What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[Wayfarer]

My impression was that the movie started out strong enough to get your hopes up, and then completely dashed them with the horrible conclusion.

[Noahamir]

I am saving my main thoughts till I see the movie more than once. I had mixed feelings after seeing TTT, the same feelings I had after my first viewing of FOTR, but I really loved FOTR alot more on repeat viewings where I wasn't trying to compare the movie to the book.

There is just one point about Gollum that I was very curious about in TTT that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. In the book, Gollum hates being in the sun, even moonlight hurts his eyes. Frodo, Sam and Gollum would travel at night. But in the Film, he never seem to care about it, spending almost the entire time in bright daylight. I wonder why PJ decided to skip over this, was it becuase of filming issues or just deciding to ignore it.

Other than that, I loved Gollum in the movie.

[Goldberry1]

I was really disappointed with this movie, only because so much of the plot was changed, omitted, or (hopefully) will be at the beginning of "Return of the King." I was most shocked by how Faramir's character was portrayed, and how the Ents intially decided not to go to war. All I have to say is that ROTK (in my mind) has a lot to make up for.

[sun-star]

There was another thing which I didn’t like, too: Sam and Frodo. I know Frodo’s corrupted by the Ring, but I’m not sure how he can be any more horrible to Sam in ROTK than he was in this film. Is he going to threaten him again? Argue with him again? I was glad to see the final conversation between them about being in stories and tales (which I love in the book), but I didn’t see any of the tender moments which show them suffering and enduring together - for example, after Sam cooks the rabbits. Their friendship is so important in the book, and I’m not sure it’s really there much in the film. That’s my impression of it, anyway.

[Churl]

Even though the theatrical release needs to stand on its own, at least some of our criticisms of the Two Towers film might be softened when the extended edition is released.  For me at least, the extra footage in Fellowship's extended edition added a lot more character depth and emotion to the film.

[IronParrot]

I saw it a second time, and I have several points to address. This will likely take several posts.

On Faramir

First, I will repost what I said about Faramir on the other thread, because I'm too lazy to repeat it.

Well, now that I saw the film a second time, I understood the changes with Faramir far more.

Upon reflection, he is still the same character as Tolkien's Faramir - and before you rope me my the neck and drag me through the Emyn Muil, let me explain why.

In Tolkien's work, why is Faramir so resistant to the Ring? Well, it's certainly in his character that he is less ambitious than his brother, and is the neglected younger son in many ways. But his concern for the defense of Gondor is no different.

In the film, what Jackson/Walsh/Boyens changed was not Faramir's fundamental personality, but rather the information he had.

I would argue that a major reason why Faramir allowed Frodo to go in the book was because he was well aware of the nature of Boromir's death. He knew that it had something to do with "Isildur's Bane", and that there was dissension in the Fellowship.

He doesn't know any of this. In the film, he lets Frodo go right after two critical moments: first, Sam tells him of Boromir's fall - and second, he sees how the Ring draws evil when the airborne Nazgul confronts Frodo. He witnesses firsthand the power of the Ring, but prior to that, did not know of its power to corrupt, and its utter inability to do good.

In the book, he knows all of this early enough to make a firm, early decision to forsake the Ring.

Also notice that Faramir does not take the Ring. He still resists, but in his desire for the defense of Gondor, he plans to bear it as a gift to his father.

Also notice that while the attack on Osgiliath and Faramir's retreat over the river is a passing "background" event in ROTK, the threat from the East is clearly established in the film. In the film, Faramir has the additional motive of coming to Gondor's defense; such urgency, and the nature of what he does after he leaves Frodo, is not mentioned until far later in the book.

I would dare say that Tolkien's Faramir would have done exactly the same thing - resist taking the Ring for himself, but take the Ring to Gondor - had he possessed the knowledge of the preliminary assault on Osgiliath, and lacked the knowledge of the nature of Boromir's fall.

What you are seeing in both versions is the same character, just under completely different circumstances that necessitate completely different reactions.

Secondly, I will point out that I feel pretty much the same way about the Ents deciding not to go to war. It's not because they are any different as characters from what they are in the book - it's just that they are ill-informed about the extent of Saruman's destruction. In the book, they know all this, and they just need a trigger.

In the context of a film, though, "show, don't tell" becomes even more important. It's far more powerful to show Faramir or Treebeard learning about their circumstances, instead of having them say, "we already know yada yada yada, just give me a push."

[Rían]

Well, I hardly know what to say... I think I'll probably have to see it again to get a better feel for it, because as someone said once, the people that have read the books many times have to see the movie once to find out how many things have been changed (and to get over the shock!) then they can go again and enjoy the movie as a movie more, if that makes sense.

For me, the first 45 min. or so were mostly awful, mainly because of Theoden. At first, he was so lethargic that it was comical - he reminded me alternatively of a Monty Python character and the dippy old king in "The Princess Bride". Then he turns into this ridiculous, fiendish-type guy, and I expected his head to start spinning around and him to start throwing up green stuff. I was just cringing, it was so campy and embarassing. I never quite recovered from that, because I kept on thinking "what else are they going to make ridiculous?" The "Frodo being affected by the ring" music was campy and silly, too - like a 1950's alien music theme -- "ooooo eeeeee ooooooo"!

Oh well - still lots of good parts. I loved when Legolas swung up on the galloping horse! Eowyn was fantastic! Faramir, however .... just seemed like a snotty younger brother, not the noble, intelligent and courageous guy in the books. Computer graphics were good enough to be not distracting - pretty amazing, actually. In the showing I went to, people were laughing really loudly at Gollum's dialogues; for me, they are funny, but also tragic. I like how PJ showed that Frodo understood Gollum in a way that Sam couldn't. Eomer's role was changed, but was fundamentally the same. How do the people of Rohan tell each other apart? They all look the same to me - grimy and wearing brown clothes.

Well, overall it was good, and I'll probably like it better each time I see it, but nothing beats the books! However, for me, seeing the movies has enhanced the books, because visually I think PJ and crew did a good job with scenery, etc.

[IronParrot]

On Peter Jackson

First of all: those of you who have problems with changes to the book, I think your beef is primarily with Philippa Boyens, who managed that kind of thing - reconciling Tolkien's work with the film format - to a far greater extent than Peter Jackson.

But on that point, I think it is presumptuously arrogant for anyone on this board to claim that they are in some way a "more die-hard" fan than someone with as "ordinary" an interest as the talents behind the film of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, we all know that what you mean to say is that you think any real fan of the book would have stuck to it hammer-and-tack.

This is, of course, completely false. I will make the sweeping assumption, perhaps incorrect but not likely to be, that none of you here have continuously pored over every specific word in Tolkien's magnum opus, working out the logistical difficulties in visualizing the story, showing where Tolkien tends to tell.

What I see here are quibbles over minor details.

Yes, I too am unsure of the purpose of Aragorn's "false death" - certainly not for dramatic impact, since every single member of the audience knew damn well he was okay. More on the purpose of this scene later.

Yes, I too had huge initial reservations about Faramir up until the very last scene with him. But I've explained this already, and it's one of my lesser concerns about the film as a whole.

Yes, Tolkien's structural genius in LOTR's non-linearity is completely lost, but in the name of dramatic coherence.

But can it be done better? I would say no. I have my own disagreements about certain decisions, but those are not pertinent to the internal consistency of the film. The characters have the same fundamental motives and roles (yes, even Faramir). The motifs of nature being overrun by industry, the importance of generational storytelling, and the very concept of "doing the right thing", which Tolkien was so keen on pushing, are very clearly preserved. Heck, even if you want to play with details, The Two Towers incorporates a significantly greater proportion of verbatim dialogue from the book, in comparison to The Fellowship of the Ring.

Peter Jackson might not be able to memorize the names of the Stewards of Gondor down to Denethor forwards and backwards, like some of you can, but his interpretation of the book and his preservation of those fundamental themes in the visual fabric of his work speaks for him as, I laud, a "true fan" of The Lord of the Rings.

It scares me that if you were all scholars of Scottish history, you would torch Mel Gibson's house because the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart was just the Battle of Stirling, without the bridge.

[Curufinwe]

I was not as satisfied with this film upon my first viewing as I was after seeing FOTR. It topped FOTR visually - which was the most impressive visual film I'd ever seen - but obviously it deviated from the book much more drastically than FOTR.
For me the most dissapointing shift among the characters was Theoden. I felt the "spell" was rather silly, to me it would have been far more effective to demonstrate Theoden's despair at the death of Theodred and proceed to show Grima's exploitation of his mood. This is not cleary glimpsed in the book but if PJ intended to spend so much time in Edoras before any of our heros get there I think that would have been a better plot line. And thus Eomer would have stayed in prison at Edoras - he desperately needed more screen time. Both Theoden and Gandalf are cheated by the "spell" and its aftermath. Even after the spell is lifted Theoden procedes to hide the nation in helm's deep rather than ride to war. This is to me a rather important change that should not have been included, it degrades Theoden's courage and Gandalf's power. I thought the warg charge was gratuitous and took time that could have been used elsewhere. To me the ride from Edoras is a highlight of the book, I also believe the anticipation is built better by the book plotline with the news of the defeat at the Fords of Isen and Gandalf's directive to head to Helm's Deep. As we all know Theoden's forces are under hot pursuit as the head to the deep this is more dramatic and builds tension better in my opinion and leaves out the silly Aragorn is resurected also part. I think Theoden lacks the character at this point to make his death meaningful on the Pelennor.
Faramir was disappointing also but I think that PJ intends to include him heavily in ROTK so the damage may be undone.
I thought Aragorn was better that in FOTR, I though Legolas was well done also and I didnt mind Gimli's comic relief mostly because of John Rhys-Davies (sp?) performance which i thought was better than the first time around.
Merry Pippin and the Ents were somewhat shortchanged, I don't really understand why Treebeard was changed - he does not seem to be the master of the forest and seems unaware of whats happening in it. I suppose PJ wanted the hobbits to have a greater impact although they really did not as their arrival in Fangorn set off the events that led to the storming of Isenguard, I suppose PJ wanted that to be absolutely clear to the audience, the change is one I can live with but seemed unecessary. I though t both Merry and Pippin were more true to character in this film.
I thought the interaction between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum was very well done and nearly entirely in keeping with the spirit of the book and was mostly true to the dialog of the book. Gollum was excellent, and I thought that Frodo falling into the Dead Marshes was a constructive change. The Black Gate was excellent and I had no problem with the attempt to get past the gate, I thought it worked well. The trip to Osgiliath should have been left out, again I think that following the book's plotline would have been more effective by taking Frodo and Sam to Morgul Vale and showing the march of the army of Morgul - I think that would have been a good place to leave the story, or on the stairs perhaps. The journey of Frodo and Sam is fraught with dangers, not the least the intentions of their guide - which are obviously more sinister in the book since he is leaded them to certain death (he thinks), the sojurn with Faramir is a short respite from terror there was no need to build tension into that interaction.
Gandalf was excellent, from the battle with the Balrog to his first appearance up until his silly excorcism. Gandalf is not heavily featured in the TTT book but PJ steals his thunder by ending before his confrontation and offer of redemption to Saruman - I believe this is a critical scene that must appear in ROTK.
Eowyn is extremely well done, as is Grima, the two characters who most closely mirror their literary personas.
Overall I did like the film and I'm very nitpicking with Tolkien so it may not seem that way. For the most part I didnt mind the plot changes as much as the changes in the characters especially Faramir and Theoden. What PJ has done is create a believable Middle-Earth visually which in my opinion is the most difficult part of bringing LOTR to the screen I just wish that having done so he would not feel it necessary to then make changed to the story which are not warranted.

[IronParrot]

On the warg attack and Aragorn's "death"

First of all, let me just say that this isn't something I necessarily fully support. I will point out, though, that the second time I watched the film, it didn't distract me, nor did my other big quibble (Haldir at Helm's Deep).

Now, as I've said before, I think it's obvious that the film doesn't in any way expect the audience to think of him as being dead. Yes, movie audiences are dumb, but I think even the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens trio realizes that they're not "dumberer" (refer to a certain teaser I saw before the film for a definition).

So, what's the point of this whole sequence?

In Tolkien's work, I think the whole point was that Saruman has to get past Helm's Deep first before worrying about Dunharrow. This makes geographical sense, even if it's not explicitly stated, because his forces would be flanked on all sides if he went straight for the helpless women and children of Rohan.

Well, with Dunharrow out of the way, and everyone headed for Helm's Deep, in a blindingly obvious move on the part of Theoden that Grima and Saruman both foresee, why would Saruman not send wargs to kill as many off as he can? Look at the malicious twinkle in his eyes when Grima tells him that there are women and children among the company.

Is this pointless destruction on his part? Yes, but pointless destruction is perfectly in character with what Saruman's doing! In Tolkien, Treebeard points out exactly that.

Now, that explains the wargs - a consequence of taking the open mountain passage to Helm's Deep, instead of sheltering the people at Dunharrow.

Well, well, well... what to do with Aragorn?

Okay, I think I may understand why this whole bit is in. Let's see:

- It provides great moments for both Legolas and Gimli when he does arrive at Helm's Deep, again displaying the bond between the Three Hunters.

- It sets up the moment when Legolas gives him Arwen's pendant, an important moment for Eowyn - observe her reaction. Fine subtlety at work here.

- Most importantly, it provides a very convenient point of transition into the goings-on of the Elves back up north.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that this is a great or necessary addition. I'm just saying that I understand where it fits into the film's own sense of continuity and dramatic development.

[Devey]

The point is Boromir and Faramir are completed different. Faramir and Denethor have, by soem quirk of fate, nearly true blood of Numenor. Boromir does not (and indeed is one reason Denethor loves him more than Faramir, because he (D) and Boromir are so unlike). Boromir is detailed (at great length) as being strong willed, a person not only used to power, but desiring more, even if it was for the glory of Gondor. Such people are particularly susceptible to the lure of the Ring. Faramir, on the other hand, was far-seeing and wise. Denethor too - but he was brought down in another manner - by hard times and Sauron's controlling of his use of the Palantir. By the time of the war of the Ring, Denethor was still opposed to Sauron (as indeed Gonder was politically and historically), but he believed Sauron's victory was guaranteed. Faramir, on the other hand, was still in control of his own mind enough to refuse the Ring, seeing that the hopes of Middle Earth rested on this.

okay its along time since I have read the book so there may be some factual mistakes here...feel free to point them out.........

Well I am sure Tolkien had this in mind although I am more inclinded to think that it was Tolkien building the plot for the subsequent love affair between Faramir and Eowyn. This is fine in itself, it makes sense and it works to a degree however what it fails in my view in doing is showing just how corrupting the ring is especially the closer it gets to Mordor. On one hand we are told of it's power, and through Frodo we see that even hobbits who are resistant to a degree to its will, gradually are controlled by it. I am sure that even wise and good Gandolf would have been unable to resist it so close to Mordor. That is why the fellowship split, because Frodo knew that it would corrupt everyone. Yet we are supposed to believe that Faramir has the will to resist and does so quite easily.

I think that the Jackson version holds up better, ie Faramir in a world that is going to war is suspicious of everyone........that he has all the failings of men even if he can trace ancestory back to the Kingdom of Numenor. However it is the sight of Frodo totally controlled by the ringwraith and the subsequent account of how Boromir was corrupted that reveals to him the true nature of the ring. That doesn't mean Faramir and Boromir are identical...it just means that the ring is able to corrupt everyone to its will.

Some may think that there shouldn't be any deviation from the book however I take the view that as long as it works intellectually, and i feel this does then it is okay. It is called artistic license and there is nothing wrong with using it

If I had my way then Aragorn would have dropped Arwen ( always thought she was a bit dull) for Eowyn who is fiesty, beautiful, and pretty good with a sword and blond to boot

thought that as a 14 year old when i first read it and haven't changed my mind since the film

ps some of that was tongue in cheek...i will let you decide which

[Lollypopgurl]

I'm worried.

After reading everything everyone's posted (hey, I couldn't help it!), I'm really, really, worried. I'll be seeing it in about 2 hours and I'll post again when I'm done.

[IronParrot]

"If I had my way then Aragorn would have dropped Aeowen ( always thought she was a bit dull) for Eowyn who is fiesty, beautiful, and pretty good with a sword and blond to boot"

Ditto. Oh well, life isn't fair... maybe that's another of Tolkien's themes there.

[Devey]

thanks for highlighting the spelling mistake

[Churl]

Lollypopgurl said:

I'm worried.

Don't be!

If you're worried because of all you're reading in these spoilers, look at it this way: at least you'll be prepared for the variations from the book.

I find that if I go into something prepared for the low points, they don't seem so low. And trust me, there are many, many high points to offset the parts that might strike you as off key.



And, in response to Devey, who wrote:

thanks for highlighting the spelling mistake

...referring, I guess, to his typing "Aeowen" instead of "Arwen," I say it's an honest mistake. After all, Eowyn's enough to make any guy forget Arwen -- Aragorn's crazy!

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
But can it be done better? I would say no.

With a comment like that, it's not really worth labouring over a long post to prove you wrong. Glad you enjoyed it. Calling it perfection is stupid though.

[Firekitten2006]

i loved the scene when Gollum pulled Frodo out of the Dead Marshes. It made everybody in the theater cheer when the "evil" Gollum left when the "good" Gollum ask, and my heart wrench when it appeared the evil Gollum had won, and they were taking Sam and Frodo to her.

I think that the "good" Gollum was cute, and funny. People didnt laugh neccessarily because it was a joke, but because he was cute and innocent. It made you feel sorry for him.

I could have lived without all of Sam being like Frodo's mommy. Loved the "Are you his body guard?" "His gardener" It was hilarious! Just the look on his face! I have yet to see Frodo have some dignity tho. PJ seems to be taking away from him I love frodo! lol

DID NOT like that they gave Eomer's "We will draw our swords together" line to Theoden.

Was I the only one who thought Eomer was a pretty hot guy?? Honestly I thought he was great! Even tho they took a lot from him.

Didnt like how sad or unhappy Merry seemed the whole time. Yeah in the book he's pretty serious, but not that serious.

Just one question tho, what do you think PJ plans on doing since Arwen has possibly gone to the Grey Havens. I mean, yeah he dreamed about her, and he still has the necklace, but I mean, whats going to happen, and why is Elrond such a jerk! :P (I have read the books BTW)

I *loved* the marketing strategy. They will have just as many people see ROTK or more as the have the other two. Just because no one (except people who read the books) know who "she" is.

[Ethereal]

i loved TTT!!!! i had such a great time seeing it. i mean, not only was the movie amazing , but i went to the midnight showing of it at this giant cinema where they were showing it in twelve different theatres, so there were hundreds of LOTR fans swarming around before and after the movie!!

Ok, one of my favorite parts had to be when gollum was debating with his better half (smeagol). i'm not sure if PJ meant for it to be as funny as my friends and i thought it was, but i loved it. i thought it was pretty creative how they made it kind of look like there were two gollums having a debate, rather than one gollum arguing w/ himself.

i also LOVED the ents!!! they were some of my favorite characters in the book, and i thought they were portrayed very well in the movies. the only thing i noticed is that they were supposed to be very slow at making decisions, and when treebeard was first introduced, he was very hasty at making a decision about merry and pippin being orcs....but maybe that's just me.

anyway, they obviously changed some things from the books, and frodo is coming off as a bit of a pansy to those who haven't read the books, but overall i thought it was a wonderful movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I think it is presumptuously arrogant for anyone on this board to claim that they are in some way a "more die-hard" fan than someone with as "ordinary" an interest as the talents behind the film of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, we all know that what you mean to say is that you think any real fan of the book would have stuck to it hammer-and-tack.

Peter Jackson might not be able to memorize the names of the Stewards of Gondor down to Denethor forwards and backwards, like some of you can, but his interpretation of the book and his preservation of those fundamental themes in the visual fabric of his work speaks for him as, I laud, a "true fan" of The Lord of the Rings.

Since this seems to be directed at me since I have basically said that Jackson is a pseudo fan - I guess I'll address this.

I often looked at how to make LotR into a movie - ever since I had read it actually. Contrary to your comments - I would not however " have stuck to it hammer-and-tack". Obviously things needed to be changed. After I had first read LotR I was planning on going into film making so I could eventually turn it into a movie. I wanted to go into making movies BECAUSE of LotR. Jackson on the other hand points out directly in the commentary - that all they wanted to do was make a fantasy movie. They discussed it and he thought - "why not just go to the books that inspired the genre."

And to tell you the truth - I don't care if Jackson could recite the entire lineage of Aragorn or not. And yes - at one point in time I was the person you have described. But to come across as a "true fan" and then in the commentary to say that really the only reason he picked doing Lord of the Rings was because he wanted to do a fantasy film - just gets to me.

And I don't think he has succeeded in keeping the fundamental themes of Lord of the Rings. "JRR Tolkien" was on PBS last night - and they interviewed Christopher Tolkien and many many people that worked with Tolkien and knew him personally. After watching that - and hearing what people had to say about things that Tolkien felt and did regarding Lord of the Rings - makes me think even more that right now Tolkien is rolling in his grave at seeing his characters hacked by Jackson. You may disagree- but these are my feelings.

I don't think that Jackson brought Lord of the Rings to the screen. In order to do that - Jackson would have actually have had to supply some character development - instead he created an action film. I think that is one of the reason I am less upset by The Two Towers - I expected the stupid comic relief, I expected the overdone slow motion sequences, I expected non-stop action. That's pretty much what he delivered.

People claim that there were far more changes to this one than to FotR - and I disagree. There were only a couple of scenes that resembled Fellowship and it's the same now with Two Towers. He took the characters, the setting, some plot points and the scenary and then worked out a movie. In my opinion he didn't even attempt to preserve the fundamental themes of The Lord of the Rings.

On a side note - Rian's "ooooo eeeeee ooooooo" reminded me of what I was thinking the two times I saw theTwo Towers (Iwas going to mention it when I was getting back yesterday - but I forgot). When Frodo, Sam and Gullum are at the Black Gate - I'm expecting some of Sauron's soldiers to come up from behind - there to be a behind the rocks scuffle and then to see the three in custom - getting into line with the other soldiers and march through the gate - "ooooooo eeeeee ooooo"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ethereal

Ok, one of my favorite parts had to be when gollum was debating with his better half (smeagol). i'm not sure if PJ meant for it to be as funny as my friends and i thought it was, but i loved it. i thought it was pretty creative how they made it kind of look like there were two gollums having a debate, rather than one gollum arguing w/ himself.

I really did like the way that was done. I had seen Hamlet in Princeton this summer and they had three Hamlets doing the "To be or not to be" monologue. It reminded me of that - up to a point of course.

I actually consider that my favorite part. I always felt sorry for Gullum though. But I especially liked the "No one likes you" line. You can really feel for him then. I always wanted Gullum to be saved and I was sad that gullum ended up falling into Mt Doom.