Rebecca's reactions to LOTR:TTT

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-21 01:30am

Just so you know where I'm coming from, Rebecca has never read the Two Towers. It has been said by many that the changes made in the movie were good for mainstream audiences who haven't read the book.

Rebecca is "mainstream audience who hasn't read the book", and she is echoing a lot of the same complaints the book people are making, even though she has no book to compare it to.

She thought the Arwen-Aragorn intermission was overdone and condescending. She thought the elves showing up at Helm's Deep was pointless. She was disgusted at the pointlessly repetitive Faromir subplot (as some have said, Boromir Lite).

So for those who would say that these criticisms are from book purists and would never occur to one who had not read the books, I would say that at least in Rebecca's case, this is not true.

Don't get me wrong; we still liked the movie. But Rebecca said she thought FOTR was simply amazing, while this one was a big step down in quality.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-12-21 01:31am

Nice to know that I'm not totally off base.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-12-21 01:54am

Really? I thought TTT was better on account of having more action and humor.

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2002-12-21 02:35am

I never really read the books either. I tried reading the first one and got bored shitless after the 50th page of hobbits walking through the woods and singing campfire songs -- that wouldn't excite if I was doing it, never mind reading about it. But on to the movie...

I thought Boromir Lite was a perfect description of that subplot, too. for that matter, the whole trip to the demolished Gondorian city seemed like a waste of time. I actually liked the idea of seeing the effects of the war in other places, but I would rather have gotten it in a montage seen with a voice-over rather than what turned out to be a pointless diversion.

I thought the Arwen-Aragorn interlude would have been more interesting if Aragorn had poured a bucket of water on that white dress of hers. Another tragic opportunity to further the narrative lost.

I ended up pestering a friend of mine who actually read the books to help me with some bits, like where the hell were the rest of the elves and the dwarves, anyway?

Of course, I also pestered said friend with silliness like, "Why doesn't the necklace turn invisible when it's run through the ring?" just to get his goat. My personal favorite was telling him that maybe if Tolkien had more imagination, he'd have had the Hobbits make traps with the trees like Ewoks, instead of the cop-out of magical moving trees, which takes no cleverness whatsoever.

-- Joe Momma

I gotta say, though, I thought the Ents kicking Uruk-Hai ass were one of the funniest things in the movie. The Ork-lympic Torch Bearer at Helm's Deep was also righteous, the kinda guy I'd let marry my daughter if I ever have one.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-21 02:35am

I think I'm still up in the air about which I liked better. On first viewing, I think I liked Fellowship more, but when I saw The Two Towers again, I liked it more than Fellowship; it seemed to flow more smoothly the second time around, and replay value is always a good thing in a film.

The Two Towers had many more emotionally-charged scenes, though, what with the men at Helm's Deep outfitting 10 year-olds with helms and swords, and the scene where the Ents begin marching toward Isengard just makes you want to stand up and cheer.

Although, the whole thing with Aragorn "dying" and coming back was pretty pointless. The telepathic speech bit was similarly so. I also got sort of sick with the whole Aragorn/Arwyn thing. Okay, she's leaving, we get it.

Otherwise, awesome action sequences, great soundtrack, good character development with Sam and especially Gollum. Good movie.

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2002-12-21 02:56am

Durandal wrote:Otherwise, awesome action sequences, great soundtrack, good character development with Sam and especially Gollum. Good movie.

I think the explosion at Helm's Deep deserves special mention. I enjoyed the other action scenes, but I still get a woody thinking about the bombs. I think I actually blurted out, "FIRE!" like Beavis.

-- Joe Momma

Yeah, I know, the Death Star blasting Alderaan was much bigger, but that was like an orgy at a distance, whereas the blast at Helm's Deep was closer, more intimate, like the caress of a lover.

I gotta go now, some TIPS goons are kicking the door in with questions about a recent arson.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-21 05:25am

I just got back from the 10:45pm showing of Twin Towers. I liked this one, but not as much as I liked FOTR. I probably wont buy the DVD for this one.
Something just was not right about this one. It did not make me drop my jaw as FOTR did.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-21 12:49pm

As someone who's read the books but can't remember them anymore, I found that TTT didn't have the "magic" that the FOTR did, there was something that just wasn't there in the 2nd movie. I agree that the Aragorn/Arwen thing was overdone, I was kinda like having a deja-vu thing since it looked awful similar to the FOTR scenes. I think a simple "you can't die yet, go fulfill your destiny, I will be waiting for you" flashback would've been better rather than going into the whole backstory.

The Faromir thing bugged me a bit too, there were too many unexplained plot holes in that one. Other than that, great movie.

Then there's all the tactical errors in the battles but that's not get into that!

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-12-21 02:10pm

Arwen is not leaving. It's obvious, or, at least it was to me, that she'll disobey her father and return to do her bit in ROtK. But it was, infact, overdone. I think they call that "Shoe Leather" in the movie business.

The elves showing up at Helm's Deep wasn't necessary, but it did have a point. Jackson wanted to show that even if the elves help, the Men are more or less on their own in this coming war. Just think: Why is the battle of Helm's Deep won? Because Eomer comes, not because the Elves are there. They could've been done without, but without them, victory might have seemed entirely implausible to the moviegoer.

As for Faramir, Jackson realized that he couldn't get away with another inner monolgue to show a character's struggle. Gollum's flew because it was so well done, but the viewers would've shit on a second one. Jackson knew what he was doing when he did the Faramir story, but I do agree that he failed in precisely showing how the two brothers were NOT cut from the same cloth. Maybe he shows it more clearly in ROTK.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-12-21 03:10pm

Ah, the tactical ineptness of the men and orcs, you know, we talked for like an hour and a half afterwards about it.

The explosion was shit though, wasn't it? The boulders flying up in the air, yet the Uruk-hai that were 10' away were perfectly fine.

Damn Kiwi's not knowing about explosions and SFX stuff.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-12-21 07:07pm

Well, I've just arrived home after viewing the thing. I've read the books five or six times, and I have the all story well present in my memory.

I agree with the main critics others have said. Someone should pay for the character assassination attempt of Faramir and Theoden. The elves were uneeded, but I actually didn't mind them that much, as they brought a honorable subplot to the story, and elves are just cool at fights.

I disliked some other things. Firstly, I found the numbers of the rohan fighters severely lacking. I always pictured them of being a few thousands, not three hundred fighters, oldmen and boys. Come on, they're supposed to get into Gondor thousands of men in the battle for the City. And the Last Ride, composed by Theoden, Aragorn and Legolas, well..

Secondly, they made Frodo a crying, useless baby. He was supposed to have an amazingly strong will, and not being constantly falling to the Ring.

Finally, one thing that amused me. Legolas (I think it was him) shouted "FIRE" in the initial bow shooting at the first wave of Orcs. "FIRE"??

I liked the film. Most parts were extremelly well done. I'll see it again. But I'll be damned if I understand how someone thought they were adding value to the film with the variations from the book. Every time they diverged, the story just got worst (except, maybe, the addition of the elves).

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-12-21 08:08pm

Aye, they didn't start saying fire until the 1500's, when firearms were more common, they said "Loose!" instead.

The elves are cool fighters, yeah, but the men could've used a Roman Legion on their side with it's ballistae and catapultum.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-12-21 09:29pm

the elves were the most annoying for me, closely followed by boromir clone.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2002-12-21 10:14pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: Finally, one thing that amused me. Legolas (I think it was him) shouted "FIRE" in the initial bow shooting at the first wave of Orcs. "FIRE"??

If you read much of the sci-fi of the last couple of decades, you'll see that it's quite common for the writers to have their bowmen "fire".

One of the (many) things I like about Tolkien is that he had enough knowledge of the English language to know that's not appropriate. The only weapon you "fire" is a firearm.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-21 10:32pm

Ted wrote:Aye, they didn't start saying fire until the 1500's, when firearms were more common, they said "Loose!" instead.

The elves are cool fighters, yeah, but the men could've used a Roman Legion on their side with it's ballistae and catapultum.

So did they say fire in the movie? The only command I remember is Aragorn saying something like "release arrows" or something. Not fire.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-12-21 10:36pm

neoolong wrote:
Ted wrote:Aye, they didn't start saying fire until the 1500's, when firearms were more common, they said "Loose!" instead.

The elves are cool fighters, yeah, but the men could've used a Roman Legion on their side with it's ballistae and catapultum.
So did they say fire in the movie? The only command I remember is Aragorn saying something like "release arrows" or something. Not fire.

Legolas ordered the Elves to "Fire!"

Post by **Dalton** » 2002-12-21 11:14pm

I don't recall that word being used. I'll have to listen closely next time I see it.

As for the Boromir clone bit, I wasn't that upset over Faramir having a little more of his brother in him than shown in the books. There he was slightly boring, but they made him more interesting in the movie. Is he gonna be tempted by the ring as Boromir was? Will he even try to take it? However, in the end we see more of the book Faramir, which is fine by me. The more I think about it, the more I can see why they made Faramir like that.

In fact, I liked some of the additions that were made, as they brought some buried themes in the book into sharper focus, including Eowyn's infatuation with Aragorn, the power of the Ring over Men, and the desperation that the Mark and Gondor face.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-12-22 05:24am

Actually, I thought that Fellowship Of The Ring, despite being a very good movie, had too much focus on the combat scenes, it felt more like a Warhammer movie than a Lord of the Rings movie. After all, I don't remember the LotR books as being "hack-and-slash" fantasy.

And I wanted to the Fellowship singing around the campfire!!

Now, I haven't seen The Two Towers yet, but I'm not going to criticize this movie for being too focused on combat, as the battles are what I remember the TTT book for!!

(and, given the amount of carnage in the FOTR movie and the difference between the FOTR and TTT books, I'm expecting extraordinary amounts of carnage in The Two Towers!!)