Slashdot Mirror
Lord of the Rings: Two Towers Reviews Rolling In
flogger writes "After the first showing of The Two Towers, the reviews are now coming in. They are positive and SPOILER FILLED. Reviews can be found here, here and a short one here." Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.
After seeing the first movie, which wasn't bad, I can wait.
In fact, it is entirely possible that I will wait until the "Final" movie is released and get the "Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel) Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut" and waste a whole week watching it.
Or I might just keep my money in my pocket and read a good book.
the spoiler obsession, born of the Internet's fan-geek culture, is the enemy of real criticism, real discussion and maybe even real thought.
Andrew O'Hehir, at Salon.com
Best Slashdot Co
... who reads some reviews only after seeing the movies ?
Why do you do that?
So you know whether or not you liked the film?
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
That's not a spoiler. A spoiler reveals details that are crucial for the events of the movie so that you'll know how it ends. Arwen was only put in the film purely because she's a female and because she increases the filmatic appeal. It's not like she's going to make Sauron win.
Look a monkey!
I thought it was sad that they put pictures of Gandalf the White in the trailers (at least in the UK they did). It does mean that some of the impact will be lost on those who haven't read the books...
Trailers are evil and spoilery.
well, i also read review after i see a movie that i liked. i think it's interesting to read other opinions, and there's the possibility that they will discuss a point that u missed (like an obscure reference). i guess i could just read to some forum but professional reviewers are generaly more agreable to read.
I am fed up with this "Twin Towers" nonsense.
It's all a puritanistic approach, instead of seeing the true problem. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" flick the other day, and saw the true face of America, and not the one that they made the World Trade Center a god. It is horrible to see people die -- that's no fact it's reality.
But the claims of "...oooh don't say twin towers we recall the tragedy" is so stupid that it reaches on the same level as the cause of selling guns in America that lead to the youth shoots. You can see how fanatic you have been with no fault of your own. Instead of weeping over titles that are meaningless as if Tolkien knew the future and said "Heh I am going to entitle the next book 'Two Towers' so that in a sadistic way I will take revenge for the Americans after Grave", you should get yourselves into the real threat, your children's influence, the war that is destined to become another vietnam because of inability of the government administration and the genral status of the economy.
Sometimes I like that I am in a country that has real problems and not in a country that likes to create problems just to know that it is there.
Could you expand this faq to be a general "how and what to post?"If so, I would like to add a these points:
You are not funny if you post these "jokes":
2)something
3)???
4)profit
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
There are also some of us (well, me at least) who read the books many years ago and can only remember sketchy details. I don't know if being reminded of forgotten plot points counts as being spoiled, but I'm happier rediscovering them as the films progress.
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
You won't see an unbiased review for awhile. The problem is the novels are so pervasive and anyone into "media" was probably into them at some time, unless they hate fantasy, in which case they would be biased against the Lord of the Rings movies.
:)
Look at the imdb - it has a 9.5 right now. I remember when the FOtR came out and it jumped to number one on the "best movies ever" list (#1 fantasy movie of all time, sure, #1 movie of all time, not quite). Eventually it settled to a more realistic spot.
If I got to see it right now, I would probably gush about it and inflate it's value too. But give me two months and I'll tell you how good it really was.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Well it really is just one story that has been somewhat arbitrarily broken into three sections. Tolkien originally wanted it to be on *big* book but the publisher insisted, rightly IMO, that it wouldn't sell if it wasn't in more digestible chunks.
That being said each of the six 'books' (each book in the trilogy is divided into a pair of 'books') has *some* resolution though sometimes an unhappy one and for obvious reasons usually a "cliffhanger"). At the end of the first book they make it to Rivendell, at the end of the second (the end of FOTR) the fellowship is broken, etc. By ganging up two 'books' into one book or movie you sort of dilute the feeling of resolution because half of the FOTR takes place before the fellowhip is even formed so it's disolution is less satisfying as an (cliffhanger) ending. Which makes me wonder if they could have pulled it off as six two-hour movies. Each movie would feel a little more complete on it's own by telling a smaller but more satisfyingly resolved story. They certainly seemed to have enough footage and even though I really liked FOTR I have to say 3.5 hours for the director's cut starts to get overwhelming/tedious. From a mercenary standpoint for the studio that is twice as many movie tickets/DVD/merchandise sales.
To calibrate my opinions against specific other people's opinions on a known movie, so that if I'm ever wondering about a movie in the future, I know who to turn to for a review.
Quite effective, actually.
We need comic relief in epic movies as much as we need Jar Jar Binks to show up in The Return Of The King. IMHO it is atrocious to have humor in any serious work of epic scope. I never felt that Gimli served that purpose in the novel and I certainly despise this act by Peter Jackson.
I've read the first book and seen the first movie...it was a very good movie, to the point that many things I was imagining when reading where the same in the movie.
But there was a little problem: the sense of time. In the book, there are weeks(months ?) that pass between the party Baggins throws at the beggining and the end of the book, where is in the movie it seems that the total adventure runs a few days only. This resulted to the movie missing some of the epic tone of the book.
I hope that they have done a better job in TTT regarding time.
I couldn't agree more. Films aren't jack-in-the-boxes or jokes with punch lines.
A little off topic, but I have a question for LOTR fans. I've just finished the book, down to the very end. But seeing the map, there's something bothering me about the logic of the story
In the map, I can see that Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, the Cross Road, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, and then Mt. Doom went almost in a straight line. So, it's only logical for me that the great battles should take place somewhere in this line, rather than far north in Morannon.
When Frodo arrived in the Black Gate of Morannon, Gollum argued that Sauron's attention would be concentrated in the north. 'He thinks no one can come to the Moontower without fighting big battles at the bridges, or getting lots of boats which they cannot hide and He will know about'. Off course Gollum was probably lying, but to me that statement was very ridiculous. After all, though he had enemies all round him, Minas Tirith was the nearest and that path was the most logical
When finally the Captains of the West captured the Crossroad (without big battles at the bridges, nor lots og boats), they again make a ridiculous move by riding north for several days to knock Mordor at their 'front door'. Off course Gandalf supposedly try to drive Sauron's attention away from Cirith Ungol where Frodo would pass, but actually he should know (by Faramir's account) that at that time Frodo was long gone from the pass
And then a logical move for Sauron is to take back the Crossroad (instead of moving his army to the north) and then either chase the silly army from behind of attemp another strike at Minas Tirith. After all he still outnumbers his enemies many time over at that point
Well, that's what's bugging me, hope someone could give a logical explanation
According to Time Peter Jackson fought with the studio to pick up the second film exactly where the first left off, as if you just stepped out for a popcorn refil without any voice over or flashbacks.
But it seems to me that some people missed the conflict and resolution of Fellowship even when the director ADDED AN ADDITIONAL SCENE OF DIALOG BETWEEN ARAGORN AND FRODO TO MAKE THE CONFLICT EXPLICIT! The conflict is that the ring corrupts everything that comes near it making the Fellowship its self a threat to the quest. The resolution is that Ringbearer tries to go alone.
Well written reviews don't just state whether the movie was good or not. They have insights, background on directors/actors. If you only look at a thumbs up or a thumbs down on a review then you probably are the type of person who thinks movie reviewers are useless.
Be serious. Spoilers? The books have been available for quite a long time. Reminds me of those people who walked out of the theater after the first movie grumbling about not knowing what happens next...