[shivohum]

Laborious. That's the word that best describes this second installment
of The Lord of the Rings movies. Endless tracts of filmed land and
sky, reams and endless reams of computer-generated special effects,
and a seemingly endless three hour length can't save this movie's
flashy exterior from its hollow mushy core. Yes, there are brief
special moments, hints of a magical movie that might have been, but
their greatest importance is in holding out some hope for the final
piece of the trilogy.

The second chapter begins with the battle of Gandalf against the
Balrog, and immediately the suspension of disbelief is broken. The
problems with this scene illustrate many of the problems that plague
the movie as a whole.

First, even more so than in the previous film, the Balrog is too much
bark and not enough bite. It flails left and right, roars, spouts
flames, and whips its tail. Yawn. Where's the monstrosity in the
monster? There's something in the computer animation that smooths the
terror out of what ought to be terrifying and renders it a mere
mechanical contraption. Get your
hissing-spitting-fire-breathing-what-not, 25% off today only.

Ironically, in attempting to show a "realistic" looking creature via
CGI, the movie caricatures its subject, whereas even a
carefully-wrought hand-drawn cartoon might have conveyed more of that
nightmarish quality that is the Balrog's true essence. One problem is
that the movie reveals too much. What is displayed on the screen is
circumscribed by it, and, as anyone who's watched a good horror movie
knows, only what is unknown can command true fear. Or, as GI Joe puts
it, "knowing is half the battle." Unfortunately, this tell-all
tendency afflicts all the monsters and villains in the movie.

Second, Gandalf hardly uses any of his powers. Why not? Isn't he
an arch- wizard? If Jackson is going to show the battle, he should
show Gandalf as doing a little more than what a mere physical
fighter might have accomplished.

Third, I don't think the backgrounds are really as richly detailed
and diverse as required. Gandalf and the Balrog are supposed to
battling in the deepest dungeons and the highest peaks, but that
specificity is lost in the background's homogeneity. There's
nothing striking, nothing sharp about the background scenery.
It's too broad, too blunt. A little more stylization would have been
welcome.

Gandalf finishes off the Balrog and enters another blasé scene of
redemption, where what ought to be a subtle and inspiring resurrection
somehow degenerates into a CGI slide show on astronomy.

Other plot lines now advance. Frodo and Sam meet Gollum, an actually
neat addition to the ensemble. Gollum is played reasonably well and
has a certain charm, if the dual personalities are smeared on a little
too thickly. By the way, Sean Astin did a good job butchering Sam's
character. Rarely have I seen actors play characters with such little
conviction. It must have taken real talent to make those lines sound
so mundane. The oh-so-googly-eyed melodramatic friendship between
Frodo and Sam does not help.

Meanwhile, there is unrest in Rohan. Wormtongue, a royal advisor who
practically drips with visible evil, as of course all evil advisors do
(that was sarcastic, folks), acts as Saruman's agent in poisoning the
king's mind. He banishes a loyal warrior and his troops for suggesting
that Rohan must attack Saruman and his roving bands of orcs openly.
Wormtongue reminds me of Snape from the Harry Potter movies. Snape fit
in his movie, though, while Wormtongue comes across as, like
everything else, woefully overdone. Oh, wait. Maybe he is in the right
movie.

Merry and Peppin escape from the band of orcs that capture them and
run into Fangorn forest. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli follow them
there, where Gandalf, who recently became a spokesperson for Tide,
reappears and informs them of the Rohan situation. Their help is
needed there. So they set off, and leave the hobbits to the Ents.

The Ents are another bright spot in the movie. Because of or in spite
of the CGI – I don't know which – something of the true grandeur and
dignity of these colossal beings is conveyed. Treebeard is probably
the role played most in consonance with the spirit of the books.

Gandalf and the gang reach Rohan, and the White Wizard sets the king
free of Wormtongue and Saruman's influence. This is another ludicrous
scene, where Gandalf's exorcism devolves into waving his staff around
wildly as if at some invisible beast, and knocking the king's
possessed body around telekinetically. Must magic be so tiringly
blatant? Can't Gandalf merely look the King in the eyes, and maybe
speak a word or two?

The king finally understands Saruman's threat and moves to Helm's Deep
to stave off the new army that is coming to "destroy his people." This
is stated over and over again in a grim and determined voice for the
benefit of amnesiac, or perhaps understandably napping, moviegoers.

Then there's a big battle at Helm's Deep. There are some moments of
cheer near the end, something of the will to "dream the impossible
dream," which is very much in Tolkien's spirit. It's at least
partially blunted, however, by the deafening roar of the long, tedious
battle scenes preceding it. Again, the CGI generated armies, though
"impressive," are not emotionally involving. The orcs look and act
like little plastic toys come to life, devoid of individuality and the
lusty savageness of the beast. It would be a good parody if it weren't
so serious. More of the Balrog syndrome. Some other stuff happens to
Frodo and then the movie ends its wearisome reign on what strains to
be a tantalizing note.

The Two Towers' main problem is that it tries too hard. It strives to
recreate Tolkien's world word-for-word, to show what it considers to
be the proper outward appearance. As a result, it fails to recognize
the value of the unseen, that it is what is not shown that creates
real awe. The movie shouts when a whisper would be far more effective.
It fills in the gaps with slippery plasticky CGI.

Everything is hammy, overacted, overdialogued, over-everythinged.
Maybe this is simply out of contempt for the audience and so is a
"feature," not a bug. In any case, this most certainly fatally flaws
even its vaunted recreation of Tolkien's world, since that world is
rooted in a mystery, depth, and subtlety that this movie does not
comprehend.

The lack of delicacy also manifests in the characters' lack of
personality and depth. Frodo and Sam emote far too much. Gimli is a
buffoon, and Legolas substitutes elven mystery and dignity for the
image of a comradely sharpshooter. The townspeople of Rohan look and
sound like extras smeared with makeup, told to look as if they had
signs on them reading "I'm scared," or "I'm sad." This goes doubly for
the saccharine children.

The lack of a tender touch is a problem from the first movie carried
into the second, and it's disappointing, though unsurprising, to see
that it hasn't been addressed. I think it's sad that so many viewers
excuse this by pointing to the movie's genre. Why expect realistic
characters in a fantasy, they ask? Such people remind me of others who
think vegetarians must be people who only eat salads. A fantasy is
like any other story in that the human element is its core, and
represents its essential compelling aspect.

The Two Towers just pulsates with the raw effort of its creation. It
pleads pathetically to be taken seriously as a proper reenactment of
its source material. This is precisely what a tale of mystery and
magic should not do. It should gaze boldly in its own direction, for
only it is only from the corner of one's eye that one can see the
faintest stars.

Pros
Can be majestic at moments. Better than first movie.

Cons
Hamfisted acting, cinematography, dialogue, characters, and most
everything else.

 

[stallion11msu]

Apparently what you envisioned in your head when reading The Two Towers is not what showed up on screen. I certainly do not agree with you, and I think you are being too critical of Peter Jackson for not creating on screen exactly what you have pictured in your mind. I, for one, found the film spot on for the most part and far beyond any other fantasy film to date.

Oh, and Rudy is a fine actor thank you very much.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

stallion, I agree with shivohum's assessment of the way Peter Jackson converted the characters for the movie. Though I have not seen Two Towers, much of the essence of his criticism mirrors my opinions of Fellowship. I think that Jackson was too concerned with the exterior appearance of people, places and things and not nearly concerned enough with the essence of the characters Tolkien created.

My main complaint is the age of Frodo. In the books, Frodo is actually middle aged when he begins his flight from the Shire to Rivendell to deliver the One Ring. Sam is his manservant, quite a bit younger than he, and Merry and Pippin are near Sam's age, and behave foolishly compared Frodo's more sober and staid presence. It is this contrast that makes the essence of the start of the books. Gandalf consults with Frodo and treats him as an adult who can understand and accept the responsibilites given him. In the movie, Frodo is a dewy eyed teenager, about the same age as Sam and Merry and Pippin, and does not really acquit himself as leader of their party. Gandalf for all intents and purposes pushes him into accepting the quest, rather than genuinely trusting Frodo to make the right decisions and choices in a journey that Gandalf clearly knows will be fraught with gravest peril.

This change from the book is not simply a minor difference in the length of a waistcoat or the correct pronunciation of a word. It is a fundamental change in the way the whole series plays out, and I think Peter Jackson missed a real opportunity to give some genuine weight to the series. Instead, he made a flashy and overly-simplified movie, completely underestimating his audience.

 

[kelly]

I agree with most everything Shiv says and yet have little if any complaint with the film. You see, I like the genre. No no, not just the genre of fantasy, but the genre of fantasy film making. It is a legacy fraught with dinosaurs, strange creatures and Sinbad. It is the reason special effects were ever created.

Many Tolkien fans wish for this series to be an homage to Tolkien, and it is. But to say that it is only that is oversimplifying. Tolkien's series created (or at least established) the genre. It inspired many books and finally many movies. For Jackson's films to be a success, they must be bigger, bolder, brighter than all of the films already in existence that owe their creation to the Tolkien books.

It certainly could have been possible to create something more realistic or even more true to the books. And I'm sure that'd have been interesting. It'd have been a neat mini-series. Maybe it'd be on the sci-fi channel or maybe PBS. Would it be the trilogy to displace Star Wars in the box office? No. That required more.

It required an over-the-top presentation. It required special effects that make you go, "Wow, that's a great special effect." This is not a documentary.

Likewise, the characters are each one stereotypes. very clear, distinct stereotypes. Tolkien practically created these stereotypes and it is owed to us. It is expected and it is desired. Elves must be somewhat mysterious and proper. This is legend. These are the characters that would some day be the Vulcans of Star Trek. And you would have Jackson reduce them to a realistically acted archer? It would be unjust.

I loved this film. In some ways, it is the greatest film of all time. In the least, it has bumped Jason & the Argonaughts down one. If you find this comparison offensive, maybe your expectations were in the wrong place. Or maybe you just don't like Peter Jackson or movies in general. For you, I suggest the novels. They still exist in tact and in print and greater circulation than ever before. The films are not the books. They are something new and incredible in their own right and I'm glad they exist.

 

[Flasken]

I really do agree with kelly on this one... I read shiv's review and found myself agreeing on all the objective assessments, but disagreeing on the subjective ones.

Shiv, try reading something about the fantasy genre. Then you'll understand that this movie fails to be an extremely exciting and frightening horror movie, but succeeds to be what it was intended to be: A relaxing, eyeopening, wowing and enchanting Tale.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Good job on the thorough review Shivohum!! More than anything it made me want to go out and see the movie before leaving the country. Or at least seeing it with my friends in Quito. Well done!!

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Originally posted by kelly
Likewise, the characters are each one stereotypes. very clear, distinct stereotypes. Tolkien practically created these stereotypes and it is owed to us. It is expected and it is desired. Elves must be somewhat mysterious and proper. This is legend. These are the characters that would some day be the Vulcans of Star Trek. And you would have Jackson reduce them to a realistically acted archer? It would be unjust.

These characters have been rendered as stereotypes by ham fisted hacks that have come since Tolkien and created the 'genre' of fantasy. Simply because there are endless reams of trite pulp books that copied Tolkien's world and attempted to reduce it to cutesy melodramatic rubbish doesn't mean that fans of this crap are 'owed' more of the same.

The movie is not J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. It is in fact Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

The films are not the books. They are something new and incredible in their own right and I'm glad they exist.

I have no problem with personal interpretations of works. I deeply love Andrei Tarkovsky's version of Stanislaw Lem's novel Solaris, even though Lem himself hates the movie and says it takes too many liberties with his own work. The work stands as a cinematic masterpiece independent of its original inspiration. The ultimate way to assess the value of any adaptation of a work is to judge whether is suffers by comparison to its inspiraton. If the new work is good enough on its face, it won't. If you feel that Peter Jackson's work does not suffer by comparison, and stands independent of the books as its own great work, fine. For you, the movie works. For me, it does not, and is little more than a pale imitation.

 

[shivohum]

Kelly wrote:

Quote:

For Jackson's films to be a success, they must be bigger, bolder, brighter than all of the films already in existence that owe their creation to the Tolkien books.

I have no problem with that. My problem is that it is bigger and bolder and brighter like a Bleach ad instead of in a way that sparks the imagination.

Quote:

It certainly could have been possible to create something more realistic or even more true to the books. And I'm sure that'd have been interesting. ... Would it be the trilogy to displace Star Wars in the box office? No. That required more.

I'm not sure quite what you mean by realism. Obviously a fantasy movie can't be held to the same standards of realism as a normal movie. But in a sense, great acting is part of realism. Are you saying that great acting doesn't help make a great movie? You seem to be claiming that if you have a big, bright extravaganza that that's somehow opposed to deft characterization. I couldn't disagree more. Indeed, if in the books the characterization is occasionally less than deft, here indeed is an area where the movie could have improved on the literary work.

In addition to better acting, I am asking for a more mystical spirit. Everything in the movie is so in-your-face.

Again, the perfect example here is magic. Magic is so boring in the movie! It is never given the air of delight or charm or strangeness that it should have. It lacks that spirit of the occult or the divine. It's like magic is to a staff as the wheel is to the foot: just another implement. I think that's a tragedy.

Quote:

you would have Jackson reduce them to a realistically acted archer? It would be unjust.

Hrm? I don't think the elf should be reduced to a realistically acted archer. I think Legolas should be 'reduced' to a realistically acted elf, which is to say, far more mysterious than he is now. Right now, he's a caricature. I'm not disputing that he should be "somewhat mysterious." I'm disputing that he is portrayed that way. The performance comes off as mundane.

Quote:

The films are not the books. They are something new and incredible in their own right and I'm glad they exist.

I love movies and would have loved to see the movies become masterpieces on their own. I am not a Tolkien purist. I don't mind particular events being cut or pieces of the plot being changed. I do mind soulless movies.

Flasken wrote:
Quote:

Shiv, try reading something about the fantasy genre.

I have read many fantasy books, thank you.

Quote:

Then you'll understand that this movie fails to be an extremely exciting and frightening horror movie, but succeeds to be what it was intended to be: A relaxing, eyeopening, wowing and enchanting Tale.

That's exactly what it isn't to me.

Jeff Guidry wrote:
Quote:

For you, the movie works. For me, it does not, and is little more than a pale imitation.

Well said.

 

[Flasken]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum I have read many fantasy books, thank you.

I was talking about definitions.

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum That's exactly what it isn't to me.

Hmm.. Then I guess I misunderstood you somewhere. I thought you wanted the film to be darker and scarier. To me, the part where the Balrog fell was great. If I described that scene to small children they would say "wow!" and "awesome!". I get the feeling that would rather want them to be scared. Well, that's a whole different genre.

 

[dhwilkin]

Well, I very much enjoyed the movie. Doesn't mean I thought it was flawless, as there were several character changes I didn't like. One being Faramir... come on, the guy isn't that weak-willed and dumb. Next being Gimli... I still don't agree w/ him being not much more than the comic relief. One of the few areas I do agree w/ shivohum is way Gollum's thoughts were presented. Maybe it's just me, but I thought of Gollum's internal debates as being held by one disturbed, confused personality, not two entirely separate ones. Eh, that'll have to do for now, I'm going to sleep.

 

[nanahachi]

shivohum & kelly

i find both your posts very well written, and time after time i enjoy reading not only the what you have to say, but also how you present it. i feel like my days of eloquence as buried in the past.


i have to say i dont agree with a lot that was said. however, im glad that you guys do state how you feel, and can agree to think differently.

for me personally, the movie was a huge disappointment, but im going to give it another chance this coming weekend. i need to take it in as a whole, instead of digesting it bit by bit, trying to absorb it as it came.

my problems are with the editing, the method of the story telling. i despise some of the changes made in terms of content, but movies are NOT books, so i understand and can cope with changes like the whole section involving Faramir, the omission of Shelob (until the 3rd movie at least), the ridiculous brow-beating message that the forces of darkness were killing women and children, the overemphasized Arwen/Aragorn/Eowyn love triangle, the underemphasized roles and battle of Gandalf (and the Balrog), the resistance the Ents felt about fighting Isengard at first....
like i said, i can forgive those, and not gripe about them. i dont mind poor acting (its a fantasy flick, not drama). i dont mind the lack of stunning visuals (it looked nice, but not WHOA! holy mother of jesus...!!!).

what i really did not enjoy was the pacing of the film. some story elements dragged on far too long, while others were too short. some things were just plain left unexplained, or tossed in without really making any substantive addition to the story Jackson was telling (additions that came from thin air, not from the books - the dirty, scruffy kinds escaping on horseback, the arrival and destruction of the Elves at Helm's Deep...).

i guess i honestly also mind mischaracterization of the characters (that could have been said better). ok, the good guys were still good guys (cough, faramir...oh shuddup), the bad guys still bad...

Fellowship felt long to me because there was a lot of story and background to tell. the first book is far from the most exciting of the three, i expected the film to be the same. i loved it. but i did feel like Two Towers was painful and laborious to watch at times. again, i really feel like i shouldnt say anything at all, and im basically just repeating what i posted briefly in another thread...but i felt compelled to write.

i am glad people enjoyed this movie. i hope they were entertained by it, and maybe it even inspired some to read the books or other works of fiction (or non-) to expand their minds.

i'm just sad that i couldnt have enjoyed it more.

 

[finleyville]

DISCLAIMER: The following comments are made by a huge Tolkien fan who has read everything by him (yes, even his Christmas letters.) I even collect and play the Middle Earth card game. Not the one based on the movies, but rather the superior one released back in the early 90's. I also do love movies, but maybe not to the extreme like other fellow members here. So my following comments may be jaded.

I have two minds when asked if I liked The Two Towers (and The Fellowship for that matter.) On the surface I really liked the film. However, if I compare the books and the movies, I become slightly disappointed. That is only because MY version of the movie was not made and could never be made.

First of all, like ANY director trying to recreate a popular book or series of books (read: Harry Potter, Tom Clancy) the director is walking a fine line. The more devouted the fans are makes the job even more difficult. It seems the more you please the hardcore followers, the more tedious the film appears to the general populace. Swing the other side and the film becomes too accessable and vanilla which pisses off the purists. And rarely is the original story written, ESPECIALLY within the fantacy genre, which can be made in its pure form that will appeal to the general public. Face it; the average Joe drives the sales of movies, not the purists.

I’m actually referencing the books beside me against the movie for my comments.

-------------------
First, even more so than in the previous film, the Balrog is too much bark and not enough bite. It flails left and right, roars, spouts flames, and whips its tail. Yawn. Where's the monstrosity in the monster? There's something in the computer animation that smooths the terror out of what ought to be terrifying and renders it a mere mechanical contraption. Get your hissing-spitting-fire-breathing-what-not, 25% off today only.
--------------------

Actually, the film recreates this sequence almost exactly. Tolkien never did write actions sequences very well. The showdown on the bridge and the fall while very dramatic was never written with much detail. There is much grandeur and posturing with the Balrog but little stated action.

I agree that the Balrog is described with more shadow. But I think that the popular expectations of him were so great that there would be a greater backlash if little were shown rather than too much.

----------------------
Second, Gandalf hardly uses any of his powers. Why not? Isn't he
an arch- wizard? If Jackson is going to show the battle, he should
show Gandalf as doing a little more than what a mere physical
fighter might have accomplished.

This is another ludicrous scene, where Gandalf's exorcism devolves into waving his staff around wildly as if at some invisible beast, and knocking the king's possessed body around telekinetically. Must magic be so tiringly blatant? Can't Gandalf merely look the King in the eyes, and maybe speak a word or two?

Magic is so boring in the movie! It is never given the air of delight or charm or strangeness that it should have. It lacks that spirit of the occult or the divine. I think that's a tragedy.
--------------------------

Don’t you contderdict yourself here, shivohum? First you want magic to be grand then extra simple. I guess I don’t understand your point.

Magic is directly seen very little in LOTR. Usually it is subtler or is only alluded to. Blowing smoke shaped like ships and fireworks like swooping dragons are good examples. If you remember, Gandalf right before the bridge showdown did describe a magical contest between him and the Balrog concerning sealing a door behind the fellowship. The Balrog’s counter spell almost overwealmed Gandalf. But you are only told of this event and do not see it. Although that scene was not included in the movie.

Plus Peter Jackson’s intent was to try to create a more realistic fantacy film. Portraying awe inspiring magical spells would only give the film a cheesy, Dungeons and Dragons feel.


Characterizations in the movie also received much criticizem. My first reaction was to agree. But after thinking about it, I don’t mind the departures so much now. I think Jackson has given the characters more life.

----------------------------------
Gimli is a buffoon, and Legolas substitutes elven mystery and dignity for the image of a comradely sharpshooter.
----------------------------

I disagree on Gimli only being a ‘comic relief.’ I do agree on his whole character being overexagerated. Which is an exact opposite of how dwarves are classicly depicted. Usually they are strong, stoic, grumpy, and serious. However, Gimli is shown as being overbearing, impatient, proud, and very emotional. In the story at Balin’s tomb, Gimli just bows his head in silence then is reluctant to finally leave the tomb when driven out. The movie portrays Gimli openly crying at this point. Of course he is the lighthearted outlet in the fellowship. But I feel that just falls in line with the rest of his character’s traits in the movie.

I don’t understand how Legolas fails to show dignity. Dignity to me means nobility, assurance, and composure. I feel all three are appearent in both films. I also felt that Legolas was the most accessable elf in the books and therefore felt more down to earth and less mysterious. I do agree that the other elves, Elrond, Galadriel, and Cirdan, did have that other-worldly and mysterious feel to them.


-------------------
The Ents are another bright spot in the movie. Because of or in spite of the CGI – I don't know which – something of the true grandeur and dignity of these colossal beings is conveyed. Treebeard is probably the role played most in consonance with the spirit of the books.
-------------------------

I agree.

------------------------------------
By the way, Sean Astin did a good job butchering Sam's
character. Rarely have I seen actors play characters with such little conviction. It must have taken real talent to make those lines sound so mundane. The oh-so-googly-eyed melodramatic friendship between Frodo and Sam does not help.
------------------------------

I thought the change in the relationship between Sam and Frodo was needed in this day and age. The story starts with and develops a true platonic love that Sam has for Frodo. If you tried to recreate that on the screen, it would appear like a homosexual relationship.
Instead, initially Sam follows Frodo because of a promise. Although that does sound weak, that is better than a failed attempt at the alternative.

Besides the glaring error of Frodo’s age, I feel the Hobbits are done rather well. Frodo IS the more serious and practical hobbit of the four. At first having a stupid and comical hobbit (I can’t remember if it is Merry or Pippin) in the movie bothered me. Until, that is, I realized that to me at least I didn’t see any distinction between the two in the stories. If Jackson were true to the books, then I don’t think the audience would see a difference either. This trait departure then is necessary to distinguish each hobbit as an individual on screen.

Yes, the movie is in-your-face. But I feel it is necessary to keep the casual movie watcher abreast of the events and places. Middle Earth ranks up there as the most detailed fantacy world ever created. Its history is chronicled from the beginning of time with the Valar and Maiar, through the Noldor and Numenoreans at Beleriand and Gondolin, and leading up to our story with the history all twenty rings. To truly follow the LOTR some understanding of the world and its history is necessary. Otherwise the long list of realms, races, kingdoms, and characters becomes very confusing. So the only way for the casual viewer to make sense of the backdrop for the story is to have it painfully spelled out for them. That is the only way they can sort it out and understand it. I’m sorry. I believe the average moviegoer is not the intelligent and analytical person who can follow a complex story without much help.

 

[nanahachi]

nice post finleyville. nice to see another tolkien fan who knows his stuff. above all, i agree with your final statement
Quote:

I believe the average moviegoer is not the intelligent and analytical person who can follow a complex story without much help.

movies are only entertainment. they are rarely made to make one think (god forbid an American movie-goer uses their brain, that would get in the way of all the explosions), so i need to remember to treat them as such.

so, im really beginning to give up on the film. im booking time this weekend so that i can catch it in LA, so that i can give it a second chance. but im tired of talking about it with people. if you liked it, great, im glad you were amused. if youre a fan and didnt like it, im with you there, but hey, we expected too much. we can always go back to the books (im burying myself in the silmarillion yet again).

i used to be the type to see movies as an escape. pure BS, where physics and reality have no place. taking liberties is the rule, and being true to fact (or storylines) is rarely done. too bad i forgot about that. my fault.

im glad the movie was made, it will inspire some to read the books (eg my gf) and hopefully get others to think and use their imaginations.

we could all go on and on about details they screwed up, sloppy editing, poor acting, and by all means, dont let me stop you. i just need to get myself to shut up, because everytime i talk to people about it, they all seemed to have enjoyed it, while i didnt. ignorance is bliss, so im ceasing my griping (well, ill try), and will let others be as taken by Middle Earth as i have.

 

[daycart1]

Well, I'm a huge Tolkien fan and a purist about it. Nevertheless, I thought the film was wonderful. Most of the liberties Jackson takes are justifiable to cut the running time or to dumb it down to appeal to more viewers.

I did, however, think there were some changes that were stupid.

1. Messing up the Faramir episode with no gain at all. In fact, it is important to establish his character at this point. It is also a major hole in the plot to reveal the location of the ring to a Nazgul at this point.

2. The ridiculous Aragorn-off-the-cliff sequence. What? I guess they were pleased with their CGI wargs and thought this was a way to give them more screen time. Or perhaps it is supposed to look like a video game where the hero has five lives and they want to use up 4 of them??

3. As someone else mentioned, it cheapens the Ents (who look great) to change things so that they are scolded and then tricked into action. I suppose this was done to strengthen the Merry and Pippen characters, but this should be done more realistically as JRR himself does it.

Oh well, now to wait another year.....

 

[nanahachi]

sigh, thank you daycart1, thank you

you share my 3 biggest qualms, which i think are important. i think that each of those changes detract from the story and WASTE onscreen time, instead of saving it.

im glad youre excited to see the next one. i wasnt at all, but now im hopefully again, hopeful that Jackson can find some better middleground btwn making an accessbile movie and complete BS.