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

Clips from THE TWO TOWERS and Tons More Reviews!

Hey folks, Harry here... I'm dying. I don't get to see THE TWO TOWERS for another 12 and a half days, when I'll finally watch the film after watching the first film at the Alamo Drafthouse as part of an amazing double feature. I'm waiting, because I want to see the film that first time the way I want to see the film... with friends, family and an audience that is electric and charged beyond belief in my favorite theater on the planet. That's why I'm not in New York today or in Paris next week. I was invited and offered the chance to attend, but for me... I'm waiting. There's even a screening here in Austin this coming Monday for Press, but for the life of me, who on earth wants to see this movie with the press... ewww... Now having said that, I'm dying. Today, I've been watching these online clips and going INSANE. I want to see the movie so bad it hurts. Reading these reviews have me foaming at the mouth. I reload TheOneRing.Net at least once an hour. Their Treebeard Christmas card with Merry and Pippin in his branches... ACK!!! TOO COOL!!! Here's some clips followed by reviews....

Click here for the trailer plus 16 minutes of clips all in Windows Media Streaming Format!

Click here for Peter Jackson on the Today Show and additional clips like Merry and Pippin with Treebeard and Rohen Riders vs Orcs on Wargs!!!

Next up we have Elanor - Queen of the Tailend Talkbacks and goddess of geeks - She's been with us for quite some time providing insight into the lands of MiddleEarth as they affect New York City... once again, she's here early, this time with a look at THE TWO TOWERS...

Hi Harry,

Elanor from AICN tailend talkbacks. Here’s the review I promised you, spoiler, free. Thanks again for last night! (hee hee now people can wonder what I mean).

I just got back from an Academy screening of The Two Towers with my friend Michael (may his beard ever grow long). We saw the 6PM showing at Disney’s screening room at Park and 59th St.

In a word, WOW! In seven words, I can’t wait to see it again. Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Wingnut and WETA have taken us to Middle Earth again. I am a Tolkien fan, know the books well and love them dearly. This is a great movie, bold, brilliant film-making from start to finish. Once again they have given us a marvelous translation of the story, spirit, tone and themes of the book into cinematic form, full of excitement, jaw-dropping action, exquisitely beautiful cinematography and, best of all, heart, soul and intelligence. Oh, and humor. Much of it from Gimli, to be sure, but all in character and well placed. However, Tolkien "purists" (those who think the book should either be filmed page for page, or who are so married to the ideas in their own minds that they cannot accept what is in the filmmakers’ minds) will likely not be pleased. As news reports have warned, The Two Towers deviates considerably from the plot we know so well. Does this harm the movie? Not a jot. The changes compress time, move the action forward and reveal character. I’m sure the changes also make it more engaging and understandable for the average non-book-reading viewer. I am amazed that the ways they found to introduce an enormous number of new characters as well as keeping four different separate story-lines going. And never fear, Tolkien fans, it all turns out like it does in the book. It’s as if the characters start at a point we know and end at a point we know, but discover a different path to get there. I do think a warning is in order for those who know the books well: for maximum viewing pleasure, be open. Scene for scene it is not as close to the book at Fellowship was. But don’t worry. Every time I thought "why are they saying that? How will they get to….oh! I see. Like I said, it all turns out the way it’s supposed to.

Gollum is phenomenal. He holds the screen all by himself by virtue of his acting. His CHARACTER, the one Tolkien conceived, is delivered in riveting fashion. His very first scene had me crying. And about six other scenes, too. And PJ doesn’t hide him behind rocks or branches. He is boldly out there. His misery, his cunning, his malice and his great aching loneliness are all beautifully portrayed. Forget the technical achievement, which is stunning enough. What I saw was a performance by a 500 year-old Ring-addicted hobbit. I just giggled all the way out of the theater thinking of all the bitching in talk-backs about Gollum. Ha! I suppose not everyone will agree with the filmmakers’ concept and execution of him (he’s perfect to me), but anyone who is not moved by this depiction of him is devoid of emotion or just plain dead.

All the acting is great. The only reservation I felt was a little bit Faramir but that was likely because there is a big change in his story line, even though many familiar elements are present. I confess to wanting more Gandalf (not while I was watching, but now, thinking about it). There is great stuff from Eomer (yay, new swoons!) Theoden, Eowyn (great little scene with Aragorn that had me squealing) and Grima. Treebeard was a surprise (I successfully avoided spoilers of him) a very good surprise. His scenes with Merry and Pippin undergo a great deal of change, but, again, it all leads to the same place.

All the Fellowship characters have a chance to deepen and grow. Not long scenes but enough to show their friendship and loyalty and love of one another. Viggo delivers completely and his scenes with Arwen are sweet and sad. I know some folks were worried that in the emphasis on Helm’s Deep that somehow Frodo and Sam would get shortchanged. Nope. (DoT take note) They are still firmly in center focus. Elijah and Sean are marvelous together. Some alarming things happen to them that you won’t expect and an especially harrowing moment toward the end that both actors play to the hilt. My heart was in my throat. I’m thrilled there were Elves at Helm’s Deep and that we got some nice scenes with Elrond and Arwen. (Even Dufy will finally be happy, I think, about one of Elrond’s lines.)

The movie sweeps you along, just as FOTR did, and it is a wonderful ride. I really can’t wait to see it again. It drives to a visual and emotional climax on three fronts. And the ending, while not a cliffhanger, is really cool. Again, my non-Tolkien-fan friend said "that didn’t feel like three hours". His only disappointment was that someone had told him Sean Bean was going to show up in this film. I asked him if he could follow what was going on. He said, not always, but I know it’s a battle between good and evil and what’s happening on the screen is so fascinating, the film-making is so marvelous, I just enjoy it.

Some non-spoiler-spoilers: no sewers and no wizard-ka-bob. Yay! Also, there are also some scenes that we saw in the trailers that are NOT in this, (just like FOTR) so I’m expecting them in the extended version. When the screen went black I felt like saying NO! Don’t end here! More! More!

One last thing, the Gollum song plays over the credits and it's weirdly wonderful and goes very well with the Gollum we’ve just spent hours with.

I could write more of course, but now I want to go back and read all the earlier reviews that I missed.

Take care, mellyn and may you each see it soon.

elanor

Sigh... Elanor... till we have another such night... oh even now as my heart breaks, I take you next to Mouldy, who saw the film in Oslo...

Hi Harry! Greetings from Oslo!  

I was very privileged to see The Tow Towers at the impressive Colosseum Cinema in Oslo a few days ago. I have been dying to post my thoughts on the film ever since then, but I have been away on a short break with my wife.  

All the same there is not much more I can tell you that has not already been said. I would like to add a few things that I think truly make this movie great, and better than the first.  

The most powerful aspect of this film is that we have not time to spare, unlike Fellowship that spends almost an hour and a half of screen time introducing characters, places, historical events, cultures etc etc, this film just throw you into the deep end and lets you fend for yourself. The introductions of the Rohan court, the Dunland Men, the new characters, Gollum and the Ranger’s of Ithilien are all executed with a far better precision than in Fellowship. I think about thirty minutes of film is really spent doing basic introductions, the film tends them to expose certain aspects of characters, places, events and so on as the film goes on in a more subtle fashion than Fellowship. The best example is Gollum, he has a short monologue in the first hour of the film that will bring a tear to your eye. Peter and Andy have created the entire character, his struggle between Gollum and Smeagol, his ! background, his lust for the Ring in one impressive speech. It also has a frightening emotional impact that is almost always lacking in psychological based characters in film. If Andy does not win best supporting actor, and if Peter does not win best director it will be nothing short of a crime.  

I read too on another review posted to TheForce.Net (yes I am a big Star Wars fan) that the energy and bonding of the characters are like the original classic Star Wars trilogy, something that the first two lacked. I would like to re-enforce this point to the max. The energy and chemistry these actors have on screen is amazing, in some scenes the electricity literally zaps you in your seat. It is a little unfortunate that the worst aspect of the characters in the story is the Aragorn/Arwen love sub-plot, it just does not work as a series of dream sequences and flashbacks. But if you can look past that everything else works very nicely. The Eowyn/Aragorn love triangle stuff is brilliant, there is more chemistry here I my opinion than in the love scenes from Fellowship with Aragorn and Arwen, I so have the hots for Miranda Otto now! I must see it again if only for her. The only other thing I wil! l say is Gollum is again perfect here, he just fits into the Sam/Frodo sub-plot of friendship so well and really challenges them both to be true to each other. The final scene of the film will utterly break your heart, Sam really steals the end of the show only to be shown up to Gollum who finally allows his darker self to take over, he will let “her” kill the Hobbits and then he’ll take the Ring…. **Sense of impending Doom! Dang must wait another year.  

But as I already hinted there are things I disliked, in fact almost hated. The whole Elves sub-plot is totally bogus and it ruins the pace of the film. There is some really slow scenes that work fine by themselves, but then they cut an Elrond/Galadriel argument in the middle of them and the whole film becomes a bit stilted. It was like the editing of the Caradhras sequence where Saruman king of spoke to himself in a real theatrical monologue sense almost as if he was Gandalf’s thoughts during the whole scene. It just interrupted the flow of the film. Thankfully however, just like Fellowship the film moves on quickly and we are spared any more torture. Some people have already mentioned a small prologue in the middle of the film, it is pointless really and needed to come earlier! Having said that all the Elven scenes, including the Live flashbacks could have been done in about 8 minutes of scre! en time as one single scene, well maybe two and then we could leave it and then have the Elves show up at the Deep.  

Another thing I disliked was Faramir, he was one of my beloved characters from the book and he has been completely re-written almost as a new character. I remember a noble man, somewhat tempted by able to control it almost like Aragorn. To me he was like an Aragorn who had been hardend by endless war on the boarders of Mordor. This then lent itself to the reasons why Eowyn chooses to marry him in the end, or at least that is what I thought. Peter’s Faramir is like an older Boromir, he is not as reckless, he is more talented but he is still tempted. He does however redeem himself! After Sam puts Faramir back in his place (I was cheering for Sam, Go SAM!) he has a change of heart and sacrifices his life to let Frodo go. A bit cheesy really as Boromir kind of dies for a similar reason, but it brought a tear to my eye and made you feel like you did when Fellowship ended. Now just to be clear, Fara! mir does not die, his captain tells him he will be punished by death if he lets them go. Obviously Denethor has somehow fallen under the influence of evil because the Gondor soldiers are not exactly nice people, they a bitter like Boromir.  

The battle with the Wargs was a little poor in terms of CGI, and Aragorn falling off the cliff seemed somewhat cliché to me! I mean how many times can a main character appear to die in these films??? I mean Frodo does it AGAIN in ROTK! But is served the purpose of the film so I guess it was ok… Oh and it was the only Arwen scene that rocked. She turns up all glowing and kisses Aragorn, at which point he wakes up to find Brego at his side. The Ents sometimes felt too CGI as well, but they make up for it by being the coolest trees ever, I love the way they talk! There was not enough Gandalf The White, there was also not enough of Legolas and Gimli, well Gimli gets a lot of screen time as the laugh factor but that is all. You will all die with laughter at Helm’s Deep when Gimli tells Aragorn to do something, reference to FOTR here! It got the biggest laughs at the screening if I remember correctl! y.  

But that was pretty much it for my hates… My favourite scenes are, in no particlar order:  

-        Helm’s Deep: Just way too much to take in, must see it again!

-        The Ents DESTROY Isengard: The BEST part of all!

-        Samwise and his speeches: Go SAM!

-        Gollum: particularly his monologue and the very end of the film!

-        The Ringwraiths: Fell Beasts rock! I want one!  

Overall I cried in a bout ten different scenes in this film, and I suspect that when I see it again that I will be more comfortable with what I did not like about the film. I mean the Faramir stuff is growing on me right now. I think I will have to say that it won’t win best picture, simply because you have to see it more than once to take it all in! I am sure I have missed so much and I even think that some scenes I have forgotten about because I was so overwhelmed!!! Anyway this review was longer than I intended it to be so I will stop now…  

All you fans – rest assured this film rocks!!!  

Regards,

Mouldy

Next we have Ms. X, who saw the film at a Washington D.C. screening with about 20 other reviewers there... here's what she had to say...

got to see Two Towers yesterday morning here in washington d.c. new line had the screening in the wonderful 'uptown theater' and they were only about 20 people there! very nice way to see it. (feel sorry for those who got the MTV crap)

let me just say, this movie was AWESOME, it'll be said again and again in the coming weeks. in my opinion it was better that FOTR. since i havent read the books and i dont want to give spoilers i wont get into detail (plus i dont have much time).

the battle scenes were simple brilliant. i was literally on the edge of my seat and secretly making gestures of victory toward the screen. i'd say the battle at helms deep, although broken up, lasted a good while--about 30 min. or more (i am a bad judge of time during a movie.) gollum was amazing also. i was extremely impressed overall with the quality of the CGI, especially in gollum and the orak hai troops. they dont look anything like GCI footage (bravo Jackson). the cinematography is also impressive, especially the opening sequence.

my last comment has to be on peter jackson. this man is going all out to do these films justice and it is obvious. we need more directors like him around! you all are gonna be stunned and dazzled with this film, it is just wonderful. sorry this is so short and quick but i have to get going.

anywho, i've contributed before but havent in a while since not much goes on around here. hope to bring you some more stuff if the opportunity arises.

Ms. X

Next from the same screening as Ms. X comes "Writers do it between the covers" - who was disappointed in the film... Here's his review and his problems with it...

I saw The Two Towers at an engagement in Washington, DC on December 2nd.

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

**1/2

One of the best parts of "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" was the sense of a small person discovering a world much larger than he ever imagined. Like all good fantasy stories, the hobbit Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) is compelled by forces much larger than himself to take a role in changing the world.

           At the end of part one of "The Fellowship of the Ring," the fellowship was forced to divide. Frodo and his hobbit-friend, Sam (Sean Astin) journey to the dark land of Mordor, Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John-Rhys Davies) attempt to rescue two hobbits, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). Although this cliffhanger of an ending appears to have a great second part, the ensuing story disappoints.

           In "The Two Towers," the second part of the series, Frodo's part is minimized, as are all the other characters, in favor of gratuitous action and war scenes. Normally, this would not be a problem. But in this movie, one gets the sense that the fights are the hallmarks of the movie, and things like dialogue and plot are brief interludes between the violence.

           At three hours in length, "The Two Towers" does not pass as quickly as the first film. The characters are not adequately developed and things like plot and the locations where battles are fought are not well explained. Although we learn that the kingdom of Rohan is under the manipulation of Saruman (Christopher Lee), we do not understand why this is so sinister besides the fact that Saruman is a corrupted wizard. Through the movie, the significance of the characters is subservient to battle scenes.

           In addition, many of the characters continue their roles from the previous film as if there was no character development at all. The heir to the throne of Men, Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson) has halfhearted flashbacks to his love, the elf Arwen (Liv Tyler). He also does his share of staring stoically into the camera and saying nothing.

 Like the first movie, the ring of power is a character, but in this movie, it feels extravagant. Too many shots are concerned with Frodo gazing lustfully at the ring. The only interesting character is the creature Gollum (Andy Serkins), whose nature is divided by the ring's power. In addition, Gollum is the best CGI image ever created, and his presence looks completely realistic.

Die-hard "Lord of the Rings" fans will flock to the movie regardless of what any review will say, but those who are hesitant about epic stories or who did not care for "The Fellowship of the Ring" should stay away. The story feels like it's stretched too thin and action scenes go on too long without adequate explanation or provocation. Although all viewers will not be disappointed, it is best to go into the movie with lowered expectations.  

Writers do it between covers.

Alrighty - well then, next we have "Hey Now" Hank who feels there's plenty of story, character and movie to go along. Here ya go...

The opening scene of The Two Towers provides an outstanding, yet very brief, taste of action, cinematography, and special effects, only to be matched (and far surpassed) in the final hour of the film. The stunning events of the third hour of The Two Towers are undoubtedly the centerpiece of the film, and while the first two hours serve finely as story development, they primarily build anticipation for the final hour, which mostly depicts the battle of Helm's Deep. More than anything else, the first two hours merely tease and torment the patient audience. It's a shame that such a gap has to exist between the first minute and the final hour, but I take no reservations in saying that despite how you feel about the first two hours of the film, the final hour will make the wait entirely worth its while.

As stated, the road to the battle of Helm's Deep can be enormously long and painful for any viewer aware of what breathtaking scenes await towards the end of the film. Perhaps The Two Towers' biggest fault is in its own accomplishments; the first two thirds of the film are well shot, well paced, and they necessarily and adequately progress the storyline, but when compared to the spectacular final hour, the first two hours seem uneventful and insignificant. However, to be fair, I feel that it's simply impossible to create two hours of film that could appropriately lead into the battle of Helm's Deep. It's difficult to comprehend how such scenes came to exist in the rather short amount of time Peter Jackson has had to create six hours (so far) of finished film. The battle of Helm's Deep is simply unreal; it's unlike any event that has come to pass since fantasy films gained, and regained, popularity.

As assumed, The Two Towers begins where The Fellowship of the Ring ended. The majority of the film follows four separate groups and their story lines: Frodo and Sam; Aragorn and Legolas, Merry and Pippin, and Saruman and his army. The performances live well up to the standards of the first film, with a particularly notable performance from Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, whose role is significantly larger in The Two Towers. Aragorn satisfies a thirst for someone to root for, a thirst that was left partly unquenched in Fellowship. It's much easier to root for Aragorn than it is for Frodo; Aragorn has many more qualities of a leading man, a soldier, and a hero. More than once did the audience, filled mostly with academy voters, applaud the heroics of Aragorn. Gollum also shines in a much-welcomed large role, due to extremely realistic computer animation, and a fine performance from Andy Serkis, upon which the animation was modeled. In Fellowship, it was appropriate to consider Gollum one of the many great 'features' of the film. However, here he is more of a leading character and a 'star,' and his convincing dual-personality, stabbing voice, and well-choreographed body movements make him consistently eye-grabbing and the center of focus of nearly every scene in which he appears.

As was The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers is a visual delight. Those who have seen Fellowship are no doubt familiar with the beauty of the landscapes of New Zealand. The cinematography is, again, one of the best aspects of the film. The swooshing camera movements that follow the armies and horsemen throughout the fields are extremely satisfying in this post-Matrix era. The shots of the ascending enemy-laden ladders in the battle of Helm's Deep are terrifying and chillingly gorgeous all at once. The visual effects take an appropriate leap forward from those of the first film. While the visual effects in Fellowship were outstanding, the battle of Helm's Deep provides for the best application of CGI since the rippling waves of The Matrix's 'Bullet Time.' The battle of Helm's Deep features absolutely awe-inspiring and seamless integration of acting, stunts, and computer animation. Each orc seems to have its own personality, demonstrated in its movements and visual features. The masses of armies fight with strategy and true character, which I imagine is much harder to accomplish than animating thousands of identical clone troopers. The only problem I have with the visual department is the look of Gimli, the Treebeard. Gimli's visual features seem a bit childish and uninspired, inconsistent with the standards set by the rest of the film. But again, there is simply nothing that compares to the battle of Helm's Deep. George Lucas and the Wachowski brothers certainly have not created anything that approaches the grandness and magnificence of The Two Towers' final hour, and I doubt they will do so anytime soon.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, I had a few minor problems with Howard Shore's score. While I thought it was gorgeous and it established several very memorable themes, I don't think it handled the sentimental scenes (opening in the Shire, Gandalf's passing) properly. I thought it caved in to the melodrama a bit too much, resembling the emotions from James Horner's Titanic. However, I believe that The Two Towers requires the type of score which Howard Shore accomplishes best: dark, continuous, and unrelenting, as demonstrated in Se7en and Silence of the Lambs. The theme used in many of the action scenes in Fellowship (low brass, six notes repeated with a rest in between) is much more present in The Two Towers, appropriately. A brand new theme is also unveiled, the theme for Rohan, a prominent kingdom in Middle Earth. Rohan's theme is played more often than any other melody in the film, underscoring most of the memorable and heroic scenes with great effect. Howard Shore undeniably exhibits his skills as an 'A-list' composer, and with a possible double Oscar nomination this year for The Two Towers and Gangs of New York, he could get propelled to the very top of the 'A-list,' right beside John Williams and Hans Zimmer in terms of demand.

Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine The Two Towers winning Oscars in anything but the technical categories. It may in fact rack up a large amount of nominations, as did Fellowship, but the competition in the picture and director categories is stiffer than last year, and with two potential best pictures up its sleeve (Chicago and Gangs of New York), Miramax seems likely to take the crown.

If not the picture itself, there should be a way to recognize and award the battle of Helm's Deep. It is evident that neither the Academy nor the viewing public will witness anything remotely like the final hour of The Two Towers this year. The battle of Helm's Deep represents successful filmmaking in its highest form. The choreography of the battle, the visual effects, the pacing, acting, cinematography, and music, all work together in perfection to achieve grand filmmaking which is as entertaining and enjoyable as film can be. For this very reason, no one, whether a fan of Fellowship or not, should miss The Two Towers.

-"Hey Now" Hank

Harry here... if you've made it this far... you're probably dying. You're shakingly excited and you need something to calm you... well, the following link won't do that. You'll get even more charged...

Click here to read David Poland's Take on the film!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 5, 2002, 2:38 p.m. CST

    And the influx begins

    by Glass

    Review upon review, each saying the same thing: TTT rules. Which I'm sure it does, but come on, we get it.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 2:42 p.m. CST

    it's agonizing being Harry....

    by cameron fry

    ...and I was invited to Paris and to NYC and to the press screening in Austin and I've had 2 dozen other opportunities to see this film.....jesus Harry stop jerkin yourself off...we get it- you're so special.... ...just kidding man, I'm pumped about this too.......

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 2:43 p.m. CST

    I take it back

    by Glass

    Elenor's review was great, and I want to read more. I cannot wait for this movie.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 2:49 p.m. CST

    does this movie need reviews?

    by ZO

    no. everyone will say the same thing. "great action", "helms deep was long and bloody" "gollum should win an award" etc etc

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 2:51 p.m. CST

    One thing we can be sure of....

    by JimmyTheHand

    One thing we can be sure of after reading all the reviews, (even the one that gave the Two Towers 2 1/2 stars ) that Gollum is the best CGI character ever created. Everyone has given him the highest praise, which makes me VERY happy since him and Sam are my two favorite characters in the Lord of the Rings.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 2:52 p.m. CST

    I agree

    by Glass

    Gollum is definitely my favorite character.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:04 p.m. CST

    lotr movies

    by fun guy

    The negative writer guy above obviously is some kinda douchebag. I bet he wasn't paying much attention. Anyway, I watched the WB thing last night and I was very pleased with much of what I saw. However, the wargs didn't look very good and...WHAT THE HELL is this shit about Aragorn falling in a river? I must have missed that in the four times I read the book. I hope they don't waste too much time on that crap. Sincerely, fun guy.

  • That was the gayest, most anti-climatic ending to a long boring saga that I've ever seen. And BTW, the Gollum isn't the greatest CGI creature ever created. Yoda is a much greater acievement. He actually has features and clothes. Even Jar Jar was better and that was 3 years ago.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:09 p.m. CST

    It takes more than that

    by JimmyTheHand

    It takes more than clothes and features(??) to make a great CGI character. It also takes great acting(No Jar Jar here) from the one controlling the character and a great script(That kind of rules out Yoda) that is written for the character. Plus it has to look believable too, which everyone says it does, so I think Gollum is going to be the best Cgi character ever created.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:18 p.m. CST

    I wonder...

    by Lys86

    I wonder when the reactionary reviews are going to start pouring in? Once a film gets a certain amount of "Best film ever!" reviews, it's inevitable. Lys

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:19 p.m. CST

    "The Tow Towers?

    by hipcheck13

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Ahhhhhh, every time you think AICN has lost it's magic (boring E

    by chuckrussel

    'nuff said.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:22 p.m. CST

    The wargs...

    by ANGELS-EGG

    ...are the weakest FX?!!!!!! I just saw the clip and FUCK!!!That was some amazing stuff there the horse flipping by legolas!! I freaked out!!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Gollum has clothes you idiot

    by MinasTirithII

    Yoda will pale to the pale skin of Gullom. Yoda is what 'could have been if done right'. And Yoda horrible acting, sigh, what a waste of time that Yoda is.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:28 p.m. CST

    AOTC it tripe

    by MinasTirithII

    Horrible acting, boring ass long story, and just no sense of common sense in the whole script. That darth vader kid falling down through the city. Ahhh, stupid, cliche and done 100s of times in films. Pity those that have watched AOTC more then once. I am sorry for you. Look like Helms Deep is far better then the last battle in AOTC. In fact I hardly recall any reviews talking about the last battle in ATOC. Lucas didn't even have anything to do with it. He told people, 'make me a battle'. Wow, that's some direction Lucas, but wait, you don't and have really never directed anything Lucas, that's for sure.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Buck Rogers kills Star Wars

    by MinasTirithII

    Wilma was far hotter then Portman and wore far tighter outfits. The worst effects in AOTC are the light sabres. They look so gay, especially the purple ones. UGhh, and the pink ones, double ugggh. Leave it to Lucas to ruin is own franchise. But it just goes to show how far a little luck and no skill will take you.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Ok, he has a pair of shorts

    by Sea Bass

    Otherwise he's completly smooth. Jar Jar had a full outfit and accessories that moved realistically with his movements. Same with the Kaminoans. And they were all filmed in bright light. And I'm not talking about the acting, that's subjective. I'm talking on a purely technical level. And yes, the cave troll sucked. It was in dark lighting and it still looked bad. Maybe one step above the troll in Harry Potter. No one's answered my question about the animated Return of the King. I'm assuming that the ending's the same. Jebus, what are you wasting your lives for then?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Elfkiller...

    by Nordling

    Wow. That was some bait there. You're just dying to hear some feedback from people, of which this is one. I hope you enjoy it. Yes, indeed, with that brilliant talkback, you are truly a master baiter.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Gollum will be in plenty of bright light

    by MinasTirithII

    In the Dead Marshes. The cartoon, saw it, but I won't tell you how it ends, read the book fool. What were those alines in AOTC, they had really long knecks, they were very hokey and fake looking. And does Lucas really create anything anymore?? Good to see that TTT will win the tecnical awards over AOTC, easily and hand down.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Harry, put something up about the NBR awards.

    by exPFCWintergreen

    Fuck. The first awards of the season have been given out and Harry hasn't even mentioned it yet. Get with it man! Oh, by the way. The Two Towers was completely shut out. Not even a mention of the movie anywhere on their crappy list.

  • Spider-Man's effects mostly bordered on distractingly cartoonish, but the movie was enjoyed by so many because of the total package (though it obviously had flaws). If The Two Towers even comes close to living up to its promise, a few choppy effects here and there won't bother me in the slightest. Judging from the balrog, cave-troll, and the way Gollum is shaping up, WETA has nothing to be ashamed of. I still enjoy the original Star Wars, even with the boxes surrounding the slow-moving models. Nothing about the wargs (from the clip on WB's Return to Middle Earth show) is going to detract from the overall movie for me.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Gollum is not smooth like Yoda

    by MinasTirithII

    Yoda, which is pretty much a rip off of Gollum, again, another thing Lucas has ripped from tolkein, is some of the most stupid CGI one could ever see. And Gollum is not smooth, but very old and wrinkled idiot. Star Wars idiots, you know they are dumb cause they think TPM and AOTC were aactually good movies.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:36 p.m. CST

    sea bass

    by fun guy

    You are correct. the animated Return of the King is about the gayest thing I have ever seen. And people talk shit about Bakshi's movie of the first half. I've heard PJs ROTK will end after Aragorn is crowned king and then a quick scene at the Havens when everybody leaves.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Did you laugh when Jar Jar stepped in Poo??

    by MinasTirithII

    Cause if you did, you most likely have the brain of an 8 year old. But that's Lucas for ya. Go ole very creative and talented lucas.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:40 p.m. CST

    FIRST!

    by JQuintana

    FIRST!! For the first time ever! In your face you bastards, all of you! There were those who said I would never do it, that I was too weak and too inconsequential and that my spelling wasn't good enough and that my timing was always off. But who's laughing now, eh? WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:43 p.m. CST

    At least Christopher Lee gets to be in a good film this year

    by MinasTirithII

    The Badger is gonna die soon, at least he will be remembered in LOTR and be forgotten in AOTC and whatever the next piece of crap lucas will make.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:45 p.m. CST

    JQuintana

    by Glass

    Retard (in the best sense of the word).

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:45 p.m. CST

    I agree with Springheel jack - I thought the FOTR f/xs were kick

    by Ralph Cifaretto

    However Gollum looks, when comparing him to CG creatures like Jar Jar & Yoda one should remember that Phatom Menace & AOTClones were practically *animated* movies (especially AOTClones). Gollum will have to interact with real sets & real actors, not animated props, backgrounds, characters etc... Also, anyone how takes a look at Empire Strikes Back can surely see that the CG Yoda is NO improvement. In fact, I don't think the CG Yoda came alive - but that has to do with issues of writing, dialogue, motivation, as well as f/xs.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:46 p.m. CST

    I'm not going to read that boring tripe.

    by Sea Bass

    And It's not because I'm illiterate or some kind of phillestine. I read adult books, not excruciatingly detailed, homo-erotic travel logs of a paper thin story that could have been covered in 200 pages. And no, I didn't laugh when Jar Jar stepped in poo. I also didn't laugh at the ridiculous hobbit comic relief sidekicks.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Then leave Sea Bass

    by MinasTirithII

    Star Wars rips off LOTR in every movie. Lucas just could never make a good story to begin with. He got very luck with star wars then ruined it ever since ROTJ. Thus lucas is batting 2 for 5. 2 decent movies and 3 kiddie movies.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Star Wars can't touch SECOND BREAKFAST

    by MinasTirithII

    "What about second breakfast?" That one line there is better then any line Lucas has put on the screen with his star wars movies. Both comedic and dramatic. But then, Lucas never could get the comedic and dramatic parts down could he?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:52 p.m. CST

    can't wait any longer

    by raker

    Right on Elanor. If you liked it then I know I will be liking it. Thanks for the spoiler free review... I am suprised that there are no sewers. I thought that one came from PJ himself.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Is the new GIF Harry's infamous Blade2 review?

    by Darth Phallus

    less than two weeks for TTT arrrrggggghhhhh!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 3:57 p.m. CST

    What is this, "Dueling Geeks?"

    by Nordling

    Ba da bang dang dang dang de da dang... "Yoda looked fake as fuck!" Ba da bang dang dang dang de da dang... "Fucking gay hobbit furryfooted shit." Ba da bang dang dang dang de da dang... "Lucas eats my mom's queef." Ba da bang dang dang dang de da dang... "PJ...heh, more like PJ!" Ba da bang dang dang dang de da dang... "Star Trek rules!" Ba da bang dang dang dang de da dang... "Get outa here and find some sunlight." And the song goes on...

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:02 p.m. CST

    let's go fishing

    by Anakin722

    Hey, look, I've caught something....I think it's a SEA BASS, oh, wait, never mind, it's just a Star Wars Troll, throw it back...... In all seriousness though, Sea Bass, with regards to the ending of ROTK.... {BIG HUGE HONKIN ROTK SPOILERS, NAMELY, THE CLIMAX!!!}...if you are refrerring to when Gollum takes the ring and falls into the Crack of Doom, then I always liked that ending for the ring. It ties nicely into what Gandalf says in FOTR about how even Gollum may yet have a part to play......

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:02 p.m. CST

    "PJ more like BEE J."

    by Nordling

    Sorry, keeds, fucked up.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Adult books, my *ss!

    by micben1

    Sea Bass, what 'adult book' did you read? 'The Story of O'? Cripes, this past year I picked up Franzen's Pulitzer prize winning, Oprah Insulting, opus. Jeez what a bore. Not a transcendant moment in the whole waste of paper. I don't want to read stories about yuppy wasters and their trips to Ikea. Give me a novel with fantasy elements, Like 'Amazing Kavalier and Clay' or 'Carter Beats the Devil', or Lord of the Freakin' Rings' over so-called 'adult novels' any day!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Ooo, someone caught me in a typo

    by Sea Bass

    Nice rebuttal......This isn't a geek war. I think Lord of the Rings is a fair movie. I'm just tired of EVERY.SINGLE.FUCKING.LOTR Talkback going back to ripping on Star Wars. You're tired of hearing about your older brother's favorite movie. You want your own franchise to geek over. Fey elves and homosexual midgets are cooler than Jedi and Ewoks. Fine. But in a forum for a movie you like, why is there a need to rip on one you don't?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:09 p.m. CST

    stfu Sea Bass

    by MinasTirithII

    You were ripping on LOTR first! NAHNAH NAHNAH Rebel Scum must die!! Me don'ts likesss it! It hurrttsssss ussssssss!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:14 p.m. CST

    What's a "Rohen Rider"?

    by rev_skarekroe

    sk

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Elfkiller Returns!!!

    by Praetor

    He finally learned to count to twenty. Way to go! I'm so pleased with these reviews that I'm learning to enjoy his bullshit.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Thanks Edison

    by MinasTirithII

    Sounds like you are bitter cause AOTC was just as bad as all the reviews said it was. LOL!!!! Yet you continue to try to convince yourself it was good. You even bought the AOTC DVD to prove to yourself it was good. You even bought action figures too to prove to yourself it was good. yet you are still in denial.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Truce

    by Morage

    Take a hiatus on the war between SW and LOTR...

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Edison, the reason you don't care about positive reviews is.....

    by metsrulein2k

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Star Wars never gets any

    by metsrulein2k

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:23 p.m. CST

    then what Morage ??

    by Even_Se7ven

    We'll think about the sucky trekkie, 'cocking at the door of any data's worshippers outta there.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Time to get serious

    by Jar Jar Boinks

    AOTC is far, far superior to The Two Shitty Towers, which is why I will not even pay to rent the movie, I will wait until it's on free television, and even then only if someone gives me drugs to smoke. Tolkien is for children. Star Wars is 4 Life. I have seen TPM now over 71 times, and AOTC 55 times and growing, and they are much better than anything Tolkien or Peter Jackson can make. Gollum can't wipe Yoda's ass, and try as he might will never be lucky enough to suckle Watto's testicles. As for Jar Jar, he deserves an Oscar. I would be disappointed if AOTC doesn't get at least 14 Oscar nominations and wins at least 8. Take that, George Lucas will say, I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD!!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:35 p.m. CST

    ATOC was shit with Men's Cologne on it.....

    by Even_Se7ven

    at first, it smelled good.....it had a good name on it (Star Wars for Lucas' sake !!)... recalling fond memories.... Then it hits you like a glowing lightsaber in your ass.....Yoda sucks more than ever....the Future Darth Vader utters the lamest lines ever wrote on paper (How he became such a Cool one-liners shooter in Episodes 4-5-6 is beyond me and Lucas' ass too)..... I once was a SW fan, but look at the boring DVD CGI Compilations (known as AOTC). In the commentary...lucas talks about the editing of AOTC....and all the scenes added after the first cut are THE MOST ESSENTIAL (story-wise, but who cares on the SW teamn anymore) scenes in the whole movie (example...the discussion between Dooku and Ben, which is one of the best scene in the movie, maybe coz Lee's was such on a high after the LOTR creative team). Anyway....Star Trek still sucks..And Berman's still millions of years ahead of Lucas in the shitty department.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:41 p.m. CST

    anyone else agree that "Hank" is a fool?

    by iamyourgod00

    He's dawgging Howard Shore!! Common! Shore's soundtrack to Fellowship of the Rings was bril! "Hank" doesn't know what he's talking about... Hey Now, shitty opinion, in my opinion.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Snap Quiz to determine if Peter Jackson is any good

    by Jar Jar Boinks

    Here's a simple and idiot-proof quiz to dtermine if Peter Jackson is a genius and visionary in the class of George Lucas or Ron Howard: 1. Does TTT end with swelling, uplifting music? Yes / No. 2. Does TTT end with a wedding or any celebration with streamers and confetti? Yes / No. 3. Does TTT end with a parade? Yes / No. If two or more of the three answers is No, then Peter Jackson is a hack who is in the wrong business. If more than one answer is Yes, then there is hope. If it's 3 Yesses, then Jackson elevates himself to the head of the class with George Lucas and Ron Howard, but I'm not holding my breath. (BTW the only truly good fantasy movie made in New Zealand -- probably only half-decent movie ever made in New Zealand period -- is Willow, and that's only because GL and RH were the brains behind it. If you haven't seen it, rent it ASAP, I have seen it about 22 or 23 times.)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:55 p.m. CST

    According to EW, TTT is "TOO WEIGHTLESS TO BE MEMORABLE"

    by Atticus Finch

    Fuck the fanboys with the rose-colored glasses and their reviews. Entertainment Weekly, the magazine that everyone here was quoting last year for their A+ review of FOTR, has put TTT in its rightful place, giving it a B. Owen Glieberman seems to be as sick as everyone else of Frodo and his "should I put the ring on or not put the ring on? Oh, its so hard to not put the ring on" every 15 minutes. I love his quote..."too weightless to be memorable". Oh, man, are the fanboys going to be in a tizzy over this one. But, of course, you won't find that review on this New Line/LOTR site, will you, Harry? Let the hypocritical bashing of EW, the same mag that was being hailed here last year, begin!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Bless you, Springheel Jack...

    by BrianT

    For giving me a great bellylaugh today. "Miss Piggy leaping onto Charles Grodin"! You hit the fucking nail right on the head! Of course, in "The Great Muppet Caper" it worked, because that's a great movie. IMO, the best of all the Muppet movies, but that's just me. Alright, all you LOTR AND Star Wars fans, listen up, 'cuz here's the score: A New Hope rocked. ESB rocked even harder. ROTJ rocked in parts (anything with the Emperor), sucked in parts (those goddamn Ewoks, coked-out actors). TPM sucked, with very few exceptions (some of the visuals were interesting). Ditto with AOTC. FOTR rocked. TTT looks like it will rock as well. Hopefully, you trolls can now go back to bed.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 4:58 p.m. CST

    I could use a good swoon

    by Shards of Narsil

    You rock, Elanor! Apprehension allayed and appetite whetted, I can now savor my anticipation.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5 p.m. CST

    JoshSlates, you fucking cockmunch...

    by Nordling

    Ah, to be conceived in a day of constant diarrhea and blow jobs, with the occasional paying customer actually having "real" sex with your mother. Has she stopped shaking? A $100 a day crack habit can do that. Fucking assnostril.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5 p.m. CST

    Re: Snap Quiz

    by Judo John

    Hee hee, Jar Jar. Good stuff. Don't repeat it when The Return of the King is released though, or you may find yourself in a bit of trouble.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Star Wars vs. LotR...

    by Lord_Marvin

    Here we are again...Arguing about which is better. Why do we do this? Its simple... For YEARS Star Wars has ruled fandom when it comes to fantasy/science fiction. I am a HUGE Star Wars fan. As a kid, I had almost every toy ever made. When Lucas decided to make the first three movies, I was INCREDIBLY happy. I was one of those who waited in line to get tickets a week before so I could go to a midnight showing of TPM. I was gonna have the magic of my youth revitalized. What I got was a thorough raping of my childhood. Not only did TPM not live up to the original Trilogy, it created HUGE holes in the storyline (IE...wait Obi-Wan has never seen R2 in ANH, yet he met R2 and C3PO in TPM? Uncle Owen owned C3PO, yet he doesn't recognize him in ANH?...and the worst...your telling me that in some cosmic coincidence, Darth Vader made C3PO!?!) The problem is that many Star Wars fans fear that their precious Star Wars has faltered and that a new story is taking its place. Is that true...no. Its simply that many fans have been turned off to by the new Star Wars movies and have found a much more complex, better made and emotionally impacting series in LotR. Fellowship is now my favorite movie, but I will also always love ANH, TESB, and ROTJ. BTW...I don't see many LotR trolls in Star Wars Talkbacks. The same cannot be said about Star Wars trolls in LotR talkbacks.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Atticus is absolutely correct

    by Jar Jar Boinks

    EW only rated TTT a B, said it was weightless, and said it was better than Fellowship, which proves that both movies sucked.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:04 p.m. CST

    and CHEERS For the GLOWING REVIEWS AOTC's had.....

    by Even_Se7ven

    "Amazing" says Atticus Finch's ass "Oscar caliber's movie" says Atticus Finch's penises ( 2 penises ?? oh wait..isn't Lucas's penis in your mouth as we speak ?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:04 p.m. CST

    HAHAHAHA!!!

    by BrianT

    Jar Jar Boinks, that was a wonderfully subtle and appropriate jab at Lucas and RH. Good one!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:09 p.m. CST

    OK...how do we fix this.

    by Lord_Marvin

    Site admin...HELP!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Way to screw with the talkback width, assmunch

    by minderbinder

    And ignore trolls like this seabass guy, he's just looking to get a reaction out of people. (PS, Harry Potter 2 kicked AOTC's ass...)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:11 p.m. CST

    I love you elfkiller, I just wanted you to know that

    by JacksonsBane

    I want you to hold my hand and we'll go watch The Two Towers together. I'll be Frodo and you can be Sam. Oh and JoshSlates, you are a douchebag.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Even_Se7vev, thank you for proving my point

    by Atticus Finch

    See, not one thing was mentioned by me about SW, but Even_Se7ven is trying to make jabs, albeit weak ones, about myself and AOTC. The lack of ambiguity (and intelligence, when it comes to people like Even_Se7ven) here is staggering.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Theres no argument regarding SW v LOTR

    by Miss Aura

    Most reviews of TTT are saying that Fellowship was a better film and Empire beats the crap out of that. So we are 2 films into LOTR and Empire is still the best film. Wheres the argument? Until Empire is knocked off its perch, Star Wars wins the argument. The prequel trilogy however, cant even compete with LOTR.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Ms. Aura...

    by Lord_Marvin

    I don't know. Empire was probably the best of the Star Wars movies, but Fellowship was pretty damn good. As for TTT, we won't know till WE see it. Some reviewers have said its not as good as Fellowship while others have said its better. I'm thinking that it may be a better comparison to Empire based on the fact that what made Empire the best was its darkness...something The Two Towers has plenty of.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Miss Aura, your opinion may hold water if....

    by metsrulein2k

    empire actually was better than Fellowship. However, it doesn't come close. Frankly I can't understand why Empire is lifted up on some sort of untouchable platform that some people put it on. It's easily the most over rated movie in TB world. BTW, the EW review was glowing, as a matter of fact, the reviewer didn't say a negative thing about the movie until the final 2 sentaces. And when a B is the worst grade a movie has gotten, that's not something thats gonna send me into a "tizzy"

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Its my opinion

    by Miss Aura

    Only my opinion but in my eyes, Empire and A New Hope are far better. The rest of the SW films dont come close to Jacksons work.****OFF TOPIC HERE: I have only recently seen Donnie Darko and it is without doubt one of the greatest films I have seen. For a debut picture, it is up there with the rest of the greats. If anyone here hasnt seen it, you are in for a treat.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 6:08 p.m. CST

    About that one dolt who disliked the movie...

    by Butch_McTavish

    Anyone that goes about spewing such rubbish as "Writers do it between covers" can't be much of a writer, first off. Secondly, if after seeing the FOTR AND TTT, as he claims he has, he still does not understand why Saruman's influence over Rohan must entail anything but good intentions {hint, hint... Saruman is in league with Sauron, you nit!}, then it stands to reason that his/her feeble, ill-informed opinion should not count for much. Still, everyone's entitled to their opinions, even Grima wanna-be's.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 6:29 p.m. CST

    I love the trolls...

    by ABAR

    the trolls, the naysayers...they're all the same._will they ever achieve the 1/4 of jackson's work? probably not. but all the jealously,the bashers..etc ...is always fun to read.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 6:45 p.m. CST

    LOTR is gay?

    by King_Midas

    What is it with people calling LOTR gay? Especially Star Wars fans. Their entire precious franchise is based around an order of grown men who take little boys away from their mothers and forbid them to ever love women. Anakin: "Why Master, why can't I marry Padme?" Yoda: "Pedophiles we are, my young padawan." Fuckwads.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Who the fuh is "Gimli, the Treebeard"?

    by PanDuh

    I am assuming that this guy "Hank" is talking about Fangorn the Ent.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Here we go again...

    by Lord_Marvin

    It IS possible to be a fan of both SW and LotR, but it appears that some people are threatened if you don't take a side. :( I love the SW trilogy, I hate the prequels, and Fellowship is my favorite movie. I do agree with a previous poster though...the prequels are starting to ruin the original Star Wars for me...esspecially since I learned that Lucas will not release the original three in their present state. He has to add scenes so that he can fix the problems he's creating in the prequels. That straight up bites. Natalie Portman (whom I actually like) has already filmed scenes for ROTJ. Lucas is off his rocker. Hell...he didn't even direct TESB or ROTJ. Maybe thats the whole problem. :)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7 p.m. CST

    You can't be serious...

    by BrianT

    Lucas is adding scenes to the OT, to "fix" all the shit he's screwing up in these? Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, that's one of the worst things I've ever heard in my life. Lucas, put down those OT tapes! Put them down! Good boy. Now, back away slowly, and repeat after me: I will not fuck with good movies and make them bad. Say this every night before you go to sleep.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:02 p.m. CST

    can't we all just get along?!?!?

    by scott5309

    alright. the original SW trilogy rocked, and the (first?) last two can't hold a candle to them. I don't get what everyone's problem with jar jar in TPM was though, it's that kid that couldn't act to save his life that makes me cringe everytime i watch it. AOTC has plenty of cringe-inducing natalie portman scenes, but one of the biggest, best sci-fi battles, if not the best, ever put on film. okay, even if it wasn't actual film. plus, yoda DID kick ass, and he's always sounded like a retarded miss piggy to me. I still love the guy. That said, FOTR blew my mind the same way ANH did way way back when. Pure moviegoing bliss. It helped that I'm a huge fan of the books, I read them when I was a kid, and read them still as an adult. Geeky nitpicky shit aside, PJ did an incredible job of bringing the feel of the books to the screen. I cannot WAIT for TTT, especially after seeing Legolas get on the horse last night. damn. So why all the goddamn fighting?? Just get in line, buy your huge ass popcorn and pepsi, and fucking enjoy the experience. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, X-Men, Spiderman, etc. What a great time to be a geek.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:06 p.m. CST

    SW vs LOTR

    by King_Midas

    Yes, it is possible to like SW and LOTR - if you exclude the SW prequels. I don't hate Star Wars because LOTR came out. I started disliking Star Wars when Lucas dropped the steaming pile of shit known as TPM on the world, a year before I even knew LOTR was being made. I did and still do enjoy the original trilogy, but let's face it, the new movies are huge let downs and Lucas has pissed off a lot of people. This is completely independant of LOTR and only comes up because rabid SW fans feel the need to bash a movie they haven't seen yet because ATOC was so atrociously bad that praying for the demise of LOTR is the only way they can make themeselves feel better about it.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:06 p.m. CST

    EW review

    by SlappyJoe

    Since when does EW matter? Didn't they give "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" an F for chrissakes?!!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:13 p.m. CST

    To Sum Up...

    by Lord_Marvin

    I can sum up the whole Star Wars - Lord of the Rings argument like this.......... when I went to see the Phantom Menace, I expected to be blown away with the beginning of a tale I have loved since I was a child. I wanted to be transported back to that time that I first encountered a wonderful, emotional story. I didn't get any of that in TPM....but I got all of it in Fellowship.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Box Office...

    by Lord_Marvin

    Ya know whats funny...all of the posters who claimed that Fellowship would bomb at the Box Office. You never hear them mention that Fellowship made 10 Million more at the Box Office than Attack of the Clones did...and with a much smaller opening weekend and a 3 hour running time with many fewer shows. hmmmmmmmmm....makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Bigpackagemax

    by Miss Aura

    Why dont you just fuck off? I actually like LOTR, I thought fellowship was a good film. If you dont like what I say then dont read or is that above your intelligence. Go fuck yourself. I have every right to be here, the same as yourself. People like you make me sick, because someone gives an opinion that you dont agree with does not give you right to call them a Twat. Now ignore my posts and sue me DONNIE DARKO is a great film. Your name says it all, small dick boy. Maybe santa will give you that penis enlarging kit, you have asked all your life for. Now fuck off.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:22 p.m. CST

    EW Review

    by King_Midas

    I'm actually rather surprised that EW let Owen do TTT review. It's no secret that he thought very little of Fellowship and was annoyed by all the award-related attention it garnered at the end of last year. Lisa on the other hand loved Fellowship and would likely have given this a glowing review. I just figured since EW is owned by New Line's parent company, that she might be doing it. Anyway, I do agree with what an earlier poster said - it was still a pretty good review but Owen obviously has an inate disdane for the fantasy genre in general.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Its called opinion smalldickmax

    by Miss Aura

    Ever heard of one? I did mention that, but its up the talkback a bit. Next time read it, otherwise shut the fuck up with your useless ignorance.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:23 p.m. CST

    SW vs. the World

    by SlappyJoe

    First of all, the OT also had crappy dialogue and acting (LEIA: Hold me, Han.) HOWEVER, the actors had CHEMISTRY and CHARISMA and you actually cared about their plight. Plus, Darth Vader was a SCARY BAD-ASS. So, I think the failings of the prequels aren't because they have Lucas' failings, but because they don't have his good stuff to counter-balance. True, Darth Maul & Jango were a little scary but they got the Boba Fett treatment.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Lucas

    by King_Midas

    After Empire, Lucas also quit collaborating with a lot of the people that helped him create the first two movies in favor of complete artistic control. I think that is one of the major problems with the prequels.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:28 p.m. CST

    SlappyJoe...

    by Lord_Marvin

    I've said it a million times. George Lucas can't write dialogue to save his life. The Dialogue in ANH is scetchy at best and it sucks in TPM and AOTC. Its better in TESB and ROTJ because he didn't direct them. True, he had a big hand in writing them, but the director can change stuff that doesn't seem to work. I have to give credit to Lucas for creating that universe, but it was the directors of TESB and ROTJ that made that a great series...not just one great movie. :)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Sorry for the language

    by Miss Aura

    Sorry about the language.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Lord Marvin

    by King_Midas

    Very true. Lucas does right dialogue that is absolutely painful to listen too. I actually tried watching ATOC on DVD, but it was so dull and wooden that I couldn't even get through the first 20 minutes. I did see it in the theatre (once) and while I was rather dissappointed, it didn't seem quite as bad with the rest of the audience laughing and cheering.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:33 p.m. CST

    So that's what separates Jackson from Lucas...

    by SlappyJoe

    COLLABORATION!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:39 p.m. CST

    I gotta be honest about the SW vs. LOTR taunts, they make for go

    by Butch_McTavish

    ... people use some originality and style. Free speech is a privilege, people! Don't waste it by regurgitating some one else's turgid tripe. Unleash your creativity -- abolish hackneyed banter. Given the right adulterous slant, even commonplace but derisive 4-letter cuss words will invoke hilarity. Elfkiller's comments are funny, but for the wrong reason. His obsessive, thinly disguised ridicule of all things LOTR, by associating Tolkien's works with homosexual tirades, only belies obvious homophobic tendencies that may at this very moment be sruggling to reach fruition. Hey Elfkiller, give up and give in. You know deep, deep down you want to. To quote a familiar, bearded mage: "The Force will be with you... always."

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:39 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit...

    by Lord_Marvin

    Now...if we can only convince PJ, Ian McKellan and Ian Holm to team up to make "The Hobbit". I, for one, would LOVE to see PJ do Smaug and the battle of 5 armies. Thats definitely a "prequel" I'd pay to see. :)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:43 p.m. CST

    As per usual Elanor, nice work...

    by Conan_the_Humble

    The only way the Trolls are going to disappear is to simply wait. Don't rise up in anger against them. It's pointless, they still come back. Just wait til this movie kicks arse at the box office and then kicks arse with the critical acclaim. Of, course then as per last year, the trolls will start to claim that neither widespread appeal nor critical acclaim means that a movie is actually any good!!! I can understand why they don't respect critical acclaim, their favourite movies don't get any... Still as the good professor says, "some who have read the book (movie also applies) have found it boring, absurd or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works or of the kinds of writing (or style of movie) that they evidently prefer." So there!!! Wankers. Cheers.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Lord of the Rings has no soul.

    by Dink Meeker

    I COMPLETELY agree with the review on EW.com. I felt very unfulfilled and empty after watching Fellowship, and have subsequently watched it several times hoping to stumble onto what people find so fascinating about it. However, I think the EW reviewer really hit the nail on the head for me...The reason these movies leave me feeling so unsatisfied, is that the conflict is all external and at the surface of the film. The moral issues are too clearcut. Good fiction should teach us something about ourselves. The good guys and bad guys here are very deliberate and certain of their motivations...there is no internal good vs. evil, selfishness vs. selfLESSness conflict going on. The sad thing is, considering the source material, this would have been the PERFECT set of films to explore the seduction of evil, and why we become who we are. As it is, the Star Wars movies provide a much more intelligent foray into human motivation than these films. There are no metaphors for anything applicable to human nature in this trilogy, and even the attempts made to create some internal conflict feel forced and staged. It's just not believable. Honestly...an occasional lustful glance down at a ring is no substitute for a man's own father persuading him to give in the "power of the dark side."

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Gollum looks pretty crappy in those trailers

    by Gunzilla

    I didn't like FOTR at all, it was boring. Now I'm going to watch Universal's Classic Monster Collection. "You have created a monster, and it will destroy you!" -www.gunzilla.net

  • Finally a film that will not only rival, but surpass "The Empire Strikes Back" will arrive with a great big BOOOOOOOM!! from the Gods! Here, we will have a great story, good directing, great acting and effects that enhance the storyline, instead of detract from it. The real Episode II is just twenty days away and I can hardly wait!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:51 p.m. CST

    dink meeker(sp?)

    by Lord_Marvin

    I see what your sayin...but I think you will be happier after seeing the second movie. The character of Gollum/Smeagul has that struggle in abundance...as will Frodo as the story progresses.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:52 p.m. CST

    heres the thing...

    by jimdin2001

    lotr;cinema release; good, superb 1st time u see it, doesnt last. Ep 1, ok 1st time u see it, becomes huge disappointment partly cos its 'in' to knock it, partly cos it just is. 1st star wars, ( new hope) / (episode 4) woomph, 1st time u see it, remains excellent escapist fair with (contrary to popular belief) good quick dialogue thanks mainly to harrison fords delivery. there are-gasp-better movies out there; clerks, barton fink, twelve angry men, raiders...but these are technical reasons, for enjoyment sw not beaten. then 1997 (or whenever) sw;se released. new dimension, sense of universe better cnveyed, more visionary. lotr, rerelease,xtra footage, wow, visionary, amazing. there are better films out there; o brother where art thou, hard days night, jurrasic park (which is contreversially betterr then jaws sad to say...if minus bit of suspense)wot is good in all of this is that all these movies exist so on wotever day whenever i can just watch one of them and be entertained. films can, it seems, co exist. so let them. enjoy star wars, the lotr movies. debate about the content of bowling for columbine for a change and maybe try and help the world.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 7:53 p.m. CST

    don't forget Xmen 2

    by superfriend

    With all the lucas bashing, don't forget Bryan Singer, is Harry the only one who likes Night Crawler in X2. Thats the crapiest make ever.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Dink Meeker

    by King_Midas

    Perhaps you can elaborate because I really had no idea what the EW reviewer was talking about when he basically stated that LOTR has no internal struggle and it's too clearcut (unlike SW). Star Wars seems pretty damn straightforward to me. The emperor is bad and wants power (for the sake of power). He uses a staged rebellion to garner support for creating an army that will allow him to hold on to that power. Good people oppose him and bad people turn to the dark side. Where exactly is the grand internal struggle? Anakin apparently turns into Darth Vader because he's a spoiled little whinny bitch who doesn't get his way and then tries to get his son to join him 20 years later. Nothing all that emotionally spectacular.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Empire, TTT: Modern vs. Post-Modern Blockbuster

    by 7

    It seems to me that what makes Empire such a great, special, benchmark film is its unusual and unique impact on these very different, very complex domains: history, popular culture, relative originality, story-telling, and films--things which, besides the latter [sic], TTT will never completely achieve in and of itself because it is, after all, a (Hollywood) blockbuster following the tradition set by the first (though non-Hollywood) blockbuster, the original Star Wars trilogy. This is not to take away from the meaningful impact that I am sure TTT AND the LOTR movie trilogy as a whole will undoubtedly have on this and succeeding generations. What one has to consider, however, is that Empire was and still is the FIRST of the good blockbuster movies to open the possibility to what cinematic story-telling and experience could or can be. "Luke, I am your father," is a paraphrased line (the real one being "No. I am your father.") that is often synonymous with the movie and the saga. It is the most quoted paraphrased-line from a film series not known for its "memorable" dialogues, not only because of the way the line reveals an important point to the plot of the film and the saga but also because the line summarizes an perfectly unexpected, perfectly unattainable, perfectly unique--pioneering--impact on a collective consciousness that until that time viewed that film and cinema in general as following some predictable formula of cinematic experience. The precedence of such impact on a society, culture, or civilization is usually reserved for what is termed as

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Warning to Non-FOTR Fans

    by sparkdog

    "those who are hesitant about epic stories or who did not care for "The Fellowship of the Ring" should stay away." Is there a group of people out there who didn't like FOTR who are getting psyched for part two? They should read this for their own protection.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:13 p.m. CST

    7

    by King_Midas

    Intelligent post, but you give Empire far too much credit. Don't forget LOTR is based on source material that not only predates SW by 50 years, but is far more powerful, relevant, and profound - both academically and emotionally. "Luke, I am your father" is likely the most quoted line because of the asinine and hilarious way that Luke screams 'NOOOOOO' in the seconds that follow in a brief moment of marvelous overacting.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Hey Dink... right here!

    by Butch_McTavish

    You weren't paying attention to the LOTR movies, were you? One would think after watching FOTR "several times" (why would anyone watch a movie they disliked 7 times, anyway?) you'd understand that the true power of the ring is it's currupting influence on the wearer or even those who crave it's incredible power (hence, Boromir's downfall). That's corruption from within, in case you need it spelled out for you, simpleton. Gods below, naysayers! Put some backbone into it. It's like you're not even trying.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Cold Rings?

    by sparkdog

    The mentions of the EW review, andthe memory of a local LOTR review, have me convinced that those who find these films "cold" are a bit too television-oriented, as opposed to book-oriented. (This isn't a slam, I'm just wnodering.) In books, and in Fellowship, so much of what these reviewers say is missing is right there in the material, it's just not played out. People don't talk the way they do in television and Star Wars movies. They don't express themselves as they do in LOTR, either, in terms of dialogue, but most people are more reticent and less melodramatic than the Lucas characters. I didn't think LOTR was cold at all: I sensed the dedication of Legolas, the sense of not wanting to take on the mission forced upon Frodo, etc. It's all THERE, the characters don't just start making speeches about sand and the DARK side (well, not as much!). I was moved by so much of LOTR because of this very thing--we see Boromir's being drawn to the ring throughout the movie, and his redemption comes not through words, but through ACTION. The EW and other reviewers struck me as cranky, they want everything explicit. Well, art don't work that way, even some pop-art. I am not slamming people who feel this way, I'm just wondering what, specifically, they would have wanted--more tears, more explicit dialogue, what?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:36 p.m. CST

    THIS SW VS. LOTR BULLSHIT IS FUCKING RETARDED, CHILDREN!

    by VistaSierra

    I do not understand for the love of god, why people can't love BOTH franchises! It's true that Fellowship of the Ring was the best film of 2001, and I'll be the first in line to see The Two Towers, but, why on Earth dismiss the ENTIRE SW saga for two films?! Okay, I agree that The Phantom Menace was indeed a steaming pile of dogshit, and Attack of the Clones was also a suckfest! HOWEVER, AOTC was a better film than TPM was, and we, as filmgeeks do indeed owe the last twnety five years of blockbuster science fiction to George Lucas. Hell, even Peter Jackson loves the SW films so there. PLEASE FOR FUCKING SAKES, STOP THIS CHILDISH BULLSHIT AND TAKE IT ELSEWHERE! AND, BY THE WAY, I LOVE BOTH STAR WARS AND LORD OF THE RINGS EQUALLY, FAGS!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Again I say...Lord of the Rings has no soul

    by Dink Meeker

    How nice. I post an honest, heartfelt opinion about a film, and am immediately subject to being called an amoral, corrupt simpleton by various talkbackers. I guest I should have expected as much, trying to inject a little intelligent critique into a LOTR love-fest. OK, Midas, I will elaborate. I find it far more interesting when characters in a story mirror the ACTUAL human condition. How many people have you met who are purely good...always true-hearted and Doe-eyed like Frodo? How many do you know who commit heinous, horrible evil simply for the sake of being evil? Why is Sauruman (apparently formerly trusted by Gandalf) now serving Sauron? Is that ever explained in Fellowship? To stay in character as a simpleton, I'll state my point simply: For any deed to be carried out with convincing purpose within the context of a plot, deep motivation must first be established. Otherwise, how can you invest any emotion into watching the movie or feel personally affected by it? I don't know (and thus, don't care)why the evil exists in these films. All the characters are one-dimensional. To address your comments, Mr. Fluffycat, You must acknowledge that these movies very intentionally frame these internal struggles. They just don't put a picture in the frame. While it's perfectly acceptable for some films not to delve into the realm of internal moral conflicts, these movies CRY OUT FOR IT. It's just carried out too simplistically and devoid of any emotional peaks and valleys. Like I said before, and I can't say it any better, an occasional lustful glance down at a ring is no substitute for a man's own father persuading him to give in the "power of the dark side."

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Dink...

    by bdawg

    I don't want to be rude, but: "Star Wars movies provide a much more intelligent foray into human motivation" ???!?! Hey, I'm as big a geek as the next guy, but I think we need some perspective here. These movies are not character studies. If you are using these films (SW/Rings) as a basis for a lifes philosophy or an introspective into the nature of man...uhh.. well you might be a little out of touch with reality. They are entertainment. Adventure stories. Fantasy. Not every movie needs to be (or should be) a thought provoking, morally insightful picture of the human condition. Some movies are supposed to just be "fun." Like Star Wars and Rings. Good rousing tales, with clear cut heros and over-the-top villains, with lots of imaginative settings and scenes. Good ol' fashion adventure stories. Criticizing Rings for a lack of character depth is like criticizing "Godsford Park" for a lack of action; it's not what the genre is about. Enjoy these movies for what they are.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 8:58 p.m. CST

    To those who acuse LOTR of having no soul.

    by Hetfool

    Well I find it hard to swallow that statement. Lets look at Boromir, yes he is clearly after the Ring, but he has good intentions. He is not evil persay he is merely tempted by the power the Ring can give. In the end he still fights for good, but his inherent struggle with power is his undoing. This is a perfect example of the Human Condition, a great testimont to Tokiens novel too. Boromir represents those who have good intentions but are consumed by the quest of power: Bank managers anyone? Saruman is more clear cut baddy - or is he? It is yet to be revealed that Saruman is not in league with Sauron at all, well sort of. Saruman wants the ring for himself, not for Sauron and as such he is a representation of the divide of evil. No Honour amogst theives so to speak. Aragorn, he is a clear cut goody. But he struggles with his calling, he does not want to take on the mantle of King of Men. He fears the responsibilty, he has honour however and is a representation of listening to our calling and facing what we know to be a right destiny: Say swallowing your tounge and finishing university instead of bumming around. Frodo too is about the corruption of innocence. He is very perfectly good and innocent - but oh wait for the third film and the eventual climax - you mongols will shite your pants! Then there is the Cave Troll. He is not evil, he is just a dumb pet. Look at his face, he has no idea what is actually happening. Anyway the evidence of good vs evil and other such struggles are all hear and even the EW guy recognises Gollum as the best ever! If you say this film has no soul, you aren't looking hard enough. Or your just a person who is easily pleased by having everything served on a silver platter. I can't imagine what your after because LOTR has it all. Maybe you could all give us s hand and lets us know - that'd be great!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:16 p.m. CST

    I'm so sick of trying to come up with a Subject Name for these t

    by JustAnotherGuy

    Does anyone remember when LOTR geeks could discuss LOTR without getting into a war with SW geeks? Cuz I don't. Oh well, it's pretty damn entertaining. Here, I'll just starting saying some BS that doesn't mean anything but will certainly light some fuses: (Ahem--please note that none of this is actually my opinion) PUPPET YODA LOOKS BETTER THAN CGI YODA! JAR JAR IS BETTER THAN GOLLUM! ELIJAH WOOD CAN'T ACT! THE LOTR MOVIES ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS! There you go, geeks, Argue away. This should be good.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Fluffygreycat2 and the other crazed fan-idiots

    by exPFCWintergreen

    Quit bitching about the EW reviewer and about everyone else who doesn't share your opinion on the LOTR movies. It gets annoying and embarrassing to the rest of us LOTR fans. Also, for your information, Owen Gleiberman's review of the Two Towers wasn't negative - he gave it a fucking 'B' for God's sake. That means he liked it, mabye he didn't think it the masterpiece that you and I probably will, but still, the fact remains he enjoyed watching it. Please don't be so dumb.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:24 p.m. CST

    King Midas

    by 7

    My post is meant to be read purely in the context of cinematic evolution/blockbuster film work, not literature or anything else. You must understand that the debate in this Talk Back and other LOTR TB's pretty concern the issue of having a film experience--especially a blockbuster film--that is pioneering or "first", film experiences that a majority audience does not feel is derivative. Empire is always being referred to or always being distinguished as special or great, because it created this feeling. I do not believe any other post-modern blockbuster films will ever achieve Empire's unique success, simply because Empire had the one thing that could only be found in the late 1970s-early 1980s: 99.9% of the audience did not know what would happen (the .1% are those who had read the book before hand or worked on the film). When one thinks about it, this is certainly true, because in this day and age, spoilers are everywhere, adaptations are always being made, and created-first-for-the-movie blockbuster films are very rare (the Matrix being a case in point). What is perhaps worst of all is that there may never be a blockbuster film that is totally unique onto itself (e.g., not dealing with the theme of good, evil, and humanity), is simultaneously accepted by popular culture, and builds a following purely on word of mouth alone, purely because the audience found the film themselves (Star Wars, Empire, Raiders were good example of this; Austin Powers, My Big Fat Greek Weeding are good recent examples). When I watched FOTR, I always felt my cinematic experience of the film was on one hand, partly derivative, because I knew such and such would happen, because the such and such of the film followed the form of the good and evil epic story telling of this/that other film (Star Wars, mostly) or was in the source material or had to go this way since the film was marketed to me movie or so on; and on the other, my cinematic experience was unique, because the movie did such a good job of creating a new experience by building upon I felt was derivative. Now, I understand that both Star Wars and LOTR (the book) reference very old source materials--and in doing so, following on the tradition of building upon something while creating its own entity--but I am talking about blockbuster film experience that Empire and the original Star Wars trilogy created as a model to which post-modern BLOCKBUSTER FILMS look at as source material. I apologize for the 3 or so last lines of that "rant" which caused the confusion. For what is worth, I'll just revise it here: "

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:35 p.m. CST

    why Dinks right

    by meccabod 1

    Because Tolkien loathed metaphor, that's why you see no depth Dink. He loathed metaphor to the point where he was so contemptuous of CS Lewis's use of it that it soured their friendship. All this rubbish about LotR being based on the war or the taxman or industrialisation is just rot, plain and simple. The people who will argue this are similar to the chin stroking post-post modern contextualists that will also try to tell you why white is actually black. The basic concept of Tolkiens trilogy was to create a structure upon which he could hang his beloved self created elven language and intertwine it with his invented mythlore, the story was almost an inconvenience. Not to take anything away from Tolkien, because it's his rich imagination that he is noted for, NOT his complex study of the human condition. Oh sure I hear some TB'ers moaning "but the ring makes good people turn nasty!" - but where's the moral quandry in a device which will ALWAYS make ANYONE evil eventually apart from Bombadil? Huh? I mean, it takes away any characters internal battle,no matter who they are they'll eventually succumb, because the ring is a force that ultimately just plain hijacks the character given enough time. Basically you'll see more depth in a record groove than you will in these films. PJ's amateur and childish approach doesn't exactly help either. Oh, and Sauron has to be one of the dullest bad guys ever. Why's he bad? Uh... cos he just is. Wow, that's deeeeeeeep. Still, the pointy hats love it ;)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:36 p.m. CST

    King Mida (correction)

    by 7

    Not trying to be perfect or anything, but I want to clear the mistake of the follwing: "(Star Wars, Empire, Raiders were good example of this; Austin Powers, My Big Fat Greek Weeding are good recent examples)," should be read as "(Star Wars, Empire, Raiders were good example of these things; Austin Powers, My Big Fat Greek Wedding are good recent examples of audience finding a film by themselves)."

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Star Wars & LOTR- Cant We All Just Get Along?

    by NickFoley

    Nope, there wouldnt be any fun in that.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Well said, Hetfool! And Bjarki56, I agree with your well though

    by Butch_McTavish

    But a "B" from critic Gleiberman is high praise from so biased a reviewer.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 9:54 p.m. CST

    This is the only post you need to read

    by IAmLegolas

    All Your Cash Are Belong To New Line... Make Your Time

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Wow. The LOTR Trekkies are some SAD insecure Wankers, eh eh?

    by KingKarll

    Minas Tirath-this is you. Wankwankwankwank 'LOTR RULES-ATOC SUX-OH A PIC OF A TALKING TREE-'(creams pants)-'ATOC SUX-I HATE LUCAS-' Basically you bastards have NO FUCKING LIFE, and you therefore wish to have your endless hours of playing D and D and reading Tolkien validated by Petey Jax' little Braveheart/Willow Swipe. I can't wait to hear you sit there and whine about being beat out at Oscar time again. Face it-all these flix are just updated Errol Flynn flix, with a load of SW and Ray Harryhausen tossed in. Wheel in the fucking Death Star and blow up fucking Middle earth, Breakdancing Wizards(LMAO!), the Attack of the Pine Barrens(LOL! OOOOOOOOO credibility!) and of course, the Village People, Nordic Edition AKA Legolas and his Ricky Shroeder Elves. And hurry, PLEASE.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Because Lord of the Rings is doing well, we have some sore SW lo

    by Jamboreech

    Hello to all the lamers hung up on Attack of the Clones! Do you have emotional issues, unnecessary pent up rage? Does your life lack so much meaning that'd you diss another fanbase? Here's some valuable information you should know. Realize that The whole Star Wars rips HEAVILY off of LOTR, this is only for all the trolls who come to bother Lord of the Rings fanbase. Read and weep. :) In Lord of the Rings Melkor was the 'prime' evil who corrupted and apprenticed Sauron WHO WAS ONCE GOOD. (it's in the books and upcoming movie) Star Wars RIPPED IT The Emperor/Sidious whatever his freaking name is the prime 'evil' corrupted and apprenticed 'Anakin' WHO WAS ONCE GOOD. Lord of the Rings, the 'War of the Ring' was devised partially as a deception to gain the ultimate power. The ring/Dictatorship Star Wars RIPPED IT The fake as hell CGI created 'Clone War' was devised partially as a deception to gain the ultimate power. The Senate/Dictatorsip. 'Count Dooku' Star Wars is a cheap imitation of Lord of the Rings Saurman the White. 1) Dooku was once a political figurehead, who held great power and position over various groups JUST LIKE SARUMAN! 2) He copies speech RIGHT everything down to calling the Emperor the 'Dark Lord of the Sith' Dark Lord Sauron anyone? 3) Dooku betrayed his order of powerful superbeings that ruled in a council for thousands of years, JUST LIKE SAURMAN. He mass produces an army armed with machines and technology, JUST LIKE SAURMAN. He then begins a war which concels the real true. GASP JUST LIKE SAURMAN! Obi-Wan and Luke are BORROWED heavily from Gandalf and Frodo. Obi-Wan dies and comes back more powerful as an aid. SORRY GANDALF THE GREY DID IT FIRST. SPOILER Not to mention Frodo in Return of the King turns to evil and is redeemed by a known evil enemy just like Luke is by evil 'Darth Vader'. I won't bother insulting you, I think Triumph the insult comic dog has done enough damage to your kind and judging by the way the movie turned out I feel sorry for you guys. And I look forward to CGI Gollum's GREAT REVIEWS and possibly a BEST SUPPORTING OSCAR nomination, while the best Yoda will remain a piece of green felt. Have a nice day. :)

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:29 p.m. CST

    hang in there Harry

    by Z of X

    I respect that you're waiting to see TTT with your family. My Dad read me LOTR when I was 8 and seeing FOTR with him was a great experience. But, as much I love him, there's NO WAY I'm going to wait any longer than I have to to see this movie! So, kudos on your restraint; I'll give you all of mine for Christmas! Cheers!

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:47 p.m. CST

    pretty tenuous rip offs

    by Rhoemer

    Considering Lucas openly admits 'ripping' from Kurosawa, Jack Kirby and trashy sci fi serials like Flash Gordon. And if you think Tolkien didn't rip HEAVILY from other people in a much more overt way, then you really must be the saddest dice chucker in town. Gotta say though, I'm glad Lucas didn't have any urge to take onboard Lord of the Rings gayness.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:51 p.m. CST

    It ain't about SW vs LOTR

    by Hetfool

    Look I posted before in response to those claiming LOTR has no soul, and I stand by what I said. But where does the LOTR vs SW come into play??? I mean one of the reviews by Mouldy here said he was a SW fan and the thing he loved about TTT was it had the same energy amongst the cast as SW did. Now I am an SW fan myslef (of the original, I dislike the new ones, there good, but not SW greats). So I can easily say I have no SW vs LOTR in me because I like both universes. But c'mon... SW is a space opera about good and evil, about adventure and excitement... LOTR is an "applicability" for evil in our society. Tolkien made it clear that the story is about "applicability" to evil, he was trying to comment on good and evil in the real world. I think Peter captures that perfectly in his story. So comparing the good and evil struggle in SW and LOTR is pointless... SW is trying to do a western style good and evil story, whereas LOTR is trying to portray a single mans view of evil in society as he has experienced it himself over his lifetime. So how can you even compare the two??????

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:51 p.m. CST

    No soul

    by sparkdog

    Dink Meeker, if you're going to take your whiney tone about being called names, you might consider having the respect to refer to others by their handles, instead of pouting and calling me "Fluffycat" ok? (I hate cats;) Your calling LOTR simplistic and using someone's father calling a hero to the darkside doesn't convince--how is this somehow motrally complex? It's a good device, I agree. I don't see how you can argue that LOTR is less complicated than that, as you have put the terms of Star Wars' moral universe very accurately: Daddy is bad, we want to do what he wants, but we resist and win. THAT is compicated morality? (SPOILER TO END OF RETURN OF THE KING) Throughout the LOTR series, Frodo becomes more weighed down by the burden of the ring, going through all kinds of horrors and misery, knowing what he must do...and in the end, he DOESN'T do it. He fails. Someone else does the deed. And in the end, he is a changed person for his journeys, his life is completely different. END SPOILER Star Wars, on the other hand, begins with Luke wanting to go off into the big world. He begins as an innocent. In the end, after all his journeys, he sure can't be said to have changed radically. As for Anakin, he wants something, gets power, is shown how "evil" is attractive, and succumbs to it, only to be saved by...looooooove! THAT is complex? LOTR, the first film, is working on a much broader plane. Everyone on the quest is going abotu a job, doing their duty; only gradually are they realizing the full dimensions of the situation. It begins with a ring which has to be brought to a meeting in a pub, which leads to a prince disguised, which leads to Frodo learning the magnitude of the ring...and this little dope volunteers to go on the most dangerous journey imaginable. THAT is character growth, and there is much more to come. "Framing internal struggles" is what any piece of fiction does; Star Wars carries this out with a simplistic story of one guy who uses power for bad, who tries to turn his son in the same direction and is foiled by....looooooooooove! LOTR is about a wimpy little being given an enormous responsibility...and fails. And is never the same. NOW tell me about Star Wars' moral complexity and LOTR's simplicity.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:57 p.m. CST

    A Big Homer Simson D'UOH! From Me For Not Realizing There Is A P

    by sparkdog

    This is what I get for hating my girlfriend's cat so much. Sorry about that.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Not as sad as the Star Wars dorks

    by Jamboreech

    I picture you guys sitting around in a dork circle making dorky spaceship noises and talking to the make believe lame 'Force'. BAHAHAHAHAHA <rolls in his chair laughing> And the Death Star is a stupid grey ball attached to a piece of string AHAHAHAHA blowing imaginary places up, come back to reality dude seriously. Besides Lucas created the godawfully horrible Willow(1980) which RIPS off of LOTR (1954). And Lucas stole story ideas from Rings, Dune, Oz, Seven Samerai, Rashamon, Lawrance of Arabia not to mention filming techniques, Star Wars isn't original at all, it just the same old tale with some pretty looking effects. Pretty cheesy looking, ahaha.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Fluffygreycat, you snide little punk.

    by exPFCWintergreen

    It was the - "first major reviews of a film I've looked forward to" - Why? Because that same magazine raved over FOTR. Well it wasn't the same reviewer this time, but someone who made clear last year that they didn't like FOTR, so I don't know what the fuck you expected. If you were looking forward to a review by Lisa Schwarzbaum that much, why don't you email her asking for her thoughts on TTT and quit mopping around this site bitching. Be a little more proactive and stop taking bad reviews as a personal insult, its pathetic.

  • I now understand why you are so easily pleased by childish stories about goblins and fairies.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:10 p.m. CST

    These MOVIES have no soul

    by Dink Meeker

    OK, time for a clarification. I am in no way discussing or critiquing the LITERATURE of Tolkien. I'm calling into question whether these FILMS offer anything more than a shallow escapist adventure. Perhaps as Jamboreech said above, "In Lord of the Rings Melkor was the 'prime' evil who corrupted and apprenticed Sauron WHO WAS ONCE GOOD." PERHAPS indeed. That's exactly my point. If you gotta go to the literature to find motivation for these characters, there's something inherently WRONG with these films! You know, it's fine to be a fan of a movie, or a filmmaker, or even a story itself, but lets not let over-the-top fandom and devotion to Peter Jackson cause us to ALREADY celebrate these films as a triumph. So far, when looked at without geek-colored glasses, these movies have had very little to offer in terms of 2 HUGELY important criteria...Emotional weight, and internal struggle. Boromir? That's the character that provides some weight to this story?! Correct if I'm wrong, but his character is virtually inconsequential. If you take him out of the story completely, it probably ends the same way, right? And he's already dead to top it off. How about a character with an integral part in this story whose even remotely human? The only reason I say all this is because I'm tired of Hollywood dumping empty, vapid drivel like this on us, and watching everyone eat it up like candy and praise it as high art. BTW, thanks for the love, meccabod. I didn't know about Tolkiens disdain for metaphor. That definitely gives me a changed perspective on these films.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:24 p.m. CST

    RE

    by Jamboreech

    Rhoemer I'm well aware that as everyone is 'Rings' borrows just as bad. But the main story concept is an ORIGINAL one and more interesting one than Star Wars good gay turns bad and then good again. That's like a side plot with Frodo of Lord of the Rings, ONE SIDE PLOT, and Lucas makes it his entire focus! Lord of the Rings can be analzyed to the bone and you still wouldn't gather all the complexities, (I bet you it's love or some kind of betrayl that makes Anakin turn to the Darkside oohh how COMPLEX! OOH OOH HOW EXTREMELY RETARTED) predicatable = Lucas, it's a SIMPLE PIECE OF CHILDRENS WORK. The darkside is a pathetic rehash of Tolkien's Shadow mixed with ying and yang mysticism, seriously I wouldn't argue this strongly except to bat off the Star Wars lamers who have nothing better to do than to make false claims about Lord of the Ring and it's fans just because they're excited about a movie. Star Wars no one over the age of ten would ever take that kind of garbage seriously.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Rheenor whatever your name is its obvious you've never read lord

    by Jamboreech

    jamboreech... that stuff seriously makes you "roll around in your chair laughing"? Nope. But his comments were so idiotic well i I now understand why you are so easily pleased by childish stories about goblins and fairies. And I now understand how completely ignorant you are of Lord of the Rings. If you knew what it was at all you know half of it's a war story TTT and ROTK described as realistic Medival warfare would have been where genocide is commeted heavily upon innocent human beings, genetic tampering, a sad parting, destiny of a accepting kingship and leadership finding hope in complete and utter defeat. Goblins and fairies are for those damn potter kids. So what's to understand about you then, you like stories with little boy children, laser swords and funny talking muppets. You must be very amused.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:43 p.m. CST

    We're really repeating ourselves at this point

    by FranklinCobb

    Honestly; it's all iterations of "I love LOTR!" "I Love SW!" "I Love Both!" and "MTV never plays music anymore." But man, these LOTR talkbacks sure fill up fast! - - - - - - - -By the way, I've noticed people bitching about stretching talkbacks, and I want to make sure I never do it. What causes it?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:45 p.m. CST

    WTF? Where are the DVD for Ep. 1,2,3? ANd the DVD for Raiders

    by Darth Phallus

    Draggin' their feet much on this?

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Well Franklin

    by exPFCWintergreen

    To stretch a talkback, it is a simple matter of doing this: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA : minus the spaces, of course.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Also, Frank

    by exPFCWintergreen

    When some meat heads decide to post really really looooooooong links - the talkbacks, they-a-stretch. I'd demonstrate, but then I'd be banned.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:55 p.m. CST

    I remember a talkback a while back when......

    by exPFCWintergreen

    Some idiot stretched a really good talkback (can't remember which one) and everyone was severly pissed off, including me. Well, anyhoo, the site finally fixed it after a while and as soon as it was fixed another Talkbacker posted "they fixed the talkback, YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAaHHHHHHH..." you get the picture. That was funny.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:55 p.m. CST

    elanor, I bow before your grace & wisdom

    by Butch_McTavish

    An eloquent critique and rebuttal. You know, www.rottentomatos is accepting new critics....

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:56 p.m. CST

    I remember a talkback a while back when......

    by exPFCWintergreen

    Some idiot stretched a really good talkback (can't remember which one) and everyone was severly pissed off, including me. Well, anyhoo, the site finally fixed it after a while and as soon as it was fixed another Talkbacker posted "they fixed the talkback, YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAaHHHHHHH..." you get the picture. That was funny.

  • Dec. 5, 2002, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Don't double post either.

    by exPFCWintergreen

    It's fucking annoying.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Willow: The Two Towers

    by MrLimey

    I'm actually looking forward to seeing Peter Jackson's second remake of the Ron Howard/Lucas classic, although the absence of Kilmer(again) is disappointing!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:13 a.m. CST

    If you haven't read the book, STFU

    by Dracos

    Ok, flamers (and I'm sure that applies in more than one sense), I'm sick of you. Yes, you uncultured twits who criticize a piece of literature which is almost universally held to be the best piece of fiction witten in the 20th century. WITHOUT HAVING READ IT. Remember that these films are PJ's interpretation of the book. Criticize him, the cast, the crew, but don't criticize the book unless you've read it. For the Star Wars people, let me put this in perspective: say Arthur C. Clarke was contracted to write the novel adaptations of Star Wars. Say I read these books, and I think they suck (without ever seeing the movies). How does never experiencing the source material give me grounds to form an opinion of it? It doesn't. Now I realize that I've wasted time writing this analogy, because most SW fanboys don't know who Arthur C. Clarke is. Did I mean Chris Claremont? No. Anyway, there are fundamental differences between Luca$ and PJ. George, really, had degenerated into making movies for the sake of selling toys. Same intent as most of the programming on Cartoon Network. He was never that great of a director in the first place. Peter, on the other hand, is making these films because a) he's got big enough balls to attempt it, probably the biggest pair in the history of cinema, and b) he is a fan of the source material and respect it and the man who wrote it. He also understands the differences between book and film, and has adapted the source according to the needs of film. So all you talkback fucknuts, kessel run your asses back to third grade, read the Lord of the Rings, and write me a book report on it. And don't think you can get away with seeing the movie or skimming the cliff notes: I've read it 9 times, so I'll know if you're bullshitting your way through your report. Class dismissed.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Darth Homercles

    by Mostholy

    Sorry, man, but you're wrong. I love SW (OT)...I've got a SW tattoo on my back (Rebel Alliance insignia), and it's still obvious Lucas jacked Tolkien in several ways that have nothing to do with mythology. Meeting Solo in Mos Eisley was a straight lift from meeting Strider in Bree, as was the whole "Strike me down and I shall return more powerful than you can possibly imagine" bit...neither of those are particularly mythological. I agree with the earlier post that said Fellowship gave me the kick the PT was supposed to. The PT is garbage, while LOTR is a masterpiece. You rabid SW trolls who can't see the light had better hope along with me that Lucas patches things up with Kasdan before Ep. 3.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:23 a.m. CST

    EW Review is ridiculous

    by emeraldluxury

    So EW gave TTT a "B". But if you look at their other reviews, you have to know that some of their reviews are just crazy. For instance, they gave "Die Another Day" a "A-", which does not make one bit of sense. Die was such a popcorn fluff movie that had no substance whatsoever. How can you give an average movie at best an "A-". I mean, they gave "Die" a better rating than they gave to Star Wars? So you Star Wars fans should think they are crazy as well. The only way I can see "Die" getting an "A-" is if you have not been laid in a while and desparately needed to watch Pierce Brosnan or Hallie Berry on screen. Of course, I think LOTR has some incredible men in it and while the women are not that prominent, they are still very gorgeous. So I see no reason for their illogical ratings. Don't get me wrong, I thought "die" was fun, but it was average. Therefore, I believe that the EW reviewer was a wacked out drug riddled fool that should get another job. Can't wait to see the TTT many times over! I also like Star Wars as well, although my DVD of it sucks. Personally, I think Star Wars and LOTR are two totally different types of fantasy movies and they are both fun.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Come on now people,

    by Conan_the_Humble

    Do I have to start splitting people in 2? All this SW talk is pathetic. You'd almost think it was a Matrix or Spiderman TB. SW while and entertaining and amusing series (apart from the last 2) is hardly a 'deep and meaningful' exploration of the human psyche. "Bantha 'poo-doo' anyone?" As anyone with at least a modicum of intelligence can see, SW (particularly the latest) episodes are written for CHILDREN. GL quite openly admits this during interviews. (Go and look at theforce.net archives if you want to debate me.) The hobbit was written for children, (his own children) LOTR was not. If anyone who reads LOTR or sees the movie, is unable to find any emotional depth to the characters or themes, than you are either retarded or deliberately denying the evidence right before your eyes. You might as well try and argue that the sky isn't really Black at night time. Cheers.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:45 a.m. CST

    THE HOBBIT

    by venusXL

    Harry you might have 12 days left so distract yourself by investigating THE HOBBIT for us! I can't stand the thought that this time next year we'll be getting hyped for the *last* Jackson Tolkien film! Pressure must be brought on him now to continue into The Hobbit! He doesnt have to direct it - with the expertise in Wingnut/WETA now I am sure the film will practically make itself :-) Come on peter - it's rude not too!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:03 a.m. CST

    Star Wars vs. LOTR

    by nataliepishot

    LOTR is a good film but,it is boring as hell watching these gay little hobbits wander around without a clue of wear they are going. The film gets so redudent and is basically trying to support a very weak plot with all this stupid misadventures of these stupid creatures that no one cares about. Star Wars will always have the best story cause it actually goes someplace and you actually care about most of the character's. The detail alone that george has put into his universe would absolutely make tolkein shit himself. yoda and gollum are close in cgi, i would have to give it to gollum cause he is in scale and yoda is so small no one could tell if they screwed up on his nose or something like that.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:36 a.m. CST

    elanor....

    by freddiedaman

    ...if the movie turns out to be half as beatiful as you I'll be filled with joy forever. *** You seduce me with your words, and make the waiting so much harder....:-)

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:03 a.m. CST

    RE: 7

    by VoxMillennium

    As one of the few intelligent attempts to criticize the SW-LotR debate, I'd like to give some rebuttal. First of all to those that say both works are incomparable, I disagree. Though SW poses as sci-fi it basically is a fantasy series, remember the beginning of every movie "in a galaxy far away..." basically refers to "once upon a time ...", but be that as it may. The comparison is there, so let's have a look. 7's post basically tries to make a case for SW ep. 5 TESB as the superior movie. "My post is meant to be read purely in the context of cinematic evolution/blockbuster film work, not literature or anything else. You must understand that the debate in this Talk Back and other LOTR TB's pretty concern the issue of having a film experience--especially a blockbuster film--that is pioneering or "first", film experiences that a majority audience does not feel is derivative." It's highly debatable whether that actually is the point the ongoing TB-debate is about. TESB was neither "first", nor pioneering and indeed derivative. It was the second SW movie to hit the cinema, so "first" is a bit odd in that context to say the least. One can bring down any story to being derivative, since every author/director has his sources and influences, as even GL has stated many times, among them Tolkien by the way, funny that, isn't it? "Empire is always being referred to or always being distinguished as special or great, because it created this feeling." Referred to by whom? Bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? Don't get me wrong; Empire was a great movie, but basically it was your average swashbuckling adventure story, but set in a sci-fi setting. The pioneering was only in the technical area which blew everybody away at the time and indeed Lucas will always get the credit for (well, until WETA showed up that is). " do not believe any other post-modern blockbuster films will ever achieve Empire's unique success, simply because Empire had the one thing that could only be found in the late 1970s-early 1980s: 99.9% of the audience did not know what would happen (the .1% are those who had read the book before hand or worked on the film)." So succes is translated as the degree to which a movie surprises us? A very dubious criterium to have a critique based on, but let's agree with that fopr arguments sake: There are dozens of movies since (or before) Empire that surprised people as much as Empire ever did. Movies like "Seven", "The Usual Suspects", "The Sixth Sense" etc. Empire had one surprising bit, Vader being Luke's father and that single scene makes it so unique and pioneering? Please, give me a break; yes, it was a great dramatic moment in the movie and it changed the story, but let's keep some perspective, it was an induced story twist using the most basic form of pop psychology (only thing missing that Luke accidentally marries his mother) so let's not turn this into the pinnacle of story telling achievements. "When one thinks about it, this is certainly true, because in this day and age, spoilers are everywhere, adaptations are always being made, and created-first-for-the-movie blockbuster films are very rare (the Matrix being a case in point). What is perhaps worst of all is that there may never be a blockbuster film that is totally unique onto itself (e.g., not dealing with the theme of good, evil, and humanity), is simultaneously accepted by popular culture, and builds a following purely on word of mouth alone, purely because the audience found the film themselves (Star Wars, Empire, Raiders were good example of this; Austin Powers, My Big Fat Greek Weeding are good recent examples)." To read spoilers, reviews etc. and thereby spoiling surprises in watching a movie is one's own choice and cannot be a criterium to judge the movie itself by. You call a movie unique when it's not simply about good vs. evil, well, apart from that being a very simplistic definition, I have a newsflash for you, every single Star Wars movie is simply about that "Good vs. Evil", it's a very simple fairytale in no way as complex or culturally layered as Lord of the Rings. Cultures in SW are presented as alien races with funny rubber masks or cgi who speak in funny noises; that is an alien species to George Lucas, wow, how unique and pioneering, never seen that before, while in LotR there are seperate cultures in clearly defined specifics and some, like the elves, even with a distinctly worked out language and defined own history, own literature. Yes, I know, you do not want to compare to the book, but when we take away the book and just see the movie, this richness of the book shines through that not in a million years Lucas can hope to achieve, which is logical, he doesn't have the genius of Tolkien as source material and, let's be honest, hasn't been able to write a decent story since THX1138. Empire found its audience by word of mouth alone? Nonsense; this can be said for ANH but by the time Empire was about to come out the publicity machine was up and running at full speed and everybody was well aware of the hype, whether they wanted to or not. "When I watched FOTR, I always felt my cinematic experience of the film was on one hand, partly derivative, because I knew such and such would happen, because the such and such of the film followed the form of the good and evil epic story telling of this/that other film (Star Wars, mostly)" Say what? Popquiz question: what was written first LotR or Star Wars? SW is a simple story about Good vs Evil, LotR is way more complex and refined. In your earlier post you talk about the Vader/Luke-theme. Yes, that brings a bit of grey into the Good vs. Evil theme and thankfully so, otherwise it would have all been completely flat; the story desperately needed a bit of drama besides shooting back and forth and blowing up things. In LotR the psychological conflict of Good vs. Evil is widened and given depth and realism by transferring it into a way more complex inner conflict in several characters (Frodo, Gollem, Boromir, Denethor etc.) but I won't argue that if you strip the wonderfully rich and complexely layered LotR (yes, I am referring to the movie) down to a single sentence, it is about Good vs. Evil; so? "or was in the source material or had to go this way since the film was marketed to me movie or so on; and on the other, my cinematic experience was unique, because the movie did such a good job of creating a new experience by building upon I felt was derivative." Like I said, Empire was just as much marketed at the time; I think your memory deserted you there or you confusing it with A New Hope. I'm glad you had a unique movie experience with Empire, and I'll even concur with you; when I first saw it I was completely blown away by it, so? Many movies have done the same for me before and since, including FotR, and so that in itself doesn't make it stand out in my book. Sorry but the last part of that sentence is a syntactic mess, so I don't get what you're trying to say there. "For what is worth, I'll just revise it here: "

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:07 a.m. CST

    RE: 7

    by VoxMillennium

    Sorry, lay-out got screwed up; tried again. If it's still a mess, it's this site that caused it. As one of the few intelligent attempts to criticize the SW-LotR debate, I'd like to give some rebuttal. First of all to those that say both works are incomparable, I disagree. Though SW poses as sci-fi it basically is a fantasy series, remember the beginning of every movie "in a galaxy far away..." basically refers to "once upon a time ...", but be that as it may. The comparison is there, so let's have a look. 7's post basically tries to make a case for SW ep. 5 TESB as the superior movie. "My post is meant to be read purely in the context of cinematic evolution/blockbuster film work, not literature or anything else. You must understand that the debate in this Talk Back and other LOTR TB's pretty concern the issue of having a film experience--especially a blockbuster film--that is pioneering or "first", film experiences that a majority audience does not feel is derivative." It's highly debatable whether that actually is the point the ongoing TB-debate is about. TESB was neither "first", nor pioneering and indeed derivative. It was the second SW movie to hit the cinema, so "first" is a bit odd in that context to say the least. One can bring down any story to being derivative, since every author/director has his sources and influences, as even GL has stated many times, among them Tolkien by the way, funny that, isn't it? "Empire is always being referred to or always being distinguished as special or great, because it created this feeling." Referred to by whom? Bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? Don't get me wrong; Empire was a great movie, but basically it was your average swashbuckling adventure story, but set in a sci-fi setting. The pioneering was only in the technical area which blew everybody away at the time and indeed Lucas will always get the credit for (well, until WETA showed up that is). " do not believe any other post-modern blockbuster films will ever achieve Empire's unique success, simply because Empire had the one thing that could only be found in the late 1970s-early 1980s: 99.9% of the audience did not know what would happen (the .1% are those who had read the book before hand or worked on the film)." So succes is translated as the degree to which a movie surprises us? A very dubious criterium to have a critique based on, but let's agree with that fopr arguments sake: There are dozens of movies since (or before) Empire that surprised people as much as Empire ever did. Movies like "Seven", "The Usual Suspects", "The Sixth Sense" etc. Empire had one surprising bit, Vader being Luke's father and that single scene makes it so unique and pioneering? Please, give me a break; yes, it was a great dramatic moment in the movie and it changed the story, but let's keep some perspective, it was an induced story twist using the most basic form of pop psychology (only thing missing that Luke accidentally marries his mother) so let's not turn this into the pinnacle of story telling achievements. "When one thinks about it, this is certainly true, because in this day and age, spoilers are everywhere, adaptations are always being made, and created-first-for-the-movie blockbuster films are very rare (the Matrix being a case in point). What is perhaps worst of all is that there may never be a blockbuster film that is totally unique onto itself (e.g., not dealing with the theme of good, evil, and humanity), is simultaneously accepted by popular culture, and builds a following purely on word of mouth alone, purely because the audience found the film themselves (Star Wars, Empire, Raiders were good example of this; Austin Powers, My Big Fat Greek Weeding are good recent examples)." To read spoilers, reviews etc. and thereby spoiling surprises in watching a movie is one's own choice and cannot be a criterium to judge the movie itself by. You call a movie unique when it's not simply about good vs. evil, well, apart from that being a very simplistic definition, I have a newsflash for you, every single Star Wars movie is simply about that "Good vs. Evil", it's a very simple fairytale in no way as complex or culturally layered as Lord of the Rings. Cultures in SW are presented as alien races with funny rubber masks or cgi who speak in funny noises; that is an alien species to George Lucas, wow, how unique and pioneering, never seen that before, while in LotR there are seperate cultures in clearly defined specifics and some, like the elves, even with a distinctly worked out language and defined own history, own literature. Yes, I know, you do not want to compare to the book, but when we take away the book and just see the movie, this richness of the book shines through that not in a million years Lucas can hope to achieve, which is logical, he doesn't have the genius of Tolkien as source material and, let's be honest, hasn't been able to write a decent story since THX1138. Empire found its audience by word of mouth alone? Nonsense; this can be said for ANH but by the time Empire was about to come out the publicity machine was up and running at full speed and everybody was well aware of the hype, whether they wanted to or not. "When I watched FOTR, I always felt my cinematic experience of the film was on one hand, partly derivative, because I knew such and such would happen, because the such and such of the film followed the form of the good and evil epic story telling of this/that other film (Star Wars, mostly)" Say what? Popquiz question: what was written first LotR or Star Wars? SW is a simple story about Good vs Evil, LotR is way more complex and refined. In your earlier post you talk about the Vader/Luke-theme. Yes, that brings a bit of grey into the Good vs. Evil theme and thankfully so, otherwise it would have all been completely flat; the story desperately needed a bit of drama besides shooting back and forth and blowing up things. In LotR the psychological conflict of Good vs. Evil is widened and given depth and realism by transferring it into a way more complex inner conflict in several characters (Frodo, Gollem, Boromir, Denethor etc.) but I won't argue that if you strip the wonderfully rich and complexely layered LotR (yes, I am referring to the movie) down to a single sentence, it is about Good vs. Evil; so? "or was in the source material or had to go this way since the film was marketed to me movie or so on; and on the other, my cinematic experience was unique, because the movie did such a good job of creating a new experience by building upon I felt was derivative." Like I said, Empire was just as much marketed at the time; I think your memory deserted you there or you confusing it with A New Hope. I'm glad you had a unique movie experience with Empire, and I'll even concur with you; when I first saw it I was completely blown away by it, so? Many movies have done the same for me before and since, including FotR, and so that in itself doesn't make it stand out in my book. Sorry but the last part of that sentence is a syntactic mess, so I don't get what you're trying to say there. "For what is worth, I'll just revise it here: "

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:41 a.m. CST

    LOTR apes SW apes LOTR

    by Kaitain

    "Strike me down and I shall return more powerful than you can possibly imagine" It's true that Kenobi's death in SW reminds one instantly of Gandalf's falling into Khazad-Dum in Fellowship, but the way the scene was shot in Jackson's film is surely influenced by the Kenobi death scene in ANH: slightly dream-like, shout of despair, those watching in disbelief finally, reluctantly running to escape as laser bolts/arrows whizz past their heads as though inconsequential.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 6:19 a.m. CST

    R re-edited version of my post before, dubbed by some the worst

    by jimdin2001

    OK, 'Lotr'; the cinema release was good. It was infact superb the 1st time you probably saw it. It was for me but I have found that this doesn't last. 'Episode 1' was good the first time u saw it, yet it has now become a huge disappointment. This is partly cos its 'in' to knock it, partly cos it just is a huge disappointment. The 1st 'Star Wars', ie; New Hope/Episode IV, woomph, from the first time u saw it to now it remains excellent escapist fair with (contrary to popular belief) good quick dialogue deliverd stylishly by Harrison Ford. There are -gasp-better movies out there; 'Clerks', 'Barton Fink', 'Twelve Angry Men', 'Raiders'...but these are superior for subtle, technical (sometimes including plot mechanics here) reasons. For me, for enjoyment, 'Star Wars' is not beaten (though 'Raiders' is probably on a par ith it). Then 1997 (or whenever) 'SW:SE' was released. It seemed to give a new dimension, a sense of universe was better conveyed, it, to me, seems more visionary. The 'Lotr' rerelease had extra footage which also seemed to give the film an amazing, visionary scope. Once again, there are better films out there; 'O Brother Where Art Thou', 'A Hard Days Night' and 'Jurrasic Park' (which is arguably better than 'Jaws'...if minus bit of suspense). What is good in all of this is that all these movies co-exist so on whatever day whenever i can just watch one of them and be entertained. Films can, it seems, co exist. So let them. Enjoy 'Star Wars', the 'Lotr' movies. Debate about the content of 'Bowling For Columbine' for a change and maybe try and help the world.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 6:32 a.m. CST

    Elanor -- my faith in Humanity is restored

    by Anti-fanboy

    ...Well, my faith in what passes for humanity on the talkbacks. Virtually every time I bother to scroll through these, I close the browser just shaking my head. Occasionally there's something funny (in an intentional, non-tragic sort of way) or somewhat illuminating, but I rarely encounter these posts. So the eloquence and fair-mindedness of your defense of LOTR was really a thing of beauty, a joy to behold. So... thanks :)

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 6:41 a.m. CST

    Star Wars Word of Mouth

    by sparkdog

    Anyone who thinks Star Wars was all about word of mouth either wasn't there or hasn't learned much about George Lucas. Of course there was not the magnitude of media talk outlets, but SW had a huge publicity budget, and Charles Lippincott specifically targetted every sci-fi convention he could--this has long been recorded as being an incredible media blitz. I mean, a movie that could have Time's pre-release rave "The year's best movie!" slapped on its poster was not some little picture that owes its survival to word of mouth. Television, print, radio and trailers, the soundtrack album's unprecedented 2-disc release, the novelization. It's a nice fantasy, but the Fox machine was behind the success of Star Wars (which it will always be called to us old timers, not this "New Hope" stuff.)###########On a related note, can anyone confirm for me if the "Episode IV--A New Hope" heading was NOT on the initial release prints?

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 6:50 a.m. CST

    and another thing

    by jimdin2001

    I notice from reading round that there is now criticism and questionning about who stole what and from where and why? While I dont, and neither do you so dont pretend, know what goes on in Mr Lucass head, I think its obvious he took from many sources his imagery, style etc. The amalgamation of techniques that had worked with such success before into one film only enhanced 'Star Wars' and thus, I enjoyed it more. Along with Kurasowa (sp-ok?) theres a bit of tolkein, and no doubt something i dont know about that i experienced for the 1sttime in Star Wars. There are loads of good ideas out there and just cos people copy them doesnt mean they do a worse job or their product is any less efficient. If Star Wars is your first exposure to certain mechanics, does it then discredit someone who first initialised whatever tehcnique? Well in my opinion no, but then there are lots of opinions round here so thats not to say I am 100% right. I left a gap so i can post some news i just read at www.empireonline.co.uk: Kevin Smith to direct Scary Movie 3, ew ew ew Where was I? In many ways Lotr (the film) is similar. Its borrowed from here and there. Ufortunatley for it it seems we are too aware of where it has borrowed from and some accept it less. Now heres the gut wrenching bit; i see this as the reasoning behind societies inability to accept the Star Wars movies;the new class. Instead of borrowing from mr K and other basic ideas hes now using films we are more familiar with; Da Da!, that bar looks like a neon city like 'Blade Runner', Da Dum!, a Gladiators arena...now I m sure I have seen one of those in a recent film but I'll be darned if i can remember its name...We have, it seems, been paying attention over the last 25 or 30 years. This then leads us to another point, away from presentation of the film, story. I will do so later, I can t be arsed now and I ve places to go and things to drink and watnot...

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 6:56 a.m. CST

    LOTR and Christianity of Tolkien

    by sparkdog

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110002732 Just to add more fuel to the sacred fire...

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:03 a.m. CST

    CANT GET MAIL TO SCOOP THIS BUT WWW.EMPIREONLINE.CO.UK SAY KEVIN

    by jimdin2001

    I shit u not not being the name of the movie, ofcourse. Strikes me that doing thats pretty low. Anyhoo, keep ignoring me, bye, i am going out now.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:03 a.m. CST

    RE: Dink

    by virkku

    LOTR is simple-minded when it comes to internal conflict, since it continues a tradition of archetype story with archetype characters (I'm sure you are aware of Tolkien's influences). However, you argument lost all credibility when you mentioned Star Wars, which is even more simple-minded. I'm not referring to books, since you want to talk about only movies. But why do you compare SW trilogy to just one LOTR film? A more accurate comparison is ANH and FOTR. What internal struggle does ANH offer? The only internal struggle is in Han Solo who is self-centered at first but in the end is willing to sacrifice himself for greater good. But all the other good guys are just good with no development. All the bad guys are bad for no reasonable reason, except the desire for power (which is the motivation of the main bad guys in LOTR as well). Eleanor already stated the internal conflicts of FOTR, and there are much more of them than there were in ANH. If we include ESB and ROTJ, then we have to include TTT and ROTK as well. The only truly complex character in SW movies is Darth Vader, and his internal struggle isn't even stated before the end of ESB. Interestingly the film that deals the most with this struggle (ROTJ) is also considered as the worst film in the original trilogy. Luke is never in a real, believable danger of falling to the dark side, but Frodo DOES fall to the dark side and he eventuallly fails in his mission. Gollum also will play an important part in the forthcoming movies and his character is all about internal struggle. Gollum will also save the world, even if it's unintentional. Interestingly, it is the PITY of Bilbo and Frodo that saved the world, instead of LOOOOOVE like in SW movies. Which is the more original and interesting take on the subject?

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:28 a.m. CST

    LOTR SW CHICKEN EGG

    by talbuckin

    While I am writing this would be the last post so I doubt anyone will read this, but anyway. First things first: I love Star Wars, even the new flicks, I do. Kill me now. Second, and this is even worse, I like LOTR less. I like the longer cut more and is the movie I will see from now on, not the theatrical release. Ok,now, I find funny the SW vs. LOTR war, is interesting, it allows to see a lot of things about talkbackers. When I saw FOTR I thought it was excellent in most of its parts, but some other things I did not like. Same with TPM or AOTC. However there is something in the work that Lucas does that really gets me in a very powerful way. I don

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:37 a.m. CST

    Idiots

    by MacAodha79

    Jesus can some people please get a grip? So Star Wars has been "ass raped" as some of you like to put it these past few years by its creator. Get over with. This is Lucas' cash cow so let him do with it as he so wishes. All you whinging bitches should go write some story of your own, flog it as a screenplay and try and start a career in movies with virtually no standing and see how far you bloody get. Don't get me wrong, it's clear that Lucas cannot direct his way of a traffic jam let alone a blockbuster, but all one can do is keep the fingers crossed for Episode III. AOTC was an enjoyable movie - but Star Wars isn't exactly Shakespeare for crying out loud. TPM was passable, but still has the best lightsaber battle of the lot, which, along with the podrace, were the only saving graces of the film looking back at it now. For anyone to suggest that the sterling acting and magnificent dialogue is what made Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back such successes (Return of the Jedi is marginally above The Phantom Menace thanks to the Ewoks, but even that doesn't stop me from liking it) is clearly speaking through the wrong orifice. The Star Wars movies are visual spectaculars with the odd punch line thrown in. Is it aimed at an audience fed on great acting exhibitions such as what The Godfather; Goodfellas and Schlinders List to name but three provided us with? C'mon folks live in the real world. I mean can you imagine if we were subjected to six 20-minute set pieces of the greatest dialogue ever committed to cinema in Episode III without as much as an igniting lightsaber, can you imagine the revulsion and outrage among the anorak jerk-offers of this planet? As for Lord of the Rings, which I almost forgot myself is what this talk back is meant to be dealing with after all, paying attention to anyone's views on this particular flick counts for squat. The Fellowship of the Ring was one of the most superbly directed and designed movies of all time in any genre. What Peter Jackson has done few would have envisaged when it was first announced that the trilogy would be brought to life on the big screen. That The Two Towers will be anything other than more of the same (and I say this without having yet seen it), both in terms of the quality of acting, the incredible scale of the battles of Middle Earth, along with the great feeling of sitting through a truly historical few hours of cinema, would be a surprise. And a note to Harry: Do you edit any of the reviews at all, if only to clean up the godawful grammar and shit-stinking level of English that some of the genii that contribute to this site present as a finished product? Two words folks: spell check. P.S: Kevin Smith directing Scary Movie 3? What has become of a man I once regarded as a bona fide film making genius? Sad times

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:47 a.m. CST

    RE: Talbuckin

    by VoxMillennium

    Of course Lucas didn't completely rip off Tolkien, but by his own admission the writing of Star Wars was influenced by it. I just turned the tables on 7 who claimed that FotR was derived from Star Wars, which is complete nonsense. In the end, of course, as I stated in that post, every story, or work of art for that matter, is derivative and of course Tolkien wasn't the founder of the fantasy-genre, but he has become its most revered representative and rightfully so I think. You say concerning Star Wars you don't care about the bad dialoguewriting or acting, it just works better for you. That's fine and no contesting that. One can bring to light all kinds of arguments pro and con, but when taste compells us to either like or dislike something, that's it, end of discussion, but then again in that case any discussion would be rendered moot and I think it's worthwhile to examine works of art for merit beyond mere taste (and for that I salute 7, even though I disagree with him/her), as valid as it is as any other criterium even though these talkbacks often come down to just that, mere taste, though TB'ers often try to disguise it as something else.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:52 a.m. CST

    hands up, mistake made

    by jimdin2001

    kevin smith is only down at the moment to write, not direct Scary Movie 3: Episode 1 - Lord Of The Brooms

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:59 a.m. CST

    the link

    by jimdin2001

    http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4373

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Flaming Udders!!!... no wizard kebab?

    by Balrogette

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It is the only thing I was looking forward to! ARGH! And there is yet one more instance of cruelty to Balrogs! This should be illegal! Curse that Jackson and crew! I'll flame that beard of his mush if ever I get across that Pacific thing.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Vox

    by talbuckin

    actually I am happy that I got this kond of answer. it shows people here can actually write in a civilized fashion. Of course I know Lucas got inspiration of Tolkien, that goes without saying, but I think, against many opinions here, that Lucas is a very intelligent person and I know he just did not look at Tolkina s his model, he saw Tolkine as the model of what he wanted to do. He saw how Tolkien used his love for mythology and languages to create his own personal work. Lucas did the same thing with his own particular interests, being Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon and even Tolkien of course. Obviously the other way around is not only stupid, is just plain impossible. Like 30 years of impossibility. I love Tolkien, I have already said that, but I think there are better writers who wrote in this kind of "genre", Thomas Malory, for isntance. If you haven

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:13 a.m. CST

    sorry for my typos

    by talbuckin

    I can

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Well, hello there, elanor!

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    Congratulations on the review, Elanor - I personally I had been really freaked out by the notion that this movie might be HobbitLite, and you have gone some way to reassuring me. And for DoT as well, who I am sure was as freaked out by the notion of less "crying midgets" this time out as I was. God knows it's the main thing I love. Oh, and Elfkiller! Go you! Good to see you back - see, parole boards aren't composed of entirely mean people. Though I must say, I feel very sorry that I missed "ATOC" the first time around. It must have been a fantastic movie. I must have been watching AOTC at the cinema while it was playing and thus missed it. Tailenders - ahoy there! I've no longer got Access on Tap, but I'm still around. I shower you all with jewels and sweetmeats. So, anyway, TTT, sounds like it could be good...

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Balanced review of TTT at www.theonering.com

    by Orson W

    Thanks to Elanor for the above review which is encouraging - all the more so that I know how she feels about these movies. Bravo for writing a spoiler-free review. Tolkienonline has an interesting review of TTT which is very positive without being blindly gushing - as too many of them are on this site - alas! (not you, ELanor). The reviewer appreciates the many qualities in FOTR and TTT - but has the guts not to ignore the weak and cringe-inducing moments in both movies.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:33 a.m. CST

    Sparkdog and Star Wars

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    I saw the original Star Wars back in the day on its first release, many times, and the movie was not subtitled "A New Hope", or "Episode IV". It was basically called "Star Wars", the promotional material was about a movie, a single movie, called "Star Wars". Franchises as we geeks understand them were still in the future. However, I seem to remember that the original novelisation by Alan Dean Foster may have been subtitled, "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker." The Episode IV thing I do not remember being part of the opening crawl, but then you don't watch SW for the opening crawl, really, you're waiting for that bigass Star Destroyer that just Keeps On Coming. Interestingly enough, I remember that back then, there were people that were too dim to understand the plot of Star Wars. I shit you not. Apparently if you didn't read the opening crawl, the whole movie was "boring and didn't make any sense". Wow. I wonder if those people ever reproduced. Scary thought.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:34 a.m. CST

    NBR Awards

    by Jar Jar Boinks

    As I just posted in the other talk-back that some of you Tolkien-head morons are probably too stupid to read, so for your benefit, I will post it again. Here are two rock solid lock observations, Ladies and gentlemen, about the new NBR awards: 1. The fact that The Two Towers didn't win is more irrefutable smoking-gun evidence that the movie sucks. 2. The Cinematic Visionary award to George Lucas is conclusive proof that AOTC was the best film of the year. benefit, I will post it again:

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Sparkdog

    by Toshlines

    I know that the tagline "Episode IV - A New Hope" was not with the initial release. I *think* it was added until some time in 1978. Interestingly (again i'm probably wrong) what plans there were for a sequel, were developed in the novel "Splinter of the Mind's eye" by Allen Dean Foster - that has all sorts of innapropriate development txixt Leia and Luke and rather implies the oft vaunted, over-arching "modern myth" Lucas has squirrelled away, rather means bugger all. If he knows the story so well, why does it now make so little sense? Why, if he knows the story so well, is he having to go back to the originals and alter them just to get them to match his vision? Bah. The one change I'll allow him to make, mind, is to digitally add the singed carcass of Jar-Jar flying through the asteroid field forming what used to be Alderaan. That'd be lovely.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:40 a.m. CST

    sparkdog: from starwars.com

    by talbuckin

    quote: " A friend and I have had a long-standing argument over when the opening crawl of the first Star Wars movie was changed to add "Episode IV: A New Hope." He says it was 1978, but I think it was a couple of years later. You win. But the mind does play tricks, and this wasn't as easy to answer as you might think. Soon after the unexpected huge success of Star Wars, George Lucas announced that it was only one part in a multi-chapter saga, and almost immediately started production on the next part, The Empire Strikes Back. But there was also a pre-story that might get made someday, he said. The first movie really started "in the middle" of the story. Star Wars was still playing in numerous theaters a year after its opening on May 25, 1977. It was re-released in 1979, 1981 and 1982. But when was the change made? For the indisputable answer, we went to Lucasfilm's film archivist, Sterling Hedgpeth. Here's what he says: "I found a box with all the positive elements for the 'revised' opening crawl, and the assorted trim boxes are dated from October through December 1980. This, then, is consistent with the view that Episode IV: A New Hope was added for the first time to the opening crawl for the April 10, 1981 re-release." "

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:40 a.m. CST

    miss aura: "most reviews said Fellowship was better"? What are

    by minderbinder

    If there are others saying that FotR was better, point them out. And New Line putting a trailer on in the spring isn't a Lucas-style money grab. They simply CAN'T, the footage won't be ready for months. You definitely should take reviews with a grain of salt, but when 99% of reviews are positive (and many are absolute raves), it's pretty encouraging.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Springheel jack talks sense

    by Fishmaster

    This guy knows what hes talking about. Im a 3d animator and the Cave troll is my favourite CG character of all time. Hopefully this will shortly be superceeded by Gollum on the 18th of Dec!!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Well?

    by BrianBoru

    Elenor,nice job,you married? :)Hey Mori,where the hell is your review bro?

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 9:13 a.m. CST

    I am extremely pissed at EW right now...

    by Halloween68

    Why on earth would EW give The Two Towers to Owen Gleiberman, Mr. Pseudo-Intellectual, for review?!?!?!? This guy hates everything that isn't art house fodder! I've been reading EW for many, many years now, and I've never known the guy to give any mainstream film more than a "C". Why would they do this? A "B" isn't bad, but it's not good either... It's obvious the guy doesn't like these types of films, or even this type of genre. Why would they doom the film from the start? This is highly unfair to something that so much love and labor has gone into. This column lacks honesty and integrity if this actually makes it to the magazine. EW actually has a pretty big readership, and giving a bad review for no good reason could do a lot of damage to the film. Anybody else have any quibbles about this, I suggest you flood the editorial mailboxes over at EW.com. And this isn't just for Two Towers either. EW does this quite often. OG has tanked or given unmerited scores to many films over the years based on his preference in film.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Take pity on them

    by Mitchen

    I think star wars fans sit in dark corners holding there AOTC DVD telling themselves "Its a great movie, its a great movie" After chanting this mantra and not having anything to drink or eat for 13 days they come out believing and willing to die in its defense. I will say this about Lucas, it seems that the Jedi mind trick works on weak minded audiences as well

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 9:21 a.m. CST

    LOTR vs SW or Damn You All Get More Pathetic By The Second.

    by Nice Marmot

    Any of you clowns want to actually discuss these reviews or the clips maybe? Good lord, I waited til today to talk back, thinking the unbelievably tedious LOTR vs. SW debate might be over. However, now it

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 9:24 a.m. CST

    JEDIS ARE COOL!!!

    by SoulReaver

    Yeah, they are, and lightsabers, and tie fighters and all that! But listen, Star Wars fans! Lucas is not a good director. The best star wars movie is TESB, and it wasn't directed by him. He is almost not involved concerning the really creative parts of the movies, and that's the point. Also with age comes weariness for storywriting (he never was a writer anyway), and that is the reason, why the prequels suck so badly. It's not really Star Wars, except for the music. So don't be ashamed to admit that LOTR is far better than the prequels, because they ARE! But I don't think they are better than the original Star Wars movies. This is a very difficult comparison, because they are so different. I love movies, and I love both Star Wars (already have made a fanfilm) AND The Lord of the Rings. peace May the force be with you, in the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 9:39 a.m. CST

    These talkbacks are making me want to stop visiting AICN...

    by TheGorilla

    SW vs LOTR? Uh... people there is a REAL world out there with REAL important things going on... Get a grip. I'm all for being a movie geek and talking about movies, but this SW Fans vs LOTR Fans thing is pretty sad. Who in the hell cares if you don't like Star Wars/Lord of the Rings? Go get a job!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 10:03 a.m. CST

    It's hard to ignore the LAMERS, but I'll say one final thing

    by Jamboreech

    Yeah this is a movie forum and were SUPPOSED to be discussing the movie. Sigh, but I just hate seeing all these little trolls, I came in here expecting a cool forum to discuss, damn instead they must be little kids I obviously don't think these people can be older than 12-13. Disrespecting the source material of any book but ESPECIALLY Lord of the Rings without even having read it or understanding its impact of imaginitive myth/storytelling is a no-no George Lucas (for those trolls who like Star Wars and nothing else) is the CREATOR OF STAR WARS) and has a HIGH respect for LORD OF THE RINGS, said it interviews and such, has not ripped but HAS BORROWED many elements from Lord of the Rings including what could be the idea of a fantasy trilogy. In fact his next work after star wars he said ITS GOING TO BE FANTASY INSPIRED BY LOTR. So calling it 'gayish' 'for D&D nerds' or whatever you say and proclaiming Star Wars is somehow better and that it DOESNT MAKE YOU NERDS ALSO (???)No. Diss LOTR like that and your basically saying the same thing about Star Wars. A lot of people WHO ARENT AWARE OF THIS SHOULD BE, before they start assuming D&D roleplaying stereotypes to it. That's like assuming Star Wars since you hate flying type video games Star Wars 'sucks'. Amongst other things without LOTR there wouldn't be a Star Wars, it's that SIMPLE even if some Star Wars people don't like to admit it. And yes without Star Wars there wouldn't be a LOTR movie either even if some LOTR fans don't like to admit it. I was exaggerating on the Star Wars stuff only to shut some of the trolling up, the first three movies were great, well first two and the third okay, but are still great. But I think Peter Jackson has done a great job also, THIS will become a classic series when it's over and the movies are pieced together (not as big as Star Wars perhaps, WHO CARES it doesn't have to be! it's not Peter Jacksons own vision and story it's Tolkien's, altered to a degree). ANd there will be some people who still won't be able to sit through and stand it, that's their preference. But bottom line, don't come trolling in here without the facts and start flaming LOTR and it's fans because you don't get it or you have a problem with it's succesfulness, just keep your mouth shut and opinions to yourself, no one will bother you if you just say 'i didn't like because it wasn't my thing' put it nicely and you won't bother anyone else. To whoever said Newline was just looking to get more money with the added trailer, us really unfair YOU DONT THINK GEORGE LUCAS HASNT DONE WORSE? Star Wars dolls, star wars toliet paper, so many cheap star wars products. What was the special edition crap? Bah, I don't believe for a second thing that he WASNT doing it to get rich of their rerelases.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 10:10 a.m. CST

    You r so right Gorilla

    by Mitchen

    A wave of silence rolled through the talkback as everyone was hit by Gorillas statement. Long hard looks were being taken as each of use peered into our souls, diving deeper, and uncovering parts of ourselves that we had long left unattended and neglected. Perhaps it is time for us to face the cold harsh realities of this existence and break free of the imaginary world that we have shrouded ourselves in for so long

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Memories of SW///LOTR vs. SW///Boring Talkback

    by sparkdog

    Thank yous to Alice, Talbuckin and Toshlines. The opening crawl thing has bugged my tiny brain as nothing has since the great meaning-of-Marion-Crane's-license-number controversy. A Star Wars fan almost started CRYING when I told her the opening crawl didn't say Ep. 4 originally. Talk about get a life... /// I don't know what some of you talkers are complaining about, I'm enjoying the deep analysis of these two series. If you don't like it...///...you should do what those who are posting about this being a boring talkback--don't read it, and certainly don't add to the perceived boredom by writing about how boring it is! I mean, every talkback doesn't have to be for YOUR pleasure. That's like expecting every cable channel to be tailered for you. (I mean, how can they be, when they're all programmed for my specifications?)/////I wonder if 25 years from now people will be arguing that in its original release, LOTR was actually the same length as the expanded DVD edition...or that there was no prologue initially, that it began in the Shire and they added the Cate Blanchette thing 'cuz so many viewers were confused. (The same ones who were shocked that the film didn't have a real ending.)

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 10:35 a.m. CST

    I love the excuses LOTR fans are making for the EW review!!!

    by Atticus Finch

    Keep the hypocrisy coming! It is hilarious!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Hamlet and Don Quijote hadl things

    by CuervoJones

    like ghosts and giants, so this books must be for children, not ADULT BOOKS

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:14 a.m. CST

    One EW 'B' Review is fine

    by MinasTirithII

    TTT will get a very small amount of poor reviews. That's to be expected, cause after all, not everyone will like it. Now AOTC on the otherhand had a lot of poor reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/StarWarsEpisodeIIAttackoftheClones-1112314/ A 62% at rottentomatoes. Pretty poor score. FOTR is sitting very nicely at 95%, completey blowing away AOTC. TPN, 63%. It's more then obvious Lucas has no critical acclaim for his latest adventures in Marketting. LOTR on the other hand is both critically acclaimed and box office strong. Face it folks, SW is dead. There is still time to get PJ to do EPIII. My petition won't help, as it's merely a tool to show how shitty lucas is.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Get PJ to do EPIII

    by MinasTirithII

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dgkomxpq

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Excuses, who needs excuses? EW gave it a B.

    by minderbinder

    You're honestly bashing a movie because it's WORST review so far is a B? This rates up there with "FotR will only make 100M" and "FotR sucks because it didn't win best picture". Pathetic.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Atticus...

    by Halloween68

    These aren't excuses, Atticus (at least mine aren't), these are facts. I've been getting a subscription to EW magazine for at least 6 or 7 years now. Every week I've read their reviews and articles on film. I've noticed several annoying habits, and have pointed them out several times, but to no avail. The most annoying habit I've noticed with EW is that carelessly misassign movies to their reviewers. Now, you might say, aren't film critics supposed to go into films unbiassed and with an open mind? Unfortunately, that's obviously not the case with EW. Specifically with Owen Gleiberman; he is the most obvious. OG makes it clear each and every week what kind of films he's interested in. You can check this historically if you'd like. Gleiberman only gives arthouse movies high scores. No matter how good the film is, he has never given a main stream film above a "C" rating. He seems to give especially rotten scores to films in the SciFi, Fantasy, or Horror genres. Films he sticks his nose up at and considers not to be taken seriously. And, hell, if you read his review, it's pretty well made plain within his review where his preferences lay. He actually sounds like he's giving a favorably review through his description until he gets to the very end and simply dismisses it as drivel. He obviously doesn't care for these types of films. Is this fair, especially when you make a living at it, to make up your mind about a film before you've even seen it? Owen Gleiberman, and the editors at EW obviously seem to think so, unfortunately. How is any of this an excuse. To put this in perspective: EW gave Monkeybone a "B" when it came out; the same score as TTT is getting. It shouldn't just be the toss of a coin who gets the review of film. Give the reviews to the people who are honestly interested in seeing the film(s). At least that way, they have a fighting chance.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Fool's quest

    by raker

    The idea of grading art has always struck me as silly. Art is a personal relationship. I like Beethoven; my children like N

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 12:02 p.m. CST

    TTT

    by BrianBoru

    It seems the common conclusion of most of these reviews is that Gollum was done well,not just in the sense of motion capture/CGI but as a character.Also Helm's Deep will be the mother of all battles ever captured of film.Let the orc blood flow! :)

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 12:16 p.m. CST

    I agree with Gorilla and Atticus

    by exPFCWintergreen

    These Talkbacks just plain suck now-a-days. I mean, they're totally dominated by LOTR vs Star Wars arguments. It's always the same crap. And the trolls aren't even funny anymore. Where the fuck is Mercier, that guy was hilarious. Even that little shit, Elfkiller, was more original then pathetic likes of a one Jar Jar Boinks. Just look what I was reduced to posting about half way up the talkback - terrible.______ And Atticus is right, it is laughable reading these complaints about the EW review. What is everyone complaining about? The guy liked it. He gave it a 'B'.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Dink, it's just not a good point to make with the examples of SW

    by General Idea

    I know what point you're trying to make, it's just not a good one. "How many people do you know who are purely evil, just for the sake of being evil?" Well how the hell do you explain the emperor/senator palpatine? Or Princess Leia? Palpatine has no ulterior motives, he's a power-hungry, evil-as-hell guy who wants to rule the galaxy. Did you see any conflict in him? Nope. Yes, Frodo is mostly all good & fluffy & shiny. The point is that even the smallest person can change the course of the future. Besides, what Boromir experienced was exactly what you were looking for. He tried to take the ring to defend his own lands, his own people. That's conflict.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 12:33 p.m. CST

    I CAN'T GET THE CLIPS TO PLAY RIGHT!

    by MustangMatt

    It starts to play, the video freezes and all I get is the audio! You think Harry is in pain?! I'm dying here!

  • First of all, you

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Intelligent response Part II, or

    by Malik23

    Star Wars, on the other hand, can be criticized for exactly what you (DINK MEEKER) have levied against FOTR. Complexity in Han Solo

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 1 p.m. CST

    TTT

    by Nice Marmot

    This movie will rock regardless of any differences from the book. However, isn't having Frodo actually going to Gondor & getting attacked by a Nazgul a little TOO different? I'm also not too pleased w/ Faramir being a meathead like Boromir until the last minute. Oh well, it'll rock anyway! Also, Brian Boru, Helm's Deep should be NOTHING compared to the Battle in ROTK!!! Can you imagine? The Oliphaunts, the Big Ass Battering Ram (what was it called?), Eowyn kickin' ass. CAN'T FRIGGIN' WAIT!!!! Has there been any word on the army of the dead being in the film?

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 1:37 p.m. CST

    So after all the raves about Gollum (how many times have we read

    by minderbinder

    Discuss.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Nice Marmot &TTT

    by BrianBoru

    Crom!Some who actually want to talk about TTT!:)***However, isn't having Frodo actually going to Gondor & getting attacked by a Nazgul a little TOO different?--Perhaps,it was a choice PJ made,wether we agree or not.I would like to see it as a 'set up' for what will unfold in ROTK*** I'm also not too pleased w/ Faramir being a meathead like Boromir until the last minute.-- gain I'm thinking it is a set up for the next installment,Boromir only had 1/2 a movie to do it in ;-).Still in the E V it is even more clear that Boromir,believes that he(like Sauruman,in a way) that he can use the Ring for 'the betterment of Gondor',until death his near does he realize his mistake.*** Also, Brian Boru, Helm's Deep should be NOTHING compared to the Battle in ROTK!!!--I know! :-)One thing at a time!!!LOL!*** Ass Battering Ram (what was it called?)--Groud*** Eowyn kickin' ass. CAN'T FRIGGIN' WAIT!!!!--STOP IT!! :)*** Has there been any word on the army of the dead being in the film? --Hope so!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Groud?:-P

    by BrianBoru

    morGoth,has it right,Grond ;-)

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:39 p.m. CST

    ROTK

    by raker

    The charge of the Rohirrum sp? Has got to be one of the things I look forward to most...that and my yearly xmas present.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:44 p.m. CST

    variety mag pic at torn

    by raker

    Not as good as last years but still great.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Shelob

    by Nice Marmot

    Bring on Shelob! This will be her film debut. Neither the animated LOTR or ROTK movies included her. I just reread TTT & this time around(I picture things differently every reading) I pictured her being spider-LIKE but not just a giant spider. Oh well, she will no doubt be wicked. WHAT AM I DOING?!?!? TTT seems like an eternity away & I'm nit pickin' about ROTK.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Gollum's Song

    by AbsOfJello

    Just heard this for the first time. Anyone else think this sounds like a Shirley Bassey 007 opening number? As I listen to this, I'm picturing Gollum silouhetted in black, lithely swaying his hips in slow motion and jutting his nipples out teasingly against the fiery backdrop of Mount Doom... but seriously this is a damn cool tune.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:06 p.m. CST

    what's the poop on the Army of the Dead?

    by GypsyTRobot

    One of the creepier elements of the trilogy and very cool. You know, when you think about all the undead and death in LoTR (from the barrow wight to the Dead Marshes), it makes you wonder a little bit about J.R.R. taking some psych issues away from the trenches of WWI. Be that as it may, it'd be cool to see Viggo at the head of an undead Army, like Bruce Campbell but less campy (pun intended).

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:17 p.m. CST

    A final word to the trolls

    by Jamboreech

    Ryano, sorry if it's misspelled. I agree, Newline's merchandising of the movies are ridiculous. They are A business and they're out to get money no matter the significance of the project or whatever, of course it's TRUE. But I hate it when that stupid argument is made OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BY trolls just because they feel the need to flame Lord of the Rings and it's fanbase with their sad and s**** attitudes because they have nothing better going on in their lives apparently, oh except babbling on about how their stupid Star Wars flick. And seriously notice how IT'S ONLY THE STAR WARS fanbase who flames first, never the other way around. Just like they'll stand line for 3 MONTHS to see their stupid childish obsession. Think to yourself, do Tolkien fans exhibit this type of abnormal behavior? NO. Do you see them lining up in a theatre dressing as freaks six weeks before them movie opens? NO of course not, and many of them are just as excited and anxious to be the first to see Two Towers if not more, but they all have LIVES and JOBS and SCHOOL to go to everyday so they show enthusiam maybe post a bit on boards and wait like every other NORMAL human being on planet earth. It's all the Star Wars lamers and it gets VERY old after a while, why else do we see all these STAR WARS TOPICS and discussions in a CLIPS FROM THE TWO TOWERS message board. Gollum as CGI then immediatly a troll like the LOSER troll that he is will post something about Yoda being the "COOLEST CGI EVAR!" just because he can't handle that Gollum is getting good word. Isn't there supposed to be a moderator who shuts people like this out if their topic is unrelated? If not this forum should have one, keep all the ten year old Star Trekkies or whatever the hell they are out. Like I said it gets old after a while, I'm sure many people think the same.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:18 p.m. CST

    ryalto: you show your true colors by bashing TTT's effects befo

    by minderbinder

    Hmmm, which is more impressive, a battle involving robots and "clones" in stiff metal suits made from copying and pasting or a battle in which all participants look and behave uniquely? "Dark and murky?" Gollum is shown CLOSE UP, in FULL DAYLIGHT. And people are raving about him. (just for the record, I haven't seen TTT yet, I'm just quoting what 99% of reviewers have said so far, unlike you who are just pulling "weta sucks" assumptions out of your ass). And Lucasfilm is just as much of a "corrupt corporation" as new line is. I'll take their honesty about planned releases upfront any day over Lucas's lying "it won't be on DVD for years" to trick fanboy suckers into buying it twice. Or CHARGING EXTRA for widescreen. Unbelievable. Sure there are four releases of FotR. I bought the one I wanted and I'm extremely happy with it (4 top notch DVD's for $24.99). What's the problem here?

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Oh Holy Fuck

    by Glass

    I'm looking forward to this movie as much as the next guy, but can this talkback be any more boring? Seriously, when I go home at night, if I can't sleep, if I have insomnia or whatever, all I have to do is click on this talkback and I fall instantly asleep, right there in front of the computer. Please change the subject. Harry, do we NEED all these reviews about TTT? I'm dying for the movie, don't get me wrong, but this is agony.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:27 p.m. CST

    All right that should be enough

    by Jamboreech

    I think people get the idea now, lets start the new posts with no more talk about any other movies except for the Two Towers impressions. I have to say, I'm impressed, the landscapes looks freaking huge, Edoras looks incredible so doesn't Helms. I got a quick shot of the Ent legs or hands, I haven't seen them in their full anatomy yet. What I love most from the clips is that is how realistic every setting looks, the Golden plains, the snowy mountains, Dead Marsh I think it is with the burning pools. Great stuff!

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Oh and I wasn't talking about you Ryalto in my final message to

    by Jamboreech

    Just to be clear, so there's no conflict

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:40 p.m. CST

    My point of view

    by Mitchen

    I believe that a great deal of the changes in TTT is to keep the unread focused on why Frodo is on this quest and to develop Faramirs character. While I adore what Tolkien did with Farmir in the book I don

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 3:59 p.m. CST

    My final word on whether LOTR has any soul

    by Dink Meeker

    It's nice to finally see a few thoughtful, literate posts to my LOTR complaints. I must admit...some of you talkback junkies impressed me with some of your well-conceived arguments. All in all, I appreciate intelligent debate, and I can recognize that fact that one man's trash is another man's treasure. But many of you seemed to have missed my point about LOTR. The problem I find in the REALIZATION of these films, (I haven't READ the series in it's entirety), is that everything is so very black and white. Yes, the ring corrupts it carrier...that is established, but there is a HUGE problem with this plot device. They aren't tempted by any tangible, innate HUMAN desires...it's just some unseen evil presence in the ring saying "BE EVIL, DANGIT!!." To illustrate what I mean, by compcomparison, Vader tempts Luke with the chance to "Rule the Galaxy at his side." Pretty enticing offer, I'd say. What's Frodo being tempted to do? Hand the ring over to Sauron so he can destroy the world and people he loves? What does Frodo get out of that arrangement? I recognize there are some mildly weighty subplots, like the possible sacrifice of Arwen's immortality for true love, but even this device get tangled up in cliche, when it becomes an unnecessary love triangle storyline. Even so, Arwen and Aragorn's romantic scenes felt very cold and lifeless to me. Besides, shouldn't the focal point of the films (the struggle for the ring itself) be more interesting than the subplots?

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Willow???!!!!

    by Ed_wood

    I don't usually write on these things but reading through some of the comments on this page one thing stuck out. LOTR is a braveheart/willow ripoff I believe someone said. WHAT!!!!?!!!!? Okay, the braveheart thing is understandable, one medieval battle can look like another, EXCEPT for big F*****G orcs (note the sarcasm there) But WILLOW!!?, people say Lucas used LOTR for SW but that doesn't compare to what he did with Willow. WILLOW IS LOTR, small guy (real this time) finds baby(okay not a ring but something that needs to be taken somewhere that cant speak but is a character) is helped to get where he's going by a guy with long hair and leathers (and the girlfriend says she'd have Viggo over Val any day) and two small comic relief characters. WILLOW IS LOTRwithout the heart and soul (YES SOUL!!), I cry every time Bilbo apologises to Gandalf and when he apologises to Frodo in Fellowship and I'm not easily moved, how can people say that film had no soul???!!! I've finished my rant now you'll be glad to hear. By the way Willow sucks; LOTR rules and so would Star wars if Lucas would just leave it alone; its like Da vinci constantly touching up the mona lisa (no pun intended) and giving her a bloody grin.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:17 p.m. CST

    RE: Dink

    by virkku

    It could be asked why would Luke want to rule the galaxy? Especially with someone who has made clear that he is evil and has totally different values and ambitions than Luke? Besides it's really the Emperor, not Vader, who wants Luke to stand by him (as a minion). There isn't recognisable human internal struggle inside Luke in this subplot, since what he is being offered has nothing to do with what he wants. Luke wants to save his dad, but in order to save the universe he might have to kill his dad. That is the real internal struggle in ROTJ and it IS a great plot device. You are wrong that the Ring doesn't provide recognisable human conflicts. For example Boromir wants the ring because he thinks that it's power in right hands can be used as a weapon against the enemy. He is also being (subconsciously) corrupted by the rings supernatural power, but this is the logical motivation he thinks he has. Frodo can't use the ring to rule the world (unlike Gandalf or Saruman), but it works like a drug addiction to him. He loves the feeling of holding and using the ring and starts to hate himself and the ring because it tempts him so much. You can draw an easy parallel to heroin addicts. Isn't drug addiction an internal conflict? It is. It is also a very real human struggle for many people. You know it's bad for you, but yet you want to use it because it makes you feel good. Good people became corrupted and "evil" because of drugs. This is also what happens to Frodo. His character arc is much more complex than the character arc of Luke Skywalker. But it is probably true that most people find it easier to identify with parental love/hate relationship and desire for power than drug addiction.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Dink Meeker

    by BrianBoru

    It's nice to finally see a few thoughtful, literate posts to my LOTR complaints.***It's amazing if you ask me! :-)*** Yes, the ring corrupts it carrier...that is established, but there is a HUGE problem with this plot device. They aren't tempted by any tangible, innate HUMAN desires***At the heart of The Lord of the Rings are the assertions which Gandalf makes in Book 1/2(book 1,chapter 2),his long conversation with Frodo.If they are not accepted,then the whole point of the story collapses.And these assertions are in essence three.First Gandalf says that the Ring is immensely powerful,in the right or the wrong hands.If Sauron regains it,then he will be invincible at least for the foreseeable future; 'If he recovers it,then he will command [all the other Rings of power] again,even the Three[held by the elves],and all that has been wrought with them will be laid bare,and he will be stronger than ever'.Second,though,Gandalf insists that the Ring is deadly dangerous to all its possessors:it will take them over,'devour'them,'posses'them.The process may belong or short,depending on how 'strong or well-meaning'the possessor may be,but 'neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the dark power will devour them'.Furthermore this will not just be a physical take-over.The Ring turns everything evil,including its wearers.There is no one who can be trusted to use it,even in the right hands,for good purposes:there are no right hands,and all good purposes will turn bad if reached through the Ring.Elrond repeats this assertion later on,"I will not take the Ring',as does Galadriel,'I will diminish and go into the West,and remain Galadriel'.But finally,and this third point is one that Gandalf has to re-empasize strongly and against opposition in 'The Council of Elrond',the Ring cannot simply be left unused,put aside,thrown away:it has to be destroyed,and the only place where it can be destroyed is the place of its fabrication,Orodriun,the Crack of Doom. These assertions determine the story.It becomes,as often been noted,not a quest,but an anti-quest,whose goal is not to find or regain something but to reject ans destroy something.Nor can half-measures,attractive as these may seem.Gandalf will not take it,Galadriel will not take it,it would be disastrous to take it to Gondor,as Boromir and Denethor would perfer.One might point out that while all this is perfectly logical,granted the initial assumptions,Gandalf's basic postulates might take a bit of swallowing.Why should we believe them?However,while critics have found fault with almost everything about The Lord of the Rings,on one pretext or another,no one to my knowledge has ever quibbled with what Gandalf says about the Ring.It is far to plausible,and too reconizable.It would not have been so before the many bitter experiences of the 20th century*** I'd say. What's Frodo being tempted to do? Hand the ring over to Sauron so he can destroy the world and people he loves? What does Frodo get out of that arrangement?--What do people get going off to war?Here's another example: In Old Norse mythology like the traditional Christian one in that it too ended in a Day of Doom,an Armageddon,in which the forces of good and evil finally confront each other.The difference was that in the Norse one it was the forces of evil,the giants and the monsters,which won,so that the Norse Armageddon was called Ragnar

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:33 p.m. CST

    re: dink, why can't the ring be inheritly tempting?

    by empyreal0

    The ring makes one powerful, of course, but that's only the beginning of it. If power alone were the temptation - limited power that would ultimately destroy your little world - I could understand your point. Power and hatred were what Vader and the Emperor used to tempt Luke. BUT, pay attention to how the LOTR characters treat the ring - it's like a drug, a terribly enticing, addictive drug. Gollum and Bilbo both refer to it as their "precious", indicating very obviously that this ring, which has a will of its own, gets into the mind of its wearer and makes them desire to use the ring above all else. This is why PJ got it right when he said he wanted to portray Gollum as a 60-year-old heroin addict. Of course any reasonable person would know, rationally, that the ring serves only one master and will ultimately bring death to its wearer once its accomplished the goal of returning to its master, yes. Then again, most drug addicts are aware of the fact that they're slowly killing themselves, but they still don't REALLY want to let go. Look at how pained Gollum is to be without the ring, how meaningless and alone he feels, and how he mutters still about his precious. Y'know, maybe you're tempted by the thought of ruling the galaxy at the side of some evil father figure you've never known who destroyed your sister's homeworld and has done nothing but intimidate you into joining him, but I'm not. Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, well, the classic trilogy anyway, but I think LOTR very realistically portrays a pretty serious temptation.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Who do I have to kill to make this metafile play right?!

    by MustangMatt

    I can't get the WMP file to play right! It gets about 5 seconds in and the video freezes while the audio continues! HELP!

  • Like all stories, LOTR can be streamlined to a very simple basic concept. The villain needs only the McGuffin to conquer the world. The hero has to destroy the McGuffin to save the world. But the McGuffin can only be destroyed by travelling to the other side of the world, behind enemy lines, to the villains lair. This is already an excellent, very strong story concept, but it is even better since the McGuffin constantly tries to seduce the hero to use it, and if he uses it he will became just like the villain. I don't think the same story concept has even been used in any other story ever (at least not before LOTR), which is a real rarity since just about all basic storylines are variating themselves in countless of works of fiction.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Story concept of SW versus concept of LOTR

    by virkku

    On the other hand, the basic story concept of SW is this: Villain wants to conquer the world. Hero has to kill him to save the world. That's as complex as the basic storyline goes, but the subplot of hero's father makes it more intriguing. In fact I was wrong in one of my earlier posts. I stated that the world is saved in LOTR because Frodo shows mercy to Gollum, and SW sends a different kind of message. This is in fact not true, since the world is saved in ROTJ because Luke shows mercy to his father (who can then kill the emperor while Luke is helpless aginst him). But there is a difference: Luke shows mercy to Vader only because he is his father, while Frodo and Bilbo show mercy to Gollum just for the sake of mercy.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Re: Dink

    by Mitchen

    Frodo is not tempted to give over the ring he is compeled, there is a very big difference. The Temptation is to keep the ring for himself, not to give it away.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5 p.m. CST

    gray

    by raker

    Dink, your name is really bugging me. Does it come from Enders Game? Don

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Fantasy Movies

    by Nice Marmot

    My 2nd favorite fantasy film after the new LOTR is still DRAGONSLAYER. Excalibur & The first Conan are good too. Legend was a noble attempt but fell short. Even Krull & The Beastmaster are better than Willow. I feel queezy thinking about it.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:12 p.m. CST

    more fantasy movies

    by raker

    Alright, here

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:17 p.m. CST

    exPFCWintergreen

    by Halloween68

    Here's my problem with a "B". Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets got a "B+". I saw TTT last night. Harry Potter is not worth a spot on TTT ass. Sorry to the Potter fans. It just doesn't measure up. Potter was given an honest review from someone who actually cared. TTT is better than Spider Man, Attack of the Clones, and Harry Potter. Hell, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the friend I went with, TTT is a whole lot better than Fellowship... Movie wise anyway. This time around the story suits its medium. I had to bite my hand a few times when the plot drifted away at points from the original storyline. But even with its deviation, the film is outstanding. Also, I enjoyed Fellowship, but there were a lot of things in it that really itched my craw, so to speak... Dialog, effects, editing, and whatnot. There was really nothing like that this time around. Nothing that took away from the film itself. There weren't any noticably squirmy "she-elf", or over-the-top "Freaky Galadriel" moments. PJ's definately getting better at his craft and working out the bugs along the way. A very good film all the way.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:25 p.m. CST

    My vision for AICN

    by GypsyTRobot

    Imagine a screen full of AICN geeks' heads looking around, kinda like the Brady Bunch but much scarier. Then try to match the user ID to the actual user. First person to match ElfKiller and his Potter-esque thumbnail wins a Balrog-head candleholder. Perhaps scarier than everyone's visual appearance being revealed, is seeing what some of us do while participating in TB's (put those dice down!) + ps I enjoyed 13th Warrior as well, despite the cheesy ending. The Viking leader played by Vladimir Kulich is a handsome fella. He's a demon on Angel now, unfortunately covered up in makeup. and one more ps: I didn't think Willow was that bad. I think it's geared more towards kids. It doesn't suffer from the pomposity of Legend or the wearying blandness of Krull. I ain't sayin Willow's great, I'm just sayin, I've seen worse.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:30 p.m. CST

    VoxM

    by 7

    Vox, first of all, let us agree not to call this an intelligent discussion and really refer to it for what it really is, objective. Secondly, I concede defeat. I have tried in many ways to argue for the greatness of FOTR, TTT--basically the LOTR movie trilogy over Empire (Absurd? Yes), even though I have seen only one of them (though I have read the books). Believe me, this could be done with a little bit of brain power and proper research techniques. Nevertheless, in pondering my arguments, I always arrive to the same melancholic conclusion: FOTR, TTT, ROTK--the LOTR movie trilogy--will never surpass Empire both individually and collectively, no matter how brilliant or superior (in form, content, quality, and scope) each or all the movies maybe. The problem basically has to do with the fact that these movies are being released in the

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:43 p.m. CST

    no one messes with the moth

    by raker

    The CG moth is makes Jar Jar look like a clay animated, stop action figure from the sixties. Can't speak for Gollum but that moth was real.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:53 p.m. CST

    LoTR soul, book vs movie

    by GypsyTRobot

    OK I am firmly in the LotR fan camp, just so everyone knows. However I have to admit that the FotR movie did seem to be lacking the soul of the book. Tolkien conveys a deep sadness and longing (the passing of the elves, etc.) all through the story which doesn't translate so well into the movie (I haven't seen the extended version yet, maybe that was fixed). Another element which was lost in cinematic translation was the hobbit perspective. Reading the books, you start to feel like a hobbit and think that humans are weird. I didn't get that from FotR. But whatever, PJ and co. tried really hard and did a good job. PJ's still a better filmmaker than modern-day Lucas, that's for dan sure. Re. Sauron's motivation - that would have required more backstory than Joe Pack's limitd attention span is capable of handling. All you need to do to understand Sauron, is to think how you would feel if you were a powerful megalomaniac who had been reduced to a big ol' eye by some namby pamby goodie-two shoes.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 5:59 p.m. CST

    passing of the elves

    by raker

    Sam has a line in the extended version about the passing of the elves. I am glad that PJ put it back in. Some of the other folks around here didn't like it as much, but I think it also will help with the ending of the story in ROTK.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 6:38 p.m. CST

    it seems

    by frank cotton

    that what this whole SW vs. LOTR deal boils down to is genre vs. genre. the haters in either camp seem to be the same ones that haven't gotten over the merging of the SCI-FI and FANTASY sections at their local bookstore. it is possible to have more than one interest. i like CLONES, even tho there are several moments that make me cringe. i like FELLOWSHIP, even tho there is definitely a little too much 'male bonding'. and lately, i've been listening to FINCH, QUEENS OF THE STONE AGE, and DROWN.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7 p.m. CST

    MustangMatt

    by Conan_the_Humble

    Go to theonering.net and you can download that collection of TTT preview clips. It's 30mbs though, so I hope you've got broadband. 7, you stated in your last post that, " I really do fail to see how these movies will be significantly greater than Empire, simply because they are being released after it." What the hell has when it was released got anything to do with it? Empire was not the pinnacle of cinematic excellence despite your assertations. It (like every other Star Wars movie) has crappy dialogue, uneven acting (Mark Hamill is very ordinary, come on admit it!!!T the effects in Empire are somewhat cheesy, (and I'll tender the giant space worm thing here, it looks like something out of Monty Python's Flying Circus.) I have no hesitation admitting that Empire is by far the best Star Wars movie, but it is not the greatest movie of all time. It featured a decent twist I'll grant, but arguments are a bit specious and I'll tell you why. You state as quoted above that LOTR can never exceed the cinematic magnificence of Empire because it was released later than Empire. To back up this statement you then go onto to make a series of assertations about the effect on popular culture of STAR WARS, ie: The entire series, not the one movie. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You claim that Empire is the greatest and then you use the whole of SW to state why this is so. I don't think you really want to get into the debate of whether the LOTR series will be better than SW do you? If you do, you're gonna have to include TPM and AOTC, which do nothing to advance the excellence of the series, apart from the SFX. Anyway my opinion is that FOTR as a piece of cinema far exceeds that of any SW movie. I do not claim that it is the greatest movie of all time. I do fimrly believe however, that it was robbed at last years Oscars. Can anyone provide a valid reason why A better mind, is a better movie than FOTR? Cheers.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:17 p.m. CST

    in defence of the other trilogy.

    by raker

    I think MustangMatt makes a valid point that the impact of Star Wars upon Cinema is unprecedented. They have started religions over the silly thing. I once argued that the greatness of literature is how many people it has impacted and on that scale it is hard to say that any movie has had more of an impact on people than Star Wars. I

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 7:39 p.m. CST

    MISS AURA

    by frank cotton

    i don't think too many here are going to be offended by foul language. and he did ask for it. i liked DONNIE DARKO too. hope the director (sorry, i'm not good with names) does more sci-fi in the future.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Pollution

    by Shards of Narsil

    Miss Aura's remarks are mild and require no apologies. But some of these hateful and profane posts are like reeking fecal soup belching from the clogged toilets of miserable lives onto the sparkling clean, lemony-smelling, cool Italian marble tile of Elanor's talkback.

  • Dec. 6, 2002, 11:56 p.m. CST

    My two cents

    by The Llama

    Well, I think that everyone is entitled to his opinion, but I do have one significant problem with the 2 1/2 stars review...the reviewer didn't really see what was so terrible about Saruman's influence over and virtual control of Rohan, except the "obvious" one of him being a corrupted wizard? There needs to be more to it than that? Thank God this guy isn't an historian..."I don't see what the big problem was with Nazi control of France, other than that Hitler was a bad guy." :) As for the criticism that the LOTR lacks "internal conflict"--in the books, there is obviously the ability to communicate thoughts and internal dialogues that reveal the internal conflict of Frodo, or at least its "inklings" (pun intended for those who know Tolkien history well), and the turmoil within Aragorn between his choice to live in anonymity and his destiny as an heir. But the internal conflict with the evil of the Ring, its seductive powers, and Frodo's failure to resist that seduction doesn't really kick into high gear until the TTT, and doesn't see fruition until ROTK. Since these movies were filmed simultaneously, and menat to be seen as one huge movie (in much the same sense as the books, with their six parts), isn't it premature to see only part of the overall piece and judge its worth? I see nothing wrong with judging an individual movie on its merits, but this is a series of movies that has an overarching plot...I, for one, will wait until after next Christmas to make my final declaration as to the value of these films.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 1:23 a.m. CST

    Conan

    by 7

    Please do not take my quote and read it in the wrong context (or for that matter, my postsss). I have never said that Empire was the greatest movie of all time; it's great only in terms of the blockbuster films, the development of that cinematic art form, and its effect on the conscience raising of pop culture. Empire as part of the original Star Wars trilogy, which constitutes ANH and ROTJ, establishes what I call the modern era of the blockbuster films (or to be more ridiculously specific, the modern era of the heroic-mythic-epic-trilogy filmmaking). Anything released during that time period can be considered modern; anything after is "post-modern" (e.g., LOTR, TPM, AOTC, EPIII, MATRIX), which I have previously defined. Empire as part of said trilogy binds and defines the greatness of the saga and that trilogy's impact on pop culture. In doing so, Empire is great (I assume you understand what I mean by great by now). The LOTR movie trilogy is a "post-modern" work of blockbuster films (aka heroic-mythic-epic-trilogy filmmaking), which means that the pop culture enviornment it inherits is much more mature than what Empire and the original Star Wars trilogy faced. You should notice that word, inherit, because this is what both handicaps LOTR's greatness and provides its strength for greatness. For on one hand, its greatness and impact can never be the same as the original Star Wars trilogy, because of the post-modern pop culture enviornment. Again, what enables the greatness and effect of the original SW trilogy is Empire. Yet the LOTR movie trilogy CAN BE (and WILL BE) great if it expands and refines the cinematic art form created by Star Wars. It fashions its own identity in the process. You want me to subjectively assert my opinion on which (movie) series is better, great, LOTR or SW? Here's my answer: LOTR. Is that a good contradiction for you? Well I have another one: What happens if Empire and the original SW trilogy never existed? Now, does that not marginalize the greatness of the LOTR movie trilogy? After all, the answer is open-ended. Then again, as you have said, Empire is not so great.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 1:47 a.m. CST

    raker

    by 7

    The development of religion is something that I would attribute to the immaturity of the cultural phenomenon surrounding the modern era of m.e. blockbuster. I take it as a sign of maturity that this has not happened in the post-modern (or new generation era) of the culture. One could say that the LOTR movie trilogy is privileged to have this state of ripeness.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Morgoth's Balrog Vs Raker's Moth

    by Orson W

    At last some-one has drawn attention to the CGI moth in FOTR. It's hard to believe that no mention of the moth has been made on these posts - and not even in the SE DVD commentaries. For me, the moth is the single most effective use of CGI I have ever seen. Firstly, its animation is perfect - it LOOKS like a moth, and it LOOKS like it is flying to Gandalf's rescue. There is something really touching about the way it flies - it actually looks like a brave little moth with a stout heart! Now, this is what I call a brilliant and subtle use of special effects - it's not some stupid, bellowing monster that impresses teenagers... I'll take the moth over the fiery, boring Balrog any day - the moth is a piece of CGI with soul.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 5:22 a.m. CST

    SPECIAL ME!

    by Jon E Cin

    Who is first now? me? If people actually thought Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were good..why would anyone say this movie is bad?

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 6:54 a.m. CST

    TTT scores 100% on Rotten tomatoes

    by Orson W

    Take that, Star Wars trolls! Okay, there are only five reviews in so far, but it's nice to see that big round figure all the same....On the other hand, respect goes out to tolkienonline who have the guts to publish reviews that have a lot of negative things to say about TTT. And this from a Tolkien website! I'm a bit worried about the claims that the first hour of the movie is cut so choppily that it ressembles a trailer for TTT rather than an actual movie of TTT...well, I'm keeping my mind open, and will form my own opinion when I see the movie...

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 6:55 a.m. CST

    TTT scores 100% on Rotten tomatoes

    by Orson W

    Take that, Star Wars trolls! Okay, there are only five reviews in so far, but it's nice to see that big round figure all the same....On the other hand, respect goes out to tolkienonline who have the guts to publish reviews that have a lot of negative things to say about TTT. And this from a Tolkien website! I'm a bit worried about the claims that the first hour of the movie is cut so choppily that it ressembles a trailer for TTT rather than an actual movie of TTT...well, I'm keeping my mind open, and will form my own opinion when I see the movie...

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 8:04 a.m. CST

    RE: Narsil Returns and an all-black cast for LOTR

    by Snake-eyes

    Yeah and while we're at it why not remake Boyz n the Hood!! But this time with an all-white cast. Maybe superstars like Hayden Christensen, Macaully Culkin, Bruce Willis, Hulk Hogan, Matthew Perry and Dick Van Dyke!!!!! How's that sound hmmm?

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 8:31 a.m. CST

    TAKE A DEEP BREATH

    by MACQDOR

    Ok ok lets all take a deep breath and try to relax. Why does one fan have to bash another fan? I love Star Wars, and grew up with it and I indeed do love Lord of the Rings. Contrary to popular belief both films while having a Good vs Evil them both are completely different movies.One is Earthly and one is Celestial. Gollium and Yoda are totally different except perhaps both created usign simular software and technique. George Lucas is a visionary and so is Peter Jackson. While it is safe to say GL most likely did read some of Tolkens books, (who didn't). Its also safe to say had it not been for Star Wars movies like LOTR and Matrix might not have been bank rolled by the Hollywood elites. Star Wars and all its films opened that door. Jaws and SW created the term BlockBuster. I take both movies on there true merit, and enjoy them for what they are "good movies". Correction Great Movies. But the truth fact is both men respect each other a great deal and are not at odds with one another. So why should there fans be. Both will make millions off these great movies, well George will make billions but oh well. Its a job and there doing it well. All this bickering between franchises is just sad. Enjoy the movies, and if SW is not your cup of tea, LOTR has nothing to do with it. If LOTR is not a movie a u so much care for. Its not because you extremely love Star Wars. There are some people out there that hate both movies. Lets argue with them. LOL

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 9:01 a.m. CST

    post-modernism

    by hildebrand

    I admit, before the post even truly begin, that this is picking nits, but I really wanted to say a bit about the topic. Post-modernism is a fairly broad array of things, but it is not as described by 7. Again, I admit that I am being nit-picky, but I really do not want to get too sloppy when using terms like this. Post-modernism is a collection of literary and historical criticism that rejects the Enlightenment and all absolutist methodologies. A post-modern literary critic would disagree quite strongly about 7's understanding of heroes. They reject archetypes, they simply do not see any type of absolute character that can say anything more about the human condition than anyone else can, or that nothing can be said about the human condition, but really only about our individual response to outside stimuli. The film versions of the LOTR is a conscious reclaiming of the heroic, and not a rejection of it. The reviewer from EW would have liked a post-modern take on the story because it would have introduced the characters as much less then they are in the movie (and even more so in the book). They are archetypes that stand for a type of character that points to the best of what can be achieved.(Aragorn) Or, they express the fallen reality of the human race.(Boromir, Denethor, etc). Frodo is also the typical tragic hero, winning the day for everyone but himself. (Rather Christ-like, in a sense. Remember Tolkien was a good Catholic, and while not allegorical in any sense of the word, his religious faith is impossible to separate from his writing. Therefore there is no obvious Christian particularism (especially in contrast to one of his close friends, C.S. Lewis), but the ideas are there to be found in the shadings of dealings with various subjects.) Post-modernism rejects the notion that meaning is any greater than the individual. There can be no shared meaning. Ok, I am done, just wanted to share the issues at stake when we use certain terms without appreciating the weight they carry in many circles.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST

    post-modernism

    by hildebrand

    I admit, before the post even truly begin, that this is picking nits, but I really wanted to say a bit about the topic. Post-modernism is a fairly broad array of things, but it is not as described by 7. Again, I admit that I am being nit-picky, but I really do not want to get too sloppy when using terms like this. Post-modernism is a collection of literary and historical criticism that rejects the Enlightenment and all absolutist methodologies. A post-modern literary critic would disagree quite strongly about 7's understanding of heroes. They reject archetypes, they simply do not see any type of absolute character that can say anything more about the human condition than anyone else can, or that nothing can be said about the human condition, but really only about our individual response to outside stimuli. The film versions of the LOTR is a conscious reclaiming of the heroic, and not a rejection of it. The reviewer from EW would have liked a post-modern take on the story because it would have introduced the characters as much less then they are in the movie (and even more so in the book). They are archetypes that stand for a type of character that points to the best of what can be achieved.(Aragorn) Or, they express the fallen reality of the human race.(Boromir, Denethor, etc). Frodo is also the typical tragic hero, winning the day for everyone but himself. (Rather Christ-like, in a sense. Remember Tolkien was a good Catholic, and while not allegorical in any sense of the word, his religious faith is impossible to separate from his writing. Therefore there is no obvious Christian particularism (especially in contrast to one of his close friends, C.S. Lewis), but the ideas are there to be found in the shadings of dealings with various subjects.) Post-modernism rejects the notion that meaning is any greater than the individual. There can be no shared meaning. Ok, I am done, just wanted to share the issues at stake when we use certain terms without appreciating the weight they carry in many circles.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 12:11 p.m. CST

    The ring as addiction.

    by Daegor

    Good points all. I actually wrote a short article on this very subject for a local recovery magazine. Tell me what you think. As a recovering addict I have found that throughout my recovery new light has been shed on many old and familiar things in my life. Upon viewing Peter Jackson

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Wait, the moth was CGI?

    by BrianT

    You've got to be shitting me! Even when Gandalf is holding it in his hand, and it has the closeup on the moth? Damn, that WAS a great use of CGI! Also, there's a scene in the movie where the Fellowship is walking around some ruins. It's after Rivendell (obviously) but before the Crebain. The shot is sort of sweeping, from a helicopter. Anyway, I found out from the SE stuff that the ruins, and a good part of the top of the hill, are CGI. Impossible to tell, though; I thought those ruins were a set. Great effort was put into these movies, great effort. And it shows.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Narsil Returns

    by The Llama

    I doubt it would receive one, since the movie did so poorly, but the dragons in Reign of Fire are just as deserving of an FX nomination as some of the effects in Spiderman or Harry Potter.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Daegor & hildebrand

    by The Llama

    Daegor: While Tolkien's hatred for allegory would probably make him dismiss your analysis of his intent as seeing things where things were not, you might be interested to learn that Tom Shippey, reigning expert on all things Tolkien, also offered in his book "The Road to Middle-earth" the idea that the Ring was to be seen as an addictive influence...hence the ability of those characters whose contact with it has been less to more easily resist its temptations, while those who experience prolonged contact cannot let it go. hildebrand: I agree with everything you said, except to point out that Tolkien's love of old Anglo myth was at war with his beliefs as a true Catholic...it's possible to see Frodo as a Christ-figure, but the parallels are off--Frodo is permanently ruined/damaged by his quest, and his quest is ultimately one of failure. At the critical moment, it is GOLLUM who causes the destruction of the Ring. Given Tolkien's background, his interests, and the desire to connect LOTR to the old Anglo myths, it is perhaps more "on-kilter" to see that Frodo's pagan connections are stronger...he is more like Beowulf than Christ, a figure who saves his people, but through a more permanent sacrifice. Tolkien liked the idea of Ragnarok--a final battle at which heroes and gods were destined to fight evil and monsters in an epic battle...and destined also to lose that battle. Frodo is a hero in the old Norse tradition of heroes--one who struggles in the face of certain failure and doom. Again, not to harp on Shippey too much, but his multiple interviews with Tolkien shortly before the writer's death, as well as perusal of his letters, both published and unpublished, show that the CONSCIOUS intent was to connect LOTR to these old mythical tales, as opposed to the interpretation oft-imposed on him that his Catholicism ran rampant in his writings.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Someon with the handle "Jar Jar Boinks" says LOTR is for childre

    by Skyway Moaters

    ROTFL!!! why are the trolls on this site such morons? Have ANY of you ever read anything more challenging than a Tom Clancy (an "ADULT" author mind you) novel? Simply boggles the mind. HOO HOO! This old nexter is holding his sides in hopes of keeping his entrails from bursting his rib cage and spilling on the floor. THAT is some funny funny shit...

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 3:39 p.m. CST

    And the geniuses just keep right on posting!....

    by Skyway Moaters

    "LOTR has no soul" BWAHAHAHAHAHA! ooh! I wet em!

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Err, Ryalto, "... a rock and and ass kicker"...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... no matter what you think of Aragorn, I don't think he's rapacious enough to go around kicking rocks!(Heh!). Have you read the book BTW? Aragorn is an extremely conflicted soul, bordering on tortured. It's brought out over and over in the book, and not just in the appendices. First, he's unsure of his worthiness to restore his house. Second, for Aragorn to achieve his goals, 'The One' must be destroyed, which means The Three, and all that was built with them will fade, essentially bringing and end to 'Elvendom' in Middle Earth. Third, he was raised in Elrond's household and views the Half Elven lord as a father. Elrond is dead set against his marring Arwen, and absolutely 'forbids' their union unless Aragorn can regain the throne of Gondor. Fourth, if Arwen marries Aragorn, she must choose to become mortal and die out of the world, surrendering the birth-right of her race. So to sum up, in order to achieve his goals, Aragorn must: Win a war against overwhelming odds, defy the clearly stated wishes of his adoptive father, in effect 'banish' the Eldar from Middle Earth, and 'condemn' the love of his life to an end that was never intended for the members of her race. All of which, he is pretty sure he's incapable of accomplishing in the first place. Not exactly a one dimentional badass.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 5:57 p.m. CST

    someone dispell this please

    by imageburn13

    but some ass fuck poster said that Gollum jumps into the lava of mordor at the end of ROTK. Can someone whos read the books PLEASAE TELL ME THAT THAT DOESNT HAPPEN... I dont want to know how itll end...shit make something up, even

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 6:06 p.m. CST

    7 religion

    by raker

    I am by no means making fun of the jedi religion; I was only trying to illistrate the impact of Star Wars upon our culture. In a way I am of the religion of Tolkien. I am in love with the outdoors and am known to hug a tree or two. Some of that comes from Sam Gamgee's character which is in my opinion the character who most resembles Tolkien. I think only time will tell though if PJ has made as great a monument as Star Wars has become.

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 7:25 p.m. CST

    You are totally full of it 7...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... have you seen ANY movies that were released prior to 1975? No epics?! WTF? Here's a few just for starters, and ESB doesn't hold a candle to the worst of them: Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur (both the silent version and perhaps the biggest 'block-buster' of all time version featuring Charlton Heston), The Ten Commandments, Gone With the Wind, The Searchers, Napoleon (silent version), I could go on...

  • Dec. 7, 2002, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Just out of curiosity Orson W....

    by Skyway Moaters

    ...ye of the pretentious handle, *snicker*. How would you have portrayed the 'stupid bellowing monster'? Even leaving interpretation to the individual reader, PJ's version follows Tolkien's depiction pretty closely. WETA even obscured much of his actual form and movement with smoke and flame, deferring to JRRT's somewhat 'ambiguous' description of the creature. Have you read the book? I know it's a cop-out to ask that, (films should make sense independently of their source material) but when doing an adaptation of someone else

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 8:34 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry 7, but you're gonna have to spell it out a bit more cl

    by Conan_the_Humble

    I still don't follow your reasoning. Simply because in your view, a particular movie defined or established a particular genre, (the 'heroic-mythic-epic-trilogy filmmaking' bit,) does not mean that any movie is incapable of exceeding it's 'greatness'. I think I do understand the terms, 'modern' and 'post-modern' as you use them, but do not really consider your argument to be valid. If you were to say, Black Sabbath were the establishers of the modern Heavy Metal music era (and I'm not saying they are it's just an example) it would be ridiculous to state that their greatness could not be bettered. Simply beginning something does not automatically mean that what has been created is the pinnacle of achievement in that particular field. That, if it is indeed your point and I'm not misreading your last post on this topic, is a ridiculous statement. Yes, Star Wars had a 'great' effect on popular culture. I can see no reason why another, 'heroic-mythic-epic' trilogy could not achieve a 'greater' impact on modern culture, nothwithstanding the fact that one has yet to do so!!! If SW and 'Empire' had never existed, old Georgie probably wouldn't be a Billionaire, but I think that's about as far as the impact would go. (Unless you wish to start discussing the minutiae of the effect of SW on popular culture, which I certainly do not!!!) I don't think that the absence of SW would have had much of an impact on LOTR though. Movies in that genre would still have been made, the film rights to LOTR were sold prior to ANH ever being released and I don't believe Peter Jackson was particularly inspired by George Lucas. Ray Harryhausen would be more like it... Cheers.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters, raker, Conan

    by 7

    SKYWAY: Good points, but you're missing something: they are not trilogy. That is why I am having a problem coming up with forebearer examples for the context of my discussion. If I were to explore outside of my domain of interest, then yes, those would be good examples, but they would fall into a different, open-ended topic that would go outside what I want to argue. Limiting my subject, I feel, makes things simple to discuss things and get my ideas across (unfortunately, I have not done that--good ammunitions for flaming). RAKER: Although you mean not to jester on the jedi religion, I think your point clearly exemplify an impact Star Wars had on a state of consciousness. You say that you are in love of the outdoors, because of Tolkien's work, specifically Sam Gamgee's character. If this kind of internalization that is made by the book could also be made by the movie, I feel it would be a sign of pop-culture's maturity. I mean, I do see immaturity in the creation of the jedi religion. It is good that the ideas and philosophy of that religion is internalized, but to see people thinking/dressing themselves as Padawan learners, Jedi Knights/Masters; carrying lightsabres--well, those are too extreme. That kind of extremeness can never be duplicated, I feel. Yet that does not mean the impact can not be. Simply to love nature would be a much more subtle effect but an effect nonetheless; perhaps equal but certainly mature. Time will tell if I'm wrong. CONAN: (note: I am going to shoot myself in the foot here, but I am trying) All I wanted to say is that the greatness cannot be the same, because of the different time period; argal, there cannot be such notions as greater. Therefore, to me there is a notion of great, but no notion of greater. If something must be greater, then would it not owe some of its greatness to its predecessor? But then it would never have been great or come to greatness--or fruitation, for that matter--without the establishment made by said predecessor. This then leads to what happens when SW and Empire's never existed. I do want to agree with you with your assessments, but to paraphrase Galadriel, "Even the smallest of things can change the course of the future." No matter how minute the effects are, you have to consider them. And, discuss them, unfortunately. Unlike you, I am conservative/pessimistic in my conclusion of the matter. You say that you don't believe PJ was particularly inspired by Lucas's epic work, but I find it curious that in the process of getting LOTR made and developed, that Star Wars is mentioned many times by him. He is not the only one to bring it up: Newline, the Press, and the fans. So that trilogy had a hand in this whole thing whether you like it or not, care or not. If SW and Empire never existed, LOTR would certainly be Star Wars (I assume you know what that means) and the pop culture attitude towards it would certainly be more enthusiastic and immature than the sedated and developed ones that I perceive. Anyway, I know you do not understand; I have enough discussing this whole thing. Let us get back to the general sentiment of the whole AICN populist view: Lord of the Rings kill Star Wars and fuck popular culture.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Before I forget

    by 7

    Skyway Moaters, King_Midas, VoxMillennium, raker, Conan_the_Humble, hildebrand--I appreciate your criticisms. Enjoy the movie.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 2:13 p.m. CST

    the miller

    by raker

    The moth was part CGI and part real. I too have heard that somewhere before. The part where the moth is in Ian's hand is a real moth. Finally saw A Black Hawk Down last night. WOW what a great movie. How did that not get any noms for best picture. Makes me glad I'm no longer in the service though. Speaking of a movie that has all black bad guys... I wonder if the trolls would consider it racist?

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Lord Garth & Shards of Narsil

    by Miss Aura

    Thank you, it shows me that people actually can post opinions on this board and people realise that they are just that. Thank you.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 7:08 p.m. CST

    AHH... THE ORDER IS "RANDOM" AGAIN!

    by virkku

    The random order of talkbacks makes them much more interesting and challenging to read. Hopefully this method will be used on other sites as well in the future.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 7:24 p.m. CST

    I know MorGy

    by Conan_the_Humble

    But sometimes my optimism gets the better of me. I feel a deep seated need to try and make them understand... Cheers.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 9:30 p.m. CST

    it seems someone else, slegehammer 450, scooped about kevin smit

    by jimdin2001

    I checked, he did post b4 me but i didnt read his post till after i got his mail.I read it on tinternet (a peter kay reference if that helps even more to prove i am british to him) at empireonline b4 i knew of his existance. But please, everyone, you must know he said it 1st, genuinely, no sarcaasm here. Didnt know this, but he did. so thats that. And i have aplologised to him. I now will retire from talkbacking with no self esteem intact as my one moment of glory, ie; someone responded to something i said about mr smith, its over. thats that.

  • Yup, I've said it many times before, but here I go with my blasphemy one last time: The Balrog scene doesn't really work for me - whether you judge it in its own right or whether you compare it to the book. If the goal of the scene is to demonstrate a 'cool' CGI effect - then top marks, well done, mission accomplished: the video game brigade will be wallowing in its coolness. But I would expect more from a scene like that in any movie. My point is that the Balrog never rises above being a special effect. And a special effect without a purpose just bores me to tears (I literally fell asleep for most of Attack Of The Clones). Let's take it point by point: #1 Firstly, in movie terms, if you want to make an effective, scary monster, the golden rule is DON'T SHOW THE MONSTER. From Jaws to Alien to The Blair Witch Project, this axiom has been proven time and time again. Jackson shows the Balrog WAY too much - full frontal in all its bellowing glory - and ruins any chance of the creature actually being scary. Funnily enough, Tolkien understood this rule perfectly well - his version of this scene is laden with suspense, fear and drama - because he describes the Balrog's physicality in the vaguest terms. Instead, he describes the EFFECT it has on the orcs and the fellowship; he describes the nightmarish mood it creates; he SUGGESTS its malevolent, shadowy INTELLIGENCE. (PJ's Balrog is many things but definitely NOT intelligent). He creates SUSPENSE by suggesting the Balrog's SENSE OF PURPOSE and the WHAT-THE-FUCK-IS-THIS-THING-GOING-TO-DO-NEXT feeling in the reader. You actually get a sense of the Balrog's arrogance. Brilliant stuff alright. But I don't feel any of this in PJ's Balrog. What I feel is the hand of the animator when the Balrog goes all Charles Atlas and says I AM CGI! HEAR ME ROAR! WATCH ME STOMP! SEE ME A-N-I-M-A-T-E !!!...... #2 Okay, So PJ has a fondness for those old Harryhausen monsters and decided to try to do that old-fashioned full-on monster who stomps and roars. Fair enough. Some of Harryhausen's work is so good it transcends its medium. But, PJ missed one vital point in doing the Balrog: Harryhausen's monsters had personality. They had character. They had a sense of purpose. Yup, that was the old Harryhausen magic. But with PJ's Balrog, there is none of this. Question: what's its character? Er, it blows smoke and fire.... Sorry, that's not enough for me. Where is the tension in its confrontation with Gandalf? Where is the battle of wills? Where is the moment where it actually recognises Gandalf as an adversary to match its own power? You see, all of this would create drama and tension in the scene but it's just not there. Want to get an idea of how this scene should have been done? Check out the demon in The Night On Bald Mountain scene in Disney's Fantasia. The suspense, the drama, the dark mysterious intelligence - it's all there in the animation. This demon has a sense of purpose - it's arrogant, it knows what it's doing, it knows what it wants, and it knows what it can do. And it takes its time. There's your Balrog.

  • Dec. 8, 2002, 11:16 p.m. CST

    It is Possible to Like Both Star Wars and LOTR

    by Starbuck1975

    Like most Star Wars fans, the originally trilogy captured my imagination in a way that defies explanation or justification. At that age, the opinions of a mature moviegoer were not yet part of my pallet. Acting, directing, screenplay, story...those were unimportant concepts...all I knew was that the world Lucas created amazed me, and that the movies were fun, exciting and entertaining. Fast forward to the release of TPM...a 20 something fan boy expecting Lucas to recreate the magic I felt as a kid...that is a pretty daunting task for any director, and I respect Lucas for returning to a galaxy far far away after spending so long away from the director's chair...as an adult viewer I found the new movies flawed, lacking something...but TPM and AOTC are still entertaining films, not critically acclaimed epics or Oscar worthy Shakespearean art, but nonetheless fun movies. As a child I was also an avid fan of all things Tolkien. I thoroughly enjoyed Jackson's adaptation, and certainly respect the devotion and craftsmanship he poured into the films. Did LOTR have flaws...I thought the theatrical release was off on pacing, but feel the directors cut release is a more complete and fulfilling version of the film. Am I excited to see Two Towers...absolutely...but why bother comparing LOTR to Star Wars...both are a different genre of film...Jackson approached LOTR as if he were creating a historical adaptation...Star Wars is pure sci-fi escapism...it is more suitable to compare LOTR to other epics like Spartacus, Last of the Mohicans, and to an extent, Gladiator...both LOTR and Star Wars serve as examples of what Hollywood should strive for...what has weakened the new trilogy is Lucas' refusal to collaborate on the films, which is what made the originals special...the Indiana Jones films are a shining example of what Lucas is capable of when coupled with the talents of others...watch the LOTR DVD...Jackson succeeded because of the talent he surrounded himself with, and that is admirable in and of itself...had Jackson tried to run the whole show himself, FOTR would not have been nearly as well polished and crafted.

  • Dec. 9, 2002, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Mighty Moth - here she comes to save the day!

    by Orson W

    Yes, the moth is a girl - I'm sure of it. Brian T - yes, it is an amazing piece of CGI. But just to clarify: when you see it in Gandalf's hand it's a real moth - and a pretty drowsy one too, having spent the afternoon in deep-freeze. But the flying CGI moth is no less brilliant for all that - the way it flutters heroically - flying all the way up to the top of the tower - no mean feat for such a little moth. A bit like those little hobbits creeping step by step all the way to Mount Doom. Yes, the moth brings a tear to the eye of this cynical filmgoer. Because even the smallest moth can change the course of the future.

  • Dec. 9, 2002, 10:17 a.m. CST

    are there any coneys in T2T

    by raker

    Elanor, I am going crazy waiting for the movie. I wonder if you could just give a little spoiler as to if they show any rabbits? Sam couldn't carry all of his pans this far not to stew a rabbit and some herbs.

  • Dec. 9, 2002, 12:37 p.m. CST

    MorGoth BHD

    by raker

    I have thought about the movie more. I think the US used too much constraint and by doing so got themselves way over their heads. It is a touchy movie and I did read a review that said it was a racist pile of poo. I also read that the movie was darn close to the real events. Now I don

  • Dec. 11, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST

    writers do it between the covers wer r u?

    by Legolas's babe

    How dare you suggest that ther is no character development?! Merry & pippin have both matured soooo much, they have had to learn to cope by themselves, Aragorns flashbacks to Arwen just show how he knows he must go on & yet he doesn't want to lose her - how noble is that!Also, if you wer to explain about the whole location thing it would take bout 3 hrs to do so wat is the point if most people who go to see the movie don't think it's v important to explain all that as it is to tell the story. so there!

  • Dec. 11, 2002, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Sea bass heres ur answer as 2 the end of ROTK!

    by Legolas's babe

    ROTK does not end in alame way, in fact it ends in the most amazin way poss, but im not goin to tell u, ull av 2 wait 4 nxt year( or READ the book, which lets face it, is never goin to be bettered by any film at all.) but yea, ROTK is goin to be soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good, as long as they don't go too far off the original plot. Ill just tease u & say that theres a BIG battle, people die, others get married, & then stuff happens in the Shire! luv Legolas's babe x x x

  • Dec. 11, 2002, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Balrog

    by Ringbearer

    Ive been reading reviwes here and some are sad. We got people talking about how bad the cgi is, or how sucky shelob will be. How do you know that? You havnt seen the MOVIE YET? Boo- frickity-hoo if you think the balrog sucked. Im no expert(im only 15)but I thought it looked awsome, and what Peter Jackson did was the best thing anyone could of done! I feel he was the best guy for the job.If you gotta problem post it!