Slashdot Mirror
LOTR: The Two Towers
Let's try to mash all the LOTR submissions into one. Reviews: comingsoon.net,
Empire Online (UK), CNN, Slate, Salon. The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration. Lord Satri writes "Ents, elves and mages being on every orc's lips, new versions of
Tales Of
Middle-Earth are available. It is an open source, one
player and online
multiplayer game. It is ported
to many OS's. Yeah, no terrific graphics, but the game is
really worthwhile. It is based on the famous roguelike Angband
(variants here). Faithful to Tolkien's writings."
Reviews: 1,2,3,4 That last one lets you submit your own review. Pretty cool.
All LA Times entertainment stories are available without registration at http://www.calendarlive.com.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
Well, it's even funnier when the previous story had a registration required link in it. Makes you wonder it michael pays any attention to Slashdot at all.
For those who are curious, I believe that this is the story in question. (And no, no registration required.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
It's the equivalent of a authoritative fugue... :)
In poetry, the caesura is a break in rhythmic flow in the middle of a verse. What the author means is that TTT is a well-crafted midpoint or something to that effect.
"My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
Also on my /. Journal...
Well, I got my LoTR fix finally. And I gotta tell ya, it was pretty damn good. The action sequences were especially nice. The battle sequences will set new standards. Gollum was, well, just plain amazing. The Ents looked just like I had always imagined them.
Downsides... This film missed several opportunities to work on the Strider-to-King Aragorn transformation. There was limited character development with Gollum and (surprisingly) Gimli coming across as the most three-dimensional.
The Faramir thing? Well, I already knew about it so I wasn't surprised, but it is pretty damn egregious. I think they could have kept it like the book without losing a beat. Sometimes changes add to a movie because they are needed to keep the flow. Other times they strike a false note, and I think that is the case here.
And, although I really liked the Ents I felt they got pretty short shrift scriptwise. Maybe there are some cut Ent scenes that will show up in the TTEE (Two Towers Extended Edition) DVD when it comes out.
I am going to have to see it a couple more times before I can make the call as to which is the better movie, but right now Fellowship gets the nod as a more rounded picture. Still, any complaint I make is because TT isn't perfect, not because it isn't the best movie to come out this year. Go see it. See it soon so you can share the experience with other LoTR fans instead of the mundane masses.
And remember to go to the bathroom right before the previews start. It is three hours long and you won't want to miss a second...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
>> Ninja Ents: Was is just me or did the Ents ONLY redirect the river Isen in the book? The whole "Ents stomp!" fight was just unnecessary and left the already underexplained race feeling like some cheesy Disney reject. The book builds them up in to stately, dignified, sad characters who act in their own way. The movie abandons all of that. Granted, you have to make cuts for time, but cut the holywood added big Ent fight and leave the depth of character stuff.
Haven't gotten to see the movie yet, but I wanted to respond to this. In the book the ents did indeed run amok. They tore down the ring of isengard with their bare hands, cracked stone with their roaring, and threw whole sections of wall at orthanc (which did squat). Once they realized they couldn't actually damage orthanc and saruman kept occasionally using field artillery on them, they retreated and *then* redirected the river in as an alternate method of attack.
Ent are sad and stately only until they finally get pissed off. Having said all that, I haven't seen that scene yet, so I can't say whether I think it was well handled. Just that there was actually a fight.
Entropy gets everyone.
Blockquoth the poster:
Even though this was modded "Funny," I'm going to respond because the question is asked all the time.
Sauron always expected a frontal assault, just as he always expected some Elf or Man to try to use the Ring against him. He expected it because it's what he himself would do, and as Gandalf's notes at some point, Sauron cannot conceive of any other possibility.
Remember what the Ring represents: raw, absolute power. Sauron craves that power so much, he cannot imagine that someone else would not.
That's why the Fellowship was formed, to attempt to sneak into Mordor whereas an army would be stopped at the gate. That's also why the Ring went to Frodo, because of everyone at the Council of Elrond, he was most able to resist it (for a while).
As for why they didn't use the Eagles earlier -- you saw Gwaihir in the first movie. He was pretty damn conspicuous. And the Fellbeasts aren't the only aerial defense available to Sauron. He also had crows and ballistas and stone-throwing trolls, not to mention his own magic. The Eagles would have been swatted down like flies, so long as they tried to go straight in.
Nope, it wasn't until after Aragorn used the Orthanc Palantir to get Sauron's attention -and- the Gondorian army attacked the Morannon -and- the Ring was already thrown into the Cracks of Doom that Sauron was finally distracted enough to let one (or two? I forget) Eagle zip through to rescue Sam and Frodo.
Yes, I'm a Tolkein geek.
Box Office Mojo is a great resource for all things box office related. You can find total box office take; number of screens; cummulative take; etc. Go have a romp.