Replies

I was never so disappointed in a movie as I have been with The Two Towers. Perhaps it is because Fellowship of the Ring was so well done. I'll only see Two Towers once and I'll wait to buy the extended version of the DVD just to see their reasoning for deviating from Tolkien's book so much.

My son's favorite character is Faramir. In fact, he gave him a nickname, Five Day Faramir. Because he admired Faramir's ability to turn a certain young maid's heart from the king in so short a period of time. The Faramir of the book has the gentle honesty, wisdom, guile, and insight to look into a woman's heart and say what she needs to bring her back to life. One could easily see the book Faramir as a prince. The character of Jackson's movie hasn't shown any of these qualities. I could go on with Faramir but there is just too much wrong.

Faramir is the biggest disappointment. Other disappointments are the Ents, the Elves at Helms Deep, all the extra added unnecessary scenes, the exorcism of Theoden, Osgilliath -- otherwise known as they've taken Frodo and Sam where? A Nazgul nearly taking the ring, being shot with one arrow and going away without the ring? There is just too much wrong. I don't think I could sit at the computer long enough to share all the reasons for my disappointment with this movie.

But, I've finally realized why I'm so upset by the change to Faramir; the demeaning and downgrading of his character is the most glaring evidence of the problem they have with some of the characters. Most are somewhat different from the book, but I could live with many of the changes because I believed that they would somehow be "corrected" in later movies. Besides, Fellowship was such a good movie that I suspended my cynical side and I felt that the changes were minor compared to what was on the screen.

But in the Two Towers, there was not enough good to overcome all the bad. Even what I thought I could live with before, now begins to concern me. For example, Aragorn should be acting more kingly by now and where's Anduril? The shout that he makes holding that sword at Helm's Deep was a turning point for me in the book. Yet his behavior is still that of a Ranger. By the time he takes the Paths of the Dead he has to appear as a leader of men, not a mere ranger. Why else would they follow him? Leaving the bulk of that transformation for the last movie and leaving Anduril to show up until the last movie points to something I'd hoped never to see -- a He-Man, hold up the sword, say the magic word, transformation. I'll laugh out loud in the movie theater if I see it in Return of the King. I don't think they'll mean that scene for comic relief though.

I'm sorry. I know that many people just love seeing something of the book finally reach the screen. I just feel sorry that so many will miss seeing the absolutely wonderful characters and events Prof. Tolkien originally created. They are masterpieces.

I saw the movie on Christmas Eve and found myself going back to my house, grabbing the book and "trying to find" some the "embelishments". The whole "Ent" thing left me saying, "Uhhhhhh......what!?" No need to change that whatsoever. The Elves arriving at Helm's Deep bothered me too. And I dont remember Aragorn falling off the cliff. What was the point of that?

I liked the movie, and I know that some changes were made for time considerations, but I see no need for some of the changes.

I'm sorry. I know that many people just love seeing something of the book finally reach the screen. I just feel sorry that so many will miss seeing the absolutely wonderful characters and events Prof. Tolkien originally created. They are masterpieces.

So many will miss it? So many MORE people will know it than would have if the films had never come out. Many adults are reading it for the first time, or re-reading it after many years. And a whole new generation is reading those books now. Sales of the books are SOARING. The film sparked their interest, and they can read the books now and find how much more there truly is. The movie has shown us wonderful images of the highlights. The books do the rest.

I was telling a friend the other day that we don't want to merely like something that we are pre-disposed to love. Like you, I was able to set aside my desire to love Fellowship of the Ring until it proved itself. And so when that film turned out to be so good, I had every reason to believe that Towers would follow in its tracks.

For more times than readers want to hear, I'm sure, I was bowled over by the film up until the point of Edoras when Gandalf leaves on Shadowfax with the omen to seek him of the morning of the fifth. After that, the licenses taken really begin to show and we're treated to what disappointed us.

I agree with your point about Aragorn's lack of noble bearing. He still acts in this film as he did in the first. He's a swashbuckling hero, certainly. But a future king? We'll see.