PDA

View Full Version : Lord of the Rings



Stacey
12-11-2001, 06:26 PM
Western MA in "Lord of the Rings"

Of course, were all gonna see it anyway, but I saw some cool stuff on an MTV look at the making of the film. Very cool. reminds me of old manuscripts, seemed to have a little kali/arnis influence, but could just be a parallel.

JAZA
12-11-2001, 07:33 PM
I am surprised that in middle earth they have this western arts :)

GunnedDownAtrocity
12-11-2001, 07:39 PM
my entire class is going to see it she-man.

Budokan
12-12-2001, 07:18 AM
Hobbit-Fu is deadly. Elf-Fu is more like dancing and therefor not practical when you have to fight Orcs in Mordor. Dwarf-Fu has its good points, but it's too easy to have your beard pulled by Cave Trolls.

Our gaming group is also going to see this movie next weekend as a group activity. Should be fun.

Chang Style Novice
12-12-2001, 07:20 AM
My Morian Balrog fist will crush your Dwarf Fu!

Budokan
12-12-2001, 07:28 AM
Everyone knows Balrog Fist has questionable lineage. I'd rather do Treant Tae Bo than Balrog Fist anyday.

Chang Style Novice
12-12-2001, 07:38 AM
"Everyone knows Balrog Fist has questionable lineage. "

Don't you talk that way about my Momma! I mean, don't you talk that way about my sister! I mean, my aunt!

Wait...

She's...

Don't you talk that way about my Momma, Sister, and Aunt! Just 'cause she's only one person make our lineage stronger, not questionable!

(tooth falls out)

Kune
12-12-2001, 09:37 AM
Hey stacey who is the girl in the pic in your signature? Dood she is fiiiINE! Is she a hot wushu babe? ;P

Godzilla
12-12-2001, 10:53 AM
She aint no Hobbit, Troll, Dwarf, Orc or Elf!

Godzilla

Justa Man
12-12-2001, 11:50 AM
Our gaming group is also going to see this movie next weekend as a group activity. Should be fun

"gaming group" as in MERP gaming group?

Budokan
12-12-2001, 11:52 AM
Dungeons&Dragons. We've gotten started on the 3rd Edition about two months ago and can't seem to stop.

By the way, who around here is brave enough to admit they practice Tom Bombadil-Fu while wearing a pink leotard and an orchid in their hair...?

Brett Again
12-12-2001, 12:14 PM
C'mon Budokan... Bombadil style is useless when being assaulted by multiple willow trees!!!

And Hobbit Fu is well known for it's strong hairy foot techniques, but it's range is too short. (LOL... Short!!! I'm cracking myself up here!!!)

All will fall before my Lonely Mountain Palm. I am a closed door disciple and track my lineage directly back to Thorin (son of Thrain, son of Thror, who was chief dwarven blacksmith at the Shaolin Temple.)

SanHeChuan
12-12-2001, 12:58 PM
wtf! elf-fu kicks ass, ever hear of blade song, or drizzt.

their best at long range if you know what i mean.

Chang Style Novice
12-12-2001, 01:09 PM
Elves are best drizzled in olive oil, dill, stuffed with garlic and slow roasted.

Their skin makes excellent boots, too.

wushu chik
12-12-2001, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Kune
Hey stacey who is the girl in the pic in your signature? Dood she is fiiiINE! Is she a hot wushu babe? ;P

Have you seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?? If so...look really hard and YOU tell US who it is!!

GunnedDownAtrocity
12-12-2001, 01:16 PM
SanHeChuan


drizzt is the man.

shinbushi
12-12-2001, 04:21 PM
The Best art by all is Istari-jutsu or as it is more commonly called wizard-fu. Long range fireballs + awesome bo and sword work. What other art has a resurrection technique.

shinbushi
12-12-2001, 04:26 PM
See a wizard in action (http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images/howe/bridge.jpg)

joedoe
12-12-2001, 04:43 PM
Ent Quan has the best internal work. Man those guys do standing meditation for sooooo long. And their root is second to none.

diego
12-12-2001, 06:24 PM
Kunglek why havent you stopped this crap yet, it makes me uncomfortable

Stacey
12-12-2001, 06:36 PM
Do you hate them? Cuz their pieces of you.

You say he's a ***got, does that mean you want to hurt him,

You say he's a ***got does that mean that you want to kick in his brains

You say he's a foggot does that make you feel sick to your stomache

You say he's a ***got are you affraid that your just the same.

SanHeChuan
12-12-2001, 07:30 PM
I know that song too, but I’m not a woman. Get over it your not fooling anyone, it’s a sausage fest and you’re the only one at the party.

Mr. Nemo
12-12-2001, 10:15 PM
*Muttering* I like the Drizzt books too

Man, I hope none of my cool friends heard me.

Crimson Phoenix
12-13-2001, 05:08 AM
Pfff...My Valar quan, which I inherited directly from Manwe, enabled me to kick Morgoth's ass, kick Feanor out of Valinor and sink that darn Numenor...
And you all try to compete with that??
Hehehehehehe

HopGar
12-13-2001, 07:25 AM
My Dwarf axe style will defeat all including Mordor, Deaht mountai and saruman! Beat that yo!

Daredevil
12-18-2001, 05:44 PM
Well, I saw it.

I'm not wholly sure what I think about it - some good, some bad, but overall I was left with a very good feeling.

IMHO, the best scene involves a troll. See it for yourself.

Budokan
12-18-2001, 09:07 PM
I'm going to see it this weekend. Hobbits make me hot.

kungfu cowboy
12-18-2001, 09:49 PM
What!! They had better have done an absolutely phenomenal job! It sure looks good! It had better be an incredibly awesome telling of the tale, too!! :mad: After all, they are treading on Hallowed ground here! I want the best movie of all time, and a sweep at the oscars!:p

diego
12-18-2001, 10:01 PM
DITTO

wushu chik
12-18-2001, 10:47 PM
I thought it didn't come out until tomorrow night...what they heck??

Drone
12-18-2001, 11:14 PM
I am taking my lil' sister out of school to see the movie. As a nerd I feel it is my responsibility to provide her with some culture. I think every older brother should do the same... :D Besides all of my friends went to see it at the 12 midnight showing.
AND if they have done a good job with the movie it may encourage her to read more.
However after seeing "Meet the Feebles" I have some doubts.

diego
12-19-2001, 02:22 AM
i am psyched thogh thinking about reading it agian but that would take for ever hohum what to do??

Crimson Phoenix
12-19-2001, 02:48 AM
I'm gonna see it tonight...the wait has been real hard, I'm a great fan of Tolkien's entire work...as such, I'm both very excited and very cautious, there are plenty ways that he could screw up...adapting Lord of the Rings required balls anyway!
I heard they skipped the whole Galgal/Bombadil part, it's not a great loss for the story as a whole but still, they DARED cutting, acccckkkkkkk
OK, I'll be seeing it at 6pm Paris time, around noon eastern time...I'll tell you what I thought about it :)

straight blast
12-19-2001, 02:57 AM
My Wife, myself, Brother-in-law & his g/friend are going to see it after new years at one of those very expensive cinemas where you pay $30 a seat. But that seat is a Lazy Boy recliner & you are served food & drink throughout the movie.
Can't wait. I am half way through the book, & for sure I'll have it finished by new years

JWTAYLOR
12-19-2001, 06:58 AM
I saw it last night as well.
I thought it was great.
JWT

The Whyzyrd
12-19-2001, 07:45 AM
I am going to see it in a an hour!!!!!

:D :D

JWTAYLOR
12-19-2001, 07:56 AM
Oh yeah, well I'm going to see it AGAIN in 4 hours.
HA!
JWT

The Whyzyrd
12-19-2001, 08:04 AM
I am going to see it in a an hour!!!!!

:D :D

fa_jing
12-19-2001, 08:51 AM
Saludos amigo. I just checked out your profile. You are almost exactly 5 years younger than me. and you are starting Grad School? I can't believe it's been 5 years since I got my undergrad degree. Makes me feel old, man. Do you go to Northwestern?
-FJ

Godzilla
12-19-2001, 12:39 PM
It’s just one individual’s interpretation on the original book. I am trying to finish the book in the next few days prior to seeing the movie. I’m on page 99.

So far the book is great! But I would recommend reading the Hobbit first (I did and feel having a background on Hobbits helps the words go down)

Godzilla

Pika
12-19-2001, 01:18 PM
Bombadil plays a huge role in the book. Leaving him out makes me very dubious about the movie.

I will still see it however.

Crimson Phoenix
12-19-2001, 01:49 PM
I just came back...disapointed...many good ideas, other things that leave a taste of unfinished job...the shooting was not inventive at all, except for one or two good sequences (troll fight, some rotating views, and the scene in which Frodo puts the ring on and sees the spirit world).
OK, for all you hardcore fans here is a small list of what is not faithful to the book: the intro with Sauron's first defeat to elven/Numenor army...where is Gil Galad?? Sauron is already fallen when Isildur cuts the ring off, he doesn't die because of the cut. No mention that the 3 elven rings are left pure, they are described like the 7 and 9 as corrupting.
Smeagol/Gollum appears straight like a weird creature, no mention that he had been a hobbit remain.
Arwen saves Frodo from the 9 in the movie and triggers the flooding, in the book she appears only in Rivendell and it is Glorfindel who does what she does in the movie.
No traces of Bombadil and the Galgals as I said.
Rivendell stuff doesn't happen like in the book, for example Bilbo in the movie is present at the secret council with Elrond, among other details related to Narsil and who Aragorn is...
Also, the Amon Sul encounter is not really like in the book, it's minor thingie though...
But what ****ed me off big time is the Lorien passage, no mention that it is incredible that Gimli can enter (he's a DWARF ******, prolly the first dwarf to hav this honor since the Noldors stopped any contacts with them milleniums ago), no mention of his growing admiration for Galadriel, no mention that she gives him a braid (what a present, do you imagine, the braid of a queen, that girl was in Valinor, saw the Ainurs, is almost as old as the world, she gives a braid to a DWARF and none of it is in??? That's too much of a cut, Bombadil, OK, but not this part!) indeed only Frodo receives a present in the movie (and we know it AFTER they live Lorien, in a two-sec flashback), actually they leave Lorien like this, without even a ceremony for their departure (of course, since it is during the ceremony that each companion gets a farewell present). The scene of the water mirror is awfully simplified, and Galadriel's reaction when Frodo hands her the one ring is not as subtle yet noble as in the book...which reminds me that in the movie Isildur passes as a biotch from the beginning since he just replies NO with anger and a bad grin to Elrond when asked to throw the ring in the fire (in the book, his whole explanation about what Numenor suffered from Sauron and why he want to keep the ring as a toll for his father's life makes much more sense and drama than just passing him for a straight up corrupted guy). The same way, Saruman appears like a straight up traitor, without any explanation that he has been designed to watch over and counter Sauron and that first he does what he does more in a kind of competition thingie than just because he's also corrupted by Sauron.
These are all details and I forget some more, but still it gives me a bad after taste, especially the Lorien part.

The Moria rocks though, especially the troll fight. The Balrog is decent, huge, not bad at all.
Cities are very beautiful, Bag End, Barad Dur and especially Isenguard (very cool) feel just like in the book.
The 9 are doing their job alright, they look pretty decent.
As I said, the scenes in which Frodo sees the spirit world are quite nice too...
Here are my first hot impressions...
I was disapointed, the spectacle is grand, the movie has an undeniable plastic beauty, but there was no magic...I have to admit I got some shivers here and then (Gwaihir saving Gandalf, the approach of the Balrog especially), but in the end, there was no real magic, no real thrill like that I had when I saw Willow long long ago for example...
Go see it anyway, it was a courageous thing to adapt Lord of the Rings anyway, someone at least got the balls to do it, even if it seems it was bound to fail...but who knows, maybe the next two will be much better???

joedoe
12-19-2001, 02:55 PM
Thanks for ruining the movie for me :mad: :mad: :mad:

Nexus
12-19-2001, 04:25 PM
After the first few lines of that guys post, I realized if I read it it would spoil the movie so I skipped it and read yours saying "Thanks for ruining the movie for me." -Whew-

joedoe
12-19-2001, 04:33 PM
Unfortunately I got halfway through before I realised what was happening. By then I couldn't stop :(

Pika
12-19-2001, 04:48 PM
How do the hobbits get the weapons of the Weternese without Tom?

Budokan
12-19-2001, 04:54 PM
I know this is going to come as a shock but they can't film every f*cking line out of the book. And who gives a rat's a$$ about Tom Bombadil anyway?-- That little pink flame dancing and prancing around was one of the more sillier sequences in the trilogy.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges by comparing the book to the film. They are different media and must needs be different because they impact different senses of the reader/viewer.

Xebsball
12-19-2001, 05:40 PM
I'll be watching it...

I about MORE than A ****ING MONTH!!!!!

WTF? WTF?
Kiss of Dragon just started playing in my country. Why the **** do i have to ****ing always butt****ing wait for the ass humping **** movies so long?

Mr Nunchaku
12-19-2001, 06:18 PM
lol, that sucks man.

Anyway, I just saw the movie. I give it two thumbs up and I am usually a harsh critic. I won't spoil a single thing by the way. I thought the special effects were great. The ring wraiths were so cool as well as Balrog and the ogres. The music was ok but the sound effects were amazing especially in the theater. The fighting was very nice. As for the story, they did the book justice. But as always, the book was better. Still, they did a heck of a job. I only had one complaint. Some of the acting was way too dramatic. There were several very cheesey parts in the movie. Still though, this is a must see wether you have read the book or not.

Drone
12-19-2001, 08:23 PM
I saw the movie... I think I will have to see it again. It felt rushed but I was expecting alot worse (I have seen some of the directors other Movies). My little sister loved it and is now reading the books. All in all the movie was worth seeing.

Drone
12-19-2001, 08:30 PM
fa_jing

Yeah I'm at Northwestern. :)

jimmy23
12-19-2001, 09:13 PM
just saw it, great movie, dont get all anal about 100% accuracy

kungfu cowboy
12-19-2001, 09:44 PM
Ok, but what about all accurate for 100% anal?!?!

Starchaser107
12-20-2001, 12:15 AM
Thought it was cool. I think they did a god job. The audience seemed into it as well.
Well Im off back to Jamaica in a few hours , Colorado was fun, see y'all when I get back home
laters

SanHeChuan
12-20-2001, 12:36 AM
if you look at it like a book then it was cool,
if you look at it like a movie it sucked ass!!!
and since it was a movie....

too much plot devolpment, too little action, the troll fight sucked, the orc fight was good, the ending sucked ass.

the sets were awsome and a little fake. the demon kicked ass, but the secene was a let down.

and their wasn't enough of liv tyler, i went to see the movie cause i thougt i would get to see her kick some ass but noooo.

maybe if you showed all three together it wouldn't suck so much, but we'll have to wait and see.

Crimson Phoenix
12-20-2001, 01:50 AM
Come on, how can I ruin it, since the book has been out for decades? The whole **** theater exactly knew what would happen in the movie...Even during promo interviews the guys let out clues that are not known until late, like Galadriel is a ring bearer, which in the book appears like a marvel and sheds a new light on her part, in the interview K. Blanchett just says it, even if you have no mention of it in the movie...It's not like I had seen "the sixth sense" before anyone and told you all that B. Willis is dead from the beginning, there cannot be any suspense when you already know the whole story...only the acting and filming can generate thrills, but you always know what the outcome will be though.
OK, I'm not anal about details, here is how I see the book: for me the beauty of this book is not about the quest, I can find dangerous quests in 1000s of books and movies (Willow?? I'm sorry, but I think Willow was a better movie than LotR).
For me the beauty of LotR and the whole universe Tolkien has created is the magic of it, the melancholy of the elves on their declines, the remembrance of past days when Gods still lived in middle earth, and the terrible nostalgia and melancholy of the departure from either middle earth for the elves or from life for humans, all these deep themes of power, treachery, wisdom, unknown fates, all this development of incredible nations and cities. Tolkien bothered creating a whole pantheon, a whole mythological history of incredible depth and cohesion, filled with incredible stories, incredible things...you can do a movie with a character that has lived like 8000 years, that has seen the Gods when they where still here, whose family fought the God of Evil himself one on one (Sauron is a wussie compared to Morgoth) and I pass all the other facts and what do the movie serve?? Just special effects, nice landscapes, and a story that has nothing special when you rob it off all its magical and mystical foundations...I'm sorry, but without founding themes like the oath of the Noldors, the corrupting forces of Morgoth, the sinking of Numenor, and near philosophical themes like elve's immortality and their separate fates from humans, their decline and withering during the LotR and humans and their fear of death which was once a present to them, all you get is just another heroic fantasy movie...Jackson just told the story like a robot, which can make a good movie, but not a good adaptation of LotR...I will see the movie again, it is a great spectacle and I haven't felt time passing by, but I'm sorry, as an adaptation of LotR, it fell miserably.
But by doing so, he robbed of the LotR from its magic, just turning it into a great quest.
Another thing: if you only read LotR, then you'll think the adaptation is quite good...but if you bothered reading the Silmarillion, and the other books, you'll understand that LotR is NOTHING without all the themes developped in them, like a flower is nothing without the roots.
The magic of Tolkien in LotR was to be able to tell a great story to people reading it for the first time, making them dream at the evocation of legends, while at the same time managing to give it an added complexity for the peeps who knew the Silmarillion and therefore knew these legends.
For example Arwen's love for Aragorn was nice and poetic (dang, I wish some girl would love me enough to give up her immortality...or maybe just swear not to use my CC again hahhaha) in LotR, but for peeps who knew the legends of the only two couples of Elves and Humans (Beren and Luthien, and Tuor and Idril), and especially the consequences of these couples (the recovery of one Silmarils, Earendil and his pleading for elves and humans), then it became even better in LotR.
What Jackson didn't manage to do is make it mysterious for novice to Tolkien world in a way that makes them want to go deeper like the book does, while at the same time giving an added complexity and richness for those who knew the deal.
As I said, he just did a killer heroic fantasy movie, but a poor reflection of Tolkien's masterpiece.
Arrrrrggggghhhhh, the Lorien scene was so flat and tasteless, cut to the bone, even Jet Li would have filmed it with more emotion and thrill...

Radhnoti
12-20-2001, 06:50 AM
Crimson Phoenix, I think it's cool that you're so passionate about Tolkien's work. But, it's people like you that make directors afraid to even attempt translations of REALLY great books to the big screen. I suspect that NO translation would have satisfied you. The guy that took on this directing job was a HUGE fan from all I've heard, but it's impossible to fit the book into a film that must end in ...what...3 hours or less? You should take solace in the fact that this film insures that kids all over the world will now crack open dad's old books of Middle Earth. That's the real bonus of these films, the interest they will generate for the books. But also, these films draw interest for the whole GENRE, bettering the chances of a really good and original fantasy film coming to light. It's nothing but positive for the fantasy genre, in my opinion.

Crimson Phoenix
12-20-2001, 07:14 AM
OK, these opinions are all mine and I am far from having any authority on film making and even on any other topic as well (unfortunately!!). But...
Why would you mandatorily try to put great books on the screen?? I mean, if you enjoy reading, a good book is well worth a movie, and even more it can become a companion for life.
I'm just believing that there are some things you can't touch without denaturing them, so why touch them at all?? Did anyone need a movie version of the LotR?? The book has been acclaimed for years as a monument of litterature, did you really need a movie version?? Just reading it is enough, and it has the great advantage that you'll like the things you read in it because it leaves your own imagination to do the job...
If you have a traditionnal art, and want for some reason to adapt it to competition, but in the end it becomes watered down, will you be happy?? Why don't you just keep it trad.?? I just think that when you do things either you do them perfectly or you don't...Directors afraid?? Afraid of what, this movie was a straight up blockbuster, even if it was bad...the hype was so huge, everybody would go see it just for the sake of seeing it...the only danger with this movie was that if it was real bad, nobody would go see the next two, but that we all know won't happen...
So die hard fans need to shut up because the poor little directors are afraid the benefit would be hard to make if people would not compensate the CGI budget??
I do not care if it generates interest in the book, because the 1) book doesn't need this interest (it's been around 40 years) and 2) without LotR, there would be no fantasy at all, this movie will bring nothing more to the genre because the original book created it.
I'm sorry but Willow was already good and original, and deeply inspired by LotR (why is Willow from a small people too, yet he defeats the magic power?, the scene in moutains, in taverns, the quest, the army besiegeing the evil fortress, all of these are better tributes to Tolkien than most things in Jackson's movie).
It's like discovering the Bible on a video: you cannot accurately judge the DARN MOVIE before reading the book first, and then you'll judge and you'll see what I mean...
I say to everyone take the time to read the book, then you'll see if you still think the movie rules that much. Chances are it will taste blank after the book, even for non die-hard fans (my girlfriend is not a fan of Tolkien, but I made her read the book and she admitted that indeed the movie was not a second paying tribute to it).
I'm not criticizing the movie itself, I'm criticizing the ADAPTATION.

diego
12-20-2001, 01:22 PM
but its like you cant be mad at ron howard for remaking say romeo&julliet and not directing it aswell as sshakespeare
when ralph and potts fonz maybe but this happy bunch just doesnt have the genius.

Pika
12-20-2001, 02:18 PM
What kind of fool would suggest Tom Bombadil play a part that lacks importance in the trilogy?

Are we all reading the same book?

joedoe
12-20-2001, 03:25 PM
IMO you should probably go to see the movie with the attitude that it is not the book. Don't compare it to the book because you will always be disappointed. Why? Because the director's vision of the story will almost certainly not be the same as yours.

Oh, and Crimson Phoenix, you ruined it the same way anyone can ruin a movie for people who haven't seen it - you discussed the details and removed the anticipation for those who haven't seen it. But I forgive you :)

SaMantis
12-20-2001, 03:45 PM
WHAT!?! Bruce Willis is dead from the beginning?? Son of a *****!!

<jk> :D

Crimson, I understand about the movie not being entirely faithful, there are several things I miss from the book (but not Tom Bombadil, although I would like to know what kinda drugs he was taking :) ) Tolkien's poetry and songs were barely touched.

Still, I saw the movie and thought it rocked. I can forgive the stuff that's missing because of all the stuff that's still there. Jackson's done a good job and has kept the characters on track. During the last battle scene in the movie (and I'm NOT going to spoil it here, there are actually people in this world who've never read the book), people were in tears. Girls and guys. And the battle scenes were all well-done, the mines of Moria were especially intense and far better-filmed than most battle scenes I've seen in recent movies (Gladiator's shake-O-vision battles were crap).

Just my 2 and a half cents.

Peace,

Sam

SanHeChuan
12-20-2001, 05:49 PM
The last battle was touching but not worth crying over, and the battles were like gladiator only worse, but it worked for the move because when reading you don’t really picture the battles in much detail any way.

Leonidas
12-20-2001, 06:46 PM
That was the coolest F*UCKING movie i've seen in years. Screw what everyone else says. It's my new favorite film probably until Blade 2 or Matrix 2 or maybe if George Lucas finally gets it right. I'm a big fan of fantasy flicks and that ranked the highest. I'm seeing it again. Nothing anyone will say can change my mind. I'm a big critic of films too. I'll tell you when a film is a piece of garbage but i dont know, I loved LOTR's for some reason. I knew i would like it from the first battle seen. The ending ****ed me off though. I would of sat another hour if need be even though it was 3 hours long. Guess i gotta see 2 and 3.

JAZA
12-20-2001, 08:34 PM
What about the music?
Anything like Nightwish, Helloween, Blind Guardian, Stratovarius Tolkien tributes or just Lucas-Williams repeated fancy music.

jimmy23
12-20-2001, 08:50 PM
"the troll fight sucked,"

uh, are you on drugs?

KC Elbows
12-20-2001, 11:49 PM
Haven't seen it yet, but my 2 cents on the discussion at hand:

Some of the complaints(showing the dwarf's feeling of admiration for the lady, and his honor at receiving the gift) involve things that translate badly to film(internal dialogue is a ***** on the visible medium, and acting it out is cheesy, especially a ceremony-does anyone watch the award ceremony at the end of Star Wars over and over? Didn't think so.) Mixing characters is somewhat annoying, I'll agree. The difficulty of alluding to a deeper story(a la Silmarillian) is extremely difficult to pull off without adding too much time to the movie for the theatres to want to play it, but it could've been done(using an example, were people complaining in star wars because they didn't explain what a Sith was or why Vader was a lord of them? sorry to use star wars as a constant example, its just what's coming to mind right now.) As I recall, LOTR(the books) didn't overtly explain most of the Silmarillian stuff, it just was so fleshed out a world that you knew JRR had some more stuff up his sleeve.

"Madmartigan, bring back that baby!"

As far as Willow[spits in dirt] being better LOTR worship than anything, I'm a serious skeptic. Willow[spits in dirt] was all surface fantasy stuff, without any real depth. LOTR is a tragedy, has one of the subtlest anticlimax's in fantasy, has a richly fleshed out world, and the nazgul. Willow[spits in dirt] has a happy happy joy joy all is good in the world ending that is nice and pat, and designed for children. The only reason that all the little people are so happy in the end is that they managed to make it through a whole movie without George throwing them in furry suits and pelting them with rocks. The villain with the skull helm on is so characterless that we're left assuming that he is another sith lord, the daughter of the villains is so easy to convert over to the good side that we're left wondering why she bothered being evil in the first place. The magic fight reminds me of that version of The Raven with Karloff fighting Vincent Price(great low budget flick, but not serious film). All that just to save a baby with a really funky tupee. I'm pretty sure that Val Kilmer was actually drunk during that movie, and who could blame him with that weird baby and the naked old lady turning into a marmet?

But no offence meant to the fans of Willow[spits in dirt].

Anyway, I am always amazed by the Tolkien universe. Its kind of daring to make characters like Gandalf and Saruman, who everyone just figures are humans, and never really tell the reader that they are more like lesser angels/minor gods, walking in human guise(not a spoiler, it helps to know this to really appreciate the story.)

Budokan
12-21-2001, 12:06 AM
If these 3 films are successful, and there's no reason yet to suppose they won't be, do think they will film The Silmirillian? To me, that's a film that if done right would be a cornerstone in movie history. It's loaded with tragedy and drama and an over-arching sense of wonder.

KC Elbows
12-21-2001, 12:17 AM
I agree on Silmarillian. It would be amazing, all these epic vignettes of the world he created. I'd see it.

BTW, I haven't read the sequel to Willow yet. It's on my list, as soon as I get done with Little Women and the Mission Earth Series. I might read it while getting my lower GI, just to get in the right mood.

Fish of Fury
12-21-2001, 12:20 AM
I haven't seen LotR (not out here for a while) but i just wanted to voice my agreement to KC Elbows assessment of Willow[spits in dirt].


I also wanted to be a lone voice in the wilderness and bring much strife upon myself by saying I liked Tom Bombadil (i could do without the brightly coloured silk clothes etc. but to me at least that was an important part of the character...part of the allusion to a greater depth)

SanHeChuan
12-21-2001, 12:22 AM
yeah the troll scene sucked, the troll looked like that retard from goonnies (sp?), the only cool part that i can remember is when they where shooting the orcs through the door.

what do YOU think was cool about it?

and like i said erlier you cant see most the sword fighting, they just throw the back of an orc up against the camera and you have to asume something very bad happened to him.



i bet LOTR books are over priced with the movie stuff, but now i want to read them, even though i think hobbits are gay, where should i start.

jimmy23
12-21-2001, 12:23 AM
You wont enjoy it anyway, dont bother

KC Elbows
12-21-2001, 12:25 AM
But enough about LOTR.

Anyone seen Hawk, The Slayer?

SanHeChuan
12-21-2001, 12:47 AM
That’s harsh, just because I didn't like your gay ass troll scene, or little d!ck eating hobbits. You have harry feet don't you.

I read fantasy novels all the time, I really like the Forgotten Realms series, It was fun seeing the comparisons (LOTR rip-offs), like the mithril chain shirt. If the books are as good as everyone is saying i think i'll like LOTR just fine.

GunnedDownAtrocity
12-21-2001, 01:14 AM
i'm finishing the book for the first time now before seeing it.

the book is pretty fu cking good.

i hope they make movies about raistlin too.

lightfoot
12-21-2001, 01:17 AM
hawk, the slayer - was that the guy from"V"? I'm soo sad I sat through that and the sequels.

BTW david gemmel kicks ass, I'd love to see "Legend", not the tom cruise movie, made into a film.

SanHeChuan
12-21-2001, 01:21 AM
i never really got into dragonlance, how did raistlin kill all the gods, and why did he destroy the world/universe

lightfoot
12-21-2001, 01:33 AM
it's a long time since I read dragonlance. The last two books( dragonlance TNG?) were very disappointing. I should have stoppped at the end of the twins trilogy.

At the end of the twins series raistlin was ready to go head to head with the evil god, (can't remember names) and take over, but ultimately sacrificed himself to save his brother, saving his own soul in the process.

JWTAYLOR
12-21-2001, 07:22 AM
Time to REALLY p!ss some people off.

I didn't like the book. It was booring as hell to me. When I was litte and read it, I put it down at that fairy Tom Master o the Woods crap. As an adult, I found myself skipping swaths of pages to get through to something interesting. Reading Fellowship of the Ring convinced me that the second two were not worth my time.

That said,

I loved the movie. I thought it was beautiful. I loved the ending (it is a trillogy remember), I thought the Balrog was pretty cool, and I though that the ending fight scene was one of the best I've ever seen. (Anybody catch the cool sh!t the elf was doing? Like when he stabs that guy through the eye with an arrow and then strings it on his bow and fires all in one motion. Very cool.)

I will most likely not read the second book, but you bet your sweet bipy I'll see the second movie.

JWT

Gargoyle again
12-21-2001, 07:47 AM
I don't believe in posting "SPOILER", clicking on the thread is an act of free will, so don't flame me

That said...I LOVED IT. However...

There were a couple of things I didn't like...

The major one was Galadriel when she did the evil she-*****-temptation-wrath-freak-out when offered the ring. In the book she is an elf-queen of supreme age, wisdom, and restraint who calmly sees the temptation and resists it. In the movie she does a complete Mr Hyde "Why yes Frodo, calmness and wisdom must be chosen when bearing the ring--AIIGH THERE IT IS! BLEGHYIAIGHH! FROTH FROTH DROOL YAEAAEAFGHGHH!--ahem...ahem...what got in to me, silly girl, where was I?" Aragorn's reaction to the ring, by contrast, was spot-on perfect.

I also was dissapointed that she only gave a gift to Frodo and not the others of the Fellowship, it really lessened the grandeur of her character, as someone else said, this woman is as old as the world, Gandalf is a minor character in comparison, Galadriel should have been portrayed better.

Arwen calling down the river of horses instead...it just irks me.

The battle between Gandalf and Saruman seemed way too campy and corny, I was hoping for more subtlety.

Watching Elrond, I kept hearing Agent Smith in my head.

The music score was a little too heavy-handed at times, there were a tad too many swelling crescendos that pulled me from my immersion on the screen. At times, a few lines of dialog were getting drowned out by the music.

Everything else was brilliant! :D

KC Elbows
12-21-2001, 08:20 AM
Actually, isn't gandalf about as old as the world as well? It's been a while since I read the Silmarillian, but he is way ancient. In fact, the balrog and he are probably about the same age(the balrog represents the fallen version of what Gandalf and Saruman are).

And, Lightfoot, the movie with the guy from V is, to my recollection, Beastmaster. Hawk, The Slayer is a whole new level of punishment. It makes Beastmaster look like this years Cannes winner in comparison.

fa_jing
12-21-2001, 09:24 AM
But, I have a question for Tolkien fans. In the books, Gandalf disappears after the fight with the creature in the caves, then he shows up later in a white robe, with greatly increased powers. Anybody know where he went?

Those books were cool.

-FJ

chen zhen
12-21-2001, 11:42 AM
A VERY good movie, saw it yesterday. Everyone who enjoyed the books should se it.
I especially liked the parts that showed Isengard, what an evil and spooky place!
I also liked the part with Gollum in the beginng of the movie. He looks exactly like I imagined him.

JWTAYLOR
12-21-2001, 11:56 AM
Well, fa-jing, for those of us who didn't read the next two books and were wondering what would become of Gandalf, let me be the very first to say fu(k you. Fuc(k you very much.

JWT

fa_jing
12-21-2001, 12:15 PM
Hey, you're not going to read the next two books, they're worthless, right. So I did you a fu(cking favor, and distilled the contents.
Nice to see someone's finally ****ed off at me, though. I mean I've posted enough times, right?
-FJ

JWTAYLOR
12-21-2001, 02:34 PM
Yeah, but I'm going to see the movies.

So, since it's already ruined, what happens next?

JWT

SaMantis
12-21-2001, 03:48 PM
What happens next?

More battles, the fellowship all go off on their own adventures, there's a love story in there, Aragorn comes into his own -- and yeah, Gandalf comes back. As far as how he got back, well, he didn't explain too much in the book as I remember (it's been a few years since I read them).

As far as the books -- FOTR is the best of them IMO, but The Two Towers is also very good with plenty of blood and gore for everyone. If you had trouble staying with parts of FOTR (don't feel bad, I skipped through the Tom Bombadil section after a couple hours of trying to get through it), you'll get really mired in The Return of the King, although it's not all bad. It's just that Frodo's journey to Mt. Doom is really, really, really long and kind of depressing, too.

:)
Sam

Chang Style Novice
12-21-2001, 04:22 PM
Gandhi vs. Gandalf - wrinkly codger SMACKDOWN!

Silumkid
12-21-2001, 04:22 PM
KC,

I just can't resisit pulling my loser card and showing the world. I saw that square kick in the groin called "Hawk the Slayer" as a kid and being the mini-nerd that I was, named my Dungeons and Dragons character after him. Funny thing is, he turned out rather well. Became a demi-god. I had crafted (on paper of course) that retarded sword for him too. Ah, to be young and brain damaged.

On topic: Looking forward to seeing the movie. Been quite a while since I read the books. I'd like to know when they will make films of "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" though. I really dug those books! Knowing my taste though (see above) probably never. :D

diego
12-21-2001, 11:33 PM
Friday December 21, 2000

Director sees more 'Rings' changes in next movies


WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - Defying the wrath of purists, "Lord Of The Rings" director Peter Jackson has made changes to the original scripts of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy novels in the second and third movies of the popular trilogy.

Jackson is already under criticism from some Tolkien fans over liberties taken in the first film, "The Fellowship Of The Ring,'' which opened Wednesday to $18.2 million in ticket sales across North America.

He said Thursday that there would be further departures from the author's plot in the next two films.

Jackson said starting with the second picture, "The Two Towers,'' moviegoers can expect to see expanded roles for several characters.

"Some (parts) are slightly bigger in some instances,'' Jackson said, citing expanded roles for Rohan King Theoden and his nephew Eomer.

In "The Fellowship Of The Ring,'' the biggest change was the invention of an enemy warrior called Lurtz, but this had been known and anticipated for a long time.

Jackson said rough cuts already had been made of the second and third films. The "Two Towers'' will be released at Christmas 2002. The third, "Return Of The King,'' is set for screening around Christmas of the following year.

-- JAM! Movies

Paul
12-21-2001, 11:37 PM
those *******s.

Crimson Phoenix
12-22-2001, 05:27 AM
Gandalf is a Maiar, Maiar and Valars, their more powerful counterparts being spirits that existed before creation with Illuvatar (=ultimate God, the Valars being the gods of this world).
So he cannot die, and chances are he just went back to Valinor, the land of Gods which has been set outside of the world's reach after the fall of Numenor (but still in the world's limits). From there he can get another worldly flesh and go back to the Middle Earth...Gandalf came from Valinor originally, as you can understand from the comments of Cirdan in the elven ports who knew he "came from the West".

JerryLove
12-22-2001, 06:36 AM
How can you guys defend Willow[spits in dirt] and still attack Hawk the Slayer[shudders and winces]? I too was a DnD player, and very young, when I saw Hawk the Slayer[shudders and winces] and since it was the only movie with giants and elves and such, it was like mouldy bread when you are starving.

At least no one has brough up Krull[disturbed flashback]...

Though they weren'y all Clash of the Titians[confused look] and Deathstalker[more confused look]. They did sneak DragonSlayer[appriciative nod] and Conan the Barbarian[drools slightly] in there.

Then there were the Tolkin animated movies[pleads for death]...

I think I'll run off to Blockbuster now.

Jaguar Wong
12-23-2001, 10:27 AM
JerryLove,
LOL for taking the brackets gag and running with it. That was a "winners" list of movies if you ask me. :p

As far as the movie. I thought it was fantastic. I mean I'm kinda confused at some of the changes that were made (the river flood thing was mentioned eariler), but I felt that some of the cuts made a better paced movie (Frodo took his time leaving the Shire in the books, plus he had sort of a covering excuse and all). I didn't really care that they cut the whole Bombadil scene out, but Pika is right, without the weapons of Westernese, the Hobbits really don't get a chance to show their real bravery against the Naz'gul. Also, I just wanted to see how the heck Jackson would have handled Tom. :) that would have been kind of silly.

I have played the classic Pen and Paper RPG's, and after reading LotR, I just felt that Tom Bombadil was kind of like that character every GM had that was super powerful, and could handle anything that was thrown at them, just to show off how powerful the GM really was. That kind of irked me about the Fellowship book.

I also agree somewhat with Crimson Pheonix, they left a lot out of the Lorien scene. I really liked the way Tolkien handled the whole distrust between Elves and Dwarves, but Peter Jackson did a pretty good job overall, considering the time restraints. I still think it was a pretty good adaptation. Far from perfect, but if you've read the book already, you know what the whole underlying tension is all about anyway. I do question him leaving out the gifts for the rest of the fellowship, though. They didn't even mention the cloaks they were wearing when they left.

JWT,
I know what you're talking about, and I do agree that the first "book" was a little harder to get through. But once you've picked up on the dialect, and the set up for the whole story, the other two books are great. You also have to remember that Lord of the Rings is one novel. It's not supposed to be divided, and sold as a trilogy. It's one novel divided into 6 "books" with around 10 to 12 chapters per "book". If you look at it as one collected volume, you didn't really get past the set up into the rising action of the story. I'm not saying go back and read it, but you might want to keep that in the back of your mind. The characters really start to kick butt when they hunt the Uruk-Hai. IMO, the book didn't even make Legolas, and Gimli that cool until the Two Towers, when there were more large scale battles, and cool scenes while trying to rescue Pippin and Merry. Plus there are many more great characters introduced like Eomer and Eowyn (I think that's how it's spelled), Theoden King, the Steward of Gondor, and Faramir (Boromir's brother...another favorite of mine). Plus the Ents!!! (I gotta admit that they were totally unexpected).

OK, enough geek babbling for me :)

lightfoot
12-23-2001, 11:42 AM
ohhh, that "hawk, the slayer" - now I've rememberred it I'll have to spend another 3 years in therapy to expunge the memory. time to get out the plastic bedsheets again.

Fish of Fury
12-23-2001, 01:31 PM
Ahhhh, Krull!
I always wanted one of those glave thingies! (that's before i always wanted a lightsaber)

greyseal
12-23-2001, 03:14 PM
The movie was T-O-O L-O-N-G. The best scene IMO was either the large battle scene w' the Last Aliiance of Elves and Men or Gandalf when he fought the Balrog. I expected more. I watched the animated version the day before, and I probably shouldn't have done it, but it was okay. I give it a 'B'.

GunnedDownAtrocity
12-24-2001, 04:00 AM
tekhesis (sp) was the name of the godess raist first sought. i thought war of the twins was the best trilogy i ever read. in fact, raist inspires me to train sometimes.

the stories about drizzt were bada$$ too, but i like the combat better in dl. people die and stuff .. . more realistic than a lone bada$$ and his cat.

however, i did read 10 drizzt books to 6 raist books.

Yung Apprentice
12-24-2001, 04:42 AM
O.k. saw the movie. I fukin luved it!! I thought it kept as close to the book as a movie could. Obviously you cannot fit hundreds of pages into a three hour movie. Obviously they had to compress it down. Take a few things out. Snip a character or two. And add somethings new. (for all those who already read the book, and think they know what exactly is going to happen next) For those who never read the book, they got a good idea about how the book went. The problem nowadays is that everyone just dosen't know how to kick back and enjoy a good movie. Everyone thinks they are a director. They want to sit there and nitpick as if they or anyone else coulda done better.Notice how it's only the people who read the book who are *****ing? Everyone else enjoyed themselves. Hell the critics even gave it five stars. You guys just be thankful it wasn't Tim Burton doing this movie. Or else you wouldn't even have recognised it. (Although I do like his work)

KC Elbows
12-26-2001, 02:58 PM
I'm picturing the Tim Burton LOTR. Its a frightening thought(I like Tim, too, but I think he works best with his own stuff).

Just saw the movie. Absolutely loved it, started rereading the book as soon as I got home. Only one peeve, and it wasn't enough to ruin it for me. At one point, one of Saruman's orcs comes to him and asks if he's gotten more orders from Sauron yet. Now, its been a while since I read the book, and that may be in there, but from memory, Saruman was controlled by Sauron, but didn't know it. Saruman thought if he got the ring, he could defeat Sauron. I'm rereading the book, so I'll see if my memory is correct or not, but I really thought that's the way it was, and I saw no reason for the scene with the orc. But still, I loved the movie enough to bring this thread to the top.

Now hopefully this movie will be to fanatics of the LOTR books what Crouching Tiger was to Ryu. God he loved that movie. I think it was all the wushu.;)

DelicateSound
12-26-2001, 03:00 PM
LOTR = Lord of the Rings
Crouching Tiger = Lord of the Dance

Ryu secretly IS Michael Flatley

SanHeChuan
12-26-2001, 05:46 PM
Hey CTHD was badass! I didn't like it that much in the theater, but I bought it on dvd, and watched like every day for 2 weeks.

I wonder if when all three LOTR movies come out they will put them on one or two DVD's like they did with frank Herbert’s (sp) DUNE, because you'd have to watch all three together. Especially if they all end like this one, I understand it’s a trilogy but I like to feel like I’ve accomplished something by the end of the movie. At the end of Phantom menace, darth maul was dead that and the invasion was thwarted that an accomplishment, what was accomplished at the end of LOTR, nothing.

strangecaptain
12-27-2001, 01:01 AM
Crimson Phoenix,
I agree some magic is lost in some areas, but I maintain that it is retained in others. I think that the scene where Bilbo is trying to leave the ring behind is wonderful and portrays well the weight of the ring. I was annoyed that Saruman was portrayed as Sauron's b1tch and not as an evil competitor. I think that it was good that they portrayed Galadriel as fierce, but I wish she had been given the role she had in the books. The atmosphere given to Galadriel's realm was perfect: white light and darkness. I think the atmosphere of the movie is true to the books which is the most a movie from a book can hope for. What atmosphere? As in the Silmarillion, the good guys barely make it and only at great cost. Tolkien was all about realism in his fantasy. And the battle of good vs. evil in the biblical spirit.
JerryLove,
LOL! Conan the Barbarian kicked ass!

SanHeChuan
12-27-2001, 01:40 AM
I want to make a Fantasy movie some day. It wouldn't be like LOTR though. The Story would be simple, and believable, but the movie would be action driven (believable action, things that visually make sense none of that "the one"/"Zena" crap). I don’t think there is enough time to create that much depth (i.e levels of story), but it would still need it to be mentally engaging, while not creating holes in the story. I would have dramatic visuals and Likable characters both good and evil. I would insert as much reality as an R rating would allow, not for the kiddies. Hot chicks, bloody battles and teeth rattling magic, and no cheesyness.

It would be a D&D movie, but not like the recent one, which I have yet to have been able to make myself watch [shudders]. I would set it in the Forgotten Realms, but use unknown characters, non-of the chosen.

Anyone else have would be movie dreams?

I also want to write a book but every thing is still in the crucible.

Yung Apprentice
12-27-2001, 02:38 AM
I for one thought it was a good way of ending this film. Many times you get theses movies that always have to have an ending. But everyone knows LOTR dosen't end here. So why end it? Many good movies will take their time in showing so much good stuff in the middle, that when it comes to the ending they just rush it. I'm glad they didn't rush it. Because of how good this movie is and how they ended it, I really,really would like to finish watching the next two sequels. In fact, I think they shouldn't stop there. I think(since they are already done filming the other two movies) they should do a prequel of the Hobbit.Hey it might be interesting.(I don't know if they can though, what with that cartoon movied of it out already)

KC Elbows
12-27-2001, 06:51 AM
Actually, something was achieved by the end, but it was more esoteric than most people want in a movie. Only by the end was the Fellowship really a fellowship. After Boromir makes his error and makes up for it in the most profound way, and Aragorn and Legolas go to save the other members of the Fellowship because they can't immediately help Frodo, the group is definitely a fellowship, and that's the title of the movie, so I think it was achieved well enough.

As I've been rereading the book, there is one thing I wish was in there that isn't. It doesn't ruin the movie for me, but it would have been neat to see. At the beginning of the book, when Gandolf explains to Frodo that the ring is Sauron's ring, he explains how he found Gollum and got info off of the demented hobbit. Its a good part, because it explains why hobbits are the only logical bearers for the one ring. The premise is that Gollum had the ring for hundreds of years, yet never became a ring wraith, whereas the ring wraiths succumbed after a much shorter time, even though they were more powerful than any hobbit. It also involves Gandolf having to mildly torture Gollum for the info, as time was of the essence.

Let my geekdom be known to all!

JasBourne
12-27-2001, 11:25 AM
I'm scared to see this movie. Every year or two, since the age of 15, I have read and savored the trilogy. There is a very definitive set of images in my mind around this story, and I'm not ready to have them replaced by Peter Jackson's images.

I know that once I see someone else's idea of LOTR in such a strong visual way, I cannot go back to my own mindvision. And I really don't like the idea of seeing Elijah Wood's face every time I think of Frodo. That kid is just too skinny to be a hobbit. Frodo was a round little guy.

:(

KC Elbows
12-27-2001, 11:29 AM
Actually, the nazgul in the movie matched my mental image of them almost exactly! Plus, they plumped out all the hobbits well.

kungfu cowboy
12-27-2001, 11:33 AM
I was just relieved to hear of the last minute casting change from Dolly Parton to Cate Blanchett for Galadriel. And Kenny Rogers as Gandalf!


LOL, Jasbourne! Nice Avatar!:D

KC Elbows
12-27-2001, 11:36 AM
Actually, ity got changed twice, as Kenny Rogers couldn't smoke the pipe well enough, so they went to Willie Nelson, who went missing briefly before shooting. Showing up weeks late, he explained that he had been held in a tower at the IRS office, but was later freed by the Eagles.

kungfu cowboy
12-27-2001, 11:38 AM
:D :D

JasBourne
12-27-2001, 11:44 AM
dang, KC, that really was funny!

:D

KC Elbows
12-27-2001, 12:00 PM
Other original cast members:

Michael Jackson as Aragorn(turns out he was only the former son-in-law of the King)

Little Richard as Tom Bombadil(His scenes were cut for unknown reasons)

Liberace as Sauron

Emil Phillips as Gollum

Crimson Phoenix
12-27-2001, 03:01 PM
Tom Jones would rule as Elrond :eek: :eek:

KC Elbows
12-27-2001, 03:49 PM
Its not unusual...

Brett Again
12-28-2001, 06:32 AM
I just read this entire thread, and am still laughing from that description of Willow [spits on floor].

But anyway, as long as we're re-casting the film, don't forget the most obvious casting choices that were completely overlooked:

H. Ross Perot as Smeagol
Barney Frank as Tom Bombadil
Strohm Thurman as Old Man Willow
Bill Clinton as Grima "Wormtongue"
Al Gore as Treebeard


and special cameo,

Calista Flockheart as "The Corpse in the Dead Marshes"

Kristoffer
04-09-2004, 06:54 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/evanbaumgardner/iMovieTheater6.html

David Jamieson
04-09-2004, 07:14 AM
set your volume on "stun":eek:

Merryprankster
04-09-2004, 07:52 AM
i hate you milkman dan

PHILBERT
04-09-2004, 08:32 AM
Is this the hippy video where they all sing and dance and Lenord Nemoy has his Spock ears on?

Shadowboxer
04-09-2004, 08:34 AM
WTF??? :eek:

sean_stonehart
04-09-2004, 09:51 AM
From the same site...

Don't **** Off a LAN Party (http://homepage.mac.com/evanbaumgardner/iMovieTheater24.html) otherwise they might come dance at your wedding!!!!

This was great... I almost fell out of my chair...

Kristoffer
04-09-2004, 10:44 AM
this is so ****ed up

PHILBERT
04-09-2004, 01:58 PM
Looked like me at my brother's wedding, except I was clean cut and wearing a tuxedo. Gotta love the old man who flips off the camera man.

GeneChing
11-07-2017, 09:44 AM
Amazon in Early Talks for Lord of the Rings TV Series (http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/900839-amazon-in-early-talks-for-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series)

AMAZON STREAMING THE LORD OF THE RINGS TV NEWS TV PREMIERE DATES
BY SPENCER PERRY ON NOVEMBER 4, 2017

http://cdn2-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2017/11/lord-of-the-rings-TV-768x432.jpg
Amazon in early talks for Lord of the Rings TV Series

Variety reports that Warner Bros. and The Tolkein estate have been quietly shopping around a television series based on J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings book series and after interest from multiple parties, Amazon has emerged as the front runner for the series’ home. The outlet notes that no deal has been set and that talks are still early; however, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is reportedly “personally involved in the negotiations” for the series.


Though fans will likely scratch their heads at another adaptation of the property so soon after Peter Jackson’s beloved film trilogy, HBO’s Game of Thrones is set to conclude in the coming years and with it leave a giant hole in television programming that The Lord of the Rings could surely fill. Amazon has also been eager to shift their programming slate away from smaller, niche programming and more towards large-scale shows that could have international appeal, another checked box for the Tolkein series.

The Lord of the Rings was first published over the course of a year from July 1954 to October 1955 and would go on to become one of the best-selling novels ever written. Filmmaker Peter Jackson adapted the series into three feature films released in 2001, 2002, and 2003, which combined would go on to gross over $2.9 billion with 30 Academy Award nominations between the three films and 17 wins; The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won all 11 Oscars it was nominated for, including Best Director and Best Picture. Jackson would go on to adapt Tolkein’s The Hobbit as three feature films, released in 2012, 2013, and 2014, which would have a combined worldwide box office gross that matched The Lord of the Rings. The six films combined have brought in $5.8 billion at the global box office.



For archival sake:
The Hobbit (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=1076)
Two Towers (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?18494-Lord-of-the-Rings-(2-towers))
Return of the King (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?27215-Return-of-the-King)

GeneChing
11-14-2017, 01:28 PM
TO RULE THEM ALL
Why Amazon’s Lord of the Rings Show Won’t Be the New Game of Thrones (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-amazon-prequel)
The streaming service is gunning for HBO’s crown.
by JOANNA ROBINSON
NOVEMBER 13, 2017 6:00 PM

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a0a0a0dbfadae709c7adbb3/master/w_960,c_limit/LOTR-Remake-TV-Show.jpg
Left, from New Line/Everett Collection; Right, from Everett Collection

With HBO currently in production on the final season of its juggernaut fantasy series Game of Thrones, a number of networks are hoping to be the new source for your Sunday night swords and dragons fix. HBO, for one, is hoping to retain its audiences by launching one (or more) Thrones spin-offs—but it will have to compete with Showtime’s adaptation of Patrick Rothfuss’s The Kingkiller Chronicles and, now, with Amazon’s freshly announced multi-season series set in the world of the fantasy series that most inspired George R.R. Martin (and practically every other working fantasy writer): J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.

According to an announcement Monday, “the television adaptation will explore new story lines preceding J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring.” That means the events of this series will take place prior to Frodo Baggins’ journey—but there’s no word yet on whether the time period in question is pre- or post-Bilbo Baggins’ discovery of the ring in The Hobbit. Matt Galsor, a representative for the Tolkien Estate and Trust and HarperCollins, clarifies that the series will “bring to the screen previously unexplored stories based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s original writings,” which leaves a lot of leeway for elaborate inspired-by inventions a la the many side stories that padded out Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. In other words, this could be a by-the-book Silmarillion-esque nerdfest, or a show sure to enrage the Tolkien die-hards as much as Jackson’s invented love story between Evangeline Lilly’s elf warrior Tauriel and Aidan Turner’s dwarf Kíli.

Speaking of Jackson’s films: the Amazon announcement makes no mention of whether there might be any crossover between them and the series. But since the production is a partnership between Amazon, the Tolkien Estate and Trust, HarperCollins and, crucially, New Line Cinema, the option isn’t technically off the table. It might take all of Smaug’s golden hoard to lure Cate Blanchett or Sir Ian McKellen back to play the immortal-ish characters of Galadriel or Gandalf, but never say never when it comes to movie stars and TV.

An even less appealing approach might be the one that the Star Wars and Harry Potter franchises are taking, but I won’t say the phrase “Young Gandalf” again if you won’t. Still, all the younger wizards and elves of Middle Earth can’t guarantee that this Lord of the Rings TV series will be the next Game of Thrones. For one thing, the HBO series started as a very faithful adaptation with a built-in audience of loyal book fans. Tolkien fans, still licking their wounds after the Hobbit trilogy, are likely to be very wary of another potentially less-than-faithful prequel. More importantly, most close observers of TV trends doubt there will ever be another Game of Thrones. The viewership is simply too fractured and too distracted now to allow any show, no matter the subject matter, to capture a Thrones-level audience ever again.

But even if trends shift unexpectedly and there is another massive breakout hit, does it seem likely that the biggest show to follow Thrones will be something that so closely resembles and inspired it? That’s not, historically, how these things go. Copycat shows—if you can even call a Tolkien property a copycat of the genre it helped popularize—sometimes enjoy a measure of success, sure, but they’re rarely ever the next big thing. Just ask Lost knockoffs The Event, V, The Nine, FlashForward, and My Generation (who? exactly), which all tried and failed to ride the wave of ABC’s sci-fi desert-island success.

Lord of the Rings absolutely has more brand recognition for audiences than any of those shows, but you don’t have to look back to discover that aping Thrones hasn’t exactly been a recipe for smash success. In the wake of Thrones mania, Starz wisely snapped another best-selling fantasy adaptation: Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander. But while the 2.09 million viewers who tuned in to the recent Season 3 premiere of that show constituted a banner night for Starz, those ratings pale in comparison to the 16.5 million viewers who tuned in to the Season 7 Game of Thrones finale just a few weeks before. Starz’s American Gods, MTV’s (now Spike’s and soon to be Paramount Network’s) The Shannara Chronicles, and Syfy’s The Magicians—all also based on popular fantasy-book series—have proven to be expensive shows with an even smaller fraction of the enthusiastic Thrones audience.

Amazon will certainly survive if it gambles on Lord of the Rings and falls short of taking the crown away from Game of Thrones. But the streaming service is no doubt banking on its foray into Middle Earth to be more than just a moderate hit. News of the Tolkien adaptation came on the same day that Ad Age published an unconfirmed report that Amazon may soon be launching a free, ad-supported version of Prime video. In other words, if users are willing to put up with commercials, they can skip the $99 annual fee that serves as a paywall for Amazon’s original and occasionally award-winning programming.

A “freemium” platform isn’t the same as pay services like HBO Now or CBS All Access—but both of those services were launched and pushed with the enticing promise of Game of Thrones and new Star Trek episodes. If this Lord of the Rings-based show becomes must-see TV, then Amazon could safely expect to see a major swell in viewership for any theoretical new streaming platform. In the ongoing streaming wars, consider this Lord of the Rings series Amazon’s most prized weapon. But will it be enough to rule them all and bind audiences in the era of Peak TV?

Young Gandalf...:p

GeneChing
11-15-2017, 11:10 AM
Not the Silmarillion? Time to make this into it's own indie thread.


Lord of the Rings TV series gets multi-season order at Amazon (http://ew.com/tv/2017/11/13/lord-of-the-rings-tv-series/)
James Hibberd November 13, 2017 AT 01:21 PM EST

Amazon has officially greenlit one show that it hopes to rule them all.

The company has made a multi-season production commitment to a television adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy epic The Lord of the Rings.

It’s a major deal securing one of the biggest brands in pop culture for what’s likely to be one of the most expensive TV shows ever made.

But there’s a catch, creatively speaking: The series will explore storylines set before the events in the first LOTR novel, The Fellowship of the Ring. In other words: The war to destroy the One Ring as chronicled in Peter Jackson’s Oscar-winning trilogy of films will not be told in the TV version. So this story is either set before The Hobbit or in between The Hobbit and LOTR.

This something we’ve seen with other recent TV series when they tackle major cinematic titles with certain rights restrictions. Like how Fox’s Gotham can tell the story of young Bruce Wayne but not Batman, how FX’s Legion has avoided using the term “X-Men” even though its an X-Men project, or how Syfy’s upcoming series based on The Purge films will be set in between actual Purges.

Amazon’s deal includes a potential addition of a spin-off series as well.

“We are delighted that Amazon, with its longstanding commitment to literature, is the home of the first-ever multi-season television series for The Lord of the Rings,” said Matt Galsor, a representative for the Tolkien Estate and Trust and HarperCollins. “Sharon and the team at Amazon Studios have exceptional ideas to bring to the screen previously unexplored stories based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s original writings.”

There’s no cast or premiere date yet, but the series will eventually stream on Amazon Prime.

The move by Amazon comes as HBO prepares to conclude its mammoth fantasy hit Game of Thrones, which will almost certainly premiere its final six episodes in 2019. HBO is developing multiple potential prequel series based on author George R.R. Martin’s Westerosi history, though none are guaranteed to air.

In a way, Amazon’s LOTR project and HBO’s GoT prequels face the exact same challenge: The great high-stakes story and beloved characters that made each tale such a classic will have already been told — and both benefited from mining a fantasy author’s years of extraordinary effort producing more than a thousand pages of intricate creative storytelling. So can a network find writers who can successfully bootstrap a relatively new-ish story set in these familiar fantasy worlds that capture at least some percentage of the original work’s worldwide appeal?

It’s a tough call as to which company has the more difficult task. For Amazon, the stakes are rather low (the company’s stock is trading at an incredible $1,138 per share). For HBO, the stakes are very high — GoT is an unprecedented massive moneymaker for the network and a creating subscription-worthy TV is its core business (while fending off the likes of Netflix and Amazon). But HBO has a distinct creative advantage in that they’re developing five potential prequels while committing to none in advance — so the network has several chances to find a story that really works before deciding on a path. This new deal struck between the Tolkien Estate and Tolkien Estate and HarperCollins, however, locks Amazon into a multi-year series commitment without so much as a writer yet hired — that’s the type of deal that keeps a traditional network up at night though, again, Amazon can afford the write-off if it all goes south.

Hollywood is all about world-building right now, so perhaps will be fantastic — and hopefully they will. This is what Marvel is already doing with its big screen heroes and Disney with its new Star Wars titles, after all. A series is in some respects more difficult than pulling off two-hour film, however. As a wise man once wrote: “You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off…”

GeneChing
11-15-2017, 11:11 AM
Not the Silmarillion? Time to make this into its own indie thread (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?70563-Lord-of-the-Rings-TV-series) from the LOTR thread (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?7912-Lord-of-the-Rings).


Lord of the Rings TV series gets multi-season order at Amazon (http://ew.com/tv/2017/11/13/lord-of-the-rings-tv-series/)
James Hibberd November 13, 2017 AT 01:21 PM EST

Amazon has officially greenlit one show that it hopes to rule them all.

The company has made a multi-season production commitment to a television adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy epic The Lord of the Rings.

It’s a major deal securing one of the biggest brands in pop culture for what’s likely to be one of the most expensive TV shows ever made.

But there’s a catch, creatively speaking: The series will explore storylines set before the events in the first LOTR novel, The Fellowship of the Ring. In other words: The war to destroy the One Ring as chronicled in Peter Jackson’s Oscar-winning trilogy of films will not be told in the TV version. So this story is either set before The Hobbit or in between The Hobbit and LOTR.

This something we’ve seen with other recent TV series when they tackle major cinematic titles with certain rights restrictions. Like how Fox’s Gotham can tell the story of young Bruce Wayne but not Batman, how FX’s Legion has avoided using the term “X-Men” even though its an X-Men project, or how Syfy’s upcoming series based on The Purge films will be set in between actual Purges.

Amazon’s deal includes a potential addition of a spin-off series as well.

“We are delighted that Amazon, with its longstanding commitment to literature, is the home of the first-ever multi-season television series for The Lord of the Rings,” said Matt Galsor, a representative for the Tolkien Estate and Trust and HarperCollins. “Sharon and the team at Amazon Studios have exceptional ideas to bring to the screen previously unexplored stories based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s original writings.”

There’s no cast or premiere date yet, but the series will eventually stream on Amazon Prime.

The move by Amazon comes as HBO prepares to conclude its mammoth fantasy hit Game of Thrones, which will almost certainly premiere its final six episodes in 2019. HBO is developing multiple potential prequel series based on author George R.R. Martin’s Westerosi history, though none are guaranteed to air.

In a way, Amazon’s LOTR project and HBO’s GoT prequels face the exact same challenge: The great high-stakes story and beloved characters that made each tale such a classic will have already been told — and both benefited from mining a fantasy author’s years of extraordinary effort producing more than a thousand pages of intricate creative storytelling. So can a network find writers who can successfully bootstrap a relatively new-ish story set in these familiar fantasy worlds that capture at least some percentage of the original work’s worldwide appeal?

It’s a tough call as to which company has the more difficult task. For Amazon, the stakes are rather low (the company’s stock is trading at an incredible $1,138 per share). For HBO, the stakes are very high — GoT is an unprecedented massive moneymaker for the network and a creating subscription-worthy TV is its core business (while fending off the likes of Netflix and Amazon). But HBO has a distinct creative advantage in that they’re developing five potential prequels while committing to none in advance — so the network has several chances to find a story that really works before deciding on a path. This new deal struck between the Tolkien Estate and Tolkien Estate and HarperCollins, however, locks Amazon into a multi-year series commitment without so much as a writer yet hired — that’s the type of deal that keeps a traditional network up at night though, again, Amazon can afford the write-off if it all goes south.

Hollywood is all about world-building right now, so perhaps will be fantastic — and hopefully they will. This is what Marvel is already doing with its big screen heroes and Disney with its new Star Wars titles, after all. A series is in some respects more difficult than pulling off two-hour film, however. As a wise man once wrote: “You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off…”

GeneChing
04-05-2021, 09:44 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquKyNdgH3s