Just Saw 'Two Towers'

[Imran Siddiqui]

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 what's the point of developing a character that is so minor to the story when you could have put a lot more stuff that would make better use of that time.

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

And so? They were basically spectators in the books.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Sandman
Helms Deep was a good battle scene (the crunching of the orcs when the boulders fell on them was particularly cool) but a slightly poor action scene, given the complete invulnerability of the main characters.

Tolkien has to bear some of the blame for that, as he seems to put the characters in the middle of hordes of enemies and bring them through it without much damage. Many of the major "actions" by the main characters in the battle are directly from the book, for better or for worse.

They didn't need to ride out at the end like that.

If they hadn't, the book fans would have spontaneously combusted. Again, something right out of the book.

Why include the 'wildmen'? They serve only to confuse.

Well, there were quite a lot of Dunlendings in Saruman's army in TTT the book -- it wasn't strictly orcs. I think that was probably the main reason PJ used them. It helps keep us mindful that this is not strictly "evil creatures" who are the bad guys, there are also men who have chosen poorly (or, in the case of the Dunlendings, arguably been ill-treated by the Rohirrim).

[Arrian]

Plus, I don't see how the Wild Men part is confusing at all. Saruman is whipping up a crowd, telling them to attack Rohan and take back what was stolen from them. That's all you need to know, really. The Wild Men have a grudge vs. the Rohirrim, and Saruman exploits it.

-Arrian

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
What I really,viruently hated about it, though, was that it's probably the most markedly anti-feminist film I've seen in a long time. The scene where the twelve-year old boys go out fighting while the supposedly able women take care for the ****ing kids in the ****ing cave almost had me leave the theatre.

I guess if you go looking for slights you can find them just about anywhere. Consider Galadriel and Arwen as counterexamples, and the writers seem to be going out of their way to enhance the role of women in the movies.

Would you rather this played closer to the book, and all we saw of women, period, was a brief glimpse of Éowyn at Edoras before the men all ride off to meet Saruman's army at the Ford of Isen (leaving her as the stewardess of Edoras)? Beyond that, if you have any women fighting, you would practically have to have Éowyn involved, and there are some serious future story reasons why that can't be done.

[DanS]

I liked that they are playing up Eowyn. She's an interesting character and her role speaks to a contemporary question (well, maybe one of 5 or 10 years past, at least here in the States).

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Wraith
FotR was one of the few movies I've walked out of. Taken as a fantasy movie by itself it probably wouldn't be too horrible, but with Tolkien's name on it it's a failure.

The extended edition improves on some areas. Without knowing more about your complaints with Fellowship, I can't say if they're the places that need improvement, in your mind, or not.

I'm not talking about cuts, but about changes. There were plenty of them in areas that didn't need to be cut. Setting out from the Shire, Bree, meeting Aragorn, etc.

I think the problem they were trying to approach was making the time element manageable. The 17 years of the book was judged to be unworkable, and I tend to agree. I'll admit that I might have liked for some of the stuff around Bree to be set a little better (especially the meeting with Aragorn, who at least gives them some reason to trust him in the book), but it's hard to criticise much considering the constraints.

[Clear Skies]

Anyone else catch the take-that-Pratchett bit featuring Gimli talking about dwarf women?

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by GePap
and from the fact that Faramir is able to resist the urge to take the One Ring, and willingly let Frodo go (thus passing the test Galandriel had to face, Brromir failed, and Aragorn has not taken) he is set up for a much more sympathetic third movie.

Aragorn passed the test shortly after Boromir failed it at Amon Hen in Fellowship the movie. In Fellowship the book, I think he was offered it at some point previous, but I don't recall for sure.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by hexagonian Faramir driving off that Nazgul with a single arrow is a stretch though. It was a totally contrived scene that made the Nazgul appear weak. These are some of the most fearsome creatures in Middle-earth, driven by the will of the most powerful being, and they are driven off by an arrow, especially when the Ring is in their grasp???? C'mon....

In Fellowship the book, Legolas shoots one of the winged beasts out from under a Nazgûl one night along Anduin. I suspect that was the inspiration for the arrow driving it off in Two Towers the movie, and as such I don't think it's contrived at all.

[DanS]

I must be pretty dense, but I didn't understand the dwarf women joke. Do dwarf women have beards? Are there no dwarf women?

Also, I didn't quite understand how the Uruk and the Uruk-hai spawned.

Teach DanS the ME birds and bees please.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It just seems to me they took out the BEST parts of TTT. Helm's Deep was a nice battle, but I agree it was ridiculous! Gimli and Aragorn hold off the entire Orc army from the gate, while the soldiers reinforce it? RIIIIIGHT.

In Two Towers the book, Éomer and Aragorn perform that feat, with Gimli helping them escape back through the sally port (and I think this is the actual source of the line about "drawing our swords together"). Unfair criticism.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And what's the point of developing a character that is so minor to the story when you could have put a lot more stuff that would make better use of that time.

She's minor in TTT, not so minor in ROTK if I remember correctly. The problem PJ has is that women are almost non-existent in TTT. You and I may be OK with that, but the big picture is that this is not likely to be generally accepted, considering he's trying to reach all audiences, so an opportunity to play up one of the major female characters in the story is going to get taken. The same thing has already happened with Arwen.

Also, we don't really get much of her attraction for Aragorn without some work, and it seems like something that needs to get attention in this film if it will be paid off in ROTK (which book I can't discuss because I haven't read it in a long time and I don't plan to until after watching).

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

And so? They were basically spectators in the books.

Yes, and it's been judged that it's not desirable to have major characters be spectators, a reasonable judgement IMO. YMMV -- it may or may not work for you, but there certainly is a legitimate purpose.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by DanS
I must be pretty dense, but I didn't understand the dwarf women joke. Do dwarf women have beards? Are there no dwarf women?

The quote from Gimli in the movie is a Tolkien comment in the appendix. I think it's meant to be accurate -- the dwarf women have beards, are not all that numerous (something like three-to-one men-to-women), and are sufficiently like the men that some don't realize they exist.

Also, I didn't quite understand how the Uruk and the Uruk-hai spawned.

The Uruks are a race of orcs from Mordor. I believe they're supposed to be bigger and meaner than your garden variety orcs like you'd find in the Misty Mountains. They may have been purpose-built by Sauron, I'm not sure if that's discussed or not, if it was it didn't stick with me.

The Uruk-hai are some kind of cross-breed created by Saruman. TTT the book describes them has having "slanty" eyes, like the mysterious southerner who was observed in Bree at the Prancing Pony in FOTR the book. At least through TTT, though, exactly how they're bred is left as a mystery.

[Arrian]

DanS,

The Orcs (normal Orcs, not Uruk-hai) are "corrupted" Elves. The Dark Lord (back then a guy called Melkor or Morgoth, Sauron's master) turned them into what they are, and thereby spawned a new race.

The Uruk-hai are improved Orcs created by Saruman - I think there is some crossbreeding involved (trolls?), but honestly I don't remember.

Basically, the theme in Tolkien's work was: God (name escapes me) created the races through the Valar (demigods, archangels), except the Dwarves, who were independently created by one of the (good) Valar, but out of love and his wish to create something (for which he was reprimanded). The forces of evil dement these creations - and of course their meddling with the original creation makes nasty looking beasts (not that they were aiming for beauty anyway). The Dwarves, apparently, came out wrong due to the one Valar's attempt to make them himself... hence they are short and kinda ugly... but because the Valar was a good guy, the Dwarves have more good qualities than bad.

Melkor was one of the Valar (Morgoth became his name when he rebelled). He is Tolkien's Lucifer. He hates the races of Middle Earth and wishes to dominate them. The elves in particular, he hates. Which is why he does all sorts of nasty things to ones he captures and makes them into orcs.

Again, messing with the original creation = bad things.

-Arrian

[MRT144]

arrian, was that tolkiens anti cloning message?