Lord of the Rings News from New Zealand 181
wonton_mein writes "The New Zealand Herald is doing some daily coverage of the LOTR - TTT. Can't wait for Dec. 18."
I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
Broad I Guess... (Score:5, Informative)
Large Size [theonering.net]
Medium Size [theonering.net]
Small Size [theonering.net]
Frame by Frame Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Frame by Frame [theonering.net]
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Was this not given any foresight?
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:1)
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:2, Funny)
Except he caught that I was mincing words and then asked "what about Gandalf?" So ... oh well.
How can there be spoilers, I read the books (Score:1)
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:5, Informative)
MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu]
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't read the book, you shouldn't see the movie. So if some of this stuff is a spoiler to you YOU DESERVE IT I've said this a thousand times... watching this movie without reading the books will RUIN the experience. Don't miss out on some of the greatest literature of the 20th century, read the book(s) now before it's too late!
Not just plot spoilers, visual spoilers too! (Score:3, Interesting)
Chill out, man. While I do agree that the book should be read first, it should be noted that the movie isn't a perfect translation from the book. For FOTR, the whole love story was practically squat in the book, there was no Lurtz, Frodo wasn't the one that found the password, etc. I realize those aren't huge plot points but there are a lot of departures from the book.
:)
And apart from that, there's simply the whole visual aspect of things being spoiled. I don't recall seeing that huge, badassed 3D Balrog in the book, for example. Obvious, but I think that it's a pretty good point. I've been trying to minimize my exposure to this movie, PARTICULARLY with the Ents, just so I can behold their total coolness on the big screen. That'd still be just as much a spoiler as if I hadn't read the book.
Your real point is still quite valid though. Any self-respecting human that hasn't read LOTR yet should buy a copy [amazon.com] immediately
Re:Not just plot spoilers, visual spoilers too! (Score:1, Insightful)
I have since read The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring. I loved them both. I struggled trying to decide whether to read The Two Towers before or after the movie. If I read it before then I will probably not like the movie as much, how could it match my own imagination?? If I see the movie first then my imagination will be tainted by someone else's vision. I decided to avoid the poison and read the book first. This way it will be my adventure that I experience and not Peter Jackson's. I have read the first have in the last two days and will try to finish it before the movie starts next week.
Reading what I have already read, I am more anxious to see the movie. I can't wait to read The Return of the King. If I read fast enough I may even finish before the 18th!!
Re:Not just plot spoilers, visual spoilers too! (Score:1)
As the movie is expicitly aimed to people who have read the book, I think you can be assured that your experience of the film will be enhanced by having read the book beforehand.
I'm reading through _The Two Towers_ right now, in time for the premiere, but for me it's about the twelwth time.
For best results: Books, then movies. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't worry too much about that. I've read the books several times before watching the movie, and I would say that Peter Jackson et al did very well in bringing the book to life. Sure the movie has lots of things missing, and the occasional thing done not very well, but all in all a good job that even surpassed my imagination in some places.
I think the book touched me emotionally far more than the movie ever could. Tolkien's writing gives a supernatural splendor to the the most common things, contrasted against the looming darkness. The movie made me gawk at the amazing visuals. :) Book, then movie, and neither will take away from the other.
After reading the trilogy and watching all three movies (after they're released of course), go and read the Silmarillion. Read it more than once - the style of writing is very matter-of-fact, which makes for hard reading, but the second time is easier. It is truely epic, and if you manage to follow it you'll look at the story in the Lord of the Rings with a new perspective.
Silmarillion (Score:2, Informative)
Silmarillion, then LotR again (Score:2)
Highly recommended.
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it seems reading the books will ruin the movie experience. The most vocal whiners have been people who have read the books. I was going to read the books after seeing the first movie, but then I read all the whining and nit-picking from people that had read the books and thought I don't want to become like that.
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:2)
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:2)
Though I've had this fail for 2 movies/books. The movie "Silence of the Lambs" was better than the book. Ninth gate was a stripped down version of "The Club Dumas" by Arturo Perez-Reverte. If you saw the movie first, the book was a disappointment. If you read the book first, the movie was a major disappointment.
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:1)
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:2)
Seriously, she used to make fun of people like this. And it was the movie that paved the way.
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:2)
The Lord of the Rings was, at its time, groundbreaking and innovative. But it was still badly written and poorly designed.
The climax of the entire story happens less than halfway through the final book, and is done via the predestined actions of a minor character. Most of the really good parts happen off camera-; rather than actually capturing them in prose, Tolkien decided to simply suggest them--thus making each person imagine them by themself.
Yes, it was groundbreaking. Yes, I wouldn't have either my favorite genre or my favorite game without it. But it was hardly among "the greatest literature of the 20th century." Most important maybe, but not "greatest."
"There was a lot missing in the movie from the book."
"What?"
"All the parts that sucked, for one..."
Re:Broad I Guess... (Score:1)
Already got tickets (Score:1)
Re:Already got tickets (Score:1)
Do what i did... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Already got tickets (Score:2)
Gollum Song Video (Score:5, Informative)
Large (11.8mb) [theonering.net]
Med (2.2mb) [theonering.net]
Small (970k) [theonering.net]
(Note: these are in Quicktime)
Re:Gollum Song Video (Score:2, Insightful)
which have enough spoiler in them them selves.
I know people who have not read the books, so putting that charater in the trailer was poor judgment.
Yes most people have read the books, but thay already know, its the few who havent seen it that the trailer should be geared to.
Re:Gollum Song Video (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gollum Song Video (Score:1)
Plot twists aren't relevant, most great works are meant to be a single uninterrupted unit, without prior knowledge. Every decent movie or book has a plot twist (how many of you expected X to happen to Y at point A in anything you've ever read or seen?) There's always something you don't expect. We're not psychics here.
One of my great regrets as a child was reading the Encyclopedia of Middle Earth before LotR. I knew the end before I got to the beginning. There is nothing more anticlimactic than reading or watching what you'd known was going to happen.
Re:Gollum Song Video (Score:2)
If you think in any way that I've ruined those stories for you, you're mad. If you think that most people who went to see the original plays didn't know those stories ahead of time, you're also mad.
In a journey, you largely know where you are going and the route you will take. It's a matter of enjoying, not "knowing," the route that matters.
Re:Gollum Song Video (Score:2)
Anyway, the entire point of this thread was that he was making readers aware what level of spoiler info there was in the linked material. If you don't care about spoilers, then you don't have to heed the warning, but don't go insulting those who like surprises in their entertainment.
Re:Gollum Song Video (Score:2)
Have no fear, MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] plays them without problem.
Umm.. (Score:2, Funny)
Some links (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some places around the web for more TTT info/media:
http://www.darthscreencapture.com/LOTR/ttt.html [darthscreencapture.com]: Trailers and previews.
The Lord of the Rings : The Two Towers Official Movie Site [lordoftherings.net]: The name says it all.\
TheOneRing.net(TM)| Lord of the Rings Movie News and Rumors [theonering.net]: Very useful news site.
TolkienMovies.com - Lord of the Rings Movie News, Rumors, Photos [tolkien-movies.com]: Alot of available stuff, but nicely colated.
Hope that helps...
Don't forget the "hate speech" link (Score:5, Insightful)
Naming this movie "The Two Towers" is hate speech, according to the folks at www.twotowersprotest.org [twotowersprotest.org].
Why?
You insensitive clod, it's because "The Two Towers" somehow reminds us of the World Trade Center towers. (Never mind that the towers never went by that name. They were the "Twin Towers" in some circles. I never heard "Two Towers")
I can't find any references to protests about the title of "K19: Widowmaker" -- talk about an insensitive title!
Sigh.
I'm wandering even farther off topic, please excuse me:
My grandfather just passed away, and he was cremated. Garrison Keillor, in his "News from Lake Wobegon" tonight on the Prairie Home Companion radio show, told an extended joke about a grandma who would take "grandpa" (an urn) down off the shelf around christmas time, so he could spend time with the family. Think about it -- this can be quite funny, all the odd situations that go on with an urn in the picture.
Obviously, I had rather mixed feelings hearing this, given my family's recent loss.
But should I be mad at Keillor for telling this joke? Is it in poor taste?
I'm willing to say of course not! Humor, art, literature, movies talk about stuff that happens in life.
You could try to restrict the content of art forms so as not to offend anybody... but you'd never succeed.
This two towers thing is JUST A COINCIDENCE, and not to obvious a one at that. It never even ocurred to me until I'd read about this protest.
Stop to consider that sometimes protests like this just make the whole situation worse.
Off the soapbox... sorry for the rant...
(Go out and enjoy the movie!!! I got my tickets already.
- Peter
Re:Don't forget the "hate speech" link (Score:1)
Re:Don't forget the "hate speech" link (Score:2, Informative)
We believe that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema's actions are in fact hate speech. The movie is intentionally being named The Two Towers in order to capitalize on the tragedy of September 11. Clearly, you cannot deny the fact that this falls under hate speech. We believe that if they will not willingly change the name, the government should step in to stop the movie's production or to force a name change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the second book named 'The Two Towers' - Therefore, the movie is intentionally being named 'The Two Towers' because that was the name of the book its based on. That has nothing to do with capitalising on the tragedy. Are they going to try and get the name of the book changed as well?
Re:Don't forget the "hate speech" link (Score:2)
asking if they also wanted the publisher to retroactively collect all the books that had the title in it including the ones published before 2001....
Re:Don't forget the "hate speech" link (Score:1)
Re:Don't forget the "hate speech" link (Score:1)
Sauron is Bin Laden, Gandalf is Dick Cheney (remember how he disapeared for a bit... just like the balrog thing), Aragorn is Colin Powell, Frodo is George Bush, Helms Deep is Iraq.
It's all so obvious. Though I'm not sure how we're going to get the giant eagles to help us in the final battle against Bin Laden's forces.
International Release Dates (Score:5, Informative)
Release Dates [theonering.net]
Re:International Release Dates (Score:2)
Sucks.
Re:International Release Dates (Score:5, Funny)
It's revenge. Revenge for Japan getting all the cool toys years before we do.
I still can buy a Toshiba Libretto [dynamism.com] without spending an arm and a leg.
Re:International Release Dates (Score:1)
American English? (Score:2, Insightful)
About the movie (no spoilers) (Score:2, Interesting)
1) much more action than the first one
2) less dramatic/emotinal slowdown.
3) Golum is the best done CGI character to date.
can't wait to see it again
Re:About the movie (no spoilers) (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, I liked the first movie, but it becomes such a better told story with the extended edition, when all the "dramatic/emotional slowdowns" that have been cut from the release version are added back.
After your post, I dread going to the theater on the 18th to see a pure action flick, a James Bond movie with swords and elves. And that would suck, since Lord of the Rings can be so much more than that.
Re:About the movie (no spoilers) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About the movie (no spoilers) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:About the movie (no spoilers) (Score:1)
But in all honesty, people wouldnt like a strict following of the book format of this one, where the book tells what happens to one group, then the other halfway into the book. I dont think that would translate too well in a film where people will wonder, 'what happened to so and so?' and would not want to wait until an hour into the movie to see some of the charaters for the 1st time
Special Screener (Score:1, Informative)
Here is the link: Special Preview Screening / Benefit for Amnesty International [kgoam810.com]
More News (Score:1, Informative)
Some highlights:
Re:More News (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, let's see. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings starting in 1940. I guess it reflects British immigration worries in 1950.
Tolkien's main characters are white. Why? It's a British epic story, set in Britain 7,000 some odd years ago. The "bad guys" are not actually humans, but orcs. That hardly constitutes racism.
Tolkien was contacted in 1938 by a German publisher interested in translating and printing a German edition of The Hobbit. Tolkien wrote a letter to his publisher expressing outrage at the idea that Jewish heritage might be a prerequisite for a German edition and didn't want to give proof he wasn't Jewish (although he did happen to have proof).
Since it was really his publisher who had to decide the issue, Tolkien wrote two letters, one politer and the other refusing to give proof of lack of Jewish heritage. Since the politer one still exists, it seems the more angry one got sent to the German publisher. Good for Unwin-Allen. These are letters 28 and 29.
Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung [confirmation] (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probably) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.
Minor Nit: Tolkien HATED allegory (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not (apologies if you were), but
Tolkien would likely take great offense at this characterization, were he alive and able to hear (read) it. He truly disliked, one could perhaps even say DESPISED, allegory, and emphatically stated time and time again that his mythos was in no way allegorical about any of the political, social, or economic conditions of the time. It was intended as a MYTHOS drawing upon the rich historical and cultural heritage of Britain, and unlike so many novels of the era, had ABSOLUTELY NO MESSAGE with respect to current potitics, economics, or social commentary WHATSOEVER.
Other than that, I think you post is dead on (and find the tidbit you bring up about German translation very interesting).
Re:Minor Nit: Tolkien HATED allegory (Score:2)
Seeing as time-travel hadn't been perfected in the 1940s, I'm fairly confident that he was being sarcastic.
Re:More News (Score:1)
Aside from the lack of resemblance between Britain and Middle Earth geographically, surely, it's racism on a grand scale, against -- for example -- orcs and people of dark complexion.
The Southrons, who I think not coincidentally are described as swarthy, are human allies of Sauron. Likewise the darker wood elves are less noble than the fair grey/high elves. Gandalf ascends from being "grey" to being "white".
So from Tolkien we get the following messages:
a) Purity of blood = purity of spirit. Thus the more Numenorean blood (or better yet High Elvish) in you, the better a person you are.
b) Race = personality. If you're an elf you're good. There are no evil elves. If you're an orc you're bad. There are no good orcs.
c) Dark skinned southerners are evil. (OK, that reflects British immigration policies...)
d) When thousands of orcs are slaughtered by the Riders of Rohan it's heroism. When orcs engage in similar behavior against humans its evil.
Now I don't think there's any real evidence Tolkien was anything more than casually anti-semitic (as were most Anglicans). There's a good deal of evidence that he lived in a world of white male Christian Oxford dons and this is strongly reflected in his novels. (Reread the "Return of the King" from a homoerotic perspective as a drinking game.)
Still, Tolkien was raised in South Africa and fought in WWI. A complete non-grasp of sex, race and politics is not entirely forgiveable in a highly educated scholar. E.g. it can scarcely have failed to negatively impact his professional work as a philologist -- what can be more political than language?
I can't wait (Score:2, Funny)
"Elron:do you have the ring. Jack Black:yes, I have the ring, see thing is last night me and my buddies had a little too much meed, and ug we ended up at the piercing parlor, and uh long story short ~drops pants~ Boromir:it is a gift. jack black:your damn right it's a gift, it's called a prince albert, and it's MY PRECIOUS"
Wow didn't even know there was Vulcans in it! (Score:1, Redundant)
Redundant? (Score:2)
Would explain a thing or two. (Score:4, Funny)
Dave
Super-Hero Prime Minister (Score:4, Interesting)
Makes George Bush look sedentary!
(article) [stuff.co.nz]
Re:Super-Hero Prime Minister (Score:2)
Of course, the he forgot to take the lens cap off.
Re:Super-Hero Prime Minister (Score:2)
Real Link (Oops, mangled the tag last time) (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.captionmachine.com/?p=132&c=1 [captionmachine.com]
Re:Real Link (Oops, mangled the tag last time) (Score:2)
I also remember Bush's sound bite from that as well (Think he was looking across the DMZ at NK at the time, right?)
something like "I don't need these binoculars to see that they are evil!"
Re:Super-Hero Prime Minister (Score:2)
Yeah, well maybe if he actually did some exciting and adventurous stuff like PM Helen Clark, he could let out some of that pent-up aggression!
Just keep him away from those pretzels.
Re:The Lens Cap Thing (Score:2)
I really hate to spoil a thing like the lens-cap photo, but accuracy has always been more important to me than anything else.
For those who haven't already seen the link, here [newcon-optik.com] is a link to a site which describes night-vision binoculars of the type Bush is using in the photo. Executive Summary: The photo looks funny, but Bush is doing nothing wrong.
I like a good chance to mock Bush Jr. as much as the next guy, but it has to at least be fair.
Re:The Lens Cap Thing (Score:2)
Now I'm being even more naive, but why would he use those in the daytime?
Re:Super-Hero Prime Minister (Score:1)
Our Government is headed by Helen Clark and they run the country (for better or worse depending on your political leanings).
The Governor General is the Queen's representative which is now essentially no more than a titular position with the only real power being to disolve parliment under very limited circumstances.
Triumph the Wonder Dog and Star Warsq (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Triumph the Wonder Dog and Star Warsq (Score:1)
So will I! I only have to find a producer...
Re:Triumph the Wonder Dog and Star Warsq (Score:1)
Sleep and Map of Middle Earth/NZ (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah, the sleep part - knew I was forgetting something.
Another link (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot.org [slashdot.org] has links to an article, plus comments with links to other sites giving even more information on LOTR:TTT.
Slashdot comes in one size and is _not_ quicktime! Sorry!
It's out... On Kazaa! (Score:3, Funny)
On Kazaa! Lord of the rings watches you (Score:2)
Re:On Kazaa! Lord of the rings watches you (Score:2)
with hercules and all your other favourite ancient greek heros.
hades makes one bad ass sauron.
Re:On Kazaa! Lord of the rings watches you (Score:2)
Try Akileos, Aias, Paris, Oddysseos, etc...
the LOTR phat beats (Score:4, Funny)
I'm Gimli and I'm a fuckin' dwarf
Killin' motherfuckers from the south to the north
That's not Mirkwood I'm chopping with my battle axe
And I'm on an orc stampede like Shadowfax
I think things like this need to be encouraged as much as possible. They have an MP3 download. And they also sample the immortal Ballad of Bilbo Baggins [game-revolution.com] by Leonard Nimoy.
mod parent up (Score:2)
There's daily coverage on stuff.co.nz as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Check out this cool map [stuff.co.nz] :-)
How come Grauman's Chinese Theatre is not showing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How come Grauman's Chinese Theatre is not showi (Score:2)
So it did poorly; why not dump it for TTT? Alas, the contracts between theaters and studios usually require that first-run movies show for two to four weeks minimum, and that commitment is usually made several weeks, if not months, in advance. Nemesis opened on Friday; there's no way it could be bumped for TTT by the following Wednesday, no matter how poorly it did.
Granted, it would be a great experience to see it there, but I personally prefer the Village. (The sound is louder, for one thing.
The Two Towers (Score:2)
I have been a great fan of LOTR since the first American release of the books in the 60's; my wife actually has the first edition - she had it imported from England when she was a teenager after reading WH Auden's original review.
We had both thought that doing justice to this on film was impossible and were viewing the Peter Jackson effort as likely to be a great flop.
How glad we are that we were wrong. These films are magnificent and capture the greatest story of the 20th century. We have watched FOTR several times now, and are amazed how well it has held up.
I cannot wait until we can put all 3 films on a dvd changer and let them run consecutively.
I'll see it on the 16th! (Score:2)
I'll be seeing the movie on Monday.
Bwahahahahaha!
I'll probably post to stories on Tuesday to ruin the movie for you all.
Already seen TTT (Score:2)
Two words: Fucking awesome.
Re:Already seen TTT (Score:1)
too long !
And can anyone tell me why they didn't choose to put a resumé of the first movie, I mean I've seen the first one but the movie opens directly with the last shot of the first movie (hobits walking in the snow..) and it's was diffiult to "get in" (don't know the english expression) the movie without a quick intro on what was going on just before.
Otherwise the party was really great... just in front of the eiffel tower, nice dj's, nice girls (liv I love you) and free champagne and fois gras till 6 in the morning !
Brazilian Line Parties (Score:3, Informative)
And going farther, if there is any Tolkien Fan who reads
I'll be there dressed as a Dark Night (No, this is not a joke. I did the same Jan, 1st, in the release of Fellowship Of the Ring.)
In the Land of Mordor... (Score:1)
Re:my sister... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:my sister... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:my sister... (Score:5, Interesting)
He said one day, he was visiting an old castle in France (made to be a museum), and as he was standing on a balcony, someone said "this is where so and so (from Balzac's novels) used to live". To which my teacher replied "you know, that person is ficticious", and the guy's answer was "what, you think the life of a real person from 200 years ago is anywhere nearly as interesting?"
My point is, there are many arguments about Tolkien's stories about how... lame they are or what not. But LoTR is just a part in a masterpiece that Tolkien dedicated his whole life to. He was a great author, among the Greats, and it's not to be taken lightly. Middle Earth is a complete realm from creation to the present. For all intents and purposes, this place actually existed. The details he put into this are astonishing.
As Tolkien himself says, he created Middle Earth because he felt the lack of a good Mythology that had a Celtic feel. He wanted something a-la Scandinavian, Greek, or Egyptian mythology, but for his homeland. And so, he friggin went ahead and created one. Take it as such: LoTR is a Myth of old. Like David and Goliath, or whatever...
Btw, I saw the first movie, and saw the trailer for the second, and I'm creaming my jeans (as filthy critic would say). But I must also add that they are only a shadow of the books.
Re:my sister... (Score:2)
We want to learn from history, to avoid making the same mistakes; learning from fictional histories is harder, because you won't necessarily have to worry about making mistakes that might not be able to happen in real life. This is not to diminish Tolkien's literary achievements, of course; I've read and loved LOTR just as many others have. But though LOTR is often more interesting than real history, I don't think LOTR could or should take the place of real history. Yes, it's not to be taken lightly, if you want a complete view of western civilization, but it must be remembered what place in that civilization it holds.
News for NERDS (Score:2)
It's a nerd thing, you wouldn't understand.
best way to see it for free...not just for TTT (Score:3, Informative)
Re:best way to see it for free...not just for TTT (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:In Soveit Russia (Score:1)
Hint: Soviet Russia ceased to exist in 1991.