Return Of The King Footage From E3

I can't wait by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 19:51 · Score: 5, Funny

For the novelization!!! I hope it's as good as the movie.

Re:I can't wait by psychonaut · 2003-05-20 22:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

You intended that post as a joke, but there really was a novelization of the 1970s animated LotR film. It was marketed as a book for older children and had lots of illustrations taken from the film.
Re:I can't wait by zdislaw · 2003-05-21 01:43 · Score: 1

I've got that. It's really more of a coffee table book than a novelization. And, in that case, it is better than the film. I know that Bakshi film was cutting edge for it's day, but I saw it again a little while back and was bored.

--
bad sig...no donut.
Re:I can't wait by psychonaut · 2003-05-21 01:51 · Score: 1

I've also got it... Yes, it's sort of coffee table book in shape, but it's rather heavy on the text to be classified with your standard browsable fare. It was really a work of narrative fiction based on the film, attractively packaged so that people would buy it for their kids who might not have had the patience to read through the x-thousand-page Tolkien original. I agree that it's more interesting than the movie version. :)
Re:I can't wait by ComaVN · 2003-05-21 04:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Real programmers use COPY CON FILENAME.EXE

indeed. Especially useful for removing bios passwords when all you have is a bootable dos disk...

--
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Re:I can't wait by gpinzone · 2003-05-21 04:44 · Score: 1

Bakshi is a hack. Other than the two Fritz the Cat movies, none of his other work is worth mentioning. He's one of the most overratted animators in history.

Wow, live footage by Savatte · 2003-05-20 19:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I could have sworn they already filmed the movie.

But seriously, one minute of footage in poor quality out of 180 isn't too much to get excited about. Just wait for the movie, folks. It's not that much longer. We had to wait 18 years for the fourth star wars movie.

Re:Wow, live footage by OutRigged · 2003-05-20 19:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Don't you mean the first? ;)

--
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Re:Wow, live footage by BJH · 2003-05-20 20:10 · Score: 2, Funny

More like the worst.
Re:Wow, live footage by cap'n+foolsy · 2003-05-20 21:18 · Score: 5, Funny

lot of good THAT did us!

--
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away
Re:Wow, live footage by mlush · 2003-05-20 21:46 · Score: 2

More like the worst.

I'd withold judgement till Ep 3 is out, they need cartoons
to bridge the gap between Ep2 and Ep3 I have a bad feeling about this.
Re:Wow, live footage by NanoGator · 2003-05-21 05:26 · Score: 1

"We had to wait 18 years for the fourth star wars movie."

What are you talking about? The fourth movie came out in 77!

--
"Derp de derp."

RoTK by Roto-Rooter+Man · 2003-05-20 19:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Okay. Why is 'T' capitalized, but not 'o'? Don't capitalization rules stipulate that both short prepositions and articles begin with lowercase letters in titles? Normally I wouldn't gripe about this, but we're trying to make a new acronym here. Let't not screw it up!

--

The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!

Re:RoTK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 19:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Because it's "The King", not "the King." Now, I'm going to go watch RotJ.
Re:RoTK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 20:42 · Score: 0, Funny

If you look in the 3|337 |-|@xOr rulebook, it clearly states that vowels are typed in lowercase and consonants are typed in uppercase. dude.
Re:RoTK by flyhmstr · 2003-05-20 20:49 · Score: 1

Because it's a typo, the normal contraction of the third book is "RotK".

--
-- The Flying Hamster
Re:RoTK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 21:17 · Score: 5, Informative

"the King" means he is one of many kings.

"The King" means he is the one and only king.

I suppose it could go either way in this context (king of the dwarves, king of the elves, king of the humans), but the fact that "the" is an article doesn't automatically mean it isn't capitalized.
Re:RoTK by varslot · 2003-05-20 21:48 · Score: 1

So which book did you read? When did Elvis enter the scene?

--
There arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. (Francis Bacon)
Re:RoTK by Zak3056 · 2003-05-21 00:49 · Score: 3, Funny

"The King" means he is the one and only king.

When did Elvis enter into this? :)

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:RoTK by Roto-Rooter+Man · 2003-05-21 03:19 · Score: 1

Pretty odd that no other Lord of the Rings website capitalizes it that way, though, eh?

--

The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Re:RoTK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 04:27 · Score: 0

But Elvis is the only King.
Re:RoTK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 07:12 · Score: 0

When did Elvis enter into this? :)

Around the time the Wizards of the Coast did "Elvis Archers"...
Re:RoTK by paladin151 · 2003-05-22 01:10 · Score: 1

The acronym is already very common for Romance of the Three Kingoms and has been around for many years.

Umm... the game? by Uller-RM · 2003-05-20 19:58 · Score: 4, Informative

The video is of the Return of the King video game, as shown at E3... not the movie.

At least, that's what the article seems to imply.

Re:Umm... the game? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 20:10 · Score: 0

No, the video shows clips from the movie. Though, some of the scenes looks like it's from a game.
Re:Umm... the game? by ergonal · 2003-05-20 20:20 · Score: 4, Informative

As the AC said, it shows video clips from the movie.. the last few seconds are from the game. Also, if you're on dialup, I suggest NOT downloading this. It's really poor quality, and it looks as if the guy can't even hold the camera steady (obviously hasn't heard of a tripod).
Re:Umm... the game? by Johnny+Pissoff · 2003-05-20 20:25 · Score: 1

I sure hope EA comes out with the RoTK game for the Xbox in a timely manner. Last time with the Two Towers game (an awesome game, BTW) the Xbox version didn't come out for 5 months or so after it was out for the PS2. I also hope it's as good at least as the Two Towers game was.
Re:Umm... the game? by nemski · 2003-05-21 00:03 · Score: 1

Also, if you're on dialup, I suggest NOT downloading this.

Dialup, what's that?

--
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
Re:Umm... the game? by leeet · 2003-05-21 03:23 · Score: 1

Tripod, well do you carry a tripod when you go to a convention? Probably not?

Stop complaining and enjoy this premiere. I enjoyed it.

--
-- Leeeter than leet
Re:Umm... the game? by Phroggy · 2003-05-21 06:37 · Score: 1

It's really poor quality, and it looks as if the guy can't even hold the camera steady (obviously hasn't heard of a tripod).

I bet he has heard of a tripod, and probably wished he had one, but would have no convenient place to put it when he finished filming.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Umm... the game? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 08:59 · Score: 0

Maybe he should have tried his butthole.

Har De Har Har!

For the game but has scenes from the movie by noackjr · 2003-05-20 20:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Subject says it all...

Re:For the game but has scenes from the movie by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 23:32 · Score: 0

Subject says it all...
(Score:5, Informative)

Re:Bored of the Rings by BJH · 2003-05-20 20:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Because not all of live such exciting and stimulating lives that we cannot appreciate a tale designed to fire our imagination. Unlike yourself.

Oh, hang on, you're on /. - that means you're just as much a sad loser as the rest of us.

The reason for the bad quality by shmuc · 2003-05-20 20:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is the clip horrible in quality? Because it's a video tape of the screen at E3.

--

Efren Belizario
headspeak.com

Re:The reason for the bad quality by Phroggy · 2003-05-21 06:40 · Score: 0, Troll

Why is the clip horrible in quality? Because it's a video tape of the screen at E3.

Thank you for that insightful comment. Perhaps this explains why the title of the Slashdot article says "Footage from E3." And the way the camera moves around and people are talking in the background, I would never have guesses that this was actually a video tape.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:The reason for the bad quality by shmuc · 2003-05-21 07:43 · Score: 1

you're very welcome, phroggy.

--

Efren Belizario
headspeak.com

This is so ... by Chromodromic · 2003-05-20 20:14 · Score: 0, Funny

COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!! AAAUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH. I. CAN. NOT. WAIT. Seriously, this trilogy has been freakin' awesome. Peter Jackson and a few other directors, like Bryan Singer, have captured their subjects about as well as could be expected from big budget movie studios. I know the all caps post above is overly enthusiastic, but I don't think many would disagree that for a long, long time, there's been little to be very excited about, movie-wise.

--
Chr0m0Dr0m!C

Re:This is so ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 20:28 · Score: 0

for a long, long time, there's been little to be very excited about, movie-wise.

You're right, of course. LOTR doesn't change that.

We already know what it would look like by GothChip · 2003-05-20 20:16 · Score: 4, Informative

All three LOTR films were filmed at the same time so they have a consistent look and feel about them.

Re:We already know what it would look like by Roto-Rooter+Man · 2003-05-20 20:20 · Score: 1

With a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, a modern filmmaker should be able to give them a consistent look and feel no matter how far apart in time they were filmed. Keeping everyone in one place until the whole project is done is just more convienent and cheaper than trying to coordinate on-off scheduling of the entire cast and crew.

--

The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Re:We already know what it would look like by junklight · 2003-05-20 20:54 · Score: 1

However - any filmmaker worth his salt will feel that given better tech they could make a better movie. If they then make another related movie years later they will take advantage of new stuff.

And perhaps go back and fiddle with their old movies - look at lucas and starwars
Re:We already know what it would look like by Fizzl · 2003-05-20 21:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unless they add some Jar Jar Binks of Middle Earth in there.

<rant>
I'm still f*cking pissed they turned Gimli into a comic sidekick in Two Towers. I thought the original foolhardy and arrogant Gimli of the book was amusing enough.
</rant>

--
Bot Assisted Blogging
Re:We already know what it would look like by Whitecloud · 2003-05-20 21:31 · Score: 1

Re:We already know what it would look like
true, but the films are dynamic productions, people have just finished filming scenes requiring people with a nordic look, weta's pumping fx like some MASSIVEly amped beowulf supercluster, and the costume of Legolas and Gimli were strangley absent at the rings exhibition...
so yeah we know what it will look like...like something your grandkids look up on google when they type in: who's won the most oscars ever :)

--
Do you need a website upgrade?
Re:We already know what it would look like by cdrudge · 2003-05-21 01:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Two other bonuses are that you reduce the risk that one of the characters is involved in an accident and can no longer play the part. A shorter time frame for filming the three movies means less time for something to happen. A good example is Professor Dumbeldore in the first two Harry Potter movies. He died after the second film while I beleive he was suppose to be in the third and later movies.

Also, if the films are shot over a long period of time, characters can change in their appearance, especially young actors. Daniel Radcliffe had a noticeable change from his first Harry Potter from his second one. His voice also changed considerably.
Re:We already know what it would look like by hedgefrog · 2003-05-21 02:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, look at Lucas and Star Wars. Kind of disproves your point.
Or were you being ironic?

--

I lost my copy of the green golf ball joke can anyone find it for me?
Re:We already know what it would look like by Arandir · 2003-05-21 05:56 · Score: 1

Unlike, say, they had been filmed with different desktops. GNOME for Fellowship, KDE for Two Towers and XFCE for Return...

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:We already know what it would look like by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 06:19 · Score: 0

It's a movie. Get over it.
Re:We already know what it would look like by phurley · 2003-05-21 06:31 · Score: 1

Of course in the case of the students at Hogwarts as long as they keep the filming of the movies more or less one a year, that would work well. Of course having Dumbeldore die is a problem

--
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
Re:We already know what it would look like by Dominic_Mazzoni · 2003-05-21 06:32 · Score: 1

Two other bonuses are that you reduce the risk that one of the characters is involved in an accident and can no longer play the part. A shorter time frame for filming the three movies means less time for something to happen. A good example is Professor Dumbeldore in the first two Harry Potter movies. He died after the second film while I beleive he was suppose to be in the third and later movies.

Yes, since Dumbledore is in the 3rd and 4th books, one would expect he was supposed to be in those movies, too. Sad.

Also, if the films are shot over a long period of time, characters can change in their appearance, especially young actors. Daniel Radcliffe had a noticeable change from his first Harry Potter from his second one. His voice also changed considerably.

I get your point, but in this case it's a good thing, since the characters are supposed to be a year older.
Re:We already know what it would look like by harks · 2003-05-21 14:21 · Score: 1

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html

LAME.... by makoffee · 2003-05-20 20:28 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I was disapointed in that footage for sure.

--
-makoffee

Summary of footage by Erik+K.+Veland · 2003-05-20 20:45 · Score: 3, Funny

Fading in and out of poor quality images of faces we know from the previous movies. Zooming through New Zeealand landscape. Some bows aiming upwards. Riding through the forest on Shadowfax.

And it ends with some crappy looking fighting by Gandalf that HAS to be from the video game, or I would kill myself watching that on a big screen.

--
"I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java

Re:Summary of footage by madmarcel · 2003-05-20 22:52 · Score: 1

"Zooming through New Zeealand landscape"

Might've been the cameraman playing with his camera whole he was sitting in the cinema

(Aha! Real purpose of footage revealed! He was trying to get a closeup of thingamajich's breasts!) Say, there wasn't any shuddering while he was filming this, was there?

BTW, just a question....could you spot the difference between a movie shot in (for example) the UK and Nieuw Zeealand?

(I know I can, but then I drive through/over it everyday - looks a lot like the UK if you ask me ;^)
Re:Summary of footage by mdew · 2003-05-21 01:16 · Score: 0

the LOTR trilogy really shows off some great untouched New Zealand wilderness, you couldve done this in the UK thats for sure...or any where else.

--
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/

It's good... by jade42 · 2003-05-20 20:59 · Score: 2

like a cookie, but not so good like it's your favourite cookie. Any new material from the next film is always a treat but I don't see anything that I didn't expect. What kind of spoilers were in there anyway? In summary: good stuff, no surprises.

--

Brought to you by the Artificial Idea Factory.

Spoiler by WebfishUK · 2003-05-20 21:00 · Score: 4, Funny

It mentioned this being a "spoiler" on the website,but who the fuck hasn't read the book?

--
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"

Re:Spoiler by NeoSkandranon · 2003-05-21 01:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

It would truly sadden you to know just how many people havent read the book, or started and stopped because they thought it was boring. You forget that Geeks are one of the subcultures nowadays that actually read regularly

--
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Re:Spoiler by mdnornberg · 2003-05-21 01:45 · Score: 0

Actually, there were several meanderings from the text of the book in Two Towers. Just look at what they did to Faramir. I'm actually interested in seeing what they do different from the text to make the movie stand out as a separate work.
Re:Spoiler by PovRayMan · 2003-05-21 01:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

After seeing Fellowship of the Ring I decided it was time to start reading the books. I always had them, I just never read them.

It wasn't until two months before the release of The Two Towers movie that I began with The Hobbit. By the time I saw TTT I was halfway through reading Fellowship. Around the end of March I had just finished reading Return of the King.

I'm glad I waited until now to read them, because I definatly had a better appreciation for what he wrote. Up until then everything was a spoiler to me like Gollum biti-- oh snap.

Well I just can't wait to see ROTK as well.

--
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
Re:Spoiler by Rorgg · 2003-05-21 02:46 · Score: 2, Funny

On a game-guild messageboard I frequent, one of the other mods wanted to mark all the LotR stuff as spoilers, since she hadn't read the book. So I added a warning to the top of the board: Please mark all LotR movie info as **SPOILER** because Mynn's been really busy for the last 50 years. Psst -- Romeo and Juliet both die! Muahahaha! I'm an evil spoiler!
Re:Spoiler by bigpat · 2003-05-21 03:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Geek reading is probably not exactly Shakespeare, I mostly just read Slashdot. Which is probably more like that experiment with the monkeys.
Re:Spoiler by zapp · 2003-05-21 04:02 · Score: 1

I haven't. Being a full time student + working 20 hrs/week keeps me plenty busy.

Once the 1st movie came out I thought about reading the books, but decided I'd rather enjoy them in movie form first, and then fill in the gaps with the books.

I hate knowing the ending to a movie, and so will not read the books until after I see the 3rd movie.

I did read The Hobbit though..

--
no comment
Re:Spoiler by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 04:53 · Score: 0

It would truly sadden you to know just how many people havent read the book, or started and stopped because they thought it was boring. You forget that Geeks are one of the subcultures nowadays that actually read regularly.
Let us pray then that Slashdot hasn't yet become infiltrated by the Non-Geeks, and that everyone here has read the books at least thrice.
Re:Spoiler by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 05:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

It IS fucking boring. Too slow. I was reading the first book and literally skimmed over entire chapters. Way too much singing too, and I'm glad that got left out of the movie (like, say, in the Prancing Pony scene), or it would have been a friggin musical. This movie will do FAR more to expose the 'unwashed masses' to LotR that all the geek advocacy of the last 2 decades put together.
Re:Spoiler by Phroggy · 2003-05-21 06:46 · Score: 1

While walking out of the theater after seeing The Two Towers, someone said they overheard:

"Oh, MAN! We have to wait another whole YEAR to find out how it ends!"

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Spoiler by sykora · 2003-05-21 08:53 · Score: 1

Alot of people haven't read any of them. There is a plethera fangirls who haven't read any of the books and only go to see the movies because "Legolas is hot."

I honestly took four years to read The Hobbit because I couldn't get into the style of the book. Since I couldn't get into The Hobbit, I never bothered to read the LOTR series. It took seeing the first film for me to be able to get into the style of the books. I gladly finished them all before Two Towers, and I definately regret not reading them before hand.
Re:Spoiler by Snaller · 2003-05-21 13:36 · Score: 1

It mentioned this being a "spoiler" on the website,but who the fuck hasn't read the book?

I haven't read the book! (Don't like travelogs !)

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

LotR Music by Bombula · 2003-05-20 21:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have to say that I was disappointed in the music in the first two films, if only for the reason that it is not memorable in an epic John Williams sort of way. I mean, if 99% of people can up and hum the theme to Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, then surely the film version one of the greatest works of 20th century literature should have a tune you can remember well enough to hum...

--
A-Bomb

Re:LotR Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 21:24 · Score: 0, Funny

Oh yeah, like something from Britney Spears? Maybe Jackson should have just stepped aside and let George Lucas screw the movie up for him?

Go back to your Star Wars, Hollywood f00l.
Re:LotR Music by eat+potato · 2003-05-20 22:18 · Score: 0

I have to disagree. The music for the first movie was awesome. The second wasn't nearly as noticable.
Re:LotR Music by mav[LAG] · 2003-05-20 22:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Which just goes to show there's no accounting for taste :) I thought the soundtracks were masterpieces all round: grand sweeping themes for the grand sweeping bits, a light and bouncy tune for the hobbits, some stunning pieces that somehow actually managed somehow to sound elvish, and excellent dark and brooding bits for Moria. The Academy agreed.
The memorability of both Star Wars and Raiders is a factor of time and how much both have penetrated Western culture. The themes from both have been played, parodied, and imitated a thousand times over the last two decades. Also, both are much less epics than rollicking adventure films which lend themselves more to a contemporary theme. Don't get me wrong - I love (and own) both the Raiders and Star Wars soundtracks - but I went straight out and bought both Ring soundtracks as soon as they were available.

--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:LotR Music by CausticWindow · 2003-05-21 00:14 · Score: 1

Agreed. The music is tame, and the central theme is one of the most boring ever heard in an "epic". My opinion of course.

They should have gone for something like "Requiem for the Ring", which was used in the Two Towers trailer. For those of you who haven't heard it, it's a reorchestration of the "Requiem for a dream" theme, originally by Clint Mansell.

--
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Re:LotR Music by zelbinion · 2003-05-21 01:47 · Score: 1

I mean, if 99% of people can up and hum the theme to Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, then surely the film version one of the greatest works of 20th century literature should have a tune you can remember well enough to hum...

What are you talking about? I can hum the main theme to LotR right now! It goes:
Bah de bah, bah de bah, bah de bah, bah de da, da, da...

Or wait, is that Volkswagon theme.... Damn.
Re:LotR Music by mdnornberg · 2003-05-21 01:55 · Score: 0

What amazes me is what a good job they did in selecting the themes for the various cultures in Middle Earth. The drum-and-chant for Moria was especially gripping. The music adds a lot to the interpretation of the story as well. The theme for Rohan changed my view of their culture entirely from what I read in Tolkein.
Re:LotR Music by the+gnat · 2003-05-21 02:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

They should have gone for something like "Requiem for the Ring", which was used in the Two Towers trailer.

Oh god, that drove me up the wall. I'm sure it sounded great in the original context, but LotR is the type of epic that screams out for loud, heavy Wagnerian orchestral scores. The soundtrack to the trailer had a sort of throbbing feel to it, like it was just re-orchestrated pop music. Didn't fit in at all with the medieval fantasy world.

Actually, re-use of standard music in trailers has become more and more annoying and obvious. . . like using the "Gladiator" soundtrack to promote "K-19". There's a piece called "Tikun" (not even from a soundtrack) that's been used in trailers for Minority Report, Pirates of the Carribean, and about seven other movies. Sounds sort of like "Carmina Burana", which has been ripped off more times than I care to remember.
Re:LotR Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 02:13 · Score: 0

While the soundtracks for both of these movies are excellent, they are far surpassed by the London Symphony Orchestra's version of The Lord of the Rings: Symphony No. 1 by Johan De Meij. Although none of the music is ever used in the movies, I enjoy listening to this work much more than any other piece.
Re:LotR Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 03:38 · Score: 0

daaaa da da daaaa da da daaaaa. I remember it.
Re:LotR Music by Evil+Grinn · 2003-05-21 03:43 · Score: 1

Actually, re-use of standard music in trailers has become more and more annoying and obvious. . .

My favorite was when they used something that sounded like a re-make of Led Zeppelin's "Bring it on Home" in the trailer for the Flipper movie, starring Elijah Wood, Paul "Crocodile Dundee" Hogan, and a smart-ass dolphin.

--
where there's fish, there's cats
Re:LotR Music by cvd6262 · 2003-05-21 04:09 · Score: 1

The score from LOTR is truely one of the best I've heard in some time. As an example of its depth, try listening to the end of the Balrog scene from Fellowship. There is a rather climactic rise to the music and then, as Gandalf falls, the music first is a stunned silence and then slowly moves into mourning as the film follows the rest of the fellowship from the mines.

Now listen to the first track of the Two Towers. There is the rise, and fall with Gandalf, but instead of becoming a mournful piece, since the movie this time follows Gandalf and the Balrog, the battle chants from earlier in Moria are reprised.

In essence, Howard Shore forked his music across two movies like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novel.

--

I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Re:LotR Music by Grotus · 2003-05-21 05:09 · Score: 1

Small nitpick, Carmina Burana is more than just 'O Fortuna', which is the song that always ends up in movie trailers. 'O Fortuna' was also used within the movie 'Excalibur'. Other songs from Carmina Burana may have been used in other places, but none come to mind.

--
"From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
Re:LotR Music by HopeUnknown · 2003-05-21 05:19 · Score: 1

The memorability of both Star Wars and Raiders is a factor of time and how much both have penetrated Western culture. The themes from both have been played, parodied, and imitated a thousand times over the last two decades.
That may be part of the reason why those themes are so memorable, but in twenty years I will still not be able to hum the opening to The Two Towers.
Re:LotR Music by EvanED · 2003-05-21 05:29 · Score: 1

Just romembor that the trailer almost always comes out before the score (technical name for the soundtrack, which is technically the score + dialog + sound effects) is finished, so it's an impossibility to use music from the movi they are promoting as it's not finished yot.
Re:LotR Music by Arandir · 2003-05-21 05:45 · Score: 1

I always go around humming humming Gollum's song at work. Maybe that's why they look at me strange.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:LotR Music by mav[LAG] · 2003-05-21 06:33 · Score: 1

Cool - well spotted (I didn't notice this). The score uses the same elements it has before but in a different way which is I suppose one of the tools available to a composer to show same event from a different perspective.
Actually I need to see TTT again - I must have missed the first half an hour because I was so stunned by the opening five minutes.

--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:LotR Music by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · 2003-05-21 11:55 · Score: 1

Maybe they could put out a remastered DVD with the soundtrack composed of all Middle-Earth themed songs by Led Zeppelin.

--
>;k
Re:LotR Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 13:03 · Score: 0

Maybe the creators of Avril or N'Sync can help you out and come up with something catchy for the people to hum.

Or try the unofficial danish LOTR trailer :- by elgaard · 2003-05-20 21:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://www.alexanderband.dk/lotr/index.htm

Dont download it, dont go and see it by shrewtamer · 2003-05-20 22:14 · Score: 1, Troll

I must advise you not to have anything to do with this adulteration. If you haven't read the book then you'll get much more out of that than out of the film. If you have read the book then after seeing the Two Towers you should know better.

The Lord of the Rings is a great piece of work and the fact is that if the One Ring ever went to Gondor then Sauron would've noticed it, GAME OVER. Journey to Mount Doom was only possible because Faramir unlike his hot headed brother had the good sense to allow Frodo onto Mordor unmolested. (I walked out of the last movie when this bit went wrong.) I have to say that other than this crucially important departure from plot the visualisation has generally been great; while I give Jackson some credit for a good rendition, the fact is that the book paints the original picture.

I'm not a purist, I accepted that the films weren't going to be a mirror image, couldn't understand the need to screw up the end of the Fellowship, even managed to swallow Glorfindel being replaced by an Arwen who could cast spells, but this distortion of the fabric is unacceptable.

Do not see this movie, it is damaging to one of those works that is so brilliant as to have become woven into our mythology.

I was happy a couple of years ago when I heard Peter Jackson talking of the responsibility of making this movie. After the Two Towers I left the theatre enraged. I am now just starting to be able to talk about it.

Now I feel betrayed. Please do not watch it.

Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 22:31 · Score: 0

After the Two Towers I left the theatre enraged. I am now just starting to be able to talk about it.

Get a life man - it's just a freaking story. It's not like we're bastardizing The Oddessy or Hamlet here (not that that hasn't been done 100 times worse in the past).

But you're just able to talk about it? C'mon, get real... people who were beat and abused as children can say things like "I'm just now able to talk about it." Not Comic Book Guy geeks.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by iainl · 2003-05-20 22:40 · Score: 1

Damn, where did I leave my +1, Funny?

Its an adaptation. Its in a different medium. You change things. I've seen as many films suck by trying to stick to the book and do things that make no sense on screen (Dreamcatcher being the latest example to hit screens here) as ones that would have been better if they hadn't changed things.

Do you try to get people to boycott Bladerunner because its nothing like Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep too? Was Orson Welles' War Of The Worlds weaker because he ditched the late Victorian England setting? Do you hate Jaws because Spielberg dropped the crap love triangle from the book?

A film is a film, a book is a book. And at the end of the day, even if Aragorn, Gimli and Arwen were to get down for some threeway inter-species action halfway through the third film it won't stop you from reading the books again.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by nigel.selke · 2003-05-20 22:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

I must advise you not to have anything to do with this adulteration. If you haven't read the book then you'll get much more out of that than out of the film. If you have read the book then after seeing the Two Towers you should know better.

I've read the novel and watched both movies, and while I agree with you that the novel offers more than the movies from a general perspective, both offer great entertainment. Your attitude towards the movies seems unneccessarily hostile.

The Lord of the Rings is a great piece of work and the fact is that if the One Ring ever went to Gondor then Sauron would've noticed it, GAME OVER

Not neccessarily. If you recall the original story, the closer to Mordor the ring got, the more its power increased. Surely from that point of view, taking it to Mordor, which is basically what they did, would be worse? (And as we all know, that is the basis of the quest - they are going to take the ring to Mordor). My point is, just because the movie had a detour to Osgiliath, I fail to see what you're getting your knickers in a knot about. Yes, it does change the original story's details, but it isn't as terrible as you're making it out to be.

The Lord of the Rings is a great piece of work and the fact is that if the One Ring ever went to Gondor then Sauron would've noticed it, GAME OVER. Journey to Mount Doom was only possible because Faramir unlike his hot headed brother had the good sense to allow Frodo onto Mordor unmolested. (I walked out of the last movie when this bit went wrong.) I have to say that other than this crucially important departure from plot the visualisation has generally been great; while I give Jackson some credit for a good rendition, the fact is that the book paints the original picture.

You walked out? Because a detail of the story was changed in leui of the movie adaptation? Ok, I'm not going to comment on that. Let's examine the rest of what you said, anyway.
If you read the original story closely, Faramir was NOT entirely pleasant while holding the Hobbits hostage. He was thinking about taking the ring to Gondor and interrogated the Hobbits pretty efficiently. Now, I agree that he was less hot-headed and far wiser than his brother, and during the section of the story where he and his men hold the hobbits hostage, he did have a change of heart and allow them to proceed with their quest unhindered. However, to say that they "weren't molested" is cutting it thin. They were blindfolded, tied up, and held against their will for a long time, interrogated, and not all that Faramir had to say to them was pleasant (in the beginning, it's hard to miss the threatening undertones of what he was saying, unless you are very unperceptive). Yes - the movie changed the details of this part of the story. Did it remain true to the spirit of the story, though? I believe so. Re-read this part of the story if you don't believe me. Crucially important departure from the story? Not really. The outcome is going to be exactly the same. I didn't like some parts of this departure either, but you're really making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm not a purist, I accepted that the films weren't going to be a mirror image, couldn't understand the need to screw up the end of the Fellowship, even managed to swallow Glorfindel being replaced by an Arwen who could cast spells, but this distortion of the fabric is unacceptable

Sorry to tell you this, but Elves are "magical" in nature, and therefore can cast spells, and create magical items, to greater or lesser degree depending on the individuals themselves. Arwen is the daughter of Elrond, who has not only great Elf, but also Ainur heritage. To believe that she would be an Elf with little power is, well, shockingly ignorant on your part, to be brutally honest. If you don't understand this, read the Silmarillion, which deals with the nature of

--
We hang the petty thieves, but appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Fruan · 2003-05-20 23:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the more important rules for storytelling in a visual medium such as film is that it is (almost) always better and more effective to show than it is to tell.

As LotR has quite a fair bit of characters sitting around telling each other things, this is a bit of a problem.

So, lets examine possible reasons for having the ring be taken part way to Gondor in the film, shall we?

One of the most important plot points in RotK, if not the most important, is Aragorn's leading what remains of the hosts of Gondor against the black gate, in an attempt to fool Sauron into thinking he is in possession of the ring, thus taking his attention away from the ring's real possition. There is all sorts of supporting evidence for Sauron to leap to this conclusion, but its a pretty complex and subtle point to get across. In a movie even more so.

By having the ring seen by an agent of Sauron, escorted by the troops of Gondor, selling to the audience that Sauron is convinced beyond all doubt that Aragorn has the ring is going to be far easier - One shortish speach from Gandalf about how He could never concieve of anyone willingly giving up the power of the ring, and Bam. Instant set up.

Compared to the (admitably more subtle and interesting) evidence presented in the book - Pippin and Aragorn's palantir experience, the film's evidence is far more easily grasped.

The films aren't messing with the mythology in any dire mannor - quite the opposite. They have gone to the trouble of setting up major plot elements, in the nature demanded of the different medium, well in advance, when they were needed.

--
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 00:02 · Score: 0

>And at the end of the day, even if Aragorn, Gimli and Arwen were to get down for some threeway inter- species action halfway through the third film it won't stop you from reading the books again.

I'm just picturing John Rhys Davies' face with a large grin on it... ;)
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 00:36 · Score: 0

If you would come down from your mighty high horse and stop being condescending for a moment, please...

I have to agree with him - this film is rubbish, at least in the sense that it takes a masterpiece and makes it into a monotone D&D story.

To comment on just a few of your points - elves aren't magic as in 'look, I can do magical tricks' - they don't cast spells; neither do the wizards, for that matter. They have great spiritual power which they can use to cause things with.

The big difference between the Faramir in the book and the film is, that in the book he is noble and deep-seeing, whereas in the film he is just yet another superficial jerk, who happens to come around in the last moment - and just as the film character is thin, so is his reason for turning around. He just sort of goes from selfishly and ruthlessly wanting to keep and use the ring, to giving it up and sending it to Mordor in an instant. Ridiculous.

This BTW is another thing about this film: the main supporting characters all seem to be cast from the same mould - Elrond is a narrowminded jerk: 'This is not our fight...' (except Sauron wouldn't have had a ring if not for Feanor); Fongorn is a narrowminded jerk: 'This is not ...', and of course Faramir.

No - this film rates as a quick B-film made for the D&D crowd.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 00:59 · Score: 0

> One of the more important rules for
>storytelling in a visual medium such as film is
>that it is (almost) always better and more
> effective to show than it is to tell.

Not true. Like LotR (the book), there are many movies that use implication to great effect (bladerunner, blair witch project, insomnia, sixth sense etc). In fact, implication is one of the strengths of the story, it's a pity jackson chose to remove the implication and insert cheesy wizard zapping sessions, robot-like Sauron, Smurf woman Galadriel, and comical flaming eyeballs. Ah well, at least a forgettable movie is easily forgotten.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 01:45 · Score: 0

To smack the poster a couple of levels up with a big clue stick, Elrond != Ainur. Dude, you need to read the Silmarillion again, apparently.

Anyhow, the parent here has it right on elves and Faramir. But let's not forget that Tolkien's Frodo actually did something rather than drop Sting and whimper on the floor. (Say, stabbing the Witch King of Angmar upon Amon Sul.. Stabbing the cave troll in Moria.. etc.)

Let's not forget that Tolkien's Aragorn wasn't some whining goth, shirking off his duty. He damned well knew that all of Gondor's throne are belong to him, and never hesitated to point that out. ("Behold, the sword that was once broken is forged anew! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose quickly!")

Let's not forget that Legolas wasn't fucking Neo.

I had high hopes for these films. After the first, I found the changes didn't detract from the movie that much. After the second, I was sick to my stomach. I'll be bringing a bottle of vodka with me to the theatre for the third - something tells me I'm going to need it.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by redtail1 · 2003-05-21 01:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

No - this film rates as a quick B-film made for the D&D crowd.
Thankfully hardly anyone over a certain age pays much attention to the D&D crowd. Been there, done that, still enjoy it but also have a life now, thanks.
I agree with you that Faramir was done a large disservice in the movie. The detour to Gondor and encounter with the Ringwraith was pointless and it compromised Tolkien's original idea that Sauron had no idea where the Ring was located.
But to let those few mistakes ruin your enjoyment of an otherwise decent film? To become offended about every departure from Tolkein's sacred text?
Get over it. It is just a film. There will be other adaptations of it, possibly within your lifetime. Extreme intellectual snobbery will bring you nothing but loneliness and make you insufferable in the eyes of the rest of the population.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by MyHair · 2003-05-21 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny

(I walked out of the last movie when this bit went wrong.) [re: Frodo & ring in Gondor]

Dude, you shouldn't have left. That part of the movie was later revealed to be a dream.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by pizzaman100 · 2003-05-21 04:23 · Score: 1

The Lord of the Rings is a great piece of work and the fact is that if the One Ring ever went to Gondor then Sauron would've noticed it, GAME OVER.
According to the books, Sauron thinks the ring IS in Gondor. For starters, he knows the hobbits have it. He knows that the hobbits have been traveling with Gandalf and Aragorn. And he knows Aragorn is Isildur's heir. Sauron fully expects the ring to go to Gondor, and for Aragorn to claim it.
So, while your correct that the the ring's deture to Gondor was not true to the story, and Sauron shouldn't know where the ring is - the fact PJ changed the story line doesn't hurt anything. We can still expect Sauron to behave the same way. He wants the ring, he thinks it is in Gondor, so he attacks Gondor with all his might.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by pauls2272 · 2003-05-21 04:43 · Score: 1

Good try on attempting to justify Jackson's terrible rewrite of JRRT. One of the writers of the screenplay (the one Jackson is not married to), said they "spiced" Faramir up because he was too boring a character. The problem with your theory is that the ring was seen still on a HOBBIT! If the plan is to let Sauron think Aragorn has the ring in Gondor then WHY DOES A HOBBIT STILL HOLD THE RING??? Why wouldn't Aragorn already have taken the ring? Also when hobbits are spotted in Minas Morgul (or are you saying they are going to rewrite JRRT again and remove them being captured?), it won't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together: 1. Hobbit spotted with RING at Osgilith. 2. Hobbit spotted at Minas Morgul. Gee, I am Sauron, the most powerful creature in Middle Earth. I wonder what the hobbit is doing here...
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by cap'n+foolsy · 2003-05-21 04:49 · Score: 1

you, sir, need to get out more. :D

--
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by gpinzone · 2003-05-21 04:52 · Score: 1

It's not like we're bastardizing The Oddessy...

I guess you haven't seen "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Skjellifetti · 2003-05-21 07:51 · Score: 1

Agreed. FoTR did a decent job. The diffs between book and movie were acceptable and I really enjoyed the scene w/ the Balrog.

TTT sucked. Its as if Jackson and the actors had become bored with the project as a serious subject and decided to put a video game on the screen instead. I'll probably go and see the RoTK, but I'll do so with a sense of dread rather than anticipation.

--
FreeSpeech.org
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by Stuntmonkey · 2003-05-21 12:43 · Score: 1

(I walked out of the last movie when this bit went wrong.)
Too bad. If you had stayed, you would have found out that entering Gondor was an extended dream sequence when the hobbits are asleep in Faramir's cave. You really shouldn't give up on things so easily.
Re:Dont download it, dont go and see it by ldzpn23 · 2003-05-23 14:26 · Score: 1

I was very pleased to read your post (nigel.selke). I agree with many of the points you made. I myself have been a Tolkien fan for years, reading The Hobbit, LOTR, The Silmarillion, as well as many of his other works. Although Jackson's rendition of LOTR is not exact, it is a seemless interpretation that I believe offers a great amount of entertainment and does justice to Tolkien's marvelous work. Like you said, I also believe the novel does offer more than the movies, and Tolkien's work is of sheer brilliance. Furthermore, Jackson himself has stated many times that the films were clearly his interpretation and would not be exact renditions of Tolkien's work. In a sense, the three books (six in original form) had to be "meshed" (changed during the process) to a certain extent to form a "followable" movie that was one man's interpretation. Although aspects have been changed from the original works, the impact they have made on viewers and the amount of entertainment they have encompassed, shows that Jackson has done well. Opinions are opinions, and everyone is entitled to them. However, I would like to state that I also encourage anyone who is interested in reading the books, seeing the movies, to do so. Tolkien's works are incredible in my eyes. For those who have not read his works, or have only read LOTR, I suggest reading The Silmarillion next. I look forward to watching Jackson's rendition of The Return Of The King and the final piece to his interpretation of Lord Of The Rings.

Re: Dude..Repeat after me.. Its a movieeeeee by cOdEgUru · 2003-05-20 23:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Ummm... Somebody tell this poor dude that we are talking about a movie..

Also while you are at it, tell him that Saddam is not tying up with Sauron to kill the infidels and anyone who plagiarize the book including Peter Jackson

--
Rapid Nirvana

Russian fan dubbing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 23:25 · Score: 0

Heh, you should listen to fan dubbed russian version of LoTR. The soundtrack is exclusively Tatu and Ramstein. Nothing beats the beginning of the FoTR movie where they show Frodo (Fiodor in russian version) and play Tatu "Malchik gei" (Gay boy) :))

Fiodor, Agronom, Mordovia, dwarves that have Gruzian accent... The main problem is that the ring is stolen. I start laughing just by remembering pieces of that movie :)))

--Coder

Nothing special the RotK movie seems to be... by danila · 2003-05-20 23:25 · Score: 2

Of course, this is just a poorly captured teaser taken from the game booth, but still. There is nothing new in it. Everything that this teaser shows, was already in either TTT or FotR. Except for some weird fireballs.Gimli fighting? Tired of it. Legolas shooting arrows? Oh, spare me. Gandalf kicking ass with his stick? Seen in the end of TTT. Theoden unsure about something? The whole TTT was about that. Some plains shot from helicopter? Enough of that. So, while poorly captured TTT teaser was cool and full of new and exciting things, this one is not.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Re:Nothing special the RotK movie seems to be... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 06:11 · Score: 0

Speaking of Gandalf... I haven't read the books, but do the wizards actually DO ANY magic? Cast fireballs? Put armies to sleep? Seems like all Gandalf does fighting-wise is hack and slash with his sword. Shouldn't he be casting some spells?
Re:Nothing special the RotK movie seems to be... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-23 06:16 · Score: 0

Gandalf is of the Istari, he is one of four Maia (eternals) sent from Valinor to influence the people of Middle-Earth to stand up for themselves and fight Sauron. The Istari were ordered not to reveal their full power. Other Istari are Saruman, Radagast (not in the movies) and the two Blue Wizards (who went to the East and are not in the main book).

Trailer Link by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-20 23:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Another resource: http://www.planet-tolkien.com

(Incase site goes down)

Bootleg Trailer by briggsb · 2003-05-21 00:19 · Score: 3, Funny

I didn't see any glimpse of the new character in there so it must not be the trailer I've seen.

Re: Dude..Repeat after me.. Its a movieeeeee by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 00:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Also while you are at it, tell him that Saddam is not tying up with Sauron to kill the infidels

Hm. Saddam. Sauron. Saddam. Sauron.

"The Evil One's power is again rising", Secretary of State Colin Powell told a stunned press conference Monday. "Saddam was defeated, but he is not dead." As the Secretary mentioned the name "Saddam", an ice cold wind seemed to enter the room, and an unexpected, brief solar eclipse occurred.

"Could someone close the windows please? Anyway, to finally defeat him, the Fellowship must go to Mount Doom just outside of Tikrit and throw the One Ring into the hellish fire that burns eternal there, vanquishing Saddam forever."

"The Fellowship being the Ringbearer-President George Bush, his trusty aide Dick Cheney, the mighty warrior Donald Rumsfeld who will give his life to defend the Ringbearer, and myself, who shall never be King. Probably never."

"And, oh, Paul Wolfowitz listened in at our briefing so he gets to tag along to."

"It will be a long, hard, perillous journey, on foot, but it is the only way."

A strange, crouching shadow bearing an uncanny resemblance to Attorney General John Ashcroft was seen crawling in the shadows behind the Secretary, muttering "My Precious"...

i have by m1chael · 2003-05-21 01:48 · Score: 1

totally forgotten about the lord of the rings movies, they should have released them closer together. hopefully they have a "previously in the lord of the rings..." at the beginning of return of the king.

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.

Re:i have by MrDog · 2003-05-21 02:11 · Score: 1

Um, no. Hey, somebody needs to send this #636773 guy to the back of the line or something. Geeks should have standards, too. One more outburst like that and you'll be looking at a 7-digit ID like all the new kiddie loosers.
Re:i have by m1chael · 2003-05-21 02:25 · Score: 1

ill let the vultures tear your post apart, no need to ruffle my feathers...

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Re:i have by Phroggy · 2003-05-21 20:16 · Score: 1

totally forgotten about the lord of the rings movies, they should have released them closer together. hopefully they have a "previously in the lord of the rings..." at the beginning of return of the king.

So, they should have waited until now before releasing Fellowship, and followed it with Two Towers in a few months? Return of the King won't be ready until the end of the year, because it's taken that long to do post-production on all three movies.

(And MrDog, 6-digit UIDs aren't as cool as you think they are.)

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

video-game look to it by grungy · 2003-05-21 02:24 · Score: 1

That last shot, especially - the one with the white-robed character (Gandalf?) on the wall - looked and acted like a video game.

Re:video-game look to it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 05:38 · Score: 0

That last shot, especially - the one with the white-robed character (Gandalf?) on the wall - looked and acted like a video game.

You mean the part that was from the video game? Yeah, it sorta did.

The Elrond-Ainur connection. by nigel.selke · 2003-05-21 02:30 · Score: 1

To smack the poster a couple of levels up with a big clue stick, Elrond != Ainur.

Elrond is descended from an Ainur - Melian. Melian was indeed an Ainur, a Maia. Elrond and Elros' mother, Elwing, is a descendent of Melian and Thingol (through their daughter Luthien, Luthien's son Dior, and finally Dior's daughter Elwing), therefore, Elrond does have Ainur ancestry. I don't remember saying that Elrond was himself an Ainur, but that he has Ainur ancestry, and therefore so does his daughter, Arwen, is true. Sorry if there was any confusion.

--

We hang the petty thieves, but appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop

Re:The Elrond-Ainur connection. by Evil+Pete · 2003-05-21 14:23 · Score: 1

I don't remember saying that Elrond was himself an Ainur, but that he has Ainur ancestry, and therefore so does his daughter, Arwen, is true.

Which also is why Arwen can decide to be mortal, as her father decided to be an Elf, because she is descended from Beren and Luthien ... who between them broke so many rules. Other elves do not have this choice.

--
Bitter and proud of it.

RoTK Movie BitTorrent Session by aroben · 2003-05-21 02:38 · Score: 3, Informative

I've started a BitTorrent session for this file. You can get it at http://aroben.dyndns.org/rotk-e3-stream.mov.torren t -Adam

Comments on your comments :) by nigel.selke · 2003-05-21 02:42 · Score: 1

To comment on just a few of your points - elves aren't magic as in 'look, I can do magical tricks' - they don't cast spells; neither do the wizards, for that matter. They have great spiritual power which they can use to cause things with.

Agreed. I never suggested that what the elves did were parlour tricks or anything of the sort. Which is why I used the word "magic" in quotation marks. Most manifestations of the Elves' power was in their crafting of items of power, like the rings, elven cloaks, etc. All I was pointing out to the parent poster is that it's ridiculous to assume that Arwen wouldn't have the ability to use this power, especially considering her heritage, which doesn't only include powerful Elves, but also a Maia.

--

We hang the petty thieves, but appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop

Yeah...right by sindarin2001 · 2003-05-21 02:51 · Score: 1

First of all, I am confused as why this was modded as funny (as hilarious as it may seem) and not as a troll...but anywho.

In regards to your comment about how the ring could never go to Gondor. As far as I understand, Ithilien is considered a part of northern Gondor (its definatelly not part of Mordor, but if in doubt, check the maps), and the trip through Ithilien in the novel would have lead to GAME OVER if what you said were true.

I am a purist. I've read the lord of the rings as many times as I possibly could (lost track a few years ago). I've read the Silmarillion 4 times, the Unfinished Tales 2 times, and I've read the first 5 book of the History of Middle Earth (I have the rest, but this little thing called college gets in the way of my reading habits). I constantly am stating how they could have made a better movie had they stuck to the book's plot (and I still back this up), but by no means am I going to deprive myself of a prime movie enjoyment (especially with the movies of late, with exceptions for X2 and Reloaded).

Now, if any rich benefactor out there wants to pay millions of dollars to make 6 movies (the number of movies I feel it would take to fully do the series), they can contact me and we'll get something started. Until then, I am going to live with the amazing world of middle earth and am also going to enjoy the great (but possibly flawed) movies.

I'll be in line overnight for the next one (again)!!

!!!BIG SPOILERS!!! by guacamolefoo · 2003-05-21 03:12 · Score: 2

A semi-quality video of 1 minute 43 seconds of the EA ROTK game has appeared online thanks to the folks at 576.hu. As all of the links we checked out had serious download issues, we've mirrored it for easy downloading! !!!BIG SPOILERS!!!

Wow! I'd better not watch the clip if there are !!!BIG SPOILERS!!! (Where's that tag when you need it?)

Maybe I won't find out about Shelob and the ring getting into the Crack of Doom (heh...I just wrote "crack") as a result of Gollum biting off Frodo's finger and the part about Frodo not willingly throwing the ring into the hot MAG-MA! (Dr. Evil impression there).

OTOH, the spoilers could involve the numerous plots inserted into the movies that did not exist in the book, such as the horse-kissing part, Aragorn going over the cliff, Arwen, the elves at the Hornburg, etc., etc.

The Comic Book Guy needs to have a talk with Peter Jackson.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits

Re:!!!BIG SPOILERS!!! by Gropo · 2003-05-21 03:26 · Score: 1

The Comic Book Guy needs to have a talk with Peter Jackson.
Best... LOTR suggestion... ever...
Tom Bombadil who? What?

--
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Re:!!!BIG SPOILERS!!! by dsb3 · 2003-05-21 04:54 · Score: 1

OTOH, the spoilers could involve the numerous plots inserted into the movies that did not exist in the book, such as the horse-kissing part, Aragorn going over the cliff, Arwen, the elves at the Hornburg, etc., etc.

While a lot of the embellishments were purely to adapt the book to movie form, a lot more (including a lot of the Arwen storyline, if you grant Jackson a little artistic license) are actually taken from the Appendices.

I was surprised to see how much tied together from those "broken" parts having just re-read the appendices another time.

--

Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Re:!!!BIG SPOILERS!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 07:18 · Score: 0

-1: Bastard

I was ruined from a post like this once before. I hadn't finished the 3rd book, and someone posted a parody of the end, where pee-wee herman played gollum and ruined it.
*sob*
Re:!!!BIG SPOILERS!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 07:31 · Score: 0

While a lot of the embellishments were purely to adapt the book to movie form, a lot more (including a lot of the Arwen storyline, if you grant Jackson a little artistic license) are actually taken from the Appendices.

Maybe the Arwen/Aragorn "love story" was left to be told in the Appendices for a reason: it does *not* further the main plot. And Jackson's "embellishments" go well beyond artistic license. The man hacked up The Two Towers. Period. His changes to Fellowship were acceptable (and in some cases, necessary) but Frodo attacking Sam? Faramir a power-hungry warmonger? Changing the outcome of the Ent Moot? Gandalf exorcising Theoden? "Skateboarding" Legolas? Gimli the buffoon? And the coup de grace is, of course, the absolutely jarring and silly lovey-dovey pap between Arwen and Aragorn.

LOTR Parody Video by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 04:00 · Score: 0

Check this out

Classic /. Trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 04:04 · Score: 0

You'll laugh milk through your nose

Re:Bored of the Rings by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 04:06 · Score: 0

I think you just missed the point....

I'm confused . . . by Praxxus · 2003-05-21 04:16 · Score: 3, Funny

What's Magneto doing on a horse? . . . in a dress, no less!

--

--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??

elvis is in the building? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 05:04 · Score: 0

you know you are old when you think a "return of the king" movie means a remastered elvis comeback special is going to be released soon.

either that or you just don't care about lord of the rings.

Re: Dude..Repeat after me.. Its a movieeeeee by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 06:20 · Score: 0

IMO Smeagol should be played by Geraldo Rivera, not John Ashcroft, but that depends on how you interpret things.

In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 07:16 · Score: 0

time quicks YOU!

Re:in soviet russia by darrad · 2003-05-21 07:59 · Score: 1

Thats because 99.9999% of the people here are GEEKS!!! you moron. Most of us grew up with these books, love them, remember them fondly as the first great reading experience, so yes, it is news to us. Slashdot is not a clone of the CNN crowd, and leave that kind of stuff to them.

Idoits, children, and idiot children will be the death of me yet.....

Any negative post about Lord of the Rings=Troll? by westyvw · 2003-05-21 08:39 · Score: 1

Every opinion that is not positive, down to the comments about the footage gets a negative score, or a troll or a flame bait. LAME

Go back to the SCA you pathetic semi techies.

SCA = an excuse for fat people to get laid.

Faramir by Cato+the+Elder · 2003-05-21 09:37 · Score: 1

I didn't particularly like the detour to Osgiliath either. It make Faramir a much less sympathetic character, I hope this will change in the next movie. It's interesting, because I really liked how the Fellowship of the Ring movie gave more depth to Boromir. Even more importantly, I thought it detracted from the much better scenes at Helm's Deep and Isengard.

On the other hand, I don't think that the encounter with the Nazgul spoiled the idea that Sauron had no idea where the Ring was. Now, Sauron knows that the ring was heading towards Gondor. He knows that Isildur's heir is heading towards Gondor. I think that it is perfectly in keeping with how he is portrayed in the book that he would not suspect that the Ring would be turned around and brought back into the heart of his power.

Re:Faramir by redtail1 · 2003-05-22 01:38 · Score: 1

Hmmm. Good point. I'll have to watch it again next fall before I can truly review the movie in an unbiased fashion.
This should be a fun winter. The final Lord of the Rings, Matrix and Star Wars prequel films may be the best ones.

I don't know about you by Exiler · 2003-05-21 14:25 · Score: 1

but if my grandchildren ever googled an entire sentence (With 'the' in it, as if a sentence wasn't bad enough!) I'd give them a very long lecture about how to use search engines properly =P

--
Banaaaana!

Re:Peter Jackson had this to say... by Chromodromic · 2003-05-21 16:25 · Score: 0

You are a moron.

--
Chr0m0Dr0m!C

Slashdot Mirror

Return Of The King Footage From E3

166 comments