The Two Towers

[Goblin Warlord]

Oh my god, what has he done to the story,

there are seans thet never happend in the books

events get mixed into one (why to save money)

the effects were all that carried the movie not the story

sorry it sucked


i have been a fan for most of my 34 yrs but this is not what i dreamed:furious: :mad: :frustrated: :furious: :mad: :frustrated:

[Naisy]

i think you mean Scenes and i hope your wrong

[The Silver Bullet]

What a pointless post, Naisy. Do shutup.

[Holden Pike]

The plot was jostled pretty liberally this time, but the essence of the story remains the same, and the tone and characters and the bringing to life of Middle Earth is just as perfect as it was for the first installment.

These movies would have to be six or seven hours long each to get every single thing form the book on the screen. That's just unrealistic and beyond impractical. The trick to adaptation, especially a book as dense as The Lord of thre Rings, is to find a throughline with major plot points and keep as many characters and motivations in tact as possible. Thus far Peter Jackson and co. have done an admirable and amazing job.

Of course they're not the books exactly. Go re-read them again if that's the pure experience you want to duplicate over and over. As a lifelong fan of Tolkien, I'm enjoying the Hell out of these film realizations.

[linespalsy]

yeah, obviously there's no replacement for the books, and i dont think it's reasonable to expect the films to equal them.
my general complaint, as with just about every major movie, is that there was too much music. i think the perfect example of this, and the one that struck me the hardest, was when it started to rain at helms deep. the sound of the water striking off the orcs armor was more than sufficient to build tension (and atmosphere). the background choir was just overkill.
--sigh, ah well, i guess i cant have it all.
besides that, this movie was amazing. it even rectified my one *major* complaint about the first (that it failed to establish gollum as a character), so yeah, if all i have to complain about is too much music, this is one damn fine movie in my book.

by the way, has anyone seen/liked the 1978 ralph bakshi version of the fellowship? i liked that one better than the first instalment of the new (peter jackson) lotr, but a bit less than this one; just for good measure.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by linespalsy
yeah, obviously there's no replacement for the books, and i dont think it's reasonable to expect the films to equal them.
my general complaint, as with just about every major movie, is that there was too much music.
I thought there was too LITTLE music. The first had more...and used it to greater effect.


Originally posted by linespalsy
i think the perfect example of this, and the one that struck me the hardest, was when it started to rain at helms deep. the sound of the water striking off the orcs armor was more than sufficient to build tension (and atmosphere). the background choir was just overkill.
Agreed...but it didn't diminish the scene much at all for me.


Originally posted by linespalsy
it even rectified my one *major* complaint about the first (that it failed to establish gollum as a character)
Gollum hardly came into the plot in the first, though. He was touched upon briefly...what more were they supposed to do?


Originally posted by linespalsy
by the way, has anyone seen/liked the 1978 ralph bakshi version of the fellowship? i liked that one better than the first instalment of the new (peter jackson) lotr
Please. Be. Joking. :eek:

:p :D

[linespalsy]

"I thought there was too LITTLE music. The first had more...and used it to greater effect."

>i disagree. in general, i find most film soundtracks unnecessary and intrusive. the only great effect the first one served to my ears was to keep me from giving my fullest attention to the movie.

"Agreed...but it didn't diminish the scene much at all for me."

>it didnt ruin the scene for me, but it very much diminished it. but i guess if i cant sell you on my general distaste for music in film, then i cant expect you to agree with me fully on this point.

"Gollum hardly came into the plot in the first, though. He was touched upon briefly...what more were they supposed to do?"

>they trimmed down his introduction (the story of his past, as told by gandalf at bilbo's house, and the conversation that follows) in the first movie. while to some this may seem like a minor point, i've always thought gollum was one of the most important characters to the story (not to mention my favorite), and that passage is one of the most effective in the book. to not do it full justice, is to me, unexcusable. the bakshi version, among other things, did do full justice to that. hense, i had a very big problem with the first enstalment of the new trilogy. while i still liked it, it was tainted for me. (i also have some other fundamental complaints about the first, mostly dealing with gandalf, which i dont really think are necessary to get into here).

"Please. Be. Joking. :eek:"

>no. sorry. i'm. not. joking. :rolleyes: above i mentioned one of the reasons i prefered the bakshi version of fellowship. i also liked the way it looked better. i think that movie has generally been given a raw deal by fans. dig?

[Godfada]

I loved it. I wanted to see more Ringwraiths though. There werent enuff huge musical cues either, like the first one had. AND THE RINGWRAITH THEME WAS MISSING!!! That was bad ass. But other than that the movie OWNS. Helluva lot better than Attack of the Clowns.

[LordSlaytan]

It's interesting that near the end Samwise says, "This isn't at all right, we shouldn't even be here". I'm curious if that was Jackson's way of saying, "I know, I know, I changed it".

Things I like about this movie:

1. Merry and Pippen weren't comic relief again, in the books Merry turns into quite the bad@ss.
2. Smeagol was awsome!
3. Treebeard didn't say, "Ho-Hum" at the beginning of every sentence.
4. Wormtounge was cast perfectly.
5. Gimly had more lines, even though he wound up being the comic relief this time.
6. It had one of the greatest opening scenes in movie history.

Things that I didn't like so much:

1. Farimir is less honorable than in the book.
2. The trailers gave away Gandalfs return for the uninitiated.
3. It didn't end like the book, but oh well.

That's about it. I loved the movie, more than the first even. Not because there was more fighting, but because I liked the character development more.

Oh, anybody else think that the trailers before the movie were extremely LAME!!!???

[The Silver Bullet]

Just about where the movie ends [I see the film on the 26th so I haven't seen it yet]. I have always found it sad knowing that things are being shifted around a little at the end of TTT and the beginning of ROTK, just knowing that the film wouldn't end with a slow pull back from Sam sitting against the rock door of the Orcs totally alone. Fade out.

[Monkeypunch]

The Two Towers was incredible. I loved the story, the battle sequences, and I thought Gollum/Smeagol just rocked. They did an awesome job of bringing him to life. I also liked the talking trees. Who knew trees could kick so much @ss? I want the next one to come out right now!

And yes, with the exception of the X-Men 2 promo, all the trailers sucked. I can't even remember what they were for anymore. One of them had Vin Diesel or something... :sick:

[jrs]

Yes, The Two Towers was incredible. The story was great and the battle sequences just were outstanding. Gollum cracked me up :laugh: . I saw it at my theater on the midnight showing. The best time I ever had !!!

And yes, with the exception of the X-Men 2 promo, all the trailers sucked. I can't even remember what they were for anymore. One of them had Vin Diesel or something

The Trailers I saw:

Dumb and Dumberer:When Jake Meets Lloyd - W/out Carrey and what's his name.
Diablo - The film w/Vin Diesel which coming out 2003. I saw it March of of 2002. It's pretty good :yup:
Anger Management - Adam Sandler
Bruce Almighty- Jim Carrey
X-Men 2-May 2003
A Movie about the guy who created the Gong Show (sounds interesting).
and
Terminator 3:Rise of the Machines :D "MUST SEE!" :yup:
Bad Boys 2

[The Silver Bullet]

The movie about the Gong Show creator is called Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and was directed by George Clooney from the legendary and near mythical screenplay by Adaptation scribe, Charlie Kaufmann. Just so you know.

[jrs]

Thank you. :)

[Vyse]

Right, lets get this straight before I begin. I LOVE film. Film is my life. Film, art, and film as art. I loved FoTR.

It seems that in most cases, the audience going to see TTT had made up their minds before actually going to see the film. People wanted to love TTT, and understandably, my own opinion is that people are looking to re-create the experience surrounding certain "classic" movies when they were younger (not forgetting how high the original film raised the bar). So I'll begin *takes deep breath*

The fake Aragorn death sequence/Warg attack felt totally out of place to me, tacked on, interrupting the flow of the film. Jackson's continual portrayal of characters supposedly falling to their doom is growing a little tired already, and it is as if he were influenced by huge musical number in the middle of Big Idea’s Jonah, and decided the God of second chances rules over Middle-Earth also.

I keep hearing talk of the film requiring an extra hour, this is non-sense, the film could easily have been 45mins shorter, in fact this may have been beneficial in its current state. The climax took way to look to reach, the characters continually moving around the key issues, seemingly forever was taken before any sort of decisive action was reached (there are other ways to portray arduous decision making on film, opposed to Peter Jackson's method, dragging out the story).

Actually, the amount of material left out of TTT suggests to me that several crucial parts of the book will not make it into RoTK. The scouring of the shire for one, this imo being one of the most important parts of the story, showing how evil can exist in even the smallest of entities.

Faramir was also heavily short changed in this film (Faramir was one of Tolkien's most respected characters; for his nobility and courage ... everything that saw in Boromoir and not him). In this adaptation he appears as some sub-Boromir, simply letting Frodo go as he has a bit of a scare with the Nazgul! He should've been presented as the anti-Boromir, a wise strong warrior with an understanding of the corruption of the ring.

Other things I didn't like; I loved the Ents, yes, however Treebeard felt too focused, taking Merrry and Pippin to see Gandalf. What!? Sam and Frodo's story was well done, although I still don't think Sam was given justice. He's such a strong and important character, and I don't believe such a light was cast on him (perhaps the only indicator being the "Samwise the Brave" moment). Although I believe Frodo's "change," corruption by the ring, has been shown perfectly. The Legolas shield-slide just felt wrong, as did the fact that during the Rohirrim encounter he rode a horse with a saddle! Gandalf's exorcism (?) of Theoden didn't sit right with me, the fact that there was a bar room style brawl taking place in the background felt, wrong (I've been saying that a lot, lol). I also wish Arwen would stay on her spot, as in the books, instead of getting a role boost just because she's Liv Tyler.

Yes, Helm's Deep is indeed one of the best battle I've seen on film, comparable even to such classic works as Akira Kurosawa's Ran. TTT's appeal is more in the sense of a visual epic than a narrative one I believe ...

I wait patiently for the SEV, as although this film is fundamentally flawed, it is still part of a landmark cinematic project, and I did want to LOVE it, lol. It left an empty feeling with me at the end. Visually it is stunning, and performances by the actors great, however for me it just felt ... disjointed. Alot of the sequences, as individual set peices were stunning I admit, but it just didn't *feel* like it worked for me, as a picture overall. I've only seen it once, so my opinion my sway on repeat viewings.

[Nikki]

not released here until the 26th December........

AND......you have to pre-book your ticket!!!!!!......:frustrated:

[firegod]

I finally saw it. I liked it, but not as much as FOTR. There were quite a few more goofy lines in this one. What in the hell was Sam talking about when he commented on why Boromir died?? He died because he was vastly outnumbered by a bunch of orcs, not because he was consumed by the power of the ring.

[LordSlaytan]

Sam wasn't there to see that, maybe he was just using the information he had known about, and made assumptions about it to help them in their present situation.

[The Silver Bullet]

Ah, yes, but the power of the ring brought Boromir to the place where he would suffer at the hands of a vast bunch of Orcs. Or something like that.

Seeing The Two Towers this evening at eight [it opened today, so it isn't like I have been putting it off....]

[Yoda]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Ah, yes, but the power of the ring brought Boromir to the place where he would suffer at the hands of a vast bunch of Orcs. Or something like that.
Precisely. Indirectly, it killed him.

Although, one could conclude that since Sam wasn't there, he might've been making an educated but purposely exaggerated guess to convince Faramir to relent. It seems unlike Sam to bend or stretch the truth, but he may ver ywell hold a "by any means" necessary philosophy (more or less) towards their quest.

[WatchHockeyPlz]

I have to watch this again...with everyday that passes since I saw it, the better it seems to get...The only thing I would've liked to see them do is develop Faromir's(sp) character more...Everything else was awesome.

[leinad]

guess i'm gonna be the exception here then, i thought this film (and its predecessor) were mediocre at best. they were at time annoyingly sentimental, i found the charcaters almost impossible to relate to, certainly to like, and it was far too long (yeh i know the book was huge but i still thought it was overlong to the point of being boring). oh, and boromir died? i must have missed that, guess i was asleep.

[blibblobblib]

I actually think my bum rotted away while i watching this film. It seemed to go on forever. Normallly long films i can deal with but this one did seem a lot longer than FOTR.
I think that maybe it was just the enviroment i was watching it in. A massive hot, stuffy cinema with posture destroying chairs and everyone so packed together there are knife attacks going on over who should have the arm rest. Films as long and as in depth as The two Towers should have an interval of at least 5 minutes i think. What do u think?
When i watch this at home i should imagine i will enjoy it a lot more. The first half was brilliant, with the superb opening scene and some truly scary bits with Gollum and Frodo walking across that swamp. but the middle of the film just seemed to drag on. It focused a lot more on Arragon and the battle and i just found my self becoming bored. however, the last hour did make up for it mostly and those Tree dudes (cant remember their names) were awsome. But i would have to say Gollum made the film for me...
My precioussssss....

[filmfreak]

I heard that the Scouring Of The Shire wasn't in the film at all Vyse, something about it being extra to the story and that the 'flashback' in the first film being all that will be shown of it. To be honest, to me it seemed tacked on at the end in the book as well. I know what it was saying but it just seemed "extra." If it means I get half an hour extra of the battle scenes at the end then i'm all for it. I know some of the hardcore Tolkien enthusiasts will baulk at the idea of this but they are film adaptations not exact retellings. I do hope that Sam gets to be a ringbearer though as I thought that it was quite important to the story.

The reason that the film ended when it did is that in the last two books Sam and Frodo don't actually have a lot to do. What they do get up to could be told in rather a small amount of screen time. Most of the fifth and sixth book is concentrated on Aragorn side of the story and the differing adventures of Merry and Pippin. As Frodo, and the ring, is the main emphasis of the story they needed to be in it more. Hence Shelob and the encounter with the Orcs has been put back into the third film. The thing is its one story told in three parts so its not as if its not going to be in there at all.

Gollum was fantastic and I believe that PJ (and his team!) should get some recognition from the Academy for this great achievement. Not with a best supporting actor gong as i have heard some people call for but with some sort of Special Recognition award as the combination of CG and actor driven performance was fantastic and streets ahead of anything we've seen previously. Gollum also looked scarily like Andy Serkis too!

I know some people have taken exception the Aragon going missing but the people who I went with, having not read the books, thought that he was dead and his reappearance worked very well for them. PJ has to appeal to people who havent read the book as well.

I havent heard any annoyance at the portrayal of the March Of The Ents, something that isnt really covered in a lot of detail in the books, only in flashback. This was something that PJ put in extra to the book. This was done extremely well and was dealt with a lot better on screen than in the original text. So before people start moaning about this scene and that being in the film or a certain chapter not being in the film be grateful for this scene!

I though TTT was excellent, although it did drag a bit during the first half although having read the books I did understand why. There was a lot of story that needed to be told to get the characters where they needed to be. Didnt stop me going back for more the next day though. Roll on next xmas!

[susan]

i actually thought that this one was much better than the fotr, despite the liberties pj took with this movie....gollum was excellent as was the battle of helm's deep...

oh and in answer to linespalsy's question about the ralph bakshi's version, i enjoyed it as well...

[Caitlyn]

Gollum/Smeagol was just incredible... :eek:... and I totally agree film freak, PJ and his team should get some kind of special recognition award for him…

FOTR started developing the characters but TTT let us see inside… I loved the Ents and all the one-liners.... :D

[moviefan20]

This movie was long, i mean we had an intermission.
It was all worth it though. It was better than the first movie
PRECIOUS!:eek:

[blibblobblib]

At my uni cinema we have an intermission. I asked what everyone else though about havin an interval in this film but i was ignored :( When i went to see it i didnt have one and i nearley died.
I think Its a wicked idea coz you can pee (or poo) and top up on the snacks, plus battle that deep vein thrombosis by strecthin ya legs a little.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by blibblobblib
I think Its a wicked idea coz you can pee (or poo) and top up on the snacks, plus battle that deep vein thrombosis by strecthin ya legs a little.

ROFL er, I mean...YECH!!!

[Fugitive]

Originally posted by blibblobblib
At my uni cinema we have an intermission. I asked what everyone else though about havin an interval in this film but i was ignored :( When i went to see it i didnt have one and i nearley died.
I think Its a wicked idea coz you can pee (or poo) and top up on the snacks, plus battle that deep vein thrombosis by strecthin ya legs a little.

:laugh: Well, I guess if you don't get a break inbetween...

I for one, enjoyed TTT more than FOTR and didn't feel the length of time as much. Gollum/Smeagal was awesome. I have read the book (WAY back in high school) and don't care about the liberties that were taken. The only scene I would've left out in TTT would've been the dream. Overall, great.

[MyRobotSuit]

I love the LOTR and will guard it's radiance to the day I die.

Those who do not appreciate any part of it should be locked inside a mechanical donkey and forced to live on carrots presented by small children at community fairs.

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Vyse
Right, lets get this straight before I begin. I LOVE film. Film is my life. Film, art, and film as art. I loved FoTR.

It seems that in most cases, the audience going to see TTT had made up their minds before actually going to see the film. People wanted to love TTT, and understandably, my own opinion is that people are looking to re-create the experience surrounding certain "classic" movies when they were younger (not forgetting how high the original film raised the bar). So I'll begin *takes deep breath*

The fake Aragorn death sequence/Warg attack felt totally out of place to me, tacked on, interrupting the flow of the film. Jackson's continual portrayal of characters supposedly falling to their doom is growing a little tired already, and it is as if he were influenced by huge musical number in the middle of Big Idea’s Jonah, and decided the God of second chances rules over Middle-Earth also.

I keep hearing talk of the film requiring an extra hour, this is non-sense, the film could easily have been 45mins shorter, in fact this may have been beneficial in its current state. The climax took way to look to reach, the characters continually moving around the key issues, seemingly forever was taken before any sort of decisive action was reached (there are other ways to portray arduous decision making on film, opposed to Peter Jackson's method, dragging out the story).

Actually, the amount of material left out of TTT suggests to me that several crucial parts of the book will not make it into RoTK. The scouring of the shire for one, this imo being one of the most important parts of the story, showing how evil can exist in even the smallest of entities.

Faramir was also heavily short changed in this film (Faramir was one of Tolkien's most respected characters; for his nobility and courage ... everything that saw in Boromoir and not him). In this adaptation he appears as some sub-Boromir, simply letting Frodo go as he has a bit of a scare with the Nazgul! He should've been presented as the anti-Boromir, a wise strong warrior with an understanding of the corruption of the ring.

Other things I didn't like; I loved the Ents, yes, however Treebeard felt too focused, taking Merrry and Pippin to see Gandalf. What!? Sam and Frodo's story was well done, although I still don't think Sam was given justice. He's such a strong and important character, and I don't believe such a light was cast on him (perhaps the only indicator being the "Samwise the Brave" moment). Although I believe Frodo's "change," corruption by the ring, has been shown perfectly. The Legolas shield-slide just felt wrong, as did the fact that during the Rohirrim encounter he rode a horse with a saddle! Gandalf's exorcism (?) of Theoden didn't sit right with me, the fact that there was a bar room style brawl taking place in the background felt, wrong (I've been saying that a lot, lol). I also wish Arwen would stay on her spot, as in the books, instead of getting a role boost just because she's Liv Tyler.

Yes, Helm's Deep is indeed one of the best battle I've seen on film, comparable even to such classic works as Akira Kurosawa's Ran. TTT's appeal is more in the sense of a visual epic than a narrative one I believe ...

I wait patiently for the SEV, as although this film is fundamentally flawed, it is still part of a landmark cinematic project, and I did want to LOVE it, lol. It left an empty feeling with me at the end. Visually it is stunning, and performances by the actors great, however for me it just felt ... disjointed. Alot of the sequences, as individual set peices were stunning I admit, but it just didn't *feel* like it worked for me, as a picture overall. I've only seen it once, so my opinion my sway on repeat viewings.

Thanks for saving me having to type all that out using different words that meant the same thing.

[The Silver Bullet]

I agree. I liked it. I might have even loved it. It just doesn't sit right with me. My major problem was that so little time was spent with Sam/Frodo/Gollum and the Ring while so much time was spent with Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas. The story is about the Ring and its destruction, and yet Aragorn is becomming the star. I too have only seen it once, and need to see it again.

I really did enjoy it. Just not.

Make sense?

[LordSlaytan]

It totally makes sense to me Bullet. I also had the argument about Farimir, he was much more honorable in the book. It's funny, in the movie when Frodo & Co. are at Gondor, Sam says, "We're not even supposed to be here". In the book, they never are, I just thought that was cute.

[The Silver Bullet]

At least Jackson is aware of it.

:D

[Sullivan]

Oh, Jackson is still definitely master of his craft....but he seems to be forced into making some very tough choices about the inclusion and arrangement of all the source material. Understandably, his final cut is not going to work well for everyone.

It was worth seeing. Just not the masterpiece FOTR was.

[blove23]

This movie was one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life. It was very enjoyable. My girlfriend, who knows nothing about any of the Lord of the Rings books and/or movies, enjoyed this movie. She does not like any movies like this at all, but ended up enjoying it although there were parts where she did not understand. She knew I really wanted to go, so we went and I just had this feeling she would hate it. She ended up enjoying it and saying it was one of the best movies she had ever seen. That's even against the likes of her previous favorites such as The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood or A Walk to Remember. I was deeply suprised.

[filmfreak]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
I agree. I liked it. I might have even loved it. It just doesn't sit right with me. My major problem was that so little time was spent with Sam/Frodo/Gollum and the Ring while so much time was spent with Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas. The story is about the Ring and its destruction, and yet Aragorn is becomming the star. I too have only seen it once, and need to see it again.


The reason for the emphasis on the Aragorn side of the story is that there is very little for Frodo/Sam to do in the last 2 books. Therefore PJ moved and condensed a lot of their storyline, such as Shelob, from books 3 and 4 into the last film. Also a significant part of their appearances in these books are just travelling which would make for a very boring film!

If he had filmed them as they appear in the books Frodo and Sam would have hardly appeared in the Return Of The King until the end. As I said earlier they are meant to be 3 parts of one story so judge them when you can sit down and watch them all together.

Unfortunately for you as the third film is called The Return Of The KING I guess we may be seeing quite a lot of Aragorn in that one too!;)

[Naisy]

Plain and simple, i watched it, i loved it, i agree with exactly what Matt said.

[The Silver Bullet]

...so judge them when you can sit down and watch them all together.

No. I think I'll be judging them now, thanks all the same. I still said I loved it. But I own't judge until all three are made? What the Hell? I can't love the film for another year people. Or something.

And in regards to Frodo and Sam having little to do in the second and third books, that is simply rubbish. Much of the Faramir story was simply forgotten about so more time could be spent with Aragorn and the others. And in the third book there is a lot that takes place on the borders of Morder with Frodo/Sam/Gollum and a whole cave of orcs. It is when Sam really shines. If any less than an hour and a half is spent with Frodo and Sam in Return of the King I think it will be a major let down for Tolkien fans.

Not to say that the movies aren't brilliant pieces of cinema.

[Aniko]

I'll try and make this short and sweet. I really liked it. Since I haven't read the books, I have no complaints on how the characters were treated. It's interesting to read some of your comments.

The biggest difference between the Two Towers and the Fellowship of the Ring for me was that that first movie was much more visually stimulating. The art work was incredible...I remember feeling exhausted by the end of the first movie. As LordSlaytan and Caitlyn already mentioned...and I agree...the Two Towers developed the characters more, which I enjoyed. So...I liked the Two Towers just as much as FotR, only for different reasons.

Gollum was increadible. As some of you mentioned, I hope this character is somehow recognized by the academy.

Unlike some of you...I didn't have a problem with how much screen time Aragorn was given. Perhaps PJ was appealing to the women in the audience. :D ;)

[Ramos]

Overall, the movie was great. Gollum was spectacular, as was Gimli. I could handle them throwing in elves at Helm's Deep and killing off Haldir, but they unnecessarily REAMED :frustrated: :furious: Faramir's character, and it was simply stupid not to leave us hanging at the end whether Frodo was alive or not. Other than that, they did a good job, but the things that were wrong ruled this out for my favorite movie of 2002, whereas the first one took that spot without a doubt last year.

[shrek]

It was one of the best movie over 3 hours long.:)

[Beale the Rippe]

Shrek.....I have to disagree with you there. There are about four or five movies I'd put before LOTR as the best movie over three hours.

I thought this film was very well done. They can't fit everything in a movie adaptation of a huge book, but Jackson did a great job.

The ending was probobly changed in order to fit as much coolness into the third one, (in the hopes of it getting best pic), and to not take away from the huge intense battle at the end. It had a slightly darker feel to it as well. Kind of like in The Empire Strikes back,(although no where near as dark or contrasting).

Great film! Keep up the good work Jackson!

And on the animated Lord of the Rings...I really disliked that movie. The animation annoyed me. It was like real footage, but in cartoon color. I cannot describe it really, but I found it annoying. As far as the other Animated films go, I loved the Hobbit, and the Return of the King. I really liked the way Gollum looked. Very cool.:D

[greppin]

I know my views on this will probably be disliked.. But I didn't really like the second LOTR, I thought the first one was excellent and well driven but I actually felt like sleeping during the secound one it's made me relise they could have made one 3-3.5 hour movie on the whole thing. LOTR:TT seemed to be waisting time to make it as long as the first one. The whole love story was way overdone and at times I thought I was gonna cough....... BUt still the war scenes at the end were worth sittin though that mindless drivil for.

[The Crow]

this movie was awesome.golum should get best actor:D

[moviefan20]

I watched the first lord of the rings and was lost, but i went to the movie theater and was totally into the second one. The graphic effects are awesome.

[Jozie]

Honey Babes --
I can't remember if I ever posted, so if i'm doing it again . . . sorry. Just had to say that I thought the changes were good acomodation to necessity. I thought the way gollum had two of him talking made his character much, much clearer than it might have been if they had done it a different way.
And of course I'm mad about Aragorn & always will be.
BUT I was disappointed in the Ents. They looked fine, but somehow . . . they weren't venerable enough. (what! that's a perfectly good word & just what I mean.) I always thought the ents were kind of, well, saintly. And Treebeard was too -- too light somehow. Maybe they should have used subsonics to enhance his voice or something. They were good, but the just sort of disappointed me.
The way Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli ran across the landscape was excellent.
And the dead marshes were just right.
so --hey -- who's perfect anyway. Not me.
(well, not yet anyway)
Love & kisses,
Jozie

[fossil]

Originally posted by Goblin Warlord
Oh my god, what has he done to the story,

there are seans thet never happend in the books

events get mixed into one (why to save money)

the effects were all that carried the movie not the story

sorry it sucked


i have been a fan for most of my 34 yrs but this is not what i dreamed:furious: :mad: :frustrated: :furious: :mad: :frustrated:

I couldn't agree with you more GW. What made this especially disappointing was the fact that although they omitted a large segment of the 1st Book (Fellowship) they stayed right on cue with the story as written. I was pleasantly surprised and completely thrilled with the 1st movie and couldn't wait for the second. What a dissapointment (sp?).

Yea, Towers was more than an OK movie by "movie" standards but a huge let-down for Tolkein fans I think.

I did think the Gollum story line was excellent though and did capture the true essence of what Tolkein wrote with that story line.

[fossil]

Originally posted by Jozie
Honey Babes --

Honey Babes? Cute, I like that Sweet Thang!

I can't remember if I ever posted, so if i'm doing it again . . . sorry. Just had to say that I thought the changes were good acomodation to necessity.

I disagree. I believe Jackson had his own vision and took too much creative license changing the story instead of accomodating restraints to bring it to screen. I mean, look what he did with the first one, it was awesome how close he stayed to the book.

I thought the way gollum had two of him talking made his character much, much clearer than it might have been if they had done it a different way.

Ditto there Sweet Thang!

BUT I was disappointed in the Ents. They looked fine, but somehow . . . they weren't venerable enough. (what! that's a perfectly good word & just what I mean.) I always thought the ents were kind of, well, saintly. And Treebeard was too -- too light somehow. Maybe they should have used subsonics to enhance his voice or something. They were good, but the just sort of disappointed me.

Couldn't agree with you more. The Ents were primordial/elemental as if somehow related to Tom Bombadil and the forest surrounding Tookland, before and beyond the population fo the world by the other races. They were above the petty squabbles of these children (young races), but did need to take a hand when one of the wizards (a race apart from the children) who had no excuse for not knowing better meddled in Ent affairs to their detriment. I thought they were played as shallow instead of . . .

What did you say?

Oh, Yeah! Venerable! Exactly!!!

Right word, right inflection.

Sweet Thang! ;)

[Jozie]

Mmmm. So nice that we're in agreement. Yes, Ents and Tom Bombadillo, citizens of the ancient world. Exactly!
Love & Kisses,
Jozie
(& You're a sweet thang yourself, even if you are a fossil!)