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

[Kami]

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

He sure did. It has nothing to do with politics or any other special meaning. Sure you can interpret it in your own way, but yes....Tolkien didn't like when people did that.

 

[RobertR]

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.

Jason, while I am sympathetic to your "I don't like anti-technology themes" viewpoint, I think you're overemphasizing this aspect of the story. From what I've read, Tolkien vehemently denied that the story was meant to be an allegory. It was meant to be taken "as is", ie a mythological history. So any vibes you get along the lines you mentioned are generated internally, sort of like a Rorschach test.
Also, the story DOES show "made things" (ie tools) that are NOT evil; in fact they are depicted as being very good, such as Frodo's sword Sting, his Mithril chain mail, and the Elvish rope (the latter two prove to be crucial to the effort to destroy the Ring).
I'd say that means that the point is not that technology is "bad" per se, but the CHOICES one makes with it are what's important (Gandalf explicitly states the importance of one's choices).

 

[Jason Seaver]

Except that, where the ring is concerned, the technology itself has a certain amount of influence over the choices, rather than it coming from within the character - indeed, it's been explicitly stated that eventually the ringbearer has no choice.

 

[RobertR]

Yes, but the technology was made by Sauron to be that way. It was his choice. The Ring serves the will of Sauron, which makes it no different from any other technology. The Elves had made other Rings which were NOT fashioned for the same evil purpose, which emphasizes the point that it's what one does with the technology that matters, not the technology itself.
By the way, the same sort of criticism could be leveled at Star Wars, with its "trust your feelings instead of technology" attitude. If anything, it's more overt (recall the scene where Obi advises Luke to use the Force instead of his targeting computer).

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Actually, the books were written in 6 parts that were condensed down to 3

They were not condensed, the original 6 books are intact, they were just bundled in two's by some publishers for distribution. And although the novel is grouped as 6 "books", it's still one story. The individual "books" do not stand on their own, and were not meant to.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I don't think the ring can be a representation of technology being evil because they keep calling it "the ONE ring." Rings (representing man-made technology) aren't evil, but "the ONE ring" is. The story is written to be a great piece of literature, not a political commentary, and even if you do find a way to remove some them from it (like technology is evil) there is evidence to refute it.

Jeff-

Yes, we agree on that. Kinda have to, it's fact.

 

[Joseph Young]

Unless you want to assert that Tolkien was a totally deluded person, remember that he took the time to assert in the Foreword to Fellowship that he was primarily a linguist and fully explained his position on writing the book(s). None of it had to do with the inherent evils of technology.

"technology corrupts/is inherently evil"

This assertion never came from Tolkien and I don't believe there is a single line of dialogue in Fellowship that backs up the rather extreme notion of technology being 'inherently evil.'

I think that altogether ignoring the inner struggles, and how evil is borne from within, and attributing evil to some exterior, objective notion like 'technology,' is an oversimplified conceit. The inner struggle is far more interesting, far more 'mythological,' and far more accurate to Tolkien's vision. The Frodo/Sam/Gollum sidestory does not exist to send these characters to a physical place, but rather to put us inside of their heads as they struggle with the power of the ring. I can't imagine The Two Towers without this portion of the story.

Cool discussion. Can't wait for next Tuesday at midnight... already have my tickets!

~j

 

[Malcolm R]

They were not condensed, the original 6 books are intact, they were just bundled in two's by some publishers for distribution. And although the novel is grouped as 6 "books", it's still one story. The individual "books" do not stand on their own, and were not meant to.

Sorry, I'm something of a newbie to LOTR and was wondering...

If Tolkien wrote a single story titled "The Lord of the Rings," who came up with the book titles (i.e. FOTR, TTT, ROTK) when LOTR was divided into a trilogy? Were these by Tolkien or a publisher? Did the six "books" ever have other titles? Or were they always just "Book #"?

 

[Rob Gillespie]

the technology itself has a certain amount of influence over the choices

It's not the 'technology' doing so but the will of Sauron enshrined within the ring. To quote the movie:

"And into this ring, he poured his cruetly, his malice, and his will to dominate all life"

That pretty much sums it up. The one ring was just a tool he used to bind up the power of the Elven rings and gain insight into what was being done with them. Like so many mythological stories from our own ancient history, the ring is merely a talisman. A carrier for something altogether more influential than the physical appearance suggests.

I always saw Tolien's dislike of industry and technology to be realised through the ever-spreading dominion of evil across Middle Earth, and more directly, through Saruman's destruction of the trees and breeding of his own army.

I live about two miles from Sarehole, where Tolkien spent some of his formative years as a child. The place is featured on the FOTR Extended Cut DVD in some of the supplements (and in the National Geographic doc). When Tolkien lived there, the city (Birmingham) was still a few miles away, but industry grew at a frightening pace, he saw his childhood haunts gradually become surrounded with residential areas. And later his family moved closer to the city, which must have pushed industry right into his face.

 

[Michael Martin]

If Tolkien wrote a single story titled "The Lord of the Rings," who came up with the book titles (i.e. FOTR, TTT, ROTK) when LOTR was divided into a trilogy? Were these by Tolkien or a publisher? Did the six "books" ever have other titles? Or were they always just "Book #"?

Tolkien envisioned and wrote it as ONE volume, broken up internally by the "book" divisions. You can actually purchase LotR in a single bound volume, which was Tolkien's original intent.

It was his publisher that insisted on publishing the story in 3 volumes, and it was the publisher who came up with the titles, though Tolkien had approval. BTW, Tolkien never did like the title for the second volume, and only late in life did he settle on WHICH two towers were meant.

The quality paperbacks I have of the trilogy reflect Tolkien's intent in the page numbering - The Two Towers "page 1" is actually 480-something (can't remember the exact number), picking up right where Fellowship left off, and Return of the King does the same.

Similarly, in the EE appendices, Jackson refers to making the "film," and breaking it into 3 parts.

 

[Matt Stone]

Tolkien never intended his works to be taken allegorically. That being said, of course one could apply Tolkien's stories to a greater context. This is because his stories are written in such a "general" sense. You could compare Sauron or Saruman to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

As for the tree-hugger aspect of the story, Tolkien wasn't overtly saying, "Don't cut down trees, don't embrace technology!" ...etc. He was saying that if you cut down a tree, plant one in return. He was saying, go ahead and use technology, but don't let it use you. His anti-industrialization themes aren't necessarily anti-industrialization at all. They are more anti-misuse of industry. Building a mill is one thing, building an industrialized army hell-bent on enslaving the world is another.

 

[David Forbes]

Tolkien didn't like the title for Return of the King, either, he thought it gave too much of the story away. His preferred title was The War of the Ring. I believe his preferred title for the second volume was The Treason of Isengard.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

His preferred title was The War of the Ring. I believe his preferred title for the second volume was The Treason of Isengard.

Aren't those the subtitles of some of the individual books? I'm at work so I can't check right this moment, but in the boxed set I have at home books 1-6 are separately bound and I believe they are titled.

 

[Eric Bass]

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.

Actually there is a lot more of it in the books than in the films. In the books he is constantly second guessing his decisions and showing frustration. Especially once they are separated from Gandalf in Moria. I can remember at least one part in particular where he states clearly that all his decisions seem to go wrong (maybe around the breaking of the fellowship?) and seems to be really down on how well he has handled leading the fellowship in Gandalf's absense. It's subtle but his character is one of a very strong leader who also has a lot of doubt in his ability. They made it a little more obvious in the film FOTR where they go so far as to imply that he was avoiding his destiny in Rivendell ("turned from that path long ago, he has chosen exile" and such). It's less blatant in the books but still a very strong and frequently visited theme.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

So I was searching a few music sites looking for the precise name of the Two Towers trailer music. Turns out it's not exactly the Mansell Requiem for a Dream music, but a remix done spcifically for the trailer. I found a six-and-a-half minute version on Kazaa, and it's just awesome.
So I told you all that so I could tell you this:
I came across a VERY cool tidbit in a Howard Shore interview over at www.soundtrack.net ! I'll put it in spoilers, as it clearly tells you one segment that's not in the theatrical cut but IS planned for the Two Towers DVD Extended Version.
Shore also kindly provided a bit of insight as to one of the many additions to the film audiences will be waiting nearly a year to see: namely, the wonderful back-story of how Smeagol became Gollum. "That was gonna be in the cut, but didn't make it. It will be on the DVD."
Full interview (which is a damn good read by the way) can be seen here:
http://www.soundtrack.net/features/article/?id=100
Can't WAIT to see what that sequence looks like! I was kinda bummed that it wasn't in the theatrical cut...but no worries now!

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Wow! That spoiler is pretty cool. Thanks, Scott.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Scott, that MP3 is a fan made cue that cleverly extracted the music from the trailer and edited it together with the existing Requiem for a Dream theme. The original cue as done for the trailer is well and truly NOT availble.
I presented a tidbit regarding the re-doing of the Requiem theme in a thread over in the Music forum. The full answer was presented in a previous Ebert Q&A from the Chicago Suntimes website and read as follows;
Yes, the "Requiem" score was used, and yes, it was re-orchestrated. I contacted the AM's expert source David Bondelevich, award-winning music editor and lecturer at the University of Southern California. He at first assumed that "but re-scoring it would be prohibitively expensive," but his contact at the Ant Farm, which created the trailer, said otherwise.
Nathan D. Duvall, music producer at the Ant Farm, explained, "In many cases a trailer is created in two days and there isn't enough time to create original music. With 'Two Towers,' the editor who cut the trailer fell in love with the 'Requiem' score but found that it didn't quite adhere to the typical trailer music formula. To solve this we created a larger orchestration that arched to a big resolution. 'Requiem' is a more intimate feature yet it has a haunting melody that easily translates to a more broad feature in 'Two Towers.' The 'Rings' score is well placed in the first minute of the 'Two Towers' trailer but the editor found that she needed something different since 'Towers' is a different act in the trilogy. Once you have introduced the known characters and reminded the audience of their separate journeys we needed to depart from the old score. Howard Shore had not yet completed his score for 'Two Towers' by the time we finished our trailer so we couldn't use any of the new music. As far as creative decisions go, our partner here at the Ant Farm who holds the Rings account, Barbara Glazer, supported our attempt with the revised 'Requiem' theme. And all creative decisions are finally approved by [LOTR director] Peter Jackson."

Can't WAIT to see what that sequence looks like! I was kinda bummed that it wasn't in the theatrical cut

There's discrepancy here as I stated in the other Two Towers thread as whilst Shore claims it'll be in the extended TT, Philipa Boyens (or it may have been Fran Walsh) said it'll be in Return of the King. We'll have to wait and see.
Dan

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Thanks for the scoop on both topics, Dan. This may not be an 'official' piece of LOTR music, but I'll be burning it onto a CD sometime real soon. It's the most hypnotic piece of music since the end credits theme from Moulin Rouge. I could listen to it every day, and I find music like this helps me to rev up for a long night of writing.
As far as the Gollum sequence goes, I'll be happy regardless of where they put it. That bit is one of my favorites from the book, and I'm dying to see what Jackson & Company have done with it!
(I'm staying away from that other thread, as I know almost nothing of what goes on in Return of the King. I haven't decided if I'll read the book before the movie (as I did with the first two chapters), so I want to keep my options open and my spoilers limited.)
Anyway, we had a great time last year: let Hobbit season begin again!

 

[Holadem]

Actually there is a lot more of it in the books than in the films. In the books he is constantly second guessing his decisions and showing frustration. Especially once they are separated from Gandalf in Moria. I can remember at least one part in particular where he states clearly that all his decisions seem to go wrong (maybe around the breaking of the fellowship?) and seems to be really down on how well he has handled leading the fellowship in Gandalf's absense. It's subtle but his character is one of a very strong leader who also has a lot of doubt in his ability. They made it a little more obvious in the film FOTR where they go so far as to imply that he was avoiding his destiny in Rivendell ("turned from that path long ago, he has chosen exile" and such). It's less blatant in the books but still a very strong and frequently visited theme.

Last, don't forget that only as a King could he finally be worthy of Arwen, Elrond wouldn't have it any other way. Really, I would say that Aragorn really wanted to be King!

--
Holadem

 

[Stephen_L]

Holadem, I agree with your analysis of Aragorn. Peter Jackson created a more self-doubting Aragorn to provide more character change and development over the three films. In the book, the Rangers are the last remnant of Isildur's line, the men of Numenor. Aragorn in the books always seemed supremely aware of his destiny and prepared to accept it. On a couple rare occasions he expressed self-doubt after assuming Gandalf's mantle as leader of the Fellowship, but otherwise he was determined and confident to seek the throne of Gondor that was his.