, Dol Amroth heavy Knights, and Long Bowmen more remeniscent of an earlier period in history than the polished gaurd of Minas Tirith. I feel it would also have made the end to the battle much more spectacular, rather than waves of acid green washing over everything.

Of course we have to remember that budgeting and timing reasons probably came into this. As it was the film was stretched. With the addition of another 5-6 cultures/fighting styles/armour sets the makers would have wanted to get thier worth out of them. There would also have required time and sets to show Aragorn, and his undead army destroying the pillaging corsairs not to mention organising the vast army of reinforcments he went to recieve.

On top of this we see the inclusion of what are effectively some of the best fighters in middle earth. Having about 20 Aragorn like figures running around the screen beating orcs up and 2 identical Elves with thier own slick and fast fighting style would not only have been impossible to co-ordinate it would be impossible to follow or film effectively either.