# The Two Towers



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Calling all Tolkien fans! :bounce: 

Have you seen "The Two Towers" yet? I've heard critics say this is better than "Fellowship". I think they're equally good, just different. 

Any thoughts?

I just got my special set of LOTR on DVD, and have enjoyed the two discs of extras.


----------



## anneke (Jan 5, 2001)

If you haven't read the book, it's an awesome movie. If you have, you'll find yourself cringing and asking "What the $#@??" a lot.

Once again, there is no useful purpose to Liv Tyler's character in this movie. Why don't they just put her in a toga that says "Eye-Candy"?!


----------



## thebighat (Feb 21, 2001)

We watched a thing on the making of the movie last night and it had the Riders of Rohan fighting orcs on wargs. I don't remember this happening in the book. And someone said that the ending is not the poignant scene of Sam realizing that Frodo is still alive after being stung by Shelob and dragged off by orcs. I'll say, "@#$%^%$#$%"


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Yes, it is re-ordered. I, too, was one of those waiting for that line, "Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy" at the end of the film. I was peeved that the Ents seemed not to know Saruman had been tearing down trees on the edges of Fanghorn forest, when they certainly had in the book. As for Liv Tyler... she barely showed up in the book of "Fellowship", much less riding with Frodo with the wraiths on their tail. (In the book, Frodo rides another elf's horse alone and faces the riders at the river himself.)

In my view, the changes are because that modern attention spans just don't support a true recreation of the book. I've read and reread the books so many times I lost count (it's around 12, I think), and I always hoped the film would be made. 33 years after I first read them, here it is. They're not perfect, but they're darn good. After I saw "Fellowship" once and got over being bothered by the discrepancies, I saw it again because it's a good movie. I'll do the same with "Towers".

The extended edition DVD of "Fellowship" has Peter Jackson explaining why they made the changes they did, and left other things as they were in the book. When you see how they made the move- the script, the artifacts (I can't do them justice to call them 'props'), you may have a different point of view.


----------



## shroomgirl (Aug 11, 2000)

Just an alternative opinion....the triolgy was required reading in High School....not my cup of tea, I preferred historical biographies.
That being said, I saw and REALLY enjoyed both movies....I'd even sit through them again. Thank goodness there is only a year separating the sequels....my attention span/memory has about that time span on it.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

I am a huge LOTR fan. I have read the books many, many times over, and have even attempted to read the _Similarion_ (sp?) on a number of occasions. That said, I think that these movies are great!!! Yes, I know, they screw with the story somewhat (change the order of events, make minor characters more important, leave out other characters, and add a bit from the Lost Tales), but overall I think that Peter Jackson has done a great job! Inevitably, when a movie is made of a book (especailly such a great one) things get cut out and rearranged, sometimes to the point where the movie does not resemble the book in any way. Though Jackson has made changes to the books, I think that he has kept to the general spirit of the books and has done them justice. Remember, as big a budget as this was, he has to appeal to a very wide audience, not just us LOTR geeks, and these movies are coming out 1 year apart, so for the sake of continuity some things needed to be changed. Let's face it, these books are not easy reads, especially the first time through. Storylines get twisted and obscured and can be a little confusing, not to mention the vast number of characters. I think that lots of what Jackson did was done for simplifing the storylines.

As for The Two Towers, I thought it was great, possibly even better than the first movie.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

Didn't like the books. Didn't like the movie. Oh, the movie was gorgeous, certainly. But I just don't care what happens to the characters, a fatal flaw for me.

Phil


----------



## chef1x (Dec 4, 2002)

How can you not care what happens to Gollum? Didn't like the books??!!(Gasp!) Why you cold, heartless......were you born a grown-up or something? 

Read the books many times, even played the video games, even watched the pathetic animated movies from the 70's(?), only have seen the movies once, so far....

I think they are brilliant, and yes, some of the changes are confusing, but I've never seen a better adaptation and I think overall it's very true to the nature of the books. I think the 2nd movie is much more entertaining than the first, the Gollum character is fascinating. Can't wait to see them again.


----------



## foodnfoto (Jan 1, 2001)

I, too, have read the books a number of times and feel that Jackson has done as good a job as anyone could to recreate the stories. The rearrangement of the plot lines doesn't bother me-there is a big difference in how tell a story visually rather than textually.
The opening sequence in "the Two Towers" was awesome, as well as the portrayal of Gollum. The sets for Fangorn Forest and the swamp were great and lent a genuine air of malice and creepiness that worked very well. It's interesting how the lighting becomes progressively darker throughout both movies. TTs lapsed too frequently into sentimentality, especially between Frodo and Sam (I was waiting for "I *love* you, man." several times.) I wished they had cast Sean Behn (Boromir) as Aragorn instead of Viggo Mortenson--Viggo is a little whiney and wimpy for my tastes. Liv Tyler is lovely to watch as is the actress playing Eowyn, but do they have to put her sheerly covered boob right in the middle of the screen?!? Wormtongue was great as were the Rohirrim, but didn't there seem to be a severe shortage of horses in the scenes with the horse people? 
My biggest problem was with the Ents. Treebeard was played as kind of a benevolent, walking tree-man. I got no sense of his danger, mystery, age or strength. The Ent attck on Eisengard seemed like a dozen or so ents tore the place down, not as an entire forest moving to protect itself as described in the books. 
Using Gimli, Merry and Pippin as comic relief is an important tool, but the one-dimensional way Jackson portrays these characters leaves them little room to develop fully and become the integral drivers of the story that they are. If a buffoon becomes a hero with one turn, no one will believe it. 
Despite these small problems, I loved the movies and continue to watch them on DVD extened version. There are some very good scenes that were cut that make the story much more interesting and relevent.


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

FNF, you are on the nose about Treebeard. I read a review that said the digital effects of the Ents were the least high-quality of all digital creatures in the two movies. I also agree about the slow-burning anger of the Ents not being portrayed very well. The Entmoot was, well, hasty. 

Speaking of ambulatory trees, where were the Hoorns at Helm's Deep?? 

As for the Sam/Frodo relationship: much has been made by some critics of a hint of more than just friendship between them. I think it's absurd to infer that. Given Tolkein's strong religious/spiritual background, I would put it more on the footing of Jesus with some of the apostles. (Sorry, I don't know enough about them individually to be more specific.)


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

I myself have loved JRts books about the hobbits and the triology, it is fantastic reading . We as readers were able to imagine our own Bilbo , Gandalf and our other favorite charatacters . Now with the movies finnaly out It is to me amazing that I can share and relate to this story with my 13 year old son who has read all of the books except the return of the king . Yeah the story is not the same as the books but I think they did a really good job of keeping the meaning alive . Remember that an Entmoot would not have been real entertaining for the movie crowd and if you would have included all the songs sang well , just not conduscive for production .I eagerly await the Return of the King and the time I shall spend with my son watching this classic . If JR only knew what he started ........... Hobbit Head , Douglas since 1973 .........


----------



## marmalady (Apr 19, 2001)

Ok, I have a confession to make - I AM a hobbit. I'm short, a little - well - round - love to eat, hate adventures.

When I heard of the making of the movie(s) I was petrified. How could anyone do visual justice to Tolkien's words. Well. When I saw Hobbiton I cried. When I saw the Ringwraiths, I cringed. Ian McKellan as Gandalf is brilliant. The movies are brilliant. Peter Jackson is brilliant.

Yes, I know there are a few changes in the story lines; but the plot runs true, the heart of the story unfolds, and we're treated to a true masterpiece of cinema. 

FNF - Have to disagree w/you about Aragorn - if that's wimpy, he can park his wimpy little boots under my bed anytime!


----------



## foodnfoto (Jan 1, 2001)

OK, Ok Viggo's a cutie. I wouldn't turn down a dinner invitation.

But Sean Behn.... now, HE'S a .....mm, mm, mm, mm, MM!


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Was I the only one who got the dwarf-tossing jokes? There was one line delivered by Gimli in Moria in the first movie, and another on the same topic by him at Helm's Deep. I burst out laughing both times, but I was the lone person in the theater....


----------



## marmalady (Apr 19, 2001)

I got 'em, too Mezz! The history behind those apparently is that 'dwarf tossing' apparently was a big thing in NZ, and as they were filming, a law was passed banning it.


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Whew! So know I'm not crazy after all! :crazy:


----------

