Oh.My.God. Stunned speechless. Go.

-- (just an@anonymous.one), December 20, 2001

Answers

It's on the agenda for NEXT week. #2 sent me an E-mail expressing his disappointment that the follow-up was already made, but being held until some time in 2002. Matrix II will also be available in 2002. There was a third one, as well, but I forgot what it was.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

That should have been #3. #2 is female.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

Star Wars, Anita?

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

It is on the agenda for next week as well. I walked past the movies at the mall last night and the line for it was wrapped around the building... SHEESH! I thought fantasy science fiction was old hat. (I personally love it) I can't count how many times I have read that trilogy.

Scopin' the crowd of people...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

All three movies were/are already made, at a cost of over $500 million total. Of course, split amongst the movies, that's not so bad. One will be released each year at Christmas time. The Two Towers will be next year and The Return Of The King will be the year after that.

-- (for@your.info), December 20, 2001.

I'm sorry -- I still can't get Mulholland Drive out of my head. To which for now I'll only refer y'all to the same comments made in the first post. If it was still out I'd see it about a half-dozen more times, and then I'd probably be ok to wait for the DVD.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 20, 2001.

"Oh. My.God. Stunned speechless. Go."

I guess I'll have to go now. There are cheaper, faster ways of being stunned speechless... but I doubt if they would be as much fun.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 20, 2001.

ebay Lord of the Rings stuff

-- (lars@indy.net), December 20, 2001.

Terminator 3....coming soon to a theater near you

-- (cin@cin.cin), December 20, 2001.

I think I'll make this my (unheard of) second movie to be seen this year. :-)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), December 20, 2001.

Tricia, if you're a fan of the LOTR Trilogy, you will love it. If you've never read the books...you will love it. If you like it just half as much as I did, you're in for a real treat. JMHO.

Here's how the early box office is doing:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The power of the ring may include the power to make box office records disappear -- not to mention change movie-mogul attitudes about the drawing power of hobbits. The epic fantasy 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' grossed a hefty $18.2 million at the domestic box office Wednesday, its first day in theaters in what the studio, AOL Time Warner unit New Line Cinema, said was the biggest take ever for a single day in December.

New Line Cinema estimated that the first day's box-office for the eagerly awaited J.R.R. Tolkien adaptation had reached $18.2 million. Final figures had not yet been tallied, but if the number proves correct, it will be the third-biggest Wednesday opening ever.

The record, of course, was set by Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace, which raked in $28.5 million in 1999, followed by last summer's $19 million haul by Jurassic Park III. (Ed - Of course, neither of these opened in December!)

Eve, based on your review, I plan to see Mulholland Drive. Right after I see LOTR another time or two(I haven't done this with a movie since, oh, about 1965 or so.)

-- (just an@anonymous.one), December 20, 2001.

You can't listen to the news or even regular television or radio for a half hour without hearing the words "Bin Laden", "911", or "terrorist".

This kind of fantasy provides a good escape from reality. Our country is hungry for this right now.

-- (rented over 100 movies @ since. 911), December 21, 2001.

So, then I suppose this isn't the time to mention that Collateral Damage, a movie about terrorists bombing a high-rise and starring ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER is scheduled for release on February 8.

-- (for@your.info), December 21, 2001.

Is LOTR a "real" movie ar an animation? I'm not a fan of animation altho as digital trickery evolves, I suppose there will be less and less difference.

-- (lars@indy.net), December 21, 2001.

Here is a bizarre little site that does movie reviews:

F ellowship of the Rings

I got quite a laugh from it. Haven't seen the movie yet, but plan to soon.

-- SteveOH (Narf@poit.zort), December 21, 2001.

LOL, that's a good one Steve!

I particularly liked the "Offense to God" category. They consider a "claim of immortality" to be offensive to God? Sounds like they have a pretty sick perception of who God is.

-- (hee hee @ wacko. christians), December 21, 2001.

I particulary like "explosive startle" and "attempted sword murders".

What the hell is an "explosive startle" ?

You should have seen the Harry Potter review from "crapalert".

-- SteveOH (thegoofycat@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

CAPALERT: Harry Potter:

Hmm. For some reason the link doesn't work. Sorry for that. This is the address

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/harrypottersorc.htm

-- SteveOH (Narf@Poit.Zort), December 21, 2001.

I saw the movie tonight. The word 'epic' comes to mind. The special effects were awesome! Lots of sword fights, etc., yet it wasn't bloody and gory. I appreciated that. The evil was portrayed as VERY evil; the friendships and loyalty were touching; man's 'humanity' was very apparent. A cool movie! I don't want to wait a whole YEAR to see the next part! : )

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

What usually happens is that the first people to see a new movie make it sound better than it is, because they want everyone else to be jealous of them. Now that I have heard the hype from the first-goers, it can't possibly live up to my expectations. I'm going to have to wait until I hear some reviews which are not so flattering, then I might still be fairly impressed when I see it.

-- gene siskel (chillin out @ that big theater. in the sky), December 22, 2001.

Well fine. So I never read the book. The only adult in America who didn't. So that's why I was stunned speechless when they started rolling the credits before the story was over. By the time the sequel hits the big screen, I'll have forgotten the first half of the story. Other than that, it was way cool.

"Please don't feel compelled now to tell me the story of the boy who cried Worf."

--Q to Worf

-- helen (trekked@into.town.to.see.it), December 29, 2001.

Just saw it again tonight. If you loved it the first time, see it again. It's even better! Helen, the DVD will be out in late August, so you can rent it for a refresher before you see Part II (The Two Towers) next December. BTW, my name will be in the credits of the DVD. :-)

-- (just an@anonymous.one), December 30, 2001.

Now your name in the credits is WAY cool!!

-- helen (looking@for.whom?), December 30, 2001.

Should we just look for " DVD department - just an@anonymous.one"? : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 31, 2001.

Helen, shame on you. Even I have read the books - first time almost 30 years ago. Funny thing but the movie made me want to read them again.

I thought it was admirably done. Somehow, when I saw it, I was anxious for them to get on with the story during the whole thing. I really want to see it again, and look closely at the sets (real and generated) I thought that the mines of Moria were excellent.

I also loved the actors they got for the characters. Gimli the dwarf was so perfect! I wonder, though, are the Hobbits all really that short, or did they squish them with movie magic?

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), December 31, 2001.

I took ... nine? ... kids to see it. Two of the little girls wanted to sit in front. There wasn't a thing between them and the screen, and when the big goofy-looking critter with the chain around his neck bashed through the door in the mine, they went nuts trying to climb over the seats to get out of the way. :)

Are they still selling the book?

-- helen (need@good.read), December 31, 2001.

Lon, re: How high the hobbits? All the hobbit actors are between 5'6" and 5'7". Here are some RX tricks that were used to further enhance the size perspective:

1) They used midget doubles (like for far-off shots and hugs)
ex: shot of people walking on caradhras

2) They used forced perspective (one person a lot closer to the camera and another 30 feet away, but it looks like they are next to each other.
ex: Frodo across the table from Gandalf in The Shire

3) They used cgi (computer graphics/editing) for perspective when the previous two techniques were not possible (they used this the least because they wanted it to look real)
ex: pippin and Merry on the cave troll.

Helen, the LOTR trilogy is the second best selling book in history, the Bible being number one. You'll be able to find it anywhere.

-- (just an@anonymous.one), December 31, 2001.

capnfun, when the DVD comes out, I'll point ya in the right direction of the credits if you're interested... :-D

-- (just an@anonymous.one), December 31, 2001.

anonymous movie wizard being,

Thanks for the tips. I knew that the far shots had children or little people standins, but I'll watch for the other camera tricks next time as well. I envy you if you are involved in this sort of thing as a career. So many creative people all together has gotta be mostly fun.

and Helen,

calling the cave troll a "big goofy-looking critter" is kinda like saying that my MIL is "slightly irritating".

---

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), December 31, 2001.

LOL, Lon!

Anonymous, thanks for sending us :-) We saw it on IMAX, and other than being slightly nauseous when the camera panned, it was *awesome*!

Helen, the balrog had me climbing over the seat, too - I'm with the two little girls on that one!

It was definitely worth seeing 2 movies this year :-)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), December 31, 2001.

LOTR on IMAX!!!!

I've never been so envious of anyone in my life.

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), December 31, 2001.

Burning of Harry Potter Books. Can Tolkien's be next on the list?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.

"I took ... nine? ... kids to see it. Two of the little girls wanted to sit in front. There wasn't a thing between them and the screen, and when the big goofy-looking critter with the chain around his neck bashed through the door in the mine, they went nuts trying to climb over the seats to get out of the way. :)"

LOL! That's the reason I haven't gone to see it yet! Waiting until school starts and all the rugrats vanish.

-- (i can't wait @ but. i can wait), January 01, 2002.

That's a thought. We had this on the agenda for tomorrow, but if the rugrats are still out of school [and we DO like to attend the afternoon showing], perhaps we should wait until they get back in school. When will that be?

-- Anita (Anitta_S3@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.

I know at least some of the scenery shots were created, but are some of the background mountain areas real? (Can I go there?)

Do I have to learn Elvish to read the books?

-- helen (bookstores.@few.and.far.between), January 01, 2002.

helen, as I heard, most of it was filmed in New Zealand, utilizing their real mountains and such. You can go there, but you have to learn New Zealunk, which is a somewhat difficult language that requires a lot of spitting and sticking out of the toungue. I happen to be fluent in it, because I use it to communicate with my wife's family. They, of course, don't understand a word.

-----

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), January 01, 2002.

Lon, I remember New Zealand fondly. I still have my T-shirt which was given to me to prove that I am an honorary kiwi. (Large outline of the North Island and the South Island, with "Outer Island" about the size of a fifty cent piece, in the shape of Australia.)

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), January 01, 2002.

Anita,

I think we'll be safe if we give it another week, say next Tuesday or Wednesday. Kids were bad enough when I was younger, but now they are all suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder and on all kinds of drugs. Sitting through a 3 hour movie without going beserk is impossible for this new breed of rugrats.

-- (patience@pays.off), January 01, 2002.

Ahem...all nine of our rug rats were very well behaved, with the only lapse coming from the two terrorized little girls. They don't get to go very often, and they won't go back if they misbehave. The kids giving you problems were probably dropped off by their parents and not under supervision.

-- helen (velvet@gloves.iron.will), January 01, 2002.

"Ahem...all nine of our rug rats were very well behaved, with the only lapse coming from the two terrorized little girls."

Yeah, that's the same thing all the fat irresponsible welfare-collecting mothers keep telling me after the brats have annoyed me a dozen times... "Oh, they're just kids" or "Oh, it's no big deal, he's a good boy". They don't know how to control the brats at home, so they unload them at a theatre and let thenm drive everyone else crazy.

-- (thanks @ i'll. wait), January 01, 2002.

Lon, unfortunately I wasn't connected to the making of Fellowship of the Ring. I just belong to a lunatic group (other than this one, that is) sponsored by the film's producers. We're going to New Zealand for the world premiere and cast party for Return of the King (part III of the Trilogy) in December 2003! I don't know how to be patient until then!

-- (just an@anonymous.one), January 03, 2002.

Whoa! Part THREE? When does part two come out? Did I see part two already? Huh?

-- helen (elvish@trollish.hobbitish?), January 03, 2002.

Read the books Helen. Read the books.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), January 03, 2002.

Gosh, the time...the time...no time...

-- helen (about@to.fail.a.class), January 03, 2002.

Helen, The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. The books of the trilogy are as follows:

Fellowship of the Ring (that's the movie you saw) The Two Towers (Part II movie coming out in December, 2002) Return of the King (Part III movie coming out in December 2003)

The DVD's for the movie will be released in the Summer following the opening of each movie. With the number of rugrats you have mentioned, I'd think reading the books together would be a wonderful family activity. (We won't mention at this point the number of books written by Tolkien about the trilogy :-))

-- (just an@anonymous.one), January 03, 2002.

We're working through Harry Potter right now. ( So far none of them has worshipped Satan loud enough to wake me up.) No bookstores here, except a great used book place that has no Tolkien left. Well, there's a Christian bookstore too, but I doubt they carry this type of fantasy.

-- helen (spells@wizards.and.enormous.lizards), January 03, 2002.

Just an, Yeah, I'd like that.The computer graphic wizardry is enough to make me salivate.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), January 03, 2002.

Helen, you never know about those Christian book store places. Tolkien was not only Christian, he was a huge influence on C.S.Lewis (who was called the best apologist for Christianity in the 20th century and who became a Christian in large part because of Tolkien). Besides, there are lots of us Christians who like fantasy, even that which includes mention of magic, witches and the like. I couldn't believe that there were those who censored C.S.Lewis' Narnia series and Madeleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series because they mentioned witches in them! Bizarre, IMO.

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanete.net), January 05, 2002.

I'll go look, Tricia, but I haven't seen much like that in this particular shop. It's a private business and not part of a large chain. Lots of interesting keychains, though. :)

-- helen (miles@from.nowhere), January 05, 2002.

I have neither read the book (I tried. Honest I tried. Over and over. I maybe got 1/4 of the way through the first book, with greatest difficulty) nor seen the movie. But those reviews were a gas. Maybe I'll watch the movie someday, but the books are terminal boredom.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 05, 2002.

"If someone dislikes it I shall never trust their literary judgment about anything again."---Poet W.H. Auden responding to Tolkien's critics

I maybe got 1/4 of the way through the first book, with greatest difficulty

I was maybe 14 or 15 the first time I read the Lord of the Rings. I remember slogging through most of the first book, finding it tedious, skipping passages and entire pages, because the level of detail in advancing the story seemed mind numbing. By the time I finished Fellowship of the Ring (Part 1), I was hooked and couldn't put it down. Unable to sleep until I finished it, I stayed up for a few days to read it to its conclusion. Many people have spoken of the same inability to put it down. It took probably two or three readings before I didn't just skim the first several hundred pages of book one. If you persist, you may just find yourself held captive by the story.

-- (just an@anonymous.one), January 07, 2002.

I feel so much better. I gave up several hundred pages into the first book, willing to be forever of lower brow than to read another tedious word.

-- helen (confessional@on.the.left.two.doors.down), January 08, 2002.

I dislike a crowded movie theatre, so I will wait a few weeks before venturing forth. I have heard the movie is quite good, but rarely does a movie ever equal the experience of reading a well-written book.

Since high school, I have read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings every few years. While the "Rings" has a few flat spots, I find the overall story quite good. For me, it's not the magic and grand events, but the notion that ordinary people (or hobbits) are capable of extraordinary actions... not a theme that resonates for the more cynical among us.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 08, 2002.

I think you're the first to mention The Hobbit, Ken. I think reading that initial book was what led MOST of us to the Trilogy of the Rings. For those who can't handle the Trilogy right off, it might be a good idea to get familiar with Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit FIRST.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

We finally saw this movie. I enjoyed it, but it was LONG. [I guess that'll teach me to enter a theatre with a big cup of water.] Also, it's been SO LONG since I've read the books that I didn't remember some things. We discussed the immortality of two after the show and SO prompted my memory on a few things, but did ANYONE remember a "King-Kong-like" orc? I sure didn't, and SO didn't either.

I'll be sure to see the DVD before viewing the next movie at the theatre. I may pick up the books again for a quick review, as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

Just saw it, the theater was nice and empty, only about a dozen people or so.

Guess my expectations were very high after reading this thread, so I was fairly disappointed. There were quite a few good visual settings and special effects, but it was overall very dark, depressing, and too long.

Way too much redundant hand-to-hand sword battle footage, they could have made it a half hour shorter if they'd kept that to what was needed, or used the time for other parts left out. They obviously had a large crew of stuntmen they wanted to keep employed as much as possible.

The story is very simplistic, but that is because it was written so long ago. The whole Hobbit thing is just too hard to believe. They are basically weak-minded small people who spend a lot of time being scared and crying. Even the Ewoks in Star Wars had more balls than them. It is also hard to believe that this small fellowship of 9 people, half of them wimps, manage to repeatedly defeat hordes of monstrous creatures and strongmen.

Too mushy and sentimental for this time and age, but pretty good visually to watch.

-- peanut gallery reviewer (3 stars @ out. of 5), January 16, 2002.