Lord of the Rings movie

[dagsverre]

Sitting here with some fresh tickets in my hand, on the first show...feels good...this movie is going to be great...(I'll try hard not to compare it to the books all the time...)

People in Oslo lined up for five days to get the best tickets...(I don't live in Oslo so I didn't have to line up...we don't have as good theatre as they do though)

So, any other places they hype presale of tickets five weeks in advance? And did anyone line up for days?

(I saw the Starwars Episode II trailer yesterday as well...Starwars doesn't really impress me any longer but it's still better than most Hollywood ******...)

[edited] 15 2001-11-06 14:24

[Jedimark]

I hope the films are as good as the books! One thing that realy annoys me to hell is when Lord of the Rings gets compared next to f*cking Harry Potter. It is an insult to Tolkien that....

As for the Star Wars Trailer... im just off to find it now on the net.

[Ant]

I saw the trailer on newsround, episode 2 is gonna rock.
Could have done with more scenes ni the trailer but never mind.
As for lord of the rings, that looks wicked too. Why do we get it later than everyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christmas for us!!!!!!!!

[Jedimark]

It's christmas for everyone isnt it? Our local cinema is Premiering it on the 14th December.

[vvalentine]

I just saw a few pictures of the movie, and it seems that this time the movie is not going to be so appealing to kids than adults.  When I went to see Episode I, there were a lot of kids, man was it annoying with all those kids screaming and laughing.  I hope the same thing doesn't happen with this one.  I am expecting better things from Episode II than Episode I.

-vvalentine

[vvalentine]

I have never read the book of Lord of the Rings.  My roommate says she is reading it to her class, and she says it's really good.  Can someone just tell me a summary of what it is about.  My roommate is just reading one chapter to his students.

-vvalentine

[MMiller8]

Let the flame wars begin.
IMHO, comparing Harry Potter and LotR together is an insult to J. K. Rowling.  Sure, Harry Potter isn't the best book in the world, but I enjoyed them much more than LotR.  The way I see it, LotR has very short interesting parts, interspersed in a long, excessively boring part that encompasses the whole trilogy.  The worst thing, though, was the ending.  They just waltz through Mordor, doing battle with eyes that might stare them to death.  I really can't wait until the movies come out though, because they're bound to leave out most of the boring parts in the movie.  Gawd... just thinking about beautiful elf queens living in exotic locales gives me acid reflux...  As for Harry Potter, the books are great.  Read 'em, you'll enjoy them more than I enjoyed LotR.  Guaranteed.
The movie came out in England a couple of days ago, and everyone says it was fantastic.  Even the author.  Not many books that do that, now, eh?  Anyway, even if both of these movies suck mightily, they'll probably rule the box office by riding on the book's fame...  I know I'm seeing HP more than once...

[edited] 177 2001-11-06 22:09

[Darkness]

I think its the concept of comparing a childrens book to one of the greatest peices of literature ever created. In my mind, LotR is infinitely better.

[MMiller8]

Well, you don't have to be a book for adults to be classic american literature.  Loot at Alice and Wonderland.  Anyway, give the books time, and read them too.  Who's to say that they aren't destined to be a classic?  I'm sure going to tell my children about them.  And besides;  i'm a child, and i've read LotR.  Does that make it a children's book?  Just as millions of adults have read Harry Potter.  You shouldn't be so quick to judge...  And another thing... the great things about the books is that they just get better and better!  The first is kinda silly, but they get better, and the newer one always seems to be the best.  They are up to four now, and there are going to be seven.  One for each year at the school.

Also:  If you want more classic american literature, read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or To Kill a Mockingbird.  Don't just watch the movies. These books are somthing everyone can enjoy, and not just pandering to fantasy fans.  In Lit class, while reading these two, we discussed what constituted a classic.  The answer is, two things:

Timelessness:  (You can read it in any year that you want, as a child or an adult, and it still applies it's morals and virtues to you.)

and

Some other word that I can't remember but meant: (You can read it anywhere in the world, in any language or culture, and still have those things apply.)

To me, both HP and LotR have that, and so what the heck... read them both!

Oh, yeah, and the HP game looks fun, too!

[edited] 177 2001-11-06 22:33

[ficedula]

If you're looking for classic American literature, try starting with titles written by American authors

Classic literature != Classic American literature

[Darkness]

Alice in Wonderland isn't really a children's story. Disney just kind trashed it (as they do with everything). In case you didn't know, its basically a story about a high.

Lol. If a story doesn't have a universal theme, I'd hardly call it a story at all.

Also, when I read th first Harry Potter book, I was completely unbiased. The fact that I didnt enjoy it as much as many RECENT books, let alone classic literature, made me realize that it didn't diserve to be compared to them.

I guess you could consider me a 'child' as well. In the fact that I haven't reached legal driving age, and can't drink. Does it honestly matter. What really matters is the audience it was written for.

[J*** H*******]

Message!

[Darkness]

episode 2 does look cooler than i had expected.

[Joey]

I'd play and watch any games/films with mag.

[MMiller8]

Everyone go out and see Monsters, Inc. NOW!  It's really funny (if not as good as toy story) and the animated short at the beginning is hilarious.  I thought is was a very cool movie, and i'd go again just to see the animated short and the 'doors' scene again.

[edited] 177 2001-11-07 02:43

[Jedimark]

Whoa never have I heard Lord of The Rings sumarised so quickly MMiller8! lol

Basicaly a Hobbit called Frodo inherits this ring from his Uncle, Bilbo, who found it in the book called The Hobbit. It turns out that this ring was forged by the Dark Lord Sauron who needs only Frodo's ring to control the other Eleven rings that are in existance and then eventualy rule Middle Earth. The rhyme goes:
One Ring To Rule Them All
One Ring to Find Them
One Ring to Bring Them All
And in the Darkness Bind Them

So basicaly what Frodo has to do is destroy the ring. But to destroy the ring he has to take it to Mordor (where Sauron lives) and throw it into the cracks of doom! So a fellowship of 9 is created (hence the Fellowship of the ring) with the aim to go to Mordor and destroy the ring.

BUT, not all goes to plan and they get separated and follow different paths... frodo goes to mordor with Sam (his mate!) and the other end up in the middle of the war between the forces of Mordor and the Stronghold of Gondor and Rohan.

This realy is the best book in the world!! I have read it too many times now... i would realy recomend reading it vvalentine!

[dagsverre]

Heh, I started a thread and then didn't have a chance to go online and respond for over a day...oh well...

I agree with Jedimark. Comparing Harry Potter and LOTR is an insult towards Tolkien. Harry Potter is not really special...little put them apart from other books in general. Some years ago you had Narnia which was mostly the same thing...

LOTR was a life's work, not written as a "book", just as a tale from a world that Tolkien had created and documented...The cultures in the book can be tracked back 10 000 years, all the languages has developed as they would have in reality, ALL names in the book has a root somewhere and some meaning... the world described just has an incredible depth. Even if you HATE the story, HATE the world itself, one can admire how it demonstrates principles of creating something (Tolkien called it sub-creation). It shows that Tolkien was a professor in this stuff...

About the ending... the ending of LOTR has furious battles and action...it just all happens inside of Frodo and Sam, so it's not visible on the surface. This makes it even better in my opinion, not because I necesarrily get very much enjoyment from reading about Frodo's internal struggles but because it's a much more epic way to finish something than a simple swordfight or whatever. There is action other places in the book, simply running those in reprise wouldn't have sufficed...also such a storyline would have been impossible. Rewriting that end into something more "interesting" (say, Sauron in a swordfight against Frodo, yeah, everyone who has read the books will laugh about *that* picture) would alter the entire premises of the book and it would have to rewritten from scratch (together with some 2000 years of Middle-earth history) because in the setting of the book something like that just wouldn't have been believable (doing something like that would have degraded the book into a regular fantasy book that we see so many of in the stores now (apologies to R. Jordan fans that I know are in here, but I don't really feel like comparing Tolkien and Jordan...perhaps Harry Potter and Wheel of time can be compared in some strange way, better than comparing LOTR and Harry Potter at least)).

The road towards the volcano at the end is the end of the world as it was known then (in that setting). Destroying the ring destroyed Sauron, it made the elves leave...changing the course of Midgards history in a way that could be compared to us making contact with aliens...the historical perspective in that ending chapters alone should be enough action...

Everyone has different tastes though.

Another example is Frodo and Sam coming back to Hobsyssel...it might seem trivial compared to what they have been through until that point, however it has an enourmous symbolical value. I've heard that that scene wasn't cutted (unlike Tom Bombadil's forest, aarggh...) and that fact makes me more positive even to the first third of the filmatization.

What I like best about LOTR is actually how it tries to level itself a few notches above common Hollywood action (ok so the book was written before the Hollywood crap started to flood the market...)...it simply tries beeing epic in a deeper way than say, Titanic and Pearl Harbor and the utter piece of crap known as Gladiator.

I would say that Harry Potter is more pure entertainment. There is so much entertainment out there! Harry Potter just got lucky and happened to be the thing that replaced Pokemon in the children's life...

OK this was harsh against Harry Potter...and I did kinda enjoy the books (well, the two of them that I have read anyway). Comparing them to LOTR never even occured to me though.

--

I thought the world premiere was on 19th, they're talking about how Norway is going to be the second country showing it because of the time zone differences (they're showing it at midnight naturally

[dagsverre]

Oh, and vvalentine, don't let me scare you, it's a very entertaining book as well. It's just entertaining on so many levels. It certainly is entertaining at the Harry-Potter level as well so reading it cannot hurt (in my opinion everyone who hasn't read the book yet should read at least the first third before going to see the movie so that the movie doesn't destroy the experience of reading the book...that's a personal preference though I guess...)

[Jedimark]

No mention of Gollum their dagsverre! His appearence is supposed to be the most closely guarded secrets in cinema histroy!! I've heard the trailer where he says "My Precious" but I can't wait to see how they have portrayed him in the film. I have my own little vision of him in my head. I have a tape set of LOTR (spanning 9 * 90minute tapes) and the actor who plays smeagol in that is just perfect. You feel the hatred, pitty and sorrow for him which I think is exactly how Tolkien wanted him (or it)  to come accross in the books.

[MMiller8]

Ok, I gotta damit that LotR was interesting once and awhile.  I guess.  If I have too...
Anyway, if you've only read the first two HP books, then  MY GOD man, read 3 and 4!  Compared to 3 and 4, 1 and 2 are only filler.  One and two are fun, 3 starts to get interesting, and the end of the fourth book is when the story REALLY begins...

Oh yeah, and I guess that I don't like LotR that much because I don't believe you should have to read too much into something to get entertained.  I agree, that Tolkein's world is truly marvelous, but in reading way into the book and inferring from the information that the author gives you is not my idea of a good time.  If the book is entertaining, and you can read way into it and be entertained... well.  You've got yerself a good book like Cuckoo's Nest.  I guess that while Tolkein is famous for creating a world, Rowling will be famous as Roald Dahl is.
[edited] 177 2001-11-07 21:49

[Jedimark]

Tolien is worth 50 of Rowling!

Harry Potter is a cop out of reading Lord of the Rings!

I heard that J K Rowling has writers block! Well who wouldn't be with all the money she's made.  

Tolkien isn't just famous for creating a world.... he's famous for creating the most popular book in Literature! Next to the Bible and the Guniess Book of Records it is the best selling book of all time... Tolkien must have done something right.

[vvalentine]

I think I'll see the movie first, and then read the book.  It's very difficult for me to read a book, and not fall asleep.  So I'll see what the story is about first by actually watching it.  Although, the summaries indicate that it has a very interesting story.

-vvalentine

[Darkness]

And in the Darkness binds them. Capitalized and everything.

[The SaiNt]

I really want to know how Gollum looks like...

dejavu..
wasn't this thread here some time ago?

[mirex]

I heard that Tolkien really afected many people. Woman that translated Lord of the rings into our language was talk in Elven language for some time.