Film The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

[michael]

i think they are niether silly nor minor.
as for the skeleton working better cinematically then the stone, i guess that's true if you don't want any personality attached to the characters, and are more pleased by fancy special effects hen having to think for yourself about something.
i never expected it to come close to the book, of course - but it would be nmice to see someone have an opinion other then "oh it's so nice to see on-screen." whatever.
they are opinions, no more, and my opinion is that the movies (and the apologists for) suck.
[ 19 December 2002: Message edited by: michael ]

 

[cravNbeets]

Excellent post ibizakat
the two towers IMO was not as good as fellowship. Some parts of it really seemed to drag. I felt that the ending was wrapped up nicer than fellowship. The scenes with Golum were fairly annoying but I liked the way his character was done. LoL he's a skizo. Overall the film is still an A. There are some really cheesey parts though which include Legolas slidding down some stairs on a shield as if he was skate boarding, and a very suspect "dwarf toss" scene which I could've done without. Some of the scenes were so stunning that kinda gave me goosebumps. Cool flick and I'll be seeing it again soon
michael~how does throwing the rock show inquisitiveness or love of adventure? I see where you're going with this I think, but to most of us that is minuta. I never read the fellowship and I got the impression that Pippin was a fiesty little guy, so IMO the skelaton works just fine.
[ 19 December 2002: Message edited by: cravNbeets ]

 

[caffeine_voices]

Just got back from it... I won't post a review yet, see it for yourselves.
I did enjoy the new characters.

 

[michael]

kind of hard to explain to someone who hasn't read the book, but i'll try.
the particualr family of hobbits that pippin comes from (the tooks) are the only family of hobbits who are known for actually liking adventure. the rest are sort of stay-at-homes; shields are used as cradles and swords to chop down trees. dropping the pebble down to see how far down it goes reflects this. accidentally leaning on a skeleton makes him a clumsy oaf.
i agree that without any background it does seem like minutia, however, i was using it to illustrate an example of one of the things the movie suffered from - a tremendous lack of character development.

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by michael:
ok, i will go into some detail here why i think it such a poor adaptation...by all means, if you like poor character development and are the kind of person who is blinded by eye-candy special effects, go talk about how wonderful the movie is.
well, it's trite but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. thanks for your post.
i prefered to go see it and just let the experience wash over me. i saw The Two Towers last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.
the movies was epic. the battle was epic as expected. the ents were great and the Gollum character had more depth than a lot of pixels i've seen.
your mileage may vary.
alasdair

 

[Snakecharmer]

Did anyone else think that the main character from Gondor (the brother of the guy who died at the end of the first and was sent down the waterfall) in this movie looked EXACTLY like Richard D. James, aka APHEX TWIN? Aside from the perfectly straight teeth (which can be corrected, even in Richard's god-awful case) I think he was a dead ringer.
/shrugs
And I was pretty dissappointed to say the least.
Drew

 

[Ronin]

Just came back from LOTR 2.
TO sum up: it kicks the first one in the nuts!!!
Best movie I saw all year.
You may not like it if you are a Tolkien freak and dwell on inconsistences instead of just enjoying the fucking flick (you know who you are )

 

[LapDawg]

quickie opinion on TTT: Pretty fun to watch, but damn it seemed to take forever. Gollum was done very well imo, and the battle scenes were tremendous, though the conclusions of both left more to be desired. It'll be interesting to see how Return of the King plays out.
Damnit, now I've got to wait 11 months for the extended version! bah!

 

[cravNbeets]

One thing I forgot to include. The absolute best part for me was seeing the Ents brought to life. Treebeard was a character that I was anxious to see on the screene. I wasn't disappointed. Those trees are hardcore

 

[xtcvitality]

I loved both movies... I just saw TTT last night, and I thought it was absolutely amazing. Gollum was done much better than I anticipated. He looked so realistic, it looked as if you could touch him.
You CANNOT expect a perfect transition from book to movie, but they did with these films is amazing. The acting, special effects, and overall greatness of these films blows my mind.

 

[Petersko]

i agree that without any background it does seem like minutia, however, i was using it to illustrate an example of one of the things the movie suffered from - a tremendous lack of character development.
I would respectfully disagree. The characters are as developed as they can get while still allowing the movie to tell the story within a reasonable timeframe.
To fit the Lord of the Rings into 3 3-hour movies, you have to either cut out some important events, or limit character-defining moments that don't advance the plot to the bare minimum. You don't have time to fully develop characters AND tell enough of the story. It's just too big.
I don't need a half an hour hearing about elves, their songs, and their traditions in order to enjoy the movie - through the actors mannerisms and motions I learn what I need for the purposes of the film. Character development is done through the acting - not through being aware of the 'minutae'.
I've read the books probably 15 times in the last 21 years - I read them first when I was 10. I am a big fan. But I don't expect them to translate the books to screen unaltered. It doesn't bother me at all to see a character dropped or another added, as long as the resulting film is enthralling.
If you didn't find it so, that's fine. Not everybody needs to like every movie. But if the root of your disappointment is that they somehow violated the sacred text that is Lord of the Rings, or that they missed portraying some little mannerism of a people, well... I still don't understand your point. Because really, there is NO way that any film version of the book that runs less than thirty hours in length will ever meet your expectations.

 

[Baron]

Short answer:
If you are a Tolkien fiend, you'll not like the film.
If you aren't, you'll have a great time.
Either way, enjoy it for eye candy and the story-bridge that it is.

 

[shannabanana]

I guess I don't know what a Tolkien fiend is, because my boyfriend has read the trilogy 10 times over his life, and has read other tolkien novels multiple times, and he loves the movies. But he went in with an open mind, not predetermined not to like it.

 

[Baron]

Let me just say that my friends are definite Tolkien fiends. I'd say the practically have the Silmarillion and all of the other books memorized and have large arguments over the lineage of, say, the first Glorfindel's uncle and the treaty name with the Dwarves at that time. The fact that Peter Jackson not only invented character arcs for non-essential characters, as well as flip-flopped entire personalities grated on them (as well as side-quests which are practically, and cinematically, useless) irked them to absolutely no end.
Like I said, I don't really care. I love the books, I think that new character stories weren't necessary by any stretch for the movies, but I understand why P.J. did the rest of the alterations he did.

 

[cravNbeets]

Baron~ you could modify your statement to read, simply "my friends are total dorks"
Totally joking chief I'm sure they're really cool guys
Yeah if you wanna poke holes in the flick it's not that hard. I myself will be seeing it again this weekend.

 

[michael]

Originally posted by Petersko:
But if the root of your disappointment is that they somehow violated the sacred text that is Lord of the Rings, or that they missed portraying some little mannerism of a people, well... I still don't understand your point. Because really, there is NO way that any film version of the book that runs less than thirty hours in length will ever meet your expectations.
no, the root of my disappointment is that they did such a half-assed crummy version of it.

 

[LapDawg]

^^^oh well. Their loss for not hiring you to direct.
somehow I think mikey's version would cost a reasonable $1 billion, rather than the paltry, half-assed $100 mil per film they spent.

 

[Nexus One]

I saw TTT last night (god how that looks like Tekken Tag Tournament ). I was amazed at just how different it was to FotR...
I really enjoyed it though, and as I have never read the books, I appreciated it for what it was, and not for how similar it was to the book.
I can't really add much to what everyone else has already said, so I'll leave it be.

 

[nowonmai]

confirmed tolkien fiend here who loves all his books AND loves the movies... hmmm... a couple of theories blown away there, then.
first off, if you go into the movies expecting discrepancies and waiting to pick nits, how the fuck are you giving it a chance to blow you away.
movies and books are totally different artforms, one relies on narrative and subjective imagery, the other relies on distilling pure imagination into something which can be related to by MOST OF THE AUDIENCE. which is why the nerds are arguing over whether a balrog has wings and whether PJ should have given it wings etc etc...
Basically what PJ has done is taken an amazing story as inspiration and created an equally amazing movie.

 

[Baron]

^^
If he's taking it as inspiration, and not as what it should be, then it shouldn't be the Two Towers. Perhaps it should be "Peter Jackson Takes Tolkien As Inspiration, Part 2."
You have a duty when you interpret a book to at least follow the storylines, not go off an invent new lines and character arcs just because you may.
And we're all very proud of you that you like them both. Have a cookie.