|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
saw it last night, sold out theatre.I was, and it pains me to say this, disappointed.
I am a book fan, and what I liked about FotR was where it was true to the book.
Little is true to the book in TTT.
Were it me directing this film, I would not (NOT!) have done a CGI Gollum, and I would have made the Frodo/Sam journey the bigger part of the movie. The battles would have been backdrops interspliced into their quest, not the other way around.
Parts I did like: The Dead Marsh, the interplay between Gimli and Legolas at Helm's Deep, the battle of the Ents.
I am not likely to watch this one over and over as I have the first. Maybe the 'director's cut' will be better.
Randy
The problem with communication is the fallacy that it has been achieved
- Lewis Carrol
Follow Ups:
Trying to make a 3 movies out 3 books is almost impossible. The complexity of the story and the need to create this fantasy in the screen is a big enterprise. In a way is a lot bigger than Star Wars because the book is a classic that is widely read. This is a difficult movie. I liked the Feloowship OK but when I saw on DVD I liked it even better. Yesterday I watched the Towers and I also liked it. I wonder if we would like the soty better after watching the director's cut. That is what is happening to me after watching the director's cut.
Ruben
I went to see the TFOTR fully anticipating a typical Hollywood style re-write, and left pleasantly surprised - no significant changes to the basic story, and most of those merely due to perspective.Consequently went to see TTT fully expecting the same, and left before the end.
What was wrong with the original story as provided by JRRT?
Absolutely nothing, but as mentioned below by Harmonia the second book is almost unfilmable as written. Not to be patronizing, but I'm sure that you're aware that some books translate to film better than others; in some cases drastic editing and revision of what works on the written page is required to make a book into a viable film. It's a difficult balancing act for sure, but in order to complete the Ring trilogy in three book/movies some compromises were needed to make each installment of this epic sojourn cinematically satisfying. As Peter Jackson & company envisioned it, the first book transitioned well as Tolkein original wrote it and thus few compromises were required. The second book was another matter, and it's amazing that the Director & screenwriters found ways of achieving cinematic compromise without compromising the heart and feel of Tolkein's work. Yeah, some folks are going to be hacked off about any alteration of the classic written works, but what is more important is for the second film to hold it's own with the first so that the story flows evenly and consistently; the bottom line is that it wasn't perfect, but it was damn good. As a result, I have no doubts about the third film, and Keith, I hope you reconsider.Folks, I sense that we're witnessing film history being made. I'm of the opinion that Peter Jackson's epic series will be one of those rare classics for the generations that will stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest heroic fiction ever filmed and please audiences for decades, if not centuries to come! Peter Jackson's take on Tolkein's LoTR has all of the power, majesty, charm and timelessness of classic films like the Wizard of Oz and the original Star Wars (i.e., Episode IV, and to a lesser extent V and VI). Furthermore, he has attempted to remain true to the original books where cinematically practical and to the spirit of Tolkein's vision the remainder of the time. FTR, I'm confident that the last film will live up to the high expectations of most fans of the books & first two films.
In short, these films are Hobbit forming! ;o)
Aragorn shouldn't be at the battle of Helm's Deep - his journey along the Path's of the Dead leads to the capure of the Mordor fleet, and consequently the relief of the seige of Gondor.Faramir's release of Frodo is instrumental in his father's sending him out to get wounded, and his father's subsequent suicide.
Factionalism between Saruman's orcs and those of Mordor during the run/chase highlights agenda differences within the enemy alliance.
Less mawkish additions w.r.t. Aragorn and Arwen - presumably a romantic story line is mandatory - would enable the book to finish at the correct place.
The whole Rohan scene is completely re-written, even Grima is caricatured - he's supposed to be a smoothy, not the runner up in a Boris Karloff look-alike contest.
I'm not an habitual filmgoer - I went to see TLOTR as one who has been re-reading the books since the mid 60s - so I'm not really one to judge the overall quality of the film, but overall the plot of TTT has been dumbed down. I fail to see why a more faithfull screen play would not have been possible.
Hey Keith,I agree completely with you. I was also disappointed. I am not saying it is a bad movie, but as you said the story with Frodo was too short, important parts missing and the fighting scenes started to annoy me, they were going on forever. Golum was made well, but still I prefer actors or other sepecial effects over computer animation, I always feel like watching a nintendo game. You can just always tell when it is computer animated and it somehow does not really fit with the real parts.
Anyway I am glad the movie is a success since it is of great benifit to the country and the local filmindustry.
I'd hope we might agree that your not being a "habitual filmgoer" places you at a disadvantage in trying to fairly criticize the merits of what will and won't work in a cinematic sense. Heck, trying to second guess the appropriate screenwriting and direction of an epic like this is far removed from my experience as well even though my wife and I do see a lot of movies and also share some experience in the novel writing and screenwriting department! Take my word for it, novels and screenplays are totally different animals and with rare exception answer to different masters!At any rate, I enjoyed both films immensely and admire The Two Towers for what it is even when it strays from the original literary work. That's because when the film does vary from Tolkein's novels it does so artfully, without creating irreconcilable problems with the author's original vision. In other words, the story is nicely paced without sidetracks, dead-ends or unresolved plot points. If Peter Jackson had betrayed Tolkein's concepts and undermined the original vision just to leave his own "creative" stamp on it that would be different; we both know it would reflect badly on how the next film would be received by the public and critical press.
Few believed that Tolkein's Ring series could be filmed much less treated as respectfully as Peter Jackson has attempted to do; he has brought the characters and Middle Earth to life and if the "history" has shifted slightly in order that this epic tale be more visually accessable, perhaps we should give the Director the benefit of doubt. That's all I'm trying to say.
Oops - Aragorn was at Helms Deep, but so was Eomer.
Saw it, loved it. Didn't enjoy TTT as much as the first one, but the bar was set pretty high by FOTR for me. This one didn't have the high emotional moments that the first one did--the "death" of Gandalf with the reaction of the fellowship to it, the death of Boromir, and the wounding of Frodo affected me more than anything in TTT. The plot changes didn't bother me, but I'm not a stickler in that regard. I do hope there's an extended version of TTT that improves it as much as it did FOTR.
so I come to the movies w/o that baggage. I was very much taken by the FOTR, and I feel TT is cut from the same cloth. There were were editing flaws in FOTR, and in TT, but overall I'd call TT a great success. I can't say I liked the first "better". I want to see TT again soon as well, but this time I'll wait for the enhanced director's cut to buy it. Great entertainment all the way around, IMO.
I couldn't agree more,jonbee. I enjoyed both movies thoroughly and I've never read the books. I can't wait to see TTT in my HT.It was quite a spectacle(IMO).
I really think that most of the problems associated with this movie come from editing. The first chapter was moved to the first movie, and the last three were moved to RotK, and the storylines STILL seemed rushed and confusing in TTT. The Faramir and Edoras scenes suffered most from this, IMHO. Hopefully, in the extended DVD, these scenes, along with Treebeard's character development, will be fleshed out a bit more. Then, perhaps, the other minor flaws will be more tolerable. But then again, what the hell? I have to wait another 11 months now for the "better" version of the movie? That sucks!BTW I loved Gollum, and the Ent's battle at Isengard was far too short.
For me, anyway. It's a lot to absorb in one sitting.TTT is different in feel from FOTR, obviously less linear in its splintered narrative, much darker and more intense. It also, as PJ warned us, deviates most from the book, more than FOTR or ROTK. TTT is very much a second act, with no real beginning, and though it concludes with several important emotional reslutions, there is no traditional ending as such.
TTT the book is dauntingly difficult to adapt, with a structure that would never work on screen. The first part (over 60% of it) deals with the Aragorn/Rohan/Merry-Pip threads, and the balance is solely devoted to Frodo, Sam and Gollum. But because their story is ends in such a dramatic cliffhanger, it is their story we remember best. (In truth, the first section of TTT is my least favorite part of the book, even after more than 35 years of reading it.)
Having now seen it twice, I'm very pleased with this second chapter of LOTR. I love the grand scale and epic sweep of it. I'm fine with most of the changes. I like the new actors in their roles, even Dourif finds ways to twist Worma. I quite like the way Gollum is portrayed and love the character stuff with him, Frodo and Sam. I'm even OK with Faramir taking them to Osgiliath. And I LOVE the "wraiths on wings". ("They're here"...OOH!)
Some amazing and gorgeous shots: Gandalf and the Balrog falling into the undergraound lake; the Hobbits and Gollum in long shot traversing the Dead Marshes; the dead warriors in the marshes; Eowyn alone on the platform outside the Golden Hall; Arwen at Aragorn's grave; numerous shots at the battle for Helm's Deep; the way that in the first shot of the Nazgul, you can't tell what he's riding until the shot pulls back to reveal the winged fell beast.
The battle at Helm's Deep is an amazing sequence, worth the price of admission alone, and the death of a certain elf warrior moved me to tears (much MUCH to my surprise).
TTT really needs a second look, the level of detail is just too dense. You need to give your mind time to adjust and switch gears. The film isn't perfect, there are a couple cuts from HD to Treebeard that feel awkward, and on the whole I prefer the editing on FOTR. I could pick other nits, but I'd much rather enjoy the movie. But these imperfections do not detract from TTT for me.
The important thing to me is that the effects only enhance the characters and story. TTT and FOTR put some brains and integrity back into popular filmmaking. Three hours never went by so fast.There is a very good review of TTT at www.flickfilosopher.com. This critic, also a long time Tolkien reader, feels as I do about the movie versions of LOTR, that Peter Jackson is shining new light on LOTR and showing us new things about a beloved tale that we know by heart.
Just call me a fangirl. Bring on the EE DVD and ROTK!
I agree that I will like the movie more the second time around. I no longer have to dwell on the changes made to the book version, so I can concentrate more solely on the entertainment of the movie version now. (IMHO it was a mistake to read the book again two weeks before the second movie came out. The real version was too fresh in my mind.)
the movie should have had better editing and pushed 4 hours (!!!!). extended directors cut...i can't wait.dammit though...i still want to see it again this weekend.
Agree, it could have been better. I do remember the book being overly laden with battle stuff. The movie, IMO, is a reflection of the emphasis. Still, it was very well paced (fast action) and wasn't boring, even to my wife who usually sleeps through fantasy battles.Would have been nice to have seen more character development re Frodo and Sam. Still the emphasis on Gollum seemed ok to me. He was, after all, once a Hobbit. And there is the suspense created of whether or not he will be redeemed or slip back into his evil ways. This adds believability to Frodo's struggle with the power of the ring over him.
I agree that the scenes you mentioned are special. My biggest disappointment was Sam's sappy dialog at the end. Still, and all very worthwhile flic which I will see again. How does it measure up to the first one? First one is better. I blame the material, not the film as I enjoyed reading the first book more.
...word for word from ROTK.
I'll look at it when i get a chance. In the movie, it seemed a bit overdone. Thank you.
Overall, a good flick, BUT...For the details and quality work done, the movie was surprisingly disappointing (...which comes from setting hopes too high).
Gollum was OK, but given his scale, and his overall look, I almost wonder if he could have been done by someone in make up with secondary camera tricks.
Faramir's changes were not really welcome to me.
The Ents, including their battle, seemed a mere after thought. I never connected. I kept waiting for something special.
The elves showing up at Helm's deep didn't work for me.
Some of the Arwen 'intrusions' worked, others fell flat for me.
I guess I'm not as attuned to the written story, it's been awhile. What was your objection to Faramir exactly?Yes, maybe Gollum was a bit too monstrous. He should have looked a more Hobbitlike.
I thought the Gollum got way too much air time.
How many times do we need close ups & dialogue of his monsterous
face. More should have been done with Frodo & Sam's journey.
I enjoyed the first movie more.
It took me awhile to fully appreciate the CGI Gollum, the problem being that everyone is aware he's CGI and therefore many folks will probably be more occupied looking for flaws in the effects (i.e., of which there are few if any) rather than being pulled into the story. Suspension of disbelief is crucial to conveying fantasy on the big screen and while I wasn't disappointed, I found myself somewhat less connected while watching the Two Towers and in the final analysis I ended up liking this film for entirely different reasons than I enjoyed Fellowship. I suspect that the Director's Cut (or extended version, as Peter Jackson prefers to call it) of this movie will focus more on Frodo's and Sam's journey, but I was very impressed with the epic battle sequences. As for the CGI Gollum, I suspect that on most home theater screens Gollum will seem even much more "alive" and in repeated screenings his pschizophrenic nature will be far less distracting. BTW, I agree that the Dead Marsh sequence is eerie and effective as well as the interplay between Gimli & Legolas and the battle of the Ents is darn near the "kewlist" part of the movie (tree-huggers rejoice!).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: