Just Saw 'Two Towers'

[Evil Knevil]

I hear that they're going to remove/reduce the Battle at the Black Gate, if that means anything to you Tolkien readers?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Is the dvd collection with the extra scenes worth buying?

Yep! The "free ticket" was a rip off though. On the TV they advertized that editions with the free ticket would be available for a limited time only. What they should have said was that the free ticket would be good for a limited time only. The thing was good from 12/18 to 12/31 only. Since I worked 12 hour shifts the four days after Christmas, when I got the thing, I didn't even know about the time limit until the last day. Ticked me off to no end.

[Drake Tungsten]

I hear that they're going to remove/reduce the Battle at the Black Gate, if that means anything to you Tolkien readers?

What the ****! God, the "Return of the King" is sounding worse and worse...

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... the Ring Wraiths were unable to do much in the books as well

IIRC the cries of the Nazgul had the city defenders huddling and cowering in fear. Sometimes surpressing the enemy is just as valuable as collecting heads.
I must admit though, seeing the wraith depart after its steed took a single arrow wasn't really a good showing.

I read that they will minimize the "scourging of the Shire" to leave room for other things.

At a guess we'll find this out right at the start of the last movie. No battle of the shire => they'll have to get rid of Saruman another way (or rather exactly the same way, just much sooner).

Anybody else dislike the (supposed) wargs? I thought the animation was pretty good but didn't like the actual appearance much. They're supposed to be wolves not some sort of cat-things.

I guess I'm more bothered by how Jackson used the Nazgul to finally bring about Faramir's change of heart. Sam's speech moved him in that direction, but it was the Nazgul confrontation that finally swayed him in the film - and its just that the scene was too contrived for me. If he had left it with Sam's speech, that would of been more natural.

They took the typical American approach to that one. You can get more with a carrot and a big stick than with just the carrot.

[Geronimo]

I suspect the confrontation with the nazgul was included in the osgiliath scene because they will be cutting the confrontation with the nazgul at minus morgul out of ROTK.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
For God's sake, the last half of the third books is an appendix to help you understand what the hell went on: if someone here can explain some whay in which a filmaker could somehow include the whole index into the fiolms, then perhaps you can try to make the movie.

That's why Tolkien isn't such a good writer. The Hobbit is by far his best, being short and somewhat light-hearted.

[Stuie]

Re: Scourging of the Shire - we already saw it. That's what Frodo viewed in Galadriel's bird bath thingy (sorry to you purists; can't remember the name of the bird bath looking thingy right now) in FOTR. It was used more as a "look what happens if you fail" than as an actual event that will take place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that's NOT the scourging of the Shire that is the part we want to see! We want to see Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippen kick the crap out of those enslaving the hobbits.

[Arrian]

But if you have to cut something... it's pretty much got to be that. And they have to cut something. They have to do Shelob (have to, given Gollum's last line in TTT), the attack on Gondor/slaying of the WitchKing (head Nazgul)/Aragorn's sailing to the rescue, Sam & Frodo's journey to Mt. Doom, the scene at Mt. Doom, and hopefully the seemingly hopeless offensive led by the "Captains of the West" to the Black Gate.

That's a lot of stuff. I didn't even mention Frodo, Sam & Gollum passing Minas Morgul, the ordeal with Frodo being captured & Sam rescuing him, the Paths of the Dead...

-Arrian

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I know they go around talking, but why draw it out in a movie with limited time when you could go do other things?! If you are going to spend that much time on the talking, make it INTERESTING, like in the book, where they talked with Treebeard about the origin of the Orcs and the Entwives, etc. Not the BS they were going on about.

Because it's still talking, which is not effective cinema. You need to be showing, as much as possible.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If he wanted to show them doing something with treebeard then why not at least show them drinking the ent drink or play up their speech at the ent moot or their part in the attack at Issengard or something?

The ent draught was supposedly filmed, so we might get it in the extended edition. Their part in the attack was shown. Playing up their speech in the entmoot, well, they already gave a pretty good speech. I don't think there's really anything more to play up about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because it's still talking, which is not effective cinema. You need to be showing, as much as possible.

Yes, it is STILL talking, so why not talk about things more interesting?!

That's a lot of stuff. I didn't even mention Frodo, Sam & Gollum passing Minas Morgul, the ordeal with Frodo being captured & Sam rescuing him, the Paths of the Dead...

Like I said... Paths of the Dead is totally cut out.

[Demerzel]

TTT was 'only' 3hrs long, so they could have slapped another 20mins in there without killing the audience I'm sure, esp. as FOTR was 3h30m. With that 20mins they could have put in shelob's lair and as someone above observed had a nice cliffhanger of Frodo being 'dead'. Far more effective ending then the one we got.

This would have freed up 20mins for ROTK which would avoid having to cut a lot to fit it all in. Cutting stuff from TTT to fit into ROTK seems bizarre but I'm sure PJ will surprise us all with what he's achieved.

*sigh* just 11mths to go...

[Arrian]

FOTR and TTT were 1 minute apart in running time. FOTR extended edition may be 3hrs, 30 minutes.

-Arrian

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I agree. They can change things if they want but the changes should make sense and they shouldn't be dumb. The Aragon scene didn't add anything

Yes, it does. It adds more opportunity to develop Éowyn's character by playing first to her dismay that he did not return, then to her joy when he arrives later. And it adds a source of the knowledge that Saruman's army is coming in larger numbers than expected, something that had to be in there somehow.

nor does the one where Treebeard and the council of ents deciding not to join then changing their mind.

Yes, it does. It makes Merry and Pippin into something more than spectators, which is what they would be for the whole movie otherwise.

In the book the council voted to attack Sauruman. Having a hundred ents just suddenly jump out of no where after voting not to go to war is sort of dumb.

Here, I think there's a failure in the editing of the sequence when Treebeard arrives at the desolation near Isengard and calls to the other ents. I think a strategic cut could have given the impression of a renewed discussion and a less, well, hasty attack.

I'd also veto the elves showing up at helms deep since it doesn't make sense for them to march from Rivendale to Helmsdeep; especially because if you look at a map of Middle Earth they'd have to go through either Sauruman's territory or Murkwood.

The elves were from Lothlórien. We met Haldir in Fellowship. It's not entirely clear what the impetus for their march to Helm's Deep was, but their arrival works wonderfully and their part in the battle does a nice job of playing up a couple of things. First, the recurring theme of help from unexpected places (the Ents, Gollum, Faramir in the book but not really in the movie). Second, a contrast to the elves' immortality -- it makes them seem less like they just hang on the sidelines letting everyone else do all the dirty work.

I've also seen it suggested that their presence here was used as a proxy for the reported skirmishes between the elves of Lórien and Mirkwood and Sauron's minions out of the Misty Mountains, Dol Guldur, and the East, which we read about in the book but are unlikely to hear about in the movies.

The whole dipiction of Faramir didn't add to the charactor nor did it make the story any better so why turn it into a 15 minute scene? The original story about Faramir was better and shorter.

For better or for worse, the screenwriters didn't think there was enough "movement" in Faramir's character, so they set out to make him initially less noble than he is throughout the books. Certainly, it did add something to his character, though whether it's a positive addition or not is debateable (my position is neutral).