Faith, Hope and Charity!
Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward All Mankind!
Happy New Year All!
"The Two Towers" tops list of on-line critics as top film of 2002:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,11071,00.html?eol.tkr
Very funny take on other authors writing LOTR:
What if another author had written LOTR
On Wednesday I saw the movie again for the 2nd time after finishing the 2nd book again and watching the first movie the same morning. I must say that I have decided the ending was major change. I have always believed that Frodo, Sam and Smeagol got into Mordor because they basically unobserved by Sauron. Merry and Pippin were in the west and the likely ring bearers. When Frodo was at the gates of Minas Morgul, the army headed by the head wraith burst froth to go to war.
By having Frodo go to Osgiliath while there was a major battle ongoing and come face to face with a Nazgul (which all never happened), Sauron would know that a hobbit is close by and he would turn his "Eye" on him at this point. And to have Faramir desire the ring for Gondor, when he didn't - well these are material breeches.
Anyway, still can't wait til next year!
The major change, of course, was moving the Battle of Helm's Deep to the end (it's one third into the book) and enlarging the scope. Then an entire chapter is left out -- Shelob. This I gather is the first part of the final film (at least I don't know how Jackson could leave out Shelob). I can see handling all four storylines at one time would be make Jackson to decide on the confrontation with the Ringwraith and Faramir's desire for the ring moved into "The Two Towers." I believe those are not material breeches but in "The Return of the King." It's a bit confusing for someone reading the books but the continuity of the film benefits by this judicious moving around of chronologies. Otherwise Jackson would have to pay more attention to the linkage material and the movies wouldn't end up 9-12 hours long (the extended versions will clock it in closer to 12 hrs), they've be more like 24 to 30 hours long. Good for the consession bar but bad for the bum.
What did you think of the discussion thread from another site with the what if Hemingway, et al, wrote LOTR?
The website was interesting. I remember a TV show a long time ago (variety type) that did this. It is funny, especially once you see the others authors style.
I understand the way Jackson put the movie together in timing sequence. It is actually better that the book because it keeps the days approximately in sequence. But they didn't go to Osgiliath - it will be interesting to see what Jackson does do. By the way, we will see Shelob, gollum has a finally scene where he makes the comments of "....she will take care of them....." or something to that effect.
The actual premise of the book has not been effected. I just feel that there was no need to make this change. My wife and I have been talking about how hard it is to get a lot of book stuff in movies and how they have to leave some things out, but, can't see a need to add this new scene.
I agree BillW. As I said before, I was alternately in awe of what I was seeing-- the siege of Helm's Deep, or the battle with the wargs, for example-- and disappointed by the plot changes-- the elves marching to the castle to aid Rohan, Eomer's ridiculous exile and equally silly rescue of the castle in the (ta-da) nick of time, the whole subplot involving Faramir, Osgiliath and Frodo's confrontation with the Nazgul. That being said, I can't wait to see part Three and to get the deluxe expanded edition CD for Two Towers which is sure to be available in a year or so and which will hopefully explain some of the plot choices Jackson made.
I understand your dismay blacksmithn, at the tampering with the book. The plot of "The Two Towers" became much more complex than either Part One or Part Two. I think Jackson came as close as possible to make it coherant to a movie going audience. It's encourage many to go out and buy the books (the second printing of the new Alan Lee edition of the three volume set is sold out again!) The only glaring improvement for me was the omission of Tolkien's second-rate poetry which I usually skipped because its cloying whimsy just disturbed the flow of the narrartive for me. Ebert shorted the film one star because of the lack of whimsy. However, other than the lame poetry, I never found the books to be all that whimsical. I found them to be an epic adventure with a few quite, pensive scenes inbetween the grand set pieces. Jackson has produced what is essentially "Highlights of The Lord of the Rings." Less so in the extended version of "Fellowship" where he allows us to dwell on some of the quieter, more thoughful moments.
There were roughly 4 chapters left out of Book 3 and Book 4 of "The Two Towers". There are 3 major battles in "The Return of the King".
In other words, there is a lot to cover in the last movie. I hope they don't cut the last stuff after the final battle. To me it shows that the outcomes are more important that the violence.
The concept of the ideals and concepts of the books have to be brought together to a proper exposition at the end. Those who haven't read the books, I'm not going to included any spoilers of the last book. I could see only two battles in the end working -- Frodo, Samwise and Gollum will have some of their most important scenes, especially the confrontation with Shelob.
LW, I see where you come from on two battles, I consider the first battle as 2 - in my brain. Yep, there is a lot there in the last book plus 1/4 to 1/3 of the second book still to go. I can't wiat for the end. BTW, my wife got FOTR in VHS form with the directors cuts and extended scenes. Now I gotta see the 1st movie again.
I saw that -- finally FOTR in the extended version on VHS -- you don't suppose that was time with the People's Awards? It won.
I don't believe you'll see any more material from Book 2 but the last chapter and Shelob. I could be wrong but I've noted how he drew some out of Book 3 and placed it in TTT.
Yes on some of the Book 3 stuff, especially quotes to setup future structure. How will they get around the plantir going to Aragorn and the picking up of Merry/Pippin - the new splits. Finally, I hope to see the ents that became trees kill over all the orcs that left Helms Deep. That is important to explain the total wipe out of the enemy.
They could begin the 3 movie like they use to do Flash Gordon serials. A review of the past and a quick interjection to fill in parts they don't want to fully develop.
Also in the second book is the issuing forth of the army from Minas Morgul. It is one of those dramatic computer animated scenes that I don't think they will discard.
I don't believe Jackson will deal with Part 3 any different than Part 2 -- that is, giving some repeated scenes woven into the new action and then plowing right into the final storytelling. I believe the extended version of TTT will give much more tie-in information. I did feel always when I've read part two that it was very circular in construction, that is -- all the characters we placed in different situations only to end up where they were at (the scene where Frodo and Sam lose orientation and end up covering the same ground is rather symbolic. Jackson somewhat broke this circle by placing the Battle at Helm's Deep at the end. It was left with Saruman staring down on the destruction of his war facility, leaving his tower standing alone. I have a feeling Saruman may have a slight different role in Part 3 with the climactic story -- he was introduced as already being possessed by Sauron's black magic forces in Part 1, also not according to the books. I saw where Jackson really had to do that for the purpose of cinematic continuity. There was no time to keep the audience in suspense over where Saruman's loyalties were. We've already seen Gandalf in a mini-battle with Saruman during the "exorcism" of Theoden.
Jackson is and his co-authors are intellectually rewriting the books, not mechanically rewriting the books. I really don't know if Tolkien were alive if he wouldn't approve except that during his life he expressed that he hated films. Makes his selling the movie rights seem rather hypocritical and I'm wondering if this wasn't an exagerration of some biographer.
Did he sell the movie rights or did his off spring? I am not a writer, but I do understand the difference between movies and books. It is funny that a book can cover so much more ground and can go so much more in depth and a movie can not because of tieing things in a so difficut. But a book spends so much time creating characters and scenery but a movie does it simultaneously with a picture. That's part of the reason I am left brained, I guess.
Tolkien did sell the movie rights in the late 60's -- that's the only way the Ralph Bakshi animated version got made and the TV special animated "Return of the King." That and Tolkien's dismay that the hippies took to the fantasy and would show up at places like Rennaissance Fair dressed as characters (Tom Bombidill being the most popular) has always set my estimation of his character down one notch. If Bakshi had been allowed to do a three part animated film, it might have come out as quite different as he used an early animation technique from live action overlapping with the technique of rotoscoping. I rather enjoyed the score by Rosenthal and it there was a little more whimsey to the film -- perhaps too much as it utilized some of Tolkiens poetry and song (which everyone know by now I never admired). The final book was done with conventional, cheaply done TV animation and gave it a Saturday morning cartoon cheesiness. John Huston as the voice of Gandalf was the only impressive thing in the film.
I would've voted for Gollum...
Now everything is very, very clear.
