Slashdot Mirror


Extra Scenes in FotR Special Edition DVD

gdr writes "Lights Out Entertainment have an article on the extra scenes that will be in the Fellowship of the Ring special edition DVD. It will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit. I'm not sure the final battle scene really needs to be any longer." There are quite a few bits mentioned for the extra 30 minutes of footage that I'm looking forward to seeing. Just be careful to buy the November 12 release and not the august release if you want the extra mojo. I'll be waiting.

493 comments

  1. Europe? by Dilbert_ · · Score: 1

    When is this coming to Europe? Or is it a simultaneous region 1/2 release?

    --
    superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
    1. Re:Europe? by Colm+Buckley · · Score: 1
      When is this coming to Europe? Or is it a simultaneous region 1/2 release?
      Certainly R1 and R2 are coming out at the same time; I don't know about other regions.
  2. Will they... by aengblom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will they have more minute-long shots of them walking? I really don't think their was enough in the original version.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    1. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! They should have it proportionately as long as the books had descriptions of landscape, trees and grass!

    2. Re:Will they... by Tin+Weasil · · Score: 1

      I sure hope so... There was definately not enough "up the hill, down the plain, cross the river, under tree, walk for five days, etc." in the movie. The books were chocked full of that kind of riviting action.

    3. Re:Will they... by ElginCon · · Score: 1

      I am still angry that Peter Jackson took it upon himself to modify the story. I know he thinks he did it for the good of mankind, but many important themes and characters were removed or butchered for the transition to the screen.

      The LotR did not have to be modified for the cinema. Jackson took more "creative freedom" than he should have and ruined a wonderful novel. I would have liked more scenes of them walking and talking.

      That being said, I'll probably get both DVDs as well. I'm such a consumer whore.

    4. Re:Will they... by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I only really missed Tom Bombadil and the Old Man Willow tree...

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    5. Re:Will they... by NexusTw1n · · Score: 1

      Just be careful to buy the November 12 release and not the august release if you want the extra mojo. I'll be waiting.

      So they sell it in August, then sell it to the same people again with bonus footage released just in time for Christmas....

      What's the betting they release it again for Easter with a bonus "making of.." DVD and maybe even a couple of postcards thrown in absolutely free!!

      Personally I'm going to wait for the super limited edition triple film box set with 12 postcards, limited edition poster personally signed using a scanned copy of Peter Jackson's secretary's signature, and 14 hours of previously unseen footage.

      Great film, but is this level of marketing really necessary ?

      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    6. Re:Will they... by thaigan · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with you. I think it was important that he stick as much as possible to the story, but not all of the story would translate well into a movie. If it did, then endless hours of walking and talking should be added. I think it's important that he make a movie that really works well for anyone that has or hasn't read the books. Hopefully this will inspire all to either read or re-read the stories. I know it did for me and most of my family.

      --

      42
    7. Re:Will they... by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

      A-men. If it's not good enough to make into a movie, then don't.

    8. Re:Will they... by sdjunky · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Will they have more minute-long shots of them walking? I really don't think their was enough in the original version"

      Considering this is mostly what they did in the book I believe it shows the labor of their journeys. I believe it fits well. If you don't like the walking then you'll hate the book since it takes forever to even get to the point where
      <spoiler>

      Frodo gets stabbed with the knife by one of the Ring Wraiths
      </spoiler>

      I understand that for some it may have been boring but the Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. There is no part that doesn't fit in some small way to the whole. It's said that JRR Tolkien scrapped 3 chapters of work because he realized that the phase of the moon was wrong and had to rewrite earlier chapters to take into account of the differing light.

      He not only wrote the languages of the Elven Tongue and Dwarfish etc. But those languages predecessors and their predecessors. They are real languages ( considering he was a linguist - no surprise ). If you read the Silmarillion you see references to words in their earliest form "Orkos" which later was termed "Orcs" etc.

      You'll note ( a part taken out of the movie I believe ) that in the Bar Frodo was saying what was to be an earlier form of the childrens nursery rhyme where "The cow jumped over the moon".

      He was a perfectionist. His work is a masterpiece and maybe some will appreciate the intended meaning of the "long walking scenes" since they add to the air of the FotR.

    9. Re:Will they... by thaigan · · Score: 1

      I used to agree that this is overkill. However, it's likely that there will be many people that would just want the theatrical release at a relatively low price and there will be others(myself included) that will want everything they can get and be willing to pay significantly more for it. I know view it as options. Albeit, it's a little annoying that you have to do some legwork to be informed about all your options before you buy anything now;-(

      --

      42
    10. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only part that really bothered me was that Gimli wanted to go under the mountain vs. Gandalf in the book.

      In the movie Gandalf was opposed to it, so his death seemed a little more sad given that he never wanted to face the Balrog in the first place.

      Aside from that the only major difference was Arwen riding with Frodo and crossing the river instead of Legolas. No big deal since Arwen is much nicer to look at.

    11. Re: Will they... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      > I don't agree with you. I think it was important that he stick as much as possible to the story, but not all of the story would translate well into a movie.

      I've pretty much decided that I don't like to see movies based on good books, nor to read books based on good movies. They are different mediums, different genres even, and they don't generally translate very well.

      Anecdote... I went to see Harry Potter with my brother and his kids, and afterward he asked if I liked it. I said it was a good idea, and very well done in terms of sets, props, cinematography, etc., but overall it was really boring because they stretched it out with tedius, trivial, irrelevant details. It turns out that they originally edited it to work as a movie, but in test screenings the kiddies revolted with an anal retentive "That's not like the book!", so they turned it into a cinematographic instantiation of the book, with predictable results.

      So the choice seems to be: be faithful to the book and bore your audiences, or be faithful to the medium and offend the fans of the book. I liked LotR->book, but I'm not precisely a fan of it, so I only found the changes mildly annoying. But for a book that I was really crazy about, I don't think I'd want to see the movie. Nor vice versa.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:Will they... by Gehenna_Gehenna · · Score: 1

      I agree. Had they done a full, complete, and 100% direct translation of the book the film would probably run 4+ hours. I can do that on a couch, in my living room, but never in a theatre. Besides, I think it's good that people who were just introduced to Tolkien get a few surprises when they read the series.

      --

    13. Re:Will they... by NexusTw1n · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Well if you want consumer choice, then offer all the varying versions on the shelves at varying prices, but released on the same day.

      It's a con, not a consumer choice if each slightly different release is launched on a different timescale.

      It's funny, but post an RIAA story and /. is filled with posters screaming in outrage at the latest attempt to get people to pay for the same copyrighted material over and over and over again.

      Yet any announcement for a limited edition Star Wars or LOTR DVD and /. is filled with good little Joe Sixpacks, sucking up the marketing nonsense with idiotic gleams in their eyes.

      You keep paying more than once for the same copyrighted material, albeit in a slightly different form, and you're just encouraging the move to the RIAA's ultimate dream, pay to play each time you watch your own CD/DVD's...

      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    14. Re:Will they... by chill182 · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope they have more shots of frodo holding the ring in his hand. I felt like the symbolism drug me out into a back alley and beat me with a lead pipe. Great movie though.

    15. Re:Will they... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      For those that do not know, you might want to spend some time catching up to those of us who have actually read the book.

    16. Re:Will they... by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm, The version of the book I read had Gandalf opposed to going thor Moria. Also, it was Glorfindal that loaned Asfaloth to Frodo to get him over the Ford of Bruinen. Legolas didn't show until the council meeting. Cheers

    17. Re:Will they... by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about, for those who've read the book and decided that Old Man Willow and Bombadil were both best left unshot?

      Tolkien started writing a children's book to follow The Hobbit and changed his focus towards the end of the first book (well, 1/4 of the way through the single book, as he was planning it) and it really shows.

      The first part was silly, and not in a good way. Remember the dwarf names in tH? Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, etc? Silly rhyming intended for children.

      The first part of LotR was this way, with all the hobbit lineage and the sillyness of the party, of Bombadil, and so on.

      At least the movie avoided this. They let events be funny without anything be ridiculous, which detracts from the overall feeling of seriousness the quest deserves.

      Actually, Tolkien himself states that Bombadil was the name of a toy of his children, that he put in the book for a cameo because he thought they'd like it, not because it helped the story. (He later said that he thought the mystery of Bombadil helped the world, but only in context of someone who had read the Silmarilion as well.)

    18. Re:Will they... by TheGonzoKid · · Score: 1

      I thought the movie would have been much improved if they had filled all those shots with a narration. Maybe some of the elvish lore that was missing from the movie. It could have given the movie far more depth. Some of those great dwarven songs, or elvish epics would have made the movie truly great.

      --
      "when the going get's wierd the wierd turn pro." -hst
    19. Re: Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdote... I went to see Harry Potter with my brother and his kids, and afterward he asked if I liked it. I said it was a good idea, and very well done in terms of sets, props, cinematography, etc., but overall it was really boring because they stretched it out with tedius, trivial, irrelevant details. It turns out that they originally edited it to work as a movie, but in test screenings the kiddies revolted with an anal retentive "That's not like the book!", so they turned it into a cinematographic instantiation of the book, with predictable results.

      The predictable results being that complete morons complained that it was too much like the book, but everyone with a brain really enjoyed it? Cause that's what happened.

    20. Re:Will they... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well, one of my biggest complaints (not that I didn't like the movie, I loved it) was that you got no sense of the long, laborious journey - it all seemed like it took place in a couple of weeks when it was six or seven months.

      With movie magic, you don't have to spend a lot of time showing the progression of time...

      The biggest disappointment, in that respect, was Moria. Moria, to me, is the highlight of the first book, but in the movie it seemed to last only a few hours, maybe a day, when in the book it was like a week. In the book you get this real depressing feeling, they're in the dark, not knowing what lies ahead, and it goes on day after day... very dark and brooding.

      The movie was great, though. It's obvious you can't make a three hour movie out of a book like FOTR and be faithful, so I was satisfied - but only becuase I had also READ the book. I can't imagine seeing it without reading the book and not being confused. I can't imagine someone who didn't read the book enjoying the movie nearly as much as someone who did read it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    21. Re:Will they... by Ragica · · Score: 0
      The parent to this was modded funny; and most of the replies backslap along with sarcastic wit. One reply, speaking seemingly seriously in reply about the landscape descriptions in the book, I can't tell if they missed the ironic tone of the original post, or the sarcasm is just too dry for my comprehension.

      At any rate, I agree with that poster's seemingly serious remark. One of the many elements that made the novels so real was the absolutely fantastic description of the countryside, and the rolling, trudging, slogging, singing, always wondrous, way through it.

      When I heard the LotR movies were being made I was very skeptical. With great reluctance did I view even the trailers. But the first trailer actually won me over by this very element: the way it took time to quietly show the characters simply walking through the mountain pass. I could see immediately, that whatever else its flaws may be, the director did seem to be going to try to at least in part stay true to this feeling of the reality of travel through a great land. It was beautiful.

      The accompanying music, alas, did not live up to the wandering scenes. Nevertheless... I (and I know I am not alone) would welcome the lengthiest of walks with Peter Jackson through Middle Earth, having seen the glimpses of the country in the first volume.

    22. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called an "attention span". Look into getting one, eh?

    23. Re:Will they... by Turing+Machine · · Score: 2

      the film would probably run 4+ hours.

      More like 6 or 7. A (very rough) rule of thumb is one screenplay page == one minute of screen time.

      The Fellowship of the Ring is over 400 pages long, IIRC.

      I think Jackson did a fantastic job, by the way.

    24. Re:Will they... by Sloppy · · Score: 2
      The LotR did not have to be modified for the cinema.
      Here are the choices:
      1. Modify it for mainstream time constraints
      2. Abandon it, and make Dead Alive 2
      3. Do it "right" as 9 films instead of 3, but then you don't have studio/money backing, so The Balrog looks like something from Dr. Who, or just use Meet the Feebles style puppets.
      His compromise was reasonable. If you don't like it, make your own version. I'll pay to watch it.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    25. Re:Will they... by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      I concede to your point; however, in my selfish situation, I reserved a copy of FotR only to find a few weeks later that there is another version to be released with more content.

      Which version would you have chose had you known of it's existance?

      I'd really like to get my money back and only purchase one video but now I'm 'forced' to purchase the other edition because the publishing company withheld information about another 'removed-scenes-added' version being released at a later date.

    26. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The first part was silly, and not in a good way. Remember the dwarf names in tH? Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, etc? Silly rhyming intended for children.

      Perhaps they rhymed, but the entire list of Dwarven names was actually copied from old Scandinavian writing (as was Gandalf), so they weren't necessarily chosen for kids. You are still correct that he changed focus partway through.

    27. Re:Will they... by kallisti · · Score: 2
      The LotR did not have to be modified for the cinema

      Yes, it would have been much better if Aragorn started every (and I mean every) speech with a command "Look! Behold! Listen!", followed by an impassioned, yet pointless ramble about ancient trivia. It completely ruined the movie for me.

    28. Re:Will they... by Tin+Weasil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ???
      I was serious. The "uneventful" periods of the Journey in the LotR was where a lot of the character development took place. It was during a pit stop in the Two Towers where Gollum caught the rabbits for Sam to cook for Frodo that I realized that Sam was the more heroic of the two hobbits.

      I honestly wish that LotR had been filmed as six movies instead of three.

    29. Re:Will they... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Well if you want consumer choice, then offer all the varying versions on the shelves at varying prices, but released on the same day.

      Why is that an absolute requirement? Making a special DVD takes time, and it's not that long since the movie has come out. It would be much more of a con if they were trying to keep the special version secret, in which case more people would probably buy the original, just to discover the special edition later. But as a potential purchaser, I'm perfectly satisfied that they haven't tried to trick me. If I'm desperate to see it between August and November, I'll just rent it from Blockbuster.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    30. Re:Will they... by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      well, I have a pretty simple solution for this. We'll probably rent the DVD when it comes out (my wife hasn't seen it), then buy the full version when it comes out in Nov. Whew! I'm out a whole $3.00!

    31. Re:Will they... by ghjm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know anything about Tolkien's life or what he intended while writing the books, but you are definitely correct that the focus and style changes drastically somewhere between Rivendell and Lorien. I always interpreted this as the changing perceptions of the hobbits as they become more aware of the world outside the Shire: the comfortable imagery gives way to something darker as the quest progresses. In this context you can see Tom Bombadil as the hobbits' first exposure to someone outside the world of hobbits; maybe Tom isn't as weird as he seems, maybe the hobbits just see him that way. Anyway, I think the relatively easy introduction serves the books well; if the books began with the middle chapters of The Two Towers, far fewer people would ever successfully launch a trip through them.

      -Graham

    32. Re:Will they... by ElginCon · · Score: 1

      At least the movie avoided this. They let events be funny without anything be ridiculous, which detracts from the overall feeling of seriousness the quest deserves.

      I think that Merry and Pippen were portrayed as bumbling idiots. They served no purpose in the movie as their characters lacked any development at all.

      Actually, Tolkien himself states that Bombadil was the name of a toy of his children, that he put in the book for a cameo because he thought they'd like it, not because it helped the story.

      But Tom Bombadillo did help the story. He was part of the hobbits first experiences outside the Shire. He helped them realize that there are things in their world they couldn't hope to understand.

      If we're going to cut important parts out I don't understand why it was necessary to shoot the scenes at the Prancing Pony, or Rivendell, or in Moria. These parts were left filmed because they were important to the story. I think Peter Jackson has shown that he could give a damn about character development, which is after all subordinate to plot.

      Right? =/

    33. Re:Will they... by JosefK · · Score: 1

      All of the dwarf names in The Hobbit actually come from the Norse Eddas; they were not invented by Tolkien. They were silly rhyming intended for Vikings, not for children. ;o)

    34. Re:Will they... by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      Tolkien stated, after a letter from a fan, than Glorfindel was a continuity mistake - he had accidentally put an Elf who died in an earlier age. "Glorfindel", according to Tolkien, could have been any random high elf.

    35. Re:Will they... by DonVictor · · Score: 1
      I don't think Gandalf knew the balrog would be there (in the book), although it isn't exactly spelled out, and he certainly had forbodings about Moria.

      In the book, Glorfindel saves Frodo at Bruin. I think the reason that Arwen is shifted into this role is to introduce her - Tolkein did not spend a lot of time on the female characters and they wanted Aragorn's love to be a more visible character. Likewise, the scene with the sword that was broken - in the book, Aragorn has the sword that was broken in Bree. In the movie, we do not see it until we see the 'shrine' to it in Rivendell. It becomes a conversation piece, allowing Jackson to reinsert some of the themes that were not shown in Bree and elsewhere.

      A lot of the conversation in the book gives interesting background info, and Jackson seems to cut these conversations out and reinsert them elsewhere. In the movie, the action scenes are more actiony and the dialog is swept into the relaxed scenes.

      This contributes to the feeling that this all happened very quickly (days instead of months), but probably allows the movie to fit into hours instead of days.

      Maybe if you missed a conversation, look for it in the next movie.

    36. Re:Will they... by aengblom · · Score: 2

      Damn. Yo, it's a joke, yall. ;-)

      Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Funny=4, Overrated=4, Underrated=1, Total=10.

      I (who never read to books. Bad Geek!) felt they could take out 20 minutes of walking and put in 20 more minutes of other things. Every walking shot had to have a close up, medium range, and a long distance "ooo look at the pretty mountains" shot.

      Overall, I did enjoy the movie though.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    37. Re:Will they... by mykdavies · · Score: 3, Informative
      Remember the dwarf names in tH? Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, etc? Silly rhyming intended for children.

      Blame the Vikings! JRR didn't make the names up - he took names from Norse mythology (here's a list from http://sunnyway.com/runes/gods.html - see who else turns up in there!)

      Nyi, Nidi, Nordri, Sudri, Austri, Vestri, Althiolf ("Mighty Thief"), Dvalin, Nar, Nain, Niping, Dain, Bifur, Bofur, Nori, Ori, Onar, Oin, Modvitnir ("Mead-Wolf"), Vig, Gandalf ("Magic Elf"), Vindalf ("Wind Elf"), Thorin, Fili, Kili, Fundin, Vali, Thror, Throin, Thekk, Lit, Vitr, Nyr, Nyrad, Rekk, Radsvinn ("Swift in Counsel"), Draupnir, Dolgthvari, Hor, Hugstari, Hlediolf, Gloin, Dori, Duf, Andvari, Heptifili, Har, Siar, Skirpir, Virpir, Skafinn, Ai, Alf, Ingi, Eikinskialdi ("Oak Shield"), Fal, Frosti, Finn, Ginnar.

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    38. Re:Will they... by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      I never read the book.

      I Loved the movie, and loved it even more the second time I saw it. I thought it was amazing.

      And in Moria, they do mention the amount of time, so while you don't really get a FEEL for it, I did know it intellectually at least.

      I was never confused, or lost, and certainly never bored either. It was one of my favorite movies from last year, and I'm eagerly anticipating the next film.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    39. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from that the only major difference was Arwen riding with Frodo and crossing the river instead of Legolas. No big deal since Arwen is much nicer to look at.

      Speak for yourself... I think Legolas is much nicer to look at, and I think seeing Legolas carrying Frodo would have made me hard. Of course, Sam would have ended up killing Legolas in a jealous rage if he tried anything...

    40. Re:Will they... by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 2

      I think that Merry and Pippen were portrayed as bumbling idiots.

      Pippin certainly was, although I think Merry comes off as the more sensible of the two. Every film needs its comic relief; Pippin is Peter Jackson's Jar-Jar, that's all. And I'm sure his character will grow in subsequent films, especially when he has to start dealing with actual responsibility (to Denethor and Minas Tirith) in the third film.

      --
      "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    41. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that what WNight is trying to say is that Scandinavians are silly. I agree with him, but I think they are silly in a good way. :-)

    42. Re:Will they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I know people who do that in real life. Not that I'd want to see about movie featuring them, of course...

    43. Re:Will they... by psamuels · · Score: 1
      I think Peter Jackson has shown that he could give a damn about character development, which is after all subordinate to plot.

      Reluctantly have to agree. One of my favorite scenes was where Galadriel made it a point to make Gimli feel at home, to great and lasting effect on Gimli. Obviously not one of Jackson's favorite scenes, though.... I wonder whether Jackson expects us to believe Gimli and Legolas became such close buddies ex nihilo..

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    44. Re:Will they... by psamuels · · Score: 1
      I don't think Gandalf knew the balrog would be there (in the book), although it isn't exactly spelled out, and he certainly had forbodings about Moria.

      `Fool of a Took!' Gandalf definitely knew of Durin's Bane, and was quite wary of disturbing the deeps of Moria. He didn't know specifically what the Balrog was:

      `I do not know,' answered Gandalf. `But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requres time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.' ... `What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me.' ... `I am afraid Balin is buried deep, and maybe something else is buried there too. I cannot say.'
      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    45. Re:Will they... by psamuels · · Score: 1
      I know view it as options. Albeit, it's a little annoying that you have to do some legwork to be informed about all your options before you buy anything now;-(

      I gave them major cool points for announcing the DVD release plans to the world a few months ago so we wouldn't get suckered into the "buy the same movie n times" gimmick, on which I believe George Lucas has a patent.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    46. Re:Will they... by psamuels · · Score: 1
      I certainly hope they have more shots of frodo holding the ring in his hand.

      How about a few more flashbacks of the ring being cut off Sauron's hand?

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    47. Re:Will they... by WNight · · Score: 2

      Did the vikings walk around in parties of people with rhyming names?

      Gerry and Terry, "modern" names, rhyme, but rarely do you meet a group of eight or nine people who all have rhyming names and hang out together.

      So, those may be authentic names, but Tolkien picked them. Thus, if it's a silly rhyming game, it's his, not that of the Vikings.

    48. Re:Will they... by WNight · · Score: 2

      I think you miss the character building that you can do wordlessly in film. The 'Bilbo leaving' scene in the shire really established Bilbo and Galdalf. The 'Gandalf Arriving' scene established a bit of Frodo and Gandalf.

      Pretty much all the non-battle scenes show characters interacting and as such, establish their characters. In fact, the movie (imho) did a better job of making Boromir's character understandable.

    49. Re:Will they... by theRiallatar · · Score: 1

      I would tend to think the reason Arwen was introduced when she was is so that there was at least one female present. Watching a bunch of guys traipse around in the woods may be fun to those of us who understand the story, but doesn't really help bring out those who need see some hot actress flesh (however little it may be) in order to ever think of seeing a movie.

  3. Jackson is like Lucas by Rupert · · Score: 4, Funny

    He knows I won't be able to resist the lure of the August release, particularly when I see the display in the window of Sam Goody. Although I want to be strong, want to wait for the November release, we all know it's not going to happen. I'm going to buy both. And I'll hate myself for it.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
    1. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by SirSlud · · Score: 1, Troll

      Be a man, not a franchise slut.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by theRhinoceros · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's an easy way to let you watch the August release without giving yourself more reason for self-hatred: Rent the DVD when it comes out, several times if need be, then buy the November release. Acknowledge your weakness, sate your desires, save yourself from blowing 20 unnecessary bucks.

    3. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by acroyear · · Score: 2

      there's really no reason to hate yourself...as with Harry Potter, the august release is definitely "Priced To Own", meaning at walmart/bj's you might be able to find it for as low as 17.99. That in itself is the same as renting it 3 times, which you'd be doing anyways for the 3 months until it hits HBO and you'd tape it off the TV. Or you can just the PPV for 5.99 in about a month after it hits stores...but then its a crap-shoot on whether or not its letterboxed (some movies are, some aren't, and there's no way of knowing 'til you've paid for it).

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    4. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by dzym · · Score: 2

      If he's going to rent it several times, the $ amount will still add up, so he might as well just buy a copy.

    5. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rent it and just copy it. Then when the SE version comes out buy it and you'll be all legal. It's not his fault they're being assholes like Lucas and trying to skim every red cent out of you. Is Jackson a jew?

    6. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      omebody mod this up. pure freaking genius. never thought about it that way.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 1


      Well, at least you know ahead of time there will be two releases. I'd rather have that information than what studios normally do, which is release a "quickie" DVD first, see how it does, then later decide to do a "special" version. Grrr.

      I know it's all business and they have reasons for doing things that way, but I really appreciate it when a studio is up front about the multiple DVD plans.

    8. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 0, Troll

      My timetable:

      August - Rent, Rip

      November - Buy

      HH
      --

    9. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      not if he has netflix (assuming, of course, he's not #8,000 in a line of 9000 for 6 copies

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have it....My precioussssssssss...

    11. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by thaigan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Jackson is nothing like Lucas!

      For one thing, Jackson is working with an excellent story and Lucas is making it up as he goes along.

      --

      42
    12. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen

    13. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by SquadBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do what I'm going to do. Buy the August version watch it a few times. Buy the November version. Then use the August version as a white elephant gift come December.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    14. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      You could always look for the DVD screener SVCD rip to hold you over. It's decent quality (though not 16:9 enhanced and not perfect, especially on a large-screen TV) and it's holding me over until the November release.

    15. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always download the DVD thats been floating around for the past month or so and burn it on a DVD-R. Not that I did that or anything...

      That will hold me until November. But its a bit annoying in that the menus are built, but only the scene selection works (not enough space for the extras). And its the theatrical version, not the extended version which I don't even think is done yet.

    16. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by dzym · · Score: 1

      My thoughts precisely.

    17. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "If he's going to rent it several times, the $ amount will still add up, so he might as well just buy a copy."

      At that point, he's going to buy it anyway. It's just a matter of waiting for November. He would more likely rent it one time, extract it to VCD, and then keep it for his personal viewing to tide him over until the the Director's Cut emerges.

      Sure it's illegal, but he paid the video store for the rental and will pay the studio for the movie when it is available.

    18. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by bmac526 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blocbuster has a deal where you buy a 10 week rental card, $25 I think, and you will get a free FOTR tape or DVD. I believe the rental card is good for 1 video/DVD a week. Since their rates are now like $3-4 per rental, this would be a good deal if you rent at least one movie a week from Blockbuster. See participating stores for details, offer good while supplies last, expires Aug. 5, blah blah blah. (I do not work for Blockbuster, thank God). I think it only is good for the August release.

    19. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas makes decisions on how his material will be released, I'm sure the decsions for LOTR are made by New Line Cinema and not Jackson.

    20. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by gentle23 · · Score: 1

      You could always do the Hobbit thing and make it a "mathom".

    21. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by mshaver · · Score: 1

      But unlike Lucas he is a good Directory.

    22. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He knows I won't be able to resist the lure of the August release, particularly when I see the display in the window of Sam Goody. Although I want to be strong, want to wait for the November release, we all know it's not going to happen. I'm going to buy both. And I'll hate myself for it.

      Sounds a bit like Gollum... :-)

    23. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by DevNull+Ogre · · Score: 1

      I'll probably do the same, but here's how I'll rationalize those bad feelings away...

      I have a son and hope to have more someday. There will be a stage in his (their) development when I want them to be able to see LOTR, but they won't be quite ready for the super-duper-extended-carnage version. So I need to have both versions of the movie. The extra goodies for me and the theatrical release for my kids.

      And, of course, it'll get me through 'til November ;-)

    24. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better plan still is to order the November release along with the next Robert Jordan from Amazon.com and pay no shipping.

      * Not an advertisement... er..

    25. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by pod · · Score: 1

      I would be embarassed to give (or receive) a CD or DVD that wasn't still shrinkwrapped. That's just rude.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    26. Re:Jackson is like Lucas by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes yes it is. You see you assume that everyone is like you not so.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  4. Wrong Battlescene? by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I heard the battlescene that was supposed to be extended was the battle with Sauron at the beginning. I heard it was to be, not only elongated, but a lot more gory, giving the movie an "R" rating.

    This is just heresay, though.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Wrong Battlescene? by levik · · Score: 2
      I hope this is more than wishful thinking. That battle scene was the highlite of the movie. The one at the end is pretty much a glorified "bar brawl".

      --
      Ñ'
    2. Re:Wrong Battlescene? by reidjones · · Score: 5, Informative

      It has already been approved for a PG-13:
      (from ringbearer.org)

      Press Release
      SOURCE: New Line Home Entertainment
      November 'Ring' Earns PG-13
      'The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring' Special Extended Version DVD Receives PG-13 Rating From MPAA
      LOS ANGELES--(ENTERTAINMENT WIRE)--April 22, 2002--New Line Home Entertainment announced today that the Special Extended Edition of ``The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'' due in stores on DVD and VHS on November 12 has received a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Academy Association (MPAA) ratings board.

    3. Re:Wrong Battlescene? by lucyfersam · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are in fact refering to the last battle scene in the movie, and according to Jackson are going to add approx. 30 sec to the scene with Boromir, Merry, and Pippin, showing the two hobbits fighting more than was shown in the original. It is supposed to be somewhat more violent, and they were unsure if it would land the movie an R rating, but it seems that it didn't.

    4. Re:Wrong Battlescene? by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      It has already been approved for a PG-13:

      That's not necessarily indicative of the content. Some directors have enough clout with the MPAA to bend (or completely break) the ratings rules in their favor, to get the ratings of films lowered so they can be shown to larger audiences. Poltergeist was originally given either a PG-13 or R rating (I can't remember which), but Spielburg fought tooth and nail and got the MPAA to rate it as PG. That's Spielburg though, can Jackson do this?

  5. Nooooooo by Montag2k · · Score: 1

    Awww MAN, I got into that Blockbuster deal where you get 10 free rentals if you pay $24.95 for FoTR. But its the August release! Whats the big difference between the two?
    Well, it sure seemed like a good deal at the time
    -Montag

    1. Re:Nooooooo by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2

      Read the story to find out the difference. There is a url in the main story.

      --
      (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    2. Re:Nooooooo by maddskillz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given the cost of renting movies at Blockbuster, that deal doesn't sound too bad anyways, even if you end up using the first dvd as a frisbee

    3. Re:Nooooooo by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      That's what I figured...or it'll make a great gift...well, good gift...well, a not bad gift anyway, for someone not as choosy.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Nooooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-order the August release at Bestbuy.com and get a $10 coupon. You could use that to buy the extended November release, hehe. That's what I'm doing.

    5. Re:Nooooooo by Richiemann · · Score: 1

      Maybe you mean: A preciousss birthday present....

    6. Re:Nooooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still is a good deal. I work at a BB
      10 fevorites rentals (w/o tax): $29.99
      10 New Releases or Gameboy Color games (w/o tax): $39.99
      10 N64, Playstation, DC, or Gameboy Advance games (w/o tax): $49.99
      10 PS2, XBOX, or Gamecube games (w/o tax): $59.99
      Then add on the $22.99 price of the DVD.

  6. Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

    While some films benefit to an extent (Aliens being one), on the whole most of the "extra" material was usually cut because it adds nothing to the film anyway. If I like a film I'll buy the DVD regardless of the extra footage. I think behind-the-scenes material is often more important, although it's usually something you'll only watch once anyway.

    Any DVDs that force me to watch adverts are taken straight back for a refund as "broken" by the way - hopefully other people do this as well...

    1. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by ZaMoose · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except most movies don't weigh in at around 3 hours in their post-cut form.

      For those devoted Tolkien fans that want to see a more faithful recreation of the book on-screen, these additional scenes will help out (to an extent).

      Those who aren't fans of the book should be perfectly happy with the August release.

      Still, no Tom Bombadil. *sigh*

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by MouseR · · Score: 2

      most of the "extra" material was usually cut because it adds nothing to the film anyway

      Uh-ho... imagine the AotC DVD release... more scenes of Anakin riding space mega ticks, and the complete soundtrack of Sound of Music.

    3. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Except that a "faithful recreation of the book on-screen" would have to be around 7 years long, if you include the parts where Frodo is just waiting around getting older while Bilbo is off getting Elf nookie.

    4. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Puggs · · Score: 1

      'on the whole most of the "extra" material was usually cut because it adds nothing to the film anyway.'

      In LotR:FotR, there was a HUGE amount of the book cut out, not because it added nothing to the film, but because the film would have been ridicously long.

      For Example: on FotR, Galadriel's gift-giving scene. (not Gif-Giving as the article says ;), galadriel gives the hobbits elven brooches, which are later used to help find the two captured hobbits. Im not sure how peter jackson is going to get round this one as afaik (havent seen the film in a while), hes made no mention of these brooches outside the extra dvd only features..

    5. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Knacklappen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those who aren't fans of the book should be perfectly happy with the August release.

      I wouldn't quite agree with that conclusion. In my world, No-fans of the book are just persons who didn't spend the time reading it. I went to the movie with friends who didn't - and consequently they were bored by the movie! Can you belive this? Well, I can... because the movie throws a lot of characters and small stories in the air without connecting them to the larger picture of Middle Earth. To be fair - this is a Mission Impossible. The movie does the best it can in the limited amount of time. It would need trice the time to explain the FotR story to the uninitiated, so that they can fully appreciate it.
      I wouldn't be too surprised if TtT will attract less viewers than FotR just because of this... A shame, though.

      --


      Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
    6. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by ek_adam · · Score: 1
      Except that a "faithful recreation of the book on-screen" would have to be around 7 years long, if you include the parts where Frodo is just waiting around getting older while Bilbo is off getting Elf nookie.
      Don't you mean 17 years? Bilbo disappeared at his 111th birthday which was also Frodo's 33rd birthday. Frodo started the trek when he was 50, the same age as Bilbo was when Bilbo took off in The Hobbit.
    7. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by leucadiadude · · Score: 2

      "Any DVDs that force me to watch adverts are taken straight back for a refund as "broken" by the way - hopefully other people do this as well..."

      You are sooo right. I absolutely LOATHE it when I am blocked from fast forwarding or skipping ads (commercials) for other movies released by the same company. I bought the damn DVD so I wouldn't have to sit through that crap.

      I have taken back a total of four dvd's now that had this "feature".

      Bastards.

    8. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Aliens didn't have much "extra" footage. It was just footage that made the theatrical release but for whatever reason was not included in the video.

    9. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      Still, no Tom Bombadil. *sigh*

      I keep hearing this over and over... Anyone interested in filling in someone who hasn't (and probably won't) read the books? Even if I do eventually read the books I don't mind a spoiler since, well, I've already seen the movie at this point...

    10. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's people like you who make the word GEEEEEEEKKKKKKK, something to live upto.

    11. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by sab39 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, you mean the parts where Frodo is waiting around not getting any older...<pedant>

    12. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't the second tag be ?

    13. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't the second tag be

    14. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Tebriel · · Score: 2

      The brooches were, however, SHOWN in the movie as the company left Lothlorien.

      --
      The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    15. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Mwongozi · · Score: 2

      I also hate DVDs that disable the "Subtitle" and "Audio" buttons on your remote, forcing you to go through the stupid menus instead. One particularly bad offender of this is the Futurama box set.

    16. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Scutter · · Score: 2

      I, of course, have read the books, and frankly I didn't miss ol' Tom at all. That whole part of the story was kinda pointless, in my opinion. I mean sure he was an interesting character, but after that scene, you never saw him again, and he really didn't *do* anything except save the trio from a trap.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    17. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by adamjaskie · · Score: 2, Informative

      SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!

      In the book, after they cross the river in the ferry, they stop at Frodo's new house in Crickhollow, where he was to wait for Gandalf. This is where Sam reveals that there was a conspiracy, and that Merry and Pippin will be coming with them. Because the black riders are after them, they decide to leave that night, going through a hedge into a forest, where the next day (i think) they decide to follow a river, and find an old willow tree (Old Man Willow.) What they don't know, is that the tree is not an ordinary tree, but rather is somewhat "awake." The tree swollows some members of the party (I do not remember who) in cracks when they lean against it to rest. Just then, an old man comes along, named Tom Bombadil, who is the master of the forest, and orders Old Man Willow to let them go. He is not really a man, but a supernatural being of some kind, maybe a Maia (the Balrog was a Maia before becoming evil, as was Sauron IIRC from reading the Silmarilion.) Anyway, they stay with Tom Bombadil for a while at his house, with his wife Goldberry, then set out across the barrow-mounds to Bree. In the barrow-mounds, they get separated, and trapped by a wight, and Tom Bombadil saves them. He then escorts them to as close to Bree as he can get w/o leaving his domain. They meet "Strider" (aka Aragorn, The Dunadain, Elessar, etc) in Bree.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    18. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by William+Tanksley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Believe me, I'd love to. But Tom Bombadil isn't explainable; that's why he wasn't in the movie. JRRT's invention of Tom was either brilliant in its creation of a truly multidimensional character which the book only hinted at, or it was just crazy :-).

      You really, really have to read the book -- and it really helps to think about it, too, to see how little Tom fits into the bigger picture of the world.

      In the long run, Tom with all his mysterious power and limitations is critical to the meaning of the book. Not everything is explained; Tom is one of the things that aren't.

      So I'm sorry, I can't. There may be enlightenment to be had, but it has to be gained the hard way.

      -Billy

    19. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Still no tom bombadil..."

      "I keep hearing this over and over... Anyone interested in filling in someone who hasn't (and probably won't) read the books? Even if I do eventually read the books I don't mind a spoiler since, well, I've already seen the movie at this point..."

      I expect sooner or later some really dedicated fans will create a fan-made movie cut with this missing scene. Remember the stormtroopers.net one where they 'filled in the gaps' in StarWars:ANH, making a fan-made scene where the storm troopers come and kill off Luke's foster parents?

      Sorry for the spoiler to those who haven't seen ANH (?!?).

    20. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      Any DVDs that force me to watch adverts are taken straight back for a refund as "broken" by the way - hopefully other people do this as well...

      Seriously -- you get away with this? I'm honestly curious -- how do you persuade the store that it's broken if you're forced to admit that it's purely the adverts at the beginning that you're miffed about? They irritate me, too, but I just can't imagine being able to pull this off. But then I'm a wimp.

    21. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Patrick13 · · Score: 2

      Did anyway else find it "hokey" that Boromir's horn was cloven in 2 lengthwise instead of sideways? Also, it certainly seemed that it was neatly cut in half with a skilsaw instead of sword.

      For some reason, when watching the movie, that jolted me a bit, otherwise I thought the film was excellent and very realistic... err... considering it was a fantasy movie and all.

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    22. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2

      Sometimes the material is cut to ensure a rating. There was supposed to be a lot more dick and fart jokes in the South Park movie, but they had to cut them to get the R rating. In Boondock Saints they changed a few of the shooting scenes to not show the person actually getting shot, just the splatter on the wall. On the DVD, they put in the scenes that showed a more graphic view. And lastly, I believe that Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back would have been better had they included the "ass cock" gag.

    23. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      Thanks - 4 responses, and one answer! That's all I wanted to know.

    24. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by FyRE666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, seriously - do it! As the guy above says, you bought the damned film, so why should you have to watch 5 minutes of adverts for other products EVERY single time you want to use it? What other product does this? Could you image buying a CD and having to listen to ads before the first track would play, or using a laptop that played videos advertising other products by the same PC maker before booting?

      I simply return it stating the DVD prevents me from using my DVD player properly when it's inserted in the machine. The software is effectively causing it to behave abnormally, playing content I do not wish to see and preventing me from operating the device according to the instruction manual.

      The last one I remember was "Series 7, the Contenders" (I think), which had a whole bunch of adverts at the start. I rented this, and took it back to the store (after watching it of course) demanding a refund. There was only one guy serving and a few people behind me. First off he claimed there was nothing wrong with it, so I asked him to try it himself so he stuck it into the player in the shop. After 3 or 4 minutes of pressing the menu button and having the "Access denied" icon display while the queue grew (angrier) behind me he admitted he couldn't play the film and I got a free rental for the night!

    25. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by E-Rock · · Score: 2

      Usually you can get around this crapola by stopping the disc (you may have to physically touch the DVD player) and then firing up the DVD menu or picking an advanced scene number.

    26. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by hagar� · · Score: 1

      Radio Shack Hobbit Detectors?;-)

      --
      Insert something insightful here, or I'll insert something painful there.
    27. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not the second tag, it's the CLOSING OF THE FIRST TAG.

    28. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Thorkytel+Ant-Head · · Score: 1

      Actually Aliens didn't have much "extra" footage. It was just footage that made the theatrical release but for whatever reason was not included in the video.

      Wrong. There are many scenes that were cut for time, then released on earlier laserdisc special editions, then finally released on DVD. Those scenes (Ripley's daughter, extra stuff with Newt at the beginning, automatic mounted guns, etc.) were NOT in the theatrical version. However, some of them made it to TV versions at one time or another.

    29. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by LordLava · · Score: 1

      I think "Little Orphan Annie" would be a MUCH better soundtrack

      "It's a hard knock life...." ;)

    30. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows that Beru kills Owen in a domestic disturbance, and Stormtroopers were only involved in trying to keep the peace between an obviously problematic couple. Jeez...

    31. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by hime · · Score: 1

      I don't recall there being any ads before the Region 1 DVD menu for Series 7. Awesome movie. I wouldn't return it, no matter the ads.

      Really, have we got enough to whine about these days?

      Also, will the new scenes make this Hobbit crap even slightly interesting? Ooh, there goes my karma...

    32. Re:Well I wouldn't buy a DVD for extra footage... by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      galadriel gives the hobbits elven brooches, which are later used to help find the two captured hobbits. Im not sure how peter jackson is going to get round this one as afaik (havent seen the film in a while), hes made no mention of these brooches outside the extra dvd only features..

      Shouldn't be hard. They were seen wearing the brooches later in the film. Aragorn would probably say something like "an elven brooch! The hobbits were wearing them. One of them must still be alive..."

  7. What I want to know is.... by eyegor · · Score: 1

    How many of us LoTR compulsives will end up buying BOTH?

    I know I can't wait until November....

    --

    Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
    1. Re:What I want to know is.... by japhmi · · Score: 1

      I will be buying both... but only because I don't have a DVD player right now. I will be getting one in September - so I'll buy the VHS in August (no extras) and then get the DVD later with the extras.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    2. Re:What I want to know is.... by alChandler · · Score: 5, Funny

      I preordered them both. But it's ok, I can quit anytime.

    3. Re:What I want to know is.... by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same position and you know what I've been wondering about??

      I am going to buy both but why?

      1. Is it because I really am a fan of LoTR?
      or
      2. Is it the LoTR team did a hell of a job with the marketing.

      At first I told myself Answer #1 was the answer. But the more I think, the more I'm going for #2.

      Oh man....being impusilve really isn't always that good.

      He He He!

      Happy Impulsivity :)

      Eniac (Programmer In Training...)

      --
      If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  8. For those who can't wait for the extras... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hit this site for a DVD. Sure, it doesn't have all the extra features. Sure, the transfer is a little less than perfect. But for $12USD you can't beat getting it before your friends. :)

    Gotta love those Malaysians!

  9. Doesn't this imply by taliver · · Score: 1

    That the full "collection" will be at least 12 DVDs? And wouldn't you expect 2-4 more with the full set of "never to be seen before" details? Is this set ging to retail around $200 or so?

    Talk about a marketing coup! They'll get people to buy this movie at least twice, and some of them three times.

    --

    I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

    1. Re:Doesn't this imply by ichimunki · · Score: 0, Troll

      Gee, and that's without the normal MPAA BS where they make you buy new copies for the car, the vacation home, for watching with groups of unrelated acquaintances, for the next shiny device they make to show the same content, etc etc. And from the looks of Slashdot, it's going to work wonders. The MPAA lawyers thank you all for helping pay their lobbying expenses. :)

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:Doesn't this imply by niftyeric · · Score: 1

      Talk about a marketing coup! They'll get people to buy this movie at least twice, and some of them three times.

      Where have you been? Lucas? Star Wars? Hello? :)

      I have several copies of the Star Wars Trilogy (original widescreen, THX pan/scan and widescreen, SE widescreen, and the re-release widescreen). *sigh* Another set coming up with the DVD releases I imagine.

      Lord of the Rings will be the same way... *cry*

      --
      proton != antielectron
  10. Waiting???? by Tin+Weasil · · Score: 2

    Waiting? Hell, I'm going to be buying both releases. Sure will beat the cheap divx ;) version running around the net.

    I just can't wait for the protest rallies against the Two Towers!

    1. Re:Waiting???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude, you need to get out and get some air.

      Slowly step away from the computer and. . . Turn around and walk toward the door. Open it. Walk outside.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

    2. Re:Waiting???? by isorox · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just can't wait for the protest rallies against the Two Towers!

      You mean Rename "The Two Towers" to Something Less Offensive Petition

    3. Re:Waiting???? by EasyTarget · · Score: 2

      From petitiononline:

      The title is clearly meant to refer to the attacks on the World Trade Center ...
      3598 Total Signatures

      Ha! Hysterical. Is this whole petition just a troll?

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    4. Re:Waiting???? by dfluke · · Score: 1

      There should be a petition for keeping the original title, just so the petition against the title gets beaten properly to the ground.

      There is only to a certain point one should take "political corectness", and that petition takes it absurdly far beyond that.

    5. Re:Waiting???? by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean Rename "The Two Towers" to Something Less Offensive Petition

      This petition is stupid... because it doesn't go far enough. Just the numbers 2, 9, or 11 are enough to remind me of the WTC tragedy. It is offensive to use those numbers in any context ever, unless you are solemnly remembering victims of terrorism. And don't even get me started on the "T" word - bad news!

      --

      "I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
    6. Re:Waiting???? by SuperGrut · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your sig. You could steal someone's house by putting an armed guard around it and living inside. The former owners come home to find their house stolen.

      --
      The city is being overrun by a herd of Lucy Liu's.
    7. Re:Waiting???? by alnapp · · Score: 2

      well check out signee no 2
      I think you may be right

    8. Re:Waiting???? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't wait for hordes of Elvis fans to protest against the title of, "Return of the King," or will the be in the theatres apoplectic when they find that the king who returned *wasn't* Elvis.

      Or since there have been any number of treatises examining Lord of the Rings for Christian elements and Nuclear warnings, etc... How about evidence that JRRT could see the future and named the book accordingly?

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:Waiting???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Jackson will cry racism because they are cleary referring to the King of Pop, yet he isn't even in the movie.

    10. Re:Waiting???? by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      Cheap Divx ;) version? I've heard of that -- and I've heard that it even features 5.1 audio. I have the 4-disc SVCD screener rip (with 2.0 audio), and it's hardly "cheap", it's actually very nice for a bootleg. True, the video isn't anamorphic (grumble) and its inadequacies show up when viewed on my 57" TV, but it looks great on smaller screens and it will hold me over until November.

    11. Re:Waiting???? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "The title is clearly meant to refer to the attacks on the World Trade Center ... 3598 Total Signatures"

      Ha! Hysterical. Is this whole petition just a troll?"

      Yes, and a very succeessful one to boot. I actually was fooled and submitted it to slashdot as a story some weeks ago, which the editors wisely rejected.

    12. Re:Waiting???? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "I can't wait for hordes of Elvis fans to protest against the title of, "Return of the King," or will the be in the theatres apoplectic when they find that the king who returned *wasn't* Elvis."

      I would be more worried about the hordes of kids streaming into the theaters thinking it's a "Lili&Stitch" sequel from disney ... (n.b. "Lili&Stitch" is a disney money aimed at kids which happens to feature a lot of elvis music)

    13. Re:Waiting???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. is sure full of some of the most self-centered
      morons on the planet. Get a clue , Klerck.

    14. Re:Waiting???? by radish · · Score: 1


      Agreed. Theft is defined as "preventing access to or use of the thing by it's rightful owner".

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    15. Re:Waiting???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The imecile who started this petition, which has been suspended by petitiononline.com, is a guy named Kevin Klerck. He replied to some of the negative posts on his petition with an e-mail address of "slashdotwidener@yahoo.com". Given his e-mail address, I'm pretty sure that marks him as a troll on our beloved Slashdot.

    16. Re:Waiting???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mean Rename "The Two Towers" to Something Less Offensive Petition

      Sorry ... according to the website ...

      Update, 2002.0509: This petition has been suspended temporarily due to a lack of maintenance by the petition author. -- PetitionOnline.com

  11. Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by KrancHammer · · Score: 2


    I am glad this wasn't made into one of the inane, witless summer movies we in the U.S. have been subjected to all season. The book and material was treated with respect and dignity, with the core concepts and philosophy of Tolkien's works left intact. I, personally, would have watched (many times) a blow by blow, scene by scene translation of the book into film, but I don't think such a treatment would have been successful, commercially. All in all, PJ made the right decisions about what to keep, what to change, and what to discard entirely (Bombadil).

    --
    Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    1. Re: Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      > All in all, PJ made the right decisions about what to keep, what to change, and what to discard entirely

      Except of course for the silly fight between Gandalf and Saruman, which looked like a some unused Xena footage got spliced in to save people from having to exercise their imaginations.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by thaigan · · Score: 1

      Here Here!

      --

      42
    3. Re: Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      Except of course for the silly fight between Gandalf and Saruman, which looked like a some unused Xena footage got spliced in to save people from having to exercise their imaginations.

      I disagree. I believe the fight was only silly to people who have seen "Breakin'" and "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Seriously, though, I think the scene was included for a couple of reasons. One, to bring some action to what otherwise would be a dull "traveling" scene. Two, to show Saruman's treachery and otherwise badness, plus the fact that he is a formidable person, to beat the crap outta Gandalf like that. Now, as the fight itself, I found it as an original approach to filming a magical duel as I have ever seen.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    4. Re:Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by Richard+M.+Ferko · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. I'd buy/watch a page by page translation of the book on film, but I know it ain't gonna happen. I loved the movie, but noticed afterwards that I was picking it apart scene by scene. I guess I've read the books too many times (once a year for the last 15 years or so) and now know it by heart, so that anything that strays I notice.

      My mom, who has never read the books, saw it (which surprised the heck out of me) and loved it. Same for my wife. So I guess in that sense PJ did, as you said, made the right decisions.

      --
      "Always do what you are afraid to do." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    5. Re: Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is a formidable person, to beat the crap outta Gandalf like that.

      Oh, COME ON...

      In the movie, Gandalf is a complete pansy.. how many foes did he vanquish? NONE. How many fights did he lose? ALL OF THEM.

      If Gandalf was supposed to be such a bad mofo, maybe he should have been portrayed as something OTHER than a doddering old fart who couldn't even stomach a little snow. Geez, I'll bet Bing Crosby could have kicked (movie) Gandalf's ass, while trash-talking him by singing "Let it snow..."

    6. Re:Glad this wasn't a summer popcorn flick by broody · · Score: 1

      I suspect you mean hear, hear.

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
  12. Actually, both DVDS are totally different! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, all the extra stuff thats coming out on the first Lord of the Rings DVD is NOT going to be on the huge November one. So if you are a hardcore fan, you need to get both. Over on www.moviepoopshoot.com they interviewed the guy creating both DVDs, and he said that they are doing this for a reason. True hardcore fans will get both sets to view ALL the extras. In other words, they have a shitload of stuff that people can see, and they will milk all the money out of us fans as they can get.

    1. Re:Actually, both DVDS are totally different! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Frodo and Silent Sam. Fuck them up their stupid asses.

    2. Re:Actually, both DVDS are totally different! by Rai · · Score: 1

      If this is the case, then I'm not buying either. I absolutely refuse to support this type of profiteering and greed. I will buy one copy of the DVD and one copy only. I can wait for the final box set of all 3 movies or just not buy any of them at all.

    3. Re:Actually, both DVDS are totally different! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not profitering and greed! Wanting to make money off of an investment isn't necessarily greed. If you're a casual fan that enjoyed the movie, but never read the books. Get the regular Theatrical release. If you're a fan of the books, you can wait and get the SE version. If you're a hardcore fan that can't get enough, you can get both, and the best part is that there's no overlap. The extra's included with each version are entirely different. This is taking care of the fans, not out of control greed. If they were truly greedy they would have released the Theatrical version, and not said anything about the SE version. Then when everyones bought the normal version, release the SE version. Instead they've told everyone, that would care to hear, that there are going to be two versions. This way you can make up your mind before buying either. More companies should show this much respect for their fans.

  13. Wait, why wait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want both, of course.
    I have august pre-ordered, and am hinting that my family buy me the special collectors edition, the extended one with the argornath book-ends.
    I can only hope.

  14. Poor Sam! by nastro · · Score: 1

    "A new introduction of loyal Hobbit Sam Gamgee"

    1. Re:Poor Sam! by nastro · · Score: 1

      "A new introduction of loyal Hobbit Sam Gamgee"

      Please, keep it clean!

      We don't need another rehash of the homo-erotic bs that has started some of the worst and most moronic debates ever to blight the Web.

      Besides, they go down as Worst Thread Ever!

    2. Re:Poor Sam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but it WAS one of the most homoerotic main-stream movies I think I've ever seen. Not that that's a bad thing at all.

    3. Re:Poor Sam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only a flaming faggot would think it was homoerotic.

  15. Europe? Listen to Homer S...! by Knacklappen · · Score: 2, Funny

    You should have listened to what Homer said on The Simpsons DVD FAQ page... ;-)

    "Versatile" discs are no different from a regular disc. They just put the word "versatile" on so they can charge more.

    --


    Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
  16. Galadriel gif-giving! by funwithBSD · · Score: 0, Troll

    Whoo Hoo! She's handing out .gif's! Hope the Celeborn guy isn't in them.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Galadriel gif-giving! by gilroy · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Blockquoth the poster:
      Whoo Hoo! She's handing out .gif's! Hope the Celeborn guy isn't in them.
      More importantly, I hope she paid the Unisys GIF license. Otherwise, forget Sauron... they'll have to face the unspeakable evil of the US intellectual "property" legal system!
  17. Biding my time by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 5, Funny


    I'm holding out for the 24-Disc box set of the trilogy when they release it in 2007. $395 might sound like a lot of money, but it will probably take a month to watch it all, so that's a lot of entertainment! I'm looking forward to the full 10-hour commentary tracks by each member of the Fellowship, Bilbo, Gollum, Mojo Jojo, Liv Tyler, Natalie Portman, the director, the producer, and the key grip. Wooooooooo!

    --

    "I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
    1. Re:Biding my time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oohhhhh...yeah.....

      for myself, I will just wait until my local video store rents it to me for $1.50. Of course, I will have to set aside a full Saturday to watch it....I just love those special effects!!!!

    2. Re:Biding my time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You betrayer of the Slashdot collective! Haven't you read the stories that say DVD is BAD, because of... because of big corporations, and, and freedom and stuff! OOOH you people make me so MAD!

    3. Re:Biding my time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The special effects in FotR were subpar in so many places. You're just a fuckin fanboy trying to get himself some karma.

      Watch Legolas jumping on the cave troll. Watch the party moving through the great hall in Moriar. This is NOT decent special effects. Peter Jackson should've told Weta to pump it up, or fuck off and come back when they were Squaresoft.

      Admittedly, square get to work with entirely rendered scenes, while Weta has to mix live action in with it... but they still did a crap job.

      Anyone see the captain walking with his rubber-band legs across the deck of Titanic? That's the sort of shoddy quality I'm talking about.

  18. Please no Tom by Washizu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was extremely glad they cut out the Tom Bombadil scenes from the book. It was the most boring and meaningless section of the entire trilogy and it would have died on screen. Seeing the hobbits get sucked in by the trees would be neat, but I can live without that.

    I think I'll rent Fellowship when it comes out in August and then buy it in November. It's a great movie and one of the best book to movie adaptations I've ever seen.

    --
    OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    1. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the Bombadil scene is useless to LoTR it is part of the world of Middle Earth. I have forgotten the title but Tom actually has his own book.

      I find the depth of the books as a whole to be as intrigueing as the LoTR storyline.

    2. Re:Please no Tom by pbranes · · Score: 1
      I guess we differ on how we look at these books. I loved the part of the book about Tom Bombadil. I realize that it has nothing to do with the plot of the book, but that is not the only reason I enjoy the books. I enjoy the wide variety of characters. It is like exploring a new world in great detail, and I feel that the section with Tom offers me exactly that - a look into the powerful and mysterious characters of this world. I believe that this section could have worked on screen because it would have drawn audiences into the magic and mystery of this world and would have enhanced the story.

    3. Re:Please no Tom by mccalli · · Score: 2
      I have forgotten the title but Tom actually has his own book.

      The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. It's a poetry book, and dull as dishwater.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    4. Re:Please no Tom by Washizu · · Score: 1

      I realize that it has nothing to do with the plot of the book

      Tom actually does advance the plot a bit. *SPOILER WARNING*

      The hobbits flee into the forest, get caught, and Tom frees them. I would have been fine with that being in the book/movie, but Tolkein drags it on for far too many pages afterwards. You're right that we differ on how we see books. I think any subject given a large number of pages should have significant influence on the plot or character development. Tolkein has already set up the world nicely with an entire book (The Hobbit) and doesn't need to introduce it again. I think it should have been edited out.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    5. Re:Please no Tom by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was extremely glad they cut out the Tom Bombadil scenes from the book.

      I disagree. Tom Bombadil was a fascinating character because he was completely carefree yet had powers that were obviously immense. He was the antithesis of the Wizards in attitude yet had tremendous power that you get the feeling was only hinted at.

      Also, I don't think that second-guessing Tolkien is something that I'd condone. Tolkien was arguably one of the most brilliant writers of the last century (note that I said "one of"). It's not like the director of LoTR was charged with making a movie out of yet another tired Saturday Night Live sketch. To some extent, I view a director as a conductor. I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.

    6. Re:Please no Tom by Washizu · · Score: 1

      He was the antithesis of the Wizards in attitude yet had tremendous power that you get the feeling was only hinted at

      Good point about the Wizards vs Tom, although Tolkien comes right out and says Tom is an extremely powerful being. I think Tom could have worked into the story just fine if he had more influence on the plot/characters or less time spent on him and his realm.

      Also, I don't think that second-guessing Tolkien is something that I'd condone.

      No matter how brilliant, every artists in every medium has his weak moments. Personally, I find it hard to know if I like something objectively unless I can see at least a few flaws in it.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    7. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if you read it backwards like it supposed to be

    8. Re:Please no Tom by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, I don't think that second-guessing Tolkien is something that I'd condone. Tolkien was arguably one of the most brilliant writers of the last century

      I'd oppose that argument. Tolkien's books were badly paced, his storyline brought in new elements with little or no forshadowing, and the climactic scene of entire story took place in book 5/6, and was solved by a villian.

      That said, and ignoring the abyssmal story finale that was the sixth book (part II of vol 3), LotR has an amazing ablity to inspire people to create new things. (This in itself is no measure of greatness, but the breadth and width of Tolkien's inspirees are.)

      I prefer to look at the movies as a seperate work, inspired by the work of J.R.R. Tolkien. Or, as I say half-jokingly, "it's missing something from the books--all the parts that suck." ;)

    9. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest reading the books instead of just
      spouting crap.

    10. Re:Please no Tom by TheGonzoKid · · Score: 1

      I agree that the Tom scenes were unnecessary, however I felt that Frodo was castrated. They made him a coward, when in the book he amazingly brave. The Barrow Wight scene should have been included to convey Frodo's bravery. Also that stupid brood Liv Tyler should be cut. She saves Frodo where in the book he saves himself.

      --
      "when the going get's wierd the wierd turn pro." -hst
    11. Re:Please no Tom by hyperizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.

      Yes, but you have to make changes when you're translating a work to a different medium. You can't expect audiences to sit through an 12-hour movie just so no dialogue, settings, and characters are removed. How long did it take you to read each book? How long are you willing to watch a movie for? They're completely different experiences.

      Also, a conductor may be able to make minor changes when interpretting a musical piece, but a director has to take great liberties simply because Tokien never described the color of Gandalf's shoes. He didn't always specify each character's expression. When you read something, you have to fill in a lot of detail. Likewise, when you make a movie of a book, you have to fill in a lot of detail.

    12. Re:Please no Tom by xinit · · Score: 2

      You're missing the point that if this happened, we'd have been subjected to a lot more bad songs. Was I the only person who read the first line or two of any of the songs and skipped to the end of them? They were AWFUL. Good writer or not, his song writing skills bit big time.

      --
      --- http://foo.ca
    13. Re:Please no Tom by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2

      I'm just glad they didn't cut to any singing in the movie. It's the only part of the books I didn't like, and the only reason I never watch my copy of the Hobbit.

    14. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think the fact that Frodo accepted the quest to take the ring to Mt. Doom makes him amazingly brave.

    15. Re:Please no Tom by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Bombadil was more of a fixture of the land, something that was part of Middle Earth. The land had power itself, which was ignored in the movie. Case in point, Saruman did not prevent the party from taking the high pass over the mountains, the _mountain_ itself defeated them.

    16. Re:Please no Tom by ziggles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Peter Jackson was trying to make a movie, not photocopy a book. I'm not a filmmaker, so I don't know how well any of the things cut from the book would work in the movie. Peter Jackson is one and does know. He's also as big a fan of the books as anyone(or so they say), so obviously he's going to be as respectful of the books as possible when making a movie adaptation. He's not second guessing Tolkien, he's just taking out the things that he thinks would not work in a movie like they work in a book. As far as I know Tolkien never wrote screenplays :)

    17. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.

      A conductor is not told by the director of the orchestra, "Make this as short as possible."

    18. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Tolkien said that Bombadil didn't really fit in the book. He was left over from some ideas that were kicking around for many years, and he wanted to stick them in somewhere.

    19. Re:Please no Tom by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      I'd oppose that argument.

      That's your right, but there are many literary critics and experts that disagree with your opinion. The Radcliffe Publishing Course and The Library Journal both listed their choices for The 100 Best English-Language Novels of the 20th Century and LoTR made both lists, placing an impressive third on The Library Journal List.

      When respected scholars like those think so highly of The Lord of The Rings, hopefully you can understand my not putting more weight in your comments about the "abyssmal story finale" and "all the parts that suck."

    20. Re:Please no Tom by Nos. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd oppose that argument. Tolkien's books were badly paced, his storyline brought in new elements with little or no forshadowing, and the climactic scene of entire story took place in book 5/6, and was solved by a villian. And the fact that the ending is brought about by a villian (even if accidental) is one of the things I loved most about this story. The fact that the hero, in the end, was corrupted. Its not your typical movie where in the end, the hero always makes the right choice and saves the day. Here, we know the hero wouldn't or couldn't have.

    21. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      respected scholars

      Respected by whom?

      Hitler was a respected leader by his followers, but that doesn't mean I should let his opinions matter to me.

    22. Re:Please no Tom by pknoll · · Score: 1

      Conductors and/or orchestras which perform Wagner's Ring Cycle operas often cut out portions of the work, due to its length.
      It isn't reasonable in today's expectations of entertainment or theater to expect an audience to sit through a 4+ hour movie any more than it is to expect them to sit through a 6-hour opera. (Especially in today's theater seats!)

    23. Re:Please no Tom by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      Respected by whom?

      Their peers.

      Hitler was a respected leader by his followers, but that doesn't mean I should let his opinions matter to me.

      A "follower" and a credentialed peer are hardly the same.

    24. Re:Please no Tom by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      It isn't reasonable in today's expectations of entertainment or theater to expect an audience to sit through a 4+ hour movie

      While I grant that some cuts were probably necessary in the translation from book to movie, I do not feel that the cutting of scenes from The Lord of The Rings are cause for celebration. The cuts are, at best, an unfortunate necessity.

    25. Re:Please no Tom by pknoll · · Score: 1

      I'd agree... I'd love to be able to see the entire book made into a movie, page by page. I would have liked that with Dune, too. =)
      Certain allowances have to be made, though. I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job of trimming the book for the film format, and I look forward to seeing the extended scenes, where I can veiw them in comfort, on my couch at home.

    26. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who are their peers respected by?

      Seems like a bit of an egoist circle-jerk, if you ask me.

      --
      no gods, no masters.

    27. Re:Please no Tom by mshaver · · Score: 1

      The Tom Bombadil sequece was also left out the the BBC radio play version. So it seems like that will always be the first scene cut fro LotR.

    28. Re:Please no Tom by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      So you are saying that we should take the word of anonymous posters on Slashdot over respected, credentialed, literary journals, experts, publishing professionals, and scholars?

      [sarcasm]Then I proclaim "Barney's Friends" (Barney the purple dinosaur) as the the finest literary work of the twentieth century. None may oppose me for I have no literary credentials, am not a scholar of literature, and do not have the respect of literary experts. All hail "Barney's Friends" as the greatest work of literature of the twentieth century.[/sarcasm]

      And who are their peers respected by?

      Intelligent, educated readers.

      Seems like a bit of an egoist circle-jerk, if you ask me.

      I did not ask you.

    29. Re:Please no Tom by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      Just like the Ring itself has power over the bearer. Fortunately, Jackson didn't cut that out.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    30. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd oppose that argument. Tolkien's
      books were badly paced, his storyline brought in
      new elements with little or no forshadowing, and
      the climactic scene of entire story took place in
      book 5/6, and was solved by a villian.
      An interesting choose of complaints, considering
      that the role of said villian was one of the
      things that was forshadowed. Needless to say, I
      reject your position. I would have loved to have
      had a production of one 3-5 hour movie for each
      of the siz books. I missed the parts that were
      left out, especially Tom.
    31. Re:Please no Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually when Bilbo leaves the shire and starts walking down the path, he begins singing to himself just as in the book. Its part of the spirit of the Hobbit people IMO, and so should be left in the movies as well.

  19. What i would like by m4g02 · · Score: 1

    More than more scenes i would like if they included some important facts about "The Hobbit", like how Bilbo really found the ring or some stuuf of the battle (If it can be called a battle) versus the Lonely Mountain Dragon (Smaug was the name?), or the final battle of dwarfs, elves and humans versus goblins, orcs and wolfs.

    Anyway, the DVD is a must =)

    --
    Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
    1. Re:What i would like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard rumors that Jackson is going to be taking down the Hobbit after they finish off all three LotR movies.

      Whether or not it's true, *shrug*, but hey, considering how well he's done with FotR, it may be a possibility.

      I want a Silmarillion movie. Problem is, it'd have to be like Gandalf or someone sitting around telling stories.

    2. Re:What i would like by thaigan · · Score: 1

      Early on, Jackson stated that they may go back and do The Hobbit later, but they first wanted to make sure that the trilogy was done first.

      --

      42
    3. Re:What i would like by mtrupe · · Score: 1

      Indeed-- A prequel to LOTR movie is a must! I hope it happens one day. FOTR doesn't give enough background for those unfortunate souls who have never read The Hobbit.

  20. d00d! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    > It will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit.

    d00d! I don't think that's the kind of cut scenes they're talking about!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:d00d! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > > It will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit.
      >
      > d00d! I don't think that's the kind of cut scenes they're talking about!


      Yeah, this isn't "FotR Porn Edition".

    2. Re:d00d! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1
    3. Re:d00d! by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I sit on the floor and pick my nose,
      And think of dirty things.
      Of deviant Dwarves who suck their toes,
      And Elves who drub their dings.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:d00d! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      "Keen are the nostrils of the elves"
      "And light are their feet"

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    5. Re:d00d! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d00d! I don't think that's the kind of cut scenes they're talking about!

      Ack! I just had a flash of Gimli frenching Legolas.. /me pokes own eyes out

    6. Re:d00d! by sharkey · · Score: 2

      May your hemerrhoids shrink without surgery.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  21. Filling in the gaps by absterge · · Score: 1

    Right on. I read through the whole trilogy immediately before seeing the flick, and throughout the whole movie (even though it was, what, ~3hours long?), it kind of felt rushed. There seemed to be a lot of CHARACTER missing from the characters. The fellowship spent so much time getting right through the story that it all came up a bit thin in comparison to the books. 'course, I didn't read through the first book in three hours, either...

    --
    Try my nuts to your fist style!
    1. Re:Filling in the gaps by m4g02 · · Score: 1

      Not to say that Gandalf is WAY more powerfull than in the movie, he isnt even a human.

      --
      Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
    2. Re:Filling in the gaps by torqer · · Score: 1
      "There seemed to be a lot of CHARACTER missing from the characters"

      heh, well... Some many missing characters in the movie you forget the S in your post.

      And anyways there is no way you can incorporate all the characters in a book as long and as complex as LOTR/FOTR into a movie. Even if it is 3 hours long.

    3. Re:Filling in the gaps by mccalli · · Score: 2
      No...his post was correct. 'Character', as in the unique attributes that make me me, not 'characters' - a cast of thousands etc.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    4. Re:Filling in the gaps by Richard+M.+Ferko · · Score: 1

      I agree, but you could probably do 3 movies just on FotR and still leave stuff out. I think Jackson got the important things in to setup the next two films.

      --
      "Always do what you are afraid to do." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    5. Re:Filling in the gaps by absterge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the important setup bits. All except for the Barrow-Wight ordeal, where

      Pippin (or Merry? I forget now) gets that dagger that he uses at the end to kill the head Nazgul.

      I do wonder how that will be resolved; it can't very well just remain ignored.

      --
      Try my nuts to your fist style!
  22. LOTR: DVD Additions summary by ZipperHead99 · · Score: 0, Informative
    • Galadriel's Gif-Giving Scene. As the elves prepare to leave Lothlorien, Elf Queen Galadriel bestows a special gift upon each of the nine members of the Fellowship.
    • Bilbo Baggins writing a journal entry entitled "Concerning Hobbits," which serves as a history of the Hobbits and their bucolic lifestyle.
    • A new introduction of loyal Hobbit Sam Gamgee.
    • More footage from the Green Dragon Inn, with Peregrin "Pippin" Took, and Meriadoc "Merry" Brandybuck happily singing Hobbit songs.
    • Sam & Frodo witnessing the stately Exodus of the Elves on the road to Bree.
    • Aragorn singing an Elvish ballad that adds back story to the implications of his love for Arwen
    • Aragorn beside his mother's grave in Rivendell.
    • An extended sequence of the Fellowship's departure from Rivendell.
    • Pre-battle scenes in the Mines Of Moria, explaining how the dwarves came to be in the mines.
    • Character material delving into the complicated relationship between elves and dwarves.
    • Additional footage from the Fellowship's climatic battle scene.

    And also:
    • Composer Howard Shore has returned with his Academy Award winning score and recorded 50 minutes of new music with the London Philharmonic for the special extended edition set!
    • Weta Digital has returned and contributed all new effects shots for the deleted scenes.
    • In addition to the 3 and a half hour feature, presented on 2 discs, the set will include 2 MORE discs packed with features not on the August release of the disc! This is includes production team commentaries, production documentaries, & interactive featurettes covering the film adaptation from "book to vision" and "from vision to reality"!

      I wonder how many people will actually watch the two extra discs. Regardless, its worth the wait if you ask me.
  23. What is this movie about ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heard so much hype and blah blah blah. Titanic was another movie which people touted about. Am glad I never watched that junk of 3.5 hrs !!!

  24. Clarifying details by gerf · · Score: 1

    it looks like the re-added scenes are ones which just make the details of the book stand out. not big plot-benders of course, but the things that really give a bit more depth, a little more insight. i'm looking forward to downloading the divx rip of it (poor college kid here...) :P

  25. FOUR disks? by Anarchofascist · · Score: 5, Funny

    It may take only one ring to rule them all, but it takes four disks to watch it.

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    1. Re:FOUR disks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up.. god, what a lame ass line to get up to +5

  26. Mirror? by OS24Ever · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Anyone get a mirror before the ISP suspended the page? The ISP for that sight intervenes with a 'Suspended' web page and no details.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:Mirror? by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Probably 'suspended' because they didn't want to get spanked by the slashdot effect.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Mirror? by shadow303 · · Score: 1

      Just the comments read with a lower filter. There are a couple copies of the text, but nobody seems to be modding them up.

      --
      I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
    3. Re:Mirror? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      We will jsut spank the "suspended" page then :)

  27. Move on with your life by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, I've spoken to crack fiends who sound more self-empowered with respect to their vices. :)

    Personally, I have very little respect for the franchise slut. It's one thing to be a fan, but to flat out say, "I dont want to buy two, but I know I will cave and do it." ... I mean, shit, where's the self control?

    This isn't flamebait .. I wanna hear how somebody can justify that kind of sentiment. And how does this factor into the power of the boycott when consumers themselves admit being unable to control their spending habits?

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
    1. Re:Move on with your life by DoctaWatson · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the Lord of the Rings is such a significant piece of cultural art that it cannot just be dismissed as "corporate franchise".

      Yeah, people are making gobs of money off of this... which is good if you ask me. Better America spend its money on something of depth and quality than on the usual Hollywood garbage.

      Encouraging high-quality theatrical productions of classic literature by spending is probably going to work better for us in the long run. People spend money to see awful crap all the time- its when those with taste manage go out and spend for once that the industry stands up and takes notice.

    2. Re:Move on with your life by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll ignore any implication that the screen adaptation of Lord of the Rings is a significant piece of cultural art - the book, no arguments, the movie .. its an adaptation, but I'd have a hard time calling it a movie with depth.

      But, thats just my opinion, so I realize its irrelevant.

      I'm not talking about paying money to see the movie - I'm talking about buying redundant materials. You're (well, whoever will buy both DVDs) not encouraging them to go out and adapt another classic - you're encouraging them to milk you. Which is fine, they can try - I'm just perplexed by those that ask for it, and then lament their weakness. It's encouraging exploitation of people's cultural needs, not a development or innovation of that culture.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:Move on with your life by DoctaWatson · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the significance of Lord of the Rings is ridiculous. The movie proved that the general public has no problem sitting through a 4 hour fantasy movie, as long as it was of highest quality. An important feat, especially considering the dearth of fantasy preceding the movie's release.

      Secondly, I see where you're coming from about milking the fans. But the studio wouldn't be making the extra versions if the fans hadn't asked for them.

      The studios could have just made the plain old Blockbuster version and that would be that. But instead they opted to listen to the fans and give them an even better version of the movie they love.

      Fans buying both versions of the movies may seem odd and addict like, but they're fans. They want to watch FoTR on their couch ASAP, special features or not. That a special version is even being made for them shows the power a niche market can have over an industry.

    4. Re:Move on with your life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and I'm sure the respect of J. Random Slashdot Nobody means so much to people that they're going to just line up to justify themselves to your flamebaiting ass. But still, here we go.

      I'm going to buy LotR twice, and I'm not the least bit ashamed. I like LotR a lot, and I don't mind owning multiple copies. That is my choice, I made it, and I'm happy with it. Yes, I could wait until November, or 2007, or whatever. I choose not to.

      As far as encouraging the Big, Bad Corporations to milk me -- bad assumption. I spend very little money on DVDs. I have a handful of movies that I collect, and at this point I've collected pretty much all of them. I don't generally pay to see movies in theaters (unless it's something like LotR, which I have a great fondness for), I get my rentals for free from a friend who works at a video store, and though I love LotR as a franchise, I don't collect Burger King cups, tee shirts, or any of that other stuff. In other words, I choose where I spend my money rather carefully, but two copies of the LotR DVD is worth it to me.

      And boycott schmoycott. Life is short. I'm going to enjoy myself, and that means watching the Lord of the Rings movies quite a few times before I die. And if that offends someone else's political sentiments, or they otherwise don't like it, that's too damn bad.

      There's your justification.

    5. Re:Move on with your life by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 2
      I get my rentals for free from a friend who works at a video store

      You do realize that, legally speaking, this is on par with going to Best Buy and walking out with your pockets stuffed full of DVD's? That's our laws for you. If you're going to watch something, then dammit some corporation better be making money off it!

      Since the music companies can charge a tax on CD-R's, why can't the movie companies charge a tax on contact lenses?

      --

      "I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
    6. Re:Move on with your life by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      How on earth is your opinion relevant to the topic when you are clearly confident and OK with your decision to buy both DVDs?

      It seems obvious to me that my post was more directed towards the set that didn't want to buy it twice, but will anyways.

      > And boycott schmoycott.

      See? What are you doing replying to my post when I was asking those who are trying to balance the desire to hold boycotts while paying financial penetance to the culture they love.

      > Oh, and I'm sure the respect of J. Random Slashdot Nobody means so much to people that they're going to just line up to justify themselves to your flamebaiting ass. But still, here we go.

      But this is the best part. God, how I love replies that start "I'm going to give you a reply, but try my hardest not to give you the satisfaction of actually having been replied to." Hehe. I wasn't flamebaiting, and that should have clued you into the fact that I was looking for replies from people actually applicable to the situation I was curious about.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    7. Re:Move on with your life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hadn't had my coffee yet and I was grumpy. My attack on you was undeserved. My apologies, sir.

      But I will admit, I have done that very thing before -- bought things because I felt I had no choice, etc. I have made a concerted effort to NOT do that, but evidently I am still stinging about it, even years later. So, it looks like I am more sensitive about it than I thought.

      I think you were right in comparing it to smack -- runaway consumerism is like an addiction; I find I would get a diminishing "rush" from buying things connected to franchises I liked, and ended up needing more, more often, to get the same feeling. For me, fortunately, withdrawl was pretty easy. I just realized how much crazy crap I was buying with little to no enjoyment, and resolved to purchase only things that I would truly value. It's worked so far.

    8. Re:Move on with your life by doorbot.com · · Score: 2

      I'm not talking about paying money to see the movie - I'm talking about buying redundant materials.

      That's what I'd like to know. I can understand when you buy a DVD when it is released and then months later a special edition is released and so you find it necessary to purchase the new version as well. Hopefully you sell your old copy on eBay...

      What I don't understand is why you would buy both versions in this case; it's well known that there will be more than one version, with the later version(s) including more features/footage. I plan on waiting for the last version, but then again, I can only watch one DVD at a time.

    9. Re:Move on with your life by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. I find that much more gratifying to know that others experience the same thing. Thats really all I wanted - to hear if others considered the consumerist addiction to be something noteworthy .. to consider its effect on the transparency of markets. I'm generally pretty good (I havn't gone to the theatre in months, despite being desperate to see The Minority Report, for the most part.)

      Cool man .. I just got my coffee - I usually go from cynical to ADD, but in order to spare my co-workers, I save it for the afternoon. ;)

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  28. MPAA BOOO! by isorox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "BOOO, MPAA sucks, give us back our rights! Its disgusting how senators get bribed"

    "OOh, shiny DVD's"

  29. On Talking and Travelling vs. Orcs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're in a movie, your obvious choice is, "Let's hunt some orc."

    Why?

    No one wants to sit through a rather lengthy movie listening to Legolas and Gimli bitching at each other for entire scenes. Okay, no one aside from Tolkien fans.

    That's the important thing - Tolkien fans, die hard fans, that is, aren't that numerous anymore. Hell, I'm having a hard time finding 'Frodo Lives!' graffiti of late. As a result (Of the lack of die hard fans, not lack of graffiti!), Jackson had to make the movie more 'action packed'.

    Frankly, by doing so, I believe he betrayed Tolkien's vision. Tolkien was never about action. If anyone remembers Ebert's review of FotR, he pointed out that LotR was more a travelogue than anything else. He was right.

    But you know something? Jackson never promised us Tolkien's vision. He only offered us his own interpretation. I think that's the sole reason I don't hate the movie(s). (Well, that, and he managed to make the Balrog not suck terribly much. ;))

    1. Re:On Talking and Travelling vs. Orcs. by mtrupe · · Score: 1

      Ebert lost any and all credibility in my mind when he reviewed FOTR and complained that the movie had no end. Perhaps just a little effort on his part would have revealed the reason for this.
      Of course, just about every movie he gives a thumbs down to turns out to be great (and vise-versa).

    2. Re:On Talking and Travelling vs. Orcs. by dr_canak · · Score: 1

      Um, IIRC, it was actually Richard Roeper who thought that the story "had no ending" and was consequently a major dissappointment. Ebert spent his time telling Roeper what a ridiculous criticism that was given that Ebert is a big fan of the series. Here is the original Chicago Sun Times review, and I don't really see mention of a complaint about no end. http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2001/1 2/121901.html

  30. Text of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    EXCLUSIVE: Fellowship Of The Ring Special Edition DVD pictures & info! Find out what's in that extra 30 minutes!!!
    Sunday, July 7, 2002 2:37AM PDT - by Brian

    We've got some exclusive pictures and information on what will be included on the special extended 4-disc edition of Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring DVD hitting store shelves November 12th!

    Here's what we found out from our friends at Newline:

    On November 12th, 2002 Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring will be released as a 4-disc special extended edition DVD which will integrate approximately 30 minutes of extra footage never-before seen, into the original theatrical release. Check out some exclusive info we found about about what's being included:

    What can viewers expect from the 3 and a half hour immersion into Middle Earth??? WE'VE GOT THE ANSWERS!!! Here's what's to be expected...check out the stills!!! (Click to enlarge)

    Galadriel's Gif-Giving Scene. As the elves prepare to leave Lothlorien, Elf Queen Galadriel bestows a special gift upon each of the nine members of the Fellowship.
    Bilbo Baggins writing a journal entry entitled "Concerning Hobbits," which serves as a history of the Hobbits and their bucolic lifestyle.
    A new introduction of loyal Hobbit Sam Gamgee.
    More footage from the Green Dragon Inn, with Peregrin "Pippin" Took, and Meriadoc "Merry" Brandybuck happily singing Hobbit songs.
    Sam & Frodo witnessing the stately Exodus of the Elves on the road to Bree.
    Aragorn singing an Elvish ballad that adds back story to the implications of his love for Arwen
    Aragorn beside his mother's grave in Rivendell.
    An extended sequence of the Fellowship's departure from Rivendell.
    Pre-battle scenes in the Mines Of Moria, explaining how the dwarves came to be in the mines.
    Character material delving into the complicated relationship between elves and dwarves.
    Additional footage from the Fellowship's climatic battle scene.
    Lord Of The Rings DVD Special Edition pictures Lord Of The Rings DVD Special Edition pictures
    Lord Of The Rings DVD Special Edition pictures Lord Of The Rings DVD Special Edition pictures
    Lord Of The Rings DVD Special Edition pictures

    Composer Howard Shore has returned with his Academy Award winning score and recorded 50 minutes of new music with the London Philharmonic for the special extended edition set!

    Weta Digital has returned and contributed all new effects shots for the deleted scenes.

    In addition to the 3 and a half hour feature, presented on 2 discs, the set will include 2 MORE discs packed with features not on the August release of the disc! This is includes production team commentaries, production documentaries, & interactive featurettes covering the film adaptation from "book to vision" and "from vision to reality"!

    1. Re:Text of the article by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 5, Funny

      Galadriel's Gif-Giving Scene

      I hope she's got a license...

    2. Re:Text of the article by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      By the time all these DVDs come out, the Unisys patent may very well have expired, so Galadriel may not have anything to worry about. :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    3. Re:Text of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gah! should've posted non-AC

      oh well

      stit happens...

    4. Re:Text of the article by jackbang · · Score: 1

      It's high time that the open source community come together to create a patent-free mythology where elves may freely give out PNGs unencumbered from the burdens of proprietary formats.

  31. Re:Mod this up! # +5; Patriotic # by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, envy is sad really

  32. One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken' by cprice · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only one who thinks they could have spent
    2 more minutes talking about the 'Sword Of Elendil'? They show the sword in the preface cutting the hand of Sauron, and then they show Boromir doing his 'Still Sharp(e)' shtick. I think a quick scene with Elrond presenting the re-forged sword 'Anduril' to Aragorn would have been a worthy plot addition ('The sword that was broken goes to war'). To me, its part of the 'Aragorn claims his birthright' story within the story.

  33. No overlaping extras by Nilatir · · Score: 5, Informative
    From The Digital Bits which in short says that the extras on the two releases do not overlap so your not wasting money by buying both editions. If you want more, buy the SE, otherwise just get the August release.
    We're getting a lot of e-mails from readers asking if the special features set to be included on the theatrical edition of The Fellowship of the Ring (due on 8/6) will be repeated on the special extended version (following on 11/12). The answer is no. The documentaries and web featurettes are being included on the theatrical edition because a lot of fans have requested them. But since the special extended version includes an entirely new cut of the film, everything that will be included on that later edition is being custom created specifically for that release, for a more adult audience and to go MUCH deeper into the making of the film trilogy than what was seen in any of the TV specials. The idea is that most DVD consumers will be satisfied with the theatrical edition, while more sophisticated fans will wait for the extended edition. The most diehard fans will probably want both, as they perfectly complement each other but do not overlap.

    Also, just to clarify, each DVD version includes a SEPARATE edit of the film. The 4-disc special extended set DOES NOT include the theatrical cut of the film on a separate disc or via seamless branching. If you want the theatrical cut, you have to buy the August 2-disc set. If you want the longer cut, you buy the November 4-disc edition. If you want both, save your money accordingly and buy both. Some people may feel that this is an effort to milk consumers, but I don't think so at all. In order to include everything you'll be getting on both editions, New Line would have to create a single 6-disc release, which would be WAY too expensive for most consumers to even consider. This way, they can have DVD purchase options for everyone. And by not having any overlap between the two editions, fans who buy both are absolutely getting the most for their money. Just think... over eight hours of unique special edition material alone on these two releases, not including the films themselves! If you're a fan, I say don't look a gift horse in the mouth!
    --

    "We were half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold."
    -- Hunter S. Tolkien
    1. Re:No overlaping extras by n-baxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people may feel that this is an effort to milk consumers, but I don't think so at all.

      What a load of crap. I mean really. If they were trying to do right by the customer, the November release would be this 6-disc set he mentions and you would get both for $30 instead of having two boxes sitting around with 75% of the same stuff and paying $40 for the whole thing to boot. This is only meant to milk the customer. Just admit it and be done with it.

    2. Re:No overlaping extras by havoc · · Score: 1
      ...DOES NOT include the theatrical cut of the film on a separate disc or via seamless branching.

      If you want the theatrical cut, you have to buy the August 2-disc set. If you want the longer cut, you buy the November 4-disc edition.

      Some people may feel that this is an effort to milk consumers...

      This is milking if I have ever seen it! If they use seamless branching to add in the extra footage then you could choose which version of the film you wanted to see. Both on one disc without any duplication of footage. What a lie. I don't care if companies do this, just be up front and don't lie about it.

    3. Re:No overlaping extras by cjpez · · Score: 2
      New Line would have to create a single 6-disc release, which would be WAY too expensive for most consumers to even consider.
      Well, maybe with all the artificial price-jacking going on. I mean, it costs what, NOTHING to manufacture a DVD? I'd like to know what the profit margins are. I'm sure they could sell a 6-disc set for twenty bucks and still make money. Whatever. I'm just gonna wait until the whole trilogy comes out in a boxed set or whatever. Of course, by then there might not be a VHS version (come to think of it, is there a VHS version of *this* one, even?), so I might just have to cope without.
    4. Re:No overlaping extras by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Except for the casual, non-fanboy consumer who just wants to pay $20 or $25 for a vanilla version of the DVD and have done with it, and have no interest in 6-disc sets, extra footage, or whatever.

    5. Re:No overlaping extras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad they're not trying to milk us. If they were they would have mentioned "buy both copies" at least 3 times per paragraph...

  34. Fortuitous by stubear · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fortuitous that they call themselves "LightsOut Entertainment" only to suffer from a good slashdotting after posting a LOTR article.

  35. Jackson is going to trigger mass piracy... by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    It's stupid marketing tactics like this that help cause widespread piracy. Releasing "special editions" they will trigger a simple buyers tactic.

    Lots of people on this board are mentioning how they cannot resist the August release, and will likely buy both. On the otherhand, how many of these people will in fact say "fuck it" and not hit the stores to get the August release, but rather hit Gnutella? People don't want to double their costs to get 30 minutes of extra footage, so they will end up buying the movie once. That once will be the November release. In the meantime, they'll settle for a high quality DiVX ;-) rip.

    Then, the MPAA will bitch and moan about how they're so fucked by piracy. Meanwhile, they were the catalyst by teasing the consumers.

    --
    Why bother.
    1. Re:Jackson is going to trigger mass piracy... by DoctaWatson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm... I can pay 30 or so bucks and watch it on a big tv, with high quality picture and sound, spending the four hour movie time sitting on my comfy sofa.

      Or, I can spend an hour or two downloading it off the internet so I can watch it on my 17" monitor, with mediocre video and mediocre sound, all while sitting in my less comfortable desk chair for 4 hours.

      Jackson is a genius, kill piracy with comfort.

    2. Re:Jackson is going to trigger mass piracy... by bafreer · · Score: 1

      If someone wanted the normal version w/o extra scenes, they could have had it months ago. Multiple versions, some stolen from the studio were floating around my school's resnet, as I'm sure they were at others

    3. Re:Jackson is going to trigger mass piracy... by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      Actually, the SVCD rip from the screener DVD (four discs) is of decent quality. Not on par with most DVD video, but I've honestly seen some DVDs with significantly lower quality video than this SVCD rip. I have no problem watching it on my big TV. Of course, there is the "get up to change the disc" thing that must be done three times during the movie.

      It isn't in 5.1 surround and it isn't 16x9 enhanced, but it will hold me over until November.

    4. Re:Jackson is going to trigger mass piracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    5. Re:Jackson is going to trigger mass piracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The divx rip of the screener DVD is pretty awesome really. Two CDs and an utterly crisp image. Get yourself a good encoder these days and even the single-disc rips for a 2-hour movie are quite watchable.

      That being said, I'm still gonna buy the 4 DVD set...

  36. R Rated Version? by TheVidiot · · Score: 2, Funny

    It will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit Sure if you're into that kind of thing... Elves and dwarves in the flesh! Must be the scenes dropped to keep it from an R rating...

    1. Re:R Rated Version? by tarsi210 · · Score: 2

      Cate Blanchett or Liv Tyler in the nude???

      To murder a Simpsons quote: "Elves in the nude? Do I dare live out a Rings fan's dream?"

      Finally, we get to see what they use those pointy ears for.

  37. You're complaining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You basically got 10 rentals and a DVD for the price of 5 rentals, and you're complaining? That's a great deal. I've already preordered my SE version of FotR and still went for that deal when I saw it at blockbuster. Why? There's no overlap. The extra's included on the standard version are completly different from the extras on the SE. So, if you want the complete collection you have to get both. Now stop whining and go out and preorder the SE too.

  38. Buy Both Versions by AJSchu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've read reports that state that the extras found on the first (2-disc) release will not be available on the second (4-disc) release, and vice versa. Hell, the 4-disc version won't even contain the theatrical version of the movie, but (from what I've read) the 30-minute extended version only. So I'm planning on buying both anyway.

    For those of you who see this as purely a money grab, it's not. Look at the other options New Line had:

    1. Release the two-disc set only. Hardcore fans bitch and moan about not getting "extras."
    2. Release the four-disc set only. People who enjoyed the movie (but aren't hardcore fans) won't shell out $40+ for a load of features they're not interested in.
    3. Release separate packages with nearly-identical features, but label one a "special edition" with extra footage. Duplicated features for people who buy both. Cue the bitching and moaning.
    4. Release separate packages with widely differing features, one geared toward the casual fan and one geared toward the hardcore fan. Buy only what you want.

    New Line did their best to give its customers a choice and opportunity to get what they want.

    AJS

    1. Re:Buy Both Versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Line did their best to give its customers a choice and opportunity to get what they want.

      No. What I want is the version "as seen in theaters", and all the extra footage/goodies on other discs.

    2. Re:Buy Both Versions by spongman · · Score: 2
      the brazil (3-disk) criterion collection special addition has two full-length cuts of the film, plus commentaries, plus two full-length documentaries and more...

      don't be fooled, they're milking it for all they can.

    3. Re:Buy Both Versions by greymond · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      How about they make 1 dvd that is just the movie (as shown in theatres) and 1 special edition package that has ALL the extras. the current generation buys the regular dvd the "hardcore fans" buy the special edition.

      that way everyone gets what they want - I for one will NOT buy 2 sets of the same god dam movie just so i get MORE extra scenes - that is Re-GoD-DaM-iKuLuS (worse than my spelling) when TPTB do this it makes me just want to warez a decent copy of the movie or steal both versions NOT PAY FOR 2.

      Its like that stupid pokemon that you could only get if you were the first 100 people who went to see the movie. wtf? i have plenty of pokemon already why do i need to go see a movie to GET MORE (aka BUY MORE)

    4. Re:Buy Both Versions by stevenbdjr · · Score: 1

      How about option 5? Seperate DVDs geared towards different fans, but release them at the same time.

      I agree that they made the right move by releasing two different versions of the DVD. They can best serve the entire audience of the movie that way. However, I don't like the fact that they're releasing them at two different times. The studio knows that big fans don't want to wait to November to own the movie, but at the same time they want to see the extra footage, so they'll buy the November release as well. Money is the driving factor behind almost everything Corporate America does.

    5. Re:Buy Both Versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NewLine is owned by none other than AOL Time Warner.

  39. Explanation of Two Disks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Taco, it looks like you have to buy both releases, anyway. The two will offer disjoint viewing experiences.

  40. Offering the ring to Elrond? by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
    Article is /.ed so I haven't read it, sorry.

    Didn't this happen in the book? Doesn't Frodo offer the ring to all three of the bearers of the elven (elvish?) rings even though he doesn't know that they are ring-bearers? Doesn't it seem like this is an important detail that has been left out? He certainly offers it to the other two in the movie. Some would argue that he offers it to Aragorn as well, though I think he was asking if Aragorn would take it by force. In any case it didn't strike me as an offer as much as a query.

    The council of Elrond was the one part of the movie that I didn't care for. I am not sure why this was. Maybe because in the context of the movie you don't know who the participants are.

    Anyhow, imagine Agent Smith with two rings of power! Both his own ring and the one ring. I am sure that he would beat up on Keanu if he had both of them.

    1. Re:Offering the ring to Elrond? by SimonKeogh · · Score: 1


      Frodo never offered the ring to Elrond. He said to Aragorn "then the ring belongs to you" when the Isildurs heir thing sunk in.

  41. Re:Blockbuster deal on the movie in August by Serrus · · Score: 1

    If it makes you feel any better, go to Blockbuster and buy a 10 rental card (1 rental/week for 10 weeks) and get the DVD for VHS for free. The cost is $26 with tax. Not a bad deal..... helps to justify buying the August version.

  42. This is NOT a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's simply pointing out the typical Slashdot modus operandi.

    One minute everyone here is boo-hooing and raging about the MPAA...the next, someone posts an article about the latest "must-have" Anime DVD.

    I'd extend that further, too....I remember when DIVX (the DVD-wannabe) was still around, just the MENTION of it would get people wailing and gnashing their teeth. DVD was a saintly intervention from God Himself (according to Slashdotters). Of course, DVD is full of idiocies itself (like region encoding, CSS, Macrovision, etc)...but Slashdotters don't care about THAT...just gimme my Anime DVDs.

    1. Re:This is NOT a troll. by Saint+Nobody · · Score: 2

      the fallacy here is that he's considering slashdot a single entity. are the people that say "i'm never buying a dvd again" the same people that drool over the latest dvds in these threads? doubtful.

      if you find somebody who contradicts themselves like that, then rather than accusing all of slashdot of hiporcisy, respond to the specific post, and cite the previous post. don't assume that everybody thinks the same way, and accuse these mythical thought patters of self-contradiction.

      --
      #define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
      F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
    2. Re:This is NOT a troll. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I agree...

      I don't have a DVD player. I was ready to buy one years ago when the DeCSS crap hit the fan...

      I still don't have one.

      However, in the coming months I will be buying one from 220 Depot, region free, macrovision disabled DVD players...

      My big issue is that my wife is from Brazil - a different region. We buy stuff for the kids in portuguese. I have every legal reason to want to buy DVDs from Brazil, play them here, and make a VHS copy for the player in the car on long trips.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:This is NOT a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MPAA doesn't touch most anime DVDs as they are rarely of features released in theatres in the US.

      Nice try.

    4. Re:This is NOT a troll. by mtrupe · · Score: 1

      Uh, I would have to agree---
      Another point worth making: If George Lucas was doing this everyone here would be ripping him as a money monger and a greedy bastard for forcing us to buy ATTACK OF THE CLONES twice.

      Of course, I too will be buying FOTR twice... bloop bloop bloop.

    5. Re:This is NOT a troll. by Patrick13 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      My big issue is that my wife is from Brazil - a different region. We buy stuff for the kids in portuguese. I have every legal reason to want to buy DVDs from Brazil, play them here, and make a VHS copy for the player in the car on long trips.

      if you live near the Mexican border... you may want to consider buying a DVD player on the Mexican side.... I got a Sony DVD/CDR/VCD/MP3 player with no regional settings for about $150 US.

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    6. Re:This is NOT a troll. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Interesting...

      The one I want is $189, region free and macrovision disabled PLUS built in conversion between PAL and NTSC. Of course, it's not Sony it's Daewoo - I could pay more and get JVC or something, but I don't have a lot of extra money for things like DVD players.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  43. Natalie Portman? by yoric · · Score: 1

    What the hell would she be doing giving commentary for LotR? Just because she was in Aussieland at the same time doesn't mean Jackson condescended to get her words(or mug) on record. In fact, Elijah Wood said something about her being rather aloof and bitchy to all the LotR people.

    Tell you what. My girlfriend is going to be living two floors above Ms. "Portman" next year. I'll ask her if she's on video for LotR at all ;)

    --
    Let the universe of discourse be wombats...
    1. Re:Natalie Portman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, it's a joke.

      Oh, never mind.

    2. Re:Natalie Portman? by dpilot · · Score: 2

      Methinks you need a humor-o-meter, here.

      Otherwise, Ms. Portman, naked and petrified, played bit parts in numerous scenes. Most notable was her 'falling rock' part in the stair scene during the Balrog attack. Some of her other scenes were largely covered by vegetation, so I guess they would only qualify as petrified.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:Natalie Portman? by Maran · · Score: 1

      "What the hell would she be doing giving commentary for LotR?"

      What, and Mojo Jojo has a staring role?!?!?

      Maran

    4. Re:Natalie Portman? by Asprin · · Score: 2

      What the hell would she be doing giving commentary for LotR?

      Dude, same reason for the Britney Spears commentary on disc 22 - because she's h0t!






      [...*please* tell me you left the humor-meter running...]


      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    5. Re:Natalie Portman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Tell you what. My girlfriend is going to be living two floors above Ms. "Portman" next year. I'll ask her if she's on video for LotR at all ;)

      Well whoopty fucking do.

    6. Re:Natalie Portman? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      You forget the scene where she served the hobbits hot grits for breakfast

  44. How could they have ever cut this stuff?! by esoterus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm really looking forward to the addition of the footage they shot of Steven Tyler and Aerosmith as the elf Gildor and his companions moving into the West....

    I believe the scene was cut due to Tyler's complaining that in the end, it was "just too Zeppelin" for them.

    Rumors also of a Gildor-singing-to-a-weeping-Arwen number ala the Armageddon music video... Wow, I mean I could barely control myself the first time, how am I supposed to even begin to do so now? Gonna make sure I've got plenty of tissues for that one...

    Peter Jackson. bless you...

    --
    Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. -Hawking
  45. Why I'm Buying Both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you are a huge fan of the movie, I think that buying both wouldn't be a bad idea. You see, the November edition is the extended edition. I keep wondering if it's going to include the theatre edition (like T2: Ultimite Edition) but from what I have read out there, it looks like it won't have seamless branching. I would like to be able to watch both. The August edition will be the theatre, and the editing choices will be that for theatre. It will have a quicker pace, although less detail. Sometime I may want to watch that edition. Some days, when I have more time, I may want to delve deeper in the story so I will pop in the November Extended edition. Apparently both are good, but they are different and I would like both. Those are my reasons for buying both.

  46. Re:Mod this up! # +5; Patriotic # by srmalloy · · Score: 0, Troll
    Well, besides the fact that the melody strains the range of most singers, now you know the reason why you almost never hear more than the first verse sung.

    In general, though, it seems as if most national anthems are overly florid and/or pretentious. A good example is the anthem of the old Soviet Union:
    Unbreakable union of free-born republics
    Great Russia has welded forever to stand
    Created in struggle, by will of the people
    United and mighty, our Soviet land!
    Kind of ironic, in view of historical events. But you can say the same of 'Deutschland Uber Alles', and probably dozens more anthems whose singers were overtaken by history. I wonder how future generations will judge the U.S.'s anthem.
  47. "The Last Battle" in quotes by havoc · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they mean "The Last Battle" which is the big one shown at the begining of the movie. I.E. the last *great* battle. This is how it was refered to in the books.

  48. Tom by zephc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the people complaining about Tom Bombadil, he wasn't really NEEDED in a movie version. The enigma of Tom is that he represented the *reader*. He was a safety net of sorts for the reader, a character of goodness who could remained unharmed by the evils in Middle-earth, even from Sauron et al.

    Here is a great analysis of Tom

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    1. Re:Tom by theghost · · Score: 1

      To quote the previous poster, "Wa wa wawa wawawa wawa Wa Wawawa, wa wawa wawa WAWA wa wa wawa wawa. Wa wawawa wa Wa wa wa wa wawawawa wa *wawa*. Wa wa wa wawa wa wa wa wa wa wawa, wa wawawa wa wawa wa wa wawawa wawa wa wa wawa wa Wawa-wa, wawa wa Wawa wa wa." ;) Thanks, but reading about someone in the book i'm reading, who represents me reading the book is just not something i'd dig even if Tolkien did intend it that way. Tolkien told a great story but was not a great storyteller. Tom is lame - i'm glad he wasn't in the movie.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    2. Re:Tom by WNight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tom, a safety net? You're right and truly cracked.

      Tom was an accident and a toy's cameo, so says Tolkien himself. He started writing a more humorous book where Tom was appropriate (similar Bifur, Bofur, Bombur type naming in The Hobbit) and it gradually turned darker and more serious. He said he wouldn't have put him in, if he had it to do again.

      Also, Bombadil is a name he'd given to one of his kid's toys, and he wanted basically to give the toy a cameo. He admit in his letters that Bombadil doesn't have anything to do with the story, but says that he liked the idea of the world having some mystery, so he never explained Tom's presense.

      Making up some crap about how he represents the reader, etc... That's not only painfully wrong, but it's elitist, egotistical, and above all, against documented fact. Try lecturing about how the ring represents technology, that's another symbolism that Tolkien vehemently denied.

    3. Re:Tom by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      Amen. But the Barrow Downs were a cool scene I wished they had in there, along with the old forest. It helped to show just how much in-over-their-heads they all were.

    4. Re:Tom by jgerman · · Score: 2

      Making up some crap about how he represents the reader, etc... That's not only painfully wrong, but it's elitist, egotistical, and above all, against documented fact. Try lecturing about how the ring represents technology, that's another symbolism that Tolkien vehemently denied

      Actually telling someone what to take out of a piece of literature is elitist and egotistical. And sorry to burst your bubble, there is no documented fact when it comes to art. The author can say what he meant afterwords, but the meaning of what he said is always determined by the reader. I don't much care for the analysis that Bombadil was a safety net, but if that's what some people get out of it that's for them to decide, not you.

      Personally, I liked Bombadil as a mysterious, darker character.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    5. Re:Tom by Chazmyrr · · Score: 1

      Regardless of any symbolism or meaning a reader thinks they see in a work, it is rather presumptious to assume that what they perceive is what the author meant or intended. And to proclaim such, despite vehement denials by the author, is arrogant in the extreme.

      In addition, the analysis in question is derived from speculation about what Tolkein might have been thinking as he wrote the work. A statement of fact based on a flight of fancy is always foolish and usually wrong.

    6. Re:Tom by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2

      I don't think Naked Romping Hobbits would have done too well, even if they [i]did[/i] behave themselves.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    7. Re:Tom by WNight · · Score: 2

      Not at all. If they wish to say "*I see* Tom Bombadil as a Safety Net..." they're justified in doing so. But if they state that he *is*, or that the ring *is* an analogy for technology, they're completely wrong.

      They're free to see what they want, and to suggest it as an alternative view if they wish, but when they tell people *how it is*, they open themselves up for criticism. In this case, it's well documented that they're 100% wrong.

      I just hate pretentious lit snobs who insist on telling people they don't understand something the proper way and proceed to lay down some insane trip about safety nets, or analogies to jesus, etc, etc. Make of it what you will, but realize it's just your opinion, especially when the official word contradicts you. Like art snobs who insist on finding freudian analogies in landscapes.

      I didn't really mind Bombadil, but I don't think he added anything to LotR. If you've read the Silmarilion as well, you understand a bit more and the mystery of Tom is intriguing. If not, he's a non-plot point, and as such, best left out of a mass-market movie.

    8. Re:Tom by jgerman · · Score: 2

      I just hate pretentious lit snobs who insist on telling people they don't understand something the proper way and proceed to lay down some insane trip about safety nets, or analogies to jesus, etc, etc. Make of it what you will, but realize it's just your opinion, especially when the official word contradicts you. Like art snobs who insist on finding freudian analogies in landscapes.

      This is exactly what I was saying. There is no right or wrong. When you say "this is" when talking about things like this there is an implicit "to me" tacked onto the end.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    9. Re:Tom by hey! · · Score: 2
      Like any brilliant work, stuff comes up that the author is not necessarily consciously aware of. According to Tom Shippey, in early drafts of FotR the sniffing rider turns out to be Gandalf! However, it makes no sense for the rider to be Gandalf. Can you even say what makes sense or not? After all the author is "just" making it all up. But Tolkien was not just making it up. I think one of the charms of LotR is the sense that there is a wider world in which the story takes place by which you can make such judgements.

      It's clear that while he was casting around for a successor to the Hobbit, there was a serious tale about ordinary people confronting evil trying to get out. He created a world in his imagination, and while he of course had control over which elements he used, the logic and symbolism of the world he created also asserts itself independent of his own intent. For some kinds of works, the author can be taken as the complete and final authority of the "meaning" of the work. "Leaf by Niggle" falls into the categories of works where there is a simple logical code in which the work is written. LotR is a work that transcends the conscious intent of the author.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Tom by festers · · Score: 1

      Care to site some sources on Tolkien saying those things? Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble, but the names of the dwarves were taken largely from Norse mythology, they were made up to be "humorous." Arrogant prick.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    11. Re:Tom by WNight · · Score: 2

      Hey, I can't help your being a dumbass, but please try to hide it in polite society.

      The origins of the dwarf names is irrelevant, they were picked to be silly, as I said, which is appropriate for a book for kids, but not a more serious novel which is what I said. (The modern names Terry and Barry rhyme, but few books these days have a complement of characters whose names rhyme, despite it being possible.)

      And it's not my fault that you can't google for something. Excerpts from Tolkien's letters are posted on many fan sites, take your pick.

      And yes, I am arrogant, when everyone is like you, it's reasonable.

  49. DTS! by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    of course the real reason to get the Nov release is the DTS soundtrack that it will boast! The Balrog never sounded so good!

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  50. Got attention span? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so sorry. Please go back to Armageddon and the Dungeon and Dragons movie. I think they're more your speed.

  51. Bored of the Rings by EL_Fudge · · Score: 1

    I hope one of the extra features is the movie adaptation of National Lampoon's Bored the the Rings. I want to follow Dildo Bugger, Spam, Goodgulf and Arrowroot in their adventures against Sorhed.

    1. Re:Bored of the Rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That book was hilarious, but not something you returned to. Guess Tolkein had the last laugh.

    2. Re:Bored of the Rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a correction that "Bored of the Rings" was produced by the HARVARD Lampoon, not the National Lampoon. However, the guys that wrote it went on to create the National, so you're sort of right.
      Sad to note, by the way, that of the three main writers, Michael O'Donaghue, Doug Kenny and Henry Beard, only Beard is still alive... :-(

    3. Re:Bored of the Rings by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the action scene with the dreaded "Ballhog" and I'm not talking about Allen Iverson either...

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  52. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this was changed from the book, and Aragorn doesn't wield Narsil/Anduril yet in FOTR, and it has not yet been reforged.

  53. Pan and Scan? by tarsi210 · · Score: 2

    Pan and Scan? Ugh, the mere thought of watching the golden brainchild of PJ on the screen in a dibilitating format like Pan & Scan inspires my gastrointestinal track to display a scene of impressive disgust.

    If you are thinking about buying this film and haven't seen it yet (what are the chances?), please, please.....make sure you get the Letterboxed format (widescreen). It's good for you, it's good for the world. This is not one of those movies that will look good any other way.br>
    The Mines of Moria in P&S? I shudder.

    1. Re:Pan and Scan? by Stickster · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is not really true. FotR (and all of the LotR movies) were shot in the Super35 format, which allows the director/DP (Director of Photography) to frame shots for both 4:3 (commonly referred to as P&S) and 2.35:1 (letterbox) at the same time. James Cameron is one of the directors who prefer this format, and you will actually see a reference to The Abyss in the article. (Every film of Cameron's since that one -- other than his recent IMAX work -- has used Super35.)

      Whether you get the widescreen or the P&S, you get the director's vision (and a good movie) either way. It is possible that Jackson didn't compose the 4:3 image at the same time, but highly unlikely, since it would actually cut back on the resolution of the image to be transferred later for 4:3 aspect ratios, including (eventually) broadcast TV.

      If you watch a Super35 film dual-composed in this matter, you will notice additional information at the left and right sides on the letterboxed format exhibition, or additional information at the top and bottom sides on the 4:3 format exhibition. If you have access to "Titanic" in both formats, for example, you can check this out for yourself. (I believe the 4:3 is only available on VHS, but you can check that against either the 2.35:1 VHS or DVD.)

      Having said all this, I prefer LB as well, but only because I look forward to buying a widescreen TV!

    2. Re:Pan and Scan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that it's 4:3 doesn't necessarily mean it is P&S. It can be 4:3 and be full frame, which is more likely what you're referring to. P&S is where they take a widescreen copy of it and "pan" and "scan" across the print to follow the action. So, you receive unintentional pans and scans that the director did not necessarily intend. If all they are doing is taking a straight 4:3 (1.33:1) version of it and not creating it from a 16:9 (2.35:1 I'm assuming) version, it's not P&S. May P&S burn in hell. :)

    3. Re:Pan and Scan? by Thorkytel+Ant-Head · · Score: 1

      Granted, it could be full-frame for scenes without special effects, but for scenes that do contain special effects, it will most likely be pan-and-scan. Why? When SFX are done, most studios just do the special effects for the part of the frame that will be seen in the theater, not the entire film frame. Since post-production time is usually so tight, they can't waste the time rendering effects that won't be seen in the theatrical release. And when it comes time to do the home-video version, they don't bother to do back and redo those scenes for the full-frame version.

      The upshot is: For an effects-laden movie like Lord of the Rings, chances are that most of the movie will be pan-and-scan, not full-frame. If you don't believe me, do a side-by-side comparison of the widescreen and pan-and-scan versions of Jurassic Park, Titanic, and so on.

    4. Re:Pan and Scan? by Gutzalpus · · Score: 1

      If you watch a Super35 film dual-composed in this matter, you will notice additional information at the left and right sides on the letterboxed format exhibition, or additional information at the top and bottom sides on the 4:3 format exhibition. Damn you! Now I'm going to have to buy *three* copies of this DVD instead of two. (4:3 theatrical, 16:9 theatrical, and the November "extra footage" release...)

  54. Anti-petition by rohanreed · · Score: 1

    There should be a petition for keeping the original title, just so the petition against the title gets beaten properly to the ground.


    There is. Shortly after news of this petition got out I saw a link somewhere and signed the 'Petition to Ignore the Petition to Change the Name of the Two Towers'.

    --
    At least I know where my towel is.
    1. Re:Anti-petition by rohanreed · · Score: 1

      Just search this page for Towers and you will see how many petitions there are to NOT rename the movie. Now if only the people would think enough to search before they start a new petition, like these things work anyway.

      --
      At least I know where my towel is.
    2. Re:Anti-petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are several petitions now:

      To Jackson

      http://www.petitiononline.com/lotr2/petition.htm l
      http://www.petitiononline.com/t8a7/petition.htm l
      http://www.petitiononline.com/h8stupid/petition .ht ml

      To the original petition

      http://www.petitiononline.com/fr0d0/petition.htm l
      http://www.petitiononline.com/fusel100/petition .ht ml

      To petitiononline

      http://www.petitiononline.com/dietower/petition. ht ml

      To all

      http://www.petitiononline.com/TTrebuke/petition. ht ml

      Masi

  55. Buy them both, the MPAA wants you to. by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    C'mon, people. Yell about the MPAA all week until they have a movie you want to watch and then you don't even ask why the "special edition" features aren't on the "regular" edition. SUCKERS!

    --
    Carpe Deez
    1. Re:Buy them both, the MPAA wants you to. by sckeener · · Score: 2

      It's nice to see you fall into that category of can't please everyone. Unfortunately Slashdot has to try. Did it ever occur to you that some of the fans of LOTR might not be mad at the MPAA?

      (wait a sec)

      (Cast protection from fire on self)

      flame on.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Buy them both, the MPAA wants you to. by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      Yes. I do however think that if people thought about what a "special edition" is they might not buy it, and then maybe the MPAA would quit doing it.
      I bought Conan the Barbarian on DVD only to have the "special edition" released 3 months later. Now both editiopns are availible in the catalogs. Why have the regular edition at all after the special is released? The MPAA is counting on people buying both. I am suggesting that it's a bad deal and they should be called on it. Love LOTR all you want, but be aware that you are being taken to the cleaners. I don't think you have to be in the MPAA hater camp to realize this is a bunk deal.

      --
      Carpe Deez
    3. Re:Buy them both, the MPAA wants you to. by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      C'mon, people. Yell about the MPAA all week until they have a movie you want to watch and then you don't even ask why the "special edition" features aren't on the "regular" edition. SUCKERS!

      No, no, no, you've got it all wrong.

      See, here on Slashdot, different things are hated at different times of the week. For example, the MPAA is hated on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, but not Tuesdays. And since today is a Tuesday, there you have it -- Slashdot doesn't hate the MPAA today!

      Slashdot follows a similar schedule with the RIAA. I don't remember for sure what it is, but I think it's something like M-Th-SAalike, T-W-F-Su dislike. Anybody know for sure what Slashdot's RIAA schedule is?

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    4. Re:Buy them both, the MPAA wants you to. by Blackneto · · Score: 0

      Why have the regular edition at all after the special is released?
      Because the Special edition has a man fucking llaama scene in it, right before Conan slugs the camel.
      Listening to the Commentaries you hear Ahhnold laughing about how he never remembered that or something.
      So if you don't want to see llaama fucking buy the regular edition.

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
    5. Re:Buy them both, the MPAA wants you to. by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I love that scene and all, but once the special edition has been released, WHY KEEP THE REGULAR?
      And by the way, that is one hot llama.

      --
      Carpe Deez
  56. Option #3!!! by bje2 · · Score: 2

    i disagree...i like option #3...under option #4, i have to buy 2 seperate packages to get everything...the "regular" release should be a sub-set of the "special" release...if you use option #3, there should be no bitching as long as you know *ahead of time* (as we do here) that there will be a regular and a special edition...that way, the people who just want the movie and aren't hard-core fans can just buy the regular theatrical version...meanwhile, those who are hardcore fans, can buy the more costly special edition, and not miss anything from the regular release...the way new line is doing is with different bonus material over the two sets is nothing more then a way to make more money off the movie...cause they know hard-core fans want everything, and will probably buy both sets...

    so, basically let's see, if i want *everything* from the entire series i'll probably have to buy FOTR regular, FOTR special edition, TT regular, TT special ed., ROTK regular, ROTK special ed., then probably a box set special edition of all 3 movies...i'll end up having like 25+ lord of the rings DVDs by the time i'm through...jeez, that's out of hand...i'll need a special storage unit just for them..

    atleast that's one thing Lucas is doing right with the original star wars trilogy...he could easily release eps 4,5,6 on DVD right now, just as they are...then re-release another DVD speical edition later...but instead they're gonna work on the DVD, and anything he wants to change, and any special feautres...that's the way to do it...not release version after version...

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Option #3!!! by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you said something positive about George Lucas, please turn in your Slashdot license at the desk on your way out. Thanks.

    2. Re:Option #3!!! by bje2 · · Score: 2
      that could be a decent slashdot poll... biggest slashdot villian...
      • Bill Gates
      • George Lucas
      • Jon Katz
      • CowboyNeal
      actually, that's not a bad idea...i may submit it myself!

      i think Bill would run away with it...but still...
      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    3. Re:Option #3!!! by Derek · · Score: 2
      You forgot:
      • Jack Valenti
      • Hillary Rosen
      -Derek
    4. Re:Option #3!!! by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1
      No, I can see it happening like this.

      FOTR Theatrical Cut
      FOTR Special Extended

      TTT Theatrical Cut
      FOTR Theatrical Cut re-release to match TTT packaging
      TTT Special Extended
      FOTR Special Extended re-release to match TTT packaging

      ROTK Theatrical Cut
      FOTR Theatrical Cut re-release to match ROTK packaging
      TTT Theatrical Cut re-release to match ROTK packaging
      ROTK Special Extended
      FOTR Special Extended re-release to match ROTK packaging
      TTT Special Extended re-release to match ROTK packaging

      Box-Set of All Three Theatrical Cuts
      Box-Set of All Three Special Extended Editions

      Not to mention various gift sets. Hahaha, I love movies :)

      --

      Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

  57. Extra scenes that should be there... by bushboy · · Score: 1

    Tom Bombadil - how can they leave that out the damn movie ?

    The Barrow wights (spelling ?) - hello ! - this is where Frodo gets his freaking sword from - how they could of skipped out this, I just don't know !

    Those are the two most glaring omissions from the film, there's plenty others as well, but not quite so 'show stopping'

    Don't get me wrong, I think the movie was pretty much as good as a commercial release is going to get - pity about the casting of Elrond tho - the baddie from the Matrix - WTF ?

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:Extra scenes that should be there... by Maran · · Score: 1

      "The Barrow wights (spelling ?) - hello ! - this is where Frodo gets his freaking sword from - how they could of skipped out this, I just don't know!"

      Blink

      I could have sworn Bilbo gave it to him, at the same time he gave him the mithril chainmail?

      "Pity about the casting of Elrond tho - the baddie from the Matrix - WTF?"

      I couldn't get that out of my head either, which is a pity. If he hadn't have been in the Matrix, I don't think anyone would comment on bad casting.

      Maran

    2. Re:Extra scenes that should be there... by bushboy · · Score: 1
      I could have sworn Bilbo gave it to him, at the same time he gave him the mithril chainmail?

      Hmmm, I think your right about that - altho, Pippin, Merry, Sam & Bilbo got 'kitted out' with stuff that Tom Bombadil took from the barrow wight 'mound?' after rescuing them.

      The lotr purists will most likely tear thier hair out reading this - Geeks ! :)

      --
      A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    3. Re:Extra scenes that should be there... by bushboy · · Score: 1

      Sam and Bilbo ? - erp... it's been a long day... too much coffee ...

      --
      A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    4. Re:Extra scenes that should be there... by belroth · · Score: 2
      All the hobbits got swords (knives to the Big Folk) made by the Men of Westernesse from the Barrow when they were rescued by Tom.

      Frodo dropped his at Weathertop when he was stabbed the Nazgul Lord. At some point it was broken (can't remember when) which is one reason Bilbo gave him Sting when the Company set off from Imladris.

      My pet peeves from FOTR were
      1. Gandalf bumping his head at Bag End - No Way.
      2. Belittling Frodo by some of his brave acts being performed by others e.g. Arwens defiance at the Ford (but I don't mind cutting Glorfindel for a better movie).

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    5. Re:Extra scenes that should be there... by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      > pity about the casting of Elrond tho

      I couldn't help but expect "Welcome to Rivendell... Mister Baggins."

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  58. Re: Orcs by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    The trolls were OK, but I think of Orcs as half Pig, half Human chimeras. Maybe it is the hildebrant pics I have in my mind, or maybe it is because Orc rhymes with Pork.

    Also, I remember that in the books the Orcs and Goblins seemed to have their own society and culture. In the movie they look diseased, and not capable of having a society.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  59. Re:Hopefully by 2007.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    That'll be 1 disk. Plus a free demo of the 7GB new AOL

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  60. Have your cake and eat it too... by xTK-421x · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who want to be "franchise sluts" but don't want to pay twice, go take a Kia for a test drive and get the theatrical copy for free!

    KIA Partners With The Lord Of The Rings

    "Individuals who test-drive the new Kia Sorento or any Kia model between August and October, 2002 will receive by mail a free copy of the "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" home video or DVD courtesy of Kia."

    --
    "TK-421, why aren't you at your post?"
    1. Re:Have your cake and eat it too... by Patrick13 · · Score: 2

      lol... kia.com, i thought.... hmm is "killed in action" a movie site i haven't heard of before???

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    2. Re:Have your cake and eat it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, this is starting to sound dangerously like the Simpsons episode where Homer test drives an "Electaurus" electric car for the "free gift".

  61. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by sorahl · · Score: 1

    I am SO GLAD someone else saw the shadow of Sharpe in that scene!!!! :) But I don't think I can ever see Bean without seeing Sharpe, no matter what the role.

  62. Milking It by AJSchu · · Score: 1

    I don't deny that they are milking it, they're the owners of a ridiculously lucrative franchise. But they are at least trying to do right by the fans.

    AJS

  63. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by dswensen · · Score: 2

    I have a feeling they may have been saving the Sword of Anduril bit for The Two Towers... you know, when he actually goes to war.

    I could be wrong, it's just a hunch.

  64. No, only about $80 US for Trilogy by Cy+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Doesn't this imply that the full "collection" will be at least 12 DVDs? . . . Is this set going to retail around $200 or so?

    The Extended Edition can be pre-ordered on Amazon for $25.99. So I assume that you'll be able to get four disc sets of each film of th trilogy for a total just under $80.

    Of course, if you really, really must have every edition available, you could get the Gift Set version of each film, plus a likely compendium complete trilogy gift pack edition, which at around $60 each for each film and maybe $100 plus for the trilogy could set you back over $300, but I expect there is a lot of repeated footage included and the only possible reason to buy all of them is for collecting and not actual viewing. For example the only additional footage available in the FotR gift set is on the National Geographic DVD which can be bought seperately for $21.49 the additional $11.50 cost is for figurines and gift cards. And since the National Geographic disc is in full screen format, I don't think it is for cinemaphiles. Just lots of pics of New Zealand.

    1. Re:No, only about $80 US for Trilogy by taliver · · Score: 1

      So you really don't think NewLine is going to market "The Definitive Lord of the Rings 14 DVD collectors set" In addition to a gift set and full edition for each film? I say 14 DVD's because I would expect about 2 DVDs worth of stuff (including background screens for your PC, and even a Lord of the Rings Linux Distro [There can be only One! {Woops, wrong geek-movie}]).

      So I'd believe you'd have many fans doing the following purchases:
      FotR : $21.
      TTT: $21
      RotK: $21
      The Full Collectors Edition: $150(?)

      Why buy RotK when you're going to buy the full collector's set anyway? Well, to have the complete regular set, and I have no doubt that the full set will follow RotK by about 5-6 months. Maybe even a year (Just in time for Christmas 2004)

      --

      I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

  65. Cast of Towers and Return. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

    Dude, Captain Typho as Ugluk and Chuckie (from Child's Play) as Wormtounge. That's gonna be cool.

    Oh, and Sam's real daughter playing his daughter.

    -Peter

    PS: Like others, I'm pissed about the lack of Bombadil. Here's a question, how is Jackson going to get rid of Gandalf so that the Hobbits have to deal with "The Scouring of the Shire" on their own . . . ?

    -P

    1. Re:Cast of Towers and Return. by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid they aren't.. the Scouring is gonna be cut. Saruman gets killed on a spiky wheel somewhere. I think the rationale was that the long build-down after the climax wouldn't suit the movie format.

    2. Re:Cast of Towers and Return. by Blackneto · · Score: 0

      I can see your point, but at the end of the book when Sam walks in the door and says to his wife 'well i'm home' I get a warm fuzzy feeling.

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
  66. I will be buying both... by dswensen · · Score: 5, Informative

    I will be purchasing both versions of the movie, if for no other reason than I want to see the version of Fellowship that I saw in the theater.

    While I am glad there will be some extra footage and other good stuff added to the November disc, I have been disappointed by "special editions" in the past. The Phantom Menace DVD, for instance (save your wisecracks), adds a lot of footage that I don't care for -- and there's no way to see the version I saw in the theater, save watching it on VHS (which I shouldn't have to do after shelling out the cash I did for the DVD).

    Similarly, the Aliens Special Edition adds a lot of footage that's cool, but I feel it mars the pacing of the film and isn't necessary -- but there's no option to get rid of it and watch the film in its original form. (Unlike, for example, the Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition, which has an option to watch both versions.)

    I have very fond memories of watching Fellowship in the theater, and while I am excited about the prospect of new footage, I don't really know what it's going to entail or how good it's going to be. And I want to be able to recreate the theater experience if I want to -- so I will be purchasing both, just in case.

    If it turns out I have no use for the first DVD after November, I can always give it away or sell it on the cheap. It's less than the cost of one evening dining out. No big deal.

    1. Re:I will be buying both... by bje2 · · Score: 2

      this brings up a good point...why don't DVDs have the option to turn on/off the added footage, so that you can see the theatrical version, or the special edition?? seems like it would be easy enough...DVDs are already broken up into scenes...so, for those scenes that include additional footage, the DVD just has two versions of the scene, and picks which one to play based on if you previously chose whether to watch the theatrical or special edition...seems easy enough....only downside is then you can't sell two different versions of the dvd...oh wait, that's not a downside for us...only for the movie studio...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:I will be buying both... by dswensen · · Score: 2

      Yes, exactly... I imagine it's the same reason you can't fast-forward through the ads, or that you have to look at ads in the first place even though you've purchased the movie... big $$$ for the studio.

      The DVD revolution isn't really all it's cracked up to be, sadly.

    3. Re:I will be buying both... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Er, I'm confused. I have TPM on DVD and I'm not aware of any additional footage within the movie itself.

    4. Re:I will be buying both... by dswensen · · Score: 2

      There is. There is a longer "air-taxi" scene on Coruscant, when Anakin and Jar Jar are on their way to see Palpatine. Also, the second lap of the pod race is extended by a few scenes.

      It doesn't really amount to very much -- probably less than a minute or so of new footage overall. But it's enough to bug me, mostly because I don't like any of the stuff they added to the podrace.

    5. Re:I will be buying both... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      That's odd...I thought that all of the additional footage (including the extended podrace scene) was in the "deleted" scenes of the bonus disc. I'm not too observant, I guess.

    6. Re:I will be buying both... by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Well, don't feel bad. Some of the "deleted scenes" were added back into the movie. Beats me why they are in the "deleted scenes" section, too. Why have it in two places? It's a mystery.

  67. I'll end up buying all 12 editions by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll be buying all 12 edition that will eventually be released...

    1. FotR standard issue (Aug 02)
    2. FotR Deluxe issue (Dec 02)
    3. FotR/TT standard issue (Aug 03)
    4. FotR/TT Deluxe Box set (Dec 03)
    5. 3DVD standard issue box set (Aug 04)
    6. 6DVD Deluxe box set (Dec 04)
    7. 8DVD Super Deluxe Box Anniversary edition with poster of Arwen in sexy pose (best seller). (Aug 05)
    8. 10DVD Super Duper Deluxe Box Post Anniversary Christmas edition with plush Frodo and Sam as Santa and helper elf edition (other PC holiday editions available) (Dec 06)
    9. The Hobbit DVD release (Aug 07)
    10. The Whole Sebang (9&10) Platinum boxed edition with cloth map of Middle Earth. (Dec 07)
    11. The Whole Sebang on the new Holographic Cellular media discs (they're right around the corner, right?) with special talking Gandalf christmas tree ornament (other PC friendly designs available)(Dec 08)
    12. The Whole Shebang 20th Anniversary edition including new digitally created interview with Tolkien in holographic simulation and Arwen Poster reprint.(Aug 21)

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    1. Re:I'll end up buying all 12 editions by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "The Whole Sebang on the new Holographic Cellular media discs (they're right around the corner, right?) with special talking Gandalf christmas tree ornament (other PC friendly designs available)(Dec 08)"

      Was the word ' shebang ' so smutty that you had to remove a character to soften it?</sarcasm>

    2. Re:I'll end up buying all 12 editions by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but the last two will be pay-per-view only. Remember that all media sales were banned in '09. After all, if Disney can't turn a profit, the terrorists have already won.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    3. Re:I'll end up buying all 12 editions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for the inflatable arwen

    4. Re:I'll end up buying all 12 editions by Telecommando · · Score: 2

      You forgot about all the "The Making of LOTR" disks (with behind-the-scenes interviews). There's gotta be at least 3 of those.

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
  68. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by Jsprat23 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this scene you lament for will be in the extended exit from Rivendell.

  69. Re:Mod this up! # +5; Patriotic # by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quit bitching about an anthem biotch. get a fucking life

  70. Fellowship - Turnip Edition by ader · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you're going to buy both the theatrical and special editions, then you also need to buy The Fellowship of the Ring - Turnip Edition.

    This consists of an entirely and lovingly blank DVD disc with "LotR - Turnip" carefully written on it in exquisite marker pen by a skilled writer (me). It is an extremely limited edition, there being only one - and it's YOURS for the bargain, once-only price of $500!

    Fans! Fanatics! Don't miss out. Mail me now and be first in the queue to own this unique souvenir.

    Ade_
    /

    --
    Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
    1. Re:Fellowship - Turnip Edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this Turnip Edition overlap over the other two Fellowship editions? I'm only willing to buy it if it has 100% original screens and/or 100% layout off the box design and on the DVD.
      HOw is your spelling? And caligraphy? And extras, you didn't talk about extras.

      Please reply,
      Thank you

  71. how about...? by Twister002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not MAKE any special features and just release the same movie in the theaters that they release on DVD. Because that's the latest craze, every DVD has to have special features. Wow a cast biography and behind the scenes photos. Uhm, how underwhelming.

    I can't believe that they can't just allow the user to set an option to watch either the theatrical version or the extended version. We're talking about DVD here not VHS.

    I'm watching my James Bond "The World is not Enough" DVD, a little icon flashes in the upper right hand corner, I press a button on my remote. Bingo, I get to see extra behind the scenes footage. Why not make the DVD with an option to turn on all the extra footage? Then release all the "Behind the scenes" extras on a separate DVD for $19.95 US? The people that want to watch the theatrical release can, the people that want to watch the full movie with the extras can.

    Because they want to suck as much money out of us as they can. I doubt that, for me at least, there will be anything extra on the first release that I'll care about so now I'll be waiting for the 2nd one.

    --
    "For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
  72. Cruel, cruel temptation by Astin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm debating on putting off buying EITHER of the upcoming releases. I can't help but believe that once all three movies have come out that there will be the "Complete Lord Of The Rings Boxed Set" with all the stuff you'll already have plus 2-4 dics of never-before-seen footage and extras and such, along with a collector's box, 100-page booklet, etc, etc... making any earlier purchases a waste of my money.

    --
    - In hell, treason is the work of angels.
    1. Re:Cruel, cruel temptation by cjpez · · Score: 2

      Rock on, that's what I was planning on doing, too. The way I figure it, pretty much all of my friends will probably own it anyway, so whenever I want to see it, it's just a matter of going over to someone else's house. Plus I have friends who actually own DVD players and spend money buying DVDs, so I'll actually be able to see the cool extra stuff that probably won't be present on the VHS release.

    2. Re:Cruel, cruel temptation by Ryan_Terry · · Score: 2

      I guess I'm just one of those geeks who will have all three. I'm buying the August, the November, and I'm counting on there being a boxed set as well.....

      --
      MessEdUp
      .sig
      #/var/www/v
    3. Re:Cruel, cruel temptation by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I am 100% sure you are correct...

      Not only that, I'm 99% sure that there will be a 2 movie boxed set around this time next year. I recall seeing this with other movies where we knew there'd be a third movie, but it may not happen since the movies are being released, relatively speaking, so close to each other.

      I'll be happy with the three individually purchased movies, though. The only time I bought a boxed set was the re-release of the Star Wars trilogy, and the boxed sets were cheap, and I got the letterboxed version.

      Still, I'll be getting both this time because of the Blockbuster deal. If they didn't have this deal, I would have rented it and then bought the November release.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  73. Combined three movies directors cut by peter303 · · Score: 2

    I'm really looking forward to the full three movies shown as a whole, with extra material thrown in. Maybe in 2004-5. This is doable because all most of the human filming was done at one time. Jackson has already taken some liberties with re-arranging the books chronology for better dramatic filming. He could also make a "kosher cut" to follow the books as closely as possible with the film material. I'd expect the combined cut to be a 12 hout miniseries.

  74. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by JosefK · · Score: 3, Informative

    Jackson has reportedly altered the Anduril plotline in order to extend the "Aragorn's birthright' subplot more evenly through the films. From what I've seen in various rumor reports, Narsil will be reforged in TTT or RoTK, most likely at Arwen's insistence. This plot change would provide a plausible reason for Arwen's character to appear in the second movie if it happens in TTT (some of the brief scenes in the TTT trailer seem to reinforce this). My guess is that it will be delivered to him before the battle of Helm's Deep. A group of Elves from Lorien take part (and sacrifice their lives) in the battle. I would hazard another guess that they're the ones who deliver Anduril to Aragorn, possibly replacing the sons of Elrond and the Rangers who arrive after the battle in the book.

  75. Mod Parent Up! by bje2 · · Score: 1

    nice, that solves my problem, now i can get both versions...

    but, won't this just lead to a bunch of geeks with no intention of buying a KIA coming to test drive just to get the DVD? i know that's what i'm gonna do...there's gotta be some sort of catch or fine print associated with it...

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Mod Parent Up! by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Well I do need a new car and I've heard someone report that Kia's are surprisingly decent vehicles...

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up! by afidel · · Score: 2

      You are selling your time (they'll keep you in the showroom about the same amount of time than it takes to watch the movie =) and they will of course have your mailing address to bombard you with KIA ads and probably to sell to other marketing slime.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Mod Parent Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever that someone was, please take him out back and beat him with a copy of the Kelly Blue Book. Kia automobiles suck. Get a Honda, Toyota, or Nissan.

  76. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by cprice · · Score: 1

    The Sword of Elendil is reforged at Rivendell before the fellowships departs; 'The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elven smiths...' (Book Two, Chapter III, FOTR).

    When the Fellowship leaves Rivendell, Aragorn has the sword Anduril; 'Aragorn had Anduril, but no other weapon...' (Book Two, Chapter III, FOTR).
    So are you saying that in FOTR: The Movie, that Anduril has not yet been reforged? It clearly has in the book, which was my original point.

  77. I I want the extended version also... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    maybe not the super duper deluxe boxed set with postcards, but I'd rather wait until each November and get the extended version rather than get it early in August.

    However, this time I'm getting the theatrical release - at Blockbuster. I haven't seen anyone mention this yet (although I haven't read all comments), but Blockbuster is having a deal with a 10 rental card for $25 (that's $2.50 a rental compared to the normal $4, but it's 10 rentals in 10 weeks, 1 each week, miss a week and you lose).

    Now, if you rent once a week, that's a good deal - except buy purchasing the card you get a copy of the FOTR - on video or DVD. That will probably be close to the cost itself. I made sure to ask "Ok, so this RESERVES a copy for me, right?", and then when I bought it they asked "Video or DVD? Pan and scan or letterbox?"

    Of course, I don't have the DVD in hand, yet, but it seems like a great deal.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:I I want the extended version also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bizarre... In Canada, Blockbuster only charges about $2 CDN for a new release overnight, or an older film for a week. Why on earth is it so much more in the US?

    2. Re:I I want the extended version also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $2.99 USD here in the middle of the country. I didn't realize the more "refined" people in the metro areas are getting jabbed.

  78. "The Return of the King, Uh-huh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You mean you're not familiar with the Tom Smith filksong by that title?

    It's even available on one of Tom's tapes.

  79. get rid of gandalf? by bje2 · · Score: 2

    Here's a question, how is Jackson going to get rid of Gandalf so that the Hobbits have to deal with "The Scouring of the Shire" on their own . . . ?

    huh? not sure what you mean here...in the book Gandalf basically just tells them that he won't be going back to the Shire with them...and i believe he makes some reference to the fact that the they'll have to deal with anything that's going on there themselves...why would it be any different in the movie???

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:get rid of gandalf? by pete-classic · · Score: 2

      I don't have RotK in front of me, but I distinctly remember Gandalf saying something about going to talk things over with Bombadil now that the war is over, being his last chance, since Gandalf is returning to the West.

      I took the statement that the hobbits would have to deal with what they found in the shire on their own to be more for the reader's benefit. To let us know that Gandalf knew what was up and to explain that he wouldn't be swooping in to the rescue.

      -Peter

    2. Re:get rid of gandalf? by bje2 · · Score: 2
      I was also at work earlier (and didn't have ROTK in front of me)...but now i do...

      Gandalf says...

      "I should have warned you before that all's not well in the Shire neither, if what we hear is true. Funny goings on, they say. But one thing drives out another, and I was full of my own troubles. But if I may be so bold, you've come back changed from your travels, and you look now like folk as can deal with troubles out of hand. I don't doubt you'll soon set all to rights. Good luck to you! And the oftener you come back the better I'll be pleased."
      so, in the book Gandalf does leave the hobbits and tell them that there are things in the shire that they'll have to deal with...so, it shouldn't be a problem in the movie either...
      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    3. Re:get rid of gandalf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Butterbur, not Gandalf.

    4. Re:get rid of gandalf? by pete-classic · · Score: 2
      For once I have to agree with AC. That is Butterbur. Which makes sense, even out of context since 1. "one thing drives out another" is a Butterburism 2. he has a place that the hobbits can oftener come back to (it is well established that Gandalf is a wanderer and has no physical home) and 3. even if he did have a home, he is acutely aware that he is about to un-ass Middle-Earth anyway, and won't be available for hobbit callers.

      What Gandalf actually says on the topic (in part) is:
      'But if you would know, I [Gandalf] am turning aside soon. I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil[. . .].'

      In a little while they came to the point on the East Road where they had taken leave of Bombadil; and they hoped and half expected to see him standing there to greet them as they went by. But there was no sign of him; and there was a grey mist on the Barrow-downs southwards, and a deep veil over the Old Forest far away.
      [. . .]
      He [Gandalf] turned Shadowfax off the Road, and the great horse leaped the green dike that here ran beside it; and then at a cry from Gandalf he was gone, racing towards the Barrow-downs like a wind from the North.
      You will recall that Bombadil makes his home at the edge of the Old Forest, adjacent to the Barrow-downs.

      The following is clear to me.
      • Gandalf had a good idea what was going on in the Shire.
      • Gandalf had a good idea that the hobbits could handle it.
      • Gandalf knew it was his last (and in a way, first) chance to speak with Bombadil, which would be a rare treat for a Wizard of his caliber.
      • Gandalf knew that he would have a chance to give his friends a proper farewell at The Grey Havens.
      -Peter

      PS: Since you seem to have lost your focus at the end of the book, you may also be surprised when I tell you that Gandalf was in possesion of the third Elven Ring of Power (Narya the Great, the Ring of Fire) through the entire story, and is wearing it openly as he tells his friends "Go in peace! I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil." This is an important fact, as it sheds light on the mystery of how he survived individual combat with a (or "the" in the Third Age) Balrog, a fire daemon.

      -P
    5. Re:get rid of gandalf? by bje2 · · Score: 2

      yeah, i just had just read the book not too long ago, but did not have it in front of me when i originally posted, and i mixed up who told the hobbits that something was wrong in the shire...then later when i had the book in front of me, i hurridly looked for the quote i needed to support my point, and took it out of context...my fault...in any case, it was butterbur, you both are correct...

      now i guess i see what the original poster's point was...in the book gandalf says he's gonna leave to see Tom Bombadil...so, how do they explain that in the movie, becuase the character of Tom Bombadil was never introduced...that's a good question now...

      I did lose my focus at the end of the book, however i did catch that gandalf was "openly" wearing the elven ring at the end...but thanx for pointing that out...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    6. Re:get rid of gandalf? by pete-classic · · Score: 2

      that's a good question now

      Well, I think it was a good question then too ;-)

      Gandalf did tell the hobbits that all was not well in the Shire, but told them they'd have to handle it themselves. That's actually one of my favorite parts of the book. I love how amused the four hobbits are at the way they are expected to be cowed by all the rules and raggedy men.

      Anyway, you are correct that the situation is that the shire is in trouble, and that the hobbits are going to have to handle it themselves, but the reason is that Gandalf is on a schedule and knows that the hobbits can handle a few ruffians.

      -Peter

  80. Re:Blockbuster deal on the movie in August by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    So somebody else did this...

    Considering rentals are typically $4, it's quite a good deal. If you rent movies every week, anyway - I don't. But since there's so many movies I haven't seen, it's pretty good timing.

    And I was happily surprised when I bought the card - "VHS or DVD? Pan and scan or letterbox? Ok, your copy is reserved!"

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  81. I agree... by gfxguy · · Score: 2

    I think there's tons of stuff you just wouldn't understand if you didn't read the book.

    My Mom borrowed my copy of the Hobbit, just for background information, before seeing the movie. She won't take on the LOTR, but it was a good introduction for the movie.

    At least she understood that LOTS of time was passing. What in the movie seemed to take a month or so was like six or seven. You just didn't get that from the movie, but she understood it having read the Hobbit.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  82. It may cost nothing to make DVD's by TheHaas · · Score: 1

    . . . but it costs a lot to re-edit the film, pay those working on the edit, choosing the scenes, re-mixing the music, et al. It's not just cost of burning each DVD that New Line/AOL-TW has to worry about.

    That said, I think they are milking the fans of the movie for all they got. And why? The first movie made $800 mil and all three costs $350 mil. And that's before the DVD release!!!

    1. Re:It may cost nothing to make DVD's by cjpez · · Score: 2

      Granted. I agree I was oversimplifying a bit. What I was more driving at were differences in prices between VHS and DVD (and cassettes vs. CD, too); if they can afford to sell a movie on VHS for however much, they can certainly afford to sell a DVD for less. And I'm guessing that the VHS releases are going to cost significantly less than the DVD versions. Which is where the "artificial price gouging" comes in.

    2. Re:It may cost nothing to make DVD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why? Because we live in a capitalist society, you pinko!

  83. November 12 LOTR and WOT by jallred · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who finds it interesting that November 12th is the same day book 10 in The Wheel of Time Series is being released?

    1. Re:November 12 LOTR and WOT by bje2 · · Score: 1

      well, new releases are only done on tuesdays...i've never understood this, but it's the same for movies, CD's, etc...in any case, if both were planned to release in november, then there are only 4 days to choose from for the release, so, there ya go...so, probably just a coincidence...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:November 12 LOTR and WOT by Laplace · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Book 10?! Won't somebody but a bullet through the head of that tired old horse?

      --
      The middle mind speaks!
    3. Re:November 12 LOTR and WOT by Patrick13 · · Score: 2

      Am I the only one who finds it interesting that November 12th is the same day book 10 in The Wheel of Time Series is being released?

      no... because Robert Jordan began by blatantly ripping off JRRT, and then turned his story into a neverending sequel franchise. Only that not only did he just make his story longwinded, its also boring and shallow.

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    4. Re:November 12 LOTR and WOT by Doug-W · · Score: 1

      They're released on Tuesday to try not to interfere in any way with the Box office cycle of Friday-Sunday weekend and the occasional Weds release.

    5. Re:November 12 LOTR and WOT by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      > because Robert Jordan began by blatantly
      > ripping off JRRT

      Jeez, if you want to see someone REALLY rip off JRRT, look at Dennis L. McKiernan. Let's see, halflings go off to fight a war against the evil lord who has returned with his dark hoardes. They go through the ancient dwarvish mines where the dwarves mined too deeply, and uncovered an ancient dread. Foul water at the door, with a many-armed beast, which blocks the door after they enter. It doesn't get much more plagiaristic than that.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  84. More to the point by beleg777 · · Score: 1

    Nobody seems to ask why the regular editions special features aren't on the special edition. There is a place for special editions to exist, and this is it exactly, but it makes no sense to cut things out of the special edition. (well, no common sense, I guess it makes marketing sense, which is completely different, and evil)

    --

    Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
  85. The Original Cut? by drdink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to IMDB, the original cut "ran four hours and thirty minutes." If this is truely the case, I'd like to get my hands on all of that extra footage and see what else we missed. Sure would be nice if Tom Bombadil was in there somewhere.

    --
    Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
  86. Come, Star Wars is the king of milking by PK_ERTW · · Score: 1
    This sounds like troll bait, but what the hell...

    Come on, Episodes 4,5,6 are the reigning king of milking the consumers. The countless VHS releases... lets see we had (starting in the middle somewhere)

    1. Came out, marketed as "Last time to get the original series"

    2. Couple years later, we got the "remastered" version. Again, marketed very heavily, anda gain, as the "Last time" to get something or another. This was the biggest push.

    3. And of course, a couple of years later, out comes the version with a couple of extra scenes.

    They got everyone who remotely wanted it too buy it over a few years (with the priuce eventually dropping to the "why not" range"), then come out with the extra scenes version in order to milk all the hard core fans for another copy.

    Wrong example to prove a point here.

    PK

    --
    Engineers arn't boring people, we just get excited about boring things.
  87. true....also, did Lucas start this insanity? by bje2 · · Score: 2

    you're right...i had forgotten about the "Digitally Remastered" versions"...i was only thinking about the "original" and the "special edition" when i posted...yeah, so i guess they did milk some with eps 4,5,6 already...atleast they were only VHS, and didn't cost as much as DVD...

    which brings up another good point...did Lucas start all this "special edition" insanity when he re-released eps 4,5,6 to the theaters, and in VHS form as the "sepcial edition"...i can't remember it being widespread before that...

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:true....also, did Lucas start this insanity? by Thorkytel+Ant-Head · · Score: 1

      yeah, so i guess they did milk some with eps 4,5,6 already...atleast they were only VHS, and didn't cost as much as DVD...

      Oh, does no one remember laserdisc? Let's see...there was the original letterboxed release of all three movies, $60 a piece. Then the remastered CAV boxed set, a steal at $250! If you want the Trilogy remastered in THX, you need to get this set! And then, of course, the inevitable CLV remastered releases of all three movies, at (I believe) somewhere around $50 apiece. So, far from being unmilked, those of us who wanted the best possible picture and sound would have to spend $580 for all the rereleases! And that doesn't even count the Special Edition boxed set, a steal at $125.

      You DVD kids have it so easy these days! "Waaaah, I don't want to spend $50 for a six-disc special edition of Fellowship of the Ring!" Back in my day, we paid $60 for a two-disc set of Star Wars, with NO extras, NO anamorphic encoding, NO Dolby Digital soundtrack, and NO commentary! Hell, we felt lucky just to get a letterboxed copy! Oh, and we had to flip sides or switch discs every hour or so!

      In short: Quit yer whining. If you want to buy both sets, buy them both. I want to have the version I saw in the theatres (on one disc, no less), and I want the extended version. I'll buy both, and I will smile while I'm doing it. And when I get home, I'll do a little dance.

  88. reminds me of the recent south park episode by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    anyone catch the recent southpark episode with lucas reinventing his movies?

    realistically, it should not be different to have the extended version and theatrical version on the same disc. just used a different table of contents for the version you want to see.

    i personally don't care about the making of, biographies etc, i just like seeing deleted scenes. the extra stuff is nice to have, but not nearly as interesting to me as extra movie footage, espescially when it is integrated with the film itself.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  89. Damn and Blast! by 0xA · · Score: 2

    So there I was in Blockbuster Friday, preordering a copy of the August release. I was a happy guy, I even got a cool poster with it.

    Now I see this! Damn you evil movie studio! You were watching weren't you? You know I just spent $28 on the first release and you are also probably just as secure in the knowledge that I will spend the money again on the SE. BASTARDS!

    1. Re:Damn and Blast! by ViXX0r · · Score: 1

      Er, it's been known for some time that there were going to be two releases of LotR - one in August and an extended Special Edition in November. If you missed that info, I guess that's your problem.

      --
      University - a box of academia nuts.
    2. Re:Damn and Blast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er
      umm
      grrr
      hmmm

    3. Re:Damn and Blast! by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      So you pre-ordered the first release for $28 when you could have bought the 10-week rental card for $25 AND get the movie for free?

      Or am I missing something?

      Of course, I didn't get a free poster...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Damn and Blast! by 0xA · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada, probably a different set of promotions. I've never seen anything like a 10-week rental card there

    5. Re:Damn and Blast! by Blackneto · · Score: 0

      Hroom Hroom, Hasty folk geeks are...

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
  90. Hacked by Chinese by Patrick13 · · Score: 2

    The Extended Edition can be pre-ordered on Amazon for $25.99. So I assume that you'll be able to get four disc sets of each film of the trilogy for a total just under $80.

    Of course, if you really, really must have every edition available, you could get the Gift Set version of each film, plus a likely compendium complete trilogy gift pack edition, which at around $60 each for each film and maybe $100 plus for the trilogy could set you back over $300, but I expect there is a lot of repeated footage included and the only possible reason to buy all of them is for collecting and not actual viewing. For example the only additional footage available in the FotR gift set is on the National Geographic DVD which can be bought separately for $21.49 the additional $11.50 cost is for
    figurines and gift cards. And since the National Geographic disc is in full screen format, I don't think it is for cinemaphiles. Just lots of pics of New Zealand.


    I am sending you to my amazon.com affiliate account in order to have your cash.

    see you later, thanks.

    --
    ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  91. Problem by 23_Elders · · Score: 1
    Except that many, many narrative films are based on books or short stories or other previous written works. Your rationale doesn't really work that well when confronted with the works, say, of Hitchcock, who took great books, and turned them into great movies. However often the books and the movies are very different.

    Books and movies are two different media, and they don't *literally* translate well... successful film versions of books are almost always substantially different from their original source.

  92. You're wasting something, anyway... by Damek · · Score: 1

    "...the extras on the two releases do not overlap so your not wasting money by buying both editions."

    I think we have different concepts of what constitutes "wasting money"...!

  93. Extra scenes that shouldn't be there... by zhar · · Score: 1
    Tom Bombadil would destroy the pacing of the movie, because in the movie, they present a frantic feeling of fleeing from the ringwraiths, and having to stop and spend the night with tom and goldberry(?) would have taken a good 10 minutes during which the action would have disapeared entirely.

    The Barrow wights (spelling ?) - hello ! - this is where Frodo gets his freaking sword from -

    Actually, Frodo obtained sting from Bilbo while in Rivendell, and the first sword is of no real consequence to the story, other than to set up for Tom Bombadil.

    You must keep in mind that the whole Tom Bombadil side-story was written when the FotR was still considered to be a children's book and a sequel to the Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkein. In the house of Tom Bombadil was meant to be a momentary diversion, and because of that, Tom does not have any real back story, and is totally irrelevent to the over Lord of the Rings tale.

    --


    DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
    1. Re:Extra scenes that shouldn't be there... by hagar� · · Score: 1

      I agree, while the book tends to draw out the time periods, the movie compresses it greatly. This I think does not make it better, just different. It probably is better for the 'medium' the story is conveyed in, it definately lends itself to faster action, more sense of impending doom etc. As to Tom :S, If i saw some guy prancing through the streets singing and all dressed in yellow on the street, I'd prolly run him down with the Dodge;-). Can't say I weep to see him removed from the movie.

      --
      Insert something insightful here, or I'll insert something painful there.
  94. Re: netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my solution to this is thus:
    I'm going to rent the "standard" version from netflix as soon as it comes out in august. since I can keep it for as long as I want (no late fees :) ) I'll return it as soon as I buy the director's cut in november.
    best of both worlds.

  95. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by gymbrall · · Score: 1

    They moved its reforging into The Two Towers.
    (which I'm sure will be complained about by some as being too much of a reminder of 9/11. There will probably be a petition to have it renamed "two tall buildings" or "the shadow falls")

    Most important events will still be in the movie, but their order is being occasionally adjusted to give them more weight and significance. I don't mind that much as long as they don't screw it up too badly.

  96. I will be purchasing both August and Nov releases by mtrupe · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't wait that long.
    Besides, Blockbuster has this kickass promo right now. for $25 you get 10 free rentals plus FOTR on DVD (that's for you to keep). Hell, 10 rentals plus the DVD would normally costs about $60.

  97. That's ok ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if he tries anything, sam will kill him.

  98. Re: "Let's hunt some orc!" by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

    Hey dude you obviously slept through some serious portions of that movie... most notably, the part beside the river after being chased by orcs, where Frodo has to escape, and Aragorn ad-libs (in classic &$^#&@*#! American fashion)
    "Let's go hunt some orc!!" and they all cheer like Rocky extras and take it seriously.
    Tollkein rolled over in his grave at that moment, even if he overlooked the others. Un-F*CKING-believable!! If the Aug. DVD has some deletions I'll be more likely to purchase it than otherwise. Else it's the Divx rip as usual for me. I already paid 26 bucks to see the film in the theatre...

  99. Damned if they do, damned if they don't by eschasi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Judas priest, what a bunch of whining wankers. If they'd put both cuts and all the material in a single six-disk set, you'd whine because you had to buy it all at once. If they packaged it in six different boxes, you'd whine because they'd be more expensive than a set as a whole.

    Right now, Amazon is offering the first one at $17.97, the second at $25.99. So you can buy either one at a very reasonable price, or all six disks for $44.00.

    Let me repeat that for all of you whiners who didn't understand it:

    You can buy all six disks, including two full cuts, for only $44.00.

    Damn, do I feel ripped off. Especially when the six-disk set of 'The Godfather', "remastered" for the umpteenth time, is $75. Or the single, no-specials, no-restoration DVS of 'Harold and Maude' is $25.50.

    Get a clue. Jackson et. al. had to make a decision as to how to package it. They made their decision. As far as I can tell, they decided that they would not force folks to buy duplicate material if they wanted everything, and kept it all *very very cheap*. Looks to me like a damned fine choice.

    And if you don't like it, don't buy it.

  100. Galadriel Gives Good Gif by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    • Galadriel's Gif-Giving Scene. As the elves prepare to leave Lothlorien, Elf Queen Galadriel bestows a special gift upon each of the nine members of the Fellowship.
      ===========
    Sounds like a porn film.
    -- garyZ
    1. Re:Galadriel Gives Good Gif by lunaman · · Score: 1

      One at a time, not all at once.

  101. People are going to complain no matter what you do. At least in this case they're forewarning people about it. It's not as cheap as those 5-10 year anniversary releases companies are putting out these days with some little featurette or out-takes. If people can't wait a little longer than it was obviously worth it to them to buy the first release.

    --
    -- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
  102. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    I'm a little puzzled why Aragorn wasn't carrying the broken sword as in the book. If nothing else it's a support to his claim of the thrown of Gondor.

  103. Why not singing? by TibbonZero · · Score: 1

    I feel that the singing was very intergal to the book as well as the rest of the Genre. It gave a feel for the way that the characters were feeling and would have been great to see and hear, at least during the walking scenes...

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
  104. Long movies... by TibbonZero · · Score: 2

    Actually there are several films out that are very long. I think your point should be that you can't make a commercially sucessful film 12 hours long. I know I personally would see a full LotR, but my girlfriend would look at my like I was crazy, she thought it was too long as it was.
    There are also several plays that are quite long- some extending into he 18 hour range, and many of them are quite good. It's just that most Amercians don't find it that entertaining to watch anything past 2.5 hours long (which was the main complaint I heard about the film anyway..).

    I have personally thought about trying to write a musical about LotR (I would have to get licenscing etc..

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Long movies... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      But just because something is long doesn't necessarily mean its good, but its what critics seem to go for. English Patient was long, pointless and boring and almost swept the ocsars.

    2. Re:Long movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't even notice the hours that passed when I watched Fellowship of the Ring. It was good enough to be that long.

    3. Re:Long movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try watching it in a crowded movie theater with broken air conditioning... that's one FUCKING LONG movie.

    4. Re:Long movies... by Nakago4 · · Score: 0

      Man... my ass feel asleep duning FoTR. No matter what they do the seats in the theatres there just isn't enough legroom to stretch out to keep comfortable. Though I am looking forward to the dvds because its so much easier to watch a long movie while stretched out on a couch

  105. Tom perhaps as God by TibbonZero · · Score: 2

    There are many theories about who Tom really is, and one is that Tom is an Ainur, Valar, or Ao himself.
    Being a Valar doesn't make sense, because he doesn't care about the ring, and the Ents say that he has been around since before the stars, as well as that he is the oldest thing in the world.
    Leaving him out of the movie, is like leaving God out of a Charles Heston movie (religous movie). Just because God doesn't make a Cameo appearance in it, or doesn't fight all the battles and fix everything himself, but rather sits and watches his children- doesn't mean that he isn't important or should be removed in total.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
  106. Got milk? by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    I guess I'm tending to be pessemistic here, but I have to believe it's a money grab. Really. At best, it's an attempt to balance their fan base with a very lucritive release. Why you couldn't create 2 edits with seamless branching (effectively one movie with bonus material "spliced" in) all under one title is beyond me. And DVDs routinely sell with behind the scenes crap all the time for a negligable increase in price.

    I'm betting what they did was the easiest, most profitable thing to do without totally alinating both the passive and hardcore fans. And before I recieve a single fan-boy flame, know that the above is not nessisarily a diss, just that I doubt that they had our best intrests at heart as much as they (or some people here) claim to. When it's all said and done, they have a right to make money and they will... It was an outstanding movie.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  107. Actually.... by frobozz3.141 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To some extent, I view a director as a conductor. I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.

    I know what you're saying, but this happens all the time. Just an example: George Szell and Otto Klemperer both cut a lot out of their (quite famous and popular) recordings of Bruchner's 8th symphony.... In fact, Klemperer said something along the lines that "Bruchner was getting carried away with himself"!

    The fact of the matter is that PJ just couldn't fit everything in. My favourite part of the FOTR (A Conspiracy Unmasked) was cut, and I was disapointed. PJ needed to get the plot moving along, and skimming and cutting his way to Rivendell was the only way he could do it without tacking another hour onto the movie (not that many of us would complain....) At least PJ was respectful of the material, unlike Klemperer was. I think since TTT and ROTK have more meat on 'em, we'll see less cutting in the next movies.

    -Frobozz

    --
    Brought to you by the friendly folks at FrobozzCo....
  108. too long already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    okay flame me if you like but I really do feel Lotr was too long as a movie. as far as films go they can only go so long before you just want the blasted thing to end so you can leave. the pacing was really horrible reminding me much of dragon ball Z with a ton of events that have no relevence to the final outcome. lots and lots of "and they're walking through the woods....and walking....and walking...GLORY SHOT OF THE RING!...and walking....and walking....AND A DRAGON POPS OUT!....and walking....

    well you see my point. for a movie I'd have deffinately cut out a lot of the flak. In fact scenes like the snow mountain where the ultimately go back and forget the whole thing have no use whatsoever and should have been cut isntead of wasting time. also the continual "temptations of the ring" are unnecessary. yes the ring is pure evil. yes show us an example but one is enough. we're don't have a learning disorder we can pick it up.

    really the best part of the movie was the opening. THat is the one part I'd like to see extended. and perhaps some flashbacks to things that occured in the Hobbit as well. Honestly with a movie that long you could have told the entire LOTR story.

  109. stupid troll by Skraig · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for any Tolkien related story to not bring up this incredibly stupid troll. It was done by Klerck the king of stupid and trolls.

    Just drop it!

    --
    --->Life is like that sometimes...
  110. Tom is in the film, albeit VERY briefly by A.Soze · · Score: 1

    There is a scene in LOTR where the Hobbits are walking through a field. In the distance is a house, smoke coming from the chimney, and a man working outside. That's Tom.

    I've seen interviews where the filmmakers are asked about Tom, and they reply he is in the film, the Hobbits simply do not stop there...

    --
    "Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
  111. If this is serious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of weak-minded pussies we have in this country if they fear even the memory of things. If you people really wanna moarn something we lost that day, I'd suggest doing so for our integrity.

  112. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was amusing that Aragorn didn't kill Boromir on the spot for touching, let alone dropping, his sword when they were in Rivendell. (That certainly wasn't in the book.) Remember, this is the guy who said that no man could touch his sword and live when they were trying to see Theoden and the guard wanted him to leave his sword behind.

  113. coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    it will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit.

    Why do pr0n images flash through my mind when I see that?

  114. they are milking the fans, but I can't be mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By not incuding the 1st released special features and the theatrical cut on the special edition DVD they probably expect some people to buy both DVDs. They probably expect some people to buy both because they won't have heard of the special edition until after they buy the theatrical version. Still, I can't be too upset by this. The studio took an incredible risk with these movies. They committed to three movies and after seeing first movie, it looks like the movies will easily surpass my expectations. They deserve to reep the rewards. The only part that bugs me is that I'll have to wait until November for the special edition (this could be due to extra editing/post-production anyway). If Lucas had done this well on TPM and AotC, people wouldn't have been so upset with his "milking".

  115. Finished? by AJSchu · · Score: 1

    Who is to say that the extras on the November edition are even complete? PJ and crew are most assuredly busy working on the next two films. It's possible that the August relase is a head-start for those who want the movie ASAP.

  116. I told you so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These blood sucking Unholywood studios have been planning from the very beginning to squeeze money out of you spineless fans with this extortion schemes. But did anyone listen? NO!!! You would rather let them to treat you like slaves, and that's exactly what the whole 'special edition DVD' marketing does. If you ever wonder why the hell do these studio cut out half of the movie in big screens and how they come up with DMCA/CBCDTA, that's exactly because you fail to resist them when you have a chance, so effectively you are supporting studios who have such terroristic behaviours.

  117. Re:I will be purchasing both August and Nov releas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait that long.

    Sheep.

  118. LOTR reads like a travel guide by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    You are right on about the pacing. The books read more like a travel guide than some sort of "epic vision."

    There is very little character development, most of the characters seem the same at the end of the story as they did in the begining. There is little dialouge (if you don't count the poems/songs). Face it the first 200 pages of the fellowship of the ring are pretty boring and not much happens at all (i wasn't expecting an action story when i read it though).

    however...

    the descriptions of the landscapes are exceptional, you can really see the areas the characters traveled and feel like you are there. the problem is though, that you really don't know how the characters feel since tolkien doesn't develop that side of the book enough.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:LOTR reads like a travel guide by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      you can really see the areas the characters traveled and feel like you are there. the problem is though, that you really don't know how the characters feel since tolkien doesn't develop that side of the book enough

      No disagreemnt on you points, but the literary part of me's got to correct your grammar.

      You should be saying "I" or "the reader," not "you." I (the assumned target) didn't find most of the scenery in LotR to be breathtaking or engaging. And since you have no idea if I did or didn't share your opinion, you shoulnd't have phrased your sentence as if you did.

      Sorry, my wife makes the same grammatical mess up all the time, and I'm trying to cure her of the bad colloquial habits which cause other people to not instantly respect her intellect, which (understandibly) ticks her off.

  119. Extra features... never get the time to see them.. by Erik_ · · Score: 1

    While I'm a long time DVD adept and love to purchase the films with the extra features, I rarely get to see them, or see the film again with the commentary audio track. I just don't have the time... do you ? FoTR is probably going to be the exception.

  120. Umm. New Line is a business. by Alric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every action taken by a business is done in order to increase profits. I'm sure the execs at New Line would not let an opportunity like this slip past them; so of course releasing two different editions is a money grab. What else could it possibly be? When Jackson defends releasing two distinct editions, he is merely trying to say that he thinks they did a good job on making two separate editions that will appeal to two separate demographics. I don't think anybody is so naive of American business practices to think that this plan is anything but an obvious (and maybe acceptable) method of increasing profits for New Line.

  121. How are the 4 discs setup? by kishkumen · · Score: 1

    I havent seen anyone give an answer to this yet... But when they say 2 discs for the movie, does this mean that we'll have to swap out discs in the middle of the show? Sure there it's a long movie, but I was pretty sure you can fit more than 3 hours of DVD on a single disc. My only other thought is that they have one disc for the first half of commentaries, and one for the other. Anyone know?

  122. Sigh... by nougatmachine · · Score: 2
    My karma might suffer for this. (On the other hand, it might not, depending on what the moderators think of Tolkien.) And Im also afraid I might be responding to a troll...but I suppose Ill bite anyway.

    Tolkien's books were badly paced,
    Tolkien did not want LotR to be multiple books. It is one large story, and was separated into separate parts because the publisher was afraid people would be intimidated by the huge tome that is the collected LotR. Of course, if you feel like replying, you could give more specific examples, and if need be, I may be willing to concede some aspects of pacing.

    his storyline brought in new elements with little or no forshadowing,
    I seem to remember the books being positively rife with foreshadowing. Of course, I havent really proven anything there. I guess I would like you to reply with an example.

    and the climactic scene of entire story took place in book 5/6, and was solved by a villian.
    Ok, Im not really sure why having the climactic scene in the last book is a problem, so Ill move on. (Again, feel free to reply with clarifications). The way the ring is destroyed in the end is, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the books. The entire point of that scene is to show that no living being could have the willpower to throw the ring into the fire, so great was its powers of temptation and treachery. (Spoiler ahead, watch yourself folks.) Having Gollum seize the ring from Frodo and then fall into the pit amidst his excitement over being reunited with his precious further refutes your claim about foreshadowing, as it fulfills the predictions Gandalf made way back in the Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf specifically wanrs Frodo not to kill Gollum, both out of pity and because Gandalf felt that Gollum still had some purpose to fulfill. If Frodo had ignored that advice and killed Gollum, ironically, he would have doomed all of existance to defeat at the hands of Sauron. In my opinion, that scene was very, very well done.

    Obviously, I am a biased, Slashdot-reading LotR geek. I dont pretend to be impartial, as these are some of my favorite books, and I am not trying to say that they are immune to criticism; I have some complaints of my own about the books. But aside from possibly some complaints about pacing, I think the criticsm you have thrown at the books are entirely off base.

    1. Re:Sigh... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Tolkien did not want LotR to be multiple books. It is one large story, and was separated into separate parts because the publisher was afraid people would be intimidated by the huge tome that is the collected LotR. Of course, if you feel like replying, you could give more specific examples, and if need be, I may be willing to concede some aspects of pacing.

      Considering the ammount of time that Tolkien had *allready* spent on the books, he could have re-worked the pacing. Pseudo-dramatic cliffhangers have a place in serial tv shows that repeat every week, not in novels in a trilogy or in acts in a book.

      Chop LotR into six parts--six acts, if you will. Time and time again, something is introduced (Tom Bambadil) or occurs (Strider being the king) in one act and one act alone, with little or no mention or occurance elsewhere.

      Aside from the rancid deus ex machina that is the end, Gandalfs abrupt return and conquests in acts 3-4 strike me as jarring.

      I seem to remember the books being positively rife with foreshadowing. Of course, I havent really proven anything there. I guess I would like you to reply with an example.

      "A king's hands are healing hands" comes out of nowhere, and [evil wizard what's his name--don't have the books with me]'s sudden appearence in book 6 was just, well, jarring.

      I'm sure I could go back and re-read the books three or four times, and I'd find forshadowing too. But just because it's there doesn't mean that it's good forshadowing, or appropriately spaced.

      Ok, Im not really sure why having the climactic scene in the last book is a problem

      I wasn't referring to acts 5 & 6. I was referring to act 5. Act 6 is just fluff and a hobbit-grows-up point.

      The way the ring is destroyed in the end is, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the books. The entire point of that scene is to show that no living being could have the willpower to throw the ring into the fire, so great was its powers of temptation and treachery. (Spoiler ahead, watch yourself folks.) Having Gollum seize the ring from Frodo and then fall into the pit amidst his excitement over being reunited with his precious further refutes your claim about foreshadowing, as it fulfills the predictions Gandalf made way back in the Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf specifically wanrs Frodo not to kill Gollum, both out of pity and because Gandalf felt that Gollum still had some purpose to fulfill. If Frodo had ignored that advice and killed Gollum, ironically, he would have doomed all of existance to defeat at the hands of Sauron. In my opinion, that scene was very, very well done.

      I hated it. Fantasies and epic stories should be about mortals becoming heroes and defeating impossible odds--not about "how they don't build them like this anymore" or "God steps in and saves the day."

      I'll refrain from commenting on the design of the ring and Sauron's relative power. Quite simply, Frodo's "corruption" by the ring was not believeable, and for something rife with all the powers of worst villian in all of creation, the ring certainly didn't do very much.

      It's a difference of opinion, I guess. You like the climax of LotR--I say again that he succeeded by selling a book that was not in and of itself great, but that simply managed to inspire the imaginations of others. For some parts and some people, that inspiration is "wow, this is cool, I wish I could do something like this." For others, it's "Nice idea--but I could do something better than that!"

      Obviously, I am a biased, Slashdot-reading LotR geek. I dont pretend to be impartial, as these are some of my favorite books, and I am not trying to say that they are immune to criticism; I have some complaints of my own about the books. But aside from possibly some complaints about pacing, I think the criticsm you have thrown at the books are entirely off base.

      I'm biased too; everyone in the whole world's biased.

      I think LotR's faults are enough to knock it off its pedestal for me. You like it. Despite what some English majors will try and tell you, there's really no way to tell which of us is right and which of us is wrong.

    2. Re:Sigh... by Luyseyal · · Score: 2
      Fantasies and epic stories should be about mortals becoming heroes and defeating impossible odds--not about "how they don't build them like this anymore" or "God steps in and saves the day."

      I'm glad you're here to tell us what should be in the genre.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:Sigh... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're here to tell us what should be in the genre.

      I read the genre. I would like to write the genre. I have an opinion about how it should be.

      Don't like it? Fine. Got one of your own? By all means go ahead and share it.

      But don't bitch about me speaking my mind when I do it.

    4. Re:Sigh... by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      You didn't state it as an opinion, but as an obligation.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    5. Re:Sigh... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      No, an obligation would be "must." I stated, at worst, a compulsion or ideal state. Like "you should only have one sexual partner in your entire life", not "you must have only one sexual partner in your entire life, or I'll kill you."

      LotR's deus ex machina makes its heroes nonheroic. It shouldn't do that. Tolkien can be artsy and go against the grain if he wants to, but that doesn't change what should have happened.

  123. Isn't today Tuesday? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

    I thought we hated the MPAA on Tuesday!

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  124. Every single day I see more evidence by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1


    Every single day that passes and I continue to draw breath I see more evidence proving that it will soon be impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the average American.

    The people who created or thought it a good idea to sign this ridiculous public display of stupidity are beyond my comprehension.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  125. bombadil...where is he? by slappy_guru · · Score: 1

    Ring a Ding Ding!
    Ring a Ding Dillo!
    Don't want a disk without Tom Bombadillo!!!

    --
    "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" Richard Feynman
  126. Re: Orcs by rodgerd · · Score: 2

    You're sufferring from years of Gary Gygax trying to pretend he didn't "borrow" AD&D elements from Tolkien.

    Orcs are twisted, degenerate Elves, and the film is a much more accurate portrait.

  127. Grammar Police! by fmaxwell · · Score: 2
    Okay, if we're going to pick on grammar...

    but the literary part of me's got to correct your grammar.

    "Me's" is not a word. You cannot form a contraction with "has" by simply adding "'s" to the word that should preceed "has."

    Sorry, my wife makes the same grammatical mess up all the time, and I'm trying to cure her of the bad colloquial habits which cause other people to not instantly respect her intellect, which (understandibly) ticks her off.

    What ticks her off? Your attempts to "cure her" or that people do "not instantly resprect her intellect"?

    Perhaps this is what was meant:
    Sorry . My wife makes the same grammatical mistake all of the time and I'm trying to cure her of the bad colloquial habits which instantly cause other people to have a lack of respect for her intellect -- something which, understandibly, ticks her off.
    The pen is mightier than the sword and he who lives by the pen shall die by the pen. ;-)

    1. Re:Grammar Police! by ProfBooty · · Score: 2

      hey not a problem!

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    2. Re:Grammar Police! by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      I wasn't trying to flame him. I just wanted to show how easy it is to find grammatical flaws in the kind of casual messages people exchange on Slashdot.

  128. Other news: Weta Powers Up With RedHat by Sideways2 · · Score: 1

    Weta, the graphics power house behind Peter Jackson, have recently purchased NZ Herald: "[476 systems] at 2.2GHz with four gigabytes of memory each. The 950 processors will be added to 350 existing 1GHz Pentium 3 systems as part of a dedicated "render wall" comprising 22 racks." These will be running Renderman software on RedHat. For all those army sceens in LOTR, Grunt (Guaranteed Rendering of Unlimited Numbers of Things) was used, an in house product by Jon Allitt.

  129. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I think they wanted to flesh out that bit more in the movie(s), something about Aragorn not "being ready" yet to wield the sword. Also, in the book, I got the idea there was just a couple inches broken off, while in the movie, there's barely anything left after the hilt.

    I was a bit miffed at this, I can't wait to see the "Flame of the West shine again," hopefully in TTT.

  130. Re:One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sons of Elrond only arrive in Return of the King (Book 5, chapter 2), well after the Battle of Helm's Deep. (on the journey to The Paths of the Dead)

  131. Or go for the blockbuster special... by spaten-optimator · · Score: 1

    I just got the blockbuster special that they're running (at my blockbuster, anyhow).

    Pre-order the theatrical (August) release for $24.95, and receive a free 10-week rental card, good for renting one dvd or video per week. (A week starts on sunday, and ends on saturday).

    If you rent DVDs a lot, you know they can be about $5 apiece - so basically this means you get 5 free DVD rentals PLUS the theatrical release version, when it comes out.

    NICE!

    --

    --
    Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
  132. Yes, Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'd oppose that argument. Tolkien's books were badly paced, his storyline brought in new elements with little or no forshadowing, and the climactic scene of entire story took place in book 5/6, and was solved by a villian.
    An interesting choose of complaints, considering that the role of said villian was one of the things that was forshadowed. Needless to say, I reject your position. I would have loved to have had a production of one 3-5 hour movie for each of the siz books. I missed the parts that were left out, especially Tom.
  133. I've waited this long... by Ear+Phantom · · Score: 1

    I've waited all my life for these films to be made. I can wait two or three more years to own them together as a set.
    These films were (and will continue to be) vastly popular. Special Editions of them will be available easily for the theater lifespans of the trilogy: it makes good accounting sense to the producers.
    I look forward to picking them all up, complete as a set, discounted, used, long after all the frenzy dies down.

  134. But the hero wasn't corrupted :) by elzahir · · Score: 1

    So many people assume that Frodo was the novels protagonist. But they're wrong (IMHO). It's Sam.

    Don't believe me? Read it again :)

    --
    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - R Feynman
    1. Re:But the hero wasn't corrupted :) by jcast · · Score: 1

      Frodo was the protagonist in books 1-4. Sam was the protagonist in 5 & 6.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  135. Gimli and Galadriel by psamuels · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, they say the Galadriel GIF-giving scene is back, which is good. But what of the rest of Lothlórien? Peter Jackson omitted what may be my favorite passage in the whole book:

    `Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dûm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone.' She looked upon Gimli, who sat glowering and sad, and she smiled. And the Dwarf, hearing the names given in his own ancient tongue, looked up and met her eyes; and it seemed to him that he looked suddenly into the heart of an enemy and saw there love and understanding. Wonder came into his face, and then he smiled in answer.
    He rose clumsily and bowed in dwarf-fashion, saying: `Yet more fair is the living land of Lórien, and the Lady Galadriel is above all the jewels that lie beneath the earth!'

    That is one of the most important bits (IMHO) of character development - it completely redefines Gimli. And if it doesn't show up on the extended DVD, I may never forgive Mr Jackson. (:

    --
    "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  136. Alas, true... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    You are right.. It's tough to fault em for making such a damn good movie. I remember back when I thought D&D the movie was going to be "it". Nope. Not even close. One version will be good enough for me though... I'll just wait until the new cut is slashdotted before making a final decision ;)

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  137. Please, PLEASE by Wheaty18 · · Score: 1

    Will they be getting rid of some of those annoying 360-degree vista shots? I have a bad feeling that there will be another 10 of them in the extra footage.

    *shudders*

  138. 'No Tom' is a GOOD thing... by orius_khan · · Score: 1

    I loved the part of the book about Tom Bombadil.

    When I read the book the first time many years ago, and again last year, I had the same feeling about Tom. He seemed like a mystical character that could have been developed into a much bigger, more important role, but that nobody wanted to wait around long enough for him to take their mission seriously. He could have been a hero of dazzling importance and power, but he won't because he can't keep kimself from bursting into giddy non-sensical little songs about EVERYTHING.

    Tom Bombadill is going to the bathroom
    dombadil bombadil vagisil dillio!
    And he's going to take a crapper
    Bigger than yonder mountain
    dilliel billy-il yankmydil dillio!

    The whole time I'm reading his chapter I have this overwhelming mental association between him and the "singing bush" from the Three Amigos movie... kinda prevented me from taking him seriously. :)

    --
    Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
  139. Re:I will be purchasing both August and Nov releas by mtrupe · · Score: 1

    Sheep.

    Moron.

  140. Whoa by Snover · · Score: 1

    Putting extra scenes on a DVD? Unbelievable! What innovation!

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  141. You missed something... by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 2

    The way the ring is destroyed in the end is, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the books. The entire point of that scene is to show that no living being could have the willpower to throw the ring into the fire, so great was its powers of temptation and treachery. (Spoiler ahead, watch yourself folks.) Having Gollum seize the ring from Frodo and then fall into the pit amidst his excitement over being reunited with his precious further refutes your claim about foreshadowing, as it fulfills the predictions Gandalf made way back in the Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf specifically wanrs Frodo not to kill Gollum, both out of pity and because Gandalf felt that Gollum still had some purpose to fulfill. If Frodo had ignored that advice and killed Gollum, ironically, he would have doomed all of existance to defeat at the hands of Sauron. In my opinion, that scene was very, very well done.

    You missed the great irony that makes that scene even more delicious: It is the power of the One Ring that causes Gollum to throw himself into the fire!

    If you remember, sometime previously Gollum promised to be good and help the hobbits, and Frodo made him swear on the One Ring. Frodo warned Gollum that the Ring would hold him to his oath, though it would try and twist it, and he later promised, by the power of the One Ring, that he, Frodo, would use the ring to order Gollum to cast himself into the fire if Gollum betrayed them--and Gollum would be helpless to disobey the Ring. It seems clear to me that the One Ring carried out Frodo's command when Gollum attacked Frodo in the pits of Summauth Naur, even though Frodo was no longer wearing the ring--perhaps because of Gollum's oath on the Ring.

    --
    ---dragoness
  142. No Ents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like there will be no Ents in the next film.

  143. reading it by onShore_Jake · · Score: 1

    In the book, after they cross the river in the ferry, they stop at Frodo's new house in Crickhollow, where he was to wait for Gandalf. This is where Sam reveals that there was a conspiracy, and that Merry and Pippin will be coming with them. Because the black riders are after them, they decide to leave that night, going through a hedge into a forest, where the next day (i think) they decide to follow a river, and find an old willow tree (Old Man Willow.) What they don't know, is that the tree is not an ordinary tree, but rather is somewhat "awake." The tree swollows some members of the party (I do not remember who) in cracks when they lean against it to rest. Just then, an old man comes along, named Tom Bombadil, who is the master of the forest, and orders Old Man Willow to let them go. He is not really a man, but a supernatural being of some kind, maybe a Maia (the Balrog was a Maia before becoming evil, as was Sauron IIRC from reading the Silmarilion.) Anyway, they stay with Tom Bombadil for a while at his house, with his wife Goldberry, then set out across the barrow-mounds to Bree. In the barrow-mounds, they get separated, and trapped by a wight, and Tom Bombadil saves them. He then escorts them to as close to Bree as he can get w/o leaving his domain. They meet "Strider" (aka Aragorn, The Dunadain, Elessar, etc) in Bree.

  144. Submit to your role as a CONSUMER! by fm6 · · Score: 2

    Hey, you're a consumer. That means you have a moral obligation to consume. That's why everythings -- software, electronic gadgets, cars, whatever -- goes through umpteen pointless revisions. So just do your part and buy every revision, "necessary" or not. THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS!!!!