Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ...
by panick21_ on Friday December 17, 2021 @07:18AM
(#29591193)
Faramir is not just an asshole, they show him as conflicted. They show how his father is talking down to him and you can understand his motivation. And in the end he makes the same choice. And that makes it more impactful when his father gets angry and sends him back to Osgiliath.
At also made showing the taking of Osgiliath more natural in the movie.
Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ...
by ekianjo on Friday December 17, 2021 @08:48AM
(#29592012)
> At also made showing the taking of Osgiliath more natural in the movie.
I have only one thing to add: Sam, who apparently knows the book, says:
> "We should not even be here"
Hear hear.
He does. He's the only character on which the Ring has no effect.
> If they were accurate with the books it would cost way too much and they would need 30 hrs of runtime
Even by keeping it at the same length, it could have been way more faithful. Faramir is portrayed as an asshole in the movie while in the books he understands that his brother was mistaken and does not make the same decision with the hobbits. Going to Osgiliath made absolutely no sense at all.
Such changes were NOT needed.