Lord of the Rings:
The Two Towers
With Michael Regina
TheOneRing.net
Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2002; 1 p.m. ET

On Dec. 19th the second of the highly anticipated Lord of the Rings films opens nationwide. Adapted from J.R.R. Tolkien's best selling books, the film is expected to break box office records around the world.

Michael Regina, Editor in Chief and Segment Producer for TheOneRing.net, was online to discuss "The Two Towers" and answer all your questions surrounding the film's release and the Lord of theRings trilogy.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Manassas, Va.: Michael,

The minute I heard the news that someone was going to adapt Lord of the Rings to the movies I was stunned and excited at the same time. As a Tolkien fan since childhood, I felt there was no way a movie could do justice to such an epic. It turns out I was wrong. The Lord of the Rings I felt was an excellent representation of Tolkien's original book. My question to you is, in your opinion how will the other two adaptations compare? Will Tolkien fans still be pleased?

Michael Regina: Hi, and a short answer to that is YES! But to be honest, I haven't seen movie 2 yet. I was to see it last week in NC with PJ and the cast...but Mother Nature stepped in and cancelled my flight.

I think the magic is certainly still there, since of course, they filmed all three films at one time, so the aura of the second film is still present.

You'll have to wait for my review tomorrow on the Website!

Providence, R.I.: Going to see Towers tonight. When is Return of the King coming out?

Michael Regina: That's an easy one, and a red letter date to look forward to for a whole year, Return of the King (or ROTK) will premiere on Wednesday, December 17th 2003 in Wellington New Zealand to be exact

Boston, Mass.: My friend and I (both die hard fans of the Trilogy) saw "Two Towers" at midnight Wednesday morning. We were both surprised (and a bit disappointed) at the liberties Jackson and others had taken with the plot of this movie, especially versus "The Fellowship," which followed the plot of the book pretty closely. Any thoughts on why?

Michael Regina: You are not the only one to feel this way, my partner in Los Angeles saw the film a few days ago and said we were in for a bit of a shock.

I haven't seen it yet so I've no idea about the film, but I do know most of the changes and can comment on them.

I think Peter took a little more license with this film mainly because the second book is structured in such a way that filming it exactly word for word poses a problem.

The Two Towers book is really 2 books with 2 completely different stories. The plight of Sam and Frodo, as well as the story of the rest of the Fellowship and all the new characters.

I think once PJ broke down the story lines and made it 'filmable', he decided to change other aspects of the story to make things seamless, for his version, mind you.

Chevy Chase, Md.: As the vast majority of the films were filmed at the same time, what was the experience like for cast and crew to return for the various re-shoots that were necessary for each of the films?

Michael Regina: They all say the same thing, they love New Zealand, and returning for re-shoots is like going back home.

Many of the cast lived there for over a year and grew to know many of the fine eateries, theatres, parks and other things New Zealand, and in fact any major city, has to offer. So coming back to that is like getting back into old habits.

The cast and crew have told us that re-shoots for ROTK will be occurring this spring and summer (fall and winter in NZ) and that it will be a both happy and sad time for them. Sad in the fact that it will be the last time they get together to film LOTR.

Aberdeen, S.D.: Given that Tolkien spent most of his time on the backstory of LOTR on elves and men, does this suggest to you that the fate of men is more important to the LOTR story than that of hobbits? Is Aragorn a more important character than Frodo, even though hobbits and Frodo get more "face time?"

Michael Regina: Many people seem to have different views on in fact whose story LOTR is. Is it Frodo's because it is his quest to destroy the ring? Is it Aragorn because he moves from unknown Ranger to King? Or is it Sam's because we are with him at the very end?

I don't really know whose story LOTR belongs to, as I am on the fence in the regard. But I always thought the story belonged to the land, the world, that time, something like a bit of recorded history. Perhaps it is everyone's story, and no ones.

West Palm Beach, Fla.: Would Tolkien have liked these films?

Michael Regina: That's a good question! I think Tolkien would have been amazed at what can be achieved with technology and films these days. That being said, I'm not too sure he would like it, not the films per say but the entire process.

Tolkien was a naturalist at heart, he loved nature and despised industrialism, which is also a major theme in the books, the idea that mechanics destroys nature (Saruman's mines destroy the Ent forest).

I think he would be happy at the attention to detail involved in these films, PJ and crew really tried their best to get everything perfect. That is something he certainly would have appreciated.

Indianapolis, Ind.: The thing that is bothering me about the complaints of Jackson's changes to the book is quite simple. It's a movie, people. If Jackson filmed the book exactly as written, it would have been a twenty seven hour trilogy of films. There have to be liberties taken. See all three films, and decide if the plot moved well, if the characters had plausible story arcs, and the like. The stilted nature of the Harry Potter movies are a parable of why changes have to be made to source novels.

Michael Regina: That is a common rebuttle for people who are trying to defend the 'books vs movie' argument. And I certainly agree, books are not visual mediums, and films are. Indeed the entire book was examined page by page to be 'translated' into script, and I think Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, PJ, and Stephen Sinclair did an amazing job.

Plano, Tex.: Trilogies seem to be inherently weak in the middle installment. It appears, according to early reviews, that The Lord Of The Rings has avoided this pitfall. Do you think filming all three installments at once helped or is the story one that works well as a set of three movies?

Michael Regina: I certainly do, I think the fact that the film crew did not 'close down' that there was no vacation time, down time, change of actors or any egos being inflated between films was great for the production, there was no chance to lose the character. In fact, many of the actors felt their characters grow with the long shoot.

Viggo even brought his sword to dinner with him on lunch breaks!

Virginia Beach, Va.: I also saw "Two Towers" last night. I wasn't so much bothered that there were changes from the book (as there were some in the first movie) but I couldn't understand the point of most of them. They didn't seem to do much for the flow of the narrative other than playing up the romance angle. The whole side story with Aragorn in the river for example seemed pretty excessive just to do a flashback of Arwen. Do you think the DVD version with the inevitable added footage will make this work a little better?

Michael Regina: I have head that the 'Two Towers' DVD (God help me, I'm just trying to get some sleep between the FOTR DVD and the TTT Theatrical release!) will be packed with special items and there will also be an extended edition with added footage.

I think PJ was talking to someone in Paris and mentioned the TTT DVD is going to be as detailed as the first DVD.

Los Angeles, Calif.: Hi Michael,

Comment and question:

I'll be blunt: I was greatly disappointed. I had hopes after the first movie (enjoyable and eye-opening) that Jackson et al would veer from the canon of the books but still continue to stay true to the text for the most part (that being said, the contrived thing with Lurtz at the end of Fellowship was inexcusable). But I see that Lurtz was only a minor diversion. I see no reason to manipulate the Arwen/Aragorn stories as wildly as they do, or to go on and on with the Helm's Deep and Isengard siege battles, which are only elements in a wider canvas.

Frankly, the whole execution was just flabby for me, and has now made me reflect on the first one with a more critical eye.

I know that "knives have been drawn" on the issue of books versus adaptations, but the changes are such that I now am wondering whether the producers will encourage viewers to read the books (beyond the standard "Read the Novelization"), or are they going to present this as the DEFINITIVE story.

Thanks.

Michael Regina: Well I think your argument bears a little correction, there was no 'addition' to the love story of Arwen and Aragorn, the stories about their love are written in the Appendix of LOTR. They heavily used items from those appendices to create a stronger backbone for their love.

Going back to FOTR. You mention Lurtz, in fact, it is interesting to note that no one calls him by that name, and that he is not credited as Lurtz in the film. The idea of a 'head' Uruk-hai is not so abstract as to call it inexcusable.

I do think people need to know that PJ is creating an entirely DIFFERENT version of LOTR. This is HIS take on the films, and should not be considered anywhere close to the definitive story, as there never can be one, besides the book itself.

Dayton, Ohio: Do you think that New Line made a mistake not issuing the 3 1/2 hour cut of Fellowship theatrically last year. It's arguably the better version and might have boosted the Oscar chances.

Michael Regina: I don't think they should have released the extended version in theatres, perhaps in select cities here and there. But overall that version is right where it belongs, in a home theatre system.

If you are asking me if New Line should have scrapped the edited version and went with the Extended version as the final cut, I would say no, it was right for them to cut it the way they did.

New Line put a considerable amount of weight and money (indeed the entire company's worth) on these films, an wanted to be SURE of some profits. You may look back now and say 'how could they eve doubt the fact that people would love it!', in fact they did, they were as unsure about their property from day 1. Don't let the accolades and posturing fool you, they had no idea if the movie would take off. And to add a bigger gamble by making it 31/2 hours long? That would have been too much for them to handle.

Besides...that makes a long film...we all need bathroom breaks..

Aragorn and Eowyn: I read a review today of the movie that talks about how Aragorn is tempted by Eowyn despite his love for his lady elf. I don't remember reading that in the book -- I do remember that Eowyn was interested in Aragorn, but thought he was true to his love (including in his thoughts). Did I miss something in the book? I always thought of Aragorn as politely deflecting Eowyn's interest.

Michael Regina: I think there are some subtle hints at Aragorn's interest in Eowyn in the books, that are very very hard to pick up unless you've read the books 5 or 6 times.

Not to say that you are mistaken, I've always seen Aragorn as the 'one woman man', and knows that Eowyn would like to be with him, he just loves Arwen -- and has other things to do at the moment :)

Arlington, Va.: What is your response to the criticism that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is veiled racism?

Michael Regina: Many people bring this up on a regular basis, and to tell you the truth, I'm not the best person to argue this theory. The folks who head up the monthly E-Zine on my website TheOneRing.net, the E-Zine is called 'Green Books' and you can see they have discussed this in the past.

Many Tolkien scholars agree that Tolkien himself was a pacifist and despised racism in all it's forms. Indeed some small notions of that are brought up in the book.

Personally I've always known that the bad guys wear Black, and the good guys wear White...does this mean that it is a racist comment? I do not think so.

Roanoke, Va.: Hello,
I have heard that Tolkien intended the one ring to be a metaphor for "technology" in the modern world. Is this true? Should we find it ironic that this beautifully rendered but Luddite vision was developed with one of the biggest movie-industry budgets ever?

Michael Regina: Yes, like I mentioned before, Tolkien was a pacifist, and a naturalist...a Hippy before his time.

However, he does mention, in many of his interviews and writings that the Ring is only a symbol of Evil, and does not represent any one thing, but all manner of evil.

Tolkien was an avid reader and scholar of old stories, and the main theme he saw in them all was the battle of good vs. evil. And the ring is his version of evil, the story around it, the Fellowship, the battles, even Gollum, is his version of good battling that evil.

Reston, Va.: Wow! Saw The Two Towers last night and thought it was far better than the first. The movie moved at a better pace and there were no effects in the movie. You were simply there in Middle Earth as things happened. With the obvious success of the trilogy has there been a buzz on doing the Hobbit? Does New Line have the rights to greenlight the Hobbit?

Michael Regina: I know Peter himself will not make the hobbit, when all is said and done Peter will have worked on these films for 7 years, that is a LOT of time to be focused on any one thing. Peter wants to dissapear for a while, make a zombie film or two, relax and enjoy life, maybe get a haircut or something.

That being said, I've no idea if New Line can option The Hobbit, I know they own the rights to LOTR for a few more years at least, but it is Mr. Saul Zaentz that own the Hobbit, so it is his call.

Brighton, Mass: Where does LOTR et al rank business-wise in the top grossing films?

Michael Regina: With inflation included in the Box office numbers, LOTR is at number 62...BUT consider that 'Gone With The Wind' made $1,153,674,489 (that is in BILLIONS) at number 1, but it is very very close. Spider-Man was the big winner this year, with over 400 million in the US alone. However Rings' numbers are nothing to scoff at:

Total Gross: $313,364,114
Movie Rentals and Purch: $500,000,000+

Washington, D.C.: What are the reactions of Tolkien's relatives to the first two films? Also, were they invited, as they should have been, to the films' premieres? Thanks.

Michael Regina: I know that Royd Tolkien was at the UK premiere. I think the rest of the Tolkien clan has distanced themselves from Royd and the movies themselves. It's sad in a way (like Sam says)

Centreville, Va.: Saw it last night (this morning) at midnight.

I was surprised with the plot changes. I know the Aragon-Arwen story is mainly from an appendix, but in this version, they seem to temporarily break up. If I'm remembering the appendix story correctly, that never happens in the written version.

Also, I was a little disappointed with the portrayal of Faramir. In the book he's always a good guy; not so in the movie, although he redeems himself.

That being said, I thought overall the movie was quite well done. The highlight of it for me was the schizophrenic inner battles of Gollum/Smeagol. That character blows the cheesy CGI from Harry Potter and Star Wars way out of the water, IMHO.

What's your take on how Gollum is rendered in the film?

Michael Regina: Andy Serkis is a GOD in small mans form. I think the Oscars can completely re-vitalize itself if they nominate and or pick Andy to win best supporting actor, JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY MR GOLD MAN!

PJ revolutionized the way CGI characters are made on screen, by using cutting edge computer effects, coupled with an amazing character as Andy is -- it is flawless.

Andy was supposed to simply provide to voice for the creature. But his characterizations in the booth so impressed PJ that he asked him to join the cast and play the creature live on set.

I hope to meet Andy at our Oscar party this march, tickets will go on sale soon folks, get yours.

Salt Lake City, Utah: With the massive success of Lord of the Rings, can we expect to see other epic fantasy books adapted to the big screen? (Please don't mention the painfully bad "Dungeons and Dragons" movie of a couple of years ago.)

Michael Regina: Well, LOTR is doing for Fantasy what Star Wars (the old ones) did for Sci-Fi.

It took the genre out of our parents basements and brought it into pop culture. Does that mean we will see some other big screen versions of big epic tales?

Some Narnia tales will be hitting the big screen soon, and I heard that Beowulf will be making it as well.

It remains to be seen what else could get it's chance thanks to Rings...

Michael Regina: Thanks so much for taking the time out to type some questions and read my answers! I hope everyone enjoys the films, and see you all at the movies!

----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Regina (Xoanon) Editor in Chief/Segment Producer
xoanon@theonering.net http://www.TheOneRing.net
PH: 514.947.5221
ICQ: 32063161
AOL: MVCR718
----------------------------------------------------------