The Hype of the Rings

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

Comments

what about the Hobbit?

[diesel_jackass]

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

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Marcus Brody]

Actually quite an insightful comment.

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

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

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

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[utdpenguin]

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

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

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

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

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[NewWazoo]

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

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

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

Brandon

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[OblongPlatypus]

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

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[gamgee5273]

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

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

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

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

That lasted a long time...

[L41N14L]

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

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

Corrected URL

[blamanj]

Actually, the text of the Guardian review is here.

spoilers?

[rudiger]

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

Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[d.valued]

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

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

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

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

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

[mj01nir]

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

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

Dont believe the hype...

[__4096]

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

Re:Dont believe the hype...

[Bonker]

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

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

OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[ThePurpleBuffalo]

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

Tolkien Ring

Beware TPB

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters

[mj01nir]

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

We clearly need a new moderation selection: Groaner

Re:Sellout...

[Fatal0E]

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

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

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

Peter Jackson Interview

[DaoudaW]

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

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

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

The tattoos

[OblongPlatypus]

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

Great casting for Boromir

[iabervon]

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

Stop the MPAA!

[msm1th]

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

Re:Why the earlier opening in UK?

[Malc]

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

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

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

Re:$300 Million

[Squirrel Killer]

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

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

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

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

-sk

So, the new inscription goes like this...

[devphil]

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

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

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

[devphil]

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

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

Download the fonts!

[PsiPsiStar]

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

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

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

My Sort of Review

[west]

I was fortunate enough to see the movie in late November. (no spoilers follow)

They did not do the impossible. The length and breadth of Fellowship of the Ring could not be compressed into a 3 hour movie. Nor could they manage to please of all us Tolkein fans, each of whom brings a mental picture of what Elves/Frodo/Gandalf/Dwarves/ Aragorn/etc. *really* looked/acted like.

I will guarantee that each of you will walk away disappointed in *some* aspect of the movie. I also expect it to be a *different* piece of the movie for each person.

What they managed was the remarkable. The movie works, and works well. They have successfully translated a book almost totally unsuited for a movie into a rivetting, astonishingly beautiful piece of cinema.

In other words, keep expectations in check, and you should enjoy yourself immensely. Go, waiting to see what part they adulterated/messed up, and you risk letting your inevitable disappointment in one section overshadow the considerable success of the movie as a whole.

As an aside, I suspect that there's a lot of (non-existent) advertising revenue in a site that allows each user to vote on the five things that they feel the film did wrong. I figure there'd be at least five hundred possible complaints. On the other hand, my comparison with other people's list have found an almost complete lack of unity about what the points are! (How could nobody else realize that they've totally destroyed the Shire scenes by making Bilbo's eyes the wrong color :-))

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX

[Rogerborg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

It goes like this. A bunch of peaceful little guys are minding their own business in their village at the beginning of the first book. The mysteriously disappearing/reappearing wizard Gandalf shows up and says bad things are coming. Several of the little guys decide to head off from the village. Here's where the story gets underway.

1. Good guys head for some destination or other.
2. Good guys notice they're being chased by really mean but mysterious bad guys of some sort
3. Good guys flee, alternately running and hiding
4. Bad guys nearly catch them, but just in time, Good guys stumble on a group of other Good guys, and the Bad guys leave.
5. The newly-met good guys give them all magic food and they all sing songs and recite poetry.
6. Repeat as necessary.

Disclaimer - YES, I'm kidding, dammit! But you've got to admit, there IS a grain of truth to it...

Anyone who DOESN'T know the story (both of you), it actually IS a good, complex tale. I just couldn't help noticing this pattern in it...

Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view on

[sphealey]

Funny, I just happened to re-read Tolkien's view on a movie version of LOTR last night. In a 1957 letter to his agent in response to an offer from an American studio, he basically said two things (a) he had no philosophical objection to movies and wouldn't mind if someone tried to create a screenplay/movie version (b) however, since he didn't trust Hollywood, his specific instructions were "either Art or Cash", meaning either full artistic control, or enough cash up front to drown his sorrows.

So I would say ol' JRR had pretty clear vision in these matters.

sPh

At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[MikeyLikesIt!]

I read The Fellowship Of The Rings for the first time this summer in anticipation of the movie. I have to say that it was one of the most boring books I have ever read.

Don't get me wrong! The story was great - there were many memorable moments - but it was told in a very tedious manner.

For example, you could probably edit out everything 95% of the text between the death of Gandalf and the arrival at the elvin village without losing any coherence.

All of this probably means that the movie will be better than the book, so I haven't lost all hope!

Any thoughts?

Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma...

[egomaniac]

I have to agree. I'm sure this will go down as Flamebait / Troll (take your pick), but I found LotR mind-numbingly boring.

I've read long books before -- the Wheel of Time series comes to mind, weighing in at something like 6,000 pages so far -- so I promise that it has nothing to do with a short attention span or lousy imagination. They're just boring.

The writing is mediocre, and Tolkien *really* likes listening to himself talk. The books just aren't that good. Fine, they helped set the direction for modern fantasy. I won't dispute that. Study them for the historical value then, but all of this gushing about them being the best fantasy novels ever is, IMNSHO, misplaced.