L. Ron Hubbard's Lord of the Rings

Was that Zardof, or something like that?

PS I'm always in favor of red lingerie. :angel:
It was a diaper.
69d7f7bb95df475a382868926a1f1717--sean-connery-sean-opry.jpg
 
images

I remember trying to watch it late at night as a teenager. Somehow the the quick promo had convinced me it had all this meaning and depth, which it seemed a tad bit slow getting to. :openedeyewink:
 
I've never seen that movie. The poster makes it sound like it's trying to do the same things as 1984 and 2001, only with more profundity. Did the promo-writer just pick those two titles as his points of comparison because they're both years and hence provide a nifty "rhyme"?

Off the top of my head, I can't really imagine how a film could be similar to both 1984 and 2001. Those stories are both pretty different from one another, not even really in the same ballpark, except that they both qualify as science-fiction.
 
I've never seen that movie. The poster makes it sound like it's trying to do the same things as 1984 and 2001, only with more profundity. Did the promo-writer just pick those two titles as his points of comparison because they're both years and hence provide a nifty "rhyme"?

Off the top of my head, I can't really imagine how a film could be similar to both 1984 and 2001. Those stories are both pretty different from one another, not even really in the same ballpark, except that they both qualify as science-fiction.

The director was basically perpetually on drugs throughout production.

I'm also being literal.
 
Anyway, how might this film look if:

A. It does indeed get produced via a real studio, albeit with directors and/or writers in Scientology's thrall, with Hubbard involved either indirectly or directly as a 'creative consultant'?

B. It does get produced in-house, so to speak, with all that entails?

What hilarity or desecration might occur either way?
 
Top