More ROTK news

Remove all ads!

The Two Towers didn't even feel like a 3 hour movie!!! I actually feel ripped off when a movie is less than 2 hours...and it's not animated!

Case in point: MIB2 - 84 minutes!!! WTF!!!

 

Sir Bel,

as far as I know, he scouring is the scene that was inside the Mirror of Galadriel, but the Grey Havens and going Oversea is in. Take this with some salt though...

I can't care less that the movie is different from the books, it just means more ways to enjoy a truly groovy story.

Why do people say the Viggo can't act? He seems to be acting to me, and when great actors like McKellen Holm and Lee all praised him for his acting? Um? I don't get it? I'm not saying that I adore him or his acting, but how can I say that he can't act?

 

Yes, it is certainly true that deviations between the movie and the book exist. There are several somewhat major events that have been exculed or changed in the movie from the books. That doesn't necessarily make the movie better or worse.

To wit:

In FotR - Arwen takes Frodo to Rivendale. In the actual books, this did not happen. I cannot remember the elf's name who takes him, but it is a male elf, so it clearly isn't Arwen. It was a means of introducing her to the story.

Tom Bombadillo (sp?) is completely absent from the movie.

In TTT - the battle at Helm's Deep was the battle of Five Armies. Eagles took part in that battle, as did the trees. They have included the trees in Fanghorn in the EE, but it wasn't in the original.

There is a scene on the EE of Boromir, and what his role was in Gondor prior to his joining the fellowship. As far as I can recall, this was not in the book.

So yes, there are differences, but good overall.

 

The name of the High Elf was Glorfindel and his horse was Asfaloth IIRC
And according to my humble opinion not these changes are not good.

 

Ah yes, Glorfindel. I had forgotten his name, but now that you mention it, I am positive that you are correct. I do not, however, find anything overly sacriligous in changing one minor character with a more popular one. When you think about the size of the cast for this movie, adding in additional characters for one scene doesn't really make a whole lot of sense if the same can be accomplished by characters currently existing in, or to be featured prominently in, the storyline. I'm sure Tolkein fans will disagree, but for how well these movies have been conducted so far, I'm willing to cut them a little slack on the details.

 

It wasn't Glorfindel that took him over the river and into Rivendell, but only his horse. Glorfindel stayed behind to fight the Nazgul - and as a High Elf, he could.

 

The Battle of the Five Armies was in The Hobbit, not LOTR. There were no eagles at Helms deep, though the Huorns came. The addition of the elves there was unnecessary IMO.

 

Well, I agree definetly with Sir Belisarius..
I've read the whole book 3 times in the past 3 years and I find the the scouring of the shire as one of the best parts in the book..
Injustice!

I was also disappointed from the way TTT was turned out from the original story, shocked actually. But it's just my opinion..

AND offcourse the missing part of Tom Bombardillo! (sp?) that dude rocked..
I think the fans are being cheated here, atleast that what I somewhat felt sometimes..
But I gotta try to understand that it cant be made like the book, some parts have to be cut.

 

Yes, the Battle of Five Armies was in the hobbit. Ugh, how embarassing.

I already commented on Tom Bombadillo being absent, but I can see why he was excluded. That was a few chapters in FotR that didn't add anything to the final story line. He was really a superfulous character, and with the length of the movies already, I can see why he was eliminated. IIRC, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippen meet up with Tom before they even reach Brie, so it was early in the story before the major characters of the trilogy have been introduced. It's sad that it didn't make the cut, but understandable.

 

I juat watched the extended version of Two Towers and it is so much better than the vanilla version. There was deletion of entire scenes and also little snippets that made the whole movies "make scence". The vanilla version is really confusion and unclear even "wrong" compared to the original extended version. My thoughts.

 

I think I am insane because I did not get the tickets for the first available showing... I and not just because I lack money.

I think it's my current fedupness with life...

I can't wait, and yet... I am afraid it'll be a letdown similar to Revolutions. I think that's why I am postponing seeing the movie...

 

Arabwel...it will not be a letdown. It will be better than either of the two previous. I have spoken to some people who have seen a 30 minute preview screener, shown only to critics and reviewers, and they have said that it was riveting. This isn't Matrix Revolutions...it has a subject base far more enduring than the cute little idea that the Wachowshki (sp) brothers came up with. Don't despair...and if you have no money for tickets...steal

 

I think PJ has already proven that it can't be bad. There is too much content to both FoTR and TT to make both so good by accident or luck alone. Especially when you count in the incredibly well-made Exdened Edition sets as well. No, the guy knows what he's doing.

RoTK may not be perfect like FoTR was, or almost-perfect like TT was. But if not, it will still be at least excellent.

I had a good laugh yesterday though. I was going to go see the Underword right after work. So when I got in the theater and bought the tickets, I was thinking what sort of an school meeting was going on when various 15-20 yearolds were sitting on the floor everywhere. So as I went deeper into the theater complex towards dome where my movie was to be displayed, I saw this group ever growing now with older people added to the fray. Guess what I saw next? A sign that said they were going to start selling tickets to RoTK at 22:00 (or 10pm). Geeks, you gotta love 'em.

 

Hmm... i wonder if I can still wrangle a ticket from somewhere?

Maybe via the insane OIEI people. Hopefully.

I am SO hoping we'll see lots of Elrond... mayhap we'll see him fighting, based on something I saw in the trailer....

 

Viggo can't act? I am madly in love with him - well, OK, with him playing Aragorn. Frankly, I thought Aragorn was the most boring character in the books; Viggo has made him one of the most interesting. (Can't beat the hobbits.) Plus he's hot, because he's tortured and interesting and strong and smart and, well, hot.

I love the movies and the books. I look at them as two different ways of telling the same story. There are multiple retellings of fairy tales, and Lord of the Rings is important enough, and has entered mass consciousness enough, to be a fairy tale. I also find it nearly impossible to sit in a theater for 3 hours; 4 would keep me from buying a ticket. So I'll go to the theater for the sheer awesomeness of seeing the movie on the big screen; I'll buy the extended edition to watch over and over; and I'll read the books when I want a deeper, more thoughtful experience. And I agree about the ending. It's great for the book, but it would be a totally lame ending to the movie.

 

Viggo can definitely act... I watched A perfect Mured yesterday, and oh my, he was ghreat. I just loved that one line he throws at Michael Douglas about continuing to **** his wife...

Random fat: Both Viggio Mortensen and Sean bean have been in a movie with Michael Douglas, and they both got killed by him

 

SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
This sucks. I know Jackson already switched the scene to Grima offing Saruman in his tower, instead of in the wilderness as "Sharky." I can deal with that change, but you've GOT TO include it in the movie! I really hope he reconsiders.

Christopher Lee is the biggest LotR fan out of the whole cast. It speaks volumes if he doesn't attend the premiere.

 

Oh my... if that's true, then I can boikot the premiere with a good reason.

(Better than being back home for holidays at that point, 150 km from the neaest theatre anyway...)

 

Actually, all that needed to be said about Saruman has been said already. There's no need to include it in the movie. The case is different with the Extended Edition.

Still, the last movie -as far as casual never-got-to-read-the-books movie watchers are concerned- said all that needed to be said. There's no "real" need for the Gandalf - Saruman conflict in the Isengard. Including the demotion of Saruman's status and powers is hardly essential to the plot, and would probably confuse the casual observers barely able to grasp the concept of fantasy even more. And as for the Grima - Saruman conflict in Shire, or the entire reclaiming of Shire for that matter, they fall to the same line as Tom Bombadil did. They're not directly involved with the story of the ring, and so they're not needed in the movie.

Seriously, you can expect everything from the movie that was in the books, but what good will it do to you? It's not only unrealistic and naivé to do so, but will also hurt you in the long run. Elitism has never brought any good to anyone in my opinion, and this case is no different from all the others. Better to understand that a movie will always be less precise than a book, and value it as much for its disadvantages, as its obvious advantages as well.

 

There is a plot point that depends on the scene in Saruman's tower though: the reason why Sauron detects Pippin and why Gandalf takes him to Minas Tirith.

Anyway, it would have been nice to see it - I was looking forward to see how Christopher Lee handles the voice or Saruman. Ah well, wait for a year I guess...