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!

Lord of the Rings: Two Towers Reviews Rolling In

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the are-we-there-yet-mommy dept.

Movies 440

flogger writes "After the first showing of The Two Towers, the reviews are now coming in. They are positive and SPOILER FILLED. Reviews can be found here, here and a short one here." Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.

cancel ×


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

Spoiler filled? (5, Funny)

Grylle (558338) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800358)

Like, there is something not in the books?

Re:Spoiler filled? (2, Funny)

Ledora (611009) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800369)

Pictures and sound

Re:Spoiler filled? (5, Funny)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800392)

Apologies to whoever on slashdot who once wrote something very similar to this.

I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters realtime and it looks so realistic. All you have to do is input a text (ASCII not an requirement) and it output gorgeous scenes instantanious.

Re:Spoiler filled? (2, Funny)

AyeRoxor! (471669) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800540)

"I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters in realtime and the output looks incredibly realistic. All you have to do is input some text (ASCII not an requirement), and it outputs gorgeous scenes instantaniously."

WOW! I know some people who could use one of these...

Re:Spoiler filled? (4, Informative)

Soulslayer (21435) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800386)

Actually, yes.

It is both spoiler filled for both those that have and have not read the books.

All info on the new film will be spoilerish for people that have not read the books (a surprisingly large group).

Information pertaining to specific changes and added scenes as well as descriptions of the flow of the narrative would be spoilers even for the crowd that has read the books.

Re:Spoiler filled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800447)

All info on the new film will be spoilerish for people that have not read the books (a surprisingly large group).

*gasp* People haven't read the Lord of the Rings and they're reading Slashdot? Isn't that a pre-requisite along with bad speling? Heaven forbid the elitist slashbots don't have something to complain about. Most can't claim to have actually had intercourse with a member of the opposite sex but they'll jump up to say they've read LOTR and watch anime. Not a troll, just the TRUTH.

Re:Spoiler filled? (1)

Xsession (630990) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800594)

people who haven't read the book'll need things explained to them anyways, long as they ain't simplefied the film too much. Origianl Trilogy = 100 years odd Film Trilogy = 9 hours odd hmmmm...

Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b (-1, Troll)

gazbo (517111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800388)


Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.

On clichés:

I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.

The FAQ:

Moderation :
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.

  • Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
  • Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
  • Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
  • What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
    1. If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
    2. ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
  • What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
  • Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
Commenting :
This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
  • Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
  • Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
  • What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
  • What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
  • Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
  • Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
    • Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
    • Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
    • O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
    • Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
    • GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
    That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.

I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:

Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.

Re:Spoiler filled? (3, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800428)

The spoilers:

The butler did it.

It turns out that he was dead all along.

She's a guy.

Re:Spoiler filled? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800525)

CmdrTaco is a guy?

Re:Spoiler filled? (1)

GCU Friendly Fire (563491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800440)

Like, there is something not in the books?

Maybe the battle of Helm's Deep turns out differently, Denethor throws in his lot with the Uruk Hai? This obsession with 'spoilers' can be taken too far. If people really don't want to know what happens in the movie they shouldn't watch it or read about it.

Re:Spoiler filled? (1)

Omicron (79581) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800557)

Aw man...I was going to say the same thing. It's so funny hearning people talk about spoilers.

Ooooh! Ooooh! Guess what! I've got a complete preview of the THIRD movie sitting next to my desk right now! Aren't I so cool?

Spoilers....ever even heard of reading?

Re:Spoiler filled? (1)

bryane (614590) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800559)

I think "spoiler" here refers to telling us something that's in the book but not in the movie? For example, ... well, never mind.


Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800567)

ON DECEMBER 7, I will issue a Declaration to UNMOVIC indicating a tabulation of ALL of my known WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. I have been accused by the world community of having WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION and I do not actually have WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. ON December 7, a full day before the UNMOVIC deadline, I will issue a proclamation indicating a full indication of all WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that I actually have in my origination, which will be a blank sheet of paper, as I actually have NO WEAPONS.

THANK YOU. I am cooperating with the world community fully and in its fullest and would appreciate full reciprocation and coordination.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800359)

yeah baby!

Offensive title (4, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800363)

I really wish the media would stop trying to cash in on the events of 9/11. I think this title will upset many people.

What was wrong with The Lord of the Rings II?

Re:Offensive title (1)

narkotix (576944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800376)

it didnt help bush's war on terror ;P

Re:Offensive title (0, Funny)

mgv (198488) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800395)

I really wish the media would stop trying to cash in on the events of 9/11. I think this title will upset many people.

Actually, it was the name of the second book a long time before 9/11. In fact, it really has nothing to do with the WTC, except by your own interpretation.


Re:Offensive title (3, Funny)

Rubbersoul (199583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800401)

Man the words Hook, Line, and Sinker come to mind from some reason

Re:Offensive title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800402)

I think the attempted humour was lost on you

Re:Offensive title (4, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800414)

Don't be daft. The novelisation's title can't have been decided on before the film was made.

Re:Offensive title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800477)

ha ha, very amusing.

Re:Offensive title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800581)

You really must be joking. Or otherwise one dumb piece of american. Go to your bookstore, ask for the J.R.R. Tolkien section. Look at the book called the Two Towers, and look at the date....

Re:Offensive title (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800590)

I looked for the J.R.R Tolkien section, but couldn't find it. Is it anywhere near the fantasy section?

Re:Offensive title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800593)

Mine says "Published: 2002". I don't know why they brought it out so many weeks before the film, though - it spoils it for us all!


Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800415)

JRR Tolkien wrote that book with that name before you americans started drawing attention of terrorists by doing the shit you do!!!

If you're still sorry for those lives in the WTC then go and open a bank account :) muahahahaha...


OrangeSpyderMan (589635) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800468)

IIRC "that book" wasn't 'a book' but 'two books', and wasn't called "The Two Towers" at all, until the publisher made JRRT make them into one. He searched for a title and came up with Two Towers, though apparently never gave real explanation as to which were the two towers in question. It is speculation (albeit educated specualtion) that came up with potential explanations of the towers. Google should come up with some stuff about this for those with a bit of time to wade through all the film related links!


Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800524)

The name comes from the 2 towers that are central to the second (really 3rd and 4th) book. The first half (book 3) revolves around Saruman and the tower of Isengard.

The second half (the 4th book) revolves around the trek of Sam and Frodo to destroy the one ring, whose power was used to build the foundations of the mighty tower of Barad-Dur.

With these 2 structures featured heavily, there seems little other reason how Tolkien came to the title.


OrangeSpyderMan (589635) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800543)

"The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 & 4; and can be left ambiguous- it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dur, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol (1)." [Letter #140]

Taken from JRRT's letters. You will easily find many more references on google.

"I am not at all happy about the title `the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading." [Letter #143]

You see?

Re:Offensive title (5, Funny)

onnellinen (303528) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800416)

Yeah. Let's name it "Attack of the Orcs".

Re:Offensive title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800461)


91degrees, I hate you with every fiber of my being.

Re:Offensive title (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800475)

Aww, you'd like me if you got to know me.

Re:Offensive title (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800516)

No, it's being renamed The Twin Towers. Or better yet, The World Trade Center, New York City. Or how about, Attack of the Terrorist Drones. Maybe The Phantom Arab Menace? A New Hope for the Al-Quaeda Network? The 'Evil Empire' Strikes Back? Return of the Mujadeen?

2001: An Urban Crisis Odyssey? Osama of Arabia? The Wizard of Afghanistan? The Day the Earth Watched TV? Birth of a Palestinian Nation? Casabinladen?

OI! (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800552)

Credit where credit's due

This was the work of Kevin Klerck and has been reported on internationally. To repeat it is fine, but at least send out propz to Klerck.

STUPID CLAIMS (1, Insightful)

unikron (524813) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800611)

I am fed up with this "Twin Towers" nonsense.

It's all a puritanistic approach, instead of seeing the true problem. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" flick the other day, and saw the true face of America, and not the one that they made the World Trade Center a god. It is horrible to see people die -- that's no fact it's reality.

But the claims of "...oooh don't say twin towers we recall the tragedy" is so stupid that it reaches on the same level as the cause of selling guns in America that lead to the youth shoots. You can see how fanatic you have been with no fault of your own. Instead of weeping over titles that are meaningless as if Tolkien knew the future and said "Heh I am going to entitle the next book 'Two Towers' so that in a sadistic way I will take revenge for the Americans after Grave", you should get yourselves into the real threat, your children's influence, the war that is destined to become another vietnam because of inability of the government administration and the genral status of the economy.

Sometimes I like that I am in a country that has real problems and not in a country that likes to create problems just to know that it is there.

Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (5, Informative)

heldlikesound (132717) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800364)

Just a heads up to all the peps out there it holdin' down. If you buy the special edition super ultra limited DVD box (with the bookend thingies), enclosed is a free pass to see TTT in the theaters, or theatres depending on your pondsidage.

Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (1)

kvn299 (472563) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800430)

I was impressed with the pass/ticket enclosed in the DVD set. It's not just some "Get in Free" coupon, but a document sort of like a check. I'm assuming that those "NO PASSES" rules that many theaters have will not apply to this. Guess I'll find out today when I go and prepurchase the ticket.

Anyone else use theirs yet?

Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (5, Informative)

Phosphor3k (542747) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800483)

Got news for you buddy; the free ticket also comes in the special extended edition WITHOUT the bookends. That is to say, the 25$, 4 disc version also includes it.

What what? (1)

XyouthX (194451) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800575)

I did not get in my 4 disc r1 extended edition box.
Neither did my friends who got the full bookend thingy.

I've never heard of this before.

Re:What what? (1)

WizardofWestmarch (614827) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800603)

That is strange I sure got mine... did you check in the leftmost pocket when you fully unfolded the Extended version, where the left was disc one and the rightmost was appendicies disc 2?


News for nerds (448130) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800365)

Very good movie. Frodo won alive.

No. THIS is the *biggest* spoiler of all... (0, Troll)

adilsonoliveira (597940) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800506)

Gandalf lives. :)

Spoilers?!? (5, Funny)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800366)

What have the world come to when the submitters warn the /. crowd about spoilers in a LOTR movie. Doesn't the entire /. crowd know it by heart?? It ... makes me sad.

Re:Spoilers?!? (1)

markz (448024) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800437)

Arwen wasn't in the book..... How's that?

Re:Spoilers?!? (3, Insightful)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800486)

That's not a spoiler. A spoiler reveals details that are crucial for the events of the movie so that you'll know how it ends. Arwen was only put in the film purely because she's a female and because she increases the filmatic appeal. It's not like she's going to make Sauron win.

SPOILERS, OH NOES!!! (5, Funny)

webslacker (15723) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800367)

Spoilers can be found distributed in Barnes & Noble bookstores for $6.99



Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800420)

Hi everybody! I just got back from reading all the +5 comments attached to the last LOTR story, and this is the fruit of my labor.

I'm a Karma Chameleon!

the battle (4, Interesting)

katalyst (618126) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800379)

More interesting than the reviews, was the write up on the humongous battle scene that takes place in the movie and how the MASSIVE system was used. I especially liked the note on the AI soldiers who ran away instead of fighting , which surprised the animators.
Anyways, the LOTR movies are a must watch : can't be missed. Though not in the same league as the Star Wars movie, they are a similar phenomenon. Similarly the Matrix movies will not be missed by most geeks. Other movies to watch out for - Star Trek Nemesis ; Equilibrium ; Terminator 3 :D

Re:the battle (1)

thopo (315128) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800394)

where did you read about the AI soldiers running away? i couldn't find it.

Re:the battle (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800479)

Right here. It's well done.

Re:the battle (3, Interesting)

angelo (21182) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800577)

Star Wars isn't on par with Star Wars these days.
LotR > Star Wars.

tsarkon reports teh future of FUCKDOT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800382)

The Future of SLASHDOT.

2002. Slashdot publishes 1,000,000th rumor passed off as actual story. The story generates 480 comments, 263 of which agree with the article, and 107 of which point out it's a rumor and are modded down as redundant. The remaining comments are all "first posts." or posts that contain any rational insight are modded "troll."

2002. CmdrTaco married to a human female, reports are that she does not have 46 chromosomes, however. Fent does display tendency to retardation.

2002. Slashdot parent corporation VA Research^W Linux^W Software stock worth 35 cents. Rumors that AOL, Microsoft, or even Jimmy the hobo who lives under the Longfellow Bridge may buy it.

2003. VA Software bought by Microsoft for a cup of coffee and a donut. All Microsoft-critical articles mysteriously disappear from Slashdot. Bill Gates as Borg logo replaced with Bill Gates as God. (Taco suggested that in order to be "God," or his vision of God, Gates would have to be seen in a NAMBLA T-shirt. Luckily good taste prevails in favor of the old man image in glowing aura.)

2004. CmdrTaco loses virginity, well, not sex with men virginity, that's long since gone, and not sex with anime blow up dolls, this time, real sex.

2004. The WIPO Troll returns again, showering Slashdot in 45,000 copies of the same post: "Lick my crotch hairs." Slashdot, despite running on 18 redundant IIS/8.0Beta6 servers, buckles under the load. The term "Slashdotted" is replaced with "WIPO-Trolled."

2004. Slashdot officially shut down. Millions of screaming, unwashed geeks invade Redmond campus and lynch Bill Gates.

2005. Linus Torvalds and Anal Cox found dead along with six penguins, a tub of crisco and several used condoms. FreeBSD users are glad the insanity is dying.

2005. CmdrTaco rumored to have had sex again, even with constant Viagra therapy, it took this long. He complains, I can be ready to go again in five minutes if I was looking at a nude man, to the dyslexic Fent.

2006. CowboiKneel found dead in hotel room with 56 pizza boxes covering his bloated corpse. Three suffocated gay prostitutes are extracted from beneath his body as police remove it with a backhoe.

2007. CmdrTaco actually has sex again, this time plugging Fent in the ass for a more manlike feel.

2007. BSD is still officially "dying." No word on when its demise will take place. FreeBSD 9 is delivered in perfect working order in a coherent superior, commercially viable and useable fashion with real documentation, the same practice followed since inception. Linux lunatics, after the death of Cox, are still trying to perfect the Trident driver while ignoring the existence of the GeForce 9. Netcraft dies along with all the surveys they held on Microsoft and Linux servers are lost as well.

2007. CmdrTaco starts new weblog to replace Slashdot, creatively named Dotslash. Remainder of Linux users flock to the site and immediate WIPO-Troll it out of existence.

2007. Box running FreeBSD for 6 years sets world record for Unix uptime on consumer hardware.

2008. CmdrTaco has sex with his wife for the first time without thinking of men. He has dawned on the extra sexual pick me up for his twisted mind, small children.

A long long fucking time from now. Malda, fat, poverty-stricken, unrespected and unremembered and living in an appliance box in Michigan with a pickle jar for a toilet comes to a series of epiphanies. The 8.3 file system that made him truncate his nick to an 8 letter series of characters has long been forgotten, and he finally realizes he looks like a fag using it. He also realizes that men's asses look like tacos, especially with the beef pouring out and that his name sounds more like Commander of Ass, since one can command asses because the belong potentially to sentient or living things, it is difficult to command inanimate objects such as food , so one can only conclude he was commanding ass.

He also realized his site was a lame, fad, he sold out, he needed to refactor his shit code and never did it. He also realized that communites such as Fark don't have this complete asshole running it with gay lameness and compression filters and lame IP blocking bullshit and cheating, pissing and whining and barely anyone trolls it.

We hate you, Fucking Robbie;

he remembers as reams of pages of trolls cry for his expulsion. He also realizes he cant have a computer anymore because he hates the RIAA and MPAA but ran out and gave George Lucas and other shit media companies tons of money to ruin the laws in favor of the omnicorps. He also realizes his socialist and fascist fucking moderation system squelched all the real comments out of view. He also realizes that a full time crew "working" at Slashdot did a shittier job than anyone thought possible.

He also realized he didn't do SHIT for subscribers and punished them as he would anyone else with page limits, IP blocks, compression and lameness filters. He also realizes Signal 11 is a better man than him and that he is a fucking loser for throwing out S11. He realizes despite being an Open Source advocated, his horrible, unusable unreadable pile of shit called Slashcode was one of the worst projects ever. He realized that retarded journalists are better at reporting the news than Slashdot, that Slashdot news was often inaccurate and unverified.

He also realizes that Aprils fools jokes were really stupid and everyone hated them. He realizes bitchslapping, banner ads, ^H and ^W to show deletion and moderation $rtbl are fucking gay and lame. He realizes this all in a flash as the totalitarian regime he was a small part of constructing (through teaching mobocracy, populism as a rule, hordes of untrained and meritless swarms of people allowed to crucify those who would oppose the thinking of the state) determines his body is a waste of government resources and that he needs to be expelled to a concentration area of the worthless. I figures he would have been the first resident in the camp of the beings deemed worthless to society, along with Jon Katz, but the government, even as a fascist totalitarian regime takes a while to getting around to things.

Fuck mother fuck fuck pigs fuck Lord of MY ANAL RINGS Piss shit fuck.


Lord of my penis.

Fuck fart piss shit.

Oooh no! (-1, Troll)

John_Renne (176151) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800387)

The movie isn't even in the theater yet and the reviews only made me want to see it more. Yes I read the reviews, yes I read the books now pleeeaaase let me see the movie

Why couldn't it be released in the whole world simultaniously? I don't live in the US you insensitive clods!

Re:Oooh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800398)

It IS released simultaniously, world-wide.
The press just get to see it before anyone else so they can pimp the film in the media for two weeks before us plebs get to watch it.

LOTR (2, Funny)

Konster (252488) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800403)

...I've never read the books.

Where can I get the Cliff's Notes?

Re:LOTR (1)

IwannaCoke (140329) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800497)

I quick search on will show you that there are no cliff's notes for TTT. They do however, have notes for The Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit.

Re:LOTR (2)

Konster (252488) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800570)

Man, what the FUCK is wrong with you people. It was a JOKE. A bad one, but it was a joke.

Re:LOTR (1)

ferkelparade (415620) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800573)

Not exactly Cliff's Notes, but here [] 's the book-a-minute synopsis...

hey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800409)

CmdrTaco!!! FUCK YOU!!!

Not in the book... (5, Funny)

Hoarse Whisperer (604444) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800421)

Turns out Frodo is Sauron's son.

Re:Not in the book... (4, Funny)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800448)

moderation totals:Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=2

Funny information isnt it... moderators repeat after me: I wont have crack early in morning,
I wont have crack early in morning,
I wont have crack early in morning,
I wont have crack early in morning,

Re:Not in the book... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800505)

And even worse, Sam is his sister!

Am I the only one ... (5, Interesting)

guybarr (447727) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800431)

... who reads some reviews only after seeing the movies ?

seriously, some movies I'll see no matter what the reviewer says,
LOTR is one (three) of those.

I'll read the reviews solely for the purpose of getting other people's take on the movies. Like the "discussion" part of an article comes after
the "results" section.

I know it sounds sick but hey ...

Re:Am I the only one ... (3, Insightful)

szo (7842) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800473)

... who reads some reviews only after seeing the movies ?

Why do you do that?
So you know whether or not you liked the film?


Re:Am I the only one ... (2, Insightful)

cr_nucleus (518205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800547)

well, i also read review after i see a movie that i liked. i think it's interesting to read other opinions, and there's the possibility that they will discuss a point that u missed (like an obscure reference). i guess i could just read to some forum but professional reviewers are generaly more agreable to read.

Ents walk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800433)

Ents walk? This spoils the movie for me!

Re:Ents walk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800466)

What's an Ent?

Spoilers right in the story (5, Funny)

daffmeister (602502) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800434)

I am ready to see Ents walk.

Well that's ruined that bit for me.

Re:Spoilers right in the story (1)

ivrcti (535150) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800528)

Actually, that (seeing Ents walk) is the part I was waiting to see as well. Hope they do a good job of it!

Re:Spoilers right in the story (2, Funny)

warrior_on_the_edge_ (605123) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800551)

Lucky he didn't mention the ent tripping over a tree root.

WTC != TTT (-1, Troll)

noisyb (630181) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800443)

Now and again for all those uneducated americans that believe "Tolkien named the 2nd book "The Two Towers" because of the WTC" (see 1st thread) ...uhm... uhm.. ahh.. i don't know where to start.. uhm.. FUCK YOU.. if you're still sorry for that bullshit WTC go and open a bank account somewhere and support bankiers..

Re:WTC != TTT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800510)

My god you're a tard.

I can wait... (3, Insightful)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800445)

After seeing the first movie, which wasn't bad, I can wait.
In fact, it is entirely possible that I will wait until the "Final" movie is released and get the "Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel) Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut" and waste a whole week watching it.
Or I might just keep my money in my pocket and read a good book.

Re:I can wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800522)

Thank you for your input. We appreciate it. Really, we do, please keep posting.

Re:I can wait... (1) (102718) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800534)

Why would you want the directors cut ? Directors cut is what runs in the theater.

The real version is the the one that has not been cut that much, it is the extended edition. I have it on DVD.

Re:I can wait... (1)

Mika_Lindman (571372) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800560)

"Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel)Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut"

Its going to cost 15000$, and include 130 dvds. 23 different cuts of the movies, and 3000 hours of behind the scenes footage.

Re:I can wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800580)

Yes the first Movie wasn't bad. Much better than the terrible book. Tolkein is the most overrated author.

Unbiased reviews (5, Interesting)

drsquare (530038) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800453)

Three reviews given, not one of them seemed to be from an unbiased perspective. When I read the first two, I began to think the writers were masturbating as they typed. And the third one, being from '', didn't seem a reliable source of an impartial view either.

Isn't it possible to find a review from someone who isn't an obsessive zealot? I'm interested in finding out how good the film is, and I'm not going to get that from someone who has decided he's going to enjoy the film before he's even seen it.

Secondly, what is the point in having spoilers in a review? The whole point in a review is that you can find out how good the film is, so you can decide whether to see it or not. By giving away what happens in the film, you sort of take away the fun in watching it in the first place. Most reviewers seem to get by reviewing films without giving away every single thing that happens, why can't these reviewers?

Looks like I'll just have to see what the Filthy Critic says, although if he does review it it probably won't be up till February, and then he'll spend 90% of the review talking about his personal problems.

about spoilers (5, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800455)

the spoiler obsession, born of the Internet's fan-geek culture, is the enemy of real criticism, real discussion and maybe even real thought.

Andrew O'Hehir [] , at

Re:about spoilers (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800485)

Hmm... how can the plot of the second film be spoiled by reading the reviews... the books only be around for the last 50 odd years so other than spoiling the visual effect the plot can't be.

Re:about spoilers (1)

ideonode (163753) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800496)

Umm, Andrew O'Hehir is talking out of his arse. Bad reviewers may not be able to discuss the work they saw without revealing intriguing plot-lines, but a good reviewer will be able to pull out the good and the bad without resorting to spoiling it for everyone.

Speaking of spoilers... (5, Insightful)

Dua (213683) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800501)

I thought it was sad that they put pictures of Gandalf the White in the trailers (at least in the UK they did). It does mean that some of the impact will be lost on those who haven't read the books...

Trailers are evil and spoilery.

Re:Speaking of spoilers... (2)

will_die (586523) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800539)

The preview they added on the later showings of fellowship of the Ring had Gandlf in it.

Re:Speaking of spoilers... (2, Insightful)

keller (267973) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800541)

Well all of us who love the story are already bound to see it, maybe others will see Gandalf in the trailer, and wonder what happens, thus making them interested in seeing TTT... It is not that big of a spoiler...

obviously I need to plan my life better (2)

nzhavok (254960) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800518)

because I'm stuck in Germany at the moment and I sure don't speak enough German to understand TTT!
I can't even read this article because of the spoilers!! Anyone know of any English movie-theatres around Cologne/Dusseldorf area?

Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800536)

this page (unfortunately in German) gives you all movies that are shown in the original version in cologne .php3 [] a cinema that shows primarily english movies
Ebertplatz 19
Köln Innenstadt
hope this helps

Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800550)

You can drive to Frankfurt and go to Am Turm Kino :P

Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (1)

jck2000 (157192) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800561)

I know it is a haul, but I think there is an English language movie theater in Frankfurt. Haven't been there and not sure if/when it is showing TTT. If you have read the book, I am not sure the language barrier would be that much of an obstacle to enjoying the film.

In Munich? (2)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800595)

There used to be a English Movie house, just next to the train station. Might check if its still there. I was plesantly supprised that when movies opened in the US it opened there at the same time. Course that was 16 years ago... But im sure there is still a english movie house in Munich, as many Muncher's prefer to hear the movie with the origional voices.

Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (2)

will_die (586523) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800605)

Check both /cologne/cologne_cin_agn.cfm
If you want to drive down to the Kaiserslautern area they have it at hp
They are all releaseing the same day as the US, but because of the time change you actually can see it and have it reviewed here before the US general population can, all 179 mins of it.

Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (1)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800609)

Try to get to the Netherlands, Maastricht should be close enough, or any other decent sized town (Venlo, Arnhem,...). There will be subtitles on the bottom of the screen, but the spoken word will be English.

The Director's Cut... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800520)

It has girl-on-girl action between Arwen and Galadriel. >^..^

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800535)

All the people really want is their William Shatner interview.

Read the books... (1)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800542)

I read the books(the trilogy) for the 1st time over the summer. I wish I had read Fellowship before the movie came out. I am glad I finished the last 2 before the movies came out. You will enjoy the moview much much more.

Re:Read the books... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800548)

You are a DOUCHE, John Edwards!

Noooo! (2, Funny)

redNuht (213553) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800563)

I hate you Taco, I hate you! I was avoiding all those spoilers and reading the spoiler-free Slashdot frontpage and you tell me that ENTS CAN WALK!?

I don't wanna see that movie anymore.

What disappointed me... (0, Offtopic)

ZeLonewolf (197271) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800571)

What disappointed me about the first LOTR movie was that the movie just seemed to come to an abrupt halt three hours into it. Does the second one suffer the same malady, or is there more of a conflict/resolution/ending to it? I haven't read the books, so I'm hoping it's not just three hours of walking though the woods fighting things... I realize the LOTR has a cult-like following, and I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but movies should stand on their own two feet - the first movie ended like a 2-part sitcom "To Be Continued...", which I find wholly inacceptable for a major-production movie. The actual plot of the movie is not scheduled to be resolved until 2 movies later! Of course, if Hollywood can do that and still make hundreds of millions (which they have), I suppose I'm none the wiser...

Re:What disappointed me... (3, Interesting)

AveryT (148004) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800602)

You're right, they should have totally changed what is probably the most read story of the 20th century so that it fits into your definition of what a "Hollywood" movie is supposed to be. Maybe Peter Jackson and New Line gave the audience a little more credit than you apparently deserve.

No need for seeing the movie (0, Troll)

lightweave (522226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4800591)

Ha! I just saved myself a few bucks for going to the theater as well as the time watching the movie. Just read the second review in the story and you get a complete description of the film. Very nice. Its not just a review its THE movie told without the annoying bits of moving pictures. Much more convinient and so much schorter than the books. The only distrubing thing is that the background music is from "Friday 13th" but you can't have everything.

TruthMedia review (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4800608)

It should be interesting to see what TruthMedia makes of the Second film after their review [] of the first.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?