Hi LotR lovers. I've made this topic to chat about why I think we should be critical of PJs efforts on screen when he changes characters and plots but allow every variation under sun when playing the game. An off hand remark in an earlier post produce a lot of heated debate so lets just keep this to respectful disagreement. If you don't agree I'm interested to know why, not that you just don't agree.

A film and a game are driven by different things. At the base of a film are characters, their development and the complexity of their development within a certain environment. A film uses images, sounds and sometimes text to give concrete images of a world that is not real but in many ways more real than what we see and hear in everyday life. It's a way of viewing the world that is not the world but helps us understand it better. Anyway, that's a bit philosophical, point is, it's driven by characters.

A game is driven by actions taken in a turn and, at times overwhelmingly, the dice. The characters, events and plot all revolve around setting out the action in each game and therefore each turn, justifying it, making it necessary for one model to take this action and not that etc. it's not really a way of seeing the world so much as a way of enjoying your time in it. The greatest moments of tension in a game take place when a player must make a choice of two evils or when an arbitrary dice is rolled. In a film this takes place when a character must confront contradictory characters or events beyond their control. Either way the action changes the character and they develop from it.

My main issue with PJ is that he makes what I think are boring films because they work more like a game than a film. The characters are more or less adjuncts to justify the next series of action sequences. On the main they do not grow, they are not changed by the situation they confront except to forward the action.

A game, however, must allow for changes to characters to heighten the stakes in an arbitrary manner in order to make the decisions players make each turn more conflicting and dice rolls more tense. Faramir brining Frodo to Osgiliath is a great premise for a game. The challenge for the good player goes from defending Osgiliath from attack to doing that while also attempting to get Frodo from harms way. The evil player then has to use their winged Nazgul to the best of their ability to track down and capture the ring. Suddenly each turn and each dice roll has a lot more at stake. In the film, however, it fundamentally changes the character of Faramir and the fact he is destined to rule while his weaker brother is not. What we gain in the film is exactly the same as what we gain in the game, more action, but it's characters, not action that drives a film.

I'm interested in what people think about this.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

I think his adaptive changes in the LotR films were pretty good and I found very little that still disappoints me a decade later (the changes to Faramir and Theoden's core character traits are probably my biggest issues). The Hobbit is different in this point in my eyes. Although I enjoyed the Hobbit film and most of his overall changes, it really does feel like he put too much emphasis on getting to the next action scene. The stone giants, for example, looked very cool but added absolutely nothing to the film except to throw in another 'action scene' that had no real suspense and did not carry the plot forward in a meaningful way. Likewise about 1/3 of the 'escape from Goblin Town' scene felt over done and disappointing to me (it was like I felt going from Raider of the Lost Ark (awesome) to Temple of Doom (over done)). So a film does need to be different from a book but it's HOW it's changed that counts.

As for the relation to a game, I have to disagree with you somewhat here. There are lots of game system rules out there. I am 42. I read the Hobbit first when I was about 10. I read LotR in my early teens. I started playing wargames and RPGs around 11-12. So I have a lot of personal history here. When I was younger most wargames were cardboard counters, hex grid maps, books full of charts and stacks of Order of Battle sheets and games could take a few days to finish. The lack of 'visual' appeal was minor. Star Trek and Battletech miniatures were just coming out when I was about 15 IIRC but even with those most games used the cardboard counters with a few minis thrown in here and there.

I generally play a game because of the theme of the game, as long as the mechanics support that theme. Mechanics without theme to me is empty. I personally find the themes of the WH/40K universe lame (not trying to flame...I'm sure many things I like are 'lame' in the eyes of others). I think many of the models look really cool and I've watched over several games at our local store but have never had even the slightest interest in the system because I find no interest in the 'fluff'.

As mentioned above I love Middle Earth and my history and love of it go WAY deeper than what we have seen on film. When I play a game based on LotR I want the game to give me the flavor of the story. I have no interest in seeing models that deviate too far from what we might have found in Tolkien's work. GW has already pushed the boundaries in a few of their choices. I fear that PJ himself may be going too far with some choices in the Hobbit and GW will always take things a little further. I fear what we're going to have by the end of the third movie (Boar Riders???). If people want a continuous flow of "new and creative" models GW already has a few game systems for that. I would rather see SBG (and WotR) remain more true to the core themes though I know that's not going to happen because it does not promote ongoing sales, and sales are the only reason GW is in this business (they are, after all, a company designed to make money).

/rant

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

(as if I didn't go on long enough already)

Regarding your character note though...I don't believe that the only way to play the game is to stick with the events of the story / movies. The scenarios in the journey books are great for that. But for point match games don't worry. I had the Mouth of Sauron recently leading a force of Mordor through Moria against Balin and his dwarves. We didn't worry about this. I had a themed force. My opponent had a themed force. We picked a unique terrain option we hadn't played on for a long time. The fact that he wanted to play Balin this time doesn't mean I can't play certain models and vise versa. What we wouldn't do though would be create wildly unthemed armies to begin with. You won't see us ally Gil Gilad in an army with Gimli, for example. Or have both Aragorn and Isildur in the same force.

Maybe I'm missing your overall point on the characters in the game vs. characters in the book/film. If so, just clarify.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Thanks for your considered reply. Just to clarify, I'm comparing the alteration of characters in the PJ films to alterations of characters and evens in the game.

I think you've hit a point I agree on; mechanics without theme is empty. The question, I think, is does theme follow mechanics or mechanics follow theme? In a game I think theme follows mechanics despite the incontrovertible fact there would be no discussion on mechanics if Tolkien had not first developed the theme. The mechanics of a game must take president over the overall theme of the game or we are left with boring, one sided and single tactics strategy games. What worked in the books would, if theme dictated, have to work in the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's your idea! Rather, I think when it comes to flexibility in creating a game the theme is secondary. Thats not to say its unimportant, just that turns and dice drive a game, not characters. bad mechanics make a game unplayable while a bad theme will, as you say, just make it "lame".

As for personal preference, I don't mind the theme of some armies in W and 40K but the whole Emporer thing is, I agree, a bit "lame" :p also, I'm 25 so don't worry, it's not about age!

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Absolutely agree, which is why I have so much trouble with non-elite Gondor and Numenor. Otherwise I feel the game does generally capture the flavour. I'm grateful, for one thing, that magic isn't overpowered and flashy.

One game I miss (and wish I hadn't sold them all) is the ICE Middle Earth Roleplaying series. I never felt like they had to make any compromises to capture the flavour.

Is that company still around? I have something you might be interested in if not. Just PM me

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

Hi Meltchn,

Responding to what I said in the other thread here to keep things on topic on all fronts.

First and foremost as I said in the other thread, my comment is not intended to offend you, and despite what another poster said over there, I never called you stupid or anything offensive. I also cited my profession as a means to show you I am not just another person off the street pretending to know about film, not as an attempt to make you think I'm automatically right (because that would be stupid).

Now onto the point at hand; I was asked to expand on my previous post and so I shall. Film adaptations follow a different change to games for sure, but they take a lot of changing to get right, something you seemed unaware of. There is one solid fact and that's that literature and film are drastically different and cannot duplicate each other successfully without changes, except in rare cases where the genre of the art fits both mediums well.

For example, in Tolkien's work he often takes several pages just describing the landscape. On film however, on pan of the landscape is enough to provide this information; certainly having the same scenary on display for 5mins as would be in the book would look silly. On the flip side, a book could describe a whole battle in a few pages, but it would amount to little on film without some fleshing out. To an extent, film is about actions whereas books are about words.

In a book you have a lot more freedom to delve into detail, especially when it comes to characters, and in a book one paragraph with a backstory can often provide enough development for certain characters. On film this is not so. You have to show that development to make the character interesting enough to relate to, and one rule of film is not to go into flashback as much as you can help it. I know you have claimed that the characters have no development in the film, but this is simply not true, as they have been developed further than the book, and even the criticisms of the movie make this abundantly clear. So whereas in the book Aragorn is a larger-than-life I'm-gonna-be-king boss, in the film that would make a one-dimensional character who stretched the suspension of disbelief a little too much. Every character should have a flaw, and so his was added; that he was unsure of his own strength due to his lineage. This in turn adds both a development for the character and keeps him human. If he had no development like you have claimed, then how is it at the start of the film he doesn't want to be king but by the end has taken up the responsibility in full? I don't want to say your visual scope is limited, as that is insulting and that's not my intent, but perhaps your misunderstanding of how adaptations work has made you look for the same sort of development as you would see it in a book, which of course doesn't exist in film. Back to the point, a similar thing happens with Faramir, because in the book he has no development whatsoever and even discredits the ring and its history as a evil force by being a man who has no desire for it. The need for that is also fuelled by the timeline; in the books the two storylines do not run chronologicaly with each other, and on film that would be way too confusing. But by syncing up the timelines correctly, Frodo and Sam all of a sudden have no obstacle to overcome whatsoever in the Two Towers. This was the role Faramir filled while also presenting a character with an actual development. In respects his change followed a similar pattern to Aragorn.

When it comes to the story itself the three mediums differ a lot. In games you can of course go back and forth as much as you want because it is a progressive art. In a book you have a bigger freedom of geography than a film, because in a film you can't keep characters off-screen for too long, and indeed, even when he wrote LoTR Tolkien was criticised for having characters gone for too long. So you need to keep a film a lot more linear, which can of course cause certain things to become added weight. The cutting of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire were two good examples of this. Tom while awesome and powerful, added nothing to the story of Frodo getting to Mordor. Again on film it is also harder to emphasis the evil within a small object, and so agan you try to avoid having character undermine that; the Barrow Wights also undermined the threat of the Nazgul being presented as they ultimately did a lot more harm to the Hobbits than the Nazgul did at that stage. Similarly the Scouring of the Shire had a purpose, but not in the Lord of the Rings story, and by right should have been an appendix. Simply put, people thought the ending for Return of the King was too long as it was; can you imagine what would have happened if the story ended only to start up a different story? Your story has to be strict and adhered to in film making, and the story in this film was Frodo going to Mount Doom. Anything that deviated from that was not a part of it and once it was over, it was over. And that's the way a good film has to be.

There are also character roles switched too. Eomer replacing Erkenbrand was necessary for film, because essentially you have a character who you are trying to build up as important, and yet his deeds are overshadowed by a character who is ultimately unimportant in the grand scheme of things. In the book Eomer's rise to prominence happens like a flash of lightning, which isn't good on film. Again see my point on character development above. A similar situation arises with Arwen. The problem in the book is Aragorn's driving motivations all revolve around Arwen, but yet these are only explained in appendices. You can't put Aragorn up on screen and say he's doing all this because of his love for this woman you'll hardly ever see. And in the end much like Erkenbrand after the Ford of Bruinen Glorfindel does very little in the story of the Lord of the Rings itself, so it is a good place to start fleshing out the story of Aragorn and Arwen. In fact many people really don't realise the importance of their relationship to the story overall.

And on a less technical note, there is the greater movie-going public to worry about; you'll never get a budget from a studio to make any film if you are going to only cater to a minority.

There is one underlying problem of course in the particular case of Lord of the Rings, and that is that Tolkien was not a professional writer. He was not trying to write a masterful piece of fiction for the masses the enjoy and spend money on, he was trying to write a historical account to fill the void in England's mythology that others could later adapt and expand upon, and ultimately wrote this for himself. As such he wrote it how he wanted to.

Of course that's not to say PJ's movies are perfect. While I understand perfectly why the elves were added to Helm's Deep, it still was a change that while explained wasn't justified, and didn't aid the story being told at all. Worse still was the random idea to kill off Haldir in that battle. Leaving out the Grey Company and having the Army of the Dead replace them was also completely unnecessary, and not even explained by the writers. The Fiefdoms being left out was a logistical issue; nearly a year into shooting the budget is low and making the armour and costumes for another 3+ armies was beyond their ability; that being said, it would have been dodgy trying to introduce a tonne of new characters and new nations so late in the story.

But to summarise the main point, do not under any circumstance think that film doesn't need a vast amount of alteration to be adapted from a book. The majority of those changes in the LoTR films were important and many of them necessary, and I have no doubt that without them the film would not have succeeded like it did. Also remember that Tolkien himself aimed to make his work in a manner that was adaptable because his ultimate goal was to create an overall mythology that others could change and add to, and so he says in his letters, and that's exactly what has happened. So to say the essence of Tolkien was not captured by these films is a big leap from reality, by Tolkien's own words.

And this is not just about LoTR; you'll be hard pressed to find a book-to-film adaptation with minimal changes (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is the only one that comes to mind, but journalism of any kind just happens to fit both mediums well).

You of course still entitled to your opinion of not liking the movie, but don't think a film doesn't require adaptation in the future, it does, and given that characters drive the story, that's where it will always start. You may not like it, but it doesn't make PJ wrong.

I am unlikely to discuss this much further, as such discussion tend to get undermined by misunderstandings too often and it becomes iritating, but if you have any further questions, feel free to PM them to me.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

I think it's relatively easy to know as you are developing game mechanics if they will conflict with the theme. GW did a good job with SBG IMO. It scales from small to large games (250pt - 1000pts all play well and equally), has basic enough mechanics while providing good tactical options, plays equally well in story-based scenarios and point matches, and is fun if you want to focus on major characters or nameless troops. While doing all this GW initially kept to the overal Tolkien themes. A key part of this was the subtle but effective magic system.

As things have been evolving we've seen some of the core way a game company has to run show up more in SBG. Introduction of models and forces not present in the books or films (named Nazgul, Dweller in the Dark, expanded Fallen Realms forces, etc.). We have also seen some increase in magic (this was mostly an issue in WotR but has spilled over to SBG a little). If you set a baseline, GW will try to push things maybe 10% closer to 'generic fantasy'. Now, with the books as baseline that 10% isn't bad. With the original LotR films as baseline (they already drifted a bit from the books) that 10% still wasn't too bad. With the Hobbit as the new baseline under the light of things like Boar Riders that baseline has shifted to or beyond the edge of what I consider acceptable Middle Earth content and I expect GW's 10% to push further over the edge.

I'm still not sure what your specific concern of characters in the film vs. game though so maybe I'm missing your point. Sorry...

@whafrog: agreed. It was a fun game and did introduce some things that were not cannon but I think they worked very hard to capture the flavor of Middle Earth. I feel like they came at it first as lovers of Tolkien's world first and produced material to honor that.

@GodlessM: you summarize the changes and challenges well. I've brought up similar points on a few threads using non-LotR examples as well. One item I would say though is that the change of Faramir and Aragorn to have the 'flaws' is not, IMO, as much about having growth as it is adapting to the modern aesthetic of "Hero". We don't, in our modern world, accept the full-on Hero as in the past. The general audience expects flawed and more human characters. Just look at the differences between Sean Connary's early versions of James Bond and the modern incarnation. Similarly with comic book superheroes of a few decades ago compared to modern versions of those same characters. Yes, it does give a different direction for growth but our NEED for that growth is more an issue with what we expect from a Hero. In another 20 years our aesthetic of "Hero" may change again.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Wow, that's quite an essay. It's not really what I wanted to discuss though. I see that you have points for why you think the film is a good adaptation and seem to think that I fault the film for not being exactly the book, which I never said. But what I wanted to discuss was the question of demanding different criteria from a book and a game based on the same source material and also the difference between the nature of a film and a game. Just one point you raise though:

"To an extent, film is about action whereas books are about words."

Can you expand on this? Film, as far as I see it, like literature, is based on characters and events, with drama and action emerging out of the interaction of the two. The difference being that film has more at its disposal to create depth than books. Film has image, sound, text and now 3 dimensions to communicate with, books only have text. I'm not deriding books but I don't think it's necessary to have Faramir travel to Osgilliath to demonstrate character complexity, for example, there are other, cinematic methods PJ could have used.

A game, on the other hand, is based on action so I'm wondering if you could clarify what you mean by "action."

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Ok, your posts in the other thread made this a little less clear, but I guess we're forgetting about that now, so consider me caught up with the conversation now



Simply put the strength of film is the actions which you can see. It has these other things available to it such as sounds etc. and all are equally important, but ultimately are there to supplement the action on screen. Remember film was big even before there was sound and dialogue. The actions you see are what stick with you when you watch a film. When you read a book however all you have is those words, so what is in those words become the strength of the literature. Characters do indeed fuel both film and literature, but in film it is what they do that feeds us the most. A character could have the most compelling voice and dialogue ever created, but if he just sat there talking for 2hrs you would get bored.

BTW, you are right about Osgiliath, I forgot to mention that. Faramir did need development and to become an obstacle for Frodo and Sam, but all of that could indeed have been achieved without going to Osgiliath. I guess he wanted to tie Gondor in to the story slightly before we hit Return of the King, but Rohan had no need of it so I don't see the point.



No doubt, which is what I meant when I talked about stretching the suspension of disbelief and when I mentioned how it makes them more human and more interesting. That's what we can relate to as human beings after all.

Anyway, I'm out. As it turns out the OP didn't intend to claim that adaptation was unnecessary, despite how it seemed, so I have no further argument. You are of course entitled to not like the movie OP, and I cannot argue at all with that. So as lnog as you aren't saying what I originally thought you were saying, then I am content.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

Beowulf, no, I think you're on point. All I'm interested in here is why bending characters in the game is fine and even a good part of the game, whereas bending characters in a film has to be judged on a different criteria.

GodlessM, OK, thanks, that's clearer what you mean. I'm going to show my cards a bit here and say I'm studying film at the moment so I'm very interested in the development of sound in the 20s, then surround sound later in the century. I do think that film is the most advanced form of artistic expression and I'm glad to see so many enthusiasts here!

I guess from what you say about character we agree on the question of games vs films. I am interested in your thoughts on sound in film though. It's very easy to underestimate but you can see the importance of it when you watch films from the 70s when film makers had learnt to employ sound to add to or contradict the visuals, not just as an addition to them. If its not too cliched the opening of Apocalypse Now is a great example of how sound adds depth to a scene.

I think its a similar dilemma with film makers today. The new technology, now not sound but CGI and 3D, are being used to enhance action sequences and provide stunning visuals but little is being done to see how it can be used to deepen character. In the Faramir example we have character change to depict visuals whereas visuals should change to depict character.

Errrr, hope that makes sense.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

I don't believe it's any 'better' either way.

A film adaptation needs to find an actor/actress/CGI model that looks close enough to the author's description for acceptance, needs to translate the dialog from book to script in a manner that is consistent with the heart of the character, and needs to guide and present the actor's performance in such a way as to give the audience a "living" avatar for the character they picture in the book. In my opinion that is a tall order for most well developed characters.

A game adaptation simply needs to define the parameters of the character within the scope of the game mechanics that would allow the character to act within the framework of the game in such a way that they can accomplish most of what they do in the story without going too far beyond those soft limits. Unless a game is 100% scenario play only there should not be anything that forces a player to use the game version of the character in specific ways under most conditions.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

The changes to Faramir were an example, IMO, of how changes necessary for film adaptation can go wrong. I know PJ needed to pull in Osgiliath for setup of TTT, but I think he was wrong to give Faramir corruption of the Ring to do it. That is a fundamental change to a character in much the same way as Theoden never rising to his potential in the book in order (I believe) to make Aragorn look even more heroic.

"But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."

That should not have been weakened just to bring Frodo to Osgiliath. Faramir could still have let them go and then returned to the city to help defend it and we could have followed him there. Frodo, Sam and Gollum had no real need to go there except to keep the film transitions down a little. I don't believe the trade off was worth it.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

But what about the mechanics of the GW game? Thematically it's pretty close although there are some changes which aren't very accurate, such as the Riders of Rohan, which are not as powerful a force in the game as the book. In terms of its mechanics it's quite in the spirit I think, especially with the importance placed on courage, which is a major factor in the battles in the book. Does the GW game compare well to the other game you mentioned earlier?

I do agree with what you say about Faramir and the quote you have makes clear just how much of a revision PJ did. Tolkien places Faramir in a higher order of beings (literally) as he could avoid the ring. this hierarchy of spirit and will was a big part of the mythology of the book, which PJ has not re-created well.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

The game mentioned earlier was a role playing game which, by its nature, is focused on characters. There is only a fraction of penetration of 'character' into a model based tabletop wargame in comparison.

I think GW did a good job with SBG so far in capturing the flavor of Middle Earth. But the nature of the beast has it's own issues.

* Rohan was fairly playable (not counting the eternal issue of paying for the bows and not having actual spear support) early on, but as GW introduced new cavalry and infantry there was a general progression in what the 'normal' values were for certain traits and Rohan (and Gondor) were never updated to keep up. So now you have far more playable and cost effective cavalry than Rohan, who should have always been stronger. GW could have updated Rohan at various points along the way (a Rohan sourcebook could have come out when Mordor/Harad/Khazad Dum were all done or they could have fixed this with some rebalancing in the new Kingdoms of Men book) but did not. I believe this was mostly because there were no new Rohan models or heroes coming out. Why invigorate sales on older models when you want to keep the focus on selling new books and new models.

* Magic was initially limited and subtle in use. Orc/Goblin shaman were really the only lesser heroes that had it and it was mostly just fury. A few models had one or two magical effects. But actual spell casters were limited to the Wizards, stronger Elves, Nazgul and Sauron. And only Sorcerous Blast was a traditional 'attack spell'. But now we have more lesser casters, we have stormcallers and we have a wider range of spells. War of the Ring really brought this mess about and I haven't looked at the new Hobbit rules and all the newer profiles to see just how much magic may have drifted from Tolkien's imagery in the last year of GW changes.

Those are just two examples. But overall I think the SBG game system itself, especially when played with just the profiles available at the time of the One Ring publication (and maybe a little after).

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

No, Faramir was changed in the movie to give him more development and to provide an obstacle for Frodo and Sam that otherwise didn't exist. In the book he is too good and completely undermines the potency and history of the ring; it was a big mistake on Tolkien's part to make a story about a ring that represents evil incarnate, play up its evil, make a point of how men are particularly susceptible to its power, and then have a man come along and say 'no, don't want it'. The character in the film is way better than the character in the book, however that still doesn't mean that Frodo and Sam needed to go to Osgiliath to achieve all of this.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

I will differ with you in regard to Faramir book vs. film. I believe Faramir would have still succumbed to the power of the Ring had he taken it. Even Gandalf, who is not a Man, would not risk it. Nor would Galadriel. Faramir is showing a strength of character by turning his back on the temptation itself, not an inappropriate ability to not be corrupted.

Again it comes down to the argument that in our modern (especially post 9/11) world there is a sense that Heroes need to start from a low point and grow or there is no meaningful development. I don't believe that cliche has to always be the case. Faramir's growth came from under the shadow of his brother and his weakness in his father's eyes to the Prince of Ithilien at the end. The fact that he was one of the only Men in the story to turn his back on the Ring, knowing the tremendous danger the Ring represented, put him in a higher nobility than those that looked down on him.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

But that's not the issue. Everything in Middle Earth would succumb to the power of the ring if they had it within their possession; Tom Bombadil is the only exception. The issue with the Ring is the temptation to take it in the first place. Gandalf and Galadriel are both tempted by it and Galadriel in particular comes close to accepting it, but Faramir, someone who should be particularly susceptible to that temptation, doesn't feel it at all and rejects it like it has no power to potentially sway him. Against the lord Tolkien set down himself it makes no sense; the issue isn't that he rejected it, it's that he didn't even consider it. Also his rejection of the ring is one of the first things that he does in the book, so it's not character development, it's Tolkien saying, 'Hey, here's this good guy. He's super good. The end.' I just found Faramir to be one of the more boring characters in the Two Towers book, but to each their own, millage will most definitely vary.

That's only half the reason why he was changed however (though note he didn't overcome the shadow of his brother and father, he just outlived them and so overcame it by default; that's not a character development). The fact is without Faramir's actions in TTT, Frodo and Sam would have just waltzed through the movie with no conflict, as the simple truth is moving Cirith Ungol in line with the time it happens was a no-brainer.

Anyway, maybe we should stop discussing the movie as the OP seems to want to discuss the SBG.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

*Wades into debate wearing large suit of armour*

I think a lot of the heated debate/confusion in this and the other thread is in ascertaining exactly what the OP is asking, I've followed this thread and the other one with interest and to be brutally honest am still not entirely clear what Meltchn is driving at, after all, at various points in this thread alone he has stated that his question is:

"Why films should have more rules than games"

"the question of demanding different criteria from a book and a game based on the same source material and also the difference between the nature of a film and a game"

"why bending characters in the game is fine and even a good part of the game, whereas bending characters in a film has to be judged on a different criteria"

Sorry for the old fashioned way of quoting but I found this easier than scrolling through and using the mulit-quote.

Now, I'm certainly not saying these are mutually exclusive questions but they are certainly harder to get to grips with than the more common "I thought the CGI Azong sucked" typed opinions of late.

Anyway, here's my 2 cents on what may or may not be on (one of the many) topics:

Firstly, the changes in the LOTR films to Faramir, Aragorn, Helm's Deep etc. I'm largely on board with GodlessM here. The changes to Faramir are made simply to make the Frodo and Sam journey interesting on screen. There is very little peril in their journey to Shelob's layer and the film provides that. In addition, it broadly stays true to the story beats of the book: Faramir finds the courage/resolve and lets the ring go, albeit later. I personally agree that the 'I would not pick it up if it lay by the wayside' comment is very unfulfilling in the book but some people will (and have) obviously disagree because of what they know about Faramir from the rest of the book. However, most movie goers wouldn't get to see his more noble side until a year later and having a mortal man simply refuse the ring would be incredibly emasculating to the corruptive nature of the ring. In addition, PJ attempts to stay true to the broader themes of the book/character by introducing Faramir at broadly the right place at the right time. Almost all of Faramir's stuff with Frodo and Sam in the film is about character development (particularly in the extended edition) and is largely done through dialogue (there isn't really that much 'action' in the Osgilliath sequence). If the filmmakers really were 'action junkies' as some have suggested they would have dropped Faramir altogether and simply had a horde of orcs attack Frodo and Sam at the end of the film as the obstacle/peril.

There has also been discussion about keeping the SBG game in line with Tolkien's vision and The Hobbit films moving further away from that with the dwarf boar riders/bunny sled etc. Cards on the table I love the Hobbit novel, have done since I was a child BUT, this is a novel in which the trolls' PURSE catches Bilbo, in which sheep walk in with plates on their backs and dogs walking on their hind-legs lay the dinner table...can you imagine the miniatures for those?!?! I really fail to see how Boar riders and Bunny sleds don't fit in in this world. In fact, I think that so far PJ has done a damn good job in making the Hobbit movies more like the 'realer' world of LOTR than Tolkien did in the Hobbit!

Having read the thread and thought about it a lot, I think the OP's main point was:

"why bending characters in the game is fine and even a good part of the game, whereas bending characters in a film has to be judged on a different criteria"

This started from a discussion about Gandalf riding an eagle which Meltchn argued that Gandalf should be allowed to ride an eagle in the game but not in the film as there is, I'm quoting from memory here, "no need to take the game so seriously". I think this is where the major disagreement has come from, I imagine there are many people on this forum, myself included, who do take the game seriously and simply view it as another form of adaptation.

I was drawn to SBG as it presented, IMO, a very good visual representation of the films I enjoyed that were, IMO, very good visual representations of the books I loved. Clearly, many people don't want this vision to be diluted through new models that don't represent to them what they think a game based on LOTR should contain.

To try and answer your question I think that if it's not OK to bend characters for a film adaptation of a book, then its also not OK to bend characters for a tabletop wargame of the book. I don't think you can demand verisimilitude in one and then denounce it in another as it is an entirely subjective decision based on, at least 3, different mediums that demand entirely different things from their audience.

I lieky the book. I likey the films. I likey the game. Hell, I might even like boar riders...

*cowers*

P.S. In light of the slightly 'heightened' emotions in this thread I would like to stress that if any of this comes across as condescending/dismissive, it was certainly not meant that way!

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I don't recall that. He certainly thinks about it and talks about what could happen if he did take it, then rejects it because he swore an oath. I think that's one of the keys, different people find different ways to reject the insidious "offer".

I'm also not sure why you single Faramir out as unreasonably stoic, yet three Hobbits, an Elf, a Dwarf, and Aragorn managed it. As Gandalf explained, the blood of Numenor ran more truly in Faramir than in Boromir, hence his relative mental strength.

PJ's change wasn't necessary for the story, since in the book the reader doesn't know who Faramir is nor what he might potentially do, there is plenty of tension there that can be translated to film. Nor is PJ's change somehow more true to Tolkien than Tolkien, which seems to be part of your rationale.