Slashdot Mirror
LotR Cleans Up at AFI
bigdreamer writes "Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds. this CNN article says it won the most awards, including Best Picture, at the first annual American Film Institute awards Saturday."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The CNN article only mentions 3 awards for LoTR. Were there others, or is this just a bunch of hype over a measly 3 awards?
First annual?
Don't we have enough of these goons sitting around saluting themselves?
there's more than one way to do me.
Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds.
Not quite. Film nerds are still nerds.
Of course it got the most awards, it's making the most money. That's how Hollywood awards work.
Just curious... I'm probably one of 4 people in the state that haven't managed to see it yet.
:-)
How much has this movie made so far? I was reading rumours that it was going to be the biggest December release in history or something like that..
I was just wondering if it has broken any records yet. (Aside from the "Ouch, my ass hurts after sitting for 2hr 58min" record)
It should have picked up more awards. I thought LOTR was good. But not the #1 movie of the year.
Am I the only one who was not at all impressed with the movie? Sure, the visual effects were stunning and the cinematography was gorgeous, but overall the movie just felt empty. The movie didn't show any real character development or other basic storytelling premises. It was just one thing happening after another over and over again for a full three hours, with little rhyme or reason applied to the events. First they find the ring then they get chased by ringwraiths then they meet Aragorn then they get chased by ringwraiths again then Frodo gets sick then they go to Rivendale then.... you get the picture. This sort of filmmaking works wonders for popcorn action movies like Mission Impossible and the Jackie Chan movie du jour, but I was honestly expecting more of the greatest fantasy works of the twentieth century.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for 'entrepeneur'." -George W. Bush
Another damned award show. Is there one EVERY weekend now? How often do these people need to congradulate themselves anyway?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We can only hope (and I'm sure the studio does, too) that this movie doesn't become another Waterworld or Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, how will the studios ever justify enough funds to create a truly realistic and engaging experience with ground-breaking special effects? We can think of LOTR:FOTR as a litmus test for the future of huge-budget movies. A year from now, the movie industry may have changed entirely based on the box-office performance of this movie.
If I have not seen as far as others, it was because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson
I think they should make a new award "Reminds me of a when I was a kid". Because the entire movie followed the book quite well IMHO. I haven't read the books for some time, but not in my wildest imagination could I have dreamed of the landscapes and characters in the film. The hobbits never wearing shoes, the magic and understanding of wizzards and elves. The hatred of elves and dwarfs and how humans are low on the totem poll of evolution.
The visual effects drew you in and you never once thought that it was fake, but the time and dedication it would have taken to make the builsings and structures that were in the film. Also the true understanding of the power of the ring and the power of commitment.
I did, however, confuse the story of the hobbit in the begining, but that was portrayed to me in a flashback at the begining where the stories start and begin. They were all meant to go together and they do so wonderfully. I don't think Tolkein could have understood what an impact his stories would have actually had on the world when he wrote them.
For a bit of humor... someone who accompanied me who had not read the books didn't irst understand that the movie WAS 3 hours long and was getting a little bored by not really understanding what was happening in the movie and not getting into it. But I think we can all relate to the next quote directly when the credits started "WHAT??!!! that was it??? no WAY ... they can't just end it like that!!!" ...
Well I will say that my X-Mas present of the LoTR book set from think geek has been confisgated for a while now :-) ... ohh well at least she'll know that the movie ended there for a reason ... hehehe the book ended :-)
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
None of the other movies I saw this year had anywhere near that kind of impact, FOTR included.
As good as The movie was(and I think it is one of the best movies I have seen), I don't think that article was worth submission due to the fact that Lotr wasn't even the main subject of the article.
I mean the article summary mentioned "the Rings" , and the Heading of the article mentioned "The Rings", however the article was describing the awards and who won them.
Please don't get me wrong. The movie rocked, but I feel that slashdot is feeding the LOTR Comercialism. (sp?)
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
The Lord of the Rings Movie didn't really make me feel much. A lot of the effects were well done, and they obviously tried hard, but the characters didn't manage to move me. There was nothing there that made my think -- in contrast to the book -- and no really grand themes that stood out in the plot -- again in contrast to the book. I think the weak points would have been much more evident if the movie hadn't had such a wonderful established fantasy world to draw from. I guess the worst thing I can say about the movie is that I wasn't really captivated by it at any point during the showing.
Quote: "As for the inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."
Take this for what it's worth, that he didn't intend it. However, his biographical information reveals a lot about the characters he wrote and how life affected his books. So in a way you are right, but he's not 'preaching to the choir.'
Arguably, though, you can see a lot of ways in which his life influenced the book. World War I was very trying for Tolkien, and indeed, most of Britain. He lost all but I think one friend in the war, and you can see how the relationship between Frodo and Sam is not 'gay' as many have suggested in movie reviews and such, but merely the type of love that exists between men fighting on the same side, ie. his experiences in the war. Again, this is my own interpretation.
As far as Catholic influences go, I think it wasn't wholly his Catholic livelihood that affected the writing, as much of what he writes is based off of pagan tales and such. His influence on Western Civilization can be attributed not only to these influences which still exist today (Easter Bunny, Santa Claus) but also the fact that he was a westerner.
Whenever I see awards or polls for "best of the year" or "decade" or "century" or "all time", I figure you should normalize the results by multiplying each entry's rank in the list by the log of the time since it came out. The recency hype dominates awards and polls, as can be seen by look at e.g. the all-time top films at IMDB. I mean c'mon, Memento as the tenth best film ever? American Beauty as the 18th???
When you see 50-60 year old films still rated in the top 50 you have to concede that they've got some genuine enduring quality, but some of the more recent ones probably won't even be remembered a decade from now.
So maybe LotR is great (dunno; the hype turned me off from going to see it yet), but right now the only "news" would be if it didn't win an award.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
For further discussion try http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/allegory.htm
Another awards show. I guess we can look forward to posts about how LOTR did at the Golden Globes, Academy Awards, Peoples Choice, MTV Movies, Blockbuster Movie Awards, etc. etc.
You would think all of these people in the entertainment industry would have broken arms from patting themselves on the back so much.
When are the first anal Slashdot Awards?
http://www.kubuntu.org/
was i the only one who kept expecting sean astin (he played sam) to run on screen in a notre dame football uniform and save the day?
According to the Silmarillion, Men were the second Children of Illuvatar (the creator) and were to be given a special place in His new chorus at the end of the world, an honor that even the Eldar did not receive.
Sorry to be a Tolkien nerd, but I couldn't let that pass... =)
[ home ]
No just the jesus freaks are trying to get their lame messages associated with tolkiens great works. Kinda like how the gay rights homos try to have everyone thinking lincoln was a poofter so they can claim a gay president. Everyone has some hidden agenda.
the appeal of the movie was not to nerds, ala star wars, but to people who had read the book, which applies to a vast number of americans.
that said, i found the movie disappointing, not having read the book(s). the lack of resolution, while perhaps expected by those who had read it, left me a bit bewildered. if movies are going to be made in such a way, the next movie should come out sooner than a year later. it seems to be deliberately done to try for an unprecendented triple best picture oscar sweep.
go get it
In theory that sounds nice, but I think the majority of people who allow their Christian beliefs to influence their opinion of the movie at all (ie, a very small minority of people) will more than likely simply disprove of the fantasy setting in the same way they would of a Dungeons & Dragons movie. I, for one, can say I've never heard anyone express any kind of serious interest in the religious beliefs of Tolkien outside some sort of academic debate on the subject.
If you need to interpret my post, then you don't get it.
In anticipation for the film's opening, I read Tolkien for the very first time (as a young'un I was a D&D geek, so you have thought I would have taken the time years ago to discover Tolkien's middle earth). After experiencing the Hobbit and Fellowship, I had very low expectations for the movie adaptation. And for good reason. Hollywood script writers are natorieous for completely throwing out the source material when writing a movie version. And subsequesntly the movie going audience is left with a story and characters that are barely anything like the book version (which of course, the movies always suck) As a comic fan, you see this over and over again, when comic hero's make thier way to the big screen (Batman and Robin, Spawn anyone). It's like Holywood doesn't fully trust the original authers. But lately things have been getting better... X-men wasn't turned into a corny joke, LOTR kept to Tolkien storyline, Frank Miller is writing a script for a real batman film....
So to sum up, I hope this starts a trend in Hollywood amoung script writers. That they should stick to the orignial works more closely (although the message isn't going to get out in time for the HellBlazer movie... which they already cast Nick Cage for!!! Good god is that going to suck.)
Check out my podcast: DreamStation.cc Video Game Show
Check out the gross income of movies that are currently in theaters here:l
http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice/latest/rank.htm
You can compare these totals to the totals of the Top 100 biggest ranking movies of all time here:m l
http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-alltime/rank.ht
As you can see, even if it makes the projected estimates for this weekend, it will only be up to #34 in the rankings. However, it's also only been out for 2 weeks... :)
Guess it's time for me to go see it again and help bump it up one more notch...
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
One has to remember that the Biblical stories are not all that original. Death and resurrection, battles between Good and Evil, powerful staffs, the humble and unwilling hero, etc appear in all kinds of myths, not just in the Bible, and many pre-date the Bible.
This interview smacks more of a co-opting of the work to further an agenda than anything else.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Decide for yourself
The MTV article says that NSYNC asked for the part; an article in a UK TABLOID says Lucas asked them.
It's reasonable to assume that those (Christians, Muslims , Jews, et cetera)who believe in fairy tales will be influenced by fairy tales.
They are THAT desperate for money?
Non-nerds? They are film nerds ! :)
I enjoyed the movie. As mentioned the visuals were stunning. And I thought the casting was excellent, althought I expected the hobbits to be a bit plumper.
But I also felt that they missed the boat big time by focusing on the battles and not developing the characters.
Two that I particularly missed included the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli. I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.
The other was the development of Sam's loyalty especially as seen with respect to Bill the pony. (And it was pointed out to me after the fact, where did the pony come from? The only time we see it in the movie is when they are about to enter the mines of Moria.)
By focusing only on the adventure part of the tale, they left the fellowship part out of the 'Fellowship'. I described it to a friend as if the book was written by someone who was there, while the movie was done by a 'historian' after the fact.
And because of that I left the theater disappointed.
Steve M
I know this is a troll.
But I doubt that these religions who denounce witchcraft or other forms of earth worship will be swayed by LoTR.
I mean... didn't you see the Harry Potter book burning? That act was symbolic to the fact that the big three don't accept witchcraft in anyway.
They had every right, and I actually applaud them for standing up to the pop culture to show their beliefs. That's what makes this country great - not only can we do these things - sometimes people get the balls to do it.
Get your Unix fortune now!
"Actually, if you read Tolkien's forward to the second edition of his work, he specifically states that he did not intend allegory in the writing."
To take this even further, on more than one occasion Tolkien has spelled out a rather intense hatred of allegory. To quote him in one interview: "I dislike allegory whenever I smell it."
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Re maxsox and others (who say things like the annual releases are simply to whoop up each sucessive years worth of awards);
... New Zealand has a population of 3 million, and the city where it was almost completely made - Wellington (my home) - only has a tenth of that.
... which is the genre of the movies; something which people who criticise this aspect of the film, forget.
You -do- realise that the film was made almost wholly in a city so small it'd hardly feature on any US map
LOTR is leaps and bounds larger than anything created previously in NZ and the infrastructure struggled to do even one film a year. I expect since the shooting is essentially finished, the next two films will have even better editing and computer-generated improvements.
It is rare for such a small country to produce globally acclaimed films; generally this is done by producing offbeat cult films, although those are found more in art-house cinemas. I'm not trying to be overly patriotic or anything, I'm simply believing a large percentage of viewers probably think its yet another piece of US produce.
I personally really enjoyed the film; I had read the first book when I was younger and I just don't think that a graphic portrayal could have been done any better. As for the characters; sure its not the character study of the century, but it sure is alot better than pretty much any standard hollywood film
Did you actually read the whole interview?
"Tolkien disliked allegory because he saw it as a rather crude literary form. In an allegory, the writer begins with the point he wishes to make and then makes up a story to make his point. The story is really little more than a means of illustrating the moral.
Tolkien believed that a myth should not be allegorical but that it should be "applicable." In other words, the truth that emerges in the story can be applied to the truth that emerges in life.
There is, therefore, a good deal of truth in "The Lord of the Rings" even though its author never set out intentionally to introduce it allegorically. This is, perhaps, a subtle distinction but one which Tolkien believed was important."
I think maybe you are making it a little more applicable to the bible than the author intended.
I agree. It wasn't that great. In my case, maybe it was the genre thing... I have no interest in fantasy, make-believe worlds, and find it hard to care about any of their inhabitants. Also, there was very little character development. The Bilbo guy was much more likeable than Frodo (who reminded me of Arnold Horshack). It wasn't terribly interesting, I found myself checking my watch a few times. Maybe if you really, really enjoyed the books, then it would be GREAT. My wife thought the hobbits seemed very gay. I honestly considered taking a nap about a third of the way into this.
Besides not giving a rat's ass about silly gnomes and such, the movie itself just wasn't that great. It wasn't bad, really, but I wish I had seen something that I'd probably like more, like Mulholland Drive, or Amelie.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
From Letter #142:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
I agree that LotR is not an allegory of anything, Tolkien did say that his Christian beliefs did influence LotR alot. You can especially see this if you read the Silm. Gandalf isn't just some guy doing magic, he is an angel clothed in flesh. Morgoth and Sauron are fallen angels.
And yes, GvsE and stuff is quite common. However, you can see many Christian influences. The central theme of the corruption and temptation of the ring is very Christian and what sets LotR apart. In just-another-myth Frodo would be the unlikely hero who learns how to wield the ring and become powerful.
There are many other little details, such as Gollum. Gandalf's speech about pity and not killing Gollum is VERY Christian (and actually very Catholic).
I'm not descending into a "whose religion is better" pissing contest. I'm just saying to deny that Tolkien's faith didn't have a strong influence is wrong.
Brian Ellenberger
Harry Potter would have wasted them all.
...
Given box-office returns H.P. should get all the Oscars. The problem is it is aimed at the kiddies.
LoTR on the other hand is aimed slightly higher
There have been lots of dross this year, and some fairly good films (or at least sequels).
As we were walking out of the theater, I said to my wife, "You know, I kept expecting them to start giving eachother hand jobs."
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
The Elves, if they died, went to Mandos, the Halls of Doom on Valinor. (Valinor was what LotR refers to as "the West", i.e. the "undying lands" where world-weary Elves would travel on the Straight Road from the Grey Havens, aided by Círdan the Shipwright and guided by Ëarendil.) Therefore they did not rejoin Eru Ilúvatar if they died, but rather lived for eternity on Valinor, the lands untouched by death. In other words, even if an Elf is slain, he/she is not really "dead" per se.
But Men who died would leave Ëa, i.e. go beyond the circles of the world to return to Eru Ilúvatar, thus being nearer to him than the Eldar/Elves, who could leave Middle-Earth but not Ëa itself.
The Elves therefore became world-weary, longing to return to Eru, but unable to do so, while Men were only on Middle-Earth a (relatively) short time, after which they came back to him.
From one Tolkien nerd to another. ;-)
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
I've heard what you said from a number of people.. and I can't dispute it. Those who haven't read the books don't seem to like it much. Those who did usually love it.
I have read the books, probably twice over the years.. so for me, the movie was an unbelievable experience.. They brought the book to life (parts of it, anyway). It's by far the most enjoyable movie I've seen in my life. It was 3 hours of magic.
The real attraction for me was watching a good book come to life on screen.. and in an amazing way. They didn't butcher it. Sure, they could have done more character development, they could also have put in all the songs, and they could have not left out whole scenes from the book... and they could also have ended up with a 9 hour movie. What you say about the Potter movies being edited 'right' for the bigscreen is exactly what I thought of LOTR.
As for what you've 'heard' about the characters in the book... I disagree. Gandalf was not a 'manipulative SOB'. He was pretty much exactly what you see in the film. Now.. of course, if you want to really know, please, read the books for yourself.
Also.. comparing Harry Potter to LOTR as literary works is apples and oranges.
Harry Potter is great, I loved the books.. but it's absolutely not in the same league as LOTR. LOTR is a literary masterpiece. Harry Potter is just a popular book that's light and interesting.
BTW.. Did you konw they renamed it for US distribution? To the rest of the world it's "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone". They also changed many British words in the book to something more American, "Trunk" instead of "Boot" etc..
I feel the same way about mobster movies. I could not freakin care less about the stupid mafia genre. Like i care about some whop criminals...it's a load of shit. Mafia movies suck cack.
That interview, far from a "co-opting of the work to further an agenda", is indeed true to Tolkien. Keep in mind that the interviewee is a Tolkien biographer who has access to his letters. And his letters do reveal (found quote here) in his own words that the book is inseparable from his faith:
Unfortunately, many people cannot seem to understand that his faith was not merely smuggled in as allegory like his friend C.S. Lewis'. His works are not allegories. He considers allegories tacky. How he does use myth in expression of his faith is an interesting subject in its own right, which can be studied in his published letters and biographies, or (briefly) in the articles just cited.
Uhh... they were *fantasy* characters.. how do you peg that they were all Christians?
Christian groups endorse the film simply because it has a very distinct good -vs- evil mentality.. basically everything relating to magic is evil (not quite, but almost), Aragorn is a good messianic figure, etc, etc...
Non-white? IT's *FANTASY*.
Elves, dwarves, goblins, hobbits, humans, orcs, orukai, and a cave troll.. that's a pretty good racial background I believe...
As for suckage.. the movie is intended to bring the book to life on screen. If you haven't read the book, it's no wonder it sucks. If you had, you would have loved it.
Interesting. Yes, the population of middle earth should be fairly balanced sex wise. And Things being in a "middle-ages" kind of timeframe, I would have to say that there would NOT be many women seen in a POWERFUL position. Why? Because they weren't allowed. With the mild exception of the elves. You have the Lady of the Loth...(im not going to even try to spell it.) Pretty powerful gal.
What is the purpose of this?
Interesting "Truth" you have here.
Well, this explains most of your lack of understanding. Ya see, there are more languages out there that you have never heard. And some of them are quite...ah, pleasing to the ear. And since about 3/4 of the languages of Middle earth were created by J.R.R. Tolkien, who was a linguist and historian. As to your failed implications of homosexuality...Well, those who are obsessed with homosexuality will see it in everything...
Truth is an empty cup.
oh look, its a multiphasic chronoton particle generator, with optional dual airbags and a heizenberg buffer modulator!
I guess this could be why it makes such a boring movie?
Visually Peter Jackson's FOTR is nearly perfect. The cast is perfect -as far as their lines allow them to be. As a story however, it's damn near coma inducing. It's not the length of the thing, either. I could have sat through another hour of it and been happy if the story and the characters were interesting. Unfortunately the overall FLATNESS of story and the rapid evaporation of interest in the characters begins to accelerate and become oppressive almost as soon as Frodo and Sam leave the Shire.
people say that PJ was in a hurry to get to Rivendell and launch the Fellowship, well that's completely screwed up. The only thing that should be the objective of storytelling is the development of depth and twists in the story itself. Read the shooting script of the Matrix for example of a story (also drawing heavily upon Xian themes of self-scrifice and salvation) in a MIGHTY BIG HURRY can develop and realize itself on a perfect plot trajectory while moving at a breakneck pace.
i read LOTR (and The Silmarillion) backwards and forwards as a kid and I didn't care (sometimes) how long it took to read certain sections because it was a book to immerse oneself in and I had the rest of my life to absorb it, returning to chapters at leisure. Although there are a number of movies I love to watch over and over, even to the point where i'll rent a disc to wallow in a shot by shot analysis of just PARTS of them, discarding the rest, movies IN GENERAL aren't a narrative form that involves recursive enjoyment. A film must work on a continuous first viewing. With FOTR while I was astonished at how close the movie's world resembles my own ideas about Middle-Earth and its creatures, nevertheless, watching The Mummy on TNT made me realize how little story-juice was flowing onscreen for that 3hr.span wasted by FOTR. The characters don't reveal themselves through interaction ENOUGH. The villains are all-powerful like in Xian demonology but GORD are they boring! PJ needed to invent more of that human interaction seen in the Boromir Merry/Pippin swordfighting scene and in the friendship of Gandalf and Bilbo. Overall it was like watching a Cliff's Notes outline version of the book and there's no good excuse for that in a director. Watch the totally spellbinding Heavenly Creatures to see Jackson demonstrate his mastery at storytelling instead of this limp TOlkien adaptation.
In a generally bad year for film, it was good to see that we had not only Fellowship of the Ring, but Billy Bob Thornton in a breathtakingly beautiful The Man Who Wasn't There, and Baz Lurman's lavish and funny Moulin Rouge. It was a good year for cinematography.
http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0209144
:-)
Granted, it wasn't released in the US until January 20, but technically it's a 2000-movie, not a 2001-movie and thus shouldn't be competing for best 2001-picture against LotR
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
As others have already pointed out, Tolkien denies any sort of intentional allgeory or historical reference in his books.
At the same time, don't forget that many of the same right-wing Christian groups that go around burning "Harry Potter" books also tend to take a very dim view of Catholics (or "papists" as they would call them). I know, my niece's mother takes my niece to just one such church, much to my and my brother's annoyance.
I gave her LOTR for Christmas...and "A Wrinkle in Time", which I call the "stealth bomb for eight-year-olds". >:-)
At any rate, it's interesting to note that the "Narnia" series from C.S. Lewis is not so often objected to by these same groups -- even though Lewis and Tolkien were close friends and shared many of the same views. (Lewis had been agnostic, and Tolkien tried to convert him to Catholicism, but Lewis became an Anglican instead -- i.e. Protestant, if only barely.) However, "Narnia" is clearly an allegory, with Aslan the Lion directly representing Christ -- Lewis said so himself.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You keep using this term "very Christian". What exactly does that mean? As though pity is not found in any other mythological structure?
Like I said before... the book may draw on Christianity, but Christianity itself drew from many sources: there isn't much of anything original in the Bible. The themes in LOTR are as ancient as civilisation itself. Quoth Tolkein:
Further: In other words, Tolkein recognised that people will judge things through their own tinted glasses. You may see Christian influence, but I see something much deeper and more fundamentally Human. Further: Amen.Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Heh... just bend over and take the moderation like a man.
(Score: -1, Whining about moderation)
How come a movie shot in New Zealand, Directected and adapted by New Zealanders, and based on a book by an Englishman, is winning "American" Film Awards?
Though I suppose if they called it International, the judges would have to watch French movies.
I'll keep yelling incase you haven't read my post yet.
It would have been a better troll had you said that the evil guys were all non-white.
its not the "BIG THREE." Only christianity and the most extreme members of the other two have such great intolerance for alternative practices. I don't know of any Jews or Muslims (other than fundamentalists) that practice such sorts of intolerance for "pagans" and others as christians do.
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
Save the back-patting until the REAL movie award competitions - the Oscars, AMA, and Blockbuster shows. Winning a couple categories in some new, obscure awards ceremony does not a "universal hit" make.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
that's pretty funny.. alot of people say hollywood has a thing AGAINST christians and makes them look like idiots. Those are the same ones who say the jews are plotting to destroy the world.
The Slashdot Effect: A new for
I believe they said that's why they did it. I think the second movie (3rd in trilogy) is already done, but it is not yet 'timely' to release it.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
With all the hype surrounding LoTR and Harry Potter, I have been wondering who has a financial stake in these movies. As usual, Google came to the rescue and revealed that AOL-Time Warner invested in both. In case anybody was wondering...
>(not even a token black guy!) in LOTR?
LOL, yeah now I know what this movie lacked! It's some Martin Lawrence clone spouting off bullshit every 5 minutes and making jokes about how typically "white" everyone is.
This is not the movie you are looking for. Try this one.
And thank you for your discerning viewpoint. Without people like you we'd have to endure more movies like LOTR and less politically, morally and ethically correct motion pictures like the one I linked to above.
-Legion
After all, the character development is minimal (so far in the story), the plot is fractured by being 1/3rd of a story, etc. It doesn't have any of the characteristics of a good movie, viewed standalone.
While I think there's a reasonable possibility that these accolades will be entirely justified, even in traditional movie terms, once the entire 8-9 hour movie is complete (LotR being a single 3 volume novel, after all), I think there's something deeper going on.
Think of it this way: LotR:FotR isn't a movie. Even viewed as 1/3 of a movie (which is a more accurate in any event), it isn't really a traditional movie.
It's much more accurate to view this film as some kind of artistic travelogue or visual aid for the book.
A movie is an entirely self-contained form of entertainment. The film version of LotR seems to have been developed in a completely unique manner, AFAICT.
Look closely: half of the film is inside "jokes". That's not really accurate but it's the closest analogy I can think of. There's no explicit reason in the movie for many of the little details, but if you pay attention, you'll find that almost every off hand line by an extra, or reference to a far off place in passing is an accurate allusion to the books.
I left the whole thing speachless, not so much because of the excellent cinematography, but because of the shear *depth* of the translation of the novel. On the surface, they had to change many things to produce a "movie" that would have a chance of selling to a mass audience and pay for it's production costs. It's the 3d quality of the interpretation that I found so mentally stunning.
Viewed in this way, it's clear why the film is doing so well critically and in mass appeal: it's absolutely the best movie ever made in its class... and I don't mean at all to damn it with faint praise by saying that's because it's the *only* movie ever made in it's class.
I found it tedious. It really didn't keep my attention. It's a cute gimmick, but I just didn't care about the plot. Of course, I didn't like Sixth Sense, either. So, take that for what you will.
Apparently, I'm notorious for not liking movies everyone else likes.
Unconventional movies I've liked would include things like Rushmore, and Being John Malkovich.
Eh, just an opinion.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Look at the difference between #1 and #2:
1. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) 9.0/10 (28576 votes)
2. Godfather, The (1972) 9.0/10 (45977 votes)
Each of these scored a 9.0 out of 10, but why is the LOTR #1? It would make sense to me that 'The Godfather' would be #1 instead, due to the sheer number of votes. The number of votes just shows that this movie has a more 'solid' 9.0 than LOTR.
Maybe the IMDB is using the recency of the movie to determine the exact opposite of what you suggest?
Amelie is well worth the time. You should also check out The Man Who Wasn't There if you haven't, there's something very beautiful and simple about it.
The orcs were black. Or at least some of them were. There were also some blue ones. But anyway, there were blacks in the film; the orcs. So you can hardly say it is racist.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
A Beautiful Mind was a load of tripe and as usual butchered a man's acheiviements in the name of "true love"
PI was a hell of a lot better.
How is this a troll? It's a legitimate question....
geez, some moderators..
[A scene from ]
A scene from "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings"
[Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com] [Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com]
[Printer-friendly version of this article] [Printer-friendly version of this article]
[Email a link to this article] [Email a link to this article]
[View a list of the most popular articles on our site] [View a list of the most popular articles on our site]
BEVERLY HILLS, California (AP) -- The fantasy epic "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" won best-picture honors and two other prizes at the first American Film Institute Awards on Saturday.
Denzel Washington was named best actor for playing a flamboyantly corrupt narcotics detective in "Training Day." Sissy Spacek won lead-actress honors as a grieving, vengeful mother in "In the Bedroom."
Spacek, a five-time Academy Award nominee who won for "Coal Miner's Daughter," could emerge as a front-runner for another Oscar.
"This film is so close to my heart," Spacek said. "It was a real labor of love, I think, for all of those who worked on it."
Robert Altman was picked as best director for his satiric murder mystery "Gosford Park."
Gene Hackman of "The Royal Tenenbaums" and Jennifer Connelly of "A Beautiful Mind" earned supporting-actor honors.
Hackman won for his role as an outcast patriarch who weasels his way back into the dysfunctional family he abandoned years earlier. Connelly won as the conflicted wife of schizophrenic math genius John Nash (Russell Crowe) in "A Beautiful Mind," directed by Ron Howard.
The 12 awards in the film categories were spread among nine movies. The only multiple winners were "Lord of the Rings," which also won for digital effects and production design, and "Moulin Rouge," honored for composing and editing.
"In the Bedroom" and "Black Hawk Down" had led with five nominations each, but "Black Hawk Down" was shut out in every category.
'Sopranos,' stars win plaudits
Writer-director Christopher Nolan won the screenplay award for the convoluted, backward-moving thriller "Memento." Roger Deakins took the cinematography honor for the Coen brothers' film-noir update "The Man Who Wasn't There."
Many nominees turned out for the awards show, but there were plenty of no-shows, including Washington, Altman, Hackman, Connelly and James Gandolfini, who won best actor on a TV series for "The Sopranos."
"Sopranos" co-star Edie Falco won the best TV series actress honor. The show also won for best drama series.
"Thanks for watching the show, which we love probably more than you guys," Falco said.
HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" won for best comedy series.
"This is a rare opportunity for my family to see me on TV. They refuse to get HBO, so they have no idea what the show is about," said Larry David, the show's star.
Jeffrey Wright won the best actor award in a TV movie or miniseries as Martin Luther King Jr. in "Boycott." Judy Davis took the best actress honor in a TV movie or miniseries as Judy Garland in "Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows."
Garland's daughter, Lorna Luft, accepted the award on Davis' behalf.
"I would like to thank Judy Davis for her extraordinary courage, her exceptional talent and her love of my mother's memory," said Luft, a producer on the miniseries.
The AFI Awards, aired live on CBS, included nominees in 12 movie and seven television categories.
CBS newsman Dan Rather recapped television's reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks, citing David Letterman's return to work and a star-studded multi-network telethon for victims as symbols of the nation's response to the attacks.
The new show is the first big ceremony of Hollywood's long awards season. The Golden Globes take place January 20, actor and director guilds give out their awards in March and the Oscars cap things off March 24.
Nominees were chosen by two 13-member committees -- one each for movies and television -- which included AFI trustees, industry professionals, film and TV scholars, and critics. Winners were picked by a 100-member jury of industry insiders.
AFI, best known for its lists ranking all-time top American films or screen stars, provides industry training, holds film screenings and conducts movie-preservation efforts.
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
* Best direct-to-DiVX ;) release.
* Film with the most Slashdot front page stories. (Star Wars migh take this one, though)
* Sore ass/ruptured bladder award. (Leathal combination of entertainment and excessive feature length.)
* Elijah Wood finally in something that doesn't suck(TM) award.
And last but not least...
* Best visual representation of what a Slashdot troll looks like.
Well the LOTR drone will mod this post down to -5, but this won't change the truth anyway.
No, hopefully you'll be modded down because you don't know what you're talking about.
a little bit cryptohomosexual ?
Let's look at the facts:
The same thing could be said about today's world. There's been semi-effective crusades to get women more involved in the work force and promoted to higher positions in corporations and government for at least the last hundred years. Before that it was rather "obvious" that women should be staying at home and taking care of the children and other 'at home' activities. A tale set in the time of 'long ago' about people (and hobbits, elves, etc.) who are setting off on a trek to escape armies of a dark lord and save the world would obviously not have too many women involved since their roles in life did not include such things. Following your logic would mean that all men prior to the 20th century were "cryptohomosexual".
So the fans didn't want the filmmakers changing the gender of a fairly major character, just to artificially add some women to the cast. You'd see a lot of pissed people too if you had millions of people reading "Harry Potter" books, and the filmmakers decided a little girl named "Harriet Potter" was more to their liking. This does not support a "gay" Tolkein theory in any way.
Yeah that Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are pretty homely looking butch women... That's just what I was thinking too when I watched the movie...
Well if there had been lots of "fairies" who described their mood as very "gay" while they went around collecting "faggots" in the forest, you might have a point there. But there isn't any of that. And if you're going to technically analyze a word as an example of something, at least spell it right ('elf', 'mordor'). And what the fuck is a "rodom" anyway??
It looks to me like there's more of Freud working here in this guy's post than a gay Tolkein... Excellent troll butt-boy!
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
You know, the ultimate winner of the debate between HP and LOTR is AOL Time Warner: they produced both movies and are making huge sums of money from both! I think AOLTW will be playing up the "agression" between the two books for the next two years as they'll be releasing the movies a month apart.
This girl from work took me and paid for everything! Thats all pretty cool, seein how she's hot, and I got to see FOTR.
I read The Hobbit when I was in 4th or 5th grade, so thats why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. I haven't actually read Lord Of The Rings, and I can tell you the movie, while visually stunning and interesting enough, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at all. I grasped the main concept (Frodo ends up with The One Ring, and set out to some badass mountain to destroy it before this dick Sauron gets ahold of it again). It wasn't immediately obvious that Saruman had alterior motives in his alliance with Sauron. It seemed Saruman was nothing more than Sauron's crony, while I suspect his involvement in the book is more complex. I read a post that said that Saruman Sauron and Gandalf are all of the same race, which would have been nice to know during the movie. It would also have been helpful to more fully flesh out the significance of Elves.
I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had previously read the book, and now I'm going to have to in order to clear up what I didn't understand. I think they could have cut down some of the fight scenes for better plot development, but whatever. I'll read the book, see the movie, and probably live the rest of my life thinking FOTR was a fucking great movie.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
The classical allegory doesn't usually make for a good story, partly because, once decoded for its meaning, the structure turns out to be a thinly-veiled kind of analytical essay, and if Lewis or Tolkien had wanted to write one of those, they would have gone ahead and done so. In fact, they both did.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
And what do you mean by no Muslims "other than fundamentalists" practice intolerance? No Christians "other than fundamentalists" do, either.
As far as lesser-known and smaller religions (in terms of numbers) go, I suspect we don't hear much of their abuse of outsiders simply because they don't have the political and social power to act upon their prejudices. This isn't to say that every religious person is intolerant, only that no religion is immune to it.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Not quite, but close.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Lessig was right in shaming us here in his Slashdot interview responses;
Am I the only one who declined to see LoTR and every other movie for the past year as a means of not giving money to the MPAA and its members?
Sure, you guys talk a tough fight when DMCA and De-CSS come up, but get a movie like LoTR, and you all go see it. No principles, the lot of you.
Phooey.
I found it was like a great big non-interactive computer game. They walk along various platforms and kill lots of little monsters, until they get to the 'end of level' big boss monster.
Good action flick, but hardly worth all this hype about "best film ever". I honestly didn't find it very intellectually stimulating or particularly clever... and it was overly long for what actually happened. Perhaps it is just too big and they got lazy?
I'll probably be tracked down and killed by a google of D&D freaks for this post... but I have a large 20 sided die to protect me! Beware!
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
I'm very sorry for this and I really don't want to make a spelling flame but please it's "Tolkien" not "Tolkein". It's respectful to get people's names right. Thanks.
I would prefer to see it done as an epic miniseries that took as many episodes as it needed to get things done right. Either that or you do it as six movies, one for each book, and you can include all the leisurely preparations that Frodo took in the book to get to Rivendell and the whole Tom Bombadil incident.
Even so, I think Peter Jackson did some right things in taking a lot of what was related in the council debate and showing it on camera, with the capture of Gandalf and so forth. In fact, if you did the miniseries concept I would have played up that element, showing the Ringwraiths harassing the dwarves and the whole bit with Gandalf and in general the shadows gathering around the Shire while the hobbits took their time.
The Glorfindel/Arwen substition I have mixed feelings about. Not that we ever got much of a view of Arwen in the books but she always struck me as the more domestic type and so it wasn't quite true to character. I wouldn't have minded having the whole Aragorn/Arwen meeting that was given in one of the Appendices in flashback at some point to fill the background in as an alternate way to bring her in.
Not off topic read the link (and the Moderator guidlines)
Here is what my advisor told me:
CIS is great for getting a job but doesn't help your career. CS is great to build a career but doesn't help as much for getting a job.
let me rephrase:
It's reasonable to assume that those(Deists)who believe in fairy tales will be influenced by fairy tales.
LOTR was boring with a weak story. Those with no emotional attachment to the books should see something else. This movie was no fun, took itself way to seriously and is FAR from the best movie of the year. Even Harry Potter was more enjoyable.
Christianity is the following of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. What are you an idiot?
It's not about tolerence. It's about dogma [doctrine].
Chrisitanity is viewed as paganist by Jews. We are tolerant, but we don't think they are right.
The people didn't attack 'witches'. They protested to show they were against Harry Potter, what it stood for and the fact that millions of people are behind it.
I think you confused tolerance with a general disagreement of their ideas.
No one got killed.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Just to add:
It's not Christians who are intolerant of others. It's white people. They just happen to be Christians.
Get your Unix fortune now!
This is a rather arrogant attitude that I find annoying. These books were written long ago before there even was such a thing as a "nerd". My grandma, who was a tough Montana pioneer woman, liked Tolkien's books. In the 60s, the Tolkien books were very popular among college students. Where is it written that Lord of the Rings was made for nerds?
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
Oh well, mod me down... I'm late posting :-p
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Peter Jackson called it a "New Zealand film, shot with mostly British actors, using mostly American money."
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Or this one!
my whole take on your elegantly crafted opinion is that you should have one after you've read the books and seen the movie (paying attention ;| not messing with a girlfriend as some other fellow writes)...
read, watch then gives us your insight,
Of course it cleaned up. Have you ever seen any of Peter Jackson's other works? Dead Alive, Meet The Feebles, or Bad Taste? They're all pretty good in their own rights (my personal favourite being Dead Alive). I was very suprised when I heard he was directing them, but I knew he could do a good job.
One wonders how many other 'unknown' directors that got their start on cheezy movies would do better than the so called old stand-bys of Hollywood. I'm guessing there's quite a bit of good talent out there that never gets taken advantage of. It also seems like they generally originate from the world of B-Movies (such as Sam Raimi of Evil Dead fame)
Check those other movies out!
Film nerds are NERDS.
..damnit..
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Tolkien of course denied that it was any kind of allegory, and said he hated allegory profoundly.
Oh, as an atheist I'm a great fan of LOTR
Book compare to the movie is much more complex, has much more scenes and dialogs. But I think that Peter Jackson did a pritty good job little bit changing the story. Imaging if the movie was 100% like in the book. Most people will be bored watching 10 hour movie. I remember book almost word by word and some scenes were funny. But the most funny one was Eldron himself. For some reason he still was "In return we are asking for your cooperation of bringing the known terrorist to justice:))))))))" (Agent Smith from Matrix).
Other good things are that it was shot on 60 cm film not cheap ass digital camera like people in Hollywood likes to use.
In so doing he was trying to replace the oral tradition he believed had been lost to the Anglo-Saxons by the Norman invasion.
Both FOTR and Oceans 11 were chocked full of characters- over 20 major characters in each. Yet I felt I new the Ocean 11 one better because the screenplay was much better and aimed at characters. FOTR had a mediocre screen play. One sign is a lead-in narative. Another is are location sub-titles. All this should have been worked into dialog.
These are not Christian, but pagan stores from Zoraster (polarity of Good and Evil) and the Norse myths. Paganism isn't all bad as Xtian writers would make it out to be. Most religions had a core morality and a belief in a greater good.
Both are are mountains and somewhat inhospitable. Both have big bad guys living there and are deamonized in the press. Both are southwest of Europe.
In the European mythic memory, the southwest was a constant source of trouble- the Huns, Jihads, Mongols, Turks, etc.
I've seen similar comments in this vein. If we are talking about allegory in the restricted sense of a story being one sustained allegory, then of course C.S. Lewis did not do allegories. It might be useful to say that while his stories contain allegories, they are not themselves allegories. The difference with Tolkien is that he dislikes even this use of allegory: that is, the overt use of story by the author to convey specific propositions.
Nevertheless, I say that allegory (in the looser sense) and good story are not mutually exclusive. In fact, C.S. Lewis could get away with that didactic genre -- now associated almost exclusively with him -- because he is a good story teller. Lewis and Tolkien may have different approaches to myth and story, but they have this in common: they write good stories. For this reason, neither the absence nor presence of allegories change the fact that their stories can be enjoyed on their own merits.
It looks much more like the heroes of the Terry Brooks' The Sword of Sahannara'.
Ciao
----
FB
If you want character development, then read the book. Even at 3 hours, LOTR does not have enough time to develop any character.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Actually, Lewis denied that Naria was an allegory in the strict sense. It's not a matter of Aslan=Christ, because that's not what he had in mind. He describes it as saying, "What if Christ came to a completely different (fantasy) world...What would that look like?" He then created Naria around that premise.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
umm...hmmm. I think your friend might have issues. Gandalf is really quite kindly to the people (especially the hobbits, who he had a particular fondness for) who don't irritate the crap out of him (i.e. Saruman, Wormtongue, the Nazgûl (hehe), etc.) that's all.
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
the book itself had a lengthy lead in narrative. it's called a prologue :-)
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
My mother went to see it, and when she came back, she swore the movie deep into ground. She complained that the movie had compeletely ruined the story of the book, having only the fighting.
I didn't feel exactly the same, but in my opinion, the movie did lack depth. The relationships didn't have time to develop. And what was IMHO most irritating, was the immediate decisions. Aragorn didn't have any trouble choosing whether to go to Minas Tirith first or to Mordor. Whether to follow Frodo or not. And for Christ's sake the Council of Elrond was the place to decide the fate of whole middle-earth, not some rash "me too, me too!" beach party! Nobody even suggested hiding the Ring. Nobody even doubted it's authenticity! (Gandalf uttering the Black Speech could have made a wonderful effect, if done right.)
Add, say, 5-30 minutes more pondering to the Council of Elrond and other times of decision, as well as to the interaction between the character of the Fellowship, and you'll double the depth of the film. I hope the uncut DVD will be better - that might even be reason enough to get a DVD-player.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
I agree that themes found in the bible are by no means original.
For those that might not be aware, Tolkien was a Prof of english and he was well known for his interpretation of the classic english poem Beowolf (written around the first century in England).
It's fair to say that Tolkein probably got a huge amount of inspiration (for LOTR and, more specifically, The Hobbit) from this poem. For example, in the 2nd half of the poem Beowolf confronts a dragon that is terrorizing his kingdom. This dragon, having rested on a pile of ancient treasure for hundreds of years, was awakened and throne into a rage when a thief made off with a single goblet from his huge horde (sound familiar?).
Does anyone know where I can read any of Tolkien's books online? I have been looking for several days and the only site I've found is in the process of restructuring. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.