Comments on: The Two Towers, The Last Straw

by: Silicon

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:33:30 +1000

It is not possible to follow the book in such detail for screenplay.

Theres already alot going on in the movie for the audience to soak up in 3 hours.

Movie is outstanding.
You will be immersed in a world of adventure!

Story 10/10
Graphics 10/10

Long live the Ents!

by: monty

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:57:00 +1000

You miss my point. The *main theme* of the Ring which Jackson set up in the first movie has been completely undermined by his treatment of the second. It actually took him more screen time to do that than if he’d left it alone.

The side plots are understandable. The central one isn’t.

by: carefulconan

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 05:31:14 +1000

I for one whole heartedly agree with Monty.
the book the two towers deals heavily with saruman, as well whole range of events and in a specific order. Im not going to repeat what monty has said. cause he’s said it all damn well.
But I will say Jackson has made a serious departure from the books and it won’t ever be done again. so he botched it. started well, then blergh.
I was going to post a review/warning also after seeing but I was too shook up.
I think it was a shame how Jackson has cut and pasted
literary gold. I spose you have to forgive him in a way.
The movie would be probably longer. and with singing.
sigh.
back to the book’s.

by: shane

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:09:17 +1000

I read early “LOTR” fan reviews and was moved so much by the complete lack of respect for some major themes that I have not put this movie up as a high priority on my “To see” list. I was thinking of getting the Gamecube game.. But not seeing the movie.

Anywhoo. I can’t vote.. So is there any chance of throwing in a “Two … What.. I did not even bother.”

by: devo

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:41:08 +1000

You’re dead right. I had my head in my hands when Faramir bound and dragged the Hobbits off with the Ring, and the exposure to the Nazgul was madness. Crazy changes, explained only by Jackson wanting the audience to realise Faramir is Boromir’s brother in more than just blood, or perhaps to add more (unrequired) drama to the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story.

Another change that really grated with me was Theoden effectively retreating to Helm’s Deep. In contrast, the book has him awakening from his long drowsiness full of vigour and taking the fight to the enemy. Both he and Faramir show much more proactivity - as do the Ents who decide of their own accord to attack Saruman, rather than on a whim after a ‘trick’ from Merry & Pippin.

As you point out, the other changes are excusable. Aragorn’s fall gives an excuse to flashback to Arwen. Introducing the Elves at Helm’s Deep gets rid of the ‘why aren’t the elves helping’ complaint. Even removing the arrival of Huorn forest at Helm’s Deep, which would have been hard to explain given the other Ent story happening.

And Gollum is an absolute triumph.

I would still rate the movie very highly, and for those that haven’t read the book all of this won’t matter.

by: devo

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:45:51 +1000

Oh almost forgot - making Gimli a comic character hurt deeply. Having played many a mighty Gimli-inspired Dwarf in D&D, seeing him constantly falling off horses and being ‘dwarf thrown’ (once in each movie - bound to happen in Return of the King) is just wrong. And cutting the Helm’s Deep tension with a shot of him not being able to see over the parapet was cringe-worthy - although the audience loved it. So maybe Jackson does know best - it’s a movie, people are there to be entertained. But no ! You can be entertained without that kind of cheap laugh.

by: Rakeesh

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 14:16:31 +1000

Ure a sook! Okay now most people who will go to see the movie have not read the books so most of what your complaining about will go on deaf or dumbfounded ears. Quite litterally that movied rocked! Seemless action that lead through every main part of the book, yeah little left here and there and a couple of scenes that well sure were just made up. But this is what makes it so good, you cannot add ever part of the book or it would be a marathon 15 hour film, not genna happen.

We should be appauding a terriffic job by Oz and NZer moving making talents to create a true instant classic worth of all the academy awards it getz

So sit back enjoy the show and stop being that fat comic book store owner in the simpsons..

It’s just a movie

Chris

by: AussieTex

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 23:54:18 +1000

I agree wholeheartedly with Rakeesh. The movie rocked (imho more than Fellowship) and by damn it movies are meant to entertain not to bore and be too drawn out. Most ppl that see it won’t ever pick up the books and for those that do, they’ll be impressed by the depth and lushness of Tolkien’s writing, not worrying about the absence of the things in Jackson’s movies.

Someone once said that movies are meant to be interpetations of the medium whence they came from, not a carbon copy. However Jackson’s work differs from Tolkien’s work is a matter of interpetation and the need to make it fit into celluloid and also make it entertaining (showbiz IS money after all and dull arty movies don’t make money enough to finance such a big production as LOTR) made it imperative that some story lines be altered/omitted.

It is a shame that someone would not see the movie just because it doesn’t follow Tolkien to the T. You are definitely missing something that is worthy of all the kudos it is receiving. The effects are excellent and the pacing of the action rarely falters. Gollum is definitely a work of art. Humour is not subtle as Monty wanted it to be but then again it did entertain at the right moments.

Turn off the nerd-o-meter and enjoy the film…

my two pence worth…AussieTex

by: monty

Fri, 03 Jan 2003 00:08:55 +1000

Have either of you guys read the books?

by: carefulconan

Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:54:45 +1000

Hey devo.
I recommend the Middle Earth Role Playing games. made
by ICE. iron crown entertainment.
i think the company went busto a while back, but it was jam
packed with tolkien goodness. percentile dice, the works.

I also used to play dwarven
characters ahd quite often they did stupid things. maybe it
goes with the race.

Yeah you youngens read the books then see the movie.
then see who’s the fat guy from the comic shop.
ME!!! lol

by: Prof

Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:47:56 +1000

What you are asking for is a shit film. Peter Jackson creates feeling where there was little. After all, he is in the business of making films and one would hope that a film maker endeavors to make good ones. A straight translation of the books would satisfy the likes of you, but what about those of us who want to be moved and inspired by a truly creative work? Watch the cartoon version if you want basic narrative. The new film does well to invoke real feelings for the characters, whereas the novels only do well to inspire awe and wonder.

In the novel Faramir was a very two dimensional character. I have read the books many times over the years, and I am glad that Peter Jackson saw fit to add the depth to the characters which in many cases was non-existent in the novels. Tolkien was more preoccupied with his invention of an artificial mythology than with character development. In the books there are seldom any moments of real insight into the ramifications of any events or the feelings generated. Tolkien’s story is pure narrative, which is not to say that it has no merit. I have enjoyed reading the books time and time again.

With regard to your contention that the re-telling skews the main theme of the trilogy, I would like to know who died and made you a professor of English Literature? Sauron’s forces were going to destroy Gondor IN ANY EVENT. THAT is the main thrust of the evil in the second novel of the trilogy - the unrelenting scourge that exists only to bring about the extinction of the kingdoms not allied to the Dark Lord. Peter Jackson’s film even illustrates this perfectly when the narrative describes Sauron shifting the focus of his invasion to Gondor - before any of the events surrounding the Hobbits “spoiling” the secret of their quest even happens. I wonder if you were not paying attention during the film, or if you were just too busy taking the aforementioned changes personally. The shift of the focus in the second novel from the first does not play down the importance of the quest to destroy the one ring, it adds a human face to the thousands that depend on it’s destruction. I’m sure you are a big fan Monty, but you are not an authority by any means. There are no shortage of essays on The Lord of the Rings, so perhaps you should read at least one that is not somebody’s web page.

by: Tripitaka

Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:57:48 +1000

I can see your point, Monty, but I do think that most (not all) of the changes were justified cinematically. A good portion of LOTR is fundamentally static - I don’t mean that nothing happens, just that Tolkien will sometimes step back and say `Then they had a big fight and lots of people died. But they won. The end.’ Jackson has to make cinematic fodder out of things like that, and make things exciting in the more direct, simple way that is required of the medium of cinema as opposed to prose. He has made some odd decisions in TTT, but to be fair, I think we should wait and see the final movie of the trilogy before we make judgements of his overall handling of the story.

The Faramir issue has been one of major controversy to fans of the books … I do and don’t agree with his treatment of the character. The Faramir of the film *is* much less complicated and interesting than that of the book, but certain sacrifices have to be made, not only to time constraints, but to Joe Average, for whom this is already a pretty multi-layered and complicated film. The sad fact is that Joe Average’s bum needs to arrive on many seats to fund a movie of this magnitude - in some ways, I’m surprised more concessions haven’t been made to Average Joe (or as a game designer friend refers to him `Chimp Factor 5′ ;) ). So yes, it’s a shame that this subtlety has been lost, but concessions have to be made.

One thing that few people seem to have mentioned, though, is the poor treatment of the character of Gimli. It’s like they’ve gone `Quiet moment. Need comic relief. Use Gimili’. Apart from being a disservice to the character, it gets pretty dull after a while. I hope he comes into his own in the final movie, not just the butt of dwarf jokes.