There are four towers! There are actually four towers, aren't there: Orthanc, Barad-dûr, Minas Tirith, and the Tower of Cirith Ungol? Tolkien chose to use the first and fourth of these in an illustration for a print edition of The Two Towers. Jackson chose the first and second as representing the strongholds of the two main antagonists, I assume.
Return of the Kings was shite. I know it's part of the actual story, but Faramir was portrayed as a pill and poor Éowyn's stuck with him. The finale involving the Gollum and Frodo showdown really sucked, from the way it was staged and acted, even. And when Gollum's wading in lava like it was a swimming pool was risible. Then ... THEN ... OK? The frigging movie refused to end. Things would appear to wrap up and it's like ... OK ... that's done. But NO! Another sequence kicks in. OK ... now, it's over. Guess again! Here's yet ... ANOTHER ... sequence. Really awkward and inappropriate.
All I can say is it's like we saw two totally different movies. You saw long and drawn out, I saw justice being done to several elements of the aftermath, my only complaint being it could have had another hour added on to include the Scouring as well. You saw Faramir as "a pill," I saw an almost perfect portrayal from the source material, a study in paternal rejection and the psychology of sibling rivalry, you saw boring, I saw climactic and epic in scope. The LOTR trilogy redefined a genre and were a labour of love for PJ that the fanbase overwhelmingly took to heart because of their beauty, thematic accuracy and unapologetic sense of scale. They are rightly viewed as being seminal movies for the impact they had on a mass scale and popularised fantasy for a new generation, paving the way for GoT amongst others.
Faramir came from a dysfunctional family, this is true, but there was nothing "epic" or "climactic" about Farmir's narrative, except when his father threw him on the pyre and Pippin saved him. I like the Man playing Faramir. I think he's a good actor and it was cool that he resembled Boromir, quite a bit. It's the script, really, that let him down. You may be right that were I maybe a fan of the books before I saw the movies, I'd see them completely differently. But I only saw them a few years ago and until I did, I didn't know what a Lord of the Rings was even supposed to be. You can imagine my chagrin to find out that "rings" actually referred to jewelry with malice and cruelty poured in, rather than some kind of mystical challenges or tests of some kind. Nevertheless, I was very taken by the charm of The Fellowship of the Ring, in particular. But I never recognised the trilogy as any kind of a Labour of Love. With so much at stake in these films, the fate of the world (!!!) they were all kind of flat.
The LotR novel trilogy is on the whole better than the movies. The Fellowship of The Ring was probably the closest adaptation with the unnecessary Tom Bombadil section wisely omitted for pacing (as the excellent BBC radio adaptation also did). Peter Jackson has a tendency to massively over-egg the pudding and his propensity for doing so has only gotten worse over time as exhibited by his versions of King Kong and The Hobbit trilogy. Sometimes less is more and more is less. Any message has a tendency to become diluted and lost in the manic CGI fest that goes on for probably twice as long as is necessary.
I like the lotr movies way better than the book. And FotR is easily the weakest of the three. Hobbit movies were boring as hell, though.
"Epic" was used in contrast to your reference to the movies being boring, not in relation to Faramir, but that being said Faramir's arc is most decidedly epic. In the novels his intellect and studiousness is emphasised far more as a contrast to Boromir, their dual role as the brash and thoughtful heirs of the steward displaying the contrasting flaws which they compensate for in each other, Boromir being unequal to the task before him because he underestimates the task, Faramir conversely because he underestimates himself, the family dynamic played out on a massive scale with the lives of millions at stake. The common criticisms of the films (which you seem to agree with) apply ten fold to the books, they are slow, laborious and dense, with distinct variations from the standard story telling arc which can make them feel disjointed. For instance the already mentioned Tom Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire, the continuations of characters whose arcs seem to be wrapped up. By contrast the films are light and dynamic, indulging only sparingly in the world building, mythology and non essential trappings which Tolkien is famed for. However, those "failings" are also what the books are famed for, they are indulgent, they are world building of a depth and scale which has never been matched. They defy story telling conventions because the hero's journey for Frodo is merely the icing on the cake, the window into a vast and deeply thought out and imagined world which we only glimpse but whose coherence and intricacy shows in the way it creeps out in the books. That there are literally dozens of times the page space devoted to the ancillary works, expansions, mythology, history and general note making around that world is testament to the effort which went into that project over the course of decades and it shows in the way the actual finished product dips into that background. The books work because they were written into a world which was almost completely realised, from the histories, mythologies, cultures and languages of the races portrayed to the geography long before the final drafts were produced. That they were written at such a tumultuous time in history and can carry so wide an array of allegory despite Tolkien's own denial of that being his intent make them simultaneously both mainstream and cult objects of fascination for so many. They are both loved and hated by critics, have been ever since they were published, but as a lifelong fan of them the idea of viewing the films as unnecessarily massive or ponderous seems to me strange given the way they serve to provide an accurate flavour of the novels without being too heavy for a popular audience.
I'm actually not a huge fan of Faramir in the movies. In fact.... he's probably my least favorite part of them overall (well, or Army of the Dead). Book!Faramir was if anything a little too perfect and idealized, but Movie!Faramir felt way too... utilitarian with how he treated Frodo, and corrupted by the Ring. Boromir on the other hand I actually prefer in the movies.
Boromir was COOL!!! Sean Bean definitely elevated the part and the dialogue he was given. Awesome delivery. When Boromir met his demise, he went like a Man! Like ... just so fitting with Sean Bean playing him. He wasn't going out like a chump ...
It took like 300 arrows to kill him, and he killed like 500 orcs. It's "cool" but also entirely nonsensical. Being a badass doesn't make you arrow proof.
Boromir is all Man ... He doesn't wimp and cry for mommy, as he's going down. No ... he keeps up the attack until he's so full of arrows he looks like a pin cushion! Such badassery is not to be questioned ... merely accepted. When Aragorn discovers him on the ground, dying, and comforts him in his last moments ... hell ... I get misty just thinking about it. Yes, Boromir went a little nuts because of the ring, but he redeemed himself, in the end. Again, Sean Bean's such a superb actor, he just brings it, you know? He's like a younger Liam Neeson, or some shit.