I have recently come to realize something about my status as a Tolkien fan: I'm not a purist. I can bandy what-if scenarios without feeling the slightest bit blasphemous; I actually enjoy such things as much as I enjoy reading the original work in all its glory. Lately, I have listened to many comments about how the movie version of Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was "absolutely ruined" because something or another wasn't exactly the way it was in the book, or wasn't the way a person wanted it to be, or wasn't enough like the way it was in the book and much as I love the book, my reaction is, "Tough. This isn't the book. Suck it up and get used to it."  We all have things that we loved about the book that weren't in the movie, or were changed to suit the needs of the movie or the vision of the director. Heck, for all that they got to do and say during their time in TTT, Ian McKellen and Karl Urban might as well have been listed among the extras -- certainly NOT the roles they had in the book. I can understand that the shift in the size of Éomer's part in TTT was a matter of compression; having him come to the rescue at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep eliminated the inevitably time-consuming need to introduce another group of people, Erkenbrand and his folk, who have no particular importance to the story after their contributions at Helm's Deep. The reduction of Gandalf's part I can only suppose was done because they preferred action sequences over dialogue, and though much of what Gandalf had to say in the book was pretty significant (in particular his commentaries about the doubts and strategies of Sauron and the treason of Saruman), it was still a lot of talking, and may simply have not been active enough to suit whatever ambience those making the movie were trying to achieve.

But perhaps that is an excellent example of what has left me feeling disturbed about this movie. It's not that any particular thing was changed or eliminated; it's that it seems almost to have been made to try to address the complaints some critics had of Fellowship of the Ring, that it was wordy and slow and didn't have enough of what they wanted, action and sex.  So that was changed.  Instead of the scene we saw repeatedly in previews and trailers for TTT in which Gandalf is talking to Aragorn about Sauron's fears and Aragorn's role in the future, we got a rather gratuitous scene of Aragorn and Arwen in Rivendell before the departure of the Fellowship, in which Aragorn tries to give back her jewel and tells her to leave him and go to Valinor to stay immortal.  What the hell? Whiplash time -- you mean, that whole scene of them on the bridge in FotR was for nothing, because before the Fellowship even hit the road, Elrond leaned on Aragorn to let his daughter go, and Aragorn, steadfast and loyal lover that he is, caved in to Daddy's wishes without protest? Based on his remark to Éowyn en route to Helm's Deep, that's exactly what he did; the jewel's meaning has been reduced to a reminder of a love he gave up, not the love that spurred him on to conquer evil and win back a throne.  Cripes, maybe the people who said Aragorn was a wuss in the first movie were right after all. If this was meant to increase the sexual tension because someone wanted us to think this could mean that Aragorn would now be more interested in Éowyn since he had given up Arwen... uh-uh, don't buy it. We know the way the story goes. Jackson knows the way the story goes. My dead cat knows the way the story goes. If this was the whole point of that scene, then please, take it out and give us back the talk about Sauron's fear; it made more sense and didn't leave the foul taste of pandering to the critics or the studio execs or even drooling fanboys in my mouth.

Instead of seeing more about the depth of the anger and the difficult choices facing the Ents, we watch them get speedily tricked into beholding the ruin of the forest -- and yes, it was trickery; Pippin lied to Treebeard to get him to go where he wanted -- call it deliberate misdirection if you want, but the intent and result was the same; he didn't say, "Before we go, Treebeard, there's something I'd like you to see, maybe you can explain it to me."  The decimation of the forest was a disaster the Ents supposedly already knew about; otherwise, why did Legolas say there was great anger in the forest? Where did that anger come from? Just ambient rage from the trees, so strong that the Elf can feel it but the Shepherds of the Trees cannot?  No, instead, we got an action scene with the Warg riders. Got nothing against there being Warg riders in the film, but happening as it did when it did, it served absolutely no purpose but to separate Aragorn from the others so that his horse could rescue him, and along the way, Aragorn could see the army of Orcs coming from Isengard (by the way, is this Brego or Hasufel? I heard Hasufel named, but not the much talked-about Brego, and from what we saw, this horse is much smarter and more clever and loyal than Shadowfax, the supposed lord of all horses). So, this army of ten thousand hulking heavily-armed Uruk-hai couldn't have been spotted by someone without the need for an extra action scene that really lent no greater depth to the story, nor to the characters?

Now, this probably makes it sound as if I hated the movie. I didn't. I enjoyed it, but not as much as I enjoyed FotR. And the reasons I didn't enjoy it as much have nothing to do with being a purist, someone who cannot abide change, or is horrifically disappointed that my favorite character was somehow altered or slighted. It's because I myself am a writer, and there were several chunks of what I do not consider to be good writing in this script. Adaptations of a book to any other medium inevitably demand that changes be made, and while I agree with some of the changes that were made to TTT because they served the story as a whole, there are some that to me do not appear to have been made logically, with the overall story in mind. They feel very much as if they were made to cater to tastes for things that had nothing to do with the whole myth that is LotR.

The scene of Elrond trying to persuade Arwen not to give up her immortality rang true because it addressed issues we may not have a chance to see in the compression of the denouement of RotK, the conflicts and bitterness caused by Arwen's love for a mortal and for her father, and the inevitable end of her love for Aragorn. The other flashback/dream scene served only to blur the clarity of the love between Aragorn and Arwen by making it appear that Aragorn had already refused her because of Elrond's demands, to no good purpose.

Faramir attempting to take Frodo back to Minas Tirith also felt suitable to me because while it did not portray him as the sterling opposite of his brother, it showed a human capable of error who sees his mistake before it's too late and nobly does what his brother could not, bringing that part of the temptation theme full circle. And let's face it, given typical audiences, if Faramir had been shown exactly as depicted in the book, some strident people would have complained that his part of the story was too slow, and he was a wuss (as they did with FotR's less assured Aragorn). The change in that section sidestepped this problem before it happened, and also served to compress a bit more of the plot for RotK by introducing Osgiliath and the desperation of the Gondorian forces sooner. But the fight with the Warg riders in Rohan... nope. There was enough urgency behind the flight to Helm's Deep without it, and a simpler method of sizing up the opposition (say, perhaps through scouts, what a novel concept, scouts! The Warg riders had 'em, but apparently the Rohirrim didn't) could have been used without detracting from the build-up of tension. Maybe instead, they could've kept in the scene we saw briefly on the theatrical release DVD extras, in which Elrond is trying to persuade others (presumably Galadriel and Celeborn) that they must place their hope in Men and try to help, or all will be lost. Would've lent dramatic tension by making the audience wonder if they would or wouldn't help, and it would have foreshadowed the appearance of the Elven archers at Helm's Deep, which pretty much came out of left field. Or if they felt the need for more action, perhaps they should've showed how and when and why Théodred was mortally wounded, not merely have him brought to Edoras, dying, without any significant explanation of who he is and what had actually happened to him.

Perhaps for me, what drives this sense of disappointment in those parts is the contrast to the things that were done very right elsewhere. The battle with the Balrog was excellent without being overlong. The appearance and "taming" of Gollum was a triumph not only on the technical end, but also in that he was imbued with such a high degree of realistic emotion, it was easy to feel pity for him, much easier than in the book. The "exorcism" of Théoden worked for me despite its rather unexpected nature because it showed the influence of Saruman as more than mere words, and thus made plain the power he wielded over others who fell prey to him and also emphasized the change in Gandalf, Saruman's victim in FotR who was a victim no longer. The scenes of the Rohirrim arming their old men and youth out of desperation was a magnificent addition that spoke of one of the true horrors of war that is so seldom addressed: how not only do people of all ages suffer, but that those who fight do not go to war without leaving behind people whose hearts are broken by their departure, and the fear they might not return. The Elves honoring the alliance they had made thousands of years before, and afterward falling alongside the Men they had come to help, did not have the feeling of cheapening "the Last Alliance" for me; it played like a somber coda, a gesture of support in a situation they know only too well is beyond all reasonable hope.

There was much in TTT to admire and enjoy. Alas that there were also some things that were less than admirable which might have been better if they had been replaced by things with more direct relevance to the plot and characters as a whole. I won't say that I disliked this movie, because I didn't, nor will I call it a disappointment, because it was not. What I enjoyed, I enjoyed immensely, and that was a goodly portion of the film. But it was not perfect, and it seems sad to me when I can see ways in which it might have been improved that those making the movie seem to have either missed or deliberately discarded.  Nothing is without flaw, but it hurts a little to see obvious ones that might have been avoided in something you love.  But hindsight, as they say, is 20/20, and it's easier to second-guess a work after it's been finished than while it's still in the making.  Middle books are always the most difficult because of their nature as an unfinished bridge, and on the whole, despite the potholes, I would say that Jackson did a good job of constructing a very lovely bridge under nearly impossible circumstances.  Hopefully, the destination that awaits us at its end will be more than worth any small disappointments encountered here in the middle.

After posting this review, I was told by a number of people that I should give TTT a second chance, that it would really grow on me after another viewing.   Shortly after Christmas, I went to see it again, and I've mulled over my reactions to it.  Concerning my three major points of disagreement with the adaptation, I have reached these conclusions:

The Warg Riders scene is still superfluous, like a paragraph in the middle of a chapter that is all that remains after the rest has been cut, its tethers to the whole of the story essentially severed.  However, it does provide an excellent point at which to go to the bathroom, a serious consideration for someone pushing fifty who must drink copious amounts of water for medical reasons.

The pacing and presentation of the scenes with the Ents can really only be improved by the expansion of what already exists, or the addition of extra scenes.  Perhaps we will get this in an extended edition; it would be welcome.

Most significant, however, are the conclusions I reached about the "Aragorn breaking up with Arwen" matter.  Even before my second viewing, I'd realized that the problem I had with this was that it essentially left Aragorn without any clear motive for his actions as the central heroic figure.  He's not interested in winning the Throne of Gondor, he's not doing it for the love of Arwen -- so why did he join the Fellowship?  Because he likes to fight?  What would have plugged this hole, I think, is something they should have done in the first movie:  explained the nature and purposes of the Rangers.  For all we know of them, they are nothing but mercenaries or rogues; all the comments made about them are somehow disparaging.  Viewers do not know that  they really are the last descendants of the Numenoreans, dedicated not only to preserving the line of Kings, but to aiding and protecting the people of Middle-earth.  That would have provided a very clear motive for Aragorn's actions, even with the misdirection of his supposed break-up with Arwen.  But without that, he is a rudderless man, a little too rudderless, I think, for someone who will be king.  Unfortunately, it's too late to fix that now.  But on the whole, I still enjoyed the movie, and suspect I will again in the future.