The Two Towers - *Spoilers*

[House of Mustard]

So...  Elves at Helm's Deep?  It didn't really alter the story in any way, so why did they do it?

Also, why did they have that whole Aragon dying thing?  Just so we could see how upset Eowyn got?

Also, Eowyn is way better looking than pouty old Arwen.  Aragorn is a dork.

Also, Gollum should be up for an Oscar.

Awesome show, by the way.

[Kid_Kilowatt]

Elves at Helm's Deep: I think that Peter Jackson and the other writers were trying to eliminate some of the clutter and numerous factions from the trilogy that would confuse a lot of viewers who hadn't read the books.  The rangers coming to Helm's Deep to save Rohan's bacon would be out of the blue and anything in the books that pointed to Aragorn being the leader of the rangers had no room in the movie script.  The elves make an adequate substitute - they've already been introduced, and including them is a sideways reference to the Arwen/romance subplot that needs any bolstering it can get.  This will be further reinforced, I believe, when Arwen brings Narsil (and possibly more elves) in the next movie to ride the Paths of the Dead with Aragorn.  It also links well to the Galadriel-Elrond discussion in the middle where they review the playing field and discuss intervention.  I think that it was an adequate substitute, like putting Arwen where Glorfindel was in the first book.  The books simply have too many characters and too many factions for them all to be represented adequately.  Jackson has tried to pay homage to things that have to be cut by making token gestures or sensible substitutions, and I think that the elves at Helm's Deep count in the latter category.  Having said that, though, I'm glad that we get a peek at the Southrons and Easterlings, who each have their own bad-@$$ look!

Aragorn "Dying":  When I read about this in early reviews, I thought it was a terrible idea and totally unnecessary.  However, after seeing the movie, I've done an about-turn of sorts.  I think that Peter Jackson (and Fran and the other writers) added this for two reasons.  The first is that the middle would drag and lack in any sort of action or suspense without a fight scene, and the warg attack served this purpose well.  But this alone isn't enough reason.  The second purpose this surprise event serves is to do exactly that - surprise the viewers.  Tolkien fans get complacent when watching these movies - they know exactly what's going to happen, so they sit back and fold their arms and say, "Just do what I know you're going to do and do it right."  This kind of viewer needs to get shaken up once in a while.  Aragorn dying unexpectedly does this, and it happens so suddenly that it'll wake most everyone up.  The same goes for the other added bit with Frodo right at the end - it adds an element of surprise, forcing the Tolkien-nerd audience to realize that they can't ALWAYS know what happens next.

I couldn't have been happier with this movie.

ps: There's a spoilers warning in the subject line, so don't read this unless you've seen the movie!

[House of Mustard]

I also could not have been happier with this movie, but the Aragorn thing did seem uneccesary.  It may have surprised Tolkien fans, but it probably just made most of them groan.

[Fellfrosch]

I can see Kilowatt's point with Aragorn dying, but I don't know if I agree completely. It didn't really bother me when it happened, though, so I guess I'm too complacent to discuss it.

Mentioning Narsil brings up an interesting point: in the books, they reforge Narsil in Rivendell before the fellowship ever leaves, and Aragorn has it with him the whole time; when Elladan and Elrohir show up at Helm's Deep they bring a banner, not a sword. But in the movie we never saw them reforge the sword, though the sword Aragorn uses looks remarkably like Narsil. So does he have it, or will there be a more official (more dramatic) reforging in the third movie?

Also, I must agree that Gollum deserves an Oscar. His performance was a surprisingly deep highlight in what was allegedly just an action movie.

As for Eowyn, I she's gorgeous and makes Arwen look bland and dumpy in comparison. My wife, on the other hand, thinks that Eowyn is plain and ugly while Arwen has perfect skin (which I say is cheating, because she's an elf and thus gets better lighting). So I guess the question is, which of Aragorn's honeys do you prefer?

[Mr_Pleasington]

Woo hoo! Just got back and I've got to say I absolutely loved this movie. A little more deviation from the books than I expected, but all fine in the name of good cinema.

Before I point out just what I loved, let me answer the Narsil question.  As an avid LOTR CCG player, the sword Aragorn carries is not Narsil.  It's just a normal sword and you can see he carries it from Bree onward...or at least one remarkably similar.  I doubt Jackson would just leave out something as important as reforging Narsil, especially given the screen time it got in the first film.

Now, here's what I'm still hyped up about even after the movie:
Gimli --- he's always been one of my favorite characters and I thought he didn't get a lot of great screen time in the first film.  They more than made up for it in this one.  While one person I saw it with thought that some of his comments were badly timed, I found myself enjoying the vast majority of his lines and his amazing butt-kicking ability.  His speech on dwarven women was awesome.

The Ents looked outstanding.

Gimli and Aragorn holding the causeway --- probably my favorite action scene in the entire movie.  This was like something from a dream.  Just pure, unadulterated fantasy fun.

Wormtongue and Theoden --- The "bad" Theoden looked great...err... appropriately worn down.  I really didn't imagine him like this, but he looked good....guess Jackson didn't think he could communicate the corruption without something visual.  Grima was impressive....can't wait to see him get his due.

The Dead Marshes were frickin' creepy.

Gollum was fantastic.  The absolute best CGI character ever done in a live action film.  They nailed his inner conflict.  Wow.  That's all I have to say about that.

They made Faramir out to be a much bigger jerk than he was in the books, but I guess they needed to show the weakness of men.  I was wondering where the flying Nazgul would come in...especially since Legolas didn't snipe one like he was supposed to.  Faramir got that done, though.

Anyone else think "Let them come" will be in each movie much like SW's "I've got a bad feeling about this"

Overall, outstanding job.  I am surprised at how much of Frodo's journey they left for RotK.  "The Choices of Master Samwise" was always one of my favorite chapters in TT.  Still, if they're leaving off the Scouring of the Shire, they'll have room for it.  Also, I felt like Merry and Pip's storyline could have been given more time, but they did well with the time they had.

I just can't wait for the scene in RotK when Aragorn bends the Palantir of Orthanc away from Sauron.  It's like giving the bird to the dark lord himself.

Well, enough gushing.  I'm still on my post movie high so forgive me  

[Slant]

I agree with everybody concerning Gollum.  Smeagol is the best CGI character EVER!  Hands down.  Better than Dobby and waaay more palatable than Jar Jar Dink.  I hope Andy Serkis gets a lot of job offers following the trilogy.  

Gimli is one of my favorite characters as well, and I think they overdid it with the humor.  A good line now and then would have been fine, but EVERY scene with him had some sort of joke.  The Gimli from the books was a real badar$e, not comedy relief.  I also wasn't too crazy over the orcs who sounded like they were in a Monty Python skit.

As for the Arwen/Eowyn debate:  I gotta go with Arwen.  Elf ears just kinda do it for me.  And those lips!  Liv Tyler is just hella-cute  

 

I too thought the Dead Marshes were a highlight.  The Ents just looked like giant muppets, though.

It's been many years since I read LotR, so maybe somebody can fill me in on the bit about Saruman inventing gunpowder.  Did that actually happen in the book as well?

The Aragorn Lost scene was pretty much just a way to give Arwen some more screen time, so I have no problem with it.

Okay, let me know if any of you have ever thought about this while watching the film:  Saruman is the most powerful wizard in the world, yet when the ents attack Isengard, he is at a loss.  HELLO!!!!  The ents move very s l o w l y  and are made of WOOD!!!  Any fire-based spells would send them up in flames in seconds.  Plus he has EXPLOSIVE POWDER!!  Surely Saruman couldn't consider a couple dozen walking trees throwing rocks to be THAT much of a threat....

Unlike all of the pervious animated versions, Sam is depicted here as he should have always been.  He is neither ugly, dim, nor cowardly as he is often portrayed.  Instead he is portrayed as brave and selfless, with a strong survival instinct and good common sense.

Overall, this is one of my favorite films ever.  I eagerly await the extended version DVD.

okay, quick question:  what extra scenes would you all like to see in the extended version??

[Mr_Pleasington]

A quick thought about Saruman and the Ents...magic in Middle Earth tends not to be the flashy kind we associate with wizards in general (since the wizards of ME aren't human anyway).  Sure, Gandalf lets loose some spectacular effects now and again in the Hobbit and the book version of the Fellowship, but they are few and far between and tend to put a huge drain on him.  Consequently, Saruman *might* have been able to fry and Ent or two with magic, but not all of them by any means.

[Prometheus]

That and a solid tree takes a lot longer to burn than most people think. It's not like the Ents were made out of kindling. Unless the fireball was way more powerful than any sort of magic attack spell Tolkein included in his novels, the ent would survive long enough to put out the fire in the flood that followed.

I actually think I do remember something in the novels about fireballs coming out to hit ents while they were assaulting the black tower, but it didn't seem to be very threatening to them. A big annoyance mostly.

I agree with Slant on the Aragorn lost scene, too. It had nothing to do with surprising Tolkien fans. It was there so we could get a bit of love scene stuff in Two Towers.

[Nicadymus]

I must admit that having seen the 12:01 AM showing on the 18th certainly altered my perceptions of the movie.  Everyone in the theatre was stoked and that offered an atmosphere from the audience that heightened the experience.

As far as the movie goes, it was a great Hollywood-ized version of the books.  To all the loyalists there are plenty of inaccuracies. To all those who never read the books it was a great movie.  In my opinion it should be taken for what it is, a particular group of writers' cinematic interpretation of a literary masterpiece.  Of course they have taken A LOT of license, but I feel that they have produced a high-quality movie.

The one aspect that truly stood out in my mind was the character of Gollem. I would simply reiterate the praise offered in previous posts.  Why repeat what has already been said?

All in all I would definitely recommend the movie.

[Fellfrosch]

So here's something that keep bothering me about the movie: the final charge (well, two final charges) at Helm's Deep were truncated. We never really saw the battle end, we just saw them ride into the fray and then the scene cut to Isengard. By the time it cut back to Helm's Deep the battle was apparently over and everybody was celebrating, and I felt kind of left out. This has been gnawing at me ever since yesterday, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it until now. Did anybody else get this, or am I up in the night? (I suppose both could be true, actually, but either way I'm interested to hear what you have to say).

[Prometheus]

I don't think it bothered me much. It probably would have been nice to see some scenes of Uruk-hai being run down, but the movie was really long already, and after playing the Total War computer game series, it was easy to see how that one was going to end.

[Fellfrosch]

I just saw it again, and I liked it even more the second time. It seems like the biggest departure from the book, however, is one we haven't mentioned yet (except for Kilowatt's ominous foreshadowing from a week or two ago): Frodo presents himself and the Ring to the Nazgul. The whole point of sending a small group of hobbits is that Sauron wouldn't expect it--they could sneak in under his radar and he would never know. Sure, he knew the ring was in the Shire at one point, and he knew that hobbits took it to Rivendell, but after that he lost track of it and had no idea where it was until it was destroyed. In the movie, however, Frodo gives himself away and tells Sauron exactly who has it and where it is. How dumb is that?

[Slant]

The One Ring is trying to get back to its master.  When it sensed the close proximity of the Nazgul, it took possession of Frodo for the few moments that it could and made him walk to the Nazgul to give it the ring.  Remember how he seemed to be in a trance when he did it?  Luckily Sam was able to pull him away before the Nazgul got the ring.

[House of Mustard]

I got the impression that the Nazgul wasn't entirely sure that it was Frodo with the ring.  If it was sure that it had finally found it's long sought after prize, I don't think one arrow in the neck would have stopped him.

[Fellfrosch]

To Slant: I know why it Frodo did it, I just don't know why Peter Jackson did it.

To Mustard: I can't imagine that a Ring-wraith could stand there while Frodo holds the ring up to him and not know that it was the ring. If you can do that and somehow still remain secret, why not waltz on in to Mordor, tell everyone you're the pool guy, and then ask a wraith to toss the ring in for you?