"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Failure]

A New Power Is Rising.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/151/LORDOF2RRP.jpg
"The world is changing. Who now has the strength to stand up against both Saruman and Sauron...and the union of the two towers?" - Saruman

Release Date: December 18, 2002
Studio: New Line Cinema
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Sir Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Sir Ian McKellen, Dominic Monaghan, Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies, Andy Serkis, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving

Plot Summary: At the end of part one, the Fellowship was forced to divide. "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" traces the journey of Frodo (Wood) and Sam (Astin) as they venture deeper into the land of the enemy – with the mysterious Gollum (Serkis) serving as their guide – while their companions in the Fellowship, Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Davies), struggle to rescue the captured Hobbits Merry (Monaghan) and Pippin (Boyd). Their destinies now lie at Two Towers – Orthanc Tower in Isengard, where the corrupted wizard Saruman (Lee) waits, and Sauron’s fortress at Barad-dur, deep within the dark lands of Mordor. In addition to Gollum, The Two Towers also introduces the people of Rohan, led by King Theoden (Hill), his niece Eowyn (Otto) and her brother Eomer (Urban); Faramir (Wenham), brother of Boromir; Wormtongue (Dourif); and the Ent, Treebeard.

Visit the official movie site here (http://www.lordoftherings.net/).

Buy the movie! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005JKZV/toonzone03)

Comments?


Finally! If there's such a thing as a "can't miss" movie, this is it folks! I'm there first thing after I finish my finals tomorrow. And I'm sure I'll be there over and over during Christmas break as well. :D

Also check out the talkback for The Fellowship of the Ring (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?threadid=14975).

[Weatherman]

............................whoa. Can't say much beyond that right now seeing as I have to ge to sleep. But, whoa, what a hell of a movie!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Joe Wagner]

This is the movie that I have been waiting to see for over a year (as soon as I got out Fellowship of the Ring) and I can't wait to finally go see it. Everything I've seen so far looks absolutely amazing and I don't expect it to be anything but. While I won't get to see it until this weekend I can't wait to finally see it.

-Joe!

[Stupendous Man]

I caught a midnite screening of TWO TOWERS last nite in a full
theatre of excited fans.

I will preface this by saying Ive read the books, I love Fellowship and thought Jackson did a fabulous job of translating that first tough book to the big screen.

I was so impressed by Fellowship that I was confident that he could do no wrong with TWO TOWERS. Plus the TWO TOWERS trailers seemed to hit all the right notes with me ..so I was psyched.


SO despite all that .. I found myself wistfully disapointed with TWO TOWERS. And trust me I dont want to be, I keep trying to convince myself the movie wasnt off the mark, maybee my expectations were too high. Im not some guy who walked into that theatre looking to nitpick, I would have forgiven much.

BUT I was disapointed. TWO TOWERS is a weaker film than FELLOWSHIP.

HERES why Ive come to that conclusion :

When Jackson translates TOLKEINS material to the big screen hes a master. He makes a fan like me giddy making lliterature I loved come to life. And in a movie like FELLOWSHIP that basically trimmed the text but kept to the meat of the story faithfully he produced a masterpiece.

BUT in TWO TOWERS , Jackson doesnt just trim he adds and changes plot points and themes. When Jackson adds his own
material to this classic , this is where the movie fails.

TWO TOWERS should have been a movie where you left the theatre thinking .. they cant possibly win this, Saurons going to win.. there pinning all the hopes on FRODO and the rings allready consumed him.. hell never be able to destroy it.

Instead the movie provides no dread because the characters , the novels heroes have become superheroic in this film.

WHen the hordes of Uruk-Hai surround Helms Deep - 10,000 strong against a small force of 700. You should be sitting on the edge of your seat ... a sense of dread should overwhelm you.

But here Jackson adds elements not found in TOLKEINS text..
such as aragorn and glimli fighting 200 orcs on a bridge singlehandedly without breaking a sweat or suffering a wound.

When two men can hold off 200 without a scratch .. you begin to think maybee 10,000 to 700 is hardly a fair fight. Saruman should have sent more orcs. Jackson gives you the impression though that TEN MILLION orcs wouldnt have made a difference.

The defenders arent really shown falling in battle... the heroes are never overwhelmed. Wheres the tension ? This doesnt convey TOLKEINS point about the horror of war or the power of evil.. this only serves as an opportunity to show an elf riding a shield as a sled down stairs , extreme sports in medieval times.
TOLKEIN would have rolled over in his grave.

Dont get me wrong though .. I make this point not as someone who cares that TOLKEINs text wasnt followed to the letter , but as a movie buff who thinks that if your going to depict heroes in a struggle of epic proportions.. that there should be some struggle involved.

[Barb Gordon]

*latches onto Aragorn* mine mine mine...erm, ahem, anyhoo... This was fantastic! I just saw it with my parents and boy did I love it. Everyone has their own thoughts, but in no way did I find this lacking. I could care less what they forgot and what they added, this movie rocked hard. Who cares if they add something as long as the movie still gives the same effect? And Two Towers certainly did that.
Even though I've read the books and knew what would happen, I was still caught up in the moment of feeling despair for Helm's Deep. I thought that scene in particular was quite well done. They put so much hard work into that battle and it really did pay off in the end. I loved how they kept in Legolas' and Gimli's little fun of seeing how many Orcs they could each kill. Although things were kept out, they still had all the important moments, which they portrayed beautifully, and in the end, that's all that matters. The Ents were simply splendid. I was especially anxious to see how they turned out, and they seemed perfect to me.
The bit of a recap in the beginning was nice too. It really helped to hush the audience and bring freshly to their minds where they left off, all the pain and anguish that had occured, and how hopeless everything seemed at the moment. Although they didn't end this one in the same way, I felt it was still a fine ending. You felt elated that things were going well for Aragorn, Gandalf and the others. But even in all that happiness, you knew things weren't right for Sam and Frodo. In the back of your mind you know the struggle Gollum is still going through, and the danger he's leading them into. So it wasn't like the movie ended that happily.
Now Gollum....WOW. He is truly amazing. True all we see is the CGI Gollum, and only hear the actor's voice, but Andy Serkis IS Gollum. His voice is perfect, sending shivers down my spine everytime he said "Precious". And the scenes where Smeagol/Gollum were fighting with each other, my goodness they were outstanding! Only a Shakespearian actor could pull off a character like that so successfully. He was as great an actor as any of them. Sure all we see is the CGI part, but he did all the scenes with the characters, and his voice is one of the best parts that really brings Gollum to life.
I'm quite the equine fanatic, and I was certainly blown away by the stunning horses they had in Two Towers. Shadowfax seemed to have literally lept from the pages of the book and into the screen. And the horse Aragorn rode was a beauty too, and quite well trained. I loved the horse shoving him with his head and slobbering all over him when he had been washed ashore. And what a risky scene with the horse kneeling down to him, but it was wonderful nonetheless.
I also enjoyed how they threw in more Elvish then was originally written into the story. It was certainly an add on I enjoyed very much. It's such a beautiful language, and I found it really added more to the movie to have more of the Elvish culture intermingled here and there.
This movie, like the first, still carried the same magic, and still left you with the same incredible feelings at the end. Tolkien is nothing short of a genius, and Jackson is nothing less than a wizard for beng able to bring this story to life so successfully to the big screen. At least those are my two cents.

~Barb

[RayChuang]

Having seen the movie earlier today, I can way this:

WOW. :cool:

Yes, the character development was somewhat lacking compared to the first movie, but gawd, here's what I loved:

1. Gollum--Jackson got the character almost exactly as I envisioned him in the books. Andy Serkis was absolutely awesome playing that character.

2. The Battle of Helm's Deep. This has got to be some of the most AMAZING CGI I have ever seen on film. It's definitely way better than any of the large-scale fight scenes in the first two Star Wars prequels.

3. The inteaction between Legolas and Gimli. The comic relief of the Legolas/Gimli relationship worked surprisingly well indeed.

4. The breathtaking cinematography. I really liked all those great wide-pan shots of all that awesome New Zealand scenery, even better in many ways than the first movie. :)

I'm seeing this movie again as soon as possible. It's a 4.5 out of 5 star rating, in my humble opinion. :)

[Sheamon]

I thought the movie was great, even better than the first film, which I loved. I've read the book itself multiple times but didn't really have that much of a problem with the changes that I've seen people at other places go crazy on (like Elves at Helms Deep, or the absence of Huorns). Gollum was PERFECT. Everything I imagined him to be. Unlike the horribly handled Jar-Jar from Star Wars they worked him in there like he was an actual person and made him a very sympathetic character, like he was in the book. The battle sequences were great, and the scenery and effect were perfect. Music was well done too.

The only big complaint I have (Gimli being used as so much comic relief was annoying, but not the end of the world with me) is that they didn't come close to finishing the book, leaving out Saruman and Gandalf's confrontation, Shelob, Minas Morgul(its called the Two Towers and they leave one of the towers out!?), etc... while instead doing stuff that was never in the book like bringing Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath or Aragorn falling off the cliff. If they left that stuff out they should have easily had enough time to get to Shelob so the cliffhangar could be intact. Dunno about the Isengard stuff, but they should have left the cliffhangar in.

Anyway, despite that I give it an A+. The next year can't go by fast enough, I already anxiously await Return of the King :D

[Crystalfox0]

Fantastic!! I was very impressed. The battle of Helms Deep was excelent, and they portraied Gollum perfectly. The only real complaint I have is that they left of a big chunk of the story at the end. Oh well nothing's perfect :D I give the movie a 4.5 out of 5.

[Lunacat]

Wow...that's really all there is to say, isn't it? I saw this movie for a class field trip and I've been very anxious to see it. I was not disapointed in the least, EXCELLENT movie. Gollum couldn't have been done better, the fight scenes were amazing, Gimli's scenes while overdone were hilarious ("Why couldn't we pick somewhere else to stand?!" lol), and there wasn't a single scene I wasn't interested in.

I felt all the characters got equal screen time and development. The scenes between Sam and Frodo were wonderful and I think I felt a tear in my eye. I like the close friendship that has developed between Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn. I also liked that Merry and Pippin grew a backbone in this film.

So the big question: Is Two Towers better than Fellowship? No. They both have their strenghts and weaknesses but they pretty much equal in greatness. Just like the last movie, I was ready for another 3 hours when the credits began rolling. :D Go see it!

[Lunacat]

Ah! Forgot to ask, what was that song that played during the end credits?

[Barb Gordon]

hmm, not sure. I lingered for a bit of the credits, but what was playing completely escapes me. Anyone else get a kick out of the Ent that was on fire? He seemed to move pretty fast for an Ent to the oncoming water and shove his head into it. Almost feel sorry for Viggo. Doing a stunt(down the rapids after falling off the cliff) that wasn't even in the story that almost killed him...and then they didn't even use it in the film! And I don't think any of the three can be better then the others. They're all incredible peices of work that together form one hell of a visual masterpeice.

~Barb

[Opaque]

I too saw the midnight showing, and only slept one hour before getting up for school. To be completely honest, that was the best experience i have ever had in a movie theater, and quite possibly the best movie i have ever seen. I am now very urged to read the books. THe Battles were amazing, the effects were spectaculer, adn some of the comdeic scenes were ingenious... "You could have picked a better spot."

[Evil Dr. Reef]

...wow...

Wait. Let me rephrase that.

OH MY FREAKING GOD. IT ROCKED.

This movie was spectacular. Absolutely spectacular. Acting was great, CGI was incredible, and the battles were perfect. Gollum was incrediblely animated. My praise goes out to the CGI animators for this film, for they have done one helluva job. Everything looks so rich, detailed, and above all else REALISTIC (take note, Lucas), that it's a joy to watch. My only, ONLY complaint was that (IMO) the movie was either a little too slow paced or way too fast for the first hour of the film. What took a week or two to happen in the book was packed into the film in about an hour, or it felt soooooo drawn out that it was getting tedious. But the last two hours of the film surely made up for it. Helm's Deep and the Ents' siege on Orthanc were both absolutely incredible. Exactly as I imagined them in the book. And speaking of that fact, Gollum was the exact idea of what I had in my mind as what he was in the film. Andy Serkis was great, in both action and script. This is definetly my favorite film of the year.
*****

[Exatron]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
hmm, not sure. I lingered for a bit of the credits, but what was playing completely escapes me. Anyone else get a kick out of the Ent that was on fire? He seemed to move pretty fast for an Ent to the oncoming water and shove his head into it. Almost feel sorry for Viggo. Doing a stunt(down the rapids after falling off the cliff) that wasn't even in the story that almost killed him...and then they didn't even use it in the film!

It could still be in the extended version of the film that will be out on DVD next year.


And I don't think any of the three can be better then the others. They're all incredible peices of work that together form one hell of a visual masterpeice.

I have to agree that it isn't right to say one part is better than the others. These aren't three seperate films- they are one gigantic, nine-hour (presumably 10.5 hours for the extended version) film.

The Two Towers did have a few flaws (It deviated from the book too much for my tastes), but I still enjoyed it and can't wait til next year for the end.

[ZorBrak]

WOAH. That was just ridiculously cool. The battle of Helms Deep was AWESOME. The music, plot, and acting was of course top notch once again. Great story, great film, go watch it.

[Failure]

I have to say this was the first time I've been giddy as the movie started up, since well... the last LOTR.

I'll keep my thoughts in short bullets, to avoid rambling.

Was this a great movie? Yes. Was it great great? No.

There's more variety in TTT compared to FOTR. More comedy, more romance, more action. However, for some reason, the pacing seemed jerkier compared to the first movie. I know there were less slower parts in this one compared to the last, but it felt like the slow parts here felt longer and more labored than in FOTR. But that might have more to do with the fact that we're no longer taken aback by the freshness of everything.

Gollum was great. Gollum's expressions, the voice acting, everything was absolutely superb. Perfect. I really liked the good-evil battle that he was fighting the whole movie. I think it was a lot clearer here than in the book, where I felt he was much more evil. I think by doing this, they set the ending up to have even more emotional impact.

Gimli as comic relief. I did like this to a point. He was very funny. The part where he's on the walls and says "this is a great spot to put me" was hilarious. His scenes were a nice break. However, I think they overdid it to the point where I felt like I should laugh whenever he was on-screen, even when they were obviously not going for a comic effect.

The Ents looked weird. They weren't what I imagined. but that's not a bad thing, I was really curious how they'd look like in the movie, but while it wasn't great, I think they did a very good job. And the scene where they're attacking Saruman was very, very well done, IMO.

Ok, did anyone see Legolas' one handed mount on the horse? Jesus! That was FREAKING INCREDIBLE! Definitely the coolest instant of the movie.

The Helms' Deep battle. This was good, but it could've been so much better. I have to agree with Stupendous Man here in that while they were in a bad position, I never believed that they were in any real danger. I felt like they were defeating the orcs much too easily. In the end of FOTR when the fellowship fight the Uruk-Hai, although they were killing them off left and right, you could see them struggling. You could see how difficult of a battle it was and it made you realize how tough the Uruk-Hai were. But there was little struggle here. And I hope these huge battle scenes are better done in the RotK (kinda like in the first minutes of FOTR where Sauron is wiping out armies with one swing, now that sent shivers done my spine).

Gandalf's fight with the Balrog. WOW! That was just great. Totally awesome.

All in all, definitely a great movie. I can't say it's better than the first, but I can't say that it's worse either. I just feel like they're too well connected for me to consider each on its own merits.


hmm, not sure. I lingered for a bit of the credits, but what was playing completely escapes me. Anyone else get a kick out of the Ent that was on fire? He seemed to move pretty fast for an Ent to the oncoming water and shove his head into it. Almost feel sorry for Viggo. Doing a stunt(down the rapids after falling off the cliff) that wasn't even in the story that almost killed him...and then they didn't even use it in the film! And I don't think any of the three can be better then the others. They're all incredible peices of work that together form one hell of a visual masterpeice.

Hey Barb, where did you learn this? A TTT special? What exactly happened?

[Chibi Kageboshi]

Brilliant... Amazing.... AWESOME!

[Barb Gordon]

There was a TV special on TNT last night, so I watched it in anticipation of the movie. Dad said it had been on before, but I'm not so sure, I had never seen it advertised till the night of. Anyhoo, after he falls off the cliff we know he floated down the river because we see him wash up on shore where the horse finds him. Well in the Return to Middle-Earth special they did a bunch of behind the scenes stuff, interviews and tidbits. One of the shots they did was Aragorn actually going down the rapids. They have on film him lying holding onto a raft and then letting go and them filming him floating down. Unfortuantly the rapids were faster then they had anticipated and you see Viggo slide right over to some rocks, not hard or anything, but he just suddenly slips under the water completely. He said he opened his eyes and realized he was under water and couldn't get up. Took him awhile before he was finally able to kick himself 15 feet back up to the surface. On film you suddenly see him pop up right next the other raft that had been waiting for him and he's clutching it and looking pretty exhausted. They showed a scene from the movie at the end, which was the Rohan group confronting the Orcs and the dog things. I saw CGI Legolas do his nifty mounting there and waited to see it again in the movie. It was so freaking awesome! Throughout the movies they never seemed to show enough of Elf abilities. I really enjoyed that they threw in a little bit of how agile and quick they are.

~Barb

[Failure]

Oh that sounds cool Barb! I hope it's something that's on the FOTR Extended DVDs. Wow, I can't believe Viggo did his own stunts, i would've thought they would've used a stunt double. That's pretty cool! (well, not the nearly dieing part, but the stunt part. ;) )

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by Lunacat
Ah! Forgot to ask, what was that song that played during the end credits?

I thought I recognized that voice!!!

It was Gollum's Song - performed by Emiliana Torrini. Emiliana is fast becoming my favorite new female vocallist. She did a song in Pumpkin that totally blew me away. I downloaded a few tracks by her...I think it's time to find a full length CD by her!

As for the movie, I loved it. A friend I saw it with, who is totally into the books, didn't like it for the same reasons other lovers of the book didn't love it. I guess I can't say I blame them, but I think it was a heckuva lot better than 99.9% of what I saw in the theater in the past year or so.

I wonder what they will add to the extended version? I doubt it will satisfy the book fans, as my friend said they would have to add another three hours to put in what they cut from the book. Wow, if that's true, I can understand why he was mad!

[Dalamar13]

...sigh...

I saw it a few hours ago. Personally, I was dissapointed. People I know say I'm too much of a purist, but I can't help it. I've read the trilogy at least 15 times since I was 13. I'm a fan of the books.....

Yes, Gollum was excellent. I was impressed with the great amount of care and effort they put into him. I was impressed with the Nazgul's new steeds as well. The battle of Helm's Deep and the Ents were pretty damn cool too.

My problem is all the stupid little stuff they added and deleted for no apparent reason. Like....

the Elves coming to help at Helm's Deep. Why change them to Elves? It makes no sense.

Merry and Pippin meeting Gandalf in Fangorn. It's totally pointless.

All the scene's with Arwen. Again it's pointless and half of it was made up. I know it's for the love story, but LotR was not a love story.

Faramir trying to take Frodo to Minas Tirith. Why!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Where the hell were the Hourns?? That was what made the Ent's army frightening. They had a whole damn forest following them into battle.

Why the hell was Shadowfax white??

Where was Gandalf's confrontation with Saruman? This really screwed up the end of that part of the story. Without it Aragorn doesn't reveal himself to Sauron and Gandalf doesn't ride to Minas Tirith with Pippin on Shadowfax.

My biggest complaint of them all is the ending. Why would they cut it off? Why not have Sam and Frodo make it to Shelob's lair? That was what made the book such a cliffhanger. You didn't know if Frodo was alive or not.

See what I mean? It makes no sense to me. IMHO this movie gets a C+. The first was far more accurate and enjoyable. I'll not be seeing this one again. I actually stood up as the credits started to roll and began to curse rather loudly about the ending and how I thought it was crap.

Thank god I didn't have to pay for my ticket.

[The Clown Prince]

For everyone freaking out about Shelob not being in this film, Jackson himself had said that for running time purposes, and according to Jackson, Frodo doesn't have that much to do in Return of the King, so he was going to wait and have Shelob appear in ROTK. In fact, if you remember, Gollum hints at it at the very end of the film. He refers to Shelob as "She", but only purists and those who have read the book know who "She" is.

As for the Sarumon and Gandalf confrontation, that's gonna be saved too for ROTK. Why the Hourns weren't in it, I don't know. Maybe the animators had too much too worry about, or budget constraints. Who knows. I'm sure there is a good reason they weren't in it. But it looked like the Ents held their own. Even the one that caught fire and put himself out. :D

I thought the Elves fit in nicely at Helms Deep. It really made no difference to me who was originally there and who wasn't.

As for the Return to Middle Earth thing that was on TNT, it was on TV before. It was the WB about 2 or 3 weeks ago.

Great movie! Can't wait to see it again, can't wait for the extended DVD, CAN'T WAIT FOR RETURN OF THE KING!

The Clown Prince

[The Guard]

FRODO

Elijah Wood was stellar yet again, in a bit of a smaller role, but still fantastic. His facial expressions, his emoting. He was great. You can see the burden he carries. The weight of his mission.

SAMWISE

Sean Astin is the Dark Horse of this movie. He also had a smaller role, but he flat out shined.

GOLLUM

Andy Serkis did a fantastic voice, and this is hands down the coolest CGI character I've ever comprehended. He looked and felt real. The split personalities were handled well, but the one scene stank of Willem Dafoe's SPIDER-MAN scene. I mean, some of the lines were even the same, like "I've got us this far", and so forth. It was still great. Gollum was funny as hell in places and tragic in others. Fantastic, though.

MERRY AND PIPPIN

These two got smaller parts, but did very, very good jobs with the time they were given. Dominic Monaghan won me over with his speech to Treebeard.

TREEBEARD

WOW. This is what I thought Treebeard would look like. And then to see him move, and hear him talk, and see all those Ents coming out of Fanghorn after his cries...that was so cool. It reminded me of the feeling you got in JURASSIC PARK.

ARAGORN

I love Viggo Mortenson. And he did nothing to change that. His lines were delivered so well, his facial expressions, his fighting, the chemistry between he and Arwen, he and Legolas, he and Theoden.

LEGOLAS

Stole the show during the Battle of Helms deep. First he rides a shield down the stairs, and still manages to imbed the shield into an orc's chest at the bottom. He had some of the best lines. "I'm on 19." You could really see the friendship developing between he and Gimli in this installment.

GIMLI

Comic relief, but it worked. Oh, did it work. John Rhys-Davies had perfect comic timing, and seemed to embrace his role.

GANDALF

What can be said? Ian McKellan was his usual stellar self? Did he shine like he did in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING? No, because he had a smaller part. But he was Gandalf, there was no question.

THEODEN

Bernard Hill was excellent as the King of Rohan. He just oozed royalty and leadership. You could see King in his face, and his movements. Great job by this actor.

SARUMAN

I was disappointed that we didn't get to see Saruman and Gandalf showdown, but I can see why, and I know we will see it in RETURN OF THE KING. Christopher Lee didn't get much screentime, but he oozed evil when he did, and was a lot more believeable this time around.

CGI

WOW. Just wow. Ents, Oliphants, Thousands of orcs. And it all looked REAL REAL REAL. I have never seen CGI look this good. STAR WARS, eat your heart out.

MUSIC

Howard Shore turned in another fantastic score, meshing that "franchise theme" with new, darker music for the battles and Gollum scenes, and a great romantic theme as well. I can't wait to snatch up this soundtrack.

THE BATTLE

WOW. This is the best battle scene that we'll ever see. Because it was a hell of a battle. People from both sides died. You could see the confusion, the pain, the fear. You could feel their exertion, or adrenaline. Just...wow. You'd think it would get boring, but it was done so well. The choreography was fantastic. That's the only word for it. Fantastic. The emotion in these scenes was just...wow.

THE PLOT AND PACING

Yes, Peter Jackson and his team of writers changed things. But it worked. THE TWO TOWERS is full of stuff that could never all make it into a 3 hour movie. Hell, Treebeard's poems take up half the book. He managed to condense the Isengard scenes, and still leave room for character development and the battle of Helm's Deep. And whatever he did worked. The pacing was a little odd in the beginning, but damn, did it pick up toward the middle. And it worked in the end. Oh, did it work.

THE ENDING

I would not have ended it where Jackson chose to end it. I would have ended with the previous scene where Gandalf says "Now...the battle for Middle Earth begins". Perhaps the Gollum scene could have preceded this. Who knows. But the ending seemed a little awkward, not at all poetic like the ending of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.

OVERALL

This is a worthy successor to THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and in some ways, beat it with a stick. The special effects were breathtaking, and the acting was as good or better than the first installment. It was definitely not a letdown.


The defenders arent really shown falling in battle...

I saw quite a few of the Helm's Deep defenders die. At least as many as the orcs (other than the ones squished by the ladders) Orcs took out a ton of them with arrows. Some of them were pulled off their perches when the orcs raised ladders. Quite a few of them died.

the heroes are never overwhelmed.

Yes they were. Several times. They had to retreat like three times. They were getting SLAUGHTERED for a while. It would have been all over if the Riders hadn't arrived.

Wheres the tension? This doesnt convey TOLKEINS point about the horror of war or the power of evil..

I'll apologize later, but WHAT MOVIE WERE YOU WATCHING? There was NOTHING but horror and terror and the confusion and heat of battle in that movie. Nowhere, other than Legolas's shield stunt, was there any kind of clever heroics. It was kill or be killed. I thought the point came across very, very well.

[Dalamar13]

Originally posted by The Clown Prince
For everyone freaking out about Shelob not being in this film, Jackson himself had said that for running time purposes, and according to Jackson, Frodo doesn't have that much to do in Return of the King, so he was going to wait and have Shelob appear in ROTK. In fact, if you remember, Gollum hints at it at the very end of the film. He refers to Shelob as "She", but only purists and those who have read the book know who "She" is.

If there were problems for running time he should have cut Arwen and left in the actual ending. I don't know what Frodo having less to do in the RotK has to do with anything. It makes no sense.

[The Clown Prince]

Originally posted by Dalamar13
If there were problems for running time he should have cut Arwen and left in the actual ending. I don't know what Frodo having less to do in the RotK has to do with anything. It makes no sense.

It does make sense because (according to Jackson) Frodo doesn't have that much to do in ROTK, so Jackson held off on Shelob in TT so Frodo would have more to do in ROTK.

The Clown Prince

[HellCat]

It was a very good film. I have to agree with a friend who feels that these movies are much better then Star Wars, or a good deal of the others he really likes. After coming out of the cinema, I was a bit upset that it hadn't stuck as close to the book as FOTR did. But if you can look past that, you have a great movie. Did anyone else feel like they were falling with Gandalf and the Balrog at the start? I actually felt like I was falling and accelerating with them and for a split second was scared of a hard landing :o :p As everyone else has mentioned, Gollum was very well done. I'm sure that soon the poor guy will have even more 'Preciouses', but not from Mordor but various award boards.

As a movie of the book it was good. As a movie by itself it was great!

[Clayface]

I saw it last night, and I enjoyed it very much. I'll be taking my g/f to see it some time next week. Overall though, I'd have to say I enjoyed the first one more. I have read the books many, many years ago, and I don't remember them very well - I just remember I hated them because they were far to dry for my tastes. So, it wasn't a nitpicking thing for me - I couldn't have told you what was changed and what wasn't. But for me, the problem with this one was the pacing. I think it was said best earlier in this thread:




There's more variety in TTT compared to FOTR. More comedy, more romance, more action. However, for some reason, the pacing seemed jerkier compared to the first movie. I know there were less slower parts in this one compared to the last, but it felt like the slow parts here felt longer and more labored than in FOTR. But that might have more to do with the fact that we're no longer taken aback by the freshness of everything.


I felt much the same way. About an hour and a half into the movie, I actually checked my watch, and groaned to myself that I still had an hour and a half left to go. Something was just...off. I sat there wondering to myself if it wasn't just because this wasn't all fresh and new like the first one, or if it was something else. Whatever the case, I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one that felt that way.

[RayChuang]

Originally posted by The Guard
CGI

WOW. Just wow. Ents, Oliphants, Thousands of orcs. And it all looked REAL REAL REAL. I have never seen CGI look this good. STAR WARS, eat your heart out.

I agree 100% with your assessment. :cool: The MASSIVE program used by WETA Digital to create the battle scenes are nothing short of outstanding, with realism that is far superior to what Lucasfilm's ILM did in the first two Star Wars prequels. :D

And to think this will be ten times bigger when the Battle of Pelennor Fields is shown in The Return of the King. :eek:

I'm seeing this movie again just to enjoy that amazing CGI one more time. :)

[Marc]

I give LOR: Two Towers 3 stars. I was incredibly disappointed by this film. It certainly wasn’t bad and it was very enjoyable in parts, but I left the movie feeling drained, not energized like with Fellowship. Bear in mind, I’m not a fan of the LOR novels, and I suffered through reading them just so I could say I read them. As a film however, Fellowship blew me away. I thought it was fantastic from start to finish, and a clear visual interpretation of Tolkien’s often confusing (and boring) text. Two Towers just felt “off”. I know all three movies were filmed as one, just as all three novels were written as one, but everything felt different about this movie. And the CGI effects totally pulled me out of every scene they appeared in. Maybe it was just the screen that I was watching, but the contrast between live action and CGI was evident to the point of distraction. It must have been the screen, because Fellowship was not this way. And I never got the sense of menace from Christopher Lee’s Saruman and his uruk-hai army like I did in the last film.

Of the things I really enjoyed were great performances by Viggo Mortensen and Sir Ian McKellen, and fantastic voice work and motion capture “acting” by Andy Serkis as Gollum. Serkis deserves award recognition for his work here. Brad Dourif was also excellent in his brief scenes as Wormtongue.

I need to see Two Towers again, I have no doubt of that. One viewing is not enough to get a true feel for a movie. I’ll probably wait until the DVD release, and hopefully it will rival Fellowship’s awesome Extended Edition set. This is not meant to be a “bad” review and it’s really not a bad movie. This is just the dull middle 3 hours of a 9 hour film, and I really can’t wait until we can watch the whole saga from beginning to end. I think only then will everything fit into place.

- Cap

[LazyReaper]

This movie was AMAZING! I saw this last night, on the opening day. It had everything in there: Action, drama, romance.. the whole works! Now that Fellowship is out of the way, we finally got alot of the story to progress in The Two Towers.

The Fight scenes and CGI use in the movie was excellent! There were very little flaws in this movie. I think the only time I could actually tell they were using a blue screen was when Merry and Pippin were on top of Treebeard and walking down the road. But other than that, it was all flawless.

Gollum was THE BEST character in the entire movie. I swear, there was so much depth put into this character that it was totally amazing. The delivery lines, the actions, everything was perfect with Gollum. The part in the start where he's arguing with himself was one of the funniest things I've every seen. Everyone was clapping and laughing throughout that part; it was awesome.

Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were great, and also shined in this movie. I liked how they switched roles with Gimli being the comic relief in this movie. Aragorn was awesome once again. And I think Legolas, out of all, got the most cheers and claps in the entire movie. His stunt with flipping on those creatures (I don't know what they're called), and the part where he slides down with the shield shooting arrows was really amazing. I don't think anyone had any complaints about that ;)

The Story and the pacing in this movie was a lot better than the Fellowship. I really had no problem with all the changes they made from the books, (except maybe on Farmir's character) and I really don't see what all the other LOTR fans were going crazy about. I've read the books twice and I didn't have a problem accepting the changes. The movie flowed very well and the overall story didn't even suffer.

My only gripe that came with the movie is the ending. In the book, we think that Frodo is dead, and we have no way of knowing if he'll live or not. That cliffhanger ending was something that totally kept me on the edge of the seat. At the end we're supposed to see them in a losing battle, with Frodo being their last hope (who can barely even keep himself in check). But I see why they would do that. I guess they must have decided to leave that for the final movie, since there wasn't much stuff for Frodo and Sam in ROTK.

Not much else to say, except that overall the Two Towers was great. A definite 5 out 5 stars from me. Here's hoping for ROTK to be as twice as great! :)


-Aximlli-

[Novdeloth]

I'm still catching up on the sleep I missed from seeing the midnight showing on the 17th/18th with my friend and her boyfriend. It was so awesome. So freaking awesome.

I don't usually get into battle scenes, but the tomboy in me came out and I found myself really getting into it. I gasped, cried out, and whispered "No, no, no!" whenever a good guy or an Ent was attacked.

Gimli is now officially the comedy relief while Merry and Pippin have matured a bit and taken on some responsibility. One of my gripes is that Merry and Pippin didn't get enough screen time (I would have loved to have them go to Treebeard's house and drink that formula that makes them grow a few inches taller). I also expected to have Pippin spirited away by Gandalf after he gazes into the palantir, but next movie, I suppose.

I loved Gollum. I didn't expect to love him and find him such a realistic person. Those eyes were so creepy and cool. And, oh, god, I wanted to cry when he said "I hate you, I hate you." Just the way he said it...

If Andy Serkis doesn't get an award for his work, I'll be so mad.

[Failure]

Oh I forgot to mention my thoughts on the changed they made with Faramir. I like what they did with Faramir. Making him want the ring to help men, before realizing that it couldn't be. In the book, I just had this strange feeling with Faramir. That he was written in a way to compensate for Boromir. I'm not sure how exactly to explain it, but in the book, Faramir seemed unnatural. Being good solely for good's sake. But here, I can see why he wanted the ring to help the men in the war. Then I also like why how he changed his mind. It just felt more realistic.

[Sheamon]

Originally posted by Dalamar13
If there were problems for running time he should have cut Arwen and left in the actual ending. I don't know what Frodo having less to do in the RotK has to do with anything. It makes no sense.

Yes, it does. All that happens in ROTK is Sam rescues Frodo from Cirith Ungol pretty easily, they go straight to Mt. Doom, Gollum attacks them and falls in the Cracks of Doom with the ring You mean to tell me they could stretch that little material over the whole movie for their part in the storyline? I agree, they did stop early (they should have ended with Minas Morgul), but Shelob in ROTK is a necessity.

[Barb Gordon]

Well people love Liv Tyler, so I'm assuming that's the only reason they threw more Arwen into the mix. Because even Aragorn didn't show up this much in the second part of LOTR. But without those two they'd probably lose a little interest with some people.

Shadowfax was black in the book? I can't recall for the life of me, I just know he's a kick ass horse. I don't really see how it matters. It was a stunning animal, black, white, or purple it would have given off the same effect. If they changed it to white, I would think the obvious reason would be to go along with the whole purity, shiny light and whiteness that Gandalf the White had going on.

Yeah, Viggo and Orlando did their own stunts. Viggo had the most riding to do of anyone...and even on his days off he went riding! I didn't know, but Orlanda had broken his back a year before they started filming all of LOTR. I can't believe he could go through something like that and be riding, sword fighting and doing archery a year later. Amazing.

~Barb

[Dalamar13]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
Shadowfax was black in the book? I can't recall for the life of me, I just know he's a kick ass horse.

~Barb

Actually Shadowfax is a silver-grey. It doesn't really matter, I'm just raising hell about it.

[Barb Gordon]

lmao...well k...I guess raising hell can be interesting. At least I know I'm not going insane. I would have remembered a horse being black as opposed to white. And technically the horse wasn't white. I wont bore you were equine lingo and mumbo jumbo, but the horse certainly wasn't pure white. The first thing I saw when he first came galloping on-screen was a distinct silver mark on his chest. It spidered out down to his legs and across his shoulders. Not to mention his muzzle being darker. So he wasn't a pure white horse in any sense.

~Barb

[Dalamar13]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
lmao...well k...I guess raising hell can be interesting. At least I know I'm not going insane. I would have remembered a horse being black as opposed to white. And technically the horse wasn't white. I wont bore you were equine lingo and mumbo jumbo, but the horse certainly wasn't pure white. The first thing I saw when he first came galloping on-screen was a distinct silver mark on his chest. It spidered out down to his legs and across his shoulders. Not to mention his muzzle being darker. So he wasn't a pure white horse in any sense.

~Barb

Well the fact that you noticed silver on him makes me a little less crazy about it. You obviously know horses. I should considering how many of my friends own them. :rolleyes:

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

I just got back from seeing it.....I'm still overwhelmed.......

1) Gollum - Dead on. There's no other words for it. The voice, the movements, the looks, EVERYTHING is just the way I'd pictured him when I read the books. The CGI is incredible, and the acting was wonderful....

2) Ents - These ARE the Ents. You just can't deny it. And I truly loved Treebeard's reaction to the destruction Saruman's forces had caused. Seeing them bowling for Orcs and that one Ent rushing to put the flames on his head out were a nice touch too. ~_^

And I've decided on my favorite line in the whole movie. "Shall I describe it for you, or would you prefer I get you a box?" XD

[The Guard]

that one Ent rushing to put the flames on his head out were a nice touch too.

That was priceless. Just priceless. The sad thing is few people noticed it in the theater I was in.

[Barb Gordon]

really? what a shame. I had to stop myself from laughing out loud when I saw it. My mom even caught it and she doesn't catch things like that too often.... :p It was a really awesome touch. And that is an awesome line MR. Despite them putting in new stuff, which perhaps we could have done without though I liked it, I liked what they added for Gimli and Legolas. Although we get some of it in the story, I enjoyed how they emphasized how close a friendship a dwarf and an elf were having.

~Barb

[ghost15]

i was disapoited thuroughly although i still thiught it was an good movie but i had incredibly high expectations. i got so disapointed every time something stupid got added. they tried to make farimir to much like borimir even though in the book he is nothing like him and everything he does in the movie doesnt happen in the book. it seemed to drag in time like around two hours into it. the battle just never seemed to come. and when it did it was a bit of a disapointment to my high expectation based on the preview and the book. everything about eomar was different in the book two. he was not an outlaw and such. he got imprisoned yes but was set free. the grievences go on for ever. i ended up rating it 3 stars. because after all my complaning it was still a pretty entertaining move. i thought gimli was very funny. even though he was not in the book that did not bother me.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

::squeak:: I went to see it again, and I noticed the what has to be my favorite move. That one handed horse mount Legolas used when Saruman's scouts attacked on the way to Helm's Deep. CG, actual stunt, I could care less, that was just cool.

[Mynd Hed]

I felt it started out very well, but as the movie progressed, this sinking feeling just kept on creeping into the pit of my stomach.

I understand that there's a practical limit on how long a movie can be, and I appreciate the difficulty of choosing what needs to be cut and what needs to be kept. This is not a problem for me.

What IS a problem is when they cut some stuff out (like Shelob and the Saruman/Gandalf confrontation) and then put OTHER crappy stuff that's not in the books, like Aragorn falling in a bloody river, in.

This is not acceptable.

I can understand that maybe they want to save those very excellent scenes for the next movie. Okay, I can deal with that. But what's all this nonsense about Aragorn falling into a river, a bunch of silly stuff with Elrond and Galadriel, and Frodo, Sam, and Faramir going to Osgiliath? No. Postpone certain scenes for the next movie if you must, but DON'T replace them with stupid stuff that's not from the books and has no place in ANY of the movies.

There's nothing sacred about 3 hours that makes it the perfect length, you know. Just because Fellowship was 3 hours long doesn't mean that Two Towers has to be. If, after postponing Shelob and certain other scenes until the next movie, Two Towers winds up being "only" two hours long, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Or, hey, here's a wacky thought. Why not leave Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers, and then include The Scouring of the Shire in Return of the King? That would make all three movies three hours long each EASILY, and ALL of that time would be used to show stuff that TOLKIEN WROTE, not a bunch of bloody crap that some no-talent nobodies in a Hollywood studio somewhere thought would be better.

TOLKIEN WAS A GENIUS. THE SCREENWRITERS OF THIS MOVIE ARE NOT.

This is not an insult to those screenwriters. They are competent professionals paid to do a job. In this case, that job is to translate the work of a MUCH greater creative mind to a different medium, while remaining as faithful as possible to that mind's original work.

With The Two Towers, they failed miserably, and I expected much better after seeing the incredibly good job done with Fellowship.

That said, it's props time. Everyone even remotely connected with the character of Gollum needs eight or ten Oscars. He was remarkably faithful to Tolkien's vision, a flawless use of modern technology to portray a deep and interesting character.
Gollum is a hard character for ANYONE to portray well visually, whether the form is live action, traditional animation, or CGI. Anyone taking on this task has to walk a tightrope. There are so many ways they could have gotten him wrong: he could have been too creepy and not sympathetic enough; he could have been too funny and comic-reliefy; he could have been too sympathetic and not menacing enough; he could have been just plain corny. He was none of these things.
Gollum as portrayed in The Two Towers was absolutely perfect. He made that movie worth watching for me.

[Failure]

Or, hey, here's a wacky thought. Why not leave Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers, and then include The Scouring of the Shire in Return of the King? That would make all three movies three hours long each EASILY, and ALL of that time would be used to show stuff that TOLKIEN WROTE, not a bunch of bloody crap that some no-talent nobodies in a Hollywood studio somewhere thought would be better.

Hey Mynd Hed, do you know if the Scouring will be in ROTK or not?

[JetMaster5]

For the CGI effects and visuals, this movie is absolutely stunning. Everything that wasn't real, was real. The battles at Helms Deep was absolutely breathtaking. I did not have high expectations, not from the last movie (since having high expectations will usually ruin the fun in the movies). I definately like the oilaphants designs and Gollum, wow, Gollum (or should I say Smeagol?) was great. For eye candy and visuals, this is definately excellent.

For storyline and plot, it was also very good, but not quite as good. For one thing, I didn't see any need to change Tolkein's storyline. It was perfect on it's own. Messing with perfection is a very dangerous thing to mess with (especially in front of LOTR fans). Adding in bits of Aragorn and Arwen's relationship was unnecessary (though it was handled very well) and leaving out Shelob's Lair scenes and Gandalf & Saruman's confrontation was a bit dissappointing. But, since they're gonna show that on the next movie (I hope so), I didn't mind too much about it.

I definately liked the actors. They're at the peak of their performance.

I am very glad that they left in the parts of Smeagol vs. Samwise and the cooking. :)

I definately love a lot of things in this movie. It was great.

Here's hoping that they win lots of Emmy's. They deserved it.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Originally posted by jetwing5

I am very glad that they left in the parts of Smeagol vs. Samwise and the cooking. :)

"What's 'taters'?" :D

[ghost15]

the major samwise vs smeagal scene will be in the shelob scene which is lically to be in the next film. i am somewhat worried that they will not tie up the series after the conclusion scorring of the shire and marrages that is one of my fav. things about the book series is they tell you what happens to the charecters after. i am afraid also that they will not make merry and pippen the warriors that they became by return of the kings. like they might have aragorn destroy the wraith. i had faith in peter jackson before this movie. this makes me scared they will do something incredibley stupid to make strider look cool.

[RayChuang]

Originally posted by ghost15
the major samwise vs smeagal scene will be in the shelob scene which is lically to be in the next film. i am somewhat worried that they will not tie up the series after the conclusion scorring of the shire and marrages that is one of my fav. things about the book series is they tell you what happens to the charecters after. i am afraid also that they will not make merry and pippen the warriors that they became by return of the kings. like they might have aragorn destroy the wraith. i had faith in peter jackson before this movie. this makes me scared they will do something incredibley stupid to make strider look cool.

I don't think Peter Jackson is THAT stupid. :rolleyes:

Remember, in The Return of the King movie we will possibly see--


1. Gandalf confront Saruman and put him out of business.

2. Merry join up with the Rohirrim and later play a critical role with Eowyn in killing the Lord of the Nazgul.

3. Pippin go with Gandalf to Minas Tirith and play a critical role in later battles.

4. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas go into the Paths of the Dead and lead a ghost army that will eventually lead to a critical moment in the Battle of Pelennor Fields.

5. Frodo and Sam get attacked by Shelob near Kirith Ungol, Sam rescues Frodo from Kirith Ungol, and undetakes that final harrowing journey to Mount Doom.

6. Smeagol/Gollum attacking Frodo at Mount Doom in the climax to the film. :)

7. The Fellowship regathering after the destruction of the Ring to witness the wedding of Aragorn and Arwen.

8. The scene at the Grey Havens when Frodo and Bilbo leave Middle-Earth on their trip to the Undying Lands.

9. (Really crossing my fingers on this one! :) ), the final scenes using Galadriel's (Cate Blanchett) voice-over narration as Samwise and Rosie with their growing family meets King Elessar and Queen Arwen at the Brandywine Bridge, Sam giving the Red Book of Westmarch to his daughter Elanor before heading to the Grey Havens, the passing first of Merry and Pippin then of Elessar and Arwen, Legolas and Gimli sailing to the Undying Lands in a ship from the mouth of the Anduin River, and a very last scene with Frodo, Bilbo, Sam, Legolas, and Gimli, with Galadriel and Gandalf in the background on the isle of Eresseä in the Undying Lands.

[Mynd Hed]

Hey Mynd Hed, do you know if the Scouring will be in ROTK or not?

Well, nobody really knows for sure at this point, but it doesn't look good. First, take another look at the Mirror of Galadriel scene in the Fellowship movie. In this scene as described by Tolkien, Frodo saw the events in Scouring of the Shire more or less exactly as they happened later on. In the scene as it was depicted in the movie, Frodo saw orcs trashing the Shire and enslaving the hobbits, which is most certainly NOT what happens in Scouring of the Shire. So if Scouring IS included in the movie version of ROTK, I think we can anticipate it being inaccurate to one degree or another when compared to the chapter in the book.

Second, think about the time constraints of the movie. It's got to be as close as possible to three hours long. Now, think about everything the ROTK movie is going to have to cover. Every major event from the book, PLUS the final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman PLUS Shelob PLUS probably a bunch of lame added Aragorn and Arwen stuff. There are almost certainly going to have to be some omissions for time, and unfortunately I think the Scouring of the Shire is likely to be one of those omissions, since (like the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil) it's a chapter that can be excised without any huge continuity problems.

No, I'm afraid our chances of seeing Scouring on the big screen are pretty slim. Of course, I kind of expected that it would be omitted from the beginning, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.

[The Guard]

What IS a problem is when they cut some stuff out (like Shelob and the Saruman/Gandalf confrontation) and then put OTHER crappy stuff that's not in the books, like Aragorn falling in a bloody river, in.

This is not acceptable.

Calm down. Believe me, Saruman/Gandalf and Shelob are in RETURN OF THE KING. ROTK will be the darkest chapter in the trilogy, as it should be.

There's nothing sacred about 3 hours that makes it the perfect length, you know. Just because Fellowship was 3 hours long doesn't mean that Two Towers has to be. If, after postponing Shelob and certain other scenes until the next movie, Two Towers winds up being "only" two hours long, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Those scenes weren't added to fit time constraints. This is a six hour movie that has been cut into a smaller one. There was over two hours of usable Helm's Deep footage alone that had to be trimmed to forty minutes.

Or, hey, here's a wacky thought. Why not leave Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers, and then include The Scouring of the Shire in Return of the King?

Where are you going to put them? Write a script that allows them to fit in between the character development scenes for new characters, and the battle (which couldn't have been any shorter). Exactly. Using those scenes in RETURN OF THE KING will work fine, and add a TON to the final chapter of LOTR.

That would make all three movies three hours long each EASILY, and ALL of that time would be used to show stuff that TOLKIEN WROTE, not a bunch of bloody crap that some no-talent nobodies in a Hollywood studio somewhere thought would be better.

These no-talent nobodies have made Tolkein's work UNDERSTANDABLE and APPRECIATIABLE for half the population, so show some respect, friend. These no-talent nobodies are the reason you're seeing this at all.

This is not an insult to those screenwriters.

Clearly it is. Because you just called them "no-talent nobodies".

Hey Mynd Hed, do you know if the Scouring will be in ROTK or not?

It's in there. ROTK is going to be one of the best movies ever made when all is said and done. I've seen where Jackson has been asked about The Scouring, and he just smiles and says "it's in there."

First, take another look at the Mirror of Galadriel scene in the Fellowship movie. In this scene as described by Tolkien, Frodo saw the events in Scouring of the Shire more or less exactly as they happened later on. In the scene as it was depicted in the movie, Frodo saw orcs trashing the Shire and enslaving the hobbits, which is most certainly NOT what happens in Scouring of the Shire.

In TFOTR, didn't Galadriel tell Frodo "This is what will come to pass, if the ring is not destroyed"? I believe she did.

Second, think about the time constraints of the movie. It's got to be as close as possible to three hours long.

I've heard that ROTK could be three and a hald to four.

No, I'm afraid our chances of seeing Scouring on the big screen are pretty slim. Of course, I kind of expected that it would be omitted from the beginning, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.

Jackson is nothing if not a fan. And he's not stupid. He will not exclude one of the fan favorite moments in the overall tale. It's in there.

[Lunacat]

Oy. I'm a little disapointed that people are nit picking over this film. People, after ROTK is released THEN complain that certain things were left out/added in. You have to realize that transferring this story to the big screen is not an easy task by any means. Not only to you have to please all fans of the books you also have to make the story easy to understand for those who know nothing about the trilogy going in.

Who cares what color the horse it? So what if elves joined the battle? Unfortunatly, things like this will and DO happen when literary work is made in to a movie. It could be a lot worse.


It was Gollum's Song - performed by Emiliana Torrini. Emiliana is fast becoming my favorite new female vocallist. She did a song in Pumpkin that totally blew me away. I downloaded a few tracks by her...I think it's time to find a full length CD by her!

Thanks for the info! It was driving me nuts trying to figure out what the song was. :D

[LazyReaper]

To follow up on what Lunacat said, here's a quote from TheOneRing.net (http://theonering.net):

Will the movies measure up to the books?

The film version is an adaptation of the trilogy, not a literal word-for-word translation, and it will be difficult to achieve a balance that satisfies diehard fans of the trilogy as well as audience members who are not familiar with Tolkien's written word. Jackson said it best in his interview with Ain't It Cool News: "You shouldn't think of these movies as being The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is, and always will be, a wonderful book - one of the greatest ever written. Any films will only ever be an interpretation of the book. In this case my interpretation." Many Tolkien purists will need to take these words to heart and see the films with an open mind in order to enjoy them.
I hope that clears up a little bit :)

-Aximlli-

[Sandro]

Keep in mind that I have never read the novels (although I really want to).

To sum this up: UNBELIEVABLE!

The lengthy version:

I had my first taste of Tolkien's world one year ago when I saw Fellowship of the Ring. I thought to myself, "Wow. That was awesome! I can't wait for Two Towers." And I really wasn't disappointed at all.

The new characters were really good, especially Gollum with his problems. And the acting all around was still very good. Frodo stood out in this category for me. Using Gimli as comic relief felt a little strange but it worked. All the characters were good and Legolas kicked major ass! With his kickass, one-handed mount and the shield stunt, he couldn't have been cooler. Plus Orlando hurt his back and bounced back to make these movies; this increases my respect for him to unheard of levels.

The CGI.......WAS FREAKIN' BRILLIANT!!!!!! I have never seen the like, especially in the Helms Deep battle scenes.

The plot was good. Being the ignorant Tolkien newbie that I am, I didn't even realize there was added scenes. I didn't even notice because they worked pretty much flawlessly.

Overall, 4.5 stars. I didn't like the fact that the fighting scenes flew by but oh well.

[JetMaster5]

Originally posted by Mackenzie Rainelle
"What's 'taters'?" :D

:in Sam's voice:

"PO-TA-TOES!" :mad: :D

[Barb Gordon]

Although I've already stated how much I loved TTT, and how in general I thought everything was fantastic. But on my way home I realized the way thing that I actually didn't like, which has been mentioned by others already in this thread. It was them changing the Faramir character. He'd been one of my favorite characters, and when it came to his scene I was stoked. But then as it kept going I found myself going...uh..what the heck are they doing...why is he acting like that? I couldn't figure out why the heck they would change Faramir, and it rather bugged me. Can anyone think of a plausible reason for the change?

~Barb

[Evil Dr. Reef]

It was them changing the Faramir character. He'd been one of my favorite characters, and when it came to his scene I was stoked. But then as it kept going I found myself going...uh..what the heck are they doing...why is he acting like that? I couldn't figure out why the heck they would change Faramir, and it rather bugged me. Can anyone think of a plausible reason for the change?
My guess would be extra emphasis on how easy it is for the Ring to corrupt men, and maybe to show how good Frodo is since he's actually resisted it as long as he has.

And on another note, I went and saw it again today, and I must say that it seemed a LOT shorter than 3 hours this time 'round. And I also got the sountrack, which is super bad-ass. Anyone who appreciates decent music should go buy it.

[Barb Gordon]

I've been dying to find time to go buy it, and I hope to do so soon. I only wish that the song they used in the previews, Requiem for a Dream, was on the soundtrack. That score is insanely cool. I suppose that's a logical enough reason, though it still seems pretty lame to me if that is why they did it. We've already seen how the ring corrupts, the interesting characters are the ones that resist it or really don't care about it. Faramir was so different from Boromir, so much cooler to me frankly, lol, and I wished they kept that in. But eh, everything else was still pretty dang great.

~Barb

[Arde]

I guess I'm in the minority since I like Two Towers more than I like The Fellowship. It was when I saw the Fellowship when I was constantly looking at my watch since the movie was boring. I like it, but to see the Fellowship again will be torture.
As much as I like the books, in the first movie, Jackson followed the book too much that the pace just seems slow and boring (kinda like the first Harry Potter, I almost fell asleep watching it).
I think Jackson directed the second movie better, the pace was much better and much more interesting to watch.
Of course, certain scenes could have been omitted especially the scene of Aragorn falling down the ledge. It just doesn't flow well with the rest of the movie.
Other than that, it was with the intercutting between the battle scenes in Helm's Deep and Merry/Pipin's dialogues with the Ents.
THe first times was fine, but it later became quite annoying.

I gave the Two Towers 4.5/5

Other than that, I have all the same pros like you guys/girls have said in here.
Regarding the battle in Helm's Deep, my only complaint was Aragorn and Gimly killing the Uruk Hais left and right on the bridge(making them seemed invincible), of course this might be also because the Uruk Hais are on a bridge that limits their space a bit.
Other than that, although I know that the humans will win the battle(read the book), but what I was afraid was the casualties the humans suffered (they certainly suffered a LOT of casualties).

[optimuslives]

I fell asleep..any of the animated movies are better than Jackson's vision of Tolkien's works..I honestly gave this one a chance like the last one..but it just couldn't keep my interest

[The Guard]

why is he acting like that? I couldn't figure out why the heck they would change Faramir, and it rather bugged me. Can anyone think of a plausible reason for the change?

Because in the book, Faramir is good for the sake of being good, and it's hard to even see him as a real person. This version is truer to the idea that men can be corrupted easily. And when Faramir chooses not to take the ring, it's all the more powerful.

[The Clown Prince]

Originally posted by optimuslives
I fell asleep..any of the animated movies are better than Jackson's vision of Tolkien's works

Ouch! To each his own opinion, but I can't see how you think the animated versions are better. I'm not ragging on your opinion, I respect it, but I can't see why you would think that. I mean, we're all literally seeing movie history being made right here with these movies.

The Clown Prince

[Salvor]

Originally posted by The Clown Prince
Ouch! To each his own opinion, but I can't see how you think the animated versions are better. I'm not ragging on your opinion, I respect it, but I can't see why you would think that. I mean, we're all literally seeing movie history being made right here with these movies.

The Clown Prince
hmm I liked this movie, a lot, but in no way "history is made with these movies" :rolleyes:. Peter Jackson's work is nothing revolutionary, he actually draws upon a not so wide range of camera angles/effects which tend to be exactly the same as those in FotR (it's not surprising considering all 3 movies were shot at the same time): for example, filming characters running on a mountain top from a helicopter (usually with Shore's rather bland FotR musical theme playing along). Yes, Jackson is a good filmmaker but he's a limited one, and to me, he still has much to learn.

Truffaut, Hitchcok, Spielberg, Kurosawa made history: Peter Jackson sure didn't.

[Marc]

I believe The Clown Prince was refering to the making of these movies as "history being made". This is the largest film project ever attempted, and they faced the difficult challenge of adapting source material which was believed to be "unfilmable", as well as filming all three installments back to back to back. I doubt a project of this scope will ever come along again.

- Cap

[The Clown Prince]

Originally posted by CaptainInfinity
I believe The Clown Prince was refering to the making of these movies as "history being made". This is the largest film project ever attempted, and they faced the difficult challenge of adapting source material which was believed to be "unfilmable", as well as filming all three installments back to back to back. I doubt a project of this scope will ever come along again.

- Cap

(Smiles to self) Hey, there you go! That's exactly what I was talking about. I should have been more clearer. Thanks Cap!

The fact that such a project of this scale was attempted, and so far has succeeded on so many levels makes this whole thing nothing short but spectacular.

As far as the story goes, everyone has an opinion about it, whether it be bad or good.

The Clown Prince

[The Guard]

in no way "history is made with these movies".

Oh? When has a cast like this been assembled? When have so many big names come together and worked so well together, or taken smaller roles? When has a scene taken 7 months of night shooting to perfect? When have we EVER seen the level of CGI that went into Gollum, Helm's Deep, and the battle of Isengard?

Peter Jackson's work is nothing revolutionary

So...because he doesn't use David Fincher-style camera work, and instead uses a more traditional style, he's a bad director? Look at some of the shots, for God's sake. Look at how the camera moves in and out and frames characters when the Riders of Rohan surround them. Look at the shots he's chosen to include, with the sun rising and setting as they travel. That's what makes Peter Jackson a great director.

usually with Shore's rather bland FotR musical theme

Bland. Riiight. Howard Shore's music has an emotional level that John Williams WISHES he could touch. Yes, it's repetitive, but it works.

Yes, Jackson is a good filmmaker but he's a limited one

Limited how? In that he has his own style, and he follows it?

[Bird Boy]

I hearby state I enjoyed this more than Fellowship.

I didn't, however, think Helm's Deep was all that great. In fact, I thought it almost was short of sucking. I wanted more easily discernable scenes..the camera jumped from aerial to up close too many times I couldn't focus on anything for too long.

Other than that, I pretty much liked the movie. The battles were cool to see, and I never took my eyes off the screen...but there was just something missing. Something--I dunno what was missing, and I still don't know what. I left the theater feeling satisfied having spent 3 hours staring at a screen..but now while writing this and reading others reviews, I realize I wasn't that satisfied. Whether it was Jackson's ploy at trying to make Aragorn and Arwen one of the center points..I really don't know. But I do know, that I couldn't give less of a crap about Arwen--sure Liv Tylers cute and easy on the eyes, but I'd rather see some more battles, or hell, that spider thing that was at the end of Book two. One thing I loved about the books was they left you on a cliff hanger--

Fellowship ended with Frodo leaving.
Towers ended with Sam taking the ring cause Frodo "died"
ROTK tied everything together

--And I'm just not feeling the same thing I felt while reading the books.

So in short, yes, I did enjoy TTT more than Fellowship, but not by much--cause I found Fellowship to be boring.

-BB

[Joker85]

WOW!!! That was awesome!! Every bit as good as FOTR I thought. More action, great special effects, and some of the best acting of had the pleasure of seeing in a very long time. It was good to see more of Merry and Pippen this time round and of course more of the Big 3 fighters: Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. It's a good thing Legolas is on their side..dang that boy can fight. When he was sliding down those stairs shootin out 2 arrows a second..it was incredible!Elijah wood continues to amaze me with his performance of Frodo. Although his screentime is reduced in this one, everyone of his scenes are great and well acted. Having Gollum in there was cool, although a little bit of him goes a long way with me. Gandalf and Saruman were in it all too briefly, but what time they had was fantastic, especially the look on Saruman's face as the water is washing away everything at the end. Can't wait for this DVD to come out!****1/2

[ghost15]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
. Faramir was so different from Boromir, so much cooler to me frankly, lol, and I wished they kept that in. But eh, everything else was still pretty dang great.


i dont think farimir was realy cooler than borimir different and that was a great part of the books. borimir final break down in the end of fotr was a great and important part. i also think it was great when farimir totally rejects the ring in the book. I think both charecters are good because they are dif. like in the book. who wants to see a movie where all the charecters have the exact same personality. that would suck.


Whether it was Jackson's ploy at trying to make Aragorn and Arwen one of the center points..I really don't know. But I do know, that I couldn't give less of a crap about Arwen--sure Liv Tylers cute and easy on the eyes, but I'd rather see some more battles, or hell, that spider thing that was at the end of Book two. said by birdboy

I think the arwen and aragorn love story was a great part in the books. i would by no means support someone taking out the great drama and throwing in more war thats the problem with alot of movies today. they no longer rely on acting but on the special effects. the problem was he add all the crappy arwen scenes. they should not have added extra stuff they should have just waited until the end of the third book instead of throwing it in the middle of the 2nd movie which arwen should not even be in at least according to book.

[Mynd Hed]

Those scenes weren't added to fit time constraints. This is a six hour movie that has been cut into a smaller one. There was over two hours of usable Helm's Deep footage alone that had to be trimmed to forty minutes.

If they weren't added to fit time constraints, then why were they added? They certainly didn't add anything to the movie.


Or, hey, here's a wacky thought. Why not leave Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers, and then include The Scouring of the Shire in Return of the King?

Where are you going to put them? Write a script that allows them to fit in between the character development scenes for new characters, and the battle (which couldn't have been any shorter). Exactly. Using those scenes in RETURN OF THE KING will work fine, and add a TON to the final chapter of LOTR.

First, I think the battle could easily have been shorter if they'd cut out that lame bit where Aragorn and Gimli fight some couple hundred-odd orcs all by themselves on the bridge. Second, there would have been plenty of room for Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers if they had simply cut out the pointless wolf rider scene and the pointless scenes involving Aragorn falling in the river and everyone believing him to be dead. In other words, if they had stuck to the source material instead of adding their own stuff.


These no-talent nobodies have made Tolkein's work UNDERSTANDABLE and APPRECIATIABLE for half the population, so show some respect, friend. These no-talent nobodies are the reason you're seeing this at all.

I did go a little too far when I called them "no-talent nobodies," but the fact of the matter is that Tolkien's work stands just fine on its own, without any added embellishment on the part of the screenwriters. The Lord of the Rings didn't get to be the second most popular book (after the Bible) in the 20th century by not being "understandable" and "appreciable." If it weren't already "understandable" and "appreciable," it wouldn't be worth making into a movie in the first place. And if certain people have such poor taste in literature that they can't "understand" and "appreciate" Tolkien's work on its own, then fooey on them.
I don't think you're giving the viewing audience enough credit. I've spoken with several people who have seen Two Towers without reading the book, and WITHOUT EXCEPTION they all listed their least favourite parts of the movie as being the ones that, interestingly enough, were not in the book. Coincidence? I think not.


It's in there. ROTK is going to be one of the best movies ever made when all is said and done. I've seen where Jackson has been asked about The Scouring, and he just smiles and says "it's in there."

I was not aware that Jackson had already addressed this issue in an interview. This makes me much more hopeful that RotK will be more faithful to the book than Two Towers was. Thank you for sharing this information with me.


I've heard that ROTK could be three and a hald [sic] to four [hours].

I will be very surprised if the theatrical cut of the movie is significantly longer than three hours. I suppose we'll know in a year which of us is correct. (-: At this point it's all speculation.

[ghost15]

. I've spoken with several people who have seen Two Towers without reading the book, and WITHOUT EXCEPTION they all listed their least favourite parts of the movie as being the ones that, interestingly enough, were not in the book. Coincidence? I think not.

i went and saw it with a friend of mine who has not read the books and he thought the scenes at osgliath and the aragorn falling in the river were very stupid and boring parts.


These no-talent nobodies have made Tolkein's work UNDERSTANDABLE and APPRECIATIABLE for half the population, so show some respect, friend. These no-talent nobodies are the reason you're seeing this at all.

the same friend thought the first movie(which is very close to the book with almost nothing added) was great but he thought the second was only ok. and his major complaints were the added scenes.

[The Guard]

If they weren't added to fit time constraints, then why were they added? They certainly didn't add anything to the movie.

Those scenes, as well as the one with Galadriel and Elrond help make it a little more drama, and less of an action-fest. They continue a love story that was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. If some of them hadn't been in there, people (in general) would have complained even more.

First, I think the battle could easily have been shorter if they'd cut out that lame bit where Aragorn and Gimli fight some couple hundred-odd orcs all by themselves on the bridge.

Cutting that part wouldn't signifigantly shorten a 40 minute battle. :). And having just read that part of TTT last night, that's almost exactly what happens, but with something like three people, not two.

Second, there would have been plenty of room for Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers if they had simply cut out the pointless wolf rider scene and the pointless scenes involving Aragorn falling in the river and everyone believing him to be dead. In other words, if they had stuck to the source material instead of adding their own stuff.

Cutting out those two fairly short scenes would have left enough time for the fantastic scenes with Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob? I think not. I will give you that the Aragorn-falling-in-the-river scene was somewhat pointless (Although it allowed for Arwen to do stuff). But the wolf rider scene was not. It shows a sense of the danger that the Rohan were in, and just how far Saruman is willing to go. You never get a sense of this in the book, and the battle of Helm's Deep in the book doesn't come close to what the movie did. The emotion, the danger, the sense of dread, none of it is brought out like it was with the extended pre-battle, battle, and post-battle scenes.

I did go a little too far when I called them "no-talent nobodies," but the fact of the matter is that Tolkien's work stands just fine on its own, without any added embellishment on the part of the screenwriters.

Actually, to many people, it doesn't stand just fine on it's own. It simply doesn't make sense to many people. Not because they're stupid, but because Tolkein's style is that of a storyteller,
not a point by point story. He sets things up, but tends not to follow them through. The battles are described, but details are not. The Ents' war is mentioned, but you never see what they did.

The Lord of the Rings didn't get to be the second most popular book (after the Bible) in the 20th century by not eing "understandable" and "appreciable."

Tolkein's creations are the reason that these books are so beloved. Not neccessarily his writing style, or even his stories, which, to people who have read anything close to it, aren't that remarkable. Yes, there are wonderful elements in the books, but there are many pointless aspects, too, that don't translate well to the big screen.

And if certain people have such poor taste in literature that they can't "understand" and "appreciate" Tolkien's work on its own, then fooey on them.

Might surprise you, but some people can't slog through pages of poems and nothing but talking and dancing.

I don't think you're giving the viewing audience enough credit. I've spoken with several people who have seen Two Towers without reading the book, and WITHOUT EXCEPTION they all listed their least favourite parts of the movie as being the ones that, interestingly enough, were not in the book. Coincidence? I think not.


Several people. Whoopee. Ask them if some of the things Jackson added to the book's tale, like the Elves arriving to honor their allegiance to men, and the villagers coming with the King and his soldier's to Helm's Deep, and Eoden being banished add to the overall effect.

I was not aware that Jackson had already addressed this issue in an interview. This makes me much more hopeful that RotK will be more faithful to the book than Two Towers was. Thank you for sharing this information with me.


All I've heard about THE RETURN OF THE KING is positive. THE battle will be spectacular, and we're sure to see the role that Gollum played, as well as the fantastic things that wrap up the end of the movie. :)

I will be very surprised if the theatrical cut of the movie is significantly longer than three hours.

It will be at least three, given the material that must be covered, and not be "rushed". TTT was 3:15, I believe. 3:30 wouldn't be that much of a stretch for TROTK.

[ghost15]

Those scenes, as well as the one with Galadriel and Elrond help make it a little more drama, and less of an action-fest. They continue a love story that was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. If some of them hadn't been in there, people (in general) would have complained even more.

the wait till return of the king in the book seemed to do ok with me. i have never heard anyone complain about that not being in ttt. i have heard more complaints from people who have not read about that not really fitting.


Cutting out those two fairly short scenes would have left enough time for the fantastic scenes with Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob? I think not. I will give you that the Aragorn-falling-in-the-river scene was somewhat pointless (Although it allowed for Arwen to do stuff). But the wolf rider scene was not. It shows a sense of the danger that the Rohan were in, and just how far Saruman is willing to go. You never get a sense of this in the book, and the battle of Helm's Deep in the book doesn't come close to what the movie did. The emotion, the danger, the sense of dread, none of it is brought out like it was with the extended pre-battle, battle, and post-battle scenes.[/\QUOTE]

i think these where stupid and pointless. the upcoming battle was enough to scare the crap out of everyonewithout have to have a wolf attack. the aragorn scene was totally not needed which you agreed to.

[QUOTE]Actually, to many people, it doesn't stand just fine on it's own. It simply doesn't make sense to many people. Not because they're stupid, but because Tolkein's style is that of a storyteller,[\QUOTE]

i would say it stands fine on its own everyone expects everything to get tied up in the end the public are not idiots. they dont need everything spoon fed to them.

[QUOTE]Tolkein's creations are the reason that these books are so beloved. Not neccessarily his writing style, or even his stories, which, to people who have read anything close to it, aren't that remarkable. Yes, there are wonderful elements in the books, but there are many pointless aspects, too, that don't translate well to the big screen.[\QUOTE]


thats why you cut those out. no one is complaning because there are no songs. everyone is complanig because of the stupid additions.

[QUOTE]and Eoden being banished add to the overall effect.

i thought this was pointless and very little more time would have been needed to pull him out of jail and say sorry.

[The Guard]

I think these where stupid and pointless. the upcoming battle was enough to scare the crap out of everyone without have to have a wolf attack.

But it was so cool. And it just adds that "Dear God...what have we gotten ourselves into" aspect to Rohan's plight.

I would say it stands fine on its own everyone expects everything to get tied up in the end the public are not idiots. they dont need everything spoon fed to them.

You'd be surprised. :). A lot of the time, there is simply not enough stuff after Tolkein sets it up. The battle at Isengard, and even Helm's Deep, are sorely lacking pieces of fiction in TTT, in my humble opinion. I would like to have seen a little more actual description of each in the book.

thats why you cut those out. no one is complaning because there are no songs. everyone is complanig because of the stupid additions.

But the additions work, to some extent. THE TWO TOWERS was about the world of men, for the most part, and Jackson added things that showed more of it. You get to see Gondor, for one.

I thought this was pointless and very little more time would have been needed to pull him out of jail and say sorry.

Why would he be in jail? That doesn't even fit with the attitude of the people around him. There was mutiny going on. He's lucky he wasn't killed. Being thrown in jail doesn't allow for him to be off, pissed and looking for battle with his men, and coming to the rescue in the end.

[Mynd Hed]

Those scenes, as well as the one with Galadriel and Elrond help make it a little more drama, and less of an action-fest. They continue a love story that was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. If some of them hadn't been in there, people (in general) would have complained even more.

That's pure speculation on your part. Audiences LOVE action-fests.
Anyway, if you want drama, how about the final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman? Now THAT'S drama. And there was already plenty of drama in the movie in the form of Gollum, the tension between Frodo and Sam, the Ring's growing influence on Frodo, the Ents' decision over whether to attack Isengard... there was plenty of drama in the movie as it was.


Cutting that part wouldn't signifigantly shorten a 40 minute battle.

That was just one example. They could also have cut the comic relief with Gimli not being able to see, a few of the redundant reaction shots of the civvies in the Glittering Caves... look, I'm not a director or an editor, but I think that scene could have been shorter.


Second, there would have been plenty of room for Shelob and Minas Morgul in Two Towers if they had simply cut out the pointless wolf rider scene and the pointless scenes involving Aragorn falling in the river and everyone believing him to be dead. In other words, if they had stuck to the source material instead of adding their own stuff.

Cutting out those two fairly short scenes would have left enough time for the fantastic scenes with Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob? I think not. I will give you that the Aragorn-falling-in-the-river scene was somewhat pointless (Although it allowed for Arwen to do stuff). But the wolf rider scene was not. It shows a sense of the danger that the Rohan were in, and just how far Saruman is willing to go. You never get a sense of this in the book, and the battle of Helm's Deep in the book doesn't come close to what the movie did. The emotion, the danger, the sense of dread, none of it is brought out like it was with the extended pre-battle, battle, and post-battle scenes.

The wolf rider scene was hardly "short," and the scenes with Aragorn riding back to Helm's Deep were not short either. For that matter, plenty of that Elrond / Arwen / Galadriel stuff was pretty unecessary, too. I understand that they want to have at least one short scene with each of those characters to remind the audience of what's going on, but the amount they had struck me as excessive.
As for the battle scene in the book not matching the one in the movie, it's true that the book didn't put as much emphasis on Helm's Deep, but that was for a reason. In the book, Helm's Deep wasn't the climax, the all-consuming conflict. It was the final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman that provided closure to Book III and the battle between Shelob/Gollum and Frodo/Sam that provided closure to Book IV. When they delayed those scenes for the third movie, they had to expand the impact of the Helm's Deep scene because it was the climax of the movie. But if Tolkien had done the same thing in the book, it would have led to anti-climax.


Actually, to many people, it doesn't stand just fine on it's own. It simply doesn't make sense to many people. Not because they're stupid, but because Tolkein's style is that of a storyteller,
not a point by point story. He sets things up, but tends not to follow them through. The battles are described, but details are not. The Ents' war is mentioned, but you never see what they did.

Yes, and that's why I have no complaint when they explicitly show events (such as the Ents attacking Isengard, the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog, and the battle between Saruman and Gandalf in Fellowship) that are described only in flashbacks or only in very vague detail in the book. Those are necessary changes when translating a story from one form to another, and I understand, accept, and approve of them.


Might surprise you, but some people can't slog through pages of poems and nothing but talking and dancing.

I understand that not everything from these three very long books can be included in the movie, and I accept that they have to pick and choose what gets screen time and what gets cut. I have no problem with that. What I DO have a problem with is adding pointless scenes to a movie that's already very long.


Several people. Whoopee. Ask them if some of the things Jackson added to the book's tale, like the Elves arriving to honor their allegiance to men, and the villagers coming with the King and his soldier's to Helm's Deep, and Eoden [sic] being banished add to the overall effect.

Have I complained about any of those things? No, because they were relatively minor changes. (With the exception of the Elven archers, which I do feel was a bad move.) The villagers coming with Theoden to Helm's Deep WERE mentioned in the book, albeit in passing, and EoMER's being banished was in the spirit of Tolkien's work, in that it showed a rift between the king and his loved ones thanks to the influence of Wormtongue.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by The Guard
Oh? When has a cast like this been assembled? When have so many big names come together and worked so well together, or taken smaller roles? When has a scene taken 7 months of night shooting to perfect? When have we EVER seen the level of CGI that went into Gollum, Helm's Deep, and the battle of Isengard?

Making good use of CGI and gathering a great cast does NOT make history to me. Granted, Gollum and those trees are pretty well made, but so was Yoda, and considering I'm not a huge LOTR fan, Yoda impressed me a lot more. Look, I liked this movie alright, I just didn't think it was groundbreaking and flawless...


So...because he doesn't use David Fincher-style camera work, and instead uses a more traditional style, he's a bad director? Look at some of the shots, for God's sake. Look at how the camera moves in and out and frames characters when the Riders of Rohan surround them. Look at the shots he's chosen to include, with the sun rising and setting as they travel. That's what makes Peter Jackson a great director.

It's funny you mention that camera move because that's exactly David Fincher-style-camera work to me :rolleyes: You are obviously one big avid fan, I respect that, but Jackson just doesn't make that good an impressoin on me. Like I said, when I watched the TT, I was like "hmm I've seen the exact same shots before... yeah, in FotR!" I don't need flashy/fast-paced camera moves à la Fincher, I just need good and creative direction à la Spielberg (the Spielberg from before Jurassic Park).


Bland. Riiight. Howard Shore's music has an emotional level that John Williams WISHES he could touch. Yes, it's repetitive, but it works.
Well like you said, it's very repetitive, and the epic main theme (the one you hear in every single trailer) sounds bland to me. Overall the music is fine, even though I prefer Williams's wagnerian leitmotiv technic, which allows you to follow the movie by only listening to the music. And I also prefer JW's themes, period.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Both of y'all knock it off or take it somewhere else. It's a given fact that everyone falls into the categories of love the books and hate the movies, love the movies and hate the books, love both, hate both, too young to care, or old enough and couldn't care less. The debate over which is better has been going on since FotR came out, we won't find out if RotK is true to the book until the damn movie comes out, you're both fishing for arguements now because you've exhausted all possibilities, so just STOP.

[Bakasama]

Originally posted by optimuslives
I fell asleep..any of the animated movies are better than Jackson's vision of Tolkien's works..I honestly gave this one a chance like the last one..but it just couldn't keep my interest

You're kidding right? Bakshi's version more true to the book storywise but it's a very boring and messy movie. The orcs look like cheap Halloween gorillas. It's hard to be in awe of a Balrog that wears fuzzy bedroom slippers. I swear Gandalf was ODed on sugar and coffee. One decribed the movie was Tolkien's Greatests the movie. It was sorely lacking sprit of LOTR.

The Return of the King was okay but the cut out a lot. Legolas, Gimli, and Eomer are missing. Faramir is reduced to cameo. The only thing I remember from the movie clearly is that disco tune, "Where there is a whip, there is a way."

[The Guard]

That's pure speculation on your part. Audiences LOVE action-fests.

Speculation how? That's the one reason Arwen/Aragorn are in these movies. To break up some of the action, and attract people who aren't huge action fans to come back.

Anyway, if you want drama, how about the final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman? Now THAT'S drama. And there was already plenty of drama in the movie in the form of Gollum, the tension between Frodo and Sam, the Ring's growing influence on Frodo, the Ents' decision over whether to attack Isengard... there was plenty of drama in the movie as it was.

Was there romance? (Aragorn/Eowyn counts not) Was the romance which was explored in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING continued? I'd have been a little upset if it hadn't been, since it was obvious that it was going to be one of the running stories in the trilogy.

That was just one example. They could also have cut the comic relief with Gimli not being able to see, a few of the redundant reaction shots of the civvies in the Glittering Caves... look, I'm not a director or an editor, but I think that scene could have been shorter.

Those shots, those scenes, would not have shortened Helm's Deep enough, and could, in fact, detract from the overall effect, and make it feel "rushed". You've got to have those civilian shots, to see their fear and doubt, ect, ect.

The wolf rider scene was hardly "short," and the scenes with Aragorn riding back to Helm's Deep were not short either.

Compared to what you need for Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob they are.

For that matter, plenty of that Elrond / Arwen / Galadriel stuff was pretty unecessary, too. I understand that they want to have at least one short scene with each of those characters to remind the audience of what's going on, but the amount they had struck me as excessive.

I didn't let it bother me. It was good to see that Elrond wasn't forgotten. Same with Galadriel. It was nice to see their relationship expanded on, and those scenes were the entire reason that the Elves showed up at Helm's Deep.

It's funny you mention that camera move because that's exactly David Fincher-style-camera work to me

I'm talking about the WEIRD, CGI-shots, where we zoom down on someone's sword handle or something. Jackson's shots were nowhere near that extreme.

You are obviously one big avid fan, I respect that, but Jackson just doesn't make that good an impressoin on me. Like I said, when I watched the TT, I was like "hmm I've seen the exact same shots before... yeah, in FotR!"

Why would you want to see a totally different camera style in the second part of the trilogy? This is the same story. Camera shots are not all that make this movie, especially when Jackson's choices are often superb.

Both of y'all knock it off or take it somewhere else. It's a given fact that everyone falls into the categories of love the books and hate the movies, love the movies and hate the books, love both, hate both, too young to care, or old enough and couldn't care less. The debate over which is better has been going on since FotR came out, we won't find out if RotK is true to the book until the damn movie comes out, you're both fishing for arguements now because you've exhausted all possibilities, so just STOP.

Why? Seems like an honest discussion to me, and since no one else is talking about THE TWO TOWERS...

[Joe Wagner]

I finally saw the movie on Thursday and loved every minute of it. While I understand that the movie didn't follow the book completely I also understand why some of these changes were made. As for the film......

Treebeard - absolutely incredible. The Ents attacking Isengard and all of the Ents were exactly what I envisioned they would be.

Gollum - Andy Serkis did an amazing job with this character and should get all the credit in the world. The inner battles of Gollum were believable and added a lot to his character.

Gandolf's battle with Balrog - added a nice touch to follow up from the beginning of the fight in Fellowship as well as gave the audience a background as to the emergence of Gandolf the White.

Having loved both Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers I can hardly wait to see the Return of the King.

-Joe!

[Ajax]

Best. Movie. Ever.

[Mynd Hed]

Speculation how? That's the one reason Arwen/Aragorn are in these movies. To break up some of the action, and attract people who aren't huge action fans to come back.

It's not speculation that the reason the Arwen and Aragorn are in the movie is because the creators THOUGHT that audiences would have complained if they weren't there. It IS speculation that audiences WOULD HAVE complained. Am I making sense or am I just babbling? I can never tell. (-:


Was there romance? (Aragorn/Eowyn counts not) Was the romance which was explored in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING continued? I'd have been a little upset if it hadn't been, since it was obvious that it was going to be one of the running stories in the trilogy.

Why do Aragorn and Eowyn count not? I think that the scenes between Aragorn and Eowyn, as they're described in the book, with MAYBE a short flashback of Aragorn remembering how much he wants to b-- I mean how much he loves Arwen, would have been fine, personally. I can accept a little bit of romance to liven things up-- heck, that's what the books had and it worked fine-- but LotR is not a love story.


Those shots, those scenes, would not have shortened Helm's Deep enough, and could, in fact, detract from the overall effect, and make it feel "rushed". You've got to have those civilian shots, to see their fear and doubt, ect, ect.

If you build up Helm's Deep to be the climax of the movie, yes, you want to spend more time on it. But if Helm's Deep is a glorified subplot, with Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob providing the main conflicts, then I don't think there's any problem with glazing over Helm's Deep a little.


The wolf rider scene was hardly "short," and the scenes with Aragorn riding back to Helm's Deep were not short either.

Compared to what you need for Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob they are.

It's true that Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob are both lengthy scenes that deserve a lot of time. So think about THIS: if trying to work them into the same movie as Helm's Deep in all its glory is a tough job, how tough is it going to be to find room for them in a movie that has the Battle of Pelennor Fields, Frodo's rescue from the Orcs, the Paths of the Dead, the final confrontation between Frodo/Sam/Gollum on Mount Doom, the battle at the Black Gate, the battle with the Lord of the Nazgul, all the stuff with Denethor, the Scouring of the Shire, and all the other stuff RotK is going to have to cover? How much of that are they going to have to cut because they stopped the Two Towers movie too early and tried to cram too much into the third movie?


Why? Seems like an honest discussion to me, and since no one else is talking about THE TWO TOWERS...

I agree, I think we're having an interesting and productive discussion. It's true that we disagree, but I'm happy to have an intelligent and thoughtful person to debate against.

[The Guard]

It's not speculation that the reason the Arwen and Aragorn are in the movie is because the creators THOUGHT that audiences would have complained if they weren't there. It IS speculation that audiences WOULD HAVE complained. Am I making sense or am I just babbling? I can never tell. (-:

Babbling. But I understand where we "disagreed".

Why do Aragorn and Eowyn count not?

Because the romance set forth from TFOTR was Aragorn/Arwen's doomed one. That is the one that people would have wanted to see more of, and so it got more scenes.

But if Helm's Deep is a glorified subplot, with Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob providing the main conflicts, then I don't think there's any problem with glazing over Helm's Deep a little.

It's clear that the movie version of TTT revolves around the Battle of Helm's Deep and the events of the characters that take part in it. So I don't see anything wrong with TTT being the "movie of men", and the other plots taking a backseat for this installment.

It's true that Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob are both lengthy scenes that deserve a lot of time. So think about THIS: if trying to work them into the same movie as Helm's Deep in all its glory is a tough job, how tough is it going to be to find room for them in a movie that has the Battle of Pelennor Fields, Frodo's rescue from the Orcs, the Paths of the Dead, the final confrontation between Frodo/Sam/Gollum on Mount Doom, the battle at the Black Gate, the battle with the Lord of the Nazgul, all the stuff with Denethor, the Scouring of the Shire, and all the other stuff RotK is going to have to cover? How much of that are they going to have to cut because they stopped the Two Towers movie too early and tried to cram too much into the third movie?

Well...look at all they managed to fit into TTT. Helm's Deep was but a small part. They managed to show Frodo/Sam/Gollum, introduce and develop Faramir, Eowyn, Theoden and Eomer, show what happened to Gandalf, introduce and develop Treebeard and the Ents, ect, ect, ect. Three hours is a long time. I'd imagine that it would be doable to fit most, if not all, of what you mentioned into THE RETURN OF THE KING.

I agree, I think we're having an interesting and productive discussion. It's true that we disagree, but I'm happy to have an intelligent and thoughtful person to debate against.

As am I.

[GoufCustom]

I concur with all the praises. TTT is an amazing movie. Absolutely spectacular and breathtaking.

[serenitymoon]

I enjoyed TTT alot! I have been anxiously awaiting being able to see the second story and it was everything I thought it would be, action, romance, and a couple of laughs thrown in too. The scenes of Golem argueing with himself was priceless. I can't wait until the final chapter! Too bad I have to wait ONE MORE YEAR! I could cry.....

[Mynd Hed]

Why do Aragorn and Eowyn count not?

Because the romance set forth from TFOTR was Aragorn/Arwen's doomed one. That is the one that people would have wanted to see more of, and so it got more scenes.

I disagree, because I think that as long as there's one SHORT flashback or dream sequence reminding the audience of Aragorn's love for Arwen, the Eowyn stuff would make the Aragorn/Arwen plot all the more poignant because the audience sees that Aragorn has a chance with a beautiful human woman who he obviously has a great attraction and admiration for and who he probably has a much more realistic chance with, but he turns away from it for the love of a certain elvish princess.


It's clear that the movie version of TTT revolves around the Battle of Helm's Deep and the events of the characters that take part in it. So I don't see anything wrong with TTT being the "movie of men", and the other plots taking a backseat for this installment.

Yes, I agree that it is clear that the movie version of TTT revolves around the Battle of Helm's Deep. What I'm trying to do is make a case that there is another way to do it, which would have been more faithful to the source material and just as effective as a movie.


Well...look at all they managed to fit into TTT. Helm's Deep was but a small part. They managed to show Frodo/Sam/Gollum, introduce and develop Faramir, Eowyn, Theoden and Eomer, show what happened to Gandalf, introduce and develop Treebeard and the Ents, ect, ect, ect. Three hours is a long time. I'd imagine that it would be doable to fit most, if not all, of what you mentioned into THE RETURN OF THE KING.

Yes, but then look at Fellowship, which fit just about every meaningful event from the first book in, PLUS some events from the second. As opposed to TTT, which seemed to only cover about half of what the book covered and left the rest for the first and third movies. Well, anyway, I won't judge RotK before seeing it. It's possible that it will be the most fantastic movie out of the entire trilogy. But as of right now TTT seems like it will end up being the "weak link" out of the three.

I went back and saw TTT again last night, and I must say I did enjoy it more the second time. I think the scenes that I disliked (i.e. the ones that were made up for the movie instead of being straight for the book) seemed the longer the first time I saw them, because I was sitting there thinking, "This sucks, get to the good part, when is this going to end?" But when I saw it the second time, I KNEW when the lame parts were going to end, so they didn't seem so long. If that makes sense.
I still didn't like it as much as the first one, but it gives me more hope that the third one will live up to the first. If this turns out to be an overall good trilogy, with one not-quite-so-good movie in the middle, I'll be plenty happy. Two out of three ain't bad.

[The Guard]

I think that as long as there's one SHORT flashback or dream sequence.

But if there's just a short flashback, you don't get to see all the Elrond/Arwen stuff that points out just how tragic their love really is.

Yes, I agree that it is clear that the movie version of TTT revolves around the Battle of Helm's Deep. What I'm trying to do is make a case that there is another way to do it, which would have been more faithful to the source material and just as effective as a movie.

How?

Yes, but then look at Fellowship, which fit just about every meaningful event from the first book in, PLUS some events from the second.

And had to trim much of the dialogue, some of the events, and extend the battle scenes. The only events I remember that were tacked onto TFOTR were Amon Hen, the orc battle, Boromir's death, ect. And you have to admit that that worked very well.

As opposed to TTT, which seemed to only cover about half of what the book covered and left the rest for the first and third movies.

How so? TTT covered the important parts of THE TWO TOWERS, left some darker moments for THE RETURN OF THE KING which would never have fit into TTT even with the loss of Jackson's "tweaking", and was a hell of a movie. Yes, perhaps had the battle been merely hinted at, Shelob and Saruman/Gandalf could have been in there. But they weren't. They'll be in THE RETURN OF THE KING, which will probably be somewhat streamlined from the book. There might be some things we don't see in TROTK, and to me, that's ok, because these stories jump around, and they cover a LOT of material. Peter Jackson and his team have taken something timeless, and made it relevant to our time, but able to withstand the test of time, like the original story. And for that, I have nothing but respect for them. It's made LOTR understandable to millions of people. And for that, he deserves praise. And it's definitely turned on a LOT of new people to the wonder that is the work of J.R.R Tolkein.

But as of right now TTT seems like it will end up being the "weak link" out of the three.

If TTT is the "weak link", then we're in for a hell of a trilogy. :)

[Mynd Hed]

Yes, I agree that it is clear that the movie version of TTT revolves around the Battle of Helm's Deep. What I'm trying to do is make a case that there is another way to do it, which would have been more faithful to the source material and just as effective as a movie.

How?

What I've been saying this whole time. Cut out 90% of the Arwen/Elrond/Galadriel stuff, cut the wolf rider fight, cut those two little kids on the horse, shorten Theoden grieving over his son, cut all that silly stuff about Aragorn falling in the river and everyone thinking him dead, shorten Helm's Deep and make it the first action scene (instead of having that silly wolf rider fight be the first action scene) instead of the climax, and cut out the scenes in Osgiliath, and replace all that screen time with the Gandalf/Saruman confrontation and Shelob. In other words, follow the book much more closely than they did.


And had to trim much of the dialogue, some of the events, and extend the battle scenes. The only events I remember that were tacked onto TFOTR were Amon Hen, the orc battle, Boromir's death, ect. And you have to admit that that worked very well.

I have no problem admitting that. I think that Fellowship did a wonderful job of adapting the source material to movie format. I just didn't feel that Two Towers did as good a job.


How so? TTT covered the important parts of THE TWO TOWERS, left some darker moments for THE RETURN OF THE KING which would never have fit into TTT even with the loss of Jackson's "tweaking", and was a hell of a movie.

That's where we disagree. I feel that those "darker moments" you speak of could have fit just fine in Two Towers-- much better than all that silly added stuff that has no place in any of the movies and was completely tedious not only in my own opinion, but in the opinion of every other person I have discussed this with except yourself.
I did not think Two Towers was "a hell of a movie." It was a "pretty good" movie that COULD have been a helluva movie if they had stuck a little bit closer to the source material.


Yes, perhaps had the battle been merely hinted at, Shelob and Saruman/Gandalf could have been in there. But they weren't.

No, they weren't. And it would have been a better movie if they had been.


They'll be in THE RETURN OF THE KING, which will probably be somewhat streamlined from the book. There might be some things we don't see in TROTK, and to me, that's ok, because these stories jump around, and they cover a LOT of material.

It's fine with me that they can't fit everything that was in the books into the movies. That's the nature of the beast. However, every moment that they waste on silly tedious stuff that was made up for the movie is a moment that they're NOT showing more good stuff from the books.
By most accounts, this movie trilogy cost some $270 million to make, and Fellowship has already made that entire amount back and more. Every dime it makes from now on is pure profit.
With a movie trilogy that has as big a guaranteed audience as LOTR has-- everyone that liked the books, plus everyone who succumbs to the enormous marketing hype-- why bother to make concessions to popular culture? Why not make a movie for the fans, that stays true to the books and retains a little more artistic integrity? I'm not suggesting that Jackson and Co. are devoid of artistic integrity, mind you-- I'm just saying that it would show MORE integrity if they were more faithful to the books.


Peter Jackson and his team have taken something timeless, and made it relevant to our time, but able to withstand the test of time, like the original story. And for that, I have nothing but respect for them. It's made LOTR understandable to millions of people. And for that, he deserves praise. And it's definitely turned on a LOT of new people to the wonder that is the work of J.R.R Tolkein.

You're contradicting yourself. If LotR is "timeless," then it doesn't NEED to be made relevant to our time. LotR was already understandable to millions of people.
Jackson and Co. do deserve praise. They've done uncountable things exactly right. They made three movies instead of two, which was the original plan. They deserve praise for that. They put a lot of time and effort into the props and costumes, and that effort shows. They deserve praise for that. They have done a brilliant job of combining new and old special effects techniques nearly seamlessly to draw the audience into a fantastical world, and they deserve praise for that. Most of the actors portray their characters incredibly well, and they deserve praise for that.
I hope I don't come across like I'm selling Jackson and Co. short or overlooking all their wonderful accomplishments, because I'm not. I appreciate all the things they've done right. But I still believe that they should be criticized for the few things they've done wrong.

[The Guard]

What I've been saying this whole time. Cut out 90% of the Arwen/Elrond/Galadriel stuff

Why? Because it's different?

cut the wolf rider fight,

This I won't argue with, although it was pretty cool.

cut those two little kids on the horse

That was a nice little scene, and it's not long enough to cause a problem. What's the point of cutting it? Because it wasn't in the book?

shorten Theoden grieving over his son

Again, not really all that long of a scene. And this scene did give some insight to the character, and their world.

cut all that silly stuff about Aragorn falling in the river and everyone thinking him dead

I still don't even know why that's in there.

shorten Helm's Deep and make it the first action scene.

Why does Helm's Deep need to be shortened. More importantly, how could anything on that scale be shortened and not be considered "rushed" when all is said and done? Would you want them to lower the scale of the battle?

instead of the climax, and cut out the scenes in Osgiliath, and replace all that screen time with the Gandalf/Saruman confrontation and Shelob.

You add the Gandalf/Saruman and the Shelob scenes, you've got to have the scenes leading up to them, and following them. And then where do you end the movie? You can't go too much further than Frodo's "death" before ending it, and it'd be a decent sized scene.

In other words, follow the book much more closely than they did.

Parts of the book don't WORK cinematically as they are written. The battles are far too short, and not well-described. If you want "a bit here, a bit there", I don't think that'll work onscreen. Imagine Helm's Deep being more like the wolf rider scene was, and you'll see what I mean. Do you really want Helm's Deep to be a blurb? That's the kind of shortening you're talking about. Why can't you just accept that some of the changes were for the better?
quote:

why bother to make concessions to popular culture?

I don't see "concessions to popular culture". I see Peter Jackson trying to finish telling the stories he set out to tell in TFOTR, and not just having characters drop off the face of the Earth with no explanation or reference to them.

Why not make a movie for the fans, that stays true to the books and retains a little more artistic integrity? I'm not suggesting that Jackson and Co. are devoid of artistic integrity, mind you-- I'm just saying that it would show MORE integrity if they were more faithful to the books.

You're going to have to explain this one.

You're contradicting yourself. If LotR is "timeless," then it doesn't NEED to be made relevant to our time. LotR was already understandable to millions of people.

And confusing as hell to millions more.

Jackson and Co. do deserve praise. They've done uncountable things exactly right. They made three movies instead of two, which was the original plan. They deserve praise for that. They put a lot of time and effort into the props and costumes, and that effort shows. They deserve praise for that. They have done a brilliant job of combining new and old special effects techniques nearly seamlessly to draw the audience into a fantastical world, and they deserve praise for that. Most of the actors portray their characters incredibly well, and they deserve praise for that.
I hope I don't come across like I'm selling Jackson and Co. short or overlooking all their wonderful accomplishments, because I'm not. I appreciate all the things they've done right. But I still believe that they should be criticized for the few things they've done wrong.

Except that in this case, you're saying "different automatically equals wrong", like 90 percent of the anal-retentive fanboys out there, myself included. I'm a huge fan of LOTR, but even I know that an adaption is just that...an adaption. I agree with you on certain points, the wolf riders, Aragorn's fall...ect. But you, and others, seem to be against the romance thing being wrapped up simply because "it wasn't in the book". Well...countless things weren't in the book. And some of the things that were...don't translate well to film, or just don't make much sense.

[a.k.a. Skarr~~]

I gave it a 5! Two thumbs way up on this one! My second favorite movie, loosing to Billy Madison by a slight margin!

[Mynd Hed]

What I've been saying this whole time. Cut out 90% of the Arwen/Elrond/Galadriel stuff

Why? Because it's different?

No, because it completely interrupts the narrative flow of the movie, which up until that point follows three parallel plots: Frodo/Sam/Gollum, Legolas/Gimli/Aragorn, and Merry/Pippin. (The latter two plot lines crossed in a few places, such as the EXCELLENT scene where we see what happened to Merry and Pippin after the battle between the Rohirrim and the Orcs as Aragorn figures it out via his ranger skills. Kudos to that scene.)
Three plot lines (instead of a more normal two) is pushing it just a tiny bit as it is, but when you add in another two or three subplots in the middle that don't go anywhere, the audience gets lost. I felt that the movie totally lost any sense of flow or structure at that point in the movie. Fortunately, it regained it again soon after these scenes were over, but it still lent a very disjointed feel to the entire middle half of the film.


cut those two little kids on the horse

That was a nice little scene, and it's not long enough to cause a problem. What's the point of cutting it? Because it wasn't in the book?

In a word, yes. Because you have to make some cuts SOMEWHERE if you're to fit everything in the movie that should be there, and if you have to choose between cutting (or, not as bad but still not good, delaying for the third movie, which will only lead to more cuts later on in that movie) a scene that was in the book or one that was made up for the movie, I'll choose to keep the stuff that was in the book every time. I think most if not all fans of the books will agree with me, and many people who never read the books as well.


shorten Theoden grieving over his son

Again, not really all that long of a scene. And this scene did give some insight to the character, and their world.

It wasn't a bad scene, even though it was added from the books, it's certainly in the spirit of the character as Tolkien wrote him. However, I feel that the same effect could have been had with a much shorter scene. And no, the scene's not that long at all, but if you take a snip out here and a snip out there of several short scenes like this, you can save a lot of time by the end of the movie. I think the Extended Edition of FotR proves that.


cut all that silly stuff about Aragorn falling in the river and everyone thinking him dead

I still don't even know why that's in there.

I'm glad we agree on that, at least. This was the only part of the movie that REALLY pissed me off. (-:


shorten Helm's Deep and make it the first action scene.

Why does Helm's Deep need to be shortened. More importantly, how could anything on that scale be shortened and not be considered "rushed" when all is said and done? Would you want them to lower the scale of the battle?

Because it would make room for other stuff, like Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob. It's not that Helm's Deep was bad-- it was a great action scene. But again, I feel it could have accomplished the same effect with less screen time. And again, I don't think it WOULD feel "rushed" if there wasn't so much buildup to it-- in other words, if it were handled the same way the book handled it.


instead of the climax, and cut out the scenes in Osgiliath, and replace all that screen time with the Gandalf/Saruman confrontation and Shelob.

You add the Gandalf/Saruman and the Shelob scenes, you've got to have the scenes leading up to them, and following them. And then where do you end the movie? You can't go too much further than Frodo's "death" before ending it, and it'd be a decent sized scene.

You end the movie more or less exactly where the book ended-- on a cliffhanger. Cliffhangers aren't a bad thing. "Empire Strikes Back" ended on a cliffhanger, and it was (in the opinion of many critics and fans, including myself) the best movie out of the original trilogy. I would NOT want them to extend the end of Two Towers the same way they did Fellowship, because Frodo's rescue would have seemed anticlimactic coming right after the Shelob scene.


Parts of the book don't WORK cinematically as they are written.

That's your opinion, which I disagree with.


The battles are far too short, and not well-described. If you want "a bit here, a bit there", I don't think that'll work onscreen. Imagine Helm's Deep being more like the wolf rider scene was, and you'll see what I mean. Do you really want Helm's Deep to be a blurb?

In a word, yes. Making Helm's Deep more like the wolf rider scene is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, except that Helm's Deep would work far better in that role than the wolf rider scene did, because it's on a bigger scale with a lot more at stake than the life of Aragorn, especially when virtually everyone in the theatre, whether they read the book or not, knew full well that he wasn't really dead.


I don't see "concessions to popular culture". I see Peter Jackson trying to finish telling the stories he set out to tell in TFOTR, and not just having characters drop off the face of the Earth with no explanation or reference to them.

I'm not sure what characters you're referring to here. I've already stated that I wouldn't mind a SHORT flashback or dream sequence reminding the audience of the Aragorn/Arwen subplot. I just feel they spent too much time on it, that's all.


You're contradicting yourself. If LotR is "timeless," then it doesn't NEED to be made relevant to our time. LotR was already understandable to millions of people.

And confusing as hell to millions more.

I'm not arguing with that, but the majority of the people who read the books and disliked them won't enjoy the movies no matter HOW they're done. The audience that will watch these movies regardless (because they've read and loved the books) is large enough to make them fantabulously profitable, no matter what the rest of the world thinks of them.


Except that in this case, you're saying "different automatically equals wrong", like 90 percent of the anal-retentive fanboys out there, myself included. I'm a huge fan of LOTR, but even I know that an adaption is just that...an adaption. I agree with you on certain points, the wolf riders, Aragorn's fall...ect. But you, and others, seem to be against the romance thing being wrapped up simply because "it wasn't in the book". Well...countless things weren't in the book. And some of the things that were...don't translate well to film, or just don't make much sense.

I'm NOT against the romance thing being wrapped up. I'm simply against them spending so much screen time on it. Yes, the "anal-retentive fanboys" such as myself DO automatically dislike anything that wasn't in the books. But since those same fanboys are the target audience for this movie, I don't think there's anything wrong with catering to them. The fact is that the vast majority of people who go to see LotR are going because they have read and treasured the books for years. Why mess with what has been proven, time and time again, to work incredibly well?

[The Guard]

No, because it completely interrupts the narrative flow of the movie, which up until that point follows three parallel plots: Frodo/Sam/Gollum, Legolas/Gimli/Aragorn, and Merry/Pippin.

Which completely interrupt each other's narrative flow. So what's the difference?

but when you add in another two or three subplots in the middle that don't go anywhere, the audience gets lost.

No offense, but only the very dense should get lost here. Didn't see too much of the whole "getting lost" thing either in the theater or on the net afterwards.

In a word, yes. Because you have to make some cuts SOMEWHERE if you're to fit everything in the movie that should be there, and if you have to choose between cutting (or, not as bad but still not good, delaying for the third movie, which will only lead to more cuts later on in that movie) a scene that was in the book or one that was made up for the movie, I'll choose to keep the stuff that was in the book every time. I think most if not all fans of the books will agree with me, and many people who never read the books as well.

Cutting very small scenes will not allow for those "book scenes" you so desperately wanted to be in TTT.

Because it would make room for other stuff, like Gandalf/Saruman and Shelob. It's not that Helm's Deep was bad-- it was a great action scene. But again, I feel it could have accomplished the same effect with less screen time. And again, I don't think it WOULD feel "rushed" if there wasn't so much buildup to it-- in other words, if it were handled the same way the book handled it.

The book doesn't handle it very well. There...I've said it. What's in the book is not a battle, it's the bare bones of one. Tolkein is big on descriptions and buildup, but he's not very big on following through. He has the style of a storyteller, and some of the scenes from the book seem to me to suffer for it.

You end the movie more or less exactly where the book ended-- on a cliffhanger.

Which one? Frodo's "death" and Sam going on alone? That's quite a bit of scene to put in there. It'd be either rushed or very, very choppy.

That's your opinion, which I disagree with.

Might be an opinion, but it's the truth. You find a way to put half the poems and songs in there, and I'll respect you that much more. :)

In a word, yes. Making Helm's Deep more like the wolf rider scene is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, except that Helm's Deep would work far better in that role than the wolf rider scene did, because it's on a bigger scale with a lot more at stake than the life of Aragorn, especially when virtually everyone in the theatre, whether they read the book or not, knew full well that he wasn't really dead.

Helm's Deep is not meant to be a short battle. The fact that the book doesn't describe it that well after it's set up doesn't mean that it didn't go on for a good long while. That's what I'm saying. Helm's Deep is not a drive by shooting. It's a battle that lasted quite a while.

I'm not sure what characters you're referring to here. I've already stated that I wouldn't mind a SHORT flashback or dream sequence reminding the audience of the Aragorn/Arwen subplot. I just feel they spent too much time on it, that's all.

Then how short would you make it? How much of that could you eliminate? The kissing? The touching? Anything else and you lose a ton of the tragedy of their relationship.

I'm NOT against the romance thing being wrapped up. I'm simply against them spending so much screen time on it.

Once again, just how quickly can you explain the problem with their doomed relationship and wrap it up? Drama takes time.

Yes, the "anal-retentive fanboys" such as myself DO automatically dislike anything that wasn't in the books. But since those same fanboys are the target audience for this movie, I don't think there's anything wrong with catering to them.

I doubt that this movie is targeted at people who will find fault with every little difference between book and movie. Rather, I think it is geared toward people who have read the books in general.

The fact is that the vast majority of people who go to see LotR are going because they have read and treasured the books for years. Why mess with what has been proven, time and time again, to work incredibly well?

Who the hell knows? Why did BIRDS OF PREY happen? At least LOTR is doing Tolkein's work justice, and in some cases, improving on some of his stuff.

[Mynd Hed]

No, because it completely interrupts the narrative flow of the movie, which up until that point follows three parallel plots: Frodo/Sam/Gollum, Legolas/Gimli/Aragorn, and Merry/Pippin.

Which completely interrupt each other's narrative flow. So what's the difference?

The difference is that having those three parallel plots is a necessity when making the book into a movie. Tolkien actually wrote The Two Towers (and the other two book in LotR) as two separate books; he just published them in one cover. But unless they released six movies total (which would have been wonderful, don't get me wrong, but it's not realistic to wish for it) they pretty much have to switch between three different, mostly non-overlapping, plot lines.
That's a necessity. It's going to be a flaw in the movie, there's simply no way around it short of making more than three movies. But adding in extra subplots to the ones that already exists only makes a necessary evil even worse. THAT'S the difference. One evil is necessary. One is not.


No offense, but only the very dense should get lost here. Didn't see too much of the whole "getting lost" thing either in the theater or on the net afterwards.

I didn't mean the phrase "getting lost" quite that literally. I simply meant that it comes across as disjointed.


Cutting very small scenes will not allow for those "book scenes" you so desperately wanted to be in TTT.

Cutting ENOUGH very small scenes, along with a few longer scenes such as the wolf riders and Aragorn's trip down the river, could have allowed for it. I maintain that it could have been done. Again, I direct you to Fellowship, which did an absolutely WONDERFUL job of compressing an insane amount of material into three hours without omitting anything of importance. (Bombadil fans might disagree with me on this one.) Two Towers, simply put, didn't do half as good a job as Fellowship did.


The book doesn't handle it very well. There...I've said it. What's in the book is not a battle, it's the bare bones of one. Tolkein is big on descriptions and buildup, but he's not very big on following through. He has the style of a storyteller, and some of the scenes from the book seem to me to suffer for it.

Well, that's your opinion. But I feel that Tolkien simply knew which scenes to spend a lot of time on and which weren't as important. Helm's Deep didn't explore any character depth or themes, so it didn't get the time that the Gandalf/Saruman confrontation (which established Gandalf's newfound strength, both of willpower and magical power) or the Shelob fight (which showcased the first real example of Sam being brave, which in turn showcased his devotion to Frodo) did.


Which one? Frodo's "death" and Sam going on alone? That's quite a bit of scene to put in there. It'd be either rushed or very, very choppy.

Again, this is your opinion. Ultimately it's all speculation either way, because since we'll never see a version of Two Towers that's more faithful to the book than the one we have, we'll never know how it would have turned out. However, I maintain that, with the proper cuts elsewhere in the movie, they would have had time for that scene without it seeming "rushed." I also maintain that, however rushed it MIGHT have seemed if it had been in Two Towers, it will seem even MORE rushed in RotK, with all that that movie is going to have to cover.


Might be an opinion, but it's the truth. You find a way to put half the poems and songs in there, and I'll respect you that much more.

Opinions and truth are two mutually exclusive concepts. I know you're intelligent enough to grasp that fact. An opinion, by definition, can't be "true" in the same way that an objective scientific fact can.
As for putting the poems and songs in there, I'm VERY happy with the way that they are handling that particular issue. The one thing I DON'T want to see is LotR turned into a musical. The way they do it (with small snatches of song hummed or muttered under a character's breath here and there, with little or no full-out singing) retains perfect faithfulness to Tolkien's work, pleases the fans, and refrains from annoying those who don't want to have a lot of screen time dedicated to poems and songs.


Helm's Deep is not meant to be a short battle. The fact that the book doesn't describe it that well after it's set up doesn't mean that it didn't go on for a good long while. That's what I'm saying. Helm's Deep is not a drive by shooting. It's a battle that lasted quite a while.

Helm's Deep is not meant to be a short battle in terms of the actual amount of "story time" the battle took, no. But just as Tolkien suggested a very long battle while, in actuality, spending relatively little page length on it, I feel that the film-makers could have suggested a very long battle while spending relatively little screen time on it, by cutting between the battle and the other two major plot lines, and cutting down on the buildup before the battle, much of which focussed on pointless conflict between Aragorn and Theoden which was not in the books.
They already DID suggest a much longer battle than was actually shown on-screen by cutting between it and the two other plot lines. I'm simply saying that they could have used this technique to greater effect. Less is more, as they say. Tolkien was a master of subtlety, suggesting certain things very elegantly and letting the reader's imagination fill in the holes more effectively than mere words (or images, for that matter) could ever do. Jackson, while a very talented film-maker in most other respects, has not mastered that same art. Simply put, subtlety is not his strong suit in most cases.


Then how short would you make it? How much of that could you eliminate? The kissing? The touching? Anything else and you lose a ton of the tragedy of their relationship.

As short as it needed to be to make room for more important things. I'm not denying that to shorten those scenes would, in many ways, take away from its impact, but I don't think that's a huge problem, simply because that romance is a VERY minor subplot. At its heart, LotR is about Frodo's journey, literal and figurative, not about Aragorn's romance.


I doubt that this movie is targeted at people who will find fault with every little difference between book and movie. Rather, I think it is geared toward people who have read the books in general.

I'm not finding fault with EVERY little difference between the book and the movie. There are a great many little nitpicks that I could go into here (such as that bit with Saruman possessing Theoden, Arwen replacing Glorfindel in FotR, the omission of Quickbeam, the omission of Bombadil, the Old Forest, and the Barrow-wights, the addition of certain scenes from Two Towers in Fellowship, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) but I do not, because I recognize that most of these are necessary changes, and the ones that are not are small things that don't detract from the main force of Tolkien's story in the long run.
What I DO find fault with is the UNnecessary changes that I feel detract from Tolkien's story.


At least LOTR is doing Tolkein's work justice, and in some cases, improving on some of his stuff.

Jackson is doing Tolkien's work justice for the most part, with many minor and a bare handful of major exceptions which I have already mentioned. But I would be hard-pressed to find a single instance in which Jackson has actually IMPROVED on Tolkien's work in any way. There have been changes from a literal interpretation of Tolkien's vision which I recognize as good, because they are necessary in effectively adapting that vision from one form to another. But I would not call those "improvements" per se. Rather, I would call those "justifiable deviations," perhaps.

[Bartak123]

Originally posted by Mynd Hed
[/B]At its heart, LotR is about Frodo's journey, literal and figurative, not about Aragorn's romance.[/B]

I think this was Eberts problem.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I liked the movie, although I had problems with it. My wife, who hasn't read the books other than The Hobbit, felt the same, but for totally different reasons.

Gollum was freaking amazing, no qualifications. THIS is how you integrate a CGI character into a movie -- by writing him with the same respect and care that you reserve for the human actors. I could go off into another anti-Lucas rant, but nobody's here to listen to that. The other Gollum-related thing I really liked was the bit where Frodo says, "I have to believe that [Gollum] can be saved." If there's no hope of redemption for Gollum, then what does that say for Frodo and Bilbo? With one little, additional line that's nowhere in the original books, we get an incredibly compelling reason why Frodo lets Gollum live beyond only pity.

Someone few people are talking about so far is Eowyn. I was happy to see Eowyn getting a good, meaty role here, and find it much more believable that she would fall for Aragorn and that he would fall for her than I did in the books. However, I thought she was far too cuddly for most of the movie. In the books, she's presented as a cold and haughty warrior princess, straining at the bit to die a glorious death in combat. So why wasn't she wearing a sword as they left Helm's Deep (for that matter, why weren't any of the women, if the women of Rohan "learned long ago that we can die on swords as easily as any other")? Cut that one swordplay scene with her and Aragorn, and she becomes little more than a boring damsel in distress, which is not what she is. I wanted Xena and got Gabrielle.

On the other hand, the warmth that Miranda Otto gives to the role may be why I find the potential romance between her and Aragorn more effective than the book. Guess you can't win either way. I think she films far better than she photographs.

The Theoden-burying-his-son scene was a cheap, emotional ploy. Too bad for me that it worked beautifully. To see Bernard Hill weeping like a child over his son's grave, saying "No parent should ever have to bury his child" was heartbreaking.

I thought the extended scenes with Arwen/Elrond and Galadriel were totally pointless. Galadriel doesn't do anything except recap the past hour and a half we just sat through, maybe for the people who somehow fell asleep early in the movie. My problem with those scenes were that they stopped the movie dead in its tracks. They were the first scenes where I wanted to check my watch -- a feeling I never got when watching FotR.

Gimli as comic relief is a concept that fell flat on its face with a large, loud thud. I pictured him as a four-foot-tall bundle of hellacious, butt-kicking fury. Almost without exception, the comic scenes with Gimli commit the crime of just not being funny, and then trivialize one of the figuratively-big players in the narrative. The one bit that worked was the "shall I get you a box" line, mostly because Gimli gets to laugh at the joke along with us. It's also the kind of good-natured ribbing I'd expect.

I also would have preferred a new voice actor (like James Earl Jones) as Treebeard -- I thought he sounded too much like Gimli to be convincing. With all those actors, you couldn't hire one more? I hated the attempt to surprise the folks who read the book by having the Ents decide not to go to war, and then change their minds at the last minute. It made the Ents seem capricious, which is not a word I'd associate with them, and stupid (come on, you didn't notice that half your forest was GONE?). I was also hoping for a reference/homage to Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, which also features a forest marching on a castle, but that's 'cuz I'm an even bigger Kurosawa junkie than I am a Tolkien junkie.

I thought turning Faramir into a reflection of his brother, but one capable of turning away the Ring, was effective, even if it deviated from the book. Can't say I cared for the bit where Frodo offers the Ring to a Nazgul, and the little pep talk Sam gives Frodo before they leave Osgiliath was a cheap, emotional ploy that didn't work for me.

I'm torn on using Helm's Deep as the centerpiece. My major concern is that Jackson's got a LOT of ground to cover for the next book. On the other hand, I am not positive that breaking the movie when the book ends is exactly the best way to go about it. I think if I had my druthers, I'd have ended the movie with a series of cliffhangers. Spoilers follow, for those who haven't read the 3rd book:

I would have had Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas depart for the Paths of the Dead (which will be in RotK, since someone's already been cast as Ghan-Buri-Ghan) and Gandalf riding off to Gondor with Pippin, while Gollum's treachery hangs over Frodo and Sam.

I don't have as much of a problem with leaving Shelob out of this movie, other than that it will make it much more challenging to put the rest of the story into the next film.

Sorry for rambling. I liked the movie more than my gripes will let on, but can't say I was as wholly impressed by it as I was by FotR. I saw FotR 3 times in 3 weeks last year; seen TTT twice now, the second time only because my first showing got screwed up with a reel that got rewound upside-down, backwards, and in-reverse (thought at the time: "Well, that's an interesting camera choice..."), and I think I'm done 'till the DVD. Call it 3.5 stars from me (with FotR getting 4.5), and one anxious little Tolkien Geek who's grumbling, yet again, that "We gotta wait another YEAR for the NEXT ONE??!"

-- Ed/Ace

[The Guard]

I thought the extended scenes with Arwen/Elrond and Galadriel were totally pointless. Galadriel doesn't do anything except recap the past hour and a half we just sat through, maybe for the people who somehow fell asleep early in the movie.

That's not really the point of those scenes. The point is to show Elrond that "we give up on them, we're screwed too." Without those scenes, the elves don't go to Helm's Deep. And besides, we got to hear more of Cate Blanchett's fantastic Galadriel.

Gimli as comic relief is a concept that fell flat on its face with a large, loud thud.

Not among most fans. Most people seem to love the fact that he's actually got lines to say. :). At least he's something. In the book, what's he do? That's right, he gets cozy with Legolas and whines about not being able to explore the caverns of Helm's Deep.

I pictured him as a four-foot-tall bundle of hellacious, butt-kicking fury.

That's pretty much what he was in battle. I don't think any of Tolkein's characters are really all that hard core in the book. Gimli certainly doesn't come across as such when you read it.

Almost without exception, the comic scenes with Gimli commit the crime of just not being funny, and then trivialize one of the figuratively-big players in the narrative.

How is Gimli a big figure in THE TWO TOWERS? He's a smaller character who doesn't talk much or do much in TTT. The movies, yeah, you see him onscreen, but he's not one of the main characters, I don't think.

The one bit that worked was the "shall I get you a box" line, mostly because Gimli gets to laugh at the joke along with us. It's also the kind of good-natured ribbing I'd expect.

That's what most of the comic-relief was. "Toss me" and that sort of thing. Stuff that really isn't slapstick or anything like that, but genuinely funny, and a nice break from the horrors of the battle. Some of his lines, you just have to take with a grain of salt.

I hated the attempt to surprise the folks who read the book by having the Ents decide not to go to war, and then change their
minds at the last minute.

I don't think that's really supposed to be an attempt to surprise people. Some people behind me got pissed off when they "decided not to go to war", and started cussing at the screen until they did, but did you really think they weren't going to go to Isengard? In the book, the Ents are shown to have great tempers, but they are also shown to be in control. The movie did a fantastic job with this, when Treebeard started talking about "fire and axes" and then composed himself. I loved this version of the Ents. Would I have liked to see Treebeard's house? Sure, but what we got was very cool.

I thought turning Faramir into a reflection of his brother, but one capable of turning away the Ring, was effective, even if it deviated from the book.

I liked the change. I never liked Faramir in the book, because he just seems to be good for the heck of it. This gave him a choice, and it was much more realistic considering the Middle Earth we've been presented with in the movies.

Can't say I cared for the bit where Frodo offers the Ring to a Nazgul, and the little pep talk Sam gives Frodo before they leave Osgiliath was a cheap, emotional ploy that didn't work for me.

I loved Sam's talk. Because it's in the book. They took what Sam tells Frodo in the book and EXTENDED it, and I think it was very cool, coupled with those scenes of Isengard and Helm's Deep. Sam's character really grew on me.

Sorry for rambling. I liked the movie more than my gripes will let on, but can't say I was as wholly impressed by it as I was by FotR.

I liked TFOTR better, too, overall. TFOTR was simply magical. The material in the actual book, I think is better than in TTT. It's got so many great moments, you get to meet all your favorite characters, ect. And the screenwriters improved on several things in TFOTR, like Boromir's death.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Heh. I imagine by now we've scared off all but the hardest of the hardcore, so...


Originally posted by The Guard
That's not really the point of those scenes. The point is to show Elrond that "we give up on them, we're screwed too." Without those scenes, the elves don't go to Helm's Deep.

Yeah, but Elrond and all the elves are leaving for the Western Lands. While that's barely even touched on in the movies, the books at least show them as being utterly beyond the reach of Sauron once they leave. They'd only be screwed if they were staying.

I actually thought Gandalf sent/sweet-talked the elves to Helm's Deep. As a side note, I thought the elves marching into Helm's Deep and Haldir talking about honoring the old alliances was another great moment in the movie.


How is Gimli a big figure in THE TWO TOWERS? He's a smaller character who doesn't talk much or do much in TTT. The movies, yeah, you see him onscreen, but he's not one of the main characters, I don't think.

Gimli may not be a major player in the novels action-wise, but by that standard neither is Legolas. To me, they're the drummer and bass-player to Aragorn's lead guitar. You may believe that they aren't doing much, but you'll sure as shooting notice if they're not there or if they're really really bad.

To me, the trio is a manifestation of the idea that people can get a lot further together than they can separately, and that setting aside physical and philosophical differences for the sake of a greater good is a truly admirable act which can forge a lifelong friendship in the bargain. The friendship between Gimli and Legolas that develops over the span of the books (and the movies) are really what validate those characters more than any direct physical action they take. To take one of the legs of that triangle and make him the butt of cheap jokes for comic relief just wasn't necessary, especially since there were enough laughs in the movie without the Gimli jokes, IMO.

-- Ed/Ace

[The Guard]

Heh. I imagine by now we've scared off all but the hardest of the hardcore, so...

Heh, indeed.

Yeah, but Elrond and all the elves are leaving for the Western Lands. While that's barely even touched on in the movies, the books at least show them as being utterly beyond the reach of Sauron once they leave. They'd only be screwed if they were staying.

Whatever the Undying Lands may be, I don't think they're anywhere out of Sauron's reach. Unless it's some sort of mythical place, Sauron can still extend his reach over the entire world. I think that's what Galadriel is saying.

I actually thought Gandalf sent/sweet-talked the elves to Helm's Deep.

I think Galadriel sweet-talked Elrond. :)

As a side note, I thought the elves marching into Helm's Deep and Haldir talking about honoring the old alliances was another great moment in the movie.

Very cool to see. And somewhat unexpected. You knew that help would arrive, but I didn't expect it to be the elves, even after her little voiceover.

Gimli may not be a major player in the novels action-wise, but by that standard neither is Legolas.

And neither really does much in the movies. Gimli is the butt of jokes and he kills things. Legolas has a few "friendship developing" scenes and he kills things.

To me, they're the drummer and bass-player to Aragorn's lead guitar. You may believe that they aren't doing much, but you'll sure as shooting notice if they're not there or if they're really really bad.

Both of them do a ton when not saying their dialogue, but the whole point was whether they've been used properly. I think they have. The Gimli from the books comes across as a bit of a wuss to me. At least the movie version is fairly brave and ferocious. He seems just like the dwarves I imagine. Fierce in battle, crude, and with just a touch of dwarf charm.

To me, the trio is a manifestation of the idea that people can get a lot further together than they can separately, and that setting aside physical and philosophical differences for the sake of a greater good is a truly admirable act which can forge a lifelong friendship in the bargain.

True. Which is being brought out beautifully in the movies, I think. You can see the bond between them forming, and how the "deaths" of those they've sworn to protect affects them.

The friendship between Gimli and Legolas that develops over the span of the books (and the movies) are really what validate those characters more than any direct physical action they take. To take one of the legs of that triangle and make him the butt of cheap jokes for comic relief just wasn't necessary, especially since there were enough laughs in the movie without the Gimli jokes, IMO.

What laughs? Gollum? That stuff's not even really supposed to be funny. We just like to laugh at the misfortunes of others. It seems to me that Gimli is pretty much the only comic relief, save some of Sam's earlier lines.

[The Guard]

Slightly off topic, but...

The Chicago Sun-Times talked to both Elijah Wood and director Peter Jackson about The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Here's a clip...

It might be much longer," says Elijah Wood, who plays Frodo Baggins, indicating that the last journey, "The Return of the King," will be inching toward the 3-1/2-hour mark.

"It will be as long as it needs to be," says director Peter Jackson, who is busy editing the film right now. "The third is my favorite one in the trilogy. It's almost biblical and makes me cry. It's about incredible courage and the last part of it is just mind-boggling."

Wood adds, "The third movie has always been my favorite. I've seen moments from it and they just break my heart," he says. "You've grown to care about these characters and they lose quite a lot in the process of the third movie. Frodo, Sam, Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn will never be the same."

[Failure]

Originally posted by The Guard
Slightly off topic, but...

The Chicago Sun-Times talked to both Elijah Wood and director Peter Jackson about The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Here's a clip...

It might be much longer," says Elijah Wood, who plays Frodo Baggins, indicating that the last journey, "The Return of the King," will be inching toward the 3-1/2-hour mark.

"It will be as long as it needs to be," says director Peter Jackson, who is busy editing the film right now. "The third is my favorite one in the trilogy. It's almost biblical and makes me cry. It's about incredible courage and the last part of it is just mind-boggling."

Wood adds, "The third movie has always been my favorite. I've seen moments from it and they just break my heart," he says. "You've grown to care about these characters and they lose quite a lot in the process of the third movie. Frodo, Sam, Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn will never be the same."

DANGIT! I can't believe it's still another year until RotK comes out. :p

Personally, I'm glad they're saying it's gonna be as long as it needs to be. I don't care about length, and I think by then people will have stopped complaining about length. It's LOTR, you come to expect it. If they get everything they need to get in their and it's as great as I imagine, then we are in for a hulluva treat.

[The Guard]

When all is said and done, I don't think 3.5 hours will be out of the question.

[Mynd Hed]

The other Gollum-related thing I really liked was the bit where Frodo says, "I have to believe that [Gollum] can be saved." If there's no hope of redemption for Gollum, then what does that say for Frodo and Bilbo? With one little, additional line that's nowhere in the original books, we get an incredibly compelling reason why Frodo lets Gollum live beyond only pity.

I agree, I felt that was a great line that, although it wasn't taken word for word from the book, was very much in the spirit of Tolkien's work. In the book, most of the Gollum/Frodo/Sam stuff was written from Sam's point of view, and Sam was always noticing a sort of kinship between Gollum and Frodo. At one point he compares them to a cowed dog and its master, but then said that he felt that they were "akin and not alien." Of course, short of a voice-over, they can't make those sorts of internal observations in the movie, so instead they took that same idea, that Frodo and Gollum are alike in being afflicted by the Ring, and turned it into a line of dialogue instead. Very good stuff.


Whatever the Undying Lands may be, I don't think they're anywhere out of Sauron's reach. Unless it's some sort of mythical place, Sauron can still extend his reach over the entire world. I think that's what Galadriel is saying.

The Undying Lands are the home of, not only the majority of the Elves, but also...the Valar, who function very much as gods in Tolkien's mythology. In reality, they are considered equivalent to Seraphim, the highest choir of angel, in Catholic dogma. Tolkien was a good Catholic and made sure that his fictional mythology was completely compatible with Catholic dogma. Thousands of years before the events depicted in LotR, the Valar came under attack by a group of Numenoreans who had been corrupted by Sauron. In response to this attack, they removed the Undying Lands (which are named Valinor) from the "circles of the world," so that no one without special permission (usually only Elves) could sail there. The Valar are VASTLY more powerful than Sauron is, since he's a corrupted Maia (a lower choir of angel-- they function more or less as demigods). So to make a long story short, yes, the Undying Lands ARE a mythical place, they are NOT within the world, so they ARE out of Sauron's reach.(Silmarillion spoilers)

However, in the Fellowship book, Galadriel states that...she does not believe that the Elves of Lothlorien could reach the Gray Havens without being attacked by Sauron's forces. So while it's possible (although not guaranteed) that Elrond's group at Rivendell could safely leave Middle-Earth and the conflict against Sauron behind, that is not an option for Galadriel. She is more or less forced to oppose Sauron.

[James]

Okay, I'm going to blunder and trip my way into this little thread.

With typical English reservation, I must say I rather enjoyed it. Okay, I did rather enjoy it a great deal. A lot - in fact, I may go further and lapse into using the word 'thrilling'.

First off, I must confess it's been a few years for me since reading the book. Personally I think that's a good thing, meaning that much which irrated the hardliners, didn't touch me.

No means perfect, but then I think the source for the second film is a far harder job to translate seamlessly. The middle part of the story is always the toughest to convey lacking the essential ending and beginning. I think it did a good job.

I agree with the point that ending was too 'feel good' - it did sort of lessen the thrill of the conclusion. The middle part of a story should always look things are getting worse...

That all said, it was a great movie. The music and visuals were stunning! The acting was fantastic, and I could see why McKellen is in such high demand - he was spell binding once more - but in a very different way.

Frodo's slow discent into despair was well played out (well done Mr Wood), the only people to lose in this episode was Merry and Pippin -stuck in the forrest the whole time. As I said, their part is only as good as their source material.

However, the film belonged to Aragon and co. This was their spotlight and I thought they played it ever so well. The falling of the cliff was the only silly bit I thought, but other than that, all three were great. Gimli was very funny - yet at the same time remained a solid pillar of the three - I never felt any doubt in the character despite his comic antics. Legolas too, was far better in this movie. Strong, determined and dependable. I was far more impressed with the actors performance this time.

Aragorn. Viggo, Viggo, Viggo. Certainly I will not be latching onto your leg (although I'll prise Barb off for you if you like ;) ) - but a great performance. Again, totally convincing and his play at Helm Deep kept me spellbound on the character rather than some of the rather unconvincing battle sequences... sorry, certainly I expected more than a scratch on both Gimli and Aragorn fo some of their attacks...

That leaves Sam and Gollum. Both outstanding depictions.

Fantastic film! Can't wait to own it next year!!! :D

[Drachentöter]

Well, the thread seems to be split between those who love the movie unconditionally and those who thought it wasn't faithful enough to the books. I lean toward the latter category, though I'm not such a Tolkien purist that I think it makes the movie bad or unenjoyable. It was a good movie, a great movie even...but if they just followed the book a little more it would have been perfect.

My gripes:

Overbearing horror tones: It's been awhile since I read the book, but I don't remember it being so...glum. The music is always typical "low strings" horror music and frightening scenes. Where's the thrill of adventure? I remember having the same problem with the third book, Return of the King. It was just too sad. To compensate for the gloomy feeling, they reduced Glimi to comic relief. Glimi deserves better! And I guess people were grasping for something to feel good about, because the people in the theater laughed at Gollum talking to himself. I found the scene disturbing...maybe it's just me...

Farmamir: NO, NO, NO! This is not Faramir! Farmir is Boromir's counterpart, the pure brother! Now they just made him Boromir incarnate. He's even WORSE than Boromir in this movie. NO, NO, NO!

Uneven focus: Okay, this was basically "Aragorn and Friends." I'm no fan of Elijah Wood, but he's FRODO. HE'S the important actor. Viggo Whatshisface may appeal to the ladies out there, but that doesn't mean he should have been the star. The only characters treated worse than Frodo and Sam, were Merry and Pippin. Do people not like Hobbits anymore? We see Merry and Pippin meeting Gandalf--cut to Aragorn and Co.--we never see Merry and Pippin conversing with Gandalf and they're basically reduced to kid sidekicks a-la Wendy and Marvin or the Wonder Twins from Superfriends.

Overuse of Liv Tyler: She's hot, she's oh-so-hot...that doesn't merit having her waste what seemed like fifteen minutes of screen time. A simple thrity-second flashback would suffice. No big discussion with her father, no kissing Aragorn just to make ladies go "awwww." That whole, pointless waterfall scene wouldn't have been there if it werent' for this mistake. Arwen was used perfectly in the first movie, now I'm getting sick of her.


The good stuff:


The battle at Helm's Deep: AWESOME! SPECTACULAR! EPIC! WONDERFUL! ENTHRALLING! HUGE! PERFECTLY PERFORMED! AWESOME USE OF GRAPHICS! PERFECT, PERFECT, PERFECT! :D :D :D :cool:

Gollum: Yes, Andy Serkis is king. He was meant for Gollum. Excellent use of CGI too. My...preciousssss...

Samwise: "PO-TA-TOES!" :D His speech at the end was great too.

And just about everything else was great too. Including Grima Wormtongue and Eowyn. Mmm...Eowyn...:dot: :blossom: :bcup: :bubbles:

[James]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite

It was just too sad. To compensate for the gloomy feeling, they reduced Glimi to comic relief. Glimi deserves better! And I guess people were grasping for something to feel good about, because the people in the theater laughed at Gollum talking to himself. I found the scene disturbing...maybe it's just me...


I thought Glimi was fine. Yes he did have more comic scenes this episode but I found it gave him firmer purpose in the film and made him more likable.
I found Gollum amusing and disturbing. I thought he was both.



Farmamir: NO, NO, NO! This is not Faramir! Farmir is Boromir's counterpart, the pure brother! Now they just made him Boromir incarnate. He's even WORSE than Boromir in this movie. NO, NO, NO!


It is after just a vision of a film. Someone who clearly had a different opinion on how to portray some of the characters and scenes within the context of a film. Jackson clearly thought this would add more tension, and I agree, Farmir's threat kept the scenes with Frodo very tense.



Uneven focus: Okay, this was basically "Aragorn and Friends." I'm no fan of Elijah Wood, but he's FRODO. HE'S the important actor. Viggo Whatshisface may appeal to the ladies out there, but that doesn't mean he should have been the star. The only characters treated worse than Frodo and Sam, were Merry and Pippin. Do people not like Hobbits anymore? We see Merry and Pippin meeting Gandalf--cut to Aragorn and Co.--we never see Merry and Pippin conversing with Gandalf and they're basically reduced to kid sidekicks a-la Wendy and Marvin or the Wonder Twins from Superfriends.


Well it's a big book - even for a 3 hour film and therefore Pippin and Merry's role was clearly restricted - which was fine by me. I think the film covered their part of the story fine. They had quite a bit of coverage at the beginning though.
To me this worked as being the movie about Aragon's bunch - and that made sense. Frodo's story at this point is less interesting. Once we have met Gollum and he's being taken to Mordor that about covers it. In this part Aragon's tale makes more of an interesting film.



Overuse of Liv Tyler: She's hot, she's oh-so-hot...that doesn't merit having her waste what seemed like fifteen minutes of screen time. A simple thrity-second flashback would suffice. No big discussion with her father, no kissing Aragorn just to make ladies go "awwww." That whole, pointless waterfall scene wouldn't have been there if it werent' for this mistake. Arwen was used perfectly in the first movie, now I'm getting sick of her.


I didn't think she was overused, I got the impression from fans she was in it to point which entirely distorted the story - I get expecting to see riding to Helm's Deep! Well she didn't and I'm glad. She didn't affect the story in any bad way for me!!

[Auggie Doggie]

Well, I loved it.

It was great to see Gandalf return in this chapter, and as a better wizard this time too. He even removed the horrible curse from the King as Gandalf the White! Simply amazing.

Also, Gollum traveling with Frodo and Sam was pretty amusing, particuarly with his discussions with himself (just like when Norman Osbourne "met" the Green Goblin in Spider-Man).

Sam: (referring to the stew he made) It would better if we had some 'taters.
Gollum: 'Taters?
Sam: PO-TA-TOES! You boil them, mash them...

LOL

And Gollum was, to quote Frodo, "a creature no different from a hobbit" once? Wow.

Anyway, it is quite amusing and a suberb contribution to the plot to have Gollum join Frodo and Sam on their quest, with Frodo trusting him and Sam thinking he just wants the ring, so he is tricking them into following him to their destination, they only place where the ring can be destroyed, until they hand "his precious" over.

Also, need I mention the wonderful way Gandalf and Company saved the last civilization of man? How they pulled off the war protecting the humans from genocide? Perfect contribution to the plot, making The Two Towers better than the first, especially how the heartthrobs Aragorn and Leogolas were involved better (my sister, a fan of LOTR, thinks the former is a real hottie and my female cousin [real nice girl, I might add] just put up an away message with positive comments toward the trilogy and imagined the two comibned, with great words).

Five Stars, a great movie. I'd definatley suggest it to friends. It makes you wonder if The Return of the King would be anything of a great way to tie up the series.

[Mynd Hed]

He even removed the horrible curse from the King as Gandalf the White! Simply amazing.

Funny you should mention that, I found this part to be an interesting deviation from the book. In the book, Saruman does NOT possess Theoden, it's Wormtongue doing all the work in that respect and Tolkien describes the situation with such subtlety that you're never really sure whether Wormtongue uses magic to cripple Theoden, or whether he's just the victim of listening to too much bad advice-- or both. I don't have a problem with making it obviously magical, as A.) that is a very valid interpretation of Tolkien's intention, and B.) it makes for a much more interesting visual scene on-screen. However, making Saruman possess Theoden raises the question: if Saruman's doing all the work, why does he need Wormtongue in the first place? However, this is a minor change and a minor nitpick, so I don't have any huge problem with this one.


And Gollum was, to quote Frodo, "a creature no different from a hobbit" once? Wow.

I found that line an odd one, as according to Gandalf in the book, Gollum IS a hobbit, albeit a very old and corrupted one, not something "like" a hobbit or "no different from" a hobbit. But again, not a major change so no reason to complain.


Also, need I mention the wonderful way Gandalf and Company saved the last civilization of man?

Rohan is NOT the last civilization of man. There's still Gondor, the settlement near the Lonely Mountain in the Hobbit, the Easterlings, the Haradrim, and probably many, many more that we haven't heard about.

Okay, nitpicky fanboy rantings over. (-: Thank you for your patience.

[Barb Gordon]

*dances around in awe of Mynd* Anyhoo, what does everyone think of Gollum/Andy Serkis' performance on its own? I mean, at least for me, this is the first time I've ever seen a preview for a movie just shy of flatout telling me to go see the movie for this one actor's performance.

~Barb

[Drachentöter]

Well, he deserves the nod. The performance was very powerful, very gripping. He stole the show! It sounded pretty much like I imagined him in the book. And even if his appearance was CGI, the animators model it after an actor's facial expressions and traits. If Serkis's motions had been half as fluid and creepy as they were in the movie, the character wouldn't have come off as realistic.

My favorite Gollum scene was the interrogation with Faramir. That's when we see him revert to his old ways.

And, yeah, Gollum was a type of hobbit ages ago when he was called Smeagal. I don't recall Gandalf telling Frodo this in the first movie, but it takes up a chapter of the first book. His race loved water and when the king who took the ring from Sauron (his name escapes me) was slain and fell into river, it was Smeagal who found the ring at the bottom. The mental transformation was immediate and he is now called Gollum because of the throat noises he makes.

Just thought you'd like the trivia. :)

[Mynd Hed]

Gollum made the movie for me. There were other parts that I enjoyed (Helm's Deep, Treebeard, etc.) but Gollum was the star of the picture as far as I was concerned. I felt that Serkis' performance was incredibly faithful to Tolkien's depiction of the character, and the CG work was just plain great. I've never seen a completely CG character physically interact with flesh-and-blood actors to that extent before, and they pulled it off beautifully. Unlike the Cave Troll in Fellowship and seemingly 3/4 of the characters in Episode II, which looked about as real and integrated into their surroundings as the animated penguins in "Mary Poppins," (okay, that's an exaggeration for effect, but you get my drift) Gollum looked absolutely as if he belonged right where he was, as if he were part of the world he inhabits.
I did have a few minor issues with the script-- nothing too big, I just kind of wished they'd taken more dialogue directly from the books (do you sense a theme here?) and I do wish they'd done something with the whole green gleam / pale gleam in the eyes thing, but then again that might have come off as too forced and cheesy, so I won't complain.
I noticed that, the two times I saw the movie in the theatre, the audience didn't seem to know whether to laugh at Gollum or take him seriously. There were a few nervous titters, but on the whole I think most of the audience felt the same way I did; they wanted to laugh, but it was too disturbing to laugh right out loud. The effect was that most people watching the major Gollum scenes felt vaguely uneasy and nervous, and I think that worked remarkably well. Gollum IS a humorous character in parts, especially in his interactions with Sam, but he's also a tragic and sympathetic figure, and I think the movie carried both sides of him across to the audience EXTREMELY well.

Note: It's not my intention to insult the Cave Troll with that "Mary Poppins" crack. There is no realistic way they could have done that scene without making the Cave Troll entirely CG, and if I hadn't just seen Gollum not even a week ago, I would have sworn that the Cave Troll was the best a full-CG character could possibly be at this stage in the technology's development. The Cave Troll is not bad by any means-- he's just not as good as Gollum. That's all.
For that matter, I'm not trying to insult "Mary Poppins," either, and I hope that I didn't come across that way.
It IS my intention to insult Episode II, but that's a topic for another thread. (-:

[Barb Gordon]

I'm just in awe of his performace. When they said he was a Shakespearing actor, I knew right then I was in for something pretty incredible, and I wasn't left wanting with that assumption. It's so cool that he did every single scene with the other actors. The only thing that makes him different is just that they covered his real figure with the of a CGI figure. But he really nailed Gollum, and made the character so much for deeper and intense.

~Barb

[Drachentöter]

:mad: Hey, Episode II was great! Especially the arena monsters!

Oh, well, to each his own.

Yeah, I experienced the same thing with the audience reaction to Gollum and while I complained about it in my first post, in retrospect I guess it takes really powerful acting to convey a creature so vivid that it creates conflicting emotions in a viewer.

Though I really think it was just the cartoonish facial expressions. :p

[silverwings]

Okay, seen the movie three times now. . . and it doesn't get any worse or old or boring. In fact, it gets better and more fluid each time I see it.

I'm surprised no hardcore Tolkien fans have posted on this, but the Arwen/Aragorn love sub-plot was lifted right out the appendixes (sp?). Its appendix A, part five. Jackson even said he took this from the appendixes himself in an interview. now, was it positive or negative? I personally believe its positive. Why? Because if you read the book, characters like Arwen disappear. If I remember correctly, Aragorn says her name about one time (in the book) and thats it.

Am I the only one who actually liked the scene when Aragorn fell off the cliff? I thought it showed how close the three (Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn) were.

Speaking of Gimli, everyone stop complaining about him as comic relief. I haven't heard one person stop and say, 'Pipin and Merry were shortchanged as comic relief!' It didn't hurt Gimli's character, it gave him more depth (or so I think).

This movie, and book, is where Legolas and Gimli shine. I always felt they were shortchanged in the first and third book, left as background, drifting in and out of scenes. I liked how they were brought to the forground and make major characters in the movie.

With Famamir, I agree with his change. He was too one dimensional in the book. And he's not like Boromir, he's the opposite. Boromir started out protecting the ring, sucumbed (sp?) to it, and died for it. Famamir wants it from the get-go, takes it to the edge of Gondor (he did not take the ring to GONDOR, he took it OSGILATH), and then decides to let Frodo go on risk of death. That alone makes his choice seem much more urgent and important. Plus, in the long run, he helped Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, getting them closer to the 'shortcut' and to Mordor.

I liked the ending, though I'm a sucker for dramatic irony. You know Gollum is taking them to 'she' who he wants to kill them. Yet they follow him, on high spirits, without thinking of being in danger.

Overall, I liked this movie better than Fellowship. Mostly for two reasons. One, no hobbiton. No offensive, but the regular movie length has the hobbits getting to bree in 35-40 minutes while the extended version has the trip taking nearly an hour. TOO MUCH!!! I like hobbiton, just not in such long, slowing-down-the-plot quantities. Towers had a slower beginning, but I see no problem for this with Return of the King, seeing as the confrontation between Sarumon and Gandalf plus Shelob will be in the first hour. But I guess its how you see it - half empty or half full. .. .

And the second - more elf action! ;)

[Barb Gordon]

*polishes Evenstar necklace*

I'm a huge Arwen/Aragorn fan, and I didn't mind their scenes one bit. Oddly enough I did read the appendix...in fact the area concerning them was about the only part I read! Yet I can't remember anything from it,lol. Oh well, wont mind reading it again!

I also enjoyed the cliff scene. Heck, Viggo almost died with the after scene with the rapids and all, so I'd want to like it a little. But I did like the cliff scene. It was dramatic, especially with the orc having ripped the necklace from Aragorn's neck. The interaction with Gimli and Legolas was great. This is whole movie does well in showing how much these three have grown closer together, what a kinship they have. The bantering between Gimli and Legolas illustrated this, as well as the moments between Legolas and Aragorn. At this point in the movie you can see how crestfallen Legolas especially looks, which is great. I mean, for fans of the book you know Aragorn is fine, but it still made me go...god I hope he's okay! I found Legolas holding onto the necklace and being the one to return it, with he and Arwen being elves and all, was touching in itself.

~Barb

[James]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon

But I did like the cliff scene. It was dramatic, especially with the orc having ripped the necklace from Aragorn's neck. The interaction with Gimli and Legolas was great. This is whole movie does well in showing how much these three have grown closer together, what a kinship they have. The bantering between Gimli and Legolas illustrated this, as well as the moments between Legolas and Aragorn. At this point in the movie you can see how crestfallen Legolas especially looks, which is great. I mean, for fans of the book you know Aragorn is fine, but it still made me go...god I hope he's okay! I found Legolas holding onto the necklace and being the one to return it, with he and Arwen being elves and all, was touching in itself.

~Barb

I think that's the nail on the head. Out of context with the rest of the characters, this scene is a bit odd. He falls off the cliff gets washed up and then the horse pops by, asks, 'where ya going mate? I can take you as far as Picadilly.' and promptly takes him to HD.
But the intention is as Barb says, to show the characters and their relation to each other and Aragon. This drama sets up both Eowyn's reaction to his 'demise' and 'return' as well as deepen the parts of Gimli and Legolas. Furthermore it allowed a little more of a romantic interlude which helped break up the pace and reinforce the tie between Arwen and Aragon which would then be dealt with further later.
Yes, it was odd, and against the original text, but this is a film, and I think it was done for pacing, story direction and character involvement.

[The Guard]

I'm surprised no hardcore Tolkien fans have posted on this, but the Arwen/Aragorn love sub-plot was lifted right out the appendixes (sp?). Its appendix A, part five. Jackson even said he took this from the appendixes himself in an interview. now, was it positive or negative? I personally believe its positive. Why? Because if you read the book, characters like Arwen disappear. If I remember correctly, Aragorn says her name about one time (in the book) and thats it.

MINOR SPOILERS

In the book, Arwen gets mentioned, disappears, it's hinted from Eowyn's POV that Aragorn might feel something for Arwen, and then POOF, Arwen reappears in THE RETURN OF THE KING and becomes Queen Arwen when Aragorn becomes the King of Gondor.

[James]

I don't think I ever read the appendixes - I finished the story then threw the book into the Freddie Prince Jr's cereal bowl. Ha, you should have seen his face.

Glad you pointed that out (Barb mentioned something along those lines earlier I believe) - it seems a major gripe among the fans and as I said, this is Jackson's interpretation. I'm sure we'd all do something different if we had just 3 hours to squeeze a book into a film and keep the pace and the style of the story fitting to it's new medium.

Curses! Read your spoiler! I'd forgotten that! Not a biggie, but I couldn't recall who lived and who died by the third book. *stomps foot*

[Watermelon]

The whole thing can be summed up in two words:

Holy Crap!

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/images/smiles/banana.gif

[The Guard]

Is that a...dancing banana?

[Drachentöter]

I...think it is...

[EinBebop]

I've discovered that when I read a book and then watch the movie, I always ended up being a little disappointed that they leave parts that I liked out. So my solution is simple: I do it in the opposite order.

Actually, it's been about fifteen years since I read the series, and I'd all but forgotten most of it. And as such I was able to go in and enjoy the movie a hell of a lot more than you "hardcore" hobbit fans. :D And later I can go read the book with all of it's "bonus" material!

I was mixed on Gimli; I was glad that he got more attention than in the first movie (where one of his two defining scenes got cut to the special edition, IMO), but at the same time, he became far too comic relief, as stated repeatedly here.

While I had forgotten that Towers originally ended on a cliffhanger, I did think that the movie had a little too much of a happy feel at the end considering that the odds were stacked against them.

I realized watching the second one what didn't work for me in the first one; the "death" of Gandalf came to early in Fellowship. Granted, it was fine for the book, but from a film sense it was the most powerful scene in the movie, and from there you're just waiting for the end which is still an hour off. Towers was far more balanced in that sense.

[silverwings]

just saw it again (time #4!) and its was great, even from the front row!

The Gimli thing didn't bother me as much as before, since I think that Gimli, Merry, and Pippin are the 3 comic relievers in the films (and Legolas is occasionally, but only when dissing the dwarf :p ). I think the problem was that Pippin and Merry had less screen time, so more of the comidic lines went to Gimli. Two of his lines were funny due to it just being Gimli.

"Toss me!" - this wouldn't be funny unless you saw Fellowship, in which he blantenly refuses to be tossed. "no one tosses a dwarf." (in fact, that whole scene in FOTR is histerical)

". . .or shall I get you a box?" - this is funny because he laughs at himself, getting everyone to laugh at/with (take your pick) him.

I dunno. Seemed to me that Gimli wasn't intentionally made to be comic relief. He's just a dwarf that can't compete in running with elves and men (or in height) that can't jump very far.

However, I could see your point about the damage to Gimli's character IF I heard the same arguements for Merry and Pippin (who I felt naturally fit the overly-used comic relief bit in FOTR).

*end longer than intended rant*

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Originally posted by silverwings01

However, I could see your point about the damage to Gimli's character IF I heard the same arguements for Merry and Pippin (who I felt naturally fit the overly-used comic relief bit in FOTR).


Some of their comedy was over done, but several of the insults on Pippin's intelligence came from the book, although If I remember right, Gandalf was the one who said he should be left out of the fellowship, not Merry.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

This was the absolute best movie I have ever see in my entire life. That's all I can say about it. Well maybe a little bit more. It was paced much better than the first, and Golem was just freaking awesome. He's always been my favorite character so I may be a little biased.

"Master is our friend."

[James]

Originally posted by Chris Sanders MSX
This was the absolute best movie I have ever see in my entire life. That's all I can say about it. Well maybe a little bit more. It was paced much better than the first, and Golem was just freaking awesome. He's always been my favorite character so I may be a little biased.

"Master is our friend."

Now that's a recommendation! He was great, and proof that it was worth waiting for the SFX to be up to a standard before trying this venture. It would have looked wrong as an actor or puppet.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Yeah seriously. I couldn't even tell he was CGI. I kept looking for imperfections. I expected them to just have him in the dark all the time, but when the day light was shown I was like wow, he still looks really, even when he was fighting with Sam.

I have to own this movie on DVD. I will wait but I cannot wait to get it so I can run around clutching it calling it my precious.

[Lachesis]

Okay, I've seen it twice now. Ready to comment.

I definitely liked the movie better the second time, having been too worked up by hype and this-shouldn't-be-in-the-movie! outrage the first ime.

Overall, the pace was defintely choppier for the simple reason that we're switching between three different storylines in this movie. You want to know how ROTK is going to fit in all those different important battles and events? Just keep in mind they won't be going on one after another, but quite likely all at the same time.

I think it helped a lot that I haven't read the books in a while and had forgotten most of the details. Yes, Arwen's scenes ran a little long, but I loved her conversation with Elrond and the bleak possibility of her future. Great setup for the ending.

By the by, do you notice Aragorn actually speaks more Elvish than Arwen? Was this intentional?

Gollum is great, as everyone has said already. One quibble though, and I don't mean anything against Andy Serkis' performance, but give the animators their due. Motion capture can only go so far, and the bulk of the work on Gollum's expressions, including that lovely scene between Gollum and Smeagol, should be credited to the fabulous CGI team.

On the other hand, CGI Legolas mounting the horse looked like, well, a CGI Legolas mounting a horse. Eh.

I think Theoden, Eowyn, Eomer, and Grima came out about as well as could be expected, and I liked the depiction of Rohan. Gandalf didn't really get enough time for my liking, but he barely had anything to do in this movie anyway. Gimli was great. Good humor without turning him into a clown. It was also a lot of fun seeing how many ways they coud get more of Legolas into the picture. Though every time he did do something cool, a bunch of teenyboppers in the front would start squealing. :rolleyes:

Aragorn ruled the screen. The entire narrative focus is centered on him, which is an interpretation many people don't seem to like. I think Viggo's going to be getting offers left and right after this. He got a lot of great moments, and we really see him transform from Strider into Isidur's heir. I do think we could've done without his little fall off the cliff, though.

Helm's Deep was spectacular. Did we really need Haldir and the Lorien archers? No. But it gave a reason for more Elrond and Galadriel, and added to the battle scenes.

The storyline I liked the least, but felt much better about the second time, was the Merry/Pippin/Treebeard segments. Hammers the motivation messages a little hard, but there really was very little else for them to do before the whole busness with the Palantir and Gandalf and. . . well, shouldn't give too much away. :D Merry and Pippin are just entertaining in general, and watching them try to reason with the trees was a hoot.

Faramir is pretty dull in the books, and I'd say this incident was a pretty decent way of giving him an introduction and sneak in the growing danger to Gondor. And it DOES emphasize his difference from Boromir. Faramir resists the ring when given the chance. And since Shelob's been delayed, it also gives more for Sam and Frodo to do, rather than wander around in the woods for the last half hour and wait for all the other storylines to catch up.

But,

Seriously massive spoilers for ROTK, people. Stop reading. Stop reading NOW.

How do Sam and Frodo not have enough to do after Shelob? Frodo gets captured and tortured by Orcs, Sam has to take up the Ring and go rescue him, they're sneaking around bloody-freaking MODOR. And the heartbreaking trek up the blooming VOLCANO isn't something you can just gloss over. Aaargh.


I don't know how I'm going to be able to sit through the last movie, considering what happens to these two. Elijah Wood and Sam Astin make such a good Frodo and Sam, I honestly can't think of the characters without them anymore. The last speech by Sam at the end of the movie sets up the last installment perfectly. No need for a cliffhanger at all.

And they mentioned the lembas!!

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Originally posted by Lachesis
By the by, do you notice Aragorn actually speaks more Elvish than Arwen? Was this intentional?


According to the IMDb trivia page (http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0120737) for FotR, the tri-lingual Viggo Mortensen specifically asked for more lines in Elvish. I've read scuttlebutt elsewhere that Liv Tyler had a tremendous amount of trouble learning her lines in Elvish, and supposedly filmed her scenes in Elvish one line at a time (actually, I read that on the IMDb, too, but the reference has since been removed and replaced by the one I mentioned above).

-- Ed/Ace

[Mynd Hed]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. The impression I got when I watched the behind-the-scenes stuff on the FOTR 4-disc set was that Viggo REALLY got into his part. The rest of the cast constantly praised his professionalism and dedication, especially since he was cast at the last minute and had to really work to catch up, especially training to do the action scenes. Whereas whenever Liv Tyler is mentioned, the gist always seems to be, "Yeah, it kinda sucks because she wasn't on the set much and she's hot." (-:

[James]

Originally posted by Lachesis
Okay, I've seen it twice now. Ready to comment.

I definitely liked the movie better the second time, having been too worked up by hype and this-shouldn't-be-in-the-movie! outrage the first ime.


I think that's a good point. For those who were disappointed, a second showing may warm you to it. I think it's an excellent film which has such high expectations, it makes it easier to fall short on first showing. On a second showing, knowing what to expect, I think it would be a far more enjoyable experiencing simply watching the movie for what it is.

I found the same for the FF8 video game.

[Drachentöter]

True...even my friend who was so tied to the books cooled down after he saw it a second time. But I'm not willing to spend another eight bucks so soon...I'll just get it on DVD.

Oh, wait, I still haven't obtained Fellowship of the Ring. :moon2:

[Outlander00]

Good, strong movie but Peter Jackson took more liberties in this one. While some of them I understand, didnt mind, and/or liked... a couple (Merry and Pip seeing "Saruman" and the transactions of the Ents) I didnt like so much. The movie stayed faithful, for the most part, faithful to the book. I'd like to see how ROTK will be handled.

[wonderfly]

I'm the happiest man alive right now. :D That was definently the best movie of the year. Now I'm going to sift through all of your replies on the Two Towers thread, see what you all had to say, and probably add my own thoughts to that thread.

But here, I just wanted to share my experience trying to see this movie. :mad: The reason I hadn't seen it any earlier till now is cause I wanted to go see it with someone...but couldn't get anyone to go with me. My girlfriend wasn't really wanting to go, mostly cause she doesn't like sitting in a movie theatre for three hours. She did like the first one though, and we were going to go see is on 2 or 3 occasions, but a 'life or death' situation always came up and prevented us. I couldn't get her son to go, cause he didn't wanna sit for 3 hours either, (nevermind the fact that I sat through all 3 hours of Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets with him :rolleyes: ). My friends had either already seen it and couldn't make time to go see it, or were to poor to pay their own way, (and I couldn't at the time either) so I basically held off going.

I realized time was running out though, so every Thursday for the last 2 weeks, I've called the Theater and asked if they were taking it out on Friday to make way for new movies. Yesterday, I got the answer I feared: That Thursday was the last day they had it in the theater. So I just decided to go see it alone. I had just gotten off work that afternoon. I asked when they were showing it today: They said 4 oclock, and that's it. No freakin evening showing of the movie. I looked at the clock. It was 10 minutes till 4! Crap! And it was a 20 minute drive to the Theater from my house! So I jumped in the car and sped off, hoping that the previews would take up time. I arrived just in time. I bought my ticket and entered the theater, and just in time! The words: New Line Cinema appeared on screen, and the movie began...

Take Note: As I consider myself a movie buff, it's very important for me to arrive before a movie starts. If I arrive 3 minutes into the movie, I can't seem to enjoy it as much. But I thankfully arrived on time.

There was only a couple of teenagers in there, and they left just a little into the movie, (perhaps they were more into goofing off then a movie). So basically I had the entire theater all to myself. Me, the guy who had wanted to go see it with somebody, and I got the movie all to myself. So I stood up and cheered during all the great moments, and just basically lived it up, all by my lonesome. It was the last showing of a LOTR movie in this area till December. And it was great! :D

[wonderfly]

I haven't really contributed to this thread about how I feel about the actual movie, but that's because It's taken me FOREVER to read through all these words of praise and scorn for this movie. But, needless to say, I loved the movie. I could go on and on in praising it, but I think we've all seen that before in this thread, and I'm content to leave it at that.

I think I enjoyed the first movie more than the Second movie, but not by very much.

Question for all of you: For me, I felt the first movie had clearly defined chapters which divided the first, second, and third hour.

The first hour ended with the Hobbits arriving in Rivendale.

The second hour ended with Gandalf's "death" and the Fellowship escaping from Moria.

The third hour ended with the Fellowship splitting up.

But I can't figure out how to divide up the sections of the second film. So how do you think the hours of the second film were divided up? Part of the problem is that we have 3 different subplots to follow. I wanna say the Third hour is all about Helm's Deep, but it's the first two I can' clearly find where the breaking point is. The point where you say: "Okay, the first chapter of the film is over. On to the second half!" And so on.


Moving on...can someone explain to me why Frodo was giving the Ring up to the Nazgul? I thought the ring made him want to keep it for himself? Yes, I know the ring is trying to get back to it's original owner, but as shown in Book 3, Frodo feels more and more that the ring is meant for him and him alone. So why is he giving it over to a Nazgul? And can you tell me that after the Nazgul saw the ring so close within his grasp, that after his dragonbeast was shot with just one arrow, he'd flee the scene so readily? With the ring just barely within his grasp? Maybe if Gandalf the White had shown up, I could picture him fleeing, but this was a tad wierd to me. Otherwise, I didn't mind Frodo and Sam and Gollum being at that battle at all.

Me, I had no problem with the Goblin Wolf riders battle, it was the slowness of the Aragorn scenes afterwords that were somewhat slow, (I'm referring to the scenes of his slowly making his way to Helm's Deep) but as for the cuts to Arwen, I had no problem with that. The montage of Aragorn growing old and leaving Arwen behind was handled very well, in my opinion.

As for the changed personalities of Faramir and Treebeard, they didn't but me that bad. Mostly because they pulled off their reactions to "the evil in the world" very well. Treebeard was disgusted, and roared in anger, and Faramir slowly, almost too late, came to realize the evil of the ring.

One question: In one scene with Faramir, he reveals to Frodo that Boromir is dead. But they didn't bother to explain how he knew. This, I felt, left a newcomer to Tolkien bewildered. They didn't show the creepy scene of Faramir seeing the ghostboat float by with his brother Boromir within it. I felt newcomers in the audience would be like: How does he know Boromir's dead?

And near the end, it was Sam that was yelling at Faramir that the Ring was what killed Boromir. But Sam wasn't there to see Boromir's corruption, he barely got in the canoe at the last minute! So why is Sam telling Faramir all this?

But don't worry: I loved this film. There, I've said my piece. :p

[JetMaster5]

And near the end, it was Sam that was yelling at Faramir that the Ring was what killed Boromir. But Sam wasn't there to see Boromir's corruption, he barely got in the canoe at the last minute! So why is Sam telling Faramir all this?


Frodo probably relayed the events to Sam about Boromir betrayal. That's the only explanation I could come up with right now.

The movie did showed Frodo and Sam didn't know that Boromir died at first. That showed that Peter Jackson didn't take TOO much liberties.

But what I really want Peter Jackson to do is include the last chapter of the 3rd book into the last movie.

[Orlis_baby_grrl]

My God, that had to be the BEST movie in my ENTIRE LIFE!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) I was awesome, I can't wait for the DVD to come out!!!!! :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :D :D :D :D :) :) :D :) ;) :) ;) :D :)

[The Penguin]

I finally saw this movie at my second-run theater during Easter weekend and I would have to say I really enjoyed it. I don’t know if I will have the time to navigate this 7-page monstrosity any time soon, but I do want to offer a few thoughts before I forget anything else. Some of the character names are starting to fade already. :o

I am not a fan of the Lord of the Rings books, not because I have some problem with them, it was just something I never got into. I actually saw a trailer for the Fellowship (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?threadid=14975) during Shrek and decided it looked cool. I’ve enjoyed both movies so far, but I hadn’t seen the first one in about a year before seeing The Towers.

But enough about my LotR story, let’s get to some of my thoughts on the movie. ;)

One of the most post powerful moments in the three hours for me was when Saruman was inspiring his orcs before sending them off to Helm’s Deep. I don’t know what it was about it, but it just gave me goosebumps.

The battle itself was pretty cool and I was a bit surprised at how long it was. I had lost hope just like the King had and then Aragorn started remembering what Gandolf had said to him about his coming. I had forgotten, so I thought it was pretty cool how the White Wizard was able to save the day by finding the King’s nephew and his men.

The two hobbits hanging out with the big tree guy was rather interesting, if a bit of a distraction from the main story. At least it seemed that way until they finally convinced all of the trees to take down Saruman after what he did to all the trees that once surrounded his tower. It was actually a pretty meaningful scene.

Gollum was very impressive and the duality of his character was not something that I expected even though he refereed to himself as “we.” I thought it was nice how Frodo was helping Gollum back to Smeagol even as Sam was questioning his loyalty.

There were a few light hearted moments in the movie at just the right time. I couldn’t help by laugh when Gimli told Aragorn that he would have to toss him across the bridge. His request that Aragon “don’t tell the elf” really added to the scene.

Well that’s pretty much all I have right now (since it has been a while since I actually saw it :o ). I should really try to watch the first two before Return of the King.