The Two Towers

by Xander 59 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  Xander

  What was the point of having Faramir kidnap Frodo and Sam, and take them to something-giliath?

  As with the first movie, Jackson doesn't really ADD anything, just moves the events and characters around some.

  *

  spoiler

  space

  *

  *

  spoiler

  space

  *

  Minas Osgiliath was the central city of the Kindgom of Gondor. Minas Anor was the city to the west of it, and Minas Ithil was the city to the East. Osgiliath was mentioned as having fallen to the Orcs in the first book (event moved to the second movie). Minas Anor was (long ago)renamed to Minas Tirith, and Minas Ithil became Minas Morgul when the Nazgul took it over for their fortress. Essentially, the west city becames Gondor's last hold, the central city was a wasteland, and the eastern city was the fortress of the Ringwraiths.

  And, you'll note, in the book, Faramir WAS tempted by the ring. He just resisted. Jackson had a comment on that, that I agree with. Essentially, he noted that they've spent the first whole movie building the ring up as a manifestation of ultimate evil that corrupts all who may handle it....

  It would be anti-climactic for Faramir to look at it, be tempted, and turn off right away as he did in the book. It had to be more of a struggle against the ring's evil. Of course, in the end, Faramir followed the book - he did what Boromir could not - let the ring go.

  -------------

  Overall, it's a very good movie. Not as good as the book, but, well, duh. The book, when read (unabridged) takes up 16 hours of CDs. NO ONE will sit through that. Things had to be cut and moved for dramatic effect - to get the theme or emotion of a moment instead of the details.

  And that, it did quite well.

  NOTE:

  Please do, when all the movies are done, PLEASE read the books. THEY ARE INCREDIBLE. (And probably, don't bother starting with 'The Hobbit'. It's a kids book, and a little less intense. Or, and skip the Silmarillion, as well. Unless you bore VERY slowly.)
• 

  unclebruce

  LOLatStephanus!

  Like ashitaka i was disappointed by the infantile hollywood rendering of Tolkiens work and the sick 'good guys don't die' crap. Surely they could have tossed the dwarf earlier :) Sams "i love you Frodo" speech near the end had me gagging. (geez i thought me hugging dannybear in public was sick enough) I thoroughly enjoyed Fellowship of the Ring which i thought had much more light to counterpoint and thereby enhance the battle/bloodlust scenes. besides all that, there weren't as many ideas i could pinch for my hobbit-lands/bree type building site :(

  uncle sourgrapes
• 

  Stephanus

  For the first movie and the first half of the second movie Jackson was able to be faithful to the book without losing anything in special effects or battle sequences. He could have stayed faithful in the second half and still not lost anything. If he wanted wolf riders, then he should do what a lot of us want him to do and make a version of The Hobbit. If he wants to make an action movie not related to the LOTR, then why call it that?

  I'm surprised you don't understand the significance of the ents rescuing the Rohirrim, Hmmm. Tolkien was a technophobe, Luddite and hater of progress. So he creates a scene where the horselords, reliant on nature and the old way of doing things are beset by an evil army, created by modern biotechnology (half orcs/half men) and equipped by smoke-spewing industry (superior armour, crossbows, explosives, etc.), are rescued by nature personified: the ents.
• 

  Stephanus

  LOL @ UncleBruce Baggins

  I must admit I liked Gimli better in the book. In the movie, he's just a vehicle for a bunch of short jokes! The extended play version of Fellowship of the Ring is worth watching. They've put in (back) a lot of stuff which was missing from the cinema version; stuff that made the movie make a lot more sense. They had a pub scene at the Green Dragon in Bywater, showed elves travelling through the Shire to the Grey Havens and showed the giving of gifts in Lothlorien. Padded the movie out nicely, I thought.
• 

  ashitaka

  Stephanus........aye.

  ash
• 

  Xander

  If he wanted wolf riders

  But there WERE Wolf Riders in TTT - just not 'on screen', as it were, in the book. They were mentioned several times.

  I'm surprised you don't understand the significance of the ents rescuing the Rohirrim, Hmmm

  1) The Ents did NOT 'rescue' the Rohirrim, they just performed the mop-up action.

  2) That whole sequence HAS been filmed. Recall where the movie ended? With the orcs being routed? There is a question as whether the Ent attacks on the orcs will be in the next movie (in the beginning), or if it will be reserved for the extended DVD of TTT. As an 'official rumor', though, by this time next year we will get to see Jackson's version of those events.
• 

  waiting

  Y'all just take this *stuff* too seriously. I was going to say *crap* - but thought I might get offensive language in return

  Both movies were good. Nice & long so that my honey & I ate lots of popcorn. He fell asleep in the second one, however. Don't go jumpin' to conclusions.....that's his natural state.

  I personally thought the good/evil, crazy/sane/whatever mindset in the little naked guy was the best part. And his appearance was sooooo lifelike! Great.

  waiting
• 

  teejay

  My kid sister is a big fan of the book. She's read it through several times and sees each of the movies a half dozen times and THEN buys the DVDs. In emailing her back and forth, I've reached the theory that people who have read the books tend to have a reaction to the film (more positive) than those like me who haven't read the books. I think there's a reason for that.
• 

  Stephanus

  That's it - I just know that someone's going to argue that the Scooby Doo movie was faithful to the original! What has this planet come to???? Woe! Woe! Woe!

  (LOL)
• 

  Xander

  The important thing to keep in mind is that books and movies are two seperate mediums, and never the two shall meet. (Well, successfully, anyway)

  There is not a single book -> movie adapdation ANYWHERE that does not have detractors.

  If you could just watch the movie as if it had nothing at all to do with the book, I think people would find a lot less flaws. I don't know why 'purists' go to the movie wanting to see the book on the screen. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of reading the book? Was something wrong with the book? Was your imagination not functioning enough for it to be a compelling adventure on its own?

  If all of that's true...don't nitpick the film based on how well it does (or does not) 'follow the book'. They aren't the same thing at all. One is on paper, and comes alive in your mind. The other is on celluloid and comes alive with surround sound on a movie screen. Given even perfect book->movie translation; a scene-by-scene, line-by-line, 17 hour extravaganza....they STILL wouldn't be the same.

  So, go home, read the books, and ENJOY them. And watch the movie, and ENJOY it, too - but for DIFFERENT REASONS.