ThursdayNext : www.jasperfforde.com
A discussion of all things Thursday !
Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:19PM
<HTML>I thought I'd rant in here instead of further disrupting Dave R's thread.
What didn't I like about it???? It was bloody awful from start to finish. The clunky dialogue; King Yosser gravely intoning "And so it begins" actually got a laugh, as well as a few cries of "I can do that, gissa job". Good thing Theodred died before anyone could say "As you know, your Father, the King ...". The pointless changes from the book; OK, I don't mind adaptation and compression; gotta be done. But wherefore Aragorn falling off his horse into the river and having some weird ESP interlude with Arwen? What was that all about? Why were Frodo and Sam brought to Osgiliath, and why was Faramir made so nasty and suspicious, and what on earth did they they think they were at with Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul? I mean, like it's not going to fly straight back to the Barad-dur and say, hey, boss, guess where your jewellery's at. And indeed, there was only one elf at Helm's Deep. Not a whole regiment of raving queens. Dwarf tossing has been mentioned before (and what an arse Gimli was) as also skateboards. Some of the effects were a bt ropey too - those wargs were dreadful.
OK, Gollum was good. Despite talking like Donald Duck. But the whole thing was half an hour too long, and had too many dull battle scenes. If the next one is similarly dubious, perhaps New Line should change the credit to 'adapted from the book by JRR Crustacean', which would at least stop that whirring sound coming from an Oxford cemetery.</HTML>
What didn't I like about it???? It was bloody awful from start to finish. The clunky dialogue; King Yosser gravely intoning "And so it begins" actually got a laugh, as well as a few cries of "I can do that, gissa job". Good thing Theodred died before anyone could say "As you know, your Father, the King ...". The pointless changes from the book; OK, I don't mind adaptation and compression; gotta be done. But wherefore Aragorn falling off his horse into the river and having some weird ESP interlude with Arwen? What was that all about? Why were Frodo and Sam brought to Osgiliath, and why was Faramir made so nasty and suspicious, and what on earth did they they think they were at with Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul? I mean, like it's not going to fly straight back to the Barad-dur and say, hey, boss, guess where your jewellery's at. And indeed, there was only one elf at Helm's Deep. Not a whole regiment of raving queens. Dwarf tossing has been mentioned before (and what an arse Gimli was) as also skateboards. Some of the effects were a bt ropey too - those wargs were dreadful.
OK, Gollum was good. Despite talking like Donald Duck. But the whole thing was half an hour too long, and had too many dull battle scenes. If the next one is similarly dubious, perhaps New Line should change the credit to 'adapted from the book by JRR Crustacean', which would at least stop that whirring sound coming from an Oxford cemetery.</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: dave (---.addleshaw-booth.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:24PM
<HTML>I agree with some of what you say - the whole ring/nazgul thing seemed a little pointless (not to say daft).
It was a shade too long, and a bit too much chopping and changing between scenes near the end, but still, I paid me money and wasn't disappointed.
But, why does everyone in the film have long hair?</HTML>
It was a shade too long, and a bit too much chopping and changing between scenes near the end, but still, I paid me money and wasn't disappointed.
But, why does everyone in the film have long hair?</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: dave (---.addleshaw-booth.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:24PM
<HTML>btw, did you like the first film?</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:33PM
<HTML>Er.. yes... I did like FOTR, actually. Which only made TTT seem even worse, cos you know they could have done better. And it's not just me. Claire (who has never read LOTR) enjoyed FOTR but hated TTT almost as much as I did. Eowyn was a babe, though.
I think the long hair thing was just part of the overall campness of the piece. That and scissors were unknown in Middle-Earth.</HTML>
I think the long hair thing was just part of the overall campness of the piece. That and scissors were unknown in Middle-Earth.</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: dave (---.addleshaw-booth.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:35PM
<HTML>Aragorn seemed to have managed to retain his designer stubble throughout though, which I thought was most impressive...</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:38PM
<HTML>He da hero, so he have to look butch. (Mind you, alongside Haldir, Graham Norton looks butch).
What kind of a name is Viggo, anyway? Sounds like cleaning fluid.</HTML>
What kind of a name is Viggo, anyway? Sounds like cleaning fluid.</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: dave (---.addleshaw-booth.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:39PM
<HTML>so it wasn't just me who thought Haldir looked a bit, erm, camp? Glad about that.
He'd look a lot butcher (surely that can't be right?) with a bit of a haircut.</HTML>
He'd look a lot butcher (surely that can't be right?) with a bit of a haircut.</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:42PM
<HTML>In Middle Earth, nobody can hear you ask for a short back and sides.... And even if they could, they'd probably make some wildly inappropriate pun. And Gimli really is a midget Brian Blessed...
I must agree that Faramir was misjudged - the whole point is that he isn't as proud and stupid as his brother, and dragging the hobbits all that way over was a bit (read "lot") pointless. For what it's worth I also didn't like the wargs - they looked too much like Spinal Tap album cover artwork... Ents were just as tedious as in the books, and didn't attack in a very tree-ish manner. The shot of the army advancing on Helm's Deep was pretty cool though, although why the hell they didn't split up the battles I don't know - every time some momentum built up the bloody ents started hooming and huuming again....
Is was really annoyed by all the distractions, especially after they made such a good job of the first one. Gollum was visualised well, but they laboured the schizophrenic side of him way too much - everyone was saying how psychological it was, but there was precious little logic and not enough psycho...</HTML>
I must agree that Faramir was misjudged - the whole point is that he isn't as proud and stupid as his brother, and dragging the hobbits all that way over was a bit (read "lot") pointless. For what it's worth I also didn't like the wargs - they looked too much like Spinal Tap album cover artwork... Ents were just as tedious as in the books, and didn't attack in a very tree-ish manner. The shot of the army advancing on Helm's Deep was pretty cool though, although why the hell they didn't split up the battles I don't know - every time some momentum built up the bloody ents started hooming and huuming again....
Is was really annoyed by all the distractions, especially after they made such a good job of the first one. Gollum was visualised well, but they laboured the schizophrenic side of him way too much - everyone was saying how psychological it was, but there was precious little logic and not enough psycho...</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:45PM
<HTML>I can just imagine Graham Norton in LOTR...
"ooh, Sauron... You are a bit horny aren't you? Cheeky little thing. I bet you love your ring of power, don't you...."</HTML>
"ooh, Sauron... You are a bit horny aren't you? Cheeky little thing. I bet you love your ring of power, don't you...."</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:52PM
<HTML>Young men, you are all movie stars,
I said young men, grow your hair past your ears,
Young men, speaking camp verse,
There's no need to be unhappy...
Make a mint starring in L-O-T-R...
My vote goes to Gimli as the construction worker...
ps Viggo is actually the new name for 'Just For Men'</HTML>
I said young men, grow your hair past your ears,
Young men, speaking camp verse,
There's no need to be unhappy...
Make a mint starring in L-O-T-R...
My vote goes to Gimli as the construction worker...
ps Viggo is actually the new name for 'Just For Men'</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 01:57PM
<HTML>I didn't mind the ents too much. JRRT didn't really leave them too many clues there to work on - I've never been able to visualise them clearly. And how do trees attack (When Trees Attack - a very short film)?
I should have liked to have seen Gollum as more of a junkie (extremely powerful magic rings - just say no, precious) but that's down to interpretation, which is allowable. It's wholesale invention that isn't (but when did that ever stop an adaptor - Mr. Darcy stripping off, or the recent scandalous removal of all the sex from Tipping the Velvet.)</HTML>
I should have liked to have seen Gollum as more of a junkie (extremely powerful magic rings - just say no, precious) but that's down to interpretation, which is allowable. It's wholesale invention that isn't (but when did that ever stop an adaptor - Mr. Darcy stripping off, or the recent scandalous removal of all the sex from Tipping the Velvet.)</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 02:05PM
<HTML>I always got the impression JRR Hartley (famed author of Fly Fishing for Orks...), always wimped out of describing the ents properly in the books because he didn't himself know what they looked like. Trees attack - look at what their roots do to paving slabs and concrete. Bloody vandals, chop 'em all down... and don't start me on bramble... I don't mind wholesale invention if it tells you something about a character that is contained within scenes that were left out, it's wholesale invention-for-purposes-of-reminding-the-less-mentally-adept-what-happened-in-previous-scnes-so-they-don't-start-wondering-why-this-elf-bird-has-suddenly-turned-up-in-the-third-film-in-the-series that gets my goat...</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 02:20PM
<HTML>That would be a reference to Arwen, Warrior Princess, would it not? I think the words 'contract', 'visibility', and 'Ms Tyler's lawyers' might be appropriate here.
Here, do you suppose Jackson could resist, when directing the Arwen scenes, saying "No, Liv not like that; I want you to <I>walk this way</I>....."</HTML>
Here, do you suppose Jackson could resist, when directing the Arwen scenes, saying "No, Liv not like that; I want you to <I>walk this way</I>....."</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 02:24PM
<HTML>goping back to haircuts, surely we should be thinking: 'Dude (Looks like a lady!)"</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: All-American-Cutie (---.dalect01.va.comcast.net)
Date: January 14, 2003 02:56PM
<HTML>[searching for that damned 'hand to forehead' macro that hasn't been used in a while]</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: Sarah (---.vip.uk.com)
Date: January 14, 2003 03:06PM
<HTML>Having just read through this thread, I can only say that I'm 100% in sympathy with the general opinion, which is so unlike me that I may consider recording it in my journal! I loved <i>The Fellowship of the Ring,</i> hated <i>The Two Towers,</i> and all for broadly the reasons already outlined.
However, there is also one really ghastly bloophole in the second film to which I don't think anyone has yet alluded. In the book, as most of us are well aware, Treebeard and his Ents decide to attack Isengard as soon as they have finished their Entmoot; they don't need persuading to do so by Merry and Pippin. All right, the two hobbits catalyse the attack, but the way I read Tolkien's account is that it would almost certainly have happened anyway eventually, since the Ents were so angry with Saruman about the destruction of their trees. In the film, however, Merry has to precipitate the attack by getting Treebeard to go south instead of north, so that he sees Saruman's devastation for himself. But how the mischief does Merry know where to send Treebeard? He has no way of knowing what Saruman has been up to, and he certainly has never been in that part of the forest himself. I could almost throw things when I think about it.
David describes Haldir and company as "the S&M pansies", and when Haldir was killed he uttered the immortal words, "Oh dear, they've spoilt his frock!". Enough said. Gay I have no problem with; gay and camp I have a bit of a problem with; camp without even the excuse of being gay, aaaaargh...
Finally, a little LOTR anecdote. David has temporarily installed his TV in my living room until he gets his own house, which feels really weird as I'm not a TV person at all, but it did mean I got to see the extended version of <i>The Fellowship of the Ring.</i> The cats had never seen TV in their lives. Minsky took one look at it and sauntered off contemptuously, the little ginger lunatics were too busy fighting to be interested, but big soppy Chomsky was fascinated. He jumped up on the sofa towards the end of the film, and crouched as if to pounce. You could just hear him thinking, "Er, er, don't worry, Mr Boromir, I'll help... er... oh, too late..." Probably just as well the Orcs weren't real - I don't think poor old Chomsky would last five seconds against a single Orc, let alone a whole troop of them.</HTML>
However, there is also one really ghastly bloophole in the second film to which I don't think anyone has yet alluded. In the book, as most of us are well aware, Treebeard and his Ents decide to attack Isengard as soon as they have finished their Entmoot; they don't need persuading to do so by Merry and Pippin. All right, the two hobbits catalyse the attack, but the way I read Tolkien's account is that it would almost certainly have happened anyway eventually, since the Ents were so angry with Saruman about the destruction of their trees. In the film, however, Merry has to precipitate the attack by getting Treebeard to go south instead of north, so that he sees Saruman's devastation for himself. But how the mischief does Merry know where to send Treebeard? He has no way of knowing what Saruman has been up to, and he certainly has never been in that part of the forest himself. I could almost throw things when I think about it.
David describes Haldir and company as "the S&M pansies", and when Haldir was killed he uttered the immortal words, "Oh dear, they've spoilt his frock!". Enough said. Gay I have no problem with; gay and camp I have a bit of a problem with; camp without even the excuse of being gay, aaaaargh...
Finally, a little LOTR anecdote. David has temporarily installed his TV in my living room until he gets his own house, which feels really weird as I'm not a TV person at all, but it did mean I got to see the extended version of <i>The Fellowship of the Ring.</i> The cats had never seen TV in their lives. Minsky took one look at it and sauntered off contemptuously, the little ginger lunatics were too busy fighting to be interested, but big soppy Chomsky was fascinated. He jumped up on the sofa towards the end of the film, and crouched as if to pounce. You could just hear him thinking, "Er, er, don't worry, Mr Boromir, I'll help... er... oh, too late..." Probably just as well the Orcs weren't real - I don't think poor old Chomsky would last five seconds against a single Orc, let alone a whole troop of them.</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: fuzz (---.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 04:58PM
<HTML>Well, I quite liked it (although, I think tank girl is a good film). On the otherhand I've only seen it once and spent most of the time watching but not really analysing it. I know that when I watched FOTR for the second time I spent a lot more time going, well, they could have done that better. But hey, they were threatening to do the entire book in one film, that would have been a disaster. (and does anyone elses browser break on this thread and go into ultra-widescreen mode?)</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 09:01PM
<HTML>Nope. Maybe your browser wants the full filmic experience..</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: All-American-Cutie (---.dalect01.va.comcast.net)
Date: January 14, 2003 10:20PM
<HTML>mine is widescreen...
I didn't even see any of PSD's HTML wonders (big grin) so I'm not sure why it did it!</HTML>
I didn't even see any of PSD's HTML wonders (big grin) so I'm not sure why it did it!</HTML>
Re: Why the Two Towers film is crap
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: January 14, 2003 10:58PM
<HTML>Nope, definitely not me. And Fuzz, apparently there were only two reasons to watch Tank Girl.
I'm pleased to say that didn't persuade me to. I bet you enjoyed Starship Troopers too....</HTML>
I'm pleased to say that didn't persuade me to. I bet you enjoyed Starship Troopers too....</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.