Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


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]. See...? Hope this helps. :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 08:45 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

It won TWO academy awards. I can't remember what for, but it definitely won 2.

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)

In the book Faramir does not cross the river in Osgiliath. He crosses it an Cair Andros and sends his company to Osgiliath along the western shore, while he and a few companions travel by horse to Minas Tirith.Atanvarno 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Easter Egg

The Movie Mistakes website [2] 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)

I just spent several hours trying to find this clip in my UK extended box set, so really appreciate the info above. Have emended the article to help other poor UKers similarly baffled and deprived.Haploidavey (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2009 (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)
I don't remember gunpowder specifically, but I do remember a fireworks display at Bilbo's leventy-leventh birthday. Sam's poem "The finest rockets ever seen, they burst in stars of blue and green..." indicates fireworks were well-known even to hobbits who weren't used to having wizards around. Phr (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2006 (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
Reply: While I agree, there are just so many other problems and things that Jackson made up that this small point is hardly worth considering.--rtconner

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)


Change from book to movie

There is another change from the book to the movie that is not listed. In the book, before Gimli et. al. set out after the orcs that took Merry and Pippin, Gimli says that dwarves "too can go swiftly, and do not tire sooner then orcs" (I typed the quotation from memory, so it might be slightly off). In the movie, he says that dwarves are good sprinters (I forget if its only implied that they have bad endurance or if he goes out and says it). Eds01 04:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Almost exact quote: "We dwarves are natural sprinters, very dangerous *across* short distances."

More objections to the film

I found this the most objectionable of the three films from the point of view of someone who loves the original source material. The interaction between Pippin, Merry, and the ents is ridiculous. I can't see entities tens of thousands of years old being fooled into doing something that they didn't want to do by a couple of teenaged hobbits. The intervention of Arwen (I was pretty sure I saw her in the film?) and the elves at the battle of Helm's Deep seems unnecessary from the point of view of advancing the film dramatically, and having Arwen on the scene (if indeed she is) makes the romantic fixation of Eowyn on Aragorn seem even less comprehensible than it is in Tolkien's books (the master wasn't very good on romance, was he?). The whole business of the seduction of Theoden by Saruman is handled very clumsily, I thought, making it seem that Saruman had somehow cast a "magic spell" on him. I prefer the less supernatural but more humanly understandable Tolkien version.

Reply: Agreed fully. I despise what Jackson did to the Ent Moot. The ents decided right off they would go to war and did not need some psuedo hero hobbit to convince them to do it. ~~rtconner

And not to mention all that stuff with Faramir draging Frodo and Sam all the way to gondor, and then magicaly deciding that he doesn't want ring ( like it's that easy ) and that scene with vargas, i think the section about differences from movie is to stub, from all 3 movies this one differed most from the book --Defufna 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply: what changes have been made, are not so important to feel that the book is somehow transfered in not a proper way. cinema is not a book, thus the same things which make sense in a book, do not in a film. i believe that there's a lot of fuss about nothing. (sorry for my grammar or vocabulary mistakes, but i' m greek, so...) -- George St.
Indeed, I expected to see Theoden spinning his head around and spitting pea soup at our heroes. Ghastly mess they made of that. --Bluejay Young 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it stupid how the movie portayed Gimli as a tired slow runner. Anyone who reads the Hobbit knows that Dwarves travel well carrying a heavy load over long distances. He easily could keep up with Aragorn and Legolas, and the Book did nit portray him otherwise. Jacksons portrayal of Dwarven running abilitys strays FAR from Tolkiens. ~~rtconner


Don't mean to sound rude, but this conversation really has no bearing on improving the article. Wikipedia's more of an encyclopedia than a "talking to people" site.

Which are the Two Towers?

The page about the movie says Minas Tirith and the Orthanc, but the one about the book says Minas Morgul and Orthanc. Which one is correct? My copy of the book has the note at the end of Book II that identifies Minas Morgul and Orthanc as the two towers. --61.16.164.135 12:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien settled on Orthanc and Minas Morgul - writing the blurb stating those two and designing a final cover showing them (though this was not used on the cover until much later due to production cost concerns of the publishers). However, for the movie Peter Jackson decided or mistakenly assumed that the two were Orthanc and Barad-dur... as was said during the film and as posters for the movie showed. The presentation of these facts in this article has been badly mangled by recent changes and is now incorrect. I'll update the text. --CBDunkerson 12:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Which are the Two Towers?

Funny how my bit about "Which are the Two Towers" has been called "erroneous" and "incorrect" and has been removed.

I'll point out that it consists mostly of direct quotes from Professor Tolkien, and shows its proofs concerning the rest of the matter. I've actually studied this topic in depth and know I'm right about it. But the nature of wikipedia is that somebody who doesn't know a lot can edit somebody who does. And I accept that. It's just too bad the important information is no longer shown for the casual fans who may be interested in it. --Hopkins34

I agree with Hopkins. Tolkien continually changed his mind throughout his life as to which towers were the two. He drew many different pairs of towers in his illustrations and said: "The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 & 4, and can be left ambiguous — it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol."
After the book was published he wrote, "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."
It's perversely amusing to see people now say "Tolkien considered many possible combinations, but eventually settled on Orthanc and Minas Morgul being the 'two towers'".
He did? Then why did his final illustration show the White Tower and Orthanc? http://www.angelfire.com/film/rings/images/tolkien9.JPG
And why did he then change his mind later in life and say the towers were probably Orthanc and Cirith Ungol?
Face it, Tolkien never settled on anything. Hopkins was right. Probably cause he used the Professor's own words. His "Meaning of the Title" should be restored. -- Elrondsgal
I'm sorry, but you are (both) wrong. The accurate sequence of events was:
08/17/1953 - Letter #140, considers Orthanc & Barad-Dur, Minas Tirith & Barad-Dur, Orthanc & Cirith Ungol, or just leaving it ambiguous.
01/04/1954 - Tolkien receives a draft FotR end-note from the publishers
01/22/1954 - Letter #143, the "not at all happy" quotation and considers Orthanc & Cirith Ungol or Barad-Dur & Minas Tirith
2?/??/1954 - Image #178, draft cover showing Barad-Dur & Minas Tirith
02/23/1954 - Tolkien sends a rewritten FotR end-note listing Orthanc & Minas Morgul
03/19/1954 - Tolkien receives proofs of his Orthanc & Minas Morgul FotR end-note
03/??/1954 - Image #179, draft cover showing Orthanc & Minas Morgul
03/??/1954 - Image #180, final cover showing Orthanc & Minas Morgul
03/29/1954 - Tolkien approves the Orthanc & Minas Morgul FotR end-note proof and returns it to A&U
07/29/1954 - Orthanc & Minas Morgul published in FotR
Note, he dithered from 08/17/1953 - 02/23/1954... just over six months. That is not "throughout his life". He struggled over what 'Frodo's' name should be (and many other details) far longer than that. There was not an ongoing question on this issue, but rather a firm decision on or just before February 23, 1954 which never wavered thereafter. The "not at all happy" quotation was not written after The Two Towers was published, but rather six months before the publication of The Fellowship of the Ring, the final illustration (#180 in Artist & Illustrator) does not show Minas Tirith & Orthanc (note the symbols: Moon = Minas Ithil = Minas Morgul, White Hand = Saruman = Orthanc), the 'Orthanc & Cirith Ungol' idea was not "later in life", but rather a month earlier on 01/22/1954, et cetera. For the above facts please see Letters (for the letters), Artist & Illustrator (for the pictures), and Descriptive Bibliography (for everything else). Using "the Professor's own words" doesn't particularly help when you assign them to fictional dates and leave out the ones he published in The Lord of the Rings itself; "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;" - FotR end-note. --CBDunkerson 09:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Tolkien didn't write the words you reference from the Lord of the Rings. His publisher did. Also, you have several inaccuracies I don't have time to go into at the moment. I'll return later and discuss -- Elrondsgal

Listen, I understand that you honestly believe what you are saying to be true and that you have read it around the net, but that doesn't make it so. Compare those internet 'facts' against: "He [Tolkien] also returns, rewritten, the note for the last page of FR." - J. R. R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography pg 92 (23 February 1954 entry) ISBN 1-873040-11-3. A direct statement that Tolkien wrote the note... from an exacting 433 page text specifically devoted to the publication details of Tolkien's work... written by Wayne Hammond and Douglas A. Anderson - both noted scholars with multiple books published on Tolkien (and other subjects). Please consider that maybe the reason you can't find any reliable sources (and I know you can't) backing up those internet 'facts' you are citing is because they are really pure speculation which has been repackaged as 'fact' after decades of the internet equivalent of the game 'telephone'. --CBDunkerson 17:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Q: Should be a simple one—which are the two towers implied by The Two Towers? I've seen just about ALL the possible towers, including Barad-dûr, Orthanc, Minas Tirith, and Minas Morgul (occasionally, I've even seen somebody try and suggest Helm's Deep!)

–Brian Gilkison

On the last page of The Fellowship of the Ring:

"Here ends the first part of the history of the War of the Ring. 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…"

I have seen arguments against this text, saying that the Professor did not write them and they were actually inserted by the publisher, Allen & Unwin. Indeed, remember that The Lord of the Rings was not originally meant to be a trilogy of three volumes but rather a compilation of Six Books. It was Tolkien’s publisher who decided on a "more convenient" number of three separate volumes and then requested new names for them. Tolkien was unhappy with this but under a deadline pressure came up with the names as we have them now.

As others have said, by looking in the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien you can learn much more about his personal thoughts on this:

"The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 & 4; and can be left ambiguous—it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol (1)." [Letter #140] The footnote (1) to this letter reads:

"In a subsequent letter to Ranyer Unwin (#143), Tolkien is more definite that the Two Towers are ‘Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol’. On the other hand, in his original design for the jacket of The Two Towers (see #151) the Towers are certainly Orthanc and Minas Morgul. Orthanc is shown as a black tower, three-horned (as seen in Pictures no. 27), and with the sign of the White Hand beside it; Minas Morgul is a white tower, with a thin waning moon above it, in reference to its original name, Minas Ithil, the Tower of the Rising Moon (FotR p. 257). Between the two towers a Nazgûl flies." There is another letter I found, stating:

"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." [Letter #143]

So there you have it. My personal belief, if you will indulge me, is that the title makes a connection between the two structures that have the greatest impact on the main characters. Or rather, the powers within those structures. In Book Three we have Théoden and Gandalf vying against the power of Orthanc. In Book Four, Frodo and Sam find that their path ultimately leads to the Haunted Pass and Minas Morgul, where Frodo comes within a hair's breadth of being captured by the Witch-king (remember, we don’t really see events inside the Tower of Cirith Ungol until The Return of the King, so that doesn’t count here). -- quickbeam

I see nothing there which even remotely contradicts what I've been saying. Someone on a web-site who calls themself 'Quickbeam' says that they've seen other people, who are not named, argue that Tolkien did not write the FotR end-note. I've seen people 'argue' that too... but that doesn't make it true. Just today I've 'seen someone argue' that Olwe had a daughter named Ayalais who took up with Orome and then somehow got renamed Melian and wound up in an incestuous relationship with her uncle. Should we take that as gospel too? People can 'argue' just about anything. Actual citations (rather than 'someone anonymous says they saw someone unnamed say something') are needed to make a verifiable case. See above where I cite two recognized experts on Tolkien who were given direct access to the publication materials by both Allen & Unwin and the Tolkien Estate stating that Tolkien wrote the end-note. How is this even a question? --CBDunkerson 23:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, your points are certainly solid. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that The Two Towers title is a bit ambiguous. That seems to be the consensus from my search of the web. The way the article states it now is okay, I think. Tolkien didn't seem to be adamant about any combination, but he did pick out two of the towers (after he came up with the title) to fit the bill. Celedor15 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several towers, and given that the film doesn't show the defense of Minas Tirith, or Frodo's capture at Minas Morgul, neither of them would make sense as the title. On the other hand, the climax of Frodo and Sam's story shows a battle against the Forces of Barad-dur, while the other climaxes are all fights against the Forces of Saruman from Orthanc.Kenobifan 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I removed link to the negative review a while back because the link didn't work. Someone restored it saying, "Not everyone's a fan". Well, that's fine, and I'm not opposed to negative reviews. The problem is the link still doesn't work for me. Unless the problem is my computer and it works for other people, I think it should be removed. -- Hopkins34

Split

The article will be overly long if all of those details are left in. If many at all are to be kept they should be split off, and only the most crucial left in the article body itself. It's slightly more than a full page on my screen, and it even says "some" additional scenes. - BalthCat 00:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually cleaned it up, with paragraphing and describing what these additions do. Pleasure helping out. Wiki-newbie 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed expand request

I removed the expand request from the top of the discussion page because: 1) it was designed to be used in the article itself; 2) the article is already so long that article length warnings appear when you edit it. Erathian 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Disarming

In that scene where a part of the former fellowship arrive at Edoras, the characters were asked to surrender their weapons. Was it done in such a humorous light in the novel? Or was the fact it seemed funny they had an incredible amount of weapons done in homage to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? The scenes were very similar and seem to evoke the same sense of humor. Can somebody actually clarify this? I personally think it was an homage or a joke that was added without actually realizing it was done before. Abrynkus 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, in the book, Aragorn needs to surrender his sword and puts up a fuss. n Peter Jackson's plot change, the sword is not delivered to Aragorn until Dunharrow (by Elron), which would make the fuss at the door from the book out of sync. Of course, in the Boo Aragorn never is shorn of Narsil shards. [[user:edwpat|edwpat||

"Was it done in such a humorous light in the novel?" No. Uthanc 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the added (film)?

To my knowledge, the book is never marketed separately as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, just The Two Towers. This goes for the other two too. While meant to be helpful, (see above) the title just adds misinformation and confusion. I've asked this for the other two films' talk pages. Uthanc 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The full title is The Lord of the Rings: The ... and the (film) is just to define that. People have been through this controversy many times, and I wouldn't like an extra move. Wiki-newbie 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cameo?

With regards to "Philippa Boyens son also cameos as Haleth, a boy Aragorn gives hope to." Is this really a cameo? I understand the term to mean a brief appearance of a known person as sort of an inside joke. Calem was an unknown before the film, and considering he has a dramatic scene that adds to the story, his role seems more like a legitimate part than a cameo to me, even if his mother was involved in another part of the project. 69.210.61.19 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But was he credited for the part (as in did his name appear in the actors credits)? And was he paid for it? If either of those is no, then it cannot be considered a legitimate role. I agree with you, that it is not a cameo...Mel Gisbon appearing in a scene dressed as William Wallace, that would have been a cameo. I'd say that he was more of an extra that had more attention put on him that most others.Blipadouzi 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
He is credited in the closing credits. Celedor15 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


9/11 "Controversy"

No offense but I think the  9/11 controversy thing is not very about The Lord of the Rings article.

And, I am wondering if I can delete and I will be checking to see the response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Lamb (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

It seems ok so far. Remember, good articles are comprehensive. Wiki-newbie 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Peter Jackson said somplace on the Extended DVD that he would never have changed the name of the film. He was always going to have it named the Two Towers, and that some chariety wanted them to change the name. He simply said no. Yes, the part about the other people being concerned should be in the article, but on how they might, maybe change the name of the film is absurd. Delete that part. Doodlebomb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.202.100 (talk) 21:47:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Speical Effects: Treebeard

Whilst Gollum took four hours per frame to render, Treebeard took forty-eight.

As much as this made me laugh, it should probably be changed so that it reads like information and not a punchline. I can do that, but it's still a little too sparce to be it's own section, and yet it feels like Treebeard deserves a section in Special Effects, so I'd appreciate it if anyone knowledgable on the subject could expand upon it. --129.2.194.197 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thermopylae

In one scene before the battle, Legolas scrutinizes the gathered men to defend Helm's Deep. In summing them up, he says "And they should be.....three hundred against ten thousand?" in Elvish. This is a direct reference to the famous 300 Spartans, whom faced impossible odds against a Persian army of around one million and almost came out victorious.

This was removed. Since the initial figure of 300 Rohirrim only shows up in the film, this could be a reference to the Battle of Thermopylae, however unlikely and distorted... do the filmmakers have anything to say about the change on the DVDs? This may be reading too much into the number. Uthanc 11:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf and the Hobbits

From the article: "Another structural change is that the Hobbits meet Gandalf the White early on, possibly to clean up one of Tolkien's own mistakes, in that the Hobbits don't react to his return when they meet him following the destruction of Isengard." I do not know if this is why the change was made, but anyone who thinks this was a mistake by Tolkien has not read the book properly. In "Floatsam and jetsam" Merry and Pippin tell of the Ents' attack on Isengard. They explain how they were at the gate when Gandalf rode up in the middle of the night and how they were dumbfounded. Pippin eventually managed to get out a "Gandalf?" to which Gandalf replied by asking for Treebeard. Thus the Hobbits had already seen Gandalf before he arrived at Isengard with Theoden. In the movie, however, Gandalf never went to Isengard or to find Erkenbrand, but went to find Eomer instead. Hence one can see it as a necessity to explain why the Hobbits were not surprised to see Gandalf in the movie, but that was already explained in the book and hardly an error on Tolkien's side. Atanvarno 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Towers was eligible for Best Score

The article says Two Towers was not eligible for Best Score. This is not true. Here's the proof: http://www.baltimoresun.com/cl-et-burlingame18jan18,0,5723310.story I'm doing the appropriate edit. Celedor15 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


tree beard

Treebeard took forty-eight hours per frame to render.[18]

this looks like this either got hacked, or we have some REALLY lazy editors here. is this really all we have to say about treebeard? the poor guy.

Fair use rationale for Image:Helmsdeep-siege.jpg

Image:Helmsdeep-siege.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Helmsdeep-siege.jpg

Image:Helmsdeep-siege.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Sean of San Diego likes Samwise Gamgee because he is cool!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.16.24 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved article

Hallo! I did a little cleanup by moving this article from "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (film)" to "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"--that is to say, I simply removed the unnecessary "film" parenthetical from the end. The version without it was simply a redirect, so there was no need for any disambiguation. I have also repaired the double redirects. --Masamage ♫ 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Action category

Please do not add the category for action films for this article. It does not match these articles and books definitions for action films ([3], [4], [5], [6]). The lord of the rings films are generally considered fantasy and adventure films ([7], [8], [9], [10]). Before adding or removing categories, please discuss it here. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Motherfucking cockscuker, if these sources say the exorcist is an action movie, you'll agreee with them? fucking croatian. Andreazzhole (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No I wouldn't say that. I found ones that were reliable. If someone made such outlandish interpretations I'd have to ask them to explain further. Just like how i ask you to explain further with your edits. You do not other than explaining themselves yourself. Not everything with battle scenes is an action film. If you read anything source I've noted, you would see this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"@#!*%"

guys, I have to ask: why is "@#!*%" used instead of dam? as far as I know, the dam structure used to stem the flow of rivers, isn't banned and hated by fervor by any particular church. 70.241.29.3 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The character string "@#!*%" does not appear in the article. Perhaps there is a template used in the article which was vandalised at the time you saw it.-gadfium 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

IP edits

Some anon user is hopping IPs and adding a load of dubious names to the info box, anyone have any confirmations for this edit or is it a troll? 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I say that's nonsense. And if in doubt it's the plight of the contributor to source their edits. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE

  • All redirected & disambiguation links fixed. Also all navboxes

P.S. references 12 and 13, darn if I could find the location of Houghton Mifflin which needs to be Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, arggg :P
Mlpearc powwow 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Two Towers Country Inconsistency

What do you think the country parameter means, then? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the "country" parameter means in the film infobox but there are a few issues to consider. Here's the text:

Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in.

1) It does not state that "country" means where the film was made. If it meant that then it would have be very easy to state that plainly.
2) It might mean the country of origin for the studio who produced the film. In this case it would be New Line which is in the US.
3) All that said the parameter does require the information to be in the lead section of the article and to be backed up with reliable sources. Neither of these criteria are met with respect to the Two Towers article.
4) I see you've added it back anyway claiming "consistency". The problem with this is that there is a lot on Wikipedia that's wrong but consistent. In general we'd rather be correct 1% of the time than 99% consistent but wrong.
Film articles are not my specialty so I don't really know how that parameter is usually interpreted. SQGibbon (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So, 1) No it doesn't state that "country" means where the film was made, but it does say, "nationality of the film". This has been heavily discussed recently on the Film Project talk page and apparently it's a tough thing to represent. There are many things to take into consideration when stating the nationality of the film, such as nationality of the director, cast, studio, production company, financers, where it was shot, etc. I'll bring this issue up there for some other editor's opinions.
2) If the studio is used, then it is not New Line (the distributor) that is considered, but rather WingNut Films (NZ) and the Saul Zaentz Company (US). As WingNut Films and the director are both from New Zealand, I personally would lean towards displaying New Zealand in the country parameter. However, the text you provided does state that a conflict should result in neither being used. But that doesn't appear to matter in the case of the Fellowship and Return films (hence my problem with consistency). Also, I think that editors at the Film Project may not oppose listing New Zealand or possibly both NZ and US.
3) Should be easily solved. Just may need to put something in the lead and find a source.
4) I agree with you there. Consistency is often overrated, and I would usually prefer to be correct. However, in this case, I believe that listing NZ is both correct and consistent, leading to a win-win situation. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Higher Resolution Image

User Rmdl2006 is repeatedly adding a high resolution image of the poster, this is erroneously marked as free on the commons (i don't know how to request deletion of file from there). We already have a perfectly acceptable low resolution image, with fair use rationale. Please stop adding this image to the article Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you not just tag it for speedy deletion for violating NFC? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I can't seem to get to edit the file to put the request on. I thought I had, but I did it on the original lower resolution one by mistake. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
K, think I got it tagged correctly. An Admin should delete the earlier copies now and just leave the current. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Please add potential sources for the article here.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Run time: 214 minutes. Is there a reason?

Is there a reason the run time is this? This is the extended edition run time I believe. The theatrical is 172 minutes. Is there a reason this is listed before I go and remove it and put it back to the original time? Charlr6 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Running time

I remeber not so long ago, the infobox on the right hand side of the page used to list the running times of the theatrical release as well as the extended release. This seems to have been removed for some reason. Could we get that put back in? It's useful and relevant information. --Sauronjim (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Translation

The article appears to have been written by a New Zealander. There is a lot of colloquial and inferior English used, and the tone is childish. I recommend that it be edited to improve the grammar and make it less childish.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Country of origin of the films

United States should be listed as a country of origin of The Lord of the Rings films alongside New Zealand because they are US-New Zealand co-productions. Moreover, the American Film Institute (AFI) awards which honours the best "American" movies has included The Lord of the Rings in various best movie lists. See AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) and AFI's 10 Top 10.

--Najazjalal (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Country of Origin and a U.S. Production company are not the same thing. The films where made by, filmed in and directed by New Zealanders. Just because Americans have history of claiming credit for all the good in the world, doesn't mean we should propagate it in infoboxes. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The AFI does not determine origins of a film.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation needed

What does "crew proceeded to reanimate all the previous shots accordingly within two months" mean?Royalcourtier (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Identity of 15th Century Manuscript containing crossbow blueprint that inspired the crossbow prop built by John Howe

In the Behind the Scenes clips, the crossbow blueprint images displayed from the unnamed 15th Century manuscript (which were displayed while John Howe was talking about the special crossbow that was build) are an exact match to the images of the self-spanning crossbow blueprints in the Codex Löffelholtz (written in 1505 AD by Martin Löffelholtz). Said Codex (in digital format) is on public view at Krakow's Jagiellonian Library in the following link with the images of the crossbow being on pages 17 and 27 (out of 82):

https://jbc.bj.uj.edu.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=258834

Additionally, further proof is in the video demonstration of a reconstruction of the said crossbow with displayed images of the Manuscript pages at time mark 0:30 (out of 2:46). Said self-spanning crossbow was created by an Austrian professional crossbow designer, Andreas Bichler, on his personal Youtube channel. The video is in the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXli68FbqTE

Closest relative to said self-spanning crossbow that is documented on wikipedia is the rapid fire crossbow (Balestra veloce) by Leonardo Da Vinci from the Codex Atlanticus written between 1478 to 1519. Mentioned crossbow linked on the page is certainly not the repeating crossbow as said crossbow comes with a box magazine that cocked/spanned by an overhand lever rather than an underhand lever.

2601:280:5B7F:85C4:7535:BB37:1CF6:3F55 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This type of analysis is original research. Content should be sourced directly to reliable secondary sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Two_Towers/Archive_1&oldid=1101822683"