Talk:The Two Towers (movie)

Contents

1 I think the title for this article is incorrect. 2 Academy awards 3 Title too long 4 Ents 5 Osgiliath problem 6 Easter Egg 7 Gunpowder 8 page title (again)

I think the title for this article is incorrect.

The movie's title is The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - just like The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is the title for "The Fellowship of the Ring (movie)". I think that it might be beneficial to:

1. Create a new page The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (movie),
2. Make this page a redirect page,
3. Put this article there, and
4. Direct all the links to the movie there.
5. Links that refer to the book only, should go to the book's page, and,
6. Anything that is unclear goes to disambiguating pages.

One must be careful with the different editions of the book(s) The Lord of the Rings, the same story is told in different publications split up in different ways by different publishers, all the way from a single book to 4 books in a slip case. It is the same issue with the movie.

See Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) too.

kiwiinapanic 05:06 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)~

Since there's only one movie, it seems to me that the correct title is, as above The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and I second the call to action :) Atorpen 05:30 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've just undone this - partially because I don't think that anyone searching for the movie is actually going to try "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (movie)" as their first search string, and partially because the redirects and disambiguations for these were a real mess and I was cleaning them up, and more or less arbitrarily decided on this as the format because the previous format was a mess. I think it's the more common usage. I've also changed The Two Towers to a disambiguation page. Snowspinner 19:13, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

Academy awards

I do not think this movie has won any Academy awards, (yet), as of January 25 2003, as the Academy awards have not been held yet. kiwiinapanic 05:06 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

That's right. It's been nominated for a bunch, that's probably what he meant.

I think it may have won some People's Global Golden Choice Awards though.

News I heard in NZ was that it lost out big time at these - worth a mention in the article - if anyone has the info - I just heard a sound bite on the radio.kiwiinapanic

I really don't know what it won. I stupidly assumed they were Academy Awards. I have no real basis for this though. --General Wesc

Golden Globes? Atorpen

Too early - I think. kiwiinapanic

Hello! Is this a discussion of my paragraph? I added the paragraph about awards, back when this article was part of the article on The Two Towers. As it says in the paragraph in question, the awards were Phoenix Film Critics Awards (actually, maybe there should be an apostrophe in there), and I even gave a little link pointing to my source [1] (http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/phoenix_fca.htm). See...? Hope this helps. :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 08:45 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

Title too long

Personally, I think the title of this article is too long. As I stated in Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring (movie), I believe the (movie) tag is essential for this particular subject, because there is a lot of talk about the book and a lot of talk about the movie. People looking for information about the movie should be able to see immediately which entry for "The Two Towers" is the one that deals especially with the movie -- hence, the tag (movie) at the end of the title. For this reason I still think this entry should simply be The Two Towers (movie), but if others don't think so then we can leave this entry the way it is. (We need to set the proper links to this page, so that we can get rid of at least one of the redirect pages that point to here.) -- Modemac

What is so wrong with having one article that deals with both? I for one would find it very interesting to read about how the movie compares with the book. --mav 21:00 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

As seen so far in the entry for The Fellowship of the Ring (movie), details about the movie alone are starting to become quite extensive. The entry can cover the cast members, the movie's box office totals, the video release and the "director's cut," the special effects (such as Gollum), the differences between the book and the movie, the general audience reaction to the film (less "intimate," terrific action, the fanboys whine and scream), and a lot more. Discussion of the book, on the other hand, would focus more on the stuff in the book, such as the detailed history of the Ents and the Entwives, the Uruk-Hai, the history and politics of Rohan, and much more. -- Modemac

I agree that there should be separate articles for the book and the film, as there is (or will be) a lot of information on each that is irrelevant to the other. But I disagree about the naming. As far as I am aware, the book is never referred to as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, so there is no need for the disambiguating word "movie" in the title of this article. Similarly for its prequel. See also Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring (movie). -- Oliver P. 03:53 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

Ents

A recent edit changed the phrase "a race of giants" to "the Ents". Fair enough, although I believe "ent" is Old English for "giant".

Originally yes. The race of giants to whom all knowledge is ascribed. Yet in modern English Ents refers only to Tolkien's Ents (or the ripoff Treants from AD&D). — Jor 18:02, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

Osgiliath problem

deleted -

(This causes an apparent geographical inconsistency. Frodo and his companions are found on the eastern side of the Great River. Then Faramir takes them to Osgiliath, but they must now be on the western bank since we are told that the eastern side of Osgiliath has fallen. Once Faramir releases them they resume their journey to Mordor and are once more on the eastern side of the river.)

The geographical inconcistency is no more than in the book. We know that Faramir encounters Frodo on the Eastern side of the river, making a foray into enemy territory, and later returns to Minas Tirith via Osgiliath, presumably crossing the river. The only difference in the movie is that he brings Frodo more of the way back. Frodo and Sam presumably have to recross the river and continue (Faramir might do the decent thing and escort them partway). DJ Clayworth 17:18, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Extended Edition shows an additional scene in which Faramir escorts Frodo, Sam and Smeagol into a sewer/storm drain which will take them under the river. Admittedly, from what I recall when I worked for Thames Water, this is reasonably unlikely (you'd expect a storm drain to exit into the river) but (a) I might have misremembered and (b) it provides a mechanism for getting them on their way. Phil 17:24, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

I must disagree with DJ C. In the book they remain on the eastern side of the river, and Faramir only crosses it when Osgiliath finally falls. In the movie, Faramir's entire troup — along with the Hobbits — somehow ends up on the western shore. This is a major problem, and the subterranean tunnel system in the extended edition is a quirky solution to it. — Jor 18:02, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Easter Egg

The Movie Mistakes website [2] (http://www.moviemistakes.com/film2638/trivia) claims that there is an Easter Egg on Disc 1 of the Extended Edition. I can't get to it with WinDVD: anyone had any success? Phil 17:24, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Apparently this Easter Egg is only available on Region 1 DVDs: what kind of swiz is that? Phil 17:51, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

It apparently is present only on some R2 DVDs (not the English or Dutch ones however), this because the scene is from MTV America and considered quite offensive by some censors. It would have gotten the entire DVD a higher rating (instead of '12' it would've been '15' or higher in the UK, possibly even 18.). Therefore it was removed from most (or all) R2 prints. The same happened with the first movie's MTV America spoof. — Jor 17:53, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

Gunpowder

Correcting a minor quibble concerning differences between the book and the movie: One difference listed is "Saruman invents gunpowder which is used to breach the wall of Helm's Deep." This is actually included in the book. The descriptions of the seige and attack on Helm's Deep includes mention of the "blasting fires" of Orthanc," including a comment "They have lit the fires of Orthanc at our very feet." The wall being blasted away by an explosion is also included in the book. --Modemac 15:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gunpowder isn't mentioned in the book, it is implied. The explosion isn't mentioned either, but implied (as you describe). It is very plausible Gunpowder is meant with Saruman's magical blasting fires, but the difference here is that while in the book there merely is a reference to blasting fires, the movie actually has Saruman invent gunpowder and use it. (Together with a Hamas-like Uruk.) — Jor 17:53, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

[comments posted by 130.64.139.38 moved from article. Eric119 ]

(actually any one of five separate towers could be those of the title: Cirith Ungol, Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Barad-dur, and Orthanc, with all possible combinations being perfectly valid. Tolkien himself never actually settled on which "two towers" they were, as originally the endire trilogy was supposed to be one large book: "The Lord of the Rings". He wasn't really fond of naming the books as they were divided [see Return of the King ]. The filmakers actually based the Barad-dur/Orthanc connection on a letter Tolkien himself wrote)

This is incorrect. Tolkien >did< consider several different combinations, but he finally settled on Orthanc and Minas Morgul as stated in the article. Most versions of 'Fellowship of the Ring' conclude with a note stating that these are the 'two towers' of the next book. Tolkien himself wrote that note (see 'Descriptive Bibliography' by Hammond & Anderson) prior to publication of the first edition. He also drew a detailed cover for the book (which the publisher decided not to use, see 'Artist & Illustrator' by Hammond & Scull) showing Orthanc and Minas Morgul. CBD

page title (again)

I want to bring to attention the fact that an anonymous user has requested a move for this article, as well as every other article pertaining to the trilogy (books and movies). I think that this article (and the other movie articles) should be named according to the full US release title (which includes the 'TLOTR:'), the books should stay at 'title (book)' and 'title' should remain a disambig. page to point people to the other articles. That way, anyone searching for 'The Two Towers', book or movie, can find the article they want, and the articles can be at the most accurate title possible. Lachatdelarue (talk) 18:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)