What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[barrelrider110]

I think formal dialogue would not be easy to listen to. It's easier to read. It's part of the adaption process from book to movie, informalizing dialogue. People don't speak that way anymore, and although it would be truer to the book, I think it would be a distraction.

[Lizra]

I understand what you are saying, but I like Middle Earth being "different" than this world. Though some might find it a pain to listen to, less use of contractions, and "beautiful" cadence help "take me away" to the wonderful world of ME. Of course the ear picking hobbit doofus didn't help me out much either! The scenery and costumes were so wonderful, I just wanted the words to match also. I'd say they got it right about 90% of the time anyway.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Barrel: That wasn't how they talked when Tolkien wrote the books, either. In Letters, he replies to someone who accuses him of writing in archaic style.

[Cirdan]

Another one of the reasons the archaic style is successful in the story is that it is unfettered by changing fashions. How many books and films suffer from anachronistic styles that were part of a short lived trend? Using a classical style gives greater longevity to the work.

[azalea]

I know what Lizra means, it's not really formal vs. rustic (because of Sam's style of speaking, etc.), it's more the fact that modern words and phrases made it into the movie. For instance, I love when Pippin says "that's nase (nice)!!" when Frodo stomps out the fire on Weathertop (in fact I say it sometimes ), but that is really I think a "modernism" that made it in. Of course the audience understands what he means, but I don't think Pippin would really say that. I don't think having things said in a classical style makes it sound too stilted, as long as the actor can deliver the line casually enough to make it sound realistic.

[Elvedans]

I think it would be boring if all the characters spoke in the same manner to be honest. I mean, the elves and the men seem more eloquent than the hobbits, which shows the difference between them. Hobbits are rustic beings so you wouldn't expect them to go round speaking kile high elves. But i agree that they could use less modern phrases and ways of speaking, yes.

[sun-star]

I agree with Lizra, the tone of the language is central to the atmosphere of Middle Earth. The script did quite well on this most of the time, IMO (though mostly of course through using lines from the book!), but the occasional exceptions jar horribly. I'm one of the people who still hasn't got over "let's go hunt some orc" as some bizarre Aragorn-turning-into-another-character moment (why would he say that? Under what possible circumstances does that sound like something he might say? ) but I'm trying to move forward from that .

Sam is a different matter - in the book his "rustic peasant" style of speech is made clear. But surely Merry and Pippin aren't supposed to be as (dare I say it?) working-class as Sam?

[Huan]

Certain modernisms are entirely appropriate in the mouths of the hobbits. And only the hobbits. Tolkien intentionally designed them as an anachronism, as modern, or at least Victorian-era, Englishmen somehow dwelling in a world of Beowulf-era men. Aragorn, on the other hand, belongs to neither the Anglo-Saxon world of the Rohirrim, nor the semi-modern of the Shire. He represents an age of Men removed from any time when people spoke carelessly; he's kind of artificially "classical." And most of the movie bears this up, in his dialogue at least. That is why it is so badly inconsistent, within the context of the movie even, that he would spout such an action-movie banality as "Let's go hunt some orc."

[SixFootHobbit]

SORRY- My post got posted twice. Ignore this one.

[SixFootHobbit]

I have a few comments. I am sorry if they are out of place with the current discussion on the use of language in the movie.

I LOVE these movie for a different reason than I love the books. The books are set at a pace that is meant for a good long read. One expects to sit by a fire with a pot of hot chocolate and settle down for an evenings entertainment for at least six or seven evenings running.

Movies are different. There is NO way to convey the true mood of such books in a movie. Come on... Just leaving Hobbington take a long, long time in the book. It is a process of many visits and years.

PJ had to realize that he could not stay faithful to the books and still make enjoyable cinema. That is why we have the phenomina (spelling?) of ALL the hobbits being to young in the first movie. They are NOT 50. He had to press things together and make them work as a movie story. (I believe the silly nature of Merry and Pippin are due to PJ's creative channeling of what they would have been like in the autumn of their tweens, as opposed to being in their fifties.)

Anyway, I loved the movies for being great and fun cinema! They mangaged to combined Star Wars style high adventure/pulp adventure, a higher sense of destiny and purpose, the characters and scenes I love and a down-to-earth feeling of reality. It makes for a fun cinematic experience. Is it Tolkien's work? Not exactly. Not really. Is it wonderful and great? YES.

I think of The Wizard of Oz. It is, in my opinion, a wonderful movie musical. I have always loved it. It is NOT like the book though. It is NOT the Oz of Baum's books. I love his books. I cherish all 14 of them. Still, despite the changes, the worst of which is that Oz is NOT real, but just a dream she had because she bumped her head, it is WONDERFUL.

There is a large part of me that does not desire to see any movie that is an exact re-make of a book. Has there ever been a good John Grisham film? I would rather his books any day. What is the point of watching The Client? It is not nearly as involving as the book, though I did not realize this until after reading the book. I loved the movie, but the book ruined it for me. It is the same reason Steven King movies NEVER work.

I think PJ had to create his own vision of the story, his own sense of how to achieve this vision, to be able to create a film. To create a film that really followed the books you would need to make some sort of BBC fifteen part mini-series for EACH of the three parts. Frankly, I would get bored sitting through all of that. It would drag on and on. Reading it, it doesn't drag, but it would on screen.

PJ understands pacing for movies. He understands how to make an action film that is more than an action film. He is NOT better than Tolkien. Tolkien is a master. In my opinion though, PJ is a potential master movie maker. I think Tolkien would sit and watch the movies in amazement and amusement, enjoying the flow and the arch of the fast pacing, rather than wondering if true justice was done to every decision in his work.

OK, here is the one comment that is my opinion only, but could get me flamed. I actually like Peter Jackson's pacing ferry scene in the first movie better. There was more of a sense of threat with them being chased onto the ferry than in merely seeing the dark rider on the bank from the middle of the crossing.

Overall, the movies were totally emersize for me. I bought into them. I have friends who accuse me of overanalyzing the fun out of any movie, including perenial favorites such as Star Wars 4 and 5, but here I totally bought PJ's vision.

Anyway, this is longer than I intended. It reflets my opinions only. I am not trying to insult anyone or get flamed.

Back to the disscussion on language... I took Pippin and Merrys' use of language to be a slight reflection on their being from a slightly more outlandish stock than proper towns folk of Hobbington. Their language is not rustic like Sam's but is more Celtic. That to me did not represent rustic but represented a slightly different dialect. I did not take them as rustic rubes because of their language.

OK... Back to more learned folk with better spelling.

6 F. H.

P.S. Least you take me for a total fool....

-"Let's go hunt some orc!" (Oh come on, that was not so nearly idiotic and anachronistic as the dynamic duo doing a body count like they were teenagers battling in on in Area 51 in an arcade somewhere in NJ)

(OK, one other thing I could kick PJ's butt about... What the #&@* was with the skate boarding elf cr__?)

[Earniel]

I just went to see the movie again yesterday and I'm happy that I liked it much more than the first time. I also noticed much more details, for example I now saw that Theoden's sword has two horseheads on the hilt. The work they put into prop-details in quite nice.

I got over my initial shock from all the changes they've made. I still think some charcacters are completely rewritten and I still don't think they're very tolkienish but at least I managed to enjoy the movie without getting upset. Seperating book from movie in your mind really seems to work.

I'm still unconvinced at the little scene at the orc pyre. Aragorn finds traces that a hobbit has lain there just next to the pyre! Come on, there has been more than thirty horses and orcs trampling the scene. Then the corpses were dragged and thrown in a heap and burned. Whatever trace there was made by hobbits lying on the ground or running should have been completely destroyed by the heavier orcs and horses. Surely it would have been more realistic if Aragorn had discovered the traces further of the pyre.

The battles are much, much too rushed. I don't like the filming techniques used there. You can hardly see what you are watching. Call me bloodthirsty but I like to see more of the actual fighting, the moves, the blocks, the thrusts, ect....

And the slope where Gandalf and Éomer come down from is much, much too steep IMO but it produces some nice effects. And the music fits that scene brilliantly.

Gollum is very good but sometimes he doesn't seem to touch the ground.

The wargs were impressive but in close-up I couldn't help feeling their eyes were wrong. Can't say why really but they looked rather fake.

Very convenient that the one orc that Legolas can't kill in one shot just happened to be blowing up the Deepingwall.

[Nurvingiel]

Welcome SixFootHobbit! No one should flame you, people hardly ever do that here, and you would have to be rude (which you were not) to actually deserve it!

PJ understands pacing for movies. He understands how to make an action film that is more than an action film. He is NOT better than Tolkien. Tolkien is a master. In my opinion though, PJ is a potential master movie maker. I think Tolkien would sit and watch the movies in amazement and amusement, enjoying the flow and the arch of the fast pacing, rather than wondering if true justice was done to every decision in his work.

You made some very good points, I especially like what you said about the FotR Buckleberry Ferry scene as an example. That particular scene had continuity issues (since when could a Hobbit outrun a mounted Nazgul, at night, out in the open?) but I suppose there's some things you can't do very well in a movie. However, subtlety is possible.


I had to do the same thing as you Eärniel, watching the movie was painful until I seperated it from the book.

And the slope where Gandalf and Éomer come down from is much, much too steep IMO but it produces some nice effects. And the music fits that scene brilliantly.

It is possible to ride down a slope this steep, as long as you and your horse are pro-stars. This applies to Gandalf and the Rohirrim, of course.

[azalea]

A response to a couple of things SixFoot Hobbit said:

I have mentioned the idea of a "miniseries" of LotR before. I think that is really the best way that it could be dramatized to completely satisfy Tolkien fans, because then everything could be included without time constraints and without the "pandering" required by the movie company bigwigs. The only area where it would be sorely lacking would be in the effects dept. -- I mean they wouldn't have the budget for the great detail of scenery and costuming that PJ was able to pull off. So it would have it's own problems in that respect and we'd all be complaining about this or that didn't look real, etc.

Also, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed both versions of the Bucklebury Ferry scene, but that I think Tolkien's is exceptional because it is more subtle and chilling, rather than action-packed and suspensful. They both work, but for different reasons. For something to be scary doesn't mean it must be a close call after running from immediate danger, but can be "wow, look at how close we were to danger and didn't know just how close," and made even more chilling because this is left unsaid. (I know you weren't refuting this when you brought it up, your post just got me thinking about it, so I decided to give my thoughts on the comparison ).

[SixFootHobbit]

Thanks for the greeting Nurvingiel. You are right of course about a hobbit not being able to outrun a rider. OK, there is also something a little cliche about jumping on a boat leaving a dock to escape danger. Still, I liked the scene.

The comments about sepperating one's self from the books before watching the movies are true. It is not that I don't see some of the problems with the movies people mentioned, as far as distorting Tolkien's vision. I guess I am ALWAYS suspect of any movie that would try to make a true portrayal of a book. I figure it is not really possible anyway. An novelist can give so much background exposition that is just not possible in even the best movie. In some ways, if a movie sticks to close to a book, then I miss the original more than if it distorts the story enough so that I can see it as some sort of Marvel Comics "What If" issue. For me these movies are three hour alternative universe/what if trips.

The recent The Count of Monte Cristo and Brahm's Stockers Dracula are both movies made from classic books that took many liberties with the original text, yet which were very watchable and enjoyable.

Hello to Azalea as well. Your point about the tension in Tolkien's version is well taken. Even if I did not have the same reaction as you, I understand your point of view. It is the difference between a foreboding shadow in a 1940's horror movie and Jason jumping out with a bloody knife in a modern slasher film. Both are entertaining, but one is clever and one is... possibly a bit crass. Unfortunately, I bought the crass approuch in this instant.

The mini-series would only work if it was produced by the BBC, and not a American television company. They do well at the type of pacing it would require. On this side of the pond our mini-series are always more sensationalized. Maybe there is a bit of Americanization to these two movies? OK, I know PJ is Australian, but they used a lot of Hollywood action adventure cliches, even though they used them very well.
Anyway, I am enjoying reading this message board. If nothing else, I have enjoyed having my own perceptions of TT challenged as I read through the reviews of others. Take care.

6 F. H.

[Huan]

Earniel, perhaps the detection of a hobbit's prints among the scene of a pitched battle would be implausible normally, but Aragorn is a Ranger!

[Earniel]

Yes, I thought about that too. But the viewpoint I take in this scene is not questioning Aragorn's skills to find very light tracks but that the tracks didn't exist anymore.The impression of a hobbit lying on the ground or of hobbitfootsteps would be a very light impression on the ground, because it was in the middle of the fray the tracks is very likely to be utterly destroyed by the fights and the activities of the clean-up by the rohirrim. That's why I would have found it more logical if Aragorn had discovered them a few meters away from the pyre where they would have had more chance of not being trampled into oblivion. But next to the pyre.... no, impossible IMO. Even rangers can't see what is not there.

[Elvedans]

What does IMO mean?

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Elvedans
What does IMO mean?

In My Opinion.

There is also IMHO: In My Humble Opinion.


Now regarding Aragorn, I think it may still be possible since he is Aragorn, son of Superman aka Arathorn aka me.

[Earniel]

Ahum.... sure.

I like your signature, Oh bard of mangled songs with the renowned son.

[Elvedans]

Originally posted by Arathorn
In My Opinion.

There is also IMHO: In My Humble Opinion.


Now regarding Aragorn, I think it may still be possible since he is Aragorn, son of Superman aka Arathorn aka me.

I don't think i'll be writing IMHO much - my opinion is never humble coz I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!