One Ring to Lure Them All: Christmas 2001: Tolkien Goes Hollywood. Already Fans Hope for the Best, Brace for the Worst

Article excerpt

In this Manhattan movie house, at 10:30 a.m., you can tell who isn't here to watch Kevin Costner handle the Cuban missile crisis in "Thirteen Days." You, sir, with the tattoos and the FRODO LIVES! T shirt? Bet you came to see the trailer for "The Lord of the Rings"? Knew it.

Word got out three years ago that New Line Cinema planned to film "The Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkien's sword-and-sorcery trilogy involving furry-footed hobbits, immortal elves, doughty dwarves, foul orcs, the dark Land of Mordor and a Ring so evil and powerful that it gives us the willies just to type the word. ("One Ring to rule them all... and in the darkness bind them.") Since then Tolkien obsessives have been in a spiritual state equivalent to revving an engine in neutral. As one character in the trilogy says, "The reason of my waking mind tells me a great evil has befallen... But... a hope and joy are come to me that no reason can deny." And that's why our man here, Eric Negron, 30, who works at a downtown tattoo parlor, slept in the theater lobby last night; the kindly manager let him crash on the carpet by the concession stand.

New Line's "Lord of the Rings" isn't the first attempt to film the trilogy. Tolkien (who died in 1973) turned down a treatment for an animated version that committed such barbarisms as referring to lembas, the elves' preternaturally nutritious waybread, as "food concentrate." Ralph Bakshi's 1978 film combined animation with "rotoscoping," in which footage of live actors was copied onto animation paper; in the words of another Tolkien character, "the memory is very evil." Not even the most skeptical fan believes that Peter Jackson, director of New Line's live-action film, could do worse. And no one thinks last week's ousting of New Line president Michael De Luca will affect the movie one way or the other.

Thanks to rumors, spies in New Zealand (Jackson's home and the film's location) and, most of all, New Line's kitchy-coo dance with Tolkien obsessives on the Internet, fans are getting hints of what Jackson, who directed the well-received "Heavenly Creatures," is doing with, or to, their beloved epic. (In less than a week the official Web site, lordoftherings.net, had 62 million hits.) One thing they know he got right was to do the three volumes as three films. (For how much? The producers will say only that the original $260 million budget has been "enhanced.") Part one won't be out until next Christmas, and the others not until '02 and '03--quite a strain if you don't know that everything finally turns out OK. As of last week, when the trailer gave a peek at characters and costumes, many fans were still reserving judgment. "I hope you're not cooking up some story about how Tolkien geeks hate the movie and want to crucify Peter Jackson," one "Mr. Underhill" told us in an e-mail. (Mr. Underhill is the alias used by hero Frodo Baggins, played by Elijah Wood.) "Lots of us can't wait for the movies to come out--I'm betting at least as many as have already decided they'll be crap." True, we can't guarantee Mr. Underhill isn't Peter Jackson.

Contrary to what you may hear, "The Lord of the Rings" won't be "competing" with Christmas 2001's other British fantasy novel turned film, "Harry Potter and the Sorcer-er's Stone": a zillion peo-ple will go to both--most of them the same people. But J. K. Rowling's magical universe is jokier, more contemporary and less primal than Tolkien's Middle Earth, which melds the stern landscapes of Finnish and Norse sagas with the greenswards of Arthurian romance and the comfy villages of preindustrial England. …