Slashdot Mirror
New Trailer For The Two Towers
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."
If you just can't stand not knowing what's coming up in the next movie, rumor has it the 2nd book (and even the 3rd and final book) are out now! ;c)
For us LotR addicts, a frame by frame analysis is available at:
2 _01.html
http://www.theonering.net/movie/preview/ttt_09300
Additionally there is official frame by frame footage available at Lordoftherings.net
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
And what kind of horsepower do you need to pull two towers anyway?
Seems like it would just be easier to just screw the trailer and leave the towers in the same spot.
paintball
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
The whole of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and the Hobbit and other books in the series) were written many years ago.
The Hobbit (or as it was also titled as "There and Back Again) was written in 1937
The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers were written in 1954 and Return of the King was in 1955.
So no, the name has nothing to do with 9/11. The two towers are referring to the two towers mentioned in the whole of the LotR trilogy.
All this information and more is available from www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biblio_frame.html
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
In Tolkien's notes in the appendices and other writings, he explains that the events of the Lord of the Rings are not the only events going on in Middle Earth. Sauron sent attack forces against many strongholds in addition to Minas Tirith in Gondor. For example, to prevent the dwarves and elves of the Greenwood (also called Mirkwood) from coming to the aid of Gondor, he laid siege to the Lonely Mountain (the one from the Hobbit). Also, the elves of Rivendell and Lothlorien feared an assault and believed they could not successfully defend both locations so Elrond and company joined Galadriel in Lothlorien. Therefore my explanation for Elrond's appearance in TTT (the movie) is that Peter Jackson is showing the full scale of the war in Middle Earth and not just the events of LOTR (the book).
--Atlantix
What the hell is going on here? I was actually able to go to the link and actually see the content of the article. Hell I was even able to see the trailer.
/.'ed 30 comments ago. What are you people doing for heaven sake? Working?
You people are slacking! That site should have been
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Seriously. I'm amazed at the excitement generated by an advertisement. Hey Look! Nike has a new commercial out, it is SO awesome!
Deserves excitment! I daresay this trailer does. Many that are geeks deserve excitement. And some that are sarcastic deserve being treated as a naysayer. Can you not give it a rest? Do not be too eager to deal out sarcasm in judgment. For even the very wise sometimes cannot "get it."
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Well a movie that is worth going out to the theatre to watch is a big event in itself. The MPAA keep blaming piracy and P2P for their lower revenues, but they fail to take into account that every good movie made generated a buttload of cash (spiderman, monsters inc, LOTR I, etc).
Theatres wouldn't be dying off slowly if they would have more QUALITY content making the trip worth to see and making good use of "the big screen". I used to go to the movies every week before, now it's about once per 3 months. The quality dropped, so had my support for the movie industry.
LOTR II will be a movie that not only I'll go see, but I'll do like I did for monsters inc, shreck and LOTR I, I'll organise an office group to go watch it altogether and have a beer before or after. At least I'm sure I won't have people bitching that I made them lose a night with that movie
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
No, the track is called Lux Aeterna, composed by Clint Mansell who wrote the entire score for RFAD.
Paul Oakenfold owes a debt then to Clint Mansell (former Pop Will Eat Itself frontman) and the Kronos Quartet, who originally composed and performed all of the themes used in Requiem for a Dream. Oakenfold used their music, they didn't use his.
In fact, there's a remix album for Requiem For A Dream's soundtrack coming out this October, which features a track by Oakenfold.
As an aside: The original promotional website for Requiem for a Dream is one of the best flash sites ever produced, and it's still up as of this writing.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
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
Joke? Troll? Serious? Hard to tell sometimes.
Just to set the record straight, this was totally proven false a hundred times over, most notably by Ain't it Cool News (I would provide a direct link to the article, but their site is refusing connections right now). This was a result of some media idiot claiming it was on Kazaa or some such thing only because he or one of his aides saw it on a listing (i.e. didn't check to see if it was actually the movie). Besides, as others have said, watching a movie on a shitty monitor is a waste of time.
On the bright side, searching for 'two towers' on p2p brings up some substantially interesting pr0n.
Screw those formats. Anybody have a DIVX, XVID or even just plain-jane MPEG copy of this trailer??
>What's the word on the ents? I heard they were
> going to leave out the ents.
Actually, Gimli chops them all up and burns them all to roast fresh orc for dinner.
> Also, rumors abound regarding other aspects of
> the movie.
> Is it true that Merry and Pippin are going to be
> portrayed smoking "Shire leaf" out of some
> sort of a water pipe?
Actually, in the end of Return of the King, they actually return to their jobs as hemp farmers and Pippin does not, in fact, become Thain.
> Will Legolas be killed, his death avenged by an
> enraged Gimli?
No, they both die together at Helms deep, shortly after the orc eating scene above.
> Will there really be a love scene between
> Samwise and Mr. Frodo?
Actually, they cancelled the Arwen - Aragorn marriage and are replacing it with a Frodo - Samwise "domestic partnership agreement".
> Thanks for any clues.
Hope that clears some things up. Hope there weren't any real bad spoilers for you.
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
Go to the bookstore. Buy the book "The Two Towers". Turn all the lights in your computer room to off. Turn the brightness on your monitor way up and make sure energy saving features and screen savers are turned off. Turn the book so the text is facing the monitor. RTFB. When you come to a part you want to visualize, stop reading, close your eyes, and pretend.
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!
Elvis is coming back man, Elvis.
No, Elves are coming back!
Gee, how many times are we gonna ask this question? ~sigh~ If you actually are serious, pick up THE BOOK and check out the original publication date....1954. And anybody who is so mired in sensitive political correctness as to think the name ought be changed can suck my ass.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
They'll just use the money you spend on this movie to try to take away computers.
I'll happily donate my $7.50 if I can be assured that your computer will be among the first to go.
Nitwit.
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?
Star Wars?
Star Wars?
You know, there are just some people who WANT to be reminded, and any excuse to be reminded will do it for them.
When you lose someone you care about, everything reminds you of them, even things that make absolutely no sense as something to trigger the memory.
Personally, I would have taken as an insult to Americans and the human race if he had changed the title of The Two Towers. Why? Simple, it would have been claiming we can't heal. It would be announcing to the world that Jackson didn't think Americans could recover from tragedy.
You know what? In the grand scheme of things, 9-11 was NOT that massive a disaster. True, it killed thousands of people, and yes it changed the country, but worse things happen all over the world, and the rest of the planet recovers. The people learn to live life without the people they lost. Did you hear about the recent bout of floods in China? How about the starvation that's ravaging Africa? Hell, what about AIDS in Africa. Yes, losing over 3,000 people in one day is terrible, but it happens all over the world. Americans are just too ethnocentric to see the rest of the planet as anything other than the Disney / Hollywood sanitized tourist attraction on TV. Terrorism is nothing new, it's as old as human conflict. Human conflict has been going on since the dawn of the species itself. From the moment our ancestors first picked up a weapon in the Fertile Crescent, we've been killing each other.
Clearchannel releasing a list of songs that might offend, people being chastised for speaking out against the ongoing war and every other patronizing thing that's been going on disgusts me.
People don't heal or recover from emotional trauma if they don't face reality. Those who retreat into a shell where all traumatic stimulus is hidden wither and die.
There were times in the last year where I saw the entire country morphing into Ms. Havisham from Great Expectations. Unable to deal with the groom running away on her wedding day, she locks herself in her room and never emerges. She withers and dies in her wedding gown. The windows are shut and the curtains sealed to prevent light from entering. She froze herself and her memories at a time just before her loss, when she was still filled with the promise of marriage and a family.
Erasing the WTC from photos and movies, pretending it didn't exist, is no different than what Ms. Havisham did. It's hiding from reality, letting the wounds fester. We've been bitten by a rattlesnake and are refusing to drain the poison. Refusing to think about what has happened, the poison works its way into our blood and kills us.
We have to face reality, and that means picking up the things we enjoyed before the disaster and enjoying them again. If a man loses his wife, he can't shut himself up forever and never see the sun again.
Yes, changing the name of a movie is a small thing in the grand scheme of things, but it is one step on a road we must not take.
The saying "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" is more true than people realize. Physically, most the country is unharmed, but if we crawl into holes and let our liberties be drained away and our lives become a mass of traumatic material that must be avoided, we will wither and die. The events will not have made us stronger. We will have died inside.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA