OT: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - SPOILERS!
jon_p_noble at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 26 01:05:49 EST 2002
--- Kyla Tornheim <kyla at sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Michelle Thomas wrote:
> > I'm really hoping that New Line will have a
> limited theatrical release of
> > the extended editions of all three movies.
> Ooh, that'd be nifty. I saw the extended version of
> Fellowship a couple of
> weeks ago, and I really think the extra bits, short
> though they were, made
> a huge difference.
I'd see it, our local cinema has a double of
Fellowship and Two Towers tonight, but as it's Boxing
Day and I was there at 10 this morning to see Two
Towers when it opened here I won't be making it
tonight (it will finish at 6 am), especially as my
family (mother, one sister and her partner) will be
here tomorrow for more Christmas. There will be plenty
of other chances to see the two (and next year three)
together on the big screen. Besides I was given the
set of DVDs of the '60s TV series "The Prisoner" for
christmas and so far haven't even finished watching
the first disc. (IMHO the Prisoner is still the
greatest TV series ever made)
> > Fellowship I thought captured the spirit of the
> novel and kept most of the
> > important detail, as well as working well as an
> exciting film.
> Definitely yes. I know lots of people who were
> disappointed about Tom
> Bombadil being left out, but it's a really big,
> self-contained chunk of
> the book, and so it was easily excised.
I'm sure the BBC cut out Tom Bombadil from their
version, I fully understand why he was dropped, He
always seemed a bit of a Hippy to me, no doubt to much
time misspent reading Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the
Rings" where he is Tim Benzadrine.
> the 18 years that Frodo
> lived in the Shire with the ring could have been put
> in the movie just
> fine, with an "18 years pass. Frodo doesn't do
> anything with the
> ring. *Then* Gandalf shows up saying that stuff is
> bad" sort of voiceover,
> but I'm also okay with it being cut.
Me too, doesn't affect the story.
And the visuals
> were just so
> beautiful--Tolkien wrote so many pages of
> description of scenery, and so
> it works really well as a movie with shots of
> beautiful scenery.
Couldn't agree more, I've watched the DVD many times
and there is hardly a second of screen time that
doesn't stand on its own as a visual of Middle Earth.
> > But in The Two Towers - SPOILERS - the behaviour
> of several characters
> > is radically different to the source, and at this
> point I can't
> > understand why they made the changes. Faramir was
> the biggest
> > disappointment - in the book, he is presented as
> being wiser and more
> > sensitive than his bossy big brother. He finds out
> that Frodo has the
> > ring but, true to his word, lets Frodo and Sam go.
> But in the film he
> > insists that Frodo come with him to Gondor, and
> plans to take the ring
> > - then a Nazgul attacks - but is driven off by an
> arrow! - one arrow!
> > - and then Sam makes this impassioned speech about
> there being some
> > things worth fighting for - and then Faramir says
> oh sorry I've
> > changed my mind you can go... it just doesn't make
> sense. And I've
> > reread the Two Towers since and the way those
> chapters are written is
> > just fine.
> That is the biggest problem I and my friends had
> with the movie. Faramir
> is a total good guy in the book. Even before he
> knows what Frodo has, he
> says something like "I don't know what you're
> carrying, but I won't take
> it from you." Maybe Peter Jackson wanted to
> differentiate Faramir from
> Aragorn a bit more, since movie-Aragorn is more
> human and "no! do not
> tempt me!" than book-Aragorn, but, well, I don't
> like movie-Aragorn's
> reluctance so much either.
I wasn't too troubled with Faramir (apart from the
fact that David Wenham is a major lust object for my
wife to which I sadly fail to measure up. ) He is
tempted by the Ring, There is an implied threat in the
book that he may take it to Gondor. His scenes here I
feel are to help build his character for Return of the
King where he will be more important, especially in
his relationship with Denethor (to be played by John
Noble - no relation).
> And what was with Aragorn's near-death experience
> and vision of Arwen? And
> what was with Arwen even *being* in this movie?
> Actually...my friends who
> have read the book think that Arwen shouldn't have
> been in the movie. A
> friend who hasn't read the book said "who's this new
> blonde chick? [Eowyn]
> She should go away. But Arwen's bit was great!"
I like Arwen's enhanced role in the movie, and thought
the dream scenes were interesting in providing some
back story, which I assume will also lead to things in
the next film.
I was pleased to see the religious elements of the
book are captured in the film. I am not at all
religious myself by JRRT was, and that was an
important element in the books.
> > But Gollum... Gollum is fantastic. Exactly as I
> imagined, and really well
> > done.
> Yes. I read an article
> about how
> Gollum is, really, played by an actor, down to the
> movement, and then the
> animation was based on the actor's body and face
> movements. So, yay for
> Andy Serkis, and the Gollum/Smeagol distinction was
> very well done and was
> everything I could have hoped for.
Gollum was brilliant, I liked to talk of an Oscar - he
Maybe we could bring this thread back to DWJ bt
discussing a hypothetical film of a DWJ book. If you
had an unlimited budget to film one DWJ book, which
would it be (think about which would make the best
film - or which would you like to see visualised) and
who would you cast....
Who received two DWJ's for Christmas - Wilkin's Tooth
and Stopping for a Spell.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj