TTT moments that irritate now, upon multiple viewings

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Since we have discussed new favorite moments, I thought this would be necessary as well, because some things have begun to bother me that were fine upon the first viewing or two.

1) Gimli's irrelevence and comedy grate my nerves worse with each viewing (especially during the beginning of Helm's Deep)

2) The "dwarf toss" from the side door strikes me as very unrealistic. Aragorn and Gimli would have been slaughtered in very quick fashion pulling a stunt such as that.

3) The Uruk-Hai rock, but the regular orcs are beginning to strike me as amusing, not scary. The one that chases Merry and Pippen into Fanghorn is a good example.

4) When Aragorn keeps Theoden from killing Wormtongue, it seems cheesier with each viewing. In reality that guy would have been toast, but I do realize that pity and not dealing death and judgement are strong themes within the story.

5) I really hesitate to say this, but I will. Gandalf is my favorite character in the book and movie, but Ian's "speechisms" as Gandalf the White are bugging me. I feel like all his lines are beginning to sound the same. He adds "weight" to his words the same way with every bit of dialogue.

All this being said, I still love the movie. This is nitpicking.

[Ruinel]

OMG!!! WHERE DO I BEGIN!?!?! :mad:

ACK!!! :mad: ...there the.. :mad: and.. when... :mad: AAIIIAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek: :o *faints from the rush of discontent*

[Snowdog]

Ahh.. nitpicks...
Legolas turning to see the sunrise and saying with 'so much feeling' (note sarcasm) ".. blood has been spilled this night"

Uruks marching in order. Here is one thing Bakshi got right and PJ got wrong.

I best stop now.....

[Lizra]

Aragorn to Legolas...."What do your *elf eyes* see?" :rolleyes:
I like red sky/spilled blood! :)

[Celebréiel]

so many...sooo many..but ill only do a few...
Legolas and Aragorns little spat when the men are getting ready for the battle at Helm's Deep...how pointless was that??
Merry and Pip 'tricking' Treebeard to go and changing his mind...
I dont know why it bugs me so much...I just found it too cheesy..when Aragorn comes back to Helms Deep after...*ahem* 'dying' :rolleyes: and Legolas says '"your late" in elvish! :confused: what?

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Celebréiel
I dont know why it bugs me so much...I just found it too cheesy..when Aragorn comes back to Helms Deep after...*ahem* 'dying' :rolleyes: and Legolas says '"your late" in elvish! :confused: what?

and then legolas says "you look terrible" and they laugh. Th look on Viggos face is freaky

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I've thought of one other thing. I really like the atmosphere of Osgiliath, but the boulders that come flying in an hit the pond or lake are not done very well. It all looks pretty good until after they land and splash. Then there are still no ripples or waves or anything in the water. You can tell they just painted splashes on top of the scene and didn't bother with anything else. I wish they would fix it!

[Ornelírë Mistë]

The WHOLE movie irritated me. That's not TTT, that's crap spawned by the realization of how teenage girls faint over Legolas, Aragorn, even the Hobbitses. Maybe even Gollum:D

[Goldberry1]

Originally posted by Ruinel
OMG!!! WHERE DO I BEGIN!?!?! :mad:

ACK!!! :mad: ...there the.. :mad: and.. when... :mad: AAIIIAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek: :o *faints from the rush of discontent*

so many things in this movie totally bothered me i'd end up having 10 posts on this thread to account for them all! what i really couldn't stand was that Gimli was *seemingly* only there for comic relief, and the Elves arriving at Helm's Deep. (besides the reason that i felt there was no need for them to be there since Elves were not at Helm's Deep in the book) How could they have possibly gotten there before the Orcs?!?!?

[Salquënòrëwen]

Where to begin...

Well, pretty much EVERYTHING Legolas says bothers me...its sounds so stupid and fake! Hate to say it but...Orlando Bloom really isn't the best actor. He sounds so fake!

When Legolas tells Aragorn he looks terrible, that just disturbs me.....

Frodo is getting on my nerves..don't really know why though....

There are so many more, but I have such a headache at the moment, I don't want ot continue thinking about it.

[IronParrot]

I don't know... I tend to have fewer and fewer problems with most things that struck me from behind the first time I saw the movie, upon repeat viewings. Probably the most major thing that still seems a good deal out of place is the warg attack.

I do have some problems with the film but they are things that I fully expect to be repaired in the Extended Edition. The first time I saw TTT, I think my clearest reaction was that I knew they didn't release it as a definitive cut by any means, and probably said to themselves "no worries, we'll put it in the DVD" all too often.

[Lanelf]

For me, it's when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet Gandalf in Fangorn. I don't know why it irritates me, but it does - maybe because they should kinda know who it is by the voice, or just the stoopid expression on Gandalf's face, or something.
Lanelf.

[Rían]

I agree with Lizra - that "what do your elf eyes see?" line just nauseates me! Legolas should answer back "and my elf brain thinks you're a jerk for asking that question!" :rolleyes:

I liked Legolas in the first movie, but he overacts even more in the second.

[Earniel]

I just saw TTT again, yesterday on video. I tend to get over most points of irritation the more I watch it. But some points I find increasingly irritating:

1. Arwen. I've gotten over the thing that she shouldn't even be there. Okay, so give the lass some more screentime, I don't mind. Just don't do it so corny and don't go throwing Aragorn off cliffs just to get it.

2. Elrond. This is not Elrond! This isn't the wise lord of Rivendell! This is a whining gloomy nurk who needs to get rid of his idée fixe that 'men are weak' and he needs to stop frowning so bleeding often. He annoys me more and more.

3. The constant switching between members of the Fellowship. This is hugely annoying to be switching all of the sudden from the battle at Helm's to that in Isengard. Even the music seemed to have trouble following at times. It was a bit over the top.

[Durin1]

The general consensus seems to be that TTT was not as satisfying for "proper" Tolkien fans as it is for the rest who just enjoyed the visual spectacle. I have to agree.

Without euphemistically calling it nitpicking there is, without a doubt, too many irritating things that marrs the whole enjoyment of the movie.

1. The biggest and most obvious irritant was the appalling treatment of the character of Gimli - not to mention the ridiculous Scottish accent that John Rhys-Davies chose to assume for the role. I don't buy that there needed to be some light relief to act against the growing tension. That Dwarf-tossing joke nearly drove me mad! (along with the fact that Aragorn shouldn't have been physically capable of tossing Gimli anyway)

2. I can't stand Arwen and Elrond especially Elrond. For someone who was supposed to be so noble and wise, he seems a bit of a prat. Also those references to leaving ME for Valinor (not forgetting that Elves could only reside in Tol Eressea) seem to be a bit too over-egged.

3. What's with Legolas and the scateboard? That was totally ridiculous and made a mockery of the fight at Helms Deep. Did Peter Jackson have a moment of madness or did he contract amnesia? he must have been thinking that he was directing some Disney movie.

4. Elves in Helms Deep? Stupid or what? Haldir delivering a message from Elrond? Wasn't he from Lothlorien? Wouldn't his own Queen like to have delivered a message? etc. etc.

5. What was that with Aragorn going missing? and Wargs attacking the refugees seemed to take cinematic licence a bit too far.

6. Faramir's character as opposed to the noble, intelligent one in the book. Enough said.

7. Frodo and Sam telling the whole world about the ring. Wasn't it supposed to be secret? Wouldn't men be allured by the thought of the ring being within their grasp?

8. Ian Mckellan is a fine actor and Gandalf is generally portrayed very well, however, those facial expressions are beginning to get a bit too one-dimensional and makes me feeling like giving him a slap!

The list goes on and on...

Phew, I'm glad I got that off my chest. Enough of my diatribe against the movies , I do generally find the cinematic experience superb but this is not NITPICKING! These are genuine compliants!

[Sween]

There are some pretty hefty sequences in the whole movie i dont like! I love the start of the Movie i think that way done beautifully. Everthing up to the point where we get Gimli maoning about them been Natral sprinters this could not be further from the truth of all mortal breeds Dwafs bear hardship and toil and edurance the best! If anyone should be complaining it Aragorn.

The Orcs were from the first movie downgraded in my opinoion in the first movie they seemed to be heartless killing machines in the two towers they seemed to of gained an allmost comic state esspecially the blue skinned one reminds me a bit of the pirate who eye keeps popping out in POTC!

Gandalf was fine if a little underused in this moring but this is due to how Peter Jackson wanted to pace the movie having the best character just dissapear for most of the movie is just crappy!

Shadowfax allthough hes a quality looking horse having him introduced in slow motion kinda takes away from the whole point of him!

I kinda liked the healing of Theoden i allways thought that just been brought down by Wormtounges words was kinda crappy!

This is where the problems really start

From this point of the film i would say at least half of it is wasted on pointless and confusing contraduictions from the book! They7 waste time with Theoden wolling in self pitty about his son (why?) then instead of making him this heoric king that summons his men and rides top war they make him into this, this im not sure what he is hes a mix between coward and jerk. I esspecially dislike the departer from Edoras as it shows up a few pretty majot plot holes. IN return of the king everyones gonna ask well where have all these massive forces come from? and why didnt he use them instead of 300 badly equiped farm hands? And second the story of Ewoyn allways been left behind etc etc just isnt quite gonna make sence.

His pacing from here on is the issue for me i know hes a bit messed up because in all 3 books the dramatic highlight is pretty central in the book! This is not tradiational for movies! The Battle of helms deep should of been slap bang in the middle of this film and it should of ended with Gandalf legging it with Pippin.

Now i havent exctally timed it but i think its propabaly around and hour bettweeen setting off from edoras and the acctual battle of helms deep! In this they have the very pointless and probably more importantly badly shot Warg battle. I dopnt like this secion of the movie at all aside for a few good legolas momments there nothing of worth here and just wastes more time.

Instead of having the great image of the messenger hastening bk to edoras to tell of the fall of westfold and meeting the last rideing of the house of Eorl then been followed fast up the gorge to reach helms deep in time infround of the massing army we get a very slow and boring situation where we get to helms deep aragorn is missing and theoden is just not doing much and doesnt seem to have any type of plan!

We now spend even more time waiting for the Elves to show up which does not make sence to me because they would of had to set off just a few days after Aragorn and the boys from Lorien to have any hope of getting to Helms Deep in time infact they would of more than likely bumped into them round Fangorn forest, But hey i know my middle eart geography and distances im sure most people loved seeing them even though they did seem a little easily killed esspecially as legolas is just so damn hard!

The acctual battle i liked very good very exciting apart from the easy to kill elves and Nobody apart from Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli been able to kill anyone. The door to the hornbourge kinda intrested me you have this nice solid rock fortress then you have this crappy wooden door which seems quite easy to take out!

The ride of theoden i love such goiod work there boys and the eneviatble arival of Emoer allthough nicely done (apart from the burning question in my head after seeing all the wide shots of the helms deep area 'where has that big massive hill come from?')

Now we move to the worst part of the movie the stupid and unessary day out to Osgiliath which both deminishes a important character and contradicts the rest of the films. The whole pint of frodo not wearing the rings bettwen the end of the first book and the destruction of it is sauron doesnt know here he is. It would apaear that sauron knows exctally where it cos frdo shows him also quite how he gonna think pippin has i dont know! this sequence just causes so many problems.

Two towers was probably the most film friendly book but he did make some intresting decisions.s

The film should of ended with Frdo and sam seeing the setting forth of the Morgal host and Gandalf and pippin heading off to Minas Tirith at great speed

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
2. Elrond. This is not Elrond! This isn't the wise lord of Rivendell! This is a whining gloomy nurk who needs to get rid of his idée fixe that 'men are weak' and he needs to stop frowning so bleeding often. He annoys me more and more.
Yes, Elrond just makes me ill. What a travesty - such a change from the noble master of Rivendell :( I absolutely love the description of him in The Hobbit - He was as noble and as fair in face as and elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer.

In the movie, he was crabby, resentful, selfish, whining, ..... :(



Good points, too, Sween!

[Wayfarer]

I disliked the end of the movie extremely. Both movies, actually.

Tolkien always ended his books spectacularly. Notice:

Book 1 ends with Frodo collapsing unconscious at the fords of the Bruinen.
Book 2 ends with Frodo running off.
Book 3 ends with Gandalf and Pippen racing for Gondor, hoping to get there in time.
Book 4 ends with frodo taken out by shelob, and sam discovering he's not dead.
Book 5 ends with the armies of gondor being overwhelmed at the morannon.
Book 6 ends with Frodo sailing off into the west.

Now Notice: Frodo's collapse at the ford of bruinen is reduced to... crap. Frodo's leaving of the fellowship is changed from him making a hard choice to his being chased off by orcs. We never see gandalf and pippen ride for gondor, and we never see shelob. Instead we have some ridiculous footage of frodo, sam, and gollum in the woods. Cheesy.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Sween
Shadowfax allthough hes a quality looking horse having him introduced in slow motion kinda takes away from the whole point of him!
Heehee :p I hadn't even thought of the irony: the fastest horse in Middle-earth and he's going in slow motion! LOL! Way to go PJ, that's really getting the point across. :D

Originally posted by Sween
[...]im sure most people loved seeing them even though they did seem a little easily killed esspecially as legolas is just so damn hard!
I forgot to rant about the Elves in Helm's Deep. (I repressed the memory, I'm sure :p) But yes, odd that all these spiffy, heavily armoured Elves seem to fall like flies when Legolas (standing in the front row, doesn't even have a helmet) doesn't even get a scratch. Not that I'm complaining that Legolas should get wounded, mind you. :rolleyes:

But, also odd that no one ever saw them coming until they were knocking at the gate. Granted, it probably looks better in the movie to have a bunch of Elves popping up unlooked for but it's still odd that no one saw them marching into Rohan before that.

Originally posted by Sween
Now we move to the worst part of the movie the stupid and unessary day out to Osgiliath which both deminishes a important character and contradicts the rest of the films.
Osgiliath.... *twitch, twitch*I hate that change with a vengeance. It feels so wrong! And apart from the impressive visual aspect I rather find it a complete misfire. 'Nuf said. Too bad the change seems to work in the altered storyline.


Originally posted by RÃ*an
I absolutely love the description of him in The Hobbit -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was as noble and as fair in face as and elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the movie, he was crabby, resentful, selfish, whining, .....:(
*sigh* Yeah, they really missed the ball on the real Elrond. :(

[azalea]

I don't think all the elves died, I think there'll be more footage in the EE that shows everyone regrouping (a lot of them and also men of Rohan might have been cut off from that little group that rides out). Still, this speaks to how choppy it became because they knew they could "put it in the EE," like someone said in this or another thread. That became a detriment to the theatrical release I think.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I disliked the end of the movie extremely. Both movies, actually.

Tolkien always ended his books spectacularly. Tolkien wrote ONE novel called Lord of the Rings. His "books" were simply ways to announce the major sections of the narrative. Tolkien never intended readers to have to deal with cliffhanger endings. He absolutely detested the idea of having his ONE novel broken down into three separate books.

Now Peter Jackson had the task of creating three separate movies about ONE story. It would have been unwise to leave audiences with cliffhanger endings with a year between movies...and frankly, to do so would have been following the lead of Gaynor Unwin, not JRR Tolkien.

[durin's bane]

But Jackson didn't end the movies in the best way. It's because of the ending of FotR that some viewers who hadn't read the books thought that that was the end; it wouldn't continue.

Alright, here's my nitpicks:

-The movies focus too much on Aragorn, especially in TTT. Frodo and Sam get little screentime in TTT because most of it goes to Aragorn.

-The lack of needed scenes as opposed to uneeded ones. For example, they couldv'e taken out Aragorn's death scene, the Warg battle, and Arwen and Elrond's chat, and put in crucial things like the coming to Isengard and Pippin's experience with the Palantir. I thought that Jackson added Boromir's death at the end of FotR instead of TTT to make room for more stuff in TTT, but he wasted that time on idiotic scenes. Very disappointing.

-The ending should've ended with Gandalf and Pippin huffing it to Gondor and Sam discovering Frodo had been captured alive by Orcs. Instead, we don't get Shelob and half of book 3 is left out, due to the hour of travelling to Helm's Deep.

-The coming of the Elves at Helm's Deep. Not only was this not in the books, but technically, it would be impossible for the Elves to travel all the way from Rivendell and Lothlorien to Helm's Deep in an hour, unless Galadriel had already forseen the battle in her mirror and decided to send troops just in case, but the chances of that are slim.

-Faramir. Totally unacceptable. He was a great character, and now...he's ruined. He's supposed to be noble and kind, not a grouch. The preview for the Extended Edition shows scenes of Boromir, Faramir, and Denethor, and I believe it may hint why Faramir acts the way he does, though.

-When you're watching Helm's Deep, it gets really annoying when they switch to Fangorn Forest. Fangorn bored me to death.

That's all, I think.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
He absolutely detested the idea of having his ONE novel broken down into three separate books.
Actually, Tolkien himself broke his one romance (his preferred term, IIRC) into SIX books, as WF pointed out (the first being from the beginning to the Flight to the Ford; the second being the council of Elrond to the breaking of the fellowship, etc.), and Tolkien himself refers to them as "books". Then the publisher put 2 books each into 3 separate physical volumes.

But we all know that ;)

It's published in one volume now; I should get a 1-volume hardback set to supplement my fallling-to-pieces 3-volume paperback set and to honor Tolkien's preferred publishing method.

[Estel13]

I only have one major nitpick: Switching from Helm's Deep to Fangorn Forest. The Ents are great, but they talk way to slowly, when you're going from a battle... :rolleyes:
I try not to think about the rest.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Lizra
Aragorn to Legolas...."What do your *elf eyes* see?" :rolleyes:

I love it when so-called Purists think they're trashing Jackson with this "elf eyes" thing without realizing they haven't read the books carefully enough and are unintentionally bashing the author himself. :D

[Rían]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I love it when so-called Purists think they're trashing Jackson with this "elf eyes" thing without realizing they haven't read the books carefully enough and are unintentionally bashing the author himself. :D
:rolleyes:

I know that MY pick with that line (and I imagine Lizra's pick is the same) is that ... why in the world would Aragorn say "elf eyes"?!?!?! ARAGORN knows that elven eyes are better than human eyes; LEGOLAS knows that elven eyes are better than human eyes; ARAGORN knows that LEGOLAS is an elf - so why in the world would Aragorn have to say "elf eyes" instead of just "eyes"?

And it should be "elven" or "elvish", not "elf".

[gollum9630]

When Aragorn thinks the hobbits are dead and he kicks the orc helmet then yells and goes on his knees, i hate it more every time i watch the movie

[Earniel]

Now that you mention that scene gollum9630, I can live with the screaming and dropping to knees. But what I find rather unacceptable is that Aragorn finds 'tracks of a hobbit lying here' RIGHT NEXT TO THE PYRE! Exactly that spot where dozens of horses trampled past, many heavy armoured rohirrim walked and plenty of dead orcs were dragged over to be thrown on the pyre. NOT a chance that a feeble print of the body of a Hobbit could have survived. Whatever print would have been completely obliterated. Not a chance that even a Ranger like Aragorn can find prints that no longer are THERE.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
:rolleyes:

:) Leave it RÃ*an, you know BB's never happy unless he can call us Purists every two posts or something.

[editted from typing errors :o]

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
:rolleyes:

Ooh Rian... I don't believe I've ever seen you use that smiley. :p

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I love it when so-called Purists think they're trashing Jackson with this "elf eyes" thing without realizing they haven't read the books carefully enough and are unintentionally bashing the author himself. :D

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? The phrasing "elf eyes" is too short, and a bit awkward and clumsy. (IMO) The point could have been made *more beautifully* ex.....

"The eyes of the elves are akin to those of the great eagles, Legolas, aid us with your vision." or "My mortal eyes have not the vision of the elves, Legolas, tell us what you see?"

The beauty of the language is a very important part of Tolkien's work, (IMO) It's one of the things that sets the tale apart from the rest. The lines that are truest to the book always sound the grandest :) ...didn't Jackson even say this? The point of elvish sight being keener than the other races is also another subtle way to illustrate the difference between elves and men, a part of the books that many people seem to be fascinated with. "What do your elf eyes see?" seems too short a phrase to illustrate the concept.

I find that line immediately leads me to think about labeling body parts....ranger ears, dwarf necks, hobbit bellies, wizard eyebrows, etc. The point of keen elvish sight is made by example in the book. (quite a few times) I think this important point could be given better treatment than simply "elf eyes" in the movie. At least Vigo delivers the line in a serious way so I don't immediately start sputtereing, but I still do this :rolleyes: , whenever I hear it. :(

[Lanelf]

Originally posted by Eärniel
what I find rather unacceptable is that Aragorn finds 'tracks of a hobbit lying here' RIGHT NEXT TO THE PYRE! Exactly that spot where dozens of horses trampled past, many heavy armoured rohirrim walked and plenty of dead orcs were dragged over to be thrown on the pyre. NOT a change that a feeble print of the body of a Hobbit could have survived. Whatever print would have been completely obliterated. Not a change that even a Ranger like Aragorn can find prints that no longer are THERE.
What I don't like in that bit is how he scrapes aside grass to find the 'track'. Dude, you made that track up! If there was grass over it, then you'd know from how the grass was crushed, right? (please tell me if I'm wrong - I don't know much about tracking:) )
Lanelf.

[Rían]

Originally posted by gollum9630
When Aragorn thinks the hobbits are dead and he kicks the orc helmet then yells and goes on his knees, i hate it more every time i watch the movie
Have you heard in the commentary where he broke his toe in that scene, and that's why he's yelling so loud?

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Have you heard in the commentary where he broke his toe in that scene, and that's why he's yelling so loud?

i knew he broke his toe, but i didnt think thats why he yelled, i thought PJ made him do that. If i broke my toe i would be swearing and yelling, but i guess he kept in character, but it still annoys me

[Lizra]

If I broke my toe....crying, :( tears, drama! :eek: Guess I'm no Ranger! :D

I agree about finding the hobbit tracks in front of Fangorn being a bit of a stretch! Wouldn't it have been funny if Rangers were known for their keen sense of smell? (Ranger noses :rolleyes: ) You know, they were good trackers because they had a bit of bloodhound in them...:D Picture Aragorn sniffing about looking for clues....No?...ok, I'm going! :o :D ;)

[Sween]

Originally posted by Lizra
If I broke my toe....crying, :( tears, drama! :eek: Guess I'm no Ranger! :D

I agree about finding the hobbit tracks in front of Fangorn being a bit of a stretch! Wouldn't it have been funny if Rangers were known for their keen sense of smell? (Ranger noses :rolleyes: ) You know, they were good trackers because they had a bit of bloodhound in them...:D Picture Aragorn sniffing about looking for clues....No?...ok, I'm going! :o :D ;)

Oh dear me :confused:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Lizra
I'm not sure what you are getting at here? The phrasing "elf eyes" is too short, and a bit awkward and clumsy. (IMO) The point could have been made *more beautifully* ...

I find that line immediately leads me to think about labeling body parts....ranger ears, dwarf necks, hobbit bellies, wizard eyebrows, etc. The point of keen elvish sight is made by example in the book. (quite a few times) I think this important point could be given better treatment than simply "elf eyes" in the movie. At least Vigo delivers the line in a serious way so I don't immediately start sputtereing, but I still do this :rolleyes: , whenever I hear it. :( What I'm getting at is that Tolkien himself used the phrase "elf eyes." You can bash PJ for having Aragorn be the one to say it, but the phrase itself is pure Tolkien.

Read the novels more carefully next time. ;) :)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What I'm getting at is that Tolkien himself used the phrase "elf eyes." You can bash PJ for having Aragorn be the one to say it, but the phrase itself is pure Tolkien.

Read the novels more carefully next time. ;) :)

Reference, please? :)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

........but Legolas stood beside him shading his bright ELVEN EYES with his long slender hand, and he saw not a shadow , nor a blur, but the small figures of horsemen, many horsemen and the glint of morning on the tips of their spears was like the twinkle of minute stars beyond the edge of mortal sight. Far behind them dark smoke rose in thin curling threads.

There was a silence in the empty fields and Gimli could hear the air moving in the grass.

"Riders" cried Aragorn springing to his feet "many riders on swift steeds are coming towards us.

"yes" said Legolas "there are 105. Yellow is their hair and bright are their spears. Their leader is very tall.

Aragorn smiled. "keen are the eyes of elves", he said

Lord of the Rings


If only the screenplay was half as well written.

[Black Breathalizer]

The Scene: The classroom for Tolkien 101A. The teacher, the wise and all-knowing Black Breathalizer is standing over the desk of Little Squinty shaking his hooded head.

Teacher Blackie: I'm very sorry squinteyedsoutherner, but you are once again WRONG. The phrase we are looking for is ELF EYES.

Can anyone else in this class find it? Here are some hints: it is SPOKEN by a member of the Fellowship and it can be found in THE TWO TOWERS novel.

[Rían]

Well, this is intriguing! Can you narrow it down to either Book III or IV, or give a rough time frame in the plot?

And thanks for the quote, Squint, which shows that in the topic we were talking about, Tolkien wrote quite an elegant section. I always liked Aragorn's "keen are the eyes of the elves!" comment, along with his smile.

[Wayfarer]

'Yet here we are-and nicely caught in the net,' said Legolas. 'Look!'

'Look at what?' said Gimli.

'There in the trees.'

'Where? I have not elf-eyes.'

'Hush! Speak more softly! Look!' said Legolas pointing. 'Down in the wood, back in the Way that we have just come. It is he. Cannot you see him, passing from tree to tree?'

'I see, I see now!' hissed Gimli. 'Look, Aragorn! Did I not warn you? There is the old man. All in dirty grey rags: that is why I could not see him at first.'

The usage and context are quite different from 'What do your elf-eyes see?'

[Lizra]

Yes, the context there is rather light, the phrase "elf eyes" fits well in that passage. In the movie, the context is not humorous, and I would prefer a more poetic description of elven (elvish? :confused: ) vision. This is an opinion thread, is it not? :) I do not like "What do your elf eyes see". It sounds dumb, dorky, stupid, dull, boring, lame, ....Shall I continue? Nah! ;)

[Rían]

I'll continue ...

awkward, gauche, unnecessary, un-Rangerlike, forced, stilted ...


Thanks for the ref, WF.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

That's why BB likes it.

I also think we are overlooking the answer to the question.

"they've turned NORTHEAST they're taking the hobbits to Isengard"

You might want to check the map on that one Pete.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, this is intriguing! Can you narrow it down to either Book III or IV, or give a rough time frame in the plot?Come on now! I'm supposed to be the heathen Jackson Rump kisser who only watches movies and doesn't have the attention span to read the books.

Is "Elf Eyes" in Book III or IV???

....hmmmmm, think about that one a bit. I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Geez, I can't believe I'm conducting Purist lessons. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

A Typical Purist Arguement:

Purist: ack...I hate the line "What do your elf eyes see?" It is SO dorky. Tolkien would NEVER have used a stupid-sounding term like "elf eyes"!!!! Give me a break!!!

BB: Tolkien did use the term, elf eyes. (points out the reference from the book -- See Wayfarer's post above)

Purist: uh...well, um...uh...well, yeah b-b-but Tolkien used the term differently. Now that I think about it, the term is actually okay. What sucks is the way Jackson chose to USE it....

[squinteyedsoutherner]

No, I think we have a movie fan who isn't aware of the tone and feel of the book. The phrases are not at all the same, context matters BB.

Perhaps you shoud think about which character says "Elf eyes" (are dwarves known for eloquence?)and why Tolkien would use the incorrect form elf (instead of elven) given the relationship between these two characters at this point in the book.

Tolkien was furious over misprints of Elf/Elven/Elvish when the first editions were published and drove editors mad with his insistence that each error be corrected. He chose his words carefully. You have proven yet again, you are nothing but a movie fan when it comes to Tolkien.

Sorry to spoil your teacher fantasy.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
No, I think we have a movie fan who isn't aware of the tone and feel of the book. The phrases are not at all the same, context matters BB. I'm so glad to know once you learned from me that the term was Tolkien's own creation that the issue is now the context in which it was used. This is a beautiful example of another so-called purist refusing to face the facts and making a mountain out of a molehill.

"Black Breathalizer, what does your human nose smell???" :D

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Letters goes into Tolkien"s obsession with the correct forms of the word elf and it's history and his feelings about it. Perhaps they'll make it into a movie for you.

The scene we are discussing is hack, the phrase doesn't work coming from Aragorn and the response from legolas shows Jackson doesn't even know where Isengard is.

I would add though, compared to the last- last alliance at helm's deep, warg attacks, Aragorn falling off a cliff, Elrond, Arwen, Faramir etc. This is a rather small point.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
A Typical Purist Arguement:


[b]Purist: uh...well, um...uh...well, yeah b-b-but Tolkien used the term differently. Now that I think about it, the term is actually okay. What sucks is the way Jackson chose to USE it....

Very good! You "get it!" :) Of course, I am not a "typical purist", and I don't stutter, but you have grasped the point I was trying to make BB.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Lizra
I don't stutter, but you have grasped the point I was trying to make BB. But alas, you have not grasped mine. :)

[Lizra]

But I have! ;) It just doesn't ring true though.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Is "Elf Eyes" in Book III or IV???

....hmmmmm, think about that one a bit. I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Yeah, that was pretty silly - I must have been on Vicodan at the time (I'm recovering from a bit of surgery - ouch!) Book III it is!

HOWEVER, of course it matters who the speaker is! What, do you expect the same style of speech from everyone? Do Gollum and Denethor have the same style and correctness of speech? Of course not. The phrase is NOT right coming from Aragorn, IMO, who is a noble descendant of kings and even has elvish blood in him. The section in TT quoted by squint is beautifully written and in keeping with both the circumstances and the style of speaking of the characters involved; the line in the movie is NOT, IMO. The phrase "elf-eyes" is indeed in the book, but it is spoken by a dwarf (and dwarves are not famous for elegant speaking), and it fits in with the character and the circumstances.

Geez, I can't believe I'm conducting Purist lessons. :) I don't know if I would fit into your definition of "Purist" ... I love the books and consider them among the greatest literature of all time. I've read them many times, along with the Sil (I'm more of a First Age fan, actually). I have Unfinished Tales and 5 HoME books (Morgoth's Ring rocks!). However, I also have both the TE and the EE DVD of FotR, and the TE of TT. I enjoy quite a bit of the movies, but there are more than a few places that I just shudder and hit fast-forward or skip when I get to them. However, I think PJ got many things right, and I enjoy those thoroughly.

BTW, I pulled my oldest son out of school to attend the opening matinee of TT, and I"ll probably do the same with RoTK :D

The movies could have been a lot better, but they are well worth the parts that PJ got right, IMO. I just kinda ignore the bad parts.

[Sween]

The problem with the 'Elf eyes' line is quite simply its sloppy use of language!

Now as fans of the book as most of us are we have read the books and know a lot of background information when talking about legolas eyes isnt it something like i hear you can tell a swallow from a finch at 3 leauges or summet (?)! this (allthough not when wrote by me) is a very poetic and intresting way of demostrating and presenting information. Its neither in your face nor is it startling it just kinda there and makes you understand!

Now as for the movie the problem for the person who has read the book is quite simply we know elves can see better than men. Now for Aragorn to simply just say what do your elf eyes see (in that context) is just sloppy and calls far too much attention to itself. PJ had very good intentions he is trying to convay Tolkiens world but in that case he did it very poorly. He simply could of done a better job

[Lizra]

Awww Sween, you so smart! Well put! :D Cheers!

[Sween]

Originally posted by Lizra
Awww Sween, you so smart! Well put! :D Cheers!

why thank you my lady xxxx

[Grey_Wolf]

PJ made these movies solely fore the purpose to make money NOT to please any REAL LOTR-readers. He doesn't care about what you think, yet again solely how much money he'll make from three supposedly fascinating adventure movies.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I don't know if anyone's complained of this before, but it's worth complaining about a second time:

WHY ARE THE ELVES AT HELM'S DEEP??!!! I hate that. In the book, the people of Rohan (and of course Our Heros) did it all on their own- with a little help from Gandalf. Why must the elves be there? Shouldn't Men be able to do something on their own?!
-> "[The elves] are leaving these shores. Who will you look to when we've gone?" <- How can Men stop depending on elves if they keep sticking their fair, sleek noses in everybody else's business?! And then they had to make Haldir die because they could find no-one else important enough that dies in the books! This whole thing really bothers me- can you tell? :) :mad:

[Celebréiel]

Originally posted by Rosie Gamgee
And then they had to make Haldir die because they could find no-one else important enough that dies in the books! This whole thing really bothers me- can you tell? :) :mad:

Yeah the Haldir thing really *really* bugs me too. Its totally beyond me how even the biggest movie fan can be okay with bringing a character back in, just to kill him off!
Putting a real face on all the people dying at the battle... :rolleyes: its just very...cheap-news-storyish..
I guess if you want to think of it as two different things and that the movie isnt close to the book but its own separate thing........no, no it still bugs me....slo-motion like Aragorn and Haldir were best pals....*sigh*:rolleyes:

[Rosie Gamgee]

I think if Haldir really did die, he'd be glad. I mean, I'd be glad to be out of ME, and on my way to the peaceful halls of Mandos. I'd be like "Farewell my friends, I go on to a better place!":D ;) :rolleyes:

[Sween]

Originally posted by Celebréiel
Yeah the Haldir thing really *really* bugs me too. Its totally beyond me how even the biggest movie fan can be okay with bringing a character back in, just to kill him off!
Putting a real face on all the people dying at the battle... :rolleyes: its just very...cheap-news-storyish..
I guess if you want to think of it as two different things and that the movie isnt close to the book but its own separate thing........no, no it still bugs me....slo-motion like Aragorn and Haldir were best pals....*sigh*:rolleyes:

I have a bit of Shymphy with PJ on this point. What he was trying to do was explain that really it wasnt the Elves fight they didnt have to turn up but because of what had gone on in the past (admitally the tolkien lover knows that the Silvan Elves had no contact with the Rohamair or there kin apart from when rideing to the feild of Celebrant galaderial cast a cloud about them so they could travel in secreat) so quite why the feel obliged to them i dont know but bless him hes trying to make them do the right thing.

This is where the intricate detail of Tolkien really comes into play if PJ had shown the vision which frodo get when he wears the ring at the end of fellowship then we would know the lonely mountian was under attack as was Mirkwood as was Lorien therefore he would not of needed to put them in there so people didnt say hey where all them Elves got to!

Now as for when he dies i acctually liked that scean quite a bit i think he did a good job of sending the message we should not of come we came to die and dieing is not natral for Elves! Looking at all the other fallen Elves ill admit moved me and related very well with Tolkien theam of Elves been very sorroful and no longer wanting that.

The bit that really ticks me off is When haldir turns up and wont hug Aragorn hes and Elf for god sake he would be a great hugger im not saying that it maybe wasnt approate to be all happy but you know he wouldnt look so uncomftable

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I agree with Lizra - that "what do your elf eyes see?" line just nauseates me! Legolas should answer back "and my elf brain thinks you're a jerk for asking that question!" :rolleyes:

I liked Legolas in the first movie, but he overacts even more in the second.
I think too many of the actors over act - I don't blame the actors for it though - I blame Jackson. He's the director and I think he is directing them to be over the top. How many times is frodo going to roll his eyes up into his head? Or go into convulsions when he "dies"?

As for Ruinel - I have way too many things that annoy me. The constant melodramitc over the top use of slow motion really gets on my nerves and the over the top sentamentality. It's so fake.

[Black Breathalizer]

Over-acting? Over the top? Fakey? Cheesey? Have you guys seen the same movies the rest of the world have seen?

There are some points about Jackson's LOTR movies that reasonable people could disagree with. But you guys lose your credibility and look downright silly in this discussion with your own "over the top" commentary.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Over-acting? Over the top? Fakey? Cheesey? Have you guys seen the same movies the rest of the world have seen?

There are some points about Jackson's LOTR movies that reasonable people could disagree with. But you guys lose your credibility and look downright silly in this discussion with your own "over the top" commentary.
Well I mentioned this in the "ignorant fans" thread, but I'll bring it up here - please tell me the movies you have directed since you claim to be so much more of an expert on movie making than us.

Also - as Wayfarer mentioned in the other thread - Titanic made a TON of money, and millions of people saw it over and over again. It wasn't a great movie though. So just becuase millions of people saw Jackson's Lord of the Rings - does NOT make it a great movie. It does not mean that Jackson didn't use cheap hollywood tricks or repeated use of things he must have gotten from his Cinema 101 book. :rolleyes:. For instance - it is plain to see that Jackson felt the need of a comic relief character. Those characters were Pippin and Merry in FotR. When Pippin and Merry's screen time was limited in TT - he obviously went to Gimli. Sorry - but to me that is the technique you would find from a hack. A good director doesn't make the decisions so plain for the audience to see.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Titanic made a TON of money, and millions of people saw it over and over again. It wasn't a great movie though. So just becuase millions of people saw Jackson's Lord of the Rings - does NOT make it a great movie.What I find a little ironic about jerseydevil's comment is that so-called 'Literary Elite' have been making the same claim against Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels for years. They would turn up their noses and say, "Well, yes, the unwashed masses seem to love it, but it is not good literature."

It begs the question, what purpose do movies and books serve if not to capture the interest and imagination of people? Why do the same cliques of know-it-all elitists always question the quality of anything that becomes popular?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is plain to see that Jackson felt the need of a comic relief character. Those characters were Pippin and Merry in FotR. When Pippin and Merry's screen time was limited in TT - he obviously went to Gimli.Merry & Pippin were given comic relief roles (appropriately, I might add) in FOTR. But you saw that their characters change during TTT. They will change even more dramatically in ROTK. We saw Gimli as simply the distrusting 'Elf hater' in FOTR. Then we began to see how his character evolved in the EE FOTR and in TTT. Did PJ emphasize his humorous side? Yeah. But while the jokes were different, the character of Gimli (IMHO) was basically the same as in the books. Looking ahead, I suspect we'll see less comic relief in ROTK and even be treated to some special moments between Gimli and Legolas in ROTK and/or EE ROTK.

One of the characteristics of a great movie or book is that the characters are changed by the events that take place within the story. One of the challenging feats that PJ and Company are accomplishing is that ALL of the dozen or so major characters in LOTR are evolving and growing before our eyes. This is no small feat and a big part of the brilliance of the films.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What I find a little ironic about jerseydevil's comment is that so-called 'Literary Elite' have been making the same claim against Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels for years. They would turn up their noses and say, "Well, yes, the unwashed masses seem to love it, but it is not good literature."

Oh - is that why it's considered a 20th century classic? :rolleyes: I am 99% positive jackson's crap movies will never reach the classic level.

It begs the question, what purpose do movies and books serve if not to capture the interest and imagination of people? Why do the same cliques of know-it-all elitists always question the quality of anything that becomes popular?

See - you are just blind. YOu think that you are the only one who can determine what is good. Do you honestly think that the slash and hack fest jackson gave is any different than a Teminator movie? I mean - granted it has better acting and better scenery - but both are action movies, both use hollywood cliches. I'm sorry if I was expecting a little more to the movies than typical hollywood crap.

Merry & Pippin were given comic relief roles (appropriately, I might add) in FOTR. But you saw that their characters change during TTT.

Actually - you don't see them change - they're basically in 3 scenes. Not much there to show character development.

They will change even more dramatically in ROTK. We saw Gimli as simply the distrusting 'Elf hater' in FOTR. Then we began to see how his character evolved in the EE FOTR and in TTT.

Again - you don't see it - it just happens.

Did PJ emphasize his humorous side? Yeah. But while the jokes were different, the character of Gimli (IMHO) was basically the same as in the books.
/quote]
Gimli's character was basically the same in FotR - not TT. In Two Towers he became a comic dwarf.
[quote]
Looking ahead, I suspect we'll see less comic relief in ROTK and even be treated to some special moments between Gimli and Legolas in ROTK and/or EE ROTK.

Jackson's track record isn't looking good. You seem to have a lot of hopes for Jackson.


One of the characteristics of a great movie or book is that the characters are changed by the events that take place within the story. One of the challenging feats that PJ and Company are accomplishing is that ALL of the dozen or so major characters in LOTR are evolving and growing before our eyes. This is no small feat and a big part of the brilliance of the films.
The majority have just out of no where changed. You make me laugh with your kissing up to Jackson and your "brilliance of the films". You must truly no nothing of good films. I wouldn't ge siurprised if you didn't think that Star Wars was the absolute best film made. Oh wait - that title is reserved for jackson's Lord of the Rings. :rolleyes:

[Sween]

BB as allways your complete support for your hero is quite astounding. Its allmost as good as old Blair with his Hero Bush (awwwwwww god bless him).

What you fail to see or do see and are atempting to take the p*** out of us all is that these films are not the faultless masterpeice you put them for. I love FOTR its my favorite ever movie and sticks to the book well. Two Towers just has a few moments that confuse me in there existance. Theres no need for them. Some stuff is just badly done. Some stuff acctually completally contradicts the whole movie and sets up plot holes which Tolkien never left (hell the guy even has a reason for the Egals not helping too much)!

Now as for people opinions on movies ive allways seen this as an area of intrest to me. For example i like Hot Shots! I get the times as a paper the guy that does the reviews for them is never gonna like that movie in a thousand years its like the people that vote things like a beautiful mind to be really good films. Its a matter of opinion. But BB understand this Two Towers isnt faultless nor is it meritless but when compared to the book there are several issue which many of us would like to jusy ask PJ why?

[jerseydevil]

Sween - the US Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787.... :p

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Sween
What you fail to see or do see and are atempting to take the p*** out of us all is that these films are not the faultless masterpeice you put them for.I never said the films were perfect. But I do believe they will become timeless cinematic classics, warts and all.

But my point is that it strains the credibility of even the most zealous book purist here when this board's Clan of the Wayfarers whine that PJ's LOTR movies are cheesey, poorly acted, poorly written, explotative, and are not true to Tolkien. There certainly could have been different interpretations made of Tolkien's work and different approaches to bringing the material to the big screen. But try as some here might, it's hard to argue with the fact Jackson honored the author's work on film.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I never said the films were perfect. But I do believe they will become timeless cinematic classics, warts and all.

But my point is that it strains the credibility of even the most zealous book purist here when this board's Clan of the Wayfarers whine that PJ's LOTR movies are cheesey, poorly acted, poorly written, explotative, and are not true to Tolkien. There certainly could have been different interpretations made of Tolkien's work and different approaches to bringing the material to the big screen. But try as some here might, it's hard to argue with the fact Jackson honored the author's work on film.
Hey - I was complaing about Jackson's movies before Wayfarer was. I'm not part of a clan.

As for your comment that you think they'll be timeless classics - just you wait. They're going to be as much a classic as Titanic is.

By the way - they are cheesy, over the top, etc. I never complained about the acting really. I think the directing sucked - which screwed up the acting. I can picutre Elijah Wood doing something and him saying - "no no we need more, express it more, roll your eyes into your head, convulse. You know - like you did in the last 20 scenes."

[nessa]

Originally posted by OrnelÃ*rë Mistë
The WHOLE movie irritated me. That's not TTT, that's crap spawned by the realization of how teenage girls faint over Legolas, Aragorn, even the Hobbitses. Maybe even Gollum:D

I'm with you on this. The whole of the interpretation just has me gnashing my teeth. Shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Didn't C Tolkein have any veto? Should have and put a stop to the whole darned thing!

[Sween]

Rite lets get this thread bk on topic we have a thread to dissuce the merits of PJ in realtion to the book.

Jerseydevil and wayfearer are one end of the scale BB is the other and anyone with half a brain (im not even sure if its even that with me :p ) is somewhere in the middle :p

I have to admit i do think Frodo is overacted in TTT he was perfect in FOTR but hes a bit too intrested in the ring allready i dont like the whole what kinda reminds me of Harry Potter scar element getting a sore head everytime Sauron looks at him if he knew where he was his Nasgul would be there faster than you can say 'a hairy Orc is a scary Orc' :D

[Sheeana]

Jersey, can I worship at your altar? Keep the cause going, man! :D

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Over-acting? Over the top? Fakey? Cheesey? Have you guys seen the same movies the rest of the world have seen?

One word: Celeborn. :rolleyes:

[Gamigar]

lets see......

Elijah Wood's pathetic accent

Everything that Legolas says{Orlando Bloom is not a good actor}

"what can your elf eyes see?"

Faramirs character being totally reversed

Aragorn "dying"

Legolas' impossible horse trick{i dont care if your an elf, no one can do that}

Gandalfs beard being all short and stupid lookin

Osgiliath

Elves coming to helms deep

Eowyns little kung-fu sword moves

Grishnak not dying after having a spear in his back

Eomer

Eomer being banished

The poor film quality when Gandalf is riding down to helms deep

And last but not least, Aragorn on Gimlis little jump.

[Wayfarer]

But my point is that it strains the credibility of even the most zealous book purist here when this board's Clan of the Wayfarers whine that PJ's LOTR movies are cheesey, poorly acted, poorly written, explotative, and are not true to Tolkien. Well, gee... I suppose it's a dubious honor that you would single me out like that, but I'm not the first or even the most vehement critic of Jackson.

Actually, my favorite critic is the one who, without having read the books, watched FOTR and complained that it was weak, and that he wanted more of the kind of thing seen in the first five minutes of that film- I.E., the kind of the stuff that the book had.

Now, BB, you need to answer a question for me: If you want to insist that jackson isn't just a hack taking advantage of Tolkien's genius, can you point to even one movie he's produced before that was any good?

I won't claim that jackson has produced anything worse than the average hollywood film. The thing that sets me on edge is how typical it is. It's your basic, meant-to-make-money, action film. And that's a horrible travesty when the LOTR could be so much more.

[Laurelindórenan]

Wow, you guys are really quite anal when it comes to comparing the movies to the book.

Personally, I really liked the Two Towers movie. Especially the ents. I absolutely loved them in the book and I was really worried the ents would be completely cheesy in the movie but I think Jackson did a really good job on them! (And I sooo glad they're putting the hurons into the extended edition!)

I guess if I had to say one thing about the movie that I don't like as much as the rest is Faramir's change in character and him taking the hobbits to Osgiliath. Most of Jackson's changes I can understand and appreciate, but this seemed pretty unnecessary to me. It looks like they might ammend Faramir's character a bit in the extended edition, but still.

[durin's bane]

Oh, another thing that irritates me is the "What do your Elf eyes see?" quote. I like making fun of it by pretending to be Legolas and going, "Darrrr, I gots Ewf eyz, Argorn? I thinks I had Dwarf eyz..." :D

[Gamigar]

"they've turned NORTHEAST they're taking the hobbits to Isengard"

You might want to check the map on that one Pete.

isengard was northeast from where they were.

[Khamûl]

How do you figure? They were traveling across Rohan toward Isengard. They were going in a northwesterly direction.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Khamûl
How do you figure? They were traveling across Rohan toward Isengard. They were going in a northwesterly direction.
I agree with Khamul - if you look at the maps - it's in the NorthWESTERN direction from the river.

[durin's bane]

Mmm hmm, Isengard with Northwest from Rohan, so either Pete hasn't studied his maps very well or Legolas has a really loooooooooooong eye span.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I don't care if they were actually going notheast or northwest or whatever; I don't like the way the line ("They've turned northeast. They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!"- I don't mind the 'elf-eyes' thing a bit) was delivered. Sounds cheesy. But I do think Orlando Bloom is a pretty good actor.
I think the regular version is a bit choppy, but I'm hoping the EE will fix that. The first movie is a little silly (in my opinion) in the regular version, too. I think the EEs kind of help the changes PJ made make a little more sense. Already The Towers looks better in the EE preview (again: in my opinion).

btw, did anybody else notice Legolas's eyes looked really weird in TTT? Looked like they were trying to do a Frodolas to me. His eyes weren't that blue in FOTR were they? Or is it that I watched POTC and now see Orlando Bloom's contacts for what they are?

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I forgot the thing that probably bothers me the most...

When Sam falls down the cliff and Frodo hides them with the Elven cloak. As they look out from underneath the cloak, the dude's foot is RIGHT next to them. When it switches to the perspective of the warrior, he is much farther away from them.

Moreover, there is not enough explanation of the "hiding" quality of the cloak. Everyone I've ever watched the movie with that is not familiar with the books finds it to be a little unbelievable.

[Artanis]

I hate the way Eowyn is patting Gimli on his back after he'd fallen off his horse. :mad: It's too much. :rolleyes:

[durin's bane]

I hate it when Frodo is in Osgiliath and the Nazgul are coming, and he says in this really weird voice, "They're hear...they've come..." and his eyes roll back in his head. Lol, I was expecting his head to turn all the way around. :D

[Laurelindórenan]

Originally posted by durin's bane
I hate it when Frodo is in Osgiliath and the Nazgul are coming, and he says in this really weird voice, "They're hear...they've come..." and his eyes roll back in his head. Really? I kind of liked that part. It was freaky.

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
Moreover, there is not enough explanation of the "hiding" quality of the cloak. Everyone I've ever watched the movie with that is not familiar with the books finds it to be a little unbelievable. I've read the books and I still have problems with that part. The cloaks helped hide the fellowship, but I doubt they'd work that well at such a short distance.
Originally posted by durin's bane
I hate it when Frodo is in Osgiliath and the Nazgul are coming, and he says in this really weird voice, "They're hear...they've come..." and his eyes roll back in his head. Lol, I was expecting his head to turn all the way around. :DActually, I call that his "Poltergeist" moment. Remember the little girl? "They're heeeere...." :p

[RohirrimGuy]

Ugh, where to start.

1.Aragorn supposedly dying. They could have given Frodo and Sam more screentime (like getting a glimpse of Minas Morgul,) and getting several minutes out of Helms Deep.

2. The Wargs were all right, but did we need it? I suppose we needed some extra battle though.

3.FARAMIR AND OSGILIATH! Grr....

4. Merry and Pippin having to trick Treebeard into going to war, by making him see what Saruman was doing.

Enough raving! ;)