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

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING Has Rating and Running Time!!

No Test-screenings ??? by E_Man	Aug 18th, 2001 04:42:55 AM
Now, don
But I by E_Man	Aug 18th, 2001 04:45:33 AM
......that the running time is as long as 2.45. I was afraid for a while that they were going to trim it down to a more audience-friendly 2 hours. Thank god for that. Now, on a completely different subject. I just finished reading Crichtons "Timeline" and i just can
Why would they? by Retrop	Aug 18th, 2001 04:49:28 AM
And why should they? You really want test audiences writing "Make gollum funnier" I think it's a good sign that a studio has enough respect and confidence in it's film that they don't test it out first. Anyway I think it's when flicks don't have screenings for critics that it's a worry.
wow by ItsOver	Aug 18th, 2001 04:58:18 AM
It's giving me major goosebumps. I still, in someways, can't believe this movie is actually being made. 2 hours and 45 minutes? Does anyone have any idea how much the theatrical running time will be? Either way, we're going to be treated to some fantastic DVDs.
Good Move by Bill Froog	Aug 18th, 2001 05:03:27 AM
I agree with Retrop - what on earth would be the point of a test screening? It's not (thank the powers that be) a Hollywood film and there's not a lot to change. Anyway, "Some Like It Hot" tested bad the first time. Also glad to hear about the long running time - value for money! I bet it won't feel like 2 hours and 45 minutes when we sit there for the first time . . . oops, just wet myself.
Hooray by Sepulchrave	Aug 18th, 2001 05:10:40 AM
..for the big long epic. I was a bit worried that they'd do a ruthless Barry Sonnenfeldesque edit and leave us with a 'young-person' friendly 120 minutes or less. This needs time. Lots of it.
Infallible by Rogman	Aug 18th, 2001 05:21:50 AM
I agree with all who said that test-screenings would be pointless. Infact hype and promotion of the film would be pointless, too. It hypes and promotes itself. And the fanbase is so huge - all they need to do is set the film loose and watch it rip shit up.
Test screenings are bad by Celedhring	Aug 18th, 2001 05:23:20 AM
You don't understand. They are talking about test screenings, no press screenings. They are not afraid and hiding the picture from the press (this is a very bad signal when it happens), in fact, they are so sure about the movie that they don't think they need to test it (good thing, I usually think that test-screening has bad side effects, because the execs panic if the film doesn't test well and they end butchering it).
It's ready by alpha	Aug 18th, 2001 05:32:11 AM
If its ready could this mean that the editing for the 2nd film is ahead of schedule. If so could New Line go for the really big payday by moving it forward to Summer next year to cash in on the almost inevitable success of Fellowship. If FOTR is a big success and garners a few Oscar nods New Line could be looking at a increased return by opening it during Summer especially since Matrix has been moved back. If everything is ahead of schedule the accounts guys at New Line would have to look at that as the company's pumped a lot of cash into the project and the opportunity of opening the 2nd and 3rd films as Summer blockbusters would allow them to recoup their costs faster and possibly make a bigger profit. That assumes of course that its good .... crossing my fingers.
E-Man, don't worry so much... by Falcon-1	Aug 18th, 2001 05:33:28 AM
While I agree in MOST cases, when a studio elects to not do test screenings it's because the film is usually a real stinker; I think with the response that this film's few snipet showings (Internet previews, Cannes, etc.) should be enough to make us all rest easier. Besides, I really don't want a bunch of hacks getting in to a test screening and then getting on the internet to ruin all the visual suprises. Not to mention the inevidible screener copy of the movie that would turn up on the internet as well. I applaud New Line in this decision. As far as "Timeline", thought it was a pretty good story until the ending (which I won't reveal), I just don't think the character(s) that made it back to their own time would do what they ended up doing.
Thanks for such a running time! GREAT!!!!! by Ioreth	Aug 18th, 2001 05:33:38 AM
and I REALLY REALLY do hope the DVDs will get even longer! drooling yesssss .... ------ givesss ussss the precioussss! now! yessss! please?
Ah, my mistake.... by E_Man	Aug 18th, 2001 05:43:13 AM
test-Screenings - press screenings....now i get it. While all this is good news and i wouldn
Cool! by Dark Howler	Aug 18th, 2001 05:49:17 AM
2 hrs. 45 mins. in a great running time for an epic like this. I think Fellowship is New Line's longest movie they've ever released! Very cool! I also like the fact that there will be no test screenings. I've never liked basing the final product of a film off the reactions from a bunch of people pulled in off the streets. They could be people who don't even like fantasy films, and that would not be good. Kudos to New Line! Good job! Now, release Jason X ASAP and I'll be one very happy camper. :-)
test v. press by Rybock	Aug 18th, 2001 07:08:25 AM
Just to straighten something out here. A lot of people seem to be mixing up a test screening with a press screening. Often, when a studio doesn't hold a PRESS screening, which is arranging to show the movie to movie critics early so they can write reviews before the movie comes out, that is a bad sign. They feel the critics will trash the movie, and they basically decide to keep the lid on the majority of the critics for a couple of days, trying to get people out to see the movie without hearing it sucks. Now, that movie probably WAS, at some point, TEST screened, where people are brought in and asked questions about what they liked/disliked. If the studio is already nervous about a movie, then they really listen, probably too much (when prompted to list something they don't like, people will, even if it's not major. But to the studio, they read that then as a major problem that needs to be changed). Not having a TEST screening is generally a good sign - the studio is confident in what they have and feel that there is no need to change it (then again, this may also be due to practicality - how much can thay change/reshoot for this movie now, and when the next two movies come out).
At least 5 hours long or it's a guaranteed failure! by Druuna	Aug 18th, 2001 07:09:34 AM
Only 2 hours and 45 min. long?!? You gotta be kidding me! 'Fellow-ship' needs at least 5 hours of screen time to tell its tale correctly. New Line has a guaranteed failure on their hands if they release it this Xmas at only 2hr 45min. The public won't stand for it! Ever since 'Titanic', the masses have wanted longer and longer running times. And the studios damn well know it. That's why between now and Dec.19, mark my awesome words of wisdom, New Line is going to add 2 or 3 more hours of Jackson's brilliance! Bringing the final theatrical cut to a fairly decent 5 or 6 hour breathtaking experience. Just imagine when your average moviegoer gets up from his butter and sweat soaked seat after sitt-ing for at least 5 hours through Tolkien's and Jackson's masterpiece. They'll no doubt start ranting and raving about its greatness! Friends and family will definitely go after hearing all the super word of mouth. And the critics will wet themselves reviewing the sheer magic of Jackson's directing! Final Guaranteed Outcomes: $823.4 million domestic $1,259.1 billion international Now, if New Line fumbles the ball and releases it in this bullshit 2hr 45min abomination, then sadly the following figures will come true when it finishes its theatrical run: $67.6 million domestic and $102.9 million.
I KNOW I'll get slammed for this, but... by HootDad	Aug 18th, 2001 07:10:41 AM
I've got an 8-yo daughter who I'd love to take to see this movie, but I probably won't because we don't allow her to see PG-13 movies. For this reason only I was sort of hoping they would give it PG. Oh well, it probably WILL be a better movie as a PG-13, and when she's a few years older she'll be able to see it. Maybe when they release RotK they'll re-release FotR and TTT. We'll see...
Tom Bombadil by Entil`Zha	Aug 18th, 2001 07:17:18 AM
Tom Bombadil is not in the movie for one reason, He's not 100% integral to the plot, They HAD to make cuts somwhere, otherwise we'd end up with a 10 hour movie (not that that would be a bad thing)
I wanted my three and a half hour version... by Nazg	Aug 18th, 2001 08:11:33 AM
So much for beating the Godfather trilogy in running time...
e_man, they are screening for the press, not the dumb shits off by bumetalman	Aug 18th, 2001 08:22:12 AM

yes, yes, yes...i got it now.. by E_Man	Aug 18th, 2001 08:44:32 AM
So I mixed up test screening and press screening. Hey, nobody
HootDad, by ParamountExec	Aug 18th, 2001 08:48:51 AM
Don't be such a puppet of the MPAA. The ratings system is a totally arbitrary and subjective thing. See the movie yourself then decide if you should let your daughter see it.
Can't you people wait a few months...damn! by Oompacabra	Aug 18th, 2001 08:49:44 AM
What's the friggin uproar? It's their movie and they can show it or not show it to whomever they please. There IS a release date. I'll probably see it on or after that date as will most of us. If it ain't broke, don't test screen it. And as far as press screenings, What's the point, it's AUGUST!! Their are plently of movies coming out between now and then that could use the hype. I'm sure the production comany knows this. Frankly, this one doesn't need hype. I read that in plenty of other talkbacks. Catch you later, I'm gonna go see a movie that's been released.
This movie isn't going to be the big hit everyone thinks it is. by atomic-bananas	Aug 18th, 2001 09:05:43 AM
I just have this feeling about it. I just don't see mainstream audiences wanting to see this. I know the geeks will see it in droves, and I am sure it will beat TPM in single day totals, and it might just beat it's record for the movie that grossed 100 million faster than any other. I really doubt it, but it's possible. In America, I think it will get about 200 million, if that. It will be a bonafide hit, to be sure, but It won't come anywhere NEAR Titanic, ET, or TPM. This is just simply not a mass appeal movie. Color me stupid, but that is what I think.
Hootdad, go to screenit.com by atomic-bananas	Aug 18th, 2001 09:13:59 AM
Screenit.com is a good source for parents- it breaks down a movie in several different categories. Violence, Imitative behavior, scary music, nude scenes, etc. When the movie is released, a review breaking down FOTR in these categories will be posted on their website. That way you can judge for yourself if the movie is appropriate for your daughter. On another note, do you think an 8 year old would want to sit through a movie that's almost 3 hours long? It might make a good dvd rental for you guys.
Tom Waits for no man. by Kizeesh	Aug 18th, 2001 09:41:07 AM
2 hours 45 mins. That sounds about right. It also means the DVD version will probably be about 3 hours long. Should be good. and as to every one who says it will do badly, name 1 movie that it will have serious competition from. Harry Potter? unlikely the same audienc base will likely see both and the initial rush will be over by mid December. Ali? its released closer but biopics generally lack the mass appeal and rewatchability to reap high profits. Ocean Eleven and Gangs of New York both have limited appeal and open after the initail few days LOTR has. so I ask you can it really fail?
Don't ''pop'' too early. by wrestling studd	Aug 18th, 2001 09:42:12 AM
For all of you ''marks'' in here jerking off to thought of this film being released soon don't come too soon, okay. I do not think this movie will be any where near as successful as you think it will be. I think it will be a hit with geeks and sci-fi fans, but I don't think it will have mass appeal.
What studios should start doing.... by The_Black_Hair	Aug 18th, 2001 09:48:16 AM
With any high profile movie like this or the Star Wars films.... or hell, why not all films.... is have invitation only press screenings. Studios need to get serious about weeding people like Matt Drudge out of the preview screenings so they can't ruin the experience for the audiences. If that dick needs to ironically prove how worthless he is in a pathetic attempt to justify his worthlessness, let him pay $9.75 for the movie like everyone else. They should make the reviewers who are allowed to preview the film sign waivers promising not to reveal or carelessly hint at major plot points, regardless of whether or not the film has a plot twist. Damn that's a pet peeve of mine... when was the last time anyone has seen a film with a plot twist and they weren't expecting a plot twist because every damn reviewer lets it be known that there's gonna be a plot twist. I wouldn't be guessing the endings of so many movies if reviewers weren't assuming that their readers are too stupid to figure it out if they know it's coming. Anyway, the internet has been upon us for some time and its time studios and film makers adapt and take charge again.
Man, it's gonna be funny when all you LOTR guys are disappointed by RevSam	Aug 18th, 2001 09:50:01 AM
Cause you know it's gonna happen. Harry's gonna give it an average to bad review, the talk back for that review will be bulging at it's seams with negative comments about how they "changed a word of the dialogue" and all that. I'm not insulting the movie. I'm sure to someone like me, who is someone who never got around to reading LOTR, the movie will be fine, maybe even great, because I'm not building up the film in my mind. Building films up in your mind just leads to disasters. I built Moulin Rouge up in my mind, you know what happened the first time I saw it? Didn't think it was that great. So-so at best. AI was built up in my mind. The first time I saw it I wasn't terribly pleased with it. And I think we all know what happened with Ep. One. So don't go to FOTR with expectations. They'll get in the way. (It should be noted that AI and Moulin Rouge are two of my favorite films of this year, but I've seen them both more then once [Moulin Rouge=4, AI=6], however this tactic might not work with FOTR, simply because I wouldn't be to terrible surprised if it sucked the big one.) Oh, by the way, Dark Howler, this is not the film New Line has ever released. Think: Magnolia...
Maverick07, you need to fine tune that sixth sense of yours by The_Black_Hair	Aug 18th, 2001 09:52:21 AM
Peter Jackson vs. Michael Bay.... enough said. If you don't know the difference, I pity you.
I hope you're not serious by Darth Melkor	Aug 18th, 2001 09:53:25 AM
Druuna. A five hour running time is what you require? No one would sit through that unless they were hard HARDcore fans. And yes I think this movie will have a huge opening but drop quickly like Tomb Raider. It has a fan following, but doesn't appeal to the masses. It's fanbase is also nowhere near as large as Star Wars'. I estimate a final domestic gross of about $225 million.
I just farted by DiscoDancer	Aug 18th, 2001 09:57:45 AM
yup, that's right. I just farted. btw, i think this movie will rock, more so than Episode II. I hope i dont fart in the theatre when watchin either of them.
Jumping on the band wagon by Bobbafatass	Aug 18th, 2001 10:03:17 AM
Im just wondering about how many of these "fans" of LOTR have actually read the books I have and thought they were nothing special they were just too long and nothing happened of much excitement and there were loads of stupid songs sung by elves what a waste of paper and all those gimps who think its gonna be the biggest grossing movie of all time yeah right it will bearly do $200 million roll on Episode 2 and let the Bearded Genius show another Bearded bloke how to make a movie and loads of ca$h
Jumping on the band wagon by Bobbafatass	Aug 18th, 2001 10:04:18 AM
Im just wondering about how many of these "fans" of LOTR have actually read the books I have and thought they were nothing special they were just too long and nothing happened of much excitement and there were loads of stupid songs sung by elves what a waste of paper and all those gimps who think its gonna be the biggest grossing movie of all time yeah right it will bearly do $200 million roll on Episode 2 and let the Bearded Genius show another Bearded bloke how to make a movie and loads of ca$h
RevSam is right by atomic-bananas	Aug 18th, 2001 10:12:36 AM
the fanboys are so cynical these days about movies,I guarantee you that there will be a strong faction that hates FOTR. Everyone has been having wet dreams about this movie for so long, there is no way this movie is going to live up to your expectations. And to the other person who asked if there was any movie recently that truly suprised anyone- The Others completely surprised me. I saw it on a whim, I had no idea what it was about, other than it was a ghost story, and it had Nicole Kidman. I may have liked it less if I had read all about it before hand, maybe. But I am very glad that I didn't. There is something to be said for just letting a movie speak for itself. Just because you have all the spoiler info in the world available to you online, that doesn't mean that you should read it. And Matt Drudge is a pussy.
long stuff by Kizeesh	Aug 18th, 2001 10:24:24 AM
Well I prefer long films. I though practically every big movie this year was too short. The exception being Pearl Harbour which could have been cut by 40 minutes to no dextrimental effect.
This movie will rock by Torpedo224	Aug 18th, 2001 10:28:48 AM
Yall are comparing this movie and say this will not meet up to expectations. The Lord of the Rings was deemed unfilmable for several decades. The following and fanbase will give this movie a huge opening and it will drop off somewhat. I think this movie will continue to draw cash for as long as the 6th Sense or Titanic. People will see it. People saw Tomb Raider and that sucked, people saw Episode I and that sucked except for the awesome bad-ass special effects which was the entire movie. FotR will not have a Jar-Jar character- thank God. I regarded Pearl Harbor did poorly for a long film yet it made 180 million by now. The Mummy 2 did better than 200 million to my suprise. FotR will be a first of its kind, legendary film and I am going to see it repeatedly no matter what.....and I've read LotR twice.
my two cents by FlickChick	Aug 18th, 2001 10:40:09 AM
I'm just wondering why anyone would hazard any guesses (box office gross, quality of product) on a film they have not seen? Regardless of what the movie does or does not do, I think it's great that two big fantasy films are coming out this year!! That's one thing I loved about the 80's, lots of fantasy films like Dragonslayer, Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, Legend, LadyHawke...Anyway, you get the point. I'm glad to see at least a mini-return to this genre with Potter and Rings coming out. Who knows, perhaps if they do well it'll start an all out revival. Maybe that Legend dvd will come out. ;-)
hootdad by Gilgalad	Aug 18th, 2001 10:56:37 AM

thank God no test screenings by AntoniusBloc	Aug 18th, 2001 10:58:41 AM
Test screening is like a politician(Bill Clinton) taking polls in order to make his decisions because he is not a true leader and not confident in his own ideas. Test screening audiences means they will make changes according to audience reaction. That's how the Rock and Pearl Harbor were made. Thank God PJ and New Line are not doing this. They must be confident in the final product. So thank God no test screenings!(as explained by someone earlier different from press screenings, which POTA avoided, understandably). As far as the running time, the longer the better for me, but 245 sounds almost perfect!
Hootdad by Gilgalad	Aug 18th, 2001 11:03:05 AM
I thought my 8yr old daughter was ok for Jurassic Park on TV couple weeks ago. Scared? Yes. But worse, when the woman felt Samuel Jackson arm on her shoulder, during the 'Rapter in the generator room' scene, then pulled it close and sawthe tangle of flesh and such.... well, let's just say a serious melt-down occured & it took awhile for that image to leave her head in the dark hours of night. Maybe Fellowship won't be as intense - but maybe it will.
Christmas is the best release time by LenSp	Aug 18th, 2001 11:46:38 AM
New Line is very smart to release this at Christmas. January is a dead time for movies. A blockbuster that starts at Christmas can rule the box office through Valentine's Day, perhaps into April. Remember Titanic? It had no competition that it's repeat business made it stick out as the only movie story for two months. So more and more people had to go see what all the fuss was about, thus increasing box office. In the summer, it would have had the great first week, to be swamped by all the other releases in following weeks. It gives FOTR the chance to stay in the best and biggest theaters at the multiplexes for many weeks. That increases the enjoyment experience for those that see the film. The FOTR is not TPM with it's proven world-wide audience anticipation. Other studios would only avoid it for maybe one weekend or two at max (where TPM was avoided for an entire month). After that it would face heavy competition. This way FOTR will be the only real option for movie audiences for seven weeks.
To all of you Lord of the Rings haters... by Halloween68	Aug 18th, 2001 12:32:49 PM
What a bunch of assholes. I'm sorry to see that most of you are either illiterate or can only appreciate one film in your lifetime. You haven't even seen the freakin' film, nor will you probably since you've seemed to convince yourself that it's not worth seeing out of ignorance. Grow up a little and wait and see at least out of curiosity. If you don't, I feel sorry for you. 'Bet you don't give yourselves much of a chance at anything in life. I have a feeling you'll be missing out on something spectacular. That's okay, that'll put me further up in line. And to that one person who's complaining about it not being good unless it's 5 hours: Remember the entire crickhollow, old forest, Barrow Downs sequences have all been taken out. Just under 3 hours is a great time frame for what's remaining. Also, for everyone else interested: I've heard the rough draft of the Fellowship was at just over 3 and half hours. That'll all be included on the DVD. That's already been confirmed. That a shite load of other extras. Bring it on. Also, I'm pretty sure there's no chance of any of the other films getting moved up. If anything, I suppose they could rerelease Fellowship a few months into 2001. Then the video release for it will probably be September or October. And so to send off to the haters... If you don't and won't care for the release of these films, why are you even here? Go somewhere and tell it someone who cares.
2:45 is too short by hktelemacher	Aug 18th, 2001 12:42:59 PM
Peter Jackson said that each film would be 3 hrs. 20 minutes, so that the total the whole thing was 10 hours - the longest trilogy yet. LOTR is the kind of flick that people would be happy to sit through for over 3 hours, and if it's above Jackson's previous work (doesn't matter if he's loyal to the source or not) than I'm there savoring the entire experience. If the finished film has the look and intensity of the trailer, it may not win any Oscars, but will be a highly enjoyable movie. Keep the 3:20 run time, people who complain that movies are too long should stay home.
LOTR and Mass Appeal by Lukecash	Aug 18th, 2001 01:19:36 PM
There have been a lot of comments about how limitied audience appeal that this movie will bring into the theater. "Sci-Fi geeks and tolkien fanatics!" However, they forget one thing: The Lord of the Rings have been around for generations. Christopher Lee pointed out that Grandparents, their Children and Grand children are all grew up with the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings. It has been published all over the world for many years, and was a major influence on fantasy literature. This thing has a BIG fan base...bigger than Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, or Godzilla any film franchise in the world. I must hand it New Line...Then are marketing it rather well Mike Lukash
Perfect Running Time by Sith Warrior	Aug 18th, 2001 01:31:09 PM
YES!!! This is the perfect running time. DAMN, there's 4 whole months to go!
Dark Howler (a response) by sub-moxy	Aug 18th, 2001 03:09:28 PM
This is not the longest New Line film released, as Paul Thomas Anderson can prove. But this is a great running time. I didn't enjoy the books too much to be honest, but I think as epic cinema the story will be brilliant.
sex n violence by wilko185	Aug 18th, 2001 03:15:45 PM
an MPAA rep says LOTR received its rating for "an intense scene of medieval warfare and some sensuality.". Warfare in FOTR? The only bits I can only think of are in Moria (the Chamber of Mazarbul battle has apparently been beefed up a bit) and Boromir's one-man battle at the end. "Sensuality" must mean Arwen's expanded role (let's hope no-one else is shown "gettin it on"). I was wanting the Nazgul to earn the rating, but I guess dudes in cloaks, who slooowwly advance, and get confused by bright lights just aren't that scary on screen.___2h 45 sounds about right, with no Old Forest sequence. Hopefully the DVD will be much longer. Personally I'd like a longer theatre version tho. Remember when films had an intermission halfway through? That would be tailor-made for LOTR (6 "books" published in 3 volumes and 3 films). I would gladly sit through 5h+ if I could get out of my seat halfway through. (I may be a dedicated LOTR fan but I don't want deep-vein thrombosis for the sake of watching the film)
yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss by THE PROFESSOR	Aug 18th, 2001 03:20:15 PM
give it to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... .........
Lord of the Rings ***** by SFA	Aug 18th, 2001 04:21:39 PM
Some of you guys are saying this film will be a disapointment. You are wrong. The footage shown at Cannes (and other places) was recieved with critical acclaim. I haven't read ONE bad review yet. These films are going to be the Star Wars of our generation. They are EPIC. You base your assumtions that LOTR will not be a Box Office success on the track record of past fantasy films and how they lack the pulling power. Have you ever thought that there has yet to be a decent fantasy film? I mean, the closest thing we have to a best of the genre is Willow for fuck's sake. This is a first, a fantasy film made for Adults, not kids. Its being directed by Peter Jackson of christ sake. The man knows how to film cool violence. And if you are bashing this film and you have not read the books, fuck off. This thing is EPIC man. Truly EPIC. It ain't no fairies and pixies story. Its got bad-ass enemies Lucas could only dream of. Darth Maul's gonna look like a pussy compared to the shit the fellowship have to deal with in the first film alone. I can assure you, when you leave the cinema this Christmas, you will feel such a dick for posting such idiotic comments.
IT IS NOT DONE !!!! by Torpedo224	Aug 18th, 2001 04:50:57 PM
It isn't done. Theonring.net ,a great site also, says it isn't done and WETA is still workin on it. Plus they've reports contradicting it being finished so I dont know.....
My opinion about movie lengths by Lobanhaki	Aug 18th, 2001 05:18:25 PM
It's all a matter of keeping people interested and rewarding that attention. The question is, is FOTR the right length? That question will be answered for most people when they see the film. If the consensus of the majority of the viewers is that the film's structure supports the length well, then 2:45 minutes is an appropriate runtime. Hopefully, 2:45 will seem appropriate.
"I Have A Feeling" by Prankster	Aug 18th, 2001 05:23:05 PM
Quite a lot of people have said, "I don't know, I just have a FEELING that LOTR is not going to do very well" including Jeffrey Wells, the idiot's David Poland. Nobody ever has any solid facts to base this on. Or if they do it's something idiotic like "This will only appeal to internet fanboys" (you mean, like TPM?) Now I don't know or care if the movie will beat Titanic at the BO and sweep the Academy Awards. I guess it would be nice if the film is as incredible as it's rumoured to be. I don't care though. All I care about is that the movies make a fair amount of money, enough that New Line gets rewarded for being so gutsy and letting these films be made properly. No one can ever say anything for sure, but come on, it'll be hard for these movies to flop. 1. Fanboys who are willing to line up as with TPM; 2. Huge INTERNATIONAL fan base that will be seeing the movie at around the same time as everyone else, making it a world-wide event and possibly meaning it'll be the biggest international hit ever; 3. $300 million sounds like a lot until you realise that it's for THREE movies--and the budgets of, say, The Mummy Returns, Shrek, and Pearl Harbour all together add up to a LOT more. Even if the movies "only" make $200 million domestic (?) they'll be unparalleled successes. And let's not forget that they could be, um, GOOD movies that people like--which goes a long way towards creating a hit. ("The Matrix" made about the same amount of money as "Godzilla". But which one was considered a hit?)
The people who are saying that they "have a feeling" that FoTR w by Smugbug	Aug 18th, 2001 06:08:34 PM
so, there. Know what that means? Your so-called intuition is rather unstrustworthy. Oh and just cuz a movie ain't over 3hrs. long does not mean it will suck. You know, maybe Peter Jackson went for QUALITY time rather than QUANTITY in time. And yes, the length of the book itself may constitute a LONG movie, but given the fact that many of us HAVE NEVER DIRECTED a film, I'm gonna leave this one in the hands of one very capable director and his producers. I trust 'em. One more thing: This movie is "in the can"? Oh, geez, I won't be able to sleep now...........
Oh man, I can't wait!! by JMYoda	Aug 18th, 2001 06:27:52 PM
FOTR is my second most anticipated movie after Episode II. I love the LOTR trilogy to death, they're the finest example of 20th century litature ever devised. I'm so glad Peter Jackson is showing steelies by releasing this at an epic running time (wish Lucas would follow suit). It assures that the majority of cool stuff from the novel will be included. I hope to God that this is a huge success, second only to the Star Wars phenomenon. Although with intelligent genre films like "A.I". and "Final Fantasy" bombing at the box office while shit like POTA makes money I am a bit worried. I am glad it'll have a PG-13 rating as it should have a darker and more harder edge then Star Wars. Besides younger kids would be somewhat confused by the storyline anyway. I remember seeing the Ralph Bashki animated LOTR movie as a little kid and it confused me although I still loved it and thought it was cool as hell. The two TV anime movies "The Hobbit" and "Return of the King" the Japanese studio did when Bashki couldn't finish his 2nd film where dumbed down a bit for kids and while I loved them as a kid they disapoint me now. I'd hate to see that done now so that's why I'm super happy it's got a PG-13 rating. Oh and whoever said TPM only appealed to fanboys... It's the third highest grossing film of all time (it grossed $431 million in the U.S.A. alone!) so a hell of a lot more people then just fanboys must have went to see it multiple times. Not bad for the weakest entry in the saga and a film everyone supposibly hates, eh?
~~Greetings~~ by Enigmatic	Aug 18th, 2001 06:48:44 PM
I am so excited about this movie...I agree with some of y'all out there about the film length. I wish the movie was 5 hours long. What about Tom Bombadil???? He should be in this movie. He's one of my favorite characters in the novel! It's about time that an intelligent movie would come along. It seems like my intelligence has been insulted by teeny-bopper movies for too long. I mean--I'm 18, but I know quality literature. Here's hoping the film lives up to my expectations!
ok, so it's not really finished by wilko185	Aug 18th, 2001 06:57:58 PM
but the basic edit and run time must presumably be locked for the film to be rated (and TORN also say the Irish Film Board must have seen a finished edit for the trailer to be shown there). I would guess WETA can now sprinkle their magic pixie-dust over the film, to give it that Elvish look, and the score arrangement can be done without fear of further cuts and revisions. I wonder if WETA are forbidden from introducing anymore gory effects now, or did they have to complete all those before getting the rating?
They need to trim this film down to about 90 minutes... Kinda " by Mayhem Ensues	Aug 18th, 2001 07:45:58 PM
Hehe. Figured that would get peoples attention. I was so afraid some idiot at New Line would pull something like that - anything under 2 hours and 45 minutes would be a crime. I'm hoping that the DVD version comes in at AT LEAST 3 hours and 30 minutes - there is so much footage that they could include and I say the more the better.
Hootdad: I purposely expose my daughter to as much onscreen viol by Tequila Wyrm	Aug 18th, 2001 07:56:57 PM
We also do bong hits together for this reason... we call it our "quiet time"
Don't Worry! by Jay	Aug 18th, 2001 08:10:30 PM
I have a very sure feeling that this movie will be huge! Okay, listen to this. Before I saw the first internet preview, I had no idea what Lord of the Rings was. I had no idea what a fantasy novel was. After seeing that preview I've read a bunch of fantasy novels. I also did a little experiment. I got my mom, my best friend, and my brother. My mom said "oooo that looks good!", my little brother wants to see that more than The Matrix 2 and that's his favorite movie, and my friend said "whoa. that looks cool. i like movies like that." And he's never read a book in his life! The thing that will bring the audiences is the epic feel and places they've never been before.
Time to start taking bets by Phat_Cheops	Aug 18th, 2001 08:16:25 PM
This'll be fun: Who on the AICN crew will see FotR FIRST? Will it be: Harry? Moriarty? El Cosmico? One of the foreign guys? A newcomer? Who will be the first to chime in with news of having seen the completed movie? I think Harry will say "I've seen it, but I can't review it right now," and then a newcomer will chime in with a review some time after.
LOTR can't beat TPM by Jerkwad Bastard	Aug 18th, 2001 08:28:31 PM
There is no way that FOTR can beat TPM's openning day total because the movie is too long to allow for enough screenings in one day.
Obvious and simple rationale for FotR being huge by Red Giant	Aug 18th, 2001 09:50:22 PM
This is for all the Harry Potter, Star Wars and other fanbases who don't think the LotR trilogy isn't going to surpass their movies. It is simple: over 6 months in advance of the movie OPENING, a CONTINUOUS 15 MINUTE SECTION of film was confidently shown to media and THEY LOVED IT, BORDERING ON AWE-STRUCK. Now, show me even 10 continuous minutes of ANY film willing and confident enough in its greatness? We all know edited trailers can make shit look pretty, but you can't hide 15 friggin' minutes CONTINUOUSLY. Challenge: point out any 15 minute sequence in TPM that would have seemed "awesome" to the press. Go ahead, any suggestions because I sure don't know any. Also, obviously no movie this summer would even take a chance at doing that. This is a major revelation for mood, pace, dialogue, plot, character interaction, believablilty, etc that cannot be faked or MTV-edited to look better than it is - it IS awesome.
Didn't Jackson say anyway he was going to miss out some scenes, by Rev Scapegoat	Aug 18th, 2001 11:12:37 PM
Once he'd seen how well the movies do at the theatre (Like he's got any doubts!) then he'll have the cash and studio confidence to go back and shoot all the material in the books he didn't use, ending up with roughly 3.5hrs for each film in the trilogy? Given that most of the stuff excised from the books (Barrow-wights, Bombadil etc) is extraneous to the plot and WOULD only serve to confuse non-fans and make people moan about the pointless (To them) side-stories I think this is a top idea- specially if the movies get a 2nd theatrical release as well, a la Star Wars trilogy...
Yay! But wait... Woe is me by Pippin's Diamond	Aug 18th, 2001 11:42:41 PM
So it's a nice 25 mins. longer than I expected it to be! And there is even more of it out there... I wonder if we'll ever get to see it. Gee, that's odd... no tailenders out there. I reared my hobbit head to greet some old screen names but nobody's there. By Durin's callouses, I feel lonely.
hey, jerkwad bastard by wilko185	Aug 18th, 2001 11:44:17 PM
I don't normally answer trolls, but assuming you believe what you're saying, here's a couple of facts: (a) there's nothing but excellent word of mouth and positive press on FOTR (see what Red Giant said about this near the bottom of this already-screwed-up TB) (b) FOTR will open on double the amount of screens as TPM did. You do the math. Now here's my opinions: (a) I won't know which film I like better until I've seen both (though I could hazard a guess right now). (b) I don't give a rat's ass about opening day takes, or overall box office, as long as there is no cost-cutting on post-production for the next 2 LOTR movies. Are all you guys quoting figures New Line shareholders or something?
Updates from the front of the FOTR line. by Isidore	Aug 19th, 2001 02:08:36 AM
Since I last told you my tale of waiting in line for the greatest movie of all time, I have had the single most amazing experience in my life. As quite a few of you know, the last time I wrote in, I had found god in the form of a millipede and that his message was for all the people in the land to see this movie or burn in hell. Well I don't talk about that anymore, you see, I was taken to a hospital and drugged very heavily. There are great forces trying to keep me from seeing this movie, and if I announce my faith in public, they come quickly in their white coats to lock me away and end my holy crusade. I usually escape after 72 hours of grueling pain, but this last time they kept me longer. I am sure they were planning to hold me forever, but no one could prevent me from seeing this piece of history unfold. As I was formulating my plan for my escape, an odd fellow in a white gown just like mine, came to me with the solution. His name was Kenneth. He was a patient at the hospital, but there a way about him that did not fit the clinical drudgery of the hospital. He was a genius that simply had grown beyond the bounds of logic, and most importantly, he was like me, a trapped soul that didn't belong. He gave me a method of escape I had never thought possible, not in that hellhole. He had created a cocktail of drugs that when taken with a raw russet potato would transport me to where ever and when ever I wanted. I asked him why he didn't use this himself, but he would only look away and shake his head. Even the brilliant can get scared, I thought. So, the way this works is, I have to concetrate on the location I want to go to the whole time I am taking the drugs/potato and I am whisked awayin an instant. BUT, I screwed up, and instead of concentrating on opening day for FOTR, at the last minute I wondered about my place in line and if the homeless community were still watching my place while I was gone. So...I was whisked away to the front of the line AUG 9. I was out of the hospital, but still 4 months off! It could be worse, I guess. Within minutes of my arrival, I had to use the bathroom. It took a while to find a place that would take a dirty smelly guy in a hospital gown, but Arby's finally did. I guess they were happy anyone was there at all. So I go to the bathroom, and out from me comes the entire russet potato as it was originally. I will never travel in time again. The bleeding stopped eventually, but I don't know if the pain ever will. So... 2 hours and 45 minutes huh? Sounds cool to me. See you in line.
If all three movies are 2:45 long, then just three LOTR episodes by Darth Ranik	Aug 19th, 2001 02:55:06 AM
I always thought Star Wars movies could have been much longer than 2hrs a piece that they run. LOTR is doing it right. These movies are gonna rock. Just think if Star Wars were 2:45 hrs a piece we would have 4:30 minutes more of Star Wars history !!! Thats huge!!!
I just saw the footage shown at Cannes by Darque	Aug 19th, 2001 06:18:33 AM
Just got back from the Australian International Film Convention where they showed the LotR footage shown at Cannes... My girlfriends very pleased. I have an erection that will last well beyond the opening day!!! Its simply fucking awe inspiring. I actually had tears whelling in my eyes, I could not believe how wonderful it was. The 14 minute sequence is just heart pounding from start to finish, and never have I seen CGI blended so well into live action footage. The montage at the end showing bits from Towers and Return will keep me hard until 2003 too >:)
Why judge a book by it's cover? by orson	Aug 19th, 2001 07:13:05 AM
It's more fun to judge a movie on little tidbits of information! Frankly, I can't belive it only clocks in a 2h45 minutes. Don't these prople realize that anything under 2hours 46 is bound to fuck it up? If the wanted to condense, then 2 hours44 minutes was the maximum! Darn, I had a good example from the 4 th season of ST=DS9 to support my theory but this is just going to suck. They should've had Jean-Luc Picard play Gandalf and I still think Shatner was right as Gollum. They're not getting my money, I'm off to watch "V" in letterboxed DVD....
Two Things by ThePaladin	Aug 19th, 2001 07:38:09 AM
First thing: To all you posters who feel LOTR will not have mass appeal - Who cares? This movie is being made by someone who loves Tolkein's epic and who is also a master film-maker. Peter Jackson is making the Trilogy for himself AND OTHERS LIKE HIM. Would he like it to have mass appeal? Almost certainly. Will it have mass appeal? Opinions differ. Given the fact that the story of the One Ring was the most popular piece of fiction in the 20th Century (and voted so in numerous places), I think Jackson's LOTR movies will be at least popular enough to make New Line a healthy profit. Regardless, New Line has already coughed up the money for all three movies. Even if FELLOWSHIP tanks at the box office, we will get to see the Trilogy complete on film. I doubt it will tank. I think it will be at least as popular and as profitable as any modern blockbuster. Will it pass TPM? Titanic? Who cares. If it is a raging success, great. If not, then we fans will still have chance to see something wonderful. I do not know if Peter Jackson can pull off the near miracle of transporting Tolkien's story to the big screen. I do know that from everything I have read and seen, he is doing everything he can to tell this story faithfully. Second Thing: Lord of the Rings are not fantasy books. LOTR is the an epic Horror Story set in fictional mythology. Call it fantasy if you wish, it has all the elements. However, think about the themes. Think about what each character must endure. Think about how each character goes through irreversible changes, most not for the better. Think of the ending (no spoilers for you few who have not read it). There is pain and death and the passing away of many great things in this story. Peter Jackson understands Horror, not as a cheap slasher genre we see today, but as the struggle of unlikely heros against a great corrupting evil. Look at his choice of what to drop: Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest. I love that section of the story, and some parts are critical (the scene in the Barrow Downs). However, that section is a respite from the horror of the rest of the books. It is not critical to the story of the Ring, and would slow the movie down to the point of killing it. So, Jackson being the clever fellow that he is, dropped it. I don't know how he will explain how the Hobbits get the blades of the Westernesse, but I have no doubt he will come up with something that will convey the Spirit of that encounter. (If you are wondering, the story is fresh in my memory because I just reread it last week.) I look forward to FELLOWSHIP and the other movies because finally the right person has the right tools and the ability to do justice to this story on film.
black ops strike time by NateWave	Aug 19th, 2001 08:14:27 AM
sign me up man, i'd be willing to give my life for a chance to see this movie early.
Isidore, that's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while by SamWave	Aug 19th, 2001 08:52:23 AM
Jesus! You should be writing children's books!
: I don't think it will be a big hit. by Greg Nice	Aug 19th, 2001 09:59:25 AM
Personally I don't care what the film grosses at the box office as long as it does not influence New line to make any changes to the following films. One thing that is surprising me here is the ignorant folks popping up stating that LOTR does not have the fan base of the Star Wars trilogy. Did you guys take the little bus to school or what? Talkien's work has inspired fans across the globe for the last 50 years. Nearing my thirty year mark I can still think back to my earliest teachers setting us down in a circle to have the hobbit read to us. My junior school years found me discovering the rest of tolkiens work inspiring years of debates with English teachers about tolkiens influence on modern 'fantasy' literature. Soon after this came the onslaught of role playing video games in the 80's which the producers of should have been kissing Tolkiens hairy bean bag for the inspiration given to them by the world of Middle Earth. These films have the ability to draw viewers from several different walks of life. There will be the Movie buff's that will be interested in such a big production. There's the entire generation of people who have played the dungeon/role playing/slash 'em type fantasy games. (Yes, video games are now a part of our childhood and therefore part of our culture) And most importantly it will draw people who are fans of literature, whether they have read the books or just know the books for what they are, the most popular work of fiction literature in the twentieth century. So ANYONE who doesn't think the films have TREMENDOUS drawing power is completely ignorant and promptly pull their head out their ass .. Good movies, bad movies ... I don't know what's in store for us. As much as I look forward to the films, I don't know if the movies can do the story justice. The greatest thing about the book is it's ability to make readers feel the history of middle earth. Not only do we care about the characters in the fellowship but we also know and care about the history of these characters and families etc. This I think, is the biggest task PJ had in making the films. Although, I have been watching every available source regarding the films since day one and from a production stand point, I don't they could be better prepared to do the film. PJ, his assistant director (The woman, I forget her name, sorry ) and the writer are all enormous Tolkien fans with a studio that was committed to doing the films and doing them right. (Cheers to Mr. DeLuca for that part) All the pieces are now in place. A few special effects, a bit of music, and 4 LONG months of waiting and we will either have the first triumph of disaster of epic style film production of the new millennia. Gnice
plotline changes...lurtz, for example by Eomer Fudd	Aug 19th, 2001 10:13:33 AM
I am worried. I have deep reservations about these films, and can only hope I am proven wrong in December. If there are too many liberties taken, and the story strays too much from the source material, the fan base will quickly turn away. If these stories are, in fact successfully translated to film, fans of Tolkien's work will show the world what fanaticism really is.
Pfffffft by Penny Dreadful	Aug 19th, 2001 10:23:38 AM
Crumbs, it's been awhile. I can't believe I have to wait almost two years for George R. R. Martin to put out a book, Terry Brooks and HP as well. But LOTR in 4 months?! Bliss. That makes up for everything. ***Hullo, Pip's D., Miami and gastbona--where is everyone?
19 december..... by Frodo_1st	Aug 19th, 2001 11:38:57 AM
Well for me... I've read the book about 9 times. And I'll see the movie at least 20 times I think. Oh God (you may also say "Oh Peter Jackson!), how I long for the DVD with the directors cut, all the extra's, all the behind the scenes shots, the interviews.... ALL OF IT!!
Newline Screwed Us... by gizmobrainyhead	Aug 19th, 2001 01:34:42 PM
Looks like newline is more interested in profits than quality... should have kept the 3hr 15m version Jackson originally cut for us... I guess we'll have to wait for the "directors cut" DVD before we see the REAL film.... thanks newline.. arghhh!!! :(
Look... by GITBOAJ	Aug 19th, 2001 01:35:49 PM
For those of you who seem to know everything about TLOTR's chances of success, maybe you should just wait and find out like the rest of us pitiful mortals. Why I think it will do fine, just by "feeling": People like epic films. I like em. My friends like em. Hell, my enemies like em I bet. The built in audience of geeks that have read the books, myself included, is simply a perk. The film itself should be strong enough in my mind, to garner a large audience. I seriously doubt the producers are relying on the book fanbase. They may target them to some degree but in the end the film should have an appeal to those who like big epic films. I get a little bored with the comments about how this movie is for geeks who've read books. I also get weary of the annoying dogma from people who supposedly are faithful to the books. If you don't want to see the freakin movie, then don't. Those of us who do, will. I'm not under the delusion that I can change that person's mind so you should expect that your drivel has little to no effect on whether the fans want to see the movie. I'm just working under the assumption from the BO that the majority of movie-goers are fairly unsophiticated. Sure there are some smart and well-versed movie fans, but the large portion of people in general are, let's face it, morons. I am not ammuned to sudden fits of mornic behavior, but I do try to keep them to a minimum. It's a pity not everyone can do the same. This may account for the popularity of such films as Scary Movie 1 and 2, and the mere existence of such films as Dude, Where's My Car? and Battlefield Earth. Happy hunting moviegoers. It's slim pickins so far.
BEST PICTURE GOES TO............. by gizmobrainyhead	Aug 19th, 2001 01:44:20 PM
PREDICTION: LOTR gets a best picture / best director nod in 2002. Nothing has come out this year, or looks to be coming out this year that could touch this movie... time will tell... you heard it here first... :) I still think it should be 3h:15 m running time...!!!
Funking awesome by sopranofella	Aug 19th, 2001 03:26:40 PM
Oh yah
You'll don't have a clue by Lord Griff	Aug 19th, 2001 06:41:50 PM
The above messages but confirm my belief that very few of you are real Tolkien fans. It doesn't matter how long this film is, as long it contains all that it should contain, no more and no less. We get the news that Tom Bombadil is left out, and all you can crap on about is ratings and running time. Real Tolkien fans would be up in arms about plot changes. And for those of you who are wondering what a real Tolkien fan is, try reading LotR about 5 times, the Hobbit about 6, Sillmarilion (by far the best book of them all) about 5 as well as the Lost Tales twice and half of the rest of the history of middle earth (I'm only 19, so I'm working on it). So much for the tool who has "read it twice". If Tom Bombadill would only confuse viewers, why doesn't he confuse readers? He was put there for a reason and should be kept. Increasing the element of the love beteen Arwen and Aragorn is crap. Most people (including MOST of you) wouldn't understand why this is so important, and why all endings to the war are going to be sorrowful for Elrond. Perhaps you should all shut up unless you have something important to say. This movie should have been reproduced as close to the book as possible.
Thanks for the feedback... by HootDad	Aug 19th, 2001 07:01:16 PM
Pexec, I'm not a puppet of anyone. As a parent, I have independently come to the conclusion that I don't feel that any PG-13 movie I've yet seen is appropriate for a small child. I fully intend on seeing it myself, and depending on her interest, i will decide for myself whether it's appropriate. The only PG-13 movie so far that she's expressed more than a passing interis in is "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon", and I'm sorry to admit tha I haven't seen it myself yet. I'll probably watch it on PPV and tape it, if I think it's OK I'll watch it with her. atomic-bananas, I'm aware of screenit.com and probably will use it as a resource, though I haven't had to up to now. As to whther she would sit through a movie that's almost 3 hours long, well at 7 she read Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire - a 500+ page book, and she's been to several Broadway shows running around 3 hours, so I don't think that would be an issue.
chat room by dvs1	Aug 19th, 2001 07:47:42 PM
If any of you frequent the irc.enterthegame.com server on irc, then feel free to join #lotr.
Lord Griff... by BG	Aug 19th, 2001 08:46:04 PM
...I'm a real Tolkien fan, but I'm not up in arms about the cutting of Tom Bombadil, because in this TB we are discussing LOTR the movies, as written by P Jackson and P Boyens, as opposed to LOTR the book, as written by JRRT. I'm 31 years old so I've had the opportunity to read the books you listed many more times than you have, but that's irrelevant since I was a real Tolkien fan after I read LOTR the first time. So tell me, how many times do you have to read the books in order to qualify as a real fan? Are people not permitted to voice their oppinion here untill they have reached a certain level of Tolkien enlightenment? Let me leave you with a well known quote from JRRT himself (since your such a big fan you've probably heard it before), "LOTR could never be made into a film, unless the filmmaker takes serious liberties with the story."
Pissed about the films length???? by Monkey_King	Aug 19th, 2001 08:48:24 PM
Wait for the DVD, dammit!!!! It is sure to have extras. We're only a few months from this films release and they want to rush the post production on this baby. Hope they don't screw anything up. The cast looks wonderful.
At Least 9 hours long or it will be a complete box-office failur by Druuna	Aug 20th, 2001 01:02:38 AM
Hopefully the title change above will clear up all of the misunderstanding over my original post's obvious(I thought)use of sarcasm.
Not that big of a deal? by desslok	Aug 20th, 2001 02:48:41 PM
This will probably mark me as a troll and a flamer or an illiterate git, but I just don
hold off your judgements and think for a second by kingnothing	Aug 20th, 2001 04:04:47 PM

hold off your judgments and think for a second by kingnothing	Aug 20th, 2001 04:20:41 PM
think about all the movies that were ever books before they were movies, All the Star Wars prequels were books first (clone wars, anyone?), and they were then changed along with the books (ep. 1, at least was tailored to the movie). JP and the lost world were books and they were almost turned upside and ripped apart down for the movies to be made, hell any other Chrichton novel has for that matter (13th Warrior, anyone?) POTA was a book way back when, and I actually enjoyed the new one because it was more faithful to the book the original movie. it's a nessacery process for any type of literature (screenplays include) to go through before it can be made into a movie. Even though Bombadil was cut, think about how often it's referenced in the books after the hobbits meet him, once, at the end of RoTK, so it makes sense to cut for the people who haven't read the books. And there are just as many as the poeple who have. One more thing, YOU ALL have to remember this is an adaptation, not a direct port of the book. And yes I am eagerly chomp at the box office bit just to see the opening sequences as any other person on here. So let's all try to keep an open mind about it, it'll kick ass just to see it, whether it suck or not
Ratings are subjective by Spunk Monkey	Aug 20th, 2001 04:28:58 PM
Who cares what the rating is? It's all subjective. The recent Apes movies got a PG-13 rating while the original got a G rating. But the original had Charlton Heston saying "Damn you straight to Hell!" and showing his naked ass. It's all up to the whims of a few people. Give LOTR an R rating for all I care. I'll still see it first and then take my 9 year old nephew to see it. Hell, I might take him the first time around. I decide what my nephew sees (and his parents of course) not the MPAA.
Tom Bombadil etc. by SCAMPI	Aug 21st, 2001 03:40:29 AM
As all you LOTR fans will be aware FOTR is the longest (& most complex) of the 3 books, and was therefore always going to be the one movie where necessary cuts would have to made in order to ensure a 'sensible' run time. Establishing the base-line for the whole story was never going to be easy. 2 hrs 45 mins is perhaps a little short, but as some of you have already mentioned it's how well the story hangs together that will dictate its ultimate success as a respectful (or not) interpretation of the book. Regretfully, the character of Tom Bombadil (not forgetting Goldberry) has been the principal victim of the Editors axe. His (Tom's, not the Editors !)role in the book is not key to the plot, but a brief cameo in the movie would have been nice. I for one am more concerned about the apparent absence of the scene on the Barrow Downs where the Hobbit's are captured by the malevolent Barrow Wright. This episode features a key element of the story regarding the aquisition by Merry of the sword that utlimately slays the Lord of the Ringwraiths in ROTK - a glaring omission by the script writers in my humble opinion. Like every other LOTR fan I eagerly await the finished product, & hope that justice has been done to a wondeful, literary masterpiece of the english language. I just pray that the Black Rider's are scary enough - afterall this is not a kids movie as such, and us Tolkein philes deserve to be treated to a Shakespearean fright fest as well as the natural beauty of the nicer characters and settings.
About Bombadil by pedant	Aug 21st, 2001 07:58:53 AM
Based on Bombadil's first and last appearances in FLR (the book), they are cutting out about 7% of it. That's roughly the equivalent of 11 or 12 minutes of screen time in a 165 minute film. I don't think that's enough time to do justice to the Old Forest, Bombadil's House, and the Barrow-downs. That time is better spent at Rivendell, or fleshing out the history of the Ring. Although I'm curious as to how they'll explain Merry's sword, since PJ said that the cuts would be "clean lifts." Who's read the script?
Run Time by SCAMPI	Aug 22nd, 2001 03:30:13 AM
Let's be honest - New Line need this movie to make cash at the turnstiles, so it's pretty clear they can't allow a run time for FOTR to exceed a comfortable limit for the general public (not just LOTR fans). True, audiences are getting more used to longer films (Titanic/Schindler's List) but the former probably surprised its makers in terms of overall success, and the latter was very much a specialist film designed to win critical praise & awards, if it had failed Speilberg would have still been a credible director. New Line don't have such luxury afforded them, so this movie has to be aimed at having broad appeal across a wide age range. Sure, we're all concerned about what will or won't be cut from the final version, but lets keep it positive here folks. PJ won't give us a movie that sucks, although pleasing both fans and casual film goers alike ain't no easy job. With such an impressive cast list the only failing can be the script, & I'm sure they've worked at keeping as true to the original (allowing for cuts) as they possibly could. As long they don't cut the Dead Marshes or Shelob's Lair from subsequent films (they're personal favourites of mine),but I can't believe anyone will complain if we don't see an Oliphant in ROTK !

Talkbacks

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING Has Rating and Running Time!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks