Slashdot Mirror


LOTR Director's Cut Reviewed

popala writes "The first review is in on Home Theater Forum. There are a few screenshots from the unseen scenes and the whole thing is reviewed dvd by dvd! Although I don't like the review itself - I think it is a bit dry and not very journalistic, I do think it is still worth a read - even just a glance of the screenshots from cut scenes."

312 comments

  1. Who's your daddy ? by I'm+not+a+script · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's right, it's the MPAA.

    --
    kthx
    1. Re:Who's your daddy ? by Bonker · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hehe... Funny! (Who modded this down? Posting here to fix a bugged mod.)

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    2. Re:Who's your daddy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the humanity. Can there be anything less appealing than a longer version of LOTR. I had to gnaw my right leg off at the knee just to survive the regular version.

    3. Re:Who's your daddy ? by dzym · · Score: 2

      It's a Friday, therefore we love the MPAA.

  2. Finally! by Opiuman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been waiting for the director's cut for what feels like ages. And it has just the scenes that I felt the lack of most in the original release... Too bad we can't view them in a proper cinema -- maybe in the 25th anniversary re-release, or something...
    I wish it weren't still missing the whole Tom Bombadil sub-plot... But the 'spirit' of the book is there.

    1. Re:Finally! by rppp01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Um, ages? Dude, how old are you anyways? 10 months?

      --
      They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
    2. Re:Finally! by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Peter Jackson *has* arranged for the special edition to be shown in the Embassy theatre, here in Wellington, New Zealand where the film was made... But only once, the night before the special edition DVD is released.

      The Embassy theatre is a kick-ass old theatre that has been refurbished recently. Its got an amazing sound system and what I was once told is the biggest screen in the southern hemisphere. It used to have nearly 1800 seats!!!
      Apparently Peter wanted the world premier of FOTR to be held here, but New Line Cinemas said no (they wanted it somewhere on the map, like, say, London...) but agreed to let Peter show the special edition here instead. Some info about the embassy theatre can be found here

      I had an opportunity to get tickets for the screening, but I decided against it - we're talking about FOUR hours of sitting on your arse without moving, once you include the previews etc. Maybe if they had an intermission...

      Also, apparently Peter doesn't like the term 'Directors cut' because he always intended to make two versions, the full version and a shorter version for the box-office.

  3. Lots of extras... by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 4, Funny

    They really did leave a lot of stuff out of the released version. I don't remember seeing Frodo's nude scene when it was in theatres... :-)

    --
    Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
    1. Re:Lots of extras... by adamjaskie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Frodo?!?! I wanna see Arwen!

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    2. Re:Lots of extras... by dinivin · · Score: 3, Funny


      Liv Tyler vs. Elijah Wood?!? What red blooded American male would want to see Liv Tyler naked instead of Elijah Wood naked? Oh that's right, all you strange heterosexuals.

      Dinivin

    3. Re:Lots of extras... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I really want to know is whether the VCDs for this one will actually fit onto 80 minute CDs.

    4. Re:Lots of extras... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mmmm. Hobbit pr0n.

    5. Re:Lots of extras... by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Dildo Daggins Vs Goblin Cox?

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    6. Re:Lots of extras... by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      Actually, that is "Dildo Bugger", if you've ever read the Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings".

    7. Re:Lots of extras... by erpbridge · · Score: 5, Funny

      Arwen?!?! I wanna see the Balrog!

      He's so hot!

    8. Re:Lots of extras... by apg · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't remember seeing Frodo's nude scene when it was in theatres

      Yeah, who'd've thought they'd have to paste that hair on more than just his feet.

    9. Re:Lots of extras... by Harald74 · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that all of him is hobbit-sized in the movie...

      --
      A)bort, R)etry or S)elf-destruct?
    10. Re:Lots of extras... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny

      The funny thing is, they've both got the ass of a ten-year-old boy.

    11. Re:Lots of extras... by dinivin · · Score: 2


      I'd be curious to know how you've managed to get a look at both their asses.

    12. Re:Lots of extras... by zangdesign · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd be curious to know why he's looking at 10-year old boys asses.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    13. Re:Lots of extras... by mrjive · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wasn't the balrog already naked? I can't imagine he would be able to retain clothing for that long anyways....considering he's on fire and all....

      --
      If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
    14. Re:Lots of extras... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't quite provide that, but here's some of her ...

    15. Re:Lots of extras... by Eimi+Metamorphoumai · · Score: 2

      Frodo's nude scene won't be until Sam rescues him in RotK. But in TTT you should get to see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked. Now there's a scary mental image.

      --

      Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.

    16. Re:Lots of extras... by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      No need to be insulting. He's a priest. It's his job.

  4. Jackson doesn't like "Director's Cut" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    as everyone has probably already heard he doesn't really think this is a Director's Cut but just an extended edition. he goes into his problems with the term "Director's Cut" in one of the videos...

    1. Re:Jackson doesn't like "Director's Cut" by hrieke · · Score: 2

      No, haven't heard a thing about this. Care to explain?

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    2. Re:Jackson doesn't like "Director's Cut" by bytor4232 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Peter Jackson, on an interview in the standard edition release from Aug 6th, said that he didnt use the term "Directors Cut" for the DVD coming out in December, because its a true term for this DVD. Peter Jackson was going for a certain emotional feel to the movie with the theatrical release. He basically is releasing this extended edition for the fans. Most of the extra scenes on the new DVD give more background to the characters. Fans will like this edition much better since it moves quite slower. And no, there is no Tom Bombadil or Barrow Downs in this edition either. However on the plus side, the opening Galadrial-narrated battle scene is extended. That will make it all worth while.

      --
      -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
    3. Re:Jackson doesn't like "Director's Cut" by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Watch the extras disk that came out with the origional DVD release. Jackson basically blasts the idea of the directors cut because it makes it seem like the theatrical release was not the one he wanted. In fact as a director most of the time concerns etc of the theatrical release are part and parcel of his trade. He basically says that he understands the target audience and makes the movie to suit them best, and with the extended release that's a different audience then the theatrical release.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. I don't really see the appeal by gowen · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is the obsession some people have with the dry day-to-day process of film making? All this. "Well, at 5am we get up and go to make-up..." etc. I wonder whether they have "Dry-cleaning: The directors cut", in which their cleaner gives a dull voice over saying "Well, then we add the cleaning chemicals, but not before we've checked for damage ... [portentously] and thats how we produce ... the miracle of dry cleaning [/portentously]".

    Better, go back to the source: A copy of LOTR with a an epilogue by Prof. Tolkien saying "Well, I usually write with a 2B pencil, but they go blunt very easily... I use the SharpOMatic-800 sharpener, or sometimes I'll use a biro."

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Flamerule · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What are you talking about?

      A director's cut is an edition of a film with scenes added or modified from the theatrical release -- presumably the suits forced modifications on the director, which he remedies on the DVD/video release. It's "what the director wanted". You're complaining about "Behind the Scenes" documentaries or something...

    2. Re:I don't really see the appeal by gowen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read the article : Two discs are the director's cut (fair enough), but there are another two discs comprised purely of "Making Of..." style documentaries and behind-the-scenes footage.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I was always under the impression that the Director's Cut was the last version of the movie before the final and the Director got the last say on which scenes were cut from it to get it down into the alloted time.

    4. Re:I don't really see the appeal by D4M4DH477X0R · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      He's talking about Drycleaning!!! Which i happen to love, and can't wait for the movie to come out.

      You haven't lived till you've seen Drycleaning in the moonlight.

      ok, so this is 'slightly' OT, but i dont care.

    5. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is the obsession some people have with the dry day-to-day process of film making?

      Well I think it's very interesting, it's the equivalent of a copy of 1984 that I saw (and would have bought if I had the cash at the time), which was basically a copy of the original manuscripts, with the author's and editor's comments scribbled all over them.

      When there's really a work of art that fascinates you, don't you feel an urge to know what went into putting it together?

      -- Pete.

    6. Re:I don't really see the appeal by thud2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You should check out some of the books edited by Tolkien's son Christopher. They don't really go into detail about pencil weights, but they do give a fascinating (YMMV) insight into the processes that went into writing LOTR and the different shapes the narrative took until it was given its final form.

      Disclaimer: this is only recommended for the hard-core or those who like a peek (OK, more than a peek; an exhaustive examination) into how a writer performs his craft. To the casual fan the whole project starts to seem like your dry-ceaning analogy.

    7. Re:I don't really see the appeal by afidel · · Score: 2

      read my comment at here Jackson has enough power that the studios don't/can't push him around. Any scene deletions etc are him plying his trade.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Dannon · · Score: 2

      [portentously] and thats how we produce ... the miracle of dry cleaning [/portentously]

      To make this even more perfect, imagine the above being read by Ben Stein.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    9. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What was it that the Brunching Shuttlecocks had for their "DVD Extras Nobody Wants"?

      Director's Commentary on the Director's Commentary: "...this was a difficult scene to talk about."

      Jurassic Park: Velociraptor Commentary

      (http://www.brunching.com/baddvd.html)

    10. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may not see the appeal, but as an amiture film produser I find the proses they go thru interesting and somtimes even informitive.

      just because most people arn't interested in open source dosn't mean it shouldn't be avalible to those of us who run linix

    11. Re:I don't really see the appeal by gowen · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of Mitch Peliggi ("Skinner" in the X-Files). There is seemingly little in the way of dross that he won't narrate if the price is right...

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    12. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ah, I *love* amiture films! Especially when they're written in proses (I'm always vaguely disappointed with an amiture film written in verses).

      For those unfamiliar, amiture films are somewhat like armature films (animated films where clay or some other medium is wrapped around a moveable wire frame, or armature, allowing it to be easily posed), only where half the words in the script are misspelled.

      (Unless you were *trying* to troll, in which case, never mind - great job!)

    13. Re:I don't really see the appeal by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Peter Jackson has stated numerous times he doesn't want this to be called the director's cut. It's the "extended verion". He's adamant about that because HE is the one that decided what to cut to trim the movie to three hours, so the one released in theaters is ALSO a director's cut. (This is to distinguish from the common practice when the director hands a finished product to the company, who makes FURTHER edits not under the Director's control, hence the difference between the Director's Cut and the one you saw in the theatres. In this case both the shorter theatrical release and the longer new DVD are Director's cuts.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  6. Directors cut? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who cut the normal cut then? Didn't the director have any say in the matter?

    I wish hollywood would stop trying to sell us something that we've already got again, on the pretext that it's got extra bits in that the director decided were a bad idea the first time round.

    1. Re:Directors cut? by iksowrak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I do agree that Hollywood has been working on quite a few attempts to "sell us something that we've already got" sometimes the director doesn't have final say in the choice of final release cut. He may have one vision for the film but the studios decided that the public will handle another version better.

    2. Re:Directors cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the extra scenes will be great, I imagine people will buy it for the large amount of behind the scenes stuff. And the film itself is supposed to have better sound as well.

    3. Re:Directors cut? by SilverLuz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is why Peter Jackson has been adamant that this is not a "Director's Cut", but a special 'Extended Edition'. The theatrical cut was the director's cut. The extended edition is what the director's cut would have been if he had thought that general audiences would sit through an additional 30 min. of material. That, and a (rather effective) ploy to get us to spend more money. As for who's interested in the 'making of' stuff, well, I am. I'm an amateur costumer, and I would probably buy this just for the 12 min. segment on the costumes for the film. But I was getting it anyway :)

    4. Re:Directors cut? by bmongar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Who cut the normal cut then? Didn't the director have any say in the matter?
      Actually the studio gets to decide what is released, and other editors get at the film after the director. He has input as to what is released, but the studio makes the final call. Often much of the directors vision is cut for time or to get a rating. So there really is a directos cut which is his vision of the film and a studio cut which is much more politically created.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    5. Re:Directors cut? by Elphin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well I didn't buy the 2-disc version as I was holding out for this one.

      As for 'bits that the director decided were a bad idea the first time around', excessively long films are bad for studios, since cinemas cannot show them as often. Whilst a 4 hour cut no doubt does more justice to FOTR, I'm sure Jackson had considerable pressure to make the theatrical release as short as possible.

      I for one can't wait to get my copy :-)

    6. Re:Directors cut? by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who cut the normal cut then?

      Usually bean counters, nervous nellies, studio bigwigs who don't think the public will "get it", etc. Basically the people you can thank for you eventually having two or more versions of the same movie on home video. e.g. Theater Cut, "Directors Cut", Real Directors Cut, Boxed Set of Trilogy, Boxed Set or "Directors Cuts", Boxed Set of Real Directors Cuts.

      And they wonder aloud why there's so much P2P sharing of video...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:Directors cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the film itself is supposed to have better sound as well.

      So the original release had sound that was not as good as it could have been, the studios were well aware of this, and they specifically are now trying to sell you a version of something that fixes the original problem that shouldn't have been there in the first place?

      Are you happy about the fact that you paid to watch a film that was knowingly sub standard?

      Wow. If it wasn't a movie studio, this sort of shit would be illegal!

    8. Re:Directors cut? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whilst a 4 hour cut no doubt does more justice to FOTR, I'm sure Jackson had considerable pressure to make the theatrical release as short as possible.

      Good point.

      They could have made it into six movies instead. Tolkein always insisted that LoTR was six books, often published in three volumes. I guess the studio got a bit worried that people might lose interest in those six years.

    9. Re:Directors cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Who cut the normal cut then?
      Usually the editor.
      Didn't the director have any say in the matter?
      Usually not.
    10. Re:Directors cut? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I'm an amateur costumer"

      is that a euphemism for cross dresser?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    11. Re:Directors cut? by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of the crappy U.S. release of "The Boondock Saints", where they cut out all of the really cool action scenes (most specifically the Russian hotel gunslinging scene). Sometimes a movie gets totally butchered, and that was the case with that film.

      "Veritas, Aequitas"

    12. Re:Directors cut? by matlokheed · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The studios have the final say in what's released. There are a lot of decent movies that get cut to ribbons by editors and result in dismal products.

      My personal favorite of these if you get the chance, try watching the "Highlander: Endgame" 2 disc set. The first disc is the theatrical version. The second is the full version. The theatrical version had the interference of the studios and five (FIVE!!!?!?!?!?!) unrelated editors. The editors literally pulled setups to jokes out of the movie and left the punchlines at times. The fight scenes seem to be cut of the most exciting and interesting frames (why cut 1.5 seconds when someone's being kicked?). On second thought, these Highlander editors are pretty bad to start. Ever seen Highlander 2?

      Fear the editors and studios. They have a lot more pull than you could imagine.

      --

      "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

    13. Re:Directors cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I hardly think you can call this a "ploy to get us to spend more money." They announced all three versions and their release dates before the first DVD came out. Everyone had the opportunity to make an informed decision. Now ... other cases, such as the new versions of "Reservoir Dogs" ... that's a ploy to get us to spend more money, since they released an original version then after it had been out a while, announced a new version.

    14. Re:Directors cut? by xTK-421x · · Score: 2

      Here's a link to the video preview of the new cut from the DVD, along with an interview from Peter Jackson explaining why this is not a director's cut:

      LOTR:SE QT Preview

      Note, it's the same 4 minute preview from the original DVD for those of you who own it.

      --
      "TK-421, why aren't you at your post?"
    15. Re:Directors cut? by sowellfan · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm? I didn't know there was another release of 'Boondock Saints'. Where can I get the one you speak of? The movie seemed awesome to me as I saw it, but I'd love to see more (just as long as it isn't Willem Dafoe getting naked).

    16. Re:Directors cut? by mpsmps · · Score: 2

      Peter Jackson had to cut out scenes he wanted to keep to make the film short enough to show in theatres (and also to keep a PG-13 rating I believe). Commercial theatrical releases are generally limited to about three hours. If a film is longer, the theatre cannot have enough showings per night to make a good return, no matter how full the theatre is. None of these considerations apply to the DVD. Hence, the recut.

    17. Re:Directors cut? by 13Echo · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are at least 4 releases of the film. I believe that the Japanese and (I think) Malaysian versions are the most sought after. I've seen the official import DVD releases on Ebay before.

      Try to find the Japanese version. In the U.S. release, they drop down from the ceiling and fire two shots and the scene is over. In the NC-17 versions, there is a really sweet slow motion firefight. That is just one of the many things that they cut out in the U.S./Canadian release. I also hear that the Dutch version is pretty good, with some differences in audio and extras. The forums at the Boondock Saints website have more info.

    18. Re:Directors cut? by rowdent · · Score: 1

      And that's the reason why I didn't buy the first DVD... I knew the other one was coming out and that it would be better.

      --
      "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
    19. Re:Directors cut? by rowdent · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Tolkien liked his book better as a full volume, and it was the editors that told him to split it up. I think there was a story on slashdot about this a couple of months back.

      --
      "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
    20. Re:Directors cut? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I agree with Tolkein. Each book ends rather abruptly. As does the movie.

    21. Re:Directors cut? by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 1

      I'm an amateur costumer...
      is that a euphemism for cross dresser?


      I believe they're called "furries". Check them out.

    22. Re:Directors cut? by foistboinder · · Score: 2

      Actually the studio gets to decide what is released, and other editors get at the film after the director.

      Some directors have enough clout to do the final cut on their films (Kubrick, Scorsese, and Woody Allen come to mind and, I imagine Speilberg and George Lucas do the final cut of their films).

      IIRC, Jackson did the final cut of the theatrical release of The Fellowship of the Ring, but he was contractually obligated to deliver a film that was less than three hours long.

    23. Re:Directors cut? by georgewad · · Score: 1

      Highlander suffered from producers ignoring the tag line "There Can Be Only One".
      The first one was a visual masterpiece. The rest were tripe.

      --
      Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
    24. Re:Directors cut? by Hast · · Score: 1
      I imagine Speilberg and George Lucas do the final cut of their films

      Yes, unfortunately. Otherwise AI, Minority Report, SW:1 and 2 would probably have been really good movies.

      I think most directors would need to have someone else review your work. Just as with all creative work you generally get blinded "by your own brilliance" and need someone with a clear mind to review your work for you.

      Quite clearly this isn't the case with Lucas and Spielberg.
    25. Re:Directors cut? by Moses+Lawn · · Score: 1

      No, I'm afraid that AI would only have been a good movie if Stanley Kubrik hadn't dropped dead in the middle of production. You can see his influence in the beautifully set and shot scenes in the first half of the movie, but absolutely everything else is Spielberg at his schmaltzy worst. The first half, up until the robot kid gets dropped off in the woods, is pretty good, but my god, the rest is crap. The ending, from the time the kid goes underwater, is just stupefyingly bad. Look, Ma - Speilberg aliens! Right off the the ET ship! Awww, the kid's been staring at the magic fairy for 3000 years, and now he gets his wish! Awwwww! But he can't have it, 'cause we have to teach a lesson! But he's a cute Speilberg kid, so it's really really hearttuggingly SWEET. And just to put the sugar on top, so to speak, we've got this pretentious voiceover that can hit you over the head with how staggeringly sweet and cute and touching it all is, just in case you missed it.

      Yeah, it could have been a great movie, if Kubrik had done it. In a just world, Speilberg wouldn't have been allowed on the set.

      --

      What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?

    26. Re:Directors cut? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "That, and a (rather effective) ploy to get us to spend more money."

      Consider that the "normal" FOTR and the "extended" version have mututally exclusive contents. You don't get the theatrical version when you buy the extended one. The special features are different too.

      I think that this is quite responsible marketing and production because if you buy both editions, you're not spending money twice on the same thing. Basically they are giving us the best value for our cash.

    27. Re:Directors cut? by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2

      No, it'd be a software company.

    28. Re:Directors cut? by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      Ever seen Highlander 2?

      No, and neither have you. It never happened. Please move along.

      Hilghlander 1 and the TV series were both excellent; it was downhill after that. I had high hopes for "endgame," and thought that they may have been able to capture some of what made the TV show so good. Unfortuantly, they only managed to capture what made the last season so blase. C'est la vie, I suppose.

    29. Re:Directors cut? by Snaller · · Score: 2

      Who cut the normal cut then? Didn't the director have any say in the matter?

      No, they don't always. Most of the time its the people who pay the bill that have final say. This is not art remember, this is bu$ine$$

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  7. Thank you, slashdotting! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just as I read down to the part with the screenshots from the new scenes, I got this terrible sense that what I was doing was wrong, and I should not be spoiling this with these low quality, out of context previews. Thankfully, the server cooperated and was unable to load most of the images I was trying to protect myself from. For the first time ever, slashdotting did some good!

    1. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by bughunter · · Score: 2, Redundant
      Maybe more good than you first thought.

      The operators of the site have conveniently redirected requests for the review to "http://slashdot.org/slashdot-should-cache-article s-its-going-to-slashdot?s=&threadid=101554"

      Brilliant!

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    2. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Even though now that the initial announcement has been up a while, such that the slashdot effect has reduced and I can get to the site now, they still leave the broken URL up there - thanks, idiots.
      Because a site is DoS'ed now they assume it will always remain so. (DoS = Denail of Slashdot).

      (Or someone cracked in and put that URL there.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    3. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Hm ... they're idiots, because Taco is too inept to cache pages so that people's web sites don't get shut down? Your flames ought to be pointed in his direction.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Brush up on your reading comprehension. I wasn't complaining about the caching. I was complaining about deleting the link. The slashdot effect is very temporary, so don't permanently break the link to fix a problem that won't be there in an hour or two.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I understood you perfectly. (Perhaps your thinking skills need a little work, though.) It's not their job to handle a Slashdotting, and it's inappropriate to call them idiots when Slashdot is the one causing the problem. Rather than complaining about them, you should complain to Taco that if he would cache sites, then webmasters wouldn't be forced to take down the linked content.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    6. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a few years ago people did a bunch of papers on the /. affect. Anyway, it's pretty bad until your article gets off the front page.

    7. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      It's not their job to handle a Slashdotting, and it's inappropriate to call them idiots when Slashdot is the one causing the problem.

      That is self-contradictory. Either it's not their job to handle a slashdotting (which is where I stand, which is why I'm saying they shouldn't have taken the link down), or "Slashdot is the one causing the problem". Make up your mind - which is it?

      It's not Slashdot's fault that someone's site doesn't handle a spike in traffic. When you put up a site it's for the express purpose of letting interested people visit it. All slashdot does is publicise it.
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    8. Re:Thank you, slashdotting! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I don't follow. How is that self-contradictory? It's not their job to handle the problem caused by Slashdot. I've reread my thatement several times, and cannot find anything resembling a conflict there.


      You claim: "When you put up a site it's for the express purpose of letting interested people visit it." The slashdot effect prevents that. Slashdot is in a position to solve the problem -- easily. It's simply the ego of the /. editors that makes this happen.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  8. Re:/.ed by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    oh my almighty god, i'm just the second poster, but that forum has already been /.ed

    Slightly offtopic, but this always amazes me. Why oh why are people surprised that an article gets slashdotted straight away? Do you expect it to get slashdotted after, say, 150 posts? Knock,knock people - if it can hold up to the traffic to get us to 150 posts it isn't going to get slashdotted.

    --
    Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  9. Don't click that link! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    Don't you know that if you see an unseen scene you destroy it?

    There's something very quantum mechanical about all this, I'm sure. But if you're content to merely contemplate the unseen scene, you can come near the Tao of Middle Earth.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Don't click that link! by 216pi · · Score: 1, Funny

      I really don't want to know how many cats had to die for this /.ing.

    2. Re:Don't click that link! by Chazmati · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Half of them!

    3. Re:Don't click that link! by danger42 · · Score: 2

      Don't you know that if you see an unseen scene you destroy it?

      There is an easy fix for this: Put a towel over your head.

      --
      -nd
    4. Re:Don't click that link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, some moderators have no sense of humor. :)

  10. Wow (Here is the text) by Vilim · · Score: 1, Redundant

    GREAT! I didn't buy the regular version because I stuck out for this version, Now it is finally here! Wow, the link is sloooow. Here i copied out all the text. Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition Studio: New Line Year: 2001 Rated: PG-13 Film Length: 208 minutes Aspect Ratio: 16X9 Enhanced Widescreen (2.35:1) Subtitles: English One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them Published in 1954-1955, J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece Lord Of The Rings trilogy still remains one of the most definitive works of imaginary fiction ever written. The extraordinary efforts to get this trilogy to the screen is a testament of how popular these stories are today. Featuring 350 constructed sets, 100 or more locations, and 20,602 extras, this is the largest film project ever undertaken by a studio. New Line took a huge gamble and risked everything by filming all three movies back-to-back without knowing the fate of the original release. That gamble obviously paid off as Fellowship of the Ring grossed a phenomenal $157 million in just 12 days and held the No. 1 spot for weeks since its opening. Perhaps the most significant testament to the film's success lies in how magnificently the book was adapted to the screen. I was a pre-teen when I first read the entire trilogy. The book sparked my imagination like no other book has since. Never would I have believed that anyone could capture my imaginations and put them on the screen. Production designer Grant Major and art director Dan Hennah have created a visual masterpiece -- from the wonderfully pleasing Shire to the soaring elven town of Rivendell to Moria, the dwarven caves deep inside a mountain. The incredibly varied terrain of New Zealand was used to great advantage in the movie, and it was very difficult to tell what was natural scenery and what was constructed set or even computer generated effects. Set in the mythical land of Middle Earth, in an era of goblins and wizards, the evil Lord Sauron and his dark forces once again threaten to rule all. The fate of the world relies on who possesses the one ring, which holds unspeakable power. Lord Sauron created the ring out of the fiery depths of Doom Mountain years and years ago, but it was during a battle where Sauron was killed that the ring changed hands. The ring is lost once again only to be found by Gollum, a lowly creature that gets poisoned by its power. The ring is eventually stolen by a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. And so, this is where the trilogy begins..... As the film opens, Gandalf the Wizard (Ian McKellen) is visiting his old Hobbit friend, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm). When Bilbo makes a daring announcement to a group of party guests, Gandalf realizes that Bilbo is in possession of a very important ring. Gandalf convinces Bilbo to give up the ring, and give it to the very young Frodo (Elijah Wood). When the secret of the ring is finally revealed to the old Wizard, Frodo is warned to leave the Shire at once. However, evil agents are already on their trail. Pursued by dark riders, the Hobbits are forced to team up with a mysterious stranger named Strider (Viggo Mortensen). The reluctant adventurers make their way to Rivendell, a temporary safe haven, where a grand council decides the ring must be destroyed by returning it to the fire from which it was made. With reluctance, nine chosen companions embark on a most perilous quest. The Director's Cut It is not until you watch this Director's cut that you realize how much bigger-than-life this epic has become. The film becomes a totally fresh and new viewing experience mainly thanks to the film's cleverly reconstructed 15-minute opening, which is included in the addition of 30 minutes of footage that greatly flesh out the characters and bring more depth to the story. As many times as I have seen this film in its standard version, this new cut was an awe-inspiring experience for me. I'll never watch the standard version again. The Lord Of The Rings: FOTR arrives in a brand new 4-disc edition housed inside an attractive book-like casing. The movie is spread across discs One and Two. This means that nearly 1:45 minutes into the film, you will need to switch to disc two in order to continue. The upside is that this enables the inclusion of four new audio commentaries as well as several audio formats including English Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround and English DTS ES 6.1 Surround. The downside is that when you switch discs, you must go into the SETUP area and once again set your audio preferences. The bottom line is that you will not be able to watch an uninterrupted presentation of the film. Discs Three and Four contain The Appendices, Part I and II. The added footage What I am going to do now is break down the list of added footage for you, as well as including a handful of screenshots. Please note that most of this is from memory, and there is always the possibility I may be describing a scene that was already in the standard version. I think my memory is pretty good and that I will come very close to being pretty accurate. Also please realize that since a small amount of added footage comes through quick cuts, I may have missed a few minor additions. Disc One - In a newly reconstructed introduction to the film (and before the opening credits), we listen to added narration from Bilbo as he sits at his table working on his memoirs. We learn more about the Hobbits...their passions for food, planting and celebration. More importantly, we are introduced to the ring at a much earlier interval. - During a fireworks display, Bilbo welcomes guests and hides from others as he has extended dialogue with Frodo. - In the library. Gandalf reads more of the history of the ring, complete with added flashback. - A party has Merry and Pippin dancing on a table as others talk about the war brewing beyond their borders. - A beautiful sequence where in the woods just outside of the Shire, Sam and Frodo peer upon a group of wood-elves on their way to the harbor beyond the grey towers. Sam also complains about not being able to sleep amongst the roots. - An extended sequence inside the Prancing Pony regarding Strider. - Additional dialogue with Strider. The Hobbits talk amongst themselves as to whether they should trust Strider and if he really is a friend of Gandalf. - A walk through a marsh filled with mosquitos (great rear channel effects here). Later, Strider sings beneath the light of the moon about a love he lost. - Saruman consulting the "eye of Sauron" which tells him to "build an army worthy of Mordor." - Frodo awakens after being stabbed by the blade of a Wraith. He is in a thicket surrounded by Troll statues. - As the Wraiths chase Arwen Undómiel, they stop at a river crossing. One of the wraiths calls out to her, demanding she give up the halfling. (not certain if the wraith call was in the original version) - A really cool sequence that takes place during the roundtable meet in Rivendell. As Frodo places the ring on the table, Borimor goes for it, claiming it is a gift to be used against Mordor. A spell is raised that literally shakes the mountains. Disc Two - A brand new sequence opens the second disc as Aragorn (formally known as Strider) visits the grave of his Mother as Elrond Peredhil reminds him of his destiny. - Elrond bids farewell to the departing nine companions as the fellowship awaits the ring bearer. - A short sequence upon a wintry mountain where Saruman responds to Gandalf, reminding him of the dangers of going into the Moria mines. - A short dialogue sequence where Gandalf asks Frodo to help an old man. Gandalf asks the Hobbit how his shoulder is as both discover how powerful the influence of the ring is becoming. The wizard advises Frodo to only trust himself. We also learn that Gandalf is sensing impending danger inside the Moria mines that will ultimately test him. - Another sequence has Gandalf becoming irate over not being able to find the words to open the doors of Durin that lead the way to the heart of Moria. - Inside the mines of Mordor, against a steep cliff, Gandalf points his way down the chasms as he shows his companions the true wealth of Moria. - A newly found passage into the great hall of the mines of Mordor. Gandalf speaks of the oncoming Balrog. The jump across the bridge is also greatly extended with a new set of stairs to cross and a much earlier arrival of a full-formed Balrog. - As Frodo walks through the woods he hears additional calls of Galadriel, Lady of the Galadrhim. Gimli makes a very uncourteous remark about the lady after being captured by elves. Later, Aragorn tells Frodo that Gandalf's death was not in vain. - The group is handed cloaks and food by the elves as well as parting advice. Galadriel gives gifts to each of the members. Gimli has a very unlikely request. Wait till you hear what he receives. - As the group makes a short stop on shore, there is another sighting of Gollum in the water. Sam pleads to Frodo that he is truly his friend and wants to help. Boromir and Aragorn argue. - An extended battle sequence between Aragorn and the head Orc. - As Frodo embarks on his final journey of this installment, he remembers the words of Gandalf, who briefly appears in flashback. Again, I must stress that all of this is from memory. Please be kind if I made any mistakes here. Fortunately, the added material can easily be identified by going into Select a Scene where asterisks indicate **new scene as well as **extended scene. Please note that I did not refer to this area prior to writing the above scenes. How is the transfer? To say that this is an absolutely flawless transfer and leave it at that would be sort of shortchanging this review -- but it would be the absolute truth. What we have here is an absolutely pristine image that is very close to Hi-Def. The transfer looks absolutely smooth and with extremely accurate colors -- especially in the facial flesh tones. Blacks are rock solid and the picture never becomes too sharp nor soft, giving this film a very natural beauty. This DVD features both English Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround and English DTS ES 6.1 Surround. Even though My system is limited to a 5.1 setup, it wasn't difficult to get totally immersed in the audio presentation. As I usually expect from most DTS tracks, the sound has a very spacial quality to it -- not sounding the least compressed. This is one hell of an aggressive mix with sound that is extremely accurate and detailed. The rear channels are nearly always active throughout, and there's tremendous LFE channel support that adds booming floor-shaking response. This is one of the strongest sounding LFE tracks in memory -- so strong in fact that I was very concerned about blowing out my subwoofer. It really becomes difficult to define a transfer that is as beautiful as this one. Thus far, Attack Of The Clones has become the best DVD I have seen, thanks to its direct digital transfer. I was amazed to see that this film transfer looked almost as good. This tells you much about the effort New Line has put into making this DVD look flawless. Special Features As I sit here with four discs containing over 6 hours of material, I sort of hesitate to move on. What lies before me is over a full day's worth of review material devoted to one DVD package. I will do as thorough of a job as I can with this, but will mostly highlight what you can expect out of these supplements. Disc One and Two As you pop in the DVD, you are welcomed at a Hobbit table where a book, The Fellowship of The Ring opens to reveal a page of menu selections. Disc One contains the first part of the Director's cut which runs close to 1hr. 45 minutes. The side break is at the 1:45 mark where Pippin inquires "when are we goin'?!". A black screen comes up prompting you to continue to Disc Two. From the Special Features menu you can select any one of four commentaries. These commentaries feature: Track One: The Directors and Writers: Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. Track Two: The Design Team: Grant Major, Ngila Dickson, Richard Taylor, Alan Lee, John Howe, Dan Hennah, Chris Hennah and Tania Rodger. Track Three: The Production/Post Production Team: Barrie Osborne, Mark Ordesky, Andrew Lesnie (and a approximately 11 more) Track Four: The Cast: Eliijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Sean Astin, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monoghan, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee and Sean Bean. What is very unique here is that each supplemental audio commentary track is accompanied by a subtitle identifying each different speaker. Now I must apologize in advance. Commentaries are usually the last thing I review. After spending a day writing this one, I am going to briefly touch upon just one of the commentaries. That commentary is of the cast. First, you will be very happy to learn that all of them are here together in one room -- except for Christopher Lee whose tracks seemed to have been recorded separate. Two things of immediate interest here. First, it's a very tame group effort for such a bunch of young cast members. Second, it seems all of these individuals are watching the added DVD material for the very first time as many of them seem to be in awe of what they are watching. McKellen talks about a windy day in the shire and the problem of keeping his hat on. The group never hesitates to point out where each scene was filmed -- especially when an actor crosses from an outdoor set onto a soundstage. You'll also hear the cast talk about "BK", who is Elijah's 3'4" double, used in scenes where height comparison was needed. Christopher Lee talks about some of the falls he had to do, being knocked around quite often (but fortunately not from any great height). A wraith chase through the woods leading the Hobbits to the Ferry is not so fondly recalled here. The boys had an awful time in the pouring rain not only from shoes that went flying off...but by the time they reached the bottom of the hill, they were so exhausted they had to be carried back up. I realize I have merely scratched the surface on the commentaries, but I think all of you understand that I just cannot rewatch 3 hours of material to give you the type of review you want. Disc Three Here begins what is called The Appendices. They are spread out across Discs Three and Four. Let's begin with Disc Three which is titled Part One: From Book To Vision As in the rear pages of the Tolkien books, these Appendices give the back stories and origins of how the mythology of Middle Earth was created. Part One (Disc Three) has 2.5 hours worth of documentary material and Part Two has 3.5 hours of additional documentary material. Let's begin with Disc Three: Part One: From Book to Vision We begin with an Introduction from director Peter Jackson who not only welcomes you aboard, but lays out exactly what you can expect from the two supplemental discs before you. In fact, he gives you several options of how you can best navigate through all of the enclosed material. J.R.R. Tolkien - creator of Middle Earth begins with Peter Jackson talking about the sheer wealth of information that Tolkien brought to his books. From there, we get a thorough background history on Tolkien who became an orphan at the very early age of 12. His Mother actually was the person who inspired him to read, and after her death, he was committed to continue with his literary studies. We learn of his studies of the English language at Oxford, as well as his involvement in the World War where most of the suffering he witnessed had a profound affect on his later writings. Tolkien Biography author Humphrey Carpenter tells us that Tolkien wrote the first installment of the book almost blindly, not knowing what its structure would be, practically shaping it all as he went along. The documentary also explores the phenomenon of the books, thanks to its underlying themes of human existence. (length: approx. 22 minutes) From Book to Script reveals how much Jackson is a real fan of the books, first reading the trilogy at the age of 18. Director of Photography Andrew Lesnie agrees -- this was the first book that really taught him how powerful words could be. We go down the line in interview after interview with cast members and filmmakers like Sean Bean (Boromir), Dominic Monaghan (Merry) and others who talk about their first experiences reading the books. The subject of proposing a three-film deal to New Line Cinema is discussed here, with added comments from filmmakers and cast members such as Christopher Lee (Saruman), who was actually in favor of the decision. The team responsible for shaping the script into a three film story talk a little about what the process was like. The cast members talk about the incredible writing process of the film. John Rys-Davies (Gimli) jokes about revisions of the script that were slipped under his door the night before a shoot. One of the most difficult characters for Jackson and his team was Arwen 'Evenstar' Undómiel, a character that had a very small role in the book series. In order to make her a character with some weight, more material had to be added for her. The scenes around the table of Elrond was also difficult to shoot because of the amount of material that was in the book. We also learn how the evil encased within the ring had to be animated -- given its own character. (length: approx. 20 minutes) Visualizing the story contains a wealth of storyboards, animatics and animation to film comparisons. Here we go... Storyboards and Pre-viz: Making words into images presents Jackson, his effects and miniatures team as they discuss the amount of detail that was involved in order to shoot the film as fluidly as possible. Every single frame in this film was story boarded by Peter. This greatly helped the visual and effects team. Jackson took the storyboard process one step further by creating small models with little figurines so that camera shots could be more accurately conveyed. (length: approx. 13 minutes) There are three early storyboards that are really cool to watch -- especially for the fact that they play as individual movies set against music and dialogue. In addition to an alternate prologue (done with storyboards and CGI), there are two abandoned scenes that have been cleverly recreated for this DVD. Very cool! In Pre-Viz Animatics we watch how computer graphics laid out the blueprint for what was to be filmed, including specific camera angles. The scenes presented here are Gandalf rides to Orthanc and The Stairs of Khazad-Dum. Animatic to film comparisons give you a split-screen look at how two specific scenes look from original storyboard concept to final print. Finally, in this section, Bag End set test is a very nice treat to watch. In a yet unfinished wooden set, film production and set design members partake in a sort of blocking test. It's funny to watch Jackson scurry around the set (acting like Bilbo) as someone holds up a head on a stick that represents Gandalf. (length: approx. 6 minutes) Let's go to Designing and filming Middle Earth... Designing and building Middle Earth takes us through original book illustrations of trolls, Wizards and Goblins that create such a believable environment that you think it was all once real. We take a look at a team of designers who, before the script was finished, put together models and drawings that portrayed a totally believable world inserted in shots of actual New Zealand locations where the stories originated from. There are some very interesting home movies of the models being built, as well as the many drawings that were offered for feedback before sculpturing began. This is a very extensive featurette that goes far more into depth than I could describe here, but it represents the huge collaborative effort of creating the world of Middle Earth. (length: approx. 41 minutes) Weta Workshop takes us to Camperdown Studios, a place that Elijah Wood describes as "Willy Wonka's chocolate factory without the candy". Everything in the film that you saw was made here -- all the armor, all the weapons, the creatures and miniatures. I think you will be mesmerized as you weave through the very tight shop filled with an awesome amount of miniature models (that aren't so miniature). Some of the miniatures were the size of soundstages. All the masks, and yes, hairy feet were created here as well. My favorite part was watching the creation of the Cave Troll made out of plaster and skin. We also learn how impossible it is to create armor, due to all its complexities. (length: approx. 43 minutes) Costume Design introduces us to Costume Designer Nglia Dickson and her 40 seamstresses that created the costumes for the film. Nglia talks about how huge and complex the project was, being very thankful that a lot of designs were already in place before she came aboard. I was absolutely amazed to look at footage of a warehouse lined with rows upon rows of costumes. With original concept drawings in hand, Nglia takes us through each set of characters and how costumes (and their colors) were specifically designed for their race and personality. (length: approx. 12 minutes) There are two design galleries that represent the peoples and realms of Middle Earth. There is such a wealth of information here presented as a slide show that I cannot go through it all in one sitting. Let me just say that it is chock-full of original artist renderings from enemies such as Sauron, The Cave Troll and Orcs to the characters that make up the fellowship. Then there are original drawings of all the realms of Middle Earth that include (among others) The Shire, Bree, Moria and Rivendell. So much material here and so little time. Middle Earth Atlas lays out a large map of the entire landscape as you use your remote to pick a location and see scenes from the film that show how that area was involved in the journey. New Zealand as Middle Earth lets you use your remote to pick particular locations on a map and see where they were filmed. For instance, Rivendell was filmed in Wellington, with its beautiful forests and landscapes. We watch how sets were built against these backdrops. Disc Four Okay, time to move on to Disc Four, Part Two: From Vision to Reality Once again we are treated to an introduction to all the material on this disc. Surprisingly, that introduction comes courtesy of Elijah Wood (Frodo) who tells us that this portion of the DVD covers everything from the film's production right on through the film's release. He also gives you some advice on how to properly navigate your way through the material. Filming The Fellowship of the Ring is divided into four main areas. Let us take a look at them.... The Fellowship of the Cast, as you would expect, takes us through the casting process. Since none of these actors had worked together before, Jackson talks about being nervous once all of them got off the plane in New Zealand, meeting each other for the first time. In separate interviews, the cast members talk about leaving home for an extended period and meeting each other for the first time. You will have a big fat smile on your face as you hear the story of how Billy Boyd (Pippin) and Orlando Bloom (Legolas) first met. Ian McKellen talks about taking a year out of his life, away from home, making new friends. It turned out to be a kind of Boy Scout adventure for the men -- a real boys club. There are some great stories here told by the actors themselves, including one about Sean Astin (Samwise Gangee) being very nervous about a helicopter ride. Another story involves John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) taking a small group of 12 out to a restaurant and ordering enough food for 40 people. I love to hear Billy Boyd tell this story while doing a dead-on impersonation of the actor. This is simply just a fun collection of individual stories from all the cast members that truly show how much they love one another. (length: approx. 34 minutes) I heard the news today oh, boy! A Day In The Life of a Hobbit starts at 5am and takes us through the makeup and prosthetics that go into making a Hobbit. We see how the feet are attached, as well as the ears which absorb sound and make it difficult to hear. There are some really fun home movie footage of cast members in makeup eating and relaxing between film takes. We are also introduced to Elijah's smaller version of himself as we dwell into the art of staging a scene to show proper size proportions. (length: approx. 13 minutes) Cameras in Middle-Earth is a very lengthy look at how so many units of camera crew managed to shoot the entire epic in a remarkably short period of time. Jackson depended on the people that ran these units to be in places he could not. The documentary takes us through the many realms of the film as we visit location after location, watching how each segment was shot. Christopher Lee talks about the unusual amount of takes that Peter Jackson wanted from him, wanting to get words and mannerisms exactly right. Cast members recall trudging through the marshes where the water was absolutely freezing cold while Peter Jackson was by his trailer giggling about it all. It's interesting to watch how outdoor location shots of Rivendale had to be duplicated for later shots done inside of a studio. Lighting was a major importance here. Jackson talks about filming on the snowy mountaintops with helicopters bringing the entire cast and crew aboard...all except Sean Bean (Boromir) who refused to fly, and instead took a ski lift to the top. As the featurette draws to a close, we watch Jackson coordinate the huge fight that comes at the end of the film. It was an incredibly long shoot in blazing hot weather, and there's some great behind-the-scenes footage here that captures it all. (length: approx. 50 minutes) Production Photos contain about 72 stills that were taken on location. Let's take a look at the section devoted to Visual Effects... Scale simply deals with heights. There's a relationship of size between Hobbits and Humans. This featurette looks at things such as scale compositing, forced perspective, and creating sets that properly portray size. There's also a very interesting look at the big rigs used in the film and the small people that drive them. These big rigs were used to make the Hobbit characters seem smaller. (length: approx. 15 minutes) Miniatures begins with Big-atures. Miniature Director of Photography Alex Funke talks about the importance of using miniatures rather than creating them digitally. These miniatures models became the basis for some of the most jaw-dropping visual sequences of the film. The bigger the miniature, the more realistic that model is going to look on screen. We take a look at much of the miniatures used in the film and how they were combined with the live action sequences. (length: approx. 16 minutes) After you are through watching the above featurette, you can browse through hundreds of photos that make up the miniatures gallery. Presented in slide-show fashion, just about every realm from the film is represented here. Weta Digital takes us through the post- production process of adding visual effects to the film. This specially built facility was built to bypass huge costs, in order to create all the digital effects. Of course, you can be assured that you will be shown lots of digital computer effects in this segment, including the creation of the squid creature that grabs Frodo. My favorite part? Taking a look at how the original wraith kings (as seen through Frodo's invisibility) was shot. You see the live actors reaching for what would be Frodo. Coool! (length: approx. 24 minutes) Let's look at Post Production: Putting it all together.... Editorial: Assembling an Epic introduces us to Editors John Gilbert and Peter Skarratt who talk about the immense size of the film project, and the huge amount of footage that ended up in the editing room. There were eight units producing footage daily, and it was up to the editors to sort through 5 million feet of film, bringing it down to 4 million feet. One of the most difficult scenes to edit was Arwen's horse chase scene. There were just hours and hours of footage with horses that had to be trimmed down to just a few minutes. There's also discussion about the scenes that were deleted from the film early on and now being reinserted in this DVD. (length: approx. 12 minutes) You couldn't ask for anything better than this! Anyone interested in filmmaking will indeed cherish Editorial Demonstration: The Council of Elrond, which consists of 36 different takes and illustrates the challenges faced by the editorial team. Six windows play above the final cut of the film. Each of those six windows will highlight a take that was selected by the editor as the one used in the film. Digital Grading talks about shooting footage on location, which looks all too real, and nudging it up a bit -- adding elements that make it look sort of unworldly. This is done by taking a film negative, scanning it, and then manipulating the image with a variety of tools. Once you add colors and highlights it gets scanned back onto the negative. Supervising Digital Colourist Peter Doyle takes us through raw footage and shows how individual sequences were manipulated. Graded and ungraded images are compared inside-by-side windows. (length: approx. 12 minutes) Let's take a look at Sound and Music... The soundscapes of Middle-Earth is all about the sound design of the film. There was a wealth of sound effects that had to be created in the studio. Using high-tech equipment, a small team of artists created sounds that transported the audience to Middle Earth. There are several examples here how sounds were created for many of the key sequences. You'll be surprised how plungers and rubber floor mats became very useful. The biggest challenge was creating the screams of the ring wraiths. How was it done? It was actually the screams of Fran Walsh. (length: approx. 12 minutes) Music for Middle-Earth introduces us to composer Howard Shore who wrote the music that guided our emotions throughout the film. Shore worked on the film for nearly two years. We watch the composer on the soundstage of Skywalker Ranch (where I personally stood not more than 1 month ago), where he conducts the orchestra. We learn how a dialect coach helped put together a song sequence sung by Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn). What surprised me is that he made up the tune himself and was simply looking for the words. The Abbey Road studio is the setting for a chorus of young boys that added the sweet, emotional passages to the film. Later, shore talks about writing a score as if it were an Opera, bringing a certain kind of grandeur to the soundtrack. (length: approx. 12 minutes) Finally... The Road goes ever on is the perfect closing featurette as it looks at the promotional aspects of the film, particularly the premiers where cast members were treated like royalty by their adoring fans. There's some quick footage from Elijah's home movies as the cast arrives at a French premiere. Featured here are hordes of fans, grand speeches of thanks and lots of flying confetti. Peter Jackson talks about the film being more than just a job -- it was a breathtaking experience where friends came together and created something really special. (length: approx. 7 minutes) DVD-ROM content basically takes you to New Line's website that promises updated Lord of the Rings content. Easter Eggs? Check out the reviews on other websites. After spending hours on this review I just did not have the strength to search. I do know there are 2 eggs hidden somewhere in this package. What is not here? With all the added material that is available here it is utterly surprising to find a lack of promotional materials. There are no trailers nor TV spots nor poster stills. Forgiveable? I suppose so. Final Thoughts Seriously folks, my head is spinning. I must have spent 10 hours on this review between watching the film itself and going through two discs of supplemental material. By far, this is the most extensive project I have ever worked on -- and it's no wonder -- Lord Of The Rings is the most elaborate cinematic epic ever, and the journey is just beginning. One might look at this 4-disc package as being complete overkill for the average fan. Fortunately, it isn't the average fan that this set is geared towards. This is a visual encyclopedia that shows every aspect of the film's journey from pre-production to promotion. Most of all, this set is the product of a huge amount of care and dedication that started with Peter Jackson and his team who provided this wealth of supplemental material right on down to New Line Cinema that has produced one of the most beautiful transfers ever to be seen on DVD. It is that reason that I let myself age a full day while writing this review. Consider it a homage to the magnificence of this set!

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  11. Not really the First Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.dvdfile.com/
    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/

    Have both had their reviews up at the beginning of the week. You can also catch reviews of Star Trek III, Spider-man, etc.

    1. Re:Not really the First Review by Flamerule · · Score: 5, Funny
      You can also catch reviews of Star Trek III
      Don't bother, I'll review the movie right here. Let's see... um, Kirk and company hijack the Enterprise and scoot their asses over to the Genesis planet, Kirk's son gets killed, Christopher Lloyd gets iced, and Spock is resurrected on Vulcan.

      Sound about right?

    2. Re:Not really the First Review by blazin · · Score: 1

      How about a spoiler alert next time, you insensitive clod! :)

    3. Re:Not really the First Review by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 2

      And they say odd numbered Trek films suck...

      --

      It hurts when I pee.
    4. Re:Not really the First Review by sxltrex · · Score: 1

      That's not a review. That's a recap.

    5. Re:Not really the First Review by ahess247 · · Score: 1

      Plot wise yes. But don't forget that ST:III established the odd-numbered rule Star Trek sequels. Cases in point of movies that sucked.

      Star Trek: The Motion Picture (I)
      Star Trek III
      Star Trek V
      Star Trek Generations (VII)
      Okay, whether or not it really sucked is up for debate, but other than the crash scene....I think it sucked.
      Star Trek: Insurrection (IX)

    6. Re:Not really the First Review by isorox · · Score: 2

      It's an ok film up until they escape ("Dont call me tiny!", "Scotty, the doors?!", "You wanted adventure, this is adventure! Get in the closet!").

    7. Re:Not really the First Review by govtdog · · Score: 1

      It may not be the first review on the internet of this movie, but they ALWAYS are the first reviews posted on his forum of any movie. It seems to be forum policy for the mods to delete any DVD movie review which is posted on the forum before Ron, one of the owners, posts his review. Simply Silly, IMO?

    8. Re:Not really the First Review by orcrist · · Score: 1

      I thought that was the original screenplay!

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  12. In Other News... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny
    Studio executives and police are on the lookout for a someone who took an early cut of "The Two Towers" and a few items, including a ring. The suspect is reported to be short, with hairy feet and missing a finger. A suspciously accurate review has appeared on the website of Harry Nobbs, Ain't-It-Incredibly Neat.Com, though Harry claims it all came to him in a dream.

    George Lucas was quoted, "There seems to be a bit of this going around."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:In Other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rick McCallum was quoted, as he ran around with a bedsheet pulled over his head, "Doomed! Doomed!"

  13. Edited scenes by NBarnes · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I probably won't be buying this, but I hope someday to have a friend who does (take that, MPAA!) so that I can see the scene where Galadriel dispenses her gifts. Frankly, one of the biggest disapointments of FotR (which, largely, I really enjoyed) was the reduction of Gimli from character to caricature. I'd hope to see in that scene some glimmer of the Gimli that, IMHO, should have been, or have confirmed that Jackson simply had no idea of what to do with a dwarf and decided to settle for Stupid Dwarf Jokes.

    1. Re:Edited scenes by ZaMoose · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rejoice and be glad:

      "- The group is handed cloaks and food by the elves
      as well as parting advice. Galadriel gives gifts
      to each of the members. Gimli has a very
      unlikely request. Wait till you hear what he
      receives. "

      It's in there.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:Edited scenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does them mean the long lost bowling scene will be included?

  14. Other Reviews by Hedon · · Score: 4, Informative

    You may want to check out the review on the Digital Bits as well.

  15. (OT) About your sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe you'd never see that phrase on a Metallica T-shirt... but when I think of them, a similar phrase comes to mind: Arse-grating artists . :-)

    That is all.

  16. OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by brucmack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but what about those scenes that are in the movie that aren't true to the book? Personally, I'd rather see the extra length offset a bit by cutting some of the things that are untrue to the book. Like all the Aragorn-Arwen stuff and the things that weren't supposed to be revealed until later. I mean, this edition is meant to appease those that wanted more from the books in the movie, right?

    1. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Random+Bystander · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but what about those scenes that are in the movie that aren't true to the book?
      It's nice to see *any* movie that is true to its book. I've recently been disappointed with The Sum Of All Fears, and The Bourne Identity for being only mildly close to the plot of the book. LoTR on the other hand, is a much better rendition
    2. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Grr · · Score: 1

      I don't remember reading this part in the book.

    3. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Hear hear! The hobbits were not chased out of Hobbiton. They left according to plan! And Tom Bombadil! Oh to hear him singing and skipping over the hills . . .

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    4. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by yack0 · · Score: 2

      yeah, and it took 13 years for them to leave the shire from the time of Bilbo's Long Expected Party!!

      They really cut those 13 years down quick with a shot of Sam and Frodo leaving the pub.... heh

      --
      -- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
    5. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by iainl · · Score: 1

      "I mean, this edition is meant to appease those that wanted more from the books in the movie, right?"

      Actually, from what I see its more likely to perform a grand job of appeasing my wife, who wasn't that impressed with the original cut of the film. Never having read the book, she didn't know what was happening half the time with the endless series of random monsters we've never been warned about dragged on before they alternately run away or kill them.

      This new cut is mainly adding in extra character background, so rather than simply going 'Hey! Its a Balrog' she will some idea why running away is a really good course of action.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    6. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Parsa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually those scenes were in the appendices. I don't know if you consider those "part of the book" but Tolkien did write them.

      --
      Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
    7. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

      Funny, my wife's view of the movie was totally different. She has never read the books, hasn't even shown interest in reading them, but she really enjoyed the movie.

      Usually she is asking questions non-stop about what is going on during the movie, but LotR: FotR was one of the first movies that she didn't ask any questions. I would lean over after a portion of the film, ready to answer questions and she told me "I got it."

      To top it all off, she bought the DVD for the theatrical version, even thought I told her the Extended version was coming out. "We'll just have both." was her answer.

    8. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Quikah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      rather than simply going 'Hey! Its a Balrog' she will some idea why running away is a really good course of action

      It's a giant demon dripping fire from its skin looking really pissed off. You need a better reason than that to run away?

      --
      Q.
    9. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Why? They are seperate works of art, in seperate mediums. Why require one to mimic the other? This attitude only holds back film.

      But they both depict the same thing: the story. You change the story and you change the thing.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    10. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get it... Let's make a movie based on LOTR.. but the magic stuff will PO the Right, all the heros being white will PO the left, so let's shift the action to downtown Manhattan, circa 1995. Short people don't sell tickets, so let's put Will Smith as Frodo..btw lose that name. Nobody's called Frodo.
      Dress him up nice, give him some funny lines. How about Gandalf. Too old. Get him younger, make him a straight man.

      Orcs... nobody's heard of them, and someone might complain we're being too sterotypical. How 'bout aliens. They don't have any lobbyists. We'll call it 'Fellowship of the Men In Black...'

      Uh, it is nice if someone is making a movie 'based on a book' that the two have some resemblence to each other. this 'art' stuff of 'they are different media, so they can't be alike' is pure crap.
      Admittedly, because a book has 500+ pages to tell a story, and a movie has 1.5-4 hours, many things may need to be changed to be effective. Consider the movie 'October Sky' as opposed to the book 'Rocket Boys'. The movie told the story of the book, but did it in 2 hours instead of 500 pages. And they did it very well. But when the only thing left of the book is the title (consider 'The Witches of Eastwick'), then at the very least, why did some idiot bother paying for the rights to the book? Basically, to try to sucker those who liked the book into seeing the movie, without 6±ering to tell the story that was in the book.

    11. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Nept · · Score: 2

      For the sake of art my ass. When was the last time a film that wasn't true to a book did it for the sake of "art"? Usually it's just corporate heads at the studios not wanting to allow anything over two hours into the theatre. Anything longer makes less money, since less theatres will carry it as they can't sell as many tickets in a day.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    12. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by tbarrie · · Score: 1
      Actually those scenes were in the appendices.

      Not true. The only things in common between the movie scenes and the appendix scenes are that Aragorn and Arwen both appear in both. This was slightly annoying to me, actually. I've nothing against the idea of moving the romance to the foreground, but they could have done it while relying more on the stuff that Tolkien actually wrote.

    13. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by iainl · · Score: 1

      "It's a giant demon dripping fire from its skin looking really pissed off. You need a better reason than that to run away?"

      Well, I kind of thought that myself, but to be fair they've been running away for a good five minutes already before you actually get to see the thing. I think her main problem, though, was that there are all these people being rushed onto screen and then off again at such a pace that we don't really get a chance to catch a breath and get our heads around the scale of the world. Jackson is running at such a pace to cram everything in that establishing the characters that those of us with the books already know has rather fallen by the wayside.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  17. Not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've got a couple of questions.
    1) Were the two (yes, there were two not one) cars removed from the background of the farmyard scene?
    2) Have the forest scenes been added? Many scenes of the forest were cut for looking too jungle-like (LOTR was filmed in New Zealand). Most shots of trees in the movie were of foreign pines and the like.

    1. Re:Not a troll by bmongar · · Score: 2

      Cars? I missed that, can you tell me more specifically what part of the movie, or better yet link to a site with screen shots?

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    2. Re:Not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a couple of questions.
      1) Were the two (yes, there were two not one) cars removed from the background of the farmyard scene?
      2) Have the forest scenes been added? Many scenes of the forest were cut for looking too jungle-like (LOTR was filmed in New Zealand). Most shots of trees in the movie were of foreign pines and the like.


      I don't know which scares me more. The fact that someone watch the movie enough to notice these little flaws or that 5 other people found it to be "Informative" and moderated it up to 5.

      "Not a troll" Score: 5 Scary :-)

    3. Re:Not a troll by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 2, Informative
      1) Were the two (yes, there were two not one) cars removed from the background of the farmyard scene?

      There was only one car. If you look closely you'll see that the other 'car' is smoke coming from a chimney in the distance. The one car has already been removed on the regular DVD.

    4. Re:Not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the 2nd car is smoke, then how come a flash of light reflects off it? Maybe we're thinking of a different 2nd car.

    5. Re:Not a troll by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Many scenes of the forest were cut for looking too jungle-like (LOTR was filmed in New Zealand)

      I don't know what parts of New Zealand you've been to, but I can assure you that most of the forest looks like forest. It certainly doesn't look like jungle. You may be thinking of New Guinea, or some other island somewhat closer to the tropics.

    6. Re:Not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am from New Zealand, I live in New Zealand, I have never set foot outside of New Zealand. I know what forest here looks like. Thankyou:)

  18. Preaching to the Choir by RebelTycoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The group is handed cloaks and food by the elves
    as well as parting advice. Galadriel gives gifts
    to each of the members. Gimli has a very
    unlikely request. Wait till you hear what he
    receives.


    I wonder... Could it be a strand of hair? He forgets, most people have read the book and are eagerly waiting for those cut parts to be re-introduced into the film.

    1. Re:Preaching to the Choir by D4M4DH477X0R · · Score: 0

      Hey! dont spoil it!!

      Some people have only read the book once and can't remember all the little details!

    2. Re:Preaching to the Choir by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

      Little details? A dwarf that falls for an elf so much that he threatens anyone who speaks ill of her with death? (hint - Rider of the Mark)

      Hardly a little detail

    3. Re:Preaching to the Choir by Chas · · Score: 1

      You never know.

      Jackson might have decided to go the "Behind the Green Bushes" route with this one.

      The Fellowship wonders where Gimli is when they see a large thicket bobbing around most dangeously.

      What's this? An Ent? They're not supposed to show up until the next movie!

      Suddenly, out of the thicket walks Gimli, hitching up his britches. Grinning from ear to ear.

      A few moments later, a heavily mussed Galadriel follows, pulling down her robes and trying to straighten her hair.

      Crude? A little. Just be glad I didn't decide to get crude-ER!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:Preaching to the Choir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The significance of that gift is not plain in the LOTR book. However if you look in some more of the JRRT legacy, you will find that Feanor had asked Galdriel for such a gift (and been turned down) to set in crystal also. When she turned him down he used light from the Two Trees instead, creating the Silmarils. Remember too the prophecy of Ulmo that at the end of Time, the Silmarils will be found again and broken open and the Two Trees brought back to life and the Valar and the Elves will grow young again...

    5. Re:Preaching to the Choir by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      Then again, this is the same Peter Jackson that directed Meet the Feebles. One can only hope he doesn't use the same spider as Shelob ;).

  19. Not director's cut. Call it extended edition by Zarhan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm probably nitpicking here, but I would really prefer if everyone would refer to this 4-DVD release as it was intended by Peter Jackson - as an extended cut and not "Director's cut". Peter Jackson has himself explained that he does not like the term "DC" because it implies that there was something wrong, in the original theaterical release. This has been mentioned in almost every interview during the year. Thank you.

    1. Re:Not director's cut. Call it extended edition by iainl · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Indeed, Dan pointed this out to Ron yesterday morning, and so he fixed the title. The body of the text wasn't updated, but if you follow the thread then you'll be aware.

      I'm just glad I read the review yesterday, before it got posted here; even though the pipe to the HTF is pretty massive, its struggling with the combined weight of all its usual load as well as the slashdotters.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:Not director's cut. Call it extended edition by revery · · Score: 3, Funny

      on an added note. Richard Stallman has asked that it be called the "GNU/Lord of the Rings:The Felloship of the Ring - Extended Edition"

    3. Re:Not director's cut. Call it extended edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not, you're not nitpicking, you're just being redundant. Read the billion other posts saying the same thing.

    4. Re:Not director's cut. Call it extended edition by greggman · · Score: 1

      That makes perfect sense since RMS is just like Sauron. GPL:One license to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. ;-(

  20. Here's The Text, but with some formatting by Lev13than · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition
    Studio: New Line Year: 2001 Rated: PG-13 Film Length: 208 minutes Aspect Ratio: 16X9 Enhanced Widescreen (2.35:1) Subtitles: English

    One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

    Published in 1954-1955, J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece Lord Of The Rings trilogy still remains one of the most definitive works of imaginary fiction ever written. The extraordinary efforts to get this trilogy to the screen is a testament of how popular these stories are today. Featuring 350 constructed sets, 100 or more locations, and 20,602 extras, this is the largest film project ever undertaken by a studio. New Line took a huge gamble and risked everything by filming all three movies back-to-back without knowing the fate of the original release. That gamble obviously paid off as Fellowship of the Ring grossed a phenomenal $157 million in just 12 days and held the No. 1 spot for weeks since its opening.
    Perhaps the most significant testament to the film's success lies in how magnificently the book was adapted to the screen. I was a pre-teen when I first read the entire trilogy. The book sparked my imagination like no other book has since. Never would I have believed that anyone could capture my imaginations and put them on the screen. Production designer Grant Major and art director Dan Hennah have created a visual masterpiece -- from the wonderfully pleasing Shire to the soaring elven town of Rivendell to Moria, the dwarven caves deep inside a mountain. The incredibly varied terrain of New Zealand was used to great advantage in the movie, and it was very difficult to tell what was natural scenery and what was constructed set or even computer generated effects.
    Set in the mythical land of Middle Earth, in an era of goblins and wizards, the evil Lord Sauron and his dark forces once again threaten to rule all. The fate of the world relies on who possesses the one ring, which holds unspeakable power. Lord Sauron created the ring out of the fiery depths of Doom Mountain years and years ago, but it was during a battle where Sauron was killed that the ring changed hands. The ring is lost once again only to be found by Gollum, a lowly creature that gets poisoned by its power. The ring is eventually stolen by a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. And so, this is where the trilogy begins.....
    As the film opens, Gandalf the Wizard (Ian McKellen) is visiting his old Hobbit friend, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm). When Bilbo makes a daring announcement to a group of party guests, Gandalf realizes that Bilbo is in possession of a very important ring. Gandalf convinces Bilbo to give up the ring, and give it to the very young Frodo (Elijah Wood). When the secret of the ring is finally revealed to the old Wizard, Frodo is warned to leave the Shire at once. However, evil agents are already on their trail. Pursued by dark riders, the Hobbits are forced to team up with a mysterious stranger named Strider (Viggo Mortensen). The reluctant adventurers make their way to Rivendell, a temporary safe haven, where a grand council decides the ring must be destroyed by returning it to the fire from which it was made. With reluctance, nine chosen companions embark on a most perilous quest.

    The Director's Cut
    It is not until you watch this Director's cut that you realize how much bigger-than-life this epic has become. The film becomes a totally fresh and new viewing experience mainly thanks to the film's cleverly reconstructed 15-minute opening, which is included in the addition of 30 minutes of footage that greatly flesh out the characters and bring more depth to the story. As many times as I have seen this film in its standard version, this new cut was an awe-inspiring experience for me. I'll never watch the standard version again.
    The Lord Of The Rings: FOTR arrives in a brand new 4-disc edition housed inside an attractive book-like casing. The movie is spread across discs One and Two. This means that nearly 1:45 minutes into the film, you will need to switch to disc two in order to continue. The upside is that this enables the inclusion of four new audio commentaries as well as several audio formats including English Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround and English DTS ES 6.1 Surround. The downside is that when you switch discs, you must go into the SETUP area and once again set your audio preferences. The bottom line is that you will not be able to watch an uninterrupted presentation of the film. Discs Three and Four contain The Appendices, Part I and II.
    The added footage
    What I am going to do now is break down the list of added footage for you, as well as including a handful of screenshots. Please note that most of this is from memory, and there is always the possibility I may be describing a scene that was already in the standard version. I think my memory is pretty good and that I will come very close to being pretty accurate. Also please realize that since a small amount of added footage comes through quick cuts, I may have missed a few minor additions.
    Disc One

    - In a newly reconstructed introduction to the film (and before the opening credits), we listen to added narration from Bilbo as he sits at his table working on his memoirs. We learn more about the Hobbits...their passions for food, planting and celebration. More importantly, we are introduced to the ring at a much earlier interval.
    - During a fireworks display, Bilbo welcomes guests and hides from others as he has extended dialogue with Frodo.
    - In the library. Gandalf reads more of the history of the ring, complete with added flashback.
    - A party has Merry and Pippin dancing on a table as others talk about the war brewing beyond their borders.
    - A beautiful sequence where in the woods just outside of the Shire, Sam and Frodo peer upon a group of wood-elves on their way to the harbor beyond the grey towers. Sam also complains about not being able to sleep amongst the roots.
    - An extended sequence inside the Prancing Pony regarding Strider.
    - Additional dialogue with Strider. The Hobbits talk amongst themselves as to whether they should trust Strider and if he really is a friend of Gandalf.
    - A walk through a marsh filled with mosquitos (great rear channel effects here). Later, Strider sings beneath the light of the moon about a love he lost.
    - Saruman consulting the "eye of Sauron" which tells him to "build an army worthy of Mordor."
    - Frodo awakens after being stabbed by the blade of a Wraith. He is in a thicket surrounded by Troll statues.
    - As the Wraiths chase Arwen Undómiel, they stop at a river crossing. One of the wraiths calls out to her, demanding she give up the halfling. (not certain if the wraith call was in the original version)
    - A really cool sequence that takes place during the roundtable meet in Rivendell. As Frodo places the ring on the table, Borimor goes for it, claiming it is a gift to be used against Mordor. A spell is raised that literally shakes the mountains.
    Disc Two
    - A brand new sequence opens the second disc as Aragorn (formally known as Strider) visits the grave of his Mother as Elrond Peredhil reminds him of his destiny.
    - Elrond bids farewell to the departing nine companions as the fellowship awaits the ring bearer.
    - A short sequence upon a wintry mountain where Saruman responds to Gandalf, reminding him of the dangers of going into the Moria mines.
    - A short dialogue sequence where Gandalf asks Frodo to help an old man. Gandalf asks the Hobbit how his shoulder is as both discover how powerful the influence of the ring is becoming. The wizard advises Frodo to only trust himself. We also learn that Gandalf is sensing impending danger inside the Moria mines that will ultimately test him.
    - Another sequence has Gandalf becoming irate over not being able to find the words to open the doors of Durin that lead the way to the heart of Moria.
    - Inside the mines of Mordor, against a steep cliff, Gandalf points his way down the chasms as he shows his companions the true wealth of Moria.
    - A newly found passage into the great hall of the mines of Mordor. Gandalf speaks of the oncoming Balrog. The jump across the bridge is also greatly extended with a new set of stairs to cross and a much earlier arrival of a full-formed Balrog.
    - As Frodo walks through the woods he hears additional calls of Galadriel, Lady of the Galadrhim. Gimli makes a very uncourteous remark about the lady after being captured by elves. Later, Aragorn tells Frodo that Gandalf's death was not in vain.
    - The group is handed cloaks and food by the elves as well as parting advice. Galadriel gives gifts to each of the members. Gimli has a very unlikely request. Wait till you hear what he receives.
    - As the group makes a short stop on shore, there is another sighting of Gollum in the water. Sam pleads to Frodo that he is truly his friend and wants to help. Boromir and Aragorn argue.
    - An extended battle sequence between Aragorn and the head Orc.
    - As Frodo embarks on his final journey of this installment, he remembers the words of Gandalf, who briefly appears in flashback.
    Again, I must stress that all of this is from memory. Please be kind if I made any mistakes here. Fortunately, the added material can easily be identified by going into Select a Scene where asterisks indicate **new scene as well as **extended scene. Please note that I did not refer to this area prior to writing the above scenes.
    How is the transfer?
    To say that this is an absolutely flawless transfer and leave it at that would be sort of shortchanging this review -- but it would be the absolute truth. What we have here is an absolutely pristine image that is very close to Hi-Def. The transfer looks absolutely smooth and with extremely accurate colors -- especially in the facial flesh tones. Blacks are rock solid and the picture never becomes too sharp nor soft, giving this film a very natural beauty.
    This DVD features both English Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround and English DTS ES 6.1 Surround. Even though My system is limited to a 5.1 setup, it wasn't difficult to get totally immersed in the audio presentation. As I usually expect from most DTS tracks, the sound has a very spacial quality to it -- not sounding the least compressed. This is one hell of an aggressive mix with sound that is extremely accurate and detailed. The rear channels are nearly always active throughout, and there's tremendous LFE channel support that adds booming floor-shaking response. This is one of the strongest sounding LFE tracks in memory -- so strong in fact that I was very concerned about blowing out my subwoofer.
    It really becomes difficult to define a transfer that is as beautiful as this one. Thus far, Attack Of The Clones has become the best DVD I have seen, thanks to its direct digital transfer. I was amazed to see that this film transfer looked almost as good. This tells you much about the effort New Line has put into making this DVD look flawless.
    Special Features
    As I sit here with four discs containing over 6 hours of material, I sort of hesitate to move on. What lies before me is over a full day's worth of review material devoted to one DVD package. I will do as thorough of a job as I can with this, but will mostly highlight what you can expect out of these supplements.
    Disc One and Two

    As you pop in the DVD, you are welcomed at a Hobbit table where a book, The Fellowship of The Ring opens to reveal a page of menu selections.
    Disc One contains the first part of the Director's cut which runs close to 1hr. 45 minutes. The side break is at the 1:45 mark where Pippin inquires "when are we goin'?!". A black screen comes up prompting you to continue to Disc Two.

    From the Special Features menu you can select any one of four commentaries. These commentaries feature: Track One: The Directors and Writers: Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. Track Two: The Design Team: Grant Major, Ngila Dickson, Richard Taylor, Alan Lee, John Howe, Dan Hennah, Chris Hennah and Tania Rodger. Track Three: The Production/Post Production Team: Barrie Osborne, Mark Ordesky, Andrew Lesnie (and a approximately 11 more) Track Four: The Cast: Eliijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Sean Astin, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monoghan, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee and Sean Bean.
    What is very unique here is that each supplemental audio commentary track is accompanied by a subtitle identifying each different speaker.
    Now I must apologize in advance. Commentaries are usually the last thing I review. After spending a day writing this one, I am going to briefly touch upon just one of the commentaries. That commentary is of the cast. First, you will be very happy to learn that all of them are here together in one room -- except for Christopher Lee whose tracks seemed to have been recorded separate. Two things of immediate interest here. First, it's a very tame group effort for such a bunch of young cast members. Second, it seems all of these individuals are watching the added DVD material for the very first time as many of them seem to be in awe of what they are watching. McKellen talks about a windy day in the shire and the problem of keeping his hat on. The group never hesitates to point out where each scene was filmed -- especially when an actor crosses from an outdoor set onto a soundstage. You'll also hear the cast talk about "BK", who is Elijah's 3'4" double, used in scenes where height comparison was needed. Christopher Lee talks about some of the falls he had to do, being knocked around quite often (but fortunately not from any great height). A wraith chase through the woods leading the Hobbits to the Ferry is not so fondly recalled here. The boys had an awful time in the pouring rain not only from shoes that went flying off...but by the time they reached the bottom of the hill, they were so exhausted they had to be carried back up.
    I realize I have merely scratched the surface on the commentaries, but I think all of you understand that I just cannot rewatch 3 hours of material to give you the type of review you want.
    Disc Three
    Here begins what is called The Appendices. They are spread out across Discs Three and Four. Let's begin with Disc Three which is titled Part One: From Book To Vision
    As in the rear pages of the Tolkien books, these Appendices give the back stories and origins of how the mythology of Middle Earth was created. Part One (Disc Three) has 2.5 hours worth of documentary material and Part Two has 3.5 hours of additional documentary material.

    Let's begin with Disc Three: Part One: From Book to Vision
    We begin with an Introduction from director Peter Jackson who not only welcomes you aboard, but lays out exactly what you can expect from the two supplemental discs before you. In fact, he gives you several options of how you can best navigate through all of the enclosed material.

    J.R.R. Tolkien - creator of Middle Earth begins with Peter Jackson talking about the sheer wealth of information that Tolkien brought to his books. From there, we get a thorough background history on Tolkien who became an orphan at the very early age of 12. His Mother actually was the person who inspired him to read, and after her death, he was committed to continue with his literary studies. We learn of his studies of the English language at Oxford, as well as his involvement in the World War where most of the suffering he witnessed had a profound affect on his later writings. Tolkien Biography author Humphrey Carpenter tells us that Tolkien wrote the first installment of the book almost blindly, not knowing what its structure would be, practically shaping it all as he went along. The documentary also explores the phenomenon of the books, thanks to its underlying themes of human existence. (length: approx. 22 minutes)

    From Book to Script reveals how much Jackson is a real fan of the books, first reading the trilogy at the age of 18. Director of Photography Andrew Lesnie agrees -- this was the first book that really taught him how powerful words could be. We go down the line in interview after interview with cast members and filmmakers like Sean Bean (Boromir), Dominic Monaghan (Merry) and others who talk about their first experiences reading the books. The subject of proposing a three-film deal to New Line Cinema is discussed here, with added comments from filmmakers and cast members such as Christopher Lee (Saruman), who was actually in favor of the decision. The team responsible for shaping the script into a three film story talk a little about what the process was like. The cast members talk about the incredible writing process of the film. John Rys-Davies (Gimli) jokes about revisions of the script that were slipped under his door the night before a shoot. One of the most difficult characters for Jackson and his team was Arwen 'Evenstar' Undómiel, a character that had a very small role in the book series. In order to make her a character with some weight, more material had to be added for her. The scenes around the table of Elrond was also difficult to shoot because of the amount of material that was in the book. We also learn how the evil encased within the ring had to be animated -- given its own character. (length: approx. 20 minutes)

    Visualizing the story contains a wealth of storyboards, animatics and animation to film comparisons. Here we go...
    Storyboards and Pre-viz: Making words into images presents Jackson, his effects and miniatures team as they discuss the amount of detail that was involved in order to shoot the film as fluidly as possible. Every single frame in this film was story boarded by Peter. This greatly helped the visual and effects team. Jackson took the storyboard process one step further by creating small models with little figurines so that camera shots could be more accurately conveyed. (length: approx. 13 minutes)
    There are three early storyboards that are really cool to watch -- especially for the fact that they play as individual movies set against music and dialogue. In addition to an alternate prologue (done with storyboards and CGI), there are two abandoned scenes that have been cleverly recreated for this DVD. Very cool!
    In Pre-Viz Animatics we watch how computer graphics laid out the blueprint for what was to be filmed, including specific camera angles. The scenes presented here are Gandalf rides to Orthanc and The Stairs of Khazad-Dum.

    Animatic to film comparisons give you a split-screen look at how two specific scenes look from original storyboard concept to final print.

    Finally, in this section, Bag End set test is a very nice treat to watch. In a yet unfinished wooden set, film production and set design members partake in a sort of blocking test. It's funny to watch Jackson scurry around the set (acting like Bilbo) as someone holds up a head on a stick that represents Gandalf. (length: approx. 6 minutes)
    Let's go to Designing and filming Middle Earth...
    Designing and building Middle Earth takes us through original book illustrations of trolls, Wizards and Goblins that create such a believable environment that you think it was all once real. We take a look at a team of designers who, before the script was finished, put together models and drawings that portrayed a totally believable world inserted in shots of actual New Zealand locations where the stories originated from. There are some very interesting home movies of the models being built, as well as the many drawings that were offered for feedback before sculpturing began. This is a very extensive featurette that goes far more into depth than I could describe here, but it represents the huge collaborative effort of creating the world of Middle Earth. (length: approx. 41 minutes)

    Weta Workshop takes us to Camperdown Studios, a place that Elijah Wood describes as "Willy Wonka's chocolate factory without the candy". Everything in the film that you saw was made here -- all the armor, all the weapons, the creatures and miniatures. I think you will be mesmerized as you weave through the very tight shop filled with an awesome amount of miniature models (that aren't so miniature). Some of the miniatures were the size of soundstages. All the masks, and yes, hairy feet were created here as well. My favorite part was watching the creation of the Cave Troll made out of plaster and skin. We also learn how impossible it is to create armor, due to all its complexities. (length: approx. 43 minutes)
    Costume Design introduces us to Costume Designer Nglia Dickson and her 40 seamstresses that created the costumes for the film. Nglia talks about how huge and complex the project was, being very thankful that a lot of designs were already in place before she came aboard. I was absolutely amazed to look at footage of a warehouse lined with rows upon rows of costumes. With original concept drawings in hand, Nglia takes us through each set of characters and how costumes (and their colors) were specifically designed for their race and personality. (length: approx. 12 minutes)

    There are two design galleries that represent the peoples and realms of Middle Earth. There is such a wealth of information here presented as a slide show that I cannot go through it all in one sitting. Let me just say that it is chock-full of original artist renderings from enemies such as Sauron, The Cave Troll and Orcs to the characters that make up the fellowship. Then there are original drawings of all the realms of Middle Earth that include (among others) The Shire, Bree, Moria and Rivendell. So much material here and so little time.

    Middle Earth Atlas lays out a large map of the entire landscape as you use your remote to pick a location and see scenes from the film that show how that area was involved in the journey.
    New Zealand as Middle Earth lets you use your remote to pick particular locations on a map and see where they were filmed. For instance, Rivendell was filmed in Wellington, with its beautiful forests and landscapes. We watch how sets were built against these backdrops.
    Disc Four
    Okay, time to move on to Disc Four, Part Two: From Vision to Reality

    Once again we are treated to an introduction to all the material on this disc. Surprisingly, that introduction comes courtesy of Elijah Wood (Frodo) who tells us that this portion of the DVD covers everything from the film's production right on through the film's release. He also gives you some advice on how to properly navigate your way through the material.

    Filming The Fellowship of the Ring is divided into four main areas. Let us take a look at them....

    The Fellowship of the Cast, as you would expect, takes us through the casting process. Since none of these actors had worked together before, Jackson talks about being nervous once all of them got off the plane in New Zealand, meeting each other for the first time. In separate interviews, the cast members talk about leaving home for an extended period and meeting each other for the first time. You will have a big fat smile on your face as you hear the story of how Billy Boyd (Pippin) and Orlando Bloom (Legolas) first met. Ian McKellen talks about taking a year out of his life, away from home, making new friends. It turned out to be a kind of Boy Scout adventure for the men -- a real boys club. There are some great stories here told by the actors themselves, including one about Sean Astin (Samwise Gangee) being very nervous about a helicopter ride. Another story involves John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) taking a small group of 12 out to a restaurant and ordering enough food for 40 people. I love to hear Billy Boyd tell this story while doing a dead-on impersonation of the actor. This is simply just a fun collection of individual stories from all the cast members that truly show how much they love one another. (length: approx. 34 minutes)

    I heard the news today oh, boy! A Day In The Life of a Hobbit starts at 5am and takes us through the makeup and prosthetics that go into making a Hobbit. We see how the feet are attached, as well as the ears which absorb sound and make it difficult to hear. There are some really fun home movie footage of cast members in makeup eating and relaxing between film takes. We are also introduced to Elijah's smaller version of himself as we dwell into the art of staging a scene to show proper size proportions. (length: approx. 13 minutes)

    Cameras in Middle-Earth is a very lengthy look at how so many units of camera crew managed to shoot the entire epic in a remarkably short period of time. Jackson depended on the people that ran these units to be in places he could not. The documentary takes us through the many realms of the film as we visit location after location, watching how each segment was shot. Christopher Lee talks about the unusual amount of takes that Peter Jackson wanted from him, wanting to get words and mannerisms exactly right. Cast members recall trudging through the marshes where the water was absolutely freezing cold while Peter Jackson was by his trailer giggling about it all. It's interesting to watch how outdoor location shots of Rivendale had to be duplicated for later shots done inside of a studio. Lighting was a major importance here. Jackson talks about filming on the snowy mountaintops with helicopters bringing the entire cast and crew aboard...all except Sean Bean (Boromir) who refused to fly, and instead took a ski lift to the top. As the featurette draws to a close, we watch Jackson coordinate the huge fight that comes at the end of the film. It was an incredibly long shoot in blazing hot weather, and there's some great behind-the-scenes footage here that captures it all. (length: approx. 50 minutes)

    Production Photos contain about 72 stills that were taken on location.
    Let's take a look at the section devoted to Visual Effects...

    Scale simply deals with heights. There's a relationship of size between Hobbits and Humans. This featurette looks at things such as scale compositing, forced perspective, and creating sets that properly portray size. There's also a very interesting look at the big rigs used in the film and the small people that drive them. These big rigs were used to make the Hobbit characters seem smaller. (length: approx. 15 minutes)

    Miniatures begins with Big-atures. Miniature Director of Photography Alex Funke talks about the importance of using miniatures rather than creating them digitally. These miniatures models became the basis for some of the most jaw-dropping visual sequences of the film. The bigger the miniature, the more realistic that model is going to look on screen. We take a look at much of the miniatures used in the film and how they were combined with the live action sequences. (length: approx. 16 minutes)
    After you are through watching the above featurette, you can browse through hundreds of photos that make up the miniatures gallery. Presented in slide-show fashion, just about every realm from the film is represented here.
    Weta Digital takes us through the post- production process of adding visual effects to the film. This specially built facility was built to bypass huge costs, in order to create all the digital effects. Of course, you can be assured that you will be shown lots of digital computer effects in this segment, including the creation of the squid creature that grabs Frodo. My favorite part? Taking a look at how the original wraith kings (as seen through Frodo's invisibility) was shot. You see the live actors reaching for what would be Frodo. Coool! (length: approx. 24 minutes)
    Let's look at Post Production: Putting it all together....
    Editorial: Assembling an Epic introduces us to Editors John Gilbert and Peter Skarratt who talk about the immense size of the film project, and the huge amount of footage that ended up in the editing room. There were eight units producing footage daily, and it was up to the editors to sort through 5 million feet of film, bringing it down to 4 million feet. One of the most difficult scenes to edit was Arwen's horse chase scene. There were just hours and hours of footage with horses that had to be trimmed down to just a few minutes. There's also discussion about the scenes that were deleted from the film early on and now being reinserted in this DVD. (length: approx. 12 minutes)

    You couldn't ask for anything better than this! Anyone interested in filmmaking will indeed cherish Editorial Demonstration: The Council of Elrond, which consists of 36 different takes and illustrates the challenges faced by the editorial team. Six windows play above the final cut of the film. Each of those six windows will highlight a take that was selected by the editor as the one used in the film.

    Digital Grading talks about shooting footage on location, which looks all too real, and nudging it up a bit -- adding elements that make it look sort of unworldly. This is done by taking a film negative, scanning it, and then manipulating the image with a variety of tools. Once you add colors and highlights it gets scanned back onto the negative. Supervising Digital Colourist Peter Doyle takes us through raw footage and shows how individual sequences were manipulated. Graded and ungraded images are compared inside-by-side windows. (length: approx. 12 minutes)
    Let's take a look at Sound and Music...
    The soundscapes of Middle-Earth is all about the sound design of the film. There was a wealth of sound effects that had to be created in the studio. Using high-tech equipment, a small team of artists created sounds that transported the audience to Middle Earth. There are several examples here how sounds were created for many of the key sequences. You'll be surprised how plungers and rubber floor mats became very useful. The biggest challenge was creating the screams of the ring wraiths. How was it done? It was actually the screams of Fran Walsh. (length: approx. 12 minutes)

    Music for Middle-Earth introduces us to composer Howard Shore who wrote the music that guided our emotions throughout the film. Shore worked on the film for nearly two years. We watch the composer on the soundstage of Skywalker Ranch (where I personally stood not more than 1 month ago), where he conducts the orchestra. We learn how a dialect coach helped put together a song sequence sung by Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn). What surprised me is that he made up the tune himself and was simply looking for the words. The Abbey Road studio is the setting for a chorus of young boys that added the sweet, emotional passages to the film. Later, shore talks about writing a score as if it were an Opera, bringing a certain kind of grandeur to the soundtrack. (length: approx. 12 minutes)
    Finally...

    The Road goes ever on is the perfect closing featurette as it looks at the promotional aspects of the film, particularly the premiers where cast members were treated like royalty by their adoring fans. There's some quick footage from Elijah's home movies as the cast arrives at a French premiere. Featured here are hordes of fans, grand speeches of thanks and lots of flying confetti. Peter Jackson talks about the film being more than just a job -- it was a breathtaking experience where friends came together and created something really special. (length: approx. 7 minutes)
    DVD-ROM content basically takes you to New Line's website that promises updated Lord of the Rings content.
    Easter Eggs? Check out the reviews on other websites. After spending hours on this review I just did not have the strength to search. I do know there are 2 eggs hidden somewhere in this package.
    What is not here?
    With all the added material that is available here it is utterly surprising to find a lack of promotional materials. There are no trailers nor TV spots nor poster stills. Forgiveable? I suppose so.
    Final Thoughts

    Seriously folks, my head is spinning. I must have spent 10 hours on this review between watching the film itself and going through two discs of supplemental material. By far, this is the most extensive project I have ever worked on -- and it's no wonder -- Lord Of The Rings is the most elaborate cinematic epic ever, and the journey is just beginning.
    One might look at this 4-disc package as being complete overkill for the average fan. Fortunately, it isn't the average fan that this set is geared towards. This is a visual encyclopedia that shows every aspect of the film's journey from pre-production to promotion.
    Most of all, this set is the product of a huge amount of care and dedication that started with Peter Jackson and his team who provided this wealth of supplemental material right on down to New Line Cinema that has produced one of the most beautiful transfers ever to be seen on DVD. It is that reason that I let myself age a full day while writing this review. Consider it a homage to the magnificence of this set!
    Release Date: November 12, 2002

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:Here's The Text, but with some formatting by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      Well, the one scene I was hoping for isn't there: the "Cloak of Many Colors" exchange between Gandalf and Saruman. Some of the best and most important stuff in the entire book regarding wizards. Maybe it'll be in Two Towers for some reason, but I really can't trust directors and writers that would miss the power and importance of that scene (in favor of THREE repeats of Sauron losing his finger, Sam drowning in slow-mo, etc.)

  21. Tom Bombadil by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While he may have been an untewrtesting diversion in the book, he is one of the many aspects of LoTR that would make it a bad film. films need a lot more focus, and a long section that doesn't really affect the plot would put viewers off in droves.

    1. Re:Tom Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course, Tom Bombadil did give one of the hobbits the sword that killed Sauron's general in the last book. The only reason the sword killed him was that it was an ancient sword of his enemies that came from those burial mound things.

    2. Re:Tom Bombadil by Jim+Norton · · Score: 4, Funny

      Interesting diversion? I found him to be the Jar Jar Binks of Lord of the Rings...

      --
      -- Jim
    3. Re:Tom Bombadil by clarkc3 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      . films need a lot more focus, and a long section that doesn't really affect the plot would put viewers off in droves.

      While I would agree, there is other little things they could've included that would've helped. I got a very differnt impression of Boromir from the movie compared to the book. They completely cut out the scene where they get trapped in the mountains and its the efforts of Boromir with the help of Aragon that they survive. All I got from the movie is he doesn't seem to care about anyone but himself. And then theres the whole issue of where they are going after Gandalf dies, Aragon does NOT say 'we must go on to Mordor', he is filled with indecision, and the movie kind of irked me when they changed that.

    4. Re:Tom Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how they are going to handle the parts of book 3 where Tom Bombadil comes to the aid of the light side of the force to fight in the big battle. Are they going to add a Tom Bombadil or creatively write him out of that too?

    5. Re:Tom Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Instead Merry (or was it Pippin) got that sword from Aragorn, descended from one of Sauron's ancient enemies.

    6. Re:Tom Bombadil by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      The main difference between the two is that an in-depth study of LOTR will reveal a richly textured and very interesting character, while an in-depth study of Ep1 will not only underscore how inane Jar Jar really is, but reveal the poverty of the story as a whole.

      While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    7. Re:Tom Bombadil by junkgoof · · Score: 1

      And it did not kill anyone, just injured a nazgul.

      --
      You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    8. Re:Tom Bombadil by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2

      Well, it injured the *greatest* of the Nazgul, slowing it down long enough for the Rohan woman to kill it. And that was in the second book, not the third, if I remember.

    9. Re:Tom Bombadil by Jim+Norton · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The main difference between the two is that an in-depth study of LOTR will reveal a richly textured and very interesting character, while an in-depth study of Ep1 will not only underscore how inane Jar Jar really is, but reveal the poverty of the story as a whole.

      While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.

      Still, I don't believe most people hated Jar Jar because he wasn't really an interesting character. They hate him because he's too "cutesy" and annoying. This, to me, is Tom Bombadil in a nutshell, despite how fleshed out either character is (or isn't)

      I was glad to see that the TB storyline was not in the movie. It really would have ruined the dark, erious mood of the movie.

      --
      -- Jim
    10. Re:Tom Bombadil by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1
      All I got from the movie is he doesn't seem to care about anyone but himself

      I don't know about that. Remember the scene where he was teaching Pippin and Merry how to fight? He really did like them. And there in the end he rushed in and gave his life trying to save them. The Ring made him do some bad things, but he wasn't totally bad.

      Speaking of annoying changes, one that really irked me was the inconsistency regarding what happens when someone tries to use the Ring. In the Council of Elrond, Aragorn says, "You cannot wield it. None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone.", which was not at all what the book said. On the other hand, Gandalf and Galadriel both made it clear that they were capable of using the Ring, although their intentions would have been twisted into evil. Someone who wasn't familiar with the books would have been really confused by that.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    11. Re:Tom Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bleh, Tom did *not* just give them anything. Tom rescued them from the Barrow Wights and in their stronghold is where they found those daggers of westerness (well, not exactly, I'm borrowing from the Angband game here, but it's accurate enough, given that we don't know that much of those weapons save that they were intended to be used against Sauron & co.).

      Frodo, of course, carried Sting & wore Bilbo's mithril mail.

    12. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      It was in the third.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    13. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I remember, ALL four hobbits got ancient swords from the barrow downs, from their mini-adventure being captured and held in the wight's lair.
      (I NEVER liked the Tom Bombadil part of the story - it felt like it didn't fit one bit, but I did wish they would have kept some of the Barrow Downs in there. The Barrow Dows were important for two reasons: 1 - They explain why the swords the hobbits carry the rest of the story are magic, which as you mention becomes very important in the last book. 2 - It's a character development moment for Frodo, who plays the hero for the first time in the book by getting his friends out from the Barrow Downs with the help of the ring. The movie portrayed Frodo as much more of a chicken than he was in the book. In the book his problem was being too heroic and standing up to the bad guys when he was outclassed and really should have been running. In the book, thats' how the Ringwraith stabbed him with the magic blade that nearly killed him - Frodo jumped forward in front of his friends and tried to interpose himself between the wraith and his friends. - attacking it with his newly aquired barrow-down sword. He's a much more likable character in the book - very selfless and brave despite the fact that he isn't very good at fighting. One of the themes of the book is how he has to learn to use the help being provided to him by his friends and not carry the burden all himself.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    14. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Tom's depth of character never surface in LOTR. The histories published later, which were NOT meant to be necessary reading to understand the story are the only place he gets fleshed out. Take that away and look at JUST the story as it was meant to be told and he seems very shallow and silly and out of place.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    15. Re:Tom Bombadil by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      Funny, I've never actually read anything outside the canon, other than the Silmarillion, which has nothing new, or really nothing at all, to say about Tom. So I've satisfied your prerequisite of taking all the other stuff away.

      Com gosto nao se discute. You can't argue with taste, as the Brazilians say.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    16. Re:Tom Bombadil by belroth · · Score: 2

      It was in the SIXTH book - in the third volume :-)

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    17. Re:Tom Bombadil by pfurlong · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few facts:

      It's a little-remembered fact that LotR is indeed six books, with two per printed book.

      The Rohan woman was Eowyn. She did indeed kill the Nazgul lord, after he (and his flying beast) had landed on Theoden (the King of Rohan) and his horse, and was getting ready for a feast.

      Sauron did not have a general. The Nazgul were important, but held no such rank, nor was there a heirarchy. Gothmog was the Lieutenant of Sauron, and that's about it.

      Sauron did indeed work for Morgoth, aka Melkor.

    18. Re:Tom Bombadil by belroth · · Score: 2
      I liked the film but the trivialising of Frodo grated - the stabbing on Amon Súl as mentioned but also his defiance of the Nazgúl at the ford was an important 'growth point' - he was very badly injured but still managed to resist. Giving this to Arwen downplays Frodo too much.
      I was wondering if this was either 1) to make a less heroic character that the public might relate to more easily and/or 2) to make his transformation more striking - though I suspect it's the former.

      Conversely while I wish Tom was in the special edition I understand the cinematic reasons for his absence and building up Arwens role was not unreasonable.

      btw Jackson doesn't like 'Director's Cut' as he regards what is released as the DC.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    19. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      It *IS* always correct usage to use the word "book" to refer to the physical thing made of pages between one set of covers, even when the author chose to split up the story into further "books" inside that thing. "Book" is one of those words in English with multiple definitions. I am under no requirement to use the word in the same context Tolkien was.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    20. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2
      I liked the film but the trivialising of Frodo grated - the stabbing on Amon Súl as mentioned but also his defiance of the Nazgúl at the ford was an important 'growth point' - he was very badly injured but still managed to resist. Giving this to Arwen downplays Frodo too much. I was wondering if this was either 1) to make a less heroic character that the public might relate to more easily and/or 2) to make his transformation more striking - though I suspect it's the former.
      But the transformation is completely in the opposite direction from the book then. In the book he's a bit too foolhardy and overt in the beginning and has to learn later how sometimes cowardice is the prudent choice. In the movie it looks like they'll end up going the opposite direction.
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    21. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2
      Then what the heck is this "depth" you see in him? I can sum up the character in five lines:
      1. I'm a really old and powerful part of the world, more powerful than anyone else alive.
      2. Oh, darn, wait, that would make me able to fix the problem with the ring myself - we have to change that or we don't have an excuse for a story - uhh - okay I'm tied to this part of the world and can't leave so someone else has to do it. Phew.
      3. My wife is really hot, in a magical otherworldly way.
      4. I'm kinda flighty and "not all there" for some reason.
      5. Here, have your ring back and finish the adventure.
      His introduction to the story didn't really add anything at all interesting to the tale.
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    22. Re:Tom Bombadil by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    23. Re:Tom Bombadil by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      Actually, JRR Tolkien did not want/ choose for the book (meaning, "The Lord of the Rings") split up into smaller volumes, although he had written it in three parts. That was a decision on the behalf of his first publisher. The second disc of the now "older" DVD set explains this in great detail.

    24. Re:Tom Bombadil by belroth · · Score: 2

      In that case it's in the first book. (Of the one-volume printing).

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    25. Re:Tom Bombadil by belroth · · Score: 2

      Cowardice is not the same as caution, or having the wit to know when and how best to proceed.
      This sets up the climax at Orodruin where the ring causes Frodo's failure, or temptation.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    26. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      I'm well aware of that. That was my point. It was stupid to call me wrong for saying it was the third "book", when "sixth book" is just as wrong, as is "first book" - it's one of those words in English that has different meanings depending on context.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    27. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      I'm trying to explain that its BOTH! - depending on which of the multiple definitions of "book" was being used. Chiding me for not calling it the sixth book makes as much sense as chiding me for calling part of my computer a "bus", saying "but it has no wheels and can't take any passengers - so clearly it's not a bus". It's about CONTEXT. English is an imprecise language.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    28. Re:Tom Bombadil by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Cowardice is not the same as caution

      SUBjectively there is a difference. OBjectively there isn't. The difference is contained entirely in the connotation, which isn't part of the official meaning of the word.
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    29. Re:Tom Bombadil by belroth · · Score: 2
      English can be quite precise if one wishes to take sufficient trouble, most people don't bother - myself included.
      You could say that languages are imprecise (restricitng ourselves to human languages) without needing to specify English.

      Anyway in no sense would I consider myself to have chidden you, that has conotations of rebuke and passion in my comments that were and are not present. If you feel that my comments were chiding I might suggest that you book some sessions with a therapist :-)
      (I feel the need to start adding emoticons)

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    30. Re:Tom Bombadil by belroth · · Score: 2
      OBjectively there isn't. The difference is contained entirely in the connotation, which isn't part of the official meaning of the word.
      From the OED:
      Cowardice:
      want of courage to face danger;faintheartedness;pusillanimity

      Caution:
      4 . The taking of heed; 'provident care, wariness against evil' as a kind or quality of conduct... prudence in regard to danger.

      The distinction does appear to be part of the words definitions.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    31. Re:Tom Bombadil by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      My, My, someone has a bit of a persecution complex. I wasn't going to reply at first, but seeing as how this guy said the same thing that went through my head, I couldn't resist. I never called you "wrong", I merely made a clarification (something the English language demands more frequently than should be). So, in rebuttle, it is stupid for you to say it is stupid for me to call you wrong, as I never called you wrong in the first place. The world is full of varying and contrasting opionions, that is what makes it an interesting place. ;)

    32. Re:Tom Bombadil by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
      He didn't really like them, but all he did was want to do whatever necessary to keep his people from being overrun by Sauron. He just saw thm as not as able to help his people as much as he would've liked. Eomer even has high praise for him (Boromir) in regard for how he would've done anything for a victory for Minas Tirith in the Two Towers.

      As for other changes, interesting how with no Tom Bombadil, they took out the only other character to wear the ring besides Bilbo and Frodo

    33. Re:Tom Bombadil by MatthewB79 · · Score: 1

      And Sam Gamgee, who wore the ring at the end of The Two Towers. While rescuing Frodo from the Orcs.

  22. The Appeal of Knowlege by Thenomain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Heaven forbid that people expand their education, or that a popular movie offer an in-depth look at what goes into filming on this scale. Even if they go to show that making a movie is no different than day-to-day living in some areas, that's still something I, at least, didn't know before. Education, instruction and de-hyping Hollywood sounds like positive goals, to me. I'm looking forward to it.

    If you don't care, or if you already knew, then do what a lot of people are going to do anyway: Get a copy from a friend who shelled out the extra bucks for the Director's Cut. (Or get the Cut and don't watch the extra footage.) No one's forcing you to watch it, just to pay for it, and not necessarily even that.

    --
    This now concludes our broadcast day.
    1. Re:The Appeal of Knowlege by gowen · · Score: 1

      Hey, all I said was "I don't see the appeal". I find them dull. I don't mind if you like 'em (whatever floats your boat) or that studios are immoral for producing them and that they should be banned.

      I just said I didn't like 'em. Sheesh.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:The Appeal of Knowlege by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Funny

      I share your pain, friend, but you're in the wrong forum to complain about it. Remember, this is the place where, back in July, they interviewed Piers Anthony with a specific mind to quiz him about the word processor he uses to write his novels.

      I'm still cleaning the coffee off my monitor from the spit-take I did on that one.

  23. not very journalistic by green+pizza · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although I don't like the review itself - I think it is a bit dry and not very journalistic

    Unlike, of course, the fine prose found on Slashdot.

  24. You Maniacs! You blew it up! by iainl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    God Damn You All To Hell!!!

    So this is why the HTF has turned to soup this afternoon. Thank goodness I read Ron's review when he posted it a couple of days ago. Now, if you wouldn't mind, we've got some seriously unimportant film trivia to talk about.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    1. Re:You Maniacs! You blew it up! by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way. At least AVS Forum is safe, and HTT is still around... *sigh* Gotta get my fix of front projection home theater untill my AE200 ships from PJ.

    2. Re:You Maniacs! You blew it up! by travis_boi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The sad thing is they have two dual-proc servers with RAID arrays, on round-robin DNS, and it's still getting the living crap hammered out of it.

      (I admin their servers...)

    3. Re:You Maniacs! You blew it up! by yack0 · · Score: 1

      but how much bandwidth you got to the site?

      Ther'es so many possible bottlenecks...

      --
      -- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
    4. Re:You Maniacs! You blew it up! by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 2

      The sad thing is that the Slashdot folks would be rude enough to post a direct link to an image-heavy posting on a message board. HTF has occasional load problems on an ordinary day - now I know I won't be able to go there until the damn story here leaves the front page.

      And for the record, I really dislike story submissions that try to get in the 'first post' by commenting on the story themselves...

  25. Director's Cut? by Oakey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course Jackson isn't happy.

    If he'd had his own way then there'd be rat monkey's running about all over the place, various characters would have flip top heads and Frodo's weapon of choice would be a lawnmower. Damn right Jackson doesn't call it the 'Driector's Cut'.

    *Those who know of Jackson's previous work will know exactly what I'm waffling about.

    --
    "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    1. Re:Director's Cut? by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 2

      And Legolas would fire a bazooka through Orthanc, blowing up a sheep on the other side.

    2. Re:Director's Cut? by Chiggy_Von_Richtoffe · · Score: 1

      missed a-couple....
      * bloody custard
      * ten times the spray-foam
      * and of course...everyone's favourite! Kung-fu priests
      ~"I kick Arse for the lord!"

  26. Posting URL's by dazdaz · · Score: 1

    Can slashdot post the Google cached page? Actually, how do you make Google cache a page? Would'nt this be a better approach to just posting the URL, post the Google cached URL too. So many times these webservers are not fine tuned enough to handle the /. effect.

    1. Re:Posting URL's by 216pi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A page is in Google's cache if it got indexed by the same. You find it using the 'site:' parameter combined with the right keywords... AFAIK there is no way to predict the url to the cached google document.

      No, the page was not yet indexed/cached. I guess it won't ever, since it's URL contains more than two parameters (s and threadid) and google refuses to index active pages with more than one paramenter.

    2. Re:Posting URL's by InShadows · · Score: 1

      well home theatre forum is fighting back. they have a redirect from that link on review that /. created going back to /. - here

  27. Slashdot Author Murders Language: Film At 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Although I don't like the review itself - I think it is a bit dry and not very journalistic, I do think it is still worth a read - even just a glance of the screenshots from cut scenes.

    Good grief. It may not be "journalistic", but is it in English?

  28. I didn't like it by wiredog · · Score: 0
    I much prefer that the homosexual Frodo/Sam subtext remain subtextual. Having it right out in the open like that, well, not good.

    And if I never see Pippin and an Orc doing that to Bill the Pony again it'll be too soon.

  29. Semantics only by eightball · · Score: 4, Informative
    He is not railing against the concept of this DVD, just the concept of "Director's Cut".

    He explained it something to the order of, it makes it seem like his vision was not carried out by the theatrical release.

    1. Re:Semantics only by parliboy · · Score: 2

      Logical extension: if the theatrical release carried out his vision, why's he making the extended edition?

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    2. Re:Semantics only by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Despite the widespread myth to the country, a lot of artists don't have a single unified vision. He could very well see things worthwhile in both versions: he could appreciate the more streamlined, focus aspect of the theatrical release and the more extensive coverage in the DVD release. It's both/and, not either/or.

    3. Re:Semantics only by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Erm. s/country/contrary/

  30. Tom's Greatest Hits by kvn299 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But by cutting him out the film, they miss out on releasing the CD "Tom Bombadil Sings for His Lady!"

    Now on Amazon.com at 20% off!

    1. Re:Tom's Greatest Hits by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

      Curses! And they could have got William Shatner to Play Bombadil Tom as well!

    2. Re:Tom's Greatest Hits by dbretton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but that would have added another 4 hours to the movie...

      Shatner: Ol
      Tom Bombadil is

      a handsome

      fellow
      His shirt
      is bright blue
      and
      his boots .......
      yellow................

      Oh My GOD! There's something out on the WING!!!

      Director: CUT! CUT! CUT! Dammit Bill, get with the program. Why don't you take 5 and give your wife a call or something.... oops... sorry.

  31. cut scenes? by Tottori · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does anyone know if these are game-engine, or pre-rendered?

    --
    use constant PERL_IS_BROKEN => $] >= 5.006;
  32. Re:Director's Cut? (End of trilogy spoiler...) by mccalli · · Score: 3, Funny
    *Those who know of Jackson's previous work will know exactly what I'm waffling about.

    Would add to the Gollum/Frodo thing at the end though, wouldn't it? To paraphrase Brain Dead...

    Sam: "You ate Frodo!"
    Gollum: "Not all of him..."

    Cheers,
    Ian
    (Brain Dead is also called Dead Alive in some places)

  33. Extended extension.. by Dexter77 · · Score: 1

    Director's cut doesn't really give more gredits to the original book. Few more minutes to the movies extends it to cover about 0.1% more of the book. Sure there are more great actions scenes and other unseen 'stuff', but what's the point?

    If you want to see a bit more action the director's cut is made for you, but if you want to know more about the orinigal story, then don't spend your money on the movie - JUST BUY THE BOOK :)

    1. Re:Extended extension.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, no! Because I'm blind. I can only watch the movie so I cannot buy the book!

  34. Re:Director's Cut? (End of trilogy spoiler...) by Oakey · · Score: 0

    Why did this get modded to Flamebait? It was just a reference to Jackson's Brain Dead. sheesh.

    --
    "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
  35. November 12th by tsmit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is the realease date. It's also the release date for Star Wars II, AoTC. Wait a second. They're doing it again!

    It's a conspiracy to get the geeks away from their jobs.

    --
    Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
  36. Re:Director's Cut? (End of trilogy spoiler...) by Oakey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    oops, sorry, my bad. You're right. Ok, why did my original post get modded flamebait? I figured Braindead was one of those little known 'cult' films so those who've seen it would instantly start to envision LOTR crossed with Brain Dead :)

    --
    "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
  37. Is it "better"? by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 4, Funny

    So much for my mod points in this discussion...and no I'm not smoking crack, I just have rather disjointed thought processes.

    Anywhoo,

    I just hope LOTR is not going to turn into something like the Aliens series where:
    You have the original.
    Then the directors cut
    Then the Extended Edition
    Then the Anniv. Edition
    Then the Extended Special Edition.

    Quite frankly, everything after the directors cut just made Aliens into an even longer movie.

    The thing about the Directors Cut version it *The movie made *PERFECT* sense if you'd seen the first one.

    I got LOTR as a gift --*coff*bullshit*coff*-- for my son, knowing, that this extended edition was coming a few more months down the road.

    When I have extra income (/sound of coffee being snerked thru noses) I might get this set...or, heck, borrow it from a friend who does. I've got a few who were waiting for *this specific* edition.

    Errr...decisions, decisions....

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  38. Re:/.ed by Quaryon · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't mean to say that Slashdotters are actually reading the article before posting, do you..?

    Q.

  39. Good old Slashdot by abiogenesis · · Score: 1

    From the summary:
    the whole thing is reviewed dvd by dvd

    From the actual article:
    Please note that most of this is from memory, and there is always the possibility I may be describing a scene that was already in the standard version.

    --

    Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
  40. THANK YOU! by Havokmon · · Score: 1
    Christ, You'd think ONE of those reviews would prominently display the actual release date.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  41. I prefer the DIgital Bits for detailed DVD reviews by Blademan007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews2/lotrfellows hip4disca.html

  42. Tim Benzedrine by wiredog · · Score: 2

    Time Benzedrino. Uhhh. Can't remember the rest.

  43. Moderators... by SPYvSPY · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...please be advised that all posts beginning "In other news..." are inherently lame.

    1. Re:Moderators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when do we get a (-1, lame) moderation option?

    2. Re:Moderators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be so obscenely overused that no one would be able to maintain the karma cap for more than a day...

    3. Re:Moderators... by Moses+Lawn · · Score: 1

      In other news, it has been reported that some people are grumpy and have no sense of humor...

      --

      What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?

  44. Sigh... by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

    Do you all think it's time for /. to have its own cach instead of all these google cache getarounds? It seems lots of sites have been shut down because of the /. effect. Some of the sites being linked to are operated by small-budget webmasters who can't afford to sudden pay $500 in a month for hosting because /. linked to them.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming from some asshole called Jesus IS the Devil and having the email address billgates@netscape.goats.cx I think you're full of shit. Anybody who doesn't believe in a good old fashion slashdotting isn't an American Patriot. So go back to your Christmas Island country and leave us alone.

  45. Re:/.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Knock,knock people - if it can hold up to the traffic to get us to 150 posts it isn't going to get slashdotted.

    Maybe the server won't be overwhelmed, but it is possible that the bandwidth allotted to a site may be exceeded. Some smaller hosters allow X gigs of "traffic" a la yahoo and geocities, etc.

    Delayed slashdotting _is_ possible.

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. All I can say is.... by His+Nastiness · · Score: 1

    after reading that review man ohhh MAN are my pants tight. -Nasty

  48. Oh, come now. by TomatoMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree we didn't get enough Gimli, and I'm as eager as anyone to see more of his experience with Galadriel (and I hear it's there, but I'm not reading the spoilers). But we get glimpses of him: his no-nonsense attempt to destroy the ring at the Council; his firey resolve at Balin's tomb; his (not enough, but observable) booty-kicking in the end battle. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be. Yes, he went for the easy laugh in Lothlorien with the "eyes of a fox - oop!" thing, but that's not entirely out of character with the dwarves' and elves' assessment of each other, even though it wasn't in the book.

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
  49. Careful what you wish for... by erik_fredricks · · Score: 2, Funny
    I can just see the ads in 2027:

    Experience the originals...one last time. .

    Of course, the "Special Edition" theatrical re-release will just have some pointless new CG, and the "restored" scenes with Bombadil in a kilt talking like Butterfly McQueen, and it'll act to pave the way for the "prequels," which will in turn reduce Tolkein's vision to an insulting merchandising ploy and...oops. Wrong icon.
    --

    --

    THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
    Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18

  50. Re:/.ed by jkczyz · · Score: 1

    Nah, we just wanted to look at the pictures.

  51. Nice Screen shots... by Tha_Big_Guy23 · · Score: 1

    Due to excessive load on the server. This board will be down for the next few minutes. We apologize for any inconvience this may have caused. Oh wait... they say for the next few minutes? more like the rest of the day... and the /. banditos strike again....

    Slashdot: +1
    Poor Sap's Website: -1000

    Looks like we'll just have to wait for the DVD to come out to see the cut scenes...

    --
    If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
    1. Re:Nice Screen shots... by GreenHell · · Score: 2

      I prefer the fact that the link now redirects you to:
      http://slashdot.org/slashdot-should-cache-art icles -its-going-to-slashdot?s=&threadid=101554

      I rate it up there with the nasty filenames on Slackware's ftp site the last time /. linked there.

      --
      "I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
    2. Re:Nice Screen shots... by str8 · · Score: 1

      This has got to be the funniest response to slashdotting I've seen yet.

      Will Code for SIG

  52. scenes already present in theatrical version by kavau · · Score: 1
    These scenes, that were presented as new in the review, are already present in the theatrical version IIRC:
    • Saruman consulting the "eye of Sauron" which tells him to "build an army worthy of Mordor."
    • Frodo awakens after being stabbed by the blade of a Wraith. He is in a thicket surrounded by Troll statues.
    • As the Wraiths chase Arwen Undómiel, they stop at a river crossing. One of the wraiths calls out to her, demanding she give up the halfling. (not certain if the wraith call was in the original version)
  53. Gimli the Angry Drunken Dwarf by realgone · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...so that I can see the scene where Galadriel dispenses her gifts
    Erm... you might be thinking of the Late-Nite Cinemax cut of the film there, slugger. Galadriel won't be "dispensing her gifts" to anyone this time 'round. Particularly not to Gimli. What do you think this is, the Howard Stern show?
  54. LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by ChrisWong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since we have a bunch of LotR fans here, perhaps somebody could answer a question that has been bugging me after the first movie. In the movie, Count Dooku^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Saruman merely asks Gandalf to join Sauron's side. In the book, he asks Gandalf to join *him* as a force independent of Sauron. In other words, the guy who betrays both sides in the book only betrays one in the movie. Why was this change made? It hardly seemed necessary, whereas other changes have some arguments in their favor.

    1. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by hcduvall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, the Saruman's use of the orb (forgive me, fellow geeks, for I have forgotten its name) which the movie shows pretty quick has corrupted him to Sauron's side.

      In the literary version, he decides to pursue his own agenda, but it is basically the same as Sauron's. He's a powerful, megalomaniacal figure, good gone bad with hubris. Sort of what should have happened in AotC, how great a story would it have been to have Count Dooku just a misguided good guy? Over the edge? I digress...

      The movie simplifies the story by just putting him under Sauron. He's basically the center of all evil in the world anyway, and everything's his fault. Evil just straight getting lumped together makes for a simpler, less complex story. Could've kept the old story in, frankly, with Saruman's corruption less obvious right away, but hey.

    2. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by thud2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the only problem I had with the movie: the demotion of Saruman from an independent third force, trying to play the other sides against each other, to a mere henchman. I suspect that the change was made in order to present the movie-going audience with a clear delineation - this is the "good team" and that is the "bad team" - and thus avoid any potential confusion. Especially since, in the books, a lot of Saruman's treachery towards Sauron occurs off-camera, so to speak. And who knows, maybe in the next movies we'll see some of that.

      But I would have loved to have seen Christopher Lee give that recruiting speech to Gandalf. Great stuff.

    3. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by shess · · Score: 1

      My take is that Sauron has already had more screen-time in the movie than he did in the entire book. So Saruman obviously has to be the proxy bad-guy. It also provides a nice progression - first we have to kick Saruman's ass, then we go after Sauron - without being too confusing.

      Haven't seen AOTC, yet, but one of the common complaints I've heard was about how it spends half the time in dry political discussion. LOTR could have so easily fallen into that (in fact, that's part of why I like the books!).

    4. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Double+A · · Score: 1

      Gandalf replies to him with some comment like "The Ring serves only one master, not two." He understands that Saruman's ultimate goal is to gain the Ring for himself, and refuses to help.

      It is a pretty terrible change though.

    5. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by MrGeetee · · Score: 1

      Another change to the role of Saruman is illustrated when Gandalf tries to lead the fellowship over Caradhas.

      In the film, it is Saruman who conjures the storm that defeats their efforts. In the book, it is the mountain itself that defeats them.

      This really shows the power that Saruman is able to wield and shows him as a real threat to the quest rather than as "a mere henchman".

      --
      Your mouse has moved. Please wait while Windows restarts for the change to take effect.
    6. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by ChrisWong · · Score: 2
      But I would have loved to have seen Christopher Lee give that recruiting speech to Gandalf.


      Yeah, Christopher Lee's speech to Obi Wan would have been a better match, book-fidelity-wise, if he had delivered that to Gandalf instead of the wimpy Sauron-will-win-anyway speech. What tickled me was how he seemed to have cornered the market for traitor-villain characters recently. Perhaps his screen presence lends itself well to self-justifying monologues.

    7. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus if the movie had kept the Saruman "playing both sides, smooth talker" character they would have had to do the whole "Treebeard can't handle caging living beings and let Saruman go scourge the shire" routine.

      This way they can just kill him off in the two towers and be done with him.

    8. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by MentalPunisher2001 · · Score: 1

      I think it will HAVE to be made.
      Remember when the different "factions" of Orcs fight amongst themselves??
      One faction was the eye, the other was the white hand.

    9. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by MentalPunisher2001 · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly how it works out in the book, however.
      I wonder if they'll even cover the "Sharky" story at the end, or if the movie will end in a climactic victory over Sauron.

    10. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      In the literary version, he decides to pursue his own agenda, but it is basically the same as Sauron's.

      IMO, he's still pursuing his own agenda in the movie. He's just telling Sauron what he wants to hear. Remember, when Saruman asks Lurtz who he serves, Lurtz answers "Saruman"; and Saruman looks pleased.

    11. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      I wonder if they'll even cover the "Sharky" story at the end, or if the movie will end in a climactic victory over Sauron.

      I really hope they put that in, its probably my favorite part of the series. I just love the scene where the Sherrifs try to arrest Frodo and company, and Merry and Pippin all but laugh at them.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    12. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by rickwood · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, the word you're looking for is Palantír.

    13. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Saruman isn't independent in the book either. From memory...

      "A new power is arising. Against it the old allies and policies will avail us not at all....we may join with that power. It would be wise, Gandalf"

      Saruman was a servant of Mordor even in the book.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    14. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      "The movie simplifies the story by just putting him under Sauron. He's basically the center of all evil in the world anyway, and everything's his fault."

      Actually, the true center and creator of evil in Middle Earth was Melkor/Morgoth whom Sauron served as right-hand man in the First Age. In the Second and Third Ages Sauron was simply continuing the malice that had come from his master in the first place.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    15. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      It wasn't him? I remember something like them hearing some voice chanting being echoed arround the mountains, and something implying that it was Saruman. I might be misinterpreting, but that's what I always thought it was.

    16. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by fenix+down · · Score: 2

      Galadriel shows Frodo the Shire all smokey and burning in the movie, right? So they kind of have to do it, at least minimally.

    17. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by dmforcier · · Score: 1

      Tolkein is subtle on this matter (although it's pretty clear on re-reading). The mighty can't be swayed by the arguments of The Enemy to serve him. But their own tendencies can be reinforced and twisted to the outcome Sauron desires. We have two examples here, Saruman and Denethor. (We also have the backstory of the downfall of Numenor, but that's outside the scope of LoTR.)

      Sauron played to Saruman's pride - his opinion of himself as a superior entity. In his mind it was *Saruman* who deserved to wield the ring, to the ultimate downfall of Sauron. He believed that he was good enough to use the ring for Good, and he played along with Sauron as a way to get it within his grasp. Obviously Sauron knew the ultimate outcome would be different. And we know it too, making Saruman a tragic character, not an evil one.

      Denethor, on the other hand, was given to despair. As Steward he already had a somewhat fatalistic view of things because the King - the true champion of the people - never returned. As much as the Steward can try to take the King's place, he is not the King. As a representative of the King he would never treat with Sauron directly so he could not be convinced, but he could be rendered ineffectual. His Palantir was steered so as to give him the worst possible view of the world and strength of The Enemy. The result was catatonic despair. Also a tragic figure.

      I think Saruman is Tolkien's metaphor for the German Army in WWI. They were simply men with the best of intentions doing a nasty job, but (from the point of view of Tolkien and his friends) in service of an evil end.

      All that being said, we have the problem of the book vs. the movie. There's simply no time to make these points about Saruman in film one. In the book the two stories unfold in parallel. We already know about Denethor when we confront Saruman in Orthanc, and Gandalf can have pity on him because we realize what kind of challenge he was facing. He did thoroughly bad things from a good, albeit flawed, intention.

      Making Saruman an out-and-out bad guy isn't such a difference in the big picture. Tragic he may be, but his actions are ultimately evil. If he have to shorthand him as a character, that's pretty much the result. The problem I do have with it is that it eliminates a terrific illustration of one of the most common and dangerous paths to evil - pride.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me!
    18. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by bigdavex · · Score: 2

      In the film, it is Saruman who conjures the storm that defeats their efforts. In the book, it is the mountain itself that defeats them.

      The heros speculate on this point in the book.

      'I wonder if this is a contrivance of the Enemy,' said Boromir. 'They say in my land that he can govern the storms in the Mountains of Shadow that stand upon the borders of Mordor. He has strange powers and many allies.'

      'His arm has grown long indeed,' said Gimli, 'if he can draw snow down from the North to trouble us here three hundred leagues away.'


      'His arm has grown long,' said Gandalf.


      --
      -Dave
    19. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

      A friend of mine read somewhere (not sure where) that the Return of the King segment is going to end soon after the ring pitches into Mount Doom, and that all the "burning Shire" stuff was amply covered in the Galadriel prophecy. The cut was made because today's "leave between the final kiss and the credits" movie audiences generally wouldn't have the patience to watch on for half an hour after the climax. (For similar reasons, an ending segment was cut from Disney's Aladdin that revealed the lamp vendor to be the genie in disguise...nobody stuck around to watch it.)

      Maybe in the four hour edition...

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    20. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Nept · · Score: 2

      The mountain had its own independent evil. There were older things in Middle Earth, beyond Saruman, that could be controlled by the mind of Sauron, or acted on their own (like the Balrog and Shelob).

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    21. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Nept · · Score: 2

      300 leagues - would that refer to Isengard or Mordor? I don't have my map of Middle Earth available.
      But perhaps if it was Boromir who spoke of the "Enemy" he would be referring to Mordor, whereas someone from Rohan would have inferred Saruman as the enemy.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    22. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Nept · · Score: 2

      I think that would suck. But then how would they resolve Grima? He is in the TT played by Brad Dourif, and I doubt he'll just be killed off out of hand (hopefully not like Piter DeVries in the first Dune). They'll have to tie up loose ends somehow, and having Brad Dourif kill Christopher Lee is a dramatic moment that just can't be missed.
      I also doubt that rumor, because it seems that Frodo sailing to the Grey Havens would make a better ending to the movie.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    23. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Nept · · Score: 2

      Keep reading.
      Gandalf refused that way. So Saruman offered a third way. I don't have a copy handy, but he basically said something to the effect that, "there is another way. We could take the ring, etc"
      It is not clear that Saruman (conciously) made himself a servant of Sauron in the book. It is more likely he allied himself with Sauron without intending to serve him.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    24. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2
      Doesn't seem to be just a "rumor." I did a websearch and turned up this article:
      Jackson also mentioned a major part of the Lord of the Rings novel that will be cut from the films: the Scouring of the Shire at the end of The Return of the King. Jackson's only explanation for this is that it didn't really "work," so the films' only homage to it will remain the vision Frodo received from Galadriel's mirror.
      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    25. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by Nept · · Score: 2

      shit.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    26. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by bigdavex · · Score: 2

      I think they mean Mordor.

      --
      -Dave
    27. Re:LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by tbarrie · · Score: 1
      The movie simplifies the story by just putting him under Sauron. He's basically the center of all evil in the world anyway, and everything's his fault.

      No, Sauron's old boss Morgoth is the centre of all evil in the world, and everything's his fault. Sauron is just the most powerful evil being active at the time.

      Speaking of Morgoth, that reminds me of one clever bit in the movie that I really liked. When Saruman is discussing the origins of the orcs, he says they were created by "The Dark Powers". I thought that was nicely done, as saying Sauron created them would annoy purists while mentioning Morgoth by name would be needlessly confusing.

  55. Other reviews.... by flogger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well the slashdottd review isn't the only one out there. (Glad I read it yesterday. (Maybe I should sumbit stories more often.)
    Here are a couple more reviews of the extended DVD.
    This review is a pretty good rundown of the DVDs.
    and
    This one is a rundown of Xoanon's review and there is a nice Question and answer format at the end where fans of, well, the Fan Site write in with their questions. Tons of SPOILERS --you're warned.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
  56. Probably no cars.... by ShinmaWa · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is posted from IMDb's LOTR goofs page regarding the "car":

    Revealing mistakes: ...but more likely "incorrectly regarded as goof". On the film's first theatrical release, a story circulated (reported here) that when Sam tells Frodo that he is now the farthest he has ever been from home, a car is visible driving by in the background (top-right corner of the screen). Arguments ensued. Some said it was smoke from a chimney, others said they saw the glint of sunlight reflected from the windscreen of a fast moving vehicle. In the version of the film released on DVD there is definitely *no* car, only chimney smoke and a one-frame flash of light which *could* conceivably be a car, but not in any sense that could be considered a goof. The original spotting remains unconfirmed, and seems thoroughly unlikely, but we nevertheless report it here because of the enormous interest it sparked at the time.

    --
    The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    1. Re:Probably no cars.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen screenshots from the DVD with two cars in it. Good god, how many cars are there in this movie (lol ;)

  57. One thing they missed on the DC... by bluethundr · · Score: 1



    Too bad they missed this. Oh well...maybe it'll be on the director's cut for TT....

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
  58. No need to worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...short, with hairy feet...

    ...it's Peter Jackson.

  59. To which Tolkien are you referring? by kiwimate · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tolkein always insisted that LoTR was six books, often published in three volumes.

    No he didn't. Au contraire -- he wrote it as one book and was most miffed that it was published as three separate volumes. That was forced on him by the publishers, who were afraid the public wouldn't go for such a lengthy tome. (Depending on which account you read, this either happened right at the beginning or when Ace Books published it in America.)

    1. Re:To which Tolkien are you referring? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Informative
      "No he didn't. Au contraire -- he wrote it as one book and was most miffed that it was published as three separate volumes. That was forced on him by the publishers, who were afraid the public wouldn't go for such a lengthy tome."

      I agree that Tolkien said that LOTR is all one book even though it is published as separate volumes.

      But I disagree that JRRT was miffed that he was "forced" to publish it as three volumes. RoTK wasn't even complete when the Fellowship was published so the publisher couldn't have forced the breakup.

      According to the information in the covers of my copies of the books:

      FoTR: First published in 1954
      TTT: First published in 1954
      RoTK: First published in 1955

    2. Re:To which Tolkien are you referring? by orcrist · · Score: 1

      No he didn't. Au contraire -- he wrote it as one book and was most miffed that it was published as three separate volumes.

      I believe it was one novel, 6 books, published in 3 volumes. Tolkien wanted it to be one volume, but he still wrote it as 6 books.

      -Chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    3. Re:To which Tolkien are you referring? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      It wasn't that they thought the public wouldn't go for a long book. It was that they though the public wouldn't go for a book published ONLY in hardcover without a paperback version - it would hurt sales to only be able to obtain the book in it's most expensive form. This is relevant because a book of that length was almost impossible to get bound in paperback without having it fall to pieces. To make a paperback version, it had to be split into smaller parts, and THAT is why it is now three parts.

      So, in the end the decision to split it was a technical one to accomodate paperback binding technology. It had nothing to do with how long a story the public would tolerate.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    4. Re:To which Tolkien are you referring? by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      And that means absolutely nothing, really. I have a copy of Stephen King's "The Waste Land" with the reciept (showing the ISBN of said book) dated December 7, 1991. The copy info on the book says "First Published: January 1992". Although that's a reverse example, my point is that publishing a book in the 50s would take a tremendous amount of time as compared to today. I belive Tolkien actually finished writing those books sometime in the mid to late 40s (the whole thing has somewhat of a WW2 allegory about it). If you watch the extra disc that comes with the first DVD, his original publisher takes credit for splitting the Lord of the Rings into 3 volumes instead of one massive book.

    5. Re:To which Tolkien are you referring? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      Now that you mention it, I do remember reading something about the book being delayed because of WWII and that Tolkien originally wrote parts of it on the back of British military regulation papers.

      And about the WWII allegory: I am certain that Tolkien always refuted the idea that there was some sort of allegory or symbolism behind LOTR. It's just a book, not Animal Farm.

  60. Why it's so good! by Kagato · · Score: 2

    This summer I got to see Director Robert Meyer Burnett at Convergence 2002 in Minneapolis. Robert directed one of the best Shatner movies of all time. "Free Enterprise". But as of late he spends a lot of his time directing the documentaries you see in DVD extras.

    Everything in the special edition is new. No extras are repeated. And Robert says this is the best work to date.

    His other work includes discs like Tron. Which had some of the best interviews with cast put on a disc. It feels almost like a reunion.

    Out of note, if you had DirecTV for the last month they have been playing the Special Edition of LoTR on PPV. Sans extras of course. Both DishNetwork and DirecTV also had the High Definition version of LoTR theatical version on PPV as well.

  61. The Important Question by ninewands · · Score: 4, Informative

    Will it play on a computer that doesn't run Windows?

    I recently purchased the "Full Screen Edition" of LotR:FotR only to find out that it won't play with ANY of the media players for Linux. Having browsed through the portion of the DVD that is recorded as an iso9660 filesystem, I suspect that it won't play on a Mac, either. I've have checked the packaging carefuly and there are NO indications on the outside that this is the case.

    Since I am, and will remain, Microsoft-free, I'm returning the DVD to Wal-Mart because, as far as I'm concerned, it's a defective product.

    1. Re:The Important Question by kevinank · · Score: 3, Informative
      You don't mention what the problem was that you found in the iso9660 filesystem, but I've used Xine to correctly play through the entire Wide Screen Edition of FotR, so the problem doesn't extend throughout the entire release.

      On the off chance that you are referring to the sticker on the outside of the box that says something like 'Theft Prevention Device Inside', then that refers not to the DVD, but to an electronic theft prevention device that keeps you from walking out the door of the shop with the DVD in your pants. (I was confused by this once myself when unable to get a DVD to play properly on Linux, but I later found that it worked fine on another computer -- the DVDs are multilayer DVDs and some poorly adjusted players won't read the second layer correctly.

      --
      LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
    2. Re:The Important Question by BathTub · · Score: 1

      you should return it for being Full Screen defective also

  62. Home Theater Forum was not the First by Dystopium · · Score: 2, Informative

    I do believe that DVDfile.com Had their review up a day or so before Home Theater Forum did. If you want to see consistant balanced reviews check them out.

    1. Re:Home Theater Forum was not the First by mluton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then of course there is The Digital Bits who have had their review posted for a couple of days now.

      --
      --Michael Luton
  63. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  64. Can you play any movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to blockbuster, get one, come home and try it. Unless your media player has specific support, it won't play because of CSS encoding. Examining it manually won't help - you need to decode it. And good luck finding a decent legal player for Linux - that is what the DeCSS stuff is all about. We want to be able to write our own software to play DVDs, and Hollywood doesn't like the fact that the same technology which we need to play DVDs also allows people to rip and encode them in any format of choice.

    Macs work because Apple has been properly licensed and can decode them. Some Linux machines work because the code is available if you know where to look. Unfortunately doing it is a bit of a headache because most people who have done it are not willing to talk about it or give detailed technical support... (Yes, that list includes me.)

  65. reply by edstromp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gotta like the url they are bouncing us back to:

    http://slashdot.org/slashdot-should-cache-articl es -its-going-to-slashdot?s=&threadid=101554

  66. Can someone please explain to me... by fruity1983 · · Score: 1

    Why this movie is so popular?

    I know all the mods, whipped up into a LotR fervor will mod me down to troll for it, but I dont care as long as someone tells me why.

    Once you get past the hype... this movie was just a bunch of guys, running from place to place, killing bad guys. Basically, it seems to me to be on the same level as Scorpion King, except it doesn't have beautiful and scantily clad women all over the place; they replaced those, mistakably, with smoldering bondage kings and smelly goblins.

    And before you say that I simply look for movies with boobies and booties, I will point out that the cheap thrill is exactly what makes me NOT like LotR.

    Thanks for your time. Please respond to either correct me or ratify me.

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    1. Re:Can someone please explain to me... by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      As a movie it is a very well done movie. After I saw it I asked the same question to a friend of mine. I told him the movie was really good, but I don't understand the crazy devotion people have toward the story.

    2. Re:Can someone please explain to me... by TooCynical · · Score: 0

      I read the books when I was about 13 or 14 and have re-read them on several occasions, including reading them with my kids right before the first movie came out. There is just something about the way that Tolkien wrote that draws you in; immerses you in the tale. The characters are so well described that you can almost smell them. In the scene when Gandalf first enters Bilbo's house I thought - That is just how I imagined it would look.

      I have often been disappointed by movie adaptations of my favorite books but this one just blew me away.

      R

      --
      Homer: Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true!
    3. Re:Can someone please explain to me... by mozkill · · Score: 1

      what makes this book so good is the way that tolkien makes the story seem very possible and believable (because he spent 10 years working out all the details), he doesn't cast redundant details at you on every page (which most books do and that wastes time and space), the main group of characters splits up into the two towers and so its almost as if your reading 2 or 3 books as you approach the end of the novel, and WHAMMO!, it all comes together at the end beautifully. the book can make you laugh, wonder, cry, and pee your pants. there isn't any superfluous details, sex, unneeded violence, stupid characters, or things that defy physics (besides magic). all in all, you get a book that doesn't insult the intelligence of the reader. some people wont have the spatial intelligence to contain the book as they read it, and those people will come out of it wondering why they read it, or quit before the 4th chapter. its too bad for them. this book is an achievement. these movies handle the books as well as the godfather handled its original book. a mighty achievement. the only thing i would have done differently is to NOT have the stupid "super orc" in the films, because he wasn't in the books, and that hollywood piece of shit wasn't necessary.

      --

      -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
    4. Re:Can someone please explain to me... by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      Once you get past the hype... this movie was just a bunch of guys, running from place to place, killing bad guys. Basically, it seems to me to be on the same level as Scorpion King, except it doesn't have beautiful and scantily clad women all over the place; they replaced those, mistakably, with smoldering bondage kings and smelly goblins.

      Not having read the book myself, this is the same feeling I had about the movie... It was an action flick that seemed like it could use some serious editing. There was a lot of cruft that added nothing really to the movie and just sorta made it drag... When I gave this opinion to one of my friends who HAD read the book, he said if they had done more editing it would have ruined the movie... I guess it all depends on what you expect.

      I kinda felt the same way about Harry Potter as well... Somewhere in that two and a half hours was a good movie, it just needed some editing to bring it out. Same problem again... Just dragged at parts and had a lot of stuff that wasn't really relevent to the story.

      My guess, not being much of a book reader myself, is that books spend a lot of time explaining lots of minute details about everything that is going on so you can build a picture in your mind... Since this isn't needed for a movie, a lot of stuff from the book gets put in that really ads nothing to the actual plot. If you've ever watched to-be-continued cartoons, isn't it funny how they can basically summerize the entire plot of the last episode in about 30 seconds? If they can do that, why can't they tell the story of LOTR in ONE three hour movie? Oh yea, it wouldn't make them as much money.

      When ALL three LOTR movies get released, I'm gonna try my hand at crunching them down to ONE three hour movie... I'll bet I can do it. ;)

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    5. Re:Can someone please explain to me... by afree87 · · Score: 1

      I would guess the movie is simply providing a visualization for people who have already read the book :)

  67. Here's the $10,000 question. by ed1park · · Score: 1

    Should I go read the books first and spoil the movie or should I go watch the movie first then read the books?

    1. Re:Here's the $10,000 question. by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2

      Read the books. They're still better, and you can have a nerd's true pleasure at pointing up everything the movie did wrong. In a really whiny, irritating voice.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    2. Re:Here's the $10,000 question. by davidmccabe · · Score: 1

      Without a doubt, the books are at least 20 times better than the movie. Read them.

      Yes, the first volume picks up rather slowly, but it gets really interesting in book three (Two Towers).

  68. The point is... by wfolta · · Score: 1

    that the theater release was butchered. No, I don't mean it didn't match the book in every detail, I mean it was just plain butchered in totally obvious and annoying ways.

    I loved the characters, the look and the feel of the world. But it was choopy in two ways: 1) locally with bad edits, and 2) globally with parts of the story that were obviously filmed then cut out.

    I can't remember specific examples of #1 right now, but I remember scenes in which people stood up, there was a cut, and suddenly they were halfway across a room.

    The example of #2 that stands out is when Gimli is entering the forest and talking about the witch that lives there and bragging how she'll never enchant him. This is the setup for the punchline where he actually falls in (courtly) love with her and adopts her as his Lady. But the punchline was cut, leaving the setup hanging.

    (The setup scene couldn't be cut because it ended with him turning and seeing the arrows of the elves pointing at him and you couldn't cut that out.)

    The first time I saw it, I speculated that they'd cut a half hour of stuff out for the theater and it turns out I was prescient. It just felt like they got the the elven woods and realized they were making a movie that was too long and then turned around and started hacking.

    One thing that I imagine isn't fixed is the lame ending. Talk about a confusing letdown! It should've been a cliffhanger: the men run back to the camp and the hobbits and a boat are gone. As they look around and decide what to do, the audience sees the orcs in the distance with two hobbits over their shoulders but we can't tell which two. Then we see the empty boat drifting down the river. THE END.

    Obviously, it's not a true cliffhanger in the sense that people either don't know or couldn't find out what happens next, but it'd have left with people saying "AWWWWW" in an excited, "you can't do this to me" tone instead of the "HUH?" that I heard and felt.

    1. Re:The point is... by zebs · · Score: 2

      I can't remember specific examples of #1 right now, but I remember scenes in which people stood up, there was a cut, and suddenly they were halfway across a room.

      I can tell you don't watch many movies... if all movies showed that kind of detail then they'd be:

      a) Very long,

      and

      b) Very boring

      The example of #2 that stands out is when Gimli is entering the forest and talking about the witch that lives there and bragging how she'll never enchant him. This is the setup for the punchline where he actually falls in (courtly) love with her and adopts her as his Lady. But the punchline was cut, leaving the setup hanging.

      You wouldn't know unless you've read the book.

      But yeah, the ending was a bit of a let down.

  69. Oh yeah, hope they fixed the Ring by wfolta · · Score: 1

    The mistakes database site doesn't list it, but the ring keeps jumping on and off its chain in the final scenes. As I remember, it switched about four times in the scenes where Borimor confronts him through where Aragorn refuses to take the ring.

  70. Double Standard by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I assume you refuse to use Microsoft software dur to anti-competitive behavior and shoddy quality.

    Then you shop at Wal-Mart.

    --
    >
  71. What your not all waiting for the 5 disk version?? by BagOBones · · Score: 1

    YES there will be a 5 disk version in November
    It has everything the 4 disk version has plus:
    Additonal Products:
    Booklet (12 Pages)
    Magazine - 1. Official Movie Magazine
    Trading Cards
    Bookends

    Disc 5:
    NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - LORD OF THE RINGS: BEHIND THE MOVIE
    Aspect Ratio: Full Frame - 1.33
    Number of Discs/Layers: Single Side - Dual Layer
    Audio: Stereo 2.0 - English
    O and it costs almost twice as much.. but has a nicer case

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
  72. or you could just read the book... by tid242 · · Score: 2
    see subject line: I'm pretty sure the unusual request is in the book as well...

    i agree with this thread's parent however, that i was horribly disappointed with the movie's portrayal of Gimli, as he's truely a gentleman as JT had written, but the movie did a very poor job of portraying this. The movie also did a fine job of villanizing Boremir (sp?) as well me thinks, especially being that he was supposed to be corrupted by the ring, not sleezy from the get-go...

    -tid242

    --

    With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan

  73. Ermmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the blade was made specifically to combat Angmar, King of the Nazgul.

    And Aragorn is descended from one of Morgoth's ancient enemies. Sauron was but one of Morgoth's servants.

  74. LotR plays on GNU/Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only run Debian GNU/Linux, no other OS. I have the widescreen version of LotR:FotR. LotR plays perfectly here on Linux using Mplayer, Ogle, and Xine. If you believe your DVD is defective, return it for a new one.

  75. Were you watching the same movie? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

    I don't know what movie you were watcing but the one I saw showed Saruman chanting a bunch of gobledygook in some unknown tounge. Then he gestured with arms wide, facing the mountains. Then the camera "flew" up to the clouds and out to Caradhas, where you could still hear the whisper of Saruman's words. Then the storm worsens and lightning strikes the cliff above the trail, bringing down the small avalanche of snow blocking the trail. As if that wasn't enough of a clue, Gandalf even utters, "Saruman" after seeing the effect of the storm. And if THAT wasn't enough of a clue, Saruman even uttered beforehand about what Gandalf might have to resort to if he finds the pass blocked. I don't know how much more of a clue you need that Saruman caused the blockage of Caradhas.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  76. Noooo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lisa: Your collecting days are over, Collector.

    Collector: [pulls out a phaser] Stop right there. I have here the only working phaser ever built. It was fired only once, to keep William Shatner from making another album.

  77. Look what they do about slashdotting! by davidmccabe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Notice that they are now redirecting requests to .

    HA HA HA!

    1. Re:Look what they do about slashdotting! by davidmccabe · · Score: 1

      Oops...should have used preview. That's: http://slashdot.org/slashdot-should-cache-articles -its-going-to-slashdot

  78. mod parent down -1 assbandit that cant read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the film, it is Saruman who conjures the storm that defeats their efforts." typical /.er, doesn't read and just kneejerks.

  79. Redirect by Bugmaster · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice the redirect that they set up on the "review" link ? I like it. Maybe Slashdot _should_ cache the articles just like the irate webmasters say...

    --
    >|<*:=
  80. Empathy by omegaware · · Score: 1

    I have read the books twice, but I found the movie lacking. It seemed as if Jackson, in order to meet length requirements, cut out all of the scenes that made you feel for the characters. I was just wondering if anyone else thought that the movie was distinctly lacking in character development?

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but nevertheless I know of several people who, having not read the books, couldn't feel anything for the characters and just took it as a movie about some "short people going around and stabbing things".

    --Matt