A TTT poll

[Peri]

For those who have seen TTT, did you think it was better, worse, or just as good as the first movie? Who was your favorite character? Why?<P>(Title spelling edited for better understandability)<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

[Rose, the youngest]

I like it better, and the reason is simple. We have finally passed the stage of setting up for the major events, all of the key characters have been intoduced, and the plot has already started the thickening process. The struggles of Frodo are actually visable this time; Gollum is a tangible threat; the men are shown with a real power. I like this one better.

[Túroch]

Better, better, that travesty better? The only thing I can say is look st my post in overall impressions to get the low down. It was much worse then FoTR. My favorite character was Eomer, who but some fluke of PJ's design was hardly in the movie at all and had less screen time then Arwen who isn't supposed to be in this book at all.

[Sharia]

I'm stil really upset about some changes they made but my overall impression is that it's worse than FOTR. In FOTR they have "allowed" the caracters to be just as they are described in the book (one could proably say they've changed Arwen but then again we don't know much about her since she's not all that important in the books), this gives FOTR a few more "types" of personalities. In TTT they have only have two "types" of people those who have a strong will and are ready to fight for the freedom of ME and those who cannot resist the power of the One Ring, and then to make it even MORE exciting they've changed a few things like banning Eomer and changing Faramir completely (I sure can't remember him being that arrogant, in TTT he's just simply portraied as a scum). <BR>The Lord of the rings is a beautiful story, it is written in such a beautiful way and you get the feeling that everything they do is just a small part of a much longer history (the one about ME) simply because they keep seing (ruins etc) or refering to things that has happened. This feeling is somewhat preserved in FOTR but it's completly lost in TTT. <BR>My favorite character in TTT is defenitly Gollum, he's so well done, I was amazed. I thought he looked computeranimated in FOTR and to be honest I was a bit worried, but I loved him in TTT. He alone makes the film worth seeing (or atleast bits and peices of it)<BR>However no matter how negative and disapointed I may sound, I still would like to see the film once again (after rereading the books) before I'm able to say that it's worthlessm but I do recon they've changed bits that didn't need to be changed. Ok I'm gonna stop now before you all start to hate me.

[-Imrahil-]

Well I liked it. But I did not like the way they changed Faramir. WHAT WAS PJ THINKING? There was absolutely no reason for it. He did so well in FotR staying true to the book why did he have to change that?<P>Anyone have any ideas about his reasons for changing Faramir?

[Beren87]

I did like the first movie better. The elves at Helm's deep was an uneeded thing, though I did like Gandalf's ride down the hill leading the men of Eomer.

[-Imrahil-]

Yes Gandalf on Shadowfax was great.<P>There were so many things to love, I can forgive the changes and mistakes (FARAMIR!!!)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please keep this thread on topic as a poll - overall impressions should be posted on the *TTT - Overall Impressions* thread.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Better? No. Worse? Not really. They are hardly comparable. They are so different in their scope and purpose. FotR felt like it was an eternity away when I was watching TTT. <P>Gollum was awesome, his details were incredible, but I think my vote goes to Eowyn.

[Sapphire_Flame]

I did like TT better, but it is very hard to really compare it to FotR. They're just so different!<P>My fave character vote probably goes to Eowyn, or maybe Sam. Gollum is high ranking too though!!!!!!!!

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

TTT was far worse. FoTR left a high standard and TTT did not live up to it.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Worse. PJ really screwed up. He went around the plot too much and things were changed too much. This movie was lacking something. It wasn't up to the standards of FotR and that made it dissapointing. PJ said that he would make each movie better than the next. If that was his goal, then he failed. And what about his other goal? To bring the book to life. He said 'book', not his vision of the book. Anyways, he still has another chance. Its all down to RotK. And even then, he has the extended TTT, yet to come out and probably in ten months or something. But the thing that really scares me is that PJ said he wanted to make each better than the next, right? Well if this was his view of 'better', then I'm really scared on how RotK will turn out.<P>Despite all of the downfalls and the fact that this was worse that the fellowship, this was a good movie. I just think that this is so disgraceful to the books, and after seeing TTT, I wish he didn't say he was basing on the books, he should say about the books. Yes this was the movie and not the books but its based on the books. If this wasn't such a serious movie series, then we wouldn't get so worked up on it and we wouldn't criticize it that much. But when you say that you're bringing the book to the screen, you can't expect us to take PJ's screw up lightly. He said it would be better. Well he didn't deliver.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Kalimac]

I thought it was as good; more was changed and the Faramir bit was just wrong (though I'm taking the view that all will be forgiven as long as Faramir behaves himself in ROTK - let 'em get the "character development" out of their systems in this one and then let him be what he really is at the last). But here they were starting with numerous disadvantages which they didn't have with FOTR. First off all, all those separate storylines. FOTR is quite linear, but I think I would weep at the thought of trying to integrate Merry & Pippin subplot/Theoden subplot/Frodo and Sam subplot plus all the minor skirmishes and of the course the major battle. Granted they didn't help themselves by throwing in a fourth subplot, which was Arwen - Leaving Or Not? but it's very understandable why it was there; we need more backstory on her for those who don't know, also simply need to be reminded that she's there (and get a glimpse of WHY Aragorn has stuck to her for so long).<P>So there's that. Then there was the fact that FOTR was such a huge success. Think about it - before I went to see FOTR (and most of my Tolkienhead friends were the same way) mostly we were just praying that it wouldn't be a total disaster - something along the lines of "OK, God, I realize this is a movie, just DON'T let them do A, B, C, D, E, F..." we were really worried. After seeing it and sleeping on it, we realized it was an incredibly good movie, went to see it numerous times, etc. Expectations were raised to a really, really high level, much higher than we'd had for FOTR. And when TTT turned out not to be the same as FOTR in terms of sticking to the storyline (and FOTR does diverge a good bit in places, however we've gotten used to it by now) we're angrier because we really expected a lot this time.<P>And I think we did get a lot - we got a movie that in the end WILL seem to be as good as FOTR, just done with a different approach. TTT really was the hardest one to do - it's got that "middle child" syndrome; no beginning, no end, and six million unresolved subplots. I'm sure that in ROTK - when the characters start to converge again - we'll be thorougly happy again (at least I really *hope* we are...arrggh...Faramir...)

[Have a day]

*ahem* This may not be the best first impression on my part but I have to disagree with most of you. How can you concieve of making a movie following a book to a tee? there simply is no way some of things in the book could have been transfered into script format without losing some of its inital impact. Plus, we all must take into consideration that some people entering the movie theater have NOT read the books and don't have the fullest comprehension on the books. They don't know that Faramir is not supposed to be like that or the battle of Helm's deep isn't being followed exactly like the book. The movie is entertainment and in the entertainment world things need to be changed so the audience will be enraptured by the story. I'm sorry if you can't look over what PJ didn't do and see that he did try his best. Please don't give me crap for speaking my mind, I'm only stating my mind. You all got to and here I am doing it as well. I'd like to say right now that I was pleased with the movie and am looking forwards to seeing it again. There was more room for action and interaction between the characters since character development was basically done with. The shots of New Zeland were breath taking and the overall impact of the story left me in awe. Once again, I'm sorry if the movie didn't live up to your expectations. We all have our own view on things.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> we all must take into consideration that some people entering the movie theater have NOT read the books and don't have the fullest comprehension on the books <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, that's their fault. They should read the books anyways. The movies were based on the books, so if PJ did the job he should have done, seeing the movie would be like reading the book. You should realize whats going on in the movie and its up to PJ to do that. If he had followed the books more closely, and portrayed the characters and events as they should be, then there wouldn't be this criticism. And all three movies should blend in with each other, just like the books did. If people are watching TTT and haven't seen FotR, then they will be confused and uninformed on some parts. Just like the books. You can't read TTT and expect to get the 'fullest comprehension' without reading FotR. My point is that if PJ had put the books on the screen the way he should have, then people wouldn't need to read the books to understand what's going on.

[Schmendrick]

Worse. Much worse. I understand that you have to make some changes when you are turning a book ( and especially as complicated and rich book as this one) into a film, but many changes were totally unmotivated in my opinion. I didn't mind too much the Elves coming at the Helm's Deep, but why change Faramir and Frodo so much? Why? <BR>And why show so little of Merri and Pippin? The whole film was all about MEN. The hobbits were as forgotten as they were in the Middle-Earth by other nations!

[Thingol1000]

1) Better!<BR>2) Aragorn<BR>3) The Numenorians of the Alkabeth come alive.<P>As an aside, PJ corrupted Faromir as a veficle to bring Frodo and Sam to Osgilium. (which was a very cool scene) Once their, Faromir was allowed to "revert" back to his proper form.

[Frieda]

I think it was better than the last one, though that's still hard for me to say. It's kinda hard to really compare them.<P>My favorite character though is Frodo. I like him because he's sweet, caring, and he is really cute. ~_^<BR>I also like Gollum.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How can you concieve of making a movie following a book to a tee? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Point taken. Some changes are necessary. However, in the first movie PJ made a remarkable attempt at faithfully recreating the book as closely as he could. In TTT he did not keep the same standard with regard to the book at all. There is no justifiable reason for changing Faramir and his interaction with Frodo. For some of the other changes I have heard reasons that at least can be understood, if not agreed with. <P>What is the point in making a movie from a book if you don't make the movie like the book? PJ has a responsibility to Tolkien and to all of us. This is not PJ's story to change as he sees fit, it is JRRT's story.

[LePetitChoux]

Much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, worse.<P>I could understand the whole Tom Bombadil thing, but Faramir? That I will never forgive. I just hope that PJ will reach his old standards in RotK.

Worse. I understand that you can't do a word for word version in a three hour movie. Sometimes things need to be modified slightly to keep the plot moving and all. However, I think PJ made some big changes in this one and I simply can't see how they are necessary over the original. He made some of the characters into entirely different people and I don't see any way it helped to move the story along. <P>As for characters. Gollum definitely wins hands down. Love the scenes with him arguing with himself. Eowyn also did a great job I think.

[-Imrahil-]

Favorite characeter: Gollum.<P>Simply put his performance was amazing, beyond words. Bravo Serkis~!

[PippinSqueak]

I think it was slightly better than FotR because FotR had all of the introductions. TTT got straight to the action.

[the mortal elf]

I think TTT was far better because I don't base how good these movies are by how close they stick to the book. My favorite character was Eomer (who should have gotten more lines!) with Gollum/Smeagol coming in at a close second.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

If you want to really enjoy this movie, switch off your exacting critic and watch it as it was seen by thousands of people that never read the books. It took me three viewings to get it. It isn't Tolkien, it's Peter Jackson, and it's really amazing - for Peter Jackson. FotR stayed with the book, TTT didn't, but that's okay because neither of them are the books, regardless of what Jackson promised.

[Marsyas]

Both movies have and serve their own purpose. I may not agree with the order of events and I certainly don't agree with Making good guys out to be bad but it served it's purpose and kept the story going.<P>*~Marsyas~*

[Hawkeye]

Much worse. To my mind, there's no comparison between FOTR and TTT. Peter Jackson, you failed! (in regards to portraying an accurate portrait of middle earth, that is. i'm fairly sure that it could be a good movie separate from LOTR, but it's not supposed to have to be that way!) <BR>Favorite character? Aragorn. Go Strider!!!

[Gorwingel]

I thought TTT was about the same as FOTR, I love both of the movies, so they are about comparable.

[doug*platypus]

So far the way I feel about the LOTR Trilogy is how I feel about the Star Wars Trilogy. Objectively, Two Towers is the better movie. Most people, I think, feel it is better, mainly because it isn't the first one, no introductions need to be made, all the characters are familiar, there's more action, etc. etc. I know The Two Towers is better, but I think that Fellowship of the Ring will always be my favourite. It was the first, the beginning of something great, it has The Shire, it has Gandalf the Grey, it has the Galadriel scenes, it has Sir Ian Holm's brilliant Bilbo, and it has the Black Riders. I don't know if it's possible for me to say one is better, but the other is my favourite, but there it is. <P>I don't know how it's possible since they were all filmed at the same time, but the costumes and makeup are so much better in TTT! The Uruk-Hai are amazing, there can't be people in there, it must be real Orcs!! Special Effects as well - the fight with the Balrog and the explosion at Helm's Deep are the two greatest effects I've ever seen! I thought the Balrog sucked in FOTR.

[aragornreborn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I think we did get a lot - we got a movie that in the end WILL seem to be as good as FOTR, just done with a different approach. TTT really was the hardest one to do - it's got that "middle child" syndrome; no beginning, no end, and six million unresolved subplots. I'm sure that in ROTK - when the characters start to converge again - we'll be thorougly happy again <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you want to really enjoy this movie, switch off your exacting critic and watch it as it was seen by thousands of people that never read the books. It took me three viewings to get it. It isn't Tolkien, it's Peter Jackson, and it's really amazing - for Peter Jackson. FotR stayed with the book, TTT didn't, but that's okay because neither of them are the books, regardless of what Jackson promised. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Both movies have and serve their own purpose. I may not agree with the order of events and I certainly don't agree with Making good guys out to be bad but it served it's purpose and kept the story going. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Amen, amen, amen. As a movie I loved it. Is it true to the books? No. Will I still watch it? Yes. Will I still like it? Yes.<P>Is it better than FOTR? I like 'em both. I'll have to let TTT grow on me before I fully decide. Watching ROTK might help, too. It is a trilogy after all. It's kind of hard to make judgment about something when we don't have the whole piece of the pie, yet. Just a nibble. "Do not be so eager to deal out 'scorn' in judgment... For even the very wise can not see all ends." (paraphrasing, but hey) Maybe we can all decide better after seeing all that PJ has to show us.

[Beruthiel]

I don't think I can compare them, I like them both but they are really different, FOTR was closer to the books, TTT was PJ's point of view. I can't choose between them.<BR>My fave new characters were Eowyn and Gollum, but I loved them all really

Hey who knows who the elf that came to helms deep was? I saw him in lothlorien in FoTR, whats his name and why did P.J. add him in the story?<P>-calendilion

[Estelyn Telcontar]

calendilion, the answer to your question is Haldir. However, this thread is about a completely different topic - voting on which of the two LotR movies was better. Please post on topic!<P>You can find the thread about Haldir <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001481" TARGET=_blank>here</A>.<p>[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

THANKS, SORRY

THANKS, SORRY

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

FOTR is definately better.<P>As a movie, TTT is just not as good. Why?<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> It didn't have the emotional impact.<BR><LI> It's pacing was awkward, and tended to belabor certain points. <BR><LI> There were certain plot devices that were quite strange. For example, in terms of movie-making you don't usually bring in a Narrator in the middle of the story without using them in the beginning and the end. <BR><LI> PJ has done too much telling in the TTT, and not enough showing (something that doesn't often happen in movies of this calibre); specificially with the narrator, Andy Serkis, and Sam. <BR><LI> If there wasn't tension over the possibility of Faramir taking the ring, if it wasn't clear without a narrator... well, that's a real time situation. You shouldn't have to use a narrator for that. Indicates a major problem with the dramatic tension to have to resort to such a device.<BR></UL><P>FOTR can stand on its own as a work of art, a movie. <P>TTT cannot. <P>I think people are more forgiving of TTT because the FOTR was just that good.