Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

You Liked This Movie, Or Else 100

Posted by timothy from the handing-you-the-grain-of-salt dept.
Paul Egell-Johnsen writes: "All the Norwegian news papers, and some Swedish ones, are raving about the forthcoming "Lord of the Rings" movie after a 25 minutes screening at a chateau near Cannes. BBC reveals why the reviews are that positive, all those who atended had to sign a declaration of goodwill. A New Zealand report spins it differently, apparaently the audience was genuinely impressed. A quote from the end of the article: 'I don't think it will be a film for children. One of the big monsters was genuinely terrifying.'" The stills which have trickled out have been impressive to me, but it's sad if a positive-news-only policy is needed to hype it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You Liked This Movie, Or Else More

You Liked This Movie, Or Else

Comments Filter:
  • Greets all. I am a Designer in New Zealand, and during my recent post graduate degree, some of my collegues worked in the production of Lord of the Rings down in Wellington. One was an extra (an Orc Captain - he has an unusual face), and more importantly, my other collegue worked in the Rotoscoping department. He declaired that what he saw in his 4 months at Weta Studios (Peter Jacksons Post Processing house) was astounding, and that all the aclaim was more than earned (although he was bound from divulging specifics due to his confidentiality agreement). It IS a shame, if a goodwill agreement does equal a "positive review" clause, although I am not sure this is the case. JeffCGD.

  • Re:Completely unnecessary... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    . . . or, in an example that Roger Ebert has used,

    Before:

    "I'd rather be sent to a gas chamber"

    After:

    Ebert says $LOUSYFILM is "a gas!"

  • Re:"Declaration of goodwill" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you read that NYTimes piece as anything but a satirical rant, it flew about 10 feet over your head. For example:

    Hollywood is moving to the position of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." This strategy will fail, and movies will move on into obscurity, a future entertainment category subsidized by taxes and private charity and viewed by a select audience, much like opera and ballet today. They, too, once dominated the entertainment world.

    Here's your complete quote, to contradict your trollish editing:

    Ultimately, the success or failure of films based on video games [or any other film] has had little or nothing to do with actors or production costs and everything to do with timing and story.

    In that view, "Tomb Raider" could be a winner. It's Indiana Jones with breasts. "Final Fantasy" looks less certain, unless it finds a cult audience. The story is based on the kind of nebulous New Age science in which the world is controlled by spirits and supernatural forces. It's best appreciated by those who have had a frontal lobotomy. The story has no relation to the "Final Fantasy" video game, by the way.

  • Re:What exactly is the restriction? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Who modded this to troll? Are we now modding against people who post opinions that are against the posted story and are not delivered in a vicious and spiteful manner?

    This has happened with many posts on Slashdot. Many people have been modded down just because they proved that the posted story is in serious doubt.

    Ask yourself what you are seeking; either the truth, or an ego hand job.

  • This is standard (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For any of you who've never been to a film screening/preview before, this is standard practice. Critics may usually ignore it, but giving a bad review of a preview of a film could potentially hurt the it in the marketplace. Generally, they want you to give your bad review to the filmmakers and keep your mouth shut when you leave. This serves two purposes: it allows the filmmakers to make necessary changes to the film to make sure that it -doesn't- suck when it hits the market, and it ensures that they won't have to sue anyone for libel/slander after they leave the theater. Remember, this film is NOT finished. Giving a poor review of an unfinished product without copious disclaimers is considered bad journalistic practice. The movie studios just want to make sure that anyone who's not aware of what construes bad journalistic practice won't think about it, for fear of being sued. Oh, and when the critics get to review the (finished) movie this fall, bad reviews are fair game.

  • I don't see the problem with this... (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13, 2001 @05:24AM (#226203)
    From what I understand, this solely a preview screening of an incomplete movie; studios routinely ask people not to even review such previews because they're not the complete film (many movies, for example, will be previewed with half the CGI shots missing), and because people who've abused the trust in the past and trashed a movie based on the pre-release cut they saw have caused considerable damage to what turned out to be good movies by the time they were completed and released to the public. I would imagine this 'declaration of goodwill' is just such an agreement.

    And the gaming world is little different: most game demos I've downloaded recently have said at the beginning something like 'not for review, this is an incomplete project'.

    If anything, I'd imagine these articles are just a bit of back-stabbing from Hollywood folks who don't want to see more big-budget movies made outside Los Angeles.

  • Re:A Vision of the Future (Score:4)

    by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @09:47AM (#226204) Homepage Journal
    Since "Sit On My Face" has been deemed illegal for broadcast by the FCC in a ruling that clearly also makes "I Bet You They Won't Play This Song On The Radio" also illegal (because it clearly implies obscene words are being _intended_), I would like to see the Pythons get together for a new 'song'...

    Cleese: Good evening. Upon learning of the new FCC ruling in America that made our classic piece of musical mayhem,
    Sound Effects: *bleep*
    Cleese: ...on my...
    Sound Effects: *bleep*
    Cleese: ...illegal for broadcast, we of Python decided to rise stiffly to the occasion through the release of a new song. After much debate and Welsh argument, we have triumphantly settled on a musical performance of great historical importance, which we bring to you today.
    Cleese: And so, we are proud to present- John Cage's 4'33"- the unexpurgated version.
    Cleese: This famous piano piece caused a scandal when first performed, as it consists entirely of rests, with no sounds in it at all. But that's nothing to the recently unearthed unexpurgated version! Until recently, this version was deemed too naughty for public consumption- and thanks to our Yank friends, it still is, to which we at Python say: 'nuts to them!'.
    Cleese: For those wondering how a piano piece composed entirely of silences can be naughty- the pianist is showing. And, in an even bolder gesture of defiance to social mores, the unexpurgated version of 4'33"s score specifies that he is thinking of fondling a tit during the performance.
    Cleese: I see our musical artiste is ready to perform, so without further ado- John Cage's 4'33", the unexpurgated version.

    Sound Effects: *a bit over thirty seconds of silence*

    Sound Effects: *approaching siren, car stops, door opening and closing, whispering*

    Cleese: What do you mean, copyrighted work? Wait, stop, let go of me, I can explain!

    Sound Effects: *Cleese dragged off, FIN*

  • When the movie is fully together, and ready for a true press-screening, then I'd say such an agreement would be *wrong* (cats and dogs living together wrong).

    But in this case, we're talking about a pre-production preview, of some footage that's not cleaned up, or edited the same way as it will be in the final movie - just to gague reaction, probably to secure more funding, and build hype. That would be like a serious Computer magazine reviewing a proof-of-concept alpha release.

    Let's give them time to finish the movie, and finish it right, and THEN worry about a proper review of the actual MOVIE, rather than trying to judge a MOVIE on what it's pre-production preview looks like. It's just not fair to judge at this point.
  • erm - Disney INVENTED rotoscoping. In Snow White, I believe. Although Bakshi used a much more obnoxiously obvious application of rotoscoping (he did not mask the photographic look of the characters, which gave them kind of a strange super-realistic look, which was supposed to make them look more dark and magical).

  • An unfortunate policy, but... (Score:3)

    by astrashe ( 7452 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @05:08AM (#226207) Journal
    The reviews at Ain't it Cool News (www.aintitcool.com) were really enthusiastic. I don't think they were coerced, at least I don't think they were coerced into saying things they wouldn't have said otherwise.

    I can see the studio's side of it -- they're not showing a movie, they're showing some raw material that they're going to use to make a movie. But it was a dumb thing to make people sign those agreements, because by all accounts they weren't necessary, and now there will be a cloud of doubt hanging over the initial buzz.

  • Before making any wild accusations... (Score:4)

    by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @05:16AM (#226208) Homepage
    Does anyone here actually know what was the actual content of this declaration?

    Try to re-read the BBS article and see if it actually makes such accusations or merely mentions the fact that attendants were asked to sign some kind of declaration.

    -
  • I hate to say this, but the Harry Potter books are not aimed at the same audience as Lord of the Rings.

    Joanne K. Rowling's works are aimed primarily at readers around 9 to 18 years old; J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece is aimed more at an audience about 16-25 years old. I think many younger readers will have some difficulties grasping some of the mythos behind Lord of the Rings.

    It is only coincidence that production of the Fellowship of the Ring and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in movie form went on at the same time.
  • No. The Hobbit was about a different set of characters on a very different quest. The Hobbit and LOTR are very different.

  • 'Tis true; even Terry Brooks is only walking in the footsteps of the Master. That's why there's been nothing new under the sun in Fantasy for so long - Tolkien said it all, and there's been no one of similar genius to push the field farther. You would think Piers Anthony would be smart enough, but he seems to put an enormous amount o energy into bad puns instead :)

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • Good point - I was thinking in terms of "classical fantasy". I just retch to see every novelist who has to have elf-like creatures, wizard-like creatures, halfling-like creatures, dwarf-like creatures, etc. That's part of the reason I prefer sci-fi; but maybe I just haven't read the good fantasy that's out there.

    Of course, some really good sci-fi almost becomes fantasy anyway, like Dan Simmons' Hyperion.

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • I recommend taking a look at http://www.theonering.net/ [theonering.net]. It's a pretty cool fan site imho.


    Greetings Pointwood
  • That's called "rotoscoping," and has been used quite a bit in all sorts of animated features over the years. Disney doesn't do it, IIRC. One might call rotoscoping the ancestor of the CGI technique called "motion capture," in which movements of a human model are recorded, then mapped onto a computer-animated model.

    Incidentally, according to The Digital Bits [thedigitalbits.com] (go to their archives page [thedigitalbits.com] and do a text-find on "Bakshi"), the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings will be coming to DVD this year.
    --

  • Probably no legal binding--but they'd know whom to exclude from future review screenings.

    Of course, again, we don't know what's in a declaration of goodwill. If we're going to guess, let's use the most accurate definitions: according to the Lectric Law Library definition of "declaration" [lectlaw.com]:

    A declaration is a written statement submitted to a court in which the writer swears 'under penalty of perjury' that the contents are true. That is, the writer acknowledges that if he is lying, he may be prosecuted for perjury. Declarations are normally used in place of live testimony when the court is asked to rule on a motion.

    A typical declaration sets forth the factual assertions of the person signing it (called the declarant) and ends with a statement worded like this one: 'I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and would be my testimony if I were in a court of law.' The date and place of signing are usually included.

    It goes on from there, but that's the most relevant part.

    Next, let's look at the Merriam-Webster definition of "goodwill" [m-w.com]:

    Main Entry:
    goodwill
    Pronunciation: "gud-'wil
    Function: noun
    Date: before 12th century
    1 a : a kindly feeling of approval and support : benevolent interest or concern b (1) : the favor or prestige that a business has acquired beyond the mere value of what it sells (2) : the value of projected earnings increases of a business especially as part of its purchase price (3) : the value of other intangible assets (as tax credits) of a business especially as part of its purchase price
    2 a : cheerful consent b : willing effort
    - goodwilled /-'wild/ adjective

    We combine the two, and get, essentially, a document saying, under penalty of perjury, you're inclined to feel kindly toward this movie. (NOTE: IANAL, and that may not even be a correct guess.)

    Of course, how can they tell if you're lying? Even if you're inclined to feel kindly toward a movie doesn't mean you necessarily have to like it. I felt kindly toward Soldier going into it, since I like Kurt Russel and I like action movies. But it was utterly awful!
    --

  • Harry Potter gets even better with the third and fourth books. They're rather darker than the first, especially #4. They're better than 1 & 2 in the same way Empire Strikes Back was better than the first Star Wars.
    --

  • Re:"Declaration of goodwill" (Score:4)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @06:22AM (#226217) Homepage Journal
    I know that "goodwill" in the business sense is something entirely different from what we laypeople think of. In the business sense, if I recall rightly, it has to do with buying out another company--goodwill is how much more a company's assets are worth than what you paid for it.

    And then there's the sort of "goodwill" to which you donate clothes and stuff you don't need anymore, and they sell it in their thrift shop . . .

    I'm not sure what sort of parallels you could draw to the movie from this, though. One thing worth noting is that the way the article presents it--no positive or negative opinions, just a simple statement of fact--is actually good, unbiased journalism, technically . . . but it's also quite maddening, because it doesn't tell us anything, give us any qualitative information on which to form an opinion. So we're all just guessing.

    Tomorrow I'll try to ask the local college film professor, who is also a professional reviewer who gets to go on film junkets and the like, what exactly a "declaration of goodwill" is in this context. (If he's around--for all I know, he may be at Cannes!) If I get an answer, I'll post it to this thread.

    I would like to think that a declaration of goodwill is simply a statement saying you don't start with any prejudices against the movie, before ever even having seen it. (It was phrased as a "declaration," after all, which I believe is usually something that just says "I believe such and such," not "I will not do such and such." Though IANAL.) It seems fairly obvious that a lot of journalistic folk are prejudiced against certain kinds of movies (most notably action movies, science fiction, or animation) before ever setting foot in the theaters. With rare exceptions, such people invariably write bad reviews of any genre movie, no matter how good an example it is of its genre.

    For example, take a look at this bit in the NY Times [nytimes.com] (free registration, blah blah blah, I'll let someone else construct the "free" URL because I don't remember how) about upcoming video-game-based movies and how they'll probably all suck. You can see his prejudice oozing from every pore, the way he seems to think the only appeal of Tomb Raider will be Angelina Jolie's measurements and his snide comments about how, based on the 17-minute preview he saw, Final Fantasy "is based on the kind of nebulous New Age science in which the world is controlled by spirits and supernatural forces. It's best appreciated by those who have had a frontal lobotomy" and how the movie would have been better if the voice actors had done the physical acting as well--and also how he can't believe over a hundred million dollars went into making it because "there are no locations, no sets and no acting costs other than voice-overs".

    Only the occasional rare genre movie (such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) can muster the snob cachet to get reviewers to overlook their prejudices. And since bad buzz, especially this early, can do irreparable harm to even the best movie (especially if it cost a lot to make), I can't blame them for wanting to avoid the unfortunate combination of prejudice and unfinished footage. Of course, I'm not sure what they could do, legally, if someone lied about his prejudices . . .
    --

  • ..it doesn't blow like the last attempt to film it, which ran out of money and cut out the last two books to 15 seconds of commentary!

    I know its coming out in 3 films, but have they actually filmed footage for all three ?
  • One of the big monsters was genuinely terrifying.

    At least we can be pretty sure they did the Balrog or the Watcher in the West right, then...that part of the novel always raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

    Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.

  • Lord knows the movie is going to be dumbed down for general consumption and to fit in the 2-3 hr timeframe the directors are given

    On the plus side, there are going to be three movies, so it'll probably be more like 6-7 hours of total running tme.

    --

  • > We all know we'll see it regardless. The hype and buildup over the past year have been phenomenal.

    Your second sentence is what has me worried -- especially after what happened with SWE1.

    A decent movie version of LoTR shouldn't need any hype; they could release it unannounced on a Friday and still have sell-out crowds by Saturday.

    For LoTR (and SWE2), I'm going to stay away in droves until I hear what my friends say about it. (Nice way of avoiding the worst crowds, too.)

    --
  • > I remember when I was 4 years old or so, there was a poster above my bed (I didn't put it there), something to do with the Hobbit. It was a map, IIRC, with a big picture of Smaug on it. It scared the hell out of me. Like Bart Simpson's clown bed. I had nightmares.

    I went to see the "Dinomation" mechanically animated dinosaurs (complete with roars coming out the arses of a few with unfortunate internal speaker placements) way back when it toured my local natural sciences museum. A man was there holding his little kid over the fence so the kid could get a closer look. The kid was kicking and screaming bloody murder, but the man apparently thought the kid was complaining about not being able to get a closer view, so the man just kept leaning further over the fence and pushing the kid closer and closer to the nearest dinosaur.

    Now I think I know how irrational phobias come about. I wonder if the kid went to see Jurassic Park when he grew up.

    --
  • > Does anyone here actually know what was the actual content of this declaration?

    No, I asked to see it, but they wanted me to sign some kind of declaration of goodwill before showing it to me, and I declined. So they wouldn't show it to me.

    --
  • > And so, The Hobbit isn't a "perfect fit" with the newer material about the LOTR universe but it is a part of it.

    FWIW, from a "Note on the Text" just after the TOC on my Houghton-Mifflin edition of The Hobbit:
    The Hobbit was first published in September 1937. Its 1951 second edition (fifth impression) contains a significantly revised portion of Chapter V, Riddles in the Dark, which was done in order to bring the storyline of The Hobbit more in line with its sequel, The Lord of the Rings, then in progress.

    --

  • LoTR: The Subtext Chronicle (Score:3)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @07:45AM (#226225)
    Lord of the Rings: The Subtext Chronicle

    Lord of the Rings: The Subtext Chronicle is a retelling of JRR Tolkien's popular Lord of the Rings, but placed in a realistic modern setting.

    Stripped of its mythological atmosphere, LOTR:TSC becomes a heartwarming tale about a Little Guy who finds his heart's desire (that One Precious Thing), and about the Big Bully who tries to take it away from him.

    We don't want to spoil the ending for you, so we'll just tease you with some comments from people who saw the preview:

    "I yelped in surprise when Cute Penguin suddenly bit Little Guy's finger off!"
    -- Linus Torvalds

    "I thought the way Big Bully got it in the end was most unrealistic, not to mention unpleasant, and it sends the wrong message to young consumers."
    -- Bill Gates

    "I invented the palantiri, too."
    -- Al Gore

    "Goblins are Not Uruk-hai, and the men should have been called GNÚ/Menórians. The license on the rings was almost as bad as most software licenses are."
    -- Richard Stallman

    "That Longbottom Leaf is baaad sh*t!"
    -- Anonymous Coward

    --
  • God I hated that version - very disappointing. It was too much like a cartoon and not magical/ominous enough. The new version looks much more like I expect it to be - they seem to have the right sort of feel to it. I'll be there on opening day!
  • We all know we'll see it regardless. The hype and buildup over the past year have been phenomenal.

  • Tolkien is fundamentally at odds with modern culture, which is why he is being usurped. The same goes for Lewis. Both these men were very devoted Christians, and this showed in their works.
    "'The Lord of the Rings' is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism." (from a letter in 1953 to Robert Murray, a Jesuit priest, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1981)
  • I personally think they are hyping Harry Potter just because it is popular with the kids. Unless they explicitly say "Harry Potter is better than Tolkien", I'd say marketing was rushing the movie to avoid conflict with LOTR, not to ursurp it.

    As for it being kiddie trash, I think Harry Potter has its place. You and I might prefer Tolkien, but personally I wouldn't want to force my preferences on others. Young kids like the books, period. If anything Harry Potter could be a great stepping stone to LOTR.

    In a way I can see how kids might like the story after reading the first two books. I think kids nowadays are growing up in an environment different from the one I grew up in. Although I'm not a parent, if I was one, I hope I understand the elements (beyond just the magic/wizardry) of Harry Potter that my kids resonate with. Who knows? Along the way maybe I'll see how the school environment is different from the one I grew up in, or how kids' perceptions/fears have changed over the years.

    Also, Harry Potter is located in the 'Intermediate
    Reading'part of the Children's book section at Borders, while LOTR is in the 'Science Fiction/Fantasy' section. I can't say I'd compare the two as complete equals (thus showing my own LOTR bias :-)

  • LOTR (Score:2)

    by Sogol ( 43574 )
    The Lord of the Rings [lordoftherings.net] movies look excellent. Not too long ago, we all watched the Episode 1 trailer, and then were rather disappointed by that movie, and disgusted by the hype:quality ratio.
    The Lord of the Rings movies may not have a fan base substantial enough to generate major hype, but the quality should be amzazing. Again I feel the lure of trailers.
  • Just because you smashed "freedom-of-speech" and "reverse-engineering" into the same comment, does not mean you'll get modded up.
    :-) Actually, the LOTR comment was mainly a pretext for moaning about slashdot's new barring system.

  • Is it legal to restrict reviews in this manner? Are such contracts enforceable? If so, in countries with freedom-of-speech laws, can it be got round via reverse-engineering the review? I.e. I write a factual review which is positive and has lots of detail, and my friend reads between the lines and says "it sounds like this film may be a bag of shite"?

    BTW, slashdot's new "ban users from posting based on their subnet" filter is really annoying. And very hypocritical, given that they regularly bash Napster for performing similar blanket bans.

  • "Declaration of goodwill" (Score:4)

    by grytpype ( 53367 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @04:49AM (#226233) Homepage
    I don't think a "declaration of goodwill" is a promise that you'll only say good things about the movie. It is probably a kind of confidentiality agreement, so you won't leak too many details about what you saw, or sneak a camera into the theater. So don't get your elven underwear in a bunch.
  • LOTR was popular but never on the scale of the mass market.

    Well, it's the best book ever (voted by readers many times). So unless you're saying books are not a mass market..

    He'll be great for the Long Expected Party, but he's almost 50 (can't remember exactly) when he leaves on the quest.

    In fact he's 33 (and Bilbo was eleventy-one on the same day). It was Frodo's coming-of-age party, perhaps equivalent to 18 years old in humans. Check out some of the photos of Frodo's eyes (eg. at Weathertop).

    It's this attitude of "ahh fuckit, who cares?" that will doom a movie version of a book to fail.

    I can assure you that Jackson has gone over everything in the minutest detail, revising the script hundreds (thousands?) of times to stay as faithful to the book as possible while still retaining the book's themes. Don't forget that a theme may not carry as well to a screen if the text is strictly translated into pictures. The movies in fact include some new dialogue to this effect.

    You seem to be losing sight of the fact that these are movies and not books. A "movie of the book" does NOT mean reproducing every shallow obvious point, and ignoring things which can only work on paper. It means translating the plot, themes, characters, etc. to a new medium in the most effective way that can be found.

  • I own every book Donaldson has ever published (AFAIK),so if you haven't read them all the go and get them cos they all rock.

    I didn't find it hard to like Covenant, since I understood him. There is really no character you can hate except for Foul. I disliked Trell for a long time, until I understood him.
  • Presumably Frodo will be shown as 33 (hobbit age) during the party scene, and perhaps will have aging features added for the rest of the movie (movie makers are good at that sort of thing).

    If Hanks and Spears were cast then it would not be a success -- the Tolkien fans would boycott, and the average people would feel the movie sucked because those characters did not fit with the rest of the story.

    Have you been following the movie development closely? Here [aintitcool.com] are a couple of reports on a 25 minute unfinished segment of Fellowship of the Ring shown at the Cannes film festival, one from a LOTR fan, and one from a guy who had never read the books and comments from a traditional viewpoint.

  • Quick search on Google:

    Lord of the Rings-- 314,000 hits
    Tolkien-- 162,000
    Hobbit-- 97,600

    Star Wars Movie-- 441,000
    Star Wars George Lucas-- 76,500
    movie "Star Wars"-- 375,000

  • Has anyone see tolkins fan page has been taken down because of legal reasons! I wonder if its because they had the trailer for the upcoming movie on there site. Anyway, it is sad, it was a very nice site.

  • Making the good characters blond and fair-skinned is called Disney-fication. It may be a minor point, but it makes you wonder what else has been mangled. Are there any Phil Collins songs in the soundtrack?

  • What exactly is the restriction? (Score:5)

    by Floyd Turbo ( 84609 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @05:12AM (#226240) Journal
    I read the BBC article, and all it says on the point is that people attending had to sign a "declaration of goodwill". That's not the same, IMHO, as a requirement that any stories printed must be positive. It certainly seems to me that you can write a negative review without violating "goodwill".


    Has anyone here ever been asked to sign such a declaration? Do any of you know the words that were used in this one, or some other one?
    --

  • For example, take a look at this ... about upcoming video-game-based movies and how they'll probably all suck.

    Oh man, you probably haven't heard of Mr Cranky Rates the Movies [mrcranky.com]. It all sucks!

  • Faggots do you have working at slashdot? Stop it! I guess because its Tolkein, you think we might fucking care. Well you thought wrong! Stop with the Gay Anime and Movie Reviews. I mean shit, the hobbit was slightly enteresting in the 5th grade, but fucking get up to speed!

  • I just retch to see every novelist who has to have elf-like creatures, wizard-like creatures, halfling-like creatures, dwarf-like creatures, etc.

    That's probably because all you have read has been crap like Terry Brooks etc. However, there is very good new fantasy too. Robert Jordan has already been mentioned, but try out the Paksenarrion trilogy by Elizabeth Moon and the Deverry series by Katherine Kerr. Both include elves, dwarves and wizards, but they are not Tolkien-clone elves, dwarves and wizards.

    /Dervak

  • There's no way your friend could have seen this several weeks ago in Manchester. First of all, it probably wasn't even put together then. They're deep into post-production, so most of what was shown probably didn't even exist in the current form yet. According to PJ, the film arrived wet at the airport...

    Secondly, there's no reason New Line would want to screen it in Manchester.

    What he could have seen though is the first theatrical teaser trailer for the movie, which has was releases several months ago now. Though I doubt that that was what he saw, because it's a very good trailer and you would have to be extremely cynical and sour to call it 'complete crap'.

  • As far as I know, Disney invented rotoscoping for use in their early features (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty). They certainly used it extensively for such hard-to-animate things as dancing. I have a big old "behind the scenes" book which shows it being done for a really mundane scene from Cinderella though.Of course, the Bakshi concept of "rotoscoping" includes lots of scenes where they just printed high contrast black and white film and splashed random colors on it. Blech.

  • The Hobbit was about how Bilbo aquired The Ring.
    LOTR was about how Frodo got The Ring from Bilbo and had to destroy it...

    /Mikael Jacobson

    "But surely we won't be still stuck with Linux in 25 years!?"
  • The Hobbit was written before LOTR, when Tolkiens children were still kids. Thus, it's a "childrens book" in a way that LOTR isn't. At that time LOTR was only embryonic if even that and things changed between The Hobbit and LOTR. Most importantly things "grew up". And so, The Hobbit isn't a "perfect fit" with the newer material about the LOTR universe but it is a part of it. It's the story of how Bilbo aquired the ring and a story that introduces Gandalf and a lot of the fundamental concepts of Middle Earth. It's not "LOTR light" but it's the perfect place for kids to get their introduction to Tolkien's work, a most "light read" fairt tale kind of story where the "deeper" meaning of things that happen isn't really discovered until reading LOTR. Ofcourse, it's an essential read for every LOTR fan =)

    -

  • Bet they wouldn't dare invite the Filthy Critic" [bigempire.com] to one of their bullshit whoring pseudocritic sessions...
  • They have Elvish linguists teaching them how to speak!

    Real elves? This might have larger ramifications than just the movie...

  • The First Amendment does not say you can say whatever you want. It says the government cannot regulate what you say.

    The government regulates and enforces private contracts. Therefore, contracts are Federal private law. The First Amendment is unalienable [everything2.com] under Federal law.

    But all of this is offtopic because the article does not mention the United States.

    If people didn't want to live under the restrictions of the declaration (whatever they may be), then said people simply should not have signed.

    I understand, but offtopic hypothetical: If you don't agree with the terms of the only contract that the monopoly provider of an essential service provides, what is your recourse?

    DISCLAIMER: nothing you see on /. is legal advice

  • most stores don't return opened software because of piracy issues.

    Could a fellow argue that when you buy software from the store, all parties involved (including the retailer) agree to the terms printed on the box, which include "end user gets full refund if end user does not agree to the full EULA, even after the box is opened"? Of course, I am probably talking out my rear end.

  • Yeah, Donaldson stuff is pretty damn good - good 3-D characters and imaginative situations. Trouble is, Donaldson is too fond of himself. He's a great fan of using long or uncommon words to show he's clever rather than actually bcos they fit in. And he's too-obviously looked them up in the thesaurus rather than them being words he'd use naturally - the same words come up again and again (IIRC, "crepuscular" is one of his favourites in TCtU) which demonstrates a lack of real vocabulary. Both TCtU series and the Gap-war series suffer from that (in the Gap-war series, he can't get over how clever he was at inventing the matter cannon). But if you can put up with the slightly pretentious bits every now and again, Donaldson is good. The Gap-war series is brilliant for the imagination and sheer depth; just a shame it occasionally goes off the scale on the pretentiometer! Best is the short story collection "Daughter of Regals" - highly recommended. Grab.
  • More to the point, it would be an infringement on Constitutional rights to deny the ability to give up rights.
  • Tolkien started the trend, and for that I'm grateful. He even plotted a decent set of books. But as a writer, he pretty much blew

    But remember, Tolkien wasn't a novel writer, per se. The Lord of the Rings wasn't (only) a novel written for you and me, it was also the manifestation of his scholarly work as professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. It was also merely a milestone in the process of writing his Silmarillion.

    In short, LOTR is to some extent a novel, but to a much greater extent (an attempt at) a Saga. He wasn't aspiring to write something to compete with, say, The Great Gatsby, but rather something that would stand comparison with the likes of Beowulf (one of his academic specialities) or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and perhaps give him some insight into how these works came into being.

    He's buried with his Luthien (Edith Mary Tolkien) about 2 miles south of here. I seem to be following him. Before living here I used to live in Hall Green, Birmingham, near Sarehole where JRRT grew up (Sarehole, The Shire?)

    TomV

  • Try "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever." This is a great fantasy series. The protaginist has Leprosy, and is somehow summoned to a world where magic works and his disease can be cured. However, he doesn't believe that the world is real, and so through the entire series he acts like a bastard. After the first 50 pages of this series you find it really hard to like Covenant, but you keep reading to see what happens. It ain't Tolkein, but it is good.
  • But there is no blond human in the nine. Boromir and Aragorn are BOTH black haired, read the description of Boromir in Rivendell

    Seriously, why do you even care about such a small detail? I mean, if you were going to be any more nit-picky, next thing you'll be complaining that Galadriel's fork has the wrong number of tines on it in the scene where the party eats dinner with the Elves. Or something like that.

    Even the uh, "augmented" love story between Aragorn and Arwen... it doesn't bother me too much, as long as it doesn't change the main focus of the movie. I don't like it, but... it's a pretty minor detail.

    If you're going to bitch about every little difference between LOTR (or any book) and the movie version... well, seriously... you know you're going to be dissappointed 100% of the time. Just stay away from the movies, and do us a favor and be quiet about it. It will be easier on all of us, including you.

    http://www.bootyproject.org [bootyproject.org]
  • Hrm, so it's not nit-picking, but rather the fact that a change in someone's hair color is a sign of a larger problem; some faithlessness to the book?

    I would agree with that, however... it does seem to me that they are staying true to the spirit of the books. The larger themes and "feel" seem to be there, at least in the snippets that have been released so far.

    Remember, it's not the tines on Galadriel's fork or Boronir's hair color that made the books so wonderful in the first place. It was the amazing characters, and the amazing adventures and stories.

    For example, Elijah Wood probably isn't fat enough to be a hobbit, even though Frodo was not as fat as most hobbits (and indeed, shed quite a few pounds during the journey). However, I love the choice of him as Frodo. From the pictures I've seen so far, he looks perfect for the role. That look in his eyes... it's just how I always imagined Frodo looking. A mixture of inner strength and scared shitlessness... as he embarks on a quest that he has no hope of surviving, no idea of how to accomplish, and yet the world is resting on his shoulders. To me, that's more important than details like eye color or hair color or whatever.

    Now, there are a few thing that have disturbed me, from what I've heard of the second trailer... Gandalf is described as "panicky", and apparently the Nine here a whispered "my precioussssss" in the Mines of Moria. Now, Gandalf was many things, but never panicky. And the Nine never heard Gollum speak in Moria... but we can assume he was following the Nine at the time, so this "embellishment" can be somewhat understood.

    Anyway, agree that changing things from the book is a Bad Thing, but I'm not going to sweat little details like hair color. Now genuine, big changes like Gandalf's character, etc, I have a tougher time swallowing, and don't like.

    http://www.bootyproject.org [bootyproject.org]
  • This only applies to us suckers who keep a windows box laying around, but if you went to the LOTR official site and thought you were gonna get a cool screensaver and were really dissappointed... This guy [uselesscreations.com] did it much better.

  • I think the "goodwill" premise is ill-informed (Score:5)

    by Flailey ( 154944 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @06:43AM (#226259)
    Is there any more info on this "declaration of goodwill" besides the BBC article? If not, I don't think there's any way you can assume that journalists are held from making negative comments. I work in music/entertainment publicity and the term goodwill or good faith generally means that you don't misrepresent yourself. For journalists that usually means that if you are granted an interview, say, you are honest about what it's for... for example that it's for the TV show you work on and not some private book project, or that if you ask for quotes for a "story about jazz" it's not really for a story about how your ex-girlfriend says you beat her. Basically it just means that you agree to act in a professional manner.

    In the case of this screening, absent other evidence, I would strongly assume that the intent was to prevent any smuggling of images or plot devices, etc... I find it extremely hard to believe that a journalist would be prevented from commenting generally that what they saw was uninteresting, poorly done, etc... Just about every news organization has strong policies that prevent all of their reporters from entering into such agreements.

  • Not Censorship b/c Not the Government (Score:3)

    by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @06:50AM (#226260) Homepage Journal
    Blockquoth the poster:
    Whatever happened to the concept that *NO* law, contract, etc, could circumvent your Constitutional rights?
    Um, exactly what Constitutional right would that be? The First Amendment does not say you can say whatever you want. It says the government cannot regulate what you say.

    Historically, the courts have been very friendly toward contracts voluntarily entered into. All contracts restrict your rights somewhat, if only in the simple sense of, "By selling this and receiving X money, you give up the right to use or access this car." As long as no coercion is used to secure the contract, how can you stake a philosophical battle over it? If people didn't want to live under the restrictions of the declaration (whatever they may be), then said people simply should not have signed.

    Of course, without signing, they would be barred from the viewing. Oh, well. It's not like they --- or we -- have an unmitigated, natural "right" to see the viewing.

    Whenever someone throws a tantrum over a ficticious "violation" of their Constitutional guarantees, it cheapens those guarantees and makes it harder for more rational people to safeguard them when they really matter and are really under assault.

  • I remember when I was 4 years old or so, there was a poster above my bed (I didn't put it there), something to do with the Hobbit. It was a map, IIRC, with a big picture of Smaug on it. It scared the hell out of me. Like Bart Simpson's clown bed. I had nightmares.

  • As a Tolkien fan, I've been watching the progress of the movie with some care, and I'd like to say that I'm quite happy with the way it is supposed to be going. While I do not intend to spoil your experience (this you can do at theonering.net [theonering.net]), it seems to me that the movie is in good hands. As far as I see it, it is neither an over-simplification, nor an exact duplicate of the books.

    Superficially, Tolkien's style may appear obscure and overcomplicated. However, when one considers it, it is only natural that the characters have be submerged so deep into the universe Tolkien described, since it is their universe. It is impossible to make LoTR a movie directly from the books: too much of the "action" occurs in the characters' thought or surfaces in their memory. A movie needs to focus us on a set certain plots.

    As I said earlier, the forthcoming movie seems to do quite a good job in staying true to LoTR and in the same time transforming it into a movie. This is one film I'm going to see this winter.

  • Let's be realistic here. What the declaration of goodwill means is that in return for getting a chance to see an advanced preview of an unfinished work, you agree that you won't rag on it, BECAUSE IT'S AN UNFINISHED WORK - but you can feel free to talk about how cool it is.

    I think this is pretty reasonable, in this context (a screening of an unfinished artistic work). If you had walked in on Picasso producing one of his works, and you had been allowed to view the unfinished canvas, it would have been in awefully bad taste if you had told everyone how much it sucked.

    Give the guys a break, and let them finish making their movie. THAT's what the declaration of goodwill means.

    But is it binding. Hell if I know. I'd have to read the declaration first, after babelfish translates it from French.

  • A Vision of the Future (Score:4)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @05:38AM (#226264) Journal
    Maybe I just need coffee, but I just had this flash of speculation of some aspects UCITA copyright law and licensing being applied to entertainment. Of course this is Europe, where they don't do things quite the same way as in the US. and UCITA is not the same as the DCMA

    During the Opening credits:

    "This film is licensed for you one time only in the exchange for the fee of a movie ticket, or a movie rental, all for the purposes of your viewing pleasure. Ownership for puroses of indefinite viewing is prohibited under Law."

    [Insert incredible legalese for 1 to 5 minutes of scrolling]

    "In exchange for the priveledge of viewing this entertainment, you also agree to not write or speak about about elements of this entertainment in a public or private forum without prior approval of the proprietors of the establishment providing you with this licensed viewing, and the owners of this Licensed property. This prohibition includes discussion and opinion expressed on TV shows, Radio shows, message forums, and other media online and offline."

    [Insert more legal blather]

    " If you dis-agree with these conditions, Please Leave the theater now and Ask for a refund. If You are viewing via a rental, cancel the streaming media immediately and ask your service provider for as refund. Violation of this license can lead to substantial fines and imprisonment"

    Seems like something that someone might want someday.

    Terry Gillium ought to do a satirical film with just this sort of premise.

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

  • Overreaction and speculation? (Score:3)

    by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @03:00PM (#226265)
    In the five or six pieces I've read about the footage only the BBC one mentions the declartion of goodwill. Even the BBC mention is just a single sentence with no information on the actual content of the thing. So maybe all this fuss over one sentence out of hundreds is a bit of an overreaction. Still, it's fun to speculate.

    It seems to me that there are two likely possibilities for the content of the declaration. It could be a promise not to say anything negative. Since we haven't seen anything negative it's hard to dismiss this. However I would have expected at least someone to squeal long and loud about it if this were the case. All we've had is one line in a single story.

    The other possibility is that the declaration was an agreement not to review the footage as it isn't finished. Something along the lines of "describe what you see here if you like, but please don't review it". This is something that the guy from New Line, and the director Peter Jackson who introduced the showing reportedly stressed. I hope and think this is more likely.

  • "In exchange for the priveledge of viewing this entertainment, you also agree to not write or speak about about elements of this entertainment in a public or private forum without prior approval of the proprietors of the establishment providing you with this licensed viewing, and the owners of this Licensed property. This prohibition includes discussion and opinion expressed on TV shows, Radio shows, message forums, and other media online and offline."
    There may be some slight legitimacy to this concern. I have been asked by news reporters, not once but twice, if my site [moviepooper.com], moviepooper.com, has drawn the attention of the studios' legal departments. The good news is that either (1) I'm too small for them to even notice, or (2) they realize that a cease and desist order would violate my Constitutional rights. It's prolly (1).
  • Tolkien said it all, and there's been no one of similar genius to push the field farther.
    Once again, to draw a distinct line between fantasy as a generic term, and the kind of "high fantasy" that Tolkien wrote, there definitely was a similar genius who pushed the field much farther than Tolkien did: Jorge Luis Borges. Try wrapping your mind around the fantasy of The Library of Babel [westnet.com] for a while. 15 minutes to read, a lifetime to understand.
  • Thanks for the link to the reviews. You're right - none of the reviewers there mention having to sign anything. Maybe the BBC are mistaken.

    HH

  • Completely unnecessary... (Score:3)

    by wrinkledshirt ( 228541 ) on Sunday May 13, 2001 @09:46AM (#226269) Homepage

    I'm surprised -- talk about a totally unnecessary tactic. They should have taken the conventional hollywood approach to bad press, if they were worried about it.

    Before:

    "This was an unbelievably bad movie. There was absolutely nothing worthwhile about it. You'd be better off if you don't bother to see this movie and decided upon just staying at home."

    After:

    "This was...unbelievably...worthwhile...don't bother...staying at home."

  • No, you don't get a refund. With shrink-wrap licenses, you have to open the product before even viewing the license - most stores don't return opened software because of piracy issues.

    As far as this being a Gilliam vehicle - I think the premise would get a bit worn after an hour and a half. What would be interesting is to get all the old pythons together and make meaning-of-life-esque movie with skits depicting the paradoxes of copyright enforcement.
  • Does it say that on the box? I never noticed. So I suppose the stores would then be agreeing to a shipping-box license by seeing that only after they remove the individual packages from the cardboard boxes they arrive in. On anoter level, the shippers would be agreeing to a container-wrap license as they don't see the shipping boxes within the containers provided by the manufacturer, etc. Obviously, this just goes to show how rediclous the whole shrink-wrapped license concept is. Hell, they have to give disclaimers at the end of radio ads - I don't see why they shouldn't have to verbally read you the EULA before you purchase the product.
  • How good can it be when they get simple details wrong? Have you seen the trailer? At the end it has the party climbing through mountains (presumably Caradhras, though not certain). Not only does Gandalf look unlike himself (Charlton Heston or even Sean Connery would have looked better), but they got something else strangely wrong. There is a blond haired, bearded human walking with the party. Rounded ears, he's human, not Legolas.

    But there is no blond human in the nine. Boromir and Aragorn are BOTH black haired, read the description of Boromir in Rivendell. So how can we trust the judgement of moviemakers who can't be bothered to research the characters they're representing?

    -Kasreyn
  • Have you ever seen a fantasy novel where the cover painting of the characters bears almost no resemblance to the actual characters in the book? Refer to almost any cover illustration ever done by Darrel K. "The Mangler" Sweet to see what I mean.

    Some people are incapable of reproducing things accurately, and they're not to be blamed (or employed). Others simply aren't devoted enough to care.

    The tines on Galadriel's fork? Well, it would be very cool if they reproduced details that small. But I don't consider trying to make the characters look their their counterparts unimportant. It doesn't even need to involve casting! Just give him a shave and some black hair coloring for god's sakes. But they can't be bothered.

    It's this attitude of "ahh fuckit, who cares?" that will doom a movie version of a book to fail.

    -Kasreyn
  • But I always considered Boromir's appearance to be a minor plot point: He's dark haired and grey eyed like Aragorn, but Aragorn passes the test of the Ring and Boromir does not. I always saw that as Tolkien saying, "See, this is not a physical thing, the blood of Westernesse is a quality of character more than of body."

    But whatever.

    Elijah Wood for Frodo? I suppose it could work, though to me he'll always seem too young for the role. He'll be great for the Long Expected Party, but he's almost 50 (can't remember exactly) when he leaves on the quest.

    Gandalf being panicky is definitely not good. I can remember him being excited, even (as Treebeard would put it), hasty, but never panicked.

    And as for gollum... there are some things that don't lend themselves to the big screeen very well. In LOTR, the only indication of a pursuer was when the Hobbits would hear Gollum's feet behind them in the caves. This sort of subtlety is simply lost utterly in a movie, especially with a soundtrack playing. So they probably decided to make Gollum's pursuit more obvious.

    I mean, cmon - it'll still be a suprise to the ones who've never read LOTR, and those who have will already know he's there. I guess it can't hurt that much. What worries me more are the plans for Aragorn and Arwen. I am SERIOUSLY upset the more I read about this.

    The love of Aragorn for Arwen Undomiel is MOST importantly an unrequited love. Elrond has told him that he will give his daughter to no lesser man than the King of a reunited Gondor and Arnor. And I worry about the characterization of Arwen. They're probably going to get some hollywood bimbo with glitter on her cheeks to fall all over Aragorn. God only knows if there'll be a tawdry sex scene.

    The REAL Arwen is over 2500 years old at the beginning of the War of the Rings! An attempt should be made to show how lonely and sad and ageless she is. And her beauty shouldn't be the blinding beauty of a hollywood sex goddess, but the sublime beauty of a elven Queen, living vision of Luthien.

    How likely is it that any moviemaker can ever pull these off in a way that has "mass market" appeal? LOTR was popular but never on the scale of the mass market.

    At best this movie will probably just make me feel, "Wow, this strange movie bears a striking resemblance to the Lord of the Rings."

    -Kasreyn

  • He was 33 (his coming of age) at the long expected party. But it several years later before he left on the quest. I believe it was 9 years later, but I'm not exactly certain. That would make him at least 42.

    Plus the most popular book ever is, of course, the Bible. Ask any publisher. The Bible has mass market appeal. The LOTR does not. LOTR has quite a few million sold. The Bible has well over 2 billion sold. As for mass market, I mean something that the majority (ie the lowest common denominator) will enjoy. The whole concept of mass market is to cater to the lowest common denominator - you'll have the largest posible market that way. Not that I want a LOTR movie that caters to the lowest common denominator. But any offering that aims higher will lose market appeal in direct correlation to how much higher it aims. Any faithful representation of the LOTR on the big screen, I feel will have a fairly small audience.

    It's not going to work out well. The Tolkien fans will all be miffed over some story change. And of the non Tolkien fans, maybe 70% will just be confused and not get it. This is assuming a faithful rendering, of course. If they dumb it down and cast Tom Hanks as Aragorn and Britney Spears as Arwen then I think it will have tons of fans.

    -Kasreyn
  • Unless your friend is referring to the animated version [imdb.com] from 1978, my guess is he saw Dungeons & Dragons [imdb.com] and got confused.

  • That's why there's been nothing new under the sun in Fantasy for so long - Tolkien said it all

    I think it depends on your terms. If you mean "high fantasy" with elves, trolls, dragons, etc. etc. then I think Tolkein pretty much killed the subgenre by perfecting it. Why people like Brooks bother to pastiche him is beyond my understanding. Probably because there's scads of money in it I suppose...

    Now, "fantasy" in general is by definition an open basket, and I don't think Tolkein's stuff is even really all that great. When you get out of the realm of "high fantasy" I think you'll find some really great material. If you demand nothing but elves, dwarves and hobgoblins, well, then you're probably the kind of person who reads "star trek" novelizations...

    For fantasy that will blow your mind, try some Tim Powers. "The Anubis Gates", or "The Drawing of The Dark" should get you started.

  • Manufacturing Consent [zmag.org]

    Ewige Blumenkraft!
  • "there's been nothing new under the sun in Fantasy for so long - Tolkien said it all"

    I'd like to agree with on this, being a hardcore Tolkien fan. However, there is a reason why it would seem this way and not actually be.
    The problem is that you've setup your perspective of the fantasy genre in the image of Tolkien's works; you've made tolkien the basis for the category.
    How could any author write something that will live up to the expectations of this perspective without actually being a Tolkien book?
    There are many works out there that could be considered the equal to Tolkien's (or superior), so long as you broaden the scope of your expectations.
    Tolkien will always be the best, if you expect every great fantasy novel to be his.

    I agree with the Piers Anthony statement (read "Omnivore"), but what could he possibly do, short of copying Tolkien's style?
  • I don't think they're comparable.

    The HP books revolve around English people who just happen to also be witches and wizards, and the magic school that HP goes to is a warped but somewhat recognizable version of an English public school. LOTR on the other hand is set in a completely invented landscape that doesn't very directly evoke or parody or relate to anything in the real world, which is part of what makes it such an impressive feat of fantasy.

    They're very different. And as another thread says, the HP books are suitable for smaller kids (my 6-year old loves it) while LOTR (or even the Hobbit) may be a bit too complex and scary.

  • "Wrong country, the article fails to mention the US. Different laws in different countries, think about it. Although I think it is wrong though to make people sign such contracts, this didn't occur in the US. "

    Yes, actually it does, all the time. When was the last time you ever saw benchmarks comparing the performance of Windows 2000 Server to NT Server? Microsoft uses such "agreements" to supress such information. Recently, there was a supressed test that showed that SQL server was faster under NT than 2000.

    I wouldn't doubt that before long, Intel takes similar measures to pevent their processors from being accurately benchmarked against AMD chips without fear of legal harassment.
  • "Stuff like that. Anyway, I'll reiterate how helplessly useless american laws are in other countries and congradulate you on such great election results. Yeesh."

    Despite the flamebaiting, you DO have an interesting point... Since most corporations these days (especially software, media and entertainment) are international these days, what binding would such "waiver" have on you were you an American who saw it, thought it sucked, went back to the USA and banged out your column stating just that?
  • "I can see the studio's side of it -- they're not showing a movie, they're showing some raw material that they're going to use to make a movie. But it was a dumb thing to make people sign those agreements, because by all accounts they weren't necessary, and now there will be a cloud of doubt hanging over the initial buzz."

    This kind of stupidy pervades the whole entertainment industry these days. Rather than produce the best product they can, they'd rather produce schlock like Britney Spears, "The Mummy" etc, and then spend more money MARKETING them than they would have had to to produce a good product. But then, a good product in the world of entertainment requires creativity, and creativity is unpredictable. Unpredictability is bad for the bottom line.

    Goes back to what I tell everyone about reading ANYTHING in the media... Don't believe them until you see it for yourself. If you go see the movie and you think it's great, then it's GREAT. If you go see it and you think it sucks, then it SUCKS (which is what I thought of Titanic and SW Episode I, despite how BADLY I wanted to love it.)

    If the movie you go to SUCKS in your opinion, be more wary of going to the next movie made by that producer/writer/director/actors/movie company.
  • Are such contracts enforceable?

    I would suspect the primary enforcement is that, if you break the agreement, you won't get invited to any more early screenings. If a critic were to piss off enough studios in this manner he might soon find himself hard-pressed to find material to review.

  • We all know we'll see it regardless. The hype and buildup over the past year have been phenomenal.

    But don't forget that they've already made two more movies after this one. If this first one sucks, they might be out a lot of money.

  • I thought the Bakshi version was good. His style of animation really fit the story. It was disapointing how it just ended in the middle. I wish he would finish it with another release. http://www.animazing.com/fa_bakshi.html
  • So, you are saying the most read fantsy trilogy ever doesn't have much of a fan base. For many fantsy reader (most probably) it was their introduction to the genre. They could make 50 different movies about it and all of them suck and fans will still go to the 51st looking for the one that does justice to the books.
  • I don't expect absolute fidelity to the book. Movies are different than books and visuals are important. I do however hope for the feel of the books to come through.
  • And those of us who remember Bakshi's aborted attempt in the late seventies have been waiting twenty years for this. I think they know they can't screw it up again. So far, it looks promising.
    -----------------
  • If you've read and loved the book, why would you EVER want to go see a movie that will change the way the tale looks in your imagination forever?
  • Anyone else noticeing how they're aiming Harry Potter to usurp Tolkien's books? This first became obvious to me on the night of "Goblit Of Fire"'s release. I was up lait and ABC was hypeing how great of a book it was. Valuable lessons to be taught to children and how great it was. Best fantasy books of all time. The writer is British. Multiple books that some may deem too long for children. This all sounded very familiar. Now I am positive as they're rushing the Harry Potter movie to roughly the release date of Lord Of The Rings. Sorry, I'm not going to take this corporate endorsed kiddie trash over Tolkien. And personally I wont have my kids reading Harry Potter. They'll get out my dusty old battered copy of Lord Of The Rings. I've read this supposedly great series and it was quite boreing. Only fools would try dethroneing Tolkien.
  • 'I don't think it will be a film for children. One of the big monsters was genuinely terrifying.'

    Yeah, no kidding the movie is not for kids. It had better not be for kids, anyway. LOTR is hands down one of the best books ever, mostly because of the incredible intertwining storylines and unbelievingly detailed history of Middle Earth. Lord knows the movie is going to be dumbed down for general consumption and to fit in the 2-3 hr timeframe the directors are given; I just hope they would, at the very least, salvage the powerful imagery used by J.R.R. Tolkien. IMO, I think Peter Jackson is really setting himself for the Big Hurt if he doesn't give us an accurate portrayal of the greatest story (history?) on earth.

    Of course, I'll probably be watching it no matter how dumbed down it is.

  • Was that the animated version that was drawn completely over the traditionally shot footage? I've only seen it as a grainy, oft-copied bootleg.. and it only went part of the way through the film, but it it was brilliantly done...

  • I do not mean to flame BUT... What in the FUCK (tm) is THAT supposed to mean?? Which Final Fantasy game?? There is over 10 of them. It is VERY MUCH Final Fantasy, where the next game has "no relation" to the previous one. It is like a new Final Fantasy, except on film rather than as a game. It would be interesting to see FFIV acted out, though... (Although it would get butchered in the process, nevermind).
  • ... in Manchester, UK, several weeks ago. Either it's not the same film (how many "Lords of the Rings" films are there out there on limited release in the UK right now?), or his opinion of it being complete crap is misguided.
  • A movie critic is not about to go out and say somthing good about a movie just because they are not permitted to say bad stuff, if there was nothing good for them to say in this case they would say nothing© The critics have had plenty of good to say about this 25 minutes©
  • yeah, the best book every voted for by a lot of people that read a grand total of 3 books in their life. You can't vote for the best book ever unless you've read them all. Tolkien is good, sure, no doubt about that, but there is competition. Hobb. Martin. Kay. (I wont mention Jordan :) As for movies being made from books - for those that read the books the movies will ALWAYS be a dissapointment. For the simple fact that people imagine themselves a world full of details, and the world a movie shows them will never be as beautiful or detailed as they have imagined it.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a clone.

Close