[ SECRET POST #3241 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3241 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05. [posted twice]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07. [too big]


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Working late again, sorry!

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Inspired by #2

[philstar22]

For your first point, I don't think Jackson ignores that theme. I think he just gives it to Aragorn in that scene rather than Theoden, which doesn't lessen its impact in my opinion. That pity and forgiveness theme is still there in that scene as well as in the Moria scene with Gandalf and Frodo.

That switch happens a few time in the movies: giving Faramir's resistance of the ring to Aragorn who in the book never even gets that chance. He's pushing Aragorn forward by showing how he's different from Isildur while at the same time emphasizing the power of the ring. So that particular switch didn't bother me, though some of Faramir's characterization did.

I agree about Elrond as antagonist, but to me again that's a little change that doesn't ruin the movies for me. I don't like it, but it isn't bad enough to overshadow the good parts of the movie.

And while I think the nobeleness theme works for the books, I'm not sure Aragorn would have worked in the movie for modern audiences without the added doubt and lack of desire to be king. Because modern audiences can't understand the idea of hereditary kingship and someone actually wanting power as being anything but bad. So while movie Aragorn isn't the same as book Aragorn, I think it was a necessary change.

Re: Inspired by #2

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree. In the book, both Aragorn and Theoden would pardon Grima. Everyone does. It is fundamental to what Tolkien is saying about what it means to be on the "good" side. Not only do you have to fight against darkness but there's a specific way you have to do it. For instance, you don't torture. Even if it means you don't get the information that can save you and your people, it corrupts you and you are no longer "good". But look what Faramir does.

Nothing pisses me off more than the idea that "modern audiences" won't understand good people being good because it's unrealistic. I'm so sick of being told what I can and cannot understand - what an audience will or will not like. What the fuck does Hollywood know? These are the same people who are sure that audiences won't come see an action movie led by a woman. How can you know audiences won't understand noble characters? They haven't made that movie yet to test the theory.

I also don't agree that they gave Faramir's moment of resistance to Aragorn. He has one moment where he looks tempted and then refuses but it's not the same as Faramir's strong refusal where there's a point made that people have choice and can be stronger than evil. The movies are consistent in saying over and over that Men are weak. No one is allowed to transcend that. No one *human*.

It's clear that what you love about the books is not what I love or what others who are bothered about this love but that doesn't mean the criticism isn't valid because it didn't bother you. And it's not a nitpick if such a vital theme is lost.

Re: Inspired by #2

[philstar22]

I never said the criticism wasn't valid? I just said that I think they are good adaptions. Not perfect, but good. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on that. And just because I personally think something is a little change that doesn't matter doesn't mean I think people can't disagree with me on that. Lots of people think Wizard of Oz is a good adaption when I think it is awful. People disagree on what is a small change and what is a big one that matters.

And you misunderstood my point about modern audiences. I wasn't talking about understanding good characters. I was talking about kingship and the right to rule and the fact that in the books Aragorn wants the throne and actively seeks to claim it from the beginning. That's what modern audiences can't understand and what I think was a needed change.

And I don't think that "men are weak" is the point of the stuff with the ring. I think the point is "no one can resist the ring." Which Tolkien himself makes when Frodo takes the ring up at Mount Doom. So actually the Faramir scene has always seemed a bit odd to me. Why emphasize the ring's power but then have people able to resist that strongly? Gandalf and Galadriel are both clearly tempted but manage to barely resist. Frodo resists the temptation right up until the end when he can't anymore. Why is Faramir able to resist that strongly?

Re: Inspired by #2

[(Anonymous)]

We're talking past each other. I never said anything about Aragorn's wanting the throne and whether it's a good change or not, but I would still call bullshit on anything that suggests modern audiences can't understand something. It's the filmmaker's job to make us understand. Regardless of what it is we supposedly can or can't understand, it's a crap argument at it's core. Skilled filmmakers have made much more complicated or alien issues understandable. It's just a question of putting in the work.

I did say that I understood making Aragorn doubt his abilities for the sake of the film. Unless you think I mean royalty when I say "nobleness" because I mean being noble and kind and generous and good and all the qualities that make someone a truly good person.

Tolkien's point with Faramir is that the idea that no one can resist the ring is false. Nor is Faramir the only one to completely resist. Tom Bombadil is completely unaffected too. If you don't have any desire for power or riches or anything else, then the ring can have no power over you. That's an important point of the book. And it is SO important to show a human having this quality. PJ really hammers home the point that humans as a species are weak and unable to withstand evil. That we would all share Boromir's fate and be corrupted.

But that's opposite of what Tolkien is saying in the book, and that's an important theme to me. It's important to have role models as much as it is to have warnings. Faramir is that role model - someone with a generous spirit and an incorruptible heart. That is something to be inspired by, and I don't think it is at all out of place in the book or the movie.

Re: Inspired by #2

[philstar22]

Bombadil is unaffected because he doesn't want anything, though. The ring also wouldn't even work for him because he's so disconnected from the world. He's unique. Even a character like Faramir wants something. Boromir doesn't give into temptation out of desire for riches or power. Well, maybe a little. But mostly he gives in out of a desire to protect his people. And Gandalf's temptation comes out of a desire to do good. So the ring can corrupt even good desires. That is why Hobbits are the least tempted: though don't even have grand desires of protection. They want simple things. But even those desires are eventually corrupted. I just don't find it believable that Faramir wouldn't have the same desire to protect his people that his brother did, if in a form that is different. And the ring would be able to see that desire and corrupt it.

Re: Inspired by #2

[(Anonymous)]

From "Following Gandalf" by Matthew Dickerson:

"Faramir was explicit in stating what I earlier suggested was implicit in the refusals of Gandalf and Elrond: he would rather suffer total military defeat than do the evil that would need to be done to win the war by the use of the Ring. In fact, he would sacrifice not only his own life but also his land, rather than give in to such moral evil. Given the choice between doing good and having Minas Tirith fall into ruin, or doing evil but winning a triumph on the battlefield, he would choose ruin. These are not idle word, but ones proven by deeds. Faramir does what his brother could not do; he lets the Ring depart with the Ringbearer. Gentleness may be repaid with death? So be it."

I may have framed the argument poorly in saying that Faramir doesn't want things. But he doesn't want anything that the ring can corrupt because he is a man of faith. If you read earlier in this book, it talks about Faramir and his prayer at the beginning of the meal with his men and showing his connection to divine Authority and his willingness to accept a representative of Eru in Gandalf. To suggest that evil can corrupt everything that Eru created is to undermine Eru and give more power to Sauron than he deserves. It is difficult to resist but it is not impossible and those who would follow His moral teachings are the ones who are "good". Faramir is the example that we should follow. (And yes, this book has an entire chapter about Gandalf's temptation.)

Re: Inspired by #2

[philstar22]

Faramir isn't tempted at all. Plenty resist the temptation. Gandalf does. Galadriel does. Sam does. Frodo does for a while. But Faramir isn't resisting temptation, we're never shown the ring even having an affect on him at all. And I don't see why the ring wouldn't have tried because Faramir does want things. Faramir would not be willing to do evil to win, of course, but I think that like with Gandalf the ring would have at least tried to tempt him with the idea of using it to protect his people. But Faramir's refusal is written differently to Gandalfs. It is written as if there is no temptation there at all, as if the ring never even tried and as if Faramir doesn't want anything. And that is what bugs me personally. I don't think it shows strength and goodness if a character is never even tempted at all. The strength is in the resisting. Gandalf shows that. Sam shows that. I don't really think Faramir does.

Re: Inspired by #2

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'm not going to be able to convince you but I think you're looking at the text in the wrong way. I think he is tempted but it's nothing to him because he is a deeply moral man who cannot be led astray. But even if you think he was never tempted, I would say there is great value and strength in that too. Faramir is the example of the best of humans. He is the embodiment of the nobility that men can achieve. He is hope. He is the good example that others can follow, and that is very important to a lot of readers, which is why it was so upsetting to see what they did to his character. Maybe you don't think humans can be this good, which is sad, but some of us like to think we could be so Faramir is important as he is in the book. Given the deeply moral tale Tolkien is telling, his appearance makes total sense in the book.