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.
Like, there is something not in the books?
I really wish the media would stop trying to cash in on the events of 9/11. I think this title will upset many people.
What was wrong with The Lord of the Rings II?
Just a heads up to all the peps out there it holdin' down. If you buy the special edition super ultra limited DVD box (with the bookend thingies), enclosed is a free pass to see TTT in the theaters, or theatres depending on your pondsidage.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
What have the world come to when the submitters warn the /. crowd about spoilers in a LOTR movie. Doesn't the entire /. crowd know it by heart?? It ... makes me sad.
Look a monkey!
Turns out Frodo is Sauron's son.
seriously, some movies I'll see no matter what the reviewer says,
LOTR is one (three) of those.
I'll read the reviews solely for the purpose of getting other people's take on the movies. Like the "discussion" part of an article comes after
the "results" section.
I know it sounds sick but hey
Working for necessity's mother.
Well that's ruined that bit for me.
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.
Three reviews given, not one of them seemed to be from an unbiased perspective. When I read the first two, I began to think the writers were masturbating as they typed. And the third one, being from 'theonering.net', didn't seem a reliable source of an impartial view either.
Isn't it possible to find a review from someone who isn't an obsessive zealot? I'm interested in finding out how good the film is, and I'm not going to get that from someone who has decided he's going to enjoy the film before he's even seen it.
Secondly, what is the point in having spoilers in a review? The whole point in a review is that you can find out how good the film is, so you can decide whether to see it or not. By giving away what happens in the film, you sort of take away the fun in watching it in the first place. Most reviewers seem to get by reviewing films without giving away every single thing that happens, why can't these reviewers?
Looks like I'll just have to see what the Filthy Critic says, although if he does review it it probably won't be up till February, and then he'll spend 90% of the review talking about his personal problems.
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!
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.
"The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 & 4; and can be left ambiguous- it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dur, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol (1)." [Letter #140]
Taken from JRRT's letters. You will easily find many more references on google.
"I am not at all happy about the title `the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading." [Letter #143]
You see?
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
You're right, they should have totally changed what is probably the most read story of the 20th century so that it fits into your definition of what a "Hollywood" movie is supposed to be. Maybe Peter Jackson and New Line gave the audience a little more credit than you apparently deserve.
LOTR is not a trilogy and the following movies are not sequels. It's one huge novel/movie that is divided into three parts for convenience.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Talking about the fight scene in Helm's Deep:
"...made ATTACK OF THE CLONES look like it was shot in a barn with hand puppets."
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Is Micros~1 acceptable?
I read the book so obviously nothing surprises me but I was a bit irritated reading the second review(i didn't finish it) and it started giving a scene by scene account of the movie, I didn't want to read a summary of the screenplay.
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.
:)
Since when the editors read the articles anyway?
Aint It Cool acts like it is slashdotted. Linking to an aintitcool.com story on Slashdot is only pouring more gasoline on the fire.
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.
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.
It's almost never noted that this is a revival of the format in which all the great (and not-so-great) English novelists of the 19th Century were usually published. They were called "triple deckers" in the jargon of the time. Most novels from authors like Jane Austen, Edward G.E. Bulwer-Lytton, or Charles Dickens were originally published in this form.
And the brethren went away edified.
--- Stop the world! I want to get off!
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
After all, Sauron lives in the White House and Saruman lives in London.