# Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers ENworld reviews & discussion (SPOILERS)



## Dr Midnight (Dec 18, 2002)

Juuuust wanted to start the official thread for the now-returning folk from the midnight show. 

I begin writing now, and will post something to chew on soon. Ahhhhh.... slurp


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 18, 2002)

I just got home myself.  We left the theater to find that Mother Nature had blanketed our fair city in a thin sheet of ice...it made coming home almost as exciting as the film.  My reviews and thoughts tomorrow.  Tonight, I will simply wish you all peaceful sleep and Tolkien dreams .

BTW, I was _very_ impressed with PJ's depiction of my Entish people...but deeply saddened to find that I was not mentioned by name.  Perhaps I will not be so hasty when it comes time to negotiate my next movie deal .


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 18, 2002)

I mourned the lack of acknowledgement, Friend Quickbeam.  Also the lack of specifically mentioning the Entdraught that changes Merry and Pippin.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 18, 2002)

Ohhh, man. I’m back from my 12:05 showing at the Showcase theater in Warwick, RI. The geeks turned out in droves. I had a terrific dinner with a friend, and my Gimli action figure was slow-dancing with a salt-shaker on the table. Eventually, Gimli takes a bow and we hop over to the theater at 10:30. It’s already packed… the line for the 12:05 show (there were three midnight shows: 12:05, 12:10, 12:15) was pretty damned long already, and filling fast. We step into line and try to keep our wits as the minutes crawl off my watch at roughly one minute per five minutes. You get the idea. Some high school girls are dressed in renn faire clothes and are swooning over Legolas. I’m quoting my man Gimli like a fiend. “Roaring fires, malt beeer…” and so forth. 

Blah blah.

Time passes and we finally get inside the damn theater. People settle in, and it’s a good crowd: very vocal. We boo and cheer the trailers. It feels like a community. Some new Vin Diesel flick? Boooo! The trailers end and the lights lower. People start cheering. Whooping, clapping, yelling. Then, the New Line logo floats in and “shhhhh!” is everywhere. The action starts and the crowd is dead entranced. 

The toughest thing for me was slipping into the first half hour. I thought it would be terrific just jumping back into the story without much of a recap, but you know what? It felt kinda like being taken with no foreplay. If you’ll pardon me. The movie opens, as you’ve no doubt read, in Khazad-Dum with Gandalf and the Balrog. The geek in me notices that here Frodo screams “Noooo” before Gandalf falls, which isn’t how it is in Fellowship. I then smacked myself for being the kind of person who’d notice such a thing. Gollum creeps straight up on Frodo and Sam, there’s very little rebuilding of suspense on the whole Hey-there’s-Gollum-he’s-following-us thing. They capture him and we get to see the great Gollum acting we’ve heard so much about. It’s… so-so… until later. In all the first half hour felt like a rocket-ride back into Middle-Earth, when you could perhaps appreciate a slower immersion. Just my take. 

After that, though, things pick up. Where things really changed for me was a scene featuring Gollum having a very cleverly done argument with himself. Gollum in the movie has two personalities- one that’s pitiable and almost endearing, the other the horrid opportunistic sleaze we know and love. I’m no Tolkien scholar, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it is in the books. It works, though, and it pays off wonderfully after Gollum is “betrayed” by Frodo. He’d banished the evil side of himself, and been generally happy… but as he feels the master has tricked him, he has a powerful moment (paraphrased): 

GOLLUM (back turned, arguing with his just-returned evil side)
Master stoles it, he stoles it… No, why would he steal it? He means Smeagol no harm. FOOL! He tricks us, and stoles it!!!

FARAMIR
He stole… what?

GOLLUM (turns to the camera, all menace and loathing)
My Preciousssssss!

Goosebumps. Great scene. So, do I buy the whole thing about Andy Serkis and the Oscar possibility? I don’t know. Gollum DOES steal the show, and he IS incredible to watch, but I think his appeal is in the script and facial animation. The voice takes a back seat to those eyes and that awful mouth. Gollum will make you laugh, too. There’s a funny little part where he’s just caught a fish, and he’s happily singing a little ditty to himself. Kinda like a child singing the “My bologna has a first name” jingle. It almost made him huggable.

What stood out? 

The marsh (which is it? I forget the name). The dead faces in the water are incredibly creepy, and once Frodo’s fallen in, the creepy crawls all over you like eels. 

Legolas swinging up into the saddle, as seen in the recent TV clip, got a round of hearty applause. Everyone loved it. 

Gimli was the comic relief, again, but this time I had a better time with it. He was much funnier, and he had some nice dramatic moments. There was actually closure with the “Nobody tosses a dwarf” line so many people were iffy about last year, myself included, and it’s winning. “Just… don’t tell the elf…” I yelled when Gimli leapt down from the wall into the sea of orcs, armed with his axe and deadly intentions. 

Fellowship members by the wayside. Gandalf is in the film for maybe twenty minutes, and he’s far from the Gandalf the Grey we loved in Fellowship. That’s appropriate, as he’s white now, and different, but the power and majesty of the character was just left cooling on the windowsill while other things simmered. Kinda sad that way. Pippen and Merry- blech. I know we can’t really have the same two hobbits, now that they’ve been abducted and subjected to horrors, but… they just don’t seem the same at all now, or even vaguely interesting. Merry’s angry speech up through his eyebrows at Treebeard just looked silly to me. 

Helm’s Deep. I wasn’t looking forward to this so much. I never got the tension before. Well, the movie wired up the suspense and made damned sure I knew what was at stake. Then, when you can dimly see the orcs coming through the mist, you just about soil yourself, safe in your little theater seat.  

Creatures. The wargs, ents, oliphants, and fell beasts are terrific fun to watch. The oliphants are only on screen very briefly. I was hoping for more of these things. Their scale is shown, though, and it’s awesome to behold. Wargs are… certainly good enough, but I’d rather more wolf and a bit less hyena. That’s just me. The ents were great, but I don’t think their fury came across well. The book made me think of ent anger as being terrible and fearsome, but an angry ent in the movie just walks quicker and smashes orcs around in an almost annoyed fashion. Not enraged enough. Fell beasts win the HOLY CRAP award, because when these things are in the sky, they’re as frightening as they should be. One flies up to Frodo in a slow motion scene, and we see it very clearly. It’s breathtaking. 

The cleansing of Isengard. Great fun. When the dam gives way and the water comes down on the courtyard like the wrath of Sam Jackson, it gets more than a few gasps and claps from the audience. 

Frodo and Sam. This, along with Gimli, is what I feel is most improved over what we saw in the first movie. The chemistry here is more potent, and we see Sam shrink back as Frodo becomes more and more dark. In the end, we’ll have seen Frodo at Sam’s throat, but they’re still walking along talking like old friends, and I feel the connection better than I did before. 

The cutting between scenes… I didn’t care for it. I think this is one of those translation issues, but- meh.

One thing I’d like to mention is this movie’s too-often used. Last movie, it was the slow shot of the ring in someone’s hand. In this one, it’s silent teardrops. Almost every character in the movie has a moment where we see a tear fall from their eye. 

So, to sum up, Gollum is the shizzy. Gimli is STILL the shizzy, just even more so, even if he’s still the funny little dwarf-man shizzy. 

THE TWO TOWERS is a different plate of the same meal, and once you accept what you’re eating, you’ll have a hell of a time. 

Aaaaand bedtime.


----------



## KenM (Dec 18, 2002)

Maybe the reason you hear Frodo scream before Gandalf falls is that the scene is from a different perspective then what was in FELLOWSHIP, from what I heard. Going today 11 am, 3.5 hours. No midnight show out here on Cape Cod.


----------



## durath (Dec 18, 2002)

*quick note*

Gollum does indeed have the split personality in the books, it was not a Peter Jackson change.


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 18, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *I mourned the lack of acknowledgement, Friend Quickbeam.  Also the lack of specifically mentioning the Entdraught that changes Merry and Pippin. *




Thank you DD.  And I totally agree that of all the changes in TTT, the handling of all things Ent related could have -- nay, should have -- been truer to the books.  Missing the Entdraught was bad, but having Treebeard essentially tricked (or at least led by the nose) into his rage at Isengard, is far worse.  IMO it made the Ents seem less noble and majestic, and Doc Midnight is right in stating that the "fury" displayed in their assualt on Orthanc was a bit underwhelming.  It's fun watching orcs gets tossed about like so many bean bags, but I wanted to feel the tremendous force of Entish wrath.  Of course, I'm a bit biased .

Overall, I liked the movie -- which almost goes without saying -- but I walked out of FotR feeling more overcome by the experience than I did last night.  Perhaps I let my expectations run away from me since I feel TTT was the best book in the trilogy...or at least my favorite.

The Good:
** Legolas and Gimli keeping a running tally on their kills at Helm's Deep.  I was _sooooo_ happy to see this included!!
** Gollum was fantastic.  Period.
** The portrayal of Wormtongue was excellent.
** The orc and Uruk-Hai tussle over Merry & Pippin, which turns into a slaughter on the fields of Rohan.
** The handling of Eomer, Eowyn and Faramir were all solid IMO.
** The impending sense of doom as Saruman's armies march towards Helm's Deep...and then the siege itself was incredible.  I also enjoyed Gandalf's timely appearance and the charge of the Rohirrim into the fray.
** Mordor.  'Nuff said.
** The Ents looked amazing.  Much better than I'd dared to hope for.

The Bad:
** The solitary tears being shed as noted by Doc Midnight.
** The assault on Isengard left me wanting much more.
** Merry & Pippin were almost inexplicably not the same.  I know what they went through, but the movie left a void with respect to their development where I'm concerned.
** The choppy scene shifting and changes.

FWIW, I'll be back in the theaters this weekend watching it all over again.  I find my perspective adjusts after a second viewing.  More from this hasty Ent later .

*edit:*  What I should have said regarding Faramir is that I didn't mind them depicting him as like Boromir, only to begin a transformation of character into someone much more admirable.


----------



## The Sigil (Dec 18, 2002)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> Thank you DD.  And I totally agree that of all the changes in TTT, the handling of all things Ent related could have -- nay, should have -- been truer to the books.  Missing the Entdraught was bad, but having Treebeard essentially tricked (or at least led by the nose) into his rage at Isengard, is far worse.  IMO it made the Ents seem less noble and majestic, and Doc Midnight is right in stating that the "fury" displayed in their assualt on Orthanc was a bit underwhelming.  It's fun watching orcs gets tossed about like so many bean bags, but I wanted to feel the tremendous force of Entish wrath.  Of course, I'm a bit biased .



Agreed - but it is important to keep the action moving... if we had gone at "ent-speed" the movie would have been 90 hours long. ;b

Seriously, the one thing I had hoped to see was the way I envisioned ents dismantling the stone stuff in Isengard in the books - placing their hands on it, then watching roots spread quickly and crumble the stone around them (like watching a tree grow in hard ground in super-fast-motion photography - say, 10 years per second).  That was my visualization of it, anyway.  I also missed the ents v. trolls fights I remember from the book (maybe my memory is bad).


> Overall, I liked the movie -- which almost goes without saying -- but I walked out of FotR feeling more overcome by the experience than I did last night.  Perhaps I let my expectations run away from me since I feel TTT was the best book in the trilogy...or at least my favorite.



Agreed there.  I came out of FotR overwhelmed.  I came out of TTT feeling, "cool" but not overwhelmed - except by one thing...



> The Good:
> ** Legolas and Gimli keeping a running tally on their kills at Helm's Deep.  I was _sooooo_ happy to see this included!!



Agreed - but they didn't compare notes afterward (42-43).



> ** Gollum was fantastic.  Period.



This was the part of the movie that overwhelmed me.  Gollum finally goes from being half-toad (in the Rankin-Bass movies) to being much more human-like.  His struggle between Sneaker and Smeagol was great, too, if a bit overdone with camera angles.


> ** The portrayal of Wormtongue was excellent.



Agreed.


> ** The orc and Uruk-Hai tussle over Merry & Pippin, which turns into a slaughter on the fields of Rohan.



Agreed.


> ** The handling of Eomer, Eowyn and Faramir were all solid IMO.



Eowyn was fantastic.  Eomer was so-so.  Faramir they missed completely.  In the books, Faramir was what Boromir wasn't - wise enough not to yield to the temptation of the ring.  Faramir was to me a noble character who recognized his own flaws and weakness and passed on the ring out of wisdom and self-restraint.  Here, he's just another Boromir, only with less pathos.


> ** The impending sense of doom as Saruman's armies march towards Helm's Deep...and then the siege itself was incredible.  I also enjoyed Gandalf's timely appearance and the charge of the Rohirrim into the fray.



This was good, too. I thought the insertion of the shots of the women and children cowering at the sound of the orc legions stamping, the explosions, the gates falling, etc. were good because it reminds you of just what is at stake.


> ** Mordor.  'Nuff said.



To be honest, I found Mordor a little less than perfect.  Of all the "locations" in the movie, it seemed the most "blah."


> ** The Ents looked amazing.  Much better than I'd dared to hope for.



Except for my note above about how I had hoped they would smash stone, I agree.

The Bad:


> ** The solitary tears being shed as noted by Doc Midnight.



I didn't find this all that bad.  Remember, this is the earth these people are fighting for.  This is for their friends and family.  Every loss hurts.


> ** The assault on Isengard left me wanting much more.



Yup.


> ** Merry & Pippin were almost inexplicably not the same.  I know what they went through, but the movie left a void with respect to their development where I'm concerned.



Agreed there, too.

I too will revisit theaters soon and let this one have a little time to digest.  But if you were to ask me right now...

FotR: A+
TTT: B+ (very solid, but not overwhelming and with a few gaffes)

--The Sigil


----------



## billd91 (Dec 18, 2002)

*LotR: T2T review of mine *SPOILERS**

I did NOT like the movie as much as the first, but it wasn't the cutting between scenes that did it for me. I thought Jackson did that well. He's technical skills are very good.

I didn't like aspects of the screenplay that compromise the moral fiber of the characters in ways that aren't present in the books.

Elrond is marshalling his people to leave Middle Earth (including his daughter). I know he found his daughter's choice very difficult, but the reason there was no elven help for the humans fighting in Rohan and Minas Tirith was because they were tied down defending their own refuges as Sauron attacked everywhere at once. Elrond had to be pushed into sticking around and helping by Galadriel and that doesn't sit well with me.

Theoden is much more like the badger waiting to be killed in a trap than the Theoden in the books. His recovery is supposed to energize his people but his treatment here is as a continuing weak man.

I can live with the changes on the Ents. It suggests they didn't know the full perfidy of Saruman rather than not being moral actors in and of themselves. And it makes the hobbits' intervention that much more important and significant. It does make Pippin seem a lot more astute than he should be at this point, though.

The biggest problem I have with it and the moral erosion is the FAILURE of Faramir in the test of the ring. He hauls Frodo and Sam as far as Osgiliath to take the ring to his old man. It's only after Frodo's encounter with the ring-wraith that he relents. That is NOT Faramir. Faramir thinks like Gandalf (one of the reasons he's so estranged from his father and why Denethor resents Gandalf so much) while it was Boromir who thought like his father. Faramir isn't as active or bold (though still effective) but he has better insight and sends Frodo on his way while counseling him to not trust Gollum.

I like the multiple personality of Gollum/Smeagol, but in the books, Gollum wins out very early and resolves to take them to "Her" very early, right after they leave the Black Gate. He's hurt by Frodo's betrayal in Ithilien, but he's already planning his betrayal long before then. That, I consider a fairly minor but interesting change, overall.

Sigh.
I think the changes in the Fellowship story were better considered than these. They don't significantly change the moral outlook and strength of the characters. THe changes in Two Towers does, to the detriment, I think, of the story.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 18, 2002)

I'm happy I've never been able to get past the first book.  No expectations to be shattered 

IceBear


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 18, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I'm happy I've never been able to get past the first book.  No expectations to be shattered
> 
> IceBear *




Amen brother, although I have read at least most of the second book several times, I could never really finish it without resorting to horrid speed reading.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 18, 2002)

How are you holding up, Toe? Drinkin' coffee like a fiend?


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 18, 2002)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> *How are you holding up, Toe? Drinkin' coffee like a fiend? *




Actually I have been caffine free and the only real side effects from fatigue are a little crabbiness and my mind is working slower than normal.  Much better than I expected.  Thanks for asking,  how are you dealing with it?

Hey that was a great recap of the movie you wrote, especially since you did it before sleep.  As I laid in bed after the movie with my mind racing I thought about getting up to post, but the bed was so comfy, nice cool soft pillow and plush bedspread.  I think it will be an early night tonight


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2002)

A few points:

Gollum's split personality argument was taken almost word for word from the book.

The books certainly _do not_ feature ent/troll battles.

Faramir is no longer the same person at all.  Although he did understand in the end, and come to his senses.  And seeing Osgiliath was kinda fun, in a way.  Same with Theoden -- completely done wrong for the rest of the story to make sense, IMO.  Why does he have to want to run and hide and be all angry at Gondor?

Most of the characters go through very little evolution.  Eowyn and Gollum are the only new characters we get to understand at all, Gandalf, Merry and Pippin barely seem to make cameos.

And I also was very underwhelmed by the ents attack on Isengard.  In the book, that scene (narrated by Pippin to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli) still gives me goosebumps every time I read it.  I can just imagine the hobbits huddled in abject terror at the wrath of the ents, and the noise it caused.  Here, the ents are vaguely ticked off.

Other than a few points, though, especially the lack of much character development, I absolutely loved the movie.  Right now, I'd say I like it better than Fellowship, but I've only seen this once and Fellowship a number of times.  We'll have to see how time lets this play out.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 18, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *Thanks for asking,  how are you dealing with it?
> *



Uh... I don't think you'll like the answer. I'm fine, as I slept till noon. 



> Hey that was a great recap of the movie you wrote



Thanks. Seeing it again tonight, going to look for more stuff to think about. Definitely looking forward to Gollum again. Ahh, Gollum.


----------



## KenM (Dec 18, 2002)

Just got back from seeing it, my thoughts;
      Golum was very well done, loved helms deep, the stuff with dwarf was very cool. Overall I liked the movie.
       Stuff I did not like, the fact that once Merry and Pippin meet up with treebeard, they basically had nothing to do. I also thought it would have been a better cliffhanger if they did the stuff with the giant spider and we think Frodo is dead.
As an aside, no wonder Gandalf is so much more powerful when he comes back, he killed the Balrog and got all the XP himself.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 18, 2002)

I am hoping to see it again this weekend, specifically for the reason Dr. M meentioned above about it being hard to get into for the first section of the moive.  I felt very detached and think a second viewing may bring some of those beginning scenes to life.

Maybe after gandalf's battle there should have been some quiet travelling with Sam & Frodo to set the characters and mood of the film.  I can't wait to see it again.  I loved  seeing Gimli hop up and down trying to see over the walls of Helms Deep as the goblin hords marched forward.  

Silly little dwarves.

Now if anyone has any ideas on how to get my wife to go again.


----------



## jontherev (Dec 18, 2002)

I'm going to see the movie in about 3.5 hours.

I heard the extended dvd of TTT will be at least 1 hour longer than the original, so maybe Faramir will get the treatment some of you thought he should get.  There's only so much you can do in 3 hours.  Then again, I'm not a purist, so I fully expect to love the movie anyway...plus I haven't read it in like 20 years, so it's not likely I will pick it apart like others.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *Maybe after gandalf's battle there should have been some quiet travelling with Sam & Frodo to set the characters and mood of the film.  *



Ummm, that's exactly what they did.  After Gandalf's battle, they cut to Frodo and Sam getting lost in the Emyn Muil.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2002)

I have theories about Faramir but will need to see the movie before I can really discuss them intelligently.  I'm starting with the premise, though, that a change like this will help set up *something* in film 3.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2002)

BTW, what previews did y'all see?  We got Terminator 3, X-Men 2, Bad Boys 2, Bruce Almighty and Dumb and Dumberer.  Looks like it's definately a year for sequels this summer.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 18, 2002)

We got Dumb & Dumberer, som bad Vin Diesel vehicle, Terminator 3 (got hesitant applause at first, and then universal groans when he said "she'll be back". The groans were not the good kind), that stupid The Core movie, and something else. Not an exciting trailer ride.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I have theories about Faramir but will need to see the movie before I can really discuss them intelligently.  I'm starting with the premise, though, that a change like this will help set up *something* in film 3. *




MAJOR SPOILER:  Yeah, he's s'posed to fall in love with Eowyn.  Problem is, Eowyn is a very sympathetic and likable character, while Faramir comes across as kinda a creep.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 18, 2002)

I think it was a mistake to show Gollum happy and cutesy when Faramir was about to order his boys to fire. That and the fact that he was pressuring Frodo really made him out to be a colossal prick. 


> I heard the extended dvd of TTT will be at least 1 hour longer than the original



Ohhhh I hope so. Oh dear me, yes. Mmmm *slurp*.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> 
> MAJOR SPOILER:  Yeah, he's s'posed to fall in love with Eowyn.  Problem is, Eowyn is a very sympathetic and likable character, while Faramir comes across as kinda a creep. *




Well, that's my theory -- rather than just starting him off as this super-good guy, we will get to see him transform from "little better than Boromir" to "a lot better than Boromir, approaching Aragorn" in film 3.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 18, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> Ummm, that's exactly what they did.  After Gandalf's battle, they cut to Frodo and Sam getting lost in the Emyn Muil. *





I thought Gollum showed up almost immediately, but I could be wrong.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 18, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, that's my theory -- rather than just starting him off as this super-good guy, we will get to see him transform from "little better than Boromir" to "a lot better than Boromir, approaching Aragorn" in film 3. *




I thought you were not going to talk about it


----------



## Guilt Puppy (Dec 18, 2002)

First: As others have said, glad I didn't read the books, so I couldn't get disappointed... Also, I generally prefer to have a movie make the first impression on me (I can watch a movie, then go read the book, and end up liking both, but it rarely happens the other way around.)

Second: Just a list of cool scenes:

- First, the dwarf-tossing... MAN. It was like a bomb went off when he landed. As in the first one, they really did a good job portraying just how insanely skilled the members of the Fellowship are, yet at the same time, still making it feel plausible somehow...

- The ent-battle, I imagine, was better in the book... The "ent rage" could have been done a lot cooler, judging by people's responses, but nonetheless, having not read the book, _the ent battle rocked._ They made them seem a little silly rather than ancient and majestic (understandable, considering it's hard to put talking trees on film and not have them seen silly), but they still knew how to totally thrash things around when it came down to it.

- One or two bonus points for giving the orcs individual personalities this time around... They're still plain _evil_, but somehow I can accept that a little more if you show the in-fighting et cetera.

- They came very close to letting Smeagol become Jar Jar Binks, but the Gollum side actually made that work... Round of applause to that. Still under-impressed with the computer graphics in the movies (which isn't to say they're _bad_, but they're still far too distinguishable from the live-action stuff), but for Gollum it seemed okay... I mean, he looked cartoony, but the character _is_ pretty cartoony to begin with, so I can deal with that.

- Other stuff? I think the only part of the film that really bored me was the love story... Not that I'm entirely anti-love story, and it did add a certain sense of sacrifice to the battles, _but_ I felt it was drawn out way too long, very over-emphasized. So everything but those sequences, I'm at the very least _okay_ with.

Good movie. Enjoyed it more than the first on some levels, although the first one did have more of an adventursome feel to it that felt lacking this time around (aside from Frodo and Samwise). There was also a lot less depth that we saw in the characters, although they showed more personality as well.

Anyway, now I've got to wait a year to see just _how_ Frodo and Samwise are going to make it through Mordor alive. Must not give in yet... must not read the books... must not...


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 18, 2002)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> *We got Dumb & Dumberer, som bad Vin Diesel vehicle, Terminator 3 (got hesitant applause at first, and then universal groans when he said "she'll be back". The groans were not the good kind), that stupid The Core movie, and something else. Not an exciting trailer ride. *




I don't know, Dumb and Dumberer and Bruce Almightly looked good, as well as Bad Boys 2, but I had a feeling they showed most of the funny parts in the trailer for Bad Boys 2.  Van Diesel does not interest me and the T-3 trailer made me cross that off my viewing list.

What is the deal with commercials before the movie and who gets paid fr them the theater or the movie company?  I can see commercials before crappy low expectation movies, but this movie will make more money on opening weekend than my entire neighborhood will make their entire lives.  What's the deal?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 18, 2002)

*Another review ...*

Just got back from the noon showing the The Two Towers, so here's a short review:

My wife's first comment after the movie: "I can't believe I have to wait a whole year to find out what happens!"

Mine:"Man, I need to go get some Warg minis!" (Warg riders have featured prominently in my last two game sessions.)

Peter Jackson delivers another great epic film.  If anything, the movie is more dramatic, and significantly more action-packed than the first film.  Making the second story of a trilogy is tough, but Jackson succeeds in making a stand-alone movie out of the second act.

If you're going to see the film, be warned that there's no recap -- they jump directly into the action (which will throw off anyone who hasn't seen the first movie).

Tolkien purists be warned, as well -- there are some significant departures from the text.  No plot points are changed or important characters deleted, but if you're as big a fan of the text as I am you may find a few of the changes disturbing.

Rants & Raves:

****  Warning, Spoilers Follow *****














My raves: the best parts of the film.

-  The scenery, epic scope, music, and pacing are superb.  I was completely drawn in, and even though the film is a full three hours, it sure didn't feel like it.

- The CGI creatures are all awesome: the Ents, the Wargs, the Oliphants & Trolls, and Gollum.  The Wargs are my personal favorites, but the Ents are great, too.  Gollum has a few "CGI moments" at the beginning until his character takes hold, but this fades by the end.

- Gollum.  Absolutely awesome.  I think it captures the split-personality of Gollum-Smeagol even better than the text.  I could see a Best Supporting Actor for Andy Sertis, who does Gollum's voice and movements for this performance.

- Gandalf's fight with the Balrog.  Great sequence.

- Action & drama -- lots & lots of it.  The fight scenes are great -- especially if you're a Legolas or Gimli fan.  They both have some great moves, although Gimli is still mostly comic relief.  Look for a reprise of the "dwarf tossing" scene from the last movie.

- The Eowyn-Aragorn relationship.  Tolkien never really develops this; he just shows Eowyn mooning over Aragorn.  The movies shows a relationship that sets up the ROTK much better.


Rants:

- Textual changes.  I know that a movie and a book are two different media, and must be different to work.  A number of Jackson's changes are positive -- I agreed with most of the departures from text in Fellowship, actually.  TTT has more departures than Fellowship, though, and a number of them I take umbrage with.

- Positive changes, in my opinion, include:

  - Moving Shelob to ROTK.  At first I wasn't convinced, as I was looking forward to these scenes and the cliffhanger it sets up, but given the way the film is edited it works better this way to end the plot threads on similar emotional notes.

  - Adding the Warg fight sequence.  I enjoyed the fight itself a lot (though not the ending of it: see below).

  - Shifting the Two Towers parallel from Orthanc/Minas Morgul to Orthanc/Baradur.  It works, particularly given the elimination of the Cirith Ungol sequence, and helps tie the Saruman-Sauron thread together in the movie better.  The Saurman portrayal here works very well for the film.

  - The Arwen-Aragorn scenes.  They help the pacing of the film, so you don't get overwhelmed with action.

- Negative changes, in my opinion, include:

  - Reducing the amount of footage given to Merry & Pippin.  Both the Uruk-hai segments and Ent segments are quite short (hopefully there is more footage that will make it to the extended version).  I thought that the original textual approaches to these scenes worked better.

  - "Banishing" Eomer so that he comes to the rescue ot Helm's Deep at the end.  It works for the film (particularly given the editing and pacing), though it eliminates the Huorns (whom I was looking forward to).  But it also eliminates the development of the Eomer-Aragorn relationship at Helm's Deep, which I think is important to ROTK.  We'll see.

  - The arrival of Haldir & the elves at Helm's Deep.  Poor change.  Yes, it explains what the other races are doing about it all (well, except for the dwarves), but how did the elves know where to go?  Why not reinforce Gondor, who is the more critical of the two countries?  And with the elves arrival, how is Jackson going to handle the Grey Company segments in ROTK?  It will look redundant if a bunch of Rangers ride up at the beginning of the next movie ...

  - Faramir's characterization.  His early betrayal of Frodo does make his later reversal more dramatic, but I found the book's method of portraying Faramir to be more heroic.  Faramir came of faintly sleazy to me (which probably also has something to do with a vague resemblance to the actor who played the Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves).

  - The Osgiliath scenes, particularly Frodo's encounter with the Nazgul.  Too much.  It's like Jackson said "we've had five minutes without a fight scene .. let's throw one in ... and since we have to show Frodo falling to the ring, let's have him give it to a Nazgul!"  Blech.  Now the question is: if Sauron knows the ring is at Osgiliath, why doesn't he fortify Minas Morgul?

  - The "Aragorn death" scene at the end of the Warg fight.  The moving already has enough tension and drama -- this was just over the top.

Edit: almost forgot, I didn't care for the change in the Ent's motivations, though it works OK for the film.  My wife kept asking: "Why don't the Ents get swept away by the water, too?"

Was it better than the first movie?  Yes, and no.  From an action/drama/pacing standpoint, it is probably better, but as an admitted Tolkien purist, I found some of the changes a little jarring.  I'm looking forward to the extended edition, though, and I think FOTR and TTT are 1-2 in my list of fantasy movies (if not all movies).

Edit: Worgs to wargs, at Josh's request


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Well, that's my theory -- rather than just starting him off as this super-good guy, we will get to see him transform from "little better than Boromir" to "a lot better than Boromir, approaching Aragorn" in film 3. *



But why would they introduce that element into the story?  Is it to show once again that all the best girls always end up with the pricks?  (Hey, it actually worked in my favor once, at least!  )


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2002)

*Re: Another review ...*



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *Tolkien purists be warned, as well -- there are some significant departures from the text.  No plot points are changed or important characters deleted, but if you're as big a fan of the text as I am you may find a few of the changes disturbing.*



I didn't think that there were more changes -- FotR actually changed quite a bit.  The biggest change for TTT was the chopping off of several parts of the movie and deferring them to RotK.  Since RotK actually has a very long extended epilogue, which is bad film-making, this move actually makes sense.
*



			-  The scenery, epic scope, music, and pacing are superb.  I was completely drawn in, and even though the film is a full three hours, it sure didn't feel like it.
		
Click to expand...


*I still don't like the End Credits theme song, though.  Maybe it'll grow on me...
*



			- The CGI creatures are all awesome: the Ents, the Worgs, the Oliphants & Trolls, and Gollum.  The Worgs are my personal favorites, but the Ents are great, too.  Gollum has a few "CGI moments" at the beginning until his character takes hold, but this fades by the end.
		
Click to expand...


*Agreed 100%
*



			- Gollum.  Absolutely awesome.  I think it captures the split-personality of Gollum-Smeagol even better than the text.  I could see a Best Supporting Actor for Andy Sertis, who does Gollum's voice and movements for this performance.
		
Click to expand...


*Again, 100% behind you there.
*



			- Gandalf's fight with the Balrog.  Great sequence.
		
Click to expand...


*And you just _knew_ they were going to add it -- they already beefed up the action anyway.  It was pretty fun.
*



			- Action & drama -- lots & lots of it.  The fight scenes are great -- especially if you're a Legolas or Gimli fan.  They both have some great moves, although Gimli is still mostly comic relief.  Look for a reprise of the "dwarf tossing" scene from teh last movie.
		
Click to expand...


*Actually, I really dislike the "cut-scene" action type.  Pull the camera back a few feet and let us actually see what's going on!  
*



			- The Eowyn-Aragorn relationship.  Tolkien never really develops this; he just shows Eowyn mooning over Aragorn.  The movies shows a relationship that sets up the ROTK much better.
		
Click to expand...


*Eh.  Yes and no.  Jackson did a good job of it, but don't sell Tolkien short.  He built this up quite a bit as well, in many more ways.  I love Eowyn in the movie, though.  Can't wait to see her put some smack-down on the Witch-king next year!  
*



			- Textual changes.  I know that a movie and a book are two different media, and must be different to work.  A number of Jackson's changes are positive -- I agreed with most of the departures from text in Fellowship, actually.  TTT has more departures than Feollowship, though, and a number of them I take umbrage with.
		
Click to expand...


*There actually seemed to be fewer changes.  In fact, I recognized a lot more dialogue that was word for word out of the book this time around.
*



			- Moving Shelob to ROTK.  At first I wasn't convinced, as I was looking forward to these scenes and the cliffhanger it sets up, but given the way the film is edited it works better this way to end the plot threads on similar emotional notes.
		
Click to expand...


*Yep.  Not to mention the fact that without the spill-over, TTT is too long and RotK is too short (or has plot resolution too soon and then drags into an hour or so of epilogue.)
*



			- Adding the Worg fight sequence.  I enjoyed the fight itself a lot (though not the ending of it: see below).
		
Click to expand...


*Yep, I agree, this was a good add.  Plus, we needed to see these Dire Hyena wargs, right?  Oh, and worgs = D&D, wargs = Tolkien.  Just a nit-pick from one Tolkien purist to another.  
*



			- Shifting the Two Towers parallel from Orthanc/Minas Morgul to Orthanc/Baradur.  It works, particularly given the elimination of the Cirith Ungol sequence, and helps tie the Saruman-Sauron thread together in the movie better.  The Saurman portrayal here works very well for the film.
		
Click to expand...


*Another nit-pick: Tolkien said very clearly that it always was Barad-dur and Orthanc that he referred to when naming the Two Towers.  That isn't a textual shift at all.
*



			- The Arwen-Aragorn scenes.  They help the pacing of the film, so you don't get overwhelmed with action.
		
Click to expand...


*Yeah, but they come up at odd times, and you can't ever tell if it's a dream, a memory/flashback or something else.  I actually coulda done without them, or have them done differently.
*



			- Reducing the amount of footage given to Merry & Pippin.  Both the Uruk-hai segments and Ent segments are quite short (hopefully there is more footage that will make it to the extended version).  I thought that the original textual approaches to these scenes worked better.
		
Click to expand...


*As I said earlier, Merry and Pippin essentially make cameos in this movie, as does Gandalf.  Too bad, considering the essential plot roles they play in the book.
*



			- "Banishing" Eomer so that he comes to the rescue ot Helm's Deep at the end.  It works for the film (particularly given the editing and pacing), though it eliminates the Huorns (whom I was looking forward to).  But it also eliminates the development of the Eomer-Aragorn relationship at Helm's Deep, which I think is important to ROTK.  We'll see.
		
Click to expand...


*Hopefully more to this in the extended DVD.  I coulda sworn I remembered the film-makers talking about Gimli and Eomer squaring off about Galadriel, too, but since they cut that from the theatrical version of FotR, it wouldn't make much sense in the theatrical version of TTT for Gimli to be going on and on about her.  And I have mixed feelings about combining (sorta) the role of Eomer and Erkenbrand, although in some ways, at least, it beats introducing yet another new character who isn't developed.
*



			- The arrival of Haldir & the elves at Helm's Deep.  Poor change.  Yes, it explains what the other races are doing about it all (well, except for the dwarves), but how did the elves know where to go?  Why not reinforce Gondor, who is the more critical of the two countries?  And with the elves arrival, how is Jackson going to handle the Grey Company segments in ROTK?  It will look redundant if a bunch of Rangers ride up at the beginning of the next movie ...
		
Click to expand...


*Yes, but presumably it works for the revised plot that is the screenplay of RotK, even if it doesn't work precisely for the original text of that book.  After all, Jackson has showed time and time again that Tolkien's version of Arwen just isn't good enough for his vision of the series.
*



			- Faramir's characterization.  His early betrayal of Frodo does make his later reversal more dramatic, but I found the book's method of portraying Faramir to be more heroic.  Faramir came of faintly sleazy to me (which probably also has something to do with a vague resemblance to the actor who played the Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves).
		
Click to expand...


*Yes, that and the change in character of Theoden to a skulking worm who gets mad about Gondor not saving his bacon.  I really don't see how they're going to get out of that one.
*



			- The Osgiliath scenes, particularly Frodo's encounter with the Nazgul.  Too much.  It's like Jackson said "we've had five minutes without a fight scene .. let's throw one in ... and since we have to show Frodo falling to the ring, let's have him give it to a Nazgul!"  Blech.  Now the question is: if Sauron knows the ring is at Osgiliath, why doesn't he fortify Minas Morgul?
		
Click to expand...


*A dearth of black riders for too long is a bad idea.  We don't want the audience to forget how scary they are, do we?  And how do we know Sauron knows the ring is in Osgiliath?  Frodo never actually wore the ring, and in the movie world, at least, he has to put it on before the Nazgul can effectively pinpoint him.
*



			- The "Aragorn death" scene at the end of the Worg fight.  The moving already has enough tension and drama -- this was just over the top.
		
Click to expand...


*And yet you say the movie is better about showing the relationship between Aragorn and Eowyn than the book: this is one of the main ways they do that.
*



			Was it better than the first movie?  Yes, and no.  From an action/drama/pacing standpoint, it is probably better, but as an admitted Tolkien purist, I found some of the changes a little jarring.  I'm looking forward to the extended edition, though, and I think FOTR and TTT are 1-2 in my list of fantasy movies (if not all movies).
		
Click to expand...


*Yes, I think it was, although I'll need to see it at least three more times to tell for sure!    At least it doesn't have any big, green Galadriel scenes.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2002)

I'm not saying it's a good change or a bad change.  But for me the change at least answers a question:  If Faramir is so resistant to the lure of the ring (as he is in the book), then why doesn't HE carry it to Mount Doom?  

I think they're going to get Faramir to the same place (character-wise), just taking a different road.  For me, it kinda has the potential to work like this:

We have already met Boromir and watched him struggle and fail.

We meet this new guy, Faramir.  We're thinking, "Oh, great, another character to try to figure out."  We learn he's Boromir's brother.  Bam!  We "know" him -- he's just like Boromir.  Except he's not, because he is shown ultimately able to resist the lure of the ring in a way Boromir was not.  (this is the part I'll need to see to verify my theories).  And in film 3 we'll see him change even more as he interacts with his father and meets Eowyn.  Question is -- will he be "done changing" by the time he meets her, or will his meeting her change him further toward what he is in the book?  

I feel this is an "it works better for the uninitiated than for those who know the books" change.  Again, I'm not saying it is a good change or a bad change.  But I think that it might not be such a stretch as it first seems.  Can't wait to find out!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Another review ...*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *  At least it doesn't have any big, green Galadriel scenes. *




Hear, hear!

You may be right about the raw number of changes between the two films (I don't really count dialogue, though I recognized more lines in FOTR than TTT) -- the changes in TTT were more noticable to me than the ones in Fellowship (I never cared for Bombadil, and after the Arwen/Glorfindel switch I guess I didn't get emotional about the rest of the changes).  Maybe it's because I just reread TTT about two days before the movie.

Hey, from a movie standpoint, the changes work (just ask my wife, who hasn't read the books in probably 15 years, who thought the movie was great!).

Oh -- on the title nit-pick.  Do you recall where Tolkien discussed the meaning of the title (I don't have an annotated copy of Tolkien)?  My copy of the trilogy has a passage (at the end of FOTR) that specifically says TTT is about Orthanc and Minas Morgul -- but I don't know if that was Tolkien, or his editor.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Another review ...*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *Yes, that and the change in character of Theoden to a skulking worm who gets mad about Gondor not saving his bacon. I really don't see how they're going to get out of that one.
> *




Perhaps this change of heart comes upon the final confrontation with Sauruman in film 3, a final realization as to how much he's been manipulated?  Dunno...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 18, 2002)

It was a long time ago I read the books and I think I must have rushed them too. However, I just got back from the theatre and I though the movie was first rate. While watching the movie I thought to myself: "What if this film had been available when I was a kid!" I was completely blown away by the movie and this sudden insight. This is one magnificent film for which we have longed. ("We" being fans of fantasy and all things medieval.) It made me feel like a kid again.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 18, 2002)

I thought it was superbly done.
my nitpicks;
1) I didn't like Gandalf's "fly, you fools" line. He should have gotten tagged by the whip and plummeted, not hung around for famous last words. They had to put that back in here, blah!
2) Too many over emotional death scene's in the first, slow motion tension building. Not as many in 2, but still more than I wanted. The tear drops weren't as bad.
3) When Treebeard was walking, something about him interacting with the background didn't sync with me. Just didn't feel real.
4) Merry & Pippin: they really were blah. In fact, at one point I'd swear there were two Merry's (or, Pippins, who can tell?) in Treebeard...  Frodo's obvioulsy a smarter halfling, since he at least remember's he has an Elven Cloak eventually, while these two wander through a forest trying to hide...

Stuff I liked:
1) The Movie
2) Gollum was great, looked great,acted great. I'd have prefered not to have the camera switching on his ranting, but it was still good. Early on, I had a flashback to Jar Jar, but thankfully got past it quickly.
3) Aragorn is once again a great, professional hero. His tracking, even his stance (walking forward nice and calm with his hands before him, acting in charge, etc.) were superb.
4) Legolas and Gimli were very good, typical adventurer types. You know if anyone was sent outside the gates, it'd be your characters! 
5) the Isengard battle was good. Remember that a film can never match your imagination and adjust for that. The rock tossing was nice, like natural catapults. Hazarding the flood as only big tree's can, plus the flaming one dunking his head. I'd only wished they'd shown them actually ripping down Isengard itself.


I read the books and thought they were great. I'll read them again after the third movie. I haven't read them in so long that I don't remember them enough to point out plot differences, I just enjoy the movies for what they are.

I hope the DVD is a Super Duper Extended Version as well.

For those that mentioned how it jumped right in, you DID watch Fellowship again before seeing this, didn't you? Heck, it was even on Cable TV the other night


----------



## Wolf72 (Dec 18, 2002)

know what I love about LotR spoilers? ... 

since I've read the books, it's not really spoiled 

... I just keep getting more and more envious that I have to wait until this weekend (gf pulled the guilt strings on me! ...*what? you'd go with out me?* ... umm ... umm ... no! of course not!)

Or I might wait until the 24th and see it with my brother (ah, life is good when older brother is a bigger geek than you)


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2002)

Well we still have something these "saw it already" people have lost -- a chance to see it for the first time.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 18, 2002)

*Re*

That was the most awsome film I have ever seen. 

Though I prefer the books handling of many scenes, I can understand why Jackson changed alot. These are movies are 3 hours and they can barely show character development for the main characters, much less all the side characters.

I forgive Peter Jackson for attempting to use brutal, obvious changes to build character such as with Faramir and Theoden. I think they are being used as instruments to allow the main characters to shine.

I am still in utter awe. I can think of no movie that matches TTT for scenery and effects. TTT has the kind of scenery that goes through my mind when I play D&D. 

I loved it. Best movie of its kind of all time, and one of the best movies of all time period based on a trilogy of the best books of all time. 

Unbelievably good.


----------



## KenM (Dec 19, 2002)

I really liked TTT but I have to agree with what someone else said, the backround with treebeard in some scenes did not look right to me either. Gimli steals it.   My only beef is that once Merry and Pippin get to treebeard, they basically have NOTHING to do.  These are major characters just wasted, IMO. I never read book, so don't know if this was Jackson's or JRRT fault.


----------



## Broken Fang (Dec 19, 2002)

We also saw it at midnight (wife, daughter - the 6 yr old, two of my 8th grade students, and one of their parents).

Thought it was great...can't decide if the first was best (because it was after all the first) or this one was best (because of it epic scale).

Faramir was probably our only gripe.  We loved everything else.  Deeann, our 6 yr old, thought this one was not scary at all!  After her two hour nap, she bounced wide-eyed in her seat the entire length of the movie.  She couldn't stop talking about it on the car ride home.

We are also going to see it a few more times over Christmas break...soo much to take in you know you missed things!

Don't think this was mentioned yet but we thought Wormtongue was excellent!


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2002)

*well*

dissapointed with it.  too much changed for no apparant benefit.  mostly, im just sick of gimili being a fool.  bah!

its still a good movie, but not the movie i expected after FotR.


joe b.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 19, 2002)

I'll preface this by saying that the movie will probably grow on me. And I very much liked the portrayal of Edoras and Rohorrim, the Ents, Gollum, and even the Wargs looked right. Visually, it was a very impressive film. Eowyn was perfect too.

On the other hand, the characterization seemed off. It was as if Peter Jackson wasn't about to let any of the male characters be willing to get with the program without being pushed into it by a woman, a hobbit, or necessity. The most noticable changes were in Treebeard and Faramir's characters. In the book, both of them recognize the situation and are able to decide to do the right thing more or less immediately (for Treebeard though, immediate needs to be defined in entish terms). In the movie, "time for Faramir to show his quality" takes on exactly the opposite meaning because, unlike in the book, he fails the test. Given that this change meant cutting dialogue (between Frodo and Farmir at their initial meeting and Sam accidentally giving away that Frodo has the Ring) in favor of adding battle scenes which weren't in the book (battle of Osgiliath, the warg attack) into a movie that already was chock full of battle sequences, it really rankled.

Less obnoxious changes included Theoden's resentment towards Gondor and Elrond's desire to leave middle earth rather than fight it out. The arrival of the elves at Helm's Deep was almost a neutral change except that I gather they're supposed to represent Elrond being convinced to aid in the battle. If that's the case, it makes no sense that Haldir would be the one to show up. He's one of the Galadhrim.

Even Aragorn got into the act. In the portion leading up to the battle of Helm's Deep, it seemed like he never got around to deciding whether he was going to counsel Theoden to courage or give in to despair himself. It was only when he realized there was no way out that he really began acting consistently.


----------



## KChagga (Dec 19, 2002)

I really enjoyed this movie.  For the most part I think that the changes from the book worked quite well in the movie.  The warg battle in particulur was needed to pick up the movie a little.  Although I found the ending of that scene totally unnecessary.  There really was no need for it and it didn't add anything to the movie.
One thing I didn't like was the ent voices.  From the books I had the impression that ent voices were very loud and bellowing.  The voices should have rocked the theatre with bass.  HOOOMM-HUUUMMMM.  They also should have had Merry and Pippin drink the ent drink.  Now they can't have them grow taller in the next movie.  Probably an extended edition scene.
Just imagine if they made the battle at Helm's Deep this good then the battle for Minas Tirith is going to be friggin unbelievable.

My copy of FoTR is from the 70's(my mother's copy) and it clearly says that the two towers is Orthanc and Barad Dur.

Overall the worst thing about this movie is waiting 365 days to see the next one


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 19, 2002)

Great movie, go see it.

My only gripe: Enough with the Elvish already. 

A little goes a long way.

ps. Tolkien was ambiguous about that the Two Towers referred to. Check out this page for reference


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 19, 2002)

Second viewing, and man, I liked it more this time. It went much more quickly, and I didn't have that jolted sense of Uh-Oh going into the first half-hour. Ahhh... and Gimli just endeared himself further to me. I shouted with glee when he was tossed. 

Something I didn't mention before, that's almost a nitpick: Theoden under Saruman's spell. From the book's description, I got the impression that Theoden was just feeling and acting older, not looking it at all. I was expecting Bernard Hill to do a fine job of straightening in his throne and making me believe he'd been FEELING older than he was, but the movie gave us the really really (really) old and quite nasty King Theoden. I'm almost disappointed, but I liked the movie's take on it as well. I shrugged and kept on enjoying. 

Wormtongue- excellent. 

There's nothing like being in the theater with a good crowd- both times I've seen it, there've been cheers for Gimli's acts, Legolas's horse-vault, and that one flaming ent dousing himself in the flood. It's terrific to watch a movie that way- hearing the gasps, laughs, and cheers doubles the effect for me, and makes me grin like a stupid ninny. EXCEPT- both times, the theater laughed at Gollum's mono-dialogue. I feel like it was a very serious and dangerous thing we were watching (for the most part), and the crowd were chuckling at him like "oh, the silly little imp, ha ha." 

I'm more and more pleased with this movie. I think at this point I'm as jazzed as I was last year after my second viewing, and that's saying a hell of a lot. I'd love to buy PJ a drink, and I wish his family a very happy holiday season, and many to come. 

I always get sappy when I'm overjoyed. Smack me already.


----------



## Cullain (Dec 19, 2002)

*commercials*



> What is the deal with commercials before the movie and who gets paid fr them the theater or the movie company? I can see commercials before crappy low expectation movies, but this movie will make more money on opening weekend than my entire neighborhood will make their entire lives. What's the deal?




The movie theaters get the money from those commercials.  The movie theatres get very little money from the tickets sold, most of their income is from refreshment sales, and things like those ads.  I can't stand the commercials myself, but people haven't really complained all that much about them, so there here to stay, at least for the forseeable future.

Cullain


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2002)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> *There's nothing like being in the theater with a good crowd- both times I've seen it, there've been cheers for Gimli's acts, Legolas's horse-vault, and that one flaming ent dousing himself in the flood. It's terrific to watch a movie that way- hearing the gasps, laughs, and cheers doubles the effect for me, and makes me grin like a stupid ninny. EXCEPT- both times, the theater laughed at Gollum's mono-dialogue. I feel like it was a very serious and dangerous thing we were watching (for the most part), and the crowd were chuckling at him like "oh, the silly little imp, ha ha." *




I had the same experience.  I just chocked it up to those who hadn't read the book didn't really know what was going on in side the wretched creatures head.  Of course, Jackson helped that response along by making gollum a bit more comedic than in the story.

Also, in recent Pop memory, jar-jar binks and dobie the elf (the other all-animated creatures of significance) were also played in a comedic manner.  It doesn't help that in the language of the characters is similiar (ie. butchered english third person I stuff) and i think that that's another unconscious clue the audience is picking up on.  Again, were they to have read the books, they'd know gollum really spoke like that 50 years ago or so.

Jackson hinted at the golum=frodo aspect, and that was nice, but i think it would have been more interesting were it less comedic and more dangerous.  

'course, i could be wrong... 

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: commercials*



			
				Cullain said:
			
		

> * The movie theaters get the money from those commercials.  The movie theatres get very little money from the tickets sold, most of their income is from refreshment sales, and things like those ads.  I can't stand the commercials myself, but people haven't really complained all that much about them, so there here to stay, at least for the forseeable future.
> 
> Cullain *




I've read somewhere that commercials in movies are something like 400% more memerable than tv commercials.  if you want them to go away, complain to the theatre and if your ever polled about commercials just go.. "what?  i didn't notice"..  ?

They'll listen to that.  I worked for the Gallup poll and people that don't have a clue get listened to a lot... 

joe b.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 19, 2002)

Greetings!

11:41 pm, Wednesday, December 18, 2002.

I went and saw "The Two Towers" with my best friend Chris and his niece. We went to a 530 pm show, and I got home at about 9:00 pm. 

Wow! The movie is simply fantastic! I loved it! It really is quite excellent! I fully realise that there are differences in the mediums between movies and books, so I generally make broad allowances for that reality. I have read Tolkien's books many times, though it has been a few years since I read them last.

First, the things that I really liked about the film:

(1) The setting and scenery were really cool. Just fantastic stuff, and very vivid.

(2) The acting was excellent, the characterization in general was very good. 

(3) The pacing was active, dramatic, and exciting.

(4) The creatures--the Ents, the Wargs, the Orcs, Uruk-Hai, Gollum, the Fell Beasts, and the Oliphants. All were really cool. I especially thought the wargs were interesting, as well as the Uruk-Hai. I think the Uruk-Hai are very well done--it makes the visualization of these savage, utterly ruthless and ferocious humanoid monsters very vivid. The Oliphants made my mouth drop open! I knew they were huge--from the books, I figured they were like the size of a prehistoric mammoth, perhaps even a bit larger. I didn't think that they were ten stories or whatever high! I couldn't believe how huge they were! Damn! You can forget about a Howdah with a few archers on their backs! These guys had a company of archers fighting from their backs! That was incredible to me. Gollum was very cool too, and especially effective while displaying the dual personality, and the struggle within himself back and forth. Really superb!

(5) The music, the action, the costumes, it was all very good.

The bad: Well, I don't really have anything bad to say. The movie was excellent, and I will no doubt see it again many times. On Friday I will be seeing it with my wife, and I will probably see it with some friends again over the weekend. Beyond that, which would be my third time seeing it, I will probably see it at at least twice in the next few weeks. Before long, I suppose I'll see it about six times. Geez, what a geek, huh? LOL! Well, anyways, here are a few things:

My friend Chris felt somewhat let down from the movie. He actually thought there could have been less combat and "spectacle" and more of the moral dimensions and characterizations that were going on with the different characters and their relationships from the books. For example--

When Gandalf and company were at Edoras in the books, there was much more tension and characterization going on than the movie depicts--the movie makes it seem like a night or two at most, and everything has changed. Eomer also had far more going on in the books than in the movie, which I agree is a slight disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing more of Eomer.

Eowyn: Granted, she doesn't kick butt until Return of the King, but in the books, even in The Two Towers, she was much more of a heroic, aggressive, passionate woman than shown in the movie. In the books, her boldness, her desire for combat, her force of personality is far more evident than in the movie. In the movie, she serves little more than to fawn and moon over Aragorn. Indeed, it isn't far-fetched to have her admire and want to love Aragorn. But that is chiefly what she does in the movie, with lip service and a few sentences given to her and in her regard about fighting or being a vibrant character, if you see what I mean. Eowyn can be seen as a kind of disappointment, and I agree that they could have done and shown more with her character.

The Orcs and the Uruk-Hai: Now, I realise that these are monsters meant to die, but in the books, there were actually several nights involved where they had the hobbits Merry and Pippin as prisoners, and the orcs even healed the hobbits in the books, and had conversations with them. A small point, perhaps, but it was an interesting part, and one that showed more depth to the orcs and the Uruk-Hai than just creatures that grunt. They argued and fought over the hobbits, and there was more depth shown to them in the books than in the movie. In the movie, they argue a few sentences, and then "Swoosh!" they are attacked at night and they are all killed. There just isn't much shown to the ordeal as experienced by the hobbits, when in the books, these experiences were very important for Merry and Pippin as characters, and as their characters grew and matured. This was very loosely refered to in the movie, and not as good as it could have been done.

The Arwen Romance: It would be fine to show the emotional importance by a few quick "visions" for Aragorn, perhaps with a brief sentence or two--even a few of these with Arwen looking at him or touching him standing in a balcony or wherever would have conveyed the same message that I think they were trying to convey--that is, the emotional importance of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, and her being immortal, and so on. The scenes in the movie with her doing this were a bit long, and didn't need to be so, whereas a shorter bit could have accomplished the same impact. This could have freed up five or ten minutes or whatever for some other elements to be shown and developed that weren't, as noted above.

Gandalf and the Balrog: Again, while cool, it could have been abbreviated, and more time freed up to do something *more* important and meaningful. Gandalf didn't need to be shown with the resurrection scene with him seeing the stars and so on. That all could have been just as effectively depicted with a sentence or two from him and a white fading scene from him fighting the balrog to him being in front of the company. Again, more time could have been gained by cutting here and freeing it up for more interesting scenes that develop the story more forward, in plot and or characterization.

Faramir: What is up with their characterization of Faramir? He's ok, but in the books he has a much more striking, take charge kind of personality, and yet one of dignity, wisdom, and coolness. He wasn't really portrayed that way in the movie, and he seemed kind of muted, reduced, just kind of making quick decisions that seemed the easiest. This isn't really the way he was portrayed in the book. In addition, the whole sequence where the hobbits are taken to Osgilliath, and where Frodo encounters the Nazgul on the Fell Beast. Fell Beasts are cool and all, but this whole sequence didn't seem to advance very much. They were in the forest and the secret waterfall caves, they leave and go to Osgilliath, there are some brief fight scenes, Frodo wants to give the ring to a Nazgul, and then they talk with Faramir briefly, and suddenly they are on their way back out into the wilderness. If I recall correctly, Faramir never did take them to Osgilliath, but in fact stayed in the secret cave area, before letting them continue their quest with his blessing and guidance. Thus, the whole trip to the city and the nazgul scene was somewhat awkward and disjointed.

Gimli and Legolas: Indeed, in the books, there is far more advancement and friendship between these characters than what is shown in the movie. The movie glosses over them pretty quick, and I don't recall Gimli being the butt of jokes or the laugh-factor as much as they are doing so in the movie. It is good, to an extent, but in the books their personalities and their relationship is far more developed than Gimli being somewhat the comic-relief. Legolas I think was more developed as well, and seems to have much too brief screen time. A bit more would develop his character better as well. 

These were the substance of a set of relatively minor critiques of the film that my friend Chris explained. I generally agree with them as well, perhaps not to the same degree though. I explained to him, and I submit that indeed, these minor critiques are valid--to a point--but the question arise, aside from a few minutes, some indeed, but lets be honest, not that many--maybe ten minutes, fifteen tops, could have been cut and edited to make room for something else--the movie was three hours long. There wasn't much room to cut things to add all the other stuff into it. There just isn't the time. They could have done six three hour movies, released six months apart, instead of a year for three movies, and they still no doubt would have parts left out and parts that needed to be changed. Again, it was three hours long. By cutting this from the movie to add that, you lose here to gain over there. It isn't an easy process I am sure, and I imagine if I or any here were an editor/writer involved with the movie we would be pulling our hair out as well, because no matter what you include of all the vital and interesting things going on, you can't have it all, and there is always huge things that need to be left out, so these over here can stay, you know? A very tough task I imagine. I suppose that is why I am personally kind of relaxed about getting too critical of the film for these issues, because if the things I mentioned were added in, well, good, but then you would have to cut some of the combat scenes, or the army scenes that were cool, or somewhere else in the film. If that was done, then you would have other people I imagine complaining that yes, while this was in the movie--these good characterizations, or whatever, it didn't have enough action in it, or the pacing was awkward, or it should have had *this* or *that* in it, and so on. I mean, where does it end, you know? You've only got three hours, and everything can't be in the movie, no matter how much of a purist I am, and might like the movie to have. I relaise this, and I am content with the excellent movie they made.

Very good stuff, and it is clearly going to be an all-time classic, like the first in the series. I am looking forward to seeing it again with my wife. Truly an excellent film!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 19, 2002)

Well, I haven't much to add, so I'll keep it brief:

I _loved_ this movie.

I thought the dialogue and the acting were great.

I had no problem with Gimli being the comic relief, because he was still a formidable character when it counted, and because it flowed naturally from the character, rather than feeling forced.

I didn't really object to any of the changes from the book.

If I _had_ to pick a favorite, I'd say I liked FotR a little bit more--but only a bit.  This is still one of my favorite movies ever.

Incidentally, did anyone else think that Gollum's voice sounded like the love child of Yoda and Gurgi?


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 19, 2002)

Great film.

Around the time of the ripping down of the damn, and the forces of nature overpowering the hubris of man (destroying Orthanc), I was smacked upside the head with the entire SPECTACLE of it all.

Truly a unique movie, who's visual delights are not to be taken lightly.


----------



## KenM (Dec 19, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *
> What is the deal with commercials before the movie and who gets paid fr them the theater or the movie company?  I can see commercials before crappy low expectation movies, but this movie will make more money on opening weekend than my entire neighborhood will make their entire lives.  What's the deal? *





  Commercials before movies have been going on for a few years now, sucks. Someone else said that the commercials before movies arebetter then the ones on TV, they are the same ones. At least when I saw TTT, the just had trailers, no ads.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 19, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I'm not saying it's a good change or a bad change.  But for me the change at least answers a question:  If Faramir is so resistant to the lure of the ring (as he is in the book), then why doesn't HE carry it to Mount Doom?
> 
> I think they're going to get Faramir to the same place (character-wise), just taking a different road.  For me, it kinda has the potential to work like this:
> 
> ...




Faramir isn't so resistant to the ring that he's going to carry it into Mordor and he's got the wisdom to know that. That's one of the things that sets him off from Boromir. He's a man who knows the limitations of men, something I think lost on Boromir and even his father Denethor. He's much more in tune with the thoughts of elves and wizards and has their wisdom on the subject. Sending the hobbits along with a little thought would have been enough to clue us in that he's not the same as Boromir. Right now, we aren't so sure. Yes, he did send Frodo along but only after an encounter in which the ring nearly fell into the hands of a wraith. Now, seeing something like that, would you come to the conclusion that 2 hobbits and a debased hobbit would be able to get the ring to Mount Doom to destroy the ring? Or would you realize that this little hobbit is screwed and you'd better get the ring to some deep protected hole in Minas Tirith?
In the book, Faramir comes to his conclusion on its own merits from his own wisdom making him much stronger than Boromir in that regard.

But ultimately, it's not Faramir who needs to change in the overall narrative. He's fine and upstanding. He'll go through a rough patch due to a wound and personal loss, but not a major change. He's a catalyst for other people to change: for his father to come to realize his love and for Eowyn to find a non-suffocating destiny.


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 19, 2002)

I have too many thoughts spinning through my head after seeing it last night, and way too little time today to write them down. For now, I'll just say that I thought this one was better than the first. FELLOWSHIP introduced characters and made them like them, while this movie takes no more than a few mintues to throw us back into their world and watch them strive and change.

As for those who are grousing and feel a bit let down: I think they went into the movie thinking that they would be blow away like they were by the first movie. They have to remember that past of the reason the first movie was so amazing was that there were no fantasy movies of that caliber - ever - until it came out. Now that we've seem FotR, they expected TT to be as big a jump up from FotR as FotR was from, say, THE BEASTMASTER. I went in wanting to return to that world, and expected the same quality of storytelling, cinematography, action and acting as the first - and I *LOVED* it!

So much to think about.... How many times was the word "hope" used? The matter of Gollum (wonderfully realized!)? Theoden's loss (and for those of you who have never lost a child, I hope you never have to realize how true and real Theoden's character and actions were after having to bury his son)? How godlike is Bob Anderson (fight choreographer)? How many good gaming ideas did we get from that movie? And how many potential life lessons?

Great art asks questions, and points the way to possible resolutions. We're seeing great art unfold in front of us, and cinematic history being made. Enjoy it.


----------



## Ziona (Dec 19, 2002)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> *As for those who are grousing and feel a bit let down: I think they went into the movie thinking that they would be blown away like they were by the first movie. They have to remember that part of the reason the first movie was so amazing was that there were no fantasy movies of that caliber - ever - until it came out. Now that we've seem FotR, they expected TTT to be as big a jump up from FotR as FotR was from, say, THE BEASTMASTER. I went in wanting to return to that world, and expected the same quality of storytelling, cinematography, action and acting as the first - and I *LOVED* it!*




My thoughts exactly!!  

This movie really sticks with you, too. I may be at work right now, but my mind is still in Middle Earth...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: well*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *dissapointed with it.  too much changed for no apparant benefit.  mostly, im just sick of gimili being a fool.  bah!
> 
> its still a good movie, but not the movie i expected after FotR.*




I'll start by seconding that. It's a perfect recap of my opinion, but I'll expound on it a bit.

I was disappointed with it, mostly because of all the departures from the book for no reason. Faramir is chief among these, but I was also disappointed in the handling of the Ents.

I don't mind Gimli being the comic relief but the dwarf-tossing was unnecessary. We got that joke the first time.

Just too many things that were added to make it "more like a movie." That's all.

It's not remotely the film that Fellowship was, a lesser effort in almost every way: pacing, mood, emotion, character development, and faithfulness to the books. TTT wins for action and SFX, and that's it. But, in all fairness, I am judging from having seen Fellowship about a dozen times, including the extended DVD.

I'll give TTT a few more viewing to grow on me!


Wulf


----------



## emergent (Dec 19, 2002)

*Faramir*

One thing to consider with the Faramir change is, I think, how it's going to work out in the final film.

(ROTK book spoilers to follow)


In the book, Faramir is wise and good.  He lets Frodo go, with help and blessing, without being tempted by the Ring.  But he also has problems with his father, which is why he is out in Ithilien in the first place.  He tries to make some peace with Denethor, who just ends up burning himself alive.  I am not sure, but I don't remember much explanation for why Denethor and Faramir did not get along in the novel.

In the movie, by having Faramir tempted and then letting Frodo go, you easily establish:  1.  Faramir is a loyal man of Gondor and very much Boromir's brother and 2.  some very easily understood reasons for Dentethor to be angry at Faramir.  That's why there was that whole "Your life will be forfeit" bit.

All in all, I like the book Faramir much better, but understand why the movie Faramir was different.  ROTK will have enough to do, as a movie, without having to set up the Faramir/Denethor relationship.  Now, it's just "Denethor is mad because Faramir let the Ring go" and that's good enough.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: commercials*



			
				Cullain said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The movie theaters get the money from those commercials.  The movie theatres get very little money from the tickets sold, most of their income is from refreshment sales, and things like those ads.  I can't stand the commercials myself, but people haven't really complained all that much about them, so there here to stay, at least for the forseeable future.
> 
> Cullain *




I won't mind the commercials anymore if the theater owners get the cash.  I understand that the owners get almost nothing from the first 2 weeks of ticket sales and after that their share goes up.  I just did not want to see the movie companies getting more cash off of a cash cow.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 19, 2002)

Beware!!! The CAPalert guy (www.capalert.com) has put up his analysis of all the things about this movie that will speed us on the rocket train to hell. REPENT NOW!







Wanton Violence/Crime (W):

evil beast attack 
great falls 
action violence, repeatedly 
violent battle with incendiary beast 
battle with demon-like creatures 
invasive imagery of demon-like evil, grotesque beasts, repeatedly 
graphic injuries and deaths, repeatedly 
hideous gruesome demon-like faces, repeatedly 
graphic battles with the demon-like evil, grotesque beasts (Orcs), repeatedly 
many graphic deaths 
sword/spear threats, repeatedly 
Orc's head on a pole 
"un"dead bodies underwater 
many arrow deaths and other impalement deaths 
great battle with demon dogs 
human tossed by demon dog like a rag doll 
many attacks by demon dogs 
eating raw flesh 
long and graphic battle sequences, repeatedly 
bodies flying through the air 
bodies being scattered by great stones tossed 
exceptionally graphic death 
hundreds of dead bodies strewn about 
planning murder 

Impudence/Hate (I)(1):

brutality, repeatedly 
lie 

Sex/Homosexuality (S):

multiple angles and positions of a scantily clad male humanoid 
full side nudity, male, repeatedly 
woman on man kissing, clothed 

Drugs/Alcohol (D):

smoking 

Offense to God (O)(2):

unholy influence on thinking 
tale of evil control over "good" 
sorcery to defeat beast 
gaiaism (talking trees), repeatedly
psychic premonitions and possessions, repeatedly 
"all-knowing wizard" 
unholy apparitions 
the "undead" terrorizing others 
mockery of the Transformation 
sorcery to defend 
sorcery to do battle with evil beast 
resurrection, mockery of the Transformation 
casting out demon 
miraculous reverse aging 
creatures claiming immorality 
crystal ball sorcery 
foretelling future 
demon possession 

Murder/Suicide (M)(3):

mass murder 
beheading murder


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2002)

Just saw it a second time too -- liked it better than the first.  I can't wait for that day, a year and a half from now, when the kids are out of town (probably my wife too, unfortunately) when I've got all three extended DVDs and nothing to do in front of me so I can watch the whole saga unfold at once.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 19, 2002)

I just figured out why I have been so excited about this move, besides it being a great movie.  My wife, who is not big on high fantasy really liked the movie and has discussed it with me several times.  I told her I would turn her into a nerd


----------



## ghettognome (Dec 19, 2002)

I don't understand how so many people say the first movie followed so true to the book. I think they were as different as night and day with the exception of a few things here and there. Have you read the first book, then watched the movie right aferwards? I did that, and I was really disappointed at how even some character personalities changed. I loved the movie, don't get me wrong, but it seems people are only remembering main points out of the first book to compare the movie, TTT seemed to be more true to the book than the first one. I think that is why I liked TTT better than the first one. I will probably be the only one to say I liked TTT better, but oh well.  Though I would say that I liked the soundtrack to the first one better. I would comment further but it looks like everything was stated already.


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 20, 2002)

As a die-hard Tolkien fan, I loved the film.

Bring on the extended edition DVD!

BTW, my brother, who is not a Tolkien or fantasy fan at all, really enjoyed TTT as well.  Much moreso than he enjoyed FOTR.


----------



## Lady Starhawk (Dec 20, 2002)

Well, just got home a bit aog from seeing it.  I loved it!!! It was everything I hoped it would be and more.  I can't wait to see the next one.

Not sure if anyone else noticed this, but throughout most (if not all) of the movie Gollum speaks of himself as 'us',  'we' and such...but his last line of the movie (after he said 'We'll take them to her') was "follow *Me*".  As if he was finally a whole being again after making his decision.  MAybe I'm trying to make something of nothing...but it struck me.

I loved Gimli.  He's just so great!  I didn't mind the dwarf jokes, I thought it made the characters seem a bit more realistic.  I mean every group of freinds has at least 1 person that gets ribbed all the time (IME).  It broke the tension and let you know the characters are really freinds in that they can mess around even in the middle of dire circumstances.

Tolkien was a lousy writer.  Brilliant man, but lousy writer.  He had a wonderful story to tell, but he did it in such a dry, textbook way.  (I know he was a linguistics professor, but I read novels to ESCAPE from my textbooks.)  And yes I did read the triology...but it was a very difficult, dry read to this dyslexic.  I liked the books all right, but it took a lot of work, and a lot of help, to get me through them.

Overall I liked the chagnes from the books.  I didn't really think of the book at all when I was watching because to me film and the printed page are such diffrent mediums they really can't and shouldn't be compared.  

I had some trouble pinning down some of the characters and their motivations, but hopefully future viweings will sort everything out for me.  It was so much to take in at once.

I didn't leave the theater feeling quite as jazzed as I did a year ago.  Last year after seeing 'fellowship' I was floored at the wonderful film making and the different emotions I went through during the film.  I was not moved to tears today.  In fellowship I ended up actually crying during the movie.  It absorbed me into the story and the characters so much that I felt the losses.  Now, perhaps I didn't get the same feelings because I have read the books and know that (for instance) Aragorn doesn't die.  so some of the shock isn't there as it was in Fellowship.  But sometimes when I actively watch my DVD of fellowship I can find myself moved to tears to this day for Gandalf and/or Boromir.

All in all a wonderful movie.  I was impressed and amazed at every turn, but I was a little disappointed that I wasn't as emotionally drawn into the film as I was with the first one.  It didn't take me through the range of emotions, so I left feeling a little flat, full and satisfied, but just a little 'blah' emotionally.

But as with the new Star Wars movies, I am going to reserve my final judgement for after I have seen all 3 and know WHY certain things were done.  (But I have a feeling LOTR will fare better than the prequel SW movies)

Just my thoughts,  I am still going to see it again 
Lady starhawk


----------



## Droogie (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: well*



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll start by seconding that. It's a perfect recap of my opinion, but I'll expound on it a bit.
> 
> ...




A third vote for this view. I like this film, but not as much as the first. Too much of a departure form the book. Too obvious of an attempt to turn this into a wall-to-wall actioner. 

Acting wasn't as good in this one...the Theoden exorcism scene was over the top.

I felt the music was a bit obtrusive in this film. There was never a moment of peace from it- those whining strings were always  in the background like a gnat. 

Gandalf only cameos in this film, but then again, he wasn't in the book that much. Merry and Pippin could have received a little more love. 

FotR was a fantastic film, worthy of a best picture oscar. TTT is merely a fantastic fantasy film. FotR: 4 stars. TTT: Three stars.


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 20, 2002)

Interesting quote from PJ, from the New Zealand Herald newspaper:

"(Two Towers was) the most difficult of the three films, the structure. It was the weakest story in a funny kind of way. We had to craft the shape of a movie out of these very disparate storylines that were going in all directions."

Pretty obvious, but bears reaffirmation.


----------



## Squire James (Dec 20, 2002)

Was it my imagination, or did Aragorn call the elf leader at Helm's Deep "Elladan"?  Did they just kill off a son of Elrond?!


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

Naw, it was your imagination.  That was Haldir, from Lothlorien.


----------



## Renaissance Man (Dec 20, 2002)

I too was vaguely dissatisfied with the second installment, for many of the same reasons that have been recounted by others.  (Faramir especially.) To that list, I would add the omission of Minas Morgul - I think PJ missed an opportunity to give the audience an epic case of heebie jeebies.  Not to mention the spectacle of Mordor's army issuing from the city gates!

Alas, camparisons to the books - for those who have read them - are inevitable.  But I am trying to enjoy the film for what it is, not what it is not.  And I think it will continue to grow on me with repeated viewings.  (I plan to see it for the second time tonight.)


----------



## Mr Fidgit (Dec 20, 2002)

*Re: Another review ...*



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> * Faramir came of faintly sleazy to me (which probably also has something to do with a vague resemblance to the actor who played the Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves).*



Alan Rickman, who also plays Prof Snape in the Harry Potter films (among many other roles). David Wenham (Faramir) looked awfully familiar to me too - i know he's been in Dark City (and Moulin Rouge - which i haven't seen)


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> * My wife kept asking: "Why don't the Ents get swept away by the water, too?" *



i think because they re-rooted (but don't quote me on that  )

some other comments:

for those of you who don't like commercials before the previews - we have the US Army to thank for that (they were the first to take their TV commercial and put them into theaters)

we saw previews for T3, the Core, and teasers for Dumb and Dumberer and some others that left no impression on me (we didn't get Bad Boys 2 - who's in it?)

i have read the Trilogy, but it's been so long i don't remember all of the details from the books (thankfully)

i don't mind the Gimli 'toss me - but don't tell the elf', but does the character have to be the butt of _every_ joke? running across the plain, trapped under a Worg, standing at the wall - enough already!

Ents vs Isengard; my favorite part of the film

--the thing that bugged me most was the editing, or rather, the cuts between scenes. too much, too quickly (at points) IMO

(to go way back) i didn't hate the "freaked-out, green, 'you-wouldn't-like-me-when-i'm-angry' Gladriel from TFotR. it kind of reminded me of a part of Snow White (wicked witch gettin' nasty)

over, i liked FotR better, but this still gets two thumbs up


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 20, 2002)

Before I begin my rant (and it’s a long one) let me warn everyone that there are lots of spoilers. Read this only after seeing the movie. Also, this is all just my opinion. While a fan of the novels, I haven’t read them in a bit. I’m not a purist. However, I couldn’t just turn off my critical faculties while watching the movie, and I don’t think I should have to.

If you are still interested in reading my thoughts, read on.

While I would absolutely recommend seeing the movies, and there are some really great moments, Peter Jackson has strayed quite far from the source materiel and, unlike “Fellowship of the Ring”, has done so without any apparent logical purpose.

However, if you have never read the book, while there are problems with plot (extraneous elements that seem to serve no purpose and weak or stereotypical characterization are the two biggest cinematic problems having nothing to do with adaption) they are minor and should not impede your enjoyment. I would love this movie much more if I had never read the book. However, having read the book, and as this is an adaption, I cannot divorce it from its source material.

There are many minor quibbles that can be ignored, such as the attack of the Warg-Riders in Rohan, Theoden actually being possessed by Saruman rather than just being a victim of poor counsel and ruinous neglect, and Smeagol ridding himself of Gollum until the betrayal by Frodo and capture by Faramir’s rangers. These are all examples of changes made that, in some cases, make for better cinema and action and in other cases are just easier for the viewing audience who haven’t read the book to understand.

However, the massive changes made to some of the characters seem like missteps. Two glaring examples are Faramir and Theoden. Faramir, in the book, is an example that the men of Gondor are not all Boromir, thirsting for power, but rather some still have the blood of Numenor flowing their veins. Also, the genuine nobility of Faramir is what draws Eowyn to him, why they marry and flourish. Now, Mr. Jackson might be getting rid of that romance all together, which would be odd since he gives so much time to the romance of Aragorn and Arwen. However, who knows? The Faramir of the movie is simply Boromir 2 (He’s back, he’s not Sean Bean but he still wants the ring, it’s “Faramir: Boromir 2, the Revenge”!). And what, pray tell, moves him to change his mind? Is it that sappy, maudlin speech by Sam? (Someone mentioned to me that it proves Sean Astin is a great actor because that particular viewer didn’t have an overwhelming urge to throttle him after such rank cheerleading) I mean, the fact that the Nazgul want it should make him more adamant about not sending Frodo into Mordor rather than making him print up Frodo’s ticket. This Faramir only reinforces the fact that there’s a good reason Aragorn doesn’t want to be King of Gondor, ‘cause everyone in Gondor is such a bastard.

And then there’s Theoden. In the book, once the clouds are lifted, once the work of Grima’s whisperings has been reversed by Gandalf (and not through exorcism, but we won’t go there), Theoden becomes a decisive, strong king, understanding the threat to Rohan and acting to counter it. In this movie he’s in denial, apparently still senile, and while physically strong, is not decisive until the very end, egged on by Aragorn.

I think I see what Peter Jackson is doing. How many of you have not completely erased “Star Trek: Generations” from your mind? Remember the young captain of the new Enterprise, the guy played by Ferris Bueller’s buddy? How did such an indecisive idiot get to be captain of the flagship? The reason was so that Kirk could get to show how decisive and heroic he was. However, it is easy to be a hero among weaklings. Theoden is not allowed to be a powerful king and Faramir is not allowed to be noble so that Aragorn can stand all the higher. Heck, even Legolas (who was quite willing to chase down and possibly die in the attempt to wrestle Merry and Pippin away from countless Uruk-Hai) loses hope and worries about death. Only Aragorn stays strong. Problem is, how big of a hero are you if you are the *only* one who is heroic? Not much.

I laughed at the portrayal of Gimili, and I don’t mind them turning him into comic relief because he’s still such a bad-a$$ with an axe, but I much prefer the serious and dour Gimili of the books, because when he is touched by joy and wonder (by Galadriel and in the Glittering Caves) the glimpse of his interior we see is more astounding due to its rarity. However, that’s a minor quibble at best.

So, yes, a feast for the eyes. Helm’s Deep and Gollum are worth the price to see the movie. The battle scenes are great. The special effects are excellent. Definitely worth the price of admission. I’m very saddened, though, that Peter Jackson has lost what he had in “Fellowship of the Ring”, which was the sense to know what to change and what not to. I cannot find any compelling reason for the changes he made, other than arbitrariness.

In any case, thanks for letting me vent. This is all definitely the beginnings of a review that will go up later at http://www.atfantasy.com , though probably not until after Christmas.

Take care all!


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *Before I begin my rant (and it’s a long one) let me warn everyone that there are lots of spoilers. Read this only after seeing the movie. Also, this is all just my opinion. While a fan of the novels, I haven’t read them in a bit. I’m not a purist. However, I couldn’t just turn off my critical faculties while watching the movie, and I don’t think I should have to.*




I hope you realize that while you may not consider yoursewlf a purist, you're reviewing the movie as one, in that the only criticisms you seem to have lie in where the film deviated from the books.

Not that I entirely disagree with any of your individual points, mind.

My favorite stuff from the movie:

1)  Gandalf's fight with the balrog.  The descent itself is cool enough, but where the shot open up into that gigantic cavern with the underground sea?  Wow. _Then_, in the flashback, we see them battling atop Durin's Tower, at the peak of Caradhras, and the Balrog being thrown down the mountain.  Just awesome.

2)  The Easterlings.  It is just me or were they really cool-looking?

3)  The Haradrim.  Same thing, but with Oliphants!

4)  The Dead Marshes and the Corpse-Candles.  Very creepy.

5)  Frodo, Sam and Gollum hiding from the Nazgul.  The Fell Beast is genuinely scary.

6)  Helm's Deep in general.  Best siege ever on film.   Knowing this, I'm shaking at the mere prospect of seeing the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I hope you realize that while you may not consider yoursewlf a purist, you're reviewing the movie as one, in that the only criticisms you seem to have lie in where the film deviated from the books.
> *




Except that I noted there were problems outside of the adaption problems, such as extraneous elements that added nothing to the plot and some very stereotypical characterizations. I then went on to say “However, having read the book, and as this is an adaption, I cannot divorce it from its source material.” 

As for internal problems with the movie, without reference to the books, there are the extraneous elements. How many times does Aragorn need to think/dream/pine for Arwen before the audience, even those who have not seen the first movie, figure out they are in love? And the trip to Osgiliath was ridiculous simply from an internal logic sense, in that it only allows us to see more action (though you’d think after two rocks in the river ver close to the shore, somebody would figure the catapults or trebuchets or whatever needed a little more range) and have Faramir make an inexplicable change of heart. Some people have put up possible explanations, but, in all honesty, these same ends could be achieved without the trip. They are so close to Gondor, and then Faramir changes his mind?

These have nothing to do with the books, these are internal weaknesses in an already bloated film.

As for characterization, Saruman was all but twirling his waxed moustache, and in the hands of anybody but Christopher Lee could have come off quite campy. Bernard Law is a great actor, and with better lines, he might have at least made Theoden, as envisioned in the movie, sympathetic rather than petulant. If you can make Boromir a sympathetic character, and you want Theoden to be a bitter old man in denial, I think you can do a little better than this. As for Faramir, one minute he’s a standard bully, and the next he’s risking his life.

And please, someone tell me how one arrow drove off the Nazgul. I mean, the Ring is there. If it can’t see it, the Nazgul sure as heck can feel it. He was right there in front of Frodo. Then one arrow and bye-bye! How is he going to explain that one to the boss?

“Yes, master, the Ring was in my grasp, but they had arrows. Arrows! My fell beast even got pricked by one!”



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> Not that I entirely disagree with any of your individual points, mind.
> 
> My favorite stuff from the movie:
> ...




Yes, that stuff is all very cool. And I certainly am not saying this is a bad movie. I *am* saying that it is inferior to FotR.

And, yes, I am _so_ looking forward to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Just my 2 cents (maybe a little more)


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 20, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *Yes, that stuff is all very cool. And I certainly am not saying this is a bad movie. I am saying that it is inferior to FotR.*




And I agree with you.  Like I said, though, I expected this to be the weakest of the 3 movies.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 20, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And I agree with you.  Like I said, though, I expected this to be the weakest of the 3 movies. *




While it was a hope beyond hope, I had kind of dreamed of an "Empire Strikes Back" situation. Of course, I figured FotR would be a tough act to follow.

Ah well, flawed but fun movie. Can't wait for RotK.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 20, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *
> 
> “Yes, master, the Ring was in my grasp, but they had arrows. Arrows! My fell beast even got pricked by one!”
> 
> *




That's ok.  In the next one, the Witchking's spirit gets to come back to Sauron and say, "But master, they had a woman and hobbits with swords!"

All the while, the other Nazgul are whispering, "Hehe...he got killed by a chick!"


----------



## billd91 (Dec 20, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *
> 
> “Yes, master, the Ring was in my grasp, but they had arrows. Arrows! My fell beast even got pricked by one!”
> 
> *




Hey, don't underestimate those arrows. I think that Legolas might have dropped one of those fell beasts with an arrow as they were travelling down the Anduin.
Besides you don't have to drive off the nazgul with arrows, you just have to drive off its mount.


----------



## Destil (Dec 20, 2002)

On a whole, very cool. Quite good. 

My own nit picks are many of the same ones. While I don't mind Gilmi being the but of so many jokes. One in particular bothered me: The armor bit, since he's supposedly the only member of the fellowship openly wearing armor. Also, there's an OK line in the book, when he takes a shield with a horse on it: I'd rather bear a horse than have one bear me.

I think I would have liked Merry and Pippin a lot more if some of their cleverness / hobitness from this part of the book was left in, during the orc march. The cutting of the their ropes long before the fight and sitting down to eat some lembas just after escaping (something Aragorn mentions clearly shows that he's right that it's a hobbit he's teacking =D ) really has always been a large part defining them, and their interaction with the ents.

I think having Arwen (apperantly) already made up her mind to go to the undying lands is somwhat weak, and I think it's made a bit worse by her father's coaxing. In the book she has her mind set to stay with Aragorn until the bitter end and die as a mortal years before hand. Likewise Elrond, in the book, is somber about the war, since any way it ends it will mean sorrow for him, but still quite willing to go through with it. I really just fear this will come down making Arwen sound kinda like "Oh, you're the king now? Well, guess I could stay for that..." later. Though since Aragorn's request of marrying her appearantly isn't answered until he finds the sappling of the white tree, what's Elrond supposted to do if she's already crossed the sea? "Right, well.... I'll have the valar put her on the first ship back, then."

I wonder if Gondor has lost a lot of it's magesty within the films. From what we've seen, it's just a land of men. Nothing too special about it. It just dosn't seam reveared enugh, in the eyes of the rest of the world, particularly Theoidan's (If memory serves he lived there until he became king, and his wife was from Gondor. Given that the two kingdoms should have much faith in each other, it's a little disopointing to see him appear so resentful).

I'm a bit suprised at the elves showing up, since I had expected Arwen to take the place of her brothers, and bring Narsil with her...

Clearly they still try and mantain a lot of Tolkien's own words whenever possible (Gilmi's speach about female dwarves is right out of an appendex), which is nice. Sam and Frodo's story exposition has always been a favroite part, so it's a shame to see it re-worked as much as it was. 

Also, the shift in the ring affecting Frodo so visibly and overtly, even before he gets into Mordor, is interesting. The book had a far slower build up that never really came to any sort of climax like was seen here until the very end.

And of course I'm a bit disopointed that the ents didn't do any tree-root effects on the rocks of Isenguard, and at the lack of their rage once the fight really begain, where it was like a hurricane of hurlled rock within the walls once Skinbark was burnt.

And the're leaving a *lot* for The return of the king... Shelob, Cirth Ungol, The visit with Saruman...


----------



## Black Omega (Dec 20, 2002)

Even so, there is no truth to the rumor that RotK is working out to be so long the trilogy might become a quadrilogy and two years from now we'll be watching Return of the King II:  The stuff we couldn't fit in last time.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 21, 2002)

Yay, just got back from Two Towers!  Yay, I really liked it!  Good, good stuff. 

Some of the effects were pretty fake looking (hobbits riding Ents mostly, and when the riders rode from Helm's Deep -- some of the orcs they were overrunning seemed merge strangely with some of the horses...).  

Golum wasn't as mind-blowing visually as I expected, but the character & performance were great.  He's coming off very sympathetic, which is vital for the climax of film 3.  

I liked the Gimli/Aragorn/Legolas banter, I didn't feel like there was too much of that.     

The Faramir stuff was not anywhere near the problem I'd been hearing -- that turned out quite well in my opinion.  He doesn't have far to go to become the guy we know from the book, and it very handily sets up events for film 3.  I look forward to a second viewing -- it's almost required 

Film 3 will be staggering, I'm just so thrilled to be able to witness it all.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re*

The Faramir differences are greatly exaggerated. Faramir was not like his brother, and I could easily distinguish between the two.

Denham did a god job of portraying an extremely controlled war leader in a difficult situation with a difficult choice to make. Given that Jackson had to develop Faramir in short bursts, I see nothing wrong with the changes.

Faramir resisted the lure of the ring. He did this after Sam told him what happened to his brother and Frodo was nearly overwhelmed by its power. I believe this was meant to replace the sit down that Faramir, Frodo, and Same had while at the hidden caves. To me, this clearly showed Faramir made a decision for the greater good of Gondor based upon information he had seen and heard.

I could easily tell that he was less arrogant, less outspoken, and more wise than Boromir by the way he kept his thoughts and his feelings to himself. He did not covet nor even desire to see the ring. His motivation was to aid Gondor in its time of need, which was developed through the dialog.

Faramir is as he was in the book. A wise, humble, just leader of men who was not tempted by the ring, but concerned for the well-being of his home during a time of great crisis. He made the write choice, Jackson just used a different method of allowing Faramir to see why he should have made that choice.


----------



## Numion (Dec 21, 2002)

The first movie was excellent. This one.. well, wasn't. Why the warg riders? they just looked fake, and reminded of star wars. And why the stunt of aragorn jumping to the river? Why didn't they fit in something that _was_ in the book?

Also the flooding of isengard looked bad. The water was "too big", clearly indicating models. Too 70s catastrophe movie.


----------



## CrazyMage (Dec 21, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> * This Faramir only reinforces the fact that there’s a good reason Aragorn doesn’t want to be King of Gondor, ‘cause everyone in Gondor is such a bastard.*



  LOL

I echo most of the comments already made here (good film but with flaws), but there are two words that really make this movie enjoyable for me--Miranda Otto    

Definitely planning on seeing again, and not just for Eowyn either.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 21, 2002)

I really enjoyed it.

Dr. Midnight, I was one of the people laughing at Gollum's argument with himself -- but I wasn't laughing out of delight.  Rather, it was because the scene was so unbelievably freaky and creepy; it was both funny and terrifying, and laughter was something of a defense against that freakishness.

The change in Faramir's characterization disappointed me as well.  However, I figure that Peter Jackson knows a helluva lot more about directing movies and about LOTR than I do, and I figure that he and his coartists spent months agonizing over the script and plot to this movie, and I figure he has some very well-considered reasons for making the changes he made.  Ultimately, after seeing ROTK, I may still disagree with those changes -- I may armchair-quarterback the movie.  But I'll respect that this movie is his creation, and that he's a lot smarter about moviemaking than I'll ever be.

Daniel


----------



## Dr Midnight (Dec 21, 2002)

Numion said:
			
		

> *Also the flooding of isengard looked bad. The water was "too big", clearly indicating models. Too 70s catastrophe movie. *



I know what you mean, but I don't mind it as much as I minded the avalanche in the first movie... THAT was "too big" for me.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 21, 2002)

Hmm.  A Fell Beast (tm) driven off by a single arrow.  It's just so. . . unbelievable.  Yet, I feel like I've seen something like it before. . .

Oh, yeah. . .

SMAUG!

SMAUG!  SMAUG!  SMAUG!

A frickin' dragon got _killed_ by a single (albeit well-placed) arrow!

Could we please lay off of Faramir's miraculous archery skills and enjoy the first two parts of a [single] film (not the first two films of a trilogy) that I don't think any of us ever thought we would be fortunate enough to experience in our lifetimes?!


[Whew.  Sorry about that.]

I was just sitting here reading these various threads about TTT, and I suddenly realized why my eighth grade students get frustrated with me when I nitpick one of their favorite movies to death.  It's because they don't see the things I see when I watch the same movie.  They watch _Pearl Harbor_, and they see a movie with a wonderful, tragic love story against a backdrop of war driven by fantastic sfx.  I watch _Pearl Harbor_, and I see a horridly embarrassing attempt at a tragic love story that I can ignore because I think the fx are pretty impressive.

In other words, I'm glad that my usual nit-pickiness just seems to disappear when I watch LotR.  I don't suspend it out of love for the material; it just doesn't rear its ugly head.

I didn't see Faramir acting like a bastard in the movie.  I saw Faramir act in a way that is different from the second part of the book, and now I think, "Hmm, that's interesting.  I wonder why Peter Jackson chose to do that with his character?  What's that going to mean for the last part?"

I didn't see Theoden as a weak ruler plagued by doubt and indecision.  I saw Aragorn saying they should attack Saruman and Theoden trying to keep his people safe and give them hope by going to Helm's Deep.  I saw him needing a bit of support from Aragorn when things look darkest after the siege at Helm's Deep succeeds.  Then I saw him make one of the coolest, most heroic rides into battle ever, something straight out of MYTH for pity's sake, and I remember there is still another part of this giant film to go for him to show his truly noble spirit.

I didn't see Eowyn as weaker than her character appears in the book, because she stood up against Grima and she made it clear that she was not afraid to fight.  She just hasn't been given the chance yet, and oh yeah, there's still a whole three hours left in this humongous movie for her to show her strength as well.

I didn't see a sometimes laughable CGI creation when I saw Gollum.  I did laugh during the dialogue between Gollum/Smeagol, but it wasn't because I thought it was funny.  I can't explain why I laughed, and I think that is a tribute to the power of the character on screen.

I didn't see an underwhelming attack of the Ents on Isengard.  I saw a siege that made me say "Holy S**t!" several times while I was watching it.

I did see weak sfx at times, particularly when Merry and Pippin are riding Treebeard, but then I remembered that when I saw the first part of this enormous film on DVD, all of the sfx weaknesses disappeared because digital fx look best when viewed on a digital medium.

I didn't hear a whiny, screechy, recycled soundtrack.  I did hear an extension and continuation of a score that I have grown to love, a score with which I can visualize the scenes of the film when I am hearing it.  Heck, I even like Gollum's Song (it's creepy and pitiful and infuriating all at once), and I love the Rohan strings theme.


Basically, when I watch _The Lord of the Rings_, I am just glad that the nitpicks that others call weaknesses and flaws simply wash right over me as I bask in the world of the first two parts of the greatest movie ever made.
 

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 21, 2002)

Well, I loved it. Al of it. Without a doubt.

But Gimli had all the best dialogue


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 21, 2002)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *Well, I loved it. Al of it. Without a doubt.
> 
> But Gimli had all the best dialogue  *




I want everyone to stop what they are doing and read this simple but very wise post.  No more rehashing the same issues, no more tearing apart such minute details of a movie that no story or movie could ever survive without flaw, just no more.  Stop, and reread Tallarn's post.

I am a tired American,

Thank you.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 21, 2002)

I just returned from my second viewing.  I found that the second time through, I was less busy looking for plot nitpicks, and relaxed and enjoyed the film even more.

Really cool, the second time through.  I got to pick a lot more detail out of the fight scenes (like PJ's cameo), and wonder about some of the details -- like just what IS that amulet Gandalf is wearing?

Faramir still bugs me a little, but I'm over the rest of it.

Go see it again!  You know you wanna!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 21, 2002)

Faramir: I didn't see him as Boromir II, simply because I think Boromir would have TAKEN the ring given identical circumstances. Faramir is a man in a war, trying to decide what is best for his nation. When he thinks taking the ring to Gondor is the right thing, he moves to do that. When he realizes it's not, he stands up for what he believes.
I don't see Faramir as a bastard at all.

Theoden: I don't care about him, he merely existed to set the stage for the real heroes  Anyone that would hire a man named Wormtongue as an advisor deserves what he gets!

Gollum: Early on, I got the comparison between him and Jar Jar, which I've seen in many things. But, as he developed, he went out of that. In the end, where Gollum was concerned, I actually acheived suspension of disbelief enough to think that IS what an ancient cave dwelling insane hobbit would BE. Heck, he seems more real to me than Merry and Pippin


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 22, 2002)

billd91 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey, don't underestimate those arrows. I think that Legolas might have dropped one of those fell beasts with an arrow as they were travelling down the Anduin.
> Besides you don't have to drive off the nazgul with arrows, you just have to drive off its mount. *




Yeah, but the Ring's right there! Heck, Frodo's offering it to him. I mean, jump off the Fell Beast and grab it, or at least try. I mean, jeez, the nazgul gets back to Barad-dur and there's going to be a lot worse to face than a bunch of Gondorian infantry.

As for Legolas, in the movie, he hadn't even a fell beast. According to the books, yeah, the fell beasts were as vulnerable as the horses had been. The thing is, internal movie logic (because Peter's ignored the books in other areas) should make people say "What the frig?" when something like that happens.

Or not. I just thought it was pretty funny after they make the nazgul and the fell beasts out be so bad-@$$.

Take care all.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 22, 2002)

CrazyMage said:
			
		

> *
> I echo most of the comments already made here (good film but with flaws), but there are two words that really make this movie enjoyable for me--Miranda Otto    *




Abso-darn-lutely. Mr. Jackson did everything right with Eowyn. She's strong, stubborn, independent. It doesn't hurt that she's hot!

And I will also definitely see it again. There are parts I don't like, but overall, I think it's a fun movie. Again, I'd say it's inferior to FotR, but that's a tough rule to measure against.

Take care all.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 22, 2002)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *Faramir: I didn't see him as Boromir II, simply because I think Boromir would have TAKEN the ring given identical circumstances. Faramir is a man in a war, trying to decide what is best for his nation. When he thinks taking the ring to Gondor is the right thing, he moves to do that. When he realizes it's not, he stands up for what he believes.
> I don't see Faramir as a bastard at all.*




Actually, I see Boromir as much more sympathetic than Faramir. Boromir controlled his desire for the ring much longer than Faramir, and he was honest and up front about it. I think that, yes, by the time FotR came to a close, if he had the hobbits in the same position he would do the same, but at least we are allowed to see why, to sympathise. We get nothing of this from Faramir, simply "Oh yeah, that's too bad. Right, let's get this walking treasure to my dad." And then Sam makes one speech and it's "Oh, really? Gee, I haven't believed a word you've said until now and I've ignored your pleadings, but since I've already dragged you this far out of your path, heck, I'll defy my father--and a death sentence--and let you go."

And, man, he looked cruel when his archers had Gollum in their sights. I could never see Boromir, as realized in FotR, murder in cold blood like that.

I don't know, maybe there will be a payoff in RotK. Others have said that Mr. Jackson knows more about movie making than people like me. Absolutely. I'll be really interested to see where this goes.



> *Theoden: I don't care about him, he merely existed to set the stage for the real heroes  Anyone that would hire a man named Wormtongue as an advisor deserves what he gets!*




Yeah, but if you really want Aragorn and the others to look like heroes, put them beside other heroes and show how well they stand on their own and surpass others. Lowering the bar only makes their accomplishments that less impressive.

And I think the name came after, though I guess that call would also apply to someone hiring a guy named Grima! I mean, a little too close to grime.

But that's just my 2 cents and a bit.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 22, 2002)

I think Boromir was just going along with it because others were around. When alone, he'd try to convince Frodo to give him the ring by reason, then he would have taken it.

I also think the ring is a little more impatient right now (complete with elven dialogue telling us how it's trying to reach the Hand of Man... a bit heavy that...)

I don't think he intended to shoot Gollum. I think he was testing Frodo, who had just told him that Gollum wasn't with him.

But, as I mentioned in another post, I haven't read the books in a long time (15 years at least) and I'm not comparing Faramir to Book Faramir. I think Movie Faramir and Movie Boromir are different though, if only in that Boromir is more emotional and passionate, while Faramir is more reserved.

Faramir is a vulcan, thats it!


----------



## King_Stannis (Dec 22, 2002)

Just saw it this evening. Certainly not as overwhelming as FotR, but very good. Loved the transformation of Theoden, loved Brad Douriff as Wormtongue, the battle at Helms Deep and the Ents rage. Of course Gollum was spectacular. Oh, OLIPHANTS! Nuff said.

A couple of scenes could have been chopped IMHO. Aragorn falling over the cliff, leading to yet another Arwen cut-in-scene seemed like a waste of 4-5 minutes of time. I can't remember if this was in the book. Even if it was, it could have easily been chopped out. Other than giving Arwen another appearance it only solidified the fact that Gimli, Legolas and Eowyn think very highly of Aragorn. Obviously that was something that had already been established.

Faramir's temptation left me uneasy. It wasn't a deal breaker, but I was shaking my head at times. 

Sam's speech at the end (taken directly from the book it sounded like) was very strong - very emotional. I love the way he is being portrayed by Sean Astin. 

Grade for TTT      A-
Grade for FotR    A+

Considering all the crap that's coming down the pike (after seeing the previews) we oughta relish this rare time.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 22, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Abso-darn-lutely. Mr. Jackson did everything right with Eowyn. She's strong, stubborn, independent. It doesn't hurt that she's hot!*




Yes, but doesn't it seem a little Monty Python that she's apparently the only woman in Rohan with clean hair?

Overall, a great movie. One that can be nit-picked, certainly, but a great movie nonetheless. Gollum was fantastic, the scale epic, and, yes, Gimli had all the best lines.

Only 362 days 'till RoTK

Demiurge out.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 22, 2002)

*Re*

Faramir did not desire the ring. That is the part no one seems to notice. He had not individual desire for the ring.

If you watch it a second time, hopefully you will see that Faramir desired to give to his father what he wanted. I think PJ was setting up the confrontation in the RotK. I will have to wait a year to prove this true, but that is how I perceived the occurrence with Faramir.

PJ did not include the talk that Frodo, Sam and Faramir had while staying at the hidden cave, so Sam was not the one who revealed the ring and and its terrible power to Faramir. They just weren't able to include the dialogue exchanges that led to Faramir's decision in a movie already too long to begin with.

So, Peter Jackson, compartmentalized the information Faramir needed to come to his decision in short bursts. He used Gollum to reveal the presence of the ring, which Sam originally did in the book. Then he used the scene with the Nazgul and Sam's outburst to let Faramir know the true danger of the ring.

Once Faramir saw how dangerous the ring was, he released Frodo and Sam, thus, showing his wisdom. Fararmir was wise, but even a wise leader can not make choices without information. *That is the only difference with Faramir's character is the way he received the information.* 

Faramir is the same character. Watch it more closely. There is not one line where Faramir has a personal desire for the ring. He does not even look at the ring more than once that I can remember. He is not drawn to it like Boromir was, nor is he like Boromir but in appearance. 

The more I watch and think about Fararmir's character, the closer he seems to the book version. I just think Jackson had to get him to his decision a different way.

Even in the book, Faramir was hard-pressed to make a decision about Frodo and Sam. I think they showed this in the movie, but Jackson really didn't have the time to develop the scene as it was in the book. The movie was just too short to develop a scene that was a chapter and a half in length.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 22, 2002)

Saw the movie opening day and loved it. I can't wait to go see it again. Going to try Sunday night. 

Like others, I have my nit-picks too. But, they are relatively small flaws in my eyes. Some of these small mistakes I can understand how they might've happened. Others, I think seemed rather easy to correct, but were not. Which is odd. But I understand that LotR is a huge juggling of hundreds upon hundreds of tasks. Things are bound to get overlooked. I felt the storytelling ability was a bit better in FotR.

Here are my list of things I disliked:

1.) I didn't get a sense as to how Faramir came to the knowledge that his brother was dead. In the book it explains how he knows. But not in the movie. Unless my head spaced out during the scene where they explain that.

2.) The gift giving scene in FotR was trimmed down to only include Frodo's gift. Obviously for time. Editing FotR I imagine being a battle for mere seconds even. However, I would've still fought hard to find a way to include all the gifts each member of the fellowship recieved. 

We can skip Celeborn's warning to Aragorn and also some of Galadriel's longer conversation with Aragorn. Just keep it to the bare minimum for audiences to register each gift. I don't think it would've hurt the movie to be a minute or two longer.

However, now....if you haven't seen the extended DVD version, certain things don't make sense. Why does Frodo's cloak change color and texture to match the rocks? Where did those daggers come from that were found in the pile of burnt Orc remains? When did Samwise pack his bags full of Lembas? (ok, the Lembas is no biggie....but the humor tied to his dialogue concerning them in TTT isn't as solid as it would be without seeing the extra scene in the extended version)

Of course, if I wanted to play the game of being super ultra nit-picky I could bring out the whole thing with the Moria goblins/orcs.
Which is: Why wouldn't Saruman send a large detachment of these wall climbers to the siege of Helm's Deep?  Now, its been a while since I've read the books. But I remember having the sense that those orcs were not a part of Saruman's army. They were just there. So that could be used as a reason. But in the movie, none of the storytelling makes it clear where those Moria goblins/orcs stand. To the casual viewer, it is assumed that Sauron and Saruman have leadership over all goblins, orcs, and uruk-hai. Its a fuzzy area. I don't like to see many fuzzy areas.

3.) A lot of the editing. Mostly in the first act. The segues between the different characters were often times very abrupt. Not very smooth. The ending too, I felt, could use some smoothing out as well. Its like all of a sudden the Helm's Deep threat kinda vanishes and you got Gandalf and friends riding heroic like to a rise that looks out to Mordor. Hey...don't they got to go to Isengard first before facing east to Gondor? I figure these will smooth out when the special extended DVD arrives. But that doesn't excuse the theatrical release from this flaw.

4.) Why did Elrond send Haldir and his elves to Helm's Deep? He doesn't have his own guys?

Now let me tell you what I do love about this movie:

1.) Yes, as was stated earlier. Mirando Otto is very charismatic and attractive as Eowyn. I can stare at her scenes over and over.  

2.) Gandalf's battle with the Balrog was truly awesome. Now that's fantasy!

3.) Oddly, there were moments where I got rather misty eyed. I'm usually immune to such pulling of heart strings. However, TTT got me a few times. Can't remember all the moments. But one I do remember was when Theoden was at his son's grave with Gandalf. Another was when Gandalf, Eomer, and the other riders charged in the front ranks of the orcs as the light hit them from behind. That imagery, to me......just personifies what I think of when I think of fantasy stories.

4.) Gollum is was truly a great cgi character. Never did I lose the illusion that he was who he suppose to be.

5.) The Easterlings. I can't say how much respect I give to Jackson for allowing/guiding the art dept. to do this awesome job they've done on LotR. The Easterlings is yet another fine example of their work. Yet another outfit from LotR I'd love to have as a costume come Halloween. *sigh*

6.) Oliphants!

I don't have any problems with some of the other things being discussed. I was fine with Faramir. I liked him. I thought the change was warranted. And it made sense to me. I don't mind the Warg scene either. Wargs look good to me. Nothing wrong with the Fangorn forest in my eyes. I think people think it looks off because its a fantastical forest. Not a real location. I know of no Earth forest that looks like this, thus why it seems odd to us. It only exists on Middle-Earth.

Great movie. Loads of enjoyment. A must for us D&D guys. IMHO

And like others have said, where else can we get our fantasy movie fix? I've watched Conan so many times that I can't take it no more. Its like eating pizza for a year. LotR is the Kwisatz Haderach to the Dune planet that is the fantasy film wasteland.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 22, 2002)

*Re*

I was just thinking. Perhaps PJ will use the words of Faramir concerning sending his father a "mighty gift" to clarify Denethor's seer capabilities. If Denethor's uses those words in RotK, then that might allow the audience a glimpse of how truly special Denethor is.

It would be difficult to show such a thing otherwise. I hope I am right, but we will see.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 22, 2002)

One odd dialogue gaff:

As the three hunters look across the plain toward the retreating orcs, Legolas says: "They've turned northeast toward Isenguard!"

And I'm thinking "Isenguard's northWEST, unless you're already in the Gap of Roghan."

AND ... I'm convinced Legolas dyes his hair.  Pale blond hair, yet black eyebrows.  I suspect that's what he's doing off camera, is redoing his hair dye, which also explains why he stays so purty while Aragorn and Gimli are covered in grit and grime from the trail.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 22, 2002)

I didn't have a problem with the forest itself, it was when the treants were moving through it, it didn't seem to flow right. Maybe they have some reasoning for it ("we have a computer dedicated to predicting the flow of forest past a large walking tree!")

For myself, I'll take Arwen over Eowyn anyday! Either way though, I think they're both better looking that Galadriel, so it must be her ring that makes people think shes so pretty...

The gifts thing could have been fixed easy enough with simple lines like "It is the dagger the elves gave to Merry and Pippin..." and "Mister Frodo, it's a good thing the elves gave us these Cloaks of Hiding."

They're such big movies though, there's going to be problems. It's like the Revised PHB in June. You know it'll be gone over again and again, but there will still be an error or ten creep in.

The extended DVD is simply the erratta version!


----------



## zoroaster100 (Dec 22, 2002)

*The Two Towers*

I finally got to see the Two Towers last night.  Overall I really liked the movie.  I have been a huge Tolkien fan for years and I loved the first movie tremendously and this second movie almost as much.  Many of the changes from the book I see as understandable given the need to convey certain concepts with much more limited time.  The only changes I was disappointed by were the lessening of Aragorn and Faramir's nobility, which means that movie goers unfamiliar with the books are denied Tolkien's concept of the capacity for some Men to be truly noble.  If Faramir redeems himself further in the third movie that might make amends as to him, but I was dissapointed by Aragorn urging the Rohirrim in Helm's Deep to show no pitty to the enemy.  For me, the manner in which in the books the Rohirrim pardon the hillmen who surrender after their defeat at Helm's Deep (though the orcs are destroyed) and in which the hillmen are permitted to work to repair the evil they have caused is very important in showing the difference between the good of the West and the evil of Mordor.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Dec 22, 2002)

Just saw the movie.

It was awesome.  Reading some of these people's posts made me think it was going to be some kind of pitiful cinematic trash of the depressingly normal variety.

But, my God, it was FRICKEN AWESOME !

I thought that Theoden was indeed a strong king and a good leader; he only was doing what he thought was right for his people.  He had no idea that Saruman had an army that big until it was too late and he was already entrenched in Helm's Deep.

How was he a weak king when he recieved the news that an army ten thousand strong was after him by saying "Let them come!" ?

How was he a weak king whe he said (paraphrasing) "If our end is at hand, let it be an end worthy of song!" and leads the charge into the enemy ranks with only Aragorn and 5 of his huscarls with him?

I think he was a strong, noble king, who at times experienced eminently human moments of doubt at the seemingly impossible odds.  It was these very moments of doubt that made him a believable character.

And Faramir, like some said, did not fail the test.  HE PASSED THE TEST.  HE REFUSED TO TAKE THE RING (by force).  The process which led to him refusing the ring made him a dynamic character, as opposed to the static character he was in the books.

Some of these nitpicks, in my opinion, are incredibly petty.


----------



## Asmo (Dec 22, 2002)

So, what´s up with Narsil? When are they going to re-forge it?
And what about Arwen?
If she leaves Middleearth as her father wishes..that´s bad.
Has PJ hinted anything about this?

Asmo

Btw: I loved this movie, it´s fantastic.
PJ changes a lot, and I´m not happy with every change, but I was very glad when I left the cinema. Go and see it, it´s well worth your money!!


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 22, 2002)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, but doesn't it seem a little Monty Python that she's apparently the only woman in Rohan with clean hair?
> 
> *




Yeah, hadn't really thought of that.

"How do you know she's a star?"

"She hasn't got sh%# all over her."


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 22, 2002)

Bob Aberton said:
			
		

> *I thought that Theoden was indeed a strong king and a good leader; he only was doing what he thought was right for his people.  He had no idea that Saruman had an army that big until it was too late and he was already entrenched in Helm's Deep.
> 
> How was he a weak king when he recieved the news that an army ten thousand strong was after him by saying "Let them come!" ?
> 
> ...





Arragorn had to talk him into riding out to face the orc horde.  In the book, Theoden asked Arragorn to ride with him.  A complete reversal of roles.  Why?  Doesn't make sense.  It served no purpose.  Furthered no plot.  It did nothing except make Theoden look that much weaker.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 22, 2002)

> And what about Arwen? If she leaves Middleearth as her father wishes..that´s bad.




I think Jackson and Company are just creating the illusion that she is. For the audience to believe/feel that Aragorn and Arwen's relationship is in peril. Then it will probably be revealed later that she decided not to go, perhaps at the last minute (off screen). I can almost see Jackson having her (in RotK) appear before Aragorn with Narsil or something. Their trends on how the re-work the original story tends to make me think they'll do something like this. But who really knows.



> The gifts thing could have been fixed easy enough with simple lines like "It is the dagger the elves gave to Merry and Pippin..." and "Mister Frodo, it's a good thing the elves gave us these Cloaks of Hiding."




True, that could've been done too. But even that much wasn't done. Y'know what I mean? How could that be left to slip by unedited?

Also, if they did insert pick-up scenes where they say that dialogue, it still wouldn't be as strong. If Samwise said, "Mr. Frodo, its a good thing the elves gave us these cloaks of hiding," the audience when then just go, "uh, when then did that happen?" And it would seem an obvious clumsy way of explaining backwards. Kind of like when your DM makes a continuity error and he has to BS a retro explaination. Its kinda clumsy. 

Movie is still awesome, just don't like that bit of continuity with the gifts. Seems small.....but really little things like that can hurt a movie. We shouldn't have to wait for the extended versions to view to see it properly done.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 23, 2002)

Ok, if people are going to nitpick then at least have nitpicks about REAL mistakes instead of differences in opinion on the story or some of the CGI.

I have two REAL nitpicks.

1. Where did the goblins come from? In the first movie the Fellowship was attacked by a group of ONLY Uruks. You see nothing but them. Suddenly in TTT there are several goblins in the movie which are used to create the scene with the fighting over food. Huh? Where did they come from?

2. Uruks? Saruman created the Uruks just recently. They are his improvement on Orcs and his greatest weapons. I would assume that Saruman gave them the name Uruk-kai.

So how does Aragorn know their name and call them "Uruk-kai" when he is questioned by the Riders of Rohan. He should have called them Orcs since there is no way he could have known their actual names.

Those are my real nitpicks that I feel are actual mistakes in the movie.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 23, 2002)

Uhhh, maybe because she was the only female Rohan NOBLE we see in the movie? The rest of the Rohan women in the movie are either peasants or refugees. Of course she is going to look a lot cleaner than any of them.





			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, hadn't really thought of that.
> 
> ...


----------



## shilsen (Dec 23, 2002)

*As posted on Celebrim's "PJ sucks" thread*

Just got back from the film.

Decided to try a little trick.

Turned on part of brain which recognises similarities with the book, and enjoyed those scenes.

Turned off part of brain which dislikes changes from the original, watched those scenes as part of Jackson's film and not Tolkien's book, and enjoyed them too.

Had a blast.

Going back in a couple of days.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Dec 23, 2002)

Wife and I just got back from our third viewing of the film.  Still rocks as hard as it did during the first viewing, even more so, if that's possible.

We caught a couple little things we didn't catch the first couple times, and I'm sure subsequent viewings will reveal more little details.

I noted tonight that the movie is striking me more emotionally every time I see it.  Maybe it's because I know what's coming, or whatever, but there are a lot of places in the film where I catch myself getting misty-eyed or even shedding tears.  Peter Jackson, you rock.

In summary, I've read the books and love what Tolkien did with his story, and I've see these two films and love how PJ is interpreting the story.  None of the changes have bothered me in the least, and many of them I appreciate.

Damn fine film.  Can't wait for ROTK.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 23, 2002)

For pity's sake, I don't think that Peter, Fran, and Phillipa have gone to all of the trouble of braving fanboy ridicule by beefing up the Aragorn/Arwen love story just to ship her off to Valinor.  He's trying to build a little _dramatic tension_.  Ever hear of it?  It's that thing that you have as long as you want in a 1300 page novel to build, but that you have to do in a concise way in a 9 hour movie.


If you watch the director's commentary on the extended edition, Peter et al. say that they hope that most fans will get to watch the extended edition before TTT comes out because of the extended gift-giving scene.  But then they point out that the casual movie-goer is probably not going to notice the continuity problem, since unless it is pointed out to you, there is no reason to think that there is anything special about the daggers except that Merry and Pippin had them.  Since my wife (who hasn't watched the extended edition yet) didn't notice when we saw TTT, I think they are probably correct in their assumption.

(BTW, if you haven't listened to the commentaries on the extended edition, do so.  Peter's et al. is the most informative and explains a lot of their decisions, but the cast's is probably the most fun.)

Maybe I'm just completely clutching at straws here in defense of what I think is the most moving piece of cinema I've seen this year, but I think that Theoden's moments of despair are intended to kind of clue the audience in to the fact that there really is something to fear in the siege.  I can't remember what Theoden's character was like in the book (I'm rereading _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ as we speak), but I have always liked the old saying that goes something like:  "True courage is when you are afraid of what you must do, but you do it anyway."  Y'all can gripe all you want about how Theoden seems weaker than he does in the book; to me, he just seems more human.

God forbid a screenplay adaptation attempt to create some audience sympathy for characters than can come off as a little stiff in their original medium.

If you want something that mimics the novel more, try the excellent BBC radio play.  Just put it on the right chapter and mute the appropriate scene in the movie.  Sure the dialogue won't match up to the actors' mouths, but at least Tolkien's characters would be preserved.


On a lighter note, I remember a lot of posters on these boards worrying that those who had never read the book would be corrupted by this "bastardized" film version.  Since she saw the first part, my wife has read the book, which she had never intended to do before.  This year is also the first time that FotR, TTT, and RotK have been checked out more than the Harry Potter books by the students at the middle school where I teach.  Sounds to me like PJ has perpetuated Tolkien's greatness instead of diluting it.

Ah well, I would never have read _Gone with the Wind_ if I hadn't seen the movie first, but I certainly think the book is superior.  I just see Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable's faces whenever I read a scene with Scarlett and Rhett.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 23, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Uhhh, maybe because she was the only female Rohan NOBLE we see in the movie? The rest of the Rohan women in the movie are either peasants or refugees. Of course she is going to look a lot cleaner than any of them.
> *




Actually, that was just referring to a scene from "Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail".

I would like to know who's carrying her tub or basin around with them on their trek to Helm's Deep. Her and Legolas must share one.

In any case, it didn't really bother me, just commenting on another poster's point.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 23, 2002)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Arragorn had to talk him into riding out to face the orc horde.  In the book, Theoden asked Arragorn to ride with him.  A complete reversal of roles.  Why?  Doesn't make sense.  It served no purpose.  Furthered no plot.  It did nothing except make Theoden look that much weaker. *




The entire exchange consists of:

Theoden:  "What can we do against such reckless hate?"

Aragorn:  "Ride out to meet it."

Theoden (paraphrased):  "Yes!"

So, no, Aragorn doesn't talk Theoden into anything here.  It's Aragorn who voices the idea, but there's nothing else to be done anyway, and Theoden agrees immediately.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 23, 2002)

theburningman said:
			
		

> *For pity's sake, I don't think that Peter, Fran, and Phillipa have gone to all of the trouble of braving fanboy ridicule by beefing up the Aragorn/Arwen love story just to ship her off to Valinor.  He's trying to build a little dramatic tension.  Ever hear of it?  It's that thing that you have as long as you want in a 1300 page novel to build, but that you have to do in a concise way in a 9 hour movie.*




Obviously Peter Jackson is Satan and desires nothing more than to destroy my cherished dreams.  This is obvious becuase he cut the pivotal character of Erkenbrand.  Clearly there was no reason to do this, so it could only have been done out of spite.

reh teh suxx00rs!1!1


----------



## JeffB (Dec 23, 2002)

I saw it for the first time yesterday morning.

I thought it was brilliant. While I am a big fan of Tolkien and the books (they still are my fave reads ever), I’m not adverse to changes fro the books for the sake of making a good movie (that does not mean that I don’t think some things could have been done differently or added however).

1)	I didn’t see the gross mischarcterization (is that a word?) that others saw in Faramir. Perhaps a bit more forceful than the book portrays him, but I thought he was well done. He shows his greater wisdom than Boromir when needed.

2)	I would have preferred Eowyn to be a bit more warrior-like, but I don’t think it detracts from the part of the story that is portrayed in this movie. 

3)	Some of the CGI was bit “rougher” than the FotR (the Ents in particular), but not so rough I didn’t enjoy it. For what was lacking, I felt it was made up in other places i.e. The Balrog, all of the Battle of Helm’s Deep, etc

4)	I though Grima and Theoden were VERY well done. Grima especially…creepy…Theoden was very well acted, and I did not find him so out of character from the books that I was dissapointed

5)	Gollum…The actual look of Gollum surprised me…I thought he would be a bit more monstrous…but I was not disappointed..the acting and CGI was superb IMO (especially in the initial encounter as he fights Sam and Frodo ..and great interaction by the actors as well!). And he added a bit of (needed at times) comic relief….his little happy song as he caught a fish song was great. The rabbit scene was pretty good too.

6)	Once again Peter Jackson has done for me what I thought impossible…totally capture the images in my brain on what I thought Orcs would look,sound , and act like. The “argument” over Pippin and Merry was spot-on AFAIC. And of course at Helm’s Deep in full armor waiting to charge as they roar in the general silence otherwise..fantastic…

7)	The Haradrim or perhaps the Easterlings as they enter the Black Gate:  Armor and costume was excellent. As was with Rohan. One thing that is very cool about these films is the distinctions made between the various peoples and creatures. Gondorians do not look like the Rohirrim (sp), the Elves look otherworldly comparatively. The armor depicted at the end of the Second Age does not look like the armor depicted in the War of the Ring, etc. Most other films would likely have all the same armor with just a different flag or helm to differentiate between races or time periods. Excellent.

I did not go into the Theatre expecting to be “blown away” like I was with the first movie. All I wanted was more of the same, and that’s what I got. 

One of the coolest things I noticed was the audience: Kids… Lots of kids. This is a great thing IMO. While these films may not have the impact Star Wars does or did in general, but if LotR has the same impact on the Kids of today that Star Wars left on me and my generation in 1977, this is a VERY good thing. And who knows, if they are successful enough, perhaps we shall see some of the 1st and 2nd Ages of Middle Earth brought to the Silver Screen! (who would not like to see Melkor/Morgoth, Gothmog and the rest of the Balrogs fighting the powerful Elves of the past ages?)

I also noticed in the 3 times I saw FotR and yesterday at TTT, that the audience clapped as the movie finished. I don’t see many movies in the theatre (in fact I’ve been to the theatre more times in the past year than I have in the 12 years previous to it), but I don’t recall hearing clapping at the end except when I was a kid seeing the Star Wars films. Even when I saw AotC and TPM, there was no applause at the end from the crowd (and no snide comments about those movies please..hee hee).


----------



## Olorin (Dec 23, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The entire exchange consists of:
> 
> ...




This was my only complaint with movie Theoden. Theoden was completely lost in despair at that point, not even caring if some of his people might be able to survive if they left the caves while his men held off the orcs. Aragorn had to take charge and only when he suggested they charge out did Theoden wake up.

Also earlier Theoden was shown choosing to go to Helm's Deep not as a tactical decision, but as the one place he thought they could basically hide from Saruman's forces. So I guess that's two complaints 

They made these decisions to weaken Theoden's character and make Aragorn be the hero, which was unecessary in my opinion. We already know Aragorn is a true hero. Little changes like that just bug me.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 23, 2002)

Olorin said:
			
		

> *They made these decisions to weaken Theoden's character and make Aragorn be the hero, which was unecessary in my opinion. We already know Aragorn is a true hero. Little changes like that just bug me. *




Have you considered the possibility that the way this happened  on film might be the means to tie the Rohirrim into the Pelennor Fields?  That it's a cleaner (i. e. more filmable) alternative to the complicated history of alliance between Rohan and Gondor that we see in the books?

See, that's my problem with the attitude in evidence here.  We see part of the equation and assume that it's wrong, or a mistake, because it differs very slightly from the book, without having seen how the other end of the plot thread plays out.


----------



## King_Stannis (Dec 23, 2002)

Here is an excerpt from Roger Ebert's review...just like the last movie, he gave it a tepid thumbs up/*** review...



> ...With "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," it's clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action. The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.




I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If anything, the hobbits are in MORE action in the movie. What's dear Roger going to say when the third movie comes out..."This proves that Aragorn is the hero! The title is 'The Return of the King'....SEE!".

I think if Ebert had his way, Peter Jackson would just have filmed the hobbits thinking for long stretches at a time, fists under chin. Sort of a "My Dinner with Frodo", only more boring. 

He wants to play both sides of the field, too. He claims familiarity with the trilogy in his criticism above and then later in the review he says that he's pretty much a joe schmoe layman. 

And what's with this "gentle medievalist" stuff? Tolkien writes about essentially a war of Armageddon! Is Ebert denying any of these battles took place in the books?

I used to value his opinion, but in the last few years I find myself agreeing with him less and less.


----------



## danbala (Dec 23, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I think they're going to get Faramir to the same place (character-wise), just taking a different road.  *




Eric, I think you are exactly right about this. Its hard to give a sense of nobility to a character without tough choices. And without the benefit of an interior monologue, in film, you have to represent a tough choice through action. In the books (IMHO) Faramir seemed too quick to give up the ring. It just made Boromir seem less tragic and more of an idiot. If it was so easy to give the ring up, why did Boromir fail so quickly?

Here, the change will emphasize both Faramir's and Boromir's nobility. His father will (rightfully) blow a gasket when he discovers what Faramir did. In fact, Faramir's decision will sully the death of Boromir in the eyes of the father and further estrange them.  On the other hand, the fact that Faramir was so clearly conflicted will make Boromir look less like a fool to the audience.

This is very heavy stuff and Jackson I think did the right thing to emphasize Faramir's tough decision. Personally, I think that Faramir comes off more like a geniune hero i the movie than in the books. In the movie, its very clear at the end that his decision is essentially treasonous. Yet, he does so for what he perceives to be the greater good.  My sense is that this type of risk taking nobility will make the Eowyn connection seem very natural (as she is about to make a very similar kind of decision).


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 23, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that the way this happened  on film might be the means to tie the Rohirrim into the Pelennor Fields?  That it's a cleaner (i. e. more filmable) alternative to the complicated history of alliance between Rohan and Gondor that we see in the books?*




Yeah, but Theoden complains about how Gondor has ignored the alliance. That's part of his bitterness, why he petulantly refuses to call for aid but decides to hide behind what he considers impregnable walls.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 23, 2002)

Jeez, and I told myself I was going to step back and not get involved any deeper in this debate. 

I'm weak.



			
				danbala said:
			
		

> *
> This is very heavy stuff and Jackson I think did the right thing to emphasize Faramir's tough decision. Personally, I think that Faramir comes off more like a geniune hero i the movie than in the books. In the movie, its very clear at the end that his decision is essentially treasonous. Yet, he does so for what he perceives to be the greater good.  My sense is that this type of risk taking nobility will make the Eowyn connection seem very natural (as she is about to make a very similar kind of decision). *




Just for space I cut out some excellent discussion on the movie vs. the novel Faramir. It's nice to see that everyone is really considering the movie, and the possible motivations and such. 

But I'm weak and have to continuously spew out my little 'yeah, but . . .'

In the novel, his actions are just as treasonous and the punishment is the same. Rather than executing his son, Denethor dismisses him and Faramir feels the need to prove himself in the retreat from Osgiliath. Faramir, in the book, impresses Sam and Frodo with his similarities to Gandalf, who also quickly and absolutely refused the Ring. In the movie, how much dialogue is needed to indicate the reasons for Gandalf's rejection of the ring? Galadriel took more time, but essentially the same. Does Aragorn's quick refusal of the Ring need explanation? And Boromir's fault in the movie is not stupidity, rather, he has an unshakable belief in his strength of will, until the Ring finally shows him how powerful it truly is.

I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base. I think a lot of this is about personal perceptions. Those of us whol read the book all perceived it differently. We've all seen the same movie but perceived it differently. I don't think my opinions are any more or less valid than anyone else's, but I am weak enough to be driven to explain my opinions. I'll try to control myself in the future.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 23, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *Yeah, but Theoden complains about how Gondor has ignored the alliance. That's part of his bitterness, why he petulantly refuses to call for aid but decides to hide behind what he considers impregnable walls. *




Even in the movie the situation is more complicated than that.

First, one could say that Gondor didn't come to Rohan's aid because he, the king, didn't ask them to.  Simple as that, and it's hardly the fault of Gondor.  We understand Theoden's bitterness over the situation, of course.

And he doesn't _refuse_ to call for aid - he believes no aid will come.  I didn't read any petulance into it.  Remember, when brought word of the approaching army, he dares "let them come!"  Fatalism, perhaps.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 23, 2002)

Someboy stop me before I post again! I've got work to do!



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Even in the movie the situation is more complicated than that.
> 
> ...




First off, I don't want to come off like I think *I* have the definitive truth. I just want to illustrate the basis for my opinion. 

Okay, I don't know how complicated the situation in the movie is because we can only judge it by what is presented. The situation in Rohan is obviously not the same situation in the book, so we can make assumptions, but we have little verifiable facts.

I've only seen the movie once, but I recall Aragorn mentioning Gondor and Theoden raises his voice, saying how Gondor ignored Rohan while their villages were burned and their people killed (I'm paraphrasing, anyone who can quote verbatim, jump in, may clear up a lot of things). He doesn't say "I never asked, but they should have come" or anything like that, so I'm just going by what he says.

My mention of petulance had more to do with my perception of his tone than the words he used.

And it could be fatalism, but he also believes that no one can breach the walls of Helm's Deep, and is quite stunned when that very thing happens.

Okay, I have to get to work.


----------



## danbala (Dec 23, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *In the novel, his actions are just as treasonous and the punishment is the same. Rather than executing his son, Denethor dismisses him and Faramir feels the need to prove himself in the retreat from Osgiliath. Faramir, in the book, impresses Sam and Frodo with his similarities to Gandalf, who also quickly and absolutely refused the Ring. In the movie, how much dialogue is needed to indicate the reasons for Gandalf's rejection of the ring? Galadriel took more time, but essentially the same. Does Aragorn's quick refusal of the Ring need explanation? And Boromir's fault in the movie is not stupidity, rather, he has an unshakable belief in his strength of will, until the Ring finally shows him how powerful it truly is. *




I see your point, but for my two cents, I think there are two dramatic considerations here. First Jackson wants to make sure that Boromir's fall remains tragic as discussed above. Second, I think he wants to make sure that the ring remains a tangible threat -- a sort of serpent in the midst. Gandalf and Galadriel are larger than life beings who are nevertheless tempted by the ring. But Jackson wants us to know that mortal men ("who crave power above all else") are usually weaker when it comes to the power of the ring. 

So I think it was important that Faramir come across as good everyman. If he could strug off the ring too quickly its power would seem less potent. Instead the impression in the movie is that the rings power to corrupt was so great that even a good man needed to be placed in pretty extreme circumstances before he could admit that the ring was beyond him. I could see how a quicker, more intellectual and internal rejection early on -- particular before we learn of Faramir's character -- might simply give the impression that possession of the ring is not that big of a deal. 

Quite honestly, that was my impression reading the books. It seemed a bit strange to me that Faramir could so easily let the ring go without further investigation (after all, the survival of his civilization was at stake). 

But I respect that this is a bit of a change from the book and I understand how it could anger purists.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 24, 2002)

> I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base. I think a lot of this is about personal perceptions. Those of us whol read the book all perceived it differently. We've all seen the same movie but perceived it differently. I don't think my opinions are any more or less valid than anyone else's, but I am weak enough to be driven to explain my opinions. I'll try to control myself in the future.




This is what I was trying to say above, although I didn't express it quite so well.  I can understand why some people have problems with some of the changes; I'm just glad that I don't have the same problems and that I can just completely lose myself in the visual world Jackson has brought to the screen.

(BTW, on the director's commentary of the extended edition, PJ says that they spent so much time on the details of the world so that hopefully, no matter what problems a viewer might have with story or character, they wouldn't be able to gripe about the presentation of the world.  IMHO, he succeeded admirably.)

I just saw TTT again on Monday.  As far as Theoden goes, I did see little instances of weakness and doubt, but as I said before, I think they make him more human.

As for Faramir, I was really paying attention in his scenes of the movie this time, trying to watch as someone who has read the book, and simultaneously trying to watch as a casual movie-goer.  When my nephew and his friend and I were talking later, it hit me:

To a casual viewer, who has no idea what awaits Frodo and Sam in Mordor, it was _necessary_ for dramatic tension that Faramir present more of an obstacle than in the book.  If Frodo and Sam had had the same encounter with Faramir as they had in the book, it would have completely destroyed any sense of urgency and menace in the movie.  By making Faramir seem more of a threat than he actually is, they preserved the tension in the film for the casual movie-goer.  Films are made of set-pieces and it's obvious that the Battle of Helm's Deep and the March of the Ents were intended to be the climactic set pieces of this part.  It would have been rather anti-climactic for Frodo and Sam to sit around talking to Faramir and company for a few minutes before he sent them on their merry way.

Plus, add in what danbala said.  If Faramir doesn't even struggle with the ring (there is very little evidence he struggles at all with it in the book), then the audience is left scratching it's head.  "If it's so hard for Frodo to resist the ring, why doesn't it affect Faramir when he is presented with it?"


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 25, 2002)

I was impressed with the movie and saw some of the reasons for the cinematic changes from the books.

First, the scenes with Faramir do dramatize how powerful a lure the ring has on others.  Faramir is motivated by a desire to do good, but in the movie is tempted by the ring.  In the books, we read of  Faramir's discover of Boromir's story, Frodo's fear that the rest of the Fellowship is dead, and Sam slips out that Frodo has the One Ring.  It might have been a little difficult to make these scenes seem lively in an otherwise fast paced movie.  However, Faramir ultimately accepts that the Ring is something that should not go to Gondor.  Ironically, the Nazgul likely concluded it was going to Gondor.  I suspect that this line of thinking and a likely Palantir scene with Aragorn in the next film will convince Sauron that his enemies wish to use the Ring against him.

Also, it must be noted that there seems to be a compressed time line in the films.  In the books, 17 years pass between Bilbo's farewell speech and Gandalf telling Frodo he has the One Ring.  Apparently in the films, it is a matter of months.  This explains a few things, such as why Treebeard does not know of Saruman cutting down part of Fangorn Forest.

Overall, I was impressed with the movie and plan to see it again soon.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 27, 2002)

Now, I’m going to preface this with a qualifier. I liked the movie. I thought it was a lot of fun. I will say that it did not match Fellowship of the Ring, neither as movie nor as adaptation. And viewed as either simply a movie or as an adaptation, it has flaws. That’s all I’ve been saying and all I ever will say.

I have never maintained that the books should be transferred to the movie without changes. In fact, one of my favourite adaptions is _Blade_Runner_, an adaption of Dick’s _Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep_, which completely changed the story, but maintained the themes and plot.

In many instances I’ve noted that to criticize TTT is almost verboten. If one criticizes it for the liberties taken with the source material, to no discernable improvement, one is called a purist. If one criticizes it as a movie, referring to internal plot, characterization and pacing problems, one is accused of nit-picking. I find it odd that so many people want to turn off their critical faculties when viewing a movie. I agree, there are times when that can be fun, when one simply wants some B-grade eye-candy. I do not consider this movie as B-grade eye-candy, and so I point at faults that detracted from its potential.

I’ve harped on the problems I’ve seen with the movie, so I will not do so again. I find it odd, though, that this movie is praised for characterization. I would say that there were some fine moments of it, including Grima and Gollum. Some efforts were pedestrian, standing on the previous film but not advancing our understanding of the characters. Eowyn, while capably handled, is not a stand out. Compared to the characterizations of Boromir or even Elrond in FotR, I find the work done here to be acceptable but not incredible. Many characters suffered. Merry and Pippin are almost superfluous, and were this not an adaptation, I would have said get rid of them, or store them away some place safe until needed. They did nothing that couldn’t have been done more efficiently, without detriment to the story. Gandalf seems almost a cipher. Perhaps this is because he has become a White Wizard, but certain Saruman in the first movie was a White Wizard and was very well developed.

There are also internal problems with the movie. I won’t mention the speed with which the elves arrive at exactly the proper place to fight. I would be interested to know how a single arrow in his mount could drive off a Nazgul so close to capturing the Ring. Sure, arrows could kill the Fell Beast he rides, but giving up on getting the Ring when it is so close? Heck, wade in there with your sword and dagger and take the damn thing! 

And how does Sam know the reason for Boromir’s death? Frodo may have told him that Boromir tried to take the Ring, but neither Frodo nor Sam even knew about Boromir’s death. Shouldn’t Faramir be a bit suspicious of these creatures who purport to be his brother’s friends, but who know nothing about that brother’s death until it’s convenient?

I’m not going to comment on a charge by cavalry down a hill of loose stones with an incredibly steep incline into a fixed pike position with only the benefit of a flash of brilliant light (though I guess I just did), but I would like to know why the Uruk-Hai fail to regroup and counter-attack, still holding the advantage in numbers?

In any case, while I like the movie, I do find it a flawed and qualified success. I look forward to RotK.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 27, 2002)

So much nitpicking with so little deductive thinking.

1. The elves get there because they are travelling a much shorter distance than the orcs are. Also Galadriel has her pool, this allows her to have a pretty complete picture of what is going on.

2. The Nazgul as a rule gain most of their power through fear. Its part of the subtle magic of Middle Earth. A Nazgul doesnt win a battle throwing around fireballs and blasting everyone in sight. They win a battle by crushing the will and hope of their enemies and thus allowing the orcs to win. This is their strength and their weakness. Until Faramir shot the NAzgul's mount you saw ZERO arrows fly towards it. The soldiers of Gondor were too shaken and afraid to fight. Once Faramir gains the courage and shoots the mount I am sure it would break the spell for many of the men beneath him. Another few moments hovering there and the Nazgul would have been peppered with arrows as the men of Gondor said to themselves "well if my Captain can do that then I sure as hell am going to at least die trying".

3. Sam does not know how Boromir died. He does know how Boromir was acting days before his death and even the day of his death. Only a fool wouldnt know the ring was affecting Boromir from watching him.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 27, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *In many instances I’ve noted that to criticize TTT is almost verboten. If one criticizes it for the liberties taken with the source material, to no discernable improvement, one is called a purist. If one criticizes it as a movie, referring to internal plot, characterization and pacing problems, one is accused of nit-picking. I find it odd that so many people want to turn off their critical faculties when viewing a movie. I agree, there are times when that can be fun, when one simply wants some B-grade eye-candy. I do not consider this movie as B-grade eye-candy, and so I point at faults that detracted from its potential.*




In the same way that too-zealous fans defend Star Wars or Star Trek, yes, LotR fans can get defensive.  I've done it myself, and not just for LotR.

But, let's face it, a lot of that is a reaction to the school of "it SUX becuz it changed this and this and this! and then peter jacson came to my house, beet mi up, shot my dog and stole my wallet!1!1!" criticism.

As an aside, some people like to make a distinction between "great films" and "film I personally love."  Others do not.  Sometimes this is difficult to do.  My personal example is _The Thirteenth Warrior_, a movie that has (to be charitable) a ton of problems.  But I _love_ it, and have watched it probably 30 times.  This does not mean I would argue that it was the best film of its year, or even a particularly good film at all.  But it has Vikings and dragonships and drinking horns and mead halls and _big honkin' axes_ and Valhalla! And I dig that stuff!

ahem.  Pardon me.  I get a little overexcited when talking about _the GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME!!!  YOU"RE ALL PHILISTINES!!!_

Uh... sorry.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 27, 2002)

Nicely put, Assenpfeffer. I just watched "The Thirteenth Warrior" for the 7th time yesterday. "Lo, there do I see my father...". Oh yeah!!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 27, 2002)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *Here is an excerpt from Roger Ebert's review...just like the last movie, he gave it a tepid thumbs up/*** review...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If anything, the hobbits are in MORE action in the movie. What's dear Roger going to say when the third movie comes out..."This proves that Aragorn is the hero! The title is 'The Return of the King'....SEE!".
> ...




In defense of the movie against Ebert's critique, it _IS_ Aragorn's movie. Jackson has pretty much stated this, just as he stated that Fellowship is Frodo's movie. At different points in the story, different characters are in spotlight. I'm betting movie 3 will be Sam's movie... maybe the supporting hobbits' movie as well. The final book, Return of the King, is ironically not at all Aragorn's book. It should be that way with the movie as well, I hope.

Now, in defense of Ebert, although Helm's Deep is a major turning point in staving off the threat of the industrialized destruction that Saruman's forces represent, it's not as large a percentage of the book as the battle is a percentage of the movie. I think Ebert's of the idea that Jackson has turned this into too much of an action piece focusing on the battle compared to the book.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 27, 2002)

shilsen said:
			
		

> *Nicely put, Assenpfeffer. I just watched "The Thirteenth Warrior" for the 7th time yesterday. "Lo, there do I see my father...". Oh yeah!! *




My second favorite part of the whole movie is the Choosing of the warriors toward the beginning.  

My third favorite part is the death chant at the end.

My favorite part, though, is when Buliwyf, weakened from the poison, after just killing the chieftain of the eaters, sits down against the outsided wall of the steading, plants his sword, stares outward like a badass and dies.   _That_ just ruled.

"Today... was a _good_ day."


----------



## danbala (Dec 27, 2002)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *Now, I’m going to preface this with a qualifier. I liked the movie. I thought it was a lot of fun. I will say that it did not match Fellowship of the Ring, neither as movie nor as adaptation. And viewed as either simply a movie or as an adaptation, it has flaws. That’s all I’ve been saying and all I ever will say. *




Fair enough. The world would certainly be a dull place if we all agreed on everything.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *In many instances I’ve noted that to criticize TTT is almost verboten. If one criticizes it for the liberties taken with the source material, to no discernable improvement, one is called a purist. If one criticizes it as a movie, referring to internal plot, characterization and pacing problems, one is accused of nit-picking. I find it odd that so many people want to turn off their critical faculties when viewing a movie. I agree, there are times when that can be fun, when one simply wants some B-grade eye-candy. I do not consider this movie as B-grade eye-candy, and so I point at faults that detracted from its potential.*




I have to admit that I am one of those people who found the movie to be basically perfect. Perhaps there will one day come a movie that sets the bar for Fantasy movies even higher (RotK?). But for the moment, I have to admit that I basically love this movie and built into that is the reflexive need to defend her.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *I’ve harped on the problems I’ve seen with the movie, so I will not do so again. I find it odd, though, that this movie is praised for characterization. I would say that there were some fine moments of it, including Grima and Gollum. Some efforts were pedestrian, standing on the previous film but not advancing our understanding of the characters. Eowyn, while capably handled, is not a stand out. Compared to the characterizations of Boromir or even Elrond in FotR, I find the work done here to be acceptable but not incredible. *




While I was left with almost the opposite impression. I was very pleased and surprised how well the movie on one hand introduced us to seven or so new main characters while on the other still provided addition depth of character to the reoccuring characters. In particular, I thought it did a great job with Sam and Frodo, introducing a strange dynamic with Gollum (Sam even becomes a little jeolous of the connection between Frodo and Gollem -- even such a miserable one). That friendship in particular really rang true for me.

While its true that some characters were left on the sidelines a bit (Eomyr, Gandalf, Elrond. Merry Peppin) this was served by the needs of the story. I was much more pleased by this than if the filmakers had been compelled to find a way to cram them back into the story. 



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *Many characters suffered. Merry and Pippin are almost superfluous, and were this not an adaptation, I would have said get rid of them, or store them away some place safe until needed. They did nothing that couldn’t have been done more efficiently, without detriment to the story. *




I think the reason for one of the contrversial  changes from the book -- the decision to have Peppin basically trick Treebeard into war -- was driven by the need to make these characters a bit more dynamic then they were in the book. Personally, I understand the need for this change and accepted it.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *There are also internal problems with the movie. I won’t mention the speed with which the elves arrive at exactly the proper place to fight.*




But admit: wasn't it really cool when they showed up? To me, this was one of the many highlights.  Therefore, from my perspective this quibble is like looking a gift horse in the mouth.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> * I would be interested to know how a single arrow in his mount could drive off a Nazgul so close to capturing the Ring. Sure, arrows could kill the Fell Beast he rides, but giving up on getting the Ring when it is so close? Heck, wade in there with your sword and dagger and take the damn thing! *




I remember having the same thought when my father read to me the Hobbit as a kid. One arrow to take down a whole dragon? As far as the wraith goes, Aragon previously chased off five with a sword and a torch, so they are probably not meant to be killing machines.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> * And how does Sam know the reason for Boromir’s death? Frodo may have told him that Boromir tried to take the Ring, but neither Frodo nor Sam even knew about Boromir’s death. *




Hmmm. Interesting point. It sounds like something that will be made clearer in the extended cut DVD. (As will how Faramir learned of Boromir's death).



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> * Shouldn’t Faramir be a bit suspicious of these creatures who purport to be his brother’s friends, but who know nothing about that brother’s death until it’s convenient?*




He struck me as about as suspicious as he could be. In fact, he was much more suspicious than he was in the book, but we covered that already above.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> * I’m not going to comment on a charge by cavalry down a hill of loose stones with an incredibly steep incline into a fixed pike position with only the benefit of a flash of brilliant light (though I guess I just did), but I would like to know why the Uruk-Hai fail to regroup and counter-attack, still holding the advantage in numbers?*




Again, for me this was such a cool moment that quibbles seem beside the point. Personally, as cool as the fight scenes were, i didn't need to see the Uruk-hai come in for another assualt. i'm willing to presume that there was a great deal of additional carnage not shown.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> * In any case, while I like the movie, I do find it a flawed and qualified success. I look forward to RotK. *




Now that last part is something we both can agree on!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 27, 2002)

Well I saw the film again. So this time I'm going to post a few more thoughts than I did before.

1) I was surprised by how _little_ fighting there was. After Gandalf vs Balrog, there is almost nothing until the Worg attack, timed at 1hr30min. The fight for Helm's Deep doesn't start until 2hr15min. Balrog, Wargs, Helm's Deep. Very little actual battle scenes apart from that. This is not an action fest. It simply has the best large scale battle scene ever put on film.

2) The humour. Gimli and Legolas have a great friendship. "Shall I describe it to you, or shall I find you a box?" is a gentle bit of banter between friends. Gimli laughs at it. He laughs! And the dwarf tossing moment is a masterful bit of deadpan from Viggo.

3) The love section in the middle. Aragorn floats down the river, and then odd stuff happens. Don't like this section. It's (IMHO) boring. I have a feeling it'll be the bit I pass over most often on the DVD.

4) Theoden may not be what he is in the books, but he makes his decisions based on what he believes at the time. Face it, if your enemies were breaking down the door of your impregnable strong hold, wouldn't you be a bit distraught? Aragorn's suggestion to "Ride out!" fires him up. He's a real Death or Glory merchant, as a truly heroic King should be. When they all ride out and scatter the orcs on the bridge, it's a stunning moment.

5) The fell beast and the arrow. The beast flaps away for a moment, and then Sam carries Frodo out of sight. The Rider can't find them again amongst all that stone, and it knows it's vulnerable to the massed bowfire underneath it. Don't forget Sauron's arrogance, he doesn't truly believe the Ring can be used against him. When the Nazgul returns, his reaction would be "The Ring is going to Gondor? Excellent, it'll corrupt whoever is wearing it and I'll win with ease!"

6) Gollum. Possibly the best character in the film. His moment at the end, when he discusses with himself to lead the Hobbits to _Her_, is wonderful teaser stuff for RofK.

7) Gandalf snagging his sword out of mid-air in free fall and attacking the Balrog! Now that's a cinematic moment!

8) Legolas kills 6 (yes, 6!) orcs whilst on the shield, and then flips it, skater style, into another, all within about 5 seconds. Sounds like a 16th level + fighter with Rapid Shot and a Bow of Speed to me. Incredible.

9) Gimli and Aragorn charge the orcs. As someone said, it's like a handgrenade going off. Wonderful moment. What high level fighters are all about. Bring 'em on.

10) I loved this film. I'd never understood the WW1 appeal of the cavalry charge until now. Bring on RotK. I think seeing the ships appear from the south carrying Aragorn and the others to win the Battle of Pelennor Fields could be The Greatest Movie Moment Ever.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 27, 2002)

*Agree to Disagree*

As much as I would love to continue this discussion, I think it's time I bit my tongue and let it go. If someone actually writes something that changes my mind, that really explains rather than excuses, I'll pipe in and accept defeat. Until then, I don't think there is much more I can add to this discussion, so . . .

Good movie. I'll see it again and I'll buy the DVD, but it's flawed and I consider FotR a superior movie.

And I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks to those who offered insightful, thoughtful answers.

And even minimal thanks to those snarky individuals who feel the need to act superior. At least--for the most part--those posts had something of substance.

Hope everyone had a great Christmas (or whatever holiday you might celebrate) and have a Happy New Year!

Take care all!


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 28, 2002)

Second viewing notes:

Gollum improves a great deal.  I see less of the CGI and hear more of his voice.  Between his fish-smacking song and "Smeeeeeagolllll......  Why do you cry, Smeagol?" he's just a gripping, moving, soulful character.

I liked the Gimli banter.  Yes, he falls down a lot, but he gets back up again, nobody's going to keep him down!  (Sing it!) It's his reaction to the situations -- his good humor, his buoyant spirit -- that come through in these moments.  You can see why Legolas is starting to like him.  

Aragorn smiles more than I remember before.  

The Faramir situation makes more sense.  I find it telling that Faramir siezes not the Ring -- but the Ringbearer.  And I find it gutsy (in a good way ) that the writers use book-Faramir's exact words in the movie just before he goes down movie-Faramir's little detour to Osgiliath.  

I think a third viewing probably can wait for several weeks.  I'm satisfied for now.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Agree to Disagree*



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> *
> Good movie. I'll see it again and I'll buy the DVD, but it's flawed and I consider FotR a superior movie.
> 
> And I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
> *




I think this sums up the discussion nicely. I too think that the first movie was better and there were issues with TTT that could have been handled/done better both with a better adaptation of the original and within the movie itself (such as Faramir saying that Boromir is dead without giving us any indication of how he could know that to be true... an error probably due to an unfortunately overzealous edit).
But it's a decent movie overall, worth seeing more than once at matinee prices and probably full price as well if you don't take out the financing necessary to also get a soda and popcorn.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 3, 2003)

My favourite line in the film:

Faramir is questioning Frodo and Sam, in Ithilien, the borders of Mordor. he turns to Sam:

"And I suppose you're his bodyguard?"

"No, I'm his gardener".

The whole theatre burst out laughing at that, it was such an excellent line


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 3, 2003)

Lady Starhawk said:
			
		

> *Tolkien was a lousy writer. Brilliant man, but lousy writer.  *




I can't let this pass. 

You are wrong, Lady Starhawk.

It may be that he writes in a fashion which doesn't appeal to you or you find difficult to get to grips with, that is fair enough.

He was not a lousy writer though.


----------



## KenM (Jan 4, 2003)

I don't like Tolkiens style of writing, either. He is great for setting up and backround. But his plot resolution is so SLOW. "They walk over one hill, then another hill, and down the road they walk". Love the movies, can't wait to have all three extended DVD's to watch at once.


----------



## Storminator (Jan 4, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *I don't like Tolkiens style of writing, either. He is great for setting up and backround. But his plot resolution is so SLOW. "They walk over one hill, then another hill, and down the road they walk". Love the movies, can't wait to have all three extended DVD's to watch at once. *




Tolkien's books are there to explore the world, and oh yeah, there's a story going on too. If you're reading for story you're in the wrong books. Some people claim LotR is primarily narrative. It is not. It is primarily descriptive, with narrative in there as well.

If you try to read it again, stop every now and again and ask yourself if you can picture the sets, if you can hear the language. You can taste the air in LotR, if you only stop to imagine it. 

PS


----------



## KenM (Jan 4, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tolkien's books are there to explore the world, and oh yeah, there's a story going on too. If you're reading for story you're in the wrong books. Some people claim LotR is primarily narrative. It is not. It is primarily descriptive, with narrative in there as well.
> 
> ...





 Most people read fiction for the story, IMO. If I want a book about the world, I'll pick up the Middle Earth RPG, as well as the countless other books with the maps, ect. But I should have said in my last post, the Hobbit moves at a good pace, but FoTR is so SLOW I can't finish it.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 4, 2003)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 5) The fell beast and the arrow. The beast flaps away for a moment, and then Sam carries Frodo out of sight. The Rider can't find them again amongst all that stone, and it knows it's vulnerable to the massed bowfire underneath it. Don't forget Sauron's arrogance, he doesn't truly believe the Ring can be used against him. When the Nazgul returns, his reaction would be "The Ring is going to Gondor? Excellent, it'll corrupt whoever is wearing it and I'll win with ease!"
> 
> *



I've noticed this complaint about the Nazgul being driven off by an arrow in several arguments on the boards.

What's the deal with that?  In the Fellowship of the Ring (the book), Legolas takes out a Nazgul with one shot from his bow.

This takes place when they're going down the Anduin, before reaching Amon Hen and the Breaking of the Fellowship.  

A bunch of orcs on the shores start shooting arrows at the Fellowship, and then one of the Nazgul on Fell-Beast back comes flying in.  Legolas takes a shot in the dark, and kills the Fell-Beast.   The Nazgul falls on the other side of the river.

In The Two Towers, when Merry and Pippin are being held by the orcs, the orcs even discuss this when they are arguing with each other.  The Uruk-hai are laughing that Sauron's servants don't seem so touch because one got shot down with an arrow..

So, it's definitely possible for Faramir to drive off a Nazgul with one shot of his bow in the movie.

I find in the movies that there are several events that happen that are right out of the book, but they've switched them to different times in the story, or made a different character do what was done in the book....this is just more of the same.

As an example, when Frodo and Gandalf are in Moria, talking, and Frodo says he wished Bilbo had killed Gollum, and Gandalf gives his big speech, that's almost verbatim out of the books.  But in the book, it took place in Bag End, before Frodo ever started his journey.

Or at the gates of Moria, in the movie, Frodo guesses that the way in is a riddle.  In the book Merry first suggested that it might be a riddle, and it was Gandalf that figured it out....etc. etc.

As to The Two Towers movie, Merry and Pippin trick Treebeard into attacking Isengard.  In the book, they basically meet Treebeard, and then explain their adventures, then Treebeard goes and calls the Entmoot and makes the decision to attack and all himself.  But that really doesn't give much for Merry and Pippin to do, and it violates a key dramatic element needed for a movie adaptation.  The viewers need to be able to associate with the heroes, and the heroes have to be active....not just sitting there while "NPCs" they've met make all the decisions.  I think PJ made the correct choices for the movie.

Banshee


----------



## Chauzu (Jan 4, 2003)

GREAT movie! Very fun to watch! Coulda skipped the scene where Aragorn falls off the cliff and a little less dwarf joking, but otherwise very good. I especially liked Gollum and the Ents. Exactly how I pictured them. I also thought the oliphaunts and nazgul were cool too. Can't wait for the extended dvd to come out!


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 6, 2003)

Greetings all

  I thought the movie was great even though at times I found myself frowning at some of the changes made. The one major gripe I have with the movie was Faramirs portrayal, he always struck me as much more of a scholar first and soldier second but Jackson never eluded once to the more sagely side of his character. I'm hoping that in the extended DVD version their will be some footage which illustrates this slightly more.

  On a slightly different note one particular thing that peeked my curiosity whilst thumbing through one of the many Tolkien books at my local bookstore was an illustration of a scene that Tolkien removed from the LoTR. The scene was the Witch King encountering Frodo on his fell beast at the Seat of Amon Hen. I was wondering if Jackson maybe used this as a basis for Frodo's encounter with the Winged Nazgul in Two Towers and whether any other changes in the movie have their origin in Tolkiens earlier
 drafts of his work. 

yours Salthanas


----------



## Someone (Jan 6, 2003)

I´m really sorry to say this, but I found the movie _boring_. The pace was awfully slow, the dialogue poor, and the plot lacking. Granted, it had some few good moments, but those don´t compensate three hours of rolling in the seat.


----------



## Zappo (Jan 17, 2003)

I finally got to see the movie today. It is great in all respects, just like the first one, and the deviations like the elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir, etcetera, didn't bother me one bit.

Since I'm tired and I want to go to sleep, feel free to insert here lots of appreciation for everything in the movie.

Save one thing.

The dwarf. Can hardly call him Gimli, Elwood would probably be more appropriate. While I understand the need for comic relief, I don't see why it must be placed right in the most dramatic moments and, more importantly, why it must be accentrated on one character. One character that in FotR had a fairly different depiction, especially as seen in the extended version. There were other elements in tTT that could afford the chore of being comic relief a couple of times in place of the dwarf, such as the ents, Gollum, and the orcs. Oh, each of these have their light moments, but the bulk of the laughs are drawn by Gimli, who practically has nothing else in the whole movie. He is so different from the FotR Gimli, it's incredible.


----------



## FraserRonald (Jan 22, 2003)

Well, sorry to resurrect this thread, but I feel some little vindication at seeing another shares, almost exactly, my view of the movie. Wonderful, but failing to reach the promise of the first.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20030117x

As a side note, when did WotC start reviewing movies?


----------

