Two Towers Trailer Released.....Impressions?

[StrawberryIcecream]

*sniff* I watched the trailer yeaterday after downloading half of it (the other half wouldnt work* And i nearly cried at that! goodness what i'm going to be like in the film!

[bropous]

Agreed, Gerbil. It is stupid as hell to go against the Professor's wishes and transalte his OWN languages into Finnish or Urdu or Lesser Estonian....

AND, them WAS headlights. They are in a pair, moving together, and shining so bloody brightly that they could not possibly be "farmer brush fires." Reminds me of the "Phoenix lights" phenomenon.....after the lights were viewed spectrographically, they turned out ot be of a spectrum NOT manufactured by modern technology. And STILL you had the gov't swearing up and down, "those were planes!"

[Faeirex]

I haven't bothered to read all several hundred messages here, so I'm not sure if my comments have been made already. Ah well, will post anyway.

First off, would like to say am actually very impressed by trailer, despite what I may say next. Also, it was quite some time ago when I saw it, so my memories of it may not be entirely accurate.

First 'query' as I will call it, to avoid sounding too critical early on. There appear to be more shots of Eowyn than Frodo, or in fact any other member of the original fellowship. I may be wrong, but doesn't Eowyn only get about a paragraph in the actual book (yes, I know I exaggerate, but my point still stands). Why then should she be marketed as being more important than the actual ringbearer? She may be female, but Legolas is still more attractive than her.

Next point (am still harping on about Eowyn), she is shown actually beating Aragorn in a sort of mini- duel. Aragorn is the heir of Isildur. I don't think he would be beaten by a woman, however well trained she is. Another moment definitely not mentioned in the book. Methinks Jackson goes too far with his glamorising of the female characters.

Final quibble that I can think of right now- Gandalf is shown. Isn't one of the big parts of FotR his apparent death? Do we not spend large parts of the beginning of TTT believing that Gandalf is dead? Is it not a wonderful moment of surprise when we discover that he has not, in face, kicked the bucket? (ok, maybe I go too far here).
In my opinion, being told that he is still alive is robbing people of the thrill of the moment when he reappears. What's the point in letting us think he's dead if about an hour later, when the film is over, you suddenly discover that he's not, therefore spoiling several months worth of anticipation?

Ok. Done now. Feel free to post your own comments on the matter, and also to disagree wih me and point out all the flaws in my reasoning. I can take the criticism.

~Fae

[Earniel]

You may be right about the Gandalf part. It was the same comment I made too after seeing the trailer. It does take away the excitement of his re-appearance a bit. (I remember how my sister spoiled that while I reading TTT the first time) But I'll think it's difficult of leaving Gandalf out of the trailer intirely. Frankly I don't think I'll enjoy TTT more or less with seeing Gandalf in the trailer. I sooo hope it's going to be good! Sigh, soooo many months still to go....

[Gerbil]

Headlights?
I don't believe it.
Why?
Because headligfhts don't show up that bright during the day - it's really bright out there.
But the sun reflecting would.

Hmmm, suppose I should go check what direction the sun is shining in to see if that's feasible or not...

As for Eowyn, yes *sigh* looks like PJ is determined to make Aragorn into a mincing cry-baby. Also, I'm thinking maybe PJ (on account of being hideously ugly, whatever talents he might have) does not get much interaction with women in real-life, so is focussing on them in the film.

I can see myself doing an 'un-director's cut' of the 3 films - taking out all the crap lovey bits he put in because he likes looking at pretty women (although I'd still argue about Arwen being pretty, she's a dog!).

It definately does seem he has a weird angle on lurrrrrrrve and Aragorn.

What annoys me is Viggo portrays PJ's Aragorn really well, so god knows how cool the film would have been if he was portraying Tolkien's Aragorn!

[Polkat]

I have to disagree with "Gerbil" [by the way love your graphic. It is so adorable.]

Though Peter Jackson may not be THE most attractive man ever or even in the top thousand he makes a damn good movie.

I don't know about anyone else but I adored Fellowship. It was great including Arwen [who while not THE most beautiful woman ever is certainly not ugly although it makes me feel better to pretend she is. Mwah hahahahahahahaha evil laughter etc etc] I enjoyed the Aragorn/ Arwen scenes which were lifted straight from the appendixes so are 100% lordoftheringsy.

Also quite looking to watching Eowyn beat Aragorn although it has to be said I like Aragorn a considerable amount more than I like Eowyn. I just think it'll be really good.

If I could get a minimum of hate mail I'd really appricate that.

[Gerbil]

Thanks, my avatar is blushing

Anyway, I think for many fans the point is not whether what Jackson changed / added was good, but simply whether he should have done it at all.

Tolkien spent over 50 years sorting all this stuff out, and for PJ and a few crappy screenplay writers to think in a year they could better him is IMNSHO utter rubbish.

Changes were necessary, I doubnt anyone can really argue that - certainly to get the book down to 9 hours or so total, but some of the changes have come straight from PJ's imagination and much as I love the film, he doesn't really have the original imagination needed to create such a work - he is merely very good at piggy-backing on Tolkien's truly astounding works.

Oh well, whenever I get too angry thinking about it, I just think that it could have been worse. And then I think about Phantom Menace. And usually start laughing

BUT - And this is what annoys me, is when PJ introduces something new without thinking things through and it completely messes up the whole world. There's not many - most of PJ's changes / omissions work within his world, but there's one I keep coming back to now more and more.

Basically, now I can watch the whole film whenever I like now I keep re-watching the whole Moria sequence. And those damn climbing orcs are SO DAMN STUPID! AAAAARGGGHHHHH!!!!
PJ here has introduced, for the sake of, what, 3 camera shots, THE most STUPID and ANNOYING thing ever.

Don't believe me?

Let's take a few examples:

Helm's Deep. Orcs can climb walls, they take Helm's Deep almost immediately. End of Rohan.
Pelannor Fields. Orcs can climb walls, they take Minas Tirith almost immediately. End of Gondor.

Oh ho! But of course, orcs won't be climbing in these battles, so that's OK. But then the question arises: Why? They did in Moria, why not elsewhere?

AAARRGHH SO STUPID!!!!!

Ahem. Sorry...

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I have a few points to make here. . .

1. Those were goblins in Moria. I think they may be different, I don't really know. But you're right, they shouldn't climb walls like that.
2.I am so sick of this anti-arwen stuff I could scream. Honestly. It's annoying, so much that I sometimes feel like defending the very-much expanded role of Arwen.
3. Although it would have been cool to keep Gandalf a secret, a. I think a lot of the people seeing the trailer are fans who have read the books, and they know this, and b. It would have been hard not to show him. That may be part of how they're planning on getting people to come back and see TTT, by showing Gandalf the White. Because people like Gandalf, so they'll be glad to know he'll be back.
4. Eowyn. Okay, I know they showed a lot of Eowyn, but I really could care less that they showed less of Frodo, because first there could be some reasons for not showing him too much, as they may have wanted to keep that stuff secret longer. And as for Eowyn, well, they can show her as much as they want to, I'm happy with that. And as for the little sparring thing with Aragorn, I don't think it makes Aragorn look bad, it looks like a really cool scene, GO EOWYN!!! More later, gotta go now. And I expect at least a little hate mail! Maybe after I write more, though . ..

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
[B]I have a few points to make here. . .

1. Those were goblins in Moria. I think they may be different, I don't really know. But you're right, they shouldn't climb walls like that.
2.I am so sick of this anti-arwen stuff I could scream. Honestly. It's annoying, so much that I sometimes feel like defending the very-much expanded role of Arwen.

Goblins = Orcs. I made the same mistake.
Makes Saruman claiming the uruk-hai are a cross between orcs and goblin-men even more stupid though.

As for anti-Arwen, well, personally I can't stand Liv Tyler, and thinks she's rubbish and ugly, but putting that aside, are you suggesting that PJ's version is better than Tolkien's? 'Cos that's what it boils down to

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Gerbil

Goblins = Orcs. I made the same mistake.
Makes Saruman claiming the uruk-hai are a cross between orcs and goblin-men even more stupid though.

As for anti-Arwen, well, personally I can't stand Liv Tyler, and thinks she's rubbish and ugly, but putting that aside, are you suggesting that PJ's version is better than Tolkien's? 'Cos that's what it boils down to

That is most certainly not what it boils down do. I like Tolkien's version better (duh!!!), because a. it is the original, b. it is in book format, c. PJ has some really horrible lines in the movie. Mainly just these two: "If you want him, come and claim him!" and "Let's go hunt some orc!" But there are others. Oh, and Saruman teaching Gandalf to breakdance...badly...ugh. But that aside, I did like the movie, I do not think Liv is ugly, and some (not all, some) of the character expansion is okay, and if PJ wants to add lots of Arwen or Eowyn (diff. subject, I know), that's fine by me as long as he doesn't ruin their, or anyone else's characters. Especially additional Eowyn scenes.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
That is most certainly not what it boils down do.

...and if PJ wants to add lots of Arwen or Eowyn (diff. subject, I know), that's fine by me as long as he doesn't ruin their, or anyone else's characters.

So why exactly doesn't it boil down to what I've just said?
Because, let's face it, you can hardly argue that PJ has expanded Arwen's role without ruining Aragorn's character.

He has not expanded the roles, he has CHANGED them, and THIS is my point and also why a lot of people dislike Arwen in the film.
I simply have the extra bonus of finding her ugly

You can bet once TTT comes we'll have threads on EOWYN'S EXPANDED ROLE which from the trailer alone looks like it will weaken Aragorn, and make him look bad at swordplay as well as having an inability to keep it in his pants when Arwen is gone.
Perhaps that is why Arwen follows Aragorn around - she knows the old saying 'out of sight, out of mind'

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

It does not boil down to me liking PJ's version better, which I do not. I happen to prefer the original. As I've said. The fact that I do not mind Arwen's expanded role so much has nothing to do with it. There are parts of it I do mind, such as the weakening of not Aragorn, but Frodo, the elven rings, and Elrond, but I still like the movie overall, and PJ is trying to make a movie, not a perfect replica of the books. They are very different mediums. Perhaps the roles/characters are changed, but it honestly isn't that bad. Just look think about what could have happened. It could always be worse.
As for Eowyn, I don't see her as weakening Aragorn's character at all, even if she does beat him at sword fighting, which I don't think she will; it didn't look like she was beating him, he just looked a little surprised (to my mind) to see Eowyn, a woman, actually capable of sword fighting (I don't think Arwen could use that sword she was waving at the Nazgul). Which does not make him look bad. Also, I think PJ, from what I've seen so far, will do a fine job of making it look more like the actual story--that Eowyn is after Aragorn, but he remains perfectly faithful to his Elven Lady back home.
Back to Arwen...I don't know, I'm kinda disappointed to see her in TTT, where she does not belong, especially away from Rivendell (maybe a scene or two in Rivendell wouldn't hurt, but away from home? I think not.) but I'm just so sick of all the anti-Arwen and anti-Liv people that I sometimes feel like defending her. Again, it could always be worse.

Oh, and Faeirex...Eowyn is more attractive than Legolas. And that's saying something, I mean, I am a pretty hot elf....

[cassiopeia]

Oooh, this is a good thread now, so I will have to put my 2 cents in (plus I want to get to 100 posts):
1. Liv Tyler is not ugly, but that doesn't mean I like her or Arwens role.
2. The book is better than the movie.
3. I thought I saw a car the 2nd time I saw the movie, but it can't be because they didn't have them then (unless Sauron is up to something else).
4. Arwens role was probably expanded because she is good looking. And I guess so will Eowyns.
5. Climbing orcs is dumb.
6. Ganalf in the trailer is good cause I want to see what he looks like and if you are a true fan you will know he doesn't die.
7. I wouldn't mind if the FOTR went for 6 hours.
8. Frodo Lives!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

1. Liv is not ugly
2. Eowyn rocks!!!
3. climbing ors were stupid
4. Frodo Lives!!!

Oh, and 'Minds are like books. They only work when they are open.' That was random. I blame your sig, cassiopeia

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
and PJ is trying to make a movie, not a perfect replica of the books. They are very different mediums.

Ah and this is where so many people in my opinion are getting it wrong, although most likely because of PJ's propaganda machine.
Creating a movie IS different from writing a book, I'll grant him that much. Things need to be shown differently for clarity, brevity etc. What I won't grant PJ is that making a movie allows you to completely change your source material and create massive new differences.
PErsonally I'm a bit tired of PJ reeling out the old 'it's my interpretation' bit - now I've seen the film god knows how many times I'm beginning to wonder if he's read the same book as me!
His interpretation, where he's interpreted it, is fine, and I like most of it. I get annoyed at the bits he's just invented or deliberately gone against the grain of the book (and the spirit of it's author) to achieve a worse result.
There are certain things I don't attribute to PJ - Arwen actually being one of them - I see this as New Line assuming we need a famous (-ish) beautiful (-ish) female somewhere dominant or else the men won't watch and the women will complain.
But there's many PJ bits that he's put in without thinking about the wider implications. In most other works, that's not really an issue. In LotR, where Tolkien spent so much time creating a believable world, and when PJ spends so much time going on about being a fan etc. etc. it's (to me) a huge issue.

To be honest, my thoughts on PJ now are:
1) He's doing a good job on LotR where he sticks to the works
2) His own additions suck
3) He and the screenplay writers are NOT the huge Tolkien fans they profess to be - this was just a publicity stunt.

Oh well.

Still, gotta love the Balrog, eh?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Seeing as the balrog had wings, I'm happy!

I would agree that PJ took some liberties with the story that I did not like, but still, you have to forgive him at least a little. . .this sort of gets in to the problems I have with the entire film industry, (and Hollywood) though. There is way too much concentration on making lots of money, and not on quality, etc. Example: The Matrix could have had a lot more philosophy in it, but no, they wanted to make money (considering the high costs of making the film. . .) and they knew they would get less audience if it were more philosophical then action-ish. Not that I didn't love the action aspect of it, but a little more of the philosophy would have been appreciated. People tend to go for action in movies, though, so. . .anyway, same deal with LotR, they knew they would make more money if they had a marketable female main character...like Arwen. That's the disappointing part. On the other hand, one of my problems with Tolkien's writing is that I find it to be rather sexist at some points, and although there are definitely reasons for that and I am not attacking in any way his writing, or himself, I thought it was nice to have a more prominent female character. Since it goes against the book, it's kind of annoying (okay, more than kind of) but PJ is trying to please a wider audience here. So I don't exactly have one definite side on this. BUT, I don't mind the replacement of Glorfindel in general, though I have problems with some of the specifics there. This brings in another point about movies in general: In books, it is a lot easier to have obscure minor characters like that, but having a character like Glorfindel in a movie (especially 3 movies) it doesn't work to have a character that comes in once and then disappears for the remainder of the films. That's just one more point about the difference in mediums there. Back to the more prominent female character thing...I don't exactly love what PJ did there, I thought it could have been much better, while staying more close to the book, but oh well. Anyway, I find again that I've written a long, uninteligable post. I look forward to your response, Gerbil, as it will tell me if anything I just said made any sense

[Earniel]

I kind of liked the crawling orcs, as much as they are difficult to implement in the next movies. Am I the only one?

[bropous]

1. Q: Do I REALLY want to go over all this again?
A: No.

Hate the movie for this-or-that point, who really bloody cares. When it all comes down to it, everything ends up a matter of personal taste. Whether a movie is good, whether a book is well-written, whether a woman is attractive, ALL are subjective matters. On most of the above points we could argue til Hobbits lost an interest in food, and still we would each probably remain pretty close to our indivdual starting position. I think PJ did a great job, and don't bloody well tell me that my position is influenced by PJ's promotion machine. I like the dadgum film because I like it. 'Nuff said.

AND I like the goblins coming down the pillars of Dwarrodelf. AND Liv Tyler does not make my eyeballs hurt when looking at her. AND Eowyn can be given a larger part and the film will STILL be fantastic. AND Tolkien STILL would have hated what Jackson and Boyens did with his book in creating the script.

And STILL I will be foaming at the mouth come mid-December the next two years to see these masterworks.

[olsonm]

Nice post brop.

[IronParrot]

There is no such thing as overglamourizing Eowyn.

She can use all the "onstage" expansion she can get. In the novel, there are a ton of things that occur "offstage", Eowyn's relations with Aragorn, Wormtongue and to a lesser extent Faramir among them. Works perfectly in the novel - but when you make a film, you have to develop almost entirely through showing, not just telling.

Of all the scenes in the TTT preview, the one with her sparring with Aragorn was perhaps the one that interested me the most.

I still think the one shot of Dernhelm, if that's what it is, looks a little too obvious though.