Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Newsweek Flips! Here's The Clip From FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING of Balin's Tomb and the beginning of the Cave Troll hell!

Harry here, passing this along... be right back with more...

Here's David Ansen's Review of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, coming from the 'never having read or even vaguely being familiar with the books' review!!!! Hehehhehehehehe, AWESOME!!!! Here's a Great Quote: "... it transcends cheap thrills; we root for the survival of our heroes with a depth of feeling that may come as a surprise. The movie keeps drawing you in deeper. Unlike so many overcooked action movies these days, “Fellowship” doesn’t entertain you into a stupor. It leaves you with your wits intact, hungry for more."

Hey folks, Harry here with something that many of you have been craving fairly non-stop since it aired the other night. Now here for your enjoyment is the oh too small, but hey... you international folks can get a peek too. Now a word of warning, this clip is not as it appears in the film. The nimrods that made this program hatcheted the whole into pieces... Gone are the dramatic contexts, instead it begins at a comedic punchline face reaction... Also some of the more... radical combat moments from this opening have been pruned so that you innocents don't get corrumpted. So, Enjoy...

Click Here To Get The Balin's Tomb / Cave Troll clip from the other night on FOX!!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Don't watch it

    by Synner

    I'm not going to. Save it for the big screen.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Got my tickets

    by MPG

    Well, yesterday I bought 16 tickets for four people (for four showtimes as some of you can figure out yourselves). I'm going to see it a total of five times in the first week alone (first time is going to be a somewhat private screening on the 19th). It's geeks like me who are going to at least push this movie towards the budget break-even point at the box-office. In any case, this is just to let you know that tickets are available, and they are selling _fast_. LotR has been in the top 5 most requested list on for a long time now.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:27 a.m. CST


    by Smith_Mappy

    *Any* frame from this would make a great commemorative postage stamp! Because, you know, it's already the right size.

  • I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm a mediocre Perl-programmer, but I could write a better talkback system than this one in a week. I'm sure others could do an even better job. I'm sure someone would have the time to do it, and would do it for free. We could have different threads with separate subjects, etc. It would probably even enforce more civilized discussions at times. But it seems that for some reason, Harry seems to prefer the nostalgic talkback version, even if it can drive people crazy. Come on Harry, just put a message on your main page saying, "Looking for Perl programmers to write a good talkback system" and you'll have a team of ten professionals the next day.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Better link to this clip...

    by Praetor

    Try You can download it from here.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:53 a.m. CST


    by EvilNight

    That's not quite as good quality as the one I had... good news is that I left Morpheus on overnight, and got the troll clip downloaded about 20 times, and 5 masochistic bastards downloaded the whole show, so it's out there now. Happy hunting.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Whoa! Sorry folks....

    by Praetor

    I just checked and they have removed the clip!? I downloaded it myself just two hours ago. Well I'll post it on Morpheous instead.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 12:25 p.m. CST


    by Matt


  • Dec. 1, 2001, 12:30 p.m. CST

    be nice to Harry, you fools

    by motoko

    It's really unbelievable how so many people get mad and yell at Harry about things like the ORDER of TALKBACK comments. I mean, seriously. If you had a life, like Harry, you could be running your own (very successful)website instead of freaking out over these things. Chill.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Time to start rubbin' my winkie!

    by Monkey Lord

    Sweet Jeabus... it's so close I can't stand it! Star Wars was fun for a while... But episode I was such a serious letdown that I'm keeping my expectations low for Episode II....Hopefully, then, I'll at the very least enjoy it. That's no slam against the serious Star Wars fans. That's just simply a point of opinion. LOTR, however, simply has a higher bar to clear... and from what I've seen, it will exceed that bar like a cannonball! It deserves nothing less. Thank you, Peter JAckson!

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Stik Raygun

    by LordDark

    You suck wookie turds. Nuff said.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 12:54 p.m. CST

    young raygun

    by kvonnah

    1st let me say, judging by the maturity level of your post, I have been a Star wars fan for at least 15 yrs longer then you. 2nd, let me say, I sense great fear in you Young raygun. You KNOW that LotR is an intrinsically better story then SW and you are seeing the clips and are feeling the same thing as Boramir "they've got a cave troll

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 1:43 p.m. CST


    by europop

    This is unlike anything I've seen. So dynamic, so alive. The colours, the sounds, the acting, the camera movements, everything is fresh and exhilerating. Jackson is a genius. If the rest of the film is like this it will truly be a cinematic milestone.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Put in back in your pants, guys.

    by Rogerborg

    We're not going to see Fellowship of the Rings. We're going to see a well told version of a third grade synopsis of it. The story and names are more or less the same, but the telling appears to differ significantly from the original. I'm not just talking about the parts that have been cut, I'm talking about the changes and additions. The accidental addition of Merry and Pippin to the fellowship, swapping a petulant rock chick for an "Elf lord revealed in his fury", the storm on Caradhras being a creation of Saruman, and the troll. Lest we forget, in the book, the troll appears as a foot and an arm, not a CGI orgasm. This is what I mean by third grade synopsis. A throwaway commentary of "And then they fight a troll," gets turned into a whole showpiece scene when it's really about half a dozen lines. And most of all, the dialogue. In all the clips that I have seen, about half the dialogue has been from the book. The other half is paraphrased or just plain invented. Bitching over small details? Perhaps, but there's only so much you can change the original before you're making an adaptation. Let's enjoy it for what it is, but let's not kid ourselves that we're going to see the book on the screen.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Visual Style Concerns

    by War Eagles

    Saw the Fox special and I

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2 p.m. CST

    wow, it was two days before..........

    by oorat22

    more arguements over lotr and sw started again. and i thought that maybe a light had come over and the clouds had been lifted, but i guess that was just the smoke from weed im inhaling. but man, cattle? lucas doesnt lead his fans around like cattle? did you forget the toys when ep1 came out, all of em, all the marketing that they had, they just assumed that everything would be sold, WROOOOOOOOOOOOOONG. lucas doesnt have to listen to studio's any more, yep that right. but is it a good thing? look at thx1138, what a piece of art crap. and then look at the special editions. lucas wouldve kept in tom bombidil, hell, the alien version was in the rotj s.e.. lucas is not a genious, everyone usually agrees that empire was the best(thought youll probly just disagree outta spight, but lucas didnt write the script. it was his story idea, but other people wrote it. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan. not georgy porgy.nor did he direct it. and lawrence cowrote return with lucas(and that would explain the silly humor cause lucas had a hand in it) hell, you want to see the original scripts for star wars, his first few, before the endless drafts. check out this link my god some of his first drafts were horrible. the jedi bendu knights, the black knights of the sith. the writing was horrid. sounded like a high school story for enlish class. so just cause george wrote it, doesnt mean it needs to be done and not rewrote. cause hell, with lucas having total controll, that just means that if you tell him it sucks youre fired. will lotr ever top the original movies for me, probly not, those are lifelong favorites ive had for a long time. theyre so ingrained in my psychy. but i promise you that it will be better then this new trilogy for me. hell, lucas brought on another writer to help him write the script for ep2 cause i think in the end, he saw what we say too, crap. maybe ep2 will be better, maybe not. but clip of lotr, even though its a kind of a crappy picture(but thats nit picking) i have it on tape, and my god it is cool.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:01 p.m. CST

    My all-knowing opinion on SW vs. LotR

    by aargh

    Thought a title like that might be good trollbait... Okay, context needed. I'm 29 and old enough to have seen and loved Star Wars (that is, the original one) when it first came out. I whined at my parents to take me to the re-releases (gotta love the video age), bought every toy I could get my hands on, etc. You know the story. I also discovered The Hobbit and LotR in 6th grade and absolutely loved it (and still do - just got done reading FotR to my wife). Again, you Tolkienites know the story. Having said all that, I think it's safe to say that my SW fandom has suffered a few setbacks in recent years. (Well, truth be told, I was a bit disappointed in RotJ, but that's another story.) Out of fairness, I'll leave out the Jar-Jar issue (though it is an unequaled trump card in the SW vs. LotR debate) and simply say that TPM failed to deliver. It was just kinda boring. Now sure it had some very intense sequences, but action does not a classic film make. Notice how little real action there is in ESB, and how engaging the film still is? See my point? TPM suffers greatly from "who cares" disease - the only reason this prequel trilogy is important to the Star Wars legacy is because it shows the fall of Anakin Skywalker. And ironically most of TPM is about other people. Qui-Gon who? Jar-Jar who? Even Obi-Wan Kenobi, one of ANH's coolest characters, is sidelined in favor of CGI Muppets. Bottom line, the film didn't have the "magic" of ANH or ESB (or the good bits of RotJ). Those of you who remember, the influence Star Wars had on pop culture in the late 70's and early 80's was HUGE, wasn't it? Don't you remember the incredible anticipation surrounding the release of ESB? And how the film totally delivered and took the story in such an unexpected direction? Contrast that with TPM, which rode in on SW's coattails and just took a dump. Not a huge one - I didn't absolutely hate the movie - but a dump nevertheless. I think most SW fans are generally pushed in one of two directions: rabid obsessive defending of TPM because it's SW and nothing SW can suck. It just can't be. The other group feels betrayed by Lucas and vilifies him and the film out of resentment for ruining their best childhood memory. I go between these two extremes often, but suffice it to say that I think a majority of the old school SW fans are feeling like Lucas has lost his edge, or vision, or something. Now about LotR, as a child the only existing "film" productions of Tolkien's books available were the Rankin-Bass cartoons and that abomination birthed by he-who-must-not-be-named. From the first time I read The Hobbit, I thought how awesome it would be for someone to make real films of Tolkien's books. His writing is so visual in style that it almost begs for it. And sure enough, however many years later, I discovered that New Line was heading up a full-scale production of LotR. I was VERY excited but also worried about how they would handle it. Well, as time went on I heard more and more good things about the films, to the point where now I am almost rabid with excitement. Now I know that there are plenty of naysayers out there saying that the movie changed stuff in the book and there's these Burger King tie-ins, etc. But you have to understand that for a Tolkien fan, this has been a LONG time coming and it looks like Peter Jackson is going to come as close as anyone ever will to making a truly definitive film version of this classic book. And just to address the two typical SW fan rants I listed above, 1) you cannot adapy a book to film and leave it all intact. You CANNOT. No one expects this. Film is a different medium. Are you going to slam adaptations of Shakespeare plays because they edited the text? Anyone seen Branagh's Hamlet? Complete text, but FREAKING INTERMINABLE. Editing a book and condensing events for a screenplay is the nature of the beast. And to suggest that LotR fans are PJ's little sex toys simply because he has adapted the script for the big screen... it's just ignorant and naive. (Plus to then harp on about how Lucas answers to nobody but himself, and TPM represents a pure vision overlooks the fact that just because you have your own vision doesn't mean it's worth a pile of steaming bantha feces.) And 2) SW fans, let's NOT get started about selling out and merchandising tie-ins, OK? That's not a battle that you can win. Just let it go. So what's the point of all this? Simply to compare apples to apples. For SW fans, the original trilogy has already become an unshakeable classic. Same for Tolkien fans and LotR. But now what? What do both groups have to look forward to? As a SW fan, I have the fact that TPM was a major letdown, and no indications that AotC will be significantly different. (Even if AotC rocks, the fact will remain that TPM is a pretty lame way to start off the whole Star Wars saga.) But as a LotR fan, I have the fact that everyone who has seen FotR has loved it and loves it even more with the passing of time. Remember the initial reviews of TPM? How you didn't want to believe that it was "just okay"? Not so in this case. FotR will rock. And it will out Lucas' latest trilogy to shame and send it home crying. You want your good vs. evil story? You want your corruption and power story? You want a movie that thrills you as much as ANH did all those years ago? Well, don't look to Lucas to deliver the goods anymore. The torch has been passed.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Rogerborg, you have an important point there

    by MPG

    While I don't agree with everything you say and the way you say it, you have one important point that is worth repeating: "Let's enjoy it for what it is". That's to all the purists who are not going to enjoy this just because it doesn't follow the holy scriptures to the last letter. This _could_ be a damn good movie, so don't let the differences to the book spoil it for you. Heck, I'm going to cringe myself when Arwen is at the Ford, but if it works in the movie, I'll be happy. -------------------------------- Other than that, Rogerborg, the reason why I am not in total agreement with you is that a tanslation from a book to a movie is always about translating the "essence" of the book, the various "themes". There are many themes in the LotR, there is friendship, failure, redemption for failure and many others. The media often analyzes LotR in a shallow manner by saying it is about "good vs. evil", but they forget that it is not only about good and evil but also about how good people can become evil by using evil means to achieve good goals and how even seemingly evil creatures can have their part in a good deed. What is my point? My point is that a good adaption of LotR has to preserve these themes and at the same time draw the crowds into the theatres (otherwise you are _not_ going to see a big budget adaption!). That's a very tough job. From what I have heard so far, I assume that PJ has found the right combination. LotR is to a large extent a moralistic story. If the moralistic themes survive in the adaption, then we can be happy, because there aren't too many (potential) blockbuster movies nowadays that actually have a moralistic message, a message which is not destroyed by having Arwen at the Ford or by having a CGI troll.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Another review of FOTR:

    by virkku

    My friend at my work has seen LOTR on Thursday in a press screening. He is a movie critic and has read FOTR, but not the sequels. He liked the book, but is not a big fan. Those of you who live in Finland: He is Lauri Nurkse who hosts and works as a critic in the "Moviefile" TV show on MoonTV. *** Anyway, here is a small synopsis on what he told me: *** He will give the film 5 stars out of 5. Acting, SFX, cinematography etc were all excellent. The acting highlights were Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee, who both were magnificent. The film didn't drag at any point and he was perfectly entertained throught the 3 hours. It was emotionally involving, pretty scary and touching at moments. Directing was superb, but he felt the camerawork was a bit self-conscious at moments and draw attention to itself instead of empowering the drama in the most effective way possible. But he also said PJ handled the drama of the story superbly. The biggest problem my friend had with the film was a lack of pay-off in the ending. Of course that's how the book was as well. The film ends with such an open note that it felt a bit frustrating to him. But then again, he is going to read the books now. However, he didn't think that the film is one of the greatest ever made and he said that his expectations were so enourmously high, that the film didn't meet those expectations. I will take this as a good warning. My friend also said that he will have to see the film again before he can make his final judgment. The film was so overwhelming to senses and there was so much stuff in it that he has to digest it a bit. ***

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Re: Visual Style Concerns

    by MPG

    War Eagles, your concerns are justified. PJ is known as a director who likes to have a moving camera, because he sees the camera as an additional character in the movie. I think his goal is to create this "you are there" feeling you describe. I was also very concerned about this, but I don't think that any of the reviews have mentioned the "feeling of queasiness" that you describe, so perhaps he has found the right balance. If the camera moves too much, I'll be the first one to get sick. ;) Your second concern: Yes, in fact, PJ has used some digital color maniplulation methods on the whole movie. It's especially obvious in the Moria scenes (watch the first trailer where the Watcher in the Water appears and then the newest traile with the Watcher and you'll see a huge difference). I think that it makes sense in the Moria scenes to create a certain feeling of decay for this place as well as a sense of fear. I agree that the overuse of such a method can be problematic, but I think PJ is very good when it comes to color management. Try to find the Decipher trading card that shows his cameo in Bree. It's all blueish-grey, except one single thing: a carrot he is holding in his hand. When I saw it, I could only think of one word: Wow! To me, this is much more an example of great cinematography than sweeping vistas.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Kiitos, Virkku

    by MPG

    I have just exhausted my knowledge of the Finnish language - pretty sad, considering that I lived in Finland for nearly two years. ;) In any case, it's good to see an objective review. The one thing that struck me was that the reviewer said, "The film was so overwhelming to senses and there was so much stuff in it that he has to digest it a bit.", but he still says that it disappointed him to some extent. I guess he judges movies by different standards, but if a movie overwhelms me, then I consider it to be good, and I've never been so overwhelmed by a movie that I had to watch it again to properly judge it. I'm rather happy about this review. :)

  • Oh, wait, I forgot. He's just a wanker.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:41 p.m. CST


    by virkku

    I might be using a wrong word when translating what he said to me. Basicly he meant that the film had a huge amount of characters, plot details, full-blown visual attacks to senses etc that he felt a bit confused after seeing the film. Also the lack of pay-off in the ending added to the confusion, even if he had read FOTR years ago. He thought that the film might not necessarily be easily accesible for people who haven't read the books. The following is just my theory, but the film for example opens with a narrated prologue and it could easily be exhausting and overwhelming in a negative sense for some viewers because you are given so much info in such a short time. Anyway, what really makes me happy is how he said that at the same time PJ has understood the power of quiet moments and spends time in establishing characters and different locations.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Self-concious camera...

    by virkku

    I'm quoting my friend again, but he said that camerawork was slightly distracting at times. The drama scenes were shot in a low-key style, but some of the action scenes had tracking cameras and similar stuff that was clearly intentioned to get a "Wow!" reaction from the audience instead of empowering the drama in the most effective way. It should be noted that he is an established movie critic here in Finland and is studying to become a film director in the best film school of Finland, so he notices that kind of stuff more easily. But the film was NOT from the MTV school of filmmaking and generally the cinematography made the drama of the story more effective instead of being distracting.

  • That means we get great characters with amazing depth and emotion. I just love that Jar Jar Binks, what with his witty dialogue and fart jokes. He is ahead of his time. And to stik raygun, you can take that bullshit and shove it up your ass. I'd rather have a director that has a great story with great dialogue have to make a few changes, then have a director with a potentially great story but fills it with crappy dialogue and no characterization. If you are going to make a point at least make it a good one.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:03 p.m. CST


    by Kizeesh

    One man to direct them all. One casting director to find them. One Trilogy to bring them all, and on 35mm Bind them. Sean Bean is my personal Yoda.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Hey RogerBorg, have you ever read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom?


    Well Lawrence of Arabia (my all time fav film) is just a well told version of a third grade synopsis of it. So much for your point, eh? This is a movie and just like all films that transfer book into the medium, it is by nature an adaptation. From what my scouring of the web for the past three years tells me (and now appears to be confirmed by everyone from Nazgurl to Peter Travers), is that FOTR will enter the theaters on December19th an instant classic both for fans and non-fans alike. That my friend is a Herculean accomplishment.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Good Aargh, Bad Stik


    Aargh, excellent analysis. As a 40 year old, I concur with your assessments on SW and LOTR. BTW, I saw SW on May 25th, 1977 and 46 more times that summer. I do understand and appreciate the SW myth, but as you state TPM terribly shook my faith in GL. So Stik Ray perhaps you are not yet versed in the ways of critique? Let your feelings go.

  • The flick might not reach 300 million mark, at least it's gonna be difficult. So the B.O crown of the year is not decided yet... :p Not that it would matter. If LOTR makes 150 million in USA and 250 million overseas, it will be enough.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Rogerborg's comment

    by Elwood Blues

    Just wanted to say one thing on Rogerborg's comment that there are "only so many changes that can be made to a film before its an adaptation." Well, hello, the film IS an adaptation. You can't have the film be anything but. I have never seen a film that wasn't an adaptation. They have to make some changes or we'd have a 28-hour movie using book convetions rather then film conventions (which for those who don't know vary widely, and would ruin any movie). Just hope everyone understands changes must be made. It's impossible not to have them. And with a book this long, a lot of changes,mainly deletions, and direct dialouge ommitions will be there.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:31 p.m. CST

    virkku, is this your friend's review here?

    by wilko185 I assume not, as this only gets 4 stars. Could you summarise what this review didn't like about the film, for us anglophones?

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Did somebody say Harry Potter?

    by aargh

    Gee, I'm so sad to see that film start to fade already. What a great example of the problem of "faithful adaptation" of a book. It's a given that in a film, you're going to have to cut some stuff out. But how do you handle the transitions over gaps in the story? You adapt it where necessary (like a literary crossfade, for those of you into music). Chris Columbus did none of this with Harry Potter and as a result, the film felt disjointed and jumped forward confusingly because it failed to find alternate ways to set context. Now it could also be said that Chris Columbus isn't that great of a director anyway, but I won't get into that. I don't want to encourage a HP vs. LotR flamewar anyway. Okay, I will: Harry Potter ripped off SW *and* LotR. And James and the Giant Peach... Any Roald Dahl fans out there want to start bashing HP? ;-)

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Meesa last comment gotten buried! How rood!

    by aargh

    Who knows, this one may be too. It's kind of like Wheel of Fortune. Or maybe Harry is trying to illustrate the absurdity of human existence by taking a Sisyphean approach to posting talkbacks.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Another finnish review...

    by virkku

    Thanks for the link, Wilko! Anyway, here is a rough translation: The critic has never read the books. He thought that the technical aspects were great and visuals were very impressive. Acting was superb all around. His only probelm with the film was that it dragged at some points, he wished that it would have been shorter. Because of the occasional boring moments he gives it "only" 4 stars out of 5. The review didn't have much details and most of it told about history in the making of the film. *** The critic is not my friend, but they both probably attended the same press screening.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Wow, man, this was great!!!! The Fellowship will rule!!!

    by Lord_Soth

  • sigh. If this is at the top, I have a question fot virkku at the bottom.

  • This talkback order is seriously fucked up...

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:44 p.m. CST

    ...More on finnish review

    by virkku

    There are five mini reviews at the bottom of the link Wilco gave, and they are giving stars from 1 to 5. These "reviews" are just discussing about the quality of the book and none of them has apparently seen the film.

  • There was a point in my early life when I was a huge Stephen King fan. The Shining and the Stand were my two favorite King novels. Now, when the Shining first came out I was a little to young to see it on my own so a couple of years later I rented it. The first time I saw it I was heavily disappointed. There were so many changes from the book (changing the roque mallet to an axe, killing off Scatmans character, the death in the maze as opposed to the hotel explosion etc.) But then, I became a huge Kubrick fan thanks to Clockwork Orange (another excellent adaptation from a book that change parts) and 2001(ditto) So I re-watched the Shining as a film only and OMG it is still one of my favorite flicks of all time ("I'm not gonna hurt ya, I

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:47 p.m. CST

    I like the TalkBack order ...

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    It's cool. Kinda like travelling in a time machine. ;) I saw the special on Fox, and I saw the clip that someone created. Did not see a troll in the clip. Perhaps he couldn't fit in that itty-bitty space?!? As for changes from the source in the adaptation of the script, every Tolkien fan will separate the changes into one of three groups: 1) an enhancement that adds to the movie, but does not detract from the story, 2) a necessary change that detracts from the story, 3) an unnecessary change that detracts from the story. Everyone's list will be different and hopefully there won't be very many of #2 and even less #3. Personally, I wanted to know about all the significant changes ahead of time, so that they I wouldn't be so turned off in the theatre. Go to if you'd like to see a definitive list.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:48 p.m. CST


    by pravda

    Just my 2 cents to get this over with. Comparing SW vs LOTR.. there IS NO comparison. Star Wars was fun when it lasted, but it's OVER. It's now a G-rated franchise to milk money from easily-impressed kids of age 9 and under. There's nothing COOL left in Star Wars, not for adults who have seen more than a few dozen pictures in their lifetime. Let's see - The New Hope had big m-f'in Death Star that destroyed a planet in a wham. That was cool. Empire Strikes Back had huge m-f'in quadroped tanks, AT-AT's I believe they're called. Those were cool. RTJ probably had something cool in it too, although I can't remember too well since it has been a while since I last saw it - however the Ewoks sucked. TPM had nothing of that caliber. Boring G-rated lightsabre battles, CGI droids fighting gungans, neither of which anyone would care about.. there just wasn't anything that would remotely create any suspense to an adult moviegoer. Not to mention the (lack of) plot or Jar Jar Binks. AOTC doesn't promise any improvement from what I've seen so far. NO WAY will Lucas EVER make another planet go boom in the SW films to come, because that might distress the 4-year-olds in the audience, and that cannot happen. If it didn't involve Darth Vader, and other COOL characters from the COOL Star Wars movies, I doubt many people would feel compelled to see it. Someone mentioned the trailer looked like an opening to a video game - they're right, except I can name many video games with more exciting opening videos. Hence, I'm fairly convinced Ep2 will get a lukewarm response at the box office - nowhere near Ep1 - and Ep3 will just bomb. It's simply out of the competition. Folks, it's OVER.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Moving camera

    by DufusyteII

    You could film a rock for three hours, and if the camera moved in a gentle hypnotic way around the rock, you could keep people pleasantly entertained for the three hours simply by the hypnotic scene and interesting fly-bys. That is to say, by moving the camera in the right way, you can create an entertaining visual, regardless of what is being filmed. Not all camera motion is good; I mean, it is possible to move the camera in a bad way, too fast or whatever, so that it has a bad effect, but if you know how to move it correctly, then you can cast a spell on people for hours, merely by the movement. If PJ keeps the camera in gentle movement most of the time, this may be one of the reason why people are saying "the three hours go by quickly" and "there were no dead parts." Time passes quickly when the eye is entertained. By contrast, a static shot will soon bore the eye, and it will begin to check the watch. Like I said, it's possible to move a camera in a bad way, but if you move it in a good way, it can keep the eyes and mind from getting bored indefinitely.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 3:55 p.m. CST

    One short note for kvonnah

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    Round and round she goes, where will it post? Nobody knows! Just a note for ya, kvonnah: The Arthur C. Clarke book of 2001 was an adaptation of the film, as the film came first. The film was an adaptation of an earlier Clarke short story, The Sentinel. Just a clarification for those who could care less. ;)

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the responses virkku

    by wilko185

    that review doesn't worry me. As a "huge fan" I won't be wanting a shorter film I'm sure (Though I'm glad the film is accessible to non-readers too). I've heard no major criticism of any acting so far, which is excellent news (the casting has always worried me a bit). ___ I assume those star-ratings (of the book!) you mentioned at the bottom are about as worth taking notice of AICN talkback (1 star="sucks!", 5 star="rocks!" etc) ____ [Note to people with "little windows". You do know you can resize them don't you? I know it doesn't increase resolution, but holding Alt and Enter in Media Player sure makes it easier to see.]

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Tickets for LOTR at Fandango

    by xavius

    Since I can't really pinpoint the beginning or end of this talkback, I'm not sure if this has been said. I just now visited Fandango and on their homepage there's a link/button that says "click for details on pre-tickets to LOTR".. click on that and you're taken to the LOTR page where it will/may ask you to see showtimes for December 19th - click on the red showtimes to buy tickets! I went into detail because I missed it this morning (don't know how) but I checked more than a few zip codes around the country and they all worked at the major theaters. Good luck and I hope you get tickets.. I got 10 :)

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Stik Raygun - two phallic symbols in one user ID

    by aargh

    ...Ah, I can't even get started on that. However, Mr. Raygun, one of your main points seems to be that since SW is for kids, of course we won't like Jar-Jar. Then tell me what was so "kid-friendly" about Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru's smouldering corpses in ANH? Or Han Solo's (mild) profanity? Or Vader strangling a Rebel officer to death? Or Obi-Wan slicing off an alien's arm (complete with blood)? Need I go on? The "you know, for kids" defense has been used so many times (hey, I even used it) as a way to deflect ANY criticism from Jar-Jar, but it just doesn't hold water. No one defended SW by saying it's for kids before TPM came out. (Well, maybe they did with the Ewoks.) Let me put it this way: I can enjoy movies that are made "for kids." (I have a three-year-old son, after all.) But I didn't enjoy Jar-Jar. I'm not cynical, bitter or twisted, and I have no morbid fascination with "dark" films. But face it - Jar-Jar is an embarrassment to the SW legacy. And enough with the tired comments about "J.R.R. Tolkien's Greatest Hits". If you have any real love for LotR, then we can discuss that issue like adults. But my sense is that you are just in denial over the fact that TPM was not what you wanted it to be, and your only outlet for your frustration is to try to rain on LotR's parade as well. You just can't stand seeing someone being happy about an upcoming film trilogy, because it just reminds you even more of just how irrelevant Ep 1, 2, & 3 are. Heck, the Matrix sequels are going to kick SW's butt too! Are you going to complain about them as well? Better get your arguments ready now. (Here's one to start with: "Star Wars is for KIDS!!.") Yeah, kids who think orange frogs are funny.

  • Ceterum censeo: The talkbacks need fixing.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Well said, MPG

    by aargh

    Not that this post will have any context, as it will be read way out of order... Wheeeeee! Sing it with me: "The circle of life..."

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Re: MorGoth

    by aargh

    An interesting tidbit on Tolkien and film was that he really didn't care who made a movie of LotR, "as long as it is not Walt Disney." You gotta love the man.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:48 p.m. CST


    by cookiepuss

    ....with the LOTR vs Star Wars comments. The fact is that there's a lot to like in both. At least wait until the friggin movie comes out before you compare the franchises, because right now you're all talking out of your asses. Peace out.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:48 p.m. CST


    by cookiepuss

    ....with the LOTR vs Star Wars comments. The fact is that there's a lot to like in both. At least wait until the friggin movie comes out before you compare the franchises, because right now you're all talking out of your asses. Peace out.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:53 p.m. CST


    by BrownyMan

    Only 500 million world wide? Think about this "Fellowship of the Ring" is being released in over 20 countries world wide. That means each country only has to make 100 million each to surrpass Titanic(1.7 Billion) at 2.0 Billion and I don't think any country will sell less that 250 million. Putting it in at 5 Billion world wide. Just think about that for a second.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Talkback delenda est

    by wilko185

    As aargh said, contributing to this TB is like a Sisyphean drama, but it reads like an ee cummings poem. The talkback is truly trancsending its genre, to become an absurdist work of art. Utterly fucking useless though.___ I just have a disturbing vision of an evil grinning Harry sat at home, watching a talkback get fairly interesting, with his finger hovering over the big red "randomize order" button....

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 5:28 p.m. CST

    stik raygun, yet another wacky troll guy

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    It's a lazy Saturday afternoon, SOOOOOOOOO .... _____ "one less muppet for the human gene pool" As some of us know, ad hominem arguments are always the STRONGEST ones when it comes to debating. ;) Here's a question: Does 'Mr. raygun' even know what "ad hominem" means? _____ "I will defend any aspect of Lucas

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 6:08 p.m. CST


    by Miss Aura

    Just witnessed the downloadable clip and I have to say that without doubt this looks amazing. Peter Jackson is a god and at last we have a film which is going to live up to expectations. Special Effects looked cool and the acting in the scene made it tense and dramatic. I for one, cant wait.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 6:33 p.m. CST

    stik raygun, Good Lord you have me pegged!!

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    WTF?!? I pick on your spelling two measly times and you say that those nitpicks encompass half of my post?!? Puh-lease. I admit it was a somewhat long post, but it was not nearly as long as some of the TB "novels" that I&#39;ve seen lately. And the reason for its length was to answer your previous lame ass post, point for point. Perhaps the reason you won&#39;t answer it is that you CANNOT READ that long of a post. Or perhaps because you CANNOT ANSWER the responses. Either way, simply retiring from the debating field and steering clear of cogent remarks is a LOSING move: "Oh please don&#39;t correct my spelling waaah! waaah! waaah!" <sheesh> What a candy-ass loser.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 6:56 p.m. CST


    by stik_raygun

    I&#39;m finally sick of this LOTR bullshit! You idiots hunger for this Hollywood crap and still pretend you can argue with me and act as if LOTR is even remotely as interesting as Star Wars?? Look, you idiots, Star Wars has an interesting story with actual plot twists. It&#39;s not only a thousand pages of people walking around in the countryside until they finally destroy some fucking ring!!! You think LOTR is going to be anywhere near as successful as Star Wars? Think again! I live Star Wars. I love Star Wars! I suck George Lucas&#39; dick in my dreams while Jar Jar Binks buttfucks me, and in the morning I wake up with my whole bed full of cream, all of that only because of Star Wars! I get up then and the first thing I do is that I jerk off to a picture of Princess Leia while I imagine how the Emperor cums right into my face. It goes on like that the whole day! I love the original trilogy and I love TPM, and I will love anything Lucas produces, even if it comes straight out of his flanneled ass! And you know what?? There are millions like me! AOTC is going to kick LOTR&#39;s fat ass at the box office!!

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 7:05 p.m. CST

    A Question to Frodo.Lives or anyone else who knows

    by brolly

    I have an important questioni want to ask about the passing of time.--------- I have heard some people say that Frodo leaves Hobbiton very soon after the party. If this is true then its awful. There is 20 years in the book before this happens. Frodo is in his &#39;tweens&#39; at the party and 50 when he leaves on the quest. If this were true then when would Gandalf go searching for Gollem etc. I dont see why this change is one that would need to be made either.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Before there were hobbits, there was WILLOW!!!!!

    by aargh

    You leave me no choice, Stik R. I&#39;ll leave your precious Phantom Menace alone and get straight to the point. You have no reality-based understanding of what it means to translate a book to film. Did you really expect that a "faithful" film version of LotR would include each and every scene? Haven&#39;t you been reading these posts? Don&#39;t you understand that a classic book can&#39;t simply be cut up into scenes and called a screenplay? And let me remind you that though Tolkien may be dead, he has an estate that has approved of these films. Do you realize that the first half of FotR, which got cut the most, is still 1 hour 15 min? That&#39;s 80% of the total running time of most movies. The fact that the movie is almost three hours long should indicate that the production team did everything possible to remain faithful to the book. Heck, and this is only the first of three 3-hour movies. Also, about your understanding of remaining faithful to the book, if I had to pick (and I don&#39;t believe I do in this case) I would much rather take something that remains true to the SPIRIT of LotR than the LETTER of it. Everything I have read indicates that that will be the case. Of course there will be things cut out that people won&#39;t like - one of my favorite scenes in FotR didn&#39;t make it into the film. And I still want to see it, because I know that a film version of LotR will never and can never replace the majesty of the book. Now does that make me one of P.J.&#39;s "bitches", as you so colorfully describe Tolkien fans? I&#39;m sure you would say yes, but I really don&#39;t care. You&#39;re just as much one of Lucas&#39; "bitches" by your definition. It&#39;s unfortunate that you can&#39;t even see how he&#39;s bastardizing his own work with this tripe. You see, LotR fans have been through a lot over the years. We&#39;ve survived Rankin-Bass and Bakshi, and guess what, we can still read and enjoy LotR. This works because there is no direct connection between those movies and the book. However, with Star Wars you can&#39;t see Eps 4, 5, &6 without seeing 1, 2, & 3 (not if Lucas has anything to say about it at least). It&#39;s all inextricably tied together. And if one part of it happens to suck, it affects the entire series. Lucas should just stop screwing up his own stuff (Special Edition, anyone?) and go do Howard the Duck 2 or something more suited to his current abilities. Hey, kids would love it!!!

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 7:32 p.m. CST

    As for the self-conscious camerawork...

    by spunaround

    I&#39;m more thankful that Jackson doesn&#39;t come from the world of Dogma 95 or the Blair Witch School of Videography.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 7:47 p.m. CST

    aargh, you are wrong in one regard

    by MPG

    The Tolkien estate has neither approved of these films (where do you get that idea from anyway?), nor has it disapproved. They have nothing to do with it whatsoever. Other than that, I agree with all the points you are making.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 7:47 p.m. CST


    by aargh

    Now the truth comes out, Stik R. You *couldn&#39;t understand* LotR, so you bash it. I wish I had read your last post a few minutes ago - you could have saved me the trouble of responding to your arguments. LotR was named the book of the century. If you don&#39;t like it or get it, it&#39;s to your own discredit. Yes, Star Wars made the AFI 100 top films list, but it wasn&#39;t #1 and it sure wasn&#39;t followed up by any of its successors. I think it&#39;s clear by now, however, that if Lucas repackaged "Ewoks: The Battle For Endor" and sold it as Episode III, you&#39;d not only see it 500 times but say how it was the greatest movie of all time (but it&#39;s for kids, of course). But I agree with you on your scoring: Lucas = 1 loser film, Jackson = 0. (And don&#39;t even think about bringing up Jackson&#39;s other films - Howard the Duck and Willow will take you down to Chinatown, Stik R.)

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Great Satire stik_raygun ...

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    You had me going for three sentences or so! &#39;Aargh&#39; you are wasting your time writing long, logical posts. Stik Boy doesn&#39;t respond to those kind and if so, only to hurl an epithet or two your way. All Hail the Infallible Emperor Lucas!! hear, hear

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 8:04 p.m. CST

    OK, for the sake of integrity

    by aargh

    Stik R, I apologize for not seeing the underscore in your doppelganger&#39;s user ID. I retract my last post. However, your arguments are still crap. And MPG, what I meant is that the Tolkien estate said it was okay to do the films. They didn&#39;t endorse them, and I didn&#39;t mean to imply that they had. Just that they weren&#39;t opposed to them. And a final note to all those interested: I am predicting it now, Lucas will screw up Anakin&#39;s conversion to the dark side. Big time. It won&#39;t be believeable and you&#39;ll sympathize with Anakin for going bad. It will make the decision to put Jar-Jar in the films look like directorial brilliance by comparison. Been fun.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 8:09 p.m. CST

    OK, let me spell it out for you Stik Boy, so that even your enfe

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    "Present me coherently with your valid points and I will respond", so says stik raygun. Let&#39;s see if I can make it simple for you. Check out my post. There are underscores (e.g., ______) before every quote of yours. Your quotations are surrounded by quotation marks. (e.g., "") My comments follow in what I would think that most reasonable people would say, a coherent fashion. But watch out! Now comes the hard part: you have to actually READ and THINK! Then, if your serious about debating anything in this TalkBack, it gets even harder: you have to try to invalidate my responses. There, see how it works. I doubt it. But you can&#39;t blame a guy for trying. Your little pithy snipes only reveal you to be the poor little SW anti-PJ, anti-FoTR troll that you really are.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 8:37 p.m. CST


    by HllywdWhremngr

    There&#39;s a special way you can go back and get on the right wavelength to recapture the thoughts and stuff you forgot from getting high, but it involves a lot of getting high. Also, skinheads are gay.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Best Review Yet: NEWSWEEK RAVES!!!!

    by cookiepuss

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Newsweek reviews LotR!!

    by MPG

    For those who can&#39;t find the message which announced this in the mess that is this talkback, check out the Newsweek review at (thanks, cookiepuss). I wouldn&#39;t say that they are really "raving", but this review comes from someone who hadn&#39;t read the books, for heck&#39;s sake! There&#39;s both good and bad in that review, but the overall verdict is _good_, and the small bad parts are all things that I can ignore in a movie.

  • Really, the signs are too obvious. First, the (over-)use of the word "bitches". Second, the absolute and blind love for anything Star Wars. Third, the fact that he argues like a Tolkien purist who is just disappointed about the movie. Mercier was exactly the same way, always complaining about Arwen, about Enya, etc. Fourth, the tag line at the end. With Mercier, it was the WHIP-TASH bullshit, with stik raygun it&#39;s the "LUCAS 1, JACKSON 0" bullshit.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Star Wars is for kids?

    by aargh

    Stik R., you still haven&#39;t addressed really any of the issues I brought up, but that&#39;s fine because it allows you to continue uninterrupted in your own delusional fantasy. And if you really liked TPM, then more power to you. But what I&#39;m saying is that TPM is a KNOWN letdown and people such as yourself often hide behind the "it&#39;s for kids" defense in order to maintain your belief in Lucas. But maybe if I try once more I can get through (or not, maybe I&#39;m just a masochist). Lucas&#39; original trilogy was heavily infuenced by the work of Joseph Campbell, who wrote about the similarity in most if not all hero stories and myths. Luke&#39;s story follows this pattern, and Darth Vader is one of the elements of that story pattern. Now Lucas is taking another three movies to focus on one character in Luke&#39;s story. There&#39;s really no need to do this, because Darth Vader&#39;s role is only significant inasmuch as it interacts with and affects Luke&#39;s development as a hero. It&#39;d be like writing a prequel to The Odyssey explaining where the Cyclops came from. Sure it might be interesting to fans of the book, but is it really mandated in any sense? Anakin&#39;s back story is self-indulgent on Lucas&#39; part - he assumes that people will flock to anything with the SW logo on it, and he&#39;s right. So forget your lame scoreboard, Stik R. Lucas is the real winner, and it&#39;s at the expense of lemmings like you who can&#39;t discern independence from megalomania and self-importance. This new trilogy will add nothing to the canon of great film, and from all I&#39;ve seen so far it looks like LotR may just accomplish that (even though it&#39;s a product of the Hollywood whoremonger, along with every other great film there ever was.)

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 10:33 p.m. CST

    There&#39;s no way FOTR will be the best movie ever...

    by DinoBass

    ...because The Two Towers is coming out next year! Gollum, Ents, Riders of Rohan, Shelob, and Helm&#39;s Deep! It will rock from scene 1! From all the trailers I&#39;ve seen, and based on the first couple of major reviews (from Rolling Stone and Newsweek, which couldn&#39;t be more positive), I&#39;m confident that I&#39;ll enjoy FOTR. And here&#39;s the great thing: the next two films have already been made, by the same director, with the same actors. So here&#39;s the real difference between LOTR and the current SW trilogy: the LOTR fans can get geeked up about the next two installments, knowing how powerful the story and characters are, while SW fans have to cross their fingers and hope that TPM was just a hiccup and that Lucas hasn&#39;t run out of ideas.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Ugh...LOTR is gonna SUCK COCK!

    by Ribbons

    How is that scene good at all? The "cave troll," is a blatant copy-off of HP&#39;s much scarier (and better-dressed, I might add) mountain troll, and Gimli looks like a crazy midget. The scene is not brilliant, but rather a ludicrous attempt at being tense and exciting. Sorry, but I&#39;d rather not see a couple of gay hobbit lovers with blue swords. On December 22, my $9.00 are going to JOE SOMEBODY. Just kidding, I hope you guys know. Orcs look pretty awesome, and if this movie is layered enough to keep movie critics happy, that&#39;s a good sign. Can&#39;t wait to check this one out. See you guys around.

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Attack of the Clones

    by Huneybee

    If Stik Raygun and his clone are any indication...AotC will SUCK, BITCHES! (heehee)____Wilko185 (hope I got that name right), I have often wondered the exact same thing about Harry and everyone letting the TB&#39;s get out of order when they feel that people will either get too hot and bothered or it&#39;s getting too long. I vote for the conspiracy theory!____Bee

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:49 p.m. CST

    ABOUT STAR WARS and people like STIK RAYGUN versus AARGH -- PART

    by ThomasMagnum PI

    I see a bunch of posts going back and forth on this and thought I

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:51 p.m. CST

    ABOUT STAR WARS and people like STIK RAYGUN versus AARGH -- PART

    by ThomasMagnum PI

    Sorry, long tirade, so I split it into 2 parts. But picking up where I left off, on a more personal level, I

  • Dec. 1, 2001, 11:59 p.m. CST

    New FOTR Commercial Out there

    by SpecOpsY2K

    They just played a new one, aside from the ones we&#39;ve seen on the net. This one showed a tiny bit more of the moria sequence and had a much more danger-action feel to it. Just thought you might&#39;ve wanted to know.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:12 a.m. CST


    by LordDark

    How do you manage to type with Lucas&#39; schlong in your mouth? And on your knees no less? You&#39;re a talented knob gobbler.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Newsweek review link...

    by Huneybee ____Bee

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:28 a.m. CST


    by Huneybee

    Sorry, That will teach me to read the entire TB before posting a ling. The review was here already. My apologies.____I wonder where this post will land?____An Out Of Order Bee

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:39 a.m. CST


    by Buzz Maverik

    The darkest of the POLICE ACADEMY films and the least popular at time of release.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:51 a.m. CST

    stik raygun

    by wato

    Where the hell do you get off man? For all but 4 years of my life I have been a SW fan, a BIG Star Wars fan. I am thrilled to be introducing those worlds to my kids now. I have read every book I could get my hands on about GL, ILM etc..I work in the field I work in BECAUSE of Star Wars. But I am also *shock* *horror* *gasp* a huge LOTR fan. I have also read all of Tolkien&#39;s Middle Earth stuff as well as most of the Christopher Tolkien stuff. I LOVE LOTR. I do feel (as most people do, although you won&#39;t open your eyes to the fact) that TPM was a pile. It took me about six months to admit that Lucas had failed. But failed he did. Does that change the fact that I love Star Wars? Am I less of a fan because I don&#39;t lap everything up and crack a huge shit rimmed grin? I hope GL fears this movie. I hope this sparks something in him that was out on holiday when they made TPM. I think he can still make a truly great movie. I hope he does so again. But Stik ol&#39; buddy, LOTR will wipe the mat in terms of good story telling with TPM. There is no doubt. I can feel it. I can see it in the eyes of the actors as they speak about this film. Goodness oozes from every pore of this production. I am a Star Wars fan, and you are wrong. P.S. What the hell is a dozy numptee? P.P.S. Usually those who are the recent recipients of their first &#39;pubes&#39; are those that spout derogatory comments about not having any. Try not to tip your hand so badly next time.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:58 a.m. CST

    WSJ Editorial: "No contest. Tolkien runs rings around Potter"

    by nlmalph

    Another non-fanboy positive review:

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 1:28 a.m. CST

    This talkback is "for kids"

    by wilko185

    Stop just saying "for kids"! Which kids? 5 year olds? Stupid kids? American kids? It&#39;s such a broad term as to be almost meaningless. I mean, nevermind LOTR, Lord of the FLIES was "for kids" (which won Golding the Nobel prize). Barney the dinosaur is also "for kids". ___ Let&#39;s define terms a bit here. ANH and ESB were for "kids of all ages", meaning adults could enjoy them too. They had (some) depth. As we grew up we saw some more meaning in them. Lotr is also accessible to both kids and adults, but with many more layers of depth. TPM, however, is for little kids *only*, so "infantile" might be a better word for that film. I&#39;m far too old to say whether it&#39;s a good kiddie-flick or a bad one, but that&#39;s what it is. _______________ _________________ ________________ FYI Upcoming LOTR TV program times at LORD OF THE RINGS PREVIEW, PASSAGE TO MIDDLE-EARTH and MAKING THE MOVIE: LORD OF THE RINGS. (Why are AICN posting this info at TORN and not here?)

  • Because that&#39;s what it looks like. Fortunately, I know it&#39;s not the truth. Also, I doubt that LOTR will win best picture at the oscars, because no one is a doctor, lawyer, funny fat girl, or handicapped. Let&#39;s face it. Oscars are a sham. But the fans will know the truth.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Well, FOTR may not WIN Best Picture....

    by The Hierophant

    But I have strong feeling that it will be at least nominated for Best Picture. There have been so few movies this year that would fill the bill for Best Pic that I can&#39;t see how FOTR could be overlooked, at least as far as a nom goes.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Visual style

    by hktelemacher

    I couldn&#39;t really tell from the trailers, but from the Fox special the camera work seems to be very much in keeping with Peter Jackson&#39;s previous efforts. Sort of an in-your-face elegance. Some folks are always going to complain about the liberties taken, but I for one never wanted to see a completely faithful adaptation of the books. I never read Harry Potter, from what I understand it was very loyal to the source material and it made for a patchy, disjointed narrative. Not that Harry Potter holds any kind of a candle to LOTR on a literary basis, but if PJ has taken creative liberties with the material it&#39;s because it will ease the transition between mediums. A lot of things won&#39;t transfer well, and a lot of the dialogue is meant to be read and not heard - a lot of it being very expository, telling and not showing. If on 12/19 I see a three hour book report, fine, I&#39;ll dig it, but I&#39;m expecting something much more stimulating. I never doubted this project in any way. It&#39;s being done right on all fronts. Peter Jackson is the right director. I agreed with every casting decision. The entire production is keeping it&#39;s distance from Hollywood. New Line was kicking ass when DeLuca was running it and a lot of his projects are still alive. Everything that could go wrong on a business level didn&#39;t. I don&#39;t expect a new depth to the material, but I do expect the addition of a different dimension on a visual level. If it strays from the exact formula, that&#39;s fine, but it looks like everything is going to be okay. It&#39;s going to be okay. Hopefully.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 2:30 a.m. CST

    The SW/ LOTR war is non-existant.

    by Mahlia

    Objectivity. keep it in mind. I like star wars as much as the next person, but it&#39;s really not worth all the hype put into it. And Lord of the Rings isn&#39;t either. It&#39;ll be a good movie, but hey, the best of all time is a bit overdoing it. (If it DOES turn out to be, then that&#39;s just icing on the cake)....I just wish people could be happy that they&#39;re about to enjoy a good film. In the end, that&#39;s all it is. Get your popcorn, your sodas and milk-duds and enjoy. Forget the immature SW/lotr war.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 3:05 a.m. CST

    Damn right, DinoBass.

    by Cash Bailey

    FELLOWSHIP is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what we will see in the next two. Tehre&#39;s not a doubt in my mind that the Ents storming Isengard will be the most spectacular, bizarre and just plain surreal scene ever put on film.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Cool new clip at

    by The Hierophant has a new clip showcasing the two wizards Gandalf and Saruman. It&#39;s not spoiler-heavy or as breathtaking as new footage might be, but it does give some nice insight into the characters of the two Maiar. God, I love Christopher Lee&#39;s voice! Oh, and here&#39;s the URL:,0#

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 3:29 a.m. CST

    No Mahlia, I&#39;m not here to make Star Wars fans look like jer

    by stik raygun

    That&#39;s your job, not mine. It&#39;s my job to stand here and deal with all the SHIT that get&#39;s thrown at the Star Wars holy franchise. Im obviously the only real StarWars fan here. Again, I&#39;ll spell it out. How is SW only for kids when all you "adults" still care enough about it to FUCKING ARGUE about it on this board (for a totally different film lol). And I&#39;m getting tired of all the insults. so come on bitches, take your best shot.I&#39;m here with my pants round my ankles waiting for you to fuck me up the ass. And you know what thats like from your time in juvy right? RIGHT! You fucking homophobes . HOwd you know Im not gay anyway? Cause if I was I might be going out with George Lucas anyway. And just cause I&#39;d be sucking his dick (or whatever it is gays do, I wouldtn know) dont mean you can call me a bitch. Fucking hypocrites. Fuck me in the ass! Ooooo yeah baby -TRUE STAR WARS FANS FUCKED UP THE ASS: LUCAS 1, JACKSON 0

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Two Towers is my favorite.

    by sparticusmaximus

    Just seconding an earlier poster&#39;s comment regarding FOTR just being an appetizer. Fellowship is fine as an introduction.....but if I only read the first book of LOTR, I would have wondered what all the fuss is about. TWO TOWERS and RETURN OF THE KING is what makes LOTR the greatest fantasy novel ever written....PERIOD. Regarding TPM, I see it as the INVERSE of ESB. While ESB enhanced it&#39;s prequel......TPM will be enhanced by it&#39;s sequel(s). TPM beefs explained: -Lack of tension due to good guys in charge (at least till Maul/Sith showed up).....well duh!! It is the BEGINNING! -The flaws of the Jedi: They were introduced as emotionally-constricted for a reason. This is a FLAW. Qui-Gon is a very SYMBOLIC character in his relationship with the JEDI, and the way Anakin will percieve them.......This will continue with Christopher Lee&#39;s DOOKU. -wimpy droids.......turn into jedi-massacring droids......than Clones/stormtroopers. -Non-grungy look in TPM transforms into the used-looked from the OT....after great war/conflict, the next two prequels document. -Minor Trade Federation/Naboo event 10 years earlier..... balloons into GALACTIC CIVIL WAR....That&#39;s right WAR is brewing.....The next 2 prequels put the WAR back in SW. -innocent, sweet cherubic Anakin...not a trace of EVIL Vader.....Brilliant start-off point: What&#39;s more scary: The cliche BAD SEED or a kid any one can relate to, going to the dark side. We will view Anakin&#39;s turn from the INSIDE...not just as spectators gawking...much scarier and interesting. -Jar Jar: Yep the little gungan....He parallels Anakin. In TPM he is symbolic of what it&#39;s like to be a CHILD in an adult world....clumsy, out of place, stupid, looked down upon, etc... Watch his character arc get into darker territory like Anakin. ******Fanboys remind me of ESB&#39;s LUKE (no wonder it&#39;s the FANBOY favorite)...........NO PATIENCE!

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 5:57 a.m. CST


    by WebHitMan

    I consider myself a SW fan. Maybe not one of the kind that has everything SW in his room, in his PC&#39;s desktop, etc. But I consider myself much more a Tolkien&#39;s work lover(and also, I don&#39;t have everything LOTR in my room, except of course, Tolkien books and a LOTR Calendar). I love to read, and when Tolkien came into my life simply it changed. I love films also, a lot... so, you know how good it felt to know LOTR was going to be produced. Thought I&#39;ll be one of those in the best seat to watch SW&#39;s Episode II, I know that LOTR will ROCK my guts as any other movie of this time, maybe by my deep Tolkien&#39;s work admiration. I saw the SW Episodes 4 to 6 before reading anything of Tolkien. One of the things I thought when reading LOTR for the first time was "I&#39;m pretty sure GL was influenced somehow by Tolkien" To my surprise, when I got wired with internet for the first time, I realized that many Tolkien readers thought the same(and also SW-LOTR mixed fans, like myself). Then I found out (don&#39;t know for sure if its true) that GL tried to put his hands on LOTR filming rights. He couldn&#39;t. And some other voices said that WILLOW was his own HOBBIT version. And all this I found out long before the rumors of a LOTR film being shooted were true. That makes my suspicion much more stronger: GL was inspired somehow by Tolkien. So, you ultra-mega-fans of SW, don&#39;t forget where the roots of GL are. And I call stupidity how some people feel more Lucas than Lucas, and cries out loud when they hear "LOTR". And so, I&#39;m afraid, there are people who really believe they hold the truth about Tolkien&#39;s Middle-Earth (funny when himself said he didn&#39;t, and that&#39;s one of his best gifts to his work: independence of the author). Stupidity because those who are afraid or get angry about competition, is because they lie their entire life to.. simply... a fantasy...(not to mention that it also means that they foresee that LOTR will ROCK, but they can&#39;t accept it because a part of their lifes could die) Why do I think LOTR will be better than SW (at least Episodes I to III)? There are no characters in LOTR pushed in just to show how great the CGI technologies (made by my own IL&M company) had advanced. Or just to say "It&#39;s the first 100% Digital character who has an important role"... You know which character I mean... JJB... Also, I think that if for a moment you forget that you are seeing in TPM the origin of Anakin, the story is quite weak. I have my doubts that if Episode I was released instead of IV in late 70&#39;s characters like Qui-gon or JJB would have existed. The lines of Obi-Wan in Episodes IV-VI still echoes in my mind ("Yoda was my master"... so why the hell does he cries Qui-gon&#39;s death in EpI if he really didn&#39;t existe in GL&#39;s mind on 78). I&#39;m still wondering what the hell did the Federation in Episode I wanted the Queen to sign (Treaty...of... what????)... or what was going to be their reward serving the Senator P. Maybe I&#39;ll find out more in EII. Now.. LOTR won&#39;t have those flaws.. The &#39;seeings&#39;, that are the greatest virtue in SW won&#39;t be a deception in LOTR, but the content, that was such a deception in SW surely WON&#39;T be a deception in LOTR... au contraire... Well.. I think I said to much to make some Lucasians anger... The irony is that Lucas (himself, not their phony representants) is counting the days, waiting to see and ENJOY LOTR as any other Tolkien reader.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Its not a sport

    by Sinister

    Cut out your pathetic Tally keeping of Lucas vs Jackson. It was OK the first time but are you actually keeping a record? LAME! If you really were you might notice the overwhelming amount of "pro LOTR" posts here. I don&#39;t wanna compare the two movies but you look like an easy target. Jackson: 655 Squillion - Lucas: 3 And as for LOTR being a Hollywood bastardisation. Get your facts straight. LOTR started as a New Zealand movie with virtually no Hollywood influence. Although New Line were a funding backer from early on....They did not decide to increase funding until they had seen the quality of the work. You ASSUME it&#39;s another hollywood adaption. Just because half the stuff Hollywood shits out is terrible, doesn&#39;t mean that a movie you havn&#39;t seen yet, will be the same. I&#39;m sure that after this movie is released there are going to be a lot of Americans either assuming its an American film, or wondering how the hell a small country like NZ have produced a movie to match or better the talents of Hollywood.As for the Burger King promotions etc, they are idea&#39;s of Newline (of hollywood of course) ..not Peter Jackson&#39;s.And they have no bearing on the quality of the film. If you are not going to see it becuase of that then you don&#39;t deserve to see it. And that is YOUR loss. You might have guessed by now that I am from New Zealand. I am so proud of this movie simply judging from what little I have seen. We usually like to keep to ourselves but this is one project where you will all see the hard work and effort that has gone into it. By the way ...the crew were 90% NZers....not from Hollywood...sorry.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 9:25 a.m. CST

    LOTR looking good!, & the main problem with TPM was..

    by Amy Chasing

    ..that you could say "The main problem with TPM was ___". I never heard anyone start a sentence like this about ANH or TESB, so obviously there must have been a problem with TPM for so many people (fans and non-fans alike) to have problems with it. I just personally thought it didn&#39;t put details into the parts that needed it. If Anakin was so strong with the Force, why was this never _shown_ instead of coming across as if Anakin just fluked blowing up the Trade Federation ship at the end? What was the link between the taxation of trade routes and the Trade Federation&#39;s blockade of Naboo? What made QuiGon come to the conclusion that Anakin was conceived by Midichlorians (a pretty big leap of faith there, when a more likely scenario was that Shmi was abducted or something and had her memory erased.. why didn&#39;t QuiGon think more rationally about this?) And what is "Bringing Balance to the Force" anyway? All these questions (except perhaps the last one) should have been answered in TPM to at least make the story in the film complete (with allowances for other questions to be answered in future films). Added to this the fart joke, and &#39;nuff said! :-)

  • Huh? I&#39;m clutching at straws? How? By saying that you are most likely Mercier? Trust me, it was a compliment for you and an insult for Mercier, because even though he was an annoying troll, he at least understood Tolkien&#39;s works, and from time to time slipped into a somewhat intelligent discussion. You think it&#39;s comical that I point out the striking similarities between you and Mercier? No, if you&#39;re not Mercier, it&#39;s actually very very sad, because that means there is more than just one Star Wars fan who is able to make such a total fool of out himself in the AICN talkbacks (and like I said, you are rather one step back from Mercier&#39;s already severaly lacking argumentative abilities). That is really very sad. But enjoy the spotlight while you can. At the latest on Dec 19, nobody is going to give a damn about your nonsense anymore.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:26 a.m. CST

    NEWS FLASH! LOTR fans declare war on SW fans! Massacre at the c

    by Nordling

    LOTR fans collect real swords. SW fans collect ray guns. That don&#39;t work. You tell me who wins. BTW, this is a JOKE! Have your little war. I&#39;m seeing them both. For I actually have $20 FRIGGING BUCKS in my wallet! That&#39;s RIGHT! Enough for TWO movies!

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:28 a.m. CST

    lotr will be playing around hour 16 at bnat#3

    by jonnyaction

    harry is so lame with his comments about how he&#39;ll be just that much closer to seeing lotr AFTER bnat.your little attempt at misdirection was thin at sir have been weighed and measured and are found lacking. i remain, jonnyaction

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:43 a.m. CST

    A pitbull burst out of the frog&#39;s ass and had a taco !

    by Captain Fantasy

    Yep, it&#39;s gonna happen... the sheep are being programed.

  • starwars ep1 is a kids film you say? so fucking what? this doesn&#39;t get around the fact that ep1 was an abmisal film. its the most pathetic excuse for a drop in quality i&#39;ve ever heard. i&#39;m not just saying this because i&#39;m not full of the joy of childhood blah blah blah. thats just a way for lots of you "fanboys" to excuse my opinion or make it redundant. i don&#39;t wanna get into a debate about whether ep1 is good or not. i just want to say that some of you need to learn respect for others opinions. i await cries of "hypocrite" from those who know me. so... i&#39;ve been complaining about ep1 for years... its time to move on... and now on to lotr. i used to be one of those people that thought these books should not be made into a film. i&#39;ve changed my mind... i want to see it... and i want to be impressed by it. i am expecting to be disappointed to a degree. but... its all about expectations... as always. i&#39;m not expecting the books on screen as such. i&#39;m just expecting a quality adaptation. at the very least... an adventure.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 11:47 a.m. CST

    17 Days BABY!!! 17 DAYS!!!

    by MrLAStills

    So did anybody else see that whole fox show online yesterday before they took it off. I couldn&#39;t bring myself to watch the clip of the mines. . . just don&#39;t want to ruin any of the movie for myself before I get in for the full treatment. Already tickets to the first three showings. . can&#39;t wait. . . Anyway, how do you think LoTR is going to do at the box office. . I have been following Harry Potter because I want it to do really well. I just want something to fu**in&#39; beat Titanic for christ&#39;s sake, it&#39;s a travesty that POS is on top. Anyway, good to see the news and good reviews are rolling in.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Lucas may lose this battle, he WILL win the war..........

    by togmeister

    I&#39;m almost resigned to the fact that the geeksheap lashings of praise over FOTR at the expense of TPM over the next 5 months or so, but George is playing the long game, folks. The LOTR hype will spin for 2 years, Episode 3 won&#39;t even be released until 2005. It could be that many of you won&#39;t FULLY understand the Lucas masterplan until the 2007 30th anniversary digital presentation of Episodes 1-6. After 13 hours, you&#39;ll realise just how massive this story really is. The guy below who boiled LOTR down to &#39;a bunch of short people dicking around in forest for a thousand pages until a ring is destroyed&#39; had a point. The Star Wars saga, when complete, will span DECADES. I watched TPM on DVD just a week ago, and it strikes me that nowhere near enough of you are willing to consider it as a part rather than a whole. There are subtleties in there ("I will watch your career with great interest", "We could be stuck here for a very long time") that only resonate IF you consider them in relation to Episodes 4-6. And how about the ending to ROTJ? Doesn&#39;t the AOTC trailer (Anakin zapped by Force lightning) add another layer to Vader&#39;s rescue of his son? Why in ANH are &#39;The Clone Wars&#39; mentioned several times when they won&#39;t be put on film for twenty-five years? And so on. The films will ultimately dovetail into a quite beautiful whole. You may not know this now - but by 2007 you will. Trust me, George knows what he&#39;s doing. The Star Wars saga (Which he began while still in his twenties, and will finish well into his sixties) is a life&#39;s work, which renders absurd all the proclamations that &#39;he&#39;s lost it&#39;or &#39;he just doesn&#39;t care anymore&#39;. Will i see LOTR? Sure (although i may wait for the harder R-rated DVDs). But to be honest, i&#39;d rather at this point see Ocean&#39;s 11, Ali, The Majestic or Vanilla Sky. It&#39;s a little odd that so many of you are jizzing yourselves over &#39;non-geek&#39; critics giving LOTR good reviews, while film-makers like Mann, Soderbergh etc. can expect them as a matter of course. Just remember that Star Wars will be a strong part of movie history FOREVER, and LOTR, good reviews or no, isn&#39;t going to change that. I notice that the British Channel 4 recently voted SW the best film of all time, i can&#39;t honestly see LOTR being in a similair position twenty-five years after release. Just remember that the films that endure tend to be the timeless ones, not the &#39;hip&#39; or &#39;cool&#39; ones. 2 years ago everyone was hailing The Matrix as the second coming, now it&#39;s difficult to find anyone with a good word to say about it. It&#39;s a spent force, proof of this is just how few Matrix comments there are in any recent LOTR/SW talkback. Now certain people may still be at the business of trashing TPM, but at least the film has an impact, a presence in many arguments. Keep the faith guys, come 2007 i can say with certainty that Star Wars will still be a force to be reckoned with, will still be worthy of discussion or argument, will still be RELEVANT. Will LOTR?

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Lucas may lose this battle, he WILL win the war..........

    by togmeister

    I&#39;m almost resigned to the fact that the geeksheap lashings of praise over FOTR at the expense of TPM over the next 5 months or so, but George is playing the long game, folks. The LOTR hype will spin for 2 years, Episode 3 won&#39;t even be released until 2005. It could be that many of you won&#39;t FULLY understand the Lucas masterplan until the 2007 30th anniversary digital presentation of Episodes 1-6. After 13 hours, you&#39;ll realise just how massive this story really is. The guy below who boiled LOTR down to &#39;a bunch of short people dicking around in forest for a thousand pages until a ring is destroyed&#39; had a point. The Star Wars saga, when complete, will span DECADES. I watched TPM on DVD just a week ago, and it strikes me that nowhere near enough of you are willing to consider it as a part rather than a whole. There are subtleties in there ("I will watch your career with great interest", "We could be stuck here for a very long time") that only resonate IF you consider them in relation to Episodes 4-6. And how about the ending to ROTJ? Doesn&#39;t the AOTC trailer (Anakin zapped by Force lightning) add another layer to Vader&#39;s rescue of his son? Why in ANH are &#39;The Clone Wars&#39; mentioned several times when they won&#39;t be put on film for twenty-five years? And so on. The films will ultimately dovetail into a quite beautiful whole. You may not know this now - but by 2007 you will. Trust me, George knows what he&#39;s doing. The Star Wars saga (Which he began while still in his twenties, and will finish well into his sixties) is a life&#39;s work, which renders absurd all the proclamations that &#39;he&#39;s lost it&#39;or &#39;he just doesn&#39;t care anymore&#39;. Will i see LOTR? Sure (although i may wait for the harder R-rated DVDs). But to be honest, i&#39;d rather at this point see Ocean&#39;s 11, Ali, The Majestic or Vanilla Sky. It&#39;s a little odd that so many of you are jizzing yourselves over &#39;non-geek&#39; critics giving LOTR good reviews, while film-makers like Mann, Soderbergh etc. can expect them as a matter of course. Just remember that Star Wars will be a strong part of movie history FOREVER, and LOTR, good reviews or no, isn&#39;t going to change that. I notice that the British Channel 4 recently voted SW the best film of all time, i can&#39;t honestly see LOTR being in a similair position twenty-five years after release. Just remember that the films that endure tend to be the timeless ones, not the &#39;hip&#39; or &#39;cool&#39; ones. 2 years ago everyone was hailing The Matrix as the second coming, now it&#39;s difficult to find anyone with a good word to say about it. It&#39;s a spent force, proof of this is just how few Matrix comments there are in any recent LOTR/SW talkback. Now certain people may still be at the business of trashing TPM, but at least the film has an impact, a presence in many arguments. Keep the faith guys, come 2007 i can say with certainty that Star Wars will still be a force to be reckoned with, will still be worthy of discussion or argument, will still be RELEVANT. Will LOTR?

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:09 p.m. CST

    SW vs LotR (from a neutral party)

    by zzyzx

    I&#39;m not a huge fan of either of these, but I think SW will do better at the box office based on a non-scientific sample. I twice saw Harry Potter, once on opening day with a bunch of people in costume, once in a theatre full of kids. In both cases, the AotC trailer got a much louder response than the FotR one. I think they&#39;ll both do well, and FotR will get more critical acclaim, but AotC will do better at the box office.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:37 p.m. CST

    stik raygun

    by General Sarcasm

    Hey, stik raygun, I have some friendly advice for you. Now please don&#39;t take this the wrong way but damn man, you need to move out of your parents basement and get a damn life!

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 12:43 p.m. CST

    This is an interesting old article about TPM

    by JimmyTheHand,1,4738,00.html It tells how the reviewers felt about the movie before it is released. Two of the quotes on there are from reviewers who already reviewed LOTR, with much praise. Maybe this is a good sign for LOTR! BTW, I loved OT star wars, but TPM, well, I put it pretty low on my list of entertaining movies. I will still see AOTC, just because, well, it is star wars.

  • This talkback is the worst mess I have ever seen on AICN. I can&#39;t even begin to imagine what kind of bug in the talkback code could cause the message order to go from "reversed" to "random" to "absolutely sickeningly chaotic". Harry, I assume you have your reasons for not attempting to fix the talkbacks (otherwise I&#39;m sure you would have posted something like "Be patient, I&#39;m working on it"), but at least stop adding more and more LotR news to the same topic when you see that the talkback for that topic is already seriously fucked up. Just start a new topic about LotR, e.g. with the Newsweek review, so we can have a new talkback which will be ok for at least the first few hours. Really, right now we can&#39;t even blame the trolls for the lack of intelligent discussion anymore.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Lucas will win the war?

    by DinoBass

    Being a big fan of SW and ESB, I&#39;ve given some thought to Lucas&#39; "grand plan". It goes like this: Lucas made SW, a great, fun movie that made bonzo box-office. That success demanded a sequel, so he made ESB. That was so successful (and a great film to boot) that RotJ was made, but at that point, IMHO, the original story was getting stretched a little thin: the Death Star again ("this time the battle will be INSIDE it!"), ewoks (the first obvious characters created to sell lots of plush toys, or if you like, "Wookies, only smaller!"). Lucas didn&#39;t put pen to paper for TPM until early/mid 90&#39;s, saying that he was waiting for technology to catch up with his ideas. After seeing TPM, I think he should have spent that time (from RotJ to &#39;94/&#39;95) re-working his characters and story. I hope he regains his form, but he&#39;s backed himself into a corner, trying to stretch an idea that worked for a couple of films into 6. He has to explain in real, meaningful, and dramatic terms events (like the Clone Wars) that were just thrown in for atmosphere originally, and kinda reverse-engineer all of it to fit in with what he put in the previous movies. It&#39;s a difficult task. Tolkien did it with LOTR, actually. The Hobbit was such a literary success that his publisher demanded a sequel. Tolkien presented his passion, a mythic history of elves (later The Silmarillion) that the publishers balked at, demanding hobbits. LOTR is actually a study in integrating hobbits (which originally had nothing to do with his bigger mythology) into that bigger picture. The first editions of The Hobbit had a few sections that couldn&#39;t be reconciled with the mythology and were changed in later editions. Anyway, Tolkien was successful in his effort; the jury is still out with Lucas. Oh, and one note: the SW saga spans DECADES? The LOTR saga spans EONS. But that&#39;s neither here nor there.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Newsweek didn&#39;t exactly flip..

    by SamWave

    but it&#39;s a very positive review all the same. God, I love the soundtrack. Much darker, and sader than I&#39;d imagined, but great all the same. Hurry up Dec 19!

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by mr. Gandhi

    wow, this is fairly typical. subject is LOTR uber-cool moria sequence and you guys start with the starwars debate. it&#39;s a shame... I&#39;m really excited about the movie now. thanks Harry!!

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 2:13 p.m. CST

    more asinine lotr v sw posts, the Nerd Wars continue

    by lost-ark-1

    First off where I stand. I have loved Star Wars all my life, my room overflows with the stuff. But unlike these numbnut "Attack of the Fanboys" I loved Peter Jackson as well. And though I have never read LOTR, I am drooling to see the film. This is where most of us are. The reasonable. Those of us who can love TPM and not be afraid to acknowledge the bad parts of the film. Can&#39;t we all just be happy that for once Fantasy is going to be given the fair chance it deserves. This movie has (just as the novel did with books) the chance to define the genre for movies. We have never had a great fantasy film. As much as I loved LEGEND and KULL as a kid, fantasy films are never given the chance by studios. We&#39;ve had to suffer through garbage like DRAGONHEART!!! Finally we get serious fantasy with a movie that could change it all from a book that started it all... BUT... To give credit to my man Lucas, it would be fairer to compare him to Tolkein than Jackson. After all, Lucas didn&#39;t have any bestselling novel to go on. Lucas, like Tolkein, created the mythology himself. Jedi, the Force, sure it was deeply inspired by whatever Lucas loved, but those concepts are his. TPM, may have had problems but I can forgive them to the man that created and unparalleled film phenomenon. And unlike those that can only do it once, Lucas went on to make Indiana Jones, who while Spielberg directed the concept was all Lucas. The man has done it not once but TWICE!! Before all the LOTR frodo-philes lick PJ&#39;s ass clean, let&#39;s see if that man can do what Lucas has already done twice. ANd all of us, as fans of film and sci-fi, and fantasy... LEt&#39;s look forward to both LOTR and AOTC at the same time. There is no reason to be exclusive to either one.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Once more into the breach

    by aargh

    I thought I had the record for the longest rant on this article, but TMPI has beat me with his two responses. Well done. And since you rightly discerned an emotional edge in what I was posting (largely as a result of being unwisely provoked by Stik R.&#39;s foolishness), let me now be as objective (and succinct) as possible. (And BTW, thank you for actually responding to any of my points unlike Stik R.) Leaving my opinion aside, no one can argue that TPM was a disappointment for a large segment of the SW fanbase. How great that disappointment and on what level is open to debate, but clearly no one is claiming that everyone loved it. And many of the complaints centered around what was described as lackluster acting, a less than engaging story, no main character with whom to identify, and a general sense that the film simply didn&#39;t live up to its predecessors. You may not agree with this opinion, but that does not make it invalid. (And trust me, I&#39;m being generous.) I think it&#39;s safe to say that Star Wars (i.e. Ep4) is a film classic. No questions asked. ESB is perhaps the most worthy sequel of all time. Again, I don&#39;t think much argument would ensue from that (at least not in this forum). However, it does not have quite the mainstream recognition of Star Wars. Return of the Jedi is itself a subject of debate over its quality etc. I recall a review of RotJ when the SpEd came out that Mark Hamill was unable to convey any emotion beyond "I&#39;m wearing pants." I use that example simply to illustrate that RotJ is not viewed as a film classic in the way that ANH and perhaps ESB are. Nevertheless, I&#39;d be willing to bet (and I admit this is just a guess) that more SW fans liked RotJ than they did TPM. (Subjective comment: at least the Ewoks didn&#39;t speak pidgin English.) If you want a more objective analysis, take a look at Oscars for each film. ANH got seven, and it went down from there. Now is this trend going to magically reverse itself with AotC? I would like to hope so, because I really did love SW once. But I&#39;m not expecting it. But to be fair, I haven&#39;t seen anything but a few trailers so far so I really can&#39;t objectively comment on it (again, thank you TMPI for pointing this out, albeit rather forcefully). Now again, to contrast this with LotR, no I haven&#39;t seen the movie yet. But I have read as many reviews as I could, both from Tolkien fans and newbies. All of them agree that the film is an overall triumph. And given that all three films were shot together, the likelihood of them all being at the same level of quality is very high. Now do I KNOW that AotC will suck? Of course not. But extrapolating from past data is not an invalid way of reaching a logical conclusion. Likewise with LotR. I have every reason to believe that Jackson has really done something special with these films, again based not on my hopes but on ALL the reviews I&#39;ve read so far. Phew. OK, now I&#39;m done being objective. My final comment (and then I&#39;m going to get back to my life - this has been a long and fruitless trip down Fanboy Avenue) is this: the new SW trilogy is nothing more than a three-part act of masturbation on GL&#39;s part. I defy anyone to seriously refute that claim. Come on. I know that there are some intelligent people out there (TMPI, you pissed me off but I respect you for having a point.) P.S. Highfalutin, no I can&#39;t take a joke. I&#39;m just an overly serious self-important bastard. (Can&#39;t you tell that from my neverending posts?) Hey wait, this isn&#39;t me! It&#39;s my EVIL CLONE "aa_rgh"! Oh no! It&#39;s the attack of the clones! (Sorry, I&#39;ll stop now.)

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 5:18 p.m. CST

    The MPAA, young fans, BK and LotR

    by MPG

    Yea, this sucks. Does R15 mean that young people are prohibited to watch the movie, or is it just a very strong caution (similar to PG 13 in the US)? In any case, the MPAA has nothing to do with the rating in Finland. Of course that doesn&#39;t invalidate your statement that the MPAA is fucked up. ;) -------------------------------- Regarding the young fans. I went to Burger King this morning to see if I can complete my LotR toy collection (yes, I know, it&#39;s a sacrilege of sorts to buy this stuff, but my wife and I get a good laugh out of it, the stuff is rather cheap, and the quality of the goblets is actually pretty good). While I was waiting for my stuff, two young boys (around 10 years, I assume) came in and saw the LotR display. They immediately went, "Look! The Lord of the Rings!! Perhaps we should get a Lord of the Rings mug!" So even though I understand how people can complain about this BK tie-in (especially when you see how terrible these BK commercials are), there&#39;s an important target group that&#39;s being drawn into the movie.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Especially for the Star Wars fanboys:

    by europop

    "With all respect to George Lucas, our script is better. "May the force be with you" isn&#39;t a bad line, but I&#39;ve got better stuff." - Sir Ian McKellan.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Of Ratings, Movies and FUCKED UP TalkBacks

    by trava

    Thank God we dont have any kind of ratings here in Slovenia, but that doesnt worry me I am 20 years old!:) I am pissed about the delay of the release in Slovenia, its JANUARY 17.!:( Hope there will be some very early screenings in december (its happened before with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Pearl Harbor(3 days after the american start):)!!! As for this Talkback its bad very bad, actualy its bad to the bone!!! PS: The Star Wars vs. LOTR debate---IT SUCKS! I am fan of both of them seen all star wars movies and read all Tolkien books love them all (ok, TPM wasnt that good but it got its moments (Palpatine and Darth Maul))!!! PPS: And the debate about the movie vs. the book--- doesnt matter either, because a book is a book and should be READ and enjoyed and the movie should be SEEN and enjoyed!!! Who cares if the movie doesnt have every fucking scene from the book as long as its a GREAT movie with the SPIRIT of the book!!! IN PJ WE TRUST!!! GoodNight

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Has anyone noticed that Stik Boy&#39;s end of post comments ...

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    are getting more and more INCOHERENT? Stikky, you need to come down a little bit. Take a valium. Jerk off. Whatever you do for relaxation.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:32 p.m. CST

    I wonder where this will end up?

    by Kizeesh

    "They Have a Cave Troll." Why did I see images of Jona Lomu charging out of the All Blacks lines when I heard this?

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Finland rating

    by MPG

    Yes, I know that article, but it doesn&#39;t really say what exactly R15 means (I have only heard of a K15 rating in Finland so far by the way). One could say that also a PG-13 rating in the USA would prevent many kids from seeing the movie, because parents won&#39;t allow it, even though in theory, they could see the movie. -------------------------------- Having said that, I just want to restate that the MPAA has nothing to do with the rating in Finland. The MPAA is the "Motion Picture Association of America", which rates movies for the USA. The ratings in Finland are most likely decided by a finnish board.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Stikky: why TPM is sub-par, at best

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    1) Where does a "Trade Federation" get that kind of hardware? Battle-droids and Planet-Blockaders don&#39;t come cheap. 2) And why the fuck were they so interested in Naboo? What precious commodity or goods did they have? Never explained. 3) Did anyone else notice how the Federation seemed to come off as stereotyped Asians? 4) The silly costumes and makeup that Portman endures, as well as the absurd number of costume changes. 5) Travelling by water through the center of the planet. Uh, yah. Might get a tad warm! 6) The stupid looking sea creatures. Puh-lease. GL could have come up with something better. 7) Since travelling underwater seems so commonplace, why does the sub thingie go SOOOOO slowly? And do those twirly doo-hickies really propel it or are they merely for show? 8) "I&#39;m the only human who can Pod Race." Sorry but those speeds and turns didn&#39;t seem that much for a human. And how did humans end up being the slowest and clumsiest race in the galaxy? Sheer stupidity for plot&#39;s sake. 9) Midiclorians?!? &#39;nuff said. 10) Where the fuck were the Jedi and Maul fighting? Looked like the inside of a Death Star with the plunging, bottomless drop-offs. 11) Why were the Trade Federation subservient to Palpatine? There ya go, old bean, or should I say "has bean"?

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:43 p.m. CST

    not very LOTR topic but what the hey.

    by Kizeesh

    similarly in the UK we have the BBFC, who used to be the bane of any British filmgoer&#39;s life, they used to cut everything. Most famously the Nunchuka scene from Enter the Dragon, because they figured that british thugs would start making Nunchukas and then mug people with them. However they have thoroughly rocked since a new guy took over a few years ago, hence the cinema releases of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Exorcist. also they recently made the decision that they would not cut anything from an 18 rated movie.(thats an R for american&#39;s out there) Unless they felt it was just plain crazy shit. Oh and Sean Bean is God.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:43 p.m. CST

    For all those trashing David Ansen...

    by Theta

    And only a few is a few too many; the guy may not be Roger Ebert, but he is a solid, intelligent mainstream critic and not a quote whore by any means. The man has echoed the sentiments of Talk-Backers often enough (a lot more than a lot of mainstream critics, in fact) that we should all trust him. Read his archived reviews, especially as it pertains to genre work, and you&#39;ll find him a lot more balanced and knowledgable than, say, Owen Glieberman of "Entertainment Weekly", the art whores over at the Village Voice, or, say, David Manning.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:48 p.m. CST

    And Stikky, with respect to your "imitators"

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    There were only two who posted comments about "stik_raygun": Aargh and I. Aargh later apologized. I acknowledged "_"s satire. So, don&#39;t put me down, thinking I was taken in. I said, "The first three sentences had me going." That implies that (now follow me here Stikky) by the 4th sentence, I was checking the ID more closely. Be intellectually honest, Stikky. It only helps your cause.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Finnish rating.... An explanation

    by virkku

    Since I&#39;m 25 I don&#39;t have to worry about the ratings here in Finland. But here is what K-15 means as far as I know. The film is forbidden from people under 15, but with parental guidance kids who are 13 can see it. Similarly if a film is K-13 kids of 11 years can see it with parental guidance. I&#39;m surprised by the strict rating, because usually Finland is pretty free-minded with ratings. A K-13 would have seemed more appropriate, at least if you compare it with the ratings in other countries.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 6:58 p.m. CST


    by virkku

    ...And MPG is absolutely right -The finnish rating has been decided by the finnish rating board.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Star Wars Ate My Pets

    by Grand Digital

    All I can say is so fricking what, it&#39;s a short clip, about the size of stik-boy&#39;s man gland, showing you nothin&#39; of the film. But basically, you can say that LOTR will be good because PJ actually has that same kind of cheesy-but-eventually-powerful cinema sense that Terry Gilliam also spurts.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 7:27 p.m. CST

    The Real Stik Raygun

    by stik raygun

    Im taking over posting while the otherStik has a well earned rest. Cutting room floor, see my post in the Ninja turtle&#39;s talkback for how I anticipated you&#39;re misguided attack on TPM. Fools! Cower before my precognitive might! Now, if George Lucas is reading this. I admit it.I&#39;m gay and I want you. Ill be spending the next few nights camped outside the Ranch. If you see me as you drive through the gates in your chariot, just stop and open the passenger door, no need to say anything (I&#39;ll be the one with the BLUE lightsaber, not that other phreak with the green one). Do what you like but be gentle...Fuck you fanboys loosers, Im gonna be a Lucas groupie! FINAL ROUND FOR FANS COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET: LUCAS 1, JACKSON 0

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Stiks Whore Machines

    by Sinister

    Fair Enough, LOTR may have a Hollywood influence. But that is not necessarily bad. I know it sounds bad to all the independant film fans out there but in this case, the main influence is funding. PJ has NOT been corrupted by this "whore machine" you speak of and most likely has no say in the promotion of such things as Burger King. If the whore machine has corrupted in this way, then they have merely overseen the commercialisation of some crappy plastic toys...not the film itself. I happen to know of the exact time and place when a group of Newline officials were sent to NZ to Judge the output and quality of the work on LOTR. Their expectations were greatly exceeded and thus, funding was increased from the original NZ $360 Million. Please try to segregate the promotion of merchandise from the film itself. I fail to see how you can realistically claim that this film is a Hollywood bastardisation without having seen it yet. If it truely was, we would most likely have another D&D pile of shite with slo-mo Matrix style fight scenes, all characters speaking with American accents, and nearly all slayings/deaths occuring by beaking/twisting of the neck (Jurassic Park 3) Haha ...what a joke that was. Save your criticism for December 20th or afterwards. And if you still feel it is a Hollywood pile of crap, then your opinion will at least have some more basis to it. And if you want to be taken more credibly, then stick to fact based arguments instead of the "LOTR fans are thick as pig brain is bigger than your brain" type bullshit. If LOTR was written by a "genius" as you put it. Then it stands to reason that intelligent people will enjoy it right?

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 7:58 p.m. CST

    man guys.......

    by oorat22

    aargh, and sinister, many props to ya. you two seem to be on the ball. i two was once a sw fan, living in happy glee hearing the origin of vader was coming, and the part one came, and i went, right out the door cause it sucked. people poking at the burger king tie in, um, have you seen all the sw tie ins? werent they with mcdonalds, or hardees with kidsmeal toys? cause i remember them having kids meal toys. then theres the holloween costumes, the models, the legos, the action figures, the play sets, the 12&#39; dolls, the poster board standees, the books, the rereleasing of the films over and over again like a disney cartoon, or like a game of peek-a-boo, now you see them, now you dont(guess lucas didnt want any compition with his original and much better film series on video) and then there are the specials on the rereleases, adding ten minutes of interveiws with the cast talking bout ep2, no footage, just interveiws. or having to buy the dvd to see an exclusive trailer for ep2. and then there&#39;s the book upon books of sw, novels of anikan, obi wan, qui gon, yoda, and countless other characters, and then the comic books, the manga editions of sw released here. now, lets look at the product tie in with lord of the rings, the books, a few toys, some legos, and burger king. and maybe next year some holloween know, i think lucas had jackson beat in the hollywood product machine department. the lotr toys are about has easy to find as the really cool mcfarelane toys, where has, sw doesnt seem to move too fast even with its army of toys. its funny, you say lotr is corrupted by the hollywood suits, and lucas IS a hollywood suit. so please dont tell me that jackson is a sell out. cause he aint. ive seen his earlier films, and liked em all, even frighteners(if it just wouldve made up its mind if it was a comedy or horror film....) the guy reminds me of a weirder version of sam "the man" raimi. their styles are similar, very similar.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 8:37 p.m. CST

    when harry met georgie ........

    by rack

    lucas sits back in his overstuffed computer chair puffing a cohiba and playfully clinking the ice cubes in his glass of single malt. glancing up at his wall sized monitor he decides it&#39;s time to check out one of his fav net stops .... aicn. what&#39;s with all this lotr talk, he muses .... better take a look. a smile crosses his face as he sees that some of his flock are busily defending his life work. and better yet, not only are they not pissed about TPM, if there was a line for AOTC, they would go out and stand in it today. as he cracks a new bottle of glenlevit, he thinks to himself (for the millionth time) that a loyal fanbase is a helluva lot better than an innately intelligent one. he makes a mental note to check the talkbacks again after AOTC is released. who cares if the critical press tries to bury his recent work in a dungpile when he has gunny stickray and the like to pick up the slack. might even consider pulling that idea for a third trilogy off the shelf. possibly even a side project for jar jar. unwrapping another cohiba he can&#39;t help but smile and ponder what a wonderful place his little universe is to be.

  • Great, Ansen, a guy who I don&#39;t think much of(he managed to sound like an idiot even while blasting Episode One, a flawed movie to be sure) likes the movie. Impressing stuffy critics is no small achievement, especially for a fantasy film. I&#39;m glad LOTR and Peter Jackson have done it, let&#39;s hope it doesn&#39;t get an LA Confidential reception for it&#39;s troulbe. But Why do people like Ansen ALWAYS insist that filmmakers are better at showing evil than good? I think it&#39;s the critics who enjoy seeing bad guys. I remember this same thing being said of "What Dreams May Come," and it was WRONG! That film was immensely immaginative with its renderings of Heaven. And frankly, it was that movie&#39;s version of "hell" that felt cliched--it was more like outakes from Baron Munchausen. I think it&#39;s the CRITICS who like the evil imagery and not the moviemakers, but wanting to appear above all that they claim it&#39;s the filmmaker. I guess any compliment is worth something, even when it comes with undeserved criticism.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Peter Who?

    by Darth Melkor

    I keep hearing and reading LOTR fans saying over and over again "George Lucas sucks." "LOTR will destroy SW." "Peter Jackson rules!" Let me ask you this... What has Peter Jackson ever done to make everyone think he&#39;s so incredible? I looked at his bio and he&#39;s never done anything. He directed the Frighteners. Ooh boy there was a blockbuster classic. Can someone please clear up for me why Jackson is so awesome? Cause as far as I can tell the only movie worth noting he&#39;s ever made isn&#39;t even out yet.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Schtick Rayshmun

    by Doubting_Thomas

    Quite frankly I would rather see Joel Schumacher direct the next SW movie than George Lucas (at least Joel might leave out the poo-poo jokes). Really, Stik, your replies are predictable and the feeling of impending panic in your posts really comes across. Deal with it - there&#39;s a new kid in town, and children of the early 21st century will talk about LOTR in the same way that children of the sixties talked about Star Wars. All your tired bleating will not stop the LOTR trilogy from becoming a classic.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Heavenly creatures

    by JimmyTheHand

    "Heavenly Creatures" and his many comedy/horror films such as "Braindead"(Dead Alive), considered the goriest film ever made. "Heavenly Creatures" would be the one to watch though if you want to know how capable he is.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Anyone catch the new TV ad?

    by wilko185

    Definitely the best one yet. Mainly bits of footage we&#39;ve seen before, but there&#39;s also crebain, an interesting bit with the ring being picked up out of the snow (by Boromir?), more of the troll (attacking a hobbit), Saruman stood on top of Orthanc....and some other stuff I can&#39;t make out (is that an uncloaked Nazgul at the end? Sauron? and the watcher in the water?). Overall, still very much in keeping with the dark, almost horror vibe already established (in contrast to the BK TV spots)

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Cool new pic of Sauron in new tv spot

    by The Hierophant

    Wow, this is one phat-ass pic of the Dark Lord! Here&#39;s the link: <>. I seriously cannot wait to see the Battle of the Last Alliance, and Sauron reaking havoc among the good guys. Should be absolutely riveting and one heckuva way to start out the film. :D

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:41 p.m. CST

    What does he mean there are moments that are like "Matrix?"

    by dirtyapes

    This wasn&#39;t the first time someone mentioned "The Matrix" when reviewing LOTR. That&#39;s sort of disturbing to me. In a fantasy movie like this, some "Matrix"-like swooping camera shots would seem out of place. This is why I didn&#39;t like "From Hell" that much.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:41 p.m. CST

    by earthlingdave

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:44 p.m. CST

    by Natalie

    I&#39;m sure LotR will be at least good, but more likely a great movie. Peter Jackson is a very talented director: anyone who saw "Heavenly creatures" (and that was a challenging material to handle) should know that. Ansen&#39;s review is interesting as coming from a non-fan and even non-reader. So he can judge FotR as a cinematic experience rather than its connection with the book. So his praise is a good sign: it means that unlike Harry Potter, LotR will be a movie for everyone, but not too simplified to irritate the fans. Speaking about elves, their appearance and the design of Rivendell and Lorien also looked "kitcshy" to me. It&#39;s too elaborate and even overstuffed, I thought Elves were more natural. ~~~~~~~~~~~And this SW vs. LotR debate really kills. Any SW or LotR talkback now turns into this flame war. Personally, as a fan of both I don&#39;t want to take any side, I&#39;m just happy that there are 5 movies in four years I&#39;m looking forward to.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Whatever, Raygun...

    by earthlingdave

    As if George hasn&#39;t cheapened SW with merchandise. It&#39;s where he made all of his money in the 80&#39;s. And I seem to remember seeing a shitload of Jar Jar Binks crap that never got sold. Tie-ins are inevitable when you&#39;re trying to sell a movie like this but it shouldn&#39;t detract from the film itself. A Burger King cup doesn&#39;t really spoil a brilliant work of art for me. The cup will be in the trash heap while the film lives on for generations. Is Indiana Jones any less good because they made an Atari game of it? This SW/LOTR war is ridiculous. I&#39;m a fan of both. We&#39;re experiencing a rebirth of fantasy film. Why not sit back an enjoy it instead of bickering. Oh, and sorry about the lovely blank post above. Ciao.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:53 p.m. CST


    by Garyman

    The argument between LotR and SW is like a awful car wreck...I don&#39;t want to look, but I can&#39;t turn my head away. Just to preface, I&#39;m a SW fan. LotR never really did much for me. And I was REALLy into fantasy when I was younger. Just to make sure I read the LotR again about a year ago just to make sure, and while i thought: "I&#39;d like to see movies of this" it still didn&#39;t grab me, as much as say: "Wizard of Earthsea." Anyways, enough preface. The point I&#39;d like to make is: When ANH came out, no one had seen ANYTHING like it. I mean NOTHING. Yes there were the Buck Rogers serials, yes there was the Hidden Fortress, yes there even was Lord of the Rings...all of which SW borrows from...but as far as a viewing experience, there had been nothing like it. That is just one of the reasons it had been around for so long. Now, like I said, I&#39;m biased towards SW, but as far as LotR films people have seen this imagery on screen. Granted there hasn&#39;t been much fantasy since the advent of digital technology and PJ is a very gifted filmmaker, but still, people have seen elves, dwarves, wizards etc. For better or for worse, nobody had/has ever seen a Gungan, an ewok, a hutt, a Darth <fill in the blank> get the picture. That is why I&#39;ve always been in love with SW. I see things that I&#39;ve never never ever seen before. And that might be a reason why, as someone said on this talkback, LotR won&#39;t have the same kind of cultural impact. People have seen the LotR story before, they seen fantasy before, and as far as the visuals, they&#39;ve seen giant armies, big CG creatures, etc. The Cave Troll: In harry Potter, a movie released just 1 month before, there&#39;s a big troll with a club. Just like LotR. This goes back to my later point. People have now seen a CG troll. Sure, the LotR troll will probably be better, but my point is: people already have seen it. After seeing the clips of the troll, i don&#39;t understand what provokes the reaction that this cave troll is the best CG creature ever to grace the silver screen. Which makes me think that those who have a very strong attachement to LotR, will naturally be more inclined to anything that goes along with. Conversely so will any SW fan when faced with something from AotC. One more thing: I hope everyone who is arguing here, have seen both PJ and GL&#39;s past films. Just to make the arguments a little more informed. Cause when I found out the Peter Jackson, the same Peter Jackson who made Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles, was making Lord of the Rings, I was a bit skeptical. Heavenly Creatures is incredible, but that still doesn&#39;t prepare one for an epic on the scale of LotR...probably people said the same things about GL after American Graffiti. <g> Garyman PS To those who say LotR is outside of hollywood, who do you think is paying for it? Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but I believe New Line, and partially Miramax...which boils down to: Time Warner and Disney...doesn&#39;t get more Hollywood than that. Whereas Georgie is completely outside the hollywood system. That doesn&#39;t excuse him from poor filmmaking but he is a COMPLETELY automous filmmaker. He answers to no one.(possibly the problem with TPM?) Remember when FOX was fighting extremely hard to distribute the prequels? Hollywood went to him....not the other way around. As far as I can guess, Georgie and Holllywood don&#39;t even get along. He has turned down the Academy every time they offer him membership...which I believe irks them to no end. Long story short, accusing one filmmaker of being more hollywood than the other, is flat out stupid. Don&#39;t do it.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:56 p.m. CST


    by The Mauve Frog

    Oh, yeah. First in a LOTR forum. Yeah, baby! What a place to get my first first. YESSS!!!! hehe.

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Shit yeah Hierophant, that&#39;s Sauron!

    by wilko185

    Wearing the Ring! Too much of a spoiler, d&#39;you think? Here&#39;s a download link for the whole ad:

  • And if you have read in the recent reviews what the wizard duel looks like, you know what he means. ;) But I guess we won&#39;t be seeing any bullet time shots. :)

  • Dec. 2, 2001, 11:21 p.m. CST

    RE: HA-4 = Doody Head

    by Darth Melkor

    Thanks for the tip. I actually have seen Heavenly Creatures. Kate Winslet right?

  • ...I suggest you give him a call. I could just as well say that in &#39;77, Star Wars was just another Sci-Fi flick to the average Joe. $160 million, when even Harry Potter can make $300 million? LOL, you&#39;ll feel quite stupid in two months. :)

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Wait till the dang movie actually comes out...

    by splat broening

    ...before declaring that FOTR is the second coming, or the biggest load of big budget crap to grace the screen since Pearl Harbor. This whole LOTR vs. Star Wars, is the biggest waste of time since me and my buddies in third grade argued over whether Wolverine would beat Batman in a fight, and is just about as relevant.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Still alive

    by Pippin's Diamond

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 1:33 a.m. CST

    Damn you, enter button!

    by Pippin's Diamond

    Just posting to feel part of this again. It&#39;s been so long! Why can&#39;t vacations start already? Agggh! The FOX special was kinda cheesy (because it was shown on FOX!) but awesome. I am completely and absolutely convinced that this movie will kick some serious ass. Oh, and I don&#39;t know if Pallando is still around, but holy Eru Il

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 1:50 a.m. CST


    by wilko185

    I&#39;d say it&#39;s definitely *easier* to portray evil (or the struggle against it) than Good. To quote the man himself (from The Hobbit) "Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale...". This is probably more true of a film narrative than a book. I obviously don&#39;t know how well PJ has done the Rivendell or Lorien sections, say, compared to the rest of the quest. But I&#39;m not surprised the Moria sequence was chosen as a "stand out" bit to wow the press at Cannes. However, you don&#39;t (only) read LOTR for the action sequences. The bit that stands out most in my mind in retrospect is probably Mount Doom, just a slow, painful, crawl through the desert. ____ ____ Hopefully the film(s) will leave us more to remember than just the pulse-quickening action sequences. LOTR should give us more to digest on repeated viewings. [Ebonic P : According to E.A. Poe, Paradise Lost seemed better just because you read it first. By the time you get to Regained you&#39;re just sick of it. But the devil does get all the best lines ;) ]

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 2:31 a.m. CST

    Not much to add.....

    by Jimmy Jazz

    I think this topic has pretty much been beat into a puddle of warm goo. But I do think this SW/LOTR stuff is idiocy. You can&#39;t like both? I liked Phantom Menace, it was a decent flick. It was neither as bad nor as great as people said it was, but neither was episode 4, IMHO. It had a lot going for it. Mostly it had a palpable sense of dread and darkness running through it, the silly stuff notwithstanding. It had a decent plot and some cool action set pieces. I asked for nothing more and came out satisfied. I also look forward to episode 2, it looks like it could be something really interesting. LOTR also looks good. I am not a Tolkien fanatic, but i have read the books. I want to see it more as a Peter Jackson fan than anything else. I have lovved his work ever since I saw a badly copied, third hand copy of Bad Taste when I was in the 6th grade. These films looks looks like he could really come into his own. So in conclusion, I just want to say that this supposed rivalry is grade school bullshit.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 2:44 a.m. CST

    All Sorts of Joes (and Janes) and the FOTR

    by Bud666

    The following is anecdotal, specific to my own experience, and certainly has absolutely no bearing on how successful this film will be but I thought I&#39;d throw it out there anyway. I&#39;m kind of a closet geek so I tend to keep my excitement for things like this inside. I work at a small company in Southern California with roughly forty other folks only one of which I knew was fired up about LOTR trilogy prior to the following incident. When he find out I had the theatrical trailer on tape (the one that premiered on "Angel" a while back), he asked me to bring it in so he could take a look. We popped it in during lunch in a room full of our co-workers and soon discovered that just about everybody in the room (fifteen people or so) was anxious to see the flick. I found out that a few of them had been reading the books again in anticipation. I found out that there was at least two other people were planning on attending the first showing at their local theater and coming in a bit late that day. We played it several times at the request of the room. The people were white, black, Hispanic, and a couple Asians with incomes ranging from low-twenties to the low six figures and ages from 19 to 50. I had a few people come to me during the day that hadn&#39;t been present and ask to take a look at the tape. And even later that day, one of the owners (a 60-year old Jewish gentleman) came down to my dreary little cubicle and shyly asked to take a look. Like I said, this is all pretty meaningless (more people would to do well to recognize just how meaningless their limited personal experience is when it comes to prediction) but I just thought it was a fairly representative little cross-section of Southern California and they all seem to want to see the film. If it&#39;s not huge, I&#39;d be very surprised.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 4:03 a.m. CST

    Merchandising ( Stik)

    by Sinister

    I raise this issue not because of the SW vs LOTR debate but because I know Stik is a SW fan. You ask wether I will feel Tolkien has been cheapened if I see a packaging wrapper in a trash can. My answer is definitely not. How can a wrapper in a bin be at all indicative of the quality of a novel...or a movie? If you saw a package with your nations flag on it in the rubbish, would that decrease your pride in your nation? I&#39;d hope not.It&#39;s only cheapened if you let yourself feel it has been cheapened. I am easily able to identify what is really important about Tolkiens works and what are merely fundraisers. And what about Star wars? I feel the need to explain every time I mention it that I do not wish to compare the two. I merely wish to produce an argument against the points that I see. Star wars had a huge amount of merchandising...FACT. Does that cheapen your view of George Lucas? How can you produce arguments you know to be true in both LOTR and SW, and then imply that LOTR is somehow worse? You are simply not making sense.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 4:49 a.m. CST

    Engagement Called Off?

    by Macthespoon

    I think it would be cliched to day I am a huge Tolkien fan on this board so let me get directly to the faux pas committed by my girlfriend and you, the purest of Tolkienites, be the judge of the deed. I work 7 pm to 3 am through the week. As a result of this chaotic lifestyle I missed the FOX special on LOTR, hell I didn&#39;t know it was even on. I found out today that my girlfriend saw that it was coming on but decided to tape "Survivor" for me instead despite the fact that I am starting to loathe the program. First, she knows that I have been literally dying for the 19th to get here. Second, I made her read the first book so she would not be asking me ridiculous questions during the movie. And last but not least, I was honestly thinking of proposing to her after we saw FOTR. She is a good girlfriend but "Survivor" over a first look show about "The Lord of the Rings"? Tell me I am not making a mistake here!!

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 5:02 a.m. CST

    But will the movie sell...?

    by Shub-Wankalot

    Ok, it&#39;s true the Tolkien geeks will come out in droves to this movie when it hits mainstream, but what about the others--the casual filmgoers who make up the bulk of the movie revenue? I&#39;ve attended the screening of Harry Potter with my nephew, and let me tell you, the reaction on the faces of the audience in my vicinity to the preview of LOTR would have made any statue proud, with the exception of a few women, shaking their heads in disdain. Folks, if this is any measure of what to expect from the general populace, who may not know a hobbit from a halibut, LOTR may be in for a rough ride this yuletide season--less cheer and more bah humbugs! People can be so damn fickle and unpredictable, blindsiding even marketing&#39;s best laid plans.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Re: But will the movie sell...?

    by Bud666

    Well Shub, that was kind of the point of my post but perhaps I should clarify. The company I work for is a home care pharmacy. It isn&#39;t a post house or some other film industry adjunct. It isn&#39;t a workplace populated with film or fantasy geeks. Some of these people probably don&#39;t go out to the theater more than five or six times a year. I know that whenever I engage someone about the latest release, we inevitably have to delay the conversation for a few weeks until they finally go see it. But a large portion of this group seems to be excited about LOTR. Will they go? I hope so. But maybe I&#39;m infusing them with some of my excitement. All I know is what I plan to do. First showing on the 19th. If the movie is what I expect it to be, I may be back for seconds that same day. And if it&#39;s exceptional, I&#39;ll probably hit it again that weekend. I have little doubt about the box office. If anything is to fail here, it will be the merchandising. My local Burger King seemed shocked to the core when I asked for my Gandalf glass. I must admit, they are kind of cheesy.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 8 a.m. CST

    LTOR v. Star Wars

    by Scott Ellison

    To all those screaming at the top of there lungs that "LTOR is going to suck!", and "Lucas is a just a money grubbing hack!". 1. They are just movies. 2. It is possible to like both, and

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Holy Fuck!

    by Scaught

    You talkbackers sure use the word FUCK a lot. I counted 35 of them in these posts alone!!

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Fuck fills in a lot of gaps.

    by SamWave

    That&#39;s all.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 11:18 a.m. CST

    I agree.....

    by sleestackguy

    I agree with "scottellison" . Thay are just movies and why is it not possible to like both? Why must it be all or nothing? In the large and grand scheme of things, does it really matter?

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Stikky, this TB is slowly dying, but I&#39;ll still respond

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    ______ "You

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Stikky, now on to the meat of your "arguments"

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    _______ "Now you sir, and others have not answered my points even though I obliged you with answers to yours." BS, Stik Boy, I seem to remember a post in which I answered every one of your points. But then, *GASP*, it took three more of my posts to goad you into answering mine. Meanwhile, you merely cast aspersions towards myself and aargh. FINALLY, when you did answer my point-by-point post, you picked two out of the lot to answer. So cut the freakin&#39; BS and pious pontificating about who has made the better attempt at answering your "points". _______ "Where do you draw the line with films that ramrod their source for dumbed down entertainment value? U-571? The Patriot? Pearl Harbor?" I have to agree with you that I personally disdain when a movie fucks up historical fact. However, I have not seen any of these three. Re:LoTR and PJs adaptation, I can tolerate some diveregence from the books, because the media are DIFFERENT in how they convey the story. I don&#39;t like UNNECESSARY divergence and it seems that PJ strayed into that area. Oh well, I&#39;ve read the rumored changes at Tolkien Online and I can sit through them, but I&#39;ll be gritting my teeth. _______ "How will you feel when some tosser like Joel Schumacher gets his hands on the rights to film < LOTR episode 4

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Lord of The Rings - Sucks

    by google1

    Hey all, I caught L.O.R. today, check out my website ( for a full review later this week, after I gather my thoughts. I didn&#39;t hate it, and I didn&#39;t like it, it was perfectly mediocre with no payoff after wasting 3 hours of your life. Here are my initial thoughts ********************** Ok, I guess some people are right. I don&#39;t like anything. As someone who has never read any of the books, I can&#39;t say that I was enthused to see this 3 hour epic. As a matter of fact, my expectations going into this movie were pretty low and the movie didn&#39;t do anything to change my initial opinion. I&#39;ll start by saying what&#39;s good - Elija Wood Really does hold this movie together. He&#39;s really good. The Bow Guy (don&#39;t know the actor or the character name) He doesn&#39;t say much but he kicks ass when he&#39;s fighting. At 3 hours long, it does manage to hold your attention. I only checked my watch about 5 times and went to the bathroom once. What&#39;s Bad? Everything else, the music, the story, the pacing, the directing, everyone else, (why the hell was Cate Blanchet in this movie? She&#39;s a horrible actress and looks like death warmed over), etc. This film had no emotional pull, drive, or core until the last 1/2 hour, it was a dark film - meaning most of it was shot at night, a lot of the sets looked really cheesy (think 3 hours of The Mummy Returns meets Tomb Raider), the fighting sequences where badly edited and the end? Don&#39;t get me started on the non-ending, end that just left me feeling really pissed off. This movie was hollow and was nothing more than one 3-hr long exposition (although there was no real story there) or sales pitch for the next film or part 2 and 3 of the books. I would give this film a C- and I&#39;m being generous. A full, more articulate review will come later this week at my site

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 4:38 p.m. CST

    malexandria, went by your site ...

    by CuttingRoomFloor

    Was not impressed. Reviews of the WWF for Christ&#39;s sake?!? Sorry, I can&#39;t take anyone seriously that takes "pro" wrestling seriously. Too bad you are neutral/negative re:FoTR. I&#39;m not sure what lends your review any credibility, other than being a member of "eclipse." Anyway, your comment about the film being dark, "it was a dark film - meaning most of it was shot at night", is kinda of funny. Don&#39;t you know that night shots are done during the day? Otherwise the shadows would be too stark! It&#39;s called "day for night".

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 4:45 p.m. CST

    How pathetic

    by Gordo27

    Your attempt to get a mass viewing of your site is shameless. All the same good luck. You must be in dire shape to try something like that.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Raygun, dorante, Garyman

    by Halloween68

    Raygun, drop it, dude. What an A-hole. If you don&#39;t like or want to see LotR, simply exit this message board and await the next AOTC message board. No one cares a lick about your unfounded judgements except with sympathy for someone so narrowminded. The same can be said for anyone who talks shit on the Star Wars message board. Obviously, anyone who goes out of their to try and stir up animosity is really a loser who so desperately craves attention. *** dorante, as someone earlier has spoken... Watch Heavenly Creatures and Braindead aka Dead Alive. Both are classics. But be forewarned if you try Dead Alive. While this is one of the funniest movies I&#39;ve ever seen, it is in your face, violent and gory as hell. Also, it is shot not unlike a comic book. It&#39;s supposed to be cheezy and cartoony. Not meant to be taken serious in the least. His best serious work, or rather his only straightforward serious work is Heavenly Creatures. To me, that unto itself shows plenty of promise. His mockumentary Forgotten Silver is pretty cool too. If you gain anything out of watching any of these you should gain the obvious that Peter Jackson loves films and he loves to make films. I think that&#39;s a rather good pre-requisite. *** This last brings me to Garyman. Garyman, about your comment of what has PJ done to prepare him for the LotR films. That&#39;s a rather easy point to counterpoint. What has anyone done to prepare them for making the LotR films. This trilogy is history in the making. No one&#39;s ever done anything like it. PJ brings a love for film to the project; he brings a love for the novels to the project. Also, he brings his own studio, his own effects shop, an entire country of volunteers, and a cinescape/landscape to die for. If PJ isn&#39;t the man for the job, then no one is.

  • Dec. 3, 2001, 6:54 p.m. CST

    best books ever,.....can the movie possibly do them justice??

    by pentwap

    Once I started, I read non-stop. Dang, I hope the movie doesn&#39;t disappoint!!

  • Dec. 4, 2001, 12:08 a.m. CST


    by Garyman

    your comments about PJ bringing love to his work are dead on. Like I said, he&#39;s a very gifted fimmaker, however just from looking at his previous films, before the interviews about his committment to the work, he seemed an unlikely choice. However when you say "no one has done anything like it", that&#39;s not quite true. Granted I can&#39;t think of any trilogy of epic books being adapted into films that were made back to back (so in that aspect it&#39;s never been done), but I can think of several films that feature swords, wizards, trolls, little people, etc. Dungeons and Dragons, Willow, Excalibur, Legend, etc. There&#39;s the animated feature telling the same story...okay I admit a bastardized terrible version of the story, but the same story nonetheless. My point is: No matter what the quality of this film, it contains many elements that have been seen before on film. Regardless, I&#39;m hoping that it&#39;s fantastic and issues in a new age of fantasy film...and lastly it&#39;s also worth mentioning that whenever an artist like PJ, or anyone else for that matter, creates something like this, it will be an expression of their artistry...