*TTT - Overall Impressions [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

hama1

12-18-2002, 03:25 AM

Well, I had a different reaction. My feeling at the end of FotR was "My God! Has it been three hours?" My feeling at the end of what seemed like three hours of TTT, but was only actually one was "My God! Is this thing ever going to end?" Now clearly I am no purist and have no problem with interpreting or adapting Tolkien's work. However, if New Line and PJ went to the trouble and expense of buying the rights to the character and place names from TTT, they might as well have gone all the way and purchased the rights to the actual story.Yes Gollum was pretty amazing and generated the most reaction (generally laughter) from the audience I saw the film with. The battle scene at Helm's Deep was also impressive but I felt contrived and left me distant. I certainly felt no sense of triumph or elation at the eventual victory. Actually, given the characterization of Theoden, I found myself hoping Jackson would make another of his 'minor' changes and the Orcs would win.I also found the dialogue he chose to leave out or not to stress puzzling. It seemed that great opportunities for drama and character development were missed. I am definitely going to have to re-read TTT and see if I can make sense of the choices Jackson made. I am not saying they were wrong but perhaps he is too clever for me.Perhaps it is just that the initial thrill from FotR of seeing these charcters and places come to life is gone. However, in the end my feeling is if this is what I have to look forward to for RotK...I'll wait for it to come out on video.

Birdland

12-18-2002, 03:27 AM

Well, I for one loved the opening. I sat there and thought "Oh, that's how it all looked!". I mean after all, Gandalf did battle the Balrog, and that's what they showed. Oh, and hey! Balrogs got tails!I know P.J. and others worried about people in the audience being able to follow three story threads, so why did he have to expand it to five?! As well as the usual three, you also have the whole Aragorn/Arwyn pity party scenes, plus the whole Elven hand-wringing "we got to get out of Dodge, to heck with the Men" sequences, and that ungodly long exposition speech from Galadriel. Plus the throwing Aragorn off the cliff just so he could be out there to count orcs and and report that back to Theoden. (Anyone ever heard of scouting parties?) I guess I resent all these extra moments because it took film time away from Frodo and Sam, and it was needed badly. The whole sequence of Faramir's and Frodo's meeting had a rushed quality to it, and I think P.J. frankly butchered Frodo's character. I know this is going to sound funny when referring to a hobbit, but either the director or the actor chose to emasculate Frodo. There was no strength of character demonstrated by him at all. Where's the Frodo that grew in wisdom and could handle himself in front of the lofty Men of Gondor? Gone completely. All that's left is either a wimpy victim or a Ring-wrought psychopath.If Frodo's falling apart this quick, at this stage of the game, what's he gonna be like when he actually gets to Mordor?I know I probably need to see it again, but there were many times in the film when I just wanted to reach out to the screen and say, "Here, let me do it." There was much I loved about the film. Gollum is fantastic! Amazing portrayal. I even liked the way he "gollums"! And the Ents were a joy to see. Merry's fortitude and the realization of what was at stake was very moving. These are all just first impressions, but all in all right now my feelings are mixed on The Two Towers.P.S. - Is it just me, or is that Haldir one pudgy Elf?[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

Birdland

12-18-2002, 03:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The battle scene at Helm's Deep was also impressive but it felt contrived and left me distant. I certainly felt no sense of triumph or elation at the eventual victory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You hit the nail on the head Hama! (BTW - Welcome to the Downs) I did not weep, or feel genuine excitement or tension throughout the whole film. Not at all like my reactions when watching the first film. That's what was missing for me!

mollecon

12-18-2002, 04:58 AM

To address some of these issues in the order they appear on this thread:Faramir is certainly changed a lot compared to the book - I'm not too fond of it either, he didn't seem to have any mind of his own at all, until at the very end.Elves at Helms Deep? To tell the truth, I sorta liked that! In the books we're told about other people in Middle Earth fighting during the Ring-war - the Elves in Lorien, Dwarfs & Men at The Lonely Mountain (some of it in the appendices I believe). But I think it would seem very strange to the audience if the Elves didn't involve themselves in some way - I always wondered where the Elves from Riwendel was in the books (apart from Elrond's sons)?One of the reasons for the changes might be Jacksons interpretation of the story as being about genicide. In the books Sauron/Saruman doesn't wan't to destroy mankind - they wanna rule it!It was mentioned that all the other things happening took time from Frodo/Sam (& Gollum). I think that's deliberate & a typical 'movie' solution - by deciding to put emphasis on the action/special effects & general grandeur of things, it's difficult to expect an audience to accept over an hours intimite 'champerplay' between Frodo & Sam. Especially a modern MTV audience with an attention span of aprox. 5 sec's It was mentioned that Frodo's character was butchered. Frodo is actually one of the few characters I found a bit hard to accept already from FOtR - it's a combination of two things: the way Frodo is portrayed from the directors side, too weak in my opinion - + the fact that Elijah Wood is too young & too cute! Having that in mind, his behaviour in this movie isn't strange... But I too have wondered about how he's gonna get later!& it's true - the movie seemed a bit 'messy' narrative wise to me too. In general, I still liked the movie - not as much as FOtR, but on the other hand that's not a fair comparison since I've seen FOtR 40+ times & this one only once (so far).

Tigerlily Gamgee

12-18-2002, 05:29 AM

Many of those feelings are what I felt the first time I saw it. I really had to go home and sleep on it. I must say that the second time around I enjoyed it so much more, and I saw a lot more... I really felt connected this time. The same thing happened with FOTR for me. The more I saw it the more I noticed and the more I loved it. This movie seems to be following the same pattern.

TolkienGurl

12-18-2002, 09:56 AM

Birdie and hama1:That's exactly the opposite for me! A few tears crept out of my eyes at Helm's Deep, and the last march of the Ents. And I honestly never cry during movies!Yes, Gollum was a bit too funny, yet how do we know if he was a source of amusement or not? All we see in the books are the words; what about the voice? Maybe he was a tad silly at times in the book. We honestly can't tell by just reading the words.Noooooo! Haldir!!! Edit: When I said "I cried," I made it sound like I was sobbing or something. I wasn't. [ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

Birdland

12-18-2002, 10:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...by deciding to put emphasis on the action/special effects & general grandeur of things, it's difficult to expect an audience to accept over an hours intimite 'champerplay' between Frodo & Sam. Especially a modern MTV audience with an attention span of aprox. 5 sec's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to disagree Mollecon. You are selling people short. After all, movies used to be called "talkies" for a reason. People do talk. P.J. achieved a good balance in the first film, between the action and the character development, (though it is vastly improved in the extended version.)He lost that in the second film, it was so "action packed" that it verged on the point of gratuitousness. I'm sure there were many good moments of dialog that got left on the cutting room floor so P.J. could shovel in more "action".

Adam Sernheim

12-18-2002, 10:56 AM

I'd like to see more of Frodo, Sam and Gollum caus those scenes were the best in the film. Sum up: More of Frodo and his journy and less from Gimli the Comedian

Gandalf_theGrey

12-18-2002, 03:45 PM

Birdland's sentiments here in this thread are the ones that best echo my own, and to a lesser degree, hama1 speaks for me as well. * bows in appreciation of the eloquence of these two * Now here's what I noticed: Well, it only happened twice, but it happened twice in several hours ... so is it a fluke, or an indication of a larger trend?I wonder how strongly the average moviegoer in the United States, as opposed to the average intense Tolkien fan of the sort found here at Barrow Downs, relates The Two Towers to September 11th?I heard two guys today in two separate environments refer to the film as "The Twin Towers!" In the first case, I happened to overhear someone mention the movie as "The Twin Towers" in the theater as we waited for the film to begin. In the second case, I met a neighbor in my parking lot. Seeing me in my unmistakable grey cloak (which seemed to have an effect opposite to invisibility today), he struck up a conversation when I explained I'd just seen "The Movie." His response was that he too would have to go see "The Twin Towers" soon.Gandalf the Grey

Massharpoon

12-18-2002, 04:20 PM

I must say I have not digested it yet. I'm at home flipping through TTT and I just can't figure out what part PJ read. Sorry to be negative but I just don't feel that the movie captured Frodo at all. The Elves Deep was Impressive to see but not the way it was written. I do think Sean Astin has captured Sam perfectly and the Ents were great as well. I'll go see it again and hopefully have a better outlook on the whole thing.

Túroch

12-18-2002, 04:59 PM

When I first sat down in the theator two hours before it was scheduled to show I could hardly sit for my anticipation. I was soo hopefull and excited when I saw Gandalf battling the balrog. I was elated to see my favortie charater, Eomer for his first appearence. Little did I know we was to be hardly seen through the rest of the movie. To be completley honest Peter Jackson has prostitued TTT. He's degraded it, rewritten it, and turned into a movie where I was wondering if I should ask for a refund. My mother read Tolkien to me practicly over my crib. I grew up with the books. As soon as I could read I started my annual reading of the series. These books have been withe me for years. How could they be twisted like this. My God that was my favorite book in the seires and look what that.....that.....foul servant of Morgoth did to it. How dare he! Whats this about Osgiliath, it was a ruin by then, there was no battle there. And Faramir wasn't like that, how could they distort his character so. He took my Eomer and wrtoe him out of the story, Liv Tyler had more screen time. How can a character that isn't even in TTT have more screen time then the heir to the throne of Rohan? Ooooooo. And Elves and Helms deep? Oh come on. One of the big grievances I had is that they made the Riders of Rohan seem like a bunch of wimps. WHERE IS ROHAN'S ARMY? They made it look like the whole country was made of old men and babies.....oh....oh help us elves we can't defeat the big bad orcs by ourselves cause we're a bunch of wet noodles!!!! Grrrrrr.This makes me sick, all of it. At the end of the movie I almost shouted that Peter Jackson's days were numbered. He destoryed my favorite book, this is what he makes the average public think TTT is. He has made a classic look like a dime novel.Besides butchering characters right and left (Theoden, Frodo, Faramir) or leaving them out almost totally (my favorite character Eomer) the movie did have some good points. The ents were done well and the battle scenes were quite visually amazing. How could that.....that....snake PJ make FoTR soo good and then drop the ball. I wouldn't be so made if you changed the constitution, or add a new book to the bible. This travesty that PJ put up in place of the real TTT sets me boiling.What makes him think that his rewriting of TTT is better then Tolkiens original. Such arrogance is overwhelming. Who the hell does Jackson think he is, God? Iwould be very much appreciated if someone could give me the e-mail or phone number of the screen writes so I could vent some of my anger on the proper sources.Sorry about the Vehemence of my post, I just got out of the TTT which my whole year has been leading up to. After some time passes i'll probably cool down, but right now that movie angered me, not that the movie was terrible, but that he chnged what could of been one of the best movies ever. What a waste.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Túroch ][ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Túroch ]

Child of the 7th Age

12-18-2002, 05:07 PM

I agree with what Bird is saying. I would say that PJ's TTT is a grand martial epic and an amazing technical achievement. However, it lacks the charm, enchantment, and gentle affection that were interwoven through the first film. Partially, that is the fact that the second book has a different focus and setting. But it's also the choices PJ made in emphasizing action, peril, and suspense at the expense of developing his characters the way JRRT actually wrote about them in the book. As such, I just didn't connect with it emotionally on the same level as PJ's Fellowship. Never once did I find myself fighting back tears. And to be truthful, that happened at least twice in the first film. It just didn't tug at my heart in the same way. I got a tiny bit of that in the last minute between Sam and Frodo, but even that didn't have the same pull for me as the ending of the Fellowship.Were there things I liked a lot? Absolutely! I actually thought Eowyn and Aragorn were handled well. I liked PJ's portrayal of Sam. Gollum and his two personalities were compelling. We also had more insight into the friendship between Legolas and Gimli. There were even a few changes from the book that PJ made that felt "right" to me--Merry and Pippin's discussion about how the Shire would eventually be destroyed unless they did something, the presence of the Elves at Helm's Deep, how Merry used his wits to 'persuade' the Ents. I've come to think of the movies as PJ's fanfiction, and an amazing fanfiction it is. I'm willing to shift things around, to put in new scenes, or even expand on Arwen's role. But the one think I have trouble with is changing the characterization in such a way that it actually goes against the spirit of what Tolkien was saying.There are two cases of that in this movie. PJ didn't get his "F's" right, and I don't mean the word you're not supposed to say in public. I mean Frodo and Faramir. I'm one of those who ranted a good deal about Frodo's depiction in Fellowship as a spineless wimp, with everything left out that showed he had a backbone. e.g, the BarrowDowns, his tabletop song at the Pony, his agressive beahvior at Weathertop. This time we have the same problem magnified even further. The amazing thing about the book Frodo is that there are two sides to his soul, and they're both becoming stronger. On the one hand, he is falling under the spell of the Ring. But he is also growing in gentility and grace. The light in Frodo's face--the sign of an Elf-friend-- becomes stronger. He has visions, and is able to show true pity towards Gollum. PJ takes the latter sentiment, and implies that Frodo's mercy arises solely from the fact that he was scared witless at the thought of having the Ring turn him into another Gollum. Was there some of that in Tolkien? Yes, but it's not the whole story. I never got a sense from TTT of how Frodo's 'mercy' related to his earlier discussion with Gandalf, which was a critical point in the writings, i.e. mercy which is pure and unadulterated rather than merely self-serving.The scenes between Faramir and Frodo are among the most amazing in the book. They show the nobility of spirit in both of these characters, although each is portrayed in a very different way. PJ has swept this entirely away, in favor of creating more conflict and suspense. I actually found it difficult to see the changes he made in Frodo and Faramir. Once or twice, I just looked away from the screen and mentally plugged my ears. Faramir was the one character in LotR whom Tolkien identified with most closely. I can't imagine what he would say about PJ's portrayal. It was light years away from the gentle man of Gondor. Instead, Faramir came within a hair of being Boromir #2. Overall, did I like it? Yes, but not to the same degree as PJ's Fellowhip, which kept creeping into my mind for days (even weeks) after I first saw it. I have to admit I'm disappointed. Will I see it more than once? I've already got tickets for Saturday night. But, after I see it, I'm going home, taking out my well worn TTT, and rereading The Window on the West and The Forbidden Pool to remind me that the 'real' Faramir and Frodo are still there, very much alive and well![ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

Mintyztwin

12-18-2002, 05:09 PM

Yeah. I can't figure out what part he (PJ) read either!! Warning: I am really mad. I don't have many good feelings for this movie, so I bet I make several of you mad too. No offense ment.Warning again: This is an absolute spoiler. Haven't seen it, please don't read it!I am absolutly furious! The opening was cool, yeah, but it went stedily downhill. Several points that REALLY bugged me:Saruman actually POSSESING Theoden, and Gandalf saying "Leave him!" or whatever, like he's, well, an exorcist! The orc following Pip and Merry into Fangorn. The ents deciding NOT to go to Isengard!! And having to have Pippin trick Treebeard into going there, and THEN Treebeard gets mad! And suddenly, there's 'bout a thousand Ents coming out of the trees, when only about 8 or 10 were at the Entmoot. Eomer not being at Helm's Deep until the very end. Haldir arriving at Helm's Deep with elves, and then dying.Aragorn falling asleep and waking up with Arwen. Gimli talking about dwarf women to Eowyn. I thought dwarves didn't talk about that much?Legolas "surfing" down the steps on a shield. Cool move, but I thought it wasn't really something an elf would do. Faramir: I won't even go there.Frodo is so depressed and everything, that I don't think he's gonna make it at all! Also, I think PJ hinted (via Galadriel) that he's gonna DIE. So, I'm not happy with that. Frodo going to Gondor. I'm only semi-satisfied with four characters: Gandalf, Legolas, Eomer and Sam. I'm really happy with Sam though, he's exellent! Yeah Sean Austin!Other than that, I did not like it. I don't think it kept in the spirit of ME at all. A lot of the language was really modern, and used nowadays. I really liked FotR, but the movie TTT is not nearly as good, and doesn't stay nearly as close to the books as FotR did.Edit: I remembered some more stuff, and tried to rant less.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mintyztwin ]

Pookabunny

12-18-2002, 06:13 PM

Peter Jackson faces a challenge larger than most filmakers do. He's putting to screen a masterpiece story that took a genuis over 14 years to write. He is challenged to visually express what has mentally stimulated more people than any other book has ever done (besides the bible). PJ is subject to the opinions of a super vocal, very dedicated and eccentric fanbase. And for that all that, he has immense respect from me.The Two Towers ROCKED. Yes, the story did divert from the books (and in many cases, REALLY OUT THERE diversions), but overall, I was thrilled with the outcome. I LOVED this film - and it's going to take a few more viewings for me to totally grasp what happened. I swear I missed a good portion of the film between tears - I've never cried so much during a movie!The Two Towers was my favorite book in the series, and at times it pained me to see some of my favorite scenes deleted, or the characters behaving differently (I still can't figure out what the hell was up Faramir's a**). But, overall, the theme of the Towers was maintained - it's a story of darkness and unpreventable, eminent darkness. That's why I LOVE this story! It jacks people! It's crazy like that! And I believe it is essential to change certain things to communicate that on the screen - and to get people who didn't read the books (or understand them) a better grip of the tale.Remember, movies and film and just two ways to express a story. I'm sure people would have issues with a mime interpretation of Lord of the Rings (even if it is 15 hours long and true to the story ). You know what, that was out of line. Mimes suck and need to die. Sorry about that I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and a huge fan of the movies. I agree that the films divert, I agree that there are some unnecessary differences, but overall I'm pleased. I'm just thankful that someone had the balls to bring Lord of the Rings to the screen, and for that I'm truly grateful. It's entertainment and I'm game for that!

TolkienGurl

12-18-2002, 06:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Remember, movies and film and just two ways to express a story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We all need to remember that before jumping at Peter jackson's throat.

Coral

12-18-2002, 06:18 PM

Well, from looking at some of your replies, I think that some people should stop looking for changes from the books and complaining about them. You should try and and evaluate it for the film that it is, but we all have biased opinions...so oh well...

AddictedtoRumil

12-18-2002, 06:20 PM

I enjoyed it very much but there were two things in the movie that i didn't like here they are:1)that scene where Aragorn thinks he is dreaming and he sees arwen and she says "Then it must be a good dream then" or something like that, that scene was so dumb!2)Haldir's death i mean that broke my heart for real! i don't think it was fair that he died in the film.other than those two reasons TTT rocked! I loved all the jokes!! I will go see it again soon!

Lindolirian

12-18-2002, 06:46 PM

Overall: Quite good.They had some really bad changes (SPOILER WARNING)with the Ents, Faramir, and Eomer being gone the whole time. Also Gimli's attempt at humor was good, but I felt that it did not fit in at all.Thast the bad stuff. The battled rocked, Legolas was way cooler, Gollum was SO real, Merry and Pippin are much better, and its so sad when you see the little kids suiting up for battle. I almost cried...Anyways, as a movie for nonreaders, it was better than FotR, although nonreaders will be VERY confused about the Ents, but as for us book addicts, it can be a little worse than FotR in the fact that it varied from the books more.

Nalana

12-18-2002, 06:52 PM

Pookabunny, I agree with all that you said. that's EXACTLY how I feel with what you said. I'm sorry, but some of you seem to get out of line, putting down PJ in anyway possible because of certain scenes, characters, etc. altered. I think that PJ has done EXTREMELY well. Some things are confusing, yes, but also remember that this is a 3 hour movie, and not literally speaking, some important parts in the movie needed to be dealt with a little bit differently. And some scenes were deleted, which bummed everyone somehow. It was also mentioned that there will most likely be Special Edition disc, and not that your fav. scene or character will show up, but there's always a chance.Please remember that some parts of the audience haven't read the book or don't understand it. Everyone has an opinion, like I mine, but there's a line between input/criticism and being overly offensive. I admire all the actors, directors, and producers that have to deal with that kind of criticism. Bottom line: I think some of you are taking this a little too seriously.Whew! Well enough of my rambling. I did not intend on replying to this thread this way, but when certain members get overly offensive, it offends me.

AddictedtoRumil

12-18-2002, 06:58 PM

Yeah but they asked for our opinion and they got it i'm not trying to be rude but that's my honest opinion i can't change that.

Nalana

12-18-2002, 07:03 PM

Oh no AddictedtoRumil. Not you. In fact, I didn't mean for my message to tell anyone to not tell their opinions over the movie... how some did it was offensive. All they have to do is simply state what they didn't like and why... they did that plus saying how terrible PJ was and everything. that's rude. But much love to all of you members.

Túroch

12-18-2002, 07:08 PM

I agree that taking it as just a movie it isn't that bad. I'm a little biased towards any fault that Peter Jackson had in creating TTT because i've lived with the book so long. But still if he wanted to have his movie he shouldn't try and pass it of as Tolkien. This movie had several huge defects from TTT. As a run of the mill movie standpoint, it wasn't that bad, but it wasn't the TTT. If one atempts to put Tolkien to film he should attempt to stick closer to the book and not invent scenes and reinvent characters not always for the better. It's not as if I want a 15 hour epic, but I think some few critical changes coul have made TTT imeasurabley better. At that riles me. The movie PJ made is either a terrible rendition of Tolkein or a movie that really isn't that bad but isn't TTT.

Gandalf_theGrey

12-18-2002, 07:20 PM

Within the range of the batch of posts in between my last post and this one, the people whose viewpoints resonate most closely with my own are:Child of the 7th Age, Mintyztwin, and Lindolirian.All I can do is echo your sentiments, the way I've echoed those of Birdland and hama1 previously.I would also like to say though, ... that at one point, I found myself asking, "Where's Frodo? Isn't he supposed to be in this movie? Did the director lose him?"... and that the only time I laughed in this movie was at the Dwarf-tossing reference ... just like, the only time I laughed in FotR was at the Dwarf-tossing reference. (But indeed, I'm sorely disappointed that Gimli was treated like some comic sidekick rather than as a warrior deserving of well-earned respect.)... and that I loved the scene where Legolas surfed down the steps on that shield! Gandalf the Grey

Nalana

12-18-2002, 07:27 PM

I agree with you guys too. I would just like to apologize for my outburst. I think I'm just a bit tired. I saw the movie last night at like 10 til 1 in the morning. I was so happy i got to see it before it was opened officially to the public. There were some moments i didn't quite understand/like about the movie, as a reference to the book, but oh well. I just learned to realize that when people make a movie from a book, it's really difficult to please some, considering for the most part, some of us interpret the book differently. But I'm looking forward to seeing the movie again and a again...and again lol.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nalana ]

Coral

12-18-2002, 07:59 PM

What I thought of the movie...hmmmm...Well it was a pretty big departure from the books in some parts, (Still mourning Faramir *sniff*) but overall, as a film, I loved it! I know, I'm easy to please...

Iarwain

12-18-2002, 08:22 PM

I despise this film!Throughout the entire movie, I was thinking at the characters "JUST SHUT UP!!!". The bit with Elrond and Arwen made me especially mad. My thoughts: "Why don't you just leave her alone, loser? She's made up her mind, respect her opinion. You aren't the only one who can think of the consequences behind your actions! Just look at your great-grandparents! They did the same thing, and your were the product." They practically took Treebeard out of the story, and the Entmoot was a complete failure. How did the armies of Isengard get into Helm's Deep? The Hurons should have been there to help! Theoden was NEVER even proposed to be posessed by Saruman, and a completely different transformation occured when he met with Gandalf. Frodo was a complete idiot, as was Sam. The mere thought of Frodo approaching a Nazgúl and offering it the Ring is contrary to all logic. And then there was the idea of Faramir taking them captive. They clearly took the dramatization of the story far beyond what they should have. I realize I am angry, but the movie was simply preposterous .-My boots were slashed last year, and I'm loosing sight of Middle-Earth today, Iarwainedit- i just read the other posts, and realize that most of this stuff has already been comented on. I took no time to read any posts, I had to comment right away.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Coral

12-18-2002, 08:30 PM

Now calm down, what were the movies made for, they weren't made just for the fans...they were made so people who hadn't read the books could enjoy them also...So don't go all up in arms over this movie, it's not worth it...[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Coral ]

Gandalf_theGrey

12-18-2002, 08:35 PM

Well met, Iarwain:* bows a greeting * Many of your points I can relate to, as I was nodding my head in agreement while reading your post. And alas, what a loss to us that a merry meeting in the Old Forest was bypassed a year ago.Now a question: I am wondering what it is about Sam's portrayal that you object to?At your Service,Gandalf the Grey

Iarwain

12-18-2002, 08:45 PM

Oh, but it is worth it. When you make a film soooo confusing that many people ignore more than half the detail and can barely hang on to the thread of the story, you would think that it was produced exclusively for the fans. Then, in a sequel, PJ (along with others) makes the story soooo corny and far from the original that you could almost call it a cheap remake if it weren't for the effects and scenery. With each blow to the defense of Helm's Deep, and each step Frodo took away from Mordor, I looked ahead in my mind to the RotK, and watched the white tower of Minas Tirith crumble, and the armies of Gondor shrivel and fail. I fear now that Frodo will fail in his quest, and that the Morgul army will get past the second circle. Arwen will set sail, and Faramir will be excecuted by Denethor. Oh the infinite possibilities for failure.-Screaming for Goldberry, Iarwainas for sam: I don't object all that much to his portrayl, except for the point where Sam jumps up in front of the Morannon and falls down the hill.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

GreyIstar

12-18-2002, 08:58 PM

I just saw it at a 3 to 6 showing and I will start my review with this as I did with the Fellowship.This is a movie BASED on a book by J.R.R Tolkien it is not THE book by J.R.R Tolkien. If you do not like it then read the book. Its a great book but it isn't a movie.I treat the movies and book as two separate entities there by not flipping out, as some do, over any changes. And having read the book again after seeing the first movie I found it didn't cheapen my reading.There is my premise going into this movie and that in mind I loved it. Visually it was stunning and middle-earth never looked so good in my mind. I went in expecting changes and also heard some peoples complaints over the changes and I found those complaints for the most part over exaggerated.Faramir: Yes he is different. But is he really different? I don't think it is Faramir being different but PJ placing more emphasis than Tolkien did on the corruptive power of the ring on men. It tempted Aragorn in the first movie so would it not be out of place to have it not tempt Faramir at all? That would make him more noble than the Noble King of Gondor would it not? And in the end Faramir proved to be better than his brother by letting Frodo go. Alls well Frodo, Sam and Gollum head to Mordor Faramir goes to aid in the defense of Minas Tirith.Elves at Helms Deep: Of all changes this is the most questionable. Having thought through some kind of reasoning I have thought of only one thing. If it is PJ's intent to not show the other battles with the elves in the war of the ring, then this is a way to show that the Elves do take a role in this war. It is very heart breaking to see elves die though because you know that had they not fought they would never die. Its not enough to ruin this movie because the good far out weighs the bad.The whole sequence with Elrond, Arwen, and Galadriel seemed forced. It was more like LOOK AT US we are still in the movie!! It will be interesting to see how these scenes play out in the extended version. Id guess a lot will be changed.Those are the only things that really were obvious. The rest is details that could have happened or were probably interpreted differently.I liked a lot. The Ents and the Entmoot. The storming of Isengard was awesome. The battle of helms deep was unreal. I liked the competition between Legolas and Gimli. Gollum was GREAT!!! Absolutely the best part of the film. I liked the Shakespearian debates he had with himself. The Eowyn Aragorn interaction was much better than I expected it to be. Gandalf and the Balrog was too short!!! I need more!!! Please extended DVD have more!! Not enough Gandalf in general but there will be a lot more of The White Wizard in Return of the King. Generally I can't say there was not enough of this character or that character because over the course of 3 movies and one story the screen time will vary. I think most people aren't thinking in the terms of the whole story but just in the terms of one part. I loved when the Ent that was on fire bent down to put itself out in the oncoming water. That was so logical it was funny, and I laughed out loud.Ok in conclusion this movie cannot, and isn't meant to stand on its own. It must be taken into account with the Fellowship and it stands on that base great. Both have changes but still hit the mark on feel and theme. They also find their way to the expected point for Return of the King. Frodo and Sam are on their way to Mordor, Aragorn is preparing for his trek to the Paths of the Dead, and Gandalf is ready to take Saruman down and rush to Minas Tirith's defense. Two Towers accomplishes its part in the story and is a lot of fun. I have to see it again soon.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: GreyIstar ]

Túroch

12-18-2002, 09:02 PM

Now now Iarwain, I can understand your grievances. I still have hope that RoTK will be up to the standards of FoTR. It seams that LoTR suffers from the sequal syndrome that so many others sucumb to. I do think that Sam jumping in front of the Morannon is pretty silly and out of character for the reserved Sam. If it had only been up to the standards of the first movie I would of been satisfied. I could forgive PJ many things (sam's in front of the gate, the gandalf exocisim, and the ents surprise that the trees were destroyed), however when he starts to rewrite the plot, it get angry.Question: If you don't make a movie for the fans, whom do you make it for? I (as an fan who is really into this too much) want a movie made for the people who enjoy the story and read the book, not for people who just want a thrill ride or cool effects. I crave plot, not rewriten either.

Iarwain

12-18-2002, 09:23 PM

I agree with you completely Túroch. If you don't make a book into a movie for its fans, you must have a very twisted mind. This reminds me (though it is utterly incomprable to TTT) of another book/film: The Count of Monte Cristo. If anyone here has read it, they will understand the unbearable nature of the film, as opposed to the book. And while they are completely different, TTT and Monte Cristo were both butchered almost beyond recognition. TTT, unlike Monte Cristo, did however have a few enjoyable moments. The ents (exempting Entmoot) were fairly well presented, and the opening seqence was quite exceptional. HOWEVER, though my ranting is over, I still find it hard to believe that they cut the movie off half way through each Book (by books I mean III and IV). I was looking forward to an amazing scene including Torech Ungol and Sam's fight with Shelob. The issue of the Palantir of Orthanc was never touched because instead of fetching Treebeard to help at Helm's Deep, Gandalf went to Eomer (who was already supposed to be there, and should have been fighting throughout the entire movie)! Merry and Pippin are left waiting at Isengard, when I was SO looking forward to a closing scene with Gandalf and Pippin riding Shadowfax to Minas Tirith at dawn. Oh well, I suppose all we can do is wait and hope that this disaster is fixed, and the third is as good as the first.-Waiting within my bounds for the world to change, Iarwain[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ][ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

GreyIstar

12-18-2002, 09:29 PM

What I find the most ironic and somewhat funny is that some people are clammering over this was in Two Towers book but won't be seen until ROTK movie and so on.Why do I think that is funny? Because Tolkien originally never wanted the book split into 3 parts. So if he had gotten his way and they were making 3 movies now the directer could split it anyway he wanted and with no qualms.[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: GreyIstar ]

Losthuniel

12-18-2002, 09:29 PM

Bad, bad, BAD PJ. VERY BAD. Honestly, the movie deviatied so far from the book, I was expecting Shadowfax to sprout wings, and the laws of gravity to buckle completly.1. SMAYGOL, not SMEEGOL. (my 2 friends and I kept echoing every SMEEGOl with SMAYGOL)2. Frodo is not a simpering idiot, who suddenly tries to kill his best friend. he's completly one dimesional here. I won't elaborate3. Sheild surfing: One orc with a well placed pike, and bye-bye Legolas(and fangirls!)4. I am going to kill Liv Tyler. That WAS NOT Arwen. Maybe Arwin or Arwyn, but I wasn't Tolkien's Arwen. And I certainly did NOT appreciate Aragorn/Arwen make-out scene. So much for chastity.5. Faramir: I am still reeling. Ow. Poor Tolkien is turning in his grave. I am not even going to go into it.6. Aragorn-falling-off-cliff-just-to-see-orcs plot device: Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid! Oh yes, and TOTALLY plausible.7. Elrond-is-a-jerk scene: No he's not! Yeah, ok, he can be, but he just seemed really heartless. And they ignored the fact that Arwen would become mortal. Oh, poor Arwen and Aragorn. Elrond is so mean to them. Boo Hoo Not to metion the wierd camera angles, complete lack of emotion in most spots, and just..argh.

Tigerlily Gamgee

12-18-2002, 09:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is a movie BASED on a book by JRR Tolkien it is not THE book by JRR Tolkien. If you do not like it then read the book. Its a great book but it isn't a movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well met, GreyIstar. I agree completely. I find it sad that people must bash the movie so much. You can't go to any movie based on a book and expect to see the exact same thing you read. They are different mediums and must be handles differently. I love the books, I love the movies... but each different from one another. I don't really put them into the same category... When I saw the movie the first time I was a little on end about how I felt about it beacause I had just re-read TTT. But, then I slept on it and realized that they are not the same thing and they never will be... so I went in the theatre the second time last night and the movie was so much better. Wow, sorry if that sounded confusing.I understand why people have grievences, but hopefully you will see the movies with a new light later on. Love the books, they are great.

GreyIstar

12-18-2002, 09:40 PM

"1. SMAYGOL, not SMEEGOL. (my 2 friends and I kept echoing every SMEEGOl with SMAYGOL)"God that would be annoying. Id be like shut @#@$ up!!

Diamond18

12-18-2002, 09:40 PM

Well, if you want my feelings on the matter you can probably just re-read Child of the 7th Age's post, because that's pretty much how I felt. But that won't stop me from going on and on myself, so here goes:I'll ignore the book deviances for the moment and compare this movie to the FotR movie. This really, really lacked the emontion of FotR. It had no Departure of Boromir type scene to make me teary-eyed...nothing even close to that. Where was the emontion? I just didn't feel it.It also felt very scattered. Too many storylines going on at once. Someone (Birdland I think) asked why they had to turn three storylines into five. Yeah! Why? Anything that involved the Elves was really forced. Haldir's death? Wake me up when it's over....There was a lot more action, yeah...why didn't they just hire Vin Diesel to play Aragorn then, huh? We needed the balance of FotR; put emotion and intelligent dialogue before head-butts and slashing and arrows, okay PJ? Is that too much to ask? I really thought you knew how to do that.Faramir? Faramir? Where have you gone? I'll talk about that in the Faramir thread, though....Movie vs. Book. Oy, where to start? In this case this movie is really suffering from "Wait Till RotK" syndrome. The favorite parts of the book for me was the Dead Marshes, Pippin and the Palantír, Minas Morgul and Shelob's Lair. Three of those things seem to be in RotK.Besides that, they spent way too much time leading up to Helm's Deep and not enough on the Hobbits. Hobbits make the World Go Round, IMHO, and if I don't get enough Hobbits, I'm not happy.On the postive side? I loved Sam. Gollum was nicer than I imagine him, but I loved him, too. Pippin seems to have gathered his wits finally and the Orcs were just as mean and scary as you'd hope them to be.But PJ never seems to fail on the scary/evil parts of the book. In this movie he really got too carried away with it. And so I'll say it again: I miss the emotion of the books and the first film.Now, onto the other threads to talk about things more specifically....

Pookabunny

12-18-2002, 09:41 PM

To quote GreyIstar: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is a movie BASED on a book by JRR Tolkien it is not THE book by JRR Tolkien. If you do not like it then read the book. Its a great book but it isn't a movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> GreyIstar, I just wanted to thank you for that excellent post and especially that groovy intro. I was hooked right away.That is the expression of an understanding, rational person. Respectful of the film and books as two seperate media and entities altogether. Well spoken!I appreciate the opinions of our fellow downers, but some people do take it to an extreme. And this post is not targeting negativity towards anyone in particular, but just to the people who claim the could "make a better movie". And to those who belive they could, I respect your aspirations, that certainly is a high-reaching goal. However, PJ was given this task for a reason. The man has talent.

Diamond18

12-18-2002, 09:47 PM

Pookabunny: The thing I'm lamenting most is the fact that FotR movie was so much better than TTT movie. I know PJ can do better, I saw it! The things I loved about FotR are missing in TTT.And I couldn't make a better movie, but I could write a better screenplay. Eeesh. I hope though, that like Tigerlily I will enjoy the movie more on repeated viewings.And PJ did say that TTT diverges from the book the most...so I guess that bodes well for RotK.

pherostien

12-18-2002, 09:50 PM

I just got home from seeing TTT, and all I have to say is WOW. I liked it much better than FotR. Is it fair to say that I wish I could have kicked Arwen, Elrond, and Faramir in the head. I don't mean to be rude but I wasn't to thrilled to see the elves. I cried, I laughed, and I will be back to see it again on friday. Oh! and GO Gollum!!! he's so cute.

GreyIstar

12-18-2002, 09:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pookabunny: The thing I'm lamenting most is the fact that FotR movie was so much better than TTT movie. I know PJ can do better, I saw it! The things I loved about FotR are missing in TTT. And I couldn't make a better movie, but I could write a better screenplay. Eeesh. I hope though, that like Tigerlily I will enjoy the movie more on repeated viewings.And PJ did say that TTT diverges from the book the most...so I guess that bodes well for RotK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the Fellowship is so confined to a small group in one place. Of course it is going to feel more intimate than a part that expands greatly. I thought PJ handled such a monumental task well.Think in terms of the whole story. I refuse, now that we have another part, to judge based on one part but putting them together and seeing what we have. This is the story at its broadest point. The Return of the King will then draw the story closer and closer back to a singular point. I concur I was not as emotionally moved, but I was moved in other ways. Sams speech was very moving btw.

Orual

12-18-2002, 10:07 PM

First, I'd like to say that I agree with Child about Faramir. I laughed when I read your post, because I'd been calling Faramir Boromir the Second all day!Now, let me try to organize my post into levels of how much I liked various parts.LOVED to death... 1. The conies scene. I almost cried with joy when it came on; I adored that part in the book. Hee hee, they even kept "Po-ta-toes!" Made me a happy hobbit. 2. Pippin and Merry. All of their stuff. There wasn't HALF enough of them. If PJ did one thing right in this movie, it was the two of them. They really grew up, and it was just wonderful. 3. Gollum. Yay! Although some of his scenes were kind of...frankly...amusing (and weren't supposed to be). Everybody in the theatre was laughing (including me, to my shame) when he was arguing with himself and it kept changing angles. I much prefered the one where they didn't change angles. But overall, Gollum ROCKED. 4. Sam. Just because he's Sam. But seriously, Sean Astin was incredible. The only time I cried was during his speech...something about how can the world recover, when everything is covered in shadow, and my friend (dressed as Frodo; I was Sam) and I were both dissolving into little sad puddles. Thank God for Sean! Yay! 5. The scene where Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are looking for Merry and Pippin, and Gimli finds Pippin's belt...I was very close to crying when Aragorn loses it. 6. Frodo's Sting speech to Gollum. Short, but almost directly from the book, no?LIKED... 1. Most of Helm's Deep. Quite nice. 2. Grima. Very nice, but there was something missing, I don't know what... 3. Gimli and Legolas. A little shallow, but at least they were obviously friends this time. 4. Aragorn. Where was Narsil? He did show authority this time, though!ER...not bad... 1. The Ents. Okay, Wizard of Oz flashbacks here, no? Weird. I wasn't overly fond of them. 2. Frodo. Elijah Wood's acting was impeccable, but he just wasn't quite Frodo, was he? Kept yelling at Sam. My poor Sam. 3. Haldir. I have to admit, I didn't cry when he died. I won't really miss him. I didn't like him. But the guy who played him did a good job; it wasn't his fault that the character was rather a jerk. (I mean, honestly..."You carry a great evil with you. You can come no further." What the...?)What was THAT????? 1. Faramir. What the HECK was up with him??????? Yes, Faramir, take the Ring to Gondor. Yes, Faramir, let's give everyone the impression that weakness to the Ring is genetic. Yes, Faramir, let's skew the storyline beyond recognition. (Yes, Faramir, you're hot, but that's beside the point.) 2. Narsil. Where was it? Where?? WHERE??? 3. Arwen. She's not supposed to be there. Suppose she'll really leave? /hopeful look/ 4. Galadriel. Why don't the Elves leave well enough alone? I thought their time was over... 5. The fact that they didn't include Pippin's "Gollum, gollum" line. What's up with that?So, overall, I'd give it a "B". There's a lot to love, but a lot to dislike, as well. I preferred Fellowship, but I thought that the acting was better in TT. So...I will see it again, oh yes, precious. I will see it again.~*~Orual~*~There's good in the world, and it's worth fighting for! --Sam[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Orual ]

Rimbaud

12-18-2002, 10:22 PM

Addressing the thread and not the topic of the thread: this is a literary website, that is, one based on the books of Tolkien, and as such, any discussion of the films must of necessity refer back to the source material.Indeed, even were this not a book-based site, I would argue valid criticism of the film must involve a comparison with the text. I am not wide of the mark when I state my view that most viewers will see and understand the film as a translation of the earlier work.Therefore all comparitive criticism is relevant here. To people who would say, "Don't bash the film, it is a stand-alone work," I would riposte thus: "There are purely movie oriented sites out there."Then again, I may just be grouchy after that tepid and rather wasted three hours of an especially busy week.

GreyIstar

12-18-2002, 10:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Addressing the thread and not the topic of the thread: this is a literary website, that is, one based on the books of Tolkien, and as such, any discussion of the films must of necessity refer back to the source material. Indeed, even were this not a book-based site, I would argue valid criticism of the film must involve a comparison with the text. I am not wide of the mark when I state my view that most viewers will see and understand the film as a translation of the earlier work.Therefore all comparitive criticism is relevant here. To people who would say, "Don't bash the film, it is a stand-alone work," I would riposte thus: "There are purely movie oriented sites out there."Then again, I may just be grouchy after that tepid and rather wasted three hours of an especially busy week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a movie section though. There is a books section.Maybe I'm gifted but I don't let the book ruin my enjoyment of the movie nor the movie ruin my enjoyment of the Book. I will always say the book is better than the movie but does that make my watching the movie a waste of 6 hours?? I think not.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-18-2002, 11:14 PM

Nalana, I think you're rude. Thank you for saying you over reacted, but I just have to say this. And don't get offended. This is more of my advice to you for the future. And this goes for anyone else out there. And I'm just saying how I feel (you'll see what I mean at teh end). Who are you to tell us we are rude when we say what we feel? You are a hypocrite. How can you say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All they have to do is simply state what they didn't like and why... they did that plus saying how terrible PJ was and everything. that's rude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ?How?You are being rude yourself in telling other that the way they feel is offensive. Part of a first impression is how you feel. You can tell what you think of something, but if you don't tell it true, emotional, raw, and how you feel about it, then its just monotony, and its empty. Without any of that, then your first impression and your reply is spineless and weak. People aren't putting PJ down and looking for everything that he did 'not to their liking', they were just saying how they felt and what he did that made their first impression so angry and dissapointed. In a nut-shell, I think that you need to calm down and let people just say how they feel. Don't get offended, because I belive that you have no right to. People are saying how they feel and what they think, and if you can't handle it then leave and save the people like me the trouble of writing all this. If you don't like it then you can disagree, but don't get offended.Once again, please don't get offended. I'm just saying what I feel. With that out of the way, I agree a lot with Turoch's first reply. I was really dissapointed and I didn't think that TTT would be changed that much. I really like the movie, however, I felt that it was rushed and that it missed a lot of points and themes that the book presented. I think that PJ changed the plot too much and he really did drop the ball. It was good action, but still it was too much action type. It should be fighting in the battle, not this modern stuff with Legolas sliding on the shield. It looked really tight, but it was too unreal. Would that have really happened? As Lostthuniel said, on well placed pike or spear would be 'bye bye' for Legolas. And when Legolas swung around the horse to get on it, that was cool once again, but it looked too fake. I liked the movie overall but I felt that TTT was focusing more on the fad-tpye fans who have no respect for the book and the real (Tolkien) fans. PJ went too far around certain parts in the book.Someone asked if the movies were not made for the fans then who were they made for? Well, I think that the movie was made for the fans, but also made to introduce people to LotR, and for the fad-type people. And now I am beginning to think that this wasn't really made for the fans or anyone else, maybe it was just for money or fame.I think that people were using PJ as a scapegoat just a little. Remember that there were others who had their part in changing the plot. Like Fran Walsh (how I loathe her). The reason that we consider it all PJ's fault is because he is the main guy. If he's going to assume the role he did in the movies, as the head-honcho, then he has certain responsibilities, and if the movie fail to deliver in any way whatsoever, then his responsibility reuires him to take the blame.Greyistar. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is a movie BASED on a book by JRR Tolkien it is not THE book by JRR Tolkien. If you do not like it then read the book. Its a great book but it isn't a movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We know that. However, if its based on the book, then when they change it as much as they did, its a dissapointment. If some are looking forward to the movie and then it falls short of their expectations, then its kind of sad. Yes they can go read the book but it makes a lot of us very angry and dissapointed. That's just the way we feel. Some of us like one of the movies but don't like the other. When that's the case, its kind of worse because a movie trilogy doesn't work that well if any of the three is not up to any of the other's standards. But the one thing that ****es me off is when someone I know hasn't read the books and says something like,'Yeah! Legolas Rocks!' They have every right to say that and feel that way. But it makes me angry because tehy only think that he's cool because of the movie and they have no intention of reading the books at all. It's just sad. And this movie is introducing middle-earth to some people, but their first impressions (from the movies) just mess up the whole thing. This is really hard to explain so sorry if I'm not that clear.Tigerlilly. As I said before, we didn't intend to see exactly what we read. We had expectaions and different levels of them. But for some of us, the movie fell miles short of them. You are most likely going to be right. I did like the movie even though I was dissapointed. I'm definately going to see it again and I'm sure I'll like it better. Oh yeah, isn't a relief to finally talk freely about the movie with all of us? I thought that PJ really portrayed gollum well. I like the way gollum talked and how they did the camera angles for slinker and stinker/smeagol and gollum. I wasn't really too excited about the way he moved. And at some points the mouth movements seemed to be off with the talking. I thought that PJ did a really good job on him. Like when Frodo scolds Sam for making fun of Gollum and asking why he always calls him names and brings him down. It kind of like asking why he was such a bully to gollum. I liked the was Frodo calls him smeagol and forms a bond. I also like the way that Frodo and gollum's relation is clearly shown. Frodo bears the ring so he knows what it's like for gollum. PJ really portrayed gollum the way I see him. But as much as like the job he did on gollum, I still wish that he stuck closer to the book. And one reason is because not everybody sees gollum like I do. So if he stuck closer to the book, it would show gollum more like every one saw him.I won't go into much detail on the things I really didn't like, especially since most of them were already stated. And I'll only talk about two of them. First, I really didn't like how they made Frodo's journey, and especially when it got to Faramir. I didn't like how they had Faramir portrayed and how Frodo offers the ring to the wraith on the nazgul. It was just really far from the true plot and too far-fetched. And I thought Gimli was hilarious but they really took it too far. They were pretty much beating a dead horse, actually it was more like taking an ak47 and unloading on the dead horse. Oh well.Overall, the movie was disappointing but good.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

Lush

12-18-2002, 11:33 PM

I feel that to a great extent, substance was sacrificed for style, yet I hardly feel a twinge of anger. Perhaps I am somewhat shallow, but I am also a realist: the movie was fun to watch, and, having read and re-read the books, I found myself wanting to see PJ's changes, if only to be continuously surprised. If there was one movie out of the three that had to be more about kicking a$$ that spiritual depth and character development, it had to be TTT. So why don't you all stop aiming those rotten eggs at PJ's head, and wait for "RotK"? Therefore, my only real complaint can be summer up in one line: "Where the hell was Narsil?" P.S. Losthuniel, I respect you a lot, babe, and your posts are always fun to read, but if you feel that the interlude between Aragorn and Arwen can be constituted as "making out," I am beginning to fear for sex ed! Furthermore, since when does kissing explicity imply violation of chastity? And even furthermore, since when did chastity become so highly rated? Just food for thought.

Birdland

12-19-2002, 12:08 AM

To all who tell us complainers to "stick with the book": First off, I have the utmost respect for the medium of film, and yes, I do "know the difference". I probably know more about the difficulties of bringing a story to screen then a lot of people here, having worked in the business in a small capacity in the past. I love good film making. And I appreciate that we are talking about a visual medium here, things have to be shown, not described, as they are in a book.But a film has to have a heart and soul, and that does not come from special effects and pretty scenery. It comes from exceptional writing and stong characters that the audience can embrace and care about. P.J. got it right in the first movie. He didn't in the second. To me, it is as simple as that. I've thought about my reaction to the movie today, and surprisingly, I could find no real objections to most of the scenes, (except the Frodo/Faramir story, but that's another post.) But the movie as a whole just left me cold. It's as if you had all these wonderful ingredients for a cake, but when you put it all together, instead of a cake, you got a mess. OK, "mess" is kind of harsh, maybe a cake that is just a little bland and heavy. I do think P.J. is overly in love with the world of special effects, and I have a feeling he sacrificed a lot of dialog and interaction between characters in order to insert more "cool stuff". He couldn't do that as much in the first film, much more had to be explained then, but when you see how much he put back into the extended version, and how much better the film was because of it, it just gives me a sinking feeling that the film I would have enjoyed is sitting on the shelf somewhere, sacrificed so we could see more cool critters and skewered orcs.Oh, and B-W Ron, you are the first person to try and explain and justify the changes to F/F scenes, but I think you're overreaching. The average movie-goeer would not have picked up those nuances from watching the film. And I doubt that most "readers" would have made that leap as well. What I saw was Faramir having second thoughts about trying to deal with the Ring after watching Frodo basically have a fit. "OK, I've changed my mind. You, and your weird friends just take the Ring and get out of here. I don't want to deal with you anymore!" I would not have objected to changes in the character of Faramir, (though he is my favorite character), but P.J. and Fran Walsh didn't give us anyone. Frankly, my dear, the Faramir I saw on the screen was a freakin' bore.

GreyIstar

12-19-2002, 12:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> We know that. However, if its based on the book, then when they change it as much as they did, its a dissapointment. If some are looking forward to the movie and then it falls short of their expectations, then its kind of sad. Yes they can go read the book but it makes a lot of us very angry and dissapointed. That's just the way we feel. Some of us like one of the movies but don't like the other. When that's the case, its kind of worse because a movie trilogy doesn't work that well if any of the three is not up to any of the other's standards. But the one thing that ****es me off is when someone I know hasn't read the books and says something like,'Yeah! Legolas Rocks!' They have every right to say that and feel that way. But it makes me angry because tehy only think that he's cool because of the movie and they have no intention of reading the books at all. It's just sad. And this movie is introducing middle-earth to some people, but their first impressions (from the movies) just mess up the whole thing. This is really hard to explain so sorry if I'm not that clear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't care. If they are introduced to Middle-Earth by the movie and have no intention to read the book then thats their problem. I can't spend my time worrying or getting ****ed off about that.As for the changes I saw them as not much bigger than ones that happened in FOTR. Elves showing up HD is kinda like the Arwen thing and Faramir is kinda like Galadriel. The story is still the same, plot is still the same varying a little from interpretation but everyone has their own.Birdland I can't entirely disagree with you but I thought it was on par with starting up where Fellowship left off. It is definately bigger in scope as everything branches out which will tend to lose some of the intimacy but it does keep a lot of it. I tend to believe the extended version will put even more back into it. It was big and moving and I liked it. Sorry you didn't but I gave my reasons and some people need to calm down because its just a movie and you can always go back to the books. I will.

Diamond18

12-19-2002, 01:25 AM

I don't know how many of you have been reading critics reviews, but if you're curious, take a look at this: <A HREF="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/" TARGET=_blank>Rotten Tomatos</A>. TTT got a 99% freshness rating overall and a 100% from the "Cream of the Crop" reviewers. I had only read one critics's review and watched another on TV. Anyway, I thought you would like to take a look at all those glowing, gushing reviews and see what you think.I myself did not read beyond the "titles" for the reviews, because I really must be stumbling off to bed right now. I'm beat. But actually feeling pretty happy, because I took out all my frustraitions by posting, and I'm determined to now dwell on the good parts. "Don't let the sun go down on your anger" they say, and even though the sun was never out where I live today, I'll follow that advice.So as I drift off to sleep I'll conjure up pictures of Sam in my mind, and not Faramir.I want to add that the very last scene in the movie, "Samwise the Brave", was really quite lovely (though Frodo was acting like a manic depressive on the upswing when you take into account the previous scenes) and it was a nice way to end the movie. Like I said in the Sam thread, thanks Sean Astin for saving this movie for me.And yes, I'm seeing it in the theatre again and will buy the special DVD when it comes out. I know: no matter how much I've dissed it (and it deserved it!) I will still go crawling back for more. But first I'm going to crawl off to bed.

Eomer of the Rohirrim

12-19-2002, 03:30 AM

Well........I loved the film. Loved every bit of it.Fantastic stuff. Peter Jackson's INTERPRETATION is great.It's not the book, it's different from the book.It is still magnificent to me though.

Rose Cotton

12-19-2002, 06:30 AM

I entered the theater very depressed because I had been having trouble. I exited the theater with the with the biggest smile known to man-kind. When the movie first starts and we're swinging around the Misty Mountains I'm just thinking. "Oh, wonderfull scenery PJ. Now how about our heros?" I almost freaked out when I heard Gandalf and Frodo in the distance. It was a great way to begin the movie. It reminds us that Gandalf is supposed to be dead and shows us what was happening to him after he fell.When we get to Frodo and Sam the magic is still working. I felt their performances were great. However, as we progressed through the begining and switched to the different parts I felt the scenes were being rushed. This is not bad, as it is the only problem I have with the movie and I probably felt it was rushed because I hadn't had time to get a foothold in the world. It is a difficult thing to bring an audience in, in this kind of movie. In the Fellowhship we were able to adjust with the hobbits up unitil Rivendell. In TTT we have to be thrown right in. Considering this I don't let the rushed feeling get in the way of how I think about the movie. During this movie PJ gives the audience little suprises. There are two kinds of suprises he puts in. There are suprises were he changes the story to fit the movie and there are suprises that are when something happens in this movie that didn't happen in the first. In the begining scenes we get our first suprise. ORCS CAN TALK! After all the grunting Lurtz did in the Fellowship even I forgot about the unplesent language of the orcs.Another suprise that happens later on is that we relize MERRY AND PIPPIN ARE SMART! Gandalf will never beable to call Pippin a fool again (Well, maybe a few more times).Yet another suprise and the last one I will talk about here is LEGOLAS HAS AN ACTIVE ROLE! During the Fellowship of the ring he felt like just another companion, just there to yell out a couple of bad guy's names. In this movie he really stands on his own and I think Orlando does a great job bringing out his part. You really felt like you were with an elf.And while Merry and Pippin were growing up Gimli seemed to be taking over the comic relief. It wasn't a burdon on his character at all for me. I enjoyed his parts and thought they were a great way of keeping the audience's hopes up. (toss me...but don't tell the elf) And like an answer to our prayers Legolas and Gimli did have their compatition at Helms Deep.All of Rohan went past my expitations. It was set up with a brilliant background of a wonderfull Rohan musical theme. All the new Rohan charicters (Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden) were wonderfully introduce. Instead of throwing them in the story line out of nowhere they were brought in so you know who they were and what perspective they had. And while everyone was so worried about a sword duel between Eowyn and Aragorn Eowyn only wields a sword for a few brief moments. Her character was very well done. It will almost be no suprise when we see her in a soldier's outfit next year.Another worry people had was with Aragorn and Arwen. However, PJ brought her and Elrond in at very apropriate times and made it a nice addition to the story.Speaking of additions, when the elves showed up at Helms Deep all I cared about was there was more hope of winning. It also made me forgive Elrond for going on about having to leave Middle Earth. GO ELVES!Helms Deep was a wonderfull battle. It had wonderfull meaning hanging all around it. And without fail, PJ's children make an apperance (what are hobbit children doing in Rohan?) Aragorn was played wonderfully by Viggo. He really felt like a king. When he was there, you knew everything would be alright.Elijah as Frodo managed to get me on the edge of my seat countless times. I thought it was great. We all understood what the ring was doing to him. Very Cool.Gollum and Treebeard were great. Andy was a wonderfull Gollum. His spit personalities were absalutly believable.Sean's performance was beyond words. Check out the Sam thread to see what I said about him.Overall this film satisfied me and went beyond that. It's deffinatly better the the fellowship and if Rotk wants to be better then this it will have to be beyond ALL expectations. Gotta go to school now GREAT MOVIE PJ!

mark12_30

12-19-2002, 07:28 AM

One small point-- well, perhaps not so small. Many of us are seeing the Theatrical version of TTT very soon after seeing the Extended Version of FOTR. Don't most of us agree that the Extended Version was far superior, because of additional character development and "essential" elements that never, never should have been cut (we cry!). We should give TTT the same slack. I find myself, this morning, (as I still reel in shocked disappointment regarding PjFaramir and PjFrodo) telling myself, "Lessons Learned-- Order the Collector's Exition Extended TTT online ahead of time."Let me add for the record, that although I may be utterly horrified at what the scriptwriters (keel-haul them???) did to Frodo and Faramir, still, given what they were given, I loved the actors' interpretation and expression of it. Elijah and Wenham were formidable, and I look forward to the Extended DVD to see what else we missed.I **SO** wish that Elijah Wood had read the Trilogy before all this came down, but even if he had, he was too young to face PJ down (as McKellen often did, waving the pages of canon at him.)So... it's Alternate Universe fanfiction, and we've got a new, PjFaramir to deal with in addition to the PjFrodo. (sighs deeply) I'll get used to it, and learn the second version of the story. Like the Barrow-Wight said-- Faramir, you can't be tarnished; we know who you really are. And the same can and should be said for Frodo.(Ents were great. Where were the Huorns?)Wow, this was going to be one small point. More later... the "real" world calls.

JenFramp

12-19-2002, 07:35 AM

Thanks Rose Cotton I agree..I think a lot of TTT will be cleared up in the extended edition, and in ROTK..I’ve heard a lot of bashing of PJ and I don't think it's very fair...Did I like it better than Fellowship? I liked it for different reasons I think..not better, not worse..I think the added and changed scenes in TTT added some emotional aspects to the story that the movie watcher can grab ahold of and want to see the rest of the epic..a book and a movie are two entirely different works of art, so of course they will both come across as different...the scenes with Arwen and Aragorn emphasizes Aragorn’s inner struggle that was going on..and their love story IS found in the appendix..It is a huge book with tons of details..I think PJ did a great job..Good movie

Orodreth

12-19-2002, 08:03 AM

Yesterday, I sat down for the first showing with tickets for the next showing already in my hands. I could hardly sit still for the first scene, but all through the movie, all I could think of was how far they actually deviated from the book. I was fairly dissappointed in what I was seeing. This could have been an amazing movie beyond comparison, but they failed it in so many ways. Where were the Huorns at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep? Why was Faramir, one of my favorite characters from the book, suddenly cast as being so evil? And what was up with the Nazgul at Osgiliath and Frodo showing it that it had the ring? I believe that the movie could have, should have been so much better. But when I sat through the second showing, I enjoyed it more. Once I had vented my anger on my patient, non-fanatic friends, I sat down and watched the movie as just that; a movie. Judging it from that perspective, it is jaw-dropping. The visuals are amazing, and who can't help dropping their whole adrenaline supply watching the first scene... It was a very good movie, but it was lacking in so many ways.

The Silver-shod Muse

12-19-2002, 08:53 AM

There was something very strange about this movie. It seemed coarse and raw, wholly unpoetic, unlike FotR. The Rohirrim were governed by their fears until the very end (in the book as well), but even after that, they never quite achieved that high purity of self-sacrifice and bravery. The movie was brutal. Faramir, my God, I wanted to cry when I saw he was taking them to Osgiliath. When he says, "This is where I show my strength" (or something to that effect anyway) with his sword on Frodo, I thought, wonderful! This is it! But it wasn't. And why should Sam's speech move him to release Frodo when he already thought he was doing the right thing? Silly. I thought Faramir was cast extraordinarily well, and I can't wait to see his new self in RotK. Arwen made me cringe, but it wasn't as bad as I had expected. Aragorn and Eowyn were perfect (except for that questionable "fall into the river" scene...) Eowyn wasn't trying to hit on Aragorn at all, thankfully. I loved it when she comforted the women and children, and called Grima a snake, it really showed her mettle.Overall, a great movie, but I'm still stinging from Faramir's dismemberment. I'll have to see it again. The sheer force of it has left me shell-shocked. Every scene seemed like three hours in itself, but when it was done, it felt like I'd only just sat down.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

Ainalondwen

12-19-2002, 09:33 AM

Haven't read all previous comments so I apologise if I offend anyone.I loved that film.I came out of the first film not too sure, but after seeing it twice I was convinced. I loved this film first time I saw it. Will see it again on Saturday.I believe in changing something quite a bit from a book to a film. You cannot portray something on screen where Tolkien has taken page after page to describe it. The despair, and the hope. It must be adapted and changed to spoken word and actions. Some things cannot be put into the film becasue the film would then be listed as 6 hours approx. as opposed to 3 approx. Changes have to be made.As you can tell, I am far from a Tolkien purist.So the film... I sooo loved the elves at Helm's Deep as they added something extra. Especially Legolas' shield surfing...coooooooool...Gimli was great as the comic relief, it made a change form Pippin. I loved Pippin and Merry with Treebeard. Merry was soooo sweet when he spoke up, even when Pippin thought maybe they should go back to the Shire. But when Merry said there wouldn't be a Shire for them I nearly started wailing (NEARLY).I like everyone else want to know where Narsil went, but that would be my only complaint, for now. Unless I think of anything. But these aren't big complaints.the Fell beasts....what can I say. Thank you WETA! The effect of them and the ring was what caused Frodo to stand before it. And Sam!!! I am an elf supporter mainly, although I do so very much love the hobbits too, but Sean Astin should get an Oscar for supporting actor for that performance.I loved it, LOVED IT.Thank you PJ, you should retire after ROTK because nothing you do will ever better these three films (unless you promise to do The Hobbit).Fini

GreyIstar

12-19-2002, 09:50 AM

Can you really be mad that Faramir is changed because every single character isn't exactly like they are in the book? Aragorn is different, Frodo is different, Sam is, everyone is. Having thought about it for a while they made him as well as Aragorn more human and relatable. I can be tempted because I am human. It does leave room for development like Aragorn. Aragorn is shaping into the character he was in the book even though he didn't start that way. I want to watch a movie where characters grow.

rhudladion

12-19-2002, 10:06 AM

I would like to support the cause of some of my fellow 'downers' by asking this question and making the following statement:"Are we not all seeing the movies because of the books?" Or more specifically, "Do we not go to see TTT expecting to see...well, TTT?"It has been expressed, as it was last year, that one should not compare the movie to the book and then make criticisms based on that comparison. Now, withstanding the OBVIOUS fact that the two exist in different mediums, and withstanding the less obvious fact that the movie can and should be critiqued based upon its "movie-merit" alone, I propose that the movie also NEEDS and in fact BEGS to be criticized based upon its relation to the book. Reasons why would include the following:1) They have the same title. 2) They purport to be the same story. 3) They have the same characters. 4) The movie is made by those who claim to love the book and claim to be "putting the book on the screen".I can't imagine going to see the movie Spiderman and being satisfied with a Peter Potter, coal-miner not photographer, turns into an actual spider when confronted with a villain.So to those who suggest that we who compare the movie to the books are silly because they are different entirely, and that we should read the book if we don't like the film, I make this recommendation: To those who are satisfied with a Two Towers that varies from the book in major ways, go see another movie, the plot and characters will be just as different from the book TTT as they are in the movie TTT.Lush, did I live up to your expectations?

Iarwain

12-19-2002, 11:04 AM

GreyIstar, your pushing it just a little too far. When you say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Can you really be mad that Faramir is changed because every single character isn't exactly like they are in the book?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it hard to respond without saying something very very mean. It is true that none of the characters are really the same, but that does not mean that we should cease to recognize the film as an attempt at the recreation of the Books. And as a recreation of the book, PJ and Franny did a smelly job indeed. But of course, you say, the characters are being developed to become what they should be. And this is my answer: humans may be susceptable to temptation, but temptation does not rule the human heart. They may be longing for the ring, but they can refuse it also. And if character development has to start from a base character completely devoid of will power, then the part of the character (namely Faramir's part) can pretty much be abandoned and replaced with the non-"wizard's pupil" power hungry guy we see in the film. Character development can shatter plot development.For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ][ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Losthuniel

12-19-2002, 11:38 AM

Lush: Fear for sex-ed, if you wish, though we've not had any definable curriculum on said subject for a long time. Lets compare their scene in FotR to the one in TTT. FotR portrayed A/A more closley to how Tolkien wrote it. the TTT scene seemed, IMHO, rather unnecessary. Aragorn and Arwen love each other, yay, move on. As for the "Chastity" remark, it was somewhat tounge-in-cheek, and reffering to an old thread in this section.GreyIstar: Yes, I am annoying. But so was "SMEEGOL". [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Losthuniel ]

Feather

12-19-2002, 11:45 AM

i felt that the film was great. i expected it to be very different from the books and found myself looking forward to the changes and was pleasantly suprised to find that they were that bad. i think that this was always going to be the hardest one to script because it is not the beginning nor the end. it's the middle, this is the hardest part of any triology IMHO never mind the massively complex LOTR. Remember no matter what anyone did you can't please everybody

mordor136

12-19-2002, 11:47 AM

Well mt first impression from the start was wow! That is until we met Faramir. Why did they make him take frodo to osgiliath. would it be that hard to follow the books. On the other hand Osgiliath did make for some stunning images. I loved when Frodo looked up and said in that distant creepy voice "there here". One thing I didnt like is the fact that they stopped the film halfway through the book! I mean if there going to show it all then ROTK will be like 5 hours long. Not that I would have any complaints toward a 5 hr. LOTR film. Oh yea the dead marshes rocked.

Feather

12-19-2002, 11:49 AM

oh dear that sounds a bit high and mighty now i read it. I hope my opinion counts for something even though i am newly deceased

Iarwain

12-19-2002, 11:53 AM

on a more positive note...I loved the part where sam says that the Gaffer would have something to say. I really hope that they put in more Gaffer comments in RotK

piosenniel

12-19-2002, 11:53 AM

These movies and the Books are two entirely different entities, at least that is how I look at it. Tolkien's writings are par excellence! The movies, to me, are PJ's visual Role Playing Game. They are Tolkienesque, show his great love for the works, but they are his vision of it. And, they are stunning pieces of film work! I have been taken by the magic of the cinema since I was very young and my father first took me to see a movie. Then entire magic of the darkened theatre and the effects of being drawn into a story through sight and sound captured me immediately. I have never lost that sense of wonder that occurs when the first scene rolls onto the screen.As to these first two films of the LOTR, I am an unadulterated fan. It is a good basic storyline, the characters are done well within the framework of the film, the scenery and the musical score are delicious (significant 'characters' in their own right, imo), the cinematography is gorgeously done, and there are opportunities for thrills, chills, and tears along the way.

GreyIstar

12-19-2002, 12:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>all respect I have for you as a Tolkien fan is lost. It is true that none of the characters are really the same, but that does not mean that we should cease to recognize the film as an attempt at the recreation of the Books. And as a recreation of the book, PJ and Franny did a smelly job indeed. For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I really could care less what respect you have for me personally. I lost all respect of you has a human being when you said that. If you want my opinion on your comment.They aren't recreating the book. They are making a movie of it. Everyone knows that movies will inevitably be different from the book. Your hurt, get over it. But don't tell me I'm not a Tolkien fan simply because I have the ability to seperate the book and the movie and like both of them with out doing harm to each other. It is interesting to see Faramir the way he is in the movie it makes you wonder if he will show his book nature which he does in the end. I am facinated that PJ is having Aragorn grow into the character he is in the book rather than have him just show up that way from the beginning. The movie is a different way of telling the same story. PJ came out and said "TT is the most different from the books of the 3." Ok fine as long as you don't try to pass it off with saying nothing. If you can't understand this then stick to the book. I was just stating why I like both and how the changes can be rationalized in terms of movie making. But don't ever say I'm not a Tolkien fan ever again.

Iarwain

12-19-2002, 12:07 PM

sorry about that Grey Istar, if you look back, I edited that comment out after i realized that it was an exaggeration. Though I do tend to exaggerate in my responses, I completely understand your views (though I also disagree completely).

lindil

12-19-2002, 12:26 PM

I did my best to apply 'Gilathalion's rule of LotR movie - going' which is:"enjoy it as it's own work" or somesuch, it has been a year since I read his sage advice in this very forum. and it stood me in better stead than FotR because in may ways PJ butchered TTT way more than FotR.That being said I succsessfully applied my pschizophrenia to the movie letting my 'critic' go on in abut 4% of my brainwaves and enjoying the movie w/ the other 96%.Both sides were very active within their own realms.The good: The scenery - just stunning it really made the whole thing come alive and it is so refreshing to see something not made in CA [ I live here so I am use to seeing our dry hills, cities or redwoods used in darn near every movie] The overall battle of Helms deep, the feeling of the Rohirrim [ non-soldiers] [ although they were a lot dirtier than I pictured war notwithstanding].Gollum, he took getting used to but his split personality scene was a classic.Sam was OKthe Oliphaunt [ although I missed sam's silly poem]gandalf's glowing return.[ his only classic part in the film unfortunately]. He went from major inspriational return to travelling Exorsist.Eomer's men 'circling' the three runners.Aragorn's tracking. What my critic-side did not like:Faramir's pitiful re-write. hsssssss, booo hsssssssss.he is one of the most subtle and cool characters in the book and PJ dropped the ball shattered it put it back together w/ elmers, put on a cheap coat of paint and tried to call it Faramir. I let myself enjoy the movie anyway but that along with ... The Ents was a great disappointment.The ents reminded me over and over of 'Imperial Walkers' with a bit of shrubbery tacked on.Treebeard was reduced to Jar-Jaresque status and I am afraid and Tolken would have been more disappointed in this than anything else. [well Faramir might have given him a run for his $]I really feel for anyone who saw this before reading the books and may forever after have their associations tainted.I would have traded the whole silly 'warg' scene for a real look at treebeards house and Ent-Draughts or a real moot.I did not expect all of the ent-wife background to make it, but the rest was a real loss.Now that being said they did a good job of Isengard destruction relying to much however on that non-existent Dam that a commando unit of rohirrim should have taken out long ago anyway!And did I say Faramir was lame?Dead marshes were good but the idea of flames was totaly cheezy. Alittle more careful reading of the book would have stood the scene in good stead. it was as if pj was all of a sudden on a budget.And did I say the ents were lame?although it was cool to see the burning ent get his fire doused, and to see the ents use a 'bow and arrow stance ' to weather the flood' this is what any intelligent martial artist would do for maximum stability against a fwd moving 'opponent [ assuming there was no getting out of the way. well all the negatives being done for the moment, I agree with whoever said that we need to wait for the extended DVD to get thee full picture [ and do not think these criticisms [ or more accurately others like them ] will not have some effect on what goes in.I was glad Arwen was not with the elven host. [ a good examole of purist fan pressure, assuming she was there originally] Haldir and co. Oddly enough I did not mind that much, because I knew it was coming and I suppose I had wondered myself why Lorien at least never maintained relations with Rohan or more plauisbly Gondor, so it was the Elves trying to make up for past neglect. One thing I did not get was why haldir said they were from Elrond? anyone else puzzled by that.A troop of Norther Dunedain would have been preferable. but maybe we will see them in 3.I did like Galadriel's Osanwe w/ Elrond , but the scene w/ Arwen was as many other 'purists' have pointed out totally lame, and I agree I did not need to see them making out. Arwen I am afraid more than anyone else so far simply does not cut it.Did I enjoy it alot? Yes Will i see it again? God willing?Do I wish PJ had a sound thrashing from the actors or someone everytime he made some goofy new storyline and deleted something cool? absolutely!will I let that effect my enjoying of a grand cinematic event? as little as possible.I will close with my 6yr old daughter's words upon leaving the theatre,since nothing I can say could be as eloquent or laconic: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Two Towers was good, but they made things up and left things out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

Mister Underhill

12-19-2002, 12:38 PM

Guys, discuss civilly. Antagonistic posts are not called for, nor will they be tolerated.

Túroch

12-19-2002, 01:09 PM

What really riles me is that the movie was "supposed" to be taken from the book. With this TTT you could write a whole new book with much different description and a changed plot. I can forgive PJ for a lot of things. I can agree that his interpretations will be different from mine. They wasy he portrayed Gollum was not my own, but I can respect it. Some things though went overboard. Now to respond to some of the stuff thats been happening.Grounds-Keeper-Willie: Right on brother. I could not agree more to your post. My posts do seem quite angry, and I am. But more sad for what PJ and Fran Wlash lost then what they did. They missed making a wonderfull movie. But still quite agree with your argument regarding our emotional views of the movie.Rosie Cotton: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All of Rohan went past my expitations. It was set up with a brilliant background of a wonderfull Rohan musical theme. All the new Rohan charicters (Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden) were wonderfully introduce. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now I canr espect that you enjoyed the movie a lot more then I did and that several of the points you outline weren't in all that actuality that bad. However, we we come to Rohan I really disagree. They are undiputably my FAVORITE part of the whole series. I am a rider myself, and i've always loved their beutiful portrayl in TTT and the feel that they give me when i'm reading the book. PJ sadly and to my disgust changed them for the worse. First he made the Rohirrim people look like a bunch of rabble, instead of the proud people that they are. They made it look like they had no army at all (one of my big grievances). The Rohirrim one the battle without any help from the elves. PJ by bringing the elves to the battle furthur degraded what the Rohirrim are. He made it seem like the only defense they had were old men and little kids. In the movie all you saw was elves fighting the orcs, again, and again, and again. It angered my so much I wanted to scream. It was Rohan won the battle not the elves. Yes I do agree that the characters were introduced well but, in the case of Eomer they really dropped the ball. As I have said before he is my favorite character. They introduced him and then he....he....dissapears. He was supposed to be fighting at Helms Deep whooping arse with Aragorn. He and Aragorn drew swords together and got down to buisness. BU tin PJ movie he just isn't their and Haldir takes some of his whoopage. Maybe PJ didn't want Eomer there cause it might show that the Rohirrim realy are powerfull and not the wimps they showed them for. True Eomer showed up at the very end peeping beneath Gandalfs robe. I soo looking foward to him fighting. I kept thinking through all of Faramirs scene and the elves, Eomer's going to come back.....he....he's just getting rested for his moment of glory. Nope never came. Instead Arwen had more screen time.Sorry about that Rosie Cotton, I was just using your post as a springboard for my rant. Other then a few certin parts the movie wasn't THAT bad. But still I have my reasons for being dissapointed.Anywho, mark12_30, The Silver-shod Muse, Iarwain, and GreyIstar I agree with all of you. Right one. Especially GreyIstar. I agree that PJ has really changed almost every chracter (except for Eomer cause hen wasn;t there enough to change).Iatwain: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right on my friend, right on. piosenniel: yah, I know it was Tolkienesk. But I was hoping for the real deal and not some Fanfic version. But I am hard to please. I'm a tolkein vampire, I devoure all of his books . So i'm a little critical mind you.Oh and Rhudladion, I too Expected to see TTT". Unfortunatley, that wasn't what I got. Whats this!! I thought as I was waching.Mister Underhill, if any of my posts are over the edge i apologize. I'll keep this debate civilized.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Túroch ]

LePetitChoux

12-19-2002, 01:41 PM

I have decided to completely edit my post, as I was repeating in lesser detail what other people had said many, many times before me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The ents reminded me over and over of 'Imperial Walkers' with a bit of shrubbery tacked on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! Yes! I knew I had seen them somewhere before... OK, moving on to MY opinion, I am inclined to take with the whole "Am I asleep or did PJ just massacure Faramir's character into Boromir the Second?" way of looking at the film. When Sam said "This is all wrong" I sincerely started to think that PJ was confessing on-screen through him. When Sam moved on to say "We shouldn't be here" I knew it! Even SAM knew that he should never ever visit Osgiliath in his life! But PJ, no.I would now like to stop my repetitiveness, because anyone who has read all the previous posts before mine, won't really take my opinion into account if it just basically repeats everyone (or nearly everyone) else's. So here goes:THE FILM WAS WORSE THAN HARRY POTTER I don't mean cinematographically, all the efects etc. in TTT were great, but overall seriously it was! I'll explain: HP was aimed at chidren mostly (it is a book for children, it is about children, it is a kids' movie), but LotR is a book for any age and was aimed at everyone, including, if not especially for Die-Hard Tolkien Fans, as we here are. Now, Harry Potter had rather bad computer graphics (compared to FotR and TTT), but it didn't stray from the bok as much as TTT did, and children actually enjoyed it. That is not to say that nobody enjoyed TTT, but if it is aimed partly at Tolkien fans, and by Tolkien fans then MAKE AN EFFORT, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE!I hope that was easy to understand.. P.S. I loved Gollum/Smeagol! He was just brilliant![ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: LePetitChoux ]

Lush

12-19-2002, 01:58 PM

I don't think that wasting such a large amount of energy over one's disappointment is healty. I also don't like this whole "who's the real Tolkien fan?" digression. Very counter-productive, *tsk tsk*.Passions such as that, I think, should be better spent in the company of a punching-bag. Losthuniel, darling, by sex ed, I was not necessarily referring to what you learn in the classroom. Furthermore, I thought the movie benefited from the slight sensuality, but this is largely a matter of taste.P.S. Yes, Rhud, it's all good, and I am glad to see you back in your element.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ][ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

jaz

12-19-2002, 02:01 PM

I went to see TTT yesterday at noon, because I wanted to avoid masses of people and a sold out show, but to my discontent and surprise the theatre was still packed and the show eventually sold out. But I got there early so I had no trouble buying a ticket or finding a seat. My overall grade for the movie is an A+. I thought the movie was great, I do have some parts I didn’t like, like Faramir and his rewritten role, but everything else made up for it. Honestly, I have to say that the movie exceeded my expectations, I fell absolutely in love with the visual effects. The battle scenes were outstanding! The ents, I expected to look differently, but PJ’s version was acceptable. Gollum was the biggest surprise for me. For the longest time I thought that PJ was going to do something horrendous to ruin Gollum, but his Gollum was dead on!! And the split personality bit was fantastic! I was a little disappointed with Sam, but I was in FOTR as well so it wasn’t such a catastrophe this time around. It’s not the character that I don’t like but more the actor. Sean Astin just doesn’t do it for me. The biggest disappointment was definitely Faramir. I was so mad at the changes PJ made. And I was very discontent with the events that take place with Frodo after he meets Faramir. It's just all wrong and it makes me very very sad. Oh and since when did Gandalf become an exorcist?Grima Wormtongue was just what I imagined. And I was very content with Eomer. I loved Aragorn even more than on FOTR. Even though I didn’t find a good explanation as to why the scene where he falls over a cliff while riding some beast was necessary. Merry and Pippin were great as well. I loved how funny Gimli and Legolas were throughout the whole movie. And Gimli allowing Aragorn to toss him was hilarious!! Overall great movie. I’ll tell everyone I know to see it. And I’ll definitely see it at least 7 more times.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: jaz ]

Maikadilwen

12-19-2002, 02:15 PM

I just got home from the cinema 10 minutes ago. When we reached the intermission I was so disappointed I could have cried. I laughed through most of the first half. Maybe other people wouldn't be disappointed because they got a chance to laugh, but seriously.... I was a bit sad that every time Gimli opened his mouth, a joke was what came out. That wasn't what I had expected from the book I had read. The other half, however, was an entirely diffenrent movie. Of course, the only thing I had been thinking about was Helm's Deep and I loved every minute of it. But also the rest of it was brilliant. Though... I too, don't like the way Faramir has been changed. He was supposed to be the decent brother of the two. Too little of Sauron, though, but I may be the only one with that opinion. And now I have another wish for Christmas. I want my own Smeagol! Isn't he just adorable? [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Maikadilwen ]

Kalimac

12-19-2002, 02:58 PM

Wow, go to late showing, sleep in, and miss all the fun here apparently . I must admit (and I'm probably in a minority here) that overall I really, really liked the movie. First: about Faramir (the Faramir thread seems to have been shut down) in my case, forewarned was definitely forearmed: if I hadn't known I probably would have been crushed and it may have ruined the movie for me. As it is I was just able to endure it, and at the end when he lets them go, it was a good sign that he'll come around and behave himself in the third movie (he'd better, for Eowyn's sake ). As for letting them go for selfish reasons, I don't think that's a reasonable explanation when they have the bit about "your life will be forfeit" and he answers "Then it is forfeit." That is an intrinsically unselfish thing to do. Having Frodo offer the Ring to the Nazgul was pretty idiotic, but again not fatal; we've seen in the first movie how the Nazgul came within inches of the Ring and still didn't manage to get it, so it's not totally unbelievable that they'd snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again (presumably they're still blind at this point). Good stuff; Gollum was FANTASTIC - people in the theater were laughing, and so was I, but it was nervous laughter, which considering his behavior is a natural reaction (and come on, that "taters" scene is pretty funny). Rohan was wonderful; and Helm's Deep was beyond description, alas, I can't get too worked up about the Elves being at Helm's Deep (Bad Tolkienphile!). Changing the result of the Entmoot was annoying, but considering how little screen time Merry and Pippin get in this one, and the fact that they probably had about 10 lines apiece total, it was the only way to give them as much character development as they experienced. Oddly enough this reminds me very much of the first time I saw FOTR: I actually came out feeling slightly disappointed because all the changes were fresh in my mind. (Pippin and Merry stealing cabbages, forsooth!) It was the second time I saw it that I realized how wonderfully it worked as a movie on its own. And as much as TTT departed from the book, it still had enough spark in it to carry over to ROTK, and since PJ has said that TTT departs most from the book, I think we have nowhere to go but up . I did care very much about the characters and was disappointed when it ended. All said, I'd go for this ANY day than some slavish adaptation a la "Harry Potter" which carbon-copies the book scenes onto the screen while leeching all the spirit out of them.Sorry, that was probably fairly incoherent. It's just that while they came to edge of idiocy several times, they always managed to pull back onto track in the end, and that was the most important thing.

Orual

12-19-2002, 04:05 PM

I slept on it, and I came out feeling better. But I thought of a slightly sarcastic way to sum up yesterday's feelings:Theoden channelled Saruman. Frodo channelled Sauron*. Why couldn't PJ have channelled Tolkien a little bit more?Faramir still irks me, but I realized that overall, I liked it. There were moments when I was just swept up like I was in Fellowship. I'll definitely go see it again, this time knowing what's in store and trying to look past the discrepancies. (I'm trying to learn how to see the movie as "Peter Jackon's Big, Expensive Lord of the Rings Fanfic." It's a hard road.) Somebody said something about the Fell Beasts; I agree, they were incredible. All of the CG was good. And I'm holding out much hope for the Return of the King. (But I'm afraid it'll take about fifteen hours to tell the whole story, including the two hundred pages they skipped from TT. LoL!)~*~Orual~*~*Or something. What the heck WAS that "They are here" deal about, anyway?

Túroch

12-19-2002, 04:05 PM

The first movie as many have commented, stuck a lot closer to the book. In the TIME article on TTT, PJ himselfs says that TTT strays much more in this second movie. He had the right balance in he first movie. I loved it to death but he botched the second. It's almost like the 2nd movie was made by a different director. I just don't understand it. I could forgive PJ everything he did in the first movie. It was all interpretation and i'm fine with that. But he went to far in TTT.

Maeglin

12-19-2002, 04:17 PM

Overall it was a great movie but I must say I liked the last one better. This movie had some bad timing, jokes on the wrong places, too much action, a sence of getting slow and too much jumping between the scenes. And Osgiliath! Please? Why did it look like Stalingrad during WW2? The orcs seemed to be aiming at that lake anyway. Edoras was too small by the way.The good stuff though, was Wormtounge, Gollum, Gimli and Legolas the battle at helms deep and Aragorn's dreams. And ofcourse! Legolas shieldsurfing! [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Maeglin ]

Olorin

12-19-2002, 06:12 PM

WARNING: this is a spoiler!Grrr! I have nothing good to say! I don't know where to begin. Ah, for starters, The Battle of Helm's Deep. Is it just me, or was the battle only a chapter in the book? If so, why did it end up being the whole movie. I'm really not one for battle seens and Helm's Deep seemed to last more than 3 hours. PJ changed WAY TOO MUCH! Why did the elves show up!? That wasn't supposed to happen! Not only that, but Celeborn dies. I really liked him! PJ should have left it the way it was. My favorite character was barely in it! What happened to Gandalf!? My favorite seen was left out too! Gandalf confronting Saruman was to me, the turning point of the trilogy. Not only did they leave it out, but they make the attack on Eisengard the very end.It's not like the plot changes were not enough, TTT seemed to lack the magic and enchantment of the FotR. They didn't use Tolkien-esque language. The dialogue was very everydayish. The only explanation for this is that PJ was running low on funds and time and had to make this one really quickly because it sucked! I wonder about the movie industry sometimes. I compare TTT to Star Wars episode 2. With all the money and publicity that went into it, you would think the director and crew could have made a half-way decent movie! I serously hope the third one is remarkable or I'm going to be really ****ed off.

Kalimac

12-19-2002, 06:19 PM

Olorin, actually it was Haldir who died (if it were Celeborn that really WOULD be a big change - widowing Galadriel and all). I see your point about Helm's Deep only being one chapter, but it is a very pivotal one, also one which translates better to the screen than other things. As much time is spent in the book describing the journey of the Three Walkers across the plains of Rohan (for example), but giving that "equal time" in the movie just because they have as many chapters as the battle would be nonsensical; also dull. Also, in a book you can say "The battle raged on for another hour" - in a movie you can't really shortcut that way unless you're doing a remake of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where they stick up the little intermission card. And I have a distinct feeling (if that reassures you at all ) - that the Voice of Saruman will be at the beginning of the next movie. If nothing else, Gandalf et al already have to come there, if nothing else to pick up Merry and Pippin and do the Palantir scene, and since there's already been mention made in TTT of "Beware of his voice" it would make sense that they're going to follow through on that. Besides, you can't waste Christopher Lee like that . Hope that helps .

Brinniel

12-19-2002, 07:11 PM

Ok, I won't go into detail, as I know that this has already been said.I have only read a few threads on the movie and already I am sick of the complaints. You should base the movie on quality, not on accuracy. If you directly compare the movie to the book, of course you will be disappointed. There will always be changes. Appreciate PJ for the hard work and time he put in this. Yes, I am disappointed with some changes from the book, but I'm not complaining. Instead, I think up reasons why the particular scene must have been changed. You try making a book into a movie. It is certainly a difficult task.Overall, I thought the movie was excellent. The only reason I felt as if the movie would never end was because I forgot to go to the bathroom ahead of time and eventually had to miss 5 minutes of the movie. Oh, well. I'm planning to see it again anyways.

Maikadilwen

12-19-2002, 07:24 PM

Actually, Brinniel, I compared the movie to the movie, meaning that I compared my overall impression of TTT to the one I had of FOTR. And it lacked in that comparison.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Maikadilwen ]

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-19-2002, 07:25 PM

If you don't like to hear 'complaining' then leave. It isn't even complaining. People are saying how they felt on their first impression on TTT. They aren't complaining. This thread is about overall impressions and that includes people's first impressions. If you can't handle people's first impressions that differ from yours, and you have to result to calling it 'complaining', then leave and stop complaining yourself. To tell you the truth, I am sick of your complaining.[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

thingol1000

12-19-2002, 08:54 PM

OMG! What a movie! Look, let me preface this by saying that at the age of 13, I spent ~5days in my room without coming out except for food/bodily functions. I LOVE the myth of ME. But lets face it, a movie will never, never be as good as a book iregardless of what topic. That said, I thought PJ did a spectacular job!! (Can you imagine what a say.... Steven Speilberg who mutalated jar-jar would have done to LotR???????) PJ made changes that is certainly evident but(the only scene I was "misrepresentation" I was disturbed about was the laying of their weapons aside before enterung Edoras) he kept to the "spirit" of the story, and I applaud him! I LOVED IT!!!!!!PS I saw the 7:00 PM showing, then on a whim drove across town and saw the 10:15 showing!!!! It was a GOOD night!

thingol1000

12-19-2002, 08:56 PM

ok, upon re-read that was embarressing "let me preface this by saying that at the age of 13, I spent ~5days in my room without coming out except for food/bodily functions. "I I should have added when I first got my hands on the trilogy. Sorry

Schmendrick

12-20-2002, 04:43 AM

I agree with Túroch on almost everything. I was very disappointed with the film. I've writtten my thoughts about it on many threads already and can't bother to write them all over again, but the things that irritated me the most were: - The film was too concentrated on the men. Where were the hobbits? I know that TTT is a lot about men, but this was exaggeration.And yes- the Riders of Rohan? Agree with you Túroch, again! They didn't convince me at all and Theoden was behaving like an old fool! - Faramir (Do I need to say more? ) - Frodo Why change him so much? He is a completely different person in the film!He shouldn't be this possessed!He's wise and noble and fighting a terrible fight.My heart aches when I see how they have silmplified his character. - Aragorn Wouldn't count my life on his hands. And as I've said many times already, I totally understand that there has to be made some changes when turning a book into a film, but many of the changes here made were completely unmotivated and vain.

Haldir

12-20-2002, 05:45 AM

"Teeth, teeth... We have only six !" - Gollum, The HobbitDid anyone else noticed that Gollum has 7 teeth in the movie ?BTW I didn't like the movie but I'll go see it again, may be I doomed it too fast...

Frieda

12-20-2002, 07:28 AM

Yeah, there were a few things that bugged me(mainly what he did to Faramir and how Frodo hasn't been shown to have that much strength at all). In that added scene at Osgiliath(I dunno if I spelled that right exactly) I hated how Frodo could not overcome the will of the ring himself....Sam had to go and stop him from putting it on. -_- I'm not sure if I remember exactly from the books but in the books weren't there times when Frodo could stop himself from putting it on, without someone elses help? Frodo's my favorite character, I wish they hadn't done that to him.*sigh* Well, that's what mainly bugged me but I still enjoyed the movie.And we still have a chance that it might be better if PJ comes out with an extended version like with the last movie. If he does that then you never know, maybe some scenes showing the side of Frodo that was never really shown much, will be added in. And perhaps there will be more Eomer and some parts where Faramir acts more like how he did in the books. I certainly hope that happens....though I am kinda doubting that it will.

Tarlondeion Of Gondolin

12-20-2002, 10:30 AM

I thought the film was pretty damn good. I especially enjoyed the whole of Helm's Deep and the Ent's part. I thought that Viggo Morteson got Aragorn just right and Sam was really good too. I thought the Elves coming to Helm's Deep was godd and bad because it really took the focus from the actual men of Rohan which is what it was all about. I thought how Theoden rode out was of HD was brilliant. Gollum was pretty good but Frodo and Faramir were a lot different to what they are in the book. Faramir seems like Boromir's good brother in the book who isn't tempted by the ring and seems really noble but in the film he was kinda sinister. Frodo is meant to stand up to him and doesn't really. I thought the end with Sam's moral was great put across a lot of the message of the book but I didn't like the end of HD where Gandalf and Eomer ride down the slag heap with the riders of Rohan, it seemed a bit over dramatic. I thought the Gates of Mordor were brilliant though. Overall a great film!!!

Gilbo

12-20-2002, 10:46 AM

BEWARE READERS! I am aFNG and I am about to spew, so be careful. You might not want to get any of this on you. For three hours, I sat threw the gratest, most exciting, awe inspiring, adventure film that I have ever hated! I congatulate PJ for brining it to the screen. It was a task that I would never have dared. I give him much credit for his accomplishment. HOWEVER...What the hell was that? I absolutely hated: Faramir"s portayal Theoden's portayal The Excorcism The people of Rohan's portrayal Elven warriors...From Rivendell...From an elf who spoke only of defending his own territory I don't even want to get started on the way poor Frodo was done.No grace, no nobility of spirit, no moral fiber... And just when did Arwen and Galadriel join the Psychic friends network.Plus, How will Arwen send the Rangers, bearing a hand made standard, if she has sailed for the Undying Lands? I gotta stop now, my blood pressure alarm went off! On the plus side: Gollum was great! I started to wish,as I do when Iread the book, that Smeagol would win the debate. The Battle scenes wrwe great! I hope PJ handles the Peelenor Fields, and the battle before the Gates of Mordor just as well. Ents! Not as I pictured, but worthy of praise and the flooding of Isengard was nifty Overall, where PJ was in step with the book,it was great! Where he missteps is fair to middlin', but whenhe marches in a new direction, i want to go Gollum on his *** . ...and thanks for your support.

mark12_30

12-20-2002, 11:28 AM

Hi Gilbo, I agree with many of your points, but I'd like to address a few. Arwen and Galadriel were simply practicing the form of communication called Osanwe, which is ipure Tolkien. There is a great thread about it in the books forum; go here:<A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000492" TARGET=_blank> osanwe.</A>And also, I do not think Arwen has sailed. She may have begun the journey, but I can't imagine her completing it.The other thing that's been niggling at me is, I'm trying to remember when Aragorn's friends, the rangers from the north, show up; Halbarad and company. I never saw them yet in PJ's work; so I'm wondering whether PJ is substituting Haldir and elves for Halbarad and Rangers. Sort of like he substituted Arwen for Glorfindel. I don't have to like it, but it begins to make just a little bit of sense from a movie point of view. Especially since he doesn't have the time to talk about the conflicts up by Erebor and Long Lake and Dale, which Tolkien does use to explain why the elves and dwarves were kept busy elsewhere.On the whole, though, even though I'll give the film a 95%, I agree with many of your points.[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

Túroch

12-20-2002, 12:28 PM

Man this thread's been hopping, while I slept peacefully. The opinion on the board seems to waver between good and not so good. Now that i've slept on it some new perspectives that have come to light.I am basing my jugdment not only on accuracy but also on quality. I loved the first movie. I'll be compleately honest. I saw it eight times in the theator. I almost cried when Boromir (my 2nd favorite character)died a heroic death that, although it wasn't shown in the book I could forgive PJ for his extrapolation. However, the 2nd movie made me wonder if I should have seen it that one time. PJ showed me that he was capable of really good film that doesn't stray away from the book nor does it stray to close to it. Is saw a really good movie in FotR. But TTT is too much of PJ and not enough Tolkien. He rewrote some major characters, but that in itself doesn't make me mad. Here is what makes me made. I am made becuase PJ's version of Faramir or Theoden now has the same credibility that Tolkien's does in the eyes of the public. I now that many of the people who watch TTT have never read the book and might never read it. In their eyes PJ's Frodo and PJ's Arwen are the real versions of the character and that Tolkien's characters are in some distant second. By puting the book on film he has lent authority to his interpretation and his vision. Now he can claim that his vision is the correct one. When people read a book after watching the movie on it, they sometimes see the actors as the characters and here their voices as the characters. By making these deviations in Tolkiens characters PJ is not only changing them for the 3 hours that theyre seen on the screen but for the lifetime of the viewer who saw them first that way. Because of TTT, many people see Frodo and Theoden as a wimp, hardly know who Eomer is and probaly think elves are so cool becuase Legolas has fancy moves and because the elves "saved" the Rohirrim at Helms Deep. I was reading the article in TIME a few weeks before TTT came out. I was a bit riled from how the author kept mixing Harry Potter terminology with Tolkien as if the guy was saying that all fantasy is the same. Well thats a minor gripe and I understand that a lot of people don't read fantasy, but now with PJ's TTT people like that author and others who haven't read the TTT are going to think that PJ's work is the real Tolkien.In the TIME arcticle PJ said something to the effect of if we make a good movie the fans are sure to forgive us for whatever we changed. Yah but what does he consider a good movie. You alredady know the fans consider the story in TTT to be good, so why mutate it. Plus, how much are we supposed to forgive. How much can PJ change with out the fans, without us complaining. I wonder what he will do in the next movie if he thinks that he can get away with what he did in the 2nd movie. The first movie had it's flaws, but I was able to forgive PJ for his different interpretation. An aduience is a very forgiving entity. I could let a lot of his mistakes in the TTT pass without comment. It is not the sublte changes of scences that I am lamenting. Neither is it the addition or even the deletion of certin scences. It is the radical departure in character developments and plot line. As many have said before me, PJ's contortion of character makes it hard to see how they can fufill their roles in the next movie. The changing of plot elements, such as the elves at Helms Deep, changes not only the view of elves, but of the Rohirrim as well. The former it makes appear as though they have a huge army just waiting to attack Sauron but just don't want to put out the effort. If there are elves at Pelanor Feilds in the next movie, well I might just break down and cry. PJ had no reason to put them in except for the fact that a lot of people thought that elves fighting were cool. ....Oh well people like these elves and we have only Legolas in this movie.....hmm lets just squeeze em in here now no one will notice. Besides it makes the story "better"....... I can imagine it now. The latter appear (as I have wept on before) like they have no army or strength of character at all. With Theoden weeping for despair and Faramir slabbering after the ring, a viewer of the movie might think that there are no strong men except for the one Aragorn of course. Well i've said enough already. Thanks for the agreement Schmendrick last of the red hot swamis. You hit the nail on the head. Welcome to the Downs Olorin, I too share your grief over TTT. I also have some hope for the extended version Frieda, though how can they put more of Eomerin when he was left out of all the scenes he ws supposed to be in. By the way nice avater. The Last Unicorn is one of my favorite books.But for one last point, how much of PJ's version of Tolkien can we let go. If we don't question is version of TTT, what will he do to RotK. I can only shudder. I really want to speak with the guy and ask him why and more importantly whay not. Well take care guys and Merry Christmas.

Rina

12-20-2002, 12:50 PM

I just saw TTT for the first time last night. I'm not really sure what to think about it. It was certainly different from FotR. I was most disappointed by the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. The wretchedness expereinced by these characters was a bit in your face. And to have Sam leading a choking, grovelling Gollum by a rope quite so early in the movie was a bit more than I could handle. Also, Frodo goes a little too psycho, a little too early on. I have only read TTT once so far (I'm definitely going in for a second read), so I wasn't as offended as some by the elves at Helm's Deep. I did, however, miss some of the comic relief that was in the book, as provided by Merry and Pippin's conversations, and even between Gollum and Sam, a bit of which was seen in the movie in their debate over raw or cooked conies.There were many things I liked in this movie however. The battle scenes were monumental, and I liked seeing Gandalf in his new glory. Part of the fun for me was seeing it in the theatre. If you aren't from a small, slightly backwards town, you may not appreciate the guys in the back row hollering "Ahh, yeahhhh!" when the title comes up on the screen, but it's kind of nice knowing your fellow viewers are as excited as you are. Overall, it is a movie I will watch many more times, and I am looking forward to RotK.

TolkienGurl

12-20-2002, 03:00 PM

Túroch: In that TIME magazine article, which I have, too, it says that TTT is the farthest from the books. So you don't have to worry that much about RotK!And in that same TIME article, the writers have the gall to say "Tolkien's version" when comparing Arwen's movie role and book role. Tolkien's VERSION???*walks off mumbling*Anyway, I also understand what you mean about people believing PJ's version as truth. I know some people who haven't read the book, and even though I tell them what actually happened, they still cannot get past the fact that "that wasn't the way it was in the movie!" Ok, one last thing and I'll shut up. Actually, I think I've said this before. The faults I find with TTT movie are not in the characters themselves, but whoever's decision it was to UNNECESSARILY change whole characters and concepts just to stand out and appeal to the majority of Hollywood-hungry movie-goers (no one on here, of course). I believe that Peter Jackson and whoever else created the movie do not want to be totally associated with Tolkien and the books, so they changed all they could without causing a riot to make their own "version." I mean, they've gotten our attention, did they not?

-Imrahil-

12-20-2002, 03:06 PM

I like Turoch's points. PJ did **** me off a good bit by doing that to Tolkien's original characters.I've been wondering why he did it, did he seriously think he could improve upon Tolkien's work and make the story more interesting by changing the characters? He did it all right in the first movie, he stuck to the story pretty closely didn't change anyone ect. WHY!!!Tolkiengurl's reasons for the change are interesting, but no way to tell without asking PJ himself. Someone phone him please [ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: -Imrahil- ]

Arathiriel

12-20-2002, 03:49 PM

I just got back from seeing the movie and I LOVED IT!!!!

Arod

12-20-2002, 04:03 PM

I loved it!!! However like most of you I do have some gripes...the biggest being the way Faramir's character was "darkened". It just didn't feel right. The second is the where's Aragorn thing... okay it did work and I can see why they put it in (to add Arwen's character to the story somehow)but it was kinda goofy to me. IMHOFinally, the one thing that really upset me (yes this is very picky but considering I love horses...) is the fact that Hasufel was a chestnut when he is described in the book as a strong tall grey. Then, Arod who in the book doesn't really specify a color, is grey when his description was noted as being a small firey horse. In my mind firey would be a bright chestnut, but that could've been the personality of the horse and not the physical apperance. Anyhoo... bottom line. Arod was grey and bigger than Hasufel, when it should've been the other way arround. Also what was the horse's name that found Aragorn by the river's edge? I couldn't make out what he said and I am assuming (probably NOT a good thing for me to do) that it was Roheryn (Arwen's gift to Aragorn)however someone said his name was Brego... ugh that doesn't make sense since Brego was a man and NOT a horse.I'm confused.

Túroch

12-20-2002, 04:23 PM

I understand your befuddlement Arod. Did anyone else notice that Legolas used a saddle in the movie instead of ridding elven style, aka bareback. Such is the leven way with all good beasts. At least I thought it was. Well that is a really acident to point out. Same with Hasufel's coloring. I could forgive PJ for that though. Quite true Tolkeingurl, quite true. Imrahil, we should call him, or e-mail him or something. I don't want to complain to him, I just want to ask some questions.P.S. Like the avatat Arod.Sincerely, Túroch (which means in elvish "master of horses", I hope)

Arod

12-20-2002, 06:54 PM

Thanks Turoch. I had forgotten about the fact that he rode bareback... I suppose I was focusing a wee bit too much on the color of the horses... LOL...but I'm sure he had his reasons for casting the horses as he did too... I really shouldn't be too judgemental over such a small thing. They probably had Legolas riding with a saddle and bridle because (this is a guess) Orlando Bloom was not a skilled rider. In that case he would've been more likely to fall off rather than stay on (it looks easy but it's pretty complicated if your not used to it). Not only that but the horse has to be trained to respond to a rider without a saddle or bridle so the horse would rely on the rider's signals from his legs to go where he was supposed to. Since Orlando didn't have any extensive riding instructions, that could've been disasterous had he ridden without tack or gave the horse the wrong signal without realizing it. Alas probably falling off and taking Gimli with him. ::sigh:: It would've been cool to see though. The horse that was used for Shadowfax was simply perfect. Just as I imagined him to be. Also if I'm not mistaken, Gimli never rode alone... I thought he rode either with Legolas or Aragorn. I could be wrong though. BTW: the horse in my avatar is named Skip Away a champion thoroughbred racehorse. He looked like the horse they used in the movie and I loved this pic of him. He is a firey sort of horse with a lot of personality which is the way I felt Arod would be. Though he is quite tall...LOL...

Ivorwen

12-20-2002, 07:45 PM

Coming out of the theatre I was disapointed FOTR was so much better than this one. Like most poeple here I really hated what they did to the characters especially Faramir and Frodo. Didn't like the part with the Ents deciding not to go to Isenguard or the elves at Helm's Deep either. Poor Haldir. Didn't him much anyway And that part with Aragorn falling into the river was just plain stupid. As was the really mean Elrond It was also too messy, jumping back and forth between the storylines and it had no beginning and no end but that was really P.J.'s fault was it? One thing I don't know if anyone mentioned but didn't they stop way before the book finished? I mean aren't they suposed to go up all those stairs and already meet Shelob by the end. And aren't the rest of the company supposed to be at Isenguard? How long are they going to make Rotk?Even so, I really liked Legolas, Gimli, Sam, Pippin, Merry and Gollum.

Mintyztwin

12-20-2002, 08:14 PM

I have now moved past anger to . . . sadness. Thursday morning, I woke up sick to my stomach and crying after having horrible nightmares about TTT. *sigh*However, my opinion has not changed! It does upset me (not nearly as much as I thought it would ) that people who enjoy the movie, are getting really upset at people who were severly disappointed at the movie, such as myself. My mom had a good point in my defense, which is odd, because she isn't a Tolkien fan. "If they bought the rights to the name,and characters, why not buy the right to the story as well?" Good point mom. I've never thought of myself as a "purist" but apparantly, I am!! (Yay!) I can stand interpretation. Interpretation is having 6 year olds fight at Helm's Deep. Interpretation is Gollum's conversation with himself. Interpretation, is how the Ents looked. I can also understand misunderstanding on PJ's part, or anyone else who directs a LotR movie. (When I refer to PJ, I'm refering to EVERYONE on the planning commitee. It's just easier to write "PJ".) Misunderstanding is having Frodo all creepy, and not geting the good side of his change. (What do you expect from a horror movie director?) Misunderstanding is having Gimli be comic relief. (He does have some funny lines in the book.) Misunderstanding is (if you really, really want to stretch it) Saruman physically possesing Theoden.I can also understand changing things for the movie's sake. For example: Showing the Balrog. (I liked that.) Eomer showing up to save Helm's Deep instead of Erkenbrand. Absolutly having to keep elves in. (Although, of course, they COULD HAVE just used Elrohir and Elladen.) I cannot, and will not stand direct deviancy and exact opposites!!! Such as, the Ents saying "no" at the Entmoot!!!! The Ents destroying a dam, instead of building it. Having Faramir march Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, which doesn't exist!! (Okay, it's a ruin.) Of course, having Faramir march them anywhere is messed up as well. There were several other thing too, but they escape me at the moment. Instead of being very angry now, I am really sad. (I'm kind of working through the various stages of grief.) I was in the middle of reading TTT when I went to see the picture bearing the same name. In fact, I was reading it while waiting in line. I'm glad I was. If you like the movie, I'm happy for you! Much better that, than being miserable! I'm sure Tolkien is just spinning 'round and 'round. This is quite a change for me, because I loved FotR. I watched it 5 times. (I've only been to any theatre 11 times.) I saw the Extended Version. I was waiting with baited breath for a beautiful rendition of TTT on the silver screen. Personally, I'm still waiting.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-20-2002, 09:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He rewrote some major characters, but that in itself doesn't make me mad. Here is what makes me made. I am made becuase PJ's version of Faramir or Theoden now has the same credibility that Tolkien's does in the eyes of the public. I now that many of the people who watch TTT have never read the book and might never read it. In their eyes PJ's Frodo and PJ's Arwen are the real versions of the character and that Tolkien's characters are in some distant second. By puting the book on film he has lent authority to his interpretation and his vision. Now he can claim that his vision is the correct one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you Turoch. I already know people who have already, and people who will see PJ's version as the real story. They think that the elves actually did show up to hlms ddep and other stuff like that. Also, they think that they know everything about LotR just because they saw it three times. That makes me really furious. They have absolutely no respect for the books and no intention of reading them. They feel that since they saw the movie, they don't need to read them. They argue that it was the tightest movie they have ever seen and that its the best and its perfect. That is not true at all. Everybody has their opinion, but it is not perfect. Also, I don't know if this is common, but two people I know have started to read TTT after seeing the movie and they say its wrong and that they don't like it. Well, look what you've done you flipping jack*** Peter Jack(***)son. You've just screwed to people's chances for seeing LotR the way it really was, and I don't know how many other's chances you have ruined. As I said before, PJ put in too much of his vision crap and strayed too far from the book. Actually, 'strayed' is such and innocent word, how about 'diliberately ran from' instead. And for the people who do read the books and like them, its hard for tehm to accept the fact that the books version is the way it really happened. I don't know any people who have done this yet, but I'm sure there are some people reading about Helms Deep in the book and asking themselves in a confused fasion, "where are the elves?" And I'm sure it will be very dissapointing to them when they find out what things were really like. Who knows, maybe they'll hate PJ too and curse his name forever for screwing up their LotR experience.[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

Helkasir

12-20-2002, 10:29 PM

twas' a capital movie, bar none. In some ways, the first movie was better, in others, I think the second was better. Hell, I've waited for an entire year, it deserves all hype and fames it gets. The uncool stuff was the elves and faramir. While I see pete's intentions, but the whole elf just make me think "Wow, we lowly mortals couldn't handle it on our own, could we? No, we weaklings would have died, blah blah blah."

Lush

12-20-2002, 10:55 PM

Wow, so who died and left certain members of this forum in charge of perserving Tolkien's legacy? Willie, I never thought I'd say this to anyone here, but you ought to try to reign your language in (I know what you're thinking: "look who's talking"). It's hard to take anyone seriously when they're cussing out someone they do not even know personally, and doing it on a cyberspace forum, no less. If you love the books, you ought to take the movies with a grain of salt. No one has taken your copy and torn out the pages. What non-readers of the books take away from the movie is their business; if they choose to, they can read the book and will, hopefully, enjoy it. Otherwise they have just as much right to enjoy the movie and leave it at that. Everyone is here to express their opinions, but throwing the eqiuvalent of a cyber-tantrum over such matters is somewhat laughable.

Hawkeye

12-20-2002, 11:35 PM

For starters, I was thouroghly mad on the 18th. In fact, too mad and upset to post anything! I've gotten mostly past the anger now, but i am still completely disappointed and sad. Peter Jackson and staff had a chance to recreate Tolkien's world, the chance of a lifetime, and they blew it. It feels like they changed everything and anything that they felt like! A few of the things that disturbed me the most were: Faramir,Faramir,Faramir!!!! how COULD they????!!!! I looove him (my favorite character besides Aragorn), and they destroyed him! I barely reconized his character. The actor was fine, but he was playing a totally different person then the Faramir i know. That almost makes me want to cry, he was so mixed up. Especially when he forced Frodo to go with him! That was so wrong, I can barely stand to think about it. The dream scenes with Aragorn and Arwen. I didn't like the way they portrayed her in FOTR at all, but i was able to handle it fine. But THIS was just morally WRONG!!!! plus, it didn't make perfect sense, and personally i thought it detracted from the movie in a big way.There was waaaay too many modern touches! It just didn't feel like middle earth to me. They didn't have the spirit of it. In FOTR, there were tons of things they changed; some i was ok with, and others i wasn't. But they still captured the very spirit of Middle Earth close enough to cut it. (I loved FOTR).But in TTT, it just wasn't there! the language was modern, and so was lots of the actions. The part with Theoden being 'possessed' by Saruman. That was awful! Never would have happened. Very disturbing. and when his beard and face all changed? oh, please! i mean, Theoden does start looking younger in the book, but nothing that drastic!in fact, there were a lot of things which i think would have been semi-ok, if they hadn't been overdone! Elrond trying to persuade Arwen to leave middle earth. Uh uh. I dont' think so! I thought he was too stern in FOTR, but i was ok with that. but this? NO! I was especially bothered by the scene where Aragorn basically told Arwen that it would never work out, and she should just leave middle earth. inconceivable!The ents making the wrong desicion! i was fine with the way they were portrayed, although i've always thought they looked more like people, but having them make the wrong choice just made them look silly. and then they all appear and go fight when Treebeard sees the trees? no! they don't make quick desicions like that! unrealistic.one of the really sad things is, that they basically had all the right actors, the right sets, the right costumes, the right special effects....and the wrong story.....I could go on and on like this for hours, but i wont'. and yes, i'll admit, there were snatches here and there that i liked, some even that i loved. (for example: Shadowfax was absolutely perfect! mmm, beautiful. i also thought that Wormtongue was good, although he was in all the wrong places. the actor looked just right. ugh! and Sam was right. so sweet and loyal...it was a very nice touch where he said the part about "samwise the brave". and the po-ta-toe scene was spiffy!). but i was really disheartened by the whole thing overall. yes, i will end up going to see it again (maybe even two more times), just to make sure that i give it a fair chance. next time i'm going to attempt to view it just as a movie, not as something connected to the books, or trying to imitate it in any way. that's basically what i did on wednesday, and the shock was just too great. it's probably a good movie, taken apart from the books. but speaking as one who loves the books, as i'm sure most (if not all) of you do, i felt like it destroyed a wonderful story. i just hope that they do a better job with ROTK, although at this point i'm pretty doubtful. It's like Eomer said: "...but do not trust to hope, for it has forsaken these lands." that's what i feel like. all the hope in the books has been throughly squeezed out of the movie, leaving it feeling so dark, so desolate. so....hopeless.

steve

12-20-2002, 11:42 PM

one word, Amazingthey did deviate from the book alot, but seriously, who cares, the movie was great, i dont mind elves being at helms deep, it was a good battle scene. but i think Smeagol was amazing

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-20-2002, 11:42 PM

Yeah you're sort of right Lush, but that's just the way we feel about the movie. Sorry about the language it's edited now, but I do have complete sovereigny over my language. Hopefully now you can take me serious. But I do not think it matters whether I personally know him or not. I'm just swearing at him in context of his job, not he himself.I'm not saying that they have to read it, its just that they should have more respect for them since, after all, there would be no movie without the book. And they shouldn't take the movie as the bible of Tolkien. It is and should be the books. The movies are a lot more of PJ's vision of LotR, than it should be. Its fine if he wants to make a movie about it, but he should say its his version of it if he was going to change it that much. He said he was going to follow the books as closely as possible and he didn't. That's one reason I lost a lot of respect for him. I just hope when he chose well on putting RotK together because whether I will acknowledge him as a great director or not will depend on that.They do have every right to enjoy it. I'm not angry at them for liking it. I'm just angry at those types that like the movies that I mentioned. I also have every right to be furious at those types though. Anyone can enjoy the movie but they should have some respect for the books.

Aragorn Husband of Arwen

12-20-2002, 11:52 PM

I've read TTT, oh about 5 or 6 times (learn something new everytime I read it). Anyway, this movie departed from the book more than FOTR, but it still was a good movie. I loved it, better than FOTR. I plan to see it a couple more times. I had only one thing I didn't like: no Boromir. I expected at least a flashback.

Lush

12-21-2002, 12:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I do not think it matters whether I personally know him or not. I'm just swearing at him in context of his job, not he himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Swearing is sometimes an integral part of expressing ourselves, but swearing heavily on this forum goes against its climate and image. And while you have a right to be displeased with Peter Jackson, please rememberer that he is not a caterer to you, nor to me, not even, in many ways, to Tolkien. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not saying that they have to read it, its just that they should have more respect for them since, after all, there would be no movie without the book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Respect" by itself is a very vague term. Are you perhaps jealous that Peter Jackson's star will eclipse Tolkien's? For some people, maybe so. But why worry yourself over "some people"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And they shouldn't take the movie as the bible of Tolkien.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oftentimes people see a movie to have a bit of fun. "TTT" is perfect for that. Every once in a while this fun will translate into a deeper interest, in which case the literature might be taken up. That's what happened to me last December. I saw the movie, thought it very cool, and decided to read up on those Hobbits and Elves and big blood-shot eyes. But if I hadn't, it would not necessarily mean that I would automatically assume Peter Jackson's interpretation to be "the bible." How can a movie be "a bible" anyway? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I also have every right to be furious at those types though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fury is not very productive, is it? It just makes everyone tired in the end. I hate to see the Movie forum dissolve into a complaining contest over the next month, especially if the complaining is not even entertaining. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyone can enjoy the movie but they should have some respect for the books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who says they don't? Nowhere in today's media have I so far read a comment such as "the movies improved on an otherwise boring/stupid/slow/convoluted/etc. story." I do not doubt that thought has crossed somebody's mind, but I think that sitting here and making each other upset over this is making Tolkien readers look like a bunch of reactionary dweebs. We have the right to gripe at the changes, but let's do it in a manner that makes for fun discourse, not "ooh I hate you forever PJ!"

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-21-2002, 01:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I already know people who have already, and people who will see PJ's version as the real story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I don't know if this is common, but two people I know have started to read TTT after seeing the movie and they say its wrong and that they don't like it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm just angry at those types that like the movies that I mentioned <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Those are the people I am refering to when you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Who says they don't? Nowhere in today's media have I so far read a comment such as "the movies improved on an otherwise boring/stupid/slow/convoluted/etc. story." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And please get it right this time. I do not want to take the time to re-explain it to you again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but swearing heavily on this forum goes against its climate and image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you think that is swearing heavily, you have a lot to learn. I could have done so much more your eyes would have burst in disbelief. But I try to keep it down and while you think that goes against the climate and the image of this thread, I disagree. It doesn't go against, it only widens it. It shows how diverse some people are and shows a degree of what they feel. The swearing is bleeped anyways so you shouldn't mind it. I hope that you appreciate my effort to keep it down, but if it went against the climate/image, then estelyn would have done something about it. If it did go against the climate, then it would be outlawed and not censored. So if you still think that it goes against the climate/image, then talk to estelyn. If you both feel that way and you outlaw it all together, then that's fine and I have no objection. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Respect" by itself is a very vague term. Are you perhaps jealous that Peter Jackson's star will eclipse Tolkien's? For some people, maybe so. But why worry yourself over "some people"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Respect means to feel or show esteem for; to honor. Esteem is to regard as of high order; think of with respect; prize. Honor is esteem; respect; reverence. Reverence is a feeling of profound awe. If you want to go further, then you look it up. Synonyms of respect are honor, heed, value, admire, heed, and esteem. It is not vague. If you can't understand what respect is then I mean respect as in recognizing the books significance and contribution with the movies. Think about it like this. You can disagree with your parents and not like them. You can find them boring and stupid, but you still respect them for bringing you into this world. So the movies are kind of like children of the books. They didn't turn out exactly like the books just like children don't turn out exactly like their parents, but there are the similarities. I don't really worry about it, I just get really furious when I hear people say certain stuff like that. I can't help it, its just the way I feel. And one of the reasons that I feel that way is because I have to see them about 5x a week. And most of them talk about it everyday so that's how often I have to hear about it. I just think its wrong, thats all. I'm sure there are some things in life like that. You get all riled up over it even though you don't have to. And if nothing like that ever happens to you, then good for you and you're very lucky. I am not jealous becauseI think that it won't eclipse us. It might try to get in the way, like a fog, and cloud it, but it won't eclipse it. And even if it did, there is no way I'd feel jealous. I'd feel angry and furious, but not jealous. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> How can a movie be "a bible" anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was an exaggeration. What I mean is that some people see the movies as a word for word account of what really happened. If they are this way and they become LotR fans, then they use the movies as basis for their LotR obsession as christians use the bible as the basis for their religion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Fury is not very productive, is it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't. Fury is a raw emotion that people felt, and that I felt. It doesn't matter if an emotion is productive or not, that won't stop you from feeling it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It just makes everyone tired in the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It doesn't make me tired. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I hate to see the Movie forum dissolve into a complaining contest over the next month, especially if the complaining is not even entertaining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are saying how we feel and why. So if complaining were not allowed, then this thread would be empty and therefore onesided. And if you don't like to hear complaining, then leave this thread and stop complaining yourself you hypocrit. If this were a "complaining contest", then everyone would be complaining, which everyone is not. And it does not matter if someones complaining is entertaining or not. I don't care if your posts are entertaining or not, so your posts would be a lot less than 1218 if they were based on whether they were entertaining or not. These threads are here to say how you feel and what you think about the topic, not on entertainment. So if thats what you're looking for then you shouldn't come here. And lucky for you, the movie forum will not dissolve into a complaining contest. If you think that there are that many people out there that disagree with the movie, then that shows how little do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think that sitting here and making each other upset over this is making Tolkien readers look like a bunch of reactionary dweebs. We have the right to gripe at the changes, but let's do it in a manner that makes for fun discourse, not "ooh I hate you forever PJ!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not everything is fun or will be. And I guess we will look like "a bunch of reactionary dweebs" to you a lot. I was upset, like many others, before I came to this thread, and even to this forum. You can't change how we feel and I'm sorry if we are upset, but that's just the way it is.I don't mean for my threads to offend you in any way. If they do, I'm sorry, but those are my views and they won't change because someone is offended or disagrees.I don't hate PJ forever, I just extremley dislike what he has done to TTT.[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

Brinniel

12-21-2002, 01:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It isn't even complaining. People are saying how they felt on their first impression on TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> complain- 1. to claim or express pain, displeasure, etc 2. to find fault; declare annoyance 3. to make an accusation; bring a formal chargePeople may be saying their opinion, but that does not mean they are not complaining. And I don't think expressing opinions is wrong. Everyone has a right to do so. So, I'm sorry if anyone misunderstood me. What I meant was that I fear that certain topics will be overly discussed throughout the next year, such as Faramir. I remember seeing the same topics on certain parts of FOTR being repeated over and over again, which can be quite frustrating, and soon enough I do stop reading them. Go ahead and post your opinions of the movie, but do not repeat the same thing five times over. We heard you the first time. And six months later, don't make a new thread on "the darkening of Faramir;" post in the old ones instead.And yes, I do admit that I'm guilty of "complaining," as everyone does this time to time. But I always try not to overpost the same thoughts. Also, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of doing this, I'm just saying that I've seen it happen one too many times.People who are upset about the movie, perhaps you should give it a second chance. After giving it time, maybe you will end up appreciating it. I know you are upset about all the changes, but for every change there is a reason. And if you had been reading spoilers, then half of these changes you were already warned of ahead of time. I'm sure nobody could've expected the movie to live up exactly to the book. Plus, the scenes that were changed or deleted can be a good thing. They allow you to continue to be creative and let you use your imagination to visualize those particular scenes from the book. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you don't like to hear 'complaining' then leave. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you actually ASKING me to leave? Perhaps not in direct form, but that's certainly how it feels. If so, you should not take my comments (or anyone else's) so harshly. My post was not meant to offend, and I apologize again if it did, but even so, if you cannot respond to others in a nicer manner, the road through life will be rough (like it isn't already). And the reason I don't leave is because I wish not to. I'm not going to let a few several threads or comments chase me away. I enjoy this site. I was just skimming over a few threads on people's opinions of TTT (definately NOT expecting such terrible comments) and felt it necessary to post. I just would like to know why everyone has to be so negative. As often as I can, I try to stay positive. And trust me, it keeps you from being in a foul mood.

Lhunbelethiel

12-21-2002, 02:14 AM

If I were an Ent I would give TTT 2 branches up. *cough* Okay, anyway, I think that if these movies are changing people's own personal mind's-eye picture of the story of the Lord of the Rings that you read, and you can't separate the book from the film, then maybe your imagination needs some work. I say this with all due repsect to some of my fellow BarrowDowners who are hysterical about how much they hated the changes from the book to the movie. Really, you have our own ideas of what people/places/things/events were like in the book, so don't let one man's own vision threaten yours. LOTR should not be expected to be adapted scene for scene in film format. To demand that it be completely faithful to the book is greedy. This was Peter jackson's vision and he owed us nothing. We are lucky that he was brave enough to make the films let alone to change what some people think is gospel. (huge fan of the books though I am, you have to be realistic.)I was a little surprised by the changes but I trust PJ to maintain the spirit of the trilogy. I also trust myself to remember what I thought it would be like, and not to fault someone for not being psychically in my head in order to transfer it to the big screen. : :

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-21-2002, 02:26 AM

Oops...I realized it actually was complaining when I was looking it up in regards to Lush's thread. That's why I didn't say it wasn't complaining. Yeah, I was wrong, I was hoping no one would notice but oh well.Sorry if I was a little harsh. I actually meant it at the time, but now what I mean is that if you don't like complaining, then don't complain about it. Sounds wierd, but thats what I meant.We will give it a second chance, I'm sure. I thought that it was a good movie, but there are things about it that make me very angry and disapointed. People often critcize and complain because they can't accept something. We can accept the good parts about it so we don't really talk about it. With the bad parts and the changed parts, we're still in denial. But think about it, its only been about three days. We will give it time, but right now it hasn't been long enough for some of us, so just try to be patient. As for complaining, its discussing how we felt, and in turn, its using this thread kind of like an outlet for our anger and frustraion. Right now things are really tense. It will calm down over time. But there are some, actually a lot, of things I think that we will never get over. To name a few, faramir, the elves at helms deep, and Gimli the comedian.Sorry for being so harsh and sorry for being offensive. I'd like for everything to be happy here. We necessarily aren't really mad at each other, we're actually mad at the way the movie turned out. I just get so angry sometimes. Oh yeah, Lhunbelethiel, PJ's vision doesn't threaten mine. It actually threaten's the views of people who are being introduced to LotR through the movies. I just feel sorry for the people who will have trouble reading LotR because of conflicting changes between the books and the movies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This was Peter jackson's vision and he owed us nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually he does. He owes us what he promised, and we still haven't gotten it. He said that he would follow the book as closely as he could. He didn't. He made a lot of unnecessary changes. It was even foreshadowed in FotR. Like with Arwen. That wasn't necessary at all. About leaving out the barrow downs, the old forest, and tom bombadil, I could see that. It doesn't necessarily relate to Frodo, or the ring, but niether did Arwens adapted role. Oh well, what's done is done. I just hope, no, pray that RotK will fare better.[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

Túroch

12-21-2002, 02:48 AM

Well there's been a lot of quoting going on. Lush and Willie you both have good arguments and good ideas. However, I tend to agree more with Willie on this. I'll quote just a little, but i'll try not to pick your post apart. Lush you said, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you love the books, you ought to take the movies with a grain of salt. No one has taken your copy and torn out the pages. What non-readers of the books take away from the movie is their business; if they choose to, they can read the book and will, hopefully, enjoy it. Otherwise they have just as much right to enjoy the movie and leave it at that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that is partly true. Why should I care what the public thinks about the books. Well here is why in my view. I try (and i'm not always sucessfull) to think of the public as millions of people just like me in sentience (sp?), but with different upbringings, morals, backgrounds, views, likes, dislikes, and even tastes. Now that is kind of a weird subject, but it suffices to say that I try to sympathize with the non-reading majority. I realy enjoyed the LotR and especially TTT. This wonderful experience I had when I was reading it was a joy, as many here can atest to. Now by viewing PJ's TTT before the book, that experience is destroyed or at least somewhat mared, in my eyes at least. This movie does not create the literary joy of Tolkien, it prevents it or at least some of it. This is almost anti-literary joy, because it destroys something that might have been. Now, pardon me for assuming the public would have enjoyed the book at all or would be hampered by the viewing of PJ TTT. I am only extrapolating expericens from the only person I compleatly know, myself. So it might be one messed up view of the public and the Tolkien literature but, thats the risk I have to take. I want the public to know what The Two Towers really was like, and not let them assume that PJ's version is the correct one. Now many people will probably realize that they wre books first and the movie is just "derived" fromthe books, but still if that is all the public sees of Tolkien, it's a small step for them to assume that TTT is correct Tolkien. I have good friends of mine whom, it saddens me greatly to hear them ragging on about the weakness of the Rohirrim or the cool elven archers at Helms Deep. They will probably never read the book and this vision will be what they think Tolien is. True, why does what other people think Tolkien is bother me. Well it bothers me when my sister keeps putting PC's down. (she's a Mac lover through and through). It bothers me when people argue that the bible is a book of lies. It also bothers me when people think that PJ's version of the movie is the right one. Not that it was the first one (it easy to prove that the books came first, but being the right "version" has nothin to do with wich was made first), but that people say it was the right one. Now true, a lot more angry when people threaten the Bible then I am when people threaten the LotR, but it is a helpfull axample. No one has torn the pages out of my copy of TTT, instead they made the story in those pages less real for many who will read it. That is why I worry for those "some people" as you call them. They are people who might of had that wonderfull enjoyment of Tolkiens work, but now that enjoyment turns to ash. It doesn't take very much to imagine how the movie can detract from the book. I could take it with a grain of salt. When you look at the big picture, his changes aren,t so bad. But when you back up to see the big picture a lot of thing aren't very important. When you back up a lot of the scene is lost. One of our finest presidents said, "Radicals chnage the world". It is true that PJ hasn't murdered anyone or done any huge crime. But if we want him to stick as close to the book as he can we have to fight for every change we begrudge him. His wandering from plotline shows more then just the normal conversion from book to screen. We know he can put up a fairly close story like he did in FotR. It shows that he thinks that these changes will make the movie sell better and thats these help make the story more "better". Better being a story that the average audience jaded by action flicks and soap operas will enjoy more. Tolkien just wanted to tell a good story. He didn't alter it to fit his aduience. I asloe agree with Willie when he says that we aren't angry at PJ perasy, but at his actions. Sort of hate the sin, love the sinner. It's not really that we hate him either. I'm just very dissapointed and you now what I feel a little betrayed. Here I was waiting for this movie for a whole year (maybe a bit more, it was my favorite book). I had no reason to think it was going to be bad. The first movie was great, it stuck close and that is all I wanted, close but not constricting. And what does he give me. He gives me this. It's like getting socks on christmas or a stationary set for your birthday. (except for the fact that PJ's TTT is a lot less usefull then stationary). I was ready for a great movie, instead TTT knocked the wind out of me and punched me in the bean bag. (figuratively of course). Tricksy, false...as others have said. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Everyone is here to express their opinions, but throwing the eqiuvalent of a cyber-tantrum over such matters is somewhat laughable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quite true. Throwing a fit isn't a good way to debate your point. However, I really don't think that many of us have been throwing fits. Agitated posts yes, fits, well hopefully not.Mintyztwin and Haweye, your quite right on those points. But don't linger on the mistakes to much. It leaves me feeling depressed. Help me find a way to assure that stuff like that doesn't happen in RotK. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The uncool stuff was the elves and faramir. While I see pete's intentions, but the whole elf just make me think "Wow, we lowly mortals couldn't handle it on our own, could we? No, we weaklings would have died, blah blah blah." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Helkasir, you hit the nail on the head. If any of the changes really bug me this is it. The Rohirrim are really good warriors, why can't PJ realize this.Well that my two cents, and I wont be upset if it doesn't make any cents, it is pretty late here.

Brinniel

12-21-2002, 03:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Right now things are really tense. It will calm down over time. But there are some, actually a lot, of things I think that we will never get over. To name a few, faramir, the elves at helms deep, and Gimli the comedian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I have to say that I agree with that one. Except for the Gimli part. That one may take longer to get over, but I think it eventually will. PJ just wanted some sense of humor. Though after seeing TTT, I found Gimli funnier and more likable, I still thought of him as a great fighter. And I'm sure in ROTK there will be a new comic relief and Gimli will be more serious.And I'm sure your right about things eventually calming down. I've never seen it so tense here at the Downs!Out of curiousity, was it this tense around this time last year?

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-21-2002, 03:27 AM

Well, sadly, I wan't here last year. So I can't tell you.I thought that GImli was hilarious in the movie. I thought that he was just funny in the book. But I wouldn't mind it so much if it, to me, didn't interfere with aspects of his character. it just made it harder for me to see him as a talented fighting dwarf in the movie, especially when legolas is pulling all kinds of stunts and tight moves while gimli is stuck under two wargs. Legolas kind of outshined gimli, and the way it was in the movie made it look like legolas won the game. But back to the comic-relief. It was a good idea, but PJ overdid it. He just took it too far when he should have toned it down a little or at least spread it over another character. But I am hoping that there really won't be a comic-relief in RotK. After this, I would really like to have it more dramatic and serious. I agree with you that Gimli will be more serious in RotK.

lorien de loth

12-21-2002, 02:25 PM

A movie is a movie and a book is a book, that's ok. But PJ's TTT is a simple american movie with all its topics. (great special and digital effects, and great horses! great gollum!) ... but in some parts of the film, specially in some dialogues, it seems that PJ or his screenwritters think that we are stupid people. FOTR really touched me, it was an original movie, but TTT left me cold. I hope that the last part of the trilogy will mend it.Barrowdowns Forum, still the best!

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-21-2002, 04:56 PM

My impression of TTT was ACK, bogus, snif, sigh, groan for all the formentioned and well spoken complaints. I will say that visually they handled the Ents and flood at Isengard well. Though after bothering to show the Entmoot, why they have the Ents turn around and act so hastily remains a mystery.My thoughts to you all are... Please be patient with those of us in grief over our disappointment. If we can not express our selves to fellow LOTR nuts who can we vent too? Our goldfish?

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-21-2002, 05:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Please be patient with those of us in grief over our disappointment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, please be patient. After all, isn't this thread here for people to say whether they liked it or not and why? Yes, it is.

Lush

12-21-2002, 05:28 PM

Willie, I assume that the people who you feel have mis-interpreted Tolkien because of Peter Jackson's movie adaptation, the one that you have to see "5 times a week," are the people at your school. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't wish to wax philosophical a lá "the old guy from the Karate Kid" on a movie thread, but it was Sartre who memorably wrote that "hell is other people," and stemming from that I would like to say to you and everyone else (including Túroch) that eventually we all learn to live in close proximity to "hell," and enjoy life regardless.In plain terms, it sucks when other people appear to take something that you love and enjoy and horribly misunderstand it, such as the kids who won't stop babbling about "the cool Elves at Helm's Deep" and other tripe, but you run through the gamut of feeling the emotions, and then you put them on a shelf, and then you are able to asses Peter Jackson's efforts with clear eyes.And Willie, sweets, I have amassed an embarassingly large number of posts after a year of hanging out here, and engaging in fun conversation. There are fun things to do besides sitting at a computer and talking Tolkien, but the level of humor and intelligence is, for better or for worse, sometimes higher at the Barrow Downs than in real life. I am a relative newbie here compared to some, but I hope it stays that way. P.S. Telling someone to "leave" is no way out of an intelligent argument, and I am positive that we are all striving to keep intelligence somewhat of a "hallmark" of this forum. P.P.S. If you take the time to get to know me, you will soon realize that it's very hard to "surprise" me with an array of curse-words, no matter how artfully arranged. But you didn't take the time, did you? You have broken my heart by your lack of interest, perhaps more so than Peter Jackson has broken yours. P.P.P.S. Personal issues aside, if any of you do get around to writing Peter Jackson, don't forget to ask him where Narsil went; and remind him that since he has chosen to introduce it in "RotK" the introduction ought to be a worthy one...It would be very funny if they end up "forgetting" it though. Funny ha ha.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-21-2002, 05:50 PM

Thanks for the insights. Yes, those were the people that I was referring to. I think I, and many others, just need time to accept what he has done. What PJ has done cannot be changed and that's what's so frustrating. Some topics are fun while others aren't. Right now, its not that fun, but already the mood seems to be getting better.I shouldn't ask you to leave. Sorry. I mean that you shouldn't complain about others complaining. Sorry again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You have broken my heart by your lack of interest <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? Well I'm sorry. Anyone have any super-glue? I hope I can put it back together. But please explain what you mean by 'lack of interest'. I'll probably disagree. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> if any of you do get around to writing Peter Jackson <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Look at this thread <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001509" TARGET=_blank>Letter to PJ </A>.

Marileangorifurnimaluim

12-22-2002, 07:41 AM

Well, I've finally seen it. Hmph. Well. I wouldn't call that a wasted $9, but I'm probably not going to see this one over and over again. It's an odd film.Overall, it reminds me of an old grandfather that starts an exciting story, wanders off the point and by the time he gets back to the original idea the excitement's gone. <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> The pacing was strange. Fast in the beginning. Slow in the middle. And kind of fast at the end, but in a syrupy slow motion kind of way. It wasn't powerful. <LI> There was a lack of dramatic tension after the scenes of Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli chasing the orcs. How Amon Hen became more intense than Helm's Deep I'll never know. <LI> The plot twists were a little odd. Aragorn gets injured and wanders off - why? How does this forward the story? <LI> Treebeard is tricked into attacking Isengard, but all the other ents just happen to be around? It's not even a clever ruse. <LI> The section in Osgiliath is poorly thought out. Characters wander in without being introduced. Faramir - no matter how he's portrayed - is not developed at all, he's a non-entity. <LI> Not-so-sympathetic hero. The weak Frodo, offering himself up as virgin sacrifice and attacking his friend leaves a bad taste in the mouth. We are supposed to respect him? Why? <LI> The use of a narrator in the middle of the movie is startling, inconsistent and strange. <LI> Characters are given too many speeches, at odd intervals. Sam's speech is particularly long and syrupy. Gollum's is excessive. <LI> Gollum hogs screen time in general. His multiple personality syndrom is beaten to death. We get it, we get it. He has two sides. </UL> It was not a particularly good movie. Not awful. Just... lukewarm.I'm concerned PJ has left too much for the third movie for it to be very good either.-Maril PS: Funny. I have the impression that directors got so excited about their new ideas in the editing process, they forget the audience. Thus paid only cursory attention to the main storyline.

Ringfenwen

12-22-2002, 09:16 AM

I am a huge fan of fotr, and have the utmost respect for pj and all the cast and crew. When I went 2 see fotr in the cinema for the first time I was blown away, it was the best film i had ever seen, but whilst leaving i heard several people complaining loudly about the 'spoilers' caused by the deviations from the books. At that moment I decided not to read the books until I had seen every one of the movies, in that way i could avoid this sort of dissapointment, and could judge the movie by its own merits. I have faithfully stayed true to this.I have not yet seen TTT, and am going tonight, but all the comments made along the lines of: If you don't make a movie for the fans, whom do you make it for? irritated me extremely. I may not be a huge fan of the books (yet ) but that does not mean that I should suffer as a audience member because of the fanaticism shown by some to the absolute faithfulness to JRRT's books. Movies and books are totally seperate anomally's, and can only be linked and compared to a certain extent.The plot would have to be changed somewhat so that it could be shown visually, if pj had tried to incorporate every detail of the books each movie would probably have ended up about 9 hours long, it just isn't practical.It is ridiculous to believe that a film can ever provide the same levels of characterisation as a book, it's just not possible, this has been proven throughout the life of cinema.And I found the suggestion that the films are purely for fans of the books downright insulting. Two of my greatest friends have since watching the film read lotr, the silmarillion, learnt basic elvish, redecorated and designed their whole style of life to include the genius of JRRT (every piece of furniture or jewellery bought by them must look elvish ) If it hadn't been for the films they may have never discovered this whole world. Yet your whole attitude suggests that they are of no importance, since they have not been lifelong fans. Sorry if this seems an overly strong reaction, and I am perfectly happy to respect other peoples opinions, but I have found the greater part of this thread extremely insulting.

Neesiastar

12-22-2002, 12:01 PM

I felt a little empty , I am afraid to say. Too much hype left me feeling I was either in the wrong film, or the projectionist had done his own editing. I get the distict feeling we'll get a stack of new scenes in the enivitable DVD extended edition next year. It will all make sense then ! I too think maybe I should give it another chance and go and see it again. I won't lie though, I was yawning at some points. The Aragorn love triangle, was a tad rushed and made no sense to me?? Did I miss something? What ever happend to Frodo, I think the ring should have been given to Sam, he's got more umpf in one of his big toes than Frodo had in his whole ( still sweet) little body. I think Gollom stole the show and of course Gimley and Legolas, the best part of the battle of helms Deep, was those two totting up their killings. I really don't want to be negative, and I am sure it must have been a hard task to fit the mammomth story into 3hrs, but for the sweet love of the shire, it would have been nice to weave less bumpf into what is already a complicated story line anyhow. Still I have told all I know to go and see it, but now you know why half the cast like " Return of the King " better, maybe these films will pale compared to that one. It would be interesting though what people think of it if they saw it a second time

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-22-2002, 03:22 PM

Nessiastar: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think the ring should have been given to Sam <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Frodo got the ring in the books and the movie is based on the books. That's why Frodo got it and not Sam. Have you read the books? If you haven't, you should, they're great. If Sam got the ring, then the amount of anger and frustration over unnecessary changes would be a lot greater. Ringfenwen: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you don't make a movie for the fans, whom do you make it for? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tell me, if there really were not a lot of fans out there, do you think PJ woiuld be allowed 850 million$ to make the movie. PJ got so much funding because the people/companies who gave the funding knew that already there are so many fans out there and allowing PJ to go all out in making this movie is no problem because at least half the fans will like/love it. If there were no fans or not a lot, he'd still be able make the movie but there's no way he'd get that funding. Those people wouldn't know if the movie will earn back even close to as much as PJ got. It's us fans. Without our third-party support, PJ would never have been able to make it. And if he did, with the low funding he would have, it wouldn't be that great at all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I may not be a huge fan of the books (yet ) but that does not mean that I should suffer as a audience member because of the fanaticism shown by some to the absolute faithfulness to JRRT's books. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How should you suffer? I do not want to deprive anyone of Tolkien's works. Everyone should have their experience. But you would not suffer. If PJ did the job he should have, then watching the movie would be like reading the book. You would have nothing to worry about. You wouldn't be deprived of anything at all. In fact the movie would be better and most everyone would be happy. And I'll say it again. You, as an audience member, and any other, would not suffer. So calm down because you have nothing to worry about. If it turned out the way most of us wished it to, then no one would suffer at all. And if you still think you would, then what are you complainimg about? It's done and we can't change it. You have nothing to worry about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The plot would have to be changed somewhat so that it could be shown visually, if pj had tried to incorporate every detail of the books each movie would probably have ended up about 9 hours long, it just isn't practical.It is ridiculous to believe that a film can ever provide the same levels of characterisation as a book, it's just not possible, this has been proven throughout the life of cinema. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can't provide the same levels of characterisation as the book. But no one thought it could. No one went into the theaters thinking it would be the same. We knew some stuff would be changed, but what we were thinking and hoping for was that it would stay relatively close to the books. But our hopes were shattered. Some people's favorite parts/characters were deformed and twisted in a friekishly manner or just simply left out. Now, in FotR, the left out my favorite part in any of Tolkien's works. They left out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, and especially the Barrow Downs. Now PJ said that he would stick as closely to the book as possible and not make any unnecessary changes. He said he had to cut out parts that didn't necessarily pertain to Frodo or the quest of the ring. So as mad as I was, I could understand. But what about Arwen? That was an unnecessary change, but I could let it go. But look at it now! PJ just butchered the poor thing. Arwen who wan't even mentioned in TTT got more screenplay than Eomer. Poor, poor Turoch, and I'm sure many others feel teh same way. And what about Faramir? Just look what they did to him.You see this is what us fans are aggrivated at. The unnecessary changes PJ made. PJ looks to me like a power monger now. He abused his power and broke his promise, and besides that, he broke our hearts. And he better watch out, especially for his body, because it seems like hearts and promises aren't the only things that will be broken. I'm not going to do anything like that but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. So, we were just not expecting those changes. PJ promised us to stick a lot closer to the books and he could have. That's what we're mad at, and that's what we were hoping for. Not exactly like the books, but a lot closer. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I found the suggestion that the films are purely for fans of the books downright insulting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, no one said they were made purely for the fans. We said they were, but not entirely. It was mainly for the fans. And it was also for the $$$ and to introduce people to LotR and Tolkien. I know you must be angry, but just calm down and think about it. Don't worry because you have nothing to worry about. And we're not suggesting that those people are of no importance. We're not trying to have our posts be insluting. Most of us I'm sure were angry like you when we put our posts up, sorry if it seemed insulting. [ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

Neesiastar

12-22-2002, 03:59 PM

Sory I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean litrally Sam should have been given the ring, I meant his character was so strong yet frodo's character was given no room to really manefest in this second film. I have no wish to change Tolkeins book structure, but was simply being sarcastic. and maybe using a bit of wit. Obviously you read it litrally which is not a problem being as the internet is not always to gauge peoples true meaning when they type. Yes I have read the books , they are great. Sorry for misleading you into thinking I had not

Vinyaampawen

12-22-2002, 05:38 PM

I just came in on this topic and, since it has gone on for 4 pages, I have not read everyone's response. I love the movie! In terms of a story line I felt The Two Towers was edited better than the Fellowship. The first movie that came out of the Fellowship left so many important things out that were in the book and were put back in the extended version of the Fellowship movie I just bpought. For example, the elves giving of gifts to the hobbits and the others, the elves leaving Middle Earth, the development of the relationship between Gimli and Galadriel and Gimli and Legolas. These were important scenes and relationships in the book that did not appear in the first movie. The special effects were fantastic in The Two Towers as well as the Fellowship but I believe The Two Towers were even better. The director, Peter Jackson, changed and lightened up the tenor of The Two Towers. In the book The Two Towers is about nothing but war and suffering. In the Two Towers movie there is hope, love, and friendship. The scene between Faramir and the hobbits was *very* different from the one in the book, but none the worse for wear, I think. The process of the ring taking over Frodo is accelerated compared to the book, but Im sure Jackson knows where hes going with that. Theodén, the King of Rohan, was more fatalistic in the book. From I can recall Pip and Merry got to meet Gandalf earlier than what was portrayed in the movie. And there were other changes, but none too drastic. The battle scenes were exquisite, of course; Shadowfax was magnificent. Grimtongue was just as slimy as in the book and Gollum was wonderful. Though it is obvious he is CGI generated, I still think the technique is getting better and better. The ents were priceless. All in all a very good No. 2. :-) I thought it was interesting in each of the groups of Middle Earth and the fellowship: (1) Samwise and Frodo; (2) Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and the men of Middle Earth (Theodan, Faramir, Eomer and Eowyn); (3) Merry, Pippin and the Ents; and then (4) the elves, Galadriel and Elrond, at least one member of each group was the one who inspired the conscience, courage and hope of the others to fight for a better world because it was the right thing to do. Samwise was that for Frodo. Aragorn for the men, Legolas and Gimli, Merry and Pippin for the Ents, and Galadriel for Elrond and the rest of the elves. These characters inspired and pulled at the others to raise their swords in battle against the evil of Sauron, Saruman, the orcs and the urukhai. For as you said, the movie was inspiring giving hope to those who feel there is no hope and those ideals apply to mankind and the universe even today. From what I remember of the book the people of Rohan did not get re-inforcements from the elves but I thought it was a great touch. In the movie Theodan complained about the fact that he had fought many a war and times had changed. Men did not have the allies they once had (referring to the elves and the people of Gondor). Legolas complains in elvish to Aragorn that the men of Rohan are farmers not trained to take on the forces of Saruman and Sauron and that surely all of them will die. Aragorn then says "Well then I will die with them!" telling Legolas with that statement that they have no choice but to fight. Legolas finally realizes that Aragorn is right. Then the elves appear with Haldir as their leader explaining to Theodan there was a time when elves and men fought together and he and the elves were there to do it again. The re-inforcements of the elves, trained fighters and warriors, brings hope when hope was flailing. I am sure it was not lost on those of you who remember 9/11 that the title of the movie, The Two Towers, was of great significance. As an American it is interesting to wonder if The Two Towers had been released a year earlier if it would have brought hope to those of us who suffered when the thousands of people were killed in that attack. The hope that arose from the defeat of the dark forces of Middle Earth is something that we need in today's world. Anyway...that is my $.02. Vinyaampawen

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-22-2002, 07:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the book The Two Towers is about nothing but war and suffering. In the Two Towers movie there is hope, love, and friendship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe you need to reread it because I found that there was a lot of hope, love, and friendship in the book. The book is not just about war and suffering. I really think that you missed a lot of things in the book if all you found was war and suffering. I'm not meaning to insult you or be offensive, I'm just trying to help you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> there were other changes, but none too drastic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ. I think that there were a lot of unnecessary and uncalled for chnages. Faramir for example. You said 'but none the worse for wear' I think that changing Faramir was a big mistake. He is portrayed completely different in the book. A lot of other changes I felt were drastic but I will not go into them. Just read the posts before and you'll see. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Grimtongue <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that a new nickname for grima? Hmmm...clever, and interesting... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am sure it was not lost on those of you who remember 9/11 that the title of the movie, The Two Towers, was of great significance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure I undertand what you mean. Please explain. Do you mean that TTT does represent 9/11? Because if you do, I can argue for the rest of my life that it doesn't. And if you mean that there is a link, then you're wrong. They have nothing at all to do with each other. I'm not sure if that is what you're saying, but if you are, that's what I think about it. And sorry if it's not what you're saying.

Túroch

12-22-2002, 07:04 PM

Ringfenwen, I am actually very glad you posted. You bring a unique point of view to this discussion. I, unfortunately am one of those "life-long fans" you spoke about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The plot would have to be changed somewhat so that it could be shown visually, if pj had tried to incorporate every detail of the books each movie would probably have ended up about 9 hours long, it just isn't practical.It is ridiculous to believe that a film can ever provide the same levels of characterization as a book, it's just not possible, this has been proven throughout the life of cinema. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I could not agree more and you wont find many others who will say that the movie should of been exactly like the book. I don’t want a none reader to suffer in a movie. Only two of my friends have read any of Tolkien’s work and I really want them to enjoy the movie. In none my posts have I ever said that they should be 9 hour epics that stick exactly close to the book. The FotR is a good example of the type of movie I was expecting and hoping for. I mean it had the same director, filmed at the same time and everything so my hopes for another FotR like rendition were not baseless. True "movies and books are totally separate anomaly’s, however two movie in the same series are not. The TTT should have sticked closer to the spirit in which FotR was made. In comparison to the book, which as of yet I realized you have to read, FotR was a good interpretation. There were parts that strayed from the book but all of these small points could be forgiven. I, and many others i'm sure feel betrayed that TTT was so different in nature then FotR. I expected something like FotR, instead I got a movie that much farther then the books then I had expected. Farther as in making up cities that actually ruins, and almost erasing characters. That’s pretty far from the books.If I had not read TTT, then the movie might of been a lot better. In fact i'm sure I would have loved it. But knowing the truth when I watched the movie put it in a different light. Listen closely, [/b][b]I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE TWO TOWERS IS A BAD MOVIE ON IT'S OWN. I AM SAYING THAT HIS NEW RENDITION BETRAYED THE ORIGNAL STORY AND CAUSES HAVOC FOR THOSE WHO HAVE READ IT AND FOR OTHERS WHEN THEY WILL READ IT. That’s all i'm saying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I found the suggestion that the films are purely for fans of the books downright insulting. Two of my greatest friends have since watching the film read lotr, the silmarillion, learnt basic elvish, redecorated and designed their whole style of life to include the genius of JRRT (every piece of furniture or jewellery bought by them must look elvish ) If it hadn't been for the films they may have never discovered this whole world. Yet your whole attitude suggests that they are of no importance, since they have not been lifelong fans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent! One of the high hopes I had for the movie is that it would encourage some people to read the books who hadn't of consider it before. I am glad to see that my hopes came true. I am though a "life-long fans" as you put it, especially since my mother read it to me practically over my crib. But don't discount what I say on that fact alone (there are many you could use instead trust me . However, one thing is sure we have a differnt idea of the word fans. I do not consider my kind to be the only type of fans. Your friends are fans, your a are a fan. A fan being someone who liked the story and enjoy tolkiens world. However, when PJ first came out with FotR, the only fans were those who had read the book. There weren't any others. And for the most part we fans gave him kudos for FotR. TTT is not quite the same. It is much different from the FotR the movie and very different from TTT the book. He has so to speak not targeted fans but more of the movie going masses, not all of which are fascinated by Tolkien's world. Many don't even really care for the plot. By doing he so he watered down the movie and "betrayed" our expectations. Now I can't dispute many peoples love for this new TTT. Their views on the movie are totally their own and I cannot validate or invalidate them. However, I am simply debating the fact that this new movie is not TTT, but PJ's rendition of a movie much like TTT (with similar settings, names, and look), but differing severely in both characters and plot line. There are parts were PJ's movie does turn into TTT, but within a few minutes it mutates again. I really hate to say this, but you do speak from a position of little experience having not read the book and especially not seen the movie yet. Maybe by the time you read this you'll have seen it though. I'm also mostly arguing that the movies divergence from the book contributed to it's downfall. But, since you haven't read the book you shouldn't worry about thats. But please, please don't let my views insult you. I don't mean anything of the kind. I just want to debate TTT and its wrongs (in my eyes) and why it isn't near as authentic as FotR.P.S. Man what I had to go through to put his post up first an electircal faliure then I couldn't contact my Internet provider. If I had put it up when I wrote it it would have been up two posts ago.[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Túroch ]

Luinalatawen

12-22-2002, 07:20 PM

I agree that TTT the movie was not as true to the original Tolkien as much as FotR was. However, I do understand why Jackson did many of the things that he did, which was in order to move the story along. I was particularly disappointed with how the ents were portrayed. Their culture was not very well shown, and things were rushed with their storyline. Of course, this is something that the ents themselves would never dream of doing, so it goes against their entire nature (no pun intended). The movie was too centered around Helm's deep. Just because the filming of the battle was very lengthy and arduous, it does not mean that it has to be the focus of the film. Frodo did not get enough attention at all. He is the ring-bearer, and the burden of carrying the ring is not shown accurately. Frodo and Sam actually reach Mordor, and there is not enough shown to how the ring has been effecting Frodo. Many (if not all) of the characters who were hardly shown were not very true to the book. This was extremely disappointing!!Aragorn's character was done wonderfully. Viewers get a better sense of him and how he is sooooo driven to fight the dark forces. I also liked how Legolas and Gimli's growing friendship was shown. In addition, Gollum and his split personality were very well portrayed.I would like to know how non-LotR fans liked TTT. My friend, who came with me to see it, thought that it was boring. She only enjoyed the scenes with Legolas in them. Her overall impression was that it was boring. The four other people that came with me to see the film were very curious as to what will happen at the end and were begging me to tell them who the "she" was to whom Gollum is taking Frodo and Sam. So I think that it left everyone out on a cliff. But it is an excellent movie, as far as movies go. -Luinalatawen

Vinyaampawen

12-22-2002, 07:34 PM

Good Day MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie and well met! In your post you said something about not wanting to insult me but wanting to help me. Thank you for your help. This is a discussion where we are talking about our "overall impressions" of The Two Two Towers. As a discussion there are bound to be differences of opinion. My post was a different opinion than yours but not invalid because of that. Please refrain from the language that you are trying to help me. I do not need your help. Instead just view my post as a different opinion in this over all discussion. That is all!

elsye

12-22-2002, 07:50 PM

alas, I'm siding with the more negative approach. The wolves looked like Hyenas. You can see the distinct glitter squares in the caves at Helms deep. Aragorn falling off a cliff? What kind of people would bring their women and children to war with them? I'm sorry, but when PJ makes a mistake like the last one, it makes me question his integrity. Good quality? I didn't see any.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-22-2002, 07:59 PM

I do recognize that your post was your own opinion. I sometimes put advice or help up there for grabs. Whoever wants it can take it. If you don't want it, you don't have to take it. You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it. That's fine if you don't need or want my help.Some points you have I'm just disagreeing with. Yes this is about overall impressions, but it is also a discussion. So we all have the right to disagree someone and to say why. We're just not allowed to attack the other person's opinion.I still would like to know what you meant by <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am sure it was not lost on those of you who remember 9/11 that the title of the movie, The Two Towers, was of great significance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could you please explain? I'm just curious.Thanks.Oh yeah, I have to say that that was the nicest greeting I've got from anyone that I disagreed with. Thanks again and good day to you too (well actually it's night in SF, I don't know about Rivendell).

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-22-2002, 08:03 PM

Sorry for double posting. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The wolves looked like Hyenas <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's exactly what I said when we talked about the TTT special on WB. The wargs do look like huge hyenas. They have flat faces instead of long narrow snouts. But they still were pretty scary.

Liriodendron

12-22-2002, 08:10 PM

My overall impression after only one veiwing,was that the pace was too fast. I'll probably adjust after seeing TTT several more times. I was prepared by reading and seeing many spoilers, I had a pretty good idea of Peter Jackson's movie vision of TTT. I enjoyed it immensely. Even though I laughed at the part on the wall when you could only see the tip of Gimli's helmet, I thought all the Gimli jokes were disrespectful. I liked the movie Eowyn better than the book Eowyn, so this was a plus. I look forward to her "battle scene" in RoTK. The parts with Frodo and Sam pleased me also. I really liked Gollum's split personality, and felt more pity for him than I ever had before. Frodo's eyes are finally beginning to get to me! I love Vigo Mortensen as Aragorn, and I really liked "Theoden King" also. My personal preference is for the humans of Middle Earth, and this movie gave me lots to like. The ents were very well done, but it was too rushed. I guess Ents will always seemed rushed! I hate the theater, and look forward to savoring this film slowly, with a drink, by the fire. The opening scene with Gandalf and the balrog was perfect! I loved the voices coming from the mountain, and suddenly going "swoosh" into the high intensity scene on the bridge. The bit with frodo holding the ring out to the nazgul bewilders me, but I'll hold judgement till I see "The Extended Edition" of The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. I am so satisfied, now that the wait is over. I have no problem veiwing the movies as seperate and different from the books. It two treats about the same wonderful place, for me! [ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

elsye

12-22-2002, 08:31 PM

Another one of the scenes that got to me, was where Frodo was "being tempted"(for lack of a good word) and in that particular close up, he looked like he was trying to be seductive, and thinking something like "oh baby, you know you want me! I am so fine" very funny. I agree, the jokes about Gimli are in poor taste.

Helkasir

12-22-2002, 09:02 PM

"poor taste"? I thought that those were good. Sure, it dumbed down his heroism a bit, but if you look, it just an over emphasis of gimli's gregarious character.

Diamond18

12-22-2002, 09:15 PM

I think they mean the "short jokes" aimed at him (of which there were quite a few).

Liriodendron

12-22-2002, 09:21 PM

Too bad there are not more dwarves in these movies. Is it Gimli, or dwarves in general? Yes, it was one joke too many for me. I like to think of Gimli on the bridge with Aragorn, (I'll just ignore the tossing part)taking on all those orcs while they strengthen the gate. Go Gimli! [ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

Laialthriel

12-22-2002, 11:44 PM

First and foremost, greetings to all. I knew this place would be hopping after 12/18, but wow! I love debate, though. Okay, now for my little speech; There is no way I'm going to be able to put all of my thoughts about TTT into this post, but I'll do my best to be clear and not bore you all. My overall view of TTT: a very good movie, yet disturbing in the areas that were changed. I had hardly heard of LotR before I saw FotR; and after I did, I went immediately to read the books and am now completely hooked. So already having read TTT, I have very mixed emotions about the whole thing. I loved the portrayal of Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Eowyn, Eomer, Grima Wormtongue, Gandalf, Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippin, Treebeard, and Gollum(!!). I'm going to talk about Gollum right now before I forget. I thought he was awesome!! I felt sorry for him in the books anyway, but the split-personality was so well done & I even went to the extreme of thinking he was cute when he was Smeagol. And the CG! Wow! I had completely accepted him as a real character within the first five minutes without even knowing it! Extremely well done! Of Frodo and Sam: I did note that Frodo's corruption was a little bit rushed, but I'm sure PJ has his reasons (as someone else here said before). I loved the dialogue between him and Samwise. "It's your Sam! Don't you recognize your Sam?" I loved it! And I liked how Frodo stuck up for Gollum. I think we sometimes lose track of the thought that Frodo is really really scared right then. He's looking at Gollum and thinking "That will be me if I don't conquer this soon." Scary thought. I DID NOT like how they went down into Osgiliath. Bad. But again, those who didn't read the books, wouldn't have caught it. My brother hasn't read the books in years, so he absolutely loves the movies and can't wait to read the books AFTER RotK comes out. Each to his own. I couldn't have waited. Sorry, off-track. I was extreeeeeeeeemly upset about the way Faramir was presented. Note: I didn't say 'corrupted' or anything of the like, because I believe his real nature will be revealed and righted in RotK. I also wasn't thrilled with King Theoden. He wasn't bad at all, but I think his pessimistic tendencies were overdone. He was a very powerful character in the books and I just miss that. But that's getting kind of picky. Also, I was confused about the Elves coming to help at Helm's Deep, but it wasn't absolutely horrible. As a fan who has read the books before seeing the movie; I can deal with it. Aragorn falling off a cliff? An extended scene with Arwen? Not needed. I do not believe it forwarded the story except for developing Arwen and Aragorn and their relationship more. Again, not very necessary. But it did give room for some good dialogue and character developement for Legolas, Gimli & their relationship w/Aragorn. The Ents! I loved them! I thought Treebeard was great (can anyone confirm or deny the rumour of John Rhys Davies playing his voice?) and I really missed Quickebeam. I left the theatre feeling somewhat confused about the way I felt. I was very excited because it was a good movie, but I was also saddened by the things the 'book-readers' were able to notice. It was hard because I had waited so long for it's release with certain ideas and expectations in mind as to what the movie would be like. But how could one not? None of us would make the movie the same. We all have different ideas and feelings about it all. But the task was taken upon by PJ. I, for one, would have loved to have participated in the movie (who wouldn't?), but I have to honestly question myself as to if I think I could have done a good job with it. I don't know. But PJ invested his heart, soul, and several years of his life into these movies. I believe he had/has the best interests at heart and did/is doing the best job he can. He has a deep love for Tolkien and his work. He didn't (I believe) and isn't going to trash it or disrespect it. Granted, we are disappointed in many or few portions of the movie, but it was not that incredibly far off from the books. As has been said in this thread before: it is not possible to put LotR directly from novel to movie without having to change something(s). If PJ had done that we all would have been on our butts with eyes glued to a TV screen for about a week straight. (which I can't say I would have minded INCREDIBLY ) I would have changed several things, yes, but I trust PJ and believe that he is doing his best and I think maybe we could think about giving the guy a little slack. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Please be patient with those of us in grief over our disappointment. If we can not express our selves to fellow LOTR nuts who can we vent too? Our goldfish? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hear hear! By all means vent! I completely understand the grief. This is a place for us to rant and rage about our frustrations with the movies. I'm glad for everyone else's sake I wasn't able to get on this forum after the whole Faramir incident. It could have gotten nasty. I was...how you say...frustrated My plan is to go watch the movie again (and again and again) to untangle my emotions over it. And now I must begin the seemingly eternal wait for RotK. 360 days...360 days...God bless! and happy holidays!*.·´¨¨)) -:¦:- ¸.·´ .·´¨¨)) ((¸¸.·´ ..·´ Laialthriel -:¦:- -:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

Gorwingel

12-23-2002, 01:05 AM

All I have to say is I loved the Two Towers. I had already read all about the changes on the internet, so I was prepared for them. That helped. It is very different from the book, but if you just look at it as a movie, (which I know a lot of people will not want to do)it was very exciting, adventure filled, and just overall great! The part with Faramir was very different, but it did not bother me as much as I thought it would.

Manardariel

12-23-2002, 06:38 AM

Now, after finishing up last minute Xmas presents, I finally have time for my reviews... To be honest, I was a bit dissapointed. I mean, WHERE WAS THE BOOK?????????? The opening was pretty cool, but then it was like... can we get started??? All those flashbacks and added scenes were really confusing ESPECIALLY if you´ve read the book. I sat in the thearter going: "But what about.... " "And where´s ...." "But this should be different!" The last time that happenend to me was during Princess Diaries, and thatwas a bad movie. Here my list of the good, the bad and the ugly: The good The two kids from Rohan. That was nice.The openíng, with the balrog.Gollum. Is just me, or does he have a lot in common with dobby????Gimli. Hahahahaha. The silly dwarf. Oh brother...Shadowfax. Very beautiful horse.Arwen&Elrond. In spite of myself, I started crying. Aragorn. Hmmmmm... hot, as usual. Sorry. The bad Faramir. OH MY GOD, they turned him into a second Boromir. I mean the point is totally different. THAT was horrible.Gandalf the exorcist. That was very cliché. And funny.Theoden crying about his Son. I died laughing. That was even more cliché. AAHHH!!! Eowyn. I was really, really anxious to see her, but maybe she was the greatest dissapiontment. It´s not her fault she looked like a FROG, but what were they thinking, casting her? The acting, I´m sorry, was awfull. Frodo. Hihihi. Poor, pitifull hobbit. The ugly THE ENTS. OH MY GOSH, What the F$/K???. I mean ,hello, these are Robots were talking about, that was BAD!!! And I´m only saying, in the book, there´s no need to show them what the Uruks do. That was horrible.I know that was a lot of complaining, but as I said, I was disappointed. And, to be honest, HP2 was a bit better. Don´t sue me for this one, it´just my impression.[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Manardariel ]

Bill Ferny

12-23-2002, 08:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Tell me, if there really were not a lot of fans out there, do you think PJ woiuld be allowed 850 million$ to make the movie. PJ got so much funding because the people/companies who gave the funding knew that already there are so many fans out there and allowing PJ to go all out in making this movie is no problem because at least half the fans will like/love it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>People/companies? Try New Line. PJ didn’t work on charity, and his movie wasn’t a public service to a bunch of people who can’t do anything better with their time but lament the fact that nobody gave them $850 mil to make a movie that, of course, only they could make right.You all need to ask yourselves: would you be this critical if you didn’t hang out on this forum? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I left the theatre feeling somewhat confused about the way I felt. I was very excited because it was a good movie, but I was also saddened by the things the 'book-readers' were able to notice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Admit it, you were sad because you saw a bunch of stuff that people on this forum were going spend hours blasting apart at their keyboards.Alright, that was harsh enough. I think everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and I think its totally justified to dislike the movie based on its unfaithfulness to the books. There were parts that disturbed me, especially the whole Faramir bit about taking Frodo, Sam and Gollum to Osgiliath. I didn’t like the ents being replaced by Éomer at Helm’s Deep, or that bit about Saruman possessing Theoden. On the other hand, there were additions that I liked (the warg-rider battle, the exchange between Elrond and Arwen), and there were omissions that I completely understood. Yes, there were mistakes, some justifiable some not. There are certain things that only people on this forum would know or even care about knowing, and there were a couple that PJ probably should have known if he was going to make a movie about Tolkien’s world. However, I didn’t let any of these things get in the way of me enjoying the movie.When I watched Braveheart I knew that most of what was in the movie was completely fictional. That didn’t stop me from liking that movie. I guess you people just aren’t used to this kind of thing. My primary area of study, research and interest is Medieval Studies (philosophy and theology). There are practically no modern writers who give the Middle Ages anything more than a list of false additions, twisting omissions or blatant mistakes. I guess my attitude is tempered with having to constantly deal with agenda driven interpretations.In closing, if you can’t laugh at Gimli, who can you laugh at? Were you upset that dwarven women were being discriminated against on account of their beards?

Vinyaampawen

12-23-2002, 08:26 AM

Someone asked what I meant about the message that could be taken from the movie, The Two Towers movie, as it applied to 9/11. I certainly did not mean they were connected...of course the movie, The Two Towers, and 9/11 are totally separate incidents. However, for me the movie, The Two Towers, was a movie about hope and fighting the forces of evil even when evil (in the movie the forces of Saruman and Sauron) outnumber you and it appears hopeless. 9/11 was a incident of evil, horror, disbelief, sorrow and mourning for many people in this world today. So to the extent that The Two Towers has a message of hope in the face of horror, disbelief, sorrow and mourning, it tells us that we must continue our fight against evil even in those moments when all seems lost.

Lupiane

12-23-2002, 11:58 AM

I have just seen TTT and I think I may be in shock. So please do not kill me for what I am going to say.Ok, I will forget the whole Arwen scenes, Aragorn half dying, Gimli turned into a clown, Faramir into an evil git (sorry!), Frodo into a total wimp, Eomer being exiled, Grima planning Helm's Deep's battle with Saruman, the useless entmoot, Theoden being a hopeless pessimistic (who wouldn't with their army replaced by women, old people and kids?), Merry and Pippin meeting Gandalf in Fangorn, and so on... but there are a couple of things that I cannot let pass: ELVES AT HELM'S DEEP? Whatever did Haldir do to PJ to be sent fighting (and dying) to Helm's Deep when he was minding his own business in Lothlorien? And the hobbits in Osgiliath? Where did that come from?Understand me, I'm not just having fun picking out all the details that are not exactly from the book. I read the books before going to see the first movie, and when I went, I was skeptical because usually I hate movies made from books I read... and I loved FotR!!!! Of course, I saw all the changes PJ made in this movie, and I understood every single one of them (except maybe the need to have Aragorn letting Frodo go at the end...) and I have spent a whole year saying isn't it great to finally have found someone who respects the spirit of the original book. But TTT? Maybe the problem comes from the fact that, having enjoyed FotR so much, I was expecting another great movie. But wasn't I entitled to?I am speaking only a couple of hours after seeing the movie, so my thoughts are still reeling. I'll go and see it again (forewarned this time), and try to see things more objectively but honestly I don't think my opinion will change that much...Hope I haven't offended anyone with my opinions. Maybe I am a purist, but put it this way: when people who have seen TTT will want to read the books, won't they be disappointed too, because it won't be what they expect? Wouldn't it have been easier to stick a little closer to the original story? That was just my two cents...Oh, just one last question: If Eowyn isn't in Dunharrow, how is the whole plot of the Path of The Dead going to be dealt with?

Hawkeye

12-23-2002, 04:28 PM

Laialthriel, just wanted to let you know that yes, John Rhys-Davies DID do the voice for Treebeard.

Fool-of-a-Took

12-23-2002, 04:57 PM

I wonder if P.J. was under pressure from the merchandising section of new line, hence the Warg riders. I actually questioned my own memory of the book when I left the cinema and had to refer back. Overall a decent film but the changes to plot were downright inexcusable

Hawkeye

12-23-2002, 05:11 PM

you know, i've noticed that PJ did a much better job on portraying the villians, bad guys, etc. (especially the Ringwraiths!)than he did on the heros. Personally, i think that he has a dark mind. after all, anyone that makes horror films is bound to be better at portraying evil. I dunnno, just something that i noticed. on thinking back over both FOTR and TTT.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-23-2002, 07:10 PM

Bill Ferny: I do not want to create a huge argument between us so please don't take offense. I think maybe you misunderstand me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> People/companies? Try New Line. PJ didn’t work on charity, and his movie wasn’t a public service to a bunch of people who can’t do anything better with their time but lament the fact that nobody gave them $850 mil to make a movie that, of course, only they could make right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When I said, "people/companies" I said that because I wasn't sure if PJ got all of his funding from New Line. I'm sure that there were other people or companies that contributed to the funding, especially before New line. But my point is that without the fans, this would never have happened. If there weren't a lot of fans out there, New Line would not have given them that much funding because they couldn't be sure if anybody would like it or not. But with us fans out there, they knew that there were people who did like it and they knew they weren't just blowing 850 mil$ away.And I never said or hinted that PJ was working on charity. I know, he's not. And we are not a bunch of people who can't do anything better with their time but lament. And we are not lamenting over the fact that no one gave us 850 mil$ to make a movie. Tell me, did we ever say we were sad, or did we ever ask? No. I really am not trying to be offensive so once again please don't take it that way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You all need to ask yourselves: would you be this critical if you didn’t hang out on this forum? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I would actually. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Admit it, you were sad because you saw a bunch of stuff that people on this forum were going spend hours blasting apart at their keyboards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope that you're only talking to Laialthriel because I (and many others) were not sad because of this. maybe you should have said "Some of you" instead of "All of you" because it seems that you were driving at what Laialthriel said, when that's only Laialthriel's opinion and a lot of us feel differently. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I didn’t let any of these things get in the way of me enjoying the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not saying that your telling us not to let the changes get in the way of enjoying the movie, but it seems that you are implying it. I didn't let it get in the way. I liked the movies, but I really don't talk about the good stuff, just the bad stuff. Because it's only the bad stuff that we hate, so we tend to talk about it.Vinyaampawen: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I certainly did not mean they were connected <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you. I hate it when people it is connected. And I'm glad someone sees it as an allegory instead of saying it is. Good post and thanks for answering my question. Sorry if seemed offensive.And once again Bill Ferny ,sorry if I seemed offensive, I do not mean to.

Vinyaampawen

12-23-2002, 09:20 PM

At the time The Fellowship of the Ring was release there were many interviews of the director, Peter Jackson. He said in one of the interviews he did not pay attention to the fans of Tolkein and Lord of the Rings because, if he did, he would never be able to complete the movie because they all disagreed. The way this discussion has gone it may prove that Jackson was correct on that one. New Line took a chance on Peter Jackson to make these movies knowing he was a Tolkein fan himself. The budget for this movie was huge and it paid off because New Zealand was put on the map in the movie industry as a result of these films. You may not want hear this but, according to Entertainment Weekly "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" racked up $61.5 million over the weekend, beating not only its box office competitors, but its own predecessor as well. "The Two Towers," which opened Wednesday, made a total of $101.5 over the week, while last year's "The Fellowship of the Ring" made $75 million in its first week (and $47.2 million over its first weekend).

Lush

12-23-2002, 10:24 PM

As a quick sidenote: Peter Jackson did not get $850 million to make the movies. It was more like $270 million.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

12-24-2002, 12:01 AM

Really? I could have sworn I heard it was 850 mil$, but oh well, 270, 850 still a lot of money...Now if you'll excuse me, my ears need to pay a visit to Mr. and Mrs. Q-tip.

Garen LiLorian

12-24-2002, 01:01 AM

Grant me two things here. 1) I'm just jumping in here (cowabunga!!) 2) I didn't bother to read all the other posts (you lazy son of a...)Anyway, what struck me the most about this movie was that PJ seemed to have been trying to strike a medium, where people who hadn't read the books could still understand the movie, and people who had wouldn't go off the edge. He seems to have failed on both counts, though. I went to see it with my girlfriend, who hasn't read the books, and she came out confused; 1) why are the Elves leaving Middle Earth? 2) Why is Gollum/Smeagol a murderer? 3) Where did Sam and Frodo get Elvish rope from? (hadn't seen the extended version, either.) 4) Why, if Frodo is being tempted by the ring, and tries to hurt Sam when he thinks he's trying to take it, is he about to give it away? To a Nazgul? 5) Why'd the pudgy elf get sent to Helm's Deep by Elrond, when he lives in Lorien? 6) Just how big is fangorn forest? 7) Even with Eomer and Gandalf, that brings the total to 2,300 (and 4) Men and Elves against 10,000 orcs. Still not great odds. 8) Where did Eomer's other 1,985 riders come from? 9) Aragorn; "send for help." Theoden; "none will come." Ok, but you might as well try... 10) I thought Wargs were wolves, not Hyenas?And I came out frustrated; 1)Ok, even if Faramir does get tempted by the ring, even Boromir held out longer than that. 2)Why, in the name of all that is holy, do they add 20 minutes of utterly useless Osgiliath, and then end the movie with more than a hundred pages of the book left? 3)Why isn't Eomer in this movie? 4)Where is the Rohirrim army? 5)Why isn't Gandalf in this movie? 6)Did Pip and Merry break their legs, that they have to be carried around all the time? 7)Just how big is fangorn forest? 8)Why isn't Faramir in this movie, and who the HELL is that imposter?!?! 9)OK. The Dwarf is short. We get it. 10)What's the pudgy elf doing in Helm's Deep?And for some reason, I'd always pictured the Nazgul as riding big bat-like things. Not Dragon-y creatures.There were good things, though; 1)Wormtongue was fantastic. I especially enjoyed the extra scene between him and Eowyn. IMO, the only thing that was added that actually made it better instead of detracting. 2)Eowyn was absolutely gorgeous, both physically and in portrayal. Kudos to Miranda Otto. 3)Smeagol/Gollum was better than I could possibly have imagined him to be. After Jar Jar Binks, and, to a lesser extent, the HP CG creatures, I went into the movie fearing him the most, and it ended up being one of the best parts. For some reason, I'd always thought of him as being green, though... Don't know why. He did remind me of Dobby. It's those big eyes. 4)Gandalf (when he was there) was amazing. 5)Sam was impressive. When Faramir shot that man off of the Mumak, and he crashed down by Sam, I could see in his expression everything that Tolkien writes about (Sam wondered if he was really a bad man, or what lies he had been told...etc) and his ending monologue was something I'd been looking forward to, and it didn't disappoint. 6)Frodo's interaction with Gollum was nice. Not particularly canon, but nice. I liked that Frodo had to believe that Gollum could be saved. Very well put. 7)The battle for Helm's Deep was cool. Not spectacular, not realistic; cool. Legolas shield-surfing; cool. The counting game; cool. The Olympic torch procession; cool. 8)The scenery was, of course, simply awesome. 9)As someone put it in another thread; "Hi Ho, Silverfax!" and the charge of the Light Brigade (the Rohirrim) was visually neat, even if it made absolutely no sense from a tactical point of view. 10)Gandalf's fight with the Balrog, his death and subsequent resurrection, and his reintroduction to the company was all very well done.But anyway, my point is that, IMO, he tried to strike a happy medium, and missed. All in all, an enjoyable view, though not what I'd hoped for.

Túroch

12-24-2002, 04:47 PM

You hit the nail on the head Garen LiLorian, and welcome to the downs. I agree most with the question why Eomer isn't in the movie but, i'm biased cause he's my favortie character. I only hope PJ sticks closer in the 3rd movie.

Hawkeye

12-25-2002, 11:01 PM

And a hearty AMEN! to that, Turoch! (Merry Christmas, everybody!)

Coral

12-25-2002, 11:23 PM

Ah but Hawkeye, you missed Christmas by one minute...12:01, see?

Hawkeye

12-25-2002, 11:36 PM

Oh, rats! Well, it's only 9:36 here. I forgot about the time difference!

Shadowstrife911

12-26-2002, 02:48 AM

Note: This is a review of ‘The Two Towers’ as a movie and not its difference between movie/book and how discrepancies screwed it up. (I’m not saying it did or didn’t)I’d say that overall ‘The Two Towers’ was a good movie but it didn’t leave me in awe as the first movie did. For me the major problem was the strange pace in the scenes that the editors laid out for us. Scenes end at odd points without much resolution, they just end quickly and skip to another P.O.V. too hastily. The dialogue also wasn’t very fluent, sometimes they would speak in older English and sometimes they would use Modern English, you could tell when they made up lines even if you didn’t read the book. Character development seemed to be scrapped in order to make way for jokes & more action, which is obviously because this is the theatrical release and they have to please the general audience. I’m sure when they release a special edition DVD with extended footage the editing, strange dialogue and character development issues will be corrected but for now I’m reviewing the theatrical release. Another strange thing I found was Eomer. I can’t remember correctly (and have only seen TTT once) but didn’t Grima imprison Eomer (in this movie) and then suddenly he is running around with an army of 2,000 men? I’m not sure exactly what happened but I saw the movie with some friends of mine (who have never read the book) and they were wondering why the army hadn’t come sooner. The lost Rohirrim army plot hole I expect will be fixed by the extended DVD. Gandalf was also missing for too long and I don’t think this was a good decision when you’re making a movie and a three-part movie at that. When you have a character on-screen for long periods of time in the 1st movie, then missing for most of the time is the second and then expects him to re-appear in the third, you have a major problem. This is a movie and not a book and people have to see things happen.My last main disappointment was the ending, because there wasn’t really one. Basically we see a dozen or so soldiers left at Helms Deep and then they make a final charge, a la “the charge of the light brigade” and then Gandalf & Eomer come and save the day. The climax of the movie occurs so near the end that there is no resolution besides a rather hurried one. Saruman is the main antagonist in this movie and they don’t go back to him in the end. This movie needed the scene where Gandalf confront Saruman. I don’t understand why they took it out completely or move it. You can’t set him up as the main bad guy sending out Orcs & wild men to slaughter the Rohirrim and not even confront him in the ending, that’s not how movies work. Movies must have closure; you can’t end on a total cliffhanger.Anyway these are my complaints, it’s not that big  but I still give the movie an 8 / 10 because it was good but if these things were fixed then it would get a 10 / 10 . For me these things spoiled the mood a bit as they jumped strangely from scene to scene and ended the movie without real resolution. P.S.: If you look closely you’ll see that I’m not complaining about discrepancies with the book because this isn’t a book it’s a movie. I’d say these are all valid points of criticism towards the movie; Questionable editing, Strange combination of dialogue, Lack of character development and a hasty climax that doesn’t end up confronting the primary antagonist. P.P.S.: I just realised that if they made the end a confrontation between Saruman/Gandalf at Orthnac then it would solve two problems; the lack of Ian’s screens time and the absence of closure.

Hawkeye

12-26-2002, 03:31 PM

Shadowstrife911: Just wanted to clear up the point about Eomer for you. Grima got Theoden to banish Eomer in the movie, but he wasn't actually imprisoned. I agree with your post, by the way. Those things would have made it much better!

The Necromancer

12-26-2002, 08:31 PM

Hello, everyone! Just saw TTT this afternoon and I'm back now to add my most definitive review!!! First of all, I need to say just how much I had looked forward to this movie! During like all my spare time (or boring moments during school!) I thought and day-dreamed about Lotr, TTT, Lotr, TTT, Lo..well you get the point! And I was not at all disappointed when I finally did see the movie! Regardless of how much it deviated from the book (and it sure did!) it was just so good to see all the characters again (especially Frodo, my favorite after a whole year! At the very beginning, the feel and atmosphere of TTT was so different from FOTR, it took me awhile to get into the movie, but once I did, I didn't want it ever to end! But of course, it wasn't perfect and I'll list things I found fault with first and then the things I liked so I can end on a positive note! First of all, the scenes with Aragorn and Arwen, though very touching and romantic and not improper like I was afraid they'd be from some of the previews I'd seen, left me confused. I know they were flash backs, but I was wondering where they were, and when. The scene where Arwen sees into the future to Aragorn's death really confused me. He had aged and looked old but she looked exactly the same and I was left wondering why she hadn't aged with him because did she not give up her immortality? I never did understand that in the books and was hoping the movies would clear that up for me, I don't know...that was really sad when she was walking through the trees all alone, wasn't it? And when did he give her back her necklace??? When we last saw them in FOTR, she had just given it to him on the bridge...OK, I'm really confused now...I'll move on... A second thing I find fault with was King Theoden. He just annoyed me for some reason, sorry I can't really say why; I thought after Gandalf released him from Saruman's spell (wasn't that a really cool scene?!?!?) he would be, I don't know, spry and nicer and more assertive, but he was just kind of grouchy. A third thing I didn't was that some of the scenes didn't seem to fit together. It was like they had cut too much. Like Faramir (who was so different from the book Faramir they might as well have given him a different name and skipped F. altogether, but I won't get into that!) how would he have known that Boromir was dead? In the book, he sees the funeral boat in a dream or something, but in the movie, I felt they needed to explain that more. In fact, before I went to see TTT, I cheated. I bought a photo guide of it..forgive me...and I counted at least 2 scenes they showed in the book that were not in the movie. One was a picture of Gollum when he was Smeagol and looked like a hobbit. It said in the book that as they journey to Mordor, he tells Frodo and Sam how he stole the ring from his cousin and there's a picture of them fishing together, and there was nothing like that in the movie! Another was that Faramir supposedly leads Frodo and Sam to the sewers so they could pass under the orc sentries unnoticed (which I was glad was not in the movie because then people who had not read the books might think that Tolkien maybe kind of copied off Les Miserables). So does anyone know where those scenes went to??? And lastly, when Legolas and Gimli think Aragorn is dead and he comes to Helm's Deep and Legolas, instead of crying "Aragorn! You aren't dead! I'm so glad! (OK, now I know THAT would have sounded really stupid, but I'm not a script writer!) he says "You're late." That made me mad. It just seemed so trite and unemotional. Anyone else agree? Now to the things I thought were really good!!! The Dead Marches were so cool! They were actually even scarier than I had imagined, I was holding my breath when Frodo fell underwater and the dead people were after him! And Gollum was really good and sort of like the book Gollum. It's amazing what you can do with computers now, isn't it? My sister, who is interested in Psychology, loved his split personalities, the good Smeagol and the evil Gollum arguing with each other!!! The scenes where Legolas slides down the stairs on the shield firing arrows, jumps up on the galloping horse, etc. were really cool!!! But the part where the orc is running with the torch to set off the bombs and Aragorn yells to Legolas to shoot him, does Legolas actually for once miss? I had dropped some popcorn or something and looked away from the screen for just a second and then there was the orc still running with the torch and setting them off, so could someone tell me what happened? (If anyone's read this far, that is, this is getting too long, I know!) And I really liked the wolf creatures the orcs rode; that was an exciting battle scene. My very favorite part and I have no idea why it is, was where Frodo, Sam and Gollum are at the black gate to Mordor and the rock Sam stands on falls and he gets caught in the rock slide and slides down the hill with it and Frodo comes after to rescue him and they almost get caught by the creepy looking guards. I loved that part!!! And finally, the beginning, with Gandalf falling down the chasm or whatever you'd call it in Moria with the balrog and it turning out to be Frodo's dream was such a cool and unexpected beginning. There! That's my review! I'm really kind of surprised more of us Tolkien fans didn't like this movie; I loved it! But I try to enjoy the movie and the books seperately so all the character changes don't bother me so much. Oh! One more thing I liked, or rather that reassured me: Shelob is going to be in ROTK! She isn't going to be left out afterall! ( I liked how evil and nasty Gollum sounded when he said "She might do it!") I would have DIED if that spider had been left out! So with all the things plus Shelob that have to happen in ROTK, it's going to be one exciting movie! But in the meantime, I can't wait to go see TTT again!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for reading my review!!!

hipsuperstar

12-26-2002, 11:30 PM

ｏｖｅｒ　ａｌｌ　ｉ　ｔｈｏｕｇｈｔ　ｉｔ　A 367;ａｓ　ｐｒｅｔｔｙ　ｇｏｏｄ，　ｉ　ｍｅａｎ　ｌｏｇｏｌａｓ　ａｎｄ　ａｌｌ　ｔｈａｔ， 288;ｂｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｌａｃｋ　ｏｆ　ｓｐｉｄｅｒｓ　ｄｉｓｓａｐｏｉｎｔｅｄ　ｍｅ：）

Aelfwine

12-27-2002, 12:35 AM

calendilion, I can't see your post. Are you using a different font or something? This one works fine for me

TolkienGurl

12-27-2002, 04:05 PM

To The Necromancer:I totally understand your confusion with the fact that Arwen didn't age in the flash-forward scene. I agree that she should have.First, Elrond told Aragorn "I will not leave my daughter here to die," and then he tells Arwen that after Aragorn passes, she will go on living and not find rest (I can't remember what exactly was said). Here is a big contradiction! It sounds like he is telling Arwen that since she is immortal, she will never be happy staying with Aragorn because he will die but she won't. That is not true. She has the choice of becoming full human or full elf just as her father and her brothers do.And why were the elves leaving for Valinor so early? It was just plopped right in the middle of TTT when it should have been saved for the end of RotK. Was it for drama reasons? I think so, but the reasoning for this "intrusion of the elves" is faulty.

The Necromancer

12-27-2002, 07:06 PM

To TolkienGurl: Thanks for writing back and I'm glad you agree with me! When I first saw that flash forward scene, I thought maybe Arwen had really aged like Aragorn, but being an elf, she got to keep her "outside immortality" (her young appearance), but then of course Elrond had to say that she'll go on living, like you pointed out so that made it sound like she can't give up her immortality and I'm making no sense at all here!!!! About the elves leaving for Valinor in TTT, probably just for there for the drama of it. I actually kind of liked how it seemed that Arwen really was leaving Middle Earth (hope she doesn't! But then if she does have to go on living alone forever in Middle Earth away from the other elves after A. dies, in that case I hope she does!), but then if Aragorn had that conversation with Elrond about "Arwen's time is ending. Let her go." before the fellowship left Rivendell, I would have thought that in the first movie, Aragorn would have looked more sad when they were first setting off but he doesn't till now. But I hate criticising the movie like this, because I really did enjoy it! But I'm wondering if maybe the TTT I went and saw was somehow a shortened matinee (sp?) version. Because there was sure a lot of stupid, violent previews before it and when I looked at my watch, TTT still hadn't started until about 12:15 (it was supposed to start right at 12:00)but was still over by 3:00 and I know it was supposed to be 3 hours long, so did they haphazardly cut 15 minutes of scenes from it or what? For example, the part where Aragorn gets washed ashore after falling in the water with the wolf thing and that brown horse comes and wakes him up and he right away says "Brego!" (the horse's name) But you never even saw him with that horse before so how could he have even known its' name and why should it have been so loyal to him??!?! In the photo guide to TTT I bought before seeing the movie, Brego was the king's son's horse who had died and there was a picture of Aragorn with a caption saying "This horse has seen too much of war. Turn him loose." (or something like that!) But that wasn't in the movie!!! Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

TolkienGurl

12-28-2002, 09:38 AM

Oh, I've seen plenty of things in the "Movie Guide" that were not in the movie! Like the Smeagol/Deagol confrontation, Eowyn practically covered in blood with a sword (not her own!), etc.As for the Aragorn/Arwen thing, read The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A of RotK and maybe you'll understand like I do now after reading it last night. It explains stuff that Elrond said in the movie.

Purple Elf

12-28-2002, 12:09 PM

I liked the movie and could overlook most of the changes, elves at helms deep etc, as it is just a film we still have the books right! but i couldnt take the faramir thang that was just too far! where did he go he turned into Boromir and look what happened 2 him! I liked the way that PJ included the Arwen-Aragorn story from the appendix though it would help the people who have only cn the movie and not read the books, as i when i read them the 1st time i got very frustrated and confused about why aragon was turning down the lovely Eowyn! I just didnt get it and neither would other LotR virgins.

Ithaeliel

12-28-2002, 03:59 PM

My overall impression was that TTT was great, but FotR was better. I don't know, maybe it's the fact that the latter has a lighter theme overall (and displays more of the majesty and intrigue of Middle-earth), but I found that I thoroughly enjoyed the Fellowship of the Ring, while The Two Towers was a bit iffy. There were some parts that were too long and should have been shorter and vice-versa. I did not like Faramir's part in the movie; they made him seem almost as bad as his brother, for in the book it didn't take a long spiel from Sam to convince the man to let him and Frodo go. Gollum was very good; that's the best CGI I've ever seen, and it was the first time I've ever pitied the creature (now I'll be sad when he falls into Mount Doom!). Arwen's part totally contradicts her heroism in the Fellowship of the Ring, showing her softer side (and that's how it ought to be!) and the struggle that tears her between her father and Aragorn. Helms Deep was very nicely done, as were the Ents. I agree with the Necromancer that Theoden did seem kind of grouchy, but then... his son had just died .I also agree with Shadowstrife911, the climax was quite rushed, and I would have definitely liked to see the confrontation between Mithrandir and Saruman. They cut off a lot of the ending. If not the confrontation, I would have liked to see the captains and the Rohirrim meeting Treebeard and the Ents... that would have been a GREAT ending. Yet the movie was good. I'm looking forward to RotK. Ithaeliel[ December 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ithaeliel ]

Bill Ferny

12-29-2002, 11:32 AM

Willie,First of all I did say it was totally justifiable to hate the movie based on the fact that it was not faithful to the books. What I’m driving at is that sometimes you have to look a little closer to see that in many ways the omissions, additions, and mistakes were not necessarily contrary to the spirit of Tolkien. Looking above you see a brief discussion of the Arwen aging thing and Arwen/Elrond exchange, and Tolkiengurl, rather fairly, investigating the appendix to RotK and finding that PJ was right in line with Tolkien on the issue. Looking at the thread on Faramir, there are a number of interpretations that demonstrate that PJ was trying to drive home a point that Tolkien made in a different way.I don't think it fair to assume that PJ made the movies with Tolkien fans in mind. He says himself that the first time he read the books he thought it would make a good movie, not that "so many people liked the books, maybe I should make it into a movie." The first motivation for Mr. Jackson came from his own personal reading of the book, his awe at a good story, not intpretations, theories or any other such Tolkienology from a forum like the BD. In the end, I would rather someone make a movie about LotR based on their own love of the work, and not a kowtowing to fans.

Arwen Imladris

12-31-2002, 02:48 PM

TTT was great! It did not follow the books, but that is O.K. as it was ment to be based on the books, not a copy of them. My big things are the surfer elf, Aragorn "dieing", the way Aragorn seemed to encourage Eowyn a bit and that Faramir was soo mean.I really liked most of it though, even though it was not the same as the books, PJ et all did a great job of getting the feel of ME across. I especially liked all of Gimli's lines: Toss me, don't tell the elf. Over all, it was a great movie.

The Saucepan Man

01-07-2003, 09:25 PM

Hmm ... difficult, but I'll try anyway.As a film, I thought it was amazing. Absolutely stunning visualisation - the camerawork, the locations, the costumes, the overall 'look of it'. And excellent (on the whole) acting, Sean Astin in particular.Well-paced, great action (those battle scenes) and, of course, out of this world special effects.So, that's my view as a filmgoer. But, as a Tolkien fan, I couldn't help initially having reservations over the discrepancies. And I think it is valid to talk about them, when describing my thoughts on the film, because they affected my viewing of it. So, in the Ent scenes, I found myself thinking: "Hurry up, you'll never have time to get all the Huorns together and make it to Helms Deep in time to save the day". And "Elves? At Helms Deep? Surely not" (although it is a good way of conveying the elves' involvement in the War of the Ring since there is no reference to the assaults on Lorien). And, in the Faramir scenes, just when I was looking forward to that great dialogue beween Frodo, Sam and Faramir: "Hang on. Where are they going? Osgiliath? Eh?". (Actually, I didn't think the portrayal of Faramir was quite as bad as has been made out - he saw in time that Frodo and Sam should carry on their Quest and let the Ring go, despite the consequences for him. I think that this should set up well the scenes between him and Denethor in RotK.)But during the film and after, I began thinking what many on this thread have already expressed. This is an adaptation/interpretation of the book for film and for filmgoers, many (most?) of whom will not have read the book. And on that level, I think it works very well indeed. Only problem is, I was too preoccupied by the discrepancies to fully enjoy what was a fantastic film. So, I'm off to see it again this weekend.But the visualisation! Just as with FotR, I found myself marvelling at how the characters and locations were just I had visualised them when I first read the book some 25 years ago (except perhaps the elves, who I had always imagined as more other-worldly and less 'human like', rather than slightly effeminate with long blonde hair - sorry all you Legolas and Haldir fans out there .)But - Edoras, Helms Deep, Henneth Annun/the Forbidden Pool, the Dead Marshes, the Black Gate - spot on. Just as I had imagined them all those years ago (I can't wait for Minas Tirith in RotK, after the snippets in FotR). And the characters too - except possibly Theoden, who I always imagined as older with a long snowy white beard, for some reason. As for Gollum - well what can I say that hasn't been said already. Sublime acting (for acting it was). The Smeagol/Gollum scene was worth the ticket price itself. And the Ents - I always thought it would be diffcult to portray Treebeard without him just looking like a tree with a face and arms - but they pulled it off. And the Oliphaunt - noone's mentioned the Oliphanut ('though I wouldn't like to be one of the poor b*****s who has to sit in the 'castle' on top).So, these are my thoughts. Sorry if they're a bit rambling. Overall, I have overcome initial disappointment at the changes to rate it as a great film. And I can't wait to see it again.

Veon

02-10-2003, 04:09 PM

Overall impression in short:Beautiful, grand, no substance.PJ is advertising the nature of New Zealand and his visual effects company instead of concentrating on telling a story. 30 to 45 minutes could be cut out of the movie without anyone ever noticing it.The New Zealand Board of Tourism sends PJ a big bunch of flowers with a "Thank you!" card attached.Good, but FOTR was much better.Anders[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Veon ]

LadyElbereth

02-10-2003, 04:52 PM

Ack! I can't remember if I posted here or not! Oh well, I'm just gonna go ahead and state my opinion anyway.It was a great movie, but there were some parts that I was dissapointed in. Such as... 1)The elves at Helms Deep 2)Haldir DYING!! 3)Erm, I wish they would've showed Merry and Pippin a teeny tiny bit more. 4)FARAMIR!! I mean that dude is no Faramir (David Wenham's did a good job though).The highlights(for me)in the movie were... 1) Every scene with Gollum in it! He was awesome! 2) The Dead Marshes.That place creeped me out. 3) The fighting scenes! 4) The Ent Moot. It was so cool to see all those Ents!I really liked The Two Towers and I thought PJ did an excellent job but I have to say that I enjoyed The Fellowship of the Ring much much better.~LadyElbereth

Magician of Nathar

02-13-2003, 06:04 PM

Everyone seem to think FOTR is better? Well, personally I think TTT is more attractive. FOTR is just too stiff for me. I do realize the movies are an adaption of established novels, but I would hate it if every dialogue is exactly the same. I think movie is a different media from novel. The directors should, and do have more liberty. I find the movie very beautiful, and way more attractive to non Tolkien fans. I mightily enjoyed the changes, they are more of a flavor. Can't wait to see ROTK!!!!

markg

02-27-2003, 05:59 AM

I think for me, the film was very good, as good as FOTR, but a few of the discrepancies stopped it from being great. The major problems i had were :-Theodens character - Where was the wise old king? The guy on screen didn't need to be posessed by Saruman, he probably would have listened to Grima anyway. And that created a whole other problem. The need for Grima at all. Why does he need to be whispering in theodens ear, if Theoden is posessed? Didn't make sense to me.Helm's Deep - Elves there? I don't think so. It wouldn't have taken more than a couple of lines of dialogue and/or cutaway scenes of elves and dwarves in there own battles to show why they couldn't come. I don't think that's why they were there. I think PJ didn't think the none tolkien audience would buy the trees saving the day. Therefore he needs a new "7th cavalry", which has to be Eomer. Therefore he needs more troops to make a credible defence, and can't just double the size of Rohan's army. There were a few other things that bugged me a little, but they were the major ones. They didn't spoil the film for me, but they pulled me out of the narrative and spoilt the flow for a little while. Faramir was a different story. Until the end i thought he'd changed a little too much, but i now feel they just dragged out his understanding over a longer period of time, which left too little time to show his good side. I feel we will see him in his true light in ROTK, if not the extended version of TTT.Too the people who don't mind the changes :-The reason i have a problem with them, although i must stress again i liked the film and they did not spoil it, just took it down a notch, is the way Tolkien wrote. To me, he didn't create great stories, he created a living breathing world, and then filled in it's history. One of his greatest strengths is attention to detail. In most cases, if a character mentions some part of history, you can find the story in the silmarillion (or elsewhere). It all interconnects, and it all seems real. To me, it's a history as real as our own. that's why i don't like the Chris Tolkien books which show alternative versions of stories, as it spoils the illusion. So when the film deviates too much from the books, i don't think "that's not what he wrote", i think "that's not what happened", or "that's not what he's like". Someone before mentioned Braveheart, and it's the perfect example. It just depends whether you can accept the artistic licence. To me, Braveheart is flawed, because i lose the sense of the world that has been created when i see things that didn't/couldn't happen for the sake of the story. To others, a good story is the key, and the details are less important. Neither view is right or wrong, it's just what's important to us as individuals, and colours the way we view the films.All that remains is to apologise for the length of the post, although i doubt anyone's still reading by now!

HCIsland

02-28-2003, 09:42 PM

I was thumbing through reviews at <A HREF="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/reviews.php" TARGET=_blank>Rotten Tomatoes</A> when I came across this comment which to me sums up the main issue I had with TTT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It can't be easy starting a movie in the middle, staying in the middle, and then ending it in the middle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the changes that PJ introduced were mostly to address this problem and try to give more of a structure to this story by making the central plot the saving of Rohan. In the end though, I don't think he completely succeeded, mostly because the parallel story with Sam and Frodo kind of clunked under it's own weight in Osgiliath.Don't get me wrong, I really liked this movie and I think Jackson did as good a job as could be expected (I think I gave it 8.5 or 9 on some thread or another), but in the end I don't think it was as strong as FoTR but should likely stand up very well when the three films can be watched together as a single work. As a stand alone movie though, I think a movie goer that is not familiar with the material would get the impression that the LoTR story line pretty much ends up where it started at the beginning of the film. There's a lot going on up on the screen, but not a lot happens.In the end, PJ likely made the right decision going more for the razzle-dazzle slam-bang battle sequences then the emotional impact we saw in Fellowship and we are almost sure to see in RoTK.H.C.