[Lord of Angmar]

A oft-recited criticism of Professor Tolkien has been that his characters have lacked depth and true internal conflict (I have just been reading through the Psychological Depth in Tolkien's Characters thread, perhaps the most thoroughly readable - and my own personal favorite - thread that I have come across since I have been a part of the Downs). Faramir and Aragorn seem to be the characters most commonly cited by the critics, because of their Christ-like virtues of self-sacrifice, wisdom and denial of (or lack of experience of) all sinful temptations. In defense of the book, I thought Faramir's refusal of the Ring was fine; remember, he had been at least somewhat under the guidance of Mithrandir, who also passed up the Ring when given an even easier opportunity, and furthermore was of noble breed and bearing, being of the line of the Stewards of Gondor and thus a descendant of the Numenoreans and the Three Houses of the Edain.

For all practical purposes, as Saucepan and others have said, Faramir outright refusing the Ring would not have been as credible in the movie. First of all, Jackson wanted to bring to light the conflict of Faramir and Denethor, and, although Faramir's motivations for taking the Ring were unclear in the theatrical version of The Two Towers, Faramir coming upon Frodo and the Ring and not being tempted by it would come as a surprise to most (if not all) viewers of the Extended Edition who were unfamiliar with Tolkien's books. Aside from the obvious power of the Ring, people would wonder why on earth Faramir did not seize (or at least consider seizing) the opportunity to prove his worth to his father ("He knew his dad would want the Ring, and he was already in his father's doghouse, so why not even consider taking the Ring?" would be along the lines of what I would expect to hear). The way Peter Jackson did it, Faramir comes off as very troubled and conflicted (a trait movie viewers can relate to) because of his father, but at the same time illustrates that he is more wise and less proud than his brother, and is willing to forfeit personal gain for the (uncertain) common good.

Secondly, Faramir's character is too close to Aragorn's (albeit on a smaller scale), so much so that it could, in the eyes of some, detract from Aragorn's role as the wise, savior-like hopeful ruler of Gondor. As someone said in another thread (I believe it was Lush, though I could be mistaken), there can only be so many characters who out-and-out resist any temptation (Gandalf, Aragorn, even Merry, Legolas and Gimli on a smaller scale - and don't forget Tom Bombadil, who shows more resistance to any kind of human temptation than any character I have ever read of). It presents a strange situation for Frodo to interact with a character like Faramir in the wilds of Ithilien, since there seems no real purpose in this part of the book except to give Frodo and Sam a rest and introduce Faramir for The Return of the King (and perhaps show the point at which Gollum ultimately decides to betray his master, feeling betrayed himself). To have Frodo and Sam trapped at the mercy of a Ranger of Ithilien (and Boromir's brother, no less!), and yet essentially have there be no conflict with the Ring, feels almost too strange. Certainly from a cinematic perspective it would have drawn skepticism.

The Ring would have lost a lot of its power, in the minds of the audience there and then. I tend to agree with her.

Well, Saucepan Man has come around to the same conclusion as I have in far fewer worlds. Ultimately, I think Faramir's book character simply would not have flown with modern audiences (although I do think that perhaps his situation could have been explained a bit better in the Two Towers theatrical release). It would have detracted from the believability of Faramir's newly introduced character, the power of the Ring, and, arguably, the believability of Aragorn.