Slashdot Mirror


Lord of the Rings: Two Towers Reviews Rolling In

flogger writes "After the first showing of The Two Towers, the reviews are now coming in. They are positive and SPOILER FILLED. Reviews can be found here, here and a short one here." Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.

414 comments

  1. Spoiler filled? by Grylle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like, there is something not in the books?

    1. Re:Spoiler filled? by Ledora · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pictures and sound

    2. Re:Spoiler filled? by Soulslayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, yes.

      It is both spoiler filled for both those that have and have not read the books.

      All info on the new film will be spoilerish for people that have not read the books (a surprisingly large group).

      Information pertaining to specific changes and added scenes as well as descriptions of the flow of the narrative would be spoilers even for the crowd that has read the books.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    3. Re:Spoiler filled? by halftrack · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apologies to whoever on slashdot who once wrote something very similar to this.

      I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters realtime and it looks so realistic. All you have to do is input a text (ASCII not an requirement) and it output gorgeous scenes instantanious.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    4. Re:Spoiler filled? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

      The spoilers:

      The butler did it.

      It turns out that he was dead all along.

      She's a guy.

    5. Re:Spoiler filled? by GCU+Friendly+Fire · · Score: 1
      Like, there is something not in the books?

      Maybe the battle of Helm's Deep turns out differently, Denethor throws in his lot with the Uruk Hai? This obsession with 'spoilers' can be taken too far. If people really don't want to know what happens in the movie they shouldn't watch it or read about it.

    6. Re:Spoiler filled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All info on the new film will be spoilerish for people that have not read the books (a surprisingly large group).

      *gasp* People haven't read the Lord of the Rings and they're reading Slashdot? Isn't that a pre-requisite along with bad speling? Heaven forbid the elitist slashbots don't have something to complain about. Most can't claim to have actually had intercourse with a member of the opposite sex but they'll jump up to say they've read LOTR and watch anime. Not a troll, just the TRUTH.

    7. Re:Spoiler filled? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters in realtime and the output looks incredibly realistic. All you have to do is input some text (ASCII not an requirement), and it outputs gorgeous scenes instantaniously."

      WOW! I know some people who could use one of these...

    8. Re:Spoiler filled? by Omicron · · Score: 1

      Aw man...I was going to say the same thing. It's so funny hearning people talk about spoilers.

      Ooooh! Ooooh! Guess what! I've got a complete preview of the THIRD movie sitting next to my desk right now! Aren't I so cool?

      Spoilers....ever even heard of reading?

    9. Re:Spoiler filled? by bryane · · Score: 1

      I think "spoiler" here refers to telling us something that's in the book but not in the movie? For example, ... well, never mind.

    10. Re:Spoiler filled? by Xsession · · Score: 1

      people who haven't read the book'll need things explained to them anyways, long as they ain't simplefied the film too much. Origianl Trilogy = 100 years odd Film Trilogy = 9 hours odd hmmmm...

      --
      .: not the nine o'clock news .:
    11. Re:Spoiler filled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, her wife is.*rimshot*

      Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the fish.

    12. Re:Spoiler filled? by jallen02 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Another of my favorite responses to the threads about games where people get hung up on FPS.

      Goes something like..

      "That is nothing, I can get several trillion polygons with billions of colors at thousands of frames per second! It is called outside, you should try it some time. Check out the cool wind special effects some time as well ;)"

      Jeremy

    13. Re:Spoiler filled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm reading about it now and I'm not learning a damn thing.

    14. Re:Spoiler filled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't seem to get any channels. All I see outside is snow.

    15. Re:Spoiler filled? by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

      You missed:
      He's "mother"
      Vader is Luke's father
      Samuel L. Jackson caused all those accidents
      He dies in the end. Judas betrays him.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    16. Re:Spoiler filled? by $rtbl_this · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are also some of us (well, me at least) who read the books many years ago and can only remember sketchy details. I don't know if being reminded of forgotten plot points counts as being spoiled, but I'm happier rediscovering them as the films progress.

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
    17. Re:Spoiler filled? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      You guys can do better than that. Just visit here.

    18. Re:Spoiler filled? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      You forgot:

      And the Lone Gunmen buy the farm.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    19. Re:Spoiler filled? by beowulfcluster · · Score: 0

      I've read the books and I'm a fan of them. Some of the changes in the first film were a bit hard for me to take when I first saw it (that might be silly, but that's another discussion), and I would actually not mind knowing a bit more about what kind of changes to expect in order for me not to go ballistic in the theater again.

      So maybe I should go Read The Articles(tm) now, before posting again.

    20. Re:Spoiler filled? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's quite a fun guessing game.

      Guess the movie from vague spoilers. Need to be a little more vague than those ones though. Something like "she and the cat are the only survivors"

    21. Re:Spoiler filled? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Try hibernation mode for a few months.

    22. Re:Spoiler filled? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Need to be a little more vague than those ones though

      Yeah, I can guess some of them for movies I haven't even seen... (Unbreakable, Crying Game, Sixth Sense)

      Something like "she and the cat are the only survivors"

      Alien.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    23. Re:Spoiler filled? by phil+reed · · Score: 1

      Rosebud was the sled.

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    24. Re:Spoiler filled? by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Gandalf kicks some booty in Isengard while Johnny Cash's "ring of fire" plays in the background. It annoys the purists, but I think the scene kicks ass.

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    25. Re:Spoiler filled? by SeXy_Red · · Score: 1

      Actually wouldn't it be infinite polygons with infinite color at an irrelevant frame rate?

      --

      This sig was generated by a barrel of trained kittens for SeXy_Red (550409).

    26. Re:Spoiler filled? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, for complex reasons:How many frames can humans see?

      If there's a question, there's a Google

    27. Re:Spoiler filled? by tigertigr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Outside? Like this?

    28. Re:Spoiler filled? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Well I realize the human mind can process limited amounts of information, but that doesn't stop the information and events from occuring at speeds beyond real-time comprehension.

    29. Re:Spoiler filled? by jallen02 · · Score: 2

      Hehe, yeah. I can't remember where that started. I wasn't claiming to have thought it up, it is just funny :)

      Jeremy

    30. Re:Spoiler filled? by mobets · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is true that the graphics are wonderfull, but the plot sucks and the physics are a little off.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    31. Re:Spoiler filled? by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, you need to learn to read faster. :)

    32. Re:Spoiler filled? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I am going to quote Salon film critic Andrew O'Hehir:
      Actually, my view is that the spoiler obsession, born of the Internet's fan-geek culture, is the enemy of real criticism, real discussion and maybe even real thought, but that's a subject for another time.

      I couldn't agree more. Films aren't jack-in-the-boxes or jokes with punch lines.

    33. Re:Spoiler filled? by GreggBert · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Just imagine a beowulf cluster of those !

      --


      If you don't understand anything I post, please accept that I ate paste as a small boy...
    34. Re:Spoiler filled? by Pastor+Fluff · · Score: 1

      The Boat sinks...

      --
      Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble... can't we just go to Starbuck's for coffee?
    35. Re:Spoiler filled? by telecaster · · Score: 1

      Spoiler? Let me guess, most of the people here watch the movie THEN read the book?

      Huh?

    36. Re:Spoiler filled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The butler, a surviving Nazi, did it.

      There, is that better? :)

    37. Re:Spoiler filled? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      nice blue jam action

      a-ha!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    38. Re:Spoiler filled? by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 5, Funny
      He dies in the end. Judas betrays him.


      Man, you didn't stay until the end of the credits, did you? Yeah, he dies at the end, but get this -- three days later they go to the gravesite, and IT'S EMPTY! Creepy, right? But then he actually like shows up and it turns out he came back to life. Seriously, dude. His old friends are freaked out for a while, but then they get used to it. And then they all hang out on the beach and have this fish barbecue, but I'm not sure what's up with that.

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
    39. Re:Spoiler filled? by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aww, thats just a rip off of the ending of Carrie...

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    40. Re:Spoiler filled? by junkgrep · · Score: 4, Funny

      You left out the easter egg at the end where it's revealed that he's the king of the vampires. His followers drink his body and blood to take on his undying powers and spread out through the world looking to turn others to their master's will.

    41. Re:Spoiler filled? by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Funny
      Maybe the battle of Helm's Deep turns out differently, Denethor throws in his lot with the Uruk Hai? This obsession with 'spoilers' can be taken too far. If people really don't want to know what happens in the movie they shouldn't watch it or read about it.

      Not watch it? That seems a bit extreme.

      Perhaps they should put a new message up at theatres, "Warning, this movie contains spoilers for this movie."

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    42. Re:Spoiler filled? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 2

      HAHA that is a funny mental image, someone mod this up would ya?

      --
      Jeremy
    43. Re:Spoiler filled? by epiphani · · Score: 1
      Perhaps they should put a new message up at theatres, "Warning, this movie contains spoilers for this movie."

      Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

      --
      .
    44. Re:Spoiler filled? by LadyLucky · · Score: 2
      three days later they go to the gravesite, and IT'S EMPTY! Creepy, right?

      There's an off by one error there. It was in fact 2 days later (Friday, Saturday, Sunday).

      Bible SP 1 is expected to have this issue resolved.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    45. Re:Spoiler filled? by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the ents who kicked booty in Isengard, Galdalf just showed up at the end to join in the fun and breaks Saramon's staff. opps, did I just add to spoiling?

    46. Re:Spoiler filled? by jcast · · Score: 1

      It's a cultural issue. Arithmatic hadn't been invented back then, so they were looser about numbers.

      (Actually, I understand that as recently as 40 years ago, an Italian (on Sunday) arranging to meet another the next Sunday would say "I'll meet you in eight days"---it's counted inclusively.)

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  2. Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Funny

    I really wish the media would stop trying to cash in on the events of 9/11. I think this title will upset many people.

    What was wrong with The Lord of the Rings II?

    1. Re:Offensive title by narkotix · · Score: 1

      it didnt help bush's war on terror ;P

      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    2. Re:Offensive title by mgv · · Score: 0, Funny

      I really wish the media would stop trying to cash in on the events of 9/11. I think this title will upset many people.

      Actually, it was the name of the second book a long time before 9/11. In fact, it really has nothing to do with the WTC, except by your own interpretation.

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    3. Re:Offensive title by Rubbersoul · · Score: 3, Funny

      Man the words Hook, Line, and Sinker come to mind from some reason

      --
      man .sig
      No manual entry for .sig.
    4. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the attempted humour was lost on you

    5. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be daft. The novelisation's title can't have been decided on before the film was made.

    6. Re:Offensive title by onnellinen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah. Let's name it "Attack of the Orcs".

    7. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*

      91degrees, I hate you with every fiber of my being.

    8. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Aww, you'd like me if you got to know me.

    9. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it's being renamed The Twin Towers. Or better yet, The World Trade Center, New York City. Or how about, Attack of the Terrorist Drones. Maybe The Phantom Arab Menace? A New Hope for the Al-Quaeda Network? The 'Evil Empire' Strikes Back? Return of the Mujadeen?

      2001: An Urban Crisis Odyssey? Osama of Arabia? The Wizard of Afghanistan? The Day the Earth Watched TV? Birth of a Palestinian Nation? Casabinladen?

    10. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really must be joking. Or otherwise one dumb piece of american. Go to your bookstore, ask for the J.R.R. Tolkien section. Look at the book called the Two Towers, and look at the date....

    11. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Funny

      I looked for the J.R.R Tolkien section, but couldn't find it. Is it anywhere near the fantasy section?

    12. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine says "Published: 2002". I don't know why they brought it out so many weeks before the film, though - it spoils it for us all!

    13. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sexually

    14. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Statistically, I guess some of you ACs may be cute.

    15. Re:Offensive title by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely in line with modern thinking, the Trilogy should realy be

      The Hobbit Episode II, III and IV,
      and then the Hobbit will be released about 20 years from now, along with enhanced Episodes II, III and IV featuring a digitally inserted Tom Bombadil with a Jamaican accent and dreadlocks.

      Or wait, should they be The Silmarillion Episodes III, IV and V

      Or maybe...

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    16. Re:Offensive title by olethrosdc · · Score: 2

      Having read this I skipped to your journal entry. One thing: loads of peeps will have trouble to discern whether you are being sarcastic or honest - really. Just see some of the replies to your post B}

      Boing

      --

      I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)

    17. Re:Offensive title by sk8king · · Score: 1

      I congratulate you, 91degrees on acquiring so many mod points on your trolling adventure. It should be called a fishing expedition because you not only got a lot of points, you also got a lost of responses from people who thought you were serious. I'd say you caught your limit.

    18. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I know. And I guess it's a little irresponsible to leave it there considering how many people just don't get it. I did consider rewriting it, but there will still be some who don't get it.

      As for the above post - Well, it's a troll. That should be obvious to just about anyone. The fact that some people are fooled by it is not my fault. But this is essentially a harmless practical joke. The worst that can happen is people feel a bit stupid about believing it, and learn to be a little more sceptical next time someone seems unbelievably stupid.

    19. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hillarous, did you come up with that yourself? How old does a joke have to be before it's modded redundant instead of funny?

      (Older than beowulfclusters, 3. Profit!, and CowboyNeal I suppose!)

    20. Re:Offensive title by Gropo · · Score: 2
      I congratulate you, 91degrees on acquiring so many mod points on your trolling adventure
      Wouldn't that technically be "orc-ing"?
      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    21. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Osama the Grey"?

    22. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm... no one seems to understand this, but the parent post was a joke... and a funny one if I might say so. Lighten up people!

    23. Re:Offensive title by artemis67 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I vote for:

      Lord of the Rings II: Electric Boogaloo

      and maybe a huge dance number on the battle front with Michael Jackson and 40,000 orcs.

    24. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Wasn't expecting it to do so well really. It's such an old joke after all. I was expecting a few comments in the same spirit perhaps, but not people actually thinking I was serious.

    25. Re:Offensive title by Dodger_ · · Score: 1

      I personally like, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Twin Towers".

      --
      Dodger_
    26. Re:Offensive title by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2

      I hear the new title will be The Two Trolls.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    27. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, however it's understandable that some people think it's serious. If you check at google there were surprisingly many americans last autumn that commented two towers - twin towers case. Not all of them were joking.

    28. Re:Offensive title by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Dude, Where's My Ring?"

    29. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First: you should write 09/11/02, because in History there is a least another tragic 09/11, the 09/11/73 ( if you don't know what it stands for, you're an ignorant ).

      Second: the second book of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, was named "The Two Towers" about 50 years ago, so I don't understand your point.

    30. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      First: you should write 09/11/02

      Why? What happened then?

      because in History there is a least another tragic 09/11, the 09/11/73

      Yes, but there is a difference - firstly It happened before I was born. Secondly there was some popular support for the coup. The fact that they replaced one oppressive dictactorship for a worse one is unfortunate, but it doesn't make the world trade centre events any less sad.

      ...you're an ignorant

      Isn't ignorant an adjective?

      Second: the second book of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, was named "The Two Towers"

      It probably wasn't as offensive back then, it being before terrorists flew planes into the world trade centre. This being the post 9/11/01 world, I think they should consider a more sensitive title.

    31. Re:Offensive title by provolt · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't that technically be "orc-ing"?


      No. The term trolling is a fishing reference, not a fantacy reference. You put something out there and see if people will bite. Usually people do.
    32. Re:Offensive title by JonnyElvis42 · · Score: 1

      Man the words Hook, Line, and Sinker come to mind from some reason

      Hey now, that's offensive to fish! Why not call it something nice and neutral like "_____".

      Doh! That'd offend vertical lines. How about using a generic symbol, and we could just call it, "The Film Formerly Known as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers".

    33. Re:Offensive title by Gropo · · Score: 2
      You put something out there and see if people will bite. Usually people do.
      Like this post's parent, for instance ;D

      You say troll-ato, I say trawl-ayto ;D
      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    34. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you should write it 11/9[/02] and cop on to how the rest of the world writes dates.

    35. Re:Offensive title by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Possibly, but the odds are *drastically* against any of them being Female...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    36. Re:Offensive title by mgv · · Score: 2

      Wasn't expecting it to do so well really. It's such an old joke after all.

      Yeah, right. People have been making that joke for years, no?

      I was expecting a few comments in the same spirit perhaps, but not people actually thinking I was serious.

      I knew it was an inane comment, but I couldn't absolutely rule out that 91degrees was just ignorant. More importantly, it was distinctly possible that some the people reading the post might think it was based on fact.

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    37. Re:Offensive title by Alrocket · · Score: 1

      Hehe. You just left out the "Dumb Americans." sign-off.

      Al.

    38. Re:Offensive title by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      hm. It's good, real good. But can you work terrorists in there somewhere?

    39. Re:Offensive title by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 2

      "Or wait, should they be The Silmarillion Episodes III, IV and V

      Or maybe..."

      Or maybe we should take in account all the "lost tales" and other unfinished stories and rename FOTR such:

      "The Silmarillion: Episode XXXIV: The Lord of The Ring: The Fellowship of The Ring"

      and rename TTT:

      "The Silmarillion: Episode XXXV: The Lord of The Ring: The Two Towers".

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    40. Re:Offensive title by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Too funny :)

      But.... considering the content of one of the easter eggs on the FotR special edition discs, I don't wanna know where your ring is.... *grin*

    41. Re:Offensive title by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 2

      I wish Osama bin Laden didn't try to cash in on the Tolkien fandom.

    42. Re:Offensive title by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, it should be 11/9/01 (European). Or if you're actually talking about the rest of the world rather than Europe - 2001-09-11 (ANSI/ISO).

      Always felt bigendian was the most logical format anyway. Especially when followed by a time. This gives [millenium][century][decade][year][month][date] [hour][minute][second] - see how we get the nice neat sequence. It also means that a simple numerical sort wil get the dates in the right order.

    43. Re:Offensive title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you supremely stupid or what??! Because Two Towers is the name of the fucking book by Tolkien, you moron, written a hell of a long time before the Sept. 11th tragedy!!!!

      I really despair for humanity, with lame-brains like you out there - can't you fucking read a book, or what.... (rhetorical q.)

  3. Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by heldlikesound · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just a heads up to all the peps out there it holdin' down. If you buy the special edition super ultra limited DVD box (with the bookend thingies), enclosed is a free pass to see TTT in the theaters, or theatres depending on your pondsidage.

    --


    Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
    1. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by kvn299 · · Score: 1

      I was impressed with the pass/ticket enclosed in the DVD set. It's not just some "Get in Free" coupon, but a document sort of like a check. I'm assuming that those "NO PASSES" rules that many theaters have will not apply to this. Guess I'll find out today when I go and prepurchase the ticket.

      Anyone else use theirs yet?

    2. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by Phosphor3k · · Score: 5, Informative

      Got news for you buddy; the free ticket also comes in the special extended edition WITHOUT the bookends. That is to say, the 25$, 4 disc version also includes it.

    3. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

      You don't need the 'bookend thingies' version, the regular boxed version will suffice (read: all 'extended edition' DVD sets contain the free tickets for The Two Towers). Those 'bookend thingies' are the Argonath, the large structures featured near the end of the Fellowship of the Ring.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    4. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by PjotrP · · Score: 1
      Im glad the marketing department of Lord Of The Rings has learned a lot from da master of all things movie marketing (and being greedy). First release the super dvd version (first rule is to never release a normal version, why even have a normal version when instead you can start at "super" level.). A couple months later you release the limited edition super version (it includes some documentary about the movie that has been used for marketing purposes on tv anyway and increases the value with 10 dollars although it seemed free enough when seen on tv). Another little while later you can release the extra special super release. (this one features the commentary of the cast on their own movie, as seen on tv. and what makes it really special even the director gives his view on the movie, perhaps even a whole audiotrack!). While director cuts originally might be best served 10 years later why not do it the same year? the super special extra limited edition of the director's cut (which features between 10 and 30 extra minutes which generally dont really help a story anyway) is the final release you do within the year of the first cinema release. (you can always rebox stuff and release something next year).

      now the brilliant stuff to learn from mr lucas... release a box set with BOTH movies in one compilation. Sure! you can even make it a lil cheaper than buying both movies separately, because your target audience probably has already bought both separately anyway...

      Another brilliant trick is that you can start this whole thing all over again whenever a new medium is released and pushed into consumers houses. More than enough money to fund some anti-piracy laws... life is good!

      --
      PjotrP
    5. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 2

      Not in Canada? I didn't get a free ticket and it says nothing on the packaging either...

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    6. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      I bought mine in Canada from Amazon.ca, and it most definately did not come with a ticket.

      Of course, it wouldn't matter if it did, since the local theater (yes, there's only one, welcome to new brunswick) is shining up it's "NO PASSES ACCEPTED" sign, as they always do when a big movie comes out.

      Considering the ticket is only good for a week or two (Dec 18-Dec 31 I think) it's easy to see why they do this: every sale of a dvd set gets them a guaranteed 'ticket' for the opening of the next film. So that way when the film opens they can count all those tickets as box office.

      How important is the opening box office to a movie? Look at Solaris. Good movie, but people shyed away from it on opening. That was the kiss of death, and now it will be gone in five weeks.

    7. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by Phosphor3k · · Score: 2

      This isnt a normal "pass". Its "movie cash". Which, according to the contract they have signed with about 90 theater chains, is as good as cash when it comes to buying a ticket. The "ticket" that is in the box, is actually a movie cash voucher good for up to 10.50 towards a ticket to TTT during that specified time. So hence, it is not a pass in the traditional sense, and , assuming your theater is part of a chain that movie cash has a contract with, they will take it.

    8. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by pjp6259 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My DVD set (bought at WalMart) actually came with TWO passes in it. So for $25 I got two passes worth $8.50 each. Overall It only cost me $8 for a four DVD set. Best. Deal Ever.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    9. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by BryanL · · Score: 1

      And they can give you a free pass to the movie because if you bought the extended version you are more likely to see the movie several times already. They are not losing too much money.

      Besides, I don't know anyone that bought the extended version that didn't buy the theatrical release as well.

    10. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not the the United Kingdom it doesn't.

    11. Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      *whimper*

      Not in the European version :(

      But I got a ticket already anyway :)

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  4. Spoilers?!? by halftrack · · Score: 5, Funny

    What have the world come to when the submitters warn the /. crowd about spoilers in a LOTR movie. Doesn't the entire /. crowd know it by heart?? It ... makes me sad.

    --
    Look a monkey!
    1. Re:Spoilers?!? by markz · · Score: 1

      Arwen wasn't in the book..... How's that?

    2. Re:Spoilers?!? by halftrack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not a spoiler. A spoiler reveals details that are crucial for the events of the movie so that you'll know how it ends. Arwen was only put in the film purely because she's a female and because she increases the filmatic appeal. It's not like she's going to make Sauron win.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    3. Re:Spoilers?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Sauron doesn't win? Thanks, you ruined the whole series for me.

    4. Re:Spoilers?!? by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

      " It's not like she's going to make Sauron win."

      Wow, wouldn't that be a change from the book? Not that we haven't seen movies that take those sort of liberties with the story.

      "Based on the novel by XXXX" can mean as little as "Some characters have the same names as the ones in the book."

    5. Re:Spoilers?!? by captainstupid · · Score: 1

      According to a recent article in TIME magazine, the Arwen/Aragorn love story is to some degree told in the appendices (of LOTR or one of Tolkein's "lost tales", I'm not sure). I have yet to verify this personally.

      --
      "Anyway, long story short... is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling...." - Abraham Simpson
    6. Re:Spoilers?!? by thaigan · · Score: 2

      Yes, this is true. I can't point you at anything directly, but my wife has read The Silmarrilion and told me some of the stories.

      --

      42
    7. Re:Spoilers?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hated LOTR. My wife took me and I wanted to escape after about 45 minutes. I also hated Star Wars I and II which she also wanted to see. She is useless in technology but I read Slashdot daily, build PC's from scratch, mess with Linux distros, tweak windows and write articles on it for the local (real paper not internet) computer magazine. Why does being a tech geek necessitate a fetish for fantasy stories with elves, quests and magic? ICK!

      I thought LOTR might be great for people who read the books but as a movie... I wished I'd worn a tie so I could strangle myself.

    8. Re:Spoilers?!? by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that huge chunk in the appendicies isn't part of the book.

      Hey, let's ditch Elvish, it's only in the appendicies!

      Dork.

    9. Re:Spoilers?!? by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      It's true. I've read them a million times. Unfortunately, there's a REASON that they are in the appendices: they don't belong in the main story, and are nowhere near as interesting. Tolkien himself was clear on this point: he can't do romance, and didn't really want to.

  5. Re:Oooh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It IS released simultaniously, world-wide.
    The press just get to see it before anyone else so they can pimp the film in the media for two weeks before us plebs get to watch it.

  6. LOTR by Konster · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I've never read the books.

    Where can I get the Cliff's Notes?

    1. Re:LOTR by IwannaCoke · · Score: 1

      I quick search on http://www.cliffsnotes.com/ will show you that there are no cliff's notes for TTT. They do however, have notes for The Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit.

    2. Re:LOTR by Konster · · Score: 2

      Man, what the FUCK is wrong with you people. It was a JOKE. A bad one, but it was a joke.

    3. Re:LOTR by ferkelparade · · Score: 1

      Not exactly Cliff's Notes, but here's the book-a-minute synopsis...

      --
      frotz grue
    4. Re:LOTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cliff's Notes for LotR look something like this.

      "Remember Bilbo? His son/daughter/relative, Frodo, is homosexual. BLAH. You're done. Yay! Go outside!"

      I wish I had Cliff's Notes the first time I dented my brain with this granite block of prose. They should use LotR as a screening tool for socialist organizations. If you can read LotR all the way through without asking yourself, "Why the FUCK am I doing this?" then congratulations! You have absolutely no self esteem.

    5. Re:LOTR by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2

      For those who didn't get the joke, Gradesaver has excellent Cliffish-like notes for all three LoTR titles as well as the Hobbit.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    6. Re:LOTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, lousy troll.

      If you can read LOTR and enjoy it, congratulations, you are literate (as opposed to merely having the ability to read). If you can't read it and enjoy it, you are a typical product of either exposure to modern literature or to modern TV media: in either case, non-literate. Being able to read doesn't entitle you to call yourself literate.

  7. Not in the book... by Hoarse+Whisperer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Turns out Frodo is Sauron's son.

    1. Re:Not in the book... by tanveer1979 · · Score: 4, Funny

      moderation totals:Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=2

      Funny information isnt it... moderators repeat after me: I wont have crack early in morning,
      I wont have crack early in morning,
      I wont have crack early in morning,
      I wont have crack early in morning,
      ......
      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    2. Re:Not in the book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even worse, Sam is his sister!

    3. Re:Not in the book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even worse, Sam is his sister!

      Yes, Gandalf was wise enough to separate them at birth and hide them, knowing that magic has always been strong in their family.

    4. Re:Not in the book... by lightweave · · Score: 2

      I often wonder about moderation but this time beats it all. :) Seems the moderators are gone crazy just by hearing that LOTR II is released. What will they do if the third part is on the horizon???

    5. Re:Not in the book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THey will float up to the ceiling and explode while everyone chants RENEWAL.

    6. Re:Not in the book... by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 2

      And the real names of Merry and Pippin are R2D2 and C3PO.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  8. Am I the only one ... by guybarr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... who reads some reviews only after seeing the movies ?

    seriously, some movies I'll see no matter what the reviewer says,
    LOTR is one (three) of those.

    I'll read the reviews solely for the purpose of getting other people's take on the movies. Like the "discussion" part of an article comes after
    the "results" section.

    I know it sounds sick but hey ...

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  9. Ents walk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ents walk? This spoils the movie for me!

    1. Re:Ents walk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's an Ent?

    2. Re:Ents walk? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      What is a Leonard Nimoy?

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  10. Spoilers right in the story by daffmeister · · Score: 5, Funny
    I am ready to see Ents walk.

    Well that's ruined that bit for me.

    1. Re:Spoilers right in the story by ivrcti · · Score: 1

      Actually, that (seeing Ents walk) is the part I was waiting to see as well. Hope they do a good job of it!

    2. Re:Spoilers right in the story by warrior_on_the_edge_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lucky he didn't mention the ent tripping over a tree root.

    3. Re:Spoilers right in the story by Rockenreno · · Score: 1

      his shouldn't spoil it for anyone who hasn't read the book because they probably have no idea what ents are...

      --

      Forecast for tomorrow: A few sprinklings of genius with a chance of DOOM!
  11. I can wait... by SoSueMe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After seeing the first movie, which wasn't bad, I can wait.
    In fact, it is entirely possible that I will wait until the "Final" movie is released and get the "Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel) Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut" and waste a whole week watching it.
    Or I might just keep my money in my pocket and read a good book.

    1. Re:I can wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your input. We appreciate it. Really, we do, please keep posting.

    2. Re:I can wait... by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

      Why would you want the directors cut ? Directors cut is what runs in the theater.

      The real version is the the one that has not been cut that much, it is the extended edition. I have it on DVD.

    3. Re:I can wait... by Mika_Lindman · · Score: 1

      "Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel)Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut"

      Its going to cost 15000$, and include 130 dvds. 23 different cuts of the movies, and 3000 hours of behind the scenes footage.

    4. Re:I can wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the first Movie wasn't bad. Much better than the terrible book. Tolkein is the most overrated author.

    5. Re:I can wait... by Xsession · · Score: 1

      you obviously aint read the book. finshed spot takes a bath yet?

      --
      .: not the nine o'clock news .:
    6. Re:I can wait... by Hobophile · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why would you want the directors cut ? Directors cut is what runs in the theater.

      The fact that a plethora of "Director's Cut" DVDs argue against this claim notwithstanding, you are mistaken.

      The director's cut is, simply enough, the director's last contribution to the film. Only a handful of directors are so well-respected/full of themselves to have so-called 'final cut' rights, wherein the director's cut really IS what you see on the theater screen.

      For those directors not lucky enough to be in this group of maybe 5-10 directors, once they've finished their cut the film goes to the producers, who remove scenes that drag, reposition scenes to improve the flow of the story, and generally do their best to make sure the film is as accessible and lucrative as possible.

      Some producers are phenomenally good at this. Jerry Bruckheimer springs to mind. He is as famous and sought after as he is because he can take a movie that's an utter piece of crap and turn it into a moderately high grossing piece of crap.

      But, given that it is the fashion of the moment in Hollywood to imbue the director with a mystique that suggests he is the only person that really, truly counts when it comes to filmmaking, it is inevitable that "Director's Cut" DVDs get made. After all, who knows better than the director how the movie should be?

      The sad truth that most movie fanboys (and naturally directors) ignore is that usually the director's cut is inferior to the cut put together by a talented producer. Often the director is so close to the source material that he cannot see subtle errors or elements that are inaccessible to the audience, let alone places that are simply uninteresting or weak. To him, those things have become a natural part of the plot, something the viewer *has* to see to truly appreciate the film.

      Such problems are only compounded when the director, in addition to usurping the role of the producer, takes on the task of a screenwriter as well. None of these roles is especially easy, and while I concede that a rare individual might combine all the talents necessary to be a good writer, director and producer, I am quite unconvinced that any such individuals are presently working in the industry.

      One example of this last should suffice: George Lucas' recent Star Wars films. Who out there hasn't longed for a "Producer's Cut" of Episode 1, where Jar Jar is silently snipped from sight for all time? Or for a "Talented Writer's Cut" of Episode 2, where Anakin is treated with more subtlety, given nuances of darkness rather than blatantly plotted as an angsty misunderstood passionate teenager whose turn to the dark side is inevitable?

    7. Re:I can wait... by phil+reed · · Score: 2
      Why would you want the directors cut ? Directors cut is what runs in the theater.


      Not always. Many movies are cut on orders from the studio, often for length if nothing else. Other things may be added or taken out if the moneybags don't like what the director came up with. Blade Runner is an example; the director's cut is a much better movie than the original release.

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    8. Re:I can wait... by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, he meant that the director's cut *for LOTR* is running in the theaters. Peter Jackson made a big deal about explaining that the new 4 hour release is not a "director's cut" because that implies that he was unhappy with something in the theater release, which he wasn't. He prefers people call it the "extended edition."

      So when the previous poster was referring to buying a director's cut, Phil made an attempt towards a joke that no one is getting.

    9. Re:I can wait... by tswinzig · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Thanks for filling us in on your plans!

      In a few minutes, I'm going to take a dump. No wait, I might wait until tonight, and take a "Super Mega Ultra Complete (until the Sequel/Prequel) Collectors Version Directors Cut" dump.

      Or I might just keep my poop inside me and read a good book.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    10. Re:I can wait... by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      Damn that was funny.

      A co-worker just walked past my desk right after reading your comment, and asked what i was doing... i couldn't resist saying,

      'Trying to keep my poop inside me.'

      Yeah, she never liked me anyways.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    11. Re:I can wait... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, you've seen my brother's wedding videos, too....

  12. Unbiased reviews by drsquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Three reviews given, not one of them seemed to be from an unbiased perspective. When I read the first two, I began to think the writers were masturbating as they typed. And the third one, being from 'theonering.net', didn't seem a reliable source of an impartial view either.

    Isn't it possible to find a review from someone who isn't an obsessive zealot? I'm interested in finding out how good the film is, and I'm not going to get that from someone who has decided he's going to enjoy the film before he's even seen it.

    Secondly, what is the point in having spoilers in a review? The whole point in a review is that you can find out how good the film is, so you can decide whether to see it or not. By giving away what happens in the film, you sort of take away the fun in watching it in the first place. Most reviewers seem to get by reviewing films without giving away every single thing that happens, why can't these reviewers?

    Looks like I'll just have to see what the Filthy Critic says, although if he does review it it probably won't be up till February, and then he'll spend 90% of the review talking about his personal problems.

    1. Re:Unbiased reviews by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You won't see an unbiased review for awhile. The problem is the novels are so pervasive and anyone into "media" was probably into them at some time, unless they hate fantasy, in which case they would be biased against the Lord of the Rings movies.

      Look at the imdb - it has a 9.5 right now. I remember when the FOtR came out and it jumped to number one on the "best movies ever" list (#1 fantasy movie of all time, sure, #1 movie of all time, not quite). Eventually it settled to a more realistic spot.

      If I got to see it right now, I would probably gush about it and inflate it's value too. But give me two months and I'll tell you how good it really was. :)

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    2. Re:Unbiased reviews by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 1

      *its, not it's - i'm my own grammar nazi

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    3. Re:Unbiased reviews by hey! · · Score: 2

      The whole point in a review is that you can find out how good the film is, so you can decide whether to see it or not.

      That's one of the points of a review. Another point of reading a review is to increase your appreciation of something you have seen or are about to see. However, this presupposes that the reviewer is knowledgeable and insightful, and critical in an open minded way.

      Fan "reviews" which simply reveal juicy tidbits don't serve any purpose other than idle curiosity.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Unbiased reviews by Pike65 · · Score: 2

      Well the way I see it, they're either film zealots or book zealots. If they're film zealots, then they must have loved the film, which is kinda the point of the review, surely?

      And if they're book zealots then even better - no one is likely to be harsher on these films than a true die hard book fan.

      But I agree with you on the spoilers . . .

      --
      "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
    5. Re:Unbiased reviews by Hitch · · Score: 1

      oddly, I'm a book zealot - and even with all the changes made to the first movie, I loved it and felt it did the best possible job of bringing the story to the big screen.

      --
      You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
      http://propheteer.org
    6. Re:Unbiased reviews by Mr+Guy · · Score: 2

      And that is EXACTLY the reaction he was looking for.

      But as to the original poster, the reason the reviews are so gushing now is that you practically have to have given head to Jackson himself in order to have seen the film already. They didn't get there by being casually interested and finding a golden ticket in their Wonka bar.

    7. Re:Unbiased reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm such a big fan that I was masturbating whilst reading your review of the reviews!

      Thanks, it was great!

    8. Re:Unbiased reviews by zzyzx · · Score: 2

      Not everyone who reads was a die hard LotR fan. The people reviewing the movie now are the big fans. I'd like to see what people who didn't grow up with the books thought about it.

    9. Re:Unbiased reviews by Hitch · · Score: 1
      exactly the reaction WHO was looking for?

      all things considered, I've been very happy with the movies - a reaction which shocked even me. (especially me)


      partially, it's been due to the reaction from people I know who haven't read the books - instead of "now I've seen the movie, I don't need to read the book", which is what I normally get, I'm now getting "Hey! I want to read the books! what's the best version to buy!". it's impressive when a movie sparks interest in the book, rather than killing it.

      that said, I'm pleased with Harry Potter for the same reasons. Even though the tech bubble burst and things are coming to ill with DRM, et. al., this is a glorious time to be a(n) (adult) geek.

      --
      You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
      http://propheteer.org
    10. Re:Unbiased reviews by thirty-seven · · Score: 1

      You consider these reviewers biased. The theonering.net reviewer in particular is writing for a specific audience: not just those who've read the books, but those who have read and are big fans of the book and know a lot of details about them. A review for that audience is going to understandably focus on how the movie differs from the book and whether these difference work well or not.

      Now, I agree that the theonering.net reviewer is probably quite biased, but not necessarily in the "I will praise this movie no matter what" kind of way. In fact, I would say that except for people who hate all fantasy and try to trash it as 'childish' or for wackos who think the books are satanic, that hard-core fans of the book are at least as likely to rip the movie apart as 'normal' reviewers are. Fans are suspicous about any change from the books, and they will loudly complain about any changes that end up not working in the movies. However, fans are likely biased in that they'll end up liking and disliking different things about the movie than the normal reviewers will.

      --

      Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    11. Re:Unbiased reviews by Jhan · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... The problem is the novels are so pervasive and anyone into "media" was probably into them at some time, unless they hate fantasy, in which case they would be biased against the Lord of the Rings movies.

      That statement is probably very true, which makes it even more interesting that I did not see one review in Swedish media that did not begin with words to the effect of:
      "I never in my life read Tolkien, but..."
      "I hated Tolkiens books, but..."
      "I regularly piss on Tolkiens grave, but..."
      and (this guy must be a real fan-boy) "I haven't read Tolkien in a great while, but...

      After which follows a favourable through enthusiastic review.

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    12. Re:Unbiased reviews by Mr+Guy · · Score: 2

      Peter Jackson, the director, of course.

    13. Re:Unbiased reviews by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 1

      I see the first link is "Ain't it cool news". And you hit it on the head. Larry Knowles and his cronies sit around their keyboards and have a circle jerk while they tell the world about the movie they have seen before you.

      I didn't bother clicking through to that review. I didn't feel like seeing a text-asm.

  13. about spoilers by wiredog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the spoiler obsession, born of the Internet's fan-geek culture, is the enemy of real criticism, real discussion and maybe even real thought.

    Andrew O'Hehir, at Salon.com

    1. Re:about spoilers by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Hmm... how can the plot of the second film be spoiled by reading the reviews... the books only be around for the last 50 odd years so other than spoiling the visual effect the plot can't be.

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:about spoilers by ideonode · · Score: 1

      Umm, Andrew O'Hehir is talking out of his arse. Bad reviewers may not be able to discuss the work they saw without revealing intriguing plot-lines, but a good reviewer will be able to pull out the good and the bad without resorting to spoiling it for everyone.

    3. Re:about spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right. It's not like anyone tried to avoid reading plot details before the Internet.

    4. Re:about spoilers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Andrew O'Hehir is dead-on. Treating films like little surprise boxes is childish, and real film criticism isn't going to waltz around the plot just to satisfy that. We all get a sense of how 90 percent of stories end, anyway - we don't listen to them to "find out how they end," we listen and watch to see how they are told. We all know how all the Shakespeare plays end - if its a comedy, it ends with a wedding, and if it's a tragedy, it ends with the death of the hero - but we certainly enjoy watching them again.

    5. Re:about spoilers by BryanL · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. I am of the opinion that if I know some plot point of a story and the movie is ruined because of that, the movie was not worth watching in the first place. Movies should have a some value on their the second viewing.

      Besides, O'Hehir makes a good point about spoiler-phobia hampering open discussion. I hate reading reviews/critiques of movies and only getting some apology about not being able to say what the reviewer really thought about the movie. You end up getting some vague, touchy-feely review. Give some real substance, please.

  14. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 2

    IIRC "that book" wasn't 'a book' but 'two books', and wasn't called "The Two Towers" at all, until the publisher made JRRT make them into one. He searched for a title and came up with Two Towers, though apparently never gave real explanation as to which were the two towers in question. It is speculation (albeit educated specualtion) that came up with potential explanations of the towers. Google should come up with some stuff about this for those with a bit of time to wade through all the film related links!

    --
    Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  15. Re:Am I the only one ... by szo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... who reads some reviews only after seeing the movies ?

    Why do you do that?
    So you know whether or not you liked the film?

    Szo

    --
    Red Leader Standing By!
  16. Speaking of spoilers... by Dua · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought it was sad that they put pictures of Gandalf the White in the trailers (at least in the UK they did). It does mean that some of the impact will be lost on those who haven't read the books...

    Trailers are evil and spoilery.

    1. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by will_die · · Score: 2

      The preview they added on the later showings of fellowship of the Ring had Gandlf in it.

    2. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by keller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well all of us who love the story are already bound to see it, maybe others will see Gandalf in the trailer, and wonder what happens, thus making them interested in seeing TTT... It is not that big of a spoiler...

      --

      Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!

    3. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

      This was done in the US trailer(s) as well. And I couldn't agree more.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    4. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by deathcloset · · Score: 1

      Dude, I was like totally let down when I saw the preview with Gandalf as Gandalf the white! I have never read the books as a child, you see. This movie was like such an awesome thing for me because all of my friends were big Tolken fans. So when a movie comes out I am like "hey man" (man being me of course)"I am going to watch the trilogy and then read it because this is a chance for me to have a unique perspective on this popular epic," - You know, seeing as many people have read the trilogy first and then seen the movies second after reading.
      But then I see a preview, happenstance, with Gandalf the white coming back from the dead after Frodo wasted all that emotion on the loss of his friend (not to mention the tear I shed, just like in braveheart - this guy knows what I'm talkin about)
      I was like, dude that sucks!!! I totally did not even see Gandalf the white coming! But here it is in front of my face, without me having read the books. What a letdown. It was like some asshole friend telling me, "you liked the first book? Well in the second Gandalf comes back...Yep...comes back as Gandalf the white. Oh, and Luke is Darth Vader's son."
      That kind of friend is an asshole. Just as some asshole could have made this preview avoid the topic of the return of Gandalf for the sake of the blissfully ignorant, and willfully ignorant too - it's called suspension of disbelief...also, it's unfair of me to judge those in charge of the prievews as assholes or any one involved as an asshole nonetheless I agree wholeheartedly with the post.
      the end.

    5. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " I thought it was sad that they put pictures of Gandalf the White in the trailers (at least in the UK they did). It does mean that some of the impact will be lost on those who haven't read the books..."


      I don't see how. Evidently the opening scene of TTT shows Gandalf's fight with the Balrog, and the aftermath whereby he becomes Gandalf the White. So a newbie is going to figure out Gandalf's fate in the first five minutes of the movie. Kinda hard to spoil that.

    6. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by bkhl · · Score: 1

      I would guess there was a not insignificant number of people who watched the first film only because of Ian McKellen. I guess the company wouldn't want them to think he was out of the game for the next two films.

      Sir Ian is according to me and a lot of other Shakespeare lovers the best actor ever to portray any of his characters on screen. As a great fan also of Tolkien, I was to totally begeistered by seeing him as Gandalf, and his performance (especially when together with Ian Holm) really brought the film to life for me.

      Apart from that, it will probably be given away by the credits on the poster anyway.

      PS. If you liked Ian McKellens performance as Gandalf, you mustn't miss him in Richard III

      PPS. If you liked Cate Blanchetts performance as Galadriel, don't miss Tom Tykwer's new film Heaven with her in the lead role.

    7. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      What?!?!?!?!?

      Darth Vader is Lukes Father?

      You bastard!

    8. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by Hitch · · Score: 1

      When first I saw the trailer my fiancee was near the end of the fellowship. I then commented that I would do everything I could to prevent her from seeing the trailers until she'd gotten into the second book. When she said "hey, tell me they didn't put gandalf in the trailers!!" I knew that the time had come and we could go once more and enjoy movies.

      --
      You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
      http://propheteer.org
    9. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by MrNixon · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was talking to a friend of mine about watching 'The Ususal Suspects', and he was going on about how it was a pretty good movie (I hadn't seen it yet). He says: "by the way, Kaiser Sose is the man with the limp". Ruined the entire movie for me.

    10. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by inkswamp · · Score: 2

      I thought it was sad that they put pictures of Gandalf the White in the trailers

      I totally agree. I hate trailers that show too much.

      My wife (who hasn't read the books and probably never will but enjoyed the first film quite a lot) saw this in the trailer and asked me about it. I didn't want to lie to her, so I just coyly replied without giving her a real answer: "I really don't want to tell you why he's there. But maybe it's a flashback."

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    11. Re:Speaking of spoilers... by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2

      I agree, In fact, it's less of a soiler and more of a "but I thought he was dead?!?" lure. It doesn't say, where, when or even why he came back. It just shows enough to intrigue. And considering how large a role Gandalf plays in the plot, it would be bloody hard to hide the fact that he comes back.

      I think the movie trailer does an excellent job in generating interest in the movie. The second of three parts is the hardest to sell, but New Line has managed to ratchet up the LotR fever at just the right pace.

  17. No. THIS is the *biggest* spoiler of all... by adilsonoliveira · · Score: 0, Troll

    Gandalf lives. :)

    --
    Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
    1. Re:No. THIS is the *biggest* spoiler of all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually showed Ganfalf in the trailor here in Tokyo. I knew he lived but for people who may not have read the books it could be quite the spoiler.

  18. obviously I need to plan my life better by nzhavok · · Score: 2

    because I'm stuck in Germany at the moment and I sure don't speak enough German to understand TTT!
    I can't even read this article because of the spoilers!! Anyone know of any English movie-theatres around Cologne/Dusseldorf area?

    --

    He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    1. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this page (unfortunately in German) gives you all movies that are shown in the original version in cologne http://www.koeln.de/content/kino/aktuelle_filme_ov .php3 a cinema that shows primarily english movies
      Metropolis
      Ebertplatz 19
      Köln Innenstadt
      hope this helps

    2. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can drive to Frankfurt and go to Am Turm Kino :P

    3. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by jck2000 · · Score: 1

      I know it is a haul, but I think there is an English language movie theater in Frankfurt. Haven't been there and not sure if/when it is showing TTT. If you have read the book, I am not sure the language barrier would be that much of an obstacle to enjoying the film.

    4. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by will_die · · Score: 2

      Check both
      http://www.cologne-in.de/kino/metro.htm
      http://www.europeguidebook.com/germany/regions/wes /cologne/cologne_cin_agn.cfm
      If you want to drive down to the Kaiserslautern area they have it at
      http://www.broadwaykino.com/01.programm/arthouse.p hp
      They are all releaseing the same day as the US, but because of the time change you actually can see it and have it reviewed here before the US general population can, all 179 mins of it.

    5. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Try to get to the Netherlands, Maastricht should be close enough, or any other decent sized town (Venlo, Arnhem,...). There will be subtitles on the bottom of the screen, but the spoken word will be English.

    6. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's definatly an English cinema in the heart of cologne, I saw spider-man there this summer, in english. I was visitting a a friend, so I'll have to ask her for the address. It wasn't too far from the Saturn, at any rate.

    7. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Espen+Skoglund · · Score: 2

      However, given that these are probably the German reels with the original audio track (instead of the dubbed one), all elvish will probably be subtitled in German.

    8. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just fetch 'mldonkey' and get your servers ready to download a SVHS screener (surely beeing posted) in the days after the release. I know its not movie-theatre quality - but then something in VHS quality is better than waiting another 4 weeks ...

      The Kaiserslautern theatre is great by the way - been there, done that!

    9. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to see TTT in English, and you're already in the Dusseldorf area, why not pop over the border to Belgium or The Nethelands ?
      Subs seem a lot easier to put up with..

    10. Re:obviously I need to plan my life better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure to watch it again AFTER attending the screening in the Netherlands. With the killer hydroponics over there there's no telling what you may end up seeing.

  19. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The name comes from the 2 towers that are central to the second (really 3rd and 4th) book. The first half (book 3) revolves around Saruman and the tower of Isengard.

    The second half (the 4th book) revolves around the trek of Sam and Frodo to destroy the one ring, whose power was used to build the foundations of the mighty tower of Barad-Dur.

    With these 2 structures featured heavily, there seems little other reason how Tolkien came to the title.

  20. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the people really want is their William Shatner interview.

  21. Read the books... by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 1

    I read the books(the trilogy) for the 1st time over the summer. I wish I had read Fellowship before the movie came out. I am glad I finished the last 2 before the movies came out. You will enjoy the moview much much more.

    1. Re:Read the books... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a DOUCHE, John Edwards!

  22. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 & 4; and can be left ambiguous- it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dur, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol (1)." [Letter #140]

    Taken from JRRT's letters. You will easily find many more references on google.

    "I am not at all happy about the title `the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading." [Letter #143]

    You see?

    --
    Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  23. Re:Am I the only one ... by cr_nucleus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    well, i also read review after i see a movie that i liked. i think it's interesting to read other opinions, and there's the possibility that they will discuss a point that u missed (like an obscure reference). i guess i could just read to some forum but professional reviewers are generaly more agreable to read.

  24. OI! by gazbo · · Score: 1
    Credit where credit's due

    This was the work of Kevin Klerck and has been reported on internationally. To repeat it is fine, but at least send out propz to Klerck.

  25. Noooo! by redNuht · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hate you Taco, I hate you! I was avoiding all those spoilers and reading the spoiler-free Slashdot frontpage and you tell me that ENTS CAN WALK!?

    I don't wanna see that movie anymore.

  26. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ON DECEMBER 7, I will issue a Declaration to UNMOVIC indicating a tabulation of ALL of my known WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. I have been accused by the world community of having WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION and I do not actually have WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. ON December 7, a full day before the UNMOVIC deadline, I will issue a proclamation indicating a full indication of all WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that I actually have in my origination, which will be a blank sheet of paper, as I actually have NO WEAPONS.

    THANK YOU. I am cooperating with the world community fully and in its fullest and would appreciate full reciprocation and coordination.

  27. What disappointed me... by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What disappointed me about the first LOTR movie was that the movie just seemed to come to an abrupt halt three hours into it. Does the second one suffer the same malady, or is there more of a conflict/resolution/ending to it? I haven't read the books, so I'm hoping it's not just three hours of walking though the woods fighting things... I realize the LOTR has a cult-like following, and I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but movies should stand on their own two feet - the first movie ended like a 2-part sitcom "To Be Continued...", which I find wholly inacceptable for a major-production movie. The actual plot of the movie is not scheduled to be resolved until 2 movies later! Of course, if Hollywood can do that and still make hundreds of millions (which they have), I suppose I'm none the wiser...

    --
    "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    1. Re:What disappointed me... by AveryT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right, they should have totally changed what is probably the most read story of the 20th century so that it fits into your definition of what a "Hollywood" movie is supposed to be. Maybe Peter Jackson and New Line gave the audience a little more credit than you apparently deserve.

    2. Re:What disappointed me... by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Informative

      LOTR is not a trilogy and the following movies are not sequels. It's one huge novel/movie that is divided into three parts for convenience.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:What disappointed me... by BlameFate · · Score: 1
      The thing with LOTR is that it doesn't traditionally fit the neat hollywood model. Each part does not end with a nice resolution; followed by a sequel with a slightly different plot and the same characters (like Star Wars 4-6), it is one epic story from start to end.

      If anything, the conclusions of the individual parts are darker and more subtle than even the "dark" ending of Empire Strikes Back - the most negative of the original Star Wars Trilogy. Take The Fellowship of the Ring, the whole point of that part is the discovery of the ring of power and the banding together of the races of middle earth to form a party to destroy it. The book/film ends with the party in disarray and the loss of it's spiritual leader Gandalf (a Ben Kenobi figure to really murder the analogy!). Because of the power of the overall story, the nuances of the individual parts get lost, partially due to them being derived from a book rather than planned for the screen as Star Wars always was. But I personally think Peter Jackson has done an outstanding job on a hugely ambitious project. I look forward to both of the remaining films :-)

      --

      --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

    4. Re:What disappointed me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a Hollywood movie. New Line Cinema may have funded it, but the screenplay, direction and production was largely from New Zealand. It's about as far from Hollywood as you can get.. which is totally refreshing considering Hollywood is struggling to put out movies that are anything more than "below average".

      Only the movie budget approaches Hollywood proportions (except they made three movies out of that budget, not one).

    5. Re:What disappointed me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course it came to an abrupt end. it's not over yet! two more movies!!! come on, have a slightly longer attention span. stop watching tv, pick up the books if it REALLY bothers you, and see what happens! it's ALL there if you care to read about 1200? pages of text :) (that's not counting reviews and idiotic commments like this online =D) all the movies are are pretty pictures interpreting the text I've read at least twice already whilst I should be studying and reading information science articles and texts... =D mmmm.....early morning ramble-age... =D

    6. Re:What disappointed me... by tomzyk · · Score: 2, Informative
      LOTR is not a trilogy and the following movies are not sequels. It's one huge novel/movie that is divided into three parts for convenience.

      Uh... "one huge novel"? Where'd you get that idea?

      It was originally supposed to be 6 books when he wrote it but the publishers, at the time of the original printing, wanted to save money on printing costs and force readers to buy more of the series all at once. They combined books 1 and 2 into one book, 3 and 4 into the next, and 5 and 6 into the last.
      --
      Karma: NaN
    7. Re:What disappointed me... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well it really is just one story that has been somewhat arbitrarily broken into three sections. Tolkien originally wanted it to be on *big* book but the publisher insisted, rightly IMO, that it wouldn't sell if it wasn't in more digestible chunks.

      That being said each of the six 'books' (each book in the trilogy is divided into a pair of 'books') has *some* resolution though sometimes an unhappy one and for obvious reasons usually a "cliffhanger"). At the end of the first book they make it to Rivendell, at the end of the second (the end of FOTR) the fellowship is broken, etc. By ganging up two 'books' into one book or movie you sort of dilute the feeling of resolution because half of the FOTR takes place before the fellowhip is even formed so it's disolution is less satisfying as an (cliffhanger) ending. Which makes me wonder if they could have pulled it off as six two-hour movies. Each movie would feel a little more complete on it's own by telling a smaller but more satisfyingly resolved story. They certainly seemed to have enough footage and even though I really liked FOTR I have to say 3.5 hours for the director's cut starts to get overwhelming/tedious. From a mercenary standpoint for the studio that is twice as many movie tickets/DVD/merchandise sales.

    8. Re:What disappointed me... by tomzyk · · Score: 1

      well said. (despite the fact that some parts were modified/added/removed to keep the general public interested in the movie.) ideally, they would have made this an enormous miniseries and spent 4 or 5 hours on EACH of the _6_ books... but obviously that kind of funding doesn't exist. eh. maybe they'll pull a "Dune" and remake it again in another 20 years. :-]

      --
      Karma: NaN
    9. Re:What disappointed me... by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 1

      I think Star Wars is a perfect example of how you can take one really long epic story and convert it into a series of movies, with each movie having it's own conflict/climax/resolution parts...I mean, Star Wars would be quite boring if it was just one long meandering journey from the birth of Anakin to his death and the fall of the Empire...instead, each section of the story is a story in it's own right, yet still following the overall epic plot line. I don't think it's even necessary to change any of the facts of the plot to make it do that, just a change in the buildup and for god's sakes, an ending.

      --
      "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    10. Re:What disappointed me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      actually it was "one huge novel", but the publisher insisted on cutting it into 3, and tolkein didnt like it but it had to be done if he wanted it published.

    11. Re:What disappointed me... by BlameFate · · Score: 1
      That's my point (or one of them!) :-)

      Star Wars was designed with the screen in mind. LOTR is a literary masterwork that they are converting to the screen - ambitious, but they have to do the best they can without munging it so much for the screen that it no longer resembles the book. It's not your typical hollywood packaging to a story for sure, but given the scale of the work I think they're doing a good job.

      --

      --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

    12. Re:What disappointed me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars didn't begin as "one really long epic story." Sequels were written after the fact.

      LOTR is for people who have patience and like big, epic stories, I suppose. Are you sure you aren't a studio exec?

    13. Re:What disappointed me... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      What disappointed me about the first LOTR movie was that the movie just seemed to come to an abrupt halt three hours into it.

      Richard Roeper? Is that you?

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    14. Re:What disappointed me... by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      That trilogy is like one long book split up into three megachapters so they aren't too heavy to hold and read. You'll have to accept the miniseries format because 3 hours is a long time for a movie.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    15. Re:What disappointed me... by sacherjj · · Score: 2

      You really do have this, with the two discs. I had that same feeling when I watched the Extended version. I just watched it in two blocks of time. I hope future extended version are also done the same way. Initially I was annoyed at the 2 DVDs for the one film, because I have to change discs. Now I hope the other two are done the same way. Essentially you get a disc per book for a total of 6 near 2 hour movies.

    16. Re:What disappointed me... by Datafage · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, the books are not sequels to each other, the story is one single continuous tale. The story does not wrap up a tidy conclusion at the end of each of the 3 or 6 "books." If you read Tolkien's comments, he wanted them all bound together, but the technology to bind 1216 pages did not exist at that time.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    17. Re:What disappointed me... by ngoy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Uh... "one huge novel"? Where'd you get that idea?

      It was originally supposed to be 6 books when he wrote it but the publishers, at the time of the original printing, wanted to save money on printing costs and force readers to buy more of the series all at once. They combined books 1 and 2 into one book, 3 and 4 into the next, and 5 and 6 into the last.
      Probably from watching the extra features on the DVD, where it says that he wan't happy about it being split up into different book?
      --
      --ngoy
    18. Re:What disappointed me... by ngoy · · Score: 1
      You really do have this, with the two discs. I had that same feeling when I watched the Extended version. I just watched it in two blocks of time. I hope future extended version are also done the same way. Initially I was annoyed at the 2 DVDs for the one film, because I have to change discs. Now I hope the other two are done the same way. Essentially you get a disc per book for a total of 6 near 2 hour movies.

      That is why my next purchase will be a nice 300 disc Sony DVD/CD changer (I already have the five disc one, because with kids LESS handling of DVDs is better!). I will be able to put in all 6 (or 60) discs after all the super extended special editions are out, do continuous play and watch a LOTR marathon.
      --
      --ngoy
    19. Re:What disappointed me... by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      mmm that's why I always kinda hoped that some one would, eventually, have both the cash & the brass ones to do something like a 24 part tv series. That being said, any guess as to how many /.'rs allready have plans for the first weekend after The Return Of The Kind dvd set is realeased? Back-to-Back-to-Back Baby! :)

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    20. Re:What disappointed me... by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's "six books" as far as thematic divisions, but I don't think it was ever intended to be published as six volumes. It is in fact one continuous narrative divided into three volumes for reasons of length.

      It's almost never noted that this is a revival of the format in which all the great (and not-so-great) English novelists of the 19th Century were usually published. They were called "triple deckers" in the jargon of the time. Most novels from authors like Jane Austen, Edward G.E. Bulwer-Lytton, or Charles Dickens were originally published in this form.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    21. Re:What disappointed me... by msaavedra · · Score: 1
      the technology to bind 1216 pages did not exist at that time.
      This is untrue. I have an edition of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich from 1960, only 6 years after The Fellowship of the Ring was published. It is over 1200 pages long, all in one volume. Also, I believe the Christian Bible is at least that long, and has been published for quite a long time as one big book. Perhaps Tolkien's publishers decided that it was economically unfeasible to publish LOTR as one book. It was certainly technologically possible, though.
      --
      "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
      --Henry David Thoreau
    22. Re:What disappointed me... by orcrist · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between the words "book", "novel", and "volume".

      See here under definition 1 d of book:
      'a major division of a treatise or literary work'

      LOTR was always 1 novel consisting of 6 books. Tolkien wanted it printed in 1 volume, but the publisher insisted on splitting it into 3 volumes, each with 2 books.

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    23. Re:What disappointed me... by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
      It's one huge novel/movie that is divided into three parts for convenience

      Its not 3 parts - its 3 volumes, and the volumes are divided into parts/books

    24. Re:What disappointed me... by Datafage · · Score: 1

      Ok, I oversimplified. The technology was not there to do it affordably, and I'm not sure about paperback binding at that point. In any case, that detail aside, the book WAS intended as one story, not 3 separate but related plots.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

  28. What what? by XyouthX · · Score: 1

    I did not get in my 4 disc r1 extended edition box.
    Neither did my friends who got the full bookend thingy.

    I've never heard of this before.

    1. Re:What what? by WizardofWestmarch · · Score: 1

      That is strange I sure got mine... did you check in the leftmost pocket when you fully unfolded the Extended version, where the left was disc one and the rightmost was appendicies disc 2?

    2. Re:What what? by joel8x · · Score: 1

      There should have been a sticker on the outside of the plastic wrap saying there was a free ticket inside. Check your packaging!

      --
      Sound waves should be free!
    3. Re:What what? by XyouthX · · Score: 1

      Nope. No sticker either.

      Could be because I for some reason got the Canadian version. It just had a sticker with the title in french on it.

      Damn french people.

    4. Re:What what? by Bandman · · Score: 2

      hehe i was just up in Montreal and saw those. I dont speak french, so i couldn't tell if you it said free ticket or not.

  29. No need for seeing the movie by lightweave · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ha! I just saved myself a few bucks for going to the theater as well as the time watching the movie. Just read the second review in the story and you get a complete description of the film. Very nice. Its not just a review its THE movie told without the annoying bits of moving pictures. Much more convinient and so much schorter than the books. The only distrubing thing is that the background music is from "Friday 13th" but you can't have everything.

  30. In Munich? by WillRobinson · · Score: 2

    There used to be a English Movie house, just next to the train station. Might check if its still there. I was plesantly supprised that when movies opened in the US it opened there at the same time. Course that was 16 years ago... But im sure there is still a english movie house in Munich, as many Muncher's prefer to hear the movie with the origional voices.

    1. Re:In Munich? by ferkelparade · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's still there...has the very original name "cinema" and is about ten minutes' walk from the train station...but then, Munich is quite some distance from Düsseldorf...

      --
      frotz grue
    2. Re:In Munich? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vas born in Düsseldorf and dat iz vhy zey call me Rolf!

    3. Re:In Munich? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like "classic"-style theatres (eg. smaller screens, a little run down but with ambiance), it is hard to beat Museum Lichtspiele (http://www.museum-lichtspiele.de/).

      They show movies in original language versions only, AFAIK. Grab your popcorn, some Augustiner, and enjoy the show.

      As has been pointed out, Munich is quite a long way from Duesseldorf.

    4. Re:In Munich? by ferkelparade · · Score: 1

      Cool, another slashdotter from Munich :)
      (at the moment, I'm too surprised by that to care about the inevitable -1, offtopic, so I'm not posting AC)

      --
      frotz grue
  31. TruthMedia review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It should be interesting to see what TruthMedia makes of the Second film after their review of the first.

    1. Re:TruthMedia review by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      That's funny, there are so many similarly bad reviews out there it took me a while to realize this was a parody site.

    2. Re:TruthMedia review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note the end of the review: ..They kill one of the Fellowship (I'm not telling who) before they are finally defeated.

      Then the movie just ends. This is a huge disappointment because it doesn't end anything like how the book ends. In the book Gandalf is back from the dead..

  32. STUPID CLAIMS by unikron · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am fed up with this "Twin Towers" nonsense.

    It's all a puritanistic approach, instead of seeing the true problem. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" flick the other day, and saw the true face of America, and not the one that they made the World Trade Center a god. It is horrible to see people die -- that's no fact it's reality.

    But the claims of "...oooh don't say twin towers we recall the tragedy" is so stupid that it reaches on the same level as the cause of selling guns in America that lead to the youth shoots. You can see how fanatic you have been with no fault of your own. Instead of weeping over titles that are meaningless as if Tolkien knew the future and said "Heh I am going to entitle the next book 'Two Towers' so that in a sadistic way I will take revenge for the Americans after Grave", you should get yourselves into the real threat, your children's influence, the war that is destined to become another vietnam because of inability of the government administration and the genral status of the economy.

    Sometimes I like that I am in a country that has real problems and not in a country that likes to create problems just to know that it is there.

    1. Re:STUPID CLAIMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you really are an idiot.

    2. Re:STUPID CLAIMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an idiot!

    3. Re:STUPID CLAIMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who relies on Michael Moore to understand America or Americans is an idiot. Michael Moore is a big fat crybaby who manipulates film in tendencious ways to get his asinine "points" across, regardless (and usually in contradiction) of the facts.

    4. Re:STUPID CLAIMS by gladbach · · Score: 1

      at least people arent calling it "the two buildings that shall not be named" or the "you know whats"

      --
      "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
  33. Fair point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apologies to all concerned.

    And please sign the petition

  34. Re:THIS IS THE SPOILER by Xsession · · Score: 1

    what happens in part three then? wait no dont tell me i've read the book and i dont want my fantasies decimated by another film that looks great sounds great goes on for ever but is only around 50% of the orginal story. jurassic park hmmmm....

    --
    .: not the nine o'clock news .:
  35. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could you expand this faq to be a general "how and what to post?"If so, I would like to add a these points:

    You are not funny if you post these "jokes":

    • All your base are belong to us
    • Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these
    • Natalie Portman and hot grits
    • 1)something
      2)something
      3)???
      4)profit
    • If someone says, for example, "please stop posting 'All your base' -jokes", don't respond with an 'All your base' -joke

    Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.

    Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.

  36. Looks like it's on the "darknet" already. by Gldm · · Score: 1

    Did a quick search, it's already returning multiple hits.

    Right now it looks like there's a 1CD divx version and a 2CD divx version. This is on a major filesharing app, so I'm betting IRC and FTPs are way ahead of this and it's already everywhere.

    It's sad really. I refuse to ruin a potentially good movie by seeing a poor quality copy first. I'm definately ignoring these and waiting to see it in theaters, like I did with episode 2 (and was glad I did).

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:Looks like it's on the "darknet" already. by Xsession · · Score: 1

      dont believe the hype apparently every downloaded copy of die another day on darknet was a fake. not that i'd know...

      --
      .: not the nine o'clock news .:
  37. ENTS? Spoiler? by Johan+Veenstra · · Score: 1

    Since I have no idea what ents are, saying that isn't much of a spoiler to me. Ok something that isn't supposed to walk, walks, you could kind of expect that in a movie of this gerne, as long as it isn't a mailbox or something like that, it's ok with me.

    1. Re:ENTS? Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, try a tree.

    2. Re:ENTS? Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bastard!!!!

  38. Bank Account? by kev0153 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is the second time you have given advice to open a bank account to help us uneducated americans forget about 9/11. I don't understand where this is coming from? How does this help?

    1. Re:Bank Account? by noisyb · · Score: 0

      it's simple: 1) bankers died in the wtc 2) banking accounts == profit/money for bankers maybe i was wrong when i thought you americans hate bankers as much as you hate terrorists.. maybe financial terror isn't so popular and impressive on tv.. who knows.. who understands the mind of a tv nation.. i probably dont..

  39. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by gazbo · · Score: 1
    Thank-you. Your post will be included as an appedix to the next release (hotly tipped for any time soon!)

    Unfortunately it will have to be credited to AC as you appear to have forgotten to log in.

  40. PLEASE STOP POSTING JOKES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    • Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Duby8'=w88754onQx87548754o8754mk=8km!!!
    • ???
    • All your base are belong to Natalie Bortman
    1. Re:PLEASE STOP POSTING JOKES by JebusIsLord · · Score: 2

      Well these jokes do seem to have a bit of life left in them after all, touche!

      --
      Jeremy
  41. Hollywood movie without a solid happy end, I like by Johan+Veenstra · · Score: 1

    I kind of like the way the first movie ends. I never expected a movie from hollywood without a solid happy end.

    - Ok Sam joins Frodo, because he is his friend and he made a promise, but from now on they are alone.
    - The other two hobbits are captured by the orcs, not something you wish happens to your best friends.
    - One guy (can't remember his name) is shot to pieces by several big hunky arrows.
    - Gandalf is dead or missing

    But somehow it works: brilliant.

  42. nice move, Taco by tps12 · · Score: 2

    I'm not reading [the reviews]. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.

    I thought the Ents were supposed to be the big SPOIL-able thing in this one.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  43. Choice quote from one review: by Anarchofascist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Talking about the fight scene in Helm's Deep:

    "...made ATTACK OF THE CLONES look like it was shot in a barn with hand puppets."

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    1. Re:Choice quote from one review: by Cyn · · Score: 2

      It wasn't?

      --
      cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
    2. Re:Choice quote from one review: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what's a review of ANY movie without a small slam on Star Wars out of nowhere? Genius. Pure genius.

  44. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by silicon_synapse · · Score: 3, Funny

    Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.

    Is Micros~1 acceptable?

  45. Re:THIS IS THE SPOILER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ultimate spoiler for part three: the butler did it.

  46. Unexpected spoilers suck, scene by scene summary by nitefallz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read the book so obviously nothing surprises me but I was a bit irritated reading the second review(i didn't finish it) and it started giving a scene by scene account of the movie, I didn't want to read a summary of the screenplay.

  47. Music by bicho · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The thing I want to know, Is if Enya did sing /write another set of songs for this movie and if she will for the next.

    I really like "May It Be", and I still think she deserved an award for it.

    So, did she?

    --

    errera hunamum ets
    1. Re:Music by AGTiny · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, there are different vocalists featured this time around: Isabel Bayrakdarian, Sheila Chandra, Ben Del Maestro, Elizabeth Fraser, Emiliana Torrini, and Hilary Summers.

      Check out the soundtrack.

    2. Re:Music by krinsh · · Score: 2

      Too bad they couldn't get Charlotte Church to do a song or three for the soundtrack. I'd be very inclined to pre-order that instead of just waiting for it in the store as I did for the first.

      --
      I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
    3. Re:Music by AGTiny · · Score: 1

      IMHO Charlotte Church's voice is too piercing for this kind of soundtrack. The vocals in the LOTR scores are very subdued (basically soft chanting) and they feel secondary to the music (except for Gollum's Song). CC would take it way too far I think.

    4. Re:Music by krinsh · · Score: 1

      You've got a point there... maybe I'm equating a little too much tragic diva where there should not be. Thanks for the perspective.

      --
      I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  48. And it was worth every penny by kvn299 · · Score: 1

    I bought the Theatrical Release and Extended versions and don't regret it. Although the original is, IMHO, a superior film, the extras on the Extended version are just insane. The documentaries are about 6 hours total and they actually work well together. I've watched the first extra disc and I think that disc alone was worth the price of the set.

    Yes, I bought into the marketing, but for $25 (minue free movie ticket), you won't hear my complaining.

  49. Reading the series afterwards by ed1park · · Score: 1

    Has anyone here watched the movie(s) first and then read the books? Would you have done it the other way around if you could?

    1. Re:Reading the series afterwards by kvn299 · · Score: 1

      I read the books a while ago and had forgotten most of the storyline and I'm glad I waited to re-read the books until after the film came out.

      Last year, I re-read the first Harry Potter book right before seeing the film and I have to say it ruined the film for me. I was so aware of every little change and I found it hard to see the movie as a separate entity.

      After re-reading FOTR, I can say that the omissions from the Galadrial storyline alone would have frustrated me while watching the film.

    2. Re:Reading the series afterwards by lightweave · · Score: 1

      I also re-read Harry Potter before seeing the movie and I agree that it spoiled the movie as you described. I didn't do it this time and I definitely wont't do it for LOTR. One time is enough. Reading the book afterwards is much more rewarding because you can imagine some characters much better (this is true for Harry Potter as well as for LOTR) even though these are movies that do a much better job of depicting a book then most other movies, based on books, I have seen so far. Most movies suck once you read the book and this is gladly not the case here as they preserve the spirit of the books they depict.

    3. Re:Reading the series afterwards by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      Mmmm - I have to agree. I too had read the books previously (many moons ago) and most of the details were no longer fresh. For that I am very glad. I did, however reread the hobit before seeing FotR. I think that too was wise - it really helped to freshen middle earth in my mind, with out "spoilering" it. I was very happy to have come out of the theater feeling that the movie was a very good synopsis of the first book. Fine on it's own - magnificent when accompianing the original work.

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    4. Re:Reading the series afterwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always been a D&D/fantasy fan but for some reason never read LoTR. Every movie that comes out that is some kind of fantasy adaption generally sucks, (Dungeons and Dragons anyone?) so I went into this ready to be made fun of by my friends who generally make fun of me for liking that stuff and dragging them to see it. I loved it and decided to read the books, one right after every movie. I finished FoTR a few weeks after seeing the movie and I can safely say that I'm glad I'm doing it this way rather than the other way around. A lot of people don't like it or are upset because things are left out. I don't know about them so I'm not waiting for them and thus mad when they aren't there. I get to enjoy the movie with a clean slate. Later I get to go back and read the books and pick up all those extras which help make the world even more rich and helps flesh out some of the characters a bit more.

      Although sometimes I even catch myself reading the book and thinking, "What the hell Tolkien?! That's not what really happened!!!"

  50. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by zakath · · Score: 1

    Pull the hook out of your lip dude...

    --

  51. Re:Unexpected spoilers suck, scene by scene summar by lightweave · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you also get modded down as a troll because of pointing that out. :)

  52. "I'm not reading them" by fungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.

    Since when the editors read the articles anyway? :)

  53. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by gazbo · · Score: 1
    Rarely. For me, that bastardisation of their name used to be acceptable because it was an amusing comment on one of their hacks. For 95 and 98 it was something people could knowingly relate to; it is no longer appropriate for 2k or XP, and the term has been overused, but it is still much more amusing than any of the other terms.

  54. On a good day... by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aint It Cool acts like it is slashdotted. Linking to an aintitcool.com story on Slashdot is only pouring more gasoline on the fire.

  55. On spoilers by TheTick · · Score: 1

    It seems a little odd to me to worry about spoilers in a movie adaptation of a book that was published something like six decades ago.

    --

    --
    bachiatari na torisetsu o yome!

  56. Re: Hollywood movie without a solid happy end by Stonehead · · Score: 1

    Which is exactly like the book. What did you expect?
    (The guy is named Boromir.)

  57. Re:Unexpected spoilers suck, scene by scene summar by nitefallz · · Score: 1

    Not any more of a troll than you by your standards, obviously.

  58. You want a spoiler? by digiplant · · Score: 1
  59. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

    It's still relevant. Micros~1 still uses the old ISO-9660 (or whatever it is) CD format that forces 8.3 and they still have all their download files in cryptic, uselessly named 8.3 filenames. It's 2002, yet for naming conventions, Microsoft is still in 1992.

    Here's a hint, world! No one uses DOS anymore! We don't need 8.3 filenames!

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  60. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem, it is open sores, I don't need the credit. Besides, I'm still whoring, I can't afford to lose karma yet...

  61. Re:Am I the only one ... by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To calibrate my opinions against specific other people's opinions on a known movie, so that if I'm ever wondering about a movie in the future, I know who to turn to for a review.

    Quite effective, actually.

  62. the Ents are cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    // and big! how big?

    sizeof(ent); // !

  63. Behind me, Satan by boy_afraid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You shall not pass. I shall NOT read the spoilers and become corrupted. Behind me Satan, and may Jebus be my light. HE should confound the critics so that they may not reveal what will lay hidden until that fateful day of reckoning comes to pass later this month at the local theater.

  64. Re:Unexpected spoilers suck, scene by scene summar by lightweave · · Score: 1

    My response was sarcastic because I also pointed out that the second review gave a scene by scene account of the movie and I got modded down as a troll. Don't know why, though.

  65. I stand corrected [nt] by gazbo · · Score: 1

    No Turnips

  66. Like to steal comments eh? by dubious9 · · Score: 2

    I wish I could remember the article you stole that from. Possibly its your and you are just reusing it, but I hate it when people kharma whore off of other peoples funny comments.

    --
    Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    1. Re:Like to steal comments eh? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I've used this sort of thing before elsewhere. Whether I came up with it independently, or the other person copied from me, I have no idea.

    2. Re:Like to steal comments eh? by aWalrus · · Score: 1

      It's a fairly common type of comment. There's this one for instance (by another guy, in the same vein). Not a literal copy though.
      --

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
  67. Comic Relief by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I feel that it was alright for Gimli to be used as a tension breaker in this film since we spend the most time with him, Legolas, & Aragorn in the film.


    We need comic relief in epic movies as much as we need Jar Jar Binks to show up in The Return Of The King. IMHO it is atrocious to have humor in any serious work of epic scope. I never felt that Gimli served that purpose in the novel and I certainly despise this act by Peter Jackson.

    1. Re:Comic Relief by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 2

      IMHO it is atrocious to have humor in any serious work of epic scope.

      I agree! I also thought it was just awful the way Shakespeare wasted valuable minutes using Polonius as lame comic relief in Hamlet! What could he have been thinking? Probably some claptrap about epic works needing to engage all of the audience's emotions...

      --

      News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

    2. Re:Comic Relief by dswensen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree. The moments of humor in the LOTR movies so far have been very well-done, in my opinion (Merry and Pippin's antics, Gandalf threatening to bash Pippin's head against the doors of Moria, etc.) I was even okay with the line "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" (Regarded as blasphemy by some, but it goes by so quickly it's hardly worth getting excited about.)

      In the Two Towers book, I found the "contest" between Gimli and Legolas as to who could kill the most orcs to be very amusing. Not slapstick, knee-slappingly hilarious, but amusing nonetheless. I imagine TTT will be of roughly the same caliber in terms of humor.

      I don't forsee Jackson making Gimli into a joke character by any means. His role in FOTR was nicely balanced, with some great lines and some very emotional scenes in Moria and in Lothlorien. Hell, the only character to take a pratfall in the FOTR movie was Aragorn (during the hobbit "sword training" scene in the Extended Edition) and it's not like that sullied the movie experience for all time.

      Moreover, Tolkien's work was itself not dark and humorless, but full of joy -- lots of jokes, lots of songs. That joy deserves to be translated to film, not made into something overwhelmingly gloomy. Grimness and maudlin has no meaning unless it has joy and humor to contrast with.

    3. Re:Comic Relief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt that Gimli's comic relief will be even remotely like that of Jar Jar Binks' comic relief. Peter Jackson isn't like Lucas at all.

      Also, you are dead wrong. There is plenty of humor concerning Gimli in Tolkien's books; Tolkien wasn't some humorless prig. Whether it be his "contest" with Legolas, or his fear of horses, etc., Gimli is humorous, sometimes in the books Gimli goes in for self-deprecating humor at his own expense.

    4. Re:Comic Relief by _marshall · · Score: 2

      Aww, lighten up a bit.

      As I remember it in the book, during the battle of Helm's Deep, Legolas and Gimli were actually dualing for who had the higher orc kill count.. I found myself laughing out loud reading some of it. It seems even Tolkien himself even enjoys a little humour every now and then =)

    5. Re:Comic Relief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shakespeare was considered theatre for the masses back in his day.

    6. Re:Comic Relief by smoondog · · Score: 2

      we need Jar Jar Binks to show up in The Return Of The King.

      Five words: Uncloaking of the ring wraith.

      -Sean

    7. Re:Comic Relief by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2

      Five words: Uncloaking of the ring wraith.

      "And meesa would un a got away wit it too if idna been fo yousa meddling kidsees and da mangy dog!"

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  68. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Two Towers" are Orthanc and Minas Morgul, not Barad-dur; at least, that's what it says in the intro to the book. The film makers got it wrong.

  69. Two stone kings on either side of the river at end by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    Since the cover of my old copy of TTT has those two kings that the movie Fellowship ended with before Merry and Pippin got snatched, I always thought the two towers were those two kings. Oh well.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  70. GNU/The Two Towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS would call it GNU/The Two Towers.

  71. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2

    Here's a hint, world! No one uses DOS anymore! We don't need 8.3 filenames!

    Actually, they're kind of convenient, and even with long filename capability it's nice to have shorter file names sometimes when you have to revert to a pure command prompt (no mouse) for whatever reason. Linux's * autocomplete filenames feature is very useful. c:\progra~1\borlan~1\projects or c:\progra*\borlan*\projects is much faster than typing out the whole thing.

    I wish you could have a file with two names; one enforced short length for speed/convenience, the other a 255 char descriptive, either of which could be used to call the file. Maybe database-based file systems will solve this. (yeah you can do it with hard and soft links in linux, but it's not automatic)

  72. Re: Hollywood movie without a solid happy end by Johan+Veenstra · · Score: 1

    Don't know about the book, I haven't read them. I didn't expect it from such a mainstream movie, I expected more resolution. They could have cut up the trilogy in three or more different pieces to satisfy the hollywood audience. But as I said, they didn't, and they didn't have to, because it works as it is.

  73. Re:Hollywood movie without a solid happy end, I li by Mr+Guy · · Score: 2

    - Gandalf is dead or missing

    He's dead, you see him falling to his death.

    :puts fingers in ears:

    He's dead! nah nah nah nah nah nah I'm not listening he's dead nah nah nah nah nah nah

  74. Re:Am I the only one ... by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

    I only read the last paragraph of movie reviews for films I'm interested in. The last paragraph rarely gives away major plot elements and never has the details but summarizes the Yea or Nae view view of the reviewer.

  75. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that explanation seems to be the best, after viewing all the comments about it. But when reading the books few years ago I thought that The Two Towers had to be Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul. It's wrong though, since they get to Minas Tirith not until the beginning of third book.

  76. You've been warned! by robbo · · Score: 2

    yes indeed, the reviews have a lot of spoilers that people who've read the book would be well-advised to avoid. The lightsoutentertainment review in particular is not recommended if you have read the book- I'm very disappointed that I read it because it makes the movie sound *too* different from the canon, and I'd prefer to go in without any significant expectations, either way.

    In any case, it looks like TTT rocks and I can't wait to see it!

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
  77. I hope the sense of time is better in TTT by master_p · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've read the first book and seen the first movie...it was a very good movie, to the point that many things I was imagining when reading where the same in the movie.

    But there was a little problem: the sense of time. In the book, there are weeks(months ?) that pass between the party Baggins throws at the beggining and the end of the book, where is in the movie it seems that the total adventure runs a few days only. This resulted to the movie missing some of the epic tone of the book.

    I hope that they have done a better job in TTT regarding time.

    1. Re:I hope the sense of time is better in TTT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years perhaps? And how would you have done the passage of time? I think it was done well, since there is no mention of time. Therefore an indeterminit time passes between cuts. The audiance fills in these gaps themselves...

    2. Re:I hope the sense of time is better in TTT by empereur · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the book it's 17 years.

    3. Re:I hope the sense of time is better in TTT by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Informative

      The special edition DVD of FOTR improves on the passage of time. It adds a few scenes of 'filler', that each are only maybe one minute long each, but the help to promote the feeling of more time passing. There are two or three camping scenes that show that what looked like one day in the theatrical release is really longer. To me, the biggest point that shows how much time is really passing is when the barkeep in Bree says "Haven't seen him in 6 months." Assuming Gandalf stopped on his way TO the Shire the first time, that's still a multiple month journey each way. (I'm guessing 1.5-2 months on horseback, 3-5 months by foot, based on that one line. I don't remember how long it is in the book.)
      Plus a whole new 'marsh' sequence is added when the four hobbits are following Aragorn, which shows that the trip from Bree to Rivendell was MUCH longer (they passed through a whole different kind of terrain.)

      Yes, in the book, a few years passes between the party and Gandalf's return to Bag End to tell Frodo to leave. That passage of time isn't very well explained in the movie, but it is lightly implied with all the riding around Gandalf does.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    4. Re:I hope the sense of time is better in TTT by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      The party was a special occasion -- Bilbo's 111th birthday (or "eleventy-first", as he so eloquently put it), and Frodo's 33rd birthday, which was a hobbit's coming-of-age (after passing his/her "tweens", the hobbit's irresponsible years). Bilbo's age was not without note -- hobbits were not usually that long-lived, and eleventy-one was a special number, quite apart from the fact that he was beginning to approach the Old Took in years.

      Together, Bilbo's age and Frodo's age made another remarkable number, 144, or one gross, and so 144 guests were invited to a special insiders' party.

      After that, 17 years passed, until Frodo was hitting 50, which (IIRC) was when Bilbo started having his adventures.

      All this from memory, without having a reference in front of me. Gosh, I really am an obsessed fan.

    5. Re:I hope the sense of time is better in TTT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, as others have said, its not weeks but years between Bilbo's party and the main action of the book. The film compresses this down to a few weeks (the party is in late spring or early summer, Frodo leaves in late summer) but there's nothing to say that this wasn't actually one or more years. Of course there's nothing in the film to say that it actually is a year or longer - as there was in the 70s animated version - so the default assumptions is that its only a few weeks.

      The main action of FotR runs for about six months and again, although the film doesn't whack you over the head with it, this duration is marked by the seasonal cues as the film progresses - late summer in the Shire, autumn at Bree and Rivendell, winter in the mountains and spring after entering Lothlorien. I concede that these are subtle hints and that the whole pre-Rivendell journey is very under-represented compared to the books, but I think that on the whole the film did quite a good job of showing time passing - granted its better after Rivendell than before, when the editors get to some bits of the narrative that aren't prime candidates for those pesky edit-for-length decisions.

      With the second film the problem isn't really an issue however. The action of the middle section of LotR (books 3 to 5 - ie. all of tTT and the first half of RotK) all takes place in about six weeks of elapsed time. The film might well have to make some decisions about what to include and how to structure it (going with Tolkien's structure isn't really an option for a film); but having to account for years, months or weeks passing between scenes isn't an issue until the second part of the final film, when the time dilation opens out again so that the hobbits return to Set Things Right in the Shire about a year after they leave.

      Regards
      Luke

  78. In Soviet Russia... by Jonny+290 · · Score: 2

    Movies review YOU!

    --
    Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 2
      Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...


      Hey, wait, are you calling OSS developers monkeys? That's not very nice...
      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Jonny+290 · · Score: 2

      From what I've seen, the latest Ask Slashdots are less of the "OSS developer asks for help and/or inspiration" and more of the "idiot who can't google asks inane tech support question or requests help with some shitty case mod".

      --
      Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
  79. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

    Good point. But if you are using Windows and _not_ using 4NT or something like cygwin that gives you a *nix-type shell then you get all the hassles you deserve.

    Filename completion rules!

    I'm pretty sure that something like "c:\progra*\borlan*\projects" works fine with cmd.exe if the wildcards reduce to a unique filename.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  80. Not Quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His name IS Boromir, but he actually dies at the beginning of The Two Towers book.
    The movie went a slightly further into the whole LOTR story than the book did.

    Read the books.

  81. Path by empereur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A little off topic, but I have a question for LOTR fans. I've just finished the book, down to the very end. But seeing the map, there's something bothering me about the logic of the story

    In the map, I can see that Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, the Cross Road, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, and then Mt. Doom went almost in a straight line. So, it's only logical for me that the great battles should take place somewhere in this line, rather than far north in Morannon.

    When Frodo arrived in the Black Gate of Morannon, Gollum argued that Sauron's attention would be concentrated in the north. 'He thinks no one can come to the Moontower without fighting big battles at the bridges, or getting lots of boats which they cannot hide and He will know about'. Off course Gollum was probably lying, but to me that statement was very ridiculous. After all, though he had enemies all round him, Minas Tirith was the nearest and that path was the most logical

    When finally the Captains of the West captured the Crossroad (without big battles at the bridges, nor lots og boats), they again make a ridiculous move by riding north for several days to knock Mordor at their 'front door'. Off course Gandalf supposedly try to drive Sauron's attention away from Cirith Ungol where Frodo would pass, but actually he should know (by Faramir's account) that at that time Frodo was long gone from the pass

    And then a logical move for Sauron is to take back the Crossroad (instead of moving his army to the north) and then either chase the silly army from behind of attemp another strike at Minas Tirith. After all he still outnumbers his enemies many time over at that point

    Well, that's what's bugging me, hope someone could give a logical explanation

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

      I get the impression that only at the Black Gate was there room to let out of Mordor the massive army Sauron had collected. Cirith Ungol had no real pass into Mordor -- not so you could move large numbers of troops, nor did it really have space to house them up to the battle. One might argue also, that there wasn't enough room to deploy there, between the river and the tower.

      On top of that, Dagorlad was the "traditional" site for this battle, i.e., where it had happened before at the end of the 2nd age (remember, Cirith Ungol wasn't built until after Sauron was cast down the first time...).

    2. Re:Path by Frey · · Score: 1

      There were two main reasons why they avoided Minas Morgul.

      1) attacking there would cause Sauron to direct all of his attention and all of his troops there. This would virtually assure that the ring bearer would be caught--even though he has already made it through the pass he was still on the Mordor side of the road from the pass.

      2) Minas Morgul can be thought of as 'haunted'. It would drive everyone mad to try to fight there due to the long corruption and presence of the Nine.

    3. Re:Path by Mr_Huber · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best reason I can think of for why Aragorn and Co. march all the way north to the Gates is an easy one - he's playing for time. It takes several days to make his way across the river, up Ithillian, round the dead lands and to the Black Gate. That's time for Frodo to hike across Mordor while Saruon is busy moving troops to the Black Gate.

      As for why Sauron does not send a force from behind, his one goal here is the Ring, which he thinks Aragorn has. I think he believes Aragorn is drunk on the power of the Ring and seeks to challenge him openly at his gates, a sort of 'winner take all' ending.

      Aragorn is in the open and exposed. If he attacks Minas Tirith again, Aragorn may retreat to the city leading to a long seige. If he attacks the army from the rear, it may scatter and he'd be forced to hunt Aragorn (a ranger and woodsman) up and down the Great River.

      Saruon knows he has an overwhelming force, his spies can see the exact size of Aragorn's army. Sauron has the choice of terrain - Aragorn must attack his fortifications.

      Remember your Sun Tsu - Choose your battleground and you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.

      And as for why the attack should be at the Black Gates, rather than Minas Morgul, here's the best reason - time. Gandalf is playing for time. It takes quite a while to muster the army, march across Osgiliath, up to the crossroads, along Ithillian (sp?), around the Dead Lands and up to the Black Gate. That's a longer hike than Frodo has to make, with Sauron concentrating all his attention away from Mordor the entire time.

    4. Re:Path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the geography. Minus Morgul is tower defending a mountain pass. Very difficult terrain to move an army through. Slow, lots of ambush opprotunities. Also, as mentioned, "haunted". Morannon (the Black Gate) is more of a case of a gap in the mountains, blocked up by a wall and gated. Much easier to move through, assuming you can get past the gate. This is, for reference, the route used by the Grand Alliance whist depriving Sauron of the Ring the first time.

      At least, that is my humble understanding...

    5. Re:Path by HamNRye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree totally with your comments. The others who have replied are apologists. This is too true. Even with all of the arguments for Sauron causing the battle to happen at Mordor, this does not explain why he would leave "The One Road" so lightly defended and scouted.

      Also, even if his goal is capturing the Ring Bearer, why not lay siege to Minas Tirith?? You stand a good chance of uncovering the Ring Bearer in due time, you have the troops, you don't leave your enemies unhindered to plot against you. You either starve Minas Tirith or make the ring bearer show himself in their rescue.

      I would think that under any circumstances I would at least have small patrols at each bridge. Not only for looking for the ring bearer, but for policing and taxation.

      They also must be pretty sure that Sauron is too stupid to run. They do no work trying to make sure the area is secure. There is no intelligence gathering beyond a 1-2 night look over of the outside of the gates. Although I find it hard to believe that Sauron could be that stupid and old at the same time.

      I guess that the real points are this: Tolkien was a linguist, not a strategist, and in his utopian society the evil lord doesn't even collect unjust taxes from public works like bridges.

      The first rule in taking over any land is control the lanes and means of transportation. This restricts supply, etc. The second is to limit communication. Sauron does neither. The only good explanation is Hubris. Again, how can he be this stupid and old??

      ~Hammy

    6. Re:Path by tbarrie · · Score: 1
      Also, even if his goal is capturing the Ring Bearer, why not lay siege to Minas Tirith??

      Because the sneaky heroes went and named one of the chapters of the book "The Siege of Gondor", tricking him into thinking that he had in fact done so.

    7. Re:Path by MrMickS · · Score: 1

      The army outside Minas Tirith is routed completely. It has lost it's commander and is not long capable of being considered a force. Sauron doesn't have an army in the field, furthermore the one from Cirith Ungol was the one that rode out to Minas Tirith, so no large force there with which to retake Osgiliath. So the Captains of the West head up to the gates of Mordor in order to distract Sauron and make him concentrate his force there. Don't forget that the basis of battles for the larger part of human history has been about destroying the enemies capability to fight rather than conquering territory. Once you've destroyed the opposition's army you can pretty much do what you like.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    8. Re:Path by empereur · · Score: 1

      Not at all. In fact Frodo watch Sauron's massive army marching past Cirith Ungol when they were about to attack Minas Tirith. And I think we have to assume that Dagorlad wasn't a swamp when the great battle was fought. Now it would be difficult of an army to cross that land.

    9. Re:Path by dmforcier · · Score: 1

      I just love how people spout off without having much of a clue. E.g. there is absolutely no motivation for Sauron to run! In fact, his entire motivation is exactly the opposite.

      Further, as for taxing etc, he probably does that (and worse) in lands that he does control. But at the time of TTT, Sauron's power is still goring. He does not control the valley of the Anduin, although he has raided into it and driven most of the permanent residents across the bridges. In TRotK he does take the bridges and Osgiliath and lay seige to Minas Tirith, exaclty as you recommend.

      As to guarding his realm, he does that just fine. The two known routes in, through the Iron Gate and through Morgulvale, are impenetrable. And even Cirith Ungol, which is 1) secret, and 2) full of Shelob, is garrisoned and patrolled.

      Read the Appendices. Sauron accounts for all potential reinforcements. Assaults are made into Rivendell, Mirkwood, and Lothlorien (and against the Lonely Mountain and Dale if I recall correctly) to keep the Elves et al busy. Saruman does a pretty good job of keeping the Rohirrim tied down.

      The day has to be saved by two armies which didn't actually exist as armies - the Army of the Dead, and the Trees. Are you blaming Tolkien for not having Sauron account for *them*?

      And in the strategic sense, until the time of the destruction of the Ring, Sauron hasn't suffered a strategic defeat in the Third Age! He's lost a bishop (Saruman) and a knight (the Witch King), but the other side is clean out of miracles and nearly out of moves.

      Tolkien did just fine with his strategic plotting. Try reading before criticizing.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me!
    10. Re:Path by HamNRye · · Score: 2

      There may be no reason for Sauron to run, but if you are the invader, you cannot simply make that assumption. If sauron books out a back exit, the trilogy runs to 6 books.

  82. Re:Unexpected spoilers suck, scene by scene summar by nitefallz · · Score: 1

    Ah hah. My mistake.

  83. Re:Two stone kings on either side of the river at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The two stone kings are the Argonath; they are sculptures, not towers. Towers are tall buildings you can live in or fight from; they aren't sculptures.

  84. Re: Hobbit Episode II, III, and IV by Eagle5596 · · Score: 1

    Actually they are already planning it, but you have to remember, all true believers begin counting at 0 :)

  85. Re:What disappointed me... (spoiler) by kirkjobsluder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Time Peter Jackson fought with the studio to pick up the second film exactly where the first left off, as if you just stepped out for a popcorn refil without any voice over or flashbacks.

    But it seems to me that some people missed the conflict and resolution of Fellowship even when the director ADDED AN ADDITIONAL SCENE OF DIALOG BETWEEN ARAGORN AND FRODO TO MAKE THE CONFLICT EXPLICIT! The conflict is that the ring corrupts everything that comes near it making the Fellowship its self a threat to the quest. The resolution is that Ringbearer tries to go alone.

  86. WTC VS LOTR:TT by smoondog · · Score: 2

    There have been a few comments (generally joking) about the two towers name and its similarity to the world trade center disaster. I think it is bogus, of course, but the wtc group seems to be trying as hard as they can to fuel the fire. Did anyone notice that the unveiling of the new WTC Plans will occur on the same day LOTR is being released? Who's the genius there?

    -Sean

  87. Shelob? by ThreeToe · · Score: 1

    I'm confused... I get the impression from these reviews that Shelob isn't included in LOTR:TTT. How could that be?

    I figured Shelob would be one of the more exciting sequences in the movie, but now I find I may have to wait until next year?

    Lord have mercy on my soul!

    1. Re:Shelob? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      I guess they figure that Helm's Deep and the Ent smackdown is enough for one movie. Shrug. Either way it should kick copious amounts of ass.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  88. Lord of the Rings Copies From Star Wars by duck_prime · · Score: 2
    Turns out Frodo is Sauron's son.
    This key bit of knowledge allows me to extrapolate certain key scenes from the Two Towers:
    • Frodo discovers that Arwen is his sister, hence clearing the way for Aragorn. And to think that he kissed her. Eeeuw.
    • Cute low-tech nature-loving freedom-fighters defeat the Uruk-hai stormtroopers by dropping trees on them. Like that's believable!
    • Pippin gets even more annoying: "Meesa think Strider doosna know about second breakfast"
    And... of course... at the very end...

    Gollum is kicking Frodo's ass ("and now, young Bagginsses ... you will die") on the ledge above the volcano, when Sauron comes out of nowhere, grabs Gollum and hurls him into the abyss! Then dies from inexplicable lightning injuries.

    I think Lucas has a good plaigarism case against Tolkien.
  89. update by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    I went ahead and pooped.

    Just want to keep slashdot apprised.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
    1. Re:update by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      Keep on sniffing, please.

  90. insightful my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pack up your bags to whatever socailaist or fundamentalist country you want to go to . good luck, and dont let the door hit you on the way out.

  91. Re: CAUGHT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey look everyone! Someone caught a dopefish!

    Citing Michael Moore as the spokesman for what Americans are really like is stupid.

  92. you really are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah lets believe saddam would not attempt to hide things when everybody knows they will eventually come with months of notice.

    Man, I d like to sell you a bunch of stuff bud. Id make millions!

    now going to war for that is something different.

  93. Re: HAHA by mizhi · · Score: 1

    Exactly how long do you think you can keep your trolling expedition up? :-)

    --
    Humorless sig goes here.
  94. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. You're amazingly stupid.

  95. Speaking of spoilers by markov_chain · · Score: 1

    Nooooooo! I didn't want to know that ents are going to walk, you heartless mob! You spoiled the whole movie for me!

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  96. complete preview? by jonnyfivealive · · Score: 1

    no you dont, foo. you have a complete version of what the third movie is based on, a huge difference. and no, you arent so cool. but i am, hah!

  97. Re:Am I the only one ... by briggsb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well written reviews don't just state whether the movie was good or not. They have insights, background on directors/actors. If you only look at a thumbs up or a thumbs down on a review then you probably are the type of person who thinks movie reviewers are useless.

  98. yeah but...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will win in a fight, Gimly or Breunor Battlehammer? I think the king of Mithril hall would kick funny boys ass.

  99. I don't see anything about the paths of the dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now how will we find out who the long dead soul in the darkness was?

  100. Re: HAHA by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    I thought I'd stopped. I just felt that that response deserved a reply.

  101. Re:LOTR (Bored of the Rings) by JavaJoint · · Score: 1

    You can still get Bored Of The Rings, which is a 1969-era parody. Oh, wait, you'd have to read the real books first to get most of the jokes :-)

  102. My theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is that Jackson would like people to go back and see the movie more than once. The ending of TTT, as written, is incredibly bleak. And any approach I can think of filming that ending would leave the audience incredibly depressed, if not outright weeping. This is not the condition you leave your audience in if you want them to see the movie ever again. Even Empire Strikes Back, as dark as the ending is, manages to finish on a hopeful note and not leave the audience in despair.
    This is, I reiterate, just my theory. Not based on anything Jackson has said.

  103. cell phone usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so did anybody actually see the character mentioned in the PopSci article about the curious warrior that answers a cell phone in the middle of the big fight?

  104. Original Version movies in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...also, in Germany I believe that "OV" usually designates an original-version film. In this case, it would be in English. :}

  105. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by defaulthtm · · Score: 1

    It is easy enough to turn on tabbing for filename completion in NT4/W2K or XP by editing

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\COMMAND PROCESSOR\CompleteionChar
    and
    HKEY_CURRENT_USER\ SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\COMMAND PROCESSOR\CompleteionChar

    set the value to 9

    --
    K
  106. MOD PARENT UP (it gives real english theaters) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nough said

  107. Re: Hollywood movie without a solid happy end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually they did cut it a little differently, Boromir doesn't die until the second volume, which would've been awkward in a movie.

  108. exactly by EEgopher · · Score: 1

    YOu are exactly right there. In the book, Gimli has no point of speaking at all, so when he roars in with his desire to swing at orc-necks, comparing numbers with Legolas throughout the battle, it can only be seen by the reader as comical. The author wanted to inspire the reader's heart to blast hot blood and yummy adrenaline through the reader's body in the hopes of making sure his battle scene wasn't too dry or boring. Great comment, Marshall. I hope you get modded up for +6 PRACTICALITY: NOT OBSESSED WITH WOW-AND-FLICKER OF MODERN MOVIE-MAKING.

    --
    hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
  109. Lord of the racists by Funkitup · · Score: 1

    This article has an interesting slant on it.

    http://film.guardian.co.uk/lordoftherings/news/0 ,1 1016,852217,00.html

    I always thought it was a bit of a crusades metaphor.

    However, anyone who's not a fan of star trek might get the gist (and anyone who wants to mention the black secretary.....you have been warned).

    1. Re:Lord of the racists by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      Well, that's a very simplistic view of things, but I'll admit it's the easiest to adopt if you're already of a certain mindset. I have no idea where you're coming from with the "crusades metaphor" thing, though; there aren't really enough points of comparison to qualify.

      It's really a very poorly written article. At times it was difficult to tell if he was talking about the movie or the books, and in either case hadn't paid very close attention. In the book, the people called "wild men" were good guys, without whose aid the Rohirrim never could have relieved the seige of Minas Tirith. They did this despite the fact they had been unjustly persecuted (the word used is "hunted") for many years by the Rohirrim, largely on account of their race. This is as explicit a condemnation of racism as you'll find in any epic work.

      The peoples the article seems to be incorrectly denoting "wild men" were "Southrons" and "Easterlings". Now, the thing is that Tolkien made absolutely no bones about his work being an English story written primarily for the English and drawing on legends and motifs of northwestern Europe. The Rohirrim the article objects to so much simply reflect the "heroic" mould of English legend; their culture (with a few exceptions) is modelled closely on that of the Anglo-Saxons and their language is exactly the Mercian dialect of Old English. In Tolkien's history the Southrons and Easterlings were primarily responsible over the long course of the Third Age for the decline of Gondorian power in repeated invasions that often took advantage of internal political turmoil or moral decay. (Gondor, incidentally, isn't all that far south. It's capital is conceived of as being roughly at the latitude of Venice. It's still well north of the tropics.) The best real-life analogues here are the Huns and Mongols (for the Easterlings) and the Moors (for the Southrons). Their invasions of Europe have the curious character of being both historical and legendary. Consider, for example, all the personal legends about Atilla, or the Chanson de Roland. It's for the legendary associations that, as "bad guys" in Lord of the Rings, they have a certain resonace with Western European readers, and it's this resonance that makes them so effective.

      And this brings up another part of the problem. By drawing on the sources I mentioned above, Tolkien successfully inculcated the "feel" of a traditional epic in his work. In such tales, the line between good and evil is very clearly drawn. The good have no flaws, and the evil have no redeeming characteristics. This draws some to automatically assign this quality to Lord of the Rings, but it in fact is not there. No group of people in it is morally unambiguous. Aragorn's technologically advanced ancestors, the Numenoreans, were from an isolated western island. When they arrived in Middle-earth it was to exploit its resources, which they did to disastrous effect -- just ask Treebeard -- and as they fell into a moral decline they became brutal oppressors of the indigenes. This is one of the main causes in Tolkien's history for the traditional antipathy of the Southrons, at least, to Aragorn's race, and why they were so willing to listen to the Numenoreans opponent Sauron, who concealed his own ulterior motives. After the Atlantis-like sinking of Numenor and the establishment of Numenorean kingdoms in Middle-earth they became stagnant, a curious combination of Byzantine and Egyptian, as much concerned with the embalming of the dead as with the well-being of the living and more interested in antiquarian knowledge than new discoveries. The Elves weren't exempt either; they didn't even belong in Middle-earth anymore. Those who remained were the ones who refused the summons to the home of the gods after the end of the First Age. It was their seeking after power to preserve Middle-earth in an image of the places they remembered -- in fact, to retard its development -- that they became seduced by Sauron into the forging of the Rings of Power, which is what sets up the problem situation in Lord of the Rings in the first place. The Rohirrim had a past spotted with racial intolerance. Besides the Druadan ("wild men") they also despised on racial grounds the Dunlendings, whom they had largely displaced from their ancestral homes. Of this oppression they reaped bitter fruit more than once. Not even wizards, who are actually of the race of the gods, are free from moral difficulties. Five were originally sent to Middle-earth, but only one, Gandalf, fulfilled his mission. The others became mostly irrelevant to the struggle, and one, Saruman, went completely to the bad. (If Tolkien's color-coding were as reliable as all that, it would have been Saruman the White who persevered, while Gandalf the Grey -- a color that should indicate moral ambiguity -- would have fallen.)

      And Sauron (of the same kind as the wizards, incidentally) wasn't necessarily evil, not in the beginning, or at least he may have been motivated by impulses that were essentially good. It's his method of achieving that good that led him into the evil of dominating others by force. To the extent that any other character in the book does the same thing, they are morally tainted as well.

      I don't know what "wearing black" has to do with anything. The writer of the article should have noted that in the book, the livery of the White Tower in Minas Tirith was a mostly black uniform, and that Aragorn's banner was mostly black as well. Obviously, color is not always the moral indicator it's made out to be.

      Nor is the South to be exclusively associated with evil. It should be remembered that Lord of the Rings was an afterthought to the main body of the mythology Tolkien had developed, and in the mythology the far North (and West of any surviving lands in Middle-earth) was the home of the great primeval evil, of whom Sauron was just a servant.

      Orcs aren't human and aren't intended to resemble any humans all that closely except in a very degraded way. The article's complaints about them are artifacts of the movie; the book mentions neither dreadlocks nor very dark skin. And the movie presents a version of their origin that Tolkien considered among several others, but never actaully settled on. The origins of the Orcs were (ironically, considering their importance to the narrative) very difficult to work into his story, and Tolkien never found a satisfactory solution.

      The whole racial and moral situation Tolkien presents is far more complex than it's sometimes made out to be, and it actually models the real world with some fidelity. As a white man of Northern Europe, though, he can scarcely be blamed for writing his stories from the point of view of a white man of Northern Europe. Although there was every indication that he was well aware of the multitudinous failings of his own race, he was too well-versed in history to believe that it was as uniquely fallible as it's often made out to be these days, and so failed to be embarrassed by it. And I think it's this presently unfashionable lack of embarrassment that so offends many of his detractors more than anything else.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    2. Re:Lord of the racists by Funkitup · · Score: 1

      Right, well I don't especially agree with the article. However (and my opinion follows, though it's a while since I read either the bible or LOTR but I think it makes some sense)...

      The crusades metaphor is simply that of a group of white men rescuing a 'hot' south eastern area (Mordor/Israel) from an evil overlord and his band of nasty followers.

      The landscape of Mordor bears far more in common with the middle east than it does the baltics.

      There are Christian religious metaphors running right the way through the books. The angels (Gandalf etc) fighting against a fallen angel (Sauron). Tolkien does depart slightly from this theme with another angel, Saruman falling (or could this be an antichrist reference), but we get straight back into The Revelation of St John's with the pure hearted lamb (Frodo) who ultimately defeats the beast.

      Its very nature of being a good versus evil battle teaches children (and adults) to polarise the world in this way - much in the same way Bush has worryingly managed to portray the US v Iraq situation.

      This - good v evil portrayal - may be acceptable to some Christians, but is not something I believe to be healthy.

      There are many different brands of racism, not just open persecution. The goblins and orcs in LOTR are supposed to be purely evil creatures, with no hope of redemption. This is surely teaching kids that a) stereotyping is good and it works, b) there is such a thing as genetic determinism where all creatures of a race can have the same qualities. They see Palestinians and Al Quaieda followers on TV and see muslims as being different to themselves. Surely it's just a short mental hop - when helped on with the messages portrayed in LOTR (that it is reasonable to tar whole races with the same brush) - to seeing all muslims as bad war bringers.

      And yes I do know that they're just orcs and goblins and not men and it's all fantasy etc... I were that it was that simple. I will go and see the movie and enjoy it, but I think there is a valid point about its rather dubious morality.

    3. Re:Lord of the racists by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      Sorry, I refuse to evaluate anything that's not aimed at children in terms of "what it's teaching kids". LoTR was written by an adult for adults. The ultimate redeemability of orcs isn't really addressed in LoTR, but it should also be clear from the climactic scene that they're not even free-willed creatures. An reader who takes that into account would, I think, not put them on the same moral plane as humans but rather as animals; they're explicitly compared to ants on more than one occasion. The Hobbit is aimed at kids, but the "goblins" in that story exist on about the same level as the bogeyman: they're big, violent, scary monsters that are utterly irrelevant to racial issues. You might still insist on seeing them as analagous to some non-white race or other, but you're a long way from demonstrating that was in the mind of the author. It may well have been in Peter Jackson's mind, but I don't propose to defend either him or his movies.

      As to comparisons with the Middle East: surely you must see you're projecting backwards. Nowhere in either LoTR or in Tolkien's ancillary writings can anything be found to show he had that region in mind in relation to Mordor. As the movies show, Mordor also bears a passing resemblence to parts of New Zealand, and some attention to the book reveals it wasn't particularly hot outside the environs of the volcano either. The part of Middle-earth that maybe corresponds to the Middle-east by intent is south of Mordor, although we find it inhabited by Moorish rather than Arabic analogues. (Since we find corsairs there as well, which brings to mind the pirates of the Barbary Coast, it's perhaps better to think of it as analagous to North Africa.) In any event, your proposed metaphor breaks down in that Sauron was the aggressor, and that the white men (who lived just as far or farther south and not very far at all west) were fighting a defensive war, not to "liberate" Mordor but to prevent Sauron from gaining dominion over the known world.

      Whether or not it's right to "tar entire races with the same brush", it's a sad fact that pretty much everybody does exactly that except in those rare cases where there is some moral imperative not to. Worldwide, that is a rare thing, you know. If we must regard this as a lesson for the "kids", I don't think the fact that many people do think this way (although we ought not) is a bad one to learn.

      As I said at some length before (with numerous illustrations), I don't think Tolkien's portrayal of the world was as black-and-white as you seem to think. But sometimes -- not always and not often, but sometimes -- the world does work that way. Even leaving Iraq aside, I'm sure you can come up with a relatively recent example or two.

      There are very few Christian metaphors in LoTR; you've mainly read into it things that simply aren't there. Frodo might be made to stand for a Christian on his spiritual path, but he certainly does not stand for Christ. Note that he was overcome by temptation at the end. That's not something a devout Roman Catholic like Tolkien would have made a Christ-analogue do. I'm not going to bother with the rest of it. I don't have the time. And although you seem certain of your conclusion, you seem less certain about the specifics. I can't argue with such a phantom.

      I don't find the morality of LoTR particularly dubious. It is, of course, a fundamentally Christian one. I can't see what your problem with it is unless you simply object to the source. As a Christian myself, you can hardly expect me to agree.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    4. Re:Lord of the racists by enol · · Score: 2

      According to the commentary and the biography of Tolkien in the extended DVDs, Tolkien absolutely HATED his works to be represented allegorical. That was one thing he was very adamant about and he wanted the works to stand as they are. For instance, it mentions how some people used the Ring as an allegory for nuclear weapons during that era and Sauron as Hitler, etc. which got the author pretty riled.

      The closest intention Tolkien had was of producing an original English myth, since as a professor he knew that a lot of the English legends and folklores were actually bastardizations of the imports from other countries (like the idea of King Arthur). So yeah it would definitely seem Anglo since he inteded it to be very Anglo-centric material. Just as a ancient Chinese myth would be China-centric. But you can't say they are maliciously racist.

      BTW, I couldn't read that article - the link didn't work for me.

    5. Re:Lord of the racists by Funkitup · · Score: 1

      OK, not much time to reply to all this...

      I don't think LOTR is maliciously racist, however it is very sad that the only peoples from our planet clearly represented in the action in the book are white germanic analogues (I think of the elves, dwarfs, hobbits and men as white germanic types personally).

      If people can't see the, 'christian brits take on the world' themes in it then sorry, but I can. Are you aware that ex pat brits (who are now ancestors of the current inhabitants) used to murder indigenous americans, africans and australians on the grounds that they felt they weren't human?

      While the book may not be explicitly allegorical, it may be viewed as being metaphorical when applied to current politics. All literature and art, by its very nature, has to stand this test.

      If this riles Tolkien, or his ancestors then I'm sorry, but... Isn't it a little bit disrespectful for this kind of book, where - and i repeat it again if you haven't noticed yet! - germanic analogues kick the evil asses of the nasty non-germanic, but STILL SENTIENT, beasts in the name of their religion, when the english / americans / australians have been doing the same thing for the past 4-500 years.

      If Britain wants its own myths, there are probably some - but they were forgotten 1000s of years ago when the marauding Celts destroyed the indigenous people. Now all we have is shame for what we have done to the world.

  110. Interestingly enough.... by moosesocks · · Score: 2

    From the look of the comments posted so far, it appears that nobody has read the reviews (even though they argue that those who have read the books shouldn't have to worry about spoilers.)

    Or isn't that how slashdot always works?

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  111. Obligatory Monty Python reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    He's dead!

    No, no... he's resting.

  112. Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S by sc2_ct · · Score: 1

    So, what were the original titles? North Tower and South Tower? :P That's the name it was published under, so that is what the name is. What the other possible names may have been is by now quite irrelevant.

  113. p2p? by joshuaos · · Score: 0, Troll

    Has anyone managed to download it yet from one of the p2p's? If so, which one, and which copy? I tried to download the second Harry Potter movie and got a pr0n and the first Harry Potter movie instead!

    Cheers, Joshua

    --

    When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

    1. Re:p2p? by elementik · · Score: 3, Funny
      I tried to download the second Harry Potter movie and got a pr0n and the first Harry Potter movie instead!
      Which one did you watch first?
      --
      --- Stop the world! I want to get off!
    2. Re:p2p? by darth300z · · Score: 0, Redundant

      wait...does that make it kiddie porn?

      sorry...had to do it

      --
      By law, anyone who has been drinking is "sober" until he or she "cannot hold onto the ground." Actual lexington, KY law
  114. I'll be nice by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 2


    "I wished I'd worn a tie so I could strangle myself."

    I'll be nice and warn you that there is a third movie going out christmas 2003, so you know what to do with the ties you are going to receive this christmas.

    --
    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  115. Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b by sprlmnl · · Score: 1

    I was always partial to microsnot.

  116. Right! Mod parent up! by BitterOak · · Score: 2
    From the end of the Unwin paperback edition of The Fellowship of the Ring (recall Unwin was Tolkein's original publisher.):

    Here ends the first part of the history of the War of the Rings.

    The second part is called The Two Towers, since the events recounted in it are dominated by Orthanc, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress Minas Morgul, that guards the secret entrance to Mordor...

    This is found on page 529 of the 1987 reprinting of the Unwin Paperback (ISBN 0-04-823185-1).

    I'm not sure if Tolkein wrote those words himself, or if they were added by his publisher, but unless Tolkein said something to the contrary, they are probably as canonical as anything.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  117. Mmm by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    Mmm, a sexalogy.
    /me drools

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  118. Spoiler warning? It's too late for that! by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 2

    Some guy named Tolkien spoiled the whole movie about 50 years ago, and I think most people here have already seen it.

  119. Re:Spoiler warning? It's too late for that! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    Oh my god ...
    He must have been looking in the future ...
    stop that man ! he is a terrorist !!! ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  120. Spoilers by johnkqfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Be serious. Spoilers? The books have been available for quite a long time. Reminds me of those people who walked out of the theater after the first movie grumbling about not knowing what happens next...

  121. Re:Offensive title (supplemental) by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 3, Funny

    After all, Sauron lives in the White House and Saruman lives in London.

  122. before i walk out the door... by doublehelix_nz · · Score: 1

    ..to visit the local computer stores >:D i would like to inform you all, that a vidoe with the bloopers from the first 2 segments has been produced, and only a few people so far have actualy seen it. I had the opertunity to see it a few days ago(sometimes living in new zealand kicks ass :). The video was a limited vewing release, and it had <b>Property of new line cinema</b> 2/3 way down the screen the WHOLE time, so if some tv corp got hold of it, it would be useless.
    <br>
    <b>THE ENTS</b>
    What a shame it was when i saw one on the bloopers, unlike the book they are not very tall and imposing. maybe 6' tall, no more!
    <br>
    shit OMFG<br>
    i spoilt it for everyone.
    oh well.

    another thing i am puting my $ on happening, is the mass general public hating the second movie, as it does not have much details about the ring it self. those who have not read the book will then shun the 3rd segment.... wonder what jackson has planned to make the 2nd segment more understandable to a mass audience?

  123. Just a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didn't Gandalf and frodo hop on the giant eagle and fly to mount doom to drop the ring in. The eagles seem to be able to fly around in all the books fairly freely.

  124. Re:Hollywood movie without a solid happy end, I li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps this is the case because it is not a movie from Hollywood?

    It was shot in New Zealand by a New Zealand director. All the CGI was done by a New Zealand company built up by Peter Jackson (the aforementioned director). The only thing that came from Hollywood was the money and a few of the actors.

    These movies would have been complete rubbish if the producers (oh, whoops, they did come from LA) had had their way. Originally they wanted Peter to make a one movie version of LOTR. Two and a half hours... can you imagine? Peter, being genius that he is, managed to slowly get more and more money out of Hollywood and extend the idea until finally he had three full length movies in which to weave some New Zealand style magic.

    You can thank our beautiful nation later.

    Hansel Dunlop

    PS:Steven Speilberg's industrial light and magic? what have they ever done that wasn't dripping with cheese.

  125. looking ahead (or behind) by DarkProphet · · Score: 2

    First of all, I can't wait to see TTT for myself. I really liked FOTR, and actuallly hadn't read LOTR before I saw it. I've read the book a couple of time since, and ditto on Silmarillion. Speaking of which, in retrospect, I found the Silmarillion to be even more interesting than LOTR. Maybe its just me, but I sure would love to see another trilogy based off of the Silmarillion. Maybe I just have a deep fascination with the elves and the elvish languages, but I thought the Silmarillion was enthralling in a whole different way than LOTR. To be fair, I had to read LOTR first to appreciate the Silmarillion, which I would suspect is a common statement for those who have read both. I think it would be incredibly cool to have even more advanced CG re-enact the music of the ainur and the days of the 2 trees in Valinor. Hell, if the movie makers wanted to get really greedy they could split the Silmarillion up into probably 10 - 16 episodes, which would be just fine by me, provided of course that each episode was released every 4 months or so... ;-)

    --
    What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  126. Saw it at Oslo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Slashdot reader my English's a little bad. But I did see J. R. R. Tolkien's book on the big screen. Purists will not like it I bet. Too much is changed from the book. There is no Shelob, a romance is added and some other things. The average movie-goer will love this movie, most of all kiddies. There are lots of whiz bang special effects. Gollum is great, not quite as good as Dr. Sid from FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRIT STALLION but better than Dobby the house-elf from THE HARRY CHAMBER POT SECRETS. Gandalf is not in the movie much and is always serious, so he's no fun. Where is Bilbo, he wasn't in this movie. Wasn't he in the book, I am certain I remember him fencing with Tom Bombadil at one point. Anyway the battle scenes were astounding, but you know what I liked BRAVE HEART's better. The CGI is obvious and distracting, wish they had just used 30,000 extras. I think that idea is feasible. But the battles were good, the elves all do MATRIX moves, flipping and sliding over all manner of surfaces like stairs and horses and once between two orcs and once on a ceiling. Elf craziness? ! I thought orcs were corrupted elves anyway, why can they not flip and slide on things I wonder. Why are they gross disgusting brutes. The orcs suck By The Way. Their make-up is so B-Movieish. They look crap, like some cheesy alien from Star Trek dipped in goo. I feel sorry for those young kids whose first exposure to the story is this movie, for their image of orcs will be those MEET THE FEEBLES rejects. So, this movie has some cool battles with crap orcs and flipping and sliding elves even though I think logically they should both be able to flip and slide. The Ents are great. When the Tree Man does his dance it is tremendous. Merry and Pippin were paid to be in this movie? They could have been CGId in easily I think, for their parts were scarce and meaningless. The movie could have done with more trees, though. The trees were jawsome, anyone that does not think so is probably not an environmentalist. Saruman does some Mortal Kombat type crap again, Peter Jackson has almost ruined these movies with his B-Movie touches (a la LSD Galadriel, Demon-Face Bilbo and Wizard Staff Fight from the first one). In one part he wields a staff-spear on a magic chain and he hurls it like the yellow ninja from that game. And right after that Gimli yells "Finish him!!!", so I question whether it was intentional cheese. This movie was OK I give it a B-. If you read this review you automatically agree to be bound by the terms of my ERLA which states that you must buy me a cloaking device for my car like James Bond has come on you Americans I know your DARPA has invented it already cough it up. You are bound by my ERLA.

  127. To all criticising the above I said. by unikron · · Score: 1

    I only stated the "Bowling for Columbine" film, because it's a different approach on all the happy woooeey films that try to show america. I didn't say that it's 100% accurate, but it sure does show some of the problems.

    Anyway, the fact is that all that thing with the Twin Towers / Two Towers is stupid. Some people think that, every note of more than one Tower means the World Trade Center, it should change like it never happened. This is sacrilege, both to the Writer's work and to the WTC. As I said before, and noted a million times in here, Tolkien never knew of the WTC -- he was not Nostradamus. As for the WTC it happened. It happened for known reasons, for unknown reasons but it happened. I'd feel the same if the Acropolis (yes I am Greek) was destroyed but I would accept the fact that it happened. By banning everything WTC (no naming, no noting, no referring) you destroy the memory of WTC, not keeping it alive.

  128. Re:Offensive title (supplemental) by unikron · · Score: 1

    LOL! That's hillarious... History repeats itself...

  129. Re: Hollywood movie without a solid happy end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please feel free to fellate moi. You are still and have forever been a canner.

  130. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    /*
    * [...] Note that 120 sec is defined in the protocol as the maximum
    * possible RTT. I guess we'll have to use something other than TCP
    * to talk to the University of Mars.
    * PAWS allows us longer timeouts and large windows, so once implemented
    * ftp to mars will work nicely.
    */
    -- from /usr/src/linux/net/inet/tcp.c, concerning RTT [round trip time]

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...