OMG - you kill me! That is so damn funny! (and sadly true!)

That is brilliant! You are a comic genius. And it is so true. But you forgot one thing. Instead of three movies they would squash it all into one 90-minute "roller-coaster ride," and the end result would barely follow the book at all. But somehow they would leave the ending open in case it made a lot of money and they WANTED a sequel. Like the last shot would show that Gollum had switched the real ring with a decoy ring.

Anyway, I thought these movies were made by New Line. Are you sure they're independent? I know the reason it's turning out so well is because it's made by Peter Jackson and fans who really respect the subject matter. That and New Line allows much more freedom than a lot of studios. I heard every other studio wanted to make the story into only one or two movies tops. And they probably would have made it suck pretty bad too. But who knows. I'm just glad it turned out the way it did.

Newline gave them the cash but gave Peter Jackson almost 100% creative control and the movie was designed and filmed by his own team down in New Zeeland not by the New Line lot next to Freddy Vs Jason. It was an independent film funded by a major studio. It is imho the biggest independent film ever.

I think they would have made three movies but they would have called the First one.

The Lord of the Rings.
Then the next one would be called
The Lord of the Rings Returns.
Then
The Lord of the Ring 3. Ring Hard with a Vengance.

Oh my! I'm laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes - especially after the picture of Frodo with the Pepsi in his hand! That is GREAT! Now I must watch the whole LoTR special edition DVD tonight - just to appreciate how great this post is!

Nice ... but you forgot about the Orcs. You'd have to get Michael Clarke Duncan (from the Green Mile and others) to play the head Orc, Lurtz. And they would all drive "riced out" cars and speak like gangstas.

Sorry, but the LotR movies are Hollywood movies, made by the Hollywood system. They're being produced and funded by a major Hollywood studio. There are plenty of foreign-born directors and actors working in Hollywood-produced films -- that doesn't make them "foreign" or "independent" films. Using LotR as evidence for a "Hollywood sux!" rant is stupid and childish. On the contrary, the LotR movies are prime evidence that Hollywood studio blockbusters with $100M+ budgets don't always suck.

Daze. You need to lighten up. This is comedy not a cutting expose on the Hollywood system. Take a deep breath and say to yourself that it is only parady and it can't hurt you. And do still think of it as an Indipentant film and a Foreign film. It starred only two US actors, all the rest were from various parts of the former british empire, It was filmed, edited and has sfx all done in New Zealand. And was based on a book by a Englishman. So I think it was Foreign. yes it was funded by money from California but then again I am from washington and I think California is a "Foreign land"

Besides Tom Hanks reading the phone book will cost you over 100+ Mil in Hollywood.

Yeah Jake but if it were a porn movie it would be called LORD OF THE C*CK RINGS. Imagine frodo being played by Ron Jeremy? Gawd wtf is wrong with me? I once saw a rental called Edward p*nishands and the cover was somethin else I must say, instead of scissors he had....uh.

The MTV parody is about Jack Black getting a Prince Albert with the Ring of Power.

"There would be people of color in the background scenes but not any of the leads would be minorities except for a comedic clown or two."

So, in that sense, there'd be MORE people of color in the Hollywood version than in Jackson's version...

I think that Hollywood would have them to appeal to a target audience but not to have a positive image. Does Jar Jar Binks count as a positive African American Roll model in Sci-Fi Fantasy?

Yes there would be more but I don't think it would be in a positive way. Also there really weren't too many people of color in pre-modern England that the fictional world of middle earth is based on. Yes there are defiantly people of color in England today but I don't think so two thousand years ago.

I also like Japanese samurai movies but they don't exactly have a lot of racial diversity in them. The Lord of the Ring actually has a nice theme of racial tolerance when the elves, dwarves, human and hobbits get along and embrace each others cultures.

I have heard that J.R.R. Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein, South Africa. That would officially make him a South African author though he lived many years in England.

Yes but he moved to England at an early age and lived there for the rest of his life. He was also British South African not German or African. He also was a professor of ancient English literature not African.

the original article is in german

made a rough translation for it last january

You forgot a few of the characters. But here is who I think would play them.

Ben Affleck as Elrond
Jennifer Lopez as Galadriel
Josh Hartnett as Isildur
The Rock as the Head Orc

And I think the first sequel would be called Lord of the Rings 2: Lord of the Blings.

This topic is great, and I could not agree more. Jake, your topic rules, (almost) as THE Movie does.

I'd say it was a creative rant, however everyone is on Hollywood's case so it's hardly original. What did strike me as funny about your article is that Hollywood DID make the movie, and obviously did a far better job of it than you would've done in their shoes. Who do you think supported 15 month shoots and the idea of making exteneded DVD releases to milk consumers out of more of their $$$. Hollywood. And they're succeeding. Look at the sales for LOTR in theaters right now.

I am not a big fan of Hollywood and watch a lot of films out of Hong Kong and Japan because of it. Hollywood did lay out the money but they did not make the movies. It was made down in New Zealand by New Zealanders. I wouldn’t call Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Ring movies American by any stretch or the term.

Also I am a big fan of the Extended edition DVD and I gladly paid for it again. No one put a gun to any ones head.

You know Tolkien would always go back a tweak things and add addendums and suffixes and dictionaries of the languages so the Extended edition DVD is actually in the spirit of Tolkien in that he was never happy with the published version of the book and he tweaked the books until he died.

The Two Towers is ruling the Box office for the third weekend is a row because it is simply a better movie than all the other movies out there. I mean what. That Tom Hanks and J-Lo crap is supposed to entertain me?

That's a lovely opinion. In general the popular movies from "hollywood" which appearently now means "filmed in America" are just pop fluff. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. Frankly I need a bit of fluff now and again... it breaks up the monotony of all the anti-hollywood monsters that come out. All I'm saying is there is nothing that designates the LOTR trilogy as an outsider from the Hollywood system. Is Star Wars a foreign film because it's filmed in large part in Australia? What about the Matrix? Again alot of filming (if not all of it) in Australia.

I guess what my point is it's a bit idiotic to claim the movies you don't like as being "hollywood" while a movie you do like is only "funded" by hollywood. I watch films from every country I can, and to be honest I've seen nothing far different from traditional hollywood movies. I think it's a pretentious stance to take to try and belittle others or perhaps to stand out and be independant. A common phase for recent college students. Hollywood has it's share of "hollywood" movies. But it also has it's share of Aronofsky's, Proyas', Fincher's and Lynch's turning out great films. Film is film, some are great and some are not so great... but you only truely lose out when you try and label work like this by nationality. It's a closed-minded and ignorant view.

Oh, and as for not having a gun held to your head to buy the extended version I agree. You didn't that's the beauty of it. They pulled the same thing Disney's fairly common at doing (which gets many complaints might I add, LOTR gets few). They release the common version and sit on the deluxe version for a few months. That's what is going on with the LOTR. It has nothing to do with being tweaked. If that were so they'd release both versions of the movie at the same time. Instead we'll see the Two Towers on DVD in August... followed in November by another 4 disc set. Not in any vien of Tolkien's work... but rather because these are hollywood films, and though wonderful, they still know how to milk you for your $$$.

In the end if it helps you sleep better at night to call or New Line Film (the same folks who brought you Jason X) something outside of hollywood go ahead. So far all the things mentioned to make The Two Towers out to be foreign can all be applied to Star Wars II. But hell even if you can't tolerate for a moment that the films are actually very much hollywood films, and still wish to live in denial... you atleast have to respect the hollywood system that "funded" them. As without that system there would be no EXTENDED DVD. No great production values. No 15 months of straight shooting. No actors of substance. Without their backing the majesty that is LOTR would end up looking like Meet the Feebles. So let's think with our minds rather than following blindly like sheep and hating without reason.

I would say that Star Wars is an American film because of the fact that George Lucas the writer/Director and his companies are located in California. George Lucas is a Yank and Peter Jackson is a Kiwi.

The Matrix is written and directed by Americans but they are ripping off films from Hong Kong and Japan while they are at it. The Matrix was a cool movie but they borrowed a lot from John Woo, Philip K Dick, and William Gibson.

You are confusing the word Hollywood with a location while I am talking about it as a brand of movies.

Sorry to you take such a personal offence when I talk ill of Hollowed. But I try not to take things personally when Hollywood thinks I am an idiot with the constant line of swell that they expect I will like.

I dunno I will get a lot more laughs out of Meet the Feables than Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars.

Actually my comments were meant to prove just what you said, hollywood is being confused with locations. The locations of the crew and director for LOTR have nothing to do with the claims that it's a Hollywood movie. Several people have made such claims already. This is what bothers me. The fact that everyone hates hollywood, but when they make an epic film to they get any credit? No, everyone tries to find a loophole. The film as you know it is a hollywood film. Everything about the film is hollywood. The fact that films were shot all at once, the huge budgets for believeable special effects, three hour running times, huge meticulous DVD sets. From what I've read newline was actually crucial in the decision to make these extended DVD's and had intended to catalogue the whole processes with these sets in mind. This hollywood company took the LOTR in as a great treasure and treated it as such. The lack of appreciation is disgusting.

I do hear your complaints against the ordinary commercial film. But the truth is Hollywood also puts out a lot of great films that are overshadowed by the next Die Hard. The statement "hollywood" film is ignorant. Many great films come from hollywood and many great films come from elsewhere. Many horrible commercial films come from elsewhere too. The big problem is the consumer. Movies are made to sell. If they didn't sell, they wouldn't be made. So don't blame the industry because all your friends and relatives went to see Titanic.

My point is Hollywood isn't always that awful as the LOTR is demonstrating. It is a Hollywood film. As I pointed out with examples of the Matrix and Star Wars, being filmed internationally has little to do with being a big budget commercial film. For Star Wars in specific most of the crew was native to Australia and most of the actors were unknown actors selected from across the world. Those two things seem to be the main argument for saying LOTR is not a hollywood film. When in reality most "Hollywood" films are filmed that way. Every is quick to jump at the evil Hollywood, but when they do something right, is it supported? Nope. They aren't even given credit. That's all I take offense to. They did something you can enjoy and you won't even admit to that. You try to pass it off on nationalities. You try to pass if off on locations. You even try to suggest that New Line is nothing more than funding (which in and of itself should be enough to prove atleast they're "funding" a great film which they treat as their child). What it comes down to is that if New Line is nothing more than funding the film... then the whole basis for a Hollywood film is eliminated. It deflates your very own argument. If a studio giving financial backing to a film is only "funding" then really there are no Hollywood films. They're only "funded" by hollywood. Alot of "Hollywood" films are made in other countries with all kinds of different directors from all around the world... the only difference seems to be you like this particular film. So instead of saying Hollywood made a good film, you say they only "funded" it. So really, according to your definitions... we're left with two choices. If the films bad it was created by the Hollywood monster. If it's good, then Hollywood only "funded" it. How can you have it both ways.

and need i point out the constant reference to the soundtrack being some awful contemporary mess... when the real soundtrack is from Howard Shore. He's nothing short of a half-wit John Williams... who in a six degrees of Kevin Bacon kind of way... provides the music for... yup you guessed it. Pretty much every hollywood movie. And the ones he couldn't score were picked up by... you guessed it... Howard Shore. Not Hollywood.

Some people just really want to argue. Look I am not going to change my mind and you are not going to change yours so let's just move on with our lives mmmkay...?

I think Jimmy here spends too much time of Movie Poop shoot .com

Isn't the correct spelling "parody", not "parady"? Although, I found this hilarious website by missppellingg that word.

Nice job w/ the casting, but we think we have a few ideas that would improve the movie's "Hollywoodness."

FRODO BAGGINS - TOM CRUISE
GOLLUM/SMEAGOL - ROB SCHNEIDER (no cgi necessary)
MERIADOC - SEANN WILLIAM SCOTT
PEREGRIN - JASON BIGGS

GANDALF THE GREY - SEAN CONNERY "You're the king now, dog"
(Note: he WAS the first choice for Gandalf, apparently there are powers of good working in this world)

SARUMAN THE WHITE - CHRISTOPHER WALKEN
GRIMA WORMTONGUE - JON LOVITZ

BOROMIR - WESLEY SNIPES
FARAMIR - CUBA GOODING JR.
DENETHOR - MORGAN FREEMAN

ELROND - KEVIN COSTNER
ARWEN EVENSTAR - JULIA ROBERTS
GALADRIEL - CAMERON DIAZ
HALDIR - MARKY MARK WAHLBERG

THEODEN - CHARLTON HESTON (after cured by Gandalf)
- RONALD REAGAN (before curing by Gandalf)
EOMER - DULF LUNDGREN ("I have the Power")
EOWYN - MADONNA

THE GAFFER - JOHN GOODMAN

GAMLING - SYLVESTER STALLONE
BEREGOND - BRUCE WILLIS

THE WITCH-KING - JACK NICHOLSON
MOUTH OF SAURON - JEFF GOLDBLUM

GHAN-BURI-GHAN - JACKIE CHAN
CAVE TROLL - YAO MING (very little makeup & a rockets jersey)

(Note: We were exactly the same for Legolas/Gimli. That pairing would be hilarious beyond belief)

About Eomer above, it's spelled Dolph. Sorry about that.

hahaha... makes me so thankful that PJ did the triligy... you go PJ!

Hey you all i found it. The lord of the rings porn parody... Its called The Whored of the rings. and its bad... real bad the back drops suck. the actors are okay. seen alot better and its a definate must see 4 lord of the rings fans i think... I bought it just to add to my collection.... of lord of the ring stuff....

Although I am not much of a reader, I would highly recomend "Board of the Rings". It came out shortly after the book and is quite funny.