If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Brains Trust)   Lord of the Rings - where did the budget go?   ( thebrainstrust.co.uk) divider line
    More: Satire  
•       •       •

4878 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2001 at 4:04 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

36 Comments     (+0 »)
2001-12-15 04:11:24 AM  
"...the director's "vision" relies almost exclusively on sock puppets to portray Tolkein's stumpy heroes."

This is hilarious. Read it!!
2001-12-15 04:12:28 AM  
Hobbits as sock puppets...

I just had a flashback to my 2nd grade class play. You can't imagine how horrible a sock puppet 'flying' via a string looks..
2001-12-15 04:28:58 AM  
Don't get me wrong, I'm seeing the movie on opening night, but...it's kind of odd that they spend hundreds of millions of dolars to create a vision that you can get at the book store for about seven bucks for each of the three books. Oh, and the Silmarillion. Oh wait, I forgot the hobbit. Crud, plus the Atlas Of Middle Earth. Plus the Middle Earth Companion CD by Yanni. Oh, and don't forget your all those "orc-rock!" genre CDs. Plus the Ralph "Barf" Bakshi video. Oh, and the other lame video series. And the "How To Speak The Languages Of Middle Earth" books on tape.
On second hand, I think it's cheaper just to make a movie.
2001-12-15 04:33:48 AM  
Uh... correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the dollars spent on special effects in "Lord of the Rings" said to "show'" quite a bit? I also don't recall director Peter Jackson being accused of any financial wrongdoing. Seems less of a satire than a humorous alternate reality.
2001-12-15 04:58:31 AM  

I love that samurai origami hat.
2001-12-15 05:42:59 AM  
Where did the budget go? Tax cuts for the wealthy wizards.
2001-12-15 07:07:04 AM  
Ubermonkey: Let me address your statement first. To say "it's kind of odd that they spend hundreds of millions of dolars to create a vision that you can get at the book store for about seven bucks for each of the three books" is not only partially misspelled, but very inaccurate of a metaphor. Y'see, the studio spent $271 million dollars to produce the three films, the vision. You're only spending 9 bucks or so to see the film. As you'd only spend $7 to read the first book. Don't forget the fact that production of the books probably cost tens of thousands of dollars - paying the author to write, the publisher to publish, and the advertising to sell it - if not over a hundred thousand.

Sorry, the comparisons just don't match up or make any sense. I'm not trying to flame ya or be a troll, but the statement just didn't make much sense at all.

As for this article, it's purely crap. Not really funny at all. BigPeeler, I'm quite sure you were being sarcastic with your comment, so I'll leave ya alone.

What my real complaint is HOW THE fakr DID THIS ARTICLE, OF SUCH A HIGH LEVEL OF UN-FUNNINESS (I know, I know....I made the damned word up), GET POSTED ON FARK?!?! I'm really losing interest in coming to this site anymore, as I just can't stand the level of quality in the links that has dropped soooooo far. C'mon, Drew....it used to be hilarious, almost every link! What happened? Did people just stop submitting decent links? Or did you just stop caring about what was actually posted, and end up using some random-posting code to choose because you had too many submissions to look at them all?

And don't anyone say "well, if you don't like what's posted, why don't you submit anything?"....because I do. All the time. And they never make it. So, I have no idea what's up with this.

Someone, PLEASE, tell me what's going on?
2001-12-15 07:23:33 AM  

2001-12-15 07:32:00 AM  
When did the humor-vampire strike MisterSym?

Your comment is longer that the article. YHBT.
2001-12-15 07:32:24 AM  
I think The Brain Trust was funny. Once.
2001-12-15 07:36:11 AM  
I don't even think there should be a debate over this. Humor is a fickle thing. What classifies as funny is nowhere near universal. Just check out Eric Idle's Road to Mars book. I don't know what I'm getting at...
2001-12-15 07:54:08 AM  
Karpage: The real question is when did the humor-vampire strike FARK? But yer right...my comments tend to be long and tedious. But what the fakr is "YHBT"?

Tristran: It may have been. However, I've only read this one article from Brain Trust. I wasn't commenting on the site itself, but the lack of humor (or wit, interest, etc.) in the article that was linked. For your sake and mine, Tristran, I beg that it becomes funny again.

Norstrin: I can't say much but that I agree with you on that fact: humor is definitely point-of-view. However, most people will agree that what DEFINITIVELY classifies as not funny at all is generally quite universal. And this article, I personally believe, fits that category of DEFINITIVE lack of humor. I'm afraid most people will agree with me on how dumb it really is. But, once again, you're right as rain about he rest of your comment.
2001-12-15 07:59:30 AM  
Norstrin: The POV qualities of humor are probably why my submissions never make it to post. Either that or my theory of Drew's added auto-posting code is correct, and I'm just damn unlucky. I actually submit about 3 or so articles a week. Maybe not enough to beat the odds of having an article posted by the auto-poster.
2001-12-15 09:56:59 AM  
http://www.thebrainstrust.co.uk <--- Says it all.
I have to wonder though... how much money is 90 million in Hollywood nowadays? What would that translate into 60's dollars? How would the budget compare then to "Planet of the Apes" (the Heston version) or a bona fide epic like "Lawrence of Arabia?" I think the real question/satire of "Where did the money go?" would be more appropriate for something like "Waterworld."

In my opinion 90 million dollars (US$-2001) isn't enough to do justice to LOTR...
2001-12-15 10:08:01 AM  
I thought it was funny
2001-12-15 10:10:43 AM  
2001-12-15 10:21:51 AM  
After I managed to hold back the tears when realizing this wasn't hardhitting satire as expected, I thought it was amusing.

"http://www.thebrainstrust.co.uk <--- Says it all."
Too true. It's sad that not everyone is able to accept "Little Nicky" as evidence that American humour is superior to British.
2001-12-15 10:45:12 AM  
Wombat: Actually, I have the Black Adder complete boxed set on DVD. I'm also a fan of Monty Python movies... I was just making reference to the uneven reception British humor usually gets here. I never saw Little Nicky because it looked like self-indulgent boorishness from the previews. Do you think 90 million was enough to spend on LOTR? I don't (read prev. post).
2001-12-15 11:35:44 AM  
British "satire" can be a bit off, but the tv / film comedies usually ok - anyone here seen "Spaced" btw?
2001-12-15 11:38:25 AM  
YHBT = You have been trolled.
2001-12-15 12:05:12 PM  
"and the fiery battle of Helm's Deep seemed to instead involve a number of small indoor fireworks going phut."

I do not think that the author of this knows much about the books, considering Helm's Deep didn't show up until the second or third book. Thank you.
2001-12-15 12:14:36 PM  
anyone who thought that article was funny should never, ever attempt to tell a joke
2001-12-15 12:16:23 PM  
... to Shoeshine
2001-12-15 12:19:20 PM  
They call this shiat satire? I call it farking stupid. What a waste of my bandwidth.
2001-12-15 12:36:34 PM  
Damn you Pshain, I was going to point that out in the most nerd-like of ways possible, but you have just ruined all of my grandiose dreams.
2001-12-15 12:55:31 PM  
who posted this? gar.
2001-12-15 01:07:51 PM  
Didn't we have a "lame" tag at some point in time? If not, I request one immediately.
2001-12-15 02:01:29 PM  
Sorry to rain on your parade there, Dread_Pirate_Roberts.
2001-12-15 02:53:28 PM  
hey, if you folks want to see some funny british web humour check this out it's not satire though.
2001-12-15 04:58:10 PM  
This article is good, and should be funny to anyone who can read at a Tolkien level--which I think will exclude many forum posters.
2001-12-15 05:35:56 PM  
SilentObserver: Of course you thought it was funny....you're Canadian. And being Canadian means that your vote don't mean shiat. Almost as bad as being British.

"Oh, you don't count, Happy. You've got no legs!"
-Mr. Garrison, "South Park"
2001-12-15 06:05:46 PM  
Fark is genius really. They post drivel and tripe and then allow the Farkers to provide the thunder. Pure genius. The tail is indeed wagging the dog.

I can't help but think of that scene in the movie "Heat", where DeNiro and his crew are at that refinery giving bogus instructions while Pacino's crew watches. Then, a few minutes later, Pacino realizes that he's the one being watched! "You GOT me. Yeah! You GOT me motherfarker!!"

Hilarious. We are the entertainment folks. Not the article. There are probably a whole higher echelon of "Pay-Farkers" somewhere on the web that pay Drew $19.95 a month just to tune in and watch us piss and moan.

"You GOT Me!!"
2001-12-15 07:24:25 PM  
Bigpeeler: Jeebus fakring Chrysler! You had me rolling there. Damn skippy Drew "got us".

Where's my cut o' the love, Drew?!?! SHOW ME THE MONEY!
2001-12-15 07:27:52 PM  
Spling: Fantastic, that link! Soooooooooooo funny! Ha Ha HA! They spelt it like "catalogue"! HA! HA! HA!

hehehh!!!! H! A! HA!

Ahhhh.....too......funny......CATALOGUE! HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!
2001-12-15 09:05:31 PM  
ha ha ha MisterSym, suck my cock, ha ha ha, you farkin' spastic-faced coont
2001-12-17 12:05:20 PM  
Funniest thing I've read in weeks. They rock.
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.