Not everyone who wants to see the film (I can recommend reading the book first) has seen it yet so could anyone wishing to give away even a tiny part of the plot do it in another thread with the thread title "The Two Towers, *SPOILERS*", for the sake of anyone who hasn't seen the film/read the book and doesn't yet want to know what happens.
Thanks,
Mark
PS Can I make statements/requests like that?! I'm a moderator but it seems a bit bossy. Sozzy! 😕
I don't know if discussing general concepts in the movie without revealing substance counts as a
spoiler, so beware if you don't know ANYTHING about the books (but then again, none of the
names will mean anything anyway). I don't believe that I am revealing anything that would
detract from seeing the movie or surprise anyone, but I presume that the reader is at least
vaguely familiar with the books to understand my reply.
The movie has good special effects and fight scenes, but in many ways departs markedly from the
books. Most notably, the movie depicts Aragorn as the sole hero in this rendition, rather than
Theoden and Gandalf. Aragorn doesn't fully come into his own until the third book, but the second
movie would have him be the only substantial hero.
Most other substantial problems stem from maintaining Aragorn's "Stud Status," such as Theoden's
chicken-heartedness or Faramir's (Boromir-like) temptation.
Gimli is given campy treatment, and three substantial additions (namely: Aragorn's Mystic Journey?
Elves at Hornburg? and the Ring goes to Osgiliath?) are unnecessary and, in some ways, harmful to
the plot. The experience of Merry and Pippin with the Ents is disappointing (maybe simply because
I wanted to see more of the Ents) and fails to capture the importance of Fangorn. Lastly, the Ring's
"personality" so well captured in the first film is completely absent in this movie.
That having been said, many other scenes are faithfully or reasonably rendered (the chase for
Merry and Pippin, e.g.) and the fight scenes are compelling (even better than in Moria, I think).
It's worth seeing once or at most twice. I look forward to what they do in the final movie.
Anyone who doesn't barf during Sam's "Maybe they will write songs about us Mr Frodo" speech which
goes on and on and on has a weak gag reflex and should see a doctor, though.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioI'm not sure I agree completely with this. I found when watching it that whenever Gandalf was involved he seemed to carry the weight of everyone on his shoulders and really was the hero, especially when... well, I can't really say any more can I!
Most notably, the movie depicts Aragorn as the sole hero in this rendition, rather than
Theoden and Gandalf. Aragorn doesn't fully come into his own until the third book, but the second
movie would have him be the only substantial hero.
Nemesio
Must agree with the comments about Sam's speech though, you're not wrong there!
Joe
- Joined
- 01 Nov 01
- Moves
- 331030
Originally posted by raefordNo not yet i've seen the 'first book'(i still think of it as one)but i am going to see it with an open mind.The first was accurate as far as it went, but it missed a lot of important background information and geniology of the world invented by Tolkein, but this I cannot critisise because Peter Jackson only had 3 hours to cram in a massice amount of material. I feel that he did the best job anyone could have done with the restraints ie: hollywood etc. There was a great ommision in the first film, a real character was lost, Butterbur the innkeeper of the Prancing Pony, but I thought the depiction of Bilbo's party was quite brilliant.
Anyone see the movie? I liked it, but didn't think it was as true to the book as the first one.
Basically to encapsulate The Lord Of The Rings on celluloid you would need at least one hundred hours.