OVERLAY REPORT

Peter Jackson’s decision to deviate from J.R.R. Tolkien’s text by taking Frodo, Sam, and Gollum to Osgiliath in *The Two Towers* is one of the most debated changes in the film trilogy. Jackson and screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens have cited several narrative and thematic reasons for this change in various "behind-the-scenes" commentaries. Here are the specific reasons why the change was made: ### 1. Externalizing Faramir’s Internal Struggle In the book, Faramir is a paragon of virtue who famously states that he would not pick up the One Ring even if he found it lying on the highway. Jackson felt that this "instant" resistance made the Ring seem less dangerous. If a mortal man could simply say "no" to it immediately, the Ring’s reputation as a corrupting, all-powerful force (established in the first film) would be undermined. By having Faramir decide to take the hobbits back to his father, Denethor, the film gives Faramir a character arc. He starts by trying to please his father and prove his worth (much like Boromir), but through witnessing Frodo’s struggle and Sam’s devotion, he eventually finds the strength to reject the Ring. This makes his final decision to let them go a hard-won victory of character rather than an effortless trait. ### 2. Narrative Pacing and the "Third Act" Problem In the structure of a three-act film, every storyline needs a climax. In *The Two Towers* film, the "Action" storyline culminates in the massive Battle of Helm’s Deep, and the "Ent" storyline culminates in the Last March of the Ents and the destruction of Isengard. In the book version of *The Two Towers*, Frodo and Sam’s encounter with Faramir is relatively quiet and intellectual. If Jackson had followed the book strictly, Frodo and Sam would have simply left Henneth Annûn and walked toward Shelob’s Lair while the Battle of Helm's Deep was raging. Jackson felt the hobbit storyline needed a high-stakes, cinematic climax to match the intensity of the other two plotlines. Moving them into a literal war zone (Osgiliath) provided that tension. ### 3. Demonstrating the Ring’s Pull on Frodo The Osgiliath sequence allowed Jackson to show how much the Ring was deteriorating Frodo’s mind. The scene where Frodo stands before the Nazgûl on his fell beast and nearly offers him the Ring serves as a "near-miss" that raises the stakes. It visually demonstrates that the closer Frodo gets to Mordor, the more the Ring "wants" to be found and the less control Frodo has over his own actions. ### 4. Setting Up Sam’s "Great Stories" Speech The move to Osgiliath provided the backdrop for Samwise Gamgee’s iconic monologue about "the great stories" and "there’s some good in this world, and it’s worth fighting for." By placing this speech in the middle of a ruined, burning city while Frodo is at his lowest point, Jackson was able to tie the themes of the entire trilogy together. The speech acts as a thematic bridge that connects the desperation at Helm’s Deep with the personal struggle of the hobbits, giving the audience a sense of hope right before the film ends. ### 5. Establishing the Threat of Gondor’s Fall By showing Osgiliath under siege, Jackson was able to "show, not tell" the precarious state of Gondor. It established the geography and the tactical situation (the river Anduin being the last line of defense) that would become central to the plot of *The Return of the King*. It made the war feel global rather than localized to Rohan. ### Summary While many Tolkien purists felt this change did a disservice to Faramir’s noble character, Jackson’s goal was to **increase the dramatic tension**, **reaffirm the Ring's power**, and ensure that the **Hobbit storyline had a cinematic peak** that coincided with the Battle of Helm’s Deep.