You know, it occurred to me that I never actually did my Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers rant here. I think kind of hinted at not liking the film, particularly in my mention of the book in the sidebar, but I don't think I actually ever sat down and whinged about it here. Which is odd, because I've done so pretty much everywhere else, well, okay, not at my other websites, but irl I've moaned about it a lot and on my list and one other list that I'm on (both Stargate lists) I've ranted quite a bit, so really I should rant here. I mean what is this site for if it isn't a place for me to vent my feelings and ramble on about the things I'm thinking about lately?

Right then, The Two Towers and why I don't like the film... It's not that I'm saying it's a bad film. Taken as just a film I'm sure it is great, the problem of course is that it is a film of a book. A film of a very good book. When I go to watch a film that is new then fine I expect to be surprised, I like to not predict what will happen. However, when I go to see a film and I already know the story because I have read and enjoyed the book, I do not expect those same feelings of "What will happen next?" I expect to be secure in the knowledge that there will be no surprises and that I will see a great story with great characters that I know and love. Peter Jackson didn't supply this. He clearly felt that he was a better writer than Tolkein and that Tolkein needed his help to improve the storyline, I'm not sure what the purpose of that was, to make it better cinematically (is that a word?) or something.

I can understand the need for someone making a film of such a long book to make omissions, I liked the first film, even though there were a lot of changes from the book, because, in the main you could understand why those changes had been made, for reasons of time etc. things had to be cut out. The only things I really didn't like in the first film were the fact that Aragorn didn't take his sword, that made no sense and altered the plot and character. And Rivendell and I don't mind Rivendell now, it just wasn't how I imagined it. I didn't mind the omission of Tom Bombadil or the other stuff at the beginning, I kind of understood that it needed to be done or the film would be about 8 hours long. The problems I have are with changes that don't need to be made. Which is what The Two Towers was filled with from start to finish.

There's no way that I can cover absolutely every detail in the film that was altered, I don't feel it's necessary to either, but I'm going to focus on the ones that really aggrieved me. One thing felt was that the Battle of Helms Deep seemed to take up most of the film, why did it need to be quite so long, it meant a lot of other stuff got missed, and what on earth were the elves doing there? Or the civilians? Has he read the book?

The portrayal of Gimli annoyed me, he was turned into this comical character that children burst out laughing at every time he's on screen. The most heinous crime of Peter Jackson in character defamation I am leaving to the end. Other fans of the book will probably know which character we'll be coming back to. Plus I was disappointed that the friendship between Gimli and Legolas wasn't anywhere near as pronounced as in the books. I'm not sure it was really in existence at all in the film.

The things I find odd are, so much is missed out of the books and it is such a long film, why are things added that don't need to be? Like Aragorn being thought dead? Or the Ents deciding not to join them. Ents would never make such a spontaneous decision as they did, and they would have known about the trees being destroyed, that scene made no sense. I was so confused when they decided not to fight, it made me wonder if the books were going to end completely differently.

In the beginning of the film I wasn't so annoyed by the changes, I was thinking it was okay, there were bits I didn't really like, but the point at which I got most annoyed and wanted to get up and leave the cinema was that act of character defamation to which I alluded earlier, that of course was Faramir. Peter Jackson has taken what should be an honest, heroic character, and turned him into another Boromir, but of less interest. When we saw Faramir and he insisted that they take the ring to Gondor, that was the point at which, in the words of one of my companions, "I felt betrayed". In the books Faramir and Boromir have very contrasting characters, Faramir is the one that could not be corrupted. He is the one who makes the right decisions, yet here we see him as weak. Peter Jackson turned Faramir's character upside down making him seem to be bordering on evil, the complete opposite of the character of the book. Yes, if this was a film not based on books the plot and characters would be fine, but you can't take someone else's character and twist them out of all recognition, but maintaining there name and some of their actions. It would be like someone writing a story of your life but altering one of your friends, who had had a great impact on you and instead making them into a bully or something.

The explanation that some of my friends came up with was something along the lines of it being true to the story if someone had read the book, given a summary of it to a friend, who'd then translated it into Esperanto and back before making the film of it.

Okay, so that is the gist of my opinion on The Two Towers not a film that I'll be buying, though I'll probably watch it again if a friend has it. I do know people who've managed to distance the film from the book and have therefore enjoyed the film. Taking it as a completely separate thing. If you do that, then yes, you can see it as a good fantasy film, but I shouldn't have to do that. Why make a film of a book if you don't use the story and characters as given in the book? Plus I don't know that it was that great, sitting for 3 hours is a long time, I was restless, though that could have just been 'cos I wanted it to end as I didn't want them to keep changing the story.