Differences in TTT

[Winged Elf]

Here's the latest information on the Two Towers film, as shamelessly stolen from SFX magazine.


We actually get to see the Ent assault on Isengard, rather than having it described by Merry and Pippin.
Arwen, Galadriel and Elrond all have their roles expanded, "mostly talky bits about the fate of the world".
We won't see Shelob until RotK, but we already knew that.
There will be Elves at Helm's Deep, however Arwen will not be one of them. Some filming was done of her as "kick-ass warrior princess", but that was subsequently scrapped.
The Orcs use something like gunpowder to breach the walls of Helm's Deep.
And the biggest change yet. It's been said since the beginning that the Scouring of the Shire would not be included, so instead, Saruman dies on a water-wheel thingy in Isengard. It's not clear what ultimately happens to Wormtongue.

[Diamond Took]

Originally posted by Winged Elf



There will be Elves at Helm's Deep, however Arwen will not be one of them. Some filming was done of her as "kick-ass warrior princess", but that was subsequently scrapped.



Oh! good!!!
*whew*

sigh of releif.:o

[gate7ole]

What? No scouring? But it is a great issue. The change of the 4 hobbits into leaders, the final corruption of Saruman, etc. I'm frustrated.
At least I hope there will be the Great Havens final chapter.

[Diamond Took]

What I don't think i will like about the second movie is that Haldir will die in Helm's deep.

But then I suppose someone had to die,since they didn't have enough time to introduce Hama. :(

[Talimon]

Actually, all reports say that Hama will be introduced as well, not to mention killed. I am also curious about how the elves will work out, and what role they will fill. One rumour going around is that they will replace the role of the Rangers who bring Aragorn his standard from Arwen, not to mention the shards of Narsil. We'll have to see.

[Ariana Undomiel]

All I can say is "I CAN'T WAIT TILL THE TWO TOWERS COMES OUT!!!"

~Ariana

[Grond]

Yes... with all the changes I keep waiting for Sneezy, Doc, Grumpy and Sleepy to be in the cast. ;)

[Ariana Undomiel]

LOL.

I certainly hope that they don't have Saruman die on a spike. That would just be pushing it. They need to have him be wasted away from his former glory and then die at Grima's hand.

~Ariana

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Yes, we mostly all agree on that topic, all over the forums, but it's getting down to the wire, and maybe there is not enough time for it to be changed. I will just have to make that point by bathroom break.

(Stupid, PJ, Supid, stupid PJ!)

[Not literally, That was just a line from another movie I'm sure no one will recognize]

[Talimon]

You folks have no idea who PJ is, do you? Have you ever seen Forgotten Silver? That is arguably the best (and most effective) mockumentry ever made. In my opinion, in terms of film-making genius, it show-cases PJ's talents much more thoroughly then even FotR does. Indeed, when it was first shown in New Zealand nobody knew it was fake. People felt cheated once they found out. That's how good it was.

So, if you think PJ can't pull off a trick or two getting people believeing fake info, see that movie. But then again there is nothing to tell us that this wasn't changed, or for that matter even real. Both Chris Lee and Ian McKellen have been quoted saying that Saruman is in the third movie. My guess is that he gets pushed off the ledge by Grima in RotK, when the hobbits are heading home.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

We'll see.........

(I was being comical, at least in my own head. Of course I think PJ is pretty smart, or he wouldn't appreciate Tolkien and he could'nt have made such an overall excellent movie. But nobody is perfect, and differences in taste can be un-reasonably drastic - and he can certainly hit extremes at both sides of the spectrum.)

[Celebthôl]

And the biggest change yet. It's been said since the beginning that the Scouring of the Shire would not be included, so instead, Saruman dies on a water-wheel thingy in Isengard. It's not clear what ultimately happens to Wormtongue.

No way this sux
the hobbits fighting was one of my most antisipated events in the film!
plus the whole thing of saruman scaring the hobbits with his false threats oh well.

Celeb

[Mrs. Maggott]

I had already erroneously posted this on another thread. Again, I apologize for doing so. I am posting it here because it seems that this is the best place but if I am wrong, all I can do is apologize again.

I have just learned from a TTT changes site that indeed the "duel" between Eowyn and Aragorn does in fact take place and that she WINS! He doesn't draw a sword on her, but instead fights with a long knife - big fat hairy deal. COME ON! ENUFF of this artistic license, it's a great movie no matter what! Meadowmuffins!!

This isn't just a change in plot or an increase in character involvement - this is taking a character and TRASHING him! First, you have him draw against an opponent he KNOWS is a woman AND the beloved niece of his host, the KING of Rohan. Then you have him LOSE, for heaven's sake! :eek:

What on earth more does Mr. Jackson have to do to make even his strongest supporters begin to consider that he may have gone just a leetle too far.....? Perhaps when he has Arwen carry Frodo to the Fire as she did to the ford and Eowyn beat Sauron in hand-to-hand combat, there just might be a little more sympathy for us unfortunate "purists"!

Again, I posted in "did Jackson go too far" (failed to see the end bit about the orcs until I had posted). I just had to take out my frustration SOMEWHERE! Now I don't even know if I WANT to see the other two films NOT because they aren't "the book" but because they are becoming a perversion of the story - and that's sadder than I can say! :(

[Talimon]

I posted my reply elsewhere to your rant, Maggot. But I'll say it in short again: Don't criticize a movie based on 2 shots from a trailer. Anyone who is doing so, and basing actual arguements on it, is an embarrassment to both themselves and Tolkien fans in general. Nobody knows how that scene will evolve. We don't know the circumstances, we don't know the context, we don't even know if they are "fighting" proper. This sounds very similar to the Arwen "fighting the Nazgul" arguements that flew around after the FotR trailer came out. I always said at the time "wait until you see the movie", and I ended up being correct. Arwen never fights the Nazgul, indeed she runs in fear from them, and only feigns defiance at the very end to lure them into the river. Let things be until you see the movie. By making these passionate arguements based on trailers you are proving one of my points: some folk simply don't want to enjoy these movies. You are simply seeking wood to throw into your fire. I have no business arguing with you. We can talk all you want when TTT comes out. Until then, it is best to keep an open mind. Or at least give the impression ;).

[Mrs. Maggott]

And I have responded to YOUR "rant" elsewhere. I did NOT get my information from a trailer but from a sponsored site which gave the scenario a five out of five probability - which means that it WILL appear. Part of the "blurb" about the scene is that Eowyn "beats the pants off him".

I was VERY careful not to fall prey to mere suggestion and made a sincere attempt to verify (as far as possible) that the "rumor" was credible. If it turns out that the site was wrong, I will certainly admit that I was misled. But do not think that I went by the "trailer" (which I have not seen).

Nonetheless, if the trailer showed Aragorn with ANY WEAPON IN HIS HAND, then my problem is not lessened no matter what the outcome of their "duel"! For he would NOT have drawn on Eowyn. No way, no how, nada! And anyone who would portray the character as doing so, has NO understanding of or respect for Tolkien's great work. :mad:

[Talimon]

That site got it's info from the trailer. Indeed, if you look at it's sources for that rumour it even mentions this. And, having seen the trailer, I can assure you that "fight" is a strong word, let alone "beat the pants off". It's not what you do, it's how you do it. Wait until you see how PJ has the scene evolve. For all we know it's a passionate, emotional, poignantly acted scene between the two charachters. Wait until you see the movie.

[Mrs. Maggott]

The site did NOT get its information solely from a trailer. According to the information involved, they checked with other reliable sources before posting. Since they have admitted on various other topics that there were possibilities that the rumored occurrences would NOT take place, I must assume that when they posted a 5 out of 5 probability rating, there must be QUITE SURE that their information is accurate.

Secondly, if, as I pointed out, the trailer shows Aragorn in any way armed, then I reiterate my contention that the person permitting and/or creating the scene was totally ignorant of the MEANING of Tolkien's works. That is not the same thing as being ignorant of the works themselves. One could be absolutely accurate insofar as factual information is concerned and still not understand the author's meaning. After all, the devil can quote Scripture.

[Talimon]

After all, the devil can quote Scripture.

ROFL....you're not the first to compare PJ to the devil:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1191

I'm sorry, I just can't relate to your arguements, let alone agree with what you base them on. To me it is not logical to judge a movie by it's trailer, and by something you've read on a website. While objectivity is perhaps a rarety when it comes to judgement on these movies, I'd like to hope folks would at least make some sort of attempt. To judge a movie based on anything but the movie itself is, without any question, unobjective. You're not even basing it on somones review of the movie. You're basing it on a source that got it's info from another source. And neither of these sources has seen the movie itself. Yet you don't pause a second before accusing PJ of not understanding the "meaning" of LotR. I can't see the logic.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I hardly compared Mr. Jackson to the devil! I merely noted that because one knows the "facts" about something doesn't mean that one understands what those facts MEAN. I do not doubt that Mr. Jackson KNOWS THE STORY of Lord of the Rings, but I sincerely doubt - considering what he believes (or SAYS he believes) to be an ACCURATE rendering of that story - that he has a clue of WHAT the author meant by his story.

Had he REALLY known, he would not have made Arwen into a "love interest" wielding a sword (unnecessary) or Aragorn into a vacillating, self-doubting victim who has "chosen exile" rather than embrace his birthright (untrue) or Merry and Pippin into bumbling sneak-thieves (untrue). And that's just FOTR! I'm sure we can expect more of the same in the next two films.

This whole business of "comparing" film to book is NOT THE POINT (and useless into the bargain)! The POINT is Mr. Jackson's well published assurance that he would be doing his best to be faithful to the MEANING of Tolkien's great work. It is obvious that he was either less than truthful in that statement, or, as I have opined above, he really DOESN'T have a clue about what that meaning is! :confused:

[Talimon]

It is obvious that he was either less than truthful in that statement, or, as I have opined above, he really DOESN'T have a clue about what that meaning is!

I find it interesting that you immediately assume you do! Who says you understand the meaning of LotR? My point here is that different people can see LotR for different things. I posted a longer thread about this in the FotR forum. I think that is a more appropriate place to continue this discussion. I'll meet you there :).

[Mrs. Maggott]

I shall say only this to the above: I have read the AUTHOR's comments regarding same and I am willing, unlike some others, to accept HIS word on the subject, thank you! Now, if you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with the good Professor and not me. :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

Yes, of course Tolkien had his own meaning to the tale, and his own way of telling it. I am just offering that different people may defer on what particular aspects they like and dislike, and what the tale means to them. I don't think PJ has changed the meaning from Tolkiens intent, but I agree he has changed the emphasis (in some places). So, we end up with this being PJ's telling of that tale, not Tolkiens. PJ has attempted to interpret the meaning of LotR, as he percieves it. To me that meaning resonates very closely with what LotR means to me. I think of it this way: had I not read LotR for, say, 20 years, what would I remember as being the main themes from the book? I think PJ has captured those themes, the themes that people ultimately take deepest from Tolkiens tale. I won't generalize and say "everyone", but just a portion of the Tolkien-reading public who happens to view Tolkiens tale in the same way he does.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, back to the original topic for a moment. I have recently been privy to some more changes that are in the film. Here is what I have gathered.

When the company is preparing to evacuate the city of Rohan and move the people to Helm's Deep, Brego, the horse that belonged to the late son of Theoden, is going rather stir crazy due to the horror of the battle he was put through. Mercifully the people let him go to wander free upon the plains. In the mean time, the company departs and as they are making their way to Helm's Deep, a company of orcs on wargs attacks. A few men, including Aragorn and possibly Legolas and Gimli, are left behind to keep the orcs away from the women and children so that they can escape. In the fight, Aragorn somehow is seperated from his horse, badly wounded, and left to die while those who are left flee back to Helm's Deep. Aragorn, who is not dead -duh-, gets up and is surprised to find that Brego has come to him. The horse is calmed by Aragorn and allows him to ride to Helm's Deep. There he returns much to the joy and surprise of all including Eowyn who in her delight at his return gives him a warm hug. I have seen pictures and read this information in various places. I think it could be quite an interesting add in.

- Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, it will certainly be a NEW plot line. No one will be able to compare it to the book at any rate! However, bringing that bad old book back into the debate one more time, wasn't Eowyn supposed to lead the old and the women and children to the stronghold? And yet in the film, she's in Helm's Deep. One also wonders if Gimli and ESPECIALLY Legolas would abandon Aragorn even if they thought he was dead. Legolas KNEW that Aragorn was the rightful King of Gondor. If he were wherever this particular battle takes place, one doubts he would have left even Aragorn's body to become lunch for Saruman's orcs!

[Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup!]