What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[Rían]

(JD - It looks like you were typing as I posted my last response, so you missed the title that I came up with - check my last post, if you're interested.)

One thing that was kinda funny/ironic - I think that in the theatrical version of FoTR, Legolas (the ELF!) never spoke any Elvish! Aragorn spoke quite a bit, and very well, too, IMHO (i.e., it seemed natural to him - I can see why, I think Viggo speaks at least 3 languages!) However, in ext. version FoTR, Legolas spoke some Elvish, and I thought he looked rather strained. In TTT, he speaks even more, and I still think Viggo looks more natural, and Orli is rather strained. Just a funny little thing I noticed. Did anyone else think that? BTW, does anyone know which parts are Quenya vs. Sindarin?

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
However, in ext. version FoTR, Legolas spoke some Elvish, and I thought he looked rather strained. In TTT, he speaks even more, and I still think Viggo looks more natural, and Orli is rather strained.

I thought so too in FotR extended version. But I tend to excuse Legolas a bit there, he is supposed to speak the Greenwood dialect of Sindarin, which is a bit different to the language spoken in Lorien. When he spoke to Haldir, he may have wanted to speak a little more like the Lorien flavour of Sindarin, out of courtesy, perhaps.
I can't say I noticed in TTT, I will pay special attention to it on next viewing.

BTW, does anyone know which parts are Quenya vs. Sindarin?

I believe everything is Sindarin in the movie. Someone with better knowledge of Elvish languages than me may confirm that.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I know what you mean, BoP! (BTW when will you be seeing it?)

I just got back from the xmas do... completely drunk, so this probably won't make any sense...

We were held up for over an HOUR, because they'd double booked us. We had to wait for them to free up cinema! They more than made up for it by providing free ice cream, coke, etc, AND complimentary tickets, so that was okay.

I went into the movie fully expecting to hate it... but:

I loved it. It worked so much better than fellowship did. I think the deviations finally allowed PJ to make the project truly his, and not some weak adaption of the book. As a movie, it was BRILLIANT.

From the way you guys were going on: I completely expected some badass faramir. However, all I got was someone who was primarily concerned with Gondor, and it's survival. I think PJ made a pretty good judgement call here, and I can actually bring myself to divorce book faramir from movie faramir.

The elves at helms deep made complete sense. Why wouldn't Galadriel and Elrond send back up? While I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was superior to the book, as far as the movie went, it worked, and it made sense.

Helms Deep was awesomely directed, and the cinematography was superior to that of Fellowship.

There were some things that irked me: Arwen being joined to Aragorn by the lips, the overusage of the nazgul, etc, but overall, I completely loved this movie. The ents were almost exactly how I imagined them, Gollum was just... amazing!, the Eowyn/Aragorn scenes were very tasteful (I was worried that there might have been a threesome played out).

Theoden was a little overdone: exorcism scene didn't work, but oh well. It could have been worse.

Aragorn's Death was a little bit irritating, but again: it worked within the context of the movie.

I came out completely confused: it deviated so much, and yet I loved it. I was somehow able to divorce the books from the movie, and just enjoy it as a stand alone.

More later, when I'm perhaps a bit more sober. I'll definately be seeing this again: and I hope I enjoy it every bit as much as I did this time.

One more thing: you actually got a sense of time passing in this movie. In fellowship, those three hours were over so quickly, and everything was jumbled together. In TTT, there was a very real sense of time creeping by... not because the movie was boring, but because I feel that PJ managed the time better. It was less about action (even though Helms Deep dominated) and more about the playing out of the various storylines, etc. You got a real sense of the distances travelled this time around.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Theoden was a little overdone: exorcism scene didn't work, but oh well. It could have been worse.

Did Theoden's head do a 360? I'll be seeing it in 24 hrs.

[Devey]

Applauds Beardofpants loudly……… I find it hard to imagine anyone watching the film and not being totally spellbound by it. Okay there are parts in it that you may not particularly like but overall it was a masterpiece. Any film can be picked apart scene by scene, what is important is the bigger picture…..was it believable, was it well acted, did it work, was it jaw dropping in places….this is what matters.

Tolkien turning in his grave?……………well if he is then he goes down in my estimation as he shouldn’t be so ridged and protective of his work, and see that it can be adapted to fit the limitations of the media thoughtfully and intelligently and to bring it to a wider audience not just the “faithful�. I for one think he would have been bowled over with what Jackson has produced.

[Khamûl]

BoP liked it? Didn't see that coming. Or is that just the alcohol talking?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Khamûl
BoP liked it? Didn't see that coming. Or is that just the alcohol talking?

lol! Let's wait for the sober review.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
lol! Let's wait for the sober review.

Well if I said I loved it without complaining, everyone would think the world was ending or that I was on something. Maybe both.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if I said I loved it without complaining, everyone would think the world was ending or that I was on something. Maybe both.

I think we purists all had time to make peace between the two mediums and enjoy each for what they are; two very different and enjoyable experiences.

[BeardofPants]

Exactly. (Fellowship still sucks ass though.)

Originally posted by Khamûl
BoP liked it? Didn't see that coming. Or is that just the alcohol talking?

Hmm, let's see: Sober, and.... I still like it.

You must understand though: that I like it purely from a film perspective. As a film: it works. PJ in deviating so much, has finally had the gall to make this piece of work HIS, and not a pale reflection of Tolkien --- which, I feel, would have failed him.

Besides, anyone who can kill off that annoying actor that played Haldir, deserves kudos.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if I said I loved it without complaining, everyone would think the world was ending or that I was on something. Maybe both.

Ah, but I didn't say that I unreservedly liked it. I still have my nitpicks, which I will carefully cultivate over the course of several viewings. (Arwen flashbacks being one of them. Jeez woman, keep your bloody lips to yourself already. Oh. And the Eye: what's with the bleepin' eye over Orthanc?!)

[bropous]

Let me state for the record, unequivocally: I cannot now, nor at any time in my life have been able to name the entire list of Stewards of Gondor down to Denethor frontwards and backwards, and I do not hold that anyone who cannot do so is not a true fan of Tolkien.

Second, I LOVED the film. I can accept the changes made to tell the story. I do think that the original storyline is far more effective and far more captivating. I also don't understand why the Aragorn "death" scene, why the Ents didn't know their forest was being hacked to bits near Isengard, why Frodo has to be brought to Osgiliath, why the wargs have to attack, why Frodo has to stand in front of a winged nazgul, why Fangorn has to kill the orc and rescue Merry and Pippin, WHY the character of Theoden King has to be so hanged into a weakling, etc etc etc.

Does anyone remember Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas figuring out what happened to Merry and Pippin?

I loved the mention of the Old Forest, dwarf women's beards, the flowers on the death mounds, the piling and burning of orc bodies, the fight between the orcs ["What about deir legs? Dey don' need DEM..."] , the use of the map by Faramir which lays out the main strategy of the War of the Ring, the Balrog scenes [I loved it, okay, so sue me], Gollum's singing songs, everything about the Ents and the storming of Isengard [just perfect for me], the charge of the Rohirrim, the partial testudo formation heading up the causeway covering the ram, the integration of the industrialism in Saruman's machinations [pardon the pun], Eowyn [I already had a strirring of a tear knowing what this noble character will go through], on and on and on.

I actually think that the Lord of the Rings can be shot as effective films just as the three volumes of the book breaks up the storyline. I'm not gonna get my knickers in a twist over all the changes, though. I still love the film. Well done, Peter. And positive thoughts towards the person who will actually end up making a film(s) of The Lord of the Rings and remain true to the original storyline, however far in the future that endeavour may be attempted.

[claudia silver]

Devey wrote:

In my opinion it is Tolkiens Faramir that is totally wrong and Jackson got it absolutely correct.

Sorry but I think you have totally mis-understood Tolkein's Faramir. In the book he is one of the most 'high-souled', noble, thoughtful men in Middle-Earth, Gandalf's pupil. He still harks back to the Numenorean ideals of 'gentleness and art'. Unlike Boromir he has no personal ambition and would gladly see the line of Elendil restored. In the book this contrast between him and Boromir serves two purposes. Firstly to create tension when he reveals himself as Boromir's brother; will he do the same and try to take the ring (as you would expect) and surprise/relief when he doesn't.

Also I would suggest that ambition/need is a major factor in the degree to which various individuals are tempted by the ring. Both Gandalf and Galadriel, if they had have taken the ring, would have tried used it to do great and good deeds for the benefit of all, but by its very nature this would have quickly turned to evil. Maybe Frodo resisted as long as he did as he had no great driving ambition and likewise with Faramir.

I have a number of thoughts as to why PJ changed the character; would the audience be confused if he overcame the temptation and didn't try to take the ring and to show the power of the ring over all who came in contact with it. Also within the limitations of the film he hasn't had chance to explain why in ROTK Denethor behaves so dreadfully towards his son. PJ needed a reason, which, begrudgingly, I suppose will work in ROTK. However I think a valuable chance, using the character of Faramir, to explore the different stances people take towards war and peace was lost.

[BeardofPants]

Interesting to see that Saruman didn't meet his bloody death on the spike in TT as everyone speculated.

I know we're not doing spoilers, but this is a pretty big one.

I agree with you Claudia Silver: it *is* sad that he didn't utilise one of my favourite characterisations from the book. Book Faramir is so noble, and incredibly refreshing after all the evils the broken fellowship encountered. But: I would argue that PJ didn't actually deviate away from the book TOO much. He definately wasn't swayed by the ring as Boromir was; it was just that his motivations were twisted by PJ.

(BTW: Happy Birthday Claudia!)

Brop:
I also don't understand why the Aragorn "death" scene, why the Ents didn't know their forest was being hacked to bits near Isengard, why Frodo has to be brought to Osgiliath, why the wargs have to attack, why Frodo has to stand in front of a winged nazgul, why Fangorn has to kill the orc and rescue Merry and Pippin, WHY the character of Theoden King has to be so hanged into a weakling, etc etc etc.

I don't know why PJ did the death scene either. It bugged me quite a bit. I would have probably better understood it a bit more, if PJ had meant to have him "reborn" as a King (more willing, etc), but he didn't seem to take this tack. It's also odd how they made out that Arwen had left the shores of Middle Earth. I guess it works within the context of the movie... making him a more tragic character, and all.

The ents not knowing about the forests being torn up WAS puzzling, but again: I guess he did it to build up suspense. Logically, it doesn't make sense, cinematically, it works. That's movies for you, I guess. You start nitpicking, and you start finding nits.

Osgiliath made NO sense whatsoever. Why would they leave the comparative safety of Henneth Annûn is anyones guess.

The warg attack was very well directed. And why not? You would expect orks to be amassing during this time of war.

Frodo standing in front of the nazgul was just plain dumb. This doesn't even work logistically, since the nazgul are beings of fear. Why the bloody hell isn't Frodo running for his short little midget life?! Most of the nazgul scenes bugged me, actually. Talk about overusing your evil nasty bad guys.

Theoden. What can I say? I saw the make up and laughed. And the exorcism scene... NOT a good judgement call there.

Still, despite all these crappy bits, it was still a great movie.

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I think we purists all had time to make peace between the two mediums and enjoy each for what they are; two very different and enjoyable experiences.

yeah, Ive simmered down quite a bit. I still cant understand why PJ did some of the things he did, and I do think it could have been done better, and most of the things still bug me... ...buut after going to see it again, I can point out enough good things so I liked it okay.
~Celebréiel

[Kalimac]

That's funny! Do you mean like "The Wizard of Oz"?

I was trying to get across the weird, high-pitched noise that you hear in the old campy sci-fi movies, kind of like tuning an old radio - how would you type that noise? But actually, what I typed does come across like the monkey-soldier chant in the Wizard of Oz, doesn't it! ooooo eeeee oooooo ....... ooooOOOOOooooo

I get the impression that PJ did this scene intentionally to look like the Wizard of Oz . . just a PJ nod to one of the great fantasy films (and, a young lady who took a dangerous journey of her own). But, actually the reason I responded to the above comment was to mention that the monkey-soldier chant was really: "All we owe, we owe her."

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Celebréiel
yeah, Ive simmered down quite a bit. I still cant understand why PJ did some of the things he did, and I do think it could have been done better, and most of the things still bug me... ...buut after going to see it again, I can point out enough good things so I liked it okay.
~Celebréiel

I think he changed Faramir because he didn't like the ESP aspect in a human. His commentary says he doesn't like magic in movies. The Aragorn thing was just to keep Liv front and center.

I wish the wraiths were not cloaked anymore. The nazgul flying is not exactly stealth mode. They should look like floating crowns with burning eyes. The old rags are getting a bit shop worn.

[Turgon]

I can't believe I just read all 8 pages of this thread!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! ok thats better.

I skipped the little posts but I'm glad to see I'm not alone on my feelings about how PJ coped out.

I sit here wondering how the Fellowship rocked and the TT was half @$$ed.

It seems to me PJ is trying to push the climatic scenes (Battle scenes) towards the end of the movie even though Tolkien wrote them forward middle (typical Hollywood fashion on PJs part). PJ is screwing up everything by achieving this goal.

Save the Scouring of the Shire!!! Please PJ don't delete this scene. You don’t know the ramifications in doing this.

[azalea]

Aside from being too big, I thought the winged creatures for the Nazgul looked good. But I think he did a better job with the Nazgul in FotR, cinematically speaking. In this one he didn't use the camera shots to their best advantage (I guess because it was CG), thus they weren't as effective, IMO. I also agree they should be "unmasked" at this point. It still looked good though.

A couple of mentions have been made about possible recurring themes in the three movies, one being falling in water and being pulled out, the other the "rebirth" of a key character.
First, the water issue -- it was mentioned that in FotR, Frodo pulls Sam out, in TTT Gollum pulls Frodo out, and the poster said in RotK they thought it would be Sam pulling Frodo out. That got me thinking about where that would happen because of the lack of water in Mordor. So the thing that came to my mind was this: I think Sam will not be pulling him out of water, but Frodo will either almost fall in the Crack, or almost fall into the lava or whatever before Gandalf comes to the rescue after the ring is destroyed, and Sam will pull him up. That is my prediction.
Secondly, the "rebirth" thing: In FotR, the fake death was Gandalf's, in TTT it was Aragorn, and in RotK, it will obviously be Frodo after the Shelob incident. My question is do you think PJ included the Aragorn one just so there would be one in every movie? If so, that is a silly reason, IMO.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

I went into the movie fully expecting to hate it... but:

I loved it. It worked so much better than fellowship did. I think the deviations finally allowed PJ to make the project truly his, and not some weak adaption of the book. As a movie, it was BRILLIANT.

I feel much better now that I know that BoP likes the film, I'm sure I will love it as well. I may have to swim across the Tasman Sea, still five more days to go!

One question: how many times does Frodo fall over in this movie?