*TTT - Overall Impressions

[Diamond18]

Well, if you want my feelings on the matter you can probably just re-read <B>Child of the 7th Age's</B> post, because that's pretty much how I felt. But that won't stop me from going on and on myself, so here goes:<P>I'll ignore the book deviances for the moment and compare this movie to the FotR movie. This really, <I>really</I> lacked the emontion of FotR. It had no Departure of Boromir type scene to make me teary-eyed...nothing even close to that. Where was the emontion? I just didn't feel it.<P>It also felt very scattered. Too many storylines going on at once. Someone (Birdland I think) asked why they had to turn three storylines into five. Yeah! Why? Anything that involved the Elves was really forced. Haldir's death? Wake me up when it's over....<P>There was a lot more action, yeah...why didn't they just hire Vin Diesel to play Aragorn then, huh? We needed the balance of FotR; put emotion and intelligent dialogue <I>before</I> head-butts and slashing and arrows, okay PJ? Is that too much to ask? I really thought you knew how to do that.<P>Faramir? Faramir? Where have you gone? I'll talk about that in the Faramir thread, though....<P>Movie vs. Book. Oy, where to start? In this case this movie is really suffering from "Wait Till RotK" syndrome. The favorite parts of the book for me was the Dead Marshes, Pippin and the Palantír, Minas Morgul and Shelob's Lair. Three of those things seem to be in RotK.<P>Besides that, they spent way too much time leading up to Helm's Deep and not enough on the Hobbits. Hobbits make the World Go Round, IMHO, and if I don't get enough Hobbits, I'm not happy.<P>On the postive side? I loved Sam. Gollum was nicer than I imagine him, but I loved him, too. Pippin seems to have gathered his wits finally and the Orcs were just as mean and scary as you'd hope them to be.<P>But PJ never seems to fail on the scary/evil parts of the book. In this movie he really got too carried away with it. And so I'll say it again: I miss the emotion of the books and the first film.<P>Now, onto the other threads to talk about things more specifically....

[Pookabunny]

To quote GreyIstar:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is a movie BASED on a book by JRR Tolkien it is not THE book by JRR Tolkien. If you do not like it then read the book. Its a great book but it isn't a movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>GreyIstar, I just wanted to thank you for that excellent post and especially that groovy intro. I was hooked right away.<P>That is the expression of an understanding, rational person. Respectful of the film and books as two seperate media and entities altogether. Well spoken!<P>I appreciate the opinions of our fellow downers, but some people do take it to an extreme. And this post is not targeting negativity towards anyone in particular, but just to the people who claim the could "make a better movie". And to those who belive they could, I respect your aspirations, that certainly is a high-reaching goal. However, PJ was given this task for a reason. The man has talent.

[Diamond18]

Pookabunny: The thing I'm lamenting most is the fact that FotR movie was so much better than TTT movie. I know PJ can do better, I saw it! The things I loved about FotR are missing in TTT.<P>And I couldn't make a better movie, but I could write a better screenplay. Eeesh. I hope though, that like Tigerlily I will enjoy the movie more on repeated viewings.<P>And PJ did say that TTT diverges from the book the most...so I guess that bodes well for RotK.

[pherostien]

I just got home from seeing TTT, and all I have to say is WOW. I liked it much better than FotR. Is it fair to say that I wish I could have kicked Arwen, Elrond, and Faramir in the head. I don't mean to be rude but I wasn't to thrilled to see the elves. I cried, I laughed, and I will be back to see it again on friday.<P> Oh! and GO Gollum!!! he's so cute.

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Pookabunny: The thing I'm lamenting most is the fact that FotR movie was so much better than TTT movie. I know PJ can do better, I saw it! The things I loved about FotR are missing in TTT.<BR>And I couldn't make a better movie, but I could write a better screenplay. Eeesh. I hope though, that like Tigerlily I will enjoy the movie more on repeated viewings.<P>And PJ did say that TTT diverges from the book the most...so I guess that bodes well for RotK.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But the Fellowship is so confined to a small group in one place. Of course it is going to feel more intimate than a part that expands greatly. I thought PJ handled such a monumental task well.<P>Think in terms of the whole story. I refuse, now that we have another part, to judge based on one part but putting them together and seeing what we have. This is the story at its broadest point. The Return of the King will then draw the story closer and closer back to a singular point. I concur I was not as emotionally moved, but I was moved in other ways. Sams speech was very moving btw.

[Orual]

First, I'd like to say that I agree with Child about Faramir. I laughed when I read your post, because I'd been calling Faramir Boromir the Second all day!<P>Now, let me try to organize my post into levels of how much I liked various parts.<P>LOVED to death...<BR>1. The conies scene. I almost cried with joy when it came on; I adored that part in the book. Hee hee, they even kept "Po-ta-toes!" Made me a happy hobbit.<BR>2. Pippin and Merry. All of their stuff. There wasn't HALF enough of them. If PJ did one thing right in this movie, it was the two of them. They really grew up, and it was just wonderful.<BR>3. Gollum. Yay! Although some of his scenes were kind of...frankly...amusing (and weren't supposed to be). Everybody in the theatre was laughing (including me, to my shame) when he was arguing with himself and it kept changing angles. I much prefered the one where they didn't change angles. But overall, Gollum ROCKED.<BR>4. Sam. Just because he's Sam. But seriously, Sean Astin was incredible. The only time I cried was during his speech...something about how can the world recover, when everything is covered in shadow, and my friend (dressed as Frodo; I was Sam) and I were both dissolving into little sad puddles. Thank God for Sean! Yay!<BR>5. The scene where Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are looking for Merry and Pippin, and Gimli finds Pippin's belt...I was very close to crying when Aragorn loses it.<BR>6. Frodo's Sting speech to Gollum. Short, but almost directly from the book, no?<P>LIKED...<BR>1. Most of Helm's Deep. Quite nice.<BR>2. Grima. Very nice, but there was something missing, I don't know what...<BR>3. Gimli and Legolas. A little shallow, but at least they were obviously friends this time.<BR>4. Aragorn. Where was Narsil? He did show authority this time, though!<P>ER...not bad...<BR>1. The Ents. Okay, Wizard of Oz flashbacks here, no? Weird. I wasn't overly fond of them.<BR>2. Frodo. Elijah Wood's acting was impeccable, but he just wasn't quite Frodo, was he? Kept yelling at Sam. My poor Sam.<BR>3. Haldir. I have to admit, I didn't cry when he died. I won't really miss him. I didn't like him. But the guy who played him did a good job; it wasn't his fault that the character was rather a jerk. (I mean, honestly..."You carry a great evil with you. You can come no further." What the...?)<P>What was THAT?????<BR>1. Faramir. What the HECK was up with him??????? Yes, Faramir, take the Ring to Gondor. Yes, Faramir, let's give everyone the impression that weakness to the Ring is genetic. Yes, Faramir, let's skew the storyline beyond recognition. (Yes, Faramir, you're hot, but that's beside the point.)<BR>2. Narsil. Where was it? Where?? WHERE???<BR>3. Arwen. She's not supposed to be there. Suppose she'll really leave? /hopeful look/<BR>4. Galadriel. Why don't the Elves leave well enough alone? I thought their time was over...<BR>5. The fact that they didn't include Pippin's "Gollum, gollum" line. What's up with that?<P>So, overall, I'd give it a "B". There's a lot to love, but a lot to dislike, as well. I preferred Fellowship, but I thought that the acting was better in TT. So...I will see it again, oh yes, precious. I will see it again.<P>~*~Orual~*~<P><I>There's good in the world, and it's worth fighting for! --Sam</I><p>[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Orual ]

[Rimbaud]

Addressing the thread and not the topic of the thread: this is a literary website, that is, one based on the <I>books</I> of Tolkien, and as such, any discussion of the films must of necessity refer back to the source material.<P>Indeed, even were this not a book-based site, I would argue valid criticism of the film must involve a comparison with the text. I am not wide of the mark when I state my view that most viewers will see and understand the film as a translation of the earlier work.<P>Therefore all comparitive criticism is relevant here. To people who would say, "Don't bash the film, it is a stand-alone work," I would riposte thus: "There are purely movie oriented sites out there."<P>Then again, I may just be grouchy after that tepid and rather wasted three hours of an especially busy week.

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Addressing the thread and not the topic of the thread: this is a literary website, that is, one based on the books of Tolkien, and as such, any discussion of the films must of necessity refer back to the source material.<BR>Indeed, even were this not a book-based site, I would argue valid criticism of the film must involve a comparison with the text. I am not wide of the mark when I state my view that most viewers will see and understand the film as a translation of the earlier work.<P>Therefore all comparitive criticism is relevant here. To people who would say, "Don't bash the film, it is a stand-alone work," I would riposte thus: "There are purely movie oriented sites out there."<P>Then again, I may just be grouchy after that tepid and rather wasted three hours of an especially busy week.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is a movie section though. There is a books section.<P>Maybe I'm gifted but I don't let the book ruin my enjoyment of the movie nor the movie ruin my enjoyment of the Book. I will always say the book is better than the movie but does that make my watching the movie a waste of 6 hours?? I think not.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Nalana, I think you're rude. Thank you for saying you over reacted, but I just have to say this. And don't get offended. This is more of my advice to you for the future. And this goes for anyone else out there. And I'm just saying how I feel (you'll see what I mean at teh end). Who are you to tell us we are rude when we say what we feel? You are a hypocrite. How can you say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All they have to do is simply state what they didn't like and why... they did that plus saying how terrible PJ was and everything. that's rude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>?<P>How?<P>You are being rude yourself in telling other that the way they feel is offensive. Part of a first impression is how you feel. You can tell what you think of something, but if you don't tell it true, emotional, raw, and how you feel about it, then its just monotony, and its empty. Without any of that, then your first impression and your reply is spineless and weak. People aren't putting PJ down and looking for everything that he did 'not to their liking', they were just saying how they felt and what he did that made their first impression so angry and dissapointed. In a nut-shell, I think that you need to calm down and let people just say how they feel. Don't get offended, because I belive that you have no right to. People are saying how they feel and what they think, and if you can't handle it then leave and save the people like me the trouble of writing all this. If you don't like it then you can disagree, but don't get offended.<P>Once again, please don't get offended. I'm just saying what I feel. <P>With that out of the way, I agree a lot with Turoch's first reply. I was really dissapointed and I didn't think that TTT would be changed that much. I really like the movie, however, I felt that it was rushed and that it missed a lot of points and themes that the book presented. I think that PJ changed the plot too much and he really did drop the ball. It was good action, but still it was too much action type. It should be fighting in the battle, not this modern stuff with Legolas sliding on the shield. It looked really tight, but it was too unreal. Would that have really happened? As Lostthuniel said, on well placed pike or spear would be 'bye bye' for Legolas. And when Legolas swung around the horse to get on it, that was cool once again, but it looked too fake. I liked the movie overall but I felt that TTT was focusing more on the fad-tpye fans who have no respect for the book and the real (Tolkien) fans. PJ went too far around certain parts in the book.<P>Someone asked if the movies were not made for the fans then who were they made for? Well, I think that the movie was made for the fans, but also made to introduce people to LotR, and for the fad-type people. And now I am beginning to think that this wasn't really made for the fans or anyone else, maybe it was just for money or fame.<P>I think that people were using PJ as a scapegoat just a little. Remember that there were others who had their part in changing the plot. Like Fran Walsh (how I loathe her). The reason that we consider it all PJ's fault is because he is the main guy. If he's going to assume the role he did in the movies, as the head-honcho, then he has certain responsibilities, and if the movie fail to deliver in any way whatsoever, then his responsibility reuires him to take the blame.<P>Greyistar. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is a movie BASED on a book by JRR Tolkien it is not THE book by JRR Tolkien. If you do not like it then read the book. Its a great book but it isn't a movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We know that. However, if its based on the book, then when they change it as much as they did, its a dissapointment. If some are looking forward to the movie and then it falls short of their expectations, then its kind of sad. Yes they can go read the book but it makes a lot of us very angry and dissapointed. That's just the way we feel. Some of us like one of the movies but don't like the other. When that's the case, its kind of worse because a movie trilogy doesn't work that well if any of the three is not up to any of the other's standards. But the one thing that ****es me off is when someone I know hasn't read the books and says something like,'Yeah! Legolas Rocks!' They have every right to say that and feel that way. But it makes me angry because tehy only think that he's cool because of the movie and they have no intention of reading the books at all. It's just sad. And this movie is introducing middle-earth to some people, but their first impressions (from the movies) just mess up the whole thing. This is really hard to explain so sorry if I'm not that clear.<P>Tigerlilly. As I said before, we didn't intend to see exactly what we read. We had expectaions and different levels of them. But for some of us, the movie fell miles short of them. You are most likely going to be right. I did like the movie even though I was dissapointed. I'm definately going to see it again and I'm sure I'll like it better. Oh yeah, isn't a relief to finally talk freely about the movie with all of us? <P>I thought that PJ really portrayed gollum well. I like the way gollum talked and how they did the camera angles for slinker and stinker/smeagol and gollum. I wasn't really too excited about the way he moved. And at some points the mouth movements seemed to be off with the talking. I thought that PJ did a really good job on him. Like when Frodo scolds Sam for making fun of Gollum and asking why he always calls him names and brings him down. It kind of like asking why he was such a bully to gollum. I liked the was Frodo calls him smeagol and forms a bond. I also like the way that Frodo and gollum's relation is clearly shown. Frodo bears the ring so he knows what it's like for gollum. PJ really portrayed gollum the way I see him. But as much as like the job he did on gollum, I still wish that he stuck closer to the book. And one reason is because not everybody sees gollum like I do. So if he stuck closer to the book, it would show gollum more like every one saw him.<P>I won't go into much detail on the things I really didn't like, especially since most of them were already stated. And I'll only talk about two of them. First, I really didn't like how they made Frodo's journey, and especially when it got to Faramir. I didn't like how they had Faramir portrayed and how Frodo offers the ring to the wraith on the nazgul. It was just really far from the true plot and too far-fetched. And I thought Gimli was hilarious but they really took it too far. They were pretty much beating a dead horse, actually it was more like taking an ak47 and unloading on the dead horse. Oh well.<P>Overall, the movie was disappointing but good.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Lush]

I feel that to a great extent, substance was sacrificed for style, yet I hardly feel a twinge of anger. Perhaps I am somewhat shallow, but I am also a realist: the movie was <I>fun</I> to watch, and, having read and re-read the books, I found myself <I>wanting</I> to see PJ's changes, if only to be continuously surprised. <BR> If there was one movie out of the three that had to be more about kicking a$$ that spiritual depth and character development, it had to be TTT. So why don't you all stop aiming those rotten eggs at PJ's head, and wait for "RotK"?<BR> Therefore, my only real complaint can be summer up in one line: "Where the hell was Narsil?"<BR> P.S. <B>Losthuniel</B>, I respect you a lot, babe, and your posts are always fun to read, but if you feel that the interlude between Aragorn and Arwen can be constituted as "making out," I am beginning to fear for sex ed! Furthermore, since when does kissing explicity imply violation of chastity? And even furthermore, since when did chastity become so highly rated? Just food for thought.

[Birdland]

To all who tell us complainers to "stick with the book": <P>First off, I have the utmost respect for the medium of film, and yes, I do "know the difference". I probably know more about the difficulties of bringing a story to screen then a lot of people here, having worked in the business in a small capacity in the past. I love good film making. And I appreciate that we are talking about a visual medium here, things have to be shown, not described, as they are in a book.<P>But a film has to have a heart and soul, and that does not come from special effects and pretty scenery. It comes from exceptional writing and stong characters that the audience can embrace and care about. P.J. got it right in the first movie. He didn't in the second. To me, it is as simple as that. <P>I've thought about my reaction to the movie today, and surprisingly, I could find no real objections to most of the scenes, (except the Frodo/Faramir story, but that's another post.) But the movie as a whole just left me cold. It's as if you had all these wonderful ingredients for a cake, but when you put it all together, instead of a cake, you got a mess. OK, "mess" is kind of harsh, maybe a cake that is just a little bland and heavy. <P>I do think P.J. is overly in love with the world of special effects, and I have a feeling he sacrificed a lot of dialog and interaction between characters in order to insert more "cool stuff". He couldn't do that as much in the first film, much more had to be explained then, but when you see how much he put back into the extended version, and how much better the film was because of it, it just gives me a sinking feeling that the film I would have enjoyed is sitting on the shelf somewhere, sacrificed so we could see more cool critters and skewered orcs.<P>Oh, and B-W Ron, you are the first person to try and explain and justify the changes to F/F scenes, but I think you're overreaching. The average movie-goeer would not have picked up those nuances from watching the film. And I doubt that most "readers" would have made that leap as well. What I saw was Faramir having second thoughts about trying to deal with the Ring after watching Frodo basically have a fit. "OK, I've changed my mind. You, and your weird friends just take the Ring and get out of here. I don't want to deal with you anymore!" I would not have objected to changes in the character of Faramir, (though he is my favorite character), but P.J. and Fran Walsh didn't give us <I>anyone</I>. Frankly, my dear, the Faramir I saw on the screen was a freakin' bore.

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> We know that. However, if its based on the book, then when they change it as much as they did, its a dissapointment. If some are looking forward to the movie and then it falls short of their expectations, then its kind of sad. Yes they can go read the book but it makes a lot of us very angry and dissapointed. That's just the way we feel. Some of us like one of the movies but don't like the other. When that's the case, its kind of worse because a movie trilogy doesn't work that well if any of the three is not up to any of the other's standards. But the one thing that ****es me off is when someone I know hasn't read the books and says something like,'Yeah! Legolas Rocks!' They have every right to say that and feel that way. But it makes me angry because tehy only think that he's cool because of the movie and they have no intention of reading the books at all. It's just sad. And this movie is introducing middle-earth to some people, but their first impressions (from the movies) just mess up the whole thing. This is really hard to explain so sorry if I'm not that clear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't care. If they are introduced to Middle-Earth by the movie and have no intention to read the book then thats their problem. I can't spend my time worrying or getting ****ed off about that.<P>As for the changes I saw them as not much bigger than ones that happened in FOTR. Elves showing up HD is kinda like the Arwen thing and Faramir is kinda like Galadriel. The story is still the same, plot is still the same varying a little from interpretation but everyone has their own.<P>Birdland I can't entirely disagree with you but I thought it was on par with starting up where Fellowship left off. It is definately bigger in scope as everything branches out which will tend to lose some of the intimacy but it does keep a lot of it. I tend to believe the extended version will put even more back into it. It was big and moving and I liked it. Sorry you didn't but I gave my reasons and some people need to calm down because its just a movie and you can always go back to the books. I will.

[Diamond18]

I don't know how many of you have been reading critics reviews, but if you're curious, take a look at this: <A HREF="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/" TARGET=_blank>Rotten Tomatos</A>. TTT got a 99% freshness rating overall and a 100% from the "Cream of the Crop" reviewers. I had only read one critics's review and watched another on TV. Anyway, I thought you would like to take a look at all those glowing, gushing reviews and see what you think.<P>I myself did not read beyond the "titles" for the reviews, because I really must be stumbling off to bed right now. I'm beat. But actually feeling pretty happy, because I took out all my frustraitions by posting, and I'm determined to now dwell on the good parts. "Don't let the sun go down on your anger" they say, and even though the sun was never out where I live today, I'll follow that advice.<P>So as I drift off to sleep I'll conjure up pictures of Sam in my mind, and not Faramir.<P>I want to add that the very last scene in the movie, "Samwise the Brave", was really quite lovely (though Frodo was acting like a manic depressive on the upswing when you take into account the previous scenes) and it was a nice way to end the movie. Like I said in the Sam thread, thanks Sean Astin for saving this movie for me.<P>And yes, I'm seeing it in the theatre again and will buy the special DVD when it comes out. I know: no matter how much I've dissed it (and it deserved it!) I will still go crawling back for more. But first I'm going to crawl off to bed.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well........I loved the film. Loved every bit of it.<P>Fantastic stuff. Peter Jackson's INTERPRETATION is great.<P>It's not the book, it's different from the book.<P>It is still magnificent to me though.<P>

[Rose Cotton]

I entered the theater very depressed because I had been having trouble. I exited the theater with the with the biggest smile known to man-kind. <P>When the movie first starts and we're swinging around the Misty Mountains I'm just thinking. "Oh, wonderfull scenery PJ. Now how about our heros?" I almost freaked out when I heard Gandalf and Frodo in the distance. It was a great way to begin the movie. It reminds us that Gandalf is supposed to be dead and shows us what was happening to him after he fell.<P>When we get to Frodo and Sam the magic is still working. I felt their performances were great. However, as we progressed through the begining and switched to the different parts I felt the scenes were being rushed. This is not bad, as it is the only problem I have with the movie and I probably felt it was rushed because I hadn't had time to get a foothold in the world. It is a difficult thing to bring an audience in, in this kind of movie. In the Fellowhship we were able to adjust with the hobbits up unitil Rivendell. In TTT we have to be thrown right in. Considering this I don't let the rushed feeling get in the way of how I think about the movie. <P>During this movie PJ gives the audience little suprises. There are two kinds of suprises he puts in. There are suprises were he changes the story to fit the movie and there are suprises that are when something happens in this movie that didn't happen in the first. <P>In the begining scenes we get our first suprise. ORCS CAN TALK! After all the grunting Lurtz did in the Fellowship even I forgot about the unplesent language of the orcs.<P>Another suprise that happens later on is that we relize MERRY AND PIPPIN ARE SMART! Gandalf will never beable to call Pippin a fool again (Well, maybe a few more times).<P>Yet another suprise and the last one I will talk about here is LEGOLAS HAS AN ACTIVE ROLE! During the Fellowship of the ring he felt like just another companion, just there to yell out a couple of bad guy's names. In this movie he really stands on his own and I think Orlando does a great job bringing out his part. You really felt like you were with an elf.<P>And while Merry and Pippin were growing up Gimli seemed to be taking over the comic relief. It wasn't a burdon on his character at all for me. I enjoyed his parts and thought they were a great way of keeping the audience's hopes up. (toss me...but don't tell the elf) And like an answer to our prayers Legolas and Gimli did have their compatition at Helms Deep.<P>All of Rohan went past my expitations. It was set up with a brilliant background of a wonderfull Rohan musical theme. All the new Rohan charicters (Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden) were wonderfully introduce. Instead of throwing them in the story line out of nowhere they were brought in so you know who they were and what perspective they had. And while everyone was so worried about a sword duel between Eowyn and Aragorn Eowyn only wields a sword for a few brief moments. Her character was very well done. It will almost be no suprise when we see her in a soldier's outfit next year.<P>Another worry people had was with Aragorn and Arwen. However, PJ brought her and Elrond in at very apropriate times and made it a nice addition to the story.<P>Speaking of additions, when the elves showed up at Helms Deep all I cared about was there was more hope of winning. It also made me forgive Elrond for going on about having to leave Middle Earth. GO ELVES!<P>Helms Deep was a wonderfull battle. It had wonderfull meaning hanging all around it. And without fail, PJ's children make an apperance (what are hobbit children doing in Rohan?) <P>Aragorn was played wonderfully by Viggo. He really felt like a king. When he was there, you knew everything would be alright.<P>Elijah as Frodo managed to get me on the edge of my seat countless times. I thought it was great. We all understood what the ring was doing to him. Very Cool.<P>Gollum and Treebeard were great. Andy was a wonderfull Gollum. His spit personalities were absalutly believable.<P>Sean's performance was beyond words. Check out the Sam thread to see what I said about him.<P>Overall this film satisfied me and went beyond that. It's deffinatly better the the fellowship and if Rotk wants to be better then this it will have to be beyond ALL expectations. <P>Gotta go to school now GREAT MOVIE PJ!

[mark12_30]

One small point-- well, perhaps not so small. Many of us are seeing the Theatrical version of TTT very soon after seeing the Extended Version of FOTR. Don't most of us agree that the Extended Version was far superior, because of additional character development and "essential" elements that never, never should have been cut (we cry!). We should give TTT the same slack. I find myself, this morning, (as I still reel in shocked disappointment regarding PjFaramir and PjFrodo) telling myself, "Lessons Learned-- Order the Collector's Exition Extended TTT online ahead of time."<P>Let me add for the record, that although I may be utterly horrified at what the scriptwriters (keel-haul them???) did to Frodo and Faramir, still, given what they were given, I loved the actors' interpretation and expression of it. Elijah and Wenham were formidable, and I look forward to the Extended DVD to see what else we missed.<P>I **SO** wish that Elijah Wood had read the Trilogy before all this came down, but even if he had, he was too young to face PJ down (as McKellen often did, waving the pages of canon at him.)<P>So... it's Alternate Universe fanfiction, and we've got a new, PjFaramir to deal with in addition to the PjFrodo. (sighs deeply) I'll get used to it, and learn the second version of the story. Like the Barrow-Wight said-- Faramir, you can't be tarnished; we know who you really are. And the same can and should be said for Frodo.<P>(Ents were great. Where were the Huorns?)<P>Wow, this was going to be one small point. More later... the "real" world calls.

[JenFramp]

Thanks Rose Cotton I agree..I think a lot of TTT will be cleared up in the extended edition, and in ROTK..I’ve heard a lot of bashing of PJ and I don't think it's very fair...Did I like it better than Fellowship? I liked it for different reasons I think..not better, not worse..I think the added and changed scenes in TTT added some emotional aspects to the story that the movie watcher can grab ahold of and want to see the rest of the epic..a book and a movie are two entirely different works of art, so of course they will both come across as different...the scenes with Arwen and Aragorn emphasizes Aragorn’s inner struggle that was going on..and their love story IS found in the appendix..It is a huge book with tons of details..I think PJ did a great job..Good movie

Yesterday, I sat down for the first showing with tickets for the next showing already in my hands. I could hardly sit still for the first scene, but all through the movie, all I could think of was how far they actually deviated from the book. I was fairly dissappointed in what I was seeing. This could have been an amazing movie beyond comparison, but they failed it in so many ways. Where were the Huorns at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep? Why was Faramir, one of my favorite characters from the book, suddenly cast as being so evil? And what was up with the Nazgul at Osgiliath and Frodo showing it that it had the ring? I believe that the movie could have, should have been so much better. <BR>But when I sat through the second showing, I enjoyed it more. Once I had vented my anger on my patient, non-fanatic friends, I sat down and watched the movie as just that; a movie. Judging it from that perspective, it is jaw-dropping. The visuals are amazing, and who can't help dropping their whole adrenaline supply watching the first scene...<BR>It was a very good movie, but it was lacking in so many ways.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

There was something very strange about this movie. It seemed coarse and raw, wholly unpoetic, unlike FotR. The Rohirrim were governed by their fears until the very end (in the book as well), but even after that, they never quite achieved that high purity of self-sacrifice and bravery. The movie was brutal. <P>Faramir, my God, I wanted to cry when I saw he was taking them to Osgiliath. When he says, "This is where I show my strength" (or something to that effect anyway) with his sword on Frodo, I thought, wonderful! This is it! But it wasn't. And why should Sam's speech move him to release Frodo when he already thought he was doing the right thing? Silly. I thought Faramir was cast extraordinarily well, and I can't wait to see his new self in RotK. Arwen made me cringe, but it wasn't as bad as I had expected. Aragorn and Eowyn were perfect (except for that questionable "fall into the river" scene...) Eowyn wasn't trying to hit on Aragorn at all, thankfully. I loved it when she comforted the women and children, and called Grima a snake, it really showed her mettle.<P>Overall, a great movie, but I'm still stinging from Faramir's dismemberment. I'll have to see it again. The sheer force of it has left me shell-shocked. Every scene seemed like three hours in itself, but when it was done, it felt like I'd only just sat down.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[Ainalondwen]

Haven't read all previous comments so I apologise if I offend anyone.<P>I loved that film.<P>I came out of the first film not too sure, but after seeing it twice I was convinced. I loved this film first time I saw it. Will see it again on Saturday.<P>I believe in changing something quite a bit from a book to a film. You cannot portray something on screen where Tolkien has taken page after page to describe it. The despair, and the hope. It must be adapted and changed to spoken word and actions. <P>Some things cannot be put into the film becasue the film would then be listed as 6 hours approx. as opposed to 3 approx. Changes have to be made.<P>As you can tell, I am far from a Tolkien purist.<P>So the film... <P>I sooo loved the elves at Helm's Deep as they added something extra. Especially Legolas' shield surfing...coooooooool...Gimli was great as the comic relief, it made a change form Pippin. I loved Pippin and Merry with Treebeard. Merry was soooo sweet when he spoke up, even when Pippin thought maybe they should go back to the Shire. But when Merry said there wouldn't be a Shire for them I nearly started wailing (NEARLY).<P>I like everyone else want to know where Narsil went, but that would be my only complaint, for now. Unless I think of anything. But these aren't big complaints.<P>the Fell beasts....what can I say. Thank you WETA! The effect of them and the ring was what caused Frodo to stand before it. And Sam!!! I am an elf supporter mainly, although I do so very much love the hobbits too, but Sean Astin should get an Oscar for supporting actor for that performance.<P>I loved it, LOVED IT.<P>Thank you PJ, you should retire after ROTK because nothing you do will ever better these three films (unless you promise to do The Hobbit).<P>Fini

[GreyIstar]

Can you really be mad that Faramir is changed because every single character isn't exactly like they are in the book? Aragorn is different, Frodo is different, Sam is, everyone is. Having thought about it for a while they made him as well as Aragorn more human and relatable. I can be tempted because I am human. It does leave room for development like Aragorn. Aragorn is shaping into the character he was in the book even though he didn't start that way. I want to watch a movie where characters grow.

I would like to support the cause of some of my fellow 'downers' by asking this question and making the following statement:<P>"Are we not all seeing the movies because of the books?" Or more specifically, "Do we not go to see TTT expecting to see...well, TTT?"<P>It has been expressed, as it was last year, that one should not compare the movie to the book and then make criticisms based on that comparison. Now, withstanding the OBVIOUS fact that the two exist in different mediums, and withstanding the less obvious fact that the movie can and should be critiqued based upon its "movie-merit" alone, I propose that the movie also NEEDS and in fact BEGS to be criticized based upon its relation to the book. Reasons why would include the following:<P>1) They have the same title.<BR>2) They purport to be the same story.<BR>3) They have the same characters.<BR>4) The movie is made by those who claim to love the book and claim to be "putting the book on the screen".<P>I can't imagine going to see the movie Spiderman and being satisfied with a Peter Potter, coal-miner not photographer, turns into an actual spider when confronted with a villain.<P>So to those who suggest that we who compare the movie to the books are silly because they are different entirely, and that we should read the book if we don't like the film, I make this recommendation: To those who are satisfied with a Two Towers that varies from the book in major ways, <B>go see another movie</B>, the plot and characters will be just as different from the book TTT as they are in the movie TTT.<P>Lush, did I live up to your expectations?

[Iarwain]

GreyIstar, your pushing it just a little too far. <P>When you say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Can you really be mad that Faramir is changed because every single character isn't exactly like they are in the book?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it hard to respond without saying something very very mean. It is true that none of the characters are really the same, but that does not mean that we should cease to recognize the film as an attempt at the recreation of the Books. And as a recreation of the book, PJ and Franny did a smelly job indeed. But of course, you say, the characters are being developed to become what they should be. And this is my answer: humans may be susceptable to temptation, but temptation does not rule the human heart. They may be longing for the ring, but they can refuse it also. And if character development has to start from a base character completely devoid of will power, then the part of the character (namely Faramir's part) can pretty much be abandoned and replaced with the non-"wizard's pupil" power hungry guy we see in the film. Character development can shatter plot development.<P>For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used.<P>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ]<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Losthuniel]

Lush: Fear for sex-ed, if you wish, though we've not had any definable curriculum on said subject for a long time. <P>Lets compare their scene in FotR to the one in TTT. FotR portrayed A/A more closley to how Tolkien wrote it. the TTT scene seemed, IMHO, rather unnecessary. Aragorn and Arwen love each other, yay, move on. As for the "Chastity" remark, it was somewhat tounge-in-cheek, and reffering to an old thread in this section.<P>GreyIstar: Yes, I am annoying. But so was "SMEEGOL". <p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Losthuniel ]

i felt that the film was great. i expected it to be very different from the books and found myself looking forward to the changes and was pleasantly suprised to find that they were that bad. i think that this was always going to be the hardest one to script because it is not the beginning nor the end. it's the middle, this is the hardest part of any triology IMHO never mind the massively complex LOTR. Remember no matter what anyone did you can't please everybody

[mordor136]

Well mt first impression from the start was wow! That is until we met Faramir. Why did they make him take frodo to osgiliath. would it be that hard to follow the books. On the other hand Osgiliath did make for some stunning images. I loved when Frodo looked up and said in that distant creepy voice "there here". One thing I didnt like is the fact that they stopped the film halfway through the book! I mean if there going to show it all then ROTK will be like 5 hours long. Not that I would have any complaints toward a 5 hr. LOTR film. Oh yea the dead marshes rocked.

oh dear that sounds a bit high and mighty now i read it. I hope my opinion counts for something even though i am newly deceased

[Iarwain]

on a more positive note...<P>I loved the part where sam says that the Gaffer would have something to say. I really hope that they put in more Gaffer comments in RotK

[piosenniel]

These movies and the Books are two entirely different entities, at least that is how I look at it. Tolkien's writings are <I>par excellence</I>! The movies, to me, are PJ's visual Role Playing Game. They are Tolkienesque, show his great love for the works, but they are his vision of it. And, they are stunning pieces of film work! <P>I have been taken by the magic of the cinema since I was very young and my father first took me to see a movie. Then entire magic of the darkened theatre and the effects of being drawn into a story through sight and sound captured me immediately. I have never lost that sense of wonder that occurs when the first scene rolls onto the screen.<P>As to these first two films of the LOTR, I am an unadulterated fan. It is a good <B>basic</B> storyline, the characters are done well within the framework of the film, the scenery and the musical score are delicious (significant 'characters' in their own right, imo), the cinematography is gorgeously done, and there are opportunities for thrills, chills, and tears along the way.

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>all respect I have for you as a Tolkien fan is lost. It is true that none of the characters are really the same, but that does not mean that we should cease to recognize the film as an attempt at the recreation of the Books. And as a recreation of the book, PJ and Franny did a smelly job indeed.<BR>For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I really could care less what respect you have for me personally. I lost all respect of you has a human being when you said that. If you want my opinion on your comment.<P>They aren't recreating the book. They are making a movie of it. Everyone knows that movies will inevitably be different from the book. Your hurt, get over it. But don't tell me I'm not a Tolkien fan simply because I have the ability to seperate the book and the movie and like both of them with out doing harm to each other. It is interesting to see Faramir the way he is in the movie it makes you wonder if he will show his book nature which he does in the end. I am facinated that PJ is having Aragorn grow into the character he is in the book rather than have him just show up that way from the beginning. The movie is a different way of telling the same story. PJ came out and said "TT is the most different from the books of the 3." Ok fine as long as you don't try to pass it off with saying nothing. If you can't understand this then stick to the book. I was just stating why I like both and how the changes can be rationalized in terms of movie making. But don't ever say I'm not a Tolkien fan ever again.

[Iarwain]

sorry about that Grey Istar, if you look back, I edited that comment out after i realized that it was an exaggeration. Though I do tend to exaggerate in my responses, I completely understand your views (though I also disagree completely).

[lindil]

I did my best to apply 'Gilathalion's rule of LotR movie - going' which is:<P>"enjoy it as it's own work" or somesuch, it has been a year since I read his sage advice in this very forum.<P><BR> and it stood me in better stead than FotR because in may ways PJ butchered TTT way more than FotR.<P>That being said I succsessfully applied my pschizophrenia to the movie letting my 'critic' go on in abut 4% of my brainwaves and enjoying the movie w/ the other 96%.<P>Both sides were very active within their own realms.<P>The good:<P> The scenery - just stunning it really made the whole thing come alive and it is so refreshing to see something not made in CA [ I live here so I am use to seeing our dry hills, cities or redwoods used in darn near every movie]<P> The overall battle of Helms deep, the feeling of the Rohirrim [ non-soldiers] [ although they were a lot dirtier than I pictured war notwithstanding].<P>Gollum, he took getting used to but his split personality scene was a classic.<P>Sam was OK<P>the Oliphaunt [ although I missed sam's silly poem]<P>gandalf's glowing return.[ his only classic part in the film unfortunately]. He went from major inspriational return to travelling Exorsist.<P>Eomer's men 'circling' the three runners.<P>Aragorn's tracking.<P><BR>What my critic-side did not like:<P>Faramir's pitiful re-write. hsssssss, booo hsssssssss.<P>he is one of the most subtle and cool characters in the book and PJ dropped the ball shattered it put it back together w/ elmers, put on a cheap coat of paint and tried to call it Faramir. I let myself enjoy the movie anyway but that along with ...<P><BR>The Ents<P> was a great disappointment.<P>The ents reminded me over and over of 'Imperial Walkers' with a bit of shrubbery tacked on.<P>Treebeard was reduced to Jar-Jaresque status and I am afraid and Tolken would have been more disappointed in this than anything else. [well Faramir might have given him a run for his $]<P>I really feel for anyone who saw this before reading the books and may forever after have their associations tainted.<P>I would have traded the whole silly 'warg' scene for a real look at treebeards house and Ent-Draughts or a real moot.<P>I did not expect all of the ent-wife background to make it, but the rest was a real loss.<P>Now that being said they did a good job of Isengard destruction relying to much however on that non-existent Dam that a commando unit of rohirrim should have taken out long ago anyway!<P>And did I say Faramir was lame?<P>Dead marshes were good but the idea of flames was totaly cheezy. Alittle more careful reading of the book would have stood the scene in good stead. it was as if pj was all of a sudden on a budget.<P>And did I say the ents were lame?<P>although it was cool to see the burning ent get his fire doused, and to see the ents use a 'bow and arrow stance ' to weather the flood' this is what any intelligent martial artist would do for maximum stability against a fwd moving 'opponent [ assuming there was no getting out of the way.<P><BR>well all the negatives being done for the moment, I agree with whoever said that we need to wait for the extended DVD to get thee full picture [ and do not think these criticisms [ or more accurately others like them ] will not have some effect on what goes in.<P>I was glad Arwen was not with the elven host. [ a good examole of purist fan pressure, assuming she was there originally]<P><BR>Haldir and co.<BR>Oddly enough I did not mind that much, because I knew it was coming and I suppose I had wondered myself why Lorien at least never maintained relations with Rohan or more plauisbly Gondor, so it was the Elves trying to make up for past neglect.<BR>One thing I did not get was why haldir said they were from Elrond? anyone else puzzled by that.<P>A troop of Norther Dunedain would have been preferable. but maybe we will see them in 3.<P>I did like Galadriel's Osanwe w/ Elrond , but the scene w/ Arwen was as many other 'purists' have pointed out totally lame, and I agree I did not need to see them making out. Arwen I am afraid more than anyone else so far simply does not cut it.<P>Did I enjoy it alot? Yes<BR>Will i see it again? God willing?<P>Do I wish PJ had a sound thrashing from the actors or someone everytime he made some goofy new storyline and deleted something cool? absolutely!<P>will I let that effect my enjoying of a grand cinematic event? as little as possible.<P>I will close with my 6yr old daughter's words upon leaving the theatre,since nothing I can say could be as eloquent or laconic:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Two Towers was good, but they made things up and left things out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Mister Underhill]

Guys, discuss <I>civilly</I>. Antagonistic posts are not called for, nor will they be tolerated.

[Túroch]

What really riles me is that the movie was "supposed" to be taken from the book. With this TTT you could write a whole new book with much different description and a changed plot. I can forgive PJ for a lot of things. I can agree that his interpretations will be different from mine. They wasy he portrayed Gollum was not my own, but I can respect it. Some things though went overboard. Now to respond to some of the stuff thats been happening.<P>Grounds-Keeper-Willie: Right on brother. I could not agree more to your post. My posts do seem quite angry, and I am. But more sad for what PJ and Fran Wlash lost then what they did. They missed making a wonderfull movie. But still quite agree with your argument regarding our emotional views of the movie.<P>Rosie Cotton:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All of Rohan went past my expitations. It was set up with a brilliant background of a wonderfull Rohan musical theme. All the new Rohan charicters (Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden) were wonderfully introduce. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Now I canr espect that you enjoyed the movie a lot more then I did and that several of the points you outline weren't in all that actuality that bad. However, we we come to Rohan I really disagree. They are undiputably my FAVORITE part of the whole series. I am a rider myself, and i've always loved their beutiful portrayl in TTT and the feel that they give me when i'm reading the book. PJ sadly and to my disgust changed them for the worse. First he made the Rohirrim people look like a bunch of rabble, instead of the proud people that they are. They made it look like they had no army at all (one of my big grievances). The Rohirrim one the battle without any help from the elves. PJ by bringing the elves to the battle furthur degraded what the Rohirrim are. He made it seem like the only defense they had were old men and little kids. In the movie all you saw was elves fighting the orcs, again, and again, and again. It angered my so much I wanted to scream. It was Rohan won the battle not the elves. <P>Yes I do agree that the characters were introduced well but, in the case of Eomer they really dropped the ball. As I have said before he is my favorite character. They introduced him and then he....he....dissapears. He was supposed to be fighting at Helms Deep whooping arse with Aragorn. He and Aragorn drew swords together and got down to buisness. BU tin PJ movie he just isn't their and Haldir takes some of his whoopage. Maybe PJ didn't want Eomer there cause it might show that the Rohirrim realy are powerfull and not the wimps they showed them for. True Eomer showed up at the very end peeping beneath Gandalfs robe. I soo looking foward to him fighting. I kept thinking through all of Faramirs scene and the elves, Eomer's going to come back.....he....he's just getting rested for his moment of glory. Nope never came. Instead Arwen had more screen time.<P>Sorry about that Rosie Cotton, I was just using your post as a springboard for my rant. Other then a few certin parts the movie wasn't THAT bad. But still I have my reasons for being dissapointed.<P>Anywho, mark12_30, The Silver-shod Muse, Iarwain, and GreyIstar I agree with all of you. Right one. Especially GreyIstar. I agree that PJ has really changed almost every chracter (except for Eomer cause hen wasn;t there enough to change).<P>Iatwain:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For those who call this abominable film an "interpretation" by Peter Jackson, I would really like to hear what was written in your copy of LotR. When Frodo gets dragged by an ally-gone-bad about forty miles in the wrong direction to a place where he should never have been, to do things that he would never even considered doing in his greatest ring-fit, I believe that the term "interpretation" can no longer be sensibly used.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Right on my friend, right on. <P>piosenniel: yah, I know it was Tolkienesk. But I was hoping for the real deal and not some Fanfic version. But I am hard to please. I'm a tolkein vampire, I devoure all of his books . So i'm a little critical mind you.<P>Oh and Rhudladion, I too Expected to see TTT". Unfortunatley, that wasn't what I got.<BR> Whats this!! I thought as I was waching.<P>Mister Underhill, if any of my posts are over the edge i apologize. I'll keep this debate civilized.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Túroch ]

[LePetitChoux]

I have decided to completely edit my post, as I was repeating in lesser detail what other people had said many, many times before me.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The ents reminded me over and over of 'Imperial Walkers' with a bit of shrubbery tacked on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! Yes! I knew I had seen them somewhere before... <P>OK, moving on to MY opinion, I am inclined to take with the whole "Am I asleep or did PJ just massacure Faramir's character into Boromir the Second?" way of looking at the film. When Sam said<BR>"This is all wrong" I sincerely started to think that PJ was confessing on-screen through him. When Sam moved on to say <BR>"We shouldn't be here" I knew it! Even SAM knew that he should never ever visit Osgiliath in his life! But PJ, no.<P>I would now like to stop my repetitiveness, because anyone who has read all the previous posts before mine, won't really take my opinion into account if it just basically repeats everyone (or nearly everyone) else's. So here goes:<P><B>THE FILM WAS WORSE THAN HARRY POTTER</B><BR>I don't mean cinematographically, all the efects etc. in TTT were great, but overall seriously it was! I'll explain: HP was aimed at chidren mostly (it is a book for children, it is about children, it is a kids' movie), but LotR is a book for any age and was aimed at everyone, including, if not especially for <B>Die-Hard Tolkien Fans</B>, as we here are. Now, Harry Potter had rather bad computer graphics (compared to FotR and TTT), <B>but</B> it didn't stray from the bok as much as TTT did, and <I>children actually enjoyed it</I>. That is not to say that nobody enjoyed TTT, but if it is aimed partly at Tolkien fans, and <B>by Tolkien fans</B> then <B>MAKE AN EFFORT, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE!</B><P>I hope that was easy to understand.. <P>P.S. I loved Gollum/Smeagol! He was just brilliant!<p>[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: LePetitChoux ]

[Lush]

I don't think that wasting such a large amount of energy over one's disappointment is healty. I also don't like this whole "who's the real Tolkien fan?" digression. Very counter-productive, *tsk tsk*.<P>Passions such as that, I think, should be better spent in the company of a punching-bag. <P><B>Losthuniel</B>, darling, by sex ed, I was not necessarily referring to what you learn in the classroom. Furthermore, I thought the movie benefited from the slight sensuality, but this is largely a matter of taste.<P>P.S. Yes, <B>Rhud</B>, it's all good, and I am glad to see you back in your element.<P>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

I went to see TTT yesterday at noon, because I wanted to avoid masses of people and a sold out show, but to my discontent and surprise the theatre was still packed and the show eventually sold out. But I got there early so I had no trouble buying a ticket or finding a seat. <P>My overall grade for the movie is an A+. I thought the movie was great, I do have some parts I didn’t like, like Faramir and his rewritten role, but everything else made up for it. Honestly, I have to say that the movie exceeded my expectations, I fell absolutely in love with the visual effects. The battle scenes were outstanding! The ents, I expected to look differently, but PJ’s version was acceptable. Gollum was the biggest surprise for me. For the longest time I thought that PJ was going to do something horrendous to ruin Gollum, but his Gollum was dead on!! And the split personality bit was fantastic! <P>I was a little disappointed with Sam, but I was in FOTR as well so it wasn’t such a catastrophe this time around. It’s not the character that I don’t like but more the actor. Sean Astin just doesn’t do it for me. The biggest disappointment was definitely Faramir. I was so mad at the changes PJ made. And I was very discontent with the events that take place with Frodo after he meets Faramir. It's just all wrong and it makes me very very sad. Oh and since when did Gandalf become an exorcist?<P>Grima Wormtongue was just what I imagined. And I was very content with Eomer. <P>I loved Aragorn even more than on FOTR. Even though I didn’t find a good explanation as to why the scene where he falls over a cliff while riding some beast was necessary. Merry and Pippin were great as well. I loved how funny Gimli and Legolas were throughout the whole movie. And Gimli allowing Aragorn to toss him was hilarious!! <P>Overall great movie.<BR>I’ll tell everyone I know to see it.<BR>And I’ll definitely see it at least 7 more times.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: jaz ]

[Maikadilwen]

I just got home from the cinema 10 minutes ago. <BR>When we reached the intermission I was so disappointed I could have cried. I laughed through most of the first half. Maybe other people wouldn't be disappointed because they got a chance to laugh, but seriously.... I was a bit sad that every time Gimli opened his mouth, a joke was what came out. That wasn't what I had expected from the book I had read. <P>The other half, however, was an entirely diffenrent movie. Of course, the only thing I had been thinking about was Helm's Deep and I loved every minute of it. But also the rest of it was brilliant. Though... I too, don't like the way Faramir has been changed. He was supposed to be the decent brother of the two. <P>Too little of Sauron, though, but I may be the only one with that opinion. <BR>And now I have another wish for Christmas. I want my own Smeagol! Isn't he just adorable? <p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Maikadilwen ]

[Kalimac]

Wow, go to late showing, sleep in, and miss all the fun here apparently . I must admit (and I'm probably in a minority here) that overall I really, really liked the movie. First: about Faramir (the Faramir thread seems to have been shut down) in my case, forewarned was definitely forearmed: if I hadn't known I probably would have been crushed and it may have ruined the movie for me. As it is I was just able to endure it, and at the end when he lets them go, it was a good sign that he'll come around and behave himself in the third movie (he'd better, for Eowyn's sake ). As for letting them go for selfish reasons, I don't think that's a reasonable explanation when they have the bit about "your life will be forfeit" and he answers "Then it is forfeit." That is an intrinsically unselfish thing to do. Having Frodo offer the Ring to the Nazgul was pretty idiotic, but again not fatal; we've seen in the first movie how the Nazgul came within inches of the Ring and still didn't manage to get it, so it's not totally unbelievable that they'd snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again (presumably they're still blind at this point). <P>Good stuff; Gollum was FANTASTIC - people in the theater were laughing, and so was I, but it was nervous laughter, which considering his behavior is a natural reaction (and come on, that "taters" scene is pretty funny). Rohan was wonderful; and Helm's Deep was beyond description, alas, I can't get too worked up about the Elves being at Helm's Deep (Bad Tolkienphile!). Changing the result of the Entmoot was annoying, but considering how little screen time Merry and Pippin get in this one, and the fact that they probably had about 10 lines apiece total, it was the only way to give them as much character development as they experienced. <P>Oddly enough this reminds me very much of the first time I saw FOTR: I actually came out feeling slightly disappointed because all the changes were fresh in my mind. (Pippin and Merry stealing cabbages, forsooth!) It was the second time I saw it that I realized how wonderfully it worked as a movie on its own. And as much as TTT departed from the book, it still had enough spark in it to carry over to ROTK, and since PJ has said that TTT departs most from the book, I think we have nowhere to go but up . I did care very much about the characters and was disappointed when it ended. All said, I'd go for this ANY day than some slavish adaptation a la "Harry Potter" which carbon-copies the book scenes onto the screen while leeching all the spirit out of them.<P>Sorry, that was probably fairly incoherent. It's just that while they came to edge of idiocy several times, they always managed to pull back onto track in the end, and that was the most important thing.

[Orual]

I slept on it, and I came out feeling better. But I thought of a slightly sarcastic way to sum up yesterday's feelings:<P>Theoden channelled Saruman. Frodo channelled Sauron*. Why couldn't PJ have channelled Tolkien a little bit more?<P>Faramir still irks me, but I realized that overall, I liked it. There were moments when I was just swept up like I was in Fellowship. I'll definitely go see it again, this time knowing what's in store and trying to look past the discrepancies. (I'm trying to learn how to see the movie as "Peter Jackon's Big, Expensive Lord of the Rings Fanfic." It's a hard road.) Somebody said something about the Fell Beasts; I agree, they were incredible. All of the CG was good. And I'm holding out much hope for the Return of the King. (But I'm afraid it'll take about fifteen hours to tell the whole story, including the two hundred pages they skipped from TT. LoL!)<P>~*~Orual~*~<P>*Or something. What the heck WAS that "They are here" deal about, anyway?