Two Towers for those who have read books

ONLY post here if you read the books too.
I disliked Faramir and Osgiliath. In the book ti was a dead ruined city, in the movie it was the capital. Faramir was messed up too, prefered what happened in book. Khazad-Dum was pretty true to the book, but Gandalf killed the Balrog in the bnottom, not Durins Tower. And Aragorn falling off cliff was wrong. And at Hornburg the Uruk-Hai didn't breech the sewer, the climbed the walls.

havent read those books in 20 years. guess i better go get a copy. i dont remember any of that stuff.

I haven't read it in a while. I stupidly lent my 1121 page LOTR book to my slow reading friend. That was about 2 years ago. Now she says she is reading Harry Potter, so where is my LOTR book?

MOVIE SPOILERS!!!!

Well, I agree about Faramir, although I didn't think they said that Osgiliath was the capital in the movie. Maybe I missed that. That whole part about Faramir trying to take Frodo back to Gondor pissed me off. Why couldn't he just show that he was a better person than that like he did in the book? It seems like Jackson doesn't think that people are going to get the whole point about how seductive the ring is if he doesn't show everyone giving into it at one point or another.

I was also pissed off about the way the Ents behaved. I don't understand why that had to be different. It made the Ents looks stupid, like they didn't know what was going on on the edge of their own forest.

And why wasn't the orc who tried to steal off with Pippin and Merry shown to be a servant of Sauron? Saruman was trying to steal the ring for himself. It seems like that would've been an important thing to show in the movie, that the two evil powers were not acting in harmony, they were competitors in a temporary alliance of convenience. It's one of the things that makes the parallels betwee LotR and WWII so striking.

And why the gratuitous grossness of the cannibalism scene? Weren't the orcs disgusting enough? I don't recall anything in the books about them eating each other, although one might assume they would in a pinch. But why put it in the movie?

Having the Elves show up at Helm's Deep was another irritation. Only two elves from Rivendell ever came to the war, and they showed up after Helm's Deep. If they were going to send help to Rohan from the north, it should've been the company of rangers from the book. Why change it at all? Why send the women and children into Helm's Deep instead of to Meduseld? Why have Aragorn fall off a cliff and float down the river?? Why have Gandalf disagree with Theoden about going to Helm's Deep? Gandalf wasn't stupid enough to send the few men that Theoden had with him to fight a pitched battle with 10,000 orcs and hill men out in the open!! And when Theoden made his last desperate charge out of the keep, I'm sure he had more than just a score of men with him.

On the other hand, I thought the breaching of the walls with explosives piled into the drainage passage was in the book. It's been a couple of years since I read it, but I've read it several times...

Anyway, I'm not buying the DVDs now. I'll go see the last movie, but this isn't something I'm going to want to watch over and over. I was very disappointed in it.

One thing I did like was the way they made many things in the film look exactly like the illustrations in the book, by Alan Lee. The towers and Helm's Deep and Rivendell all look exactly like the pictures.

Does anyone else have a really scary obsession with imagining Tolkien sitting there watching the film too? Because I can't stop doing it, whenever I watch the films. I honestly think he would have some kind of heart attack, be it for good or bad reasons.

I haven't read the books, and I've seen many people complaining about Faramir, what does he do in the book?

Luis G said:

I haven't read the books, and I've seen many people complaining about Faramir, what does he do in the book?

Click to expand...

In the book, he and Boromir are as different as night and day. Both are brave and skilled fighters, but where Boromir is impulsive and arrogant, Faramir has self-control and keeps his pride within bounds. Boromir loves to command because he craves power over other people, but Faramir commands because it is his responsibility as a lord of Gondor.

That's the crucial difference between the two, and it's reflected in how they react to the ring. Boromir goes mad with desire for it, and tries to take it by force. When Frodo falls into the hands of the rangers, though, Faramir eventually releases him. He does question him closely at first, and because he is educated, intelligent and wise, he is able to figure out exactly what Frodo is carrying. There's a tense moment between him, Frodo and Sam, but Faramir tells them that he wouldn't take the ring if he found it lying on the roadside. He perceives that it destroyed his brother, and he wants no part of it.

All this happens in the cavern behind the waterfall. Far from taking Frodo way the hell over to Osgiliath as a captive for his father, he gives him more supplies and sets him on the path for Minas Morgul, where Gollum is leading them. He cautions him about Gollum's treachery, but lets him choose his own path-- something Boromir never could have done.

Why the writers had to alter that part of the story, I have no idea. It only serves to undercut the heroism of one of the important sidebar characters. With Boromir dead, Faramir is heir to the Stewardship of Gondor. His father, Denethor, is the current Steward. Aragorn is the heir to the throne, and eventually he will have to make his claim to be the ruler of Gondor. (I don't know if those of you who haven't read the book are catching that part of the story.) The whole question of whether he will be accepted as king depends largely on how Faramir will react to being disinherited from the rulership of Gondor. In the book, we learn by his reaction to the ring that Faramir is not the sort of man who would dishonor himself by resisting a rightful claimant to the throne.

I agree with all of you. They made Helm's Deep seem way too important. It would have given me the impression of the final batle if I hadn't read the book.

I have a newspaper article with an interview with Peter Jackson saying that, from the three movies, The Two Towers was the one that was straying the most from the books, because major adjustments were needed to fit between the first and the third one to "complete" the story. Jackson insisted, as one of many things, that he added much emphasis on the relationship between Frodo and Smeargol... I'd have scanned the article if I had a scanner and if it was in English, it was kind of interesting.

I don't remember that the first movie caused quite the same disappointment to readers, the deceptions were mostly with the removal of the Bombadil parts and the first meeting of Frodo with the elves (Gildor), and the over-important role of Arwen in the movie. Guess I'd need to catch up to the second book to see what the fuss is all about... For now I hope we have the responses to all of that in the third movie

Those were my FOTR issues. They NEVER put Bombadil in ANY movies, so I wasn't surprised.
Hello Mr. Peter Jackson? It's Glorfindel (Not the Gondolin one) at the bridge!

I bet I saw it before anyone else did.

When did you see it?
I saw it 7:15 PM EST Wednsday, the day it came out.

oh my.. oh my... so much to say. I will have to do the bulk of it when I've had some sleep.

1. Gandalf DID kill the Balrog on top of the mountain. I listened to the unabridged book on CD on my way home. They fell to the bottom and Gandalf followed the balrog back out of the the lower ancient caves so he wouldn't be trapped. The balrog went up the endless stair and out on top of the mountain. It was slain up there and caved in the side of the mountain when it fell.

2. I agree with the general feeling of WTF over the dumbing down of the ents and the presence of elves at Helms Deep. There really was a breach in a drain culvert in the book as well as some explosive breach to get through the outer wall. There were more than 300 men there... well more.

3. I really don't like the characterization remolding of Gimli into a slapstick comedic foil... nor the asshole-ification of Faramir and Theoden.

4. This whole Arwen thing is getting way too much airtime ...and she didnt rescue jack diddly at the ford of Rivendell.

5. The Barrow Wight sequence was needed to show Merry and Pippin laying their hands on 2nd age blades of Westernesse ... as in the only thing that can put a nick on the Nazgul .. for later. *cough* It can be gotten around ... but only in a less kick ass way.

6. The same goes for not showing Frodo getting Galadriels vial ... a matter of some import for very early in the 3rd movie.

Unc said:

4. This whole Arwen thing is getting way too much airtime ...and she didnt rescue jack diddly at the ford of Rivendell.

Click to expand...

I had a major problem with that scene in the first movie. It goes beyond just altering the plotline of the book. I had no problem with the way the Bakshi movie gave Glorfindel's part to Legolas in order to introduce him earlier in the story. The way that Arwen was used by Jackson, though, was another case of undercutting the heroism of the main characters. In the book, Frodo gives us an early glimpse of his valiant spirit when he defies the Black Riders at the ford. Having Arwen toss him over her saddle like a sack of potatoes made him look like just so much baggage. No one has to worry about touching the ring. They can just tote Frodo to Mt Doom and toss him and the ring into the fire.

I also thought the dramatic tension was cut from the scene at the ford by turning it into a barrel race instead of a straight gallop. What was the point of that?? Even if you're going to have Arwen doing the scene, why have her gallumphing back and forth among the shrubs instead of flying at breakneck speed down the road? I can't imagine what Jackson was thinking. How could he look at his version and think it was better than the book, or even better than the Bakshi movie??

Things I liked:

1. The animations were top notch as were the costumes. I did smirk at the evil men going through the Black Gate as looking a little too much like Jabba the Huts personal guard. The one doing the search almost looked like Billy Dee Williams to me.

2. Legolas and Gandalf and Eowyn are about dead on. Viggo Whatzhisface as Aragorn is great in the role ... but just a touch off of the real character ...but at least in a way that didnt hurt the story a bit.

3. Gollum is about as good as they could hope to make and develop for a truncated movie presentation.

4. I liked that the viloence wasn't nearly as bloody as it could have been. It had the potential to just be as bloody as a horror movie and they didnt take it... probably to keep the rating down.

5. I liked that psycho actor who played Grima Wormtongue. I keep thinking of him as the evil Mentat Piter DeVries in the Dune movie.

Unc said:

2. Legolas and Gandalf and Eowyn are about dead on. Viggo Whatzhisface as Aragorn is great in the role ... but just a touch off of the real character ...but at least in a way that didnt hurt the story a bit.

Click to expand...

I've liked Legolas for the most part, but his outburst in Helm's Deep was completely out of character.

Unc said:

4. I liked that the viloence wasn't nearly as bloody as it could have been. It had the potential to just be as bloody as a horror movie and they didnt take it... probably to keep the rating down.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it could have been a lot worse. The cannibalism scene was uncalled for.

Unc said:

5. I liked that psycho actor who played Grima Wormtongue. I keep thinking of him as the evil Mentat Piter DeVries in the Dune movie.

Click to expand...

So THAT'S who he reminded me of!!

unclehobart said:

Viggo Whatzhisface...

Click to expand...

Mortenson...

True dat about Legolam. Being dour just wasn't in his character. I guess they already had too many scenes where Theoden was being a huffy, defeatest pussy. They had to spread the load.