Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers ENworld reviews & discussion (SPOILERS)

[King_Stannis]

Here is an excerpt from Roger Ebert's review...just like the last movie, he gave it a tepid thumbs up/*** review...

...With "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," it's clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action. The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If anything, the hobbits are in MORE action in the movie. What's dear Roger going to say when the third movie comes out..."This proves that Aragorn is the hero! The title is 'The Return of the King'....SEE!".

I think if Ebert had his way, Peter Jackson would just have filmed the hobbits thinking for long stretches at a time, fists under chin. Sort of a "My Dinner with Frodo", only more boring.

He wants to play both sides of the field, too. He claims familiarity with the trilogy in his criticism above and then later in the review he says that he's pretty much a joe schmoe layman.

And what's with this "gentle medievalist" stuff? Tolkien writes about essentially a war of Armageddon! Is Ebert denying any of these battles took place in the books?

I used to value his opinion, but in the last few years I find myself agreeing with him less and less.

 

[danbala]

I think they're going to get Faramir to the same place (character-wise), just taking a different road.

Eric, I think you are exactly right about this. Its hard to give a sense of nobility to a character without tough choices. And without the benefit of an interior monologue, in film, you have to represent a tough choice through action. In the books (IMHO) Faramir seemed too quick to give up the ring. It just made Boromir seem less tragic and more of an idiot. If it was so easy to give the ring up, why did Boromir fail so quickly?

Here, the change will emphasize both Faramir's and Boromir's nobility. His father will (rightfully) blow a gasket when he discovers what Faramir did. In fact, Faramir's decision will sully the death of Boromir in the eyes of the father and further estrange them. On the other hand, the fact that Faramir was so clearly conflicted will make Boromir look less like a fool to the audience.

This is very heavy stuff and Jackson I think did the right thing to emphasize Faramir's tough decision. Personally, I think that Faramir comes off more like a geniune hero i the movie than in the books. In the movie, its very clear at the end that his decision is essentially treasonous. Yet, he does so for what he perceives to be the greater good. My sense is that this type of risk taking nobility will make the Eowyn connection seem very natural (as she is about to make a very similar kind of decision).

 

[FraserRonald]

Have you considered the possibility that the way this happened on film might be the means to tie the Rohirrim into the Pelennor Fields? That it's a cleaner (i. e. more filmable) alternative to the complicated history of alliance between Rohan and Gondor that we see in the books?

Yeah, but Theoden complains about how Gondor has ignored the alliance. That's part of his bitterness, why he petulantly refuses to call for aid but decides to hide behind what he considers impregnable walls.

 

[FraserRonald]

Jeez, and I told myself I was going to step back and not get involved any deeper in this debate.

I'm weak.

This is very heavy stuff and Jackson I think did the right thing to emphasize Faramir's tough decision. Personally, I think that Faramir comes off more like a geniune hero i the movie than in the books. In the movie, its very clear at the end that his decision is essentially treasonous. Yet, he does so for what he perceives to be the greater good. My sense is that this type of risk taking nobility will make the Eowyn connection seem very natural (as she is about to make a very similar kind of decision).

Just for space I cut out some excellent discussion on the movie vs. the novel Faramir. It's nice to see that everyone is really considering the movie, and the possible motivations and such.

But I'm weak and have to continuously spew out my little 'yeah, but . . .'

In the novel, his actions are just as treasonous and the punishment is the same. Rather than executing his son, Denethor dismisses him and Faramir feels the need to prove himself in the retreat from Osgiliath. Faramir, in the book, impresses Sam and Frodo with his similarities to Gandalf, who also quickly and absolutely refused the Ring. In the movie, how much dialogue is needed to indicate the reasons for Gandalf's rejection of the ring? Galadriel took more time, but essentially the same. Does Aragorn's quick refusal of the Ring need explanation? And Boromir's fault in the movie is not stupidity, rather, he has an unshakable belief in his strength of will, until the Ring finally shows him how powerful it truly is.

I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base. I think a lot of this is about personal perceptions. Those of us whol read the book all perceived it differently. We've all seen the same movie but perceived it differently. I don't think my opinions are any more or less valid than anyone else's, but I am weak enough to be driven to explain my opinions. I'll try to control myself in the future.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Yeah, but Theoden complains about how Gondor has ignored the alliance. That's part of his bitterness, why he petulantly refuses to call for aid but decides to hide behind what he considers impregnable walls.

Even in the movie the situation is more complicated than that.

First, one could say that Gondor didn't come to Rohan's aid because he, the king, didn't ask them to. Simple as that, and it's hardly the fault of Gondor. We understand Theoden's bitterness over the situation, of course.

And he doesn't refuse to call for aid - he believes no aid will come. I didn't read any petulance into it. Remember, when brought word of the approaching army, he dares "let them come!" Fatalism, perhaps.

 

[FraserRonald]

Someboy stop me before I post again! I've got work to do!

Even in the movie the situation is more complicated than that.

First, one could say that Gondor didn't come to Rohan's aid because he, the king, didn't ask them to. Simple as that, and it's hardly the fault of Gondor. We understand Theoden's bitterness over the situation, of course.

And he doesn't refuse to call for aid - he believes no aid will come. I didn't read any petulance into it. Remember, when brought word of the approaching army, he dares "let them come!" Fatalism, perhaps.

First off, I don't want to come off like I think I have the definitive truth. I just want to illustrate the basis for my opinion.

Okay, I don't know how complicated the situation in the movie is because we can only judge it by what is presented. The situation in Rohan is obviously not the same situation in the book, so we can make assumptions, but we have little verifiable facts.

I've only seen the movie once, but I recall Aragorn mentioning Gondor and Theoden raises his voice, saying how Gondor ignored Rohan while their villages were burned and their people killed (I'm paraphrasing, anyone who can quote verbatim, jump in, may clear up a lot of things). He doesn't say "I never asked, but they should have come" or anything like that, so I'm just going by what he says.

My mention of petulance had more to do with my perception of his tone than the words he used.

And it could be fatalism, but he also believes that no one can breach the walls of Helm's Deep, and is quite stunned when that very thing happens.

Okay, I have to get to work.

 

[danbala]

In the novel, his actions are just as treasonous and the punishment is the same. Rather than executing his son, Denethor dismisses him and Faramir feels the need to prove himself in the retreat from Osgiliath. Faramir, in the book, impresses Sam and Frodo with his similarities to Gandalf, who also quickly and absolutely refused the Ring. In the movie, how much dialogue is needed to indicate the reasons for Gandalf's rejection of the ring? Galadriel took more time, but essentially the same. Does Aragorn's quick refusal of the Ring need explanation? And Boromir's fault in the movie is not stupidity, rather, he has an unshakable belief in his strength of will, until the Ring finally shows him how powerful it truly is.

I see your point, but for my two cents, I think there are two dramatic considerations here. First Jackson wants to make sure that Boromir's fall remains tragic as discussed above. Second, I think he wants to make sure that the ring remains a tangible threat -- a sort of serpent in the midst. Gandalf and Galadriel are larger than life beings who are nevertheless tempted by the ring. But Jackson wants us to know that mortal men ("who crave power above all else") are usually weaker when it comes to the power of the ring.

So I think it was important that Faramir come across as good everyman. If he could strug off the ring too quickly its power would seem less potent. Instead the impression in the movie is that the rings power to corrupt was so great that even a good man needed to be placed in pretty extreme circumstances before he could admit that the ring was beyond him. I could see how a quicker, more intellectual and internal rejection early on -- particular before we learn of Faramir's character -- might simply give the impression that possession of the ring is not that big of a deal.

Quite honestly, that was my impression reading the books. It seemed a bit strange to me that Faramir could so easily let the ring go without further investigation (after all, the survival of his civilization was at stake).

But I respect that this is a bit of a change from the book and I understand how it could anger purists.

 

[theburningman]

I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base. I think a lot of this is about personal perceptions. Those of us whol read the book all perceived it differently. We've all seen the same movie but perceived it differently. I don't think my opinions are any more or less valid than anyone else's, but I am weak enough to be driven to explain my opinions. I'll try to control myself in the future.

This is what I was trying to say above, although I didn't express it quite so well. I can understand why some people have problems with some of the changes; I'm just glad that I don't have the same problems and that I can just completely lose myself in the visual world Jackson has brought to the screen.

(BTW, on the director's commentary of the extended edition, PJ says that they spent so much time on the details of the world so that hopefully, no matter what problems a viewer might have with story or character, they wouldn't be able to gripe about the presentation of the world. IMHO, he succeeded admirably.)

I just saw TTT again on Monday. As far as Theoden goes, I did see little instances of weakness and doubt, but as I said before, I think they make him more human.

As for Faramir, I was really paying attention in his scenes of the movie this time, trying to watch as someone who has read the book, and simultaneously trying to watch as a casual movie-goer. When my nephew and his friend and I were talking later, it hit me:

To a casual viewer, who has no idea what awaits Frodo and Sam in Mordor, it was necessary for dramatic tension that Faramir present more of an obstacle than in the book. If Frodo and Sam had had the same encounter with Faramir as they had in the book, it would have completely destroyed any sense of urgency and menace in the movie. By making Faramir seem more of a threat than he actually is, they preserved the tension in the film for the casual movie-goer. Films are made of set-pieces and it's obvious that the Battle of Helm's Deep and the March of the Ents were intended to be the climactic set pieces of this part. It would have been rather anti-climactic for Frodo and Sam to sit around talking to Faramir and company for a few minutes before he sent them on their merry way.

Plus, add in what danbala said. If Faramir doesn't even struggle with the ring (there is very little evidence he struggles at all with it in the book), then the audience is left scratching it's head. "If it's so hard for Frodo to resist the ring, why doesn't it affect Faramir when he is presented with it?"

 

[William Ronald]

I was impressed with the movie and saw some of the reasons for the cinematic changes from the books.

First, the scenes with Faramir do dramatize how powerful a lure the ring has on others. Faramir is motivated by a desire to do good, but in the movie is tempted by the ring. In the books, we read of Faramir's discover of Boromir's story, Frodo's fear that the rest of the Fellowship is dead, and Sam slips out that Frodo has the One Ring. It might have been a little difficult to make these scenes seem lively in an otherwise fast paced movie. However, Faramir ultimately accepts that the Ring is something that should not go to Gondor. Ironically, the Nazgul likely concluded it was going to Gondor. I suspect that this line of thinking and a likely Palantir scene with Aragorn in the next film will convince Sauron that his enemies wish to use the Ring against him.

Also, it must be noted that there seems to be a compressed time line in the films. In the books, 17 years pass between Bilbo's farewell speech and Gandalf telling Frodo he has the One Ring. Apparently in the films, it is a matter of months. This explains a few things, such as why Treebeard does not know of Saruman cutting down part of Fangorn Forest.

Overall, I was impressed with the movie and plan to see it again soon.

 

[FraserRonald]

Now, I’m going to preface this with a qualifier. I liked the movie. I thought it was a lot of fun. I will say that it did not match Fellowship of the Ring, neither as movie nor as adaptation. And viewed as either simply a movie or as an adaptation, it has flaws. That’s all I’ve been saying and all I ever will say.

I have never maintained that the books should be transferred to the movie without changes. In fact, one of my favourite adaptions is _Blade_Runner_, an adaption of Dick’s _Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep_, which completely changed the story, but maintained the themes and plot.

In many instances I’ve noted that to criticize TTT is almost verboten. If one criticizes it for the liberties taken with the source material, to no discernable improvement, one is called a purist. If one criticizes it as a movie, referring to internal plot, characterization and pacing problems, one is accused of nit-picking. I find it odd that so many people want to turn off their critical faculties when viewing a movie. I agree, there are times when that can be fun, when one simply wants some B-grade eye-candy. I do not consider this movie as B-grade eye-candy, and so I point at faults that detracted from its potential.

I’ve harped on the problems I’ve seen with the movie, so I will not do so again. I find it odd, though, that this movie is praised for characterization. I would say that there were some fine moments of it, including Grima and Gollum. Some efforts were pedestrian, standing on the previous film but not advancing our understanding of the characters. Eowyn, while capably handled, is not a stand out. Compared to the characterizations of Boromir or even Elrond in FotR, I find the work done here to be acceptable but not incredible. Many characters suffered. Merry and Pippin are almost superfluous, and were this not an adaptation, I would have said get rid of them, or store them away some place safe until needed. They did nothing that couldn’t have been done more efficiently, without detriment to the story. Gandalf seems almost a cipher. Perhaps this is because he has become a White Wizard, but certain Saruman in the first movie was a White Wizard and was very well developed.

There are also internal problems with the movie. I won’t mention the speed with which the elves arrive at exactly the proper place to fight. I would be interested to know how a single arrow in his mount could drive off a Nazgul so close to capturing the Ring. Sure, arrows could kill the Fell Beast he rides, but giving up on getting the Ring when it is so close? Heck, wade in there with your sword and dagger and take the damn thing!

And how does Sam know the reason for Boromir’s death? Frodo may have told him that Boromir tried to take the Ring, but neither Frodo nor Sam even knew about Boromir’s death. Shouldn’t Faramir be a bit suspicious of these creatures who purport to be his brother’s friends, but who know nothing about that brother’s death until it’s convenient?

I’m not going to comment on a charge by cavalry down a hill of loose stones with an incredibly steep incline into a fixed pike position with only the benefit of a flash of brilliant light (though I guess I just did), but I would like to know why the Uruk-Hai fail to regroup and counter-attack, still holding the advantage in numbers?

In any case, while I like the movie, I do find it a flawed and qualified success. I look forward to RotK.