Just got back from seeing The Two Towers and I was wondering what others thought of it. <br><br> I feel so sad... I didn't like it. I really wanted to like it.<br><br>I've read all five books (hobbit, silmarillion included) probably a dozen times so I know I am a harsh critic, but IMHO they really butchered the storyline this time... and in places that were completely unnecessary??<br><br>The subtle changes made in the first picture to transform from book to movie were understandable, but this... .<br>Oh well, gollum and the Ents were still really cool to see.<br><br>
Loc: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Movies always suck compared to the actual books they are made after. I didnít get the opportunity to read the books, but I hope one day I will.<br><br>How do you compare it to the Fellowship of The Ring movie?<br><br>
I think the first movie (The Fellowship of the Ring) was pretty good. They stuck to the storyline, but altered certain things to make it more dramatic for those unfamiliar with the books, and introduced a strong love theme that was really never there. But, that was ok, I expected that. So, I thought the first movie was quite good.<br><br>And the first hour of the Two Towers was very good, but then they just butchered the story, introducing and changing characters, creating subplots and adding huge scenes that never existed. It was just so... unnecessary, and it really pained me to watch it.<br><br>I know I sound melodramatic, but I expect other hardcore Tolkien fans feel the same, or do they?<br><br>
Haven't seen it yet, Trog, but am dying to, despite your review.<br><br>About the love thing, though, it is implied in the books pretty clearly since Arwen is willing to give up her immortality for the sake of Aragorn. Last time I read them through was out loud to my son, which is a totally different experience, so I may be exaggerating that a bit.<br><br>edit: And you're right that the film version plays up the romance in ways that chaste Prof. Tolkein would never have done. I guess that's what happens when you have a boy and girl on screen at the same time <br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 12/19/02 11:26 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
It wasn't the Arwen-Aragorn thing that bothered me. What really put me over the edge was poor Faramir's character. I won't give anything away for those who don't know the story, but that whole set of scenes was completely fabricated and it was so much worse for it!<br><br>Oh heck, I'll stop whining now. I hope you enjoy it, they've tried hard and some of it is still really beautiful.<br><br>
Oh, ha ha! Lack of communication here. <br><br>No, there isn't a romance with Faramir, its just that his character behaves 180 degrees different than he did in the book and it creates whole new (lousy, in my opinion) scenes and subplots that never happened. <br><br>His character in the book was pivotal from a symbolic view. He represented the dwindling true good in men that was struggling to survive in a time of terrible evil; it was specifically his personal choice of humility over power that allowed the quest to continue. I felt it was a real slap in the face to Tolkien's writing.<br><br>
Loc: Milan (Italy) - Madrid (Spain)
I've just finished the book in Italian (years ago I read it in Spanish, next year in English) and probably will go to to the cinema during my vacations in Spain these days. My favourite character is Gollum and I have been waiting to see him.<br><br>
DaddyMac isolates all that really matters. Hi, I'm your friendly neighborhood Screen-ie-writer, and hearing comments like "Sheesh-- they changed it from the book and added scenes that weren't in it!" makes me cringe a little.<br><br>Look, I understand what you're saying. You read the books, they were great, if not beloved to you, and so WHY oh WHY do the screenwriters change things?<br><br>Easy. It's the same reason why wedding gowns must be changed to be hot bikinis. They are two different things. A great book is cerebral where a great movie is visual. Yes, they can both have such qualities, but any book that got in your head.. especially at HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WORDS has no chance to be similar as a movie. It will be different.<br><br>That's why all that really matters is if the novice sees the movie and thinks it's fantastic. If you've read the book, you're not letting the film BE the film.<br><br>2001 was an okay rendering of the book. However, by itself, it's an extraordinary film. That goes for THE SHINING as well. Once you compare notes, you go blind.<br><br>My two cents. Toodles..<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.