Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Trailer For The Two Towers

Posted by timothy on from the admirable dept.

Drakkar writes "As most of you know, the new trailer for the Two Towers was online last night for AOL users, but the link was given on the official site, LordofTheRings.net. It's in real player format. A new trailer with higher quality will be up tonight, midnight ET. This new piece of film is awesome. (the song at the end of the trailer isn't from the TTT soundtrack, it's from the movie Requiem for a Dream)" xTK-421x points to more links: "Now available is the new 3 minute trailer for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Available here in MOV and here in RM. Reported first at Aint It Cool News."

14 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Yippeee! by DeadEye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work at Stormfront Studios in San Rafael, CA and I'd also like to note here that our game based on the first and second movies comes out on October 22nd in North America. I only mention here because this is the first game for me and I am very proud of our team. It is published by EA and will be available for the PS2. We're all fiending to see the second movie as we've gotten to see only bits and pieces along the way and are dying to see the finished product! I've been a Slashdot lurker for quite a few years now and finally have something worth posting! Congrats to the whole team.

    --
    -- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
  2. I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I didn't see the first one, since I'm always disappointed if I see a movie after reading the book. The reviews I hear from people who have also read the book are 50/50 loved it/hated it. Can a movie really ever replicate the visions of Gandalf, Frodo et al the reader creates for him/herself? And how can a movie really show the internal struggles that, for example, Boromir went through or Sam went through after Frodo went down for the count?

    1. Re:I dunno by Bandman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know how everyone else feels, but...
      while I was reading the books, I always got the impression that Tolkien wanted us to immerse ourselves in the belief that this was a "forgotten" prehistory. That maybe a long time ago, before our current history was written, this was the way that things were, and that we are the eventual outcome of everything happening. "The time of elves is gone, it is to men that we now give our hope". Him talking about an Oliphant as a gargantuan trunked creature whose relatives still live today was plain enough. For fun, I've tried to matchup the map he drew of his world and ours, and tried to place it. The closest I've come has been maybe someplace in northern/western africa.

      --
      Check out my sysadmin blog!
    2. Re:I dunno by erpbridge · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In Letters from Tolkien, he hints very strongly to the Shire being based on England, and at some point (I don't remember where exactly) says "if fiction were to be dropped, the Shire would be someplace around Northwestern Europe".

      Now, looking at the Middle Earth maps, and trying to figure out the scale, would that put Lonely Mountain soewhere near Berlin, and Mt Doom somewhere around Belgrade?

      Of course, after I wrote all this, I did a simple search, and came up with this map, which centers Hobbiton on Oxford, England. It indeed places Mt Doom near Belgrade, but puts Mt Doom somewhere in Western Poland.

      http://people.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~lalaith/Tolkie n/Grid.html

      Of course, I've seen some other pages where they skew distances a bit further, and try to place Lonely Mountain near Moscow, and Mount Doom near Jerusalem.... and another page with someone even saying that Mt Doom, accounting for millenia of continental drift, is near modern day Baghdad.

      I prefer the theory of the page I linked to....

  3. Re:holy bandwidth, batman by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it was fast but mplayer wouldn't play it. Told me to check the codecs.conf. Other mov files have played for me before :(

  4. Re:This *would be* exciting by gatoresque · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, then...

    Explain all the Elrond stuff. He is not in TTT (book) much as you might remember. A siege of Rivendell? That would be a big addition & change!

  5. The First glimpses... by cOdEgUru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of Gandalf's final fight with the Demon

    Of Gandalf's new kickass horse

    Of how Gollum compares to the hobbits in size (he is smaller)

    Of Treebeard

    Even the eye looks slightly different this time.

    --
    Rapid Nirvana
    1. Re:The First glimpses... by waspleg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      gollum is a hobbit

      the warg riding orcs are bad ass and so was the half second clip of hte elephant, i'm already impressed (never ever ever happens by a trailer) and for hte first time in a long time i'm actually looking forward to seeing a movie

      it's about fucking time good old school fantasy gets made into quality movies

  6. The music is Paul Oakenfold by Sanity · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It is from a track called "Zoo York", one of the best tracks on an excellent album "Bunkka".

    It was indeed used in Requiem.

    1. Re:The music is Paul Oakenfold by Triv · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This sort of thing, reusing a soundtrack, happens all the time. Usually, when a trailer needs to be released to promote a new flick, the soundtrack for the movie hasn't been finalized yet. Whatever music you hear in a trailer is just filler (there's gotta be something there) - I just saw a preview (I can't remember what for - the trailer was before "Secretary")that used the "American Beauty Theme". It's a solid bet that "Lux Aeterna" won't appear anywhere in the finished movie.

      Triv

  7. Before they get to that... (new domain name) by Tsar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    why on earth hasn't hollywood suggested, and gotten a .movie (.mov) or .film (.flm) suffix for all movie websites? I'm REALLY sick of seeing advertizements with urls attached like "reallylongmoviename_themovie.net" and such.

    I'd rather see them not even use domain names at all, and instead follow Sony Pictures' example of placing all their movie sites under the studio's domain.

    Instead, I'd like to see them add a domain ".dum" for all stupid websites.

    Let me say, though, that I think your post was quite on-topic, insofar as the original post was of interest to /.'ers. (Personally, I think the most amazing thing about this story is that these links appear, so far, to be unslashdottable.) but does anyone know how "OT" came into use as shorthand for "off-topic?" What's the shorthand for "on-topic?"

  8. Not interested in trailers, thanks... by Token · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm excited about these movies mainly because of the spectacle and look of the things...not because I don't know how the movie turns out. I'm starting to really _hate_ trailers that show all the groovy bits of a movie before their opening day...to the point where I deliberately look away and don't watch them when they appear in the theatre or on TV. In some cases, I've attended movies that gave very little more than the trailers did...one of my fave comments to the wife now is 'I guess we don't have to see _that_ movie now...'...and we don't!

    I want my first sight of a great movie to actually be _in_ the movie theatre when it starts to roll. Am I weird?

  9. Re:not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you keep modding it down, people who are in the dark will not find out the answer, and they will keep asking forever.

  10. Gandalf in the Trailer? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Is anyone else horribly dissappointed at further appearances of Gandalf in the trailers? The first one I saw showed him for a split second and then focused on the other characters in astonishment to see Gandalf. It left some suspicion as to what was actually happening with Gandalf, although it revealed more than I would have preferred (for other people, since I already know what happens). I was unhappy to see that in the preview, but figured that perhaps not all was lost. However, this trailer clearly shows that Gandalf has indeed returned, after seemingly falling/fighting to his death. It seems like it is a huge spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the books yet, and although it might bring in just a few more ticket sales, the experience that could have been felt at seeing Gandalf return has now been lost. I am extremely dissappointed to see this in the trailer, anyone else have any thoughts on this?

    On another note that people have been discussing thus far, I am happy with the story taking place in the movie versus the story taking place in the book. I was discussing this with the group of friends that I went to see the 12:01 showing of FOTR with - that the story that the movie tells doesn't necessarily need to mirror the story told in the book. We came to this conclusion because the gist of the LOTR as well as other stories of similar-type eras is relatively constant. There is good and evil, heroes and villains, battling, love stories, history (of conflict, of development) etc. What then makes a good story is how you tell your particular interpretation of a particular set of events of the era (or of a particular setting - ie think of multiple copies of the same universe, taking on different courses of events to conclude on different worlds with different races, towns, events, goods, evils, etc but still with the same themes at heart as the other worlds). So, the fact that Peter Jackson hasn't mirrored the exact events, settings, and dialogues of the actual LOTR book is not a problem, because although he is basing his interpretation on the sum whole of events in the LOTR book, he is actually making mild interpretations of the world at hand, but still working the same main themes, just with a slight Peter Jackson touch. The movies are not necessarily supposed to be Tolkein's LOTR on screen, they are supposed to be the LOTR story told on screen by Peter Jackson based on Tolkein's interpretation of LOTR ideas and events (since, really, the LOTR story is not Tolkein's, he just provided his grand interpretation and visualization of events that so many people have thought about). Not that I'm knocking Tolkein down or anything, I think he did a great job, I just think that comments on the movie like "he missed this" or "the book wasn't like that" are fruitless - pointless, even. Anyone else want to comment?