What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[mithrand1r]

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.

...

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.

Kalimac,

In one area it is mentioned that Eomer has 2,000 men with him (although they only show about 80-100 in that scene of the film.) and in Helms Deep it is mention how can 300 (or some similar figure) withstand against 10,000+ orcs.

Perhaps there were more men that joined with Gandalf. (or not) This is not made clearer in the film, so we are left with what is said in the film.

I think that you are correct in the movie suffering from cut scenes. Not fatal cuts, but they are enough to be noticable and hurt the quality of the film.

I still think the film is enjoyable.

Sincerely,
Anthony

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by 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.

OK, let's go with that.
Let's assume half the orcs were killed in the assault. That's woudl make the odds 2 1/2 to 1. Even those odds aren't enough for a decisive victory.

[barrelrider110]

Yes, Anthony, in spite of everythin the film was totally enjoyable.

[Earendil Overboard]

There’s a famous quote by a Roman writer about how an emperor only needs to provide people with "bread and circuses" to keep them happy. It's like what's said in "Gladiator" by one Senator: "The beating heart of Rome is not the marvel of the Senate, but the sands of the Coliseum." But there isn't much characterization, plot, or meaning in a gladiator fight.

What PJ has done to LOTR is no more than make a circus out of it to entertain the masses. By far the majority of changes made to the story sacrifice meaningful dialogue, characterization and events for the sake of black & white simplicity or a little SPECTACLE. Often the changes result in scenes that are visually impressive but illogical or unrealistic. Is simplicity and spectacle all that most viewers really care about? Consider the few examples below.

1. Saruman's own desire for power has been replaced by complete loyalty to Sauron. But how could someone corrupt NOT be tempted by the Ring's power though even good characters are? Believable? Or oversimplistic?

2. Theoden's despair and grief for his son are turned into 'demonic possession' by Saruman; and Gandalf's power to inspire hope and courage becomes an exorcism. We now have the spectacle of a little magic, but realistic characterization and human relevance are lost! Is this change worthwhile?

3. In the novel, the Ents are creatures uncomfortable with being "hasty," who take a long time over decision-making in order to be sure of reaching the right decisions; and after long thought about Saruman's damage to the forest, they decide to fight him. PJ saw fit to change this so that the Ents decide after long thought NOT to go to war, but then suddenly change their minds in a moment of passion when Treebeard sees an ugly clearcut. Has PJ made Ents act out of character or changed an interesting and meaningful characteristic just in order to create a little dramatic tension? And is it realistic that after Treebeard walks a long way to take the hobbits to one edge of the forest, ALL the Ents suddenly appear there when he cries out?

4. Instead of Faramir having enough wisdom and insight to see the danger of the Ring, he wants to use it like Boromir to increase Gondor's power. PJ says this change was needed to increase "tension" (by keeping the hobbits prisoners longer) and because it would've been unrealistic if Faramir weren’t tempted by the Ring after it had been presented as "incredibly powerful.” But isn't it more believable for Faramir to escape temptation than Saruman?! And when he later decides to let the hobbits go, the decision is no longer in character and there's no apparent reason for it! Was realistic characaterization sacrificed for a little dramatic "tension"?

5. Maybe Faramir was also changed to add a bit more spectacle: the made-up scene when Frodo is almost caught by a winged Nazgul. But is this scene realistic, and does it fit with the logic of the story? Should a Nazgul be so easily turned aside when it is so close to the Ring? Much worse, if Sauron now knows through a Nazgul that the Ring is in Osgiliath, won't he concentrate all his power on finding it there and make the quest hopeless?! The success of Frodo's quest depended entirely upon its secrecy.

6. In the battle of Helm's Deep, Aragorn and Gimli go out a side door and jump over a chasm to fight on a bridge in front of the gates. Why? Is it cleverer than staying on the walls and shooting arrows? They then turn around in the midst of battle and climb up a rope onto the wall again without being killed. More spectacle at the expense of realism?

7. In Tolkien, Orcs are finally defeated at Helm's Deep by 3 armies: Riders from the fortress; infantry led by Erkenbrand and Gandalf; and a mysterious dark forest of Huorns sent by the Ents. Maybe for simplicity, PJ changed the forces of the heroes to a mere handful of Riders from the fortress plus the cavalry of Eomer. He then makes the cavalry charge into the pikes of a still much larger army of Orcs-- reminiscent of the Scots who defeated the English at Sterling (anyone remember "Braveheart"?). It's a somewhat impressive-looking spectacle, but is it realistic? And were these changes really necessary despite the loss of realism?

I wonder what the contributors to this forum think about all this. Are people generally happy with the "spectacle" despite the oversimplifyihg, the lack of realism, and the sacrifice of meaningful characterization? What we're seeing here is a very, very LOW level of storytelling.

[Gerbil]

4. Instead of Faramir having enough wisdom and insight to see the danger of the Ring, he wants to use it like Boromir to increase Gondor's power. PJ says this change was needed to increase "tension" (by keeping the hobbits prisoners longer) and because it would've been unrealistic if Faramir weren’t tempted by the Ring after it had been presented as "incredibly powerful.”

Again, simply shows PJ hasn't got a very deep understanding of the source material.

As soon as you realise he's on no more than passing terms with Tolkien's work, everything else falls into place - simple as that.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Earendil Overboard
Are people generally happy with the "spectacle" despite the oversimplifyihg, the lack of realism, and the sacrifice of meaningful characterization? What we're seeing here is a very, very LOW level of storytelling. [/B]

Earendil Overboard,

(5) I forgot to even think about Sauron. (being annoyed by scene in general) Excellent point.

I generally accept the film (even with all of the oversimplification, etc.) from the ½ loaf better than nothing school.

I am I totally pleased? No, there are several areas that I wanted to have been done better. In several cases, I think it could this could have been done and kept the film length to about 3 Hours.

Sincerely,
Anthony

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Earendil Overboard
There’s a famous quote by a Roman writer about how an emperor only needs to provide people with "bread and circuses" to keep them happy. It's like what's said in "Gladiator" by one Senator: "The beating heart of Rome is not the marvel of the Senate, but the sands of the Coliseum." But there isn't much characterization, plot, or meaning in a gladiator fight.

Dear Overboard:
The Roman spectacle was politically motivated propaganda as well as opium for the masses: To keep the haves in power and the have-nots licking their heels. To suggest this is analagous to the artistic liberties PJ has taken with Lord of the Rings is pure hogwash. Please, spare me the sophomoric drivel.

[Christiana]

Am i the only one who acually likes the movie?I think we should remember that everyone has a different interpertation of the books. also,i thought that there was a line from gandalf about Eomer riding north with 2000 cavalry. And remember, most people dont know that gandalf is a mair, and so have to have somthing convince them of his power.

[barrelrider110]

I enjoyed it immensely.

[Elf Girl]

I hated it!

I'm seeing it again tonight YAY!!

[Christiana]

you...you WHAT???!!! *turns purple and draws bow*

[Noahamir]

In response to Earendil Overboard's Complaint #6 about Aragorn and Gimli going out the side door instead of staying on the wall.

In the book, Aragorn and Eomer did go out a side door to attack the orcs and Gimli also helped so Peter Jackson did not make up something just for a spectacle in this instance. He did tweak the situation around a bit but did base it on an actual event in the book.

[Lady of Rivendell]

but I enjoyed it for what it was...not what my expectations wanted it to be.

Of course, I'm not a die hard Tolkien fan ( insert explanation: I've read Tolkien and enjoy his works and lively conversations about meaning and such but do not revolve my life around Tolkien )

With that in mind, I can appricate the changes PJ made, good or bad. If people have a problem with my opinions, it's not really my problem, it's theirs. =-) People are entitled to their opinions, as I am entitled to mine. Enough said....

Blessed Be All....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't buy that story about "his interpretation". I think PJ knew that LotR was a beloved piece of literature, and decided to carve a name out for himself; I don't think he was ever a real Tolkien person. I don't think he's any different from the other directors who adapt a book to a movie; he just wants his name on it, and the money from it in his pockets.

That said, I also greatly enjoyed the film; watching it as a fantasy movie, and not an adaptation of LotR makes it quite enjoyable, and only the biggest problems annoyed me.

[Cirdan]

The battle scene at Helm's Deep suffers from some overly dramatized bits. In the book the Orcs are taken surprise by the flank attack while in the film it looks as though they were completely ready. Military strategic success depends on the element of surprise, or at least catching the enemy unprepared. This was clear in the book. In the movie the orcs are too disciplined actually lose in the given circumstance. It seemed that after hours of battle the orcs had not dwindled at all in the movie. Also there were the Huorn were attacking from the orc rear.

I saw it again today. The changes didn't bother me as much. They just seem weak. It's as though in drama 101 someone learned that it's dramatic for a character to have a change of heart. The ents don't go to war rationally, they react to the clear cutting. Faramir doesn't know the ring is evil, he needs to see the wraith and then send Frodo on his way.

The bit about Frodo offering the ring is not as bad as some have said. The wraith is trying to take the ring as Sam pushes Frodo out of the way. It's just disturbing because Sam moves full speed while the wraith is in slo-mo.

I like it but the second viewing didn't wear as well as FotR. The excessive use of shoulder cams and extreme close-ups while occasionally effective, is annoying after a while. The story lends itself better to movies than the FotR but is not carried off as well.

The Nazgul do not like direct combat so it is not surprising they would flee. The did not join the fray at Pellenor except to attack the leaders. The book states that they prefer to effect the battle through others from afar.

[dawningoftime]

I've seen TTT and here is what I think. The book is slow to begin with and is my least favorite of the three. I agree that I didn't like them changing Farimir's character. But the scene with Gandalf and Theodin was necessary to demonstrate the power that Saruman had over Theodin. Overall I liked the movie.

[Kalimac]

Yes, there were 2000 men that Gandalf went after . . I saw the film again, and the number stuck out like a sore thumb.

>>He then makes the cavalry charge into the pikes <<

After watching this today, I noticed that the orcs were not only blinded and confused by the sun rising and Gandalf casting his light . . but, they also lowered their spears and shielded their eyes.

Earendil Overboard, I think I answered some of your questions on a different board . . you get around.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I just wached that scene several times before writing this (God bless Kazaa), which was difficult given how much cheese it contains.

I believe that what you say Kalimac was exactly what was intended to be conveyed. There are however, many things wrong. Having been lucky enough to have grown up with family horses, and riding my whole life, I can say with certainty the entire scene is impossible.

The incline is WAY to steep.

while I think the intention is to show the pike line breaking with the morning sun, it is still formidable even in the final shot. And there are so many orcs still in the valley (in fact it is still full in the shot from the top of the cliff) that the line could not break, because there is nowhere for the front line to go.

Horses will not jump into a sea of people. Horses need to see solid footing on the other side of whatever they are jumping.

The ride out (by Theoden and company) down the stone ramp is another impossibility. An incline of stone is dangerous footing for a horse, after a night of rain and blood and a solid wall of orcs, it's insane. It would have been easy for the orcs to push the horses off the side.

Considering so much of this film was horse related they could have used some advisors on the reality of some of their special effects shots, it's really "over the top" and unbelievable. I think Cirdan really nailed it when he said it was overdramatized. Jackson tried to hard to make it look heroic. In fact there are many cases now, in both films, where his attempts to portray the herioc only serve to make the opposition seem useless.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Christiana
I think we should remember that everyone has a different interpertation of the books.

I can see that people can interpret different themes in the book, but not the actual story. How can PJ interpret Theoden being exorcised or any other changes he made?

The illogical changes annoy me because, from watching the FOTR DVD, it is obvious a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make everything right. Except, it seems, the most important part, the script!

The most annoying change for me is Frodo showing the ring to the nazgul at Osgiliath. Wouln't all the nazgul fly to that area and try and take the ring? Surely they would now have a good chance at sucess, when Faramir releases Frodo. And why didn't the nazgul take the ring in the first place. In the book, Sauron has no idea the ring is in that general area. My only guess it that in the ROTK it will be shown that Sauron thinks the ring is being taken to Minas Tirith.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Earendil Overboard
I wonder what the contributors to this forum think about all this. Are people generally happy with the "spectacle" despite the oversimplifyihg, the lack of realism, and the sacrifice of meaningful characterization? What we're seeing here is a very, very LOW level of storytelling.

Well I'm not happy with it - but everyone that was here on Entmoot when FotR came out knows that. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who has a problem with the movies anymore. I'm also glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that Jackson just wanted to make a cool fantasy film and decided to make The Lord of the Rings, not because he loved the books, but because he knew he'd make a ton of money from it and make a name for himself. Before LotR - I didn't even know who Jackson was.

Concerning comments about the cloaks. I also thought that was far fetched. It is one thing to miss Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas when the Riders 0f Rohan ride pass them. For one thing, they're on horseback, riding fast, not looking for anyone. it is quite another when you see rocks rolling down the hillside, and your standing just two inches from them and actually looking. Tolkien never ever gave an indictaion that they would hide you under those circumstances. From all discriptions - they just allowed the wearing to blend in with the surroundings.

By the way Earendil Overboard - I agree with many of your comments. At least there is only one more film that I have to go through with Jackson saying - "The fans are going to forgive me for the changes I was forced to make." If I had the will power - I'd boycott RotK. I'm just a weak person when it comes to Lord of the Rings I guess.