Home | Forums | Submit   Haiku Generator | Quotable JLG | The Icon Tarot 


Lord of the Rings Trailer Friday

Filed under the:  department.
Posted by:Ryan on Thursday, 11 Jan, 2001 @ 11:52 PM
 
Film / Movie

BeGroovy’s Ruprect wrote in to point out that the trailer for “Lord of the Rings” will premier attached to the Kevin Costner film, “Thirteen Days”, tommorrow. (at least in the US, that is). I just finished reading LOTR and firmly believe that this film series (if done correctly) will unseat star wars as the best fantasy/scifi trilogy ever. It is by far the best epic story i have ever read. Oh yeah, Thirteen Days is supposed to be a great film as well, so you may actually want to stay when the trailer ends.



33 Responses to “Lord of the Rings Trailer Friday”

  1. Ruprect Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 00:17:59 AM

    I cant believe it’s not butter!

    Let’s do some set theory, shall we?

    set: Geeks

    set: BeOS, subset of Geeks

    set: Girls, subset of Geeks

    set: Movies, subset of Geeks

    Geeks = BeOS union Girls union Movies

    Am I forgetting any subsets?

  2. Ruprect Says:

    In Response To /dev/null @ 01/12/2001 05:50:14 AM

    Preview, not trailer

    What’s on Apple is actually considered a “preview” not a trailer. Then, there are teasers too, which is another beast. Here’s some examples:

    preview: the LOTR making-of, behind-the-scenes mini-documentary

    trailer: theatrical intro advertisement for another movie(used to be at the end of movies, hence the name)

    teaser: very small ad designed to just whet your appetite; usually doesn’t contain any footage from the movie (recent examples - A.I., Spiderman)

  3. Sean Says:

    Totaly agree..

    “It is by far the best epic story i have ever read.”

    I agree 100%. Not much else to say about this other than…. I CAN’T WAIT! :-)

  4. Nutcase Says:

    I cant believe…

    I cant believe how well everyone took the mingling of scattered movie news into the site. I had wanted to do it for ages, and really held off cause i thought people would get upset… but everyone seems to like it.

    Thanks for all being cool and laid back about stuff like this. It makes the job much more fun, and flexible. :)

  5. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To therandthem @ 01/12/2001 11:10:31 AM

    Re: Totaly agree..

    In the book his daughter is named Elanor.. his wife is Rosie, and “Rosie-lass” is hinted at by Frodo as a possibility in his future when he tells Sam not to come along..

    But it does sound likely. But Rose didnt run to meet him in the book… I kinda hope they do it where you see the ship go off into the mist, and the three turn and ride the other way, then just cut to sam walking into Bag End, and sitting down with his family and saying “Well, I’m back.”

    Course, with Pete Jackson being as dedicated to this as he seems, i am sure he won’t mess with the ending. But it will be a tragedy if he does. The Gray Havens is such a downbeat, and i LOVE it there.

  6. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To Ruprect @ 01/12/2001 12:03:18 AM

    Re: I cant believe it’s not butter!

    Where did the Girls bit come from? I dont have a freaking clue what that means… but I agree… most geeks i know love movies… and LOTR. :)

  7. Technix : Chris Simmons Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 00:17:59 AM

    Re: I cant believe…

    One word for you Nutcase, that might explain why we’re so friendly to the idea…

    Groovy.

    This site has always been groovy to everyone and everything it deals with. With you at the helm again, It can only get better and better every day.

    Best Regards,

    Chris Simmons
    Avid BeOS user.
    technix@begroovy.com

  8. Sean Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 00:17:59 AM

    Re: I cant believe…

    That’s cuz you rock, Nutcase. :-)

  9. yahoo Says:

    In Response To Sean @ 01/12/2001 00:07:38 AM

    Re: Totaly agree..

    … no discussion needed about JRRT’s books. ;)

    I just hope the movie meets the expectations of the audience. It shouldn’t be only a fantasy-saga - it should be a monument. And if the trailer isn’t just showing one of the best scenes of the film - it’s going to be!
    JRRT made up an universe, not a simple tale of hobbits, dwarves and men.

    btw.: http://news.begroovy.com/images/layout/logos/logorightwinter.gif in the top bar cannot be loaded. Local or server problem?

  10. /dev/null Says:

    Making of

    There’s a trailer of LOTR @ www.apple.com/quicktime.
    You’ll see parts of the making of ….

  11. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To yahoo @ 01/12/2001 04:10:02 AM

    Re: Totaly agree..

    If the Gray Havens is left out as the ending, i am going to be sorely disappointed. That is the perfect ending to the story, and all that comes after Mount Doom is VERY needed. I hope they keep it in. Won’t know till 2003 though. :-/

    I wonder what Gollum looks like. I know that Gandalf will look right. :)

    btw: the image issue is sporradic all over the place. it loads here fine right now, but sometimes not. :-/

  12. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To /dev/null @ 01/12/2001 05:50:14 AM

    Re: Making of

    True, but you can’t view it in BeOS. We actually ran a converted version of the trailer in MPEG format ages ago. I still have it shared on BeShare when i am on if anyone is interested. But this version should be a full fledged trailer… no making-of stuff going on. :)

  13. therandthem Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 11:06:27 AM

    Re: Totaly agree..

    A scene has been filmed with Sam coming into Bagshot Row and Rosie (his daughter) running down the path to meet him. It stands to reason that this will be the last scene AFTER he returns from the grey havens.

  14. pain_stealer Says:

    best??

    What do you mean the best ?? Tolkiens books are childish .. They were good reading when I was in third grade but they are not the best by far ..

  15. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To pain_stealer @ 01/12/2001 1:07:10 PM

    Re: best??

    Perhaps the Hobbit is a bit childish, but i just read LOTR for the first time, and I am 22. I didnt find it childish at all. And it is routinely voted the top fiction book of the 20th century by all sorts of literary figures.

    What would you suggest is better, and if it truly is, why isn’t IT considered one of the greatest works of fiction ever?

  16. Nathaniel G H Says:

    In Response To pain_stealer @ 01/12/2001 1:07:10 PM

    Re: best??

    I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point… I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I am currently in the middle of The Silmarillion.

    While I agree that The Hobbit is a lighthearted and *almost* childish book, Lord of the Rings is not. It is actually a heavy-duty book with a main story and many other story ideas intertwined. It has many layers and is anything but a child’s book. Take a look at the comments on Amazon.com… the kids who posted comments said this book was too tough for them.

    The Silmarillion is a *very* heavy-duty book. While it is similar in length to The Hobbit, the story is full of endless details and names in various languages that Tolkien invented. I almost doubt I can finish it and understand anything unless I read everything three or four times. I have to say that while some of the ideas in this book are fascinating, the book probably wasn’t intended to be published. My personal belief is that Tolkien used it as his own personal reference, as a base on which to build other stories.

    Anyway, enough said… (and BTW, I highly recommend Lord of the Rings… it gives the reader a unique feeling, as if you’re actually going along for the adventure; it’s a real page-turner.)

  17. B Says:

    In Response To pain_stealer @ 01/12/2001 1:07:10 PM

    Re: best??

    Lord of the Rings is a wonderfully orchestrated story, but it is on the simplistic side, which is one of the things that makes it so great. It can be enjoyed by everyone.

    As far as thinker books, I love the Dune series. So much going on inside the heads of the characters.

    Hopefully they’ll do a better job of bringing LOTR to the silver screen than they did for Dune…the first one you had to read the book to understand, and the second…ugh, makes me shiver thinking about it.

  18. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To B @ 01/12/2001 5:04:50 PM

    Re: best??

    I really enjoyed the book Dune… i only read the first in the series, but it was very interesting. But it is no where near LOTR in my opinion. It is thicker, but the storytelling is weaker. Or perhaps the story itself is just more difficult to enjoy… I mean, Paul is not exactly my kinda guy.

    LOTR may be simplistic, but thats only in writing style, not in depth of world or story. LOTR is told in such a way that it seems like a history… like your grandfather sitting by the fireplace telling you a great story. You get totally enrapt in the story, and really feel for the players. Then it eeks itself away from you, and is gone.

    In dune, it’s just a straight sci-fi story, although it is a GREAT sci-fi achievement, it doesnt touch the most basic human levels the way LOTR does.

    If you honestly think that the actual story/world of LOTR is simplistic, you just didnt read closely enough.

  19. Rurpect Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 5:22:39 PM

    Hmmm…

    Wow, some interesting comments on LOTR here. I’ve actually never read the series. I’m not much of a fantasy fan, but I’m learning ;-)

    I have to be honest with myself, Star Wars is based on a whole bunch of fantasy stories, Dune was too sort of, The Matrix? Maybe. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was very much fantastical.

    I’m really surprised you guys are saying that LOTR is rather easy to read. A friend of mine says he barely made it through the series because of the almost old-English style of writing. And he’s much more of a reader than I am.

  20. Rurpect Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 12:28:06 AM

    director of recent Dune

    Don’t remember the guy’s name, but he was majorly committed to the Dune series (haven’t read that either). From what I’ve read of the frothing hordes of fanboys, he mutilated it in different ways but similar to Lynch.

    I’m surprised some of you don’t like the new Dune. I thought it was cool in a sort of TV miniseries way. Together with Lynch’s dark masterpiece, the story is complete IMO. You definitely know more about the story from the miniseries version.

  21. LeftTurn Says:

    [No Subject]

    Well, I was never much impressed by the fantasy gig anyway so maybe I’ll see it, but it’s not something I’m panting over.
    I do want to see Thirteen Days however. That looks like a good flick, despite Kevin Costner being in it :)

  22. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To tpv @ 01/13/2001 07:46:36 AM

    Re: I cant believe it’s not butter!

    Ah.. gotcha.. that was things geeks LIKE….

    I thought subset was part of… as in, all geeks are part girl or something. Weird.

  23. B Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 5:22:39 PM

    Re: best??

    You’d have to read the rest of the Dune series to make an accurate comparison. Just reading the first book is like just reading the first of the three in the LOTR trilogy and attempting to form an opinion about the entire series…can’t be done.

    I will agree that LOTR is a very well told story…it just lacks the thought provoking extras that Dune contains…which makes it an easier read…

  24. Ores Says:

    In Response To Rurpect @ 01/12/2001 7:22:10 PM

    Re: director of recent Dune

    Well as a NZer and a avid movie watcher, i have to say peter jackson rocks.
    Though this is quite different from his earleir works that i’ve enjoyed, i am sure this will live up to the same quality
    exepcailyl with a budgest hundreds of times larger

  25. Nutcase Says:

    In Response To B @ 01/13/2001 01:33:21 AM

    Re: best??

    Um… LOTR is _not_ a trilogy… it is split into 6 books, usually published as 3 volumes appendices. But it is one novel, not a series of them. So it is fair to compare it simply to Dune, which is also a single novel, though I will grant that you can go farther than that if you compare the whole series of Dune, as you could with any classic series.

    As far as “thought provoking extras”, I disagree. There are whole languages and races invented for LOTR. I mean, with alphabets, calendars, holidays, histories, etc. LOTR will mention something in passing which doesnt provoke thought while you read, cause its just a passing comment. But if you weave the passing comments together there is MUCH more there than dune. Hell, there are songs and poems written in purely invented languages, and then an appendix about how to use the language. The Silmarillion was written to fill in a whole history mentioned in passing in LOTR.

    There is much much more in LOTR than in Dune if you take the time to read the appendices, and weave stuff together. Its remarkable.

    Also, remember that this book was written in the 50’s, so D&D hadn’t come out yet…. this book basically invented the modern fantasy d&d style world, with hobbits, dwarves, elves, wizards, etc….

  26. tpv Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/12/2001 12:29:34 AM

    Re: I cant believe it’s not butter!

    Geeks like BeOS Movies Girls (as a complete generalisation)

    So, I just need to take a chick to a movie about BeOS and I’ll be set.
    Or if we get DVD support could watch a Movie about girls on BeOS… no wait…
    Watch a movie with a girl on BeOS. That would be cool.

  27. Kelwyn Says:

    In Response To LeftTurn @ 01/12/2001 11:38:46 PM

    Re: [No Subject]

    Well, if you dont see it for the fantasy, see it for the eye candy. I’ve heard that of the top ten CG and effects companies out there, nine are working on it (ILM is stuck with Star Wars), and SIX are doing it pro bono, just to have their names attached.

    Or so goes the rumor… I’ll ask my friend for the source and post it.

  28. cedricd Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/13/2001 03:06:40 AM

    Re: best??

    as someone who never read JRR Tolkien books (yet) you all got me hooked big time with all these talks; not sure if I’m
    the only one in that case or if all others rushed to buy the book(s) instead of contributing here,
    but I’m sure gonna find a way around my previous “boy it’s a thick book” concern and find some
    actual spare time to do it.

    there goes another entry in my priority queue todo-list, on top of reading Dune and
    many others, which I’m less excited about all of a sudden :)

  29. Ruprect Says:

    In Response To Nutcase @ 01/13/2001 12:57:52 AM

    clarification

    Thanks for clarifying my contorted logic, TPV. Too many late nights and not enough girls. :-]

    Speaking of the ultimate combination of all three, last weekend’s Antitrust might just be that. There’s plenty of anti-Bill Gates sentiment and girls (Claire Forlani! hubba!!).

  30. David Bruce Says:

    In Response To pain_stealer @ 01/12/2001 1:07:10 PM

    Re: best??

    I’ve read all of Tolkein’s major works (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion) at least a half dozen times each over the last twenty-five years.

    If you’re referring to “The Hobbit”, I agree with you to a certain extent. “The Hobbit” was written for children, and although it has some appeal to adults, it certainly isn’t a literary masterpiece.

    LOTR really is a masterpiece with great depth of characterization and multiple levels of thematic content. It needs to be read several times to fully appreciate everything that is going on in the story. At first inspection, it is just a story about the struggle between good and evil, or maybe about the ability of decidedly non-heroic people to do heroic things when the need arises. As you get deeper into the story, you realize it is also about the implications of mortality - would being immortal (like Tolkein’s elves) really lead to happiness, or would we gradually tire of life and wish to go “over the sea”? I could go on for a long time, but the point is that LOTR is most definitely not just a children’s book.

    “The Silmarillion” is cast in the style of Homer’s epics and is meant to provide the mythologic background for Middle Earth. It is divided into 24 chapters, just like the Oddysey and the Iliad. It doesn’t seem quite as consistent and finished as LOTR, and indeed it was still an unfinished work at the time of Tolkein’s death. I think the published version was pulled together by Tolkein’s son.

  31. anocow Says:

    Goblins vs Orcs?

    hi y’all

    i’m reading LOTR books right now, about the middle of the Two Towers. i was wondering what happened between The Hobbit and the LOTR series that Tolkien started to refer goblins (as in The Hobbit) as orcs (as in LOTR)?

    i’m so jealous of all you guys!!! i’m stuck in japan and LOTR movie will probably start here a year after it premiers in the states :(

  32. David Bruce Says:

    In Response To anocow @ 01/18/2001 01:15:20 AM

    Re: Goblins vs Orcs?

    According to the introduction to “The Silmarillion”, Tolkien began writing about Middle Earth around 1920, and in these materials (which became “The Silmarillion”) they are orcs - elves that were captured by Morgoth, the first Dark Lord, and turned to evil.

    “The Hobbit” was written in the 1930s and was clearly aimed at children. I suspect that Tolkien thought that “goblins” was a term that children could understand more easily.

    “LOTR” was written in the 1950s as a large-scale work for adults. Tolkien again used the term “orcs”.

    So, basically, “The Hobbit” is the outlier - in all of Tolkien’s other works, they are orcs.

  33. Conry Ben Says:

    He does not seem to me to be a free man who does not sometimes do nothing.

[powered by WordPress.]

Random Haiku:

Starting BeOS
I gasp at a blue screen, but
It's just the desktop

Since 1998 - Until the Last User Leaves...
BeGroovy, established 1998

search BeGroovy:

BeGroovy Archives:

December 2017
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

other:

24 queries. 0.076 seconds

[powered by WordPress.]