The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Lou Sytsma]

Yep thanks for your thoughts Jason!

All the things you found extraneous are exactly the things I am looking forward to seeing. Sounds awesome!

 

[Joseph Young]

Re: the 'connective tissue' theory &

Truthfully, this may just reveal another one of my prejudices - I hate stories that take the phrase "power corrupts" so literally, and part of why I'm not terribly attached to LOTR is how Tolkien's Luddite sympathies come through - that the machine-analog (the ring) is actually evil and makes people evil. That part of the story's going to have an uphill battle with me.

Indeed. I might add that good fantasy (and science fiction) is particularly effective at taking an element of the human condition/reality and giving it a nifty fantastical (and sometimes overliteral) spin. I don't think that Tolkien's sole message is that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.' I do think that Tolkien's work, however you choose to filter it politically/socially, is a powerful statement about the responsibility of power, and it's not so simple minded as to suggest that power = evil.
I was at first discouraged to hear your review, Jason, but now that I've got a helpful and very revealing context for some of your perspectives, I'm relieved that I will be much more satisfied with the film than you were. I definitely understand where you are coming from but cannot say I agree.
Thanks for the review!
cheers,
Joseph

 

[WilliamP]

All I can say is I'm definately going to wait until I've seen the movie 2 times before I pass judgement. I liked FOTR when I first seen it and my second viewing I loved it and I think the FOTR:EE was the best film of last year.

 

[Tim Glover]

Guess I'm in the "slow" group too WilliamP. Films that stir me I see alot and usually it's that 3rd viewing that I'm in love with it!
My 3rd viewing of FOTR really was awesome. I read the book a LONG time ago and was able to absorb everything better on the 3rd viewing.
And I agree. If the Ext. Edition had been released it would have won Best Picture. Nothing against A Beautiful Mind, but in 20 years from now, FOTR will stand the test of time, like Star Wars has.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Generate your own Hobbit name!
http://www.chriswetherell.com/hobbit/

OK, back to the movie talk!

 

[Chris Farmer]

I would say that the message of the story and the plot device of the ring isn't that "power corrupts." Numerous characters are revealed to wield great power and do so justly, especially Aragorn in moments when he reveals his full power, and especially Gandalf as the White. The idea is more that power for selfish ends can corrupt, and that evil can turn even actions intended for good to evil.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Actually, I get more of a "technology corrupts/is inherently evil" vibe from it. The Ring is a made thing, a tool made by a person; a machine-analog. And it's not only used for evil purposes, but it corrupts its user. Obviously, that's reaching a little, but not by much, especially considering that Tolkien was fairly well-known to be a Luddite. There is also some dialog in the film that makes the metaphor pretty clear.
And there's people for whom that will work, especially those who are predisposed to find the whole swords-and-sorcery millieu exciting and romantic rather than see it as taking place in a grimy, disease-ridden world ruled by capricious autocrats and mystics where life is nasty, brutish, and short.

 

[Micheal]

All the things you found extraneous are exactly the things I am looking forward to seeing. Sounds awesome!

Couldn't agree more!
Thanks for the review Jason. I just have a feeling that Helm's Deep will blow away any part of AOTC's. (For me anyway.)

 

[Seth Paxton]

It's clearly a big deal to the characters in the movie that he is now "Gandalf... The White!" versus "Gandalf The Grey", but it's not clear why.

Well, PJ sort of dropped the ball with this whole concept already. I really think he should have had Saruman open his cloak to reveal many colors. It would have fit perfectly as an arrogant rebuttle to Gandalf just before the fight.

Something like..."Saruman the white? No, Gandalf, you now address Saruman of MANY COLORS!" begin fight, cue heavy music - bum bum bummmm.

While the exact importence of the color thing would still be left unsaid, the audience would be able to understand that a shift in colors meant a change in who they were. And this would especially pay off in TTT because WHITE would now be identified as the top color of the good guys (with Saruman going to many colors). It wouldn't take much to see that Gandalf filled some void left by Saruman's switch. Instead we just have 2 white wizards.

We are talking about 4-5 seconds and a minor effects shot and add a lot of strength to this subtext.

As it stands now it sounds like PJ has made it slightly more than a reference for the fans, and has left it too noticeable to slip by the casual fan who will now want an answer of some sort.

Minor problem but it could have been a minor fix.

 

[Holadem]

It represents a plot device/over-literal metaphor/political viewpoint that I strongly dislike

Didn't Tolkien go out of his way to deny any intentional treatment of such themes in his work?
--
Holadem

 

[Holadem]

BTW David-SG, on the previous page you posted a HUGE ROTK spoiler that has no business in a TTT official discussion.

--
Holadem

 

[Micheal]

Something like..."Saruman the white? No, Gandalf, you now address Saruman of MANY COLORS!" begin fight, cue heavy music - bum bum bummmm.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I always thought that Gandalf's color change was to represent his "rebirth" and renewal of existence. He used to be old and dirty, but now he's shiny and new, thus the brighter color.

 

[Michael Martin]

Basically, what I mean is that ESB or AOTC or Back To The Future Part 2 are, though part of trilogies that serve in large part to connect the first episode to the third, also individual stories. TTT isn't, for the most part. Where I might, tonight, take Empire off the shelf and watch it without necessarily also watching Star Wars, I wouldn't do that with TTT - it needs the context of the other movies in the way that the others don't.

Jason, Tolkien wrote the story intending it to be a single volume. He NEVER wanted it broken into three separate books, but allowed the publisher to do so.

Jackson is taking the same approach. Unlike the Star Wars original trilogy, the LotR films were never intended to stand alone. Like Tolkien, Jackson essentially sees this as ONE big film, broken into three parts for easier consumption. Lucas never had any idea that Star Wars would be the success it was, and had only vague ideas about where the story was going.

I would also caution holding off on complaining about having no explanation about "Gandalf the Grey" and "Gandalf the White." The trilogy is not done yet, so let's give PJ & co. enough rope to hang themselves, yes? If you recall, Narsil, the broken sword of Isildur, was introduced in the first film, but makes no appearance or mention in TTT. Does that mean PJ dropped the ball? Nope, it simply means that it will be resolved in Return of the King.

 

[Holadem]

If you recall, Narsil, the broken sword of Isildur, was introduced in the first film, but makes no appearance or mention in TTT. Does that mean PJ dropped the ball? Nope, it simply means that it will be resolved in Return of the King.

That sword, so important to Aragorn's character, gets nary a mention. I wonder how it's use will have any impact in RPTK. I don't think that was set up well enough... But eh... I would rather not think about stuff like that, to appreciate the movies more.
Still, some changes were really uncalled for, with no appearant gain story wise, or in running time (weathertop really should have been handled differently... arghhh... that's for another thread, and that is sooo last year )
--
Holadem

 

[Brian Kidd]

I think what a lot of people need to realize is that Jackson needed to make the films accessible to a broad audience composed primarily of people who are not Tolkien scholars. The little details are there for those who would recognize them, but since they're not vital to the plot, they're not dwelt upon. That is why FOTR succeeds as a film where, I feel, the HARRY POTTER films do not.

 

[Eric Bass]

Gandalf the White is basically just a promoted Gandalf the Grey. I am very interested to see if they handled his character change properly. In the books Gandalf the Grey is more the kind old man we see in the FOTR and Gandalf the White is all business and resident ass-kicker. Anyone who has seen the film have a comment on that?

I hate stories that take the phrase "power corrupts" so literally

Keep in mind these stories were written half a century ago before everything was quite as overdone as it is today. Also I don't quite think you can pin any one message on Tolkien's works which is really their strong point as I see it. There are environmental issues (Isengard), power (Sauroman), greed (Smeagol), insecurity (Aragorn) to name a few of the main ones. The movies simplify the issues so maybe they seem more tacked on if you have not read the books.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Like Tolkien, Jackson essentially sees this as ONE big film, broken into three parts for easier consumption.

Unfortunately, we're not in a position to review it as such yet. Still, I doubt I'm the only person this month who is seeing this movie after having only seen Fellowship once eleven months ago - and for that segment of the audience, the experience of seeing The Two Towers might seem oddly disconnected and, in some ways, vaguely unsatisfying.

 

[Andy Sheets]

There are environmental issues (Isengard), power (Sauroman), greed (Smeagol), insecurity (Aragorn)

I mostly agree except that last bit regarding Aragorn. Was he ever at all insecure in the books? The movies have given him a character arc by having be a reluctant leader type, but in the book I remember him being almost entirely free of any self doubt. He was all "hell yes I'm the king, check out my broken sword", or at least that's what I remember of him since it has been a little while since I read the book

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Jason, Tolkien wrote the story intending it to be a single volume. He NEVER wanted it broken into three separate books, but allowed the publisher to do so

Actually, the books were written in 6 parts that were condensed down to 3. Yes, they're all supposed to be looked at as one big story, but they weren't written as one and then chopped up, the opposite actually happened (written as a bunch of parts and then condensed).