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

[Plane Sailing]

My favourite line in the film:

Faramir is questioning Frodo and Sam, in Ithilien, the borders of Mordor. he turns to Sam:

"And I suppose you're his bodyguard?"

"No, I'm his gardener".

The whole theatre burst out laughing at that, it was such an excellent line

 

[Plane Sailing]

Tolkien was a lousy writer. Brilliant man, but lousy writer.

I can't let this pass.

You are wrong, Lady Starhawk.

It may be that he writes in a fashion which doesn't appeal to you or you find difficult to get to grips with, that is fair enough.

He was not a lousy writer though.

 

[KenM]

I don't like Tolkiens style of writing, either. He is great for setting up and backround. But his plot resolution is so SLOW. "They walk over one hill, then another hill, and down the road they walk". Love the movies, can't wait to have all three extended DVD's to watch at once.

 

[Storminator]

I don't like Tolkiens style of writing, either. He is great for setting up and backround. But his plot resolution is so SLOW. "They walk over one hill, then another hill, and down the road they walk". Love the movies, can't wait to have all three extended DVD's to watch at once.

Tolkien's books are there to explore the world, and oh yeah, there's a story going on too. If you're reading for story you're in the wrong books. Some people claim LotR is primarily narrative. It is not. It is primarily descriptive, with narrative in there as well.

If you try to read it again, stop every now and again and ask yourself if you can picture the sets, if you can hear the language. You can taste the air in LotR, if you only stop to imagine it.

PS

 

[KenM]

Tolkien's books are there to explore the world, and oh yeah, there's a story going on too. If you're reading for story you're in the wrong books. Some people claim LotR is primarily narrative. It is not. It is primarily descriptive, with narrative in there as well.

If you try to read it again, stop every now and again and ask yourself if you can picture the sets, if you can hear the language. You can taste the air in LotR, if you only stop to imagine it.

PS

Most people read fiction for the story, IMO. If I want a book about the world, I'll pick up the Middle Earth RPG, as well as the countless other books with the maps, ect. But I should have said in my last post, the Hobbit moves at a good pace, but FoTR is so SLOW I can't finish it.

 

[Banshee16]

5) The fell beast and the arrow. The beast flaps away for a moment, and then Sam carries Frodo out of sight. The Rider can't find them again amongst all that stone, and it knows it's vulnerable to the massed bowfire underneath it. Don't forget Sauron's arrogance, he doesn't truly believe the Ring can be used against him. When the Nazgul returns, his reaction would be "The Ring is going to Gondor? Excellent, it'll corrupt whoever is wearing it and I'll win with ease!"

I've noticed this complaint about the Nazgul being driven off by an arrow in several arguments on the boards.

What's the deal with that? In the Fellowship of the Ring (the book), Legolas takes out a Nazgul with one shot from his bow.

This takes place when they're going down the Anduin, before reaching Amon Hen and the Breaking of the Fellowship.

A bunch of orcs on the shores start shooting arrows at the Fellowship, and then one of the Nazgul on Fell-Beast back comes flying in. Legolas takes a shot in the dark, and kills the Fell-Beast. The Nazgul falls on the other side of the river.

In The Two Towers, when Merry and Pippin are being held by the orcs, the orcs even discuss this when they are arguing with each other. The Uruk-hai are laughing that Sauron's servants don't seem so touch because one got shot down with an arrow..

So, it's definitely possible for Faramir to drive off a Nazgul with one shot of his bow in the movie.

I find in the movies that there are several events that happen that are right out of the book, but they've switched them to different times in the story, or made a different character do what was done in the book....this is just more of the same.

As an example, when Frodo and Gandalf are in Moria, talking, and Frodo says he wished Bilbo had killed Gollum, and Gandalf gives his big speech, that's almost verbatim out of the books. But in the book, it took place in Bag End, before Frodo ever started his journey.

Or at the gates of Moria, in the movie, Frodo guesses that the way in is a riddle. In the book Merry first suggested that it might be a riddle, and it was Gandalf that figured it out....etc. etc.

As to The Two Towers movie, Merry and Pippin trick Treebeard into attacking Isengard. In the book, they basically meet Treebeard, and then explain their adventures, then Treebeard goes and calls the Entmoot and makes the decision to attack and all himself. But that really doesn't give much for Merry and Pippin to do, and it violates a key dramatic element needed for a movie adaptation. The viewers need to be able to associate with the heroes, and the heroes have to be active....not just sitting there while "NPCs" they've met make all the decisions. I think PJ made the correct choices for the movie.

Banshee

 

[Chauzu]

GREAT movie! Very fun to watch! Coulda skipped the scene where Aragorn falls off the cliff and a little less dwarf joking, but otherwise very good. I especially liked Gollum and the Ents. Exactly how I pictured them. I also thought the oliphaunts and nazgul were cool too. Can't wait for the extended dvd to come out!

 

[Salthanas]

Greetings all

I thought the movie was great even though at times I found myself frowning at some of the changes made. The one major gripe I have with the movie was Faramirs portrayal, he always struck me as much more of a scholar first and soldier second but Jackson never eluded once to the more sagely side of his character. I'm hoping that in the extended DVD version their will be some footage which illustrates this slightly more.

On a slightly different note one particular thing that peeked my curiosity whilst thumbing through one of the many Tolkien books at my local bookstore was an illustration of a scene that Tolkien removed from the LoTR. The scene was the Witch King encountering Frodo on his fell beast at the Seat of Amon Hen. I was wondering if Jackson maybe used this as a basis for Frodo's encounter with the Winged Nazgul in Two Towers and whether any other changes in the movie have their origin in Tolkiens earlier
drafts of his work.

yours Salthanas

 

[Someone]

I´m really sorry to say this, but I found the movie boring. The pace was awfully slow, the dialogue poor, and the plot lacking. Granted, it had some few good moments, but those don´t compensate three hours of rolling in the seat.

 

[Zappo]

I finally got to see the movie today. It is great in all respects, just like the first one, and the deviations like the elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir, etcetera, didn't bother me one bit.

Since I'm tired and I want to go to sleep, feel free to insert here lots of appreciation for everything in the movie.

Save one thing.

The dwarf. Can hardly call him Gimli, Elwood would probably be more appropriate. While I understand the need for comic relief, I don't see why it must be placed right in the most dramatic moments and, more importantly, why it must be accentrated on one character. One character that in FotR had a fairly different depiction, especially as seen in the extended version. There were other elements in tTT that could afford the chore of being comic relief a couple of times in place of the dwarf, such as the ents, Gollum, and the orcs. Oh, each of these have their light moments, but the bulk of the laughs are drawn by Gimli, who practically has nothing else in the whole movie. He is so different from the FotR Gimli, it's incredible.