Holy Wars: The Two Towers
	found on Salon written by BrotherMcKenzie, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 19 Dec 10:52pm
		The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a glorious, visceral mess. - Slate's David Edelstein "Mirroring modern political crises, The Two Towers debuted Wednesday to generally favorable reviews." The user whose name is ' ' writes, "Having seen the movie and being a huge fan of the books I can only say - Wow! The story stays generally true to the book, the special effects are amazing, and characters like Gollum (incredibly acted by Andy Serkis and CGI) and Treebeard (played by John Rhys-Davies, doing double duty as Gimli and Treebeard) really bring to life Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth. The film's epic sweep, classic good vs. evil storyline and great casting, acting, and directing make it an instant classic." Link provided by BrotherMcKenzie.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 128 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Great movie   by Pravda       at Thu 19 Dec 11:15pm score of 1.5     but what's the story here? Or is it just a nerd-circle-jerk? Oh hell, lemme stir up some controversy: 1. I cringed every time Sam and Frodo came on screen. The cutting between them and everyone else made the movie seem a bit choppy. 2. Gollum's (or Smegal or any other yiddish sounding name that you want) soliloquy was painful. It was drawn out and played for laughs, which it shouldn't have been. I think they watched Geri's Game a little too much. Other than those admittedly minor quibbles, the movie rocked. Perhaps the first time I've seen a movie that was far and away better than the book. How about that Aragorn? Gets human AND elf lovin... Seen in the subQ: "For once I have to +Pravda. Scary. - Anonymouse Savant"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: Great movie   by StofCircumstance       at Fri 20 Dec 12:13am score of 2.5 succinct   in reply to comment 1     I have to disagree with you on Gollum/Smeagol. The book does a wonderful job of getting across the point that Gollum is torn between his addiction to the ring and his newfound desire to regain his lost personality. The book does most of this through narrative description and some "thought-bubble" work. The movie had a difficult task trying to portray this inner struggle. As it is a visual medium, they went with the conventions of that medium. Hence, the different expressions, voices, and body mechanics. It's incredibly difficult to show schizophrenia and multiple personalities without actually showing them. To that end, I think Peter Jackson and Co., did a great job with the character. I only wish they had done such a good job with Legolas' CGI movements. Those were just plain sloppy. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Great movie   by grimbil       at Fri 20 Dec 9:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I would disagree with you on Gollum too...although watching a movie in NYC, you're bound to get people with inappropriate reactions. Some people were laughing during Gollum's soliloquy, but I found his performance very very disturbing and well done. From simple facial expressions you could tell the difference between Gollum and Smegal...some people found his facial expressions funny, but I thought they perfectly expressed his anguish and conflicting personalities. He's a hobbit stripped down and corrupted to his core...almost like a small child or dog, and I thought they played it off very well. I would say he needs to be considered for an oscar nomination, too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   129.  Re: Great movie   by quacksalve       at Mon 23 Dec 2:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Couldn't agree more. I found the giggling inappropriate, during such a painful struggle between two sides of an anguished character. I didn't think it was funny or intended to be. I think people must be somehow primed to laugh automatically at computer-generated non-humans nowadays (thank you, Pixar). His looks and acting were spot on and nothing about them made me want to laugh. So there. Other than that, I thought this was a wonderful film. I'm always petrified every time a new character is introduced -- that they're going to ruin it! -- but am amazed that all the casting and acting is completely in line with my highest hopes. I can't believe it's been so consistently excellent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   131.  Re: Great movie   by Twirlip of the Mists       at Mon 23 Dec 8:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     (Um. First comment here. Nobody flame me, okay?) I had a slightly different experience. Now, note that I've never read any of the books. I'm going to give them a try now, but they were just never my cup of tea. So I had no idea what the story was all about except for a few basic plot points. When Gollum first started doing his monologue, I laughed. I thought it was a little joke, and it was great, a real tension-breaker. But after about two or three lines, I realized what was going on. Suddenly Gollum's inner motivation revealed itself, and instead of being funny, it was sad. I don't think laughter at that scene is at all inappropriate. I think it's totally the right reaction at first, and only a few seconds later does it start to die down and the gravity of the scene begins to sink in. And, of course, it's right up there with the best CGI character animation I've ever seen.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   139.  Re: Great movie   by DeaconDoWrong       at Thu 2 Jan 9:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 131     Why don't you shut the hell up, Twirlip! No, just kidding. I agree that it's appropriate to laugh. I mean, we're talking about some little creature making crazy faces and talking to itself. Judgeing from some of the earlier comments you'd think it was like people laughing during Schindler's List. As for it being inappropriate to laugh at suffering in general- pretty much ALL humor is based on pain or suffering of some sort.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Great movie   by Tessera       at Fri 20 Dec 10:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Played for laughs? Come on. There were enough throwaway comic-relief scenes that spoiled the flow of the movie, you don't need to pick on Gollum. (Yes, we understand. Dwarves are short. Yes, they're also not tall. And can't run very fast. And have short legs. And have beards. Haha what a funny dwarf. THANK YOU PETER JACKSON.) But I personally thought that Gollum stole every scene he was in...the animation was spot on and you can see the character of the actor bleeding through...not because they caricature real mannerisms, a la Toy Story. Gollum looked and acted like a real person. A frighteningly twisted and deformed person, yes, but you could see the humanity shining through. You can sit there and think "He was once a normal person...imagine what must have happened to him to reduce him to this sniveling pitiable wretch." And that is exactly what you should feel; it's necessary for the development of the relationship between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, (and Smeagol) and establishes foreshadowing that I never expected Peter Jackson to pull off. I mean, it's hard enough to illustrate schizophrenia or multiple personalities in film with a real actor. Few directors have ever done it convincingly. To pull it off with a computer-animated character is one of the greatest accomplishments of special effects I've ever seen. (To say nothing of the rest of the movie. Weta just made their reputations as possibly the best special-effects house in the world; I don't think they'll have any trouble getting work ever again.) Also, an Oscar for Andy Serkis, please. That's all I want for Christmas.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: Great movie   by Ixbalanque       at Fri 20 Dec 1:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Righto! Gollum was a beautiful CGI, and the character development was well adapted for the big screen. When I discussed this with some friends the other night, one of them remarked pithily "Gollum was everything that Jar Jar should have been." To which another friend shot back, "No, Jar Jar should have been dead". Thank you Peter Jackson. I cringe to think what this movie might have been in someone else's hands. Military justice is to justice what military music is to music - Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Great movie   by sketerpot       at Fri 20 Dec 7:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 80     It might be good to point out to anyone who doesn't already know that unlike Jar Jar, we will actually get to see Gollum falling into a deep pit into the Cracks of Doom in Mount Orodruin. Gollum is everything that Jar Jar should have been.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   134.  Re: Gollum/Smeagol   by mrjeff3000       at Tue 24 Dec 6:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I had heard they were going to go with a CGI Gollum. I'm glad to see that they went with a live actor without too much makeup -- Willem Dafoe was spectacular as Gollum.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  .38 caliber   by TheJazzPen       at Thu 19 Dec 11:26pm score of 1.5 compelling     Not to be -1 irrelevant, but how in the name of Sauron's cheese wheel did a story with this rating get through the subQ? I've seen .6 and higher stories get boinked for no reason at all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

75.  Re: .38 caliber   by nme!       at Fri 20 Dec 12:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Here. This may give some insight into the nature of the impatience that seemed to accompany this submission (and all the others). -nme! Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Dwarf Tossing   by mischief       at Thu 19 Dec 11:35pm score of 1.5 succinct     The first few short jokes were funny (kinda) but by the time Gimli was stuck behind a rampart, they were getting very old. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Re: Dwarf Tossing   by jjonahjameson       at Fri 20 Dec 10:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     I agree totally. While the "I've got two!" - "I've got seventeen!" bit was the funniest part of the movie, enough with Gimli as the comic relief! I'm not sticking up for dwarves, but why is it necessary to have any semblance of humour in these incredibly violent and desperate scenes? Is Jackson concerned that the audience tension cannot sustain a buildup until true relief comes? Does he think that kids will cry and adults will go into arrest if we don't laugh right in the middle of the carnage?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Dwarf Tossing   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 10:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     The "I've got two!" - "I've got seventeen!" interaction was taken directly from the novel. In the book, at the war on helms deep, Gimli and Legolas get into a little competition on who is the "luckiest" or "best" warrior of the two. My guess is Tolkien used it both as a bit of comic relief in grim moments, and as a way of developing the subplot of the special friendship growing between Legolas and Gimli. On Middle Earth, deep, abiding friendships between Dwarves and Elves are very rare, another subplot of the books Peter Jackson decided to mostly ignore. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: Dwarf Tossing   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 1:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     why is it necessary to have any semblance of humour in these incredibly violent and desperate scenes? Because that is actually torn straight from reality. Battlefield humor is one of the greatest morale builders and motivators that military leaders have at their disposal when in the thick of it. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Dwarf Tossing   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 11:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 51     Agree the counting was very much a part of TTT the book. Agree that Elves and Dwarves don't get along. Disagree that Jackson is mostly ignoring it. Its obvious this side story can't be a central part of the story - that's why its a side story. But they (PJ) started with the clear animosity at the council and have developed things pretty naturally as the course of the story goes. Sadly it is born out even better in the extended version of FOTR, particularly Gimli's fall for Galadriel. These are just the sort of touches I really enjoy in the movies. SPOILER Great example was when Aragorn threw Gimli into the Uruk Hai and Gimli asked him "Just don't tell the elf." Was sad to see that Gimli did take on the sole role of comedy effect. But honestly the two (elf/dwarf) had very little to do in TTT the book. Here they were both given a lot more to do then just follow Aragorn.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: Dwarf Tossing   by Twirlip of the Mists       at Mon 23 Dec 8:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     My girlfriend and I saw the movie in a half-full cinema at 11:00 in the morning on a weekday-- she's a surgeon working nights right now and I'm presently unemployed, so it was a good time for both of us-- and I was the only one who cracked up when Gimli said, "Toss me." Maybe it's because I had only recently watched the long version with Jackson's commentary on and got to hear all about how dwarf tossing is a real "sport" and how they threw the "Nobody tosses a dwarf" line in there as a reference to it, but it really tickled my funny bone. But even more than the joke itself, I loved the tight continuity between the movies.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by 6percent       at Thu 19 Dec 11:39pm score of 2 obnoxious     The movie is good . . . in fact, I would go so far as to say that it's great. It is a remarkable spectacle, and it's a lot of fun. But they changed more than they left the same, and that really bothers me for this reason: some asshole screenwriter in Hollywood had the audacity to suppose that his grand plan for the story was better that one of the best books of the twentieth century. And many of the changes simply didn't need to be made to keep the story entertaining of movie quality: - Pippen telling off treebeard was just fucking wrong. - Faramir is supposed to be the opposite of his brother, not the same jackass in a different body. The way they portrayed him in the movie did a major disservice to the character. - Gollum needs to be explicitly wretched, not some cuddly little creature my girlfriend thought was cute. - Elrond as a jealous dad? Aragorn telling him off? Arwyn heading off for the havens? Oh, hell, where do I begin . . . I understand making some changes to translate the story to a movie screen, but these were just plain unnecessary - anybody who thinks this was an improvement on the books, well, let's just say that I don't think they really understood the books all too well. Or read very much. Or something, I don't know. Having said that, the movie still kicked ass as a stand alone piece of entertainment. sixpercent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 1:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     You are my psychic twin. In my opinion, your review is perfect. Thank you. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 5:16am score of 1.5   in reply to comment 5     I despised the books when I read them almost 30 years ago, and I have forgotten almost all of the major plot points, let alone the secondary characters. That said, I believe Jackson's motive for Faramir was to further the notion that humans can only wreak evil when they possess an artifact of great power. Given that so much has to be hacked from each book to get a 3 hour running time, the writers had to take liberties with such minor characters to present the overall themes. In this second installment, the ring barely got any screen time as it is, and this alteration of Faramir was the only reinforcement as to why it should be destroyed. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by 6percent       at Fri 20 Dec 8:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     I can see what you are saying, that perhaps Jackson's vision was to show the simpleton / evil nature of humans with the character Faramir. But this is an entirely grim outlook on humans that is neither a) one of the major subtexts of the original book, or b) a fair representation of humans. I understand that you haven't read the book in several decades, and that you didn't like it much when you did (really?). As such, I would be happy to tell you that Faramir's character in the text showed reflection, depth, intelligence and remarkable wisdom. He was the antithesis to his brother, Boromir . . . brains to Boromir's braun. His decision to let the ring go on to Mordor is one that shows humans as capable of complex, rational thought, and ultimately helps set the stage for the true conflict: wisdom versus might, NOT humans versus all the smart folks trying to keep them out of trouble. Here's why his treatment of Faramir upsets me so much: 1. It wouldn't have been hard to be true to the story line. 2. People who hadn't read the book probably wouldn't have noticed much difference. 3. Real fans of the book would have been much, much happier. Just my two cents . . . NOTE: this is not aimed at you, mischief. Before anybody gets all snarky and posts, "Fair representation of humans? In a movie with talking trees and elfs?", piss off. Even fantasy stories can teach us great moral lessons, and this particular book has taught more people than most books combined. This thread is about the movie, and by association about LOTR in general . . . if you don't care to discuss it, go to a different thread. sixpercent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 9:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Faramir's character in the text showed reflection, depth, intelligence and remarkable wisdom. I don't doubt that, and your description is apt enough that I remember a bit of the duality Tolkien expressed between Faramir and Boromir. Jackson's liberty with the characterization of Faramir props up the underlying evil of the story for the non-fans, but as you say, at the expense of the fans. As a fan of other stories that were butchered on the way to the screen, I sympathize yet at the same time, I envy the LOTR fans for the overall grand production they are receiving in spite of such small alterations. As an aside, my major issue with the books was Tolkien's writing style and his use of wide swaths of purely descriptive text that did little or nothing to further the plot or the themes. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by 6percent       at Fri 20 Dec 9:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     You make several great points. As a fan, I suppose I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, considering the truly epic scope of this telling of the story. As to your aside, were you fairly young when you read the books 30 years ago? I don't need to know the answer, of course . . . I only ask because as I have aged (only just under 30 now), I have found the once laborious descriptive portions of the book remarkably entertaining. Too many authors, IMHO, focus so much on essential plot that they fail to fully create the rest of the environment their characters live in. You are certainly welcome to your own preferences, please don't get me wrong. It's just that my own experience has shown me that a more mature reading of the book, combined with a little patience, exposed it for it's true majesty, even when he's talking about how damn rocky the random hills to the north of the party are. For what my experience is worth, of course . . . sixpercent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by tomaxxamot       at Fri 20 Dec 10:35am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 24     He was the antithesis to his brother, Boromir . . . brains to Boromir's braun. His decision to let the ring go on to Mordor is one that shows humans as capable of complex, rational thought, and ultimately helps set the stage for the true conflict: wisdom versus might, NOT humans versus all the smart folks trying to keep them out of trouble I wasn't happy with the alterations to Faramir's character either, but I don't think they advance a "humans are inherently corrupt" thesis, since we still have Aragorn, who's definitely as human as Boromir or Faramir, resisting the ring and sending Frodo off with his blessings. If anything, the message would be that humans from Gondor are inherently corrupt, which I'd still disagree with, but is a statement of a far more limited magnitude. As far as why Faramir was changed, my anecdotal geek information from one of the Tolkien message boards is that Faramir will play a far larger role in the third film, and that Jackson doesn't want to screw up RotK's pacing by essentially introducing a new character that late in the game. By expanding Faramir's role in The Two Towers, Jackson avoid this, and also manages to give the Frodo, Sam and Gollum subplot more screen time. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 1:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     I was a junior at Penn State majoring in German Lit when I read the trilogy, and this was one of the arguments that always raised the ire of my professors. German Lit is notorious for its description for description's sake, much like LOTR. While the imagined vistas are grand and artistic, far too often the underlying prose is stodgy and convoluted, rather than flowing. My argument is that these sections can and should be written to be read swiftly using techniques like cadence, internal rhyme structures and even the occasional alliteration. In this way the image builds much like the exposure given by a slide projector rather than piecemeal like a jigsaw puzzle with the box cover missing. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by dangerous richard       at Fri 20 Dec 10:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     i love you and i want to have your babies look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by Teaflax       at Fri 20 Dec 10:11am score of 1.5   in reply to comment 5     Anyone who sees Tolkien's works as sacrosanct and as "one of the best books of the 20th century", well... I can't help but wonder if that person has done much reading, other than "genre literature". The first movie was a major improvement on the first book, primarily because the simplistic good vs. evil plot is so one-dimensional that it works best in an action movie, and because the world-building can be done visually, instead of in turgid exposition. Sure, the trilogy was a bit of a revelation to read at 13, and it was obviously influential enough to kick off an entire genre, but its flaws are manifold and seen only as literature - judged on the criteria one normally uses for books that are a notch above John Grisham and his ilk - it really holds up very badly, even in the Fantasy genre. Groundbreaking doesn't always mean great. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  This is a common response.   by 6percent       at Fri 20 Dec 10:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     It seems to be in the vein of coffee house discussions by uber-intellectuals. It's so boring, there's not enough action, there are talking trees, he spends too much time describing bushes . . . Few authors in any genre have had the tenacity to create an entire universe. And you know what? A lot of shit happens in the universe that isn't exciting - Tolkien's description of unexciting shit shouldn't condem his books to mediocrity. This story may be fun for a 13 year old, but at that age the reader would miss so much as to make the books seem damn near awful. If that was the last time you read them, you should give them another chance. LOTR isn't the greatest book of all time, but it goes without saying that it is one of the greats of the twentieth century. Any attempt to say otherwise is just so much snobbery. And by the way, I should say that I read a lot. In fact, the only fantasy books on my shelf are Tolkien, Douglas Adams, and Le Morte D'Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory. Right now, I'm reading Anna Karenina by Tolstoy . . . and while I can't fucking stand how slow the story is, I can understand why it is such an important work. Even if it's a 1939 translation that makes me want to scream every time I pick it up. sixpercent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Let's Have 'Em   by mrpoopyface       at Fri 20 Dec 11:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     It took till I was out of college but I'm finally starting to really enjoy reading. So let's have some titles. What would you recommend for a not-quite avid reader who loved Lord of the Rings to expand his horizons? We've got provisions, and lots of beer. The key word is survival on the new frontier. --Donald Fagen   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: This is a common response.   by curve06       at Fri 20 Dec 11:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     Even if it's a 1939 translation that makes me want to scream every time I pick it up. if you hate it so much, why are you reading it? so that you can tell people you read it? whoop de doo. If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: This is a common response.   by Teaflax       at Fri 20 Dec 11:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     Few authors in any genre have had the tenacity to create an entire universe. It's pretty much standard in Fantasy and very common in Sci-Fi. Some pretty fully realized universes that are less one-dimensional than Middle Earth are for instance Leiber's Nehwon, Wolfe's Urth or the old Chaosium RPG setting of Glorantha. LeGuin's Earthsea might not be a more detailed world, but the stories are much more entertaining. The list of universes more believeable, more morally ambiguous and just plain more interesting than Tolkien's would be a long, long one. A lot of shit happens in the universe that isn't exciting That doesn't mean that if I write about a character drinking a glass of water that I have to explain the chemical composition of water and glass, plus give you a treatise on the water-distribution system that brought it from the mountains all the way to his tap. But if i do chose to do it, it is my obligation as a writer to make it somehow entertaining (I am reminded of Nicholson Baker's The Mezzanine, which is all about minutiae, but manages to be a great read). you should give them another chance I read them again about ten years ago at 25, and that's when I was stunned to find them boring, with wooden characters powered by odd motivations placed in a world that only holds together because no one pushes against its fabric. the only fantasy books on my shelf are Tolkien, Douglas Adams, and Le Morte D'Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory Well, then. Maybe you haven't seen how much better it can be done. Or maybe you have. Hey, tastes differ. I just found your "can't have read much" statement to be a bit odd, because among my friends the really big Tolkien heads have read precious little more challenging than Stephen King. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by My name is Mudd       at Fri 20 Dec 1:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     What would you recommend for a not-quite avid reader who loved Lord of the Rings to expand his horizons? IMHO: Nine Princes in Amber - Zelazny Empire of the East* - Saberhagen Dune - Herbert Neverwhere - Gaiman The Book of the New Sun - Wolfe *Even though parts (i.e. the first third) are achingly bad. Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 1:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     Everything by David Zindell, especially his new fantasy series starting with Lightstone. The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle. Much of A. A. Attanasio, especially his Grail series. Storm Constantine's Wraeththu series starting with The Enchantments of Flesh and Spirit. There's the short list. Only the first two are in the classic style, but the last two are worth checking out for depth of character and landscape development, and for naturalist and metaphysical relatedness to Tolkien's work. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by grimbil       at Fri 20 Dec 2:03pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 68     Try picking up the Dragonlance Chronicles (dragons of autumn twilight is the first) by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman if you want some good ol fashioned fantasy. Also try the Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks, The Belgariad by David Eddings (Pawn of Prophecy is the first), and The Eye of the World by Robert Jordan. All are great fantasy reads, some of them at more challenging levels of reading than others, but all GREAT stories. If you want to try some science fiction, check out Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. I read that book literally cover to cover the first time I picked it up. He's also got a great historical fantasy series beginning with The Seventh Son. Hope this helps!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: This is a common response.   by hilker       at Fri 20 Dec 3:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 71     That doesn't mean that if I write about a character drinking a glass of water that I have to explain the chemical composition of water and glass, plus give you a treatise on the water-distribution system that brought it from the mountains all the way to his tap. Funny you should use this example – Joyce does just this in the “Ithaca” chapter of Ulysses.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 4:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 84     Seriously are we breathing Dragonlance and Tolkien in the same paragraph? And Brook's Shannara is nothing more than the biggest theft of Tolkien ever perpetrated. Every character in Shannara is a rip from LOTR. I do like the Amber Chronicles by Zelazny and the Sword Books by Saberhagen. They definitely aren't high literature but they are good yarns...and they don't have such clear parallel's to the grandpa Tolkien.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Don't want to start a fight...   by stogie       at Fri 20 Dec 6:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 84     With you grimbil, but out of your list, I only found Card and Robert Jordan's books at all tolerable. But hey, don't stop enjoying them on my account. To anyone just getting into scifi/fantasy, I'd reccommend anything by Tim Powers, particularly Last Call, The Drawing of the Dark, and The Anubis Gates, if you can find them. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by mightygodking       at Fri 20 Dec 9:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 84     Man, you've just listed off the core of hack mass-market fantasy right there - you've got Terry "ran out of ideas a decade ago and can't hide the fact" Brooks, David "writes the same story every damn book and writes every character the same way and hopes good wisecracks will make up for it" Eddings, Robert "still introducing new characters in BOOK TEN" Jordan, and the Dragonlance Chronicles in case people needed Dungeons and Dragons fiction handy. I mean, they're fun (crap, but fun) and all, but to someone who specifically enjoyed Tolkien, the only one who's fairly similar in writing style and scope is Jordan (and maybe the very early Brooks). Stuff like George R.R. Martin's current work in A Song of Ice and Fire is more akin to what Tolkien did. It's not just a government any more!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: This is a common response.   by dgraham       at Fri 20 Dec 10:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 91     so... Another reason not to read Ulysses. Christ, just because Joyce was a genius and a brilliant writer doesn't mean that because he wrote something no one understands that it must be inherently brilliant.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: This is a common response.   by Tycho       at Fri 20 Dec 10:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 71     It's pretty much standard in Fantasy and very common in Sci-Fi. Some pretty fully realized universes that are less one-dimensional than Middle Earth are for instance Leiber's Nehwon, Wolfe's Urth or the old Chaosium RPG setting of Glorantha. LeGuin's Earthsea might not be a more detailed world, but the stories are much more entertaining. The list of universes more believeable, more morally ambiguous and just plain more interesting than Tolkien's would be a long, long one. I am beginning to wonder what, exactly, you think is a "fully realized universe." Each of the bookworlds you mention are nothing more than elaborations and alterations of Tolkein's base material, and if they are more proficient storytellers, it is only because Tolkein did the groundwork for them, establishing the shape and texture of their derivative efforts. The entire derivative fantasy genre(other than, perhaps, Robert Jordan's uneven Wheel of Time series and M.A.R. Barker's Tekumel) is just this side of being copyright violation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: This is a common response.   by Teaflax       at Sat 21 Dec 12:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 103     Wolfe's Urth is set something like 25.000 years (or more?) into the future and contains technology-as-magic, alien races, mutations, implants and all sorts of things not even dreamt of in the Tolkien cosmogony. Leiber's Nehwon is fairly close to Tolkien's Middle Earth in some very superficial ways, but the entire underlying tone and focus on less-than-epic adventure in a world more bustling and ultimately static makes it essentially different (and arguably much more of a template for the style of Fantasy fostered by D&D, and later built upon by many, many other writers). Glorantha is just plain weird and in flux, with the real and the non-real side by side. It does, like most RPG settings, steal some races and other ideas from Tolkien, but puts them into very different contexts. I'll almost give you Earthsea, but it's been ages since I read those books, and I seem to remember them being set in a more sparsely populated world with far less high magic and fantastic beasties. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Good alternatives to Tolkien   by RobNJ       at Sat 21 Dec 6:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 101     The strongest thing Tolkien has going for him (besides the nice-sounding words he created) is the world-building thing. The problem is that he leaves too much of that world unexplained. You're left sometimes reading sentences where you can't identify any of the nouns either directly or by context (Inflated example, "It reminded Frodo of the Grinblacklack of Findangle which Blooalbie brought from Plinkplink."). A certain amount of not-knowing-everything is good because it gives a sense of a breathing world, but Tolkien's failing in this regard is that he does it too often, and gives too little context to follow anything. George R. R. Martin's Songs of Fire and Ice is my vote for a fantasy series that's superior to Tolkien. The characters are some of the most vibrant I've ever read and you get the sense of a full world. You don't know everything out front, but there's enough to work with.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by Minister of Inferior       at Sat 21 Dec 8:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 68     Most replies to your inquiry so far recommend fantasy works. Although this undoubtedly has worked for others, it never worked very well for me. Tolkien's epos is just so much greater than anything else produced in modern time I felt let down whatever I tried (although I somewhat enjoyed Donaldson's trilogies at a younger age). I suggest going back to old fables and mythology. The Eddas, the old epic poems of Greece (like Ulysses and The Illiad), Beowulf etc. Those were the inspirations for Tolkien, and in my opinion those kind of works are the only ones that measure up. This is not intellectual snobbery, it is my honest opinion. And recalling that people once took them to be true - that they were originally not regarded as stories, but as history - gives reading yet another dimension. someone you trust is one of us   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by Tessera       at Sun 22 Dec 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     Agreed on every point. In my experience, there are two types of people who like Tolkien. There are people who are very literate, have probably read Joyce, Dostoevsky, and Fitzgerald, (to pick three random "literary" authors) and like Lord of the Rings...well, not in spite of its fantasy elements - but that's not what they came for. It's "lighter" reading for them. Then there are the people who read hacks like Brooks and Eddings and rehashes like Jordan and Goodkind. (You might be able to tell I'm not so fond of them.) They still like Lord of the Rings, (hell, who doesn't?) but think of it as "too wordy" and wish he would get to the point. At least, that's the dichotomy I've seen among my friends. It's on the light side of some people's collections, and the heavier side of the others'. My point, tortured as it may be, is that although I personally disdain Brooks, Eddings, et al., that doesn't mean that everyone will hate them. If you're a fan of lighter fantasy but never really got into Anna Karenina, you may well enjoy them. And more power to you. Note: my personal vote for the best non-Tolkien fantasy out there has to be A Song of Ice and Fire, by George R.R. Martin. If you've never really liked fantasy, this would be my recommendation for anyone looking to get into the genre.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by hawkestein       at Sun 22 Dec 1:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 95     Why is it such blasphemy to prefer Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance to Tolkien? Personally, I find Tolkien's stuff ponderous, and the characters distant, foreign, and one-dimensional, to the point that I didn't really care much what happened to them when I was reading the book. On the other hand, I loved the Dragonlance Chronics and Legends. As a teen, I read "Time of the Twins" quicker than any other book, compared to the years(!) it took me to work my way through Fellowship of the Ring. I'm not going to suggest that Dragonlance is "literature" or anything, but I found it a much more enjoyable read. I just prefer quicker-moving plots and characters I can actually relate to.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   126.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by RobNJ       at Mon 23 Dec 8:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 122     Note: my personal vote for the best non-Tolkien fantasy out there has to be A Song of Ice and Fire, by George R.R. Martin. If you've never really liked fantasy, this would be my recommendation for anyone looking to get into the genre. Amen, my brutha (or sista). Martin does things fantasy authors (including Tolkien) seem to have never even dreamed of: present psychologically real characters in a thoroughly unreal world.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   127.  How about Wolfe?   by profpeach       at Mon 23 Dec 1:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 126     Definitely SF but I think it could satisfy someone who liked the fully created world feeling of Tolkien, Gene Wolfe's Chronicle of the New Sun. But I do not recommend the Long Sun series. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   133.  Re: This is a common response.   by Twirlip of the Mists       at Mon 23 Dec 8:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     if you hate it so much, why are you reading it? I think it was Mark Twain who said, "A classic is a book that everyone wants to have read."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Re: Let's Have 'Em   by SerpentSkirt       at Fri 27 Dec 1:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     I second Book of the New Sun, and also the epilogue Urth of the New Sun. Wolfe also wrote an interesting book of short stories called Book of Days, I believe. I'd also suggest Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels and Dan Simmons' Hyperion series. A personal favorite that does not have the epic scope of the above is Steven Brust's Brokedown Palace. And Garth Nix's Sabriel and Lirael are interesting light reading. Your recommendation yardstick is this: I don't care for Robert Jordan, Melanie Rawn, blank of Shannara, any of the Perth books, etc. My guilty pleasures are David Weber's Honor Harrington books, and anything by Lois McMaster Bujold. Check out the free library at www.baen.com. -SS   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  I respectfully disagree   by BrotherMcKenzie       at Fri 20 Dec 10:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     I do agree that this film was a "remarkable spectacle", but I think that Jackson should be given credit and praise for making it such. I read a lot. And I completely understood Tolkien's books. But, at the risk of committing blasphemy, I think Jackson's movies are better than Tolkien's books. At the risk of being pilloried (and suffer severe karma injuries), I'll go one step further. I believe that Jackson is a better filmmaker than Tolkien was an author. Tolkien's work, while sprawling, and, at times, quite entertaining, is flawed. When it's good, it's absolutely breathtaking. When it's bad, it's dry as a saltine. And, let's face it, Tolkien will never be known for his wide body of fiction. Tokien's entire life-work revolves around Middle Earth. Admirable, to be certain, but not exactly diverse. Jackson, on the other hand, has made masterful films in many genres. "Dead Alive" is a great horror film. "Heavenly Creatures" is a great drama. "Meet the Feebles" is a brilliant comedy. "The Frighteners", while perhaps a bit of a misstep, is still a solidly entertaining movie. I had the opposite reaction of most posters here when I saw "Two Towers". I found that the slowest parts of the film were the ones where Jackson was being faithful to the book. The best parts, in my opinion, occurred when he built on things the books never mentioned or only hinted at (Frodo seeing Gollum as the only creature who could truly relate to what he was going through was a brilliant character device, and something Tolkien neglected to touch on). Pippen didn't exactly tell Treebeard off. He was making an impassioned plea. The Ents are peaceful creatures unless tampered with. It made sense to me that they would need to see proof of danger before committing to war. The changes to Farimir weren't exactly a betrayal of the character. In the end, he does the right thing. Jackson was trying to convey that the Ring can corrupt those that are good at heart. He's trying to reinforce the idea of just how dangerous the Ring is (and just how alone Frodo is) by showing us how easily it can corrupt the mind of even the pure. Gollum is meant to be wretched, but we're also supposed to feel pity for him. I thought this duality of character was conveyed brilliantly. If your girlfriend thinks he's cute, she has strange taste in men ;) The Elrond/Arwyn subplot is perhaps the biggest "Hollywoodization" piece of the film. I agree that it's unnecessary to the plot, but when a studio has committed $300 million to a film, they're gonna want a romance angle. My suspicion is that this is a concession to the studio, and I really didn't find it all that intrusive. For what it is, it's handled pretty well, in my opinion. I'm glad you enjoyed it, even if you didn't like the changes. There are a lot of folks who are ready to find a long tree and a short rope for Jackson daring to do what he felt was necessary to convert the tomes of Tolkien into a faithful and commercially viable film. I can't wait to see what he does for the "Return of the King"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Wait a minute   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 11:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Second reference has to be corrected. Merry told off Treebeard. Pippin conned Treebeard into going towards Isengard thus revealing Saruman's damage to the Forest. There.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: I respectfully disagree   by 6percent       at Fri 20 Dec 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     I respect your post, and think that we may have to just agree to disagree on the movies being an improvement to the books. Having said that, I would like to question you on your statement that Jackson is a better director than Tolkien was a writer. I understand what you are saying: Jackson's body of work is both broad and excellent, while Tolkien's centers around one theme that can be excellent at times (and perhaps dry at others). What would you consider to be the defining characteristic of a great writer? A broad spectrum of work? I could argue just as easily that Tolkien's creation of 10k years of history, of which LOTR is but a snippet, shows development well beyond the abilities of most modern authors. Many of the greatest writers of all time only had one or two meaningful pieces of work to contribute to society. Furthermore, is it important that a writer might not be as great as an individual piece of his work? Dante's only widely remembered contribution to literature, outside of fine arts majors in liberal arts colleges, is the Divine Comedy. Limited scope as an author, and a painful work to read at times . . . but terribly important nonetheless. For the record, I'm not one of those nutjobs that thinks Tolkien is the greatest writer to ever live. Quite obviously he is not. These are just curious questions, nothing more. sixpercent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: I respectfully disagree   by Genady       at Fri 20 Dec 11:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 59     What would you consider to be the defining characteristic of a great writer? A broad spectrum of work? Them's fighting words! (Don't worry we're fighting on the same side). If a broad spectrum of work defines a good writer then you leave out my favorite writer. Harper Lee. I think that Tolkien is in the same class as Lee in a major work is good kinda way, Harper could just get to the point easier than Tolkien. -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: I respectfully disagree   by BrotherMcKenzie       at Fri 20 Dec 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     I didn't mean to imply Tolkien wasn't a great writer. He most definitely was. He has single-handedly created a mythology that seems as real and relevant as anything created by the Greeks and Romans. And for those who think writing fantasy is easy - it ain't. All one needs to do is read one of Tolkien's imitators (and there's certainly no shortage of them) to see how far off the mark they fall. It's been almost 70 years since Tolkien began his work, and nobody's been able to top him since. But I do think Jackson is more nuanced at his craft than Tolkien was. I think that Jackson paints with a broader brush. Tolkien can certainly force a reader to fire all eight cylinders of his/her imagination (if that reader's imagination is a V8 :), and can truly grant said reader a sense of wonder. But Jackson can also do this - he can also scare you, make you cry, gross you out, make you laugh, make you think and do it visually (and, in my humble opinion, with greater impact) with the same sense of wonder that Tolkien did on the page. This may be a strawman argument. After all - Jackson has a wider body of work than Tolkien, covering more aspects of the human condition. And, when you get right down to it, I guess I could be comparing apples and oranges. Tolkien wanted to write a chronicle of Middle Earth. He managed to include some excitement and astute observations about the human condition while doing so. Jackson wants to entertain us - and, while he's at it, film a chronicle of Middle Earth. They're two different animals of the same species. I prefer Jackson. But by no means does that mean that I consider Tolkien a hack. Far from it. I think the genius of the two men compliment each other quite well. I'm just happy that we now have two accounts of Middle Earth to enjoy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Here's what pisses me off about your retentiveness   by VootGuy       at Fri 20 Dec 11:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     What bait... I'm sure you have a list all ready regarding how much was the same and what was different. I read the books multiple times over my life, and the movie has the books' feel almost dead on. Give Jackson a break. Tolkein wrote a book, not a screenplay. anybody who thinks this was an improvement on the books, well, let's just say that I don't think they really understood the books all too well. Is it supposed to be an improvement? The way they portrayed him in the movie did a major disservice to the character. Faramir eventually let the hobbits go, after realizing the error of his ways, too. So I don't know what you're bitching about there. He's a man though, and the point was that men are sorely tempted by the power of the ring. He didn't make his brother's mistake Peter Jackson will be the first to tell you that these movies aren't meant to replace the books. They're an interpretation, an adaptation. Give him a break, relax a bit, and you'll probably enjoy the movies more and live longer. You're right, the movies do kick ass as stand alone entertainment... which is all they were meant to be. This isn't "J.R.R. Tolkein Presents: The Lord of the Rings". This is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: Here's what pisses me off with this movie.   by gensym       at Sun 22 Dec 6:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     You get pissed off about a movie? And a very good one at that... Here's what pisses me off: war with Iraq, SUVs threatening the lives of people I love every day, the potential extinction of the freedoms for which the USA was founded. Not movies -- esp. blockbuster-type films. They're fucking entertainment, and LOTR: TTT was far more entertaining than most.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  My What the heck was that about part   by IamaplasticSquid       at Fri 20 Dec 12:53am score of 1     Spoiler Warning: Like everyone so far I liked the movie and am anxious to see the conclusion. My biggest what the heck was that about point was was Aragorn's fake death scene. Coming after the brilliantly shot warg battle I just can't figure out what they were trying to do with that scene. It goes on for quite a bit and seems to go nowhere. We got the Arwen loves him bit earlier, this just seemed to be a story stretcher with no real point at all. And yeah, Faramir was robbed. It seems that Peter Jackson's take on humans is more jaded than old JRRTs was. Plastic Squid, Toy Box 2 (The Big Clear Plastic One with the Blocks and Stuff)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: My What the heck was that about part   by garymilner       at Fri 20 Dec 2:37am score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 7     Spoiler warning? The entire movie has been spoiled by the fact a series of books were written about it almost 50 years ago. Find out more at Gary Milner's Weblog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: My What the heck was that about part   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 3:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     TA! DA! My two best friends and I were at the film bright and early Wednesday. J hasn't read the books, and E has read them a few times, but has severe memory loss. During the post-viewing discussion over lunch, I kept feeling like I was creating spoilers for my buddies, J because he hasn't yet really experieced Tolkien's Cosmos, and E because he couldn't remember much of the Cosmos anyway. Actually reflected very appropriate addition to a wonderful yet challenging viewing experience. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: My What the heck was that about part   by the_hat       at Fri 20 Dec 12:39pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     Regarding Aragorn's near-death experience: I haven't seen any official explanation of this, but my best guess is that the filmmakers were trying to make a visual statement about the differences between Isildur and Aragorn. As shown in the film's prologue, after cutting the Ring from Sauron's hand, Isildur rode north to the Gladden Fields (IIRC), was ambushed by orcs, ran from the battle, jumped in the water, and was slain. Aragorn, on the other hand, was ambushed by orcs, fought bravely, fell in the water, and yet lived. The first film showed us how much Aragorn feared making the same mistakes as his ancestor. The second film is showing us that (just as Arwen said), Aragorn is not identical to Isildur, and he is not bound to the same fate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: My What the heck was that about part   by gameCoder       at Fri 20 Dec 4:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 73     If I had mod points I'd mod you up. That is a very insightful interpretation, and I think I will choose to believe that rather that continue to be annoyed that it was in there for no apparent reason. Thanks. Master Shake: "Oh you think you're the expert? Lets see how much your ass knows about flyin'!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A Bronze   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 1:18am score of 1 obnoxious     As with many fx rich movies, the special effects alone are more than worth the price of admission. The opening scene of the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog was priceless, especially that long distance shot of the intertwined pair falling to the core of the earth like a star from heaven. Many of us in the audience probably felt this one colossal, poignant and humane scene was setting the tone for the whole film. Unfortunately from there, the film went from humane to unfocused, poignant to maudlin and colossal to absurd. The only deeply developed, and the most authentic character was the CGI creature, Gollum. He was an almost perfect representation of Tolkien's complex little monster. The beings of Middle Earth were all too often stripped of the dignity and depth of character portrayed by the author. The human and other mortal characters in Tolkien's stories, in spite of their failings, are profoundly heroic - unless they are utterly evil. The immortal characters, such as Elves and Ents, border on Divine. Faramir for example was a complete disappointment. Instead of being portrayed as elvish, magical and even more heroic than his failed, but redemed brother Boromir, he started and ended in the film as low, confused and cunning. The character of Gimli was consistently burdened with rancid little short person jokes. Finally, the Ents, instead of being revealed as the oldest and wisest creatures in Middle Earth, were portrayed as senile old savages, weak willed and complacent rather than unfathomably deep and long suffering. Additionally, nothing would have suffered to cut: 5-15 minutes of battle scenes, that wholly contrived abduction of Frodo to Osgiliath, as well as a few minutes of the interesting, but overlong Arwen and Elrond interactions. This would have left plenty of time to develop the Entmoot, and the characters of the Huorns, thus completing an essential naturist and metaphysical subplot in the Battle at Helm's Deep. Afterwards, I got the feeling Peter Jackson was trying far to hard to relate the film to modern people and present times. Instead of portraying his characters as humans rising to circumstances as heros, he often ended up showing them as accidental good guys, bemused by the demands of the moment. He made only passing reference to the evils of industry, and rarely if ever developed the magical naturalist views that are the other consistant subplots at the core of Tolkien's work. This may have gained him a few million extra dollars, and a couple extra franchises, but it gutted the core messages of Tolkien's vision. Not all went poorly, and characters did occasionally rise to the occasion. My feelings about the characterizations of Legolas, Frodo and Gandalf are mixed, but generally positive. All in all, it was an interesting, even a great film; but it lives less and less in the spirit of the Lord of the Rings, and more and more as a modern telling, with little plot, and lots of blood. Though he did a passable job in The Fellowship of the Ring, and nearly failed in The Two Towers, perhaps we will get lucky and he will succeed gloriously in the finale. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by mrwarmth       at Fri 20 Dec 10:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     I have not seen The Two Towers yet (it's my Christmas Eve date), but, given what you've said, I can offer a clue as to why the alterations you name have been made. What puts Tolkien's work far above the level of most of its imitators is that it is not inherently moralistic. It is obviously quite preoccupied with questions of absolute good and evil, but it is actually quite sophisticated about what human actions serve the good or the evil. Tolkien emphasizes again and again that the greatest evil is done out of the desire to do good, and vice versa. As a result of this conviction, many of Tolkien's characters are morally ambiguous with respect to their actions. And I think it is this ambiguity at the level of character that Jackson has excised, though keeping it at the level of ideology. Audiences today want clear, unadulterated heroes and villains. Someone like, say, Faramir, is difficult to accommodate in that scheme. The book does not potray him as evil; on the contrary, he is portrayed as quite noble. However, the book does play throughout the Faramir scenes with the doubt about whether, for all his nobility, he might turn out to be another Boromir. Because, in Tolkien's world, good people can always find good reasons to do the wrong thing. I think this is just too sophisticated for modern teenage audiences, which is why Jackson has simplified things by just making Faramir a bad guy, because doing so heightens the tension and drama of the scenes and doesn't introduce any troubling ambiguities. I predict as the trilogy progresses, Frodo will more and more accrue all virtue and goodness to himself, and the characters around him will grow less and less morally ambiguous. At least that's my feeling now. Perhaps I'll see things differently once I see the movie. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 11:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     Bottom line on all this Faramir bitching is that PJ has to have a little more threat from Faramir and then a release - for dramatic reasons. But, nothing he did was wrong. In the book Faramir did have an element of whether he should let these strange hobbits go on. And he did damn near order the death of Gollum. And he could have taken the ring...but did not proving he was not his brother Boromir. In the movie he is not a bad guy, he's just a little closer to his brother in that he expresses the desire to take the ring to aid his father. Instead he learns the criticality of the device - the effect of the Nazgul's attention moreso then Sam's impassioned speech compels it. In ROTK we will no doubt see regret from Faramir (even though he did what was ultimately right) - especially when his Dad Denethor, who already played favorites with Boromir gets wind of it. In any case Niall while I agree with much that you have to say I think you should see the movie before making conjectures.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 1:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 62     In ROTK we will no doubt see regret from Faramir Since 6% raised the issue of Faramir, I have been wondering if he will even play a role in the ROTK movie. How big a role did he play in the third book? "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 1:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 82     "How big a role did [Faramir] play in the third book" Largely symbolic but huge. He was the heir of the Stewardship of Gondor, and had to pass the administration of Gondor off the the new King, Aragorn. It was also the healing powers of the New King saving Faramir's (and others) lives that helped confirm Aragorn's Kingship to the people. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 2:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     the healing powers of the New King saving Faramir's (and others) lives Hmm, that's a fairly large plot device to ignore. I wonder if people who only know the movies will remember Faramir well enough to make the point stick. I am already having trouble picturing the actor and I saw the movie yesterday. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Faramir's role (spoiler)   by profpeach       at Fri 20 Dec 2:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     His near death also catalyzes his father's madness and shows how Sauron has reached even into Gondor.   There's also some nice subplot with the guard of the tower, his kid, and (I think) Pippen. I can't remember which hobbit stayed with the Rohan and who went to Gondor. The spell check is not a Tolkien fan. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: Faramir's role (spoiler)   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 2:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     Pippen peeked at the Palantir, and thus had to ride with Gandalf to Gondor. The hobbit in Gondor made friends with the guard, and his son. (P for peek, Pippen and Palantir.) Merry stayed behind with Theoden, and thus helped kill the Lord of the Ringwraiths when Rohan got to Gondor. You can remember it was Merry by default, or think M (for Merry) is the reverse of W (for wraith.) In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: Faramir's role (spoiler)   by profpeach       at Fri 20 Dec 2:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 88     Thanks for the mnemonic, not that I'll remember this either (end of the semester) I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by ozymandius       at Fri 20 Dec 3:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     Doesn't Farimir also end up with Eowyn? I seem to remember them getting fresh in the Houses of Healing. -Ozy needed: a "+obnoxious" moderation option   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by tomaxxamot       at Fri 20 Dec 10:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     nothing would have suffered to cut: 5-15 minutes of battle scenes, that wholly contrived abduction of Frodo to Osgiliath, as well as a few minutes of the interesting, but overlong Arwen and Elrond interactions. This would have left plenty of time to develop the Entmoot, and the characters of the Huorns, thus completing an essential naturist and metaphysical subplot in the Battle at Helm's Deep Which is why we have collector's edition DVD's. I felt the same way after leaving Fellowship - that as much as I enjoyed it, some of the action sequences could have been stripped out of Moria in order to give us more screen time in Lothlorien (specifically showing things like the gift giving scene and Gimli's infatuation with Galadriel). Unfortunately, the hard core Tolkien fans aren't what makes or breaks the movies at the box office, and New Line encourages cuts that favor action over characterization. I'd imagine that around November of 2003 we'll get a collector's edition of The Two Towers comparable to the one available for Fellowship now. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 11:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     I haven't bought the collectors edition of The Fellowship of the Ring yet, but I'm glad to hear it has the gift giving scene in it. (Too bad there will be no Scouring of the Shire for Sam to use his gift, or maybe that will be in the extendeds as well...) Do you think this is the last addition to come out? I hate getting multiple DVDs, especially collector's editions. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by tomaxxamot       at Fri 20 Dec 11:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 64     Do you think this is the last addition to come out? I hate getting multiple DVDs, especially collector's editions. I'd imagine it's the last edition of Fellowship yes, but if multiple DVDs bother you, I'm fairly certain we'll get a boxed set of the collector's editions for all three some time after Return of the King is released. If you're patient, you might want to wait til then, but for me, 2004 would be way too far off to own the films. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Forgiveness is Golden; Can Only Give This A   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 4:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 64     Well you will be disappointed. Having seen the Extended version (several times now - its beautiful). Sam's only gift is the elven rope. No seed or dirt for the Shire. Sorry   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by harzerkatze       at Fri 20 Dec 2:21am score of 1.5 astute     Ok, I just have to add that the scene where Legolas snowboards down the wall to shoot orcs was just plain UNFORGIVABLE!!! Worst moment of the movie! I could live with the "walking on chain" scene in part one and really likes his horse jump trick with the wargs. It's ok to show that elves are a little different and thus can do things humans can't. But this scene totally sucked. Question authority. Don't ask why. Just do it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 2:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     This was no doubt the most patently stupid "worst moment," but Pippen tricking Treebeard into fighting the war against Isengard was the most unforgivable worst moment. Your's was the second most unforgivable moment, and Faramir at first refusing to let Frodo go off with the ring was the third most unforgivable. Each of these were unforgivable because they broke the flow of the movie for fans, and they were the most blatantly contrived moments in the film. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by Dop       at Fri 20 Dec 4:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     I just have to add that the scene where Legolas snowboards down the wall to shoot orcs was just plain UNFORGIVABLE!!! I loved that bit!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by Conrad Bombora       at Fri 20 Dec 5:58am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 11     I think its funny that you can let go of your disbelief for orks, trolls, wizards, giant walking trees, but have a problem with a stunt that is physically possible to do. Think about it? It is technically possible to slide down a set of stairs on a shield while firing a bow. Your aim would no doubt suck but hell it could happen. now fighting orks trolls wizards and giant walking trees... haha you could only do that on lsd "Must be nice to hope for the thing you wish to want... Sure beats doing it." Strangers with Candy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by ericdb1       at Fri 20 Dec 10:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     I think its funny that you can let go of your disbelief for orks, trolls, wizards, giant walking trees, but have a problem with a stunt that is physically possible to do. I won't speak for harzerkatze, but I think what's problematic with this bit is that it so blatantly wreaks of a Tony Hawk video game. It was shtick clearly meant for a modern audience.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by Tessera       at Fri 20 Dec 10:18am score of 1.5   in reply to comment 36     EXACTLY. Come on, you've got a story that positively reeks of majesty - and you spoil it with a throwaway gag designed to appeal to the teenagers who just came to the movie because their friends did? (Admission: I'm a teenager too, but I'm also a huge fan of the books. Have been for over a decade.) Things like that spoiled the movie far more than Aragorn's death, the scenes with Arwen and Elrond, Faramir, etc. did. Those just deviated from the books; the shield-boarding distracted from the entire world you just tried so hard to create.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by Normal_Guy       at Fri 20 Dec 9:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Three scenes that stick out for me in their sheer humor/flow-stoppage: 1)The shieldboarding. Stated above. 2)The scene where Legolas sort of reverse-vaults onto the back of Aragorn's horse in the first third of the film. Elven physics-bending at work. 3)The olympic torchbearer for the bomb at Helm's Deep. Though I must say that the film as a whole rocked as an extension of the story. The story was progressed in an altogether entertaining way, and they left some of the best shit for number three. 007 373 5963 - Punchout!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Elves ain't no boardpunks...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 11:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     2)The scene where Legolas sort of reverse-vaults onto the back of Aragorn's horse in the first third of the film. Elven physics-bending at work. I loved that part, one of my favorites. The crowd clapped. I nearly wet myself - damn supersize coke. Elves don't obey fucking physics. Hell ya.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  No, they wipe the floor with 'em   by freerange       at Fri 20 Dec 12:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Hey, man, just from the movies you can tell Elves are their own pretty special thing. In the first film, you understand that Legolas never misses. Now you get to see him shoot people in the face from far away, while riding horses, or while sliding down stairs on a shield. It's pretty fun to imagine doing that, feel how unbelievably hard it is, and then realize that Elves can do it all the time. Suspend knee jerk associations to things you hate, forget what movies Liv Tyler and Hugo Weaving were in before, and enjoy the things that are possible in LOTR's (fantasy) world.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  Re: No, they wipe the floor with 'em   by stevetherobot       at Mon 23 Dec 6:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 74     And don't forget the scene in FOTR where everybody is struggling through deep drifts of snow and Legolas comes strolling along on top of the snow. Which, by the way, is from the books.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  bad...   by ppilot       at Fri 20 Dec 5:57am score of 0.5 obnoxious     I seem to be almost alone in this, but I hated the movie. Just hated it, was bored, had a hard time staying awake. Everyone's covered the reasons already, Aragorn's 'death', Gimli's bad table manners and comic relief, Faramir, Legolas on the surfboard, Saruman's expulsion from Theoden, etc. etc. etc. All style, no substance at all. I left thinking that the third movie would be really good, with Shelob and Mordor and everything together, but you know what? I don't think it will be anymore, and this is why. When I've read the third book (I haven't read it in many years) I've always been surprised at how quickly the climax comes. I think there's a couple hundred pages left after the ring is destroyed. I can't imagine they'll climax the movie in the middle, I think the ring will go in, and then there'll be 5 minutes to wrap up and make a happy ending. But to me, the books did not have a happy ending, they were about loss, personified in Frodo. It'll be a happily ever after ending, and it will be very, very bad. My prediction anyway. Affordable private air charter- www.WisconsinAirTravelNetwork.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Re: bad...   by Jeff The Unhip       at Fri 20 Dec 7:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     It'll be a happily ever after ending, and it will be very, very bad. One of the cast members (Elijah Wood, IIRC) has said this won't be the case; I remember him saying people would be surprised by all the tragedy in the third film.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: bad...   by TheHaas       at Fri 20 Dec 8:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     I think there's a couple hundred pages left after the ring is destroyed. I can't imagine they'll climax the movie in the middle, Interestingly enough, I've never considered the destruction of the ring the climax of the last book (or the series). To me, the climax fixing the mess in the Shire after the hobbits return. It seems like that part isn't a big deal, but the theme of whole series is keeping the world from evil, and the Shire was never in more danger than when Saruman came to town. And that should be the climax of the next movie. My family is dysfunctional and my parents won't empower me. Consequently I'm not self actualized. -- Calvin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: bad...   by Tessera       at Fri 20 Dec 9:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     And the Scouring of the Shire has been confirmed to be missing from the movie. I agree, that was the real climax of the series. And it's not in there. I'll get the extended DVD, but come on. That's just unforgivable.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: bad...   by SerpentSkirt       at Fri 20 Dec 9:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     I agree, and I think the Shire get its due. If they were going to climax with the destruction of the ring rather than the aftermath, they would not have spent nearly as much time in the Shire and with Shirefolk in FoTR. The films so far have paid careful attention to consequences -- consequences to Gandalf, to elves, of elves not lending a hand, to the shire, to humans, even with execrable bits like the Arwen stuff. I think perhaps one of the reason they screwed up Faramir was to emphasize the theme of consequences. I hope he gets to be himself in the next installment. I adore Fellowship. Two Towers is a fine movie and I'll see it again, but I don't love it like I love the first one. Of course, I can barely force myself to read TT, so I guess it's to be expected. -SS   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: bad...   by Azathoth       at Fri 20 Dec 9:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Noooooooooooooooooo............... We need our hobbit heroes doing hobbit-scale acts of heroism! Absufuckinecessary! We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: bad...   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 11:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Yeah, at first I thought it was strange Jackson left out the two confrontations with Saruman and with Shelob which lead to the climaxes in the The Two Towers. Then I remembered Scouring of the Shire will be missing from Return of the King, and it made a certain amount of sense. Nonsense, bad sense, but sense nonetheless. The Scouring on the Shire better be on the extended DVD though, or I'm going to call a fatwa down on Jackson! (Just kidding Manwe.) In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: bad...   by chengjih       at Fri 20 Dec 11:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 54     The confrontation with Shelob will be at the beginning of the RotK movie. It's a given, what with Gollum saying he was leading them to "her". Not sure what they're doing with Saruman. There might be a confrontation with him at the beginning of the next film, but I'm not so sure; he could simply have slipped out of Orthanc during the flooding. On the other hand, if the Scourging of the Shire is left out, what does he have left to do after slipping out? The reasoning for putting Shelob in RotK was that TTT just ended on a big, climatic battle. Having two climaxes doesn't quite make film sense. Tolkien avoided this by dividing each of the volumes of LotR into two books, so he could have a climax in the middle at the end of the odd numbered book, and again at the end of the volume. With the intercutting between the two books that they had to do in the movie, the two climaxes were problematic. Of course, if they worked so hard do avoid the dual climaxes in TTT, how is RotK going to play out? There's the Battle of Pelenor and the slaying of the Witch King, followed by a few weeks of sitting around and talking, and ending with the battle at the Black Gate and the eagles. Then there's the destruction of the Ring. I suppose there's enough separation between the slaying of the Witch King and the destruction of the Ring to give the movie a good pace. Of course, no Scourging of the Shire. Oh, regarding Aragorn's near death in the TT movie, what does this mean for his journey on the Paths of the Dead? He's already "died" and been resurrected (in water no less), which is part of the mythical function of the Paths of the Dead. Will there be a company of Dunedain from the North bearing the standard of Elendil, given that there's been no notion of Dunedain in the movie? I had speculated that Arwen -- now a warrior princess in the movies -- would ride down with the Rangers and give him the standard in person, but I have my doubts about this now. Oh, my uber-geek-totally-distracted-by-the-book-while-watching-the-movie mind noted that Faramir's tunic had the tree of Gondor on it, and above it were stars. That's wrong.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  On A Hunch . . .   by uncarved block       at Sat 21 Dec 9:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     Aragorn will triumph over the Paths of the Dead (assuming Jackson leaves that in-- or is it referenced? I haven't seen TT yet) precisely because he's already 'conquered' death. The advantage, of course, is that the whole North vs South Kingdom split doesn't have to enter the plot too much. Even in the books, the whole story felt a little tacked on, kind of an "oh by the way" story.       This way, IMHO, huge swaths of the Stewards subplot can be concentrated into a single are-you-worthy-to-be-king line: Denethor, looking at this scruffy warrior, will seem justified asking if he's royalty, a twist that should fly really well with an American audience. Now if he asks Aragorn to tame the Burning Blade, well, that just might be going too far . . .       Also on a hunch, the Scouring will take place, but simply as an open slavery vs freedom dilemma-- little folks being oppressed by big folks, until Merry and Pippin (who've been shown learning how to fight, remember?) come back and kick some ass. Tolkien's civilized socialism, if even capable of being transferred to the screen, would doubtless turn off modern audiences who grew up on Rambo and Arnold. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Devotion to the book   by Nagash       at Fri 20 Dec 8:31am score of 2.5 interesting     I read The Two Towers in one day during my vacation in the summer, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thus, the book was relatively fresh in my mind when I saw the film. I went with a group of eleven people, most of whom had read the books some time ago. The two of us who had read it recently found the changes from the book to be distracting. Our expectations from the book got in the way of enjoying some of the film (these are the parts that most everyone is complaining about). However, those who didn't really remember the details of the books absolutely loved it. This makes me wonder how much the source (and devotion to it) has clouded the judgement of those rating the movie. Looking back on The Two Towers, I keep thinking: What's the deal with the Aragon "near death" scene? Why was Faramir done in the manner he was? etc. While watching the film, these parts distracted me because I spent too much time trying to fit them within the context of the book rather than the film. Nonetheless, I think the book distraction is a legitimate criticism of the film, since the book is so widely known. Having said all that, I still very much enjoyed The Two Towers and will go to see it again so that I can look at is a movie and not a book translation. Woz   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: Devotion to the book   by mischief       at Fri 20 Dec 9:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     In reading your comment, I was reminded of The Shining. I utterly hated what Kubrick did, but as years passed, I was able to divorce the film from the book, and now it is one of my top 10 favorite movies. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Devotion to the book   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 11:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I believe you're right and you're wrong. To some degree, Jacksons alterations create their own meaningful plot line. In his Fellowship of the Ring, I forgave and even somewhat encouraged the changes he made around Arwen; better developing a strong female lead character was perhaps necessary to balance the film. But he went to far in The Two Towers. Strider's near death scene developed Arwen, but Pippin's telling off of Treebeard, and Faramir's betrayal ripped the heart out of the film. And they were contrived and unnecessary, in my opinion. Obviously, I'm a forgiving fan, with my views of the first movie. I understood the need there. But most alterations done to the plot of the second film were terrible. But it's still a Great Film standing on its own merits, you are very right about this. Upon my next viewing, I will attempt to take this attitude. Better than again kvetching for days. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Fan Movies   by uncarved block       at Fri 20 Dec 9:40am score of 1     I was struck, reading the Slate review, at the fine line Jackson had to walk making the trilogy. It starts with something missing: namely, the synopsis of Fellowship. Jackson understood quite well that five years from now, the average viewer of these films isn't going to care where the film cuts today-- Fellowship is already two DVDs long, so changing discs is already and issue, and this way, VHS viewers (if they still exist in a decade) will save time fast forwarding. Thanks to last years crowds, and the fan base, the screen release was guaranteed to make money, which leaves only a few film critics to kvetch about the missing bit.       Well, as the hostility to the spelling shows all too much, film critics were never going to get behind the project anyway, so what did Jackson lose?       I haven't seen the movie yet, merely a whole mess of hype, but I must admit that if it's all battles, well, so was a lot of Two Towers anyway, at least the part not about Frodo and Sam. From the Rohan slaughter of the Orcs on, it's all either fighting or getting ready to fight-- Gandalf returns to wake Theoden, the Ents are introduced and shortly after march off to war, etc.       I've already given up on any 'purity' in these films, so I guess I'll have to see how the changes play out. If viewers are left wondering why Aragorn doesn't choose Eowyn (who looks really, really hot, BTW)-- well, readers have been wondering that for decades already. It sounds like Gimli becomes one walking short joke, but since Jackson has already stripped every other race but the humans (and Frodo) of depth, what's left of the original character to put on screen?       Oh, and if Legolas boarding down the stairs is the worst action moment of the movie, it's at least a minute shorter than that moronic bit on the collapsing bridge in Moria-- they sacrificed three more minutes in Rivendell for *that*? Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Best Supporting CGI Actor Goes To . . .   by beelerspace       at Fri 20 Dec 10:07am score of 1     One thing that I found terribly interesting about TT and, more specifically, people's reaction to TT was their love for Gollum as a character. Indeed, if one didn't know better, they'd think that the split personality soliloquy was a blatant attempt at an Oscar. Likewise, Lucasarts had no problem conceding the star of Episode 2 to Yoda. If you don't agree, you haven't the terribly crafted "Yo-da Man" ads promoting DVD sales. Naturally, with McGregor, Lee, and Portman bound by blue screen and poor script writing, Yoda didn't have to work hard. Gollum, on the other hand, did a fantastic job . . . or rather, the teams that created Gollum did a fantastic job. Two Towers proves that the line between CGI and live action is blurring. Sure, Gollum still had this overarticulated look, but his CGI was heads and tails above what's been done before, including Yoda and the virtual Spider-Man - who both looked like someone was moving their bodies around with a mouse pointer during their respective fight scenes instead of fluidly jumping off walls and moving around. But hypothesizing that Gollum was a real person, it's quite possible that the actor would have signed several more movies after casting directors saw TT. How far off are we from seeing CGI replace real actors, especially in non-human roles? Will it ever reach the point in the near future where a Luddite Actors Guild will refuse to allow real actors to perform alongside CGI actors? What are the costs and expenses of CGI actors in relation to live action actors? One thing is sure: CGI actors don't break contracts, whine as much, or come in stoned and drunk. Yet, anyway.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  Something I Didn’t Get…   by hilker       at Fri 20 Dec 10:11am score of 1     First things first: I loved The Two Towers, and intend to see it again. I confess I haven’t read the books (I read The Hobbit in grade school and considered that quite enough), but it bothered me that in TTT, the ringwraiths or dark riders or whatever they’re called apparently have access to flying creatures. This bothered me because in The Fellowship of the Ring, the only reason the hobbits get away from a ringwraith while on the way to the Prancing Pony is because the wraith is on horseback. If the wraiths can get around in the air, why use horses in the first place? It seems in retrospect like a cheap plot device.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: Something I Didn't Get...   by stankow       at Fri 20 Dec 10:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Sauron's contract with Middle Earth Boeing came through between TFOTR and TTT.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Something I Didn’t Get…   by derch       at Fri 20 Dec 10:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     I confess I haven't read the books Exactly. In the books the wraiths do have flying beasts. As to why they use horses? Imagine you're a simple farmer in on the border of the shire. A flying beast like a small dragon descends on your front yard. Its black clad rider unmounts and wants to talk to you. You've already shat you pants and devolved into a babbling lump who couldn't even speak his own name. They rode horses to fit in as much as they could. They were incognito.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Something I Didn't Get...   by WinningerR       at Fri 20 Dec 11:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     The general idea is that as Sauron grows in power, his minions (including the ring wraiths) grow in power as well.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Something I Didn’t Get…   by danila       at Fri 20 Dec 11:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     It's simple. According to the book, there have been no flying creatures available early on. Sauron finished working on them when the Fellowship reached Anduin. My personal opinion regarding the flying creatures was that their appearance was too predictable. Just your typical stock dragon-like flying creatures, not something original, like the Balrog or cave troll. :(   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   135.  Re: Something I Didn’t Get…   by delayman       at Thu 26 Dec 12:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Agreed re: the Balrog + cave troll... seeing both of these creatures on-screen in the first movie made it feel very special for its effects realism.   I enjoyed TTT, but was a bit disappointed that nothing quite as eye-poppingly fresh as these two creatures was there (the Wargs (sp?) were pretty good).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  Being grateful v. nitpicking   by GiantMouser       at Fri 20 Dec 10:32am score of 1.5 compelling     I saw the movie and read the books. And I agree the scenes that were unnecessary were unnecessary, the characters that were changed didn't need to be changed, and some of the humor didn't need to be there. But to all the purists out there, and I'm not being mean here, please get over it. 2 years ago when trailers and such for LotR first came out I groaned to myself. It looked so much like Willow 2. On opening day I was secretly cringing before the movie started. I left the movie speechless. 1 year ago when we first saw Gollum I groaned again. He looked like another terrible "slimy" CG creation. After I saw the movie I knew that he was more alive than most actors today. That being said, I think we should really just be grateful how good it came out. We're not talking about a Nick Hornby book here. LotR is a fucking hard book to translate to screen, that's why it was never done well before. It's not perfect folks, but it's as good as it gets. Arguing online is like being in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

67.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 11:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 48     "It's not perfect folks, but it's as good as it gets." No, as good as it gets is the perfectly realistic, CGI generated version comming out in 15-20 years, which will spawn dozens of maleable virtual reality versions over the next 20 years after that! Now that's a little taste of heaven. But for now, you're right, this is as good as it gets. And look bad guy (or gal) let us grieve for awhile OK? There was a lot of stuff in the film version that stunk. We will get over it, in time. After all, the books stand on their own merit, and any film will always be derivative. But we need time to heal. Admittedly, it's not gonna take that long, but still...have a heart. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 20 Dec 5:15pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 67     I get the impression from your plea for help and grieving time that nothing would have satisfied you. That's the danger of film, you have to take another man's vision of what the book is and means and it ends up superceding your own. You'll never remember Legolas the way you first imagined him...from now on he will always be Orlando Bloom. But if you can't go into the movie realizing that danger and willing to be adaptive... Well that's kinda pathetic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 6:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 97     You're not really correct about this. This forum has actually helped put things into perspective. Also, I have read the books...well a lot. Orlando Bloom and the rest will add to and enrich my experience of reading the books, but you are also wrong about my internal visions of Legolas and the rest now being conditioned solely by the movie. After viewing The Fellowship of the Ring, the film added roughly 20-30% to what I already visualize, mostly in relation to landscapes. We will have to see about The Two Towers. Maybe this isn't true for those not already steeped in Tolkien's world. But for me, for many readings now, I have been watching a rich visual landscape roll by as I scan the pages. This is very developed. For the most part, the worlds just trigger an inner visionary experience, I rarely "read" them anymore. Like I said, for someone not already steeped in Tolkien's world, it will be different. And from your posts, you hardly seem to be a true fan (roots in the word fanatic, but also implying great depth of commitment) so I don't think you have the right to be so rude, and call a real fan(atic) pathetic. Or maybe in your life, you know and are committed to nothing deeply enough to be hurt if such is twisted into a form foreign to your sensibility. Or maybe, you just like putting other humans down. Too bad. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by Atlasshrugged00       at Sat 21 Dec 8:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 99     Your inability to get past the fact that this is Jackson's vision is what is pathetic. And the connotation you chose to apply to yourself is not the same one I chose in my denotation. Review: Main Entry: pa·thet·ic Pronunciation: p&-'the-tik Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French pathetique, from Late Latin patheticus, from Greek pathEtikos capable of feeling, pathetic, from paschein (aorist pathein) to experience, suffer -- more at PATHOS Date: 1598 1 : having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity 2 : marked by sorrow or melancholy : SAD Language IS important. You assume I am not a "true fan". You assume incorrectly, I am a true fan - not a fanboy fanatic - "steeped in Tolkien's world". I have read all the books (Silmarillion too) multiple times throughout my life. I literally cried (32 yr old man) when the Fellowship entered the main chambers in Moria because it was such a perfect illustration of what my vision had been. (That scene still moves me after watching FOTR multiple times - credit Howard Shore, see the part after "Let me risk a little more light"...) And I am enjoying revisiting them now in an investigative manner. Finding errors - because I know them so well. Enjoying the (ok here's an other element of fanboydom that will come back to haunt me) IDIC infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Try these on for size: 1) Clear error in FOTR. Bilbo's book shows a drawing of Glamdring which clearly looks nothing like the sword Gandalf is carrying.(other than they are both swords). 2) In TTT Aragorn calls for his horse. Does he call for Asfaloth (which is Glorfindel/Arwens horse in the first book/movie). Had to check the book. The horse is of course Hasufel. Question is which is said in TTT. Will have to review it when I see it again. These are fun Holmesian explorations, not the tenets of a grief bound fanboy. Enjoying how PJ did things and how I might do them otherwise (of course I must rely on him because he is the one who secured the 320 million and 4-5 years to film the thing) But I refuse to "delve in to sorrow" pathetically about things that Jackson changed to bring this story to the screen. As for your other simplistic accusations (and bold undeserved insults - regarding commitment - Kettle meet Cauldron) about me I suggest that you review my posts. I take no pleasure in putting you down, but you should reflect if you are attaching too much significance to things you can't control. It ain't healthy. Ultimately your behavior fits the title perfectly - nitpicky vs grateful. Would it not be more beneficial to be grateful rather than nitpicky and morose?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by Norman108       at Sat 21 Dec 1:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 112     Well then Atlasshrugged00, being a fan, perhaps you can have a little compassion for the one thing that still gets my goat about the movie. And damn it, it is not a freaky fan nitpick, it a god damn void where a soul should be, and I simply don't understand it. It's the whole thing between Merry and Treebeard, including the missing Huorns. As a fan, how can you put up with the oldest, and wisest creatures on Middle Earth, being turned into senile old farts - more appropriate for the children? Man instead of Nature (the Huorns) winning the war at helms deep, Treebeard being weak-willed, him never seeing the desolation of Saruman till that last moment, and being told off by Merry, instead of comming to the same conclusion on his own in the Entmoot. These cuts seemed so arbitrary, so wrong. It was as if Jackson was deliberately gutting Tolkien's vision of Nature vs. Industry, and making the whole thing more palatable to CEOs and children. And it doesn't seem to me it wouldn't be too much trouble keeping true to this vision, without extending the length of the film. Faramir, I can try to forgive. I read the Jackson interview below, and I see where he is comming from. He needed a device to clearly show the evil of the ring. So be it. I think there might have been better ways to do this, without destroying the important dignity of Faramir, but this is just an opinion, and I can enjoy it in its own right as Jackson's device. But I have not yet seen an explaination for making the Ents and Entmoot into caricatures of themselves, and eliminating the Huorns. Do you really accept this without reservation? In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by Atlasshrugged00       at Sat 21 Dec 3:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 115     I don't accept it without reservation but I do recognize that to the casual observer with no experience behind the books there are some things that only would cause confusion. Trying to explain the Huorns to the audience would have been difficult at best. And while Merry's argument wasn't necessary in and of itself, can you see that all three story lines required the individuals to overcome the inertia of the people they were trying to motivate to action. Aragorn must convince Theoden to fight to the last. Frodo and Sam must convince Faramir to release them to their quest. Merry and Pippin must convince Treebeard to action. Yes it dismisses some of the importance of the Ents. But the Entmoot is long, overly long even in the books. And when you are trying to cram everything into the space of 3 hrs its easy to see where things will be cut. Sadly Merry/Pippin are always secondary even tertiary to the main quest. Frodo and Sam are tied to the ring and the assault on Mt Doom. Aragorn and company will be involved in the saving of Gondor. And sadly I think you will find M and P playing third fiddle in ROTK - as they do in the books. Personally I love M and Theoden's involvement and P's involvement with Denethor and the guards of Gondor. But I'll be surprised to see if either M or P end up in their appropriate uniforms in the final act. Ultimately I just recognize that every great thing about these movies far outweighs the niggling faults. I am in happy awe. Enjoy it while you got it. There's always "Eight Crazy Nights"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Being grateful v. nitpicking   by kun       at Sat 21 Dec 9:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 48     I believe that everyone who has read the book has his/her own interpretation of the events, and probably has it played out in his/her head already. It's this magic of imagination that made the Harry Potter series so popular. The movie was probably Jackson's own view of the way the movie played itself out in his head. If he didn't think it was necessary, he'd have cut it. If you were directing it, you'd have cut out some scenes yourself to make it fit in 3 hours. And this is the difference between the book and the movie. The book describes, it doesn't show. The movie shows, and thus leaves nothing for the imagination. I really don't see how one can judge the book and the movie together, when it is clear that the movie only takes the storyline of the book and its characters, not their appearances and tiny little details (how long should Legolas' hair be? Hey I think they cut it too short in the movie...blah blah...Gollum should look more evil, he looks like a plush toy, blah blah...) I watched the movie without reading the book, and I must say i enjoyed it thoroughly. Because there was no book as a benchmark. Quite plainly, for most people the movie wasn't as good as the mental images in their head. Is the best government meritocratic or democratic? God is neither.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  Funny?   by CharlesWallace       at Fri 20 Dec 2:16pm score of 2 interesting     I re-read TTT about a month ago, so the book was fresh in my mind when I saw the movie, and after spending the last hour of the movie worrying that Gandalf was never going to get back to Isengard before the movie ended, I am starting to accept most of the changes to the story that PJ had to make. Faramir took Frodo along not because he's weak like Boromir, but because he wants to please Theoden (the "mighty gift" line is borrowed from Theoden in book V). I'm assuming we'll get to see the scholarly side of Faramir in ROTK and will withhold my judgment on his character until then. The Ents' refusal to help even after the Entmoot seems more in their character, somehow. Also, in the book the moot took 3 or 4 days, so their refusal's a nice way of adding tension from something other than sitting around waiting for them to introduce each other. And it does give Merry and Pippen something more important to do, which will hopefully be developed further in ROTK. I'm still hoping to see the rest of the Dunedain in ROTK, but I understand that having the elves show up at Helm's Deep is easier than introducing a whole new group of people and explaining who they are. We've seen elves, and from watching Legolas, we know they're deadly with the bow and arrow. Showing the Huorns would have been nearly impossible, since they only marched at night, and if PJ showed them walking at noon, he'd be getting pilloried for that. Having said that, I must take umbrage with the Humor level. I can take a little bit of it when it serves the characters, like the Gimli-Legolas scorekeeping (although I don't think we ever got the final score in the movie) or Legolas telling Aragorn "You're late" when he shows up at Helm's Deep. This is the black humor of battle-hardened warriors, and is fine. But how often can we make jokes at Gimli's height for no good reason? I've seen this sort of thing before. In the execrable The Patriot, it makes a terrible movie godawful, and in TTT, it mars the serious and somber tone of the story. Or in other words, we should be laughing with the characters instead of at them. I can understand making changes to some of the less essential elements of the story, but it's almost as if PJ doesn't trust the audience to sit through three hours of darkness and foreboding without having Dick van Dyke trip over the ottoman every 20 minutes. Oh well. Maybe if I see it without a bunch of Yahoos laughing at Gollum, I'll have a different feeling about it. Now if only I can get reviewers to stop calling it a sequel... I won't say anything because no one ever listens to me anyway! I might as well be a Leonard Cohen record!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

92.  A Long Time Ago In a Marketing Exec's Office......   by fullerine       at Fri 20 Dec 3:04pm score of 2.5 compelling     Can we just take a moment here to imagine what could have been? Go out, rent the following movies :- Star Wars 1 & 2 (multi-million dollar trilogy) Pearl Harbour ("serious" Event movie) Titanic (Groundbreaking CGI) From Hell (alienated everyone who's read the book) Now quietly imagine the utter atrocity that would have resulted in Jackson making films like Lucas, Bay, Cameron or the Hughes Brothers. Frightening isn't it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

93.  Re: A Long Time Ago In a Marketing Exec's   by Norman108       at Fri 20 Dec 3:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 92     Abso-fucking-lutely! It's still sad though, how much we are willing to put up - for entertainment's sake - in even the better films, such as LOTR. People really need to consider reading more books ! In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: A Long Time Ago In a Marketing Exec's   by Wei Ming Kai       at Sat 21 Dec 1:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 92     Spot On. That is why I have been getting quite annoyed with the antics of various nitpickers here and elsewhere. I am embarrassed and ashamed for them. Peter Jackson has made 2 movies so far that work very well as Movies (IMO TTT works better than FoTR). Tolkien's Books will always be his books, beloved by all true fanatics (people who read them & the Simarillion early in life then again, then again before the first movie hit theatres = that's LOVE) but Jackson wasn't making a book - he was making a screenplay and a movie (& all the other insane ammounts of work) and getting it on film. IMO he preserves the spirit and especially the visual feel of LoTR with uncanny accuracy and awesome brilliance - even if he made alterations to certain minutiae of Tolkiens precise presentation. These movies don't just work - they freakin' ROCK! JEEEZUS FREAKIN CHRIST did you all see Starship Troopers? You want to see hollywood-ized butchery of another book that the Tolkien fans probably digested around the same age as thier first encounter with 'the Hobbit' just watch that crap with Doogie Howzer squwaking 'THEY'RE AFRIAD!!!' as the final scene. I was angry to see one of my favorite books as a kid made into a cheezy disappointment. Like you point out examples of other goddawful megabudget butchery/hackfest SCHLOCK which is the norm for hollywood. We should be very thankful for what Peter Jackson delivered - a rip-roaring good time at the movies watching a mind blowing interpretation of Lord of the Rings. Thank You Peter Jackson - in case you read Plastic - someone aught to say it. Nitpickers might love to get thier Geek on and that is usually fine, but I would like to see some of the fanatics making idiots of themselves realize what earlier poster's meant by 'get over it/yourselves'. It wasn't a put-down, it was good advice. the intelligent, like the unintelligent, are responsive to propaganda -H.L.Mencken   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

104.  just like to add a link.   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 20 Dec 11:56pm score of 0.5 informative     For people with too much time, I found this article really interesting, albeit too long. It was also referenced in slate, so I don't know why it wasn't in the writeup and it actually talks about an issue of weight , or an issue at all, other than "I liked it." To dramatically reduce the article, it asks "How do we know Sauron is bad? Are we to take it on faith?" When I brought this up with my mother, she said "Well, he's uglier." WHich is funny, since the article mentions this as about the only reason we are explicitly given in the film.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

114.  Jackson explains...   by dwh       at Sat 21 Dec 11:12am score of 1     ... and addresses a lot of the complaints people have already had regarding the differences between the book and the movie in this interview. I think he and screenwriter Philippa Boyens make some valid points, particularly with regard to the change that seems to have upset most people: Faramir's character.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

116.  Re: Jackson explains...   by Norman108       at Sat 21 Dec 1:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 114     This I am adapting to. But I still don't see any explanation for so thoroughly altering the Ents and the Entmoot, and eliminating the Huorns. Found any explanation for Merry telling off Treebeard yet? And for why Man was able to conquer at the war at helms deep, instead of Nature, as Tolkien intended. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

118.  Nitpicking the Nitpickers   by wsimpleton       at Sat 21 Dec 3:39pm score of 1.5 astute     There has always existed a subset of the coffee house klatsch that denounces, out of hand, art of any sort that is accepted immediately by the populace. I've heard tell that Dickens was a hack, Beethoven is overwrought and overrated, the Beatles suck, etc. I'm not saying that criticism of such benchmarks isn't valid; my beef is with the people who criticize soleley to set themselves apart from the rest, propelled into the intellectual stratosphere by their own egos. It's utterly self-serving, and some of the above posts have all the hallmarks of this particular species of critic. To wit: Gollum's soliloquy. Some have complained that it was played for laughs, when it should have been a serious affair. For me, it was both. I felt at once the humor of the back and forth (complete with camera angles showing both sides), coupled with utter pity and sorrow for a creature that is torn between his dark and familiar past and a possible road to redemption. You see, it is actually possible to feel experience two emotions at the same time; one needn't detract from the other.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

128.  Re: Nitpicking the Nitpickers   by quacksalve       at Mon 23 Dec 2:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 118     Good point. One question: I don't usually consider myself humorless, but I found very little funny about Gollum in this film. Perhaps it's due to my mindset going into the theater, but I found him quite wretched and entirely pitiable. Yet there were people chuckling audibly just at his very appearance in each of his scenes. Am I alone in taking this too seriously? I thought the scenes were serious, as they should have been. I didn't get the funny.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: Nitpicking the Nitpickers   by profpeach       at Mon 23 Dec 5:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 128     Even primed for Gollum, I was surprised at how well it worked. I have to take back my initial skepticism, Andy Serkis and the programmers need to share the Academy Award nominations for Best Supporting Actor. There were goons in my audience that laughed at Gollum too. I think some of that was discomfort with knowing exactly how to take him. There's not much in contemporary films (or media) to let you know how to deal with a grotesque. I bet the same people laughed at The Elephant Man too. But I don't know how anyone could see the scars from torture in Mordor or just the wasted body and not understand how pitiful this character is. Anyhow, I'm hoping the laughter was discomfort .   One thing, did anyone else think that Stinker-Gollum looks like Willim DaFoe? Most unsettling. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   137.  Re: Nitpicking the Nitpickers   by quacksalve       at Sun 29 Dec 2:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 130     That makes sense. He did look a little like DaFoe. I think that says something nasty about DaFoe more than Gollum though. The former does appear to have been computer-generated, now that you mention it! I knew there was something weird about him.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

138.  nits become lice, so pick 'em out! it feels good.   by plasticpussy       at Sun 29 Dec 7:17pm score of 1     I saw the sucker. I liked it about as much as I did the Fellowship, when I saw it on the big screen, which wasn't much. I am a biased fan of the books. What was really quite great to see was the extended FOTR DVD set. It was sooo much better to have characters fleshed out just a little bit. It made me want to cry, knowing the bad times coming for Frodo & Co. War never has a happy ending for the footsoldier, and the end of ROTK is heartbreaking melancholy. I hope that aspect is captured well. The first moment I saw the CGI Gollum, I was revolted. It may be the absolute best ever effect on-screen, now, but it still sucks as bad or worse than a Ray Harryhausen critter. As the story progressed, the actor underneath the 1's & 0's transcended all tech limitations and Gollum was my favorite part. Still, Brad Dourif was right there, with shaved eyebrows, even, so what the fuck?! If those other lads can be made to look like hobbits, it's surely no trouble for him to look like Gollum. My biggest problem with this entry to the trilogy is Sean (Samwise) Astin's performance. It sucked, sucked royally, given what's at stake, as here is the heart & soul of this segment of the work of literature adapted. Skateboarding Elf?! Total shit, unforgivable, as was extended Dwarf silliness. The Ents weren't creepy enough, they were hit by the Ewok virus. Arwen and Aragorn's tragic best-of-all-possible-worlds was a wonderful addition, and I'm glad of it. Faramir? Too bad, but like Bombadil, ya gotta suffer for your mind's eye. Some things require shorthand & survey. By the last 17 minutes, my eyes were glazed (so don't ask me about Aragorn's NDE), I just wanted it to end, and this was how I felt during the first movie. I surely do hope the extended DVD set, due out in 11 months (I would guess), will be the vast improvement that FOTR received over the general release BIG screen cut. unless and perhaps and maybe if we're lucky   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

140.  good lord what a twin-towering bore...   by moezot2002       at Thu 2 Jan 10:14pm score of 1     Did this over-wrought war-mongering wank of a movie bore the crap out of anyone else out there? The conclusion I've come to is that Tolkien must have suffered from a pathological fear of ambiguity. No room for misreading here! You've got yer good guys, and bad guys -- they're the ones with fur, and pointy teeth...that's subtle! An as an allegory of war (which the theme of "good" v. "evil" only serves to animate), it's ideologically troubling, to say the least -- what with the "enemy" as radical, in-human Other, etc. And who gives a shit if a movie is true to a book? Creative fidelity (is there such a thing?) is more vice than virtue.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]