[OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.

[edbonny]

You mean a dreadful film made by talentless hacks, watched and adored by people who wouldn't know a good movie if it sat on their head.

Following that logic, the always adored and ever-busy McDonalds must then be the finest cuisine of the land. I do think that TTT is the McDonalds' version of Tolkien's books (a nationally targeted, mass-marketed movie modified to suit current cultural "tastes" - if you'll excuse the pun).

BTW, I love McDonalds.

- Ed

 

[Agback]

I'll be damned if I didn't just get a chill just from you quoting that.

Now, if they mess that up, I will personally lobby for Peter Jackson to be tossed into a woodchipper.

Sharpen your pencil. Because I am prepared to bet that at least they will modernize the syntax. The slightly overblown grandeur that many of Tolkien's characters adopt for important formal statements has not made it over into the films.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Sharpen your pencil. Because I am prepared to bet that at least they will modernize the syntax. The slightly overblown grandeur that many of Tolkien's characters adopt for important formal statements has not made it over into the films.

You're probably right. I expect we will lose "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!..." at the least. I can live with a bit of dialogue tweaking, though, as long as the emotional content of the scene isn't destroyed.

 

[Henry]

Well, looking at box office earnings through the end of the year, The Two Towers is right on track to bust the doors off as one of the top 3 or 5 movies of 2002. It's made $200 million dollars so far - and it has so far made more money than the next four movies under it COMBINED. It is safe to say it is a hit with Tolkien fans, and a hit with the general public.

Now, that means NOTHING if someone didn't like the movie. And criticizing someone's opinion who didn't like the movie doesn't mean anything either. You just have to say, "I have to disagree, and I'm sorry you feel that way, because I enjoyed the heck out of it." And leave it at that.

To me, Jackson changed what he changed. He proved with box office figures that he knows not only how to make a movie, but to EDIT a movie well. Editing and pacing can make a poorly budgeted movie very good, and poor editing can make an expensive and well-acted movie an absolute flop, so I have to take contention that just putting the books to film would have been an automatic hit.

Jackson has proven that he is the hottest commodity in directors for hollywood right now. Most studios would KILL for a literal Billion Dollar franchise, and Jackson has taken his vision of Tolkien's World, and make it entertaining for millions of moviegoers.

 

[jdavis]

Well i waited to hit this thread until I actually saw the movie. The movies are fast on their way to becoming one of the highest grossing movie franchises ever and the third movie isn't even out, so I guess it is a proven commodity, it has been nominated for awards already and is generally loved by fans and critics alike. I really didn't like it at all, now I am sure that I am wrong and stupid and probably mentally handicapped for disliking it (after reading this whole thread it seems not liking this movie means you have to be a complete idiot) but I just did not like the movie, the first movie was awsome and the extended DVD is one of my favorite movies ever, I just didn't like The Two Towers, I can't put my finger on it and I can't point out any specifics that have not been argued into the dirt already. For some reason the movie didn't sit right with me, I don't care about movie deviations from the book, I expect those type of things and in some cases welcome them. This movie just rubbed me the wrong way, it just felt wrong, it was choopy and rough and gave me a headache and I had a hard time feeling anything for characters that I loved from the last movie, some of the characters were good and some got silly and some barely appeared, doesn't matter I just didn't feel drawn in like the last movie did, I tried, I want to love this movie, I want to shower it with praise, I can't think of any logical reason to not like this movie (well except it was edited by hyperactive monkeys, thus the headache) but it just didn't do it for me. I'm sure I'll see it again, I'm sure I'll buy it and I will be there for the next one with out a doubt, I still have high hopes for the next one. obviously I am wrong and misguided here, and I probably have some unknown chip on my shoulder that I haven't recognized yet, I can't back up any points or produce a better script to post here, I am not able to argue with all the professional critics who said it was great and I can't argue with all the people who have all these wonderful highly thought out arguements. All I got is a gut sense that I didn't like the movie, and the headache, you know maybe that is enough, maybe I don't have to prove any points or argue any of it, maybe I can just not like a movie that I felt was flawed. It felt like a piecemeal jigsaw puzzle where the pieces were shoved together whether they fit or not, to me it felt like he needed another couple of months worth of editing and work, sort of like this was only the rough draft. Of course that's just my opinion.

EDIT: THe whole Theater erupted in laughter almost every time Gollum came on the screen, I didn't get the joke but the 200 or so people in the theater with me thought he was hilarious.

 

[rangerjohn]

What I don't get is how it makes Faramir's character better to have him succumb to ring like Boromir. I don't think shaking it off at the end cuts it. That's what Boromir did, and then went on to heroically sacrifice his life trying to save the hobbits. So how is making Faramir a pale imitation of Boromir an improvement?

 

[Lady Mer]

I never saw Boromir 'shake off' the effects of the ring. He tried to sieze the ring, Frodo fled, and Boromir felt sorry about it. But what would he have done if Frodo hadn't fled? He even admits to Aragorn that, in letting Frodo leave, 'you did what I could not'- just as Faramir eventually does.

Faramir is tempted, but ultimatly chooses to let Frodo leave. In terms of heroism, he occupies a niche between Aragorn and Boromir- just where he should be.

 

[shilsen]

What Lady Mer said. In both the book and the movie, Boromir's sacrificing his life for the hobbits is almost a form of atonement for his former failing. In the book neither Aragorn nor Faramir is tempted. In the movie, as Lady Mer points out, there is a very neat progression between Aragorn, Faramir and Boromir.

 

[WizarDru]

I really didn't like it at all, now I am sure that I am wrong and stupid and probably mentally handicapped for disliking it (after reading this whole thread it seems not liking this movie means you have to be a complete idiot) but I just did not like the movie, the first movie was awsome and the extended DVD is one of my favorite movies ever, I just didn't like The Two Towers, I can't put my finger on it and I can't point out any specifics that have not been argued into the dirt already. For some reason the movie didn't sit right with me, I don't care about movie deviations from the book, I expect those type of things and in some cases welcome them.

And that's a perfectly valid view, and there's nothing wrong with it. No one can nor should tell you what you like, or what is good TO YOU. The issue that I have taken umbrage with is the claim that PJ 'pissed on' JRRT's work, when it's clear that they've made the most sincere effort yet seen to make a work that is artistically as close as PJ felt possible for a movie adaption. Disagreeing with it's pace and style is a matter of taste, and a perfectly valid reason to dislike the film.

 

[jdavis]

And that's a perfectly valid view, and there's nothing wrong with it. No one can nor should tell you what you like, or what is good TO YOU. The issue that I have taken umbrage with is the claim that PJ 'pissed on' JRRT's work, when it's clear that they've made the most sincere effort yet seen to make a work that is artistically as close as PJ felt possible for a movie adaption. Disagreeing with it's pace and style is a matter of taste, and a perfectly valid reason to dislike the film.

I was actually scared to post to the thread, some of the attacks were just vicious. I think some people (on both sides) need to realize that this is just a movie. many peoples comments here were just uncalled for regardless of what they were repling to, or how uncalled for the first statement was. Peter Jackson spent years on this movie, heck New Line put the company up to make it, nobody tried to make a bad movie or destroy Tolkien's work, but every point that was brought up to illustrate how bad the movie was had merit. heck most of the bad points were agreed on, but that didn't stop people from roasting anybody who didn't like the movie. Both sides went over the top and it just got silly, it was just a movie.

All that aside I do have one bone to pick with changes that were made (most of the changes didn't bother me as changes, they just bothered me in general). Since when did Elrond become king of the elves? I have heard that said at the theater and have read it in other places (I'm trying to remember where, I'll post a link when/if I find it). The silly elf telepathy scene!? between Galadriel and Elrond is worded to sound like she is asking what to do from her superior, and the elves showing up at Helm's Deep and saying Elrond sent them reinforces that. Maybe I am worng and it is just a confusing scene, I let a friend have it for refering to Elrond as the Elf King guy, he hadn't read the books, he got that from the movie. It's not a big thing but it annoyed me.