The Two Towers Poll
- Thread starter T8H3X11
- Start date
It had the news projected on the exterior windows!Mystery muppet
Spaceman
Well, I've seen much worse than Two Towers emerge in the last decade, I'll grant you that. However, I felt it was a little disrespectful (Gimli, anyone?). And that Thing about Gandalf (what he said in the stables before charging off, specifically), I can't make any sense of it. I'm reasonably sure I would remember it if I had read it. And Gollum's discussion with Gollum... Though it has depth, it felt a little out of place. Gollum is a Bad Hobbit(tm) according to the books, with his personal agenda concerning the ring. His spirit is twisted beyond repair, not some misguided poor old sod.
In between the inconsitencies with the books though, the visuals kicked some mighty hide. I'll agree to vote Fair (I would have voted Good for Fellowship of the Ring, mind you, even if there were some stuff that I beleive should have been something else).
In between the inconsitencies with the books though, the visuals kicked some mighty hide. I'll agree to vote Fair (I would have voted Good for Fellowship of the Ring, mind you, even if there were some stuff that I beleive should have been something else).
I absolutely loved both the LotR movies but I was still just a tad disappointed with TTT. There are just a few scenes that I would have liked to have been more true to the book.
Let me just say I have no problem with them changing little details and/or adding things that will add to the experience of the story on the screen. After all, every book-to-movie conversion is going to have to undergo some slight alterations to make it a success. I am not some "You must be true to the book" fanatic. But I do think that anything they change should improve the cinematic experience of the story-telling. I just felt that there were things they changed that did nothing to favour the story and would have been better if left unchanged.
First, I would have preferred that the Ents would have emerged from the Entmoot having decided in favour of marching on Isengard, as they do in the book. They should already have known about the felling of part of Fangorn Forest by Saruman's Orcs and have considered it at the meeting.
Secondly, in the book IIRC, Faramir never took the Hobbits to Osgiliath, but realeased them much earlier to continue their mission. I felt it was kind of needless to have them taken there, and also that it harmed Faramir's character to some extent. I suppose they felt that Frodo and Sam had seen little action in this movie and needed a bit more involving them. But I can't believe after hunting the ring for so long and suddenly finding itself looking right at it, the Ringwraith would just fly away because Frodo fell over.
Also I thought Theoden was too morbid. I seem to remember him being a lot more positive and motivated after Gandalf broke Saruman's power over him.
Having said that I still enjoyed the movie immensely. These are just a few points concerning a small fraction of the film as a whole. For the most part it just plain rocked.
The Ent attack on Orthanc was brilliant and Helm's Deep was great too, and Gollum's two-sided conversations with himself - I really felt sorry for him when Faramir's men seized him and he turned back into Stinker. Wormtongue was really really good. And as for the scenes where Gandalf is battling the Balrog... fantastic.
I can hardly wait for Return of the King. I am really looking forward to the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard after it's ruin (which hopefully will have been moved into RotK and not simply cut) and Aragorn's use of the Palantir. Not to mention the battle for Gondor which should blow away even Helm's Deep.
Let me just say I have no problem with them changing little details and/or adding things that will add to the experience of the story on the screen. After all, every book-to-movie conversion is going to have to undergo some slight alterations to make it a success. I am not some "You must be true to the book" fanatic. But I do think that anything they change should improve the cinematic experience of the story-telling. I just felt that there were things they changed that did nothing to favour the story and would have been better if left unchanged.
First, I would have preferred that the Ents would have emerged from the Entmoot having decided in favour of marching on Isengard, as they do in the book. They should already have known about the felling of part of Fangorn Forest by Saruman's Orcs and have considered it at the meeting.
Secondly, in the book IIRC, Faramir never took the Hobbits to Osgiliath, but realeased them much earlier to continue their mission. I felt it was kind of needless to have them taken there, and also that it harmed Faramir's character to some extent. I suppose they felt that Frodo and Sam had seen little action in this movie and needed a bit more involving them. But I can't believe after hunting the ring for so long and suddenly finding itself looking right at it, the Ringwraith would just fly away because Frodo fell over.
Also I thought Theoden was too morbid. I seem to remember him being a lot more positive and motivated after Gandalf broke Saruman's power over him.
Having said that I still enjoyed the movie immensely. These are just a few points concerning a small fraction of the film as a whole. For the most part it just plain rocked.
The Ent attack on Orthanc was brilliant and Helm's Deep was great too, and Gollum's two-sided conversations with himself - I really felt sorry for him when Faramir's men seized him and he turned back into Stinker. Wormtongue was really really good. And as for the scenes where Gandalf is battling the Balrog... fantastic.
I can hardly wait for Return of the King. I am really looking forward to the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard after it's ruin (which hopefully will have been moved into RotK and not simply cut) and Aragorn's use of the Palantir. Not to mention the battle for Gondor which should blow away even Helm's Deep.
it is hollywood. they need their comic relief and peter jackson probably was thinking about what New Line or whoever would want when he started writting the script. Does make for some really stupid changes though. I'm especially annoyed at the small changes that don't add to the main story line but neither do they make the film unneccessarily long. Like Gandalf not having an elven sword but then they have Bill the horse, don't introduces him to us as Bill and then they never call him Bill until they have to leave him at the Gates of Moria.
pretty sure it glowed in the book. Isn't glowing when orcs(?) are around a property of all elven blades?
I realise that bill has no role in the book. That's the point. Peter Jackson obviously can't do an exact translation of the book to screen but in the translation to screen, some relatively important parts end up edited uneccessarily, parts that didn't need to be there make it into the film, minor bits of the story line get changed and then don't make sense any more ... Crazy.
Aries
Vice Admiral
yes, it glowed in the book. i'm not sure about the all elven blades glowing around orcs. to me, it just sounded like the ones made by the High Elves of the West in Gondolin for the Goblin Wars (i have the book "The Hobbit" right in front of me). the only ones that are mentioned are Glamdring the Foe Hammer, aka beater, Orcist the Goblin Cleaver, aka biter, and Sting (only name given). course i could be wrong. and looking at the books, i was wrong about bill. his role in the book FOTR is pretty much the same as in the movie (in fact the bill scene in the book is longer than in the movie, but the jist is the same)
and i don't think anyone could make an exact translation of the books to the screen. there's just too much. and of course, hollywood always has to screw some things up from the book.
and i don't think anyone could make an exact translation of the books to the screen. there's just too much. and of course, hollywood always has to screw some things up from the book.
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
steampunk: Grr, doing that negates the art! Alright, now I'm officially VERY angry at Peter Jackson! Or whoever was responsible for it!
Aries: If they'd let Christopher Lee give it a try (the 'translation'), I'm sure it would be interesting.
Aries: If they'd let Christopher Lee give it a try (the 'translation'), I'm sure it would be interesting.
Ok about this, this is something i have been arguing with my friends for a while.
With the movies they have to try to portray the basic ideas of the books as best as they can, you already agreed you cannot have an exact translation.
The problem is that the entire first movie they showed that no one can fight the power of the ring, that the ring is the most dangerous thing ever, that all men want power and are corrupted by it, etc etc ad nauseum. Most of the first movie is about that, as well it should. Then this one if faramir had let them go earlier would have been like sorta a null thing. They made such a big deal over the temptation of the ring and then he just said "go" with little thought.
In order to make it make sense they had to show that he was tempted by the ring. It is alot easier to show alot of such things in books where you can have a narator and hear the thoughts of the characters. Here they had to show it another way, and they did so by showing that there is great temptation with faramir. It also goes to demonstrate to the average person seeing the movie (ie someone who hasnt read the books) just how different strider is than all other guys, cuz he never seems tempted by it, or is able to control his temptation alot better.
