I just got done watching this movie and I must say that it was quite a bit better than the first one. I can say that this is going to be one hell of a trilogy. The quality and the way things were done was magnificent.

I encourage you all to go to the theatres and watch it.
Not just on your computer if you are into that thing, I am sure that won't do it justice.

A few friends of mine are going to see it on Friday...I would go but what I do after school is more important to me ;)

I'll probably see it 'soon as it comes to our local theater, which, because it's a level 2 (as opposed to 1 for normal, big theaters, and 3 for tiny, middle of nowhere theaters) theater, won't be too long! I certainly can't wait, as I really liked the first movie.

Yes the first movie was very good, but this one is just that much better. It is a lot more action and sweet sweet graphics.

I was surprised it came to our little wimpy theatre on the first day as well, but I didn't complain.

The line for it was about 200 people long, but luckily I had friends go early to wait in line to get tickets.

I saw it yesterday. Gollum r0x0rZ!

OMG !!! Someone's hacked into Mic's account & is using it to talk d00dspeak !!!!

I'm going to see it tomorow in one of Brussels' biggest theatres. I took a subscription this month which allows me to see as many movies as I want for 15€ a month. The only problem is that it's a yearly contract. Heck I might even do a few movie reviews that I'll post here.;)

Look out for Didou's weekly movie review starting in January !!!
Popcorn not included...

I might get it on VCD...my computer teacher got it. I'm watching it up on the projector now...looks pretty good but it's halfway into it. They're arguing in the place w/ the pedestal and all the chairs around it...

Originally posted by Vehementi
I might get it on VCD...my computer teacher got it. I'm watching it up on the projector now...looks pretty good but it's halfway into it. They're arguing in the place w/ the pedestal and all the chairs around it...

:haha: It's actually the original...lol

Whatever you do, don't watch this on a (s)vcd/divx first!!!!

It will in no way do it justice! I just came back from watching it, and.. OMG! It's just great!

Watch it in a THX cinema, and be blown away!!

Now, I'm just hoping it'll be released on DVD 1st of jan 2003, so I can watch it whenever I want to!

.02$

I am glad others thought it was as incredible as I did. I couldn't believe I was actually in a theatre watching it, but it was phenomenal.

I definately look forward to seeing the Return of the King next.

W00TEH!!!!

I just saw it today...

Words are too small...

It's very effective to watch the first one the night before you watch the 2nd one, as I did...

:eek:...

:haha: "Stupid, fat hobbit!"...

:D Everyone should see this...

my sister works at the local AMC movie theatre so i got to go to the employee sneak on monday. only got 2 hours of sleep cuz i have to wake up at 6 for school :(

Very good movie - yes it was better than the first.

3h19mins is a long time, but it was worth it, especially for the amazing battle scenes...woah :eek:

Heh HDMK...the first one was even longer ;) 4 hours! :dead:

I just saw it. I'll say its good, but I have a few concerns. For those that have read the book (I've only read fellowship and the hobbit).
Is there supposed to be that much comedy? I can take some of the little things like Gandalf winking when he brought his staff in. And I can even take gollum and smeegle's disputes (because that seems like an important part). But I didn't like the "cute" little crap they did with Gimli just before and during the big fight, unless that is in the book I think it takes away the feeling of how important of a battle it is. ex. Gimli asking about him getting a better spot, and then the part where Legolas asks if he should get him a box, and I didn't like them counting how many they had killed.
Now all of that may have been in the book and if it is then I give it a 5 out of 5, but if that isn't in the book then I give it a 4 out of 5 just because they could have done without trying to draw in another potential audience with humor. Anyone remember Star Wars ep1? :p

:confused: I can't remember the 'cute' Gimli stuff, SNGX. What exactly happened?

They are all lined up on the wall to fight the orcs and Gimli is placed amoungst the elves, they can all see over the wall, he can't, and he says something about it. During that scene I was thinking "What the hell is an undermanned army doing placing an arguably expierenced fighter behind a wall that is taller than him, surely they could have found somewhere to place him where he'd do good.
Then just as the orcs attack Legolas and Gimili are talking about somethign and Legolas says something similar to"... or would you rather me get you a box?".
Then in another scene Gimili says "Legolas, I've got 2 already!" to which legolas replys something similar to "Good for you!, I've already got 18 {breif pause while he kills someone}, 19!, {another pause}, 20!"

Yeah I remember that part, but the cute stuff? :confused:

Thats what I meant, that stuff seemed to be aimed at little girls (who - correct me if I'm wrong - but generally do not enjoy fantasy novels with the depth of plot of LOTR (as much as boys and men)).

Originally posted by SNGX1275
Then in another scene Gimili says "Legolas, I've got 2 already!" to which legolas replys something similar to "Good for you!, I've already got 18 {breif pause while he kills someone}, 19!, {another pause}, 20!"
That's in the book, I'm not 100% sure about the other ones.

Originally posted by Mictlantecuhtli
That's in the book, I'm not 100% sure about the other ones.

They made Gimli a bit more comical than he was in the book, but not much... Gimli and Legolas has a little rivalry when it comes to who kills the most orcs...

And I seem to recall that Gimli was indeed on the "catwalk" in the book...
And it does make sense when thinking strategy... You need someone to defend the archers when the ladders/siege engines does their thing...


Personally I lmao at some of Gimli's comments...

Especially the part where he says to Aragorn "Toss me!".
Since he said to Aragorn "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" when they were in Moria (FOTR)...

I don't think it devalues the movie just because they've added a bit more comedy.... They've also had to remove quite a lot of the comedy from the books :( (It just didn't translate properly to the silverscreen)


As for Gollum, yes that was (more or less) in the book... They've had to rewrite some of it, as it was spaced further apart than in the movie... But they captured the essence of it imo...

Saw it last friday, alas the projection has no idea what focus is so the movie kept becoming blurry :( I probably liked it as much as the first though it felt like some of the characters changed too much from the first to be honest, well Gimli at least I don't recall saying anything that wasn't part of a joke & felt a bit odd seeing that all the Orcs were now talking whereas before the only thing they said was - Find the halfings & Sauron (Or Saraman). That seemed wierd.

Gollum was great though & I hope on the Extended DVD (For I've not read the books) they actually go into what his "sad story" is, supposedly the extended DVD will have more gollum/sam/frodo, more treebeard & I forget what else.

Originally posted by TS | Thomas
Gollum was great though & I hope on the Extended DVD (For I've not read the books) they actually go into what his "sad story" is, supposedly the extended DVD will have more gollum/sam/frodo, more treebeard & I forget what else.

I doubt you'll get all of his sad story... It's quite long, and was explained in FOTR (the book)... But you should get a better idea of what has happened to him though :)

I seriously hope we'll get more of Trebeard! In the book his part is quite long, and I'd love to see more of it...

Yes, I was quite upset that there was nothing in the movie about ent wives and other such things. I hope that in the extended version they add more about that and other details that were left out. Of course, if they were to put all the detail in the book into a movie it would last about 10 or 12 hours. Can you imagine 36 hours of LOTR straight? ahhhh, so nice. But yes, very good, seen it 3 times already. Now if I can just be patient enough for the extended version so I don't have two copies....I doubt it.

Saw it yesterday...

I really liked it, though, like what has already been said; seeing the first movie the day before would be good so as to have a fresh memory of it (I didn't...)

Originally posted by TS | Thomas
Saw it last friday, alas the projection has no idea what focus is so the movie kept becoming blurry :( I probably liked it as much as the first though it felt like some of the characters changed too much from the first to be honest, well Gimli at least I don't recall saying anything that wasn't part of a joke & felt a bit odd seeing that all the Orcs were now talking whereas before the only thing they said was - Find the halfings & Sauron (Or Saraman). That seemed wierd.

Gollum was great though & I hope on the Extended DVD (For I've not read the books) they actually go into what his "sad story" is, supposedly the extended DVD will have more gollum/sam/frodo, more treebeard & I forget what else.

You don't have a script for the 3rd movie do you? ;)
Get it? He would just need the book

Originally posted by Vehementi
You don't have a script for the 3rd movie do you? ;)
Get it? He would just need the book

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$

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.

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!

Originally posted by MrGaribaldi
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$

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.

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).

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.

Originally posted by TS | Thomas
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.

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...

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:

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??

The Wyvern-like creatures are called Nazgul.

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...")??

Originally posted by Phantasm66
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?

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 ;)

Originally posted by Darth Shiv
The Wyvern-like creatures are called Nazgul.

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

http://www.mithril.ie/nazgul/

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.

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.,....

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. :)

Originally posted by Rick
It was worth the three bucks to see. :)

Man I payed $8.50 !!!

Here are some slip-ups from the first movie... (http://www.slipups.com/tree/2874.html)

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.

Originally posted by Phantasm66
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??

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.

Originally posted by Top_gun
...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.


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):

For nearly thirty years he laboured in the cause agaist Saruon, became a friend of Gandalf and with whom made many perilous journeys, though increasingly alone ... he seemed to Men worthy of honour, as a King that is in exile ... For he went in many guises, and won renown under many names. He rode in the host of the Rohirrim, and fought for the Lord of Gondor by land and by sea ...

Thus he became at last the most hardy of living Men, skilled in their crafts and lore, and was yet more than they; for he was elven-wise, and their was a light in his eyes that when they were kindled few could endure. His face was sad and stern because of the doom that was laid on him, and yet hope dwelt ever in the depths of his heart, from which mirth would arise at times like a spring from the rock.

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.

Originally posted by conradguerrero
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.