Lord of the Rings (2 towers)

[@PLUGO]

Well caught the midnight showing of this epic flick...

Got home sometime around 4:20am...

Don't want to spoil it for anyone... but I'd be curious about people's views on the battles...

Large scale sieges...

individual combats and the techniques of the Elves/Dwarfs/Orks/humans...etc...

I mean we might as well try in keep it on topic eh?

[quiet man]

You lucky b@st@rd! I'll have to wait for at least a month before I get a chance to see it... seen the trailer though - and just can't wait!

IMHO, "Fellowship" was very good, but I (being this HUGE Tolkien fan that I am ;-)) can't forgive P. Jackson for RUINING Galadriel's character. It was a disgrace ... shame PJ!

Hopefully "TTT" will do better...

[@PLUGO]

Well I haven't read the books... I will probably start reading them this coming year if I find a copy under the X-mas Ent...

Some people may be put off by the "comedy Relief" aspect of the film. I was at first, but foun them to be a welcomed relief when things got...er... hairy.

Have you seen the "Extended Edition DVD" of Fellowship?

Totally worth renting. Lots of treats for readers...

[MaFuYee]

hi,

just came back from watching the 2 towers.
what an amazing piece of cinema!

of course the battle scenes were unrealistic; but that has to be expected.

e.g. - you don't "block" with swords. - the edges would chip, and the sword would soon break. - at least that would be the case with the swords used by aragorn, legolas, etc. - it's called 'stage fighting'

also, i found it to be a tad annoying when the baddies would delay delivering the killing stroke, just so they can snarl, and make a face, giving someone else the moment they needed to step in and save the proverbial day.

the storming of isengard was absolutely incredible. - score one for the trees!

the thing that drives me crazy is that i have to wait another year to watch the last installment!

[ZIM]

I read the books maybe 20 years ago & I've been pretty impressed so far with the fealty to them. This second movie [I saw it last night] was a little off [ended too soon- it was supposed to go on a little] & confusing, but I'm thinking on the second or third viewing it will be better.

I've also seen the extended version of FOTR, and agree that it holds much more info. I'm suspecting that there's at least an extra hour of movie in TTT that was cut for length- seeing that will make a better time of it. I can't imagine what its like for those who haven't read the books.

Fighting styles: agree with MaFuYee re: stage fighting.

Gollum/Smeagol used a kind of "monkey" style, IMHO [and was the coolest character].
Gimli's bravery is spot on when he charges into everything.
The Ents have superb "rooting" LOL I was a little put off that they didn't show them 'growing into' Orthanc/Isengard, but still very spectacular. [Side note: Orthanc was made of 'unbreakable' stone. Tolkien wrote the Ents 'used the power of trees, that can grow into anything, given enough time.' A little Hsing I, in a way]

Battle scenes: awesome. We were looking at all those orcs, saying "sheeeeeeit...." All those pikes! And the orcs spoke, not just grr grr

[@PLUGO]

I've never read the books...

Yeah yeah on the theater sword techniques.... But you'd figure elven made swords don't chip.

I dug Legolas's ability to switch from Bow to blades at a moment's notice.

I wonder about the darf... whlle it was nice to see him be more than just grumpy was he SUCH a BAD @SS that he could afford to be so clumsey?

It must have been magic blades that allowed Orcs to be sliced so frequiently. It was often little more than one slice per Orc...

totally dug the flaming Ent's retreat into the flooding waters.

& GOLEM creapy piece of rubber he was!!!

[Souljah]

did u guys see the making of it? twas quite good.....

saw it on wednesday, great film......!


the battle scenes were the best i've seen, by sheer vast-ness.....

[ZIM]

Just responding to your post-

I wonder about the darf... whlle it was nice to see him be more than just grumpy was he SUCH a BAD @SS that he could afford to be so clumsey?

Dwarfs in the Tolkien world are tough as stone, literally. The movies seem to be overplaying the comedic relief of the 'short guy'. In [that] reality, dwarfs are nearly always frontline troops capable of cleaving orcs in two with a single blow and withstanding punishment that would shame an elf. Their clumsiness would be relative to elfs [who are the most graceful and quick] and men. I prefer to think of them as 'ungainly' rather than clumsy, which is a beef I have with the movie.

It must have been magic blades that allowed Orcs to be sliced so frequiently. It was often little more than one slice per Orc...

Maybe. Aragorns, legolas blades were elven, not necessarily magical. Tolkien's magic was more involved with the quality of a thing's making than with magical energy put into a thing. Thus materials like mithril figure into it and elven or dwarven craftsmanship is important.

GOLEM creapy piece of rubber he was!!!

LOL- golems are jewish creations. Its Gollum. I only correct becuz a fan will crucify you....yes, he's schizoid from being taken over by the ring. He's his own 'fight club'.


Will Rhadagast be in the next movie???
Did you notice the men over by the Black Gates- they were Easterlings, dressed in oriental garb. The story takes place in the western half of middle earth, and they come from the other side of Mordor. They are based on Indian/Arab/Chinese cultures, with oliphaunts and cool weapons. Some might feel that this constitutes a kind of racist commentary, but more to the point is that they are in the stories at all...Tolkien said they had their own tales, he just didn't write them.

[dezhen2001]

just saw the trailer here in the UK and cant wait to see this movie will probably wait until after christmas when things have calmed down a bit though...

it looks effin amazing! im soooo glad they have such technology now, it makes everything seem much more amazing!

dawood

[HuangKaiVun]

I've read "The Hobbit" as well as the entire "Lord of the Rings".

If anything, the movies are much darker than the book is. There's no Tom Bombadil (who can put on the Ring with no ill effect whatsoever), and there are quite a few brilliant scenes in the movie that aren't in the book (e.g. Boromir reaching for the ring and getting blown back by Gandalf uttering in the language of Mordor).

I liked Galadriel in the movie. She totally fit the book character, especially in context of the extended series. The gifts were a bit different than in the book, but I think it worked better.

My only wish is that Peter Jackson had made "The Hobbit" before making the 3 ring circus. There's so much in "The Hobbit" that needs to be known before LOTR can make sence (e.g. Gandalf getting rid of Smaug so that Sauron wouldn't use the dragon to "terrible effect").

Aragorn wields the blade "Anduril", which was formerly "Narsil" or "The Blade that was once formerly broken". That sword cut the Ring from Sauron's finger and is a true magic sword. Elrond's Rivendell elves reforged it before Aragorn left on the journey of the Ring. Only Aragorn can wield it because it will kill anybody who draws it who isn't of the lineage of Elendil/Numenor/Isildur.


As a side medical note, Gollum is "schizoid" indeed. He sees the world very strange and twisted as a result of wearing the ring for 500+ years.

However, he's ALSO dealing with multiple personality syndrome - NOT the same as schizophrenia.

[SevenStar]

I'm shocked there hasn't been a thread about it yet - Has nobody else seen it?

[dezhen2001]

havent seen it yet but hope to later this week.
ur in the wrong sectin theres one down there

dawood

[red5angel]

Good movie. I was about to punch about 12 fat balding geeks on the way out though. Next time I hear something along the lines of "it wasn't as good as the book" or "IT didn't happen like that in the book" I am going to pull out a six pack of whup a$$....

[Chang Style Novice]

The only four divergences from the book (maybe three) that really bothered me were

1 Gandalf not running back to Isengard to kick Saruman & Grima's asses (especially since the Scouring of the Shire is going to be cut out, so I hear.)

2 Aragorn's weird little death subplot (although it did bring Arwen and Elrond back into the picture so I understand why they did that.)

3 Faramir's character getting rewritten (now it looks like the line of the Stewards of Gondor are just a bunch of @ssholes)

and this may or may not count as 4, given 3 above; Frodo Sam and Gollum being taken to Dethenor.

Basically, I would've preferred to see a lot more between Frodo, Sam and Gollum so the focus stayed on the ring more and less on the battle scenes. Except for Helm's Deep and Isengard, this ought to have been the character-heavy movie, where we really get to worrying about the fates of the people and the world, and not so much the action-packed adventure. Also, if it was up to me, I wouldn't have shown the battle with the Balrog - just let Gandalf stay all mysterious about it.

Don't get me wrong, though - the movie was quite kick ass! I just thought the first one was about flawless, and this one had some minor flaws. And hey - they improved on the flawless FotR in the extended DVD version, so I expect they'll do the same for TTT.

Red5Angel may now punch me.

[yenhoi]

I noticed a host of other "not like the books" stuff, call them mistakes or what have you, good movie.