Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

The Two Towers.


be aware that there are minor/limited spoilers in the following post about the two towers.

i saw it, i'll have you know, in a movie marathon on boxing day. the fellowship of the ring played before it, followed by the second (and newer film) the two towers. say what will be said, but in the end, at five in the morning, the film was still holding my attention. so it's okay. basically, if you liked the first, you'll like the second, even if the frodo and sam bits are as boring as they are in the book. and, lets be honest, poorly plotted.

after watching the two films, i came up with a few realisations:

1) for a ring of power, that everyone is so shit scared of, it doesn't do anything. you would think, that a ring which apparently holds sway over all the races, that frodo would be doing things like reaching into the minds of those around him, or bending gollum to his will, or doing anything that goes along with what the ring says. i mean, it's a ring of power, isn't it? how does 'turning invisible' fit into the ring of power?

2) what happened to the other rings? the elves still wearing theirs? the human kings got turned into wraiths, by all accounts, but what about the others?

3) if the third film is going to be called return of the king, don't you think, perhaps, aragon should've started acting somewhat king like?

4) i mean, come on, it's a ring of fucking POWER and it only turns you invisible and drives you insane? give me a break.

5) split personalities on screen never ever come across tragic.

6) "hello, i'm gimli the dwarf, and you can call me comedy relief."

7) "hello, i'm legolas the elf, and you can look at me."

8) gandalf the white was stupid in the book, and stupid in the movie. i think it's all that pristine holiness and righteousness that he suddenly gets, whereas gandalf the grey, who had those things, had a nice air of shaby pot smoking fun that was a good cover.

9) if you end the second film on a happy note, what dramatic tension is there for the third?

and finally--

10) can't i have more of the balrog?


( 2 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
Jan. 1st, 2003 05:47 pm (UTC)
I didn't read this earlier because I hadn't seen the film but I saw it yesterday 'cos Mikey was keen to see it. I would've chosen ANY other day than a public holiday but we saw it at Chatswood La Premiere so at least we weren't completely surrounded by the unwashed masses. On this point however I have to say that nobody should ever go to La Premiere for any reason. Gold Class shits all over it even tho it is more expensive.

Anyway, in answer to your critcisms:
1) In the past week I have been feverishly playing a LOTR PS2 game and seen the extended DVD so I'm pretty Fellowshipped out so I don't know where this tidbit of info comes from but somewhere I saw Galadriel explain to Frodo that his ring did have groovy powers but to try to use them would result in the loss of that which protected him from the rings influence.
2)Is the destruction of Moria meant to imply that the dwarves are dead? And Galadriel expresses conflict about losing her ring which underlies her 'passing the test' and 'diminsh in the west' in the extended version
3)I believe it is his lack of kingliness that makes him a king.
4)I think it was in the dvd....
5)I thought gollum was the best thing about the movie, not tragic but both pitiable and despicable
6)And I preferred the split personality to the comedy relief
7)More screen time for Legolas!!!!
8)Agreed but necessary and I loved the seen with the king of rohan
9)The characters are happy but the audience gets to see the dangers ahead
10)Hey there were gratuitous Balrog scenes already in my opinion! The balrog died half a movie ago! I got what I've been waiting for - ENTS! I love the idea of personable trees! YAY GO ENTS!
Jan. 1st, 2003 07:15 pm (UTC)
well, D is going to be irritated that you went and saw it without him. but that's neither here nor there.

anyhow, i too have watched the extended version. strangely enough, i preferred it much to theatical version. i thought it was a richer, better thing.

1) that's not in the film, i'm pretty sure. in fact, my real question is, what does the evil thing even need the ring for? doesn't he have these huge armies? why doesn't he just plunder and rule without it? this whole ring part is pretty weak, if you ask me, and why is it that the elves are still wearing theirs, but not turned into wraiths?

2)dunno. i didn't think that all the dwarves are dead... i mean, wouldn't gimli sorta bring up being the last of his kind instead of talking about dwarf chicks? i definately haven't had that feeling.

3) i suppose acting isn't the right word, but i definately thought the film didn't have much about returning to be king and such in it. the first film had a fair bit, but the second, it was like, 'lost king? who's a what now?'

4) i don't think so. but still, given what's going on in the film, why does ANYONE need the ring of power? what exactly is it suppose to do?

5) well, maybe it was the setting for me, and the fact that i, like others, was laughing.

6) well, maybe.

7) yeah, i hear that cry a lot. you know what i think? i think more legolas. more strider, more gimli. less hobbits. in fact, lets make a hobbitless film.

8) it is a nice scene, but still, the point still stands.

9) the second book ends with frodo being captured, and taken inside. i reckon that would have been a perfect note to end the film on. sam standing there holding sting, feeling useless. it's what it needed, cause, frankly, we all know good will triumph over evil here. it's not like they're all going to die painfully...

10) that balrog is a ton better than the preachy tree hugging ents. i say bring back the balrog. make it a balrog film. call it, 'how i was screwed over for hobbits' and let him burn them into ashes for three hours.
( 2 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )