The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
35 replies
vaxjoe said on January 4, 2003 09:24:
i saw it i think it sucked! bigtime
Jud (moderator) said on January 4, 2003 13:15:
loved it!
I love the book so it was great to see the “screen version” :DD both of the Fellowship and the 2 towers, yay!
coyboyusa said on January 4, 2003 16:02:
honestly it was too long....they hype over the computerized battle scenes wasnt all that ..i liked the tree figues...i imagine the dvd set for this is gonna have alot of fill in scence
Jud (moderator) said on January 5, 2003 00:08:
mm the title is just the title of the 2nd book of the trilogie JRR Tolkien wrote, why shouldn’t it be suitable?
The first was “The fellowship of the ring” and the 3rd is “The return of the king”
The books are just awesome, it took I think 12 years for Tolkien to write it! All those descriptions of the passages, situations.. and I think the movie is quite loyal to the books (so far).
It is long.. of course it is :D Each of the books is... llaarge :D, it would have been even longer if Jackson would have made the film AS the books, step by step :P
superb
LittleSpooky said on January 5, 2003 06:22:
I’m so glad that this Post 9-11 Petitioners Group DIDN’T get the name changed from “The Two Towers”. That’s a bit retarded and taking stuff to the extreme, don’t you think?
beate said on January 5, 2003 09:32:
Seen it last friday ...and I think it‘s absolutly great.
My favourite figure ( and still sexy ) is Legolas...and
Gimmly(not sexy but funny ) for me one of the biggest movies ever !!!!
vaxjoe said on January 5, 2003 10:06:
i think the whole thing with the “lord” is overrated...i prefer the 1st movie it was more real...this one is all about a stupid battle..
vaxjoe said on January 5, 2003 10:47:
of course i did, all i meant is that the 2ns film doesnt have the “fairytale atmosphere” of the 1st one...
Iertje007 said on January 5, 2003 10:52:
I loved the books a lot, the movies as well. I thought the 2nd one was even better than the first one, amazing how they made these books come alive!
The title: can’t think of any reason why they would change it...
The battle: yep most of it was about the battle on Helmsdeep... wow... it was great!
Twilight-Ghost said on January 5, 2003 14:45:
My dad read the book as well. He told me that you would appreciate the movie more if you have read the book. Is that true?
I saw the movie and I love it. Do you think I would have loved it more if I have read the book?
@Vaxjoe: I’m with you. For some reason, I enjoyed the ’Fellowship of the Ring’ more than ’The Two Towers’. The first LOTR movie touched me. It has more meaning.
It makes you realise about responsibilities, life, fate, being small (“but big” -you know what I mean), etc.
snobbtjej said on January 5, 2003 20:43:
And Orlando Bloom, but NOT in the movie, just in “real” life.
Vixzter said on January 6, 2003 06:28:
secound was better than the first coz it had less of Frodo Baggins looking like a startled rabbit all the time.
ixtlaner said on January 6, 2003 14:39:
@Twilight-Ghost: well, depends on your age. If you’re above 20 it is not very likely... Most people that love the book have read it in their teenage years. And *all* people I know that have read it after 23 (at least 4) - were bored ;)
roxchurch said on January 7, 2003 17:28:
i read it last year-thanks to ixtlaner and i_jera– and didn’t get bored at all:-)
i wach it on sunday and i like it ,but as long as the first impression disappears (i can’t say that it sucked) but i must agree with vaxjoe about “fairytale atmosphere” .
it was like a movie about knights.. or something like that..
Yes there is a batle in the book ,but imagine what will looks like the 3 part where the batle is bigger...
also- i like the look of tree figures but their role,their meaning,their message was some how decrease..
that is a little away from the spirit of the book...
did someone bought the DVD of firs part??– there are 2 version -whats is the difference??– i can only rent a smaller one..
ixtlaner– if you go with i_jera to watch it– we can first watch the 1 part on my DVd– it would be LOTR’s day- imagine after next movie–you all can watch 10 h without break:-)))))
i_jera said on January 7, 2003 17:51:
> thanks to ixtlaner and i_jera
shouldn’t it be “thanks to i_jera and ixtlaner”? :P ;) sorry /me, once again/... don’t offend.
you are welcome.
> ...and didn’t get bored at all:-)
hehehe, roxchurch... :D
if I see once again the first (1) part, I will get really bored , so I don’t think I want to watch it on DVD (or whatever), ... it is not that bad, but I have seen it already (A few times... hmmff).
but on the other side, the book never gets boring for me (even if I have read it 7 times or something /don’t laugh too much, it’s true/ already), it just impresses me less, but still.
I haven’t seen the 2nd part of the movie, so I can’t give any opinion here... so you have to wait a little (just a little), if you want to know my opinion, of course ;)
ixtlaner said on January 8, 2003 15:15:
@roxchurch: llllllllllllliar!!! >:p
I think I can watch the first part once or twice more, it’s a very beautiful movie... but no power on earth (and in the sky) can make me read the book again! [ No, I don’t regret reading it. In fact I’m reading “The Hobbit” now (well, I’m only on page 24 :) ]
coyboyusa said on January 9, 2003 02:12:
yteh 4 dvd set include like 40 minutes of footage they removed from the final cut it involves alot of back story
bobi said on January 14, 2003 03:48:
the extended DVD was way better, they put back in the gift-giving scene that was cut out of the theatical movie which is important in the 2nd movie to those viewers who did not read the books.
the two towers was so cool, even with the additions (aragorn falling off the cliff?!?!?!) and subtractions that Peter Jackson did. i loved the movie and the computer generated battle scenes were very cool. I think that Peter Jackson treated Tolkien’s work with respect and integrity. This is the best adaptation from a book I have seen.
ps.Orlando Bloom(Legolassss my preciousssss) is mine all mine!
Jud (moderator) said on January 14, 2003 11:11:
Orlando looks so different in real life! :P
at least in a short interview about the movie, he had short dark hair :DD
I had a great laugh with Gimli, hihi when he could not see cuz he is too short :DD
roxchurch said on January 17, 2003 12:00:
Thanks coyboyusa for info.
i_jera you are the main responsible yeeeee:-)))
i_jera,ixtlaner– i read it so slowly cos i was very busy these days...months...ok ok ok this year:-))))
you know- we hobbits use lots of time to eat and sleep:-))
and also i want to enjoy to every single sentence of the book...;-)))
Th_Th said on January 17, 2003 16:39:
Santi: Are you serious about your comment, that the titel doesn’t fit? It could not have been more fitting! I think it is a great title. It has got real deep and meaning to it...
i_jera said on January 19, 2003 19:50:
I like it very, very much. very impressive. very professional. the actors were playing really good. (but Frodo still looks like a startled rabbit) and the battle scenes were made quite realistic (but the “camera” was too close the most of the time...).
but I don’t like the women (who are described as really beautiful in the book) , they are just normal , but not “really beautiful” , IMHO (as in the 1st episode). the elves also. Legolas is quite alright, but the others... :s
makes me wanna read the book adain ;-D
pietROxette said on January 21, 2003 09:41:
I liked the Two Towers just as much as The Fellowship of the Ring, although yea, I have to agree that the fairytale thing is missing. But that’s due to Tolkien, not to Peter Jackson (director of the trilogy). It doesn’t mean that it’s any worse than the first episode.
About the women: when I read the book, I imagined Éowyn look way better. In the film, she lloked a simple shy woman.
Jud (moderator) said on January 21, 2003 10:53:
i guess that’s the difficult part, to choose a beautiful woman to match the descriptions from the book.
What is beauty? Everybody has in his/her mind what is beauty for her/him, so I guess somebody will find the women in the film incredibly beautiful, and others would have liked somebody different.
And that’s the nice thing about the book, books in general, where your imagination plays a great part.
ixtlaner said on January 21, 2003 11:11:
And don’t forget that the ’beautiful’ elves don’t exist nowadays, we’re simply human beings ;)
Twilight-Ghost said on January 21, 2003 14:59:
@pietROxette and everyone:
Who do you think is beautiful enough to play Eowyn??? or any of the LOTR characters.
I think Liv Tyler and Orlando Bloom are really beautiful.
harriej said on March 2, 2003 22:13:
Very good movie.
I haven’t read the book, so I cannot compare the movie to the book.
lonely_girl said on March 3, 2003 07:12:
the film is disappointing compared to the book, it’s only about the war and a bit about Gollum... ):
powerpoplarry said on March 4, 2003 00:01:
I thought both movies were AMAZING!! I have the 5-disc “Fellowship” DVD, and I’m waiting for the extended “The Two Towers”, to see all the cut stuff. The 3rd and final installment will kick ass!! Um, the women in the films are quite nice, and I met Liv in person once, she was kinda shy + softspoken, but very nice.
Sanna said on January 4, 2003 11:09:
I think it was really great. One of the best movies I’ve ever seen.. much better than The Fellowship of the Ring :)