What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[LuthienTinuviel]

what about the music?
i loved every note of it, and i can't wait to get my hands on some sheet music!

im listening to the soundtrack right now!

you know, it only took me 4 times of seeing the movie before i could pick out scenes from just the music, with FotR it took like 8 or 9.

[Celebréiel]

I loved the music too! :D One of the higher points of TT was the music. Every song, I couldnt even choose a favorite, another great job!
~Celebréiel

[eowyngirl14]

I love the music! Especially the theme for Rohan! It is awesome! I also love Gollum's song. One of my friends and I have memorized it and sing it to annoy our other friends! very very fun!:) :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Elvedans
Does that mean I'm goofy too coz I agreed?

Hurrah! I'm not alone! :D

[Admiral Ackbar]

Hmmm... I think Gollum looked a bit better BEFORE the animators made him look more like Serkis. The Ent scene made Isengard seem... well, small. Very small. Almost like a small orc theme park. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the orcs at Isengard (the ones left behind) NOT of the Uruk-Hai variety? And if they weren't, what were they doing fighting in the sunlight? I didn't have much of a gripe with the Helms Deep battle, though it was a tad too long for my taste. I thought the Ents were done VERY well (aesthetically) but, of course, their character development went down the drain. Overall, it didn't have that epic, adventurous feeling to it (as FotR did), but I don't think it was supposed to, and that is what many people may (or may not) have missed.

Ackbar

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If you mean the portrayal of him we see in FotR at Moria, then I completely agree.

[borgun]

I did like the movie...immensely so...
however also found it a bit disappointing that all the goodies were white, blondies and all the baddies were black ....
Also aren't there any non-white actors who could act in the good roles in the movie???? Why show the people in arab bedouin dresses with the elephant as the people on the side of evil...is Jackson playing with Bush here....

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by borgun
Why show the people in arab bedouin dresses with the elephant as the people on the side of evil...is Jackson playing with Bush here.... No, he is following the book.

[LuthienTinuviel]

ack, now im agreeing with BB, what next?

yes, he is following the book, not just playing with bush, although both would yeild the same effect, no?


before anyone jumps down my throat, im american, it makes me sick sometimes, but i am american, so im not belittling someone from afar.

but anyways, if PJ had allowed LotR to be Politically correct, fans would have been horrified, porbably not all but im sure many would be up in arms, and the rest would just hate the whole idea of having to be politically correct.

i hate being politically correct, life hurts, why should i censor and surpress my thoughts so that aomeone else can have a blissful life, am i not entitled to my own blissful life?

[Nurvingiel]

The Two Towers was written before the art of political correctness was perfected, so to speak. There was talk of not calling the movie "The Two Towers" because of 9/11, but PJ nixed that, more power to him.
Tolkien also wasn't making any references to actual Earth people in the book, so it's safe to say the movie doesn't do this either.

I was thinking about that annoying Warg battle scene, and decided it wasn't completely pointless after all. I think it was Black Breathalizer who started me on making loose comparisons with misplaced movie scenes and the book, but I decided that the Warg battle is making up for the scene from FotR where the Fellowship is attacked by Wargs before they go into Moria. That scene was deleted from FotR, so maybe they're 'replacing' it here? It is pushing it a bit, but......

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry, excuse my ignorance, but where did it say the Haradrim were Arabs?

[LuthienTinuviel]

not really arabs, and not really africans, but here's what the book says:
Sam, eagar to see more, went now and joined the guards. He scrambled a little way up into one of the larger of the bay-trees. For a moment he caought a glimpse of swarthy men in red running down the slope some way off with green-clad warriors leaping after them, hewing them down as they fled. Arrows were thick in the air. Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest a few feet away, face downward, green arrow feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.

in my mind, i always pictured tannish, not chocloate skin being the brown discribed. I guess it might just be me, ive always seen them as kind of spanish-ey (dark features, olive skin, thick very dark eyelashes surrounding dark eyes etc) mixed with arabs. That's why i just chalked up the eyeliner to a bad day in the makeup dept. i thought that they were trying to acheive the effect of the eyes, but fell short of the goal, fell very short, as i could have done a better job.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Aha, I see now where PJ got that from; but I still don't think they were meant to be Arabs; though PJ was staying true to the letter of the book here.

[LuthienTinuviel]

wow, i need to re read TTT... he followed alot of stuff closer than i thought he did...

hehe silly me, thinking im above everyone.:p

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
wow, i need to re read TTT... he followed alot of stuff closer than i thought he did...

hehe silly me, thinking im above everyone.:p I don't think your silly, LuthienTinuviel. You've made some really insightful comments lately.

There is still hope.

:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Who here wants to tell BB to JUST SHUT UP? *raises hand*

[Christiana]

*raises hand*

[BeardofPants]

Ooh, ooh! Me too! Me too! *waves hand frantically*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Motion seconded and carried.

Mooters: SHUT UP!

[Nurvingiel]

*does not raise hand*

Aw Mooters, that was a bit harsh, if everyone expresses their opinions nicely enough, they should be received nicely enough.

I happen to disagree with the opinion that someone is only making an insightful comment when they're in agreement with your opinions, but the world was meant for more than one way.

Now who thinks they're above everyone eh? :P ;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, if he would just be polite about it, I wouldn't mind. Dunedain is polite about it, and I don't mind him at all. But BB is quite often rude, arrogant, and often displays the same belief that you accuse us of - everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. I personally liked the movies, but I don't think people who didn't are idiots (got me mixed up with Wayfarer here). He gets so annoying sometimes, I gotta vent someway.

[Nurvingiel]

Actually, the only thing I said that was directed at you guys was saying that the shut up motion was harsh. The rest was directed at Black Breathalizer, sorry for the mistunderstanding.

[Black Breathalizer]

This rude series of "shut up" posts directed at me is perfectly acceptable behavior here because...of what?
Because I teased LuthienTinuviel about AGREEING with me?!??! :confused:

Some people here want to treat me as the Dark Lord when there is amble evidence that I'm making more positive contributions to this board than they are. Just because you don't always agree with my positions doesn't give you the right to resort to this type of behavior.

[BeardofPants]

Nope. The holier than thou attitude doesn't work. :rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Nope. The holier than thou attitude doesn't work. :rolleyes: Your childish posts here would be bannable offenses on most message boards. If you don't have anything more than this to contribute to the discussion, I suggest you follow your own advice to me.

And now let's get back to the thread topic please...

[barrelrider110]

But this is all so much fun! Really, some people could be a little less sensitive.

[azalea]

The rude posts are getting out of hand. I am talking about here and in other threads. My advice is that if you don't like someone's posts, you discontinue your discussion with them by not posting a response to something they've written. When one continues to post responses, it only encourages another response. I am not in any way talking about debating the issues, I'm talking about personal comments. Either be like Mr. Spock and keep your emotions out of it, or go by the old adage "never pass up a good opportunity to keep your mouth shut." And I am talking to everyone here (yes, this means you). Sorry to sound harsh, but it's boring having to play "flame police." Please just enjoy yourselves and continue the fun and intellectually stimulating conversations without following through on the need to get in the last dig. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Amen.

[Elvedans]

Here Here! Or is it Hear Hear? Well anyway I agree.:rolleyes:

[Lizra]

I wish PJ had made some of the dialogue more formal. Sam's line "Mordor......the one place in Middle-earth we don't want to see any closer, and it's the one place we're trying to get to." sounds "coarse" to me. It's bugged me since the first hearing! :)

I wished they had used more formal wording, so that the movie dialogue would have blended better with Tolkien's eloquent style. Simple things like the Glorfingel's words (given to Arwen) about the black riders at the ford, "Where the other four may be, I do not know". Sounds better than.....Where are they? I don't know!.... I think the speech could have been a little more "formal" in places, to match the beautiful scenery and clothes! :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, I don't think that particular line is a good example: It was in the original by Tolkien, and of course Sam is a more earthy character than those like Elrond, Glorfindel, and even Frodo.

[eowyngirl14]

I agree Lizra. I liked the way they did Sam's soliloquy at the end though... very nice. :) :)

[Elf Girl]

I agree with Lizra. I have always loved the formal words of LotR, it annoys me when they make them casual.

[Lizra]

That was in the book! Ha ha, :D :o I don't like it! :)

[Lizra]

Well, in the book he says, "That's the one place in all the lands we've ever heard of that we don't want to see any closer; And that's just where we can't get, nohow."

So thats more formal, I don't concede the point! :)

[eowyngirl14]

I still think Sam's speech at the end was brilliant! (Where they talk about being talked about in stories) I know that it was on the book too...

[LuthienTinuviel]

edit: sorry im a...

i don't know, insert your own word for mentally handicapped and half blind retardate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well, in the book he says, "That's the one place in all the lands we've ever heard of that we don't want to see any closer; And that's just where we can't get, nohow."

So thats more formal, I don't concede the point! :)

"Nohow" is formal? But they should have had more elegant wording, I agree; except of course for the earthier characters like Samwise, and maybe Merry and Pippin. But Tolkien had such a way with words!

[Coney]

Edited: MWA! xx To LT :)

[cassiopeia]

I don't think Sam's line need to be formal, hobbits are rustic and I think thier dialogue should reflect that. Except for Frodo, - who is more learned - his lines should be more formal.
All the elves dialogue should be formal, as well as 'high' humans; like Aragorn, Faramir and Boromir. Although in the book some Aragorn's lines are less formal. But certainly not like "lets go hunt some orc!" :)

[barrelrider110]

I think formal dialogue would not be easy to listen to. It's easier to read. It's part of the adaption process from book to movie, informalizing dialogue. People don't speak that way anymore, and although it would be truer to the book, I think it would be a distraction.

[Lizra]

I understand what you are saying, but I like Middle Earth being "different" than this world. :) Though some might find it a pain to listen to, less use of contractions, and "beautiful" cadence help "take me away" to the wonderful world of ME. Of course the ear picking hobbit doofus didn't help me out much either! :) The scenery and costumes were so wonderful, I just wanted the words to match also. I'd say they got it right about 90% of the time anyway.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Barrel: That wasn't how they talked when Tolkien wrote the books, either. In Letters, he replies to someone who accuses him of writing in archaic style.

[Cirdan]

Another one of the reasons the archaic style is successful in the story is that it is unfettered by changing fashions. How many books and films suffer from anachronistic styles that were part of a short lived trend? Using a classical style gives greater longevity to the work.

[azalea]

I know what Lizra means, it's not really formal vs. rustic (because of Sam's style of speaking, etc.), it's more the fact that modern words and phrases made it into the movie. For instance, I love when Pippin says "that's nase (nice)!!" when Frodo stomps out the fire on Weathertop (in fact I say it sometimes:D ), but that is really I think a "modernism" that made it in. Of course the audience understands what he means, but I don't think Pippin would really say that. I don't think having things said in a classical style makes it sound too stilted, as long as the actor can deliver the line casually enough to make it sound realistic.

[Elvedans]

I think it would be boring if all the characters spoke in the same manner to be honest. I mean, the elves and the men seem more eloquent than the hobbits, which shows the difference between them. Hobbits are rustic beings so you wouldn't expect them to go round speaking kile high elves. But i agree that they could use less modern phrases and ways of speaking, yes.

[sun-star]

I agree with Lizra, the tone of the language is central to the atmosphere of Middle Earth. The script did quite well on this most of the time, IMO (though mostly of course through using lines from the book!), but the occasional exceptions jar horribly. I'm one of the people who still hasn't got over "let's go hunt some orc" as some bizarre Aragorn-turning-into-another-character moment (why would he say that? Under what possible circumstances does that sound like something he might say? :mad: ) but I'm trying to move forward from that :D.

Sam is a different matter - in the book his "rustic peasant" style of speech is made clear. But surely Merry and Pippin aren't supposed to be as (dare I say it?) working-class as Sam?

[Huan]

Certain modernisms are entirely appropriate in the mouths of the hobbits. And only the hobbits. Tolkien intentionally designed them as an anachronism, as modern, or at least Victorian-era, Englishmen somehow dwelling in a world of Beowulf-era men. Aragorn, on the other hand, belongs to neither the Anglo-Saxon world of the Rohirrim, nor the semi-modern of the Shire. He represents an age of Men removed from any time when people spoke carelessly; he's kind of artificially "classical." And most of the movie bears this up, in his dialogue at least. That is why it is so badly inconsistent, within the context of the movie even, that he would spout such an action-movie banality as "Let's go hunt some orc."

[SixFootHobbit]

SORRY- My post got posted twice. Ignore this one.

[SixFootHobbit]

I have a few comments. I am sorry if they are out of place with the current discussion on the use of language in the movie.

I LOVE these movie for a different reason than I love the books. The books are set at a pace that is meant for a good long read. One expects to sit by a fire with a pot of hot chocolate and settle down for an evenings entertainment for at least six or seven evenings running.

Movies are different. There is NO way to convey the true mood of such books in a movie. Come on... Just leaving Hobbington take a long, long time in the book. It is a process of many visits and years.

PJ had to realize that he could not stay faithful to the books and still make enjoyable cinema. That is why we have the phenomina (spelling?) of ALL the hobbits being to young in the first movie. They are NOT 50. He had to press things together and make them work as a movie story. (I believe the silly nature of Merry and Pippin are due to PJ's creative channeling of what they would have been like in the autumn of their tweens, as opposed to being in their fifties.)

Anyway, I loved the movies for being great and fun cinema! They mangaged to combined Star Wars style high adventure/pulp adventure, a higher sense of destiny and purpose, the characters and scenes I love and a down-to-earth feeling of reality. It makes for a fun cinematic experience. Is it Tolkien's work? Not exactly. Not really. Is it wonderful and great? YES.

I think of The Wizard of Oz. It is, in my opinion, a wonderful movie musical. I have always loved it. It is NOT like the book though. It is NOT the Oz of Baum's books. I love his books. I cherish all 14 of them. Still, despite the changes, the worst of which is that Oz is NOT real, but just a dream she had because she bumped her head, it is WONDERFUL.

There is a large part of me that does not desire to see any movie that is an exact re-make of a book. Has there ever been a good John Grisham film? I would rather his books any day. What is the point of watching The Client? It is not nearly as involving as the book, though I did not realize this until after reading the book. I loved the movie, but the book ruined it for me. It is the same reason Steven King movies NEVER work.

I think PJ had to create his own vision of the story, his own sense of how to achieve this vision, to be able to create a film. To create a film that really followed the books you would need to make some sort of BBC fifteen part mini-series for EACH of the three parts. Frankly, I would get bored sitting through all of that. It would drag on and on. Reading it, it doesn't drag, but it would on screen.

PJ understands pacing for movies. He understands how to make an action film that is more than an action film. He is NOT better than Tolkien. Tolkien is a master. In my opinion though, PJ is a potential master movie maker. I think Tolkien would sit and watch the movies in amazement and amusement, enjoying the flow and the arch of the fast pacing, rather than wondering if true justice was done to every decision in his work.

OK, here is the one comment that is my opinion only, but could get me flamed. I actually like Peter Jackson's pacing ferry scene in the first movie better. There was more of a sense of threat with them being chased onto the ferry than in merely seeing the dark rider on the bank from the middle of the crossing.

Overall, the movies were totally emersize for me. I bought into them. I have friends who accuse me of overanalyzing the fun out of any movie, including perenial favorites such as Star Wars 4 and 5, but here I totally bought PJ's vision.

Anyway, this is longer than I intended. It reflets my opinions only. I am not trying to insult anyone or get flamed.

Back to the disscussion on language... I took Pippin and Merrys' use of language to be a slight reflection on their being from a slightly more outlandish stock than proper towns folk of Hobbington. Their language is not rustic like Sam's but is more Celtic. That to me did not represent rustic but represented a slightly different dialect. I did not take them as rustic rubes because of their language.

OK... Back to more learned folk with better spelling.

6 F. H.

P.S. Least you take me for a total fool....

-"Let's go hunt some orc!" (Oh come on, that was not so nearly idiotic and anachronistic as the dynamic duo doing a body count like they were teenagers battling in on in Area 51 in an arcade somewhere in NJ)

(OK, one other thing I could kick PJ's butt about... What the #&@* was with the skate boarding elf cr__?)

[Earniel]

I just went to see the movie again yesterday and I'm happy that I liked it much more than the first time. I also noticed much more details, for example I now saw that Theoden's sword has two horseheads on the hilt. The work they put into prop-details in quite nice.

I got over my initial shock from all the changes they've made. I still think some charcacters are completely rewritten and I still don't think they're very tolkienish but at least I managed to enjoy the movie without getting upset. Seperating book from movie in your mind really seems to work.

I'm still unconvinced at the little scene at the orc pyre. Aragorn finds traces that a hobbit has lain there just next to the pyre! Come on, there has been more than thirty horses and orcs trampling the scene. Then the corpses were dragged and thrown in a heap and burned. Whatever trace there was made by hobbits lying on the ground or running should have been completely destroyed by the heavier orcs and horses. Surely it would have been more realistic if Aragorn had discovered the traces further of the pyre.

The battles are much, much too rushed. I don't like the filming techniques used there. You can hardly see what you are watching. Call me bloodthirsty but I like to see more of the actual fighting, the moves, the blocks, the thrusts, ect....

And the slope where Gandalf and Éomer come down from is much, much too steep IMO but it produces some nice effects. And the music fits that scene brilliantly.

Gollum is very good but sometimes he doesn't seem to touch the ground.

The wargs were impressive but in close-up I couldn't help feeling their eyes were wrong. Can't say why really but they looked rather fake.

Very convenient that the one orc that Legolas can't kill in one shot just happened to be blowing up the Deepingwall.

[Nurvingiel]

Welcome SixFootHobbit! No one should flame you, people hardly ever do that here, and you would have to be rude (which you were not) to actually deserve it! :)

PJ understands pacing for movies. He understands how to make an action film that is more than an action film. He is NOT better than Tolkien. Tolkien is a master. In my opinion though, PJ is a potential master movie maker. I think Tolkien would sit and watch the movies in amazement and amusement, enjoying the flow and the arch of the fast pacing, rather than wondering if true justice was done to every decision in his work.

You made some very good points, I especially like what you said about the FotR Buckleberry Ferry scene as an example. That particular scene had continuity issues (since when could a Hobbit outrun a mounted Nazgul, at night, out in the open?) but I suppose there's some things you can't do very well in a movie. However, subtlety is possible.


I had to do the same thing as you Eärniel, watching the movie was painful until I seperated it from the book.

And the slope where Gandalf and Éomer come down from is much, much too steep IMO but it produces some nice effects. And the music fits that scene brilliantly.

It is possible to ride down a slope this steep, as long as you and your horse are pro-stars. This applies to Gandalf and the Rohirrim, of course.

[azalea]

A response to a couple of things SixFoot Hobbit said:

I have mentioned the idea of a "miniseries" of LotR before. I think that is really the best way that it could be dramatized to completely satisfy Tolkien fans, because then everything could be included without time constraints and without the "pandering" required by the movie company bigwigs. The only area where it would be sorely lacking would be in the effects dept. -- I mean they wouldn't have the budget for the great detail of scenery and costuming that PJ was able to pull off. So it would have it's own problems in that respect and we'd all be complaining about this or that didn't look real, etc.

Also, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed both versions of the Bucklebury Ferry scene, but that I think Tolkien's is exceptional because it is more subtle and chilling, rather than action-packed and suspensful. They both work, but for different reasons. For something to be scary doesn't mean it must be a close call after running from immediate danger, but can be "wow, look at how close we were to danger and didn't know just how close," and made even more chilling because this is left unsaid. (I know you weren't refuting this when you brought it up, your post just got me thinking about it, so I decided to give my thoughts on the comparison:) ).

[SixFootHobbit]

Thanks for the greeting Nurvingiel. You are right of course about a hobbit not being able to outrun a rider. OK, there is also something a little cliche about jumping on a boat leaving a dock to escape danger. Still, I liked the scene.

The comments about sepperating one's self from the books before watching the movies are true. It is not that I don't see some of the problems with the movies people mentioned, as far as distorting Tolkien's vision. I guess I am ALWAYS suspect of any movie that would try to make a true portrayal of a book. I figure it is not really possible anyway. An novelist can give so much background exposition that is just not possible in even the best movie. In some ways, if a movie sticks to close to a book, then I miss the original more than if it distorts the story enough so that I can see it as some sort of Marvel Comics "What If" issue. For me these movies are three hour alternative universe/what if trips.

The recent The Count of Monte Cristo and Brahm's Stockers Dracula are both movies made from classic books that took many liberties with the original text, yet which were very watchable and enjoyable.

Hello to Azalea as well. Your point about the tension in Tolkien's version is well taken. Even if I did not have the same reaction as you, I understand your point of view. It is the difference between a foreboding shadow in a 1940's horror movie and Jason jumping out with a bloody knife in a modern slasher film. Both are entertaining, but one is clever and one is... possibly a bit crass. Unfortunately, I bought the crass approuch in this instant.

The mini-series would only work if it was produced by the BBC, and not a American television company. They do well at the type of pacing it would require. On this side of the pond our mini-series are always more sensationalized. Maybe there is a bit of Americanization to these two movies? OK, I know PJ is Australian, but they used a lot of Hollywood action adventure cliches, even though they used them very well.
Anyway, I am enjoying reading this message board. If nothing else, I have enjoyed having my own perceptions of TT challenged as I read through the reviews of others. Take care.

6 F. H.

[Huan]

Earniel, perhaps the detection of a hobbit's prints among the scene of a pitched battle would be implausible normally, but Aragorn is a Ranger!

[Earniel]

Yes, I thought about that too. But the viewpoint I take in this scene is not questioning Aragorn's skills to find very light tracks but that the tracks didn't exist anymore.The impression of a hobbit lying on the ground or of hobbitfootsteps would be a very light impression on the ground, because it was in the middle of the fray the tracks is very likely to be utterly destroyed by the fights and the activities of the clean-up by the rohirrim. That's why I would have found it more logical if Aragorn had discovered them a few meters away from the pyre where they would have had more chance of not being trampled into oblivion. But next to the pyre.... no, impossible IMO. Even rangers can't see what is not there.

[Elvedans]

What does IMO mean?

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Elvedans
What does IMO mean?

In My Opinion.

There is also IMHO: In My Humble Opinion.


Now regarding Aragorn, I think it may still be possible since he is Aragorn, son of Superman aka Arathorn aka me. :rolleyes:

[Earniel]

Ahum.... sure. :p

I like your signature, Oh bard of mangled songs with the renowned son.

[Elvedans]

Originally posted by Arathorn
In My Opinion.

There is also IMHO: In My Humble Opinion.


Now regarding Aragorn, I think it may still be possible since he is Aragorn, son of Superman aka Arathorn aka me. :rolleyes:

I don't think i'll be writing IMHO much - my opinion is never humble coz I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!

[Bronwyn of Gondor]

First off, I must say that I haven't yet gotten around to reading Towers yet... I'm still only half-way through Fellowship - not because I'm a bad reader or slow or anything, just because I basically have no time to read otherwise. Usually, my reading time is right before I go to bed, and most of the time I fall asleep after one page, usually with the lights still on and the book still in my hands! :)

But anyway, I loved the movie. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time, it was great. I don't know what was changed or left out, so I probably won't be able to give a full review until I've read the book, but anyway, I thought the effects were great, the acting was great, the music was great; all-around great movie. :)

[SonOfSamWise]

I didn’t like Aragorn’s sentiments about Eowyn being placed in the mouth of Wormtongue.

Theoden’s mourning the death of his son and Gandalf’s role as grief counselor was compelling and very well acted. (the best scene of the film)
But, I have found no scene depicting such grief in either text or appendix.
Am I missing it or is this a Boyens-Jackson creation?

The mirthful singing of the treacherous Gollum at the pool of Henneth Annun is contrary his murderous rantings in the book.

Faramir is awfully silent for the loremaster that he is.
Perhaps Jackson will define this stately character more in the Return of the King.

Theoden did indeed “fall under the spells of Saruman, and was healed by Gandalf…” (appendix A)

:)

[Nurvingiel]

Theoden was healed, not excorcised. I think a little too much artistic liscence was taken with that scene IMHO.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Theoden was healed, not excorcised. I think a little too much artistic liscence was taken with that scene IMHO. Imagine the alternative. It would have changed what turned out to be a very dramatic scene into Theoden-Gandalf exposition. PJ made the right choice, regardless of whether or not it was truly Tolkien inspired.

[Nurvingiel]

If it wasn't Tolkien inspired, then was it really the right choice? Drama and suspense are inherant to TTT, nothing needs to be changed to add it. Sometimes change needs to happen for other reasons.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
If it wasn't Tolkien inspired, then was it really the right choice? Drama and suspense are inherant to TTT, nothing needs to be changed to add it. Sometimes change needs to happen for other reasons. Your comment is all well and good--coming from a huge Tolkien fanatic. But what about the casual movie-goer who sees TTT without a clue who King Theoden or Wormtongue are? The nice thing about the exorcism is that it made it clear to the audience that Saruman was controlling the King behind the scenes without a lot of boring (to the general audience anyway) exposition otherwise required to bring everyone up to speed. Whether Tolkien envisioned it the same way is open for debate. But it was an absolutely perfect way to adapt this part of the book to the big screen.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Two questions:

Why do people quote the post right before their's?

And is there anything PJ DIDN'T do just perfectly?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Two questions: Why do people quote the post right before their's?Because by the time you post your reply, it might NOT be the post right before their's anymore. :) Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
And is there anything PJ DIDN'T do just perfectly?Yes, but I am not telling you what it is. :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It most likely will be. Is that really necessary when the last post was an hour ago?

*gasp* There IS? Oh, if only I knew what. :(

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Your comment is all well and good--coming from a huge Tolkien fanatic. But what about the casual movie-goer who sees TTT without a clue who King Theoden or Wormtongue are? The nice thing about the exorcism is that it made it clear to the audience that Saruman was controlling the King behind the scenes without a lot of boring (to the general audience anyway) exposition otherwise required to bring everyone up to speed. Whether Tolkien envisioned it the same way is open for debate. But it was an absolutely perfect way to adapt this part of the book to the big screen.

That's one of the nicest things someone's said to me all day (Tolkien fanatic). :D

I enjoy movies where I hadn't read the book first, A Beautiful Mind, for example. But that's beside the point.

The casual movie goer knows who Theoden, Wormtongue, and Saruman are, because they're featured in other scenes. I wouldn't call this scene "absolutely perfect" because it's not fundementally the same as the book, despite having the surface details.

And when I say "fundementally the same" what I mean is that the movie scene has the same intent, spirit, and subtlety as the book scene.

It was all there, except the subtlety. Why not just have Theoden's head spin around for added drama? Sorry... sarcasm doesn't really become me. But you see what I mean.

Also, your arguments wouldn't lose their validity if you were to say what you didn't find perfect about PJ's movies. In fact, I think it would make it easier to agree with you on other points.

edit: casual movie goer

[-elfearz-]

Originally posted by SonOfSamWise
Theoden did indeed “fall under the spells of Saruman, and was healed by Gandalf…” (appendix A)

:)

i always took that to mean that he'd listened to saruman's lies (through wormtongue) and thus fallen into dotage rather than that he was physically possessed by saruman

[Nurvingiel]

That was my take on it too, elfearz.

[Baby-K]

I enjoyed TTT for it's entertainment value, however some of the deviations from the book were a bit too much IMO.

It would be great if there were two versions of every movie based on a novel - one for the general movie goer who doesn't give a damn about the intricacies of the actual novel and a second version, which stays truer to the original novel. I feel that sometimes scriptwriters just don't get it, which is why they often leave out certain points that to many who have read the books are essential in the description & motivation of a character's actions & thoughts.

I watched a bootleg DVD of TTT this weekend - it was hillarious, 'cos I turned the Chinese subtitles on - whoever did the translations should be shot :D Found it a bit difficult to concentrate on the plot 'cos I was laughing so much & had all these visions of Chinese Orcs doing all kinds of ninja tricks.......:D

[Varda Oiolosseo]

The more i see it the more I love it!
Well i loved it anyway just a lot more now!

I loved it when Legolas went down the stairs on that sheet of metal or something and firing arrows! I was like wow impressive!
It was good when they set out to fight the wargs and Legolas swung round the front of the horse and landed on top!
There is too much Legolas in this film... I'm deffinately NOT complaining...it's just so brilliant I'm annoying people by talking about Legolas non-stop!!

(Did that make sense? basically I love Legolas and it's driving people mad!)

[Nurvingiel]

Give us an example of the Chinese subtitles! :D

The movie itself wasn't actually different, was it?

[Elvellyn]

I loved TTT!
Regardless of how true it was to the book or whether or not the orcs were doing ninja tricks, it didnt detract from the movie itself.

[Ërendil]

Ok, after seeing TTT for the sixth time, I absolutly love the film more than i did to begin with :) Even though the movie has faults, I don't think that they are so major that they ruin the story completly. Yes it is different to the book, but I love them both in different ways.

[Nurvingiel]

Well put Ërendil, that pretty much sums it up for me too.

Discussing the changes is fun, liking some, not liking some, analyzing them all to death, it's great times!

[Elvedans]

I loved the movie to bits, and the only part that made me cringe the tiniest little bit was when Legolas did his Stair Surfing trick. I thought that was a little bit over the top. But apart from that I loved it, regardless of whether it did the book justice or not.

[Blackboar]

I saw it for the 6th time last night and it grows on me every time I see it:D

[Elvedans]

Black boar you make it sound like some kind of fungus growing on you!

[Indril Anarion]

:D Okay, I saw TTT and I loved it. The action, the suspense, the thrill of Helm's Deep, I just can't get enough!

However, despite my enthusiasm, I did not like how the morphed Faramir's character to resemble Boromir's. Faramir was supposed to be the good brother. And what's with Aragorn flirting with Eowyn? He's supposed to be loyal to Arwen, his true love.

I thought Gimli was hilarious, as well as Pippin. I loved the Ents and Gollum. I thought that the conversations (well, more like debates) between Gollum and Sam were funny, especially the one dealing with the 'coons and 'taters. :)

[Gollum] "Whatsss 'taters'?"
[Sam] "You know, PO-TA-TOES!"

lol
:p

Well, I g2g...Later
~Indril~

[eowyngirl14]

yes well.. no one likes Arwen, so why not let Araogrn have Eowyn, the true hero!?

Ya, Faramir was all scewed up- so was Theoden. :) :)

[durin's bane]

Arwen scares me. ;)

[Nurvingiel]

TTT was an awesome movie. You know what I haven't commented on at all!?!?!? The soundtrack! It was so good, I especially loved the violin when the Hunters first enter Rohan. I'm gonna buy this CD instead of downloading the music from the internet. Not that I um... do that.

[Elvedans]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
yes well.. no one likes Arwen, so why not let Araogrn have Eowyn, the true hero!?

Ya, Faramir was all scewed up- so was Theoden. :) :)

No NO! You can't do that to Aragorn! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo.....!

[Miranda]

Originally posted by Elvedans
No NO! You can't do that to Aragorn! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo.....!

Easy my little Grishnakh but I have to agree with you- Arwen and Aragorn are just too good together!! You can't split them up and you can't have Aragorn going with nasty Eowyn- what about poor Faramir then?! Mx

[Nurvingiel]

Movie Arwen is okay. More importantly, she's part of an important and romantic story, created by Tolkien, in which she marries Aragorn. PJ will follow it through. He has to!

And Eowyn's not nasty, she's great!:mad:

[Elvedans]

Me still prefer Arwen to Eowyn!:mad: ;)

[Indril Anarion]

Originally posted by GandalfTheWhite
i totally agree with gerbil, the film was pretty much crap. i mean first of all we have to deal with PJs changes and then the actual filming and effects are messed up too! why didnt they just wait a few years and not rush the realese and make another quality movie like FoTR. i am throughly dissapointed with peter jackson, i thought he was better than this. RoTK should be interesting, and hopefully they will salvage the story.

:mad: Hey! What are you talking about? The movie was GREAT! I maen, sure PJ took a few liberties on the film, but it was still a great movie. The Battle at Helm's Deep was great, it left me goosebumps. Even though I had read the book ad new what was going to happen, the movie made me worry if the characters were going to make it out alive. It was a good movie. And what about Gollum? And the Ents? They were awesome. They almost looked real! Maybe you just need to see the movie again.

~Indril~

[Elvedans]

It was a great movie compared to the rest of the rubbish out there! Whats wrong with a man trying to bring a bit of culture into the sad population out there? Sure, he made a few mistakes and changes but do we really need to keep complaining about this and that and dissecting it to pieces?

I personally thought it was a great achievement.

[Charnaiel]

I finally got to see the Two towers yesterday. the portrayal of Gollum is incredible as was the battle at Helm's Deep and the destruction of Isengard.

I cannot understand why Faramir was portrayed so negatively, it was dichotomous with the book. Theoden's role was also mangled. The exorcism bit was not needed.

The movie jumped about to much shifting from place to place and made the film difficult to follow. Far better if Jackson had followed the book in this regard.

Overall the film was quite good but not as good as TFOTR.

[Fingolfinrox]

THE MOVIE IS GREAT!
Pros: Gollum, he is too cool. You should watch the movie just because of him.
More characterization, I think, then the first movie.
HELMS DEEP! That is easily the best battle scene in movie history! Star Wars, Gladiator, all those, can not compare to that scene!!!!!
Eowyn is cooler than Arwen.
Cons:
Arwen flashbacks. Just one too many.
Faramir was a bit out of it.

[Nurvingiel]

Welcome Charnaiel, nice first post! :)

~~~

In response to GandalfTheWhite, I enjoy picking PJ's movies to pieces, but this is a tribute to PJ's work, not an indication of shoddy workmanship.

I mean, I criticize the movie because they are great, but not perfect. It's impossible for the movies to be as perfect as the book, but it's not a bad movie at all. I wouldn't bother seeing the movies multiple times or posting in the movie forums if it was bad.

True, there were a few unnecessary changes and additions, but the greatest part of the movies were very well done!

Sam is da hobbit! Galadriel ruled! (Just like the books!) Neato special effects! I could go on...

I will Black Breathalizer still posted in this thread, he'd defend PJ much more eloquently than I.

Sometimes I say a certain scene was badly done, but you can't just say it was crap and not illustrate your point.

[SamNotSoWise]

I haven't been allowed to see TTT yet :( , but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all of your comments. See, I have two daughters away at college who will kill me if I see it without them, so I have to wait until they are home on Spring Break (first week in March) and then we're going to see it together.

I'm not worried about the spoilers since I've read the books about 15 times, so I know the story quite well.

I'll be sure to post my thoughts in March.

Oh, and my great kids got me the video of FOTR for Christmas. I've only watched it twice so far. My wife just humors me. ;)

[Entlover]

Your kids must appreciate such forbearance, SamNotSoWise; if it were me I would watch it alone and then with them. But then again you still have it to look forward to seeing in March.

I think it's a movie you have to see more than once to appreciate, even more than FotR.

I suspect that having read the book a lot won't matter, since the plot seems to have changed quite a bit. I'll be interested in seeing your reaction in March.

[viggosbeard]

i agree with entlover - I found it strange the first time i saw it - dont get me wrong i did enjoy it , but it was hard at times with the changes and i have to say not as enjoyable as the wonderful fotr - but then again thats probably the best thing ive ever seen - now that ive seen it a few times i appreciate it a lot more and find it much more enjoyable.

[Aralyn]

Arrgh what are the big grey blamked out spaces and how do I see them??!!

[Cirdan]

spoiler text use the mouse to highlight to read

[Aralyn]

thanx and excuse the blonde moment

[Aralyn]

Amen Gerbil!! (see first post)

I ecspecially hated the way Faramir was messed up and second (I'm sorry but spoiler text doesnt work on mine so if you havent seen it to bad)

I LOVE HALDIR HES MY FAVORITE ELF AND PETER JACKSON PERSONALLY MURDERED HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARGHHHHH NO FAIR AHHHHHH HE WASNT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

*coughs* ahem i am now done:rolleyes:

[Aralyn]

oh and one more thing I swear if Peter jackson messes up Eowyn's big scene even a tiny bit or messes up thier love story a smidge I will personally write to him and complain and you will all hear me yell!

[Nurvingiel]

I love the Two Towers, book and movie!

:) :D :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Aralyn
oh and one more thing I swear if Peter jackson messes up Eowyn's big scene even a tiny bit or messes up thier love story a smidge I will personally write to him and complain and you will all hear me yell! I seriously doubt that you need to worry. The only times that Jackson has deviated from the books is for clear cinematic reasons. Eowyn's scene in ROTK is tailor-made for Jackson's talents. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. :)

[Varda Oiolosseo]

I know I can't believe Haldir got killed I was sooooooooo upset!
I cheered when i first saw him there and then he got killed i couldn't believe it!
I know the elves weren't meant to be there but i think it worked! except Haldir dying! :(

I didn't like the way Faramir came accross as being a bit nasty. I mean i liked him but you saw of his angry nasty side than his good side. I love him in the book but he wasn't quite the same!

I loved the film on the whole though it was great! :D :D

[SamNotSoWise]

Well, my girls and I finally saw TTT last night, and let me just say, "Wow!"

Rating it as a movie, for its acting, action, story, keeping my interest, etc., it's at WORST a 9 out of 10 (that means I loved it).

Rating it as a Tolkien fan, (1) I could have done with a lot less of Arwen, (2) they totally ruined Faramir, (3) Aragorn's near-death scene was unnecessary, (4) I loved the Ents, but (5) they weren't as isolationist as PJ made them out to be, (6) the exorcism was off-base--to put it mildly, (7) I loved Gollum/Smeagol and his debates with himself, and (8) the battle scenes were great, but I missed the Huorns. That's what comes off the top of my head anyway. Not much different from others reactions, I don't think.

Now, when can I convince my wife to let me see it again? :)

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Movie Arwen is okay. More importantly, she's part of an important and romantic story, created by Tolkien, in which she marries Aragorn. PJ will follow it through. He has to!

And Eowyn's not nasty, she's great!:mad:

Agreed. Arwen and Aragorn deserve each other - neither appears to have a sense of humor. Eowyn deserves better - not necessarity Faramir, unless he improves significantly.
There's always hope.

[Silverleaf]

~Lets see..Well I hated that Faramir was protrade so mean. I didn't really like Eowyn. I loved Helms Deep and the Ents all amazing!Gandalf acted like he was better than others. Pippin and Merry were still great:) Frodo wimpyer(like hes suppose to be) Sam still loyal(wish they would have kept the part about the rope the same) Smeagol(sorry if its misspelled)/ Gollum was also great...Legolas and Gimlis friendship got stronger:D and Aragorn got more of a kingly air to him.But haldir dieing BAD!!!!!!!!! very BAD!!!! elves at helms deep good

~Over all movie GREAT:D thats all i have to say
Namárië

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting. I loved Eowyn! I thought she was so cool! Even though I wouldn't have let Grima touch me, but whatever. Eowyn rawks.

But, why didn't you like her?

[Linaewen]

I think Eowyn was great
I was furious about Faramir and the Ents, however
But i did like Haldir's death
Isn't it funny how they manage to kill a character who didn't even appear in TTT and also make this other character who didn't appear a protagonist?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Isn't it funny how they manage to kill a character who didn't even appear in TTT and also make this other character who didn't appear a protagonist? Are you referring to Arwen in that second part?

[Linaewen]

Yup
I'm quite sure i didn't find her name once in TTT the book
I think

[Silverleaf]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Interesting. I loved Eowyn! I thought she was so cool! Even though I wouldn't have let Grima touch me, but whatever. Eowyn rawks.

But, why didn't you like her?

I like her rolland all, power to girls, but I'm really not sure why I don't like her..I just don't...hmm...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Your comment is all well and good--coming from a huge Tolkien fanatic. But what about the casual movie-goer who sees TTT without a clue who King Theoden or Wormtongue are? The nice thing about the exorcism is that it made it clear to the audience that Saruman was controlling the King behind the scenes without a lot of boring (to the general audience anyway) exposition otherwise required to bring everyone up to speed. Whether Tolkien envisioned it the same way is open for debate. But it was an absolutely perfect way to adapt this part of the book to the big screen.
In other words - dumbing down the movie, which was why I also hated FotR. Jackson could have made an intelligent movie instead of the action moves he's turned Lord of the Rings into. He produced a movie that really doesn't have much depth to it. It';s just the standard Hollywood block buster with huge special effects.
Jackson made changes which DID NOT have to be made and NOT everything had to be laid out and explained through elaberate action scenes.

[Nurvingiel]

Boo-yah Tolkien fanatics! I have been so dubbed by BB as well (acurately.) :)

I wouldn't say that FotR and TTT were dumbed down, but rather, simplified. True, you could interpret this the same way, but simplified has different connotations, and I don't think either movies were dumb by a long shot.

There were some changes that I felt were unnecessary. I would have portrayed some things differently to be more true to what I feel to be the spirit of the book. But that's my own subjective view, Jackson did the best darn job he could.

Even so, I think subtlety does translate to the big screen perfectly well.

[Linaewen]

Jackson made changes which DID NOT have to be made and NOT everything had to be laid out and explained through elaberate action scenes.

That's so true! Especially the Osgiliath bit. Oh, and the Aragorn-fights-warg-falls-off-cliff-apparently-dies-doesn't-really-gets-licked-awake-by-horse bit. What the?
I just don't get that bit. What was the point?

[aragorn_is_mine]

Get ready for a spoiler (not really a big one though) I thought the special efects were amzimg, in the Ents Last March, i thought they looked like they belonged there. Golloum was very real too. When the Wargs attaked teh group by Rohan, they looked very scary and frightening. I have to log off now, so bye bye Peace out

[Nurvingiel]

Gollum and the Ents were really awesome!

The Wargs weren't too scary, but I was nervous some of the refugees were going to get mauled. That would have been horrible! In that sense, they were very scary. (I was going to write "IMO", but everything I write is "IMO"! :p )

[Elvedans]

Gollum/Andy Serkis was amazing!!!!!

[Varda Oiolosseo]

Yeah Andy Sirkis is Brilliant! He was great! :D :D :D

[Linaewen]

I agree. Andy Serkins (is that it?) was great. As were all of the special effects. The only the thing i hate were the changes. That's it. Mostly because TTT is my fave book of them all.

[Melko Belcha]

Where to begin? If you don't compare to the book then I can say it was one of the most visual stunning movies ever made. I never expected the movie to follow the book 100% but i figured that the changes that would have been made would have been based around the material that had to be cut, not a total rewritting of the story and characters. Fellowship did pretty well, only a few changes were utterly worthless, it worked around parts to keep the story going, but TT was unforgiveable. Example, the Warg scene, PJ wanted to add a action scence (understandable), and he wanted to show the Wargs (come on, who wouldn't?), my complaint is the location. Why did he not have the battle take place at Helm's Dike? He could have used a location from the book, and then write the Warg scene into it. Someone please tell me who Frodo and Sam are suppost to cross Anduin after they leave Osgiliath? Did they cross the bridge even though the East side was in the hands of the enemy? Or did they go all the way back upstream to where Gondor has hidden boats? It makes no sense to make them go from the east side of the river to the west and then back to the east side in a land where a war is brewing. I could go on and on about this but I'll stop for now.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Mae govannen, and welcome to the Entmoot!

[Nurvingiel]

Yes, welcome. But what is "mae govannen" Gwaimir?

The location of the Warg battle is okay, because there were many refugees at Helm's Deep. It's just that that particular battle didn't exist in the book in any way, shape, or form. At least some of the "new" plots were in the appendicies, or mentioned in the book in passing.

[cassiopeia]

Mae govannen means 'well met'. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, 'tis said by Glorfindel to Aragorn, if memory serves.

Ai, na vedui Dunadan! Mae govannen!

[Fanëar]

wow...I cant believe all the bad reviews out there! :) Well I really loved the movie. I thought it was better then FoTR. FoTR's just left everone hanging. I think TTT had a better ending and I thought it was just better in general. FoTR was just too depressing and unfulfilling throughout the whole thing, even though I love FoTR too. ( I watched it 6 times in one weekend :)) Mabey because I wasn't able to read the TTT book and compare, but I think PJ did a good job on everything and I LOVED Gollum and the Ents.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There are very few folk who think that they were bad as movies (I know that I am not among them). However, a lot of folk feel that Peter Jackson did not capture the spirit of Tolkien's great works, and thought they were disappointing as adaptations (I know that I am among them).

[Fanëar]

ohhhhh I see...I guess I'll find out when I read the books

[#1AragornLover]

I am reading the books now! They are SOOOO much better than the movies. They have a lot more in them like Tom Bombadil! I can't BELIEVE they left HIM out! Makes me so mad!

[Elvedans]

You know much as i love the books, i still cant seem to warm much to Bombadil. Oh well, im sure i will one day!

[forest_flower]

Yes, some people laughed at Gollum's inner debate in my theater, too. After all, some of it (I believe) was played for deliberate laughs. However, the audience I was a part of stopped laughing quickly when Gollum's words got darker and more murderous.

people were hysterical in my theater, we couldn't stop laughing :D :D :D

[Elvedans]

I couldn't laugh at gollum, he made me feel more like reaching out and giving him a great big hug.:(

[eowyngirl14]

*whispers* guys? i saw TTT for the 5th time yesterday, and i hate to admit it, but I was a litle bored at some parts. like the ents and faramir. any one else ever feel the same? i feel as if the best part of the movie was when the old lady in front of us fell asleep and started to snore, or when this one guy started saying 'who the hell is she?' at the end when Gollum is talking!

[Fanëar]

Originally posted by Elvedans
I couldn't laugh at gollum, he made me feel more like reaching out and giving him a great big hug.:(
i agree. it was so sad! and also to the person who thought TTT was boring i disagree. I thought it was alot better then the first one. The 1st one was just sad throughout the whole thing even though I did really like it. Did you like the 1st one?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I definitely preferred the Fellowship of the Ring movie.

[Nurvingiel]

It's okay eowyngirl14. Even the greatest movies can have boring bits if you've seen them loads of times. I've only seen TTT twice, but once I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the tenth time, I was bored at parts too.

This makes sense, because every second of a movie can't be packed with the type of action that you can watch over and over without getting bored. If they were, they'd be boring because they were all one type.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
There are very few folk who think that they were bad as movies (I know that I am not among them). However, a lot of folk feel that Peter Jackson did not capture the spirit of Tolkien's great works, and thought they were disappointing as adaptations (I know that I am among them).
Yeah I know. It's just laughable that Jackson would even be nominated for Best Adaptation. :rolleyes:

#1AragornLover - Really glad you're reading the books. They're a thousand times better than Jackson's movies.

[Lizra]

I'm pretty sure I prefer FoTR. I prefer the book too!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Amen to that! :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I definitely preferred the Fellowship of the Ring movie.
Didn't like FotR - Jackson screwed with the characterization too much. Also - completely butchered Flight to the Ford. That is unforgiveable.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I definitely agree with those. But as a movie, and not an adaptation, I liked it. As an adaptation, it sucked. :)

[Lalaith]

But as a movie, and not an adaptation, I liked it. As an adaptation, it sucked.
I have to agree in this one, although I liked TTT better.
BTW, I think, that there would be no director out there, who could make it better. There would always be something missing or too much.

[TheRingIsMine]

actually i think the movies were quite good for an adaption. most adaptions are really bad. (the Odyssey) Its really hard to make an adaption a good movie and stay faithful to the book.

[Lalaith]

I have seen worse adaptions, really.

[Nurvingiel]

I thought it was a good adaptation. Actually it was great! Though not perfect.

[Elvengirl]

I read a review on the movies that basically said Pj did not duplicate the books but he did create Middle Earth. I agree. The movies were great, but when comparing them to the books, I was majorly disappointed. On the other hand I was greatly impressed with the places and people. Most of the actors were perfect and I felt like I was seeing Middle Earth.

[Fanëar]

i thought it was a good movie in general (both)

[Pippin's_mushrooms]

i'm sorry but i don't agree with gerbil.I think the movie's very good except for Faramir and a few other things. :) :D

[Pippin's_mushrooms]

I think TTT is better then FotR, but that's my opinion. Anyway the movie's really good even though it isn't perfect. (i'm not trying to be mean.) :):):)

[Lalaith]

Yeah the persons and the places were really good.

[Fanëar]

i totally agree with you stephanie

[Catgirl]

I think that TTT was definetly better than FOTR. FOTR was a little too slow, but TTT did have some problems. They could have left out some scens like Arwen's part, and they should have had Shelob's part in. Well, I have TTT on DVD so I am going to watch it again tonight! For the 10th time:D

[Nurvingiel]

Here's a great Two Towers scene:

Where Eomer and his men first meet the Three Hunters. It was only missing one thing, and had many subtleties from the book bang on!

What they were missing:

The reason Gimli and Eomer squared off was because Eomer burned Galadriel, and Gimli was sticking up for her.

What they had:

Good lines, they were almost verbatum from the book.
Book: Gimli to Eomer, "Give me your name, Horsemaster, and I shall give you mine, and more besides."
Movie: Gimli to Eomer, "Give me your name, Horsemaster, and I shall give you mine."
(I read that part of the book last night, and am doing this from memory now. Apologies for any slip-ups, but you get the picture.)

Characterization: Legolas backs up Gimli, and says pretty much the same thing.

Aragorn is diplomatic, noble and kingly. One small difference is that in the book, he throws back his cloak and introduces the Sword That Was Broken, now forged again. But the spirit was there, Aragorn was portrayed as a real leader, and he seemed more calm and royal than the other characters involved. This comparison was also made in the book, when Aragorn seemed taller than Eomer (who is tall.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

How do you know? :confused:

[Lizra]

I don't know, I feel like I've lost momentum with TTT. I really think they should push the release dates up more. (Dvd release of TTT and theater release of RoTK) After the intial excitement of FoTR, I'm not sure if people will be willing to keep their excitement alive till next December! I remember when reading the books.....the urgency! Gobbling up the words as quickly as possible, to find out what happens. This three year wait process is "unnatural"! :eek:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The DVD for TTT is pushed up to June something, I think.

[Starr Polish]

If they pushed up the dates for the extended TTT DVD and ROTK, the quality of the films special effects would suffer greatly. :(

[Lizra]

They better make their move quickly! I think the Battle of Helm's Deep put a lot of folk to sleep! :D

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
If they pushed up the dates for the extended TTT DVD and ROTK, the quality of the films special effects would suffer greatly. :(

Why? :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Because they don't have as much time to work on it, so it'll be more rushed.

I somehow doubt it put a lot of people to sleep. ;)

[Lizra]

Hmmppt! Put me to sleep! :D (sort of) Geez, you'd think they'd have all this stuff done by now! I thought it was in the can! I hope they don't "over-tinker" it! ;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If you mean cut too much, then I fear it is too late. :(

[Lizra]

Well that, and just try to do too much. Second guessing, I suppose. Things that are changed a year or two down the line might have an "altered" feel to them. I'd rather see the original interpretation, even if it isn't perfect, or follows the book perfectly. I'm game! Sometimes the more you mess with something, the worse it gets! (Course I could be wrong! ) :) It's hard to sustain excitement over these movies for three years.!!

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Lizra
[ It's hard to sustain excitement over these movies for three years.!! [/B]

I dunno, I'm not having any trouble. It gives me something to look forward to. I'm looking forward to seeing FotR followed by TT as soon as the second DVD comes out; I anticipate a whole new perspective.
If you get really bored, you can always read the excerpt from my book which is on my website (see below.)

[Lizra]

Well! I thought I could reread Tolkien again, but your book....Even better! :D Cool! :cool:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

B...b...better??? You INFIDEL!!! It's very good, well-written, but BETTER than TOLKIEN???

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!

[Lizra]

What's with the large la la's? You've been to the fan girl thread once too often! ;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Actually, I picked it up when Aeryn was trying to protect her ears from the exploits of a certain female. ;)

[Lizra]

You picked it up....now, put it down! Or at least shrink it! :eek: :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Is Lizzy going dirty again....:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Lizra]

I think I'll save my "dirt" for the older ones! :D The moot youth seems to get a little hyper over it. :eek: Sorry , no dirt for you! :p

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes! Keep your dirt with your dirty crowds! :p

[Cirdan]

Did someone order a dirty old man?:D

[Lizra]

Ha! I guess I did....:eek: You got me! :D

[Cirdan]

Good. I'd like to reccommend a number seven. That includes the massage oil, scented candles, cognac, and the trapeeze.;)

[Lizra]

Ooh! Let's start with a footbath! Where's my snood! :eek:

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Entlover
I dunno, I'm not having any trouble. It gives me something to look forward to. I'm looking forward to seeing FotR followed by TT as soon as the second DVD comes out; I anticipate a whole new perspective.
If you get really bored, you can always read the excerpt from my book which is on my website (see below.)

Entlover's stories are very entertaining! You all should check them out! :)

[Entlover]

Thanks for the kind words.
Writing stories keep me from going nuts waiting for RotK.

Anybody know when the DVD of TT will be out?

[Lizra]

I really liked your stories! I am a type who does not care for fiction, I'm lucky to have read Tolkien! Your stories were very "readable". I think it works well to get to some "plot" right at the start, and save the descriptions for later, when the reader is already "hooked". I did not have to force myself to keep reading! I'm so glad you enjoy writing, and you seem to have a "gift"! :) I really got a kick from the story of how you and your husband met also! I've been meaning to PM Rian to make sure she reads that! I'll be back to read the stories I didn't have time to get to. Thanks for the fiction treat! :)

[Lalaith]

Anybody know when the DVD of TT will be out?
I guess the normal edition in August and the extended version in November like FotR. I thought I read that somewhere.

[gandalfstormcrow]

Well, I heard the DVD for TTT will be out in June in Britain. Hopefully, that goes for North America too. I'm unsure whether or not it's the extended one. I doubt it. The extended one will probably be released in November, would make sense since FOTR was.

I can't wait for the extended DVD because there's more stuff cut from TTT than FOTR!

[Jill Tsuei]

I keep seeing people trying to team up Aragorn and Eowyn and thinking Eowyn a better match than Arwen, but why? Isn't it in the book that Eowyn loves Aragorn for the wrong reason? She sees Aragorn the king--the glory and valor, exactly what she's missing and longs for in her life--but not Aragorn the person, whereas Arwen has been there all along, not just in times when Aragorn is heroically leading an army into war but in times when Aragorn was still struggling with self-doubt and roaming; her love for Aragorn remains true and strong!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think Aragorn ever actually was into self-doubt was he? Wasn't that just one of the numberless fabrications of Jackson?

Other than that, I agree with you whole-heartedly. :) And Welcome to the Entmoot. :D If you want, you can head over to the Welcome thread in General Messages and introduce yourself to the Moot officially there. :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I don't think Aragorn ever actually was into self-doubt was he? Wasn't that just one of the numberless fabrications of Jackson?

Yes it was completely a Jacksonification and had absolutely no resemblence to what was in the books.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The halfwit strikes again. :cool:

-is feeling exceptionally halfwittish tonight-:D

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yes it was completely a Jacksonification and had absolutely no resemblence to what was in the books.

Arghhhh! I'm starting to get mad about these Jacksonifications again! All brought about by the LotR-obsession thread. (We were directed to go back here to continue our bagging of TTT)

The things that probably irritate me the most are that:
-People see the movie, so they think that is all, there's nothing more to LotR since the movie encompassed it all (WRONG WRONG WRONG!)
-Said people may think the movie is good but the books are boring (Hello? When is the original ever worse?)
- Non-readers think that is how Faramir (one of my fave characters) really is.

[Lalaith]

I didn't see Aragorn liking Eowyn in the movie. I mean not more than a friend.
And don't blame PJ for all the mistakes etc. I think the production studio had something to say, too. And they wanted a blockbuster and not an exact adaption. I mean PJ is a Tolkien fan, why would he want to destroy the movie?

[Cirdan]

So I guess Eowyn, Aragorn, and Arwen having an "open" relationship is out of the question, eh?:eek:

[azalea]

I think Aragorn had doubts and frustrations in the book, just not self doubts, as in "I dont want to be king, etc."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Arghhhh! I'm starting to get mad about these Jacksonifications again! All brought about by the LotR-obsession thread. (We were directed to go back here to continue our bagging of TTT)

Yeah - but that doesn't mean we can't come here and complain about the movie. This is the movie thread and not all of us liked it.

[azalea]

I don't know if you saw it, but she's referring to a thread in the books forum where I told everyone they had to come to this thread if they wanted to either complain about the movie or defend it, rather than use the thread in the books forum, which must be kept pristine and movie-free.:)

edit: changed to singular (TTT), since complaints about TFotR must be in the Opinion Thread. For complaints in general, there's one of those that Black Breathalizer started, if they haven't all been closed! ;)

Oh, okay, general complaints/ arguing can be done in this one, but just be reasonable!:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
I don't know if you saw it, but she's referring to a thread in the books forum where I told everyone they had to come to this thread if they wanted to either complain about the movie or defend it, rather than use the thread in the books forum, which must be kept pristine and movie-free.:)

I think I did last night. And yes - the Tolkien book forum should be kept clean of Jacksonification and movie discussion. :D

Oh, okay, general complaints/ arguing can be done in this one, but just be reasonable!:)
I thought I was being reasonable. :) Also - I started this thread - shouldn't I be able to complain in my OWN thread. :D Not to mention that I titled it - What people think of Two Towers

[azalea]

Yes, the reasonable part was addressed to the forum at large, not you.:) I was just kidding, in that technically "what people thought of TTT" is different than "book vs. movie," which is what was happening in the other thread, BUT this will have to do because the thread or two that were started as a "book vs. movie" discussion ended up getting closed due to lack of reasonableness.:rolleyes: :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lalaith
I mean PJ is a Tolkien fan, why would he want to destroy the movie?

A word of advice, Lalaith; don't believe everything someone says. :) Especially if they are a celebrity or other well-known individual. I even have doubts about Chris Lee. :eek:

[Elvengirl]

Well, I have heard Christopher Lee say he approves of some of the changes Jackson made. Though I don't doubt that he or Jackson is a fan. I think Jackson wanted to put his own thoughts into the movie to show he is a creative and capable director, rather than not have any part and just follow the books.

Though I wish he had.:mad:

[cassiopeia]

I was thinking about Christopher Lee when I was watching the DVD. They emphasise how many years he's read the book, and how much he knows about it; surely he could tell them the changes aren't good! :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
A word of advice, Lalaith; don't believe everything someone says. :) Especially if they are a celebrity or other well-known individual. I even have doubts about Chris Lee. :eek:
Very true - especially since on the DVD Jackson states that he just wanted to make a fantasy movie and thought "Hey - why not just make Lord of the Rings"

I have serious questions as to how much of a fan Jackson is. Personally I think he knew it was almost a sure hit - even if he only did it half right - so that's why he picked it. I don't really think him making the movie had anything to do with being a fan. He knew to get the real fans excited about the movie though - he had to come off as a true fan.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I was thinking about Christopher Lee when I was watching the DVD. They emphasise how many years he's read the book, and how much he knows about it; surely he could tell them the changes aren't good!

Yeah; and didn't the man mispronounce Khazad-dum? It sounded to me like he ran the "kh" into a single "Bach" style sound, while I believe according to the book, in Khuzdul "kh" is pronounced as two separate sounds "k-h".

Ditto, JD. I don't think PJ is concerned so much with the Lord of the Rings as he claims; I mean, if he were such a dedicated fan, why is he more concerned with making a movie to appeal to the masses than preserving the original story and characters of Tolkien; and why does he change the characters around, when Tolkien explicitly said he would detest that more than ruination of the plot; and why does he make the Orcs look nothing like Tolkien said they did? :confused:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Personally I think he knew it was almost a sure hit - even if he only did it half right - so that's why he picked it.

I dunno JD. Prior to PJ's adaption, Stanley Kubrick said it would be impossible to film, and this was pretty much the prevailing feeling at that time. I may not like the movies, but I can appreciate that this wasn't an easy movie to make, or that it would necessarily have been an easy hit. Remember: people have tried and failed, prior to Jackson. That he's had this degree of success is some credit to him, even if they're not particularly to our taste.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I dunno JD. Prior to PJ's adaption, Stanley Kubrick said it would be impossible to film, and this was pretty much the prevailing feeling at that time. I may not like the movies, but I can appreciate that this wasn't an easy movie to make, or that it would necessarily have been an easy hit. Remember: people have tried and failed, prior to Jackson. That he's had this degree of success is some credit to him, even if they're not particularly to our taste.
Only one person that I know of actually attmpted and he didn't have the money. I think it could still be done and actually do justice to the books. I just don't think Jackson was that person.

[Lalaith]

I still like the movie and can't blame PJ for everything. The movie is good, but rather as a good fantasy movie than a good adaptation.
But PJ still can spoil my thoughts with a bad version of RotK.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Only one person that I know of actually attmpted and he didn't have the money. I think it could still be done and actually do justice to the books. I just don't think Jackson was that person.

Neither do I. I was just making the point that it wasn't as easy, nor as assured a success as you were making it out to be.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Only one person that I know of actually attmpted and he didn't have the money. I think it could still be done and actually do justice to the books. I just don't think Jackson was that person. Saying Peter Jackson hasn't done justice to Tolkien is as ridiculous as saying the Earth is flat. Jackson has not only honored Tolkien's vision, he's made two films thus far that have been both critically and commercially successful beyond anyone's wildest imaginings. Let's get real here, please.

[BeardofPants]

He has certainly NOT honoured Tolkien's vision!

[Christiana]

Bop, you dont like the movie period. Does anyone know when its coming out on DvD?

[Cirdan]

"Jackson made a good movie"

"Jackson did not capture Tolkien's vision"


These two statements are independent of one another, not opposites. I'm tired of the thought fascism that assumes any critique of the work is a statement of total rebuke of the work.

[Black Breathalizer]

If I understand you correctly, Cirdan, statements by your buddies that Peter Jackson has utterly failed to capture Tolkien's vision on film should not be interpreted by me and others as a TOTAL rebuke of the filmmaker.

Oooookay. Gee, thanks for clearing this one up for me. :)

[Melko Belcha]

PJ did not capture Tolkien's vision on film, Tolkien's vision is written the book. All the stuff Tolkien was against someone doing to his work (changing characters, assignement of speeches, and action over character development) PJ found a way to do. PJ did all the stuff Tolkien would have taken as being disrespectful to his work. If PJ truley respected Tolkien he would have gone by his wishes and never made a movie. PJ saw a money maker for him and went for it, he did not care for all the fans who had been reading and studying the book for years. PJ should have listened to Stanley Kubrick, that was a director that knew what he was talking about.

[azalea]

Well, you see, I am just easier to please, I guess. I am happy they were made, after years of pining for a live-action movie of LotR. Sometimes a work becomes bigger than it's maker, and although I regret that Tolkien did not want a movie made of the book, I melted with joy at seeing Hobbiton as Gandalf and Frodo rounded the bend, and seeing Gandalf knock with his staff on the door of Bag-End (how dare he!;) ), and to see Strider sitting in the corner of The Prancing Pony; I could go on. I have a vivid imagination, so it isn't as if I had a problem visualizing these myself, and I still do, but as a movie-lover and former amateur actress, I felt it was a crime NOT to dramatize it, when such a beautiful and engaging story just screamed out to be dramatized.

[Cirdan]

PJ did a very good job capturing those parts of Tolkien's vision he chose to portray. I felt he caved-in to perceived pressure for mainstream themes and commercial success.

Since the films are wildly sucessful, it is easy to think more risks could be taken. The otherwise brilliant idea of filming all three films concurrently had the drawback of not allowing feedback from the first film to be used in the scripting of the second. Most fan were more receptive to the inclusion of scenes of lesser action and more of the magic elements. That Legolas has legions of fangirls without having a romantic theme expounded for him shows that the enhancement of the Arwen story at the expense of the more "Tolkienish" aspects of the story were not neccessary for that particular viewing demographic.

I gave the films a 9 out of 10, but the missing ten percent hurts the Tolkienite in me because some aspects and scene were done to such perfection that the intentional mangling and neglect of some of the story seem arbitrary (change for change's sake). The forced inclusion of the comic foil and the love interest are like adding arms to the Venus De Milo due to fears it would look out of place without them. Tolkien's work was unconventional in some of these ways and those are some of the things that make it unique.

TTT suffered most from being the middle episode. RotK will have a proper ending for a film being the last. I just hope there isn't a half hour of wedding footage.

[azalea]

Very good post, Cirdan! I agree with you.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by azalea
Very good post, Cirdan! I agree with you.

Thanks az.:) It's taken me time to decide what I really think.;)

[olsonm]

Good post Cirdan, except that the romance *is* Tolkienish. He called it an essential part of the story and its themes. PJ was influenced by this (and his belief that it was a good story) far more than any comercial considerations.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by olsonm
Good post Cirdan, except that the romance *is* Tolkienish. He called it an essential part of the story and its themes. PJ was influenced by this (and his belief that it was a good story) far more than any comercial considerations.

Thanks. I think your right about Tolkien and romance (check the tombstones with "Beren" and "Luthien" etched in stone). He did, however, determine at some point (maybe in the editing) that the Arwen/ Aragorn story was better as a byline than a central storyline. I think that the appendix material may have been intended for the main story at some point.

It seems more of a distraction in the flow of the movie for me. The moments in FotR were beautifully done, but the TTT insertion sermed a non-sequitur, IMO. I know it was to maintain the enhanced storyline through TTT but I think it is difficult to care much about it without spending even more time on it. The cliff business just seemed hastily thought out.

RotK will provide a better backdrop for the A/A story than TTT so I look for it to be less of an anomaly in the final installment.

[olsonm]

I found the cliff sequence (and all that followed) to be a wonderful moment of filmic exposition which also allowed for some visual characterization. My favorite scenes. But to each his own. :)

Tolkien didn't include the A/A storyline because he didn't invent Arwen until he first wrote "The Steward and the King" chapter. Aragorn was a hobbit named Trotter until Moria. Hardly a suitable romantic interest for an elf. :D In fact the entire Numenorean history (and Aragorn's part in it) was written concurrently with the writing of LOTR. By the time he developed the A/A storyline he was stuck with the hobbito-centric veiwpoint that was only there because LOTR was supposed to be a sequel to the Hobbit. The only way he could include it would be to rewrite a large part of the book. Considering he had already spent more than a decade on the book and was almost done, I don't blame him for putting it in the appendix. :D

[Cirdan]

Interesting bit on the chronology. I haven't finished "Letters" or any of the other bio books, so I haven't come across that info yet.

The story does seem like an afterthought upon reflection. I guess a king w/o a queen wouldn't make the perfect kingdom (shades of Shrek). I do think the "Scouring of the Shire" was more important to "Tolkien's vision" than the A/A story. The fall wouldn't have been so bad if the "return from the dead" bit hadn't been done by Gandalf earlier in the movie. Going to the well once too often, i think.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I do not think that bit about the Numenorean story is accurate. I believe it was around before the Lord of the Rings. And also, I do not believe the part about Hobbits. Tolkien many, many times in his Letters stated that he loved Hobbits, and would have liked to have put more of them into the story, but that he felt it would damage the tale.

[Melko Belcha]

Tolkien had written 2 versions of The Fall of Numenor before he even started LotR.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I do think the "Scouring of the Shire" was more important to "Tolkien's vision" than the A/A story.OMIGOD, I actually agree with something Cirdan has posted!!! :eek:

However, I would add that while the Scouring was part of Tolkien's vision for the story, it is understandable why it won't be included. It would be great for a miniseries -- or even an extended DVD of ROTK (hint, hint to PJ). But it would be anticlimatic in the theatrical release.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
However, I would add that while the Scouring was part of Tolkien's vision for the story, it is understandable why it won't be included.
How can you say he captured Tolkien's vision when he left out what even you agree was an essential part of it?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It would be great for a miniseries -- or even an extended DVD of ROTK (hint, hint to PJ).
I believe it was never filmed.

[olsonm]

Tolkien wrote two very rough versions of the Fall of Numenor just prior to starting LOTR but didn't create a more fully realised version until after beginning LOTR.



The Scouring of the Shire would be extremely difficult to fit into a film adaption. Tolkien knew that. The Scouring is neccesary in the book, but not in an adaption. PJ has selected Frodo's quest to destroy the Ring as the main point of the movie, and all other plot points are at his editorial discretion. He is more interested in the A/A story than the Scouring. There's nothing wrong with that. T.A. Shippey, a noted Tolkien scholar who met Tolkien and occupied the same position at Oxford, has said that Tolkien might have approved of the inclusion of the A/A storyline. Whether you like how he protrayed it or not, the fact that he tried is not un-Tolkien/LOTR.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
OMIGOD, I actually agree with something Cirdan has posted!!! :eek:

However, I would add that while the Scouring was part of Tolkien's vision for the story, it is understandable why it won't be included. It would be great for a miniseries -- or even an extended DVD of ROTK (hint, hint to PJ). But it would be anticlimatic in the theatrical release.

OMG! BB actually read one of my posts!:p:D

The idea that the scouring would be (too?) challenging to film is debatable, but not by anybody here. I can imagine it being done w/o too much trouble, but I'm not a professional film-maker. I do know that in the written form it makes a great work extraordinary. I think the encapsulation of beginning and returning to the Shire will be done in some form but Frodo's pacifist/christian-forgiveness theme will probably be left behind. Again, some of Tolkien's vision is being left behind for various reasons.

[Lalaith]

I don't think that the Scouring of the Shire is an essential part for the movie. It is very important, indeed, for the books, because all readers love the hobbits and know how much they love their home and all that. But in the movie there is not that connection between the hobbits and the viewers and so, IMO, the Scouring of the Shire wouldn't have that meaning in the movie. It would more hinder the plot than help it.
IMO, the Scouring is perfectly fine in the books, but not in the movie.

[Aralyn]

*stubbornly* I STILL LIKE IT. I WANT it to be in the movie.
Oh well:rolleyes: So how are they going to end it?

[Elf Girl]

The Grey Havens, I imagine.

If they don't, PETER JACKSON WILL DIE!!!!!!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He'll die anyway. Everyone does. Even Elf-wannabes. :p

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Everyone does. Even Elf-wannabes. :p
*splutter* DIE FOOL MORTAL! YOU WHO DARE TO QUESTION THE MIGHT OF THE QUENDI!

*whimper* Ruinel... Come here and convince him...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Heck, you're not thirteen, why are you even in school? Elf children mature far more slowly than those of Men. This is proof of the falsehood of your claim. :D

[Elf Girl]

All right, Gwaimir. You asked for it. I will now Private Message to you a part of my long sad story. (I left the happy parts out because they're boring.)

Anyone else who wants it can have it.

To summarize: Legally, I am not yet thirteen. My spirit, however, is *does some subtraction* 4312. I think.

I am aware of how fast I and my kin mature.

[Earniel]

*pats Elf Girl on the back* there there... it's not so bad... it's just one unbeliever. We'll hand him to the inquisition and be done with it. :D darn I need an evil smiley. Not this sweet broad smiley. EVIL!

[Linaewen]

All right, Gwaimir. You asked for it. I will now Private Message to you a part of my long sad story. (I left the happy parts out because they're boring.)
Anyone else who wants it can have it.


'Twould help if you, say, cleared out your PM box...

Forget Gwai. He's just jealous cause he's only Elrohir's evil TRIPLER ;), Elrohor. He doesn't want anyone else's claims to be an elf to be true.

[Lalaith]

Who doesn't believe the elves immortality? :mad:

The Grey Havens, I imagine.
I think I read somewhere, that the Grey Havens are there.

[Linaewen]

It's not that Gwai doesn't believe in the Elves' immortality. It's that he doesn't believe that Elf Girl is an Elf. (Don't worry, I support you EG) I think that is what's going on.

[Lalaith]

I know, I know. Her name already tells us, that she is immortal.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Eärniel
*pats Elf Girl on the back* there there... it's not so bad... it's just one unbeliever.
I get enough unbelievers at school.

Said incessantly, all day, by everyone at my school, even my friends.
Are you really an elf? Speak elf-ish! Do you have wings? What are you on? Oh, is that movie, Lord of the... something? Do you know Legolas? You're not an elf.
Sorry. Needed to get that out of my system.

I have cleared my PM box.

[Lalaith]

Wings? Wings? (unbelieveable)

Oh, my god. Elves with wings. Oh god.

[Nurvingiel]

Elf Girl, I believe yer an elf, maybe being surrounded by non-believers is a test for yer character.

*tries to communicate telepathically like Galadriel, but fails because I am a tree, not an elf*

The closest I get to your sad tale of woe is one of my friends pretends to chop me down. Hoom! I am not fond of axes, but let's not be hasty.

Anyway, as an elf, how do you feel you and your kindred were portrayed in TTT? I cried when Haldir was killed, fabricated scenario not withstanding.

ps. evil face is :D + :mad:

[Christiana]

i, too, suffer from non-believers EG.:(

[Lalaith]

Why do these stupid men never believe that Elves are excisting?

[Seton,Lothlorien Guardian]

For the main part that Men cant grasp the fact that they die, they even more cant grasp the fact that there is an immortal being out there, thus they think that elves are a legend.

Ever notice how your heart gets heavy when someone dies or you think about death? Its your instinct telling you to survive.
Whether you like it or not.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Eärniel
*pats Elf Girl on the back* there there... it's not so bad... it's just one unbeliever. We'll hand him to the inquisition and be done with it. :D darn I need an evil smiley. Not this sweet broad smiley. EVIL!

Bah, my own people will do naught to me! :p

-rummages around-

I think I have one of those, too...

That toy is EVIL!!! EVIL!! (http://www.gamefortress.com/forums/html/emoticons/devil.gif) Kill it!

[gimli7410]

i wished dwarves existed then we could get rid of elves

[Lalaith]

Originally posted by gimli7410
i wished dwarves existed then we could get rid of elves
You will never win against Elves, because Elves believe that they are Elves and the dwarves don't believe it as I assume from your post.

[gimli7410]

well then.... umm... elves dont exist so you wouldn't be able to fight and if they do its only the little ugly ones from harry potter

[Elf Girl]

You're saying HP exists, but not LotR? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[gimli7410]

im saying only little ugly elves exist.

[Elf Girl]

I'm an Elf (despite what certain fools of the Edain say). Are you calling me little and ugly? :eek: :eek: :eek:

And Nurvingiel, as an Elf, I think they tried their best but couldn't really manage it.

[gimli7410]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I'm an Elf (despite what certain fools of the Edain say). Are you calling me little and ugly? :eek: :eek: :eek:

And Nurvingiel, as an Elf, I think they tried their best but couldn't really manage it.

hahahaha you ugly little elves. no one really likes you they only act like they do because they dont want you to feel bad:p

[Elf Girl]

Now that's unkind. :( :( :( ;)