PJ talks about the sequels...not good news.

What if all you knew of the characters was based on what they'd said? The book gives us quite a bit of writing about what people are thinking or what they meant but if you whittle it down to just what was said plus facial expressions...maybe you're not left with enough in some cases for a fully fleshed out character. I can't give specific examples of this at the moment but it could explain the 'character fleshing out' thing.

btw-

And now we have PJ adding more to her character to "flesh her out".

Click to expand...

I had not heard specifically that they were fleshing out Eowyn.

Where's Harad when I need him?

I guess I'll just have to play 'devil's advocate' until Harad arrives.....

1. Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by 'flesh her out'? Is that like Pamela Anderson as Eowyn?

2. Readwryt: I can think of 700 million reasons why PJ is not a 'second rate horror movie director' anymore......

3. I can't wait until you guys see him standing there with the Oscar......

4. PRH: I know this was on the other thread, but, from what I saw, PJ accomplished the same goals as Tolkien in 'storytelling'. I didn't hear "Boo, Hiss" & see tomatoes being thrown at the screen as disgusted 'Purists' stormed out half way through TFOR or protested outside theatres. I saw people who wouldn't even move from their seat for 3 hours. I guess the 500 people at the theatres the 2 times I saw the movie were entertained under Tolkien's own criterea of why he wrote the 'tale'.

5. I agree (and figured out all on my own) that the 'Scouring of the Shire' would be a definite casaulty due to the climactic nature of the Ring destruction. That just makes perfect sense from the 100 year old movie formula.

6. If the movie went exactly by the book, it wouldn't be half as interesting to observe, would it? You may not like the way PJ interpretted it, but, he'll keep you surprised & on your toes.


7. I don't consider my self any of the labels like 'Purist' or 'LJBQ' or whatever it is, I just decided to go & enjoy it for what it was. If it was bad, I'd know. If it was good, I'd know. I simply 'checked my opinions at the door' as a very wise man once told me.

8. There were parts I didn't 'agree' with or wouldn't have chosen to do as PJ did.
For example, Strider getting caught by Arwen with the sword to his neck.
Or Elrond being such a sourpuss.
And, what was up with Elrond's comment about Aragorn "turning from that path (Kingship) a long time ago"? Obviously that's not the plot in the book...
Or, The Balrog breaking through stone. If the Balrog could do that, how was it imprisoned for 5400 years?
And, I certainly don't want him adding things in, unless it simple little things like the scene where Boromir is 'fencing' with Merry & Pippin in Hollin.

9. But, you know what? Who cares. The movie stands on it's own merits as a great movie, unless you want to nit-pick over every change.
Did you guys watch Jaws & say "Why didn't Matt Hooper sleep with Cheif Brody's wife & die at the end? Peter Benchley should get *^#@*&%......"?
Did you guys pick apart 'The Hobbit' cartoon like this too?

10. If you want an EXACT copy of the book, read the book. But wait a minute, didn't Tolkien rewrite chapter 5 of The Hobbit to make it fit with TLOR?
That Blasphemer!
I guess it's a good thing Tolkien didn't hold himself to the same standard you guys are holding PJ, or there never would have been a LOTR.
We'd all be on the 'Mr. Bliss' or 'Leaf by Niggle' discussion board.....

What what what?? No Shelob in TTT? I haven't been nit-picky before about PJ's adaptation, but this seems strange to me. What better way to end TTT with a great cliffhanger- which undoubtedly would leave a lot of moviegoers in tears and wanting more- than to keep the ending as it is in the book, with Frodo poisoned by Shelob and Sam waiting in despair outside the Tower of Cirith Ungol? It just makes sense, doesn't it? After all, if they plan to call the movie "The Two Towers", shouldn't there be two towers in it?

I agree with you on that one.

I think the answer is that Saruman is going to be killed in TTT & that will be the final conclusive scene.

I bet wormtounge cuts his head off, it falls, glances off a rail which splits, nearly hits gandalf's head, then it rolls over the stones until pippin picks it up.

Pippin later uses the head in front of the palantir to communicate with Sauron, via puppet-head Saruman. That nasty trickster fool of a took.

Originally posted by Crumpled Stars
What what what??After all, if they plan to call the movie "The Two Towers", shouldn't there be two towers in it?

Click to expand...

Now you raise a good question: Which are the two towers? Obviously Orthanc is one, but is the other Minas Morgul or Cirith Ungol? All that happens at Minas Morgul is the Witch King leading the army out. More stuff eventually happens at Cirith Ungol, but it doesn't really even figure into TTT. They see it, but they never really get there until ROTK. Which are the two towers, and if one is Cirith Ungol, what sense does it make to name the movie TTT if they stop before Shelob?

http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2787

Is about which two towers and references another thread about which two towers.

In the book, which consists of 2 "books" the 2 towers are:

1. Orthanc--the Rohan thread
2. Minas Morgul-the Frodo thread

but one could argue for Minas Tirith and the Barad Dur too. Tolkien apparently was hep to the ambiguity and didnt like the title upon reflection. So guess what: there is some latitude that PJ can play with....

Originally posted by Harad
In the book, which consists of 2 "books" the 2 towers are:

1. Orthanc--the Rohan thread
2. Minas Morgul-the Frodo thread

Click to expand...

I just realized this morning that at the end of FOTR (3 separate volume version of LOTR) it explicitly states that the two towers are Orthanc and Morgul. Strange. It's a cool sounding name but how does the story really revolve around Morgul at all?

Originally posted by Bucky

10. If you want an EXACT copy of the book, read the book. But wait a minute, didn't Tolkien rewrite chapter 5 of The Hobbit to make it fit with TLOR?
That Blasphemer!
I guess it's a good thing Tolkien didn't hold himself to the same standard you guys are holding PJ, or there never would have been a LOTR.

Click to expand...

Well, Tolkien wrote the book and it was his story so i guess you can say that if he wanted to make changes, it is his right.

Originally posted by Ancalagon
it simply boils down to the scriptwriters free-4-all with Tolkiens work that is most difficult to stomach. I guess by the 'Return of the King', I won't feel any different.

Click to expand...

I agree. Some changes are totally unnecesary, like they changed the name of Bilbo´s book to There and Back Again: A Hobbit´s Tale

I've never made a million dollar (new Zealand, or US) movie, but not enough material to make a movie in TTT???

I guess the ripples of adaptation started in FOTR is causing major damage to TTT. Writing additional scenes, to fill up the movie?

I'm a bit worried here.

Originally posted by PRH

I just realized this morning that at the end of FOTR (3 separate volume version of LOTR) it explicitly states that the two towers are Orthanc and Morgul. Strange. It's a cool sounding name but how does the story really revolve around Morgul at all?

Click to expand...

Interesting. I had always assumed that they were Orthanc and Cirith Ungol; The rising action in Book 3 leads up to Saruman's defeat at Orthanc, and the rising action in book 4 leads to Frodo being taken into Cirith Ungol by the orcs. Oh well. Tolkien isn't here with us, unfortunately, so we can't argue with him about it.

Well, Tolkien wrote the book and it was his story so i guess you can say that if he wanted to make changes, it is his right.

Click to expand...

And whose movie was it?

Since we are completely off topic, I will at the least, clear up the contention. The Two Towers, according to the author in letter #143 to his Rayner Unwin states,
"I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading."

Originally posted by Harad


And whose movie was it?

Click to expand...

But it was based on the books of JRRT. I could have accepted some changes if they were cleared by Christopher T.

CT could no more make a movie than...I could.

CT could no more make a movie than...I could.

Click to expand...

I didn´t mean make the movies, just his view on the changes that PJ did in the movie. Who better than Christopher to have that pure Tolkien view.

I assume you have the same views as your father?

Not the same views, but i would think that Christopher views are the closest we will ever have of JRRT.

Every thread eventually goes off topic...

Originally posted by Grond
Since we are completely off topic, I will at the least, clear up the contention. The Two Towers, according to the author in letter #143 to his Rayner Unwin states,
"I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading."

Click to expand...

Tolkien seems to contradict himself. At the end of FOTR it says:

The second part is called The Two Towers, since the events recounted in it are dominated by ORTHANC, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of MINAS MORGUL that guards the secret entrance to Mordor.

Click to expand...

And it would seem that Tolkien wrote this passage, due to the elaborateness of it. Nevertheless, based on that letter this issue seems to boil down to a cool sounding title which doesn't have a strong meaning behind it.