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!

LotR Takes Top Spot on IMDB

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the enjoy-it-while-it-lasts dept.

Movies 433

Dwarf_Sibling writes "Hard to believe but with over 11,000 votes tallied LoTR:FoTR has displaced "The Godfather" as the highest rated movie at IMDB. Over time I'd guess this will fall lower, but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie."

cancel ×

433 comments

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

Merry Snot-mas and a Happy Snot Year! (-1)

The WIPO Troll (267426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747022)

By The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.15 $

Why do I keep receiving emails from someone calling himself CmdrTaco?

You have been receiving email from a certain
Robert CmdrTaco Malda [cmdrtaco.net] , owner of the popular technology website Slashdot [slashdot.org] . Actually, its not a very popular site in the common sense of the word; the site is rife with pimply, antisocial geeks, zit-faced nerds, communists, dirty GNU hippies [yahoo.com] , and other societal rejects and outcasts. Its also home to one of the worlds largest pædophile ring, the infamous Slashdot crew.
Whenever Mr. Malda gets bored (and who wouldnt, running a site like
Slashdot all day), he roams through the user database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy engaging in homosexual activities with him. How he determines this is anyones guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, or a nick with a letter of the English alphabet in it, youre in trouble.
This time, he found
you. Lucky you.

Malda seems to be speaking in some sort of code. Do you know what it means?

CmdrTacos code language is relatively easy to decipher. He prefers to speak in thinly-veiled sexual innuendo (yes, thats right: he wants your cum) to evade the watchful but relatively stupid eye of Slashdots parent corporation,
VA Software [yahoo.com] . Mr. Maldas Commander is, of course, his penis: a small, withered little thing that lives in his pants and only comes out in the presence of other male geeks or at the beck and call of CmdrTacos own lubed-up right hand. His Taco bells [sonymusic.com] are the shriveled testicles that droop beneath his Commander, and his Taco sauce is his thick, gooey semen. It should be more than obvious to you now what he means if he asked you to ring his Taco bells or taste his gourmet Taco sauce.
I would guess he also asked you to engage in a practice known as Taco-snotting and, if he was in a particularly depraved mood at the time, a circle-snot.

Good Lord. What is Taco-snotting?

Taco-snotting is the term used by CmdrTaco to refer to the act of fellating a homosexual man (or unwilling heterosexual; CmdrTaco is rumoured to prefer rape), then blowing the semen out his nose onto the face and body of his partner or victim. Naturally, a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is
left on CmdrTacos face [go.com] , dribbling out of his nose and down his cheek: hence the term, Taco-snotting.
A circle-snot is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among the Slashdot crew [bastardgenres.com] . CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel [aol.com] , and Homos get together and snot each other with their gooey, sticky cum spooging their jizz-snot all over each others faces and pasty, white bodies, until theyre covered head to toe with their own and each others man juice. This vile ritual can go on for hours. For the homosexual penetration that follows this lengthy foreplay, Roblowme is usually there to provide plenty of anal lubricant; he owns a limo service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease ready to go.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie will usually join in, dressed in tight leather mock-S.S. uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The whole group then proceeds to snot each others spunk and whip each others pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pale, white geek bodies are exhausted and soaked in stinking sweat from the hours of passionate, homosexual revelry.

Ewwwwww. So, can I stop receiving these emails?

Hopefully.
You most likely forgot to uncheck the Willing to Taco-snot checkbox in your account preferences. CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad, and hes probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube. Theres no escaping a geek in heat, so its probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTacos sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to Willing to Taco-snot. Maybe hell ignore you. Probably not.

I cant stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge... oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot you, you will most likely end up tied up in his basement to be used as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a circle-snot).

Have you ever been Taco-snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met CmdrTaco at an
Open Source Convention [amazon.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake and some gourmet Tacos, but when I got there, he jumped me and tied me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his Commander out of his pants, Mr. Taco made me suck the withered thing six times. He then performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm after sweaty, mind-numbing orgasm... then he snotted my own milky-white jizz back onto my face, into my mouth, then again on my exposed belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, Open Sauce man sauce) buddies over to continue the twisted snotfest. Linux Torvalds
raped my ass [yahoo.com] with his monolithic kernel [yahoo.com] , and Anal Cox used his network stack in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice in my defenseless body. Michael was there in his leather Nazi uniform, caning my ass with a bamboo pole and ranting about all those Censorware freaks out to get him.
How did you finally escape, you ask? After about 16 hours of countless homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my restrained body, they all finally went to sleep on top of me, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, covered in bubbly, translucent jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with half a dozen fat, pasty-white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my flesh worked wonderfully as a lubricant; I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door. Im just glad I survived the ordeal. These geeks had a lot of built-up spunk in their wads I couldve easily been drowned!

Thats horrible. Does Taco-snotting have anything to do with CmdrTacos special taco?

No, thats a different disgusting perversion CmdrTaco indulges himself in. CmdrTaco is usually not satisfied with merely snotting your own jizz back onto your face, he most often enjoys involving his own bodily fluids in his twisted games.
WeatherTroll [slashdot.org] has spent some time trying to educate the Slashdot readership [slashdot.org] about this vile practice (emphasis added):
You may be wondering what CmdrTacos special taco is. You will be wishing that you hadnt been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his special taco, CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and
shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his Commander), puts his special taco sauce on it which means he jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconscious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconscious until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force-feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTacos jizz?
After the victim is unconscious, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTacos nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victims ass, Taco-snotting, and getting Jon Katz involved. Trust me, you do not want Jon Katz anywhere near your unconscious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new
goatse.cx guy [goatse.cx] . Dont let it be you!
Completely different, yet no less revolting. It should be clear to you now that CmdrTaco is a very, very sick individual, as are most of the Slashdot editors.

Does Jon Katz get involved in any of this? I thought he was a pædophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a
homosexual pædophile. Hes also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile. Jon Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesnt involve himself in circle-snots. Mr. Katz usually engages in a game called Katz juicy-douching [aol.com] with his harem of little-boy slaves: a vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boys urine (forced out of them with a pair of pliers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then squirting and slathering the goo all over himself, and the little boys chained-up and naked bodies. If hes in the mood, he will sometimes skip refilling the enema bag from his distended anus and just squirt it from his ass [microsoft.com] onto his boys. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pliers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them at will usually for the rest of their lives.
As I already said, Mr. Katz is
also a zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys arent enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goats anus [yahoo.com] . He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goats small, bean-like turds.

Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. Im already CmdrTacos boi toi.

________________________________________
$Id: tacosnotting.html,v 1.15 2001/12/23 19:47:07 wipo Exp $
Copyright © 2001
The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org] . Verbatim crapflooding of this document is permitted in any medium, provided this copyright notice is preserved, and next time you take a dump, you think of the WIPO Troll and all hes done to make Slashdot a better place.

Re:Merry Snot-mas and a Happy Snot Year! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747138)

This was easily the most DISGUSTING thing I have ever read. Thank you.

Re:Merry Snot-mas and a Happy Snot Year! (-1)

The WIPO Troll (267426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747183)

You are most welcome. Here's some more!

By The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.1 $

What's black, blue and green and doesn't like sex?
The Girl Scout locked in my basement.
What's the worst part about having sex with a six-year-old?
Getting the blood out of your clown suit.
What's the best thing about getting a hand job from a five-year-old?
That little hand makes your thing look really huge.
Guy comes home from work to find his girlfriend sitting on the porch, crying.
"What's wrong, honey?"
"I'm leaving you!! I just found out you're a pedophile!!!"
"Pedophile?? Why, that's a pretty big word for a ten-year old..."
How can you tell when your sister's on her period?
When your dad's dick tastes like blood!
Two pedophiles are lying on a beach tanning, one turns to the other and says, "excuse me, you're in my son."
What's 18 inches long, blue, veiny, and makes a woman cry?
Crib death.
How could the man's 7-year-old son tell that his dad has farked his 8-year-old sister? His dad's weiner tasted like blood!
Watson returns home to find Holmes in bed with a child. He shouts, "Is this some sort of a schoolgirl?"
Holmes replies, "Elementary, my dear Watson."
So I was having sex with my girlfriend, and I decided I wanted to get kinky and try and do her in the ass. So I slipped around back, she looked over her shoulder at me and said... "My, how presumptious of you." And I said "presumptious? That's a big word for a 10-year-old."
Two guys are walking down the street when a beautiful woman passes. The first guy says, "Damn! I'd love to tear her clothes off, do her in the rear, smear my feces all over her, slice off her breasts, chop her into little pieces, put her in a garbage bag and toss her into the river!"
Second guy says, "Yuck! You're a sick bastard!"
First guy says, "What're you? A fag?"
The kidergarden teacher is asking the kids what their father does for a living. All the kids answer except for Little Johnny. The teacher asks Little Johnny what his Dad does and Johnny replies "My dad is dead."
The teacher say's "That is terribile, but what did he do before he died?"
Little Johnny replies, "He turned blue and shit all over himself!"
A guy calls in sick to work.
"What's wrong?" asks the boss.
"I'm sick," the guy replies.
"You sound all right."
"No, I'm really sick. Believe me."
"Listen, you were fine yesterday, and we have a lot of work today. I want you in here. You can't be that sick!"
"Dude, I just banged my sister. Don't tell me I'm not sick."
A little girl accompanied her father to the barbershop. While her dad received a haircut, the little girl stood next to the barber chair, enjoying a snack cake. The barber smiled at her and said, "Sweetheart, you're going to get hair on your Twinkie."
"I know," the little girl replied. "I'm gonna get tits, too."
An older man and a small boy walk hand in hand through the woods.
Boy: "These woods sure are spooky!"
Man: "You think you're scared, I've gotta walk out of here alone."
What's the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson?
One walked on the moon, and the other rapes little boys.
Has anyone read Michael Jackson's new book, "The Ins and Outs of Child Rearing"?
Q: What's the difference between a dead baby and a golden delicious apple?
A: I don't cum all over the golden delicious apple before I take a bite out of it.
Q: What's the difference between a dead baby and my girlfriend?
A: I don't kiss my girlfriend after sex.
Q: What is special about a dead baby over all other forms of life?
A: You can achieve deep throat from whichever way you enter.
Q: What do you have when you have 4 dead babies, take away two, and add 5 more?
A: An orgy!
Q: What's the difference between a dead baby and a table?
A: You can't fark a table.
Q: Whats white and bobs up and down in a baby's crib?
A: A pedophile's ass.
Q: Whats the safest way to play with a baby?
A: With a condom.
Q: Whats more fun than feeling up a dead baby?
A: Feeling up a dead baby with three nipples.
Q: What does a baby and a Pinto have in common?
A: They're fun to ride until they die.
Q: What do you get whan you dislocate a dead baby's jaw?
A: Deep Throat.
Q: Whats the difference between a baby and a grandmother?
A: Grandmothers dont die when you fark them in the ass
Q: What's the best sound in the world?
A: Hearing dead baby's hips crack under pressure!
Q: Whats worse than a having sex with a dead baby?
A: Having sex with a dead baby filled with razor blades.
Q: How do you stop a baby from choking?
A: Take your dick out of its mouth.
Q: What's worse than finding a dead baby on your pillow in the morning?
A: Realizing you were drunk and made love to it the night before.
Q: How do you make a baby cry twice?
A: Wipe your bloody cock on his teddy bear.
What's better than sex with a 12-year-old boy?
Absolutely nothing.

Thanks, Fark.com [fark.com] !

________________________________________
$Id: pedo-jokes.html,v 1.1 2001/12/20 05:24:25 wipo Exp $
Copyright © 2001
The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org] . Verbatim crapflooding of this document is permitted in any medium, provided this copyright notice is preserved, and next time you take a dump, you think of the WIPO Troll and all he's done to make Slashdot a better place.

Or.... (3, Funny)

Quixote (154172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747023)

but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie.
Or a mediocre one for a kid with a script... ;)

Re:Or.... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747047)

Votes can only be made by registered users, who are emailed a random password on registration. Also the 'Top 250' only includes voters that regulary vote.

So one not so mediocre kid with a not so mediocre script.

And well worth it too... (1, Redundant)

SealBeater (143912) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747025)

I honestly couldn't say much more then the title of this comment. Excellent
movie.

SealBeater

A Satisfied Non-Fantasy Fan (2, Insightful)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747027)

I've always hated fantasy. But I really like LOTR. It had great effects and a ton of action.

I guess my point is that maybe this is why it's doing so well - even the people who aren't into fantasy like it because of the action and great effects. (And all the hype surrounding it.)

Re:A Satisfied Non-Fantasy Fan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747161)

I have to agree. LOTR is the first fantasy movie I've liked since "The Neverending Story", when I was 5 or so.

Re:A Satisfied Non-Fantasy Fan (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747168)

Jackson did make the film very accessible to people, my only concern is there are still a lot who don't read newspapers or magazines or pay attention to what is told them on TV (they just sit and watch the screen flash from one image to another and drool) and are unaware that The Fellowship of the Ring is only the first of three.

I'd certainly be a bit pissed if the producers or studio say, "We have to call it Lord of the Rings II, or the idiots won't be able to tell the difference." You just know there's dumb enough people in Hollywood to think that and even push it through.

Well deserved (3, Interesting)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747033)

It is a fantastic movie, and apart from slightly too long fight scenes, an overuse of dramatic music, and a penchant for long fly by panning shots, there is very little to be criticized. Excellent execution that keeps you riveted to your seat for 3 hours straight. You have to respect LotR for making a superb movie given the challenges, versus saying putting a bunch of people in suits and getting them to talk with an Italian accent.

Re:Well deserved (2)

bludstone (103539) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747041)

i noticed the long fly-by panning shots as well.

After seeing this with anne, we discussed this point exactly. I think the long panning shots are a mirror to the overdescriptive nature of the books. its a "this is how much is going on here! check it out!"

this movie slid into 2nd favorite film between 2001 and bladerunner. good shit.

Re:Well deserved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747106)

"versus saying putting a bunch of people in suits and getting them to talk with an Italian accent."

Or say the challenges of presenting characters no human has ever encountered in lands which don't exist versus, say getting a bunch of actors to believably portray characters most people assume they understand... Get Real... LoTR is an excellent film, but fantasy films start out with much more of a blank canvas than films like The Godfather, even fantasy films which come from such exceedingly well contructed and well recieved books as Tolkien's.

Re:Well deserved (2, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747118)

You have got to be kidding. Firstly, how many supposedly excellent "mob" movies have there been? COUNTLESS. How many TV series "mob" shows have been praised and given accolades because of their authentic portrayal of the mob? Dozens.

Script:

Vinny (talking as if he has some gauze in his mouth):
"We need to wipe dat rat bastard out!" (eating spaghetti)

Tony: "And piss of Scarpose? You nuts? Getouttahere..."

:-)

Any filmmaker need only watch a couple of existing movies and television shows and they've got the knowledge they need to make a mob movie.

Re:Well deserved (1, Informative)

broohaha (5295) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747234)

How many mob films were there before "The Godfather"? "The Godfather" created the genre of mob films.

LOTR was a great movie. But does it stand against "The Godfather" ten years from now in terms of great cinema? My bets would be on "The Godfather".

29 years after "The Godfather" was made, people still revere it highly, its "new-car smell" long past. Will we be throwing in the same level of praises for LOTR? I predict its stature will diminish considerably to a level perhaps above "Star Wars", where many of us feel "Star Wars" was a nice film, but you gotta admit the acting was a little campy. Right now, I think LOTR is leagues above "Star Wars" in terms of its acting, but when Star Wars came out I thought it was the greatest movie ever made.

So, let's see in ten years or so whether LOTR will stand the test of time. Maybe then, it will be considered, deservedly, the greatest fantasy movie ever made. And then someone will challenge that with:

You have got to be kidding. Firstly, how many supposedly excellent "fantasy" movies have there been? COUNTLESS. How many TV series "fantasy" shows have been praised and given accolades because of their authentic portrayal of their original books? Dozens.

Re:Well deserved (2, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747256)

People who are seeing LoTR now will probably carry it with them as the "best film" like baggage many years from now. Personally I think the Star Wars series is tripe, but obviously at the time it hit people the right way so they carry it with them (and convert others to see what they see) and that's the nature of things like that. The Godfather is an okay series, but it really isn't _that_ great, but again to people for whom it was great at the time they carry it with them. Every year a local radio station does a "top 100 songs of all time", and of course like 50% of the songs are this year's songs, but almost every year the "top" song is "Stairway to Heaven". Give me a break. That's the "in my era music was better" influence.

You have got to be kidding. Firstly, how many supposedly excellent "fantasy" movies have there been? COUNTLESS. How many TV series "fantasy" shows have been praised and given accolades because of their authentic portrayal of their original books? Dozens.

Actually that's entirely wrong: Fantasty movies are significantly harder to turn into a credible film. The majority of fantasy adaptations were brutally panned.

Re:Well deserved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747190)

I would really be thankful to the producers, actors and author of this wonderful movies series. Now I know how it feels to be a jew. ;-]

Better than the Godfather? (5, Insightful)

banuaba (308937) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747036)

Don't get me wrong, but I don't think that LOtR was any better than the godfather, or for that matter, better than any of the top ten movies on the IMDB's list. While it was great, and I was happy to see it twice this week, it just doesn't have what it takes to beat the godfather (for that matter, it doesn't beat the rest of the top ten, by and large).
I mean, yes, it was great. Great FX, great cast, great story. But better than Citizen Kane? no way. I mean, the movie it knocked out of the top ten was Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. In my mine, there's no contest. Strangelove wins every time.

Nothing finer than starting off monday morning burning some karma.

Re:Better than the Godfather? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747057)

In my mine, there is silver and dwarves.

-AC

Studio vote stuffing (2, Interesting)

Magnus Pym (237274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747068)

Actually, Imdb has become less than useless
as an indicator of new movies nowadays, because
of the massive vote stuffing used by the
studios. Starting with the Blair Witch Project,
the studios have rolled this into their marketing
campaigns. I have seen favorable comments posted
on Imdb even before the movie was officially released by people claiming to have seen the preview.

Magnus.

Re:Studio vote stuffing (2)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747157)

I have seen favorable comments posted on Imdb even before the movie was officially released by people claiming to have seen the preview.

So?

Re:Better than the Godfather? (2)

archen (447353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747091)

I'd have to agree. I saw LOtR last night, and I must admit it was one of the coolest movies I've ever seen. Better 'quality' than any other movie? I'm not sure I buy that. Especially considering the movie doesn't have a conclusion! Now as a trilogy, LOtR might be the best of them, but just this installment of the series? I don't think so. The movie hasn't even been out 2 weeks yet. We don't know how well it will withstand the test of time before it becomes a classic.

Yes we do! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747123)

The books withstood the tests of time easily. These movies, all three, are so well done they will have no problems dethroning any and all movies to ever be made.

Re:Better than the Godfather? (-1)

Labandion (535855) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747099)

Yes it was better than godfather. Your just a idiot.. Moron

Geek ballot stuffing (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747167)

This is more an exercise in demographics than anything. Obviously, things that interest the incredible number of vocal techies will have a disproprotional effect on voting. Remember all those ZDnet, Cnet, and CNN polls you stuffed about Linux?

Re:Better than the Godfather? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747240)

I never could understand what people saw in the Godfather. I've probably seen thousands of films by now and it wouldn't even make my top one hundred. Crossing Delancy is pretty cool, Run Lola Run is great also, both, IMHO are much better the the OddFadda. Citizen Kane's good, no doubt, but there are modern films which do very well, too, but many miss them because they visit the local artsy theaters where people fed up with orange fireballs and tom cruise (lower case letters used intentionally) and most people miss them. My recomendation: After LotR go see one or both of the following:

Haiku Tunnel

Amelie

Being John Malkovich

BTW, imdb is really beginning to suck with popup-over-under ads!

Cool, but with a grain of salt. (2, Offtopic)

sporty (27564) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747038)

I talking to a secretary once and she wanted to know a url for something. I mentioned a tilde (~) in the address and she literally said, with honesty, "Oh, you are getting technical on me." Had to point out where the key was.

Now, considering all the people who are "technical" plus all those who just happen to be on the web, is it too much of a surprise that LoTR could do this? I'll gladly go by ticket sales as an idicator vs imdb.com.

And don't think about going by DVD or VHS sales. For some, that's "high tech" as well...

-s

Re:Cool, but with a grain of salt. (4, Funny)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747074)

Umm, if you went by ticket sales, that would state that titanic was one of the best movies of all time. And by many non tech people, it might be, but I wouldn't take the word of those people, they are nuts.

Re:Cool, but with a grain of salt. (2)

sporty (27564) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747093)

Well, what usually happens is that someone catches wind of the movie and let other people know. There are reviews, etc etc.

Is it any wonder why Toy Story 2 did so well? Not completely because it was a good movie, but because so many have seen Toy Story. People had a clue what to expect before hand.

Mind you, by the amount of tickets, not the amount of money made. Times change, ticket costs change.
And you do realize, that Titanic had more appeal since everyone had to go see it vs GodFather which might not appeal to women. LoTR might not appeal to the non-sci-fiers.

Re:Cool, but with a grain of salt. (2, Interesting)

micje (302653) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747216)

But did you notice that Titanic is not in the IMDB Top 250? Many people really hated it: over 10% gave it a 1/10.

lets get something straight here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747211)

There are techie people and there are sci-fi/fantasy fans. While these groups are certainly not mutually exclusive, they are not completely inclusive either.

While I enjoy many sci-fi movies, I cant stand fantasy. I feel like it's the kind of thing you have to have been into all your life to get anything out of. It has this "secret society" feel about it that keeps non-devotees out.

I dont read sci-fi/fantasy novels, my reading tastes tend more towards biography and other non-fiction topics. What fiction I do read is military in nature (e.g. Clancy) but I dont feel the need to dress up to enjoy a movie.

IMDB is a web poll (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747199)

and web polls don't even measure the opinions of those with Internet access, they measure the opinions of people who spend LOTS of time on the Internet.

Some fantasy and SCI-FI fans seem to have a bizarre sense of competition with other categories of movies and entertainment. They are hell-bent on defending their preferred choices of entertainment because they are so different.

Is LOTR good, a surprisingly wide variety of people (i.e. sci-fi/fantasy fans and non-fans alike) think so. Is LOTR the best movie ever produced, I doubt it. Will film scholars think so, probably not. Do sci-fi/fantasy fans feel the need to go completely overboard in praising the movie, apparently so. Why?

Deservedly so! (3, Interesting)

Dwain_Snyders (412284) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747039)

We'll just have to see if George Lucas can get his act together and displace LoTR:FoTR with SWep2:AOTC. A lot of people have been hyping that movie, and it'll be interesting to see if George Lucas learns from his mistakes in SWep1:TPM. After that, the ball will be in Peter Jackson's court to make sure that LoTR part 2 can displace SWep2:AOTC, should it rise above LoTR:FoTR. With acting like Sean Bean's, it's no wonder that LoTR:FoTR has been so successful (admittedly, that was not the only factor by far), but LoTR part 2 will not have Sean Bean's acting to rely upon. Luckily, the cast is filled with other talented and well-performing actors. (Ian McKennan was brilliant too). Peter Jackson's directing can't be faulted much either, although his leaving out the details of Bill the Pony and his thing about Saruman "joining forces" and not designing his own ring were kind of questionable.

Re:Deservedly so! (4, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747069)

...his thing about Saruman "joining forces" and not designing his own ring were kind of questionable.

Saruman did join forces with Sauron in the book. Quote:

"A great power is arising. Against it the old policies and allies will not avail us at all...We may join with that power. It would be wise, Gandalf".

which gets the reply

"Saruman, I have heard such policies before, but only from the mouths of emmiseries sent by Mordor. I cannot think you have brought me so far to weary my ears."

Saruman did look into forging his own ring, yes, but the book clearly states he joins forces with Saruman.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Deservedly so! (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747096)

Saruman did look into forging his own ring, yes, but the book clearly states he joins forces with Saruman.

Or even Sauron... :-)

Cheers, Ian

Re:Saruman the White (1)

Dwain_Snyders (412284) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747133)

Saruman did join forces with Sauron in the book


Oops, looks like you're right... still, though, the whole scene *was* changed quite significantly, especially with regard to the ring Saruman was designing, and his change from the White to Saruman "of all colours" (not even mentioned).


Also, the details of Bill the Pony were almost completely neglected.


Still, though, I am glad that the movie has earned top position on IMDB. The faults that it had were trivial in comparison to the brilliance of the adaptation itself.

Re:Saruman the White (1)

Doom Ihl' Varia (315338) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747262)

Actually in the book he insisted he had become Saruman "Of Many Colours".

Is this a troll? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747072)

I can't tell any more. Maybe I'm a sucker for even responding to it.

Re:Deservedly so! (2)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747075)

it'll be interesting to see if George Lucas learns from his mistakes in SWep1:TPM
This will episode 2, the love story?

As for missing bits out, the film was still 3 hours long, so it's really a question of what to miss out, not whether to miss stuff out, unfortunately.

Re:Deservedly so! (2)

hyehye (451759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747079)

Hmmm well if you paid enough attention to the books, you'd see that Saruman believes he is acting on his own, and is to a certain extent - the extent Sauron allows. Sauron would be all too happy to let Saruman breed orcs which he can then take over after ridding himself of Saruman, and he doesn't mind letting the Ringbearer have even more folks chasing him. He figures the Ring will be lost to Saruman, then recovered by himself in the near future. None of this is explicit of course.

As for Saruman not making his own ring, we haven't gotten to the part in The Two Towers where that becomes evident, either. Just relax, PJ seems to be doing quite good so far.

Oh, the topic was the IMDB ranking? Hmmm, yes, there's much hype, rabid fans, and the fact that it's a new release so more people feel moved to take the time to vote and write reviews. Overall I'd say it's in the top 15, maybe 10... #1? No, it's impossible. The story wasn't intended for movies, and although the adaptation so far has been shockingly good... well, let's put it this way: There may be better movies - but I do not believe there are better stories.

I had to go back a second time, I left something on the floor the first time: my jaw.

Re:Deservedly so! (5, Informative)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747164)

As for Saruman not making his own ring, we haven't gotten to the part in The Two Towers where that becomes evident, either.

It's interesting how Jackson did the script - a friend and I argued about how many scenes were shifted around. I said that very few were (we're not counting skipped or combined scenes [1]), whereas he said that they were all switched around.

Eventually we came to realize that I was referring to the actual timeline of events as they occured in Middle-Earth, whereas he was referring to how the events were portrayed in flashbacks. Some of the things in this movie are revealed in flashbacks (generally one character telling another where they were) in Two Towers, but they chronologically were set during the Fellowship story. I think this makes more sense.

[1] (Spoiler alert) The scene with the Black Riders at Weathertop with Aragorn coming to the rescue *was* one of my three unforgivable sins of the movie. After thinking about it, I'll accept it as the Barrow-Wight scene reworked with the available characters rather than introducing the Barrow Downs and Bombadil (which would have extended the movie even more, while adding little to the story - a colorful side story, yes, but very much a side story).

I can't remember what slid *into* the three unforgivable sins to replace it, but the other two were Aragorn not carrying the sword, and Galadriel not explaining that, by not accepting the ring, she was ending the Elves stay in Middle Earth - either the ring would be destroyed or go to Sauron, and her taking the ring would be the only way that they could stay - that was a big part of the temptation, and part of what made the moment powerful for me.

I liked the little details - I could recite along with Bilbo the leaving speech (with the "Proudfeets" bit), and the things like the leaf shaped carven paddles, the cloaks and broaches, etc... they were correct.

Most minor pet peeve? Showing Sauron in the flesh. But it visually and firmly set in everyone's mind that Sauron was a seriously demonic supernatural being who weilded the ring in war. I'll let it go.... and with an evil grin, I'll say this to end the post - Peter Jackson is doing a good enough job with the War of the Rings, I want to see what he can do with Arda, Akallabêth, the fall of Númenor, and the forging of the rings. With a special Fantasia like art house release of the creation story (either CG or by Studio Gainax, a la End of Evangelion). Now *that* would be a friggin prequel trilogy... and no damn Jar Jar.

--
Evan

Re:Deservedly so! (3, Interesting)

hyehye (451759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747221)

It was necessary to shift some stuff around, for a number of reasons. The biggest of course was that audiences needed to have some more detail, and unlike the books, you have to wait a full year to get them. But PJ is doing remarkably well.

As for showing Sauron... a big mistake, I think. Yes, an audience needs to have a valid enemy... but if done right, an unseen one would be even more threatening and disturbing. Perhaps PJ wasn't quite brave enough to attempt it.

The details were nice, mostly out of the way of the general audience while giving us addicts small injections.

Galadriel issue you mentioned was a disappointment - not that one instance specifically, but overall... a lot of the sad/beautiful/etc themes and back-issues were left out.

Overall very good. *Sigh* 2 more years.

Re:Deservedly so! (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747080)

although his leaving out the details of Bill the Pony and his thing about Saruman "joining forces" and not designing his own ring were kind of questionable.

I never read the books, though I will soon, please explain? I'm curious. Btw which one was Saruman? (sorry to many characters whos names where only mentioned briefly)

Re:Deservedly so! (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747092)

Btw which one was Saruman?

The evil wizard who made the Orc warriors (Uruk-Hai). The one played by Christopher Lee [imdb.com] .

Cheers,
Ian

Bill the Pony (1)

Lispy (136512) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747218)

It is just, if i remember it correctly, that they save Bill the Pony in Bree from starving. And Sam Gambdschi is very close to the Pony. When he has to drop it at the gates of moria he is very upset...but, do yourself a favour and read the Book...;-)

Lispy

Re:Deservedly so! (1)

mrphrtq (35942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747241)

Are these movies or Perl modules?

WIPO Boy's getting all liquored up! (-1)

The WIPO Troll (267426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747040)

Merry FUCKING Christmas!!! Have a Taco-snot-filled new year!!! Yeeeeehaw!!!

I don't agree (5, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747043)

The problem is that there are lots of newbies who recently began voting on IMDB hence this "all new - all beautiful" effect this had on the votes.

Now, I'd be curious to see if it'll still be at the same place in several months whenever an even more over-hyped blockbuster will have taken place.

Don't take me wrong, I am not flaming whoever for this choice but I firmly consider that there should be a separate voting booth for the film which are less than 2 years old (IE: which are either still playing or not yet available on DVD/LD/DivX ;-)/VHS/Betamax... ).

Re:I don't agree (3, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747104)

Hu? it states very clearly "note: for this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered." So its not the newbie factor, but I'm sure the oh wow factor does come into play. Anyways for this to happen has generally been a rarity, so it is newsworthy.

Film age should be a weighting factor (2)

swb (14022) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747232)

The age of the film should be a weighting factor in its ranking. The fact that the Godfather was a 25 year old film should be meaningful.

Subjective (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747253)

The problem is that there are lots of newbies who recently began voting on IMDB hence this "all new - all beautiful" effect this had on the votes.

Yeah, but there's new people coming of age all the time. Don't expect a generation or two from now people to know what the Godfather was about. It's all subjective to the time a large population saw it. The GodFadda may have been the event movie of a generation and that generation (whoever said this was even a scientific or even pure poll anyway) votes. Ask 18-30 year olds what they like and they'll give you something else.

With good reason, too (3, Interesting)

mESSDan (302670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747044)

I went and saw LoTR last Wednesday and loved every minute of it. It was the latest showing at 10:30PM, and the theater was still pretty crowded. Taking into consideration that I live in Hawaii in a relatively low population area, that means that the word is out on how good this movie is.

I went to see it by myself, so I had no one to discuss it with, but as I was leaving, I glanced over the people I had watched it with. Most were staring off into the night with eyes gleaming, remembering. The frightening Nazgul, the oh so beautifully rendered Balrog, the horror of Boromir's betrayl, and the stern stuff that hobbits are made of.

Since seeing the movie, everyone I've spoken to it about has been heaping praise upon praise on it, and it completely deserves it.

I've also been following its rise on IMDB, even contributing my vote (10). When I voted, it was rated at 9.7, and listed at #6. If a movie deserves to be #1, this would be it.

Re:With good reason, too (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747089)

I just went to see a showing - a great way to spend Christmas eve! Despite the fact that the showing was fairly late (9:00pm) the cinema was completely packed.

The film would have been great anywhere, but for where I watched it was terrific. I live in Wellington, New Zealand and watched the film in Peter Jackson's local theatre!

I read that some people heckle the ending. There was no chance of that tonight. Our Jackson-loving audience clapped and cheered as the credits rolled!

Rich

Well deserved (1)

night37 (543185) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747046)

I felt really, really let down after seeing Dungeons and Dragons (ack!). After seeing LotR, I felt redeemed. If you haven't seen it yet, go out and do so! It is truly an excellent film, and worth the money for the ticket.

FYI - CNN [cnn.com] says it's already made $73.1 million in the U.S. and Canada alone!

"We meet again Mr. Anderson, er uh... Gandolph!"

Re:Well deserved (1)

Mon Ennuis (545935) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747122)

Gandalf.

Doing well due to 2001 circumstances (4, Interesting)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747049)

I think besides the fact that Lord of the Rings fans tend to be fairly computer-literate (which will skew any online poll ;-) ), I think you have to remember that 2001 has not been a good year for movies in general.

Movies like Moulin Rouge, Memento, Mulholland Drive, and a few others have a lot of quirks in them that makes them not completely acceptable by the broad general public. High-budget movies such as Pearl Harbor did not live up to their expectations. And Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone made most of its money in the first few weeks just to satisfy the pent-up demand from all those young readers of the Harry Potter books (it's a good, but not a great movie).

I think in the end, 2001 will be the year that only two movies will have good box-office take over a long period of time: Shrek and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

Ridiculous (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747051)

No one should be allowed to rate movies until one has seen a broad enough range of movies to make a valid judgement. This must include a grounding in early cinema, silent pictures, non-American cinema, classic Hollywood cinema, cinema noir, angry-young-man school, B pictures, new wave cinema, independent cinema, amateur movies, etc.

And no, seeing Casablanca once on your local PBS station does not qualify you as an expert on the history of moving pictures. The only way to become an authority is to view several thousands of movies whose release dates are balanced across the first 100 years of movie making. Only then can a reasonable judgement of what is really "the best" be offered.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Flamebait)

pmc (40532) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747170)

No one should be allowed to rate movies until one has seen a broad enough range of movies to make a valid judgement. ......
Only then can a reasonable judgement of what is really "the best" be offered.


Wow, pompous'r'us. To paraphrase,

You can't know if you enjoyed a movie unless you have watched lots of movies.

Or you can't know if you've enjoyed a meal unless you've eaten in thousands of resturants.

Or you can't know if you've enjoyed a walk unless you've walked in hundreds of countries.

Or you can't know if you've enjoyed a sunset unless you've seen thousands.

You must be an expert to make these judgements because otherwise you're not qualified. And god knows what would happen if we let unqualified people judge movies/walks/meals/sunsets. People would watch other people enjoyed instead what the experts told them was good - and that would be anarchy.

Amazed that people like it so much (5, Insightful)

Frog (17924) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747052)

NOTE: I've read the book about 15 times over the years, so I'm not exactly a casual LOTR fan, but nor am I a rabid "Gandalf is God" fan.

One of the very few negative reviews [msnbc.com] I've found expresses exactly my feelings about the movie.

Basically I thought the film was OK as big superproductions go, but I was disappointed that it doesn't add anything to the book. On the contrary, it seems to replace most of what's good with tired old Hollywood shticks: meaningful glances, silly special effects, poor character development, ugly sets (the Elves' residences are especially disappointing), and so on.

There's a very few things I liked: the Hobbiton sets, Bilbo and Gandalf smoking a pipe, the grief-stricken fellowship outside Moria, maybe a few other things. The rest seems like a big waste to me.

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747110)

After just about every movie that is an adaptation of a book, endless droids pipe on about how it "wasn't as good as the book": Is this not a given? Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?

Firstly, books have more leeway timewise: They can go from 200 pages to 1000 pages and people don't bat an eye. Movies, on the other hand, are from 1 hour 30 minutes to 3 hours tops, with Lord of the Rings pushing the upper limits: It was absolutely impossible to fit in every nuance of the book without either making this into a 10 hour movie, or splitting the series out into about 8 movies (having said that I will say this: I think separating the movies at the same points as where the book separated was a mistake, and instead book 1 should have covered a movie and a half, with books 2 and 3 occupying less: There is just less interesting content with each passing book) : Neither of which is a reasonable option without the project having been canned a long time ago. Other complaints such as the missing poems and songs are questionable given that making this movie into a musical or poem reading movie would have commercially ruined it (in other words it would have never happened).

..but I was disappointed that it doesn't add anything to the book

I don't understand this complaint: How could the movie `add' something to the book without raising the ire of even more hardcore Tolkien fans? The small changes that were made for the movie were nuances and even still stories such as the MSNBC one are groaning about who was the one to dismiss the idea of going through the Mines, so imagine if they just created new storylines all together...

There will always be people who are displeased when one of their favourite books is made into a movie: There is no way that the filmmaker can encapsulate your visualizations, so when you see it if you're not willing to accept theirs as a credible version then you'll be disappointed. There's also always the `attempting to be academically elite' that will wave off this film with a dismissive brush to appear more critical, as if somehow that is a desired trait.

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (2)

Dolly_Llama (267016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747174)

Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?

imho, Dr. Zhivago in movie form is better than the book. Part of that, I'm sure is due to the enormous cast of Russian-named characters that are easier to differentiate with a face. Also the cinematography is astounding. Almost too good. I found myself gazing at the scenery at times instead of the story.

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (1)

Frog (17924) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747178)

I didn't complain that it wasn't "as good" as the book. Books, movies, apples, oranges. And I realize I have a bias since I had read the book before seeing the movie; however movies are never judged in isolation. It did bother me that so many apparently pointless changes had been made. I don't really get what's to be gotten out of the movie, except a sort of generic mindless fun, which is fine, but disappointing to me, given what was taken on. The problem isn't that changes were made, but that the changes seem random, or questionable.

I wish I could think of a movie version that added something to the book... I guess the Godfather and Blade Runner are obvious examples. I liked the stories, and I liked the movies. The movies added good acting, impressive sets, interesting variations, etc. I'll repeat it: I don't really see what Peter Jackson's movie contributes, though apparently many people do. But then again I'm a droid...

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747204)

I didn't complain that it wasn't "as good" as the book.

That comment was moreso aimed at the MSNBC article that you referenced, which was almost entirely dismissing the movie in relation to the book.

And I realize I have a bias since I had read the book before seeing the movie; however movies are never judged in isolation.

I don't think you're in the minority having read the book: I'd bet >80% of the population of Slashdot has read the book. I've read the series several times and I loved the movie, though I went in expecting the movie to be separate but inspired by the book and was actually very pleasantly surprized at how true to the books the movies actually were.

I guess the Godfather and Blade Runner are obvious examples. I liked the stories, and I liked the movies. The movies added good acting, impressive sets, interesting variations, etc.

Hehe, when you were reading the book were you thinking "Good, except for the bad acting..." :-)

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (1)

Frog (17924) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747229)

Hehe, when you were reading the book were you thinking "Good, except for the bad acting..." :-)

Arg! Yes, :-), but that's my point: a movie is a different medium, so it obviously can add to the book. However imho PJ's movie adds almost nothing memorable. It's a pity. We can always hope for the next installments.

And I totally agree with the MSNBC guy: the stuff we like about the book is mostly not in the movie, and there's not much to be liked in the movie otherwise.

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (1)

dachshund (300733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747245)

That comment was moreso aimed at the MSNBC article that you referenced, which was almost entirely dismissing the movie in relation to the book.

I know several people who saw the movie without having read the book, and their reviews were decidedly less enthusiastic. It's a double-edged sword. While knowledge of the book invites potentially unfavorable comparison, it also makes the movie much more coherent and enjoyable.

Re:Amazed that people like it so much (-1)

sinator (7980) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747231)

% After just about every movie that is an adaptation of a book, endless droids pipe on about how it "wasn't as good as the book":
% Is this not a given? Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?

\begin{opinion}[mine]

I'd make the claim that \textit{Fight Club} was a much better movie than book; while there are many good things about \ref{Palahniuk's [chuckpalahniuk.com] } writing style, the visual interplay between Norton and Pitt make the eventual plot twists of the book that much more impressive (and you kick yourself because you could see it all along). Of course, that's IMO; YMMV. (IHBT? IHL. HAND. ETC.)

\end{opinion}

hugo weaving (2, Funny)

category9 (521982) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747055)

I feel Hugo Weavings performance in lotr was very similar to that of the Matrix (playing Agent Smith). The logical answer is that he was indeed playing an agent, and middle earth is either a patch for the matrix or an earlier firmware revision.

2 things Hype and clicking scripts (2, Insightful)

FreeQ (139632) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747056)

The most dramatic thing here is that Hype and litlle script kiddies ( i hope no one serious got into this it's rubish ). Have one more time ruined a good internet rating system. Next week Spice Girls 24 the return topped the IMDB for a third week !!! ... Ho my God!

Not that i disliked the movie .. gosh that was a good one, prefered the books, but who can compete with that ;). Seen it 3 times in 5 days for now. But not ready for the top of IMDB .. best film of all times .. no it don't have what it takes.

IMDB Pisses Me Off (1, Interesting)

_J_ (30559) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747059)

One of the best films I've seen is the Red Violin. It's rated at 7.9 on IMDB with about 3500 votes. This should be enough to put it into the top 250 but for some reason lower rated movies make it instead. Anyway I'm just bitter about the whole thing....

So don't trust their ratings!!!!!

IMHO, as per
J:)

Re:IMDB Pisses Me Off (1)

Diomedes01 (173241) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747144)

I believe this is because the rating system also takes into account the number of people who rated the movie.

Lies, damn lies, and... (5, Insightful)

Nick Number (447026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747060)

This would seem to demonstrate that LoTR has satisfied its target audience, us geeks. It remains to be seen whether it will become a cultural juggernaut like Star Wars that appeals to all segments of the population.

It's worth remembering that newer films tend to achieve high ratings initially. By my count, 33 of the top 100 rated films at imdb were made in the last ten years. The database hasn't been around that long, and young people are more active on the net than older ones, so you're bound to see more votes for movies that have come out recently.

Lists like this are meaningless anyway. They only serve to stir up discussion and draw attention to good films that people may have forgotten.

And no, I haven't seen it yet, but I will.

Re:Lies, damn lies, and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747109)

This would seem to demonstrate that LoTR has satisfied its target audience, us geeks. It remains to be seen whether it will become a cultural juggernaut like Star Wars that appeals to all segments of the population


That's *exactly* right. I am probably the only /. reader to not have read the book (well, I read about 30 pages and just could not tolerate the overly descriptive writing style).


The thing is, the movie requires, I think, too much knowledge of the book. For example, Gandalf. Okay, he's a nice guy, cool even, when he smokes that pipe, but he's just another character in the flick. The 2 hobbits that are always looking for food were much more interesting. So, why was it that the "fellowship" (a group comprised of completely random individuals, it seemed) were so bitter over losing him? According to friends that read the book, it was because there is much more to Gandalf than met the eye, and he had a very long history with everyone. But in the movie, he just seemed to know the hobbits well.


Another thing was the actual movie craft skills... Okay, pretty pictures, but MY GOD can't they spice up the palette a bit? Everything is pastel and fog - I felt like I was being sedated visually. Sure, they were huge landscapes and all that, but would it have killed him to make it more VISUALLY interesting in a VISUAL medium? Who cares if it was faithful to the book if it's dull to look at?


Lastly, the character development (or lack therof). What *actually* happened? The biggest thing, if you count screen time for the incident, was Sam leaving shire. After that would be the thing with Liv Tyler and Strider - which made no sense to me, because for some reason I could not hear her breathy elven voice. (Anyone else find the elven women's voices incredibly annoying after about 5 seconds? It makes me wonder how the elven chicks get about in day to day life... Breathy voice, as if coming from nowhere: "Hhhhhhoooooonnnnnneeeeeeyyyyy, Iiiii hhhaaavvveee tooooo gooooo peeeeeeeee")


I guess you could say I didn't like this movie.

Re:Lies, damn lies, and... (2)

Detritus (11846) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747115)

This would seem to demonstrate that LoTR has satisfied its target audience, us geeks.

A movie studio does not spend $200 million on a movie that is targeted to "geeks".

Better dramatised version: BBC radio production (2, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747077)

For a dramatised LotR, try the BBC radio version [amazon.com] . Much better than the film, although admittedly much longer as well.

I have to reluctantly join the 'disappointed with the film' ranks, since although there is much to like there, I think so many detail-related cuts were made that the plot becomes hard to follow. Certainly this was the case with the people I went with who hadn't read the book. Without the detail, I felt it degenerated a bit into glorified chase film.

Loved the first hour though - all of the Shire scenes were done briliantly.

Cheers,
Ian

That's surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747078)

My wife and I went to see the movie, full audience at a huge theatre. There were 3 shows at the place, all letting out at the same time.

From the conversations people were having and not having, we gathered that the audience reaction was:

1) Thank god I'm out after 3 hours!
2) Well, at least it took less of my life than the book...
3) "I couldn't understand a word any of them said"

I didn't like the movie, personally, and that is largely because it was more or less faithful to the book. A good book != a good movie. Books and movies are very, very different things, and LOTR the movie could have benefitted from some changes.

One thing: did anyone else feel Jackson was heavy handed in re: scaring viewers? It's like he said "I know, let's turn the music down and then have a ring wraith/Bilbo jump out at the viewers!" Note to Jackson: there are much, much better ways of building suspense/surprise than those you used...

My .02$ (or $22.50, if you count the price of admission)

Straight from Tolkiens' pen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747086)

"LETS KICK SOME ORC!" That was like the bravado of good taste.

:( (1)

Libster (308301) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747094)

We Australians have become a bit carried away after the last two stories being dedicated to us... but alas, we have nothing to contribute to this thread until the day after tommorrow!

But wait theres more (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747097)

But the good news is that this movie will be toppled by the squel

Something missing (2, Insightful)

DanBrusca (197887) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747098)

I give all the films I see a rating out of 5 on my website and generally start mulling it over before the film has finished. I really wanted to give this film 5/5 but it never felt right, 4/5 seemed like a better fit.

Large parts of the film felt pretty flat, though technically accomplished and well performed. At several points I was thinking 'okay, let's just move on now'.

I guess that for me it was like a date where the girl is hot, you've been looking forward to it for ages but when you're sat in the restaurant you realise that the spark is missing. There's a few pregnant pauses in the conversation so you fill in the time looking at the eye candy ; )

So, very good film overall, perhaps even top 100 material but it does lack a certain something that would justify it's current IMDb position.

IMDB (3, Interesting)

mrfiddlehead (129279) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747100)

Of course, it's too early to tell where LoTR will end up on the big list, but I doubt it will compete with The Godfather and Dr. Strangelove in the long run. One of my biggest problems with IMDB is the fact that one can see the histogram of rating results before casting one's vote. I would bet that a lot of people are giving this movie a rating of 10 because they see lots of other people giving it a 10.

Another problem is that the voting scale is too fine for most people and that people tend to be conservatively critical. The number of people voting 2 or 3 is much lower, statistically, that those who vote 8 or 9 becuase people tend to be too NICE when rating a film unless they REALLY hate it in which case they'll give it a 1. A scale of one to four or five would be more indicative than the current scale.

Stevie237 is a fucking bastard! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747101)

He is! and heres the evidence [go.com]

And the person that moderates this post will also be a fucking bastard!

Did you know? department. (3, Insightful)

linuxdoctor (126962) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747103)

I've yet to see the film, but I intend to. However, I'm wondering how many people are going to see the film because LoTR is derigeur for the geek crowd? Even when I was a young lad, attending university in the mid-sevnties, the LoTR was required reading for anybody that wanted to fit in with those who spent more time at computer terminals than at their studies. I liked the books, but I didn't think they ranked as great literature.

But, did you know that for a large portion of the source code to Perl, after the usual copyright disclaimer, there is a quote from something by J. R. R. Tolkien?

Yes, there are people who DO read source code, and I'm one of them. It's a great source of education and inspiration if the code is well written and a wonderful source of amusement from code that is badly written.

Re:Did you know? department. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747220)

However, I'm wondering how many people are going to see the film because LoTR is derigeur for the geek crowd?

I saw it, despite the massive line (Live in Santa Cruz:learn about patience and standing in line) mostly because of what was on the local megaplex (Santa Cruz 9) was less enticing that LotR. I don't think of Tolkien as 'de rigeur' for geeks, as lots of people are huge fans of his works and aren't what I'd ever consider geeks (freaks maybe or just some other branch of nerd, but they show no less dedication than geeks to tech)

But, did you know that for a large portion of the source code to Perl, after the usual copyright disclaimer, there is a quote from something by J. R. R. Tolkien?

Dunno what you are refering to, which Perl source? The source to the compiler?

We named our PDP-11 Timesharing system (which still sliced time far better than windows ever will, i'm afraid) DTS Gandalf, though there were only a couple people in the department who had clue one who Gandalf was and if you mention elves they think of Keebler, dwarves as people tossed in bars, and hobbits are something nuns wear on their heads.

Re:Did you know? department. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747259)

I am sure he was referring to the source for the Perl interpreter. It has scattered through it various appropriately chosen Tolkien quotations for each section.

For a random instance taint.c, which implements
Perl's taint mode (read perlsec and the -T option in perlrun for details on what that is), starts off with:

/*
* "...we will have peace, when you and all your works have perished--and
* the works of your dark master to whom you would deliver us. You are a
* liar, Saruman, and a corrupter of men's hearts." --Theoden
*/

Accomplishment? (2)

sakusha (441986) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747129)

Yeah, it was "quite an accomplishment" too, when the IMDB ranked "Battlefield Earth" as the highest rated film of all time, but that was just hordes of mindless scientologists stuffing the ballot boxes. However in this case, it's hordes of..

..oh nevermind.

The Bedwetting Report, 12/24/01 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747131)

I woke up this morning. It was a cold night outside. My Pampers 6 was completely soaked, and my Goodnite [goodnites.com] was only barely wet. I hope I wet the bed Christmas too.

Amazing Accomplishment? Please.... (1)

hfk (539863) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747132)

Amazing accomplishment? Come on. Of those likely to know what the hell the IMDB is, where is is, and how to vote, then actually vote: how many do you think have read Puzo and loved his works? Now, how many voters have read and loved Tolkien? Yes, the movie is good, but better than Citizen Kane (#6), and Casablance (#7)? FOTR voting at IMDB is a byproduct of the quality of the book rather than the move, and I'd describe that as "disappointing" rather than "amazing".

On lists (1)

MotorMachineMercenar (124135) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747134)

I'll be modded to oblivion for saying this, but any movie list that puts Star Wars even near such masterpieces as Casablanca, Godfather and Dr. Strangelove is invalid, IMNQSHO.

Although I don't think FotR belongs in the #1 slot (and it'll come down, I'm sure), it does look much more at home with the three movies I mentioned, unlike Star Wars. I haven't experienced such emotional response to a movie since seeing the Green Mile, and I've read the book, twice, so I knew what was coming.

Peter Jackson et al. gave us a masterpiece that is not put to shame when compared to classics. It is always an exhilarating experience to see someone produce a movie with such uncompromising passion and pure fervor in times where bottom line is usually the only thing that matters.

Could It Be (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747137)

Could It Be that the long suffering Tolkien Ring Network has risen from the Data Centers of Loth Lorien, the Cubical Kingdom of Gondor, The Network Centers of Rivendell and the Server Farms of the Shire to push the buttons many times?

Sure, why not?

Saw the flick on Saturday, and liked it very much, tho my only gripe was when they played the dramatic music it was really overdriven, at one point drowning out character dialogue lines. Hope they get that fixed in the DVD version.

Swords & Sorcery deserves to be overrated. (2)

Vegan Pagan (251984) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747139)

I think PJ's FotR is overrated, but I think it deserves to be. Even though the movie severely abridges the story, it's also getting many people to read the book, which is selling 400% better this year than last year. The ideal is for the movie to teach all newcomers everything there is to know about Middle Earth and make them excited about it. The movie hasn't accomplished that, but it's done the next best thing.

It seems that every genre gets overrated at least once. Star Wars, Jurassic Park and Matrix were overrated high-tech action movies, Gone With the Wind and Titanic were overrated expensive action-romance movies, Disney makes overrated cartoons, and now PJ's FotR is an overrated swords and sorcery action movie.

If every genre is destined to be overrated at least once, swords & sorcery genre might as well get it now. If it causes audiences to read the best book in the genre and movie-makers to make more other-worldly movies, then I think it's succeeded.

Is Frodo a girl?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747143)

The person cast as the hobbit looks a bit *too* much like a girl... Isn't he supposed to be a smelly hairy little man? Wouldn't This Man [imdb.com] have been a better choice?

WHy would M$NBC give a good review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747148)

The movies special effects were done on linux systems.l They were not done with MSpaint like Billy Gates III wanted. So they gave a bad review. Plain and simple.

Re:WHy would M$NBC give a good review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747196)

Movie probably would have faired better if a Microsoft rendering proggie was used. Stop bashing M$ at every turn you bitchy slashdotter......

"an amazing accomplishment" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747152)

What's amazing about it? The Internet still has disproportionate number of middlebrow geeks with precious little cultural knowledge. Of course they'd think LoTR was the best movie ever made.

For balance, I gave it a rating of 1.

You've got profits (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747189)

Over time I'd guess this will fall lower, but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie.

And the greatest accomplishment of all is getting all the drooling slashdotters to pour their money into AOL-Time-Warner. Don't forget, if you pay the ticket-taker to let you in without a ticket, you don't give any money to AOL (though I discourage this illegal activity).

Follow the Herd (2, Insightful)

tubs (143128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747191)

How many people vote for a film

1) Because they think it's good
2) Someone else thinks its good, and they want to be seen in the same light.

I haven't seen 50% of the top 10, I have seen Godfather, Godfather 2, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, & LoTR.

But it gets me eevry time *why* is Citizen Kane considered an all time top 10? Have the people who voted for it actually seen it? I bought it because of the hype ... boy was I dissapointed - the words "extremely" and "boring" come to mind.

Sorry for being a philistine, but it seem to me people vote for "old" films because they think they should, because they are supposed to be classics.

And if you reply to this also I want a synopsis that explains why Citizen Kane is good and why I am wrong, just so I can be shown the error of my ways.

Not surprising at all... (0, Offtopic)

kitts (545683) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747194)

It got 5 vampyre teeth [bigempire.com] .

Wish they'd done the Nibelung Ring instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2747225)

I just wish someone with a big budget would bring the Nibelung's Ring to the screen, perhaps taking Wagner's model but not necessarily filming it as an opera cycle - though that'd be nice in my book! The characters and sub-plots are so much richer than Tolkein's faux-mythology, and no less fantastical.

Much as Fellowship of the Ring was a breath-taking visual experience, its plot struck me as rather thin in comparison to the Nibelunenlied or Wagner's operatic Ring trilogy. Stripped of the long scenes of (necessary!) explanation the film could have been summed up as "hobbit and chums go from A to B, get chased a bit, go from B to C, get chased some more, some die, etc." All shot in magnificent scenery (real and virutal) and with fine direction, granted.

The fact that Tolkein's books were written in splendid English made the original a "classic" serial novel, of course, but that does not necessarily make for a classic film plot. Tolkein's prose (so essential to the books themselves) wouldn't translate well to the screen and, to the director's credit, most of it was left out. What remains however is a kind of pumped-up "Wizard of Oz", albeit much scarier.

I just feel that an opportunity has been missed here - although believe George Lucas has been pencilled in to produce the stage effects for Wagner's Ring in Los Angeles. Perhaps he'll take up the challenge?

redundant, perhaps.... but (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747235)

It's not just a case of geeks happening to be the target demographic, and online, so, there you go.
Rabid fans of any film/record/whatever tend to vote early and often. Why are LOTR viewers so rabid? Who cares. Point being, they're rabid. The millions of people who love The Godfather aren't as rabid, won't vote as often.
I was as rabid about the original Star Wars when it came out as many of the LOTR fans are about LOTR. However, over the years, having seen hundreds more movies, I've lost my rabidity and must say that The Godfather, Citizen Kane, heck, even Clockwork Orange, are way better films than Star Wars.
We just happen to have an immense population of people who are easily inclined towards fanaticism and who are able/willing to express this in an online vote.
To whoever doubted Citizen Kane's quality; yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But to see why it's so good, it would be good to compare it to other films of its day, to see why it's different than the other million black-n-white films from back then.

IMDB User Bias (4, Insightful)

Cloudmark (309003) | more than 12 years ago | (#2747239)

While there have been some posts highlighting the fact that the IMDB rating is only representative of those individuals with web-access, I think this doesn't fully address the limits of the IMDB ratings and how in particular they may not accurately reflect this film.
Specifically, the IMDB ratings are the product of those individuals who care enough about a film to take the time to enter a rating. It is likely to contain significantly more strong positive or negative reactions and far fewer moderate reactions than other means of statistical analysis. This can produce skewed results.
Furthermore, to make use of the old 'geeks and dungeons & dragons/tolkienesque fantasy' stereotype, while it is highly doubtful that Hollywood would produce a film with such a small target audience, the IMDB is particularly biased towards this group. In my experience, there is some validity to the claim that computer 'geeks' have generally had a higher level of exposure to fantasy novels and have had more opportunities to form opinions based on this exposure. Tolkien, at least within the circles I frequent, has always been a favourite of computer professionals. While these are not the only people who will see the film, they are the group most likely to head home and make use of an online rating service to make their opinions known and to have the tools available to do so.
To summarize my own rather rambling post, I think there is some justification for the belief that those people who are both willing and able to use the IMDB rating system may be bias through their own background and interests to grant this movie an abnormally high rating.
Before I conclude, however, I would like to say that I did enjoy the film a great deal and would not hesitate to say that it is one of the better films released in recent years, though not the best ever.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>