LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS
- Started
- Last post
- 47 Responses
- toastie0
the movies are only worth watching if you've read the book. period. By themselves they are worthless pieces of hobbit poo.
There's no way to fit the book into even three movies. As a result, everything in the movies is rushed, the only dialog in there is inspirational Hollywood cheese.
However, if you have read the book and are very familiar with it, the movies are quite enjoyable. Oherwise, the characters are ompletely underdeveloped and the plot makes no sense.
Boo and props to the Gollum animations.
- bplus0
scarabin,
I know what you mean, but big budget films MUST be marketable. I don't see you giving away many millions of dollars to make a film that fulfils your idealogical desires yet won't sell to the masses. It's the nature of the beast man. Don't like it? vote with your wallet and don't watch it.
If it's going to be done, I'm glad it was done by someone with the down to earth "just want to make cool shit" attitude of Peter Jackson. Have you seen his earlier movies? (NOT The Frightners btw) you might get a better idea of what he is about if you watch Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles.
The man deserves a little more respect than you accord him.
- unknown0
I loved The Frighteners!
- bplus0
I loved the fact that I could so easily recognise Lyttleton Harbour as the setting.......
okay it was alright :)
- quamb0
scarabin- if they had followed the books, we'd be still at bilbo's party in the shire, 6HOURS later in movie time...
Imagine the thousands of decisions that Peter Jackson and co has had to go through to create both- a marketable trilogy for the masses & a trilogy that remains true to the spirit, themes and narrative of the books. Not only are trilogy's the most difficult and risky thing to pull off in hollywood, though here we have friggen epic LORD OF THE RINGS with an already existing millions+ fan base.... man, I don't see how ANYONE could complain about the choices Peter Jackson has made to turn the books into movies.
Though I guess we're at PV-AN where anything too 'mainstream' just isnt 'cool' enough *sigh*
- Bennn0
agree
- flossyB0
were there babershops back then? did the hobbits have to sport those horribly dry perms? would it hurt frodo to throw some gel in that mug and slick it back?
inquiring minds want to know...
- octavius0
that requiem for a dream track isn't in the film
in answer to somebody's question......
- barnburner0
I dont look at them as different movies so much as all the same movie broken up.
Even in the intro to the books it says that tolkien wrote it as one book but it was broken up into three novels to make it easier to handle i soppose.
dont compare them, they are one in the same...
star wars... episodes 1,2and3 vs 4,5,and 6, now thats a different story.
- jking760
i thought Tolkien meant to have like 7 books like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI…
- unknown0
yes, i'm familiar with all of jackson's work, and yes i realize movies have to be marketable.
but just because it "must be marketable" doesn't mean they have to completely fuck the story and completely disrespect the original work to do it.
ever see dune? they didn't have to make up love stories that weren't in the book, or backstreet-boys-ize major characters, or make other characters just seem completely stupid JUST SO STUPID PEOPLE WILL LIKE IT.
- jking760
and Benn, even JarJar f*ing Binks was animated by a real actor, still looked AND sounded like an ass. until CG get considerably better (regarding main characters), I wish they'd just used REAL things, ie, puppets, human beings.. things shot on film, not things built on the computer.
my 2¢
- jking760
Dune, amazing book. Haven't seen the ENTIRE movie either. gotta do that, and to see Sting some more.
BTW, Legolas surfing on the shield... I know he's a badass and everything, but that was a little much.
- quamb0
scarabin- i guess the thing is that converting the books into movies is a very very hard task, think about it for a while... (two towers was a 3 part story of each broken fellowship group, one by one- that would have been TERRIBLE on film)
jackson HAD to take liberties, and when it comes down to it, he WILL piss a few people off such as yourself.
too bad, cos your really missing out on a great moment in cinema.
- unknown0
no, i'm missing out on a really great moment in marketing.
- quamb0
can you honestly sit back and say these films are all about marketing?
are you watching the same movies the rest of us are?
its new line who are marketing the hell out of this thing, not jackson and co, though who can blame them- its friggen lord of the rings.
if you see a few side-relief lines from gimli, or over the top stunts by some elves to be some 'marketing ploy' by jackson for mass appeal, then perhaps your being a tad paranoid?
"oooh, that was cheesy compared to my imagination-rendered version from the books, damn hollywood fat cats!"
// why am I defending the movie?
cos so far all the 'negativity' has no reasoning except for bitter tolkein fans who don't like the made changes...
- angelus350
I personally am a huge fan of J.R.'s work on LOTR and I don't think anyone could have done a better job of bringing these visions and fantasy's to the screen as Peter Jackson and crew have been doing on these films. In my opinion, they're excellent.
- unknown0
"oooh, that was cheesy compared to my imagination-rendered version from the books, damn hollywood fat cats!"
wtf...?
i'm talking about fundamental aspects of the story as written by the author. characters being completely perverted and portrayed as something much different than what tolkien intended.
they pushed aspects of the movie further than i think they should have, in the interest of selling more copies, instead of representing an accurate depiction of the books.
i'm not being paranoid. i'm disappointed because i was expecting to see lord of the rings, as opposed to a rewritten story BASED ON lord of the rings.
- unknown0
i agree, angelus. the artists and designers involved have done an amazing job...
- quamb0
sorry, guess i missed what you were trying to say- not trying to piss you off.
though still, i believe what jackson and co has done to turn the books into a trilogy is amazing- especially when, yes, they have to have some kind of mass market appeal. The only way these films were going to be made was with a HUGE budget, with that comes the responsibility for the film makers to create a trilogy that is a)very very good b)not tolkein-fan exclusive c)does have general appeal.
The choices jackson would have had to make would have put me in hospital- just because they are different choices from what you may have done, does not make them wrong.
An "accurate depiction of the books" would make a terrible film experience, the narrative structure of the books just doesn't translate. On top of that, there are only 2-3 minor female characters in the books- something that would be suicide to stick to with a 200+ million dollar budget.
Remember, I'm sure you'd love to do this and that when it comes to a design job, though are restricted by budget, audience and client tastes. Now imagine a project such as lord of the rings, we're you have a hollywood studio, millions+ fans and the general public sitting on your back.
It would be suicide to include all from the books, infact tolkiens work is, although magnificent, quite flawed. Perhaps you're more concerned in how they have translated the characters as opposed from the storyline (which pretty much has remained true to the books), hell, I'm not to sure if I liked what they did with the Ents yet...
Though, I can't imagine any director, any where doing a better job then Peter Jackson.