Faramir is also my favorite Character in the books, mainly do to him being an ideal the average man can look up to and achieve. That said I appreciate the violence added to his character in the movies. It’s a reminder Meekness is not humility or weakness but the restraint of force especially when justified. I believe the criticism of the character in the movies being tempted by the Ring was indeed warranted. The drama in those scenes could’ve been better served showing the impending assault of the orca as n the West Bank Love the video!
Faramir was my favorite also. I was so angry at how the film ruined Faramir for me that I couldn't watch the rest for many years. There was nothing meek or timid about Faramir. He had strength and a truly moral core that allowed him to resist the pull of the ring before it even began. That was important to me, so important! And his assurance to Frodo that he would never try to take it brought me to tears every time I read those passages. Frodo and Sam needed so much to encounter a trustworthy man, and Faramir truly showed his worth. A friend unlooked for. I agree with everything said in this video, thank you for sharing it!
I agree. I loved Boromir and hated but understood his fall. Then came Faramir and that gave it all much more complexity. The expectation of the first born, the role of the second born. How much was personality, how much was their position, their upbringing and role. It's really intriguing. Faramir rising above Boromir in refusing the ring. But it also was easier in a way for him, for he was prepared to not take power, while Boromir was not.
Faramir proves that a character does NOT need to be “relatable” or “flawed” to be interesting and good. Faramir is a model of moral excellence, an inspiration. His character is all we should aspire to be and I love characters like that I can look up to.
" *a character does NOT need to be “relatable” or “flawed” to be interesting and good* " Faramir is relatable, because he struggles. Nothing is given to him for free, he has to work hard to attain all his goals, and it's still not enough, and everything he loves is apparently falling apart. He's a tragic character in this regard. He stubbornly sticks to his morals, because the alternative seems even worse. That's what all tragic characters do, and not unlike in a Greek tragedy, he ends up defeated. Others save him, but he ends up deeply wounded, both mentally and physically. I mean, he's very far from Mary Sues of today.
I hated what they did to Denethor more. Faramir shouldn't have been so easily corrupted and should've been much kinder, but his men mistreating Gollum seems in line with the books, although I doubt Faramir would've ordered them to. Denethor went from a wise man who was driven insane by Sauron and loved both of his sons dearly to a moustache-twirling villain for Gandalf to whack with a stick.
I'm so pissed about how they fucked up Denethor. In the books he's this tragic but dignified Shakespearean level character and in the movie he's a complete jerk. Not to mention they never explain the whole palantir thing. AND the whole running a marathon while on fire. When I picture book!Denethor, I kinda picture him being played by an operatic bass who has Boris or Wotan for breakfast. Also: Where are the armies of Gondor? The beacons scene should have happened while Gandalf and Pippin are riding to Minas Tirith, and they really should have showed the armies garthering. Not to mention: at the very least Beregond should have been cast, even if they cut his son for time purposes. Overall I still love the movies, but Faramir and Denethor deserved better.
@@akechijubeimitsuhide I would’ve loved to see Beregond on screen. That definitely would’ve shut the normies up about how “Tolkien didn’t have any complex characters.”
Well, Denethor had no moustache to twirl...in the films he was a nut-job. The animated had him incoherent. I am more bugged by the Gondorians being so easily shaken by Denethor and not having lieutenants at least leading units tactically. A bit much for the white wizard to direct them tactically slmosy micromanaging, for sake of audience, but still as if they didn't have tactical training: aim here aim there. "You are soldiers of Gondor...!" Not exactly elite royal soldiers....although they had been demoralized under Denethor's abandoned stewardship..
Agree with Faramir. He was one of my favorite characters from the books, which I read after I saw the movies. The great thing about the movies though, is they brought a bunch of people to Tolkien’s original works.
Funny you should mention how your perceptions have changed with age. I was around your age when the Jackson films came out. I was also NOT pleased with how they did Faramir dirty. However, I do understand Peter Jackson’s belief that Faramir’s resistance to the ring’s corruption was unrealistic. But if Sam could see through the ring’s temptation, surely there could be others.
Oh very interesting David! That belief to make Faramir contend with the Ring a bit more certainly makes sense, but the sense of wisdom that came from Faramir’s encounter with the Ring seems also far less in the films. I totally agree! Hope you and the family are well, my friend. Many blessings!
The funny thing is, we see quite a lot of characters resist the ring's corruption: Bilbo, Sam, Gandalf and Galadriel. Why is it so inconceivable that Faramir would be able to resist the Ring's corruption as well?
@@frankvandorp2059 And Aragorn. Aragorn never tried to take the Ring. He only pretended to threaten the Hobbits in Bree to try to scare some sense and caution into them.
@@frankvandorp2059 all the Ring-resistant characters are non-human or super-human. A mere mortal (and, no, Aragorn isn't among our number) cannot resist AT ALL. Galadriel and Gandalf, asbeings accustomed to power, do not so much resist as refuse to take the ring, knowing their chances of resisting for long are slight. I would venture that the ability to resist the Ring is strongest in Hobbits, who live in the moment, enjoy the simple pleasures, and are content with their lot. Essentially, Hobbits are unaffected because they do not crave power over others. Per Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely " 1887.
I may be adding to the chorus, but I've always felt they did Faramir a grave injustice and I'm so glad you've talked about it. It's on a par with Jackson's foolish Ents, the cold elves and (worse of all) Frodo rejecting Sam in RotK just to create drama. And while I do much appreciate the movies for what they achieved, the list goes on (but not ever on and on!) The whole point of Faramir is that he's the perfect knight, the contrast to Boromir, almost a Percival. He would not take the ring if he found it by the side of the road, as I believe he says. Not just a copy of Boromir who happens to resist in the end, that's not a contrast, but only the same character watered down. It's vital not just on a storytelling level, but to show true nobility exists in Men. Without this a cynicism, an small-mindedness pretending to be wisdom sits as a baseline to the adaptation's view of the world. (While Jackson's slip ups in this regard are nowhere near RoP's Gilgalad telling Elrond to break an oath-- and all the other travesties-- it still matters.) Oh, and Faramir needs to be a virtuous man in order to fulfill his last role, which is to be a worthy 'reward' for Eowyn-- a genderswap of 'hero sacrifices himself and gets a true love' if you will, a lovely and decidedly satisfying element of Eowyn's arc that never gets mentioned. Thanks again!
I forgot about that in my previous comment. Yes, Frodo's rejection of Sam was shocking and entirely unncessary. Another gripe was how useless Frodo seemed. In the books he's influenced by the ring, of course, but in the movies, he ALWAYS does the wrong thing; in the movie, the only time he isn't pathetic is when he offers to take the ring at Rivendell.
Yeah, Faramir's arc feels incomplete in the movie, he kinda is just there and isn't flesh out even when the movie is near the end, maybe it's because i watched the resumed version
Faramir is one of my favorite characters in the books because he is the example of attainable human wisdom and goodness. What the movies did to him has always stuck in my craw because there he is an example of someone who could be wiser and stronger but trades it away to make people happy. Two completely different lessons. Still to this day when I am watch LOTR with someone they have to listen to a 15 minute lecture from me on how Faramir's character actually should be played lol.
Faramir was my FAVOURITE book character. I was really upset with the movie take on Faramir. I enjoyed the movies as a whole, but TTT for me is always marred by the change in character.
Faramir was a Numenorean 2nd only to Aragorn. Friend to Gandalf, captain of Gondor, and prince of Ithilien more noble than his brother and father. He deserved better in the films. I appreciate you doing these videos.
"2nd only to Aragorn," and Aragorn was more susceptible to the Ring in the movies than Faramir was in the books. As much as I disliked TTT's portrayal of Faramir, it wouldn't have made any sense for the Ring to have more difficulty trying to corrupt him than Aragorn. And I can't say I disliked how the Ring called out to Aragorn near the end of FOTR.
I think that might be the explanation here. There are only a few characters in the movies, and the book Faramir would have been too much like Aragorn. At least he needed perhaps to evolve from a traumatized warrior and son to a gentleman. In the extended version of ROTK I think Faramir and Eowyn end up like they were in the books.
@@paulchapman8023 I agree, for a movie it would have taken away the narrative of the ring's ability to currupt if suddenly after all the tension with Boromir and Aragorn being seduced by the ring Faramir suddenly shows up and is completely unaffected. The reality is when you take a 1,000 page book and put it on film you are forced to simplify some of the themes.
Thank you. Faramir's portrayal was always what bothered me the most in the movies. In the books he was never tempted by the ring and refused to even let Frodo tell him more about it. He was also exactly the man that Eowyn needed, though she didn't realize it at first.
Faramir is my absolute favorite character from the books. I was watching a WWI documentary the other day, about the Battle of the Somme, and I was thinking about how Professor Tolkien himself had fought in that battle. I was reminded of the "I love not the arrow for it's swifness quote," and was thinking about how that and Sam's remark about whether the enemy soldiers were really so bad, and how that must have been what Tolkien felt about the war. I remember Tolkien also said something about being a leader in battle should strive to inspire love and loyalty and not just boss the troops around. All of these thoughts that Tolkien had must have surely culminated in the character of Faramir. I still like movie Faramir, I think he works in the story and worldbuilding and I think in the compressed time it might've been tricky to get the idea across that a human wouldn't take the Ring after they already stated that Men were easily corrupted. Maybe if LotR were made into a proper seasons-long show they could do some more in depth character exploration. And for me the worst change they did in the movies was making Frodo trust Gollum over Sam. But that being said, I do still prefer book Faramir. A beacon of goodness in the evilness of war.
From a film perspective it makes sense to add tension by making you think Faramir will make the same mistake as Boromir only for him to do the right thing in the end. It was a mix of temptation from the ring while also wanting Denethors approval. The only thing I wish the films did better was explaining his relationship with Gandalf. We get hints of it from him calling him "Mithrandir" and how Gandalf treats him. Denethor also calls him a wizards pupil, we also see Gandalf grieving when Faramir goes on the suicide charge to Osgiliath. Wish we had a scene with them talking about lore and stuff. I definitely prefer the Faramir from the book but I also love the film version.
When the Two Towers first came out, I was pretty upset at the change in Faramir's portrayal in the movie; however, I came to be more accepting of the change as I've grown older. What works well in books doesn't always translate as well in a movie or TV adaptation. Since it wasn't only fans of the books going to see the movie, it makes sense to add more drama to keep the viewers who are new to the story invested. Also, I think Faramir's portrayal makes Boromir's fall to the Ring more sympathetic and tragic to the people who haven't read the books.
I understand your point of view, but I confess that I didn't care then, nor do I care now, what people who never read the books thought about the films. I wanted a Lord of the Rings movie (or movies) since the day I first finished reading the story, and to my mind, making these films was an homage to Tolkien and a gift (even if imperfect) to the fans. If non-fans of the books enjoyed it, that's fine, but to me, that was not the point.
@@hodgeelmwood8677 true, but unfortunately money had to be made (big investment) so gaining non book fans was paramount. But at least the PJ trilogy put forth the effort to stay true to the books, which is more rare now days when it comes to film adaptations.
one of my favourite exchanges in the book is a conversation between Faramir and Denethor. Denthor says, "In desperate times gentleness may be repaid with death." referring to Faramir's affinity for goodness as a weakness, to which Faramir simply replies "So be it." It is so defiant yet understated and that always spoke to me. His father fell to corruption, his brother killed and his kingdom a victim to sauron's growing influence, but he won't let that change who he is or what he believes in. I even have "so be it" tattooed in reference to this passage, like a reminder not to become jaded and bitter by life's unfairness lol
Great video. I appreciate the way you gently and respectfully disagree with an interpretation. Too often we are quick to belittle the things we disagree with, but you always manage to state your opinions well. Critiquing without criticizing. Nice.
Thank you! While I generally love the Peter Jackson film trilogy, what they did to Faramir was nothing short of criminal (though what they did to Denethor was even worse, and also made a mockery of the terrible excuse they made for what they did to Faramir in the first place). Book Faramir was Tolkien's self-insert into the story, and presented Tolkien's views on the future of the U.K. as Faramir's views on Gondor. ("For myself,” said Faramir, “I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom.”) He was also set up as a man of strong self-control, who forbore to take the Ring, in stark contrast to Boromir, who tried to take it.
The effects of Faramir's mistreatment go even further. Without the extended (and non-canonical) scenes in Osgiliath, the film would've had enough to send the hobbits to Shelob's lair at the end of Two Towers, rather than shoving it into Return of the King and making the pacing of both films weird. Furthermore, had Shelob's lair taken place when it was supposed to, ROTK would've had enough time for the Scouring of the Shire. But I digress.
@@MichaelJohnson-mt6ey Even if they had the time, the scouring of the Shire would not fit in the trilogy. The trilogy is atleast as much about Aragorn as it is about Frodo and Sauron is the clear antagonist (not the "concept of evil" in general). So having an entire arc, maybe an hour long, after the main villain is defeated and one of the two main characters isn't even present anymore...that would just be terrible story-telling.
Faramir has a sad story. He loses his brother and father within a year. He does get to see peace in his time, but he does pay a price for it. Next do how the Dark blackness of smoke and evil that was left out of the movies during the attack on Minas Tirith.
I had a chance to sit down with Peter Jackson and Elijah Wood for a drink at the afterparty for the premiere of The Fellowship of the Ring, and Peter asked me my thoughts about the movie. I was a young highschooler at the time, an avid Tolkien fanatic, but I hadn’t really had enough time to process what I’d seen that evening. I wish I had emphasized more to him just how much it meant to me to see a faithful adaptation of the characters and story. I was fine with what I'd seen at the time, felt it was good they gave Arwen some extra presence in the story (though her actress was particularly rude to me and my sisters that evening). I did manage to point out an editing error at least, which they apparently fixed in time for the public release (a couple shots out of order when Boromir is felled, I think it was). I remember being really upset in the following years over what they did to Faramir and Denethor after I got to see The Two Towers. It was like someone fell asleep at the wheel for their arcs and related stories. Also some of the Eowyn-Aragorn interactions felt unnecessarily tacked on, but I think most of the Tolkien fandom shares those sentiments.
I would call Faramirs behavior in the movies as a growing strength, called for by necessity. He was still kind and trying to appease his father. That is the character changed for the WORST in the movies.
I agree - taking Frodo and Sam back towards Minas Tirith is him trying to do what his dad wanted, I never saw it as him being corrupted by the ring at all, unless you could see it as the ring trying to use Faramir's desire to please his father. As for the other stuff with Gollum and so on, the guy's a soldier, in war time. Soldiers can't afford to always be nice. Remember when you are adapting a movie from a book, what works on the page doesn't always work on the screen. Would Faramir have come across as a realistic character to an audience who might not have read the book if he was all 'I won't take the ring, I'm a good guy, off you go?' That being said, I think Faramir is a great character. I do think there are much worse sins in the movies - Denethor's depiction is an obvious one.
I was OUTRAGED, the first time I saw the scenes of Faramir and Frodo. He is initially portrayed as being a threat, when in the books; during a conversation, he says that perhaps Sam discerns somewhat of the air of Numenor about him. I loved the book scene where Frodo is being questioned by Faramir, in front of his men, and later; in the cave; when Sam puts his foot in his mouth, and gives away the secret, and proceeds to tell Faramir that he's not to hold his Master to blame, because his servant's ( Sam) no better than a fool.
You are SO RIGHT! Between this, Jackson's vision of Aragorn, the reduction of the Ent story line and the whole third movie, I cannot appreciate the Jackson adaptations. The movies are great but the adaptations leave very much to be desired. Besided, Faramir is a favorite character.
Faramir is a philosopher forced to be a warrior. Maybe they thought that Frodo’s journey needed a visible antagonist that the turned Faramir into a copy of his brother. Also, they sped up Frodo’s journey, so the detour that Faramir made them take slowed them down so that they would be closer the book timeline.
He’s very far from a copy of his brother - good grief . He’s the ‘contrast & compare’. Plus in the films you actually can see he’s Boromir’s brother - they have similarities.
I remember that being my biggest disappointment when I saw The Two Towers back in 2002. I felt they got Faramir so wrong and I was bummed by it. I was also really disappointed by their explanation of it.
My biggest disappointment was the Ents being turned into cowards who had to be tricked into going to war with Saruman....oh, and Denethor being such a cardboard cut-out villian that he didn't even properly prepare Minas Tirith for war. Jackson really didn't seem to truly GET the themes of Tolkien's works IMHO.
@@TheMarcHicks the idea of the ents having no idea what happened to the forest was the strangest nothing in the movie especially with tree beard at the beginning talking about the orcs destroying the woods.
I remember coming home from seeing the movie, sitting down, and rereading the relevant chapters of _The Two Towers_ just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
Completely agree! Just went through the audio book recently and when Faramir showed his compassion to Sam and Frodo a tear sprang in eye. My first read of the trilogy 20 years ago I thought Aragorm and Faramir so insecure, full of doubt and negative all the time. How my own years has changed my perspective, now Faramir is one of my favourite characters. I also understand the story much better nog than I did the first read. It's a truly well crafted story!
Aragorn insecure??? I think the movies have colored your opinion of Aragorn. He was never insecure in the books, he was patient. He waited until it was "his time."
@@surtt No I mean that I made that mistake interpreting is deliberations as in doubt and insecure haha. How I myself have grown over the years was what I wanted to say, that the story gives different meaning when the years get on in your life.
Every time Jackson & Co. changed a character they changed him for the worse, and Faramir was one of the best examples of this. They changed his character completely, and Denethor's as well. He wasn't a great guy in the books, but he was nowhere near as bad as he is portrayed in the movie. Frodo was the only character who was treated worse in that aspect. The movies changed him from wise and courageous hero to a useless welp. I was a much bigger fan of the movies before I read the books and realized just how badly Jackson & Co. had screwed up so many of the key characters.
Thank you Yoystan for articulating so much of what I have felt for 20 years. I loved that way that Faramir was portrayed by Tolkien in the books and I came out of the Two Towers movie sad and angry. It tarnished an otherwise excellent film and the changes that Jackson imposed were both illogical and just the antithesis of what Tolkien wrote. The Two Towers overall is 95% great but the 5% with Faramir really sucks.
I totally agree!! I have always said this, and often was disagreed with by people who didn't understand the books or the ring well. All respect to the actor, who actually played the character well as far as it went, Faramir was completely wrongly scripted in the movies, and I was very disappointed at the time. I left the second movie very angry about this complete character change! The movies got a lot of things right, even improving on some things, but they got Faramir, a very important contrast character for the story and plot, completely and utterly wrong. And that always spoilt the movies in some ways for me. Sure, movies are different media from books, but that doesn't mean they have to change the story or the characters to work - they just have to do it in a different way. That's why the Harry Potter movies were so successful - JK Rowling refused to allow her story to be compromised for the movie and that made those movies great. Faramir was very important. He was a contrast to his brother - a popular strategy with authors. Both men were brave in their own ways, but completely different. Boromir was brave and desirous of ruling and power, and saw war as a tool for that power. Faramir was brave and only desirous of peace and beauty that war is sometimes necessary to bring. Their father thought Boromir as greater because of that desire, which wasn't so. The ring was attractive to those who wanted power. It wasn't attractive to those who didn't want power. People desirousness of power were less affected by it. The hobbits were less affected by power because they never wanted it. The book and movie both go to great lengths to explain this. Even Grandalf refused to touch it from that fear - he wanted power too, even if it was for good. None of the powerful people would touch it - even Elrond. They were all susceptible because they wanted power. It's not about whether people want power for good or evil - it's the want of power for anything at all that is corrupted by the ring. That the main theme of the books (regardless of whether the author wanted to see themes in his books or not). Boromir wanted power. He wanted power for good AND for it's own sake (a much less wholesome reason) - that's why he was much more susceptible to the ring than the rest of the fellowship. The books made that very clear. We see these qualities in leaders all around the world - this is the theme that makes the books so universal. "Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts" - this was always the overarching theme of the books and the movie completely misrepresented the most important theme because of this character change!!! In my opinion the movies should never have changed Faramir in this way. If Peter Jackson had the opinion that Faramir was written incorrectly by the author, than he didn't understand the books or the rings power properly. Faramir was purposefully written this way by the author for a reason. It's amazing and horrifying just how many movie makers arrogantly think that authors get characters wrong and that they can improve upon them in their movies by changing them. They almost always bugger it up!! If you think an author got their character wrong, you're probably misunderstanding the character. Changing a character changes the story and makes it not work because characters that are different make different decisions and make the rightful story go in a different direction. I'm glad someone FINALLY made a video explaining this!!
Yep, Faramir waa my favourite character from the books and I thought he was short-changed very badly by the movies, along with many of the new characters introduced in The Two Towers (Eomer, Theoden, Treebeard and Faramir). All were made worse in many ways by that movie - perhaps in an attempt to make Aragorn look like more of a hero to the audience. Hence, Eomer disappears for most of the movie, Theoden is someone whose redemption and vigour at Helm's Deep only comes about because Aragorn shouts at him, Treebeard acts like a bumbling idiot until Merry shouts at him, and much of Faramir's character is stripped away and given instead to Aragorn. The most aggregious example of this is the scene at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, where Frodo is about to leave the Fellowship and Aragorn - seeing the Ring in hiw hand - approaches him, clearly tempted by it. Instead, though, gently closes Frodo''s fingers around the Ring, draws his sword and tells him to leave, having clearly overcome ithe Ring's temptation. This - as any reader of the books knows - is actually a revised version of what Faramir does at Henneth Annun, after Sam accidentally blurts out that they have the enemy's Ring and Faramir speaks aloud his desire for the ring and then becomes the first and only mortal man in the books to actually resist the Ring. I was so disappointed when they didn't depict that scene and really annoyed when they depicted Faramir and his men actually torturing Gollum. It was a completely unnecessary scene. In the books, Faramir has correctly got the measure of Gollum and uses implied threats to ensure he behaves. In the movie, Faramir is little more than a bully, who condones beating up those who are smaller than him and cannot fight back. It was so unnecessary.
All through the book FotR, Aragorn never tries to take the Ring from Frodo. He's the other mortal man who resists. Not coincidentally also one in whom "the blood of Numenor runs nearly true"
I do wish the PJ films kept Faramir true to his book counterpart. I think the films needed Faramir to contrast better to Boromir as an open minded scholar of a man who could resist the Ring. The Ring itself could still be a threat for how it twisted Frodo's perception of reality as it had done before. The threat could have been internal rather than a contrived external threat in Faramir trying to please his father. At the same time, I don't dislike movie!Faramir, I think he has a consistent arc and emotional throughline from his first scene to his last. But it's a shame he's castigated as a "loser" or some kind of jerk. And David Wenham's resemblence to Sean Bean and humble and warm performance in Return of the King is a fine addition to the roster of performances. But I do wish they could have done things differently.
After reading the two towers, I was amazed with Faramir's character and quickly became my favorite character. There was just something striking about his composure when we're first introduced to him that made him stand out as an acute leader, hidden behind his observing eyes and gentle words. But it was more than just being a wise leader that made him great. It not his courage or bravery nor other skills but his integrity and pure heart, even enough to resist the ring, that was inspiring. Though the films portrayal was only a glimpse of his character, his quality still shown through at the climax.
It was acknowledged by Peter Jackson on the DVD’s that they couldn’t just have a guy turn up who just dismisses the ring, thus stripping it of all its power.
that was the whole point of lotr, Faramir represents the hope for humanity because he is the only human who resists the ring's temptation. he is the future when humans inherits the earth
Except Aragorn just dismissed the ring when he first met the hobbits. His book response to the hobbits questioning his identity would seem intimidating. The individual will a person has plus how long they are in proximity to the ring results in how soon the temptation would affect them. If Faramir had spent as much time in the presence of the ring as his brother did, his resistance would have worn down to the point he might act like his movie had him act.
@@TheJmlew11 It does hold up very well. Aragorn never touched the ring for similar reasons Gandalf didn't. The ring would have corrupted him. The ring had to be held by someone who had no interest in power whatsoever, for any purpose - good or evil. The ring has similar influences on people in proximity to the ring, but nowhere near as strong and nowhere near as fast. This is why the fellowship HAD to break up - it's very clearly stated in the books - it had to break up because everyone would have slowly become more susceptible to the ring. Boromir was more highly susceptable than the rest because he wanted power for power's sake. Aragorn never did. Aragorn spent 80 years as a ranger, unnoticed, unpowerful over anyone (other than with his skills), which must have taught him humility and the value of freedom for others, and was always reluctant to take power but knew he must if the situation presented itself. JRR Tolkien knew his characters VERY well and wrote them very well. Peter Jackson very much misunderstood the main theme of the books, if he didn't understand this.
I feel like the Faramir of the movies is in despair and losing the hope on a future for his people and even for humanity. Which made the audience more perceptive of the difficulties ahead. I think both Faramir succeed in provide the tone of the story from Gondor and the men that still helds against darkness.
This. Faramir did not want to be a soldier, but was forced into the role by necessity. And it's a desperate fight that he doubts he can win. I thought Jackson did Faramir rather well given the time constraints. The little soliloquy over the body of the Harad soldier sets up the character well.
The Faramir of the movies was a bit paranoid, which is understandable given his seemingly self-imposed exile from Gondor, his treatment at the hands of his father, and his desire to defend his country. He saw Frodo and Sam as enemies at first, because he had no reason to see them otherwise. They might really have been evil for all he knew. Frodo certainly didn't help the situation by lying, even to protect the ring as part of his own quest. And the ring, like it does with everyone, knew how to push Faramir's buttons so to speak--he wanted to be restored to dignity in his father's eyes, and thought that bringing back the ring might do that for him. But in time, he does come to realize that Frodo and Sam are on the side of good. As for his treatment of Gollum, I certainly had no sympathy for Gollum there, given that he met Frodo and Sam by trying to kill them. In any case, Faramir's gentle nature and complicated past do come out later in the Return of the King.
"I think at last we understand one another..." I hate to admit it but yes, the films didn't really do his character all that well. Book version has more depth and humanity to him. But also to b fair the films are massive and the main focus of them was the journey of the ring. In terms of that Faramir plays a somewhat small role so less focus was placed on him and his development. However I would love a short story or film on Faramir and Eowyn and their life together after the war of the ring ^_^
wouldnt you say the movie version has more depth? as it shows somebody who is struggling to make the right choice and eventually does. The book version he more 1 dimensional, a good person through and through or full of humanity as you say. im not saying the movie made a better version at all, just one that has more of an "arc". Whereas the book, he was pretty much constant throughout.
@Zach S perhaps 🤔 David did an amazing job portraying him but I think where they failed him the most is in relation to other characters, specifically his father. Denethor was a minor bad guy in the films and aside from Eowyns love interest and being a desperate defender he didn't have that much else going for him. The extended films helped a little but he was more, I dunno, flushed out or properly done in the books
On one hand, I really like what you say about the book version reflecting the philosophy of the gentle, wise warrior, the man who fights because he must, not because he wants to. In certain ways, it reminds me of Uncle Iroh. And it does make me wish that the film better captured this aspect of his character. On the other hand, I can see what Jackson was going for: the Ring has the power to corrupt even the best of men. Likewise, war itself has the power to corrupt as well, and as you said, it's entirely possible that after a lifetime of fighting against evil, perhaps that had taken hold on him as well. I think Jackson went too far with that. The simple fix would be to allow Faramir to be the gentle warrior at the start of the encounter, but then become tempted by the Ring when he realizes they have it, then undergoing a struggle of will similar to that both Gandalf and Galadriel entured when offered it.
Faramir and E'Owyn were my favourite characters in the books and that has not changed in the thirty years I have returned to them. Jackson seemed to want to portray the world of men as dark, corrupted. Letting only the hobbits have innocence and goodness. The house of healing, King as a healer, E'Owyn's evolution from wanting to be a sheildmaiden to a healer. And of Faramir's goodness - it illustrated how the ring capitalised on pride, power, but what could the ring capitalise on if there was nothing of that within a person. Someone who sort wisdom out, learnt, understood and moved beyond. Was Faramir's goodness innate or by embracing the wisdom + ethos of the ancients, developing humbleness and service, had Faramir moved past evil - so he could no longer be corrupted when faced with the ring. Jackson demonstrated a deep cynicism about human beings here and missed one of the most important themes of the book.
I wouldn't say that's the case. Faramir in the movies doesn't care about the ring itself, he cares about being viewed as worthy by his father. The ring is simply the opportunity Faramir wanted to prove his worth.
@@nickklavdianos5136 But that itself is a drastic change from the books. Tolkien's Faramir wouldn't have anything to do with the ring whatsoever, nor have anyone else come under its sway, understanding it's corrupting nature; but Jackson's Faramir is so desirous of daddy's love that he'll give him what Tolkien's Faramir knows to be singularly the most corrupting item in all of Middle-earth to buy it. By character, two completely different people.
Humans have a deep cynicism about human beings. This is a Hollywood film and the adaptation process made the changes necessary to character arcs so people could relate to them. I admire Faramir as first written but I find him very distant.
@@neilpemberton5523 You said changes to character arcs were necessary so people could relate to them, specifically, Faramir. I find that suspect. Tolkien's book was rated the best novel of the twentieth century. I have a feeling that a lot of people liked his character arcs pretty well. P Jackson trashed Tolkein's Faramir.
Thank you! At last! I have been ranting about the movies' ruination of Faramir to anyone that would listen FOR YEARS! As others have noted here, the words of Jackson's justification for this stand on their heads. Of course you CAN have Faramir come along and dismiss the Ring... In fact, the story requires that occasionally you have a character like Faramir here and there. If Faramir doesn't act as a positive foil to Boromir and their father... If Aragorn doesn't act as a similar foil to the corruption of men writ large, then Frodo's trip with the Ring would be little more than a non stop nightmare horror show of paranoia through a continuously hostile Middle Earth where literally everyone he meets becomes a zombie to the Ring the moment they get too close. I mean, those ARE the stakes of what CAN happen with the Ring in the story and that's what provides us with the necessary danger for a good tale, but you have to have some good in there to balance it out or it isn't Tolkien anymore... It just becomes some post modern horror movie or slasher flick with no hope or humanity... And on that note I do think it is fair to point out that this is still the same guy who brought us Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles. They got a lot of stuff really Right with the LOTR movies, but when they got things wrong (Faramir; Frodo sending Sam away because of Gollum's ridiculous bread crumb prank; Denethor the amazing, wacky, sky diving human torch, Aragorn the faithless parley murderer etc), in such cases it seems pretty clear that Peter, Fran, and Phillipa had some pretty serious hubris going on and really thought they knew better than Tolkien; and they got away with it... we basically patted them on the head, handed them millions of dollars and Oscars to boot and ignored the stickier moments in the films because we were so happy about the good parts. So I REALLY appreciate a video like this even now many years later, so the conversation about some of this danker stuff can be publicly recognized and maybe scoured from our collective conscience.
I do like Jackson's movies, but my biggest complaint is his portrayal of Gondor, including the characterizations of Faramir and Denethor. Gondor is made to look completely inept during the battle of the Pelennor fields, and, to add insult to injury, it's the "ghost soup" that saves the day in the films, rather than the armies of southern Gondor.
This is my biggest gripe as well. Jackson did him dirty. In the behind the scenes they said they changed his character because they didn’t want to diminish the power of the ring. Basically, they want the dumb the whole thing down because they expect their audience to be confused. This is why over time I only read the book and never watch the movies again.
I think it was a good choice. 90% of people I show the movies to are confused about half the stuff going on anyways, So suddenly, when so close to Mordor, if some new character was like "idk what the big deal is. The ring isn't that cool," I'm sure it would deflate the tension that the movies had been building over like 9 hours about the corruption power of the ring.
@@iRsemple I think Peter Jackson should have shown Frodo with the ring in his outstretched hand just a few more times to show whatever he thought dumb moviegoers were supposed to get when he does that all those other times.
@@iRsemple I agree, it might be confusing if it is shown the way you describe it. The book still has the same tension the movies tried to create. In the book you do not know if Faramir is going to try to take the ring until the end of the meeting. Either way such one dimensional characters are what likely makes it more enjoyable for some and less enjoyable for fewer. If you're goal is to squeeze every dime out of the public, I can understand going the safe route and making it more dumb. But that just means you are more concerned with making money and less concerned with making art.
One of my favourite Men of the West episodes, Yoystan! Your observations are well observed. Wenham did do a wonderful job with the material he was given--would that he could have spoken more of Tolkien's outstanding words. And speaking of the Master: 5:24 This is my favourite photograph of Tolkien--I've never seen it before! It really captures the man's eloquent sensitivity.
I do enjoy the movies but I confess, over time, its deviations from Tolkien's work, while minor in many cases, have begun to bother me more and more. Faramir is a perfect example of this for all the reasons stated in the video. Even two decades later, I marvel at how brilliantly and empathically the films portrayed Boromir while also falling so far short of the mark with his brother (and also his father).
I very much agree. Taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath made no sense whatsoever and they completely dropped the important part of Faramir that was his Númenorian heritage. How he basically could read people's minds and did not care to avenge his brother or appease his father by bringing the weapon to him. They changed him into Boromir Light and therefore undermined the importance of Faramir as an individual with a very different mindset from his father, brother and the most of Gondor in that day & age. That and the whole Saruman's death / Scouring of the Shire issue are my main gripes with those otherwise wonderful movies.
Thanks a lot for a needed video. I love the peaceful vibes that emanate from it, and you do justice to a superb character. What bothers me the most in the entire trilogy is the whole Osgiliath arc in TTT : Faramir's portrayal as tempted by the Ring, Sam and Frodo taken back to Osgiliath, Frodo's confrontation with the Nazgul, and Frodo nearly killing Sam. Those are big deviations from the lore which are just unnecessary fillers. They should have made Frodo and Sam getting past Minas Morgul instead, maybe even Shelob in TTT. Then we could have had a much more developed Sam heroic solo moment in Cirith Ungol, with the Two Watchers, and so on, in ROTK
My friend, thank you for sharing your characterization changes for Faramir, one thing you may have added was also the physical portrayal being differing from Tolkien's description of the man. For example, for those without a keen eye, almost every art portrayal shows Faramir (and his brother) as having facial hair, a common misrepresentation, as all pure lineage descendants of Númenoreans grew no facial hair which Tolkien explicitly states...much of this may be due to artist's not knowing the source material as well or not having access to publications with these fine points. Thank you for adding Anke Eißmann's art that shows Faramir closest to what he most likely would have been depicted as, at least, in terms of hair and eye color. 😁
Tolkien also mentions more than once that Faramir has black hair, something Peter Jackson could easily have gotten right if he wanted to. It's one thing to see actors portray characters whose physical descriptions in the book are minimal, but Faramir is repeatedly described as having black hair and grave features.
As so many have replied, I too felt it was an injustice to twist Faramir's character so. He has long been on my list of favorite characters and I was dismayed at the way in which the writing for the films portrayed him. Which is why I return to the books, the canon. Thank you for this particular topic.
I was so glad to see this video being made! Faramir was one of my top three favourite characters and I absolutely hated how they changed him for the movies. As you stated, there were reasons, but it was one of the worse choices they made.
It seems as if it he suffered (in the films) from the "Aragorn" treatment but without the carefully fleshed out arc (Aragorn had) and thus feels a much less complex character because of it. Suddenly at the end of the Return of the King we get but a glimpse, of the man he was known to be (in the books) and that is a shame indeed. Very much more than just a "Wizard's pupil" as Denethor puts it so simply in the movies. Still I love what David Wenham did with the role. When he delivers the line "You wish that I had died and Boromir had lived" you really feel it. -Great video keenly thought out, eloquently explained and a pleasure to watch. I look forward to more videos in the future!
Great video, he's been my favourite character since I first read the books and it always annoyed me that most people saw him as he's portrayed in the movies
I agree with you. He is my favorite human of the third age but not in the Jackson trilogy. In the films the "wizards pupil" comment kind of falls flat, where as in the books it makes a lot of sense. Reading the books for the first time, I always felt that faramir was just like Gandalf, if Gandalf was human and not a maiar. The same thought processes just being filtered through the intellect and capabilities of a human, not a prehistoric spirit.
I like the fact that Faramir overcomes his temptation of the ring rather than just immune to it. I think it gets the point across for those who didn’t read the books
I remember well walking out of the movie theater, having enjoyed most of what I had experienced but genuinely upset with how they had portrayed Faramir! My poor husband endured a half an hour rant on the subject on the ride home. After all these years, I've softened a bit because of understanding movie making logic a bit better, but I have to say, it does me good to hear your thoughts on the matter and to know I wasn't the only one really disappointed by their choice.
The extended version of LOTR paints Faramir in a far better light. The marvelous scene with Faramir and Boromir having a victory at Osgilioth shows their great love for each other, and Boromir dreading his father raining on their parade. Boromir strongly defends Faramir to their father... The bottom line is that Faramir's actions make far more sense when seen in that light. Don't know that I'd have gone that way... but far better than completely removing the back story... YP
Yeah I remember watching the two towers extended dvd with my brother on Christmas Day and being amazed at that scene but also furious it didn't make the Final Cut.
Yeah, and Faramir and Eowyn falling in love while waiting helplessly for the victory or defeat of the Shadow has always been my absolute favourite part of the books. I was hoping some of it was preserved in the extended cut but, well, yeah, ten more seconds, was it?
Thank you. This was indeed one of my main two issues with the films. The other being the leaving out the scouring of the Shire. The whole point of the hobbits being brought along was so that they could grow to take care of themselves. But alas, Faramir. He was my favorite character. How could they have changed him so? I agree with everything you said. Also, he embodied everything the Fellowship was trying to save. In the films he was nothing but a minor character. Other things about the films bothered me, as well. Such as Denethor being shown as a slightly better Wormtongue, instead of the noble man driven insane by despair. Also, I had a problem with the elves of Lorien showing up at Helms Deep only to be slaughtered. I do understand the leaving out of some other favoritecharacters, such as Imrahil and Beregond. There just wasn’t time. Utwe should be thankful that By their not being included, they did not chance having their characters mangled, the way Faramir’s was. I loved the first film. Hated the second one. Started to like the third one, until the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire.
I think they are at least equally noble. If one is moreso than tother then Faramir is more due to Aragorn being conflicted about his duty to be king. Instead of raising up his banner he spent decades in the wilderness having little to do with the affairs of men.
The movies are great, but this is my biggest complaint as well. Faramir is my favorite character from the books. He’s full of memorable quotes. “I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee.”
It's my 2nd biggest complaint. The first is how Return of the King ended. They could have cut the endless battle scenes by 30 minutes to include the meeting with Saruman and Wormtongue and the Scouring of the Shire. But even worse, I think, was Aragorn's transformation once crowned (in the movie). From being a great leader and fount of strength he turns into a namby-pamby king, seemingly overnight. I never got that impression from the book.
Thank you for finally talking about this. Everyone wants to talk about Tom Bombadil or Elves at Helm's Deep, but this is a major one that deserves attention.
I have to agree. Most of the characters I thought were portrayed really well, though I thought a couple of other characters were a little bit off though the actors themselves did excellent jobs. By the end, Faramir in the movies had morphed pretty much into the Faramir of the book.
When reading the book for the first time, after having seen the films, I remember dreading the chapters with Faramir, because I remembered the tension from the film, but I was positively surprised. Those chapters grabbed my attention firmly, while also making me smile and laugh, and refreshed in a way. Faramir from the book quickly became my favourite character (apart from all the hobbits including Gollum of course -not the Sackville Bagginses though, of course!
I agree with you. The depiction of Faramir and the forcing of the hobbits to go to Osgiliath at all bugged me. Never happened in the book and I thought it was a useless adaption to me at least.
Thank you for the Team Faramir video. My daughter who is an English teacher and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. While I too love Jackson's movies my biggest gripes are on how he changed the nature of major characters. You detailed the changes to Faramir which are by far the most egregious. Theoden did not "flee to Helm's Deep", his force was routed when he went out to meet the orcs head on and they fled to Helm's Deep (not a scared old man but a reborn hero). Of course Frodo never sent Sam away and Sam never would have deserted Frodo (which he swore he would never do). I think perhaps time just prevented Jackson from a greater exposition of Denethor but his book character was much more complex. Lastly, Arogorn had the sword reforged before they left Rivendell. When he met the Gray Company he embraced his fate. Oh and he gazed into the Palantir to challenge Sauron directly.
My wife and I had the same thoughts. The other bit in the movie that bothered us was the witch king breaking Gandalf's staff. I know that was to create tension, but that scene greatly reduced Gandalf the White.
I kinda understand PJ's reasons for trying to build the viewer's trepidation and suspense during the meeting with the hobbits, he missed an opportunity to portray a man of Gondor as being wise and enobled, still embued with the wisdom and knowledge of their ancient ancestors .a
When I saw the Two Towers, I walked out of the theater disappointed how Faramir was portrayed. I loved him in the book. I have peace now with the movie version but I am so glad you made this video. The character deserves it.
I watch the films and read the books (in that order) each year. Every time I get to Faramir in TT, I think “damn, PJ did Faramir dirty.” He is so noble, thoughtful, honest, and wise in the books. The whole excursion to Osgiliath in the films was not great, but I get that they wanted to push Shelob to ROTK and needed a climax to the Frodo/Sam storyline in TT. Still, it bugs me.
PJ made a lot of the Kings look bad in comparison to their book counterparts. Theoden was more greedy, egotistic, and arrogant. Denethor was straight up abusive, Aragon was unwilling to take up Anduril. Besides just Faramir
@@EcthelionOTF Agreed. Book Theoden didn’t show any bitterness toward Gondor or disappointment in the number of riders who came to the muster. He was resolute and trusted Aragorn and Gandalf’s counsel.
I feel the same way as you do on a lot of these points. Though the way I see past it is this : I believe they made this change to show the difference between Boromir and Faramir. They start by setting Faramir up very similarly to his brother, but in the end his virtue shines through before he makes the same mistake his brother did. It's not a GREAT way to tell his story/character, but I get why they did it. Similarly to how I'm not a fan of Boromir being painted as a villain from the start either, However i think all of these things are chalked up to the time constraints that come with an adaptation on this scale. Good video bud !
I think Jackson was also trying to give Faramir, like Aragorn, a character arc & he would end up like the Faramir of the books. Unfortunately in both cases it didn't really work. As for Jackson's portrayal of Denethor, there is very little good to be said for that.
very interesting topic! Yes I guess I did not notice so much while watching the movies, but most definitely he was a different character; much less noble than the book Faramir.
I was really sad to see what they did to Faramir in the movies. I know they couldn't put everything from the books in but they could've at least stayed true to his character from the books. Even if they cut back his roll.
As insensible to the Ring by intellect and soul (by WISDOM and MODESTY), Faramir is (with Sam) my favorite character too. It is true that in the movie he is totally different (driven by an ambition), but the actor playing him is fantastic.
Having recently finished the books, I admit I like the book version of Faramir more. But I still feel the movie version, while a misinterpretation of the character, is still valid and works in the context of that specific retelling of the story. I like them both.
The omission of Bombadill and the Scouring of the shire I can understand, some dialogue lines shuffled around is ok but there are 2 aspects of the films that really grate with me: 1. The mis-representation of Faramir and 2. the strife that Gollum creates between Frodo and Sam. And in many ways, you do the first right, you can't really do the second, though in the book Gollum feels mistreated enough as it is to fuel his resentment and his plans to have Shelob deal with the hobbits.
Although also a little triggered as it deviates away from the book, the Frodo vs Sam plot device imo works in the movies as a means to re-affirm the power and danger the ring holds as casuals would otherwise get halfway through ROTK and be like “so, uh, why are these 2 little guys walking straight towards the bad guys?”
Great video. Enjoy your channel. I love both the films and the book lore. Many characters were not translated well into the film versions, along with other plot changes that I didn't care for. In the case of Faramir, he was thrown into an apocryphal crisis, witness to much evil in his time. That he might have been a PTSD veteran would perhaps explain the behaviors of the character in the film, regardless of his nobility in the books. I don't recall that Tolkien explored those sorts of trauma with the characters in LOTR. I would have to read the text again. Maybe there's a bit of "realism" regarding Faramir's humanity, as such, in the Jackson films?
I really hated how Faramir treats Gollum in the movie. All that sequence since they ambush him in the Forbidden Pool until they leave Osgiliath, it almost makes me cry tbh.
Thank you for doing this. I have always been upset by the way Faramir was shown in the movies because in the books he, just as much as Aragorn, showed a portrayal of "good" men.
Philippa Boyens said that they wrote Faramir as being tempted by the Ring because after setting up the Ring as this incredibly dangerous thing, it would have all been undone if Faramir just refused the Ring from the start. But I think they got it wrong. The point of Faramir refusing the Ring in the book was to show that he was of a noble kind, not with a base and selfish nature like other men. They could have maintained the perception of the evil power of the Ring without sacrificing the true nature of Faramir.
I totally agree. In the books, the ring loses not one ounce of menace when Faramir refuses it. In fact, he finds it so deadly that he tells Frodo to keep it hidden, not to even show it to Faramir or speak its name out loud again.
Since Faramir never actually saw the ring (and bade Frodo not to tell where he had it) it would have been easy to explain why he wasn't corrupted by it.
Should it have been easier for Faramir to refuse the Ring than for Aragorn? It seemed pretty difficult for Aragorn when Frodo asked him "Can you protect me from yourself?"
A flashback from The Two Towers extended edition elaborates on Faramir's complex relationship with his father and brother. In The Return of the King extended edition, it is revealed that he falls in love with Eowyn in the Houses of Healing while they are both recovering from their injuries.
I think a detail many forget is that Faramir was himself so good a soul as to recognize Frodo as an Elf-Friend. Very few bear such a title and fewer outside the Elves can recognize it. Faramir could, and that alone should prove his intentions for the betterm
I do like that no one is immune to the Ring's influence in the movies. It means no one is safe while the Ring still exists and there is no plot points where you have to explain why these "immune" characters can't take the Ring to Mordor, although characters like Tom Bambadil and Faramir have reasons why they can't or won't help destroy the Ring.
💯💯 Totally and absolutely with you! Faramir in the books seeks wisdom at Gandalf's elbow whenever he was in Minas Tirith. His ambitious, short-sighted father views him not as wise, but in thrall of Gandalf. He's wise enough, and intuitive enough to figure out what sort of object Frodo has, if not exactly that which Sam inadvertently reveals to him. He sees Gandalf's wisdom and lets Frodo & Sam go with assistance. He is one of the most noble and wise of characters, and Peter Jackson tarnishes him substantially.
I felt they did him an injustice. Reading the book then watching the films, then reading the books again it just left me sad about a guy that came off as so caring yet stoic becoming this jerk
I read the books after I saw the movies. I dearly loved both Sam and Faramir after reading the novels. Faramir and Sam both are pure of heart, and I was sad at seeing Faramir made to be less that gentle. As a women, I also GREATLY lamented that more of Faramir and Eowyn’s love story was cut so. Albeit we were given a smidge more in the extended version. Still not enough. HE is the one who drew her back fully.
Год назад+4
I remember that Faramir portrait on the films bothered me as well. To the point in which he allowing Frodo and Sam to leave seemed antithetical to the character they had been building. And, clearly that was not entirely the Faramir from the books.
Its great to see the growth of your channel. Your channel is like an escape from the darkness in our current world. Thank you for all you do to bring this to us.
The rewriting of Faramir's story line was also a serious problem for me in the films as was the making of Arwen as an archtypal warrior princess which Tolkien never intended for her character. Faramir was a gentle, yet brave and true character in the books and not a villain. Tolkien develops in him what a true warrior leader should be: wise, discerning, selfless, and true to his country along with being a wise leader of men who is bold and brave when need be.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! It's my opinion that the movies trashed a lot of parts of the books. But what they did to Faramir was what I have always hated the most. It's inexcusable. They destroyed his good character. Faramir has always been one of my favorite characters, and his treatment in the movies offended me more deeply than anything in any movie ever has. I'm really glad to know I'm not the only one who disliked what they did to him. You said pretty much everything that I've been feeling and saying for years.
The Two Towers was my favorite movie of the trilogy until I read the book and saw book Faramir. The Two Towers is now my least favorite of the movies. I still like the movie, but Faramir is right there with the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff as "the only things I dislike about the movies" I'm surprised you didn't mention that the whole reason Faramir found out it was the ring they were carrying was because Sam was so comfortable around him that HE was the one who let that slip. There couldn't be a bigger tell that they got Faramir wrong than that.
I was always struck by how Faramir seemed to be the only full human to be able to recognize the danger and resist the call of the ring. I felt like he was a metaphor for all of us real humans. That no matter how high the stakes are, we can stay true to ourselves, our beliefs, and morals, stay true to what is good, noble, and worthy. I felt that was a vital aspect, and through line, of LotR and if no man in this fantastical world could resist the ring, what hope do we have in real life? I wrote as much in an email I found to the film's crew during opening weekend, when I saw the film. Fran Walsh responded and went off on me. She was not happy with my take, saying she's received nothing but praise. She was obviously really upset. The next day she sent an apology and hoped to hear back from me regarding what I thought of the conclusion. I was so turned off I chose not to watch the rest. I went back last month and watched them all in an epic binge. Although they aren't as bad as I remember (memory likely being clouded by my last interaction with the epic), I was still quite disappointed by how changing that one character changes what was hope for us plain ol' humans into a bleak inevitability.
Honestly this is my biggest pet peeve of the Jackson films (we don't talk about the Hobbit. Well at least I don't). Faramir was one of my all time favorite characters in the books, and I loved that Faramir was shown as being wise and kind. The movies did a major disservice to his character in an attempt to raise the stakes for dramatic purposes.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
After reading the books, Faramir was my favorite character. Part of everything that drew me into the world, is something he represents
Some of his chapters or moments where my favourite in the books. Its a shame because the actor is perfect for it
Faramir is also my favorite Character in the books, mainly do to him being an ideal the average man can look up to and achieve. That said I appreciate the violence added to his character in the movies. It’s a reminder Meekness is not humility or weakness but the restraint of force especially when justified.
I believe the criticism of the character in the movies being tempted by the Ring was indeed warranted. The drama in those scenes could’ve been better served showing the impending assault of the orca as n the West Bank
Love the video!
Faramir was my favorite also. I was so angry at how the film ruined Faramir for me that I couldn't watch the rest for many years. There was nothing meek or timid about Faramir. He had strength and a truly moral core that allowed him to resist the pull of the ring before it even began. That was important to me, so important! And his assurance to Frodo that he would never try to take it brought me to tears every time I read those passages. Frodo and Sam needed so much to encounter a trustworthy man, and Faramir truly showed his worth. A friend unlooked for. I agree with everything said in this video, thank you for sharing it!
I agree. I loved Boromir and hated but understood his fall. Then came Faramir and that gave it all much more complexity. The expectation of the first born, the role of the second born. How much was personality, how much was their position, their upbringing and role. It's really intriguing. Faramir rising above Boromir in refusing the ring. But it also was easier in a way for him, for he was prepared to not take power, while Boromir was not.
@@valk5045 Yes. Exactly.
Faramir proves that a character does NOT need to be “relatable” or “flawed” to be interesting and good. Faramir is a model of moral excellence, an inspiration. His character is all we should aspire to be and I love characters like that I can look up to.
He showed integrity throughout, and the ability to also make good decisions, even under duress.
SO. MUCH. YES. Hollywood has lost the plot on good characters with depth. Did no one have any good grandparents?
" *a character does NOT need to be “relatable” or “flawed” to be interesting and good* "
Faramir is relatable, because he struggles. Nothing is given to him for free, he has to work hard to attain all his goals, and it's still not enough, and everything he loves is apparently falling apart.
He's a tragic character in this regard.
He stubbornly sticks to his morals, because the alternative seems even worse. That's what all tragic characters do, and not unlike in a Greek tragedy, he ends up defeated. Others save him, but he ends up deeply wounded, both mentally and physically.
I mean, he's very far from Mary Sues of today.
He’s Clark Kent, Peter Parker. He’s the reliable goodness.
I love Faramir ♥️
I hated what they did to Denethor more. Faramir shouldn't have been so easily corrupted and should've been much kinder, but his men mistreating Gollum seems in line with the books, although I doubt Faramir would've ordered them to. Denethor went from a wise man who was driven insane by Sauron and loved both of his sons dearly to a moustache-twirling villain for Gandalf to whack with a stick.
I'm so pissed about how they fucked up Denethor. In the books he's this tragic but dignified Shakespearean level character and in the movie he's a complete jerk. Not to mention they never explain the whole palantir thing. AND the whole running a marathon while on fire.
When I picture book!Denethor, I kinda picture him being played by an operatic bass who has Boris or Wotan for breakfast.
Also: Where are the armies of Gondor? The beacons scene should have happened while Gandalf and Pippin are riding to Minas Tirith, and they really should have showed the armies garthering. Not to mention: at the very least Beregond should have been cast, even if they cut his son for time purposes.
Overall I still love the movies, but Faramir and Denethor deserved better.
@jasonskinner5212 There's this random blond dude who looks kinda fancy and who may or may not be Imrahil but he barely says anything...
@@akechijubeimitsuhide I would’ve loved to see Beregond on screen. That definitely would’ve shut the normies up about how “Tolkien didn’t have any complex characters.”
Well, Denethor had no moustache to twirl...in the films he was a nut-job. The animated had him incoherent. I am more bugged by the Gondorians being so easily shaken by Denethor and not having lieutenants at least leading units tactically. A bit much for the white wizard to direct them tactically slmosy micromanaging, for sake of audience, but still as if they didn't have tactical training: aim here aim there. "You are soldiers of Gondor...!" Not exactly elite royal soldiers....although they had been demoralized under Denethor's abandoned stewardship..
Agree with Faramir. He was one of my favorite characters from the books, which I read after I saw the movies. The great thing about the movies though, is they brought a bunch of people to Tolkien’s original works.
The quote about not picking it up if it lay on the highway he said even BEFORE he knew Frodo was carrying the Ring. And he kept to his word.
Funny you should mention how your perceptions have changed with age. I was around your age when the Jackson films came out. I was also NOT pleased with how they did Faramir dirty. However, I do understand Peter Jackson’s belief that Faramir’s resistance to the ring’s corruption was unrealistic. But if Sam could see through the ring’s temptation, surely there could be others.
Oh very interesting David! That belief to make Faramir contend with the Ring a bit more certainly makes sense, but the sense of wisdom that came from Faramir’s encounter with the Ring seems also far less in the films. I totally agree! Hope you and the family are well, my friend. Many blessings!
The funny thing is, we see quite a lot of characters resist the ring's corruption: Bilbo, Sam, Gandalf and Galadriel. Why is it so inconceivable that Faramir would be able to resist the Ring's corruption as well?
@@frankvandorp2059 And Aragorn. Aragorn never tried to take the Ring. He only pretended to threaten the Hobbits in Bree to try to scare some sense and caution into them.
@@frankvandorp2059 all the Ring-resistant characters are non-human or super-human. A mere mortal (and, no, Aragorn isn't among our number) cannot resist AT ALL. Galadriel and Gandalf, asbeings accustomed to power, do not so much resist as refuse to take the ring, knowing their chances of resisting for long are slight. I would venture that the ability to resist the Ring is strongest in Hobbits, who live in the moment, enjoy the simple pleasures, and are content with their lot. Essentially, Hobbits are unaffected because they do not crave power over others. Per Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely " 1887.
If Aragorn resisted, Faramir resisted too. They're both almost pure Numenoreans.
A chance for Yoystan, captain of RUclips to prove Faramir’s worth.
Lol incredible 😂
Take a bow, sir. You win best comment.
A wonderful statement.
I didn’t come to the comments section expecting to see this, but now that I have, I bow before the King of the Comments.
Exactly: "show" not "prove"... And "quality" not "worth"... But who's counting? Still my favorite comment on this vid. 👍
I may be adding to the chorus, but I've always felt they did Faramir a grave injustice and I'm so glad you've talked about it. It's on a par with Jackson's foolish Ents, the cold elves and (worse of all) Frodo rejecting Sam in RotK just to create drama. And while I do much appreciate the movies for what they achieved, the list goes on (but not ever on and on!)
The whole point of Faramir is that he's the perfect knight, the contrast to Boromir, almost a Percival. He would not take the ring if he found it by the side of the road, as I believe he says. Not just a copy of Boromir who happens to resist in the end, that's not a contrast, but only the same character watered down. It's vital not just on a storytelling level, but to show true nobility exists in Men. Without this a cynicism, an small-mindedness pretending to be wisdom sits as a baseline to the adaptation's view of the world. (While Jackson's slip ups in this regard are nowhere near RoP's Gilgalad telling Elrond to break an oath-- and all the other travesties-- it still matters.)
Oh, and Faramir needs to be a virtuous man in order to fulfill his last role, which is to be a worthy 'reward' for Eowyn-- a genderswap of 'hero sacrifices himself and gets a true love' if you will, a lovely and decidedly satisfying element of Eowyn's arc that never gets mentioned.
Thanks again!
Jackson's cold elves? I don't know what you mean by this.
@@johanabigasova6770 most of Jackson's elves are portrayed as highly arrogant and borderline racist.
@@johanabigasova6770 They have no personalities.
I forgot about that in my previous comment. Yes, Frodo's rejection of Sam was shocking and entirely unncessary. Another gripe was how useless Frodo seemed. In the books he's influenced by the ring, of course, but in the movies, he ALWAYS does the wrong thing; in the movie, the only time he isn't pathetic is when he offers to take the ring at Rivendell.
Yeah, Faramir's arc feels incomplete in the movie, he kinda is just there and isn't flesh out even when the movie is near the end, maybe it's because i watched the resumed version
Faramir is one of my favorite characters in the books because he is the example of attainable human wisdom and goodness. What the movies did to him has always stuck in my craw because there he is an example of someone who could be wiser and stronger but trades it away to make people happy. Two completely different lessons. Still to this day when I am watch LOTR with someone they have to listen to a 15 minute lecture from me on how Faramir's character actually should be played lol.
Faramir was a faithful Steward to Gondor.
Boromir and Denethor seemed to be wannabe rulers.
Faramir was my FAVOURITE book character. I was really upset with the movie take on Faramir. I enjoyed the movies as a whole, but TTT for me is always marred by the change in character.
same
Improved as far as I'm concerned.
Jackson distorted every character from the books. Badly so. If people enjoy the films, that’s fine. I find them unwatchable.
@@junglemoose2164 unwatchable is a bit far 🤣🤣 drama queen much?
You know, you really love something when you can see the flaws in it, and still love it.
Faramir was a Numenorean 2nd only to Aragorn. Friend to Gandalf, captain of Gondor, and prince of Ithilien more noble than his brother and father. He deserved better in the films. I appreciate you doing these videos.
"2nd only to Aragorn," and Aragorn was more susceptible to the Ring in the movies than Faramir was in the books.
As much as I disliked TTT's portrayal of Faramir, it wouldn't have made any sense for the Ring to have more difficulty trying to corrupt him than Aragorn. And I can't say I disliked how the Ring called out to Aragorn near the end of FOTR.
I think that might be the explanation here. There are only a few characters in the movies, and the book Faramir would have been too much like Aragorn. At least he needed perhaps to evolve from a traumatized warrior and son to a gentleman. In the extended version of ROTK I think Faramir and Eowyn end up like they were in the books.
@@paulchapman8023 I agree, for a movie it would have taken away the narrative of the ring's ability to currupt if suddenly after all the tension with Boromir and Aragorn being seduced by the ring Faramir suddenly shows up and is completely unaffected. The reality is when you take a 1,000 page book and put it on film you are forced to simplify some of the themes.
Thank you. Faramir's portrayal was always what bothered me the most in the movies. In the books he was never tempted by the ring and refused to even let Frodo tell him more about it. He was also exactly the man that Eowyn needed, though she didn't realize it at first.
It’s wonderful to see a RUclipsr show what they got wrong. You said it much better then I do when explaining things to my friends
Faramir is my absolute favorite character from the books. I was watching a WWI documentary the other day, about the Battle of the Somme, and I was thinking about how Professor Tolkien himself had fought in that battle. I was reminded of the "I love not the arrow for it's swifness quote," and was thinking about how that and Sam's remark about whether the enemy soldiers were really so bad, and how that must have been what Tolkien felt about the war. I remember Tolkien also said something about being a leader in battle should strive to inspire love and loyalty and not just boss the troops around. All of these thoughts that Tolkien had must have surely culminated in the character of Faramir.
I still like movie Faramir, I think he works in the story and worldbuilding and I think in the compressed time it might've been tricky to get the idea across that a human wouldn't take the Ring after they already stated that Men were easily corrupted. Maybe if LotR were made into a proper seasons-long show they could do some more in depth character exploration. And for me the worst change they did in the movies was making Frodo trust Gollum over Sam. But that being said, I do still prefer book Faramir. A beacon of goodness in the evilness of war.
From a film perspective it makes sense to add tension by making you think Faramir will make the same mistake as Boromir only for him to do the right thing in the end. It was a mix of temptation from the ring while also wanting Denethors approval.
The only thing I wish the films did better was explaining his relationship with Gandalf. We get hints of it from him calling him "Mithrandir" and how Gandalf treats him. Denethor also calls him a wizards pupil, we also see Gandalf grieving when Faramir goes on the suicide charge to Osgiliath. Wish we had a scene with them talking about lore and stuff. I definitely prefer the Faramir from the book but I also love the film version.
When the Two Towers first came out, I was pretty upset at the change in Faramir's portrayal in the movie; however, I came to be more accepting of the change as I've grown older. What works well in books doesn't always translate as well in a movie or TV adaptation. Since it wasn't only fans of the books going to see the movie, it makes sense to add more drama to keep the viewers who are new to the story invested. Also, I think Faramir's portrayal makes Boromir's fall to the Ring more sympathetic and tragic to the people who haven't read the books.
I understand your point of view, but I confess that I didn't care then, nor do I care now, what people who never read the books thought about the films. I wanted a Lord of the Rings movie (or movies) since the day I first finished reading the story, and to my mind, making these films was an homage to Tolkien and a gift (even if imperfect) to the fans. If non-fans of the books enjoyed it, that's fine, but to me, that was not the point.
@@hodgeelmwood8677 true, but unfortunately money had to be made (big investment) so gaining non book fans was paramount. But at least the PJ trilogy put forth the effort to stay true to the books, which is more rare now days when it comes to film adaptations.
one of my favourite exchanges in the book is a conversation between Faramir and Denethor. Denthor says, "In desperate times gentleness may be repaid with death." referring to Faramir's affinity for goodness as a weakness, to which Faramir simply replies "So be it." It is so defiant yet understated and that always spoke to me. His father fell to corruption, his brother killed and his kingdom a victim to sauron's growing influence, but he won't let that change who he is or what he believes in.
I even have "so be it" tattooed in reference to this passage, like a reminder not to become jaded and bitter by life's unfairness lol
Great video. I appreciate the way you gently and respectfully disagree with an interpretation. Too often we are quick to belittle the things we disagree with, but you always manage to state your opinions well. Critiquing without criticizing. Nice.
Thank you! While I generally love the Peter Jackson film trilogy, what they did to Faramir was nothing short of criminal (though what they did to Denethor was even worse, and also made a mockery of the terrible excuse they made for what they did to Faramir in the first place). Book Faramir was Tolkien's self-insert into the story, and presented Tolkien's views on the future of the U.K. as Faramir's views on Gondor. ("For myself,” said Faramir, “I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom.”) He was also set up as a man of strong self-control, who forbore to take the Ring, in stark contrast to Boromir, who tried to take it.
What they did to Aragorn was even worse when he broke the law of parley and killed the Mouth of Sauron.
The effects of Faramir's mistreatment go even further. Without the extended (and non-canonical) scenes in Osgiliath, the film would've had enough to send the hobbits to Shelob's lair at the end of Two Towers, rather than shoving it into Return of the King and making the pacing of both films weird. Furthermore, had Shelob's lair taken place when it was supposed to, ROTK would've had enough time for the Scouring of the Shire. But I digress.
It was character assassination, plain and simple.
@@MichaelJohnson-mt6ey Even if they had the time, the scouring of the Shire would not fit in the trilogy. The trilogy is atleast as much about Aragorn as it is about Frodo and Sauron is the clear antagonist (not the "concept of evil" in general). So having an entire arc, maybe an hour long, after the main villain is defeated and one of the two main characters isn't even present anymore...that would just be terrible story-telling.
@@ottokarl5427 I disagree, but that's okay.
Lack of Bombadil was the largest blunder. Without showing how joy makes power meaningless, is the most important lesson of the book.
Faramir has a sad story. He loses his brother and father within a year. He does get to see peace in his time, but he does pay a price for it. Next do how the Dark blackness of smoke and evil that was left out of the movies during the attack on Minas Tirith.
I had a chance to sit down with Peter Jackson and Elijah Wood for a drink at the afterparty for the premiere of The Fellowship of the Ring, and Peter asked me my thoughts about the movie. I was a young highschooler at the time, an avid Tolkien fanatic, but I hadn’t really had enough time to process what I’d seen that evening. I wish I had emphasized more to him just how much it meant to me to see a faithful adaptation of the characters and story. I was fine with what I'd seen at the time, felt it was good they gave Arwen some extra presence in the story (though her actress was particularly rude to me and my sisters that evening). I did manage to point out an editing error at least, which they apparently fixed in time for the public release (a couple shots out of order when Boromir is felled, I think it was). I remember being really upset in the following years over what they did to Faramir and Denethor after I got to see The Two Towers. It was like someone fell asleep at the wheel for their arcs and related stories. Also some of the Eowyn-Aragorn interactions felt unnecessarily tacked on, but I think most of the Tolkien fandom shares those sentiments.
I would call Faramirs behavior in the movies as a growing strength, called for by necessity. He was still kind and trying to appease his father. That is the character changed for the WORST in the movies.
I agree - taking Frodo and Sam back towards Minas Tirith is him trying to do what his dad wanted, I never saw it as him being corrupted by the ring at all, unless you could see it as the ring trying to use Faramir's desire to please his father. As for the other stuff with Gollum and so on, the guy's a soldier, in war time. Soldiers can't afford to always be nice. Remember when you are adapting a movie from a book, what works on the page doesn't always work on the screen. Would Faramir have come across as a realistic character to an audience who might not have read the book if he was all 'I won't take the ring, I'm a good guy, off you go?' That being said, I think Faramir is a great character. I do think there are much worse sins in the movies - Denethor's depiction is an obvious one.
I was OUTRAGED, the first time I saw the scenes of Faramir and Frodo. He is initially portrayed as being a threat, when in the books; during a conversation, he says that perhaps Sam discerns somewhat of the air of Numenor about him. I loved the book scene where Frodo is being questioned by Faramir, in front of his men, and later; in the cave; when Sam puts his foot in his mouth, and gives away the secret, and proceeds to tell Faramir that he's not to hold his Master to blame, because his servant's ( Sam) no better than a fool.
You are SO RIGHT! Between this, Jackson's vision of Aragorn, the reduction of the Ent story line and the whole third movie, I cannot appreciate the Jackson adaptations. The movies are great but the adaptations leave very much to be desired. Besided, Faramir is a favorite character.
Faramir is a philosopher forced to be a warrior. Maybe they thought that Frodo’s journey needed a visible antagonist that the turned Faramir into a copy of his brother. Also, they sped up Frodo’s journey, so the detour that Faramir made them take slowed them down so that they would be closer the book timeline.
He’s very far from a copy of his brother - good grief . He’s the ‘contrast & compare’. Plus in the films you actually can see he’s Boromir’s brother - they have similarities.
I remember that being my biggest disappointment when I saw The Two Towers back in 2002. I felt they got Faramir so wrong and I was bummed by it. I was also really disappointed by their explanation of it.
Bummed by faramir
My biggest disappointment was the Ents being turned into cowards who had to be tricked into going to war with Saruman....oh, and Denethor being such a cardboard cut-out villian that he didn't even properly prepare Minas Tirith for war. Jackson really didn't seem to truly GET the themes of Tolkien's works IMHO.
@@TheMarcHicks Oh trust me the handling of the Ents were my second complaint with The Two Towers film after Faramir.
@@TheMarcHicks the idea of the ents having no idea what happened to the forest was the strangest nothing in the movie especially with tree beard at the beginning talking about the orcs destroying the woods.
I remember coming home from seeing the movie, sitting down, and rereading the relevant chapters of _The Two Towers_ just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
Completely agree! Just went through the audio book recently and when Faramir showed his compassion to Sam and Frodo a tear sprang in eye.
My first read of the trilogy 20 years ago I thought Aragorm and Faramir so insecure, full of doubt and negative all the time. How my own years has changed my perspective, now Faramir is one of my favourite characters. I also understand the story much better nog than I did the first read. It's a truly well crafted story!
Aragorn insecure??? I think the movies have colored your opinion of Aragorn. He was never insecure in the books, he was patient. He waited until it was "his time."
@@surtt No I mean that I made that mistake interpreting is deliberations as in doubt and insecure haha. How I myself have grown over the years was what I wanted to say, that the story gives different meaning when the years get on in your life.
Every time Jackson & Co. changed a character they changed him for the worse, and Faramir was one of the best examples of this. They changed his character completely, and Denethor's as well. He wasn't a great guy in the books, but he was nowhere near as bad as he is portrayed in the movie.
Frodo was the only character who was treated worse in that aspect. The movies changed him from wise and courageous hero to a useless welp. I was a much bigger fan of the movies before I read the books and realized just how badly Jackson & Co. had screwed up so many of the key characters.
Thank you Yoystan for articulating so much of what I have felt for 20 years. I loved that way that Faramir was portrayed by Tolkien in the books and I came out of the Two Towers movie sad and angry. It tarnished an otherwise excellent film and the changes that Jackson imposed were both illogical and just the antithesis of what Tolkien wrote. The Two Towers overall is 95% great but the 5% with Faramir really sucks.
I totally agree!! I have always said this, and often was disagreed with by people who didn't understand the books or the ring well. All respect to the actor, who actually played the character well as far as it went, Faramir was completely wrongly scripted in the movies, and I was very disappointed at the time. I left the second movie very angry about this complete character change! The movies got a lot of things right, even improving on some things, but they got Faramir, a very important contrast character for the story and plot, completely and utterly wrong. And that always spoilt the movies in some ways for me. Sure, movies are different media from books, but that doesn't mean they have to change the story or the characters to work - they just have to do it in a different way. That's why the Harry Potter movies were so successful - JK Rowling refused to allow her story to be compromised for the movie and that made those movies great.
Faramir was very important. He was a contrast to his brother - a popular strategy with authors. Both men were brave in their own ways, but completely different. Boromir was brave and desirous of ruling and power, and saw war as a tool for that power. Faramir was brave and only desirous of peace and beauty that war is sometimes necessary to bring. Their father thought Boromir as greater because of that desire, which wasn't so. The ring was attractive to those who wanted power. It wasn't attractive to those who didn't want power. People desirousness of power were less affected by it. The hobbits were less affected by power because they never wanted it. The book and movie both go to great lengths to explain this. Even Grandalf refused to touch it from that fear - he wanted power too, even if it was for good. None of the powerful people would touch it - even Elrond. They were all susceptible because they wanted power. It's not about whether people want power for good or evil - it's the want of power for anything at all that is corrupted by the ring. That the main theme of the books (regardless of whether the author wanted to see themes in his books or not). Boromir wanted power. He wanted power for good AND for it's own sake (a much less wholesome reason) - that's why he was much more susceptible to the ring than the rest of the fellowship. The books made that very clear. We see these qualities in leaders all around the world - this is the theme that makes the books so universal. "Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts" - this was always the overarching theme of the books and the movie completely misrepresented the most important theme because of this character change!!!
In my opinion the movies should never have changed Faramir in this way. If Peter Jackson had the opinion that Faramir was written incorrectly by the author, than he didn't understand the books or the rings power properly. Faramir was purposefully written this way by the author for a reason. It's amazing and horrifying just how many movie makers arrogantly think that authors get characters wrong and that they can improve upon them in their movies by changing them. They almost always bugger it up!! If you think an author got their character wrong, you're probably misunderstanding the character. Changing a character changes the story and makes it not work because characters that are different make different decisions and make the rightful story go in a different direction.
I'm glad someone FINALLY made a video explaining this!!
Yep, Faramir waa my favourite character from the books and I thought he was short-changed very badly by the movies, along with many of the new characters introduced in The Two Towers (Eomer, Theoden, Treebeard and Faramir). All were made worse in many ways by that movie - perhaps in an attempt to make Aragorn look like more of a hero to the audience. Hence, Eomer disappears for most of the movie, Theoden is someone whose redemption and vigour at Helm's Deep only comes about because Aragorn shouts at him, Treebeard acts like a bumbling idiot until Merry shouts at him, and much of Faramir's character is stripped away and given instead to Aragorn.
The most aggregious example of this is the scene at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, where Frodo is about to leave the Fellowship and Aragorn - seeing the Ring in hiw hand - approaches him, clearly tempted by it. Instead, though, gently closes Frodo''s fingers around the Ring, draws his sword and tells him to leave, having clearly overcome ithe Ring's temptation. This - as any reader of the books knows - is actually a revised version of what Faramir does at Henneth Annun, after Sam accidentally blurts out that they have the enemy's Ring and Faramir speaks aloud his desire for the ring and then becomes the first and only mortal man in the books to actually resist the Ring. I was so disappointed when they didn't depict that scene and really annoyed when they depicted Faramir and his men actually torturing Gollum. It was a completely unnecessary scene. In the books, Faramir has correctly got the measure of Gollum and uses implied threats to ensure he behaves. In the movie, Faramir is little more than a bully, who condones beating up those who are smaller than him and cannot fight back. It was so unnecessary.
All through the book FotR, Aragorn never tries to take the Ring from Frodo. He's the other mortal man who resists. Not coincidentally also one in whom "the blood of Numenor runs nearly true"
I do wish the PJ films kept Faramir true to his book counterpart. I think the films needed Faramir to contrast better to Boromir as an open minded scholar of a man who could resist the Ring. The Ring itself could still be a threat for how it twisted Frodo's perception of reality as it had done before. The threat could have been internal rather than a contrived external threat in Faramir trying to please his father.
At the same time, I don't dislike movie!Faramir, I think he has a consistent arc and emotional throughline from his first scene to his last. But it's a shame he's castigated as a "loser" or some kind of jerk. And David Wenham's resemblence to Sean Bean and humble and warm performance in Return of the King is a fine addition to the roster of performances. But I do wish they could have done things differently.
After reading the two towers, I was amazed with Faramir's character and quickly became my favorite character. There was just something striking about his composure when we're first introduced to him that made him stand out as an acute leader, hidden behind his observing eyes and gentle words. But it was more than just being a wise leader that made him great. It not his courage or bravery nor other skills but his integrity and pure heart, even enough to resist the ring, that was inspiring. Though the films portrayal was only a glimpse of his character, his quality still shown through at the climax.
It was acknowledged by Peter Jackson on the DVD’s that they couldn’t just have a guy turn up who just dismisses the ring, thus stripping it of all its power.
that was the whole point of lotr, Faramir represents the hope for humanity because he is the only human who resists the ring's temptation. he is the future when humans inherits the earth
That doesn’t hold up because the films have Aragorn turn down the ring. You could easily have it happen to Faramir as well.
Except Aragorn just dismissed the ring when he first met the hobbits. His book response to the hobbits questioning his identity would seem intimidating. The individual will a person has plus how long they are in proximity to the ring results in how soon the temptation would affect them. If Faramir had spent as much time in the presence of the ring as his brother did, his resistance would have worn down to the point he might act like his movie had him act.
@@TheJmlew11 It does hold up very well. Aragorn never touched the ring for similar reasons Gandalf didn't. The ring would have corrupted him. The ring had to be held by someone who had no interest in power whatsoever, for any purpose - good or evil. The ring has similar influences on people in proximity to the ring, but nowhere near as strong and nowhere near as fast. This is why the fellowship HAD to break up - it's very clearly stated in the books - it had to break up because everyone would have slowly become more susceptible to the ring. Boromir was more highly susceptable than the rest because he wanted power for power's sake. Aragorn never did. Aragorn spent 80 years as a ranger, unnoticed, unpowerful over anyone (other than with his skills), which must have taught him humility and the value of freedom for others, and was always reluctant to take power but knew he must if the situation presented itself. JRR Tolkien knew his characters VERY well and wrote them very well. Peter Jackson very much misunderstood the main theme of the books, if he didn't understand this.
Petr got it wrong
I feel like the Faramir of the movies is in despair and losing the hope on a future for his people and even for humanity. Which made the audience more perceptive of the difficulties ahead. I think both Faramir succeed in provide the tone of the story from Gondor and the men that still helds against darkness.
This. Faramir did not want to be a soldier, but was forced into the role by necessity. And it's a desperate fight that he doubts he can win.
I thought Jackson did Faramir rather well given the time constraints. The little soliloquy over the body of the Harad soldier sets up the character well.
The Faramir of the movies was a bit paranoid, which is understandable given his seemingly self-imposed exile from Gondor, his treatment at the hands of his father, and his desire to defend his country. He saw Frodo and Sam as enemies at first, because he had no reason to see them otherwise. They might really have been evil for all he knew. Frodo certainly didn't help the situation by lying, even to protect the ring as part of his own quest. And the ring, like it does with everyone, knew how to push Faramir's buttons so to speak--he wanted to be restored to dignity in his father's eyes, and thought that bringing back the ring might do that for him.
But in time, he does come to realize that Frodo and Sam are on the side of good. As for his treatment of Gollum, I certainly had no sympathy for Gollum there, given that he met Frodo and Sam by trying to kill them.
In any case, Faramir's gentle nature and complicated past do come out later in the Return of the King.
"I think at last we understand one another..."
I hate to admit it but yes, the films didn't really do his character all that well. Book version has more depth and humanity to him.
But also to b fair the films are massive and the main focus of them was the journey of the ring. In terms of that Faramir plays a somewhat small role so less focus was placed on him and his development.
However I would love a short story or film on Faramir and Eowyn and their life together after the war of the ring ^_^
wouldnt you say the movie version has more depth? as it shows somebody who is struggling to make the right choice and eventually does. The book version he more 1 dimensional, a good person through and through or full of humanity as you say.
im not saying the movie made a better version at all, just one that has more of an "arc". Whereas the book, he was pretty much constant throughout.
@Zach S perhaps 🤔
David did an amazing job portraying him but I think where they failed him the most is in relation to other characters, specifically his father. Denethor was a minor bad guy in the films and aside from Eowyns love interest and being a desperate defender he didn't have that much else going for him. The extended films helped a little but he was more, I dunno, flushed out or properly done in the books
On one hand, I really like what you say about the book version reflecting the philosophy of the gentle, wise warrior, the man who fights because he must, not because he wants to. In certain ways, it reminds me of Uncle Iroh. And it does make me wish that the film better captured this aspect of his character. On the other hand, I can see what Jackson was going for: the Ring has the power to corrupt even the best of men. Likewise, war itself has the power to corrupt as well, and as you said, it's entirely possible that after a lifetime of fighting against evil, perhaps that had taken hold on him as well. I think Jackson went too far with that. The simple fix would be to allow Faramir to be the gentle warrior at the start of the encounter, but then become tempted by the Ring when he realizes they have it, then undergoing a struggle of will similar to that both Gandalf and Galadriel entured when offered it.
Faramir and E'Owyn were my favourite characters in the books and that has not changed in the thirty years I have returned to them. Jackson seemed to want to portray the world of men as dark, corrupted. Letting only the hobbits have innocence and goodness. The house of healing, King as a healer, E'Owyn's evolution from wanting to be a sheildmaiden to a healer. And of Faramir's goodness - it illustrated how the ring capitalised on pride, power, but what could the ring capitalise on if there was nothing of that within a person. Someone who sort wisdom out, learnt, understood and moved beyond. Was Faramir's goodness innate or by embracing the wisdom + ethos of the ancients, developing humbleness and service, had Faramir moved past evil - so he could no longer be corrupted when faced with the ring. Jackson demonstrated a deep cynicism about human beings here and missed one of the most important themes of the book.
I wouldn't say that's the case. Faramir in the movies doesn't care about the ring itself, he cares about being viewed as worthy by his father. The ring is simply the opportunity Faramir wanted to prove his worth.
@@nickklavdianos5136
But that itself is a drastic change from the books.
Tolkien's Faramir wouldn't have anything to do with the ring whatsoever, nor have anyone else come under its sway, understanding it's corrupting nature; but Jackson's Faramir is so desirous of daddy's love that he'll give him what Tolkien's Faramir knows to be singularly the most corrupting item in all of Middle-earth to buy it.
By character, two completely different people.
Humans have a deep cynicism about human beings. This is a Hollywood film and the adaptation process made the changes necessary to character arcs so people could relate to them. I admire Faramir as first written but I find him very distant.
@@neilpemberton5523 You said changes to character arcs were necessary so people could relate to them, specifically, Faramir.
I find that suspect.
Tolkien's book was rated the best novel of the twentieth century. I have a feeling that a lot of people liked his character arcs pretty well. P Jackson trashed Tolkein's Faramir.
Thank you! At last! I have been ranting about the movies' ruination of Faramir to anyone that would listen FOR YEARS! As others have noted here, the words of Jackson's justification for this stand on their heads. Of course you CAN have Faramir come along and dismiss the Ring... In fact, the story requires that occasionally you have a character like Faramir here and there. If Faramir doesn't act as a positive foil to Boromir and their father... If Aragorn doesn't act as a similar foil to the corruption of men writ large, then Frodo's trip with the Ring would be little more than a non stop nightmare horror show of paranoia through a continuously hostile Middle Earth where literally everyone he meets becomes a zombie to the Ring the moment they get too close. I mean, those ARE the stakes of what CAN happen with the Ring in the story and that's what provides us with the necessary danger for a good tale, but you have to have some good in there to balance it out or it isn't Tolkien anymore... It just becomes some post modern horror movie or slasher flick with no hope or humanity... And on that note I do think it is fair to point out that this is still the same guy who brought us Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles. They got a lot of stuff really Right with the LOTR movies, but when they got things wrong (Faramir; Frodo sending Sam away because of Gollum's ridiculous bread crumb prank; Denethor the amazing, wacky, sky diving human torch, Aragorn the faithless parley murderer etc), in such cases it seems pretty clear that Peter, Fran, and Phillipa had some pretty serious hubris going on and really thought they knew better than Tolkien; and they got away with it... we basically patted them on the head, handed them millions of dollars and Oscars to boot and ignored the stickier moments in the films because we were so happy about the good parts. So I REALLY appreciate a video like this even now many years later, so the conversation about some of this danker stuff can be publicly recognized and maybe scoured from our collective conscience.
I do like Jackson's movies, but my biggest complaint is his portrayal of Gondor, including the characterizations of Faramir and Denethor. Gondor is made to look completely inept during the battle of the Pelennor fields, and, to add insult to injury, it's the "ghost soup" that saves the day in the films, rather than the armies of southern Gondor.
This is my biggest gripe as well. Jackson did him dirty. In the behind the scenes they said they changed his character because they didn’t want to diminish the power of the ring. Basically, they want the dumb the whole thing down because they expect their audience to be confused. This is why over time I only read the book and never watch the movies again.
I think it was a good choice. 90% of people I show the movies to are confused about half the stuff going on anyways,
So suddenly, when so close to Mordor, if some new character was like "idk what the big deal is. The ring isn't that cool," I'm sure it would deflate the tension that the movies had been building over like 9 hours about the corruption power of the ring.
@@iRsemple I think Peter Jackson should have shown Frodo with the ring in his outstretched hand just a few more times to show whatever he thought dumb moviegoers were supposed to get when he does that all those other times.
@@iRsemple I agree, it might be confusing if it is shown the way you describe it. The book still has the same tension the movies tried to create. In the book you do not know if Faramir is going to try to take the ring until the end of the meeting. Either way such one dimensional characters are what likely makes it more enjoyable for some and less enjoyable for fewer. If you're goal is to squeeze every dime out of the public, I can understand going the safe route and making it more dumb. But that just means you are more concerned with making money and less concerned with making art.
One of my favourite Men of the West episodes, Yoystan! Your observations are well observed. Wenham did do a wonderful job with the material he was given--would that he could have spoken more of Tolkien's outstanding words. And speaking of the Master:
5:24 This is my favourite photograph of Tolkien--I've never seen it before! It really captures the man's eloquent sensitivity.
I do enjoy the movies but I confess, over time, its deviations from Tolkien's work, while minor in many cases, have begun to bother me more and more. Faramir is a perfect example of this for all the reasons stated in the video. Even two decades later, I marvel at how brilliantly and empathically the films portrayed Boromir while also falling so far short of the mark with his brother (and also his father).
I very much agree. Taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath made no sense whatsoever and they completely dropped the important part of Faramir that was his Númenorian heritage. How he basically could read people's minds and did not care to avenge his brother or appease his father by bringing the weapon to him. They changed him into Boromir Light and therefore undermined the importance of Faramir as an individual with a very different mindset from his father, brother and the most of Gondor in that day & age. That and the whole Saruman's death / Scouring of the Shire issue are my main gripes with those otherwise wonderful movies.
Thanks a lot for a needed video. I love the peaceful vibes that emanate from it, and you do justice to a superb character. What bothers me the most in the entire trilogy is the whole Osgiliath arc in TTT : Faramir's portrayal as tempted by the Ring, Sam and Frodo taken back to Osgiliath, Frodo's confrontation with the Nazgul, and Frodo nearly killing Sam. Those are big deviations from the lore which are just unnecessary fillers. They should have made Frodo and Sam getting past Minas Morgul instead, maybe even Shelob in TTT. Then we could have had a much more developed Sam heroic solo moment in Cirith Ungol, with the Two Watchers, and so on, in ROTK
Loved this essay. Thank you. It is how I have felt about this part of the film adaptation for years. I now know I am not the only one.
My friend, thank you for sharing your characterization changes for Faramir, one thing you may have added was also the physical portrayal being differing from Tolkien's description of the man. For example, for those without a keen eye, almost every art portrayal shows Faramir (and his brother) as having facial hair, a common misrepresentation, as all pure lineage descendants of Númenoreans grew no facial hair which Tolkien explicitly states...much of this may be due to artist's not knowing the source material as well or not having access to publications with these fine points. Thank you for adding Anke Eißmann's art that shows Faramir closest to what he most likely would have been depicted as, at least, in terms of hair and eye color. 😁
Tolkien also mentions more than once that Faramir has black hair, something Peter Jackson could easily have gotten right if he wanted to. It's one thing to see actors portray characters whose physical descriptions in the book are minimal, but Faramir is repeatedly described as having black hair and grave features.
@@lisagregory4569 Thus why I mentioned the art work correctly portraying this above... ^
As so many have replied, I too felt it was an injustice to twist Faramir's character so. He has long been on my list of favorite characters and I was dismayed at the way in which the writing for the films portrayed him. Which is why I return to the books, the canon. Thank you for this particular topic.
I was so glad to see this video being made! Faramir was one of my top three favourite characters and I absolutely hated how they changed him for the movies. As you stated, there were reasons, but it was one of the worse choices they made.
It seems as if it he suffered (in the films) from the "Aragorn" treatment but without the carefully fleshed out arc (Aragorn had) and thus feels a much less complex character because of it. Suddenly at the end of the Return of the King we get but a glimpse, of the man he was known to be (in the books) and that is a shame indeed. Very much more than just a "Wizard's pupil" as Denethor puts it so simply in the movies.
Still I love what David Wenham did with the role. When he delivers the line "You wish that I had died and Boromir had lived" you really feel it. -Great video keenly thought out, eloquently explained and a pleasure to watch. I look forward to more videos in the future!
Great video, he's been my favourite character since I first read the books and it always annoyed me that most people saw him as he's portrayed in the movies
I agree with you. He is my favorite human of the third age but not in the Jackson trilogy. In the films the "wizards pupil" comment kind of falls flat, where as in the books it makes a lot of sense. Reading the books for the first time, I always felt that faramir was just like Gandalf, if Gandalf was human and not a maiar. The same thought processes just being filtered through the intellect and capabilities of a human, not a prehistoric spirit.
I like the fact that Faramir overcomes his temptation of the ring rather than just immune to it. I think it gets the point across for those who didn’t read the books
I remember well walking out of the movie theater, having enjoyed most of what I had experienced but genuinely upset with how they had portrayed Faramir! My poor husband endured a half an hour rant on the subject on the ride home. After all these years, I've softened a bit because of understanding movie making logic a bit better, but I have to say, it does me good to hear your thoughts on the matter and to know I wasn't the only one really disappointed by their choice.
The extended version of LOTR paints Faramir in a far better light. The marvelous scene with Faramir and Boromir having a victory at Osgilioth shows their great love for each other, and Boromir dreading his father raining on their parade. Boromir strongly defends Faramir to their father... The bottom line is that Faramir's actions make far more sense when seen in that light. Don't know that I'd have gone that way... but far better than completely removing the back story... YP
Yeah I remember watching the two towers extended dvd with my brother on Christmas Day and being amazed at that scene but also furious it didn't make the Final Cut.
Yeah, and Faramir and Eowyn falling in love while waiting helplessly for the victory or defeat of the Shadow has always been my absolute favourite part of the books. I was hoping some of it was preserved in the extended cut but, well, yeah, ten more seconds, was it?
Thank you. This was indeed one of my main two issues with the films. The other being the leaving out the scouring of the Shire. The whole point of the hobbits being brought along was so that they could grow to take care of themselves.
But alas, Faramir. He was my favorite character. How could they have changed him so? I agree with everything you said. Also, he embodied everything the Fellowship was trying to save. In the films he was nothing but a minor character.
Other things about the films bothered me, as well. Such as Denethor being shown as a slightly better Wormtongue, instead of the noble man driven insane by despair. Also, I had a problem with the elves of Lorien showing up at Helms Deep only to be slaughtered.
I do understand the leaving out of some other favoritecharacters, such as Imrahil and Beregond. There just wasn’t time. Utwe should be thankful that By their not being included, they did not chance having their characters mangled, the way Faramir’s was.
I loved the first film.
Hated the second one.
Started to like the third one, until the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire.
Faramir is one of the most noble human characters in the books, right behind Aragorn.
He is in the film as well
I think they are at least equally noble. If one is moreso than tother then Faramir is more due to Aragorn being conflicted about his duty to be king. Instead of raising up his banner he spent decades in the wilderness having little to do with the affairs of men.
@@damionkeeling3103 Aragorn in the books wasn't conflicted about his duty to be king.
I think he was right in front of Aragorn!! 😁
The movies are great, but this is my biggest complaint as well. Faramir is my favorite character from the books. He’s full of memorable quotes.
“I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee.”
It's my 2nd biggest complaint. The first is how Return of the King ended. They could have cut the endless battle scenes by 30 minutes to include the meeting with Saruman and Wormtongue and the Scouring of the Shire. But even worse, I think, was Aragorn's transformation once crowned (in the movie). From being a great leader and fount of strength he turns into a namby-pamby king, seemingly overnight. I never got that impression from the book.
Thank you for finally talking about this. Everyone wants to talk about Tom Bombadil or Elves at Helm's Deep, but this is a major one that deserves attention.
For me it was the removal of the Scouring Of The Shire. It’s the scene/s I was most looking forward to watching ROTK for the first time 😂
I have to agree. Most of the characters I thought were portrayed really well, though I thought a couple of other characters were a little bit off though the actors themselves did excellent jobs. By the end, Faramir in the movies had morphed pretty much into the Faramir of the book.
When reading the book for the first time, after having seen the films, I remember dreading the chapters with Faramir, because I remembered the tension from the film, but I was positively surprised. Those chapters grabbed my attention firmly, while also making me smile and laugh, and refreshed in a way. Faramir from the book quickly became my favourite character (apart from all the hobbits including Gollum of course -not the Sackville Bagginses though, of course!
I agree with you. The depiction of Faramir and the forcing of the hobbits to go to Osgiliath at all bugged me. Never happened in the book and I thought it was a useless adaption to me at least.
Thank you for the Team Faramir video. My daughter who is an English teacher and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. While I too love Jackson's movies my biggest gripes are on how he changed the nature of major characters. You detailed the changes to Faramir which are by far the most egregious. Theoden did not "flee to Helm's Deep", his force was routed when he went out to meet the orcs head on and they fled to Helm's Deep (not a scared old man but a reborn hero). Of course Frodo never sent Sam away and Sam never would have deserted Frodo (which he swore he would never do). I think perhaps time just prevented Jackson from a greater exposition of Denethor but his book character was much more complex. Lastly, Arogorn had the sword reforged before they left Rivendell. When he met the Gray Company he embraced his fate. Oh and he gazed into the Palantir to challenge Sauron directly.
My wife and I had the same thoughts. The other bit in the movie that bothered us was the witch king breaking Gandalf's staff. I know that was to create tension, but that scene greatly reduced Gandalf the White.
I quite agree with you. I didn’t recognise Faramir in the film. Had to read the book again to make sure.
I kinda understand PJ's reasons for trying to build the viewer's trepidation and suspense during the meeting with the hobbits, he missed an opportunity to portray a man of Gondor as being wise and enobled, still embued with the wisdom and knowledge of their ancient ancestors .a
This! Faramir is a throw-back, a Man of Numenor. He would never behave as the movie version does, and certainly never let his guards beat Gollum.
When I saw the Two Towers, I walked out of the theater disappointed how Faramir was portrayed. I loved him in the book. I have peace now with the movie version but I am so glad you made this video. The character deserves it.
I watch the films and read the books (in that order) each year. Every time I get to Faramir in TT, I think “damn, PJ did Faramir dirty.” He is so noble, thoughtful, honest, and wise in the books. The whole excursion to Osgiliath in the films was not great, but I get that they wanted to push Shelob to ROTK and needed a climax to the Frodo/Sam storyline in TT. Still, it bugs me.
PJ made a lot of the Kings look bad in comparison to their book counterparts. Theoden was more greedy, egotistic, and arrogant. Denethor was straight up abusive, Aragon was unwilling to take up Anduril. Besides just Faramir
@@EcthelionOTF Agreed. Book Theoden didn’t show any bitterness toward Gondor or disappointment in the number of riders who came to the muster. He was resolute and trusted Aragorn and Gandalf’s counsel.
I feel the same way as you do on a lot of these points. Though the way I see past it is this : I believe they made this change to show the difference between Boromir and Faramir. They start by setting Faramir up very similarly to his brother, but in the end his virtue shines through before he makes the same mistake his brother did. It's not a GREAT way to tell his story/character, but I get why they did it. Similarly to how I'm not a fan of Boromir being painted as a villain from the start either, However i think all of these things are chalked up to the time constraints that come with an adaptation on this scale. Good video bud !
I think Jackson was also trying to give Faramir, like Aragorn, a character arc & he would end up like the Faramir of the books. Unfortunately in both cases it didn't really work. As for Jackson's portrayal of Denethor, there is very little good to be said for that.
I think Faramir & Aragorn we’re excellent in the films. Denethor was too exaggerated tho.
very interesting topic! Yes I guess I did not notice so much while watching the movies, but most definitely he was a different character; much less noble than the book Faramir.
I was really sad to see what they did to Faramir in the movies. I know they couldn't put everything from the books in but they could've at least stayed true to his character from the books. Even if they cut back his roll.
As insensible to the Ring by intellect and soul (by WISDOM and MODESTY), Faramir is (with Sam) my favorite character too.
It is true that in the movie he is totally different (driven by an ambition), but the actor playing him is fantastic.
The story of Boromir and Faramir is a great story in the books. I like the story of Denethor and Theoden in the books.
Having recently finished the books, I admit I like the book version of Faramir more. But I still feel the movie version, while a misinterpretation of the character, is still valid and works in the context of that specific retelling of the story. I like them both.
The omission of Bombadill and the Scouring of the shire I can understand, some dialogue lines shuffled around is ok but there are 2 aspects of the films that really grate with me: 1. The mis-representation of Faramir and 2. the strife that Gollum creates between Frodo and Sam. And in many ways, you do the first right, you can't really do the second, though in the book Gollum feels mistreated enough as it is to fuel his resentment and his plans to have Shelob deal with the hobbits.
Although also a little triggered as it deviates away from the book, the Frodo vs Sam plot device imo works in the movies as a means to re-affirm the power and danger the ring holds as casuals would otherwise get halfway through ROTK and be like “so, uh, why are these 2 little guys walking straight towards the bad guys?”
Great video. Enjoy your channel. I love both the films and the book lore. Many characters were not translated well into the film versions, along with other plot changes that I didn't care for. In the case of Faramir, he was thrown into an apocryphal crisis, witness to much evil in his time. That he might have been a PTSD veteran would perhaps explain the behaviors of the character in the film, regardless of his nobility in the books. I don't recall that Tolkien explored those sorts of trauma with the characters in LOTR. I would have to read the text again. Maybe there's a bit of "realism" regarding Faramir's humanity, as such, in the Jackson films?
I really hated how Faramir treats Gollum in the movie. All that sequence since they ambush him in the Forbidden Pool until they leave Osgiliath, it almost makes me cry tbh.
Thank you for doing this. I have always been upset by the way Faramir was shown in the movies because in the books he, just as much as Aragorn, showed a portrayal of "good" men.
Philippa Boyens said that they wrote Faramir as being tempted by the Ring because after setting up the Ring as this incredibly dangerous thing, it would have all been undone if Faramir just refused the Ring from the start. But I think they got it wrong. The point of Faramir refusing the Ring in the book was to show that he was of a noble kind, not with a base and selfish nature like other men. They could have maintained the perception of the evil power of the Ring without sacrificing the true nature of Faramir.
I totally agree. In the books, the ring loses not one ounce of menace when Faramir refuses it. In fact, he finds it so deadly that he tells Frodo to keep it hidden, not to even show it to Faramir or speak its name out loud again.
Since Faramir never actually saw the ring (and bade Frodo not to tell where he had it) it would have been easy to explain why he wasn't corrupted by it.
Should it have been easier for Faramir to refuse the Ring than for Aragorn? It seemed pretty difficult for Aragorn when Frodo asked him "Can you protect me from yourself?"
Great video....I agree with you. It would be great to Faramir how he is in the book.
The films are still good though
A flashback from The Two Towers extended edition elaborates on Faramir's complex relationship with his father and brother.
In The Return of the King extended edition, it is revealed that he falls in love with Eowyn in the Houses of Healing while they are both recovering from their injuries.
I think a detail many forget is that Faramir was himself so good a soul as to recognize Frodo as an Elf-Friend. Very few bear such a title and fewer outside the Elves can recognize it. Faramir could, and that alone should prove his intentions for the betterm
I do like that no one is immune to the Ring's influence in the movies. It means no one is safe while the Ring still exists and there is no plot points where you have to explain why these "immune" characters can't take the Ring to Mordor, although characters like Tom Bambadil and Faramir have reasons why they can't or won't help destroy the Ring.
💯💯 Totally and absolutely with you! Faramir in the books seeks wisdom at Gandalf's elbow whenever he was in Minas Tirith. His ambitious, short-sighted father views him not as wise, but in thrall of Gandalf. He's wise enough, and intuitive enough to figure out what sort of object Frodo has, if not exactly that which Sam inadvertently reveals to him. He sees Gandalf's wisdom and lets Frodo & Sam go with assistance. He is one of the most noble and wise of characters, and Peter Jackson tarnishes him substantially.
I felt they did him an injustice. Reading the book then watching the films, then reading the books again it just left me sad about a guy that came off as so caring yet stoic becoming this jerk
I read the books after I saw the movies. I dearly loved both Sam and Faramir after reading the novels. Faramir and Sam both are pure of heart, and I was sad at seeing Faramir made to be less that gentle. As a women, I also GREATLY lamented that more of Faramir and Eowyn’s love story was cut so. Albeit we were given a smidge more in the extended version. Still not enough. HE is the one who drew her back fully.
I remember that Faramir portrait on the films bothered me as well. To the point in which he allowing Frodo and Sam to leave seemed antithetical to the character they had been building. And, clearly that was not entirely the Faramir from the books.
Its great to see the growth of your channel. Your channel is like an escape from the darkness in our current world. Thank you for all you do to bring this to us.
The rewriting of Faramir's story line was also a serious problem for me in the films as was the making of Arwen as an archtypal warrior princess which Tolkien never intended for her character. Faramir was a gentle, yet brave and true character in the books and not a villain. Tolkien develops in him what a true warrior leader should be: wise, discerning, selfless, and true to his country along with being a wise leader of men who is bold and brave when need be.
Faramir is in NO WAY portrayed as a villain in the film! Good grief! Even Boromir isn’t.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! It's my opinion that the movies trashed a lot of parts of the books. But what they did to Faramir was what I have always hated the most. It's inexcusable. They destroyed his good character. Faramir has always been one of my favorite characters, and his treatment in the movies offended me more deeply than anything in any movie ever has. I'm really glad to know I'm not the only one who disliked what they did to him. You said pretty much everything that I've been feeling and saying for years.
The Two Towers was my favorite movie of the trilogy until I read the book and saw book Faramir.
The Two Towers is now my least favorite of the movies. I still like the movie, but Faramir is right there with the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff as "the only things I dislike about the movies"
I'm surprised you didn't mention that the whole reason Faramir found out it was the ring they were carrying was because Sam was so comfortable around him that HE was the one who let that slip. There couldn't be a bigger tell that they got Faramir wrong than that.
I was always struck by how Faramir seemed to be the only full human to be able to recognize the danger and resist the call of the ring. I felt like he was a metaphor for all of us real humans. That no matter how high the stakes are, we can stay true to ourselves, our beliefs, and morals, stay true to what is good, noble, and worthy. I felt that was a vital aspect, and through line, of LotR and if no man in this fantastical world could resist the ring, what hope do we have in real life?
I wrote as much in an email I found to the film's crew during opening weekend, when I saw the film. Fran Walsh responded and went off on me. She was not happy with my take, saying she's received nothing but praise. She was obviously really upset. The next day she sent an apology and hoped to hear back from me regarding what I thought of the conclusion. I was so turned off I chose not to watch the rest. I went back last month and watched them all in an epic binge. Although they aren't as bad as I remember (memory likely being clouded by my last interaction with the epic), I was still quite disappointed by how changing that one character changes what was hope for us plain ol' humans into a bleak inevitability.
I’ve been waiting for this video
Honestly this is my biggest pet peeve of the Jackson films (we don't talk about the Hobbit. Well at least I don't). Faramir was one of my all time favorite characters in the books, and I loved that Faramir was shown as being wise and kind. The movies did a major disservice to his character in an attempt to raise the stakes for dramatic purposes.
My feelings exactly, while a script writer has to have conflict in every scene I wished they could have done it differently for Faramir
I could not have articulated my own thoughts any better than what you here say! Very good and spot on!