http://rx8forum.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=17286

We are all like Smeagol, wondering when we can take possession of our precious... :)

So who has seen the Two Towers?

i haven't but i will take time to see it soon... i hear its foooooooooooooooooooooooooooking awsome!


im sure that doesen't even begin to descrive it either.

Me! i wouldn't mind 1 of them wraiths either

Just saw it this morning. Even better than the first - a true masterpiece. And Gollum deserves an Oscar for best supporting actor - incredible CGI (based on live-action). All the characters are better developed, and Helms Deep is staggering. The 3 hours felt like 90 minutes. If you haven't seen it yet then run, don't walk, to your nearest theater.

Originally posted by Buger
http://rx8forum.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=17286

We are all like Smeagol, wondering when we can take possession of our precious... :)

So who has seen the Two Towers?



those kind of movies are for the following: freaks,geeks,nerds,computer and video game freaks and stupid idiotic lowlives!!

lol just kidding!!

Very Nice Buger. So very true

Strider-

Originally posted by pelucidor
Even better than the first - a true masterpiece. And Gollum deserves an Oscar for best supporting actor - incredible CGI (based on live-action). All the characters are better developed, and Helms Deep is staggering. The 3 hours felt like 90 minutes.

Unfortunally I disagree. I much more enjoyed the first. While I completely agree that Gollum/Smeagol was deserving of and oscar and that there were some great lines written for Gimli, The entire script couldn't have been more than 20 pages long. Ex: Scene 1: Battle; Scene 2:recover from battle; Scene 3: Find more people to fight; Scene 4: Battle; Scene 5: recover from battle...etc.

And what was up with the horrible blue screen effect when the two brothers, Merry & Pippin were walking with the tree? So many incredible special effects and then an entire scene with cheap blue screen showing through. It broke the illusion. And the "White Wizard," It was so obvious that it was going to be Gandalf. I could see that coming a mile away, and I didn't read the book.

Except for Smeagol, I just didn't care about the characters anymore. For me, the 3 hours felt like an eternity. I kept looking at my watch. My wife on the other hand absolutely loved it and can't belive I wasn't thrilled with it.

I NEVER have been able to get through the first one without falling asleep. I have tried 5 times. I know the 1st movie is excellent, but I still fall asleep.

It was AWSOME. Helms deep blew me away, but Puppy1 does have a point about the blue screen, noticed that aswell, but that did little to take away from the movie on a whole.

I just got back from it. As a die-hard Tolkien fan and someone who has read the books many, many times, the movie was awful. I can't believe they screwed it up as badly as they did. The only good part, that was actually relatively close to the story, was the battle of Helms Deep. They screwed up Gollum, they screwed up the Ents, they screwed up Faramir, and they screwed up the end. I can't begin to express how disappointed I am. I guess if you haven't read the books or just aren't that much of a Tolkien fan, it wouldn't matter much..but..ugh...I don't know what Peter Jackson was smoking but...UGH. And I'd really like to throttle Liv Tyler.

And no, I wasn't thrilled with the first movie either- but I liked it a heck of a lot better than this one.

I'm counting on the NAIAS not to be such a disappointment now- at least I can look forward to that!

Hi Elara,

My wife read the books a long time ago and again a couple of years ago. She thought the movie remained pretty faithful given the difficulties in making a movie and all. She did say that she didn't quite remember the "exorcism" of King Theoden being like that. She wants to read the books again next year (when she has some time) because she was interested in seeing how much the movie changed from the book.

I was impressed with Gollum and thought the Ents were pretty cool. I liked seeing the Ents kick butt but that's probably just me being a guy. (We like to see when things kick ass and stuff) :)

I was just wondering what you thought was screwed up about Gollum, the Ents and Faromir?

Brian

I just got back from it. As a die-hard Tolkien fan and someone who has read the books many, many times, the movie was awful. I can't believe they screwed it up as badly as they did. The only good part, that was actually relatively close to the story, was the battle of Helms Deep. They screwed up Gollum, they screwed up the Ents, they screwed up Faramir, and they screwed up the end. I can't begin to express how disappointed I am. I guess if you haven't read the books or just aren't that much of a Tolkien fan, it wouldn't matter much..but..ugh...I don't know what Peter Jackson was smoking but...UGH. And I'd really like to throttle Liv Tyler.

Uh oh... a negative review from a reader of Tolkien, that isn't good. I haven't seen the Two Towers yet, I actually change the channel for trailers. This scares me. I am a huge fan of Tolkien, so much so that I wrote a research paper on the trilogy. Everyone says the second movie is awesome, but most of them havent read the books. As for the first movie, I thought it was ok, I was thrilled that they cut out the Tom Bombadil scene, that was a waste of time on paper and would be a waste of time on film. We will just have to see.

I thought the movie was great. I read the series about 2 years ago and I thought it remained pretty faithful.

I did see the blue screen effect everyone mentioned.....thought it could be better but it wasn't totally distracting. There was another blue screen effect earlier when Legolas did this flip thing just prior to the battle with the wolves.

In any case, those two examples were MINOR distractions at most.

To sum it up......loved it, loved it, LOVED IT!

Now I just have to wait another year.......:(

Buger- hmm..I don't even know where to start. I can't go on much detail because I'm at work, but if you really want details I'll try when I get home. And your wife was right, the thing with Theoden wasn't exactly right, but I can live with that because of time constraints. BUT....

1)Gollum isn't a funny character. Pathetic, sad, pitiful, yes. Not funny. He seems to be almost comic at times in the movie. At least, half the theatre was cracking up. At times, he came across very well- you wanted to like, hate, and feel sorry for him. But the "funny" was not appreciated on my part.

2)Ents, particularly Treebeard, are some of the wisest and oldest creatures in Middle Earth. The movie made them almost uncaring, which they were not. They certainly were never tricked into tearing apart Isengard by Merry and Pippin. However, I did think they did a pretty good job of the destruction of Isengard. I realize they were limited by time contraints on the movie, but you didn't even get a sense of what they were really like. And they looked animatronic.

3)Faramir is the opposite of Boromir- that is, even tempered, and not prone to making quick and stupid decisions. He came across as a jerk in the film.

4)They didn't even end with the end of the book. I guess they took too much flack on the first movie and didn't want to hear people complain about the way it ended.

5)Arwen is playing too big of a role - she didn't belong as much as she was in the first one when she took the place of Glorfindel, who is a pretty important character elsewhere. The story of Arwen and Aragorn is in the appendix (I guess that's what it would be called) of The Return of the King. It's sad, yes, but it just seems kind of thrown into the movie. Heaven forbid we should see a movie that DOESN'T have some kind of love story thrown in our faces.

I could go on and on... sorry- it's almost sacrilegious to me to mess with LOTR- yes, I'm a big geek, I know, and I sound like a raving idiot, I'm sure, but what can you do? And please note these are my opinions- I'm not saying anyone else's are right or wrong.

:)

tallguylehigh- I was actually kind of disappointed they left out Tom Bombadil in the first one, but I can understand why- that type of character probably would not go over well with today's audience, and would not make much sense. However, he's one of my favorite characters in the Fellowship of the Ring.

yikes- I seem to have killed the conversation in the Lounge with my lovely rant above! Sorry guys!

Hi Elara,

Don't worry about it. I wanted to read some more specifics from people didn't like the movie. I would have posted this sooner but I don't have the week off like I did last week. :(

From someone who hasn't read the books, I think Gollum was very memorable and the Ents were pretty cool.

Gollum did seem a rather sad and pitiful character (perhaps not to the same extent as in the book however). He did get some laughs when he did his "split personality" thing but it seemed like it was mostly the kids that were laughing. I laughed a little but mainly because my daughter was cracking up and looking at me (with that isn't this funny look). :) It may have been a bit "out there" but it did also show how strongly conflicted Gollum was. I think that the thing that makes him even more pathetic is that he wasn't trying to be funny when people were laughing at him. He was just being himselves. :)

It seemed like Peter Jackson wanted Gollum to make a big impression on the audience - and he did one way or the other. Gollum was much more expressive than I thought would have been possible for a computer generated character. It seemed like Frodo really needed to have faith in Gollum because he needed to have hope for himself.

I liked the Ents because I just don't see walking and talking trees get pissed off and kick ass very often. :) I can see where you are coming from though. If the the characters are portrayed differently than how many people "know" them from the book, I can see how it would completely change the essence of the movie and leave a bitter taste in their mouths.

The movie will probably be a big reason for many new people to read Tolkien's books though. That can't be all that bad can it?

Brian

No, not at all- I really hope it makes more people read them, actually. And if we're lucky, most of them won't turn into crazed Tolkien freaks like myself. :P

I should have prefaced my original answer with a warning- I am NOT a good person to ask "how was the movie?" on anything, because I so very rarely like anything- especially book adaptations.

(So if you haven't watched the movie don't not go because someone like me DIDN'T like it- it's a perfectly good movie, but some of us are wayyyyyy too picky!)

If you rarely like movies, the logical question would be what movies did you like? The ones you like must be pretty good so maybe you can be the rx-8 forum movie review person?

Instead of Oprah's book list, we can have Elara's movie list? hmm... ;)

I have a friend back in Hawaii (Aprill with two ells) who does a movie review thing for a radio station. Her and her boyfriend both own rx-7s. :)

Okay, I am probably one of THE biggest Tolkien fans there is. I think he is lord and master of the genre, and no one has come close to his works since, with the possible exception of Stephen R. Donaldson's 'The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever'.

Having said that, I was totally apprehensive about anyone doing a movie. The previous, animated attempts were pathetic.
So it was with astonished glee that I watched 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and then 'The Two Towers'. Certainly there were a lot of things that were left out, but overall....my God! Jackson has done an absolutely AMAZING job! And the expanded version of the first movie has more footage, footage that should have been included in the movie. Yes, it was disappointing that they replaced Glorfindel, an ancient Elf-Lord with Arwen, and I was disappointed most that they didn't include Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wights and Tom Bombadil. I realized that would have been VERY hard for the uninitiated to understand, but had they done it right, they would have had the opportunity to show that the kingdom of Arnor once existed in that Northern part of Middle Earth. And we know that it was one of the swords from the barrow of an ancient Arnorian king that Frodo used to help defend himself from the Nazgul when they were first encountered. And as for Tom Bombadil....what more can one say? The only being that the Ring has no Power over....amazing! Another thing that is just criminal is the fact that they have so far IGNORED that Aragorn's sword, which was once Narsil, the sword that cut the Ring from Sauron's finger was reforged and renamed Anduril, the flame of the West, and that Aragorn has the sword and is no longer in hiding but has indeed revealed himself as a Numenorean, the Dunedain'...Man of the West. And heir to the throne of Gondor. But the things they did RIGHT....oh man! The Balrog of Morgoth in the Mines of Moria was just perfect...just fucking perfect! And little details like how Legolas walked on TOP of the snow, while everyone else plowed thru it....that is the attention to detail that I love.
Some of the same inconsistancies are in the second movie, I fear that Smeagol (Gollum) has won the hearts of many, and he was truly masterfully done....but come on! We KNOW he is evil, we KNOW what he does, where he is leading the Frodo and Sam. Those that have formed an attachment to him will be hard pressed to turn loose that, but they must, for here on out he is NOT a good fellow, to say the least!

Once again though, the good stuff is very good. The inter-dimensional battle Gandalf does with the Balrog (though once again, they took no time to mention Gandalf's magical sword Glamdring), the way they show how the Elves exist on two planes at once, finally SOMEONE has got the Elves down right, their power and speed and grace and beauty....perfect.
There needed to be more explanation about the Wizards, only one hint that Gandalf is several thousand years old? And what about the Ring of Power he wears? Sigh....so much, so very much to explain....but they did good, all in all.

Many questions for the final movie.....I hope they do it right. I HOPE they do Shelob as well as they did the Balrog. I wonder how they will show Aragorn gathering the Army of the Dead?
I wonder if they will tell the tale of the Nazgul King, and how it was prophecised that he would not be slain "by the hand of man".....
Will they show how even though Aragorn is over 100 years old now, that he lives to be over 400? And that the glory of Gondor is restored, for a time? And what about the White Tree? Will that be fully explained? As well as the Passing of the Elves into the West (MUCH later than what is shown in The Two Towers!), and the final fate of Bilbo, and the other members of the Fellowship?

Yes, it is easy to sit back and disect the places where the movies diverted from the books, but still.....much, much praise to Peter Jackson and the whole cast and crew! :cool:

Originally posted by Elara



5).... The story of Arwen and Aragorn is in the appendix (I guess that's what it would be called) of The Return of the King. It's sad, yes, but it just seems kind of thrown into the movie. Heaven forbid we should see a movie that DOESN'T have some kind of love story thrown in our faces.



technically the appendix is not the appendix of the return of the king but rather the whole story. although its in three seperate books lotr is not meant to be viewed as a trilogy, but as a book published in three parts because of its size. the part showing gandalf at the beginning of the movie winning his battle and then collapsing in the snow is also not found in the main part of the story but then it was necassary to show the audience how he survived. they had a choice to make leave some things untold, fit them into them into these movies or make a fourth movie. i think they have done an admirable job. but i must agree with you about the use of arwen in the first movie that was definetly too much. *takes off his geek hat* :cool:

Originally posted by bajaman
Okay, I am probably one of THE biggest Tolkien fans there is. I think he is lord and master of the genre, and no one has come close to his works since, with the possible exception of Stephen R. Donaldson's 'The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever'.


omg i thought i was the only one who thought that the thomaas covenant books were great. i haven't found anyone else who enjoyed them as much as i did. i have always though that there was a great movie(s) to made from that series

Originally posted by zoom44

omg i thought i was the only one who thought that the thomaas covenant books were great. i haven't found anyone else who enjoyed them as much as i did. i have always though that there was a great movie(s) to made from that series

Yeah, and with the special effects and technology they have now, and with say....Peter Jackson.....directing.....my God! I really think it would be a hell of a movie series, but it would have to be done in much the same manner as LOTR, there is just SO much scope and detail. I think a lot of people could identify with Thomas Covenant in these times. But the Land could be portrayed so great, and all within it....Giants, Ur-viles, the Keep of Revelstone, the Ravers, the Haruchai....ah yes, it is all coming back now!

It could be great..... :cool:

OK, so I should have said the appendix in the big red book that's got the entire story.

And yes, I have to give Peter Jackson credit for attempting the movies. However, I also feel there's a big difference between adapting something for the screen and rewriting it. There is a reason the story is much beloved, and it's not because it was written by Peter Jackson. And with that, I won't post anymore on this :) I'm too excited about the new abridged version of The Hobbit that I just got to worry about the way the movie was screwd up anymore:p

Firstly, I won't see LOTR Two Towers (9/11 reference?) because what's the point in going to a cinema to watch a movie for 3 hours and still not have it finish, It's a better idea to get all 3 out on DVD and enjoy it home, I mean, come on, who doesn't have a big TV and surround sound, plus you can pause it to go to the toilet and get food.

Now the rumour that I heard was that in LOTR installment 3, Frodo will be completing his journey in a.....
"White RX-8 quad rotary quad turbo!!"
Yeah, that ought to make the film a lot shorter!

My good friends Bannor and Mhoram! Has it really been 20 years already... Yes Donaldson is a worthy comparison.

Reading the Silmarilion now - tough going, need to make notes and draw maps as I go along. Preferred the LOTR movies to the books, but then I read the books when I was too young (12) and didn't understand the depth behind them - will revisit the LOTR books after I finsh the Silmarilion.