What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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.

I don't think he did it purely for the money. I think he choose to film LoTR because it was well known and deemed unfilmable. I think he was looking for a challenge.

I didn't know Jackson before LoTR either but in my case, that proves little since I hardly know anybody.

[Kalimac]

I think PJ was looking for a challenge too. People have selective memories here if they think he did this only for money and fame. PJ took a professional and financial risk to bring this book to the screen. Last year leading up to the release of FOtR there was no guarantee of success, and the pundits were that failure would sink the studio.

I appreciate the risk that he took, the care he took to craft a movie from difficult material, and the obstacles he overcame along the way. My feeling is that PJ can withstand the criticism leveled at him by armchair critics. People may come and go with individual opinion, but the film will remain as a testament to PJ's skills as a filmmaker. His film has already been mentioned as one of the best of the year . . I've been around probably as long as the Ents . . it is not easy to win the respect of your peers . . and, when you see nominations . . and best of the bunch lists for director, cinematography, screen adaptation, costuming, sound, special effects, performances, and yes . . film . . these nominations are not just cropping up because of 'popularity'.

Darn, who am I kidding . . you're all right . . I just really liked the movie because Legolas is HOT.

[dawningoftime]

As my sister put it the movies were a labor of love. For the sets at least you have to have an appreciation for the books if you put a lot of detail into the sets as he did. Besides I've seen the animated version of LoTR and if you though that PJ's was bad you'd absoulutly hate the animated.

[middleEarthStar]

I can´t describe the feeling to you when I saw the premier of The two towers here in sweden where I live!
First of all I couldnt understand that I was actually there again.
After a one year I was there again!!!!
It was the moment we´ve all been waiting for.

I nearly cried when the movie started. I was so touch!!!

I think that Peter Jackson did a great job on this move two, like the first........BUT he did some things wrong...too different fron the book...


but it took my heart anyway!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Kalimac His film has already been mentioned as one of the best of the year . . I've been around probably as long as the Ents . . it is not easy to win the respect of your peers . . and, when you see nominations . . and best of the bunch lists for director, cinematography, screen adaptation, costuming, sound, special effects, performances, and yes . . film . . these nominations are not just cropping up because of 'popularity'. [/B]

Actually my sister worked in Hollywood PR firm in LA - there is a lot of politicing that goes on with the Oscars. Even Jackson admitted that he had to around like a politician and convince them to nominate the film. This year he said he was (EDIT in: NOT) going to do that. The only nomination I felt they deserved was really cinematography and special effects anyway. I don't think the FotR deserved Best Picture by a long shot.

And what exactly is the definition of an armchair critic? When anyone goes to a movie - don't they determine whether they like it or not? Is there some "critic school" that a person needs to go to so THEY can determine whether they like a film or not? I quess I better go get my PHD in film criticism so I can be told what makes a good film versus a bad one. Sorry - but I feel that Jackson's "interpretation" leaves a lot to be desired. And I don't need to go to a class or major in film to tell me why should like it.

And Kalimac - people unfamiliar with the Lord of the Rings fans would question whether the film would be a success. But as long as the film kept certain points in and was well done the fans would eat it up. Which is exactly what happened. Jackson was familar with the fans - but I still don't think that he made the film because it was Lord of the Rings. He made it because he wanted to do a fantasy film - and by producing one based on Lord of the Rings - he was able to ride on the coattails of Tolkien and the books.

After FotR came out - people were praising Jackson for just making the film and practically kissing his feet. Now people have been leveling a more rounded critism of the film and not just just excusing things he did.

[Yazad]

Jersey's right. There's an immense amount of politicing that goes on. It really is just a popularity contest.

What's more is that I've known several people who are members of the Academy and I couldn't personally care less what they thought of a movie (sons and daughters of 3rd string movie actors, etc.). And they're the ones voting and choosing here. What does their opinion mean to me? Many of the films that end up getting nominated (and winning) weren't even seen by most members in the theater, but rather on video (DVD now!) sent out to Academy members by the studios. It is all a concerted effort to win these prizes. Huge and expensive advertisements are taken out in Hollywood periodicals encouraging members to vote for this or that.

IMO, if you want to figure out how good a film actually is, watch it, and think about it. Listen to critics which you respect. See what wins at film festivals - a far better indication of "quality" than popularity, ticket sales or Academy Awards. Look at Titanic, the largest $$$ grossing movie of all time. Now when you think back on it, isn't it pretty pathetic?

The best and most original film of last year, IMO, Memento wasn't even nominated for the Academy's Best Picture and several mediocre films were, including the one that took the prize.

Yazad

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Memento was a great film!

[samwiselvr2008]

I just typed all of this stuff up, and then the stupid computer messed up and earased it all, so I'll make this short and sweet:
Vewing one: dissapounted with Gollum and changes
Vewing two: Fine with most of the changes, Gollum was okay
Vewing three: No disapountments at all! I'll post the rest in little bits later when I'm not so mad at the computer, and scared that it would earase something that I had been typing for probally 15 minutes, and gone to lordoftherings.net to look up acter's names. ERRRRRRRRR STUPID COMPUTER! I wasn't even done yet, I had more to look up!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Yazad
The best and most original film of last year, IMO, Memento wasn't even nominated for the Academy's Best Picture and several mediocre films were, including the one that took the prize.

I agree - "Memento" was a great film. It deserved a lot more mention and awards than it got. It didn't even win Best Editing, which was a shock - instead it lost to "Pearl Harbor". I liked "A Beautiful Mind", it was filmed down the street from me in Princeton and I had seen much of it filmed. I do think it deserved to win over FotR - which I don't think even deserved to be included in the Best Picture category. There were a lot of other good movies that year - which made it a tough call as to whether "A Beautiful Mind" should have won.

[Gerbil]

Memento was rubbish - no tossing jokes or reference to illicit substance smoking. And you call THAT a film?

Whenever I think of Memento I always picture the bit where he's running and trying to remember what is happening - he sees the guy and thinks he's chasing him, but then realises in fact he's being chased - V. funny

[katya]

my opinions, as if anyone cared:

good:
*gollum/smeagol-looked pretty decent. it coud've been much worse. the split personalitly scene confused me. like i knew what was happening, but it stilll confused me.
*merry and pippin-they weren't stupid anymore!
*eowyn-she was so perfectly how i imagined her it was scary.
*wormtongue-i mean he himself isn't good but he was like he should've been i guess
*frodo-i don't know specifically...yeah....

bad:
*faramir- these are my brother's exact words: (he hasn't read the books) "I hate him he was a jerk!"
*the coneys-*shudder* the second time i saw the movie i shut my eyes. i am a vegetarian too remember.
*arwen, or should i just say liv tyler? i never before realized how bad of an actress she really is...
*ents-they looked alright but were too mean to merry and pippin.

overall i look back and say yeah it was a good movie and i really can't wait for RotK (and i can't!) but there were some parts where i remember being very disappointed.

[Celebréiel]

After it all, I think the second movie is okay, still sub-par but okay...and there are some parts ill never ever understand....anywho...
The thing that bugs me most, is hearing all the directors and people in charge say things like 'it wouldnt have worked anyother way' , 'we had to change the things we did or else it would have sucked' and 'we tried everyway possible to make it work, this was best'
Gah! Thats so close-minded, yeah, change is obviously gonna happen, and some are ok, but at least accept it could have been done better. Im not saying I know how, and I accept these films as a pretty good LoTR adaptation... but who says PJ is the greatest director ever? Not me, hes good, but its not like he did it the only way that was possible i nthe world....gah...okay sorry for that rant, just something thats been bugging me..
~ Celebréiel
I like to think of it...as the stuff he took out and changed...he couldnt have done justice anyways (Bombadil, correct treebeard and entmoot etc.)

[LegolasRoX]

I couldn't agree with you more Celebréiel ! I was so turned off when Bombadil wasn't even mentioned.... I thought he was an important character in the book.

But I believe that Peter Jackson did a great job and no one could have done it better though. You gotta give him some credit.

[Christiana]

hmmm...i thought Bombadil was pointless in the books.

[Arathorn]

I think Tom was there. He was holding the camera in one of those scenes.

[Kalimac]

>>Even Jackson admitted that he had to around like a politician and convince them to nominate the film. This year he said he was (EDIT in: NOT) going to do that. <<

Glad you edited the NOT in since Peter Jackson absolutely hated the politics of being nominated. He has since stated that if he is ever nominated for anything ever again he will not campaign for it. He was miserable last year. He is quite an independent fellow . . more comfortable in shorts and bare feet than suits and shoes.

United Press International: Jackson and Awards

Director Peter Jackson says having his film, "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," earn 13 Oscar nominations last year was "nice," but dismisses the Academy Award campaigning process as "pretty political."

In New York to promote his sequel "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" this week, the beloved New Zealander wore shorts and a T-shirt and stomped barefoot around Manhattan's posh Regency Hotel.

"I don't regard awards as being that critical or important," Jackson admitted to United Press International. "They're nice. Awards and nominations are nice, is what they are. It's very nice to have your peers, other filmmakers, thinking that you did a good job. It's certainly not why you do the job.

"I was in the middle of it last year. I certainly thought the Oscar campaigning got pretty political, and it was quite unpleasant actually," he said. "I made a promise to myself that if I get nominated this year or any year in the future, I'm just not going to get involved in the campaigning. It was like a presidential race."

Jackson better brace himself, however. Critics and preview audiences are calling his second Tolkien adventure even more breath-taking and spectacular than the first, generating Oscar buzz three months before the famed awards ceremony.

I am somewhat involved with media speciality too . . by the way . . though not in the way most think . .

Happy New Year All!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Kalimac
>>Even Jackson admitted that he had to around like a politician and convince them to nominate the film. This year he said he was (EDIT in: NOT) going to do that. <<

Glad you edited the NOT in since Peter Jackson absolutely hated the politics of being nominated.

yeah - I mistakenly left out the "NOT" - just glad I caught it.

Happy New Year too.

[LegolasRoX]

If Bombadil wasn't important in the book, I can see why Jackson cut him from the movie. But there was some logical reason why bombadil was in the book, wasn't there? I mean, what was the point of having him appear in the book then?

[Earendil Overboard]

I've only read about half the posts on this thread, but I didn't see anything yet about the Eye. Does it bother anyone else that Sauron is represented somewhat literally as just a giant eyeball on top of a tower? I think his greatest worry should not be an enemy army but an eye infection. There's probably a lot of dust and smoke blowing around in Mordor. I guess the mistake is understandable given that PJ & Co. seem to have just scanned the books without really thinking about anything. Or maybe they thought the viewing audience would be too confused if characters talked about "the Eye" but Sauron had a body too.

I always assumed that "the Eye" refers to the image that appears in people's thoughts when they perceive Sauron's mind. Also, it makes a little sense that Sauron has a body, since he has to wear rings. But I did a bit of looking around for evidence and the most explicit information I could find was in the scene at the Black Gate when Gollum describes the Black Hand. Frodo mentions how Isildur cut off Sauron's finger, and Gollum says: "Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough." Earlier on, he also worries that Frodo will take the Ring back to "the Black Hand." Other good info about the Eye is given by Galadriel when she says to Frodo, "you have seen that which is hidden" and "your sight is grown keener." She's obviously talking about his perception of others' thoughts, not his actual vision. Then she says: "You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine." It's not an exact definition, but I think suggests clearly enough that the Eye is a perception of Sauron's mind. Then in the marshes it seems the Eye is described as Sauron's will (basically the same thing as his mind): "But far more he was troubled by...the Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you..."

The most confusing descriptions, I think, are in The Silmarillion. They are almost the same, but the first is a bit more detailed and describes Sauron's return to Mordor after losing his body in the wreck of Numenor: "he took up his great Ring in Barad-dur, and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." This seems contradictory. The part about taking up the Ring suggests a body, but then it seems the new form he makes is identified with "the Eye." The sentence structure makes it unclear, though, since the reference to "the Eye" is in a separate clause. So, it could still refer here to Sauron's will rather than his "new guise." Anyway, he had to give himself a body again in order for Isildur to later cut the Ring from his hand!

I just have one other question about all this. Has anyone else thought that it might be appropriate to imagine Sauron as a giant black cyclops? Then "the Eye" would be both physical AND the mental projection of his will perceived by the minds of others. I'm not suggesting he should've been shown this way in the films, though, unless maybe in the Prologue. In the films, I think they should've just shown his tower and maybe fire-lit windows with a shadowy form moving inside. It would've also made him more similar to Saruman and Gandalf, but more evil, mysterious, and powerful. Just a thought.

[Cirdan]

I always thought of Sauron as like the wraiths, were the crown or rings were in the place where they would be if you could see the body. I always thought the eye represented a projection of Sauron either by the rings of power or the palantiri. He could no longer take the fairer form after the fall of Numenor. A one point he was a big cat, and another a vampire. I like the big electric eye even though it is nothing like I imagined it.