JRR Tolkien: The Two Towers

[Draten-Master of Fire and Ice]

Alas, Larry, I seem to have rushed out of the theatre too soon and missed the song! But yes I thought the parts with Smeagol-Gollum (Slinker-Stinker) were excellent!!!!! I have to give credit where credit is due: seeing the movie has given me an appreciation for the dynamics between the Characters Frodo, Sam, and Gollum that I simply failed to pick up on though I've read the books many times! They did a very good job on Gollum: he was more (and less) than I expected and seemed more or less beyond my reckoning which is, of course, what he is. I have more to say, but the Westron speech just can't say it...and I don't speak the language of the Noldor...

[Draten-Master of Fire and Ice]

Bump

[NamelessOne]

Two things that nobody mentioned here(or mebbe it's just me).
Did anyone else think that they turned Gimli into a total clown. In the book there were a few jokes about him but in the film it seemed that every scene with him in it was changed into him making an ass of himself. He and Gollum seemed to me to be like Jar-Jar Binks(DIE JAR-JAR) in star wars.
What did people think of the nazgul flying mounts. When i read the LotR i pictures them more like vultures but in the film they're like dragons(all scales and stuff). I few if my friends agreed saying that in the book they had feathers(i can't remember much details about 'em so mebbe i'm wrong here).

[Luvian]

I agree, GImli didn't do much in the movie. I don't mind the humorous events about him, but I would have liked seeing him do some serious stuff once in a while. All other main characters got their moment of glory but not him.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Luvian: I agree, GImli didn't do much in the movie. I don't mind the humorous events about him, but I would have liked seeing him do some serious stuff once in a while. All other main characters got their moment of glory but not him.

Well, there were those wonderful swan dives and barrel-rolls into hordes of orcs/ Uruk-Hai. And, LOL, "Toss me. . . but don't tell the elf." And, the ensuing fight where he and Aragorn held the bridge, with several lengthy (i.e. several second) panoramic and overhead shots were - intense to say the least.

But, I agree that he was depicted sometimes as too ineffective. Not that he couldn't kick butt - he just kept getting stymied. Example 1, trapped under a worg. Example 2, the discussion with Legolas at the beginning [edit: of the battle for Helm's Deep], where he had just killed 2 and Legolas was on number 18 (though I think he made up for it later, especially on the bridge).

It really reminded me of Flint in Dragonlance, and how he'd always run in and give one crushing blow then spend the majority of the battle floundering in a swamp or digging his axe out of a critter.

[ 12-26-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Luvian: I agree, GImli didn't do much in the movie. I don't mind the humorous events about him, but I would have liked seeing him do some serious stuff once in a while. All other main characters got their moment of glory but not him.

But, I agree that he was depicted sometimes as too ineffective. Not that he couldn't kick butt - he just kept getting stymied. Example 1, trapped under a worg. Example 2, the discussion with Legolas at the beginning, where he had just killed 2 and Legolas was on number 18 (though I think he made up for it later, especially on the bridge).
</font>[/QUOTE]It's not his fault... Legolas had a bow, after all.

Tanc

[Timber Loftis]

That was my thought exactly. Legolas probably downed a dozen while Gimili was still bitching he couldn't see what was going on.

[ 12-26-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Luvian: I agree, Gimli didn't do much in the movie. I don't mind the humorous events about him, but I would have liked seeing him do some serious stuff once in a while. All other main characters got their moment of glory but not him.

And, the ensuing fight where he and Aragorn held the bridge, with several lengthy (i.e. several second) panoramic and overhead shots were - intense to say the least.</font>[/QUOTE]I saw the movie twice, and I still have trouble spoting him in that scene, while Aragorn is easy to see...

That dwarf reminded me of the one in the Dungeon and Dragon movie, but done a little better...

[Thoran]

...spoilers...

I thought the movie was AWESOME... so don't worry about my nit picking too much! [img]smile.gif[/img]

They have given Gimli some serious scenes... but I think it's been a bit overbalanced by their use of him as comic relief (which is consistant with the way Tolkien used him, but a bit more heavy handed IMO). I also think they've made him MUCH weaker than he should be. Trapped under a Worg... what an insult to dwarves! He'd have had no trouble picking that critter up and chucking it at some orcs.

I think they did him justice in Moria during FotR, and the extended version is MUCH better regarding his time in Lothlorein (sp?).

His complaining about all the running in the beginning of TTT is pretty much exactly how I remember the book.

I also think they were true to the dwarven tendency to NEVER back down from a fight. The scene when the hero's meet the Riders of Rohan was OUTSTANDING.

IMO it's Legolas who has not been developed to his full character potential. If I didn't already have an understanding of his character I think I'd see him as little more than Aragorns lackey.

I also don't like how easily they've chosen to squander Elf lives, at Helms Deep there's a scene where they show PILES of Elf bodies... and such a scene would have been an overwhelmingly horrific site to any who understood the loss of even ONE immortal life. IMO the use of elves there was an unnecessary plot change (intended to show the re-allying of Elf and Human) and showed a lack of understanding of the capabilities of Elven archers. After the addition of that LARGE force of elven archers to the forces defending Helms Deep the Orc forces would NEVER have been able to breach the wall... not in a million sorties. In addition I don't like how the attacking orcs have siege devices (ladders... some quite advanced, and battering rams) while the defending forces done even have the standard push poles to use to defeat ladder attacks. They were making the walls of the fortress out to be inpenetrable, then during the battle they show them being breached with EASE. It seems to me they could have done it better. (I know... time constraints) While overall I LOVED the battle scene, the strategist in me was VERY disappointed with the changes they made... they took a battle that was strategically TOTALLY believeable (a small force of humans inside a POWERFUL fortress attempting to defend against a large force of orcs) and turned it into an scene with too many strategic holes to be believeable (a force of humans accompanied by a large force of the greatest archers in the world having difficulty holding a fortress that APPEARS to be well designed and implemented.)

<font color="#ffccff">Only one part of the movie puzzled me and I could think of no rational reason to waste time with it.

What the hell was that little Aragorn over the cliff with the worg scene all about..and the horse rescuing him? that whole section was not in the book and the time could have been better used to flesh out the battle scene or the Ent attack on Isengard.

Anyone know why this scene was added?</font>