What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[Amandil]

Lordy, will this thread never end? Yesterday it was onlyl up to 8 pages. Today it's up to 13. So I stopped reading, and just did my part to send it over the 14 page mark.

My favorite "book" is the Two Towers. PJ and that other screenwriter chick say that they think that the Two Towers is just one of Tolkien's brain farts (see http://www.greencine.com/article?act...62&pageID=104&). This opinion of theirs' shows in the movie (why call it a "film"?). Course now it appears that other astute folk have picked up on this point as well. Good on 'em.

In order for me to enjoy "PJ's trilogy," I have to empty my mind of any thought of the Professor's book. That way when my mind inevitably starts showing up stupid discrepancies (emphasis on stupid) between the book and the movie, these become merely dispassionate objective observations. This way I don't get pissed off at all the stupid discrepancies.

Nevertheless, watching the Two Towers with my disconnected objectivity was not sufficient for me to enjoy the show. Even as a basic action movie, it sucked. Bottom line: this flick was boring. As inane as the last Bond outing was, or the even more moronic XXX, at least these two pieces were enjoyable qua action movies. Not so the Two Towers.

My impressions, quickly:

1. Incredibly swift editing rushes the plot along from Rauros to finding Gandalf in Fangorn...zoom zoom zoom! (Whatdyamean, Gimli's no long distance runner? Of all the Fellowship, he alone is most accustomed to travelling distances without the aid of a horse. I'd imagine he'd be on the top of his game trucking around on foot.)

2. Incredibly slow, plodding editing drags the plot (plot?) towards Helm's Deep...okay, already, when ARE they going to fight? (Here is where most of the filler comes in, including Aragorn's "death & resurrection" and Arwen's tit.)

3. Big fight, yay, oh boy. Fight fight fight. Maybe fighting in the dark is harder to film, but I recall enjoying the battle scenes of Braveheart (oh boy, I'm gonna get crucified for that comment) and Kurosawa much better than this. Epic my ass.

4. Uh, fight is over, movie is over. The storming of Isengard is a distant afterthought. Throw in some dialogue to TELL, rather than SHOW, the audience that the next movie will be interesting somehow (IronParrot's already mentioned this basic principle of art). Sam's reflection on metanarratives (a brilliant piece by Tolkien), even with a pan up and over the Morgai, doesn't do much for gearing one up for the next action movie. Gee, the ending to X-Men screamed sequel better than TTT did.

So yeah, I was bored. Come on, with three hours of screen time, did we really have to spend most of it gearing up for an anti-climatic battle? Surely better use of that time could have been made.

Course, at a few times during the story I teared up in the theatre. Why? Because my objectivity was weakening and my subjective link to the book came through -- the tragic heroism of Theoden's stand in Helm's Deep, the fatalism of the Last March of the Ents -- one or two hints of these things in the movies triggered a reaction in me born of the book. Those were great moments. But only because I was a book reader, not a movie watcher. A shame, really.

"Once again, PJ has kept in just enough of the books to make the film even weaker." A wonderful point, Gerbil.

"I wanted to go into making movies BECAUSE of LotR." You're not the only one, jersydevil. My parents were looking into ways of turning a Southeastern Albertan redneck (i.e., me) into a Hollywood director, back when I was young -- simply because of Tolkien. That didn't work out, though. Oh well. Hmmmm...

A side note: Any suggestions why Rohan was portrayed so convincingly (aside from the geography: fields of SHORT grass?)? My thought is because it resembled a real Earth culture (Norse, more or less -- although Theoden's sword hilt was more Celtic than Norse). The lack of Earth-culture cognates in the portrayal of the Men under the sway of Sauron makes them seem more science fiction than "fantasy." Heck, I couldn't tell by looking at them which ones were Eastern and which ones were Southern. Maybe it would be politically incorrect to represent Asian and African cultures as the ones serving evil...

...ooh! Another thought: what's with this genocide theme coming from Saruman ("there will be no dawn for the race of Men" or whatever), when at the very same time Sauron is buddy-buddy with good chunks of the race of Men? PJ's little twist seems to be more implausible than previously imagined.

But I digress.

Gotta say it sucked seeing the movie with Dutch subtitles, because that way I couldn't understand any of the Sindarin. I guess I have to brush up either on my Dutch or my Sindarin.

Cudos to those who managed to check their brains at the door and enjoy the spectacle. That's the only way to do it.

Love,

[Amandil]

"Although I liked parts of this film a lot, I would rather have Cate Blanchett reading the novel than all three movies on dvd." That is a fabulous idea, squinteyedsoutherner!

[Kalimac]

>>In order for me to enjoy "PJ's trilogy," I have to empty my mind of any thought of the Professor's book.<<

Nice rant.

I don't agree with you, but that means I don't have a brain . . so why bother.

[Arathorn]

"Why would you want to tamper with anything Tolkien did?" --Ralph Bashki

If indeed Bakshi asked this question, I would like to ask him why he put Legolas in for Glorfindel. Why does he keep changing Saruman's name to Aruman almost every other scene? Why does he have his characters call Celeborn Seleborn? Why did he have the Gates to Moria open when Gandalf calls out Methlon instead of Mellon? (must be some other elvish dialect of the doobious era)

[Amandil]

I didn't say you don't have a brain, I just said the best way to enjoy the movie is to leave your brain at the door.

Bashki said that in an interview I read about a year ago, but I totally lost the link. I think his interview was given in the context of the then-upcoming Peter Jackson flicks.

And yes, Bashki fart-knockered up a lot of the books too in his animated feature. In fact, absolutely hate Bashki's movie! Ugh! But the quote stands on its own, not because I think Bashki actually did what he said. If Peter Jackson said it, I'd still quote it. Strange, though, I can't imagine PJ saying anything like it...

[Lady of Rivendell]

Well....my first post of many here at Entmoot! Now, if I can just keep my foot out of my mouth.

When viewing this film, I found it easier to keep two things in mind. The first, this is not J.R.R's series, it's P.J's. The next thing is that you have to accept this movie for what it is; the middle segment of a triology, which is setting it up for bad reviews to begin with as reviewers like things that have beginings and ends and they can understand it.

With these things in mind, I found that I enjoyed the movie, but not as much as FOTR. Of course, the two movies exist for two different purposes. FOTR is setting up the triology...you meet the characters, have wonderful surprises and is generally enjoyable. TT is an action movie. We have battles...and more battles, and more battles....it's trying to fill in some of the blanks from FOTR and set up ROTK. I learned the "turning off the mind" trick from viewing the Harry Potter movies, which get bad reviews for being TOO faithful to the books. I had a hard time with the second movie because I couldn't get my mind to stop sending up warning flares when something went against the book......but then again, I'm getting off the subject.

There were some elements from the book that I was happily surprised to see included in the book. ( The scenes with Gimli and Legeolas exchanging kill numbers comes to mind. )

Could they have kept more key elements to the original work and had those moster opening week numbers? Maybe...

I enjoyed the film for what it was and what it was intended to be. Gollum was amazing and Helm's Deep was really overwhelming if you look at it from the technology aspect. Legeolas' "skateboard" was a bit much but who am I to complain.

I don't see a best picture award winner in this one....FOTR should have had it and probably had the best chance. Maybe ROTK.

~covers her head and waits for the others to start bashing her post~

please....be kind.....=-)

[Arathorn]

Regarding the Bakshi quote,

I agree that it can stand on its own. However, I do not think that the film tampers with anything that Tolkien did since the script was not written by Tolkien. It was, however, inspired by a book written by him.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I do not except the arguement that this is PJ's adaptation, impression ,version or whatever you want to call it. This movie is entitled The Lord of the Rings, and that carries with it an enormous pre-existing public awareness that benefitted the studio greatly. If they are going to reap the rewards of this pre-existing resevoir of revenue than they can take their lumps when their movie deviates wildly, at times ridiculously, from the original.

Jackson's repeated "inventions" only diminish the original and his own defence of his changes only highlights that to him the book is a "story" and nothing more. This book is full of themes, sub-themes and an overall structure that make it at home with the finest works written, ever.

No director could match the book, however many others could have delivered a blockbuster which still managed to treat the narrative with the respect a work of this calibre DEMANDS. This film is Hellraiser meets Conan shot on location in Middle Earth.

[crickhollow]

Wow, the thread is going faster than I can keep up. I will get around to reading all of it eventually.

Yeah, the best way to enjoy this movie is to not be constantly comparing it to Tolkien. I realized part way through the film that I had no idea what was going to happen next. This was an odd feeling, because I have read the books five or six times since I was 15, and should theoretically be familiar with the story.

So I watched it as someone new to the world of Tolkien, knowing only the character's names, and not their personality, or anything about the plot.

Despite having checked my brain at the door, I all but stood and applauded during Gollum's monologues (or would that be dialogues?)

Theoden's possession was just weird.
Since when do Ents make snap decisions?
The ring shall go to Gondor, hmm?

I liked the scenes at Helm's deep. The interaction between Gimli and Legolas was terrific, and my worst feers were not realized (Arwen showing up in full Xena gear to do battle against the Uruk Hai)

Remember how Frodo had a dying complex in the first movie? It seems that has rubbed off on Aragorn as well.

Those are my initial thoughts, but it definately needs a second viewing to be sure...

[Arathorn]

I agree that the studio has made a killing by using the name Lord of the Rings but I do not believe that it has diminished the original. If it has, then there would not be so many people comparing the differences between the original and the film adaptation. I believe that people will still be reading the original and that more people have acquired an awareness and taste for it because of the the film.

I also agree that there are more directors that can deliver a more "faithful" rendition of the book on film given the guts that the current one had but as it stands, we only have that guy in shorts right now with those guts and convincing power to ask for that amount of resources. I will not lose much sleep over it because it is much better, IMO, compared to the other one 22 yrs ago.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Fair enough Arathorn, but by diminish the original, I did not mean to imply that the book has somehow been tarnished, I only meant that every Jackson change has brought the film further and further away from what made the book such a great work in the first place. I didn't make that as clear as I should have.

[Amandil]

However, I do not think that the film tampers with anything that Tolkien did since the script was not written by Tolkien. It was, however, inspired by a book written by him.

On this logic, it would be impossible to tamper with anything one takes inspiration from. But that's absurd.

Despite having checked my brain at the door, I all but stood and applauded during Gollum's monologues....

See what I mean? The best way to enjoy the film is to check your brain at the door. It [edit: almost] worked for me, and it seems to have worked for crickhollow. Funny how that is.

I have to leave for a week (don't cry for me, Entmoot ) -- how on Earth am I going to manage to keep up with this thread after an absence like that?

Fare you all well.

[Lizra]

Welcome to Entmoot Lady of Rivendell! (I like to imagine myself a "Lady of Rivendell" also!). I'm thankful for what pleasure I get from these movies. ( lots!) I do not require exactness, (it would be nice, but it's not happening!) Until I see the extended version of TTT, I'll just chill. We know there's stuff that was shot, that didn't make this version.

I like having the movies around, giving me lots of beautiful images to savor. The period from 72 (when I first read LoTR) till 02 was rather dry and lonely! I love the new visuals of the Shire, Aragorn, Rohan, Gandalf at Moria, Sam.......so many images fleshed out even better than the quick once over they got in my mind's eye, as I gobbled up the books. I love all the people and forums, "keyed up" to talk about these things, now that PJ's movies have stirred the pot. The movies are fine by me, I wouldn't say I checked my brain at the door, that really wasn't neccessary. I just brought an easy going attitude, and a desire to enjoy. I can't wait to see TTT again. I really want to see the whole ball of wax, (ex. version TTT, RoTK, ex. version RoTK, and anything after that!)

So SquintyES, I was intrigued by your comment about wanting Cate Blanchette to read the stories. (rather than seeing Peter Jackson's movies) If you had to pick between the two, which would you prefer, Rob Inglis or Cate Blanchette? I'd pay money for a CB reading!

[Entlover]

I agree totally with Lizra's attitude, except that my favorite character is not a person, but Theoden's hall. Too beautiful.

[Nurvingiel]

The parts I love of the movie were the parts that were well done, and true to the book. (That's a hint for ROTK there PJ.)

-- Legolas and Gimli's kill count, the Ents destroying Isengard, the characters of Eowyn, Eomer, and Grima, plus the origional fellowship (except Frodo and Gimli.)

-- Especially Sam! Sam is great, and the speech at the end was very moving, and he actually says that in the book, pretty much. (I think it's in ROTK, but it works.)

-- Gandalf's Balrog flashback! Gandalf the White rules! (Potentially unecessary haircut, but whatever.)


The parts I disliked from the movie were the ones that deviated from Tolkein's plot.

-- The whole ridiculous scene whith Faramir & co. going to Osgiliath for no apparent reason, then Frodo trying to give the ring to a Nazgul and the Nazgul not taking it!?!
I'm sorry, but that part really bothers me.

-- Gimli as comic relief. Pointless! Gimli is tough, he does not lag behind.

-- Where is Dernhelm?


I also disliked parts where the spirit was lost despite
or were true to the book, because they went from subtle to obvious.

-- Theoden's character, especially how Saruman 'possessed' him.

-- Frodo being a huge wuss.

-- Faramir's character. PJ seemed to feel that he could create suspense and drama better than Tolkein, so he had to make Faramir's rejection of the Ring more drawn out and obvious.



I feel that I'm raging about the bad points a lot, but I still think it was a great movie, and worth seeing again.

The reason I rage, is because PJ knew, when he began this project roughly six years ago, that it was an epic undertaking. He spent a great deal of time, money, and effort on it. He invested in some excellent actors, forged thousands of pieces of armour, had elvish liguistics coaches etc. The Fellowship of the Ring maintained Tolkein's spirit, and was a very good movie. (Even though there were two unfortunate bits.)
The Two Towers is also a good movie, but I rage, because despite all the investment and attention to detail, PJ went and deliberately screwed stuff up!
I rage because it's pointless, treats the audience like they're idiots who can't sit through a three hour movie without a love scene, and diminishes the overall quality of the movie trilogy.


Wow.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I do not except the arguement that this is PJ's adaptation, impression ,version or whatever you want to call it. This movie is entitled The Lord of the Rings, and that carries with it an enormous pre-existing public awareness that benefitted the studio greatly. If they are going to reap the rewards of this pre-existing resevoir of revenue than they can take their lumps when their movie deviates wildly, at times ridiculously, from the original.

I agree. Some people may be offended by this comparison - but oh well. To me it's as if NY announced that they were rebuilding the Twin Towers. Then, after they're complete, finding out they're only 25 stories tall.

I don't see why I should accept the movies just because they're PJs interpretation. It's a thin shadow of the books. Thinner than what I initially thought when I saw FotR. The only reason I was able to enjoy TT more was because I had such low expectations of what Jackson was going to do with The Two Towers. I guess basically this time - I checked my brain at the door.

[Lady of Rivendell]

Your welcomes were the first nice things that have been said to me since I arrived here at Entmoot!

Of course, one has to remember that we are all just stating our honest opinions and in no way should be taken otherwise, even though we can get a bit touchy and defensive about those opinions. =-)

Enough said.....

I hope to get the chance to talk to others soon. ~ss~

[Khamûl]

Welcome to Entmoot, Lady of Rivendell. Why don't you stop by the Welcome thread at the top of the General Messages forum? There everyone can give you a proper welcoming.

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Where is Dernhelm?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Dernhelm makes an appearance until the Riders of Rohan head south to come to the aid of Gondor.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Dernhelm makes an appearance until the Riders of Rohan head south to come to the aid of Gondor.

You are correct, Dernhelm is later, in Return of the King, when the Rohirrim ride to Minas Tirith (battle of Pelennor Fields, right? ).

[Lady of Rivendell]

Why, thank you Khamul! I hadn't gotten that far in my exploration of the site and didn't know such a thing exisited. =-) I will do that.....and again, thank you!