Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

holy crapper am i looking forward to this film! at first i suspected that it would be far worse than the book ( i still don't think it will better), but the more i see of it, the more eager i am to see it.

I want to see it, but I have no idea what it's about.

isn't that the bible?

Is that a new day or...???? and by the way who cares about Harry Potter. where are you gonna whatch it Mah, at the local school auditorium

The Bible is a boring adventure book, Lord of the rings is great

the bible isn't that boring, all it needs is a couple of Lightsabres.

all it needs is to be closed.

one in a million

Oh yes, everyone knows floro is the entertainment capital of Norway mah. Movies usually open in Stavanger when they reach their 10th year anniversary.

LOTR is looking bloody MARVELLOUS, it must be said.

Christopher Lee sounds good on the trailer; hope he uses that voice in Star Wars.

It premieres 19 of december world wide, why cant AOTC do the same in May, lame bastards.

I saw the trialer for LOTR and it looks sooooo kewl. It should be better than the last poor half animated effort.

Hey, I thought that was pretty good.

noooooooo, they missed out so many parts of the book. crappy, crappy stuff i tell you!

Middle Earth has a place in my heart as much as Star Wars has, hence I will read and (usually) enjoy anything related to it. That's why I read EU books, just to get a SW fix.

The new LOTR does look a vast improvement on the last one, thats all Ush.

That I will grant you.

Mah, the cartoon film didn;t miss mcuh more than the new one does; it was pretty darn faithful, all things considered.

i can't agree with that, as a tolkien-fan i think it was quite bad.
not everything is good with the new one, though, after what i have heard they are going to not include the whole scene with Tom Bombadil in the forest.

As a Tolkien fan I loved it.

Good Lord no, no adaptation has ever included Tom Bombadil, and with good reason!

Also Radagast is missing in both versions, the Ford scene is different, a lot of the early material is cut... please tell me where you think the old was was particualarly deficient compared to the new one?

tom bombadil is sooo cool, man. he's the most humorous and 'fresh' character in the book. i'd really like to see him on the screen.

That nutter? I can't think of anything more likely to scare people away...

i agree that it seems like he's high all the time, but he's a work of genius from tolkiens side, shows how completely different his characters is,he masters everything, and bombadil's the man

I've read all three of the books and I loved it. These Lord of the Rings movies will be awesome! I can't wait, it starts next month!

Yep

I completely agree, Padawan_Learner


nice signature quote, btw

I would read more, but I'd rather play "The Legend of Zelda" and "Final Fantasy" instead.

Not finished them yet?

LOTR rules... in case you hadn't noticed.

To think just twenty eight more days till it comes out, I'm excited!

me too. some slept for 5 days in front of the ticket office to get the first tickets. not me though, I'm not that mad

LOL, yeah I just can't understand why...I mean don't they have a job or school to go to? Just do it the good way, order over the phone!

one thing is to wait for days in front of the theaters to see the movie. but waiting almost a week to get the tickets, several weeks before the release, well it's a good way to show that you're a fanatic, that's for sure.

I resently saw an add on the TV for Lord of The Rings.
It looks really good. I'd like to see it.
I'm into all that goth, myth and magic stuff. It cool stuff.

Just 20 days to go three years for you Mah

very funny finti...only not
I'm into fantasy too lara you say you're into goth, does that mean you're goth?

since i work at a theater i get to see all the films early .i belive it is one of those films where it can be really good or horrible but come to think of it why would they start making the sequels a year ago for a crappy movie so i guess they think its gonna be a great flick

it looks neat.

because it consists of three books

yeah but would you make a sequel to a crappy movie that you know will get no money back... would you make a sequel to josie and the pussy cats and waste like 20 million dollars .. NO , so why would they watse like 100 million on a squel to LOTR , if they didnt think it had some chance of making great trilogy like star wars or godfather(LMAO) .

They always meant to make three movies of LOTR, they gambled and knowing how many fans the books have they were at least sure of breaking even. I think it is going to be a real blockbuster

some press-people has seen it now, newsweek says it's very good, but then again the reviewer has not read the books.

It has saved SO many headaches, filimg all three parts of LOTR at once.

The return was almost guaranteed, but one of the reasons the adaptation has been sop delaayed is the producer's insistence that all three be done at once, in opposition to the studios.

No Mah, I'm not a goth, myself. some how I dont think I'd be able to walk the high street of my local shopping center and feel safe if you know what I mean.?

LOTR: Norwegians critics six out of six on the movie dice.
Magical film. ......... now I cant hardly wait to see it, almost as bad waiting for as AOFTC, almost.
To bad you cant see it until 2005 Mah

goth-people look cool

finti:
you just won't stop will you well, it's gonna come a couple of weeks later, it could've been here for the 19. of desember, but they decided to get harry potter early instead

finti! leave Mah alone.
BTW: what does LOTR and AOFTC mean?
I'm not v.g. w/ s.h. typing.

LOTR: Lord of the Rings
AOTC: Attack of the Clones

oh right, thanx I a bit dumb you see.!

well something is obvious Lara and no I wont leave Mah alone. 19 of december 2001 la la la la, Mah take a look at Harry Potter LOTR in 2005 dubi dubi du

Just 14 days to go, yahoo, close to only three years for you Mah

Has anyone read the script? I thought it was really bad. I couldn't understand parts of it. Some critics have said this and it was like reading Shakspeare in places. How is a young audience meant to understand it?


Does anyone know what scenes were shown at Cannes this summer?

It's been going down a storm with critics right now. I'm waiting for the racist accusations to come.

if it's close to the book, I won't complain.

I doubt the dialogue is any harder to understand than Star Wars, just with longer names.

If kids can enjoy the books (and countless have) they can understand the film.

finti! your soooooooooooo cruel. no, no in fact your a Bully!!!!!!

true as can be

lol, now LOTR is going to be in the movies, the books hit the market here...

Here is a not so good LOTR reveiw from the Emporioum. Note how he says he'll wait for the other two movies that complete the trilogy before he judges it fully. I wish they'd done the same with that other well known trilogy.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.








To be sure, Jackson (director of numerous cult flicks and one of my favorite films, Heavenly Creatures) goes out of his way to make The Fellowship a film for the Tolkien-obsessed. Throughout the production, he has collaborated in depth with the fan base, though I imagine there's only so much fan interaction one can take before going completely postal. And in fact, some fans are still unimpressed -- one fan Web site even tried to launch a petition to get the studio to change certain details about Liv Tyler's character, citing a long list of reasons. Imagine their surprise when they discover she only has about five minutes of screen time, anyway! (Also by way of totally random side note, the controversial theory that Sam is gay and is in love with Frodo gets considerable play in the film -- but you'll have to judge for yourself.)

Now it's been a decade and change since I last cracked open a Tolkien book, but from what I remember, Jackson has treated the source material with considerable faithfulness. Ironically, this may work against the film at the box office -- with all the genealogies and more races than you can count (and will the average moviegoer understand that hobbits and halflings are the same thing?), Peoria may not be willing to suffer through three hours of an elaborate fantasy world just to be given the message that, well, power corrupts.

Of course, The Lord of the Rings has been billed as an effects extravaganza, but overall, these are a considerable letdown after such a massive buildup. While the hobbitization effect -- which takes normal-sized actors and digitally shrinks them down to appropriate size -- is alarming at first, eventually you get used to it (though Astin's ringlets and chubby cheeks are just plain creepy).

Hobbits aside, it's the glaringly obvious digital/miniature/matte painted backdrops that start to wear you down. Our adventurers set out across countless picturesque vistas -- but when these are left untweaked, they look strikingly like boring old New Zealand (where the film was shot). To offset this, Jackson inserts outrageous monuments into the background to build a fantasy world. When he adds simple ruins or rocky outcroppings, it works fine, but when it's an entire phony city, it just isn't believable, and that pulls you out of the story. If I see another movie (Star Wars: Episode I and Gladiator also abused this to an extreme) where a few digital birds go flying across the digital sunset over the digital buildings again, I'll puke.

While the film is studded with action, the fights are not particularly well-choreographed, either. You don't get a good sense of scale of the big battles, and the in-close fighting is edited to frantically to follow well. (Thankfully, there are no Matrix-rip-off wire-flips or time-stopping tricks!) The exception to the rule is a fight between the gang and a giant troll, deep in the Mines of Moria. The troll is one of the best CGI monsters I've seen on film, and his battle sequence is put together perfectly.

This scattershot quality extends throughout the film. Another example: The magic effects are alternately stellar and disappointing. While Gandalf's showdown with the demon Balrog is arguably the film's high point, his skirmish with rival Saruman (Christopher Lee, bearing a staff with what I swear is a golf ball on top) is pretty lame -- two old geezers just pointing their staffs at one another, which sends the other one flying against the wall, over and over again. It's hard to believe the sequences are from the same movie.

Overall, I found the film enjoyable and don't want to harp too much on the negatives, though they are substantial. But with two-thirds of the story to go, it's difficult to judge the film on its own, so I'll be gentle this time out and give it a cautious recommendation. Suffice it to say that fantasy fans will enjoy The Fellowship of the Ring, , but most moviegoers will find it overly long and just too exhausting. Jackson may have some tricks up his sleeve for the sequels, but it's going to be tough for him to improve things much with The Two Towers, when the plot slows down (in my opinion) and the highlight of the story includes an anthropomorphic tree. I understand that making a movie out of a legion of people's favorite book means the opportunity for a director's interpretation is limited, but Jackson also needs to understand that for his trilogy to earn the title of epic it will require something more than simple length.

this guy says nothing that makes me want to see this movie less. I trust reviewers that I've seen making good arguments about movies, but this one don't convince me.

most reviews seems to be positive, anyways. so far, here in norway there's only been reviews giving it max score.

Some worrying points there. I really will be alarmed if the matte effects et al aren't up to scratch. Though I imagine the fight scenes, as ever, will be down to taste.

And I knew that they couldn't give Arwen that much screen time; there's just no room in the story for her!

that was really positive, she's not a vital part in the book, and I'm glad they didn't alter the story much.

but , there is quite a bit of text about her in the additional info in the book. so, I could've forgiven them if they had put some extra scenes with her in the film.

I guess I can be less worried about the background special effects if that guy didn't like TPM's, either. Because they were fine by me.

That's what I thought. But I agree with him about the "bird" thing. It's like they have to show us some birds flying in the background to make us beleive it's really there.

Yup! The guy on the DVD talking about the waterfall sequence shows how that works. These guys are just so proud of what they do, they love the little touches...

I think this is the right time to remember old Tom Bombadil, who didn't make it to the big-screen. Here's a part of his song; Tom Bombadil's song. Sing along Ush!

'Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o,
Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o!
Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your roots away!
Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day.
Tom's going home home again water-lilies bringing.
Hey! come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?

Hop along, my little friends, up the Withywindle!
Tom's going on ahead candles for to kindle.
Down west sinks the Sun: soon you will be groping.
When the night-shadows fall, then the door will open,
Out of the window-panes light will twinkle yellow.
Fear no alder black! Heed no hoary willow!
Fear neither root nor bough! Tom goes on before you.
Hey now! merry dol! We'll be waiting for you!'

*smacks mah*
don't become like finti!

hey! I'm just keeping on topic and singing some merry songs from The Lord of the Rings.

'Now let the song begin! Let us sing together
Of sun, stars, moon and mist, rain and cloudy weather,
Light on the budding leaf, dew on the feather,
Wind on the open hill, bells on the heather,
Reeds by the shady pool, lilies on the water:
Old Tom Bombadil and the River-daughter!

Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
green were his girdle and his breeches all of leather;
he wore in his tall hat a swan-wing feather.
He lived up under Hill, where the Withywindle
ran from a grassy well down into the dingle.'

*kicks mah out of the room*
much better

See, guys? THIS is why it was a good idea to keep him out the film!

me? or mah? or LOTR? (and finally saw a book of it today!)

For keeping Tom Bombadil out the film of LOTR. He'd freak people out. He would NOT be popular!

but he would (or not maybe). he's the only comical character, the bombadil-story would be a great variation from the battles and dark mood of the film.

'old tom bombadil is a merry fellow'

reminds me of Robin Hood; men in thights;
Rabbi Tuck:

"Gay?"

Look, if Tom came on in bright yellow boots 30 minutes into the film and started to sing about what a jolly fellow he was people would leave the cinema.

He also served no useful plot purpose whatsoever.

hahah i get to see it a day eaarly you fools work at a theater like i do and you to see films early also

*in boring voice*

ow no ... ow no, ... now I am going to melt

you mean TIGHTS and you mean FRIAR tuck yers.!
a Rabbi is Jewish!

I think they call him Rabbi Tuck in men in thights Lara, its a slap stick comedy.
Robin to Blinken(who is blind) as Blinken is standing guard in a tree
"What are you doing Blinken?
" ehh Im guessing , I`m guessing no one is comming"

and machine, yeah lets all work at theaters ,all of us

yeah, it's rabbi,
the reason why I wrote the other thing wrong is because I never wore that...

"Blincan, I'm home!"
"Oh master Robin, you're back!"
throws away the playboy for blinds
falls because his pants are still not up
stands up and runs towards Robin, hits a statue of a naked woman
"Master Robin you're back! Oh! What have the sarascenes done with your arms?! But you got some nice boobs!"
"Blinkin, I'm over here!"
looks at the statue
"I'll check with you later"

back to LOTR:
showed in London, excellent reviews in England after what I heard. I guess none of you saw it?

not me, but planning to see it...

Bit tricky to get to those advanced premieres.

I am going to watch it with my father, who has not seen a film at the cinema in about 20 years. He can't make the release date so I am seeing it on the 20th.

I understand it still hasn't addressed the problem of accessibility to those who have not read the book. But what it has got right outweighs what it has gotten wrong.

so if you haven't seen the movie, can you still like the movie?

what's that?

I would imagine you can, but it might seem rather cumbersome.

shoot !

so, is anyone going to see it tomorrow?

I am. With a bunch of snobs who hate Star Wars(because it's not intellectual enough for them) but love LOTR. So I'm in for a great time!!!!

don't even know if it's here in Belgium...
but I'll go see it

i cantwait till tonight after work i get to see Lord of the rings yyyyyeeeeeeeepppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeee im so excited

Mah you should come over here. There were only about 10 people in the cinema with us this morning.

that's freaky! 10 people?
unfortunately I'm going to a place right outside Oslo on Friday and return home as late as january. I probably won't have any time to go see it in christmas, and if so I won't get to see it until next year!! I say 'let's cut the christmas and go watch LOTR', but does anyone agree? nooo.

I do. As long as we can skip January, February, March and April and go straight to May to see AOTC.

I wouldn't worry. When I saw Planet of the Apes I was the only one in the place.

the word "d'euh" cames to mind...

which is the only word to come to your mind Yers

I plan on seeing it this evening with my sister.

finti, you gave that reply already!

I saw a 5 minute long video with footage from the film, and the song 'May it Be' and to me, everything seems perfect about this film. now I haven't seen it, but from what I have seen and heard it's supreme.
what I really wanted to say is that the soundtrack from the film is supreme! the instrumental tracks are magnificent, but what really stands out in my opinion are the tracks with vocals (enya). the lyrics on most songs are both elvish and english,and also the choirs singing in dwarfish and in black language(the language of the ringwraiths) and it sounds magic! top quality!

I don't have enough yet for a full review so I guess I'll post here....LOTR good movie..intricate plot....good music....LONG

Quite long, yeah. Certainly longer than the 'seat comfort' factor of my cinema.

Crap, I have to go and see it. I guess it'll be January before I see it though. And that means I have to pay my ticket in those bloody Euro's.

I'll probably just wait and rent it on DVD next year

Actually, I can't wait to see the DVD either.

Im going to say this first, It's a bad movie.
This movie did keep my eye's glues. Especially the first scenes in Shire, oh my gosh, that's that's straight out of a book. And you can tell. That was a dare I say, PERFECT job they did, on visuals. I really enjoyed the battle scene, at the start of the movie. So much so, that it set the standard of what the rest of battle scenes should have lived up to, but the firt still looked the best. It captures the grand scope, of all the fighters, knocking each other off one by one which no other fight scene compared to. I was surprised at how good the acting was, I can see how some san say it's award worthy. Gandalf obviously being the best. I could watch an ENTIRE movie with just his character. He was very enjoyable. Unfortunatly, I never read the book before, so some things,(While I can see them being resolved in sequels) seemed implied, and incomplete. I did NOT think the movie was too long, because I actually gave the movie a chance to explain itself, and some movies need that time to do a great job.

But what it came down to was (and I was'nt the only one),LOTR did the book a great service, I can image the best. Anyone who's read the book, has had nothing but praise. But After the movie ended last night, there was almost 100% dissatisfaction for this movie. People were "Boo-ing", imagine about 300 people. And I can't see these people paying to see this movie again. I think,(and this is based off of my own, dissatisfaction) the movie was VERY unclimatic. He we are 3 hours deep and the movie ends as if it were the middle of the film. YES, I know, perhaps the middle of the book, but for a Film,... no way. They did it, but you can't do that. I figured, (because I read allot of things off the net) that - "NO, this movie wont show him destroy the ring", but the average person did not, I repeat did not, expect this. The problem? As a film? The movie stresses WAY too much, what the goal is. "Throw the ring in the pit",..."The only way to destroy it". The solution: They should have only explained this ONE time in the movie, very subtle too, somewhere in the being of the film. Why? So the "newcomer" could focus more on the issues, of THIS film, not events that will happen later. Maybe some fans may not understand that, but, the set up of the film, was a total distraction to people who don't know what's going to happen.

The second thing that they could have done to better conclude this charpter, for new audience's, was to make that final battle, A-better, B-maybe they should have built up the character of that spawned monster a little bit more, so when he get's defeated, it gives the feeling that something has been accomplished in the 3 hours, the characters take a step foward, and some sort of evil was betaen. But again his character was so minimal, that, killing him was no diffrerent then killing the other goons.

And those 2 suggestestion to make the movie better, are actually my most reserved oppions, so that, as little of the story is changed as possible. But as filmmakers, it should have been done better.

So I gave this one a thumbs down.

Favorite scene: When Bilbo, tries to take the ring from Grodo. The demon that came out of his face was scary.

Hmmm, you sound less negative than your first line there. And I am a bit surprised about your criticism. But I cannot comment to it because I have yet to see it.
THat it doesn't have a climax has probably more to do with it keeping close to the book. The book Fellowship of the Ring doesn't have much of a climax either.

ok, now I'm going to get involved here

fightingscenes were good, but you couldn't see it that well...

I don't see why FOTR should get criticised for that ending and ESB praised for something so very similar. The events at the end of that movie were dramatic enough for me. It's the Two Towers that will have to worry more about a dramatic place to end.

let's keep the climax for the last I hope...

Ushgarak, do you really want to know why ESB, get's acclaim for it's ending and NOT LOTR?

It's a pretty simple answer.

He usually means what he says.

hey queeq, since you visit these place, here's a question:

what's the last name of Frodo (the one they used in the subtitles)
Normally it's somethings like Baggins, but here it was Balings...

I very much doubt it is a simple answer, Flip.

yerss, already answered your questions in the reviews thread.

Thank you, but actually I wanted to know if the Dutch subtitles had the same last name for Frodo as the Flemish subtitles...

ok, new question: what is the name of the last part of the trilogy?

'The Return of the King'

Let me take a wild guess ... Aragorn

read the book and find out

Haven't seen it yet, yerss. But I'm pretty sure it read Balings for Frodo. That's the name he has in the Dutch translation. And has had that name since it was first translated into Dutch in the 60's, supervised by Tolkien himself. He approved of all the names in the Dutch translation, he was very picky about that.

How come? what's wrong with the English name then?

It's Frodo Lommelund on Norwegian
what is it on chinese

Okay. I finally saw it. And I loved it, great stuff.

One thing that puzzles me though is why everyone's so upset about the ending. I saw nothing wrong with that. I mean, it's a trilogy and the film stops at the beginning of a new stage of the story, where the Fellowship breaks up and head two separate ways. So that sounds fine to me.

the ending of LOTR has gone over too some of the start of Two Towers (TT) and that's kinda stupid, but what the heck it's a darn good movie anyway

Why stupid? I think Jackson made a very natural choice for ending this film: the beginning of a new stage in the quest.

what? the ending of FOTR (the book) tells that frodo and sam got out of the boat, put on their backpacks and went on 'over the hills and far away'. that's the same as the film, nothing from two towers.

I want to put a question to you all..........

Should the Title of Twin Towers be changed because of the America attacks?????

ANd do you think it will be changed???

I know there is a band in NZ that is having to change there name if they want to make it in the States because of the attacks....

WHat do you think?????????

there's no LOTR book or film called 'Twin Towers'. I suppose you're refering 'Two Towers', and Jackson has said that he won't change the name.

Thanks Mah,
thats what I meant, and thanks for the info

Sloppy, Kiwi girl.

aragorn, gimli and legolas doesn't send boromir down the fall before in two towers(in the book) then they go orc-hunting

Moing the Boromir thing in the first film was a SMART move. Very smart. Gave it a lot more drama; it would be totally wasted at the start of the next film.

true. but if hi's trying to follow the book than he shouldn't come up with all these suprises

what he's trying to do is keep close to the book, but still; make a good movie out of it.
of course he has to make changes, it's the only way. the boromir thing was necessary.

I like the ending. If they didn't have Boromir die, fight the Uruk-Hai, and go Orc hunting in the end of Fellowship, that's how TTT would open up. That wouldn't be that good.

When my dad took me to go see the movie, my dad sat next to a Japanese guy. He burped long, loud burps in the best parts of the movie, and they smelled like onions! Then, when the movie was over, he yelled "That was the worst movie I've ever seen!" and ran out on his girlfriend. And someone lit a firework when Gandalf and the Balrog die! Rude retards!

first time i saw it some jerks where making loud noise with paperbags full of cracling candy. that's some bloody wankers

They sound annoying, but fireworks in Gandalf vs. Balrog wasn't what I hoped for.

Heh, wasn't so bad was it mates?