Slashdot Mirror


The L0tR Motion Picture Trilogy Exhibition

cremegg writes " BBC News has a story on the upcoming exhibition at the London Science Museum where fans of the trilogy will be able to explore the high-tech toys used to create the special effects in this epic project."

118 comments

  1. L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since when did Slashdot get l33t headlines?

    1. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent isn't really Off-topic, as it's bugging the hell out of me, too.

    2. Re:L0tR? by presroi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Too bad I don't have any moderation points left. This Post is not "Offtopic" as long as my eyes don't fool me. This O is right now an 0 in the headline.

      I hope it will be corrected OR
      someone might explain the joke to me why it has to be a number 0 instead of O.

    3. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      1/= j00 h4\/3 2 a5|...

    4. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been? There are more 133t /.ers than regular geeks registered now, and the pure Stallmanites are too busy collecting liscense papers to care!

    5. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correction to last 'word':
      a5|<

      *516h*

    6. Re:L0tR? by Fizzl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, but it looks stupid and in my opinion is just f*cking lame.

    7. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The zero looks like a capital "O" in the headline. But that wouldn't make sense because the "O" stands for "of" which is usually not capitalized. WTF?

    8. Re:L0tR? by los+furtive · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Shouldn't it be LotR...why does of get to be uppercased when the isn't?

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    9. Re:L0tR? by Skreech · · Score: 2, Informative

      the letter "o" and zero are right next to each other on the keyboard... I make that mistake on accident myself sometimes. In most fonts, its hard to catch. Dont worry, /. isnt getting leet on anyone.

    10. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did Slashdot get l33t headlines?

      Since today dumbass. Jeez!

    11. Re:L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Back in the olden days... it was very much popular to use the letter O rather then the #0 simply because manual typewriters didn't have a a #0, nor a #1 for that matter.

      Lowercase l and the ltter 0 were most adquate and it was up to the user to actually tell the diffrence, just like today when most fonts make #1 and l look so similar, let alone O and 0. Older typewriters you'll note have only 23456789.

      In fact, my factory invoice for my 1966 ford f-250 uses lowercase o for it's pricelist of options. Otherwise, you wouldn't notice their use of the letter o at all.

      Now why it got popular for k-rad hacker d00ds to actually employ their use of the #0 is beyond me.

    12. Re:L0tR? by Diamon · · Score: 2, Funny

      o|\|3 r1|\|g t0 RUL3 t|-|Em 4lL. 0n3 RI|\|9 +O FI|\||) +|-|3|\/|,
      oNE r1NG to 8r1|\|G T|-|3|\/| @LL 4N|) 1n tHe |)4R||\|3$$ 81|\||) tH3|\/|

  2. Lotr or Fun ! by SlashingComments · · Score: 1

    This will be 10 Hr whole lot of fun.
    But we need to pee .... so don't how many times I have to disturb the other people ...

    --

    - People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...

  3. December==Autumn? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The family exhibition, which will open before the eagerly awaited final instalment of the film trilogy this Autumn, will allow visitors to explore for themselves the fantastic world created for The Lord of the Rings films.
    What does "autumn" mean in the UK? I thought the movie comes out in December?
    1. Re:December==Autumn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Syntax error: bad parse
    2. Re:December==Autumn? by bj8rn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where I live, winter begins on 22nd of December. I figure it's the same in the UK.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:December==Autumn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      her majesty does not approve of winter!

  4. Still can't beat the books by fox2mike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Somehow LOTR has an amazing feel when your reading the book...but not when your seeing the movie as such. Its been that way with almost *all* movies made from books...the book was better than the movie.

    Nevertheless need to give credit to the guys for making a movie out of such a huge book :) sadly I guess am too far off to be visiting the exhibition.

    1. Re:Still can't beat the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Next up: Wheel of Time, TEH MOVIE!!!11

    2. Re:Still can't beat the books by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, i bet this fish has been beaten death quite a number of times..

      but they're different mediums.

      or you could argue that opera version of some theatretical play is better than the plain theatre version, but there would be very little point in it. as a game the quite new title pirates of the caribbean sucks but the movie on the other hand is ok, and they have just about much in common as a book and a movie would have with the same title and resemblance in characters.

      the movies are ok movies, and that is what matters. it doesn't matter if you're imagination is better or not in your opinion than the work done on film.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Still can't beat the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just splice the end of the reel back to the beginning for a continuous loop, and you're there. Project until patrons die of old age.

    4. Re:Still can't beat the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jeah right. one of the books greatest strengths is also its greatest problem - tolkien wasted too much time describing the individual blades of grass, etc. it adds up to an astounding vision of a world but consequently stalls the narrative. i prefer the films because you can see the world and be awed by it rather than spend time visualizing all this shizzy in order to be entertained by the adventures of his characters. also the films arent quite as stodgy.

  5. L0tR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the k3wl version of LotR?

    w0w d00d... can't w41t. Th4nks 4 t3h h3dz up.

  6. LOTR by Gantic · · Score: 2, Funny

    We all know who the real lord of the rings is, Cowboy Neil! I mean that literally rather than metaphorically which is what is so grim about it

  7. LOtR 3 Movie Marathon by NotTheAntiChrist · · Score: 1

    That reminds me. My current plan for getting out of spending the holidays with the family is to find a place far away from them to catch a LOtR 3 Movie Marathon in a theatre. My family is on the East Coast U.S., so I'm looking for the midwest or west coast, but do people know of any theatres that plan to do this?

    1. Re:LOtR 3 Movie Marathon by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful


      How many hours sitting in one spot?

      Why not do this:
      Wait until all extended versions are out and get/rent a big screen tv.

      Watch at your own pace with more movie.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:LOtR 3 Movie Marathon by sllim · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ARE the extended versions.
      It is a promotional gimmick. They are rereleasing the first two movies on celluloid a couple weeks before the premier of ROTK. The rerelease is the extended version from the DVD's.

      However Peter Jackson has been upfront about this thing. He says it is purely promotional and they are only doing like 100 theaters with it.

      So you are gonna have to be lucky if you want to see it.

    3. Re:LOtR 3 Movie Marathon by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      These same extended version will be shown separately, so that you don't have to see them at the same time. I personally was thinking about the marathon session, but my brains got the better of me and said "hey fool you'll sleep through the l33t showing of r0tK if you do that!"

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:LOtR 3 Movie Marathon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For your enjoyment and pleasure

      The seats in front of you are equipped with urinals, and the under you is a convenient toilet.

      By-standers should consult the usher for a towel

  8. high tech? by hangingonwords · · Score: 1, Interesting

    i took a look at the link, skimmed through the little article and i must admit, the the suits of armor in the picture i saw looked VERY high tech... i'm sure any knight these days would love to replace his old rusty 20th century suit of armor with one of the high tech one's shown in the picture...

    --
    fact: microsoft > linux
  9. 0? by TwistedGreen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...any particular reason that LOTR is spelt with a zero?

    1. Re:0? by hangingonwords · · Score: 0

      yeah, cool slashdot hacker geek talk... the L0TR fans just wanna show that they too can be down with the cool kids.

      --
      fact: microsoft > linux
    2. Re:0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means Jon Katz is back! Run away! Run away!

      His stories were littered with things like "l999", so why not use a 0 instead of an O? Maybe he even went the other way at times, giving us l999 AND 2OOO at the same time.

      If anyone asks, he'll blame the C-64 keyboard filled with sand from Afghanistan.

  10. "L0tR" by dupper · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aren't you the hip little AOLer.

    1. Re:"L0tR" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he meant 40L3r.

    2. Re:"L0tR" by Ralp · · Score: 1

      Your sig makes an excellent addition to this post.

  11. : D by CGP314 · · Score: 0

    w00t!

    Glad I just moved to London just in time :)

    1. Re:: D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in! I mean, just!

  12. What high tech toys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    where fans of the trilogy will be able to explore the high-tech toys used

    I'm confused. I don't recall any high-tech toys being used in the creation of the trilogy (unless paper, ink, the printing press, and Tolkien's imagination are considered "high-tech").

    1. Re:What high tech toys? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1


      Duracell would disagree with you.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:What high tech toys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The motion picture trilogy, not the book, fuckwit.

      -1, Dumbass

  13. Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Slashdot editors grow from misspelling words to misspelling acronyms.

  14. Damnit it's not a trilogy by rmohr02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a common misconception that LotR is a trilogy. It is not. It is a single novel, composed of six books, commonly published in three volumes. From this, the movies are really more like the first, second and third discs in a really really long movie.

    (Sorry. Just one of my pet peeves.)

    1. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Gherald · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is about the movies which are, in fact, a trilogy. The books are irrelevant to this event.

    2. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by american+dissident · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The books are irrelevant to this event.

      Sadly, they were pretty much irrelevent to the movie makers as well.

    3. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      Yep, and it's six books only because the publisher wanted to split it up -- Tolkien didn't want to this originally, but had to concede after failing to get the book publisehd in one chunk for nearly a decade.

      Frodo lives.

      :)

    4. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      3 movies, right? And this isn't a trilogy how...?

    5. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      Why don't the "volumes" count as "works"? Why does it have to be "books"?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    6. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to research at an English university, people generally consider it to be a trilogy even though the story is otherwise unbroken.

    7. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I liked the beginning of FotR because it was pretty accurate and the way it was done was just good. Then, things just went downhill as the movie kept diverging from the book and stuff was written out of the script so more boring visuals could be put in. Oh, and I don't like the soundtrack.

    8. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The six "mini-books" are how he divided the story up. They are meant as dividers. He had to concede to publishing it in three separate books because the presses couldn't handle the size of the whole thing between two covers.

    9. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 2, Informative
      I seem to recall that the books were published UK first, and that when a publishing company (Ace? Doubleday?) in the US saw how popular they were, starting printing their own editions without paying Tolkien royalties.

      It was only after this situation became publicized (and protested) did they back down and start paying Tolkien his due. And even then it was only because a serious boycott was being organized.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    10. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by rmohr02 · · Score: 2, Informative
      people generally consider it to be a trilogy
      That's exactly my point--it isn't a trilogy, but people think it is.
    11. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by CaptainBaz · · Score: 1

      And damn it, "damnit" is not a word!

      (One of my pet peeves...)

    12. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by joeszilagyi · · Score: 1
      The same way that the Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions are two halves of the same film.

      Or, an even better example: KILL BILL. Quentin Tarantino wrote it, conceived it, and filmed it as one movie, but it ended up being nearly five hours long, so he split it in half. KILL BILL I, and KILL BILL II, but it's all one film. If he had made it six hours long and made it KILL BILL I, II, and III, it wouldn't be a trilogy but a single film in three parts.

      STAR WARS = trilogy
      BACK TO THE FUTURE = TRILOGY
      LotR = one incredibly long film

      --
      Dude, where's my packet?
    13. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 3 (three) movies, hence 'trilogy'. Look it up in the dictionary.

    14. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. A matter of perception, I suppose. But fair enough.

    15. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I misspelled it.

    16. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      But the three movies do not have separate storylines. Each of the original Star Wars movies had complete plots, and could stand on their own (especially since you don't really need to see episode IV in order to understand V, because of the descriptive intro). The individual LotR movies make no sense individually, and to understand the second you must see the first, and so on (ok, you could understand some of it, but you'd miss some key events that build up to what you're watching).

    17. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4

      Honestly, that's a silly and uptight pet peeve.

      There are three books. What harm is there in referring those three books, as a collective whole, a trilogy of books?

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    18. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with whether or not it's a trilogy. The Godfather movies are a trilogy, even though the plots are interconnected. Indeed, as the movies have shown, each part of the trilogy has a distinct climax and resolution. If this were not the case, the movies could not be watched a year apart and be fulfilling.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    19. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by rmohr02 · · Score: 1
      From dictionary.com:
      n : a set of three literary or dramatic works related in subject or theme
      Now it depends on whether you consider the movies to be separate works (the obvious conclusion) or whether you consider them to be the same work (since they were shot at the same time by the same people). It could go either way, I guess.
    20. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by floydigus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, yeah! And the bible! It's not one book its several too! I hate it when people call it a book! Let's get together and start a club!

      Tosser.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    21. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked the beginning of FotR because it was pretty accurate and the way it was done was just good

      That was the most boring part of the movie. And of the books as well.

    22. Re:Damnit it's not a trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, that's a silly and uptight pet peeve.

      Right, because while he said pet peeve, what he really meant was "way to make myself feel superior to these people who have started reading MY favourite books now! How dare they? I'm the only real Tolkein fan, as evidenced by my utterly useless knowledge of LotR trivia".

      Of course, the honest version takes too long to type out.

  15. Great timing! by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just the right time for those traveling to the Linux Expo 2003. Sweet!

    And here was me thinking this country was boring. :)

  16. Am I the only person by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    Who finds it a little strange that a science and history museum is having an exhibition dedicated to a work of fiction ?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Am I the only person by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Not at all... however such places are usually the only spots you can find i-max films.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    2. Re:Am I the only person by dswensen · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA.

      It focuses on the science and technology that made the films possible - from computer-generated
      special effects to animatronics.

      Separate areas of the exhibition will explain major technological aspects of the films.


      It's not dedicated to the work of fiction itself, but to the science and technology that allowed the creation of said work of fiction.

      The purpose to which the technology is put doesn't render it invalid as technology. Frankly, given the predominance of film and computer entertainment in modern day, I think this is very relevant from a cultural perspective.

    3. Re:Am I the only person by yerricde · · Score: 1

      I find nothing strange about an exhibition dedicated to "the cutting-edge technology used to bring the story to life." Wouldn't it be normal for a science and history museum to showcase a piece of technology that has significantly affected culture in the English speaking world?

      Not enough movies with expensive CG are based on a true story to justify the obvious response.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    4. Re:Am I the only person by ckd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Who finds it a little strange that a science and history museum is having an exhibition dedicated to a work of fiction ?

      It's not the first time they've done something like this...they did a James Bond exhibition earlier.

      Y'see, many of the museums in the UK no longer charge admission for regular exhibits (though many have donation boxes at the entrances)...special exhibits like this are a way to both get more people to visit and to make some extra money.

    5. Re:Am I the only person by Malacca · · Score: 1

      Actually the publicity is just justification for showing the exhibition. I saw it when it was in Wellington. Although the science and technology (greenscreen and forced perspective and CGI; and I suppose prosthetics count too) were significant aspects of the exhibition, the main portion of the show were the exhibits/props themselves.

      Most of the costumes and props were in the movies for seconds or less, or from a distance. The exhibition allowed for extended close-up viewing and appreciation of the craft and artistry, the insane amount of attention to detail that went into the movies. For example, there was a display showing an original 'master-crafted' sword alongside an aluminium replica and a plastic replica and they all looked IDENTICAL. It was only when they were tapped lightly that the differences became clear.

      Also included was original conceptual art sketches/paintings/images by e.g Alan Lee. Add to that the behind the scenes interviews and what you have is a multimedia exhibition that showcases the people and work behind the scenes that made the finished product so visually stunning.

      My only gripe was the 'One Ring' chamber; I hope they've replaced the perspex cylinder which has the 'One Ring' 'floating' in the middle; actually held there by a fishing line.

  17. Re:parent sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimme fried chicken - Freddy Murcury

  18. Yawn :-) by traskjd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is old, we had the exhibition here in NZ for a year or so.

    It is a good one however - I highly recomend everyone who can see it to go and see it :)

    - traskjd

    1. Re:Yawn :-) by Nedmud · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the part that most impressed me was the notice that "we regret that Gimli and Legolas's constumes have been returned for further filming"--it gave the exhibition a wonderful authenticity.

      BTW, did anyone else in NZ notice the waterwheel on the Hobbiton mill was spinning the wrong way?

    2. Re:Yawn :-) by asr_man · · Score: 1

      I'll be looking for that backwards waterwheel the next time I see the film, but I'd bet that was aliasing, just like wagon wheels in old westerns.

    3. Re:Yawn :-) by asr_man · · Score: 1

      Do you know if the exhibit has a url where I can check if/when it will show in the northeastern United States?

    4. Re:Yawn :-) by jrumney · · Score: 1
      Check with the Science Museum in Boston for exact dates, but ETA is August 2004 by the looks of it, after London and Singapore. Only Sydney gets to see it after Boston, but there are vague hints on the London Science Museum site that they may already be thinking about another tour after this one finishes.

      http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/10441767 29

  19. YES, um and no! by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 2

    I share your opinion that pretty much all movies are not quite as good as the book. (one of the few exceptions is that I liked the movie version of Minority Report better than the short story "Minority Report".) The LOTR movies however come very close to the fullfilling the the reality of the books. Considering the amount of decisons required to reduce a 1000 page work into a mere 12 hours(I think), they were remarkably true to their sorce.
    Only IMHO of course, feel free to flame me and mod me down.

    --

    int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
  20. Maybe it's in a different font by garrulous · · Score: 1

    n/t

  21. Old News by popo · · Score: 1, Redundant


    The exhibition launched prior to the film and was first displayed in Wellington, NZ where it received enormous amounts of international press.

    The content and existence of the exhibition are OLD news. Hell, I saw it a year ago.

    The real news here I suppose is that now its showing in London. ... gee... that's nice.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are reminding me of this NZ prick who came into the blockbuster where I worked a few years ago. Analyse This was just out at the cinema, and obviously so. Advertising everywhere etc. He strolled in and asked if we had a copy.
      "No, its not out on video yet" I replied.
      "How come? I'm from NZ and its been out on video for ages!" He spluttered incredulously.

      Made a completed prick out of himself. So funny to slap him back down with my nonchalant, and admittedly offensive reply.

      From his reaction (more spluttering, then storming out) I could have sworn he was autistic.

      All said, I'd love to be where you are. I might book myself a holiday. ;-)

  22. Re: December==Autumn by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 1
    You sir, are obviously a C/C++/Java/Related programmer, testing equality with two equal signs.

    I of course would never make this mistake in a TRUE programming launguage:
    If number=3 then goto 140

    Yay, BASIC rules!

    Nice Troll, it was just a joke, you can go back to your cave now, nice troll, nice trolly, nice ...
    *GULP*

    *burp*
    --

    int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
  23. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For years after the original "Star Wars" trilogy, the media fawned over Lucas's talent for special effects. Oooh, aaah, stop-motion model animation and claymation and hand-drawn elements. I remember the documentaries on the making of "Return of the Jedi"--all about models of Jabba's barge and such.

    So when "The Phantom Menace" arrives, we get our reward for years of patting George on the head and saying "Good BOY!": brilliant special effects that scream THIS IS A SPECIAL EFFECT, and a script apparently adapted from a group of six-year-old boys playing Jedi Knights in their back yard.

    Didn't we learn anything from "The Wizard of Oz"? What you find behind the curtain is always a disappointment.

    1. Re:What's the point? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      ...and a script apparently adapted from a group of six-year-old boys playing Jedi Knights in their back yard.

      Not only that; Lucas cut out all the interesting parts.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not only that; Lucas cut out all the interesting parts.

      But I really didn't want to see Jar Jar naked.

  24. Also at the London Science Museum... by FTL · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you are visiting London's Science Museum don't forget to visit the Charles Babbage exhibit. You'll never look at a computer in quite the same way again.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    1. Re:Also at the London Science Museum... by reddish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was there last Wednesday - the Differential Engine II is built according to the specs Babbage laid out but they were unable to build it in his time - the Science Museum commisioned it I believe.

      Apart from the Babbage stuff, the computer department wasn't too impressive IMHO. I did like the real WW2 V2 rocket they have on display - I didn't realize it was so huge till I saw it! And the actual Apollo 8 capsule that went around the moon (test-driving for the Apollo 11) was also neat.

      Their display of seventeenth/eighteenth century measurement equipment on the third floor is also rather impressive, if you like that kind of stuff. I've had the pleasure to do some work on remote sensing measurement equipment calibration in the last years, so I can appreciate the difficulties that these guys had to overcome back then. They came up with quite a lot of clever tricks!

      One nice feature of the science museum is that it is free to enter (as in beer ;-)) .... You have to pay a couple of pounds though for the LoTR exhibit.

    2. Re:Also at the London Science Museum... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I never looked at a computer that way in the first place, l4m3r.

  25. Since.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..Peter Jackson took rights to the films.

    !!!!SPOILERS BELOW!!!!

    In Return of the King, after Faramir repents trying to steal the ring from Frodo, he is slain defending Merry and Pippin when an orc hurls a Palantir at his head.

    Pippin picks this up, and finds that it is a secret link to Sauron's trusty old Win2k Server in the basement of the Dark Tower, Barad-Dur.

    Later, as Gondor is brought to its knees by Mordor's military might, all hope seems lost of the Ring-bearer finding his way to Orodruin without being noticed - until Pippin, revealing himself through the Palantir, begins a systematic hacking of Barad-Dur's internal network that diverts Sauron's attention.

    Ebert and Roeper give the movie "Two thumbs up!", stating, "A glorious blend of epic fantasy and a science-fiction hackfest. If only we could all be as l33t as p1pp1n!"

  26. Seen it - It's great by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was on show in Wellington New Zealand for a few months. I went a couple times. It is a fantastic exhibition, with a huge amunt of the props, costumes and models, as well as a lot of detail on how various CGI things were done. Everything from the shards of Narsil, to orginal design sketches by Alan Lee.

    I highly recommend attending if it you get the chance.

    Jedidiah

  27. Saw this in New Zealand by AnEmbodiedMind · · Score: 1

    This show is pretty good. It consists mostly of videos describing how various special effects were made, and various props on display.

    However, the only "high tech toy" that you can explore of any memorability was the altered perspective wagon chair that lets you see yourself twice the size of the friend sitting next to you.

  28. This always bothers me... by nicospoul · · Score: 1

    It is 'forced perspective' not 'false perspective' as it is stated in the article. It is amazing how many people say this wrong, but I must admit that it makes sense both ways...

  29. It isn't upcoming... by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 1

    It is there now... I know someone who went there last week

    --
    I am not stubborn. I am right!
    1. Re:It isn't upcoming... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Look at the date on the BBC article. July. Is this what the submission queue has come to?

  30. Re:parent sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Hemos, suck my big fucking black cock - Rob Malda

  31. Been there, done that... a year ago! by mindslip · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a great exhibition. I saw it when it came out in Wellington, NZ.

    Give yourself at *least* 2 hours to really appreciate the detail in all the costumes, etc. It's amazing the work Weta has put into it.

    mindslip

  32. Not really that interesting by Gurp · · Score: 1

    We had a St4r Tr3k exhibition here not too long ago.

  33. From the People Who Brought you 'l0pht'... by ctrl-alt-elite · · Score: 1

    ...comes the new 'L0tR'. It's Zero Cool!

  34. Geekiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I suppose this will get modded down to Troll status.....but LoTR has surpassed Star Wars, anime/hentai, "Wizard" magazine, and even Star Trek as quite possibly the geekiest thing ever. Remember the thread here on /. about the people who'd invented an Elvish language and all the hoots they got?

    I'm sick of hearing about it. This from a man who has watched & followed SW religiously since 1977; was a devoted fan of ST until B5 came along, and who can't wait for the next Alan Moore comic book.

    Jeez, guys. Remember the girls and how they perceive you and your peer group. Gollum's ass-crack is only computer generated. There are plenty of real ass-cracks on real females in the real world.

    Just a little friendly advice.

  35. Re: December==Autumn by belroth · · Score: 1
    Obscure Programming language time:

    -IF &NUMBER EQ 3 THEN GOTO LABEL140 ;

    Any takers?

    --
    I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
  36. Re: December==Autumn by Worminater · · Score: 1

    well, the goto i never learned cause its bad programming form, but the rest looks like bash:-D

  37. Re: December==Autumn by belroth · · Score: 1
    Nope, it has to be Upper Case, and -IF .. THEN .. GOTO used to be the only flow control. So it wasn't bad form, you had no choice.

    It now has loops, e.g.
    -SET &INDEX = 0 ;
    -REPEAT LOOPFLAG FOR &INDEX FROM 1 TO 5 STEP 1
    -TYPE HELLO, INDEX = &INDEX
    -LOOPFLAG

    And yes it is a pain, but it's a control language called DIALOG MANAGER for the FOCUS 4GL.

    Best bit of Focus is that assignments are the other way round so all the logic controlling a variables value may be in the same place, e.g. (excuse /. formatting):
    VAR/A10 = IF TEST1 EQ TEST2 THEN RESULT1
    ELSE IF TEST3 EQ TEST4 THEN RESULT2
    ELSE IF DAYOFWEEK LT 'SATURDAY' THEN RESULT3
    ELSE 'NOT FOUND' ;
    Which I quite like, it's different from the usual way of doing things but makes about as much sense.

    --
    I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
  38. 3 Parts, 3 books, 6 Books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Each book is referred to as a Part, which consists of two Books (perhaps it should have been three Books each containing two Parts, but apparently Tolkein considered a Part to be bigger than a Book and didn't mind the books not coinciding with the Books).

    The Fellowship of the Ring contains Books 1 and 2 in chronological order (the Fellowship leaves Rivendell at the end of Book 1 - the 2-DVD extended edition of the film had this event at the end of DVD 1, which was a nice touch).

    The Two Towers contains Books 3 and 4, which happen at the same time (Book 3 follows most of the Fellowship into Rohan, Book 4 follows Frodo and Sam to the edge of Mordor); the Two Towers film has pretty much all of Book 3 but doesn't quite reach the end of Book 4.

    Return of the King contains Books 5 and 6, which overlap (Book 5 follows on from Book 3, most of Book 6 takes place at the same time and follows on from Book 4, and the end of Book 6 happens after Book 5). The Return of the King film looks likely to have the end of Book 4, all of Book 5, and most of Book 6, but miss out the end of Book 6 (the hobbits' return to the Shire).

    From my copy of The Two Towers, since it was nearest (paperback, 2nd edition, 7th impression, 1978.)

    Title page:


    The Two Towers

    Being the Second Part of The Lord of the Rings

    J.R.R. TOLKIEN.


    From page 9, the contents page (page numbers omitted, since they wouldn't line up properly):


    BOOK THREE
    1 The Departure of Boromir
    2 The Riders of Rohan
    [...]
    11 The Palantir

    BOOK FOUR
    1 The Taming of Smeagol
    2 The Passage of the Marshes
    [...]
  39. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by fm6 · · Score: 1

    That people are still falling for the Steven King troll is pathetic -- but not as pathetic as the moderator who think the response is flamebait!