View Full Version : "The Lord of the Rings"
4th Jan 2002, 00:03
Just been to see this film.
One word: PUKKA!!!!!!! <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
I know they missed some stuff out (eg Barrow wights), but the overall effect was stunning!!! <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Those Black Riders scared the ***** outta me!!!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Sir Ian McClellen is superb as Gandalf!!!
Some of the locations are not as I'd imagined them when I read the books as a teenager, but very well done nonetheless!
All in all, most enjoyable film I've seen since "Apollo 13"!!!!!!! Just magnificent!!!
Over to you, fellow PPRuNers
[ 03 January 2002: Message edited by: swashplate ]</p>
I plan on getting around to it eventually, just finding nearly 3 hours of time is daunting .... :)
4th Jan 2002, 00:51
Great film, even for a lover of the book (read it 7 times when I was younger!). Scope and scale were amazing :)
4th Jan 2002, 01:04
I'm looking forward to seeing the film shortly, but as RW-1 says, finding the time is an issue.
My kids (19, 17, 11) have seen it and can only rave about it.
What I really have to ask Clowns is why ONLY 7 times mate? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I guess many people will disagree with my opinion of this movie.
Ian McKellern was weak as Gandalf. The leadership character of Gandalf in the books shows through when guiding the fellowship on their journey out of Rivendell.
Samwise's love of the Elves did not come over in the movie.
And as for Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, sorry but I was always under the impression that Galadriel was meant to be beautiful. And if I'm not mistaken, Sam was there with Frodo when they looked into the mirror and saw all that was going to happen with the Shire, but instead in the movie he was asleep.
Christopher Lee although made a good Saruman could have done better as being casted with the role of Gandalf.
Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn did not appear anywhere near as knowledgable (sp?) as a well experienced ranger would.
When it came for the Black Riders, I fought the urge to shout out "He's behind you" when I saw them.
The sets in places were quite good on the plus side, as they were designed from the original sketches & paintings by Tolkien himself.
Oh the whole, it's not bad as movies go. But if I hadn't known it was a Warner Brother's movie rather than a Disney movie, I would have been waiting for the entire 3 hours waiting for a chorus of singing goblins.
Unless you're the sort of person who prides themselves on going to see a movie just for the sake of the hype, then don't bother with this one. wait till the cinemas clear a bit for this one or even save your money and wait till it comes out on video or DVD.
A Comfy Chair
4th Jan 2002, 02:49
Hate to disagree... but this is one film that MUST be seen at the cinema. DVD or Video could not nearly reproduce the effects which lead to me, and half of the cinema audience, jumping out of our seats when various events occurred. True, perhaps not strictly as the book has stated... but so what? This is a film, for entertainment, not an EXACT reproduction of the book.
Remember.... this is not just for those lucky enough to have read the books. This is a film for all to enjoy... and I think most people who have come out of the cinema... certainly the ones I have spoken to.... absolutely loved the film. So, PLEASE take the time and effort to see it at the Cinema.... The DVD and Video will not nearly reproduce the magic of this brilliant film.
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">
4th Jan 2002, 03:08
Have to agree, its a superb movie with some awsome special effects, however some eagle eyed people have found one or two 'mistakes' in it:
<a href="http://www1.excite.com/home/entertainment/celeb/page_six_celebrity_news/0,14205,01_01_2002_2,00.html" target="_blank">LOTR's Mistakes</a>
Excellent movie though, and im going to have to go and see it again <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
[ 03 January 2002: Message edited by: PilotEddy ]</p>
4th Jan 2002, 03:18
This movie's effect on my family is unprecedented. :-(
CoodaFamily all want to see it again.
CoodaKids #1&2 are fighting 'to the death' to get their hands on our one copy of the book so they can read it before the other.
CoodaKid#1 and Mrs Cooda are competing for media pictures of Legolas (Orlando Bloom...pah!)
CoodaKid#2 wants to buy Rings merchandise with his Xmas money, without even knowing what's available;
and the Coodas family wants to holiday in NZ - soon!
As the only Cooda who had read the full story (many, many times since 1968), I could plot the omissions and variations but you would need over 5 hours to get it all in. However, it runs closer to the story than any other adaptation that I can recall.
Of course it doesn't match our mental pictures of the book. But as a movie, it works and it works well. (Although I hope Gandalf and Aragorn develop stronger characters as it goes along...and where did Tolkein mention Dwarf Tossing??)
CoodaKids tell me that even Harry Potter, Jackie Chan and the Terminator series don't come close to this.
Have to agree, though, that translation to the small screen will diminish the experience.
4th Jan 2002, 03:30
It's easy to resent somebody's opinion on a book or movie if they rubbish something you love, but I disqualify myself from that category by saying I've never read the whole book (I tried), I haven't seen the movie and have no particular desire to see it.
That said, the overwhelmingly favourable critical opinion of LoTR and the similar reaction from the masses would indicate that advising people to stay away, rather than just saying you didn't like it yourself, strikes me as just a touch on the pompous side, djk!
And if the extraordinary and luminous Cate Blanchett is not from the boring Hollywood production line of "beauty", so much the better!
Just my opinion of course! :)
Edited to add emphasis to the real point. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: Binoculars ]</p>
I'm not being pompous, I guess I'm not that easily impressed with the hype as the majority of the rest.
Pen it off!
4th Jan 2002, 06:47
Is George Micheal in this film! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I think this link sums up my sentiments of the movie
<a href="http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftherings.html" target="_blank">http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftherings.html</a>
4th Jan 2002, 07:47
DJK, old bean, your opinion of the movie is at least as valid as the lightweight Mr Cranky's, and I'm certainly not suggesting you are not entitled to it. I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you, since I haven't seen the movie.
However, you chose to ignore the real and explicitly made point of my post, and that point still stands.
ok well it seems that because the majority like the movie, I should not be seen to discredit it.
And there is no pomposity in my statement of the movie. If it's taken as that way, then there's nothing I can do about it.
we all have our own opinion of each individual movie and this is one clearly for hype mongers
4th Jan 2002, 09:07
Saw it last Sunday enjoyed it lots (you don't notice that its 3 hours trust me) and all I can say is little New Zealand can more than compete with holiwood. Noone can ever make a movie as good as that which unfolds in the mind of an inteligent and imaginitive reader but I think Peter Jackson gave it a pretty good wack. Personally LOTR beats Starwars episode one hands down and everyone said how that needed to be seen on the big screen.
As for all of you thinking of NZ as a holiday location <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> , I can only say that NZ is the best place in the world and has really friendly locals (I should know I'm one of them <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> )
The NZ tourism board only paid me a mere pittance to say all of this :)
luv ya all
- Bio Kitten inhabitant of middle earth
4th Jan 2002, 09:25
Arrrggghhh!!!! I must improve my verbal skills. I have the same problem getting a concept through to my kids! :)
I give up! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
4th Jan 2002, 10:25
You're more than welcome to express your views. They're no less valid than those of us who enjoyed the experience. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Personally, I find the accompanying hype usually puts me off seeing a movie because of the large number of past let downs.
The short of Starwars 2 shown with LotR does nothing to encourage me to see it but I'm sure it will be marketed off the planet when released.
I think on this occasion I wanted to see it succeed, to make up for the disappointing previous big screen version, so I was prepared to make allowances with the script.
But the effect on my family, who have not read the book, suggests the team have put together a good movie, regardless of its origins. :)
But isn't it refreshing to be able to disagree on Pprune without it getting personal. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Well sadly there have only been a couple of attempts to bring this story to life in the past.
The cringeworthy Bass & Rankin versions of The Hobbit (1978) and also The Return Of The King (1980) and Ralph Bakshi's "Lord Of The Rings" which only covered upto The Battle Of Helm's Deep. Sadly due to other commitments by the cast provided their voice talents and that so much was spent in the production of the movie, Bakshi eventually ran out of money and couldn't finish the project.
I would give full credit to any film maker who does make an attempt to do a version that includes the Barrow Wight and also Tom Bombadil.
And of course there's been the UK & US versions of the radio series.
I do however feel that a lot from this first movie, will be sprung on the unspecting audience however with the next two parts. Such as the box of seeds given to Sam by Galadriel (ooops sorry viewers, Mr Jackson forgot to tell you about that)
How was Frodo able to hide from the Orcs? oh they didn't mention about the cloaks given to them by the Elves which give them better camouflage. And of course there was the rope that the Elves also gave to Frodo. Just see how Gollum reacts to that.
I feel that so much of the "story" was compromised to make room for special effects.
4th Jan 2002, 12:22
There are some films which do justice to the books that inspire them and some do not. Personaly only one film springs to mind as being so close to the book that throughout the film I kept thinking that that was in fact just how I had imagined it and that was the Empire of the Sun. The scene when the P51 goes past the boy with the pilot waving was OUTSTANDING!!! Oh we do get carried away by such tiny things, but I digress. The wide screen has to beat TV/Video by a massive margin. Saw 'Apoccolypse Now' in Paris on a truley massive screen and have seen it again a number of times on the small screen and much impact is lost.
Tolkein's book was of course fantastic and I read it with great enjoyment when I was at flight school, a few years ago now. I am quite prepared to believe that if a lot of people really rave about the film is generaly for good reason. One does not always blindly follow the herd but if a lot of people are belting in one direction very fast I would pay serious intention to why if only to try and avoid being trampled in the rush.
I won't get much chance out here in the sunshine, but should be heading Northbound into the fridge soon and will look forward to ambling into a Kino somwhere along the way and enjoying it, and for once getting a decent return, timewise, on my modest investment. After all I have paid to be entertained why on earth whinge about the length for goodness sake.
But then again there are always those lemon puckered people amongst us who must have their daily whinge or the're not happy.
Therefore in pleasent anticipation...!
4th Jan 2002, 13:46
Well I thought it was superb - sure it doesn't track the book exactly but you could not do that in three hours.
The only way you could put in all the details is in a series, and that has been done more than adequately in the correct medium - the excellent BBC radio production.
Anyway I certainly wasn't sorry to see Bombadil missed out and, sure, there are a few things that were skipped over but the film is already three hours long.
djk: the best advice I can give you is to read the book again. I have just done so and found that there are many things that could not be done on film - or would not work as they do in the book. The council of Elrond for example, goes into far too much detail (for a film) and the information is better spread out in the film; and the vast array of characters who appear only briefly - Gildor, Glorfindel, etc etc would confuse viewers.
At the end of the day, the film was not made for the die-hard fan. But for my vote, they have done just about the best job possible. Go and see it, if you haven't already done so !
4th Jan 2002, 15:14
I'm fully aware of some things are not possible on the big screen, I've seen enough adaptations of H.P Lovecraft novels / short stories that demonstrate that, as for having to read the book again, read it many times, got both the UK & US copies of the radio series, seen every other adaptation of the movie possible, ate the centenary biscuits, and worn the t-shirt, even possessed a "I Hate Gary Gygax" t-shirt in my younger days.
What did strike me as odd was the remarkable likeness between Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins) and 70's pop idol David Essex.
And if other versions of the movie either on film or radio have managed quite successfully to transform certain parts of the book I find it strange that Peter Jackson was unable to do the same.
4th Jan 2002, 15:17
Last post seems to have fled into t'ether. Well djk, a small monica that, don't like lemonade perchance?
I am off to Gay Paree just found out and will seek it out settle down in a comfy seat ignoring the odour of garlic and check out the presentation.
In, now, eager anticipation.
4th Jan 2002, 15:17
My tremor of excitement is projected into cyberspace to my embarrasment. The repeated post has been removed <img src="redface.gif" border="0">
[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: Paterbrat ]</p>
4th Jan 2002, 15:22
Personal opinions are just that, personal, & it's no point in trying to change them just because you disagree. As a long term LOTR fan (lost count of the times I read it & could even write in runes at one time during my foolish youth!) I loved the film. It was very close to the book, close enough that I felt no desire to sit there spot the changes/mistakes. I saw it with a couple of friends who had not read the book but came out of teh cinema raving about the movie.
Hell guys, its entertainment &, in my opinion, bl**dy good entertainment. My recomendation - go see it, if you don't like it, sorry, but I think the majority will!
More power to all of those involved in producing & first rate 3 hours of the cinemagraphic art at its best & can't wait for the next two!
4th Jan 2002, 15:25
Naturally, given the length of the story, the movie makers had to leave out some of the details in the book. I think the way that they ‘shaped’ the story line up until Bree was done quite well. However, there were a few instances where skipping over some events seemed cause a bit of discontinuity later on. For example when the black riders are stabbing the empty beds at the The Prancing Pony. It really wasn’t made clear why this happened. Another minor point was when Sam says goodbye to Bill, who up until that point had no previous part in the movie.
The thing that disappointed me the most however, was that at quite a few points throughout the movie, the makers swapped around who said or did particular things, or added in some rather peculiar interpretations. Sure it is only a minor point, but there really was no need for it.
Overall though, it is worth seeing. The costumes, backdrops and some of the special effects are quite spectacular, especially the Black Riders. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
4th Jan 2002, 15:33
I have to say that the hype actually put me off deliberatley going out to see this film. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
I was just walking past the 'Point' in MK yesterday pm, and went to see it on a whim.
Bloody Glad I did!!!! <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Kept a mate of mine up talking till 2am prattling on. :) :)
By 'locations' in my original post, I was thinking that eg Isengard: I had always imagined a sheer white tower, rather than the smooth black marble of the film version.
But there will always be different interpretations of the text by different people, and on the whole, I think the film did this very well. Mordor and the Cracks of Doom were exactly as I'd imagined them.
Those of us sad nerds who know the book will of course sit there harrumphing at inaccuracies!!! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
But IMHO, People who have not read the books will be blown away by the film, and will prob be encouraged to read 'em........
4th Jan 2002, 17:22
Nop, did not like it! Dissappointed I was when I walked out, really!
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Special effects, costumes, the way it was made - all that was fantastic I agree, but the storyline?...Boring...
Maybe I'm just boring? I think there must be some other things to the film rather than just effects? Seems to me quite similar to a computer game, sorry!
I know I'm going to be attacked by all the fans.
I just didn't like it, that's all. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
4th Jan 2002, 17:50
Well I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and the scale of the whole thing was breathtaking. It absolutely MUST be seen on big-screen, and it's the first film I've ever wanted to go out of my way to see twice at the cinema.
My only small complaint is the casting of Ian Holm as Bilbo - I'm afraid I he'll always be the character of the father from 'The Borrowers' for me, after the BBC serialisation when I was a kid.
[quote] And as for Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, sorry but I was always under the impression that Galadriel was meant to be beautiful. <hr></blockquote>
She's meant to be an ELF, not a human!!!
4th Jan 2002, 17:55
Ok, well as everyone thus far seems to a) want to have this film's children, or b) hates it, I'll start up a hitherto unpopulated "liked it, kinda" movement.
I am a huge fan of the book, which like most of you I read as a child, and it still - by a country mile - holds the title "book which provoked the strongest imagery and emotion". Even having seen the film, the characters and locations in my mind’s eye are very much those painted by Tolkein’s words and not by Jackson’s cinematography (good though it is). A commendable job on bringing the Black Riders and the Mines of Moria into the cinematic domain however, I thought.
I think the main problem with this project was that (to go to the other end of the literary scale) a story like Harry Potter is a wonderfully easy translation to film because it is mainly dialogue based. Lord of the Rings is largely comprised of incredibly detailed narrative description, and thus is an incredibly hard target for a film maker. I think that Jackson has produced such a coherent end product should be (and has been) highly commended but by loosing so much detail in the process it made the experience somewhat hollow for an avid Rings advocate like myself. I went to see it with several people who had not read the book and was saddened with having to try and explain afterwards the relationship between some of the key characters such as Aragorn and Boromir because the extensive character descriptions and lineage are simply lost in the translation. Perhaps more lacking than the depth of characters is the sense of scale of location and distance of the journey of the fellowship. I know the film is a meaty three hours but it’s initial phases seemed incredibly compressed and somewhat diminish the impact of the Hobbits setting out into vast unknown lands from their sheltered Shire. This is, after all, the greatest roadtrip ever committed to paper! Other situations, like Gandalf’s rescue from Isengard, appear through plot necessity in the film, but without any explanation whatsoever - and hence don’t seem to flow at all well. Ditto Gandalf’s speedy research into the Ring’s behaviour when cast into flames at the beginning of the film.
So on balance, I enjoyed it, with reservations – chief among which was the feeling that if you haven’t read the book you won’t really understand many very important aspects of the story. So, if you are planning on seeing it and haven’t yet read the book, please get cracking (at least you only have to read “The Fellowship of the Ring”!).
Still planning on visiting New Zealand this year though, cracking scenery!
Oh, and AerBabe - at least your primary image of Ian Holm isn't a homicidal white blood spitting android in "Alien" <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I thought he made an excellent Bilbo though, all the Hobbits appeared to be inspired castings!
(edited to respond to above post)
[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: SpinSpinSugar ]</p>
4th Jan 2002, 22:35
Don't be so miserable.
If you hate Gygax, surely that is your problem not his, nor that of the people who enjoy his products. If you don't like them, ignore them. They are harmless. Same with this film - it is after all, only a film.
You complain that the film does not cover everything in the book, but I know the book well and feel that every important theme was covered, especially the central thread of the loss of innocence. Do you seriously expect them to go well over 3 hours to cover everything? Or to break the story into the 6 books (or was it 7?) the 3 volumes were broken down into? I think the abridgement was well-written and made sense.
I too was concerned by the lack of detail of the gifts of Galadriel, vital later in the tales, but we shall see how that is dealt with. As far as I can remember, that was the only concern I had for the coherence of the story.
I hate hype, and love this story. I went to the film expecting to be disappointed, as I usually am by over-sensationalised films (Episode One for example was OK but not brilliant, and Titanic was crap). I was not, I loved every minute, did not want it to end.
[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]</p>
4th Jan 2002, 22:43
Well I have seen it twice (both in Oxford and I had a pint in the Rabbit Room of the Eagle and Child both times - really getting into the spirit!!) I have read the book over 20 times since 1980.
I was concerned about how the important issues would be dealt with, I needn't have been. The Film was quite simply superb. Peter Jackson caught the mood of the books quite superbly. The changes he did make were all seemless.
Its a pity that Tom Bombadil was left out, but whilst he is important in the overall history of Middle Earth, he does play quite a small part in the books.
One thing though, in the book Saruman wanted the ring for himself, in the film he appeared to be working for Sauron. It'll be interesting to see how they resolve that one.
That said, I will leave any criticisms I have for the handling of the story until after I have seen the third part.
Cant wait intil the Two Towers, If everyone was complaining about the ending of this (or rather lack of ending) just wait until the next one. !!
4th Jan 2002, 22:48
I think they've just skipped a bit with Saruman and the ring. In the book he thought he was working for himself, all the while being in the thrall of Sauron from the time he had originally looked into Mordor with the Seeing Stone, not knowing that Sauron had one also, and could use it to ensnare his will. Or something like that.
4th Jan 2002, 22:48
In case you've missed it completely, the reference to Gygaz was a joke, as it closely followed the "centenary biscuits". <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
sheesh, lighten up everyone <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
so you loved it, and I thought it was a pile of crap <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
This is my first post so....... here it goes! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
I saw Lord Of the Rings and thought it was a super flick. (Considering I went kicking and screaming) I really didn't want to sit in a theatre and watch those scarey, atrocious GOBLINS! I concur that the goblins and black riders were petrifying!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
DJK... the movie is NEVER as good as the book!
11 was a racehorse
22112 <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
5th Jan 2002, 00:34
well I went to see the film expecting to be disappointed because I enjoyed the book so much.
I am pleased to say I was wrong, it was a fantastic film, as has already been said it could never have included all of the plot lines from the book but it made a brilliant go at it and I think it did well to include as much as it did.
The effects were fantastic and the scary bits were scary!!
as for djk's comments, I disagree with you but at least you have an opinion and aren't scared to voice it in JB knowing you'll be shouted down... and how the hell have you managed to not get any personal insults thrown at you yet... have we finally had a grown up disagreement in JB??? :)
and welcome to the forums locky <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> hope they don't keep you from chat now that you've discovered them <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
5th Jan 2002, 01:37
Took the short lodgers to see it and thought it was an extremely good film. Has to be seen on the big screen though. I also enjoyed the book many years ago but have learnt over the years to enjoy any book and film separately. Trying to compare the two will invariably disappoint.
The lodgers thought it was tremendous and managed to sit still for the whole three hours which is about 30 times longer than they manage in the car, at home etc. Only spot of dissention was youngest Missapproach objecting violently to the others having re-named her 'Orctavia' - can't imagine why they did that.
[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: Legalapproach ]</p>
I guess I've been lucky so far <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
5th Jan 2002, 04:04
for anyone who's interested and in the UK on Sat afternoons for the next 13 weeks, The BBC are repeating the radio play, starting on sat 5th Jan at 14:30 hours on Radio 4 (FM and LW).
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/lordoftherings/index.shtml" target="_blank">Details Here</a>
[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: Gash Handlin ]</p>
5th Jan 2002, 10:04
The film that runs closest to the book that I've ever seen is "The Shawshank Redemption" Based on Stephen King's novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" A brilliant movie, and almost word-for-word to the book.
Awwwww ta Gashy!
I was chatting with 2 gents on my walk yesterday and they started discussing LOTR.
The one man said how very biblical the movie was and has incorperated religion as an underlying tone!
Now, I think I liked it much better when I thought it a fantasy film. He even went as far as referring to Stryker as the "Christ" figure.
Oh oh.. this is religion talk isin't it! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> sorry! Don't boot me! <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
5th Jan 2002, 19:37
Don't worry Locky, most of the reviewers remark at the lack of any religious content in the books. There are no priests, there is no overt worship of godlike entities.
By the way did you catch the radio 4 version just finished? I think it was webcast.
Well... SC when I think back there is many references or shall I say similarities. The struggle between good and evil is the start of any debate on religion!
The orc's seem to simulate the devil..( hot, burning, endless toil)
Anyways, I don't think I want to go there.. it was a brilliant movie that kept me entertained. ( Except when me bum started to so to sleep :) ) 3 hours! phew! No.. I did not see the other one!
<a href="http://www.slashdot.org" target="_blank">www.slashdot.org</a> reports the FOTW DVD will have 30mins more than the big screen - might fill in a few gaps.
Just came out of LOTR - probably best not to read the book again before hand as I did.
the whole mines sequence was where the film took off for me, but even though I would hate to be a kid and miss it, it's pretty violent in places!
George Lucas is weeping into his moccachino someplace...
7th Jan 2002, 13:04
Recently one of my friends, a computer wizard, paid me a visit. As we
were talking I mentioned that I had recently installed Windows XP on my
PC. I told him how happy I was with this operating system and showed
him the Windows XP CD. To my surprise he threw it into my microwave
oven and turned it on. Instantly I got very upset, because the CD had
become precious to me, but he said: 'Do not worry, it is unharmed.'
After a few minutes he took the CD out, gave it to me and said: 'Take a
close look at it.' To my surprise the CD was quite cold to hold and it
seemed to be heavier than before. At first I could not see anything,
but on the inner edge of the central hole I saw an inscription, an
inscription finer than anything I had ever seen before. The
inscription shone piercingly bright, and yet remote, as if out of a
12413AEB2ED4FA5E6F7D78E78BEDE820945092OF923A40EElOE5 I OCC98D444AA08EI 324
'I cannot understand the fiery letters,' I said in a timid voice.
'No but I can,' he said. 'The letters are Hex, of an ancient mode, but
the language is that of Microsoft, which I shall not utter here. But in
common English this is what it says:
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
It is only two lines from a verse long known in System-lore:
"Three OS's from corporate-kings in their towers of glass,
Seven from valley-lords where orchards used to grow,
Nine from dotcoms doomed to die,
One from the Dark Lord Gates on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie."'
7th Jan 2002, 13:47
Saw the movie on Saturday. I have to say that Peter Jackson seems to have done as fine a job as possible with today's SFX, production budgets and (let's be honest) limited audience attention span.
Even the first volume of LOTR is a lengthy, detailed book in its own right. Nothing short of a thirty hour epic is going to contain all the detail and context that JRR threw into the Fellowship of The Ring... assuming that that sort of detail can be made to work on the silver screen, anyway.
Therefore, I didn't find myself bitching at the absence of Tom Bombadil et al. I did miss the barrows, though, as JRR cleverly used them to show just how alien the hobbits found the landscape and environment outside of the Shire. Only a Brit who's ever walked the moors knows what he was getting at, methinks.
Anyone else think that the sets were pretty close to what was in the mind's eye? Bilbo's home? The way the Black Riders looked when Frodo saw them with the Ring on? The doorway to the Mines of Moria? Inside Moria? Ok, so the Great Hall seemed a wee bit over-influenced by Tomb Raider, but who's to say which way the influence actually went? Remember, JRR was the original, folks, and his imaginary landscapes have been copied and recopied throughout science fiction and fantasy.
IMHO, Ian McKellen was fine as Gandalf. The young chap that played Frodo was also ok. One of my pals complained that the hobbits introduced a sort of juvenile, whimsical nature into the movie that sort of undermined the epic darkness of the whole thing. My answer to him was: "blame Tolkien, it was his idea to use an adolescent as the main character".
I never realised that Orcs were such a doddle to kill, by the way. I reckon a few of us with a sharpened spoon between us could take out thousands at a time... just wait until the Two Towers: there'll be the largest number of slaughtered bodies lying around the film set since Zulu.
One last point for those who think that some sort of irreparable damage has been made here to the LOTR reputation: When Ben Hur was made, about 25% of the overall Hollywood budget was spent on the movie: no expense was spared on attracting the best actors and actresses; huge sets sprung up out of the desert; thousands of extras were hired; the stunts were so daring that a number of stuntmen were killed; critics raved, fans swooned, horses reared and hens refused to lay.
Overall, the movie was such a blockbuster of a success that no one thought that there could ever be a remake of Ben Hur. Why? It had already been done...
...only I've been talking about the 1925 production, not the 1959 masterpiece of a remake starring Charlton Heston.
Panic ye not, LOTR fans, this is just the most recent production of LOTR, (and a pretty good one too), and there'll be many more in the future.
p.s. I wish I'd delayed seeing the movie for a couple of years. That way, I could have seen the lot in one week.
Fellowship of the Ring - Abridged (Abridged) version. Somewhat abridged.
While noting that even the three-hour movie version of "Fellowship" had to
be cut down somewhat to cram the rest of the story in, and that Peter
Jackson was originally contractually obliged to produce a *two*-hour
version, some contributors to Usenet groups wondered how such an abruptly
shortened epic might go. The result went something like this -
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
Frodo: Hi, Gandalf!
Gandalf: Bilbo, give him your ring.
Bilbo: Okay. Bye!
Gandalf: See you at the pub, Frodo.
Merry: (pops up out of nowhere) Eeeek!
Pippin: (ditto) Eeeek!
Sam: Ha ha, can't catch us now!
Tom Bombadil: Hello little friends!
Frodo: No time for you, weirdo.
Tom Bombadil: (disappears)
Saruman: See, all I had to do was cross out "Good" on my business cards
and write "Bad", and I'm all set.
Gandalf: I never saw that coming.
Saruman: Excuse me while I tend to my vast army of evil orcs and war
machinery which were in plain sight.
Gandalf: Alas, if only he had imprisoned me at the top of a high tower
without walls or ceiling so that he could not prevent a giant eagle from
rescuing me, instead of in the canonical dungeon deep underground. Oh,
Frodo: (whispering) Keep a low profile.
Pippin: (loudly) And don't mention your real name, right?
Merry: (loudly) Or the ring either, right?
Strider: Right. Don't mention the ring. (laughs)It's okay, I'll save
Pippin: (whining) Are we there yet?
Nazgul: Bwa ha ha ha. Give us the ring, little worm.
Frodo: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names -
Sam: Hmm, looks like swords work too.
Strider: Go away, bad men!
Nazgul: The five of us must flee, for we are outnumbered by this one
Frodo: Wow, we're in Rivendell!
Merry: That was easy.
Pippin: Don't knock it.
Sam: Elves are cool!
Elrond: Get the h&ll out of my place, I don't need trouble.
Gimli: You can't throw them out while I'm here!
Legolas: Same for me!
Elrond: Right, all of you f@<hidden>*kers leave now.
Gandalf: But I just got here.
Boromir: I'll just invite myself along. No real reason. Certainly not
because I have larceny on my mind. Nope. Not me. Nuh-uh.
Strider: Look, they fixed my sword! (swish) Wheeeee!
Frodo: Such beautiful scenery. The green grass and leaves are so-[THUD]
Pippin: Where the hell did all this snow come from?
Gandalf: Don't blame me. Who the hell knew that mountains could be cold on
Gimli: Told you we should go through the mines.
Strider: Let the dwarf have his way.
Legolas: Fine, whatever, just open the door.
Gimli: Ummm, I have no idea how to get inside.
Boromir: What a bunch of c@<hidden>
Gandalf: Of course! (applies C4 to the problem) [POOF]
Sam: Such magic.
Merry: Ooooo, dead dwarf over here!
Gimli: Boo hoo.
Pippin: HEY MONSTERS, COME AND GET US!!
Orcs: Oh good, we were getting hungry. Do you have any idea how difficult
it is to keep an army fed in these abandonded mines?
Orcs: This is definitely putting a damper on our relationship.
Strider: Alas, the Ring-bearer has perished! Our quest has failed!
Frodo: Just kidding. I did the slide-blade-between-arm-and-chest trick
while I was standing in profile to y'all. Pretty funny, eh?
Balrog: Dammit, I was sound asleep. That really ticks me off.
Gandalf: We are so doomed.
Strider: Not if we run away! (does so)
Boromir: First good idea you've had. (follows)
hobbits: (already in the lead)
Gandalf: (trailing) It matters not! You cannot outrun the demon!
Legolas: We don't have to . . .
Gimli: . . . we just have to outrun *you*.
Balrog: Your ass is mine, wizard. (drags Gandalf down with him)
Strider: Woe is upon our company, that Gandalf has fallen!
Frodo: I'm over it.
Sam: Yeah, let's go, there's no food here.
Legolas: Wondrous are these woods!
Gimli: And full of cutthroat elves.
Celeborn: We were told of your coming. Well, "warned" is more accurate.
Galadriel: I know you better than you know yourselves.
Sam: You've got nothing better to do with your time?
Galadriel: Wake up, Frodo, and look in the mirror.
Frodo: Geez, can't a guy get some sleep around here? What mirror are you
babbling about, there's just this birdbath full of water.
Galadriel: But it shows magic pictures of things that may or may not be!
Frodo: I'm guessing you're a day trader. Here, you take the ring.
Galadriel: I will not. (hangs her head) I lost the instructions.
Frodo: Great, I'm still stuck with it.
Celeborn: Check-out time!
Pippin: (singing) Row row row your boat, gently down-
Gimli: Shut the hell up. Seven hours of that ***** is more than enough.
Strider: All this beautiful scenery is giving me a very bad feeling.
Boromir: Give me the ring.
Frodo: Notice as I put it on that it not only makes me invisible, it also
apparently teleports me away from your clutches.
Boromir: Arrrrrgghhh! I'm just trying to save my kingdom! Where is a rake
I can step on, that it might strike my head? Ah, this will do nicely.
Frodo: Best thing for me to do now is head for the most dangerous place in
Sam: Works for me. (they leave)
SuperOrcs: Kill kill kill!
Merry: Help, help, Auntie Em! (waves his tiny sword pathetically)
Pippin: Christ, look at the *size* of these guys, we're dead meat.
Boromir: Fear not, little hobbits, I shall blow my special horn and we
shall be rescued by soldiers . . who are . . hundreds . . of . . miles . .
away . . guess we are pretty ****ed after all. (dies)
SuperOrcs: Kill kill kill!
Legolas: Look at my form. Damn, I'm good.
Gimli: I'm environmentally friendly --- blood makes the grass grow.
Strider: Looks like Frodo got away. Well, there's no chance in hell I'm
going to step one foot closer to Mordor, so let's go the exact opposite
7th Jan 2002, 16:03
10th Jan 2002, 13:08
Well, now I won't have to read the book again.... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I always thought that Star Wars fans must have been terribly anxious for "Return of the Jedi" to be released. It looks like I'm now going to see how it feels!!