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: The Two Towers

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the when-ents-attack dept.

Movies 861

Let's try to mash all the LOTR submissions into one. Reviews: comingsoon.net, Empire Online (UK), CNN, Slate, Salon. The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration. Lord Satri writes "Ents, elves and mages being on every orc's lips, new versions of Tales Of Middle-Earth are available. It is an open source, one player and online multiplayer game. It is ported to many OS's. Yeah, no terrific graphics, but the game is really worthwhile. It is based on the famous roguelike Angband (variants here). Faithful to Tolkien's writings."

cancel ×

861 comments

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916690)

frist prost?

Finally! (-1)

613746 (613746) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916730)

First, let me state that the FirstPostRobot and all of its variants are a complete fraud. Do not be fooled. Only Bone-O-Rama is capable of Automated First Post Goodness (c). Bone-O-Rama is quality software, written in Visual Basic.Net and released under the GPL.

Included features:

* Completely configurable
* GUI or character based interface
* Use the included database of clever first post comments or add your own!
* Post unattended or at a pre-determined time.
* Login and post via anonymous proxy.

Additional features that the competition does not offer.

* PostStalker: Enter the user ID of someone you wish to stalk and every post that user makes will get an automatic response! Choose Civil or Flamewar.
* StoryQueStalker: Submit stories that are mined from Google, Yahoo and CNN as legit stories with links. Automatically!

If you, or your friends would like in on the first post lifestyle, there is no better way that Bone-O-Rama your way to the top.

This post created using the magnificent Bone-O-Rama © 2002 cyborg_monkey LLC

Re:Finally! (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916811)

I'll play your game you rogue...

Fecal_fReekal© v1.0 coming soon...

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916696)

Water, water, water....

Fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916703)

First post, My preciousssssss.

Now you will see the powers that be

Urgent! (-1, Offtopic)

613746 (613746) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916780)

First, let me state that the FirstPostRobot1 and all of its variants are a complete fraud. Do not be fooled. Only Bone-O-Rama is capable of Automated First Post Goodness (c). Bone-O-Rama is quality software, written in Visual Basic.Net and released under the GPL.

Included features:

* Completely configurable
* GUI or character based interface
* Use the included database of clever first post comments or add your own!
* Post unattended or at a pre-determined time.
* Login and post via anonymous proxy.

Additional features that the competition does not offer.

* PostStalker: Enter the user ID of someone you wish to stalk and every post that user makes will get an automatic response! Choose Civil or Flamewar.
* StoryQueStalker: Submit stories that are mined from Google, Yahoo and CNN as legit stories with links. Automatically!

If you, or your friends would like in on the first post lifestyle, there is no better way that Bone-O-Rama your way to the top.

This post created using the magnificent Bone-O-Rama © 2002 cyborg_monkey LLC

Faithful to Tolkien's writings? (-1, Flamebait)

nagora (177841) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916705)

Maybe you shold try reading LotR some time; Jackson's version is crapola with a capital K.

TWW

Re:Faithful to Tolkien's writings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916728)

Asshat. If somebody tried to film Tolkien's books faithfully, THEN you would see crapola with a capital K. It is not possible (or especially desirable) to treat the LotR books like the latest Michael Crichton screenplay-cum-novel.

Re:Faithful to Tolkien's writings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916729)

You're on Slashdot - no one has read any books in The Lord of the Rings here!

Re:Faithful to Tolkien's writings? (3, Informative)

grahams (5366) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916749)

Hey assramp, the "faithful to Tolkien's writings" comment was referring to the ToME game, not the movie.

Re:Faithful to Tolkien's writings? (5, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916781)

Are you one of those who think "if it is different from the book, it's automatically crap!". Yes, the movies are different from the books in some places. No, that does not make the worse. What works in the book, may not work in the movie. Books and movies are completely different medias, you cannot expect them to be identical.

Hmm (1, Funny)

archnerd (450052) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916710)

I can't resist the urge to make the first non-anonymous post on this thread, but I'm going to try to keep this from being totally meaningless by suggesting that so few comments are being posted because everyone else is busy seeing the movie. /me kisses his karma goodbye.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916815)

http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/Two%20Towers.j pg

Coming tomorrow (or maybe later today)... (2, Funny)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916712)

Let's try to mash all the LOTR submissions into one... by CmdrTaco

So... (2)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916713)

...is it good?

Re:So... (5, Interesting)

tmhsiao (47750) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916896)

It's pretty good. I found I liked Fellowship more, because the separate stories in TTT slows the pace of the movie and makes you feel the long running time more than Fellowship's pace (understandable, given the costraints of plot). This could also be because I saw it at 12:01 am in a very hot, crowded theater, with people discussing Guinan's friendship with Picard behind me.

For the purists: I'm going to have to re-read the book, but Jackson does make some big changes to plot (far bigger in the plot-sense than substitutiing Arwen in or eliminating Tom Bombadil).

Visually, the film is spectacular, from the siege at Helm's Deep, to just the amazing scenery of Edoras.

My primary complaint with the movie: Not enough Ents. But what you do see of them is awe-inspiring.

I already saw it - Spoiler (5, Funny)

pmacwill (316644) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916717)

the eyeball did it.

dvd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916904)

I can't wait until it's out on DVD so I can watch it.

EVEN MORE SPOILERS ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916935)

Sauron is Luke's father !

Thank You (2, Interesting)

namespan (225296) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916718)

I'm beginning to see that I should subscribe to a filtering service that blocks anything related to "roguelike" and "nethack". My employment search will almost certainly be mortally wounded.

If someone invents a time machine, could you please go back and somehow prevent the invention of Rogue?

I'm a geek... (2)

craenor (623901) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916722)

I've had my ticket confirmation print out pinned to my cube since I bought my tickets on 11/27/02.

Now my anxious salivations are almost to an end though...in just 6.5 short hours, I'll be in the theatre when the film roles! (insert evil laugh here).

Re:I'm a geek... (5, Funny)

mstyne (133363) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916751)

since I bought my tickets on 11/27/02

Precisely why I was too afraid to go to the midnight showing. I'll wait a couple weeks until the scary people aren't going anymore.

Re:I'm a geek... (2)

hero (25043) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916786)

You have to wait another 6.5 hours? I saw it at 12:01am this morning. I'm tired as hell though today.. I left the theatre at 3:10am and got to work at 7:10am. I'd say that everyone in the theatre was aged 16-28, and of course there were a few crazies that dressed up. However, it was all worth it, the movie exceeded my expectations and I'll be watching it again this weekend!

-hero.

Re:I'm a geek... (5, Funny)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916814)

"I've had my ticket confirmation print out pinned to my cube since I bought my tickets on 11/27/02.
Now my anxious salivations are almost to an end though...in just 6.5 short hours, I'll be in the theatre when the film roles! (insert evil laugh here)."


Just think: LotR's revenues would double if people brought dates!

Re:I'm a geek... (2)

craenor (623901) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916828)

My girlfriend will sooner stab me in the leg with a fork, then see a Blockbuster movie on opening night. This way I get to see it twice though. Once on opening night, and once a few weeks later when she agrees to go.

Re:I'm a geek... (3, Funny)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916887)

"Once on opening night, and once a few weeks later when she agrees to go."

Heh. Anybody else read that and get an image of Steve Urkel saying "I'm wearing you down baby!"

Re:I'm a geek... (2)

(startx) (37027) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916905)

really? my girlfriend would sooner stab me in the leg with a fork, then let me STOP her from seeing this movie tonight. Personaly, I don't see what the big fuss is about since I never read the book(s) or saw the first movie, but I'm more of Tom Clancy fan myself.

Re:I'm a geek... (1, Offtopic)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916912)

"Just think: LotR's revenues would double if people brought dates!"

"A user has given a Funny (+1)moderation to your comment, Re:I'm a geek..., attached to LOTR: The Two Towers. Your comment is currently scored (3)"

Oh wow.. I never ever thought a Jay Leno joke would get me a +1 Funny.

I saw it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916725)

last night at 11:59. There were like 5 commercials before it. Not previews, just straight up commercials. The people in the theater were pissed. Now we're PAYING to see commercials. People need to be punished over this.

Re:I saw it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916833)

You are a mindless sheep. You proved this by showing up at midnight for a film you could have seen later at a more convenient time. Do you really blame them for trying to sucker you again?

Mod me down, but you know it's +5 Insightful.

Re:I saw it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916879)

hahaha... mindless sheep. How would you know if there was a more convenient time? Finals just got over, I have nothing to do for the next few days and my sleep schedule was shot from studying. Plus, a ton of OTHER engineering students were there too and a great time was had by all.

It was actually a -1 misinformed, jackass.

Re:I saw it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916919)

Now we're PAYING to see commercials.

You might unlike Cable television, Banner Ads on paysites, and product placement within movies? Grow up.

Didn't make it out (5, Interesting)

bhsx (458600) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916736)

The AMC up the street apparently sold out 3 theatres for a 12:01AM showing. Knowing the size of those rooms I'm guessing that's around 1600 people, and in the burbs, not the city. Amazing. They'll break $100M by Sunday.

Re:Didn't make it out (2)

jaaron (551839) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916841)

Here in Pittsburgh, the larger theater complex had a 12:00, 12:01, 12:02, and 12:03 showing and I believe there was more than one theater room for each of these showings (so somewhere like 6 to 8 rooms). These are large theater rooms too. And it was PACKED! I couldn't believe it. You had to be in line two hours early to get a seat even IF you had tickets.

By the way, the movie rocked!

Re:Didn't make it out (5, Insightful)

derch (184205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916910)

There's a good possibility it won't break $100M. Fellowship of the Ring only did $75M the first weekend.

Box office take is a misleading number. The movie is twice as long as most movies, therefore theaters can squeeze fewer showings into one day.

Registration links? (3, Interesting)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916744)


The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration.

Since when? Is this a new leaf turned over in Slashdot history? Did it originate after the posting of articles from sources that require paid registration?

I see no problem with posting registration-required links. Just make sure there are others (as there are in this case).

Re:Registration links? (5, Informative)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916837)

Well, it's even funnier when the previous story had a registration required link in it. Makes you wonder it michael pays any attention to Slashdot at all.

For those who are curious, I believe that this [latimes.com] is the story in question. (And no, no registration required.)

Re:Registration links? (1)

Obadusni (54715) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916861)

Strange... It asked me to register.

Re:Registration links? (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916883)

Huh. well, I take that back. It let me in, but when I tried to reload, it told me that I need to register. Sorry.

Re:Registration links? (2)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916847)

"I see no problem with posting registration-required links. Just make sure there are others (as there are in this case)."

Erm, have you ever noticed how people whine every time there's a registration link? He was probably responding to that.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Coastism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916853)

Sure, it's fine and dandy if the NYTimes requires registration, but not the L.A. Times. I think Slashdot is firing the first shot in the east-west newspaper wars. First this, next reporters packing heat, then finally all out gang warfare between AP and Reuters. Stop the madness now!

Re:Registration links? (1)

rebrane (17961) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916854)

Funny, because in the story RIGHT BEFORE this one, there's a NYTimes link. michael is using the royal "we," it seems.

Some links (4, Informative)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916745)

Reviews: 1 [tennessean.com] ,2 [www.rte.ie] ,3 [tri-cityherald.com] ,4 [icnetwork.co.uk] That last one lets you submit your own review. Pretty cool.

For Christs Sake... (0, Flamebait)

Ted_Green (205549) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916759)

"The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration."

Grow up.

If you don't want to link to it because it requires registration, fine. But don't make snide comments like that, as if you were reprimanding the site (or worse the story submitters) for having "registration required." Esp. since Slashdot already has "grandfathered in" the New York Times.

Re:For Christs Sake... (3, Insightful)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916842)

This is far from being a snide remark. He was mearly saying that there is a story on LA Times...but since it requires registration, it isn't worth creating the link. They are simply saying go to LA Times web site, register, login and have fun that way.

Re:For Christs Sake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916875)

You grow up. I'm sick of having to register with all these sites so they can spam me. They deserve snide comments.

Yeah it only takes a couple of minutes, but if every site did that i'd have to spend half my time registering.

Then again.. (1)

Ted_Green (205549) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916891)

If thought it was a good story and were simply following the rules (so there wasn't any other way you could let us know) then my bad.

Midnight showing (5, Funny)

SL33Z3 (104748) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916760)

I wonder if the people at Verant received an all-time low in their log-ons of Everquest -- all their geeks were out for three hours watching this thing :)

bork! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916763)

bork bork bork!

BIG SPOILER (2, Funny)

pulse2600 (625694) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916767)

Gandalf comes back!!!!! OMG

Re:BIG SPOILER (2, Insightful)

the_argent (28326) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916802)

That is funny, but I was actually a little miffed that they showed Gandalf in the trailers.There are people that haven't read the books, my wife for example,and to me that is a major spoiler for the film.

argent

Some bad things about lord of the rings 2 (-1, Flamebait)

Trevor OLeary (626363) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916770)

I loved the movie, I was just saddened to see that it made no effort to portray minorities in a postive light - there are no Black, Asian or Arabic characters in it whatsoever! I though we had moved forward, with Halle Berry winning Best Actress oscar.

And to people who say it's in the book: I challenge anyone to find the section of the Lord of the rings where it states that the characters are all Caucasians.

It is just a shame such a fine movie was let down in this regard.

Re:Some bad things about lord of the rings 2 (2, Informative)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916908)

Well, had you read the book, you'd notice that every race is described in detail. There are no caucasians in LOTR. There are MEN, which are described as being pretty much white. There are MEN who were evil (siding with Isengard) who were described as black.

Then there were hobbits, dwarves, elves, ents, istari, and so on. All were described as being pretty much white.

Note that what you call "minorities" are ONLY minorities in certain parts of the United States. This movie wasn't even filmed here. It wasn't even directed by an American.

How would you have liked that?

I don't think that spotted owls were shown in a favorable fucking light either; this movie sucked.

God DAMN I hate leftist cretins.

~D

OOPS: Ents aren't white. N/M (1)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916925)

n/m

Make sure not to wait till next week. (3, Insightful)

sideshow (99249) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916772)

A lot of people will probably wanna wait 'till the shows stop selling out to go but my advice is: Don't. I saw LOTR in Burbank at 12:01 this morning and being in a room with hundreds of exicited people really made a difference.

I give the movie 9/10 and the guy who did the acting for Gollum should definalty win Best Supported Actor from the Oscars.

Re:Make sure not to wait till next week. (2)

daoine (123140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916817)

Agreed.

Having a true fan-based audience was great [saw it in Boston at 12:01] -- it really made it all the better to have people cheering, but knowing when to stop so they wouldn't miss Gimli's next wise-ass remark.

the guy who did the acting for Gollum should definalty win Best Supported Actor from the Oscars

No kidding -- Gollum, even for some of the noticable CG-ness, was completely amazing.

Re:Make sure not to wait till next week. (3, Funny)

JJAnon (180699) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916836)

the guy who did the acting for Gollum should definalty win Best Supported Actor from the Oscars

Did he really have to wear a jockstrap all the time?

Whats Up with that Precious? (2)

Sensitive_Clod (625347) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916773)

The first one did a pretty good job with following the book, the second is a stylized interpretation. And where is SHEBOLA? I guess after Harry Poter and tCoS she needed a break.
Yes we'll let her do it....

Re:Whats Up with that Precious? (1)

znaps (470170) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916838)

Who/What the hell is Shebola? Some sort of illness affecting females?

Re:Whats Up with that Precious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916859)

Shelob, idiot. Or was that your own stylized interpretation?

He didnt mean it. (3, Funny)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916774)

If CmdrTaco really wanted to cram all of these into one, He'd include the dupes planned for tonight and just link everything twice.

Great! (1)

Trusty Penfold (615679) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916775)


It was wonderful. I loved the tree things. I can't wait until the Return of the Ring next year.

Return of the *K*ing!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916839)

Why does everyone call it Return of the Ring???

Re:Great! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916864)

"tree things"? "return of the ring"? dear oh dear. they're called ents, and the third book is called "return of the king". it's good to know it left such a lasting imression. how did the little guys with the furry feet do? was the big white guy with the stick as cool as last time?

No LOTR Logo/Icon? (5, Insightful)

halo8 (445515) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916794)

Why oh Why Dear Slashdot Editors dose Lord of the Rings not have a Logo? Starwars has a Logo.. the Ipod has a Logo.. why dosent LOTR?

Think about it.. all the Posts that are going to be made over the next +2 Years for LOTR.. Movie Reiviews, Spoilers, Trailers, DVD's, DVD Reviews, Special Ed. DVD's, Cast Interviews, Award Shows, ect.. ect... ect..

LOTR DESERVES its own Logo/Icon

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? (5, Funny)

Foxxz (106642) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916897)

Haha, though it said LEGO. And yes, LOTR DOES need its own LEGO set :)

-Foxxz

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916907)

I'm thinking something round here, with a diameter of maybe 1.5 cm or so..

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916916)

Might I suggest a logo of a steaming pile of shit? I can think of no better symbol for all of this LOTR nonsense.

ents... (3, Interesting)

bje2 (533276) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916795)

i have tickets to see the movie at 8:00 tonight, but i was just curious how good do the ents look? the reviewer in my local small town paper said something about they looked "unrealistic" and like "muppets crossed with plants", or something like that...yeah, way to go jackass, cause you really have a good idea of what a "realistic" ent would look like...so, how do they look???

Re:ents... (2)

Cap'n Canuck (622106) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916825)

so, how do they look???

Like...Ents.

Re:ents... (5, Funny)

Cap'n Canuck (622106) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916865)

how good do the ents look?

All depends on what you find sexy in an Ent. I'm a trunk man, myself...

Re:ents... (1)

Cap'n Canuck (622106) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916901)

so, how do they look???

With their eyes?

Re:ents... (3, Interesting)

daoine (123140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916922)

Surprisingly, Treebeard was my least favorite ent stylistically speaking. Although he's really the only Ent we got to see in depth -- I thought some of the others looked cooler. I liked the more gnarled Ents better -- their faces looked more interesting.

Unrealistic isn't the right word -- and it could be construed as Muppets crossed with plants, but don't think Muppet show Muppets...think more like the really good Muppets in Labyrinth. The cool ones. I think it's not really a measure of realism, but of expectations -- what do you expect a tree to look like once it has eyes and a face? I thought they did a great job.

Re:ents... (2, Informative)

deverox (177930) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916930)

The Ents look a great deal like the Whomping Willow in Harry Potter. I thought they looked cheezy but that was my opinion. Definatly had that "CG Overlay" look about them.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916805)

... the spells cast YOU!

slashdot eds lie again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916808)

"The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration"

What you say? See previous article!

Saw last night.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916812)

after the midnight showing I can say without a doubt that CG characters are now TRUELY WORTHY of screen time. Gríma Wormtongue (Smeagle) has the best facial expression animations ever made.

(BTW, MASSIVE is incredible...I was watching for "cookie cutter" type Orc animations that were repeated (in unison) by the Orcs...I saw NONE...great realism! Go see it tonight!)

Re:Saw last night.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916857)

ROFL! Next time, skip the acid tabs before you hit the theater, and, as George Lucas suggests, see it again for the first time.

Re:Saw last night.... (1)

Azzaron (562255) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916911)

Uhhhh, Gríma Wormtongue (Smeagle)??? Grima Wormtongue was not animated - he was the character poisoning the thoughts of Theodin. The two main animated characters were Gollum (Smeagol) and Treebeard.

However, I must agree with you, Gollum was done REALLY well.. I can't wait to see Shelob in Part 3!

Re:Saw last night.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916931)

correction....yes Gollum...
sorry, i got home at 4AM and had to work at 7AM....go figure... ;)

Exit Polls (4, Funny)

SL33Z3 (104748) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916818)

I would like to have taken an exit poll of how many of the people at the midnight showing had Everquest accounts. If you wanted to take Sony/Verant/989Studios down, all you would have to do is bomb all the theaters last night. It would have taken out most of their customer base :). As a plus, from the looks of it, you would have killed Hot Topic's sales too!

Secret To Defeating Sauron... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916826)



One Slap To Bind Them All! [cyberstreet.net]

Saw it. Wondered what version this one was... (1)

bigdady92 (635263) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916832)

seriously. Saw the movie wondered where in the hell ole Jackson got his info from. Here i am at the 12:30AM showing and wondering "Where's the references to quickbeam?" "Why are the elves here?" "What's with only 300 people protecting helm's deep????" did he not read the book? Wasn't there MORE to the big battle than that? I seem to recall a WHOLE lot more than what i saw. Movie was a 7/10. Great effects, OK acting, but in the end a let down for those that were expecting similarities to the book. If you like the book, forget all you read and see this. Then you'll enjoy it. If not then your prolly gonna be like me and wonder "What was that i just saw????"

Some interesting quotes about the flick... (4, Interesting)

airrage (514164) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916866)

Here's a few of my favorite paragraphs from the review in the ny times [nytimes.com] :

With the narrative of "Rings," Tolkien was investigating determination, loyalty and, finally, faith, finding innumerable ways to offer up the concept of purity of heart, as found in Matthew 5:8 and in Kierkegaard, whose contention was that purity of heart was the ability to will one thing into being. The pursuit of purity is at the center of "Towers."

Mr. Jackson's mastery of craft in some areas is so powerful that the flaws are more noticeable than in the first film. The little-boy allure of the storytelling in "Towers" is sure to evoke the same reaction that it did in "Fellowship." "Towers" is like a family-oriented E-rated video game, with no emotional complications other than saving the day. Women have so little to do here that they serve almost as plot-device flight attendants, offering a trough of Diet Coke to refresh the geek-magnet story.


Not sure if I should enjoy the movie or write a critical essay about it. But there's a couple of lines in there that are real zingers.

I've seen LOTR2 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916872)

and it ends with all of the characters having hot buttsex with each other. It's a gay, gay ending to a shitty movie. LOTR is for gay homos. Do you play Magic the Gathering as well? Get a life, get a job, move out of your parents house, get some accutane for those zits. Fucking dorks. No I haven't seen LOTR, LOTR2 because I am cool and you are all fags.

check this out (1)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916878)

I found a post-it stuck to my monitor yesturday from the local office cutie with her phone number saying she wants to see LOTR. So now I get to see the movie and have a date. Life is good.

Re:check this out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916903)

Unfortunately, you will discover that she has an extremely advanced, contagious case of genital herpes that you will catch on YOUR FACE.

Re:check this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916906)

yeah right tubby, we all know linux geeks dont get dates with the "local office cutie"

Faramir got jobbed (SPOILER) (5, Funny)

KMitchell (223623) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916881)

I saw it last night at midnight and really liked it.


My biggest complaint with the changes from the book was that Faramir was turned into a pretty weak character. I did get a nice chuckle when Sam said something along the lines of, "We're not even supposed to be here," while in Gondor as I was thinking much the same thing.

I wanted to go see it last night!! (2, Funny)

nexusone (470558) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916885)

But the guard at the theater would not let me in with my broad sward and plate mail armor......

Insert more quarters Elf is about to die!!!!

I'm going tonight... (1)

VitrosChemistryAnaly (616952) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916886)

Opening day is the day to for this type of movie (AOTC, FOTR, TPM, etc...).

Do you know why? The the people there are the ones that are genuinely excited about the movie. It's not a bunch of ho-hum families going to see 'cause they have nothing better to do on Christmas day. These are the people who know the story and cheer at the opening credits.

The excited crowd enhances the movie, as far as I'm concerned.

Just my $.02.

Rotten Tomatoes (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916888)

Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] gives it a 99% with 78 reviews in.

BotSequitur V1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916890)

Non Sequitur \Non seq"ui*tur\ [L., it does not follow]
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it

AutoGoogle [lordoftherings.net]
AutoSlashBack [slashdot.org]
AutoEverything [everything2.com]

Very good movie but a little dissapointing? (3, Interesting)

proyZ (264772) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916898)

Saw it this morning at the 0h premiere :-)... In general i loved the movie since it has a lot of good things going on (battles, gollum is absolutly great,etc!)... but i was a little dissapointed at the portrayal of some characters like faramir (they show him as unwise and eager to have the ring as boromir which he wasn't at all!), showing ents as stupid stubborn old folks, and some liberties they took in the story..

anyways it is a very good movie but from a tolkien fan standpoint at the end i had very mixed feelings about the movie..
..well i suppose that means i'll have to go see it again...

Troubles of Middle Earth - bandwidth almost gone.. (3, Informative)

Tidan (541596) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916899)

Here's a copy of the game in case anyone is interested. It's about to be slashdotted:

Angband is a roguelike dungeon exploration game based on JRR Tolkien's works.

There are a lot of Angband variants because Angband's sources were cleaned up by a remarkable person, Ben Harrison, which meant that as more people could understand the code, more people made variants. ToME, my own variant, expands upon the Middle-Earth influence and is based on Zangband 2.2.0. ToME now follows the Tolkien world more closely than any other variant!

ToME was formely known was PernAngband, but it's name was changed because of copyright issues. Almost all Pern influences have been removed in the current CVS version.

The current version is T.o.M.E 2.1.0 aka "No Surrender, No Retreat" .

"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for Dwarf-Lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie."

"The Lord of the Rings", J.R.R. Tolkien.

LA Times (no registration or pop-ups!) (3, Insightful)

setzman (541053) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916914)

Must be geek love

  • The adventure is everything in the second "Lord of the Rings."

By Manohla Dargis, Times Staff Writer

When the final chapter closes on Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," the whole extravaganza -- three features, nine hours and a catalog of characters as seemingly infinite as the films' crew -- may well be heralded as one of the more heroic ventures in commercial cinema. Launched last December to enormous success with "The Fellowship of the Ring," the ongoing epic has now entered an awkward adolescence with its middle feature, "The Two Towers," on its way to its concluding volume, "The Return of the King." Slated for completion next year, the entirety of the "Rings" looks auspicious even if in its present manifestation this once and future landmark is a bit of a yawn.

Based on the second volume of Tolkien's novel, "The Two Towers" begins fairly soon after "The Fellowship of the Ring" leaves off with the hobbits, Frodo (Elijah Woods) and Samwise (Sean Astin), warily traveling toward the Dark Tower of Mordor, the lair of Sauron the Great. Conquered in an ancient war, Sauron has been gathering his forces with the intention of obliterating the world of men, Middle-earth, for which he needs the ring. In the first film, Frodo had become the ring's reluctant keeper, charged with its destruction by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), a mission that transported him out of the idyll of his homeland, the Shire, and into a fellowship with eight other Middle-earth inhabitants. Splintered at the close of the first volume, the fellowship has now scattered to fight its enemies separately.

"The Lord of the Rings," built on a bedrock of mythic archetypes and sagas such as "Beowulf," is essentially a quest story but one in which the seeker aims to renounce power, rather than to seize it. That makes Frodo uncharacteristically humble for a hero and an unusually appealing seeker no matter what the troubled times, and it also speaks to why the book was a cult favorite during the 1960s. (The hobbits' fondness for smoking an herb called pipe-weed likely appealed to the book's original counterculture fan base, as well.) Although Frodo hails from the pastoral Shire and is by nature and inclination gentle, each step of his journey brings him closer to cataclysmic warfare that rumbles during the first volume, erupts in the second and rages throughout the third.

Tolkien began writing "The Lord of the Rings" in 1936 and for years after its publication insisted that it had nothing to do with the Second World War. Jackson has no such qualms but his inspiration is cinematic not political. In "The Two Towers," he cribs an iconic image of massed troops from Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda reverie, "Triumph of the Will," but the allusion loses its punch when you realize that another shot of goose-stepping troops has been lifted from "The Wizard of Oz." Tolkien built his story on foundation myths; Jackson builds his on movies: The film's most charming new creature, a mossy shepherd named Treebeard, walks like the heron described by Tolkien but looks like a relation of the animated trees in "Oz." When Gollum (voiced by Andy Serkis, with goggling computer-generated eyes and slithering silvery body) returns to the scene to pull the word "master" from its mouth, it's with the same sinister fawning as Dracula's helper Renfield.

Despite these cinephile fillips, Jackson and fellow screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Stephen Sinclair have enough to do just keeping Tolkien's histories and characters in play. To that end, the new film faithfully opens with the human warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), a huntsman with his own impending quest issues, in the company of the Elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the Dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). Together, the three are hotfooting across green slopes in search of two other fellowship members, the hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), who have been kidnapped by Orcs, servants of Sauron's strongest ally, the wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee).

Tolkien devotes the first half of "The Two Towers" to Aragorn's exploits and the second to those of Frodo; Jackson instead oscillates between the questing travelers before getting swept up in a battle that nearly proves the undoing of Aragorn and the film. While searching for the hobbits, Aragorn and his companions enter the human kingdom of Rohan, where they're soon engaged in protecting its people from Sauron's army. Jackson spends an interminable amount of time in Rohan, lavishing his attention on a battle that consumes less than a chapter in the novel. Set at night, the fight unfolds with hordes of the enemy ("thick as marching ants," in Tolkien's words) descending in waves. Despite Mortensen's energetic vaults across the set, the tension slackens precipitously. It isn't only that there's no fun to be had watching ants get squashed; it's that the battle, designed for the video-game generation, proceeds in frustrating starts and stops, as if Jackson couldn't get past the first level.

With "The Fellowship of the Ring," Jackson delivered us into never-before-seen worlds. The fellowship covers new ground in "The Two Towers" but the story bogs down in Rohan, a dreary stopover that fails to capture the imagination; unlike the Shire or Elvish lands, it doesn't look that different from the back-lot Middle Ages we've seen elsewhere. During the past few decades, computer technologies have enhanced (and waylaid) numerous films but it wasn't until Jackson's first try at Tolkien that we saw the greater possibilities of those technologies, particularly in the realm of fantasy, where now everything seems possible. After years of anemic space escapades in which the blue screen was invariably more important than the flesh-and-blood actors, digital video technologies were put in the service of a juicy story and not the reverse.

That more or less holds true in "The Two Towers" even if for stretches at a time the tools at Jackson's disposal distract him from what he does best, which is push the story forward with the enthusiasm of a filmmaker who hasn't put ego before movie love. The director's great strength is the confidence with which he translates Tolkien's vision into visual imagery even if he still gets tripped up converting that vision into dialogue.

"The Fellowship of the Ring" was periodically hampered by the writers' attempts to cut swaths through the narration. There's as much exposition in "The Two Towers" but because Jackson and his screenwriter partners don't want to repeat themselves, they lay out the story even less clearly than they did on their first outing. When Aragorn consults with Gandalf, it's easy to get lost in a thicket of names and allegiances.

It was during one such eyelid-drooping moment while watching "The Two Towers" that I flashed on an old Gary Larson cartoon that pokes gentle fun at the nomenclature found in books of this sort by contrasting the names we give dogs with those they give themselves. "I am known as Vexog," says one dog (a.k.a. Rex), "Destroyer of Cats and Devourer of Chickens." "I am Zornorph," says another, proudly, "the One Who Comes by Night to the Neighbor's Yard, and this is Princess Sheewana, Barker of Great Annoyance and Daughter of Queen La, Stainer of Persian Rugs."

The absurdity of the dog names was a relief, giving me a momentary reprieve from the film and its insistent monumentality. At that instant, I stopped bumming about the second film and began looking forward to the third. Such is the nature of geek love. As with "The Fellowship of the Ring," the excitement and pleasure of "The Two Towers" comes from the feeling that we're doing more than simply watching a film but have, rather, embarked on an epic journey with like-minded travelers. If the second film never reaches the highs of the first -- we have met the players before and there are no new worlds of wonder -- it nonetheless invests moviegoing with a sense of adventure. Like Frodo and Aragorn, we have to cover a lot of middling expository ground in "The Two Towers" -- here, we're just passing through on our way to the end.

'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'

MPAA rating: PG-13 for battle sequences and scary images.

Times guidelines: There's a lot of fighting and death but little bloodshed; overall, it's less scary than the first film.

Elijah Wood ... Frodo
Ian McKellen ... Gandalf
Liv Tyler ... Arwen
Viggo Mortensen ... Aragorn
Sean Astin ... Sam

New Line Cinema presents a Wingnut production. Director Peter Jackson. Writers Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair, Peter Jackson. Producers Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson. Director of photography Andrew Lesnie. Production designer Grant Major. Film Editor Michael Horton. Music Howard Shore. Visual effects supervisor Jim Rygiel. Special makeup creature miniature and digital effects Weta Ltd., NZ. Costume designers Ngila Dickson, Richard Tyler. Running time: 2 hours, 59 minutes.

In general release.

Re:LA Times (no registration or pop-ups!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4916933)

Does /. need to adopt a -1 Copyright Infringement moderation? Or perhaps it should be a straight -6 Copyright Infringement?

Excuse Me?? (0)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 11 years ago | (#4916923)

The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration.

Please editors, explain this because you never have seemed to provide a clear one on this subject.

You have no problem linking to ny times registration required articles, I think because you said you grandfathered them in before it was policy to not link to reg-required sites.

But you don't apply this to almost any other places, like the washington post that went recently to registration.

So why is ny times articles (which take a significant amount of slashdot stories) have any exception? Just because you like their stories? I agree that it's an excellent paper but you look like utter hypocrites and not enforcing this policy across the board.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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