permaculture playing cards*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes LoTR Two Towers Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "LoTR Two Towers" Watch "LoTR Two Towers" New topic
Author

LoTR Two Towers

Jessica Sant
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 4313

Was excellent. I think I enjoyed it more than the first one... They portrayed Golim wonderfully -- made him totally neurotic with a multiple personality disorder. Definitely check it out.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Agree
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
I buried a very brief review in this thread: "kicks butt!" I agree about Gollum - I was surprised to find myself actually starting to like the guy. Well, Sméagol anyway - not Gollum. And it was interesting to see how they chose actors and makeup so that you could see more than a hint of Gollum's features in Frodo (even as Frodo's dialog was starting to sound Gollumesque, as Sam noted.) Andy Serkis for best supporting actor! (Or should that go to the effects department? Both?)
On other fronts - we got to see more of the Balrog, which is always a plus. More deviations from the bok this time (compared to the first movie) but they didn't bother me too much. It's kind of strange though that TTT was the shortest of the three books, and they took parts of chapter 1 and put it in the previous movie, and the cliffhanger at the end of the book has been moved to the beginning of the third movie insead, and they skipped a number of other things - yet they still got a three-hour movie out of it. I wonder what will be on the eventual Director's cut.
All right, now I'm getting impatient waiting for the third movie. What's the holdup, dammit?


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
I didn't see the first one but was drafted by my manager and the whole gang I work with, to see it (company paid of course).
The concept that grabbed my attention the most was the one about Liv Tyler remaining young forever while the man ages normally.
That is outstanding!, considering that she's my second Web Fiance...
Ha ha!
Jessica Sant
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 4313

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
It's kind of strange though that TTT was the shortest of the three books, and they took parts of chapter 1 and put it in the previous movie, and the cliffhanger at the end of the book has been moved to the beginning of the third movie insead, and they skipped a number of other things - yet they still got a three-hour movie out of it.

It's cause they put way too much Arwin in the movie (Liv Tyler). It seemed forced how much screen time her character got -- on another note -- the Ent's were just damn cool.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
True about Arwen. Not that we guys are complaining - right Tony? But compared to the book, quite right. Still - back when fans first heard Peter Jackson was going to be expanding Arwen's role, there was a lot of concern about the possibility of much more substantial mucking about than this. E.g. what if Arwen had been added to the Fellowship? Or usurped Eowyn's role? Xenarwen, elf warrior chick. :roll: All too possible, for the "typical" Hollywood adaptation. So I figure as long as Arwen is just appearing in visions and flashbacks (until the time is right of course), fine.
[ January 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
I was hoping to see the forest marching not just the Ents.
Roy Ben Ami
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2002
Posts: 732
I must admit i was a bit disappointed.
The first movie was beyond my wildest dreams!
i still think the first was the best movie of all times and i think i watched it 7 times. (the extended version 4).
but, i guess with my building up of expectations the second couldnt really live up to my standards.
It is still amazing and great, dont get me wrong. I just think they could have made this one better - something i cant say about the first.
The second movie had many more things changed from the book than the first, and i mean a lot.
they changed too much to my liking, and cutted too much between the scences. A person who havent read the books would be completly lost in the many cuts between the scenses especially in he battle sequences (where they switch between 3 areas at one point with no way to know for a person who didnt read the book).
putting all my annoying complaints asside, this movie rocks, the helm's deep battle is the best ever done on cinema and overall one of the best movies out there.
Go see it , and unless you are a "find minor flaws in anything" kind of guy like me youll have the time of your life watching it for 3 hours.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
For those of you who have seen it...
My 10 year old daughter wants to see it. She thoroughly enjoyed the first one. She has read the book. Is this one too violent for a 10 year old?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
I am not a parent (nor do I play one on TV ) but...
I would say yes...
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Compared to the first, there's more total violence (mostly in the form of massed armies) but it's less scary. Kinda like Alien vs. Aliens. If I were a parent I'd be more doubtful about letting her see the first one than I would about the second. If she was OK with the first, the second shouldn't be a problem. Unless she decides she wants to emulate an Ent, in which case your yard (if you have one) may look different shortly.
[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
I agree with Jim. The scenes are not gory. It isn't like the shoot em up movies. You could always watch it yourself first then decide.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
I thought it was a pretty good movie. I will probably like it better the 2nd time around (that is the way it was with the first). It might be a little too violent for a 10 year old although it is not gory. They did a very good job of angling the camera away from where you would expect the gore, such as showing a frontal shot of someone getting stabbed in the back. There was one brief scene of an orc's head flying off, but it was very brief.
This movie had a lot more funny moments to it. I was laughing loudly in several places.


Matthew Phillips
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
There was one brief scene of an orc's head flying off, but it was very brief.
They had that near the end of "Fellowship". Beth thought it was pretty cool.
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4340
    
    2

as far as "whats the holdup" all three movies were in the can before they released the first one, so i guess the answer is money :roll:


SCJP
Visit my download page
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
all three movies were in the can before they released the first one
Not true. They had completed all filming - except I think they may have filmed some more scenes later that weren't originally planned, as thanks to the success of the first film the studio was willing to give them some more money. However even after filming, there was/is a lot of work to be done on each film. Primarily the many CGI special effects, and editing, and scoring...
Roy Ben Ami
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2002
Posts: 732
correct.
They are still working on the CGI for the third film (and they will continue to do it until the release).
Even for this movie, they continued to improve it until 1 month before the release.
Evidence to that can be found in many lord of the rings sites whch compare sevral trailers for the second movie from different times , with evidence showing clearly the improvements in the CGI graphics (especially with gollum).
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Have you saw it yet Thomas?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Have you saw it yet Thomas?

No. I'll be taking Beth this coming weekend if I can get someone to babysit my son.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Saw it on Christmas Day. Simply awesome. I thought Gollum was handled pretty well. The Uruk-Hai are still bad-ass and the Ents were great. And how about them Wargs (the wolf-like critters)? Whoo-Doggie!
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Do you think there is any chance of a live-action The Hobbit? With the success that the three Rings movies will achieve, you'd think they would want to continue to ride this gravy train.
ersin eser
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2001
Posts: 1072
my second Web Fiance...

Liv???
OOOO... my wife got mad at me when I said I want her
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Hi,
I got round to watching the Two Towers on Xmas day. I liked it, but I dont think I liked it as much as the first one. Mainly due to the fact that too much artistic license was taken with the film
As an aside, has anyone seen Gangs of New York? That film was absolutely amazing!
Cheers,
Mark
[ December 30, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]
[ December 30, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]

Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
As an aside, has anyone seen Gangs of New York? That film was absolutely amazing!
Funny! You say that you didn't like Two Towers as much because it took too much artistic license and then you praise a film that completely fictionalizes real events!
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Yeah, I guess I wouldnt have made that point about the Two Towers and Gangs of New York in the same post if Id known my American history but there you go
Still, theres no denying it, Gangs is a good film right? Although I cant believe that Jennifer Lopez film and that Hugh Grant films are currently riding higher in the film charts.
Bah.
Johannes de Jong
tumbleweed
Bartender

Joined: Jan 27, 2001
Posts: 5089
Gollum is my favorite character in the book. I was disappointed that there were only "hints" of him at the end of the 1st movie.
I bought the tickets today for Two Towers, so I'm looking forward to meet Column then (Saturday)
[ December 30, 2002: Message edited by: Johannes de Jong ]
DC Dalton
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 28, 2001
Posts: 287
Im sorry folks but these movies are just horrible story wise. I agree the costumes scenery & whatnot are great but if you are a true fan of the books you just cringe sitting through these abominations. The character builds & underlying stories are totally missing, instead the fill up space with scenes that never happened (Arwen). One of the most powerful underlying plot lines is the relationship between Gimli & Legolas. At the beginnings of the book they cant stand the sight of each other & by the end they become inseperable!
Yeah Im a Tolkien geek, so what...Ive read all 4, note that...4) books 27 times since I was 14.
I also am still horrified that the Hobbit was 99% removed from the story. Without it the whole premise of Gollum & Bilbo is really lost. You also get no sense of the reasons why Gandalf even came to Frodo to bear the ring. Way too much was lost & will continue to be lost.
The other horribly overlooked character is Samwise. He plays a critical part in part three that needs to be set up from minute one of the story. These movies just make him look like a snivelling wimp.
I also have to take a major exception on the actress that play Galadriel. She is described in the book as a woman so beautiful that everyone falls in love with her instantly & forever.....even Gimli the dwarf! So folks she just doesnt cut it for me.
Last but not least (can you tell Im passionate about this) is the complete disregard for the timeline of the books. From Biblos party to Frodos flight seems like a week in the movie....it was months & months. The fellowship spent almost 3 months in Rivendale & almost a month in Lorien.......these movies are like cliff's notes on speed!
Although I admire the directors vision & dedication to these movies I would have prefered to see something along the line of the way Star Wars was handled.....if they can have 6+ movies for that why couldnt this be the same way so everyone can come to love this series (and characters) as much as us "geeks"
[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: DC Dalton ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Because 6 movies would have bored the hell out of everyone. Maybe that 6 months between the party and the setting out of Frodo is exicting in a book, but in a movie it would have been deadly dull. Try to keep this in mind, books and film are two different media and trying to treat them exactly the same way would have made a lousy film.
I was just imagining what the first two movies would have been like. By the end of the first movie no one other than an LoTR geek would have cared about the second one.
[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by DC Dalton:
Although I admire the directors vision & dedication to these movies I would have prefered to see something along the line of the way Star Wars was handled.....if they can have 6+ movies for that why couldnt this be the same way so everyone can come to love this series (and characters) as much as us "geeks"
6 movies that were separated by 20 years. Do you really think that all the actors in the film would have volunteered to give up their acting careers to what would have been years of filming? For a set of movies that they had no idea if they were going to be any good? What if the first movie in your 6 movie set sucked and made $25 million. Then what?
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[DCD]: Yeah Im a Tolkien geek, so what...Ive read all 4, note that...4) books 27 times since I was 14
Only 4 books? What are you, some sort of slacker?
OK, no I haven't read Christopher's 12-volume exhumation of everything J.R.R. wrote on Middle Earth. But hey, if you've got all that time on your hands...
I fully agree with Thomas' responses here. Another thing to consider - just about any time a novel is adapted to another format, people can say (correctly) that the book was better. That's pretty much a given - the exceptions are only when the original novel just wasn't that great, but contained a cool story idea. Anyway though, I think if you look at the history of movie adaptations of literary works, the LotR movies are far better than anyone should have expected. And the original written version of LotR continues to exist, unaffected by the changes wrought on the movie version. In fact there's a whole new group of people being brought to read the novels as a result of these movies, most of whom wouldn't have discovered the novels otherwise. So where's the downside here?
Also, regarding the question of how many movies to make: it's worth noting that in struggling to get funding for these films, it was very difficult to find a studio that was willing to commit to even two films. They in fact were shopping around a two-movie treatment of the story, and were very lucky to find one studio executive who actually wanted them to expand to three films rather than cut it to one.
[JM]: Do you think there is any chance of a live-action The Hobbit? With the success that the three Rings movies will achieve, you'd think they would want to continue to ride this gravy train.
I believe I saw an interview somewhere with Peter Jackson where he said he had no interest in making a Hobbit follow-up. Of course it's certainly possible that someone else could make it without his involvement, based on the success of the films so far. (Or for that matter, if Jackson's offered enough money, who knows?) But I think a Hobbit adaptation would be anticlimactic compared to LotR. It's a weaker story overall, and generally aimed at a different (younger) audience. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a good visualization of Smaug. Hmmm... Ian McKellan would still be good for Gandalf. Not too sure about using Ian Holm again as Bilbo; he'd look too old, I think.
Hmmm... just remembered, I have to run out and buy a ticket to another showing of Towers, since the Fellowship DVD set I got for Christmas came with a ticket voucher that expires today. Lessee... need to watch the DVD of the first movie again before I re-watch the second. I think I'll get a ticket for Friday night. Ah... anticipation...
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823

just about any time a novel is adapted to another format

One case I can think of where the movie was better than the book would be the Shawshank Redemption. Of course the book was a short story but still the movie was better.
[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Stevens ]
DC Dalton
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 28, 2001
Posts: 287
OK, I will agree with your point(s) about some of the book not adapting well to movie land, but to remove vital information from the story & then add in some assinine love scene just to stick Liv in is just plain criminal. Hey I think she's (fairly) hot too but she was totally unneccesary to the movie.... There is enough "exciting" content that was left out without having to invent crap. Speaking of adding crap, where the hell did that nonsense of Saruman summoning up that storm come from....PLEAZE! It was the "long arm" of Sauron they all suspected of the storm. Did we really need that nonsense. Christopher Lee must have wanted more "air time" in the movie.
The Mines of Moria scenes in movie 1 where so chopped up it was scary.....& that was wall to wall excitement that would have made for some awesome special effects. Also the fact that Gollum was peppered throughout the book from the minute they left Rivendale. Or how about the escape from Moria into Lorien & the fact that Gollum (once again) was inches away from getting to Frodo....yeah boring stuff!
As far as reading others interpretations of what JRR started or unfinished storys ....I cant be bothered....there are too many other great series out there.....Shannara for one (Terry Brooks) & the Wheel of Time series (Jordan)....unless they find something that JRR finished & wanted published (fat chance) & not something his kids want to make a quick buck off of Ill stick with the 4 books & an occasional smattering of the Silmarrillion.
I can only hope that once all three are out the director gets the opportunity to release an unedited directors cut that gives some of the story back
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Terry Brooks! Ughhh. Not just a Tolkien geek but far worse, a fantasy geek.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
By the way, the stuff with Arwin is in the book. It is in the appendix.
Angela Poynton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 02, 2000
Posts: 3143
OK maybe i'm the only one here who has seen both movies so far without having been even remotely near the books!! When the first came out I dragged myself along mostly because as a former film student I was intrigued by all of the hype around the cinematography and effects and stuff. I'm generally not into Fantasy type stuff and thought at three hours long I may well fall asleep! I really didn't think I'd get into it.
My thoughts on the both movies "Bloody Brilliant!", excellent story, had me totally hooked, and although both films seemed a lot like adverts for the New Zealand Tourist board a little too much for my liking they were beautifully shot. I'm soooo very glad that this movie wasn't made until the technology existed to make characters like Gollum look so amazingly real.
For those who understandbly are upset over diviations from the books, I'll say this, I haven't read the books, a lot (in fact probably MOST) of the people who will see these films will not have read the books. Maybe, if they had stuck too closely to the books it would not have translated so well onto film and would have been horribly confusing. Although I would have been intrigued to see more about the Legolas plot someone mentioned had been cut out. (Orlando Bloom ... VERY beautiful man! ) Like I said, I was a film student and I went to a lecture once by a producer who made a film adapation of a very famous book and she spoke about the difficulties in finding the balance between staying as faithful to the book as possible and understanding what works well on film.
The book will almost always be better than the film ... because with a book we play our own film using our imaginations, we have our own vision of what the character / scenery looks like and no film is as good as an individuals imagination. All any director can do is try his best. I think these films are perhaps as close to what Peter Jackson imagines when he reads the books as film can get!!
I simply can't wait for the next ... I've decided to hold off on reading the books until I've seen all of the films ... until now the plot has been a new one to me and I want that to continue until the end ... even though I'm dying to know who "She" is!! (IF ANYONE SPOILS THAT FOR ME REMEMBER I HAVE THE POWER TO BLOCK ACCOUNTS )


Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Terry Brooks! Ughhh.

Careful now. All the authors he mentioned are good.
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
OK maybe i'm the only one here who has seen both movies so far without having been even remotely near the books!!

Add me to the list! I haven't read the books and I liked the movies.
I don't know whether I missed it or it was not in the movie
- Who wins the challenge of killing most Orcs. Is it Gimli or Legolas? :roll:
And what are the scores?
[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: R Manivannan ]

Mani
Quaerendo Invenietis
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
As an aside, has anyone seen Gangs of New York? That film was absolutely amazing!

Just saw it last night. Outstanding film. Daniel Day Lewis was great, and the sets and costumes were amazing! Scorsese has another masterpiece on his hands.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[AP]: OK maybe i'm the only one here who has seen both movies so far without having been even remotely near the books!!
For the record, y'all are a bunch of godless heathens. (No wait, that's me... ) Well anyway, glad you liked the movies.
[AP]: ...though I'm dying to know who "She" is!!
Heh! OK I won't spoil it, but I will say that if the second movie had followed the book more exactly, we would've ended on a horribly tantalizing cliffhanger that would've forced you to go read the books rather than wait a full year. Also, "She" is already halfway there as an identifier. Not that this information really helps you. But the book readers know what I mean.
DC: I was just teasing about the 12-volume set of course; I agree that there are probably better ways to spend your reading time. (Of course, personally I would have invoked that argument before reading the main series 27 times, but to each their own.) Glad you include the Silmarillion to some extent; that's about where I'd draw the line too. I would agree with your argument even more if you had named George R. R. Martin or Guy Gavriel Kay ahead of Brooks or Jordan. I always thought of The Sword of Shannara as the Readers Digest adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. And Jordan seems to want to kill entirely too many trees on his way towards eventually resolving the series. But again, different tastes...
[DCD]: Christopher Lee must have wanted more "air time" in the movie.
Dunno about that - of all the actors, Lee was apparently the biggest fan of the books long before the movie project was underway. He was frequently making sure the other actors were pronouncing everything correctly. I'm guessing that this particular change (Saruman's storm and avalanche on Caradhras) were chosen by the writers for perceived storytelling reasons. Note that there were a number of places where the wizards were given more to do visually than they would have had in the book - e.g. the battle between Saruman and Gandalf. It may offend purists, but film is a visual medium after all. I suppose they could have shown Sauron doing it instead, but
that might have been harder to visualize given that Sauron's current incarnation is shown a big glowing eye (which looks very cool BTW). And it makes some sense to me in terms of streamlining the story a bit for people not intimately familiar with the books - don't confuse them too much about Saruman vs. Sauron. The former is the main immediate threat in the latter part of Fellowship and Towers; the latter is more behind-the-scenes for now. Heck in the book we'd see almost nothing of Sauron and Barad-dur directly - but they're too cool to pass up visually. We'll see more of Sauron later in Return - give a scene to Saruman now. Building up the threat of Saruman also builds up Sauron indirectly - the audience figures if this guy is such a badass, what's his boss like? Also given how the storm is presented in the book (if I remember correctly) - who's to say it wasn't Saruman, acting as Sauron's agent, behind the storm?
[DCD]: I can only hope that once all three are out the director gets the opportunity to release an unedited directors cut that gives some of the story back
Well you know they did just come out with the Extended Edition DVD a month ago, which adds 30 minutes of addtional footage. Have you seen it? Here is a list of new scenes. It probably doesn't contain all you hope for, but I think you'll be pleased with some of the additions at least.
[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Well you know they did just come out with the Extended Edition DVD a month ago, which adds 30 minutes of addtional footage. Have you seen it? Here is a list of new scenes. It probably doesn't contain all you hope for, but I think you'll be pleased with some of the additions at least.

If you've only seen the first two movies and are unfamiliar with elements which will be in the third movie and wish to remain blisfully ignorant, I recommend not reading the above link as there is a slight spoiler.
On the subject of the extended edition, there is an additional "scene" included showing a hobbit whipping-out the Ring at the Council of Elrond. You can view this scene if you have the extended edition by going to the "scene selection" screen on Disc 1, highlighting Scene 27 "The Council of Elrond", pressing down to highlight an image of The Ring, and then pressing enter. Enjoy.
The other easter egg on the extended edition is a trailer for The Two Towers. On Disc 2 go to Scene Selection screen. Highlight Scene 48 "Official Fan Club Credits" Press down to highlight image of the Two Towers. Press Enter to watch trailer.
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: LoTR Two Towers