TTT criticism / questions / reviews

[Pad]

after seeing TTT i felt again the strong urge to finish reading the lotr book. so the past days i was reading lotr instead of studying for my finals (which i have in jan). im almost at the end now (book six, chapter III: mount doom, page 912). after reading the ttt part i had mixed feeling about the movie as some facts were wronly displayed. i still think its a very nice movie but PJ screwed up a few scenes (imo).

 

so what is ur oppinion on TTT?

or do u have questions about the movie?

 

ps, i´ll post all misplayed scenes later

[-s/<itzo-]

i've seen TTT and i taught it was good (long but good).

 

i got a question, Gollum/Sméagol was the creature being tortured in the first movie right?

 

can you also explain to me about his origin.

[obi]

Ah, Smeagol was once one of the riverfolk. He and his friend(whose name escapes me) were down by a river, and he noticed the ring of power. Smeagol reached down and grabbed it. His friend also reached for it. For this act, Smeagol killed his friend, and fled to the Misty Mountins. There, the ring of power possesed him, and he became the creature Gollum.

[Agen]

Yep, he was getting tortured so he owuld go out and find the ring for Sauron.

 

Smeagol was a hobbit, his family hated him and he was a river person, he wasn't liked much. He found the ring were he kept it to himself (and killed his freind aswell to get it iscne obi reminded me) and he stayed in the misty mountains (i think it is) for 5000 years or osmething (the ring delays aging). He become totally seduced by the ring where he has his mind split in to 2 - Gollum/smeagol and his body is deformed. Bilbo came along and took the ring and defeated the dragon. (you know this).

 

That's very brief description i'd have to read the hobbit again to remember it all.

[Hekx]

They've filmed the scene where Smeagol kills his friend (who I believe is named Deagol or something) and becomes corrupted by the Ring of Power. Hopefully it'll be apart of some flashback sequence in ROTK.

 

I've seen the movie twice now

 

The only thing I know is Aragorn doesn't fall off the cliff in the book but does in the film.

Bleh; I haven't even read the books so I don't know.

I'm on Page 1 of the Fellowship... w00t!

 

 

Shh. I'll be going back again soon hopefully

[teutonicknight]

Originally posted by Hèkx Nòxú

I'm on Page 1 of the Fellowship... w00t!

 

 

Shh. I'll be going back again soon hopefully

 

Don't worry, I know it's hard to finish... but pretty soon after 100 pages, you'll get out of the Shire.

 

I got a question: How do you spell Uri Kai? I know what I just wrote isn't even close

 

I got another question: How do hundreads of Men die fighting the Orcs, yet when Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and King Theoden ride out to meet Gandalf, none of them recieve a scratch? And how do they knock down hundreads of Orcs down like bowling pins?

[C'jais]

*Sigh*

 

First of all, I posted a huge review in the other thread for TTT reviews.

 

Secondly, LOTR purists have no say on the movie at all, IMVHO.

 

The movie and the book are two different media, you can't compare 'em at all - especially not since it's different person who directed the movie than the author of the book.

No, PJ didn't screw anything up - it's his version of the book, and he decides how it's made.

 

You can't make an exact transition from book to film, it's flat out impossible. Some things work better in the book, some things work better on screen. First of all you need to cut it down to a moviesized story. Secondly, some things are left out to get the movie flowing better.

 

The movie should be watched as a PJ's version of LOTR on film. Not as the original story or Tolkien's LOTR or anything else. Two very different mediums and stories which can still be enjoyed by people who loved either. That's the beauty of it.

[C'jais]

I got a question: How do you spell Uri Kai?

I know what I just wrote isn't even close

 

It's spelled "Uruk-Hai".

 

All praise be to the subtitles, who never spell names wrongly

 

I got another question: How do hundreads of Men die fighting the Orcs, yet when Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and King Theoden ride out to meet Gandalf, none of them recieve a scratch? And how do they knock down hundreads of Orcs down like bowling pins?

 

See, I found this ridiculous as well, but I guess PJ thought that heavy cavalry is invincible going downhill on inferior beings.....

 

Trust me, in the real world, Aragorn and his crew would have been so mauled that they'd look like orcs afterwards.

[Agen]

Hehe, i read the lotr when i was 8. hobbit when i was 6.

[BCanr2d2]

I think that you have to understand Middle Earth, it's lore and history before just saying it's these guys on horses riding out from Helm's Deep and into the Uruk-Hai army. Whilst the Valar do not wan't to get involved, it is more than likely they give those that oppose Sauron a helping hand. This is perhaps something I get from reading other books, such as The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. This isn't really made clear in the movie at all, and is barely touched on from Gandalf's return.

 

One thing I found a bit weird, was that the ending to TTT in the book is a lot more suspensful than the movies end. Although I'd have to read where Aragorn and Co are to see if it doesn't give away some of the things that happen in ROTK. I guess with it being 3 hrs already, to add Shelob may make it way too long.

 

Who found it funny when Gimli asked to be tossed, especially after saying Nobody tosses a dwarf in FOTR?!

 

 

BTW: We have seen scenes of ROTK already - I saw them last year!

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by obi-wan13

Ah, Smeagol was once one of the riverfolk. He and his friend(whose name escapes me) were down by a river, and he noticed the ring of power. Smeagol reached down and grabbed it. His friend also reached for it. For this act, Smeagol killed his friend, and fled to the Misty Mountins. There, the ring of power possesed him, and he became the creature Gollum.

 

I thought that smeagols friend was the one who found the ring, but gollum was so taken by it, and it was his birthday that he decided to kill his friend to take the ring from him. one reason why he refers to it as his birthday present in the books.....

 

I thought hte movie was brilliantly wonderful, and i'm going to see it for the 3rd time tonight. My only woe is that they cut out the part where Fangorn forest moves itself behind the uruk-hai in the battle of helms deep and cut off their escape. I really really wanted to see that.....AND i was upset that Faramir took frodo to osgiliath.....as in the books he simply let him go from the waterfall cave.........

[Qui-GONE Jinn]

See, I found this ridiculous as well, but I guess PJ thought that heavy cavalry is invincible going downhill on inferior beings.....

 

Trust me, in the real world, Aragorn and his crew would have been so mauled that they'd look like orcs afterwards.

 

Trust me, you don't entirely know what you are talking about here... War horses like the ones the Eorlingas and Rohirrim use, are specifically trained for war-purposes. The horses are even more of a weapon than the man on top of it. Among other things, war-horses like that use their shoulders to know down anything that gets in their way. Anything. Now, you try standing on a very narrow walkway/bridge, with no railings, virtually nowhere to escape (other than jumping off) and have horses like these crash down on you. You'd be soundly beaten, just like those orcs.

 

Now, the army at the end of the walkway/bridge, might have proved a tad too much for the eorlingas..

 

 

For a fact, when you're dealing with cavalry charges by trained war horses, you must be aware of the fact that it's the horses that kill the most enemies. Not the soldiers.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Qui-GONE Jinn

Now, the army at the end of the walkway/bridge, might have proved a tad too much for the eorlingas..

 

Those are the ones I'm talking about, really. However, the Uruk-Hai are described as being ruthless and relentless - I'd have liked to see at least a few of them throwing themselves fearless towards the horses, not jumping away from them 5 meters before they're hit.

 

For a fact, when you're dealing with cavalry charges by trained war horses, you must be aware of the fact that it's the horses that kill the most enemies. Not the soldiers.

 

For a fact, those Uruk-Hai had polearms (pikes!) - theoretically, Aragorn and his crew would have been skewered. You do not fight trained, tough über-orcs wielding pikes with horses, be they warhorses or not.

 

BCan: Where have we seen those scenes from ROTK?

[BCanr2d2]

Cjais,

 

It sounds like you have read the books, so you will know what happens to The Shire in the ROTK? I thought that it would be obvious, but I'll just say "think of Lothlorien" and it will come to you.....

[Lunatic Jedi]

The Uruk'Hai may be relentless and ruthless, but they aren't stupid. Well, not VERY stupid, anyway. They know how dangerous the horses are. When you're about to be mowed down by something with twice your body mass, its simple instinct to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

 

As for the pikes, the Uruk'Hai had a fatal flaw in their formation. Their front line was, for the most part static when defending, and those Uruk'Hai are pretty big, so there is a good 3-4 feet between them, so there is an equal distance between each pike. If you get a good angle, you can slip right between the pikes. The horses may get grazed, but remember, war horses have chainmail.

 

Also, the defenders of Helm's Deep weren't necessarily outnumbered, because only so many Uruk'Hai could attack at one time. Remember, the canyon in which the fortress is nestled is only a few hundred feet wide, which is a major choke point for incoming troops. They could only have about a hundred troops at the front line at any one time, so it wasn't the numbers that should have been worried about. It was a matter of how long the defenders could hold out against ceaseless (yet relatively small) waves.

[Kstar__2]

alrighty, i'm still reading the book, but one part of the movie bothered me: the part where sam and frodo are in the cave behind the waterfall, you can just see they edited them in, the lightning was all messed up, and they dah lines around them, it really demolished the scene

[ZePhyR]

The action was hard to see from the second row...

[Pad]

u r right cjais that this was PJ´s call how the movie was goin to be. i was wrong sayin PJ screwed up.

but some things just bother me, thats all.

 

here r some of the altered scenes:

 

- eomer was not banned from edoras

- the pipin/merry´s escape scene was a bit different as tolkien described it.

- eowyn and other ppl stayed at edoras instead of goin to helm´s deep

- theoden is displayed a bit weakly (runnin from edoras to helm´s deep when he actually rode off with his men to help)

- treebeard was far to eager to kill pipin/merry

- aragorn fallin from the cliff and the arwen part never happend

- there were no elvs at helm´s deep

- it was aragorn and eomer who were fightin in front of helm´s deep gate instead of aragorn and gimli

- faromir???? he was brave and honest and had no need of the

ring but they made him like a little kid who is only after the ring

- we didnt need to see osgilliath untill rotk

 

 

and listen before u go flammin at me, i didnt say i didnt liked the movie. it was a nice (awesome) displayed lotr version with imo the best special effects effer performed.

as the matter of fact im goin to see it again when i finish my finals.

 

but im just wondering what u ppl think about those altered scenes

 

and ET warrior, u r right. it was actually smeagol´s friend who found the ring.

 

and the purpose of this thread is merly a TTT debate instead of a this-movie-was-so-cool thread.

[C'jais]

Ahh, I know what you mean Pad - I have friends raising much the same points about the exactness of the film.

 

Consider this analogy: PJ is telling the same story as LOTR, but some things are changed to fit the medium better. If you have 30 green apples, but swap 6 of them for red apples instead, you can't deny that you still have 30 apples, no matter what.

 

That said, PJ said himself that TTT was the movie that had taken the biggest departure from the book. FOTR and ROTK are supposedly closer to the books.

 

I still haven't read the books yet, so I can't really comment on how well he changed those scenes you mentioned....

[Pad]

Originally posted by Cjais

I still haven't read the books yet, so I can't really comment on how well he changed those scenes you mentioned....

 

why u little!!!

*smacks cjais against the wall

 

i can proudly say i finished reading the whole lotr book in its original english version (which is a big deal as english is only my 3th spoken language)

 

and as u loved TTT, u will surely love ROTK

- aragorn fallin from the cliff and the arwen part never happend

i now understand very well why PJ put in this scene

 

and if u like i could explain all the scenes i told about

just ask

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Padanime

why u little!!!

*smacks cjais against the wall

 

Arghz0rsz! Don't hurt me!

 

I've tried reading the first 100 pages 3 times now, but Tolkien always ended up boring me to death with his little hobbits. I can't stand 'em.....

 

and if u like i could explain all the scenes i told about

just ask

 

::Raises hand::

 

Ermm.... why did he change those scenes?

[SettingShadow]

I havent seen TTT yet so now I know some things I shouldnt , anyway.

 

How dare you call yourself LOTR fans if you havent read the books?!! TRAITORS!!!!!

 

j/k

 

Errrr, I read the books 1 year ago I think, and Bilbo (I think its called "A Hobbit" in the originall English version) some years ago.

 

Just one thing, how can you make up own versions of a very detailed fantasy book? I mean its all there, Tolkien made it all up, sure you can have own versions of stuff that happened long ago, but this is fantasy. just my own opinion, and I know they had to cut down a little to make it fit better as a movie.

[Haemon]

Ok, I thought the movie was great and even though I didn't like the changes they did with Aragorn I stilled liked the movie.

 

That said I will point out the biggest flaw that I don't believe anyone has mentioned.

 

-=**There are no two towers**=-

 

Thats all fine and dandy if they didn't put them in but then why is it called "The Two Towers" if there are no two towers.

[SettingShadow]

Originally posted by Haemon

Ok, I thought the movie was great and even though I didn't like the changes they did with Aragorn I stilled liked the movie.

 

That said I will point out the biggest flaw that I don't believe anyone has mentioned.

 

-=**There are no two towers**=-

 

Thats all fine and dandy if they didn't put them in but then why is it called "The Two Towers" if there are no two towers.

 

hrmrm.... BECAUSE:

 

THE FILM IS BASED ON THE BOOK: The Two Towers by J.R.R Tolkien, the best story writer EVER!!!

 

hope I made myself clear

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Haemon

Thats all fine and dandy if they didn't put them in but then why is it called "The Two Towers" if there are no two towers.

 

Notice when Saruman says "the union of the two towers", the camera pans first over the tower of Isengaard, then we switch to see Sauron's black citadel, which is also a tower (the one with his eye above it).

 

I believe those are the towers mentioned.