Best sequel in movie history.

[Morpheus]

The Two Towers, Aliens, STII:TWoK are all great choices.

 

[Kai Lord]

The only thing that I disagree with here is that TTT stands on its own. In order to understand it you really need FotR or it makes for a very confusing film.

When I said The Two Towers can stand on its own I didn't mean that it provides all understanding of who everyone is in the story, just that as a cinematic narrative, it is wholly enjoyable and satisfying by itself.

You don't need to know who Bilbo Baggins or Isildur were to be fully engrossed in the battle of Helm's Deep, and it isn't necessary to see the Shire firsthand to know that the Hobbits are grossly out of their element.

A couple members of my family had forgotten a lot of the details of FOTR, but enjoyed TTT just the same. When I asked them about it they stated they were mostly in the dark about Gollum's past and who Faramir's brother was supposed to be until Sam finally painted them a picture they could remember when he ranted about the specifics of Boromir's death.

But it didn't matter. TTT is a "slice of life" depiction of heroes on a quest to fight off the bad guys and destroy the nasty ring, in the formula of a classic action/adventure. The love triangles, the backstabbing, the battle sequences give all the context they need.

At its heart LOTR is really quite a simple story, unlike say The Matrix. Imagine walking in on Matrix Reloaded without having seen the original...

 

[mojo1701]

Imagine walking in on Matrix Reloaded without having seen the original...

I did. It was kinda confusing, since all I remember seeing before of the Matrix were the trailers, so I didn't know about the war with the machines or of Agent Smith. I turned to my younger brother (who had seen the first one, and said, "Look, it's Elrond!" My brother told me that he knew, and told me to shut up. I got him back, though. No more being Mr. Smart-mouth for him.)

 

[John Crichton]

When I said The Two Towers can stand on its own I didn't mean that it provides all understanding of who everyone is in the story, just that as a cinematic narrative, it is wholly enjoyable and satisfying by itself.

Here is where we slightly dissagree. Can TTT be enjoyed completely on its own? To some - yes, to others - no. Some folks will marvel at the battles and scenery not really caring that they have no idea what the One Ring is or why any of this is happening. Others will be completely confused and despite the well-told story will not be satisfied at all. These folks need the rest of the story - the beginning - to enjoy it.

You don't need to know who Bilbo Baggins or Isildur were to be fully engrossed in the battle of Helm's Deep, and it isn't necessary to see the Shire firsthand to know that the Hobbits are grossly out of their element.

Sometimes, a battle of which you don't know the meaning of can fall flat. I am not one of these people but I know folks who do view the movie that way.

But it didn't matter. TTT is a "slice of life" depiction of heroes on a quest to fight off the bad guys and destroy the nasty ring, in the formula of a classic action/adventure. The love triangles, the backstabbing, the battle sequences give all the context they need.

Sure, but that's not the whole story. What about Gandalf the Grey? You don't get to see him in TTT but he has a huge impact. You don't get to see the kind of hobbits Merry and Pippin were before their adventure started nor how much Frodo has changed. While some of this can be inferred it is quite different to see it and definitely fills out the story and explains things that some viewers could get easily caught up on.

My point in all of this is that while the basic adventure story (big battle, save the goodly folk, destroy evil) is there - it is more complex in its telling and not everyone will by satisfied by the story told because of the obvious missing parts.

 

[Knightcrawler]

I do love the LotR movies and TT is a great film although inferior to FotR. But then I am a huge fan of the book and so I am usually looking to see how closely it matches the book.

My point about not considering TT as a sequel is that if they thought they could make money with an 9-hour movie they would have released it as one movie not three. I think movies that were planned from the beginning along with the first movie cannot be considered sequels. Thus series such as Star Wars, The Matrix and Lord of the Rings are not really sequels IMHO. Not to take anything away from any of those great films.

 

[Kai Lord]

Here is where we slightly dissagree. Can TTT be enjoyed completely on its own? To some - yes, to others - no. Some folks will marvel at the battles and scenery not really caring that they have no idea what the One Ring is or why any of this is happening.

Oh, you don't need FOTR to know "why" its all happening. Its quite clear that a really bad guy named Sauron and his minion Saruman are trying to wipe out the good guys, and some of the good guys are trying to stop the bad by destroying the Ring. That's enough to relate to the majority of the drama that unfolds.

You wouldn't know that Sauron is actually a thousands year old dead guy whose spirit dwells within the Ring, but again, you don't need to know that to become immersed in the action. Its not like the people of Middle-earth all know what's going on; even great heroes like Faramir, Theoden, and Treebeard could only react to their small piece of the drama, with no idea what was going on during those same moments in other parts of the world, or what specifically had set all those things in motion.

To compare once again to Star Wars, did it hamper our enjoyment by not knowing who exactly the Emperor was or what he was capable of? But then you say, "but its important that we saw where Luke came from" and then I say, "but ESB didn't recap Luke's farm life," and then you say, "but like TTT, ESB really can't stand on its own," and then I say, "For me it does."

Sometimes, a battle of which you don't know the meaning of can fall flat.

Obviously FOTR is necessary to understand the battle with the Balrog at the beginning but TTT sets up everything else on its own, and even recaps the Balrog fight (and expands upon it) when Gandalf the White first reveals himself.

We know exactly who is responsible and what's at stake when the Wargs attack, ditto for Helm's Deep, and we're also aware that the Ents move against Isengard in retribution for Saruman's slaying of the trees. Galadriel spells out just what will happen if Faramir dons the Ring, and Sam makes it clear just how important it is that they be allowed to destroy it in Mordor.

Sure, but that's not the whole story.

Very true. But the question becomes how much of the story is necessary for maximum enjoyment? Or to enjoy it at all? For the maximum, I'll agree and say you'd want at least to see the theatrical cut of FOTR.The arc of Frodo's lost innocence as he carries his burden is poignant indeed.

But I still think that TTT without FOTR is still more enjoyable than ESB w/o Star wars or Aliens w/o Alien or any other sequel minus its predecessor. But hey I love the movie. And IIRC its only the second sequel in history to be nominated for Best Picture, after The Godfather Part II, so they're definitely doing something right.

What about Gandalf the Grey? You don't get to see him in TTT

He was that old dude who fell in the beginning. Don't know why, though.

My point in all of this is that while the basic adventure story (big battle, save the goodly folk, destroy evil) is there - it is more complex in its telling and not everyone will by satisfied by the story told because of the obvious missing parts.

Well I can't say I disagree, but you do make a pretty broad statement.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I agree that Godfather II was the greatest sequal ever. There is no constest, 7 Academy awards including Best Picture.

Now the real fight is for number two. I will have to give this to Aliens but T2 and Wrath of Kahn get honorable mentions.

Person favorite for a sequal goes to Subspecies II even though I will admit it is not of the same quality as big buget picts it ranks among my favorite vampire pictures ever.

 

[John Crichton]

Oh, you don't need FOTR to know "why" its all happening. Its quite clear that a really bad guy named Sauron and his minion Saruman are trying to wipe out the good guys, and some of the good guys are trying to stop the bad by destroying the Ring. That's enough to relate to the majority of the drama that unfolds.

You wouldn't know that Sauron is actually a thousands year old dead guy whose spirit dwells within the Ring, but again, you don't need to know that to become immersed in the action. Its not like the people of Middle-earth all know what's going on; even great heroes like Faramir, Theoden, and Treebeard could only react to their small piece of the drama, with no idea what was going on during those same moments in other parts of the world, or what specifically had set all those things in motion.

I agree. However, the movie is not as straightforward in its presentation as you make it. Take Sauron & Saruman. The names alone are confusing not to mention the departure of the elves scenes which can be very confusing to those not familiar with the first film.

To compare once again to Star Wars, did it hamper our enjoyment by not knowing who exactly the Emperor was or what he was capable of? But then you say, "but its important that we saw where Luke came from" and then I say, "but ESB didn't recap Luke's farm life," and then you say, "but like TTT, ESB really can't stand on its own," and then I say, "For me it does."

While I understand this is a matter of opinion, and it is, my point is simply that there is an opposing view of what makes a complete and satisfying film. I think ESB can stand on its own because it is a straightforward film. There is alot going on but it is more focused (telling 2 stories at once as opposed to 3 in TTT). I don't want to turn this into an ESB vs. TTT debate so I'll just stop there.

We know exactly who is responsible and what's at stake when the Wargs attack, ditto for Helm's Deep, and we're also aware that the Ents move against Isengard in retribution for Saruman's slaying of the trees. Galadriel spells out just what will happen if Faramir dons the Ring, and Sam makes it clear just how important it is that they be allowed to destroy it in Mordor.

I'm not debating any of what you just mentioned - however, and I might I add this is all conjecture assuming that we both same FotR before TTT - that there is a TON of stuff going in TTT and it could take the first hour of the film for someone to even identify what is happening. Without context, there is some seriously disorienting stuff happening - take the scenes of the Elven retreat for example.

But I still think that TTT without FOTR is still more enjoyable than ESB w/o Star wars or Aliens w/o Alien or any other sequel minus its predecessor. But hey I love the movie. And IIRC its only the second sequel in history to be nominated for Best Picture, after The Godfather Part II, so they're definitely doing something right.

I don't put much stock in to Academy Awards, so I won't even get into that discussion. As for Aliens, I still have never seen Alien all the way through and I fully enjoyed Aliens, which I saw before watching a single scene for Alien. As for TTT, you have an obvious bias which is cool with me, I have one for Star Wars.

He was that old dude who fell in the beginning. Don't know why, though.

LOL

Well I can't say I disagree, but you do make a pretty broad statement.

I do, but I was trying to clean up the morass that was my post. It was my short way of saying what I posted above about the complexities of the film.

BTW - I'm assuming you saw/read FotR before seeing TTT which makes this conversation hillarious since neither of us have a first-hand account of seeing TTT without FotR.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Both ESB & TTT as well as any other continuation sequal stand on their own. ESB opens with the assumption you have some emotion for the characters, if you don't I would think the beginning character interactions would go over your head and unappreciated, but you could still watch and understand the movie. Basic questions are not well answered in ESB. Questions like who is the Empire, why are they after the Rebellion? What's up with the dude in the black suit? What is the force?

It was the same with TTT.

They are both sequals.

Predator was an excellent sequal.

ESB is my favorite

 

[Kai Lord]

I agree. However, the movie is not as straightforward in its presentation as you make it. Take Sauron & Saruman. The names alone are confusing not to mention the departure of the elves scenes which can be very confusing to those not familiar with the first film.

Elrond: "The time of the elves is over."
Aragorn (to Arwen): "You are elfkind. I am mortal. You have a chance to leave this place and be free from war, grief, and despair."

I think there's enough to get the drift.

I'm not debating any of what you just mentioned - however, and I might I add this is all conjecture assuming that we both same FotR before TTT - that there is a TON of stuff going in TTT and it could take the first hour of the film for someone to even identify what is happening. Without context, there is some seriously disorienting stuff happening - take the scenes of the Elven retreat for example.

At most it would take a second viewing to understand everything in context, but the major sequences are all pretty straightforward.

I don't put much stock in to Academy Awards, so I won't even get into that discussion.

Neither do I, except for the rare time they agree with me. Not that Chicago was remotely comparable to TTT but, ah never mind the Oscars suck.

As for Aliens, I still have never seen Alien all the way through and I fully enjoyed Aliens, which I saw before watching a single scene for Alien.

Ha, I also saw Aliens before Alien. My parents wouldn't let me watch Alien when I was a kid, and when I turned 12 Aliens came out and was all the rage so I saw that one. No point in you renting Alien now, just wait till the restored print hits the big screen this October.

As for TTT, you have an obvious bias which is cool with me, I have one for Star Wars.

But only because its referenced in a few Kevin Smith flicks. And ESB was my favorite film of all time before FOTR came out. Now its #3.

BTW - I'm assuming you saw/read FotR before seeing TTT which makes this conversation hillarious since neither of us have a first-hand account of seeing TTT without FotR.

Actually I haven't seen either. I'm waiting for ROTK to come out then I'll watch them all in reverse order just to prove you wrong.