Two Towers, laughable reviews

Lord of the Rings Trilogy Forum

Every once in a while you come across a bad review about the Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers film recently released. They're rare, these bad takes, to be sure, and when they pop up, I just can't help but laugh. Ultimately the negative reviews tend to boil down to one thing: the writer's absolute ignorance (or "ignore-ance" ) of what the trilogy is, the story line involved, and the concept that the films are screenplay translations of each of the books.

The funniest by far to me are the ones that indicate, "well you know most movies have a distinctive beginning, middle and end, but the Two Towers just seemed like a whole lotta middle.." HAH - lunacy.. it's the 2nd book in a TRILOGY. It IS the middle. Others even acknowledge this and say "I know it's the second part of a trilogy, but on it's own as a film, it doesn't hold up." - Uhh okay.. you recognize that it's merely part of a greater whole and yet you insist on evaluating it as if it were a whole? Absurd.

It'd be like watching only one episode of the Sopranos in the middle of a season and walking away disappointed because of all the open ended story lines and unexplained origins. Was there this much dissent when Star Wars: the Empire Strikes Back came out? Because uhh.. that's the same thing, folks: a whole lotta middle.

HEE HEE

And a lot of people might agree that Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars film of all time....

How about X-Files.. ..It always seemed to me that you were left with more questions than answers at episode endings.

Actually, the Lord of the Rings is NOT a trilogy ; its a single story that, when it was first published, was published as three separate volumes, because the publishers thought that to publish it as one enormous book would scare off potential readers. If you have read the three-book publication you will know that each book is further divided into two sub-books and that the final volume also includes appendices.

Of course, you can still buy LOTR as three volumes, but also as one volume or seven (the 6 sub-books plus the appendices), depending upon your preference.

A trilogy, on the other hand, consists of three separate and distinct stories that are related or connected in some way. An example would be the three (so far) Indiana Jones or Godfather movies. Each is a separate and distinct movie, but they are related in that they follow a certain character or characters through different times. Another example, one more in line with the original concept of a trilogy, would be the films Red, White and Blue. Each film is completely separate, not even sharing characters, but they are connected in that each represents one part of a three part theme.

Aha!

And that Antman - is why LOTR will be the best movie ever (to me anyways), even though it is 9 HOURS long.
The publishers also thought about the "Return profiets" between 3 books to 1. Tolkien was not happy about this, but he decided to publish even against his belief that it should not be three parts.

Definately one of my favorites also Dreamzwalker. Especially since I have read the books (or book) at least 5 times through and still enjoy it.

You all forget about "The Hobbit" that came first making it really more than a trilogy. I think The Hobbit is the best story in the "series". I also think it would make a better movie, does anyone if they might make the Hobbit into a movie?

I agree that the Hobbit would translate very well onto the screen. The story is not as grand as LOTR in terms of vision or scope but it's not nearly as dark as LOTR, and it would definitely appeal to younger audiences. But if the Hobbit is indeed made into a film one day, I hope that they get a different director to Peter Jackson. Not that I've got anything against PJ as I think he's done magnificently well with the LOTR films, but sometimes it's nice to see a different point of view. Here's a thought : perhaps the Wachowskis should make it!

B.

ACTUALLY THE LORD OF THE RINGS IS ONE STORY SPLIT INTO SIX BOOKS IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE CONTENTS OF ONE OF THE BOOKS IT WILL SAY FOR EXAMPLE:
BOOK 1
BOOK2

Jackson never intended for it to be viewed as 3 different movies. It is just one long movie presented to us in 3 installments. No one is going to sit through a 10 hour movie.

They are going to make The Hobbit into a movie directed by PJ and it's supposed to come out 2006, an dthey are supposedly gonna have Ian McKellan, Ian Holm, Andy Serkis, and Orlando Bloom in it.

Also Liv Tyler said on the late show or the tonight show or one of those shows that they might release Lotr as one single movie with the extended parts and everything. I don't know if that's right- it's just waht she said i think

Is Legalas in the Hobbit? I don't remember him.

well, I guess if Orlando Bloom is going to be in the movie, Legalas is in the movie, but I don't remember him in hte book.

It's been a really long time since i read the book though, reallly really long

i don't think so but i think his dad is, so maybe he would be playing him? that would be kinda weird...

That kind of makes sense. I will have to research it. Google is the greatest.