TechSpot

LoTR Two Towers

By poertner_1274
Dec 18, 2002
Post New Reply
  1. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    Well, actually not...
    Peter Jackson isn't so true to the book, adding some here, cutting out something there...

    So even though I've read the books, I guess it's 10 times now, I'm not entirely sure on what's going to happen... All we know are the major events, as it wouldn't be possible to remove then, but they can still be change a bit...

    .02$
  2. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero Newcomer, in training Posts: 357

    yeah some parts were changed:

    like the part where Faramir wanted to take the ring in the movie and took them to the Osgiliath and only there changes his mind and lets Frodo leave.

    This doesn't make sense though, because soon after Frodo leaves Faramir in the book, They come across Minas Morgul, in which an army goes out to join the attack on Osgiliath. In the movie, how will Frodo and company go past Minas Morgul when there is a huge army going in the opposite direction?

    or the battle for Helm's Deep:

    my god the movie butchers the battle!

    It's a good battle, but instead of 300 men the book has 1000+ but no elvish archers. Eomer is there, Saurmans army includes men in the book, Saurman doesn't make a huge bomb the orcs just break through the water gate, Gimli helps block the hole in the water gate, then the orcs use some kind of bomb or cannon but it doesn't blow up the entire wall, Gimli is driven to the caves then drives off the orcs that attack the caves, the men are driven to the citadel, the Ents attack the rear with 'Hurons' or an army of Trees, Gandalf attacks with a thousand foot soldiers, and the King and company charge from the gates of Helm's Deep, the orcs are pinned from all sides and are destroyed.

    indeed the movie ends with some of the Two Towers not finished.
  3. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero Newcomer, in training Posts: 357

    I don't think the Return of the King will have everything in the book.

    Here is what I think should be in the last Movie:

    The visit to Isengard and the discovery of it's palantir'.

    The summoning of the dead at Erech and the subsequent attack on the Corsairs of Umbar.

    The Siege of Minas Tirth, the muster of Rohan, the ride to Minas Tirth, the battle of the Pelennor Fields, the madness of Denthor, and the death of the Ringwraith.

    The treachery of Gollum and the tower of Cirith Ungol.

    The Battle at the Black Gates and Mount Doom.

    The crowning of the King, the scouring of the Shire, and the Grey Havens.

    Read the Book if you don't know what I'm talking about!
  4. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    That's actually a good thing, IMHO, to keep people guessing. If I were to be making this movie I'd probably do the same thing!

    conrad -> I do want to read the book, but I bet there's like 3,000,000 people on the waiting list for all of them.
  5. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,490   +292

    Glad to hear that at least some of the comedy was in the book. I will eventually read it, but right now I have 4 books that I need to read first (well I guess I don't "need" to but I want to).
  6. TS | Thomas

    TS | Thomas Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,327

    Scouring of the shire is out seemingly, or so Peter Jackson said some time back. There's a homage to it in Lothlorien when frodo looks into the mirror and sees what may come.
  7. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    I would have thought that since we saw some of it in the mirror, they'd actually include that part...

    Besides, isn't Saruman supposed to be in all three movies? If so, why cut the scouring? He's an integral part of it....

    oh, well...
  8. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero Newcomer, in training Posts: 357

    Too bad he cut it. I think the scouring of the shire is the coming of age for the hobbits, it is the last test of their abilities and also the end of Saurman. That alone shouldn't be denied!

    I don't have the book with me but it's something like this:

    A great shadow loomed over his body, and a hand stretched out towards the west; suddenly the vision was broken, as a breeze blew the shadow away.

    I can't believe he wouldn't film the scouring!
    :mad:
  9. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    My fav line:

    "Well boys, it looks like meat is back on the menu again!"

    It was a great watch. 3 hours is a bit much to sit in the cinema (I think I still have the numb bum cheeks) but it was worth it.


    I went out to the toilet at one point and then Gandalf was gone from the movie for about an hour... Anyone wanna tell me where he was?

    Oh, and what do you call that creature that the Ringwraith is flying on? Its not a dragon.... I think its called a Wyvern or something??
  10. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 1,149   +172

    The Wyvern-like creatures are called Nazgul.
  11. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    OK....

    So in the bit where Golum is leading Frodo and Sam over the marshes, and there are dead bodies in the waters, is that the place where the battle happened in the recap bit in the first movie (i.e. "A last alliance of men and elves marched on the armies of Mordor...")??
     
  12. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    WARNING: Spoiler

    At the Helm's Deep battle, when Gandalf showed up on the hill with all those horsemen, he came back like he said "on the dawn of the fifth day [he would be gone]"...he was out getting all those men ;)
  13. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    Isn't "Nazgul" another word for "RingWraith"???

    http://www.mithril.ie/nazgul/
  14. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 1,149   +172

    It's a little ambiguous but I think you are right. When it references the "Winged Messengers" it calls them Nazgul which was how I was confused. It must be referring to the riders and not the actual flying creatures.
  15. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    I do believe that Nazgul are the name for the wraiths.... but the winged creature that the wraith is riding upon.... its not a dragon for dragons are living creatures.... maybe a wyvern is the name for an undead dragon i do not know....

    it was a cool bit in the movie anyway.,....
  16. TS | Thomas

    TS | Thomas Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,327

    From what I remember of the first film I nazgul is just another name for ringwraiths (Aragon says this in the prancing pony I think). Narsil is the name of the sword which sliced of saurons finger in the prologue and those underwater bodies are those killed in the same battle in the prologue.
    Not sure what the flying creature is but based on the warhammer fantasy battle game I used to play Wyvern seems pretty close as it doesn't seem as powerful as a dragon anyway.
  17. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,304   +52 Staff Member

    It was a very good movie and definitely as good as the first one in my opinion.

    One of the downfalls of this movie might be that if you did not see the first one - You'll be lost. There were times when i was thinking to myself, "Glad I saw the first one" because it almost a requirement to enjoy the Two Towers characters and storyline.

    The movie felt like it had more of an "ending" than the first one, and I liked that. After the final battle, there is a sense of completeness and a good spot to end part 2 of the story I believe.

    But I feel the first one had more direction and a stronger beginning. The battles in the Two Towers were amazing, but that was much of the movie. It definitely had more action than the first one.

    Of course, the weaker beginning and the necessity of watching LoTR first is credited to the fact they are making three movies as basically one big film. I'm interested to see the third one next Christmas. It was worth the three bucks to see. :)
  18. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

  19. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    Anyone know where the car in the 2nd movie is?

    In the first movie, it's in the upper right corner of the screen right when Sam says "one step more and I'll be farther away from home than I have ever been".

    Peter Jackson incorporates a car in odd places into all his movies, FYI, BTW.
  20. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    In the book it only refers to them as Winged Nazgul.
  21. Top_gun

    Top_gun Newcomer, in training Posts: 81

    Yes, the counting was in the books, and Gimli does win...by 1 but for those who are disapoinnted in that fact that it does not stay true to the book should look @ the following (long post)

    Quote:

    --Jackson wants to be as true to the story as possible. That means true to the themes, true to the main storylines and as true as possible to the fine details of plot, in that order of significance. I'm no good at themes, and I'm going to leave those out for others to debate. I think Jackson has identified these main storylines as primary (listed in no particular order, numbered for later reference):

    (1) The Quest
    (2) Aragorn's character evolution
    (3) The race of Men overcoming its inner flaws
    (4) Elves deciding their fate
    (5) The Hobbits expanding beyond their narrowly-defined life.
    (6) The Fellowship


    HELM'S DEEP

    There are lots of issues tied into Helm's Deep; a couple of them would have been considered "major" a year ago but seem not to have generated a lot of hubbub. But one of these differences plays a part in some of the other, more debated issues.

    The Elves appearing at Helm's Deep was a big red flag to the text purists before the release of the FIRST film. I'm glad to see that it played out so well and seems to be getting very little lashback, because that plays right into both (3) and (4) and gives some insight into (2). And it doesn't interfere with (1): the net result is the same...a victory at Helm's Deep. It touches on (3) in the form of Theoden seeing that in fact old alliances do mean something, and that in fact he can count on help from others (per Elrond, the race of Men are "scattered, divided, leaderless;" they must overcome that division to be victorious).

    Of course the Elves at Helm's Deep very specifically treats (4): Haldir's dying scene in fact keeps the question very much in doubt (it would be cliche to just assume that the right thing for the Elves to do would be to stay and fight; it's good that a very specific example of the downside is provided). I found the most subtle effect to be its relation to (2), as Aragorn is CLEARLY in his element when dealing with the Elves in the battle and less so when dealing with Men (witness his instinct to shout orders in Elvish rather than in the common tongue, and the camaraderie he shows with Haldir but not to Men -- let's not forget he had not met Haldir before FOTR to judge by their greeting in the EE). He must learn to appreciate the worthiness of Men as part of his inner journey towards the Kingship.

    The other difference no one seems to mind is the evacuation of Rohan's people being to Helm's Deep rather than to Dunharrow. In fact, there is very subtle reference to the Paths of the Dead, which in the book exist in Dunharrow and not at Helm's Deep, thus completing the merger. There is no point to creating a Dunharrow location, of course...why introduce another location for a very limited purpose when so much already has to be put into Helm's Deep. Just let Helm's Deep assume the significance of Dunharrow, and it does so quite neatly and cleanly. But it has some consequences I'll cover below in "Aragorn's 'Death'".

    In a similar vein but of less structural import is the changing of Eomer's role. I, for one, prefer the treatment of Eomer in the film to the books. Eomer is far from the most developed character in the books, his main characteristics being (a) a fine warrior and leader of his men, (b) loyal to Theoden despite rough treatment, and (c) someone who trusts Aragorn when he has no reason to and who becomes a close friend (and an ally) later in the story. Personally, I feel that (a) and (b) were well-established in the film and that (c) can still be well-established in what remains. And you get the benefit of having an established character be the hero that leads the cavalry behind Gandalf in the climactic scene. All you miss is some specific heroics in the earlier battle; no loss there, in my opinion.


    THE ENTS

    There seems to be some acrimony involved in PJ's treatment of the Ents; they're characterized as "short-changed" by some posters. The more I analyze the more logical their treatment seems to me, though. In trying to build on (5), Jackson naturally needs to do so on two different story lines: Frodo/Sam's and Merry/Pippin's. There's this feeling that PJ somehow made the Hobbits less "heroic" than in the books -- I can't think of anywhere that comes from besides Ebert. The Hobbits have been at least as heroic and arguably MORE heroic up to this point in the tale.

    But that's neither here nor there...the finest moments for the Hobbits come in the part that hasn't yet been told. The fact is, though, that the middle film, where it stood, offered no chance to build on storyline (5) for Merry and Pippin as it stood, so I'm theorizing that PJ opted to make their role in rousing the Ents more active. To do so, he may have judged it wiser to dumb the Ents down a little, so as to make this leap of confidence by the Hobbits (especially Pippin's) more believable.

    Still, a lot of people feel that this "ruins" the Ents. That may or may not be true...the question is, how important is that? The Ents serve a very specific plot purpose: the destruction of Isengard. There is no greater resonance they have in the story within the limits of LOTR (within the totality of Tolkien's universe, sure). They represent an element that Jackson has greater liberty to adjust to meet the needs of the film, because the "damage" is localized. The story has moved on...the Ents are no longer a part of it.

    The same kind of analysis can be put to Gimli (and in fact I have on other posts) and his use as comic relief. If you need comic relief (and you do), Gimli is the natural character to provide it. You can't do it with Merry and Pippin...in their screen time Jackson has to work on (5). You can't do it with Aragorn or Gandalf or Theoden, obviously; it has to be either Legolas or Gimli, who are the two "free agents" among the main characters. Legolas, as an Elf, has a dry sense of humor and a nobility that does not lend itself to the purpose. Gimli is the best option. Those that feel this somehow "ruins" Gimli need to answer the same question: how important is that, given what you gain by having some comic moments in a very very serious film?

    ARAGORN'S "DEATH"

    More than ever I am now convinced that Aragorn's Death plays a part in several of these storylines, and most importantly in (2). The Aragorn / Arwen / Eowyn love triangle is a major issue in (2), and the events that happen between Aragorn and Arwen in TTT (or are flashed back to, at any rate) are not specifically stated in the text, even in the Appendices, but could very well have happened if we assume that Aragorn is a more conflicted character than in the books, as Jackson has portrayed him.

    OK, so given that there is clearly more "meat" to the Eowyn-Aragorn part of that triangle. In the books, Eowyn meets Aragorn at Edoras. Then Aragorn and the rest ride off to to battle at the Fords of Isen and are diverted to Helm's Deep, while Theoden entrusts the evacuation of Edoras to Eowyn. The battle ends, Aragorn rides to Dunharrow with Legolas and Gimli, where he meets Eowyn again before taking the Paths of the Dead.

    Now, let's replay that via film, only this time everyone leaves Edoras at the same time for Helm's Deep, and the Paths of the Dead are there at the Deep. Aragorn meets Eowyn at Edoras, but this time they share the road to Helm's Deep. There is no separation, no time for Eowyn to reflect upon Aragorn in her own mind, free to imagine being with him. You need that separation...you don't want to have them resolve things right then and there. So Aragorn has to disappear. The insertion of the Warg attack accomplishes two things: (a) it gives Theoden a chance to task Eowyn with the evacuation, while the "real" warriors deal with the attack. Eowyn gets to chafe at that. And (b) it provides the necessary separation. Aragorn rides off to battle, Eowyn stays with the women and children, and when Aragorn "dies" Eowyn is now free to dwell on what might have been, in the self-pitying way that she does in the books, in fact.

    So while so many people just see this as an "unnecessary change," I in fact see it as something that actually brings the film CLOSER to the books!

    I've argued, too, that Aragorn's Death enables some reflection on (6). In the books, even after the Fellowship is fractured, there is an awareness of the continuing bonds of the Fellowship...Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli go after Merry and Pippin; they get split up again and reunited again in Gondor; everyone is reunited again at Cormallen. And there is this awareness that they're still a group that belongs together, even though their original purpose is gone. Aragorn's Death brings that into focus sharply. "You don't know what you have until it's gone" as the saying goes, and Legolas and Gimli have "lost" Aragorn, and not just Eowyn.

    Finally, the episode enables more detail to be written into (2), specifically the Aragorn / Arwen part of the triangle. We've already learned through flashback that Aragorn has pushed Arwen away; Arwen's intervention as Aragorn floats down the river is a nice insight into Arwen's thoughts.

    I don't have a detailed analysis of Arwen's scenes except to say that the Aragorn / Arwen relationship is central to both (2) and to (4)...you've got to have a few minutes of screen time, and that's all it is, is a few minutes.

    A little cheesy and Hollywood? Maybe. Could all of this have been accomplished differently? I don't know, I'm not a screenwriter. But in my view, I feel I now have a clear understanding of why this scene is there, and a heightened appreciation for it and for the brilliant job Jackson et al have done in adapting the storylines.
  22. Top_gun

    Top_gun Newcomer, in training Posts: 81

    FARAMIR AND OSGILIATH

    Finally, there are all the issues revolving around Frodo's part of the story. Let's start with Faramir.

    It's obvious to me, though others have said they don't take it this way, that Faramir HAS to be tempted by the Ring to be true to (3). In fact it's crucial...how can a Man have the strength to easily cast the Ring aside when Men have been set up as the most corruptible of races? There has to be some conflict within Faramir -- especially given that, as I've postulated, Jackson wants his non-Hobbit characters to show more internal strife than Tolkien's did.

    Secondly, taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath accomplishes two specific goals: (a) It gets Frodo to the Crossroads between Osgiliath and Minas Morgul, where he'll need to be at the end of the film, and (b) it gets him into a warzone. Concurrent with Frodo et al being at Osgiliath, you've got the charge of Eomer at Helm's Deep and you've got the attack of the Ents. Sam gets to say his piece with all three of these scenes as a backdrop, and there is no drop in tension. The book, of course, is divided differently; Frodo and Sam's part is told all in one piece. By the time you get to the end of Frodo and Sam in the text, you're two hundred pages removed from the climax of the other story threads! There is no need to match up the tension and the drama of the different threads. In Jackson's telling, with the stories interweaving, some attempt had to be made to normalize the tension in the threads.

    Some have complained of their distaste for the Frodo-Nazgul scene at the end; in my view this as well accomplishes a specific narrative purpose; Sauron is supposed to be alarmed into launching his war earlier than he might have. This plays out in the book of ROTK as Aragorn looking in the Palantir and revealing himself. But now Jackson has bought himself some extra screen time, if he needs to...Sauron's early start to the war could just as easily be because he KNOWS the Ring was in Osgiliath and that the Nazgul did not return with it...he may suspect that Gondor has it now.

    end of quote http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/505992?d=505992#505992

    Just one thing to add to that...
    Why was there no Erkenbrand? Well, place yourself in the position of someone who has NOT read the book. Another new character is introduced, as if there weren't enough already. Erkenbrand is not a major character, basically his only moment in the book is at Helms Deep. So why not just leave him out and slot in Eomer? Sacrilege perhaps, but you must agree that from a moviemaker's point of view this was a rather clever way to 'economize' the story without actually damaging it. Same goes for the character Hama, who does not die at Helms Deep but who gets eaten by Wargs instead. It simply does not matter that much to the story as a whole.
  23. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero Newcomer, in training Posts: 357

    Aragorn is already well on his way towards the kingship. Here is a description of Aragorn around the age of 49, taken from Appendix A part (v):

    Aragorn was born on March 1, 2931 and much of "The Two Towers" takes place in March 3019. Do the math, Aragorn is 88 years old! This is because of his lineage, he is a lord of men, a Dunedain, and a man of the west. In Middle-Earth in the west is the Undying Lands, where the High-Elves and the Valar (gods) reside. Dunedain are decendants of the Numenoreans, who fought along side the High-Elves against Morgoth the Enemy. They were utterly defeated and only with the aid of the Valar was Morgoth defeated. The surviving men who fought Morgoth were given a life-span many times that of lesser men and the island of Numenor far from the strife in Middle-Earth. The Numenoreans quickly grew in knowledge and power, and much of it was lost in the downfall of Numenor. Aragorn is decended from these great people in an unbroken line still possessing a long life-span. He knows that he could be the last of the Dudedain, and this is what drives him to surpass normal men.
  24. Top_gun

    Top_gun Newcomer, in training Posts: 81

    Yeah, considering he did live up to 200 years old.
  25. sngx_father

    sngx_father Newcomer, in training Posts: 17

    I didn't read through the whole thread... just the ones on the first page but i want to post my thoughts.

    This movie sucked if you read the book, otherwise it was good. For me, i read the book and i did not like it. The only redeeming parts were the battle at Helms Deep and the Ents attacking Isengard. Other than those 2 parts, the special effects I thought were half-assed (especially the Warg scene, damn that looked horrible).

    There were many parts that really pissed me off... the Entmoot and Faramir were probably the biggest two. Overall i was just upset at the way Peter Jackson changed major aspects of the story for no good reason. I understand a lot had to be changed in the first book (god there was a lot of dead weight i did not miss that did not affect the story at all), so i did not mind the little inaccuracies.

    If you really want me to rant i will, but those are just my basic feelings. Anyone who read the book knows exactly what i'm talking about.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.