What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Fair enough Arathorn, but by diminish the original, I did not mean to imply that the book has somehow been tarnished, I only meant that every Jackson change has brought the film further and further away from what made the book such a great work in the first place. I didn't make that as clear as I should have.

Actually, my brain was having a movie-Gimli moment at 3 AM there. Anyway, it is nice to have gone about looking at each others opinions from different angles and stripping out the ambiguities and finding out exactly where we disagree. It's been a stimulating moment parrying ideas with you and Amandil. JD has made his opinions clear (at least to me) since last year.

BTW, although this sounds like I'm dying, I actually picked someone else's brain by mistake after watching the DVD. I hope to get mine back. It is grey and fairly used.

*Raises glass* "To the Professor!"

[azalea]

I'm seeing it for a second time tomorrow.
Did anyone else notice that Saruman is again portayed as truly being in cahoots w/ Sauron, rather than trying to "go it alone?" I think this was mentioned after FotR, and the consensus was that PJ would make it more apparent in TTT. I guess he just abandoned this storyline altogether. Unless I missed something during my one viewing.
Also, I felt the camera editing during the battle scenes was poorly done. They did to many close-ups during the action, which just made it look like a blur to me. I would have prefered to have actually seen what was happening clearly.

[Lizra]

I had that problem with the battle too. I thought it was just me being old and not used to movies. Switch, swoosh, jump...it's all dark, I just went with the flow. Owning it will make this soooo much better! My eyes really were sore after the movie. I kept trying to focus in better.

[Gerbil]

Ermm.... bugger.

I go away for a bit and come back to 10 pages to catch up on.
Perhaps not

If it's any consolation - I saw TTT again, and enjoyed it much more than the first time.

Hopefully this trend will continue in my third viewing

Biggest issue for me in this film now is how the hell Frodo, Sam, Faramir et al make it to the west shores of Osgiliath (and in Frodo + Sam's case back again) without being twatted by the enemy.
Oh well.

[Gerbil]

BTW, dunno if it's been covered here, but I'm pointing out again (did this before TTT came out) that my bet is Grima pushes Saruman off Orthanc?

Apart from it being vaguely close to the book, let's not forget Grima sheds a tear when he sees the army that will kill everyone in his country. Having read some of the motivations of the PJ Grima, he's basically just a weasel with a heart of gold. Bullied as child, not really bad, circumstances etc. Blah...

[Nurvingiel]

Of course you are right Eruviel Greenleaf and Khamul. I finished TTT and started ROTK back to back in the wee hours of the mourning, and now they just blend together seamlessly. (Which they should, since I believe the Lord of the Rings was origionally one book.)


And I also welcome you Lady of Rivendell! You sounded like you didn't feel welcome for a moment, I just hope you didn't get dumped on in your first post or something like that.

[mithrand1r]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I do not except the arguement that this is PJ's adaptation, impression ,version or whatever you want to call it. This movie is entitled The Lord of the Rings, and that carries with it an enormous pre-existing public awareness that benefitted the studio greatly. If they are going to reap the rewards of this pre-existing resevoir of revenue than they can take their lumps when their movie deviates wildly, at times ridiculously, from the original.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. Some people may be offended by this comparison - but oh well. To me it's as if NY announced that they were rebuilding the Twin Towers. Then, after they're complete, finding out they're only 25 stories tall.

I don't see why I should accept the movies just because they're PJs interpretation. It's a thin shadow of the books. Thinner than what I initially thought when I saw FotR. The only reason I was able to enjoy TT more was because I had such low expectations of what Jackson was going to do with The Two Towers. I guess basically this time - I checked my brain at the door.

JD & squinteyedsoutherner,

I think the comparison is fair. If the movie had a different title/characters with essentially the same story, it probably would have done less in revenues. A large part of the movie's initial success has to be linked to its recognition/association with Tolkien's work of fiction. Granted as stand alone movies they are Very Good to Excellent with relatively little room for complaint.

That being said, I viewed TTT for a 2nd time. This time I tried to view the film separately from the book. I enjoyed the film more this time around with the following comments:

I noticed Legolas' eye change and the archers firing phantom arrows that others mentioned.

I still think that ents changed their mind too quickly, even going by the movie, from doing nothing to attacking Sauruman.

Didn't the White wizard explain who Merry & Pippen were so that the ents would not have to waste their time discussing and agreeing that M&P were not Orcs?

I am left wondering how Sam/Frodo go from East of Anduin to West and back to East w/out running into enemy.

Why didn't the Nazgûl 1)alert other nazgûl about seeing the ring and 2) take control of his stead and go after the ring again? From the movie, I get the impression that little if anything, would stop the nazgûl from claiming the ring.

I am surprised that Gandalf, Eomer & Co. did not get their horses impaled against the orcs pikes. ( I am willing to concede their expert ridership in charging done the incline towards the orcs)

Why was Grima given a horse to leave the Golden Hall? Or permited to leave for that matter.

Nothing was mentioned (at least I don't remember it) about the elven cloaks (at least not in the theatric releases).

I would think that someone would have noticed the rocks/dust falling down the "hill" from Sam and Frodo sliding down. It would warrent(sp?) an investigation of area with a squad of troops. The two guards should have been able to see something amiss at the close range that they were in relation to the hobbits.

If it was mentioned then in the book, I thought the Elf cloaks were similar in function to camouflage in that it would make you harder to see against the background, but up close it would not do much in disguising you.

Those cloaks are bigger than they appear. While walking around they fit very nicely. When needed, it appears they can expand in size to cover one up.

These are just some of the more glaring things that jump at me, if I look at the film with as little reference to the book as possible. I still think the film is enjoyable and it does capture the feel of Middle-Earth well.

If one was to take the films as a transfer of the books to film then there are several areas where the film differs. These differences are not always due to time constraints. In some cases material was added. This made the story flow better and/or be more understandable in some cases. Sometimes the additional material and changes forced the need for more changes to be made to keep things consistent. Some changes just made me wonder why.

I know that movies are not the same as the book. I guess that in this case, I hoped that the film would follow the book in a way that would 1) keep the characters as they were in the book with minor changes at most. 2) pretend that people who watch the film never read the book. Sometimes, I think that certain shotcuts were made since it is assumed that many people have read LOTR. 3) if the book must be streamlined, be careful in what is cut out and what is left in. Certain parts need to be kept in its entirety (ie. concil of Elrond).

Sincerely,
Anthony

[azalea]

I saw it again today, and it was MUCH better in the second viewing! I really liked it the first time, but since I knew what changes to expect this time, I was able to focus on the little details. There were some really good camera shots. I was still a little bothered by the things I mentioned previously, but not that much. I can't wait to get my soundtrack! I teared up when Haldir died. It kind of reminded me of that commercial: "Here's one place where it doesn't matter who your neighbor is (shows crib in hospital nursery). Here's the other (shows graveyard)." I also got misty when Treebeard saw the desolation in Fangorn.

As far as Grima's tears, I think he is crying because Saruman has said no one will be left alive, and of course that means Eowyn, too, so Grima knows his babe will die (or at least he thinks so!).

[TinuvielChild]

I have a question (I haven't read this entire thread - not enought time - so bear with me if this has already been posted): Craig Parker's character. In FotR, his name is Haldir, yet my friends tell me that in TTT, his name is Aldor. What's up with that? Is that even correct? Confused...


And if I have misinformation, just ignore this post...

[BeardofPants]

I think you have been misinformed...

[Lady of Rivendell]

Thank you Nurvingiel! Nothing that dramatic, I assure you. It's just getting used to the feel of this place. People tend to have very drastic opinions here and I'm just getting into the swing of things. Thank you for your concern...It's appriciated.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
I still think that ents changed their mind too quickly, even going by the movie, from doing nothing to attacking Sauruman.

I think that it would have added a bit more humor and also be more "faithful" to the way ents are if they added more subtitles to start those scenes that said:
"3 days later..."

It would have had some minor groans and laughs from the uninitiated as it gets repeated but most of them will probably have a LOTR-fan as part of their gang to set them straight.

The scene where Merry and Pippin were drinking entdraughts with Treebeard didn't make the cut for the movie but might be added in the extended DVD but it presents a question if they intend to show the 2 hobbits being much bigger in ROTK; at least for those not getting the DVD.

Time for another long wait...

[Christiana]

I saw it for the second time now!!!!!
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!I'm screaming!!!!
All I can say is WOW!!!
I must be dreaming!!!!!!!!

[ThorinOakenshield]

Truer words have never been spoken. There will be some to whom this film is "intolerable".....I would be one of those people.
I own Fellowship of the Ring, and I can tell you I cannot watch it all the way through due to all the "creative liberties", a.k.a. ridiculous re-writes, contained therein. And to hear from this message board that TTT contains even more of the kind boils my blood. To me, it's butchery! Nothing more. Just butchery of a masterful literary work. Yes, yes, Im a purist through and through, and would love to have seen a faithful rendition of the books upon the silver screen. But there are those who can deal with all the ridiculous changes and omissions. How they do it, I have no clue but bless them all!
See my post, just above this one, for more analysis if you like. And long lives the Dwarves! *ThorinOakenshield*

[Gerbil]

Didn't the White wizard explain who Merry & Pippen were so that the ents would not have to waste their time discussing and agreeing that M&P were not Orcs?

That bit bothers me too. Also, Ents' hatred of orcs is well known - they kill first and (don't) ask questions later. If Treebeard seriously thought P&M were little orcs, he'd have killed them immediately.
In the books this is all handled much better and makes sense to why he spares them. Another example of PJ taking just enough material from the books to make the screenplay even more insulting.

I should put that line in my sig file I think...

[EDIT] I can't put it in my sig-file - there appears to be a problem with the entmoot database...

[Kalimac]

Here's a renedition of the Two Towers script. Good for reference purposes when trying to make your point.

Two Towers Manuscript

>>Didn't the White wizard explain who Merry & Pippen were so that the ents would not have to waste their time discussing and agreeing that M&P were not Orcs?<<

I suppose Treebeard knew, but perhaps the Entmoot had to take things more slooooooowly in this regard. (of course they had no such problem attacking Isengard) Still, I liked this part of the movie and would have liked to see more.

>>Nazgûl 1)alert other nazgûl about seeing the ring<<

The nazgûl cannot see the Ring, they can only sense its presence. If Frodo put the Ring on, than they would be able to 'see' it. Since Sam tackles him at this point . . the nazgûl only has an inclination that the Ring is nearby . . recall out in the marshes, or under the tree root . . the nazgûl sensed the presence of the Ring . . but could not locate the source. The nazgûl use their beasts for their eyes . . Faramir shot at the beast and Sam pulled Frodo away. I have no doubt though that the nazgûl at this point returned to Sauron and reported that he felt the Rings presence in Gondor. Sauron now believes that the Ring is going to Minas Tirith . . and, now is the time to drive Denethor mad . . and, attack the city. Sauron does not fathom, even in the movie that Faramir has let the hobbit with the Ring go.



>> am surprised that Gandalf, Eomer & Co. did not get their horses impaled against the orcs pikes<<

Ha. Point taken (pun intended) however, don't forget that this is a fantasy . . suspension of belief is acceptable . .

>> I thought the Elf cloaks were similar in function to camouflage in that it would make you harder to see against the background, but up close it would not do much in disguising you.<<

Not according to the book . . Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas were so well camouflaged that Eomer and his men rode right past them. I think we can suspend belief here a bit and say that the cloaks could hide one much better than any 'ordinary' camouflage. This part was done well, imo.

>>Treebeard and the 'little Orcs'<<

In the book, Treebeard is much gentler . . but he does say that, "if I had seen you before I heard you, I should have just trodden on you, taking you for little Orcs, and found out my mistake afterwards."

What is interesting to me is that in the HOME books, Tolkien had first envisioned Treebeard as much more menacing. I think that PJ hops between all the Tolkien material, using HOME and Tolkien's other works to tell this story . . and, some of course he embellishes . .

(edited)

[barrelrider110]

Hello everyone,
Sorry to have arrived late to the party. I read most of the thread and enjoyed reading everyone's opinions.

I liked TT better than FotK probably because I had a different viewing experience for a number of reasons. I went to a matinee, saw it with a large group of friends, and did a bit of extra traveling to see it at a premium cinema with stadium seating etc. rather than at the local multiplex. I also had different expectations, so the departures from the book were less irksome.

Lots of good opinions covered here. Good job everyone. Tough to think of something original.

On Theoden's exorcism:
At first thought the exorcism was a bit campy, but didn't Gandalf essentially do the same thing in the book, but in a much more subtle way?

On Grima Wormtongue:
He seemed to be able to weave a spell. When he tries to seduce Eowyn, there was a moment when I thought she would submit (yuck) and then she gathers herself and calls him a snake. Good bit of acting by Miranda Otto.

On Gandalf & Eomer's charge at Helm's Deep:
How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000? (Aside from the fact that it should have been Erkenbrand with 1,000 infrantrymen) Ridiculous, PJ, just ridiculous! Please don't insult my intelligence again.

[Kalimac]

>>How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000<<

There is never any mention in the movie of exactly how many men/cavalry returned to Helms Deep with Gandalf.

Also, I understand that the scene with the Huorn was filmed . . so, it may end up in the SE or even in ROtK to further explain the defeat of the Uruk-hai. (although, for the casual viewer the additon of the Huorns would have been confusing . . PJ left the total force Gandalf returned with ambiguous . . perhaps he returned with all the armed forces of Rohan? )

To me the movie suffers from many cut scenes . . choices that PJ obviously had to make to keep the movie at exactly 2 hours and 59 minutes per New Lines insistance. I'd liked to see these scenes restored.

[crickhollow]

I believe that Eomer told Aragorn in the beginning that the number of his followers was 2,000--not 200. But I could be wrong.

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Kalimac
>>How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000<<

There is never any mention in the movie of exactly how many men/cavalry returned to Helms Deep with Gandalf.

Also, I understand that the scene with the Huorn was filmed . . so, it may end up in the SE or even in ROtK to further explain the defeat of the Uruk-hai. (although, for the casual viewer the additon of the Huorns would have been confusing . . PJ left the total force Gandalf returned with ambiguous . . perhaps he returned with all the armed forces of Rohan? )

To me the movie suffers from many cut scenes . . choices that PJ obviously had to make to keep the movie at exactly 2 hours and 59 minutes per New Lines insistance. I'd liked to see these scenes restored.

True, there was no mention of the number in Eomer's troop. I am assuming the contingent was the same as encountered Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas chasing the Uruk-hai on the plain of Rohan. They looked to number no more than 200, and there certainly was no more than 500 riders in the final charge.

I agree that this was probably a product of some serious editing, but to me and those who didn't read the books (or hadn't read them in a while) it looked ridiculous.

Something to look for when we watch it again.