Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies

FortKnox's Journal: TTT Revisited 10

Journal by FortKnox
OK, I finally went out to see The Two Towers again. The LoTR movies are a 2-see movies. The first time to see how they did everything and to enjoy the story. The second time to analyze and see the familiarities it has with the book. Because I wasn't done with the second book the first time I saw the movie, we had to wait a while until I went to see it again (and extra time to get someone to watch joey, too). Anywho, here's my analysis. It contains plot summaries, not necessarily spoilers, but if you haven't seen the movie yet you may not want to read (honestly, if you haven't, you probably already heard all the spoilers anyway):

First, and formost, the guy that did Smeagel (aka Gollum) deserves an award. There is no doubt about how perfectly he portraited the part.

The actress that played Eowyn is a hottie (had to throw that in). I'd even say she'd be a better "geek" fantasy than natalie portman.

And finally, the only thing that rubbed me the wrong way (except ending where it did [1]) was Faramir. The whole elf sequence was fine, even though it wasn't in the story. The "falling into the river after the warg battle" was fine by me. The only thing that really got to me was the portrail of Faramir. In the book, Faramir was very smart and clever. He was the one supposed to go to the Fellowship instead of his brother Boromir, but Boromir was too headstrong and stubborn and insisted on going. Faramir knew about the ring, but also knew the graveness that it possessed. Once he knew Frodo had it, he wanted nothing to do with it (WTF? Forcing them to go back to Gondor? Its exactly the OPPOSITE of what happened in the book). Anyway, I just thought that part was poorly done.

Don't get me wrong. The writing of the script follows the book better than any other rescripting of a book. He even uses direct lines throughout the movie. I just thought that the portail of Faramir was a bit off, but it didn't make the movie any less magical.

[1]: Where they should have ended the movie. If you haven't read The Two Towers book, don't read this. It'll be plot twists from the "Return of the King" movie!! However, I generalized it to not give anything major away, just a little tease of what's to come.

SPOILER

They should have ended the movie when the one hobbit starts walking away after the incident with Shelob. That would be enough emotion to get the audience to start reading the books to see what happens next >:-)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TTT Revisited

Comments Filter:
  • by Foochar (129133) <<foochar> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday March 24, 2003 @10:43AM (#5583358) Journal
    As far as the portrayal of Faramir goes, I have to agree with you that he came off much harsher than how I read him to be in my many readings of the books. With this portrayal in mind I'll have to see how he comes across this summer when I reread the books again (I probably read them 4 or 5 times before the movies started coming out, and then I decided that in order to keep from confusing the details of what happens when I needed to reread them every year before the movies came out). I'm also interested in seeing if Faramir comes across differently in the extended release of the movie. Its amazing what an extra 30 minutes of footage can add, especially to a true fan of the movies.

    As far as the ending, they almost had to move the conclusion up some. They moved it by a chapter or so at the end of Fellowship, and now the end of Two Towers was probably about 3 chapters before the end of the book. The thing is, Return of the King is the shortest of the books in terms of actual material, the only reason it is of comparable thickness to the other two books in the three volume sets is the voluminous appendicies at the end. Couple this with the fact that Jackson has decided to cut the scouring of the shire, as well as some of the stuff and in order to create a time balanced set of three movies he has to slide the end points to earlier points than what is in the books.
    • The fact that Jackson has decided to cut out the scouring of the shire makes me really sad. I really liked that part. But unlike Tom Bombadil (my other favorite part that they left out), I think the scouring of the shire is way more important.
  • They should have got Arnold to play Theoden. Before you laugh, picture the scenes in your mind. Arnold can do old withered guy. And damn can he do vigorous aged guy. Can he do vaguely foreign looking medievalish king of horse kingdom? I think he is a vaguely foreign looking medievalish king of a horse kingdom. It would have been awesome.

    The guy they got was a dork.
    • By Arnold, you mean Schwarzenegger? Does he do withered? My first thought was that you meant Arnold from Happy Days (Pat Morita) who is certainly old and "foreign" (in the white LOTR world).

      Hopefully Arnold Horshack wasn't what you had in mind!

      • I was thinking Schwarzenegger, but Horshack would be cool too. But only if Mr. Kotter was Elrond.
  • Another 'plot twist' in TTT that bothered me was the so called trickery used by Merry and Pippin to get the Ents to attack Isengard. In the book didn't the Ents come to a decision to go to war after the Entmoot? Has Jackson said anything about this change and why it was done?
    • Actually, the way the ents came to battle (IIRC) was the same in the movie. He saw all the trees destroyed by Saruman. However, it wasn't pippins idea to go there.
    • I really really hated this too. In the book the Ents came from Entmoot with the decision that they needed to be involved, in the book they had to be tricked. This completely undermines the Ents in my mind.

      I found it distasteful that the fellowship characters knew all and everyone else had to be swayed by them, when in the books they are all falable and not perfect.
  • As for Faramir, I have to agree, but I have to say I see where Jackson was going with the way he was portrayed.

    One thing I loved about Faramir (he and Eowyn are my favorite characters in the book), is that he was *above* all that. He was noble, moreso in many ways than Aragorn was portrayed. He had strength of character that was rare even in a fantasy series all *about* strength of character. And I *liked* that.

    However, I think I can at least explain what Jackson was shooting for. In the first two movies,

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...