What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*)

[jerseydevil]

Well I just got back from the 12:01 showing. Didn't see anyone post a thread on this yet.

I thought it was far better than Fellowship of the Ring. I really did like Mordor. I thought the whole thing was really exciting. Gullum was great. I think I just don't like FotR because it's my favorite out of all the books.

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. It's too cliche and reminded me of the old Budweiser commercials with the slow motion of the clidesdales.

[Churl]

I must have beaten you by a minute or two, jersey... :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
I must have beaten you by a minute or two, jersey... :)
I think we cross posted.

[Churl]

OK, since you have the more descriptive subject line, jersey, I'll move my initial post here. :)

________

I'm honored to be the one who starts this off. [EDIT: Well, OK, maybe jerseydevil did … grrrrr … let's call it a photo finish. :) ]

I just got back from a midnight showing of The Two Towers. I won't reveal any spoilers in this post. I'll just give my quick, vague, awed reactions.

First: As implied above, I was absolutely floored by the film. The dumbstruck superlatives you're reading in professional reviews aren't hype or hyperbole.

Second: Like much of the rest of the film, Gollum amazed me.

Third: Jackson's Towers is not Tolkien's book. More precisely, it is much less like Tolkien's Two Towers than Jackson's Fellowship was like Tolkien's.

Finally (for now): To me, the film's departures from the book do not diminish the power and spectacle of either. If you hate the thought of the movies being made at all, then you won't like it. I'm more tolerant of interpretation, however, because no interpretation will diminish the wonder of Tolkien's original words. Certain changes I disagreed with strongly, of course; some will bother many. But if anyone is questioning whether or not the film justifies the anticipation, don't worry. You'll be amazed.

I look forward to the coming discussions...

[hama1]

I am following churl's lead and copying my post here as well.

Well, I had a different reaction. My feeling at the end of FotR was "My God! Has it been three hours?" My feeling at the end of what seemed like three hours of TTT, but was only actually one was "My God! Is this thing ever going to end?" Now it is clear from other areas on this site, that I am no purist and have no problem with interpreting or adapting Tolkien's work. However, if New Line and PJ went to the trouble and expense of buying the rights to the character and place names from TTT, they might as well have gone all the way and purchased the rights to the actual story.

Yes Gollum was pretty amazing and generated the most reaction (generally laughter) from the audience I saw the film with. The battle scene at Helm's Deep was also impressive but I felt contrived and left me distant. I certainly felt no sense of triumph or elation at the eventual victory. Actually, given the characterization of Theoden, I found myself hoping Jackson would make another of his 'minor' changes and the Orcs would win.

I also found the dialogue he chose to leave out or not to stress puzzling. It seemed that great opportunities for drama and character development were missed. I am definitely going to have to re-read TTT and see if I can make sense of the choices Jackson made. I am not saying they were wrong but perhaps he is too clever for me.

Perhaps it is just that the initial thrill from FotR of seeing these charcters and places come to life is gone. However, in the end my feeling is if this is what I have to look forward to for RotK...I'll wait for it to come out on video.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
OK, since you have the more descriptive subject line, jersey, I'll move my initial post here. :)


Oh thank you. :)

hama1 -
I actually had a different experience to the film. Although I didn't particularly like some of the changes, the time flew by for me. I enjoyed this one far better than FotR - I think one of the reason is that Merry and Pippin had so little dialog in this one. :) And like I said - FotR was my favorite of the books. Two Towers was my least favorite - although I always loved Mordor and Frodo and Sam's trip there.

I think I'll end up being a lot less judgemental on TT.

I especially loved the scene where Gullum was arguing with himself.

[Churl]

hama1,

I agree with some of your points, but not with your feeling of boredom during the film. Nonetheless, I respect your opinion — as well as that of anyone who can justify their reasons for liking or disliking the film.

Again attempting to stay spoiler-free, there are many tweaks (and outright changes) made to the nature of certain key characters. Many of these I thought were unnecessary; in Tolkien's vision, those same characters were stronger and more noble.

To echo someone else's sentiment (I'm sorry, I can't remember whose), trimming certain events for pacing reasons or adding a minor skirmish might be regretable but acceptable. Fundamentally altering the motivations and growth of major characters is more troubling.

One spoiler for now, in response to hama1's post:

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.

That said, I still left the theater amazed and thrilled.

By the way, can we assume that a big fat *** SPOILERS!!! *** warning is implied when thread titles mention The Two Towers?

[Miranda]

I'm desperate to read that spoiler but I don't want to ruin the film- its so frustrating. Think I'll remove myself from this forum until I get home after the film tonight! Mx

[Churl]

Well, Miranda (if you're still reading despite your better judgment :)), it's not really a huge spoiler … it mainly deals with the tone of Gollum's debate with himself as it is portrayed in the film. Since the movie scene was inspired by similar (but not identical) scenes in the book, you're probably safe to read it.

By the way, despite my strong disagreement with certain choices, I do believe that the film illustrated many of Tolkien’s themes admirably.

Again, these are just my personal reactions; everyone needs to form (and post!) their own opinions.

P.S. Should I get an hour's worth of sleep before work, or should I just soldier through by drinking coffee stronger than orc-draught? :confused:

[WallRocker]

Okay, you ready for my opinon on TTT? I believe that Peter Jackson has, yet again, taken the book, changed parts around(I got lost about where the movie was about a dozen times) and still made you like it in the end.

however,
if PJ doesn't have Aragorn marry Arwen, something bad's going to happen:mad:

All in all, a good movie. The Ents were done very well.:cool:

[Gerbil]

OK just got back from seeing the first showing of TTT at my local cinema.
I'll get the most annoying part out of the way:

They messed up showing the darned film. About 15 minutes from the end the screen slowly faded to black, sound disappeared, and when the image reappeared it was not aligned vertically - what should have been the top 1/4 of the image was at the bottom. Nice eh? Complained afterwards and got given a free ticket to see anything I wanted by a disinterested cinema employee. Stunning.

OK, I'll try to avoid spoilers, but just in case...

The general gist is:

It was a huge disappointment. Stronger than that, many parts of it were awfully boring and badly done.


The accuracy comment:

If you had kittens over how true FotR was to the book, you are likely to spawn a whole zoo from this one. It's true in about as much as it's got some characters, there's a battle, and there's ents.

The good points:

Ents. Nicely done, although badly merged with backgrounds. These were to me the highlight. Also, the start, detailing Gandalf's trail since dropping from the bridge in Moria was excellent. Too excellent in fact - it got my hopes up that were very soon to be quashed. Oh, and the Oliphaunts were nice too.
And Arwen was only there in flashbacks - hurrah!

The bad points:

Too numerous to mention, and I'll try to steer clear of covering the innaccuracy of it to the book, and criticise it merely on it's films :)
The battle for Helm's Deep was actually quite poor -very little actual excitement. I got more thrills from watching the trailer to be honest. Badly paced and interrupted far too often. Gimli is a buffoon. Who also it seems likes to drop in far too many modern phrases. So much for olde wordle. Elrond is a bit of a twat. Galadriel is too. Their dialog was pointless and drawn out.
Gollum - I'm a techy freak I know, but too many times he was clearly in a position that would be impossible given the surroundings. Worse than that, he quite often put bits of himself through himself. Common example is when his hands are on his own body - you'd get bits of his fingers going into his body rather than squashing. Call me picky, but it shows up quite clearly on a huge screen!
Also, too often the chromakeying was dodgy. Remember the bit in FotR with Aragorn and Frodo on the big swaying staircase in Moria ('lean forwards!'). Looked rubbish right? More of it in this film.
Lastly, and I feel bad saying this: The music.
So sub-FotR standard it's not true :(

The innaccuracies:

Where to begin? Can't be arsed to mention them all or it'll end up turning into a breakdown of the entire film. Choice bits were the Ents deciding NOT to fight. That got right on my nerves. Elves at Helm's Deep. Warg fight. Orcs at the edge of Fangorn (why didn't they just disappear into the forest rather than get slaughtered?). Helm's Deep (but everyone already knows that). Bored just thinking about it.
Faramir and the whole Osgiliath thing. Utter crap.

The continuity errors:

Legolas on a few occasions wasn't wearing his contact lenses. Can't remember exactly where this happened, but it was near the middle. Keep an eye out for his colour changing eyes :)
A lot of close up shots of Helm's Deep Archers. Obviously they wouldn't be allowed to actually fire arrows on set, so they are pretending without arrows which would be CG'ed in afterwards. Needless to say, lots were missed so there's plenty of archers quite clearly firing bugger all!


To sum up - hugely disappointing, to the point of annoyance.
Some bits show glimpses of genius (I was happy with the Ents themselves - pretty much how I envisage them, and the Balrog stuff was great), but too much average stuff. I'll probably go and see it once more just to see it (hopefully!) the whole way through without the cinema cocking it up, but beyond that? I doubt it... I'd rather go see FotR again.

Speaking of which - I had the pleasure last night of seeing FotR in the cinema. So I have been able to compare these films as God intended - the Big Screen. Trust me - FotR is by FAR the better film. PJ will be lucky if he blags more than a couple of Oscars for this one, and even that will be pushing it.

All in all my responce is: :(

[Blackboar]

Disapointing or not I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT!!!

I wish I could stop myself fom reading the spoilers!!!

I'LL HAVE SEEN IT IN 6 HOURS!!!!!!!!!

[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.

[Churl]

Blackboar, with all due respect to Gerbil and GandalfTheWhite, don't let them dampen your enthusiasm.

Go into it with an open mind. Sure, you probably won't agree with certain variations — I didn't — but I'll wager that you'll have a better time than their apparently hellish experiences. ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
Blackboar, with all due respect to Gerbil and GandalfTheWhite, don't let them dampen your enthusiasm.

Go into it with an open mind. Sure, you probably won't agree with certain variations — I didn't — but I'll wager that you'll have a better time than their apparently hellish experiences. ;)

I agree. I had serious problems with FotR as everyone knows. I think because my expectations were so far down on Two Towers- it enabled me to enjoy this as just an action film. I didn't go in expecting the story to remain the same or some great character development moments - like I had with Fellowship.

The major change that bothered me was making Faramir into an a$$hole, also the whole Osgiliath scene.

Arwen having such a small role was a BIG plus. :) Also - did anyone notice WHERE Jackson put the subtitles when she was wearing that slinky nightgown dress (pratically see through) talking to Aragorn?

I also agree that although the Ents themselves were well done - they could have blended in with the background better. I however thought that the "bluescreen" scenes were much better in this one - at least better than that terrible shot of Saruman standing on the step of Orthanc as Gandalf rides up to meet him. That shot in FotR annoys me.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Gerbil

Lastly, and I feel bad saying this: The music.
So sub-FotR standard it's not true :(


Vindication, at last! :D

[Gerbil]

I agree. I had serious problems with FotR as everyone knows. I think because my expectations were so far down on Two Towers- it enabled me to enjoy this as just an action film. I didn't go in expecting the story to remain the same or some great character development moments - like I had with Fellowship.Ironically enough, it was watching FotR the night before in the cinema that has allowed me to conclusively say I think TTT is rubbish. FotR, for all it's faults, is thoroughly enjoyable. Not to say TTT isn't fun, but it's a much much lower standard than FotR, for whatever reason.

See them as I did (IE both at the cinema, both close together) and you will probably agree more. Let's be honest - the big screen adds a whole lot of atmosphere to a film like this.

Because of this, I'm betting a lot of you guys will thoroughly enjoy TTT (and good luck to you!) because your anticipation has been the trailer and FotR on a small screen, which is no comparison.
See FotR at the cinema, then see TTT at the cinema, and you can take that difference out of the equation.

What you are left with is the simple fact that TTT is a worse film than FotR.

I definately can't help feeling that TTT was too ambitious, and the time is not right with the technology to do what they wanted.

Worst of all, I now dread RotK...

[edit] Actually, ignore my comment about 'the time isn't right' - I can put up with iffy effects, but the directing was not as good as it should have been, and that has nothing to do with technology.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Vindication, at last! :D You are happy about being right? Wouldn't you rather have been wrong and the music was fantastic? :p

[bropous]

I see the film in approximately twenty-three hours (I didn't have the cash in time to get tickets to the first showing the first day) and am practically beside myself in anticipation. I don't mind the spoilers, and I'll reserve judgement until I see it tomorrow morning. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to be able to concentrate on audits tonight at work.....

They decided to show TTT on the IMAX screens here in 35mm. I've not yet seen a film in that venue before, or in that format, and since it's only nights they are showing it there, I have to do it some weekend night, but I plan on seeing it there. With the family flying in for Christmas it may be after the New Year.

An aside: A very Merry Christmas to one and all, and a prosperous, peaceful, and enjoyable New Year!

[Churl]

Gerbil wrote:What you are left with is the simple fact that TTT is a worse film than FotR.Uh oh, Gerbil … I've been burned on other message boards by using the word "fact" when I should have used "impression" or "opinion" instead. :)

Here's a statement upon which we both probably agree: Towers contained many more changes which might raise hackles on Tolkien purists than did Fellowship, correct?

It will be up to each viewer to determine to what degree those "creative liberties" hurt their enjoyment of the film. For some people that degree will be "intolerably"; for others, less so; for still others, none at all.

I guess I'd place myself in the "less so" bracket, but don't get me wrong: I liked some elements more than others. Personally I weighed the elements they got right against those they didn't (both subjective assessments). After striking that balance, I lean toward great enjoyment. Despite my nickname, call me an optimist. :)

P.S. bropous wrote:An aside: A very Merry Christmas to one and all, and a prosperous, peaceful, and enjoyable New Year!Thank you very much, bropous … and to you also!

[Celebréiel]

Argh!!!! Im just gonna put this whole post in spoilers b/c....yeah..There were so many things wrong with this film. I understand making a book to movie is hard.....but COME ON!!! Me and my friend were sooo excited for the midnight show. lol First, they turned Gimli into a comic relief!!!! Everyone was cracking up every line he said! I wont even go into that now tho, Treebeard.....ugh....The whole Merry, Pippin and Treebeard scene....>.< The didnt develop Treebeard as a character! Well okay, I could go on forever, but looking at it just as a movie and not a Tolkien fan, they made big mistakes! The choppiness, nothing was explained, it was confusing and annoying....I just generally didnt like it and was really dissapointed in Peter Jackson. Me and my friend are going to see it again with an open mind....but damn, how could that destroy such a possibly good movie!!!!! Ow!! It hurts!! Ok maybe im going over board, ill post when im more calmed down... :mad:
~Celebréiel

[Khamûl]

I'm going to see it tonight and I wonder how I'm going to react to it. There seem to be two sides here: 1) It was amazing, I love it, so much better than FotR, can't wait for RotK, etc... and 2) What was Peter Jackson thinking?, I bet Professor Tolkien is rolling over in his grave, that wasn't even in the book, I don't care that much for it, etc...

I guess only time will tell which side I'll come out on.

[Gerbil]

Gerbil wrote:Uh oh, Gerbil … I've been burned on other message boards by using the word "fact" when I should have used "impression" or "opinion" instead. :) True, but where's the fun in that? ;)

I need to make clear though - my thoughts on TTT are not based on the fact it's not very close to the book. I had a year, and dozens of watching of FotR to prepare for the inevitable butchering. True - it's worse than I'd hoped, but it's not as bad as it could have been. Taking this out of the equation - TTT is simply a less enjoyable film than FotR.

Of course, it would be impossible for every film to be equally as good - people will always have favourites, so the fact TTT might have been worse does not imply it would be BAD, but to me TTT was a much worse film than FotR. It's not like they were close and FotR pipped it - TTT is pretty darned bad.

What'll annoy me is I am probably going to use the free tickets I got from complaining about TTT to see Harry Potter. If that's better (IMO), then I am going to kill PJ.

[Churl]

Regarding the use of "fact" vs. "opinion," Gerbil wrote:True, but where's the fun in that? ;) Ha ha! Well said.

Later I'll drop in a big, spoiler-packed post in which I blather on and on about specific elements of the film. For now, let me say that I agree with you on one point: different people will choose different favorites from the trilogy.

Personally I found the two films to be so different — not in terms of quality, but of pace and tone — that I find them difficult to compare. I enjoyed each (and was vexed by each in places) for radically different reasons.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Khamûl
I'm going to see it tonight and I wonder how I'm going to react to it. There seem to be two sides here: 1) It was amazing, I love it, so much better than FotR, can't wait for RotK, etc... and 2) What was Peter Jackson thinking?, I bet Professor Tolkien is rolling over in his grave, that wasn't even in the book, I don't care that much for it, etc... Not true - I am saying TTT is not that good as a film in it's own right. Compared to FotR film, I believe it is vastly inferior. I had more fun watching FotR again than watching TTT.

[IronParrot]

Um, guys, wouldn't it be easier if I just marked this thread as a *SPOILER* thread, instead of everybody having to highlight everything?

I wasn't originally going to comment on the film until I saw it a second time (I saw it at 12:01am last night) but every show is sold out today, so I'll just drop my initial impressions. This will be far briefer than I'd like it to be, because I can go into excruciating detail on some of these points.

So, on to talking about perhaps the fastest three hours I have ever spent at the cinema:

Highlights

- My favourite bit of dialogue from the book was left in the film, at the best spot it could possibly be - Sam and Frodo at the end, talking about the stories that will one day be told.

- The storming of Isengard. Wow. Wow. WOW.

- The early part of the film, on the western side, was extremely well cut together. I particularly liked how Aragorn's tracking of Merry and Pippin's escape was intercut with the escape itself.

- Of the different plot threads, the one that was tackled the best was Frodo/Sam/Gollum, particularly the extent to which the Ring was already affecting Frodo. The story, as it should be, is increasingly from Sam's perspective, as he watches what happens to his master.

- As for Gollum... as far as schizophrenic conversations with oneself go, this is the best I've seen in a movie. Puts the rather shoddy Green Goblin talking-to-himself sequence in Spider-Man to shame, and rightly so.

- Overall, the Frodo/Sam/Gollum relationship was the most involving part of the movie.

- Even with the little we see of Merry and Pippin, I don't think the (exaggerated) criticisms of buffoonery in Fellowship hold any water here.

- Helm's Deep was one of the best battles, well, ever. Fortunately, it was not nearly as overdone as I feared it would be.

- Great choice of a place to end the film, leaving enough material for ROTK to be a sufficiently "balanced" length.

- Eowyn, arguably my favourite character from the book, gets all the development she deserves in preparation for the next film.

- Sam's monologue in Osgiliath, and the montage of all three substories woven together - it brought a lot of thematic unity to the whole film.

- The Legolas-Gimli relationship really does get moving along here, and it's wonderful to see. Their little competition at Helm's Deep was

- Very specific comment here, but Legolas flipping around onto Arod's back... coolest move in the movie. :)

- Visual design of the film as a whole - Ents, Nazgul steeds, Oliphaunts, Gollum, Henneth Annun, Edoras, Battle of the Peak, etc. - everything in the movie continues the trend Fellowship set, of the whole piece being a big moving painting of Middle-Earth. Well done.


Not-so-highlights

- This isn't a liberty that the film takes, but the characters on the western side of the river don't get much screentime. It actually highlights something that I'd hardly noticed before - that Gandalf, Merry and Pippin are barely in the foreground of the story until they all converge in Isengard, which seems like it's been shunted to the next film.

- Until the very end, I did have a problem with Faramir's re-characterization. However, looking back at it after the credits rolled, I don't mind it as much as I initially did.

- I'm rather unsure about how Helm's Deep ended. Eomer's role is pretty shafted as a whole, but the film seems to imply that victory would normally have been possible had Wormtongue not sent Eomer away, because Gandalf leads the eored into battle, not the Huorns. In some ways this works, but Eomer is really missing from most of the movie, and the concern here is how he will be portrayed as a worthy successor to Theoden come Return of the King.

- Of all the liberties taken, though, I think the one that remains the most questionable - as in, the one with which I am most unsure what purpose it serves - is Haldir and some of the elves appearing at Helm's Deep.

- I do have a very minor gripe about the geographical accuracy of Osgiliath... if Faramir approached it from the East, how come he's fighting across the river unless Sauron's forces have already crossed the Anduin?


Overall

I didn't cover even nearly everything I wanted to say, and I'll be following this up with another post. My verdict: a marvelous film that I came out of the same way I came out of Fellowship - eagerly awaiting my second trip to the film, now free of curiosity about what's been done with the book, and able to see the film as a standalone work.

However, even more so than Fellowship, The Two Towers could really use that Extended DVD. I kept getting the impression that they filmed way, way more material than could be used, and that some of it was very pertinent.

[Churl]

First, I realize that films shouldn’t rely on director’s cuts, commentaries, or supplemental materials to make their true quality evident. That said, the extended edition of Fellowship makes me confident that Towers (which I loved, even with some reservations) will only get better when deleted scenes are reincorporated.

Below are my own views on the major high- and low points mentioned by others. Please let me know about any factual misstatements I might have made. Also, I'll continue to obscure spoilers until there's a "Spoilers" designation on the thread. [EDIT: that's been done, so off the spoiler blots go…]

Smeagol/Gollum:
Elsewhere I’ve read quibbles that Gollum’s CG “isn’t quite there yet.� If the quibblers mean that you can still tell that the character is a CG creation, then I can’t argue with them. But by using such dismissive language, they ignore the extremely high bar which Gollum sets in every category on which a CG character should be judged.

For me, these categories are 1) maturity of characterization (first and foremost), 2) range of emotional expression, 3) seamless integration/interaction with physical actors, props, and set, 4) seamless integration/interaction with physical lighting, and 4) the character’s ability to make you forget that it’s an effect.

On each of these criteria, Gollum rates through the roof.


Battle at Helm’s Deep:
I agree that it was utterly amazing. All pre-screening hype aside, it truly was on a scale larger than anything else I’ve ever seen on screen. I’ve read comparisons made between Kurosawa’s scenes of battle and Jackson’s Helm’s Deep … from everything I’ve seen of Kurosawa, those comparisons are justified. (By the way, such comparisons only reaffirm Kurosawa’s brilliance: he filmed Ran, et al., without the benefit of CG, MASSIVE, or computers in general.)

Did the Helm’s Deep battle run too long? Hmmm. That’s hard to say. Since it was interleaved with the Merry/Pippin and Frodo/Sam threads, it didn’t seem quite as ponderous as it might have otherwise. I think its length was justified because it resonated with the desperation that permeated the book. Although the book’s noncombatants didn’t pile into the fortress as they did in the film (they journeyed to Dunharrow from Edoras), the passage still portrayed Helm’s Deep as Rohan’s last stand — and a grim and desperate one at that. I thought the film captured this well.

On a more visceral level, the sheer scope of the thing was mind-boggling. Even the most jaded, non-reading MTV junkie would have to admit that the sequence was spectacular.

As for Elves instead of Rangers at Helm’s Deep … neither brilliant nor an unforgivable travesty, but again, why? My guess is that it was done to beef up Elrond and Galadriel’s scant screen time during their decision over whether or not to send the Elves.


The Ents:
I agree that their power and significance was diminished by the film, which is regrettable. After listening to Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens’ commentary on the extended Fellowship, you can see that they’re trying to make plot tweaks that heighten the importance of the Hobbits. That’s apparently carrying through the whole trilogy (e.g., making Merry and Pippen more responsible for the rousing of the Ents, etc.).

Although I can see why this approach might appeal to people who haven’t read the book, it seems a shame to alter things that were otherwise fine in Tolkien’s original vision.

As for the Ents not marching on Helm’s Deep as well as Isengard, I guess I can accept that. Jackson and crew probably didn’t want to confuse people by having the Ents show up in two places at once. (Moreover, if they were going for a “triumph-of-Men-and-Elves� thing, they probably thought that it would feel like a “purer� victory if the Men and Elves won without the deus ex anti-machina of the Ents. I don’t know this for certain, and I’m definitely not arguing that it was the right way to go, but I think it’s a plausible theory.)

[Churl]

Faramir:
This is probably my biggest knock against the film. The dubious tension that was added by making Faramir exactly like Boromir was definitely not worth the smearing of his character. (In the book, after all, Faramir’s character was his character!) I’d like to think that he’ll grow wiser and nobler in The Return of the King.

And, although it was very cool to see the ruined streets of Osgiliath (which, like most things in Jackson’s version of Middle-earth, looked exactly as I always imagined it), the visit wasn’t worth the time or the alteration it imposed on Tolkien’s original plot.


Ringwraiths/Nazgul:
See above, because my only complaints about the Nazgul are tied to how they were used in the Osgiliath scene.


Rohan:
Eowyn … strong, brave, beautiful, and just as frustrated by the passive role imposed upon her as she was in the book. I fell in love with her, but she loves Aragorn and besides, she’s not real. (Sounds like a Charlie Kaufman screenplay…) I can’t wait for her moment of tragedy and glory in Return. Jackson had better not alter that scene one iota!

Eomer … well played; more or less true to the book in his dealings with Theoden and Eowyn, but absent for too much of the film. Since Eomer more or less took over Erkenbrand’s place as leader of the just-in-time rescue cavalry at Helm’s Deep, we don’t learn enough about him to make a real judgment.

Theoden … Bernard Hill is great, but I wasn’t crazy about the wacky quasi-exorcism that Gandalf performed to break “Saruman’s spell� (if I remember the book correctly, he was merely a victim of Wormtongue’s lies and poisons, not of any kind of literal spell). Gandalf and company simply convinced Theoden that he was still capable and noble, and that his people needed him desperately. Again if I remember correctly, the only use of magic in the Golden Hall happened when Gandalf darkened the sky to warn off the guards. The film’s silly “demons-out!� segment seemed to usurp book-Theoden’s inner will to regain his dignity.


Warg Attack/Aragorn’s False Death:
The warg attack was cool and exciting; I have no gripes with it. What’s more, even in terms of the book, it’s something that plausibly might have happened during the journey from Edoras to Helm’s Deep.

As for Aragorn’s fake death switcheroo, it was absolutely unnecessary, and worse, it consumed time that could have been devoted to other things.


Arwen:
Here I have to disagree with the Liv-bashers. I didn’t mind the flashbacks and dream sequences. I don’t even mind the fact that they’re playing up the Arwen/Aragorn love story. After all, it’s there in the book — albeit much more subtly portrayed and not in the film’s detail. Liv Tyler might not be the best actress in history, but she’s doing orders of magnitude better than I feared she would when I first heard about her casting. (Think of her in Armageddon. Or better yet, don’t.)


Comic Relief:
Some of it I didn’t mind; some of it became cloying. I think Gimli deserves better than to be made the constant butt of height jokes.


Cinematography:
There’s nothing at all I could significantly complain about.


The Ending (Book vs. Film):
Since the Scouring of the Shire is gone from Jackson’s Return of the King (in my opinion, a regrettable but cinematically necessary exclusion, just like Bombadil from Fellowship), there should be adequate room to squeeze Shelob into the probable three-hour running time.

I haven’t kept up with all the rumors/reports on what else is in or out of Return. I have no worries about Shelob’s creature effects or the Battle of Pelennor Fields; I’m certain they’ll be mind-boggling. I just hope that the filmmakers nail the bittersweetness of the book’s ending, e.g., the Gray Havens, Aragorn and Arwen, etc. Moreover, I hope that film-Faramir redeems himself enough to deserve my Eowyn. :)

Despite my complaints, I left the theater completely amazed and enthralled by the movie. Call me crazy, but I was smiling and nodding in recognition of dialogue, themes, and Alan-Lee-paintings-come-to-life more than I was cringing at the departures from the book.

Sorry for such a long post — I hope that at least some of you are still awake.

[Mathron]

My thoughts on the film, piece by piece:

Frodo, Sam and Gollum's part.
I found the character development among these three to be excellently done, especially Gollum. But I also found a lot of the actual events they had a bit weaker than they could have been. The deviation from the story seemed unneccessary. Specifically, it seemed to have been added so that they could put Shelob off until the next movie. I understand the reasoning - since RotK is the shortest of the books - but I also feel that it resulted in a fairly weak ending point, compared to the very strong ending point with Shelob.
Also I disliked the change to Faramir's character. They made him, basically, into a powerful human who is corrupted by the ring, but breaks free of its temptation at the end. Ie, Boromir. The point in the books was that even among humans who are not quite as impressive as, say, Aragorn, there are those who can resist the ring. By changing Faramir's character, his entire role became fairly useless.
Did get to see Oliphaunts, of course.

Merry, Pippin, and the Ents.
I felt the Ents seemed to have not been done justice - but only due to the short length of the film. I felt they did as well as they could have, but still could wish for a bit more. However, again, character development was pretty impressive - if subtle - between Pippin and Merry.
To elaborate, I recall one of the earliest comments about FotR was that Merry and Pippin seemed indistinguishable - which was only really true upon first watching. Careful attention to them meant one would notice that Merry was the one who almost made bright suggestions, and Pippin the one who messed up.
In TTT, it stays much the same... up until near the end, where Pippin is the one who manages to get Treebeard to go South, and see the devestation wrought by Isengard - and thus, rally the Ents. I thought that was a nice touch on the development of his character.
The storming of Isengard seemed fine, with some good moments and some weaker ones - again, the lack of the Ents really being individuals was the main weak point, and one that they probably couldn't do much about.

The Battle at Helm's Deep.
Phenomenal.
Amazing action and events. More than that, again, good character development.
They added in Elves from Lothlorien - a deviation from the books, but one that worked well, I thought. Especially considering their leader (whose name I can't remember). He comes off, both in FotR, and in TTT, as a highly arrogant being, who thinks fairly poorly of all others. When he dies, it is with a look of shock that he can actually be falling. I found that very impressively done - to give such depth to such a stock character.
The interplay between Legolas and Gimli was developed out well. Gimli did come off, sadly, as somewhat comic - but he definitely had his moment, when he and Aragorn defend the bridge to the keep against pretty much the entire Uruk'hai army.
One of the things I didn't realize until after the movie, that was sad, was the Caves of Helm's Deep. Whereas in the book they are described as amazing things of wondrous beauty, in the movie they were just caves. Nothing special, nothing really noticable.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I found Helm's Deep to be the part they focused most on, as well as the part that was purely incredible. It, I felt, was of a higher quality (if not by much, and only by virtue of how well done it was) then FotR. But the rest of the movie, as a cost, was weaker. By ending where it did, as well, it leaves a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth of Tolkien fans - even though a lot of the strong points in the movie are in the middle, it sort of peters out at the end, and doesn't seem to have as solid an ending as it could.
A lot of the areas that it was weak in are things that could be highly bolstered by the extended version - and the rest are mainly issues that will be solved one RotK arrives. The main issue is that it is somewhat weak as a standalone theatrical release - but as part of a larger whole, it will be fine.

[IronParrot]

You know, right now, I'd really like to do a scene-by-scene analysis of the entire movie, but my memory isn't that good after just one viewing, and it would take forever to write it anyway.

This post, I'm going to analyse the various major departures between book and film and talk about my thoughts.

Eomer

Book: His loyalty to the king, but not to Grima, leads to his imprisonment. Gandalf cures Theoden, and Eomer rides out with Aragorn.

Film: His loyalty to the king, but not to Grima, leads to his exile. Helm's Deep is won when Gandalf rides out and brings him back, along with his fellow Riders.

Verdict: The most problematic consequence of this, in my opinion, is that Helm's Deep is won perhaps a bit too easily. Also, Eomer's screentime in the whole film is very limited, and some of his lines ("This is the hour when we draw swords together") are given to Theoden. However, his personal motives and characterization, along with that of Theoden and Grima, remain intact - and I think that's of paramount importance. Also, in a way, Eomer is taking Erkenbrand's role here.


Faramir

Book: Upon finding out about the Ring, later lets Frodo go without a struggle, but with the advice to be wary of Gollum. Returns to Gondor by way of retreating to the defense of Osgiliath (spoken of, not seen in The Return of the King).

Film: Intends to take the Ring to Denethor, and gets as far as Osgiliath with Frodo before finally understanding the nature of the Ring (especially when Sam tells him of Boromir's fate). Then lets go.

Verdict: His line about "a chance to display my quality", taken from the book, doesn't make too much sense here as at the time, he's still intent on taking the Ring. Also, the fact that his intention is not to take the Ring for himself, but to pass it to his father, speaks for something. Still, Faramir in the film is far more ambitious - and therefore, a far more corruptible - character than Faramir in the book.

However, I think that the whole interpretation of Faramir here narrowly avoided disaster, and was rather clever. It gets Faramir to Osgiliath, from which we know he will have to retreat to Minas Tirith. It sets up the conflict he will have to face with his father, as well as establishes Denethor's expectations of him delivering "a mighty gift", as Faramir sends word of doing just that. Just on the basis that Faramir at the end of the film is consistent with Tolkien's Faramir, and that there is actually some dynamic character change going on here, I think this is overall excusable.


Dunharrow

Book: Women and children to Dunharrow. The men of Rohan take the straightaway to Helm's Deep, fight, and return to Dunharrow.

Film: Everybody to Helm's Deep by way of the mountains - the Glittering Caves, not Dunharrow, becomes Rohan's last refuge.

Verdict: Good change. Geographically it's consistent with Tolkien; Helm's Deep could indeed be used as a refuge, and more importantly, should Helm's Deep have fallen, Rohan would indeed be utterly screwed with the utmost immediacy. This makes Helm's Deep more important, and worth the time dedicated to it.


Wargs

Book: They get to Helm's Deep.

Film: They are waylaid by wargs.

Verdict: A very good implementation of the warg attack that we did not see at the foot of Caradhras in Fellowship. The shocker is Aragorn's loss, and while we all knew darn well that he survived, it was a good way to first get him to witness the enormity of Saruman's forces as they marched on Helm's Deep, and a decent excuse to implement some more Arwen flashbacks that wouldn't have fit anywhere else. However, Aragorn's "death" is still, in my opinion, among the more questionable changes and is in some ways a time-filler more than anything, to shunt Helm's Deep to the rear end of the movie.


Haldir

Book: The Elves are neutral.

Film: Elrond and Galadriel send Haldir and a good contingent of Elves to aid Rohan at Helm's Deep.

Verdict: Could be my biggest gripe with the movie. I'm not sure what purpose it serves, though the "conversation" between Elrond and Galadriel does imply that the intention was to show that the Elves are prepared to lend a hand to the collapsing world of Men, albeit very reluctantly. It will be interesting to see if something similar is done with the Pelennor - after all, they need to get the reforged Anduril to Aragorn somehow. Maybe this is just setting that up.


And there's more where that came from...

[Falagar]

Verdict: His line about "a chance to display my quality", taken from the book, doesn't make too much sense here as at the time, he's still intent on taking the Ring.
That may actually refer to his father mpression on him. He wants to give the Hobbits to his father, so his father will think better of him...
I'm going to wright my own comments. They won't be so long, as I don't have much time...

[IronParrot]

Ents

Book: The Ents are aware of Saruman's orcs destroying the trees, and Merry and Pippin's appearance rouses them to war. They sack Isengard, and the Huorns defeat the orcs at Helm's Deep.

Film: The Ents decide not to go to war, until Merry and Pippin lead Treebeard to the sight of the destruction of the forest near Isengard. The Ents sack Isengard but do not appear at Helm's Deep.

Verdict: My gripe was with Eomer (in Erkenbrand's role) saving the day at Helm's Deep, with no Ents, somewhat diminishing their role. But they do take down Isengard in a way that leaves Saruman with the most lovably shocked and defeated look of surprise in the whole thing. Merry and Pippin play a more active role in rousing the Ents, other than just bringing them news, and that was welcome.


Erkenbrand / Quickbeam / named Orcs / etc.

Book: Present.

Film: Absent.

Verdict: Not incredibly missed, thankfully.


This is not all I have to say. More later.

[Churl]

Pardon the momentary digression.

With all these spoiler blots, who else thinks that this thread looks like it arrived by way of Winston at the Ministry of Truth? :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Khamûl
I'm going to see it tonight and I wonder how I'm going to react to it. There seem to be two sides here: 1) It was amazing, I love it, so much better than FotR, can't wait for RotK, etc... and 2) What was Peter Jackson thinking?, I bet Professor Tolkien is rolling over in his grave, that wasn't even in the book, I don't care that much for it, etc...

I still think Tolkien is rolling over in his grave. I just happened to have lower expectations this time. Obviously by the complaints about Gimli - I guess he just took over the role of Merry and Pippin since they weren't around to be used as comic relief. :)

[IronParrot]

"With all these spoiler blots, who else thinks that this thread looks like it arrived by way of Winston at the Ministry of Truth?"
Agreed. :)

Simply as an aesthetic thing, I'm declaring this thread a spoiler zone. It's just too hard to discuss the film here with all of that in the way, especially when everybody's seeing the thing anyway.

Edit your posts and remove spoiler blocks at your own discretion.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

I actually really liked it!!!
At first when i saw Gollum I though oh o PJ has done him wrong. But then he grew on me and I really liked him!

I thought Faramir came across a bit nasty when in the book he doesn't!

I thought that Gimli was really funny and Legolas!

The Ents were fantastic!!!!

I didn't particually like Eowyn and I thought that both Elrond and Theoden were quite nasty to Aragorn too!

Helm's Deep was just amazing!!! That couldn't have been done better! The Elves turned up too!! but that was ok and Haldir was there!! But he came to a bad end and i was like noooooooo!

Overall, after I had got used to things, I love it!! And can't wait to see it again!!

[Cirdan]

It's very entertaining but there seems to be a fall off towards the end of the movie in terms of editing and continuity. The first hour was near as perfect to the vision as one could ask. As with the first film the sets and scenes are fantastic. The changes were mostly innoculous except for the Faramir bit. I kept sayng myself "why", but I guess I'll have to wait for the DVD commentaries for an explanation. Overall I enjoyed it very much, and the varied plot threads were handled nimbly most of the time. I hope everyone has a great time!
Loved:
- Balrog fight. (Gandalf as action hero:).
- The hunt for Merry and Pippin. Very true to the book but still well paced.
- The Morannon! Did you love the trolls opening the gate?
- Eomer & Co. taking out the Orcs.
- Coneys! Oliphants! Wargs! Wraiths!
- Gollum vs. Smeagol
- Edoras was very well done.
- Wormtonue... could he be more repulsive? He made Smeagol seem noble.
- Theoden's transformation.
- The Legolas Leap
- Saruman's reaction to the Ents.
- The Glittering Caves
- The fire of Orthanc
- The charge from the Hornburg
- Isengard getting flooded, trashed, stomped, etc.
- Arwen's .... profile.:o :D
- Eowyn's portrayal. Nice character development. Theoden and Gollum's parts were done out nicely as well.
Dislikes:
- Sam falling right in front of the Morannon.
- Arwen's blubbering and Elrond's bombast
- Aragorn's Gandalf impersonation ( only one character should pull the rise-from-the-dead bit)
- Aragorn being less optimistic and brave than Theoden (at first)
- Evil Faramir and excess Osgiliath
- Frodo almost shivving Sam

Edit: spoiler code removed...

[Varda Oiolosseo]

Oh and I didn't like the ringwraiths on wings at all!!
It just didn't work! When they were on horses they were really cool in FOTR! But in TTT they just weren't the same!

[IronParrot]

I don't know... I think Frodo standing before the winged Nazgul is perhaps my favourite shot in the whole film.

And as for some of Cirdan's gripes above... I loved the Black Gates sequence, as well as Frodo's increasing hostility to Sam - something that escalates at a far quicker pace here than it does in the book, where it doesn't become a real issue until ROTK.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Varda Oiolosseo
Oh and I didn't like the ringwraiths on wings at all!!
It just didn't work! When they were on horses they were really cool in FOTR! But in TTT they just weren't the same!

I think the effect was lessened without the sub-sonic rumble. I think they should have used filters to make it seem as though night was coming (a great shadow).

[Miranda]

I've just seen it and OH MY GOD!!!!! IT WAS FANTASTIC!!! I loved every second and spent most of it weeping or laughing- Legolas and Gimli just remind me of the Two Ronnies soooooooo much!! It was amazing- the graphics the acting, everything! Definately better than the Fellowship (despite that being fab!) Can't wait until Monday until I see it again! Have to do it nine times for the Fellowship- same as last year (and then some!) Mx

[Cirdan]

Oh, I almost forgot. Gimli's discussion of the dwarf women with Eowyn. Hilarious!:D

[Gerbil]

Erk, forgot about the stupid falling over in front of Mordor.
Idiots - they would have been spotted immediately and slaughtered.

Oh well.

Glad people liked it.

All I can say is I disliked it enough that I'm only planning on seeing it 2, maybe 3 times.... ;)

[Gerbil]

spent most of it weeping or laughing- Legolas and Gimli just remind me of the Two Ronnies soooooooo much!! You consider that a GOOD thing???

[Falagar]

Yeah, I liked that part (maybe except from the "it-was-on-purpose" comment afterwars, which has been used thousands of times...

That reminds me, I was pretty irritated by Gimli being used as a comic relief through the whole movie! He had one seious sentence! (the one where he and Theoden talks about the defence of Helmsdeep)

[IronParrot]

"Erk, forgot about the stupid falling over in front of Mordor.
Idiots - they would have been spotted immediately and slaughtered."
May I remind you of the capabilities of the Elven-cloaks of Lorien - a property of them straight from the book.

[Miranda]

I actually found the comedy a welcome release! It would have been so depressing otherwise! Gimli was fantastic and I thought the comedy sort of heightened the friendship thing between him and Legolas! It was wonderful- I can't falt it! Amazing. PJ if I was deciding the Oscars baby- you're top for nearly every category! Mx

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
All I can say is I disliked it enough that I'm only planning on seeing it 2, maybe 3 times.... ;)

You sound almost like me over FotR - not as bad of course. But even though I practically hated FotR - I still managed to go 8 times.

I'm going to see TT again tonight at the 9:00 showing.

I'll still hate the change to Faramir though - and I don't care what Jackson's excuse is. He didn't comment on the Flight to the Ford scene - so I dooubt he'll comment on this scene much.

[IronParrot]

jerseydevil, being another fan concerned about what happened to Faramir, I did a bit of research and dug up word that Phillippa Boyens wrote Faramir the way she did because she wanted him to change as a character, and not be incorruptible from the get-go... after some thought, I don't mind this change as much as some other ones. As I said earlier, it does get him to Osgiliath without making his trip there a tangential journey, and it does establish that Denethor expects the Ring to come into his possession.

As far as his characterization goes, I had a big problem with it up until the end, and I think the very last scene with Faramir made everything we'd seen of him up to that point make a lot more sense.

Again, this will require a second viewing.

[Kalimac]

The professional film critics are giving The Two Towers a 99% rating out of 100 for the movie. So far out of 77 professional reviews, there has been only 1 that gave an unfavorable report.
Read more:
Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/)

Metacritic is a bit more critical with an 88% rating:

Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/twotowers)

By the way, the ratings will fluctuate back and forth the next few days as more and more reviews come in.

[IronParrot]

Yes, but while RT is based on a raw percentage of thumbs up vs. thumbs down, Metacritic is based on ratings from 1 to 10 that are averaged out... 88% is considerably high, and I wouldn't call it "more critical", since RT doesn't make a distinction between "good" and "excellent".

And these will definitely fluctuate.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
May I remind you of the capabilities of the Elven-cloaks of Lorien - a property of them straight from the book. I don't recall reading where they allowed you to tumble invisibly and hide all the rocks you let loose only feet from an enemy army.

[Gerbil]

While I'm still getting these horrible flashbacks:

Theoden pretending he was in the Exorcist.
What a cheap pathetic trick making Theoden 'possessed' by Saruman. That whole exorcising bit made me cringe at it's dire cheapness...

[claudia silver]

Hmmmmmmmm..........not sure.......need to see it again but first impressions

Liked:
· The Three Hunters sequence
· The Black Gate
· The Warg attack
· Edoras
· The Ents
· Shadowfax
· Frodo/Sam/Gollum interaction (esp Gollum arguing with Smeagol)
. Gollum was perfect
· Eowyn's character

Dislikes:
· The anti-climax ending of the Helm's Deep battle
· Frodo falling into the Dead Marshes
· Aragorn's "death" - Why???????
· The Legolas/Aragorn disagreement
· Arwen and Elrond's Father/Daughter unsuitable boyfriend chat
· Osgiliath sequence - looked good but unnecessary
· Gimli becoming a comic sidekick

Positively hated:
· Theoden's exorcism
· The change in Faramir's character
· Sitting two rows from the front (should have got there earlier)
· The 'coughing boy' sitting two rows behind us :mad:

[Erawyn]

I didn't want to be disapointed, i really really wanted this to be good, but sadly it wasn't as good as FOTR.
At first i was set to be mad when the elves were at Helm's Deep and all the other changes, but I don't mind anymore, and I've become totally ok with the book and the movie being seperate things.

The movie was disapointing mostly because there wasn't enough acting, too much fighting. Now I love a good fight scene, but i think Helm's Deep could have been shorter and more climactic, and there would have been room for more DIALOGUE!! there was not very much of it in the film! While I thought a lot of the banter between Gimli and Legolas was pretty funny (the dwarf women bit!) , it got to be a little much. And while I thought Merry and Pippin were a lot better in TTT, they never drank the ent draught, which I loved in the books, and the ents uum, were sort of disapointing. Why did Aragorn have to fall off a cliff, and worst of all, CONTINUITY ERRORS!!! Aragorn's horse changes colour. oy.

I still liked the movie though. I thought Gollum was great, and although more could have been done, I liked the growing relationships between the characters, especially Legolas and Aragorn and Merry and Pippin, I thought it was great when Merry yells at Treebeard. I think Sam gets more interesting in this movie too. I thought Rohan was amazing. I loved the atmosphere of it, and the setting of course was spectacular, and I thought Theoden, Grima, and Eowyn were all well done. I admit I even liked some parts of Helms Deep, I'm a sucker for big (if cliched) heroics, and really enjoyed Aragorn and Co. and when Gandalf arrives. And I LOVED the music. There was this bit in Rohan, with violins I guess, that repeated a lot throughout the movie that I thought was great...anywho this is getting long and probably boring. I will have to see it again.

[olsonm]

I enjoyed it quite a bit. :cool: Must see it again.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by claudia silver
· The 'coughing boy' sitting two rows behind us :mad:

I can't believe PJ decided to leave that in! ;)

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Gerbil
While I'm still getting these horrible flashbacks:

Theoden pretending he was in the Exorcist.
What a cheap pathetic trick making Theoden 'possessed' by Saruman. That whole exorcising bit made me cringe at it's dire cheapness...
::shudders:: Dont remind me! Im calm now no shouting. Im glad some people feel the way I do.
and about Gimli, it doesnt matter if the film would be 'depressing' or sad, the Two Towers was supposed to be emotional, by changing things like that it just changes the message of the story. I dunno :( some....most of the things were just so unreasonable. ah...ok I wont get started.
Well im glad some of you guys liked it..i dont get how, lol, but still. Have fun.
~Celebréiel

[Firekitten2006]

WOW! Already 3 pages on this, didnt read all of them, but I just saw it at 4PM (my time). It was awesome! While it didnt stay true to the book at times, the Nazgul were pretty screwed up looking and they quite obviously used 2 or 3 different horses for Shadowfax and Brego, I really had a great time! The while Gondor thing really really really pissed me off. While it did work, it annoyed me. I think PJ is trying to get more emotional attachment to characters. I LOVED Gollum arguing with himself! "He's gone! We asked him to leave and he left!" lol I loved it! I was one of those people who laughed through it :) It was great! Then him and Sam arguing, I just read that part in the book (for the 2nd time) and it was great!!! I have to go, because if I dont I'll just keep going on and on and on :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Celebréiel
::shudders:: Dont remind me! Im calm now no shouting. Im glad some people feel the way I do.
I feel the same about the Theoden exorism too.

After seeing it a second time - that scene and Faramir still bother me.

I agree that Gimli was used as comic relief - but I don't think any worse than Merry and Pippin in the Fellowship. Jackson obviously likes to add a lot of burping jokes in his movies. In Fellowship - he, himself, burps in Bree, in the Extended Edition FotR Pippin either burps or farts and in Two Towers - Gimli is a slob and burps. All of course to get some cheap laugh.

This second time of seeing the movie - the film broke at the entmoot scene. The theater started the movie back up within 5 - 10 minutes - but they gave everyone free passes. :D

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
This second time of seeing the movie - the film broke at the entmoot scene. The theater started the movie back up within 5 - 10 minutes - but they gave everyone free passes. :D What? You got free passes? We were just about to finish the 'exorcism' scene (you know the part where Gandalf points his staff and Saruman is thrown backwards) when the reel froze. We waited for a moment, then realized that that wasn't supposed to happen. While the movie people rushed to shut it off, the frame started getting red and orange spots on it and began to melt. We had to wait 15 minutes for them to splice off that 3-4 seconds. And no free passes. Oh well, it was good for a laugh anyway.:p

Moving on to the movie itself - generally very good. There were points where I asked myself "Why?", but the good definitely outweighed the bad. People have already pointed out most of the good, so I'll give my takes on the bad.

The Bad:
Theoden's 'exorcism': What was that? He looked like something out of The Evil Dead and I half-expected his head to start spinning around and spitting green pea soup at any moment. I think the scene would have been better if he had just been slumped and maybe slightly 'drugged'. Then it would have been cool to have Gandalf and Wormtongue engage in a battle of words over Theoden.

Faramir (most of the time): Why couldn't he have just had his little change of heart at Henneth Annûn? It would be so much better than taking Frodo and Sam all the way to Osgiliath. (Why didn't PJ just ask me? :D) Oh and what was the line from the first movie, "They [the Nazgûl] will never stop hunting for it." The Nazgûl on his steed sure didn't make much of an effort with the Ring right there in front of him.

Aragorn's 'death': What's the point? He doesn't even make a triumphant return at a critical moment. Like someone already said (sorry I don't remember who) - one time is enough to pull that trick.

Some special effects: Particularly the ones with Merry and Pippin on Treebeard. With all that technology at their disposal, I think that they could have made that look better.


As much as it sounds like I'm complaining, I actually really liked this movie. I'll definitely be going back.

[Lord Theseus]

Many of us loved FotR because we had low expectations for it. Thus our expectaions for Two Towers were too high.

Some of the scenes were great.

But the end of Helms deep lacked a good closing..i.e. tending of the wounded..and trip to isengard...it was just blah.

And who knows what was up with the change in Faramir. Tolkien's was straight to the point, and more easy to understand..

anyway..still decent movie. Hopefully RoftK will be sweet and contain all the main plot lines...including the scouring of the shire.

[Arathorn]

I'll be watching TTT in about 48 hrs and don't mind all the spoliers. I've read the books and I've set my mind for a good ride; at least as far as the spectacles are concerned (I believe Cirdan said something about Arwen's profile ;) ).

Great reviews guys! I agree with JD, Lord Theseus and others that it all comes down to expectations. JD had such high hopes for FOTR while those who were disappointed with TTT pegged the TTT volume as their favorite. I'm honestly quite worried about ROTK because it's my favorite part. I'm just pinning my hopes that PJ will do it justice next year since IT IS his favorite of the 3 films.

'Must lower my expectations....
'Must lower my expectations....

I think I'll watch David Lynch's Dune film just before going to see TTT. :D

[Laurelyn]

It was interesting the way they started with the beginnings of the Battle of the Peak. Ok, so I was reminded distinctly of Harry Potter's dreams of Voldemort when Frodo woke up and said it was only a dream, but that was okay.

At first I thought, great, this is going to be really true to the canon. This thought was mostly due to the abundance of lines that are taken directly from the book at the beginning.
Then the canonical lines faded away, which was okay, because the dude sitting next to me seemed to think they talked funny. It was really getting on my nerves. He was snickering and bugging me. :)
Was it just me, or were the faces in the dead marches those of the Fellowship? Before Frodo fell in, of course. Once he fell in it was a Weathertop replay. Gah. They could have just left him on dry land where he belonged.
Although I must say there was something fitting about dumping him in the water. The changes Frodo underwent during the movie weren't for the better for his sake (but they were done wonderfully; more about that later), and so it was a rather ominous bit of foreshadowing. Or am I just reading more into the way it was done than was really there?
The Taming of Smeagol wasn't as powerful as it could have been. I was a bit disappionted.
The CGI of Gollum went well. A lot of the CGI i've seen lately has been disappointing, but gollum was good.
Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas's tracking job was amusing. Very amusing. Namely, Gimli's line about not being a cross-country runner. I am a cross-country runner, so that was really funny to me. I thought it was a bit obnoxious that Gimli had to be all the comic relief in that half of the film; it would have made more sense had they had somebody else with a funny line too. Ah, well. If anyone of the Three Companions was to be a buffoon, Gimli was the one, and he actually did a good job of being amusing and remaining serious.
The orcs that captured Merry and Pippin were too human-looking. That just bugged me. Also, I didn't think that the despair of those two really got through. Fear, yes, but for a while, they were just the same bright-eyed comic-relief hobbits as ever. And then, very abruptly, they became a lot less innocent talking to Treebeard.
The horsemanship was impressive. So was Eomer.
Eowyn was awesome. She was . . . wonderful. (anyone who knows what that word means to me; yes, I mean it.)
Fangorn forest bugged me. Do forests really rise that abruptly out of the middle of nowhere? And they don't look that . . . empty. The CGI of the Ents was okay, although they looked too human. Their legs were too long. And they didn't look like they could be real trees.
Aragorn's figurin out what happened to Merry and Pippin was brilliant, although I do wish they'd included Legolas's line about 'grew wings and flew.'
Gandalf was wonderful. It was kind of neat the way Aragron's sword burned.
Gwerp. Hated the excorcism bit. Why, that was as bad as the wizard-duel crap in FOTR. Or worse. It downplays the true power of the Istari, imho.
However, it's been rumoured that PJ cut the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard. I don't think he did -- too many dramatic possibilities -- but if so the Theoden/Gandalf/Saruman exorcism deal could stand in in representation.
Then again, that's not a good thing.
Even if he does leave in that scene? He's screwed up half of it by revealing Gandalf's reincarnation as Gandalf the White to Saruman. Crap.
All right, I admit that I didn't dislike the exorcism scene so much. But as to what it meant was altered in ROTK? AARGH!
End rant.
Wait, though – did anyone else think it was ridiculous to have Araogron say, “okay,� to Gandalf as he leaves? I thought that was way not-Arda talk.
I was pleased that the Wargs were included. They were okay CGI. I thought they looked like teddy bears with their noses punched in.
Aragorn's apparent death was baloney. Eventually, it was a good way to organize the explanation of Saruman’s forces, but it was still baloney. Although it was funny when the horse nuzzled him. That was sort of cute. And the look in Eowyn’s eyes both when she thought he was dead and when she realized he was alive was impressive.

[Draken]

Well... will need to see it again! Some things disappointed me but if you switch off your preconceptions and just enjoy the film it's...well...enjoyable!

Liked the battle with the Balrog, liked the trashing of Isengard, Gollum was superb and his schizophrenic musings a highlight. The Battle of Helm's Deep certainly had certain grandeur to it... suppose it would be more tense if I hadn't known who wins it.

Faramir.... why?

Aragorn's fall/float/waking up... why? (Remembers it gave an excuse for an extra Liv Tyler scene). Ok, cancel that, that was fine.

Warmed more to Eowyn than I thought I would - she had such cute freckles, which helped - but Arwen retains the "best way to fill a dress" award.

All in all, was good.

[Laurelyn]

Arwen and Elrond’s conversation was nice. Although non-Tolkienites probably got confused at the mention of Valinor. But what the heck is PJ intending? (oh, and by the way, I think the movie would have been great with 99% less kisses)
The sight of the 10,000 Uruk-hai was breathtaking.
The women and children crying and awaiting their death was also breathtaking. Mela Eru, but that was some really impressive acting.
And if I were the crying type I might have had tears in my eyes as Theoden recites his poem and we see the children – they’re not really young men, only boys – with the helmets slipping over their eyes, which are wide in the kind of terror only a child can express so simply. Kudos to PJ for that image. That was so, so, incredibly powerful. It was the picture of a people almost without hope; with the only thing driving them to be fear.
The Elves showing up was okay. I didn’t mind that. It worked well for the film.
The Uruks having grenades got to me. Just the way it was done. Too Hollywood-esque, too modern, too cliché that ten elves can’t friggin’ hit the one friggin’ Uruk.
Gollum’s conversations with himself were funny. That was good. At that point in time we needed a laugh. He did those just like a forensics piece, changing everything each time he was Gollum or Smeagol.
PJ�s trying to get more out of that “nobody tosses a dwarf� joke than there is to it. L
Entmoot was a congregation of mediocre CGI beings. Merry and Pippin’s standing up to Treebeard was interesting, but very abrupt.
Gandalf leading Eomer and Co. down the slope was impressive. Scary looking. What if one of them fell? But I didn’t have too much trouble with the plot-scrambling.
I was ticked that PJ didn’t leave in Sam’s line about how Frodo seems to be shining. I knew he wouldn’t, but it was disappointing. The Oliphaunts went well, for Oliphaunts.
Faramir bugged me. Enough said. I appreciate why PJ & Co altered his character, but I didn’t like it too much. At least they could have given him a smile. A little spark of spirit or hope. But they didn’t, which royally creeped me out.
I’d waited all year in anticipation of seeing the Ents storm Isengard. It went well. Saruman’s look of utter disbelief was hilarious. The breaking dam was a pretty impressive shot, and seeing the water plunge down into the depths of the caverns. I was pleased they haven’t yet included the Rolling Spiked Wheelie Dealie. Hopefully they never will.
Osgiliath. *cough* Well . . . Sam telling Faramir off went fairly well, actually. I thought that would be a mistake. The Nazgul’s timely appearance was interesting, but I thought that the instant terror it inspired seemed just a tad fake.
Frodo’s approaching the Ringwraith with the Ring was an impressive way to bring together all of Frodo’s character struggles up til that point. Not what I would have done, but interesting. That and his near killing Sam pulled together all the rage had wrought in him during the movie. The whole thing was good, what they did with Frodo.
I thought that people who haven’t read the book would be confused by the ending. It seemed like PJ managed a cliffhanger even without Shelob. It’ll work.
And then there was Mount Doom. I have yet to figure out why it’s continually erupting, but oh well.

I loved the movie. IN case you couldn’t tell.

[Gerbil]

Another horrid flashback - Legolas shield-surfing down the stairs.
I don't care if it's 'cool', it was crap, stupid dire, awful etc.

The note about Uruks + grenades is true enough - Saruman had foreseen what the problem would be at Helm's Deep and had worked his 'industrialised' magic to create gunpowder. That the arrows didn't bring down the Uruk with the flame I can put down to some of the Uruk bezerkers not knowing pain - IE unless one of the arrows was outrightly fatal, he could carry on (albiet with manky arms) and do his job.

Oh, about the dam. Sorry, but this bit annoyed me.
Why would Saruman deliberately dam that stream? He wouldn't. He'd firstly foresee it would be a weak point over Isengard (1 rock and it came down as I recall), and secondly he'd use the water flow to power wheels to power his industry.
Once again, PJ has kept in just enough of the books to make the film even weaker.

Oh, and all the kids laughed hysterically when the burning ent dashed in to put out the fire. I had little empathy for the Ents in the film - whereas in the books you understand them much better.
Treebeard was pretty good in the film (visualisation-wise) but once again we have yet another character short-changed by PJ's meddling.

I don't understand most of PJ's changes, and fear I never will. The best I can hope for is to simply accept them. He might be a fantastic director, but he sure can't do screenplays. If I hear that 'his version' one more time I'm going to scream.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas's tracking job was amusing. Very amusing. Namely, Gimli's line about not being a cross-country runner. I am a cross-country runner, so that was really funny to me.
Yes!! Me too!! I thought it was hilarious!
Other than that though... I changed my sig...

The warg-riders battle looked excellent, but it was pointless...
Helm's Deep was an awesome battle, but it's not that important in the books.

It seems that they took a piece out of almost everyone's character.

Theoden was worse than I could have imagined. All of the points where he demonstrates his character got removed. He doesn't propose the charge, he doesn't start a war, he doesn't do cr*p! I almost hoped he'd die. I'm actually looking forward to his death in RotK. They wouldn't get rid of that... would they? :eek:

Aragorn should have Anduril. OK? He should not have doubts about his power like they give him in the movie.

Saruman's character flaws have already been hit by Gerbil.
Well said, Gerbil.

The Ents looked cool. That was it. Treebeard had no character development, no sense of connection with the forest! He's supposed to know that the trees have been cut by Saruman.

Frodo is being corrupted, true. But he never could have attacked Sam. And about them thinking about running through the Black Gate? STUPID STUPID STUPID NOT TRUE ARRRGH!

The Easterlings were pretty stupid. Why didn't they poke the cloak with those spears?

Faramir shouldn't have wanted the Ring. Major chip off a great character. Zero Points, Peter Jackson.

Merry and Pippin did ok, but they're screwed now. They're at Isengard alone... who's gonna come get them? They have 3 choices for the Return of the King:
get horse & go to Minas Tirith
bring an Ent to Minas Tirith :mad:
just exit the movie :(

Gandalf came out OK but he wasn't used nearly enough.
Eomer totally got the shaft; see Gandalf.
Sam shouldn't encourage Frodo to use the Ring. Other than that he's OK.
Gollum seems to be pretty good. Lucky. He's the only one.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Elrond shouldn't be encouraging Arwen to leave. "Well, you shouldn't marry him even if he does become king." WHAT? Extremely poor taste.

Arwen shouldn't leave. Dumb.

Eowyn, actually, seems pretty well done! Although if she had been at Helm's Deep, she would have gotten a piece of the action.

Haldir dies. That's just stupid.

[Churl]

Gerbil wrote:If I hear that 'his version' one more time I'm going to scream.I think this is a problem of semantics, Gerbil. When we're comparing the books to the movie, we make references to particular scenes. When there are differences, clarity requires us to specify which source we're talking about — book or film. I think it's valid to use "Tolkien's" when citing the book and "Jackson's" when citing the films' deviations from the book.

Speaking for myself, I never use the phrase "Jackson's version" to imply that the film's creative liberties are now somehow part of the Tolkien canon. Instead, the films are — and always will be — imperfect approximations, adaptations, interpretations, etc. I doubt that even Jackson and his team would suggest otherwise.

The short form: I don't think that any of us intend any disrespect to Professor Tolkien when we refer to "Jackson's version" … I think we're merely differentiating between the films from the book.

[Cirdan]

Did anyone notice that Treebeard is Gimli (John Rhys-Davies' features and voice-over)? At first I thought it was just the accent but as I listened it was definitely him.

[Devey]

Why are people so hung up about Faramir. In my opinion it is Tolkiens Faramir that is totally wrong and Jackson got it absolutely correct. Tolkien expects us to believe that Faramir has the strength to resist the ring (so close to Mordor as well) yet the race of men have been shown to be incapable. Also even Gandalf and Gladriel were nearly tempted yet Faramir some how resists because he has made an oath...for goodness sake.......:mad:

To me the most powerful part of a spectacular film was when Frodo is standing infront of the Ringwraith in Osgiliath.......totally powerless and ready to surrender to the forces of evil...........it was this more than anything that really showed the power of the ring, of Mordor, and just what a perilious quest they had embarked on. Now I know it wasn't in the book but so what, it was great drama and spectaciular cinematography.

Loved gollum although took a while to get used to him....it was so obviously cgi to look at but the character was acted so well that he became "real" The only part I didn't like was legolas surfing down the steps, which was a bit toe curling:mad:

[Cirdan]

Aragorn is of the race of Men and it was convenient for him to resist the ring. Faramir, like his father has the gift of foresight. He does lust for the ring but knows it is hopeless. I suppose now Denethor will be just another decadent old prune like the movie Theoden. The Nazgul at Osigiliath did nothing for me since I saw it as too improbable that it wouldn't just swoop down and take the ring. It looked cool but it did nothing for the story save distract from the other action going on. I would have prefered the contrast of the armies in one scene versus the solitary hero in another. It just became more of the same. I was hoping that it would end on the stairs of Cirith Ungol with the ringwraith confrontation there.

[Churl]

Devey wrote:In my opinion it is Tolkiens Faramir that is totally wrong and Jackson got it absolutely correct.Yikes … I'll be the last one to attack anyone's opinions on the book vs. film question. What's more, Entmoot is one of the friendliest and most civil discussion boards I've ever seen. Still — even though I disagree — that was a rather brave first post, Devey! Hope you have your asbestos undergarments handy… :)

[Devey]

better go and put them on.......:)

okay I think we can all agree that just because an author builds a character it doesn't mean that it is beyond criticism. My least favourite character has always been Faramir because I could never reconcile the reasons that I talked about in the last post. Also it was too much of a cliché to have a good brother/bad brother bit. I also liked the Boromir character and felt that Faramir, by being "so nice" just made Boromir to be weak, which was unfair. Better in my eyes to have the race of men weak against the corruptible power of the ring, but also manage in the end to struggle and overcome it...ie the message is there is hope for mankind........
Jackson's Faramir is more in keeping with the one I always hoped he would be. Just because Tolkien wrote him how he did doesn't mean I have to agree with him unquestioningly does it?

[azalea]

I want to start by saying that I LOVED FotR. I thought that, despite its omissions and changes, it was an EXCELLENT film. Maybe that is why I was disappointed with TTT. It had both the books AND the FotR to be compard to, in my mind.

I really liked TTT, but the changes made in this film bothered me a lot, whereas in Fellowship, I could see how they were necessary. I felt like PJ sacrificed a LOT of dialogue, and therefore characterization, for his pet changes and additions.

Faramir was by far the most disappointing one. I thought the actor was good, but his characterization was mangled, IMO. Part of who he was in the book was the contrast of his personality form Boromir. PJ failed Faramir in making this change.

My main problem with this film was that it felt way WAY too rushed. Even more than FotR, which I didn't think was possible.
I LOVED the ents, but he gave them only a blip of screen time. This was where PJ's dialogue cuts bothered me the most. What would have been wrong with allowing the conversation between the hobbits and Treebeard to last longer? I can just hear him saying in the dvd commentary, "We had to get out of Fangorn quickly..." :rolleyes: Too few ents at the entmoot, and since they hadn't set up the ents' character enough beforehand, something of the character of the ents was lost. But they looked SOOO GOOOOOD! Actually BETTER than I had imagined!

There were many minor changes that were unnecessary. I was unhappy to see Gimli's character turned into comic relief. To me, the hobbits were understandable in Fellowship and it worked for me, but this is different. I felt like the Arwen flashback stuff and cutting back to Rivendell played out choppily.

I too hated the change in the "awakening" of Theoden. I felt like the book's version needed no change, and was pointless. Theoden's attitude once he was awakened was a needless change as well.

Just like in Fellowship, but much more so in TTT, PJ chooses action over quality story development. Instead of letting events unfold and characters interact, he just sets up one action scene after another. Aragorn's "death" -- absolutely unnecessary IMO.

Now that my "yucks" are out of the way:

I LOVED seeing the Wargs, although it went too long (which cut out film time better used elsewhere) and they were different than I had pictured. The oliphaunts, Easterlings, etc., were great.

the beginning of the film, though rushed, was really good (Gandalf v Balrog, tracking the hobbits, etc.) Eowyn was good. I especially liked the addition of the little exchange between her and Grima, who, bTW, was EXCELLENT (and needed more lines). I also liked the elves showing up at HD: it was a change that was well done. Haldir's death scene was outstanding (but sad:( ). I liked the dead marshes, but thought again that the little falling in the water incident was just time taken from other parts. I pictured the "lights" as being different too.

One of my fave scenes, and I knew it would be -- the Rohirrim encircling Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. I melted w/ joy. That whole part was great. (I had always pictured the Rohirrim, Eowyn, etc., with hair that was a much lighter blond though, like a yellowy white, even lighter than Legolas)

In sum, this was a great movie. I think it is just hard because as I said my expectations were so high because of my love of Fellowship, I have many more criticisms of TTT. PJ's main fault -- a choppy and rushed film. I will definately be seeing it again in theaters, and man, a lot more than Shelob's been moved to RotK. I wanted to see more of the glittering caves, confrontation at Isengard (voice of Saruman, palantir), yada. A whole year!:(

Edit: oh and I loved the winged Nazgul although yes, it was impluasable that they wouldn't just go get It. I also thought the addition of Frodo attacking Sam was well done.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Devey
...Just because Tolkien wrote him how he did doesn't mean I have to agree with him unquestioningly does it?

Of course not... ...submit to the master... Really. You don't even have to like Tom Bombadil... ...submit to the master... :D

[Sween]

just been out for lunch with my friend who has seen the movie (ive got to wait till sunday :( ). He was completally spoiler free going into the movie (are any of us here really that) but he had read the books and loved them. He was kinda surprised but when i explained to him the reasons he kinda understood.

But overal he loved it.

[Laurelyn]

I noticed that the change in tone stayed in. I was surprised at that because i didn't think PJ would do it. But perhaps it was necessary?
TTT isn't so much about the OBJECT of the Ring as FOTR was. It's more about the effects it has. That was interesesting, and i expect it to circle back around in ROTK>

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Devey
Jackson's Faramir is more in keeping with the one I always hoped he would be. Just because Tolkien wrote him how he did doesn't mean I have to agree with him unquestioningly does it?
cripes. :eek: Well yeah, PJ was going to make an adaptation of the film right? Based on the books? What gives him the right to just change characters around. I liked Faramir how he was and then in the end I thought he was perfect for Eowyn how he was! ;) Gah, dont even get me started on how he killed Gimli's character. Ok, We get it HES SHORT!! >.<
But oh welll...Ive come to accept to accept the movie. I think Lord Theseus was right, my expectations were waay to high. Im going to see it again, it couldnt have been *that* bad right? There were some good points!
~Celebréiel

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Another horrid flashback - Legolas shield-surfing down the stairs.
I don't care if it's 'cool', it was crap, stupid dire, awful etc.

I agree.

The note about Uruks + grenades is true enough - Saruman had foreseen what the problem would be at Helm's Deep and had worked his 'industrialised' magic to create gunpowder. That the arrows didn't bring down the Uruk with the flame I can put down to some of the Uruk bezerkers not knowing pain - IE unless one of the arrows was outrightly fatal, he could carry on (albiet with manky arms) and do his job.

I call him the "olympic torch runner" orc. :D Just picture the Olympic Theme song playing while you watch that scene again.

One thing that bothers me about Gullum - for living 99% of his life in a cave and having no contact with people - he knows an AWFUL lot about the history of the Ring. When he explains Saurons motives to Frodo and Sam- it sounds like Gandalf. Might be because I think most of those lines were Gandalf's (just reworked). I have to reread Two Towers - but I never got the impression that Gullum was so well versed in the history of the Ring.

I also agree with Gerbil -


If I hear that 'his version' one more time I'm going to scream.

I don't personally care if it's Jackson's version - I think most of his changes are crap and unnecessary.


Originally posted by Churl
Speaking for myself, I never use the phrase "Jackson's version" to imply that the film's creative liberties are now somehow part of the Tolkien canon. Instead, the films are — and always will be — imperfect approximations, adaptations, interpretations, etc. I doubt that even Jackson and his team would suggest otherwise.

As I've said before on other threads. After listening to the Directors commentary on FotR - I don't think that Jackson was ever a "TRUE" fan of Lord of the Rings and Tolkien. I think he just wanted to make a fantasy film and thought that Lord of the Rings would make a cool one. He does practically says this in the commentary when he talks about why he made the film. I don't think he made the film because he loved the book.

He knew that if he presented himself as a "diehard, obsessed" LotR fan - the TRUE fans would accept his version more. Also as I've said before - I think, and still do, that the only thing he really got right - was the scenary of Middle Earth.

NAZGUL at Osgiliath - I agree with everyone that said that this was weak. It was - first of all he wasn't even shot down - so why didn't he just go after the Ring? They're approach doesn't instill fear in anyone - it takes Frodo to say that "They're hear" for people to realize that the Nazguls had arrived. They instill fear on their arrival and makes Sauron's troops "fanatical" - but that wasn't indicated at all. I see no reason in Jackson's movies where the Nazgul are to be truly feared.

[Lief Erikson]

To me, the most common gripe people have with the movie is Faramir's being different from in the books. When I watched the movie for the first time, I felt the same way, and I didn't like the whole detour to Osgiliath thing.

The part where Aragorn falls off the cliff I didn't mind at all, and I thought Arwen was placed in very skillfully. To me, all of the special effects were incredibly well done, and the character development we see with everybody was very well done. Sméagol was great, Eowyn, Gimli, Legolas, etc. were all very well done.

The comic things with Gimli I didn't mind either :).

So now that I've briefly gone over my enjoyement of everything, I'll come back to the primary gripe: Faramir.

It is true that he is quite different from in the books. To me, he seems both harder and weaker then the one in the books.

Nevertheless, his decision to take them to Osgiliath is pretty reasonable if you take into account that his life is forfeit if he doesn't. It increases the drama of his decision from what it was in the book, just as they increased the drama of everything, such as the Ents' decision not to fight and how close they came to being caught at the Black Gate come to mind immediately.

So that in part excuses Faramir, and he did shine through in the end. And he was strong enough not to take the Ring for himself before, in the cave.

The detour to Osgiliath ceased entirely to bug me after I started further analyzing the scene in my head, after seeing the movie. In the books, we hear that Sauron thought the Fellowship was all going to Minas Tirith, and that is why he attacks Minas Tirith. This detour to Osgiliath demonstrates much more plainly, and I think in a pretty neat way why he chooses to strike so quickly at Minas Tirith.

If the Ring is in Osgiliath, it is very close to Minas Tirith and it is logical that that Sauron would bring forth his strength in attack. That connection to events in the book Return of the King made that whole scenario much more fitting to me.



But I do find it a little of a pain that Faramir was less noble than in the books, and this is what I want to see: a big improvement of his character in RoTK. We need to see a reason why Eowyn should fall in love with him and Denethor grieves so much for him. We also need to get an attachment between Faramir and the audiences, so that people care a whole lot about Faramir's apparent death.

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It increases the drama of his decision from what it was in the book, just as they increased the drama of everything, such as the Ents' decision not to fight and how close they came to being caught at the Black Gate come to mind immediately.

But thats just the thing, if done right, they wouldnt have needed to increase the drama, those were probably my least favorit of the changes(putting them pretty low) The dramatic soap opera changes, Haldir, the ents, Faramir, Arwen and Aragorn, Frodo and the Nazgul and as ive mentioned before Gimli. The TT was naturally emotional and should have been kept that way. They didnt keep the feel of the book, it was like a totally different story loosely very loosely based on a book. Ok ok, im shutting up. :o
~Celebréiel :p

[Elvet]

I agree with alot that has been said already. I do think that this is much more a departure from the books than the first movie, but in a way that makes the film more coherent. I think Peter Jackson has done a great job of not letting the special effects run
off with the film. And he managed to juggle the 3 different story lines without it being too choppy.
Personal highs:
- the horses and riding stunts
- the Ents
- the personification of war seen in the women and children affected by the battle
- Frodo being influenced by the power of the ring
- Gollum
Personal lows:
- Gimli's goofiness
- Theoden's exorcism
- Elves at Helm's Deep (particularly Haldir's death scene) and lack of the Huorns at the end of the Battle
- Faramir's depiction

None of these negatives will stop my intended multiple viewings of the film, and I am awaiting in anticipation for the inevitable added scenes in the DVD.

[Gerbil]

What? You got free passes? We were just about to finish the 'exorcism' scene (you know the part where Gandalf points his staff and Saruman is thrown backwards) when the reel froze. We waited for a moment, then realized that that wasn't supposed to happen. While the movie people rushed to shut it off, the frame started getting red and orange spots on it and began to melt. We had to wait 15 minutes for them to splice off that 3-4 seconds. And no free passes. Oh well, it was good for a laugh anyway.:p Man you really need to complain harder...
We were 'lucky' in as much that since it happened near the end, everyone came out seething.
The film was bad enough without people cocking it up.

Have to say - the buggering-up rate of playing TTT seems unduly high :(

[azalea]

I didn't mean to be so negative in my past post, but I just wanted to get my main gripes out of the way while they were still fresh in my mind.
I wanted to add that I really liked the coney scene, I'm glad he had that in there. As for Legolas' "skateboarding" episode, I think I would have thought it was really cool if it hadn't been such obvious pandering to the MTV viewership.:rolleyes: I mean, if they just hadn't made it as if he were riding on a skateboard.

Re Gimli: If PJ had left a lot of the ent stuff in and had kept the Uruk scene at the beginning truer instead of making it so "dark," he would have had enough levity left in that Gimli's comic status would have been unecessary for the most part.

I can't believe people said they couldn't wait for it to be over, though! I was like,"What, that's it?" I could have watched it another hour! I do hope they include a lot more in the extended dvd!

People in my audience were laughing at Gollum, too. I really don't know that he was intentionally supposed to be funny at all the parts where they laughed. But I do think Jackson was really trying to build up sympathy for an unlikable creature in the very short amount of time he had to do that.
Oh, and there were plenty of people in the audience surprised when Treebeard opened his eyes! Hey, what did everyone think of how PJ included the lembas explanation for those who hadn't seen the EE? (With Sam saying that's all they had to eat.) I thought it was good, even though it didn't give an explanation of the properties of it.

edit: Oh, sorry I wanted to add one more thing -- I wasn't as impressed with the music in TTT as in FotR, but I did like the Rohan theme.

[Ërendil]

I loved the film, but some of the characters did have major faults.

I thought that King Theoden was meant to be a kindly old man, not the arrogant git that he was.
I didn't like Faramir - he was so horrible! I expected a kider character, not the nasty person that PJ potrayed him as.

During Helm Deep, I was shaking my head aso much - the elves shouldn't have been there. I didn't like Haldir's death scene either.

I thought that some people laughed in inapropriate places, especially when either Gollum or Gimli were involved.

I can't remember much more details about the film, but I loved the ents, Golum and the darker side of Frodo. I'll post more when I remember other stuff.

[azalea]

I actually liked seeing the elves show up at HD. I think it worked for the movie, especially because the movie going public was probably wondering why the elves weren't coming to help. If he had played up the fact that ALL elves were in the process of leaving ME, it wouldn't have worked, but I honestly don't think people got that. I think they thought (from talking to others) that just certain elves were going, and that the elf kingdoms were all staying intact. He didn't have time to highlight the war on other fronts, either, so he wanted to show that the war was affecting everyone, not just men, and that it wasn't just men that were doing the fighting. I thought Haldir's death scene was surprisingly well done, giving me a taste of what might have been if the same thought had gone into other moments in the film. His expression and the camera angle really bring home the fact that this immortal being had laid down his life for the "cause," and how powerful that as he goes down he sees the pile of dead men and orcs, and is aware that he is about to be one of the dead bodies piled there. It was disturbing to me, but in a good way, if you know what I mean. He will not be going over the sea, instead he will cease to exist, for all he knows.

[Churl]

Ërendil wrote:I thought that some people laughed in inapropriate places, especially when either Gollum or Gimli were involved.I think that some of the Gollum dialogue and nearly all of the Gimli dialogue was meant to be funny. So, in that sense, it was appropriate for the audience to laugh.

Was there too much comedy? In the case of Gimli, yes. I never got annoyed by Gollum, though, mostly because some of his funny lines came directly from the book (the "taters" exchange with Sam — loved it!), and the rest was more subtle than just another height joke.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Man you really need to complain harder...
We were 'lucky' in as much that since it happened near the end, everyone came out seething.
The film was bad enough without people cocking it up.

Have to say - the buggering-up rate of playing TTT seems unduly high :(

Actually - what was nice was that no one complained about it. Everyone was easy going about the interruption and just took the time to stretch and go to the bathrooms. Then they made an announcement that because of the inconvience - after the movie they would be handing out free passes at the door.

[elvendrummer87]

when the nazgul were on the horses they were cooler. all in all, the movie ROCKED!!!! I loved Eowyn; I was afraid they'd ruin my favorite character but they didn't! :) Eomer was great too. Though Faramir was kinda not as nice as he was in the book. And were there elven archers at HElm's Deep? I don't remember. Oh well, if we start nit-picking then this thread will reach to the moon and back! lol :)

[Churl]

elvendrummer87 wrote:Oh well, if we start nit-picking then this thread will reach to the moon and back!Us?&nbsp; Nitpick?&nbsp; Never!!! :)&nbsp :D&nbsp :p

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I call him the "olympic torch runner" orc. :D Just picture the Olympic Theme song playing while you watch that scene again.
:eek: Now that you mention it, I had that exact same thought. All he needed was some more slow motion and "Chariots of Fire" playing in the background. :D Frodo's 'Poltergeist' moment was strange too... *demonic look* They're heeere...

[Gilraen]

Hello to all. This is my first post anywhere, ever, so if I violate any etiquette rules, let me apologize ahead of time.

Some have mentioned not liking the scene of Frodo's fall into the Dead Marshes. Actually, I thought it was an interesting scene, having Frodo fall into the water and be pulled out by Gollum. It reminded me of the image at the end of FoTR where Frodo pulls Sam out of the river. I don't know if it was Jackson's intent to have the scenes echo each other, to somehow illustrate the strong connection the characters have, but it got my attention.

Just a thought.

Please keep up the interesting and lively commentary!:)

[Khamûl]

Welcome to Entmoot Gilraen. :) Be sure to stop by the Welcome thread at the top of the General Messages forum. I hope you enjoy your time here.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

Yeah the Dead Marshes were really wierd! They were sort of how I imagined them too!
And the scene when Gimli was talking to Eowyn about Female Dwarfs was very funny!!! Especially when Aragorn says really quitely "It's the beards"!!
I was laughing soo much!

I found this film more humerous compared to FOTR!

I give it 12/10
I loved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

[bropous]

I only have a few minutes before work so I'll leave my nitpicking for later...

I just saw this film, and I loved it. It really moved the story along, and the new characters were quite compelling.

Gollum was unbelievable. I can't even express how impressed I am with Gollum, both the CGI character and the acting.

Treebeard and the Ents were fantastic, and the Storming of Isengard was for me the high point of the whole film.

Helms Deep was one of the most well-visualized medieval-style battles I have seen on screen.

I will go ahead and assert, though, had Jackson stuck to the book more faithfully, he would have produced a better film.

I think the storyline Jackson penned for the film meshes well with the prior film and sets up the anticipation for Return of the King.

I guess he'll release the trailer tacked on to the end of the film sometime in March....

What a movie.

[Gerbil]

I call him the "olympic torch runner" orc. :D Just picture the Olympic Theme song playing while you watch that scene again. Excellent :) However, now I picture him running to the Chariots of Fire track by Vangelis :D

One thing that bothers me about Gullum - for living 99% of his life in a cave and having no contact with people - he knows an AWFUL lot about the history of the Ring. When he explains Saurons motives to Frodo and Sam- it sounds like Gandalf. Might be because I think most of those lines were Gandalf's (just reworked). I have to reread Two Towers - but I never got the impression that Gullum was so well versed in the history of the Ring. Yup - Gollum simply feared Sauron as a rival - the whole war for ME meant nothing to Gollum, his life revolved around the Ring. Gollum and Sauron do seem to see each other in ways no-one else does. I think Gandalf says something along the lines that In Sauron, Gollum sees his fiercest rival (for the Ring) - hence Gollum will do anything to keep Sauron from it. And in Gollum, Sauron saw something he did not recognise - his indomitability even on pain of death, being that they were both consumed with their lust for the Ring. So it appears Gollum has been reading the local Mordor newspaper for info.

As I've said before on other threads. After listening to the Directors commentary on FotR - I don't think that Jackson was ever a "TRUE" fan of Lord of the Rings and Tolkien. ..... He does practically says this in the commentary when he talks about why he made the film. I don't think he made the film because he loved the book. Bugger. I'm getting this for Christmas, so I'll have a listen myself. It would certainly tie in with my sneaking suspicion of PJ. In a way it makes FotR and TTT films more 'acceptable' because they are kind of how I'd expect people ignorant of Tolkien's work to come up with. Oh well :(

NAZGUL at Osgiliath Along with the comment earlier in this thread about how Faramir and Co approaching from the east managed to go THROUGH the enemy and land on the west bank to then hold off the enemy (not to mention that then Frodo and Sam had to re-cross the river somewhere - which Tolkien repeatedly pointed out was only possible at Osgiliath other than travelling hundreds of miles either way (this was the main strategic point of Osgiliath and why Sauron's army was trying to capture it). Badly thought out. Pointless. Crap. etc. :(
Yup Nazguls appear to startle no-one. The Black Breath (I think?) came over a lot of men in Minas Tirith merely from being in proximity to the Nazgul - their very presence was enough to affect people up to the point of death. Here they are a bit of a novelty:

'Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Noo! It's a Nazgul! Errm... wossat - should I be scared?'

Originally posted by Devey
Why are people so hung up about Faramir. In my opinion it is Tolkiens Faramir that is totally wrong and Jackson got it absolutely correct. Tolkien expects us to believe that Faramir has the strength to resist the ring (so close to Mordor as well) yet the race of men have been shown to be incapable. Also even Gandalf and Gladriel were nearly tempted yet Faramir some how resists because he has made an oath...for goodness sake.......:mad: The point is Boromir and Faramir are completed different. Faramir and Denethor have, by soem quirk of fate, nearly true blood of Numenor. Boromir does not (and indeed is one reason Denethor loves him more than Faramir, because he (D) and Boromir are so unlike). Boromir is detailed (at great length) as being strong willed, a person not only used to power, but desiring more, even if it was for the glory of Gondor. Such people are particularly susceptible to the lure of the Ring. Faramir, on the other hand, was far-seeing and wise. Denethor too - but he was brought down in another manner - by hard times and Sauron's controlling of his use of the Palantir. By the time of the war of the Ring, Denethor was still opposed to Sauron (as indeed Gonder was politically and historically), but he believed Sauron's victory was guaranteed. Faramir, on the other hand, was still in control of his own mind enough to refuse the Ring, seeing that the hopes of Middle Earth rested on this. Let's not forget that really it should have been Faramir as one of the 9 companions, not Boromir - Boromir took the task to himself even though Faramir had the recurring dream (Boromir had it once only). Denethor, favouring Boromir, let him go instead.
Would have been interesting to see how things would have turned out if Faramir had gone - Boromir's desire for the Ring ultimately turned to good, but who could have foreseen that at the time? :)

[sun-star]

I don't suppose I'll find anything to say that people haven't said already, but I don't care - I want to talk about TT, even if no one's listening! :D

Well, the problems are obvious: Faramir and Elves at Helm's Deep. And the strange, strange "death" of Aragorn - why? what did it achieve? I was very confused at that point! - and the exorcism of Theoden.

But why be critical? (Like that ever stopped me before ;)) I loved the film. I had higher expectations than for FOTR, and most them were fulfilled. I can even forgive Haldir getting in the way at exciting moments! Gollum was fantastic, not just as CGI but as a character too (though can't give Jackson the credit for that one) I never, ever thought I could feel so sorry for Gollum that I was angry with Sam - but I did in this film. I cried for Gollum. I couldn't believe it.

And the Dead Marshes - wow. Sure, the Ents weren't quite right for me and Merry and Pippin were as irritating as ever, but I forgive it. I'm happy! :D

[Gerbil]

Gollum was unbelievable. I can't even express how impressed I am with Gollum, both the CGI character and the acting. You mean, of course, that Gollum was believable? ;)

Originally posted by Khamûl
:eek: Now that you mention it, I had that exact same thought. All he needed was some more slow motion and "Chariots of Fire" playing in the background. :D Frodo's 'Poltergeist' moment was strange too... *demonic look* They're heeere... You swine! I wrote my comment about Chariots of Fire over an hour ago, but only posted now cos dinner interrupted. Now I look like a plagiarist!

BTW - I think I made a mistake on it anyway - isn't Chariots of Fire the official Olympics tune? Oops :)

[Wayfarer]

My impression was that the movie started out strong enough to get your hopes up, and then completely dashed them with the horrible conclusion.

[Noahamir]

I am saving my main thoughts till I see the movie more than once. I had mixed feelings after seeing TTT, the same feelings I had after my first viewing of FOTR, but I really loved FOTR alot more on repeat viewings where I wasn't trying to compare the movie to the book.

There is just one point about Gollum that I was very curious about in TTT that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. In the book, Gollum hates being in the sun, even moonlight hurts his eyes. Frodo, Sam and Gollum would travel at night. But in the Film, he never seem to care about it, spending almost the entire time in bright daylight. I wonder why PJ decided to skip over this, was it becuase of filming issues or just deciding to ignore it.

Other than that, I loved Gollum in the movie.

[Goldberry1]

I was really disappointed with this movie, only because so much of the plot was changed, omitted, or (hopefully) will be at the beginning of "Return of the King." I was most shocked by how Faramir's character was portrayed, and how the Ents intially decided not to go to war. All I have to say is that ROTK (in my mind) has a lot to make up for.

[sun-star]

There was another thing which I didn’t like, too: Sam and Frodo. I know Frodo’s corrupted by the Ring, but I’m not sure how he can be any more horrible to Sam in ROTK than he was in this film. Is he going to threaten him again? Argue with him again? I was glad to see the final conversation between them about being in stories and tales (which I love in the book), but I didn’t see any of the tender moments which show them suffering and enduring together - for example, after Sam cooks the rabbits. Their friendship is so important in the book, and I’m not sure it’s really there much in the film. That’s my impression of it, anyway.

[Churl]

Even though the theatrical release needs to stand on its own, at least some of our criticisms of the Two Towers film might be softened when the extended edition is released.&nbsp; For me at least, the extra footage in Fellowship's extended edition added a lot more character depth and emotion to the film.

[IronParrot]

I saw it a second time, and I have several points to address. This will likely take several posts.

On Faramir

First, I will repost what I said about Faramir on the other thread, because I'm too lazy to repeat it.

Well, now that I saw the film a second time, I understood the changes with Faramir far more.

Upon reflection, he is still the same character as Tolkien's Faramir - and before you rope me my the neck and drag me through the Emyn Muil, let me explain why.

In Tolkien's work, why is Faramir so resistant to the Ring? Well, it's certainly in his character that he is less ambitious than his brother, and is the neglected younger son in many ways. But his concern for the defense of Gondor is no different.

In the film, what Jackson/Walsh/Boyens changed was not Faramir's fundamental personality, but rather the information he had.

I would argue that a major reason why Faramir allowed Frodo to go in the book was because he was well aware of the nature of Boromir's death. He knew that it had something to do with "Isildur's Bane", and that there was dissension in the Fellowship.

He doesn't know any of this. In the film, he lets Frodo go right after two critical moments: first, Sam tells him of Boromir's fall - and second, he sees how the Ring draws evil when the airborne Nazgul confronts Frodo. He witnesses firsthand the power of the Ring, but prior to that, did not know of its power to corrupt, and its utter inability to do good.

In the book, he knows all of this early enough to make a firm, early decision to forsake the Ring.

Also notice that Faramir does not take the Ring. He still resists, but in his desire for the defense of Gondor, he plans to bear it as a gift to his father.

Also notice that while the attack on Osgiliath and Faramir's retreat over the river is a passing "background" event in ROTK, the threat from the East is clearly established in the film. In the film, Faramir has the additional motive of coming to Gondor's defense; such urgency, and the nature of what he does after he leaves Frodo, is not mentioned until far later in the book.

I would dare say that Tolkien's Faramir would have done exactly the same thing - resist taking the Ring for himself, but take the Ring to Gondor - had he possessed the knowledge of the preliminary assault on Osgiliath, and lacked the knowledge of the nature of Boromir's fall.

What you are seeing in both versions is the same character, just under completely different circumstances that necessitate completely different reactions.

Secondly, I will point out that I feel pretty much the same way about the Ents deciding not to go to war. It's not because they are any different as characters from what they are in the book - it's just that they are ill-informed about the extent of Saruman's destruction. In the book, they know all this, and they just need a trigger.

In the context of a film, though, "show, don't tell" becomes even more important. It's far more powerful to show Faramir or Treebeard learning about their circumstances, instead of having them say, "we already know yada yada yada, just give me a push."

[Rían]

Well, I hardly know what to say... I think I'll probably have to see it again to get a better feel for it, because as someone said once, the people that have read the books many times have to see the movie once to find out how many things have been changed (and to get over the shock!) then they can go again and enjoy the movie as a movie more, if that makes sense.

For me, the first 45 min. or so were mostly awful, mainly because of Theoden. At first, he was so lethargic that it was comical - he reminded me alternatively of a Monty Python character and the dippy old king in "The Princess Bride". Then he turns into this ridiculous, fiendish-type guy, and I expected his head to start spinning around and him to start throwing up green stuff. I was just cringing, it was so campy and embarassing. I never quite recovered from that, because I kept on thinking "what else are they going to make ridiculous?" The "Frodo being affected by the ring" music was campy and silly, too - like a 1950's alien music theme -- "ooooo eeeeee ooooooo"!

Oh well - still lots of good parts. I loved when Legolas swung up on the galloping horse! Eowyn was fantastic! Faramir, however .... just seemed like a snotty younger brother, not the noble, intelligent and courageous guy in the books. Computer graphics were good enough to be not distracting - pretty amazing, actually. In the showing I went to, people were laughing really loudly at Gollum's dialogues; for me, they are funny, but also tragic. I like how PJ showed that Frodo understood Gollum in a way that Sam couldn't. Eomer's role was changed, but was fundamentally the same. How do the people of Rohan tell each other apart? They all look the same to me - grimy and wearing brown clothes.

Well, overall it was good, and I'll probably like it better each time I see it, but nothing beats the books! However, for me, seeing the movies has enhanced the books, because visually I think PJ and crew did a good job with scenery, etc.

[IronParrot]

On Peter Jackson

First of all: those of you who have problems with changes to the book, I think your beef is primarily with Philippa Boyens, who managed that kind of thing - reconciling Tolkien's work with the film format - to a far greater extent than Peter Jackson.

But on that point, I think it is presumptuously arrogant for anyone on this board to claim that they are in some way a "more die-hard" fan than someone with as "ordinary" an interest as the talents behind the film of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, we all know that what you mean to say is that you think any real fan of the book would have stuck to it hammer-and-tack.

This is, of course, completely false. I will make the sweeping assumption, perhaps incorrect but not likely to be, that none of you here have continuously pored over every specific word in Tolkien's magnum opus, working out the logistical difficulties in visualizing the story, showing where Tolkien tends to tell.

What I see here are quibbles over minor details.

Yes, I too am unsure of the purpose of Aragorn's "false death" - certainly not for dramatic impact, since every single member of the audience knew damn well he was okay. More on the purpose of this scene later.

Yes, I too had huge initial reservations about Faramir up until the very last scene with him. But I've explained this already, and it's one of my lesser concerns about the film as a whole.

Yes, Tolkien's structural genius in LOTR's non-linearity is completely lost, but in the name of dramatic coherence.

But can it be done better? I would say no. I have my own disagreements about certain decisions, but those are not pertinent to the internal consistency of the film. The characters have the same fundamental motives and roles (yes, even Faramir). The motifs of nature being overrun by industry, the importance of generational storytelling, and the very concept of "doing the right thing", which Tolkien was so keen on pushing, are very clearly preserved. Heck, even if you want to play with details, The Two Towers incorporates a significantly greater proportion of verbatim dialogue from the book, in comparison to The Fellowship of the Ring.

Peter Jackson might not be able to memorize the names of the Stewards of Gondor down to Denethor forwards and backwards, like some of you can, but his interpretation of the book and his preservation of those fundamental themes in the visual fabric of his work speaks for him as, I laud, a "true fan" of The Lord of the Rings.

It scares me that if you were all scholars of Scottish history, you would torch Mel Gibson's house because the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart was just the Battle of Stirling, without the bridge.

[Curufinwe]

I was not as satisfied with this film upon my first viewing as I was after seeing FOTR. It topped FOTR visually - which was the most impressive visual film I'd ever seen - but obviously it deviated from the book much more drastically than FOTR.
For me the most dissapointing shift among the characters was Theoden. I felt the "spell" was rather silly, to me it would have been far more effective to demonstrate Theoden's despair at the death of Theodred and proceed to show Grima's exploitation of his mood. This is not cleary glimpsed in the book but if PJ intended to spend so much time in Edoras before any of our heros get there I think that would have been a better plot line. And thus Eomer would have stayed in prison at Edoras - he desperately needed more screen time. Both Theoden and Gandalf are cheated by the "spell" and its aftermath. Even after the spell is lifted Theoden procedes to hide the nation in helm's deep rather than ride to war. This is to me a rather important change that should not have been included, it degrades Theoden's courage and Gandalf's power. I thought the warg charge was gratuitous and took time that could have been used elsewhere. To me the ride from Edoras is a highlight of the book, I also believe the anticipation is built better by the book plotline with the news of the defeat at the Fords of Isen and Gandalf's directive to head to Helm's Deep. As we all know Theoden's forces are under hot pursuit as the head to the deep this is more dramatic and builds tension better in my opinion and leaves out the silly Aragorn is resurected also part. I think Theoden lacks the character at this point to make his death meaningful on the Pelennor.
Faramir was disappointing also but I think that PJ intends to include him heavily in ROTK so the damage may be undone.
I thought Aragorn was better that in FOTR, I though Legolas was well done also and I didnt mind Gimli's comic relief mostly because of John Rhys-Davies (sp?) performance which i thought was better than the first time around.
Merry Pippin and the Ents were somewhat shortchanged, I don't really understand why Treebeard was changed - he does not seem to be the master of the forest and seems unaware of whats happening in it. I suppose PJ wanted the hobbits to have a greater impact although they really did not as their arrival in Fangorn set off the events that led to the storming of Isenguard, I suppose PJ wanted that to be absolutely clear to the audience, the change is one I can live with but seemed unecessary. I though t both Merry and Pippin were more true to character in this film.
I thought the interaction between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum was very well done and nearly entirely in keeping with the spirit of the book and was mostly true to the dialog of the book. Gollum was excellent, and I thought that Frodo falling into the Dead Marshes was a constructive change. The Black Gate was excellent and I had no problem with the attempt to get past the gate, I thought it worked well. The trip to Osgiliath should have been left out, again I think that following the book's plotline would have been more effective by taking Frodo and Sam to Morgul Vale and showing the march of the army of Morgul - I think that would have been a good place to leave the story, or on the stairs perhaps. The journey of Frodo and Sam is fraught with dangers, not the least the intentions of their guide - which are obviously more sinister in the book since he is leaded them to certain death (he thinks), the sojurn with Faramir is a short respite from terror there was no need to build tension into that interaction.
Gandalf was excellent, from the battle with the Balrog to his first appearance up until his silly excorcism. Gandalf is not heavily featured in the TTT book but PJ steals his thunder by ending before his confrontation and offer of redemption to Saruman - I believe this is a critical scene that must appear in ROTK.
Eowyn is extremely well done, as is Grima, the two characters who most closely mirror their literary personas.
Overall I did like the film and I'm very nitpicking with Tolkien so it may not seem that way. For the most part I didnt mind the plot changes as much as the changes in the characters especially Faramir and Theoden. What PJ has done is create a believable Middle-Earth visually which in my opinion is the most difficult part of bringing LOTR to the screen I just wish that having done so he would not feel it necessary to then make changed to the story which are not warranted.

[IronParrot]

On the warg attack and Aragorn's "death"

First of all, let me just say that this isn't something I necessarily fully support. I will point out, though, that the second time I watched the film, it didn't distract me, nor did my other big quibble (Haldir at Helm's Deep).

Now, as I've said before, I think it's obvious that the film doesn't in any way expect the audience to think of him as being dead. Yes, movie audiences are dumb, but I think even the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens trio realizes that they're not "dumberer" (refer to a certain teaser I saw before the film for a definition).

So, what's the point of this whole sequence?

In Tolkien's work, I think the whole point was that Saruman has to get past Helm's Deep first before worrying about Dunharrow. This makes geographical sense, even if it's not explicitly stated, because his forces would be flanked on all sides if he went straight for the helpless women and children of Rohan.

Well, with Dunharrow out of the way, and everyone headed for Helm's Deep, in a blindingly obvious move on the part of Theoden that Grima and Saruman both foresee, why would Saruman not send wargs to kill as many off as he can? Look at the malicious twinkle in his eyes when Grima tells him that there are women and children among the company.

Is this pointless destruction on his part? Yes, but pointless destruction is perfectly in character with what Saruman's doing! In Tolkien, Treebeard points out exactly that.

Now, that explains the wargs - a consequence of taking the open mountain passage to Helm's Deep, instead of sheltering the people at Dunharrow.

Well, well, well... what to do with Aragorn?

Okay, I think I may understand why this whole bit is in. Let's see:

- It provides great moments for both Legolas and Gimli when he does arrive at Helm's Deep, again displaying the bond between the Three Hunters.

- It sets up the moment when Legolas gives him Arwen's pendant, an important moment for Eowyn - observe her reaction. Fine subtlety at work here.

- Most importantly, it provides a very convenient point of transition into the goings-on of the Elves back up north.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that this is a great or necessary addition. I'm just saying that I understand where it fits into the film's own sense of continuity and dramatic development.

[Devey]

The point is Boromir and Faramir are completed different. Faramir and Denethor have, by soem quirk of fate, nearly true blood of Numenor. Boromir does not (and indeed is one reason Denethor loves him more than Faramir, because he (D) and Boromir are so unlike). Boromir is detailed (at great length) as being strong willed, a person not only used to power, but desiring more, even if it was for the glory of Gondor. Such people are particularly susceptible to the lure of the Ring. Faramir, on the other hand, was far-seeing and wise. Denethor too - but he was brought down in another manner - by hard times and Sauron's controlling of his use of the Palantir. By the time of the war of the Ring, Denethor was still opposed to Sauron (as indeed Gonder was politically and historically), but he believed Sauron's victory was guaranteed. Faramir, on the other hand, was still in control of his own mind enough to refuse the Ring, seeing that the hopes of Middle Earth rested on this.

okay its along time since I have read the book so there may be some factual mistakes here...feel free to point them out.........

Well I am sure Tolkien had this in mind although I am more inclinded to think that it was Tolkien building the plot for the subsequent love affair between Faramir and Eowyn. This is fine in itself, it makes sense and it works to a degree however what it fails in my view in doing is showing just how corrupting the ring is especially the closer it gets to Mordor. On one hand we are told of it's power, and through Frodo we see that even hobbits who are resistant to a degree to its will, gradually are controlled by it. I am sure that even wise and good Gandolf would have been unable to resist it so close to Mordor. That is why the fellowship split, because Frodo knew that it would corrupt everyone. Yet we are supposed to believe that Faramir has the will to resist and does so quite easily.

I think that the Jackson version holds up better, ie Faramir in a world that is going to war is suspicious of everyone........that he has all the failings of men even if he can trace ancestory back to the Kingdom of Numenor. However it is the sight of Frodo totally controlled by the ringwraith and the subsequent account of how Boromir was corrupted that reveals to him the true nature of the ring. That doesn't mean Faramir and Boromir are identical...it just means that the ring is able to corrupt everyone to its will.

Some may think that there shouldn't be any deviation from the book however I take the view that as long as it works intellectually, and i feel this does then it is okay. It is called artistic license and there is nothing wrong with using it

If I had my way then Aragorn would have dropped Arwen ( always thought she was a bit dull) for Eowyn who is fiesty, beautiful, and pretty good with a sword and blond to boot

:) :) :) thought that as a 14 year old when i first read it and haven't changed my mind since the film

ps some of that was tongue in cheek...i will let you decide which

[Lollypopgurl]

:( I'm worried.

After reading everything everyone's posted (hey, I couldn't help it!), I'm really, really, worried. I'll be seeing it in about 2 hours and I'll post again when I'm done.

[IronParrot]

"If I had my way then Aragorn would have dropped Aeowen ( always thought she was a bit dull) for Eowyn who is fiesty, beautiful, and pretty good with a sword and blond to boot"
Ditto. :) Oh well, life isn't fair... maybe that's another of Tolkien's themes there. :p

[Devey]

thanks for highlighting the spelling mistake :D

[Churl]

Lollypopgurl said::( I'm worried.Don't be!

If you're worried because of all you're reading in these spoilers, look at it this way: at least you'll be prepared for the variations from the book.

I find that if I go into something prepared for the low points, they don't seem so low. And trust me, there are many, many high points to offset the parts that might strike you as off key.



And, in response to Devey, who wrote:thanks for highlighting the spelling mistake :D...referring, I guess, to his typing "Aeowen" instead of "Arwen," I say it's an honest mistake. After all, Eowyn's enough to make any guy forget Arwen -- Aragorn's crazy! ;)

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
But can it be done better? I would say no. With a comment like that, it's not really worth labouring over a long post to prove you wrong. Glad you enjoyed it. Calling it perfection is stupid though.

[Firekitten2006]

i loved the scene when Gollum pulled Frodo out of the Dead Marshes. It made everybody in the theater cheer when the "evil" Gollum left when the "good" Gollum ask, and my heart wrench when it appeared the evil Gollum had won, and they were taking Sam and Frodo to her.

I think that the "good" Gollum was cute, and funny. People didnt laugh neccessarily because it was a joke, but because he was cute and innocent. It made you feel sorry for him.

I could have lived without all of Sam being like Frodo's mommy. Loved the "Are you his body guard?" "His gardener" It was hilarious! Just the look on his face! I have yet to see Frodo have some dignity tho. PJ seems to be taking away from him :( I love frodo! lol

DID NOT like that they gave Eomer's "We will draw our swords together" line to Theoden.

Was I the only one who thought Eomer was a pretty hot guy?? Honestly I thought he was great! Even tho they took a lot from him.

Didnt like how sad or unhappy Merry seemed the whole time. Yeah in the book he's pretty serious, but not that serious.

Just one question tho, what do you think PJ plans on doing since Arwen has possibly gone to the Grey Havens. I mean, yeah he dreamed about her, and he still has the necklace, but I mean, whats going to happen, and why is Elrond such a jerk! :P (I have read the books BTW)

I *loved* the marketing strategy. They will have just as many people see ROTK or more as the have the other two. Just because no one (except people who read the books) know who "she" is.

[Ethereal]

i loved TTT!!!! i had such a great time seeing it. i mean, not only was the movie amazing , but i went to the midnight showing of it at this giant cinema where they were showing it in twelve different theatres, so there were hundreds of LOTR fans swarming around before and after the movie!!

Ok, one of my favorite parts had to be when gollum was debating with his better half (smeagol). i'm not sure if PJ meant for it to be as funny as my friends and i thought it was, but i loved it. i thought it was pretty creative how they made it kind of look like there were two gollums having a debate, rather than one gollum arguing w/ himself.

i also LOVED the ents!!! they were some of my favorite characters in the book, and i thought they were portrayed very well in the movies. the only thing i noticed is that they were supposed to be very slow at making decisions, and when treebeard was first introduced, he was very hasty at making a decision about merry and pippin being orcs....but maybe that's just me.

anyway, they obviously changed some things from the books, and frodo is coming off as a bit of a pansy to those who haven't read the books, but overall i thought it was a wonderful movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I think it is presumptuously arrogant for anyone on this board to claim that they are in some way a "more die-hard" fan than someone with as "ordinary" an interest as the talents behind the film of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, we all know that what you mean to say is that you think any real fan of the book would have stuck to it hammer-and-tack.

Peter Jackson might not be able to memorize the names of the Stewards of Gondor down to Denethor forwards and backwards, like some of you can, but his interpretation of the book and his preservation of those fundamental themes in the visual fabric of his work speaks for him as, I laud, a "true fan" of The Lord of the Rings.

Since this seems to be directed at me since I have basically said that Jackson is a pseudo fan - I guess I'll address this.

I often looked at how to make LotR into a movie - ever since I had read it actually. Contrary to your comments - I would not however " have stuck to it hammer-and-tack". Obviously things needed to be changed. After I had first read LotR I was planning on going into film making so I could eventually turn it into a movie. I wanted to go into making movies BECAUSE of LotR. Jackson on the other hand points out directly in the commentary - that all they wanted to do was make a fantasy movie. They discussed it and he thought - "why not just go to the books that inspired the genre."

And to tell you the truth - I don't care if Jackson could recite the entire lineage of Aragorn or not. And yes - at one point in time I was the person you have described. But to come across as a "true fan" and then in the commentary to say that really the only reason he picked doing Lord of the Rings was because he wanted to do a fantasy film - just gets to me.

And I don't think he has succeeded in keeping the fundamental themes of Lord of the Rings. "JRR Tolkien" was on PBS last night - and they interviewed Christopher Tolkien and many many people that worked with Tolkien and knew him personally. After watching that - and hearing what people had to say about things that Tolkien felt and did regarding Lord of the Rings - makes me think even more that right now Tolkien is rolling in his grave at seeing his characters hacked by Jackson. You may disagree- but these are my feelings.

I don't think that Jackson brought Lord of the Rings to the screen. In order to do that - Jackson would have actually have had to supply some character development - instead he created an action film. I think that is one of the reason I am less upset by The Two Towers - I expected the stupid comic relief, I expected the overdone slow motion sequences, I expected non-stop action. That's pretty much what he delivered.

People claim that there were far more changes to this one than to FotR - and I disagree. There were only a couple of scenes that resembled Fellowship and it's the same now with Two Towers. He took the characters, the setting, some plot points and the scenary and then worked out a movie. In my opinion he didn't even attempt to preserve the fundamental themes of The Lord of the Rings.

On a side note - Rian's "ooooo eeeeee ooooooo" reminded me of what I was thinking the two times I saw theTwo Towers (Iwas going to mention it when I was getting back yesterday - but I forgot). When Frodo, Sam and Gullum are at the Black Gate - I'm expecting some of Sauron's soldiers to come up from behind - there to be a behind the rocks scuffle and then to see the three in custom - getting into line with the other soldiers and march through the gate - "ooooooo eeeeee ooooo"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ethereal

Ok, one of my favorite parts had to be when gollum was debating with his better half (smeagol). i'm not sure if PJ meant for it to be as funny as my friends and i thought it was, but i loved it. i thought it was pretty creative how they made it kind of look like there were two gollums having a debate, rather than one gollum arguing w/ himself.

I really did like the way that was done. I had seen Hamlet in Princeton this summer and they had three Hamlets doing the "To be or not to be" monologue. It reminded me of that - up to a point of course. :)

I actually consider that my favorite part. I always felt sorry for Gullum though. But I especially liked the "No one likes you" line. You can really feel for him then. I always wanted Gullum to be saved and I was sad that gullum ended up falling into Mt Doom.

[Ethereal]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I actually consider that my favorite part. I always felt sorry for Gullum though. But I especially liked the "No one likes you" line. You can really feel for him then. I always wanted Gullum to be saved and I was sad that gullum ended up falling into Mt Doom.

i agree!! i always pitied gollum in the books, and since he was animated so realistically on the screen, i feel for him even more now! if he had been an unrealistic, cheesy, typical computer animated character, i don't think the movie would have affected how i feel about him, but i have to give props for the behind the scenes animation guys for bringing gollum to life so effectively! i always wanted gollum's good side to prevail rather than his bad one, and i empathize with your sadness over him falling into mt. doom!

[BeardofPants]

You guys gotta stop posting so much stuff! How am I EVER going to read through this thread?! ;)

So: things I gotta look out for: Evil Faramir, Dodgy Theoden, Elves in the wrong place.... Love it already. :rolleyes:

Oh, and JD - it's Gollum, not Gullum.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Oh, and JD - it's Gollum, not Gullum.

Thanks - duplicate mistypes. :) or rather triplicate mistypes.

[Noahamir]

Thanks IronParrot for your in-depth analysis of the movie, your "show, not tell" theory really helped me evaluate the movie's changes in a much better light!

[azalea]

Someone mentioned Gollum and the sun issue -- I noticed that too, but assumed it was due to ease of filming and relative unimportance in the storyline.

Also, in response to comment re: Frodo's fall in the Marshes -- I didn't mind that per se, and I see how it was necessary to show how Gollum was sticking to his word by being faithful, and surprisingly so. My thing was that it took a little longer than I thought necessary, time which could have been spent more wisely elsewhere on character development.

Also, just a "me" thing -- Edoras looked different than I had pictured, and it's weird because almost everything else so far scenery-wise has been about dead-on. And Rohan was rockier than I "remembered.";)

Oh, and there were places where I felt they were "telling" too much, rather than showing, but of course to get everyone on the same page so to speak I know it had to be done.

Edit: Ah, I keep forgetting what I was going to say! I wanted to mention that I, too, liked the guy that played Eomer. He did a good job.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

After watching that - and hearing what people had to say about things that Tolkien felt and did regarding Lord of the Rings - makes me think even more that right now Tolkien is rolling in his grave at seeing his characters hacked by Jackson.

Then he should be mad at himself for making the decision to sell the movie rights. It was not a decision that had to be made.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Jackson's duty isn't to the Tolkien fans, it's to the studio that trusted him to make a successful movie. His job was never to make the most faithful adaptation possible, it was to put butts in seats, and he's done an absolutely spectacular job of it. If you don't like the changes, don't watch the movies, but saying that he did a poor job is directly contradicted by the box office.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Foul_Dwimmerlaik
Then he should be mad at himself for making the decision to sell the movie rights. It was not a decision that had to be made.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Jackson's duty isn't to the Tolkien fans, it's to the studio that trusted him to make a successful movie. His job was never to make the most faithful adaptation possible, it was to put butts in seats, and he's done an absolutely spectacular job of it. If you don't like the changes, don't watch the movies, but saying that he did a poor job is directly contradicted by the box office.

I'm talking about how the movies compare to the books. Survivor gets huge ratings in TV - doesn't mean it's a great show. I still think the movies could have been A LOT better. If you're happy with them - then that's great. I'm not. I think they have a lot to be desired and they're not masterpieces. I agree the cinematography is beautiful and his selection of locations. But in the end - all he created was an action movie.

I've always said that Jackson made adumbed down version of the books - I just feel he dumbed them down way too much.

One of the main reasons for the success of LotR is really BECAUSE of the fans of the books. It would only be doing a fraction of what it is if it wasn't for the Tolkien fans. I went to see FotR 8 times only because I wanted to like it. There are some people that have become fans of Lord of the Rings because of the movies - but those people seem to be a minority. I've seen Two Towers twice already. I'll see it again only because I have a free pass. I may see it another time if they have an RotK trailer. But I have since realised that Jackson did not bring Lord of the Rings to the big screen - so I will stick more to the books.

The people that think he did a great job and everything - can continue to kiss his feet and praise him. I'll continue to feel how I feel about them. And I will continue to state how I feel about them - just like everyone that thinks the movies are great and shouldn't be criticised because after all - "it's only Jackson's interpretation." So - I DON'T LIKE his interpretation, his vision or his movies of Lord of the Rings. I think he hacked the story to pieces.

[Kalimac]

Thanks to IronParrot for a good summation.

I quite agree about Faramir. People should keep in mind that we have not seen the last of Faramir. He will be back in Return of the King to complete his characters arc. I also believe as you do that Aragorn's tumble into the river was a way to segue back to Rivendell so the audience could witness the departure of the elves.

The only bit that I might add concerns the reasoning behind Frodo falling into the marshes. I saw a good deal of similarity between Frodo underwater in the marsh and Sam underwater in Fellowship . . seems this may be a theme to watch for in ROtK. The difference here of course is that it is Gollum who extends his hand down to clasp Frodo's and pull him to safety. Watch for role reversal in ROtK . . when it will be Sam's turn to reach out to Frodo.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You guys gotta stop posting so much stuff! How am I EVER going to read through this thread?! ;)

I know what you mean, BoP! (BTW when will you be seeing it?)

I havn't seen the movie yet (6 more days to go!), but like someone else said, I am worried. I have just read TTT again and I realised again how much I love it. I can't describe it properly, like Sam can't describe his love for Frodo. I know I am going to be disapointed, I knew this after seeing the FOTR, because I was disapointed after seeing that. But I grew to love the FOTR, despite some awful changes. I respect your (Entmooter's) opinions more that anyone else, because I know, that as big fans of Tolkien's work, most of you will feel how I feel.

I am really annoyed about Faramir, Aragorns 'death' and Theodens' exorcism. But enough has been said about that.

What I really loved from the book was Sam and Frodo's friendship. It seems that PJ has done a reasonable job with this, judging from the posts here. What color is Gollum? In the books he is black (I think, but maybe I'm confused), but from what I have seen he looks brownish.

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Gerbil
BTW - I think I made a mistake on it anyway - isn't Chariots of Fire the official Olympics tune? Oops :)Sorry 'bout that. Guess we were just on the same wavelength. :D Btw, I think the Olympic theme is "Fanfare for the Common Man" by Aaron Copeland. It sounds like it anyway.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
So: things I gotta look out for: Evil Faramir, Dodgy Theoden, Elves in the wrong place.... Love it already. :rolleyes:Oh come on now, you wouldn't let us jade you before you even see it, would you? :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
What color is Gollum? In the books he is black (I think, but maybe I'm confused), but from what I have seen he looks brownish.
He's like a pale flesh color. And he has hair on his arms. There is a close up of his arm when it's around Sam's neck - and you can see he has hair. I have a feeling that's a live action person's arm - but not sure.

[Armelien]

My initial reaction to The Two Towers was absolute outrage. As i thought about it more I realized that it would have been impossible to make the film as well as the books , I still really enjoyed the film, It was very well made and captivated me and the audience through out the whole movie. But there was a lot that could have been done to make it better. I was very angry that PJ for changing the plot so much. FOTR stayed very close to the plot and that was my expectation for TTT. I was expecting the movie to end as it did in the book(Gandalf riding of with Pippin and Frodo being captured by orcs). Im very sad that i have to wait an whole year before i can see Shelob!!! That wasnt the only thing I was dissapointed in, I think that the ents should have played a bigger part in the movie. I was outraged when the council decided not to fight Saruman. And i thought it was lame when Treebeard did his roar call thing and all the ents, not questioning why the sudden chane of mind, came and attacked Saruman. I also think that Merry and Pippin were still portrayed as idiots, they did get some good lines in but i didnt think it was enough. It made it look like their escape and getting the ents to fight was just from pure luck. It didnt show how smart and mature they became, and I dont think that was very fair to their character. I was also displeased with the way Faramir was portrayed. I think they should of stuck to the book with him. I also hated how he took Frodo, Sam, and Gollum to Osgiliath(I think that is the name of the place).
Some parts they added were very good and some i just thought were awful. I like how Haldir died in battle(i think thats his name(blond elf). I think that added to the horrer and sadness of the Helms deep battle scene. I thought the whole scene with Aragorn "dying" in the river could have defentitly been done with out. The worst part of the whole movie was that move that Legolas did to get onto the horse during the battle with the orcs(when the orcs were fighting on those dog things). It was the corniest thing i've ever seen. It was like this stupid Matrix move. Gimli had some very hillarious lines but i thought it was taken to far. It made the situation seem a lot happier and funner than it really was.
The movie wasnt all bad. I enjoyed it even though it strayed too much from the plot. Gollum was as exactly as I thought he would be, and Grimma was EXCELLENT!!! I liked how they showed that even the young boys and old men had to fight in the battle, it really added to the horror of Helms Deep. The Dead Marshes were also marviously done. I liked how they showed the ring taking Frodo, making him angrier and moodier. The ending song at the end of the credits is GREAT!! Gollums song made me so sad and realize how gollum felt. All people who heard the song as they were leaving the theater and hated it(i was one of you) I would strongly recommend that you listen to it again when you can hear the words and get more of a feel for it.
I can honestly say that I enjoyed FOTR more, I still loved TTT. Even though I was a little dissapoited, I still am a big fan and you can expect me to be in the front of the line for the Return of the King!

Michaela

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
On a side note - Rian's "ooooo eeeeee ooooooo" reminded me of what I was thinking the two times I saw theTwo Towers (Iwas going to mention it when I was getting back yesterday - but I forgot). When Frodo, Sam and Gullum are at the Black Gate - I'm expecting some of Sauron's soldiers to come up from behind - there to be a behind the rocks scuffle and then to see the three in custom - getting into line with the other soldiers and march through the gate - "ooooooo eeeeee ooooo"

That's funny! Do you mean like "The Wizard of Oz"?

I was trying to get across the weird, high-pitched noise that you hear in the old campy sci-fi movies, kind of like tuning an old radio - how would you type that noise? But actually, what I typed does come across like the monkey-soldier chant in the Wizard of Oz, doesn't it! ooooo eeeee oooooo ....... ooooOOOOOooooo! There's no place like home, Toto!! :D

And I totally agree with the Olympic torch scene - that's just what I thought, too! Really silly.

I'm pretty sure the main Olympic theme is NOT "Fanfare for the Common Cold" --uh, sorry -- "Common Man" - I think it was something specially composed by John Williams for the Los Angeles Olympics, IIRC, but I don't remember the name of it. You're talking about the trumpet fanfare thing, right?

I'm in the minority, it looks like, about Haldir - I thought his scenes were well done. I didn't even mind that the elves came to help out Rohan, even though it wasn't in the book, because it was modeled after the Last Alliance, when elves and men fought side by side.

[Smaug]

It looks like one of the mods/admins should post a poll "How many ppl thought "Olympic Torch Bearer" when the wall came down in Helms' Deep" ;) :) :D

[Rían]

(totally off subject, but I did a search, and I think it's "Olympic Fanfare and Theme" by Williams, written for the 1984 Olympics.)

(back on topic) And I like how the "scalp count" thing between Legolas and Gimli got in, too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
That's funny! Do you mean like "The Wizard of Oz"?

Yup. It just looks exactly like the Wizrd of oz scene where the Lion, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man are looking down watching the soldiers march by as they make their plans to rescue Dorothy. :D


And I totally agree with the Olympic torch scene - that's just what I thought, too! Really silly.

I'm pretty sure the main Olympic theme is NOT "Fanfare for the Common Cold" --uh, sorry -- "Common Man" - I think it was something specially composed by John Williams for the Los Angeles Olympics, IIRC, but I don't remember the name of it. You're talking about the trumpet fanfare thing, right?

It's the general Olympic theme that they always play for every Olympics. "Call of Champions" was the particular theme for the Salt Lake City Olympics.

[Khamûl]

You're right Rian. I heard Fanfare for the Common Man and thought it sounded familiar. I bet they've used it for the Olympics at sometime or other. :D

Back on topic, the elves at Helm's Deep didn't bother me as much as I thought they would. I'm not quite sure why, but they just didn't bother me that much.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Wow. that was an amazing movie. . .

i even like the elves at helm's deep. sure, it made no sense considering the book, but hey there were tons of nit-picky things like that which i have decided to ignore, due to the fact that it was a great movie. er. yeah. so, i think the elves being there fit, in this case. though how did they get there in time, eh? oh well. . .

one thing that did bother me was the use of Gimli almost entirely for comic relief. but other than that, and possibly a few other minor things (must see the movie again!) i thought it was brilliant. especially gollum, and i think miranda otto was a great eowyn and i look forward to the next movie, in pelennor fields...

i was quite impressed by the battle of helm's deep, minus a few nit-picky things (NOT differences from the book though).

i liked that arwen mentioned the valar. and she didn't bother me as much in this one.

can't wait to see it again!

[IronParrot]

Gerbil:
"With a comment like that, it's not really worth labouring over a long post to prove you wrong. Glad you enjoyed it. Calling it perfection is stupid though."
I absolutely did not call it perfection.

But I am also absolutely convinced - and history will prove me right - that no other team will ever pull off a film of The Lord of the Rings better than this one. And I would not hesitate to speculate that no other team could have.

jerseydevil:
"Since this seems to be directed at me since I have basically said that Jackson is a pseudo fan - I guess I'll address this."
Well, I wasn't directing it at you specifically... but I guess it applies to you since I apparently described your perspective rather well. On to your comments, then:

"Jackson on the other hand points out directly in the commentary - that all they wanted to do was make a fantasy movie. They discussed it and he thought - "why not just go to the books that inspired the genre.""
True. The realization that nobody else had done it (Ralph "Aruman the Red" Bakshi obviously doesn't count) was the motivation for acquiring the rights to Tolkien's work.

So, suddenly having that motive means Jackson and company were unfamiliar with the piece beforehand? That's a hole in your logic, my friend. So just because he said, "I want to make a fantasy film... hey, let's make LOTR!" that means he didn't adore the work beforehand? Who says he just didn't initially realize that someone had done his favourite story? I don't follow your line of thought.

Furthermore: I don't think anybody's questioning his visual fidelity here to a great extent, but if they did, they'd best take it up with John Howe and Alan Lee (and why they didn't earlier, I won't ask). But similarly, if you're questioning the literary fidelity, then take it up with Philippa Boyens, specifically hired by Peter Jackson as a die-hard fan who'd studied the thing backwards and forwards, and made a good deal of the creative modifications. Read interviews, watch the stuff on the DVD - she had reasons for the changes she made, whether we would agree with them or not.

"And I don't think he has succeeded in keeping the fundamental themes of Lord of the Rings. "JRR Tolkien" was on PBS last night - and they interviewed Christopher Tolkien and many many people that worked with Tolkien and knew him personally. After watching that - and hearing what people had to say about things that Tolkien felt and did regarding Lord of the Rings - makes me think even more that right now Tolkien is rolling in his grave at seeing his characters hacked by Jackson. You may disagree- but these are my feelings."
Just out of curiosity, what exactly are you referring to when you suppose that there is some sort of thematic inconsistency here?

Recently, I was re-reading Tom Shippey's Author of the Century (easily my favourite Tolkien analysis) and I thought on more than one occasion, "the film got that right." As evidenced by a recent lecture in... Chicago, I think... Dr. Shippey agrees. I'll go into the specific themes and motifs and handlings of Tolkien's intentions that I'm referring to, but I'd like to hear your side of this first.

(cont'd)

[IronParrot]

(cont'd)

"I don't think that Jackson brought Lord of the Rings to the screen. In order to do that - Jackson would have actually have had to supply some character development - instead he created an action film. I think that is one of the reason I am less upset by The Two Towers - I expected the stupid comic relief, I expected the overdone slow motion sequences, I expected non-stop action. That's pretty much what he delivered."
This is worth a few more posts of response by itself, but I'll cover this briefly:

Regarding character development, I don't see how this is shirked. Perhaps within Fellowship alone, yes - but that's not the whole story, and Tolkien's own characters were not fully realized by the end of Book II, Chapter 10 either. I will make a full post on character development later, perhaps even on a separate thread. Remind me if I forget, because I'm off to a ski trip this weekend.

Regarding "an action film", action isn't a genre, it's a narrative and dramatic device heavily reliant on visuals. Lawrence of Arabia is an action film. Heck, Warner Bros. originally advertised Casablanca as an action film. Does "action = no character development"? A shaky assumption at best, based on deplorable mainstream trends of the past decade, and not on this film itself. Unless you'd care to elaborate.

Regarding "comic relief", are you saying that comedy doesn't fit into the tone Tolkien set? I think the Professor cracked a lot of great jokes in his piece, and that furthermore, the film follows the same tone. In fact, some fan reviews by people who must have been very rusty about the book had them thinking that Legolas and Gimli's "headcount" competition was a Hollywoodized addition. If anything, comic relief is faithful to Tolkien - and I especially refer to Gimli, and to an even greater extent, Pippin. Pippin's entire character in Tolkien's work develops from an immature buffoon to a world-weary warrior among hobbits. I'll wait for ROTK to validate this, but Jackson is doing the same.

"In my opinion he didn't even attempt to preserve the fundamental themes of The Lord of the Rings."
And in your opinion, what are these fundamental themes? (Bonus points for demonstrating exactly how Jackson ignores them.)

As I said, more later. Hopefully within the week.

[Rían]

(JD - It looks like you were typing as I posted my last response, so you missed the title that I came up with - check my last post, if you're interested.)

One thing that was kinda funny/ironic - I think that in the theatrical version of FoTR, Legolas (the ELF!) never spoke any Elvish! Aragorn spoke quite a bit, and very well, too, IMHO (i.e., it seemed natural to him - I can see why, I think Viggo speaks at least 3 languages!) However, in ext. version FoTR, Legolas spoke some Elvish, and I thought he looked rather strained. In TTT, he speaks even more, and I still think Viggo looks more natural, and Orli is rather strained. Just a funny little thing I noticed. Did anyone else think that? BTW, does anyone know which parts are Quenya vs. Sindarin?

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
However, in ext. version FoTR, Legolas spoke some Elvish, and I thought he looked rather strained. In TTT, he speaks even more, and I still think Viggo looks more natural, and Orli is rather strained.I thought so too in FotR extended version. But I tend to excuse Legolas a bit there, he is supposed to speak the Greenwood dialect of Sindarin, which is a bit different to the language spoken in Lorien. When he spoke to Haldir, he may have wanted to speak a little more like the Lorien flavour of Sindarin, out of courtesy, perhaps. :)
I can't say I noticed in TTT, I will pay special attention to it on next viewing. :) BTW, does anyone know which parts are Quenya vs. Sindarin? I believe everything is Sindarin in the movie. Someone with better knowledge of Elvish languages than me may confirm that.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I know what you mean, BoP! (BTW when will you be seeing it?)

I just got back from the xmas do... completely drunk, so this probably won't make any sense...

We were held up for over an HOUR, because they'd double booked us. We had to wait for them to free up cinema! They more than made up for it by providing free ice cream, coke, etc, AND complimentary tickets, so that was okay.

I went into the movie fully expecting to hate it... but:

I loved it. It worked so much better than fellowship did. I think the deviations finally allowed PJ to make the project truly his, and not some weak adaption of the book. As a movie, it was BRILLIANT.

From the way you guys were going on: I completely expected some badass faramir. However, all I got was someone who was primarily concerned with Gondor, and it's survival. I think PJ made a pretty good judgement call here, and I can actually bring myself to divorce book faramir from movie faramir.

The elves at helms deep made complete sense. Why wouldn't Galadriel and Elrond send back up? While I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was superior to the book, as far as the movie went, it worked, and it made sense.

Helms Deep was awesomely directed, and the cinematography was superior to that of Fellowship.

There were some things that irked me: Arwen being joined to Aragorn by the lips, the overusage of the nazgul, etc, but overall, I completely loved this movie. The ents were almost exactly how I imagined them, Gollum was just... amazing!, the Eowyn/Aragorn scenes were very tasteful (I was worried that there might have been a threesome played out).

Theoden was a little overdone: exorcism scene didn't work, but oh well. It could have been worse.

Aragorn's Death was a little bit irritating, but again: it worked within the context of the movie.

I came out completely confused: it deviated so much, and yet I loved it. I was somehow able to divorce the books from the movie, and just enjoy it as a stand alone.

More later, when I'm perhaps a bit more sober. I'll definately be seeing this again: and I hope I enjoy it every bit as much as I did this time.

One more thing: you actually got a sense of time passing in this movie. In fellowship, those three hours were over so quickly, and everything was jumbled together. In TTT, there was a very real sense of time creeping by... not because the movie was boring, but because I feel that PJ managed the time better. It was less about action (even though Helms Deep dominated) and more about the playing out of the various storylines, etc. You got a real sense of the distances travelled this time around.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Theoden was a little overdone: exorcism scene didn't work, but oh well. It could have been worse.


Did Theoden's head do a 360? :eek: I'll be seeing it in 24 hrs.

[Devey]

Applauds Beardofpants loudly……… I find it hard to imagine anyone watching the film and not being totally spellbound by it. Okay there are parts in it that you may not particularly like but overall it was a masterpiece. Any film can be picked apart scene by scene, what is important is the bigger picture…..was it believable, was it well acted, did it work, was it jaw dropping in places….this is what matters.

Tolkien turning in his grave?……………well if he is then he goes down in my estimation as he shouldn’t be so ridged and protective of his work, and see that it can be adapted to fit the limitations of the media thoughtfully and intelligently and to bring it to a wider audience not just the “faithful�. I for one think he would have been bowled over with what Jackson has produced.

[Khamûl]

:eek: BoP liked it? :eek: Didn't see that coming. Or is that just the alcohol talking?:D

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Khamûl
:eek: BoP liked it? :eek: Didn't see that coming. Or is that just the alcohol talking?:D

lol! Let's wait for the sober review.:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
lol! Let's wait for the sober review.:D
Well if I said I loved it without complaining, everyone would think the world was ending or that I was on something. Maybe both. :D

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if I said I loved it without complaining, everyone would think the world was ending or that I was on something. Maybe both. :D

I think we purists all had time to make peace between the two mediums and enjoy each for what they are; two very different and enjoyable experiences.

[BeardofPants]

Exactly. (Fellowship still sucks ass though.)

Originally posted by Khamûl
:eek: BoP liked it? :eek: Didn't see that coming. Or is that just the alcohol talking?:D

Hmm, let's see: Sober, and.... I still like it. :p

You must understand though: that I like it purely from a film perspective. As a film: it works. PJ in deviating so much, has finally had the gall to make this piece of work HIS, and not a pale reflection of Tolkien --- which, I feel, would have failed him.

Besides, anyone who can kill off that annoying actor that played Haldir, deserves kudos. :rolleyes: :D

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if I said I loved it without complaining, everyone would think the world was ending or that I was on something. Maybe both. :D

Ah, but I didn't say that I unreservedly liked it. I still have my nitpicks, which I will carefully cultivate over the course of several viewings. :D (Arwen flashbacks being one of them. Jeez woman, keep your bloody lips to yourself already. :rolleyes: Oh. And the Eye: what's with the bleepin' eye over Orthanc?!)

[bropous]

Let me state for the record, unequivocally: I cannot now, nor at any time in my life have been able to name the entire list of Stewards of Gondor down to Denethor frontwards and backwards, and I do not hold that anyone who cannot do so is not a true fan of Tolkien.

Second, I LOVED the film. I can accept the changes made to tell the story. I do think that the original storyline is far more effective and far more captivating. I also don't understand why the Aragorn "death" scene, why the Ents didn't know their forest was being hacked to bits near Isengard, why Frodo has to be brought to Osgiliath, why the wargs have to attack, why Frodo has to stand in front of a winged nazgul, why Fangorn has to kill the orc and rescue Merry and Pippin, WHY the character of Theoden King has to be so hanged into a weakling, etc etc etc.

Does anyone remember Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas figuring out what happened to Merry and Pippin?

I loved the mention of the Old Forest, dwarf women's beards, the flowers on the death mounds, the piling and burning of orc bodies, the fight between the orcs ["What about deir legs? Dey don' need DEM..."] , the use of the map by Faramir which lays out the main strategy of the War of the Ring, the Balrog scenes [I loved it, okay, so sue me], Gollum's singing songs, everything about the Ents and the storming of Isengard [just perfect for me], the charge of the Rohirrim, the partial testudo formation heading up the causeway covering the ram, the integration of the industrialism in Saruman's machinations [pardon the pun], Eowyn [I already had a strirring of a tear knowing what this noble character will go through], on and on and on.

I actually think that the Lord of the Rings can be shot as effective films just as the three volumes of the book breaks up the storyline. I'm not gonna get my knickers in a twist over all the changes, though. I still love the film. Well done, Peter. And positive thoughts towards the person who will actually end up making a film(s) of The Lord of the Rings and remain true to the original storyline, however far in the future that endeavour may be attempted.

[claudia silver]

Devey wrote:


In my opinion it is Tolkiens Faramir that is totally wrong and Jackson got it absolutely correct.

Sorry but I think you have totally mis-understood Tolkein's Faramir. In the book he is one of the most 'high-souled', noble, thoughtful men in Middle-Earth, Gandalf's pupil. He still harks back to the Numenorean ideals of 'gentleness and art'. Unlike Boromir he has no personal ambition and would gladly see the line of Elendil restored. In the book this contrast between him and Boromir serves two purposes. Firstly to create tension when he reveals himself as Boromir's brother; will he do the same and try to take the ring (as you would expect) and surprise/relief when he doesn't.

Also I would suggest that ambition/need is a major factor in the degree to which various individuals are tempted by the ring. Both Gandalf and Galadriel, if they had have taken the ring, would have tried used it to do great and good deeds for the benefit of all, but by its very nature this would have quickly turned to evil. Maybe Frodo resisted as long as he did as he had no great driving ambition and likewise with Faramir.

I have a number of thoughts as to why PJ changed the character; would the audience be confused if he overcame the temptation and didn't try to take the ring and to show the power of the ring over all who came in contact with it. Also within the limitations of the film he hasn't had chance to explain why in ROTK Denethor behaves so dreadfully towards his son. PJ needed a reason, which, begrudgingly, I suppose will work in ROTK. However I think a valuable chance, using the character of Faramir, to explore the different stances people take towards war and peace was lost.
:(

[BeardofPants]

Interesting to see that Saruman didn't meet his bloody death on the spike in TT as everyone speculated.

I know we're not doing spoilers, but this is a pretty big one.

I agree with you Claudia Silver: it *is* sad that he didn't utilise one of my favourite characterisations from the book. Book Faramir is so noble, and incredibly refreshing after all the evils the broken fellowship encountered. But: I would argue that PJ didn't actually deviate away from the book TOO much. He definately wasn't swayed by the ring as Boromir was; it was just that his motivations were twisted by PJ.

(BTW: Happy Birthday Claudia!:))

Brop:
I also don't understand why the Aragorn "death" scene, why the Ents didn't know their forest was being hacked to bits near Isengard, why Frodo has to be brought to Osgiliath, why the wargs have to attack, why Frodo has to stand in front of a winged nazgul, why Fangorn has to kill the orc and rescue Merry and Pippin, WHY the character of Theoden King has to be so hanged into a weakling, etc etc etc.

I don't know why PJ did the death scene either. It bugged me quite a bit. I would have probably better understood it a bit more, if PJ had meant to have him "reborn" as a King (more willing, etc), but he didn't seem to take this tack. It's also odd how they made out that Arwen had left the shores of Middle Earth. I guess it works within the context of the movie... making him a more tragic character, and all.

The ents not knowing about the forests being torn up WAS puzzling, but again: I guess he did it to build up suspense. Logically, it doesn't make sense, cinematically, it works. That's movies for you, I guess. You start nitpicking, and you start finding nits. :rolleyes:

Osgiliath made NO sense whatsoever. Why would they leave the comparative safety of Henneth Annûn is anyones guess.

The warg attack was very well directed. And why not? You would expect orks to be amassing during this time of war.

Frodo standing in front of the nazgul was just plain dumb. This doesn't even work logistically, since the nazgul are beings of fear. Why the bloody hell isn't Frodo running for his short little midget life?! :rolleyes: Most of the nazgul scenes bugged me, actually. Talk about overusing your evil nasty bad guys. :rolleyes:

Theoden. What can I say? I saw the make up and laughed. And the exorcism scene... NOT a good judgement call there. :rolleyes:

Still, despite all these crappy bits, it was still a great movie.

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I think we purists all had time to make peace between the two mediums and enjoy each for what they are; two very different and enjoyable experiences.
yeah, Ive simmered down quite a bit. I still cant understand why PJ did some of the things he did, and I do think it could have been done better, and most of the things still bug me... :o ...buut after going to see it again, I can point out enough good things so I liked it okay. ;)
~Celebréiel

[Kalimac]

That's funny! Do you mean like "The Wizard of Oz"?
I was trying to get across the weird, high-pitched noise that you hear in the old campy sci-fi movies, kind of like tuning an old radio - how would you type that noise? But actually, what I typed does come across like the monkey-soldier chant in the Wizard of Oz, doesn't it! ooooo eeeee oooooo ....... ooooOOOOOooooo

I get the impression that PJ did this scene intentionally to look like the Wizard of Oz . . just a PJ nod to one of the great fantasy films (and, a young lady who took a dangerous journey of her own). But, actually the reason I responded to the above comment was to mention that the monkey-soldier chant was really: "All we owe, we owe her."

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Celebréiel
yeah, Ive simmered down quite a bit. I still cant understand why PJ did some of the things he did, and I do think it could have been done better, and most of the things still bug me... :o ...buut after going to see it again, I can point out enough good things so I liked it okay. ;)
~Celebréiel

I think he changed Faramir because he didn't like the ESP aspect in a human. His commentary says he doesn't like magic in movies. The Aragorn thing was just to keep Liv front and center.

I wish the wraiths were not cloaked anymore. The nazgul flying is not exactly stealth mode. They should look like floating crowns with burning eyes. The old rags are getting a bit shop worn.

[Turgon]

I can't believe I just read all 8 pages of this thread!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! ok thats better.

I skipped the little posts but I'm glad to see I'm not alone on my feelings about how PJ coped out.

I sit here wondering how the Fellowship rocked and the TT was half @$$ed. :confused:

It seems to me PJ is trying to push the climatic scenes (Battle scenes) towards the end of the movie even though Tolkien wrote them forward middle (typical Hollywood fashion on PJs part). PJ is screwing up everything by achieving this goal.

Save the Scouring of the Shire!!! Please PJ don't delete this scene. You don’t know the ramifications in doing this. :mad:

[azalea]

Aside from being too big, I thought the winged creatures for the Nazgul looked good. But I think he did a better job with the Nazgul in FotR, cinematically speaking. In this one he didn't use the camera shots to their best advantage (I guess because it was CG), thus they weren't as effective, IMO. I also agree they should be "unmasked" at this point. It still looked good though.

A couple of mentions have been made about possible recurring themes in the three movies, one being falling in water and being pulled out, the other the "rebirth" of a key character.
First, the water issue -- it was mentioned that in FotR, Frodo pulls Sam out, in TTT Gollum pulls Frodo out, and the poster said in RotK they thought it would be Sam pulling Frodo out. That got me thinking about where that would happen because of the lack of water in Mordor. So the thing that came to my mind was this: I think Sam will not be pulling him out of water, but Frodo will either almost fall in the Crack, or almost fall into the lava or whatever before Gandalf comes to the rescue after the ring is destroyed, and Sam will pull him up. That is my prediction.
Secondly, the "rebirth" thing: In FotR, the fake death was Gandalf's, in TTT it was Aragorn, and in RotK, it will obviously be Frodo after the Shelob incident. My question is do you think PJ included the Aragorn one just so there would be one in every movie? If so, that is a silly reason, IMO.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

I went into the movie fully expecting to hate it... but:

I loved it. It worked so much better than fellowship did. I think the deviations finally allowed PJ to make the project truly his, and not some weak adaption of the book. As a movie, it was BRILLIANT.

I feel much better now that I know that BoP likes the film, I'm sure I will love it as well. I may have to swim across the Tasman Sea, still five more days to go! :mad:

One question: how many times does Frodo fall over in this movie? :D

[Khamûl]

I've just seen it a second time, and my opinion has changed from "I like it" to "I love it". I've had time to process the changes PJ made and accept them. Faramir and the Osgiliath scene weren't so bad. Heck, I even managed to accept Aragorn's 'death'. Helm's Deep was still awesome, even though I almost cracked up when Mr. Olympic Torch-Bearer Orc made an appearance. :D An amazing movie, but for me it's still not quite as good as Fellowship.

[Sylvee Estel]

I just got back from seeing it a second time. I absolutely love it. It is a really great movie.

Okay, about evil Faramir. At first, I didn't particularly like how he was portrayed in the movie. But then I thought of Boromir. At first I didn't like him at all. We saw his bad side most of the time. But then after a while he grew on me. I saw his love for the hobbits, his love for Gondor, how he was only trying to help, to save his people. I think Faramir is the same way. We didn't get to see much of him, just his bad side. And in the end he lets Frodo go. That shows he is really a good person. Does any of this make any sense? Sorry if it doesn't...

Helms Deep was just awesome. I usually don't like war movies, I hate the bloood and killing, and I usually cant follow whats going on very well. But I loved Helm's Deep. It was amazing. And inspiring.

Legolas was totally awesome in this movie. And I'm not just saying that because he's hot. The whole horse jump flip thing and the skateboard sheild were totally amazing.

Gimli. Yuck. My one major complaint. He is portayed as stupid and inferior. Aragorn and Legolas are showed ans smart and wise, but Gimli almost seems stupid. I have to admit he was really funny though. The comic relief was nice, it relieved some of the depression. And I was pleased how in this movie Merry and Pippin weren't the comic relief, they were showed as serious and brave. And Gimli wasn't all bad. He had his wise moments as well.

Which movie do I like better??? In my opinion, they are equal. Its really imposssible for me to say which one I liked better, because they are the same movie, really. FOTR is just an introduction. TTT gets into it more. The plot thickens, the characters are more developed. And ROTK will be (or at least should be) the climax. So really its impossible for me to say which is better. They are the same story, and the same movie. Thats my opinion anyway.

I was going to say some more stuff but I can't think of it right now. Most of it has already been said anyway. I hope this post makes sense, because I'm not really making much sense right now...

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Saw it a second time today (oh. yesterday, then.) and somehow came away both with both more nit-picks and liking it even more. First, going to Osgiliath: As has been said many times, it makes no sense. And the whole thing with standing in front of the Nazgul. No sense. But I did like Sam's speech, even if it was rather cheesy, it was also beautiful. I love the way it ended, considering the fact that they moved so much to the next movie. Like with Boromir, I find I like Gollum better in the movie. Maybe. Er. Evil!Faramir didn't bother too much though I wish we had seen more of his noble, good side. And no trip to Osgiliath. . .

I didn't think about the Olympic Torch thing when I first saw it but I thought that when I saw it yesterday and almost laughed. . .:D

[elendili]

Special effects wow, but did Jackson even read the book????

Has Arwen gone to the havens? Where is Anduril/Narsil? Why did Galadriel send Haldir to Helm’s Deep? Why did they kill off Haldir? *Scowl* butchers. And how on Earth are they going to fit the last part of the book in one film when they’ve not even met Shelob yet? And why did Faramir take Frodo and Sam to Osillgath before letting them go?

Gollum was cute though especially when Smeagol and Gollum where arguing and I liked the Nazgul’s flying things. I liked Gimli’s lines and Legolas was CUTE. It was fun watching but it kept ticking me off that they strayed so far from the story as Tolkein wrote it, if he was still alive he’d probably strangle Peter Jackson.

OK i am a critic

[Sween]

Originally posted by elendili
Special effects wow, but did Jackson even read the book????

Has Arwen gone to the havens? Where is Anduril/Narsil? Why did Galadriel send Haldir to Helm’s Deep? Why did they kill off Haldir? *Scowl* butchers. And how on Earth are they going to fit the last part of the book in one film when they’ve not even met Shelob yet? And why did Faramir take Frodo and Sam to Osillgath before letting them go?

Gollum was cute though especially when Smeagol and Gollum where arguing and I liked the Nazgul’s flying things. I liked Gimli’s lines and Legolas was CUTE. It was fun watching but it kept ticking me off that they strayed so far from the story as Tolkein wrote it, if he was still alive he’d probably strangle Peter Jackson.

OK i am a critic

ur not a critic. Elrond wanted arwen to go to the haven in the apendecies of lord of the rins so its not too far off but she wont be doing.

Narsil isnt been reforged till return of the king think of it as a symbolic gesuture of aragorn taking kingship. Elves would seem a bit nasty not helping there neigbours and all just leaving, too little time to explain the elven remles were also under attack.

Shelob is also correct in the films they meet her during the battle of plenor feilds!

[Hasty Ent]

OK, I've read all nine pages of this thread and I've come to the conclusion that I will NOT see this movie... It sounds like another stupid Hollywood blockbuster action spectacle. Ugh. Think I'll just re-read the book...:(

Thank you, all, for the thoughtful and articulate posts!

[Arathorn]

I just saw it with the first thousand or so of my countrymen in an advanced screening (we show it regularly here in january after a local film festival).

After having read all the rants and then actually seeing it, I found it utterly enjoyable and the changes forgiveable and even defendable. I think PJ wanted the characters to be believable to the regular joe; though Faramir could still be believable if left untouched, IMO.

We must remember that Tolkien wrote LOTR on the premise that it was the account of hobbits as written in the Red Book of Westmarch and that there was only one account. One could easily invent an account from the point of view of men and other races and use that as an excuse for the changes in the details. This is PJ's (and Philippa's and Fran's) account on film while the book/hobbit account was by Master JRRT.

Come january, I'll be getting 9 more tickets and saving up for the DVDs...

[Khadrane]

I LOVED it, but there were some things I didn't like.
~How they made it seem like Theoden was possessed by Saruman
~The Wargs (they looked more like hyenas to me)
~Those dreams with Arwen in them
~Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath
~Aragorn "dying"

But there were also things I loved.
~Gollum (for the most part, he was really cool)
~The Dead Marshes
~The Oliphaunts
~Most of the movie in general

My conclusion is that this movie wasn't quite as good as the "Fellowhip", but it was GREAT, and it deserves WAY more than two stars. Stupid critics.:mad: :rolleyes:

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Sween
Narsil isnt been reforged till return of the king think of it as a symbolic gesuture of aragorn taking kingship.
Thats what I dont like..they changed all the characters too much. it would have been nice to see a *little* hesitation when Hama tells them to give up their weapons.(like in the book he refuses at first) So all of a sudden in RoTK the movie, Aragorn will finally and suddenly realize his destiny as king?
It would be better to see at least a slow arc of him realizing it.
Im just wondering how their gonna do RoTK in general. (alot less optimism than TT tho:p )
~ Celebréiel

[azalea]

I'm also going to make a prediction about Arwen: I don't think she is on her way to the Havens. I think she's on her way to Gondor w/ the banner. Perhaps by way of Lothlorien. If she IS on her way to the Havens, I guess there'll be some kind of scene where she's about to get on the boat, and then changes her mind at the last minute. But I think it's the other way.

I need to see it again, but when the elves showed up, there was one thing that confused me: Did Haldir say "Here is a contigency of elves from Rivendell"? If so, does that mean he was sent from Lorien to get them? Or was it elves from both realms? I just thought he only said Rivendell, but he is from Lothlorien, so it confused me a little.

[markedel]

Very good-as an epic movie. That's the trick-it's an epic movie-not a visul reflection of LOTR. I agree that FOTR was probably at a "higher" level, as action, not character, was the focus of this film. I think Jackson could have done far better, his interpertation could be seen as a disservice-because of what it could be and isn't, but Jackson is aiming for the average person not a dedicated Tolkien fan, and he succeeded in creating a solid movie.

His goal is to make money and to entertain and he did both.

[Lizra]

I savored a big glass of wine after the movie. Boy, talk about needing a drink!! :eek:. I thoroughly enjoyed it all. I had been "spoiled" so much, nothing surprised me unpleasantly, I was prepared! I do have a "tension" headache, after the booze, some ibuprofren (sorry liver)! :)

My only complaints, all the great stuff happened WAY TOO FAST! (I liked the pace of FoTR much better) That's just the way it is though. I didn't care for all the "Gimli the Silly Goose" stuff. People in the theater certainly laughed, it was all funny, and a bit of relief..........but I think of Gimli as a fearless, fell, dwarven warrior, and I do not think he is a silly goose.

Oh well! I can't wait to own this! I don't like the theater, it is WAY TOO LOUD. I also think I will enjoy this more when I am able to pause it and take breaks. My eyes are bleary! WELL DONE!!! :) I'm so glad the wait is over!

(I feel like I've been yelled at for the last three hours, theaters...ugh!)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra

(I feel like I've been yelled at for the last three hours, theaters...ugh!)

I was prepared with tissues to plug my ears. I was much better off.

[Lizra]

I cursed myself when I realized I had forgotten ear protection in my excitement to "get there"! You were wise Cirdan! :)

[Kalimac]

>> didn't think about the Olympic Torch thing when I first saw it<<

Here's a bit of trivia . . I am sure that the Olympic Torch carrying orc is PJ's homage to the fact that he was selected to carry the Olympic Torch a few years ago (during the making of the film). Here's a picture of him in Wellington, NZ with the torch.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0006/ff37b96aded973c8655f.jpeg

[Lizra]

Olympic torch carrying orc! I thought he was just the guy who had to light the explosives! Pity the fool! (Ha!)

[Ethereal]

Originally posted by Kalimac
Here's a bit of trivia . . I am sure that the Olympic Torch carrying orc is PJ's homage to the fact that he was selected to carry the Olympic Torch a few years ago (during the making of the film). Here's a picture of him in Wellington, NZ with the torch.

that's so cool! i didn't know he was selected to carry the olympic torch! thanks for that little tid bit of info.

also, i thought of the olympic torch when i saw the helm's deep orc scene too!!!!!!!!! honestly, as soon as i saw the orc running w/ the torch i turned to my friend and said 'wow, they got an orc to carry the olympic torch this year". it's really cool to know that a TON of other people thought the same thing!!

[eowyngirl14]

Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie!

I just got home from seeing LOTR TTT for the second time. I thought it was great the first time I saw it. (I was a bit angry and annoyed with the whole elves at Helms Deep, and Faramir being so cruel thing though...) The second time I saw it though, I was quite bored in some parrts. Like when Merry and Pippen are talking to the ents. (Which was done very well by the way. Although I don't think Peter Jackson quite got the point that they were 'not a hasty folk' across very well. He totally kills that message when lots of ents show up after 10 seconds when Treebeard finds some of his tree friends were burned down.) The music was great, in my opinion. I especialy like the music when Eowyn is wearing her white dress and storms out of the castle. When she sees Aragorn and Gimili and Legolas and Gandalf approaching.

[Caleb]

Did no one notice they left out the entire part where Gandalf, Theoden, Aragorn ect. went to Isenguard and Sarumans staff was broken. Pippin never looked into the Palintir. And if all this is pushed into the Return of the king then they'll have to cut out the scouring of the shire or else it will be about five hours long.

[Sylvee Estel]

They are going to cut out the couring of the shire. Or at least, I'm pretty sure thats what I heard...

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Caleb
Did no one notice they left out the entire part where Gandalf, Theoden, Aragorn ect. went to Isenguard and Sarumans staff was broken. Pippin never looked into the Palintir. And if all this is pushed into the Return of the king then they'll have to cut out the scouring of the shire or else it will be about five hours long.

PJ has been saying time and again that they'd be cutting the scouring of the shire out. But, as this film's characters have been pointing out the whole time, there is still hope. There is still one year to go and many of the actors have been asked to do re-shoots. Plus, PJ's been saying lately that ROTK will be his favorite of the 3 installment films and will be one very extended conclusion.

We have one year to just sit back, keep seeing this part II, waiting for the extended DVDs and yearning for more surprises...:)

[Celebréiel]

ah, hmm I hope he makes it good then :D , I wont get my hopes up too much but Im excited for RoTK(still a year away :rolleyes: )
Yeah I really wonder about the paths of the dead, Pip and Merry meeting up w/ the rest of them (why they PJ had gandalf meet them in the forest is beyond me) and of course Shelob and if they dont do the whole shire part what are they gonna do with Saruman.
~Celebréiel

[Khamûl]

In the line of the story, Theoden and Company are supposed to leave Helm's Deep and go to Isengard to cast down Saruman. Because that's where they meet up with Merry and Pippin again after the storming of Isengard. At least, that's the way it happened in the books.:rolleyes:

[Meriadoc]

Maybe their trying to make the last movie longer.They also took out Shelob.

[Renille]

*breathe*

Okay...I'm going to say it now. I didn't really like it! *Now it's out...* I thought they absolutely BUTCHERED the plot/ majority of the characters. I DID NOT get the Arwen/Aragorn dream thing, and the whole show seemed more war movie than introspectical epic. Now that I've ranted...here are the things that changed the movie to a "good" on the "HORRIBLE" to "EXCELLENT" rating scale.


1. Gollum! He was by far the character with the most depth and struggle protrayed in this move. Plus, the computer effects could not have been better.

2.Sam/Frodo- I loved their relationship in this movie...I was really actually scared when Frodo tried to kill Sam.

3.Haldir- Don't ask...I loved his death scene. I could practically see his life flashing before his eyes...I thought he was thinking something like "I gave up immortality for...this?"

4. Pippin/Merry- YEAH! They aren't mere clowns anymore!!

5. Ents-Loved them. And that's all there is to it.

6.Mordor- Creepy, spooky, JUST as I've always imagined it!

7. Eowyn- JUST like I've pictured her!

8. Rohan refugees- You can actually see how scared they are...it's so sad.

9. Faramir- I actually like his new character...it was really very interesting...particularly when he made a different choice than Boromir

10. Sam's monolouge at the end- I almost cried. Beautiful

11. The music! I know others have complained, but the violin solos were awesome!

Okay...so maybe TTT wasn't THAT bad. Maybe I just need to see it again. Or it could be just because I chronically don't enjoy 2nd movies in trilogies...it's a me thing...sorry.:p I think the main thing is..."What next? Show me more!" I think movies should have sequels...that's it!

[Blackboar]

I used to like Pippin and Merry when they were troublemakers! I'm actually quite sad that their characters change:(

I still think I have pretty much the same chracter as Pippin though.

[markedel]

Actually I really liked Arwen, Elrond not so much, his attitude was strange, but I thought the flashbacks as a whole was quite well done.

[eowyngirl14]

I will be really really mad if they don't include the part about the shire. That is one of my favorite parts because all of the hobbits join together for the good of them all. I am also looking forward to seeing Rosie again. I think that they will have Rosie in it because I think I remember seeing a picture with Sam hugging a young hobbit girl...(Elanor??)

[Sween]

just seen it and i absoultally loved it need a second viewing though

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Renille
Okay...I'm going to say it now. I didn't really like it!
[snip]
Okay...so maybe TTT wasn't THAT bad. Maybe I just need to see it again.
Hello

I just saw it last night and agree almost exactly with your posting. I might change the order a bit: move the Ents up the pecking order coz when they were trashing Isengard it was even better than I could have imagined it. Stomp those orcs! Even Beechbone caught fire!! And got put out by the water coming in:D :D :D

I agree that Faramir was good, though they botched the ending; also not sure how they teleported across Anduin with the Morgul army holding the east bank.

The main problem for me was that they totally sacrificed character development for plot. Then they totally failed to convey the plot.

The bits they did lift from the book were usually the wrong bits; "classic" lines which would buy off the afficionados but which had no relevance to the plot and just confused things. Good example was the 20-second clip of Saruman recruiting the Dunlendings. Basically, I think Jackson is unable to tell a story properly.

On the up side, the opening scene was awesome. Gandalf falling down Khazad Dum while chibbing the balrog! He's totally nails, him. All of the battle scenes were tremendous, in fact.

Did anyone else notice Legolas nearly tripping up in one of those helicopter fly-by scenes? Ha!

cheers

d.

[Shadowfax]

I saw it on Friday, and despite what so many others have said about it, I absolutely loved it! And yes, there were some plot/character changes, but I really didn't mind them. Music was great, people of Rohan were perfect, Mordor was perfect, Gollum was perfect! Ah. I loved it. Now, I can't wait to see it again.:D And again...

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Celebréiel

Yeah I really wonder about the paths of the dead, Pip and Merry meeting up w/ the rest of them (why they PJ had gandalf meet them in the forest is beyond me) and of course Shelob and if they dont do the whole shire part what are they gonna do with Saruman.
~Celebréiel
I didn't think that Gandalf actually met Merry and Pippin in the film, just that Gandalf knew that they had met Treebeard. This is the same as what happens in the book; Gandalf talks to Treebeard just before the hobbits meet him.

I suspect, and hope, that they will unravel all the politics in ROTK: Saruman getting expelled from the Order, Aragorn using the Palantir to bluff Sauron into attacking too soon, etc. Tis pity, coz they should've put that sort of stuff in TTT.

The scene where Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet up with the hobbits simply has too much comedy potential to pass on, so I reckon that'll be in RoTK in some form.

cheers

d.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Dunadan
[BGandalf talks to Treebeard just before the hobbits meet him.
[/B]

...which is why the bit with Merrry showing Treebeard the destruction at Isengard. Wouldn't Gandalf have told Treebeard waht was going on (as if he wouldn't have known anyway). And how does Merry know what Isengard looks like? These changes were poorly done and made sense only in Merry's character development. I guess since he is continuing into RotK they felt he needed more attention, especially since Flotsam and Jetsam was removed. Hoom, hum, these hasty directors.

[durin's bane]

I thought it was good, but it was a bit disappointing. I felt PJ really ruined Frodo at the end! And he made Faramir seem like a bully. And I felt sick because of all the killing and blood and stuff, and the romance (why, oh, why, did he put that in there?) I loved Gimli's comic relief though, and I loved the part where Sam is talking to Gollum about potatoes and such. I also really liked the part where Frodo and Sam were discussing their little ideas of that story thing, you know, "Let's hear the story of Frodo and the ring, dad." "Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without Sam." That really reflected Sam and Frodo's strong friendship. All in all, TTT was OK, but I like Fellowship of the Ring better.

[Radagast The Brown]

I liked the movie, but I was a bit disappointed, because:
1. Faramir acted as an evil person.
2. Elrond acted meanly.
3. Saruman (somehow) got into Theoden's body (it was really silly)
4. Haldir came to the battle of Helm's Deep. The funny thing was that he acted as the leader of Lorien's army, and he acted (too) as a really old friend of Aragorn.

But the move was still very good, and I liked Gollum. He looked so real! I just wait to see Shelob... :eek:
I liked Treebeard too, but all the other ents looked really silly. (distorted). My sister and cousin think that Gandlaf was very silly (especially when he glowed in Helm's Deep).

[durin's bane]

That part, with Arwen staring at Aragorn's statue thingy, or whatever, would have been funny if they had some pidgeons land on it.:p

[eowyngirl14]

That would be really funny Durins Bane. What would be even funnier would be if oen of the pidgeons pooped on the statue, or on Arwen for that matter. I thought that part in the movie was really quite sad. I started to cry very hard and didn't stop untill the end of the movie because I knew my friends would kill me if I walked out of the theater still in tears!:D :) :D

[Eglantine Banks]

I think it would have been better if they had actually filmed Andy Serkis (or another really good actor), with interesting/scary makeup and a flimsy, ripped costume, and not done the computer animation thing to create Smeagol.

Smeagol is a being, a hobbit-like person, not a variation on Dobby the House Elf. (The person I attended the movie with made this comparison when I asked what he thought of Gollum.) The computer-animated Smeagol has eyes that are too big and they make him look like what he is -- something not real.

Let me mention that I loved Gollum/Smeagol in the film. The voice was just perfect and his body language, too (but didn't this all come from Andy?). His dialog was also very good (although I could have done with one or two less Gollum vs. Smeagol internal debates -- that bit was good but a little overdone).

Anyway, why not a human actor playing the part?

Just because you CAN create a computer-generated character, doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD.

-Eglantine

[Lizra]

I kept thinking I would have liked a live person as Gollum too, but who could do all that leaping, vertical slinking, and fishing and all! I really liked Gollum's song at the end, but it was hard to listen to cause the movie "trash people" were dumping drinks in a giant trash can and smashing them down with their trash mashing stick, very noisey. :p There WAS a long line of people waiting to get in though, so I suppose it's pretty hectic trying to get the place clean quickly enough. All the cup crunching commotion ruined the song though. I can't find the soundtrack here yet. :(

"That part with Aragorns statue thingy"..." What would be even funnier would be if one of the pigeons pooped on the statue"......

Honestly, we need a "childrens forum" here! :eek: Come on kids, get it up! :) (your intelligence level) :rolleyes:

[Celebréiel]

Wah? I thought gollum was one of the few good points of the film. It would have been sooo silly to have a live actor play him. Really silly and weird. Hes supposed to be distorted and un human looking from having the ring so long. He was just right in the movie, except for the internal debate, eh...but yeah, good job on overall how he looked.
~Celebréiel

[Entlover]

Hey, nobody told me Gollum is cute! I have to agree with Frodo, I felt sorry for him, except when he was plotting to murder the hobbits.

Legolas' skateboarding stunt - cool, but pretty unrealistic. Too risky.

Theoden being possessed by Saruman -- I thought it unnecessary, but it just made more concrete the "influence" of Saruman through Grima over him in the book. I notice that PJ tends to take subtleties and make them explicit, which perhaps is the only way to deal with the transition from book to movie.

I don't think Faramir was mean. He was only acting in Gondor's best interests. Anyone would have done the same. It just took longer in the movie for him to catch on to what he ought to do, and to trust Frodo. Though why anyone should trust someone whose eyes keep rolling up while he goes sleepwalking into danger, I don't know. I still love Elijah's acting, but that part was a little much.

[Lizra]

Celebriel, You didn't like the debate! I loved it! Split personality, perfect! I guess they'll show the "murder scene" in the extended edition. They made real people look pretty awful, and distorted with the orcs, I think it could have been done with Gollum too. But, I'm sure they had their reasons for going the route they did. It was very good, but I liked the lines Gollum had, more than the way he looked. I think seening the Smeagol, Deagol bit in the boat will help me though! :)

[claudia silver]

I intially posted:

Hmmmmmmmm..........not sure.......need to see it again

Just seen TT for the second time and have moved from a 'not sure' to 'loved it'. After seeing FOTR for the first time I felt exactly the same, unsure, but again revised my opinion after seeing it............a ridiculous amount of times!

I think my problem is that I, as everyone who has read and re-read the book, have my own preconceived ideas and expectations of how I want it to be. So on first viewing you hold your breath waiting for a favourite line or a scene and feel cheated when it never comes or is changed out of all recognition. But then after getting my head round my initial disappointments I find I can enjoy the second, third etc viewings of what is a superb interpretation of the LOTR and go back to the book for my 'missing bits'.

Don’t get me wrong I still have major problems in the TT with Theoden's exorcism and 'side-kick' Gimli and no Glorfindel in LOTR but I have a forgiving nature. ;)

However that does not extend to people who laugh at, what I think are, inappropriate moments in the film! During the Gollum/Smeagol argument people were roaring with laughter. I must be lacking in the sense of humour department but I think this one of the most tragic and moving moments in the book (oops.....sorry film). And in the FOTR when Frodo slips on the ring to escape from Boromir and delivers him an invisible kick, same reaction..........I am sorry but I just don’t get it. Maybe I need to lighten up a bit.............:(

[Arathorn]

In the place I was in, people kept laughing at almost every other intense conversation between male folk (Haldir & Aragorn, Legolas & Aragorn, Frodo & Sam when Sam said "It's me, your Sam") like it was some gay innuendo. I tell you, it was so irritating.

[claudia silver]

Oh dear........its all very sad :confused:

[Arathorn]

After reading countless reviews here and in other sites, I think I'm enjoying PJ's changes and the reactions of many folk. It makes us all talk and debate with each other. It's not so badly done that everyone's on one side crucifying PJ but it's not too close to being book-verbatim that we're all agreeing either that it gets boring.

I'm a bit excited with what other changes, mistakes, and intentional surprises will be in store as people view TTT for the nth time. The same goes for next years Return of the King.:)

[azalea]

Yeah, seeing it in a packed theater with people just there because it was something to do (rather than really having an interest in seeing it) is really annoying. People were talking, eating smelly nachos (*crunch, crunch*), RUBBING EACH OTHER'S BACKS! I can't wait to see it in a month or two on the "off" hours. I did that w/ FotR and it was practically a private showing, as there were only 8 or 9 other people in the theater.

Yeah, an actual person playing Gollum would have been nice, but considering how skinny they'd need to be, I don't think it would work.

[Celebréiel]

Thats what happend to me! The crowd at the midnight show was so rowdy, and this guy next to me was drinking beers! >.< Every hour he'd pop open another can! But anywho, Lizra, yeah after seeing it another time(w/ out the laughter) the gollum debate was pretty good ;) And more high points im noticing, (its slowly winning me over) even though he didnt have a big part, I really liked the actor playing Eomer!! And Eowyn was great. :rolleyes:
~Celebréiel

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Aragorn using the Palantir to bluff Sauron into attacking too soon, etc.

May not need to do that, since Frodo was spotted at Osgilliath in the company of Gondorians....



I don't have a problem with people laughing at Gollum; his character in the book was laughably pitiful as well --- remember when he pranced around like an over-excited puppy? I don't think Tolkien treated him entirely seriously either.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by azalea
People were talking, eating smelly nachos (*crunch, crunch*), RUBBING EACH OTHER'S BACKS!


They kinda remind me of some of our congressmen here. Dumb orcses!

[Rûdhaglarien]

The movie was fantastic for what it was (a movie), but (I believe) that it sucked as an adaptation of the book.

Things that I hated about it: Treebeard, Faramir, Helm's Deep.

Thing that I enjoyed: Gollum, the Eye's upgrade.

[mithrand1r]

I saw T2T today. It is very good on the whole. Reviewed with the book in mind, I would say 8¾ to 9 of 10, otherwise 9½ of 10.

Here are some random thoughts about the film.

New Zealand is beautiful.

The battle scenes were very intense and sometimes difficult (for me) to follow all of the action.

The movie followed the book less than it did in LOTR:FOTR. In some cases this was good for moving the story along and in other cases not.

I glad the film did not do a synopsis (sp?) of what transpired upto that point. The movie is long enough already.

The movie showed everything primarily in chronological order. While this may have the effect of forcing people to keep track of different story lines, I think it is better (from a cinematic perspective) to keep a nicely flowing story.

The battle scene between Gandalf and the Balrog was well done and it kept very closely (in spirit) with the book.

I did not like the way that Golem looked, but I thought he was well portrayed. There was a scene that was excellent in protraying Golem's inner struggle between "good" and "evil". At times, I found Golem to be very funny (from a combo of facial expressions and funny dialog).

Merry and Pippen were portrayed in more somber tones than the last film. I think this is primarily a result of them being isolated from everyone else and having to depend on their own ability/luck to get out of their troubles. It is a shame that much of their witty comments had to be removed, due to the streamlining of the story. Too bad PJ & Co could not find the right balance between comedy and seriousness.

Did Grima Wormtongue have to look so disgusting/ugly. Why not put a sign around his neck saying "Traitor" or maybe give him a "black hat".

When Grima was kick out of the hall, they should have explained how he was able to ride out on a horse. In the book, the king gave him a horse and order all to let him go without any obstacles where ever he chooses to go. Without this explaination it looks like the King's guards are dozing on the job at best.

There was no mention of Elven Cloaks from Lothlorien (if there was a mention of them in the previous film, I do not remember it). When Frodo and Sam hide in front of the Black Gate, it seems improbable that the enemy would miss seeing them. (they notice the rocks and dust go down the side of the hill, but fail to see the cloaks when they stop to investigate?) If we knew about the cloaks this wouldn't be as bad. It would have been better to not have this happen at all, since this doesn't really add much to the film.

The Flashback scenes with awren/Aragorn/Elrond were annoying. This was primarily due to my reading of the book. W/out the book, Elrond sounds like the Elves should just up and leave everyone else in the lurch.

When they are retreating from the Golden Hall to Helms Deep, I get the impression that Aragorn thinks that Awren will leave him for the Grey Havens.

The elves with lanterns@Rivendell remind me of Druids.

Sauraman's talk to the orcs before battle reminded me of a pep talk.

The Orcs during the battle reminded me of Chewbaca at times.

The one orc running with the lit torch to light the bombs reminded me of the Olympics.

I liked how the ents looked. They seemed to be inconsistent though. In one scene you see Treebeard say that ents are not hasty. When treebeard sees the forest in ruins, he changes his mind about remaining out of the war of the ring. He decides then and there that Sauraman must pay. He hollers and you then see a bunch of ents ready to fight against Saruman. It would have been better if Peter&Company kept to the book and had the Ents end their debate agreeing to help merry&pippin against Saruman.

When Eomer & Gandalf ride to the rescue, there were orcs with pikes present. My question is: Wouldn't the horses be impailed against the pikes, before the men can reach the orcs?

The Chase of the orcs by Aragorn, Legolas and Glimli went well for the most part. It was nicely streamlined.

Eowyn (sp?) was well protrayed.

I did not care much for the tearful goodbye with the mother/kids. It was so-so, but to me seemed to be there to get the tissues out. It was not bad per say, but it seemed a little out of place to me.

Gimli seems to have taken more of the comedic lines in this film. The "Dwarf throwing" seems that it may be a running gag through all three films.

Aragorn did not quite seem sure of what he wanted to do at times. Towards the end of the film he seems to have found his direction and is more focused.

Again, I think the film is very good. There are 2 or 3 items that should have been written/shown better. Most of the things that I did not like about were of a subjective nature and not material to the telling of the story.

Sincerely,
Anthony

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Arathorn
It makes us all talk and debate with each other. It's not so badly done that everyone's on one side crucifying PJ but it's not too close to being book-verbatim that we're all agreeing either that it gets boring.
Good point, well put. It really is a tremendous achievement.

I liked the comedy Gimli; I thought that John Rhys Davies' delivery was spot on. You might slag him off (and it seems realistic that warriors would have a pretty robust humour) but you'd want him on your side... However, I thought that much of the script was pretty weak.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I was going to post my thoughts, but I think I'll just add my name to your post Mithrand1r, I agree with everything you've outlined.

One thing not mentioned too much so far were the poor effects. I thought some things looked fantatsic, but many things looked very hack to me. I did not like Gollum the fetus, I wanted Gollum the amphibian, and while I can marvel at the fact that what I'm seeing is not really there, it still looked unreal to me.

The hobbits on Treebeard looked terrible and they just kept showing it!

There is a scene where Sam and Frodo are standing with the men from Gondor and the projection (same used for Isildur in the extended) looks terrible.

The wargs looked very fake in some scenes. The long slow walk to Helm's Deep was a perfect moment for a song, or for one character to tell a tale to another. Perhaps Helm the Hammerhand or the Gondor Rohan relationship, hell, anything!

Isengard lost it's perspective when the water came, and I felt I was looking at a model train set toward the end. They overused the shot.

Some of the orcs are getting way to close to B-movie horror for my liking.



A note on military tactics to Peter:

The worst place to put the elves was inside the wall with the others, had they waited over the hillside (where Gandalf entered), they could have slaughtered the orcs from above with arrows. Forcing the orcs to fight upwards on two fronts would have made their excess numbers almost meaningless. Tolkien had much first hand military experience, and his battles reflect his knowledge. The Pikes mentioned above is another great example. Pikes were formidable weapons against a mounted assault, those horses would have died (if their riders could have ever gotten them to even perform the manouver at all, given that horses posess a keen sense of self preservation even in battle). Again, needless changes creating problems Tolkien so effortlessly avoided.

The worst moment:

Gandalf rearing on Shadowfax just as Aragorn looks for him. Someone should Pike Jackson for that cliche.

Finally:


Although I liked parts of this film a lot, I would rather have Cate Blanchett reading the novel than all three movies on dvd.

[Randy6]

I've seen it twice so far and I love it! I can't wait to see ROTK! Yes, there are changes, sure, some people will be disapointed, but be aware that whenever two people witness events they both see them slightly differently. That's how I view changes in a movie from a book. Some of the changes I liked, especially with the elves helping the humans. Although I do believe that most of the major points of the story were hit and not majorly changed.

The Ents were truly marvelous! The dead marshes were fantastic! Brad Dourf was absolutely the PERFECT choice for Wormtongue. The beginning was amazing; that was something I was unable to visualize myself and always wanted to.

Blessings,
Randy

[Blackboar]

I liked the film!!

I agree with you about some things but I thought the hobbits on Treebeard looked quite good!!

I love the way they started it with Gandalf falling into the shadow in Moria in Fodo's dream!

I was really shocked when Frodo was trying to kill Sam!!:eek:
You could hear my heart pumping for miles!!!

I thought the battle was done really well; except Legolas on a skateboard!! Not very middle-earthy to me;)

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Blackboar

I thought the battle was done really well; except Legolas on a skateboard!! Not very middle-earthy to me;)

I agree with you about the Legolas skateboarding thing. All of my friends who are Legolas friends just about died when the showed that scene. I think it was put there solely for entertainment purposes, and it worked. But did anyone else notice how at first they showed him sliding halfway down the stairs, and then they changed angles and filmed him sliding from 1/4 to 3/4 way down the stairs, and then finally down the second half? They made it look like he shot about five arrows, when he really only shot two or three!

[durin's bane]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
What would be even funnier would be if oen of the pidgeons pooped on the statue, or on Arwen for that matter.

LoL, that would've been hilarious, Eowyngirl! :D I'd have peed my pants!

[Renille]

Originally posted by claudia silver
I intially posted:
However that does not extend to people who laugh at, what I think are, inappropriate moments in the film! During the Gollum/Smeagol argument people were roaring with laughter. I must be lacking in the sense of humour department but I think this one of the most tragic and moving moments in the book (oops.....sorry film)

YES! My thoughts exactly! That was the one part where I felt like hugging poor Smeagol, and everyone else was laughing. I did giggle a bit at the "We told to go, and he goes!" line, *which I just murdered* but that was because I was happy for Gollum. You could actually see his remorse and happiness and good intent. But people were laughing. It was very annoying.

I think I will go see it again with my Christmas money. Maybe I'd be willing to see past what I thought was an inordinate amount of senseless violence. And maybe I'll have the sense to NOT get soda so I don't have to leave the theatre twice.
:p

[Diaxion]

The thing that disapointed me most was where the movie ended. It did not end where the book ended.

[Diaxion]

Although the movie was awsome and I liked it very much. It was awsome but I have to admit my cousin ben and tristan probably saw it before me.

[samwise of the shire]

Oh jeez, this is one of the hardest things to talk about. I really REALLY hated Arwen leaving for the Grey Havens. I did NOT get that and Elrond was like one of those Zoog Disney Dads who are so protective it's gross. I did NOT like those parts because they left me scratching my head. And Aragorn thinking that Arwen has left makes him fall for Eowyn and where does that leave Faramir? WHAT IS GOING ON!!!
The excorsism of Theoden is FREAKY...I did NOT like it...or the green zombies in the Dead Marshes. Leaves you wondering who or what is going to turn green in ROTK.
I noticed that Sarumans extravagent robes were a sort of dingy off white color compared to the simple pure snow white robes of Gandalf. And wasn't Shadowfax a beautiful horse?
I thought Eowyn was cool. She was so much more better than pouty Arwen. And they DIDN'T have a sword fighting scene with her and Aragorn...it just looked like it in the first trailer.
The ents were interesting...very treeish...maybe a little TOO treeish. And it looks like Pippin and Merry are starting to grow up...just like I've said they would a thousand times. Pippins little bit of illogical logic rocked.
I liked Sam and Frodo much more in TTT. I guess it's because they're starting to mature and they're no longer childlike and innocent. Frodo is beginning to become possessed by the Ring (which was executed by Elijah beautifully) and Sam doesn't know what to do with his changed master...but he tries to be patient and understanding especially when Frodo goes crazy.
And that brings me to the best character in the whole movie...Gollum/Smeagol. Yes I know this next bit is heretical but I liked the movie Gollum BETTER than the book Gollum. I liked him because he is so much more pitiable and I feel sorrier for him than I do for the book Gollum. Maybe it's because I cant understand the book Gollum. I dont know...I just thought Gollum rocked.
Cheers,
Sam

[obscenename]

Oh jeez, this is one of the hardest things to talk about. I really REALLY hated Arwen leaving for the Grey Havens. I did NOT get that and Elrond was like one of those Zoog Disney Dads who are so protective it's gross. I did NOT like those parts because they left me scratching my head. And Aragorn thinking that Arwen has left makes him fall for Eowyn and where does that leave Faramir? WHAT IS GOING ON!!!

I only saw the movie once, but I don't remember any part where Aragorn would have any idea where Arwen is when she has joined the elves going west. I don't think they are telepathically linked. I do think you have it right when you compare it to a Zoog Disney show.

She won't go to the Grey Havens. Arwen/Useless Character will make her father believe that she's going into the west, but she'll pull a formula I'm-sorry-but-I-have-to-defy-my-father-and-follow-my-heart move and find her way south to meet Aragorn and make me hate hopefully, only one scene in ROTK. As far as I'm concerned, she should have taken Haldir's arrow and put an end to her insipid lisping.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Jackson has completely blown the love story in this trilogy. There were audible groans when the film cut to Arwen in my theatre. If the outcome was not already known, I think the vast majority of viewers would be pulling for Eowyn in this love triangle. Another mess brought about by his needless changes to the plot. I honestly believe Tolkien would think this film a total mess.

[Nurvingiel]

I've only seen TTT once, and I'll probably go one more time. TTT, as a stand alone movie, is very good, and worth seeing twice.

Unfortunately, TTT does not stand alone, it has the legacy of an amazing book to live up to. It doesn't live up to anything, much less the legacy of Tolkein.
After I saw the movie, I gave it a generous, open-minded review. Then, I went home and read TTT, and now I think it sucked.
TTT still retains its entertainment value of good mideval battles, occasional funny lines, and pretty people with swords.
I thought FOTR was as true to the book as a movie can be (which causes me to question the point of making movies of Tolkein's works.) The scenes where I writhed in agony watching TTT was when it deviated needlessly from the book.

1. Gimli is a comic relief wuss who can't keep up with Aragorn.
2. Aragorn falling off a cliff for no apparent reason. (I think it's okay for him to wake up with the lame Arwen dream because I'm so thankful Arwen isn't actually in the movie.)
3. Ridiculous Wargs who look like hyenas who were dropped on their heads as pups, and who aren't scary.
4. Wussie, asthma-plagued Frodo who tries to give the Ring to a Nazgul, and who has two facial exzpressions angst, and not angst.
5. Idiot Faramir
6. Frodo falling into a pool in the dead marshes.

Potentially continued later... after the second viewing..?

[Devey]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Jackson has completely blown the love story in this trilogy. There were audible groans when the film cut to Arwen in my theatre. If the outcome was not already known, I think the vast majority of viewers would be pulling for Eowyn in this love triangle.

I have just read on some website that Jackson has actually changed the plot for Return of the King so that Aragon and Eowyn fall in love and end up together, Faramir is killed by the Nazgul and Arwen goes into the West.

[zavron]

That is Unspeakable!!:mad:

[Devey]

The site is called "www.wishfulthinking.com" :D :D :D

[Arathorn]

I think the changes make for good business sense. :D

Just think about it: Book fans will hate him for it but with all the flaming going around, bad publicity is still publicity. Those who did not notice the changes (the subtler ones) the first time around will want to watch it again. Then there are those who would want to see it again to better understand why they were done whether or not there is a valid reason for the changes (go discuss).

The changes also make it a more level playing field between the book fans and the non-initiates as no one really knows what's going to happen next. I remember watching the Harry Potter films and they are very close in detail to the books. I was impressed, yes. But I didn't want to watch after the 2nd time since they did not offer anything new.

And finally, the most obvious reasons are to wink at the MTV generation with jokes and such.

I'm not sure if he intended for Tolkien fundamentalists (purists) to cry foul; however, the strategy, if there is one, seems to be paying off. What a great businessman!

As for me, I'm watching TTT 10 more times because I enjoyed the eyecandy. The movie, for me, is a jump-off point for my imagination of middle-earth. A movie does not, a book, ruin, IMO. The book stands on its own as canon and even the Bakshi cartoon won't change that. And besides, Good cinema seats only cost 2 US$ here. :D

[Lizra]

One of these days I'm going to have to rent that Bashki cartoon! Maybe on my birthday! :)

[Earniel]

Just read the 12 pages that you guys typed.... fieuw....

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who wasn't thrilled by TTT. I actually dreaded coming to movie forum after I've seen it.

Visually the movie was.... well there are no words big enough to describe it. Stunning. And that's putting it mildly. It will be long before this is ever rivaled (until ROTK comes out, I wager ;)). I loved the sceneries: Rohan, Helm's Deep, Fangorn..... I loved the CGI-gollum although his eyes were a bit big. I could have accepted it if it was because of his long stay in the dark under the Misty Mountains but then his eyes should have been white and not so cutely blue. The ents were magnificent, not totally as I had imagined them but definately how an ent could look. And treebeard had seven fingers! :D The attack of the ents on Isengard was a feast for the eyes. I liked it how they all braced themselves for the flood.

The plot was a little less. Maybe my expectations were too high but it often looked so alien. My dad asked my to elbow him if there was a scene different from the book. I elbowed him a lot. I was very dissappointed that they rewrote several characters: Faramir, Éowyn and Elrond. I won't go into Faramir since that's been discussed already. But despite the good work of the actress it just wasn't Éowyn. Éowyn from the book is a sort of icemaiden, unhappy and bitter about her life and the world in general. She only 'thawed' when she met Faramir. Éowyn in the movie was too warm but that's probably just my own opinion. Elrond too was a let- down. Is this Eärendil's son? Who constantly goes on about there being nomore hope and that they should all better leave for Valinor?

I'm puzzled to by Arwen's behaviour. First she says there's still hope but then she leaves to the havens? Still, I like it better that way because at first I thought it was her and her companions that turned up in Helm's Deep instead of Haldir. Silly me.... :D I didn't mind overmuch about Haldir showing up in Helm's Deep but I just wonder how it connects to the 'Elves are fading' thing. Wasn't the Age of the Elves over?

Overall the film looked a bit oversimplified and rushed. I know that movies are a different medium than books and that you can do a lot less in movies ect...ect... But still. I do like it how they focused on a few less expressed scenes such as the plight of the rohan-population and the relation between GrÃ*ma and Éowyn. Gimli was funny but they've carried it a little too far for my taste. And I'm pretty certain that that thing about dwarfwoman and beards came straight out of Pratchett's discworld serie.

But on a happier note you guys have giving me hope again that I might like it better after a second viewing and that I would really like too. Thanks! :)

[eowyngirl14]

Yesturday, I saw the movie for the 3rd time! I think it just keeps getting better, on most of the parts. The bits with Merry and Pippin, just keep getting more boring... I think that the ents were wonderfull, looking, but their dialoge really sucked. Only one of them ever says anything in english, the rest is all HOOMing and HOming, wich I am sorry to say, I do not understand.:)

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Khamûl
In the line of the story, Theoden and Company are supposed to leave Helm's Deep and go to Isengard to cast down Saruman. :

This leaves too much for RotK, I think. We've got to see Saruman destroyed -- not without conflict. Denethor/Gondor's battle/Theoden's death/the Nazgul destroyed. Frodo/Shelob/ Sam rescues him, then the Lords of the West marching to the Black Gate and fighting a whole new battle.
Too many battles! Why did PJ leave them all for RotK?

[Thingol_GreyMantle]

I have now seen TTT twice and after reading all the 12 pages of posts in this thread I would just like to add my two cents.

Regarding the changes to Faramir, I found them effective in the movie but hard for me to watch since his character had changed so much from the book. Here, I think, lack of familiarity with the books would have been an advantage. Faramir is one of my favorite characters and I can only hope and pray that PJ does justice to the Faramir/Eowyn love affair. Considering how he has managed to mangle Aragon/Arwen/Elrond relationship, I hold out faint hope.

With respect to the inclusion of Arwen (again where she doesn't belong) and Aragon's near death experience, I have a few irreverent questions:

Why is Elrond such a jerk? Why is Arwen on the way to the Grey Havens? Is Arwen jealous of Aragon's horse? Which kisses better?

Not only is Arwen not on her way to the Grey Havens, she is making his banner. Arwen is not some rebellious teenager planning histrionics before boarding the grey ships.

The winged Ringwraiths were over done and not as effected as the Black Riders in FOTR. The scene with Frodo at Osgiliath reminded me of several movies having a confrontation between a plane/helicopter rising up to appear at rooftop level. On the plus side, it does get Faramir to realize Frodo has to continue his journey.

I thought Gollum was well portrayed and wished the story had at least taken us to the stairs of Cirith Ungol even if PJ is saving Shelob for ROTK.

[Lizra]

Yes, The winged Nazgul wern't scary! they needed more fear build up or something....I think their FoTR horses with wings, like in Greek mythology would have been scarier. They need more creepy stuff, the Urak Hai were over loaded!

[Arathorn]

Now that I think about it, the winged Nazgul would've been scarier if the camera had just focused on Gollum and the 2 hobbits. If there was any running involved, they could just show shadows moving rapidly on the plains and kept the steed and Nazgul sounds in so you have a clue that they were there. The unknown is a good device for conveying fear.

I would've saved showing the nazgul until Dernhelm's and Merry's moment. If PJ really wanted that scene with Frodo and the nazgul, I'd rather have just shown frodo and a blacked out hand or other appendage reaching down on him.

*Imagines scenes from "The Others"* Bye now! :eek:

[BrandonB]

OK people. I'm obviously new here, and I just wanted to reply to people's thought on the new LotR movie. I just don't get it. What would it take to satisfy some of you? I swear, I think the only way you wouldn't be disappointed would be if orcs jumped out of the screen and started chopping people's heads off. It's a movie, not a book, of course there's going to be changes. Peter Jackson isn't on a mission from God to make exact replicas of the books, he's offering his visual representations of the books that someone else wrote. I read alot of this thread thinking I would see the same excitement that I had in watching it. But most of what I saw is a bunch of whining and crying about how they left out this scene just cuz it would have added another hour to the film, or this character didn't act exactly the way they thought they would when they read the book, or how come I wasn't as scared as the chartacters were of the wraiths? Doesn't Peter Jackson know any magic spells for crying out loud?. Read the book again if you don't movies. The movie will never do it the justice that your own imagination will. So get over it and get over yourself. That's all, thanks for reading my rant. :)

[Celebréiel]

Welcome to the moot :cool: Anywho, No ones really *that* serious about being upset about the changes, I think it was the first shock, I thought FoTR was good and accurate, but then TT came along totally weirded out....Ive grown to like it as a separate movie. The problems with the changes is PJ came off (imo: this is how I first saw him) as a big tolkien fan, who wanted to make an accurate representation of the books for the fans, that also contributed to my dissapointment, b/c thats totally not what TT is....um yeah......something about honer to Tolkiens name........and.......the immortal characters he created(:cries: poor Gimli) .....er.....no movie would ever do justice to our imaginations but it was nice to hope that one would come close! ;) Merry X-mas!
~Celebréiel:D

[eowyngirl14]

I agree with what Celebriel said/posted. Since we are all typing our comments, you can't hear our tone of voice used. When I posted previously on this thread, I didn't think I would be interpretted as whining. I was just posting my own opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. I too hoped that TTT would follow the storyline as much as FotR did... I was just dissapionted and a little angry. I have gotton over that now... I love TTT as much as I do FotR, even if it took three trips to the movie theater and the teaser posters in my stocking this morning t oconvince me...:)

Happy Holidays Everyone!

[TinuvielChild]

Having finally discovered this thread...:rolleyes: I just want to say, I loved it both times I've seen it so far. Faramir...well, he was dead sexy, but that's about the only good thing that can be said about him. Andy Serkis was absolutely in-bloody-credible as Gollum. Was v. v. sad when Craig Parker's character got killed. Helm's Deep was rather long, but it was all worth it just for a couple good lines and Legolas's "stair-surfing" bit. It seemed to me that everyone made opposite decisions from what they did in the books just so they could make a theatrical entrance/deliver some theatrical lines that make them seem very noble later on in the movie. Was that just me, or did other people notice that? The review I've been giving people is: If you've read the books/are a purist, it's nowhere near the books; FotR was better. If you're looking at it just as a movie, independent of the books, it's spectacular, and better than FotR.


Oh, and I didn't like how Gimli was pure comic relief. It was hilarious, but nobody took him at all seriously throughout the entire movie! Eh, well. They got rid of most of the bonding between Legolas and Gimli, too, which bugged me, but hey. I'm a purist. It's still a good movie.

[Arathorn]

I'm not sure if this article (http://www.greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID=62&pageID=104&) from TORN will be ok to post but it's quite interesting. It's a post TTT interview with the film makers and they TRY to answer why they did the changes. Have fun. :)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The more these writers speak, the more they betray their true feelings for this piece of literature.

"I think Tolkien went off on a bit of a tangent with the Two Towers"

Philippa Boyens.

If only you could "tangent" half as well dear.

[Arathorn]

Agreed. It was the book publishers who first decided where to cut the volumes as the whole 3-volumes were intended to be one book.

The film-makers would, of course, want to make money. That's the main reason people embark on multi-million projects; at least in the entertainment industry. I just didn't expect to be entertained this much. Good for them that many other people were entertained as much or even more to hand them over their leisure money.

I just hope that these movies net at least a few uninitiated people that they actually read the books and even appreciate them.

I'll take the films as a marketing vehicle for the books.

[TinuvielChild]

You know, the "Merry and Pippin Show" part of that link was absolutely hilarious. Gotta love Dom and Billy....*shakes head at their antics* :D

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Agreed on the Dom and Billy part. Heh. They're reeeeally funny. And I don't mind most of the changes they made, really. It makes the movie good. I have to agree with Arathorn. . .It's a good marketing vehicle, neh? Gets better with each viewing, methinks. 'Cept why do the orcs have crossbows? yeesh.

[TinuvielChild]

I guess, after reading that, I can finally understand why they did the whole SeducedbythepoweroftheRing!Faramir thing....eh, well. Book-Faramir was better.

[cassiopeia]

I saw it! I saw it! I just got back from seeing it, and I must say that I love it. Perhaps not as much as the FOTR, but it is still an excellent movie.

What I disliked:

*Arwen. I sighed when she first appeared. Was it just my imagination, or did she have a nearly see through dress on? It amused me that Elrond found her having dreams of Aragorn in her bed. :D

*Dodgy CGI: Merry and Pippin on Treebeard looked completely fake.

Aragorn's 'death'. I don't understand how Arwen came to save him. He 'died' just to see the army of Urak-hai? Pretty silly to me.
And I don't understand how Arwen came to save him in his dreams.

*Frodo trying to save Gollum. Huh? :rolleyes: Isn't carrying the ring to Orodruin enough?

What I liked:

*Gollum. Excellent CGI.

*Helm's Deep. Awesome.

*Every single line from the book that was in the movie.

*Aragorn: I bow to Peter Jackson for making Aragorn look the way I like him to: hot and sweaty. :D

Most of the changes from the book did not really bother me. Theodens exorcism and Faramir worked for me, for the most part. Faramir's change of mind about the ring was a bit quick as was Treebeard's decision to ruin Isengard. Gimli was funny, but I think he was funny a bit too much. Sure, give him a couple of lines for comic relief, but not nearly every scene. The funniest Gimli part was when he was at the wall at Helm's deep and you could only see his helmet. :D All in all, I really enjoyed it, well worth a years wait. I must see it again.

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by cassiopeia

*Frodo trying to save Gollum. Huh? :rolleyes: Isn't carrying the ring to Orodruin enough?


Um, I think that one was in the book; at least the part where he saves Gollum from the archers while in the forbidden pool. :)

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Arathorn
Um, I think that one was in the book; at least the part where he saves Gollum from the archers while in the forbidden pool. :)

I should of explained myself: I meant saving his character, helping him become Smeagol again. Not physically saving him at Henneth Annun (see I've read the books).

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I should of explained myself: I meant saving his character, helping him become Smeagol again. Not physically saving him at Henneth Annun (see I've read the books).

oops. :o

Anyway, I liked that part just the same. It raised the warm-fuzzy-feeling level in me, I think. :)