Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hype of the Rings

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the one-ring-to-be-on-the-view dept.

Movies 626

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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

once again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687086)

once again, i just refresh the page to see jenni's boobies, and get a first post!

What's with Wil Wheaton? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687090)

Wil Wheaton is a fucking poseur. I can't stand how you fucktards get all drippy and excited every time that his name is mentioned. Ever since that stupid fucking Slashdot interview, all of you twerps have been ready to suck his dick. Don't you understand? It's all a sham! Your little hearts fluttered when he chose the EFF as his sponser on The Weakest Link, but the kid runs fucking Windows 2000. I mean, come on! Rob Malda had to run an anti-Microsoft "news" website for two years before anyone would believe that he only used Windows "for games," and you fall for Wil Wheaton's schtick immediately, without question? That's proof that the only intelligent posters left on Slashdot are us trolls.

He was a bad actor, and now he's a wannabe geek. The fact that he was a minor celebrity five years ago is immaterial. Maybe the new Linux mascot should be Alf! We should have Tony Danza on the new GNOME committee!

Wil Wheaton is such a moron that someone guessed his Slashdot account [slashdot.org] password and started crapflooding with it within a week. It's a newbie UID, by the way: Wil hadn't even heard of Slashdot until the interview!

It's almost fitting, though: both Linux and Wil Wheaton are immature hacks unsuited for work in the Real World. Both are yesterday's news. Both are pointless. Hey, maybe Wil does have a place on Slashdot!

-- The_Messenger [geocities.com]

Re:What's with Wil Wheaton? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687165)

The sad thing is that no one agrees with you [except me, I guess]. There's nothing for him to do with his dead-end career except pretend to be a geek, and all the IT-majors [god have mercy on their stupid souls] will, like you said, get on their knees for him.

first tattoo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687092)

Yo gimme LOTR tat baby

what about the Hobbit? (5, Funny)

diesel_jackass (534880) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687093)

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

Re:what about the Hobbit? (2, Funny)

domc (11897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687284)

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

domc

Cronic masturbation is a bad Hobbit... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687299)

I think Mojo Nixon would approve.
Emperor Norton would probably be embarrassed such adulation, even for such a great man as himself.

Norton Is Everywhere

When I look out into your eyes out there,
When I look out into your faces,
You know what I see?
I see a little bit of Emperor Joshua Norton
In each and every one of you out there.

Lemme tell ya...
Weeeeeeeeeellllllll...

Norton is everywhere
Norton is in everything
Norton is in everybody
Norton is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big N's
Inside of you and me

Emperor Norton is everywhere, man!
He's in everything.
He's in everybody...

Emperor Norton is in your jeans.
He's in your cheeseburgers
Norton is in Nutty Buddies!
Norton is in your mom!

He's in everybody.
He's in the young, the old,
the fat, the skinny,
the white, the black
the brown and the blue
people got Emperor Norton in 'em too

Emperor Norton is in everybody out there.
Everybody's got Emperor Norton in them!
Everybody except one person that is...
Yeah, one person!
The evil opposite of Norton.
The Anti-Norton

Anti-Norton got no Emperor Norton in 'em,
lemme tell ya.

Michael J. Fox has no Emperor Norton in him.

And Emperor Norton is in Joan Rivers
but he's trying to get out, man!
He's trying to get out!
Listen up Joanie Baby!

Norton is everywhere
Norton is in everything
Norton is in everybody
Norton is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big N's
Inside of you and me

Man, there's a lot of unexplained phenomenon
out there in the world.
Lot of things people say
What the heck's going on?

Let me tell ya!

Who built the pyramids?
Norton!
Who built Stonehenge?
Norton!

Yeah, man you see guys
walking down the street
pushing shopping carts
and you think they're talking to allah,
they're talking to themself.
Man, no they're talking to Emperor Norton!
Norton! Norton!

You know whats going on in that Bermuda Triangle?
Down in the Bermuda Triangle
Norton needs boats.
Norton needs boats.
Norton Norton Norton
Norton Norton Norton
Norton needs boats.

Aahh! The Sailing Norton!
Captain Norton!
Commodore Norton it is.

Yeah man, you know people from outer space,
people from outer space they come up to me.
They don't look like Doctor Spock.
They don't look like Klingons,
all that Star Trek jive.

They look like Emperor Norton.
Norton!
Everybody in outer space looks like Emperor Norton.
Cause Emperor Norton is a perfect being.
We are all moving in perfect peace and harmony towards Nortonness

Soon all will become Emperor Norton.
Everything everywhere will be Emperor Norton.
Why do they call it evolution anyway?
It's really Nortonlution!
Nortonlution!

Norton is everywhere
Norton is in everything
Norton is in everybody
Norton is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big N's
Inside of you and me

That's right ladies and gentlemen,
The time has come!
Time has come to talk
To that little bit of Emperor Norton inside of you.

Talk to it!
Call it up!
Say "Emperor Norton, heal me!"
"Save me, Emperor Norton!"
"Make me be born again
in the perfect Norton light"

That's right!
You've got that Norton inside of ya
and he's talkin to ya
He says he wants you to sing!
Everybody's got to sing like the king!

Like the king
Get that leg going now
Get your lip too.
Not no fool Billy Idol lip either
Everybody!
Yeah, we're rockin now!

Norton is with us.
He's with us and he's speaking to us.
He says "Peoples!"
"Peoples!"
"Everybody!"
"Everybody got to sing!"

Norton is everywhere
Norton is in everything
Norton is in everybody
Norton is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big N's
Inside of you and me

Norton is everywhere
Norton is in everything
Norton is in everybody
Norton is still the king

Man o man
What I want you to see
Is that the big N's
Inside of you and me

Emperor Norton!

Re:what about the Hobbit? (5, Interesting)

Marcus Brody (320463) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687316)

Actually quite an insightful comment.

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

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

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

Bored of the rings (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687097)

Hell, I haven't seen the movie yet and I am already bored of it.

And on your local television station... (2, Informative)

nigelc (528573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687098)

Sci-Fi channel is also running a one hour "Making of LOTR" program which is really quite good. I think that Peter Jackson has "got it", although I'm waiting in dubious anticipation for the lists of "All the things that suck about this movie". A whole new generation of drooling fanboys lurks.

It opens next Wednesday -- wanna try to /. a movie theatre???

Re:And on your local television station... (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687185)


> I think that Peter Jackson has "got it", although I'm waiting in dubious anticipation for the lists of "All the things that suck about this movie".

From my limited exposure to the trailers, the impression I get is that it's strangely lacking in "atmosphere". Kind of like a made-for-TV movie.

Re:And on your local television station... (1)

MrAl (21859) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687282)

That's the opposite of nearly every review I've seen of the movie. Nearly everyone states that for the three hours you're in the movie theatre you walk away feeling you were in Middle-Earth instead.

Glasses At BK (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687106)

I saw an ad for collectors glasses at Burger King.

This sort of thing often drags some of the enjoyment out of these films. Sell. Sell. Sell. I guess, someone's gotta come up with crap for eBay and Flea Markets.

Re:Glasses At BK (1)

don_carnage (145494) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687118)

Weird...I posted the exact same sentiments at the exact same time. Too strange.

Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap (4, Interesting)

d.valued (150022) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687151)

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

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

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

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

Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap (5, Funny)

mj01nir (153067) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687291)

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

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

Re:Glasses At BK (1)

xinit (6477) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687326)

I'm sure that those glasses looked like a good idea on paper, but come on, just how crappy looking a product to use to promote a film... honestly.

Pirated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687107)

Where is the download? :P

Really though, unless the VHS comes in normal view and the DL is a good copy with letterbox I will probably buy this one. I already told my friend that does that to not give me a copy until I see it in the theatre.

NR

Pirated version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687109)

I wonder how the pirated version was made. Perhaps someone managed to sneak a video camera into a test audience screening?

Sellout... (2, Insightful)

don_carnage (145494) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687110)

I'm just sick of seeing those commercials for the light-up goblets; it cheapens the film before it's even out. Not that it will prevent me from seeing it, but GEESH people give it a break. Same goes for all the lame Shrek commercials. I really liked that movie, but hate the fact that they sold out to a fast-food chain.

Re:Sellout... (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687154)


> I'm just sick of seeing those commercials for the light-up goblets; it cheapens the film before it's even out.

<cynical>Yeah, but if they wait until after it's out they'll miss the Christmas action-figure rush.</cynical>

Re:Sellout... (5, Funny)

Fatal0E (230910) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687176)

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

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

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

$300 Million (2)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687182)

That's what it cost to produce the films. That's a 'bet the studio' cost. If they don't recover most of that cost early, then The Two Towers and Return of the King will be straight to video releases.

Re:$300 Million (2)

don_carnage (145494) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687216)

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

Re:$300 Million (3, Insightful)

Tassach (137772) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687334)

Actually, the studio recoups [part] of it's money by selling BK the *rights* to make cheesy light-up goblets. BK hopes to recoup thier investment by luring people into their resteraunts to buy overpriced sugar water and greasy potato sticks along with the offensive drinking vessels.

Re:Sellout... (1)

nyri (132206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687273)

I really liked that movie, but hate the fact that they sold out to a fast-food chain.

Don't be so mad.
As you know film maker have to get their pay roll and if little kids feel that they can get more out of the film when playing with some toys, while eating their madatory fast-food after the film, why not give them their fun?

-- Jari Mustonen

Re:Sellout... (1)

rm-r (115254) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687280)

Vote with your wallet then my man! I also hate this stuff, and there's no way I won't go see the film- but I'm not going to eat at McD's/BK (not hard) or buy any of the other useless tat (even easier- although I might end up with some misguided presents this christmas) They only do it because it makes them money, and it'll only stop when people by so little of the rubbish that they won't shell out for licensing fees.

Harry Potter (0, Offtopic)

DOsinga (134115) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687113)

So, will it beat Harry Potter?

Re:Harry Potter (0, Offtopic)

jodonn (516010) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687132)

Here's [cnn.com] an article talking about that. All signs point to yes.

Re:Harry Potter (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687199)


> So, will it beat Harry Potter?

Only if they successfully market it as a kiddie movie. Adults who have read LOTR will see it in droves, but kiddie movies have the advantage that the adults have to go along anyway when they take the kids.

The despised TV actionware/gobletware commercials seem to imply that they are trying to market it to the kiddie audience, though.

Re:Harry Potter (1)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687206)

Probably not. The one theme that gets said over and over again is that it's not for kids. If parents don't let their pre-teen children in to see it, that will be a major blow to the box office. I think Harry Potter will get another revenue upswing over the Xmas break. Since it played at more theatres, was shorter (meaning more showings), and had no real competition in its first month, it got off to a much better start than FOTR will. The only way that it can catch up will be to make lots of money for many months, but Star Wars comes out in May and that will be another hit. I expect it to do well at the box office and much better than HP critically, but worse at the box office.

Screw Harry Potter ;) (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687323)

Come on... we're talking about Gandolf here. This movie is a hell of a lot more mature. I hope it wamps on Harry Potter. However parents may not want to take young kids to it... that is a lot of money right there.

if anything this movie will have a longer shelf life to it in the video store. Probably be an instant cult classic.

That lasted a long time... (4, Funny)

L41N14L (205602) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687129)

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

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

Re:That lasted a long time... (2)

OblongPlatypus (233746) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687190)

They've been telling people for a while; it was mentioned in this month's (print) issue of Empire Magazine [empireonline.co.uk] as well. Maybe what they swore never to tell was where on their bodies the tattoos are located (which he refused revealing to Reuters)? On the other hand, who would want to think about tattoos in funny places on old british actors?

Re:That lasted a long time... (2)

JimPooley (150814) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687279)

Well, Sean Bean has caused directors enough problems with his "Blades Forever" (or is it "Forever Blades" - "Blades" being the nickname of Sheffield United Football Club - as Sheffield has a history of knifemaking) tattoo having to be covered up when in historical dramas ("Sharpe" for example).
Maybe they had them done on their backsides so they wouldn't show in most things....!

Re:That lasted a long time... (1)

L41N14L (205602) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687298)

I'd have thought that a film called "Sharpe" wouldn't mind a blades tattoo.

Re:That lasted a long time... (2, Funny)

xinit (6477) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687342)

Well, I think that they swore never to tell what the tattoo's image was. Imagine if the secret got out that they all had huge 12" pink unicorns inked onto their backs for the rest of their lives. I mean, the shame....

Corrected URL (5, Informative)

blamanj (253811) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687133)

Actually, the text of the Guardian review is here. [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Corrected URL (3, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687186)

Thats not the usual Guardian critic, either, just one of their media weenies. They'll certainly have a much less superficial review (probably by resident film critic Peter Bradshaw) in Friday's edition. I'd check back later [guardian.co.uk] .

pirates (3, Interesting)

osiris (30004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687134)

No shit its been pirated already. im sure ive seen some releases of it floating about the divx/vcd trading groups for at least a week. i mean, this has got to be one of the biggest films for a long time, its hot stuff to get your hands on.

some of these people have links right in the film industry and can easily get films before they are released. just dont count on dvd quality though.

so its no suprise that people are flogging copies of it already. its probably been running rampant through south east asia for weeks. i know when i lived there it wasnt hard to get movies on vcd before they were released.

cant wait to see this movie in the cinema though :) i wouldnt watch a crappy copy of it.

The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll) (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687137)

I had a nasty cheese steak yesterday. It was very greasy. It made a very sloppy turd. It took a bit of pushing to get it going, then it just ploped out in one big woosh. The smell had some serious funk to it. It had no shape and had a blob like appearance; it was about 10cm in diameter. It was reddish-brown in color. When I flushed most of it stuck to the side of the bowl. I had to use wet-wipes to get a good cleaning when I was finished.

Please take a moment to vote in my poll:

  1. What does the best job at cleaning your poo-hole?
  2. Corncob
  3. Toilet-paper (1-ply)
  4. Toilet-paper (2-ply)
  5. Wet wipes
  6. Wash cloth
  7. CowboyNeal

Re:The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687218)

CowboyNeal would do the most thorough job. However, I would go with a wet wipe.

Re:The Turd Report 12/11/2001 (with poll) (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687268)

While I hear a Cowboy Kneel rimjob could clean the barnacles off a battleship, I vote for wet wipes.

I really want to see this movie.... (0)

ManualCrank Angst (541890) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687139)

...because I'd like to know what all the fuss is about. You see, I've never read the books. I've read "The Hobbit", but try as I might I was never able to get even 100 pages into LotR. It just seemed to drag on and on with no action, just a bunch of geneologies and crap about hobbit-holes.

Re:I really want to see this movie.... (2)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687277)

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

Re:I really want to see this movie.... (1)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687300)

LotR seems to be one of those things that you get completely or you don't at all. I'm in the latter group I'm afraid. I've been struggling with FotR all this month, and am about to give up on it.

It's great that Tolkein made this elaborate history and stuff, but I really wish the characters could talk about something OTHER than it. I don't get any sense of what any of these characters would be doing if the ring had never appeared.

Please, let's not spread the DivX (3, Interesting)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687141)

Please, let us geeks do one thing right, for once, and respect the memory of J.R.R Tolkien and his family and pay to see this movie, instead of rushing off to edonkey, KaZaa, or alt.binaries.erotica.furry-feet to download a crappy handheld Sonycam divx of the film.


Please, geeks, leave your computer, go to a theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. Who knows, you may even like meeting other people!

fsck you d00d (-1, Troll)

typical geek (261980) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687200)

The word for those people who don't have broadband, speedy processors and big monitors is luzers. Let's suck the MPAA dry! Download the DIVX!

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (1)

Fatal0E (230910) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687209)

This might be a shot in the dark but I think you use all those above services to d/l music to your hearts content. If not you who posted that comment then I'm sure there's someone out there on /. that feels the same way about the stealing movies and yet is prob downloading the latest Pink album for his g/f.

As for me, if I get the inclination to d/l the movie I will. Just as if I get the inclination to d/l the latest Pink album for my g/f I'll do that too. The RIAA/MPAA can suck my ass if they think I dont feel cheated for having to pay $10 to see a POS movie or $20 for its sound track. I mean, it's fuckin cheaper to sit in the bleachers of Yankee Stadium then it is to see a movie these days. Lets see who wins this mexican standoff, the consumer or the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687233)

Don't you dare say that this piece of shit has anything to do with beloved Toklien. Tolkien was an artist, and this movie is being made by Marketing majors. His family is a bunch of morons who are about to ruin their name. By all means, pirate this movie. Rape their profits. Anything to guarantee that the next two will never be released, and that Hollywood will think twice before shitting on classic stories.

-- The_Messenger

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (2)

EFGearman (245715) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687243)

Actually, with the exception of one of his grandchildren, Tolkien's family pretty much refused to have anything to do with the movie. Their position was that it could not be done properly without losing too much of what made it great.

EFGearman
--

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (2, Informative)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687247)

I will respect J.R.R's memory and to the producers and actors and (almost) everyone else who made this movie possible and deserves to profit from it, but I do not believe even for one minute that his family should own the rights to his work after his death. *Let the flaming begin*...

I don't see why not... (3, Interesting)

Bonker (243350) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687255)

I mean, if you're a big enough fan to spend however long it takes to download a 700mb DiVX AVI, aren't you probably going to go to the theater several times, just so you can see it on the big screen, the way it was 'meant' to be seen? Aren't you also going to buy the 2 DVD Box Set collector's edition next year and have all-night Fellowship of the DVD parties watching it over and over again with all your closest geek buddies?

Case in point.... if your an anime fan: I just bought 2 $25 DVD's this week. One was the Utena Movie and the other was the 'Oh My Goddess' movie. Neither is 'perfect' in the way that most fanboys will perceive any one of the 3 LOTR movies. Still, they are fun movies. Before they were released in the U.S., however, I obtained low-quality DivX and VCD anime fansubs of these two titles.

Even though I 'pirated' the movies, the American dub/sub houses and indirectly, the Japanese studios, still got their money from me.

Therefore, I encourage *true* Tolkein Fanboys and everyone else who plans to eventually legitimately see or buy this movie to download it to your heart's content

False delimma (3, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687332)

Trust me, I'm going to pay to see the movie.

I might also download the crappy DiVX, but I'll pay to see it first.

The two aren't necessarily exclusive, 'ya know? I can't see *any* fan of Tolkien being happy watching only a low-quality copy of LoTR on a computer screen.

Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (2)

GTRacer (234395) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687340)

Funny you should mention real-life theaters...

There's a small crew where I work that burns all kinds of movies and swaps 'em. I've watched a few, but for me there's nothing like sitting third row center at an AMC Torus screen with the THX thumpin'.

My wife and I average 2 movies per month and almost all of those are full-price Friday evening shows. And you know what? I don't care. I get that much value out of the sensory and crowd experience. Obviously, YMMV.

GTRacer
- I hate storm drains

OT Rant : Commercialization of LOTR (0)

blurpy (167389) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687145)



..but doesn't it just make you sick to walk by a burger king and see pictures of frodo on plastic cups in the window?

why do we have to cheapen absolutely everything? can we produce a work for the sake of art or literature, and leave off doing everything to make the most money off it? won't they do just fine without stooping to that level?

it sucks.

Re:OT Rant : Commercialization of LOTR (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687198)

They do this for money. They know there are millions of imbeciles out there who get a boner when they think about fictional creatures speaking with British accents.

spoilers? (5, Funny)

rudiger (35571) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687147)

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

Oh man, oh man.... (1)

mip (534317) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687153)

Does anyone else find the whole 'childhood-fantasy-world-made-real' thing a little daunting?

Please, please, please, please let it be good.

Arggh, the angst!

Hold on a second, its just a film of a book, isnt it..?

Seriously, its looking good with the premise that it never could be a faithful adaptation of The Book. If people are willing to let their own preconceptions fade into the background (and hell, Tolkien would probably think no better of our idea of the book anyway - I always got the impression he did it as an intellectual excercise for himself, not to please the masses), then the film would probably be a fine epic in its own right.

Ho hum, guess we will just have to wait and see...

The Guardian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687167)

Christmas 2003. As a result, this cliffhanger comes timed to a lengthy annual calendar. Pre-teens who whimper at the tale's scary moments now will be hulking, blasé adolescents by the time it hits its grand finale.

A 2-year wait is nothing. I mean, with Star Wars, we watched A New Hope as blasé adolescents but by the time Phantom Menace came around we were just hulking.

Dont believe the hype... (5, Funny)

__4096 (526163) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687168)

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

Re:Dont believe the hype... (5, Funny)

Bonker (243350) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687275)

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

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

Bored of the rings? (1)

DeepHootie (314068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687169)

Anyone ever read it by the Harvard Lampoon Staff
? It's great!

Extra bits? (2)

nagora (177841) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687172)

Anyone know how many extra bits have made their way into the film? The trailors have had enough crap-looking not-in-the-book moments to put me off seeing the film (Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock, some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford, and a complete fuck-up of the creepy Moria tapper-in-the-well scene).

TWW

You'll hate it (2, Informative)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687195)

If you want it to be absolutely true to the book, the way Harry Potter was, don't see it. Arwen has a much bigger role, as a sort of warrior princess (Eowyn like) from what I've heard. Also, they dropped Tom Bombadil.

Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock

Probably at the ferry after they leave Farmer Maggot's house.

Re:You'll hate it (2)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687259)

If you had to drop anything, Tom was the way to go. That would have added about 35 minutes of strangeness that added little to the story, IMHO. I enjoyed reading it very much, but if they were going to make the movie fit into one sitting, dropping him was the way to go.

Re:You'll hate it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687262)

From the MTV piece I saw last night, it looks like Farmer Maggot got dropped as well.

Re:You'll hate it (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687265)


> If you want it to be absolutely true to the book, the way Harry Potter was, don't see it.

IMO that took HP down a couple of stars in my ratings. What makes a good book is not the same as what makes a good movie.

I haven't read the HP books, so I'll concede that they might be very good. But I went to see the movie with my n&n, and commented to their dad that I thought it was overlong and full of fluff that didn't contribute to the movement of the flick. He said it's because the movie was previewed to audiences of kiddies who raised hell about it not being faithful to the book, so they went back and 'fixed' it. That 'fix' is probably exactly what I didn't like about the movie.

So I'm dubious about LOTR. Where they're not faithful to the book (Arwen the Warrior Princess) I'll hate it for that reason; where they are faithful to the book, I'll hate it for being overlong and stuffy.

The best way to go would be to read good books that aren't derived from films and watch good films that aren't derived from books. Alas, Hollywood's formulaic writing doesn't produce many good yarns that way.

OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters (5, Funny)

ThePurpleBuffalo (111594) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687175)

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

Tolkien Ring

Beware TPB

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters (5, Funny)

mj01nir (153067) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687256)

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

We clearly need a new moderation selection: Groaner

Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters (1)

Raato (36080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687263)

We've named some ooms of one building after LOTR characters and places (yes Nokia has quite a lot buildings these days). For example the smoking room is called Mordor :)

Fantastic (1)

omega9 (138280) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687181)

British horror film veteran Christopher Lee also lavished praise on the director.

``What Peter has done is miraculous. No director in history has made three films at the same time,'' he said.

Now the 79-year-old Lee has just one ambition -- he hopes to live long enough to see the next two films in the trilogy when they come out in 2002 and 2003.


What a horribly bitter way to end a news brief.

Don't complain about the hype. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687191)

You don't have to see it. I'm boycotting the movie and all associated marketing because I am convinced that the movie will be awful. It's a given; you can't compress a few hundred pages of text into a two-hour movie. Also, almost every movie made after 1992 in the US just makes me sick... it's sad that I have to watch European and Japanese films to find substance and originality.

The moment that I heard about the LOTR movies, I knew that watching them would destroy the precious associations that I have with those books. I still reread them every few years. I know that it will suck, I know that it will be a kid's movie marketed to kids and made with the sole purpose of making money. There will be no art in it. These movies aren't being made by artists who want opportunity to show the world their impression of one of the greatest fantasy epics ever. They just want money, and see LOTR as an established "franchise" to leech off of.

Anyway, I watch hardly any TV, so I haven't seen any LOTR commercials. I don't read newspaper ads. I hardly ever go to the theater. I don't visit many mainstream news websites. Thus, I am effectively insulated from the hype. The fact is, I've heard more LOTR crap on Slashdot than I have anywhere else. The only other way that the LOTR movie has touched my life is when I saw a poster for it at a McDonald's last week.

Thankfully, Slashdot is merely re-leeching the hype for its own advertising revenue, and I'm not being force-fed the hype like I would be when watching TV. I don't read LOTR story comments, I don't click on any of the links, and I refuse to watch the trailer. It's all good.

So... if you're being "overhyped," it's your own damn fault. Despite what so many of you anti-corporate technology amateurs think, it's possible to live a life without being trodden upon by the AOL/Disney/whoever machines of doom.

-- The_Messenger

More interested (1, Offtopic)

sandidge (150265) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687193)

I'd be more interested in this movie [techno-ronin.com] (as long as the key character dies at the end, of course).

Re:More interested (1)

DodgyGeezer (83311) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687264)

I'd be more interested in a goup buy of Xenon HIDs for my '99 Passat. [clubb5.com]

Who cares what you want? This is a discussion about the LOTR film. Don't be so self-centred.

Re:More interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687307)

I'd guess you were more interested in a group buy of Astro-Glide [sextoysex.com] for your raw ass [goatse.cx] .

Where are the giant robots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687197)

No giant robots = not a good film.

I found the first book utterly boring(before I gave up with it), and I have no wish to see the film.

Favorite review lines (1, Redundant)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687208)

And I did wonder why the elves were represented as keen on polyurethane, garden-centre statuary, but no matter.

and

the Celtic revival tweeness of the Elvish villages

Ralph Bakshi (1)

datatrash (522537) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687220)

I would say that the new version has a long way to go to beat the Ralph Bakshi animated version. For the love of god he was using Rotoscoping (probably one of the first) 24 years before Linklater in "Waking Life"!!

In any event, I am sure some of the more long in the tooth /.ers can recall that the animated Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring) was received to mixed reviews and made more than 7 times its production costs. Therefore, the mixed reviews don't bother me so much.

Why the earlier opening in UK? (2, Insightful)

shankark (324928) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687225)

I'm not sure I quite understand why New Line decided to open the movie earlier in UK? Peter Jackson is a Kiwi and most of the other principal characters behind the movie are not Brits, except of course Tolkien himself. So, was Peter Jackson over-anxious to hear it from the Brithish high priests? Or was it plain simple strategy following Harry Potter's early release in the UK. And while on that, its interesting to ponder that British literature is all of a sudden stealing the spotlight from cheap American paperback-films. It did take Tolkien and his modern-age counterpart, Rowlings though :)

Peter Jackson Interview (5, Interesting)

DaoudaW (533025) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687226)

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

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

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

Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits? (1)

Electronic_castaway (531006) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687240)

I doubt anyone here thinks that a media feeding frenzy was set to begin. Still the movie should rock.

Re:Can anyone say Chicken McHobbits? (1)

simong (32944) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687337)

Actually, Burger King have got the food tie-in in the UK, and they're being pretty low-key about it at the moment. Maybe they don't see it as a kids' film.

just seems like a silly movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687241)

very harry potter like, very mystic/magical with no real plot except "how can we use our magic" now, a *good* movie based in a real univserse instead of a magic one would be Unbreakable....very good :]

I had a lot of fun! (0)

Andreas(R) (448328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687242)

Read the books again instead!
There is no way that a three-hour film can equal
the words of Tolkien.

That female "chick" elf is a give-away... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687246)

...that this movie will *suck*. You heard it here first.

The tattoos (5, Informative)

OblongPlatypus (233746) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687249)

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

Slashdot poll (2, Funny)

Marcus Brody (320463) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687252)

As a LOTR enthusiast on slightly the wrong side of fanatical, what should I do?

[ ] Not go and see any of the films - it would corrupt my imagination

[ ] Wait until 2002, and see all three films in one 9 hour sitting.

[ ] Stop being a nincompoop and go and enjoy the film.

This may look like a joke, but I am serious. I will stand bye the /. majority. So go ahead, please cast votes 1, 2 or 3 as an AC.

Also, some more purist than me are apparantly a bit pissed off. They cook tomatoes in the film (gasp - a new world fruit!) and the elves have a penchant for polyurethane garden accessories. Furthermore, how come is it that I post all but one of the links given in the parent (about 12 hours ago), but my comment gets rejected?

Shudder to think about the JonKatz review (1)

Neologic (48268) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687254)

All the reviews I have read have been glowing, which means that JonKatz will probably hate it and go off on some tangent like the Telegraph reviewer claiming its an anti-fascist cautionary tale or some crap like that.
Now taking bets on how savage his review will be....

Thanks Michael/Taco! (0, Offtopic)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687257)

Thanks guys, for claiming all the stuff from articles [slashdot.org] I submitted [slashdot.org] (and was rejected) and not giving me credit.

What? I like seeing my name in lights, and I only need 1 more article for top in hof ;-P

What a relief (1)

Catiline (186878) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687260)

"We sort of mentally went in that direction with our movie, and I think we gave it that degree of weight and gravity, and that authenticity makes it feel Tolkien-esque. Also I think it's a more interesting approach than just saying it's fantasy, it's fairytale, let's just be over the top and make a film for kids. We weren't interested in doing that."
What a relief. The kiddie feel of the animated Hobbit film really ruined that one- I look forward to this. (Might even go from 'must-buy' to 'must-preorder').

First post by an AOL user to usenet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687285)

I have read many postings about America Online and the Internet in
this newsgroup. Since some of the information has been not quite
right I figured I should make a posting to clear up any misconseptions
that might exist. There is an America Online gateway to Internet. It
is now going into 'open' beta testing. To send mail to an America
Online, Promenade or PC-Link user you need to know the user's screen
name. The only way to get a user's screen name is to contact them by
other means (ie there is no name server). Once you know a user's
screen name remove any spaces, make it lower case, and append
@aol.com. For example to send to the screen name A User you would
address your mail to auser@aol.com.

To send mail from America Online to the Internet you simply put the
Internet address in the To: field on the regular mail form. In a
previous post the question was posed as to whether or not there are
'special' gateways for Compuserve, MCI Mail etc. The answer is no,
there are not. For some of the more popular services abbreviations
have been created; for example to send to a Compuserve user you can
use the address 123.4567@cis. Additional information can be found on
America Online by using the keyword InetBeta. There is no additional
charge for using the Internet mail gateway. Mail is limited to around
27k bytes in both directions. If you notice any problems with this
gateway please send mail to inetbeta1@aol.com from the Internet or
inetbeta from America Online.

Just one question (3)

streetlawyer (169828) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687287)

Just one question that's bugged me for years about this book, and seeing the trailers only reminded me of it.



If this ring was so incredibly important, why did they give the job of getting rid of it to a small person with no military experience, who had never been outside his home village before in his life? Why didn't they at least give him a frekaing map?

Re:Just one question (1, Informative)

Oily Tuna (542581) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687310)

He was a hobbit - Sauron had only just heard of them and didn't realise they were a threat.
Secondly, Hobbits are somewhat resistant to the ring's power.

A hobbit or a dwarf was preferred (1)

typical geek (261980) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687320)

Since Mordor would be dark and covered in ashen clouds, they wanted someone small who didn't become discombobulated in the dark. An Elf would have withered in Mordor, and men were generally useless.

This is all discussed in the Council of L-Rond.

The commercials! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2687302)

Yes, I would have to agree that the commercials are driving me nuts. That Burger King one is especially bad...

Behold the wizard Gandolf. Behold, the hobbit. Behold, the a$$hole who doesn't give a rats a$$ about a glowing cup that you will find 1 week after the movie premiers in Canada selling for 10 cents at your local fleamart.

Once is enough, twice is okay, but 15 times in one night...I'm only human!

Still can't wait to see the movie though :)

Great casting for Boromir (5, Insightful)

iabervon (1971) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687313)

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

LORD (1)

SuperQ (431) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687315)

every time I see LOTR, my brain sees LORD, Legend Of the Red Dragon.. gah.. it's been way too many years since I played that game.

Stop the MPAA! (5, Insightful)

msm1th (68753) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687319)

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

At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... (2)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 12 years ago | (#2687339)

The other day, on hearing from a friend of mine that his local IMAX would be showing Fellowship on opening night, I called the one near me (the Branson IMAX) to see if they were doing the same.

The person I talked to had apparently never heard of either the book or the movie. It was all "Fellowship of the what?" And this person works at a movie theater. Sheesh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?