Suite101 Dec. 18, 2002 article: Two Towers spoilage

[Michael Martinez]

CRY 'HAVOC!' AND LET SLIP THE WARGS OF FANDOM!

Peter Jackson's "The Two Towers" brings the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy around the bend. We're in the home stretch now, and as a wondering world begins to judge the second movie with a variety of opinions, the purist in me cries out: Ick. Of course, no one really cares what the purists think. Frankly, I don't, either. It's a good movie.

And that is my review. Now for the analysis.

I liked Treebeard. I liked him a great deal. My only disappointment with the Ents was that there seemed to be too few of them in the Entmoot. But I couldn't help thinking, as the Moot ensued, that there just wasn't enough room in the dingle (that's The Derndingle to you purists out there) to show 50 or so Ents as Tolkien describes in the book. However, we do get to see there are far more than a handful of Ents left later on, so I think the scene worked as it was.

I liked the wargs. People have been unhappy with what they've seen of the wargs in advance images. But now that the movie is in full release, people will be able to see the wargs in all their CGI glory. Or lack thereof.

Do the wargs look like wolves? Not really. Do they look like demonic wolves? Yes, I believe they do. What's the difference? Well, demonic wolves don't really exist, so the CGI artists had no baseline to compare their work with. In any event, Tolkien described his wargs as "demonic". I think Peter Jackson's wargs are "demonic". Are they Tolkien's "demonic"? I have no idea. I don't really care. They looked cool.

The whole movie is a showcase for film magic ala CGI. It's amazing how well the actors (especially the Hobbit actors) were able to perform against bouncing tennis balls, or whatever visual cues they were given. In the scene where Frodo and Sam subdue Gollum, I had to ask myself several times, "How did they do that?" Now, maybe the answers are just a mouse-click away, but I didn't want to know those kinds of details before I saw this movie.

Read the full article here

Want to read a less technical review of the movie? Check out Dean Kish's reviews of "The Two Towers" and "Gangs of New York".

[Entlover]

I watched Return to Middle Earth last night, 11 pm in Seattle, which may be why my opinion is so positive as my critical faculty was asleep. However it showed how Gollum was created; they had Sam and Frodo attacking Andy Serkis, apparently then he's replaced with a CGI image. Makes it much more realistic that way.
It was very interesting. Showed how they had to melt a meadowfull of snow to play a scene that was supposed to be summer, and Andy then went after a fish in the stream, meanwhile freezing to death. It showed a lot of the camaraderie the actors shared, and some of the fool stunts they tried, both on and off screen. It's a miracle they all survived the filming.
Legolas, for you elf fans, was totally cool, in his own hair, his mohawk, his elf hair with kerchief, etc. I hope they include Return to M.E. in the DVD.

[Michael Martinez]

And I might as well mention here that I have now posted a report (with pictures) on the Houston Line Party here:

http://www.xenite.org/special_events/2002-houston/

[IronParrot]

Good stuff on your site as always, thanks. It's always neat to have a perspective on the films from people who take a perhaps more scholarly approach to Tolkien's work, because I think that's where trivial details are (rightly) shunted aside in favour of the criticism of more important thematic issues.

[Michael Martinez]

With two of the movies now out (as well as the extended DvD edition of the first movie), I think we can start treating Peter Jackson's work as its own art, and not simply an adaptation of Tolkien's art. That is, I think we can really start digging into what Peter has done. I hope other people are ready for that kind of analysis, too.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez
With two of the movies now out (as well as the extended DvD edition of the first movie), I think we can start treating Peter Jackson's work as its own art, and not simply an adaptation of Tolkien's art. That is, I think we can really start digging into what Peter has done. I hope other people are ready for that kind of analysis, too.

I agree with that. Although certian aspects of the movie were inconsistant with that of the book, such as the Elves with Haldir at Helms Deep, when the scene happened and I knew that it wasn't really Tolkienish, it was still awesome. If you can sort between the books and the movie, and know the difference then the movie is a film that is worth every cent and spending it agan after that.

[IronParrot]

Absolutely agreed on the same point.

Just like other adaptations like Gone With The Wind and The Godfather, I think Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is and should be subject to a film-school sort of analysis as a work on its own right, exclusive from Tolkien's source material.

[Artanis]

Agree with the 3 last speakers.

To Michael Martinez: I've finally read some of your articles at Suite101, and found them well-written and enjoyable. Thank you very much.

[hama1]

Micheal knows that I am by no means a purist and he has been a great supporter of my project "The One Ring". As a movie buff and someone who has struggled to adapt Tolkien's work to a different medium with much greater constraints than Jackson faced, I have to disagree. I didn't think it was a good movie. After an hour I found myself looking at my watch wondering "when is this thing going to end?" By contrast, in the case of FotR I couldn't believe that 3 hours had passed when it ended. Too much great dialogue from the book was left out of scenes that were kept in. In my opinion, those elements could have done so much to create character growth and develop a sense of caring in the audience. As an example, I was so frustrated by the portrayal of Theoden that I hoped Jackson would make another of his changes and let the Orcs win the battle of Helms Deep.

As for all the changes Jackson made I can only query "I recently saw Peter Jackson's latest film. Does anyone know when the movie based on Tolkien's The Two Towers is coming out?"

Brad Marston

[Wayfarer]

I agree with Hama.

It's not the changes from the book that are the problem this time around, the movie is simply badly scripted at times. And I doubt that the best actors in the world or any amount of CGI could make up for the weakness in how the characters are portrayed.

There were a few good parts legolas and gimli spring to mind, but on the whole the characters were almost cliche. I came across with the impression that this was another stupid action movie.

[hama1]

Agreeing with wayfarer?

I must rethink my entire perspective on Tolkien....LOL!

Only twelve months to redemption....

[LovesBeren]

I'm still in shock, and I've seen the TTT now three times. Twice on the 18th and again last night. I couldn't verbalize my thoughts the first time, and I am still trying to think of way to describe reaction. The words will come, but…

Michael, I think you might have nailed it... We may have to stop trying to compare the two mediums... Attempting a multimillion-dollar visual representation of Tolkien's work to appeal to movie audience (and understand without reading the books) is indeed a very daunting task.

I'm satisfied... but I don't really know how I will feel until I see the final installment in a year since some things may come to light then (the whys and what fors...) .

LovesBeren