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 Cleans Up at AFI

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the acronyms-are-fun dept.

Movies 304

bigdreamer writes "Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds. this CNN article says it won the most awards, including Best Picture, at the first annual American Film Institute awards Saturday."

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

damn the 20 sec wait.....DAMN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794548)

i (almost) got fp

Re:damn the 20 sec wait.....DAMN (-1, Offtopic)

Bohemoth2 (179802) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794558)

you did get first post idiot.

Re:damn the 20 sec wait.....DAMN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794574)

Maybe if were ever faster you could of had a pre-historic post....Or even posted before the subject came out...

Why did they 'modernise' LotR? (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794708)

They ruined it by putting in all the contempory references.

Like, why did Saruman have to be renamed Saliban? I certainly don't remember him wearing a turban in the books either.

And that scene where the dragon crashed into the two towers was TOTALLY unnecessary!

postage (-1, Offtopic)

jsin (141879) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794551)

yeah, fp

Three whole awards (4, Insightful)

dgood (139443) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794552)

The CNN article only mentions 3 awards for LoTR. Were there others, or is this just a bunch of hype over a measly 3 awards?

Re:Three whole awards (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794590)

See http://www.theonering.net for more details on the awards. For those you too lazy to cut and paste LOTR won Best Production Designer, Best Picture, and Best Digital Effects, and lost Best Musical Score to Moulan Rouge.

Re:Three whole awards (2, Informative)

Paradoxish (545066) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794600)

The CNN article only mentions 3 awards for LoTR. Were there others, or is this just a bunch of hype over a measly 3 awards?

Eh... I don't know. CNN... hype over LotR...?

Anyway, it won best picture which is a big enough deal. And then two other awards. Assuming this is more than any other film that was up for awards this year then yeah, it is a big deal. According to the article Black Hawk Down and In the Bedroom both had the most nominations (5) and since Black Hawk Down didn't win any it stands to reason that three awards was probably the most any movie won.

Re:Three whole awards (2, Interesting)

Floyd Turbo (84609) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794603)

Doesn't sound like much, but there were only two films that won more than one award. LotR got three, Moulin Rouge got two, and all the other winners got one award each.

Re:Three whole awards (0, Redundant)

AfroRyan (76048) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794735)

Not that this is necessarily of much significance, but it should be noted that CNN is owned by AOL Time Warner, and New Line (The studio that released "Lord Of The Rings") is a Warner Brothers-owned property. It might explain CNN's "hype" over "Lord Of The Rings" winning three awards, though I don't quite notice it myself in the article...

-Ryan

how presumptuous (5, Funny)

rebug (520669) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794553)

First annual?

Don't we have enough of these goons sitting around saluting themselves?

Just what we need (0, Redundant)

rtphokie (518490) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794567)

Another damned award show. Is there one EVERY weekend now? How often do these people need to congradulate themselves anyway?

Re:how presumptuous (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794570)


> Don't we have enough of these goons sitting around saluting themselves?

I never heard it called "saluting" before.

Re:how presumptuous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794614)

Beats the term (and mental image) of "Brown Nosing"

Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794554)

Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds.
Not quite. Film nerds are still nerds.

Of course (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794557)

Of course it got the most awards, it's making the most money. That's how Hollywood awards work.

Re:Of course (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794607)

And it's making lots of money because...?


Oh yeah.. maybe because it's a great movie. Yes, not all movies that make lots of money are great, but you can't just chalk the awards up to the money without asking why it made so much money.

Box office totals? (1, Troll)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794561)

Just curious... I'm probably one of 4 people in the state that haven't managed to see it yet.

How much has this movie made so far? I was reading rumours that it was going to be the biggest December release in history or something like that..

I was just wondering if it has broken any records yet. (Aside from the "Ouch, my ass hurts after sitting for 2hr 58min" record) :-)

Re:Box office totals? (1)

Dave Walker (9461) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794569)

It broke a record here; I've seen it twice since it came out. The last movie I actually went to see in a theatre was "Sneakers", in 1993, I think.

Geez, $5 for a Mountain Dew... I think I'll stick to my home theatre!

Re:Box office totals? (5, Informative)

inc0gnito (443709) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794579)

According to www.chud.com, Lord of The Rings has grossed $205,500,000 as of last Monday
(box office totals are updated every Monday). This is over a three week period.
Last weekend's gross was $23,000,000.

FYI: In 8 weeks Harry Potter has grossed $300,500,000 so I don't think that LOTR has broken any records yet.

Re:Box office totals? (1)

Paradoxish (545066) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794742)

According to www.chud.com, Lord of The Rings has grossed $205,500,000 as of last Monday (box office totals are updated every Monday). This is over a three week period. Last weekend's gross was $23,000,000.

Really? At that rate it sounds like it'll easily beat out Harry Potter. Hah! Take that you pathetic fantasy-for-the-masses British piece of cra... er... ahem. What was I saying? :)

Re:Box office totals? (1)

boa13 (548222) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794602)

Lawrence of Arabia (1964). First cut was 3h42. They quickly reduced that by twenty minutes however. Still a long time to seat.

Box office stats links here! (3, Informative)

orius_khan (416293) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794650)

Check out the gross income of movies that are currently in theaters here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice/latest/rank.html [yahoo.com]

You can compare these totals to the totals of the Top 100 biggest ranking movies of all time here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-alltime/rank.htm l [yahoo.com]

As you can see, even if it makes the projected estimates for this weekend, it will only be up to #34 in the rankings. However, it's also only been out for 2 weeks... :)

Guess it's time for me to go see it again and help bump it up one more notch...

Re:Box office stats links here! (3, Insightful)

jheinen (82399) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794695)

Keep in mind that since it's a three hour movie, it cannot be shown as often during a given day on a single screen as your typical 90 minute film. Therefore box office grosses must necessarily be smaller for any given time period. That simple fact alone will keep it from breaking too many box office records.

Re:Box office totals? (3, Informative)

sph (35491) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794693)

According to this [boxofficemojo.com] LotR has grossed already over $200M in the US and almost $200M elsewhere. That's way more than the budget of the whole trilogy. Four records mentioned include the biggest Christmas day gross, and some December records. There's also an interesting comparison chart [boxofficemojo.com] , where the film's gross history is compared against Harry Potter, Star Wars ep 1 and Titanic.

Some guy at Miramax is going to get his ass kicked for wanting to reduce LotR into one movie and driving Peter Jackson away to New Line Cinema, who were ready to fund three movies.

Re:Box office totals? (1)

stressky (218896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794731)

So far, it's broken almost every box-office record for an opening movie over here in Oz.
This includes biggest opening day,biggest opening weekend, and biggest opening week.

As of 2/1/02, it had already grossed 18 million dollars here. Don't have any more recent stats, sorry..

Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794564)

It should have picked up more awards. I thought LOTR was good. But not the #1 movie of the year.

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794616)

Blasphemer!! You'll burn for that!!

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (2, Insightful)

joshjs (533522) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794625)

It really depends how you think of it: Memento was incredibly well-written and very, very, very thoughtfully put-together. Lord of the Rings was your typical huge, beautiful, grandoise masterpiece kind of thing. Personally, I feel Memento deserves a nod as the best picture of the year, yeah, but I think Joe Movie Nerd responds a bit better to the kind of epic visual adventure that LoTR brings.

That is simply my opinion, though, for your reflection.

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (1)

Requiem (12551) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794637)

Both are excellent movies in their own rights. Very rarely does a movie brainfuck me; Memento did that.

Fellowship of the Ring, however, was excellent in that it told a story very well, with stunning visuals, great special effects, and some great acting. It wasn't nearly as unconventional as Memento, but it was still an great movie.

Also, FOTR is only one of two movies I've seen twice in the theatre (the other being The Matrix).

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (4, Insightful)

Cynical_Dude (548704) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794689)

To put it bluntly: Memento [imdb.com] forced me to think, while LOTR [imdb.com] had me gaping at the screen, drooling into my popcorn.

I think Memento beat LOTR in originality but overall the better cinematic experience was LOTR.

Filthy sums up best what I didn't like about Memento. [bigempire.com]

Then again, these awards aren't about how good or bad a movie is and I think we all know that.

With 95% of new movies being the same old Hollywood gunk, I'm actually glad to see this move. That's Lobstertainment!

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794723)

You sheep would churn out billions to LOTR if it were based on Taco and Elijah Wood searching for circle jerk partners. You respect the name, you pay for the name, you're blinded by the name. In the words of Jay Sherman, 'It stinks!'

Is it just me? (3, Insightful)

Flarners (458839) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794565)

Am I the only one who was not at all impressed with the movie? Sure, the visual effects were stunning and the cinematography was gorgeous, but overall the movie just felt empty. The movie didn't show any real character development or other basic storytelling premises. It was just one thing happening after another over and over again for a full three hours, with little rhyme or reason applied to the events. First they find the ring then they get chased by ringwraiths then they meet Aragorn then they get chased by ringwraiths again then Frodo gets sick then they go to Rivendale then.... you get the picture. This sort of filmmaking works wonders for popcorn action movies like Mission Impossible and the Jackie Chan movie du jour, but I was honestly expecting more of the greatest fantasy works of the twentieth century.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794571)

Yes, it's just you. The first 30-45 minutes in the shire are all about developing frodo and gandalf as characters. Obvious effort was spent on developing Aragorn and his past and his relationship with arwen..

Yup, just you.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

core10k (196263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794591)

Oh yes, such obvious effort was spent that I have no idea whatsoever who Arwen is, after watching that snooze fest for 3 hours. Only good part was the battle between Gandalf and Sauren (or whatever his name was) when Gandalf was pushed 'off' of the platform. That's what, 2 seconds?

Right.

Here's a brief synopsis of this movie: Close-up shots of talking heads. Far shots of New Zealand. Far shots of paintings. Medium and Far shots of really fake looking little CG characters walking.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794611)

exactly i think the nerds that read the books fifty times are totally failing to notice the movie doesn't develop the characters for squat and the film is quite shallow and just a string of events tacked together without much life to it.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794610)

The first 30-45 minutes in the shire are all about developing frodo and gandalf as characters.

Well, they are established as characters, yes; but what of development after those forty-five minutes? Once the characters are established they remain perfectly static for the remainder of the film; they just run into one adventure after another for two hours and fifteen minutes.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794659)

gandalf's role in this film was as the "mentor", a role that rarely ever changes in any story. And he "died".. if that isn't development i dont know what is.

Frodo started off afraid and unsure, missing home and bla bla. At the end he resolves to take responsibility for himself and blaze the trail without the fellowship, thus, he has changed and faces new challenges.

And the only way to develop a character is put them in situations (aka adventures) and show how they react to that situation, and as they have more situations, their reaction changes, hence the character has developed. Dialouge reveals the character, action develops the character.

Perhaps another viewing is in order

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794716)

Yes, a lot of effort was expended in the development of Gandalf and Frodo; however, they are not the only main characters. Half of The Two Towers focuses entirely on Merry and Pippin, two characters that were hardly touched upon. Sam is one of the most important characters in the story and we hardly got to know him at all. Tolkien portrayed Sam as a puppy dog adoring his master, with hints of latent homosexuality. Where was this in the film? If someone seeing this had't read the book, would they have understood Frodo and Sam's relationship? Where was the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli? I realise that if this film were any longer, the average theatergoer's attention span would not be able to handle it. But that's exactly the point. As I was leaving the theater the overwhelming majority of people were talking about how crappy the ending was. None of these people had read the book. They were expecting Hollywood boilerplate because they don't know any better. I guess there is just not any way to make great literature into a movie and maximize profit atthe same time. Maybe if Jackson had made six movies, one for each book.....

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794576)

You do know that it's just act one of a three-act epic, right?

Re:Is it just me? (1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794588)

... didn't show any real character development or other basic storytelling premises. It was just one thing happening after another over and over again ...
Sounds exactly like the book in this respect.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794597)

i agree. It was like 30 minutes of calm, then elijah wood bulging his eyes as something evil approaches, big battle scene then 30 minutes of calm...you're quite right, but i'd never admit that it was kinda sucky. It didn't suck, but it was hardly any better than a summer blockbuster. There was just something about it that seemed, i donno, shallow...

and Is it just me? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794605)

or were the hobbits very very gay?

Re:and Is it just me? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794621)

No, you are the only one that is very very gay.

Re:and Is it just me? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794660)

No, YOU are the only one that is very VERY very gay.

Re:and Is it just me? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794687)

No kidding. I was half expecting the Fellowship to stop in the middle of the movie and have a massive gay orgy with all the butt-sex a San Franciscan could want...

What with Elijah Wood's eyes always being fricking huge all the time and the archer with a very queer sort of walk...

Re:and Is it just me? Exactly. (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794753)

As we were walking out of the theater, I said to my wife, "You know, I kept expecting them to start giving eachother hand jobs."

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794654)

There isn't much depth to the Lord of the Rings, so it's not surprising that you didn't perceive any. Peter Jackson did a fine job of accentuating the good vs. evil aspect of the story, to a degree (which should really be pressed a bit more in the later installments). I think this is what the story is really *about*, if anything.

But were you expecting a life-changing experience? Really, it's about destroying a ring to keep evil from taking over the world.

(It could easily be argued that the story is about courage and hope as well, I realize, and probably other things, and I eagerly await my flames...)

Me Too (3, Insightful)

SteveM (11242) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794685)

I enjoyed the movie. As mentioned the visuals were stunning. And I thought the casting was excellent, althought I expected the hobbits to be a bit plumper.

But I also felt that they missed the boat big time by focusing on the battles and not developing the characters.

Two that I particularly missed included the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli. I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.

The other was the development of Sam's loyalty especially as seen with respect to Bill the pony. (And it was pointed out to me after the fact, where did the pony come from? The only time we see it in the movie is when they are about to enter the mines of Moria.)

By focusing only on the adventure part of the tale, they left the fellowship part out of the 'Fellowship'. I described it to a friend as if the book was written by someone who was there, while the movie was done by a 'historian' after the fact.

And because of that I left the theater disappointed.

Steve M

Newsflash! LoTr sucks! (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794706)

No, seriously. I sat in a crowded smelly theater with my feet stuck to the floor and gummi worms stuck to my teeth. The flick was entirely too long, the dude next to me was drinking BUSCH beer, and Elijah Wood attempting to disguise his homosexuality was just disturbing.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

Chris Blaise (3174) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794713)

My girlfriend and I felt the same way. I didn't actively hate it but it failed to interest me enough to go read the books.

On the other hand I didn't read Harry Potter and I I loved that movie. It did spark my interest to read the books.

And on a slight tangent, after seeing Harry Potter and reading the book, I was impressed by how much the movie followed the book. With very few exceptions, they took the entire story and put it on the big screen. The parts they ommitted or merged into others were the right moves to push the story along in a big screen format (IMHO, of course).

The other day someone who loved LOTR said that they felt it was a much more faithful adaption of that book than Harry Potter was of the Sorcerer's Stone. I was a bit incredulous given the complaints I've read about the expension of Liv Tyler's character. Also, another friend told me that the character of Galdalf in the movie is much different than the character in the book (in the movie he was a kindly, friendly sort of fellow; according to my friend, he's a manipulative SOB in the book).

To which I have to ask; if the movie is "off" in these two instances, what is the real attraction to the movie?

Re:Is it just me? NO. (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794737)

I agree. It wasn't that great. In my case, maybe it was the genre thing... I have no interest in fantasy, make-believe worlds, and find it hard to care about any of their inhabitants. Also, there was very little character development. The Bilbo guy was much more likeable than Frodo (who reminded me of Arnold Horshack). It wasn't terribly interesting, I found myself checking my watch a few times. Maybe if you really, really enjoyed the books, then it would be GREAT. My wife thought the hobbits seemed very gay. I honestly considered taking a nap about a third of the way into this.

Besides not giving a rat's ass about silly gnomes and such, the movie itself just wasn't that great. It wasn't bad, really, but I wish I had seen something that I'd probably like more, like Mulholland Drive, or Amelie.

Christians Nerds (3, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794577)

Lord of the rings is a allegorically based on biblical stories. Tolkien [leaderu.com] being profoundly Catholic, will obviously have a big influence on North America's western society, most of it rooted in some sort of Christian moral basis.

Nerds might like the fantasy aspect, but Tolkien's belief that "mythology was a means of conveying certain transcendent truths which are almost inexpressible within the factual confines of a "realistic" novel" is what LOTR is all about, i.e preaching to the choir.

Re:Christians Nerds (2, Informative)

b0r0din (304712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794613)

Actually, if you read Tolkien's forward to the second edition of his work, he specifically states that he did not intend allegory in the writing.

Quote: "As for the inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."

Take this for what it's worth, that he didn't intend it. However, his biographical information reveals a lot about the characters he wrote and how life affected his books. So in a way you are right, but he's not 'preaching to the choir.'

Arguably, though, you can see a lot of ways in which his life influenced the book. World War I was very trying for Tolkien, and indeed, most of Britain. He lost all but I think one friend in the war, and you can see how the relationship between Frodo and Sam is not 'gay' as many have suggested in movie reviews and such, but merely the type of love that exists between men fighting on the same side, ie. his experiences in the war. Again, this is my own interpretation.

As far as Catholic influences go, I think it wasn't wholly his Catholic livelihood that affected the writing, as much of what he writes is based off of pagan tales and such. His influence on Western Civilization can be attributed not only to these influences which still exist today (Easter Bunny, Santa Claus) but also the fact that he was a westerner.

Re:Christians Nerds (2)

jheinen (82399) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794717)

"Actually, if you read Tolkien's forward to the second edition of his work, he specifically states that he did not intend allegory in the writing."

To take this even further, on more than one occasion Tolkien has spelled out a rather intense hatred of allegory. To quote him in one interview: "I dislike allegory whenever I smell it."

Re:Christians Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794626)

Lord of the rings is a allegorically based on biblical stories.
Given the lack of evidence for this in LoTR or The Silmarillion, and Tolkien's explicit denial that any of his works were allegories (which appears at the beginning of most editions of LoTR), it's ironic that Tolkien readers continue to suggest that LoTR is an allegory.

For further discussion try http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/allegory.htm

Re:Christians Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794636)

No just the jesus freaks are trying to get their lame messages associated with tolkiens great works. Kinda like how the gay rights homos try to have everyone thinking lincoln was a poofter so they can claim a gay president. Everyone has some hidden agenda.

Re:Christians Nerds (1)

Paradoxish (545066) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794642)

In theory that sounds nice, but I think the majority of people who allow their Christian beliefs to influence their opinion of the movie at all (ie, a very small minority of people) will more than likely simply disprove of the fantasy setting in the same way they would of a Dungeons & Dragons movie. I, for one, can say I've never heard anyone express any kind of serious interest in the religious beliefs of Tolkien outside some sort of academic debate on the subject.

Re:Christians Nerds (5, Insightful)

ryants (310088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794655)

Lord of the rings is a allegorically based on biblical stories.
As pointed out by others, this was explicitly denied by Tolkein himself.

One has to remember that the Biblical stories are not all that original. Death and resurrection, battles between Good and Evil, powerful staffs, the humble and unwilling hero, etc appear in all kinds of myths, not just in the Bible, and many pre-date the Bible.

This interview smacks more of a co-opting of the work to further an agenda than anything else.

Re:Christians Nerds (2, Insightful)

Brian_Ellenberger (308720) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794738)

From Letter #142:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

I agree that LotR is not an allegory of anything, Tolkien did say that his Christian beliefs did influence LotR alot. You can especially see this if you read the Silm. Gandalf isn't just some guy doing magic, he is an angel clothed in flesh. Morgoth and Sauron are fallen angels.

And yes, GvsE and stuff is quite common. However, you can see many Christian influences. The central theme of the corruption and temptation of the ring is very Christian and what sets LotR apart. In just-another-myth Frodo would be the unlikely hero who learns how to wield the ring and become powerful.

There are many other little details, such as Gollum. Gandalf's speech about pity and not killing Gollum is VERY Christian (and actually very Catholic).

I'm not descending into a "whose religion is better" pissing contest. I'm just saying to deny that Tolkien's faith didn't have a strong influence is wrong.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:Christians Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794677)

It's reasonable to assume that those (Christians, Muslims , Jews, et cetera)who believe in fairy tales will be influenced by fairy tales.

Re:Christians Nerds (2)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794705)

I know this is a troll.

But I doubt that these religions who denounce witchcraft or other forms of earth worship will be swayed by LoTR.

I mean... didn't you see the Harry Potter book burning? That act was symbolic to the fact that the big three don't accept witchcraft in anyway.

They had every right, and I actually applaud them for standing up to the pop culture to show their beliefs. That's what makes this country great - not only can we do these things - sometimes people get the balls to do it.

Re:Christians Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794734)

Oh, you were finished. Well allow me to retort.

Did you actually read the whole interview [tolkienonline.com] ?

"Tolkien disliked allegory because he saw it as a rather crude literary form. In an allegory, the writer begins with the point he wishes to make and then makes up a story to make his point. The story is really little more than a means of illustrating the moral.

Tolkien believed that a myth should not be allegorical but that it should be "applicable." In other words, the truth that emerges in the story can be applied to the truth that emerges in life.

There is, therefore, a good deal of truth in "The Lord of the Rings" even though its author never set out intentionally to introduce it allegorically. This is, perhaps, a subtle distinction but one which Tolkien believed was important."

I think maybe you are making it a little more applicable to the bible than the author intended.

Slow News Day... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794581)

We need to get some good ascii art goin on, I'm thinkin...

Or perhaps a Beowulf cluster of AFI Awards?

The future looks iffy (1)

terranwannabe (533181) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794582)

We can only hope (and I'm sure the studio does, too) that this movie doesn't become another Waterworld or Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, how will the studios ever justify enough funds to create a truly realistic and engaging experience with ground-breaking special effects? We can think of LOTR:FOTR as a litmus test for the future of huge-budget movies. A year from now, the movie industry may have changed entirely based on the box-office performance of this movie.

I don't care how many time I have to say it!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

SonnicJohnny (321966) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794583)

Hey Lucas!!!

This Is How Its Supposed To Be Done!!!

fscking N'Sync....

Re:I don't care how many time I have to say it!!!! (-1)

core10k (196263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794599)

I don't get the N'Sync --> George Lucas connection. Anyone care to explain?

Re:I don't care how many time I have to say it!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794622)

nsync are gonna be in the new star wars flick...

Re:I don't care how many time I have to say it!!!! (-1)

core10k (196263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794648)

You're kidding, right?

Re:I don't care how many time I have to say it!!!! (0, Offtopic)

Hatechall (541378) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794671)

Decide for yourself [slashdot.org]
The MTV article says that NSYNC asked for the part; an article in a UK TABLOID says Lucas asked them.

Cleans house at AFI, AS it should ... (5, Interesting)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794586)

I gather that most of you have seen the movie by now so I will warn now ... ther might be one or two spoilers in this comment.

I think they should make a new award "Reminds me of a when I was a kid". Because the entire movie followed the book quite well IMHO. I haven't read the books for some time, but not in my wildest imagination could I have dreamed of the landscapes and characters in the film. The hobbits never wearing shoes, the magic and understanding of wizzards and elves. The hatred of elves and dwarfs and how humans are low on the totem poll of evolution.

The visual effects drew you in and you never once thought that it was fake, but the time and dedication it would have taken to make the builsings and structures that were in the film. Also the true understanding of the power of the ring and the power of commitment.

I did, however, confuse the story of the hobbit in the begining, but that was portrayed to me in a flashback at the begining where the stories start and begin. They were all meant to go together and they do so wonderfully. I don't think Tolkein could have understood what an impact his stories would have actually had on the world when he wrote them.

For a bit of humor... someone who accompanied me who had not read the books didn't irst understand that the movie WAS 3 hours long and was getting a little bored by not really understanding what was happening in the movie and not getting into it. But I think we can all relate to the next quote directly when the credits started "WHAT??!!! that was it??? no WAY ... they can't just end it like that!!!" ...

Well I will say that my X-Mas present of the LoTR book set from think geek has been confisgated for a while now :-) ... ohh well at least she'll know that the movie ended there for a reason ... hehehe the book ended :-)

Low on the totem pole? (1)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794633)

According to the Silmarillion, Men were the second Children of Illuvatar (the creator) and were to be given a special place in His new chorus at the end of the world, an honor that even the Eldar did not receive.

Sorry to be a Tolkien nerd, but I couldn't let that pass... =)

Re:Low on the totem pole? (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794640)

yeah .. but leave it to humans to let a good thing go bad :-)

Sorry, this movie stunk. Thumbs down. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794587)

Fine.. moderate me down, asshole. Just beacuse I don't agree with the rest of you.

Re:Sorry, this movie stunk. Thumbs down. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794624)

Burn 'im!! Burn the troll!!

LOTR Suck. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794596)

I dont know why you like this moovie, and i dont understand why it's ranked #1 of all time. I have seen better movies.

Re:LOTR Suck. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794676)

Well hot-damn, man! I'm going to have to call up AFI and tell them to cancel my vote!

FOTR was good, but... (2, Offtopic)

dangermouse (2242) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794604)

"A Beautiful Mind" was easily the best movie of the year. It's very rare that a movie gets me really involved on an emotional level, but that one definitely did. I left the theater sort of stunned.

None of the other movies I saw this year had anywhere near that kind of impact, FOTR included.

Re:FOTR was good, but... (1)

The Dark P (545554) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794741)

A beautiful mind was based on a true story and therefore is a different kind of movie however its subject is not wholely accurately represented, with large personality defects being airbrushed out

LOTR (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794608)

As good as The movie was(and I think it is one of the best movies I have seen), I don't think that article was worth submission due to the fact that Lotr wasn't even the main subject of the article.

I mean the article summary mentioned "the Rings" , and the Heading of the article mentioned "The Rings", however the article was describing the awards and who won them.

Please don't get me wrong. The movie rocked, but I feel that slashdot is feeding the LOTR Comercialism. (sp?)

Not my Favorite (3, Troll)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794609)

The Lord of the Rings Movie didn't really make me feel much. A lot of the effects were well done, and they obviously tried hard, but the characters didn't manage to move me. There was nothing there that made my think -- in contrast to the book -- and no really grand themes that stood out in the plot -- again in contrast to the book. I think the weak points would have been much more evident if the movie hadn't had such a wonderful established fantasy world to draw from. I guess the worst thing I can say about the movie is that I wasn't really captivated by it at any point during the showing.

Re:Not my Favorite (1)

dbrian1 (522049) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794704)

I guess the worst thing I can say about the movie is that I wasn't really captivated by it at any point during the showing.


Maybe that's because you already knew what was going to happen. I thought it did an excelent job of capturing the audience. The first time I saw it I was with a group of friends who had not read the books and were compleatly wraped up in the story. The suspence was there it just doesn't have the same impact when you're waiting for things to happen.

My only complaint was that 3 hours instead of 5.

Recency effect? (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794620)


Whenever I see awards or polls for "best of the year" or "decade" or "century" or "all time", I figure you should normalize the results by multiplying each entry's rank in the list by the log of the time since it came out. The recency hype dominates awards and polls, as can be seen by look at e.g. the all-time top films [imdb.com] at IMDB. I mean c'mon, Memento as the tenth best film ever? American Beauty as the 18th???

When you see 50-60 year old films still rated in the top 50 you have to concede that they've got some genuine enduring quality, but some of the more recent ones probably won't even be remembered a decade from now.

So maybe LotR is great (dunno; the hype turned me off from going to see it yet), but right now the only "news" would be if it didn't win an award.

Re:Recency effect? (1)

joshjs (533522) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794702)

People may still think "The Godfather" is great (and I quite agree), but it is not automatically better than, say, "Memento" simply because it was released years before.

To say that would be ignorant.

I'll base my opinions on what I view as the merits of these works of art, and will look to the IMDB's all-time list as a gauge of how the general public, no, the IMDB voters, feel.

It really means very little.

I trust the parent poster feels more or less the same way, and I'm not trying to flame, just to reflect a bit.

Re:Recency effect? (5, Informative)

jheinen (82399) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794743)

FWIW, in the Waterstone poll of 25,000 readers, the LotR was voted best book of the 20th century. Not too shabby for a work that's over 50 years old.

Just what we needed (1)

DeadBugs (546475) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794627)

Another awards show. I guess we can look forward to posts about how LOTR did at the Golden Globes, Academy Awards, Peoples Choice, MTV Movies, Blockbuster Movie Awards, etc. etc.

You would think all of these people in the entertainment industry would have broken arms from patting themselves on the back so much.

When are the first anal Slashdot Awards?

Re:Just what we needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794673)

When are the first anal Slashdot Awards?

Bend over and we can get them started right now.

Re:Just what we needed (1)

quarter (14910) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794728)

I am waiting for them to come out with an awards show for awards shows.

i.e. best award show host: david letterman

am i alone here? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794631)

was i the only one who kept expecting sean astin (he played sam) to run on screen in a notre dame football uniform and save the day?

Re:am i alone here? (3, Redundant)

phebz23 (156640) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794718)

No, but I was just waiting for Elrond to say "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson."

it makes sense .... (1)

macsox (236590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794638)

the appeal of the movie was not to nerds, ala star wars, but to people who had read the book, which applies to a vast number of americans.

that said, i found the movie disappointing, not having read the book(s). the lack of resolution, while perhaps expected by those who had read it, left me a bit bewildered. if movies are going to be made in such a way, the next movie should come out sooner than a year later. it seems to be deliberately done to try for an unprecendented triple best picture oscar sweep.

Re:it makes sense .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794696)

well, dumbass, They had to balance storytelling with character development. At 3 hours, I couldn't stand much more character development.Of course, if htey had done more character development and dropped more parts of the book you'd gripe about them dropping parts of the book.

Re:it makes sense .... (2)

alen (225700) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794727)

Ok stupid, what exactly didn't you understand? What wasn't resolved? You do realize that the story is going to be continued in 2 more movies. Maybe you just have to wait. If you don't like it blame it on Tolkien for writing a trilogy.

Is LOTR... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794639)

a little bit cryptohomosexual ?
Let's look at the facts:
  • There are only a few women in the whole movie and those who are play just minor roles. This is rather strange because 50 percent of middle earth's population should be female.
  • When the movie was created the character "Sam" should be initially women. But the fan crowd protested, so that this minor change of Tolkins original story wasn't made.
  • The initial actors for the female roles were attractive very feminine looking women. But the fan crowd protested again and the actresses are no rather ugly and with a male appearance.
  • There are many strange names/ vocables which could be interpreted as references to homosexual terms and practices like "dark king", "ring", "elv" and "modor" (backwards: rodom).
Well the LOTR drone will mod this post down to -5, but this won't change the truth anyway.

LOTR, starting a trend that I hope continues... (2, Insightful)

ThomasMis (316423) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794645)

In anticipation for the film's opening, I read Tolkien for the very first time (as a young'un I was a D&D geek, so you have thought I would have taken the time years ago to discover Tolkien's middle earth). After experiencing the Hobbit and Fellowship, I had very low expectations for the movie adaptation. And for good reason. Hollywood script writers are natorieous for completely throwing out the source material when writing a movie version. And subsequesntly the movie going audience is left with a story and characters that are barely anything like the book version (which of course, the movies always suck) As a comic fan, you see this over and over again, when comic hero's make thier way to the big screen (Batman and Robin, Spawn anyone). It's like Holywood doesn't fully trust the original authers. But lately things have been getting better... X-men wasn't turned into a corny joke, LOTR kept to Tolkien storyline, Frank Miller is writing a script for a real batman film....

So to sum up, I hope this starts a trend in Hollywood amoung script writers. That they should stick to the orignial works more closely (although the message isn't going to get out in time for the HellBlazer movie... which they already cast Nick Cage for!!! Good god is that going to suck.)

LotR Cleans Up at AFI (1)

Hatechall (541378) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794680)

They are THAT desperate for money?

Non-nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794681)

Non-nerds? They are film nerds ! :)

Don't forget its source. (4, Interesting)

phobonetik (522196) | more than 12 years ago | (#2794726)

Re maxsox and others (who say things like the annual releases are simply to whoop up each sucessive years worth of awards);

You -do- realise that the film was made almost wholly in a city so small it'd hardly feature on any US map ... New Zealand has a population of 3 million, and the city where it was almost completely made - Wellington (my home) - only has a tenth of that.

LOTR is leaps and bounds larger than anything created previously in NZ and the infrastructure struggled to do even one film a year. I expect since the shooting is essentially finished, the next two films will have even better editing and computer-generated improvements.

It is rare for such a small country to produce globally acclaimed films; generally this is done by producing offbeat cult films, although those are found more in art-house cinemas. I'm not trying to be overly patriotic or anything, I'm simply believing a large percentage of viewers probably think its yet another piece of US produce.

I personally really enjoyed the film; I had read the first book when I was younger and I just don't think that a graphic portrayal could have been done any better. As for the characters; sure its not the character study of the century, but it sure is alot better than pretty much any standard hollywood film ... which is the genre of the movies; something which people who criticise this aspect of the film, forget.

LOTR a racist movie! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794730)

Am I the only one that found it intereesting that (IIRC) there weren't *ANY* non-Christian or non-white (not even a token black guy!) in LOTR?

Thus, it doesn't surprise me that Christian groups endorse the film. It hates blacks and - subliminally - causes people to think "white power!"

Wonder what the KKK thinks of LOTR? And then what the NAACP thinks of it as well? And every other minority-interest group...

Oh yeah, and having not read the books, I really don't see what the big deal about LOTR is. It follows no logical plot structure, invokes no emotion, the characters remain underdeveloped (and Frodo acts like a whiny baby the entire way through, basically sitting down and crying every time a big scary monster comes his way) and the old wizard (name forgotten) barely ever uses his magic (which seems pretty strange for a wizard, doesn't it?)...

Frankly, I thought the LOTR movie sucked, regardless of its possibly-racist bent. I'd give it the "Most Hype" award (well, Shrek would be a competitor), but nothing else.

If little kiddies could vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2794750)

Harry Potter would have wasted them all.

Given box-office returns H.P. should get all the Oscars. The problem is it is aimed at the kiddies.

LoTR on the other hand is aimed slightly higher ...

There have been lots of dross this year, and some fairly good films (or at least sequels).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?