Lord of the Rings: Two Towers on cover of Time

[jerseydevil]

Here is an article that is appearing in this weeks Time Magazine - Lure of the Rings (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021202/story.html). It'll also have a cover of Frodo and everything.

http://users.hsonline.net/rrosetta/LureOfTheRings_TimeCover.gif


Two Towers is an unabashed action film," reports TIME's Jess Cagle, the first writer to see the second installment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Those who appreciate the finer points of J.R.R. Tolkien's work may be taken aback by the new film's high-tech grandiosity, TIME reports. "It's impressive," says Two Towers star Viggo Mortensen, "but if you have that much emphasis on special effects, it's unavoidable that you'll lose some of the poetry and intimacy of the story."


This is one thing that people may find interesting -


"We were aware that we were making films for the hard-core Tolkien fan base as well as everyone else," says Jackson, who co-wrote the script with Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. "In the beginning, it was a difficult tightrope to walk, but then we sort of abandoned thinking about it. If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book." Arwen, the beautiful elf played by Liv Tyler, doesn't appear in the book. But in the film, Jackson has love scenes between her and Aragorn—a romance based on an appendix that Tolkien later wrote about their doomed relationship.

The love scenes were added last summer. Though most of the trilogy was filmed during the initial shoot, which began in 1999, Jackson has done additional filming for both Fellowship and Two Towers.


I guess now - it will be a matter of how far he actually went with the "love" scenes.

[gdl96]

Is that Treebeard on the cover? It's too small to tell.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by gdl96
Is that Treebeard on the cover? It's too small to tell.

I'm not sure. There's Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf and I think Arwen. The bottom images I'm not sure about.

I guess I'll find out when I get my issue.

By the way - is there any reason why it won't embed the image in the post. I've done this before at various times and the image appears in the post. This time only the link appears.

[crickhollow]

My favorite part: You don't often hear directors telling you to stay away from their pictures. But Jackson is the definition of a purist.

[azalea]

I would like to think it may just be flashback sequences, but from the tone of the paragraph, I have the feeling it won't be. I really liked FotR, but it seems like TTT will focus mostly on Helm's Deep, which, while a spectacular battle, was a relatively small episode within the greater context of the book, although there was a lot of buildup and after-stuff that could be considered to be part of it. I have to admit that I prefer to have my battle scenes...let's just say I don't like to linger too long on them. Seeing one or two orcs cleaved in half is enough for me. I like suspense in a battle scene more than gore.

[Elf.Freak]

I agree with azalea. i think there should be a flashback sequence. On the teaser trailer for TTT, Galadrail/Cate Blanchett does an intro/explanation. Other than that, I can't wait for the film! :D

[cassiopeia]

But in the film, Jackson has love scenes between her and Aragorn—a romance based on an appendix that Tolkien later wrote about their doomed relationship.

Lets hope Peter Jackon doesn't interpret 'walked unshod' and 'plighted thier troth' as more than Tolkien intended.

[Entlover]

I think it's way cool that LotR made it on Time's cover. (I see no Ents, but it's a nice action collage.)
I have to say I enjoyed the article on Fantasy that follows it, by Lev Grossman, although he says some things I can't agree with. Ex: "The clarity and simplicity of Middle-earth are comforting, but there's also something worryingly childish, even infantile about it" - because everyone is "either good or evil, with no messy gray area in between." (Butterbur? Saruman? Gollum? Denethor? Boromir?)
He then counters that by saying Middle earth is not as simple as it looks, because it's got a message for contemporary America, that "as the world's only superpower, we're carrying the Ring on behalf of an entire planet, and our burden is every bit as heavy as Frodo's."

Aargh. It's not an allegory!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Entlover
Ex: "The clarity and simplicity of Middle-earth are comforting, but there's also something worryingly childish, even infantile about it" - because everyone is "either good or evil, with no messy gray area in between." (Butterbur? Saruman? Gollum? Denethor? Boromir?)

I don't know how you could consider Buttebur to be evil or even have a hint of evil in him. I agree that some other characters in Bree may not have been "evil" but only out for their own interests or gains.

Aargh. It's not an allegory!
As I've said before - just because Tolkien said it wasn't - doesn't mean it's true. I think it was - he just wanted people to make up their own minds on what he was saying and didn't want to have to explain it to them. If he came right out and said - "Yes it's allegory" then they would ask him what he was trying to say and have him explain every little detail of the book. I stand by my feelings that IT IS an allegory - whether Tolkien wanted to admit it or not.

al·le·go·ry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allegory)
1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.

[Entlover]

I put Butterbur in my list of people in the gray area because, as a result of his forgetfulness and carelessness, Frodo didn't get Gandalf's letter in time, got out of the Shire late and ran into the Nazgul on Weathertop, thus getting the wound that plagued him his whole life. Like the carelessness that costs dozens of people their lives in hospitals every year, it's only natural and human, but if you or I fell victim to it we would be hard pressed not to think there is some evil in it.

I can't agree with you that it's really an allegory, but JRR just didnt want to explain it all the time. He did an awful lot of explaining his books in other respects, at least in letters. And he is very explicit that it's not a classical allegory in which A = B consistently; he clearly said it wasn't an allegory of either the 1st or 2nd World Wars.
Pilgrim's Progress has cardboard characters like Valor, Courage, Christian, etc; but JRR's characters are more complicated, grow and develop (or deteriorate) thru the book. You can't equate Frodo, Gimli, Strider, or Gandalf to a single ideal or trait. Is Frodo humility? Then why does he take the ring in the end? Is Sam loyalty? Then why does he have conflicts?
Of course applicability is another thing: LotR's clearly applicable to many situations and events. But applicability and allegory are two very different things.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Entlover
I put Butterbur in my list of people in the gray area because, as a result of his forgetfulness and carelessness, Frodo didn't get Gandalf's letter in time, got out of the Shire late and ran into the Nazgul on Weathertop, thus getting the wound that plagued him his whole life. Like the carelessness that costs dozens of people their lives in hospitals every year, it's only natural and human, but if you or I fell victim to it we would be hard pressed not to think there is some evil in it.

That isn't evil though. Under that definition then you should add the main character to the evil list - namely Frodo- who as you point out below was going to keep the Ring in the end.

I wouldn't think there was evil in an accident - it's only if something is malicely done - would it be termed evil.

There was recently a 5 car accident in NJ (I was stuck for 3 hours in traffic) - and 2 people were killed. Someone slowed down to prevent hitting a groundhog and a 18 wheeler hit a car and it exploded. Is the person that ultimately caused this horrific accident evil? No.

I can't agree with you that it's really an allegory, but JRR just didnt want to explain it all the time. He did an awful lot of explaining his books in other respects, at least in letters. And he is very explicit that it's not a classical allegory in which A = B consistently; he clearly said it wasn't an allegory of either the 1st or 2nd World Wars.
Pilgrim's Progress has cardboard characters like Valor, Courage, Christian, etc; but JRR's characters are more complicated, grow and develop (or deteriorate) thru the book. You can't equate Frodo, Gimli, Strider, or Gandalf to a single ideal or trait. Is Frodo humility? Then why does he take the ring in the end? Is Sam loyalty? Then why does he have conflicts?
Of course applicability is another thing: LotR's clearly applicable to many situations and events. But applicability and allegory are two very different things.
Allegory doesn't have to be black and white. And the characters themselves don't have to alegorical - the events revolving around the story can be. Such as - does the destruction of the Shire represent the encroachment of industry on the countryside in England?

[Entlover]

JD - I do add Frodo to my list of people who are neither all black nor all white -- that's why the characters are so attractive, they're imperfect like real people.
It's not a list of evil people, but of people in the gray area. We could probably put everyone on it.

I'm harder on Butterbur than you, though. An accident is one thing and nobody's at fault. But carelessness is evil of a sort, especially if it results in pain for someone else.

Well, JRR denied the Shires destruction was an allegory of the problems in England -- but clearly he got the idea from somewhere, and it helped him visualize the Shire's destruction.

He defined allegory as strictly black and white, which is what I've been doing. I still think that you are calling applicability, allegory. But it's not a disagreement, only a matter of definition.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Entlover
JD - I do add Frodo to my list of people who are neither all black nor all white -- that's why the characters are so attractive, they're imperfect like real people.
It's not a list of evil people, but of people in the gray area. We could probably put everyone on it.

I actually misread that before. I was thinking you were listing the "evil" people - not people that are in the grey area. Although I don't think Butterbur was evil at all - just absent minded. He just didn't think that his actions had any consequence on the world. He lived it in his little world and he really didn't have much concern for what was going on around him outside the Prancing Pony.

[Nurvingiel]

Butterbur could also be considered in the grey area because he thinks Aragorn is dangerous. Well, he is dangerous, but not in the way Butterbur thought.

[Elvellon]

I too find amusing the statement “But Jackson is the definition of a purist” in Time magazine. Well, if he is a purist I’m Tomas de Torquemada:D

[Amandil]

Good call, Elvellon.

[Firekitten2006]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That isn't evil though. Under that definition then you should add the main character to the evil list - namely Frodo- who as you point out below was going to keep the Ring in the end.



But that was the ring talking. He didnt really want the ring as you can see in Moria before the ring had taken much affect on him. He tells Gandalf that he wished the ring had never come to him.

[Khamûl]

I read the article. The "Peter Jackson is the definition of a purist" cracked me up until I reread the paragraph and realized that they were talking about his movies.:rolleyes:

Did anyone notice that in the cast of characters thing, they say that Gandalf nearly died in FotR? Excuse me, but he did die. How do you think it'll be explained in TTT?

[Elvellon]

I don’t think he is a purist, even in relation to his own movies. For each time he was “intransigent” I wonder how many times he gave in to the wishes of the producers.

I wonder how many changes in the FotR are truly his, and not born in the head of some corporation know-it-all, that didn’t even read the book (some are so obviously cliché and inferior to how thing are handled in the book that the person who thought them doesn’t seem to have read it). If so, it even may be understandable, he wasn’t exactly a big, famous director to flex his “authority muscles”.

[Elfhelm]

I guess BoP should throw a thesaurus at the writer of the article. ;)

[Nurvingiel]

Or a dictionary! PJ's not a purist at all! A realy purist would have kept every important element from the book, maintained the depth and integrity of each character, and wouldn't have altered the plot in any way!

[BeardofPants]

I'm sorry, I've run out of thesaurus'. Will a gumboot do?

Of course PJ's a purist. He's stayed true to his blood and gore roots. :p

[Nurvingiel]

Hee hee! You're right, it all depends how you want to define a purist, and what your perspective is.

In Time, I got the impression they were saying he was a Tolkien purist. Um... no.

We're all purists and non-purists for different things.