SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
11:41 pm, Wednesday, December 18, 2002.
I went and saw "The Two Towers" with my best friend Chris and his niece. We went to a 530 pm show, and I got home at about 9:00 pm.
Wow! The movie is simply fantastic! I loved it! It really is quite excellent! I fully realise that there are differences in the mediums between movies and books, so I generally make broad allowances for that reality. I have read Tolkien's books many times, though it has been a few years since I read them last.
First, the things that I really liked about the film:
(1) The setting and scenery were really cool. Just fantastic stuff, and very vivid.
(2) The acting was excellent, the characterization in general was very good.
(3) The pacing was active, dramatic, and exciting.
(4) The creatures--the Ents, the Wargs, the Orcs, Uruk-Hai, Gollum, the Fell Beasts, and the Oliphants. All were really cool. I especially thought the wargs were interesting, as well as the Uruk-Hai. I think the Uruk-Hai are very well done--it makes the visualization of these savage, utterly ruthless and ferocious humanoid monsters very vivid. The Oliphants made my mouth drop open! I knew they were huge--from the books, I figured they were like the size of a prehistoric mammoth, perhaps even a bit larger. I didn't think that they were ten stories or whatever high! I couldn't believe how huge they were! Damn! You can forget about a Howdah with a few archers on their backs! These guys had a company of archers fighting from their backs! That was incredible to me. Gollum was very cool too, and especially effective while displaying the dual personality, and the struggle within himself back and forth. Really superb!
(5) The music, the action, the costumes, it was all very good.
The bad: Well, I don't really have anything bad to say. The movie was excellent, and I will no doubt see it again many times. On Friday I will be seeing it with my wife, and I will probably see it with some friends again over the weekend. Beyond that, which would be my third time seeing it, I will probably see it at at least twice in the next few weeks. Before long, I suppose I'll see it about six times. Geez, what a geek, huh? LOL! Well, anyways, here are a few things:
My friend Chris felt somewhat let down from the movie. He actually thought there could have been less combat and "spectacle" and more of the moral dimensions and characterizations that were going on with the different characters and their relationships from the books. For example--
When Gandalf and company were at Edoras in the books, there was much more tension and characterization going on than the movie depicts--the movie makes it seem like a night or two at most, and everything has changed. Eomer also had far more going on in the books than in the movie, which I agree is a slight disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing more of Eomer.
Eowyn: Granted, she doesn't kick butt until Return of the King, but in the books, even in The Two Towers, she was much more of a heroic, aggressive, passionate woman than shown in the movie. In the books, her boldness, her desire for combat, her force of personality is far more evident than in the movie. In the movie, she serves little more than to fawn and moon over Aragorn. Indeed, it isn't far-fetched to have her admire and want to love Aragorn. But that is chiefly what she does in the movie, with lip service and a few sentences given to her and in her regard about fighting or being a vibrant character, if you see what I mean. Eowyn can be seen as a kind of disappointment, and I agree that they could have done and shown more with her character.
The Orcs and the Uruk-Hai: Now, I realise that these are monsters meant to die, but in the books, there were actually several nights involved where they had the hobbits Merry and Pippin as prisoners, and the orcs even healed the hobbits in the books, and had conversations with them. A small point, perhaps, but it was an interesting part, and one that showed more depth to the orcs and the Uruk-Hai than just creatures that grunt. They argued and fought over the hobbits, and there was more depth shown to them in the books than in the movie. In the movie, they argue a few sentences, and then "Swoosh!" they are attacked at night and they are all killed. There just isn't much shown to the ordeal as experienced by the hobbits, when in the books, these experiences were very important for Merry and Pippin as characters, and as their characters grew and matured. This was very loosely refered to in the movie, and not as good as it could have been done.
The Arwen Romance: It would be fine to show the emotional importance by a few quick "visions" for Aragorn, perhaps with a brief sentence or two--even a few of these with Arwen looking at him or touching him standing in a balcony or wherever would have conveyed the same message that I think they were trying to convey--that is, the emotional importance of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, and her being immortal, and so on. The scenes in the movie with her doing this were a bit long, and didn't need to be so, whereas a shorter bit could have accomplished the same impact. This could have freed up five or ten minutes or whatever for some other elements to be shown and developed that weren't, as noted above.
Gandalf and the Balrog: Again, while cool, it could have been abbreviated, and more time freed up to do something *more* important and meaningful. Gandalf didn't need to be shown with the resurrection scene with him seeing the stars and so on. That all could have been just as effectively depicted with a sentence or two from him and a white fading scene from him fighting the balrog to him being in front of the company. Again, more time could have been gained by cutting here and freeing it up for more interesting scenes that develop the story more forward, in plot and or characterization.
Faramir: What is up with their characterization of Faramir? He's ok, but in the books he has a much more striking, take charge kind of personality, and yet one of dignity, wisdom, and coolness. He wasn't really portrayed that way in the movie, and he seemed kind of muted, reduced, just kind of making quick decisions that seemed the easiest. This isn't really the way he was portrayed in the book. In addition, the whole sequence where the hobbits are taken to Osgilliath, and where Frodo encounters the Nazgul on the Fell Beast. Fell Beasts are cool and all, but this whole sequence didn't seem to advance very much. They were in the forest and the secret waterfall caves, they leave and go to Osgilliath, there are some brief fight scenes, Frodo wants to give the ring to a Nazgul, and then they talk with Faramir briefly, and suddenly they are on their way back out into the wilderness. If I recall correctly, Faramir never did take them to Osgilliath, but in fact stayed in the secret cave area, before letting them continue their quest with his blessing and guidance. Thus, the whole trip to the city and the nazgul scene was somewhat awkward and disjointed.
Gimli and Legolas: Indeed, in the books, there is far more advancement and friendship between these characters than what is shown in the movie. The movie glosses over them pretty quick, and I don't recall Gimli being the butt of jokes or the laugh-factor as much as they are doing so in the movie. It is good, to an extent, but in the books their personalities and their relationship is far more developed than Gimli being somewhat the comic-relief. Legolas I think was more developed as well, and seems to have much too brief screen time. A bit more would develop his character better as well.
These were the substance of a set of relatively minor critiques of the film that my friend Chris explained. I generally agree with them as well, perhaps not to the same degree though. I explained to him, and I submit that indeed, these minor critiques are valid--to a point--but the question arise, aside from a few minutes, some indeed, but lets be honest, not that many--maybe ten minutes, fifteen tops, could have been cut and edited to make room for something else--the movie was three hours long. There wasn't much room to cut things to add all the other stuff into it. There just isn't the time. They could have done six three hour movies, released six months apart, instead of a year for three movies, and they still no doubt would have parts left out and parts that needed to be changed. Again, it was three hours long. By cutting this from the movie to add that, you lose here to gain over there. It isn't an easy process I am sure, and I imagine if I or any here were an editor/writer involved with the movie we would be pulling our hair out as well, because no matter what you include of all the vital and interesting things going on, you can't have it all, and there is always huge things that need to be left out, so these over here can stay, you know? A very tough task I imagine. I suppose that is why I am personally kind of relaxed about getting too critical of the film for these issues, because if the things I mentioned were added in, well, good, but then you would have to cut some of the combat scenes, or the army scenes that were cool, or somewhere else in the film. If that was done, then you would have other people I imagine complaining that yes, while this was in the movie--these good characterizations, or whatever, it didn't have enough action in it, or the pacing was awkward, or it should have had *this* or *that* in it, and so on. I mean, where does it end, you know? You've only got three hours, and everything can't be in the movie, no matter how much of a purist I am, and might like the movie to have. I relaise this, and I am content with the excellent movie they made.
Very good stuff, and it is clearly going to be an all-time classic, like the first in the series. I am looking forward to seeing it again with my wife. Truly an excellent film!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
11:41 pm, Wednesday, December 18, 2002.
I went and saw "The Two Towers" with my best friend Chris and his niece. We went to a 530 pm show, and I got home at about 9:00 pm.
Wow! The movie is simply fantastic! I loved it! It really is quite excellent! I fully realise that there are differences in the mediums between movies and books, so I generally make broad allowances for that reality. I have read Tolkien's books many times, though it has been a few years since I read them last.
First, the things that I really liked about the film:
(1) The setting and scenery were really cool. Just fantastic stuff, and very vivid.
(2) The acting was excellent, the characterization in general was very good.
(3) The pacing was active, dramatic, and exciting.
(4) The creatures--the Ents, the Wargs, the Orcs, Uruk-Hai, Gollum, the Fell Beasts, and the Oliphants. All were really cool. I especially thought the wargs were interesting, as well as the Uruk-Hai. I think the Uruk-Hai are very well done--it makes the visualization of these savage, utterly ruthless and ferocious humanoid monsters very vivid. The Oliphants made my mouth drop open! I knew they were huge--from the books, I figured they were like the size of a prehistoric mammoth, perhaps even a bit larger. I didn't think that they were ten stories or whatever high! I couldn't believe how huge they were! Damn! You can forget about a Howdah with a few archers on their backs! These guys had a company of archers fighting from their backs! That was incredible to me. Gollum was very cool too, and especially effective while displaying the dual personality, and the struggle within himself back and forth. Really superb!
(5) The music, the action, the costumes, it was all very good.
The bad: Well, I don't really have anything bad to say. The movie was excellent, and I will no doubt see it again many times. On Friday I will be seeing it with my wife, and I will probably see it with some friends again over the weekend. Beyond that, which would be my third time seeing it, I will probably see it at at least twice in the next few weeks. Before long, I suppose I'll see it about six times. Geez, what a geek, huh? LOL! Well, anyways, here are a few things:
My friend Chris felt somewhat let down from the movie. He actually thought there could have been less combat and "spectacle" and more of the moral dimensions and characterizations that were going on with the different characters and their relationships from the books. For example--
When Gandalf and company were at Edoras in the books, there was much more tension and characterization going on than the movie depicts--the movie makes it seem like a night or two at most, and everything has changed. Eomer also had far more going on in the books than in the movie, which I agree is a slight disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing more of Eomer.
Eowyn: Granted, she doesn't kick butt until Return of the King, but in the books, even in The Two Towers, she was much more of a heroic, aggressive, passionate woman than shown in the movie. In the books, her boldness, her desire for combat, her force of personality is far more evident than in the movie. In the movie, she serves little more than to fawn and moon over Aragorn. Indeed, it isn't far-fetched to have her admire and want to love Aragorn. But that is chiefly what she does in the movie, with lip service and a few sentences given to her and in her regard about fighting or being a vibrant character, if you see what I mean. Eowyn can be seen as a kind of disappointment, and I agree that they could have done and shown more with her character.
The Orcs and the Uruk-Hai: Now, I realise that these are monsters meant to die, but in the books, there were actually several nights involved where they had the hobbits Merry and Pippin as prisoners, and the orcs even healed the hobbits in the books, and had conversations with them. A small point, perhaps, but it was an interesting part, and one that showed more depth to the orcs and the Uruk-Hai than just creatures that grunt. They argued and fought over the hobbits, and there was more depth shown to them in the books than in the movie. In the movie, they argue a few sentences, and then "Swoosh!" they are attacked at night and they are all killed. There just isn't much shown to the ordeal as experienced by the hobbits, when in the books, these experiences were very important for Merry and Pippin as characters, and as their characters grew and matured. This was very loosely refered to in the movie, and not as good as it could have been done.
The Arwen Romance: It would be fine to show the emotional importance by a few quick "visions" for Aragorn, perhaps with a brief sentence or two--even a few of these with Arwen looking at him or touching him standing in a balcony or wherever would have conveyed the same message that I think they were trying to convey--that is, the emotional importance of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, and her being immortal, and so on. The scenes in the movie with her doing this were a bit long, and didn't need to be so, whereas a shorter bit could have accomplished the same impact. This could have freed up five or ten minutes or whatever for some other elements to be shown and developed that weren't, as noted above.
Gandalf and the Balrog: Again, while cool, it could have been abbreviated, and more time freed up to do something *more* important and meaningful. Gandalf didn't need to be shown with the resurrection scene with him seeing the stars and so on. That all could have been just as effectively depicted with a sentence or two from him and a white fading scene from him fighting the balrog to him being in front of the company. Again, more time could have been gained by cutting here and freeing it up for more interesting scenes that develop the story more forward, in plot and or characterization.
Faramir: What is up with their characterization of Faramir? He's ok, but in the books he has a much more striking, take charge kind of personality, and yet one of dignity, wisdom, and coolness. He wasn't really portrayed that way in the movie, and he seemed kind of muted, reduced, just kind of making quick decisions that seemed the easiest. This isn't really the way he was portrayed in the book. In addition, the whole sequence where the hobbits are taken to Osgilliath, and where Frodo encounters the Nazgul on the Fell Beast. Fell Beasts are cool and all, but this whole sequence didn't seem to advance very much. They were in the forest and the secret waterfall caves, they leave and go to Osgilliath, there are some brief fight scenes, Frodo wants to give the ring to a Nazgul, and then they talk with Faramir briefly, and suddenly they are on their way back out into the wilderness. If I recall correctly, Faramir never did take them to Osgilliath, but in fact stayed in the secret cave area, before letting them continue their quest with his blessing and guidance. Thus, the whole trip to the city and the nazgul scene was somewhat awkward and disjointed.
Gimli and Legolas: Indeed, in the books, there is far more advancement and friendship between these characters than what is shown in the movie. The movie glosses over them pretty quick, and I don't recall Gimli being the butt of jokes or the laugh-factor as much as they are doing so in the movie. It is good, to an extent, but in the books their personalities and their relationship is far more developed than Gimli being somewhat the comic-relief. Legolas I think was more developed as well, and seems to have much too brief screen time. A bit more would develop his character better as well.
These were the substance of a set of relatively minor critiques of the film that my friend Chris explained. I generally agree with them as well, perhaps not to the same degree though. I explained to him, and I submit that indeed, these minor critiques are valid--to a point--but the question arise, aside from a few minutes, some indeed, but lets be honest, not that many--maybe ten minutes, fifteen tops, could have been cut and edited to make room for something else--the movie was three hours long. There wasn't much room to cut things to add all the other stuff into it. There just isn't the time. They could have done six three hour movies, released six months apart, instead of a year for three movies, and they still no doubt would have parts left out and parts that needed to be changed. Again, it was three hours long. By cutting this from the movie to add that, you lose here to gain over there. It isn't an easy process I am sure, and I imagine if I or any here were an editor/writer involved with the movie we would be pulling our hair out as well, because no matter what you include of all the vital and interesting things going on, you can't have it all, and there is always huge things that need to be left out, so these over here can stay, you know? A very tough task I imagine. I suppose that is why I am personally kind of relaxed about getting too critical of the film for these issues, because if the things I mentioned were added in, well, good, but then you would have to cut some of the combat scenes, or the army scenes that were cool, or somewhere else in the film. If that was done, then you would have other people I imagine complaining that yes, while this was in the movie--these good characterizations, or whatever, it didn't have enough action in it, or the pacing was awkward, or it should have had *this* or *that* in it, and so on. I mean, where does it end, you know? You've only got three hours, and everything can't be in the movie, no matter how much of a purist I am, and might like the movie to have. I relaise this, and I am content with the excellent movie they made.
Very good stuff, and it is clearly going to be an all-time classic, like the first in the series. I am looking forward to seeing it again with my wife. Truly an excellent film!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
