Slashdot Mirror


Interview with Peter Jackson on LoTR Bloopers

erth writes "Newsweek has an interview with Peter Jackson asking him what he thinks about some of the most famous and/or obvious bloopers in the LoTR series. Moviemistakes.com has more Fellowhip of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King bloopers as well for your snickering pleasure." I just wanted to give my props to Jackson and all- we took off early yesterday to see the final film. It was everything I hoped for... except for the bits that I expect I'll have to wait for the extended edition DVD to see. And I was to busy grinning ear to ear to notice any serious bloopers.

44 of 790 comments (clear)

  1. Joke in Topic! by Talrias · · Score: 4, Funny

    Moviemistakes.com has more Fellowhip of the Ring That's gotta be a deliberate mistake.

    --
    aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
    1. Re:Joke in Topic! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 5, Funny
      Warning: Too many connections in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/phpconfig.php on line 4

      Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Too many connections in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/phpconfig.php on line 4

      MySQL Mistake #8: Failure to close connections properly will bite you in the ass during a Slashdotting.

    2. Re:Joke in Topic! by Gulik · · Score: 5, Informative

      MySQL Mistake #8: Failure to close connections properly will bite you in the ass during a Slashdotting.

      Actually, the likely problem here is that the site is making use of PHP's ability to hold the connection to the database open, rather than doing an open/close on every query. This saves the overhead of establishing the connection on each page view, and is often a good thing.

      However, each instance of Apache will open and hold the connection, so if you have a config that allows more Apache child processes than you've allowed concurrent connections under MySQL, you see this. The aggravating thing is that neither Apache nor MySQL are necessarily swamped when this happens -- you've just got more Apache processes than the configured number of concurrent MySQL connections.

    3. Re:Joke in Topic! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Informative
      How much is it for 50 connections with Oracle?
      You usually pay per/CPU with Oracle. Last I checked it was around $30,000 USD per/CPU. We are constantly trying to use the smallest hardware for our Oracle servers where I work because of the excessive (IMO) fees. You figure if you have a few 2-way Oracle servers, it adds up. We have a bunch of 4-way, 6-way and 8-way servers. As far a /.ing goes, if you put Oracle on some 1-way box with 256MB ram, (a common MySQL setup), you will probaly get /.ed quicker then with MySQL due to Oracle DB being a resource hog.

      Most people who use PHP/MySQL use something like mysql_pconnect() to use persistant connection to speed the site up. However, that backfires on you when your site gets heavy load and you run out of connections. There is a warning about this in the PHP docs mysql-pconnect

      Using persistent connections can require a bit of tuning of your Apache and MySQL configurations to ensure that you do not exceed the number of connections allowed by MySQL.

      A better solution would be a resource pool manager for PHP/MySQL that starts to free the connections when a certain numbers of configurable connections get in the pool to try to help with the infamous "Too many connections in /usr/XXX" MySQL error. Though, in the end, there are only so many connections you can get through a little box. Put the www.moviemistakes.com site on a nice 4-8 way box with the same setup and see how well it can do against Oracle. I am not knocking Oracle, I think it is the best Enterprise class DB out there. It comes down to using the right tool for the right job. Orcale for a dynamic web site is overkill and too expensive. Orcale for financial, e-commerce, data warehousing is a much better fit IMO.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  2. Blooper? by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No blooper is as big as PJ being denied an Oscar these last 2 years.

    If he doesn't get it this year the Oscars will become irrelevant. It's just that obvious.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    1. Re:Blooper? by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Oscars have been irrelevant for years, much like the Grammy's, the Heisman Trophy, etc., and any other award granted by a cadre of geezers too out of touch to bother with actually perusing the candidates. Personally, I thought Fellowship was very deserving, but A Beautiful Mind pushed all the right Academy buttons (Oscar winning actor portraying a mentally ill genius, cha-ching!).

      Probably the worst part for Jackson's chances is that most of the Academy members likely haven't read the books, and there is a popular perception that the movies are more geared to appeasing Tolkein fans instead of a broader audience. All the same, I'll be watching in March, hoping against hope that he wins. Why? Because it will give him that much more clout with the studios on future projects...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Blooper? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what will make the Oscars irrelevant? Titanic winning sweeps didn't do it for you? That's just the first thing that leaps to mind. Jesus, best actress for Julia Roberts over Ellen Burstyn didn't set off any alarms?

      C'mon, man, you've got to watch better movies, whether or not LoTR is worthy.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:Blooper? by Feral+Bueller · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Most of the academy members are 900 years old and read these books when they were kids, read them to their kids, and gave them as presents to their grandchildren.

      I live in L.A. and one of the more noxious Oscar-season practices is for publicists to actually visit the nursing homes where academy members are clustered for special "viewings" -- I have three academy members who live in my apartment building: all of them are over 60.

      Conventional wisdom at this point is that "RoTK" is this year's 300 lb. gorilla at the Oscars. Where New Line is going to end up screwing themselves is that they are submitting for four potential nominees in Best Supporting Actor and two in Best Supporting Actress. Acadmey voters will tend to go elsewhere if split. See New Line Cinema's awards-shill for RoTK for more information (Flash Required).

      Maybe the Oscars are irrelevant to you but they are a cottage industry here in L.A., not to mention one of the top rated shows in the world every year. Finally, a lot of non-blockbuster movies and smaller studios depend on a nomination if not an award for their marketing: The Pianist did most of their box office and almost all of their DVD sales as a result of their Oscars.

      Los Angeles (and Hollywood) is a factory town, like any other factory town anywhere in the world -- our products just tend to get noticed more. Don't kid yourself: a lot of people's year-round financial well-being depends on the Oscars, both in Los Angeles and around the world.

      --
      - learn to swim.
    4. Re:Blooper? by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > They are all horribly framed, overlighted in an horrible, cheesy manner, and the music is always way overboard.

      Interesting. Bear with me for a second here. For contrast I'm going to compare to David Lynch's "Dune"

      First off - if Lynch had been allowed to make it a 4 hour extended DVD then most of the movie's problems would've arguably been solved. With that in mind, the style Lynch used was an odd dark mixture, the lighting was convoluted, the scenes were framed in a very "staged" manner, the set was just plain over-the-top weird, and the score by Toto was incredibly melodramatic. I loved it. It fit perfectly with the mood Herbert developed so well in the novel. It fit perfectly with a quasi-religious messianic jihad sci-fi story set in the year 10000AD.

      Back to LotR. Tolkein's storytelling is highly grandoise while still being deeply intimate, his elves are glowing with mystique, his scenes are rich and fantastic, even the colors seem saturated when reading the novels. What you describe as horribly framed, overly lit, cheesy and overboard, I would describe simply as 'Fantasy', especially Tolkien fantasy. Peter used that style I think in a similar manner to the way Lynch went over the top with his style in filming Dune, albeit in a more accessable, less esoteric way. And I think in both cases it worked GREAT. Sci-Fi is funky strange worlds. Fantasy is fantastic magical worlds. It's only cheesy when some goof applies it to say.. The Titanic.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    5. Re:Blooper? by Khomar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that Peter Jackson deserves the best director because of the amazing amount of quality work that he put into the picture. No director in recent memory has gone to such lengths to push his movie to great heights as has been seen by Peter Jackson. He had fantastic attention to detail in the writing and editing of the script, the presentation of the actors, and the visual details that captured the very spirit of Tolkien's work.

      It is an understatement to say that the movie was massive in scale, and he coordinated everything with amazing skill while keeping the enthusiasm high with all of the people involved. Name me another director this year that has put so much work and accomplished anywhere near the same results. While there are certainly many fine directors out there, Peter Jackson deserves attention for his courage, innovation, and just plain determination. He has created a masterpiece the likes of which we are not likely to see again for many years.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    6. Re:Blooper? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bite.

      Why does he deserve the Oscar?

      Because he did it. LoTR was the most ambitious movie shoot EVER, just about any way you look at it. This was a MASSIVE undertaking. A typical movie shoot runs somewhere between 50 and 90 days. LoTR ran almost a year and half, and that's not counting the many, many, hours of additonal shooting done after early cuts were assembled. Many have tried to do movies on this scale. PJ is remarkable for being the first to pull it off completly. I think the movies have revived a great traditon in filmmaking, the epic, a style perhaps best typified by the David Lean epics of the 1960's (Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence Of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago). Lean did a fantastic job on those pictures, and did amazing things. However, he had the advantage of working in more-or-less the real world. PJ had to invent his world, bring Tolkiens written words to life. He managed to avoid turning LoTR into another Apocolypse Now, a movie, that while grandiose in scope, comes off as disjointed, and at times forced. Jackson managed to do what most had called impossible, bring Tolkiens work to the big screen in a way that is both accessible to the masses, and yet true to the source material. There have been very few movies that have walked that tightrope, and made it to the other side. THAT is why he deserves the Oscar.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    7. Re:Blooper? by johnbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bull hockey. The books (I've read the series at least 5 times in my 33 years) are visionary and epic. But I found the characters in the books generally flat and uninteresting. Boromir, Smeagol, Faramir, Elrond and Aragorn are all much more interesting and complex in the movie than they are in the book. Boromir seems much more distraught over the gravity of his countries peril in the movie. Smeagol's emotions are clearer and more profound. Faramir's emotional bond to his brother and problems with his father are better. Elrond is clearly extremely upset at the prospect of his daughter's mortal peril. Aragorn is uncertain, and worried - in the book he says "I am Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself", while in the movie, it is Arwen who says it to him - because he is afraid of the burden he has to bear. I think PJ did an excellent job making the characters more lifelike and interesting. Re-read the books and imagine that Aragorn in the movie - always perfectly certain of his action, unquestioned by his followers and lacking in any real demonstrable emotion other than humor.

  3. Not necessarily a blooper... by tmhsiao · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pretty much all of the children of Rohan and Gondor and the Shire look like the offspring Peter Jackson.

    Coincidence, OR FATE!???

    --
    "My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
  4. Wait a minute: Eomer wasn't sentenced to death... by imac.usr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One of the comments for "The Two Towers" complains about Eomer somehow having escaped his "...under pain of death" sentence by Grima. I always interpreted this as Eomer merely being banished, and threatened with death should he return. Big difference there.

    --
    I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
  5. The Book by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm pretty sure that the book has far fewer mistakes, as far as Tolkien could be concerned, so just go read that. I'm doing just fine with paper and ink.

  6. I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit by usurper_ii · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Hobbit was the first book I read and still my favorite. They say that he wants to use some of the same actors, too. All in all, it gives us something to look forward to.

    Here is more info:

    http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/3977.html

    Usurper_ii

    1. Re:I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit by filth+grinder · · Score: 5, Informative

      umm, actually yeah.
      If you've actually read The Hobbit, the Dwarves are basically all about comic relief. Everything from their names alll being similar to each other, to the silly songs they sing. They are rather comical. I always assumed that Peter Jackson used The Hobbit as a reference to flesh out Gimili's character for the movies.

      you have to admit, in The Hobbit the dwarves are definitely silly.

  7. msnbc blooper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    unless i'm mistaken, the picture accompanying the article is of a regular orc, not an uruk-hai. (the caption reads 'Why are tough Uruk-hai KO'd by mere rocks?')

    wow, i'm a nerd.

    1. Re:msnbc blooper by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tolkien neglected to mention that Middle Earth is covered with large natural deposits of depleted uranium.

  8. Re:Slashdotted Already by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fitting punishment for their heresy. We all know there can be no "flaws" in these holy movies. The silencing of this instigator is a victory for Truth and Justice everywhere.

    --
    It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  9. Bloopers or not... by Godeke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has been one of the best book to movie conversions I have seen. Especially considering that this is an incredibly difficult work to start with. The things that were removed wihtout shame (poetry), combined (multitudes of side characters) and left out intentionally, but with a sidelong glance (Tom Bombadill alone causes endless arguments because not enough detail is in the *books* to make a case for what he is supposed to represent. However, one of his poems does sneak into the second movie, although recited by Treebeard) show the dedication put into this movie. It would have been so easy to coast on the later movies (production costs were recovered from the first movie alone), but these are not the products of coasting, but of true affection for the grand story - the story that launched a thousand imitating "great arc fantasy" novels.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
    1. Re:Bloopers or not... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >This has been one of the best book to movie conversions I have seen.

      "To Kill a Mockingbird" is the best conversion IMO.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  10. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know why I'm responding to such an obvious troll, but here goes.
    Gandalf cannot touch the ring or he will be corrupted by it. The ring would use gandalf's power against everyone and very bad things would ensue. The reason that Frodo is able to hold the ring and not instantly turn bad is because hobbits have no inherent powers of their own, also, hobbits seem to be more resistant to the rings corrupting influence. All things that you would know if you had ever read the books.

  11. dupe dupe dupe by Frac · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we have an interview with CmdrTaco on Slashdot Bloopers? Same format - list out all the dupes on slashdot in the past 5-6 years, and give Rob a good way to tell us why he doesn't read his own website. ;-)

  12. Re:be kind by nocomment · · Score: 5, Informative

    oops, I goofed, that's a link to the first movie
    use this one instead

    Mods: please mod parent down, and this up. :-)

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
  13. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have read lots of Tolkien, much of what is in the 12 books published by his son. His works are so good because everything makes sense, don't judge the books by the movies. Riding an eagle to mount doom is mentioned a lot though. You have to remember that those mountains were inhabited, and a huge eagle would be easy to spot (and shoot down). In some of the first drafts of ROTK more than one eagle went to mount doom to rescue Frodo, but some were actually shot down by the evil-doers that were still around after the destruction of the ring. We can only assume it would have been even harder while the ring was still "alive".

  14. Re:Speaking of bloopers by Baikala · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dupe it is! I thought it was another interview about the third movie, it's not!

    It's the same Dec 1's article form the previus post

    --
    16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
  15. silly taco by cloudship_tacitus · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I was to busy grinning ear to ear to notice any serious bloopers.

    and apparently too busy to edit your comment.

    :) i kid because i love.

  16. ToME : Open Source Tolkien game by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A little off-topic... but worthed to /. readers, a mature Open Source game based on Tolkien's world: Troubles of Middle-Eearth. ToME has been improved over several years. It is based on the venerable Angband rogue-like game. There's a lot of Angband variants. There's even a Multiplayer ToME in development.

    ToME is great for being very faithful and compliant to Tolkien's world. Ok, maybe it's not Middle-Earth Online, but it's free and honestly, this game is freaking addictive ! :-) Do not forget to set graphics "on"... even if they're not that good.

  17. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by bellings · · Score: 5, Informative

    Middle Earth is a past earth, in the same way that Beowulf is a past earth, or The Illiad is a past earth. That was Tolkein's intention.

    And, there was much more to Gandalf's reluctance to touch the ring. Remember, Gandalf was no more human than Sauron or the Balrog were human -- he was an immortal. He was also part of the last song; it was impossible for him to fight directly against Sauron. He moved, he shaped, he cajoled, he prodded, but he took no direct action. Ever. That was the fate laid out for him at the dawn of the world.

    Well, except against the Balrog. I guess Immortal Beings Created at the Dawn of Time can fight each other directly.

    --
    Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
  18. Jackson the liar? by Snaller · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the msnbc website:


    Blunder No. 1: "During the scene with Sam and Frodo in the field with a scarecrow, you can plainly see a car cruising past in the distance, from left to right."

    Jackson: We actually didn't know about the car until we were cutting the movie. The smoke [from the exhaust] and dust wasn't so bad because there was already lots of it around, but the bloody windshield was reflecting the sun back into the camera lens. So we erased it for the DVD. I think some people were upset because they tried to show it to their friends and it was gone.

    Yet on the DVD he says "I don't know what people are talking about" - and it doesn't sound like he is kidding, simply being serious??
    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  19. Some spoilers here by jhurshman · · Score: 5, Informative
    Can anyone confirm that Middle Earth is SUPPOSE to be our ficticious past?

    Yes. It's supposed to occur in our "prehistory".

    Why couldn't Gandalf hop on a Nuclear radiated giant eagle - fly over the top of "Mount Incinerator" and drop the ring? Poof, end of story. The people of Rohan and Gondor would've been much happier!

    A lot of people seem to ask this.

    The short answer is obviously "because then there's no story". Even if this is the only answer, it doesn't have to be an issue. For example, a lot of people enjoyed the first Matrix movie, even though its premise violates physical laws (since human bodies cannot generate more energy than is put into them).

    However, there are perfectly reasonable justifications for why the "just fly an Eagle into Mordor" isn't going to work.

    In your scenario, Gandalf flies an Eagle over Mount Doom and drops the Ring in. If you recall, Gandalf was unwilling to even touch the Ring in the first movie because he felt he would be unable to resist the temptation to use it. He felt that hobbits in general and Frodo in particular would be better able to resist the temptation. This is because they have very little ambition or desire for power, as well as having relatively little innate power.

    However, even Frodo, when it came down to it, was incapable of throwing the Ring into the fire! Gandalf would have been even more unable to.

    What would probably happen in your scenario, given how Tolkien has set up the story, is Gandalf would take the Ring, mount the Eagle, make it most of the way to Mount Doom, and say "Forget this throwing away business, you can all call me Lord Gandalf now." There is no way he (or anyone else, I would argue [except perhaps Bombadil]) would be capable of dropping it in.

    Another difficulty with the Eagle scenario is that it's extremely blatant. There is no secrecy possible. This means Sauron would have perceived it immediately. His significant psychic/spiritual power would instantly been focused on preventing the destruction of the Ring, either by destroying, cowing, or deceiving the bearer.

    These first points are derivable from the movies alone. The following one requires knowledge of the books.

    The (giant) Eagles are not at the command of anyone in Middle-Earth. They are the servants of Manwe, who in Tolkien's legendarium is the head Vala (arch-angel kind of figures), the ruler of Middle-Earth. The Valar felt that defeating Sauron was the responsibility of the peoples of Middle-Earth themselves. They sent help in the form of the Wizards (including Gandalf and Saruman), but even they were not supposed to act directly, but only advise, guide, and prompt. So while it's acceptable for the Eagles (as Manwe's representatives) to assist the effort against Sauron in minor ways, they cannot act more directly.

    --

    Do not speak unless you can improve on the silence.
  20. Grinning in the dark... by gumbright · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "And I was to busy grinning ear to ear to notice any serious bloopers." Anyone else out there catch themselves grinning like an idiot in the dark during these movies? I know I did. I was worried when I heard they were being made that they couldn't live up to the material, but Mr. Jackson did himself proud.

  21. Slashdotted (of course) by Angry_Admin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The pages states the following;

    The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 29 mistakes

    Revealing: In the first scene in Edoras (the capital city of Rohan). The first pan over Edoras: You can see the pan is shown in reverse, with the smoke going into the chimney and the fire at the end is burning backwards. The flags are fluttering oddly as well.

    Revealing: When Theoden is talking to Eowyn before he dies one can see that he is wearing contact lenses.

    Factual error: Hobbits can't grow beards, yet Samwise Gamgee has stubble in most of his close-ups in Return Of The King. Even if they could grow beards, it seems unlikely they would be in a position to be shaving on that journey.

    Continuity: In one of the final scenes of the movie, Frodo is writing in the book "There and Back Again," adding his own story. As he is finishing, he clutches the wound he received from one of the Nazgul in "The Fellowship of the Ring." In the hand that he uses clutch the wound, he still holds the quill pen. At the same time, Sam is entering Bag-End. When the camera angle changes, Frodo is still clutching the wound, but the pen has found its way into the ink jar.

    Audio problem: In the scene where Gandalf enters the chambers of Gondor to speak with the Steward of the throne, the sound of his staff striking the floor matches the action in sporadic patches only. In the shot where he departs, that specific sound is consistent.

    Continuity: When Gollum drops the lembas from the ridge, you see the leaves it was wrapped in fluttering away, and the wafers fall roughly straight down. However, when Sam finds it later, the lembas is still mostly wrapped in the leaves, with only a few morsels broken off and laying around unwrapped.

    Revealing: In the scene where the paciderm animals of Mordor are introduced in the battle, there's a shot that pans the front of the line of them. One animal has wood connecting its larger tusks, complete with barbs jutting out from the wood. As the orcs flee to regroup behind the animals, several run through the contraption unharmed.

    Continuity: In the scene where Frodo is helped by Galadriel in Shelob's lair (in the "dream sequence") he lays on the ground. In his hair on HIS right side (viewers' left) is what appears to be some clovers or leaves or grass. The camera cuts to Galadriel then back to Frodo, the thing in his hair is gone. The camera cuts to her again and back to Frodo, the thing is back in his hair.

    Continuity: In the scene where Frodo is tied up in the Tower, part of his face and hair is partly covered in spider webbing - the only opening is his face where Sam parted it to see that he had "died". After a few scenes of orcs, the next shot shows that Frodo has clean hair/face and his hands are still tied up.

    Continuity: When Gandalf enters the castle of Rohan, the shot of his back shows him holding his staff in a vertical position. When the shot turns to his front, he is holding his staff in an horizontal position. The shot turns to his back, and the staff is again in the vertical position. Then the shot turns again to his front, showing his staff in a horizontal position.

    Continuity: The scene where Pippin and Gandalf are talking about "the end" in Minas Tirith, during the battle of Pelenor fields. In one close-up shot, Gandalf's sword blade is shiny and silver. In the next shot, it's coated in black orc blood, then in the next shot, it's silver again.

    Continuity: In the scene where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli enter the cave where the dead army resides, Aragorn pulls a torch seemingly from nowhere (especially interesting considering that his horse, and consequently all supplies, have run off in the scene before).

    Continuity: When Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, Gimli etc, ride up to the gates of Mordor, the main characters go up to the gate on their own to demand it opens. The trails the horses leave on the way towards the gate are different to those that you see in the shot when they retreat after the gate ha

    --
    Wait a minute. I got it. You could play with your magic nose goblins.
  22. Does this count as a blooper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    When Aragorn finds the army of the dead, they look like the ghosts of soldiers. But when they attack Sauron's army at Pellenor Fields/Minas Tirith, they look like radioactive scrubbing bubbles.

  23. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by jacksonyee · · Score: 5, Interesting
    LOTR is not set upon this earth. It is set in a world similar to ours in many ways. Nonetheless, the telltale absence of well... pretty much everything in LOTR except Humans would be an excelent indication that Tolkin intended his world to be seperate from ours in its history.

    I recall hearing from a couple of sources that Tolkien actually did intend for Middle-Earth to be the same earth that we stand on right now. After all, he was trying to provide a mythology for the Britons, whom he felt did not have a grand mythology in the same way as the Norse or the Romans. The only source that I can find at the moment is from here, but it does contain the following:

    When pressed for the location of Middle-earth (as fans and critics continually did), Tolkien often replied that Middle-earth most definitely refers to lands of this world.

    I'm sure that I can dig up more sources from "Letters of J.R. Tolkien" or other books should you require more evidence.

    You're right that there aren't any elves, Maiar, or Valar around nowadays, but remember that they all reside in Valinor now, beyond the reaches of men. Sauron was defeated, Saruman's spirit was blown away by the wind from the west, and who knows what happened to the Ents, Trolls, and Orcs. The Fourth Age was the Age of Man, and here we still live.

    No, of course it's not real, but it's still a wonderful fantasy - far beyond anything the movies showed you. My fellow readers of The Simarillion and The Bible would understand what I'm talking about when I say how much Tolkien's work paralleled Biblical creation.

  24. Google cache links :) by Leffe · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Fellowship of the Ring
    The Two Towers

    Unfortunately there is no cache of the Return of the King.

  25. Re:On a related note... by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yup, she and the little boy next to her (in all 3 scenes) are PJ's kids. Reportedly the boy is the only cast member who didn't need a wig...already had hobbit hair

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  26. All the movie titles by GQuon · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the movie titles from one of the spoof trailers:

    2001-The Fellowship of the Ring
    2002-The Two Towers
    2003-The Third One
    2004-Episode I - The Hobbit
    2005-FotR Special Edition
    2006-Book of Lost Tales
    2007-Scribbles in Tolkien's Math Book
    2008-Dude, Where's my Ring?
    2009-What Hobbits Want
    2010-Bilbo Brockovich
    2011-All the Pretty Hobbits
    2012-O, Bilbo, Where art Thou?
    2013-Crouching Gollum, Hidden Balrog
    2014-Orc by Orcwest

    (Lost by my brain, but found again here.)

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  27. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But he could carry frodo with him on the eagle...
    Even if Sauron sees him, the eagles are still faster than the nazgul...
    You know, YOU cant give a good answer because Tolkien himself admitted that he used the eagles as Deus ex Machina.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  28. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sometimes, you just have to go with the least bad of the available options.

    Gee, sounds like a US Presidential election!

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
  29. because... by levl289 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's take your comments apart, and explain to the dimwitted (or the jaded film students who are currently working in retail), exactly why he deserves an award for Best Director:

    Its a big trilogy
    To my understanding (from the extended DVDs), so big, that it took three completely separate locations for filming (aside from the studio sets), combining to stretch out over 14 months. For a single person to (follow me here), direct this massive undertaking, and painstakingly boil it down the the parts that matter requires great directing skills.

    It has very nice CG
    For which the pencil-to-paper decision making goes all the way back to 1997. Again, Jackson was the goto guy that approved this stuff. For someone to put together a team (Weta) that brought about the Ents (prior to which, few artists were able to render to any likeable levels), and the unbelievably detailed Lothlorien, again, takes great directing skills.

    Theme music is great
    Well, it didn't come off of a CD. Again, much time was spent by (of all people) Jackson, in choosing the music and directing its specifics with RE to the movie.

    But is this worthy of a "Best Director" award?
    I can't think of a single movie made in the last decade that is as massive an undertaking as LOTR was. Jackson was the man that directed all of it. Even if you don't appreciate things like its character development, or the music, for one person to be the nexus for this creation, IMO (and clearly, many other lowbrow movie fans), certainly demands recognition.

    --

    Q: What do you think about American Culture?
    A: I think it's a good idea.
    (adapted from Gandhi)

  30. Re:The mistakes by dspeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    moviemistakes said:
    Plot hole: How did Shelob's sting get through Frodo if he was wearing his mithril vest? Its obvious he wasn't stung higher or lower than where the vest was.
    But Tolkien said:
    'Yes, I can walk,' said Frodo, getting up slowly, 'I am not hurt, Sam. Only I feel very tired, and I've got a pain here.' He put his hand to the back of his neck above his left shoulder
    So presumably that's where Schlob got him. Since he was facing her, this means she reached around a bit, but she has long arms :-). I haven't sseen the movie yet, but presumably the back of Frodo's neck isn't shown. Maybe it's covered by his hair?
  31. Cinematic impact by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every single one of the things you complain about can have cinematic justifications to give the story more impact.

    # Cheap thrills. For example, in Moria, when all the orcs surround them, and then run away. It's just stupid, it doesn't make any sense.

    It's tension. They're completely surrounded and about to die, then suddenly, all the Orcs run away, signalling something MUCH more evil and powerful approaching that even they fear. It's just some nice tension to give the appearance of the Balrog more impact. You find it "cheesy" because you're a book purist.

    # Cheap action-flick fight scenes. So, there's nine people standing on a narrow staircase out in the middle of nowhere, with thousands of orcs shooting at them, and they all miss. Legolas is shooting at orcs spread out, behind shadows and in cover, and hits every one. Now, orcs aren't as good as elves, but they're not *that* bad.

    There weren't "thousands" of Orcs. Looked like a few dozen. Why wouldn't they be poor archers? They're just a bunch of Moria orcs trying to hit some little targets on a distant bridge. Of course Legolas would hit some (it's not shown whether he hits every one), because he's a skilled Elf bowman. You don't like it because you're a book purist.

    # Cheesy dramatic scenes. Frodo gets hurt, and all the action stops. Gandalf "dies", and all the action stops. Boromir dies three or four times.

    Oh, stop. Borimier dies once. The action stops to give the scenes more impact. My brother who hadn't read the Fellowship, freaked out when Gandalf fell. "I didn't know he died!" In fact, these movies use slow-motion way more tastefully than the two Matrix movies. It gives the death scenes a sense of surrealism.

    All in all, you're just a book purist who didn't like the fact that these are movies and have to behave like movies.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."