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."
Let's try to mash all the LOTR submissions into one... by CmdrTaco
...is it good?
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
the eyeball did it.
I'm beginning to see that I should subscribe to a filtering service that blocks anything related to "roguelike" and "nethack". My employment search will almost certainly be mortally wounded.
If someone invents a time machine, could you please go back and somehow prevent the invention of Rogue?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I've had my ticket confirmation print out pinned to my cube since I bought my tickets on 11/27/02.
Now my anxious salivations are almost to an end though...in just 6.5 short hours, I'll be in the theatre when the film roles! (insert evil laugh here).
The AMC up the street apparently sold out 3 theatres for a 12:01AM showing. Knowing the size of those rooms I'm guessing that's around 1600 people, and in the burbs, not the city. Amazing. They'll break $100M by Sunday.
put the what in the where?
The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration.
Since when? Is this a new leaf turned over in Slashdot history? Did it originate after the posting of articles from sources that require paid registration?
I see no problem with posting registration-required links. Just make sure there are others (as there are in this case).
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Reviews: 1,2,3,4 That last one lets you submit your own review. Pretty cool.
Hey assramp, the "faithful to Tolkien's writings" comment was referring to the ToME game, not the movie.
I wonder if the people at Verant received an all-time low in their log-ons of Everquest -- all their geeks were out for three hours watching this thing :)
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
Gandalf comes back!!!!! OMG
A lot of people will probably wanna wait 'till the shows stop selling out to go but my advice is: Don't. I saw LOTR in Burbank at 12:01 this morning and being in a room with hundreds of exicited people really made a difference.
I give the movie 9/10 and the guy who did the acting for Gollum should definalty win Best Supported Actor from the Oscars.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
The first one did a pretty good job with following the book, the second is a stylized interpretation. And where is SHEBOLA? I guess after Harry Poter and tCoS she needed a break.
Yes we'll let her do it....
Surrender YR pattent!
If CmdrTaco really wanted to cram all of these into one, He'd include the dupes planned for tonight and just link everything twice.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Are you one of those who think "if it is different from the book, it's automatically crap!". Yes, the movies are different from the books in some places. No, that does not make the worse. What works in the book, may not work in the movie. Books and movies are completely different medias, you cannot expect them to be identical.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Why oh Why Dear Slashdot Editors dose Lord of the Rings not have a Logo? Starwars has a Logo.. the Ipod has a Logo.. why dosent LOTR?
Think about it.. all the Posts that are going to be made over the next +2 Years for LOTR.. Movie Reiviews, Spoilers, Trailers, DVD's, DVD Reviews, Special Ed. DVD's, Cast Interviews, Award Shows, ect.. ect... ect..
LOTR DESERVES its own Logo/Icon
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
i have tickets to see the movie at 8:00 tonight, but i was just curious how good do the ents look? the reviewer in my local small town paper said something about they looked "unrealistic" and like "muppets crossed with plants", or something like that...yeah, way to go jackass, cause you really have a good idea of what a "realistic" ent would look like...so, how do they look???
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
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?
I would like to have taken an exit poll of how many of the people at the midnight showing had Everquest accounts. If you wanted to take Sony/Verant/989Studios down, all you would have to do is bomb all the theaters last night. It would have taken out most of their customer base :). As a plus, from the looks of it, you would have killed Hot Topic's sales too!
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
This is far from being a snide remark. He was mearly saying that there is a story on LA Times...but since it requires registration, it isn't worth creating the link. They are simply saying go to LA Times web site, register, login and have fun that way.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
Here's a few of my favorite paragraphs from the review in the ny times:
With the narrative of "Rings," Tolkien was investigating determination, loyalty and, finally, faith, finding innumerable ways to offer up the concept of purity of heart, as found in Matthew 5:8 and in Kierkegaard, whose contention was that purity of heart was the ability to will one thing into being. The pursuit of purity is at the center of "Towers."
Mr. Jackson's mastery of craft in some areas is so powerful that the flaws are more noticeable than in the first film. The little-boy allure of the storytelling in "Towers" is sure to evoke the same reaction that it did in "Fellowship." "Towers" is like a family-oriented E-rated video game, with no emotional complications other than saving the day. Women have so little to do here that they serve almost as plot-device flight attendants, offering a trough of Diet Coke to refresh the geek-magnet story.
Not sure if I should enjoy the movie or write a critical essay about it. But there's a couple of lines in there that are real zingers.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
My biggest complaint with the changes from the book was that Faramir was turned into a pretty weak character. I did get a nice chuckle when Sam said something along the lines of, "We're not even supposed to be here," while in Gondor as I was thinking much the same thing.
But the guard at the theater would not let me in with my broad sward and plate mail armor......
Insert more quarters Elf is about to die!!!!
Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
anyways it is a very good movie but from a tolkien fan standpoint at the end i had very mixed feelings about the movie..
..well i suppose that means i'll have to go see it again...
Here's a copy of the game in case anyone is interested. It's about to be slashdotted:
.
Angband is a roguelike dungeon exploration game based on JRR Tolkien's works.
There are a lot of Angband variants because Angband's sources were cleaned up by a remarkable person, Ben Harrison, which meant that as more people could understand the code, more people made variants. ToME, my own variant, expands upon the Middle-Earth influence and is based on Zangband 2.2.0. ToME now follows the Tolkien world more closely than any other variant!
ToME was formely known was PernAngband, but it's name was changed because of copyright issues. Almost all Pern influences have been removed in the current CVS version.
The current version is T.o.M.E 2.1.0 aka "No Surrender, No Retreat"
"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for Dwarf-Lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie."
"The Lord of the Rings", J.R.R. Tolkien.
free ipod? yeah.
Well, had you read the book, you'd notice that every race is described in detail. There are no caucasians in LOTR. There are MEN, which are described as being pretty much white. There are MEN who were evil (siding with Isengard) who were described as black.
Then there were hobbits, dwarves, elves, ents, istari, and so on. All were described as being pretty much white.
Note that what you call "minorities" are ONLY minorities in certain parts of the United States. This movie wasn't even filmed here. It wasn't even directed by an American.
How would you have liked that?
I don't think that spotted owls were shown in a favorable fucking light either; this movie sucked.
God DAMN I hate leftist cretins.
~D
By Manohla Dargis, Times Staff Writer
When the final chapter closes on Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," the whole extravaganza -- three features, nine hours and a catalog of characters as seemingly infinite as the films' crew -- may well be heralded as one of the more heroic ventures in commercial cinema. Launched last December to enormous success with "The Fellowship of the Ring," the ongoing epic has now entered an awkward adolescence with its middle feature, "The Two Towers," on its way to its concluding volume, "The Return of the King." Slated for completion next year, the entirety of the "Rings" looks auspicious even if in its present manifestation this once and future landmark is a bit of a yawn.
Based on the second volume of Tolkien's novel, "The Two Towers" begins fairly soon after "The Fellowship of the Ring" leaves off with the hobbits, Frodo (Elijah Woods) and Samwise (Sean Astin), warily traveling toward the Dark Tower of Mordor, the lair of Sauron the Great. Conquered in an ancient war, Sauron has been gathering his forces with the intention of obliterating the world of men, Middle-earth, for which he needs the ring. In the first film, Frodo had become the ring's reluctant keeper, charged with its destruction by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), a mission that transported him out of the idyll of his homeland, the Shire, and into a fellowship with eight other Middle-earth inhabitants. Splintered at the close of the first volume, the fellowship has now scattered to fight its enemies separately.
"The Lord of the Rings," built on a bedrock of mythic archetypes and sagas such as "Beowulf," is essentially a quest story but one in which the seeker aims to renounce power, rather than to seize it. That makes Frodo uncharacteristically humble for a hero and an unusually appealing seeker no matter what the troubled times, and it also speaks to why the book was a cult favorite during the 1960s. (The hobbits' fondness for smoking an herb called pipe-weed likely appealed to the book's original counterculture fan base, as well.) Although Frodo hails from the pastoral Shire and is by nature and inclination gentle, each step of his journey brings him closer to cataclysmic warfare that rumbles during the first volume, erupts in the second and rages throughout the third.
Tolkien began writing "The Lord of the Rings" in 1936 and for years after its publication insisted that it had nothing to do with the Second World War. Jackson has no such qualms but his inspiration is cinematic not political. In "The Two Towers," he cribs an iconic image of massed troops from Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda reverie, "Triumph of the Will," but the allusion loses its punch when you realize that another shot of goose-stepping troops has been lifted from "The Wizard of Oz." Tolkien built his story on foundation myths; Jackson builds his on movies: The film's most charming new creature, a mossy shepherd named Treebeard, walks like the heron described by Tolkien but looks like a relation of the animated trees in "Oz." When Gollum (voiced by Andy Serkis, with goggling computer-generated eyes and slithering silvery body) returns to the scene to pull the word "master" from its mouth, it's with the same sinister fawning as Dracula's helper Renfield.
Despite these cinephile fillips, Jackson and fellow screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Stephen Sinclair have enough to do just keeping Tolkien's histories and characters in play. To that end, the new film faithfully opens with the human warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), a huntsman with his own impending quest issues, in the company of the Elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the Dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). Together, the three are hotfooting across green slopes in search of two other fellowship members, the hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), who have been kidnapped by Orcs, servants of Sauron's strongest ally, the wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee).
Tolkien devotes the first half of "The Two Towers" to Aragorn's exploits and the second to those of Frodo; Jackson instead oscillates between the questing travelers before getting swept up in a battle that nearly proves the undoing of Aragorn and the film. While searching for the hobbits, Aragorn and his companions enter the human kingdom of Rohan, where they're soon engaged in protecting its people from Sauron's army. Jackson spends an interminable amount of time in Rohan, lavishing his attention on a battle that consumes less than a chapter in the novel. Set at night, the fight unfolds with hordes of the enemy ("thick as marching ants," in Tolkien's words) descending in waves. Despite Mortensen's energetic vaults across the set, the tension slackens precipitously. It isn't only that there's no fun to be had watching ants get squashed; it's that the battle, designed for the video-game generation, proceeds in frustrating starts and stops, as if Jackson couldn't get past the first level.
With "The Fellowship of the Ring," Jackson delivered us into never-before-seen worlds. The fellowship covers new ground in "The Two Towers" but the story bogs down in Rohan, a dreary stopover that fails to capture the imagination; unlike the Shire or Elvish lands, it doesn't look that different from the back-lot Middle Ages we've seen elsewhere. During the past few decades, computer technologies have enhanced (and waylaid) numerous films but it wasn't until Jackson's first try at Tolkien that we saw the greater possibilities of those technologies, particularly in the realm of fantasy, where now everything seems possible. After years of anemic space escapades in which the blue screen was invariably more important than the flesh-and-blood actors, digital video technologies were put in the service of a juicy story and not the reverse.
That more or less holds true in "The Two Towers" even if for stretches at a time the tools at Jackson's disposal distract him from what he does best, which is push the story forward with the enthusiasm of a filmmaker who hasn't put ego before movie love. The director's great strength is the confidence with which he translates Tolkien's vision into visual imagery even if he still gets tripped up converting that vision into dialogue.
"The Fellowship of the Ring" was periodically hampered by the writers' attempts to cut swaths through the narration. There's as much exposition in "The Two Towers" but because Jackson and his screenwriter partners don't want to repeat themselves, they lay out the story even less clearly than they did on their first outing. When Aragorn consults with Gandalf, it's easy to get lost in a thicket of names and allegiances.
It was during one such eyelid-drooping moment while watching "The Two Towers" that I flashed on an old Gary Larson cartoon that pokes gentle fun at the nomenclature found in books of this sort by contrasting the names we give dogs with those they give themselves. "I am known as Vexog," says one dog (a.k.a. Rex), "Destroyer of Cats and Devourer of Chickens." "I am Zornorph," says another, proudly, "the One Who Comes by Night to the Neighbor's Yard, and this is Princess Sheewana, Barker of Great Annoyance and Daughter of Queen La, Stainer of Persian Rugs."
The absurdity of the dog names was a relief, giving me a momentary reprieve from the film and its insistent monumentality. At that instant, I stopped bumming about the second film and began looking forward to the third. Such is the nature of geek love. As with "The Fellowship of the Ring," the excitement and pleasure of "The Two Towers" comes from the feeling that we're doing more than simply watching a film but have, rather, embarked on an epic journey with like-minded travelers. If the second film never reaches the highs of the first -- we have met the players before and there are no new worlds of wonder -- it nonetheless invests moviegoing with a sense of adventure. Like Frodo and Aragorn, we have to cover a lot of middling expository ground in "The Two Towers" -- here, we're just passing through on our way to the end.
'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'
MPAA rating: PG-13 for battle sequences and scary images.
Times guidelines: There's a lot of fighting and death but little bloodshed; overall, it's less scary than the first film.
Elijah Wood ... Frodo ... Gandalf ... Arwen ... Aragorn ... Sam
Ian McKellen
Liv Tyler
Viggo Mortensen
Sean Astin
New Line Cinema presents a Wingnut production. Director Peter Jackson. Writers Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair, Peter Jackson. Producers Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson. Director of photography Andrew Lesnie. Production designer Grant Major. Film Editor Michael Horton. Music Howard Shore. Visual effects supervisor Jim Rygiel. Special makeup creature miniature and digital effects Weta Ltd., NZ. Costume designers Ngila Dickson, Richard Tyler. Running time: 2 hours, 59 minutes.
In general release.
C:\>
Hey one thing I've never understood about LoTR is why the forces of light didn't attack Mount Doom from the air. See, they had over 10,000 giant eagles, and you could have mounted an elven archer on each one. Mount Doom was undefended from the air, and only the Black Riders could fly. So it would have been 10,000 against nine.
Instead, Gandalf sent two of his weakest soldiers on foot. I can only assume he was suicidal or an agent of darkness... does Tolkien cover this in a sequel?
Anyway, I'm going to play "Tom Bombadil" and sing a song of protest on my way into the theater, so I don't have to pay the evil MPAA.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Salon says: "The Two Towers," the second installment of Peter Jackson's three-film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," is a magisterial caesura. That may be an odd thing to say about a movie that climaxes with one of the most amazing epic battle sequences ever put on film, a movie that, like its predecessor, conjures up new worlds seemingly every time you blink your eyes, a film that keeps dropping wonders into your lap like precious gifts casually given"
What the hell does <i>magisterial caesura</i> mean?
Halle Berry is half white. Her black father abandoned her and her white mother raised her. In Feb. 2000, she was involved in a hit and run. Berry and her father set a great example for minorities.
Please pick positive african-american role models instead of a media whore. Dr. Condoleezza Rice has earned a LOT of respect and her contributions to society aren't limited to "Showing her boobies."
-Lucas
Wait, this is Slashdot. Don't you mean, "I can't wait until the copyrights expire and it falls in the public domain so that I can watch it without somehow contributing to an evil empire of corporations out to make money from the helpless consumer"?
I loved this line:
If I have misspelled or mischaracterized any of the above, please send corrections to eatme@Idontgiveashit.com
Best Slashdot Co
Lets face it, some of us have never read the book, so nothing about the movie can be much of a disappointment for us. My self I loved it and the Gollum character was the best peice of comedy I have seen this year. The overall story line seemed to cary forward from FoTR, with out leaving you wondering what else may have happened. The battle scenes were great. Like last time I cannot wait to see the final installment, as I was left feeling, it cannot be over yet.
And for those of you that have read the books. You too can have your opinions, these here are mine. It is my favorite movie of the year, and I personally feel it should get movie of the year in at least some of the award categories.
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies
Saw it at 12:05 this morning and am totally torn -- more so than with the last movie -- between my appreciation for the good qualities of the film, which are not insubstantial, such as the cinematography & camera work, the sets, the costumes, colors, designs, props, and (most of the) editing, and my loyalty for the story that is (supposedly) behind the thing.
Tempted to rant. Not gonna.
Ah, screw it.
The problem wasn't the omission of material but the addition of entire subplots that have nothing to do with the plot. You know which parts I'm talking about.
And if Arwen kills the King Nazgul in the third movie, which I think they're trying to build up to, I'm gonna kick somebody.
Probably myself.
Man, honestly, I was blown away. I was in line at 11:00pm for the 12:01 EST showing here in Tampa, FL. The movie was phenomenal, really engaging, and just had so many different emotions. It is truly a work of art. I haven't heard an audience so engaged since I was probably a child in a theater filled with other children. People would clap, laugh out loud, gasp. There were sad parts, happy parts, tense parts, release/comedic parts. And above all, I *never* checked my watch, as I am sometimes wont to do with other long movies. The characters were portrayed fantastically, and with regard to another risky aspect of movies where you know it's not yet over, the ending wasn't sudden. This chapter was resolved well, and I and my friends and everybody else left satisfied.
Potter may get more money (I dont know, that's just what I hear), but if you took a viewer satisfaction exit poll, I can't believe potter would come near this installment of LOTR.
It's not different from the book so it's automatically crap. It just happens to be so.
Actually, most of the movie was very good. It's just the bits that strayed from the book in to obvious Holywood teritory that let it down.
Gimili: Started off as a tough, gnarled, Dwarf warrior. In the first movie, he was a little bewildered and had the one joke ("Nobody tosses this Dwarf"). In the second he is JUST there for comedy. He can't keep up on the run; he's keeps falling over; he gets to wear comically oversized mail; he is the butt of endless short-jokes etc. There's just no validity to him. What sucks is he's not written that way (he actually keeps up just fine on the run in the book) but they decided to sell him out to lighten the "dark second part of the trilogy". It's like making Chewie do song and dance routines to stop Empire being so depressing.
Frodo and Sam: OK, what the hell's up with their "new and improved" journey? Why are they in that city? Why does Frodo need to go and try and surrender himself to the ringwraith? Why did we need to see Sam doing his running, diving, savior thing? Why did we need to turn Faramir in to an exact clone of his brother, Boromir, rather than leave him the way he was written as the ultimately stronger of the two? OK, so not a lot happens with them, that translates well to the screen, in the book. Even so, do we really need cliche'd holywood crap?
Speaking of holywood crap - Aragorn: Why did he need to fall off that cliff? It's not in the book. Just because Robin Hood once dramatically jumped off a high cliff in to a river, it doesn't mean Aragorn has to. He's not Kevin Costner. It's not a Kevin Costner movie. It adds absolutely nothing beyond a mopey Eowyn moment (see my next comment). It's just cheesy holywood, mid movie, something dramatic needs to happen here, crap.
Eowyn and Arwen: OK, I'll admit, I liked Arwen in the first movie. Even so, this one makes it really obvious that she's stolen everything Eowyn's supposed to be in terms of the pained love story with Aragorn. So now we have Eowyn moping around with no sympathy because she's invading on the relationship we've already learned to care about. You can't get rid of her because she's needed later so, instead, we end up with stupid scenes like the cliff fall in order to give her something to do now we've given away what she's supposed to be doing.
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.
So, most of it really was a good movie. The problem is: The first one stayed [largely] true to the book and really felt like it was obviously saying, "Fuck holywood, we're going to make this one right." This one feels much more like, "Hey, we made a really successful movie, so we are God. Let's fuck with whatever we need to to get the holywood weaned audience in and happy." The stupid thing is, the first one was so good exactly because they DIDN'T pander to holywood style.
On the positive side, Gollum/Smeagol was just about perfect. I knew the direction they were going in and he still amazed me. The fights were spectacular, the Ents were really nicely rendered, it was appropriately rousing in the right places (which is no mean feat at 3am). It just sucks that what was a fanboy franchise, and turned out to be great for being unappologetically so, seems to have turned around and chased holywood style that it never needed at its own expense.
The book remains great. The parts of the movie that come from the book remain incredible. Every failing in the movie comes from the movie makers deliberately shooting themselves in the foot (feet?).
Personal Note
I'm not big into spelling characters names, so if I've misspelled Ghimli or Aragorn or WhoFrigginGivesACrap, please forgive me for not rushing home to open the books and get every letter in the right spot - if you know the stories, you'll know whom I'm talking about.
Get Your Elf Ears On
About a year ago, I made a bet with New Line Cinema. I put up $10, scheduled my time to see the midnight showing of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring with a bunch of geeks. I mean, we're talking the kind of folk who make their own chain mail, call each other pussies if they haven't read the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy once a year and can't talk Elvish, and girls that are hot. Look, I'm sorry to sound sexist, but geek girls are hot. (Trust me - the smarter the girl, the better they shag.)
I basically bet New Line Cinema they couldn't do it. They couldn't translate Tolkein's epic work into a movie format - even at over 2 hours long. There was too much, the actors would surely suck, and the only reason to go to the midnight showing was to poke fun at the geeks who showed up in their cadaver wax Elf Ears.
Well, the joke was on me. The Fellowship of the Rings turned out to be the True Shit - the kind of movie most Hollywood types can only dream of making. A movie that is, as near as I can figure, perfect: perfect acting, great timing of the plot, special effects that are so subtle you sometimes don't realize they're there, and an attention to detail that would make a compulsive counting accountant weep in envy.
But one year later - could Jackson and his team do it again? The Fellowship turns from the story of a small band of would-be heroes (and the fodder for just about every role playing/fantasy epic that ever existed), into the gigantic tale of war, treachery, and conflict - both great and small.
And while the movie has it's weak points, I think it's safe to say that Jackson still has the power to entertain on a level that should make just about every other hack director piss his pants in fear.
Ass Kicking in the Underworld
If you haven't seen the first movie, then you are boned - there's no introduction, no "here's what happened before" - it just takes off with Gandalf getting thrown into a pit, and takes off running.
For a three hour movie, the first 90 minutes of it hit the ground running faster than Richard Simmons on crack. We quickly see Frodo and Sam, the two remaining members of the former Fellowship still trying to fulfill their quest: take the One Ring to Mordor and destroy it before the all-evil Sauron can get his grubby mitts on it and use it to bring in a reign of terror worse than the Steve Balmer developers video. Frodo is sliding into e-vile as the Ring gives off its Evil Rays into its brain, and it's former owner Golem is hanging around them, guiding them to Mordor in the hopes that he can be reaquainted with his "Precious" once again.
Meanwhile, the multi-racial League of Heroes - Aragorn the human, Legolas the tree elf (so sexy I've known Geek Girls to take up residences in trees hoping to find their own tree elf), and Ghimli the Comic Relief - wait, I mean Dwarf, long of the axe and the source of most of the movie's humor. (I have the feeling that the Height Challenged segment of the population might have a bone to pick on how Ghimli is the butt of most of the jokes here - about height, short women, height, inability to ride horses, height, burping, and don't forget - height) - are trying to track down Hobbit-napped Merry and Pippin, two small people captured by Orcs to be taken to the evil Sauroman.
And what is Sauroman doing? Well, he's amassing the biggest baddest army to ever exist to kick everybody's ass to make up for all the times he got shoved into a locker in Wizard's School, and that Potter kid got all the credit. With his orcs killing everyone in the nation of Rohan, his aide Wormtongue keeping the Rohan king under evil possession, and using lots of conditioner to keep away split ends from his long, white locks, Sauroman looks like he's going to put him and Sauron on top of the heap.
Before you know it, there's major wars being fought, the return of fallen hero (and let's face it - if anybody hasn't read the books and still doesn't see this coming after all the previews, they should be surprised when I say Gandalf comes back), giant tree-like people called Ents are working their mojo in the forest, and Aragorn is getting the hot looks from not one, but two good looking women - and one's even Elf based. How hot is that?
Geeks Enter Here
The good news is that the pacing is excellent. There was only one moment about 3/5'ths of the way through the movie I found myself looking at my watch (during the long Elf dialogue scenes), but otherwise, it doesn't feel like a three hour movie. You're kept moving right along, no time to get bogged down with all the people and events hurtling by. It's not too fast of a pace either - each scene gets exactly the amount of detail and explanation it needs - no more, no less. This is not a movie where you're told 15 times some crucial piece of information - you should have gotten it the first time, and if you didn't, you'll figure it out on your won later. (Unlike another movie that had to tell you no less than 5 times every 5 minutes about the planetary alignment happening once every 5000 years.)
The movie is still targeted at Geeks themselves - they'll eat up all the details about people and places that most mere mortals will go "huh?" at, like when a character announces "Look, the Mystical Knights of Rayearth have passed by!" (All right, not literally, but you get the idea.) There's lots of names to pass around (and what was up with some of the names? We've got Aragorn, Arwen, Aowen - man, it's surprising that the characters don't get confused and launch into a Who's On First segment sometimes), but you don't have to pay attention to that - most people will get the gist and ignore it, while Geeks will be creaming their pants that Jackson got their favorite detail right.
As far as the acting - it is still as flawless as the original. There's not a scene where anybody feels out of character, or like their just standing around with a sword in their hand waiting to head out to their air-conditioned trailer. Every single actor in the movie - from the main cast down to the stand-in's - plays their role so well, you're convinced this isn't a movie you're watching, but some portal into another history that might have existed. And once again, Ian McKellen proves that he's still the best damn actor out there. His portrayal of Gandalf is spot on - one moment just another old man, full of compassion and slyness, the next second the ass-kicking terror in White. Do not get on this guys bad side, or you'll wind up worse than Mike Tyson's last date.
Look, Mommy - It's Computer Generated!
If there's one major complaint about the movie, it's in the special effects. 80% of the time, they're perfect when used to describe scale. When you first see the Black Gate and realize this fucker is huge, you can't help but just go all Keano Reeves as you breath "Woah!". Or as you look in the twisted forest, perfectly rendered, or the caves beneath the earth, or how our heroes get dirty, bloody, dusty, and generally look like they've been through the ringer.
The main problem with most of the effects is that we know their effects, unlike the last movie where the effects were so subtle, sometimes you didn't realize it was a trick until it was too late. Here, we've got computer generated characters in the form of Golem and the Ents running around the place, or the giant computer generated armies that just don't quite look right. They look good - but there's a level of reality still lacking, some quality that triggers our brain that this isn't real, and dissolves that suspension of disbelief just a little bit.
And sometimes the effects seem to be there just for effects sake - like when Legolas makes the coolest "around the horses neck" mounting of a horse ever, or another scene where Legolas goes down a flight of stairs skateboarding on a shield shooting arrows. Cool? Sure. Necessary? Maybe, maybe not. With all of the conflict going on, you feel that maybe 5 minutes could have been cut out of the movie. Then again, if action's your thing, you might wish for another 5 minutes to watch Aragorn keep up his Superman impression, taking on nearly an entire army of 10,000 orcs on his own with nothing more than a pair of chopsticks and a can of gasoline. Wait, that was from an episode of MacGuyver - my bad.
Then there's the looks of the characters. It's like the old Westerns, where the Bad Guy always wore a black hat. Here, if you're Evil, you're ugly. No good looking baddies here that make women's toes curl - bad guys seem to sprout warts, moles, slime, bad teeth, and a horrible case of gangrene all over their skin. On the other hand, good guys are usually sexy, even if you're a hobbit (I've had enough Geek Girls let me know that Frodo Baggins is close to winning Sexiest Man Under 5 Feet of the Year for the second year running).
Macro and Micro Conflict Systems
What really makes this movie special is more than just the retelling of The Two Towers adapted for the screen. If there's a theme running through the whole movie, it's about Conflict, on the Macro and Micro scale. There's the obvious Macro conflicts - giant armies pitting themselves against the other, the survival of mankind itself at stake. We see up close the effect this war has on people as women and children flee their villages, boys hardly old enough to sprout facial hair being put in armor, handed a sword, and told to go die for their people.
The army scenes are impressive. Once again, Jackson plays the sense of scale beautifully, and when you look out and see 10,000 orcs ready to attack, all you can think is "Damn - the humans are so fucked." Wars are shown to be the confusing, messy and random events that battles become, even if the good guys seem to be able to take out 100 baddies for every goody.
The micro conflicts are the true meat of this movie. Frodo against the corrupting power of the ring. Golem fighting against his own evil nature. This part was probably the best, as we see Smeagel, the man that Golem once was, try to fight his way back to the light. For the first time, Golem becomes more than a slimly froggy bogeyman. He becomes a creature deserving of our pity, proof of what any man will become once the Ring gets its hooks into you far enough.
We see Aragorn and Arowen the Elf deal with their separation, and the realization that only unhappiness may come of their love, since he'll be dead within a century, and she will walk the Earth forever to grieve for her lost love. The conflict of father over his daughter's safety and happiness, or the conflict of a leader uncertain how best to serve his people.
And of all of Jackson's achievements for the movie, it is the micro conflict that is the greatest effect of all. It makes so many of the characters more than just figures on the screen. It gives them humanity, a reason to cheer, to suffer, and to fall right along side them as the events of destiny hold their sway.
Once again, Jackson has created this years best movie - and there's still another 12 months ago before we meet the climatic ending of the trilogy. Personally, I'm already planning on plunking down my $10 to see the next one. After all, it's no longer a bet - it's now a sure thing.
As always, I'm John Hummel. And that's my opinion.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
try Carnage Blender. Sorry, it's not explicitly tolkein based, except to the extent that all modern fantasy is influenced by him. But it does have mithril. :)
For anyone who may or may not be curious, Angband was Morgoth/Melkor's dark fortress in the Silmarillian. Morgoth was Sauron's boss, so that should give you an idea of the level of villany that went on in the place.
On a side note, I bought my ticket last night for the first non-sold-out showing today.... at 9:50 PM. Of course, I'm looking forward to seeing it on the 26th more, so I can see it with loved ones.
...is the technology behind creating the movie. No doubt that they'll receive recognition for this at the Academy Awards, especially about the final battle scene.
... you get the picture. Each soldier / monster was programmed with a primitive logical mind as to what to do when it encountered certain situations. Each was programmed with an objective to accomplish as well as characteristics about the unit that would influence how it battled. Think of it kind of as a computer-played Warcraft III battle of 50,000 units, all controlled by a different computer.
Popular Science, last October I believe, ran an article about the creation of the final battle scene. The program that they created for the task was utterly amazing. Each character was actually left to its own during the battle scene to, well, "battle." They were not programmed to move forward, cut off head of enemy, move forward, scale wall, slash archer,
The creators of the program said that there was one very peculiar situation that occured while they were running some "test battles". They said that two soldiers, when being confronted and vastly outnumbered by the enemy, turn around and ran away! The programmers were freaked out...they had never programmed any of the troups to run from battle! But a few of these soldiers, with the primitive logic that they were programmed with, actually thought that it would be smarter to run than to fight and die!
What I want to know about Peter Jackson is "what is it about him that makes his works so utterly astonishing?"
Truly uplifting and inspiring.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
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?
Quite a few people have said this in Jackson's defense but the BBC radio version argues against it; if a good version can be played out on the radio why not a film?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
>> 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.
Actually, I wonder what his son would think of it.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
One Submission to rule them all, One Submission to find them,
One Submission to bring them all and in the Slashdot bind them
Frodo
G imli
Sam
Pippin
Merriadoc
Gandalf
Legolas
Aragorn
Theoden
and she didn't do anything event-wise until the third book? Yes, she made a significant contribution as far as what she did, but you can't hope to say she played as important focal point of the story as the male characters.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Sauroman is profusely apologetic that he endorsed Strom Thurman for president.
If it wasn't commonly known that Shelob's part had been moved to the beginning of ROTK, you might have a valid complaint
Dinivin
The point was made SEVERAL times in the book that the Ents were slow to anger but once they all decided on something and got pissed off enough, there was nothing that could stop them. In fact, the 'slow to anger' idea was one of the primary focuses of the Ent gathering chapter. It had some of the most descriptive language in the book. Great chapter!
They were indeed a fucking nasty fighting force in the books and did kick some major ass.
I think you need to go back and reread that part.
I saw the movie last night at midnight; I was both very excited and very worried. I was not dissappointed. Most of your points are valid, but I do have to comment on them.
Gimli - Yeah, too much comic relief. I didn't have a problem with him lagging behind on the run, but it should have been because he's naturally slower, not because he was tired. I think that was in the book. Also, I seem to remember him having a problem finding armor that fit in the book as well, but all in all, too much comedy.
Frodo and Sam - yeah, the sidetrip to Osgiliath was a little unnecessary. This was what I was most afraid of going in. But I think it worked, just not exactly like the book. I was really worried about Faramir, but if you think about it, he made the choice that his brother could not. That does make him the stronger one. His was a good performance in my opinion.
Aragorn's fall - this too, I could have done without.
Eowyn - I thought this was pretty much the way it should have been. Aragorn wouldn't give her the time of day in the book, IIRC.
Ninja Ents - I do recall there being a massive battle with the Ents in Isengard. It just wasn't part of the main text, it was related by Merry and Pippin after the fact. Ents did stomp orcs, throw rocks, and get set on fire. And in the end they did open the dams.
Gollum/Smeagol. I did like this. At first, I didn't like the way Gollum was rendered. It was almost too realistic, he seemed more 3d than the actors, since they were in a very harsh light and he seemed more rounded out based on how he was rendered. But if you compare the visuals of Gandalf coming through the pass at the end, it was actual footage and seems just as unrealistic, so I can live with it. The psychology was spot-on though.
Other stuff - I think that the 'exorcism' could have been done better. Theoden should have regained some skin tone and lost some wrinkles, but his beard and nails should have stayed unkempt until he got cleaned up. Gandalf was perfect, if not in the picture enough. There should have been no elves at Helm's Deep other than Legolas; I don't think there was any reason for this at all. And if anybody had sent them, it should have been Galadriel, not Elrond.
One more comment...
The problem is: The first one stayed [largely] true to the book and really felt like it was obviously saying, "Fuck holywood, we're going to make this one right." This one feels much more like, "Hey, we made a really successful movie, so we are God. Let's fuck with whatever we need to to get the holywood weaned audience in and happy." The stupid thing is, the first one was so good exactly because they DIDN'T pander to holywood style.
Since all three movies were shot at once, this was a decision made long before the success of the first movie was known. Doing the middle of a trilogy is always going to be difficult for a number of reasons already presented by many people, and the storyline did need some tweaking. That said, some things did seem added just for the hell of it, with no real intent to further the storyline. Anyway, I've said enough for now...
SablKnight
Yes. Sorry.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yes, that's right: "radio" is to "film" what "submarine" is to "space shuttle". Did that even make sense to you before you typed it?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
So where is the definitive website with the differences in the plot from the book? I've seen reference to Frodo & Sam in Gondor etc. but no one appears to have actually explained it in the reviews (none of the bloody reviews linked seemed to be anyone who gave a damn about reading the books) or here.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
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.
Note: I haven't seen the movie yet, but I did just reread the book.
The Ents are a fair amount more destructive. They only redirect the river Isen to clear Isengard AFTER they've already routed Saruman's army and restricted him to Orthanc. They redirect the Isen to wash Isengard clean.
In addition, the Huorns (which Merry and Pippin say look basically like Ents) are extremely violent - they basically eat what's left of the Orc army at Helm's Deep. Treebeard himself just shreds a good portion of Isengard's gates, etc. right away. Men they let live, but Orcs they killed.
I wouldn't say the Ents were that "stately" once they get roused in the book. They just literally shredded Isengard. Merry and Pippin recount it as being terrifying, watching Treebeard rip apart stone as if it was tissue paper. "The Ents are about to wake up, and discover they are strong." Gandalf wasn't kidding when he said that.
That's a good point but there are subtle differences: firstly LotR was a book first and a radio play second so I'm comparing two methods of adaptation while you are comparing an adaptation to the original. More importantly, HHGttG is fairly sureal while LotR is merely fantastical; I think the latter is a lot easier to film than the former.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Frodo's growth as a character is a central point of the story which Jackson has ignored in favour of fight scenes and silly theatrics.
Or are you saying that Bilbo's stupid bulging eyes and the laughable fight between the wizards show "love for the story" and characterisation is "meaningless detail"?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Sorry, but I'm going to wait until it comes out in book form.
In his flowing white gowns and beard, Mr. Lee's warlock is a force to be reckoned with because he alone has a voice as commanding as Mr. McKellen's.
See, it's funny because it's true.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's not different from the book so it's automatically crap. It just happens to be so.
Yeah, I know I want to watch actors spouting line and verse of ballads. That's really entertaining now, isn't it? Face it, you got to allow them some artistic licenese, otherwise we'd be watching Pirates of Penzance everytime somebody burst into song.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I know yesterday we hated the MPAA. Today TTT gets released, so movies and the movie industry is great. That means tomorrow we can resume our regularly scheduled MPAA bashing.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
Then why did you butcher the names?
Gollum -> Golem
Gimli -> Ghimli
Saruman -> Sauroman
Eowyn -> Aowen
Chump. I even cut you slack on owyn. (why is /. chewing up the É?)
pooptruck
The review at CNN has to be one of the worst pieces of movie criticism I've ever read. Not only is it little more than a plot summary, but it's an incorrect plot summary (apparently, Gollum is leading Frodo and Sam to the evil wizard Saruman, and they penetrate the fortress of Barad-Dur, in the dark forests of Mordor.)
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Unfortunately, Tolkien detested cinema and television as a matter of principle.
Also, from what I've read of his response to e.g. stage plays adapted from his work, he was pretty upset over anything that deviated from a literal translation.
(That last bit is hardly unique to Tolkien; a lot of writers have trouble "letting go" enough for a proper adaptation to other media. Rowling's hovering over the writers'/directors' shoulders had a lot to do with the first Harry Potter movie's problems)
As for Tolkien's son Christopher, he's pretty upset about the movies, all considered. His other son, John, seems to be okay with them as far as I know.
It's actually caused a fairly major split in the family between Christopher's side that hates the movies and the rest (especially the newer generations) who are either ambivalent or think the films are pretty cool.
DNA just wants to be free...
You want a spoiler?
You will die alone.
-Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
the Ents were really nicely rendered, it was appropriately rousing in the right places
Umm... does that have something to do with this post?
slashdotted? my download came 200kbyte/s..
slashdotted, hah.
you really think that there's that much people who want to play roguelike based solely on lotr..
and you know what, it randomized me a freakkin VAMPIRE..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Because radio is nothing like a film? Infact, radio is more like a book than a film. Both books are radio are very narative.
Start writing your own movie script from a good book, and then you will realise why most films based on a book are always different from the book.
Bakshi has taken two paragraphs and produced one of the most moving scenes in any adaptation of the book... When Bilbo finally says "I understand now; put it away" the feeling of despair is very strong.
Only IF you've read the book. Someone who's never read the book would have been completely lost by such subtlety. One thing Jackson has done is make the story accessible to those who haven't read the book. Same with the breakdancing.. would it have been better for them just to stare intently at each other? What should that battle have looked like? Somehow you have to show two battling wizards to old fanboys and newcomers alike. I actually expected more fireworks. But that goes against Tolkien's vision. The telepathy crap actually happened. Galadriel "entered their thoughts", "knew their minds" etc. Again, how do you show that in a movie? Just have the characters talk about it afterwards? That's boring.
I think when you take one of the greatest stories of all time and put it in movie format you have to go to the theater with altered expectations. EXPECT big screen effects, tell yourself the Balrog was caught up while breaking through walls he couldn't fit through, and don't look for a full course meal in minute subtleties in a big screen fantasy epic.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
1) I should point out that if you google for "Ghimli", you get a "Did you mean: gimli". Googling: it ain't that hard.
2) Look, I'm sorry to sound sexist, but geek girls are hot. (Trust me - the smarter the girl, the better they shag.) So... true... but than again, "geek" isn't precisely the same thing as "smart". Correlated, yes, but not identical.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Here's what I thought was an interesting dissenting review of the movie. It's a little ridiculous that three out of four stars constitutes a dissenting review, but I'm sure some watchers will consider it that. And Roger Ebert, who was critical of the first movie, approves of the second, but also has some interesting criticisms to make.
I haven't seen the first one yet either. My GF wants me to go and see it, only reason I am doing it is to see the Terminator 3 trailer :)
:)
Yes, I know its avaiable online, I watched it 5 mins after it was released yesterday at 6:30pm PST. I still wanna see it on the big screen hehe
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Please direct me to where Tolkien describes Elves in LOTR.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
First some background: When I first saw The Fellowship of the Ring, I had not read the books in over five years, and thus, I missed several of the less obvious modifications made to the story line. Of course, I noticed the absence of Tom Bombadil, the failure to acquire the Westernesse swords from the mounds of the barrow wight, the deletion of Galadriel's gift giving (generously reinstated in the Extended Edition), the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel, and so forth. But there were an equal or greater number of things that I did not notice at the time: such as Barliman Butterbur's failure to give Gandalf's letter to Frodo, I did notice that Barliman barely remembered Gandalf, but I had forgotten that Gandalf never promised to meet Frodo at the Prancing Pony, and that he had not been present at the departure of Frodo from the Shire. I could not remember exactly when Anduril was reforged, I had forgotten that Gandalf, not Gimli suggested the path through Moria, nor did I remember the warg fight that took place between the Fellowship's defeat at Carhadras and their descent into Moria. The list goes on and on. Nevertheless, FOTR was magical, and not once did an omission or addition jar me from my reverie.
Would that it were so with the Two Towers. Perhaps it is primarily my fault. In the past year I have reread the entire series more than once, I have practically memorized certain sections, I have immersed myself in war and sorrow and the rising shadow of Mordor. I enjoyed the movie, and I will see it again. But I wanted more. It is the subtle moments that make the story shine for me. The moments of greatness revealed, of veiled danger, the cruel mercies of the Orcs, the politics of Sauron and Saruman, and the cleverness of Merry and Pippin. It is such moments as when Aragorn announces himself to Eomer, show Anduril and reveals his hidden kingliness that takes my breath away. I know that Jackson is painting a more troubled Aragorn, a king who fears his destiny and hesitates to claim a forgotten crown, but I long for the Aragorn of the novels, the king who bides his time and knows that his day is coming. I missed the strength of Faramir. Of his ability to perceive the ring and it's power, to understand his brother's weakness and avoid that same fate, and his quick conclusion that the ring must be sent beyond temptation. I did not understand the necessity of changing Theoden from a king crippled by a manipulative advisor, to a victim of Saruman's wizardry.
Credit must be given though to every scene in which Gollum graced the screen. There has never been a CGI character so flawlessly placed on screen with so complete a repertoire of inhuman emotion. Also excellent were the Ents, the battles, the acting, the sets, the mood, the wargs.... For all my criticism, the simple truth is this: it is not that the movie is not excellent, it is that the book is even more so. A movie can only do so much to reveal the inner thoughts of a man without resorting to narration or soliloquy, and LOTR is full of such moments. Is the Two Towers a wonderful movie? Indeed. Did it meet my every expectation? No, but in retrospect, I'm not sure that it would have been possible.
It also chooses which to display randomly when the game starts.
Call it ToME. Everyone who plays or develops it does. Well, you could get away with calling it pernangband. People will know what you mean.
"./tome: Cannot load 'v_info.raw' file."
There is no v_info.raw file, anywhere (though there are several other .raw files).
HELP! I want to play it! :-)
(Ironically, it looks like I can download a pre-built distribution for Windows.)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Two different media. Media is already plural, the singular is "medium".
sic transit gloria mundi
Angband was the fortress of the witch king (the head Ringwraith), not Morgoth. Morgoth's fortress was Thangorodrim, destroyed in the War of Wrath.
Hell yes I'm a Tolkien geek, how did you notice? :-) I've been reading Tolkien since childhood. And no, I've not yet seen TTT. I'm waiting until the theatres aren't so crowded.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
This points to something that has kinda gotten to me throughout the both movies thusfar, actually. In many ways, the presentation of 'big bad-ass characters' has been, well... too 'humanized.' Aragorn has more self-doubt (and more doubt concerning himself and Arwen), Elrond gets just... petty, at times, Frodo is too scared (he -stabs- at the Witch King on Weathertop, dammit, that takes balls), Faramir too much like Boromir, King Theoden too 'wussy' (though the alternative presentation of his 'dottard' state being a semi-possession was 'refreshingly different'), etc.
To be short, much of the Lord of the Rings is about characters who are 'beyond the normal mortal.' Aragorn kicks ass, because he's a descendant of Numenor (and has remnants of elven blood kicking around in him), he's been around for -much- longer than he looks (slower aging). King Theoden doesn't magically throw off his age, he stands up straight and proud once more, says 'It's time to go kick some ass', and goes and does it. Many of the characters in Lord of the Rings kick ass in the books, because they're 'better than the average human.' In the movies, Peter Jackson brings then 'down a notch' to make them more 'human,' more easy to relate with for Joe Average. While it makes things more 'consumer friendly' in the movie marketplace, it ends up detracting for those who are more... I dunno, 'practiced' in reading, writing, visualizing, etc. "fantasy." I'm one person with my own views, but dammit, I like characters who are "more kick-ass than thou" now and then. It means more to me for Frodo cry out 'Elbereth!' and take a stab at the Witch King, than for me to 'understand' him as he cowers in fear. True, in the same circumstance I'd most likely do the latter, but dammit, I can always hope that I can be better, that I can be defiant in the face of something that could eat my soul for an appetizer.
Rohan: Rohan in general was far too 'wussified' for me. They -did- have a number of well-trained, well-equipped soldiers, they weren't just 'taking it in the nads' from the skirmishes to the west, Helm's Deep had been manned, provisioned and fortified by a clan-chief in that region, and most of all, they didn't need no help from no elves, dammit.
In regard to the previous point and this one, take the example of Theoden:
Movie Theoden: "I'm a possessed dottard." "Oooh, I feel better..." Gandalf & Aragorn: "Good, now go kick Saruman's ass, he's been asking for it." Theoden: "Ummmm, no. Helm's Deep is good, we'll be safe there." At Helm's Deep: (to the crowd) "They'll break on this fortress like water!" (to Aragorn in private) "My people suck." "Umm... retreat!" (repeat 2 times) Later, Aragorn: "Come on, dammit, let's go kick some ass together." Theoden: "Well, gonna die anyway... why not?"
Book Theoden: "I'm a dottard." "Ooh, I feel better..." Gandalf & Aragorn: "Good, now go kick Saruman's ass, he's been asking for it." Theoden: "Huzzah! Women, children and old farts to the mountains, everyone else follow me!" On the road: "Y'know, many thousand against us, I bet we'd do better in Helm's Deep, let's go there." At Helm's Deep: "Show 'em what you're made of, we're Rohan, dammit!" Later, to Aragorn: "I'm king and all, but dammit, I wanna -fight-. Yeah, we may die, but I'm gonna go out and kick some ass in the morning. You wanna come with?" Aragorn: "Schweet..."
The trend seems to have gone towards 'the flawed hero,' in fantasy, sci-fi movies/books/etc. The Lord of the Rings was written before the flawed hero was the 'in thing' to feature. The movies have been visually stunning and all around good, but I can't help but feel almost 'let down' by the portrayal of the characters themselves. I don't care if I don't have Numenorian blood, I don't care if I'm not an elf or dwarf, or similiarly, I don't care if I'm from Krypton, so long as there is someone who is one of the above, even if only in a story, then I can look up to hope of something better, even if that something will never be in my own reach...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
But the worst part was 10 fucking commercials before the movie.
God I hate the MPAA, I'd boycott, but there ain't no way I'd miss out on LoTR. Ugh so torn.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Comments about roguelikes are not out of line.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Let's see, a few Bush administration critics with top secret clearance that know EXACTLY what intelligence the American government has on Iraq. $5 says that if you were to have a conversation with Dr. Rice, your opinion would change. Heck, read her biography and tell me you have no respect for a person with those achievements.
One person comparing me to a senator that thinks segregation was a good idea. This comparison is based on my distaste for a woman that exploits her heritage and gender. Pathetic jab, buddy.
Three submissions for the trolling missions, daring the Reply
Seven for the editors and their brains of stone
Nine for portal ads doomed to die
One for the dark Katz and his dark Tome
In the land of Mordoration where the mod points lie
One Submission to rule them all, One Submission to find them,
One Submission to bring them all and in the Slashdot bind them
In the land of Mordoration where the mod points lie
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I've heard a lot of people already complain (including the Salon article) about how this movie seems to jump around a lot - from Merry and Pippen, to Helm's Deep, and then to Frodo and Sam. They complain it breaks up the suspense, dulling the moment.
My question to these people is simple: have you ever read a book? This is how things are done. Many other movies do this. The problem lies in your attention span, not in the film's ability to hold suspense.
In the case of Tolkien's writing, I've always found myself reading through the Two Towers, wanting to skip over the slow parts, to get back to the urgent happenings, to see what happens. It builds suspense, because while the slow stuff is going on, you're sitting there, thinking, "Damn, I wonder what is happening right now to the other guy". It's a very good, and frequently used, story telling suspense device. If it doesn't work in this case for you, it's because your attention span is crippled.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Given the model the story follows, it's surprising that any female made it into the original books. I believe that Tolkiens daughter can be thanked for the presence of Eowyn, but I have no idea if this is true and I'm not going to look it up now.
:)
I rather did like how Tolkien not only brought in a female in what (again given the model) would have been a male dominated world but also teams her up with Merry (or is it Pippin?) - two spirited folk that refuse to be left behind by a bunch of valiant men that feel they would be of little use but who in the end help win the day.
(Please note: this is an extremely loose interpretation - please don't rip me apart here. I'm supposed to be programming anyway
Let's also remember that when Tolkien wrote his story, it was quite progressive of him to include such strong female roles, as few as they were.
BTW, this topic has been debated quite a bit at TheOneRing.net and with much more skill than I can muster here. Worth checking out.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
...did anyone else get an urge to shout out, "Dobby has come to warn you, sir" when he was on screen?
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
What is different in Jackson's is that instead of it having already taken place in the past, where the Aragorn they see at the Council of Elrond is all ready to take his place (with his only personal fault being the breaking of the fellowship at amon hen, quickly forgotten when Gandalf returns), the transition from loner to leader is taking place before us.
Had Jackson not done that, there would be no character development in him or most of the non-hobbits at all.
Read the book again, specifically looking at the words from Elrond and Denethor on him, and in appendix A, and you'll see that transition: Denethor's Aragorn is not the one the hobbits met in Bree. Aragorn in the books has already matured to leadership, where the Aragorn in the movie is actively maturing before us.
I for one think Jackson's version works just fine, as the alternative while a good book character would be a rather flat part in a movie.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
- Gollum is found to be Frodo's real father!
- Sam and Frodo find out they are really brothers, after having shared a passionate kiss earlier in the movie.
- Legolas gets his arm cut off by Saruman in a huge sword battle.
- There is a bounty put out on Aragorn's head by the Rangers since he dumped a load of cargo back at Helm's Deep.
- Treebeard has a bunch of fuzzy little muppets living in his branches.
Personally, I think that Jackson might be borrowing too much from another sci-fi movie, but I am not sure.Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
I agree with most of what you said, however, those elves did in fact come from Lothlorien, not Rivendell.
The movie confused a lot of stuff with Elrond ranting about his daughter wanting to stay behind, etc, and the following scenes with the elves leaving Rivendell, followed shortly by elves showing up at Helmsdeep.
I have come to the determination that I can't pass judgmenet on Two Towers until the special edition DVD comes out, with all of the scenes that were so obviously missing, in much the same way that I liked Fellowship much more after seeing the scenes with the gifts of Lothlorien, etc.
It was clear that something intended to be in the movie was left out in the first 15 minutes, with Pippin chewing off and spitting the brooch given to him on the ground, for no apparent reason.
-Tommy
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
psssst...
It *is* BS.
It's a joke. Completely spoiler-free. And how do you spoil a movie that's been in book form for decades?!?!?!
OMFG, was that a cool movie. I liked one other reviewer's comments: "Was it better than LOTR:FOTR? No. Was it just as good? Yup!" and I would agree with that statement when I view the movie as a whole. There were, obviously, parts that I liked better and parts that I didn't. Watch it, people, watch it and then watch it again.
It goes FAST. I never looked at my watch once, and it was almost exactly 3 hours long. Why or WHY is next December so far away????
Advice: Make sure you go to a theatre that has Dolby 5.1 sound. I didn't, but the midnight premire was only at this theater, but some parts are VERY hard to hear if the sound sucks.
SPOILER SECTION FOLLOWING
IF I WAS RUNNING THE OSCARS FOR THIS MOVIE:
Best Actor: King Theoden (Bernard Hill)
I would have given this to Gandalf but he just didn't have nearly as much screentime in this one as last. Bernard Hill gave my mind Theoden again and again...and in true Peter Jackson directing, gave me a human king...one I loved. The man *cried*. And did it in a beautiful way, I was never so much touched as the scene where he's mourning for his son. Gorgeous, wonderful filming and acting. He was full of despair and power, hope and anguish. Kudos.
Best Actress: Eowyn (Miranda Otto)
I just *knew* that this would be my best actress before I went in, and she didn't disappoint me. OMFG, can that woman act! I was in love, I was enamoured, I yearned/pined/ached. The tears, the smiles, the sighs, the terror....everything. The hair in front of the face shot when she's looking over the hills and the sword fighting with Aragorn are two of the best scenes....the scene with Wormtongue where you don't know if she hates him or wants to kiss him or what...but where she really shows the power of subtle acting is when Aragorn shows up at Helms Deep and she has to portray the horribly mixed powerful emotions inside of her churning....She pulled me along all the way. And, ladies pardon this, holy cow is she CUTE! Double kudos for an EXCELLENT job well done.
Best Supporting Actor: Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen)
I know the movies were all shot together, but his character had a lot more to work with and did a much better job in this one, for some reason. I liked him a lot more, much more depth and such. Maybe it was just better scripting, but much better, Viggo.
Best Supporting Actress: Arwen (Liv Tyler)
Much more depth to her character and some real emotions gave her the supporting actress, she was much more lifelike in this one. Great stuff.
Best Evil Dude: Wormtongue (Brad Dourif)
Was this the absolute incarnation of Wormtongue or was it just me? Although, I would have rather seen his character give Gandalf grief for a bit longer instead of getting out of the way so quick, but that was scripting...not his fault. The scene should have been longer, period. Excellent job on his part. Nice makeup, too.
Worst Evil Dude: Sauruman (Christopher Lee)
Sauruman sucked, period. What a crappy role in this movie. Ugh. I've seen steamed peas that were more intimidating.
MOMENTS I NEARLY WET MYSELF
- Gollum. Enough said. Esp. the inner fight with himself.
- The scene at Theodred's mourning.
- The Wargs.
- Helm's Deep
- The Dead Marshes (damn that was cool)
- The moment when the Elves at Helm's Deep (read the note below for the
displeasure part of this) turned inside their ranks to face Haldir. Very
nice.
- The final battle scene of Helm's Deep where the Riders and Gandalf dive
into the fray. Well done.
- The eye of Sauron.
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT? moments- What in blazes were ELVES doing at Helm's Deep? This was stupid,
stupid, stupid, and we will be able to hear the yelps of displeasure all
across the country when people see the movie, just due to this one factor.
Poor choice, PJ. Bad director. No bone.
- The ring is going to Gondor? The ring went to Osgiliath? Faramir is a
real asshole? Frodo had Big Macs in his pack instead of lembas? Which of
these crazy, outrageous statements is true? Unfortunately, too damn many of
them. Whereas we did get to see the lembas, the rest we saw and hated.
- The Ents. They were.....odd. Not bad, not good....odd. PJ didn't
render them out of the books to my satisfaction, but I'm not sure how I would
have had him do them, really. They were nice, very nice...just not....yeah.
I dunno. I'm kinda at a loss for words except to say that they almost didn't
fit in the movie at all. The jury will be out on this one a looong time, for
a lot of people, I think.
PJ mussed with the story a bit more than I would have wanted him to in this one. In FOTR, he just removed things, except for that whole Glorfindel/Arwen thing. There were a LOT of changes in this one, which made my stomach twist in places. But, all in all, excellent movie, fits nicely with the first, and can't wait the year for the second.Blog,Twitter
I don't agree with this; the Bakshi adaptation was better than the book in this case.
I feel that no effort was made to find ways of doing this or the Wizards. Just kicking each other around the room was plain dull, although it did raise a few laughs in the cinema at least.
Galadriel "entered their thoughts", "knew their minds" etc. Again, how do you show that in a movie?
With some clever dialogue. Again, no effort was made to find a good solution to this.
EXPECT big screen effects
I did and do but I also expect direction that does more than rely on the effects to carry off the plot. The balrog was done very well indeed (apart from the wings) but the use of it was terrible: first it rescues the Fellowship then it gets lost looking for the stairs.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Four hours for a medium length book is enough for some subtlety.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That's just Klerck or one of his wanna-bes. Ignore him. He likes to harp on the whole Two Towers thing as a joke to piss people off. He's the guy who did the "Rename The Two Towers" online petition last year.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
This is true to some extent but it does give a very distorted idea of the book. It is a very wordy book and the film is very short on talk; I imagine that the book could be a real chore for someone expecting it to be like the film. It took me three tries to get through the book although the final time I cracked it by reading it out loud to my girlfriend (which took quite some time) and really enjoyed the talkie bits and doing the voices, particularly Gollum.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
There were very few time constraints on Jackson the problem was that he wasted huge amounts of the time he had. His inability to pace the film was at the root of almost all its flaws, IMO.
I wanted to wander around Rivendell and look at the stuff in the background. Every costume and piece of armor is perfect. The maps and Bilbo's book made me want to read them. I want to wander around Bag End and poke around in all of the drawers.
I agree totally; as a set of semi-static images of Middle Earth it is the best I've seen, partiularly Rivendell which was stunning and for a while took away the bad taste left by Bree and the ford.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
the more I think about this film the more frustrated I get. I need to vent, so here it goes:
hrm. well, considering I'm a film student now, I've got a lot of technical criticism... just how he had the story unfold. he went directly according to how the book went - as far as 'scene changes' is concerned... and it made for a fairly anticlimatic situation. that, and helm's deep took up half the film, ents didn't get their full play, and faromir's (shoot, that's mispelled... borimir's ranger, son of the host of gondor) role was really screwed up... hell, frodo and sam even went to gondor, which wasn't supposed to happen at all...
the fact that they went to gondor would have been an acceptable convention, given the medium change, in my mind, but they didn't even do anything with their trip to gondor - they wer ejust taken prisoner by foramir, who had sinister plans, and brought to gondor... and released when a ringwraith came overhead on a worm...
it's been a couple years since I've read the books, but if I'm not mistaken, the ents are supposed to show up and slay the fleeing oruku-ki orcs... don't hold your breath. it doesn't happen. it ends as anti-climatically as the first one does, with sam and frodo walking around. sure, that's the point of the trilogy, but it doesn't work cinematographically.
HomogenizedTurd: the ents - they're certainly there. damned cool, too. they just don't do a thing after isenguard.
the orc slaughter at the end would have been a really cool place to end the film, as opposed to how they did... it'd have a, "hey, we won this one" feel, and would have had some closure, at least. (Similar to how things ended in the original Star Wars. Hell, even like Empire - that had more closure than this.)
iirc, that's pretty near the books... I don't remember exactly where one cuts off and the other ends, but doing that wouldn't have been that different than what they did do... pretty sure they cut some off the end.
I think the problem is that peter jackson really isn't such a great director, and he's doing a very, very litteral and technical adaptation of tolkien's work, instead of making a true cinematic adaptation. He's doing a damned good job at the coordination of actors and other talent, certainly - but that doesn't mean he's got an eye, or even a feel, for cinematography and cinematographic storytelling.
his approach dulls the epic feel, IMO. cinema and novelization are two entirely different mediums, and to expect a book to directly translate to film is crazy. but that's what he's tried to do.
I enjoyed the movie a lot. it just frustrates me.
especially since I don't get to see the 3rd one for a year.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Originally posted to IMDB LOTR Message Board:
I have been really, honestly surprised by the number of positive reviews that this film has been getting. Not because I think it's a bad film (though even in that respect I think it pales in comparison to the first movie), but because after a more-or-less true retelling of "Fellowship.." it was a lousy adaptation. Below is my review of the movie. Please read it BEFORE writing me off as just another ringnut who can't stand the slightest deviation from the book. And I wonder: does _anyone_ else feel the same way that I did?
------------
A few disclaimers:
First, I have enormous respect for the effect of Tolkien's work despite the fact that, to be honest, his writing style doesn't do much for me.
Second, I loved the first movie. It really brought the book to life for me. The changes PJ made were forgivable because, like having Arwen save Frodo instead of another elf (really just a cheap way to get Liv Tyler more screentime), they didn't particularly alter the plot or the nature of the characters.
Third, I was annoyed with people who slammed the first movie for whatever little quibble they could come up with. I wanted these movies to be great and get no satisfaction out of reporting otherwise.
But with this second installment it seems that Jackson and co have decided to throw Tolkien's book out the window in favor of their own screenwriters in far more detrimental ways than before. Again, I am not one of those "it differed from the book by a sentence and is therefore crap" people. But there are limits to how much one can change before such changes become audacious and it matters whether or not the changes are improvements. In interviews, Peter Jackson has acknowledged that he thought the books were too "dense" and that they needed to be "simplified" for the average person who was unfamiliar with Tolkien. In the same interview, his justification for all this is that "there is a lot of money at stake here". So much for PJ being our savior from the Hollywood infection.
The sad part is that his 'simplifications' don't even work. During the beginning of the movie, I was trying to watch it as someone who had never read the book (which was not so difficult as it had been some time since I had) and was already disappointed. Characters are introduced too quickly, plotlines are rushed... and the changes this time around are far from trivial.
-- SPOILERS BELOW --
Of my wife and I's three favorite characters, only Eowyn, who is actually played quite well, is spared. Poor Gimli has been reduced to comic relief and does little more than fall off horses, be the subject of height jokes and axe people in the groin (yes, the film actually sinks this low). But Faramir fares worst. Apparently the average, non-tolkien-reading person off the street can't grapple with a concept as complex as a man who shows the wisdom to, unlike his brother, see the ring for what it is and not try to take it. No, in this version we are given the 'simplified' Faramir, who does try to take the ring and deliver it to his father as a gift (how is the story improved by this?). It takes a close call with a Nazgul (another event that never appears in the book) and Samwise spelling it out to him for the 'simplified' Faramir to actually let the ringbearer go. Simplified, or just plain simpleton? The worst part is that this change does absolutely NOTHING for the plot! Sam and Frodo still end up parting ways with Faramir and Faramir is still on his way to defend Gondor. The only difference is that anyone who has read the book and loved the character of Faramir is now disgusted with what we've been given instead.
I said that was the worst part. Actually, I lied. The worst part is that there are numerous scenes like this. A completely new, ill-contrived subplot involving Aragorn and Arwen wastes time by doing nothing but giving yet more screentime (now in a story that the character isn't even meant to appear in) to a Mabeline-laden Liv Tyler and then taking us back to exactly where we started (unless PJ ends up messing with the characters in even more tasteless ways in the next film). The 'simplified' ents, rather than noticing that a huge chunk of their forest has been hewn down, initially refuse to take part and have to be manipulated by Pippin into going to Isengard before doing anything about it. The 'simplified' Gollum/Smeagol doesn't just have conversations with himself, he uses cartoonish visual devices like peeking from behind alternating sides of a tree in order to help the poor, stupid (but lucrative) audience keep up with which side is talking. Sadly, I could go on.
I felt alienated and even betrayed by this movie. It would have been much better if the first film had been lousy, or at least not so true to the book. At the time, I wasn't expecting much else. But now I feel like after being led to expect a true-ish adaptation I have instead been handed something more Jackson than Tolkien. When I first read The Two Towers, I longed to see the battle of Helm's Deep on screen. When I saw Jackson's "Fellowship.." I had faith that it could really happen. Never in my wildest imaginings would I have expected to be contemplating leaving the theater in the middle of it. The thought actually crossed my mind that 'maybe the whole thing is really just a dream from which I'll wake up and then go see the real movie'. My wife, who is the real Tolkien fan of the family and had just finished re-reading the book, was left literally in tears.
For those who are interested, below is the most complete list of major (ie not just nitpicking about lines added or sideways glances omitted) changes that we could put together. And again, it wouldn't matter so much if every single one of them weren't, in my opinion, either unnecessary or simply inferior to their counterparts in the book. The fact that, because of the popularity of these movies, the Jackson versions of these characters and events will for many people become "The Two Towers" more than the Tolkien versions only adds insult to injury.
- Gandalf literally exorcises Saruman from possession of Theoden. Why is banging Theoden's head against his chair so much more dramatic than subduing Grima who, in the book was the one through which Saruman exerted control.
- Faramir, a noble and wise character in the book, is here really no different than Boromir. The only thing that differentiates them is luck. Unlike Boromir, Faramir gets ahold of himself when he still has time to do something about it.
- Theoden is much less heroic at Helm's Deep and has to be coaxed into doing anything (usually by Aragorn). Like Faramir, he is a watered-down version of Tolkien's character, as though Jackson felt that every other heroic character from the book had to be emasculated in order to make Aragorn look good.
- Gimli is reduced to bumbling comic relief except for one added-in scene where he joins Aragorn for one of his patented "me unscathed against 3-million baddies" fights. Only this one is even LESS believable than those in the first movie (which due to the excellent fight choreography I could actually suspend disbelief for)
- New subplot with dog riders attacking the people of Rohan en route to Helm's deep, Aragorn's "death" and Arwen's (apparent) decision not to stay with him.
- Elves show up to announce their alliance with the humans and save the day at Helm's Deep (????)
- The women and children of Rohan are kept in Helm's deep instead of another keep in the mountains, apparently for no other reason than to give us lots and lots (and lots) of shots of women and children crying during the fight. Eowyn is therefore there at the battle, but neither fighting nor having been given stewardship over her people.
- Ents have to be tricked by Pippin to decide to to do anything about Saruman. Why? Pippin and Merry get their moments of glory later on. Was PJ just impatient?
- No Shelob *
- Gandalf does not confront Saruman (he's never even at Isengard) *
- Gandalf and co never receive the Palantir from Orthanc (black, spherical seer stone thing) *
* = this may just have been moved to the beginning of the third movie, but as it is, we only get through half the book.
I understand Jar Jar Binks has finally been dropped from the plot; not even a cameo.
Might make a half-decent flick after all.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
The computer generation of Gollum, not to mention his voice and mannerisms was out of this world. The face musculature was exquisite. Could the actor who mimed Gollum get an Oscar? Or should the F/X get the Oscar? Or should LOTR be a animation film candidate?
Other interesting synthespians this year include Yoda from the Clone Wars. S1m0ne was pretty good too.
Towers Two The!
Why bother.
Roger Ebert has noted that Wingnut's version of LotR downplays the hobbits too much in favor of Aragorn, Gandalf and the big battles. Fortunately, in the book of Return of the King, the chapter Scouring of the Shire lets the hobbits be openly heroic for once, kicking Saruman out of the shire. But it's been rumored that in this version of TT, Saruman will get killed, eliminating that chance. What happens?
This morning a good part of our office staff took some time off to watch LOTR on opening day. Network Appliance held a free screening to about 400 geeks in the Detroit area, and even provided freebies/doorprizes, drinks and popcorn. Made me want to spend my next $500K with them on network attached storage! ;-)
If there are any NetApp-nerds reading this, give your company a pat on the back. How else do you get 400+ IT people from the Detroit area, including small business to the Big-3-Autos in the same room? Give them freebies that they can't resist like a screening of LOTR Two Towers on opening day.
Loved the movie. It had great continuity from the first movie -- picked up all the intentional loose ends from the first one. The action is immediate. The best 2h59m spent all week.
Don't be such a dickwad. His review is hilarious... try reading it.
"Everyone else does it and its wrong, so therefore these guys can do it and be right" is a logical falacy.
Jeremy
The oliphants are quite well endowed, trunkwise.
He's not peeking around different sides of a tree-- he's sitting in exactly the same place. The only thing that changes is the camera angle. PJ is using the camera to drive home the point that Gollum/Smeagol is a divided personality. When he says "our precious" he really means "our". I thought it was a very clever way of doing it, and lent very well to the character development of Gollum (he had the most of any character in this movie, I think, and I think I like the movie Gollum better than I liked the book Gollum).
The reason it really feels like two separate people is because PJ violates one of the rules of cinematography-- crossing the "line" (I don't remember exactly what it's called, but if there are two people talking to one another, there's an imaginary line between them. In order to not confuse the audience, the camera should never cross this "line" when switching between shots of one and the other). By switching between shots from one side of the line and the other, it makes it feel as if there are two Gollums, facing one another. The most movement Gollum does to facilitate this is perhaps a slight turn of his head in a different direction. Otherwise, the switching is all done by the camerawork.
In response to your other comments, I agree with your disappointment about Faramir. It was my one real dislike about the movie. As a whole, though I enjoyed it.
Jeez, who'd have guess there were so many geeks in Silicon Valley -- I was told all 13 screens were showing it at midnight, and the entire mall parking lot was full.
I'd guesstimate 5000 based on the size of Screen 9, but Its a guess. Anyone else know the biggest midnight movie showing of this ?
Winton
Gimili: Started off as a tough, gnarled, Dwarf warrior. In the first movie, he was a little bewildered and had the one joke ("Nobody tosses this Dwarf"). In the second he is JUST there for comedy. He can't keep up on the run;
Ok, man do you need to 1)relax, and 2)read the damn books again.
He's a DWARF! He's trying to keep up with an elf and a guy named Strider (because he walks in great strides), not only is his having a hard time keeping up in the book, it just makes sense! What? You wanted him to fly?
And what about all the orcs he kills? Those were "JUST there for comedy" too I suppose?
Frodo and Sam: OK, what the hell's up with their "new and improved" journey? Why are they in that city? Why does Frodo need to go and try and surrender himself to the ringwraith? Why did we need to see Sam doing his running, diving, savior thing? Why did we need to turn Faramir in to an exact clone of his brother, Boromir, rather than leave him the way he was written as the ultimately stronger of the two?
Who else do we know in that city? This isn't a book, its a movie, we need to see someone there we already know. That is why they take an unscheduled detour to the city.
Frodo needs to go and surrender to the ringwraith because we need to see that the ring has taken hold of him AND the ringwraith are calling the ring to them.
We need to see that Sam has a bit of heroism in there and he isn't just tagging along, AND we need to see that the freakin' ring has a freakin' hold on freakin' Frodo!
And Faramir WAS stronger than his brother, he didn't attack Frodo, he didn't force him to use the dammed ring, and he did let him go do what he has to do.
Speaking of holywood crap - Aragorn: Why did he need to fall off that cliff? It's not in the book.
You got me there...that was bugging me too...
Ninja Ents: Was is just me or did the Ents ONLY redirect the river Isen in the book?
That's just you Bub, everyone else remembers the Ent kicking orc ass (hell, the part that bugged me was that they had also a part in Helm's deep).
The Ents are dignified...until you piss them off, then they turn into a nightmare. Its in the books, I suggest (again) that you either read them again or shut up already.
And dude, you said "hollywood" about 9 times in your post, usually followed by the word "crap"...add to that your closing statement "The book remains great. The parts of the movie that come from the book remain incredible." and its clear that your initial proposition "It's not different from the book so it's automatically crap. It just happens to be so." was a dammed lie.
You get mad at every difference with the movie (except the elves at helms deep, wich I'll assume you forgot), and everytime you say they did it because its "hollywood" and they apparently (in your mind) are out to insert crap in movies just for the fun of it. Its clear from your post that you don't remember the books clearly, and that you have something against adapting from one medium to another. A movie is not a book, a book is not a movie. If you tell the same story in the 2 mediums, you will need to make changes because the rules are different.
And BTW, the movie was made by a kiwi, in new zealand, the UK and australia, and by a japanese corporation (sony)...so much for "hollywood crap" huh?
You can't take the sky from me...
It's a good thing that Frodo was in Gondor when that happened, isn't it? :)
"[...]They all seem to have 'sad parts, happy parts, tense parts, release/comedic parts'[...]"
"Seems marketed towards children[...]"
I have to say I for one find it sad that you honestly think anything that deals with fantasy, imagination, or emotions should be relegated to children. It's also insulting to not-so-insecure adults to try to imply something so unfounded.
While the hobbit was directed towards children, none of the recent-filmed trilogy were. As quoted at CNN's Tolkien Timeline, when The Fellowship of the Ring was published, no less a publication than the New York Times said "No fiction I have read in the last five years has given me more joy than 'The Fellowship of the Ring.' [...] the book is for adults, and not children, like 'The Hobbit.'"
Likewise, when the Twin Towers was published, NY Times this time said "It is an extraordinary work -- pure excitement, unencumbered narrative, moral warmth, barefaced rejoicing in beauty, but excitement most of all; yet a serious and scrupulous fiction, nothing cozy, no little visits to one's childhood."
I think I've made my point.
And as to how this movie is different on the emotional level, sure, many/all movies try to achieve all these emotions. But all of them don't. LOTR2T did, IMHO.
One thing that fans of the book should keep in mind going into this movie is that different generations will visualize the movie in differenet ways; people who read the Bridge of Khazad-Dum sequence in the 60s tend to have a much less visually apocalyptic "mental imagery" of the scene than its presentation in Peter Jackson's film. Meanwhile, younger readers raised in a environment containing much more visually dynamic storytelling were far less startled - they visualized something much more akin to Jackson's visual intensity.
... patented "me unscathed against 3-million baddies" fights.
My large point is that there's little purpose to getting worked up about visual interpretations that don't necessarily match ones expectations; no one has the "one true interpretation" of any reasonably complex novel. Many, many things come down to taste, and this is only greatly complicated by adding a translation to another medium.
Having said that, I feel ornery enough to contradict most everything you list to complain about.
- Gandalf literally exorcises Saruman from possession of Theoden...[rather] than subduing Grima
Jackson has to demonstrate the connection between Grima and Saruman visually; this accomplishes that. The presentation may have been over-the-top, but a long back-and-forth between two old men while Grima squirms would have had less visual impact and lost the Saruman connection.
- Faramir, a noble and wise character in the book, is here really no different than Boromir.
While it is true that there are some drastic changes to Faramir character in TTT, I enjoyed the conflation of Faramir's return to Osgiliath with the Ringbearer's quest (which isn't all that huge a departure from the text, BTW - the Forbidden Pool is quite close to Osgiliath). The confrontation with the wraith provides a visual dramatization of Frodo's plight, Sam's bravery (heretofore not well shown) and convinces Faramir _not_ to take the ring. The closer-to-canon-alternative would have been to have a drawn-out debate between Faramir and Frodo that, which would have to be intercut with Helm's Deep and thus destroy the pacing/tone of both sequences (imagine intercutting between the Council of Elrond and the Tomb of Balin battle - blech). Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if Faramir's character comes into his nobility and bravery in the next film (consider the drawn-out character arc being applied to Aragorn, and my next reply).
- Theoden is much less heroic at Helm's Deep and has to be coaxed into doing anything (usually by Aragorn).... Like Faramir, he is a watered-down version of Tolkien's character...every other heroic character from the book had to be emasculated in order to make Aragorn look good.
You may notice that Jackson, by having Theoden show hesitation and doubt, has constructed a more psychologically realistic (i.e. believable) character than Tolkien did (in the books, both Aragorn and Theoden make life-altering changes in the space of a chapter and are never shown displaying doubt or hesitation thereafter - this ain't gonna work on screen, where dramatically static figures are dull unless they're engaged in battle... but I guess you think Legolas was "just perfect" and not at all dull?).
Anyway, Aragorn is shown despairing, frustrated, and scaring the crap out of the Rohan refugees while Theoden is shown trying to do his best under impossible circumstances, not always making the best decisions, and struggling with the results - this sounds like paralleled human dramas to me.
Also, to contradict your idea that Aragorn is being shown off to his best advantage and others downgraded, I would say that Theoden actually got the best dramatic notes in the film (next to Gollum) - at Theodred's grave, and while Hama suiting him up in armor.
- Gimli is reduced to bumbling comic relief except for
I do agree that Gimli could've used more gravity (hopefully with the Halls of the Dead sequence in ROTK)..., but I also recall the comic relief during Tolkien's Helm Deep sequence came from Gimli - wheee, canon! And in a book, one does not notice the ridiculousness of a dwarf maintaining top speed running alongside two full-sized people. I think the choiuce was "laugh at" or "laugh with" the movie, and Jackson chose "laugh with".
As for the "me unscathed against millions" fights... did you not read the book? Any warrior in any battle taking down forty-plus enemy warriors in one-on-one combat is superhuman, period.
- New subplot with dog riders attacking the people of Rohan en route to Helm's deep, Aragorn's "death" and Arwen's (apparent) decision not to stay with him.
Oh no, another departure from "canon"! The flashback/connection scenes are used to develop the Aragorn/Arwen relationship and make the mortal/immortal choice plain to those who never read the novel (this was only hinted at in Jackson's FOTR), and thus shed more light on Aragorn's inner conflicts. This also adds interest to his relationship with Arwen, something almost entirely lacking in the Tolkien's original text (until you read the appendices - which were the inspiration for those flashbacks, BTW).
As for the Wargs, sure they're a plot device... but dammit, that was a great battle scene and helped the pace of the movie, while setting up character development. Not too shabby, I think.
- Elves show up to announce their alliance with the humans and save the day at Helm's Deep (????)
Oh no, another departure from "canon"! There are several ideas underlying this change:
a) that Arwen knows what is happening with Aragorn (re: the kiss at the riverbank), and is trying to help
b) to keep the elves from coming across as uncaring, aloof cowards (running to Valinor...).
This way, they are shown to be involved with the conflict , rather than simply fleeing the conflict (which would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion, otherwise).
- The women and children of Rohan are kept in Helm's deep instead of another keep in the mountains...
Having the women/children at the Deep provided:
a) a greater, more immediate sense of danger; crude, but still a smart decision.
b) the opportunity to show Theoden conscripting young men into the war, thus underlining Tolkien's theme of the horrors of war, a good reality check to help balance out the glamor of the battle sequences.
- Ents have to be tricked by Pippin to decide to to do anything about Saruman. Why? Pippin and Merry get their moments of glory later on. Was PJ just impatient?
The movie's way uses visual drama to show the betrayal of the ents; the other way invlves lots of swaying and Hoom-hooominh. I wonder which will work better in a visual medium? (speaking of which, Merry and Pippin were still rather too passive in this film).
- No Shelob
This is in the next movie, and was announced about ten months ago in an interview, and repeated ad nauseum everywhere on the 'Net. next!
- Gandalf does not confront Saruman / receive the Palantir
Given that none of the Fellowship has actually begun riding to Gondor at film's end (a departure from canon that you failed to note, along with the absence of the Huorns at the Deep), both of these could be shifted to occur at the beginning of the next film. Neither was necessary to demonstrate the defeat of Saruman or of the Uruk-Hai at Helm's Deep.
Sorry for the flamey bits of my response, but I do get the impression that your criticism focused on the changes to the text vs. whether underlying themes and tone of Tolkien's work was violated. You begin to make some good points, and I'd be interested in seeing those elaborated upon.
Thank you for the great post, jdbo. I was considering a point-by-point rebuttle but yours did the trick nicely. I personally liked the elves showing up at Helm's Deep, and the bit with Aragorn "dying" didn't detract from the story in the least.
I really enjoyed the movie, especially the second half of it. Gollum was great, Gimli's humor was surprisingly enjoyable, and the Ents were just as I imagined them (although using John Rhees Davie's voice for Treebeard was distracting--it sounded too much like Gimli). My biggest complaint, like most people, was about Faramir. But like the parent poster, I agree that it is difficult to convey such a deep character in the context of the film. With all that was done right, this is forgivable.
Sadly, I think it will become fasionable to bash this film. The first one exceeded everyone's expectations by so much that it is impossible to please the fans the second time around. In some posts, people actually seem personally insulted that Frodo ends up in Gondor. "My wife was literally left in tears"? Why? Because her romantic dream of TTT is forever shattered because Elves helped out at Helm's Deep? I'm not trolling...I just don't understand what is so god-freakin-awful about this. Jackson carefully evaluated all possibilities and concluded that this would result in the most entertaining retelling of Tolkien's work. After the masterpiece that was FOTR, I decided to trust his vision, and I don't think TTT violates that trust at all. It's his vision of Tolkien's world...we're just watching it. (And I'm loving it.)
Bring on Return of the King!
There is a scene in which Gollum peeks from different sides of a tree in order to indicate his split personality. It's later than the first Gollum conversation -- after Gollum has been tricksed by Frodo and is reconsidering his loyalty to master.
I don't think that's Anduril in this movie. I think that they are going to give the reforging as a sort of symbol for Aragorn finally accepting his role as a uniter and leader of men.. truly buying into it. I never saw anything in the movie that hinted that it was Anduril at all.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I too liked TTT much less then FOTR. Of course, I loved FOTR so "much less" still leaves TTT in the positive.
... well, I'll live.
,what an performance! She had little screentime make impact, but boy did make most with it. Maybe I'm not really able to objectivly estimate if the writers were correct in making those changes, after all, it might have sucked if Eowyn hadn't been so masterfully played. Anyways, if Eowyn has to be at Helm's Deep then women and children are there too. Theoden can't have been riden to meet the orcs in battle, because then women and children and Eowyn would have been left behind. ... Yeah, my speculation and excuses are getting a bit thick here and I'm not even done yet. ... I didn't see Theoden as particulary week. True, he isn't the hero and needs a little nugging along, but that's just consistent with his questionable decision to retreat to Helm's Deep. A decision he must make because we want to have Eowyn there. See, it all fits. :-) And anyways, Theoden gets the best lines of the whole movie in that poem he does while his armor is being put on.
... no reason for it that I can see. It worked though. I was in tears, litereally. Maybe that was to some measure get Elrond off the hook. Agent Elrond is nothing short of a manipulative bastard in this movie.
... probably a false hope; they have added female screentime significalty, would they now cut something that is in the book? Anyways, I can't see anything gained character-wise in Faramir's change, nor does consistency so far require it. Reason may be in ROTK but really don't how that could have been a must.
I left to theater asking both "could it have been better" and "was it any good?" After couple hours I still don't have answer to the first but for the second: "yes, it's pretty good but not excellent."
This must have been really difficult script to write. No begining, no end, loads of material you would like to cut but can't.
Most of the changes you list are quite understandable, or at least the writers had their reasons. I don't know if you have listened to the writers' commentary on the FOTR Extended DVD version. (Althou PJ is the Author of these movies, there are three other writers too.) They talk a lot about their motivation for any and all changes for FOTR. Naturally, pacing is the most important, but often it's the need to build up characters, especially the bad guys. I wouldn't think their motivation has changed too much.
Seems clear that almost half of third book (Return of the King) has been cut. PJ says himself that there's no Scrouging of the Shire and I would hazard a guess he won't linger too much on the Return part after Sauron gets it. Some of the material in the second book has to go into ROTK (the movie).
Saruman has been build up as the active enemy all the way through. In the book Witch-king, Saruman and Sauron are pretty evenly build up. In the movie Witch-King is an non-entity (which I belive to be a mistake) and Sauron not much more. Only Saruman has been really build up. "The Exorcism" is part of that. It had to be Saruman, not Grima, Gandalf takes down a notch or that scene would have been just stepping on a bug. After all, what is Grima the Henchman to Gandalf the Powerful Wizard if not a bug.
Gilmi truly is a comic relief, although he still does some serious damage in battle. I do see the need for a comic relief. TTT would a weary, if not all out horrible, movie without some humor. Gilmi's lines and bumbling are for most part done well, which means that they are funny, work within the story and setting and don't totally distroy the character's serious side. As unofficial member of Friends of Gilmi Society, I would have liked more respectable dwarf
Pippin and Merry really did need a moment of glory in this movie. Without it (or them as they both have one) they would have been just baggage. Maybe you and I could watch that baggage being carried because Tolkien wrote it so, but the movie would have been worse because it. The writers have license, maybe even duty, make changes of this moderate magnitude if it makes the movie better.
Eowyn had to be at Helm's Deep. She really had to be. Just had to be. It was that good. Miranda Otto
For the the battle with worg riders I offer simply the need for action scene at that point. I don't know if that really was necessary, that would need at least a second watching. (I started to really dislike Moria sequence on the third watching.) Again judging from his own comments on FOTR ExtDVD , PJ seems to be quite sensitive to the need for a fight every now and then.
Another way the worg battle works for the movie is by giving us an excuse for Aragorn tripping into the Arwen flashback. Both the flashback and the excuse are indeed needed. Aragorn already has one regular flashback. There's a limit to the lenght and the frequency of flashbacks you can have before the audience starts wondering about the character's sanity. Another regular flashback would have been pushing it, specially if there hadn't been a fight inbetween. As to the need for the flashbacks and the whole added subplot/drama between Aragorn and Arwen, ask yourself this: in ROTK when A&A finally get eachother, do you want to feel that Aragorn would have done better with Eowyn. Without the added A&A material and with the wonderful Eowyn stuff in, 99% of the audience would have prefered Eowyn over Arwen, no matter what Tolkien wrote in Appendices.
For elves showing up at Helm's Deep
Why was Faramir changed? You got me there. A real character assassination on him. In the books he really is wise and likeable and you feel good for Eowyn when they hook up. In the movie, I'm dreading the prospect that Eowyn, my love, ends up with that bonehead. Maybe they cut that
One possible explanation is that the pacing just required more material for Frodo and Sam. Can't really comment pacing with one viewing, so let's just speculate. It is possible that they needed scenes near the end of the movie dealing with F&S. Those scenes would be cut into from the battle of Helm's Deep, so they couldn't be about picking berries in Ithilien. Something strong, preferably action. Assuming I remember the sequences correctly, an added action scene for F&S is needed. Did it have to come at Faramir expense? Couldn't Faramir have turned down the ring and shown his wisdom and strenght and then, for example, have the close encounter with the nazgul almost unchanged (location wasn't important in that scene)?
In the book, the whole F&S in Ithilien and their meeting with Faramir is much too light and full of exposition to be used very directly. Lot of rewriting and adaptation to be done for sure, but thats what they been most always so good at. Pity they failed here.
-- Flam
--what! this emacs doesn't have a spell-checker
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Ok, you just really quit on the movie didn't you?
I think that the Wormtounge/Saruman control thing was played pretty well. It's not terribly beleivable in visual form for the king to be kept in a state of complacency by Wormtongue. The control of Theoden is still channeled through Wormtongue... but Jackson pretty clervely turned the simpel removal of Wormtongue into the chance for Gandalf to confront (And establish dominance over) Saruman. I'm hoping we'll see this plot-line sewn up in the beginning of ROTK.
I do agree with the Faramir thing. I'm not sure what happened there.
Shelob is definitely set-up for the third book, didn't you pay attention to Smeagol at the end of the movie?
I actually like Gimli. He seems to represent what I pictured the dwarfs have. To you it's bumbling comic relief, but really it's an admirable inner sense of confidence. He makes jokes and acts that way because that's exactly how the dwarves act. Tolkein talks at length about how the elves view them as disgusting and ill-mannered, and in reverse how the dwarves feel little need for the outside world. Gimli acts like a truly courageous person who can maintain his sense of humour in the darkest hours. That's one of the things that he really brings to the table. It's brash, it's in your face, but to me it works.
The elven alliance thing I could have done without.
Aragorn falling off a cliff I could have done without
Keeping the women and children in Helms deep was brilliant. It conveyed once and for all what the battle at Helms deep meant. It would make no sense in the book, that kind of raw emotion is difficult to come by in writing. In the movie, if the orcs get by the defenders the people are rohan are literally finished THAT NIGHT. If the orcs sweep through helms deep in the book, they simply finish the women and children off later. That's the magic behind this, by having everyone in Helms Deep it is not simply a battle for some land.. it is a battle for the very existence of these people and their families.
I don't think Pippin tricked the ents. I think it was really Pippins intention to sneak in and confront Saruman. He had no idea that Saruman was tearing down trees... This scene did a great job of portraying the ents for what they where. They where slow to anger...and it was the SIGHT of those trees that really convinced them that they where not exempt from the trials of the world. Tolkein explained this in his writing, Jackson demonstrated it with this scene. Great stuff.
As for the rest, I'm just not sure if we'll see the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf.. I sure hope so.
In short, to say that your wife left in tears is dissapointing. I think this book does a good job of turning a difficult piece of middle-story into a compelling movie. The plot-additions/subtractions where mostly very well thought out with the exception of the 2 or 3 noted above. I never once contemplated leaving.. From beginning to end it still felt like Tolkein and still conveyed the same story and emotion as the Two Towers in words.. and that's the ultimate complement. Talking about the plot changes is kind of fun, and debating their worth is even funner. But in the end this was a very powerful movie, and Jackson managed to relay the story very well. I commend him for that... most of these points are very small to the overall story and I'm afraid that you may have missed the forest for the trees (or the ents:)
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I thought that was Minas Tirth, not Gondor (At least not the white city).
Then again, they shouldn't have been there, either.
`Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Everything that was good about this change could have been achived without changing Faramir.
Assuming that ROTK stays more or less canon, Faramir being significantly less symphatic to the audience underminds storylines of both Eowyn and Denethor, and even Boromir, if a dead man can still have a storyline.
In book the confrontation between Frodo and Faramir is similar to what is in the movie. Where in the movie Faramir says: "The Ring will go to Gondor", there in the book he says (with many words more) to the effect: "The Ring may pass." Change that back to canon and also the location of the confortation with the nazgul. We have the same movie, minus ringbearers sidetrip to Osgillath, plus more canon and sympathic Faramir.
Will ROTK need the ring at Osgillath? Or the changed Faramir? I can't see how, but I can easily see how the changed Faramir is bad for the story.
--Flam
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
FWIW: The gift-giving scene is in the extended edition. I know at least one guy who thought that the theatrical version of FoTR sucked, whereas the Extended Edition was awesome.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Thank you, that is all.
~Fricka
OffLineTshirts.com
Personally, I think the evidence is that Bakshi would have done a great job if given Jackson's resources. The first hour of Bakshi's version does a better job of Fellowship than the four hours of crap that Jackson came out with.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I think they didn't add the Ents attack on Helm's Deep because it's quite hard to visualize. It's not really the Ents neither but the entire forest or something. IIRC in the book it's described as if the forest was moving, but you couldn't see any movement. Now that's good for a book, but it doesn't work well on film.
;-)
All in all it's a change I can live with. And since they are not exactly alike it gives us a reason to read the books again.
It's actually a classic mistake: balrogs don't have wings!
Tolkien used to get quite grumpy on this subject because he said that its shadow spread out like wings and then everyone that illustrated the scene put actual wings in.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Well, I just got back from the movie. Let me just start with WOW!!! and go from there. As I did with Fellowship last year, I re-read The Two Towers the week before the movie, so as to have a fresh image in mind for a comparison... and here it is.
:)
:) Sam slips and falls down, and they are almost discovered, but Frodo covers them with his cloak and they are mistaken for a rock. Gollum persuades them to try his secret way and they leave.
There will be ***MAJOR SPOILERS*** as I will be discussing the movie in depth... this is not intended as a review of the film's strengths and weaknesses, but rather a description of how the movie differs from the novel. I am not some zealous purist who hates any small differences.. I love how Jackson is adapting them, but I think the changes are an interesting discussion in themself.
-
*** MAJOR TWO-TOWERS MOVIE SPOILERS BEGINNING ***
-
Still with me? Good.
The movie opens with a replay of the Balrog scene from Fellowship, only this time we follow Gandalf on his plunge into the abyss of Khazad-dum. My jaw was literally gaping for the entire sequence. If someone asks me what the coolest sequence I have EVER seen in a film is, I will name this one without hesitation. Gandalf soars downwards after his sword, Glamdring, takes it from the air, and starts grappling and hewing the Balrog as they continue to fall. This is Mithrandir, the grey pilgrim, greatest of the eternal Istari, in full glory.
We cut to Frodo, who seems to have been dreaming of the Gandalf sequence. Sam and him are lost in the Emyn Muil, and they sense they are not alone. There is some tension between them, Frodo is weary and irritable. I thought Elijah Wood's Frodo was a bit of a single note performance in the first film, but now I see he was merely establishing the baseline for Frodo's descent into a paranoid, obsessed nutbag. Good stuff.
We see shots of the orcs carrying Merry and Pippin, and Aragorn and company in close pursuit. Merry pulls his Lorien clasp off with his teeth and spits it away from an orc back instead of running off and dropping it like in the book. (You really don't see the Orc company stop at all until they reach the edge of Fangorn) Lots of comic relief at Gimli's expense, showing him having trouble keeping up with the other two.
We see an early shot of Edoras, setting up the listless, paralyzed Theoden and the venomous Grima Wormtongue, and see Eomer get exiled.
After an argument among the orcs involving eating the hobbits, Merry and Pip start to crawl away, when the riders of Rohan launch a surprise assault into the heart of the orcs, instead of the protracted herding and encircling described in the novel. Merry and Pippin crawl to freedom during the assault, instead of being carried out by Grishnak... although Grishnak does pursue them into Fangorn, and gets crushed by Treebeard. Treebeard takes them directly to Gandalf (although we don't see him yet). I've read some complaints about the Ents (even one calling them the 'Jar-Jar' of the movie), but I don't know what the problem is, I thought they were great. Slow and ponderous, just like the book.
Frodo and Sam are asleep when Gollum pounces on them, as opposed to the book where they ambushed HIM when he climbed down the cliff. They subdue him, the elven rope burns him, and Frodo extracts his promise. There's a nice sequence of him leading them through the Dead Marshes. Gollum is un-fricken-believably amazing. He steals every scene he's in. His schizophrenic arguments with himself are just brilliantly done. Imagine a naked Steve Buscemi alternately imitating a kitten and then a snake. No wait, don't do that. Don't EVER do that. How a creature so wretched and deceitful can win the compassion and pity of the entire audience is a minor miracle. You really feel sorry for this creature that is so helplessly and violently torn between two natures. An Oscar deserves to be given for this performance, somehow. Don't know if he technically qualifies as an actual actor, but he's got my vote.
Aragorn and co. meet up with Eomer and learn of the orc slaughter, and are given 2 horses. This part is very faithful to the book. They find the burial mound, and track the hobbits' trail into Fangorn. They encounter Gandalf, think he is Saruman and actually attack him, he just shrugs it off without trying. Otherwise, this part was very faithful to the book.. with him barely remembering the name Gandalf, etc. They leave Fangorn, meet Shadowfax, and head for Edoras.
There are many shots interspersed of Merry and Pippin being carried by Treebeard, with lots of wonderful dialogue straight from the book.
Frodo, Sam, and Gollum arrive at the Black Gates. Army of evil men entering. Cave trolls working the gate mechanism, nice touch
Gandalf, Aragorn and co. arrive at Edoras. Gandalf 'excorcises' Saruman's spirit from Theoden while Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas beat the crap out of the guards bare-handed. This part bears little resemblance to the book, with Gandalf throwing Theoden back into his throne forcefully several times, it reminded me a bit of his fight with Saruman in the first movie. After, they throw Wormtongue down some stairs and he leaves. Some shots of Theoden grieving his son and despairing about the state of the world. Some arguing over what to do, Theoden decides to empty the city and head to Helm's Deep. Theoden comes across as stronger (and perhaps more headstrong) than he does in the book at this point. In the book, Gandalf advises Theoden to go to Helm's Deep. In the movie, Theoden orders it of his volition, in fact Gandalf is against it and calls it a trap.
A bunch of dream/flashback sequences about this point heightening the doomed romance of Aragorn and Arwen, Elrond trying to convince each of them in turn to drop it. Some shots of Elrond and Galadriel discussing (telepathically) whether to leave Middle-Earth alone to its fate.
Around here is the first large departure from the plot of the novel. The refugees from Edoras are attacked by Warg Riders en route to Helm's Deep. Eowyn and the refugees flee while the men deal with the attack. In the ensuing battle (which is very cool) Aragorn, stuck to a Warg, is thrown over a cliff and presumed dead. Of course, he's not, he's just floating in the river, gets washed up on shore, and nuzzled back to life by the ghost of Arwen in a romantic horse scene. Yeah, I said that. I really didn't think the whole Aragorn getting separated thing was neccesary, but it didn't bother me either. I wonder if they added this action sequence to offset the subtraction of Shelob's Lair? It even has the common element of the hero being presumed dead.
Frodo and Sam witness the attack of Faramir's company on the Southrons, complete with a pair of Oliphaunts. Very cool. They are seized by Faramir's men, bound, and taken to their hidden waterfall hideout at Henneth Annun. Lots of talking about the Fellowship and Boromir and such. (although Faramir never mentions just HOW he knows Boromir is dead) Frodo lies to Faramir, says Sam and him are alone (he admits Gollum is a companion they met on the road in the novel) but then later Frodo admits he's their guide when he intervenes at the Forbidden Pool to help them capture Gollum instead of kill him.
Initially, this is very faithful to the book, but then, probably the biggest change of all occurs: Faramir tells them the Ring will go to Gondor, and they are dragged forcefully to Osgiliath, which is under attack. I have to say honestly I did NOT like this change.. it seems like a core change to one of the main characters of the last two books. Faramir resists the Ring in the book, in fact he tells them he would not take the Ring if he found it lying by the road. Denethor and eldest son Boromir were desperate to save Gondor, and thus easily swayed by the power of the Ring, but Faramir was of a more pure heart. I don't know why Peter Jackson decided we needed another Boromir figure... I mean, the Ring corrupts, we GET it already!
Helm's Deep prepares for the siege. Lots of very effective shots of children and elderly arming for brutal combat. Aragorn returns from his invented detour, spies the approaching army, and enters the Deep. At the last second, a company of Elvish archers led by Haldir arrives! This of course is not in the book.. the prologue calls it the Last Alliance of Men and Elves for a reason, the species are estranged and the Elves dwindle and fade. But I don't care, I loved it anyway. It's almost like the Lothlorien Elves were pissed they didn't get to slaughter the Orcs pursuing the Fellowship out of Moria like in the book (anyone see the storyboard sequence on the DVD for that? Oh.. if only they shot that..), so they decided to pitch in on Helm's Deep instead.
The Entmoot begins. This is a large difference in chronology from the book... where the Ents are already at Isengard in time to see Saruman's army depart. Here, they are discussing what to do as the assault on Helm's Deep begins.
Back at beseiged Osgiliath, Sam makes an impassioned speech to Faramir about how Boromir was driven mad by his desire for the Ring, and attacked Frodo whom he swore to protect, which seems to give Faramir some pause. A flying Nazgul nearly takes the Ring from Frodo, Sam saves him, then Frodo goes all psycho Sting-in-your-face on Sam for a minute. Faramir decides to let them go, despite this meaning his own life is forfeit, so I guess he kinda redeems his character a bit in that sense.
The Helm's Deep battle itself is awesome. The overall progression of the battle is exactly what I remember from the book, and many details have made it in very well, including to my delight Gimli and Legolas's death count competition. I have read people smugly pointing out how it only takes up a dozen pages in the novel and gets more than a half hour of screen time here, but that's a silly comparison. The battle described in the book is epic in scope and takes all night long, they did a phenomenally perfect job of capturing this.
The Entmoot concludes, and unlike the book, the Ents decide NOT to take any action, despite Merry's persistance. However, Merry convinces Treebeard to drop them off near Isengard, that wascally wittle hobbit. When Treebeard sees the devastation surrounding Isengard (he was already aware in the book), he lets out a piercing bellow, and the forest erupts instantly with angry Ents. So much for not being hasty, but I digress.
The battle of Helm's Deep is going badly, the wall is breached, Haldir dies in Aragorn's arms. When they have been forced to retreat to their last holdout, the innermost keep of the Hornburg, surrounded by a sea of enemies, Theoden and Aragorn lead a final, thrilling, mounted charge down the exterior ramp. Then Gandalf arrives with the dawn, and several thousand horsemen. The White Rider leading the charge of Light down the slope into Saruman's army nearly topped the Balrog scene for me. I want a giant poster of that singular, breathtaking image, the two armies colliding with the battered remains of Helm's Deep in the background. Beautiful, extraordinary stuff. No army of Huorns show up to mop up the retreating Orcs, but I couldn't care less.. too much tree action gives a deus ex machina feeling anyway.
Speaking of tree action, the Ents whack the crap out of everything still moving at Isengard, and flood the whole ring. We don't get to see Gandalf and co. confront Saruman and meet up with Merry and Pippin, but I'm glad.. a long march to Isengard after the spectacular triumph of Helm's Deep? I don't think so. However it does have the effect of severely weakening Merry and Pippin's roles in this movie... perhaps that's why Jackson had them more directly involved with the Ents decision.
Meanwhile, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum approach Mordor, and we hear evil Cartman, er.. I mean Gollum, conspire to let "her" kill the other two... but the movie ends before they reach Shelob's Lair. Now that I have seen how powerful Helm's Deep is, I understand and am glad they have saved this for the start of the next movie, for an eager audience instead of a drained one.
Well... closing thoughts... Another year? AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gnight.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Oops, meant to post a link to my similarly themed commentary on Fellowship last year. Here it is, in case anyone is interested.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Overall it's a failure, it totally disintegrates after Lorien (apart from Gollum) although up to that point it is far better than Jackson's version.
But it fails because of the lack of money. In other words, it's an honest failure where Jackson's is a dishonest one - he didn't even try. The Flying Moose page is very funny and perceptive but a similar page could easily be written about the new version, although that would involve having to sit through it again.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Ok not a troll, honest, but at what point does the line blur between Sensitive (i.e. we'll bust you for telling this) and Common Sense (err, we can't expect to keep this from anybody who lives round here)? or is it the communicating of this information? At what point is it Giving Away Military Information to Terrorists (lots of military aircraft taking off) vs. The Media Informing The Public of Something in their Interest? (uh-oh, scandal about to break in Whitehouse, all the Presidents PR Office are working late)?
I suppose it depends on the govt. and laws of the land. Same way some countries will put you in jail for taking a photo with a bridge or an airport in the background (or any other feature of potential military significance)?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This subject is probably one of the most debated among Tolkien scholars and buffs alike. Anyone who throws this topic out with a simple: "balrogs didn't have wings" should probably at least explain that it is a hotly debated topic. Here's a couple of links for anyone interested in the debate:
Encyclopedia of Arda's entry on Balrogs.
more Arda entries on the subject
from greenboks
some geocities site
I probably would agree that they don't have wings, but Tolkien wasn't grumpy about it...as I recalled when the topic was brought up he told people to read the books and make their own decisions. Tolkien was very adament that one person's understanding of creatures in the book was different from other's, and one wasn't better than the other (which is probably why he had an aversion to making a movie of the books...).
Reading through the threads, I get the idea that you definitely dislike Peter Jackson and you definitely dislike the movies. Well...here's an option: DON'T WATCH THEM! IGNORE THEM! If you go and watch the movies and then expound upon them at length at a website (pro or con), you're still promoting them. If you're some sort of tolkien purist that believes the movies are evil and hacks, then stop promoting them.
Personally, I loved the movie (and I can deal with almost every change that was made from the books). If you go watch the movie, don't take the book with you. Remember...it isn't Tolkien making the movies, and these aren't the books put on screen. These are movies (not books) based upon the story by JRR Tolkien. Jackson has no obligation to stay true to the book (other than his own fanhood), his only obligation is to make a great movie. And, if the academy awards and the turnouts are any sort of clues, then he did a great job.
My advice: go watch the movies and check your books at the door...you won't be needing them. The movies aren't a supplement to the books, they are entirely different and you can't enjoy them if you nitpick over every detail. Movies are supposed to be entertainment...
Oh..I can't forget to shamelessly promote my review of the movie at my website.
The anti-salmon
He certainly seemed grumpy in an interview I last read a few years ago; I think the topic had come up in connection with Bakshi so perhaps it was a more generalised grumpiness.
I get the idea that you definitely dislike Peter Jackson and you definitely dislike the movies.
Could be...could be!
Well...here's an option: DON'T WATCH THEM! IGNORE THEM! If you go and watch the movies and then expound upon them at length at a website (pro or con), you're still promoting them.
What I'm actually really irritated by is the idea put about by several people that Jackson is "the new Kirosawa" and that he "excells John Huston". As a fan of both this is what makes me want to point out the Emperor's nudity rather than a particular dislike of the film.
I think the film was poor but the hype is what is really getting on my tits at the moment. That and the blatent rip-off of producing a movie with continuity errors that are only corrected in the DVD and then producing a second DVD a few months after a bunch of people ran out to get the first one. That's just taking the piss, frankly.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Reckon you could be right. I'm a bit more suspicious and (certainly here in the UK) I think the authorities like to keep a handy bunch of spare laws standing by in case they want to grab hold of you / don't want you about but don't really have anything to pin on you.
"Well Mr. , we can't prove you're doing anything wrong, but we don't really want you around here. We just don't really like you hanging out here. How about you just move along 30 miles or we may find a handy little law to get you out of the way?..." ..kind of thing. My rather suspicious mind believes that sometimes it's convenient for authorities to have a bunch of these little grey area laws around when they would just rather prefer journalists or members of the public weren't around a place.. I accept your point about information being significant though.
Just as an aside, the "added scene" with Gimli and Aragorn is not at all added, but merely modified. In the book, Eomer and Aragorn go out to hold run the marauders away from the gate that they are attempting to access. They slip out a postern door, attack, are ambushed, and then saved by Gimli. Since Eomer was not at Helm's Deep until the end, Gimli was substituted.
As for this comment: In interviews, Peter Jackson has acknowledged that he thought the books were too "dense" and that they needed to be "simplified" for the average person who was unfamiliar with Tolkien. In the same interview, his justification for all this is that "there is a lot of money at stake here". So much for PJ being our savior from the Hollywood infection. I think you are a bit off base.
Silly Jackson, feeling that he owes some sort of monetary return to his investors. I've already posted a comment concerning the fact that I was disappointed by the film, however, the only real "mistake" I thought Jackson made was in the oversimplification of Faramir.
The Faramir scenes rubbed me the wrong way at first too, but upon further reflection I've come to realize that they make for a better movie.
The problem here, from a filmmaker's perspective, is twofold:
Firstly, the entire second half of TTT is Frodo, Sam, and Gollum struggling to get to Mordor without being discovered, and their observations about the journey, what it means to them, and the ever-increasing sense of gloom and despair that envelops them the closer they get to Mordor.
You can have that in a book, because the dialogue and scene setting keeps the story moving. It's a slow part of the book, but it's a slow part of the _journey_ too, so that's appropriate. The slow gloominess puts the reader into a gloomy mood as well as they empathise with the characters.
In the book, the encounter with Faramir is a ray of sunshine and hope in the middle of all the gloom and despair. It serves as a bit of an emotional relief, and provides contrast to how bad things are elsewhere. Faramir and Ithlien are there to say "hey, everything doesn't suck; there is still good in the world, even on the borders of Mordor, and not all Men are yet lost and without hope" It's a chance to catch our breath before we plunge back into the gloom and despair stuff.
But film is a visual medium, and unlike a book, is limited in time. Jackson cannot afford to spend the same proporation of time to having Frodo and Sam climbing over rocks and mucking through swamps, and ducking under bushes every time they hear a noise. It may work in a book, but in a film, once you've seen one hobbit scrabbling over a rock, you've seen them all.
So that means that Jackson doesn't get to establish all the gloom and despair that Tolkien did. Jackson is too busy intercutting all the action for us to ever get emotionally bogged down in the travails of the ringbearer.
In that light then, the as-written Ithlien scene, with an as-written nice-guy Faramir, breaks the tone. Not only do we not need Faramir to provide an emotional "up", we don't have the time to spare on any "ups" - all the scenes with Frodo in them need to be predominantly "down", more so than the book, because we don't spend as much time with him.
Secondly, we're not given all the backstory about how dangerous the Ring really is. In the book, by the time Frodo is on the borders of Mordor, we _know_ how dangerous the Ring is. It doesn't need underscoring. But in the movie, the Ring cannot just be a harmless MacGuffin; it's danger must be underscored at every opportunity to provide the emotional tension needed whenever the Ring is near to being discovered or taken.
So then, we get the movie Faramir: a man who provides a threat to Frodo and friends, rather than succor (but one that at least overcomes his temptation in the end, showing a glimpse of the book Faramir)
It's a major deviation from the book, yes, but it makes for a better movie.
BTW, it's good to see that after the movies are completed, that the giant flaming eyeball who played Sauron will be able to find employment as a lighthouse.... WTF was up with THAT?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
There is a scene in which Gollum peeks from different sides of a tree in order to indicate his split personality. It's later than the first Gollum conversation -- after Gollum has been tricksed by Frodo and is reconsidering his loyalty to master.
Yes, it was at the very end of the movie and Gollum only did it once. I thought it was well done and didn't detract from the effect.
The reason she (and I) was so upset was not the elves showing up. In particular it was the treatment of Faramir's character, but not in the sense that you might think. It was NOT a matter of "how could they do that to 'my' Faramir". The character Tolkien created was one of the most impressive figures of the whole trilogy for both of us. Reading it as a teenager, he was the model of wisdom, temperance and simply having one's head screwed on straight for my wife. When I read it, much later in life, he was a character for whom I found that I had a deep respect for, much more than any of the other larger-than-life characters.
...and on film he's no different from Boromir. All that made the character respectible, all that made us want people to see that character: gone. And why? Does Jackson, like the grandparent's poster, really think so little of the audience that we just couldn't handle some actual intelligent dialogue on the subject instead of having dragons swoop in to make the descision for him? Is temperance too boring nowadays?
Perhaps we were upset in some sense because we took it personally, but it was indignation at Jackson thinking that it needed to be changed, not that he dared to change anything at all. And the primary reason for our feelings was still something else. It was regret that most of the world's Faramir is now Boromir II who wants to take the ring back to Gondor. Tolkien created something great and the movie that was supposed to bring it to a bigger audience nullified it instead. I have said before and I will say again that I am not dogmatic about 'canon'. I would have been OK with a lot of the additions (As I was with the first movie) were it not for their cumulative affect on the movie. But when one adapts "The Two Towers", or any other work, to film I think one has a responsibility to retain certain qualities, otherwise why not just write your own damn story? You don't write 'Ghandi' the movie and have him go around kung-fu fighting, you don't make '2001' and give HAL an emotion chip and you don't make intelligent characters into asses because you don't think your audience can handle it.
Thanks. =:)
Pardon me, but I really don't understand the point of your comment - my goal in using a dismissive tone in regards to the term "canon" was to point out the futility of maintaining pure fidelity to textual canon when translating (virtually any) text to another medium.
Apparently this wasn't clear, and came across as flamebait. Whoops...
That being said, Duchamp's work was intended to be a attack on the existing artistic establishment; say whatever you will about Jackson's film (I'm not going to demand that you like it, just strongly defend my own opinion), but no one can reasonably believe that his goal is to undermine people's love of Tolkien's books. If his work fails, it fails; but it's certainly not coming from malicious, or even mocking, intent.
shelob will be in the 3rd movie, jackson wanted the climactic ending to be the battle of helm's deep...although i think shelob attacking frodo & sam would have been pretty climactic....
and the "visit" to Isrengard just hasn't occured yet in the timeline of events, it's after the battle of helm's deep, and after the ents attack isrengard...it will also be in the third movie...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
"My wife, who is the real Tolkien fan of the family and had just finished re-reading the book, was left literally in tears."
Good lord.
I've read all the books and am a huge fan. But even I understand that changes have to be made for a 3-hour visual medium. Not to sound harsh, but I won't be shedding tears over it. That would scare me if I did.
Furthermore, because Nermal stated:
Thus it was perfectly reasonable for me to rebut his points with reasons for why I thought that, in the context of translating the text to film, Jackson's major textual changes were improvements, or at least well-reasoned compromises, that were better choices for film than staying closer to the text. In some cases his points were based on innacurate or a lack of information, and I responded to those as well.
And in any case, since when does entertaining, well-written (if I may say so) flamebait _not_ get modded up on
that was put in so that people who haven't read the book could understand that Arwen is willing to give up immortality to be with Aragorn...which of course comes into play at the end of the 3rd book (or movie)...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
I posted the following in another thread:
So, while "goody-two-shoes" overstates the situation, I do think that the Faramir scenes as written by Tolkien would come across as a superfluous encounter (with little chance for the character of Faramir to demonstrate why he's earned your respect) without using more or less the entire dialogue(s) between Frodo and Faramir; unf., incorporating that into the movie would have destroyed the pacing, as the ent scenes threatened to do.
It's not a matter of it being bad material (far from it, I love those scenes int the books), it's a matter of them being unusable in the context of a visual translation of the material.
In addition, I see one of Jackson's (and Walsh and Boyens') aims with these films as showing humans _growing_ into their role as the masters of Middle Earth, versus already being as such (consider the treatment of both Aragorn and Theoden as struggling with what they must do). So, I'm confident that Faramir will become more respectable and sympathetic in ROTK (film) than he is in TTT (film).
So again, sorry to come across as so dismissive of your reaction, yet I had a very different experience with the film than you did. I hope that the next film (if you choose to see it) satisfies some of your concerns with Faramir (and know that I'll also be disappointed if he gets short shrift in ROTK).
I've said in other places that the things that REALLY upset me were the treatments of Gimli and Faramir's characters. For the rest, the question was less 'how dare you?' than 'why the heck did you?'.
You make some good points in defense of these, though I don't buy all of your explainations for their nescessity or advantage.
For example, having Galdalf vs Saruman instead of Grima (who was indeed but a worm compared to Gandalf). First, wouldn't Grima being subdued in an instant by a flash of light from the cieling reasonably demonstrate (for those who had missed it in the Balrog fight) that Gandalf is even more of a badass now than before? As for a confrontation with Saruman, what about Orthanc? Even if don't get to it in this movie, it will be in the next. Besides, I can't imagine viewers who hadn't read the books leaving the theater wishing Gandalf had exherted more dominance over Saruman for lack of this scene.
And yet, had it been the only change I wouldn't have minded much. You'll notice that I only mentioned this changed in an appendix, as it were, to my main post.
Ditto with most of the other, non-character changes. As for the ones I really did take exception to, an excellent defense of Theoden, which I feel adresses your comments well, has already been posted, so I'll just
link to it
Likewise, I've already posted my thoughts about Faramir in a
grandchild of this post and someone else has already replied with
another good argument against changing him, echoing what is still my argument against most of the changes: they were unnescesary and inferior. Sam's bravery is demonstrated to anyone paying attention by his presense in the story at all. It doesn't require the destruction of Faramir's character. Sam is the motivation behind the ring-bearer and yet, not being the bearer himself, he has even less reason to stick with it than Frodo. And really, doesn't the 'Samwise the Brave' comment at the end do plenty towards bolstering that perception? As for interrupting the flow of the battle at Helm's deep, fine, alter the continuity. Put it somewhere else. They did their version of Faramir's scenes without interrupting the battle, so why not Tolkien's? Too long? Hey, ditch the useless werg battle (really, I can go 20 minutes without a fight scene. Trust me) and you've got all the time that you need.
And there's one more thing that I would very much like to adress before I'm done: Your flippant replies to my last three bullets (Shelob, et al) conveniently overlook the fact that I very clearly acknowleged the possibility of those scenes being moved to the beginning of the second movie. You even point out other deviations from 'canon' that I 'forgot'. Of course I didn't forget that the Huorns were at Helm's deep, I just didn't think that their absense took much from the story since they mostly stay in forests blocking the Uruk-Hai retreat IIRC. Yes, I would rather have had them than random elf batallions, but here you have again overlooked something I made a big point of at the top of my post. I'm ok with nescesary or trivial changes to the story. It's when you start telling a different story with radically, meaningfully, detrimentally different characters that I draw the line and say 'write your own damn script and don't leave generations of non-readers with this as their idea of The Two Towers'.
Ah, you clever boy... scoring a +1, Funny off of me. Good show.
Just in case I was fuzzy back there---I meant that not all smart people are geeks. ("Not all geeks are smart" is also, of course, true.) That the Jargon-file hacker property is, unfortunately, not present in all people with an IQ over 130. It would be nice, really, but it's just not so.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Keeping the women and children in Helms deep was brilliant. It conveyed once and for all what the battle at Helms deep meant. It would make no sense in the book, that kind of raw emotion is difficult to come by in writing. In the movie, if the orcs get by the defenders the people are rohan are literally finished THAT NIGHT. If the orcs sweep through helms deep in the book, they simply finish the women and children off later. That's the magic behind this, by having everyone in Helms Deep it is not simply a battle for some land.. it is a battle for the very existence of these people and their families.
i could be wrong, it's been a while since i read the books...but doesn't the same thing happen with the women and the children in the books? i could've sworn that in the books they sent the women and children to the caves, just like they did in the movie...if not, where did they go? i can't remember..
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
So again, sorry to come across as so dismissive of your reaction, yet I had a very different experience with the film than you did. I hope that the next film (if you choose to see it) satisfies some of your concerns with Faramir (and know that I'll also be disappointed if he gets short shrift in ROTK)
First, I really appreciate the civility of your reply. Second, we (well, I, I'll ask her when she gets up=:) will still be in line for the RoTK and finally, regarding the inappropriateness of the dialogue. I'll just say that I wish I could have had a crack at condensing Faramir's dialogues into a shorter but still believable form. I still don't see why it could be done. I mean, is there no implicit (why must everything be explicit?) sense of tension in the power Faramir holds over the fate of the ring? I would have loved the movie scene where he holds the ring on the end of his sword so much more if it had been used as a way set a tense mood for the rest of the scene as written. I guess the short version of my point is this: There must have been a way to both shorten/liven the scene and still let Faramir's descision to let the ring go be his own, as a result of his character. Both Gandalf and Galadriel's temptations took less than 2 minutes each, after all.
Reading it as a teenager, he was the model of wisdom, temperance and simply having one's head screwed on straight for my wife.
It's funny you should say that because that was the impression I got of Faramir. Just as a background, I read the books a very long time ago, to the point that seeing them now I just have flashes of deja vu, rather than am able to compare them to the characters in the original text. To me, Faramir was a character that made a lot of sense. He's leading a rogue army, and he captures these hobbits who he doesn't know from Adam. They have a good story but they lie about Gollum ebing with them. What would you do? Send them on their way? I sure wouldn't.
When he learns they have the ring, he could easily have taken it then and there, but he didn't. I thought he did show the restraint you felt wasn't there. The only things I disliked about that part was Sam's speech, which was over the top, IMO, and the whole "your life is forfeit" thing. The phrase literally mean he's going to be executed, but that doesn't make sense. Apparently in the book his life is forfeit if letting them go proves to be bad for his city, in the movie he's going to be executed because he let them go regardless of whether it's good or not (this is a nit pick on a single line, but the line really changes a lot). I'm guessing he won't actually be executed, or even try to execute him as that would be kinda weird.
I also really liked the Gollum self discussion. It was funny.
-no broken link
To me, Faramir was a character that made a lot of sense. He's leading a rogue army, and he captures these hobbits who he doesn't know from Adam. They have a good story but they lie about Gollum ebing with them. What would you do? Send them on their way? I sure wouldn't.
That was my problem with Faramir's character in the book, actually. Think about this: he's in the same fix as Boromir; he's trying to save his people from what looks like an unstoppable onslaught from Mordor and has long since given up hope, and has just recently found his brother's dead body floating down the river, and along come these two funny little people with the Enemy's greatest weapon and this weird fish-smelling slinking creature that they initially disavow any comnection to. They claim that they're going to try to sneak into the very heart of Mordor to toss this weapon into the fires of Mount Doom. So he lets them head off on this suicidal mission that seems likely to end with them getting killed and Sauron getting his little trinket back. Huh? I thought the movie's portrayal of Faramir made a lot more sense.
Apparently in the book his life is forfeit if letting them go proves to be bad for his city, in the movie he's going to be executed because he let them go regardless of whether it's good or not (this is a nit pick on a single line, but the line really changes a lot).
Remember that in ROTK, Denethor gets rather torqued at Faramir for letting them go. I'll bet that next year we'll see Denethor have to be restrained from whacking Faramir's fool head off right then and there.
In speculating about possible changes to TTT, I actually thought that they could remove the Faramir sequence entirely, as it actually doesn't add much more to the plot of the book than Tom Bombadil does to FOTR (other than giving Gandalf and Pippin an update on Frodo and Sam's progress in ROTK), and seemed like it wouldn't translate well to film. I like PJ's solution better.
"(leading me to believe that we won't get to see the hobbits return to the Shire after the fall of Sauron.)"
In fact PJ states in one of the sections of the extended FoTR DVD (I think it was in the voice-over when he was explaining why they showed XYZ in Galadriel's mirror) that the "Scouring of the Shire" is not part of the movie trilogy. That would explain why Sam got the rope instead of the box of dirt and the mallorn seed.
Lose the "Scouring of the Shire" and you can lose the scene where Gandalf evicts Saruman and Grima, and maybe the entire visit to (wrecked) Orthanc. What actually happens there besides the eviction? The comrades are reunited (other ways to accomplish that). And the Palantir zaps Merry (or was it Pippin?). The appearance of the Palantir has no other plot purpose. World around that and there's no point to the side trip.
IOW, I don't expect to see the visit to Orthanc in RotK, and I expect it will end with the marriage of Aragorn and Arwen, with perhaps a postlogue about Gandalf and the Ringbearers eventually passing over the sea with the Elves.
You can't take the sky from me!