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.
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 couldn't agree more. Films aren't jack-in-the-boxes or jokes with punch lines.
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.
I agree totally with your comments. The others who have replied are apologists. This is too true. Even with all of the arguments for Sauron causing the battle to happen at Mordor, this does not explain why he would leave "The One Road" so lightly defended and scouted.
Also, even if his goal is capturing the Ring Bearer, why not lay siege to Minas Tirith?? You stand a good chance of uncovering the Ring Bearer in due time, you have the troops, you don't leave your enemies unhindered to plot against you. You either starve Minas Tirith or make the ring bearer show himself in their rescue.
I would think that under any circumstances I would at least have small patrols at each bridge. Not only for looking for the ring bearer, but for policing and taxation.
They also must be pretty sure that Sauron is too stupid to run. They do no work trying to make sure the area is secure. There is no intelligence gathering beyond a 1-2 night look over of the outside of the gates. Although I find it hard to believe that Sauron could be that stupid and old at the same time.
I guess that the real points are this: Tolkien was a linguist, not a strategist, and in his utopian society the evil lord doesn't even collect unjust taxes from public works like bridges.
The first rule in taking over any land is control the lanes and means of transportation. This restricts supply, etc. The second is to limit communication. Sauron does neither. The only good explanation is Hubris. Again, how can he be this stupid and old??
~Hammy