Black Omega
First Post
Even so, there is no truth to the rumor that RotK is working out to be so long the trilogy might become a quadrilogy and two years from now we'll be watching Return of the King II: The stuff we couldn't fit in last time.
Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers ENworld reviews & discussion (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dr Midnight
- Start date
EricNoah
Adventurer
Yay, just got back from Two Towers! Yay, I really liked it! Good, good stuff. 
Some of the effects were pretty fake looking (hobbits riding Ents mostly, and when the riders rode from Helm's Deep -- some of the orcs they were overrunning seemed merge strangely with some of the horses...).
Golum wasn't as mind-blowing visually as I expected, but the character & performance were great. He's coming off very sympathetic, which is vital for the climax of film 3.
I liked the Gimli/Aragorn/Legolas banter, I didn't feel like there was too much of that.
The Faramir stuff was not anywhere near the problem I'd been hearing -- that turned out quite well in my opinion. He doesn't have far to go to become the guy we know from the book, and it very handily sets up events for film 3. I look forward to a second viewing -- it's almost required
Film 3 will be staggering, I'm just so thrilled to be able to witness it all.
Some of the effects were pretty fake looking (hobbits riding Ents mostly, and when the riders rode from Helm's Deep -- some of the orcs they were overrunning seemed merge strangely with some of the horses...).
Golum wasn't as mind-blowing visually as I expected, but the character & performance were great. He's coming off very sympathetic, which is vital for the climax of film 3.
I liked the Gimli/Aragorn/Legolas banter, I didn't feel like there was too much of that.
The Faramir stuff was not anywhere near the problem I'd been hearing -- that turned out quite well in my opinion. He doesn't have far to go to become the guy we know from the book, and it very handily sets up events for film 3. I look forward to a second viewing -- it's almost required
Film 3 will be staggering, I'm just so thrilled to be able to witness it all.
Re
The Faramir differences are greatly exaggerated. Faramir was not like his brother, and I could easily distinguish between the two.
Denham did a god job of portraying an extremely controlled war leader in a difficult situation with a difficult choice to make. Given that Jackson had to develop Faramir in short bursts, I see nothing wrong with the changes.
Faramir resisted the lure of the ring. He did this after Sam told him what happened to his brother and Frodo was nearly overwhelmed by its power. I believe this was meant to replace the sit down that Faramir, Frodo, and Same had while at the hidden caves. To me, this clearly showed Faramir made a decision for the greater good of Gondor based upon information he had seen and heard.
I could easily tell that he was less arrogant, less outspoken, and more wise than Boromir by the way he kept his thoughts and his feelings to himself. He did not covet nor even desire to see the ring. His motivation was to aid Gondor in its time of need, which was developed through the dialog.
Faramir is as he was in the book. A wise, humble, just leader of men who was not tempted by the ring, but concerned for the well-being of his home during a time of great crisis. He made the write choice, Jackson just used a different method of allowing Faramir to see why he should have made that choice.
The Faramir differences are greatly exaggerated. Faramir was not like his brother, and I could easily distinguish between the two.
Denham did a god job of portraying an extremely controlled war leader in a difficult situation with a difficult choice to make. Given that Jackson had to develop Faramir in short bursts, I see nothing wrong with the changes.
Faramir resisted the lure of the ring. He did this after Sam told him what happened to his brother and Frodo was nearly overwhelmed by its power. I believe this was meant to replace the sit down that Faramir, Frodo, and Same had while at the hidden caves. To me, this clearly showed Faramir made a decision for the greater good of Gondor based upon information he had seen and heard.
I could easily tell that he was less arrogant, less outspoken, and more wise than Boromir by the way he kept his thoughts and his feelings to himself. He did not covet nor even desire to see the ring. His motivation was to aid Gondor in its time of need, which was developed through the dialog.
Faramir is as he was in the book. A wise, humble, just leader of men who was not tempted by the ring, but concerned for the well-being of his home during a time of great crisis. He made the write choice, Jackson just used a different method of allowing Faramir to see why he should have made that choice.
Last edited:
Numion
First Post
The first movie was excellent. This one.. well, wasn't. Why the warg riders? they just looked fake, and reminded of star wars. And why the stunt of aragorn jumping to the river? Why didn't they fit in something that was in the book?
Also the flooding of isengard looked bad. The water was "too big", clearly indicating models. Too 70s catastrophe movie.
Also the flooding of isengard looked bad. The water was "too big", clearly indicating models. Too 70s catastrophe movie.
LOL
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I really enjoyed it.
Dr. Midnight, I was one of the people laughing at Gollum's argument with himself -- but I wasn't laughing out of delight. Rather, it was because the scene was so unbelievably freaky and creepy; it was both funny and terrifying, and laughter was something of a defense against that freakishness.
The change in Faramir's characterization disappointed me as well. However, I figure that Peter Jackson knows a helluva lot more about directing movies and about LOTR than I do, and I figure that he and his coartists spent months agonizing over the script and plot to this movie, and I figure he has some very well-considered reasons for making the changes he made. Ultimately, after seeing ROTK, I may still disagree with those changes -- I may armchair-quarterback the movie. But I'll respect that this movie is his creation, and that he's a lot smarter about moviemaking than I'll ever be.
Daniel
Dr. Midnight, I was one of the people laughing at Gollum's argument with himself -- but I wasn't laughing out of delight. Rather, it was because the scene was so unbelievably freaky and creepy; it was both funny and terrifying, and laughter was something of a defense against that freakishness.
The change in Faramir's characterization disappointed me as well. However, I figure that Peter Jackson knows a helluva lot more about directing movies and about LOTR than I do, and I figure that he and his coartists spent months agonizing over the script and plot to this movie, and I figure he has some very well-considered reasons for making the changes he made. Ultimately, after seeing ROTK, I may still disagree with those changes -- I may armchair-quarterback the movie. But I'll respect that this movie is his creation, and that he's a lot smarter about moviemaking than I'll ever be.
Daniel
Dr Midnight
Explorer
I know what you mean, but I don't mind it as much as I minded the avalanche in the first movie... THAT was "too big" for me.Numion said:
theburningman
First Post
Hmm. A Fell Beast (tm) driven off by a single arrow. It's just so. . . unbelievable. Yet, I feel like I've seen something like it before. . .
Oh, yeah. . .
SMAUG!
SMAUG! SMAUG! SMAUG!
A frickin' dragon got killed by a single (albeit well-placed) arrow!
Could we please lay off of Faramir's miraculous archery skills and enjoy the first two parts of a [single] film (not the first two films of a trilogy) that I don't think any of us ever thought we would be fortunate enough to experience in our lifetimes?!
[Whew. Sorry about that.]
I was just sitting here reading these various threads about TTT, and I suddenly realized why my eighth grade students get frustrated with me when I nitpick one of their favorite movies to death. It's because they don't see the things I see when I watch the same movie. They watch Pearl Harbor, and they see a movie with a wonderful, tragic love story against a backdrop of war driven by fantastic sfx. I watch Pearl Harbor, and I see a horridly embarrassing attempt at a tragic love story that I can ignore because I think the fx are pretty impressive.
In other words, I'm glad that my usual nit-pickiness just seems to disappear when I watch LotR. I don't suspend it out of love for the material; it just doesn't rear its ugly head.
I didn't see Faramir acting like a bastard in the movie. I saw Faramir act in a way that is different from the second part of the book, and now I think, "Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder why Peter Jackson chose to do that with his character? What's that going to mean for the last part?"
I didn't see Theoden as a weak ruler plagued by doubt and indecision. I saw Aragorn saying they should attack Saruman and Theoden trying to keep his people safe and give them hope by going to Helm's Deep. I saw him needing a bit of support from Aragorn when things look darkest after the siege at Helm's Deep succeeds. Then I saw him make one of the coolest, most heroic rides into battle ever, something straight out of MYTH for pity's sake, and I remember there is still another part of this giant film to go for him to show his truly noble spirit.
I didn't see Eowyn as weaker than her character appears in the book, because she stood up against Grima and she made it clear that she was not afraid to fight. She just hasn't been given the chance yet, and oh yeah, there's still a whole three hours left in this humongous movie for her to show her strength as well.
I didn't see a sometimes laughable CGI creation when I saw Gollum. I did laugh during the dialogue between Gollum/Smeagol, but it wasn't because I thought it was funny. I can't explain why I laughed, and I think that is a tribute to the power of the character on screen.
I didn't see an underwhelming attack of the Ents on Isengard. I saw a siege that made me say "Holy S**t!" several times while I was watching it.
I did see weak sfx at times, particularly when Merry and Pippin are riding Treebeard, but then I remembered that when I saw the first part of this enormous film on DVD, all of the sfx weaknesses disappeared because digital fx look best when viewed on a digital medium.
I didn't hear a whiny, screechy, recycled soundtrack. I did hear an extension and continuation of a score that I have grown to love, a score with which I can visualize the scenes of the film when I am hearing it. Heck, I even like Gollum's Song (it's creepy and pitiful and infuriating all at once), and I love the Rohan strings theme.
Basically, when I watch The Lord of the Rings, I am just glad that the nitpicks that others call weaknesses and flaws simply wash right over me as I bask in the world of the first two parts of the greatest movie ever made.
Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.
Oh, yeah. . .
SMAUG!
SMAUG! SMAUG! SMAUG!
A frickin' dragon got killed by a single (albeit well-placed) arrow!
Could we please lay off of Faramir's miraculous archery skills and enjoy the first two parts of a [single] film (not the first two films of a trilogy) that I don't think any of us ever thought we would be fortunate enough to experience in our lifetimes?!
[Whew. Sorry about that.]
I was just sitting here reading these various threads about TTT, and I suddenly realized why my eighth grade students get frustrated with me when I nitpick one of their favorite movies to death. It's because they don't see the things I see when I watch the same movie. They watch Pearl Harbor, and they see a movie with a wonderful, tragic love story against a backdrop of war driven by fantastic sfx. I watch Pearl Harbor, and I see a horridly embarrassing attempt at a tragic love story that I can ignore because I think the fx are pretty impressive.
In other words, I'm glad that my usual nit-pickiness just seems to disappear when I watch LotR. I don't suspend it out of love for the material; it just doesn't rear its ugly head.
I didn't see Faramir acting like a bastard in the movie. I saw Faramir act in a way that is different from the second part of the book, and now I think, "Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder why Peter Jackson chose to do that with his character? What's that going to mean for the last part?"
I didn't see Theoden as a weak ruler plagued by doubt and indecision. I saw Aragorn saying they should attack Saruman and Theoden trying to keep his people safe and give them hope by going to Helm's Deep. I saw him needing a bit of support from Aragorn when things look darkest after the siege at Helm's Deep succeeds. Then I saw him make one of the coolest, most heroic rides into battle ever, something straight out of MYTH for pity's sake, and I remember there is still another part of this giant film to go for him to show his truly noble spirit.
I didn't see Eowyn as weaker than her character appears in the book, because she stood up against Grima and she made it clear that she was not afraid to fight. She just hasn't been given the chance yet, and oh yeah, there's still a whole three hours left in this humongous movie for her to show her strength as well.
I didn't see a sometimes laughable CGI creation when I saw Gollum. I did laugh during the dialogue between Gollum/Smeagol, but it wasn't because I thought it was funny. I can't explain why I laughed, and I think that is a tribute to the power of the character on screen.
I didn't see an underwhelming attack of the Ents on Isengard. I saw a siege that made me say "Holy S**t!" several times while I was watching it.
I did see weak sfx at times, particularly when Merry and Pippin are riding Treebeard, but then I remembered that when I saw the first part of this enormous film on DVD, all of the sfx weaknesses disappeared because digital fx look best when viewed on a digital medium.
I didn't hear a whiny, screechy, recycled soundtrack. I did hear an extension and continuation of a score that I have grown to love, a score with which I can visualize the scenes of the film when I am hearing it. Heck, I even like Gollum's Song (it's creepy and pitiful and infuriating all at once), and I love the Rohan strings theme.
Basically, when I watch The Lord of the Rings, I am just glad that the nitpicks that others call weaknesses and flaws simply wash right over me as I bask in the world of the first two parts of the greatest movie ever made.
Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.
Mathew_Freeman
Adventurer
Well, I loved it. Al of it. Without a doubt.
But Gimli had all the best dialogue
But Gimli had all the best dialogue
KnowTheToe
First Post
Tallarn said:Well, I loved it. Al of it. Without a doubt.
But Gimli had all the best dialogue
I want everyone to stop what they are doing and read this simple but very wise post. No more rehashing the same issues, no more tearing apart such minute details of a movie that no story or movie could ever survive without flaw, just no more. Stop, and reread Tallarn's post.
I am a tired American,
Thank you.
Similar Threads
