Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

negative Two Towers: EE review

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

negative Two Towers: EE review

Old 11-09-03, 10:45 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Willistonm, Vermont
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
negative Two Towers: EE review

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/Lord_O...o_/10697/1834/
Old 11-09-03, 11:54 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,178
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Well, at least it isn't mindless trashing, even though calling it LOTR 2 shows a certain level of ignorance. His biggest beef seems to be with the editing. I doubt the movie would work if it were presented as it is in the book (2 seperate linear stories), as this reviewer seems to want. Perhaps we'll see a "phantom edit" someday and can judge for ourselves.

Overall, I agree that turning Gimli into comic relief was unnecessary, but I thought the interaction between Gimli and Legolas at Helms Deep helped to show how the characters had become friends. And the body count contest is straight out of the book, so I can't complain about that.

The TTT:EE looks like it will add more to the overall story than the FOTR:EE did.
Old 11-09-03, 11:59 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Although I loved both the movie and the book versions of LOTR, I think that making the movie more like the book would put people to sleep. The book was meant to be read over many sittings. The movie needs a faster pace in order to captivate the audience for a few hours.

But even I'm at a loss as to why PJ changed some things from the book such as Frodo's capture, the character of Theoden and other things.
Old 11-09-03, 01:29 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do feel the TTT theatrical fell short compared to the FOTR theatrical and of course the EE. I'm still hoping the EE of the TTT will fix some of the uneven pacing and flesh out a few of the scenes that did not seem to work very well. I will say TTT theatrical plays better for me upon repeat viewings but it still cannot approach FOTR's deft storytelling. Don't get me wrong TTT is still a great experience but FOTR was simply a tighter movie because (by design) it was easier to follow the Fellowship as one group than when they split apart into 3 separate stories; not to mention the other things going on in Isengard, Edoras, Rivendell, Lorien, and Mordor. (Thankfully ROTK will be "tighter" in comparison to TTT because the focus will converge onto Gondor and Mordor.) Also, when I read LOTR the first 2 times TTT dragged compared to FOTR and ROTK. I have a feeling TTT was probably an even greater challenge to put together for PJ (and the editors) than FOTR but they didn't "quite" get it as well as they could have.

Anyways, its obvious this reviewer enjoyed TTT theatrical far less than I did so I have a feeling the EE will be a better experience for me.

Last edited by Ian11; 11-09-03 at 01:44 PM.
Old 11-09-03, 01:43 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,272
Received 71 Likes on 54 Posts
I think Ian hit it on the head when he says the problems with TTT arose from the novel, since the source has some of the same problems the film did.

I'm going to take this review with a grain of salt, since the reviewing thinks that the theatrical cut was too long in the first place, wheras I felt the theatrical felt a bit rushed.

My favorite line from the review: "Obviously, [the Cast Commentary] provides the most fun since you feel as if you’re part of one big group hug. "
Old 11-09-03, 01:49 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jay,

That's another thing that colors many people's experience of the films. Too many slavishly believe the book LOTR by Tolkien is this impeccable flawless piece of work thats beyond reproach. Don't get me wrong its fantastic and it is "the source" . But there are so many things in PJ's films that plays better than the way Tolkien tells it in the books (and of course many that do not). Heresy? Whatever. I'm reading LOTR again right now (5th time) with the first 2 films clearly in my mind and that's the way I feel.

Last edited by Ian11; 11-09-03 at 01:56 PM.
Old 11-09-03, 01:50 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The review basically says "I didn't like the theatrical TTT that much so I don't like the EE any better." Fair enough, I suppose.
Old 11-09-03, 03:53 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
even though calling it LOTR 2 shows a certain level of ignorance
Weren't the books named LOTR 1, LOTR 2, etc.?
Old 11-09-03, 04:00 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nope. The three books are usually referred to by their titles (FOTR, TT, ROTK). My paperback copy of ROTK *does* have "The Lord of the Rings Part Three" in small print on the cover above "The Return of the King" ... but the spine just says "The Return of the King."

No big deal, but it's like referring to ESB as "Star Wars 2" or "Star Wars 5" -- nobody uses that phrasing.

Last edited by Inverse; 11-09-03 at 04:09 PM.
Old 11-09-03, 06:36 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,178
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally posted by Inverse
No big deal, but it's like referring to ESB as "Star Wars 2" or "Star Wars 5" -- nobody uses that phrasing.
Calling it LOTR 2 or LOTR 3 just makes it sound like it's another faceless hollywood action series. It's three parts of one story, not a trilogy trying to milk the popularity of a popular movie.
Old 11-09-03, 08:01 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,341
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
Originally posted by Jason
Calling it LOTR 2 or LOTR 3 just makes it sound like it's another faceless hollywood action series. It's three parts of one story, not a trilogy trying to milk the popularity of a popular movie.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing it that way, and in this case i dont think there's any real meaning behind what he calls the movie. I'm actually happy to see a review where the reviewer wasn't gushing over how the movies are some sort of magnificent piece of art and praising Peter Jackson.

Regardless, it is obvious that the reviewer just wasn't too big of a fan of the theaterical release, and felt the same about the extended. I felt a similar way about Fellowship, although it grew on me after a few viewings.
Old 11-09-03, 08:28 PM
  #12  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The reviewer makes the same mistake that many do. They offer all the criticism of a particular problem with solution in return.

It's easy to say "I didn't like the way they cut the film by taking me away from one story just as it got good and transporting me to another" Well honestly what sense does that make? Should they have cut during a dull and boring scene so that you care not what happens or even if that scene is revisted? Folly.

FotR was easier to film. The "Fellowship" was together on a single timeline. Now, in TTT, we have a breaking of the Fellowship and 3 distinct timelines to convey to an audience. This is much harder to film and cut obviously. The charm of the first was having such a rich cast all together an interacting.

I think TTT is the equal to FotR considering the new difficulties it presented. Audiences will have to become acquainted with the timelines and story. Hey they should relax...reading the book is harder. They're getting off easy.
Old 11-10-03, 09:54 AM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Owatonna, MN
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by hmurchison


I think TTT is the equal to FotR considering the new difficulties it presented. Audiences will have to become acquainted with the timelines and story. Hey they should relax...reading the book is harder. They're getting off easy.

And also, isn't TTT widely considered the most boring of the three books? The fact that many consider the movie equal to the first is an acheivement.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong about my blanket statement.
Old 11-10-03, 11:22 AM
  #14  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by Terrell
Weren't the books named LOTR 1, LOTR 2, etc.?
No, they were all published at one time. Just split up for whatever reason. Jumping from FOTR to TTT and from TTT to ROTK is no different than any other chapter change in the book. They're just section names basically.
Old 11-10-03, 11:35 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Tolkien originally wrote one big book and was forced by the publisher to divide it in 3. He couldn't think up of a name for the second installment and so he called it the Two Towers for no reason as far as I know.
Old 11-10-03, 11:36 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 12,302
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
No, they were all published at one time. Just split up for whatever reason. Jumping from FOTR to TTT and from TTT to ROTK is no different than any other chapter change in the book. They're just section names basically.
Correct. Calling them three different stories is not accurate.

The Lord of the Rings is one story and one book.

It was split into three parts against Tolkiens wishes because of paper cost and publisher concern over whether the story would be well received.
Old 11-10-03, 04:12 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 3,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by bjhess
And also, isn't TTT widely considered the most boring of the three books?
Not to me. I think they get more interesting as they progress. FOTR, while very good, is pretty dull near the beginning. TTT ups the action level even more, and ROTK blows them both out of them water.
Old 11-10-03, 04:42 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 1,831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think it's a necessarily "negative" review since he still recommends the movie on the strength of Gollum. And he still give the EE a "6" rating.

It's just not on the same level of the endless gushing of the LOTR series as a whole.

Actually, I agree with him on almost all his points. And I wasn't going to buy the TTT:EE anyway. I thought the theatrical cut was good enough for me and the special features were good enough.

I have the FOTR:EE and never even got to the commentaries and I don't have a particular urge to hear it.
Old 11-10-03, 08:45 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Michael T Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Formerly known as "BigDaddy"/Austin, TX
Posts: 11,402
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Anyone heard if there is going to be a free ticket insided like last year?
Old 11-10-03, 08:57 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How's this guy going to like the separate storylines when Return of the King has four of them?
Old 11-11-03, 04:04 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,128
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
The most recent review says that the cut is more for Tolkien fans than the FOTR EE. They do not say it is negative, just that it doesn't have much for people who don't care about what it has to offer.
Old 11-11-03, 04:39 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I hope the EE is worth it. I loved the extra footage in FOTR and felt that it made the movie better. I hope I feel the same way about TTT: EE

So far, the two movies together are 2 of my favorite movies of all time, and I don't consider myself a "fanboy." I have yet to read the books (though I plan to some day).

Please don't let me be disappointed! I've been looking forward to the EE for some time -- in fact I haven't seen TTT since I saw it in the theater almost a year ago -- anxiously and patiently awaiting the EE DVD to come out.
Old 11-11-03, 09:09 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can almost understand where he is coming from. I didn't care for FOTR the first time and the EE didn't do much to hold my interest. It was a case of "too much of one thing". Then TTT came around, I loved it and can't wait for the EE of it.

Like someone else said, this boils down to the fact he didn't like the original cut , so the EE isn't going to do anything to change his opinion of it.
Old 11-12-03, 01:13 AM
  #24  
TCG
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
this website gave a fairly negative review of TTT:EE. only 3/5 stars, including lots of criticism.
Old 11-12-03, 12:32 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,341
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
Originally posted by Brian Shannon
Correct. Calling them three different stories is not accurate.

The Lord of the Rings is one story and one book.

It was split into three parts against Tolkiens wishes because of paper cost and publisher concern over whether the story would be well received.
Which is why calling it LOTR 2, 3, etc shouldn't matter since its all one story

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.