Slashdot Mirror


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!

203 of 626 comments (clear)

  1. what about the Hobbit? by diesel_jackass · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:what about the Hobbit? by domc · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      domc

    2. Re:what about the Hobbit? by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:what about the Hobbit? by utdpenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "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. :)

      --
      In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    4. Re:what about the Hobbit? by NewWazoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      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

    5. Re:what about the Hobbit? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      > 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

    6. Re:what about the Hobbit? by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    7. Re:what about the Hobbit? by BitchAss · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Like sex? Read and write about it! Indecent Blogging
    8. Re:what about the Hobbit? by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2
      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.

    9. Re:what about the Hobbit? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

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

    10. Re:what about the Hobbit? by Seanasy · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:what about the Hobbit? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    12. Re:what about the Hobbit? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:what about the Hobbit? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:what about the Hobbit? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:what about the Hobbit? by Grab · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re:what about the Hobbit? by blane.bramble · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:what about the Hobbit? by fjordboy · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. And on your local television station... by nigelc · · Score: 2, Informative
    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???

    --


    Cthulhu Barata Nikto
    1. Re:And on your local television station... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > 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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:And on your local television station... by ptomblin · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    3. Re:And on your local television station... by ptomblin · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    4. Re:And on your local television station... by jheinen · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      -Vercingetorix
      "Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
    5. Re:And on your local television station... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Glasses At BK by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Glasses At BK by ergo98 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Glasses At BK by fjordboy · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Glasses At BK by Grab · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Sellout... by don_carnage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Sellout... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > 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>

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Sellout... by Fatal0E · · Score: 5, Funny

      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).

    3. Re:Sellout... by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    4. Re:Sellout... by Watts+Martin · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Sellout... by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:Sellout... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Funny
      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!)

    7. Re:Sellout... by aphrael · · Score: 2
      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.

  5. That lasted a long time... by L41N14L · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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?

    1. Re:That lasted a long time... by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    2. Re:That lasted a long time... by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      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....!

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    3. Re:That lasted a long time... by xinit · · Score: 2, Funny

      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....

      --
      --- http://foo.ca
  6. Corrected URL by blamanj · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Corrected URL by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Corrected URL by gowen · · Score: 2
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  7. pirates by osiris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. Please, let's not spread the DivX by Hairy_Potter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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!

    1. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by EFGearman · · Score: 2

      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
      --

      --
      Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
    2. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by kenthorvath · · Score: 2, Informative

      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*...

    3. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by GTRacer · · Score: 2
      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

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    4. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Tassach · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    5. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by yerricde · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    7. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by hexx · · Score: 2

      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."

    8. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by jmccay · · Score: 2

      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!!

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    9. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      • 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.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by sam@caveman.org · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
    11. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by IronChef · · Score: 2

      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!

    12. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by IronChef · · Score: 2

      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!

    13. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Old+Wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    14. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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

    15. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      "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

    16. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Kraft · · Score: 2

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

      --

      -Kraft
      Live and let live
    17. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by cygnusx · · Score: 3, Interesting
      > 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.
    18. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • 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?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      "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

    20. Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
        • "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.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  9. spoilers? by rudiger · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:spoilers? by tb3 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  10. Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap by d.valued · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (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.

    --
    I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
    Real life is underrated.
    1. Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap by mj01nir · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...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.

      --
      the no .sig .sig
    2. Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hot hobbit-on-hobbit action?

      I KNEW Sam was gay!

    3. Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      > 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

    4. Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap by sharkey · · Score: 2

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

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    5. Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap by fjordboy · · Score: 2

      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.

  11. Dont believe the hype... by __4096 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Dont believe the hype... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!"

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    2. Re:Dont believe the hype... by dswensen · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  12. Extra bits? by nagora · · Score: 2
    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

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:Extra bits? by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      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

    2. Re:Extra bits? by cybercuzco · · Score: 2
      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.

      --

    3. Re:Extra bits? by Erore · · Score: 2

      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.

  13. OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters by ThePurpleBuffalo · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Tolkien Ring

    Beware TPB

    1. Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters by mj01nir · · Score: 5, Funny

      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

      --
      the no .sig .sig
    2. Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      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).

    3. Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Funny

      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"....

    4. Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  14. $300 Million by wiredog · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:$300 Million by don_carnage · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:$300 Million by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    3. Re:$300 Million by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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

    4. Re:$300 Million by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative
      • 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.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:$300 Million by btellier · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:$300 Million by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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

    7. Re:$300 Million by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      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.

  15. You'll hate it by wiredog · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:You'll hate it by kenthorvath · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:You'll hate it by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > 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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:You'll hate it by sam@caveman.org · · Score: 2, Funny

      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

      --
      burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
    4. Re:You'll hate it by nagora · · Score: 2
      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

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  16. Re:Harry Potter by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


    > 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.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  17. Why the earlier opening in UK? by shankark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 :)

    1. Re:Why the earlier opening in UK? by Malc · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  18. Peter Jackson Interview by DaoudaW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Peter Jackson Interview by Salamander · · Score: 3, Informative
      John Ronald Raoul

      Reuel.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
  19. The tattoos by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

    --
    -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    1. Re:The tattoos by synaptic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > 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.

    2. Re:The tattoos by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    3. Re:The tattoos by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds much better in Black Speech:

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

    4. Re:The tattoos by tb3 · · Score: 2

      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?

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    5. Re:The tattoos by sam@caveman.org · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
  20. Slashdot poll by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  21. I don't see why not... by Bonker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:I don't see why not... by KurdtX · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      Kurdt
      I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
  22. Re:I really want to see this movie.... by kenthorvath · · Score: 2

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

  23. Just one question by streetlawyer · · Score: 3
    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?

    1. Re:Just one question by sam@caveman.org · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
  24. Great casting for Boromir by iabervon · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  25. Stop the MPAA! by msm1th · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Stop the MPAA! by kallisti · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Stop the MPAA! by shanek · · Score: 2

      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...

  26. False delimma by cduffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  27. At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... by Ryano · · Score: 2

      "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.

    2. Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    3. Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... by IronChef · · Score: 2


      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.

    4. Re:At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  28. New world foods by foistboinder · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  29. Lord of the Rings by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Lord of the Rings by tb3 · · Score: 2

      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....

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  30. Re:Ralph Bakshi by SeraphtheSilver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  31. Lovely links by mip · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  32. The irony overwealms by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:The irony overwealms by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2

      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

    2. Re:The irony overwealms by Noehre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  33. Re:Ralph Bakshi by General_Corto · · Score: 2

    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.
  34. Mayhem, blood, and gore! by de_boer_man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    .sig wanted. Inquire within.
  35. So, the new inscription goes like this... by devphil · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:So, the new inscription goes like this... by devphil · · Score: 5, Funny


      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.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    2. Re:So, the new inscription goes like this... by NaturePhotog · · Score: 2
      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.
  36. Entertainment Weekly review - "A" by Strange_Attractor · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --

    ----
    WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
  37. Download the fonts! by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  38. DVD release by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2

    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?

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    1. Re:DVD release by hughk · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  39. Changes etc... by darrad · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Changes etc... by zzyzx · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    2. Re:Changes etc... by aralin · · Score: 2
      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...

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  40. Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3 by germinatoras · · Score: 2, Informative
    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)."
    1. Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3 by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3 by wsxyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3 by Speare · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  41. Reminds me of Star Wars by yerricde · · Score: 3

    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?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Reminds me of Star Wars by Unknown+Bovine+Group · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      m00.
    2. Re:Reminds me of Star Wars by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  42. A Sucker for Anything Tactical by swdunlop · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  43. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act by yerricde · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act by geekoid · · Score: 2

      not true, if it is open, entropy will eventually cause all thing to cease, thus the end of the universe.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  44. Some bint with a bow. by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 2

    Oh please do shut up.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  45. If you want to respect J.R.R. Tolkein's memory... by joshamania · · Score: 2

    ...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).

  46. What are these movies/books about? by ciurana · · Score: 2

    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
    --
    http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
    1. Re:What are these movies/books about? by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
    2. Re:What are these movies/books about? by Paul+Lamere · · Score: 2

      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 ...

    3. Re:What are these movies/books about? by LMCBoy · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    4. Re:What are these movies/books about? by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
  47. Not true (Royalties) by Arker · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  48. Difficult decisions had to be made by smartin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  49. hmmm... who the f*ck care? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    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?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:hmmm... who the f*ck care? by don_carnage · · Score: 2

      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!

  50. My Sort of Review by west · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 :-))

    1. Re:My Sort of Review by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > 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!!!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  51. Direct quote from Jackson's production notes... by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    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.!"

    --
    Why bother.
  52. Commercial Success for LotR by west · · Score: 2
    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...
  53. Thomas Sutcliffe by jmccay · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  54. Synopsis of the story for those who don't know: by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

  55. That chick elf... by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 2

    ...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?

  56. Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view on by sphealey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  57. The real question. by Zarniwoop · · Score: 2

    It's from the director of Bad Taste. How could it not be good!

    --
    Still not dead.
  58. Re:Bantam? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  59. fun question to try to answer by speek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
  60. It all started with a blank page by T1girl · · Score: 2

    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.")

  61. Of course it's been pirated. duh. by Vortran · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
  62. Re:Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

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

    --
    __
    Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  63. At The Risk of Losing Karma... by MikeyLikesIt! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --

    I dunno... What do you wanna do?

    1. Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma... by egomaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    2. Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma... by Legion303 · · Score: 2
      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

  64. Thanks for the answers by ciurana · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
  65. He Got It by krmt · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    1. Re:He Got It by krmt · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  66. full poem in black speech: by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    1. Re:full poem in black speech: by DG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!

      .

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    2. Re:full poem in black speech: by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

      "Elf" in French is "Lutin", not "Elfe".

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  67. What Irony? by krmt · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  68. On imax? by eclectric · · Score: 2

    drool.

  69. Re: Games Workshop sales tactics by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2

    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!

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  70. All art is useless... by DESADE · · Score: 2

    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"

  71. Lack of religion by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Lack of religion by ardmhacha · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

  72. So what does Hitler think? by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

    --

    "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
  73. elves by geekoid · · Score: 2

    can anyone point me to a chapter in The Hobbit, or LoTR where elves are described?...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  74. Totally wrong!! Spread them like wildfire! by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. bait... by i0lanthe · · Score: 2
    [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.

    --
    "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
  76. LoTR in Taiwan by ukryule · · Score: 2

    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?

  77. Re:Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view o by mackman · · Score: 2

    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.

  78. Um, since when is this set in Europe? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)