who else?

[Ainaromenel]

Ok, lets get a grip here folks. We are just leaving little replys on a discussion board on a site on the internet, none of us know who anyone else is, and in the end we would all defend our right to have our own opinion. There are other boards here that one person clearly disagrees with someone else, but rather than being rude or making crude jokes (jerseydevil ), they JUST back themselves up with reasoning. No one is ever going to take anyone else seriously if we all are being jerks about someone elses view. Ok now I'll get off my rather large soapbox and get on with it.

I'd agree with all of those that say Faramir's change in character is just as bad as Theoden's. If you read the books, Frodo and Sam actually go away from Faramir feeling happy. And yeah, Faramir may have let them leave in the movie, but I'd be hard pressed to believe there were no ill feelings on the part of the Hobbits. The Faramir of the books is probably my favorite character in LotR, but after watching the movie, I wonder how in the world they're gonna have him

hook up with Eowyn

in the third movie. I guess before I pass my final judgement on the Two Towers, I would like to see the extended version DVD. And who knows, maybe they'll have some flash backs or something in RotK and Theoden and Faramir will be like "Man, I was a jerk."

One can only hope!

[hectorberlioz]

Good going Ainaromenel.
Ainaromenel the peace maker.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ainaromenel
Ok, lets get a grip here folks. We are just leaving little replys on a discussion board on a site on the internet, none of us know who anyone else is, and in the end we would all defend our right to have our own opinion. There are other boards here that one person clearly disagrees with someone else, but rather than being rude or making crude jokes (jerseydevil ), they JUST back themselves up with reasoning. No one is ever going to take anyone else seriously if we all are being jerks about someone elses view. Ok now I'll get off my rather large soapbox and get on with it.

I'm not going to apologize for my comment. And no - no one does know if BB is Jackson trying to convince the people on one of the largest Tolkien Bulletin Boards to accept his changes. Also - I have no idea whether BB has ever read the books. From the sound of it - I would say no. If that is the case - then he is talking out his a$$. He may have read them however - but I bet he only read them once and found them boring or something. It seems like he is more than satisified with the formulaic movies and books.

I guess before I pass my final judgement on the Two Towers, I would like to see the extended version DVD. And who knows, maybe they'll have some flash backs or something in RotK and Theoden and Faramir will be like "Man, I was a jerk."

Why? The official and final version of the movie was what was in the theater - not the extended edition DVD that is just being used to make extra money. Granted - the cut scenes may shed some light on things - but I seriously doubt there would be much in there to save Faramir from his current jerkiness in TT. I liked Faramir in the book - he was so different than his brother.

[hectorberlioz]

hmm...
Ainaromenel might be PJ himself...
lol.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hmm...
Ainaromenel might be PJ himself...
lol.

No - I think BB is Jackson and Ainaromenel is Philippa Boyens.

[hectorberlioz]

Lol.

[Ainaromenel]

Or MAYBE jerseydevil and Hectorberlioz are just disgruntled extras who didn't make it into the final cut of the movie.

lol

Anyhow, jerseydevil, I was just poking fun at you about puking all over your computer. I actually thought that was pretty funny. I don't know, I completely agree with you that BB's ideas about the movie are messed up. They should read the books, but I think everyone should too. It bugs me when people really don't know what they are talking about after watching the messed up movie. I love forming in my head my own ideas about what things look like in the book. That's part of the joy of reading, at least to me. I like the movies for the pure fact that it's a good action movie. Not to the credit of PJ, but to Tolkien for giving him the inspiration. Maybe I am easily amused. Probably.

I don't know if you have seen the extended version of FotR, but it actually does add more depth to the characters, in longer scenes and stuff. I am giving TT extended edition the benifit of the doubt, whether it deserves it or not. And as much as the movies may stray from the books, I do give them credit for making the movie look good. They actually made all the chain mail, and so on and so forth. Is it worth having a live version of it if it goes so far from the book? I don't know. That's probably best left for each person to decide. FotR was much much better than TT, but TT did have some good parts too. Well, replace some with hardly any and good with mediocre. I'll just leave off with that exaggeration.

Just lettin you know I'm not getting down on you. I think it would produce a more "vibrant" discussion if the

then he is talking out his a$$

stuff was left out, because that just leaves BB feeling like an idiot. Which they maybe on this point, but maybe we can convince them to read the books. I'd like them to really enjoy LotR. But oh well, not a big deal. You all probably think I'm a freak or something. mumblemumble mumble...

So BB, maybe you oughta take a look at jerseydevil's points. They make sense! Hope you try to reread the books.

God bless everybody!

[jerseydevil]

Ainaromenel -

I was just messing with you. Serious when it comes to BB - him and I have gone around and around about the movies.

As for the extended edition - I have it, along with the theatrical version. They did add in a lot into the extended edition - a lot that in my opinion should have been kept in - while reducing down some of the needless action - like the wizards duel. There is NO reason in my mind to take out such an important part as the gift giving scene.

Also - the extended edition still can not correct so much of jackson's screw ups - like Aragorn running from his destiny.

BB won't look at my points because he thinks his opinions are the only one's that matter.

By the way - should I put you down for the Jackson Lynch mob? You can check out the Taming of Jackson thread if you want to know what it's all about. Oh - and no I don't think you are a freak.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Why do you think it wouldn't have - because Jackson didn't do it that way and the way Jackson did it was the absolute only way for it to work? I love how you use words like "pure Genius" and "rightly understood" to describe Jackson. The problem I find - is he had no love or understanding for Tolkien's work. His motivation was just to make a cool fantasy film (which I consider Excalibur to be a thousand times better and far more enjoyable).

I don't think you can accuse a film-maker who spent so many years painstakingly recreating Tolkien's cultures as having no love or understanding of the book.

This is a difficult scene for book-savvy viewers. In the book, it's pretty vague what's going on here, so I imagine we all have different ideas about what was happening. It would be interesting to hear what people thought was happening in that scene, exactly.

Jackson played out an exaggerated interpretation of it, clearly aimed at the multiplex cattle to be sure they understood that this bloke was under some sort of spell of Saruman. However, it also appears to be Jackson's style and no doubt could have been done with more subtlety.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I don't think you can accuse a film-maker who spent so many years painstakingly recreating Tolkien's cultures as having no love or understanding of the book.

He only worked painstakingly on the special effects and the scenary. The rest he changed to make an action movie. He did NOT work to keep the movies true to the book. Also - based on his commentary in FotR - I question his motifivation and love for the book. So yes - I can say he had no love or understanding of the books.

This is a difficult scene for book-savvy viewers. In the book, it's pretty vague what's going on here, so I imagine we all have different ideas about what was happening. It would be interesting to hear what people thought was happening in that scene, exactly.

NO WHERE does Tolkien describe an exorcism and battling Saruman through Theoden's body and mind.

Jackson played out an exaggerated interpretation of it, clearly aimed at the multiplex cattle to be sure they understood that this bloke was under some sort of spell of Saruman. However, it also appears to be Jackson's style and no doubt could have been done with more subtlety.

Cleary he did - because he is a horror/action movie directer. He doesn't know how to bring interest to a film without hack and slash and cheap jokes. A more acomplished director (who loved the books) could have done a better job.

And actually - you are wrong about Theoden being under a "spell" of Saruman. He was just convinced or as someone said earlier - brainwashed by Wormtongue. There wasn't any direct sorcery involved. I still find it funny how in FotR commentary Jackson states that he hates cheap hollywood wizarding things - and then he gives us at least two. Saruman is causing the storm over the Misty Mountains and Saruman is possessing Theoden's body. I also thought the wizards duel was completely overblown and ridiculous too. In the book he just tricks Gandalf into going up to the top of Orthanc and trapping him.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And actually - you are wrong about Theoden being under a "spell" of Saruman. He was just convinced or as someone said earlier - brainwashed by Wormtongue.

I realize you are one of those literal interpretation, fundamentalist types, jerseydevil, but Tolkien wrote the King of the Golden Hall chapter in a way that is very open to such an interpretation. If Theoden was simply being misled or brainwashed by Grima, why did Tolkien feel the need to have Gandalf use powerful magic within the Golden Hall??? Gandalf was surely a more powerful counselor than Wormtongue. So why was it so critical to Tolkien that Gandalf talk Hama into letting him keep his staff??? Why would magic be involved at all if this was simply a Gandalf vs. Wormtongue battle for Theoden's ear?

One of the beauties of Tolkien is that his story is not nearly as black and white as you literalists would like us to believe. Thank heavens Jackson didn't give us jerseydevil's simplistic, one dimensional view of Tolkien's great work.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I realize you are one of those literal interpretation, fundamentalist types, jerseydevil, but Tolkien wrote the King of the Golden Hall chapter in a way that is very open to such an interpretation. If Theoden was simply being misled or brainwashed by Grima, why did Tolkien feel the need to have Gandalf use powerful magic within the Golden Hall??? Gandalf was surely a more powerful counselor than Wormtongue. So why was it so critical to Tolkien that Gandalf talk Hama into letting him keep his staff??? Why would magic be involved at all if this was simply a Gandalf vs. Wormtongue battle for Theoden's ear?

Because of Wormtogue's wicked tongue. That is the only thing that I think Saruman had "enchanted". I have always felt that Saruman had done something to Grima that produced an effect on the "weak of mind" to believe what Grima said. This is what Gandalf fought against in the book - NOT Saruman through Theoden.

One of the beauties of Tolkien is that his story is not nearly as black and white as you literalists would like us to believe. Thank heavens Jackson didn't give us jerseydevil's simplistic, one dimensional view of Tolkien's great work.

Yeah - instead he gave us a dumbed down, spoon fed, action flick you seem to have enjoyed so much.

[Draken]

Bernard Hill is a top actor and plays the part well I reckon - though for those of us old enough to remember he'll never top his role as Yosser Hughes in 'Boys from the Blackstuff'

BB - ey, ey, calm down - it's just a film!

[Lizra]

Bernard!! Where are you! Where's my perfume?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because of Wormtogue's wicked tongue. That is the only thing that I think Saruman had "enchanted". I have always felt that Saruman had done something to Grima that produced an effect on the "weak of mind" to believe what Grima said. This is what Gandalf fought against in the book - NOT Saruman through Theoden.

See how easy you people fall into the trap of thinking your view is THE ONE AND ONLY truth about Tolkien's story??? Your OPINION is not grounded in the text any more or less than Jackson's.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Oroginally posted by jerseydevil
"And actually - you are wrong about Theoden being under a "spell" of Saruman. He was just convinced or as someone said earlier - brainwashed by Wormtongue. There wasn't any direct sorcery involved. I still find it funny how in FotR commentary Jackson states that he hates cheap hollywood wizarding things - and then he gives us at least two. Saruman is causing the storm over the Misty Mountains and Saruman is possessing Theoden's body. I also thought the wizards duel was completely overblown and ridiculous too. In the book he just tricks Gandalf into going up to the top of Orthanc and trapping him."
__________________________________________________ __

While I actually have been overall surprised at the effort put into the films (I'd give them so far a grade of "B" when I anticipated they would have earned a "D", some changes, like those above, are rather exasperating, especially the treatment of Caradhras. One thing which gives depth to Middle-earth are some of the shades of grey (the Rohirrim being "good guys" who nevertheless behave towards the Dunlendings rather like American settlers and the United States has towards American Indians), and the concept of "autonomous" good and evil forces. Having Saruman virtually directly controlling wormtongue and Caradhras really makes Middle-earth less threatening for the hobbits et al., just remove Saruman and then deal with Sauron. Caradhras as a cranky "force" is a much more unsettling idea, more difficult to deal with and to explain. I assume it was done to give Christopher Lee more to do. As for the wizards' duel!!
But there is much admirable in the films, even the Two Towers (for the first hour, at least) and some other bits later. And, the exorcism out, Theoden's part is generally well done.

[Ainaromenel]

First to answer The Gaffer's call to what people imagined when they read the part about Theoden's coming around, here's kinda how I pictured it:

Gandalf and company go into the hall to meet the words of Grima. Gandalf and Grima have some discourse, and after Grima says something bad about Galadriel, Gimli was gonna fight him, but Gandalf held him back. Gandalf sings a little song about her, then he causes the whole room to be dark. Grima yells something stupid like "You shouldn't have let him bring his staff!" Then a FLASH, and Grima is on his face, knocked out. Later, Theoden gives Grima a chance to rectify himself, but he doesn't, and Grima runs off to Orthanac. Then Gandalf starts up a little speach of encouragement, and Theoden kinda wakes up and starts walking around. Gandalf gives more encouragement, and Theoden throws aside his cane and takes up his sword.

That's how I see it. And that's basically how the book describes it. I disagree with The Gaffer, and I would say that Tolkien does a good job of describing the events, and not a whole lot is up to interpretation, at least how I see it.

Now BB-
I would say that completely seperate from the books, as it's own entity, yes, the movie's version of it is pretty neat. Jerseydevil's gonna kill me here , but if it is left to it's own, the movie is neat. And PJ does a decent job in getting good camra angles and making it all look like it's really happening, like the events are actually real. The sets and the actors are incredible. And, again, if completely outside comparing it to the book, then yes, I think it is fine.

HOWEVER. IF one compares the movie version to the book version (you all may want to go back and read it, that whole little scene only takes like two or three pages), the movie is horribly not accurate to the way the book describes things. Instead of making Theoden's true character come out, and really reveal him to be a great king dispite a lack of long lineage, Theoden just looks like he wasn't strong enough to do it himself, and Gandalf had to do everything. Why did Gandalf bring in his staff? To knock out Grima! (with lightening). Not to force Sauruman out of Theoden.

In my view the movies did actually have a lot of work put into them, and I give them an "A" for effort. For following the book, at least a "D-", probably a low "F".

If anyone watches the movies and expects to see what they read in the books, they are going to be disappointed. If the veiwer allows for some (alot of huge) changes, then I think they can have an enjoyable experience.

One last thing I'd like to mention that I haven't seen anyone else say. The thing I was more appalled with regarding Theoden wasn't the exorcism scene, but the fact that he looked YOUNG! He was 70 for goodness sakes. And he SURE did not get younger in the book! Ok ok, I'll eat my own words and acknowledge the fact that when PJ got the rights to the movie he also got the right to "artistically" change things in the plot/characters/scenes and so on. But who's really keeping count, huh?

And can you all tell that I really enjoy talking about this kinda thing, since I write so much every time? thought I'd throw that in there too.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
As for the wizards' duel!!

Yes, let's discuss the source of much Literalist teethnashing: The Wizards Duel.

The capture of Gandalf wasn't a Jackson invention. Having Gandalf held prisoner on top of Orthanc wasn't a Jackson invention either. Through Gandalf's account at the Council of Elrond, Tolkien described how Gandalf was captured and later rescued. Are we all still together and in sync on this much?

Okay, gang....how did Gandalf lose control of his staff??? Would you have us believe he simply admitted defeat and handed it over to Saruman? How did he get to the top of Orthanc? Did he shrug his shoulders in dispair and say, "okay, Saruman ol' buddy, I guess I have no choice," and walk willing up flights of stairs to get there? If so, I must say your Literalist Gandalf was quite the milktoast weenie!!!

Remember the story is told in the book from GANDALF's POINT OF VIEW. Is he going to describe to an esteemed group of friends and allies at the Council of Elrond the details of how he got the crap beat out of him? Of course not.

Do we know EXACTLY what happened from Tolkien's POV? No. But my point once again is that Jackson's version is every bit as consistent and logical as anything your Literalists envisioned. So the next time you feel feel inclined to whine that the wizard duel is not true to Tolkien, consider how unrealistic YOUR personal version of the actual capture would have been if filmed.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Sounds like fanfiction or roleplay. Reading between the lines and drawing your own conclusions to the unwritten word. Is that your point, BB?

[jerseydevil]

His version does sound like fanfiction - especially since Gandalf had NO reason to lie to the council. To suggest otherwise would mean that Gandalf had an ego and pride which could be hurt. I believe this is not the case - so yes - Gandalf TRUSTED Sarumen in the book ALL the way up ot the top of Orthanc - as described in the book.

BB - where does Tolkien describe a FIGHT between Saruman and Gandalf through Theoden???? Whered does it even SUGGEST that Theoden was possessed by Saruman?