Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Teaser Poster for LORD OF THE RINGS hits theaters today!

very cool by karen__page	Mar 2nd, 2001 12:52:19 PM
I
First? by TheTriad	Mar 2nd, 2001 12:52:36 PM
I wonder what Elijah thinks of the EXTREME CLOSE UP!!!
Looks Alright by Miss Aura	Mar 2nd, 2001 12:52:48 PM
I think they couldve done a better poster, but maybe there's a lot more to come for what will be the FILM OF THE YEAR!
Looks like that O.J. Simpson Cover of "Time"... by Dataset	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:00:28 PM
You know the one.
smart! by skiprat2000	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:03:10 PM
well smart!
Im 7th Im 7th !!! just kiddin by Filmjester	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:07:48 PM
has anyone seen the other lotr posters, they may have just been an made but they look cool. P.S.anyone have any pics of the lotr toys?
umm... by foreverguardian	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:10:20 PM
I thought, oh cool, LOTR teaser poster, then I saw it and yawned. Looks like a b picture ad, and his expression looks like we just caught him masturbating. Sorry, been a long hard day...
I agree by Filmjester	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:12:28 PM
The poster would have been much better if they had just shown the hand with the ring in it, and the rest black. It could have been better if it just showed his eyes, the hand with the ring, and then the text.
Very cool by Leonides	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:14:43 PM
Oh man, I love it! It's so dark and brooding. This is going to say, "Hey folks, this ain't a poofy Disney movie!" Awesome! I love Elijah's look, he's gonna rock in these films.
Ooh, lookee at Mt. Doom back there. by PaulsGrandfather	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:18:53 PM
Smokin'.
very dark very cool....but will.. by jon-e-blaze	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:37:12 PM
this be the best trilogy since star wars?
answer... by B A Fett	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:39:30 PM
YES!
c'mon guys by Eryndur	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:40:10 PM
This poster is fantastic! A nice little tease, definitely. Look at the elements: the hand with the ring, with merely the title "One ring to rule them all". No big Lord of the Rings logo, or credit listings. And Frodo's face was expertly executed. It doesn't have that utterly retarded 3/4 view with the different stars overlapping each other and looking into space (like that one Pearl Harbor poster). It makes you focus on the character, rather than the typical effect of "Hey look! Elijah Wood is in this movie!" They're selling the idea, not the star. Plus, the lighting is great, lots of heavy contrast and dark shadows. Gives it a real somber, adult edge. No hints of kick-ass action, or swooning romance, or swords & sorcery. It gives a sense of DRAMA. I like. I like very much.
That sucks.... by KevBell	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:41:48 PM
That poster doesn't even begin to hint at the epic scale and grandeur of Lord of the Rings... It doesn't even work to show Frodo as a small Hobbit... Having him fill the poster hardly presents the proper image. Better luck next time.
Will the fans like the films? by Kurt S. E.	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:45:09 PM
Judging by the above whining about how this poster could have been better....I think not.
Is that a guy? by BallParkFranks	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:48:23 PM
What's up with the lipstick? It could have been better...just the ring on the black background would be a really cool first poster.
Looks like a renaissance NAMBLA poster painted by Da Vinci by SilentBob X	Mar 2nd, 2001 01:50:35 PM
But I'll still see the film tho'. The trailer sold me almost instantly. SNOOTCHIE BOOTCHIES.
A Trilogy + 1 of Teaser Posters by Han Ol' Buddy	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:00:03 PM
Do you think this could be only one of 4 teaser posters that they'll release? I don't know much about the story as I haven't gotten around to reading the books yet, but I believe the tagline reads "One Ring To Rule Them All. . . One Ring to Find Them. . . One Ring to Bring The All. . . And In The Darkness Bind Them." Maybe they'll have a poster for each portion of that with a different character featured on each one. Sounds pretty intriguing to me. And, I can't see the studios passing up the chance to have in addition to a one-sheet of Frodo, whoever Liv Tyler is playing, Gandalf and whoever Kate Blanchett is playing or Vigo Mortenson, etc. Maybe you'll see a new trend in posters like Pearl Harbor is doing with the mural-type poster set-up. All we can do is wait and see. Looks cool to me. Can't wait to see the movie.
A Trilogy + 1 of Teaser Posters???? by Han Ol' Buddy	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:00:36 PM
Do you think this could be only one of 4 teaser posters that they'll release? I don't know much about the story as I haven't gotten around to reading the books yet, but I believe the tagline reads "One Ring To Rule Them All. . . One Ring to Find Them. . . One Ring to Bring The All. . . And In The Darkness Bind Them." Maybe they'll have a poster for each portion of that with a different character featured on each one. Sounds pretty intriguing to me. And, I can't see the studios passing up the chance to have in addition to a one-sheet of Frodo, whoever Liv Tyler is playing, Gandalf and whoever Kate Blanchett is playing or Vigo Mortenson, etc. Maybe you'll see a new trend in posters like Pearl Harbor is doing with the mural-type poster set-up. All we can do is wait and see. Looks cool to me. Can't wait to see the movie.
Why, by the Land of Mordor where shadows lie! Nice poster. by Mr. Sartre	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:10:13 PM
A very nice premise for the teaser poster. Though it may only make sense to those who've read the books, it does at the same time make those unfamiliar with Tolkien's work ask, "What's this going to be about?" I like it, though I agree with some of the other talk backers above that a simple hand would perhaps have been more visually effective. One idea I like, I think by Jimmer, was the numerous poster idea that involves the ryhme inscribed within the ring. There could be a poster of Gandalf as the next one, a picture of Aragorn in the one after, and the final one could include a silohouette of the entire Fellowship in front of Sauron's eye. That'd be cool. Take care, all
His lips are a bit too red, other than that, it kicks ass!! by BernardMc	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:20:56 PM

uh, yeah by JonQuixote	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:24:02 PM
I totally agree that the hand with the ring would have been better. That was my immediate reaction when I first saw it. Or have it fade from bottom to top into a scene that's a little more epic. This just looks kind of creepy, and not in a good way. Creepy in a 'hey little girl, come for a ride in my van and i'll give you this ring' sort of way. Oh well, it's early yet.
Thanks for the props. . . by Han Ol' Buddy	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:24:42 PM
Maybe I should be an ad exec? Just an idea. I'm an architect though. Really, I am. I'm not pulling a George Castanza or anything. Later.
LOTR by Rogle	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:36:25 PM
This movie will rule big time but Ocean
LOTR by Rogle	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:40:19 PM
And by the way, Peter Jackson is a master and I as a non book fans will keep my faith until I see the movie.
Terrible Poster!!!! by cookiepuss	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:40:25 PM
You will NEVER attract non LOTR fans with advertising like this....it looks like a friggin' poster for YENTL 2!!!! Very disappointing.
Yentl 2... hehehe by Robin Goodfellow	Mar 2nd, 2001 02:45:37 PM
Funny joke, but I don't agree. The poster looks pretty good, but I was really hoping for something more. Then again, they do call it a teaser poster for a reason, don't they? If only Bah-brah were in this film... on second thought, let me stop thinking about that.
Please sir, I want some more... by Isidore	Mar 2nd, 2001 03:00:33 PM
Does he look like he's begging us to see his movie? "Please if you don't come Peter Jackson will beat me!" I don't have anything pertinent to add, I just wanted to be a smartass.
a resounding HUZZAH! for this cool poster by Bregalad_	Mar 2nd, 2001 03:21:42 PM
Congrats to the clever design team that has chosen to sell these movies without a sanitized, Disney-fied, juvenile aesthetic. Tolkien himself would like this, I'm sure.
by pusher	Mar 2nd, 2001 03:27:51 PM
Very nice art direction. Before today, I had no idea what a Lord of the Rings poster should look like. Very classy look, as opposed to the usual Photoshop "big-head look" that's been going around for too many years. Gotta get that core audience into it early on (that's us, I guess), and later try to pull in everybody else. Love the classic painting look.
http://home.pacbell.net/darqleo/ lotrteaserposter.jpg by IAmLegolas	Mar 2nd, 2001 03:33:51 PM
This one is better
Frodo the Transsexual Hobbit and the Ring of Doom! by DrLocrian	Mar 2nd, 2001 03:39:33 PM
I couldn't resist. The poster's ok (not thrilling, but nice) except for the ridiculously red lipstick Elijah is wearing. Seriously. Is Sam and/or Smeagol applying lipstick to the master's kisser as he's lying in a troubled sleep on the way to Mordor? What gives? I'm looking forward to these films as much as anyone, but I can't imagine how this cover hobbit photo got through the proofers. I'm still snickering, I'm afraid.
Is that a Cock Ring I see? by GEEKBASHER 3.0	Mar 2nd, 2001 03:48:45 PM
That Poster just scares me...It's sooo creepy! That is one fucking poster I am not hanging on my wall! His face, is sooo Thriller/Michael Jackson!
Alternative Poster Caption #1 by Buzz Maverik	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:10:27 PM
"Okay, Gollum, if you can grab the ring before I close my hand you can have it...and remember, I mean you can have the ring, not my hand, asshole."
Alternative Poster Caption # 2 by Buzz Maverik	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:14:06 PM
"But I thought I looked like Jimmy Page."
Kinda cool but not as cool as EP1 Teaser! by DARTHRAIDER	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:21:41 PM
Ep1 teaser was too cool!(to bad the movie was not as good!)So there is hope for the Mighty LOTR!The poster is ok!So the movie should be SWEET!!!!!!
Who said "Terrible Poster" ????!!! Why ye tasteless coot.... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:43:27 PM
...ought to have yer fingernails pulled out and 3' Tabasco soaked knitting needles jammed in yer eyes!!! I mean holy crap! It's freakin' Frodo come to life for Eru's sake! As we used to say back in the 70ies FRODO LIVES! Too bad the goldanged planet is going to blow up or sumpthin' before December rolls around and we'll never actually get to see the damn thing unless they've got cinemas in the next world and a time retroctive distribution deal with 3'6"! I swear it feels like opening day is NEVER going to arrive... AAAGGGHHH!!! I can't stand it! Namarie, lighten up, an' Trubba Not! SM{;-0
Beautiful. by superninja	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:50:08 PM
Nice photography. Simple. Perfect. Me likey!
His lips aren't too red, you pasty-faced chaps. by superninja	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:53:20 PM
Get some sun, will you? He's supposed to be a creature from a magical world. Twits.
Series of posters idea... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 2nd, 2001 04:55:51 PM
...if it happens one of them would HAVE to be of "The Lidless Eye". Can you imagine if they got it to look as creepy as our Tolkienoid imaginations make it? Brrrr! People would get the the "No Disney Floof" point PDQ! and be wondering: "Just what the hell is this thing about anyway?Not what I thought apparently..."
sucks by Pallando	Mar 2nd, 2001 05:04:56 PM
sorry, I think the movie is gonna be pretty damn good, but this poster licks donkey balls. It should have been just the ring or just the lidless eye logo IMO.
I agree with Iron Fist by Krateros	Mar 2nd, 2001 06:01:31 PM
"Makeup! Mr. Wood's nose is shiny!" Yeah, it would have looked better with just the hand, but it's not bad. Hmmm, actually, it looks like an "After School Special". Not what I would choose for the final poster, but good for a tease.
The Adventures of Frody, Queen of the Friggin' Mordor Desert! by FreddyFuckchop	Mar 2nd, 2001 06:25:43 PM
Look, I like the poster conceptually and all, but what the hell is with Frodo and his ruby red lipstick?! It looks like we're goin' to see Frodo and Sam enjoy a wonderfully gay jaunt through Middle-Earth, perhaps climaxing in what could be the ultimate threeway between the hobbits and Gollum at the Crack of Doom. And who said Tolkien didn't enjoy the odd innuendo - perhaps PJ really is being as true as possible to the LOTR, and Tolkien's subtle allegory to his World War I bunker bonks. I have not objection to the gay lifestyle, but I neeeeeed straight hobbits(tis my fetish tis) - however, I am willing to compromise if we at least get to see the beautiful Liv Tyler, Miranda Otto and Cate Blanchett get it on - thank god for lesbianism, not to mention voyerism - in fact most of the 'isms rock!
"Sam, will you marry me?" by DrLocrian	Mar 2nd, 2001 07:20:14 PM

LOL Sam, Will you marry me? by JonQuixote	Mar 2nd, 2001 07:27:10 PM
Why didn't I think of that?
LOTR Poster by Michael.Kelly9	Mar 2nd, 2001 07:28:54 PM
I am so excited. I queued for 5 hrs for a ticket for Phantom Menace but, with hindsight (yes I was disapointed) I SHOULD be more excited about this movie. It is all my fantasy film dreams come to life. Poster is stylish - not sure about the lips though - and obviously 1st of a series. Collect them all! Amaze your friends! I do hope the latter posters are a bit more 'mainstream' though. I am a self confessed geek but I SO want this film to be massive. Hi Duncan McEvoy!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think its very nice. Some of you geeks say the most stupid thi by quamb	Mar 2nd, 2001 08:16:04 PM
The poster is cool as. It is rather original too (as original as your going to get on a movie poster these days- everything has been done!). Then you get a bunch of dicks on aintitcool talk back saying shit like "is that a cock ring?" "his lips are too red" "it sucks" and continual star wars refrences and puns. Why are geeks so full of hate?
THANK YOU, PETER JACKSON. Another perfect choice! BEAUTIFUL! by The Grin	Mar 2nd, 2001 09:01:41 PM
I WANT THIS POSTER ON MY WALL!! The Grin
It won't draw non fans by Domi'sInnerChild	Mar 2nd, 2001 09:23:44 PM
If I didn't know there was a Lord of the Rings film and especially if I didn't care for Lord of the Rings in any form, this poster would have no effect or possibly a negative effect on me seeing the film. The "One Ring to Rule Them All" is fine, maybe even good, but the poster does nothing.
Thank you, Freddy by Krateros	Mar 2nd, 2001 10:23:33 PM
Oh, it's so wonderful to see yet more evidence of the horrible double-standards shown by most heterosexual males. You certainly don't mind it if women express their love for each other physically (as long as they're beautiful and as long as you get to watch). But let there be even a HINT that 2 males might do the same thing, and you vomit. It's really quite sad. Fortunately, you won't have to see either exhibition. There is absolutely no reason to think that Tolkien ever participated in any "bunker boinks". And yes, his male characters kiss, even Frodo and Sam. But they do it in the way that Jesus and his disciples kissed each other, you know, as loving friends? That sort of thing used to happen, before people were so insecure about their own sexuality. Nobody is asking you to do it (wait, what do you look like?), and nobody will make you watch it. But please get your mind out of the gutter, or hurry up and graduate high school, or whatever it will take for you to tell the difference between prurience and love. And I apologize for singling you out; I'm sure a lot of other posters have had the same sentiments. For shame, the lot of you.
The down beat tone of the poster by morpheus	Mar 2nd, 2001 10:25:33 PM
PJ might just be aimin' for wider 'realistic' adventure-cum-drama-cum-romanc e kinda audiences(think Titanic or XMen).No flashy Star Wars marketing for this one.But I failed to see how thunder bolt-spewin' telekinetic wizards and ,gasp,flyin' elves and assembly line orcs would fit into these...
I hate this poster by Mr. Stevens	Mar 2nd, 2001 10:36:11 PM
I just hate these posters. I hated the Green Mile poster with Tom Hanks big head on it and I hated the Patriot poster, which had Mel Gibson's big old head on it. I personally like the new Mummy 2 poster.
Hey Jimmer, you sure you're not a marine biologist or latex manu by Lujho	Mar 2nd, 2001 10:38:56 PM
Any ways... yeah, Frodo's face looks a little weird. But people who are saying this poster will not attract people, well, it's a teaser, its sole purpose is to make people say "what the hell is this movie" rather than "I want to see this movie". There will probably be at leat 1 or 2 more posters that will probably convey more of the epic qualities of the films. But remember, the first film isn't as epic as the rest, ie no big battles, just a journey of nine people... the most important of these: the ring bearer. That's why this poster focusing on Frodo is a good idea. Just a pity about the photo. I love the idea of a 4th poster with a sillhouette of the fellowship and the eye of Sauron, as it sort of fits the line "And in the Darkness bind them". Also, when this movie comes out I think Gimli is going to be an unexpected fan favorite. And to the guy who did the AYBABTU poster... that was pretty funny. How about a series of posters for LOTR, number one says "In 2101 war was beginning" no.2: "What happen?" etc. Move every zig.
that guy don't look like a freakin' Hobbit! by Maynard	Mar 2nd, 2001 11:06:20 PM
Does this stooge play Frodo or Sam? I didn't know Middle Earth had "the wet look." He looks a little like that sweaty dancer, Michael Flatley in The Lord of The Dance!
Now That is FUCKING UGLY! by Black Jesus	Mar 2nd, 2001 11:12:39 PM
goddamn that's a fucking ugly poster... i don't know why companies think they need a big ass picture of the star on the poster... it reeks of a mel gibson movie poster to me.
Observant talkbackers by Josh123	Mar 2nd, 2001 11:26:25 PM
Holy shit. When I saw the words, "Lord of the Rings Teaser Trailer poster" I didn't think much, actually. I simply clicked the link, read what old Harry had to say, then looked. Personally, I liked, I really liked it and was blown away by the coloring, the texture, the simpleness of it all. Then I read the talkbacks and laughed really hard at the hilarious comments made by some. What most dazzled me was how observant some people were. I never thought to think of ways that would have improved the poster, or made it better; like to just have the hand with the ring or minus Frodos juicy lipstick, stuff like that. I just looked, liked and excepted it. It's a great poster. Looks as though time itself had worn on it.
Anyone else getting a led zeppelin feel? by Razor42	Mar 2nd, 2001 11:49:01 PM
It might be just be the big hair look, but there's something about this poster that reminds me of some of LedZeppelin's imfamous mystic/Tolkien inspired works. Whatever it is, it really seems to capture that sense that Sam got in those moments where the Ring gave Frodo something of an imposing presence (which is saying much for a Hobbit). It captures an important quality of the character, one that can be hard to communicate by appearance alone, in a very visual way. It's stuff like this that has me convinced that they can pull it off, and really capture the character and quality of Tolkien's writing.
thank you, Krateros by FreddyFuckchop	Mar 2nd, 2001 11:53:12 PM
For completely taking me far too seriously that is! The truth is I could care less if there is homosexual overtones to 'Lord of the Rings'. It's just a post out of boredom and carries no weight compared to the ring. C'mon, I would marry Sam in a second. Thanks for the insults, and stop taking life so goddamn seriously - you don't think members of the homosexuality community poke fun at heterosexuals? Of course they do, there's so many screwed up heteros it's not hard. And what exactly is so wrong for enjoying looking at beautiful females? Are you saying females don't enjoy looking at beautiful men? At least it's healthy, and Hollywood was built on it. Look, there's beauty in life everywhere - enjoy it.
the poster... sucks by X-Girls	Mar 3rd, 2001 12:03:31 AM
a mute, young Rambo in the dark proposing marriage and about to cry.
I Dont Know A Thing About Lord Of The Rings by Burger-Pimp	Mar 3rd, 2001 12:38:50 AM
but love Peter Jackson. Bad Taste is my all time fav Jackson film I have the making of it as well, and it is pretty funny.
It's more original than most by kinekor	Mar 3rd, 2001 12:58:30 AM
Got to give them credit for trying something different.It's better than the earlier poster i saw.
this poster.... by Dragonfire	Mar 3rd, 2001 01:42:38 AM
looks really cool. Its dark and it gets the idea across, its a brilliant teaser poster. but the problem is that non lord of the rings fans probably wont get it, so this is wasted on them. Non lord of the rings fans wont know what the hell is going on and they wont realize its a fantasy movie, because the poster doesn't give any sort of hint at the epic fantasy nature of LOTR, but I suppose its just a teaser poster so it doesn't matter. It would be cool if they had four sheets, one for each line of the rhyme with a diffrent character on it.
very good, but not great. by Natalie	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:07:18 AM
As much as I like Mr Wood I would prefer to see some epic scenes from the movies, or Bag End, or a shot of the Fellowship. Just because it would be more appealing to general public. But it's not the last poster, right? We'll see more towards the primiere. And I hope those would be more appreciated. _____________________________ BTW Hello to everyone. Haven't bee for quite a while here, and now I don't see any familiar "faces" except Skyway Moaters. Where are you all? Perished ? Or changed your IDs suddenly?
lousy poster......looks like a stupid advertisement for a jewell by mooncake	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:31:20 AM
who came up with this dumb *ss poster??? what's it's supposed to sell rings?? looks like a stupid advertisement for a jewellery store. change it ASAP!
Poster - delicious by 317537	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:45:58 AM
It's a little fey and pretty but promises a lush production. I only found out recently that the entire filming had been completed making it impossible to tolerate the wait for them all to be released. Want them now. Great cast list too. The idea of having the poster showing just the hand with ring would have been better. I think it would stoked up the mystery and symbolism factor after all the ring is the central key whereas the presence of Baggins personalises it more.....but now I'm off on one. I still like it. A- could do better.
Eh... by Shaft9876	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:46:42 AM
They shouldn't use Frodo. Midgets are not a big draw except maybe for kids, and it seems the movies will be a bit too mature for them. By the way, I haven't been following closely enough to know if they've already got somebody for the music, but they seriously should (or should have) taken a look at Jimmy Page. I think he's done soundtrack work before, and there'd be noone better suited to do the score.
The marketing of LOTR.... by Elliott Ness	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:54:52 AM
...seems to go seriously into the wrong direction. The trailer wasn't great; I had the same gripes with it as Harry. Now we have this poster, one that doesn't even begin to hint at the grand epic that is to come. Personally, I think it looks more like a poster for another "Leprechaun" sequel. Just the hand would have been nice, but the head is totally wrong and disproportionately large compared to the hand. Look from a distance and you'll notice immediately. Also, it puts too much of a focus on Frodo, a rather bland hero in my opinion, while this is the best example of an ensemble cast if there ever was one. All in all, the entire marketing effort thus far never manages to capture that Tolkien spirit. Compare this one to the Harry Potter trailer and teaser poster, and you'll see the difference, because that campaign perfectly captures the feeling of the books. I just hope that the final product is much better, and that this is just some marketing department screwing up.
This is a dark, brooding poster of things to come... by brokentusk	Mar 3rd, 2001 03:29:50 AM
Ah yes. I knew most of you would have problems with the Teaser Poster. I think it looks cool and dark. It shows how dark this epic adventure is, where things are going in December. Come on, it's a Teaser poster. Oh, and whoever cannot tell that it's a Fantasy film from this poster is not looking hard enough - come on, it looks like a friggin Fantasy film to me, what with the ring and the landscape in the back and all... This pleases me greatly. I'm sure we'll get more Teaser Posters with more of the rhyme on them.
Someone's gotta say it: What a bunch of fucking whiners. by Dave_F	Mar 3rd, 2001 04:50:38 AM
Apparently if an artist diverges even slightly from the tried-and-true poster art of "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones", that pretty much invalidates his work immediately. For you guys anyway. Bunch of dogmatic fucking traditionalists. Look, this is an effective poster. It lets audiences know that this is gonna be a serious fantasy film, not some cheeseball shit from the "Dungeons & Dragons"/Boris Vallejo school. To me it suggests the work of master painters like Caravaggio, with the dramatic use of light and shadow (chiaroscuro) he made famous. Check out these details from his paintings to see what I mean: http://www.christusrex.org/www 2/art/images/carav06.jpg ** http://www.christusrex.org/www 2/art/images/carav03.jpg ** Beyond that, the thing just looks classy and foreboding. Elijah Wood has the haunted look of someone shouldering a monstrous burden, just as he should. I think the fact that it looks so different from most cheesy poster art will pique audiences' curiousity. If the poster had shown more traditional fantasy imagery - say, Aragorn riding his horse, sword drawn, or Gandalf fighting the Balrog - I think non-fans would dismiss it as "fantasy crap". In the wake of "Dungeons & Dragons", that's a very real danger, and I'm happy to see this first poster neatly sidesteps it. Yeah, the gag captions Talkbackers posted earlier were funny. I laughed. But this is a damn good poster. Maybe you whiners would prefer it if Boris touched it up with some of that pink and green fog he uses in every goddamn painting? Idiots.
It's a cool teaser poster by Elliot_Kane	Mar 3rd, 2001 05:01:16 AM
To everyone who said that the poster should only show the ring on the hand - look at Frodo's face again. He looks haunted by the ring, which seems to shed light across his face, making it unnaturally shadowed and his lips too red. His whole demeanour is that of a man carrying a burden too great for him to bear. Darn fine acting if you ask me. Look again, o naysayers, and you'll see what I mean.
Talk about concurrent thinking! by Elliot_Kane	Mar 3rd, 2001 05:09:15 AM
Cormorant makes a more erudite case than I do, but we have the same basic idea at the same time. I promise you Cormorant I did not read your post - I was typing mine up at the same time you were.
No sweat, Kane by Dave_F	Mar 3rd, 2001 05:32:14 AM
Great minds think alike, that's all. And you managed a post without resortin' to the swears like I did, so don't overrate me. What can I say? All those bleating Talkbackers who wouldn't know a bit of originality if it bit 'em on the ass just got me a little cheesed off.
Oh yeah, almost forgot to give a gift to the whiners: by Dave_F	Mar 3rd, 2001 05:47:57 AM
Check it out, kiddies, I found a more traditional fantasy poster that's sure to be up your alley! Enjoy! http://w1.530.telia.com/~u5300 3210/movies/willow/pictures/po ster6.jpg
Stunning! by Malgalad	Mar 3rd, 2001 06:07:02 AM
Wow, v. cool. This shows that by the time Frodo got to mount doom he was a broken person, I hope we see him pass over seas as his reward (if Saruman dies at Orthanc i'll scream). Also if they do 3 other posters it should be the three other ring bearers. That would introduce us to Elrond , Gandalf and Galadriel. Three major characters to the plot. A final one of Saurons's eye would rock!
Poster is excellent for intro teasing. by Tinuviel70	Mar 3rd, 2001 06:14:32 AM
Verily! Great minds do think alike! I was thinking same thing then read Cormorant and Elliot Kane's post so I think I shall not have to add to what they say much. As for some of other gutter mouthed posters, it is only teaser so don't expect entire history of Middle earth to be revealed in it. It makes me wonder what part of "teaser" these people do not understand. Poster is stylized art form instead of boring literal photo and does imply heaviness and dark foreboding theme. No, no Disney spritely Elves, cutesy Dwarves and huggable Orcses a'tall. I think too Elijah has captured haunted look well. I look at poster and have strongest desire to reach out and take Ring while saying "I looks sooo Preciousss my love and we wants it! Doesn't we my Precious?" Natalie, other posters are still around you knew but Mr. Greenleaf has his own snooty web site now and, I believe, morGoth has returned to Void. Ha, ha
It looks like Wood has some gas by fonebone	Mar 3rd, 2001 06:33:21 AM
That expression isn't exactly fraught with doom, if you know what I mean. I agree -- they should have just gone with the ring and the hand. Maybe Wood's contract required some exposure.
Lord Of The Rings meets Planet Of The Apes? by 221b	Mar 3rd, 2001 06:58:03 AM
Where the hell is Chippi-Taka when you need him to sort this stuff out? Oi! Pigsy! No!
How many people are just trying to sound cool? by Drath	Mar 3rd, 2001 07:34:40 AM
What are we in Middle School? "His lips are too red," "he looks gay," "did he just fart?" And comparing him to Lord of the Dance was just lame. I suppose we'll know who works for Entertainment Weekly when the "he looks constipated" gags start up. Frankly, I think this poster deserves some criticism, it's not perfect or as effective as the Harry Potter teaser. But all this silliness is tired. Then again, people do still say "first," so what am I thinking expecting taste on talkback for? I do like the suggestion of having Frodo looking down at the ring instead of straight on--which is a bit too cliche in my opinion. I mean, Frodo looks too much like a presentation, design wise. He's got the haunted look, and Elijah's a handsome boy, but all in all it's not quite right. The scene-capture idea of Frodo enraptured with the ring would have been damn effective. And it would lead in nicely to other posters with the other characters looking at the ring: Gandalf by the fire-the runes enblazened on it, Boromir almost drooling on the mountains, Galadriel tempted slightly by the ring as Frodo's hand holds it out for her. Of course, ANYTHING they do will be ripped apart on this talkback like it was fodder for Myster Science Theater 3000, but still that would have been a neat way to tease us. Sorry, but I think just the ring in a hand would have been a bigger cliche than this poster: Disney did something similar with the teaser poster for Aladdin, didn't they?
Oh, it refers to Caravaggio, I see... by Elliott Ness	Mar 3rd, 2001 07:35:27 AM
Come on guys, the fact that some of us don't like this particular poster doesn't mean we were hoping for some Disneyesque stuff or another Drew Struzan masterpiece. It's a matter of taste, plain and simple, and no fancy talk about Caravaggio or his use of contrast can change that (like they were striving for that, give me a break). I agree that they're treading a fine line here, because you can't have it look like D&D The Sequel either. But just ask yourself this question: if another edition of the books came out, would you be likely to see artwork like this on the cover or inside? I think not. It would have more traditional, stylized drawings, like the ones you see in the current editions. Why? Because those type of illustrations better match the epic and ancient scale of the story. Now, we're not talking a book here, but I think they should strive for the same kind of connection. In other words, doing a poster "ancient drawing" style might work better without it getting Disneyesque.
I don't know guys by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 07:59:29 AM
A teaser is designed to create and promote hype. I can honestly say that this didn't cut it for me. I, personally, don't care if it is reminiscent of Carravagio, Goya, Pollack, or Warhol, but nor do I care about the homoerotic overtones (other than the occasional 'Sam, marry me' joke that came up here, which was funny and non-offensive) of the poster. I evaluated it based on it's effectiveness as a teaser. Does it make me want to see the movie? Would it make someone who has little knowledge of the books and films want to see the movie? I can't see the answer to the latter being yes, and I know the former is a definitive 'no'. I'm not a diehard fan of the books, though I am looking forward to the flick, and this does very little in terms of creating excitement, at least for the casual or non-fan...which you would have to think the marketing would be directed at. The FAN fans would go even if the poster was of Ronald McDonald and Danny DeVito arm-wrestling. I think the Star Wars references (a series I am 100% NOT a fan of) have to do with the fact that, for all the movie's flaws, TPM had one of the greatest teaser posters known to mankind. Teasers should grab you...this one looks pretty generic. A La Cast Away. A La The Patriot. The average person will not see this poster and go 'Cool!' like they did with the ID4 Teaser, nor will it hit the recognition portions of their brain, like the Star Wars one did, nor does it promote a sense of magic and wonder, like the Harry Potter teaser did. My response to this is NOT because I lack creativity, NOT because I am homophobic, and NOT because I am an uneducated sod. I found the poster to be generic, uncreative, and, most probably, a certain failure in eliciting hype, at least from those who won't immediately recognize Frodo.
Actually I'm a Latex Importer/Exporter by Han Ol' Buddy	Mar 3rd, 2001 08:01:55 AM
Art Van de Lay's the name. Latex is my game. Thanks. "The sea was angry that day my friends. Like an old man trying to send soup back at a deli."
Jackassess! The movie still doesn't come out until Dec. by zsasz	Mar 3rd, 2001 08:07:14 AM
How many of you morons are actually involved in the business or advertising? This is the first poster for a movie that will be out in 10 months! They could have put just about anything on the poster because in 10 months people won't be saying " Ahh well I'm not going to go see that shit that poster I saw of that guy holding the ring when I went and saw See Spot Run made it not look really good. " They will remember the Tv previews, the Tv specials, the 4 minute trailers showing incredible images of Middle Earth. If a toad necked mountain man who names his characters Jar Jar, Mace and Snoova can make a movie that grosses a lot of money than imagine what THE MOST POPULAR BOOK OF THE 20TH CENTURY CAN DO!!! Nothing but a bunch of Star Wars Jackasses who wish this movie will fail because they worship a dying carcass of storytelling. " I want to see SNOOOOOVA! I WANT TO SEE JANGO AND TYPHO! Oh The Phantom Menace 2 will rock if Queen Amidyla will have a lesbain scene!" What a bunch of morons.
are you involved in advertising? by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 08:22:39 AM
Why even make a poster if it's not going to make more people come to see the movie? The goal here is to build pre-opening day hype? Why? 'Cause studios LOVE monsterous opening day grosses, as opposed to word of mouth built hits, because the longer a movie stays in theatres the greater percentatge of the take that the THEATRES themselves get from ticket sales. So the entire idea of teaser posters is to get people saying, 'oh my god, i HAVE to go see that movie the SECOND it opens because every breath I take until I see (blank) will be an unfulfilled one'. Or something to that effect. To most people who are not already rabid over this movie's appearance, this poster doesn't even begin to do that. Which is why it is being critiqued in a negative way, at least by me.
Anyone want to see my degree in advertising? by Elliott Ness	Mar 3rd, 2001 08:37:24 AM
I'm with JonQuixote here. Commercially, this film is battling with Harry Potter to get the biggest box office hype at the end of the year. So, yes, a mediocre teaser poster might not be disastrous at this time, but it doesn't build momentum either, and that's what it's supposed to do. Harry Potter's campaign thus far did succeed in interesting at least the fans, which is crucial to build anticipation. If the fans aren't hyped up, the general public will not be either. And that's where, at this moment, LOTR is failing and Harry Potter is winning. Therefore, if this poster is an indication of the rest of the LOTR marketing effort, I fear the worst. Just the fact that these are very beloved books isn't going to cut it business wise, and from what I've seen thus far, it looks like they are putting too much confidence in that. It seems to me that anticipation was way higher when we had no trailer and no poster, which is not a good sign.
10 months though 10 months! by zsasz	Mar 3rd, 2001 09:46:19 AM
Lets all be realistic here. the only people that care about what a teaser poster that comes out 10 months from when the movie comes out are fanboys. Thats it. You give to much credit to the mainstream moviegoing American public. Most of those people I'm sure don't give a damn about what the poster looks like. The poster is just a dog bone to the hungry uber-fans. Joe Public,9.5 months from now is going to see the trailers with all the gigante battles, fighting, and action and is going to go see it. As far as the poster itself goes, I think its a real good one. Only if you have read the three books. Most people who complain about it either haven't read the story or are only for some bizarre reason only worried about the bottom line this movie will bring in. I know the movie will be great. I don't care if I'm the only one in the theatre on opening day because I have the benefit of knowing that even if this movie doesn't do shite, Ill still be able to see the other two.
Bad Scan?? by greenleaf	Mar 3rd, 2001 09:58:44 AM
OK, I'm not pretending to be right or anything. I'm only making a suggestion, so flame at will but bear this in mind. Some of you seem to like the "dark" effect and the "greenish" effect. But I doubt the poster really looks like that and think it's just a bad scan. Why? Well, consider the writing "One Ring to rule..." and compare with the colour used in every preview to date. It's both darker and more greenish. Now, I've tried adjusting the gamma correction (adding luminosity) and tuning down the green tone a bit, and I think the poster looks a lot more like the result I've obtained. Some additionnal folds in Frodo's cape have come up, so if this really was a scan it's a bad one, for those folds were in the original poster (since they were scanned!). Frodo's face comes up less angular as well. Reducing the green I think was a good idea; I believe the scan is way greener than the original. But the lips come off in rather a sickly tone, and the hand is slightly reddish in shade compared to the face. These disparities are, again, due to the quality of the scan I think, or maybe the poster's just that way. Maybe you'll think I'm destroying part of the effect intended, but I don't think it was... Although I haven't seen the real thing. Make sure your monitor's black is black and not pale or dark gray; if you don't care about such details, well don't bother looking at the pic. I don't think my version renders the poster correctly either, but I think it may be closer to the original poster. Let me know what you think. Maybe you won't see any difference; I, on the contrary, tend to be rather picky when it comes this kind of stuff... http://www.chez.com/elostirion /teaserposter1.jpg
10 months by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 10:15:26 AM
I completely disagree...the idea is to build hype amongst all the moviegoing public, not just fan boys. This is an EVENT movie. The idea trying to be conveyed is 'if you miss this movie, you will miss something special'. I'll use ID4 as an example of a movie that had a great ad campaign (regardless of what you think of the flick), and trailers and posters of the white house getting blown into toothpicks started appearing about 7 months before the movie came out (as opposed to the nine we have before this movie). Godzilla had that cool fisherman-promo out in the fall BEFORE the summer in which the movie appeared. New Line has a LOT more invested in this movie than Sony had in those examples, and the teaser posters are supposed to begin to stir hype for this movie so that by the time it finally comes out EVERYBODY has GOT to see this movie and they've been DYING to see this movie for what seems like FOREVER and JESUS GOD IN HEAVEN it's finally HERE!!!. It's the opening volley in what will soon become saturation bombing, the first breeze that signals the coming of the hurricane, and, frankly, it doesn't do much. Artistically, it's not horrible (though woefully unispired), but it certainly doesn't do much for hype, which is the entire point of a teaser trailer or poster REGARDLESS of when the actual movie hits theatres.
well, that poster certainly screams "Hallmark presents : Merlin" by AlexanderDeLarge	Mar 3rd, 2001 10:15:47 AM
...they could have made a little effort, you know. Oh and it also looks kinda like the poster for A Midsummer's Night Dream (the one with Michelle Pfeiffer...)
You guys put down the marketing degree and I'll drop the art deg by Dave_F	Mar 3rd, 2001 10:32:22 AM
...because the truth is, Zsasz is probably right: most Americans couldn't give a damn about a teaser poster many months in advance of the film. It'll be glanced at in theater lobbies and simple name recognition will mean more than the visuals. This really is more of a nod to the fans. I mean, have you ever been remotely influenced by a poster so early in a film's promotion campaign? Maybe if it's a film you've been tracking, but otherwise, I think not. Sorry if my fancy-dan talk of Caravaggio scared you country folk, but my only point was that this poster has the rich look of an old world painting. Maybe it's less discernable at the small size we're viewing it, but I think it'll be notable on an actual poster. Non-Tolkien fans might not know exactly what they're seeing, but they'll know it's serious by it's tone and the fact that the style is far more mature than the slick, airbrushy look of most modern posters. And yes, I could easily see them using this art for the cover of one of the books. Epic scenery from the saga is fairly traditional for covers, but a few years back, I remember some paperbacks with rather cheesy realistic paintings of the principal players on it. I think something like this poster would strike a nice balance between that forgettable realism and the somewhat bland scenery covers that dominate. Getting back to the question of the poster's effectiveness...very subjective stuff, marketing degree or no. I think it works, some of you don't. Who's right? Let's see it full size before we all stake our good names...
Well yeah... by greenleaf	Mar 3rd, 2001 10:36:02 AM
The dark version is certainly Caravaggio-ish... but I don't think New Line intended to be that Caravvagio-ish...
...or Caravaggio-ish at all... by greenleaf	Mar 3rd, 2001 10:37:22 AM
(nt)
Most Americans by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 10:54:53 AM
Well, the truth is that a 50 million dollar opening weekend, which would have the studio grinning like the chesire cat, would mean that about 2% of the public actually saw the movie, so yeah most Americans don't care. But that doesn't mean that the goal is to exclude them. This is a poster that will be seen by people who go to see 'The Mexican', '15 minutes', and 'Hannibal'; the idea that it's not for the majority of the moviegoing public is ludicrous. Why even bother putting it in theatre lobbies then? The whole purpose of a teaser poster is to get as many people AWARE of the movie, TALKING about the movie, and EXCITED about the movie, regardless of WHEN the actual movie comes out. It doesn't take a marketing degree to know that. To say otherwise; to presume that it's just a bone being tossed to fans is naive. As an underline, I called in my two roommates who know or care little about this movie, Harry Potter, or Spider-Man. I showed them the two teaser posters and the spidey photo that hit streets a few weeks back. Harry Potter elicited a 'cool' (from non HP fans), Spider-Man elicited a 'wow' (from non Spidey fans), and this poster got an 'ok?' response (from a non-LOTR fan and one who read the books and liked them). This poster is by no means poisonous, but it certainly isn't all that effective as a 'teaser'. They could have done better.
-The-Lords-of-the-Rings- by trava	Mar 3rd, 2001 11:32:50 AM
The poster looks like the picture for Hanibal (the one where he has those red eyes! And We all know how Hanibal did at his opening weekend (58 mill. anyone)! More posters will arive and we will get that what we want! AND BY THE WAY WE DONT NEED A BIG OPENING WEEKEND FOR LOTR BECAUSE IF IT IS A GREAT MOVIE (WHICH I THINK IT WILL BE!!!) THE WORD OF MOUTH WILL TAKE IT INTO THE TOP TEN GROOSING MOVIES OF ALL TIME!!! Remember THE SIXTH SENSE (293 mill.)!!! Have A Nice Life And See You In The Afterlife In Middle Earth!!!
sigh by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 12:05:30 PM
Studios want a big opening weekend, almost always. The reason: the longer a movie is in theatres, the greater the percentage of ticket sales that goes to the theatre itself, as opposed to the studio. On opening weekend, virtually 100% of the ticket price goes straight into the studio's pocket, whereas a month later, that number is significantly decreased. Which isn't to say studios won't take a word-of-mouth hit over a failure, but they do like it when they can draw as many moviegoers as possible on the opening weekend, hopefully recouping as much of the budgeting and advertising costs as they can, as soon as they can.
Don..... by zsasz	Mar 3rd, 2001 12:26:56 PM
These are the same people who come to movies late, talk throughout them, let their cell phones ring, throw stuff at the screen, etc. all. The success of this film and in my opinion lies not with an advance teaser poster, but with what the people see days and minutes before they walk into the theater. You don't know how many times I've seen people walk up to a ticket office and not know what they want to see. Or say " Let me see that movie with that guy from Die Hard in it." ( And I should know I worled at a theater for 2 years.) The ones who sell movies are people unfortunately like Rosie O' Donnell, Oprah, and Katie Couric. These people tell their sheep what to read, what to watch etc. Granted, a cool teaser like ID4 can really make a SuperBowl but noone except for the most dedicated movie goer cares about it or remembers it. I understand that all types of advertising should be beneficial, but come on, like New Line didn't put that online behind the scenes trailer for LOTR out just for the dedicated fans. Do you think the mother of 4 boys or the middle aged manager, or anyone who doesn't have a high speed modem really cared about it? No Way. Does the poster enice or excite? Not really if your not a fan of the books. If you read and liked the books you understand the significance and drama behind the poster. If you haven't you'll probably just look at it once and walk on into your movie. But 9 months from now when people are watching Friends or Survivor 3 and they see television previews with gigantic, Braveheart on crack battles; eye -popping special effects, and a great cast; interest will peak. Thats what people remember.
Zsasz by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 12:54:46 PM
I didn't say that companies don't make efforts to market specifically for fans or niche groups that would be interested in a certain project. Of course they do. But a poster going up in theatres everywhere most certainly is not one of those examples. The idea is to get maximum exposure; to build buzz that reaches as far as possible. I think this teaser poster fails in that regard. This is not something that is going to inspire discussion or awe or wonderment or anticipation. Does this poster in any way INCREASE your anticipation of the movie. I can't see how. And this isn't to say that the movie is now going to be a box office failure; let's not be inane. My very first post said something to the effect of, 'oh well, plenty of time yet'. And it isn't to say that the poster itself isn't without artistic merit...it's not fubugly or anything. But my contention is: as a teaser, it fails. I want to see this movie, this does not make me want to see it more (if anything, it has a minor inverse reaction). I can't see how this makes someone who doesn't have a previous interest, or is unaware, really want to see the movie either. It's an AVERAGE movie poster. It's not especially inspired, creative, or eye-catching. It's not in-your-face, nor is it mysterious enough to provoke a lot of questions. It doesn't really tease or tantalize, and that's too bad.
Don by zsasz	Mar 3rd, 2001 01:19:59 PM
I guess we have to agree to disagree. ( A first in the histories of AICN talkback) I think that the poster very much entices. I might be looking thru rose colored glasses but I see what I see. What would you think if it was a series of posters; each displaying a different character from the movie? this type of marketing often works well in the teaser format; giving the public a chance to associate with each character. If the multi-charactered posters were the case in marketing for New Line than this is where I believe they would have failed. Because a series of 3 or 4 in a row all with a familiar theme can draw a lot of attention.
Now that's something I can agree on by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:07:23 PM
Yes, if they were (are) planning to do a mulit-character poster series, then I would take back much of what I said. Then there would seem to be more purpose to an oh-so conventional poster structure, such as this. And I guess it's possible that they still might do that. I still think there are better ideas or concepts, but that series idea would make more sense than just having this image pop up. I hope they do that.
good diatribe by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:23:16 PM
Wrong talkback, but good diatribe.
Jon Quixote you're missing the bigger picture... by brokentusk	Mar 3rd, 2001 02:54:11 PM
This is what I have to say: It's a Teaser Poster. No doubt there will be more (with more of the rhyme on them) coming in later months. This poster is just an introduction saying: "Something's coming that's bigger than you." The poster does not suggest grand Fantasy epic adventures...but it's a stepping stone. Notice how the poster doesn't even have the name 'The Lord of the Rings' anywhere on it. People have to walk past it, look at it, wonder what the hell it's for and then come back to the cinema two months later and see the next Teaser Poster and say: "Woah, this looks like quite a big film, I wonder what it's called..." Then...in later months the last poster will be up in all it's glory and people will bow and say: "This...looks...incredible...a nd it all started with one simple poster of Elijah Wood and a hand with a ring on it." It's one of many posters (probably) and it's a GREAT beginning - a foreboding of things to come...
Frodo and Sam by FPWorm	Mar 3rd, 2001 03:19:57 PM
If peter jackson is to make any changes to the story, i hope he writes in an anal sex scene between Frodo and Sam Gamgee - that would kick some serious ass! After all the lead in, i can't understand why tolkien didnt take their relationship to the next level. All he gives us is some hand holding and head resting in the lap.
"Please sir, can I have some more?" by Tornado_Jackson	Mar 3rd, 2001 03:27:52 PM
"Please sir, can I have another?" Yo duchbags, I wouldn't wipe my ass with this poster. Looks like a scene from David Copperfield for fucks sake. The movies should be killer though.
How am I missing the bigger picture? by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 04:00:32 PM
When I've done nothing but say it's a teaser poster, that it's the first of many, that it's a stepping stone. I'm saying it's failing at what it's doing. I'm saying it appears to be an ineffective tool to accomplish exactly those things you've (and I've) laid out. It is not a poster that is going to get people wondering...it's not memorable, it's not alluring, it's not eye-grabbing. IT'S AVERAGE. Mediocre. A teaser poster concept that could be, and has been, applied to dozens of other movies. A main character and a principle prop. It's nothing special, and that's TOO BAD. Not earth-shattering, but merely a 'whatever' ad concept that's not all that different from a poster of 'The Mexican' or 'things you can tell just by looking at her'. Imagine a teaser poster for Star Wars that has Hayden Christiansen staring at you, holding a lightsabre. Or for James Bond with Pierce Brosnan staring at you, holding a gun. It's easy to imagine, because you see posters like that everyday. Like this, everyday.
I'm undecided........... by polgara04	Mar 3rd, 2001 05:01:18 PM
First off, I just want to know the general age of the people responding here. I'm guessing high school, or thereabouts. I'm just 15, and I would like to think that I am just a bit more mature than some of the other people posting here. With that out of the way, on to discussing the poster. I like most of it. It isnt blaring the name of the movie in bold, 150 point font, and I hadnt realized Elija (or how ever the heck you spell it) Wood was in it until some one said something (I only recently discovered this site). The basic idea is great, it pays homeage to the books with the quote, and is intriuging. However it, like most posters, does have some things that could have been better. They really should have used a better picture, if not scrapped the picture all together and gone with that hand-only idea. This picture is a bit......errrr...... irritating somehow. Like Frodo should be somewhat more bad-ass than he looks. The lipstick was indeed a mistake, and it could have been better on the whole, but It certainly didnt conjure homosexual thoughts into my brain the inatant I laid eyes on it. Why must people always be so jaded, and turn everything into a sexual inuendo. At least it isnt a disne-fied, fluffy animaled, violence-lacking nightmare! At least they're making an effort to keep the integrity of the books intact, by not splashing the stars names and faces all over it! just lay off the dumb-ass stuff and point out the flaws in an inteligent way. You're giving geeks a bad name. ~Polgara~ p.s. what the hell was Skyway Moaters talking about with the world ending in december, and all?
well I liked it by Psychopompous	Mar 3rd, 2001 05:55:53 PM
Jon Quixote, what sort of poster would you have preferred? As for me, i couldn't care less whether Jon Q Public is lured by the teaser poster. The fewer do, the shorter the lines will be for me, thanks. So in that vein, I feel that this poster is really quite excellent. It is subtle and artistic, in my opinion, and that's unusual for a movie poster.Someone mentioned ID4 and Godzilla as examples of marketing campaigns done correctly. If the marketing of LOTR reaches Godzilla proportions, I'm probably going to be sick. I suppose it probably will, though. I guess the most important thing is to whether the movie is good, and marketing be damned.
Sorry, Freddy by Krateros	Mar 3rd, 2001 06:24:52 PM
Well, I have a degree in taking things too seriously and being a grumpy old man. Also English. And yes, Freddy, life is too short to take things so seriously, but I have to listen to some of these posts right after hearing the real thing all day...it just drives me to distraction. And I know all about what homos think of heteros, at least some of them. Me, I love you all. I just want people to understand the beauty of Tolkien's work, which I think describes a better time. This poster may or may not help that end. But hey, I can still make my students read the Tolkien canon, and try to encourage a new generation of fans. And I'll try not to take any of you too seriously from now on :)
Does anyone else think that this is the middle panel of a larger by Robin Goodfellow	Mar 3rd, 2001 06:44:36 PM
I don't know, but it may be. I look at it and notice a small glimpse of background right behind Mr. Frodo Baggins. Perhaps as time progresses we may not just see 4 more posters, but an entire set of 8 subsequent posters with each one devoted to another member of The Fellowship. Maybe it's a large banner type presentation, I don't know for sure. Heck, I'm just diggin' for something over here.
I rather liked that poster myself... by kojiro	Mar 3rd, 2001 07:02:27 PM
but really, what the hell do I know. Frankly, I freaked when I first heard Elijah Wood was taking on the role of these films central character, it didn't seem to me that he could act worth dhit after seeing a couple of other flicks he was in. But I have to admit that recently I've begun to develop, well, not faith, but certainly something more than hope for his ability. After seeing the teasers and the posters he actually seems able to emote in a believable way. So, here's to hoping I guess...**Aside to Polgara04, having been a visitor to this sight for weel on to a year now I would say that you are indeed more mature than most others here. This is not the greatest of news however as many of the biggest shitwits here seem to be well into their working years. Sad really, but that's humanity for ya.
The Poster ! by Raptorman101	Mar 3rd, 2001 07:58:10 PM
I like every thing about the poster excepton and that it cut the top of his head off !
things i liked by JonQuixote	Mar 3rd, 2001 09:48:59 PM
I guess I've been relegated to playing the villain here, when all I wanted to do was defend my criticism from those who jumped on it. Fine, I can do that.*As far as so many people who have never posted before on an LOTR talkback before. Maybe. I might be one of them, I can't remember. I posted because I was disappointed...I want to see the movies, but not ferociously. This teaser did nothing to whet my appetite. And I expressed that, with some suggestions as to what I thought would be better.* The interesting things on the poster are: the poem excerpt, the ring, and the background behind Elijah. Two suggestions would be: the lower half of the poster as is, fading up into the background, a fantasy landscape, perhaps a group could be trecking over the hills, and a powerful and forboding storm on the horizon. Or, just a black poster with the gold ring in the centre, and more space given to the words: "One ring to rule them all", which are cool. Just suggestions...I don't see anything especially inspiring about the poster. Elijah obviously looks odd enough to elicit a number of odd and hilarious comments from talkbackers almost immediately. That's not good. And we've seen posters like this many many times. Most recently: Cast Away. A great movie, and it did great business, but not the best, most inticing, or most artistic poster in the world. But that's just my opinion; you're welcome to your own. I'm not taking that away from you...all I'm saying is that I was unimpressed with the poster, I expected better, and I don't think that's grounds to be dimissed as a whiner or an idiot.
Response to Jon Quixote... by brokentusk	Mar 4th, 2001 01:26:06 AM
I don't think that you're the villian in these posts and I didn't want to argue with you from the beginning because no matter how much I try, I'm never gonna be able to change your opinion of this Teaser Poster. All I was saying by stating that you've "missed the bigger picture" was that if, in 6 months time, you look back and seea line of Teaser Posters with different characters or different objects on them, then this poster IS cool, it's just a character - not a tool to make people care yet - just to tell people that something big's coming in Decemeber. It MUST NOT show people too much yet because they wouldn't be able to handle it and would probably explode from the sheer coolness (sorry, had to just add that in).
Harry is Fat by Poon McTastin'	Mar 4th, 2001 02:33:55 AM
He is just a fat fuck. Mas Grande'
3rd Post Ever Hope I'm getting better. by Matt@EtheC	Mar 4th, 2001 03:02:27 AM
It seems to me that the Intelligent posters (My value judgement appies to the post, not the person) are divided into the usual two camps: the Artist and the Marketers. Dollars to Donuts that similar discussions were actually had in whatever room the marketing desicions were made. "We want to tease them!" Said the artists," but let's put some dark overtones." And you can be guaranteed that influences were talked about. Caravaggio (wasn't he the guy without thumbs in the English Patient?), etc, were talk du jour for a whole day wherever this was worked up. Meanwhile the ad department said, "Let's wow them! Give them something to show the spectacle." It seems that whoever is in charge of this thing sided with the artists. Now I can't say I love the poster, like I did the Phantom Menace teaser, or the Juassic Park logo or the Mary Shelley's Frankenstien with the lightning and all that, I do like it and would likely hang in in my home theater if the aforementioned weren't already hogging the space. Nuts to all that talk about individual appraisal. Let's talk about how this will work in the grand scheme. First off, it will NOT reach those cats who turn up late, or always talk or whatever. Those folks are too self centered to notice anything in a theater, Too busy talking about wahtever earth shattering event recently transipred that made them late this time. The poster will reach only people who are taking their time, and looking around the theater. That odd gaze and the ring will make folks walk over to look at it. And just like all the Talkback, some will say, YUK. Some will say, WOW and most will say, EHH (insert shrug of shoulders). But most will say, hmm, wonder what that is, unless they know the phrase, or recogize it. And folks will start talking. Rome wasn't built in a day. And I think this poster uses that axiom. There are others, but I think its a very effective way to go. Why is everyone so worried about the financial success of the movie? Let's do the math. 50 Million copies sold world wide. Let's say only a third of these 50 million book owners goes to the show, ever. And of them only 10% turn up on opening night that's 5 Million people. It is nerly a worldwide release, no? Add them to the 1 Million people who I can personally guarantee will respond to whatever ad campaign takes place. That's 6 million people going to see it on Opening night (seems conservative to me, but I'm trying). Times $8, and you have Lets see, a $48 Million opening. Sounds good to me. But this is connected with the points made in the Harry Potter trailer Talkback. It seems even the geeks are starting to need to get validation over their entertainment consumables. Worry not for the boxoffice gross, the TV will take care of that. Worry not over the quality of the films, you have no control ofver that. Worry only about staying alive, out of jail and in $8 for December 19th, to find out how this all plays out.
JonQuixote, I respect your opinion, but... by Elliot_Kane	Mar 4th, 2001 04:06:59 AM
I don't think you have looked at the poster beyond your initial impression. At first glimpse it could seem like a pretty standard poster - until you notice the look on Frodo's face. The idea, I think, is that you look, shrug, then do a double take when you realise that you're not seeing what you think you are. The idea of a teaser poster is to intrigue those who see it, and create a talking point. The more people who say "What on earth is that about?" the better. Anyone who has somehow managed to avoid knowing anything about LOTR will want to know what is so horrible about a ring that makes its owner look so haunted. If I knew nothing about LOTR I would find it puzzling, and would probably put my brain on alert for anything similar that appeared, just to clear the mystery up. Also, the main focus of the poster is the ring, not Frodo, who is providing both background and comment upon it. He is presenting it to the world. The idea of a good poster/painting is to draw the eye to the most important point of the work - which in this case is the ring. The ring itself thus takes the place usually reserved for the main character. That's pretty intriguing, I think. This poster works for me.
I hate this poster by Pippin's Diamond	Mar 4th, 2001 04:23:23 AM
And all of a sudden I'll probably be branded an idiot for not liking it. Why? Have any of you tried adjusting the damn lighting, besides greenleaf? Now bad scans are Caravaggian? Man! Elijah looks weird and stiff and curiously out of proportion. It's just not a very good teaser to me, and I'm a huge fan of the books. This same concept could've been done better. Here's pics of Frodo that we've seen before, and any of them with the "One Ring To Rule Them All" caption would do more for me than this IMHO godawful "teaser" poster: Frodo looking at the Ring - http://www.geocities.com/etien ne_rollinger/frodo_ring.jpg - That's the first one I saw, and it got me completely excited about the films. Now a shot that isn't made to look pretty, but still looks more dramatic to me than the awful teaser: http://www.geocities.com/etien ne_rollinger/frodo_aol.jpg - And now my favorite, Frodo with the Elvish inscription of the Ring reflected on his face: http://www.geocities.com/etien ne_rollinger/frodo1.jpg - Am I the only one who thinks any of these images would be better? - By the way, a big hullo to Skyway, Ingold, Pallando, Natalie, Tinuviel and greenleaf. Long time no see, folks! Been missing you. P.S. I agree with everything Elliot Ness said. Nam
Wouldn't it be funny if... by brokentusk	Mar 4th, 2001 05:18:55 AM
Imagine the scene in Bag End where Gandalf explains to Frodo the immense task before him and he explains that ONLY Frodo can take the ring to the Cracks of Doom. Imagine Frodo is holding the ring, he opens his hand, looks at it and looks up with the expression on his face from the Teaser Poster (as if to say: "I'm fucked!") No, I seriously love this Teaser, it's so dark, cool and mysterious. I knew a lot of you would hate the Teaser Poster NO MATTER WHAT WAS ON IT. I say lets just relax and see what Peter Jackson has in mind before we all start bitching over the fact that Elijsh Wood's lips are too red.
I guess it's profound. I guess it's a masterpiece. I guess it' by JonQuixote	Mar 4th, 2001 07:51:35 AM
Let me get this straight, the statement "I'm missing the bigger picture" is defended by saying the exact same thing that zsasz and I discussed and agreed on earlier. I say, 'yes, if this is the first in a series of similar posters, each highlighting a character, then the marketing scheme here would seem to have a purpose'. The response to that is, 'JonQuixote, you're missing the bigger picture, this may be the first in a series of similar posters, each one focusing on similar characters. What do you think about that?'. Or perhaps I could write a number of posts, modifying and further explaining my opinion, and the result is an assumption that I've done no more than glance at the poster and start shooting my mouth off. Sigh. Nice to know the reaction to my posts is based on the actual content of my argument, and not just blindly lashing out at a critique of a zealously beloved franchise. "What, a negative or less than enthusiastic post about anything LOTR? What a moron!"*** and to address the body of your argument Elliot, I'm sure those who knew little about Cast Away were 'intrigued' by the expression on Tom Hanks' face. Or that those who knew little about MI2 were intrigued by Tom Cruise's expression, and scar, and hair. That doesn't make it a particularly interesting or awe-inspiring ad campaign. And that has little to do with the ultimate success of the film, as both were monster hits. All I'm saying is that this poster is average, and as a teaser, it could have been much, much better. The marketing of movies is one of the aspects of cinema that most interests me...and, although I am interested in seeing this movie, and I have read the books, this poster did not catch me at all. I didn't hate it...I thought it was kind of odd and some jokes sprang to mind...and those others I showed it to(to further think about my argument and consider the poster) were similarly unimpressed.
JonQuixote, I was NOT having a dig at you. by Elliot_Kane	Mar 4th, 2001 08:59:24 AM
I am sorry if you took it that way. Nor was I repeating others' points. Whether there are more posters to follow is irrelevant as we can only work with the information we have. I was just spelling out the reasons why I like this poster, and drawing your attention to a couple of things I thought you might have missed. We all perceive things differently, after all, and I hoped to increase your appreciation of the poster. As you obviously spotted it all already, we are just going to have to disagree on what is, after all, no more than a difference in taste.
Jon Quixote I didn't want to get on your nerves... by brokentusk	Mar 4th, 2001 09:37:24 AM
So I'm sorry if I did. Yeah, you're right, you did say that these posters would be cool as a series of similar styled posters -I just feel that this IS a good poster and wanted to defend my feelings of awe. You're also right about the whole 'Castaway' and 'M:I-2' expression thing - the only difference is...nobody cared. For 'The Lord of the Rings' fans immediatly examine every little detail - including expressions. Some people REALLY care for these films and the books, so they actually take the time to look at the character expressions on posters. For the other films, nobody really cared what the character was thinking, why should we - we don't know the character until after we see the film, with 'The Lord of the Rings' some people know the insight into the character(s) and think the poster has great depth. Oh well...you're entitled to think it's a so-so poster and that it won't draw in the crowds. I feel that it's pretty darn cool and I like the whole dark feel. Also, I do think it'll perk people's interest. Perhaps every poster will have a different style for each character, instead of mountains and grass in the backround of the Saruman poster, we'll see Orthanc or hordes of Orcs or something... I guess we'll have to wait and see...
matters of taste by JonQuixote	Mar 4th, 2001 10:40:14 AM
sorry for getting snippy...i was just enjoying this debate, and the effort i put into it, until i got the impression that what i said and how i said it was being observed and argued no deeper than 'i don't like the posters'. and it is a matter of taste, i'll agree. or agree to disagree. but i really don't think this is an ad campaign or poster that people will talk about [other than THIS conversation, that is :) ], and that's too bad, since anticipation and hype are often one of the most enjoyable conversation topics. I can remember seeing posters of Batman in '88 that had the symbol and just said 'summer' that really got me (and others) excited. Same with ID4 (did you see THAT?), and even Godzilla, which was maybe over-hyped, but I think we can all admit that the early trailer was pretty cool. As one last example, I offer the suggestion of a poster for Indiana Jones 4. Harrison Ford, fedora on, pained Indy-expression on, staring off the page at you, holding a whip. Coming Summer '03. OR just the hand, holding the coiled bullwhip. With the caption Summer '03. Which would make you more excited...which would tease you more? But, I am aware that I'm repeating myself here, and that nobody is going to change their minds. Good chatting.
Christian symbolism by Annelise	Mar 4th, 2001 11:28:53 AM
Just a thought... Does this picture remind anyone of a lot of pictures of Jesus? I realize that you can read a lot of Christian symbolism into LOTR, but I was really hoping they'd leave the movie sort of open-ended, like the books. LOTR isn't a straight allegory, and playing up the Christian angle could lose a lot of the power of the books, where you get to choose your own interpretation. I'm hoping this poster isn't a bad sign.
superninja- you're the twit by Sir Mordred	Mar 4th, 2001 12:25:07 PM
The Shire basically equates to 1700s England- where there are a lot of pasty faced people. And plus- it hasn't really been sunny in the land of mordor or Moria, so he will be pasty. Oh yeah- and the ring makes him deathly sick- so once again- you're the stupid twit. SM- great first post- i laughed my ass off. And sevenigma, the world is full of haters. I see them everywhere, and they don't even know they're haters. Same for quamb. lol morph. Natal;ie, we didtn change IDs, just some of us are disappointed- like morpheus. I think greenie too. Nice catch dufu. Greenie- nice rescue there. It looks better. Elanor- i couldn't find anyone either. And so many weird people are here cause it's been on the main page for the past week. It's like the third story. Annelisse, what the fuck are you talking about? I se absolutely no symbolism in this poster. of course it's in the book cause Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. P'sD, I dunno what to say bout your ideas with the pics. Those are nice- but htis one is dark and ominous and more - dare I say it- 'mass appealing'
Aw Shit by Sir Mordred	Mar 4th, 2001 12:26:58 PM
Fucking TB's are hosed again! I have a post somewhere up there dated the 4th
What a load of moaning morons... by BG	Mar 4th, 2001 12:28:51 PM
... there are in this talk back. What do you want for a first teaser trailor? I think it looks perfect. If your all worried it won't attact enough non-fans I'm sure the next one will have a few car chase scenes or perhaps a sexy bedroom scene with Liv Tyler wearing some skimpy Elvish lingerie, approaching Arragorn lying in bed, with the caption "Is that Anduril you have under the covers, or are you just glad to see me?"
Um, I meant poster, not trailor, of course. by BG	Mar 4th, 2001 01:45:35 PM
Hello to all the regular LOTR TBacker's. Miami, let me know what you think of UTs. I hope you enjoy it after I gave it such high praise. I also agree that it should be mushrooms that the Hobbits steal from farmer Maggot, although I believe they are picking mushrooms when they have their first encounter with a black rider. Now to get back on topic. Considering there are thousands of people across the Internet discussing the merits or otherwise of this teaser poster right at this very moment, I would say this poster has more than done its job.
Since when did hobbits only have three fingers and a thumb? by 221b	Mar 4th, 2001 03:08:48 PM
"So that's one perm to go, Mr. Frodo, sir? Well you won't believe this, master Frodo sir, but I just heard that Gandalf's head goes to the top of his hat!" Oh by the way, I'm last at the moment!
to Sir Mordred by Annelise	Mar 4th, 2001 04:41:44 PM
Okay, so maybe I'm just projecting my fears onto the poster, and there really is no religious symbolism. But listen... First of all, it looks like a Renaissance oil painting (could be Caravaggio; I don't know anything about him) of a religious figure. Second, the whole sorrowful face in darkness thing, combined with the curly hair just reminds me of those crown of thorns pictures. And then he's holding the ring, as if to say, "Look what I'm doing to save you." I will suffer to save the world. Sort of the whole tormented in Gethsemane or on the cross bit... Yeah, maybe I'm reading stuff that isn't really there, but the first second I saw the poster, I thought "Ohmygod it's straight out of a Renaissance religious triptych!" Just the fact that it reminded me that strongly of those paintings makes me a little nervous. On the other hand, maybe that will help people think "Wow, these movies are a culturally worthwhile story, not just cheap sword-and-sorcery action." So maybe it's a good thing, and just ties in with what people were saying about Caravaggio. (Who is he anyway? Can somebody tell me?)
FOur fingers and thumb you twit by Sir Mordred	Mar 4th, 2001 04:50:53 PM
Look at it closely- and if you aer still blind- find greenie's post and go see teh good pic. By the way, greenie, how did you do that? What perogram can you use to degreen it? I'm not good with pics. No experience. Anyways- that's all I gotta say. Oh wait- elanor- I always seem to piss off Harryuvatar enough to screw up my post. And Mooooaters always stretches out the TBs. It's the way of the world.
Thanks for clarifying by Sir Mordred	Mar 4th, 2001 04:57:38 PM
Really thanks- this isnt sarcasm. That's the bad thing aobut sarcasm and words, you can't ever tell anyone it isn't sarcasm. I always love the idea of Gethsemane. I know I didn't spell it right- but hey, maybe I like it cause of that one B5 episode. Now i really am done.
Thumbs up on the poster, oh, and Go to Hell, Carolina, Go to Hel by devil0509	Mar 4th, 2001 07:42:36 PM

Poster ord of the Rings by adelezore	Mar 4th, 2001 08:15:11 PM
Huh?? what has that poster got to do with L ord of the Rings? It looss like and advertisement for a magician. Not Hobbits and golems.
It's Gullom (Gollum?)- aw fuck it- it's Smeagol by Sir Mordred	Mar 4th, 2001 08:21:19 PM
That shows how much you know it deals with LOTR- you fucking twit. I'll cut your heart out with a spoon. Cause it hurts more you twit! Alan Rickman is a genius.
Congratulations adelezore... by BG	Mar 4th, 2001 08:40:00 PM
...that must be the worst attempt at typing a coherent statement in the history of computers. I suggest a new keyboard or a new brain, whichever is at fault. Sir Mordred, nice attack, and good to see you keeping up the tradition of having your posts disappear to all parts of the TB.
Reminds me of Jim Morrison... by JD1866	Mar 4th, 2001 09:15:01 PM
I like the poster. Even if I knew nothing of the story, the haunted look on Frodo's face would catch my attention. Many thanks to greeny for the much improved version. Miami, I agree. What's up with the carrots? Seems to me to be a rather pointless change. BTW, just what are you doing posting? I thought you had a reading assignment to complete? LOL. Finally, welcome back to Pips D. Thanks for the letter. I thought you may have moved on to greener pastures (with or without the goat).
Been too busy to post most of this weekend, but here're my closi by Dave_F	Mar 5th, 2001 01:08:50 AM
First off, I maintain that the teaser poster is fairly strong. An image of the ring alone wouldn't be enough, because it wouldn't convey any sense of the human cost of the ring's power. If anything, the ring pictured alone would be even more remote to non-Tolkien fans. As it stands, the poster informs the viewer that there's something special about this ring - something so special it can make you a ruler - while simultaneously suggesting the enormity of the ring's price. I wouldn't have minded seeing an awe-inspiring shot of the Fellowship, and I expect to see one before the campaign is over, but it's hard for me to imagine the poster depicting any specific dramatic scene from the books without risking alienating non-fantasy fans. You gotta remember that for many people, fantasy trappings immediately suggest juvenile tendencies. We know that Gandalf is a cool S.O.B., but say the word "wizard" to Joe Blow, and he'll be thinking of bad movies like "Dragonheart", geeks who play "Dungeons & Dragons", cheesy TV like "Xena" and those Hallmark leprechaun movies, and children's novels like "Harry Potter". A few people might remember good fantasy films like "Conan" and "Excalibur", but the fantasy genre has never had an equivalent to sci-fi's populist victories with "Star Wars", "Close Encounters", "E.T.", "Terminator", and "The Matrix". Again...there's very little I can see them putting on early posters that wouldn't risk alienating many. Anything with an elf or a dwarf or a wizard is all but taboo until they put out the first full-length trailer that can establish the serious tone of the story and (hopefully) something of the quality of the writing. The first teaser trailer had a fairly cliched fast-cut style which conveyed very little (as was the case with "X-Men"), and I just think it's too early to throw out pictures of little people. Not without context, or they'll be saying, "Christ, another 'Willow'". **** Jon, I agree with your general assessment that the campaign isn't very exciting now, but I see that as a necessity given the circumstances. This film is damn risky, especially since the success or failure of the in-progress sequels is predicated on the first one. Therefore, caution is perhaps more appropriate than mega-hype. I'm guessing the marketing men are somewhat resigned to the fact that the unpopularity of fantasy means they can't promote the film through normal blockbuster channels. In the end, this movie's sales will rely on some of the elements that made "X-Men" a success (built-in audience, internet hype) and some of the elements that made "The Sixth Sense" popular (word of mouth, memorable first trailer). But they absolutely CANNOT go the "ID4" route. ** And Quixote, while you're right about how most mega-blockbusters successfully promote themselves, I believe that last Summer's two big hits, "X-Men" and "Mission Impossible 2", had fairly forgettable initial teasers. Can you even recall their posters? I think "X-Men's" had a big gray "X" on it - whoopee! - and "Mission Impossible 2" had a motorcycle and a lot of orange. Nuthin' to write home about, but both films left the Summer as champs. **** Here's another specific criticism I want to address: Quixote, you wrote that the poster looked too similar to other typical movie posters (you suggested it could be Obi-Wan looking at you with a lightsaber drawn, or Bond with his pistol), but those examples have familiar characters with familiar accoutrements. Frodo is not a familiar character to many, and the ring is far more mysterious than a lightsaber or pistol. I'm not saying people will see it and shout, "My GOD, MAN! What IS that ring and what HORRORS does it hold that would cast such a pall on its bearer?!!"...but I think it'll pique a little interest, despite what your lunkhead roommates say ;) I don't doubt that the poster fails for some as they see it on their little monitors, but let's at least see it full size in a theater before we dismiss its effectiveness. ******* In the end, though, quality is the only thing that'll give this film real sales. It'll pull a hundred million easy from Tolkien fans, but it MUST, MUST, MUST be good to break the 200 or 300 million mark and for the sequels to have any chance of survival. "Lord of the Rings" is actually in just about the same position "Star Wars" was as it geared up for release in '77. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting "Star Wars" actually had a fairly low-key promotion campaign. A lot of folks probably thought it was going to be cheesy crap in the tradition of 50's B-grade sci-fi and old "Flash Gordon" serials. Instead, it blew their minds by truly taking them somewhere they'd never been before, and simultaneously opened the doors for every sci-fi blockbuster that followed. So can Peter Jackson recreate Lucas' success for the fantasy genre? I say the quality of the film is almost the sole deciding factor. Promotion, good or bad, will have a negligable effect on final receipts. Feel free to quote me on that in the months to come. ************ One last comment: Jon, you're not the enemy, of course. When you reacted strongly a post or two back to taking on so many defenders, you were pretty much mirroring the annoyance I felt when I made my "fucking whiners" post. At that point, the vast majority of posts had been jokes about the poster or what I considered unfair, juvenile criticism. So I got pissed, made an angry post, and had everyone mentioning Caravaggio for a day. Actually, that was kinda fun, but hopefully this post will clarify my specific defense of the poster and the campaign thus far. Now I'm goin' to sleep, dammit!
and the next teaser poster will be... by Lupe	Mar 5th, 2001 03:40:26 AM
another close up of a character, probably Gandalf with the tag line "one ring to find them" this will be followed by a third several months later of....oh lets say Gollum with the tag line "one ring to bring them all" and lets finish of with a big shot of an ork and "and in the darkness bind them" Lupe (nice poster though) x
THESE MOVIES ARE GOING TO SUCK by ad1771	Mar 5th, 2001 05:57:20 AM
Seriously. Reading the books again for the first time in years and I can tell you now these movies ain't gonna work. We're going to be very very embarrased. We'll take our wives and girlfriends and those women we just want to touch in interesting ways, to see the story told on the BIG SCREEN (for effect) and we will cringe....... They will laugh so hard at us and our sad flushed little cheeks that popcorn will canon from their iddy biddy noses! Going to see these movies is like masturbating to a picture of Champion the Wonder Horse, do it in private. Girls, ladies, women if you're feeling left out of my waffle up there, don't. I know there are plenty of female LOTR fans but ya see my fixtures are somewhat different to your own and so I feel it's safer to write from a male point of view. I wouldn't dare to pretent I know what goes on in the female mind. No, don't tell me. I'd rather keep guessing, thanks.
Oh,FUCK OFFFFF!! by The True Priapic	Mar 5th, 2001 09:03:19 AM
It's only a poster you fucking wankers.Sweet Christ,sucha palava about a poster.FUCK!!Oh and by the way IDIOTS use 'to' and 'too' grammatically correctly.I aint the best writer in the world but by god,theres a lot of fucking MORONS on this site...Christ,I'm off to punch a wall................
Red Lips, Homophobia, etc. by DrLocrian	Mar 5th, 2001 09:30:23 AM
Now, yes, it is true that quite a number of talkbackers has written some pretty outrageous things, and it is true that some of those things they write are unfunny, vicious, anti-gay rants. However, I think far more prevalent here is an intrinsic lack of humor amongst certain talkbackers. The LOTR teaser poster, imo, has a pretty ludicrous element, and some talkbackers (including myself) have joked about the fact that Frodo is absurdly dolled up with good reason. I love LOTR, btw, and I sincerely hope that the movies are as incredible as they could be. But I don't consider Jackson's movies to be on sacred ground, and I don't mind having a good laugh about the fact that some marketing genius thought it would be a good idea to make Frodo up like a drag queen. I'm not meaning that in a cruel or offensive way. Hell, the gay friends I've had (and have) will, I'm sure, think the poster is hilarious once they see it for the same reasons I do (especially the ones who have read LOTR). Yes, Frodo looks like he's proposing to Sam in the poster, and yes, it's ok to laugh about that. If you think observing such things is offensive, I have a suggestion: lighten up. Despite the fact that Tolkien never intended it, Sam and Frodo's relationship can legitimately be interpreted as having homosexual overtones. If you think W.H. Auden (a huge fan of LOTR, one of the greatest poets of the 20th century, and a homosexual) didn't interpret the hobbits' relationship that way, you're probably wrong. That's the great thing about literature: there's no incorrect way to look at it as long as you have evidence to back up your opinions. I, btw, don't agree with the Sam/Frodo homosexual theory for various reasons, but there's definitely room for suspicion and, with a poster like New Line has presented, there's definitely room for a chuckle or two.
Ah, once again a nice discussion draws to a close... by brokentusk	Mar 5th, 2001 09:50:05 AM
Well this was...ah...fun. It's amazing how divided people's opinion's of the films thus far is. Some people love what they see, others don't. Anyway, I'm happy and I'm sure things will look up for the people who aren't so far with the way things are going (marketing wise)...
Hmmm.... by Jaka	Mar 5th, 2001 09:53:56 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that the fact that this is obviously not a "little person" of any kind is a bad sign (too many posts too read them all already)? I love LOTR and will go see all three movies if they suck worse than Conan the Destroyer. And I think the poster is kinda weak. But, like someone said, it is a teaser poster. I hope they get better.
ad1771 by greenleaf	Mar 5th, 2001 10:52:52 AM
you got some issues
Bravo, Cormorant... by BG	Mar 5th, 2001 11:55:49 AM
...that is the most sensible and eloquently put post I've seen on these TBs in ages. You speak with a level headed reason that beautifully sums up the whole situation and puts everything in perspective. My first post also was in anger, but now that I've calmed down a little you've taken the words right out of my mouth. Bravo.
Ok, I thought I was done but... by JonQuixote	Mar 5th, 2001 12:31:33 PM
A few more things. Cormorant: One, I never said that this poster was derivative of a Star Wars with Anakin holding a lightsabre...I was making the point that you wouldn't see that poster from Lucasfilm. Regardless of the actual quality of his films, George sure knows how to run an ad campaign. This is more of an MGM type poster.* I mentioned this to you already, but X-men had a great teaser poster with Wolvie's blue gloved claws making an 'X' that hit theatres in Fall '99. THAT got me monstrously hyped.What the hell is wrong with going the ID4 route. There was a movie with the Fresh Prince of Bel Air fighting aliens and the guy from Spaceballs playing the president, and the marketers turned it into a must see event (wasn't it the biggest or second biggest opening ever, at the time?). The ID4 campaign is something studio marketers should study like priests study their bibles** Ok, now I'm done for real.
Why does everyone believe that htis TB is coming to a close? by Sir Mordred	Mar 5th, 2001 02:25:33 PM
I have not yet begun to RANT! And I prolly won't rant much today. Too bad Rickman wouldn't fit in as a character in this- I can see him voicing Gothmog. Putting LOTR on the screen is an insurmountable task- almost as hard as putting Dune on the screen. Personally, I loved Lynch's Dune- although when I read the book I could never find the weirding modules. I don't hope PJ's LOTR will turn out like that cause well, it alienated so many fans. My only hope is that we can all sit down and when it's over think, "Hey, that was pretty good." I don't see PJ as a magnificent director- casue I've only seen Heavenly Creatures, but I do see him as one of the few who can get emotion and detail across. Hopefully he can continue this in his interpretation of LOTR.
looks like ... by Panthalassa	Mar 5th, 2001 02:40:56 PM
hey, isn't that jim morrison on the cover of "no one here gets out alive"?
I'm afraid that drlocrian, and many other posters... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 5th, 2001 03:04:13 PM
...to this forum over the months have bought into the fallacy of the "American" view of appropriate male to male interpersonal relationships that has (been) propagated over the course of much of the 20th century; which is: Physical contact beyond punching each other out, or any heartfelt affection beyond "good to see ya' man" between males, is by definition, indicitive of a homoerotic subtext. The average male resident of the United States has become so unreasoningly homophobic since gays started coming out of the closet that they apparently cannot interpret the simple brotherly affection between Sam and Frodo in LOTR in any way other than as necessarily having homosexual underpinnings, and thus is fraught with homoerotic inuendo. This view is complete and utter horseshit, and is as I have already stated, largley confined to American males. I have spent a a good portion of my adult life in western Europe, particularly in Italy, where men embrace and kiss as a matter of course when interacting socially with absolutely no homoerotic interpretations of this NORMAL behavior what-so-ever by ANYONE. This is an American hang-up that JRRT did not suffer from. So please, let's all give this overly debated, and ultimately excruciatingly boring, (for anyone other than easily titillated teenagers) discussion a much deserved rest! Namarie Mellyn, an' Trubba Not. SM{;-0
You missed both points, SM by DrLocrian	Mar 5th, 2001 03:57:32 PM
Please do me the courtesy of actually reading a post before you respond to it. But I'll wrap up the points I've already made for you: 1) the teaser poster presents us with a Frodo with heavy rouge and cover girl, red lipstick. That is funny. Funny to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, I daresay. It simply requires a sense of humor to recognize that. The fact that it's a hoot that Frodo is overly made-up in the teaser poster is an insult to neither Tolkien nor homosexuals. 2) Even though, as I mentioned in my previous post (and you would have known this already if you had actually read it), I don't agree with the interpretation myself, it is valid for a modern reader to suppose that there may be homosexual overtones in Frodo and Sam's friendship, even if they are not conscious ones. There is no right or wrong way to interpret fiction as long as there is some reasonable evidence to back it up. Calling someone else's opinion "horseshit" simply because you don't happen to agree with them belies a short-sighted and unpleasant disposition (whether or not you're well-traveled). And, oh yeah: lighten up, man.
You missed both points, SM by DrLocrian	Mar 5th, 2001 03:59:14 PM
Please do me the courtesy of actually reading a post before you respond to it. But I'll wrap up the points I've already made for you: 1) the teaser poster presents us with a Frodo with heavy rouge and cover girl, red lipstick. That is funny. Funny to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, I daresay. It simply requires a sense of humor to recognize that. The fact that it's a hoot that Frodo is overly made-up in the teaser poster is an insult to neither Tolkien nor homosexuals. 2) Even though, as I mentioned in my previous post (and you would have known this already if you had actually read it), I don't agree with the interpretation myself, it is valid for a modern reader to suppose that there may be homosexual overtones in Frodo and Sam's friendship, even if they are not conscious ones. There is no right or wrong way to interpret fiction as long as there is some reasonable evidence to back it up. Calling someone else's opinion "horseshit" simply because you don't happen to agree with them belies a short-sighted and unpleasant disposition (whether or not you're well-traveled). And, oh yeah: lighten up, man.
Slight chip on the shouder there locrian? by Skyway Moaters	Mar 5th, 2001 06:10:45 PM
I didn't mention the "Drag Queen" comments because the poster does not strike me as Frodo being overly made up, or as otherwise androgenous in the slightest; merely stylized. The fact that you see a drag queen in this poster and homoerotic undertones in LOTR only serves to reinforce my opinion that most American men are pre-disposed to see any sort of male representation that differs from the rugged "Marlboro Man" stereotype that's been pounded into their heads by the American pop culture media monster since they were little kids, as somehow aberrant. I didn't mention western Europe to brag about how well travelled I am but merely to point out that this negative stereotype of male to male affection is an American perception that is not shared by a good deal of the rest of the world, nad most assuredly not by JRRT himself as he was writing LOTR.
That's a buncha HORSESHIT! by Sir Mordred	Mar 5th, 2001 11:04:29 PM
Locrian- no I didn't read yours. and I ddin't resond to yours. I responded to the shorter ones, maybe they sounded like yours, but yours was long and I am lazy. SM, you were braggin' don't say you weren't, we know you. :-o SM- like Rinaldi in that shitty book Farewell to Arms- have to read for English. SM, I do agree with you, but on a diferent basis. Homosexualism has been around and open in Europe for the last oh- 2000 years. So the people over there have grown accustomed to it and treat it like any normal human beign would. Here in America, we are 'shocked' that it exists because we are so 'Christian' and 'God-Fearing' (and yes, if you 'call' yourself one of those- I probably am making fun of you, sorry, that's just me [and I know I'm going to Hell for that]). Since homosexuality is so 'new' in America, American males are not sure of their own sexuality, so they are scared of becoming gay. If they see people on any show that portray to them what a 'gay' person acts like, they jump to the conclusion that it's a stupid show and they can';t watch it. It's not because pop culture has fed us gay-bashing, but because most American males have tendencies (I know you know what I mean), hey just look at 'Lil Bow Wow's security guard! American males are so insecure with their sexuality that they have to dona homophobic facade (is that pronounced fasahd- cause that's the word I mean) so that their friends won't alienate them or beat the shit out of them. It's too bad we all can't follow the example of George Went and his poker game in Outside Providence. One Boston Irish Catholic says this to Alec Baldwin cause he won the hand, "Dammit, you fuckin' cocksucker!" George Went says, "What, now it's MY fault?" And they laugh- CAUSE ITS NO FUCKIN DEAL! if the guy is gay, he knows you aren't so you don't have to beat him up and you don't have to distance yourself from him- unless you ARE gay and you don't like him. Wait- is this a LOTR TB? Oops. Sorry bout that folks. I hope this doesn't get lost.
TB Order hosed again! That is horseshit- Harry, get it fixed! by Sir Mordred	Mar 5th, 2001 11:07:06 PM
NT
SM is right. by Elliot_Kane	Mar 6th, 2001 02:12:17 AM
DrLocrian states quite correctly that any interpretation of literature is tenable providing it can be substantiated, but offers no validation of a homosexual subtext in LOTR. Close bonds will always be forged between those who share adversity, but that does not mean they wish to have sex. We love our parents, our friends and our pets. Many of us love our country. These are normal human feelings, and have nothing to do with sexual urges. *** SM is wrong in his assumption that there is a 'European' view on anything. Europe is composed of a group of nations each of which has their own unique cultural and racial background. The traditional view of homosexuality is different in each case.
I agree with you guys about lack of homosexual subtext in LOTR by DrLocrian	Mar 6th, 2001 07:20:54 AM
I'll repeat myself again, this time with no extra points to muddle it: I don't personally believe that there is any gay subtext in the relationship between Frodo and Sam. I have actually argued about this matter with quite a few people who firmly believe there is a homosexual overtone to to their relationship. I recognize the points they make, but it is my opinion, as SM pointed out, that the physical touching, kissing, shy handholding and the like between them are all examples of nonsexual affection between two males. I am convinced that JRRT didn't intend for any homosexuality to be read into the story. However, I do acknowledge that the matter is up for debate and a matter of personal interpretation, and I don't immediately think that someone who interprets the hobbits' friendship that way is full of it; I simply don't agree with them. That stated, partially because the whole homosexual thing has been and will be an issue in LOTR, the teaser poster is funny. In fact, my wife laughed herself silly when she initially saw the poster, and she's never read LOTR. Don't get me wrong. I like the poster's intensity, its wholly appropriate darkness, and I think it would be terrific were it not for the distracting, heavy makeup. This isn't an American/European conflict, btw. Unless you come from the land of clowns, Elijah Wood's makeup looks downright fabulous.
Repeat yourself all you like locrian... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 6th, 2001 01:40:43 PM
... you're still a homophobe. I didn't even notice the "heavy makeup" until you started your Beavis and Buttheadish twittering about drag queens: "ha ha ha what a riot I better laugh because boy howdy am I threatened by the obviously gay drag queen on that poster! Save me mommy! I might have a homosexual fantasy!..." The look of an old world oil painting was MY first impression. And say what you will about there being no difference between attitudes about space and male to male touching and affection, in the US and Europe, but the fact remains that millions of men in France Belgium Italy and other western and eastern European countries greet each other with hugs, and kisses on the cheek, every day, with out some immature jerkwad going: "huh huh huh that dude KISSED that other dude! huh huh they MUST be fags huhuhuhuhu..."
Ah , that would be "personal space" not "outer space..." by Skyway Moaters	Mar 6th, 2001 01:58:58 PM
NT
I love you, Skyway Moaters (er, um, in a STRAIGHT way, of course by DrLocrian	Mar 6th, 2001 03:58:37 PM
And I'll be sure to let my gay friends know that you have uncovered me as a homophobe. You're razor sharp perceptions and vast worldy experiences have revealed my hidden nature. Congratulations and thanks.
That's Your, of course by DrLocrian	Mar 6th, 2001 04:00:12 PM
ta ta
Ya got me.... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 6th, 2001 05:43:16 PM
...locrian, AAAGGGHHHH! I Can't take your rapier wit any longer, ooooh, it's getting dark...cough cough... I concede the discussion... you were of course right all along... sob I was just in denial... Drag quees are HYSTERICALLY funny and that poster looks like, like... Dr. Frankenfurter from the Rocky Horror Show!!! Frodo and Sam were, as any reasonably discerning reader inevitably concludes: butt banging butt buddies with a penchant for fishnet stockings and crimson lipstick. Dear god how could I have be so deceived for so many years??!! Sob Snif thank you Doctor Locrian...
All over Europe, men are able to kiss each other without any sor by JonQuixote	Mar 6th, 2001 06:04:01 PM
Like in Greece.
I love this TB by Sir Mordred	Mar 6th, 2001 08:20:56 PM
I can't wait until Locrian's totally sarcastic post. This is better than any udder jokes. Anyone know why the only sane person in Being John Malkovic is the frickin monkey? Damn that's confusing!
LOTR poster by otcconan	Mar 7th, 2001 12:16:33 AM
I've read the entire trilogy 7 times since 1986 and let me say to those of you badmouthing the poster: FRODO IS THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THE TRILOGY, NOT THE RINGS. So, I have got no problem seeing the character ont he poster, although I will say it surprised me considering the misconception that so many people have about the books. By the way, I would highly reccommend you all read The Silmarillion by Tolkien to understand what the Rings really are. By the way I am just jazzed to see what the Ents are going to look like...they were my favorites!
another question by otcconan	Mar 7th, 2001 12:23:02 AM
I wonder, are they going to include in the movies backflashes to some of the appendices found in The Return of the King? The stuff about the Orcs taking over Azanulbizar from the Dwarves and beheading their king? Something like that would go a long way towards establishing the animosity and hatred 'tween the two races.
Kiss Me, Kiss Me, SM by DrLocrian	Mar 7th, 2001 03:05:20 PM
No, big boy--YOU'RE right. The fact that I think men in makeup are funny is so clearly an indication of my latent homosexuality! But not latent no longer, lover!! You CAN'T give up this discussion--I gave up first! Ingold--guys: Seriously, though: I really don't think Sam and Frodo are in any way homosexual. I never even considered it until a friend of my mentioned his misgivings years ago. I'm certain Tolkien never intended it; I do stand corrected. It's an easily blasted theory. That said, I still find the idea of Frodo wearing (what I believe to be) heavy makeup to be very funny. If that makes me a homophobe, then I'll wear that hat of homophobia with pride. My experience with homophobes, though, is that they're angry and hateful toward homosexuals. Me, I have absolutely no problem with anyone's sexual preference. I have a gay friend, for instance, who was my boss for years; he's one of the best people I know (and one of the most talented and one of the funniest--a self proclaimed bitchy queen). Thanks for the minor flame battle, SM. It's been kinda fun; a nice distraction from this shitty job.
Lemme Splain. No, it's a long story; I'll sum up. by Sir Mordred	Mar 7th, 2001 09:46:35 PM
Locrian, I don't mean to appear rude, maybe this is my anger towards my new (and first) job, or maybe this is my teenage testosterone- but I'm not fucking talking to or about you when I say that the people who 'hate' on this poster are really gay. I was talking about the haters, which you don't belong to. You seem like a fairly intelligent person and I respect that. It was the poeple who didn't laugh, but were disgusted and cursed PJ for the so called drag queen effect. I was talking about the haters, and homophobes in general. And yes, it has been fun. Now that that's out of the way, I want to answer occablahblahblah's questions. As to the second one, they will show a little bit of prequel, but I don't believe they will show anything that has to do with Moria, just Isildur and the Second Age, maybe some of Bilbo. And when you said that Frodo is the main character in LOTR, I have to agree with you, but being a nitpick like me, I have to point out that it isn't a trilogy. I can't believe SM hasn't posted yet. It is one novel, published in three volumes, and divided into six books. This is not a trilogy. As for Ingold, no matter what Tolkien meant or intended, everything is open to interpretation, as I'm sure you learned in English Lit. I know I did. Something as simple as, "he threw an apple at him" can mean anything from confession of a sin to being impure. I was going to say somethign else, but I can't remember. Oh, you may not think of interpreting Tolkien that way, but literature is art, and you get whatever you want ot out of art. Some people get homoerotic undertones, some people get loyal friendship, and others get a great modern mythology. In any art, you all get different takes on it, no matter the artist's intention. elanor, I think that the guy was fired. For Township, it said 'creative differences.' I think that PJ kicked him off the island because his view of what it should be (probably vague, stunning, and unrealistic- [like BladeRunner]) clashed with PJ's idea, so he asked him to adjust or leave. The guy, being an artist that he is, chose to leave. That's my interpretation.
Well, there you go :)) by greenleaf	Mar 8th, 2001 11:58:07 AM
A second poster is out, and lo! It's not GREEN and Frodo's lips aren't too red for your tranquility. There. I told you before -- no lipstick, no rouge... but hey. Who listens? Oh yeah and please convert to the metric system.
No one wants to post these, so.... by greenleaf	Mar 8th, 2001 12:11:27 PM
Isildur http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_hsinc.jpg - Gil-galad http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_mferg.jpg - Haldir http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_cpark.jpg - Eowyn 2 http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_motto1.jpg - Elrond 2 http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_hweav1.jpg - Grima 2 http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_bdour1.jpg - Frodo 2 http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_ewood1.jpg - Aragorn 2 http://www.lordoftherings.net/ images/ca_vmort1.jpg - Be seeing you!
elanor... by BG	Mar 8th, 2001 12:23:46 PM
...I guess we all know that the official line is Stetson left due to creative differences between himself and PJ. I guess this could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the situation. On one hand Stetson is an experienced SFX expert and PJ may have asked for the impossible from him, in this case this could be a very bad thing. If on the other hand Stetson's work just didn't fit PJ's vision, then this could be a good thing. PJ dismissed Townsend early on for similar reasons and that decision seems to have paid off with Viggo doing a wonderful job, by all accounts. Whenever an actor is asked what they think of PJ they all say he has excellent directorial instincts, from what I've seen so far I think we should trust those instincts. I think it's important that he is allowed to fully realise his vision for this project without hindrance or restrictions placed on him from others. I saw a short documentary here in NZ about PJ when he first set up Weta. They showed the fledgling company at work developing the digital SFX for Heavenly Creatures and the impression I got from PJ was that not only did he have a strong idea of what he wanted the shots to look like, he also had a good understanding of the technical side of things, how difficult different things were, and which things were possible and which were impossible. So I guess what I'm trying to say is the same thing many others have said before, trust PJ. Lets face it, PJ's career will hinge on the success or failure of these films, it's no wonder he wants everything to be just right.
Regarding the second poster... by BG	Mar 8th, 2001 12:39:00 PM
...what are those things beside his head?
your all a bunch ov gays and frodos gay and these movis wil suck by Pallando Blue	Mar 8th, 2001 01:27:00 PM
Heh heh heh! Made ya look! [If we haven't met before, ignore that subject line; and me ol' mates, you oughta know better!] [oops! I said "mates"! uh-oh! >giggle-snort
Cool pics... by JD1866	Mar 8th, 2001 04:28:09 PM
Many thanks greeny for the links. I haven't seen those pics before and anything new is appreciated. *The new poster appears to have much better coloring, but as others have noted - what are those springs on the side of Frodo's head? And what is that object in the lower left hand corner? Hmmm. Perhaps P.B. is correct and this is a hoax.* Ingold - I have purchased a few collectibles - 1st edition of the Silmarillion, 2001 New Line LotR Movie Calendar, and a set of postcard books. The calendar is by far my favorite. The pictures posted on the net did not do it justice (which is one reason why I didn't get too upset when the teaser poster popped up). For instance, the pic of Legolas that I had seen on the net has quite a strange green cast to it while the print in the calendar has a slight green tint (very slight - in fact I probably wouldn't even have noticed it if I hadn't seen the one the net first).
Dufusyte... by BG	Mar 8th, 2001 08:25:46 PM
...what planet do you live on? Viggo a star?? DeLuca firing Townsend because people were whining on this site!!??? If Deluca made his decisions based on the comments found on this site, it's no wonder New Line got rid of him, they would have been bankrupt within a month.
dufusyte- i gotta say by Sir Mordred	Mar 8th, 2001 09:12:04 PM
Viggo is not a star. He's starred in The Indian Runner and A Perfect Murder. Now, maybe wherever you're from those were blockbuster movies, but from what I know, Viggo has had a bit part in a cult classic, The Prophecy. One thing I do have to say- Viggo's Aragorn will be more darker and much more fierce than my idea of Aragorn, but it isn't my movie, it's his. My Aragorn is much more, how should I say- English. I always pictured him as an Englishman, with the nobility and everything else that they said in Pinafore. Maybe dufusyte, if you said that's what happened with Liv, McKellen, Elijah, or Weaving, I might agree. Hell, I even consider Sean Astin more of a star than Viggo. And whatever happened to Elias Koteas?
An English-speaking friend... by greenleaf	Mar 9th, 2001 12:35:34 AM
...has recently advised me not to call myself greeny (or greenie) for reasons which you neglected to mention.... Three words: children, kleenex and mucus! So that's the kind of friends I've had here for all these years!! :)))) I suppose the morGoth started it all... I hope he's not dead, for I have long entertained the thought of killing him myself.
Yikes, why say in one word what can be said with a few hundred? by Pallando Blue	Mar 9th, 2001 07:25:07 AM
Man oh man I gotta stop posting on caffeine highs. Sorry for the TalkBack Bulk up there. Heh, Shoppers Post Warehouse. More for your money, yet you'll never get around to reading it all! * Dufusyte, well done! It's clear the folks round here need our chains yanked once in a while (or, er, merely legs pulled for the fairer sort). C'mon, y'all, when a bloke posts something so patently opposite to the reported facts this late in the TB, it's purely to tweak us Tolkien Geeks. Need I once again dig up our old fave, "Tolkien was a racist dairy farmer"? Please don't make me. * Today, I shall break up my posts.
Ingold, I take it back by Pallando Blue	Mar 9th, 2001 08:13:02 AM
I thought you meant solely movie tie-in merchandise (though I think I do want that calendar--in bookstores, or just NewLine's store?). I have been, however, collecting of a sort for over a year now. It's become my quest, and the first part is nearing its close, while the tough part's barely a quarter over. My challenge to myself was to read all twelve (12) volumes of C. Tolkien's HOME, in order, start to finish. A Herculean task, I have discovered, and pretty much my reading schedule for 2001 is Committed. As for the collecting part, that's an aspect of my pathological bibliophilia--no reprints or paperbacks allowed! Only First Edition/First Printing Hardbacks (first American edition fine, cause I am at least THAT cheap and lazy). (And only this particualr quest; not a regualr bookhunter. Shelves spilling over w/ paperbacks. No book snob me.) * The collecting: For the most part not hard to come by, especially the later volumes. Actually, I haven't gotten around to purchasing the last three volumes; the challenge just isn't the same when you can get 'em by amazon, especially with the much higher first-print runs. But I will eventually. A few tips to anyone thinking of a similar task, or considering gifts for fellow Tolkien freak bibliophiles: Most volumes will turn up eventually on eBay, and sold by collectors or vintage booksellers (check the profiles, always) and in excellent condition. The more detail listed about the book (especially a photie), most likely the more knowledgeable the seller and therefore trustworthy. Only had one disappointing transaction (eh, Tookess?), and I should have known better when the seller had only a half-dozen other sales, and no other books. A surer thing is to hit the used and vintage bookstores directly, online via a GREAT international database, www.abebooks.com. Carries the inventories of thousands of booksellers. As for price, volumes I, III, IV, and V, depending on quality, can be stolen for as little as $15, but average around $25-30. If you pay more than $35 for any of these not in MINT you're getting jobbed. The last three in the series you should pay no more than the cover price, and that only if it's unread. Because of a smaller print run, Volume II (Book of Lost Tales Part 2) is by FAR the rarest to find in first edition hardback, and in good condition will run anywhere from $60 to $120, depending on the seller, and especially in auctions. First-run hardbacks of the History of LOTR series (HOME vol. VI-IX) can also be very difficult to uncover, especially the first two, but now that they've finally been reprinted in softcover the prices don't run up nearly as much as they did 2 years ago. (Don't ask me why this hasn't worked for BOLT 2, I'm no market analyst.) Just so you know, the four Hist. of LOTR hardbound dustjackets all have GORGEOUS full-cover art by Alan Lee. And the fourth volume has a lot of non-LOTR Tolkien material (Norton Club Papers, and some others) written at the same period of Tolkien's life but left out of the new softcover edition. Try finding those anywhere else. * Okay, rambled on quite a bit there again, dammit. Just want to reiterate for my own pompous self-image that these acquisitions were not merely to look impressive on the shelf; acquiring is but the first part, and by all means the easiest. When someone looks at me and asks with a sense of disbelief and pity, "Did you really read all these?" I thoroughly plan on answering, someday, "Yes." And so later on I'll get all pedantic and talk on the Reading, how far I've gotten and what I think about it all. Because you're all just DYING to know. And so you won't have to.
Oh, and greenie by Pallando Blue	Mar 9th, 2001 08:20:06 AM
:D Ha! Actually, never made the association before, but now you're stuck with "greenie" for the rest of your days. ** But mainly wanted to say thanks for those links up there! By my bushy beard, for a green-leotarded tree-hopper you do come in handy once in a while.
Why thank you Mr. Blue by greenleaf	Mar 9th, 2001 10:14:06 AM
ATCHOOOOOOO!
Well then, Ep. sumpthin, Retoin of da Bluey! by Pallando Blue	Mar 9th, 2001 05:15:33 PM
Sorry for the weird accent. Heh, post-happy hour, pre-catching up to folx for the local Drafthouse (not Harry's Austin haunt, but from his spoutin sounds identical) showing of Unbreakable (shh! only saw it once don't spoil it for me! :) * Hey Dufusyte, actually nice to hear you rejoinder, er read you rejoinder whatever. Although the naughty part of me loves trollers and teasers to shake the joint up a bit to a degree (I have a button that sez "Hi! Ask me about my Dairy Racist Prank!"), I do prefer sound talk and discussion. SO. I won't say I disagree or don't believe what you said in your most recent post ("DSB" heheheh) about why Townsend Out, Viggo In. On insider stuff I'm ign'ant and purely conjectural. Could very well have happened as such, and yep sometimes this site can be either underestimated and/or overestimated in its influence, I think depending on the market. So you may very well be right on the money in re: the last-minute shifting of Aragorns. BUT, why I thought you were just jibber-jabbering the tail-end TBers was your bit about Viggo being the "weak link" in the cast. From everything I've heard and read, and not the studio- and set-fed cheering, has been that Viggo has been The Solid Center and the most committed, to a scary degree. Maybe he did fall backwards into the role Cosmo Kramer-like, but apparently a happier accident couldn't have happened. If what you say is true then true fate smiled kindly on the production. Maybe Townsend would have done well. But apparently Viggo's done phenomenal, taken it to heart, worked with PJ, fell deeply into character, and did everything to realize what was asked of him. Perhaps he did get the job as a concession, a compromise with the suits--but who knew the suits would fall backwards Cosmo Kramer-like into an underrated professional of such presence as Mortensen has apparently shown. NOW, if you had said (and OOOOHHH am I LOATHE to resurrect THIS olde hassle) Liv Arwen was the weak link and PJ's studio-nod, then of course (and it's almost become so cliche now as to defy it's own logic) it would make sense. It would fall along the lines of all the CHEERY reports of how everyone was so SURPRISED at how well she's done, alongside the reports that many of her scenes were cut. Either AND/OR both could very well be PR bull-hockey (sorry, felt a little "Flo" there... Kiss mah grits! there, done now). SO. Your strike-back was, as far as I'm concerned, well-received and understood and appreciated. But do some more looking around about Viggo Mortensen and this production; I think you'll be happily surprised. ** This has been heavily self-edited, well I checked for typos, cause I'm a lil buzzed. !^P
Hooked on ebay by JD1866	Mar 9th, 2001 06:52:35 PM
Pallando, sorry but the movie calendar is not available in stores or even from New Line (believe me, I even tried sweet talkin' one of their minions on the phone - no dice). I obtained mine on ebay. I've been lucky so far and haven't gotten stung. I've also purchased a few of the HoME volumes, a new set of LotR, and a couple of the movie bookmarks. Also, alot of the sellers will give you a break on the shipping if you buy more than one item which helps a bit if you're purchasing books.
VIGGO'S LOOKS!!! by greenleaf	Mar 9th, 2001 10:24:05 PM
I like him as an actor but when I look at those pics of Aragorn we have now, what do I see? I see what I had feared. To be honest I'd prefer Bakshi's apache, though I'm sure the girlies'd find him a lot less attractive. Oh well, it doesn't beat platinum blonde Haldir, Drag-Queen of Lothl
The dark one has returned by Sir Mordred	Mar 9th, 2001 10:37:16 PM
Too bad he's only here for that one post. Oh well. Dufusyte, I think I did treat you like a troll- it's just been so long- i think I might have only seen one real troll, the others were just dumb. Anyways, what is there to talk about now? Oh yeah, I would like to see your data, not to disprove you, but cause i wanna know. so, not much to talk about except Pallando's drinking. Hmm...
morGoth, welcome back and by JD1866	Mar 10th, 2001 10:55:45 AM
I'm glad to see that you've learned your lesson on unannounced visits to the Executive Sauna. Have no fear for I've removed the piranha and your delicate nether regions are safe from predation. Once bitten, twice shy, eh? Umm, sure do hope there wasn't any permanate damage! *Miami - sorry to hear about your pain in the neck. Why don't you come stay at the Club? You can visit with the morGoth and I'll assign a couple of orcettes to tend to your every need. Glad to hear that your continuing with the reading. And any book by Chris Tolkien would be a pain to read in an MRI tube. Too much flipping around for the footnotes! So, Harry has it in for 266 users. I had been wondering why everytime I post my system crashes. Must be an elvish plot. * As for Viggo's looks, I haven't made up my mind one way or the other. Sometimes I find him attractive and at others I don't. Frankly, I don't care if I do or not. I just hope his acting is up to snuff (by all reports I am encouraged)and that PJ doesn't overplay the romance card. I am not too anxious to see a love sick Aragorn mooning over Arwen.
EOP - Equal Opportunity Posting for us all! by Sir Mordred	Mar 10th, 2001 08:44:33 PM
Thurman didn't get canned- she never had it. Blanchett is better, and going to be much more famous than Thurman, so of course we all talked bad about her, then again, i only remember one post about her. And that was me, dufus. I too, have some doubts, but i believe that Viggo is a good actor, who has been typecast- it happens all the time. It will take a good actor to meet the role of Aragorn. Maybe PJ is going to have Aragorn be suspiscious of Boromir; it wasn't in the book, but that ciould have been weeariness, not servitude. Or cautiousness. Oh, and I just saw Viggo in The Prophecy, and my doubts about his ability are just about minimal. yes, I think the Devil is an evil character and not suitable for weither Strider or Aragorn, but I think he can do it. Can me crazy, but I think he can. JD, maybe it's a love sick arwen mooning over an honorable Aragorn. Same for Eowyn. Miami- it's not just 266 MHz; it's dial-ups. I used to have 266, but I have 1.2 GHz now, and it will still put me at the top. (Disreagard that if this is on bottom.)
I'm beginning to smell a concpiracy here... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 11th, 2001 10:11:57 AM
...first the "minor Rocky Horror/Pricilla of the Desert flaming war" with Locrian, then another poster sarcastically repudiates the platonic male-male affection idea with a crass comment about Greek culture, The morGoth serendipitously resurfaces to inundate this Tailender with his perverse influence, Greenie is revealed to be a member of the phleghm worshipping Lugeydalie cult, and now TORN posts a tidbit about, and a link to a Greek LOTR site....(scratches head) JUST WHAT IN UDUN IS GOING HERE?!
First of all... by BG	Mar 11th, 2001 12:52:43 PM
...welcome back morGoth! * Miami - I would be interested to know what the differences are between the first edition and the rest, if anybody knows can they please list them. * Dufusyte - I appreciate that everyone that posts here is entitled to there opinion, but.... the idea that an actor could be fired due to the ravings of a few geeks on an internet site is quite frankly the most ridiculous thing I have heard in years. It may be your fantasy that the people who post here are enlightened film gurus who have a deep understanding of what works, and film execs around the world scan this site daily, using it as some kind of indicator to the success of their movies, but I'm afraid this bears no resemblance to reality. Do you honestly believe that a movie exec would give any credibility to the rantings of people who argue for weeks about whether Sam and Frodo had homosexual tendencies or if Frodo's wearing too much makeup in the latest poster. When people post things like 'LOTR will kick Star wars's ass!' does DeLuca run to his boss's office and pronounce 'Good news, LOTR will kick Star Wars's ass. It must be true, I read it on a AICN TB.' or even 'We'll have to get rid of this Townsend bloke, some of the people on the AICN TB think he looks too young.' This is just so ridiculous I can't even believe I'm discussing it.
Dufusyte, I'm sorry if it seems I'm picking on you, but... by BG	Mar 11th, 2001 03:52:34 PM
...' Viggo would be wonderfully cast as Sauron or Wormtongue '!!!!! ' I suggest they digitally enhance his brow to make him look more regal '!!!!!!! Are you for real? Please tell me this whole thing has been a brilliantly concieved joke, which I've fallen for, hook, line and sinker. I haven't laughed so much in ages, nice one mate.
OK, OK, so what is it? by greenleaf	Mar 11th, 2001 09:16:51 PM
So. If you want to upset me, you must tell what the hell is a 'loogydalie'. Oh please, please tell me. I beseech you. It devours me. I haven't slept in two days because of you. Pretty please. Do tell. (Was that okay?)
Greetings, fellow tail-enders! by Pippin's Diamond	Mar 12th, 2001 01:43:28 PM
I'm quite sorry I've been away for so long, but I'm trying to catch up with the TB right now and I thought it a good idea to post just to let you know I'm still here, in case I don't have time to post again today if I can't finish reading the TB. Nice to see so many familiar faces (I was told the morGoth had made a silly pact of never showing up again Eru knows why... or at least so I was told. ;). Nam
Lemme splain'- no, there's too much- Lemme sum up. by Sir Mordred	Mar 12th, 2001 01:53:30 PM
I will probably be cast out of the 'Trust in PJ' group here, but I have to say. The one thing about Tolkien that I love is that the nobility have their own moral code. They follow this code through life and death. Not only do they act different than other blokes, but they look different. The Numenoreans are at least a foot taller than the rest. Maybe the Rohirrim fall into this somehow. I think I remember reading that the Rohirrim wre related to the House of Hador- they didn't cross the Misty Mountains back in the 1st Age. But back to what I was saying, the royalty did have more distinct physical traits. Of course Aragorn hides it for most of his life, but they are there. A high forehead is one of these, I believe. I thought Aragorn displayed this when he had the gem on his forehead. Maybe I was wrong. But this forces me to conceed that one point to dufusyte, but only that one point. I still believe Viggo can act nobly and very well. As for DeLuca reading this TB and making decisions, that is almost ludicrous. Of course we know that one of Astin's friends reads these, and quite probably, when he has an hour or two of deadtime - which is rarely - I think PJ reads these. I'm pretty sure all of the actors are somehow in touch with the main ideas of what we say here. As for me, I like to think I am an expert. Well, I'm an aspiring director/writer, so I feel that I can say things with some weight. Maybe my weight is only 5 lbs. (?? kg), but i like to think my opinions have some weight. Greenie- we want to switch over to the metrics, but it's just hard. Oh, and we're lazy.
Well it looks as if the gangs all here... by BG	Mar 12th, 2001 03:34:07 PM
...welcome back Ms Diamond, this must be the best tail-end turnout we've had in a while. * morGoth - thanks for the interesting info. The story would seem very strange with Gollum willingly giving away the ring. In the original, was invisibility the ring's only power or was a deeper power hinted at? * Sir Mordred - good luck with the writer/director career. Perhaps you may like to pursue 'The Hobbit' as a film college project. It could have benefits long term if these films are a hit ( which of course they will be, no question, not even the slightest possibility of a doubt and they will kick Star Wars's ass and, Frodo and Sam are not homosexuals in any way, shape or form, no, not even the tiniest little bit, and so what if Frodo wears a little lipstick, that proves nothing, Middle Earth is a free country ).
funny BG by Sir Mordred	Mar 12th, 2001 04:26:07 PM
nice tips to the viewers. Nice to see you back P's D. I only came to post one thing. I mentioned I'm aspiriong, but most of the time that doesn't mean shit. I wrote a small little play, but I have to polish it and find somewhere to turn it in. Anyways, I'm done now. Bye
elanor... by JD1866	Mar 12th, 2001 04:29:38 PM
I e-mailed you a link for that transcript you were looking for. I would have posted it here except I was afraid I would inadvertantly stretch out the tb and incure the ATOW. * Miami - part of the difficulty in delving deeper into ME is that Tolkien himself couldn't make up his own mind on certain points and that Chris took various liberties while editing the Silm (not his fault if you ask me. He has had a herculean task and frankly I'm surprised he's published as much as he has). So, it's not too surprising that the fans have trouble keeping it all straight. So, don't be shy and ask away. 'Sides, we all love discussing Tolkien or we wouldn't be here. Or you can come to Club and ask all the questions you want. Just cross the Ered Gorgoroth and follow the noise!* morGy - perhaps when your finished groping the help you can step behind the mic since I'm short of a lounge act. Maybe we can have a disco nite and you can perform a set of Barry Gibb's greatest hits? Also, thanks for the info on the epilogue. Sounds interesting.
Before and After by Sir Mordred	Mar 12th, 2001 10:21:03 PM
They are both important. Most people's main problem with Viggo is that he doesn't look noble, and Townsend didn't look rough enough. I'm sure both of them would have looked rough enough and noble enough when it comes down to it. As for Legolas- i don't know what it was, but ever since I saw the first profile of him (he had a shaved brunette head and looked very ill) I knew it was Legolas. Of course I don't picture Legolas as thin and brunette, but I knew Orlando could pull it off. As for his built, I don't think he is buff at all. Then again, it's not the weight that allows him to walk on the snow, it's the grace and the nimbleness- which strong people can have. And from what Bloom says in the interviews, Legolas wil be all about grace and flow. The perfect elf. I hope Arwen and Hugo can do it, and after seeing Priscilla, I think Hugo can. As for Club Angband, I'll have to decline the invisible invitation, it appears I am a little busy with Arwen's brothers at the Forsaken Inn.
Harry has finally gone too far... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 13th, 2001 08:40:37 AM
...when I connected to the site today and saw the "Sharon Stone" Gif, I said noooo... he wouldn't... then he DID! AAAAHHHH!
Following the recent rumors... by BG	Mar 13th, 2001 03:57:37 PM
...surrounding Frodo's 'bachelor' lifestyle, certain new facts have recently emerged. It appears that every Saturday evening Frodo would pull on a pair of his tightest, butt hugging britches, and skip along to the 'Dancing Queen', Hobbiton's alternative inn, where the more adventurous members of the Hobbit community would gather for a bit of a 'knees up'. When asked about this situation Frodo replied "There's nothing I like better than spending a gay evening with a few friends."
greenie, by JD1866	Mar 13th, 2001 04:22:29 PM
I guess you finally found a home for those pictures. I saw a link for them at Tolkienonline. They also have a cleaned up version of the 2nd teaser poster, if anyone is still remotely interested. *Speaking of tall men, has anyone heard if Elendil the Tall is going to make an appearance in the movie? I did look thru the casting pages at TORN and was unable to find anything. Just curious. Miami, I share your vision of a slender Legolas and I hope that Sir Mordred is correct about the grace and flow. I wouldn't want to see a clumsey elf plodding along over the snow! Oh, and feel free to sit in with the band at anytime, but I'm afraid that morGy won't be on lead vocals. He's failed to show up for rehearsal and I'm gonna stick with that cute little dwarf lass (beard not withstanding). Speaking of singers and songs, didn't someone promise us lyrics to the Balrog Blitz some time last year? Again, just curious. * My dear Mordred, since when do you need an invitation?
Yeah JD... by greenleaf	Mar 13th, 2001 05:42:20 PM
I found a home... actually the pics have been there for over a week... and actually this home has been my site for over a year... Saw the link on Tolkien Online, didn't mention me or my site, but oh well, that's what you get for being French. I've had a cleaned up version of the poster since day one, too... Too bad you don't speak French... :-( Oh, and that gif of Harry's? It's an aberration to mankind... er, womankind.
As always, I'd love to come by Sir Mordred	Mar 13th, 2001 11:24:16 PM
but alas- I've been mostly dead all day. Some weird American guy with a fake Spanish accent rescued me from the Rangers' clutches. I don't know where I am now, but as long as I'm not in the Forsaken Inn. As soon as I recooperate, I should be along, but first I have to deal with a few pesky rangers who are tracking me.
The Poster Is Cool by Goodgulf	Mar 14th, 2001 08:55:50 AM
I've been out of touch with news ala LOTR for a month, so I'll dive right in. Others have already answered Elanor, but just to confirm, yes the original Hobbit was changed to make it fit more closely with the LOTR. I have no idea why Townsend was dumped, or why Viggo was chosen. I can only hope he does a good job. As for the movie poster, I suppose one could read some religious concepts into it, but only if you were familiar with the book. I doubt any one who is not familiar with Tolkien will find much. As for what Renaissance artist might have been copied, my pick is Rembrandt. The dark Mona Lisa-esque background and the contrasting highlights and shadows seem reminiscent of his work. Will the poster arouse interest? Perhaps. And maybe not. Advertising is not a perfect science. As for those who want the majesty and grandeur of LOTR to be apparent, I guess they could have stolen the Ben Hur motif, with the title of the film chiseled out of granite the size of a small mountain, but that's passe now. I think the cleverest poster (and the one most closely associated with the film) is the Silence of the Lambs with the girl's face with the butterfly superimposed over her mouth. It really summed it all up nicely. It would be nice if they could do something similar with LOTR, but the story is so big, and the cast so large, and the varying threads of stories so intermingled it will be almost impossible to either make one majestic poster or please all of us no matter what they come up with. My suggestion is that they take a blank sheet of paper and paste a copy of the book to it. As for "tallness" it is estimated that Galadriel is perhaps over 6 ft. perhaps even 7 ft. tall. I doubt we'll see those dimensions in the film, but serious Tolkienites have been debating that topic for some time. I'm not quite that serious, but I do like peeking in at the hardcore purists and what they've uncovered. Some of them come here from time to time I think. You know the type. They looked at the poster and examined it pixel by pixel. And what happened to all the folks who hated Elijah Wood being cast as Frodo? Remember the debates over how young or old Frodo should look? Some wanted him to look fiftyish. Some wanted him younger. How does every one feel now?
Goodgulf... by BG	Mar 14th, 2001 12:04:01 PM
...welcome back. I think Wood is perfectly cast as Frodo. In fact when his name was mentioned before the cast was announced the first thought that occured to me was that he would be perfect as Frodo. As far as age is concerned, I feel Frodo should look young regardless of his actual age. It is needed to reinforce the innocence of his character, which contrasts with the world of evil into which he must go. Looking at the cast in general it is obvious that the look of each actor played a major part in their casting. Lee wished to play Gandalf but was given Saruman, JRD wished to play Denethor but was given Gimli. I am very encouraged by the casting as the look of each actor fits well with my personal images of the characters and, of course they are all quality actors.
Frodo's age by Sir Mordred	Mar 14th, 2001 12:33:35 PM
finally something worth arguing about. We all know that Frodo is fiftyish and that Pippin is the youngest Hobbit, around 24 or something. however, Frodo looks only 33 becasue the ring prolongs youthfulness. And the innocence idea with the age and so on and imagery. All those, plus Elijah just looking like Frodo make him the perfect choice. As for the party. I've dealt with those pesky rangers, and I will need a place to hide out, Club Angband seems good enough.
Re: young Bilbo by BG	Mar 14th, 2001 04:04:26 PM
Since the casting of young Smeagol has been discussed (Serkis?) it would seem that the scene where Smeagol, shall we say, acquires the ring, will be seen. If this is the case, it would make sense that Bilbo's acquisition of the ring will also be seen, though probably in condensed form. All these scenes will probably be seen in the prologue, which will show a brief history of the ring up to the point in time at which the movie begins. I wonder if a prologue will be shown before the other 2 movies to give a 'The story so far' introduction. Perhaps an alternative would be to have a long narative of text scroll up from the bottom of the screen and disappear off into the middle distance. Hmmmm.
I was not pleased with by JD1866	Mar 14th, 2001 06:52:54 PM
the casting of Elijah Wood. It had nothing to do with his acting abilities, of which I know little. He just always looked a little bit sneaky to me. I have since gotten over it and am sure he will do well. As for his age, I think the twentysomething look is perfect for Frodo.* greenie - I see that Tolkienonline has since given credit where it is due. Going to Cannes? You are indeed a lucky ducky loogeydalie! You must promise to give us a full report (in Enlish). * MorG - alas! you promised to sing me a song last year and I am growing old with the waiting. Does your word count for nothing? Oh, and the Dwarfette stays. You weren't the only one T70 put to sleep. I want my customers spending their coins, not snoring on the floor! ***Bravo Ingold! Thanks for that fine rendition. You can have center stage whenever you like.
Ingold you nutty man!!! by Skyway Moaters	Mar 15th, 2001 07:12:50 AM
LMFAO! No sharna pax an git the poal for this old fart! I predict major recognition at this year's Angband Music Festival. Oh and speaking of sharna pax and other abberations how goes your sojourn in Inland?
Big jolly red haired bloke seen flashing green beaver near Frogm by Skyway Moaters	Mar 16th, 2001 11:02:19 AM
NT
Somebody brought up height in LOTR earlier... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 16th, 2001 01:13:09 PM
...check out this snippet from a Cate Blanchette interview over at: http://www.herr-der-ringe-film .de/ where you may read the entire interview: http://www.herr-der-ringe-film .de/ where you may read the entire interview: Galadriel is one of the few women in the movie. Are you ever intimidated by all those big men with swords? No, she
Methuselah talkback by Pippin's Diamond	Mar 19th, 2001 03:55:39 AM
Hullo, all. I'm quite sorry to inform you that I've rotundly failed to endure the entire reading of this most epic talkback, and therefore will just post and talk about what little information I absorbed with a quick glimpse, else I may not get another chance to post. morG - nice to see you back, thanks for the clarification! BG - ditto what I told morGy, long time no see. greenie - thanks for the pics, and a plague on those T.O. bastards for not mentioning your name! - Ingold, JD, Sir Mordred, Pallando, Moaters - always a pleasure to read you! Same goes to everyone else I may have forgotten in this post. Man, I've really missed you guys as of late. About Frodo's age - The Ring seemingly stops the aging process, so Frodo would look about Elijah Wood's age and therefore I'm happy with the casting decision. I've also been puzzled by the Gaffer casting or apparent lack thereof for eons. I agree it would be very cool if he was played by John Astin. We can only hope. - - 17 years thing: Ian Holm will be playing young and old Bilbo, so I guess PJ will show the passing of years. Concerning the teaser poster, I still hate that first one but I liked the second one a lot. (Ingold, did you say Frodo looked like a slug?? Ah well, to each his own). BTW, I don't know if this has been discussed again during my abscence, but what was the final agreement on the Numenorean blades/Strider dilemma? And moreover, does any of you know where to find the hidden stuff in the Fight Club DVD? It's driving me nuts! - - - Well, nice to see you all "tailending" like in the good old days, mellyn. I'll drop by again, even if it means exposing these poor hobbit eyes of mine to the sheer terror that is the new Harry gif over and over again. Yours truly,
beaver gif ate my brain by Pippin's Diamond	Mar 19th, 2001 04:22:16 AM
I can't believe I forgot to mention the very illustrious Miami Mofo, the ever charming miss Elanor and the always elusive Dr. Locrian! Greetings to you all, and apologies for not mentioning you in my previous post. I hope you get to see this, looks like this TB has not been used in about a day! Have I gotten here too late? Alas!
Stuff by BG	Mar 19th, 2001 04:59:37 PM
Good to see a few hardened tailenders refusing to let this TB die. Hello to Miami and Pip's D. I am pleased to see that Stetson's replacement has such impeccable credentials, very encouraging. I am also glad to here that Sauron's appearances in these films will be few and that they will be computer generated, apart from the prologue. It sounds like the spy report describing the soldiers fleeing in terror from Sauron and his ring wraiths is from the last alliance battle. I can just imagine Elendil, Isildur, Gil-galad and Elrond striding forward to face their enemy in the final battle on mount Doom. Even the prologue will kick Star Wars' ass, hee hee. Pip's D, what is the Numenorean blades/Strider dilemma?
The Last Starfighter is awesome! by Sir Mordred	Mar 19th, 2001 05:03:03 PM
And I don't feel the slightest bit guilty. Harry replaced that one gif with just a sick one- poor kid- I think that's a kid. WB P's D. Miami, don't bother with the bail- I'm busting them out as we speak. I was delayed for awhile with my job. You know, the mercenary thing. Well, I was waiting on this one kill, and these stupid Rangers came back to avenge a death or something, so I whacked them too. Sorry I missed the party, but those boys shall be out in a jiffy. As for the 17 year gap, it WILL NOT be in the movies. I repeat will not. I read somewhere- I think at TORN that Pippin, Merry, and Sam will be at the Long Expected Party, appearing the same age they do in the movies. If they show the gap, Pippin would be a child and Sam not much more. The age gap can show how these people are friends at the party- rather than going to Crickhollow and taking a bath. That's what I'm guessing at least. Cause with the drag queen poster and the bath scene, then the Sam and Frodo in Mordor (please don't comment whoever that was) it would just be a little weird. I'll have the gang out before they can pronounce Khazad-dum correctly.
A Long Talk Back For A Small Poster. by Goodgulf	Mar 20th, 2001 05:26:24 PM
Yeah ,yeah, I know - we've talked about a bunch of other things, but it just goes to show that there hasn't been much news for almost a month. It's almost disheartening that we spent ANY time discussing the merits of a movie "one sheet", which in any other circumstance would be a non-subject. By that I mean can you guys think of one other film where a poster for a film was the subject of a Talk Back - either here or anywhere else? I've even been telling myself to get a life lately. Oh well, any crumb that falls from the table as it were. I've even grwon bored with trying to guess what scenes will be included or excluded, such as Crick Hollow (with apologies to those who wish to see Elijah Wood in the tub). Although Fatty Bolger does not appear to be in the film, it was nice set piece with the Black Rider creeping up on the cottage while he's there alone. One of the scariest scenes in the book actually. With a bit of humor when you imagine Fatty's plump rump hightailing it out the back. Tolkien really didn't write scary scenes though. He just told you that the Balck Riders scared the crap out of every one and you have to sort imagine being as scared as the characters. Stephen King could have helped there, though don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want one word changed in the book. But it will be interesting to see how Jackson brings fear to our hearts when encountering the Nazgul or the Balrog. On another note, I found it very telling that Jackson is hoping to push the PG-13 envelope a bit, keeping as much reality in the battles as possible without running the risk of an R-rating. Frankly, had it not been all this fuss over minors sneaking in to see R-rated films he wouldn't have to worry about it.
Hola tail-enders! by JD1866	Mar 21st, 2001 04:20:20 PM
Ingold, poet and wall builder extraordinaire, is quite right. We may not be posting, but we are still reading! * Miami - next time you drop into the Club, try not to be the town crier! I was hoping that the St. Paddy's incident would escape the notice of morGoth (who takes a very dim view of anything that disrupts business). However, we'll call it even since you and Mordred executed the Great Escape! Bet those Shirriffs still don't know what hit 'em! As for the correct pronunciation of Khazad-dum, I would say that it rhymes with tomb. Taken from Gimli's poem in FotR, A Journey In the Dark "The shadow lies upon his tomb/In Moria, in Khazad-dum." All other lines in the poem rhyme, so this one would too. Glad to hear that you enjoyed the tale of Durin's Folk. It's one of my favorites. The passage about the burning of the slain, after the Battle of Azanulbizar, always gives me chills. "To this day a Dwarf will say proudly of one of his sires: "he was a burned Dwarf", and that is enough." * BG - the Numenorean blades/Strider dilemma refers to the speculation on how the hobbits get their swords (Merry in particular) if the passage on the Barrow Downs is omitted from the movie. IIRC, we decided that either A. they bring them from Hobbiton or B. Strider arms them in Bree. I suppose it's been relegated to the Wait & See Bin. Personally, I think Strider or Butterbur will hand them out before the dog & pony show sets out for Weathertop.
by Elian Ranel	Mar 21st, 2001 05:49:12 PM
you tail-enders keep me quite entertained. as for pronunciation, Orthanc was the one i could never figure out. anyone have any ideas?
JD & Pip's D ... by BG	Mar 21st, 2001 06:30:15 PM
...I thought the swords issue had been decided ages ago. Way back when Xoannon, over at TORN, reviewed the original 2 movie scripts had stated that Aragorn supplies the Hobbits with their swords. I can think of no reason why PJ would change this in the new scripts. In fact this seems to me the best way to get around the dilemma. Firstly, since the sword that was broken has been passed down through the generations to Aragorn, it seems reasonable that other ancient treasures could also have been passed down as heir looms to him. Secondly, Aragorn giving the weapons to the Hobbits would present a perfect opportunity for him to explain to the Hobbits (and the audience) the significance of the blades.
Something I had not considered by JD1866	Mar 21st, 2001 07:48:13 PM
Michael Martinez has posted a thread on his LotR movie message board concerning that interview with Liv. Possible Spoiler She was quoted as translating 'Now my Lord, winter has not yet come. Would you before your time leave your people?' MM surmised that the movie will show the death of Aragorn (I can't believe I missed that). I'm not sure if I want to see that. Ha! I wonder what PJ thinks about that interview?
Inconceivable! by Sir Mordred	Mar 21st, 2001 11:12:37 PM
I don't see how you can have thje same scene at Bruinen with Arwen there. It wouldn't make sense. Maybe she jumps off so they can go even faster, that one goes to the wait and see bin. As for Kazhad-dum- I always pronounced it Kah- not Kay- if you say Kay-zad doom it sounds almost Texan. The dwarven language just reminds me of Arabic. or at least what I think Arabic sounds like. Hard a's and lots of hard endings like with d's. Elven just reminded me of latin- soft and flowing. I wish I had more to say, but I jsut saw Magnolia again and I can't concentrate. i keep trying to figuire out PTA's fascination with Exodus. He uses 2 passages from it- quotes one, mentions the other. Exodus 8:2 and 20:5. I didn-t catch 20:5 the first time cause William H. Macy says it while he's looking into a toilet.
Och, me haid... by Pallando Blue	Mar 23rd, 2001 08:21:10 AM
Oy, scraping myself up off the floor is no easy task these days... Wha-? It's been SIX days since St. Paddy's..? OOoof... I think I've been reborn as Pallando the Pasty Green. Pallando Light-drizzle-wren(with sniffles). I'm gettin too ancient for this. ** Nice to see, though, that the TB is tailending as usual. morG, as I live and breathe, how ya been, briquette-cheeks? Ingold, you have the voice of an angel, if that angel had swollen adenoids, post-nasal drip and a three-pack-a-day habit. Though as a songwriter, sahr, you are without equal. Bravo! Bravissimo! Encore! And all of you dear others, individually, nice to see you, please keep it down. Oh man do I need some coffee...
The Best News YET by Pallando Blue	Mar 23rd, 2001 08:57:01 AM
...for me has got to be, bar none, the hiring of Jim Rygiel as Visual Effects Supervisor. Not only is it good to hear the position FILLED--Stetson leaving gave me the shakes and jitters in the worst way--but PJ-be-blessed he's an improvement! No knock on Stetson, but this Rygiel guy's got one HECKUVA resume! Just look at his credits side-by-side to Stetson over at IMDB. As far as FX go, Rygiel's record is phenomenal, a very impressive list of high-quality, cutting-edge FX work. That 102 Dalmatians article quoted at TORN, I came across it by accident already noodling around at Barnes&Noble. Let me tell you, 102D a bad, unnecessary movie or not... the lengths his team went to described in that Cinefex article are nothing short of astounding (there's more article and photos than that posted by TORN). And the work also resembles quite a bit much of what's already been described as being attempted over at WETA.. And yet... ;) not nearly to the degree WETA's doing it. Of course, no one in Hollywood is (p'raps Lucasfilm, but they're an independent of course). I think Rygiel is spending his first week in NZ stumbling around goggle-eyed: "Whoa.. You guys have been doing THIS..?!?!? Way the hell over here on this little island?!? Buh--... Wha--... Oh COOL, look at THAT!" hee hee hee hee... And yet by having been right there at the advent of computerized special effects in film (I agree with Mordred--Last Starfighter's kickass!), I think he's in the perfect position to LEARN from what this entire FX studio has already been doing for years, and go from THERE. His lengthy resume--and think quality of FX, not movies... some of those, yeesh!--strikes me as someone deeply involved with the craft of CG, visual effects and their possibilities, constantly seeking to improve the field. The kind of problem-solving nothing's-impossible attitude Tehanu describes NZers having in that excellent article up yesterday. With LOTR potentially setting the visual bar higher than anyone's previously conceived, he looks to be an ideal choice for the helm. And these films look to be the natural next evolution of the man's career. *** Well, now. Ahem. Currently printing up I Like Rygiel campaign tees and buttons, er... quick, somebody stop this gushing!
Flight to the Swords by Pallando Blue	Mar 23rd, 2001 09:15:54 AM
Next Item: movie story-bits alighting. Addressed! * I've long been of the opinion that Arwen's driving the horse with the peaked Frodo before her, sprinting to the Ford, has been a practicality-in-filming decision. Mainly, so there can BE an exciting high-speed chase--this doesn't mean she has to be present when Frodo raises his fist in defiance. From what I can tell from clips and stills it's going to be a fantastic sequence, scary and tense. But it probably couldn't happen without a larger-than-hobbit person on the horse as well. Otherwise the only solutions would be (i) having a little-person double drive a horse much too large for them at high speeds while not appearing to be driving it at all; (ii) rig the dummy Frodo (seen in photos sitting in front of Tyler) on a riderless horse and hope the beast doesn't take 4 weeks of takes to hit its marks; (iii) CG the bastard! Heh! or (iv) shoot it all with see-right-through-it wotta-letdown trick editing, with quick cuts, close-ups of Wood and various thumping horse and bridle parts, an overly dramatic "action" score, with the only clear horse-and-rider shots being of the Wraiths. SO, I think a non-hobbit rider is essential for the pursuit, for good film tension. A good choice for embellishment. But note that none of those other methods are necessary for a hobbit trying to maintain consciousness, willpower, and the back of a stationary horse. It would be a very simple thing for PJ to write her off the horse, for speed, a delaying action, whatever, just before the horse bounds the ford--which can be done perfectly fine with quick cuts of horse parts. :) In PJ I Trust. * Okay sigh breaking this up into Post #4 or 5 for the morning....
Blasphemous Numenorean Sword Rambling by Pallando Blue	Mar 23rd, 2001 10:12:25 AM
Here's where all the purists get to rake out my eyes and hang my tongue on a spit. About the infamous Numenorean Sword Acquisition Quandary. Erm. It is perfectly possible, in a following the spoken narrative sort of way, for there to be nothing particularly special about the blade with which Merry sticks the Evil Knee. * Ouch! Hey! That tomato had a rock in it! Cut it out a minute! Hold on, lemme splain! Please! * Alright, here's the thing. It wasn't even until my 2nd reading of LOTR (many, many, many years and readings ago) that I realized the sword made a difference at all. ("Booo!" "Ignoramus!" "Get off the podium, jackass!") SHADDAP!! Thank you. Now then: Of course the sword's make and history became apparent when I wasn't tearing through the book in short heated bursts over several weeks, but savoring the story in a languorous extended read that allowed for a sense of continuity. That first time all that registered was the Witch King's prophecy--that "no man may [harm?touch?strike?destroy?] me"; and that no MAN ever does. Despite her fury and spirit Eowyn was being beaten down by a superior warrior, until aid came from the least-expected, providing her the opportunity for the killing blow. DAMN what a scene! "No man may harm me." All I registered was, he was wounded by a HOBBIT and killed by a WOMAN--perfectly and yet monkey-paw-ish ironically in line with the prophecy, as are prophecies' wont in good tales. That was good enough for me. Much less protective-magicks-foiled so-beast-destroyed than hubris, vanity, defiance in the face of unfathomable fear, unlooked-for heroism and sacrifice, and a damn exciting fight scene--these are the universal bones that the entire TALE stands on, not the tricks and trappings of fantasy that belittles most of the genre. "Only the Glorious Dingus can strike down the Mighty Evillagor!" Bah. Honestly, I've read much more in discussions ABOUT the necessary sequence of Merry's Sword breaking the Wraith's magic or whatever then allowing Eowyn's fatal strike to penetrate or whatever then I can recall being significant to me, to this day, as I reread the fight scene. I suppose, then, that anybody could have stabbed the Dark Patella if they had had that particular toadsticker? For me THAT thought dilutes everything powerful and surprising in the scene. I now merely relish the history of the sword as I do all links by Tolkien in LOTR to his larger works of prehistory--as another glimpse into the world's past and how that past still resonates in the present tale. What gives LOTR its nonpareil, fantastic verisimilitude. But it's the people and their actions, not the doodads, that make Middle-earth one of the great works of the 20th century. *** [cricket chirps; owl hoots] Hullo? Anyone still there? Is this thing even on? [taps the mike; hideous squeal of feedback] Oh for cryin out... Okay, to wrap up. How this applies, for me, to the movies: I would not be disappointed in the least if PJ makes NOTHING of the Magical Swords of Numenor. If he does bring up Merry's blade's significance, I'll emit a "Huh!" of slight interest. But I would much prefer if there was no such explanatory aside or exposition if it in ANY way (i) feels superfluous to the moment and pace of the film to non-LOTR audience members, or (ii) shifts ANY emphasis from Merry's heroism onto the Sword's presence. I will be happy and content if PJ ignores the issue altogether and leaves it that the Nazgul Lord, arrogant with the knowledge he will never be harmed by a man, is wounded by a HOBBIT and killed by a WOMAN. Flay me as you will.
Aaarrrrgghhh!! That'll teach me! WHEREVER THIS IS, LOOK UP TOP! by Pallando Blue	Mar 23rd, 2001 10:16:08 AM
My Tolkien Geek Sacrilege may have single-handedly hosed the TB! I knew I was pressing my luck! [wanders off mumbling] Rassen frassen frackle sunza crassen....
Kevin Conway by Sir Mordred	Mar 23rd, 2001 11:58:48 PM
I haven't seen the picture, but I'm going to guess that it's Glorfindel, cause I want him in it. And if Glorfindel had dark hair, don't tell me. MorGoth, thanks for pointing that out. I just figured they were Rangers cause they said a lot of stuff in ... ok, I just wished I was being chased by Rangers rather than some Noldorian refugees/bandits. OK, bye now.
Miami, does the guy in the middle have a beard? by Sir Mordred	Mar 24th, 2001 08:56:13 AM
Cause we all know Cirdan had a beard. And maybe it could be Glador or whatever name you just said. For all we know it's a representative from Esgaroth. Maybe one of Elrond's sons (no, what I said doesn't make sense). Hell, it could even be Halbarad. I wish I had something good to say.
Don't worry Pallando at least one person agrees with you. by BG	Mar 25th, 2001 01:53:50 PM
Yes, I agree with everything you said regarding Merry's blade. It's always been a pet peeve of mine that so many people put so much emphasis on the blade when it comes to the downfall of the lord of the Nazgul. And the thing that annoys me most is that so many people come away with the false idea that it was Merry who killed the Nazgul. Wrong, wrong, wrong! It is Eowyn who kills the Nazgul, thus fulfilling the prophecy. Yes, it was necessary for Merry's blow first to render the Nazgul vulnerable to Eowyn's attack. What seems often to be missed is that Merry's action saves Eowyn's life. It is his despair at seeing such a fair and noble woman having to stand alone against such a deadly foe, which drives him to act. It also seems to be missed that the reason Eowyn is able to stand against such a foe at all is that she has no fear of death. Indeed she is seeking death, a glorious death on the field of battle. This she sees as the only path of escape from, in her eyes, her shameful lowly life. I'm not saying Tolkien is wrong to explain the significance of the blade, I just think people place too much emphasis on it, to the detriment of Eowyn's part in the encounter. I now await a serious flaming from morGoth and Ingold.
morGoth, you ignorant slut. by Pallando Blue	Mar 26th, 2001 11:12:51 AM
Heh, sorry! Kiddin! Just felt more in a Classic SNL place than Laugh-In at the moment (though "Velly intellestink..." would have been just as apropos ;). Anyhoozle, please forgive the following unstructured response, I'll probably just flit from point to point as I remember what I try to say (wish I had our posts for reference as I scribble, dammit!) Please just try to ctach where I'm trying to explain myself better vs. ATTACKING YOU bwahahahahaaa!! No no, like I said I think we're more on the same page than not. * Now then, I don't disagree with just about anything y'all pointed out. Really. I don't think there's as much contradicition in our positions as you seem to extrapolate. In your inimitable ash-caked fashion, you extend your opposition's viewpoint to its seeming logical conclusions, which become in extension illogical and ridiculous (even self-contradictory), thereby dismantling the argument with its own weaknesses. Fair enough tactic, I do it myself all the time, it's one of the more fun ways to expose a blowhard. BUT. I think you missed the point of my jib, and extended the argument in the wrong direction. Most of what you suggested after you quoted the text, nope, I don't think it. * NOW then. I DO appreciate the Professor's rich array of doodaddery. All the bits and pieces you mention--yes, I hope they make an appearance. But they are images, they flesh out the world visually as Tolkien does in textual description, they are not Plot Points, or when they are, they function to progress the story, they AREN'T the story. Most importantly, I am not diluting the Ultimate Object, The Great Prop, The Ring as a mere magickal dingus. But it's significance isn't that it's the thingthatmustbedestroyed, either. Yes, it's role in the Plot is to play Hitchcock's McGuffin--the biggest role a Prop is ever going to have--but its role in the Story and these character's lives (and this point will surely be missed by many seeing the movie and forming glib opinions...) it is a character in and of itself--it IS the Antagonist! Which PJ is (thank you PJ!) dutifully portraying in the movies (see my earlier post on my loving the poster). He understands the true conflict! That's not a comparative statement, I know ALL OF YOU DO TOO. I'm just saying this: The true meat and bones of any story, what makes a story matter at all, is (to rip off Faulkner) the story of the human [hobbit, &tc.] heart in conflict with itself. The rest is escapist/voyeurism--which has its place and I enjoy as much as the next geek, but it takes more than situational tension to move my soul. What we care about, whether we realize it or not, is not the road-story/beat-the-clock plot points, but whether these people we have come to know and love will be okay. To reduce the Ring(s) to being the things pursued/to be possessed/destroyed is to equate it to the Big Red Wand in the D&D movie. [yes, saw it for $2 and almost choked on a jujubee it was so frackin silly--expose yourself to it ONLY with a secure safety-layer of alcohol and forgiving, laughing friends] A lesser example, the flag Arwen weaves; we are moved by its presence not because it's a symbol, but because it is from Arwen. Love, tribute, respect, hope, longing and devotion--and that's only a thumbnail of what we understand coming from Arwen--Aragorn's reaction to it reveal for us even more about him, and our reaction reveals how we've come to see him over the course of the tale. No mere symbol, that. In a lesser writer's hands it would just be a means to remind us of a love interest, and/or a plot twist device for the turning of the battle at Pellennor. As with most of Tolkien, that's just the tip of the iceberg. * SO. No, I do not consider the Ring a mere Fantasy Bauble--and I believe I said in my Blasphemy I also enjoy the role of the swords and all the other objects and locations with histories deeper than the current action of LOTR, exactly as Ingold says he does. I hope everything Tolkien describes PJ slips into the picture somehow. They establish the verisimilitude, the sense of witnessing only the cap-end of a grand history, in a real world. I especially didn't mean to imply that in the NOVEL the sword's history is unimportant, or that narratively it doesn't matter. What I meant to emphasize, was that in the context of things, I couldn't really give a crebain's dirty tail-feather that the sword broke "the spell." And I very, very much don't think that was Tolkien's emphasis, either. Yes, he is very specific about it, but he does not devote a lot of time to it. By doing so he maintains his [in]famous stickler perfectionist consistency with the sword's role in Middle-earth, and satisfies the internal logics he'd previously established. These are the things that taken as a whole awe us as readers, that make his lifework so impressive--this is his astounding sense of CRAFT. But that is not why we CARE. We care because of Tolkien's often critically underappreciated sense of ART, the end toward which his craft is but a means. * A quick aside here, this is why I laughed so hard at, and found so pathetic, Martinez's haughty sense of betrayal over... armor!! Kinda like despising Godfather 'cause in the novel Vito doesn't have a moustache (never read it tho--does he?) and his assassins had sensible shotguns, not overly-action-movie Hollywood-stereotypical impractical tommy guns. * Having said all that, I must confess this has been but a preface. D'OH!! What we're discussing here is LOTR's translation to the movies, not the litereary merits of the book itself--I'm pretty confident we're all in agreement THERE! To (we love this word) pedantically repeat what we all know, film is a far more concentrated medium than the printed word--it exists with very real time restrictions, and has its own kind of vocabulary. Things must necessarily be excised, expanded, and even embellished--the very real brouhaha that has, is, and will for eternity erupt is the decision PJ makes toward those cuts, blow-ups, and inventions. In the end they are what will matter in discussions of the movies' translation; like any translation of classic literature, they will be more significant than the movie salone on their merits. Unfair but inevitable, as the book WILL outlive the movie; the latter will become the former's footnote, never vice versa. ....Sorry, went off-topic there, lemme rein this back in somehow... SO, as to what to include. What PJ, and anyone with a similar translation task, should retain are what matters to us and what moves us. What he should expand are what matters to us and what moves us. He should embellish only with the ultimate aim of moving us. The touches and details Tolkien fleshes out his world with can be present and not discussed. What was exposition is now visual beauty, horror, awe, etc. Sorry, I know we all know this. To (FINALLY!) address the specific problem at hand: with the sword, its exposition isn't descriptive it's historical. There's no way to convey history without putting it in the mouth of a character onscreen. [The Remainder of this blahblahblah is meant as My Opinion, not Fact, but Firmly Held] According dialogue to the swords' history ascribes a significance to that history. Even 10 seconds of screen time is more time than you may realize, and it would take more than 10 seconds to make any sense of the swords' history in context of the story. The sword would become something to Remember for Later. It would become a sort of secondary McGuffin. Especially if introduced in Fellowship--there would have to be enough emphasis for it to make any sense in ROTK two years later. There's a rule of thumb in writing that goes: if a character pulls a gun out the drawer in the 4th act, someone had damn well better have put the gun IN the drawer in the first act (well, an earlier act). Thing is, when someone puts a gun in the drawer, everyone's waiting for it to be pulled out--foregone conclusion. Tricky balance. In a long-form novel that's not nearly as difficult as it is in film or stage, where short- and long-term memory are both clicking in high gear, usually working together to foil the storyteller ("where the hell did that gun come from? cop-out! hack!"). SO, giving the sword a significant history with a specific power and purpose IN THE MOVIE by definition allots a share of the movie's power and purpose to the frigging sword. Allow me to demonstrate. Replay the battle in your mind, but without a protective geas about the Witch King. With an ordinary Rohan short blade of sturdy iron or steel in Merry's hand. Now how do you react to his wounding the Nazul Lord? To me it's far more impressive. .... No, really, try it, I'll wait here. ..... See? I know! I make my point beautifully. To bring that demonstration into full relief, Ingold I think you pointed out that Merry's heroism isn't diluted because HE doesn't know his sword's a magickal dingus. Here's the problem with the film and stage medium--unless it's in title cards or voiceover or a mumbled aside to oneself, the swords' history would have to be related from ONE person to ANOTHER. The most popular conjecture at the moment is that Strider would tell the hobbits when he gives them the swords in Bree. In that case, Merry WOULD know--and perhaps then some of his courage in Pellennor is reliant on the weapon in his hand, not the emotion in his heart, and his rage courage and selflessness DO become diluted. At the very least, even if that isn't addressed by the film, OUR fear for him or amazement at his action is lessened by knowing he's charging the enemy with the right tool for job, and that it isn't a hopeless gesture. Fear of the Nazgul Lord is lessened just by knowing that he HAS such a foil out there on the field somewhere; it becomes merely a matter of when the storyteller's going to pull the gun out of the drawer. And there's no way for a filmic pacing to match Tolkien's pacing of the action, as far as when Tolkien reintroduces the sword's significance. * Am I getting any of this across, as in expressing myself clearly (cause I know tailenders ain't stupid). I mean, even if you disagree with me, do you see what I'm getting at? One of the reasons I go on at such excruciating length is just KNOW I somehow misrepresnt myself, and send the discussion in the complete wrong direction. My babbling boils down to this: Art in general works when it makes us feel--bad, good, happy or uncomfortable--when it raises itself and us above mere stimulus-response (the stuff of craft). We are amazed and afraid and proud and relieved and sad by the things that occur in the book because we love and we hope and fear for these characters. We are moved not because the ancient sword broke the spell and fulfilled its created purpose, but because in his rage and despair our small vulnerable Merry flung himself against a towering invincible terror. THAT is what I want to experience in the theater. The stimulus/response fun I'll leave for Star Wars. * Jeez, I'm not even gonna read this blather until tomorrow, at which time I am sure I will apologize. Quickly: Ingold, you are a flatterer indeed, and have a way of wielding words yourself bucko. ...um, don't suppose they're giving you 2 tickets to Cannes? Because I, more than anybody else in the world that might want to go to Cannes with you, think you're the BEST, Ingold, the BEST! Heya, PJ errrr I mean BG, thanks for watching my back on this 'un! (Can I have a job? I just need 2 weeks' notice here, then I'd work for Cannes tickets and a cot in Weta Digital.... * Okay, please respond to all this if you care to, but I'm spent. From now on I shall happily and lazily regress into bad puns, udder jokes, and the occasional questionable limerick.
I warned you. I warned you all. by Pallando Blue	Mar 26th, 2001 11:57:14 AM
[AHHHEEHEHEHHMM] ** One Balrogette said to anudda / Through a mouth full of peanut budda / "This down I must wash / With some water, or scotch-- / Could I please have this, that, or the udda?" ** [the blue-cloaked figure flees cackling into the night under a hail of rotten vegetables and empty beer cans]
Pallando, nice speach mate... by BG	Mar 26th, 2001 01:51:59 PM
...and very well put, although a bit of a marathon effort. I particularly liked your use of the word 'verisimilitude', but I'm not so sure about 'doodaddery'. Anyway I agree with everything you said. I think it would be enough for Strider simply to say that the blades are ancient and were wrought specifically for the war against the Nazgul lord. Considering that at this point the Hobbits are solely concerned with escaping the Nazgul and it is likely strider will also explain what they are, this seems the ideal opportunity to introduce the blades and their significance. Since Merry won't get to stick his in the Nazgul lord until two years later, I doubt whether many moviegoers will remember the significance. *** On the weekend I bought the audiotapes of Tolkien reading passages from the book, and I must say it was fascinating listening to him do the voices for Sam, Gollum and Treebeard. I hope the relevant actors have heard these tapes and use them as a starting point to develop accents, etc.
A priest, a rabbi, and a Balrogette with a parrot on her shoulde by Pallando Blue	Mar 27th, 2001 06:49:54 AM
The priest says, "Give me a scotch and soda, good sir!" The rabbi says, "Oy, do I need a gin & tonic tonight!" And the Balrogette unfurls her cat-o-nine-teats and sets about slaughtering the other patrons, the bartender, the priest, the rabbi, and the parrot. *** [that one KILLS 'em at Club Angband, no matter HOW many times they hear it]
morGoth... by BG	Mar 27th, 2001 06:36:38 PM
...first of all, in defence of my position on the blades, there was a debate some time ago in these very TB's in which several people (though not your good self, of course) were under the misapprehension that it was Merry who killed the Nazgul. This is not the first time I have encountered this problem. That said, I now grow weary of this topic so stir not the bitterness in the cup that I have made for myself, for I know that worse still lies in the dregs. Second of all, the obvious Sauron scene which instantly springs to my mind is his death after the ring is destroyed and he rises up in a tower of smoke, crowned with lightning, but is impotent and blown away by the wind. This will obviously be CGI. I can't wait!
Pallando, how do you make a Holy Bartender? by Sir Mordred	Mar 27th, 2001 09:54:06 PM
or is it- Holey Bartender? Either way, it's damn funny and Azrael is one cool demon. (Whadya mean you didn't see my pun!) So we all realize that Merry is brave and the Witch-King is one stupid sack of shit. I think they should explain it the way it was in the books. In the House of Healing Aragorn tells Pippin why the Witch-King died. He said something like, "Those must have been magic blades." Ok, that line sounds corny- but you get my point. The thing that worries me is that when they say Saurion appears in the second age- he has 8 Ring-Wraiths about him- where the hell is number 9? Well, I'm off to bed now.
Fuckin Ingold by Sir Mordred	Mar 27th, 2001 10:04:32 PM
Why did you have to do that? I'm with Moaters. I know you know, so I won't get too pissed. But it's not a fucking trilogy! Oh, and about the blade and all that shit- Merry didn't kill him- if not for the things Tolkien says but because if Merry had killed him, then Frodo would've killed the other one.
That's all I can stands... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 28th, 2001 07:12:47 AM
I can't stands no more!!! Oh beware ye that spoke "fondly" of TATOW! Take heed of the decrepit platitude: "Be careful what you ask for...." Loath as I am to speak ill of "ol' buddy Ingold" I must profusely protest his reckless and repeated use of the 'T' word when he knows the truth! None better! Anyway here goes: Why you knock kneed, slack jawed, low brow, cow legged(?), dung disturbing jack-a-napes! Go apply the 'T' word where it is appropriate and assault us not with 'T' assertions about a single and singular novel; you lily livered, pusillanimous, Orc french kissing ignoramus! May the fleas of 1000 sweaty Balrogettes infest thy prodigious nose hair nest! May an ill tempered Grizzly bear hopped up on Viagra, mistake you for his long lost
pathetic... by Skyway Moaters	Mar 28th, 2001 07:37:07 AM
...a guy cn't even lurk in peace around these tail end talkbacks anymore without someone trying to provoke him into posting...sigh...
Miami Mofo... such... economy of... language..!! by Pallando Blue	Mar 28th, 2001 07:52:11 AM
THANK you thank you thank you, for getting everything I said into, what, 3 lines? morG, I'm talking ONLY about what may be distilled out of the novel and into the movie with minimal loss, not the facts of the action in the novel. Read again, please, with soot-free peepers. We agree, you an I! Cheez-wiz Crikey. I mean, come ON--"Troll"?? Just enjoy a debate, you name-calling charcoal-bean! [yes, the irony of the preceding sentence is intended, so don't bother.] This ain't a Lucas TB! * Hugs, Your Favorite Pallando ..........P.S. For the record, I -- [italics]I[/italics] -- sent Curunir packing, pal. That simpering pest was begging to stay. "Oh, Pallando, you're so COOL" and "Hey, Pallando, what's your favorite color, ha ha" and "I wish my name was as cool as yours Pallando, I'm thinking of changing it--does 'Saralee' sound cool? How about 'Salmonman'?" and "Hey guys, how'd you dye your robes like that? This white picks up every little speck of dirt, the laundry bill's are murder" and "I think Olorin's a jerk, don't you, Pallando?" and "Are we there yet?" and "Gosh this sand sure is hot!" and "Are we there yet?" YADDA FREAKING YADDA. There ain't no toady like a boring toady what don't shut up. Believe me, his ass got kicked back home after a WEEK (the longest week of my life). The idiot just got lost for a while, big surprise. * P.P.S. Never bring up Alatar again, please--he's still on my shite-list (don't worry, morG, you still got a ways to go to get TEHRE). And note, with extreme prejudice: HE was that overgrown-jockey's lackey. Also note I was merely brought along as "a friend." [We are currently referencing the single most important 2 pages of The Unfinished Tales, for those who haven't read it.] I remember when Alatar first called my studio loft in Valinor, crowing something about his manager Orome finally landing him a "gig" somewhere. Little did I know. "Heya, P! Road Trip!" "Oh yeah? Vegas?" "Naw, better! Middle-earth!" "Where?" "Just grab your kit, man. Olorin's going, Curunir's going, it's gonna be kickass!" "Yeah all right, but I gotta be back before the Fourth Age, all right?" "Nolo problemo! Woo-hoo!" That jackass. Can't believe I listened to Alatar, of all Maia. As soon as we stumbled across Vegas I ditched him too, so at least the trip wasn't a total loss. Made enough at the 3-6 Hold-Em tables to catch an eagle back, first-class, with more than a little extra pocket change. *** P.P.P.S. Hmm, there's a thought: Club Angband need a casino?
To: PB & BG re: the Numenorean Blade by Vanyar	Mar 28th, 2001 08:05:58 AM
Man, it is great to be back after a 1-year hiatus form posting. I se a bunch of the regulars are still here. Ok, now to the business at hand.....the pesky old "A blade [or wielder] by any other name" discussion. Survey says! DING! Yes, anyone could technically have killed the Witch King, as long as the following conditions were met: A. Anyone but a man did the slaying, and B. The "any other" blade was forged like Merry's (i.e. -- an Eldarin or Numenorean blade with spells designed to break spells of protection) then it would do the job like Merry's did. If Merry's blade had not broken the spell that "knit [the Witch King's] unseen sinews to his will," then Eowyn's blade would have had no effect on ol' Witchy-baby. That in NO way lessens any of Eowyn's or Merry's heroism. Why? 1. Merry had no idea that the blade would do anything to the Witch King....he was [as y'all have mentioned already]trying to help the valiant (in this case, death-wish driven) Horse Lady of Rohan in her struggle, and to be true to King Theoden and act as his sword thane should. 2. The blade had no power to instill courage.....it had to all be theirs. 3. Even if Merry had known what the blade was capable of, he would still have had to muster the courage to approach the Witch King (instead of fleeing in abject terror like every one else did) and try to smite him. Overcoming his gut-wrenching fear and despair was no easy thing, but in true Hobbit fashion, he proved he was made of "sterner stuff" and did his part. So, bottom line, yes the right race/gender of people had to be present for the prophecy to be fulfilled, but it would all have been for naught if Merry had not had a blade capable of nullifying the WK's defenses for Eowyn to strike the death blow and destroy his mortal form. OK, let the discussion continue. Namarie, mellyn
ARGH!! For the LAST time, you're all CORRECT!! by Pallando Blue	Mar 28th, 2001 09:25:33 AM
First off, however--Welcome back, Vanyar! A voice of reason as always. NOW THEN. What all those jumping down my throat seem to not realize, is that YOU are discussing the NOVEL, and I am discussing its translation to the FILMS. We're having 2 different arguments! Everything Vanyar wrote is TRUE. Everything morG drunkenly belched out in a fume of Tennessee #7 is TRUE. That is exactly what does happen in the novel, and why. No, in the novel the sword's history takes nothing from Merry's heroism. BUT, in the entire tale's distillation and concentration into film THERE IS THAT RISK, no matter when the sword's brought up. I just fear that kind of expository dialogue, especially when there's so much more to do, especially in ROTK. (But hey, if anyone could do it PJ might--Council of Elrond's MUCH more difficult in practical terms). * That's all I have ever meant to say, and I apologize for the ensuing confusion. As Vanyar points out, those are the 2 criteria for offing Lord Ugly: non-man, right weapon. From the beginning my aim has been to emphasize the former, and that the latter is expendable in translation. Not in LOTR, morG, in LOTR's translation; I'm not saying Tolkien himself got it "wrong" or such rot. I'm saying the sword's a narrative detail PJ can overlook without detriment to the movie's impact. Thanks to BG & Miami Mofo for somehow finding the kernel in my chaff of loquacious verbosity (hee hee--gawd, wotta terrible sentence). * There, if I ain't been figured out by now, too bad. I abandon the effort. Cold turkey. Next up: more gut-clenching nausea-inducing, groan-prompting attempts at humor. And in the words of every junky, THIS time, I MEAN it! ;*]
To PB: You are absatootly keereckt! by Vanyar	Mar 28th, 2001 12:48:06 PM
Yes indeed, all the factoids mentioned previously only apply to the book. The movie is a whole nuther kettle of kelgaer. Extremely difficult to get the point across without mind-numbing the audience with a long exposition. And even if you do get the point across it won;t translate properly without knowledge of all the "backstory." Just not feasible. Jest approach....stick with the "not-man" criterion. Okee dokey.....evvabody heppy now? Namarie, mellon. ;^D
Sir Mordred, have you been smoking that LongBottom leaf again? by BG	Mar 28th, 2001 01:04:16 PM
You said:
Fucker by Sir Mordred	Mar 28th, 2001 02:46:44 PM
Reread it and then tell me i'm wrong. Tolkien said something of the sort that aragorn explained the emaning- or maybe he just said, "Oh, it must've been a magic blade" but fuck man- re read it before you call me a pot head. blashphemous catholic swearer, but not a pot head. And if it turns out you are right, say so and you wont see me for a month.
Blashphemous catholic swearer... by BG	Mar 28th, 2001 04:46:03 PM
...i'll have to get back to you on that one, as I am currently at work and don't have the book at hand. If it turns out that I am wrong then I will humbly apologise and beg your forgiveness, but if I'm right please don't disappear for a month, as your absence would be a grievous loss to the TB's. *** Great news about Glorfindel. Since the studio doesn't seem to be announcing the casting for these minor characters, I'm sure other popular characters are also in, like the Gaffer. I hope he gets to say "Where's his weskit? I don't hold with wearing ironmongery, even if it do wear well." Just remember to an Ent 9 months is a very short period of time. Hoom, not too hasty now.
Fuck- iwas wrong- by Sir Mordred	Mar 28th, 2001 08:42:11 PM
well that's how they should do it anyways. Like that other fucker said. And i do need to stop cussing. I do however have to tel you about this shirt I saw. it was a picture of jesus on the cross. At the top it said "Jesus died for our sins." At the bottom- underneath the picture: "And all I got was this stupid T-Shirt." Damn i'm going to Hell. Ingold- i can't tell either.
In these enlightened times, should we really be telling Gondolla by Pallando Blue	Mar 29th, 2001 08:41:44 AM
So a Gondorian fellow's strolling through the Shire one day, and passing by a sheep field he notices a shed on the side of the path, with a sign posted: "Learning Pills, 10 farthings" He figures, Heck, I'm game, and goes inside. He lays down his tenner, and the hobbit shepherd hands him over a little black pill. The Gondorian tosses it down his throat. The shepherd asks, "So? What do you think?" "Not sure, let me try another," and he lays down another tenspot. "Well?" the shepherd asks. The Gondorian rolls the pill around for a second before swallowing. "It's kind of bitter... Let me try another." Money passes, he takes another little black pill, and works it around a bit. "Wait a minute.. this tastes like sheep shite!" The hobbit shepherd says, "Yer learnin, son, yer learnin!"
A long time ago I used to work on a cruise ship out of Numenor.. by Pallando Blue	Mar 29th, 2001 08:55:12 AM
You know, paid the bills. I had a pretty good magic act, with a parrot as my assistant. Things went well until one night, just before the big finish, the parrot started blabbing to the entire audience exactly how the trick was done! I stormed off the stage. The next night, as soon as the show started the parrot rattled off how every single trick and special effect was accomplished. I was furious, and obviously the show was a total failure. Suddenly the ship ran into an incredible storm, and despite the crew's best efforts it foundered and sank. Dawn came to find the parrot and myself floating on a piece of wreckage. The parrot just stared at me for two hours. Finally he said, "Okay, I give up. What did you do with the ship?"
(and just for a little closure) by Pallando Blue	Mar 29th, 2001 09:09:57 AM
I guess we can happily agree to disagree. You think there's plenty of room for a little sword talk, even if just a nod and a wink for the fans, and I'm afraid it could be just a little too much "business" going on for a screenplay, with no loss for its absence. Fair enough! * And no, morG, you slutty ignoramus, I don't take you THAT kind of seriously, only scholarishly seriously (WATCH IT, ash-whole, don't letcher head swell.) Just be careful with that "T" word! When I troll, you KNOW it! I took that particular crack as an insult to my trollish capabilities. * Miami Mofo, one question before I answer: Do you have it on reasonable authority that the hot tub scene will at least make it to the DVD? Um, I'm just asking for "a friend."
Okay so one time I was stuck on an elevator with Arwen... by Pallando Blue	Mar 29th, 2001 09:14:00 AM
And I look over at her and I sez to her I sez, "Can I smell yer panties?" And she sez, "No, you most certainly cannot!" And so I sez back I sez, "Hm--must be yer feet then!"
Miami... by BG	Mar 29th, 2001 01:27:56 PM
...possible speculative spoilers from what I've read from the original 2 scripts' reviews and from the audition scripts, I believe Aragorn leads the Dunedain, Legolas and Gimli to Minas Tirith by the normal route but is ambushed by orcs in an attempt to prevent him reaching his destination. He decides to take the "paths of the dead" as a short cut to avoid the orcs. At no stage during this journey have I read any mention of Arwen. In the bits 'n' pieces I have seen of this journey much is made of the fact that Legolas, being an Elf, is unaffected by the terror. If Arwen was there she would be unaffected also but no mention is made. So, reading between the lines I doubt that she accompanies them. Pallando, 9/10 for the learning pills joke, but 1/10 for the parrot joke. Two peanuts were walking down the road and one was assaulted.
Hey where's Moaters... by BG	Mar 29th, 2001 01:42:37 PM
...the new movie tie-in covers for the next edition of LOTR have got the word 'Trilogy' on them. Check it out over at TORN. Can you believe it, the word 'Trilogy' on the cover of LOTR. Moaters is going to have a fit.
I tried. I really did. by JD1866	Mar 29th, 2001 05:00:41 PM
Last week Goodgulf mentioned something about getting a life. So inspired, I called friends, made dinner plans, booked a vacation, and spent time with my parents. And what did daddy dearest tell me last nite? "You gotta git a hobby or somethin'. Quit hanging around here so much." Sigh Well, I'm back. So, what did I miss? Pages and pages of rumblings and ruminations, I see. So the Tookess drops a rock (or a sword, rather)in the well and then flees from the ensuing hoopdeedo. He he. Wonder who she learned that trick from? And to think that it actually brought Vanyar out of retirement to add his 2 cents (Nice to have you back, it's been much too long). Ah well, it's a little late but I gotta say I side with Blue and BG regarding the whole Numenorian sword debate. Yes, little details like that will warm the hearts of fans but may be too much info for the uninitiated. Besides, if PJ tried to include every detail and back history of all the various doodads and thingamajigs he'd have to film 30 movies and not 3. Still and all, I'd like to see as many as possible to help create some the depth and sense of history that the books have in abundance. PJ has a difficult job and I don't envy him a bit! ***Pallando - I'm one step ahead of ya. The aforementioned vacation is 5 days in Sin City. I'm looking to recruit a few dealers and pick up a couple of slots for Club Angband. You can expect a Grand New Opening sometime next month.
It's bad, but I couldn't resist by JD1866	Mar 29th, 2001 07:23:28 PM
The Balrogette was very distraught at the fact that she had not had a date or any sex in quite some time. She was afraid she might have something wrong with her, so she decided to seek medical advice. Her doctor recommended that she see Dr. Chang, a well-known Chinese sex therapist. Upon entering the examination room, Dr. Chang said, "Ok, take off all you crose." The Balrogette did as she was told. "Now, get down and craw, reery, reery fass to udder side of room." Again, she did as instructed. Dr. Chang then said, "Ok, now craw reery, reery fass back to me." So she did. Dr. Chang shook his head slowly and said, "Your probrem vewy bad. You have Ed Zachary Disease. Worse case I ever see. Dat why you not haf sex or dates." Worried, the Balrogette asked anxiously, "Oh, Doctor, what is Ed Zachary Disease?" Dr. Chang looked the Balrogette in the eye and replied, "Ed Zachary Disease is when your face look Ed Zachary rike your ass."
I should like to say that... by JD1866	Mar 30th, 2001 09:38:52 PM
First of all, I do NOT scarf down lard laden munchables. I'd much prefer a 1420 after a movie. Secondly, I generally ignore that quizzical look on the hubby's face, as all wise women learn to do. 'Sides, I think he would catch a clue from the dialogue. From RotK, chapter The Battle of the Pelennor Fields "'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!' Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.' Now, IIRC (and if not, I'm sure somebody will let me know), Tolkien did not reveal the prophesy of Glorfindel in LotR proper, but in the Appendices (pop quiz to Miami - who did Glorfindel pronounce his prophesy to?). Not having that particular piece of the puzzle the first few times I read that passage did not lessen it's impact. I understood from the words "No living man may hinder me" that it had to be a woman or some one of another race. And methinks that others will too. * Miami - Sorry but a cinema isn't quite as profitable as a casino. Hows about a private screening room for Club members only? I'll put in some comfy loungers, a wet bar, and a state of the art sound system. Will that suffice? BTW, hows the neck? Is that PT still torturing you? * Finally, I would like to note that E! posted a new update and I'm off to see what Mr. Forde has to say this month.
Posting order is FUBAR again!!! by JD1866	Mar 30th, 2001 09:55:11 PM
My latest is up in the middle of March 13 posts. Which is probably where this one will end up.
Man, this is a great old TB by Le Vicious Fishus	Jan 14th, 2009 09:10:35 PM
Ain't it though?

Talkbacks

Teaser Poster for LORD OF THE RINGS hits theaters today!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks