|
Author
|
Comment
|
Jane
Unregistered User
(1/8/03 3:51:38 pm)
|
LOTR: Two Towers
Anybody got any opinions so far on this great film? Disappointments?
Gripes? Still in a state of awe?
~Jane
|
tlchang37
Registered User
(1/8/03 11:27:04 pm)
|
Re: LOTR: Two Towers
I keep going back and forth on this one a bit. Of course, I mostly loved it. I thought the Ents were practically perfect in their depiction. Wished they'd gotten more screen time (along with the rest of the walking forest that was not included on film). Edoras was stunning. Loved the Rohan. Amazing battle at Helm's Deep - though I do not love battle scenes. Gollum was impressively done - though he remained a CGI character to me.
I came away from a first viewing (I plan on seeing it again next week) puzzled and not particularly happy with the plot and characterization that departed dramatically from the book. King Theodon was such a weak character - even after being 'set free' from Wormtongue and Saruman. I spent that whole part of the movie just being frustrated with him. And why have Aragorn fall off a cliff? The only reason I could figure was so that he could have the dream/vision of Arwen - so she wouldn't be entirely left out of this film. ( I did think they played the 'romance' between Aragorn and Eowyn just right. ) But I was most disgruntled with the whole Frodo and Faramir bit. Sure, Faramir was a fairly static character in the book - but I don't think the movie's take was an improvement. And why have Frodo have a near-miss with the Nazgul - now? I'm hoping there is some payoff next movie for the whole Faramir episode, or I will continue to be grumpy about it all.
A friend of mine who has never read the books had no such qualms about the storylines in the movie (other than she thought Theodon was an idiot) - so maybe, on a dramatic level, these were *good* changes - but I didn't feel any of them necessary.
Of course overall, it still an amazing, amazing film. And I'm sure I will see it again. A number of times. But what was Peter Jackson thinking on some of this?!
What did you think, Jane?
Tara
|
swood
Registered User
(1/9/03 6:59:43 am)
|
Re: LOTR: Two Towers
I didn't like it as much as Fellowship of the Ring, but I recognize that the director was given a much more difficult task in adapting Two Towers. Fellowship had more unity, all the characters traveled together towards a single goal. In Two Towers, the narrative is split amongst the splintered group making for a much more fractured film. Also in the book, there is a lot of talking, which is sometimes difficult to portray on screen. Considering the challenge I think Jackson and the writers did a good job.
However, I have to say it lacked the impact of the first film. First, because the world was not as breathtakingly new to us as it was in Fellowship. Also because the actors were not given the same kind of material with which to work. The last scene in Fellowship where grief and envy are tearing the band of brothers apart, was absolutely breathtaking. It is not often that men are given that kind of emotional challenge in movies, and I think Towers really suffered from the lack.
Sarah
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(1/10/03 1:58:55 am)
|
The Other Jane
There seem to be two Janes online now. So best the other Jane get a last initial at least so we don't get confused.
My take on TT--I kept reminding myself it's a MIDDLE movie. Otherwise thought it brilliant with a few weak spots.
I thought the Ents were boring (another shot of Merry and Pippin swaying was going to drive me over the line into vertigo.) But then I thought the Ents were boring in the book, too.
I thought the Gollum portryal was genius. Glad to have less of Elijah Wood's beautiful thyroid eyes. Wish Lt. Sharpe. . .er...Boromir had been there to advise against a cavalry charge against a shiltron. (Though a wizard's staff does trump all.)
Jane Yolen
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(1/10/03 7:01:25 am)
|
LOTR - Two Towers and war
I'm about to take this discussion sideways, so feel free to ignore if you all just want to keep discussing actual feelings about the film. I should also preface with the comment that I really enjoyed it, overall. And was glad to see Eowyn get some emphasis as I love the whole Eowyn defeating the Nazgul and falling for Faramir part of the books.
A few weeks back I saw a small review in the NYT that discussed how the Bush admin was making a LOTR, fight the ultimate evil, go to war in Iraq argument. Stars of the movie were on TV in No Blood for Oil T-shirts. The reviewer finished the piece with a remark that - all T-shirts with slogans aside - demonizing the enemy, as is done in LOTR, is an easy justification for war. I only read the article, don't have any TV reception, and had not read or heard about this elsewhere, so I can't attest to what Pres. Bush has said or not said. But I was feeling a bit outraged, because I love these stories and see in them and the movie more complicated messages than simply - warfare is the only answer. There's the all-powerful, all-corrupting ring that everyone desires except the pure of heart who know it must be destroyed. There are the Ents, trees that tear apart what Saruman built up. Then my outrage sort of cooled. I have to be honest, there is a lot of fighting, though the warmakers are the bad guys of the story. The enemy is satisfying because he is so clearly recognizable. We have no doubt he must be fought and defeated.
In the end, I found myself glad that the stories are provoking debate and discussion, that they have the power and the vitality to do this.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Laura Mc
|
Kerrie
Moderator
(1/10/03 10:06:35 am)
|
Re: LOTR - Two Towers and war
Just a quick comment, as I've been following the many articles and discussions about this issue (including the call to boycott the film). Here are some links, including audio and video clips for any who are interested:
AUDIO:
www.charlierose.com/archi...chive.shtm
New York, December 03, 2002
`The Two Towers' Director, Cast Listen
Film director Peter Jackson and actors Viggo Mortensen and Elijah Wood talk with Charlie Rose about their new film, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," and comparisons between the film's theme and U.S. foreign policy. "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" opens nationwide on Dec. 18.
FORUM:
boards.charlierose.com/bo...IC_ID=1372
VIDEO CLIPS:
www.allbiehn.com/telconta.../rose.html
News, Blogs, etc…
www.freerepublic.com/focu...bit/browse
www.nytimes.com/2002/12/1...ner=GOOGLE
onering.virbius.com/movienews.php
sf.indymedia.org/news/200...554333.php
www.tonywoodlief.com/arch...tml#000889
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Dec27.html
www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_...ml?id=5854
www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_...ml?id=5968
www.claybennett.com/pages/latest_12.html
(My favorite: )
www.witchvox.com/wrenwww/...sverb.html
After all that's said, I loved the film, saw it twice, and I'm about
ready to name my first kitty Smeagol (when I get one). I didn't
think the second installment was long enough, just as I thought
the first wan't, but perhaps when I have all 3 on DVD, they'll be
close enough.
Sugarplum dreams,
Kerrie
Edited by: Kerrie at: 1/10/03 2:40:45 pm
|
Jane
Unregistered User
(1/10/03 11:47:21 am)
|
LOTR
In response to Kerrie. I'm interested... why would there be a call to boycott the film? Is it because of the theme of war or because of the title "Two Towers" linked to the terror of 9/11? That is interesting.
Personally, I think that the LOTR films are some of the best films ever, and they can be applied to so many different aspects of life- good or bad. Life is about struggles and achievements and... I am sure everyone can relate to any of the characters in many different ways.
~Jane
P.S. to the "other Jane" - my surname begins with a "Y" as well, in response to your request to use my last initial in my postings. I've met many Janes before, as I am sure you have, as well.
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(1/10/03 12:07:50 pm)
|
Re: LOTR (and an aside on the Janes)
Welcome newcomer Jane,
Would you please consider adding something else to your name in your posts? It will get confusing very quickly with two Janes and little else to distinguish you in your signatures. Jane Yolen has been on this board for several years and pretty much everyone will assume "Jane" is always Jane Yolen. If something is not added to your name, confusion will reign and we do try to avoid it here whenever possible. We have had a Teri and a Terri which was painful at times. And even Helen and Heidi get mixed up in replies. (I don't know what it is about names that start with H, but no one can keep them straight!) We would all appreciate the visual aid in distinguishing you from Jane Yolen. I am married to a John Thomas and believe me, I appreciate anything that will help him stand out from the others, especially at the security checks at every airport we pass through. Thank you very much for understanding.
On the LOTR subject, I'll admit I haven't seen the movie yet. The holidays have distracted me from it except for at the library where I keep supplying copies of the trilogy to eager viewers and readers.
Heidi
|
Jane Young
Unregistered User
(1/10/03 1:57:05 pm)
|
about the Janes
All Understood. I'll think myself up a new name soon.
~Jane Young ~
|
Kerrie
Moderator
(1/10/03 2:49:46 pm)
|
Boycott...
I had read (but can't find the link just now) that several people
were calling a boycott on the film because they thought Viggo was
being unpatriotic. He's been called other names I don't wish to
repeat. I think he was brave to speak out, as some of the others
have as well, and as many others should. But I'll step down from
my platform before it raises too high. If you search for "Viggo
Mortensen" and "Charlie Rose" you'll find lots more
info.
Sugarplum dreams,
Kerrie
Edited by: Kerrie at: 1/10/03 2:56:16 pm
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(1/11/03 12:31:45 am)
|
Go Viggo
Ah--unpatriotic because he is using his American rights to speak freely? Or MORE patriotic?
Boy do the 60sand 70s suddenly repeat themselves. Good morning, Vietnam.
Jane
|
Meurglys
Registered User
(1/11/03 5:46:03 am)
|
Rohan
I had always pictured Rohan as a sea of rolling grassland, not the tussocky, rocky badlands pictured - it didn't seem like good grazing land to me. (Could easliy be wrong about this; quite willing to be corrected.) And a distinct lack of horses except those being ridden - weren't they great horse breeders as well as riders?
Pretty impressed by most of the rest, though
|
EdensEcho
Registered User
(1/12/03 12:00:00 pm)
|
Re: Rohan
I loved it! I don't like battle scenes, but Helms Deep was amazing (especially knowing all the work that went into it). I haven't read the books, but they are required for my fantasy lit class that I'm taking.
Here I am
dancing barefoot in the starseven
while I'm
blindfolded
|
judithwq
Registered User
(1/12/03 4:36:45 pm)
|
Re: Rohan
I've seen the film three times now, and wish I could just jump into the film and spend some time in those New Zealand places-breathtaking scenery, just enough otherness to seem like "middle earth", profoundly human and magical at the same time.
On first viewing, I loved the "tracking" of Merry and Pippin by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. I also loved the -and didn't expect-the amazing visuals of Gandalf following the Balrog. What a spectacular beginning, going right to the heart of things...The sidebar of Elrond and Arwen, well...not to my taste, though I was glad for the slight bit of romance btw Aragorn and Arwen kept alive in this second installment. On first viewing, I was tense throughout the whole film-much more so than in Fellowship-I can't take much violence in films, even when I know it's "not real". BUt I appreciated the battle scenes alot more on the second and third viewing. I too, did not like what was done with the Faramir section, particularly as Faramir is seen, in the book, to carry some of the same nobility of character (via bloodline)as Aragorn, rather than the lusting after power that Boromir carries. I definitely didn't like the addition of the Nazgul almost getting the ring at that point. I can't remember if Eowyn fights at Helm's Deep or that comes later in another battle scene--but I was glad her character was given some more room in the film-I always wanted more of her in the books. I also would love to own her clothing. I was upset that the film ended before the SHelob scene, though it makes a lot of sense to me in hindsight. And Eomer, who was always a character I couldn't quite visualize in my readings of the books, was well done. I loved those helmets.
All in all, I was pleased with the film and can't wait to see it a fourth time-I thought about getting a DVD player so I can buy the trilogy-and I don't even own a TV!
Judith
|
Elizabeth
Unregistered User
(1/13/03 9:26:41 am)
|
Faramir
Okay so first of all I found out that I'm not moving. Yeah! But with regards to The Two Towers I am emencely torn. I felt betrayed by the destruction of Faramir's character. Tolkien created him to be the opposite of his brother Boromir in every way and the movie portrayed him as being exactly the same. I agree with Jane about the Ents, I did think they rolled a little too much. And they didn't hoom and hah enough.
I loved the transformation of King Theoden and the character play between Gollum/Smeagol, but the plot of the movie was backwards and Merry and Pippin were supposed to meet Gandalf and smoke pipe weed and be yelled at by Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas.
As you all can see I have read the book one to many times. I have and always will warn people never to read a book before you see the movie, but always after because you might be disapointed.
|
isthmus
nekoi
Registered User
(1/13/03 3:40:13 pm)
|
as for the ladies
I'd read in reviews that Two Towers had a greater emphasis on female characters than Fellowship, so I was very disappointed that they had a marginal impact on the plot.
Also, the film left out the most (arguably) important/powerful female from Two Towers: that gigantic evil spider that nearly kills Frodo :P w/all the Freudian overtones you could impose upon the scene of her defeat, I'm almost surprized she wasn't included into this Hollywood adaptation.
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(1/13/03 4:23:48 pm)
|
Re: as for the ladies
Hey All -
I agree with some of the above on Faramir, though F's characterization fits the same pattern that Jackson has used with Aragorn. Aragorn is a more tempted character in the movies than the books. He's tempted by the ring, but chooses to let Frodo go. He fears he'll make the same mistakes as his ancestors. He's certainly more tempted by Eowyn than he was in the books. He has to make choices, rather than just walk around as the heroic, all-good, sure-to-become leader. Faramir, too, is a more tempted character. He wants the ring, but he shows his worth by letting Frodo go, rather than trying to take the ring as his brother did. I guess I'm willing to withold judgement to see how it plays out.
Judith - Eowyn's big moment with the Nazgul happens in book three, so is, I most fevently hope, forthcoming.
Isthmus - Surely we'll see Shalob - if Gollum's last dialogue can be trusted.
Laura Mc
Edited by: Laura McCaffrey at: 1/13/03 4:31:24 pm
|
judithwq
Registered User
(1/13/03 6:15:51 pm)
|
Re: as for the ladies
Laura-
Interesting take, thinking about temptation-I'll buy that. I think Aragorn's dilemma regarding repeating the mistakes of his ancestors comes through more in the book and in the first film, and I didn't really find him tempted by Eowyn, though I thought he was flirting with her in that moment with the sword, puncturing the bubble of the perfect prince which i had ascribed to him-but I actually think Faramir's thoughtfulness comes through much more clearly in the book-he is a keen questioner, and has a bit of the sight, I believe, and seems to be very good and sniffing out lies-if I remember correctly. Anyway, temptation was interesting to think about.
Can't wait to see it again!
Judith
|
tlchang37
Registered User
(1/13/03 10:02:38 pm)
|
Re: Shelob (maybe spoilers)
The rumor I've heard regarding Shelob is that they're saving her for the 3rd movie - because after their encounter with her, there is very little other 'action' for Frodo/Sam/Gollum up until the very end. This way balances it out a little.
Tara
|
isthmus
nekoi
Registered User
(1/14/03 4:48:49 pm)
|
Re: Shelob (maybe spoilers)
oh right! That little monologue slipped my mind. Yeah, it does make more sense to save Shelob for the 3rd movie. From what little I know about screenwriting standards, the battle scene at Helm's Deep is the climax of the film so a major battle afterwards should be avoided.
Also, for those into the whole adaptation process of books to film, notions of faithfulness and such like, I recently saw Adaptation and it is really quite brilliant, tackling these issues (and many more!) w/humour and originality.
|
Chris K
Unregistered User
(1/15/03 2:22:57 pm)
|
dialogue and character?
Hi all,
Great discussion. I thought Peter Jackson got so many things right (can you imagin if Spielberg did it?) that I was dissappointed with the lack of character development. Is there a connection between this and dialogue? I really wanted more dialogue! What the characters say in the book is clever, funny and clues you in to what they like and who they are and you sympathize with them. Of couse, not all of that can be on the screen and it's not necessay, and I like the action, but it seems there were wasted moments. (In silence or bad dialogue like "watch out! Help!") I thought it was interesting that a friend of mine said Gollum should get the best actor award. He had the most dialogue! (That actually said something important, thus we got to see into his mind.)
But enough griping, weren't the Dead Marshes cool?
I did see the interview with Charlie Rose, and I thought Viggo explained his position very well that one had to not see it to think he was anti-America.
Has anyone got the extended version DVD? Is it better?
Chris Klingbiel
|
