PDA

View Full Version : I just saw LOTR-The two towers!!!


Gandalf
Dec 19th, 2002, 07:56 AM
I'm great in the movie, as usual ;)

At the beginning the movie goes very fast respect to the book (they find Gollum like in 30 seconds), but then the battles are greatly done, and very long.

The only thing I didn't like were a couple of scenes with Liv Tyler which didn't fit much in the movie, they were like a halt in the action.

Gollum is greatly done, and so are the Ents- though I had imagined them differently.

Melanie2
Dec 19th, 2002, 08:08 AM
I thought the first one went way too fast, all the way through. Same with the Clones Starwars film... too much going on, it was like a race to get as much into the film as possible. I'm glad you enjoyed your movie :) I think it gets here in March...

Gonzo Hates Me!
Dec 19th, 2002, 08:14 AM
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!

Beat
Dec 19th, 2002, 08:38 AM
i don't think i'll see it this year, because it's completely sold out! but next year - and that's soon. :)

nice to see you like your own performance, gandalf... ;)

niratti
Dec 19th, 2002, 09:40 AM
I'll see it soon :)

Sam L
Dec 19th, 2002, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Gandalf
The only thing I didn't like were a couple of scenes with Liv Tyler which didn't fit much in the movie, they were like a halt in the action.


A lot of people complained about her in the 1st movie too, which in accordance with the book is true. She shouldn't be in it that much, but the movie has to have her as a major character to have a continuous flow, so it's a little understandable.

I look forward to seeing the ents :D

I might be watching it as a movie marathon, the first and second movie together in one night, which could be like 6 hours long :eek:

But I'll see, it depends on what gets organised ;)

Josh
Dec 19th, 2002, 10:15 AM
I saw it too! :bounce:

The scenes with Gollum/Sméagol are brilliant and very funny.
The movie didn't end with Shelob though pffff.

Overall I liked the first movie better but then again, the second book is the weaker of the three IMO.

griffin
Dec 19th, 2002, 01:36 PM
Given everything they had to cut out of the books, I am annoyed they managed for find room for Tyler - but I suppose they felt the need to remind us the Companions aren't queer :rolleyes: (sorry - feeling cynical this morning)

There were a couple of places I felt they went a little too "hollywood" in an attempt to make it more appealing to the average movie-goer (at least, I'm guessing that was the motivation), but it was a good movie.

Sam - the Ents were very cool. I also had fun picking out old Xena castmembers :D and the scenery is stunning.

apoet29
Dec 19th, 2002, 02:11 PM
Saw it last night. Loved it. Was only disturbed by the fact that the audience kept laughing during Gollum's scenes. I thought Andy Serkis did a fine job of showing that creature's pain and I was uncomfortable when the audience kept laughing at every scene he was in.

The filmmakers did cut a lot from the books; however, I also believe that these films, while trying to stay true to Tolkien's vision, are also made for the average filmgoer who will never pick up the books. With any adaptation, there will be a lot of the book left on the cutting room floor and if the filmmakers can capture the essence of the book, then that is all that can be asked of them. I think Jackson and Co did that.

Arwen was the character I had the hardest time coming to grips with. However, I would argue that Arwen was not brought onto the scene just to show that the fellowship is not queer, but to show the beautiful love story that Tolkien wrote in his appendix about Arwen and Aragon and that sacrifices that she has to make in order to be with the man she loves. I thought the filmmakers did a great job of bringing in her story (mind you, she was only onscreen for 10 minutes if that) and showing her influence on Aragon's life.

Of course, this is all my own opinion. My favorite scene was the battle of Helm's Deep. Quite spectacular. The Ents were really amazing. Sam (Sean Astin) was wonderful, grounding Frodo in reality. Elijah Wood (his big, bright eyes deserve a special award all their own) allowed the audience to see Frodo's obsession with the ring and how it was consuming him.

Anyone up for a road trip to New Zealand?

griffin
Dec 19th, 2002, 02:22 PM
Oh, I know - even if the filmakers weren't concerned with the average filmgoes they still would have had to not only cut much out of the books for time's sake (can you imagine how long you'd be in the theater if they hadn't) but make other changes to translate it. And I see your point about the Arwen thread too, so I'll try to be less grumpy about it (having coffee might help ;)

Some of the changes worked well, I think - like giving Pippin and Merry a larger role in getting the Ents to take action, which also gave them that wonderful scene where Treebeard comes to grips with the full horror or what Sauruman has been doing.

Josh
Dec 19th, 2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by griffin
Given everything they had to cut out of the books, I am annoyed they managed for find room for Tyler - but I suppose they felt the need to remind us the Companions aren't queer :rolleyes: (sorry - feeling cynical this morning)

Well Legolas and Gimli seem to enjoy eachother's company a little too much at times. ;)

I think Miranda Otto was great as Eowyn, she really played her character beautifully.

Josh
Dec 19th, 2002, 02:34 PM
Apoet, I have to say that at times I too laughed during scenes with Gollum, especially when "the fat Hobbit" ;) was preparing those two rabbits and kept provoking Gollum.
But like I said, those scenes in which Gollum tries to get the upper over Sméagol are brilliant.

King Aaron
Dec 19th, 2002, 06:16 PM
I want to see it!!!!!

veryborednow
Dec 19th, 2002, 08:26 PM
Gollum was easily the best thing in the film.

I found it exhausting, and well, boring, nothing much happened apart from the huge battle scene, and call me a typical girl but not even Viggo can keep my interest through all the blood-shed.

Crazy Canuck
Dec 19th, 2002, 10:06 PM
I was supposed to go tonight but have no money :(

I will go later next week, when my friend can afford the time to take me :D

Oizo
Dec 19th, 2002, 10:54 PM
The movie was awesome, and Gollum was THE star. Apparently there is some gossip, that Gollum might be the first computermade Creature to be nominated for an Oscar. ;)

I was dissapointed cuz they didn´t show the ENDLESS STAIRS, where Gandalf (you know what....lol).
My favourite scene was still the first one, with the long Fall and fight. AWESOME.
Still, the first one had much more thrill, but I liked the second one too. :)

gorecki
Dec 20th, 2002, 04:08 AM
i'll wait another week or two til the little kiddies have all gone back to school... :p ;)

:bounce:

toreador
Dec 20th, 2002, 04:15 AM
amazing movie...i liked it more than the 1st one (that doesn't mean i didn't think much of the 1st movie)
gimli was so funny! and the gollum was great.

Sam L
Dec 28th, 2002, 05:01 AM
Ok I just saw it now. I give it 9.7/10, I gave FOTR 9.5/10. You know what's next ;)

Anyway. I thought it was all really good and I don't think they left out anything from the book, nothing important anyway. I thought that the Arwen scenes were a bit much too. They should've left out the 1st one with her (when she appears in a dream to Aragorn). That was just NOT necessary. Some other scene would've been much better. The bit where Elrond explained to her what it'd be like if she stayed with Aragorn was better. Though not necessary was good to watch. I wonder how they'll turn it all around in the next movie.

The ents were THE BEST! When the ents attacked the Orthanc, that must be like one of my favourite movie scenes ever :D :D

Gonzo Hates Me!
Dec 28th, 2002, 05:04 AM
Thanks for giving it away Sam!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL! J/k!!! I see it tomorrow!!! :bounce: :bounce:

Sam L
Dec 28th, 2002, 05:10 AM
LOL ;P You'll love it :)

disposablehero
Dec 28th, 2002, 05:24 AM
Obviously, it was fantastic visually and for scale.

But...

1. Legolas does NOT skateboard.
2. What's with "comic relief Gimli"? The guy is a severe badass, tough guy, and they make him a buffoon.
3. Elrond turns into some sort of milksop who just packs it in until Galadriel kicks his ass?
4. Liv Tyler is beautiful. She should be in a movie where that is more important than the plot, not in this one.
5. They didn't finish "The Two Towers". That's a lot of story left to tell, and I will be pissed if they cut the return to the Shire from the final installment.
6. No mention of Ent-draughts. I take it this means Merry and Pippin will be staying their current size.
7. Gandalf just gets "sent back". I guess returning to life in a comatose state and having Gwaihir carrying him back to Galadriel takes up too much "Arwen time".

Sam L
Dec 28th, 2002, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by disposablehero
1. Legolas does NOT skateboard.
2. What's with "comic relief Gimli"? The guy is a severe badass, tough guy, and they make him a buffoon.
3. Elrond turns into some sort of milksop who just packs it in until Galadriel kicks his ass?
4. Liv Tyler is beautiful. She should be in a movie where that is more important than the plot, not in this one.
5. They didn't finish "The Two Towers". That's a lot of story left to tell, and I will be pissed if they cut the return to the Shire from the final installment.
6. No mention of Ent-draughts. I take it this means Merry and Pippin will be staying their current size.
7. Gandalf just gets "sent back". I guess returning to life in a comatose state and having Gwaihir carrying him back to Galadriel takes up too much "Arwen time".

Good points, disposablehero, and on the surface I agree.

But...

What we have to understand about film-making is that they have a lot of obstacles we cannot begin to imagine. You can't take the book and adapt it straight onto the screen. They have to make the adjustments.

A good example is "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen. I have seen the BBC version of the book and it's word for word, action by action from the book. I must tell you, if you're an insomniac watch it. Although I give it props because the acting was superb and you can imagine it was probably the closest thing to actually witnessing it for real life. Whereas the "hollywood" version with Thompson and Winslet was more interesting and exciting yet wasn't entirely based on the novel and had tweaks here and there. This is the same with many other movies I've seen.

What I'm saying is, there were parts where it was getting slow and 'boring' so to speak, not for me but for the majority of the movie watchers and for most people the pseudo skateboarding and hilarious Gimli are things that they can relate to. What matters in the end is possibly 50% of the viewers who will ever see LOTR are probably not familiar with the literature behind it. So it's a good stepping stone in my opinion to it. If everything went verbatim according to the books, a lot them might be turned off completely.

Aside from the fact that it's not feasible to do so either. As I have said about the Arwen parts. I think it's because she will be back in the 3rd part and they don't want her to completely disappear and suddenly reappear again, so somehow they have to link her from one part to another.

I do agree with you about the Shire at the end. They HAVE to go back, if they don't, I'd be pissed too, LOL and they have to include the Gray Havens. Also maybe I'm wrong but I thought it was only Shelob's Lair that was left out from this 2nd book? I would rather they ended it with them in Shelob's Lair as it was in the book.

SM
Dec 28th, 2002, 12:24 PM
well im the typical film goer....i saw LOTR last year and nearly fell asleep so i had to put all the pieces back together to try and comprehend the complexity of it all...

IMHO two towers totally sh*t on the first installment of the movie trilogy....visually it was the best movie ive seen, had great acting and i agree that Gollum outdid the humans in that part, but the battles i think were way too overdone and when the movie goes for bloody 3 hours its one aspect they stuffed IMO...and thats one very insignificant flaw i might add ;)!

btw - im surprised i didnt have any gripes with how long it went for ;)....afterall i did get off my chair and my legs were so numb i nearly lost balance ! Also, i normally cant stand the genre. LOL..to sum up = masterpiece!

Gonzo Hates Me!
Dec 29th, 2002, 04:07 AM
I watched it, finally!!!!!!!!!!!! It was fantastic, but not as whimsical as the first!!! It's okay though, it was meant to be that way. They are not to compete with eachother. It should be looked at as one giant movie! I can't wait until next year!!!

disposablehero
Dec 29th, 2002, 04:13 AM
Legolas does NOT skateboard.

Fingon
Dec 29th, 2002, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by griffin
Given everything they had to cut out of the books, I am annoyed they managed for find room for Tyler - but I suppose they felt the need to remind us the Companions aren't queer :rolleyes: (sorry - feeling cynical this morning)



Griffin, have you been reading my mind? :cool:

i-girl
Dec 29th, 2002, 06:07 AM
Gollum scared me... they made him so disturbing.

I saw it on saturday. I really really liked it. but DH is right, the second movie follows the book a lot less strictly. and I don't like Liv Tyler, she can't act and there's something funny going on with her eyes and eyebrows:eek: . the blonde woman was great, who's that actress, does anyone know?

Fingon
Dec 29th, 2002, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Sam L
Good points, disposablehero, and on the surface I agree.

But...

What we have to understand about film-making is that they have a lot of obstacles we cannot begin to imagine. You can't take the book and adapt it straight onto the screen. They have to make the adjustments.

A good example is "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen. I have seen the BBC version of the book and it's word for word, action by action from the book. I must tell you, if you're an insomniac watch it. Although I give it props because the acting was superb and you can imagine it was probably the closest thing to actually witnessing it for real life. Whereas the "hollywood" version with Thompson and Winslet was more interesting and exciting yet wasn't entirely based on the novel and had tweaks here and there. This is the same with many other movies I've seen.

What I'm saying is, there were parts where it was getting slow and 'boring' so to speak, not for me but for the majority of the movie watchers and for most people the pseudo skateboarding and hilarious Gimli are things that they can relate to. What matters in the end is possibly 50% of the viewers who will ever see LOTR are probably not familiar with the literature behind it. So it's a good stepping stone in my opinion to it. If everything went verbatim according to the books, a lot them might be turned off completely.

Aside from the fact that it's not feasible to do so either. As I have said about the Arwen parts. I think it's because she will be back in the 3rd part and they don't want her to completely disappear and suddenly reappear again, so somehow they have to link her from one part to another.

I do agree with you about the Shire at the end. They HAVE to go back, if they don't, I'd be pissed too, LOL and they have to include the Gray Havens. Also maybe I'm wrong but I thought it was only Shelob's Lair that was left out from this 2nd book? I would rather they ended it with them in Shelob's Lair as it was in the book.

Sam I agree that they had to make changes, but I think this time they went too far.

Arwen isn't an important character in the books, she is important because of who she is (Aragorn's fiancee, Elrond's daughter) but nothing else.

And some important parts where left out, and I imagine that those who didn't read the books didn't understand much.

Shelob for example, you are right, she is in the second book.

Faramir, not his character at all, he was supposed to be very different from his brother, they picture him as nearly the same.

The battle of Hornburg, the huorns won it, not Eomer, that was a pure invention.

They don't explain what the ents are.

IMO, the book was written by Tolkien and they should respect the story he created, not invent new ones, and that's what they did, a large part of the felowship, and the two towers is an invention, nothing to do with LOTR.

I do recognize the movie is fantastically made, the production, the effects, the characterization, the make up, the costumes, the scenarios, they are nearly perfect, but the script, it sucks big time.

Fingon
Dec 29th, 2002, 06:11 AM
one more thing, Peter Jackson might be a wonderful director, but he isn't Tolkien, there isn't another Tolkien and there never will be.

Tolkien told the story in a certain way and he has reasons for that, reasons that nobody knows, Jackson shouldn't try to be in Tolkien's shoes (they are too big for him), he couldn't have possibly created LOTR, why does he think he can change the story?

I am actually surprise that Christopher Tolkien let them do that.

Sam L
Dec 29th, 2002, 09:54 AM
I agree about Tolkien but then that's not Peter Jackson's job. His job was to turn it into a movie that MOST and an average movie-goer can appreciate.

If you have a production that goes EXACTLY like the books, it won't be mainstream at all. Only die-hard fans such as us would enjoy it I think.

I think part of all this is to expose people to Tolkien literature. Movies can work in strange ways, and there'll be quite a few people out there who's picked up the books because they loved the movie.

Although yes I was a little disappointed about there been no explanations for the ents. Some people I know who hadn't read the books thought they were just silly and were trees that came to life, which is not how they should be portrayed :fiery:

King Aaron
Dec 29th, 2002, 01:09 PM
I saw it today! :bounce: :bounce: The battle scenes were great! :) Andy Serkis did a great hob with Gollum/Smeagol.

Liv Tyler does seem a little bit in the way of the show.

Crazy Canuck
Dec 29th, 2002, 01:29 PM
Glad that I'm not the only one who smirked at Legolas' skateboarding stunt. It was amusing and might have been cute in just about any other movie, but this isn't just any other movie.

Crazy Canuck
Dec 29th, 2002, 01:31 PM
In regards to staying true to the book - it's VERY hard to capture the entire novel in a film that people will go watch! That story is so long, and just has SO much in it - there is just no way that they can get it all in. SOmebody somewhere will be unhappy no matter what they do with it. Some of the changes were a pain, but overall I feel they did a good job.

I have a number of friends who are now reading the book, who I could have NEVER talked into picking it up just over 12 months ago.

I don't have any figures on sales of Tolkien books in the past year, but god knows they have gone up.

IN which case, has the movie not served half it's purpose?

Oasiatic
Dec 29th, 2002, 01:38 PM
I can't wait to see this movie!! Unfortunately it takes weeks running into months to see latest releases down here, so I guess I'm gonna have to sit it out. I hope it's worth it. :)

Gandalf
Dec 29th, 2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by disposablehero


7. Gandalf just gets "sent back". I guess returning to life in a comatose state and having Gwaihir carrying him back to Galadriel takes up too much "Arwen time".

I agree completely. Gandalf should have more time in the movie. ;) Also, it seems that they tried to portray Aragorn is the 'main' role in this part-well, if it's not going to be ME, it should be Frodo.

The thing is, I guess we all fans understand that they have to cut something from the book, but when they cut something to include new scenes with Liv Tyler...:fiery:

Monica_Rules
Dec 29th, 2002, 03:17 PM
I saw it last night and though all in all it was a great film but as i have read the book within the last few weeks i found the film destroyed the book.It left out bits of the book and then made up scenes.

And what was the bit with Faromir he isn't tempted by the ring in the two towers.I haven't read return of the king yet so i don't know if hes tempted at all.

I don't remember reading in the book a part where we realised gollum turned evil?We r meant to realise after the fight with Shelob.They could have ended the film fantastically emitting one line from the book and it would be such a clifhanger but now they have nothing!

Another thing in the battle at helms deep when the elves turn up.WTF? elves don't help and the army of men is 1,000 and boys don't have to battle.They've made up so much that its ridiculas.

If you haven't read the book you'll prob think its a fantastic film if you have read the book you may disagree!

disposablehero
Dec 29th, 2002, 06:06 PM
I am willing to make certain concessions to Hollywood. When Glorifindel was written out of Fellowship, and his role added to Arwen's part, I accepted it. He was a minor character, and replacable by another powerful elf, if need be.

However, if you are going to have Legolas skateboard, and Gimli is a comic buffoon, you may as well have Aragorn breakdance.

Gonzo Hates Me!
Dec 29th, 2002, 06:59 PM
LOL! I think you guys are making a big deal about Legolas skateboarding. It was so brief, and it was a MOVIE! What do you expect! It was clever.

Viva
Dec 31st, 2002, 02:26 AM
Eh...it's a movie. I'm not gonna chuck a hissy fit cause they coudln't fit everything in. I didn't do that with Harry Potter (and I am obsessed with those books) and I don't plan on doing it now.

I thought it was great!!! Better than the first. I loved the Battle at Helms Deep and though they changed heaps I don't really care. I aint gonna sit there for 8 hours so every little thing is packed into the film. Who cares if Legolas doesn't skateboard - it was a pretty cool move IMO, it showed how great a warrior Legolas is - making him more superior to man.

Well I liked it, but then I'm pretty easy going with book adaptations.

disposablehero
Dec 31st, 2002, 03:21 AM
It's a literary masterpiece. What's next, Romeo with a gun? (Just kidding, that was different. They were trying something new in a play that had been a movie many times before.)

Crazy Canuck
Dec 31st, 2002, 05:00 AM
Also, it seems that they tried to portray Aragorn is the 'main' role in this part-well, if it's not going to be ME, it should be Frodo.



Does anyone else notice that they are trying REALLY hard to make Aragons "studliness quotient" be as high as possible? heh

disposablehero
Dec 31st, 2002, 06:29 AM
Even the poll questions are starting to get on my nerves.

"How many Rings Of Power did Sauron give to the Elves?"

The options given are 1,3, and 5. None of those answers are correct.

Mazza
Dec 31st, 2002, 12:53 PM
I saw it last night, and I found it extremly boring. But prahaps thats becuase I never saw the first one so I did not have a clue what was happening! :o :o

King Aaron
Dec 31st, 2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by disposablehero
Even the poll questions are starting to get on my nerves.

"How many Rings Of Power did Sauron give to the Elves?"

The options given are 1,3, and 5. None of those answers are correct.

isn't the answer 3?

cynicole
Dec 31st, 2002, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by aaron®
isn't the answer 3?

Nope. The elves didn't get their rings from Sauron.


I agree with pretty much everything Sam L has written in this thread about adaptations. They are "adaptations" after all. And since the big studios didn't want to touch LOTR and New Line pretty much gambled their existence on these movies I think some of us should just be happy that these movies got made.

The LOTR movies have to be made understandable to viewers completely unfamiliar with Tolkien. So that a viewer won't get too confused by all the information that's in the books, characters have to be cut and some of their tasks/functions are appropriated to kept characters. (Bye, bye Tom Bombadil, the ring can get to Mordor without you!) It's hard enough to keep track of what's in the movies.

Then you have to keep pacing in the movie. Some beloved scenes get snipped because they slow the movie down. Though a true die-hard fan would love to see these scenes, a casual movie-goer would probably get bored.

Since these are very long action-adventure movies, they call out for comic relief. It's not Schindler's List. Gimli, though buffonish, still kicks orc/uruk-hai ass.

As for "Arwen-inclusion," it's not like they completely invented this love story thing.

And I can understand what they did with Helms Deep. They show the young boys fighting to indicate how undermanned they are. Perhaps they include the elves for the same reason? Maybe they thought they had enough trees going to Isengard?


Now for my LOTR:TTT criticisms:

- Isn't Faramir supposed to resist the ring and help Frodo and Co. on their way? By doing what they did they *completely* changed his character and it wasn't very necessary, was it?

- I thought the pacing was "off." Too many "adverts for New Zealand tourism." And after 3hrs it didn't really feel like much really happened.


If the deviations from the book(s) bother you so much, make your own set of LOTR movies! Or, if you can't be bothered to do that, just pretend that the parts you don't like don't exist. (I've gotten pretty good at the latter thing...but with other stuff.)

cynicole
Dec 31st, 2002, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Viva
Eh...it's a movie. I'm not gonna chuck a hissy fit cause they coudln't fit everything in. I didn't do that with Harry Potter (and I am obsessed with those books) and I don't plan on doing it now.

My problem with Harry Potter was that they crammed too much of the stuff into the movie, including lines straight from the book that simply *died* on screen.