The Hype of the Rings

With the Fellowship of the Rings just around the corner, the Slashdot Submissions bin is overflowing with stories about the film since it premiered in the UK already for you lucky brits. If you don't mind a little spoilage, here is the guardian's review, the BBC review, the telegraph review, some pictures from the premiere, and one last review. Also, Scifi.com is reporting that the film has already been pirated. The reviews have their nitpicks, but on the whole its looking good. M : LOTR tattoos!

Comments

what about the Hobbit?

[diesel_jackass]

are they going to make a Hobbit movie to go along with them ?

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[domc]

Screw the Hobbit. I want a movie version of the Silmarillion!

domc

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Marcus Brody]

Actually quite an insightful comment.

Why has the Hobbit been ignored for so long, whilst they are making LOTR for the second time?

In contrast to LOTR, the Hobbit is ideal film material. Its short, nice tight storyline, gripping throughout, doesnt lag anywhere, get tired or have dull spots and is a kids classic.

I dont see why they didnt make the Hobbit first as a primer/tester for the LOTR.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[utdpenguin]

"I dont see why they didnt make the Hobbit first as a primer/tester for the LOTR."

Because The Hobbit is a fundamentaly differnet story. It is not the prequel, it is a chidlrens book. It was designed and written as one, and thats what it is.

LOTR is a much more complex, muhc darker and much more involved story. There are LOTR fanatics, but few Hobbit fanatics, although there are the real men, Tolkein Fanatics who study both.

All the same, the Hobbit is not so well loved, adored, fantasized over, obssesed over etc. It is an inferior bok and an inferior story, if onyl relative to the true masterpeice. :)

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[st0rmshad0w]

The Hobbit might have been entire too much of a technical nightmare. Producing Smaug is one thing, but could the battle of five armies been done proper justice?

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

umm...have you seen anything of the trailer I do not thinks that this is a problem with five armies...I think what might happen is if the trilogy is a success is they might go back and do a hobbit movie. I also think that the hobbit is more ingrained in our minds,...Ie the cartoon, that the lord of the rings

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[NewWazoo]

domc said:
Screw the Hobbit. I want a movie version of the Silmarillion!

Heh. I can just see it now: "Hundreds die at movie preview, cause uncertain".

Followed shortly by "Tedium declared weapon of mass destruction by UN"

Brandon

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Malc]

How is the Battle of Five Armies any more difficult to produce than say the siege of Minas Tirith, or the Ents and Huorns battling Saruman's armies, etc?

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[domc]

OK, so it might have to be split up into about 10 movies, but it would be worth it!

domc

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Chris Mattern]

> Why has the Hobbit been ignored for so long,
> whilst they are making LOTR for the second
> time?

Ignored? Rankin-Bass did the Hobbit back in
1977. A travesty, granted, but no worse than
Bakshi's LotR.

Chris Mattern

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Noehre]

The Hobbit was NOT a "children's novel." Tolkien didn't WRITE "children's novels."

He didn't design and write it as one as you so stupidly state.

Man, at least go read some of Tolkien's letter before making an ass of yourself.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[OblongPlatypus]

On the contrary, several of his published works (The Father Christmas Letters, Mr. Bliss, Roverandom) originated as stories told to his children. The Hobbit started, famously, on a blank page on one of his students' examination papers, but he read chapters of it to his children during its development. While it's hard to answer the question "did he intend it as a children's novel?", there's no question that he at least considered it appropriate for children.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[ImaLamer]

Actually as part of my xmas gift to my mom we are going to go see that.

We used to read 'The Hobbit' [parts] everynight before I went to bed.

When you are a kid, the book makes perfect sense. I've always loved that story but never found the time to read these books.

So I will be completely suprised.

{{ In the Hobbit I loved the blind lizard thing in the cave.. my favorite }}

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[CmdrSanity]

I have to give you credit, this was the funniest thing I've read all day. Tragically, it can be applied to most modern fantasy. Can you imagine if they tried to make the Wheel of Time series into a movie? Ugh. I'll take the lethal injection instead.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Tarlyn]

There is a simple reason why they didn't make the Hobbit first.

They don't own the movie rights to it. Tolkien sold the movie rights to LOTR at a time when he was having some financial problems, but he never sold the rights to the Hobbit.

And with articles like this, I don't think the Tolkien estate has any intentions of selling those rights either.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[zhrike]

As to (The Hobbit !Children's tale)

Perhaps Tolkien stated so in his letters, but the proof is in the pudding, as it were, and The Hobbit is a children's tale.

It is much less complex and lighter in tone. The geography and history are slightly inconsistent with his published histories. It has not the _depth_ of LOTR. That can be seen by any observer who I guess has not the aspect of an ass.

(a proud ass)

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[BitchAss]

They did make an animated movie of the Hobbit back in the '70s. I remember watching it when I was a kid.

I wonder who LOTR (the movie) will explain how Bilbo got the ring. I hope they don't gloss over that. To me, that is an integral part of the story - it makes it more complete. The old LOTR did a short blurb at the beginning to explain how Frodo got the ring. Maybe this version will do the same.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Marcus Brody]

They don't own the movie rights to it.

Oh yes they do:

"New Line picked-up the rights to `Lord of the Rings` and Tolkien's other seminal classic `The Hobbit` from Miramax Films."

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[st0rmshad0w]

From the standpoint of necessary animation, hell yeah. One army was of eagles, and another rode wargs or wolves. Thats insanely nore difficult to deal with than a seige by humanoids or beings such as ents. Any shot near enough to show detail would require a great amount of artificially generated creatures and effects. The average human can be costumed into a fine orc, but not a wolf or eagle.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Marcus Brody]

OMFG check out the picture

Thats not a Hobbit, thats a......

.....thats a muther fucking cabbage patch kid

looks more like a hobbit than Elijah Wood though!

The user ratings are already pouring in on imdb, by the way. And its looking good. Very good.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[filbo]

I recently bought The Hobbit on DVD. It's really not all that bad, considering how much they compressed it.

I think a good live action version of The Hobbit would be cool.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Tolkien stated so in his letters, but the proof is in the pudding, as it were, and The Hobbit is a children's tale.

The proof is not in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Old Wolf]

(This applies to the Evening Standard reviewer too): If you don't want to see fantasy films, don't go to them !!!!

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Paelon]

I'm pretty certain I read an interview with Peter Jackson the pretty much said he wouldn't be doing the hobbit, although I don't have a URL handy.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[ethereal]

It was a children's novel - note the parenthetical asides that he writes in The Hobbit that he doesn't use in the other books. IIRC I read somewhere that he used the asides because he felt it would make the story work better for kids, but then got away from that for the other books because he felt it was too distracting from the story.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[2moon2]

Over a year ago I read (somewhere, can't recall) that the producers had decided to see how the film trilogy goes. If it does well, they'll make a movie of The Hobbit.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[supruzr]

Because The Hobbit is a fundamentaly differnet story. It is not the prequel, it is a chidlrens book. It was designed and written as one, and thats what it is.

Just because the story isn't up to your standards doesn't mean it's a children's book. I doubt many children would read a book so long, without some sort of my-age character constantly getting into R. L. Stine-esque situations. Children read utter crap, and The Hobbit isn't utter crap. But I digress.

There's background information in The Hobbit that's necessary to understand the LOTR universe. Gandalf does (or should I say Tolkien LETS Gandalf do) a decent job recapping the whole Bilbo got the ring from Gollum part of the story... but anyone remember the part of Fellowship where Frodo, Aragorn, and crew find the petrified trolls? If you haven't read The Hobbit, you'd have NO idea what that's about. I'm not saying that's a particularly important part of the story, but little things like that complete the tale of Middle Earth. I'd much rather have a movie that covers the important background info, sort of a combination Hobbit/Silmarillion story. Is there going to be enough background story in the Fellowship movie so that everyone understands Saruman's motivations? His loyalties? What about the whole driving Sauron from Mirkwood thing? The crafting of the rings? What does it mean to be an Istari/Maiar/Valar? What is this long-dead empire that Aragorn intends to revive? What's the deal with Sauron? It might be nice to understand why he's doing what he's doing. Not just looking for the ring, but the whole deal. Why he's trying to destroy every damn thing.

They really should have released a good prequel before they did the LOTR movies. Both to test the waters, and to appease all the sticklers for accuracy. Plus it would have been another chance to show off all the neat effects, scenery, and sell more merchandise. Why did they let this opportunity pass them?

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Seanasy]

I've heard that the first ten minutes of LOTR takes a bit front the Silmarillion and the Hobbit to explain the Ring. Sounds a lot like the beginning of the animated LOTR.

Also, to the original point, I think the film rights to The Hobbit are owned by someone else.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughter is reading the Hobbit. I haven't read it in years, but I've reread LOTR several times. When I went back and read the Hobbit, I was surprised at how complex and archaic the language in it is compared to LOTR.

I'm not saying that it was or wasn't written as a children's book.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[gamgee5273]

Hmmm...I couldn't disagree more. The Hobbit is a children's story, agreed, but it is a prelude of things to come in The Lord of the Rings. For example, the LOTR we know and love would be a different book without its predecessor. Bilbo, the dwarfs (or is it dwarves...I can never remember Tolkien's disclaimer in the front of Hobbit correctly...), Gandalf, Gollum, and much more of Middle-earth were first fleshed-out in Hobbit. If a reader were to pick up LOTR without reading Hobbit I suspect that they would have a difficult time orienting themselves into their surroundings. I just re-read all four books last year and was very happy and satisfied to see how all four still stand up in an adult reader's mind and still complement each other.

I would argue that, while Tolkien probably didn't plan it, the four books help draw the reader into an unwilling adventure, much like Gandalf had to with Bilbo. Going from a children's book - with Bilbo's much less severe adventure - preps you for the detailed and difficult adventure Frodo must face. Children's books - good children's books - are often marked by a quality that makes them good reading for all ages. Thus, children's books by Dr. Suess, J.K. Rowling, Tolkien, etc. are still readable and enjoyable by adults. It's the same impulse that allows many Disney and Pixar movies (and even Sesame Street - remember H. Ross Parrot?) to be enjoyed by parents and their children, while Barney or The Teletubbies don't exist on that level and aren't designed to elicit emotion from parents while entertaining them, too.

I think it is safe to say that Tolkien realized this when writing LOTR and realized that he had characters and a story that were strong in the first book, and that allowed him to build upon that and create a more "adult" book many years later for the readers of the "children's" book of years past.

Basically, what I'm saying, is that the two go hand-in-hand, The Hobbit and LOTR. Just because one was written for children doesn't mean that it doesn't have a major part in the groundwork and preparation of the other.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but horses look like giraffes on film so we use cows and paint 'em brown. We dip hamsters in honey and roll 'em in the dirt them throw them up. On film they look like eagles.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[awaterl]

Which aspects of the geography and history of "The Hobbit" are inconsistent with his other works?

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[br0ck]

Well.. NBC purchased the rights from Robert Jordan for a miniseries of book one, The Eye of the World. Luckily, it doesn't look like anything will come of it. This book was soo long and boring! I greatly preferred the Book-A-Minute version.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[geekoid]

childrens does not equal inferiour, just different.
that Hobbit is just Fun. The reason for doing LoTR is doing it. If he does the Hobbit, and it fail, do you think we would ever see LoTR? And if it was successfull, do you think they would have used the same director do LoTR? or do you think they would get a 'Name' director?
When LoTR is a huge success, I hope they'll do a hobbit. It could be a nice fun movie.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[geekoid]

If the movie house make a few 100million of LoTR, and they even think they can make 1/3 of that, I bet they'll offer him a lot of money to do it., and thet he'll take it. Kind of foolish not to.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[geekoid]

since the Hobbit was first, everything would be inconsistent with it, not visa-verse.
but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

oh, and its, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[fjordboy]

I assume that for some time there will be no live action version of the hobbit. If there was, I figure it would probably look fairly stupid. Unless there is someone with some great concepts and CGI work, I think a talking dragon would look fairly ridiculus. The book is not a comedy, but I think any live action versions of the hobbit would end up looking like a comedy. The book itself is on a whole different wavelength than the rest...it isn't nearly as dark or serious as FoTR, TT, RoTK etc. It _could_ be done, but I don't think it could be done in a series with the others. I think it would have to be a standalone movie.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[rhombic]

What about a silmarilion miniseries? If you had a budget of >$1billion, you might be able to pull something decent off.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[lunatik17]

I think a talking dragon would look fairly ridiculus.

Actually, they've already done that in Dragonheart, and it looked pretty good. It's been years since then so they could do an even better job now.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Mater_Tenebrarum]

There is a play based on the The Hobbit. Perhaps the estate thought a film would compete with it.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[nalfeshnee]

"Thus, children's books by Dr. Suess, J.K. Rowling, Tolkien, etc. are still readable and enjoyable by adults."

Please don't mention the lame 'fantasy-book-by-numbers' authoress in the same breath as greats like Seuss and Tolkein.

Thankyou.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[TexNex]

I happen to diagree. While it wasn't perfectly true to the story the R&B production did have the feel of the book and effectivly transmited that feeling to the viewer. The Hobbit was a childrens story and the movie handeled it as such with just enough kick to make it interesting for adults to watch as well. If nothing it got many, myself included, interested in Tolkiens works and fantasy in general.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Grab]

But much of The Hobbit _is_ comedy. Bilbo's the resident clown, the dwarfs grumble and fight, Gandalf makes fun of everyone, and Bilbo and Smaug do a great double-act. Sure, there's plenty that's much darker as well, but there's a good deal of comedy in there. And the only time the dragon has to speak is when he's sparring with Bilbo, and that's funny enough. After that Smaug doesn't speak, he just whales on the mountain above the party and then on the village, and there's surely no problems getting an aggressive dragon animated.

You're right though, it would be a different movie, not part of the series. HP is basically designed for kids from 7-8 or so; LotR (from the look of it) will be 11+. I think The Hobbit would be more for the Harry Potter film's target age than the LotR group.

Grab.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[blane.bramble]

Just because the story isn't up to your standards doesn't mean it's a children's book. I doubt many children would read a book so long

Just because a book was not writted for children to read does not mean that the story was not intended for children. IMHO The Hobbit is a story to be read to children, as I am doing to my daughter at the moment. Far too difficult for her to read (no pictures!), but she enjoys being read to, as well as reading.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[zhrike]

Heh heh. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Happy?

The Hobbit was published first, however it draws on the same history that has been the backdrop in Tolkien's tales. I am not sure offhand, but I believe that LOTR and the histories that became The Silmarillion were written prior to the publishing of the Hobbit.

Further, as that history is the backdrop, and a selection of his other pre- Books of Lost Tales publishing are consistent with the material, I say again: The Hobbit is inconsistent with the rest.

It is still a very enjoyable story.

Oh, and it's "vice versa."

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Somebody's a little bitter this morning. Rowling's books may not be High English Literature, but they are well-assembled and enjoyable to read. She has reused the "surprise villian" theme, but has managed to pull it off differently each time. My family read them out loud each night and had a terrific time.

I suggest you lighten up and have a Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Bean. It's not earwax flavored .... I promise }:)

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[domc]

Hey! What the hell is so goddamn funny about that -- I was being serious!

Well, I guess the visual imagery of screwing a hobbit could be a bit funny.

domc

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[gamgee5273]

Actually, Rowling a damn fine author (there is no such thing as an "authoress," son). I would take Rowling over most of the people who get published in the F&SF or Children's or "Lit" categories anyday.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bite your tongue. The Hobbit inferior?

The Hobbit is a perfect precursor to LOTR and is not just a "children's story". I have read it and LOTR regularly since I first discovered them. LOTR is nothing without Bilbo's adventure and his part in the One Ring, I consider them to be all part of one and the same story.

The really good old stories never end just the characters play their parts and pass out of the telling...

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[utdpenguin]

The Hobbit is certainly up to my standards. It is one of my favorite books. But I dont confuse its level of depth or intesity with that of LOTR>

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[TexNex]

Good lord man..what are you talking about. Are you saying Glen Yarbrough can't sing? The man put folk in Folk Music and I can't think of another person as qualified to put sone to Tolkien's works.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[fjordboy]

exactly. It could be done, but not in the same way that the others would be done. I don't think audiences would appreciate the hobbit nearly as much as the others.

And on your local television station...

[nigelc]

Sci-Fi channel is also running a one hour "Making of LOTR" program which is really quite good. I think that Peter Jackson has "got it", although I'm waiting in dubious anticipation for the lists of "All the things that suck about this movie". A whole new generation of drooling fanboys lurks.

It opens next Wednesday -- wanna try to /. a movie theatre???

Re:And on your local television station...

[Black Parrot]

> I think that Peter Jackson has "got it", although I'm waiting in dubious anticipation for the lists of "All the things that suck about this movie".

From my limited exposure to the trailers, the impression I get is that it's strangely lacking in "atmosphere". Kind of like a made-for-TV movie.

Re:And on your local television station...

[MrAl]

That's the opposite of nearly every review I've seen of the movie. Nearly everyone states that for the three hours you're in the movie theatre you walk away feeling you were in Middle-Earth instead.

Re:And on your local television station...

[ptomblin]

From my limited exposure to the trailers

One thing you have to remember about trailers is that they come out before the film has finished post production. So they may have quite a different look and feel from the real movie, as atmospheric effects and colour balance is tweaked in post production.

Re:And on your local television station...

[ptomblin]

Sci-Fi channel is also running a one hour "Making of LOTR" program

I watched that last night. I was wondering if anybody knows why they pixel-blurred out every breast pocket, sleeve, t-shirt and hat where there was probably a LotR logo?

Re:And on your local television station...

[ImaLamer]

wanna try to /. a movie theatre???

I've already tried to reserve tickets via moviefone.com and they are all sold out for the times listed.

There will be more times [in my area] but the other nerds got to them first.

I see this movie being the next Star Wars, but with out the fanboys... just geeks [like us]

Re:And on your local television station...

[jheinen]

Watch the "Making Of" show. To make Hobbiton feel like a real place that has been lived in for hundreds of years, they actually built it over a year before filming, and planted and tended the gardens so they would have a chance to grow and make everything look "lived in". I was astounded at the detail of Hobbiton. They've recreated the whole place and it looks *exactly* as I have always pictured it.

I also understand that the Hobbiton set is still there and is being turned into a theme park where you can actually rent out rooms in the hobbit holes.

Re:And on your local television station...

[DESADE]

I also understand that the Hobbiton set is still there and is being turned into a theme park where you can actually rent out rooms in the hobbit holes

I'm afraid that's not the case. The farmer who owned the land wanted it left intact with the facades and everything else, but Jackson/Newline took packed it all up and everything is sitting in storage somewhere.

Also, to settle the Hobbit question, the rights for The Hobbit are not the same as the Hobbit and a recent interview with Jackson revealed that it may be possible to obtain them, but it'ts a legal and finalcial mess. Too many hands in the pot kind of thing. Still, if the LOTR is as much of a hit as I think it will be, I can't imagine them not doing The Hobbit.

Re:And on your local television station...

[Old Wolf]

Actually it isn't; the farmer who owns the land is quite pissed off at all the people coming to his farm and trying to trespass. The set has been dismantled. However, they are planning to recreate all the sets at various other locations, for the purpose you mentioned.

Re:And on your local television station...

[lunatik17]

Funny thing is, they were blurring out the logo on Jackson's jacket but they cut back to him once and forgot to blur it. Just some company's name. I really don't understand why they blurred those out either.

Glasses At BK

[ackthpt]

I saw an ad for collectors glasses at Burger King.

This sort of thing often drags some of the enjoyment out of these films. Sell. Sell. Sell. I guess, someone's gotta come up with crap for eBay and Flea Markets.

Re:Glasses At BK

[don_carnage]

Weird...I posted the exact same sentiments at the exact same time. Too strange.

Re:Glasses At BK

[xinit]

I'm sure that those glasses looked like a good idea on paper, but come on, just how crappy looking a product to use to promote a film... honestly.

Re:Glasses At BK

[Anonymous Coward]

Burger King in this part of Canada is distributing AOL cd's with some LOTR labelling thrown on the disc....

Have a nice collection of 90-100 of them so far.

Re:Glasses At BK

[ergo98]

This sort of thing often drags some of the enjoyment out of these films. Sell. Sell. Sell.

How does it drag the enjoyment out of the film? Seriously this sounds like the same sort of bizarre mentality that likes music until it's "too popular": Losing enjoyment because Burger King is hawking their warez is no different than getting excited because Burger King is hawking their warez. Really I couldn't care less what Burger King is doing (having said that: I have yet to see a Burger King commercial, and I'd attribute that to limited watching of TV during the Saturday morning childrens period when they tend to play that. Likewise I haven't seen Ronald McDonald in an awfully long time, though rumor has it that he is still used. Now you DO have a point when a movie is intentionally made to be converted into action figure form (see "Jar Jar Binks" or whatever for a great example), dragging down the whole concept from the origin.

Re:Glasses At BK

[Anonymous Coward]

Burger King in this part of Canada is distributing AOL cd's with some LOTR labelling thrown on the disc....

Have a nice collection of 90-100 of them so far.


Dude, you're going to be dead in about 3 weeks eating that much BK...

Re:Glasses At BK

[Anonymous Coward]

I was planning on going to see the movie, but then I saw a commercial for Lord of the Rings action figures, with pre-teens playing with them. To me, this indicates this will be a movie made for children. I was hoping for something better.

Re:Glasses At BK

[ImaLamer]

At least it isn't McDonalds.

But being that I own stock in Wendy's I wish we were selling them.

Re:Glasses At BK

[ImaLamer]

Oh, I've seen these commercials...

"They're not behold,
they're to be-held"

I'm going to kill myself next time I see that.

The glasses don't bother me, it's the commercial. When BK buys commercials, they only buy them on one show or networks that I like and plays them on every break.

Re:Glasses At BK

[ackthpt]

How does it drag the enjoyment out of the film?

Making a merchandising bonaza out of a film invariably distorts perception of what the film was about, unless, of course it's a film (or cartoon series) engineered for that purpose.

E.T. will be back in theaters with gussied up special effects and footage put in which was originally cut. Care to guess which candy, softdrink, etc. will be going great guns with it?

Re:Glasses At BK

[fjordboy]

they actually aren't that crappy looking. They are really nice looking frosted glasses (thick too, perfect to chill and add some Frozen Run Birch Beer). They are big too, they hold probably a pint or so of liquid (the base is also holds liquid) The light up portion can be pulled off (I admit, the light up portion does make it look a little tacky, but it isn't all that obtrusive) leaving you with a really nice collectable cup. Also, pulling apart the ligh-up base leaves you with two nice high-intensity red LEDs to play with. They aren't all that bad. I really like them.

Re:Glasses At BK

[TexNex]

I agree that without the merchandise we probably wouldn't get to see the movies but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Tolkien's original objective was to give the English as sense of history that he believed they had lost. All of this crass commercialism sullies the purpose of his works.

Re:Glasses At BK

[Grab]

You own stock in Wendy's?! Now _there's_ a company busy screwing its customers.

I always thought Terry Pratchett had imagined the dreadful quality of Cut-My-Own-Throat Dibbler's merchanise. Then I ate at Wendy's, and realised that Pratchett had, if anything, understated the how bad it was...

Grab.

Pirated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the download? :P

Really though, unless the VHS comes in normal view and the DL is a good copy with letterbox I will probably buy this one. I already told my friend that does that to not give me a copy until I see it in the theatre.

NR

Pirated version

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how the pirated version was made. Perhaps someone managed to sneak a video camera into a test audience screening?

Sellout...

[don_carnage]

I'm just sick of seeing those commercials for the light-up goblets; it cheapens the film before it's even out. Not that it will prevent me from seeing it, but GEESH people give it a break. Same goes for all the lame Shrek commercials. I really liked that movie, but hate the fact that they sold out to a fast-food chain.

Re:Sellout...

[Black Parrot]

> I'm just sick of seeing those commercials for the light-up goblets; it cheapens the film before it's even out.

<cynical>Yeah, but if they wait until after it's out they'll miss the Christmas action-figure rush.</cynical>

Re:Sellout...

[Fatal0E]

I think Space Balls had one of the more astute observations when it comes to movies...

it was the scene where Bill Pullman meets Yogurt in the underground desert complex and he's showing off all the SpaceBalls stuff..."Moychendising, Moychendising, Moychendising!"

so expect LOTR The Toilet Paper, LOTR The bedsheets, LOTR The Crayon Set and best of all, LOTR The Flame Thrower (the kids love this one).

Re:Sellout...

[nyri]

I really liked that movie, but hate the fact that they sold out to a fast-food chain.

Don't be so mad.
As you know film maker have to get their pay roll and if little kids feel that they can get more out of the film when playing with some toys, while eating their madatory fast-food after the film, why not give them their fun?

-- Jari Mustonen

Re:Sellout...

[rm-r]

Vote with your wallet then my man! I also hate this stuff, and there's no way I won't go see the film- but I'm not going to eat at McD's/BK (not hard) or buy any of the other useless tat (even easier- although I might end up with some misguided presents this christmas) They only do it because it makes them money, and it'll only stop when people by so little of the rubbish that they won't shell out for licensing fees.

Re:Sellout...

[aron_wallaker]

I'm actually a bit the opposite - I see the BK commercials and think "Man, I'd love to have a set of those tacky plastic toys on my desk at work".....my problem is that even thinking about eating at BK makes my stomach crawl. Why couldn't they have sold out to Subway instead ?

OT:In the US, did BK have an AOL/LOTR tie-in ? A non-techy friend of mine was at BK and brought me back a CD-ROM because it was a 'LOTR Trivia Challenge'.....turns out it's an AOL signup disc and the trivia challenge is on AOL.

AOL & Burger King, now that's an unholy alliance. :)

Re:Sellout...

[ichimunki]

Well, I had LOTR calendars several years as a boy, but frankly I find the Burger King tie-in disgusting. J.K. Rowling (author of Harry Potter, for anyone who is a little slow) refused the fast food stuff. Good for her! Only wish Tolkien's estate would have had the same level of sense.

Re:Sellout...

[arglesnaf]

The tolkien estate had nothing to do with it. Infact, they do not even wish to be associated with the movie. See articles on www.theonering.net

Re:Sellout...

[Che Guevarra]

I had the Empire Strikes Back sheets AND curtains AND wallpaper (only the trim) in my bedroom when I was a kid. They were a perfect compliment to the shelves and shelves of X-wings and T-fighters. I LOVED THE MERCHANDISE! Fabulous time in my life, great memories.

Re:Sellout...

[Watts Martin]

While I cringe every time I see the Burger King commercials, too, it's my understanding that financially New Line didn't have much of a choice but to get every tie-in they could manage. They're a relatively small studio and this is literally a "bet the company" production for them. Given that they've already spent most of the money making the second two films, they're going to still be in the red even if the first film does Harry Potter-like business. Basically, plastering Frodo's face on as many stupid things as they can manage isn't an act of "synergy" as much as an effort to dig out of debt as quickly as they can manage.

Re:Sellout...

[pi radians]

I actually saw an interview with Peter Jackson where he was asked about all of the merchandise. Basically he said that a movie like this wouldn't even be made if not for all of that. Don't get mad at the movie, the producers or directors for this crap. It's society and industry (which are closely tied) that are to blame. Now what are you going to do about it grump?

Re:Sellout...

[Captain Nitpick]

I think Space Balls had one of the more astute observations when it comes to movies...

Ê

it was the scene where Bill Pullman meets Yogurt in the underground desert complex and he's showing off all the SpaceBalls stuff..."Moychendising, Moychendising, Moychendising!"

I'm still waiting for Spaceballs 2: The Search For More Money

Re:Sellout...

[neonstz]

Well, I can't wait for LOTR The Book.

Re:Sellout...

[Sloppy]

One thing I have noticed is that if you:

1. Fast forward through TV commercials
2. Eat at real locally-owned restaurants instead of fast food chains

You can very quickly become oblivious to hype and cheesy merchandising. I have seen very little LotR crap, even though I know that it must be out there somewhere. Likewise, I know next-to-nothing about what movies are currently out. I only know about LotR because I've been intentionally following it and because I read Slashdot.

You'de be surprised how few brainwash channels there actually are between the commercial mass media and people, and how easily they are blocked.

Re:Sellout...

[junkgrep]

They could at least have tried to guarantee that the content of the adds wouldn't be so embarrassingly stupid. Burger King actually seems to think that anyone finds a pun based on the word "BEHOLD" to be funny! Get it: it's like, Old English! Tolkien was English! EAT BURGERS FATTIES!!!!

And the bunch of "warriors" hacking at each other in the woods is just as dumb. Oh look, french fries! Let's stop massacring each other to enjoy some mechanically separated chicken bits!

Re:Sellout...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Eat at real locally-owned restaurants instead of fast food chains

I agree completely. I much prefer to go to a nearby small local restaurant, where I can be away from the unnecessary hype of the Lord of the Rings movie...

Except, of course, that the restaurant in question is named "Butterbur's"...(I kid you not!)

Re:Sellout...

[Anonymous Coward]

That scene was a specific dig at Star Wars

It was almost certainly prompted by the deal Mel Brooks cut with George Lucas: to be allowed to spoof Star Wars without getting hassled he had to agree not to have any Spaceballs merchandise. Thus showing what part of Star Wars Lucas really cares about.

Re:Sellout...

[gamgee5273]

It's New Line that has the merchandising rights for the movie, therefore you won't see any Tolkien drawn hobbits, for example.

Re:Sellout...

[jasontheking]

Out of order ?!

Fuck! Even in the future nothing works.

Re:Sellout...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the reminder! I keep meaning to pick some up.

Re:Sellout...

[aphrael]

I'm not sure that new line --- or aol time warner, new line's parent --- had much choice in this case.

The movies cosst an estimated $300 million to produce, plus another $100 million or so to advertise, promote, and distribute the first film. That's an enormous amount of money New Line has put on the line --- and while you and I are certain that they'll make their money back, the studio execs are understandably nervous. So they look for ways to recoup some of the money they put up front, and to hedge their risk.

One of the ways they have done that is by requiring international distributors to buy the rights to all three films based on the first one alone. (I've heard unconfirmed rumours they are doing the same for movie theatres, as well). This brought in a fair amount of money. Another way they are hedging their risk is by selling tie-in rights (burger king, for example) for cheap commercial crap related to the film --- this gets other companies to underwrite part of the cost of producing the film, and makes them assume some of the financial risk of failure.

From what i can figure out, New Line has spread about 60-70% of the risk out among other entitities and is only, up front, risking ~130-150 million itself. Which is good for New Line; i'm not sure the AOL execs would have approved the project if they hadn't distributed the costs that broadly. But note: since the profits (if any) from the first film will be plowed into distribution and marketing costs on the second, unless FOTR is as big as Star Wars was, New Line probably won't turn a profit until after the release of the second film, even with this distribution of costs and risk. No wonder they're marketing the hell out of it.

Harry Potter

[DOsinga]

So, will it beat Harry Potter?

Re:Harry Potter

[jodonn]

Here's an article talking about that. All signs point to yes.

Re:Harry Potter

[Black Parrot]

> So, will it beat Harry Potter?

Only if they successfully market it as a kiddie movie. Adults who have read LOTR will see it in droves, but kiddie movies have the advantage that the adults have to go along anyway when they take the kids.

The despised TV actionware/gobletware commercials seem to imply that they are trying to market it to the kiddie audience, though.

Re:Harry Potter

[zzyzx]

Probably not. The one theme that gets said over and over again is that it's not for kids. If parents don't let their pre-teen children in to see it, that will be a major blow to the box office. I think Harry Potter will get another revenue upswing over the Xmas break. Since it played at more theatres, was shorter (meaning more showings), and had no real competition in its first month, it got off to a much better start than FOTR will. The only way that it can catch up will be to make lots of money for many months, but Star Wars comes out in May and that will be another hit. I expect it to do well at the box office and much better than HP critically, but worse at the box office.

Re:Harry Potter

[Bill_Mische]

I'd doubt it given the queues for Harry Potter at my local cinema. PLUS my daughter's school is running trips to see it.

My wife and I are short-term foster carers with 3 kids of our own, and fluctuating population of teenagers. As of today we have a 7 living at home - one 16 , two 15, one 14, one 13, one 10 and one 3. What is interesting is that all of the kids want to see both films but the teenagers are keener on seeing LOTR and the little ones keener on seeing HP.

Re:Harry Potter

[Anonymous Coward]

So, will it beat Harry Potter?

Dunno, I haven't downloaded it yet. The Harry Potter pirate version is very good, I wonder how they did that. Somebody who runs a projection booth, I bet.

That lasted a long time...

[L41N14L]

"All members of the cast have got a tattoo. When we had it done in a tattoo parlor in Wellington, New Zealand, we all swore never to tell anyone,' he told Reuters Television

What part of "swore never to tell anyone" did he not understand?

Re:That lasted a long time...

[OblongPlatypus]

They've been telling people for a while; it was mentioned in this month's (print) issue of Empire Magazine as well. Maybe what they swore never to tell was where on their bodies the tattoos are located (which he refused revealing to Reuters)? On the other hand, who would want to think about tattoos in funny places on old british actors?

Re:That lasted a long time...

[JimPooley]

Well, Sean Bean has caused directors enough problems with his "Blades Forever" (or is it "Forever Blades" - "Blades" being the nickname of Sheffield United Football Club - as Sheffield has a history of knifemaking) tattoo having to be covered up when in historical dramas ("Sharpe" for example).
Maybe they had them done on their backsides so they wouldn't show in most things....!

Re:That lasted a long time...

[L41N14L]

I'd have thought that a film called "Sharpe" wouldn't mind a blades tattoo.

Re:That lasted a long time...

[xinit]

Well, I think that they swore never to tell what the tattoo's image was. Imagine if the secret got out that they all had huge 12" pink unicorns inked onto their backs for the rest of their lives. I mean, the shame....

Re:That lasted a long time...

[OblongPlatypus]

Read this.

Re:That lasted a long time...

[Alex]

I think the problem was that Sharpe was set in the Napoleonic period (ending c 1815) and Sheffield United FC aka "The Blades" have only existed since 1889.

Alex

Re:That lasted a long time...

[Incon]

What part of "swore never to tell anyone" did he not understand?

Never

Re:That lasted a long time...

[Roj]

Interesting, a friend of mine was one of the many extras and he doesn't have any tattoos

Corrected URL

[blamanj]

Actually, the text of the Guardian review is here.

Re:Corrected URL

[gowen]

Thats not the usual Guardian critic, either, just one of their media weenies. They'll certainly have a much less superficial review (probably by resident film critic Peter Bradshaw) in Friday's edition. I'd check back later.

Re:Corrected URL

[gowen]

And lo, Bradshaw did review it, and he didn't like it. (mind you I don't recall a single film he has liked that wasn't from Iran)

pirates

[osiris]

No shit its been pirated already. im sure ive seen some releases of it floating about the divx/vcd trading groups for at least a week. i mean, this has got to be one of the biggest films for a long time, its hot stuff to get your hands on.

some of these people have links right in the film industry and can easily get films before they are released. just dont count on dvd quality though.

so its no suprise that people are flogging copies of it already. its probably been running rampant through south east asia for weeks. i know when i lived there it wasnt hard to get movies on vcd before they were released.

cant wait to see this movie in the cinema though :) i wouldnt watch a crappy copy of it.

Re:pirates

[imehler]

Yea, I was on Slashdot yesterday (Tuesday, dec. 11) when I saw the part about Scifi saying the film had already been pirated, I went on the Gnutella network to look for it and sure enough, there it was. Here's the cool part, I also found a copy of The Two Towers in DivX, around 740 MB, cool (yes, it was the new as-yet-unreleased-version and not an old one (I think another version was made back in 1978)).

I really want to see this movie....

[ManualCrank Angst]

...because I'd like to know what all the fuss is about. You see, I've never read the books. I've read "The Hobbit", but try as I might I was never able to get even 100 pages into LotR. It just seemed to drag on and on with no action, just a bunch of geneologies and crap about hobbit-holes.

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[kenthorvath]

After you get past all of that "crap" the story really takes off. Patience, Young Skywalker...

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[zzyzx]

LotR seems to be one of those things that you get completely or you don't at all. I'm in the latter group I'm afraid. I've been struggling with FotR all this month, and am about to give up on it.

It's great that Tolkein made this elaborate history and stuff, but I really wish the characters could talk about something OTHER than it. I don't get any sense of what any of these characters would be doing if the ring had never appeared.

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[DuckDodgers]

First of all, The Lord of the Rings Starts really, really slowly and then travels at a fairly fast pace from halfway through the first book and onward. I don't blame you for not slogging through. The only reason I finished the Fellowship of the Ring on the first try was the use of extensive skimming.

In general, I think the hype is overrated... the books are very good, but not that good.

But - scholars correct me if I'm wrong - he seems to have really kicked off the fantasy novel. A huge number of current fantasy bestsellers are simply loaded with elements borrowed from him.

Of course, he in turn took his ideas from mythology and past authors too. I wouldn't quite label him the father of modern fantasy, but he's certainly a tremendous influence.

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[Buck2]

Don't you think they would be living their lives regular-style? Hobbits like to live in holes, dwarves mines, and humans everywhere they can. What more is there to tell? If there were a different adventure to tell, it would be a different story about Middle Earth, neh?

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[xinit]

There needs to be a support group for the couple hundred of us who didn't "GET" LotR...

I was only recently able to get through The Hobbit... I can't even imagine reading the Rings series. I tried them in junior high, but couldn't deal with them.

I also am not a big Star Trek fan. I only manage to survive geek gatherings by relying on my knowledge of Monty Python to change the subject anytime LotR or ST come up...

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[zzyzx]

So basically Hobbits like to live in holes and that's all that defines the character of Frodo outside of this quest? They walk for about 300 pages in the beginning of FotR. You'd think at some point, they'd get to talking. Dialogue doesn't seem to be Tolkein's strong point though.

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god....there ARE other normal people out there. I never got into the fantasy thing. I will admit to reading (and seeing the movie) Harry Potter. I could never bring myself to watching an episode of Star Trek and god forbid if I ever watch Japanimation crap.

Re:I really want to see this movie....

[Buck2]

What are you getting at? There is an excellent description of the entire hobbit culture and it is trivially easy to imagine how their lives would have gone on uninterrupted.

What else should they have talked about? US Politics? I don't see your point.

Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Hairy_Potter]

Please, let us geeks do one thing right, for once, and respect the memory of J.R.R Tolkien and his family and pay to see this movie, instead of rushing off to edonkey, KaZaa, or alt.binaries.erotica.furry-feet to download a crappy handheld Sonycam divx of the film.

Please, geeks, leave your computer, go to a theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. Who knows, you may even like meeting other people!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Fatal0E]

This might be a shot in the dark but I think you use all those above services to d/l music to your hearts content. If not you who posted that comment then I'm sure there's someone out there on /. that feels the same way about the stealing movies and yet is prob downloading the latest Pink album for his g/f.

As for me, if I get the inclination to d/l the movie I will. Just as if I get the inclination to d/l the latest Pink album for my g/f I'll do that too. The RIAA/MPAA can suck my ass if they think I dont feel cheated for having to pay $10 to see a POS movie or $20 for its sound track. I mean, it's fuckin cheaper to sit in the bleachers of Yankee Stadium then it is to see a movie these days. Lets see who wins this mexican standoff, the consumer or the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[EFGearman]

Actually, with the exception of one of his grandchildren, Tolkien's family pretty much refused to have anything to do with the movie. Their position was that it could not be done properly without losing too much of what made it great.

EFGearman
--

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[kenthorvath]

I will respect J.R.R's memory and to the producers and actors and (almost) everyone else who made this movie possible and deserves to profit from it, but I do not believe even for one minute that his family should own the rights to his work after his death. *Let the flaming begin*...

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[GTRacer]

Funny you should mention real-life theaters...

There's a small crew where I work that burns all kinds of movies and swaps 'em. I've watched a few, but for me there's nothing like sitting third row center at an AMC Torus screen with the THX thumpin'.

My wife and I average 2 movies per month and almost all of those are full-price Friday evening shows. And you know what? I don't care. I get that much value out of the sensory and crowd experience. Obviously, YMMV.

GTRacer
- I hate storm drains

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, but your logic is flawed in one respect.

Tolkein sold the movie rights years ago. His heirs aren't getting a dime for this movie.

-- Nick

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Tassach]

Well, Christopher Tolkien has done a fantastic job of cleaning up his father's manuscripts and notes and putting them out in a readable form. He deserves to profit from his labors.

That little caveat aside, I have to agree with the general sentement that copyright law has gotten well out of control and far exceeds it's historical basis. As it says in the US Constitution, the law should secure exclusive rights for the author or inventer FOR A LIMITED TIME.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Ed_Moyse]

I think you'll find the family aren't getting a penny: Tolkien sold the film rights to pay off a mortgage.

Onto your wider point: I think the system we have, with copyright expiring after a while, is the correct system: that way the artist knows his immediate family profit from his work and not faceless corporations.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Ed_Moyse]

Is the US Constitution strictly relevant to a book by a British author?

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[yerricde]

Is the US Constitution strictly relevant to a book by a British author?

Yes. The Berne Convention establishes international copyright law, but United States Constitution 6.2 (This constutition, and statutes and treaties thereunder, "shall be the supreme law of the land") requires that all treaties be constitutional, and US Constitution 1.8.8. This is why the United States does not recognize the statutory perpetual copyright that the UK has passed on some of JM Barrie's work.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[hexx]

I think you'll find the family aren't getting a penny: Tolkien sold the film rights to pay off a mortgage.

I think you'll find you didn't read the articles...

The Guardian did research on this and:

"Far from the £10,000 of lore, he got $250,000 (then worth about £102,500) and a percentage of the royalties, which could eventually be a massive fillip to his estate, already fat from the sale of 100m books around the globe."

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to "respect the memory of J.R.R Tolkien", than I'd say: forget the movie, read the freaking book. Oh, or wait, did you mean, "respect the wealth-acquiring capacity of J.R.R.'s estate." Gimme a break.

-1, Ogre

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[jmccay]

Check your local theater. They may be selling tickets already. I have mine already for opennign night! Come 6:30 pm I will be in front of the gaint screen! I can't wait till 12/19/2001!!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Rogerborg]

• let us geeks do one thing right, for once, and respect the memory of J.R.R Tolkien and his family and pay to see this movie

Oh, I'm going to. I should be getting my region 0 DVD grey import this week, but I won't be watching it until the 19th. But I'm doing this out of respect for Peter Jackson and the cast and crew of this film, not because I'm deluding myself that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the similiarly themed book would have cared, or that his estate has any interest, rights or say in this film.

Michael White, biographer of the Oxford professor and Lord of the Rings creator, said the author would have hated the film.

"I think he would have just closed his eyes to it," White said of Tolkien, who died in 1973 aged 81.

"He had a hatred of all things Hollywood and did not believe in the idea of imitation being the best form of flattery."

However, Tolkien's son, Christopher, who owns the rights to his father's literary legacy, denied reports that he was unhappy with the way The Lord of the Rings films are being made.

He had remained silent about the films, but reports claimed he was unhappy with the way the film-makers interpreted his father's books.

Tolkien sold the film rights to his cult fantasy books in 1969 for just £10,000 - meaning his family, and those in charge of his estate, were left with no control over how the movies were made.

It looks like a good adaptation, and I'm completely OK with the removal of elements and the filling in of backstory (like Gandalf's imprisonment by Saruman). However it's had too much added and changed (without the input of the creator) to be an actual canon version.

A petulant rock chick defending a passive Frodo is most definitely not the same as an elf lord unveiled in his fury and a desparate but defiant Frodo. It denies Frodo an important piece of character development just to get some tits and ass on screen.

A troll that appears in the book as a foot and an arm didn't get turned into a frenzied CGI showcase by accident. This is the most minor of my quibbles, but it's an easy way to add drama, and I'm a little disappointed that Jackson chose it rather than playing within the limits of the original source.

Replacing the elemental hatred of Caradhras with machinations of Saruman is a major shifting of the characters, not a minor plot tweak. This is implied as being on the limit of Sauron's abilities, let alone Saruman's. It actually demotes Saruman to a simple "bad assed mofo" role, rather than taking the harder but more rewarding route of focussing on his delightfully sinister powers of persuasion.

A skeleton knocked down a well accidentally is not a stone thrown down it on purpose. Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego? The original situation is functionally identical and leads to exactly the same result.

And those are just the changes and additions that I know about. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely stoked about this adaptation, but on its own merits, because of the cast (petulant rock chicks aside), the crew and the director, and not because I think I'll be seeing the book "Fellowship of the Ring". The destination appears to be the same, but the journey looks to be different enough to jar.

Roll on the 19th when I can find out for sure.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[stubear]

And copyright is an exclusive right granted for a limited time. The US Constitution NEVBER spelled out that time frame nor did it even attempt to establish a reasonable timeframe for copyright protection. That was left for future generations to determine and our generation ahs determined that life of author plus 70 years is fair.

By making the term so long people will not be able to wait out the copyright terms to wreck their memory because 70 years is a long time in a fast paced capitalistic economy. 10 years is a fairly long time but I can easily envision corporations eagerly awaiting the ability to use popculture icons freely or to pen derivative works without compensating the author or their estate.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Ed_Moyse]

I certainly didn't read [b]all[/b] of them! I think the story I was referring to was a few weeks ago in the Sunday Times Magazine....

You're absolutely right though - it appears the estate are getting money from it (in which case I can't see why they're being so snooty about it all).

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Ed_Moyse]

Ahhhh! That probably explains why so many UK books have "not for sale in the US" on them. You haven't explained why the Berne Convention isn't considered constitutional in the US though... (as an aside, I hope US publishers of Peter Pan do the honourable thing and give some cash to St. Ormond's Street Hospital even if the "statutory perpetual copyright" isn't recognised)

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[sam@caveman.org]

actually i was talking to something along this topic the other day.

the first time i read LoTR, i did so with only my imagination as a guide - i had not seen either cartoon or heard a book on tape, or an audio broadcast, nothing. it was quite enjoyable.

then after having seen the animated versions, i re-read the book. it was an entirely different experience, with definitive visuals and voices to go along with the story. when you read that gandalf said something, you could hear in your mind John Huston's voice. this made the books a bit more enjoyable, at least to me.

now, after having seen the previews, etc, i have a new cast of voices and visuals to go along with my imagination as i read the book. completely different experience, and again even more enjoyable, as now the characters have grown out of animation into something a bit more tangible.

-sam

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[ImaLamer]

Ok ok... when I leave to see it I'll hit "download now" - I will go, not to give **AA cash, or the actors, just to 'vote' for the movie and let them know that George Clooney sux my ass and has to go.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[ChuyMatt]

Well... i ask you, does it sound different when you download it and when you play the CD? Unless the person you get it from is an idiot and ripped at 90, no. BUT, if you go to the movie theater there is a great difference than the crap you get off of any of the p2p networks. The only thing you could actually make work with this analogy is talking about a life performance. Now THAT can't be stolen, really. That is even more worthwhile than a freakn' movie.

Now, as for your comment below that: How much does it cost to make corporate pop music? About 200,000 if you actually include the blasted hype. These movies cost upwards of 500m. AND it is not crap. I would recommend that we actually go out and pay our 8 bucks to see this incredible dream of a movie. I have been waiting for a good 11 years for this to happen, I am not going to spoil the fun by watching a kiddy posted POS divx that he took with his little handheld (coughing, popcorn, bathroom breaks).

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[ChuyMatt]

WELL THEIR BRITISH!!

duck arrows, slings and general row
;)

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

"I should be getting my region 0 DVD grey import this week, but I won't be watching it until the 19th. "

That is not a Grey import.
A grey import is importing legitmate licensed stuff from another region.
That DVD is nothing but pirate. 100%.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[FFFish]

Sorry, buddy: it's not that I've got anything against Tolkien and New Line Cinema nor any of the actors... but I have a big hate-on for Famous Players Theatres and there is no way in heaven or hell that I will EVER set foot in their theatre again.

I took my favourite kids out to see Monsters Inc. Matinee. With four drinks and one popcorn, I ended up spending fifty-five bucks on it. Now, I knew it would be expensive... but I was not prepared for the dicking-around I got when I requested a small bag to help share the popcorn.

Basically, they refused to give me a bag until I threatened to kick up one helluva fuss. For less than a nickle, they were willing to lose a customer for life. And this after they'd already screwed me for more than fifty bucks!

So fuck 'em. They will never, ever, EVER see me again. There's a private second-run theatre in town, and there are several video stores. I don't need Famous Players, I don't want Famous Players, and I sure as hell will never give money to Famous Players again.

I recommend that everyone do the same: refuse to pay the outrageous prices. Quit going to the theatre. Let consumer action force them to become reasonable once again -- four bucks for a dime bag of popcorn is not acceptable! Nine bucks for a six-year old is not acceptable! Three bucks for sugary water is not acceptable!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[junkgrep]

---I dont feel cheated for having to pay $10 to see a POS movie or $20 for its sound track. I mean, it's fuckin cheaper to sit in the bleachers of Yankee Stadium then it is to see a movie these days.---

Since when are you OWED the right to see a movie or listen to a soundtrack? How much money did you put up to MAKE the film or soundtrack? None? Then SHUT THE HELL UP! The makers of the product can charge whatever they want for it, and if you think it's too much DON'T PAY. And sure, you can steal as an alternative. But I'm sick and tired of all this self-righteous whining about how it's right and just that you do so, just because you don't like the pricing.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[IronChef]

Please, geeks, leave your computer, go to a theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen.

Or, you could just stay home and start reading the book again and save yourself the heartache of seeing the movie goof up things you have imagined being a certain way for decades.

Who knows, you may even like meeting other people!

I grew up in LA. The prospect of talking to strangers in a public place is... disturbing. You probably talk to your neighbors, too!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[IronChef]

A skeleton knocked down a well accidentally is not a stone thrown down it on purpose. Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego?

THANK YOU. I feel the same way, but such things are irritating enough to me that I may not even see the movie. Here are some other things I have heard about:

- Orc eggs
- Hobbits have pointed ears (easy to see in currently available media)
- There's an Elven army at the battle of Helm's Deep, which did NOT happen in the book, there were no Elven armies anywhere.
- Whatsername is cruising around with the Fellowship full time in the movie, isn't she? That was most certainly not the case in the book.

Most people will point and laugh and say it's my loss for not seeing the movie. I can live with that better than the aggravation of seeing things changed "just because." Cutting things, I can understand that... but most of the changes are probably mistakes.

The yellow face, it burnsss uss, precioussss!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[SablKnight]

- Orc eggs

Definitely an addition. But IIRC the book doesn't go into the details of Saruman's magical experiments in combining men and orcs.

- Hobbits have pointed ears (easy to see in currently available media)

Not mentioned, but seems like a minor cosmetic detail to me.

- There's an Elven army at the battle of Helm's Deep, which did NOT happen in the book, there were no Elven armies anywhere.

I believe that this is untrue. Any scenes involving elf armies are from the great war where Sauron was defeated and Isildur cut the ring from his hand. I heard rumors about Arwen leading an elf army to Helm's Deep, but I think they were debunked.

- Whatsername is cruising around with the Fellowship full time in the movie, isn't she? That was most certainly not the case in the book.

Arwen replaces Glorfindel at the ford. Period. She does not tag along with the fellowship, she doesn't get in any big fights, in short she's not the feared XenArwen that everyone talks about.

Admittedly, the movie does deviate from the book. As any good movie must; the book is inherently unsuited to the movie format.

I would ask you not to believe all the rumors you hear, but that would be hypocritical; I have not yet seen the movie (though I do already have my ticket) and my responses are based on rumor themselves. But I have kept current on the movie's progress for the last year (give or take) and I am fairly confident in my replies.

I may watch the movie and hate it, but based on all I have seen, this is a virtual impossiblity.

-SablKnight

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Malachi]

I'm not going to drag this into a rant.. but wouldn't you just see the film to see a possibly good film? What if you hadn't read the book, what would you think.. Its an interpretation of the book not the book. Its rare to ever see a novel realized into a movie there is just too too much that is interpreted through our individual imaginings.

Now I understand you're looking for a 1:1, but I'd still see it. Release the anxiety.. ;)

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brutha! I joined Netflix a couple months ago and haven't been to the theatre since. Saved me a bundle too. Someone gave me a pair of free passes so I'll probably use them tonight and see Monsters Inc (no special engagements so FoTR next week is out). I will pay to see FoTR after all the rabid fanboys have had their fill and I can watch it in peace... but that's it until The Two Towers next year!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you consider _not_ getting popcorn if it's too expensive?

It's not like they force you to buy it at gunpoint..

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Old Wolf]

If you want the book, go read the book. Don't go to a movie theatre and look for it.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if I had so little imagination as to need to be led around by hollywood shills, I don't think I would be bragging about it.

That was an insult, by the way. You should take offense.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows, you may even like meeting other people!

I've met other people and didn't enjoy it. That won't stop me from going to the theatre, tho.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Loligo]

>now, after having seen the previews, etc, i have
>a new cast of voices and visuals to go along
>with my imagination as i read the book.

Maybe it's just me, but after having read _The Hobbit_ and _LotR_ a dozen or so times, I don't need Hollywood to provide the voices. Tolkein did a damn fine job of fleshing out the characters to such an extent that I've had my idea of what Gandalf sounded like since I was 10 years old.

I've had my ideas of what Aragorn and Elrond looked like (and it ain't Viggo Mortenson OR Agent Smith^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHugo Weaving). I've imagined the balrog and the orcs and the fireworks at Bilbo's birthday party for 20 years, and while I have every confidence that the movie will be good, they won't be nearly as spectacular as what Tolkein helped create in my mind.

Then again, maybe I'm just jaded and NOTHING will recreate on the screen what I've always imagined Middle Earth was like.

Granted, the recent SciFi and MTV specials DID show that Hobbiton is pretty close...

-l

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Squirrel Killer]

Please...

I own a copy of the Lord of the Rings, but I still went to alt.binaries.e-books and downloaded the trilogy in several electronic formats. Same thing with several other books I own. Hell, I'm even scanning in a book (for personal reasons) that's been out of print for a decade and won't come out of copyright for another 75 years if the author were to keel over today. In 75 years, there might be only a handful of physical copies of the book, but the electronic version will continue to live.

You know what, I still plan on buying at least one more physical copy of LotR at some point, if not more. If the authors and publishers would offer the books in their own electronic format that I was confident I could reuse when I upgrade to a new machine, I'd buy them (no typos after all.) The electronic format allows me more freedom to enjoy the writing without having to lug around an eight pound book along, especially since I've already got the laptop/pda/whatever. The holier-than-thou freaks in alt.fan.tolkien be damned, I want a more useful version of the book I've already paid for, and will pay for again if only they would put it in a format I want it in.

If I'm so inclined, I'll d'load a DivX rip, thank you very much. Because I'll go see the movie in the theater, probably more than once. And once the DVD comes out, I'll probably get that as well, and when the Director's Cut Special Boxed Edition of the film trilogy comes out, I'll get raped again (There's no more surefire way to ensure a DVD gets a "new, enhanced" edition than to buy the "old, crappy" version.)

The Tolkien estate, Peter Jackson, and New Line will get enough of my money on this that I think they'll overlook if I've got a DivX version sitting in drawer somewhere (I'm not going to watch it again after I get the DVD.) I've got a rip of a certain big sci-fi movie that I never watch anymore thanks to the DVD, but I don't think any 'stormtroopers' are going to knock down my door. I think of it this way: Since the USSC ruled timeshifting was legal in the Betamax case, I'm just timeshifting in reverse.

Look, I agree with you that if someone grabs a rip and doesn't see the movie in the theater or buy the DVD, they're an ass. But to make a blanket statement that everyone who d'loads it is an ass is a little myopic. For many of the rippers, the powers that be are going to get their money, but they just want to see it now. Just because someone rips it, doesn't mean that they aren't going to leave their computer, go to the theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. So get off your high horse and let me infringe copyright seeing as I've paid and will pay enough to enjoy something in my own way.

Ah, hell...there goes the karma...
-sk

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

I wholeheartedly agree, his family should not own the rights to his work in 2001 when he died in '73, some 28 years ago! This is something that I will never understand. Imagine my surprise when I looked at a Burgar King/LOTR drink cup and found that "Sam" was copyrighted!!!!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Squirrel Killer]

"A skeleton knocked down a well accidentally is not a stone thrown down it on purpose. Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego? The original situation is functionally identical and leads to exactly the same result." (Emp. added)

Your sad devotion to that ancient text has not helped you open up your eyes to the needs of film. If it's functionally identical, maybe there was a good reason for changing it? Let's think about this a minute...how would you show, on film, Pippin's being "curiously attracted" to the well? How would you show his "sudden impulse" to explain why he tosses the stone? How would you shoot the scene so that it was clear what Pippin was doing? How would the audience know that it was just a small stone and not, say, the Ring?

There's lots of problems taking a text and making a movie out of it. There's lots of things that can be explained in a single sentence that would take several minutes to show on film. By making changes, you can actually be more true to the book. Columbus made this mistake in Harry Potter, he was so intent to get everything that was in the book into the movie, that Harry ends up looking like a wide-eyed moron. All of this stuff happens to him but his character doesn't develop.

So Jackson decides to save several minutes of screen time and a vague motivation to have Pippin accidentally bump the skeleton into the well. This action isn't all that incongruent with Pippin's character and, as you mention, achieves exactly the same result. Maybe if you looked past the cover of the book, you'd see that maybe, just maybe, it isn't about Jackson's ego. Maybe he just wants to make a good movie. If he hadn't made the change, every non-Tolkien purist would ask "Now why the hell did Pippin just do that? What a moron." Is that the Pippin you're looking for?

-sk

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Kraft]

I have the book, but no newsgroup access. Any clues to where else I might find an e-book version?

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Squirrel Killer]

I was an idiot, it wasn't until I saw this /. article about book publishers vs. libraries that I even thought about looking for Usenet newsgroup for e-books. Before that, I did a lot searching on Google. Be prepared to find a lot of dead-ends. Personally, I'd find a way to get to Usenet (and, sorry, Google Groups doesn't archive the "binaries" groups.)

-sk

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[AvatarADV]

What the Berne convention establishes is a mutual system of copyright recognition. The US doesn't recognize British statutory perpetual copyright because it doesn't recognize British statutory -anything- copyright; British works get the same protections in the US that the US affords to US works.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't give you a bag because they use it to track inventory. The minimum wage kid you wailed on would have been accused of stealing popcorn.

BTW, unlike your normal posts, this one make you out to be a complete crakpot spaz. Why don't you just sneak your junkfood in like normal people do?

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[cygnusx]

> not because I'm deluding myself that J.R.R.
> Tolkien, the author of the similiarly themed
> book would have cared, or that his estate has
> any interest, rights or say in this film

This URL seems to differ with you:

It is a myth almost as cherished as JRR Tolkien's tales of Middle Earth: that nearing the end of his life, and under pressure from the taxman and a wolfpack of sharp Hollywood suits, the cloistered Oxford scholar signed away the rights to The Lord of the Rings for a mere £10,000.
But like many good yarns that have grown in the telling, it is - the Guardian can reveal - just that, a myth.

...

Far from the £10,000 of lore, he got $250,000 (then worth about £102,500) and a percentage of the royalties, which could eventually be a massive fillip to his estate, already fat from the sale of 100m books around the globe. The estate's solicitors confirmed yesterday that it would get more royalties if the film took two and a half times its costs.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Larry_Dad]

Here's the link to a mention of what Tolkien sold the rights for. 10,000 pounds plus a percentage of the royalties (I wonder if this is all royalties or just the movie?) plus even more if the film takes in more than 2 and a half its cost!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[FFFish]

I wailed (whaled?) on the manager. Crackpot spaz? Probably. I despise companies that have a fuck-the-consumer attitude.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

Well their British what...? Finish your sentences. Examples are, "Well their British arses wore against the flimsy seatcushions of their vintage warplanes" and, "Well their British hussies danced their naked dances."

Discuss.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Rogerborg]

• how would you show, on film, Pippin's being "curiously attracted" to the well? How would you show his "sudden impulse" to explain why he tosses the stone? How would you shoot the scene so that it was clear what Pippin was doing? How would the audience know that it was just a small stone and not, say, the Ring?

"Zombie eyes." You've seen it dozens of times, it's a well understood cinematic convention. And you show him picking up a stone.

• By making changes, you can actually be more true to the book.

No, I don't understand you. "True to the book" means Pippin doing it through (apparent) compulsion. In the film, he does it because he's a clutz. It saves perhaps twenty seconds of screen time, not "minutes". Perhaps that justifies it, I'm not naive enough to volunteer to pick twenty seconds to cut elsewhere.

• Maybe if you looked past the cover of the book, you'd see that maybe, just maybe, it isn't about Jackson's ego. Maybe he just wants to make a good movie

Tsk tsk, don't misinterpret my words out of context as an attack on Jackson. I made it perfectly clear that I think he's a great director, and that this looks like a wonderful film. You're responding to my post, so please stick to the points that I actually made, and don't invent straw men to justify a conflict of opinion that doesn't exist. We both agree that Jackson appears to have made an astonishing adaptation.

• If he hadn't made the change, every non-Tolkien purist would ask "Now why the hell did Pippin just do that? What a moron." Is that the Pippin you're looking for?

Not a "moron", a "fool". Remember?

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Squirrel Killer]

"Zombie eyes." You've seen it dozens of times, it's a well understood cinematic convention. And you show him picking up a stone.

You don't explain what you mean by "zombie eyes", it's not that universal of a cinematic convention that it's readily apparent, so here's a couple of options of what you might mean, correct me if I'm wrong:

1. A Point of View shot, maybe with a mask to make it look like you're looking through their eyes with tunnel vision or
2. The character's eyes go glassy and s/he moves somewhat mechanically.

Yes I've seen both conventions many, many times. Frankly both are overused and neither is very effective. The first option is done in horror flicks as a cheap way to build tension. Here it would be odd, it would give far more significance to what is really a small plot point. The second option raises all kinds of questions. Why has the character become this way? Is he in a trance? Has he been possesed? Is he drunk? What's the source of this state?

This convention (either way you might mean, but I'm pretty sure you mean my second interpretation) causes more problems than it solves, especially in this case where Tolkien himself leaves Pippin's motivation vague. Vague motivations make you think. That's good in a book, because it draws you more into the book's world. But it kills a movie, because if the audience is thinking, it means that they've been pulled out of the suspension of disbelief.

No, I don't understand you. "True to the book" means Pippin doing it through (apparent) compulsion. In the film, he does it because he's a clutz.

What I mean is that by changing some small inconsequential detail in the book, the film may be more true to the book as a whole.

Look at Harry Potter. In the book, Harry goes through all sorts of emotions through the story. In the movie, Columbus tries to fit in every little plot and color point, leaving no time for Harry to demostrate the varied emotions, growth, or any sort of character development. Harry becomes a wide-eyed, wonder filled, two dimensional moron.

...don't misinterpret my words out of context as an attack on Jackson.

I was responding to a direct point that you actually made. Oh...I'm sorry, you must mean that "Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego?" wasn't an attack on Jackson?

Not a "moron", a "fool". Remember?

Of couse I remember. But how is an audience going to take it? In the book, we can easily see how long they've been in Moria, and it's not unbelievable that Pippin would be curious. In a movie, not five minutes before this scene, the audience was reminded (probably) time and time again how dangerous Moria was and how careful the Fellowship had to be. Regardless of how Jackson shows the passage of time, the warnings are fresh in the audience's mind when Pippin takes his foolish actions (whatever they may be.) To the audience, Pippin would be a moron to ignore such strong warnings so soon (in their time) after the warning was given.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson, in order to make Pippin a fool, rather than a moron, had him accidentally knock a skeleton into the well rather than throw a pebble into it.

Pardon me for being so strident, but I'm just a little sick and tired of hearing so many Monday-morning directors before they even see what their critizing (or celebrating.) Bitching and moaning about Peter Jackson on LotR. Complaining that Pete Jones isn't fighting hard enough or is fighting too hard on Project Greenlight. Saying that Chris Columbus is doing stunning work on Harry Potter (pre-release.) For example, how do you know for certain that Pippin accidentally knocks the skeleton into the well? Sure you've seen the previews, but how do you know that there isn't a take where Pippin purposefully knocks the skeleton into the well? I'm not even going to go out on a limb and say that Jackson has made an "astonishing adaptation." Even if I did know for a fact that some change was made, I wouldn't be moaning about it, because I haven't seen the change in the context of the whole film. A film is more than a sum of the scenes, and I just think that complaining about changes, without seeing them in context of the whole film, is a waste of time.

-sk

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Rogerborg]

• • "I should be getting my region 0 DVD grey import this week, but I won't be watching it until the 19th. "
  That is not a Grey import. A grey import is importing legitmate licensed stuff from another region. That DVD is nothing but pirate. 100%.

DVDs go into production weeks (or in this case months, no doubt due to the anticipated popularity) before they retail. This DVD comes from a plant in Malaysia that churns out millions of the things, for all regions. I've bought dozens from this source, and they are identical to the retail versions. Box, artwork, content, disk decoration, hololabels, the lot. How would a pirate factory get this correct again and again and again, all prior to the retail disks being available?

The price is also near-retail and the disk is legitimate so the copyright holder is almost getting their money. Oh, perhaps they are making extra disks and selling them out the back door, but you might as well ask how you can tell that your identical post-retail disk from the same factory isn't an over production copy. We can't tell. We have to trust that if comes from a legitimate factory, it's a paid for copy.

The extra-legal aspect is that the copyright owners clearly don't want the disks hitting retail early, but of course they can't just locko them up in the factory. They have to distribute them worldwide well before retail sales start. So somewhere in the supply chain there's a reseller that is breaking their contract. I'm receiving goods that were probably sold in breach of a contractual agreement a few steps up the supply chain (not by me, my contract is with the retailler that I buy from), but I'm not a party to that broken contract and have no way of finding out any details of it, or even if it exists. This is very, very different from receiving stolen goods, it's a civil matter, and probably a cross-jurisdictional one too.

So I only have the moral argument left to consider, and "morality" in this case comes down to money, pure and simple. If I watch the disk (not if I own it, if I watch it) before the theatrical release, and if that stops me from seeing it in a theatre in addition to buying the disk then the copyright owner loses money.

Well, I've seen four films in the theatre in the past three years. And that was way before I started getting these pre-retail DVD's. I'm not costing anyone any money. And in this case, I am definitely going to see the film in a theatre.

OK, your turn. Point at the Evil.

OT Rant : Commercialization of LOTR

[blurpy]

..but doesn't it just make you sick to walk by a burger king and see pictures of frodo on plastic cups in the window?

why do we have to cheapen absolutely everything? can we produce a work for the sake of art or literature, and leave off doing everything to make the most money off it? won't they do just fine without stooping to that level?

it sucks.

Re:OT Rant : Commercialization of LOTR

[simetra]

They do this for money. They know there are millions of imbeciles out there who get a boner when they think about fictional creatures speaking with British accents.

spoilers?

[rudiger]

what self-respecting /.'er doesn't know how this movie ends?

Re:spoilers?

[Drone-X]

Hey -- i don't even know what it's about. Where am I anyway?

Re:spoilers?

[tb3]

Oh, come on. He is obviously a troll. Probably a rock troll, or a cave troll, possibly an orc....

Re:spoilers?

[ejracke]

Damn i knew i was bitch sometimes, but disrespectful!! A new adjective stuck on my forehead... along with sarcastic,yada, yada, yoda.

Re:spoilers?

[Jeremy Gallow]

Does the book have any decimal in it? If so, then what self-respecting /.'er would ever read it? Decimal is for dinosaurs.

Re:spoilers?

[Canar]

Trolls and orcs are not related. Trolls were created in mockery of ents, while orcs were elves twisted by Melkor. As such, they are not related. And yes, I have no life... =)

Not taking me seriously is the first step towards mental health.

-=Canar=-

Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[d.valued]

(Lemme open up by saying I may or may not agree with what I am about to say. This sort of duplicity makes me an excellent candidate for political office.)

So far, I've seen the Burger King glasses, the action figures, a great many re-published copies of the book with the movie as the cover. I've seen the board game, the cartoon, the ten-minute TNT blip, the one-hour Sci-Fi blip. The bedsheets are on order at my local K-Mart, the costumes are being put on back-order, the card game is selling briskly, and the pornographic feature based upon the film is in high demand at the local adult bookstore.

All this stuff (with the possible exception of the porno) goes to help defray the insanely high intial costs of the trilogy. Keep in mind, for those of you who've been living in a cave since, oh, the last millenium, that they a) shot all three films at once and therefor WILL be released; b) they cost a LOT of money. If you think that $6000 for a Microsoft-proof laptop is a painful yet fun investment, think that the studio coughs up mega-million dollar budgets with shocking regularity. In fact, I'm torn on whether the casinos or Hollywood are the folks to duplicate for the handling of insanely large quantities of cash.

The crap has a double purpose. It gets people Movie Stuff, and simultaneously promotes the film.

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[mj01nir]

...and the pornographic feature based upon the film is in high demand at the local adult bookstore.

There's a porn version!? Where in the hell do I get that. Waitaminit. Hot hobbit-on-hobbit action? Nevermind.

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot hobbit-on-hobbit action?

I KNEW Sam was gay!

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[Chris Mattern]

> I've seen the board game,

Which one? I think there's been about half-
a-dozen. I'm partial to SPI's old _War of
the Ring_, m'self. The Tim Kirk illustrations
are nice and the mapboard is yummy.

Chris Mattern

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[kallisti]

He's probably referring to the new LoTR game designed by Reiner Knizia. The game art is very beautiful and the game itself is quite good. Knizia is one of the best game designers working these days.

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[gamgee5273]

Not the last time I checked, thank you... (Note for morons: look at my handle)

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[sharkey]

Spam Gangree, currently celebrating his suspended sentence for performing an unnatural act with an underage female dragon of the opposite sex.

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mushroom Thief

Goblin King

Rohan Bride

A Burglar's Mark

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[charon_on_acheron]

There _are_ female hobbits, you know.
But YES, Sam is gay anyhow.

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[fjordboy]

actually, I sort of like the BK cups. They are pretty nice looking cups for 2 bucks. I got all four pretty fast...they look nice, and they have really sweet high-intensity LEDs in the base (I can illuminate a room with a strange red glow at night). Also, the light up part can be taken off, leaving you with a really nice looking frosted and thick glass. The glasses also hold a fair amount of whatever kind of liquid you want (ale for hobbits). I, for one, am not to bothered by the crass commercialism of the movie. They aren't raping the movie or anything, they are just saturating the market with movie related things. It is part of the hype. The movie cost 368 mills to produce (well, the trilogy cost that much) and New Line WILL get that money back. I'm not gonna go out and buy the bed sheets, but I will buy the millenium 7 volume hardcover edition of the trilogy and probably some action figures. If anyone whines about all the toys and stuff, they need to step off their self-rightous stool and get with it. If you don't want the crap, you don't get the movie.

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[nefertari]

But YES, Sam is gay anyhow.

Why should they do that? He marries in the end of the book. I never even had this idea!

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just another example of homosexuals trying to seek acceptance by taking a platonic friendship and trying to twist it to validate their own opinions.

It's sad really. "See! See! Since I believe that Sam was gay it must be okay for me too!"

The trouble is, it cheapens the value of true friendship. It's sets up a world where every relationship is based on sex. No such thing as valor and honor.

Yeah, you think it's flamebait. But it's not.

Oh man, oh man....

[mip]

Does anyone else find the whole 'childhood-fantasy-world-made-real' thing a little daunting?

Please, please, please, please let it be good.

Arggh, the angst!

Hold on a second, its just a film of a book, isnt it..?

Seriously, its looking good with the premise that it never could be a faithful adaptation of The Book. If people are willing to let their own preconceptions fade into the background (and hell, Tolkien would probably think no better of our idea of the book anyway - I always got the impression he did it as an intellectual excercise for himself, not to please the masses), then the film would probably be a fine epic in its own right.

Ho hum, guess we will just have to wait and see...

The Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Christmas 2003. As a result, this cliffhanger comes timed to a lengthy annual calendar. Pre-teens who whimper at the tale's scary moments now will be hulking, blasé adolescents by the time it hits its grand finale.

A 2-year wait is nothing. I mean, with Star Wars, we watched A New Hope as blasé adolescents but by the time Phantom Menace came around we were just hulking.

Dont believe the hype...

[__4096]

I just hope they didn't recycle Jar Jar Binks and use him as Gollum.

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[Bonker]

I just hope they didn't recycle Jar Jar Binks and use him as Gollum.

"Weesa loosa ring to kwazy hobbit? Uhoh! Pretty ain't gonna lika dat!"

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ain't that Woody Allen?

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[fiftyfly]

Bwhahahahahahahhahhhahahhhhhaa!!

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[dev_alac]

He'sa had it ina ies poketses, how wood!

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard rumor, that that part was played by OJ.

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[dswensen]

Funny? Why is that funny? Is there a +1, The Very Notion Fills Me With A Cold, Abject Terror?

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[Dwarth]

Or JarFar as Sauron... as Gollum is falling in the mount of Doom with the ring...

"How Ruude"

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got "wood" in my pocket...

Bored of the rings?

[DeepHootie]

Anyone ever read it by the Harvard Lampoon Staff
? It's great!

Re:Bored of the rings?

[Bill_Mische]

Yes and it is. I think someone out there has a quote from it as a sig

Extra bits?

[nagora]

Anyone know how many extra bits have made their way into the film? The trailors have had enough crap-looking not-in-the-book moments to put me off seeing the film (Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock, some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford, and a complete fuck-up of the creepy Moria tapper-in-the-well scene).

TWW

Re:Extra bits?

[Anonymous Coward]

some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford,

I don't have my big red copy of LOTR here at work, so I can't look it up. Please explain -- what's so wrong about Glorfindel having a bow?

Re:Extra bits?

[quintesson]

It looks like they have replaced the role of Glorfindel (the elf from Rivendell who protects the hobbits at the river crossing) with Arwen, in order to make her role more prominent.

Re:Extra bits?

[Squirrel Killer]

The trailors have had enough crap-looking not-in-the-book moments to put me off seeing the film

How anal-retentive do you have to be to let such little things keep you from watching what looks to be a pretty decent looking film? I mean, come on:

• Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock - For crying out loud, this isn't that huge of a change. The hobbits knew that they were being chased, and from the book itself "On the far stage, under the distant lamps, they could just make out a figure: it looked like a dark black bundle left behind. But as they looked it seemed to move and sway this way and that, as if searching the ground. It then crawled, or went crouching, back into the gloom beyond the lamps." So the movie version just has the Nazgul catch up to them before they cross the river rather than after.
• some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford - I assume you're talking about Arwen. Come on, it's not like Glorfindel is some major character. If Arwen had replaced Legolas, I'd be pissed, but this is really a minor plot point, and it's a good way for them to boost Arwen's role without changing the story much. Now whether Arwen's role should be boosted is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't make the movie a piece of crap either way they go.
• complete fuck-up of the creepy Moria tapper-in-the-well scene - Actually, from what I've seen, this one scene that looks pretty true to the story to me.

It's ironic, I think Jones' version of Lord of the Rings will be more satisfying than Columbus' version of Harry Potter, not despite the plot changes, but because of them. Columbus made Harry into a moronic wide-eyed dork by having events fly by the screen just because they were in the book. Jones appears to at least keep the right tone of the story. If he does that by changing a minor plot point here and there, so be it. I want to see the Lord of the Rings, not Ferryrider Who Realized He Was In Mortal Danger After Crossing the River.

-sk

Re:Extra bits?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to have been tweaked, but not enough to get the Tolkien officiandos screaming.

The Nazgul at the dock is, I take it a slight spicing up of the Buckland Ferry, where they get across and then see the ominous shape on the side of the river they have just left.

The Moria change has just gone from Merry, or is it Pippin accidently pushing a skull down the well, rather than dropping a pebble (seems a shame, but hey)

The big change is the enlargement of Arwen's character - she saves them at ford, rather than Glorfindel. She is also a lot more active in the quest in general. Given JRR was a bit thin on meaty female characters (apart from Eowyn) I suppose I can live with that.

Re:Extra bits?

[YanIsa]

Absolutely nothing.

Except that in the trailer, the elf challenging the Riders is not Glorfindel, but Arwen..

Yan

Re:Extra bits?

[cybercuzco]

Actually, from what I've seen, this one scene that looks pretty true to the story to me.

Actually, In the book, i believe peregrin drops a pebble into the well to see how deep it is, and it wakes something up when it hits the bottom. Fron what ive seen of the trailers, hes messing with an orc or dwarf skeleton and it drops in. Essentially the same thing, but a bit more dramatic.

Re:Extra bits?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, like totally. How boring would that be on a movie -- drop a pebble, some distant sraping sounds about two minutes later... some things that work in a book just don't convert to the screen.

Re:Extra bits?

[Squirrel Killer]

In the book, i believe peregrin drops a pebble into the well to see how deep it is... Fron what ive seen of the trailers, hes messing with an orc or dwarf skeleton and it drops in.

Ah, crap, you're right.

Ok, how anal-retentive do you have to be to let whether Pippin drops a small rock or small skeleton down a well keep you from watching what looks to be a pretty decent looking film?

-sk

Re:Extra bits?

[Erore]

some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford - I assume you're talking about Arwen. Come on, it's not like Glorfindel is some major character. If Arwen had replaced Legolas, I'd be pissed, but this is really a minor plot point, and it's a good way for them to boost Arwen's role without changing the story much. Now whether Arwen's role should be boosted is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't make the movie a piece of crap either way they go.

So, you think it is unimportant that Frodo, wounded for days, nearly turned into a wraith, is able to must the courage and will to offer a last bit of defiance to the Nazgul? Having anyone between Frodo and the Nazgul at that moment, whether it is Glorfindel, Arwen, or Gandalf, makes Frodo less of a character. This was not a minor change.

As for Glorfindel not being in the movie, I'm not upset, but disappointed. I do not see why Arwen had to fill that role. They could have expanded her in other ways with Aragorn. They are seen together in a few scenes in Rivendell. Glorfindel could have been just about any other elf. But, having a strong elf-lord protect them from the Nazgul up until this point, shows how powerful some of the elves can be. It makes an important note in the Council of Elrond when they are deciding who will go on the Fellowship, and whether they elves should hide and guard the ring.

Re:Extra bits?

[SablKnight]

As for Glorfindel not being in the movie, I'm not upset, but disappointed. I do not see why Arwen had to fill that role. They could have expanded her in other ways with Aragorn. They are seen together in a few scenes in Rivendell. Glorfindel could have been just about any other elf. But, having a strong elf-lord protect them from the Nazgul up until this point, shows how powerful some of the elves can be. It makes an important note in the Council of Elrond when they are deciding who will go on the Fellowship, and whether they elves should hide and guard the ring.

I agree with you about the lessening of Frodo's character by not allowing him his moment of defiance. However, I do see why they chose Arwen above some other generic elf to replace Glorfindel. Based on interviews I've read and seen, one of the big themes that PJ is pushing is how much Arwen is giving up when she chooses to become mortal. By showing her as a strong elf-lord (lady?) it emphasizes just what kind of status and power she is sacrificing.

-SablKnight

Re:Extra bits?

[Squirrel Killer]

Erore, how do you rate that you've already seen the full movie?

If you haven't seen the movie, how do you know that Frodo isn't defiant to the Nazgul? Sure you've seen the same clip everyone else has, and sure you've heard rumors, but really, how do you know what Frodo does?

-sk

Re:Extra bits?

[Tarkwyn]

It's ironic, I think Jones' version of Lord of the Rings...

I absolutely agree with your points, although it's 'Jackson' and not 'Jones'. Of course it was 'Sorcerer's Stone' and not 'Philosopher's Stone' as well, which may have led to the confusion ;)

Re:Extra bits?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally believe it could work out quite well. You have to build up creepiness-momentum, instead of relying on flashy effects. Something very few producers dare to do.

Re:Extra bits?

[davidmb]

Actually it is 'Philosopher's Stone,' it was re-named for the American market. It's widely thought in marketing circles that Americans need titles dumbing-down in order to understand them.

OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[ThePurpleBuffalo]

We name our servers after LOTR caracters... one day someone asked what type of network we were using. The answer:

Tolkien Ring

Beware TPB

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[mj01nir]

We name our servers after LOTR caracters... one day someone asked what type of network we were using. The answer:
Tolkien Ring

We clearly need a new moderation selection: Groaner

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[Raato]

We've named some ooms of one building after LOTR characters and places (yes Nokia has quite a lot buildings these days). For example the smoking room is called Mordor :)

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[damiam]

Or maybe a -1, Plagerism.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[the gnat]

Wow, we do this too. Our NIS/main file server is Morgoth, Balin and Thorin are our web servers, Aragorn and Pippin are SGI workstations, Frodo is one of our dual Xeon work nodes, and most of the desktops are named after dwarves.

Our general-purpose Windows 2000 machine is named after Grishnakh the Hill Orc (my choice).

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[Pathetic Coward]

Every computer shop on the planet names servers after LOTR characters.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

That does it.

Slashdot Admins, please read!. We need two more moderation ratings!

First, we need a "-1, Bad Pun".

Second, we need a "+1, Bad Pun"....

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[Happy Monkey]

The Tolkien/Token ring pun is so old and so obvious that it's pretty silly to point at a post from less than two weeks ago as the source.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[Lemur catta]

Tolkien Ring

What hasss it gotsss in itsss packetsss?

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[ch-chuck]

Then you should have one of these

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[BazHob]

Btw, I once read Tolkien was strongly opposed when a boat company named one of their hovercrafts "Shadowfax". He found it unfitting that a dead technical device would carry the name of such a great animal.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[curunir]

Imagine that...someone on /. calling a clever idea "obvious"...

(and this time it wasn't me ;)

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[Happy Monkey]

Well, here's some "prior art" from 1992. It's so obvious that many people inadvertently misspell "Token Ring" to be more similar to Tolkien.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[heptapod]

Whatever "plagerism" is. Perhaps "plagiarism" instead.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[bad-badtz-maru]

...or some other equally geeky, frequently used concept. I see greek gods a lot in NT houses. LOTR has been done to death in unix shops.

I have only named two networks. One has devices named after parts of the human body and the other has devices named after vegetables that people typically are not fond of.

maru

maru

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[celttechie]

I decided to go with norse gods. I have Thor and Odin of course, then Baldur, Vali, Fenris (the wolf, not exactly a god.) We had Freya at one time also. The problem with this -- Not very many people are familiar or can even spell or pronounce some of the lesser known (Baldur, Vali, etc.) Also had the NT domain here called Valhalla. Had lots of trouble with people misspelling that one too.

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[macrohard0]

Heh, we have names like that, too. Except that it seems like whoever gave the names in our case didn't actually read the books. Aragon [sic], Thoren [sic]...

Fantastic

[omega9]

British horror film veteran Christopher Lee also lavished praise on the director.

``What Peter has done is miraculous. No director in history has made three films at the same time,'' he said.

Now the 79-year-old Lee has just one ambition -- he hopes to live long enough to see the next two films in the trilogy when they come out in 2002 and 2003.

What a horribly bitter way to end a news brief.

$300 Million

[wiredog]

That's what it cost to produce the films. That's a 'bet the studio' cost. If they don't recover most of that cost early, then The Two Towers and Return of the King will be straight to video releases.

Re:$300 Million

[don_carnage]

Oh yeah...they're going to recoupe that cost in cheap, light-up goblets from BK. ;^)

Re:$300 Million

[Tassach]

Actually, the studio recoups [part] of it's money by selling BK the *rights* to make cheesy light-up goblets. BK hopes to recoup thier investment by luring people into their resteraunts to buy overpriced sugar water and greasy potato sticks along with the offensive drinking vessels.

Re:$300 Million

[Squirrel Killer]

I doubt it. They probably expect to recover between a third and half the cost on the first movie (ie $100-150 million) then the mostof the rest of the up-front costs on the second movie, leaving the third movie to be mostly or pure profit. Merchandising dollars, which they've been for several months now with movie related books, etc..., help pad the bottom line.

Straight to video would waste the potential theatrical take, even if the first movie tanks, there's still enough die-hard Tolkien fans and pure fantasy fans for the second and third films to bring in enough revenue to cover the theatrical release and some money on the side. Hey, didn't even "Dungeons & Dragons" make money?

My guess would be that if the first film tanks, the second film would be released with the same production values (maybe not as much hype), but would be released to video much sooner. The third film would probably be rushed out the door with much lower production standards (worse special effects, cheaper soundtrack, no redubbing lines to cover on-location mistakes, certainly no more new photography (yes, I know they're done with principle shooting, but I could see them going back for more if need be)) and go to video quickly as well. That way, New Line will still get the theatrical take, but can start bringing in video revenue quickly to start making up the losses. Never the less, all three will be made and will make it into theaters.

Note that I don't expect the films to tank. I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship". I don't know if the theatrical take will reach $300 million, but I wouldn't be surprised. Even if it just breaks even in the theaters, New Line wins big with all of the merchadising and potential video revenues.

-sk

Re:$300 Million

[Rogerborg]

• That's a 'bet the studio' cost. If they don't recover most of that cost early, then The Two Towers and Return of the King will be straight to video releases

Tsk tsk. The studio has already secured the money. Big studio films are pre-sold to theatre chains years in advance, often just on the basis of one big name or even (gasp) the budget. Films with a budget of $20 million+ don't lose money any more, ever.

The LotR trilogy will already have made its money back for the studio. The actual box office take/DVD/VCR/Book-of-the-film/collectible figures/card game of the film are just gravy.

Re:$300 Million

[btellier]

They probably expect to recover between a third and half the cost on the first movie (ie $100-150 million)

I hope you're not implying that the movie will make only $150 million. There's as much hype around this movie as there was for Episode 1, and the reviews are actually good! Even if the movie was a total stinker it would take $200M, which it isn't, so one can expect the total revenue for the movie to hit at least $300M. When you consider that Episode 1 made something like $450M it isn't ridiculous to see a figure like that.

Straight to video

Straight to video is impossible. According to interviews with New Line execs theatres which want to show LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring MUST purchase all three installments and show them for a minimum of six weeks.

I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship".

Any particular reason you say this? I found Two Towers to be my favorite installment of the trilogy. The action was always non-stop, the ending is absolutly epic (but i won't spoil it) and the potential for great CGI abounds. If anything I'd say that this first installment will gross the least, if for no other reason than Fellowship was my least favorite volume.

Re:$300 Million

[snoopy75]

I doubt greatly that the first movie will tank. There's too much hype, and too many Tolkein fans, to let that happen.

Now, if it turns out to be a bad movie anyway, then the second movie could possibly tank.

Re:$300 Million

[Squirrel Killer]

I hope you're not implying that the movie will make only $150 million.

What I'm implying is that New Line, when they greenlighted this project figured that they would need to make $100 million/movie to break even. I'm sure they planned on making some money, so they want to gross at least $150 million on this one. That's not bad, it's a $50 million profit.

Remember, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was merely pointing out that the studio made a decision that they would need to only make $100-150 million per movie to do well. They wouldn't judge that a movie is a flop just because it didn't break into the Top 20 Grossing Films of All Time. Also remember that Gladiator only made $180 million. $150 million isn't that shabby. Do I think it will make more? I think FotR has a good shot to break $200 million, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Look at the Top 20 Grossing Movies of All Time (US Box Office - yes it's Amerio-centric, sue me). One of the things that they have in common is that they were all social phenomenon. Everyone saw Staw Wars and Forest Gump, every teenage girl saw Titantic 20 times, everyone talked about Sixth Sense, everyone cried when Home Alone got a sequel. Ok, ok, Twister is an exception (how did that get in there anyway?) Now, will FotR become such a phenomenon? It very well could, but to say that it will is to set yourself up for Pearl Harbor. New Line isn't betting that FotR will out-gross Independence Day, it's betting that it will out-gross Die Hard 3, and hoping it'll out-gross Jerry McGuire. But if it only outgrosses Crocodile Dundee II, they still win.

Straight to video is impossible.

That was essentially my argument. Thanks for backing me up. Again, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was saying that straight to video would be stupid because of the loss of potential money out there for a theatrical release. Now I know that a straight to video would be stupid also because of the contract involved. (BTW - don't think the contract is a complete assurance that all three will get the six week theatrical release. If FotR were to be a complete flop and only bring in $1 million revenue, you can bet New Line will be renegotiating the contract sooner than you can say, "But the contract says...!")

I found Two Towers to be my favorite installment of the trilogy.

I didn't mean any disrespect to TT. Revenue doesn't have any relation to quality though. Empire Strikes back was the lowest grossing Star Wars film (including Ep. 1) but is arguably the best of the four so far. I think FotR will do well because of all of the hype over the past two years, RotK will do well because people will have had two years to see the other two and get primed for the finale. TT will do less well if for no other reason than because it's stuck in the middle. No offense, but basing revenue projections on your own like or dislike of a book or script is a sure-fire way to be wrong.

-sk

Re:$300 Million

[Lemmy Caution]

Anyway, if you think the goblets are bad, wait till the product placements start popping up. When Frodo and Sam start sucking down Happy Meals and guzzling Pepsi's while tracking through Mordor, I'm history.

Re:$300 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to gleen historical meaning from that chart is rather fruitless because Hollywood refuses to adjust for inflation (both in general and in ticket price).

It is rather shocking that sooo many mediocre recent movies make so much money ("Independance Day" seemed like 10x a bigger hit than "The Sixth Sense" or "Grinch")

Re:$300 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

>and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship"

thanx to the little furry animals that will abound in Mordor. Think Ewok :^)

Don't complain about the hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to see it. I'm boycotting the movie and all associated marketing because I am convinced that the movie will be awful. It's a given; you can't compress a few hundred pages of text into a two-hour movie. Also, almost every movie made after 1992 in the US just makes me sick... it's sad that I have to watch European and Japanese films to find substance and originality.

The moment that I heard about the LOTR movies, I knew that watching them would destroy the precious associations that I have with those books. I still reread them every few years. I know that it will suck, I know that it will be a kid's movie marketed to kids and made with the sole purpose of making money. There will be no art in it. These movies aren't being made by artists who want opportunity to show the world their impression of one of the greatest fantasy epics ever. They just want money, and see LOTR as an established "franchise" to leech off of.

Anyway, I watch hardly any TV, so I haven't seen any LOTR commercials. I don't read newspaper ads. I hardly ever go to the theater. I don't visit many mainstream news websites. Thus, I am effectively insulated from the hype. The fact is, I've heard more LOTR crap on Slashdot than I have anywhere else. The only other way that the LOTR movie has touched my life is when I saw a poster for it at a McDonald's last week.

Thankfully, Slashdot is merely re-leeching the hype for its own advertising revenue, and I'm not being force-fed the hype like I would be when watching TV. I don't read LOTR story comments, I don't click on any of the links, and I refuse to watch the trailer. It's all good.

So... if you're being "overhyped," it's your own damn fault. Despite what so many of you anti-corporate technology amateurs think, it's possible to live a life without being trodden upon by the AOL/Disney/whoever machines of doom.

-- The_Messenger

Re:Don't complain about the hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) It's been compressed into a nearly three hour movie (2:45 to be exact). And much of what was removed is supposedly between the Shire and Rivendell, i.e. Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs.

2) It was based on a British book, filmed in New Zealand, produced mainly and released first in Britain. Remind me again how it's a movie made in the US?

Re:Don't complain about the hype.

[SlipJig]

Yeah, it's hyped, so what? It's ironic that you were affected enough by the LOTR hype to post a diatribe about it on Slashdot. If you're as out-of-it as you say, why are you even reading this thread?

As for your assumptions about the movie sucking, they're just assumptions, and may or may not be true. It's admirable to ignore the hype; and it's fine to not want to see the movie because you're afraid of destroying the existing associations you have with the books, but let's be honest - that's fear based on ignorance. You won't know whether the movie sucks or not unless you go see it.

So are you going to let your kneejerk reaction to the hype keep you from experiencing something that may or may not be worth seeing? If you ignore the hype (as you say) then it's not a factor.

Re:Don't complain about the hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

fag

Re:Don't complain about the hype.

[Geeky Frignit]

Well, first of all, what defines a US movie? Just a movie made by a US production company? Keep in mind that a good number of the actors and workers on this film are not American.

I understand your feelings about the movie possibly destroying the way you associate things in the book. I personally don't think this movie is all about making money. If that were the case, we probably would be seeing billings for the move as "James Cameron's The Fellowship of the Ring: The story of a hobbit (Leonardo DiCaprio) who finds a ring and must journey along a mystic quest where he finds love, adventure, and a Celine Dion song." But the actors in this movie are not "big" Hollywood actors. Sure we've seen names in Hollywood, Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, Sean Astin, but there are a lot more people than that. My personal favorite is Ian McKellan(sp?) as Gandalf. He really looks the part in the previews which you haven't seen.

Now, in the spirit of open-mindedness, maybe you should hold off you're it's gonna suck sentiment until you actually do a little research into the movie. Hell, maybe even go see it before you decide it sucks, there's a concept. I believe it's called "Don't judge a book by its cover."

And if you're truly an anti-corporate techie who lives outside the {insert mega-corp we hate today} sphere, then why are you complaining? None of the hype should have gotten to you? Or maybe, despite how much you wish you could live outside of society, you really can't.

Re:Don't complain about the hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Peter Jackson made this movie for the money and if you have watched any of his previous movies you would know that.

Re:Don't complain about the hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

no in fact it was produced fully in New Zealand and being released in the UK and the US at the same time although the premier was in London.

More interested

[sandidge]

I'd be more interested in this movie (as long as the key character dies at the end, of course).

Re:More interested

[DodgyGeezer]

I'd be more interested in a goup buy of Xenon HIDs for my '99 Passat.

Who cares what you want? This is a discussion about the LOTR film. Don't be so self-centred.

Re:More interested

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd guess you were more interested in a group buy of Astro-Glide for your raw ass.

Re:More interested

[ChuyMatt]

"DUDE! Where's My Ring"

"Crouching Golum, Hidden Balurag"

man i suck at spelling...

Re:More interested

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere in the distance, the odd-dog barked.

You'll hate it

[wiredog]

If you want it to be absolutely true to the book, the way Harry Potter was, don't see it. Arwen has a much bigger role, as a sort of warrior princess (Eowyn like) from what I've heard. Also, they dropped Tom Bombadil.

Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock

Probably at the ferry after they leave Farmer Maggot's house.

Re:You'll hate it

[kenthorvath]

If you had to drop anything, Tom was the way to go. That would have added about 35 minutes of strangeness that added little to the story, IMHO. I enjoyed reading it very much, but if they were going to make the movie fit into one sitting, dropping him was the way to go.

Re:You'll hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

From the MTV piece I saw last night, it looks like Farmer Maggot got dropped as well.

Re:You'll hate it

[Black Parrot]

> If you want it to be absolutely true to the book, the way Harry Potter was, don't see it.

IMO that took HP down a couple of stars in my ratings. What makes a good book is not the same as what makes a good movie.

I haven't read the HP books, so I'll concede that they might be very good. But I went to see the movie with my n&n, and commented to their dad that I thought it was overlong and full of fluff that didn't contribute to the movement of the flick. He said it's because the movie was previewed to audiences of kiddies who raised hell about it not being faithful to the book, so they went back and 'fixed' it. That 'fix' is probably exactly what I didn't like about the movie.

So I'm dubious about LOTR. Where they're not faithful to the book (Arwen the Warrior Princess) I'll hate it for that reason; where they are faithful to the book, I'll hate it for being overlong and stuffy.

The best way to go would be to read good books that aren't derived from films and watch good films that aren't derived from books. Alas, Hollywood's formulaic writing doesn't produce many good yarns that way.

Re:You'll hate it

[sam@caveman.org]

the HP books are basically like long scooby doo episodes. long bunch of walking around, then at the end there is a flurry of action and the enemy has his big plastic mask pulled off, screaming 'if it weren't for you kids...'

-sam

Re:You'll hate it

[nagora]

I don't want it to be absolutly true to the book. I've read enough William Goldman and seen enough good adaptations to know that things have to be changed.

What worries me is the quality of the changes I saw in the trailer. The bit on the dock is just cheap thrills, the bit with the ford is, assuming it is THE ford, covered well and dramatically in the book by the white horses and doesn't need fiddling with, and the bit with the well is one of the creepiest bits in Moria while the trailer version is just crap slap-stick.

Characters have to be removed and amalgamated and parts of the story are going to be skipped altogether in any sensible-length film of LotR, but if you add material, it had better be good.

TWW

Re:You'll hate it

[ChuyMatt]

Then shut up and don't see it and don't post. I loved HP because it felt like a book. I have never read them and it was nice to have that feeling with it. Movies have disappointed me too much in the past 2 years for me to want to watch one that is not based upon a good script. A world best selling book is a good start for a script.

Re:You'll hate it

[mvpll]

It's been a while since I've read the series, and I just noticed I'm missing the first book from my bookshelves, so I might be a little off target. 1) I thought Tom truely introduced the wonder of Middle-Earth to the reader. 2) Wasn't he a pacifistic vegetarian? Hmm what a subversive element to put in any film, better cut him out so we have more time to show people sticking bits of metal into each other.

Re:You'll hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you shut up!

Got it? ;-)

Re:You'll hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but omitting Tom throws the film into great unbalanace. Tom was the good side of a schizophrenic Sauron. Read the book! Look at the evidence. You never see the two of them in the same room at the same time!

Check out the Tolkien Sarcasm page for more LotR insights (Lembas is really Hostess Twinkies). Truth or Fiction? You be the judge!

Where are the giant robots?

[Anonymous Coward]

No giant robots = not a good film.

I found the first book utterly boring(before I gave up with it), and I have no wish to see the film.

Favorite review lines

[wiredog]

And I did wonder why the elves were represented as keen on polyurethane, garden-centre statuary, but no matter.

and

the Celtic revival tweeness of the Elvish villages

Re:The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll)

[Anonymous Coward]

CowboyNeal would do the most thorough job. However, I would go with a wet wipe.

Ralph Bakshi

[datatrash]

I would say that the new version has a long way to go to beat the Ralph Bakshi animated version. For the love of god he was using Rotoscoping (probably one of the first) 24 years before Linklater in "Waking Life"!!

In any event, I am sure some of the more long in the tooth /.ers can recall that the animated Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring) was received to mixed reviews and made more than 7 times its production costs. Therefore, the mixed reviews don't bother me so much.

Re:Ralph Bakshi

[SeraphtheSilver]

That's because rotoscoping was a retro-technique that Linklater dug up, not because Bakshi was _that_ cutting edge. It was invented in the mid 70's IIRC. Bakshi just appropriated the technique (and improved it) for his own use.

And to be honest, the Bakshi version is a butchering of the story. He himself admits it. He started animating the first one under the auspices of a studio who then changed their mind and canceled the project. He was almost finished the first movie then, but he thought that it wouldn't make sense by itself without the others. So, on his own time and money, he quickly wrote in and animated the most important scenes from the last two books, giving it the 'squeezed' feeling that bugged me even back when I was a kid. The results were less than stellar by his own admission.

-Seraph

Re:Ralph Bakshi

[General_Corto]

For the love of god he was using Rotoscoping (probably one of the first) 24 years before Linklater in "Waking Life"!!

So was Disney. In Snow White and The Seven Dwarves. That was in 1937. Rotoscoping is nothing new at all, and wasn't at the time of Bakshi either.

Re:Ralph Bakshi

[Concertina]

Am I the only one who has nightmares thanks to Bakshi?

I saw the animated movies as a kid, and wanted so badly to love them. And I could not make it through the second one, even as a nine-year-old with no preconceptions (other than from having read the book) and a suprisingly long attention span.

If anyone has doubts about how bad this version truly was, see here for a very funny review that doesn't pull punches.

Anyways, if the SciFi "Passage to Middle Earth" special is any indication, the Fellowship of the Ring will be incredible. So the ghost of Bakshi can finally be put to rest.

Re:Ralph Bakshi

[Anomalous Cowbird]

Rotoscoping is actually one of the oldest techniques in animation -- it was used by Max Fleischer at least as far back as 1917. Far from being considered innovative, Bakshi's use of it in this film was considered a cheapo budget-cutting move.

Re:Ralph Bakshi

[Anonymous Coward]

on the other had, the Ralph Bakshi version was crap. Rotoscoping or no, pure unadulterated crap.

HTH. HAND.

Why the earlier opening in UK?

[shankark]

I'm not sure I quite understand why New Line decided to open the movie earlier in UK? Peter Jackson is a Kiwi and most of the other principal characters behind the movie are not Brits, except of course Tolkien himself. So, was Peter Jackson over-anxious to hear it from the Brithish high priests? Or was it plain simple strategy following Harry Potter's early release in the UK. And while on that, its interesting to ponder that British literature is all of a sudden stealing the spotlight from cheap American paperback-films. It did take Tolkien and his modern-age counterpart, Rowlings though :)

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[Malc]

Um, just going through the first 10 or so of the main characters listed on IMDB for this film, you might like to reconsider:

Elijah Wood - American
Ian McKellen - British
Viggo Mortensen - American
Sean Astin - American
Liv Tyler - American
Cate Blanchett - Australian
John Rhys-Davies - British
Billy Boyd - British
Dominic Monaghan - German
Orlando Bloom - British
Hugo Weaving - Nigerian/Australian
Sean Bean - British
Ian Holm - British
Christopher Lee - British

The characters aside, this is a very British film. The rights to the films were sold in 1969, but the Tolkien family/estate still has a lot of influence.

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[Ed_Moyse]

For god's sake, we get a couple of films before you guys and people start whinging! Now you start to realise how annoying these staggered launches are....

Seriously, Tolkien wrote the books partly to replace the "lost" english mythology. Under the circumstances I'm sure he would have wanted the films to open here, and Jackson seems to be sensitive enough to realise it.

Oh, and Tolkien and Rowling are about as similar as Steinbeck and Clancy. The latter are telling "good yarns" whilst the former have a deeper point to make.

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[JoeGee]

LoTR is also one of twentieth century English' most influential literary works. There aren't many writers/works that are singlehandedly responsible for entire aisles in bookstores. becvause of the work's influence I am happy to note that the cast seems to be somewhat representitive of the English-speaking world.

As for the debut being held in England, well, considering we all speak English in spite of the best efforts of Hollywood I think we can allow this. In addition, although much of the money for the film came from Hollywood this project is more international than, say, Terminator 3. I feel that LoTR deserves an international debut. :)

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[Ivan Raikov]

I'm not sure I quite understand why New Line decided to open the movie earlier in UK?

Well, that's what the Americans get for throwing all these bags of tea in a certain harbor... um... some time ago.

:-)

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

They had the premiere in the UK on the 12th but the UK public don't get to see the movie until the 19th, same as everyone else.

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[t_allardyce]

"its interesting to ponder that British literature is all of a sudden stealing the spotlight from cheap American paperback-films"

Most Hollywood films are developed with a random plot generator. Unfortunately, most plot combinations have been made and now they are running out of original ideas. Normally this would not be a problem, but allot of studios are scared of legal issues with re-making a film that has already been made 17 times (see Titanic). The answer to this is: use old books. There are many old books in most libraries, and most of them have not been made into films yet (-ie LOTR), this makes it easy for a studio to convert the book and start making the film so they can make more money. Soon you will see films of such great books as "Fly-fishing - the beginners guide", "The Holy Bible" and "The worlds greatest chess openings vol. 3"

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

this still does not compensate for the hundreds of movies that are released weeks in advance in the USA. It was really annoying having to wait weeks extra to see Star Wars Episode 1.

And if you live in Ireland it sucks double, because the distributors think the can save a few quid by making Ireland wait and using the same film reels. Ireland easily has a higher per capita rate of movie goers, except it has millions less people.

(dont bother modderating this up past one, i posted anonymously because id rather not announce my nationality or have it associated with my nick, plausible deniability etc.)

Peter Jackson Interview

[DaoudaW]

I'll admit I was worried after reading stories like Feedback: Not the subtractions, but the additions about changes made to the story during the making of the film.

But after hearing last nights interview with Peter Jackson on World News for Public Television, my fears have been allayed. Jackson was asked what John Ronald Raoul would have thought about the movie. Peter said (approx.), "I hope he'd see the love we put into it over the years. But I think he'd be grumpy about many of the changes we had to make."

He seemed to have a deep understanding of Tolkien the man, and was quite aware that he'd meddled with literature that had been canonized. The seriousness with which he approached his task impressed me.

Re:Peter Jackson Interview

[Salamander]

John Ronald Raoul

Reuel.

Re:Peter Jackson Interview

[MisterBlister]

John Ronald Raoul

Reuel.

Geek.

Re:Peter Jackson Interview

[snookerdoodle]

Don't forget that jrr himself modified The Hobbit to fit in better as a prequel to LOTR.

I don't think he (or his kid) would have considered his works "canonized", especially if HE were around to fiddle with the story himself.

Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits?

[Electronic_castaway]

I doubt anyone here thinks that a media feeding frenzy was set to begin. Still the movie should rock.

Re:Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits?

[simong]

Actually, Burger King have got the food tie-in in the UK, and they're being pretty low-key about it at the moment. Maybe they don't see it as a kids' film.

Re:Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits?

[Happy Monkey]

Except for that stupid "Fighting over the Cups" commercial. Blech. The first cup commercial was OK, but the new one is annoying.

Re:Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits?

[SablKnight]

I'd disagree. If I hear "not only to behold, but to be-held!" once more I may vomit.

-SablKnight

Re:Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits?

[Happy Monkey]

At least it had no stupid skit, and it had film clips and the film's music. I watched FOX's LOTR special, so I guess I'm good at blocking out stupid narration...

just seems like a silly movie

[Anonymous Coward]

very harry potter like, very mystic/magical with no real plot except "how can we use our magic" now, a *good* movie based in a real univserse instead of a magic one would be Unbreakable....very good :]

I had a lot of fun!

[Andreas(R)]

Read the books again instead!
There is no way that a three-hour film can equal
the words of Tolkien.

That female "chick" elf is a give-away...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that this movie will *suck*. You heard it here first.

The tattoos

[OblongPlatypus]

The Yahoo article doesn't mention this, but this month's print issue of Empire Magazine did. The Fellowship actors' tattoos all depict the Tengwar symbol for 9. (Tengwar being Tolkien's Elvish alphabet; you can see what it looks like here.)

Re:The tattoos

[synaptic]

> The Fellowship actors' tattoos all depict the
> Tengwar symbol for 9.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness band them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Re:The tattoos

[OblongPlatypus]

Well, there's a much more direct reason to choose the number nine: There were nine in the Fellowship, so nine actors got the tattoo.

But then again, they were nine because they were chosen to match up against the nine Ringwraiths, and the wraiths *are* those nine Mortal Men from the poem.

Re:The tattoos

[PhilHibbs]

It sounds much better in Black Speech:

Ash nazg durbatulûk
Ash nazg gimbatul
Ash nazg thrakatulûk
Agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Re:The tattoos

[tb3]

Oh, crap, now you've done it. Gandalf himself would not speak those words. Mordor's now gonna 0wn slashdot, and we're along gonna become ring-wraiths, or something.

When will mortals learn?

Re:The tattoos

[sam@caveman.org]

gandalf spoke those words in rivendell when proving the ring's authenticity to elrond and the council.

i say DAMN i am a hopeless dork :(

-sam

Slashdot poll

[Marcus Brody]

As a LOTR enthusiast on slightly the wrong side of fanatical, what should I do?

[ ] Not go and see any of the films - it would corrupt my imagination

[ ] Wait until 2002, and see all three films in one 9 hour sitting.

[ ] Stop being a nincompoop and go and enjoy the film.

This may look like a joke, but I am serious. I will stand bye the /. majority. So go ahead, please cast votes 1, 2 or 3 as an AC.

Also, some more purist than me are apparantly a bit pissed off. They cook tomatoes in the film (gasp - a new world fruit!) and the elves have a penchant for polyurethane garden accessories. Furthermore, how come is it that I post all but one of the links given in the parent (about 12 hours ago), but my comment gets rejected?

Re:Slashdot poll

[Skraig]

I am in the same spot.

My suggestion is to try to ease up a bit and see the movie. It won't be what you or I have hoped for and imagined but it sounds like it isn't bad.

Still I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Re:Slashdot poll

[JoeGee]

Think for yourself, go and see the first one. If you abhor it, chalk the films up as another example of Hollywood failing fans, and stick with the books.

On the other hand if you like the movies, regardless of what others might think, enjoy them. Continue enjoying the books.

I'm not quite a megafan -- I only have twelve reads of the trilogy under my belt and the Silmarillon bores me to tears -- this is how I am approaching Jackson's movies.

One other note, one of my favorite movies is Jackson's "Braindead" released in the U.S. as "Dead Alive". This guy definitely knows how to have fun with dark subject matter. :)

Re:Slashdot poll

[ImaLamer]

I would wait for the 9 hour viewing.

Just sounds cool. Put on your fury slippers, get the bong and blow some smoke rings.

Re:Slashdot poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn... didnt think of the bong.

I like your thinking. That counts as 2 votes.

--MB

Re:Slashdot poll

[greylouser]

I've been worried about the imagination-corruption argument as well, and to that end have been reading the books one last time before I see the movie.

That said, in retrospect, I think there's not much to the imagination-corruption concern. For example, I saw the Rankin-Bass animated ``Hobbit" and ``Return of the King" a long time before I read the books. But when I actually read the books, I didn't tend to think of the wood elves as blue and lanky, nor Gollum as much bigger than Bilbo. (Gollum's size seems to change a lot in those versions, actually.) I didn't read Gandalf in the voice of John Huston, nor Gollum in the voice of Brother Theodore. While I remember the animated versions pretty well, they don't seem to have changed my actual experience when I read the books.

Is there any empirical evidence regarding the imagination-corruption hypothesis? How would one conduct such an experiment?

Shudder to think about the JonKatz review

[Neologic]

All the reviews I have read have been glowing, which means that JonKatz will probably hate it and go off on some tangent like the Telegraph reviewer claiming its an anti-fascist cautionary tale or some crap like that.
Now taking bets on how savage his review will be....

Re:Shudder to think about the JonKatz review

[nanojath]

Ah, the necessarily muddled reaction of the intellectual elite are all so predictably dull... Yes, Telegraph Reviewer, please tell me how Hard and Complicated the "real world" is... all of us stupid children who enjoy escaping moral relativism for a few hours need to be reeled back in. Hmm, I think I'll look for insights into the real world elsewhere than from some limey entertainment journalist. I've been rereading the books in preparation and Tolkien's themes of relying on one's personal moral compass in the face of an uncertain and hostile world still work for me. And the story is not so black and white nor simplistic as some might assert - I hope the moie captures some of this nuance.

Katz, however, is a total wild card as far as I'm concerned - I can never tell what he's going to like. He's certainly prone to the bigforheaditis analyze evrything to shit disease but he also likes some very Hollywood Crap Entertainment. Who knows?

I don't see why not...

[Bonker]

I mean, if you're a big enough fan to spend however long it takes to download a 700mb DiVX AVI, aren't you probably going to go to the theater several times, just so you can see it on the big screen, the way it was 'meant' to be seen? Aren't you also going to buy the 2 DVD Box Set collector's edition next year and have all-night Fellowship of the DVD parties watching it over and over again with all your closest geek buddies?

Case in point.... if your an anime fan: I just bought 2 $25 DVD's this week. One was the Utena Movie and the other was the 'Oh My Goddess' movie. Neither is 'perfect' in the way that most fanboys will perceive any one of the 3 LOTR movies. Still, they are fun movies. Before they were released in the U.S., however, I obtained low-quality DivX and VCD anime fansubs of these two titles.

Even though I 'pirated' the movies, the American dub/sub houses and indirectly, the Japanese studios, still got their money from me.

Therefore, I encourage *true* Tolkein Fanboys and everyone else who plans to eventually legitimately see or buy this movie to download it to your heart's content

Re:I don't see why not...

[steelhawk]

Well.. for anyone with a decent personal "broadband" internet connection it shouldn't take much more than an hour to download that. (assuming that the serving machine isn't a bottleneck)

Re:I don't see why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Id absolutly love to go see this a few times in the theater, unfortunalty im working overseas, and I really dont want to see it in another language.. so im stuck with downloading it.. *sigh* .. i do prefer the big screen... DivX sucks most of the times.. and mpg's are really big to download...

Re:I don't see why not...

[KurdtX]

Hmm... let's see. For most people in college, they should have a T-something line, and I can get 1Meg/s (would that be Meg-Hertz?) easy... so 700 Megs would take me what, ten to fifteen minutes? Don't have to be much of a fan there.

However, I would like to point out that despite how easy it is to fill up a hard drive, I mostly use it as a screening mechanism for seeing the real thing. If I think a movie kicks ass on my computer, I'm sure it will rock when it fills my field of vision. It makes the $9 seem worth so much more when you realize how many other crappy movies there are out there.

One last thing: You're not going to impress a girl taking her to a movie on your 17" with your cube speakers, even if you do have a subwoofer.

Thanks Michael/Taco!

[FortKnox]

Thanks guys, for claiming all the stuff from articles I submitted (and was rejected) and not giving me credit.

What? I like seeing my name in lights, and I only need 1 more article for top in hof ;-P

What a relief

[Catiline]

"We sort of mentally went in that direction with our movie, and I think we gave it that degree of weight and gravity, and that authenticity makes it feel Tolkien-esque. Also I think it's a more interesting approach than just saying it's fantasy, it's fairytale, let's just be over the top and make a film for kids. We weren't interested in doing that."

What a relief. The kiddie feel of the animated Hobbit film really ruined that one- I look forward to this. (Might even go from 'must-buy' to 'must-preorder').

Just one question

[streetlawyer]

Just one question that's bugged me for years about this book, and seeing the trailers only reminded me of it.

If this ring was so incredibly important, why did they give the job of getting rid of it to a small person with no military experience, who had never been outside his home village before in his life? Why didn't they at least give him a frekaing map?

Re:Just one question

[Oily Tuna]

He was a hobbit - Sauron had only just heard of them and didn't realise they were a threat.
Secondly, Hobbits are somewhat resistant to the ring's power.

Re:Just one question

[blibbleblobble]

And Gandalf had no military experience? Or Aragorm the warrior king? Frodo was never alone until he reached the dark castle, at which point he had a hell of a lot of experience himself.

I also seem to remember the hobbits travelling alone only through the shire. Once they ventured abroad, the company of the ring was chosen, from warriors.

Re:Just one question

[naasking]

If you recall, the "important" people with "military experience" could not resist the ring's temptation. The hobbit's were the only one's who didn't want the power, so naturally, they should be the ones to hold onto it.

Re:Just one question

[Sebastopol]

Re-read the first book. This is discussed ad nauseum at Rivendell and Lorein. They discuss all the possible scenarios other than sending it to Mordor with a hobbit. (Hiding it with the Elves or Bombadil, sending it across the sea to the West, casting it into the Sea, using it to defeat Sauron, etc...)

In answer to your first question, the party was small and the ring bearer insignificant so that Sauron would not be able to detect him. They discuss giving the ring to an army of elves, but that would be to detectable and easily thwarted by the huge armies of Mordor. A sole hobbit and a tiny party has the advantage of stealth, well, for a while.

Second question: Frodo doesn't need a map because Legolas, Aragorn, Gandalf and Boromir all know the way to Mordor. Gandalf has been to Mordor before. Boromir is from Gondar, which borders Mordor to the West. Legolas spent time at Minas Tirith for a while, which guards entry to Mordor. Plus, Mt. Doom is visible from hundreds of miles away.

Re:Just one question

[sam@caveman.org]

uh... the explanation is the oldest in the fantasy genre. it was his destiny. the ring came to him, the 'most unlikely of persons' or something like that. basically that is like asking, why could arthur draw the sword from the stone, or something like that. it's the oldest trick in the genre, or alternatively, the answer you give your kids if they keep asking 'why?' time and time again for each answer.

-sam

Re:Just one question

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it to person that has ambition and craving for power would be corrupted by it. It was Boromir down fall, being a great military commander as such, but at the last he was paid foley by it.

Frodo, like Bilbo, never craved for power of the ring. But rather for a simpler and more peaceful life. Thus the ring would take longer for it to have an effect on them.

So in the end Frodo is chosen, simply because he was least likely to be corrupted by the rings power and complete the mission.

Re:Just one question

[cybercuzco]

Because, as gandalf said, hobbits are good people, and have an amazing ability to resist the rings power. If the ring had been given to anyone else, they would have been corrupted to use it. Which is why gandalf didnt take it, and why boromir got in so much trouble just from being around it. A hobbit was the only being to ever willingly give up the ring (bilbo). Since frodo was so inexperienced, they created the fellowship to guide and protect him. As for a map, why do you need a map if youve got gandalf?

Re:Just one question

[overunderunderdone]

The other people replying have made most of the important points. That the reasons *are* discussed in the books, the reasons given is that they had to use stealth rather than force because of Saurons military superiority. That Hobbits more than any other race are resistant to the temptation posed by the ring. etc.

I have been sort of interested into *why* the hobbits are resistant to the ring. I think it is because they represent virtue, particularly simple, domestic, peasant virtues. They are simple farmers and more interested in seeing their harvest come in or having a party than establishing an empire or constructing grand awe-inspiring memorials. There is very little hubris in them. Even when Sam is tempted he imagines himself as a great gardener - not exactly an ambition the awsome power of the ring seems well suited to exploit for Sam's temptation.

The Elves, the Dwarves and the various men (of Gondor, the Dunedan) by contrast all represent various proud, powerful and declining cultures. The Men and Dwarves would be easily tempted and corrupted by the ring. Seemingly the ancient power and wisdom of the elves would make one of them a likely candidate as ring-bearer. But a quick skim through their history shows that they are in some ways they are even more unsuited to resisting the temptations of the ring than the humans or dwarves. They don't represent virtue in Tolkiens world so much as beauty (and the love of beauty.) They are even more capable of hubris, vanity and overweaning pride than the humans are - perhaps because their high opinion of themselves is better justified by reality. Regardless it is their fatal flaw that through their history led to fratricide and decline.

Re:Just one question

[Anonymous Coward]

You're American, aren't you? And most likely young.

The commercials!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I would have to agree that the commercials are driving me nuts. That Burger King one is especially bad...

Behold the wizard Gandolf. Behold, the hobbit. Behold, the a$$hole who doesn't give a rats a$$ about a glowing cup that you will find 1 week after the movie premiers in Canada selling for 10 cents at your local fleamart.

Once is enough, twice is okay, but 15 times in one night...I'm only human!

Still can't wait to see the movie though :)

Great casting for Boromir

[iabervon]

It was brilliant chosing for Boromir someone who wanted to play Aragorn. That's the perfect way to get into the character...

Re:Great casting for Boromir

[gtwreck]

I hadn't thought about that, but you're right- that *is* brilliant. I wonder if that was by design or if it was just blind luck that the casting went that way?

I also like the fact that Aragorn is being played by a relative unknown, rather than Sean Bean who is fairly well known.

Re:Great casting for Boromir

[Anonymous Coward]

Allright, so I'm an anonymous coward.

Anyway, poor Viggo. He's made 35 films in the past 11 years and he counts as relatively unknown. But then again, TV personalities are generally better known in their countries of origin so Sean does have the edge in the UK

LORD

[SuperQ]

every time I see LOTR, my brain sees LORD, Legend Of the Red Dragon.. gah.. it's been way too many years since I played that game.

Re:LORD

[erpbridge]

Ehh? LOTR, What's that? Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers?

I remember LORD. Nice BBS game. I even set up a BBS server on my computer, standalone so no one could dial in, just so I could play it when my local BBS that served LORD bowed out. Any telnet servers out there that host LORD?

Re:LORD

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont have a /. login but if you read this I have a web page showing how I got LORD working in DOSEMU under Linux.
lord.linuxcoffee.com

Jack

Re:LORD

[Anonymous Coward]

After many local BBS's went down, I actually ran LORD locally on my computer for a while. Single player LORD isn't as much fun. Has anyone set up a massive internet lord game yet? If not, can we get this thing running on Linux over telnet?

Stop the MPAA!

[msm1th]

Oh, wait. This movie looks cool. Never mind! Give them your money!

Re:Stop the MPAA!

[kallisti]

What's with the +5 ever time someone says this? Look, the reason why people are concerned with the MPAA is that we like movies. If we didn't like them, we wouldn't care about the legal crap at all. You seem to be implying hypocrisy, what exactly are the contradictions? 1) We like movies 2) the movies are controlled by an "evil" bunch. Therefore, what, we should stop watching movies? What would that accomplish? Everyone stops watching movies, so none of them get made, everyone loses. Not that any boycott is going to even get noticed. The battle is elsewhere, in the legal realm, fight it there.

Re:Stop the MPAA!

[shanek]

Exactly. The real enemies are not the MPAA, but the corrupt government they have bought. So I've changed my .sig accordingly, so as not to confuse those slashdotters who seem to be completely incapable of clicking a link...

A hobbit or a dwarf was preferred

[typical geek]

Since Mordor would be dark and covered in ashen clouds, they wanted someone small who didn't become discombobulated in the dark. An Elf would have withered in Mordor, and men were generally useless.

This is all discussed in the Council of L-Rond.

Screw Harry Potter ;)

[Aqua OS X]

Come on... we're talking about Gandolf here. This movie is a hell of a lot more mature. I hope it wamps on Harry Potter. However parents may not want to take young kids to it... that is a lot of money right there.

if anything this movie will have a longer shelf life to it in the video store. Probably be an instant cult classic.

Re:Screw Harry Potter ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter Jackson said he thought it would be fine to take 12yr olds to see it.

False delimma

[cduffy]

Trust me, I'm going to pay to see the movie.

I might also download the crappy DiVX, but I'll pay to see it first.

The two aren't necessarily exclusive, 'ya know? I can't see *any* fan of Tolkien being happy watching only a low-quality copy of LoTR on a computer screen.

Re:False delimma

[Anonymous Coward]

a low-quality copy of LoTR on a computer screen

Download avi file.

Reduce video resolution to 640x480.

Use video-out to VCR, dub to tape.

You wind up with a version that is almost, but not quite, like a rental tape. I am giving Harry Potter videos to a bunch of kids. They have all seen the movie in theaters, so the MPAA is not out jack.

Re:False delimma

[cduffy]

Yes, and a rental tape is a low-quality copy, and a tape made off an AVI worse than that (how much worse depending on the codec and bitrate). Admittedly the "computer screen" thing was a bit of a dummy.

I'm not so sure 'bout dubbing and distributing the videos... it's something *I* wouldn't do, anyhow, since (eventually) they're going to be trying to sell legitimate copies, hence they probably *are* losing money. I certainly wouldn't be content to watch LOTR off such a dub.

(If you're not doing it for money, though, I can't say I'm too strongly opposed -- IMHO, copyright law should be back where it used to be, where distributing copies *for compensation* w/o the copyright owner's approval is actionable).

At least *someone* is immune to all the hype...

[Robotech_Master]

The other day, on hearing from a friend of mine that his local IMAX would be showing Fellowship on opening night, I called the one near me (the Branson IMAX) to see if they were doing the same.

The person I talked to had apparently never heard of either the book or the movie. It was all "Fellowship of the what?" And this person works at a movie theater. Sheesh.

Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype...

[Ryano]

"The other day, on hearing from a friend of mine that his local IMAX would be showing Fellowship on opening night, I called the one near me (the Branson IMAX) to see if they were doing the same. "

As far as I'm aware, IMAX theatres can only show films which are shot specifically for their unusual aspect ratio. The Fellowship of the Ring would probably look pretty funny shown in letterbox format on an enormous IMAX screen.

IMAX theatres tend to show nature or special effects spectaculars, often documentaries.

Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype...

[MarcoAtWork]

not really, I saw 'Apocalypse Now: Redux' at my local IMAX theatre, while obviously the movie didn't use ALL of the screen, it was still better than in the normal movie theatre, as the sound system is better, and the screen is bigger...

Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype...

[sunwukong]

As far as I'm aware, IMAX theatres can only show films which are shot specifically for their unusual aspect ratio.

It's actually quite common for IMAX theatres to show "normal" movies -- they just adjust the size of the projected image to lessen the distortion. But it still has the kick-ass sound and the little matter of being several stories tall. ;-)

Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype...

[IronChef]

After finally seeing an Imax movie for the first time a few months ago normal movies are ruined for me. The 24 fps blurring has always been annoying, especially in long pans... but after seeing the rock-steady picture of a true Imax presentation, man, I am ruined! At least when you watch a DVD that artifact is masked somehow.

The movie industry really needs better image capture & display technology. Just 6fps more... please... but I'll happily take all I can get.

Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype...

[Robotech_Master]

No, actually a lot of IMAX movies tend to show regular movies part of the time--usually movies with a lot of special effects that will look really good on a screen that big. The one in Branson, I think, does one evening show a night.

I ought to try calling them again sometime in the hopes that I can get someone who isn't a moron.

Re:The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Turd Report,
I personnaly am voting for el numero 4, in your poo-poll.

However I do want to let everyone know that in some places on earth, folks are forced to use a beowulf cluster of corncobs for the purpose you describe, out of sheer necessity.

That is all.
RETURN TO YOUR SECTOR

mod parent up!

[mekkab]

bwaaahaaahaaahaahaahaahaahaa!

I have a great way to avoid all the hype-
STOP WATCHING TV. No, really. Get very very busy, (work, take some part time graduate school classes, and be a grader for a Data Structures class (it truly pays for itself when you get to see the WHACK code the youngin's of today are compiling))-

This way you have to tape record/tivo all the shows you want to watch. Then, Fast Forward through commercials.

While your at it, don't ready crappy magazines & newspapers.

Voila!

P.S.- I'll take a 9 piece.

New world foods

[foistboinder]

There are mistakes. Merry and Pippin cook tomatoes, and Tolkien had taken care when revising The Hobbit in 1966 to remove mention of tomatoes - an alien, New World fruit

So are poatatoes and tobacco.

3 (not all short sublect lines are "lame")

[mikey504]

You forgot option 4, "attend on opening night dressed as CowboyNeal."

But seriously, I've talked about it with my similarly inclined pals, and the consensus is to go see the film. Several of us are planning to reread the books (again) as support/reinforcement/penance. But an effort like this deserves an honest, open-minded look. See it in the theater.

Lord of the Rings

[blibbleblobble]

Ash nazg durbatulúk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulûk
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Interesting that they've had some serious linguists working on the film though - here's the discussion site for their languages.

I gave up waiting for their merchandise, and just had the ring poem printed on some of my own-design T-shirts. Much cooler than having corporate-inspired stuff!

I am very tempted by the replicas of Sting. Unfortunately they weigh far too much to fight with, and they're really easy to dint. Oh well...

maegnass ess nin, dagnir yngyl im (my name is Sting, I am slayer of spiders)

Re:Lord of the Rings

[tb3]

I am very tempted by the replicas of Sting [bytheswordinc.com]. Unfortunately they weigh far too much to fight with, and they're really easy to dint. Oh well..


The heck with that, I want a replica of the one ring.

I'm sure I can keep it safe, and it won't affect me at all. No, it won't, my precioussss....

WHY IS THIS POST A TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

The dude is just expressing his opinion. His/her post is totally ontopic and raises valid points.

Mod ghods are nothing but Neo-fascist censors.

Re:WHY IS THIS POST A TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

>His/her post is totally ontopic and raises valid points.
See slashdots definition of a troll.

Lovely links

[mip]

This place has lots of interesting and, generally, light-hearted links to LOTR stuff. Check out the E-book especially.

p.s I thought the Bashi film was terrible.

The irony overwealms

[fireboy1919]

After the success of the hobbit, Bantam books sent a letter to Mr. Tolkien saying, "we want more hobbits" because of the popularity.

Despite its greatness, LOTR was made to meet the demand. It was written FOR THE MONEY!

It sucks that J.R.R. Tolkien stooped to the level of making money? Okay. Then I guess you better not read anything he ever wrote published by Bantam books given his consent. That means it was for the money, otherwise he would have just given it away for free.

I suppose all that leaves is his unfinished works, which he only showed to his friends and family and which was published after his death.

Art and literature are seldom for their own sake, for we are all forced to work until we eat dust.

You might say that marketing dilutes creativity. Who are you to say what is creative? Most of the marketing people I know put a lot of creative thinking into their work - commercials are no exception; a lot of creative effort has been put into using the characters in a way to sell the product. Perhaps if you looked for the "art and literature" within the commercials, you wouldn't get sick looking at them.

Re:The irony overwealms

[Marcus Brody]

You may well be moderated as "Troll", but there is something sad but true about what you say.

Apparantly Tolkien himself sold the rights to the film, way back in the 1969. For £10,000.

From the BBC

Re:The irony overwealms

[quintesson]

It's possible that I am wrong, but I believe I remember reading that most of the narrative which became the Lord of the Rings trilogy was set out by Tolkien long before The Hobbit was ever released, so it would be innaccurate to say that LOTR is commercially conceived.

Re:The irony overwealms

[Noehre]

You forget that Tolkien wasn't a traditional author, he was a scholar. His job? He was a teacher. His specialty? He examines the history of languages, words, and stories. Tolkien produced a large body of work which he felt was a reconstruction of lost European mythology.

So he ended up making a book and selling it. Who the fuck cares? You would to if you had the talent that he did.

You can hardly say that he wrote LoTR "for the money." Just because Bantam wanted more hobbits, why does Tolkien adding more hobbits dilute the greatness of the book? The hobbits fit the story, whats the problem?

Meh, this is just a pointless troll.

Re:The irony overwealms

[zhrike]

That is my recollection as well, though I can't find documentation for that right now.

Re:The irony overwealms

[zhrike]

We're both wrong on the LOTR. It was conceived as a sequel of sorts to The Hobbit. Though the Silmarillion was already written.

From:http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biog_ fr ame.html

"By this time Tolkien had begun to make his Legendarium into what he believed to be a more presentable state, and as he later noted, hints of it had already made their way into The Hobbit. He was now calling the full account Quenta Silmarillion, or Silmarillion for short. He presented some of his "completed" tales to Unwin, who sent them to his reader. The reader's reaction was mixed: dislike of the poetry and praise for the prose (the material was the story of Beren and Lúthien) but the overall decision at the time was that these were not commercially publishable. Unwin tactfully this messge relayed to Tolkien, but asked him again if he was willing to write a sequel to The Hobbit. Tolkien was disappointed at the apparent failure of The Silmarillion, but agreed to take up the challenge of "The New Hobbit".

This soon developed into something much more than a children's story; for the highly complex 16-year history of what became The Lord of the Rings consult the works listed below. Suffice it to say that the now adult Rayner Unwin was deeply involved in the later stages of this opus, dealing magnificently with a dilatory and temperamental author who, at one stage, was offering the whole work to a commercial rival (which rapidly backed off when the scale and nature of the package became apparent). It is thanks to Rayner Unwin's advocacy that we owe the fact that this book was published at all - Andave laituvalmes! His father's firm decided to incur the probable loss of £1,000 for the succès d'estime, and publish it under the title of The Lord of the Rings in three parts during 1954 and 1955, with USA rights going to Houghton Mifflin. It soon became apparent that both author and publishers had greatly underestimated the work's public appeal."

Mayhem, blood, and gore!

[de_boer_man]

If I get nothing more from this movie than Gimli wreaking havoc, spilling orc blood, and splitting orc skulls with his axe, it will be worth the seven dollars for the ticket.

Of course I don't expect it to be completely true to Tolkien's writing. Movie makers tend to take liberties with everything. (I would say that Pearl Harbor and Titanic come to mind, but that would mean I would have to admit having seen them!) I'm going to go see this movie with the sole purpose of being entertained. I'm not going to analyze how it deviates from what Tolkien wrote. I'm going to see this movie purely for the entertainment value. Unless they MAJORLY change the story, I think I'll be happy with what I see. Then again, the wrong filmmaker could MAJORLY change the story.

I'm waiting to pay my $7 until the week AFTER it opens though, just to miss most of the hype.

So, the new inscription goes like this...

[devphil]

Three drinks for the Burger Kings under the sky,
Seven burgers for the Dwarves who are stoned,
Ninety million consumers doomed to buy,
One cut for the Dark Lord, the franchise he owns.
In the land of Mordor where the Whoppers lie.
Onion ring to rule them all, onion ring to dine them,
Onion ring to bring them all and in the deep-fryer bind them
In the land of Mordor where the Whoppers lie.

I would give an attribution if I had seen one. Probably it's evolved from several sources.

Re:So, the new inscription goes like this...

[devphil]

I forgot to mention that I had a dream the other day, where I walked into a Burger King after the release date of the movie. All the workers had nametags (like they do now), but their names were written in the Tengwar of Feanor.

I think I woke up shaking at that point; I'm not certain.

Re:So, the new inscription goes like this...

[NaturePhotog]

My wife wrote an even more cynical take on your amusing missive:

Onion rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Chocolate shakes for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine million Mortal Men doomed to buy Food from the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Whoppers, a drink, and fries.
A loud ca-CHING will rule them all, their avarice will bind them,
It's a sting to bring us in and force us all to pay them
In the Land of Whoppers, a drink, and fries.

Entertainment Weekly review - "A"

[Strange_Attractor]

I didn't read the review myself (I hate when they give away the ending! ;-) ), but Entertainment Weekly gave it a grade of "A". Click here for the full review.

Download the fonts!

[PsiPsiStar]

There's a page out there where you can download the font for the various tolkein languages.

http://home.earthlink.net/~darrenv/tolkein.html

It dosen't look quite as cool as the guilded cursive elven runes on all the merchandise, but what do you want for free?

Re:Download the fonts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, like that comment isn't aching for a slam on teh l00nix.

Re:Download the fonts!

[Nyrath the nearly wi]

There are more fonts here, here, and here
There is also a Windows utility to aid in writing in Elvish: Tengwar Scribe.

not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you ask the same question about 2 years ago? And didn't you complain when someone posted a similar troll a year ago?

Come up with some new ideas please...

DVD release

[LarsWestergren]

Does anyone know if they plan to release the DVD of the first film soon after the movie premiere, or if they wait releasing all the DVDs until all the films have been shown?

Re:DVD release

[elvstone]

I saw a short "behind the scenes"-program on Swedish television where they said that there would be a DVD release of FOTR pretty soon after the movie release. This release would be extended to include "behind the scenes"-clips and other info about all the special effects. I don't know however if they are going to release a bundle DVD with all the three movies in 2003, but I sure hope so.

Re:DVD release

[hughk]

The usual rule is when there is a sequel to release the DVD about two or three months before the sequel appears. The reasoning is 1) Generate interest in the sequel and 2) Do not clash with it.

Given the time-lines, I would guess that we will see the DVD in Sept '02. However, this is just a guess, although based on a misbegotten youth tied to cinema and video/DVD/whatever.

Re:DVD release

[DapperDan]

Rumor (from theDigitalBits.com) is early September.

Pirated

[shanek]

What? You mean to tell me this movie was pirated without using DeCSS??? Is that even possible?????

Changes etc...

[darrad]

I am really disappointed to hear of the changes that have been made to a story that has stood on it's own for 50+ years. One of the things about the story is the depth that Tolkein gave to the characters, and the variety of characters (ie Tom Bombadil)

I think changing the characters is even worse. Having Arwen take the place of Glorfindel is a MAJOR change, one which can and probably will ruin the movie for me.

Yes, I am a fanatic about this. But after waiting for 20 years for someone to have the nerve to make this movie, the least we can expect is that they remain true to the story.

Re:Changes etc...

[zzyzx]

"I am really disappointed to hear of the changes that have been made to a story that has stood on it's own for 50+ years. One of the things about the story is the depth that Tolkein gave to the characters, and the variety of characters (ie Tom Bombadil) "

depth? Hmmmmmm different strokes I guess. 300 pages into FotR, I'm finding them all pretty much interchangable - in large degree again because no one ever says anything other than reciting 3 page long poems or giving dire warnings.

As for Tom Bombadil, he was dropped for a reason. If he appeared on a movie screen, half of the audience would start laughing at him and the spell would be ruined.

Re:Changes etc...

[Madmanz123]

A movie is not a book, it has different requirements for being well made, books can take days to read, movies, even a long one can not exceed 3 hours at a stretch. You can't cram every line of dialog with every scene and every moment word for word from the book. Cuts must be made, budgets met. From what I hear, they did a good job keeping the spirit of the movie alive. Give them credit.

Re:Changes etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

I laughed at Tom in the book. Not some kind of spite, but because of the character he was.

Re:Changes etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a blurb sometime ago about changes they made to the film. The reasons they made said changes are so it adapts to film better. If they stayed entirely true to the story, then the average movie goer is going to get bored as there are some long slow parts in the book. And while, when reading, you get the idea that this is part of some grander story, that's hard to show in a movie. So making Arwen more prevelant helps bring the average movie watcher in more. In the books you know she's important, but the whole romance thing happens behind the scenes. They've brought that out more so the audience isn't left in confusion in the end about how things worked out.

You're forgetting that this movie was not made purely with LotR fans in mind, it has to appeal to a wider audience. So relax for a minute, don't expect a line-by-line recitation of the book, and just enjoy the movie for what it is. As accurate an adaptation of the book as you're ever going to see.

~LlamaDragon (posting as an AC 'cause I'm lazy)

Re:Changes etc...

[aralin]

As for Tom Bombadil, he was dropped for a reason. If he appeared on a movie screen, half of the audience would start laughing at him and the spell would be ruined.

Maybe just because there is no actor nowadays that would be able to take such a difficult act? Tom Bombadil is one of essentials of the story and he gives actually the story its immense depth among others.

And BTW one of the top questions in every Toliken-related discussion group's FAQ is "Who is Tom Bombadil?" and I've seen and took part in many heated discussions about this question that took several years and as far as I know, its still not properly answered question...

Re:Changes etc...

[arkanes]

So make your own LOTR movie, post it on some fanboy site somewhere, and wait for everyone to rip YOU a new asshole about how much it sucks. I never like the LOTR books anyway - Tolkien was a linguistics professor and wrote like one. The characters are dry, the interpersonal conflict and relationships are marginal at best, and the dialoge is dreary. The books are important in that they added a whole new realm to the fantasy genre, and the story is epic and fascinating, but a better author could have written a much more engaging story.

Really painful LOTR jokes

[LarsWestergren]

http://www.stygianlabyrinth.net/ghastlyhumour/101/ lotrjokes/

Three movies? Aren't they 'dragon' this out a bit?

'One Ring to Rule Them All,' wasn't that AT&T's business plan?

Etc...

Re:Really painful LOTR jokes

[LarsWestergren]

Voot? "Overrated"? I SAID the jokes were painful. Curse you, moderator...

as boring as the book?

[woopi55]

I wonder if the film is as excruciatingly boring as the book.

The director may change the focus of the film and give some personality and believability to the characters. However, with all the fans prepared to launch suicide attacks if only one line of the book is changed, I doubt he dared do it.

I will go and see it, I'm curious.

LOTR - The SNES Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of piracy, I've been looking for the .smc rom for the SNES version of LOTR for snes9x.

I'm not sure that the game was ever finished or released, but if it was, I'd sure like to check it out.

Anyone have any information about this old game?

Re:LOTR - The SNES Game

[TheBigDinK]

It definitely came out. I think you could play it with 4 people too. Probably kinda rare though.

Re:LOTR - The SNES Game

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it !

16bitz.com has a romz section with LOTR.

You get so used to p2p programs that you often forget about good old warez sites :)

Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[germinatoras]

Install bos.games, then look in /usr/lib/fortune/fortunes.dat:

"I cannot read the fiery letters," said Frodo in a quavering voice.

"No," Said Gandalf, "but I can. The letters are Elvish, of course, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here. They are lines of a verse long known in Elven-lore:

"This Ring, no other, is made by the elves,
Who'd pawn their own mother to grab it themselves.
Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop,
This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop.
The Power almighty rests in this Lone Ring.
The Power, alrighty, for doing your Own Thing.
If broken or busted, it cannot be remade.
If found, send to Sorhed (with postage prepaid)."

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[BigTom]

I hope they gave it its correct attribution "Bored of the Rings" by National Lampoon

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[Anonymous Coward]

This verse is actually a rip from the Harvard Lampoon sendup of LOTR, "Bored of the Rings". The characters in the scene are Goodgulf Greyteeth, and Frito Bugger (Dildo Bugger's nephew). Sadly, I can't find my copy from back around '76. Lots of funny twists on the original.

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[gowen]

the Credit-where-credits-due department writes:
That should be credited to the Harvard Lampoon's Bored Of The Rings, a sporadically funny parody from the late 1960s.

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Pity I don't have that installed on the AIX machine in my office. Isn't that from "Bored of the Rings", that someone mentioned above?

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, this is too funny. How did I miss this before? Definitely gonna pick up a copy.

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[wsxyz]

Let's not forget this one...

Recently one of my friends, a computer wizard, payed me a visit.

As we were talking I mentioned having recently installed Windows 95 on my PC and that I am very happy with this operating system. I also showed him the Windows 95 CD, to my surprise he threw it into my microwave oven and turned on the oven.

Instantly I got very upset, because the CD had become precious to me, but he said: "Do not worry, it is unharmed." After a few minutes he took the CD out, gave it to me and said: "Take a close look at it."

To my surprise the CD was quite cold to hold and it seemed to be heavier than before. At first I could not see anything, but then on the inner edge of the central hole I saw an inscription; an inscription finer than anything I have ever seen before. The inscription shone piercingly bright, and yet remote, as if out of a great depth:

4F6E65204F5320746F2072756C65207468656D20616C6C2C20 4F6E65204F5320746 F2066696E64207468656D2CDA4F6E65204F5320746F2062726 96E67207468656D20 616C6C20616E6420696E20746865206461726B6E6573732062 696E64207468656D

"I cannot understand the fiery letters," I said. "No," he said, "but I can. The letters are Hex, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Microsoft, which I shall not utter here. But in common English this is what it says: One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[__aarrap2489]

That's actually /usr/games/lib/fortune/fortunes.dat if you have 4.3.3, it's a 4.3.3.0 level base fileset.

On another note, the man page for fortune(on AIX anyway) says that for related info see the 'bj command'. I'll have to say I don't think my terminal type has that functionality.

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[Speare]

Pity I don't have that installed on the AIX machine in my office. Isn't that from "Bored of the Rings", that someone mentioned above?

Pity? Yes, pity stayed his hand. "Pity I ran out of bullets," he thought.

Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3

[ahem]

So did anyone else write a quick 'n'-liner to verify in fact that the above hex does indeed say what the story says it says?

Oh. Just me?

Reminds me of Star Wars

[yerricde]

I think what might happen is if the trilogy is a success is they might go back and do a hobbit movie.

But after they finish the LotR series (it's really NOT a trilogy), what two stories will JRRT's descendants write to fill in the gap between The Hobbit (i.e. episode 1) and LotR (i.e. episodes 4 through 6)? And what changes will be made in LotR: Special Edition?

Re:Reminds me of Star Wars

[Unknown Bovine Group]

I can see it now:
Bilbo Baggins
Frodo Baggins
Jar-Jar Baggins

Re:Reminds me of Star Wars

[st0rmshad0w]

Oh contrair! Star Wars reminds me of Lord of the Rings. Think about it for a moment:

Frodo and Luke both lived in holes in the ground.
Gandalf is fairly analogous to Obi-Wan.
Aragorn and Han are both of royal blood.
Sauron and the Emperor.
And for some odd reason Chewie reminds me of Gimli.

There is alot more, but the thing I see happening is younger viewers who know nothing of the books are likely to walk away feling as tho LoTR is somehow a rip off of Star Wars.

Re:Reminds me of Star Wars

[junkgrep]

that Cafe on Luke's Planet = The Prancing Pony
Hoth = Cahadras
George Lucas = Barrow Wight, looking for something to breathe life back into its decript corpse.

Re:Reminds me of Star Wars

[discogravy]

...they'll add an annoying amphibian that speaks in dialect, thereby ruining the whole elan of the entire series.

just a guess, though.

Re:Reminds me of Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the coffee-spew on my monitor. Jar-Jar Baggins. Now there's a concept.

"Mesah thinks that ringsa's gonna be a poodoo lot o trubble!"

Re:Reminds me of Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late for that. There already is one, preciousssss....

Re:What's with Wil Wheaton?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's spelled Wil(l).

Ask him.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can contact him here. Doesn't say much though.

Re:The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll)

[avandesande]

First i rinse with hot grits.
Then i get a rimjob from natalie portman.

Taking my Son

[grendelkhan]

This, to me, is going to be the greatest thing about this. I discovered these books 25 years ago, and now I get to take my ten year-old to this movie. We've already read The Hobbit as a prelude to the movie, but we're both stoked about seeing the film big as all get out. We've been counting the days, and I think he's more excited about seeing this than he was bout Harry Potter. (Score one for culture)

Maybe it's a sign of my old age, but taking the boy to this and seeing the look on his face as the film unfolds is going to be a true joy, sharing something this close to me with him, and watching him enjoy it as much as I did.

I will see the movie just for that.

Well, that, and I've been waiting 25 years to see a version that didn't include "Frodo of the Nine Fingers".

A Sucker for Anything Tactical

[swdunlop]

For those of you who wargame means a table, miniatures and being at least somewhat social, as opposed to cranking up Command & Conquer, you'll be happy to know that Games Workshop has published a Lord of the Rings 'battle game'.

Normally, I could give less than a damn for Games Workshop, authors of generally schlocky games that are remarkable mostly for their steal-your-wallet market strategy. ( Literally hundreds of expansions, miniatures, all at insane prices. ) But, I've been in need of something new, so I picked up the game for $40 at my local Barnes and Noble.

That's the first shock. Wargames, at national retail outlets. The second shock, was that this game, unlike GW's other forays, has a certain measure of dignity to it. Gone are the gonzo tactics and arms race mentality of Warhammer 20,000.

The second shock is the rulebook, itself. The book is easy to read, and provides everything a novice could ever need, including extensive information on how to paint plastic and metal miniatures, and pictures from the movie on every page. A spoiler warning, the scenarios are taken right from the movie's screenplay, it seems, so, if you don't want to know how the director visualized, say, the Battle at Roundtop, don't buy this game, yet.

Of course, with such a low cost, there is a drawback.. The initial box set's miniatures are comprised of plastic. With a generous coat of painting, and delicate handling, however, they do quite well. I had wondered why the box was so light when I picked it up.

From a more cynical point of view, I noticed the expansions for LoTR have already started coming out, done entirely in lead-free metal, at the usual insane costs. $40 for eight miniatures depicting the principal fellowship of the ring, for example. It is admirable seeing that Games Workshop has done an excellent job of selling the foundation of the game for cheap, potentially introducing new gamers to the classic wargame genre, but one has to be a little skeptic whether GW will burn them out with the followup.

Re:A Sucker for Anything Tactical

[Anonymous Coward]

battle of weathertop i believe

Tolkien Family Left with no Treasure

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this article in the New Zealand Herald, J.R.R.Tolkien sold the rights to the movie for 10,000 pounds in 1968. The family retains the rights to printed material, so they will be profiting from increased book sales. J.R.R.Tolkien's son, Christopher, is opposed to the film project, but he has no say in the matter. It is sort of funny seeing Burger King ads featuring hobbits, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. They did the same thing with Hugo's dark novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame":
"Look Ma, I have a puppet of a deformed man with extreme curvature of the spine."

Feud Over Ring Movie

Peter Jackson is one to watch

[pokeyburro]

Peter Jackson's always been a bit of a favorite of mine, and I was glad to see him involved in LoTR, though I was surprised to see him as director. This is a huge project for someone who's done as few films as Jackson has.

Even so, I loved his work in The Frighteners, and Bad Taste, for that matter. It's a funny film, as much for its amateurishness as for anything else. The rocket was my favorite part!

The Lord of the OS

[Caudipteryx]

One OS to rule them all,
One OS to find them!
One OS to bring them all,
And in the Darkness bind them!

Re:The Lord of the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Once there was a little hobbit. It was not a big hobbit and it didn't go out and play much with the other hobbits, but it was very good at fashioning things. One day, almost by accident, it fashioned a magic ring. The ring could make beautiful colors and wonderful sounds like bleeps and squawks appear. He used the ring to make copies of itself and sold them to the other hobbits. But these copies didn't always work, so the little hobbit made new revised version of the rings and sold these to the other hobbits. Of course these were also defective, being only copies of the one true ring. The hobbits complained, but by now the little hobbit was rich and had a big castle with magic walls and he didn't care what the other hobbits thought.

One day the king heard of the little hobbit and put him on trial. After much legal wrangling the little hobbit was found guilty of defrauding the other hobbits. He felt remorseful and recalled all the defective rings. He allowed others to make their own rings and came up with a simpler, more reliable version of his own ring. All the hobbits were happy and lived in cooperation ever after. Fairy Tale? Of course.

Tolkien's estate had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

J.R.R. Tolkien sold the movie rights in the 60s. He and his descendents can do nothing except whine while making money. I doubt if the director even had a say.

Re:What's with Wil Wheaton?

[PsiPsiStar]

Actually, I think Danny Divito would be a better Gnome mascot. I mean, he kinda looks like one. Doncha think?

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

[yerricde]

I think the system we have, with copyright expiring after a while, is the correct system: that way the artist knows his immediate family profit from his work and not faceless corporations.

Immediate family, immediate profit. Copyright should last life plus TEN years (long enough for the family members to learn to produce more works), not life plus 70. However, Constitution 1.8.8 as interpreted by the Eldred v. Ashcroft court recognizes the lifetime of the Universe less a day as an adequate "limited time."

Americans: please write your representative and senators, asking them to repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

Re:Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

[Mr_Dyqik]

Given that the latest physical evidence is that the universe is open, i.e. will keep expanding for ever, then the lifetime of the universe can only be defined as infinity. Given Hilbert's Hotel analogy, infinity minus 1 is infinity, and therefore the lifetime of the universe minus a day is an infinite time.

Re:Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

[geekoid]

not true, if it is open, entropy will eventually cause all thing to cease, thus the end of the universe.

Some bint with a bow.

[Doktor Memory]

Oh please do shut up.

Re:who doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

look, everyone works for money. if they are willing to pay you money to write a story that can make hundreds of thousands happy and you know you can write it, wouldn't you?

Tolkien did just that. People offered him money to write a book, just like a damn job! nothing funny about that.

Does the fact they gave him money affect his storytelling? Maybe, but not necessarily in a negative way.

Re:What's with Wil Wheaton?

[domc]

As a gnome, I take offense to that statement. Danny Divito is more of a hobbit, or possibly a dwarf.

domc

Sheep.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Tired of all the hype? Afraid that the cheesy marketing tie-ins cheapen a classic story? Don't want to see the work of a great writer commercialized to the point of trivia?

2. Then don't see the movie.

3. But you will, and you'll return to /. to post your complaints about #1.

How about the Silmarillion?

[quintesson]

Or at least certain parts of it. The 'Fall of Gondolin' in particular has big potential for a visual adaptation (dozens of Balrogs, drakes, and wyrms, lots of fire).

Re:How about the Silmarillion?

[zhrike]

I think Nar i hin Hurin ( The Take of the Children of Hurin) would be really ideal. Basically it's a slight expansion on the 'Of Turin Turambar' from the Silmarillion. Lots of eye-candy, plus a truly tragic and dramatic storyline.

Re:How about the Silmarillion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have often thought that there were three potential movies from the Silmarlillion

1) Beren and Luthien
2) Of Turin Turambar
3) Tour and the Fall of Gondolin

Each of these stories stand alone with minimal outside explination. This is one reason why Tolien told these three stories in so many diferent forms--including as epic poems.

If you want to respect J.R.R. Tolkein's memory...

[joshamania]

...buy the book. The Tolkein estate sold the movie rights a long time ago, and are probably not getting a wholehelluvalot out of the movie (other than increased book sales).

This is from "Bored of the Rings"

[lowlypeon]

an often funny parody of LOTR written by the Harvard Lampoon back in the '60s. Bored of the Rings

simple

[FeltTip]

The rights couldn't be bought for a reasonable fee, or someone owns them and won't sell them.

I loved the Hobbit. It's very different from LOTR, so I don't know how someone could compare the two.

Re:simple

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I recall from reading about the pre-production of the film a couple years ago, United Artists own the rights to a live-action version of The Hobbit, and have been sitting on them. The sorta plan was to make LOTR and then possibly buy the rights from UA to make a hobbit film. I'm not sure UA would just up and sell the rights after LOTR does really good, though...

What are these movies/books about?

[ciurana]

Greetings!

I don't know what these books and movies are about. Like almost anyone in the western world, I've seen the books and heard of the movies, but I have no idea about the plot other than what I gathered from the books' dust covers. I particularly don't understand how these fantasies are more appealing than Star Wars, Conan the Barbarian, or the Beastmaster. The story line I've read hasn't compelled me to buy the books yet. What am I missing?

Friends of mine in central Russia gather once a month to enact scenes from LOTR; they have armours, swords, and other paraphernalia. I've seen some photos they took and it looks like a great role-playing game.

What surprised me most was that my girlfriend is a photography/modeling student, with zero geek quotient, and yet she's made me promise to take her to see LOTR on opening night (she hasn't read the books either). There is some deeper cultural phenomenon here that escapes me, and I would appreciate a quick intro from someone here on /. who is knowledgeable on LOTR.

Profile: My fantasy diet includes Star Wars, Harry Potter, Matrix, and all kinds of Gothic literature (from Carmilla to Sonja Blue). I deeply dislike Star Trek because it isn't good fantasy or good, hard sci-fi; it's something sort of middle of the road. My SciFi tastes include Arthur C. Clarke, Phillip K. Dick, Ursula LeGine (sp?), Harlan Ellison, Robert Heinlein, Elizabeth Moon, Melissa Scott, Neal Stephenson, etc.

Thanks in advance,

E

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[Destoo]

Check out the best recap ever.

"this synopsis has been endorsed by the prestigious London Sunday Times."

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[Anonymous Coward]

A word of warning to anyone who takes this seriously:
this recap will mess you up! It is purposely booby trapped so that anyone who reuses it will demonstrate their idiocy very quickly.

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[SnowDog_2112]

You ask a hard question. What is it about the books that make them special? That appeal to us?

As has been pointed out earlier, the books are heavy with the themes of friendship, duty, honor, and sacrifice. These may not be easy themes, but they are universal. The story hits you in the same way a War Epic might -- innocent young man from small town goes into the hell of war and comes out a different man. He is chosen, by the ambiguous hand of fate, to carry the ultimate load on his shoulders. Along the way, he fights the good fight. He nearly dies several times. He meets up with true evil. He faces the ultimate temptations.

And at its core, it's about good struggling against evil for the right of everyone to live freely.

It's also an incredibly self-consistent world. It feels like real history, not a cheesy fantasy where the rules change every hundred pages. If you're a details nut, this book will send you in a tizzy. It's what other authors hope for when they try to develop rich backgrounds for their books.

There's also the fact that it introduced the concept of modern fantasy. Trolls, dwarves, elves, wizards, magic swords, orcs ... in fact, I almost worry that some people will see LotR and feel it's derivative, just because it's where the rest of these copies came from! [NO, I'm not trying to say Tolkien invented Elves. But the genre of modern fantasy did begin with him.]

The last item for my little checklist is its cross-generational appeal. The story has been around long enough where grandparents and grandchildren both identify with it. My mother and I have wildly varying taste in entertainment -- but we're both silly excited to see this come out.

I hope that helps.

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[Paul Lamere]

Young man raised by his uncle is guided by an old wizard to his destiny of defeating the dark lord.

No wait, that's not Lord of the Rings ... thats
Star Wars!.

No wait, that's not Star Wars that's King Arthur!

No Wait, that's not King Arthur ... that's Harry Potter.

Sigh ...

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[LMCBoy]

It should be noted to those (like the original poster) who are unfamiliar with the LOTR, that the above linked synopsis is total hogwash. I gather it was written to thwart lazy students who wanted the "cliff notes" version of LOTR.

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[zzyzx]

*whew* I was getting really worried about my reading comprehension skills there.

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[SablKnight]

The only one of these that counts is King Arthur. The Lord of the Rings predates all the others and is widely considered to be the founding work of modern fantasy.

-SablKnight

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[Anonymous Coward]

>And at its core, it's about good struggling against evil for the right of everyone to live freely.

How is that? Almost everyone in the books lives under a monarchy!

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[decoydog]

wow...for the first few sentences, I thought you were talking about Saving Private Ryan.

Re:What are these movies/books about?

[SnowDog_2112]

Hrm. Sorry it took me so long to reply to this.

Basically, I meant to say that the main people you're supposed to identify with in the story are the Hobbits.

They live all great and carefree. Evil comes to their door, and a small number of them run off to put a stop to it :).

I mean, the Hobbits are pretty free. If they're under a monarchy, they certainly don't know it.

Curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

From your signature ("Fight thhe MPAA"), I take it you will not be seeing this movie?

Not true (Royalties)

[Arker]

Tolkein sold the movie rights years ago. His heirs aren't getting a dime for this movie.

Actually the Estate will receive royalties. Funny that, since they've refused to help with the movie in any way, and even outcast the one member of the family that disagreed, but that's the deal old man Tolkien worked out... one time payment of $250,000 plus royalties.

I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I hope that the movie stays true to the book by using Weirding Modules!

Re:New world foods

[Anonymous Coward]

poatatoes

Former VP Quayle, is that you?

Difficult decisions had to be made

[smartin]

I can just see Jones internal struggle:

hmmmm

Be true to the book....

or more Liv Tyler

Be true to the book....

or more Live Tyler

....

I had to be a tough choice.

Re:Difficult decisions had to be made

[fredrik70]

Hmm, I can't really see any difficulty in that decision at all for some reason ;-)

Re:New world foods

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope! It's me, Dubya! Hyuk Hyuk! Strategery! Dignitude! Hurk! Snaw!

hmmm... who the f*ck care?

[Ender Ryan]

Let's see....

I own the rights to the movie (this is hypothetical, in case you were too stupid to understand that) and I really like it. I think it's a great movie, and it will hopefully make me a lot of money. However, it cost 500,000,000 US dollars to make all three movies (just a guess...) so I have a long, long, long way to go before it's profitable.

Burger King offers me 50M USD if I allow them to make paper sunglasses with LOTR junk all over them, sure why not?

KFC offers 75M USD if they can plaster LOTR posters all over their restaurants, sure why not?

Etc. etc. etc.

I get a huge chunk of my investment back and little kids get to have Burger King sunglasses...

I fail to see how that damages the film in any way, did someone at BK spill ketchup on the reel?

Or does it just personally offend you that someone has made a huge investment with a LOT of money and is trying to easily recoup some of that...

If all the silly commercials bother you... well shit, don't wath them! A novel concept, eh?

Re:hmmm... who the f*ck care?

[don_carnage]

You own the rights to the movie? No way!!! Got a bridge you can sell me, too?

Don't get me wrong...it's not that I don't want them to make enough money to support the three movies, it's just that selling rights to BK for crappy merchandise seems to ruin the whole mood of the film. Perhaps it's just backlash from seeing one too many of those damn Shrek BK commercials. BLEH!

My Sort of Review

[west]

I was fortunate enough to see the movie in late November. (no spoilers follow)

They did not do the impossible. The length and breadth of Fellowship of the Ring could not be compressed into a 3 hour movie. Nor could they manage to please of all us Tolkein fans, each of whom brings a mental picture of what Elves/Frodo/Gandalf/Dwarves/ Aragorn/etc. *really* looked/acted like.

I will guarantee that each of you will walk away disappointed in *some* aspect of the movie. I also expect it to be a *different* piece of the movie for each person.

What they managed was the remarkable. The movie works, and works well. They have successfully translated a book almost totally unsuited for a movie into a rivetting, astonishingly beautiful piece of cinema.

In other words, keep expectations in check, and you should enjoy yourself immensely. Go, waiting to see what part they adulterated/messed up, and you risk letting your inevitable disappointment in one section overshadow the considerable success of the movie as a whole.

As an aside, I suspect that there's a lot of (non-existent) advertising revenue in a site that allows each user to vote on the five things that they feel the film did wrong. I figure there'd be at least five hundred possible complaints. On the other hand, my comparison with other people's list have found an almost complete lack of unity about what the points are! (How could nobody else realize that they've totally destroyed the Shire scenes by making Bilbo's eyes the wrong color :-))

Re:My Sort of Review

[Black Parrot]

> How could nobody else realize that they've totally destroyed the Shire scenes by making Bilbo's eyes the wrong color :-)

Hey! You promised no spoilers!!!

Direct quote from Jackson's production notes...

[Lethyos]

13, June, 1999

"Where there's a whip, there's a way...
"Where there's a whip, there's a way!
"The cast says they don't want to go to war today!
"But, you know that I'll say, 'nay, Nay, NAY!'
"They're gonna march! All day, all day!
"They're just slaves of New Line's war.!"

Makes a change

[icemind]

"since it premiered in the UK already for you lucky brits"

... for once. :) We usually get films well after America (ditto books and computer games). Even Australia gets them sooner sometimes.

Re:Makes a change

[GLevangelist]

The whole situation is just madness. For example, the whole world got Black & White (a British game) before the UK did!

It's good to see that the distributors of LOTR and Harry Potter are not helping to perpetuate the insanity.

LOTR already on filesharing networks...

[purdue_thor]

I checked on edonkey and sure enough there are some 700MB DivX's that are supposed to be LOTR. Don't know if they're real or not, but that's some quick turnaround. Now, do I want to download 700MB just find out whether or not it's a hoax... ?

Commercial Success for LotR

[west]

I must admit I'm quite apprehensive about FotR's commercial success. It's certainly not going to lose money (everybody will see it at least once). However, there are two factors that might prevent it from matching Harry Potter, et al.

1. They didn't mess with the story in any major way. It ends just as the book did, which is perhaps not the most uplifting of endings. Nobody's going to be bouncing out of the theatre.
   
2. More importantly. The directory stayed true to the themes of the book. There's no postmodernism here. Not an ounce of irony. This is a movie about obligation, duty and sacrifice. Not exactly themes that strike a chord with large number of people nowadays. I don't think I've seen a movie meant for an adult audience as unambiguously earnest in a long time.
   

Of course, that's exactly why I loved the movie...

Thomas Sutcliffe

[jmccay]

I don't think he has a clue about what he was talking about. He talks about LOTR as if it copied these movies...such as Harry Potter "And anyone who wants a replay of the troll attack from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone will find one here". Too bad Harry potter is a book borrowing from all kinds of myths and mythologies. Then there is the small problem of the book being written some 50 years ago. I hate critics who are ignorant of the sources of a movie.

Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

It goes like this. A bunch of peaceful little guys are minding their own business in their village at the beginning of the first book. The mysteriously disappearing/reappearing wizard Gandalf shows up and says bad things are coming. Several of the little guys decide to head off from the village. Here's where the story gets underway.

1. Good guys head for some destination or other.
2. Good guys notice they're being chased by really mean but mysterious bad guys of some sort
3. Good guys flee, alternately running and hiding
4. Bad guys nearly catch them, but just in time, Good guys stumble on a group of other Good guys, and the Bad guys leave.
5. The newly-met good guys give them all magic food and they all sing songs and recite poetry.
6. Repeat as necessary.

Disclaimer - YES, I'm kidding, dammit! But you've got to admit, there IS a grain of truth to it...

Anyone who DOESN'T know the story (both of you), it actually IS a good, complex tale. I just couldn't help noticing this pattern in it...

Re:Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks

Re:Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:

[Arandir]

I didn't notice until you brought it up, but there is a HELL of a lot of "magic food" in The Hobbit and LOTR. Cram, Beorning bread, Tim Benzedrino's magic brownies, lembas, elvish moonshine, orkish rotgut, etc.

Re:Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's more, this pattern also covers my lengthy career as a college student! I think you're on to something.

Re:Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:

[woopi55]

and soon to be, whooper meals... or whatever they call them.

STUPID MODERATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

this guy is saying "go think for yourself & don't buy into the hype machine" and is modded down as a TROLL? Just because you don't agree? You FUCKING HYPOCRITES. Piss and moan about MPAA/RIAA and digital rights, and boycotting the greedy hype machine, but when someone call you on it you can't fucking handle it. Goodbye slashdot.

That chick elf...

[ChaoticCoyote]

...is one of the primary reasons I'm going to LOTR! I've had the hots for Liv Tyler since she was in Armaggedon.

And yes, my hobbit-like wife is well aware of my elf fetish. I'm a dwrf, she's a hobbit, and our kids are dwobbits.

You can't tell we're into this sort of thing, can you?

Bantam?

[RAVasquez]

Do you have a source for that? Because I can think of a few holes in that story:

1) Bantam Books is a paperback publisher; theoretically without as much clout to order a sequel as a hardcover publisher.

2) If Tolkien were writing a sequel strictly for the money, he took his sweet time. The Hobbit appeared in 1937; The Fellowship of the Ring didn't appear until 1954.

3) In any case, Ballantine, not Bantam, produced the paperback.

I don't argue that Tolkien may have written it for the money, at least in part, but it's hardly a sequel-for-hire.

Re:Bantam?

[fireboy1919]

You're right about the publisher. I always confuse Ballantine and Bantam. Sorry, it was Ballantine who did it. And yes, it did take a while for the popularity to grow to such a level that they asked him for more (it was a request, not an order - he didn't have to do anything). As to the source, I'm not sure if its on the net. I read it in a biography on him offline in the back of his unpublished works.

I'm not trying to be dark or pessimistic - rather, the opposite. We all have to work. Its part of life - I don't think it takes away from art or literature; I'd say its a part of it. I was defending the beauty of selling hamburgers with the help of Tolkien's story. I didn't consider that some would think that I was criticizing Tolkien.

I'm not sure that making commercials is not an art - or that making commemorative merchandise isn't. I think they both probably are, despite the fact that they make money.

Re:Bantam?

[Slurm-V]

I think you mispelled Allen and Unwin. Unwin himself was the one to ask for a sequel.

Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view on

[sphealey]

Funny, I just happened to re-read Tolkien's view on a movie version of LOTR last night. In a 1957 letter to his agent in response to an offer from an American studio, he basically said two things (a) he had no philosophical objection to movies and wouldn't mind if someone tried to create a screenplay/movie version (b) however, since he didn't trust Hollywood, his specific instructions were "either Art or Cash", meaning either full artistic control, or enough cash up front to drown his sorrows.

So I would say ol' JRR had pretty clear vision in these matters.

sPh

Critic misses it

[magarity]

From The Guardian:

"'Like an Anglo-Saxon cousin to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' Xan Brooks applauds the brave first instalment"

This reviewer makes a completely off-base comparision. In Middle Earth mythology, Sauron has imbued the One Ring with his evil energies. The ring is itself an artifact of active evil. As Frodo wears it more and more he becomes corrupted by it as we find out in the closing sequence in Mount Doom. And Frodo's experience is nothing compared to Gollum's.

In CTHD, the exact opposite is true. The Green Destiny is absolutely neutral. It is simply a very well crafted tool. In the hands of the good people, it does good. In the hands of the bad people, it does mischief/evil. That was, IMHO, a much better movie for geeks of all colors because it depicted technology as being what you make of it.

Most 'western' tradition movies and stories have this theme of actively evil technology. The Hollywood Luddite Assoc. has been churning out films lately where technology is inherently evil. Even the ring in LotR, as simple of a 'device' as it is, is still an inanimate (thing created by a human) object with an evil agenda on its own. Not only is technology rarely neutral in films, but it is also hard to think of a list of technological devices depicted in a positive light in movies... The kid in "AI", Johnny 5, C3PO (mainly a comic relief tool). But a long list of 'evil' technology in movies comes to mind easily: Andriods (The Terminator, Bishop, etc), The One Ring, The Death Star, The Matrix, HAL9000, cloning, etc, etc.

Well, I digress, but this reviewer has missed the whole "technology is good/evil neutral" theme that made CTHD such a refreshingly different movie.

Re:Critic misses it

[Anonymous Coward]

The android in Aliens (known as Bisshop) was not evil as far as the film viewer sees. We see a construct that appears to be as adverse to it's own destruction as the humans around it.

The evil of Aliens was the Company Man (they used the perfect actor IMO).

The real question.

[Zarniwoop]

It's from the director of Bad Taste. How could it not be good!

Worldwide premiere on Dec 19th

[sph]

since it premiered in the UK already for you lucky brits

The actual premiere is still on Wednesday December 19th almost everywhere. Even here in Finland, where all the other movie premieres are on Fridays. There have only been some advance showings for press and such, some earlier, but mostly on December 10th, I think. The Official World Premiere with PJ and the cast was for invited guests only in London on December 10th.

BTW, the film currently has IMDb rating of 9.3, with over 300 votes. #1 movie on the top 250 list has only 9.0...

eDonkey

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me, I tried eDonkey out a while back and it didn't work. That's not the problem, if you've had it installed, look in your registry under "HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Local AppWizard-Generated Applications". Mmm, sloppy programmers!

(hint: this is the default for apps created with MSVC's appwizard, it should be changed in the main cpp file in the InitInstance function, iirc)

Just one of those little details that makes you wonder what else they forgot...

Oh man, I don't think this will happen

[Dirk Pitt]

I don't think BK is fraught with LOTR fans. A friend of mine said he asked for one of the glasses there the other day, and the pimply faced kid behind the counter said (in your best Simpsons fast-food guy voice):

"Did you want the old dude or the girl?"

NAMBLA Poster? hahahaah

[Hohlraum]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20011211/en/mdf9 8651.html

hahahahahahahahaha

-Hoh

fun question to try to answer

[speek]

What is LOTR about?
It's a fairly straightforward plot about defeating evil. That said, that's NOT the important element of this story that makes it so popular, IMHO. The scale is immense, however, both in time and space, and that IS a big element, I think. I think you ought to go read the books (preferably before seeing the movie) and find out for yourself what the story is about.

Why is LOTR popular?
1. Detail, detail, detail. That scale I mentioned above is present here to. The depth of detail in these books is amazing. You get an entire world, it's history, and nearly all the important people of that world make an appearance at one point or another. You get the impression after reading it that you haven't missed anything from that world.
2. The plot is essentially, small, defenseless person saves world - becomes big hero! So, it's got the necessary element to appeal to pre-teens who have no voice in our world.
3. Wise old man appreciates young would-be hero. Again, something most pre-teens yearn for that they don't have.
4. Nothing is out of place - in other words, the world exists and is consistent with itself, and is wholly separate from reality. No one swears - everyone talks funny like they're supposed to. No one ever steps out of character. The warriors never take their armor off, etc. You are never, ever, rudely reminded of the real world, and there is never any attempt to make a real world "point". Pure fantasy.

So, points 2-4 pull you in, and point 1 makes you a fan for life. The detail and thoroughness really is quite extraordinary.

Re:fun question to try to answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree. It's also a bloody good travel book. No-one describes a landscape like Tolkein

Re:fun question to try to answer

[ethereal]

I would add to #1: that in some cases you don't get the whole detail, and are left wondering a little bit. For example, who really are the Wild Men, and what is their connection with the giant statues (not the two kinds on the river, the other statues on the switchbacks of that one mountain whose name I can't remember). Things like that, where you have to go back and read The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales to really get the truth.

In fact, some of those things have never been entirely explained IIRC. Tolkien writes a world that's like real life - you can never wrap up all the threads. And since there's always this level of uncertainty, it leads you to always consider the deeper motivations behind things that otherwise you would take for granted, like elves hating dwarfs, etc. You think "I wonder what part of the story Tolkien isn't telling me in that case?"

Q:what about the Hobbit? A: it's here!

[Kvasio]

here. Yeap, animated, but it's there.
:)

Re:New world foods

[ImaLamer]

So he is smoking pot!

I knew it, we discussed this earlier on /. and decided that it was a cover up and 'J' explained it was tobacco to get people off his back.

Now if it was tomacco that would be great! [i love that episode]

my point

[Ender Ryan]

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but my point is, just ignore it.

I'll admit, I watch too much T.V. But even still, I don't notice the hype at all. I just tune out as soon as commercials come on. That way advertising and movie hype has very effect on me, and the movie people can make money, kids can get their garbage, and I don't get sucked into it all.

BTW, if you would like to purchase the rights to the movie so you can deal with all of this, I'd be willing to let it go for $1.95.

Re:my point

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people just have to have something to bitch about. Someone who is unable to deal with the reality of big-release movies having the fast-food marketing tie-ins because they "ruin the whole mood of the film" needs to learn to filter their reality a bit better. I suggest a TiVo. Since getting mine, I notice I am blissfully unaware of much of Madison Ave's efforts to pollute my moviegoing experiences.

It all started with a blank page

[T1girl]

Didn't J.R.R. Tolkien himself say that it all began when he was grading exam papers at Oxford, and someone turned in a blank paper. Tolkien supposedly scrawled on it, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit," and the story kind of spun out from there.

I loved the Father Christmas letters he wrote for his children. If they hadn't been published years later, no one else would have been able to enjoy his vision of the North Pole and the evolution of the characters who came to inhabit it.

(speakingof college, at the risk of sounding like an English lit. major, I would be remiss not to point out that it's "overwhelm.")

LOTR, Mummy Returns and Final Fantasy

[bodland]

Interesting that the BBC reviewer mentioned the immense battle scenes with thousands of orcs looking like what came from Mummy Returns. I wonder if the company contrated to do the sepecial effects of the massive army scenes was the same that did. Final Fantasy FF and Mummy Returns MR. I know that the figures in the MR and FF were very similar. The same articulation in the lower leg in the battle scene in FF shows up in MR as army of Anubus. Al that's needed was a new "wardrobe" to apply.

In the DVD extras for FF they mention the compay that does the army sequences. It only makes sense to think of the giant armies as "actors" and they are for hire. So its not surpising to see them show up in multiple movies.

I guess this is the new character actor.

Re:LOTR, Mummy Returns and Final Fantasy

[LabRatty]

Nope, all the army scenes were done in house at Weta Digital in New Zealand.

I got my seat reserved!

[sherpajohn]

Okay, so its general admission...but I have a ticket reserved, for the secvond showing on the first day. It harkens back to the day I skipped school to go see the first Star Wars film...except I won't be sitting in the fornt row with a bunch of buddies smoking chillums of hash before the lights go down. I'll just have to spark one solo on the way to the theatre.

I was thinking my gf would be peeved I am not taking her, but I told her there is no way...I am gonna be overwhelmed with emotion...LOTR is about the only friend I had to get me through a couplf of years of my adolesence.

I can barely wait, I find myself watching the trailer over and over (it's right there on my desktop, just begging to be clicked again), and getting goosebumps everytime I hear Gandalf say "You shall not pass!". I just hope I don't pass out with excitment before the 4pm showing on the 19th....

Re:I got my seat reserved!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking my gf would be peeved I am not taking her, but I told her there is no way...I am gonna be overwhelmed with emotion...

Dude! What are you thinking?? When she sees that emotion on your face, it's instant score! She'll be all over you for the next week... Take her!

Re:I got my seat reserved!

[ethereal]

I sincerely hope that you do not find yourself disappointed. It usually seems that folks with the most emotional investment in a movie beforehand turn out to be the most devastated when it doesn't live up to their hopes. I'm looking forward to it too, but I'm trying to not look forward to it too much, if you know what I mean.

Although maybe your weed will get you over that :)

Re:I got my seat reserved!

[sherpajohn]

Dude! What are you thinking?? When she sees that emotion on your face, it's instant score! She'll be all over you for the next week... Take her!

LOL!!!! I promised to take her that weekend, if it lives up to my overblown expectations, I am sure I will be displaying enough emotion to have her all over me. And anyways...I really don't need that to get her going, one phrase whispered in her ears is all it usually takes: "hey babe, how about a beowulf cluster of natalie portman doing the hot grit thing?" YooooMAMA, that sets her off everytime!

Eeek, now I am gonna lose karma for a comment in my own thread?

Re:I got my seat reserved!

[Larry_Dad]

Got my tickets last week for the 19th for the first showing. No kids, no wife for this showing. (Maybe later in the week if its not too scary for pre teens...) The only part that gets me teary-eyed is the end of the ROK when Frodo leaves Middle Earth.
I was wondering why they are having a middle of the week start -- no problems getting the tickets though so hopefully no problems getting a prime seat....

We should be thankful...

[shlamo]

According to the article here if Tolkien hadn't of sold the rights to the movie for $250,000 before he died then there never would have been a LOTR film. Christopher Tolkien (son of JRR) has ceased almost all contact with his son Simon since Simon began working with Jackson (the Director) on the film. So I am thankful that the movie rights were sold so that I have the opportunity of seeing the epic story depicted on film.

I do, however, think it's a shame that the LOTR is going to be bastardized (and is: eg Burger King) into so many commercial products that we're going to lose site of the brilliance of the literature behind it. The "Hollywood Effect" I suppose.

I guess the real question is: Is it worth releasing the LOTR as a motion picture even though the film (and the commercialism, etc. that comes with it) might forever scar Tolkien's epic??

When I look at it that way i can see why Christopher is so vehement about it not being released as a film.

~shlamo

Re:We should be thankful...

[pkesel]

Commercialism generally only lasts until something new is there of which to be taken advantage. This is literature that's been around for generations. A few months of being shoved in the commercial spotlight isn't going to hurt it. It has history to stand on that's far deeper than the movie can affect.

Of course it's been pirated. duh.

[Vortran]

If the idiots that were selling the bootlegged copies had time to make 5,000 of them how long does anyone think it took for folks that AREN'T interested in profit mongering to see the movie?

Everyone that I know in the U.S. who is interested has already seen it. I was even offered a DVD of the movie on 3 separate occasions last week. I'm much more interested in Stephen R. Donaldson's "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant," and I've never read Tolkien so I politely declined the offers.

The point is that it makes no sense to "release" the movie in UK while we wait in the USA. Wouldn't it make more sense to just "release" it in all theaters everywhere on the planet? Why go around wasting money busting pirates, when you could possibly MAKE money by releasing it in different ways? Beat the pirates at their own game.

People are more than willing to be relieved of their cash. They are much less welling to submit to the perceived control of someone who says, "You guys over there can't have this yet." People, especially Americans, HATE feeling like their being controlled... told what they can and cannot do.

LOTR pron

[gkbarr]

KaZaA

Morpheus

I'm not sure where it is on IRC. Anyone?

Four words ...

[the bluebrain]

... right here

(jes' trollin')

animated The Hobbit was decent

[Sloppy]

Well, the animated LotR sucked, but the animated Hobbit was pretty decent, IMHO. The Hobbit doesn't "need" a new movie as much as LotR did. (But yes, it would be neat anyway.)

One word for you...

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

Films with a budget of $20 million+ don't lose money any more, ever.

Waterworld

Re:One word for you...

[kallisti]

According to these statistics, even Waterworld made money including overseas distrbution 88 + 165 > 167 by a long shot. Now, if Battlefield Earth has any chance, I wouldn't know.

At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[MikeyLikesIt!]

I read The Fellowship Of The Rings for the first time this summer in anticipation of the movie. I have to say that it was one of the most boring books I have ever read.

Don't get me wrong! The story was great - there were many memorable moments - but it was told in a very tedious manner.

For example, you could probably edit out everything 95% of the text between the death of Gandalf and the arrival at the elvin village without losing any coherence.

All of this probably means that the movie will be better than the book, so I haven't lost all hope!

Any thoughts?

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any thoughts?

Yeah. Read it again.

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a brilliant comeback also,

"Yah, sez you!"

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[egomaniac]

I have to agree. I'm sure this will go down as Flamebait / Troll (take your pick), but I found LotR mind-numbingly boring.

I've read long books before -- the Wheel of Time series comes to mind, weighing in at something like 6,000 pages so far -- so I promise that it has nothing to do with a short attention span or lousy imagination. They're just boring.

The writing is mediocre, and Tolkien *really* likes listening to himself talk. The books just aren't that good. Fine, they helped set the direction for modern fantasy. I won't dispute that. Study them for the historical value then, but all of this gushing about them being the best fantasy novels ever is, IMNSHO, misplaced.

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[Legion303]

Here's another "me too." Every time I try to read the _Fellowship_ I lose interest when the travellers get to Rivendale. Maybe next time I try reading it I'll skip straight to the part where they leave.

_The Hobbit_ was far, far better in my opinion.

Looking forward to the movie, though. It looks much more action-packed and riveting than the book.

-Legion

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hobbit is a children's book.

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[celttechie]

To someone that just reads the Fellowship, or the whole series for that matter, because they've heard about how great it is without knowing why is set up for this kind of impression.

The first time I attempted Fellowship I just couldn't get through it. It has a lot to do with the setting of the story, the development of the characters and their quirks, mindset, etc. The Character development done in the series is some of the best I've ever read. Unfortunately, that means that there are some places that aren't going to be as fast-paced as most of us in this generation would like.

When I think back over the main plot and storyline of the series it's actually fairly simple, but all of the subplots, character development and history really provide a depth that's not present in many other works of literature. Once you see it as a whole it really shows all of the effort Tolkien put into his works.

If you want something boring read "The Simarillion" (sp?) That stuff is pretty dry, but shows the lengths Tolkien went to in creating an entire world with history, etc.

Actually, this is the Black Speech translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Three Rings fo' da Elven-kings under da sky,
Seven fo' da Dwarf-lords in they halls o' stone,
Nine fo' Mortal Men doomed ta die,
One fo' da Dark Lord on his dark throne
In da Land o' Mordor where da Shadows lie.
One Ring ta rule dem all, One Ring ta find dem,
One Ring ta bring dem all an' in da darkness gang dem
In da Land o' Mordor where da Shadows lie. what 'chew thinking man?

Re:Actually, this is the Black Speech translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Slap mah fro!

Thanks for the answers

[ciurana]

Greetings again,

Thanks for taking the time to answer this post. I don't believe I will have a chance to read the books before the movie opens but your answers will definitely help when it comes to following what's happening.

I will try to read the books over the Christmas holiday (I've got two weeks off).

I can see the development of archetypes in the descriptions you provided. I'm currently re-reading Joseph Campbell's Hero of a Thousand Faces and the same patterns and themes emerge in LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, 2001, etc.

Best wishes,

E

Premiered in Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

The premiere was yesterday at the same time in the UK an Mexico. Three hours of magic.

Why pirate on V-CD..

[Axe]

...Why pirate on V-CD, when you have MPEG4?

BTW - anybody heard of MPEG4 capable components? LIke a DVD+VCD+MPEG4 system? I would by one - hard to rig computer to my theatre..

Re:New world foods

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was "pipeweed" and we all know what kind of weed people some in pipes.

Fleischer Rotoscoping

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, an early Koko the Clown/Betty Boop short uses footage of Cab Calloway dancing to give Koko extra groove as he sings "St. James Infirmary Blues."

He Got It

[krmt]

Poshumuously, and through an intermediary, but he got it.

Jackson $270 million to make the movie, and free reign over the whole project. That's both the money and the artistic control, and I'm sure Tolkien's estate will benefit from it.

It just shows the strength of these books that they merited this kind of deal. Very few things in the entertainment industry do.

Re:He Got It

[Anonymous Coward]

The "he" you're referring to is the wrong person. Tolkien's words concerned himself having full artistic control or cash, not Peter Jackson. Tolkien's estate got 10k pounds for Tolkien's work. I also don't understand how you can be sure Tolkien's estate will benefit. If the estate sold the rights, isn't the payment for the rights all they're ever going to get from the film? Or are you referring to some indirect benefit like Tolkien's estate's control in book sales or something?

Re:He Got It

[krmt]

Yeah, I guess I was being a little unclear. The "he" isn't so much Tolkien himself, but the works. The works themselves merit the deal in terms of full control and large amounts of cash. While this doesn't affect the man himself (he is dead after all), it's amazing to me whenever a work gets this kind of special privledge. Had Tolkien himself been alive today and cutting the deal, he would have gotten what he wanted personally. As it is, the works have to stand for him on their own.

And as for the estate, I had assumed they would get royalties for all works derived. I don't know the details of movie rights sales, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a royalty deal in there somewhere for his estate to cash in on. If there isn't, then I suppose they won't benefit except by book sales like you mention. I guess I assumed too much with the royalty thing though, my mistake.

Why I don't like FotR

[zzyzx]

I made a couple of these points in other threads, but I decided to lump them all together for ease of people telling me I have no taste or something. Mind you I'm only about 50 pages into book 2, so maybe these complaints get better as time goes on, but I have read 300 pages. I can handle slow starting books, but this has transcended that. Also from reading other comments on amazon and aintitcoolnews, I get the feeling that these are systematic complaints. I'd be curious about feedback from LotR fans. Am I giving up too soon or are these just not the books for me?

1) There's no dialogue. Ok that's an exaggeration. There's plenty of long passages giving the history of the ring or of the lineage of a weapon or a song that happens to tell the history of an ancient war, but no actual character interaction. When Sam makes a comment along the lines of, "I wonder what these insects ate when they don't have hobbit," it stood out for being the only line like that in a 100 page stretch of text or so.

2) The story is subservient to the history. A well defined universe can add a lot to a story. However, I believe the story I've heard about the origin of LotR (it was written as an excuse to use the language he invented). Take out the history and the endless descriptions of the passages that they walk over and what I've read would fill 15 pages or so. Allegedly that gets better though.

3) Only the darkness is defined. One of the (legitimate) problems that people have with Harry Potter is that the villain is really poorly defined. Voldemort's motivations really aren't addressed that much for all of his import. FotR is having the opposite problem. Tolkein seemed to only like darkness. The Shire and Rivendell are more boring than anything. Tom Bombadil is a dork. To use another popular example, look at Narnia. Sure Narnia isn't 1% as well defined as Middle Earth, but there are many scenes of joy there. When Narnia is in danger, it affects me because I can see what would be lost. When Middle Earth is in danger, I don't care. At some point you have to show what people are fighting for, not just what they're fighting against.

There might be more, but those are the main ones. If I don't care about the characters or the world, it's hard for me to want to dive into the history. I need the carrot first. So will 1) and 3) get better, or should I reread the Chronicles of Narnia again?

Re:Why I don't like FotR

[kallisti]

Regarding 1, when you start getting to Rohan and Gondor there are some more character interactions. Sam also becomes more interesting in the 3rd book, not just the loyal servant. For the most part, though, that's a valid criticism.

The strongest description of the good is Galadriel and Lothlorien, which you should be getting to shortly.

Re:Why I don't like FotR

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree on 3. I never got a sense of what the true threat Sauron posed was, other than having unpleasant followers. Yah so he lived in a nasty old Mordor but the good guys seemed to enjoy killing just as much. What was Sauron's plan for the world if he had won? Even Hitler had a vision.

I couldn't see how evil got any strength in Middle-Earth either since it very rarely won any conflicts, it was perpetually getting beaten! How can it be a threat if it never wins.

Re:Why I don't like FotR

[DapperDan]

You're mostly correct on #2. Tolkien believed that a language is derivative from the culture it comes from and the history that birthed the culture. He wrote his stories (not just LOTR) to create those histories and cultures he was creating his languages for.

Re:Why I don't like FotR

[Coryoth]

I couldn't see how evil got any strength in Middle-Earth either since it very rarely won any conflicts, it was perpetually getting beaten! How can it be a threat if it never wins.

Well, Morgoth completely wrecked middle earth early it's creation, Morgoth and Ungoliant destroyed the two trees, and well, there's always the "Battle of Unnumbered Tears" for evil victories. Not to mention Sauron successfully getting Numenor destroyed, the shape of the world changed, and all that. That wasn't a bad effort really.

Jedidiah

Just a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

By paying to see the movie, you are not in any way giving money to the Tolkien familiy. J.R.R. himself sold the movie rights to his books shortly before he died for a grand sum of $10,000. These rights have filtered through several unambitious companies until they came to rest with the great conglomerate, AOL/TimeWarner, and from hence their subsidiary New Line.

-A.C.

Oh, and speaking of the "Curse of Costner"

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

The Postman

Production costs: $80 million.
Domestic gross: $17.4 million

Re:Oh, and speaking of the "Curse of Costner"

[ethereal]

How about the international gross, though? That's what kept Waterworld above water.

Although I agree that "The Postman" the novella was better, the movie wasn't too bad. And it had a Tom Petty cameo - can't beat that!

YAY

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this new "LORD OF THE BURGER KINGS" movie is as good as that other movie Slashdot hyped, "DUNEGEONS AND DRAGONS" !

full poem in black speech:

[dunkelfalke]

Gakh Nazgi Golug durub-uuri lata-nuut,
Udu takob-ishiz gund-ob Gazat-shakh-uuri,
Krith Shara-uuri matuurz matat duumpuga,
Ash tug Shakhbuurz-uur Uliima-tab-ishi za,
Uzg-Mordor-ishi amal fauthut burguuli.
Ash nazg durbatuluuk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatuluuk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Uzg-Mordor-ishi amal fauthut burguuli.

and here it goes in other langs

Here's the Polish version:

Trzy Pierscienie dla krolow Elfow pod blekitnym niebem,
Siedem dla wladcow krasnali w ich podziemnych palacach,
Dziewiec dla smiertelnikow, ludzi smierci podleglych.
Jeden dla Wladcy Ciemnosci na jego czarnym tronie
W krainie Mordor, gdzie zalegly cienie.
Jeden by wszystkim rzadzic, jeden by wszystkie odnalezc,
Jeden by wszystkie zgromadzic i w ciemnosci zwiazac
W krainie Mordor, gdzie zalegly cienie.

And (for those who didn't read the original), English:

Three Rings for the Elvenkings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf Lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for mortal Men, doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them.
One Ring to bring them all and in darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie.

So it looks in French:

Trois pour les Rois d'Elfes sous le ciel d'azure,
Sept pour les Seigneurs Na?ns dans leurs demeures de pierre,
Neuf pour les Hommes mortels destin?s au trepas,
Un pour le Seigneur des Ten?bres sur son sombre trone,
Dans le pays de Mordor ou s'?tendent les ombres.
Un Anneau pour les gouverner tous, un Anneau pour les trouver,
Un Anneau pour les amener tous et dans les ten?bres les lier
Au pays de Mordor ou s'?tendent les Ombres.

In German:

Drei Ringe den Elbenkoenigen hoch im Licht,
Sieben den Zwergenherrschern in ihren Hallen aus Stein,
Den Sterblichen, ewig dem Tode verfallen, neun,
Einer dem Dunklen Herrn auf dunklem Thron
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn.
Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn.

In Danish (there may be errors):

Tre har elvernes konge i dybeste skove,
Syv har dvaergenes herrer i sale af sten,
Ni har mennesket doedeligt, doemt til at sove,
In har den natsorte fyrste for ondskab og min
I Mordors land, hvor skygger ruge.
In Ring er over dem alle, In Ring kan finde de andre
In Ring kan bringe dem alle, i moerket loenke dem alle
I Mordors land, hvor skygger ruge.

And in Spanish:

Tres anillos para los Reyes Elfos bajo el cielo.
Siete para los Senores Enanos en palacios de piedra.
Nueve para los Hombres Mortales condenados a morir.
Uno para el Senor Oscuro, sobre el trono oscuro
en la Tierra de Mordor donde se extienden las Sombras.
Un Anillo para gobernarlos a todos. Un Anillo para encontrarlos,
un Anillo para atraerlos a todos y atarlos en las tinieblas
en la Tierra de Mordor donde se extienden las Sombras.

In Swedish:

Tre ringar foer aelvkonungarnas makt hoegt i det bl?,
sju foer dvaergarnas furstar i salarna av sten,
nio foer de doedliga, som koettets vaeg skall g?,
en foer Moerkrets herre i ondskans dunkla sken
i Mordorlandets hisnande gruva.
En ring att saemja dem,
en ring att fraemja dem,
en ring att djupt i moerkrets
vida riken taemja dem -
i Mordors land, daer skuggorna ruva.

And in Dutch:

Drie Ringen voor de Elfen-koningen op aard'
Zeven voor de Dwergvorsten in hun zalen schoon,
Negen voor de mensen, die de dood niet spaart,
Een voor de Zwarte Heerser op zijn zwarte troon
In Mordor, waar de schimmen zijn,
Een Ring om allen te regeren, Een Ring om hen te vinden,
Een Ring die hen brengen zal en in duisternis binden,
In Mordor, waar de schimmen zijn.

Croatian version:

Prstena Tri za vilin-kralje za koje zvijezde siju,
I Sedam za patuljke-vladare kamenih dvora mochi;
I Devet za ljude, usuda kletog shto zarana mriju,
Al Prsten Jedan za Cara Mraka na prijestolju nochi
U zemlji Mordor gdje sjene se kriju.
Prsten Jedan da zavlada svima, Prsten Jedan shto trazhi i sezhe
Prsten Jedan da spoji se s njima i u tami ih svezhe
U zemlji Mordor gdje sjene se kriju.

Russian version:

Tri elfijskim wladykam w podzwiezdnyj priedel
Sem' dlja gnomow karjaszych w podgornom prostorie
Diewjat' smertnym cziej wyweren srik i udel
I odno wlastelinu na cziernom prestolie
W Mordorie gdie wiekowiecznaja t'ma:
Sztoby wsje ich sozwat', woedino sobrat'
I jedinoj czernoj wolej skovat'
W Mordorie gdie wiekowiecznaja t'ma:

In the language of Klingons of Star Trek:

elDa'joHmeHvaD chalbingDaq wej Qeb
nawqo'joHmeHvaD naghjuHmeychajDaq Soch
HumanmeyvaD jubbe' HeghmeH qichbogh Hut
joHvaD Hurgh quSDajDaq Hurgh wa'
Qotbogh Qibmey morDor puHDaq
Hoch che'meH wa' Qeb, tu'meH wa' Qeb
Hoch qemmeH lan HurghDaq baghmeH je wa' Qeb
Qotbogh Qibmey morDor puHDaq

In the Quenya language:

Cormar neld' Eldaranin undu telume,
Otso Casarceruin ondomardeltassen,
Nerte Firyain; firien martine,
Mine Loonaherun, lnamahalmaryasse,
Mordrev' ardasse yasse lumbor caitar.
Mine corma turien ilye te, mine corma tuvien te,
Mine corma tultien ilye te ar morniesse mandien te,
Mordrev' ardasse yasse lumbor caitar.

First Esperanto version:

Tri ringoj por la elfo-regoj, sub la chielo;
Sep por la dvarvo-moshtoj, en haloj de shton'.
Nau por hom' mortema, kondamnita de mortpelo;
Unu por Malluma Moshto, sur Malluma Tron',
En la lando Mordor, tenebra pro malhelo.
Unu Ring' por regi chiujn, unu por venigi,
Unu por sklavigi kaj mallume enchenigi,
En la lando Mordor, tenebra pro malhelo.

Another Esperanto version:

Tri ringoj por la elfoj sub la hela chiel',
Sep por la gnomoj en salonoj el shton'.
Nau por la homoj sub la morto-sigel',
Unu por la Nigra Rego sur la nigra tron'
Kie kushas Ombroj en Mordora Land'.
Unu Ringo ilin regas, Unu ilin prenas,
Unu Ringo en mallumon ilin gvidas kaj katenas
Kie kushas Ombroj en Mordora Land'.

In Japanese:

Mittsu-no yubiwa-wa, sora-no shitanaru erufu-no -ni,
nanatsu-no yubiwa-wa, iwa-no yakata-no dow fu-no
kimi-ni,kokonotsu-wa, shisubeki kidame-no hito-no ko-ni,
hitotsu-wa, kuraki mikura-no mei-no tame-ni,
kage yokotawaru morudru-no kuni-ni.

Hitotsu-no yubiwa-wa, subete-wo sube,
hitotsu-no yubiwa-wa, subete-wo mitsuke,
hitotsu-no yubiwa-wa,
subete-wo toraete,
kurayami-no naka-ni tsunagitomeru.
Kage yokotawaru morudru-no kuni-ni.

Re:full poem in black speech:

[DG]

Oi, this:

"In the language of Klingons of Star Trek:

elDa'joHmeHvaD chalbingDaq wej Qeb
nawqo'joHmeHvaD naghjuHmeychajDaq Soch
HumanmeyvaD jubbe' HeghmeH qichbogh Hut
joHvaD Hurgh quSDajDaq Hurgh wa'
Qotbogh Qibmey morDor puHDaq
Hoch che'meH wa' Qeb, tu'meH wa' Qeb
Hoch qemmeH lan HurghDaq baghmeH je wa' Qeb
Qotbogh Qibmey morDor puHDaq"

has to be THE geekiest thing, as in slobbering-fanboy geeky, that I have ever seen or read.

Yeesh! Quelque chose scent du fromage ici!

.

Re:full poem in black speech:

[BluedemonX]

"Elf" in French is "Lutin", not "Elfe".

What Irony?

[krmt]

This is so common, it's almost absurd to even bring it up. As Wilde said, "When artists get together they talk about money, when bankers get together they talk about art."

Shakespeare wrote tons of plays in order to keep the audiences rolling in. It's nothing shocking that they bear a lot of similarities to each other, it made them quicker to write! Some people resorted to writing much quicker plays, but there's a reason he was so successful.

Dickens was paid by the word. There's the reason why his books are so long and drawn out, he got rewarded to make them long.

Bradbury wrote Farenheit 451 (in the basement of the building I'm in now no less!) and the whole of Martian Chronicles just to help pay the rent. Asimov wrote the Foundation and robot stories to pay for his tuition.

Every single artist from the Renaissance had a patron who paid for the art.

Does any of this get in the way of the fact that the art is great in and of itself. Long after the money has evaporated, the work is still there for us. That's part of what makes it great.

OT question for poster about Adequacy.org ..

[rasjani]

Hi.

I also ran across that adequacy site some time ago because there was article about "concerned father and his hacker son".

I was too stubified and amazed to read anything else from the site and thus my questions. Is this site for real or just bunch of trolls with a good sense of humour ?

I mean, that hacker thing was so utterly crap i cant even go describing it..

Re:OT question for poster about Adequacy.org ..

[Culturejammer]

I think you mean this:

• http://home.dal.net/shrub/Adequacy_org%20%20Is%20Y our%20Son%20a%20Computer%20Hacker.htm

tolkien did not want a movie...

[Anonymous Coward]

at least accoring to a recent documentary shown on our local variant of the bbc (bbc midlands).

he thought it would interfers with an individuals visualisation of middle earth, and the characters.

however, dosh rules for the inheritors of the copyrights.

the documentary showed various locations in my area that were the original inspariation for tolkien.

explotitative millers, dark dank bogs etc.

i dint like a lot of movies for the same rason.

its only original stuff for the movies that makes a good movie. if you read a good book a movie following is always crap

Re:Of course it's been pirated. duh.

[t_allardyce]

"The point is that it makes no sense to "release" the movie in UK while we wait in the USA. Wouldn't it make more sense to just "release" it in all theaters everywhere on the planet?"

Stuff like this just makes the point that Americans have no idea of what goes on outside their country. We usually have to wait for the greedy capitalist-pig-dog movie companies in the US to feel that they have made enough money before they consider releasing their film elsewhere. Now one film gets premiered in England and you complain?

On imax?

[eclectric]

drool.

Not Nazgul: Black Rider

[dbretton]

Since we are all Tolkein "purists" here (snicker), I'd like to point out that the scene is of a black rider chasing the hobbits on the dock, and not the Nazgul, or Ringwraiths, which are the flying hellish beasts the black riders ride upon in the sky.

Re:Not Nazgul: Black Rider

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Black Riders are the Nazgul. They're the nine men who wore the rings Sauron gave them, and who were corrupted and eventually became his undead servants.

The flying beasts are just flying beasts.

Re:Not Nazgul: Black Rider

[DagSverre]

Well you are clearly not a Tolkien purist...where did you think the word "ringwraith" comes from anyway? And "nazg" means "ring" in the dark language, they are called nazgul because they are wearing the nine rings of men.

Re:Not Nazgul: Black Rider

[zhrike]

Incorrect my (snicker) fellow Tolkien purist.
The Nazgul, or Ringwraiths in the common tongue, are the riders themselves. Those who were given the nine rings for mortal men doomed to die, and hence became enslaved to Sauron.

They rode on steeds, though not normal horses, most of which perished in the floods at the Ford. Later they were borne aloft.

The flying things are not named.

Re: Games Workshop sales tactics

[No Such Agency]

Yeah, it's true that GW figures are undoubtably some of the most expensive on the market. They are also some of the best-sculpted if you like their somewhat cartoony, over-the-top aesthetic (the LOTR figures are more subdued in style though). Always a joy to paint. And I've seen the quality of the figures included in the LOTR game, they are the best looking plastic figs I've ever seen. Fine detail, far superior to the plastic that came with Bloodbowl or Battlemasters.

For those wargamers who want to play LOTR battles, there are a slew of other companies producing elves, orcs and hobbits to say nothing of medieval humans! Screw GW, when you want to expand your LOTR army, check out one of the myriad other manufacturers out there! I've heard that at "official" GW tournaments, you have to use GW figures in your armies, but if you're just playing with your buds, who cares?! Though to be honest, unless you have good hobby stores nearby, assembling the Fellowship on your own from mail-order could easily go over $40!

Oh for +6 moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Or higher. +10 maybe?

Wow, the BBC has been slashdotted

[KidSock]

sounds like that new backbone of theirs is working

Movie math

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

Are promotional costs for overseas distribution covered under the "Budget" figure in that graph? I have heard it repeated that Waterworld "probably" broke even when overseas distribution was taken into account (even the link you posted says 'probably'). However, the 88 + 167 > 175 (which are the correct figures, BTW) formula is, I believe, naive.

It's probably more like:
88 + ((167 * x) - y) - 175 = n
where

• x = percentage of gross recouped by studios (after all, movie chains bid on pictures, and AFAIK, that's what the studio gets. So in the case of a US dog, where the foreign theaters say "based on poor performance in the US, I'll only pay you $50 million", and then the film grosses $167 million, it's not clear to me who gets the bulk of the money); and
• y = the cost of promoting the film overseas

I'd say that only the studio accountants really know whether n > 0.

Re:Movie math

[kallisti]

It seems I had a slight case of slysdexia or something, and, yes, the formula was too simple. I found an article on Pearl Harbor in which they claim a slight profit overall for Waterworld.

Re:Movie math

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

88 + 167 = 255; In other words, the CNN Money article seems to be using the same figures you quoted previously (probably from a common source which is geared more toward PR than rigorous accounting).

Tolkein Family Gets Big Bux

[airship]

Actually, if you follow the links through the British reviews, you will find that Tolkein got 10k pounds UP FRONT for the movie rights, but there are some pretty substantial residuals once the film is made and released. So the family does stand to make some big bucks off the movies.

Berne Convention and the Constitution

[yerricde]

You haven't explained why the Berne Convention isn't considered constitutional in the US though

Clicked submit too soon. U.S. Constitution 1.8.1 requires copyprivilege terms to have limits (but not necessarily reasonable limits). The Berne Convention requires members to recognize each other's copyprivilege laws. If they include statutory perpetual copyright, that part of the treaty is unconstitutional. (A 1,000 year term would in theory be OK.)

Sam and Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep - Sam the Hobbit and Bill the pony.

All art is useless...

[DESADE]

All Art Is Quite Useless

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manneror a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful thing are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things means only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of Realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass. The nineteenth century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.
No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.

- Oscar Wilde
Preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray"

Please, let's spread the DivX

[2x4]

The Tolkien estate sold the rights for 10,000 Pounds back in the 60's. Considring how much money this movie is gonna make, I'de say they got bamboozled.

Re:Please, let's spread the DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh cry me a river. In 50 years there'll be a 3d hologram remake that'll net a cool billion.

...

And people will still be talking about how his family only got 10,000 pounds.

If you think it's worth more then hold onto it. Stop being such a talentless victim.

shrek sucked

[alprazolam]

I bet the same people who thought that Shrek was funny as opposed to redundant, boring, and predictable will love the movie.

The more I hear about it, the more I expect it to suck, like most movies that are made for mass consumption.

more likely choice

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "stupidly unfunny" or "sense of humor as good as your sex life" or just a -1 for everything voted funny on /. since most so called geeks are as funny as a god damned rock.

Lack of religion

[Hoi Polloi]

One thing about TLoR that bothered me was the almost complete lack of religion and spirituality in the books. How can a world were not only is magic real but quasi-deities such as Gandalf (an Istari) can wander the world for 2000 yrs and then come back from the dead after fighting the Balrog yet no one talks of divine power? Even the immortal elves remember ancient acts of the gods yet no one seems to give them any more consideration than they make an interesting story.

Every human society has created some sort of spiritual framework for the world. Tolkien seems to have completely regected this.

Re:Lack of religion

[ardmhacha]

This was probably quite deliberate on Tolkiens part. He was religous, Catholic, and because of his language knowledge was involved in the translation of The Jerusalem Bible a modern Catholic translation of the Bible
He was a friend of C.S. Lewis who included a lot of religous themes in his fantasy literature.
There is an article on Tolkien, religion and Lewis here

Here's one for ya... The One Fan

[SpacePunk]

Three Fans for hard drives under the SCSI,
Seven for expansion cards in their PCI home,
Nine for graphics cards doomed to die,
One for the CPU on its dark throne,
On the motherboard where the shadows lie.
One Fan to cool them all, One Fan to bind them,
One Fan to keep them all and in the darkness fry them,
In the land of motherboards where the shadows lie.

-

Re:New world foods

[ethereal]

Unificator?

So what does Hitler think?

[Decimal Dave]

Thomas Sutcliffe's review mentions "...Hitler would have adored this film, with its hideous Untermenschen, its homeland-loving hobbits and its Aryan beauties." That isn't a very positive endorsement.

So should I see this film or not?

On one hand Sutcliffe doesn't like it. On the other hand, Hitler gives it two thumbs up!

Re:New world foods

[Ripp]

No, up until not really all that long ago (a few hundred years) tomatoes were thought to be poisonous (the leaves actually are IIRC) so they weren't eaten. Whereas the potato was a common staple.

And they trusted him with the One Ring!

[tswinzig]

``All members of the cast have got a tattoo. When we had it done in a tattoo parlor in Wellington, New Zealand, we all swore never to tell anyone,'' he told Reuters Television at Monday's glittering world premiere.

You HAVE to be kidding

[GodHead]

--- Begin ---
This is a movie about obligation, duty and sacrifice
--- End ---

That is EXACTLY why it will do well. Look at America now. We're down, what with the recent blowings-up and the powdered letters, and bombing of bomb craters in Afghanistan. This is exactly what the people want to see right now - "Hard work and dedication will win the day for the good guys." People will eat it up.

And all you're really sacrificing is 3 hours and $10.

There was a Premiere in Mexico City too!

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie was shown in Mexico City yesterday, the same day as in the UK.

Message to the fans: Don't expect too much.
Message to the rest of the people: It's an entertaining movie with lots of effects. A movie you must see.

You'll hate that "Galadriel the Witch" change!
Just check this link (it's in spanish)

Caring Means Sharing

[heptapod]

OMG!!!! I sooooo hope that they rename "Two Towers" to something else out of respect for the people who died on September 11th when those uruk-hai flew Smaug into them!!! Maybe "Frodo's Happy Fun Quest Part II" or "Gollum Strikes Back" or "Pippin and the Multicolored Dream Sphere"!!!

Re:Caring Means Sharing

[dbavirt]

Oh give me a break. Just because there are two towers/obelisks/phallic symbols doesn't mean we have to wrench our minds back to 9/11. Not funny, not insiteful, not useful, not even worth replying to. (oops...)

Re:Bored of the rings

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess you wont have to waste any money then.. good I'll happily pay to see this rendition of the story.. I on the other hand think a lot of care has gone into this recreation.. so stay at home, me and my wife will go see it..

The Guardian celebrates stoopidddy (sp?)

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote them:

Sirs-
Interesting that your reviewer is so curious to know what Hitler would have thought of the movie. Why? Is Hitler the arbiter elegantiae of modern culture? Or is he just the only Germanic figure known to what the Venerable Bede might have called the "Anglo-Saxon" (but what I'd call the "Anglo-Frisian") press has ever heard of?

There was a bit of a hoohah recently about the fact that Brits aren't taught any history except for the Tudors, Hitler and Stalin. I slept through it, but your remarks were a welcome wake-up call.

Snappy remarks can be very revealing. What they usually reveal is ignorance. To answer your reviewer's question, Tolkien hated Hitler because he thought Hitler had discredited a huge chunk of Western Civ. You - in the depths of your ignorance - just proved Tolkien right.

Nice one.

Re:The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll)

[avandesande]

I forgot to mention that my dog is named natalie portman

Re:Of course it's been.....[not so fast]

[kp7n]

Im a journalist working for norwegian IT outfit digi.no and I just talked to an investigator at FACT. He said the whole thang was a scam - the "pirate" had packaged the old LOTR fantasy animation film in "Fellowship..."-looking covers. So false alarm there. And a New Line Cinema representative told me they still hadnt seen conclusive proof of any complete pirate copies out there (as she would...). But neither have I. Lotsa ppl say they have it and have seen it, but show us the money, will ya? Submit any links to the real movie to pcs at digi dot no. All info treated with discretion etc.

Samples from the Soundtrack

[E-Tray]

You can listen samples from the Movie Soundtrack here
And you can even get one full song for free titled "May It Be" by Enya(Liquid Audio 96 Kbps)
Then again, check your local P2P network ;)

elves

[geekoid]

can anyone point me to a chapter in The Hobbit, or LoTR where elves are described?...

Re:elves

[nastro]

I apologize that I do not have the books on me right now, but I believe that after the hobbits escape the shire, they are watched over by a group of elves travelling somewhere. I remember that it was Sam Gamgee's first sighting of an Elf, and there is some detail there, though it is only a general overview through the eyes of a Hobbit.

Re:Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view o

[moniker]

I would say he had made that choice, with cash.

"There wasn't much he [Christopher Tolkein] could do, however, to stop the filming of the new version, since J.R.R. Tolkien sold the film rights in 1968, apparently to pay an overdue tax bill. Oscar-winning producer Saul Zaentz (The English Patient) picked up the rights and, after a pitstop at Miramax, New Line snapped up the rights and, in an unprecedented deal, signed Jackson to shoot the entire $270 million trilogy concurrently in New Zealand. "

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/eo/20011203/en/tolkie ns_ring_in_family_feud_1.html

DO NOT WATCH LOTR (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

Like every film released these days, the producer is going to squeeze quick cash from suckers by intentionally cutting off some footage, so early viewers will have no choice but to revisit the video stores just to watch the whole thing.

Katz commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no...not another one

I submit myself to Mount Doom for execution....!

Re:Katz commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to your Homepage configuration and put a tick next to Mr. Katz's name.

have to login first, obviously, but AC's deserve JK articles.

Mandantory old-guy tangent

[Zog]

Well, I guess I don't have much choice of whether to tell my story or not - I'm 18 now, so I fully qualify myself as old (relative to what I used to be, mind you!)... So here she is:

Back in my junior year of high school, our school's roof was being re-tarred. My friend Matt, a very mischevious fellow, is pretty quick to act once he figures out something cool (which he's really good at, too). So one day he was walking home from school (he lives across the street from school), and he thought about this tar-sprayer-thingy he saw while he was wandering around skipping class that day. Needless to say, he figured out that if he put a match in front of it as he turned it on, it worked like a flamethrower. So I came by his house after Cross Country practice, and went downstairs to his room. He wasn't there (surprising since his latest car was still in one piece in his driveway). So I headed back upstairs. Then, before I got to the stairs, I saw him outside his basement doors (they were those glass sliding ones), so I walked in his direction to see what he was up to this time. Right about when I could see what he was doing, and before I sprinted away, he lit it. 15 feet of pure flameage. Never before and never since have I been so scared in my entire life.

Anyway, instead of giving a good ending, I'm going to sleep now :)

Re:Mandantory old-guy tangent

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Lord will fight for you; you only need be still."

That doesn't seem to be working so well for Mullah Omar & Co.

Re:Mandantory old-guy tangent

[Zog]

?

(T12hisi43stoa788432void1234fi09ltersTh76isisto5 av oi4dfi2ltersThisis)

Totally wrong!! Spread them like wildfire!

[SuperKendall]

Sure, go see the movie - I'm going to. But I think everyone should try and spread DIVX or whatever other copies can be made, as far as possible - to show that spreading copies does nothing either to hurt the movie OR the DVD sales!

The argument is this - if you're interested in the movie, you're going to see the movie in a theater, and you'll buy the DVD for the extras and perfect transfer even if you already have some sort of reduced quality copy.

The only works that really get hurt at all by piracy are unimaginative works lacking in plot and without interesting extras on the DVD's. Yet even then I think the losses from piracy are nothing copared to losses suffered through simply being a terrible movie.

Jones?

[DapperDan]

Who is this Jones you speak of?

Re:Jones?

[Squirrel Killer]

Ah, crap, you're right. I'm thinking of Pete Jones of Project Greenlight while talking about Peter Jackson of LotR. My bad.

Its not

[DapperDan]

It opens on the 19th almost everywhere. This was the Premiere. You know, red carpet, movie stars, director, etc.

z = x + iy

[scorcherer]

Haven't read the book, but I'm sure it's a complex tale -- for it has real and imaginary parts.

Lord Of The Rings Anonymous?

[Valen0]

Hello.
I'm Valen and I'm a... *cry*... Lord Of The Rings Fanatic...
I have Lord Of The Rings cups, Lord Of The Rings t-shirts, Lord Of The Rings bed sheets, Lord Of The Rings games, Lord Of The Rings CDs, a collection of Lord Of The Rings specials and commericals on VHS, Lord Of The Rings posters, and even Lord Of The Rings boxers. I think Peter Jackson, AOL Time-Warner, and WETA Workshop own me. I really need a life.
</situation>
<disclaimer>
I do not have any LOTR merchandise... Really... I'm just making a satire based on the amount of movie merchandise I've seen before the movie is released. It's mind boggling. I can't watch TV now without seeing a LOTR Burger King ad, a LOTR special ad, or a LOTR movie ad. It's getting to the point of being bizzare.
</disclaimer>

bait...

[i0lanthe]

[NO, I'm not trying to say Tolkien invented Elves. But the genre of modern fantasy did begin with him.]

To keep this /.ish, I'd argue that Tolkien invented Elves in the same way that Xerox invented {things that people now attribute to say Apple or Microsoft or Al Gore}: a few different versions of the thing were kicking around, shrunken and vaguely malicious perhaps; and then suddenly there is this fully detailed, fleshed-out, working implementation of Elves; and now today there are a million of them with the serial numbers filed off, and a few massive corporations profiting from them (not the originator, of course); and no one can imagine Elves being any other way, with the exception of Keebler and rebellious authors like Brust and Cherryh.

LoTR in Taiwan

[ukryule]

There is an amazingly small amount of hype/pre-publicity out here in Taiwan about the movie ... this could be related to the fact that noone here has ever heard of (or read) the original books. I had a quick look, and couldn't even find a Chinese translation (I guess it ain't the easiest book to translate) - so everyone here will judge it purely as a film, not an adaptation of a book(religion?).

Incidentally, it's also coming out much later (mid-Jan) - which may be because the holiday season is around the Chinese new year (in Feb) rather than Christmas.

Now, Harry Potter is completely different - everyone reads the books, adverts for the films are still all over the place & the film was released on the same day as U.S./U.K.!

What about other non-English speaking countries?

Little errors in the french version

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to report it but the french version has still got some little errors in it. The version I got in the french translation of the book is:

Trois Anneaux pour les Rois Elfes sous le ciel,
Sept pour les Seigneurs Nains dans leurs demeures de pierre,
Neuf pour les Hommes Mortels destinés au trépas,
Un pour le Seigneur des Ténèbres sur son sombre trône
Dans le pays de Mordor où s'étendent les Ombres.
Un Anneau pour les gouverner tous, Un Anneau pour les trouver,
Un Anneau pour les amener tous et dans les ténèbres les lier
Au pays de Mordor où s'étendent les Ombres.

I can't blame anyone about the accents though !

And personnaly, elves, gnomes and fairies have had many names historically in many different legends. Those name designated many different being sometimes related sometimes as different as sand and water.

That's why I prefer to use "elfe" for the race in LOTR. If the professor chose that name of all the ones he knew, It must have something more than meaning attached to it.

After all it IS in the Dictionnary alongside "lutin". (Petit Larousse en couleur, édition 1988, page 597 for "lutin" and 369 for "elfe" ). Of course, it's borrowed from the english language (je sais, c'est un anglicisme). But since it's a type of character, I wouldn't take it too badly. For me, "lutin" is a general term while "elfe" designates only the elves of LOTR.

Above all, it has a special sound in english which it keeps in french. So, I wouldn't translate it to "lutin" for that phonological reason.

"lutin" doesn't convey the beauty of the elves as well as "elfe". "lutin" is for Santa's elves and "elfe" is for Tolkien's elves.

--Ok, enough useless blathering, It's only an opinion and isn't worth crap anyway.

Re:Little errors in the french version

[dunkelfalke]

there are maybe different translations in french... in germany there are 2 different, in russia about 15 different translations

btw it is alike in german: elf is a standart elf and elb is the tolkien elf.

Call me unimaginative...

[Fjodor42]

... but this summer I went to have the Ring inscription tattooed on my right arm.

I considered having "Alatariel" (being an old-fashioned guy) written on my chest, but decided, that it would be a bit pretentious :-)

It did take quite some time to draw it perfectly, but it is quite satisfactory to know, that though others may have had the same idea, at least mine is in my own handwriting.

pirated

[sensui]

Yes. There are pirated copies for sale for Harry Potter and LOTR. Thanks again for those entertainment global domination plans. There are always people who want to buy pirated copies. And for me, I just like to read the original books. Movies, nah... it kills your imagination and fantasy!

Now for Bored.....

[Banjonardo]

Now we need a movie version of the Harvard Lampoon's book "Bored of The Rings."

It's recommended.

$300 Million minus advertising costs

[SgtChaireBourne]

Advertising campaigns are expensive. Obviously, they'd net more if they spent less on hype (aka advertising). If something's good, it tends to sell itself with minimal need for promotion. Heavy advertising is a sign that the product won't necessarily make it on it's own merits and needs a little spin to be accepted.

Re: Games Workshop sales tactics

[swdunlop]

It has always been the ever increasing unbalancing effect of GW trying to top older units with newer ones that has driven me away from their games. GW isn't the only one that does this, in my opinion.. FASA ruined Battletech by adding new technologies that had little drawback in comparison to their potential gains.

I agree, the plastic minis in LoTR are definately a cut above any I've seen. I have painted 10 of them, thus far, and have yet to really find a malformed one, or even one that could be easily distinguished from a metal mini at a casual glance.

Re:New world foods

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. That explains why those hobbits are so damn hungry all the time.

Don't worry

[mvdwege]

...You're not trolling. I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan myself, and your impression is correct: for all Tolkien's strengths as a storyteller, his pacing is occasionally horrendous, especially in 'The Fellowship'.

Mostly this is because he is trying to fill in lots of background, and because he is trying to create an impression of the world.

If you can persist through 'The Fellowship', you will find that the story really picks up in 'The Two Towers' and apart from a few slow scenes in Frodo's trek through Mordor the pace becomes positively hectic.

Just persist, or even skim a little, and you will find that the story will start sucking you in from the moment the fellowship breaks up.

Mart

It's just a hoax, not the real deal.

[EssJay]

According to the norwegian site digi.no (link to story in norwegian) it's just a hoax. The movies was packaged and had the appereance of the new movie. Closer inspection showed the VCD's to be the old animated version. Some detective (Spencer Mott) was quoted.

//EssJay

Re:Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view o

[mackman]

Strange, a newspaper article I read cited that Tolkien only received $15,000 for the movie rights. Now his family is pissed and getting all grumpy about the movie that's not making them rich.

Um, since when is this set in Europe?

[bill_mcgonigle]

OK, so dragons, dwarves, hobbits, elves, goli, etc. are all acceptable, though we never find their archeological remains, but the occurance of a tomato is anacronistic? Even if you insist that these stories occured on Earth, why do you dismiss the possiblity of a wizard teleporting to the New World for a little produce-gathering expedition? Maybe the tomatoes disappeared subsequently from Europe with the Hobbit bones.

Microsoft-proof laptop?

[GPS Pilot]

Thanks, I've always wanted a laptop that runs Sloaris(TM) [sic] !!

Tolkien = southafrican racist

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I was 12 when I read it first, Hobbit, LOTR, Silmarillion, and loved it, but later I figured out how rassistic and influenced by the fascistic and stalinistic impressions those books are. I read it since then some times again, but never changed my opinion. Am I the only one?

Re:Microsoft-proof laptop? [offtopic as hell]

[d.valued]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Alpha port of Linux, personally.

Appreciate the sentiment, however.

What about other countries?

[danila]

Why don't you think about some other countries where the film will not be shown until months after December, 19?

Take Russia, for example. The premier date is Feb, 7th - only because one month ago the worldwide distribution rights were transferred to another company.

Don't you think in this case downloading the DivX or buying it on CD would be justified?

Thinking mushrooms

[ouija147]

Them's the funniest looking mushrooms I'm ever a seeing ... argle bargle morble woosh ... coiling into a six foot parking meter now