TTT changes ~*mild spoilers*~

[Goldberry]

I'm currently reading TTT, and I must say they made a few changes to the "graphicness", although it doesn't make that much sense.

The part about Merry and Pippin being captives of Orcs is quite more graphic in the books. This I can understand being edited for the movies.. (O.o)

However, the part about Faramir and his men taking Frodo, Sam and Gollum captive is *less* graphic in the books!!! Instead of capturing and binding the three, Faramir only blindfolds them to lead them to the hideout, then gives them food and drink and sits with them and has a conversation (or three.) Frodo and Sam are never locked in that dungeon-thing and Faramir never plans to take the Ring to Gondor.

Now, why would they change Faramir from a benevolent man into an evil captor? That makes very little sense - in fact, it makes no sense at all!

[Seatbelt]

To emphasise the fact that Men will be tempted by the Ring. That's why Faramir takes them to Osgiliath. But then he learns that if even a halfling can't carry it without being warped, what hope does a man - who is full of many more evil facets than a hobbit - have for using it justly?

Also to keep the movie going. They needed a motivation for Gollum to try and kill the hobbits. The betrayal at the pond/waterfall thing and the ensuing ass whoopin by Faramir's troops show Smeagol that Gollum (remember, two different people) is infact right. The Hobbits are triksy and false and not to be trusted. He also learns that they are taking the ring to Mordor and in his mind that must not happen. So he has to try and take the ring from Frodo and the real hero, Sam.

[Goldberry]

But- if it worked in the book, to not show you what power the Ring has over men, and not to have such a good reason for Smeagol to bend to Gollum, why did they need it in the movie?

[Seatbelt]

Goldberry said:

But- if it worked in the book, to not show you what power the Ring has over men, and not to have such a good reason for Smeagol to bend to Gollum, why did they need it in the movie?

Because people are stupid. Unless it's "in your face" 50% of people won't get it. Besides, the movies leave out alot of what is in the books, so what seems obvious in the books might not be completely understood in the movies.

[Goldberry]

Hear, hear!

[Danny]

Yup. Words paint a more vivid picture than graphics, I think. Humm....or maybe I'm just being odd.

But then again, your imagination is capable of things modern technology isn't. So it's easier to make something make more sense in a book, if that comment in itself makes any sense.....o.o;

[Goldberry]

yes, exactly. I just don't think they should have changed the entire personality of a character....