Media Index |
Comments on this page can contain spoilers.
Page 1 | Page 2
| Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5
| 6 | Page 7 | Page 8
Rhonda Rael, Bayside CA, USA
If I hadn't read the books, I would have loved the movie. But I was really
disappointed in all the distortions. Obviously many parts of the book had
to be cut or compressed to make a movie. What I objected to was ADDING things
that weren't part of the book.
Examples are the budding romance between Aragorn and Eowyn, the battle
scene where Aragon falls over the cliff, Frodo and Sam being taken to Minas
Tirith, Elrond discouraging the romance between Arwen and Aragorn, Aragon
choosing exile rather than fulfilling the prophecies that he would be king,
Arwen deciding to sail to the West.
Also they had Grima Wormtongue saying things that Gandalf actually said.
They had Gandalf worrying about going into Moria when it was actually Aragorn
who didn't want to go there. And on and on.
The books are so wonderful. Why make changes just for the sake of making
changes? I find it hard to believe that Peter Jackson is a devotee of Tolkien's
Juan Zapata, Miami, USA
Despite the fact that almost everybody considers The Two Towers
movie to be better than The Fellowship of The Ring, I think
that the first movie captured the feeling of the book better than the second.
The Two Towers has a much more "Hollywood" feeling to it with
a few cheesy rambo-like scenes(legolas slides down a set of stairs on a
shield while simultaneously shooting at least 10 orcs),which should be prevented
at all costs when doing anything related to Tolkien. The director took many
liberties when adapting the book to the screen. Although on the first movie
there were various differences as well, there are some changes in the second
one that are much more impacting. For example, in the movie the character
of Theoden is portrayed as a grumpy old king who is scared to fight in Helms
Deep, which he definitely is not (Forth Eorlingas!). He also
tries to kill Grima, and is stopped by Aragorn who tells him to spare him.
Also, in the battle of the Hornburg he has to be convinced by Aragorn to
send a last eored and to ride with his knights, which is the opposite of
what really happened in the book, in which Theoden asks Aragorn to ride
with him, not vice versa.
There are many other differences as well: elves from Lothlorien come to
aid Rohan in the battle of helms deep instead of ents, Frodo encounters
a winged Nazgul face to face in Osgiliath, Aragorn Falls from a cliff to
a river and strays into a romantic dream with Arwen, and Eomer and his knights
are not present in Helms Deep until the end when they come to "aid"
the King after being convinced to do so by Gandalf. But perhaps the biggest
and worst change of all was the modification of the character of Faramir.
In the book, he is a much more wiser man than his brother, and he does not
desire the ring. He treats Frodo and Sam with courtesy and respect and aids
them by all means possible. He even prohibits his men to slay any man or
beast without necessity. However, on the movie, he is the polar opposite
of this. He is driven by a desire for power and wants above all else to
be recognized for his military wits and skills.He takes Frodo and Sam as
prisoners and treats them roughly,ignoring Frodo's pleads to let them go
free. He even bounds the two hobbits and takes them to Osgiliath, where
he orders his men to take them and the ring to his father. He only lets
them go free after Sam gives him a speech about the corruption power of
the ring and the cause of Bromir's madness seizure.
Making changes to a book to try to make it more mass-audience appealing
and interesting is one thing, but to pervert a character and turn him into
something he isn't is just plain ridiculous.
Yet don't be fooled, there are many good things in the Movie, and it has
some truly amazing scenes (Gandalf's fight with the Balrog) battle sequences
and visual effects. It is definitely a great film and one of the best I've
ever seen. I am making this critic only because I know that the Director
could do a better job, which he proved in The Fellowship of the Ring.
If The Return of The King combines the epic battles and effects of the Two
Towers with the Tolkien Feeling of The Fellowship,does not make any more
ridiculous changes, and doesn't add any cheesy scenes like the one of Legolas
in Helm's Deep (that scene killed the Battle!) Then rest assured that it
will be the best movie ever, and it will be praised by Tolkien Fans around
David Lukman, Ljubljana, Slovenia
First part of movie is excellent, but the end is rather disappointing.
Too much is left out (for example, the chapter "the Voice of Saruman"),
and there are too much changes in story (for example Frodo's coming to Osgiliath).
Judy Greene, Kansas City, US
Comment: The fact that the movie(s) could not bring to the screen everything
in the books is no excuse for robbing the tale of its profundity in favour
of profit. Yes, it's an excellent *movie*, but it's not a great *film*.
Those who do not read the books will be content with Legolas' exciting stunts,
the buffoonery of Gimli, Aragorn's *death* scene, the repetitive formula
of 5 minutes of character & story development followed by 15 minutes
of fighting, etc.
The most painful sacrifice to Hollywood was Faramir. We will never see
the man who commanded unconditional loyalty of his men and intuitive trust
of Frodo due to courage and leadership that developed from having learned
to choose wisdom and humility. This contrast to Boromir would have given
us a richer tension and depth.
If Grima had been allowed to make the choice Gandalf gave him for redemption,
we could again had more context and depth. Instead, we got scenes that made
us work hard to make sense of (Faramir suddenly deciding to let Frodo go/Aragorn
staying Theoden's hand saying Enough blood has been spilled on his
account. And we could have had more meaning as well as excitement
in the same amount of time it took to substitute what is either a cowardly
or self-indulgent rewrite.
Enough blood has been spilled on his
We all have our own personal and collective Rings to drop into our Mount
Dooms. In Faramir, we see someone who has done that and are drawn to him,
inspired to be more like him in our lives.
In Grima, we have the opposite and can see where his path leads, which
also inspires us to struggle and trudge for the high road.
That we got neither in the movie is a shame & not just for us "purists";
it is a shame because millions of people have gone to see TTT, most of them
children and teenagers. I wonder what effect it could have had in giving
us more of what we need now. Perhaps it could have arrived at the turn of
the tide in time to help guide us as we face the Dark Lords of our current
age & time.
Charles , Wichita Falls, TX, USA
My favourite scene:
<Eowyn opens a chest in which lies a sword. She unsheathes it and begins
to practice. She swings around and is met by Aragorn, who blocks her parry.>
Aragorn: You have some skill with a blade.
You have some skill with a blade
<With a swift move, Eowyn swings her sword and renders Aragorn vulnerable,
gaining the upper hand.>
Eowyn: <Stepping back and sheathing her sword.> Women of this country
learned long ago that those without swords may still die upon them. I fear
neither death nor pain.
Women of this country
learned long ago that those without swords may still die upon them. I fear
neither death nor pain.
I feel it affirms Individualism which is part of the Celtic Hero Mythos.
Kristert Alexandrio Harlingston III, Akershus, Norway
I've seen Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers now, and I'm disappointed.
There was so much tension built around it, and when I finally got to see
it, I was not impressed.
MadDiE told me that you shouldn't look at the movie and the book as one.
And I do agree. But you can't look at them as two separate thing either...
If you get my meaning... This time I read the book before I saw the movie,
and I realized that they have made up almost everything!
Things that were not in the book were here. Things that were in the book
was removed from the film. They even made Frodo, Sam and Gollum/Smeagol
go to Gondor, where there is were! None of this happened in the book, and
Frodo did most certainly not confront a Naz-gul!
And Gollum: The conversation between Gollum and Smeagol. I hated it! It
was to long. It was to 'funny'. (It wasn't supposed to be as 'humorous'
as it was in the film. It was almost difficult to understand that it was
serious!). In the book, it was Sam who overheard the talk, and not Frodo
as in the film. It was Sam who wondered who 'she' was, not Frodo. And 'she'
wasn't even there!!!!
And the Ents... It was wrong.. The court of the Ents took many days. And
Pippin and Merry did not wait for it there. They were together with the
fastest talker of the Ents.
Damn.. That's all I'm saying. Damn!
A reader, Eastern Shore of Maryland, USA
I was so relieved to find this site and learn that others share my reaction
to Peter Jackson's rendering of TTT. Major media had nothing but praise,
whereas I was deeply disappointed. The movie version of TFotR was magical,
even with its departures from the first part of the book. The interpretation
of TTT is a travesty, however, particularly in its portrayals of Faramir
and the Ents, some of the most noble characters one could ever hope to meet.
Many of the distortions seemed so pointless and confusing -- Aragorn falling
off the cliff? Frodo and Sam face to face with the Nazgul in Osgiliath?
The Elves at Helm's Deep? I must admit, Gollum was fantastic, but I have
grave doubts about the third movie now.
Laurence Jones, Sheffield, UK
i think that there was one comment that really rang true, that the films
should act as an addition to the span of the interpretations of Tolkien's
work. we were never really going to see a verbatim translation to the silver
screen (i think the bbc's version will always stand out on coming closest...)
as for the film, a cinematic treat, that at first made me feel a bit confused,
especially with the many (i deem) unnecessary plot changes/inclusions, especially
Faramir and Osgiliath, and elves at HD! (incidentally, surely it would have
been Galadriel and not Elrond who would have sent Haldir?)despite the shortcomings,
the overall effect is brilliant, but you have to remind yourself that everyone
who has read LOTR will carry around with them their own version of Middle
Earth, and so any interpretation of it, especially through a much hyped
film trilogy, might seem like an invasion, but, as i said earlier, its more
like an addition. on the whole i preferred fellowship (but that might be
though countless viewings) but overall, i can't wait until Dec 03!!!
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
| Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7
| Page 8 |
This page copyright © 2002 The Tolkien Society, registered as a charity in England, number 273809.