Lord Of The Rings Part Two Criticisms
Lord Of The Rings Part Two Criticisms(Moved from LordOfTheRingsPartTwo)
Contrary to popular belief, not based on Tolkien's TheTwoTowers? so much as what seems like what PeterJackson might have got from someone else describing to him what they got out of a ColesNotes? version twenty years ago. That is to say, the differences between LordOfTheRingsPartOne and the book are trivial compared to what this movie does to the story.
Not for naught does Jackson omit the long conversations between Treebeard (an Ent - a sort of tree creature) and the hobbits. That way we never see the ironic parallel between Trolls (rock creatures) and Orcs (goblins) being but a "feint or copy" of Ents and Elves, and between the film and the novel. I understand plot changes due to time restrictions - but demeaning the nobility and wisdom of major characters is quite different. It seems to stem from a modernist inability to believe in or understand one of Tolkien's central themes: goodness. -- MarkTilley
I agree with the initial writer that there were changes that completely altered the motivations of major characters. -- PeteHardie
I also agree with the opening statement. Faramir and the Ents are really shortchanged. So is Gimli, IMHO; I don't see that comic "relief" is particularly necessary. Also, what's with the elves showing up? I thought Gollum was done extremely well, and liked the characterization of Grima Wormtongue as well. I also liked the representation of Sauron as a flaming incorporeal eye on the summit of Barad-dur. (Although the second of the "Two Towers" is supposed to be Minas Morgul!) -- AndyPierce
Agreed about Gollum and Wormtongue. The Ents suffered mainly (IMNSHO) because they just weren't given enough screen time. Faramir was completely wrong - he did not come across as the resolute leader who could see how his brother failed. Gimli was ok, I just wish that the rivalry between him and Legolas was better shown - had they done the latter part of Helm's Deep per the book, it would have been. -- PeteHardie
Yes, Gollum was a bright spot and Grima's characterization was good too, but just a little heavy on The Crow-esque makeup I thought. Theoden reminded me of more recent characterizations of RichardLionHeart? compared to ErrolFlynn? era ones - not the stuff of kings. (And Theoden as LindaBlair? was execrable.) Neither was there any point in exaggerating the rift between Eomer and Theoden, which will take away some believability from the eventual succession. Will the Paths Of The Dead now lead from Helm's Deep, given that Eowyn's not at Dunharrow to show an interlude with?
I wasn't expecting the Ents to get a lot of screen time, but it wouldn't have taken any more time to have the Entmoot deciding to get involved after all. Neither would leaving in the Huorns, which would also have made the Helm's Deep victory over +10,000 orcs and men more dramatic and believable.
Elrond's attitude toward the War (rather ironic given the Noldor's part in the creation of the Ring) and men in general made him seem less one of the Wise and more one of the Selfish. -- MarkTilley
Stating the obvious--Faramir gets far better treatment in RotK--the extended version, especially.
The fact is that this is the film where Jackson takes the most liberties from the source material, and it suffers the worst for it. He knew that The Two Towers sported "the big fight" of the series, and decided to cram as much combat (and drama within the combat) as possible. This added a lot of extraneous scenes (like the Warg fight) that actually distracted from the story. Also, as typical, he once again made Saruman's powers more explicit and magical. Saruman controls Theoden with brute-force mind control instead of subtle suggestion and an apprentice - to someone who hasn't read the book, Grima seems completely pointless. Why have a spy on a mind-controlled slave? And he didn't just lose one character when he turned Gimli into comedic relief - he lost two. Without Gimli as a foil for banter, Legolas becomes a boring elf - he stands around looking pretty, occaisionally drips wisdom and shoots things, and not much else.
An alternate opinion: These movies are adaptations. PeterJackson, the director, has been very clear from the beginning that the films would not be exact representations of the books; that they would instead be his film version of the books. -- BrentNewhall
Really? Most of the buzz I heard seemed to capitalize on their supposed faithfulness as a marketing tool. (this article was written in Dec03 as PartThree? was being released: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031216/LORD16/Entertainment/Idx )
Perhaps the buzz emphasized faithfulness, but I've seen the interviews with PeterJackson where he was clear that the films would be (of necessity) an adaptation that doesn't follow the books exactly. Much of the buzz focused on the extremely rich detail in terms of prop accuracy and such things, but all the direct information I saw or read about the plot itself was clear that there would be changes in adapting the material for the big screen. On the other hand, I haven't been following the films' marketing at all closely, so I may very well have missed a lot. -- BrentNewhall
Adapting a work between radically unlike media is plugging a square peg into a round hole. You must cut corners and rearrange the material; if the square peg fits a square hole well, the adapted round peg damn well better fit a round hole just as well. If the film were 24 hours long, consisted mostly of the characters sitting around recounting tales of what happened to them earlier, and was finally followed by an appendix movie which had all the interesting bits, it wouldn't be a very faithful adaptation because it would so poorly fit the medium that no one would enjoy it. Those of you who would enjoy that, just wait for the DVD. ;)
I agree absolutely, but the major criticisms on this page (so far) relate to significantly changing material (especially characters) even to the point of adding things which weren't in the book. The impression it gives is that either Jackson thinks he's got a better storyline than Tolkien, or maybe that today's audiences just aren't interested in old fashioned heros and values. (An idea belied by the very fact of the book's popularity and the known commercial viability of creating the film in the first place.) -- MarkTilley
I was disappointed; I probably built it up too much beforehand. The first half was excellent (especially Gandalfs fight with the Balrog).
I must reread the books but I cannot remember anything about Aragorn falling into a River, Or Frodo going to Osgiliath. It seems pretty dumb, given the time constraints to add irrelevant stuff. They seem to have fallen into the "Every significant event must happen to a significant character" error.
This film diminished several characters:
The Ents - I was disappointed at their ignorance of the goings on in their forest, they came across as rather doltish in the film.
Gimli - Coming over as Comic relief, you cannot save a character from that once they are there.
Faramir - I remember him as nobler and wiser than here.
-- TomAyerst
I've now seen the extended edition and I love it. The DVD also has the writer's explanations for the twaeks they make and I found them pretty satisfying (especially considering the stuff they considered but didn't do!
I cannot recommend the two extended editions highly enough.
-- TomAyerst I enjoyed the film, but there were disappointments. This bit of the book has some interesting things to say about fallibility, and what it means to be "good", which I think were lost in the movie. This includes why Faramir is "better" than Boromir (the book Faramir would have never tried to take the ring to Gondor), how a basically "good" character like Theoden can be mislead by advisors (no spell needed, really) and (even when past that) how his pride and shortsightedness can lead him into the wrong decisions (this last bit was in the film, though).
Also why bring doubt into Aragorn and Arwen's relationship (and have Arwen set off to the Grey Havens - although at the speed that party was walking they'll take about 50 years to get there :)) and imply that Aragorn is toying with Eowyn? In the book, it's clear that he just wants to avoid causing hurt.
... and so on.
On the other hand, I've just been to see it again, and it was even more enjoyable this time, perhaps because I'd got over the points above. -- PaulHudson
One of the most frustrating aspects of the film--aside from the destruction of Faramir's noble character - has to do with the strategy of Gandalf and Aragorn to keep Sauron distracted and focused upon them and Gondor. Largely because of the success of this strategy, Sauron never comes to suspect that the least powerful is traveling in his own back yard on a mission of destruction - and so he never actively persues Frodo and Sam. Why then, would Peter Jackson show Frodo marching to Osgiliath to reveal the ring to the winged Ring Wraith? Thereby exposing to Sauron that he - little Frodo, and not Gandalf or Aragorn, is still in possession of the ring. Later in the story, when Aragorn deliberately confronts Sauron, through the Palantir, his whole point is to suggest to Sauron that he believes he - Aragorn - is up to the challenge. This, supposedly, was to plant the seed in Saurons mind that Aragorn thought the had the stuff to try to use the ring against him. All of this would surely be lost once the Ring Wraiths learned that Frodo still has the ring, and is trying to get into Mordor? Peter Jacksons explanation that he needed to show how powerful the ring was - with Faramir - doesn't add up. He didn't have to explain why Aragorn or Gandalf reject the ring. Why did he feel compelled to alter the character of Faramir? And then, after Sam aborts Frodo's attempts to give the ring to the Ring Wraith, and after marching the little party to Osgiliath, Faramir decides to let Frodo continue on his way? After he just witnessed Frodo trying to give the ring to the enemy? It is obvious that Peter Jackson has been himself corrupted by the power of the ring and has clearly gone over to the forces of evil. -- JohnCave
In the extended edition the writers explain that Faramir had to become a more flawed and complex character in order that he could be an obstacle to Frodo and Sam, the extended edition handles all this very well IMHO and Faramir comes out of it as a man growing into wisdom rather than having been born that way. -- TomAyerst
The problem I had with that is that it assumes that Frodo and Sam needed another obstacle. Tolkien didn't employ such a device, why did Jackson believe it was needed? The moment of Faramir's so called conversion, there is nothing to indicate why he should not only experience a change of heart, a moment of metanoia, but that he should also be willing to forfit his life over it? After he just saw this little creature offer the ring to the Wraith, in a near swoon, he becomes convinced that Frodo should now be set free? There is no logic in this behavior. It is entirely invented, and rings hollow. It also bugs me that Jackson made Frodo and Sam seem like best friends, when Frodo is supposed to be an educated gentlehobbit aged 50, and Sam is, supposed to be, after all, his squire. -- JohnCave
I arrived at a plausible retcon for that - the Ringwraith sees Frodo in Osgiliath, in the company of Gondor's soldiers. It would be reasoable to assume that the Ring was going to Minas Tirith. However, we will have to wait and see if Aragorn's use of the Palantir is consistent enough to allow this interpretation to hold. -- Pete Hardie
Perhaps in Jackson's mind the wraith didn't even see the ring, being able only to dimly perceive things not in the wraith world. If that's the case, the wraith would only have observed the ring if Sam had failed to prevent Frodo from putting it on.
When reading the book I always assumed that the distance must have been more than that (20 feet, say more like 30 - 40 feet - contrary to the movie's presentation) expressly because NOT being discovered at 20 feet, due either to the Ring's power, or from one of the hobbits succumbing to the horror of being so close to a Ringwraith was just a little unbelievable. I think Tolkien does make clear though that whatever the distance, it was the chance meeting (another chance meeting in Middle Earth, as Gandalf would say, no doubt!) of the wandering High Elves that drove off the Ringwraith and certain eventual detection. -- MarkTilley
What I thought sucked the most about the Two Towers film adaptation was the 'Aragorn falling scene', closely seconded by the way Treebeard decides to go to war. That was so damn cheezy, contrived, and totally counterproductive, I literally breathed a sigh of relief when it didn't roll down hill from there.
EditText of this page
(last edited October 29, 2006)
or FindPage with title or text search