Warning, I discuss major plot points from the film Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers below, but to be honest if you haven’t read the books then you’re no friend of mine and what are you doing reading my blog :)
“The Two Towers” was always going to be a harder book to film than “The Fellowship of the Ring”. The earlier book had one narrative thread going through it, but throughout “The Two Towers” we follow three separate groups of characters who never meet (actually, in the book two of the groups do meet, but more on that later). Tolkien handles this by having two completely separate sections to the book, the first following Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Merry and Pippin and the second following Frodo and Sam. Peter Jackson quite rightly decides to tell these two stories simultaneously. This might initially confuse fans of the books.
Other than this reordering of the story, there a far more differences between the book and the film than there were in the first film, but for some reason they didn’t bother me as much. Here is a list of some of the most obvious ones I noticed.
- Large sections devoted to Elrond and Arwen (and even a brief appearance from Galadriel) which didn’t appear in the book (although, to be fair, they are based on “The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen” from the appendices of “The Return of the King”).
- The “curing” of Theoden seemed too fast to me. And I’m sure it didn’t involve magic in the book.
- Were there really Elves at the Battle of Helm’s Deep – I don’t think so.
- Faramir didn’t take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath.
- The attraction between Eowyn and Aragorn was played up too much.
- The whole bit about Aragorn being missing presumed dead for days was a complete invention.
- The Ents should decide to attack Isengard during the Entmoot. The idea that they decide not to attack and then change their mind when the hobbits show Treebeard the devastation of the trees is ludicrous. Whoever heard of an Ent changing his mind?
But the weirdest change for me was the ending. Both of the major strands finished before they do in the book. In the book, Aragorn, Gandalf and their party meet up with Merry and Pippin in the ruins of Isenguard and Gandalf has a confrontation with Saruman during which he discovers the existence of the Palantir. In the other main story, Frodo and Sam are left just about to follow Gollum’s suggested route into Mordor. By the end of the book, they’ve started on that journey and Frodo has been captured by Shelob. I was particularly disappointed not to see Shelob.
But I’m only pointing out these discrepancies. They really didn’t effect my enjoyment of the film. It’s still a great piece of filmmaking. I’d really recommend it to anyone.
I noticed all of these discrepancies, and the inventions — especially in re: Faramir — did affect my enjoyment. I guess the more of an invention it was, the more it annoyed me.I quite enjoyed the dichotomy between Faramir and Boromir in the books. I think it added a lot of depth to the characters, some insight into the race of men, and the fitness of Gondor to lead Middle Earth into the next age. Well, that’s all in the crapper now. :-) I wonder if he did this to make up for lost time; in The Two Towers, Frodo and Sam essentially lose a couple of days while traveling into Mordor, if you follow the timeline closely.
The Ents thing bugged me because it seemed so pointless. It made the Ents seem far less aware than they are (how could they not know about the happenings at Isengard?), and for what reason? Maybe they did it to play up the idea that the Ents wanted to stay out of the affairs of men/hobbits/elves/etc., but couldn’t they have done it without making the Ents seem stupid?The things with Aragorn and Theoden bugged me less, I suppose, since they didn’t seem to affect the story much. I have no idea why they added the thing with Aragorn, seemed pointless. Make the movie longer? And the elves maybe they added to make the stand against 10,000 Uruk-Hai more believable, or maybe to show a bond between Elves and Men we didn’t really see before, but still … they weren’t there.
It frankly did affect my enjoyment of the film … the first time through. But, I learned to Love the Bomb for FotR, which similarly (though not as acutely) annoyed me with its (less significant) discrepancies, so I guess I’ll probably do the same here. But it might take me until the Extended Edition to really enjoy it fully, as it took with FotR. :)
I haven’t seen TTT yet (have tickets for a showing in 6 hours or so, yay!), but I’ve been obsessively following the discussions of the various film/book discrepencies on the net. On the question of the changes to Faramir, I’ve seen two separate commentaries by fans who attended the party after the New York premiere, one of whom reported having a conversation with Philippa Boyens and David Wenham (the most Tolkien-obsessed of the film’s screenwriters, and the actor who played Faramir, respectively), and the other of whom spoke with Boyens alone. Both fans raised the question of the changes to Faramir’s character, and both got essentially the same answer.
Basically, the makers of the film felt that Faramir as described in the books would come off as too static on screen. They felt that if he simply renounced the ring before realizing what it was, really, and then was able to maintain that position with no outwardly visible struggle when he learns that the ring is actually within his grasp, his character would be undergoing no audience-visible change, and that part of the story would be a big let-down, energy-wise, for the film audience. Not mentioned in the accounts of those conversations, but assumed by me to be part of their thinking, too, is the idea that they felt that the principal characters from the film needed to be more actively involved in the development of the plot, as in by having Sam’s impassioned speech being the thing that changes Faramir’s mind.
Another aspect of it that Boyens mentioned was this: Having made a decision to heighten the on-screen tension the ring creates by making various powerful characters’ struggle to resist it more dramatic on screen than it is in the books (think Gandalf, Aragorn, and Galadriel), the filmmakers have painted themselves into a corner with Faramir. If he, alone among these powerful characters, is able to easily reject the ring, an audience-member unfamiliar with the books would be left thinking, “hey; wait a minute. We’re making the wrong person king here. This guy’s stronger-willed than Aragorn.”
Now, in the books this all makes perfect sense, and works very well, and I know I’m not alone in putting Faramir at (or close to) the top of my personal list of favorite characters in the story, in large part because of the wisdom and moral strength he displays in his encounter with the Ring. To have that missing from the film is certainly disappointing, on some level.
But I think it’s important to realize, with this as with all the other differences between how Peter Jackson (et al) are bringing this story to the screen and how I, or you, or whatever other lifelong fan of the books would have brought it to the screen, that pleasing lifelong fans of Tolkien’s books is only one of the goals he (they) had to meet. The films also had to work for the larger film audience, including all those (tragically broken) potential filmgoers who have never managed to appreciate the story in book form.
The harsh reality is that no one would have given Peter Jackson $270 million to make a movie that served only the part of the audience that loved the books already. So as a fan of the books, if you want the epic sweep and the big production values and all that, you have to accept some changes designed to appeal to a wider audience.
A potentially more valid criticism that I’ve seen some people make is this: that Peter Jackson, with his love of gore and action, has allowed that part of the story to overcome the character-driven emotional part of it. It certainly sounds like TTT is much more that way than FOTR was.For myself, I’m reserving judgement on that point. Not just until I’ve seen TTT, but until I’ve seen ROTK, as well. Jackson has been able to do an unprecedented thing here, in making three big-budget movies that were intended from the beginning to be three parts of a single story. Given that, I think it is unfair to judge TTT in isolation from parts 1 and 3.Also, there is so much that I loved from the books that was there, on screen, in FOTR (and even moreso in the extended edition DVD), that the filmmakers have earned the right, in my view, to do whatever the hell they want with the rest of the story.
One story that was in the producers’ voice-over commentary on the extended edition FOTR DVD reinforced my thinking in this area. In the original script, they apparently were planning to have an Uruk-Hai come blasting up out of the water and grab Frodo as he was crossing to the eastern shore. There’d be a struggle, and the ring would slip off Frodo’s neck and drift downward, and the Uruk would be so into the ring that he’d go after it, leading to his drowning, and the recovery of Frodo and the Ring by Sam.Which is quite the classic sort of Hollywood ending, and I give kudos to the filmmakers for seeing that it would have been wrong, and going instead with a character-driven ending (with Sam plunging into the water, and Frodo rescuing him) that is much more true to the books.
Anyway, Jackson has said that the departures from the storyline in TTT are greater than they were in FOTR, and greater than they will be in ROTK. So overall, I’m still very optimistic about the essential heart of the story surviving intact in the movies.
And honestly, this is so much better than I ever dared hope a movie adaptation of LOTR could be, that I’m just looking forward to seeing the rest of it, and watching it over and over again for years to come.
The thing I loved the most about FoTR was how, although they by necessity made some minor(?) plot changes, I felt they managed to convey the essential feeling from the books quite well; the concious will of the ring, etc. the intangables that made the story great. Nothing grated or went against the spirit of the tale.
Unfortunately, They didnt do so well on TTT, in my opinion. There was some crap thrown in, i dont know where it came from, like Legolis skateboarding down the stairs on a shield, I mean, come on! Thank god he didnt play the guitar. I was especially annoyed for some reason by the way they trivialised Gimli the dwarf by turning him into this disney-esque bumbling sidekick, a middle earth jar-jar binks. To me his valour in battle and vigorous devotion to the lady in the book was noble and inspiring, and a nice counterpoint to his less than noble appearance. Too bad. And what was that thing with Aragorn going missing? But i suppose these are small complaints.
There was one big thing that I cannot seem to get next too, however, it is just too counter to a fundimental theme for me. That of course is this huge army of elves that apparently forswear thier passage from middle earth and come to Mans aid at Helms Deep. To me, one of the nuances of the story that gave it life was how the elves, tho occasionally allied with Man, really didnt like them much. They were aloof, unstrutable, whole differant animals; we couldnt really fathom thier motives. They were dangerous, and didnt hide thier scorn for us in general. They had deeper motives and drives. I had a lot of trouble with this huge contigant of elven folk involving themselves with us in this base way. Besides, how much cooler was the army of wraiths fetched by Aragorn in the Book?
Still I want to end by saying it was a fabulous film and the good parts went a long way towards offsetting the bothersome rewrites and knock-offs. Gollum was incredable! And even tho we never got as far as Shlobs lair, the opening scenes of Gandalfs battle with the BalRog, hurtling into the pit, was an unexpected treat and one of my favorite parts of the whole film. Looking forward to next year…
The army of wraiths was in book 3, for the battle of Gondor. In the “Two Towers” book, the Huorn – the trees the the Ents shepherded, came and killed ALL of the remaining orcs.
WARNING>>> SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!
Despite what i read about boyen’s change to the faramir role…. it was still really depressing. I personally believe that it was done to jack up the idea of aragorn being the ‘one and only true’ hero. We got 2 hrs with viggo, and yet 5 mins with characters eomer, faramir and eowyn all played superbly by our oceanic actors. these characters just screamed more screen time…the aragorn missing bit, was f’d!!!!! that whole time could have been given to these characters. Eomer should have been at helms deep.
Theoden played by Bernard Hill was excellent, even though P.J portrayed him as some old wimpering fool, listening to aragorns orders all the time and showing no signs of strength as in the book, as a man gaining strength throug hthe desperation of his peoples situation. Hill is excellent, and should win awards, if only for that crying scene. An intense moment in an otherwise drab-acted movie. ‘Let them come’ was also an example of a powerfully delivered line…great stuff Hill.
But of course, being my favorite character, my heart was broken in seeing faramir becoming a weak-fool character. just call him ‘fakeomir’ or ‘boromir II’. Im an Australian, and I was so excited to hear that my favorite OZ actor, wenham, was to play my fav characters role, from my fav book series of all time. That sh#t about boyen’s reason….proposterous. You could have easily done another, ring temptation scene, as was in FOTR…with aragorn at the end. with the ring resting on his sword, the ring would call to faramir, with him discarding it, due to the strong character he is, or ‘was’. If we really wanted more ‘wowsing’ effects at osgiliath, we could have just had it from a Faramir perspective…. instead of dragging the whole hobbit,-giving the wraith the ring bit….this shows that Pippin will never look into the palantir, as Sauron has now clearly seen who has the ring, frodo, who held it out. This alternate script sucks! so much emotion was in the first, and could have been conveyed easily.
I was impressed with Wenham’s performance, but the change in faramir broke my heart in two. Any other changes i could have handled, but this took the cake. an unnecessary cost, angering a fan, and from the sounds of it not just one.
Eomer was great with Urban at the helm.
And Miranda was absolutely beautiful. A magnificant actress, running rings around the jaw-deformed Tyler, who couldn’t act her way out of a nut-sack.
The word ‘directors’ cut, sounds like agood idea in this movies case, if only to convert faramirs role.p.S rating for movie. = 6/10. first was 9.9/10 for me. so much better acted…..the effects were beautiful though, loved gollum. and faramir’s ambush was exactly how i pictured it….. a stale cake with fresh icing.
I have seen the movie three times now, and I have been scouring the net like never before to hear what other fans think of the changes in TTT.
No 1 for me: Faramir. i agree with you all. His character has been entirely depraved. And to insist on the side track that Faramir’s group takes (with Frodo and Sam!) to Osgiliath is nonsensical. Why the waste of screen time there? When Faramir ‘forfeits’ his life in the end and lets them go, it does not ring true to me. He has been mistreating them throughout and wants the ring for Gondor, why risk his life? I could tell that this change felt uncomfortable to the writers. To me, the encounter with Faramir was the last time that Frodo felt safe and with a trusted ally. None of this is in the movie, and it really really bugs me, because there is no good reason for me for this change.Aragorn’s ‘fall’ is also too Hollywood. If there was a shred of chance of him being alive, how come Brego (the Rohan horse) is the only one who bothers looking for him?
The relationship between Saruman and Sauron is also confused in the movies. I will look more carefully now that a friend pointed it out to me. In the books, it is clear that although both want to wreak havoc to Middle-Earth, they are not allies at all. The movie makes them allies at some points (Saruman more a sidekick) and against each other at other points.Some things that were movie fabrications were totally brilliant. The Balrog/Gandalf battle is great, I just wish that the Balrog had gotten more licks in. The fall is so fast that it is impossible to see what is going on, even sitting far back in the theater! Legolas hitching a ride on Gimli’s horse is the best thing in the movie, even if it takes three seconds to happen. Brad Dourif sweet-talking to Eowyn is the second-best scene in the movie. Great acting by Dourif and Otto throughout. Gollum;s schizophrenic monologue is also superb. Without having to spend too much time creating the Smeagol/Gollum duality, this realtively brief scene does the trick nicely.
Again, I have been looking at many other sites, and I can see some portions that should return to the extended version (let’s pray that one will be forthcoming). There should be a scene with Arwen at Lothlorien (!!) looking into the mirror and convincing her father to send the elves to help at Helm’s Deep. At the least, this will explain the rationale behind their arrival.
Another scene will be Merry and Pippin at Saruman;s storehouse.
As John Callender mentions, I am glad to be alive to see Tolkien’s world come alive in Peter Jackson;s movies. They are well above anything I could have ever imagined.
I agree wholeheartedly about the change to Faramir’s character being entirely wrong and unnecessary. Surely, the film should at least try to appeal to Tolkien fans who must make up a large part of the audience.
In the book, Faramir’s character was very much like Aragorn – after all, both had the blood of Numenor running through their veins. Faramir is meant to be the complete counterpoint of Boromir and the way that the scriptwriters/directors allowed him to be persuaded to let go of the Ring at Osgiliath (let alone get there) was weak.
There are other sad changes which some have raised. Aragorn going missing. Arwen bringing him back. The Elves coming to the aid of Helms Deep. And sad missing bits.I feel that the movies are bing turned slowly to a Hollywood blood and gore epic without any of the depth, characterisation or romance of the novel. What a tragic waste.I agree. 9/10 for FOTR, 5/10 or less for TTT. At this rate, ROTK will be 1/10.
How do we get this message across for the next cut, and for the extended version (of there is to be one) of TTT?Anyone got an email address (e.g., of Peter Jackson) to write to, where our views may be considered seriously rather than ramble into the vacuum of the Internet?
OK. This is hard. I’m sort of divided. In one side, I hate to see so many parts of the movie screwed because of some nonsense excuses they tell us. In the other side, I guess it must be terrible difficult to take these books to a movie, and that’s why I still give this movie a high grade.
Anyway, I was extremely dissapointed with:
-The invention about the “death” of Aragorn which had no sense at all and no relation to anything else.
-The change in Faramir’s personality which made us all think: Why????????????? I know this has a reason but it’s terribly hard to accept it….You can’t change a character’s behavior just because you want the people to like your movies, considering you are working based on books written by someone else. That change on Faramir’s personality makes it seem like there’s no real reason why this character is in the books, since he’s so alike Boromir.
It’s so twisted even though Jackson claims to have his reasons…..
-The change in Theoden’s personality was also important. It make him look like a coward, when actually in the books, he was from the start willing and ready to battle for his people. And of course, he wasn’t cured with Gandalf’s magic, because the message was that he himself realized he was under Wormtongue evilness. But that was a step he had to take on his own, even he had the help of Gandalf, but it was a pshycologycal help, I think.
-The change in some characters like Eomer (who didn’t appeared in the Helm’s Deep), or Erkenbrand (who didn’t appear at all), the Ents (not being able to take a decision on their own), the ELves in the battle (Haldir dying there??), Arwen appearing too much, Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul and so many more…
Anyway, these changes really bother me at the point that I couldn’t somehow enjoy the movie, knowing that some parts of the book had been changed so much that they appeared CONFUSING.
If you didn’t read the books, you don’t understand many things or you get the wrong idea, and if you did read them, you are annoyed by these terrible changes.
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here comes the but….
Even though these things really upset me…I’m in the position of thinking that, as it is so hard to work with these amazing books, we can’t blame Jackson for doing his best, when, really, he brings us a deep, really interesting and astounding movie, that is pretty much what we could expect. Full of incredible effects, music, sceneries, great acting….
I think that is THE BEST MOVIE IT COULD BE MADE OVER ALL…So I’m happy and anxiously waiting for the third.
Let’s all be tolerant with the LOTR crew, they did the best and you can tell it, by watching these GREAT MOVIES!!
Victoria,
You are being very reasonable, after all we are all (me too) only Human.
The reason I am so upset is that FOTR was really excellent, while I feel, for all the reasons you have stated (and more – where were the Huorns, why truncate [I know there’s an answer to that] TTT, the likely “kabobed-Saruman” in ROTK, it is mooted), that a great chance has been missed.
I HOPE PETER JACKSON READS THIS BIT NOW. Purists (or even those impressed by the novels without being purist) are being let down now, and I feel it really will get worse. No Imrahil, no Elladan and Elrohir [who I recall also stay behind in Middle Earth], weakness/uncertainty on the part of Aragorn who really should be aware of his destiny – that’s what drives him, as well as his own innate character; all these are and, by all accounts, will be missed. No linkage to Elvish – no complements to Frodo on his knowledge, no discussion/contextualisation of how Elves get there at all, or why Sauron is their bitter foe, added stuff like “Sauron/Saruman wants to destroy men altogether” – when he clearly uses Easterlings and Southrons. In short, to make fans happy, why not make a killing with a truly extended, “true to the book” film/set of films which can be resold on that basis. That way you get those who could not cope with any detail (sad but understandable), together with a version – sold at profit – for those who can and wish to see it. Please! $270 million is an awful lot to spend unless it is not only right commercially, but also for the true fans. My fear is that, unless some sort of approach like this is done (Peter can hardly re-do the theatrical version of TTT), we and people to come will never get the chance to get a very good set of films made into an all time great. In short, I feel Tolkien’s work will really endure, but Peter Jackson’s may not. What would happen if someone took Shakespeare, tweaked it and then let it rip. It’s happened, and it hasn’t been a great success.
Legolis is the best in the movie. I liked the part when he was sliding down the stairs shooting monsters with his arrows. He is so good at archery and acting. I’ve never seen a person so good at archery. I liked the Lord Of the Rings 2, the Two Towers and I also kind of liked The Lord Of the Rings 1, The Fellowship of the Ring.
The Lord of the Rings 2 wuz da bomb! Especially Legolis. I liked all the other characters too but Legolis seemed more smarter at thinking how to use his weapons. For example, he doesn’t just shoot wit the arrows, he sometimes stabs them wit it! Lord of the Rings 1 was okay, it’s just the fact that there isn’t as much action. Plus, Smigle was in the Lord of the Rings 2. Still, both of them was the bomb! If anyone out there that have never seen the movie, you should go out and buy or watch it now! Hurry!
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! After 12 months eager anticipation what a disappointment TTT turned out to be. It’s hard to believe that the two films were made by the same people! It seems that Peter Jackson thought that Tolkien’s Faramir wasn’t believable enough and so he puts his own totally absurd storyline in its place.
1. Faramir is seduced by the ring yet doesn’t take it from Frodo.
2. He takes Frodo to Osgiliath, a city under siege, and then leaves him and the Ring alone and unguarded.
3. He sees that Frodo will give the Ring to the Enemy at the earliest opportunity and then decides to let him go on his way to Mordor!
Didn’t anyone say, ‘Hey Peter, this storyline sucks!’?
The introduction of extra fight scenes and mini-cliffhangers (will Pippin survive being trampled by the horse? Will Aragorn survive falling off the cliff?), the character changes, the crass humour surrounding Gimli (Dwarf tossing, needing a box to see over the wall) – Jackson has dumbed down the story to appeal to the lowest common denominator (see the last couple of posts) in an effort to make as much money as possible. What a waste of a unique opportunity to turn a literary classic into cinema that did it justice. What we’ve ended up with is just a run-of-the-mill action film.
Agree 100% with Matrix. Funny, Matrix was also a film that was action all the way and worked. But then, it wasn’t based on Tolkien!
Matrix writes, “Jackson has dumbed down the story to appeal to the lowest common denominator (see the last couple of posts) in an effort to make as much money as possible.”
While I agree with much of what is being said, I can’t see this as his motivation. C’mon, FotR made a ton of money and TTT is going to make a ton of money regardless of these modifications and decisions.
I’ve now seen TTT (well, three times, actually), and I can’t say it’s changed my opinion, already expressed above. Yeah, I don’t think I like this movie as much as I liked FOTR, and if the departures from the storyline hadn’t been so great I might well have liked it more. But I think the outraged Faramir-purists should try to cultivate some patience, and see if, by the end of ROTK, their favorite character hasn’t been restored to something that feels more true to the story. That’s what I’m hoping for, anyway.
I was watching Full Metal Jacket the other night, and it reminded me how amazing a filmmaker Kubrick was. Jackson is emerging as a pretty amazing filmmaker in his own right, but he’s more of a storyteller, less of an awe-inspiring artist, when compared with someone like Kubrick. Jackson is more of a brick-layer, where Kubrick was a sculptor. Jackson is, on some level, somewhat lowbrow — a characterization I offer without meaning to take away anything from him. It’s just his personal taste, and his personal vision, as carried out in the films he makes.
But I still feel incredibly fortunate to be able to see Peter Jackson’s vision of this story, and feel that I owe him, and all the people he worked with to accomplish this, a huge debt of gratitude that I will never be able to repay. And when I really settle myself down and think about it, I’m not sure it would have been possible for there to be any better adaptation of this story to film, even if some other filmmaker had taken it on.
Let’s say Kubrick was still alive, and could somehow have become interested in doing LOTR as a movie (which I realize is completely far-fetched). Or some other filmmaker, someone with more of a jaw-dropping artistic vision, less of that “lowbrow” element I’ve attributed to Peter Jackson. Do you honestly think such a director would have been willing to sacrifice his own ego so far as to make an adaptation of these books that would be more faithful than Jackson’s?
I don’t think so. I think what fans of the books got here was the perfect balance between filmmaking talent and a human-sized ego. Peter Jackson loves these books, and wanted to make the best movie adaptation of them he possibly could. And he brought all his talent and energy to bear on the project, but without trying to make them over in his own image. I’m convinced that all the changes he made, were made out of a sincere desire to make the best movie possible. You can agree or disagree about this change or that change, but the fact is, you didn’t convince someone to give you the budget of a small country to make these movies. You didn’t assemble an army of people and motivate them to contribute their talent. You didn’t supervise 4 or 5 or 10 or whatever it was separate filming units all day, then work into the night viewing dailies and making script changes, month after month after month.
He did. At the end of this project he’ll have devoted something like 7 years of his life to it. Heck; I have a hard time staying on-task for 7 minutes, sometimes. So I’ll say the same thing again: wait for the third movie to come out, then look at them all as a whole and see what you think. If at that point you still think you could have done better, great! More power to you. Go do better.
In the meantime, you’ve still got the books. You’ll always have them. And hey, there’s those animated adaptations from Bakshi and Rankin & Bass and whatnot. Maybe you could go watch those again, to give you a better appreciation of what Jackson has delivered here. :-)
pudge, John Callender,
pudge – Yeah, you’re right when you say that FOTR made a lot of money and so will TTT ‘regardless of these modifications and decisions’. That’s what’s so annoying. FOTR was as true to the book as any of us could have hoped for and made huge profits. The question is why did Jackson feel the need to make TTT as a Hollywood action film? Pressure from the studio to make it as commercially attractive possible? Or maybe John Callender is right when he talks about Jackson’s ego and Jackson’s vision – in which case it makes you wonder how much of a fan Jackson really is when he adds his own ‘improvements’ to the story.
John Callender – You seem to think that Jackson is on some noble quest of his own! You talk about Jackson assembling and motivating an army but I think you’ll find that cast and crew were paid to make this film. I don’t mean to be sarcastic, I think we all appreciate what a mammoth undertaking this project is and it would never have happened but for Jackson, but film making is just a business and the purpose of business is to make money. Maybe Jackson has had a busy 7 years but hasn’t he been well paid for it? Look at the world around you – millions of people have to work harder than Jackson every day of their lives just to survive. Maybe this sounds like I’m ranting on a bit – I don’t mean it to – and I can see you point of view. I thought FOTR was great but no matter how good ROTK turns out to be it won’t make up for the shortcomings in TTT. I know that a novel can’t be used an exact template for a film but I can’t see any merit in any of these changes. Even if someone has not read the book and so has no expectation of Faramir that storyline is still absurd. I guess I’m just annoyed because Jackson had the opportunity to do something very special and for no good reason let it turn into something mediocre.
I have a question for all of you that have seen TTT a few times … this is going to sound crazy but has anyone noticed two different ways that Legolas grabs hold of and mounts the horse Gimli’s on??? The first time I saw it, I clearly remember him grabing on to the horse just by reaching back and not even looking for the horse – he just seemed to sense it was there. The second time I saw TTT he looked behind, grabs, swings more to his left and then gets on. I’m a BIG Legolas fan so I pay close attention to everything he does and I thought I was going nuts, but my husband thought it looked different the second time around too. Anybody else notice this???
Again, I agree with Matrix’s comments.
The story has diverged so much from the book that it is hard to see how it will converge again. ROTK can’t go back and re-write Faramir’s actiions, for example.
I can understand the need for cuts and joining to avoid each film being 10 hours long, which is clearly unviable for a theatre presentation – but not so for a DVD for true fans, perhaps – but I cannot see a justification for Faramir’s divergence unless it is to avoid any “true-to-the-book” characaterisation, or indeed any real depth whatsoever. Some of the best films employ less than half a dozen actors, with no special effects and yet captivate the audience. What’s so wrong with that in LOTR – it’s all there in the book.I also feel that for a true Fan, which Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens both claim to be, the changes are hard to reconcile.
Still, I’m looking forward to TTT (though rather less than previously) and remain to see whether the further changes that are rumoured – Ellandan, Elrohir and Imrahil missing, the “kabobing” of Saruman [as opposed to staff breaking] and lack of an authentic [Scouring of the Shire followed by Grey Havens] ending are true.
I have seen TTT four times now, and am so pleased with some of the effects and developement to characters.
One question is why is Frodo such a weak character in the movies?????? He doesn’t do anything but get stabbed in FOTR! Even when Gandalf points out he must be strong to with-stand a blade from a Nazgul, it is only with Arwen “passing on her grace” to him before they get to Rivendell that he survives! What the hell happened to him?!?
I can see why the Elves came to help at Helm’s Deep. To me – I think it is great that the Elves remember old alliances etc. to the kind of men, and that they are truly a strong race with poetic hearts and loyalty, which may not have been realised when they “flee” to the Undying Lands to fans who haven’t seen into the story in depth. (I may be wrong with this, don’t kill me)
But, I am appalled at the way Faramir is different – although I have not read that far in the book to his arrival – because of the fact that I did not like him in the film! Some of the posts I have read show Faramir to be a great person, who’s strength of mind can let the one ring go. From what I have seen, he is just a power-hungry ego-tastical maniac, trying too desparately to please his father by taking the ring to him, and being altogether….. well, Boromir. Of which you have said he is, indeed, the opposite of his brother.When he gives his life as forfeit at the end of the film, only then can I see the true essence of this great character you speak of.I am going to read the rest of The Two Towers and attempt to see what Peter was trying to achieve by changing his character so.
Don’t get me wrong – I absolutely LOVED the movie, and maybe it is because I haven’t read the remainder of the novel yet, I actually liked it more than FOTR!
It is a masterpiece and I hope many of the actors have their praises and acknowledgements for their truly exceptional performances, for they are well deserved.
Samwise Gamgee is my favourite character and is not shown enough – well that’s just my opinion, you’d have to create another storyline for him in the 2 movies for him to be in it more……… never mind.
Stuart Jones,
Thanks for your support – it looks like we’re in a minority who are on the same wavelength here. It appears that most people either like what Jackson has done or seem to think that for some reason he is beyond reproach, not deserving of criticism, and they are happy to accept any changes he sees fit to make. It looks like we have more Jackson fans than Tolkien fans! I don’t think that money was Jackson’s only motivation when he started this project but he is personally going to make enough money out of it to make Bill Gates raise an eyebrow and so when he lets things slip so much he deserves to be criticised. But even if you were to contact him and put your views across I don’t think he would put much store in what a few disgruntled Tolkien fans had to say compared to the rave reviews from ‘real’ critics and the film’s obvious success at the box office.
Unfortunately I don’t think your hopes for an authentic extended edition DVD will be fulfilled – there are to many fundamental flaws here. It would be relatively easy for Jackson to fix the Faramir storyline – if he had the foresight to film a few authentic scenes. Other fundamental flaws like the Elves at Helms Deep and the changes to Theoden’s character would probably be difficult if not impossible to correct. It’s no longer Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings – it’s Jackson’s Lord of the Rings.
Matrix,
Well, the movie was always going to be Jackson’s version of the story, which he’s acknowledged. And I’m not trying to argue that he’s beyond criticism, or that he doesn’t stand to become very, very rich as a result of the box office success of these movies. But remember, this looked like far less of a sure thing back at the beginning of the process. He devoted years to working on these films when it wasn’t clear they would even ever be made. He was down to his last pitch, had basically been rejected by every other major studio and had become convinced that the films were dead and his efforts completely wasted, at the point when New Line came onboard.
Peter Jackson didn’t make these movies to become rich. Nor did he come in as the annointed standard bearer for J.R.R. Tolkien’s legacy. He is, at heart, a guy who likes to make campy zombie movies, and that certainly comes through in TTT (the shot after “Looks like meat is back on the menu, boys!”, for example).
I think some of the criticism you, and others, have offered here comes off as naive. Making a version of these movies that slavishly followed the books, regardless of how the books’ plot played on film, would have given us something closer to what Chris Columbus is doing with Harry Potter. And I think Jackson’s version of LOTR is much better than that, in large part because he has given himself permission to mess with the story in order to make it “work” as a film (and yes, as a Peter Jackson film, with the camp and flying entrails, which, granted, isn’t going to be to everyone’s taste).
Jackson and his collaborators have gone through a very long process, with many iterations, in their effort to please both parts of their audience (the book fans and the non-book fans). There was the original two-film version of the script. Then that was completely rewritten to make the three-film version of the script. Then they storyboarded the entire movie. Then they made an “animatic” of the entire movie, using the storyboard sketches and actors (though not the final actors) doing voice-over of the dialog. Then they did lots of in-depth pre-visualization using the miniatures and lipstick cameras and whatnot, working on camera angles and movement. Then they did the principal photography, doing near-constant script rewrites throughout, based on how things were looking in the dailies. Then they did a rough cut of the finished film. Then they called actors back to do reshoots, either doing scenes differently or adding new scenes altogether. And Jackson continued recutting the film right up to the last minute.
To me, it just seems too easy to sit back, as someone who loves the books, and take potshots at this change and that change. How do you know they didn’t _try_ to do the things you’re asking for, but abandoned them once they saw, clearly, that they weren’t working? “But there _weren’t_ any elves (besides Legolas) at Helm’s Deep!” Well, yeah, okay. But you do realize, don’t you, that this stuff didn’t actually happen, right? Should a filmgoer who never read the books be required to view precisely those events Tolkien described, merely to satisfy the sense of purity required by a tiny fraction of the audience? More to the point, should a filmmaker working with $270 million of other people’s money be making choices based on serving that part of the audience exclusively, even if it makes the movie confusing or boring to the much larger number of people who don’t care about those details?
Tolkien had no problem playing around with different plot elements himself. As you work your way through more of his Middle Earth-related writings, you pretty quickly get past the “canonical” version of history in LOTR, and the Silmarillion, into lots of variations in the various other books Christopher has been pumping out based on his dad’s writing. Look at Galadriel and Celeborn’s history, for example. Depending on which piece of Tolkien’s writing you look at, Celeborn is a completely different person.
It’s a _story_. It’s make believe. Tolkien worked very hard at making it seem historical and real, and in his own way, Peter Jackson has done the same thing. But it’s the underlying themes that are important, not the microscopic details of which character said what to whom. In seeking to be true to those themes, and to communicate them faithfully to the widest possible audience, Peter Jackson took liberties with the storyline. And I think that was a wise decision, and is fundamentally truer to the spirit of the books than a more-faithful-to-plot-details adapation would have been.
I miss the Faramir from the books, too. As I said before, I hope I get to see more of him in ROTK. But I don’t think Peter Jackson deserves to be trashed for having “ruined” Lord of the Rings. Very much the opposite.
One great part of the book that was missing in the movie TTT, was when the Hurons (trees under the direction of the Ents) go to Helm’s Deep and help to win that fight. It’s the arrival of the Hurons (forest), not the arrival of the Rohirrim or Elven archers, that swayed the tide (in the book version).
Samwise: I cannot tell you too much about what happens to Farmir without spoling the next film for you, but suffice it to say that he is mean to show real depth of character when tempted by the ring and choses to walk away. This is in deliberate contrast to his brother who succumbs to temptation. Now that Jackson has destroyed the character, I can tell you how that side pans out in the book as convergence is near-impossible. The tale of Bormomir and Faramir is a classic one. Boromir, the older brother, wants to win back the glory of Gondor and remove the cloud Mordor poses. He sees (saw) the Ring as a means of accomplishing this. In contrast, Faramir sees the true nature of the Ring and rejects it. What do you think his father, Denethor, will say when he sees that Faramir has let the ring fall through his grasp? Later, you should find that Faramir is truly noble in other ways, how this can now be done is hard to see, however, in view of Jackson’s divergence.Matrix: while I see my very-long extended DVD would sell, I too feel the divergence is too great, and Jackson will have not filmed “more authentic” versions of scenes with which to plug the gap. My hope was that he could be persuaded to do so.John: certainly LOTR is “just a story”. However, what is being debated here is, in part, whether the two stories (film and book) are now compatible. They aren’t. Changes to the book’s storyline are to be expected, however, as a Simirilion reader you will probably know that Tolkien’s creative excellence is carried from the very beginning, the Creation Myth (Valarquenta) through to the beginning of the Fourth Age and Elessar and Faramir. The full story is quite romantic (certainly as it relates to his war experiences and romance with his wife) and poignantly beautiful and sad. The problem with Faramir is that he so closely associated with this major thread of Tolkien’s works that the change is bound to annoy the true Tolkien fans who will innevitably make up a large part of the audience share watching the film. So why do it: (1) it had to be done for the reasons stated (i.e. bad judgement, which we all suffer from); arrogance (and therefore stupidity) or ignorance (which is difficult to reconcile with their knowledge of the books). I go for (1), but it is a very serious error of judgement, in my view. Whether I or anyone else could do better (or worse) isn’t in question.
i want to memorize the monologue that Sam says to Frodo at the end of The Two Towers, but i cant find it anywhere….if anyone can find it, please e-mail it too me, at theriddler2002@msn.com. my thoughts on the movie, i agree that shelob should have been in it, and so should the breaking of saurumans staff
Stuart: I’m not sure I see how Faramir’s role in ROTK is going to be any different in the film as a result of the changes we’ve seen so far. In book and movie, he will be arriving back in Minas Tirith having intentionally chosen to let Frodo take the Ring to Mordor. Denethor and Faramir could deliver all their ROTK lines of dialog exactly as given in the book without being inconsistent with TTT the movie. The specifics of how quickly Faramir came to his decision, and where, exactly, he released Frodo, shouldn’t have much, if any, impact on how those scenes play out. Am I missing something?A more-serious criticism I’ve heard is that by letting a Nazgul see Frodo with the Ring in Osgiliath, the whole strategy of the good guys has been revealed. Though I don’t think that has to be the case, either. Sauron could assume that the Ring is in the hands of the men of Gondor, and is being taken back to Minas Tirith for use in the war. Which would basically lead to the same “hasty stroke” that Aragorn provokes in the books by looking into the Orthanc palantir. Right?
I love Legolas! I was wowing through the entire movie- my friend had to cover my mouth to stop me from squealing.I have not read the LOTR books, and honestly, I don’t know if I ever will … I don’t get much time to read, but still I have heard from those who have read it and they were disappointed when they compared the book to the movies … and I don’t want to be disappointed, especially reading the books AFTER i’ve seen the movies. I love both movies, but I wanna see TTT over and over and over and over and over again because we see what Legolas is really like, since Frodo and Samwise are hardly ever shown. Legolas becomes a real hero in this one, and not to be shallow and believing it (coz i’m not shallow!) but Legolas is hot. I have a thing for blonde guys with black eyebrows … heroes, archers, people with cool accents!!!!Thanks!
Loved the movie, but also was disappointed by the non-arrival of the Elms at Helms Deep. Through out the entire battle scene I kept wondering whats its going to be like to see the Elms crushing the remainder of the orks, and I kept thinking that it would be so spectacular to watch. Unfortunately the it didn’t pass. Loved the movie though.
John Callender,Your admiration of Jackson and his bringing of this project to fruition is obvious but in his defence you are starting to accuse people of saying things they haven’t said. No one here, as far as I know, has said that the book should be filmed word for word – I think we all realise that a book and film can’t be structured in the same way. Neither do I feel that we are being hyper-critical – there were some inaccuracies in the first film but I could see perhaps why Jackson did what he did and I felt that they stayed within the spirit of the story and so I don’t really have anything but good things to say about it. TTT is a different matter altogether. I’m a great admirer of Tolkien but I’m not a fanatic. I’m not saying that Jackson should make a totally accurate film version to keep a small minority happy – the only criticisms I make are when I can’t see any valid reason for change. Let’s take the Elves at Helm’s Deep for example – lf I watch the film from the perspective of not having read the book then whether or not the Elves turned up at Helm’s Deep wouldn’t make any difference to my perception of the story – so why do it? It makes no difference to the neutral yet it annoys the Tolkien fan.Your arguments against these criticisms are weak. Your main argument is that Jackson has worked very hard for 7 years and so deserves carte blanche to do whatever he sees fit. Where do you personally draw the line? What if Jackson thought it would be a good idea for Sauron to get the Ring back, marry Arwen and have Gollum as his best man – would you be happy to swallow that change?You also argue, that for all I know, Jackson might have filmed authentic scenes and rejected them because they didn’t work – come on! Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, I don’t know, but regardless of how many reshoots he did and all other stuff you go on about the only thing we can comment on is what has ended up at the cinema. Instead of sweeping generalisations and maybes perhaps you could be a bit more specific and enlighten me on how you think the following either improve, enhance, clarify or streamline the film and why you are happy to accept what to me are puzzling and annoying discrepancies:1. Aragorn’s fall from the cliff and his being found by his horse.2. The weakening of Theoden’s character and the trivialisation of Gimli’s.3. The Elves at Helm’s Deep.4. The behaviour of Faramir. (How does this even make sense let alone contribute to the story?)I will be suprised if you can in any way justify these changes – and if you can’t then why do you defend them? If enough people were to say ‘Hang on Jackson, you’re getting off track here!’ then maybe ROTK might turn out to be more like FOTR. I fear that if people just keep heaping praise on him he’s going to think, ‘people seem to like this film better than the first so I’ll give them more of the same in the next’.I think that the bottom line is that some us think that this book deserves more respect than is being shown it.
I agree with the general run of the remarks about TT. Overall it is a great film but I have grave doubts about the “Jackson cahnges”. I only likle one of these: adding the eleven army. This does ring true – the elves are also at war with Sauron, in fact it is their fault (they taught Sauron in the second age how to make magic rings) and in the book they are roported as being in the war elsehwere. In fact, bringing the elves out of their “spledid isolation” makes more sense than their uninvolvement in the biook. Alos the death of the elves provides the one realy sad momment in an otherwise straight action pic.The horrors are, of course:1. Faramir the evil and, even more so, 2, “the winged Nagzul & Frodo”. This makes no sense even in Jacskon’s universe:a. the nazgul would not just fly away, he would sumon his fellows and attack Osgilliath – there is no way Frodo could escape!b. Faramir has just seen Frodo attempt to give the ring to a Nazgul and this convinces him that Frodo is the right man for the job!! No: even the “good Faramir” of the book might have changed his mind after that.Conclusion: a huge whole in the plot.What we need is a a campaign to get these scenes changed. Jackson is still filming. Perhaps we could persude him to change these dreadful 15 minutes of an otherwise amazing film if world wide Tolkien fans bomard him!Scott
Matrix: My only point in bringing up how long Jackson has worked on these films, and how many cycles of writing and rewriting and filming and refilming and editing and re-editing he’s gone through, was to indicate that he probably had actual reasons for the choices he made, and that people who haven’t been through that process who are carping about the changes he’s made are not necessarily in a position to appreciate his reasons for doing so.Something I find interesting is that for every change that fans of the book have criticized, there seem to be plenty of people (sometimes people who haven’t read the books, but other times people who have) who absolutely loved that change. You can’t please everyone, obviously. I give Jackson credit for being willing to risk the kind of abuse he’s getting now, in order to produce a version of the story that he himself was happy with.On the 4 changes you specifically ask me to justify, I don’t have any particular insight into how Jackson’s (and Walsh’s, and Boyens’, and Sinclair’s) minds worked in writing the script, but since you ask, I’ll speculate.1. Aragorn’s fall from the cliff. I think the main idea here was to let Gimli, Legolas, and Eowyn show their feelings for Aragorn in the way they reacted to learning of his supposed death, and in the way they reacted when subsequently seeing him alive. Remember that we, as fans of the book, already know how these people feel about Aragorn. But one of the main challenges in writing these screenplays was to find ways to demonstrate those feelings in a satisfying way for the benefit of the part of the audience that didn’t already know those things.The whole thing with being revived by Arwen’s kiss was probably meant to help advance the Aragorn/Arwen relationship, too. It’s hard to know how, exactly, without seeing the third movie, but I assume that was the intent.2. Changes to Theoden and Gimli. Theoden, obviously, was being given a chance to traverse some sort of emotional arc as a character. For better or worse, that’s something that Peter Jackson views as absolutely essential, and he’s made that same choice over and over. Think about the outwardly weak, self-doubting Aragorn of the filmed version of FOTR. Jackson is trying to give the character an outwardly visible conflict to work through.Gimli: Obviously, Jackson was trying to lighten the heaviness of the subject matter with some comic relief. Some people really like that; I’ve seen lots of comments posted on various web sites from people who absolutely adored the Gimli humor in TTT. And some people who didn’t like it. You can’t please everyone, obviously, but given the requirement that these films work as mass entertainment, I think it was a good decision.3. Elves at Helm’s Deep: One thing I assume was going on here was a desire to heighten the visible drama of Theoden’s (later) decision to ride to the aid of Minas Tirith. Without having the luxury that the book has of going into the whole history of the relationship between the Rohirrim and the people of Gondor, here’s a way for Theoden, receiving help unlooked for from the elves, to go through the emotional change that will lead to him choosing to go the aid of those same people he was complaining about during the “Where was Gondor?” speech he has with Aragorn.I assume another part of the motivation was the desire to portray the good guys in this war as learning to join together, even with those they’d traditionally kept apart from, in order to fight the common enemy. Again, I’ve seen lots of commentary from people who really loved this change. I’m not saying that automatically makes it right, but rather that it should give you pause: _someone_ got something out of this, so at least on that level it wasn’t completely arbitrary. It’s just that you don’t happen to see things the same way.4. Faramir. Well, obviously, this is the main bone of contention we’ve been going back and forth over for a while now. At least in this case I have specific evidence of what the filmmaker was thinking. See this report, for example:http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1039219756Basically, as I said before, Philippa Boyens said the writers felt his character as described in the books was too static, and they wanted to give him more of an emotional arc, so he could go through some audience-visible changes.Books can go right inside a character’s head, having tons of drama play out when the actual people in the scene are just sitting there saying and doing absolutely nothing that is outwardly visible. Movies don’t have that luxury. Finding a way to bridge that gap was one of the great challenges that Peter Jackson faced in making these movies, and I think he’s done a better job of meeting that challenge than you’re willing to give him credit for.But whatever. Like I said before, you’ve still got the books. It’s too bad that you can’t just enjoy the movies for what they are, without needing to stage some kind of competition between them and the books. They’re just different.John
Ah, yes, John, they are different, and that’s just what we didn’t want. And even allowing for the realities of film-making, the need to make money (i.e. widen the appeal to non-readers) and the difference between what works in written form and in film, we are disappointed at those changes that Jackson made which were simply unnecessary, even in the film, and detracted from our enjoyment.
Stuart: Well, Jackson obviously thought they were necessary, or he wouldn’t have made them. And until you come up with the money to make your own, more-faithful adaptation of the books, we’re pretty much left with the version Jackson has made — a version that I, and a lot of other people, are really, really happy about. I’m sorry if you’re not one of them, but those are the breaks, I guess.So, should I assume you won’t be going to see ROTK, since it would just annoy you further?
John Callender,I’ll give you credit for attempting to justify some of these changes, however flawed I find your reasoning, but no matter what explanation anyone gives, these changes will never work for me. Like you say, these changes obviously work for the majority of people who have seem the film – you’re happy with them, I’m not. You think that the changes are the result of difficulties Jackson had trying to translate aspects of the book to the screen, I think the book lends itself particularly well to a screen adaptation without the need for invention but I suppose, in the end, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.You never said where you would draw the line as regards changes to the story. Do you have any limit? Are you happy to let Jackson do anything he likes? Do you care about the story at all?You say ‘It’s too bad that you can’t just enjoy the movies for what they are’. We aren’t talking about FOTR here just TTT (I don’t think anyone here has critcised the first film). I would say that it’s sad that you can enjoy this film for what it is (as opposed to what it could be) because if you can then you will never be able to really appreciate or enjoy art (in general – not just this book in particular) on a level that Stuart Jones, for example, obviously does.
Matrix,I might be able to help you out with your queries.1. Aragorn’s fall represents the fall of the Kings of Gondor and being found by the horse represents him finding his destiny through the quest.2+4. We all know that Aragorn is ‘The Man’ and we don’t need any of these other cool dudes (ie Theoden & Faramir) trying to steal his thunder. Now we all know that if there’s an easier way to do something then we’re gonna do it and PJ is no exception. What easier way to make Aragorn top dog than to make his rivals ditherers and halfwits. And what easier target than a dwarf from which to derive some much needed humour.3. PJ thought, “Huorns and Ents – same thing really, I’ll save some money on special effects by having the Ents turn up at Helm’s Deep instead of the Huorns! No-one will be able to tell the difference!”. Unfortunately where he meant to write ‘Ents’ in the script he wrote ‘Elves’ by mistake and no one noticed until it was too late. There were a few red faces at the premiere I can tell you!Anyway what you dudes gettin’ so hot under the collar about – all this stuff happened hundreds of years ago so no one knows what really happened. Middle earth doesn’t even exist anymore! (its probably Europe now). My theory is that the Grey Havens was really Atlantis and all the Elves perished when it was destroyed. Dwarves still exist though but you don’t see many with beards for some reason. And Hobbits still exist but now we call them Midgets.I hope that PJ leaves the ending to the next film open so he can make a few more sequels without having to pay lip service to some crusty old story. Or even better what about a TV spin-off in the mould of Xena and Hercules – ‘The New Adventures of Legolas and his bumbling comedy sidekick Gimli’.Let me hear you say ‘Yeah!’ (everyone except Matrix, Stuart Jones, Farmir-purist and Scott)
Matrix: Yes, I care about the story. And there are certainly changes I would not be happy with. In point of fact, I’m not (personally) particularly happy with many of the changes to TTT, including (especially) the ones to Faramir. I think a different filmmaker might have found a way to keep the storyline of a TTT movie closer to that of the books, while still having the film work for non-readers.But that’s hypothetical. Real movies get made in the real world, and in my experience, real movies made from my favorite books almost always end up sucking in the extreme. And the only reason I can say “almost” there is that Peter Jackson has done such a wonderful job with LOTR.So yes, I was disappointed by the changes to Faramir (among others). But my unhappiness with those changes is the size of a grape, and my happiness at being able to see all the really wonderful things that I really love in TTT is the size of a bowling ball. It’s all relative.For what it’s worth, Peter Jackson has said many times that the changes to TTT were greater than the changes to either FOTR or ROTK. He’s also said that ROTK is his personal favorite of the three films. So I think even those so scandalized by the changes to TTT that they can’t enjoy it still have a good chance of being happy with ROTK.
John Callender,That’s progress at least – instead of just acknowledging and defending the changes, you’ve actually admitted that they bug you too! You are right when you say that Jackson is a ‘low-brow’ filmmaker, and there’s nothing wrong with that. There are lots of action films with ridiculous plots that are full of holes that I really like, but if Jackson is trying to step out of that mould and the reasons behind the changes are less low-brow, like character development and interaction, and subtle threads and themes that span the films, then he shouldn’t bother because he’s not very good at it. He didn’t do anything like this in FOTR and it was a terrific film. The fact that it was so good and my expectations were so high made my disappointment with TTT even greater. I think that FOTR is as faithful an adaptation as anyone could have hoped for but when TTT turned out to be a Hollywood action film based on the story (my opinion, I know you don’t agree), it was bound to be unacceptable to some people. Like you say, the majority of people are happy with these changes. Some think that they actually improve the story, others, like yourself, think that the positives outweigh the negatives and so, taking an overall view, give it the thumbs up. You’re also right in pointing out that, despite the changes, it is still far more accurate than the vast majority of screen adaptations. I’m not saying that the film is entirely without merit, I think there were some great bits in the film, but my analogy would be that the changes were like a drawing pin that I had to sit on for the entire film and because it was so goddam annoying and uncomfortable I couldn’t really enjoy the good bits.The cinema version has been made and there’s nothing that can be done about that. I just hope that I’m being too pessimistic about the extended DVD version. Jackson will surely realise that majority of this audience will be people who want a more authentic version (and as a fan surely he will too). Even though it would still bug me, I could just about accept the weakened Theoden and the Elves at Helm’s Deep, just as long as we get the original Faramir back and lose Aragorns fall from the cliff. The worst case scenario would be the cinema version plus an extra half-hour of Jackson’s inventions – heaven forbid. If that happens I will just have to make my own totally accurate version of the movies, like you suggest. I only need another $269,999,900 – anyone care to chip in?
John, as I said, yes I’ll go. I expect to be only mildly disappointed now I have come to terms with the wrecking of TTT. I’m very interested in the comment that Peter Jackson felt in the TTT that he could let rip with his own artistic lisence folliwing the success of FOTR. Clearly, he hadn’t realised that the [relative] faithfulness of FOTR made it so successful, as opposed only to his film-making abilities, which in terms of appearance are very good, but in terms of mucking up what was already an epic, rather more limited.
Well, I’m glad you went to the hard work finding all these things wrong with the new movie. Now, if only you could see what is wrong with your own life…
o.k first of all im no expert on lord of the rings but i do say there are a lot of changes but thats hollywood. After watching some documentrys on the extended edition of the fellowship of the ring i think in my own opinion the changes were a good idea. For instance as i understand if they had have left all of the material shot edited and completed the film woyuld have run at about 4 and a half hours, i managed to work up quite a bum ache and i appreciated the cut as it was. also they had to create more material for Arwen because liv tyler wouldnt have took kindly to fly for twelve hours and only have about 2 minutes or so on screen. The cuts in the two towers were also a good idea for pacing and on previous sites ive read that a lot of material from the books were shot just not included so just wait till november 18 and stop your complainin its took in a lot more money than i ever imagined
I bought the video and watched it last night and can, with effort, buy these first few plot degradations, but the trainwreck occurs with the impossiblity of Frodo’s presence in Osgiliath. At this point they may as well not call it LOTR any longer since this Peter Jackson decision elementally transmutes Tolkein’s narrative gold into lead. Frodo’s chances of surviving a naked bootleg through Osgiliath–the Beirut of Middle Earth and a known haunt of the Nazgul–while bearing the Ring are absolutely Zero. When the winged Nazgul does show up to nail Frodo, that’s it right there–game over. The eldritch alarm goes out, the jig is up, Frodo gets hauled before the Dark Lord and the 4th Reich is ushered in.
Looks like this thread’s been dead for a while, but I’ll share my two cents anyway. I saw FOtR and tTT before I read the books. I LOVED THE MOVIES and also loved the books. I was really surprised to learn that Tolkien did not write the elves in to the battle of Helm’s Deep and that Faramir never held the hobbits against their will in an attempt to claim the ring. I can see how the differences would disappoint a die hard Tolkien fan, but to the naive audience these elements play really well.
I’ve seen ROTK recently and I think Lord of the Rings III is the geatest movie. it doesn’t happen very often when a screen version of a book is as powerful as the book itself… It’s more than words can say, and it deserves the best of awards.
re: faramirthe biggest problem with the faramir thing is that Frodo and Sam go where do NOT in the book and as a result Frodo has a minor battle with a Nazgul. Then the Nazgul gets shot and forgets that he cannot die by any man and also forgets that he is a servant who is supposed to get the damn ring! In other words it compromises the awe of the mythic creatures the Nazgul. They run at the smallest threat! very silly.
i love pippin. can u wright me back? how old are u? i wish goggle had more pics of u.love ur #1 fan kandice
I was looking for a thread to ask this question and I think I’ve found it. I enjoyed the films very much but have not read the books – nor do I intend to.The plot as a whole revolves around the need for destroying the One Ring because if Sauron gets hold of it that is the end of all the races of Middle Earth. This is utterly compelling as a main plot for an adventure and the seriousness of this task (the Fellowship) is made plenty clear.My question is this. In the back-story revealed by voice over at the beginning of FOTR we learn that Sauron had at one time possessed the One Ring and was in the process of doing exactly what the Fellowship will soon be trying to stop: the destruction of life in Middle Earth. Yet Sauron’s plan was foiled by one guy with a sword. Ok he was a king and the sword was magical, but still. In fact he slices off Sauron’s finger with the sword after it’s already broken! How can that be? The Ring is supposed to make Sauron unstoppable.If the sword is that powerful why doesn’t The Eye take an interest in it? Why aren’t there Sword Wraiths? Why does the sword have to be reforged? The only time the swords power is used is to convince the ghost army the Aragorn is really the King.Are there details in the books that work out these descrepencies?(Sorry if I mispelled any names.)
Dear Paul,I have returned to this thread after an absence of several months and have noticed your latest entry.The sword, Narsil, is not in any way magical. While it has a long lineage and was indeed recast from the sword which sliced off Sauron’s ring finger, the reason for the shockwave (movie only, but very effective) and falling (temporarily, at that time) of Sauron into the shadows was merely that Sauron was separated from the object (Ring) in which he had invested so much of his power. While the ring remainded, however, Sauron also remained.In the books, I don’t recall Aragorn using his sword to impress upon the “ghost army” his power; rather this derives from his force of will and destiny, which is lost totally in a man of confusion as portrayed in the movie.I really do recommend you read the books themselves. If you have the time and enjoyed the movie, you will probably find them richer and more rewarding than any movie, however well made, could ever be. And they open up a much larger treasure of mythical creation which is also demanding but if anything, in my view, more rewarding than LOTR itself.Regards,Stuart
Usted habla español
How do you change your charachters for the fights
In answer to some of your questions about differences between the book and the movie:
> The “curing” of Theoden seemed too fast to me.
> And I’m sure it didn’t involve magic in the book.
Yes it did involve magic in the book – Gandalf used his staff to cast a “controlling” spell over Wormtongue and snap Theoden out of his stupor.
> Were there really Elves at the Battle of Helm’s
> Deep – I don’t think so.
Nope. You are right. No elves showed up at Helm’s Deep – I was aghast when I saw this in the movie!
> The attraction between Eowyn and Aragorn was
> played up too much.
Actually it is played up a lot in the books. Eowyn is completely lovesick for Aragorn at various points in the story. He is not romantically interested in her because his destiny is only to concentrate on those things which bring him closer to returning as the king and ultimately a union with Arwen. But being such a noble man he is kind, gentle etc. etc. with her…
> The Ents should decide to attack Isengard during
> the Entmoot.
Correct. They did in the book.