What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[PO-TA-TO!]

Hi guys,

New here.

I like the movie Smeagol better than book Smeagol. I felt more pity for him than when I read the book. You can already imagine people bring out their hankies when Smeagol eventually does his 'thing ' in ROTK. How can anyone go through that scene unscathed?

In that sense, how can ROTK fail?

cheers.

[Kallasilya]

I think the bad stuff's mainly been said, so I'll just go on to rave about my favourite parts, shall I? ;)
In no particular order:
1) The excitement level in the Helm's Deep scenes was extremely high. One of the parts in the book that always got my blood pumping was the last charge, and by the time Theoden led out his men I was just about ready to jump up onto my seat in the middle of the theatre and scream out "FORTH EORLINGAS!!!!!!!!" at the top of my voice :D. I've always LOVED that line...
2) Frodo's moment at with the ringwraith at the top of Osgiliath!!! WOW!!! Well, I can understand that it's kind of illogical... but it's such a MOMENT! You could feel everything in the cinema go silent and you could almost hear the hearts beating... my breath really got caught in my throat :) . To me that image symbolises pretty much the whole tale of LotR. I do so love symbolic imagery :D And that scene would make an EXCELLENT poster :D
3) The storming of Isengard!!!! The scene of the water roaring past the ents and just the huge power of the flood really showed the destruction that the Ents were capable of.
4) Sam's big speech at the end - it got me all teary *sniff*
5) The mention of stories being told - The tale of the Ring and all that jazz. I just can't wait to see the end of RotK where the minstrel comes out to sing the Tale of Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Power! I can just see myself bursting into an absolute flood of tears at that point! :D

[Kallasilya]

Ooooh!! I just remembered another thing... the elves' reaction to death! It seems kind of a funny thing to point out... but if you think about it, since the elves are immortal, they cannot really grasp the meaning of death. They just can't understand it, and their grief flows from this innocence. This is especially noticeable when Haldir dies (completely unecessary but nicely done anyway), and when Legolas thinks that Aragorn has died. All of his friends and companions seem to have left him one by one, and only Gimli is left. For an elf, this might be quite a shock to the system. :D

[Blackboar]

Originally posted by PO-TA-TO!
Hi guys,

New here.

I like the movie Smeagol better than book Smeagol. I felt more pity for him than when I read the book. You can already imagine people bring out their hankies when Smeagol eventually does his 'thing ' in ROTK. How can anyone go through that scene unscathed?

In that sense, how can ROTK fail?

cheers.

HI!!

Have you been to the Newbies thread?

I love the new Sméagol!!

[diannah]

The first time I saw it I thought it was great. Gollum was just how I pictured him. For some reason I associated him with a strung-out cocaineadict, but that's just me. Shadowfax is a beatiful horse, but the slow-motion thing was just funny. Brego's better. Eowyn was actually a likeable character, I didn't think of her as such at first. The only things that disapointed me was Faramir. I always thought of him as more sensitive and understanding than he was in the movie. Other than that, the only thing I can complain about is Aragorn and Arwen's playing up relationship. It was a bit cheesy for my tastes. I was thrilled with the battle at Helm's Deep, thought Pip and Merry were inspired and moved beyond words by Frodo and Sam. I'm going to see it again today. Yay!

[Blackboar]

I thought Gollum would look a bit more amphibiany but I guess he was a Hobbit once and had to look a bit similar too him.

I've seen it 4 times now!!

[Khamûl]

I've just seen it for the third time and it gets better every time I see it. I didn't really even mind Frodo and the Nazgûl at Osgiliath this time. I got another good chuckle out of Mr. Torch-bearing Orc. And I didn't see Gandalf in his sneakers. I watched, but they didn't look like sneakers to me. I dragged my mother in to see it this time and she didn't care for the movie all that much. She didn't care for the first one either, but anyway... Maybe I'll get around to seeing it a 4th time.

[TinuvielChild]

3rd time tomorrow! I'm waaay behind....

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by TinuvielChild
3rd time tomorrow! I'm waaay behind....

I've only seen it once. I'll have to wait for january 11th for the regular screening. Stupid local film fest. Grrr...

[arrowgirl]

I thought TTT was excellent
I thought that Gollum was great also that the battle of Helm's Deep was great and I laughted at the fact that they were true to the book in that Legolas and Gimli were counting there kills
I also thought that Faramir was good and he was simlar to Boromir which made you believe they were brothers even more

[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?action=view&articleID=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. :D

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) :rolleyes:

[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 :p) -- 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. :p

[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? :D).

[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!

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by 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.

Actually, my brain was having a movie-Gimli moment at 3 AM there. Anyway, it is nice to have gone about looking at each others opinions from different angles and stripping out the ambiguities and finding out exactly where we disagree. It's been a stimulating moment parrying ideas with you and Amandil. JD has made his opinions clear (at least to me) since last year.

BTW, although this sounds like I'm dying, I actually picked someone else's brain by mistake after watching the DVD. I hope to get mine back. It is grey and fairly used.

*Raises glass* "To the Professor!"

[azalea]

I'm seeing it for a second time tomorrow.
Did anyone else notice that Saruman is again portayed as truly being in cahoots w/ Sauron, rather than trying to "go it alone?" I think this was mentioned after FotR, and the consensus was that PJ would make it more apparent in TTT. I guess he just abandoned this storyline altogether.:rolleyes: Unless I missed something during my one viewing.
Also, I felt the camera editing during the battle scenes was poorly done. They did to many close-ups during the action, which just made it look like a blur to me. I would have prefered to have actually seen what was happening clearly.

[Lizra]

I had that problem with the battle too. I thought it was just me being old and not used to movies. Switch, swoosh, jump...it's all dark, I just went with the flow. Owning it will make this soooo much better! :) My eyes really were sore after the movie. I kept trying to focus in better. :eek:

[Gerbil]

Ermm.... bugger.

I go away for a bit and come back to 10 pages to catch up on.
Perhaps not ;)

If it's any consolation - I saw TTT again, and enjoyed it much more than the first time.

Hopefully this trend will continue in my third viewing :D

Biggest issue for me in this film now is how the hell Frodo, Sam, Faramir et al make it to the west shores of Osgiliath (and in Frodo + Sam's case back again) without being twatted by the enemy.
Oh well.

[Gerbil]

BTW, dunno if it's been covered here, but I'm pointing out again (did this before TTT came out) that my bet is Grima pushes Saruman off Orthanc?

Apart from it being vaguely close to the book, let's not forget Grima sheds a tear when he sees the army that will kill everyone in his country. Having read some of the motivations of the PJ Grima, he's basically just a weasel with a heart of gold. Bullied as child, not really bad, circumstances etc. Blah...

[Nurvingiel]

Of course you are right Eruviel Greenleaf and Khamul. I finished TTT and started ROTK back to back in the wee hours of the mourning, and now they just blend together seamlessly. (Which they should, since I believe the Lord of the Rings was origionally one book.)


And I also welcome you Lady of Rivendell! You sounded like you didn't feel welcome for a moment, I just hope you didn't get dumped on in your first post or something like that. :)

[mithrand1r]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

JD & squinteyedsoutherner,

I think the comparison is fair. If the movie had a different title/characters with essentially the same story, it probably would have done less in revenues. A large part of the movie's initial success has to be linked to its recognition/association with Tolkien's work of fiction. Granted as stand alone movies they are Very Good to Excellent with relatively little room for complaint.

That being said, I viewed TTT for a 2nd time. This time I tried to view the film separately from the book. I enjoyed the film more this time around with the following comments:

I noticed Legolas' eye change and the archers firing phantom arrows that others mentioned. ;):D:p

I still think that ents changed their mind too quickly, even going by the movie, from doing nothing to attacking Sauruman. :confused:

Didn't the White wizard explain who Merry & Pippen were so that the ents would not have to waste their time discussing and agreeing that M&P were not Orcs?

I am left wondering how Sam/Frodo go from East of Anduin to West and back to East w/out running into enemy. :confused:

Why didn't the Nazgûl 1)alert other nazgûl about seeing the ring and 2) take control of his stead and go after the ring again? From the movie, I get the impression that little if anything, would stop the nazgûl from claiming the ring.

I am surprised that Gandalf, Eomer & Co. did not get their horses impaled against the orcs pikes. ( I am willing to concede their expert ridership in charging done the incline towards the orcs)

Why was Grima given a horse to leave the Golden Hall? Or permited to leave for that matter.

Nothing was mentioned (at least I don't remember it) about the elven cloaks (at least not in the theatric releases).

I would think that someone would have noticed the rocks/dust falling down the "hill" from Sam and Frodo sliding down. It would warrent(sp?) an investigation of area with a squad of troops. The two guards should have been able to see something amiss at the close range that they were in relation to the hobbits.

If it was mentioned then in the book, I thought the Elf cloaks were similar in function to camouflage in that it would make you harder to see against the background, but up close it would not do much in disguising you.

Those cloaks are bigger than they appear. While walking around they fit very nicely. When needed, it appears they can expand in size to cover one up.

These are just some of the more glaring things that jump at me, if I look at the film with as little reference to the book as possible. I still think the film is enjoyable and it does capture the feel of Middle-Earth well.

If one was to take the films as a transfer of the books to film then there are several areas where the film differs. These differences are not always due to time constraints. In some cases material was added. This made the story flow better and/or be more understandable in some cases. Sometimes the additional material and changes forced the need for more changes to be made to keep things consistent. Some changes just made me wonder why.

I know that movies are not the same as the book. I guess that in this case, I hoped that the film would follow the book in a way that would 1) keep the characters as they were in the book with minor changes at most. 2) pretend that people who watch the film never read the book. Sometimes, I think that certain shotcuts were made since it is assumed that many people have read LOTR. 3) if the book must be streamlined, be careful in what is cut out and what is left in. Certain parts need to be kept in its entirety (ie. concil of Elrond).

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[azalea]

I saw it again today, and it was MUCH better in the second viewing! I really liked it the first time, but since I knew what changes to expect this time, I was able to focus on the little details. There were some really good camera shots. I was still a little bothered by the things I mentioned previously, but not that much. I can't wait to get my soundtrack! I teared up when Haldir died. It kind of reminded me of that commercial: "Here's one place where it doesn't matter who your neighbor is (shows crib in hospital nursery). Here's the other (shows graveyard)." I also got misty when Treebeard saw the desolation in Fangorn.

As far as Grima's tears, I think he is crying because Saruman has said no one will be left alive, and of course that means Eowyn, too, so Grima knows his babe will die (or at least he thinks so!).

[TinuvielChild]

I have a question (I haven't read this entire thread - not enought time - so bear with me if this has already been posted): Craig Parker's character. In FotR, his name is Haldir, yet my friends tell me that in TTT, his name is Aldor. What's up with that? Is that even correct? Confused... :confused:


And if I have misinformation, just ignore this post...:D :D

[BeardofPants]

I think you have been misinformed...

[Lady of Rivendell]

Thank you Nurvingiel! Nothing that dramatic, I assure you. It's just getting used to the feel of this place. People tend to have very drastic opinions here and I'm just getting into the swing of things. Thank you for your concern...It's appriciated.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
I still think that ents changed their mind too quickly, even going by the movie, from doing nothing to attacking Sauruman. :confused:


I think that it would have added a bit more humor and also be more "faithful" to the way ents are if they added more subtitles to start those scenes that said:
"3 days later..."

It would have had some minor groans and laughs from the uninitiated as it gets repeated but most of them will probably have a LOTR-fan as part of their gang to set them straight.

The scene where Merry and Pippin were drinking entdraughts with Treebeard didn't make the cut for the movie but might be added in the extended DVD but it presents a question if they intend to show the 2 hobbits being much bigger in ROTK; at least for those not getting the DVD.

Time for another long wait...

[Christiana]

I saw it for the second time now!!!!!
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!I'm screaming!!!!
All I can say is WOW!!!
I must be dreaming!!!!!!!!:eek: :)

[ThorinOakenshield]

Truer words have never been spoken. There will be some to whom this film is "intolerable".....I would be one of those people.
I own Fellowship of the Ring, and I can tell you I cannot watch it all the way through due to all the "creative liberties", a.k.a. ridiculous re-writes, contained therein. And to hear from this message board that TTT contains even more of the kind boils my blood. To me, it's butchery! Nothing more. Just butchery of a masterful literary work. Yes, yes, Im a purist through and through, and would love to have seen a faithful rendition of the books upon the silver screen. But there are those who can deal with all the ridiculous changes and omissions. How they do it, I have no clue but bless them all!
See my post, just above this one, for more analysis if you like. And long lives the Dwarves! *ThorinOakenshield*

[Gerbil]

Didn't the White wizard explain who Merry & Pippen were so that the ents would not have to waste their time discussing and agreeing that M&P were not Orcs? That bit bothers me too. Also, Ents' hatred of orcs is well known - they kill first and (don't) ask questions later. If Treebeard seriously thought P&M were little orcs, he'd have killed them immediately.
In the books this is all handled much better and makes sense to why he spares them. Another example of PJ taking just enough material from the books to make the screenplay even more insulting.

I should put that line in my sig file I think...

[EDIT] I can't put it in my sig-file - there appears to be a problem with the entmoot database... :(

[Kalimac]

Here's a renedition of the Two Towers script. Good for reference purposes when trying to make your point. :rolleyes:

Two Towers Manuscript (http://www.geocities.com/lotrscript2002/)

>>Didn't the White wizard explain who Merry & Pippen were so that the ents would not have to waste their time discussing and agreeing that M&P were not Orcs?<<

I suppose Treebeard knew, but perhaps the Entmoot had to take things more slooooooowly in this regard. (of course they had no such problem attacking Isengard) Still, I liked this part of the movie and would have liked to see more.

>>Nazgûl 1)alert other nazgûl about seeing the ring<<

The nazgûl cannot see the Ring, they can only sense its presence. If Frodo put the Ring on, than they would be able to 'see' it. Since Sam tackles him at this point . . the nazgûl only has an inclination that the Ring is nearby . . recall out in the marshes, or under the tree root . . the nazgûl sensed the presence of the Ring . . but could not locate the source. The nazgûl use their beasts for their eyes . . Faramir shot at the beast and Sam pulled Frodo away. I have no doubt though that the nazgûl at this point returned to Sauron and reported that he felt the Rings presence in Gondor. Sauron now believes that the Ring is going to Minas Tirith . . and, now is the time to drive Denethor mad . . and, attack the city. Sauron does not fathom, even in the movie that Faramir has let the hobbit with the Ring go.



>> am surprised that Gandalf, Eomer & Co. did not get their horses impaled against the orcs pikes<<

Ha. Point taken (pun intended) however, don't forget that this is a fantasy . . suspension of belief is acceptable . .

>> I thought the Elf cloaks were similar in function to camouflage in that it would make you harder to see against the background, but up close it would not do much in disguising you.<<

Not according to the book . . Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas were so well camouflaged that Eomer and his men rode right past them. I think we can suspend belief here a bit and say that the cloaks could hide one much better than any 'ordinary' camouflage. This part was done well, imo.

>>Treebeard and the 'little Orcs'<<

In the book, Treebeard is much gentler . . but he does say that, "if I had seen you before I heard you, I should have just trodden on you, taking you for little Orcs, and found out my mistake afterwards."

What is interesting to me is that in the HOME books, Tolkien had first envisioned Treebeard as much more menacing. I think that PJ hops between all the Tolkien material, using HOME and Tolkien's other works to tell this story . . and, some of course he embellishes . . :rolleyes:

(edited)

[barrelrider110]

Hello everyone,
Sorry to have arrived late to the party. I read most of the thread and enjoyed reading everyone's opinions.

I liked TT better than FotK probably because I had a different viewing experience for a number of reasons. I went to a matinee, saw it with a large group of friends, and did a bit of extra traveling to see it at a premium cinema with stadium seating etc. rather than at the local multiplex. I also had different expectations, so the departures from the book were less irksome.

Lots of good opinions covered here. Good job everyone. Tough to think of something original.

On Theoden's exorcism:
At first thought the exorcism was a bit campy, but didn't Gandalf essentially do the same thing in the book, but in a much more subtle way?

On Grima Wormtongue:
He seemed to be able to weave a spell. When he tries to seduce Eowyn, there was a moment when I thought she would submit (yuck) and then she gathers herself and calls him a snake. Good bit of acting by Miranda Otto.

On Gandalf & Eomer's charge at Helm's Deep:
How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000? (Aside from the fact that it should have been Erkenbrand with 1,000 infrantrymen) Ridiculous, PJ, just ridiculous! Please don't insult my intelligence again.

[Kalimac]

>>How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000<<

There is never any mention in the movie of exactly how many men/cavalry returned to Helms Deep with Gandalf. ;)

Also, I understand that the scene with the Huorn was filmed . . so, it may end up in the SE or even in ROtK to further explain the defeat of the Uruk-hai. (although, for the casual viewer the additon of the Huorns would have been confusing . . PJ left the total force Gandalf returned with ambiguous . . perhaps he returned with all the armed forces of Rohan? )

To me the movie suffers from many cut scenes . . choices that PJ obviously had to make to keep the movie at exactly 2 hours and 59 minutes per New Lines insistance. I'd liked to see these scenes restored.

[crickhollow]

I believe that Eomer told Aragorn in the beginning that the number of his followers was 2,000--not 200. But I could be wrong.

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Kalimac
>>How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000<<

There is never any mention in the movie of exactly how many men/cavalry returned to Helms Deep with Gandalf. ;)

Also, I understand that the scene with the Huorn was filmed . . so, it may end up in the SE or even in ROtK to further explain the defeat of the Uruk-hai. (although, for the casual viewer the additon of the Huorns would have been confusing . . PJ left the total force Gandalf returned with ambiguous . . perhaps he returned with all the armed forces of Rohan? )

To me the movie suffers from many cut scenes . . choices that PJ obviously had to make to keep the movie at exactly 2 hours and 59 minutes per New Lines insistance. I'd liked to see these scenes restored.

True, there was no mention of the number in Eomer's troop. I am assuming the contingent was the same as encountered Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas chasing the Uruk-hai on the plain of Rohan. They looked to number no more than 200, and there certainly was no more than 500 riders in the final charge.

I agree that this was probably a product of some serious editing, but to me and those who didn't read the books (or hadn't read them in a while) it looked ridiculous.

Something to look for when we watch it again.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Kalimac
>>How can 200 cavalry defeat an army 10,000<<

There is never any mention in the movie of exactly how many men/cavalry returned to Helms Deep with Gandalf. ;)

...

To me the movie suffers from many cut scenes . . choices that PJ obviously had to make to keep the movie at exactly 2 hours and 59 minutes per New Lines insistance. I'd liked to see these scenes restored.

Kalimac,

In one area it is mentioned that Eomer has 2,000 men with him (although they only show about 80-100 in that scene of the film.) and in Helms Deep it is mention how can 300 (or some similar figure) withstand against 10,000+ orcs.

Perhaps there were more men that joined with Gandalf. (or not) This is not made clearer in the film, so we are left with what is said in the film.

I think that you are correct in the movie suffering from cut scenes. Not fatal cuts, but they are enough to be noticable and hurt the quality of the film.

I still think the film is enjoyable. :)

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by crickhollow
I believe that Eomer told Aragorn in the beginning that the number of his followers was 2,000--not 200. But I could be wrong.
OK, let's go with that.
Let's assume half the orcs were killed in the assault. That's woudl make the odds 2 1/2 to 1. Even those odds aren't enough for a decisive victory.

[barrelrider110]

Yes, Anthony, in spite of everythin the film was totally enjoyable.

[Earendil Overboard]

There’s a famous quote by a Roman writer about how an emperor only needs to provide people with "bread and circuses" to keep them happy. It's like what's said in "Gladiator" by one Senator: "The beating heart of Rome is not the marvel of the Senate, but the sands of the Coliseum." But there isn't much characterization, plot, or meaning in a gladiator fight.

What PJ has done to LOTR is no more than make a circus out of it to entertain the masses. By far the majority of changes made to the story sacrifice meaningful dialogue, characterization and events for the sake of black & white simplicity or a little SPECTACLE. Often the changes result in scenes that are visually impressive but illogical or unrealistic. Is simplicity and spectacle all that most viewers really care about? Consider the few examples below.

1. Saruman's own desire for power has been replaced by complete loyalty to Sauron. But how could someone corrupt NOT be tempted by the Ring's power though even good characters are? Believable? Or oversimplistic?

2. Theoden's despair and grief for his son are turned into 'demonic possession' by Saruman; and Gandalf's power to inspire hope and courage becomes an exorcism. We now have the spectacle of a little magic, but realistic characterization and human relevance are lost! Is this change worthwhile?

3. In the novel, the Ents are creatures uncomfortable with being "hasty," who take a long time over decision-making in order to be sure of reaching the right decisions; and after long thought about Saruman's damage to the forest, they decide to fight him. PJ saw fit to change this so that the Ents decide after long thought NOT to go to war, but then suddenly change their minds in a moment of passion when Treebeard sees an ugly clearcut. Has PJ made Ents act out of character or changed an interesting and meaningful characteristic just in order to create a little dramatic tension? And is it realistic that after Treebeard walks a long way to take the hobbits to one edge of the forest, ALL the Ents suddenly appear there when he cries out?

4. Instead of Faramir having enough wisdom and insight to see the danger of the Ring, he wants to use it like Boromir to increase Gondor's power. PJ says this change was needed to increase "tension" (by keeping the hobbits prisoners longer) and because it would've been unrealistic if Faramir weren’t tempted by the Ring after it had been presented as "incredibly powerful.� But isn't it more believable for Faramir to escape temptation than Saruman?! And when he later decides to let the hobbits go, the decision is no longer in character and there's no apparent reason for it! Was realistic characaterization sacrificed for a little dramatic "tension"?

5. Maybe Faramir was also changed to add a bit more spectacle: the made-up scene when Frodo is almost caught by a winged Nazgul. But is this scene realistic, and does it fit with the logic of the story? Should a Nazgul be so easily turned aside when it is so close to the Ring? Much worse, if Sauron now knows through a Nazgul that the Ring is in Osgiliath, won't he concentrate all his power on finding it there and make the quest hopeless?! The success of Frodo's quest depended entirely upon its secrecy.

6. In the battle of Helm's Deep, Aragorn and Gimli go out a side door and jump over a chasm to fight on a bridge in front of the gates. Why? Is it cleverer than staying on the walls and shooting arrows? They then turn around in the midst of battle and climb up a rope onto the wall again without being killed. More spectacle at the expense of realism?

7. In Tolkien, Orcs are finally defeated at Helm's Deep by 3 armies: Riders from the fortress; infantry led by Erkenbrand and Gandalf; and a mysterious dark forest of Huorns sent by the Ents. Maybe for simplicity, PJ changed the forces of the heroes to a mere handful of Riders from the fortress plus the cavalry of Eomer. He then makes the cavalry charge into the pikes of a still much larger army of Orcs-- reminiscent of the Scots who defeated the English at Sterling (anyone remember "Braveheart"?). It's a somewhat impressive-looking spectacle, but is it realistic? And were these changes really necessary despite the loss of realism?

I wonder what the contributors to this forum think about all this. Are people generally happy with the "spectacle" despite the oversimplifyihg, the lack of realism, and the sacrifice of meaningful characterization? What we're seeing here is a very, very LOW level of storytelling.

[Gerbil]

4. Instead of Faramir having enough wisdom and insight to see the danger of the Ring, he wants to use it like Boromir to increase Gondor's power. PJ says this change was needed to increase "tension" (by keeping the hobbits prisoners longer) and because it would've been unrealistic if Faramir weren’t tempted by the Ring after it had been presented as "incredibly powerful.� Again, simply shows PJ hasn't got a very deep understanding of the source material.

As soon as you realise he's on no more than passing terms with Tolkien's work, everything else falls into place - simple as that.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Earendil Overboard
Are people generally happy with the "spectacle" despite the oversimplifyihg, the lack of realism, and the sacrifice of meaningful characterization? What we're seeing here is a very, very LOW level of storytelling. [/B]
Earendil Overboard,

(5) I forgot to even think about Sauron. (being annoyed by scene in general) Excellent point.

I generally accept the film (even with all of the oversimplification, etc.) from the ½ loaf better than nothing school.

I am I totally pleased? No, there are several areas that I wanted to have been done better. In several cases, I think it could this could have been done and kept the film length to about 3 Hours.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Earendil Overboard
There’s a famous quote by a Roman writer about how an emperor only needs to provide people with "bread and circuses" to keep them happy. It's like what's said in "Gladiator" by one Senator: "The beating heart of Rome is not the marvel of the Senate, but the sands of the Coliseum." But there isn't much characterization, plot, or meaning in a gladiator fight.

Dear Overboard:
The Roman spectacle was politically motivated propaganda as well as opium for the masses: To keep the haves in power and the have-nots licking their heels. To suggest this is analagous to the artistic liberties PJ has taken with Lord of the Rings is pure hogwash. Please, spare me the sophomoric drivel.

[Christiana]

Am i the only one who acually likes the movie?I think we should remember that everyone has a different interpertation of the books. also,i thought that there was a line from gandalf about Eomer riding north with 2000 cavalry. And remember, most people dont know that gandalf is a mair, and so have to have somthing convince them of his power.

[barrelrider110]

I enjoyed it immensely.

[Elf Girl]

I hated it!

I'm seeing it again tonight YAY!!

;)

[Christiana]

you...you WHAT???!!! *turns purple and draws bow*:D ;)

[Noahamir]

In response to Earendil Overboard's Complaint #6 about Aragorn and Gimli going out the side door instead of staying on the wall.

In the book, Aragorn and Eomer did go out a side door to attack the orcs and Gimli also helped so Peter Jackson did not make up something just for a spectacle in this instance. He did tweak the situation around a bit but did base it on an actual event in the book.

[Lady of Rivendell]

but I enjoyed it for what it was...not what my expectations wanted it to be.

Of course, I'm not a die hard Tolkien fan ( insert explanation: I've read Tolkien and enjoy his works and lively conversations about meaning and such but do not revolve my life around Tolkien )

With that in mind, I can appricate the changes PJ made, good or bad. If people have a problem with my opinions, it's not really my problem, it's theirs. =-) People are entitled to their opinions, as I am entitled to mine. Enough said....

Blessed Be All....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't buy that story about "his interpretation". I think PJ knew that LotR was a beloved piece of literature, and decided to carve a name out for himself; I don't think he was ever a real Tolkien person. I don't think he's any different from the other directors who adapt a book to a movie; he just wants his name on it, and the money from it in his pockets.

That said, I also greatly enjoyed the film; watching it as a fantasy movie, and not an adaptation of LotR makes it quite enjoyable, and only the biggest problems annoyed me.

[Cirdan]

The battle scene at Helm's Deep suffers from some overly dramatized bits. In the book the Orcs are taken surprise by the flank attack while in the film it looks as though they were completely ready. Military strategic success depends on the element of surprise, or at least catching the enemy unprepared. This was clear in the book. In the movie the orcs are too disciplined actually lose in the given circumstance. It seemed that after hours of battle the orcs had not dwindled at all in the movie. Also there were the Huorn were attacking from the orc rear.

I saw it again today. The changes didn't bother me as much. They just seem weak. It's as though in drama 101 someone learned that it's dramatic for a character to have a change of heart. The ents don't go to war rationally, they react to the clear cutting. Faramir doesn't know the ring is evil, he needs to see the wraith and then send Frodo on his way.

The bit about Frodo offering the ring is not as bad as some have said. The wraith is trying to take the ring as Sam pushes Frodo out of the way. It's just disturbing because Sam moves full speed while the wraith is in slo-mo.

I like it but the second viewing didn't wear as well as FotR. The excessive use of shoulder cams and extreme close-ups while occasionally effective, is annoying after a while. The story lends itself better to movies than the FotR but is not carried off as well.

The Nazgul do not like direct combat so it is not surprising they would flee. The did not join the fray at Pellenor except to attack the leaders. The book states that they prefer to effect the battle through others from afar.

[dawningoftime]

I've seen TTT and here is what I think. The book is slow to begin with and is my least favorite of the three. I agree that I didn't like them changing Farimir's character. But the scene with Gandalf and Theodin was necessary to demonstrate the power that Saruman had over Theodin. Overall I liked the movie.

[Kalimac]

Yes, there were 2000 men that Gandalf went after . . I saw the film again, and the number stuck out like a sore thumb.

>>He then makes the cavalry charge into the pikes <<

After watching this today, I noticed that the orcs were not only blinded and confused by the sun rising and Gandalf casting his light . . but, they also lowered their spears and shielded their eyes.

Earendil Overboard, I think I answered some of your questions on a different board . . you get around. :D

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I just wached that scene several times before writing this (God bless Kazaa), which was difficult given how much cheese it contains.

I believe that what you say Kalimac was exactly what was intended to be conveyed. There are however, many things wrong. Having been lucky enough to have grown up with family horses, and riding my whole life, I can say with certainty the entire scene is impossible.

The incline is WAY to steep.

while I think the intention is to show the pike line breaking with the morning sun, it is still formidable even in the final shot. And there are so many orcs still in the valley (in fact it is still full in the shot from the top of the cliff) that the line could not break, because there is nowhere for the front line to go.

Horses will not jump into a sea of people. Horses need to see solid footing on the other side of whatever they are jumping.

The ride out (by Theoden and company) down the stone ramp is another impossibility. An incline of stone is dangerous footing for a horse, after a night of rain and blood and a solid wall of orcs, it's insane. It would have been easy for the orcs to push the horses off the side.

Considering so much of this film was horse related they could have used some advisors on the reality of some of their special effects shots, it's really "over the top" and unbelievable. I think Cirdan really nailed it when he said it was overdramatized. Jackson tried to hard to make it look heroic. In fact there are many cases now, in both films, where his attempts to portray the herioc only serve to make the opposition seem useless.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Christiana
I think we should remember that everyone has a different interpertation of the books.

I can see that people can interpret different themes in the book, but not the actual story. How can PJ interpret Theoden being exorcised or any other changes he made?

The illogical changes annoy me because, from watching the FOTR DVD, it is obvious a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make everything right. Except, it seems, the most important part, the script!

The most annoying change for me is Frodo showing the ring to the nazgul at Osgiliath. Wouln't all the nazgul fly to that area and try and take the ring? Surely they would now have a good chance at sucess, when Faramir releases Frodo. And why didn't the nazgul take the ring in the first place. In the book, Sauron has no idea the ring is in that general area. My only guess it that in the ROTK it will be shown that Sauron thinks the ring is being taken to Minas Tirith.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Earendil Overboard
I wonder what the contributors to this forum think about all this. Are people generally happy with the "spectacle" despite the oversimplifyihg, the lack of realism, and the sacrifice of meaningful characterization? What we're seeing here is a very, very LOW level of storytelling.

Well I'm not happy with it - but everyone that was here on Entmoot when FotR came out knows that. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who has a problem with the movies anymore. I'm also glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that Jackson just wanted to make a cool fantasy film and decided to make The Lord of the Rings, not because he loved the books, but because he knew he'd make a ton of money from it and make a name for himself. Before LotR - I didn't even know who Jackson was.

Concerning comments about the cloaks. I also thought that was far fetched. It is one thing to miss Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas when the Riders 0f Rohan ride pass them. For one thing, they're on horseback, riding fast, not looking for anyone. it is quite another when you see rocks rolling down the hillside, and your standing just two inches from them and actually looking. Tolkien never ever gave an indictaion that they would hide you under those circumstances. From all discriptions - they just allowed the wearing to blend in with the surroundings.

By the way Earendil Overboard - I agree with many of your comments. At least there is only one more film that I have to go through with Jackson saying - "The fans are going to forgive me for the changes I was forced to make." If I had the will power - I'd boycott RotK. I'm just a weak person when it comes to Lord of the Rings I guess.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm also glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that Jackson just wanted to make a cool fantasy film and decided to make The Lord of the Rings, not because he loved the books, but because he knew he'd make a ton of money from it and make a name for himself. Before LotR - I didn't even know who Jackson was.

I don't think he did it purely for the money. I think he choose to film LoTR because it was well known and deemed unfilmable. I think he was looking for a challenge.

I didn't know Jackson before LoTR either but in my case, that proves little since I hardly know anybody. :p

[Kalimac]

I think PJ was looking for a challenge too. People have selective memories here if they think he did this only for money and fame. PJ took a professional and financial risk to bring this book to the screen. Last year leading up to the release of FOtR there was no guarantee of success, and the pundits were that failure would sink the studio.

I appreciate the risk that he took, the care he took to craft a movie from difficult material, and the obstacles he overcame along the way. My feeling is that PJ can withstand the criticism leveled at him by armchair critics. People may come and go with individual opinion, but the film will remain as a testament to PJ's skills as a filmmaker. His film has already been mentioned as one of the best of the year . . I've been around probably as long as the Ents . . it is not easy to win the respect of your peers . . and, when you see nominations . . and best of the bunch lists for director, cinematography, screen adaptation, costuming, sound, special effects, performances, and yes . . film . . these nominations are not just cropping up because of 'popularity'.

Darn, who am I kidding . . you're all right . . I just really liked the movie because Legolas is HOT. :rolleyes:

[dawningoftime]

As my sister put it the movies were a labor of love. For the sets at least you have to have an appreciation for the books if you put a lot of detail into the sets as he did. Besides I've seen the animated version of LoTR and if you though that PJ's was bad you'd absoulutly hate the animated.

[middleEarthStar]

I can´t describe the feeling to you when I saw the premier of The two towers here in sweden where I live!
First of all I couldnt understand that I was actually there again.
After a one year I was there again!!!!
It was the moment we´ve all been waiting for.

I nearly cried when the movie started. I was so touch!!!

I think that Peter Jackson did a great job on this move two, like the first........BUT he did some things wrong...too different fron the book...


but it took my heart anyway!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Kalimac His film has already been mentioned as one of the best of the year . . I've been around probably as long as the Ents . . it is not easy to win the respect of your peers . . and, when you see nominations . . and best of the bunch lists for director, cinematography, screen adaptation, costuming, sound, special effects, performances, and yes . . film . . these nominations are not just cropping up because of 'popularity'. [/B]
Actually my sister worked in Hollywood PR firm in LA - there is a lot of politicing that goes on with the Oscars. Even Jackson admitted that he had to around like a politician and convince them to nominate the film. This year he said he was (EDIT in: NOT) going to do that. The only nomination I felt they deserved was really cinematography and special effects anyway. I don't think the FotR deserved Best Picture by a long shot.

And what exactly is the definition of an armchair critic? When anyone goes to a movie - don't they determine whether they like it or not? Is there some "critic school" that a person needs to go to so THEY can determine whether they like a film or not? I quess I better go get my PHD in film criticism so I can be told what makes a good film versus a bad one. Sorry - but I feel that Jackson's "interpretation" leaves a lot to be desired. And I don't need to go to a class or major in film to tell me why should like it.

And Kalimac - people unfamiliar with the Lord of the Rings fans would question whether the film would be a success. But as long as the film kept certain points in and was well done the fans would eat it up. Which is exactly what happened. Jackson was familar with the fans - but I still don't think that he made the film because it was Lord of the Rings. He made it because he wanted to do a fantasy film - and by producing one based on Lord of the Rings - he was able to ride on the coattails of Tolkien and the books.

After FotR came out - people were praising Jackson for just making the film and practically kissing his feet. Now people have been leveling a more rounded critism of the film and not just just excusing things he did.

[Yazad]

Jersey's right. There's an immense amount of politicing that goes on. It really is just a popularity contest.

What's more is that I've known several people who are members of the Academy and I couldn't personally care less what they thought of a movie (sons and daughters of 3rd string movie actors, etc.). And they're the ones voting and choosing here. What does their opinion mean to me? Many of the films that end up getting nominated (and winning) weren't even seen by most members in the theater, but rather on video (DVD now!) sent out to Academy members by the studios. It is all a concerted effort to win these prizes. Huge and expensive advertisements are taken out in Hollywood periodicals encouraging members to vote for this or that.

IMO, if you want to figure out how good a film actually is, watch it, and think about it. Listen to critics which you respect. See what wins at film festivals - a far better indication of "quality" than popularity, ticket sales or Academy Awards. Look at Titanic, the largest $$$ grossing movie of all time. Now when you think back on it, isn't it pretty pathetic?

The best and most original film of last year, IMO, Memento wasn't even nominated for the Academy's Best Picture and several mediocre films were, including the one that took the prize.

Yazad

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Memento was a great film!

[samwiselvr2008]

I just typed all of this stuff up, and then the stupid computer messed up and earased it all, so I'll make this short and sweet:
Vewing one: dissapounted with Gollum and changes
Vewing two: Fine with most of the changes, Gollum was okay
Vewing three: No disapountments at all! I'll post the rest in little bits later when I'm not so mad at the computer, and scared that it would earase something that I had been typing for probally 15 minutes, and gone to lordoftherings.net to look up acter's names. ERRRRRRRRR STUPID COMPUTER! I wasn't even done yet, I had more to look up!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Yazad
The best and most original film of last year, IMO, Memento wasn't even nominated for the Academy's Best Picture and several mediocre films were, including the one that took the prize.
I agree - "Memento" was a great film. It deserved a lot more mention and awards than it got. It didn't even win Best Editing, which was a shock - instead it lost to "Pearl Harbor". I liked "A Beautiful Mind", it was filmed down the street from me in Princeton and I had seen much of it filmed. I do think it deserved to win over FotR - which I don't think even deserved to be included in the Best Picture category. There were a lot of other good movies that year - which made it a tough call as to whether "A Beautiful Mind" should have won.

[Gerbil]

Memento was rubbish - no tossing jokes or reference to illicit substance smoking. And you call THAT a film? :rolleyes:

Whenever I think of Memento I always picture the bit where he's running and trying to remember what is happening - he sees the guy and thinks he's chasing him, but then realises in fact he's being chased - V. funny :D

[katya]

my opinions, as if anyone cared:

good:
*gollum/smeagol-looked pretty decent. it coud've been much worse. the split personalitly scene confused me. like i knew what was happening, but it stilll confused me.
*merry and pippin-they weren't stupid anymore!
*eowyn-she was so perfectly how i imagined her it was scary.
*wormtongue-i mean he himself isn't good but he was like he should've been i guess
*frodo-i don't know specifically...yeah....

bad:
*faramir- these are my brother's exact words: (he hasn't read the books) "I hate him he was a jerk!"
*the coneys-*shudder* the second time i saw the movie i shut my eyes. i am a vegetarian too remember.
*arwen, or should i just say liv tyler? i never before realized how bad of an actress she really is...
*ents-they looked alright but were too mean to merry and pippin.

overall i look back and say yeah it was a good movie and i really can't wait for RotK (and i can't!) but there were some parts where i remember being very disappointed.

[Celebréiel]

After it all, I think the second movie is okay, still sub-par but okay...and there are some parts ill never ever understand....anywho...
The thing that bugs me most, is hearing all the directors and people in charge say things like 'it wouldnt have worked anyother way' , 'we had to change the things we did or else it would have sucked' and 'we tried everyway possible to make it work, this was best'
Gah! Thats so close-minded, yeah, change is obviously gonna happen, and some are ok, but at least accept it could have been done better. Im not saying I know how, and I accept these films as a pretty good LoTR adaptation... but who says PJ is the greatest director ever? Not me, hes good, but its not like he did it the only way that was possible i nthe world....gah...okay sorry for that rant, just something thats been bugging me..
~ Celebréiel
I like to think of it...as the stuff he took out and changed...he couldnt have done justice anyways (Bombadil, correct treebeard and entmoot etc.) ;)

[LegolasRoX]

I couldn't agree with you more Celebréiel ! I was so turned off when Bombadil wasn't even mentioned....:( I thought he was an important character in the book.

But I believe that Peter Jackson did a great job and no one could have done it better though. You gotta give him some credit.:)

[Christiana]

hmmm...i thought Bombadil was pointless in the books.:cool:

[Arathorn]

I think Tom was there. He was holding the camera in one of those scenes. :rolleyes:

[Kalimac]

>>Even Jackson admitted that he had to around like a politician and convince them to nominate the film. This year he said he was (EDIT in: NOT) going to do that. <<

Glad you edited the NOT in since Peter Jackson absolutely hated the politics of being nominated. He has since stated that if he is ever nominated for anything ever again he will not campaign for it. He was miserable last year. He is quite an independent fellow . . more comfortable in shorts and bare feet than suits and shoes.

United Press International: Jackson and Awards (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021205-055625-8976r)

Director Peter Jackson says having his film, "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," earn 13 Oscar nominations last year was "nice," but dismisses the Academy Award campaigning process as "pretty political."

In New York to promote his sequel "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" this week, the beloved New Zealander wore shorts and a T-shirt and stomped barefoot around Manhattan's posh Regency Hotel.

"I don't regard awards as being that critical or important," Jackson admitted to United Press International. "They're nice. Awards and nominations are nice, is what they are. It's very nice to have your peers, other filmmakers, thinking that you did a good job. It's certainly not why you do the job.

"I was in the middle of it last year. I certainly thought the Oscar campaigning got pretty political, and it was quite unpleasant actually," he said. "I made a promise to myself that if I get nominated this year or any year in the future, I'm just not going to get involved in the campaigning. It was like a presidential race."

Jackson better brace himself, however. Critics and preview audiences are calling his second Tolkien adventure even more breath-taking and spectacular than the first, generating Oscar buzz three months before the famed awards ceremony.


I am somewhat involved with media speciality too . . by the way . . though not in the way most think . . :p

Happy New Year All!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Kalimac
>>Even Jackson admitted that he had to around like a politician and convince them to nominate the film. This year he said he was (EDIT in: NOT) going to do that. <<

Glad you edited the NOT in since Peter Jackson absolutely hated the politics of being nominated.
yeah - I mistakenly left out the "NOT" - just glad I caught it.

Happy New Year too.

[LegolasRoX]

If Bombadil wasn't important in the book, I can see why Jackson cut him from the movie. But there was some logical reason why bombadil was in the book, wasn't there? I mean, what was the point of having him appear in the book then?:confused:

[Earendil Overboard]

I've only read about half the posts on this thread, but I didn't see anything yet about the Eye. Does it bother anyone else that Sauron is represented somewhat literally as just a giant eyeball on top of a tower? I think his greatest worry should not be an enemy army but an eye infection. There's probably a lot of dust and smoke blowing around in Mordor. I guess the mistake is understandable given that PJ & Co. seem to have just scanned the books without really thinking about anything. Or maybe they thought the viewing audience would be too confused if characters talked about "the Eye" but Sauron had a body too.

I always assumed that "the Eye" refers to the image that appears in people's thoughts when they perceive Sauron's mind. Also, it makes a little sense that Sauron has a body, since he has to wear rings. But I did a bit of looking around for evidence and the most explicit information I could find was in the scene at the Black Gate when Gollum describes the Black Hand. Frodo mentions how Isildur cut off Sauron's finger, and Gollum says: "Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough." Earlier on, he also worries that Frodo will take the Ring back to "the Black Hand." Other good info about the Eye is given by Galadriel when she says to Frodo, "you have seen that which is hidden" and "your sight is grown keener." She's obviously talking about his perception of others' thoughts, not his actual vision. Then she says: "You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine." It's not an exact definition, but I think suggests clearly enough that the Eye is a perception of Sauron's mind. Then in the marshes it seems the Eye is described as Sauron's will (basically the same thing as his mind): "But far more he was troubled by...the Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you..."

The most confusing descriptions, I think, are in The Silmarillion. They are almost the same, but the first is a bit more detailed and describes Sauron's return to Mordor after losing his body in the wreck of Numenor: "he took up his great Ring in Barad-dur, and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." This seems contradictory. The part about taking up the Ring suggests a body, but then it seems the new form he makes is identified with "the Eye." The sentence structure makes it unclear, though, since the reference to "the Eye" is in a separate clause. So, it could still refer here to Sauron's will rather than his "new guise." Anyway, he had to give himself a body again in order for Isildur to later cut the Ring from his hand!

I just have one other question about all this. Has anyone else thought that it might be appropriate to imagine Sauron as a giant black cyclops? Then "the Eye" would be both physical AND the mental projection of his will perceived by the minds of others. I'm not suggesting he should've been shown this way in the films, though, unless maybe in the Prologue. In the films, I think they should've just shown his tower and maybe fire-lit windows with a shadowy form moving inside. It would've also made him more similar to Saruman and Gandalf, but more evil, mysterious, and powerful. Just a thought.

[Cirdan]

I always thought of Sauron as like the wraiths, were the crown or rings were in the place where they would be if you could see the body. I always thought the eye represented a projection of Sauron either by the rings of power or the palantiri. He could no longer take the fairer form after the fall of Numenor. A one point he was a big cat, and another a vampire. I like the big electric eye even though it is nothing like I imagined it.

[BeardofPants]

Oh man, I gotta drink some caffeine. I could have sworn I just read: He could no longer take the fairy form after the fall of Numenor. :rolleyes:

[Arathorn]

ROFLMAO! :D

[Gerbil]

As far as I'm aware, Sauron had no body - he didn't really have any physical incarnation as we would know it. Maiar spirits do not need a physical body to survive (eg Gandalf too) - when Sauron has been destroyed in the past (eg downfall of Numenor, the Last Alliance) he loses his physical form, which takes thousands of years to be rebuilt. There was a time when Sauron could appear in a fair form to deceive people, (but I think he lost that ability after Numenor?)

The Eye is a bit too literal, but it's fine as far as I'm concerned, other than the fact it seemed to change shape from films 1 and 2. Possibly Sauron is showing his ethnic origins?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

"There now he brooded in the dark until he had wrought for himself a new shape; and it was terrible, for his fair semblance had departed for ever when he was cast into the the abyss at the drowning of Numenor. He took up again the great ring and clothed himself in power:and the malice of the Eye of Sauron few even of the great among elves and men could endure"

The Silmarillion

The Eye is a symbol of his power and strength, and more specificly his mind (it contains malice), not a seperate eyeball. Notice that both a physical Sauron and an "eye" with malice is being described, they are one and the same.

"But Sauron was thrown down, and with the hilt-shard of Narsil Isildur cut the ruling ring from the hand of Sauron and took it for his own. Then Sauron was for that time vanquished, and he forsook his body, and his spirit fled far away and hid in the waste places; and he took no visible shape again FOR MANY LONG YEARS"

The Silmarillion

For many long years clearly means he did take shape again, and the only time that could have happened was during the war of the ring.

The Eye-ball is retarded and Tolkien would either laugh or cry if he saw it, perhaps both. Jackson does not know this mythology well enough. Sauron could have been shown as a hideous shape in the shadows of his tower, difficult to see, but there. An Eye? give me a break

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Oh man, I gotta drink some caffeine. I could have sworn I just read: He could no longer take the fairy form after the fall of Numenor. :rolleyes:

Well, in the recently released "Sauron' Secret" it was revealed that after a bottle of rose' he could manifest himself in a tuttu and leg warmers. One of his more frightening visages.:D

[markedel]

I still haven't gotten over someone thinking Bombadil is irrelevant because he wasn't in the movie. Must be the hangover.

[Christiana]

Thats not why i think he wasnt important, i thought that before the movie.

[BeardofPants]

Bombadil is important because:

He allowed them to stay in a safe haven for a few days
He demonstrated an ability to exist beyond the rings lure
He saved them from the barrow wights - ghastly things that came out of the Witchking of Agmars realm, and in all likelihood, were working with the nazgul to get the ring.
He gave Merry and Pippin swords, which would eventually aid in the bringing down of the witchking.
He gets to sing cool songs, which drive off the more shallow fans. :p


*Empties head of image of Sauron in a tutu...*

[Earendil Overboard]

It's certainly appropriate to imagine Sauron as wraith-like, but the text seems to indicate he has a visible body--particularly when Gollum refers to "the Black Hand." If you like, I suppose you could assume Sauron is a wraith clothed in black armor, and Gollum refers to a hand in a gauntlet. However, although that interpretation seems fitting for a Dark Lord, I don't think it's the idea intended. To me, "Black Hand" suggests the hand itself.

Moreover, the idea of black skin is expressed also in Appendix A just after it says Elendil and his sons founded cities near Mordor in the belief Sauron was dead: "Sauron was indeed caught in the wreck of Numenor, so that the bodily form in which he long had walked perished; but he fled back to Middle-earth, a spirit of hatred borne upon a dark wind. He was unable ever again to assume a form that seemed fair to men, but became black and hideous, and his power thereafter was through terror alone."

So, Sauron had a hideous black body at the time of the Last Alliance when the Ring was cut from his hand. Surely that's clear.

Squinteyed's quotes from the Silmarillion describe Sauron abandoning that form "for many years" after losing the Ring, which implies he made a body for himself again later. And the time when he did so was probably around the year 2060. Next to that date in the chronicle of the Third Age, it says: "The power of Dol Guldur grows. The Wise fear that it may be Sauron taking shape again" (Appendix B). Gandalf also talks about this in the Council of Elrond, explaining his visit to Dol Guldur and discovery that the Necromancer "was none other than Sauron,...at length taking shape and power again."

It also seems logical to assume that Sauron took the same shape then that he last possessed: the hideous black one.

Gerbil, you have the idea that Maiar don't need a body and it takes thousands of years for them to rebuild one that is lost. But that doesn't seem to be true in all cases. For one thing, the chronicle says Numenor fell in S.A. 3319 and Sauron was overthrown in 3441. So, it took him less than 122 years to make a new body, and he might've even done it in 1 year for all we know. Then there's the case of Gandalf, who dies and then gets rebuilt right away--no waiting required. But Gandalf is "sent back" by the Valar, so I think it's clear his new form is given to him rather than something he creates for himself. Finally, there's the case of Saruman, who ISN'T so favored by the Valar and seems to actually die when Grima cuts his throat:

"a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing."

I think the most natural interpretation of Sauron's death is that his spirit "dissolved into nothing" when the Valar rejected him. That's what I would assume if I were just reading the book and didn't try rationalizing about the powers of Maiar. However, I suppose it's also possible that he continued to exist in a very weakened state, and maybe he could even take physical form again someday. But I don't think so, for the following reasons (see next post).

[Earendil Overboard]

Clearly, the Maiar are NOT equal in power. For instance, the 5 Istari differ in the degree and nature of their power, in part because of their areas of interest and study. Saruman studied the arts of the Enemy more than the others, and Radagast was especially concerned with animals. I think Gandalf focused on understanding the different peoples of Middle-earth and coordinating their resistance to Sauron. In doing this, he also made use of the Ring of Fire given to him by Cirdan. But Sauron is more powerful than any of the Istari. Gandalf even says in Fangorn, "I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still." Similarly, Melkor is the most powerful of all the Valar.

Considering what happens to Gandalf and Saruman, and that Sauron obviously needs no help from the Valar to take a new form, I think Sauron must be an unusually powerful Maiar. Probably this is due partly to: his nature (the way he was created); his hobbies (always studying to increase his power); and positive influences (e.g., the tutelage of Morgoth!).

The manner of Sauron's end also implies that there are limits upon a Maiar's power and it's possible for that power to be reduced enough to at least make them impotent if not destroy them completely. In Sauron's case, he may have only survived Numenor and then defeat by Elendil and Gil-galad because he had already invested the greater part of his power in the Ring. When the Ring is finally destroyed, it seems he loses something essential to his being. His "death" is very similar to Saruman's except in the scale of the effects: instead of a mist forming, there is "a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky." It is then taken by the wind and "blown away" just like the last wisps of Saruman's spirit.

But it's really hard for me to deduce exactly what happens to Sauron and Saruman, or to rationalize their nature. Is there even any specific information provided anywhere about the nature of Maiar and whether they can be destroyed? Is their fate like that of Elves? When an Elf's body is destroyed, their spirit goes to the Halls of Mandos in Valinor but can never again walk among other Elves with bodies. If the Maiar were gods, I think they would be indestructible and their power separate from physical form. But if that's the case, then why would it make any difference if Sauron's power were in a body or in a Ring, and how could he be hurt either way by having the vessel of his power thrown into Mount Doom?! If he were a god, then destroying the Ring would just release the power within it, and it could then take another form.

[Gerbil]

I'd assume that when Saruman and Sauron are finally vanquished their spirits remain, merely impotent through lack of power.

The Maiar, like the Valar (and Elves for that matter) have their lifeforce bound to the earth, and can only end when it too ends. (Elvs reincarnating being one example of this, although few ever come back from Valinor).

Morgoth is, I think, an anomoly - he was pushed beyond the bounds of Arda, presumably into the void (one questions whether this is the 'original' void and if so, would he therefore meet up with Illuvatar? Bet that'd be a nice meeting ;)).

The dissolving of the 'spirits' etc. I take more to be a symbolic rejection by the Valar - the wind from the west (in effect, Manwe, or ultimate judgement on ME) blows them away. However, I'd fully expect Saruman's spirit to end up in the Halls of Mandos, probably 'forever'. As to Sauron's spirit, I would imagine it simply continues to exist in a form so weak he cannot affect what is around him, utterly impotent until the end of time.
Power in spirits waxes and wanes - Olorin (old name time eh? ;)) returns much strengthened as the White. It's possible that the Valar simply reduce Sauron's strength when the One Ring is destroyed (IE ME deals with Sauron, and they enact the final 'blow' so to speak). However, I don't believe this is the case.
The power that Sauron has passed into the Ring is part of him, his spirit / power. This is, while still part of him, now embodied in a physical form, and is therefore susceptible to ultimately be destroyed, which is what eventually happens.

The part I find interesting is that Sauron didn't realise the Ring still existed merely by the fact that he regained much of his former strength - surely if the Ring had been destroyed by Isildur, he'd never have risen again in the first place.

Of course, these may be things Gandalf etc. only really knew from veiled knowledge from the Valar - Sauron may well have been ignorant of this, and merely wanted the One Ring to give him the power to take over ME once and for all, not to prevent it being destroyed and him being vanquished with it (Gandalf makes it clear that Sauron does not even contemplate that they may try to destroy it).

Ironically enough, Sauron was on the brink of being too powerful to stop even without the Ring, in the end he brought about his own destruction by clearing Mordor in a hasty assault, leaving Frodo a relatively clear path.

Silly bugger, eh?

[Kalimac]

JRR Tolkien mentions in Letter 246 that if Frodo had kept the Ring, Sauron would have eventually confronted him in physical form:

**But if he still preserved some sanity and partly understood the significance of it, so that he refused now to go with them to Barad-dûr, they would simply have waited. Until Sauron himself came. In any case a confrontation of Frodo and Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was intact.

Its result was inevitable. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown: crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave. Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him.

Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the PalantÃ*r Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.

In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance. Letters of JRR Tolkien***

I believe that Sauron had a physical form in the LOtR, the reader just never 'sees' it, there are just hints. Sauron seems to do his best work hidden in shadows. But, the Dark Hand is there, and it's not just a big flaming eye.

As I've stated elsewhere, I don't envy Jackson the task of trying to create a convincingly, 'terrifying' bully from a 'flaming' red lidless eye. :rolleyes:

>>Saruman and Sauron are finally vanquished their spirits remain, merely impotent through lack of power.<<

I agree. Their 'remaining spirits' may have been what Tolkien had intended to resurrect in a later unfinished (abandoned) sequel to LOtR.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Perhaps this would be a good time to again point out that Jackson said many changes were made in the first film because a flaming eye was not enough of a villain. This was certainly his defence of the expansion of the Saruman character. An Ironic statement in light of the fact that Sauron is, without question, a physical entity at this point in Middle Earth, and Jackson is simply wrong in his flaming eye belief. Which brings me to another question:

Who was advising him on the details of Middle-Earth? It's not like this stuff is difficult to look up and verify.

That ridiculous eye burning atop the tower is such a wonderful symbol of the extent to which this screenwriting team understands this piece of literature.

A f****n' burning eye, unbelievable!


Met-a-phor:

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase "literally" denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to denote likeness or analogy between them.

[Gerbil]

I can live with the eye.
What annoys me is when the Ring starts whispering, like when it interrupts Frodo and Gandalf talking near the start of FotR.

The Ring is EVIL.

Worse than that, though, it has no manners.

[eowyngirl14]

Ya... I thought it was kindof creepy when the ring talked. It was kindpf cool too though. At first I didn't know who/what was talking.:)

[Elvedans]

Originally posted by middleEarthStar
I can´t describe the feeling to you when I saw the premier of The two towers here in sweden where I live!
First of all I couldnt understand that I was actually there again.
After a one year I was there again!!!!
It was the moment we´ve all been waiting for.

I nearly cried when the movie started. I was so touch!!!

I think that Peter Jackson did a great job on this move two, like the first........BUT he did some things wrong...too different fron the book...


but it took my heart anyway!

Wow! You put into words what i could not and i totally agree.
Did anyone else come out shaking?

[Earendil Overboard]

Interesting comments and interpretations. Tolkien's remarks in Letter 246 are fascinating, and clear up that Sauron took the form of a man of great stature. It's also interesting how Tolkien thought the power of a spirit that takes physical form must be very great over things in close proximity.

But I still haven't arrived at a complete, consistent, and logical understanding of Maiar and their powers. You may be right that they're indestructible, and therefore that Sauron and Saruman live on in a weakened and impotent spiritual form.

I guess the problem for me is partly deciding how gods can be realistically imagined and depicted. They're usually imagined as immortal beings that exist without a physical form but can create or inhabit one at will. Looking at The Silmarillion again, it says the Valar and Maiar were created by Illuvatar and entered the world together. So, it seems both were created as beings without bodies. It says the Valar gave themselves bodies that they wear like clothes, but they also sometimes walk around without them, invisible to other creatures. They can do this because their shape "comes from their knowledge of the visible World, rather than of the World itself," so their power is completely separate from the form they may put on. Are the Maiar the same?

Judging from what happens to Gandalf, Sauron and Saruman in LOTR, I'd think the Maiar must be different. BUT...maybe not. It also says that the Maiar could be equal in power to Valar: "the Valar took to them many companions, some less, some well nigh as great as themselves." Moreover, it seems implied that Maiar can also wear a body or not at will: "in Middle-earth the Maiar have seldom appeared in form visible to Elves and Men." To me, this suggests the Maiar might have a body in Valinor, but on trips to ME they are usually invisible. On the other hand, maybe they seldom have visible form because many lack power to create it or need the help of the Valar in this.

But what about Olorin, Melian, and Gorthaur (Sauron)? It says that Olorin loved the Elves but "walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom that he put into their hearts." It seems from this that Olorin COULD assume physical form at will! Then there's Melian, who after the death of Thingol suddenly "vanished out of Middle-earth, and passed to the land of the Valar." When she wanted to leave ME, her body disappeared as if it had never existed, like an appearance she'd given herself temporarily. Then there's the unusually powerful Sauron, "the greatest," "most terrible," and "most trusted" of Morgoth's servants. It says he became "a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and phantoms, foul in wisdom," etc. Also, "he could assume many forms, and for long if he willed he could still appear noble and beautiful."

Doesn't it seem that Olorin/Gandalf, Melian, and Gorthaur/Sauron can change their physical forms at will?

[Earendil Overboard]

If these Maiar can change form or be an invisible spirit at will, and their power is completely separate from their physical form (as with Valar), then...how can they ever be diminished through the destruction of a physical form that temporarily holds their power? If Sauron puts his power into a Ring and the Ring is destroyed, so what? His power should still be the same. Likewise, the death of Saruman's body should have no effect upon his essential nature.

So how do we explain the way their spiritual being is diminished or maybe even destroyed?

I'm not sure it makes sense to me, but in The Silmarillion it also says that Morgoth became weaker because of using up his power in destructiveness and the domination of others:

"he...squandered his strength in violence and tyranny."
"his hatred devoured him, and in the domination of his servants and the inspiring of them with lust of evil he spent his spirit."

Similarly, it says of Sauron that he "walked behind [Morgoth] on the same ruinous path down into the Void."

We're told on one hand that they lose strength from trying to control other creatures or things, but then that's not what we actually see happen in the stories. Both Morgoth and Sauron grow in power through dominating others, and Gandalf says Sauron is stronger than himself (despite long years of "spending his spirit" being naughty?). And like Gerbil points out, Sauron becomes incredibly powerful even without his Ring. Also, what's happening when Gandalf deprives Saruman of his color and breaks his staff? How can he take away another Maiar's innate power? It only makes sense if the Valar conferred that power to begin with, but it says in The Silmarillion that Illuvatar made them.

Only the Valar know! Maybe the best explanation is that LOTR is inconsistent with the other book in the representation of the Maiar. And I guess I have to accept the idea that Sauron's power was somehow locked into the Ring and able to be destroyed, strange as that seems.

Sorry to belabor these things in a thread about the movies. I should've started a new one.

By the way, it bothered me too that the Ring is shown in the movie speaking to people. It whispers Aragorn's name at Amon Hen also, as well as saying something in Bag End. Really!! A talking Ring?

[Cirdan]

Since Sauron was a black man of great stature I guess they could have just cast Shaquille O'Neil. Shazzamm!!

Much of Sauron's power was in the effort of gathering and controlling power. It was a more tenuous power of politics in the control of others through threat and promise than of true magical power of direct control over matter. The most important battle won against Sauron was that of the mind and of overcoming fear and uncertainty.

The film has characters that are not easy to care much about. Drama then becomes circumstantial, requiring greater threats to engage the audience. A character about whom we care a great deal can be in less danger and yet exude higher drama. I did not feel nearly the empathy for movie Frodo as I did for text-based Frodo. This is mostly due to his lack of qualities that make him sympathetic. Without bravery the hero is a victim. Without nobility the master is a tyrant. Without intelligence the leader is a pretender. Aragorn/Viggo is the protagonist of the movie and Frodo just the happless hobbit in over his head.

[Earendil Overboard]

Speaking of Maiar forms, what about the Balrogs? Did these Maiar choose to be demons of fire or did Morgoth somehow make them that way? Can they change their form like others of their kind, and be an invisible spirit if they wish? And if so, then how can they be destroyed--even by another Maia?

[Gerbil]

The feeling I get is that certain actions make the spirits 'lock in' to a certain physical form.
The Balrogs are an example of this - somehow they have become 'part' of the physical reality that is the Balrog's earthly form. As a result they can be killed etc. (again - leads one to wonder if their spirits remain but totally impotent).
Both Melkor and sauron exhibited this trait - after certain actions they lost forever the ability to appear in a 'nice' form, and could only take evil shapes.
Possibly it's this 'locking in' that makes them so vulnerable in an earthly manner - the physical and spiritual side becomes much more closely entwined than would otherwise be the case.

That quote about some of the Maiar being almost as strong as the Valar begs the question about Gandalf's relative strength.
It's my assumption that in Valinor, he is one of the most powerful - but over there like Manwe was more of a spiritual creature, not one to use power to dominate or coerce. Indeed, Olorin does not want to go to ME to fight Sauron, because he fears him, but Manwe says that is the very reason he should go.
If I recall, Gandalf is 'aligned' to Manwe, Saruman to Aule (hence knowledge, and desire of knowledge over artifacts etc), Radagast to Yavanna (I think?) - can't remember about the two blue wizards though.

Erm, fairly rambling, so I'll stop now :D

[eowyngirl14]

Just read everything you all wrote... brain trying to process all of very big words... system over load... system failure... BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP... BEEEEEEEEEEEP...:)

[azalea]

I was going to mention that a lot of this, although facinating, is indeed quite OT. There is a thread in this forum called "Sauron is an eye" where some of this can be discussed in relation to the movies, and I would also suggest searching the Middle Earth and Silmarillion forums for more info/ discussion opportunity on the nature of Maia. These have been very thought-provoking posts, but they really don't belong in this thread.:)

[Christiana]

"Morever their(the Valars') comes of their knowledge of the visible World.....an they need it not,save only as we use raiment....Therefore the Valar may walk, if they will,unclad,and then even the Eldar can not fully perceive them,though they be present."page11of TS.



"The maiar have seldom appeared in form visible to Elves and men."

[Aragorns Dimple]

Generally, I liked it more than the first one, as there is more involvement with each character as the films progress. I loved it that Gimli had more lines in this one, and a chance to prove his worthiness as a Dwarf Warrior. I loved the way Aragorn developed from a scruffy Ranger to an upstart King in waiting. I loved Legolas' ever changing eye colour and his shield-surfing antics at Helms Deep! I loved it that they showed Pip and Merry with more depth this time, wanting to do their bit to save M.E. too. I loved Samwise for his wisdom and strength not to get cheesed off with Frodo whining at him all the time! And I loved Gollum, wasn't he just the cutest little pixellated thing you've seen since Final Fantasy X !

I do have one gripe, though, I wish they had shown Merry and Pip having a few wee drinkies of the "Ent Draught", so they could explain towards the end how they suddenly grew taller than Sam and the Frodinator. Tall Hobbits r secksay!

[TinuvielChild]

I may or may not have said this yet, but I have two more things to say:

*Balrogs don't have wings!

*The bit where Arwen saves Aragorn, after the river...anyone who hadn't read the Sil wouldn't know what the heck the Valar are.

[eowyngirl14]

Wonderfull! There is a reason I don't understand... haven't gotten around to readind the Silmarillian (sp.?) yet.
Yes! Someone who agrees with me! Balrogs have no wings! And even if they did, they wouldn't be as pretty as my wings!:)

Frodinater, I like the sound of that! I agree with you, more of Merry and Pippin at entwash, and drinking the entdrought would have been nice... but you can't get everything you wish for!:)

[Firhithiel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I thought it was far better than Fellowship of the Ring. I really did like Mordor. I thought the whole thing was really exciting. The only things I didn't like were Faramir - i think he is a lot nicer in the book. I also didn't like the slow motion of Shadowfax when you first see him.

I agree. I think that Shadowfax is very cool, but the slow-mo thing was a bit weird. And I didn't like the fact that Gandalf gets to ride Shadowfax!! ((I know this has nothing to do with the difference between the movie and the book, because in the book it's the same thing, but hey this is my post.)) Anyway, I think Legolas should ride Shadowfax. He'd look nicer on a pretty white horse than an old ugly man would. No offense to Gandalf-fans (if he has any). I think Mordor was very cool. I really freaked out the part where the thingy-ma-bobber nearly caught Sam and Frodo. What were they hiding under, anyway?! I never really got that part. A cape thing, right? Why'd it look like a rock? That's one of my questions about TTT. But anyway, Mordor is very scary/realistic, just like I imagined it. And the whole gate... that was even cooler than I imagined it!! It was freaky though. And the part where he fell in the water in the swamp. (Frodo) and Gollum saves him. Yay Golly! (GOLLY?! Where did that come from?!?)

Um, what else should I say... ah, yes, Faramir. Faramir was evil!!!! Die, DIE!! Aahhhh! He's much nicer in the book! I thought the part where he yelled "NAZGUL!!!" was really cool. Like out of the blue he just yells. Hehe, so it wasn't so out of the blue, it was still pretty cool.

Yep. I'm gonna stop writing now. I...will...stop...writing.... hehehe.... --Firhithiel G.

[azalea]

Yes, they hid under Lorien cloaks, that are supposed to camouflage the wearer. But I think many of us were surprised at just how far PJ took the camouflaging! ;) Anyway, it was kind of cool, at least he included something about it, right?

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Firhithiel Greenleaf
I agree. I think that Shadowfax is very cool, but the slow-mo thing was a bit weird. And I didn't like the fact that Gandalf gets to ride Shadowfax!! ((I know this has nothing to do with the difference between the movie and the book, because in the book it's the same thing, but hey this is my post.)) Anyway, I think Legolas should ride Shadowfax. He'd look nicer on a pretty white horse than an old ugly man would. No offense to Gandalf-fans (if he has any).
.....
--Firhithiel G.

I happen to be a partial Gandalf fan! He is way coolio! He looks awesome riding Shadowfax! Especcialy down the hill to the rescue at Helms Deep!
Aaaaaahhh... not another Legolas fan! (j/k) Aragorn is sooo much cooler! And you know it! You just won't admit it!:)

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by azalea
Yes, they hid under Lorien cloaks, that are supposed to camouflage the wearer. But I think many of us were surprised at just how far PJ took the camouflaging! ;) Anyway, it was kind of cool, at least he included something about it, right?

I wished they had shown Sam falling down the hill/cliff/ sandy slope thingy! When Frodo was running down, I had no idea where he was going! Also, Sam and Frodo were so close to the line of hundredsof marching orcs? man? (I couldn't really rell who/what they were. Although the one who walked up to the 'rock' looked a lot like a girl to me...) Wouldn't one of the marchers have noticed?? Someone posted this in the mistakes forum, but you see Sam looking at their feet under the gap between the cloak and sand/dirt/ground. But, when Frodo pulls of the cloak, it is like in the ground a little bit, and has to be pulled out! Seems a little fishy to me...:)

[Elf Girl]

When I saw the Black Gate opening, I thought they were cutting Cirith Ungol... I practically screamed.

[eowyngirl14]

NOw that I have seen TTT four times, I have decided on my favorite seen... When the olympic torch runner orc is carrying the explosives and Aragorn is yelling in Elvish, Legolas, Bring him down. Kill him, Legolas! Kill him! I loved the way they did it! I cryed so hard! But, if I were Legolas, I would feel really guilty because I had missedm, well not missed, but failed to kill him. I Also liked the part before the Battle of Helm's Deep, when the soldiers of Rohan are taking away all of the young boys, and the women are pleading and cying for them not to... I liked the way there was no sound. But in my mind I could hear each word the were saying. It always surprised me when the cut to another scene with sound, I was thinking Oh, there was no sound for a moment...:)

[Cirdan]

...except olympic torch guy is surrounded by other orcs with torches, albeit less olympian torches. It sort of killed it for me on the second viewing. nice slo-mo though...

[eowyngirl14]

Noooooooo! You are wrong!!!!!! It's beautiful!!!! *grumbles about Cirdan being right... again*:)

[Kalimac]

>>except olympic torch guy is surrounded by other orcs with torches<<

Well, it always seems to me that orcs are only capable of doing the job they were bred for . . the orcs standing around with torches are not capable of independent thinking, thus they needed a 'specially bred beserker orc to go in and light the darn thing.' :p

And, if you all didn't know . . Peter Jackson carried the 2000 Olympic Torch in Wellington, New Zealand just about the time that this scene was filmed . . another reference to the Olympics seems to be Gimli's comments about running cross country vs being a sprinter.

[Cirdan]

The Massive was programmed with special orcs ("heros") that were more capable of independent action.

Orcs are best at being slaughtered while attacking chaoticly.

Olympic torch guy did take several arrows, ala boromir, so he must have been a bad ...

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
When I saw the Black Gate opening, I thought they were cutting Cirith Ungol... I practically screamed.


i was getting ready to walk out.:p

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
I wished they had shown Sam falling down the hill/cliff/ sandy slope thingy! When Frodo was running down, I had no idea where he was going! Also, Sam and Frodo were so close to the line of hundredsof marching orcs? man? (I couldn't really rell who/what they were. Although the one who walked up to the 'rock' looked a lot like a girl to me...) Wouldn't one of the marchers have noticed?? Someone posted this in the mistakes forum, but you see Sam looking at their feet under the gap between the cloak and sand/dirt/ground. But, when Frodo pulls of the cloak, it is like in the ground a little bit, and has to be pulled out! Seems a little fishy to me...:)

Ironically, I thought the same thing when I saw the film the second time. Although you do not see much of the warrior investigating the dust cloud/fallen rocks etc., I did get the impression that it was a lady under the warrior clothing.

It does not change the story at all. I just did not expect to notice a lady fighting for Mordor.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[eowyngirl14]

Ya, It didn't bother me really, I was just thinking why would they go out of there way to make that orc(?)/person look like a girl, or use a girl to play it/him/her? There was definetly a lot of eye makup. like mascara and black eyeliner on that orc/person! ;)

[mithrand1r]

The eyes are what made me think I was seeing a lady.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[eowyngirl14]

Yup! Yup! Yup! Same here! Same here! Same here!:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
Ya, It didn't bother me really, I was just thinking why would they go out of there way to make that orc(?)/person look like a girl, or use a girl to play it/him/her? There was definetly a lot of eye makup. like mascara and black eyeliner on that orc/person! ;)
Well I never thought it was an orc. Sauron had a lot of men in his service - I just never pictured them looking so good. I know that it's stereotypical "ulgy=evil", but that seems to be mostly how Tolkien had described the men that fought for the side of Mordor. The person - whether it was male or female - I felt their skin seemed too soft and their eyes too bright. I figured the armies of Sauron would be weather beaten, dirty and grimy.

Who knows - maybe it's Arwen and she's sneaking into Mordor and is going to take care of Sauron herself. :D She has a double that is in Rivendell and goes off to the west. But let's be serious - it couldn't be Arwen - who ever it was at the Black gate had nicer eyes and seemed better looking than Liv. The person seemed more elfish than Arwen does.

[edited in:]

The eyes are what made me think I was seeing a lady.

I also felt it was most likely a lady because of the eyes and the skin.

[eowyngirl14]

SO it was men marching in? Okay... Ya thye did seem a little too pretty... Did that one person who looked like a girl remind anyone else of the woman shape shifter-bounty hunter in SW2? The way they were dressed and the eyes make them look really similar to me!:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
Did that one person who looked like a girl remind anyone else of the woman shape shifter-bounty hunter in SW2? The way they were dressed and the eyes make them look really similar to me!:)

You weren't the only one - I thought the same thing when I first saw "her".

[mithrand1r]

In ROTK:

At Mt. Doom:

Gollum doesn't fall into the cracks, but is shot down by the shifter-bounty hunter with the ring falling into the cracks.

Sam enraged wacks the bounty hunter with a rock. ;)

OR

May be the shifter-bounty hunter takes out Sauron and telepathically tells Awren that the coast is clear for a jaunt to Gondor. ;)

Well maybe not.

Out of curiosity, did elves in Tolkien ever have the power of telepathy? If we go soley by the Movie, I would say yes.

I never made the connection between SW and LOTR, but it could be "possible" since we only see the eyes and the hunter in SW was a shape-shifter.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[eowyngirl14]

Bwa Ha Ha haaaa... I knew SW would take over the world some day... slowly all other fantasies and science fiction worlds will cease to exist, and SW will rule them!!And you will not have an evil king, but a queen both beautiful and terrible! And all wil love SW and despair!:) (Woah! Where did that come from?)

[King Theoden]

It wasn't so much telepathy as it was...hey, don't ask questions like that. You want us to go on analyzing the movie forever and ruin everything about it and the books???????????

Yes, and I loved the movie, except for the Aragorn-falling-over-the-cliff sequence, but I'm sure you don't want to hear me ramble about that.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
(Woah! Where did that come from?)

Have you been playing with the plutonium again, egirl?:)

Oh, and a hearty welcome to King Theoden.


Does anyone else picture a white sequined jumpsuit when they hear the phrase "elvish king"?:D

[BeardofPants]

Cirdan!! Stop putting bad thoughts in my head! :eek:

[legolasluvr2931]

You know what?
The second movie was very good! I loved it. I thought it was even better than the first one, but in the second one, they made Farimir(sp?) act mean and they added the 'Gondor' thing too,Didn't they?
I thought that in TTT, they went more in depth with the characters. Some that is. I just wish that they had put more into it. Like the Spider and all. Now in the ROTK, they will have to cut the Scouring adn all out. Thats ok i guess. I just wish that they hadn't make such a big deal about the Battle at Helm's Deep.

[TinuvielChild]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Cirdan!! Stop putting bad thoughts in my head! :eek:

I've been having bad thoughts put in my head by the Real People Slash fanfiction that my friends all read....kinda scary, yet reeeeally interesting.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with you legolasluvr2931, and you're right about the Faramir and Gondor bits.

Helm's Deep only got one chapter in the book, and I think the movie should have been weighted similarly. That way, it could have ended with Shelob, and there would be time for the Scouring of the Shire (my absolute favourite part of LOTR) in ROTK.

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Have you been playing with the plutonium again, egirl?:)

What would make you think that...

Does anyone else picture a white sequined jumpsuit when they hear the phrase "elvish king"?:D

No... I think it's just you... Aahh.. can't get picture of Legolas in sequined jumpsuit out of mind... *bangs head of computer table a coupele of times*:) It all gone now! *checks post fro spelling mistakes* Aaaahhh! Picture is back in mind! *bangs head on table again*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by TinuvielChild
I've been having bad thoughts put in my head by the Real People Slash fanfiction that my friends all read....kinda scary, yet reeeeally interesting.

Yeah, been there, done that. There are better ways of getting horny, IMO. :rolleyes:

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by TinuvielChild
I've been having bad thoughts put in my head by the Real People Slash fanfiction that my friends all read....kinda scary, yet reeeeally interesting.

Waaay OT here: *cough* I'm surprised Viggo/Orlando actually filmed any of the movie. *surprised* Your've read some BoP? Now I would never do such a thing. ;) :D

[TinuvielChild]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Waaay OT here: *cough* I'm surprised Viggo/Orlando actually filmed any of the movie. *surprised* Your've read some BoP? Now I would never do such a thing. ;) :D

Viggo/Orlando? I'm talking Viggo/Sean B. The geezers...:D :D sorry, reference to the Rolling Smut Factory of Epic Proportions*. Major off-topicness here.


Well. I thought Helm's Deep was a tad long, and maybe, just maybe, if we're very, very lucky, PJ will put both Shelob and the Scouring in RotK! I doubt it, though. Well...hmm. There was a rumor that TTT would be 4½ hours long, with an intermission. If they do that with RotK, then it's possible we could have both Shelob and the Scouring. But hey, they're not until Dec. 17, and here we are, barely on Jan. 6. Speculation...

*I edited out the link because that isn't even close to appropriate for this board. -- Khamûl

[Rían]

OMGoodness, now you guys have really scared me about the girl-looking person going into Mordor :eek: :eek: Oh PLEEZE don't be Arwen!!! Argh!!! *sigh*

I've only seen it once, I'm looking forward to seeing it again now that I know all the changes.

[Huan]

Okay, I've only just joined this forum, and I've tried to read through all these zillions of posts before contributing, but I simply must address the original question: what do I think of the movie? Well, as I said to a co-worker the other day, who has read LOTR many more times than I have, if we've seen it more than twice in one week, it must be a good movie, right? That said, here's what I think.

I have mixed feelings about their turning LOTR into a flat-out action flick. The heroes are so much more badass than they ever were in the book, and at times the unrelenting badassness grates. Aragorn in particular is just too cool for school. But leaving the book aside, as a fan of both fantasy and film, this is right up my alley. Some of the translations of the characters into action heroes really work for me. As many of you have said, for example, Legolas doing that impossible vault onto Arod is just incredible. I saw it the first time with my mother, and when that happened we looked at each other like, "Did what I think I saw just happen?" But again, some of the action-movie stuff is just grating. Legolas skate/surfing on that shield, for example. Extreme Legolas! grrrr. And I totally agree that Aragorn's fabricated fall off that cliff is stupid stupid stupid. You can't convince me that it serves any purpose, even cinematically. And it's utterly derivative of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when Indy falls off a cliff with that tank. John Rhys-Davies is even in both scenes for God's sake! Stupid!
As for the changes in Faramir, I don't mind so much, since frankly, I never really cared for Faramir in the first place. After Legolas, no character captured my heart more than Eowyn, and I never felt Faramir, even in the book, worthy of this divine creature. So Jackson can do whatever he wants with him, as far as I'm concerned.
Osgiliath: I like this scene. I know it's another departure from the book, but what I like is that Jackson shoots it as a sort of World War II scene, with a city as a battleground, which is something you don't see generally in sword-and-arrow movies, and I know one could say shouldn't. But as a fan of both WWII flicks and medieval fantasy, this was a revelation for me. Hiding behind piles of rubble, we have archers instead of riflemen, and catapulted thingies instead of WWII heavy artillery, but the obvious model for the scene is Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Book or not, I dig it.
Something I patently do not like: the dwarf-tossing jokes. So out of place I feel brain cells dying every time. I hated it in Fellowship, and I hate it even more now it's a running gag. If there's a dwarf-tossing reference in Return of the King I may commit public mischief. On the audio commentary for the Extended Edition of Fellowship, they seem to believe this gag to be an "in-joke" for New Zealanders and Australians, but let me tell you, we in the States are aware of dwarf-tossing, and I dare say the British are too, and it has NO PLACE in an adaptation of Tolkien. And curse them for tying it in this episode back to the relationship between Gimli and Legolas ("Don't tell the elf!"). Because Legolas being my favorite character, I can't hate the joke as much as I should. Same with Aragorn and that stupid cliff. I hate that silliness so much, but Legolas' line, "You look terrible," almost makes it worth it. grrr.
Gollum: this is the most incredible performance I have ever seen from a CG character. Good God, that Gollum is just astounding. Behind those eyes, at all times, whether he is being devious, nasty, sympathetic, funny, debased, etc., you can always see underneath it the true BURDEN of the Ring. Yes, non-reading audiences around me laughed at inappropriate times. This is simply not justifiable. They didn't laugh when Jackson might have intended them to, but at wholly ridiculous moments, such as when Gollum screams in agony at the burning of the elven rope, or when Sam jerks him around with it. What's so cottenpickin' funny about that?
My main complaint is that with all the talk of a fast pace for the modern audience's attention span, the stupidity added into the flick, i.e. Aragorn and that damn cliff could have done without, and they could have used those minutes for extending the interaction between Treebeard and Merry and Pippin, among other things.
With some of the changes, I think the filmmakers are engaging in an interesting exercise in creating suspense for the actual readers. Here we wonder: is Arwen actually going into the West? Is the Ring going to Gondor? Will the Ents decline to fight? And I was distracted throughout my first viewing with the question, where the hell is Eomer? It'll turn out like we expect, but Jackson succeeds in making us nervous.
I may have more to say when I have finally plowed through all these posts, but overall, the verdict is: I love Fellowship more, but I plan to see Two Towers again this week, so I obviously like it.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
What would make you think that...

Maybe it's the odd green glow you're eminating.


Aaaahhh! Picture is back in mind! *bangs head on table again* [/B]

...now starring in "Blue Eressea" ... coming soon... "Orcs!Orcs!Orcs!"
*bangs own head on desk*

Oh yes, and a big welcome to the big dog, Huan.

Nice rant, btw.

The ring going to Minas Tirith is out since Frodo, Sam and Gollum are seen headed towards the crossroads.

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Maybe it's the odd green glow you're eminating.

Oh that... it happens all the time... something in the water the doctors say!:)

I liked the agimili humor... i didn't at first, but it isn't really that bad!

But I agree about Aragorn falling of the cliff. VERY VERY VERY pointless...:)

[LuthienTinuviel]

Aren't the Female soldiers just the Haradrim?
I always thought that they helped out sauron. And, coming from a place like africa or egypt (which i KNOW is in africa!:D ) they would have that olive-y skin tone and dark thick eyelashes
yes, the makeup was done terribly, and i could have done much better, but i think that thick curly lashes was the effect that they shot for. They missed that target, but there's my two cents anyways.

[Churl]

What I noticed is that Jackson and company went out of their way to portray the Easterners and Southrons as Caucasian. I think this was a wise decision — with isolated but vocal twerps like Shapiro (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6448&highlight=Shapiro) crying "racism," the filmmakers probably wished to avoid unflattering real-world ethnic parallels like the plague.

[Nurvingiel]

That was a well thought-out post Huan, and I think it deserves a comment. I especially enjoyed your humorous run-down of all the idiotic scenes, but you left out the excorcism of Theoden.

The first time I saw TTT, I cringed and writhed during the major and pointless book deviations. The second time, I actually enjoyed it more than FOTR, for its pure entertainment value, completely seperate from the book.

I have to disagree with you on two points. One, even though the scene in Osgiliath was definately well filmed, the part where Frodo tries to give the Nazgul the Ring was so incredibly lame, it destroyed the otherwise decent scene. I consider Sam's speech immediately after to be seperate, because he actually says something like that in the book, and it's very moving.

Two, I liked Faramir in the book enough to be saddened and horrified that his character was stripped of the dignity and will power that he had in the book.

Parts that I still cringe at (and probably always will) are:
1. Dwarf tossing jokes (Seriously! This is not Austin Powers!!)
2. Osgiliath
3. Aragorn-cliff scene
4. Those ridiculous looking Wargs that aren't scary.

[eowyngirl14]

the wargs are reallly cute! they look like little puppies! only with ADD or something!:) i though they were kinda scary! But then again, they could easily be Stitch from Lilo and Stich reincarnated!:)

[Huan]

Nurvingiel, I neglected Theoden's "in tha name of the Lord ah release thee" scene because I hadn't read the real thing in a while. Just reread it during jury duty (arrgh), and everyone's right, they really should have left that scene alone. I was also reminded of this line of Gimli's that I wish had made the movie: "Since Gandalf's head is now sacred, let us find one that is right to cleave!" Perhaps in my reread I will learn to respect Faramir properly, but I suppose no one could seem to me worthy of Eowyn.

[TinuvielChild]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
the wargs are reallly cute! they look like little puppies! only with ADD or something!:) i though they were kinda scary! But then again, they could easily be Stitch from Lilo and Stich reincarnated!:)

Ummmm......:rolleyes: ;)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Huan
Perhaps in my reread I will learn to respect Faramir properly, but I suppose no one could seem to me worthy of Eowyn.

I've never liked Faramir for the same reason--likewise, I did not mind the character changes so much in the movie :D

[Huan]

Quote: I've never liked Faramir for the same reason--likewise, I did not mind the character changes so much in the movie

Yeah. I think the guy playing him at least will make a pretty picture in the same frame as the movie's Eowyn. In my mind, I always saw this dumb-looking guy with a handle-bar mustache and long hair, like Frank Zappa or a member of Three Dog Night: might explain why I thought him unworthy of a daughter of kings.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Huan
Yeah. I think the guy playing him at least will make a pretty picture in the same frame as the movie's Eowyn. In my mind, I always saw this dumb-looking guy with a handle-bar mustache and long hair, like Frank Zappa or a member of Three Dog Night: might explain why I thought him unworthy of a daughter of kings.

I wish he had dark hair, like he was supposed to in the book. That would make a prettier picture, at least :)

[Nurvingiel]

No problem about leaving out the Theoden thing Huan! I find whenever I make a long list, I always leave out one thing... TTT book deviations make a pretty long list. :D

Even though a lot of my posts along these lines are very negative, I actually really enjoyed watching TTT. Maybe it just rankles me that PJ and his writers thought this was a tangeant, when TTT is my favourite book. ;)

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
the wargs are reallly cute! they look like little puppies! only with ADD or something!:) i though they were kinda scary! But then again, they could easily be Stitch from Lilo and Stich reincarnated!:)

I think they looked like bears. Did they talk?

[BeardofPants]

I believe I heard one of them say, "My porridge is too hot."

[Arathorn]

I thought they looked like wingless, soggy balrog cubs.

[Lizra]

Their mouths were funky!

[BandobrasBaggins]

I'm new to this board but I thought the TTT movie was outstanding and the best movie of the year.

[durin's bane]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
the wargs are reallly cute! they look like little puppies! only with ADD or something!:) i though they were kinda scary! But then again, they could easily be Stitch from Lilo and Stich reincarnated!:)

Wargs cute? I always pictured Wargs as big, muscular, purple-and-black wolves. The Wargs weren't cute, but...whatever you say...

'Course, I can't talk....I thought Gollum was cute. :p

[Lady of Rohan]

I've got a question about what happened with Aragorn after he had that fight with the warg rider. He fell off a cliff right? then did he die or was he just knocked out or did he die and just come back to life?

[durin's bane]

He died but then Arwen comes and does her little prayer thing (how many times is she going to do this? she did it with Frodo too) and he comes back alive. I would've preferred if he had stayed dead, though. I really hate Aragorn.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by durin's bane
He died but then Arwen comes and does her little prayer thing (how many times is she going to do this? she did it with Frodo too) and he comes back alive. I would've preferred if he had stayed dead, though. I really hate Aragorn.

Why didn't she save Boromir then? :rolleyes: I have no idea what the scriptwriters were thinking when they wrote that part. Frodo didn't die, he was fading. I hope she doesn't do anything like that in the ROTK. Hmm, maybe she will save Eowyn. Could be interesting........:rolleyes: :)

[Huan]

Um, I really don't think that Aragorn died there. He was just waterlogged and really banged up from falling of a cliff. He was near death. But I don't think Arwen actually had to resurrect him. In fact, though her weird metaphysical mojo astral form kisses him, she doesn't even seem to heal him. She just summons a kneeling licking horse for him. I don't know why I'm trying to clarify the worst scene in the movie.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I'd agree with Huan that it's the worst scene if it weren't for the overdone excorcism with Theoden. . .

. . .but anyway, I didn't think Aragorn was dead there, just, as Huan said, close to death, waterlogged, beaten up and really tired.

[crickhollow]

I don't know...I think the dying complex that Frodo had in the first movie got passed on to Aragorn for the second. Eowyn will probably have it in the third, as almost dying once just won't be good enough for PJ--he'll make sure there are at least three near-death experiences for her.

[cassiopeia]

I agree, I don't think Aragorn died. It seems silly that an elf could bring the dead back to life. That means all elves could do it. Hey, maybe Haldir lives! :D I cringe at this scene, like I cringe at the wizard fight and crazy Galadriel in the FOTR.

[Black Breathalizer]

The Aragorn-Arwen scene is one of the most dramatic and emotional scenes in the movie. It's mindboggling to me that so many of you didn't "get it" and didn't appreciate it.

1. Aragorn was not dead so Arwen didn't bring him back from the dead. Aragorn was badly hurt but Arwen didn't heal him either.

2. The point of the scene was to visually and emotionally communicate how POWERFUL and MOTIVATING A FORCE the love between Aragorn and Arwen was to them. Part one: We are shown that where a normal man might have given up and died on the river bank, Aragorn used his love for Arwen to drive him on through physical pain and exhaustion. Part two: We watch Elrond painting an realistic but bleak future for Arwen in an effort to keep her from sacrificing her immortality for a mortal man. Yet Arwen steadfastly believes "there is still hope."

3. Through the words and actions of both Aragorn and Arwen, Jackson continues to highlight one of the trilogy's basic themes: There is always hope in the face of despair.

[Lizra]

Ahhh! Young (or not so young in this case!) love! I saw the scene the same as you, Black Breathalizer. I also liked the Theoden "breaking free of the age spell" thing. I'm not sure, did Tolkien infer that Wormounge merely talked Theoden into thinking he was a doddering old fool, or was "magic" involved. Was Wormtounge, (and for that matter Saruman) merely an exceedingly gifted, eloquent and persuasive speaker, or were magic spells used. I can go either way for my entertainment!

[durin's bane]

I think Saruman gave Wormtongue the power to persuade people with speech, like Saruman could. Using that magic, Wormtongue was able to make Theoden think that he was nothing, and therefore, nearly reducing him to a feeble old man.

At least I think so. My theories aren't exactly the most logical ones...(like Aragorn's death for instance...I still think he died...but that's probably because I'm just stupid ;) )

[Elfmaster XK]

Okay, i have only just seen TTT for the first time. I have been away from the 'moot for that reason. But i have a few things to say that have probably aleady been said, and/or no on else cares about.

THEY KILLED HALDIR!!! THEY KILLED HIM!!! *Throws fit* How COULD they...

Sorry for the outburst.

I used to like Faramir. Did PJ even read the book? I know and understand the need for movie changes. But still....i feel i'll go away and form a coherent, non-expletive filled post...

[azalea]

First, I thought that the Arwen kiss thing was something that happened earlier in Rivendell when they were parting, and they were just hearkening back to it. IOW, the time came when he needed the grace of the Valar to protect him, so her kissing him was symbolic of that happening.
Secondly, Grima used both "magic" and the power of words combined to keep Theoden "down." I think Grima's father was also some kind of sorcerer; I'll have to go look.

[Nurvingiel]

I do not understand the need for these drastic changes! TTT is my favourite book, and I felt that key characters were horribly maligned (Frodo, Gimli and Faramir), and some scenes were added unnecessarily for sensationalist action scenes. (The Warg battle with the cliff thing, for example.) (I already raged about Haldir's death in a different thread, so I won't continue that here. See -> I'm Disgusted (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6552) .)

In TTT movie-Frodo tries to give the Ring to a Nazgul!?!?! PJ made him cave in to the Ring's powers way too soon. I feel that he should be portrayed as a tough leader, more like book-Frodo.

Gimli = comic relief!? And since when can he not keep up with Aragorn running accross Rohan!? Nufff said.

Movie-Faramir is also diminished from the book. Book-Faramir is tempted by the Ring, but he resists, and lets Frodo go. Movie-Faramir sucks, and insists the Ring goes to Gondor! Apparently, PJ wanted his temptation to be more dramatic before actually letting him go. Why was that necessary!? The book had an amazing plot, no need to change it!

Because the whole Warg battle was made up by PJ, it didn't stitch in very well with the actual book plot. I'm okay with additional scenes for cinematic purposes, I'm not so much of a purist that I don't expect this to happen a bit. So I could accept the Warg battle... until Aragorn fell off a cliff!? I don't care if he died or not, but this action of Aragorn being seperated from the group and all that was just too much. I don't mind the Arwen-dream so much, simply because I'm so thankful she's not actually in the movie.

The movie stands alone as great entertainment, I highly enjoyed watching it. The only trouble is, the movie does not stand alone. It has the integrity of the book to uphold, and it fails completely at several points. This is an unfortunate mistake that could have been avoided. It's okay to change scenes, the order of the timeline etc. as long as the spirit of the plot and characters is maintained.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by azalea

Grima used both "magic" and the power of words combined to keep Theoden "down." I think Grima's father was also some kind of sorcerer; I'll have to go look.

Oooooh! I don't recall anything about Grima's father! Cool! :cool:
A sorcerer! How exciting! I like that kind of stuff! :) Hope you dig up something! (Where ?! LoTR?)

[legolasluvr2931]

Ok...I LOVED THE MOVIE!!!

I WAS better than the 1st one, i got to see more of Legolas!!

[Black Breathalizer]

It's sad that some posters publicly complain about the movie without really understanding the scenes they are complaining about.

A case in point:

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I do not understand the need for these drastic changes! TTT is my favourite book, and I felt that key characters were horribly maligned (Frodo, Gimli and Faramir), and some scenes were added unnecessarily for sensationalist action scenes. In TTT movie-Frodo tries to give the Ring to a Nazgul!?!?! PJ made him cave in to the Ring's powers way too soon. I feel that he should be portrayed as a tough leader, more like book-Frodo.

First off, Nurvingiel, Frod does NOT try to give the ring to the Nazgul. If you pay attention, what is shown is Frodo deciding whether or not to put the ring on.

Second, PJ used this scene as a more dramatic interpretation of the SIMILAR SITUATION FROM THE BOOK where Frodo was spellbound by the Lord of the Nazgul as he led the army out of Minas Morgul and stopped on the bridge sensing something.

So this business of being portrayed "tougher" is ridiculous. PJ's TTT movie Frodo was a great interpretation of the book Frodo.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Lizra
Oooooh! I don't recall anything about Grima's father! Cool! :cool:
A sorcerer! How exciting! I like that kind of stuff! :) Hope you dig up something! (Where ?! LoTR?)

Ach, never mind. It must have been some wild imaginings. The only thing I could find about his father was his name.:rolleyes:

[Lizra]

Well, It was a fun thought! Thanks for looking. :)

[TinuvielChild]

I'm waiting to pass judgement on movie-Faramir until I've seen RotK.


The Arwen death scene always makes me cringe. I've already stated why, and other people have posted reasons that I agree with, so I won't repeat myself.

[LuthienTinuviel]

It's sad that some posters publicly complain about the movie without really understanding the scenes they are complaining about.


oh, PLEASE let me drink form your vast wells of deep cool, refreshing knowledge! i have so much to benefit from the words, no, poetry that flows from your lips!



hahahhaa!:p

Second, PJ used this scene as a more dramatic interpretation .... blah blah blah

yes, more dramatic, like they say in texas, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. He had no reason to tamper with anything in TTT like that. TTT is already full of natural cliffhangers and suspense. You can't perfect perfection.

So this business of being portrayed "tougher" is ridiculous

no, your ridiculus.

things i agreed with. (10 bucks says you won't be able to remeber these two pages later ;) )

I did like the Arwen/ Aragorn scenes, thought the one by the river, is my east favourite, i dislike other scenes more strongly than that one. in all truth, i don't think that it's that bad. i can see how we are supposed to realte to strong love conquring all and yada yada saving lives blah blah... and something something... along those lines.....

i thought the wargs were ok, i pictured them as darker, slightly larger wolves, like real wolves, canis lupis type.
haha puppies with add.. wouldn't that be ADHD? you have to get the hyperactivity in there too. Think about it, they did jump from thing to thing rather quickly.. haha

i loved how they showed the humanity in the elves this time, though they were still a bit cold for my taste.
having them show up at helms deep, really added a nice peice to the bit about how the elves have known that they were not going to be in the outcome of any of these ME wars, yet they still fight for the freedom. maybe i like this because i believe that the elves really did care alot for the mortals that they walked beside.

i love how the movie starts out.

i liked the scene in the gloden hall, given the general public's attentions spans and intelligence level, this was good, even though i would have liked it to be different, it was still good.

more later.

[Kalimac]

>>The only trouble is, the movie does not stand alone. It has the integrity of the book to uphold, and it fails completely at several points. <<

Only trouble here is that the movie . . just like the book The Two Towers . . is not over yet . . it's still the middle. Patience. Once we see all three parts as one long movie . . than would be the time to decided whether PJ failed in his attempt to bring Tolkien to the screen. You may not like what he has done in the TT because you have not yet seen where he intends to go . . and you won't know that until you see the end. One of the problems here is that just like the book . . which Tolkien considered to be one book . . not three . . the movies were all filmed at the same time . . PJ and cast have repeatedly stated they filmed LOtR as if it were one long movie. This is precedent setting . . it has never been done before so people basically do not know what to make of it.

Only other comment I might add is . . would you judge The Two Towers as a stand alone book . . would you be satisfied to reach the end of TTT . . and not go on to finish reading Return of the King? Is Tolkiens book, The Two Towers a complete work? Or does your opinion of the book rely on Fellowship and most of all, on the conclusion, Return of the King? So, too, must we look at these movies in the same light . .

This is all my humble opinion, of course . . but I'll wait for Return of the King. ;)

[BeardofPants]

Ah BB. Please shut up.

[Arathorn]

I've seen it for the 3rd time yesterday after it finally opened officially in the local area. It got better and better for me after successive viewings.

Knowing the differences between the film and the book and learning new ones that others bring up is fun. It makes a good conversation piece in the new Tolkien group I joined and had coffee with after the the movie.

However, I think that I'd boycott ROTK and probably not watch TTT anymore if the above were not true in my case. I suggest that other people do the same and save their cash. It'll only get worse and evil PJ will only earn more. ;)

There was this guy who posted months ago (I can't remember his name here) who's dad was a Tolkien scholar. He said that he hasn't and will never watch any of the films. Now that's a true purist. :cool:

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Arathorn
There was this guy who posted months ago (I can't remember his name here) who's dad was a Tolkien scholar. He said that he hasn't and will never watch any of the films.Now that's a true purist. :cool:

Thanks Arathorn, now I feel a second class purist.:p

[Blackboar]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Ah BB. Please shut up.

Which BB? Blackboar aka me or Black Breatherlizer?

[Blackboar]

[EDIT]

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackboar
Which BB? Blackboar aka me or Black Breatherlizer?

Black Breathaliser.

[Kalimac]

Here is an interesting read about the beauty found with these films and the idea that the film stands as art.

A Single Cultural Event (http://www.humanevents.org/articles/01-13-03/coombs.htm)


The Two Towers should be viewed not as a separate movie or typical sequel but as the "To be continued" of a single cultural event whose opening salvo was The Fellowship of the Ring.

Peter Jackson’s decision to shoot all three volumes of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Ring cycle as one mega-film has preserved the unity of the composed-through book.

Purist or not, I cannot imagine any 'scholar' dismissing another medium of art without first seeing it. How could he possibly have any type of opinion whatsoever, that anyone should care about?

;)

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Thanks Arathorn, now I feel a second class purist.:p

You're welcome. Wear it proudly. ;)

Arise now, arise. Readers of Tolkien!
Dire deeds awake, dark is it eastward.
Let book be dusted, pages be turned!
Forth Eorlingas!

Your's truly,

A lower class book enthusiast

[LuthienTinuviel]

wow. that is purist, but i say that in a good way.
i mean never seeing the movies would suck for me, but having a dad as a tolkien scholar would absolutely and definitly make up for it.

[Nurvingiel]

Let's not be too mad at each other. This is partly my fault since I was harshly critical of some aspects of TTT. However, I don't dislike, or intend any harshness towards, any one person, or any group of people who don't happen to share my lovely opinions of TTT.

Black Breathalizer, you made a very good point about the Frodo-Nazgul-Osgiliath scene. Now that you have pointed it out to me, it seems obvious he was thinking about putting on the Ring. However, this still leaves a major continuity issue. The Nazgul hovered in front of him for 5 to 10 seconds. Nazgul don't see very well in the day, but they're not totally blind. The Nazgul knew Frodo was there - his mount, at least, was looking straight at him. Why would the Nazgul notattack Frodo?

You also make an interesting point here:

Second, PJ used this scene as a more dramatic interpretation of the SIMILAR SITUATION FROM THE BOOK where Frodo was spellbound by the Lord of the Nazgul as he led the army out of Minas Morgul and stopped on the bridge sensing something.

Except I must disagree with you. Let's say that the parallel between the two scenes was exactly what PJ intended to maintain the book's plot. I don't believe the spirit and integrity of the plot was kept up.

What was stopping PJ from sticking pretty darn close to the book like he did in FoTR?

Kalimac also makes an excellent point about TTT not being over yet. Even so, the Two Towers movie as some screw-ups when compared to the part of the book that it portrays.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What was stopping PJ from sticking pretty darn close to the book like he did in FoTR?
I completely agree, I expected TTT to be more like the books than FotR, not less. It has a lot of fighting in it, why doesn't that satisfy him? :mad:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Black Breathalizer, you made a very good point about the Frodo-Nazgul-Osgiliath scene. Now that you have pointed it out to me, it seems obvious he was thinking about putting on the Ring. However, this still leaves a major continuity issue. The Nazgul hovered in front of him for 5 to 10 seconds. Nazgul don't see very well in the day, but they're not totally blind. The Nazgul knew Frodo was there - his mount, at least, was looking straight at him. Why would the Nazgul notattack Frodo? I thought the Nazgul did attack Frodo but Sam dove and got Frodo out of the way and Faramir shot an arrow into the fell beast.

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
You also make an interesting point: (Osgiliath scene being PJ's answer to the bridge scene near Minas Morgul.) Except I must disagree with you. Let's say that the parallel between the two scenes was exactly what PJ intended to maintain the book's plot. I don't believe the spirit and integrity of the plot was kept up. Frodo's reaction to the Nazgul was almost identical between the book and the movie.

The only difference is that the Nazgul "saw" Frodo in Osgiliath and didn't at the Minas Morgul Vale bridge. But having Sauron know the ring is on the outskirts of Gondor only enhances Frodo's mission, not harm it. We know from the books that Sauron's greatest fear is that the ring will be used against him by Gondor. So Frodo's presence in Osgiliath only fuels this fear. The last thing he suspects is the ring being taken into Mordor.

[Nurvingiel]

Good points again Black Breathalizer but I just don't have a good feeling about that scene. I have a better feeling than before, but still not good. The Nazgul did go after Frodo, I suppose, but it seemed to me that it was very half-hearted. He didn't attack him as I would imagine. After Faramir shot him, he flew away, indicating that he still could have pressed the attack, it he wished. This part of the movie doesn't quite sit right - the new plot is stitched awkwardly into the book's plot.

Frodo's reaction to the Nazgul was almost identical between the book and the movie.

The only difference is that the Nazgul "saw" Frodo in Osgiliath and didn't at the Minas Morgul Vale bridge. But having Sauron know the ring is on the outskirts of Gondor only enhances Frodo's mission, not harm it. We know from the books that Sauron's greatest fear is that the ring will be used against him by Gondor. So Frodo's presence in Osgiliath only fuels this fear. The last thing he suspects is the ring being taken into Mordor.

Two points on this, first, that having the Nazgul "see" Frodo makes a huge difference. Second, you're right about what Sauron fears in terms of Gondor using the Ring against him, except that this is slightly different than the book. In the book, in the Minus Morgul scene, the Nazgul Captain senses something, but not necessarily the One Ring. Though Sauron did fear Gondor having the ring in the book, he wasn't tipped off to its presence at Minus Morgul.

[coolismo]

i like your points black breathalizer

Some more about Aragorn's fall:

1. Water is associated with Arwen eg the Bruinen scene in Fellowship. It's worth replaying the scene at the Bruinen again and see some parallels. Note also the importance of tears as an aspect of this theme. The tears of an elf are healing tears: like the phoenix (notice also there a phoenixes at Rivendell woven into the architecture).
2. Theoden plays a similar role to Aragorn in the scene of Gandalfs fall. Notice the similarity of the dialogue here again worth replaying the scene after Gandalfs loss to see similarities. This draws out another theme: to rise you must fall. Ascension is prededed by a descent.
3. The sequence is not only mystic but mythic: Aragorn is beckoned to look within himself, to search for his identity. Aragorn is about to enter the battle at Helms Deep where he will be obviously heroic in an external sense but he must be a hero to himself: he must continue his inner quest. Aragorn won't grasp Narsil until he takes in his own true identity. The drift down the river is an inner journey.
4. A parallel with Isildur's fall. Look again at Isildurs death. Isildur is face down in the murky water looking into the depths: he has fallen. Aragorn is face up in waters briimming with light. Another aspect of Aragorn's ascension.



Must see TTT again :

regards c:cool: :cool: ismo

[Black Breathalizer]

Interesting thoughts, Coolismo. You've gotten me thinking about the movie in some new ways.

Originally posted by Nurvingiel Two points on this, first, that having the Nazgul "see" Frodo makes a huge difference. Second, you're right about what Sauron fears in terms of Gondor using the Ring against him, except that this is slightly different than the book. In the book, in the Minus Morgul scene, the Nazgul Captain senses something, but not necessarily the One Ring. Though Sauron did fear Gondor having the ring in the book, he wasn't tipped off to its presence at Minus Morgul.

I understand your feelings. Here's a NEW way of looking at that scene that works for me: What if the Nazgul DIDN'T see the ring? We are told that the Nazgul's eyesight is poor, particularly in daylight and they make up for it with a keen sense of smell.

Perhaps the Nazgul sensed something (identical to the reaction Tolkien gave him in the Minas Morgul Vale) but never actually realized the ring was THAT close. It's not nearly as far-fetched as it might seen at first glance. Remember, this wraith is on the back of a giant flying fell beast and we're talking about a little hobbit standing below him holding one little gold band. It would have been different if Frodo had put on the ring--then the Nazgul would have seen him clearly. But he didn't. Played this way, the Osgiliath scene plays out EXACTLY as Tolkien played it at the bridge.

Considered from this light, we have the best of both worlds: the psychological scene that Tolkien intented AND the dramatic visual that Jackson wanted.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Watch the scene again Black Breathalizer, the Nazgul's steed clearly attempts to snatch the ring from Frodo's hand with it's claw as Sam pushes him out of the way. Jackson is not trying to present that the ring is not seen. To suggest that a Nazgul can be a matter of feet away from the ring of power, being openly displayed, and not know it is there is absurd.

"The failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies"

J.R.R. Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
To suggest that a Nazgul can be a matter of feet away from the ring of power, being openly displayed, and not know it is there is absurd.Using your logic, why was the Nazgul SO TENTATIVE then when Frodo & Company were hiding only feet away from him under a big tree root in FOTR???? Heck, the wraith was MUCH CLOSER to Frodo then than he was in the Osgiliath scene. If the Nazgul knew the ring was so close, why'd he hesitate and sniff around? Why not just snatch it?

The Nazgul "see" and "feel" the ring's presence only when it is on Frodo's finger. That is why having Sam tackle Frodo before he put the ring on was so dramatic and important.

And unless fell beasts can talk, I don't think one of them seeing it counts. :)

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Using your logic, why was the Nazgul SO TENTATIVE then when Frodo & Company were hiding only feet away from him under a big tree root in FOTR???? Heck, the wraith was MUCH CLOSER to Frodo then than he was in the Osgiliath scene. If the Nazgul knew the ring was so close, why'd he hesitate and sniff around? Why not just snatch it?

The Nazgul "see" and "feel" the ring's presence only when it is on Frodo's finger. That is why having Sam tackle Frodo before he put the ring on was so dramatic and important.

And unless fell beasts can talk, I don't think one of them seeing it counts. :) yeah, well now that you pointed it out, that scene in FOTR was pretty silly. I mean come on. They distracted one of the Nazgul by throwing something into the forest? Talk of absurdities!

[entss89]

i think it was better then the first one! not saying that i did not love the first one but hey i kindda love both!

[squinteyedsoutherner]

No you are wrong Black Breathalizer. The ringwraiths may only feel the presence of the ring when it's worn in Jackson's Middle Earth, but they clearly sense it even when it is not being worn in the book. "The ring draws them" Strider says on Weathertop, when the ring is not being worn. I suggest you read the rest of that section as well.

"the black horses see and the riders can use men and other creatures as spies"

"Maybe it was the ring that called to the wraithlord" Tolkien says in TTT when Frodo is not wearing it.

The scene in Fellowship where they throw something is a retarded Hollywood cliche, and reworked from the original. In the book that Nazgul knew the ring was there, but he's blind so he's moving slowly,(which is not a problem when your prey is paralysed by fear) he was getting closer and closer, but was forced to retreat because of the elves approach.

My ONLY point is that the "fell beast" grasped at Frodo's ring in that scene in Osgiliath. What Jackson meant to convey by that I don't know. But if Jackson's Nazgul can be that close and not know the ring is present then that is yet another needless change he has made.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
[B]No you are wrong Black Breathalizer. The ringwraiths may only feel the presence of the ring when it's worn in Jackson's Middle Earth, but they clearly sense it even when it is not being worn in the book.

We were talking about Jackson's Middle Earth.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Jackson's Middle-Earth does not make sense to me. All I'm saying is the beast grasped for the ring in that scene. He's your God not mine.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Crickhollow, your sig gets me everytime. That Waterhouse painting is on my wall right behind my computer:)

[crickhollow]

why, thank you :)

now, in order to seem mildly on topic:

Thanks for your thoughts, Coolismo. That definately is a new way to look at the film. It does need at least a second viewing. I've only been once.

I have to say that I enjoy the movies. What I don't enjoy is when people call PJ a Tolkien purist, because he is obviously not. I'm talking about people like Time Magazine, NOT THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD!!! :) I dislike it when the New Line people try to tell us how close PJ stuck to the books, and how they consulted Tolkien between every shot, because even if they did consult it, they disregarded it shortly thereafter. The least they could do is 'fess up (like they did for TTT, but did NOT for FotR) and tell us that the movie is going to be very different.

[Black Breathalizer]

Jackson was writing and directing three 2-3 hour movies, not a 20 hour mini-series. There was no way in the world ANY screenwriter/director could have done a strict interpretation of Tolkien's trilogy in the amount of time Jackson had and put anything decent on the big screen.

It's easy to sit back and say Jackson wasn't true to Tolkien. The truth is, no one in the world could have done better. I'm just sorry for people who take everything so literally they can't see or appreciate the underlying themes that Tolkien himself would have been proud that Jackson captured so P E R F E C T L Y.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Jackson was writing and directing three 2-3 hour movies, not a 20 hour mini-series. There was no way in the world ANY screenwriter/director could have done a strict interpretation of Tolkien's trilogy in the amount of time Jackson had and put anything decent on the big screen.

It's easy to sit back and say Jackson wasn't true to Tolkien. The truth is, no one in the world could have done better. I'm just sorry for people who take everything so literally they can't see or appreciate the underlying themes that Tolkien himself would have been proud that Jackson captured so P E R F E C T L Y.

I agree that TTT was well done. I also think that no-one could have captured every detail in the book, that would have lead to a 4000 hour mini-series.

However I disagree on a couple of points. First, though TTT was very good, it wasn't perfect. Second, I don't think that Tolkien would have liked any movie at all being made of the books. This opinion is not based on any statement Tolkien made, it's just the impression that I get from what I suppose to be his views of technology.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the scenes that I have issues with in the movie TTT are ones where I feel that the spirit of the book was lost. This is my opinion in a nutshell.

Slightly off topic, but I recently had a debate with my friend and it was very informative. After a long discussion where we shared all our ideas plus examples to back them up - much like we have done in this thread - we summarized our opinions into one sentance.

The point of this little story is to ask all of you to sum up your issues with TTT or with things people said about TTT into one sentance. This would help us understand one another much better.

Essentially, I have an issue with any scene in the movie where the spirit of the book is lost or altered, especially where I feel it could have been maintained.

Of course, where the spirit of the book is and is very subjective. ;)

[azalea]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
...that Nazgul ... was forced to retreat because of the elves approach.


Now that would have been cool.:cool:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If the spirit of Tolkien is killing, fight, slashing, and archery with some dialogue thrown in, then he captured in perfectly. ;)

Not to say that I disliked the movies. Indeed, I loved them. But they are not Middle Earth or Lord of the Rings, in my opinion, and the opinions of many others. They are, however, good movies.

[eowyngirl14]

originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem If the spirit of Tolkien is killing, fight, slashing, and archery with some dialogue thrown in, then he captured in perfectly.

I thought the dialoge was well chosen and meaningfull! I especially liked the scene with Aragorn and Eowyn...

Eowyn: The women of this country learned long ago that those who do not weild swords can still die by them. I fear neither pain nor death.

Aragorn: What do you fear my lady?

Eowyn: A cage. Being trappen behind bars untill use and old ages accept them and all chance of valor is beyound reach or recall.

Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings. A sheild-maiden of Rohan. I would not think that to be your fate.


Oh! I love it! I love it! I love it! HEee HEee HEee! I like reciting it under my breath when I read and I know people are watching me... FUN FUN FUN!!:) :)

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
Oh! I love it! I love it! I love it! HEee HEee HEee! I like reciting it under my breath when I read and I know people are watching me... FUN FUN FUN!!:) :)

weeeeee!:rolleyes:


2. Theoden plays a similar role to Aragorn in the scene of Gandalfs fall. Notice the similarity of the dialogue here again worth replaying the scene after Gandalfs loss to see similarities. This draws out another theme: to rise you must fall. Ascension is prededed by a descent.

a conversation:

Me: what comes up muct come down, right?
Physics Teacher: Of course.
M: then what goes down has to come up?
PT: no, i don't think that's possible.
M: but doesn't every action has an equal and opposite reaction....?


If the spirit of Tolkien is killing, fight, slashing, and archery with some dialogue thrown in, then he captured in perfectly.

Exactly.

It's easy to sit back and say Jackson wasn't true to Tolkien.

Exactly.

What was stopping PJ from sticking pretty darn close to the book like he did in FoTR?

Exactly.

Jackson was writing and directing three 2-3 hour movies, not a 20 hour mini-series. There was no way in the world ANY screenwriter/director could have done a strict interpretation of Tolkien's trilogy in the amount of time Jackson had and put anything decent on the big screen.

Exactly.

The truth is, no one ...could have done better.

Exactly.

I'm just sorry for people who take everything so literally they can't see or appreciate the underlying themes that Tolkien himself would have been proud that Jackson captured so P E R F E C T L Y.

have you read letter #210, BB?
i think your precious movie might be in jeopardy.:( so sad, so sad.

This is partly my fault since I was harshly critical of some aspects of TTT.

Were you here for the last bought of this? i thought you were, well if you weren't, just know that this happens at least twice for every single tiny facet of these films. It's not your fault for stating your opinion. If you feelthat you've ticked someone off, then it's thier fault for making you feel that way.

oh and,

Hey, BB!
when are you going to get your nose out of the air and look at the rest of the world. Since when has a seventeen year old been the supreme authority on anything Tolkien or PJ?
I want some of what your mom must have smoking when she was pregnant with you, cause it must have been good. What is wrong in your head? :confused:
He's your God not mine.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I certainly think that it could have been better, if done by someone with a true passion for Tolkien's works, who knows them intimately, and would be more interested in preserving the stories than in pleasing the crowds. Because, let's face it, that was the reason for a large number of his changes. But as I've said before: the crowds have thousands, or even millions of movies; can't we have 3? (I'm sure that the fact the last thread was closed directly after I said it wasn't due to that!)

Now now, there's no call to be so rude. If you must insult someone, please refrain from including their mother.

EG14; Yes, some of the dialogue was well-written; just because the film seems to be more about fighting than dialogue doesn't mean that it can't be good. But it still doesn't capture the spirit of Tolkien. Especially the Arwen scenes (anyone else notice that she's schitzophrenic? sp)

Again, I loved the movies; they rank highly on my All-Time Favorite lists. But they are not Tolkien to me.

And, as long as the deity of PJ is brought up, let me point that he DOES have the body of a god.

[LuthienTinuviel]

edited... im having a bad day

[eowyngirl14]

I do think that Arwen was screwed up... she didn'teven belong in the TT. But how is she a skitsophrenic? (I know I spelled that wrong... I sounded it out!):) :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To me at least, she seemed to be two different characters in the two different movies. In FotR, she was a confident, strong, independent, and wise warrior princess; in TTT, she struck me as a blubbering teenager who didn't have any idea what she was doing, and had to have Daddy tell her.

[Nurvingiel]

That's what PJ gets for blowing her character out of proportion - he had to make 99% of that stuff up! ;)

[elendili]

in TTT, she struck me as a blubbering teenager who didn't have any idea what she was doing, and had to have Daddy tell her.

Almost makes you dread what's going to hapen in ROTK doesn't it?

They killed Haldir *sob* PJ must pay

Wasn't gollum cute :D ???

I'm not so sure about Faramir he wasn't as i imagined
Wormtoungue was though

[viggosbeard]

Gwaimir - in my humble opinion....you are very wrong.

Changes are unavoidable, making 3 films for fans only is silly ( are you going to pay for it ? )most of the changes were made by an obviously well read tolkien fan and are in the spirit of tolkiens work. Ive been to see ttt 3 times now, and though I was quite shocked at some of the changes, i can see why for most of them ,
and though I prefer fotr as a movie and I do like ttt more at each veiwing. Maybe if you try and get into the characters head, you might realise the pain that Arwen is going through, decisions she has to make etc etc - is this another wind up that I havnt got again !? :confused:

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by viggosbeard
Changes are unavoidable, making 3 films for fans only is silly ( are you going to pay for it ? )

Pretty sure we did. How many people bought movie tickets, DVDs, etc only because the title was Lord of the Rings?

*raises hand numerous times*

I'm quite sure part of the pitch to backers was the picture of an army of Tolkien fans lining up, cash in hand.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by viggosbeard

...Maybe if you try and get into the characters head, you might realise the pain that Arwen is going through, decisions she has to make etc etc - is this another wind up that I havnt got again !? :confused:

Who cares about Arwen's pain? She's not in the book! ;)

I felt that some of the changes made in TTT were only done because PJ wanted it to be different, not because he had to for the movie format. PJ has the movie making skills to have stayed truer to the book.

I think ROTK will be as good as FOTR in sticking to the book, and as good as TTT for action! The best of both worlds... (there is still hope! hehe)

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
PJ has the movie making skills to have stayed truer to the book.
yeah thats what Ive always thought! It seems like some of the changes would have taken the same time, same amount of money and still made sense if he kept it true to the book. :rolleyes: I just dont understand with most of the changes made.
~ Celebréiel

[entss89]

i think it was great and also i love the part when smeagol is fighting with himself!

[entss89]

i think it was great and also i love the part when smeagol is fighting with himself!

[Finrod Felagund]

I HATE FARAMIR!

But in all ahonesty, I thought the movie was fairly well done. Of course, he made bothe Elrond and the Ents much less noble. And Theoden was actually possessed by saruman instead of simply goaded into depression by poisoned words. Personaly I went into the movie dreadig Gimli's comic role, but, for the most part (not always), I thought that it worked. The elvesat helms deep. I don't think so. Very bad. The women and children didn't stay at Helms Deep, they went somewhere else and Eomer wasn't supposed to be banished just put in rison. gandalf shows up with Grimold and Erkenbrand in the book. Prsonally I once again loved the music. Although the music for FOTR was better, I really liked TTT music. The Rohirrim theme was very...well...Rohirric.

I loved Gollum, once again I dreaded his comic parts but they weren't too bad. And please forgive me but I thought the rabbits and fish parts were hilarious. Sam seemed somewhat too harsh with both Gollum and Frodo.

My biggest issue was Faramir, I thought, otherise, despite the many smaller flaws, it was pretty good.

Hey, in like 50 years, we can all get together and make a new LOTR. We'll divide it into six movies (six books). LOL!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I noticed that they gave the Rohirrim a Nordic afterlife belief; I don't think this is accurate, but then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the Rohirrim. ;) Any more educated people able to tell if it is?

[ugo]

I wasn't sure about the thick Cockney accents of the orcs. Is PJ trying to say all Londoners are a pack of wild, scabby, savage, blood thirsty, witless shadows of their former selves?....

.......Actually in retrospect its quite accurate :p

[Nurvingiel]

Hey London is sweet! Anyhoo, I liked the Norse symbolism, because Tolkien himself drew on Norse mythology at some point.

[Huan]

I think the admittedly somewhat Cockney accents actually work with some of the orcs in the book itself. I don't know if that's what Tolkien intended.

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I noticed that they gave the Rohirrim a Nordic afterlife belief; I don't think this is accurate, but then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the Rohirrim. ;) Any more educated people able to tell if it is?

All I recall from the movie is Gandalf telling Theoden that his son would be with his fathers; was there something else I missed?

My understanding is that Tolkien tried to eliminate all religious elements from LotR. He didn't quite succeed but nearly, so any references to an afterlife in the movies would be incorrect. Tolkien was trying to express a religious viewpoint through events and "coincidences", but without any overt mention of it. He did have Faramir and his men face the West in silence for a moment before a meal, but that's about it

[LuthienTinuviel]

tolkien wasn't trying to express anything. he hated allegory, as do i. :)

ive thought about this before, how each of the races of middle earth would have thier own "religion" . their religions could be something as small as what happens after you die, not nessicarily (i know i can't spell) a huge bit like islam, which even dictates the clothing you wear (im talking head scarves, not taliban burkas)
so i think that is was right that pj put something in about the race of men having some belief in the afterlife, after all, men have been fascinated with it since the beggining of time, so it's just a given that something like that could be slipped in. No culture is completly devoid of a belif system.

[Blackboar]

I LOVE your signature Luthien!!

[FrodoFriend]

It was KICKIN'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!

More detailed opinion later.

:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Luthien: I don't think that is accurate. Just because he disliked allegory doesn't mean he didn't have elements of religion; Whether you like it or not, an awful lot of Christian themes worked their way in. And actually, Men were not fascinated with the afterlife, but rather in fear of Death.

But what I mean is that there was no mention of them having Nordic Valhalla-type belief anyway in anything that Tolkien wrote that we know of, right? And since Tolkien kept overtly religious stuff to a minimum, then really having that there is partly detracting from the spirit of LotR.

Entlover, I think I just read in the Letters that that was more of showing respect to the Fallen than anything really religious.

[Christiana]

"the halls of his fathers"
Halls of mandos, timeless halls?(tolkien never really did say where we go.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I suppose that could be what he meant, but I don't think so.

I thought he said that Men go to the Halls of Mandos for a time, then pass out of the Circle of the World? Or am I wrong?

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by Blackboar
I LOVE your signature Luthien!!

thanks!:D

Entlover, I think I just read in the Letters that that was more of showing respect to the Fallen than anything really religious.

and my own quote:
No culture is completly devoid of a belief system.

respect for the dead..... the dead being held in some form of esteem...... honor of that sort = some form of belief in my book.

but hey tomato, tomato.. hehe that doesn't really work out with text does it?:D

edit: i thought that men could go to the halls of mandos.. but i can never get straight where elves go when they are slain or waste away... can anyone answer hat? once and for all?

[crickhollow]

the Elves go to rest in the Halls of Mandos. Tolkien never says where Men go after death. That's part of the reason that Melkor was able to instill in them the fear of death--it's unknown.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hehe, the way that's worded it sounds like Tolkien told the Elves where they went after they die, but he didn't tell the Men, and so they fear death. Or is that just me? :rolleyes:

[Earniel]

Well the elves are bound to the world so it's easy to find out what happens to them when they die because they ain't going far. Men on the other hand are not bound to the world and can leave it when they die, to where nobody knows. I bet that's since no one came back to complain. ;)

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Well the elves are bound to the world so it's easy to find out what happens to them when they die because they ain't going far. Men on the other hand are not bound to the world and can leave it when they die, to where nobody knows. I bet that's since no one came back to complain. ;)


thanks!

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Hehe, the way that's worded it sounds like Tolkien told the Elves where they went after they die, but he didn't tell the Men, and so they fear death. Or is that just me? :rolleyes: yeesh :rolleyes: Tolkien never tells us where they go after death. nitpicker.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yeah, somehow by the time I finished posting, I had the feeling it was just me...Ignore my goofiness. :rolleyes:

[Elvedans]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yeah, somehow by the time I finished posting, I had the feeling it was just me...Ignore my goofiness. :rolleyes:

Does that mean I'm goofy too coz I agreed?