|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
LOTR Two Towers (Spoilers inside)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: tkron
I must admit LOTR TTT rocked.
I truely enjoyed it. I did not even mind the FEW liberties they took where the movie did not agree with the book, or the few scenes that were not a part of the book.
I love the way they are handling Gimli. I always did like drawves.
Posted by: uh...ok
*SPOILERS* sort of
Wrong forum but... a few words:
Yea, TT was pretty darn cool. Coming out of the movie, though, I was rather surprised that people liked it more than the first. After all, the novelty's gone, but the director still managed to put some good surprises in there.
I guess my thoughts diverge with you in terms of Gimli. I thought that they made fun of him just a tad too much. Sure, it illustrates his really good friendship with Legolas (which brings itself to light best when Legolas draws his bow on the leader of the Rohan exiles). But I thought they did it too much... too many instances the jokes, however funny, got tiring simply because it was always about Gimli. My biggest gripe is the effect this has on Gimli's character. Instead of developing him fully and making him a valued character, he has become nothing more than comic relief. Think Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars Episode 1 (although he is definitely not as annoying). Think of all the films where they have one specific character that either makes or takes all the jokes, ALL THE TIME.
Besides that, awesome movie. 
-uh...ok
Posted by: Erekose
heh no i think i must disagree with you here youhawk. gimli didnt become comic relief imo, it is how his character would react to the situations. aye he was stern and reserved in the beginings of the journey but i think that is only because he did not fully trust them. you can see a start of his lightening up when in the mines of moria he first says 'nobody tosses a dwarf' and then in the next few moments shouts 'not the beard' when he starts to fall. now one could see that as just his being pissed off (which he undoubtedly was) but the way he handled it showed a bit of the character development to come. again this is just my opinion
... oh and were the slinker/stinker arguments great. gollum/smeagol's facial expression had more than a few people laughing out loud (which doesn't happen too much around here, even at comedies... i dont know why that is)
Posted by: Null Actor
Gollum was the best part of the movie by far.
Posted by: Muggs
how can you spoil a movie that is based on a book that like most sane people have read?
Posted by: Erekose
are you saying he spoiled it?
Posted by: uh...ok
No he's saying I shouldn't include the *SPOILER* warning on top.
Basically I should not be considerate of people who haven't seen the movie or read the book yet.
Because anyone who hasn't read the book yet doesn't qualify as a sane person.
RIGHT. 
-uh...ok
Posted by: rexoverbey
Some of the fight scenes were kind of cheesy. Especially when they are up against Sauron's army of 10,000.
Posted by: uh...ok
Yea, that part is a bit unbelievable - no matter how good your men are (and their men were hardly good besides the few heroes), 300 vs. 10,000... no matter how you do the math, it just doesn't work out.
Even if you throw in Aramir's (or whatever his name is) army that Gandalf brings with him... let's say 3000.
Which means on average each soldier killed 3 of those giant hulking ... what are they called again? I forget.
And that's assuming that those 3000 people don't die. 
-uh...ok
Posted by: Canis Lupus
And you think Sauron whacking away 20-50 men with one swing is more believable? Are you sure you guys know what kind of movie you're watching? 
Posted by: Null Actor
Urukai. Or something like that.
A fortress like that could easily hold out longer, but peter jackson seems to have completely forgotten to do any research about siege warfare. The big army would have wasted thousands of troops just trying to get a foothold on the wall. Of course, could have been tolkien's lack of research as well.
Posted by: Shalome
You people are forgetting there were elves and a white wizard involved. That skews the odds considerably against the uruk-hai.
Look at it this way: We're arguing technical details of an imaginary, magical world.
Posted by: Null Actor
See, that's what annoys me about the LOTR movies so far. The wizards don't do anything... wizardly. Or at least, gandalf doesn't.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
I have a few problems with this movie. I can safely say that I did not like this movie as much as the first. The first third of The Two Towers always seemed awkward to me, as if Tolkien wrote The Fellowship of the Ring as a stand-alone, realized that it needed to become a trilogy and then spent the first portion of the second book re-directing plot lines and running damage control on dead-end scenarios. Peter Jackson did what he could to work around this by speeding through the first third of the book in the first 40 minutes.
I didn't wait a year to see 2 segments of footage from the first film shown again within the first half-hour. That pissed me off. This movie was a big seller for home theatre, to the say the least. We've all seen the first movie ad nauseum--like we weren't gonna notice that we were being fed the same scenes in the same order?? At the least, they could have chosen the same scene from a different camera angle. . . .not the same tired footage of the Orthanc forge, the Uruk'hai breeding pits, the tree falling in the furnaces. . . .boo.
I'm not gonna beat the drum on Gimli getting the. . . .err, short end of the stick. But yeah, he got the shaft. Furthermore, elves and dwarves don't kick it together. By the second book, Gimli and Legolas are comrades-in-arms and realize they have a job to do but the sort of good-natured ribbing and buddy-buddy bullshit the movie serves up is the real fantasy.
My biggest issue: twenty minutes on Arwen?!??!?! They showed no footage of Wellinghall, monkeyed with the order of events in Fangorn and sped through the race across the fields of Rohan for what--a twenty minute segment on a character that isn't even mentioned anywhere except in the first book?? Don't get me wrong. . . .Liv Tyler is the dopest and I would kill any of you reading this to get with that but she didn't belong in this movie.
And the shit with Legolas surfing down the stairs. . . .I mean, really. Wasn't he pulling a draught from a frothy flagon of Mountain Dew as he did it?? Embarrassing. . .
I wanted to end this on a positive note: the seige of Helm's Deep--awe-inspiring. Gandalf's epic battle with the Balrog--breath-taking, truly the finish aspect of the film. The scene in the Dead Marshes where Frodo fell face-first in a ghastly hallucination--chilling. . .very cool stuff. I did like this film a lot, but this thread should be critical discourse, not a parade of ass-smooches for Mr. Jackson.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
 Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
See, that's what annoys me about the LOTR movies so far. The wizards don't do anything... wizardly. Or at least, gandalf doesn't.
|
Well, there is a lack of serious sorcery but you have to admit any enchantment that allows a wave of cavalry to charge down a ridiculously steep slope into a mass of infantry with 15 foot pikes braced for a charge and have the cavalry break through and survive is some amazing power. I don't know the last word on medieval warfare but last time I checked, if you charged cavalry into a phalanx or a front of polearms set to receive a charge, your ass is barbeque.
Posted by: Shalome
Barbeque? Wouldn't shish kebab be a more appropriate metaphor?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by AngstMerchant
this thread should be critical discourse, not a parade of ass-smooches for Mr. Jackson.
|
Then again, since when did "any" critical discourse of a fantasy film ever end up favorable on the director's side
Suspension of disbelief is a quality that majority of movie critics almost never possess... altho I can't blame the critics on this one, since Peter Jackson has publicly said that he took immense liberties with TTT for film purposes ... the absence of Shelob is one glaring thing... still tho, you have to admit that any criticism of a fantasy film based on mainstream standards is off tangent at best...
This is not to say that the Dungeons and Dragons movie didn't suck more than a starving hoe...
Posted by: Shalome
Absence? She's going to be in there, just not till the third installment. The Two Towers ends with Gollum scheming to "takes the hobbits to herrrr, yessss, precioussssss!" so if they skip over Shelob, who's the "she" Gollum's taking them to?
I can see why they had to take some temporal liberties as far as clean breaks on the movies vs the books go... "Return of the King" is actually a fairly short book, compared to the other two... I mean, over half the book is appendices. You couldn't make an interesting movie out of Return of the King.
Posted by: tkron
Yes the two Towers stopped at chapter 7 of the third book (first half of the second book) and chapter 6 Fourth book (second half of the second book).
At least in my copies of the LOTH each book is broken up into two books (The Return of the king is broken up to book 5 (the war) and 6 the journey of the hobbits. and the aftermath of the war)
I loved the movie, however having just reread the trilogy here is where the movie significantly differed from the book
MASSIVE Spoiler of sorts).
Peterson merged book three (what happend to Aragorn and Pipen/Merry) with book four (what happened to Frodo and Sam.
According to the book, Pippen and Merry were actually carried away from the Uruk-hai camp, which was surrounded byt the Riders, by the chief of the Orcs of Mordor who was on the Raid and decided that the Hobbits should go to Mordor.
The meeting of treebeard and all of the Ent stuff especailly the Ent Moot, was trimed back, the Battle of the Ents at Isengard was handled quite differently than the book, Isengard was just about deserted, as Saruman just about vacated Isengard, in order to get a swift victory over Rohan. Pippen and Merry did not convince the Ents to attack Isengard, the Ents came to that conclusion themselves. However, I am sure that the Ent Moot as presented in the book would have been very boring in the movie.
Eomer and his riders actually arrived before the battle in the book. Elven support never appeared at the battle of Helm's Deep. Helms Deep although still greatly out numbered, was defended by many more riders than portrayed in the movie. The Ents were responsible for a good part of the destruction of Saruman's army at Helms Deep. Gandalf arrived with only Foot soldiers not Horsemen, and between the last/final charge of the riders from the deep and Galdalfs arriving Foot army Sarumans army retreated into the groves of Ents/trees (The the Ents brought to the deep) never to be seen again.
Faramir never tried to get the ring from Frodo, nor did he take him to Osgiliath nor attemtp to take him to Minas Tirith
Frodo never faced the Ring Wraiths as deplicted in the movie at Osgiliath.
Aragorn was never almost killed on the retreat to Helms Deep.
Arwen never was mentioned in Two Towers.
Dispite all the above, I think that the movie was excellently done and that Peterson did an admirable job keeping to the feel of Tolkiens books.
Posted by: uh...ok
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
And you think Sauron whacking away 20-50 men with one swing is more believable? Are you sure you guys know what kind of movie you're watching?
|
Of course it's fantasy, but the film also tries to stay within the bounds of reality given that context. I mean, basically, we're assuming that the world still works logically - it just has elves and dwarves and other races and magic-users and the like. But that doesn't belittle the fact that 300 against 10,000 is a bit absurd, even as Aragorn pointed out to the King of Rohan. LOTR may not be reality, but it still tries to simulate war of the olden days (of which I thought it did an awesome job).
Just because the story is fantastical fiction DOESN'T mean that every farmer and every boy who has never held a sword in his life before can take out 5 Uruk'hai. "But you've got the elves and you've got Strider, Gimli, and Legolas." Yea, but I mean, how much more can one person kill? Let's be generous and say that Strider, Gimli, and Legolas kills 200 each... hell, let's be crazy and say they each single-handedly take out 500. That's 1500, but that leaves 8500 to be dealt by some hundreds of elves and 300 farmers. And if you noticed the way the Uruk'hai were rocking the defenders once they got over the wall...
Well anyway, it's not a large point to argue about anyway. I was just adding to the fact that the logistics of the battle weren't all that sensible.
-uh...ok
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by tkron
The meeting of Treebeard and all of the Ent stuff especailly the Ent Moot, was trimmed back
|
Tee hee hee. . . .good one, T. I'm not a big fan of puns but I do like to see something done well. That's funny!!
Thanks for stepping to the plate for us hard-cores. I would have done the detail cataloguing myself but I can't find my copy of T2T. I know that its just a movie but it is the most significant attempt to create a feature length film of what many people would consider chief among endeavors in the fantasy pantheon. I may very likely speak for a great many people when I say "This is important to me."
The omissions in the first movie were acceptable. They didn't bother me one bit. But the changes that were made to the second movie are too numerous and too glaring to ignore. I enjoyed this movie but I would have been happier if it had been more faithful to the original literature.
Posted by: Nfested
I have never read any of the books but I felt a few parts of the movie to be boring. I liked the first one a little better.
I know that the Arwen story was not in TT, but they took that from the appendix or something and added it in to the movie. It wasn't some madeup storyline by Peter Jackson. I liked how they added in that part.
The gollum part was good too. You kinda feel sorry for him.
I liked how at the very end of battle of helm's deep you see Gandalf's side cloaked with light charging down the hill and then you see the dark side of the uruk hai. The clashing of light vs dark looked good.
Posted by: uh...ok
Angst, a good movie is never supposed to follow the original literature in its entirety. The fact that the story must be presented through a different medium alone is enough to make it so.
When you make a film based on any novel, you're going to have to make a lot of tough decisions in terms of what to leave out, throw in, or add. You're never going to make your movie any good if you follow the original literature completely - because all you end up with is a re-hashing of what already exists. Dare to step outside the bounds of the original and be creative, however, and you've got something better than the source you get it from.
-uh...ok
Posted by: AngstMerchant
You must love the Lawnmower Man movies, then.
Posted by: Arwen
Oh god, no Shelob - I was looking forward to seeing how that would be handled. Question: why only 300 at Helm's Deep surely with all the Rohirrim from the Marches there would be more. Theoden took far more with him to Minas Tirith in RotK. And don't forget the orcs retreat was foiled by the Huorns and Ents from Fangorn.
From memory half way through Helm's Legolas and Gimli keep a tally of the numbers each killed. The bodies of the orcs piled up allowing access to the Deeping wall and aiding its breach by Grond the battering ram. Wizards do stuff mainly in the line of encouraging the correct path to take, without Gandalf Theoden would have sat in Meduseld and waited for death. Not forgetting that Gandalf wields the third Elven ring, and Sarument further corrupted the orcs with the creation of the Urak hai.
As for Arwen, Liv is weak and surplus to requirements at the best of times. However, it is possible that in addition to the appendices at the end of vol 3, Jackson also used the History of Middle Earth texts complied by Christopher Tolkein.
Still I look forward to actually seeing the film
Arwen
Posted by: Arwen
Sorry my spelling is s*** but its been a long, long day.
Night now.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I could have sworn that Shelob was in the Two Towers (book) in Cirith Ungol(?) ... either that or I need to re-read the books again.
Anyway, I meant she was absent from TTT ... I am sure Jackson would put her in RotK (it's a major event in the plot) ... or maybe in the books she was in it to begin with ... 
Posted by: NightMage
well we don't get it here in aus until the 26th, the forces of the rohirrim were a bit more than 300 in the book.... closer to 3000, and who they were fighting were the Easterlings. And yes Arwen is not mentioned in either Fotr TTT, but is mention in RotK, as she goes to Gondor with Elrond and Aragorn and she get married, it's a shame they didn't put the lay of Beleriand i think it is in the first book, because that applies directly to Aragorn and Arwen.... Sorry but I'm a LotR buff. And has been pointed out the fact that the rohirrim had Legolas would have helped, and the fact that Aragorn is a half-elf. Though that's not mentioned, and is a long story, goes back to Isildur. But the biggest advantage was the fort, I don't know if they mention it in the movie but it does in the book, it's protected by magic and has NEVER been breached, and can be defended by a small number of men.
Posted by: tkron
Yes the two Towers stopped at chapter 7 of the 11 in the third book (first half of the second book) and chapter 6 of the 10 in the Fourth book (second half of the second book).
Posted by: Daedleus
Quote:
Originally posted by tkron
Elven support never appeared at the battle of Helm's Deep.
|
That would explain my puzzlement when I saw the Elven captain killed in the closing scenes of the siege on Helm's Deep. I knew I was right to think that never happened; I didn't remember any such thing when I read the books.
Overall, I thought the movie was fantastic, and I enjoyed it from start to finish. The touches of humor were done well (the scene where Aragorn is recovering from a trip down the river where he is getting nudged around by the very loyal and intelligent horse is really great, considering the scene preceding it). And the multiple personality scene with Gollum is laugh-out-loud funny. I have to mention the Ents too. They were awesome. I loved the one scene where they were bracing themselves for the wave of water where the one Ent that was on fire doused the flames in a funny fashion.
Shelob will definitely be in the last movie, though, as Gollum's closing soliloquy eludes to that.
All in all, a great movie. I'm looking forward to adding it to my collection. Perhaps I should start by getting the first one though, heh.
Posted by: Arwen
Technically Aragon is descended from a half-elven on the line of Dior, son of Luthien, and therefore a distant relative of Elrond (who chose the path of immortality). Furthermore, Aragon is the heir to Gondor and Arnor, the north kingdom of the remnant of Numenor. These blokes had powers and extended life span etc as a gift from the Valar for being faithful. Aragon was in no real danger at any time during TTT and is really only tested in RotK. I won't say where or how for those that have not read the book.
Arwen makes several reappearances in RotK some only by mention (remember the sable standard, anyone?). She is entirely absent from TTT.
The only elf mentioned in the book (TTT) being present (until you reach RotK) is Legolas. Reference to the History of Mid. Earth series would give an indication why. In fact both Gimli and Legolas lament the lack of their own races during the siege. I note that the relationship between these two has caused interest. Well the dwarfs and elves have a long runing feud fuelled by the incident of the Necklace of the Dwarfs, some dubious decisions made by dwarfs during the dark years of the Necromancer, and of course the Balrog of FotR. The Book of Lost Tales (1&2) will clear this up for those interested in ploughing further.
As for the Lay of Beleriand - read at your peril. I adore Tolkein (does it show?) however, octosyllabic couplets are very, very hard to read. My advice: read quietly to yourself in the toilet where no-one will hear you. Hearing the words is important to undestanding the Lays, otherwise it is tiresome.
But, for me, the most unforgivable acts have been committed by Jackson in FotR. Cate Blancette as Galadriel! I'm still too angry. I appreciate that some scenes needed to be modified but I wasn't happy with the lack of the Barrowdowns incident - how are the swords of Westernesse going to get to the hobbits, if via Elrond or Galadriel it was poorly done. The gift-giving at Parth Galen was definitely underplayed. Either that, or book six vol 3 will be trucated beyond existence.
Mind you I am properly biased by the fact that when I saw FotR at the cinema I had to sit for 3 hours dying for a pee.
Posted by: tkron
Although the Barrowdowns and Tom Bombadil are not covered in the extended version, the Gift giving is covered. Merry and Pippin are given two daggers to be used as swords by the Lady of the woods.
Posted by: Xtren
I just saw the Two Towers yesterday. Thought it was a pretty great movie and liked it better than the first one overall. The battle for Helm's Deep was deffinitely my favourite part though. It was just a spectacular war and really looked awesome. I also liked Gollum in the movie, I got a real kick out of him when he kept on talking to Smeagol.
The only part of the movie I disliked (which was mentionned by youhawk earlier) was the way Gimli's character was portrayed in the movie. Rather than making him a valiant fighter he turned out to be a really comedic character and I think that took a lot away from the movie. I think he was made much too stupid and clumsy when he was supposed to play such a key role on the good side. From the way the characters were portrayed in the movie it wasn't even reasonnable to compare him to Legolas and they still counted kills and were pretty close.
Overall the movie was great though. After having read the novel perhaps it didn't have the impact on me that it should have, but I'd still give it four stars
Posted by: tkron
I quote for RotK appendix A, near the end of the section about Durins folk...
"Dis was the daughter of Thrain II. She is the only dwarf-woman named in these histories. It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in appearence, and garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."
Remember even EQ has the ability to select beards on dwarf-women.
Dwarfs are very narrow minded and highly focused.
Posted by: uh...ok
Daed, just wait for the DVD set to come out.
-uh...ok
Posted by: NightMage
Arwen, it is good to see someone here who is as big a buff as I am, I agree Cate Blanchett was a poor choice for Galadriel, and yes the gift giving scene should have had more to it as it's a very important part. I too wish that Tom Bombadill and the Barrow-wights had made an appearance in FotR, especially considering Tom's importance regarding the ring and in RotK.
Posted by: tkron
The gift giving scene is much more fully covered in the DVD extended version of Fellowship.
Although I to missed the chapters about Tom Bombadil and the chapter about the Barrow wights, Tom is not intrinsic to the book once the decision is made to remove the Barrow wright chapter. The only mention of Tom in book three is that when Gandalf seperates from the Hobbits when they depart Bree, the reason given is that Gandalf wants to visit his "old friend Tom Bombadil".
The only mention of Tom in TTT is Sam wishing "Old Tom" was with them now when they first sensed the presence of Shelob.
But I still wish both those two chapters had been in First movie FotR.
Posted by: NightMage
I feel that Tom would have given those watching the movie who haven't read the books, something to think about
especially how he isn't affected by the ring at all
Posted by: Canis Lupus
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts
Posted by: Xtren
I was actually dissapointed that Sam and Frodo's encounter with Shelob was not included in the movie, nor the part where Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, etc. go to meet Saruman in Isengard. I felt those were key parts of the novel. The movie just kind of left out the ending, though I suppose it might appear as the beginning of RotK.
Posted by: Arwen
First no Shelob and now no Sauruman (Road to Isengard thro' to The Palantir). So how do Aragon etc meet up with Merry and Pippin? What about the Palantir?
TTT sounds worse the more I hear about it.
Posted by: Xtren
The good party doesn't get to the Palantir in the Two Towers, so it doesn't show Aragorn etc. meet up with Merry and Pippin again.
However you shouldn't be discouraged about the movie, you'll find it really awesome if you see it. Just go watch it in theatres and don't read anyone's opinions would be my advice. You can post your own reviews after you see it, but otherwise this'll ruin it for you.
Posted by: Arwen
Thanks for cheering me up. I still think Helm's will be kick-ass, but maybe thats my subconscious talking.
Posted by: tkron
Actually I think that they picked a very good spot to stop the movie, I believe the stoping the movie where the actual TTT books stops it would have been a mistake.
I also truely believe that most of the chapters that were in the TTT book and not in the movies will be included in the RotK.
Posted by: Spider
Keep in mind I haven't read any of your posts
Okay, I just saw the movie, and I was fuming when they brought Frodo to Gilliath or whatever, he never went to Gondor on his way to Mordor and when I thought that they were going to not include Shelob and Minus Morgul and Samwise the Brave, but they set it up in the end, so they better include it, as I said after I saw the fellowship of the ring, I'm holding judgement until I've seen the entire story on film, but I must say I'm a bit more disappointed with the two towers than I was with the fellowship, now, off to drink some wine!
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
now, off to drink some wine!
|
I think you have had enough 
Posted by: Spider
Hey now, I posted that before I even started drinking, that way I knew I would be coherent. Anyway we went through four bottles of red today, I don't know about white, I don't like white wine much. Probably two though.
Posted by: Erekose
...wowser
Posted by: NightMage
I'm not understanding something here... to my knowledge in the previews they show Aragorn and so forth at Isengard, but they never go near the Palantir, that's in Gondor that happens, and I'm not to sure about your post Spider but in the book Frodo never went to Gondor, as Gondor is on the opposite side of the Anduin River. But if you're saying that in the movie he does go to Gondor then that sucks.
Posted by: Spider
Uh, ya, in the movie he goes to Gilliath, an outpost on the border of Gondor, the outpost they lose to Mordor well after the isenguard battle I believe, but happens concurrently in the movie. But anyway, in the movie they Faramir brings Frodo to that outpost and the Nasgul attack and they lose it and he releases Frodo, it's a piece of shit segment that shouldn't be there.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
I feel that Tom would have given those watching the movie who haven't read the books, something to think about
especially how he isn't affected by the ring at all
|
Tom Bombadil isn't affected by the One Ring because he is a very very old force in Middle Earth. . . .not Mayar or Valar but something else, a primeval force added to Ea by Iluvatar. He is like Gandalf or Ungoliant. . . .unique and ageless, a thing outside the rules that govern the other species and races of the World. So, some trinket created by Melkor's cur of a lieutenant don't mean shit to Tom.
But I'm guessing you know that. . .
Posted by: tkron
Correct Frodo never goes to Osgiliath with Faramir. Faramir in the book shows that he is above/wiser than his brother and will not be tempted by the ring. In the book Sam accidentally mentions the ring, and Faramir knows it is the one ring, the ring of power which must have been found, but he says "Alas for Boromir! It (the ring) was too sore a trial."..."Not if I found it one the highway would I take it"..... "I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee"
They moved the part where one of the black riders flying mounts is killed by an arrow. Legolas in the first book kills one from across the river, while boating on the river from the Elven woods.
Aragorn never was lost on the way to helms deep, and never floated down the river as shown in the movie. I believe it was just used to reinforce the fact that Eowyn has fallen in love with Aragorn. But in my opinion the scene was not needed.
I still firmly believe/hope that the missing chapters from the second book will appear in the third movie, we shall have wait to see.
Posted by: Spider
Quote:
Originally posted by AngstMerchant
Tom Bombadil isn't affected by the One Ring because he is a very very old force in Middle Earth. . . .not Mayar or Valar but something else, a primeval force added to Ea by Iluvatar. He is like Gandalf or Ungoliant. . . .unique and ageless, a thing outside the rules that govern the other species and races of the World. So, some trinket created by Melkor's cur of a lieutenant don't mean shit to Tom.
But I'm guessing you know that. . .
|
Agreed, but he's also bound to his area of middle earth and can't help with the fight.
(Also I'm not trying to nitpick but you say he's not a Mayar and then say he's like Gandalf, who was a Mayar. )
Posted by: Arwen
I believe Gandalf and the other four wizards( three are named) were, in fact, Istari not Maia (not Mayar) and called for by Galadriel etc at the beginning of the Third Age. Bombadil is a Maia (in charge of the Great Forest) as is Goldberry, his missus, and Sauron.
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by tkron
Correct Frodo never goes to Osgiliath with Faramir.
|
Then why the hell did he go there in the movie? I mean they could have covered the bit with Shelob rather than show the war in Osgiliath. Either that or the movie could have shown a little of Ilendil and perhaps more of the discussion between Frodo and Faramir (which I'm only saying because for someone who hadn't read the novel it might have been hard to understand what was going on).
Posted by: Erekose
because the director was not you. heh i think we all need to relax a little and enjoy the movie for what it is, you've all gone into geek-overdrive (and i've realised that i have many, many more books to read by tolkien if i can find them.)
Posted by: Spider
If you can find them is right, many are out of print, your best bet will be used book stores, heh.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Actually, I think the movie makes the story MUCH easier to appreciate if you have not read the books... ironic as it may seem, the movie does away with some of the bloat (which might be construed by Tolkien purists as "the richness of the story", in which I cannot blame them), and relates the story with moderate pacing, so as not to exhaust, confuse or even strike the audience down with intense boredom, especially those who have NOT read the books and do not know what happens next.
As was mentioned several times, Jackson has made the movies very accessible to those who are not geek enough to read the books beforehand. The pacing in the LOTR movies are rather excellent, and are not bogged down with too much dialogue or detours that are not at all paramount to the trilogy's ultimate goal - the destruction of the One Ring and the fate of Middle Earth.
Of course, Tolkien purists will always say those who loved the movies are Jackson butt-kissers. The same can be said about Tolkien foot-lickers who didn't like the movie because it was not 100% "true" to the books. In the final analysis, there have to be tradeoffs. There is only so much that you can cram into a 3-hour movie and at the same time make it enjoyable to watch.
If you want something that is absolutely true to the LOTR books, buy an audiobook...
This is not to say that TTT was flawless - I was looking forward to Shelob. There were also scenes that should've been there and scenes that shouldn't, but they do not affect the main story. After watching the movie, I was thoroughly entertained, and anxious for the concluding movie next year. My brothers, who have not read LOTR (in fact, they're too lazy to read fiction, period), were more enthusiastic than I was. That is a pretty impressive achievement for the movie - my brothers actually started asking me for more details about LOTR and Tolkien's other books. A few years earlier I couldn't get them to read a fantasy book even if I gave em a hundred bucks.
Posted by: tkron
As someone once said to me, if they made the movie exactly like the book....
1. it would be redundent. there would be no need for both.
2. it would be boring.
But one must remember that when you read a book, no matter how descriptive it is, it is you imagination that brings it to life. It would be impossible for a move to satisfy how every readers imagination conjured up what whas described in the book.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Actually, I think the movie makes the story MUCH easier to appreciate if you have not read the books... ironic as it may seem, the movie does away with some of the bloat (which might be construed by Tolkien purists as "the richness of the story", in which I cannot blame them)
|
I don't think that is ironic at all but rather expected. The people who haven't read the books have no existing standard to compare the movie to so they aren't going to be disappointed. And just to allay any wrong impressions that may exist out there, it was a kick-ass flick and I look forward to seeing it again.
As for the bloat. . . . .yeah, Tolkien can be a little long-winded. You'll get no argument here. The area where his uber-literation really takes over is his extremely detailed account of sweeping panoramic views of landscapes. Hills, valleys, rivers, caves. . . .give this man a shadowy forest clearing with nothing happening in it and I'm sure he could write three or four books on it. However, the details of those landscapes and backdrops are far far easier to impress upon the reader in a visual format.
A good example of this descriptive overkill is a chapter from The Silmarillion. . . .I believe it is called "On the Lands of Beleriand" or something like that. He goes on for, literally, pages about the particulars of this plain and that river and blah blah blah. I have read The Silmarillion three times and I have never managed to make it through this chapter completely.
Posted by: Xtren
To make the movies exactly like the books wouldn't be a good idea, and would take a lot longer than 3 hours of filming to cover. However, making the movie a little more like the books, in certain aspects (which is what I believe was the suggestion from some of the people who replied in this thread) would not be as crazy. Either way the movie was great, you can't complain about it. Every movie has its flaws, but you have to remember that in the eyes of a non-reader (which was the majority of the audience) the flaws were not noticeable, and the movie was deffinitely enjoyed.
Posted by: justinious
All in all, Jackson has done an excellent job staying true to the trilogyso far. Considering the time restraints (as far as movie length) 3 hours +/- is not adequate for the telling of one book. Also, the sequence events take in the book(s) would not make for a good movie. Personally, I had to reread parts of the earlier books as I read along and you can't rewind in a theater.
The SFX were superb, acting above average, and Gollum a treat. So what if it isn't exactly like Tolkien wrote. I was thouroughly enertained and my mouth was open in amazement for most of the movie. Definatey worth the price of the ticket, concessions, and extended DVD (when it is released ).
As for Gimli v. Jar-Jar, every epic movie or book needs some form of comic relief and let's thank the writers of TTT that Gimli wasn't turned into pure, infantile slap-stick and pidgin speech like Jar-Jar the Destroyer of the Republic
Edit: If I'm repeating what anyone else said I apologize. I mostly skimmed through the previous posts
Posted by: Freak
When's the next one coming out? December 18 2003? hehe.
Posted by: Erekose
heh gollum did speak pidgin
Posted by: justinious
True, Erekose
Here's something interesting. According to the Dec. 2nd issue of Time:
Quote:
The director readily admits that of his three films, Two Towers departs most from Tolkien's work. "We were aware that we were making films for the hard-core Tolkien fan base as well as everyone else," says Jackson, who co-wrote the script with Phillipa Boynes and Fran Walsh. "In the beginning it was a difficult tightrope to walk, but then, but then we sort of abandoned thinking about it. If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book."
|
Another article in the same issue says:
Quote:
"Many young americans are involved in the stories in a way I'm not," he [J.R.R. Tolkien], once remarked about his fans --- or as he called them, "my deplorable cultus."
|
hmmmmmmmmmm. . .
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.u...e/confused2.gif
Posted by: Erekose
ah but he meant it with all the love he could muster. it's a petname... really
Posted by: NightMage
I just want to say Gandalf can be corrupted by the ring, hence the line in FotR "Do not tempt me, do not tempt me, for I would try to use it for good but instead do evil." or something along those lines. I think what Tom may be is in fact a Woodland God. I only think of this because in the Unfinished Tales he isn't mentioned in the first couple of Chapters/Tales. Oh and Galadriel and all Elves are Elders.
Posted by: Erekose
aye and galadriel could be tempted too
Posted by: Bored
Creature backgrounds(according to the books):
Galadriel is a high elf. She was a Nolder born in the first or second age of Ea. Since the third age of middle earth is actually the 7th age of the Ea, and the last two ages alone add up to about 7000 years that would make her 20000 years old or so. However, time in the first 3 ages of Ea was kept according to a calendar of days that were about twice as long. So she is actually in the range of 30,000 years old.
All wizards and all balrogs, including Sauron, were Mayar. However, there is apparantly a difference between Istari and other Mayar. Gandalf tells the balrog in Moria that he is a servant of the Imperishable Flame, which is that aspect of Illuvatar that remained hidden even from the Valar, and especially from Melkor and the balrogs. So basicly he was telling the balrog it didn't stand a chance. I can't remember if that's exactly how it happened in the book, and don't have FotR handy right now.
He also remarks to Aragorn that he has lived for 300 lives of men, and since in the book men live to be about 90-100 years old on average, that means he was about 30,000. Which coincides rather nicely with the above estimate of Galadriel's age.
Balrogs were created by Melkor from the fallen Mayar that joined his side against Illuvatar. Orcs and goblins were elves that he corrupted, and trolls were those unfortunate ents who were snared in his grasp. Dragons were bred from some kind of normal snakes or something like that, and Smaug was apparently a weakling by dragon standards.
Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are Valar of slightly lesser state than the 14, but higher than Mayar. While there is no direct link in the texts of The Silmarillion or LOTR, there is ample indirect evidence and implication to support this claim in the first 50 pages of The Silmarillion, and in LOTR itself when Tom talks about how he met her.
Ungoliant is "something else". She is perhaps a by product of Melkor's songs of dischord.
Posted by: tkron
>Creature backgrounds(according to the books):
I'd need to re-read the Silmarilion to really nail these on the head.
>Galadriel is a high elf. She was a Nolder born in the first or second age of
>Ea. Since the third age of middle earth is actually the 7th age of the Ea,
>and the last two ages alone add up to about 7000 years that would make her
>20000 years old or so. However, time in the first 3 ages of Ea was kept
>according to a calendar of days that were about twice as long. So she is
>actually in the range of 30,000 years old.
There are 3 ages that I am familiar with. I've never heard the 3rd age of
middle earth referred to as the 7th age of the Ea before. Let me go get my
book. 8) The Vanyar are the "high elves". The Noldor are the "middle elves".
The Teleri are the "low elves". The elves are named collectively as the
Eldar by the gods and are a subset of the Quendi. The Quendi are divided
into two peoples, The Eldar and the Avari. Galadriel is Noldor, or a middle
elf. The Silmarilion does not give a time-table, so I have no way to verify
the time claim. But Galadriel dates to the first age of Middle Earth and
lived in Valinor for most of it, where time does not reach. So she could
well be nigh 30,000 years old.
>All wizards and all balrogs, including Sauron, were Mayar. However, there is
>apparantly a difference between Istari and other Mayar. Gandalf tells the
>balrog in Moria that he is a servant of the Imperishable Flame, which is
>that aspect of Illuvatar that remained hidden even from the Valar, and
>especially from Melkor and the balrogs. So basicly he was telling the balrog
>it didn't stand a chance. I can't remember if that's exactly how it happened
>in the book, and don't have FotR handy right now.
Maiar, not Mayar. The Imperishable Flame was placed at the center of Ea
when Illuvatar created the firmament. Melkor coveted it above all things,
for it possessed the power to create life. The Balrogs are Maiar who were
corrupted by Melkor in the elder days. Sauron is Maiar and Melkor's chief
lieutenant, greatest of the maiar who followed Melkor. Sauron is only less
evil than his master in that he served another for a time. When Morgoth
was banished from middle earth, Sauron arose as a shadow of Morgoth and ghost
of his malice.
The Istari are a subset of the Maiar who remained faithful. The distinction
is that very few of the Maiar dealt directly with the elves, dwarves, and
men. The Istari were friends of the elves and often passed among them in
secret.
Gandalf certainly did NOT rate that high above the Balrogs. Gandalf was
counted the wisest of the Maiar, but undoubtably Sauron was the strongest,
just as Melkor was the strongest of the Valar. Gandalf probably rated above
the Balrog of Moria in power, thou this is not clear from The Silmarillion.
Gandalf's statements were meant to reinforce the idea that Gandalf COULD
stand against the Balrog. Its doubtful Gandalf wanted to confront the Balrog
at that time, knowing the quest of the ring required his full attention.
The Balrog was not swayed and the rest is history.
>He also remarks to Aragorn that he has lived for 300 lives of men, and since
>in the book men live to be about 90-100 years old on average, that means he
>was about 30,000. Which coincides rather nicely with the above estimate of
>Galadriel's age.
Gandalf pre-dates the creation of Ea by an unknown period of time. Gandalf
walked Ea long before the coming of the elves. Galadriel was born into the
world...quite possibly in Valinor, which would make her considered young
by the elves who answered the call of the Valar and made their way to
Valinor. Also, keep in mind that 90-100 years is more in line with the
lifespan of men at the time of Aragorn. In the beginning, it might well have
been more like a 1000 years. This could put Gandalf at 300,000 years. And
that is just reconning the time he spent on Ea, not the time before Ea.
>Balrogs were created by Melkor from the fallen Mayar that joined his side
>against Illuvatar. Orcs and goblins were elves that he corrupted, and trolls
>were those unfortunate ents who were snared in his grasp. Dragons were bred
>from some kind of normal snakes or something like that, and Smaug was
>apparently a weakling by dragon standards.
Neither Goblins nor Trolls were mentioned in the Silmarillion. Orcs are
Elves of the Avari who were captured and twisted by Melkor. Smaug was no
weakling of dragons. Ancalagon the Black was greatest of the dragons.
Glaurung was first among dragonkind and fathered that race. I suspect
Smaug was somewhere near the top in power.
>Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are Valar of slightly lesser state than the 14,
>but higher than Mayar. While there is no direct link in the texts of The
>Silmarillion or LOTR, there is ample indirect evidence and implication to
>support this claim in the first 50 pages of The Silmarillion, and in LOTR
>itself when Tom talks about how he met her.
This seems to bear out upon further review. There is no mention of Bombadil
in The Silmarillion, but the Valar numbered more than 14. There were 14 lords
of the Valar...
>Ungoliant is "something else". She is perhaps a by product of Melkor's songs
>of dischord.
It is not directly stated, but the implication is that Ungoliant is one
of the Valar who sided with Melkor, but then abandoned Melkor to be her
own master. She lived in Valinor near the brink of the abyss, farthest
from the light of the trees. Melkor tricked her out of hiding and together
they destroyed the two trees of light.
Posted by: Shalome
Dorks.
I mean that with all due respect, of course. I wish I could keep that much complex knowledge in my brain.
Posted by: Spider
Hmmm, interesting, when Gandalf said he was a servant of that flame in Moria, I always assumed he meant his ring of power since it had the powers of fire and such.
Also I thought I read that Ungoliant came from before creation from the darkness that was there before Iluvitar created the world..
Posted by: Jeddak
Very interesting info. : )
Posted by: NightMage
yeah in the book (i did this part for an audition for Uni) Gandalf says "I am the wielder of the Secret fire of Anor, you have no power here flame of Udun, go back to the shadow."
Posted by: Bored
There were 7 ages of Ea, though the first three aren't documented as such.
before time:
Melkor's first betrayal of the Valar on Ea. It ends with him being imprisoned for "3 ages by the other Valar"
1st-3rd Ea
Melkor is in captivity and the elves, dwarves, and men apear. Galadriel is born.
1st ME
The Silmarils are made.
Melkor's sentence is up. He begins to sow his lies and mastermind the civil wars between the elves. Melkor steals the Silmarils and destroys the trees with Ungoliant's help. The patriarchs of the Noldor vow to recover the Silmarils and open war between the families results because the family that was the shipwrights(can't remember name) would not allow them to borrow ships. Ungoliant turns on Melkor and the Balrogs come to help him. Melkor-Morgoth rebuilds Angband. At the end of the age Morgoth is defeated for good.
2nd ME
Dwarve populate Moria
Sauron stirs
Within a thousand years he gains the support of certain elven smiths, who he seduces into making the rings.
Sauron is captured by the Numenoreans, but eventually seduces many of them to his side.
The one ring is eventually taken from Sauron's hand at the fields of gladden.
3rd age ME
from Isildur to when Gollum dies with the ring
4th age of middle earth
Sam governs in the Shire for a while and then leaves to the Gray Havens. Aragorn lives with Arwen in Gondor until he chooses to end his life through some form of magic or telepathy that runs in the Numenorean line.
I got the info on ents becoming trolls from a dialog between Treebeard, Merry, and Pippen in the two towers book.
I'm not convinced on Smaug. If he was so great, why did he die to a single arrow while Glaurung gave the Noldor a big fight when he was just half grown? He got all shot up and wounded and instead of dying he just hid away and licked his wounds. That's a very, very big difference in stregth if you ask me.
Posted by: Erekose
well id guess because glaurung was fully scaled. the one arrow killed smaug because it was his one vulnerable spot. the arrow pierced straight through to his heart. even achilles had his heel
Posted by: Spider
Smaug was the greatest dragon of his age, but when compared to the dragons of old he was weak. I read that in some Tolkien book or another.
Posted by: Xtren
Smaug was probably weak because he didn't have any adversaries. He lived alone on his mountain and had great treasure all to himself. Nobody of significant power tried to steal it for a long time. He did get hit in his weak spot though, and that was supposedly his only weak spot. It was just one well-aimed arrow.
Posted by: Spider
You're misinterpreting what I posted.
He is only weak, when compared to the dragons of old. Smaug is one bad ass mother ****er, kind of like Samuel L Jackson.
Posted by: NightMage
Also Glaurung had the power of Morgoth behind him to help give him strength and so forth, Smaug on the other hand from sleeping on the pile of Jewels and Gems for so long had built up a kind of armour and the only place that wasn't covered was where his arm met his chest.
Posted by: Arwen
Ekerose, I usually find Amazon quite useful in locating Tolkein books. Online shopping is generally pretty good at locating them: try it.
You'll never find used ones where I live (lie - I saw one set of LOTR last year, first time ever! and I'm in my 30's) because buffs never give them up - they fall apart first through over reading.
Posted by: justinious
Any idea what a First Print, First Ed. Silmirillion in good condition and maps intact is worth?
Posted by: Arwen
Justinious mate, if you look at the rare/used books directory on Google and check some of the sites out you'll get a good idea. At a guess.. a very good meal and vintage wine to slosh down.
Posted by: justinious
Didn't realise Google had such a directory. Thanks Arwen.
Posted by: Muggle_Man
One part which I don't think many ppl understood, was when Gimli says "It's as if we just popped out of the ground!" If anyone has read the Sillmarilion one of the gods litterally grabs a rock, and carves a dwarve out of it. I was a little disapointed that noone understood that. A part that I am angry about is that they didn't put Tom in!!! Thats one of the best parts of FOTH. The huge evil tree that almost kills thems, the crypt fiend, the gold, Tom saving them twice. Otherwise The movies were done petty well. Oh, and one more thing, In the starting of this topic, some you of said that Sauron sent the army to attack Rohan. YOU'RE WRONG!!!! get the names right!!! Sarumon sent the army to attack rohan!!!
Posted by: tkron
Yes, many were disappointed that Tom was not in the first movie.
Is I stated before in this thread, what upset me the most was the way they handled Faramir's decisions concerning the ring, and how unlike his brother Boromir Faramir was.
Posted by: Xtren
Faramir was not at all like what I would have pictured him after I read the novel. The movie should have shown a little more of Ilendil as well.
I still don't know why they went to Osgiliath either...
Posted by: Freak
For some movie magic close-ups of the Nazgul, of course.
Posted by: tkron
As I stated back a few posts ago. I was not disappointed with how Daramir looked, I was disappointed with how his real inner self was portrayed:
In the book, Faramir is shown as being above/"wiser than:/"nobler than" his brother. One who si swise enought to not be tempted by the ring. In the book Sam accidentally mentions the ring, and Faramir knows the lore of the ring and knows it is the one ring, the ring of power which must have been found, but he says "Alas for Boromir! It (the ring) was too sore a trial."..."Not if I found it on the highway would I take it"..... "I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee"
In other words he never sucummed to the summons/lure of the ring.
|
|
|
|
|
