Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Joe MaMa Gives Us A Full Blown Review of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING!!!

Hehehehehe, Harry here... Oh boy we're going to see some interesting reviews here. I think it is interesting that the first review from a die hard Tolkien fan feels the first hour has pacing problems. Since most critics of the book that I've talked to often comment that they didn't make it through the first part of the book. However, from the sound of this review... the film just builds and builds and builds and builds... I don't know about this... But Joe Mama is who you came to read...

Harry -

Long time reader, first time writer. Call me Joe Mama. I was privileged enough attend the Fellowship of the Ring tonight in Sherman Oaks and let me say right off the bat that I was blown away.

But first, I'd like to get the minor negative issues some may have with it. Let me just say that these are initial impressions and my brain is still processing the full impact that this 3 hour monster of a film has. Also let me say that I have read the trilogy and The Hobbit twice each. This means that once I get the chance to see it again and watch it without the expectations and years of imagination that have been put into imagining Middle Earth as well as focus more on the film for what it is as opposed to judging it as a reflection of the books, these impression may change.

But I digress...

For the first hour, I wasn't always pleased with the pacing and the editing. The build until RIvendell felt choppy and there didnt' seem to be much sense of time or cohesion throughout the mandatory exposition. But again, it is also because the film was jumping gaps in the book storyline that is still relatively fresh in my mind. There were a few times that I felt that Peter Jackson was much too liberal with his camera movements and sweeping crane and helicopter shots and at times I felt that Tolkien was getting a more modern Matrix-style treatment. At times I felt the action was a bit claustrophobic, but then again, I am a sucker for the long wide shots of Hong Kong kung fun movies. But these are minor nitpicks and I feel compelled to follow it with a congratulations to Peter Jackson and his cinematographer for making a very cinematically elegant film. Also, there are undoubtedly several issues that hardcore fans (the exclusion of Tom Bombadil being the least of them) will find with the choices made in adapting the story for the screen, but I leave that to them because I understand the pressure Peter Jackson must have been under as a lifelong fan to stay as loyal and detailed as possible and I credit New Line and all involved for allowing the 2 hr. 58 min. runtime to stand (I could have stayed for four EASILY). Let's just say they most definitely make the most of that screen time.

And now to the good...

GOOD LORD..........I MEAN GODDAMN......this shit is unreal. ILM should be spanked for doing such comparitively shoddy work for so long. Peter Jackson and his team at WETA have created some of the most mind blowing special effects (an all encompassing term for CGI and all other forms) ever seen. This film is without question the most visually stunning cinematic experience I have ever had. There is so much to say, I almost don't know where to start. They waste no time kicking the "HOLY SHIT" factor into gear with the prologue that brings the Tolkein virigins up to speed in a very competent and well done fashion. The Shire looked every bit as amazing and beautiful as I had imagined it...even more so when coupled with the beautiful cinematography and excellent visual sense of Peter Jackson.

And I need to start a new paragraph just for Ian McKellan. I have never, ever seen an actor or actress just INHABIT and simply BE a part as he does Gandalf. From the first second he raises his hat in the first close up and we see his face, you know it's him. His demeanor, his speech, his facial expressions, everything is impeccable, top-notch, whatever word you want to use. The first hour is rather slow at times through Bilbo's birthday party and Frodo's discovery of his task at hand. For the sake of moving the film along, he doesn't deliberate much at all and Gandalf and the four hobbits bounce around rather quickly through the first events leading up to the forming of the fellowship at Rivendell. One aside regarding a detail from the books is that they reveal pretty much immediately that Saruman desires to join forces with Sauron and I didn't think that happened until much later in the books. But seeing as a good part of the action in the film centers around the creation and breeding of the Uruk-hai and building up Sauron's forces, it pretty much had to happen that way. The power and mystique of the ring are well-established elements of the story. Elijah Wood makes the transition between a carefree Frodo and a pensive, brooding bearer of immense emotional weight flawlessly. Viggo Mortensen was right on with Aragorn in the same way Hugh Jackson nailed Wolverine. Everyone else acted with a passion that was reflective of the bonds they all reportedly formed with Peter Jackson and each other on the lengthy shoot.

I really don't want to say many other specifics so others can have a similar experience to mine. Once the Fellowhship arrives in Moria, hold on to your nutsack. You won't believe your eyes, I swear to God. And that's before the Balrog shows up (cue goose bumps). Galadriel's Forest is equally stunning (running out of adjectives) and there are enough interesting tidbits of visual flare and other elements to make even the most seasoned reader raise an eyebrow, jump in your seat, or simply smile with unexpected awe. The arc of the story itself creates more of an Empire Strikes Back ending. Once again, though, as is the case with the ending and throughout, Peter Jackson does a magnificent job of achieiving an excellent balance between Tolkien's wonderous tale and certain elements of a Hollywood script (this is a $350+million investment, after all). Moria is most definitely the absolute show stopper and there is more than enough eye candy and other action elements to keep everyone satisfied.

I have the feeling that critics and some fans man not completey agree with my significant praise for some aspects of the film. But the fact remains, this eye candy of the highest order of magnitude, unsurpassed and in my mind, it will always be so because it has the rock solid substance of Tolkein's imagination to back it up. The money is on the screen, no expense was spared, everything is jaw dropping and awe inspiring. Once I was able to look past the few shortcoming I had as a movie lover and Tolkien fan, I realized what an immense accomplishment this is for Peter Jackson, New Line, and everyone involved. They created Middle Earth. Two of my friend who were there as well had never read the books and they were awe struck as well. The wait was worth it.

As I walked out, I slowly liked the movie more and more until I reached the point I am at now. I can't stop thinking about it and if this is a sign of what's to come in the next two, I sure as hell (forgive me for being greedy) can't wait to see the siege on Isengard. I really doubt anyone can walk away from this movie disappointed no matter who you are. I can't wait to see it again.

-J.M.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:37 a.m. CST

    Eleventh!!!! I don't care a shit!!!! I WANT TO SEE THIS NOW!

    by weird v2.0

    Anyway I've got the tickets for Dec 19th. UF.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:37 a.m. CST

    Am I first!?

    by Koos

    I've got a funny feeling in my stomach...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:38 a.m. CST

    hehehe :-)

    by Ioreth

    sounds great! thanks! WHERE are all the other reviews? we needssss them, precioussss we do :-)

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:39 a.m. CST

    So far so good...

    by Tokyo Joe

    Well the first couple of reviews are pretty good. The soundtrack is fantastic (playing it LOUD rigght now!). I so hope this is a great film. Mostly 'cos I'm flying all the way from JAPAN to see it. Goddam Nippon Herald and their 'Japanese people don't watch movies in December' policy. Still, I have front row Royal circle tickets for opening day at the odeon Leciester Square, and I'm first on a Lord of the Rings talkback!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:39 a.m. CST

    firsties?

    by Ford Prefect042

    i drool over this review...cant wait...big fan...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:42 a.m. CST

    O.K make that about...15th?

    by Tokyo Joe

    Gee, you guys are FAST!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Double postings... sorry. But now I've read the article and

    by weird v2.0

    ... I don't care about pacing in the first half, because it's slow in the book too, so Mr Jackson had a slow source to work with. I WANT TO SEE THE BALROG!!!! I'VE BEEN THE FIRST GEEK WITH THIS ONE!!!! FOTR DVD NOW!!!!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:46 a.m. CST

    O.K make that about...15th?

    by Tokyo Joe

    Gee, you guys are FAST!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:53 a.m. CST

    What the...

    by Tokyo Joe

    How the hell did that happen? I go off and read some other stories, and when I get back my post has regenerated itself??! That's what you get for using a Playstation and not a real computer for writing talkbacks...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:53 a.m. CST

    About the pacing

    by Synner

    The first book definately moves slowly, which I enjoy. I guess we should look at the trilogy as one whole story movie. I can't imagine it being that slow. I mean ok the party and Gandalf explaining the ring, but we need this expodition for the rest of the movies(s). Personally everything I've read in this review puts a grin on my face :)

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6 a.m. CST

    I CAN'T FUCKING WAIT!!!!!

    by crazybastard

    I stood in line for twenty hours to get tickets to the opening night and I got great seats!!! Seventh row in the middle!!! Come 18th December I'm going to have a fucking heart attack!! I've been waiting so long for this and now it's almost here!!! Must...calm...down...AAAAAA!!!!! And to all you people talking about LOTR is going to bomb you know what you can do right?!! Most of you are starwarsfans scared shitless cuz you realize LOTR is taking it's place as the number one fantasy franchise. Well that's just the way it is so deal with it!! Starwars is great but this is something much, much better. These WILL be the most popular movies ever, mark my words!! You should have seen the line of people waiting for tickets here in Stockholm. It was a helluva lot bigger than the ep1 line, I can tell you that. And in the back fights broke out cuz people were trying to get ahead in the line!! BRING IT ON!!!!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:04 a.m. CST

    pacing

    by Tokyo Joe

    He says it seems to jump around a bit unevenly on the way to Rivendell. But that's only because the books so fresh in his mind. I mean that's 50 pages through the Old Forest and The Barrow Downs missing, those not familiar with the book probably won't even notice. Must..see..film..NOW. Sorry, Howard Shore's 'Bridge at Khazad-dum' is playing at me Gandalf's just fallen down a hole with a Balrog which I'm desperate to see and it's all just a little bit too exciting. Fortunately as soon as I step away from my computer I'll be about 2000 miles away from the nearest hype and can forget all about it until next month. (I think I saw a poster for HARRY POTTER the other day, what's that all about then??)

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:11 a.m. CST

    JoeMama give us MORE!

    by TheGlassNipple

    Don't let us down, son! It's not about giving away details, but what about the ATMOSPHERE? How does PJ's penchant for horror fit in? Does he push it when needed? (I hope so). How is the "comedy" element handled? (Make no names, but Gimli comes to mind.... shiver). And put my soul to rest: how is Arwen? Excellent review, btw. I wish you a happy, long life until you die in your sleep dreaming of dragons!

  • I can't see how the film starting slowly is a bad thing.. it is supposed to build up to major action in the 2nd half, it would be too draining if the whole thing was action-packed. I think the most telling thing is when he says he can't stop thinking about it... that is exactly the effect I want it to have. BRING IT ON!!!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Meet the Feebles Sequel

    by pogo on my own

    Maybe this and the other 2 flicks will make a bundle of money, then we can get a big budget update of Meet The Feebles....well at least I would like to see it....and was there anything mentioned in here about Sam Raimi saying that he wanted to do another low budget independant genre film with Bruce Campbell, I think I saw that on Cinescape.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:32 a.m. CST

    Good idea: Meet The Feebles sequel NOW!! And what about a DeadAl

    by weird v2.0

    The mother would be Liz Taylor, and the rocker zombie, of course, M.Jackson. The priest should be Marilyn Manson and John Goodman as uncle Les. The monkey rat from Sumatra can be a JarJar-like bug, and Steven Spielberg is perfect as executive producer. BLOOD AND GUTS!!! NON-RATED VERSION FOREVER!!! FOTR MAKES ME FEEL AS A CHILD AGAIN!!! AND THAT IS PRICELESS!!!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Man, oh man oh man oh man oh man

    by StanTheMan

    Oh man, I can't wait either! The whole production period was kind of a horror-trip for me! I applied for a position in September '98, never heard of them again, and now I can finally see the film, oh man, am I excited! Huge fan!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Sacrilege.. or not...

    by SpacePervert

    I still say that the exclusion of Tom Bombadil is a cause for dancing in the streets, elvensong in every office, and a great excuse to give sweets to small children. I'm still pleased that Arwen doesn't have to spend most of 3 films sitting at home knitting a f***ing blanket. I LOVE the dumb face Pippin pulls when he tips the entire skeleton down the hole in Moria (or was that Merry..). Thanks for the review. I agree about the timing, hell, make every installment 6 hours and issue lembas and a catheter to everyone on the way in. Remember to take those aspirin to avoid DVT.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:39 a.m. CST

    too right on ya fella ol' chap hey?

    by quamb

    My chops are mighty excited for this movie young chumaroo's. What problems that are down right plaguing my thoughts are why some Star Wars dork would want this movie to be shot down in the box-office? Don't you want to see it be a runaway success so more fantasy, sci-fi, epic etc etc movies will be made? Or is your precious Star Wars as far as your brain can enjoy? "Hey wait a minute, that aint star wars... this sucks"

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7 a.m. CST

    "Hold onto your nutsack" That should be on the poster.

    by Cash Bailey

    Right underneath "From the Director of BRAINDEAD". But seriously, cynics can suck my hog, this movie is everything we knew it would be.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:07 a.m. CST

    Must have the Preciousss!

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    Yes... yes. I like this. Tell me that there are slight pacing problems in the first hour. Yes. It takes a tiny bit of the massive, looming, oh-my-God-I'm-going-to-have-a-heart-attack-and-die-except-I-can't-die-because-I'll-miss-this-movie anticipation. I might be able to sleep at night that way. Maybe.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Did you see Gollum, you lucky bastard!?!!

    by Cash Bailey

    I'm holding my nutsack as I type this, and I ain't letting go until Boxing day (Aussie release date).

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:17 a.m. CST

    Gollum!

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    Yes! Don't say what he looked like, but was he in it? How much? Do we get to see him doing his schtick? Was he cool? Screw the Balrog, I love Gollum...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:22 a.m. CST

    Poor Smeagol

    by Plusm

    Apparently we'll have to wait until TTT to see Gollum in his full glory. As far as I understand it his FOTR manifestation will be little more than a tease. Supposed to have a pretty huge role in the second movie, however.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:29 a.m. CST

    27th!!!!

    by General Sarcasm

    I Rule :)... but not as much as this movie will :(

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Still not satisfied...

    by virkku

    Ok, I admit this was a the best review so far, but I'm still waiting for a more analytical take on the film. And why the reviewer feels that many critics won't like the film? Is it good only to fanboys like us?

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Privileged.

    by ShortStuff

    It's at times like these when it's a pleasure to have something to look forward to. I have not read ANY books by 'Tolkien', and I know of only the main plot behind 'Fellowship Of The Ring'. I haven't a clue what happens in the next 2. However, it feels great to be a OneRing virgin. And I don't ever remember being this excited about a movie before. Like the rest of you guys, I really can't wait. The review by 'Joe MaMa' was perfect and spoilerless aswell. Just wish he'd explained how the fight scenes were portrayed. However, the visual splendour of the movie seems to be amazing, and I'm always a sucker for beautiful landscape imagery. So I can't imagine how my heart will cope with big screen visuals, especially when I get an awe-inspiring feeling just by watching the trailer and tv spots. Anyway, today, I think I'll read through my newly purchased LotR:FotR 'Visual Companion' book with my niece and nephew, just to get them that little bit more excited. I'll make sure that they're definitely free on December 19. Then we'll look forward to watching a 3 hour fantasian epic film together. After all, that's what a movie like this, at this time of year is all about. Enjoy it guys...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil

    by General Sarcasm

    I think they didn't include him in the film because of all the mystery surrounding the character. While Tolkien created such a detailed, realistic, and believable universe (even more detailed than the Starwars Universe), very little is know about Tom Bombadil. For people who haven't read the book, I think they'd sit through the movies waiting for him to show up again later on or waiting to find out more about him and wind up disappointed. It's sort of like Hagrid's dragon in the Harry Potter movie. They didn't have the screen time to show the whole subplot about the dragon but they threw him in anyways just for eye candy (at least I think that's why they did it).

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Virgins etc

    by SpacePervert

    Shortstuff, you almost make me jealous. You almost make me wish I was coming to this story with the same breathless excitement I had when I read these books under the blanket with a torch til daylight when I was eleven years old. I almost wish that I'd missed out on the really excellent BBC radio play which brought the songs and the story to life (featuring, oddly enough, Ian Holm as Frodo. There's coming full circle for you). Almost, but not quite. But thanks for reminding me what it's about.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 8:27 a.m. CST

    JoeMaMa - READ THIS PLZ SIR!

    by EvilNight

    Of the 3 reviews yours is hands down the best. Now, I have a question to ask you... as someone pointed out above, what's the atmosphere like? Let me explain what I mean... Have you read Dune? Did you see the Sci-fi Dune Miniseries, and the original Dune movie (that everyone loves to hate)? The Dune books set an atmosphere and tone. The Sci-fi miniseries follows the books very closely, but IMO totally fails to capture the atmosphere. The Dune movie by contrast may change a lot of things, but it FEELS like Dune, whereas the miniseries did not. That's the best example I can give you. Now, how does FOTR feel? Does it feel like the books did for you? I know you're reading these talkbacks, now don't be shy, share. We wantsss to know, preciousss... nasssty reviewers, they are keeping secretses from usss... we must squeeze them, precious!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 8:34 a.m. CST

    ps

    by SpacePervert

    They left out Tom Bombadil because he's an embarrassing treehugging space case with a drippy-dull homemaker S.O. We all know he's really Eru on a dirty weekend, but he's still a filler to get to the barrow-downs.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil-lo - Nie danke...

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    I'm going to raise my head above the battlements and say that I agree with SpacePervert on this one. Ix-nay on the Tom Bombadil (though I do think the Barrow Downs bit was well creepy, though doesn't really advance the plot much). Though the hobbits do have cool dreams in his house.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9 a.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil

    by wyllder

    I agree on the death of Tom.. The purists who don't agree should take a thoughtful look at what happened to Harry Potter: Rather than a great movie true to the book's heart we got a pretty comprehensive 2:45 documentary that tried to cram as much of the book in as possible and somehow lost all the magic along the way. With the first reviews already citing pacing issues in the first hour (remains to be seen if these are more the fault of Jackson/Walsh's script or Tolkien's story) I couldn't imagine audience reaction to the addition of a 45 minute tea and karaoke session right as the action is about to begin. Sorry Tom. Wyll-

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:04 a.m. CST

    Sure it'll be alright but...

    by Captain Squid

    Can it possibly be as good as Kung Fu Cult Master???

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Flop, ha...

    by EvilNight

    The readers of AICN and other internet sites aren't capable of boosting LoTR book sales to this level, so you're dead wrong with this BS that nobody outside the net cares about it. http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/books/leb1.htm

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Galadriels forest.....

    by PrimeSeed

    fnar fnar

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10 a.m. CST

    "This movie will flop"?

    by RedCapitalist

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....that's funny. Tell another one.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Please... stop expecting too much... it is sad...

    by SK909

    I really don't understand the people that say Harry Potter lost all the magic because it didn't change anything from the book or crammed as much as possible into the film. I thought it was perfect. Jesus, man, some people are right about the idiots on this site, you DO complain about EVERYTHING. I can't believe that after all the whining about wanting it to be just like the book, people are now complaining that it's JUST LIKE THE BOOK. Are you all INSANE? Now, the one movie I thought you'd all get behind,LOTR, even though I'm not that excited about it, I'm now realizing you're all gonna pick that apart like vultures too. This site is starting to become like a disease for the people that frequent it. AICN almost makes it incapable to enjoy anything anymore. If this site was around during the 80's, it's very likely you all would have bitched to high hell about Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Goonies, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Goonies, Neverending Story, Terminator, Gremlins, The Dark Crystal... all of them. Did you ever think that the reason you all bitch is that you go into these movies expecting War and Peace, some intellectual satisfaction and they are goddamn KIDDIE MOVIES! I know adults can enjoy them too, but not at the level you're all expecting to. My dad didn't go gaga over Indiana Jones when I was a kid, he just enjoyed it and that was it. But he sure as hell still loved the Beatles. It's called nostalgia for one's youth, and I believe it is why so many of us spend a lot of time picking on the latest fantasy/sci-fi movies. We're expecting something I don't think we're going to get because we're all older and wiser(most of us) and we go far easier on the films from our youth because of that whole nostalgia trip. I believe it's still possible to enjoy the new films in that way, but a lot of you just expect way too much. They are supposed to be light, fun, adventurous entertainment. I realize that some fantasy can be for adults more than children, like LOTR, but it still is FANTASY, and you can't enjoy it unless you stop being so goddamn anal. P.S. - This whole rant does not excuse the pile of excrement that is The Phantom Menace. No, not the entire pile, but maybe 25% of it. Ok, 15%.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10:18 a.m. CST

    great picture site

    by SpacePervert

    Anyone who hasn't checked out Darkhorizons.com yet, there's a link to a czech site. Another great Elrond pic!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10:33 a.m. CST

    The non fans have a beer and cheet on their wives

    by TheKellySisters

    I want to read a review of the film by someone who hasn't read the books. I am a LOTR virgin and don't want my first time to turn into me being raped by a film that assumes everyone has read the book, ala Sphere. Let's get someone who's not a true LOTR fan!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Thank You God Almighty!!

    by never_growed_up

    And I thought the big G had forsaken the earth and all her children? Fuck that! Lord of the Rings is almost here!! Never in my wildest imaginings did I believe they'd be able to pull off a worthy LOTR adaptation, but by jimbo all indicators point to a huge success for Peter Jackson, New Line and the rest. The stills press all the right buttons, the trailers strike all the right chords...and how about the commercials?!? Give the Marketing guys at New Line a fucking raise folks. They draw the viewer in...dead-on perfect! I envision major goosebump action...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:01 a.m. CST

    RE: Indie, the Beatles and nostalgia

    by LarsII

    I agree with most of what SK909, mainly that people expect too much from films. Take them as they are. Anyway, I do disagree that nostalgia has elevated Raiders and Back to the Future to be better films than we think they are. Those are great films. Adults of the time did love them, and I'm sure there were adults that were fanatical about them at the time. Sure they are popcorn movies, but there are great. The first Indy has a pathos that is not seen in the following two and not seen in any of the countless knock-offs. And i'm sure your dad has nostalgia for the Beatles, but that doesn't change the fact that they or were great, it just means he was young when they exploded onto the scene.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Agree and disagree

    by Venture

    Space Pervert, dead on! Exclusin of TB no loss. If you've got to cut something, cut that! It's a np brainer. Ender and Bean, short attention span? Have you heard of Titanic? Or is your response just formulaic short attention span talk backing?

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:09 a.m. CST

    This movie will flop?

    by RenoNevada2000

    There's about as much of a chance of that happening as ther is of Heather Graham taking up residency under my desk here at work and servicing me throughout the day. And of the two, I know which I would prefer to happen. . .

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Hey Ender

    by EvilNight

    You're missing something. The vast majority of the population does NOT watch MTV. Sure, lots of folks between 5 and 25 do, but MTV's total audience ain't the total population by a long shot. My friggin parents (both over 70) are drooling to see this movie, and they don't even have cable. They haven't been in a theater since Braveheart. If LoTR doesn't appeal to the braind dead cretins who live on MTV and the rest of our bullshit teen culture phenomenon, fine, fuck them, it'll do fine without them. That said, you have seen all the MTV bits hyping this movie like its the second coming, right? Doesn't make sense to say that MTV folks won't like it when MTV is pushing it. MTV viewers are only smart enough (by and large) to watch what MTV TELLS them to watch (IE my 2 Roomates). If MTV says it's cool, it's cool, even if the rest of us think it's utter tripe. They'll be like that until they learn to think for themselves. For now, MTV is saying "Go see the movie", so most of them will go see the movie.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:12 a.m. CST

    suits, filmaking and money

    by LarsII

    Edner and Bean, Stars Wars didn't bring the suits back to movie making, they were always there, it's just at the end of the sixties Easy Rider became a hit and none of the "suits" knew why, so they started giving young filmmakers money to do make films that the youth of America would like. This opened the door for Coppala, Scorcese, Polanski, Ashby, Towne, and Lucas and Spielberg. The studios still had every intention of making money, they just thought these guys could do it for them because Peter Fonda had a hit with Easy Rider. What Stars Wars (and Jaws) did was create the blockbuster, which slowy came to rely heavily on special effects and less on story, which ultimately led to the cookie cutter action film that appeased the masses instead of challenging them. Also, before the 60s and 70s, "suits" produced a shit load of great films, ones that inspired the "independent" filmmakers of the '70s.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Osama!

    by EvilNight

    You said, "LOTR does not hold mainstream appeal." Would you also say that Shakespeare doesn't hold mainstream appeal? Also, please define mainstream, I dunno if you mean "everyone living" or "that which we are told is mainstream on television". I cannot properly debate with ya if I don't know your definitions. :p

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Accesible?

    by Silvio Dante

    Lord Of The Rings was first printed in 1954. By the end of the sixties it was "Harry Potter" of it's time, phenomenon-wise. All around the world, it has been read by millions, studied by linguistics and explorers of myth alike, there has been stageplays, operas (and yes, one ill-fated animation feature), comic-books etc. made out of it. The "hype" is definitely there, just not in your typical Hollywood fashion. This is a global thing, LOTR and iy spans generations so I dare to predict that it will indeed "find an audience";)

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Does it have to be a blockbuster?

    by MPG

    Nope, it doesn't. Of course, it's the only currently unreleased movie that is in moviefone.com's top ten most requested movie list (up to #2 now) so the signs are quite good. 1% of the population in Scandinavia have already bought tickets (that equals more than 2 million tickets in the US). That's also a good sign. Can it be blockbuster? Yes. Does it HAVE to be one? Nope. It has to make good money so that TTT and ROTK will get a decent postproduction budget, but it doesn't have to beat Titanic. In fact, if LotR sets a new opening weekend record, I'll be very worried, because all the movies which have done so recently were movies that didn't live up to the expectations (Harry Potter, Jurassic Park III, Rush Hour 2, Mummy Returns and last but not least Star Wars:TPM). Other than that, like EvilDoer said, let's be happy that it got done.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Honestly, I don't give a shit what all these reviewers say.

    by Eternal

    The only opinion that matters in the end IS MY OWN (or yours!). Stop thinking the film will rock based simply on some guy creaming his jeans, but one who also said: "As I walked out, I slowly liked the movie more and more until I reached the point I am at now"... So, it's reasonable to assume that early on he was not too impressed and it took deep reflection to warm his heart, or some such BS. Not that it matters anyhow. Reviews are only a guide, not a statement of fact. I expect the film to be good, yes, but I'll be the judge of that thank you very much... However, positive reviews are most welcome, given that some jackass would find it ultra-cool to be the first to slam LOTR, but I guess there's still time for that :(

  • Maybe it's my location, Berkeley, CA, but I don't EVER EVER EVER have to purchase presale tickets to ANY movie! I walked in opening night to SW EP2. I walked into Harry Potter at 2 SEPERATE theaters during the opening weekend. One on opening night. Shit, there are MANY theaters around here that don't even sell advance tickets. And actual designated seats! WHAT!?! I have never heard of such a thing. Between Oakland, Orinda, Berkeley, Concord, San Ramon, Dublin, San Francisco (and about 10 more cities) I will be able to choose which theater out of at least 50 I want to see LOTR in. And I guarantee that not one of them will be sold out. Strangeness where you all live. Strangeness I say.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Kine parties! HAH! I kill me.

    by Jaka

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Doesn't have mainstream appeal??

    by europop

    Well, if LOTR doesn't have any mainstream appeal, then surely no other book does either, considering LOTR is consistently voted Best Book of the 20th century. I think those who are saying that LOTR will flop, and that normal people aren't interested, are just saying it to stir up trouble rather than actually believing it.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Evildoer and Eternal

    by Jaka

    First let me say sorry for posting twice, but there was a lot of Talk Back to get through and I didn't want to loose my thoughts. First, Evildoer, I disagree and this flows into Eternals thoughts. I have seen the commercials for this film with about 5 people that have never read the books. They are all going. My second Harry Potter attendance was for my best friends sons 11th (rad huh?) birthday party which several more adults who had not seen the film, ALL commented that it looked awesome and as most of the kids turned around (they were seated in the row in front of us) with looks of awe on there face we decided another group trip will be in order. A couple of the kids had even read the books. The magic is undeniable. The look of the film from just the trailers and print is unlike anything I have seen. PLUS!! And this is a BIIIIIIG plus. At three ahours the film will have less show times than the average release. Half as few as a 90 minute film like Monsters Inc. or Shrek. So what will fill the theater you say. Romance mother fuckers! Romance. Laugh all you want, but I only need say Titanic for you to get my point. There is no demographic other than those that simply don't like the fantasy genre that will not be at least interested in this film. And after the first gazillion people see it and spread a positive word, well it should pretty much be a gigantic money maker by then. BUT EVE BEYOND THAT! I am already planning on seeing it no less than twice in the theater. Even old Gandalf himself (Ian McKellen that is) says to see it on a HUGE screen as there is much detail to be enjoyed. Whoo! So, having said all that I must say that Eternals comments are some of the truest posted on this site. I have said the same thing several times. It's neat to get to read what is happening while a film is made. And it's cool to here what people that get to see a film early have to say because I work a lot and do not live in that world. My movie a week is an escape and I alone judge what I want to see. No single critic, or even 10, is going to change that. In fact, I would much rather here from a friend I trust who has no experince being a "critic" what their impression was than even a spy at AICN. So even if the "buzz" on this film was the complete oppisite of what it is, I would still make my own decision as to wether or not I wanted to blow $8 on it. Which of course I WOULD!!!! BWAAHAHAHHAH!!!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Great! Just great!

    by Jaka

    Now I have two at the bottom, one at the top, and have no idea where this one will end up. Oh well, the one at the top relates to posts WAAAAY the fuck down in the Talk Back, so I wish it would have gone to the bottom. Oh well.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:03 p.m. CST

    F r e a k s & N a y s a y e r s

    by RedCapitalist

    Concerning LOTR, two very foolish things are happening. Firstly, many people are screaming, "This movie will be bigger than Star Wars and ANY movie EVER EVER EVER!!!" Secondly, many other people are screaming, "There is no way in hell that this film will make ANY MONEY at all except from dorks! This movie will flop because it won't appeal to ANYONE except Tolkien freaks." I just got one thing to say -------- WHAT THE FRUIT DO YOU PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING!!! NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE knows how well this movie will do; and to pretend like any of you jackasses DO know is the most retarded thing since "Shakespeare in Love" won the Best Picture Oscar over "Saving Private Ryan". Having said THAT, I would like to say that I think this movie will be GREAT GREAT GREAT and I (ME ME ME) will enjoy it immensely, regardless of whether or not ANYONE ELSE does.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:04 p.m. CST

    F r e a k s & N a y s a y e r s

    by RedCapitalist

    Concerning LOTR, two very foolish things are happening. Firstly, many people are screaming, "This movie will be bigger than Star Wars and ANY movie EVER EVER EVER!!!" Secondly, many other people are screaming, "There is no way in hell that this film will make ANY MONEY at all except from dorks! This movie will flop because it won't appeal to ANYONE except Tolkien freaks." I just got one thing to say -------- WHAT THE FRUIT DO YOU PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING!!! NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE knows how well this movie will do; and to pretend like any of you jackasses DO know is the most retarded thing since "Shakespeare in Love" won the Best Picture Oscar over "Saving Private Ryan". Having said THAT, I would like to say that I think this movie will be GREAT GREAT GREAT and I (ME ME ME) will enjoy it immensely, regardless of whether or not ANYONE ELSE does.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Osamabinlayme's really does have a valid point

    by JackLint

    I really hope that the box office performance of Fellowship won't affect the post-production of TT and RoTK, but I have a feeling it will. And thats why this discussion of the mass-market appeal of LOTR even has a point. I do agree that the average person will have only a passing interest at best. They really dont need to see a three hour goofy movie featuring wizards and what not. But at the same time, the "installed user base" is huge, and there is lots of hype. My mother even started reading the books, due to the huge amounts of buzz at her work. So I think that it will do well thanks to those who have recently read the books, those have been long time fans, and all the geeks out there. Then word will spred, and it will be a blockbuster. As Osama stated, Shakespear is not mainstream. I totally agree. But Shakespear in love was a huge hit. Why? word of mouth. Hopefully the same thing will happen here.

  • Every poll I have read regarding the best book of the 20th century has been unanimous in it's selection at number one: James Joyce's ULYSSES. Lord of the Rings is often in the top ten, but I've never seen it at number one. As for the boasting that it has sold 100 million copies worldwide, true, this is admirable. Harry Potter has sold that many copies in one tenth the time, however, so take that for what you will. This will be a GOOD movie, I'm sure of that. Will it be the best movie of all time? No. Will it live up to these fanboy expectations? HELL NO. Nothing can live up to fanboy expectations, nothing ever HAS. Show me a precedent for something ever coming out that you guys LIKED. Give me one title of one movie that has come out that fanboys didn't rip to shit just because they find out that either A) regular people liked it or B) regular people didn't like it. There seems to be only two schools of thought with these geeks: 1) it's popular, so it sucks. 2) it's not popular, so it sucks. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Can't you just let it be a MOVIE? A simple three hour DIVERSION? That's all it's supposed to be you freaks! It's not going to get you a better job, move you out of your mom's basement, clear up your acne, or get you laid. You're going to go to the theater, enjoy the movie, come out raving, go home, go to bed, and wonder why your life hasn't changed when the one thing you had to look forward to has now come and gone. It is just a movie people. God's not coming back just because some midgets with furry feet are running around after a piece of jewelry.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Titanic

    by LarsII

    Ender, still trying to figure out your "America has no culture, just pop culture" comment. The U.S. does have culture, and pop culture is part of that. And contrary to popular belief Americans can watch a movie over two hours, tie their own shoe and chew gum and walk at the same time. Regarding Titanic, that movie made Leo the teen-heart throb that he is. He WAS cast because he is a very talented actor (see Gilbert Grape, This Boys Life). Titantic was not a product of a trend, James Cameron wrote and directed and created a trend, in which lesser films, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor, cashed in on. While Titanic isn't the best movie in the world, it's better than its imitators.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:40 p.m. CST

    DAMN you -- it is not spelled McKellan!!!! When will you peopl

    by Bregalad_

    And by the way, Sir Ian will win the Oscar for playing Gandalf.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Wider appeal of LOTR than most would think

    by JackBertin

    I remember before the September 11 attacks, there was an article somewhere about how there is a fairly large group of people in Afghanistan that are big fans of the Lord of the Rings and they would get together and have a sort of Ren Fair where they dressed up like hobbits and such. Of course, the Taliban saw this as a threat and threw them in jail; this was why the article was written. I tried to find the article but I couldn't.. but it is true and just goes to show how far reaching these books are and how much money the movies would make just from the people who have read the books.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Tom bombadil Song....

    by animatrix

    I agree about Tom Bombadil. His presence wasnt required, but that really doesn't change a thing. He should have been in the film! I know of a group that has come up with a Tom Bombadil song. Its pretty good. The verses are incredible...... oh, by the way, I'm new here.... Names Animatrix.......

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:07 p.m. CST

    why lotr will work

    by oorat22

    the people who have seen it like it. so if it sucked we wouldve ripped it apart like a cheerleader costume worn by your girlfriend on holloween(trust me i know) titanic, mmmmmm, ya know, i dont think the power of leo made it what it was. i seem to believe that none of his other movies to date have really done as well, or really done too terribly well, i havent see him with a hit since. and why do alot of guys dislike, cause it is pure romance novel stuff. ofcourse the women ate it up. and the critics blasted it right up untill it came out. and then, suddenly, they liked it. they changed their minds. they called it a mistake, a bomb waiting to happen, they all thought it would flop, cause of the cost, and the length, cause noone wants to sit through a 3 hour movie. but it worked, and made a new deffinition all its own for the blockbuster category. and star wars. whats so mass appealing bout star wars? its sci fi, so whywould normal people care bout dorky stuff like sci fi? you want fantasy movies that did well, dragonslayer. an r rated movie, that was a hit. it had one of the coolest dragons put on film. private ryan was bout 3 hours, and it didnt do well just cause it was a war movie. point is, yeah we americans have a short attention span, but thats just cause 90% of the movies that get made and shown here are crappy. so ofcourse we're always looking for a new thrill. its like video games, there are alot of games out there, so why are games like final fantasy out there, they take too much time to play, and what with us having short attention spans, yould think we'ld drop it after an hour. or take ultima online, talk bout a time consuming fantasy story rpg. and alot of people play that. the success of lotr will solely be based upon how good it is. not how long. lotr is going for the same kinds of people as star wars. fans of adventure and fiction. people who like to see adventures that are bigger than life. if its good they will go.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Tom Bambadil....

    by PurityOfEssence

    I think that Tom Bambadil would be a character that would be better fit for the DVD, if they went back and filmed the sequences and put them in, (kinda like Star Wars Special Editions)it would just work better. I mean some of us would sit down for 4 hours but they have to sell it to people who won't do that also. So maybe when the rummored fully eddited together trilogy comes out which will be at the very least 9 hours in length, seens with Tom Bambadill and other cut things could be brought in. I can see it now The Lord of The Rings Diffinetive Full Length Cut. Coming in at 12 hours in length.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Tom Bambadil....

    by PurityOfEssence

    I think that Tom Bambadil would be a character that would be better fit for the DVD, if they went back and filmed the sequences and put them in, (kinda like Star Wars Special Editions)it would just work better. I mean some of us would sit down for 4 hours but they have to sell it to people who won't do that also. So maybe when the rummored fully eddited together trilogy comes out which will be at the very least 9 hours in length, seens with Tom Bambadill and other cut things could be brought in. I can see it now The Lord of The Rings Diffinetive Full Length Cut. Coming in at 12 hours in length.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Vegas et al. Thanks for reminding us to calm down....

    by Kurt S. E.

    I love these posts that remind us it is only a movie and that it's not the second coming. Because we don't know that. You voices of reason must be a lot of fun to hang out with. "Isn't that dangerous? Do you have permission? But the sign says don't." Give us a break. We are having fun. The rants are fun. The hype is fun. Let us ride this wave. Go read the Wall Street Journal if you can't handle it. The next month is ogin to be fanboy heaven as will May 2002. Thanks anyway mom.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Here's a question for you...

    by Lazarus Long

    Perhaps this has been discussed before, but what do people think of a non-linear adaption of The Two Towers? Maybe it's already known how this one's going to breakdown but I'm not a mega-Tolkien geek so I don't. Personally, I feel that the film would be pretty week by telling it as is it printed. All the action is in Book 3, while Book 4 is on a much smaller scale. I think by cutting back and forth between the two books, Jackson can hold viewer interest without giving away anything too early (there's really no "spoilers" in Book 4 that couldn't be told sooner). It will give the Isengard stuff a lot more weight, coming at the end of the film. That Gandalf/Saruman stuff is just too heavy to be buried in the middle of a 3-hour film. Bring on the Ents!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Damn, we only have a few more weeks and already Geek Factor is a

    by IAmLegolas

    Relax and take a deep breath, we are almost there... STAY ON TARGET! Anyway, I'm glad that Tom B. is not in the movie. Why? Because that was the most boring part of the books for me and it most likely would of made a pretty bad translation to screen. He might of been the next Jar Jar! Okay, maybe not that bad, but still... I'm not gonna miss him. So far, the reviews, albeit it sparse in details, make it sound like the book. Pacing is slow/bad at the begnning with the Mines Of Moria being the best sequence with an underlying darkness and fear running throughout the movie. What I want to know is : Will Sam keep his dialogue of wanting to see Elves? Will Boromir try to talk the Fellowship from going to Lothlorien because he thinks it's an "evil" place. Will they blindfold Gimli before they go in? Will Gollum be hinted at in shadows as he was in the FOTR book? Will we see the Giant Eagle rescue Gandalf from his entrapment on Saruman's tower? Will we hear the Ringwraiths hiss and shriek and say things like "To Mordor We Will Take you" or "Give Us The Ring"? Also I hope the movies make a lot of movie only because I want New Line to feel validated for taking a BIG chance in making these movies and giving Peter Jackson full control. Plus, I don't want the next 2 to be in jeopardy. So if they have to sell their souls to Burger King, Toy Biz, Sideshow Toys, United Cutlery, Applause, etc. to recomp some money, then SO BE IT. All the merchandising won't be in your face in a couple of a years, but guess what? The movies WILL BE. In my entire life I've never thought these movies would be possible and I'm extremly lucky to be alive to see them finally be made and hopefully made RIGHT. Dec 19th, mothaphucka. Be there or be square!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Speaking as a non-Tolkien fan who wants to see this.

    by L.B. Jefferies

    I haven't read the book, though I read The Hobbit. I have promised myself not to read the book until after seeing the movie, something I NEVER do, but it seems more appropriate to me this time around. I found myself nitpicking the first Harry Potter flick too much so I'd just rather spare myself that for this. But onto the whole question of all of this LOTR hullabaloo... as a few of you have been posting, I have less faith in the American public latching onto this than the average Tolkien fan does. I said it before that I think the flick will top out at $100 million. Not because of the length (Titanic fucked that theory and Harry Potter has fucked the "kids have short attention spans" theory) but because of the fact that sword and sorcery flicks have NEVER done tremendous business in this country and, contrary to what a lot of people think, not as much of the American public is that keen on the Lord of the Rings saga. Do I think it's going to be a good movie? Sure. Do I think it's going to be better than Harry Potter? Now, that I've seen HP and was -I wouldn't say disappointed but with the potential that the book has, it left a little to be desired- mildly disappointed, I would say that yes, it might just be a better film than HP. But the question of which film is better is irrelevant. So is the question of which one will make more money in the end, even though I have no faith that it will make a tremendous lot. Because all that matters is that the fans are happy with how it comes out. If it's a good flick, people will go see it. To be honest, I like the cult classics more than the mainstream ones, to a degree; they're more of a bonding experience than anything else. For example, I have a friend to whom I bow down because he's the only person I know that saw Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood in the theatres. But everyone I know saw Scary Movie opening weekend. Catch my drift? So ask yourself, who really gives a shit if LOTR makes $700 million or $7 million? Who cares if it makes more or less money than Harry Potter? They're not even aimed at the same audiences, let alone playing the same sort of game,you know? If you dig LOTR, fan or not, then it was worth it... unless you have stock in AOL/Time Warner... then you should, by all rights, give a shit about the box office.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2 p.m. CST

    Well said Kurt S. E.

    by BigW

    Sometimes I wonder if these "anti-hype" guys realize where they are posting.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Vegas?

    by WinkyDauphin

    Good heavens, who stuck the bug up your butt? If it's really "just a movie," I have to wonder why you're spewing such venom over it. Did you get recently mugged by a couple of geeks or something?

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:06 p.m. CST

    LOTR/Afghanastan

    by LarsII

    LOTR could be coming out at just the right time. Anyone else notice similarity between LOTR and the war on terrorism? An evil force (sauran/bin Laden) attempts to impose his will on the rest of the world from his mountainous lair. He enlists the support of the indiginous people of his land through intimidation and brutality. When his evil intentions strike innocent lands (the shire/U.S.) and fellowship, (coalition) is formed to eradicate him from the world and free the people he has enslaved. I don't mean to diminish the war on terroism or to dismiss the terrorist as simply evil (the whole situation is very complicated), but LOTR story could strike a nerve with the American public and turn it into a blockbuster.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:11 p.m. CST

    "Also I hope the movies make a lot of movie only ..."

    by IAmLegolas

    Oopsy, I made a typo. It should of read :"Also I hope the movies make a lot of MONEY only ..."

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:13 p.m. CST

    The Fellowship

    by Silver_Joo

    I already have my tickets for the 19th, looking forward to this. However, Fellowship was the weaker part of the trilogy, and any pacing problems are to do with the source material. I think we will really be blown away by Two Towers and The Return of the King. Not so sure about some of the book they have chopped.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Next person tells me to lighten up I'm gonna smack 'em i

    by Nordling

    Gee. I'm a LOTR fan. I've managed to get married and procreate too. AND I PLAYED D & D! Wow, a 20-sided die managed to let me stay sterile and keep me interested in the opposite sex. Yes, I AM excited over LOTR. I will remain so. Why? Because LOTR is my favorite story of anything, ever. Oxford University considered it the greatest book of the English language, if I remember correctly. Of course, they're probably a little biased, as J.R.R taught linguistics there. SW is great. Love the films. I'm sure Episode II will rock, and I'm apparently one of the few who loved PHANTOM MENACE. Let me make this clear: SW does not hold a candle to it in my eyes. It doesn't make any difference who populates these storys, be it Elves or frigging Teamsters. The story and characters are compelling, Tolkien's prose is like honey mixed with chocolate, and frankly there are moments in these novels so intense and thrilling it makes SW look like Lucas is reading a grocery list. You want me to calm down? FUCK NO I WON'T. If I'm let down so be it - unlike Lucas's films, if these wind up sucking it doesn't change the books one iota. If you're going to geekbash people who are actally getting excited and having fun with all of this, you're hopeless. Can't wait...such a HUGE fan!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:28 p.m. CST

    "Best Book?" A matter of taste

    by Oberon

    Re: Vegas's comments..."Best" is of course a subjective term, and tastes will differ. I'm not sure I can even compare Ulysses with LOTR - they're simply so different in style and format and subject matter. However, for what it is worth, both Waterstone's (the British book chain) and the Daily Telegraph both held surveys for the honor you speak of, and LOTR won them both hands down - though Ulysses did come out on top among Welsh readers, as it has in one or two other polls on the matter. But that's really still subjective. Perhaps it would be better to ask what book has had the greatest impact. In which case LOTR would certainly be a frontrunner, given that it has sold 160 million copies at last count (I had not heard that 100 million figure for Potter, to be honest, but I suppose it is not impossible), with another 35 million for The Hobbit - and given the fact that it has spawned an entire literary genre. And given all THAT, it seems clear that whatever your view of the book, it is bound to well in some fashion at the box office as well.

  • I need a proper pint of 1420. Bad. I'll see you all at the Green Dragon.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 2:49 p.m. CST

    repost

    by DufusyteII

    What's with all these anti-Bombadil posts? The way I see it, lotr is all about Tom, and the rest is just filler. heh. ******* btw, in case everybody missed my post in the last Talkback where the order is messed up, here ya have it again: ***REPOST FOLLOWS*** From the early reviews a couple things are clear: the film is powerful and impressive and astounding in its own way. It is also dark and violent, which can be a good thing, but which also means that the film is not suitable for children, and not particularly captivating for women. This is a guy's film. Indeed, it is a Great guy's film. It is kind of like Gladiator in this sense, that it is too violent for children, does not include enough mushy elements for women, but has enough depth to win it the Best Picture and a fistful of Oscars. I predict the same for Fellowship. Its darkness and seriousness will win it Best Picture, but the price to pay is that it loses the child/female demographic audience, and hence loses a chunk of box office. I commend PJ et al for taking this route. Every film-maker has to decide whether he is shooting for crass commercialisation and maximum box office, or whether he is shooting for a truly great film. Star Wars (all of them) blatantly sold out and targeted children and women, and became all fluffy, and grossed billions, and none of them were ever even nominated for best Picture (were they?); at least none of them ever won. Indeed, the best of the series (Empire Strikes Back), which was the darkest and most serious, grossed less than all the other fluffy ones with the cuddly ewoks and ridiculous jar jar. So it just goes to show that box office does not indicate the greatness of a film, indeed it is often the contrary. Such will be the destiny of Fellowship. It is a great film, a serious film, a dark and violent film; it will win Best Picture, but it will not be the biggest box office of the year. That is the price you have to pay for making a great film. ******* I'm glad PJ took the serious route, since all previous renditions of lotr have been relatively fluffy child-oriented productions (even Bakshi is a cartoon, after all). It's about time someone made a man's version of lotr, and this is it. In this sense it draws a parallel to Gladiator once again, in that Gladiator took a genre of film that was typically somewhat fluffy ("gladiator films"), and gave it a very serious and somewhat dark treatment. This is what PJ's film is doing for lotr: a darker treatment of a story that has often been given a fluffy presentation in the past. ******* There are many themes that could be highlighted in making a film version of lotr. PJ apparently has chosen to highlight the terror and action (violence) of it. That's ok, I guess. It is not the same tone as the books by any means, of course. That is, the books do not read in a terrifying manner, and anyone who hopes for bloodlust will not find much satisfaction in the books. Indeed, this is why the books appeal to a wide female audience. Evidently, PJ has not picked up on those aspects of Tolkien that appeal to the female nature. Indeed, this was evident from the start, when even Arwen was not allowed in the film unless she became "one of the guys." It is as though the production hung a sign on their treehouse "No Girls Allowed." It is simply not a girl's film, and even the feminine lead was made somewhat macho. But even though it misses the Women and Children demographics, the film absolutely nails the Guy demographic, making itself one of the great Guy films of all time, garnering cult status along the lines of The Godfather or BladeRunner or Spinal Tap (LOL! Had to think of a third 'guy film'). With repeat viewings by loyal Tolkien fans (guy fans, that is), the film should enjoy a very respectable box office, but its real victory will be at the Oscars. ******* Dufusyte would like to take this opportunity to say a big "Well Done!" to PJ et al, because you chose not to go the fluffy Star Wars route. You chose to go for greatness rather than for bucks, and that is a very respectable decision to make. ******* Is TTT going to follow in the same vein? It would be ok if it did (another great film), but perhaps they will reach into their bag of tricks and tap into those elements of Tolkien that appeal to feminine nature. I mean, the sinking of the Titanic does not strike one as a story that lends itself to a mushy female treatment, but Cameron managed to highlight the humanity of the tale in such a way that he brought out the feminine themes in the event. If New Line demands a bigger box office for TTT, the film editors will need to put on their thinking caps and see if they can stress other themes in TTT besides the terror and violence of it all. There is something in Tolkien that appeals to females. If you can tap into that, you have just won for yourselves another large demographic chunk. Congrats on Fellowship, and best of luck on the future films!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 3:05 p.m. CST

    A True Fan Boy.

    by rabid_republican

    Unlike Sam's review, I feel Joe Mama's is the real deal. I must confess I am relatively a "Tolkein Virgin", having only seen the rather abortive animated forays into hobbiton. However, being relatively familar with the story and given an inherit love of fantasy, I am seriously looking forward to this film. I'll see all of you (that includes the haters) in line, December 19th!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 3:30 p.m. CST

    About Titanic E&B

    by Venture

    No, I'm not saying it's a brilliant film. I'm saying the grosses defy some of your points about what North Americans will pay to see. It's long, has no action (except for the conclusion), is a period piece (and a chick flick to boot), as well as ending in death. Sure the dialogue was bad, but except for that it went against the grain. According to your post, the only way audiences should ve sat through Titanic is if 1) It took place in modern times, 2) It ran under two hours, 3) the boring ship time was puntuated by karate scenes and shark attacks, and 4) Jack shows up on shore to great Rose after a Tom Hanks like swim (whereupon he busts a cap into Billy Zane's ass). BTW, I'm not ragging on your opinion in a nasty way, it's hard to suggest inflection in text. I'm just saying North Americans will defy conventional wisdom if the film is good. I want LOTR to succeed and believe you'll be surprised at how well it does in the US>

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:10 p.m. CST

    I saw it last night....

    by sarcasmatron

    All of this semi-predictive rhetoric is really cute and everything, but I actually saw the movie last night. To summarize: 1. Brilliant. 2. PJ gets LOTR virgins up to speed within the first 5 minutes of the film. 3. PJ incorporates the romantic subplot in a really subtle fashion that works [as an aside to JRRT diehards, he does this via the bastardization of a story out of "Silmarrilion"] 4. Pacing is excellent. Not to long at all. This will be a multiple-viewing flick across the board: males/females, LOTR fans/virgins. Where I really think people are going to be surprised is when the 50+ crowd start turning out in droves to see this movie - I don't necessarily think it will happen right away, but it will happen. It's an amazing movie and will do great at the box office, no matter what the myopic fanboys [here and on the various JRRT newsgroups have to say about it]. Oh yeah... one more thing.... I SAW IT LAST NIGHT ! ! ! ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Reviews

    by Frobobo

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil - er...right...okay

    by The Red Avenger

    You honestly didn't think he would make the film did you - I mean - as a fan of the books I think TB is where a lot of readers stop reading - it is quite preposterous and very outdated - TB doesn't really fit in to the story anyway and I think Tolkien only put him in out of love of the character - but I could just see the people in the cinema after the bit where Old Man Willow has swallowed them up and the tension has built up to be puntuated by "Hey Tom Bombadil, Bom-Bombadillo - Bright Red his Jacket is and his boots are yellow" "Hey doll-merry-dol-derry-doll-me-hearties...etc"...I mean COME ON? People will go "What the fuck?" - that for another 20 minutes and people will crucify the story beyond belief despite what happens for the rest of the film. Okay so in a way he is important to the story but only in a small way - the ring has no power over him and he is instrumental in the Hobbits escaping the Barrow Wight and getting their swords of Westernesse - but that is all. Personally I can take him or leave him in the book - and often skip the three chapters - going straight to Bree - fortunately that's what the BBC did and that's what PJ has also done - and hats off to him. As for the review - it fills me with anticipation and as far as the pacing of the first hour goes well - the book doesn't really pick up speed until Bree. (That also is where the book becomes impossible to put down) The sheer evil of the Black Riders takes over from there and the fact that even Aragorn is scared of them brings a new meaning to the enormity of the quest. Interspersed with Gandalf V Saruman - the Hobbits and Strider's journey taking in Weathertop evading the Riders and the Ford scene should move along nicely - You don't want the film to begin fast and not let up - You want to be introduced to the characters and the story slowly - belive me - if you don't know what's coming then be warned - once it gets going there will be no let up. As for the other minor quibbles - I can see some points and Jackson's has his own unique directorial style - as far as claustrophobic goes - Hey, we are supposed to feel claustrophobic where the Ring is concernerned and as for the long shots and open vista's of New Zealand - I always like these shots in films - CTHD had them and if you have seen Kurosawa's "Ran" then some of those shots are breathtaking. Characters - well it sounds like most of them are nailed - as far as Celeborn goes - he is supposed to be oafish and haughty - he chides the Fellowship for waking Durin's Bane and it's only thru Galadriel's intervention that we find out who is the wiser between them - after all Celeborn is not important enough. Like I said - if they get 85% of it right then, I'll be happy - it sounds more like 95% but I will make my own mind up when I see it. It's not long now - and boy does it sound worth the wait? ... RA

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Reviews

    by Frobobo

    Reviews sound good to me: 3 hours - thats great - I am glad suits did not chop it to 2 for $. Some women were unimpressed. Good! it sounds like it did not go overboard on policitical correctness, nor overplay Aragorn/Arwen romance. Pacing was slow in first hour. That is fine with me. I love Tolkien because of the backstories, history, detail, etc. If that does not please the "mummy returns" crowd which only wants at interconnected series of CGI effects with a thin plot and story - that is fine with me.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:20 p.m. CST

    On matters of "pop" culture.<--for Ender.

    by rabid_republican

    It had to happen, didn&#39;t it? I was minding my business, purusing the usual fan boy rants when the whole "America doesn&#39;t have a culture" nonsense thing started. Some non-American using the ever snooty and always clueless Noam Chomsky as an "authority" on ANYTHING about this country makes me shudder. First things first: Chomsky is Linguistics and Semantics Professor and noted anti-American scribbler at MIT. This tenured radical fell into the gorge of the illogical in the 60s and has remained nestled there ever since. This cat is anything but a cultural critic. More like a cultured barbarian, given his latest incoherent ramblings on the war in Afganistan. People like Chomsky make me want to start up my own neougenics program to see that their seed does not infest anyone. You can&#39;t mention this halfwit&#39;s name and not expect the conversation to become politically charged. __________________________________ And now the simple truth: America has had a very distinct and vastly diverse culture. Part of this culture has included marketing. From the very begining, our novels, plays, and music were made for consumption and tailored to an increasingly literate, if unsophisticated, class of people. However, that didn&#39;t mean we weren&#39;t capable of something more refined, simply because it was mass marketed. For example, Duke Ellington is a phenomenal jazz composer. But if you know him for "A-Train" or "Mood Indigo" type tunes, you&#39;ve only been exposed to half his tallent. Jazz itself is a souly American inovation in music. You could appreciate and respect Ellington&#39;s swing and still enjoy his non-swing just the same...leading us right back to my point in saying that Mr. Chomsky&#39;s assessment of us is far from accurate._________________________ What in Gollum&#39;s gullet does any of this have to do with LOTR? Well aside from the debate over what kind of audience sees a film, let me say that LOTR may not be the most sophisticated of films. Its values are rather straightforward; a band of adventurers coming together in the face of overwhelming odds seems universal enough (more than inherit exclusively to one culture or another) I&#39;ll leave that for more "cultured" souls (who probably will skip it) to decide wheather that&#39;s a bad. However, this won&#39;t change the fact Americana is something unique, representing our own values. If the market is one of them, well then so be it.

  • I want to see LOTR. I think it will be a good movie. THERE. Let that be said first. I am not trying to bash the film, MAINLY BECAUSE I LIKE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT, and I am going to give it a chance. Now, on to several points: Why LOTR won&#39;t be as financially viable as people say: it is not A) a children&#39;s movie, or B) a date movie. All of the top money makers of all time or either one or the other, and LOTR, in it&#39;s devotion to the fanboys, is neither. It may be good, but the fact is that it will be too scary for most kids and most women (not all, but most) just do not consider a swords and sorcery flick to be prime date material. This is just how it is, most (non fanboy) people go to the movies either to take their kids, or on dates. Sorry, I don&#39;t make the rules. Second, why the anti-Star Wars bashing is insulting: as a child of the seventies, I grew up on Star Wars. It was what made me like movies to begin with. It is MY Lord of the Rings. I hold it in a very dear and special place in my heart. When an LOTR fan goes around bashing Star Wars to prop up LOTR, it just makes THIS Star Wars fan RESENT LOTR. It&#39;s like if you&#39;re a Celtics fan, and if a Lakers fan comes up to you about how much better the Lakers are than the Celtics, it makes you resent the Lakers. This is not to say the men on the Lakers team are bad guys, just that you resent them because of their FANS. Likewise, I don&#39;t resent the LOTR BOOKS, I am merely tired of the sentiments expressed by the LOTR FANS. Third: I don&#39;t want to see LOTR get geeklashed. It is being made SOLELY FOR THE FANBOYS. This is your chance, either like this movie, or do not EVER expect anything to be made for you again! On that token, you can&#39;t go into ANY movie expecting it to change your life. Your life should be changed by more important things than movies. Birth of your kids, job changes, trips to far corners of the globe, history unfolding before your eyes (I&#39;m talking about 9/11, not 12/19). These things change your lives. 12/19 is just a movie release date. Go in and try to have fun, and don&#39;t watch it with some imaginary scorecard in the back of your head, obsessing on what it got different from your preimaginings or what it did better or worse than some other movie you&#39;ve built your life around. Because if this movie comes out and you, for whatever reason after however long, find yourself in any way disappointed by it, no one is going to care, and no one is going to listen to you. I just wish the movie would fucking come out already so you guys will realize there are OTHER movies out there (ALI, BLACK HAWK DOWN, ROYAL TENENBAUMS, OCEANS 11, THE MAJESTIC, PINERO, PANIC ROOM, VANILLA SKY, etc. etc.)

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Demographics

    by Redwood

    I don&#39;t think that you folks claiming that the terror and violence will ward 8-10 year olds and the children demographic away really understand America&#39;s youth. Since when have young boys been scared of going to horror movies? In my childhood, it was a tradition to sneak into R-rated films to watch excessive gore. I was in third grade when Jurassic Park was released, and whether you think its Spielberg fluff or not, it was scary to a youngster, but I loved every minute of it. As for the pacing of the first part of the novel... I sort of like it. It has an innocent and simple tone to it reminiscent of the Hobbit... no Elves or Men or complicated matters of Middle-Earth involved yet, just a group of hobbits who have a dim idea of a greater evil that&#39;s about to befall them. In some ways, the first hundred pages are a screener to people who can&#39;t "handle" the books... it makes Lord of the Rings all that more special to us, because, like Frodo, only a select are admitted to take in the grandeur of Tolkien&#39;s work.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil

    by Frobobo

    Love Tolkien - But Bombadil character was somewhat out of place with the serious and dark path that Tolkien ultimately took the LOTR story. If the only way to get 3 3 hour films made was for some judicious cuts to be made then Bombadil was a logical and worthy sacrafice. Ironic that this is what Bakshi dropped from his version (along with a lot of other worthy elements).

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 4:59 p.m. CST

    demographics

    by bumetalman

    the demographic that isnt going to see this movie are the minorities, especially african-americans, I love these books, but i have no idea how the hell theyll be able to market them to a black audience, there are NO TOKENs in this film, therefore, no way for the black audience to identify with this story, its that simple, every boy 8 to 80 will see this, every chick who digs hunks will see this(Mortensen, Bean, Bloom will become the new teen dream!), its agot a real cast, not flavor of the weak shit actors, the base is there, its the marketing that will make or break this film!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Demographics

    by Frobobo

    Lets get something straight there is no such thing as a film that is highly interesting to every demographic group. Titanic - good chick movie - good date movie. Not really a film for Kids, and not really a single guy film. And I sure did not see to many people of color in Titanic. LOTR should appeal to a wide enough of a crowd to be a huge blockbuster. Small kids no, "sex in the city" single chicks no - but some chicks really into Viggo. If reviews and word of mouth are good it will be a $200MM + film easy. As a Tolkien Fan I really do not care if it is the highest grossing film of all time - I just don&#39;t want a pice of garbage like Phantom Menance.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 5:50 p.m. CST

    to Miami MoFo: I think that Quickbeam delayed his reports to ha

    by Bregalad_

    I wrote him and asked the SAME question. He said that it was a good idea to publish the stories after the Potter hoopla died down "just a bit," and to give a fun boost to fan interest in LOTR. ----- And yeah, his reports are hellzapoppin!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Lotr and mushy "female" stuff

    by WinkyDauphin

    Whew, thanks Dufusytell, I almost forgot that since I&#39;m a woman I&#39;m not supposed to *like* Lotr! This whole time, I was looking forward to the action sequences and cool effects, and but for your comment I might have gone to see the movie. Good thing you reminded me not to like those things, and that I shouldn&#39;t have any sense of fun or imagination. Well, time for me to stop writing about Lotr now and go see some insipid, mushy movie instead. Maybe I&#39;ll even go out and rent Titanic.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:17 p.m. CST

    ebonic plague...I have only a one word response:

    by Nagual

    TESTIFY. ^_^

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:21 p.m. CST

    FoTR will do fine financially

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    The major reason is that there is as large (or larger) a fan base overseas as there is here in the states. Good grief, LoTR fans crashed the online ticket seller in Sweden. A Swedish cinema owner said that the lines to get advance tickets were on par with those for SW:TPM, but that FoTR far EXCEEDED them. And don&#39;t forget that every friggin&#39; adult in New Zealand is gonna turn out to support this film. FoTR will make enough to bring us the other two movies and acheive critical acclaim. For me, that&#39;s all I care about.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Postscript!

    by WinkyDauphin

    Ooh, now that you mention it, maybe it&#39;s okay for me to see this movie after all because there&#39;s a few male actors in it that -- regardless of what I actually think -- everyone tells me I should find attractive. I&#39;m now justified in spending 8 bucks to go "hunk-gazing."

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I got your demographics...

    by Huneybee

    How asinine. A movie may be filmed with a target audience in mind, but will certainly transcend that select group if good enough. My HUSBAND bought Titanic he enjoyed it so much; he normally doesn&#39;t watch "chick flicks". The LotR fan in our house is ME! You can take your demographics and shove &#39;em where the sun don&#39;t shine (I meant the mines of Moria, nitwit) and take your place in line for FotR behind this woman.____I read The Hobbit last week and FotR last night...I have to say that this may be one of extremely few times I enjoy the movie more than the book. I "liked" the books, but it took a while for me to really start enjoying them (er, pacing problems anyone?). I started TTT today and have enjoyed the first 100 pages or so much better than I did ALL of The Hobbit and a good portion of FotR. Once I became involved in the Fellowship story, I was able to lose myself in Middle Earth, but have been instantly enthralled by all I have seen of the movie. This will be an interesting test for me.____Bee

  • the story stands by itself. Like the Chronicles of Narnia. I always wonder why oh why do people have this need to compare movies, books, etc? Like the posts on Fellowship, comparing it to Ep2 and so on. Why? What purpose does this serve? We&#39;re talkin&#39; apples, oranges here. I&#39;m comfortable with knowing that I absolutely adore the stories/books on their own. And I know I will feel the same of the screen adaptations. I have never felt the need to compare LoTR or any other book, movie to another. I am curious why people continually do this. I&#39;m sure there will be elements in the movie that will make me remember a previous movie moment but in no way would I compare it completely with another flick. Oh, and I cannot wait for this movie. My anticipation is on "auto-pilot" and I&#39;m not being too over eager nor too cynical at this point. I just finally want to see it and absorb the experience.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:18 p.m. CST

    you can&#39;t add Tom! My knees will implode!

    by brush420

    I love Tom bombadil, by far the best part of the whole trilogy, but he had nothing to do with the real plot. The movie is already 3 hours long. When I got out of Harry Potter, I had to limp to the exit because my knees hurt so bad, if this movies was any longer I&#39;d have to bring a wheelchair. I&#39;d love a 4 hour movie but my body would be pissed!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:18 p.m. CST

    I have no doubt....

    by rorscharch1

    I have no doubt this movie will pass the 200 million mark. In fact, I am so confident that I have made a bet with a friend of mine that the LOTR will beat the opening record. Of course, recent events have made my chances a little harder since at the time of the bet, the top selling opening weekend record was held by Lost World. Now, thanks to Harry Potter, it has increased the difficulty. My reasons are many. The main reason, is one that many of you don&#39;t seem to consider, and that is the "history" of the LOTR books. THis book has been around for more than five decades. Think of it, There is an equivalent of more than fifty years of fans spanning the "entire" world that has read the books. We are talking people of "all" ages and "nationalities." Great grandfathers, grandfathers, fathers, uncles, teen agers, and yes even kids who have read these books, and not just hardcore fans but casual readers, scientists, professors, constructions workers, janitors, and, yes, it even has a large female readership. This is unprecented. THere is no book that has been adapted to screen, short of shakespeare that has such a large number of people who "know" what LOTR, and will gladly spend three hours seeing the film they read so long ago, or so recently. Also, some of you are being misled by the "dark" "violent" and scary nature of the movie making it non family oriented. Like I said, this is a multigenerational story, a lot of parents will take their kids simply because its LOTR. For example, a lot of families went to see jurassic park and that movie had some scary, dark, and violent moments. In the end, this has a lot of child aspects, elves, hobbits, trolls, warrior knights. Second reason, if these reviews are accurate, it sounds like this movie is excellent if not completely accurate. Excellent story, excellent cinematography, etc. It has been a very thin year for great, hell even good, movies. A lot of people who have never read the book, and have never been fantasy lovers, will go see this movie simply out of desperation to see "something," "anything," that is worth watching. Third reason, will be the marketing/word of mouth that will explode when this movie will come out. This will bring in all of the stragglers and sheep that not only don&#39;t read, but hardly watch a movie unless everybody else is doing it too. This is the titanic syndrome, I had no intention of ever seeing that film, I fought it to the end, but eventually, after all the hoopla, and how everywhere you went someone was saying you just had to see this film, family, friends, coworkers, I finally was dragged into the theater by the wave of hype, and, as it turned out, I was entertained. I believe there will be a similar wave of hype crashing the shores of popculture this December. Be prepared, ye cynics of LOTR. Fourth reason, Just like Harry Potter, I suspect that new line is going to release this movie simultaneously in other countries, to insure that this movie is a blockbuster. They need to hedge their beats, my friends, since they have two other movies that they&#39;ve spent a lot of money on. This movie has to do "exceptionally" well in the box office, not just "good" or "great." Otherwise, there is a risk that the studio will cut their losses, and the two other movies will never be finished and shelved, and whereby the movie studio will lose butloads of money. They are not going to take any chances with this movie. As for the young female population, Well, there isn&#39;t much that can be done for them. The boy bands, Britney, and MTV have totally brainfried their thought processes. "Insert Deity of choice" be with them. Who knows, there brainwashed minds might confuse LOTR with TRL and watch the movie anyway. After all, come December, going to see LOTR will be the totally cool thing to do. P.S. Just to avoid making those cynical, fanboy militants feel like they are so intelligent. YES! I AM A PLANT. :)

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:26 p.m. CST

    fems are being big talkers until they actually see the film

    by DufusyteII

    To my dear readers of the female persuasion, you will notice a trend: women going into the movie are full of enthusiasm, while women coming out of the theater are considerably less enthused if not downright disappointed. I appreciate your enthusiasm to see the film, but please check back with me after Dec 19, and let us see what you have to say about it when you have actually seen it. So far, from what we have heard from women who have seen it, they are somewhat unenthused about it, and say they would not bring their children to it by any means. This comes from the early reviews. I hope you girls love it, but there seem to be indications to the contrary. - Sincerely, Dufusyte (yeah, jump all over me until Dec 19, and then forget all about me when I&#39;ve been proven right - I know how you fems operate) :P ******* PS: kudos to the poster who mentioned that New Zealanders alone will spend $1 billion seeing this film in a non-stop marathon for the next six months. A large percentage of the NZ gross national product will be diverted to viewing this film. Imagine if PJ causes the national economy to crash because of this? Now I am off to invest in NZ theater stocks...please do not tell anyone...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:34 p.m. CST

    All you Psychics

    by Sinister

    There seems to be a lot of people here who believe they know the future. Maybe some of you do but I&#39;m sure the vast majority of you don&#39;t. Some say this movie will flop...to which others reply "thats ridiculous". Now I HOPE LOTR will be as successful as it deserves, but I can not say for sure that it will be a blockbuster. Why don&#39;t you just stick to saying "I hope etc" and the now cliche, "can&#39;t wait", instead of giving your "opinions"(because at this stage thats all they are)... just so you can say "I told you so" later on. If I had to guess then I would say LOTR will be very successful because there is definite evidence that it SHOULD be.But then, who knows how it will be recieved?

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 7:59 p.m. CST

    DRCOOL

    by Sinister

    Hey DR Cool? ...Could you make it any more obvious you&#39;re a Star wars fan who is getting tired of some hype devoted to a NON SW movie? As for all the "morons", I think you&#39;ll find that many of them are also SW fans. Don&#39;t you realise that it is people like you who actually create the resentment of SW? I for one am not worried about Star wars and couldn&#39;t care less if AOTC breaks all box office records...BECAUSE I AM A FAN OF STAR WARS AND LOTR. And you must be one of the psychics I mentioned previously who can read the future. Because you know LOTR will flop right? Well...like most people I can&#39;t read the future but I can say that pathetic, baseless comments that you make are exactly what make me want to see this movie succeed even more. Remember...I&#39;m NOT saying it IS going to but if it does, man will I be glad to know that you were wrong.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Re: Nordling: "Wow, a 20-sided die managed to let me stay steril

    by Estevez_Rex

    i know this response is a bit late, but... do you know what sterile means?

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Remember

    by Sherlack

    Lets all remember "The Frighteners" for a moment before we get too excited

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:14 p.m. CST

    Re: Jack Bertin

    by Estevez_Rex

    i believe the story you&#39;re referring to took place in Kazakhstan - not Afghanistan!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Well said, Sinister ...

    by Doubting_Thomas

    DRCOOL is down on FOTR because the review never once mentioned any poo-poo or wee-wee jokes. No fart jokes either! Damn. Still, I&#39;ve got my TPM DVD right here ...

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:53 p.m. CST

    To criticts who haven&#39;t even read Tolkien

    by tombombadil

    Time to pick up a copy of Tom Shippey&#39;s "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" Shippey is a linguist and he refutes any academic who says Tolkien should not be part of the sacred cannon. Looking forward immensely to FOTR and the whole LOTR trilogy. You can usually find me in Barliman&#39;s at TheOneRing.net -tombombadil

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 9:55 p.m. CST

    LOTR Will Undoubt;ly Rule, Just Not At The Box Office.

    by The Founder

    I&#39;m no fan of LOTR, hell I haven&#39;t read the book, and know nothing about it, but I know it will be good, and I will be their opening week. As far as box office take goes I&#39;ll give it 100-150 million domestic run. New Line is doing a piss poor marketing job, and none of the trailers, TV spots, has sparked interest, Hell it doesn&#39;t even look interesting, but to fans of it, and us fan boys who know whats in store. I fear others who aren&#39;t fans of this genre will feal the same as well. The reviewer said that it has some of the best FX he&#39;s ever seen, and I believe him, but why in hell didn&#39;t they show some of the breath taking stuff in the trailers? New Line should know that LOTR doesn&#39;t have big name stars, so eye candy is what&#39;s needed to sale the film to the average movie goers who went in and seen crap like Pearl Harbor, and Mummy Returns, and helped them cross the 200 million mark domestically. Another problem is that I never saw the LOTR ring spot in front of the big releases in theaters at all, I saw it infront of movies like Life As A House or From Hell. Sorry guys I wouldn&#39;t puch much stock in this film being a huge blockbuster, unless good word of mouth gives it some altitude, well it did for the others, but that didn&#39;t cost as much as LOTR did to make. All that being said I&#39;m sure it&#39;ll be a great movie.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Guy Film? Beg to differ, Dufusytell...

    by Curmudgeon

    Geez, wish I had a nutsack to hold. Honey, come here... seriously, what&#39;s with this &#39;guy film&#39; crap? When I read LOTR did you think I spent all my time going through the index looking for stuff about Arwen? Or rating a flick based on my kids&#39; reaction to it?Give me a friggin&#39; break. (WinkyDauphin, you are SO right--maybe we can have a vid party and rent "The Promise", "Endless Love" and "Love Story" instead! Can&#39;t threaten the mighty males by bucking their stereotypes.) Gandalf was the one I lusted after--always did like powerful, older men. With large, glowing staffs. Ironic for me that a gay man is playing him. ;) I sat in my dorm room in the 70&#39;s and spent hours with my friends casting the ideal LOTR movie, drawing pix of the characters; friends of mine belonged to bands with names based on the characters, and wrote songs about scenes from the books, and painted the book and calendar cover art on their doors. I haven&#39;t been excited about a fim since SW:ANH. Bell bottoms and lowrise jeans are back, and my alma mater has listed a course centered around Tolkein, Lewis, et. al.; so as PJ said, "This is the time!" Rise, ye 40+ baby boomers, the movie of your dreams is upon us! (Sarcasmatron, you were dead right--maybe New Line should contact AARP about advertising space.) Gotta go find hubby--time to play "find my precioussss..."

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 10:41 p.m. CST

    by Natalie

    The assumption is that chicks want to see only stupid melodramas is ridiculous and is not grounded on facts. It&#39;s the same as to say that boys are only entertained by mindless action and gore. I&#39;m 21 and I&#39;m a Tolkien fan for 10 years and LotR is number one in the list of my favorite books (and I read quite a lot and in different genres). I&#39;m really dying to see FotR and I&#39;m sure I&#39;m going to watch it at least twice. By contrast, my boyfriend, who is every bit as devoted a fan as me is not enthusiastic about the movie. Of course, he&#39;s going too, but he&#39;s not pleased with all the changes they made, was not impressed by the trailers at all and is 99,9% sure the movie will be a total crap. Actually, even if I didn&#39;t read the book, I would go anyway, just because of the hype, it&#39;s really a major even and mostly because I like grand SFX, visuals and exciting action (plus the stuff like magic that you don&#39;t come across in real life). This is one of the reasons I love Star Wars too, but I&#39;m sure LotR will have much better developed characters, dialogue and story. I&#39;m also sure children (pre-teens and teens at least) will want to see, maybe even more than adult non-readers. For example, my relatives, a family with 2 children. Mother doesn&#39;t like SciFi and didn&#39;t read Tolkien at all, father only read Hobbit and thought LotR was boring, but he still bought the Hobbit and trilogy for children. They&#39;ve read only Hobbit so far. The whole family attended Harry Potter (children read all the books and loved them) and saw the LotR trailer before it. Adults found it weird and weren&#39;t impressed, but children got excited and really want to see it . Of course, they&#39;re also excited about a lot of other movies, even those that look crappy, but still I believe FotR is going to appeal to children as well. Besides, a lot of older Tolkien fans are parents now, naturally, they&#39;ll take their children too. But I really agree with other posters that you can&#39;t always predict the box office success, especially with in this case, as I don&#39;t see any other movies like LotR out there.

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:17 p.m. CST

    That ape on the wallpaper has the most enormous dick

    by SpecterAlexZero

    Or is it a palm tree? That having been said, LOTR is going to be a feast!

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:52 p.m. CST

    by mbd

    Where are the honest reviews and not these fan-boy poopy-pants puff pieces???

  • Nov. 28, 2001, 11:59 p.m. CST

    Okay, I want to play, too, DrCool...

    by rennyboy

    For those who are trying to set SW in a race with LorT (for reasons I can&#39;t figure out, a question: The assumption seems to be that SW is a part of a pop culture, and thus will continue to be successful (even if it starred Jar Jar tap dancing), while LorT is about goofy wizards and stuff, so no one will want to see it. BUT... Once upon a a time, my young ones, a long time ago, there was no Star Wars either. If you told anyone in January of &#39;76 that a story about light sabers, Jedi wizards and space ships was going to sweep the nation they would have said, "Are you stupid, Geeks who read science fiction books might like it, but my sister sure won&#39;t." The fact that the movie was COMPELLING made it a hit. Now, while there&#39;s already a huge fan base for the books, there&#39;s no reason that people who&#39;ve never read the books won&#39;t see it if it&#39;s COMPELLING because people coming out of the theater will spread the word. You know, like what happens when a movies really surprisingly cool -- like SW was :) So, the question: What is the deal? If Star Wars can transcend the Star Trek and R. Heinlein fans of the mid-70&#39;s, why the presumption that a really cool movie -- that happens to have a fantasy setting -- can&#39;t do the same?

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 12:11 a.m. CST

    As for women...

    by rennyboy

    Yeeesh. Listen, here&#39;s a little something I&#39;ve learned over the years... The minute you make a generalization about any group that contains more than two people, you are FUCKED. Women, as a group, contain more than two people, so stop assuming anything about the taste of women. Some women will not like the movie, some will. Is that so difficult to understand? Some women will think it too dark and violent, some will love it for that. And here&#39;s the shocker: you&#39;ll find men on both sides of this as well. For those determined to press their strange, personal conclusions, will there be ENOUGH women turned off not to go. My guess: no. Gladiator did great with women -- and it&#39;s about a guy in an arena killing people. (And let&#39;s not hash the movie -- I&#39;m just illustrating that there&#39;s no way to know this stuff till it happens.) In the same way, there are going to be many parents disapointed with the film because I&#39;m sure the&#39;ll be expecting another Potter, which Jackson hasn&#39;t made. On the other hand, there will be plenty of parents glad there&#39;s a fantasy movie out there which touches on real emotion and pain as well as magical splendor. Again, that fact that one person out of a group says something can hardly speak for the whole group. **** And one more thing, for the cranky, sad fucks here -- I&#39;ve known, and dated, absolutely gorgeous women who read fantasy, loved Star Trek and so on. I&#39;m gonna go out on a limb here: a lot of the assumptions of the despair of geekdom have a lot less to do with the despair of geekdom, and a great deal more to do with the despair of the geeks posting the messege.

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 12:18 a.m. CST

    One more thing, full disclosure...

    by rennyboy

    I loved Empire, thought Star Wars was light on emotion (even as a little kid -- I was strange that way); I struggled for two decades to finish the LotR but plowed through it this year because I wanted to see how Jackson&#39;s handled the adoptation (I eventually fell for it by the time I was into Return of the King -- couldn&#39;t stop reading it -- but I&#39;m much more interested in the movie -- because I just love movies that much); I played D&D in high school while dating a gorgeous red head, wrote role playing game books for several years, published genre novels and am now in Hollywood screenwriting. So I&#39;m a geek who&#39;s claimed his geenkness not as a badge of exculsion, but as a springwell of value. You, too, can do the same.

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 1:45 a.m. CST

    Gosh, does actually liking LOTR for it&#39;s own sake mean I&#39

    by Nikkademus

    Hey Dufusytell, I have an idea as to what that mysteeeeeeeerious element may be in Tolkein that "appeals to females"... how about heroism, adventure, imagination, war, sacrifices, companionship, battles, cool swordplay, magic, wizards, the darkness and light of it all? How about the richness of the storytelling and of Tolkein&#39;s awesome imagination? Hm, I dunno, but *as* a female, that&#39;s what made it appeal to *me*, so maybe therein lie a couple ideas for your deeeeeeeep and insightful intellect. Anyone else out there want to enlighten me as to how this is so very different from why anyone *else* likes Tolkein? I wonder -- your ideas as to what people like and don&#39;t like, purely based on gender, seem to be so stereotypical so as to show no real contact or acquaintance with those of the opposite sex. The only excuses you seem to have are that 1) you are a drunken frat boy whose only female contacts are with those whose primary concern is keeping their hair just the right shade of banana yellow, or 2) you never emerge from your parents&#39; basement and the only women you ever lay eyes on are the barbie dolls on the covers of D & D novels. How close am I?

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 1:53 a.m. CST

    oh yeah, and as to that little comment about "fems" being "big t

    by Nikkademus

    Were you specifically *interviewing* these as they left the theater, or are you just assuming their reactions based on what you *want* to see? Did you take a look at any of the men&#39;s reactions? Or were you so focused on walking up to women and smelling their hair that you didn&#39;t even pay attention to the audience as a whole?

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 2:52 a.m. CST

    even a horses&#39; ass has it&#39;s place in a parade

    by 4starsonlyplease

    I knew E&B&#39;s age from the start because I&#39;ve been there. Young. Your about as trendy as the word alternative, trust me. Sounds like a typical film student. As for Titanic, when did critics reveal they had made a mistake. It&#39;s bullshit. Also, if you haven&#39;t noticed, this site posts reviews and news about foreign films constantly. Akira Kurosawa has influenced more than just a remake. Try Lucas, Scorcese, Spielberg to name a few. Surely you know that Peter Jacksons&#39; from New Zealand? Anyone that believes that greatness only comes from the states, obviously doesn&#39;t know there films well. It&#39;s a mute point. Finally, there is a big difference between CTHD and LOTR. Subtitles. I do appreciate your sticktoitiveness, but shit films have plagued more than America. How many things in life are four stars? P.S. Most adults I know don&#39;t watch MTV. Again, showing your age.

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 3:02 a.m. CST

    moot not mute

    by 4starsonlyplease

    sleep deprivation overwhelming...where&#39;s my editor?

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 10:39 a.m. CST

    To Vagas. Book #s

    by flonzy

    LOTR was voted #1 at amazon.com and the awards systems for books (I have no idea what they are called) Gave LOTR the book of the century award. It is the 3rd most read book ever. #1 the Bible. #2 Diary of Anne Frank. #3 LOTR. Harry Potter has sold 110 million books between 4 books, a series. LOTR is one book. It is sometimes sold as a 3 part and sometimes a 7 part, but it is one book. It has sold 100 million as 1 book. So it has way out sold Harry Potter. I read this info in the Washington Post the weekend Harry Potter hit the theater. That&#39;s all I had to say.

  • Nov. 29, 2001, 11:34 a.m. CST

    SFX

    by Natalie

    First, ILM was only one of several companies that worked on HP&#39;s effects. I&#39;m sure, if they were alone, these effects wouldn&#39;t been so crappy. Maybe ILM&#39;s work is not very inspiring or groundbreaking like it used to be, but you can&#39;t deny it&#39;s alwas a good quality. Besides, if there&#39;s a tendency to overuse effects, it&#39;s not their fault, it&#39;s all up to director. I hope (and something tells me it&#39;s true) that PJ understands the importance of the story and characters, that sfx mainly serve to support it and create another world.

  • Nov. 30, 2001, 12:56 a.m. CST

    one pole to smoke them all...

    by PoleSmoker

    Oh, I thought this was a talkback for Lord of the Cockrings...my bad...please continue...

  • Nov. 30, 2001, 3:44 a.m. CST

    Seriously flippin out here

    by kiimo

    Ckkkkkkrrrrrrpppllllzzzt.....mmmmmmm muh muh must see fucking movie now! How can this be possible? After the crushing disappointment of TPM, how can something bring back the same emotions we all (and I mean all) had about TPM for four years, and by all indications so far, FUCKING DELIVER! Love it! Love the hype! Love the fervor! Fanboy craziness undergoes redemption! Let&#39;s all collectively FREAK THE FUCK OUT, BECAUSE THIS MOTHERFUCKER IS ACTUALLY GOING TO PULL THIS CRAZY ASS WACKY SHIT OFF! I never never ever thought it possible. We are all some lucky ass geeks.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:15 a.m. CST

    About Minorities seeing LOTR

    by Belladonna

    In reference to the issue brought up by one of our fellow commentators about whether this film will be interesting to minority populations...I will just say this: There are plenty of minorities involved in this film, from the Maori populations who are actors and extras to the choirs of New Zealand. You may not be able to see a lot of people behind the make-up, but they are there. Also, since hobbits were brown to begin with (Tolkien&#39;s discription) which was something that was maintained in the &#39;78 film but PJ just seemed to have no awareness of whatsoever, the interest by minority populations has long been there as not only a point of general interest, but also to tolerate a more than shady (at times) sense of humor like projects such as &#39;Bored of the Rings&#39; where the Harvard Lampoon Press may have gotten a little out of hand in the stereotype area in their day. However, having been from that generation, let me say this: a lot of minority people, particularly from Baby Boomer and older, will race out to see LOTR because we all read it, and we all enjoyed it; because the books are excellent...period. Younger people and Latin populations may bring up the absence of variety to the hobbits, (and it would be a valid arguement that some extras should have been shipped in to NZ to balance what Tolkien intended to be a rainbow world), but I feel will look to the project&#39;s overall casting in talent, not in skin type, as to whether it will carry. The fact is, in my opinion, the casting is for the most part excellent, and that coupled with the performances and cinematography should be what matters to everyone. I know that all of my collegues and friends are going immediately, and my Mother, who hasn&#39;t left the house for years to see a movie in the theater, is going on opening day, and she is 70 yrs. old. Her church group has discussed getting a van to attend a viewing together and they are all African- American, mostly over age 50. So...I think identification to any project begins with the soul...and I do not typify mine by my beautiful wrapping paper alone...there are alot of elements physical and spiritual that make up who I am...any every part loves The Lord of the Rings.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 9:23 a.m. CST

    selfishness

    by Conan_the_Humble

    I don&#39;t care if FOTR makes $1.00 or $1, 000, 000, 000. As long as all 3 movies are great and I enjoy them, that&#39;s all I really care about, for these (or for that matter any movies). If Newline does well out of it, and if any of these movies garner critical acclaim, so much the better. My life won&#39;t be over if I don&#39;t enjoy the LOTR trilogy (of movies, I know the books&#39; are really only 1 story)though. Cheers

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:35 p.m. CST

    HEY REVIEW GUY I HAVE A QUESTION

    by johnny quest

    YOU SAID THEY SKIP SOME OF THE STROY LIKE TOM WELL DO THEY SKIP MY FAVOIRTE CHARACTER GULLUM? I NEED TO KNOW PLEASE REPLY AHHHHH IM DYING!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 27, 2001, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil

    by merryoldtom

    Though many of you do have several valid reasons as to the exclusion of good old Tom. I though I would say, that in his defence: I was hoping to "See" Him on the screen. No, he was not a major factor in the LotR books, however, he was a fun and entertaining character. Also, it is with Tom that we learn that the Trees are living and sometimes concious beings. Which is somewhat portrayed in the Moaning sounds heard when Saruman is having the trees pulled down on his land, however, maybe confusing to a newbie to the LotR. Anyways, I did miss Tom, and had hoped to see him in the flesh. Maybe (Hopefully) They WILL add him on a special release of the movie! The movie was stunning nonetheless!