LoTR Two Towers

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.

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.

Man I payed $8.50 !!!

Here are some slip-ups from the first movie...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

TopGun, i just read through your post, and i understand a lot of what you're coming from. But basically all your saying is that Tolkein was not a good enough story teller on his own, so Peter Jackson had to improve it. To me that is exactly the kind of thing that has ruined so many movies, most notably Stephen King.

The whole point of Faramir in the book is that he is the better man than Boromir. Just as Aragorn rejects the ring, so does Faramir. To me that was a critical point of the story that was butchered. Faramir HAS to reject the ring, because he is not his brother (as the 3rd book expands upon, the strife between denethor, faramir and gandalf).

The same goes for Merry and Pippen. They were the comic relief in the first movie, and i did not mind it. But suddenly in the second movie they are supposed to be very serious while Gimli becomes the *** of the movie. The fact that they meet Gandalf in the woods is a direct contradiction of the book, as well as Treebeard not believing they (Merry & Pip) are not orcs. There is no need for them to have a confrontation with Treebeard, their coming to Fangorn is the pebble that starts the avalanche. The destruction of the forests was already being done, and the Ents knew all about it in the book. They are the shepherds of the trees, and they didn't notice that huge portions of their lands were being leveled?

Now for Gimli, yes some parts of the comedy were funny but i think Peter Jackson over-did it. The scene of the debate between Thingol and Aragorn... that was just stupid. It's a scene of incredible tension which the story hinges on... and suddenly Gimli lets out a huge belch and just breaks the mood. To me, that is tantamount to Don Corleone suddenly cutting *** in a scene of the Godfather.

Finally, the one major screw up i saw: The scene where Sam drags Frodo down the steps.... Frodo pulls out Sting and almost kills Sam right??? They were captives of Faramir, where the F*** did Frodo get Sting back?

The book never really says what the Nazgul's flying mounts are called. Just that they were an ancient breed of creature that Sauron found and nurtured for his dark plans... And they were pretty cool, just too bad the Nazgul's robes didn't blow in the wind when he was flying

From what I can remember of the book (read for the 1^n'te time just before FOTR), they do see "the white wizard" but think it's Saruman...
So PJ didn't change the book too much...

As far as the Entmoot is concerned, I think PJ did a good enough rewrite of it... The way it is in the book would be very hard to get across on the silver screen (Ent's beeing the keeper of the trees, Ent's becoming trees, trees moving etc), so he opted to change it..


Unlike FOTR (which I thought was terrible until I understood it wouldn't be the book turned word by word into a movie), I knew TTT would have changes... And until Return of the King hits the silver screen, I'm willing to give PJ the benefit of the doubt...
He's changed quite a lot yes, but most likely he's done it to make the transition to the silver screen make more sense...

One thing which is easy to forget is that this film is targetting a much bigger audience than those who love the books... Those who loves the books won't really be satisfied no matter how the story is depicted... They all have different ideas on how things should look, how the dialog is played out etc... (I should know, I really love the books )

My point is that, as a stand-alone movie, TTT isn't too good, but seen with FOTR in mind, and what ROTK will most likely be, it's terrific... (But if he's made many changes to the story without following them up in ROTK..........)

.02$

I think you have to watch TTT as if its a continuation of FOTR, and you just taken a 1 year break inbetween. Even watch FOTR and then go straight to the cinema.

I liked TTT almost as much as FOTR. It was not quite as good, but it was still excellent IMHO. I thought that gollum was very well done, his facial expressions, voice, movements, everything.

In the final analysis, these movies could have been done A LOT WORSE than they were. All things considered, they turned out well considering they have to appeal to a wider audience than the books as Mr Galibali said. I think there's little to complain about unless you are a REAL knitpicker....

hehe i'm a real knitpicker

I've actually started reading the book myself when I got back from the US (3 weeks ago or so). I'm almost finished Fellowship & I think the films really did do a good job based on what I've read so far.

The only thing I miss from the book so far is the humorous scene where Bilbo's left items for various people to take after he disappears, such as the spoons. I really liked how he did "Bill" too. The nazgul didn't seem as threatening in the book though (probably cause they said more). Samwise seems a lot more slave like the book to, which doesn't quite seem to fit in right either. Gollums done well enough, though the special edition dvd also well covers that gollum is following them to, & frodo talking about gollum to gandalf in the mines (film) fitted in a bit nicer than where it was in the book too I felt.
The other thing about the books is of course the better sense of continuity. I mean, in FOTR the book there was already some talk of Rohan & other lands, not to mention Shadowfax & Frodo seeing a "White wizard" in the mirror of galadriel.

heheh yeah, in the books sam's head is WAY WAY WAY up frodo's posterior
And it only gets worse when they enter Mordor...

Another thing that always made me wonder (and i think it's a flaw in both the book and movie) is that Gollum is in Moria with the Fellowship. But they all had to run in there suddenly when the monster attacks and destroys the door behind them. How did Gollum get in there?

Gollum is already in Moria, and there is no way he would know any elvish language (to open the door from the lake).

While the entrance at Moria the fellowship used was destroyed there were several entrances to Moria, not just one so whether Gollum was already there or not matters little (I prefer to think he wasn't as it was known that he did seek out Bilbo & recently before Frodo left so having him just happening to be in Moria & meet up by chance seems off).
Besides it just further shows Gollums desire for the ring, nothing would stop him.

Finished book one right now BTW