Slashdot Mirror


Extra Scenes in TTT Extended Edition DVD

gdr writes "USA Today have an article about the extra scenes that will be in The Two Towers Extended Edition. More ent scenes so it'll be worth watching for the special effects alone. Sadly it looks like there will be no extra gollum scenes. I can't say I'm as excited about this one as the FotR EE."

443 comments

  1. Im excited by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the first box set with added sceans was great....and the cut sceans actualy made tyhe story clearer. I hear that there is an extra 40 min in TTT.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:Im excited by johnstein · · Score: 4, Funny

      if there are more ents, that's enough for me. I still remember the first time I read TTT... family was driving to a nearby lake. The roads to get there wound through rather dense forest area so as I was reading about the ent's charge to isengard, I could look out the window and almost imagine them.

      Since then that's what I think about when I walk in the woods... strange, but oh well. I am the same person who thinks of the opening song from fraggle rock every time I use a screwdriver.

      da-da-da dadum da-da-da dadum da-da-da dadum da-da-da dudum

      what was that old guy's name? his dog was sprocket... how did I go from massive walking trees to fraggles?

      -John

      --
      "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
    2. Re:Im excited by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I don't think he had a name. he talked about some other dude all the time though.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:Im excited by trevry · · Score: 1

      Uncle travellin' Matt

      --
      sic transit biscuitus
    4. Re:Im excited by johnstein · · Score: 1

      uncle travelling matt was gobo's uncle.

      hmm. i am sure a quick internet search would answer the question, but that's like cheating when you are talking about fond youthful memories..

      -John

      --
      "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
    5. Re:Im excited by travdaddy · · Score: 1

      Doc is that old guy's name.

      --
      Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    6. Re:Im excited by nick_davison · · Score: 1

      what was that old guy's name? his dog was sprocket

      The uncle was Uncle Travelling Mac(k?) if I remember correctly. I don't think the old guy ever had a name. He called the dog Sprocket but Sprocket couldn't talk and hence couldn't call him anything. The fraggles themselves never conversed with him so they didn't call him by name either.

    7. Re:Im excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the lighthouse keeper played by Scottish actor Fulton Macay. I don't think the character actually had another name, as nobody, bar the dog, actually related to him.

    8. Re:Im excited by wass · · Score: 1
      I don't know what the guy's name was, but he always talked about a friend that you never saw named Al Schimmelfinny. Which I always thought was funny because my grandparents have a friend named Al Schimmel.

      I like how he consistently threw Uncle Travelling Matte's postcards into the garbage for Gobo to pick up easily.

      Massive trees to fraggles, now take it a step further to those Doozers.

      --

      make world, not war

    9. Re:Im excited by johnstein · · Score: 0

      now take it a step further to those Doozers.

      I almost did, but stopped myself. on a certain level, those guys kinda freaked me out. always working and building those plexiglass structures that the fraggles would chow down on... and I always wondered why they (fraggles) ate plastic.

      this is spiraling offtopic so:

      I hope the extra scenes in TTT have some more of Pippen and Merry. I remember them being much more visible and useful in the books than the movies so far. So far they have only been plot fodder.

      -John

      --
      "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
    10. Re:Im excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      score two interesting? give me a break. why do i never have mod points for stupid posts?

    11. Re:Im excited by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I so agree with that. To me the first film, when I saw it in the cinema, dragged on too much. Then I saw the extended version, and I swear, even with an extra half hour tagged on, /it was shorter!/.

      That's how much the extra material added to that movie.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    12. Re:Im excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay. I think of the Gorgs when I'm around my in-laws.

    13. Re:Im excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you man, I wish I had some for your post.

    14. Re:Im excited by coke_dite · · Score: 1

      His name was Doc. Glad to be of help.

      --
      Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
    15. Re:Im excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      da-da-da dadum da-da-da dadum da-da-da dadum da-da-da dudum

      Try as I might, I can't figure out what tune you're trying to hum, since I don't have the music in my head. ;)

      Got an mp3?

    16. Re:Im excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Travelling Matt. This is a play on words, because a "travelling matte" was a type special effects shot where actors were seen in front of a moving backdrop that was actually a painting on glass placed near the camera.

    17. Re:Im excited by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Man, Fraggles bring back good childhood memories of when I was about six or seven. I can barely remember the show, though, since I haven't seen it since then.

  2. Mark the extra scenes! by slimey_limey · · Score: 0

    I wish that they would mark all the extra scenes... perhaps with an icon in the corner, at least for the letterbox-on-4:3 version. There's all that wasted space, and you don't know what you got for your ~$30!

    1. Re:Mark the extra scenes! by toddestan · · Score: 2, Funny

      After watching the movie 15 times you should be able to pick them out. What, you mean you haven't watched it 15 times? What kind of geek are you?

    2. Re:Mark the extra scenes! by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1

      Check out the scene booklet that came with your extended DVD set for Fellowship - new and extended scenes are marked in the chapter list.

    3. Re:Mark the extra scenes! by coke_dite · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like the "Buddy Christ" icon that appears at the bottom of the scene during the Dogma DVD commentary :) I can just picture it now - a bizarre little animated Gollum pops up every time there's something to see :)

      --
      Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
  3. rtfb by SHEENmaster · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's just a few extra scenes, and you probably wouldn't recognize them if the movie was played linearly. If you want a more detailed version with no scenes cut, RTFB.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:rtfb by haedesch · · Score: 1

      How could you possibly miss out +- 50 minutes of new footage?

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

      I certainly could miss out on -50 minutes of footage.

  4. Extra scenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extra scenes are just a promotion item. Most of the time, they are completely worthless and obviously don't contribute to the movie. Every now and then, however, they do add some insight. But, it most definately is not a reason to buy a special edition DVD. -- Pr0n... FREE! Click Here!

    1. Re:Extra scenes by hhnerkopfabbeisser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This may apply to most movies, but not to TLOTR.

      The LOTR-movies are cut down because a 4 hour-beast is not acceptable for a movie that has to make a lot of money.

      Most poeple I know, at least the geeks and especially those who read the book, found the longer version of the fellowship a _lot_ better.

    2. Re:Extra scenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What planet are you from? The extended edition of the FOTR was like a new film. I was amazed at how much could be done with an extra 30 minutes, and now we're getting 45. I guess if you've never read the books (that is, you don't know the story), then New Line is the one telling the story and whatever they don't include the first time seems optional. But if Tolkien told you the story, then the extras are, at the very least, an attempted payback for Jackson's needless meddling with the story. And they make a huge contribution.

    3. Re:Extra scenes by Unkle · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Most poeple I know, at least the geeks and especially those who read the book, found the longer version of the fellowship a _lot_ better.

      As a testament to the longer version being a lot better, my wife (who has not read the books yet, but she is working on them now) actually understood the movie when we watched the extended version. The same could not be said for the origional theatrical release. After watching the extended edition the first time, I was shocked at some of the things that had been cut out--they were rather important plot points! (I'd give an example, but it's been so long since I saw the short version I don't remember what the specific scenes that are different are) I just hope TTT gains as much improvement as FoTR did.

      --
      Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
    4. Re:Extra scenes by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I agree with the other posters. Having not read the books until after I saw the extended version of Fellowship, there were many parts of the movie that were not clear in the original cut but that became understandable in the ektended release.

      (I read the books after seeing the Two Towers... I couldn't *not* know how it ends, you know? And of course you can't read the Return of the King with out actually reading the first two thirds of the story, you know? I seriously wonder how many people were introduced to the books through the movies...)

    5. Re:Extra scenes by bluethundr · · Score: 1

      Extra scenes are just a promotion item. Most of the time, they are completely worthless and obviously don't contribute to the movie. Every now and then, however, they do add some insight. But, it most definately is not a reason to buy a special edition DVD.

      Uhm..did you actually read the books? Did you see the Extended edition of FOTR? It's clear to me anyway (having re-read the books before the release of the films) that the extended DVD version is for the book readers, and the theatrical release is for the people who couldn't be bothered to read all three books but like fantasy anyway. Sort of like for people who call themselves Trekkies but who have never read a single line of Heinlein or Clark or Bradbury (unbelievable, but such creatures *DO* exist!)

      --
      Quod scripsi, scripsi.
    6. Re:Extra scenes by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Jackson had to cut those scenes to make more film available for gratuitous sword fights.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    7. Re:Extra scenes by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm afraid reading the books won't give you much insight on what you'll see in Return of the King. About the only thing Jackson's film has in common with the book are hobbits and a gold circle he calls the One Ring.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    8. Re:Extra scenes by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      oh please, he's done a damn good job of staying with the original plotline... a couple details here and there, but fo rthe love of god, he couldnt make it a damn 10 part movie each of 3 hours.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    9. Re:Extra scenes by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I agree. Fellowship was almost perfect, with only very minor changes (the merging or a couple characters anh a couple character swaps). TTT was less accurate, but it was still quite close to what it covered. Faramir bringing Frodo back to Osgolath before releasing him was the biggest offense, and that's a minor change plotwise. It disrupts Faramir's character a bit, but it sounds like the extended edition will help fix that.

    10. Re:Extra scenes by isorox · · Score: 1

      Which begs the question why they didnt release 6 * 2.5 hour films. As well as making more money, they could have fit more stuff in.

    11. Re:Extra scenes by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Really? Let's see. Moria is actually a thriving dwarven city. Saruman is a willing stooge of Sauron. Faramir is an evil, conniving snake who makes Boromir look noble. The Ents are tricked into attacking Isengard. Sauron is the only one who can use the ring, even though Gandalf, Galadriel and Boromir all think they can. The orcs run and hide from the Balrog. Frodo is a quivering coward who runs and hides at every opportunity. Gandalf and Saruman duke it out wizard style with swinging magical punches from their staves. Theoden is demon-possessed by Saruman. Elves help at Helm's deep. Theoden is a depressed fatalistic, indecisive king.

      You have a wierd definition of what constitutes faithful following of the book's plot.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    12. Re:Extra scenes by Atrahasis · · Score: 1

      Just how is the Witch King going to get poked with a magical sword if Bombadil never gave them to the Hobbits?

    13. Re:Extra scenes by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see you even come close to doing something even remotely better. You can't make a movie of the book with 100% accuracy. Any thought to the contrary is wrong.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    14. Re:Extra scenes by Mikeytsi · · Score: 1

      This is what I'd like to see SciFi do, a-la Dune.

      --
      I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
    15. Re:Extra scenes by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      of all the things that he left out, i missed bombadil the least... he was a total non-sequitor that takes wayyyyy too much research to explain fully.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    16. Re:Extra scenes by Atrahasis · · Score: 1

      OK, so he was a bit weird, but he put the ring saga into perspective. Men, Elves and other races view the rise of Sauron as a huge disaster (and for them it is), but Tom and his Goldberry will always be. Sauron has no hope of ever having dominion over them. He views the One Ring as a mere trinket, and wonders what all the fuss is about. The question still remains, though, how exactly is Pippin (? - could be Merry, can't remember right now) going to kill the Witch King without the magic toothpick from the barrows?

    17. Re:Extra scenes by Cromac · · Score: 1
      The question still remains, though, how exactly is Pippin (? - could be Merry, can't remember right now) going to kill the Witch King without the magic toothpick from the barrows?

      It's not a huge stretch to assume that the blades given to them by Aragorn are the magic daggers used against the wraith.

    18. Re:Extra scenes by hhnerkopfabbeisser · · Score: 1

      Even three films are quite an undertaking. In the beginning, only two were planned, and even for two, Jackson they had a lot of trouble trying to find someone to provide the financial backup.

      When they tried to get New Line Cinema in, after the presentation, the guy from New Line said something like "You can't make two films out of this, there have to be three!".
      They were delighted, although they had to rewrite the whole script.

    19. Re:Extra scenes by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      The question still remains, though, how exactly is Pippin (? - could be Merry, can't remember right now) going to kill the Witch King without the magic toothpick from the barrows?

      Where would Aragorn lay hands on blades of Westernese manufacture?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    20. Re:Extra scenes by malelder · · Score: 1

      Good question....where would a Ranger of Westernese get his hands on blades of Westernese manufacture...? oh...wait (:

      Although explaining why he was carrying a bundle of them around might be difficult...I can see him bringing 2 extra's along because he knew he was to meet Frodo and Sam at the Pony, and he knew what kind of enemy they may face, but having 2 more for Merry and Pippin was a stroke of luck.

      I guess we'll find out in December (:

      --


      Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
    21. Re:Extra scenes by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Moria is actually a thriving dwarven city.

      What film were you watching? I was watching one in which Moria was a desolate hellhole swarming with orcs and goblins and one bloody terrifying Balrog, pretty much as described in the books. You saw one where it was still a thriving dwarf city?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    22. Re:Extra scenes by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Watch the film again. Pay particular attention to the parts where Gimli repeatedly tells Gandalf they need to go to Moria where his cousin Balin is king. Watch the scene as they just enter the mine, and Gimli goes on and on about the great hospitality they're going to get from the dwarves.

      Now, completely turn off your intelligence as to why such a hospitable people lock the gates to their city with a riddle not even a wizard can solve and put a horrible, killing monster in front of it and how Gandalf failed to let Gimli in on the grim secret, but left him to discover it to his horror as he walks in the front gate. Nice work, that, Gandalf.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  5. waiting to buy? by Traderdot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how many people are holding off on buying the dvds until all three movies are out? I know I'd like to own the dvds but I'm waiting for the super box set of the extended versions of the entire trilogy to come out. same with the matrix trilogy. wonder if this waiting is affecting their sales figures.

    1. Re:waiting to buy? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for the box set of the matrix but not LOTR. I just wait for the 4 disk sets.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:waiting to buy? by emdean091876 · · Score: 1

      I have no spine. I own both copied of FotR, and I'll end up own both copies of TTT, and eventually RotK.

      Life's too short to wait for Super UBer Box Sets.

    3. Re:waiting to buy? by ccoder · · Score: 1

      <blockquote>wonder if this waiting is affecting their sales figures</blockquote>

      I don't think this is affecting their $500m sales.

      --
      "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -- George Orwell
    4. Re:waiting to buy? by johnstein · · Score: 1

      My old roommate was a huge peter jackson fan. (meet the feebles, etc) and when FotR came out he said he couldn't wait to get the DVD. I said the same thing you did... that I wanted to wait till the super-duper mega-awesome DVD came out with ALL the extras for all the movies. He told me that PJ (he said all TRUE fans call him that) doesn't do it like that. That he always releases all the goodies at the beginning. That said, I still think I will wait. (especially since they happened to release two versions of FotR.

      I suppose I just dont trust anyone.

      -John

      --
      "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
    5. Re:waiting to buy? by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      Waiting? WTF is waiting? I downloaded the pirated versions of both movies, bought the first edition and special edition DVDs of FOTR and will most likely buy the EE box set when it comes out. And I'm not even a fanboy. No really, I'm not. I mean, I've never even read the Simarillion (or even care if I spelled it right), and I saw neither movie in the theater within the first month of release. I'll be willing to bet that the losers like me make up nicely for the losses from folks who have more self control.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    6. Re:waiting to buy? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      In the grand-scheme of a life, a year isn't a long time to wait.

      I only saw the extended dvd of the FotR. From what people tell me, they left alot of good stuff out of the original cut. So for me its worth waiting for all extended.

      If I want to experience the story now, I'll re-read the books.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    7. Re:waiting to buy? by magwm · · Score: 1

      indeed. it's Silmarillion..

    8. Re:waiting to buy? by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      > I'm not even a fanboy. No really, I'm not. I mean, I've never even read the Simarillion

      Methinks thou doth protest too much...

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    9. Re:waiting to buy? by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      In the grand-scheme of a life $20 isn't very much money to pay. Thats all it will cost you extra just to get the earlier release first and then get the extended version later.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    10. Re:waiting to buy? by sukottoX · · Score: 1

      i'm only buying the extended editions in the hope that there won't be any differences in future releases of the movie as a set. if there is simply a theatrical version and an extended version of each film, that's plenty. What we don't need is a star wars type situation, where re-releases come out every few years.

    11. Re:waiting to buy? by ipfwadm · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the grand-scheme of a life $20 isn't very much money to pay.

      Unless of course your grand scheme is taking place in a third world nation, where the per capita GDP of Sierra Leone, for example, is $150. Granted, in purchasing power that's almost $500, but even still I would bet that $20 is a lot of money to pay. (source)

      I would say it's a safe bet that since you're posting to this forum, you're making slightly more than $150 a year however :-)

    12. Re:waiting to buy? by Hitch · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm one of them.
      for several reasons - one person said "in the grand scheme of things, $20 isn't very much to pay. that's what it'll cost to get the original and then the extended later" - on the other hand, why buy them *now*? a) that's $20 I could be spending on something else I'd rather have (instead of buying the same thing twice) and b) I've heard rumors that the "final" release of a box set is going to have even MORE extra added than all three of the extended editions are going to have by themselves.

      --
      You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
      http://propheteer.org
    13. Re:waiting to buy? by keiferb · · Score: 1

      > wonder if this waiting is affecting their sales figures

      No, probably not. Schmucks like me who bought three different versions of the first movie probably offset those who are saving themselves for the ultramegaplatinumific boxed set. =)

    14. Re:waiting to buy? by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

      Or, you can just review the FACTS, and notice that there will be two different releases.
      Just
      like
      last
      year.

    15. Re:waiting to buy? by pi+radians · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well smart-ass, using that as a basis, then the life expectancy in Sierra Leone is 25.9, which means that for the average citizen there waiting one year for this movie is like for us waiting 3 years.

      Its just not fair. I'm going to send a couple copies of LotR:TTT to random people in Sierra Leone. They deserve it too. I sure hope that their DVD players can read region 1 DVDs.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    16. Re:waiting to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just rented the first DVD,, then bought the extended one. Probably do that for the second one too...

    17. Re:waiting to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh. Fanboy.

    18. Re:waiting to buy? by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      He told me that PJ (he said all TRUE fans call him that) doesn't do it like that.

      You'd think a true "PJ" fan would know that FotR came out in two separate releases.

    19. Re:waiting to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is different though, because they were both announced simultaneously; there was nothing like the "I'm only going to release DVDs after episode 3; oh, now that the VHS has been out for a month and all the big fans have bought that, now I'll be releasing the DVD in a few months" shit that came after Episode 1.

      It takes time to do the extended release cuts and mastering and such... releasing both at the same time would have required setting the original cut sit around on shelves for a couple months. This wouldn't have been nice to those who wanted just tho 2 disc set.

      Releasing only the 4-disc set would have alienated most of the people who wouldn't want to sit around for 4 hours watching a movie. At least you can watch the 2 disc version without changing DVDs, and to some the shorter length, lower price, and lack of the need to change discs would be enough that the 2 disc one would have been preferred.

    20. Re:waiting to buy? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      Its not, but I was thinking more of the waiting for the "first experience" of the movie than having two (different) copies of the same movie.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    21. Re:waiting to buy? by Cromac · · Score: 1
      I wonder how many people are holding off on buying the dvds until all three movies are out?

      Not me. I'll record the theatrical version of PPV then I'll buy the extended when it's released 3 months later.

    22. Re:waiting to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No really, I'm not. I mean, I can't even spell Silmarillion

    23. Re:waiting to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for this

  6. Way too many! by WPIDalamar · · Score: 4, Insightful


    So first I buy the dvd of the fellowship, then I buy the extended version ... then I buy the dvd of the Two Towers, and then I buy the extended version.

    And THEN when all 3 are released, I buy the trilogy... and then the special extended version of that!

    Man these guys got it good. Maybe I should smarten up and just wait.

    1. Re:Way too many! by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Maybe I should smarten up and just wait.

      Many of us are quite smart actually. I know I'm not going to suffer by waiting a year before seeing a movie. So instead of spending $7+/person +snacks for an overall lowsy movie experience, I just wait, and rent/buy the movie (but not until it's down to $10/movie or less)...

      Yes, some of us don't like getting raked over the coals... Others seem to think that getting gouged (or, rather, complaining about it time after time) is part of the fun of watch movies.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Way too many! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Think drive in 5 bucks a head and bring your own snacks for a double feature. 2.50 a head for a movie is acceptable to me at least.

      Otherwise netflix or now Walmart is your friend 14 bucks a month for as many movies as you can get through the mail 2 at a time. If your a bit unsavory those 170 buck DVD-R's look more and more appatizing.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Way too many! by tuffy · · Score: 4, Informative
      The first release of the film gets you:
      • The short theatrical cut of the film
      • One disc of shorter extras
      The second release of the film gets you:
      • The extended cut of the film
      • Two discs of completely different, longer extras
      So, getting both sets (about $40 worth, IIRC) gets you all the extras (3 discs worth) and both cuts of the film. New Line announced this release strategy last year and have stuck to it, so folks shouldn't feel too surprised by it.
      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    4. Re:Way too many! by John+Zebedee · · Score: 1

      Here's another option for you.

      --
      The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. -- William Gibson
    5. Re:Way too many! by acroyear · · Score: 1

      The extras on the first release are the "preview" items, meaning those that don't (necessarilly) spoil the film.

      The extras on the second release are the "good" ones, those that really go into depth just how this, that, and the other thing happened, spoilers be damned.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    6. Re:Way too many! by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Think drive in

      I'm rather sure that there is no drive-in within 50 miles. It's unfortunate really.

      netflix or now Walmart is your friend

      Indeed, but that's still a matter of waiting for some time to see a new movie.

      If your a bit unsavory those 170 buck DVD-R's look more and more appatizing.

      You can rip DVDs onto CDs rather easilly as well (provided you don't mind leaving a spare comuter running for a few hours). The 4.7GB of DVD-Rs isn't enough to fit a LOT of movies, so you end up having to Divx them anyhow.

      I wouldn't even call it an "unsavory" practice... At least, no more than sneaking snacks into a movie theatre/drive-in.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Way too many! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fanboys are the ultimate consumers. Blaming the corporations for exploiting them with the collector's editions and boxed sets and specia gift-packs would be like blaming someone for eating beef, after a cow walked up to them, started covering itself with steak sauce, and handing them a bag full of charcoal.

    8. Re:Way too many! by Doug-W · · Score: 1

      Or just see if Blockbuster follows up last year's release with this years...

      Their deal was $21 for FOTR on opening day *AND* a certificate for 10 free DVD rentals (A rental at the time was I think $3.49?) As long as you rationalize it that you're buying it for the DVD rentals they're paying you to rent almost 4 DVDs and giving you a free copy of FOTR, so the least you can do is buy the extended version when it came out since you got the first for free... Right? :)

    9. Re:Way too many! by checkyoulater · · Score: 1

      Just wait until after RotK is released at Christmas. A few months following that they will likely release the "Super-Duper Special Ultimate Limited 24-disc Ultra" edition, which will include everything previously released about the movie on DVD.

      --
      Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
    10. Re:Way too many! by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, I'll just go and shoot myself now. Oh, don't worry; I'll be very humane.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  7. suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I can't say I'm as excited about this one as the FotR EE.


    Maybe you're just starting to feel the burn of getting fleeced over and over...
  8. Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone find that extra scene where they teach you how to exercise your Fair Use rights by making a backup copy? I keep looking but I can't find it.

    1. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLOL!!

  9. Ent scenes. by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The ent scenes might have been great in the book, but they were just as entertaining as having my fingernails removed in the movie. It took 10 minutes for a sentence to be spoken, I think it completely ruined the pace of the movie. I exclude the last ent scene from this, of course.

    -bm

    1. Re:Ent scenes. by orpheus2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some would argue that the pace of the movie was too quick to begin with. The book took its time, and this is the movie that detracts the most from the trilogy.

      The last ent scence was presented to the reader as a recollection after the fact, as well...

    2. Re:Ent scenes. by donutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It took 10 minutes for a sentence to be spoken, I think it completely ruined the pace of the movie.

      You read the book, didn't you? So you should have been prepared for the ents to speak slowly, and understand why they do.

      Frankly, it's probably a good lesson for people: It's not worth doing if it doesn't take a long time to do it. Take that, instant gratification!

    3. Re:Ent scenes. by danila · · Score: 1

      You might be surprised that Treebeard actually has most words in the movie. Who would expect that with his slow speech?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    4. Re:Ent scenes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, i think the scene went too fast. did'nt the hobbits actually wait like a couple days during that first ent conference.. instead of a few minutes like the movie suggested...

      the whole POINT of that scene is to be slow... it will probably make for a good spot go get up and get more popcorn anyways when your on the non-stop 12 hour LOTR marathon that well all be having next year... !

    5. Re:Ent scenes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's a fantastic lesson. While they were diddling around being slow the entire land was almost plowed under. The moral being if you're selfish, wait till the very last second to do something and have enough might maybe you won't be too late.

    6. Re:Ent scenes. by roady · · Score: 1

      >You read the book, didn't you? So you should have been prepared for the ents to speak slowly, and understand why they do.

      Personnaly, even if the book says that the ents speak slowly, I don't start reading slowly.

    7. Re:Ent scenes. by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 1

      > Personnaly, even if the book says that the ents speak slowly, I don't start reading slowly.

      Exactly my point! I agree with the other posters that it is hard to portray the ents the same way they were in the book without the turtle-like pace, but I still don't think we need even *more* of that in the extended edition.

  10. FotR EE? by zapp · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Anyone know this acronym?

    --
    no comment
    1. Re: FotR EE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fellowship of the ring extended edition

    2. Re: FotR EE? by lewp · · Score: 1

      Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition?

      --
      Game... blouses.
    3. Re: FotR EE? by ornil · · Score: 1

      Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Edition

    4. Re: FotR EE? by jmays · · Score: 1

      (F)ellowship (o)f (t)he (R)ing (E)xtended (E)dition

      --
      KARMA TAG! You're it.
    5. Re: FotR EE? by Uller-RM · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition. A four-disc set they released around Christmas-time last year that added another half hour or so to the movie. Notably so, also -- the scenes not just made the movie clearer, they actually prompted rearranging the shot order in some parts, and having actors speak lines previously said by other actors.

      It was actually a nice addition to the movie, although I thought that the original was outstanding as is.

    6. Re: FotR EE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fourty oxygides too Rivendale - Egion Edinburgh.
      Et is a special kind of dohnut tha CN eats.

    7. Re: FotR EE? by mesach · · Score: 1

      Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition

      --
      moo.
    8. Re: FotR EE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fjord of the Rings, European Edition.

    9. Re: FotR EE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extended Edition

    10. Re: FotR EE? by Vengeance · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fellowship of the Ring, Enterprise Edition: Now with additional declarative transaction features and enhanced security.

      Ring zero to rule them all...

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    11. Re: FotR EE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmmm.

      Just in case u had'nt gotten it:

      Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition.

      I Think.

    12. Re: FotR EE? by s20451 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fellowship of the Ring: Electrical Engineers It's the one where Frodo and Sam write a Matlab script to simulate destroying the ring, and Gandalf wears dockers and a polo shirt with a stitched Sun Microsystems logo.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    13. Re: FotR EE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Edition. Really.

    14. Re: FotR EE? by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

      Frogs on the Run: Ãgalitarisme Ãditione

  11. Yes.... by jhines0042 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am very much looking forward to getting the extended edition of the TT on DVD. After the masterful job done in the extended edition of FotR, I can hardly watch the shorter version.

    Of course, I'll have a problem when I get to the RotK extended edition. I only have a 5 disc DVD changer and so I'll have to get up from the couch after 12 hours to switch to the final disk!

    --
    42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    1. Re:Yes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and to think my 6 disc dvd player was mocked by my friends! horray for my onkyo D-601 and never have to get up!

    2. Re:Yes.... by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I only have a 5 disc DVD changer and so I'll have to get up from the couch after 12 hours to switch to the final disk!
      Think of shiny disks as being merely distribution media, not playback media. Play 'em back from your fileserver. Then you have an n disk changer, and you'll never have to get up again, except for the occasional trip to go buy and add another hard disk. (Tip: LVM and EVMS are your friends.)
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Yes.... by spotteddog · · Score: 1

      Don't forget - firewire is your friend to add those disks without opening the case/rebooting

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    4. Re:Yes.... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      >>I only have a 5 disc DVD changer and so I'll have to get up from the couch after 12 hours to switch to the final disk!

      You can change discs while another's playing, right? Just swap out the first disc of fellowship for the last disc of Return during the credits or a bathroom break and you'll be set. ;-)

    5. Re:Yes.... by meteau · · Score: 1

      I think the point is, he'll have to get up. And I doubt the bathroom break will happen. Most likely he has the whole dorm fridge within reach and ready access to the chamber pot things happening.

      --
      -- "You used your dictaphone to post, didn't you?"
    6. Re:Yes.... by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      You see, I've planned ahead, by the time all the movies are all released in their extended editions, my son will be 10 years old. He'll be the one that changes the discs. I'll just install a fridge next to the easy chair, get a colostomy bag or catheter installed (on second thought, adult diapers would probably be the less painful way to go) and I won't have move my ass from the couch at all.

    7. Re:Yes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real men use chamber pots, you insensitive clod!

  12. Must... resist... the... one... ring... by Zelet · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is soooo hard to wait for the trillogy to come out in a single box set special edition. I want each one! Must... wait...

    One box set to rule them all, one box set to bind them.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
    1. Re:Must... resist... the... one... ring... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      One box to hold them off,
      One box to blind them (with extra scenes).
      One box to bring them all (more extras),
      And in the darkness (of their living rooms) bind them.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  13. They don't mention much extra Legolas footage... by reverendG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not that I won't be subjected to another 3 months (more, really, considering RotK is coming in Dec) of my girlfriend saying, "Isn't he dreamy?...I love Legolas!...He's so handsome, won't you learn Elvish, honey?"

    Really, there wasn't a whole lot missing from the book that I missed in TTT. There was a lot from FotR, but I understood that they had to leave things like Tom Bombadil out for purposes of keeping the length of the movie reasonable.

    I am looking forward to seeing more about how Jackson dealt with the strife in Faramir's family, and why he took the path that he did in the movies compared to the books.

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
  14. Screw the Movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so I'm a book zealot..

    The FOTR wasn't bad, it was acceptable for us zealots, but honestly, the storyline departures of the TT was so horendous...

    WHO CARES...

    1. Re:Screw the Movie... by Vej · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What do you think were the most glaring errors, that threw off the movie?

      Are there any scenes/cuts that you think could create a cleaner picture of the plot/story?

    2. Re:Screw the Movie... by pilot1 · · Score: 1

      Horendous? I wouldn't go that far.
      They did change some things around, but most of them were nesecessary, in the book to movie adaption.

      True, Aragorn dieing (!) and Faramir taking them to Gondor (!!!) were different from the books, and probably not nesesecessary, but we can't do anything about that, can we?

    3. Re:Screw the Movie... by sirket · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen!

      Did I like the two movies so far? Yes. Were they Earth shattering? No. I would much rather spend my money on nice copies of the books than on these DVD's. (In fact, I have)

      And while I am inviting the flame-bait moderations:

      Is anyone else as sick to death as I am about hearing how amazing Gollum was, how he should have won an academy award, been knighted by the Queen, been elected supreme ruler of Earth, etc.?

      Was the performance good? Sure. Was it spectacular. Dear god no. Frankly I have no idea what movie these zealots were watching. Seeing some silly CGI hop around the screen and speaking with a lisp that made me want to gag is not my idea of a great performance.

      -sirket

    4. Re:Screw the Movie... by Vej · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this is offtopic.

      I was merely wondering what kind of cutscenes people would want to fill in the movie?

    5. Re:Screw the Movie... by jonabbey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I watched TTT over the weekend again, and there was a lot of things I was disappointed in. The dead marshes scene, where gollum keeps talking about not following the lights.. that weren't there. Perhaps Peter Jackson was too busy with all the FOTR award hoopla to supervise putting the lights in?

      But, no, the big thing I disliked about both FOTR and TTT was how de-emphasized Sauron was. In FOTR at least you get to hear him talk and have a sense that he's really menancing, when the Jacksons weren't giving his actions to Saruman to perform (such as bringing down the mountain). But in TTT, Sauron was a non-entity.. you'd think he was incapable of any direct action.. just a big floaty eye, unable even to do so much as turn and look in different directions.

      Sauron is one of the biggest characters in the books, but the movies have really pushed him aside in favor of Saruman. Yay Christopher Lee and all that, but it's hard to really understand the point of all the hub-ub without understanding that Sauron is the real problem, and that he's really unnervingly dangerous and evil, a force of nature almost, beyond comprehension. Even his Nazgul seem sort of weak compared to those depicted in Bakshi's LOTR.

      I really hope ROTK shows just how awe-inspiringly powerful and evil Sauron is, otherwise much of the drama of the books is just gone.

      Whew, I'm happy to have _that_ off my chest.

    6. Re:Screw the Movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an easily off-topic theme for us vitriol filled fanatics.. So I'll try to be short.

      Well, the problem isn't the scenes/cuts.. It's that Jackson and company's screenplay deviates so tremendously there's just no return to the original story. Few of the original thematic elements remain--only general storyline.

      I really expected to see the film gloss over the meeting with Faramir and the Rohan/Helm's Deep related scenes (after all Helm's Deep wasn't that much of the story in the book). Yes, the effects were fabulous, but where the hell did the elves come from? I guess Ciridith won't go with Frodo to the Gray Havens in the end now...

      The film could have ended with Frodo (apparently) dead and Sam carrying on the quest alone at the tower of Cirith Ungol. Thereby leaving time for all of the fabulous battles and drama in the Return of the King...

      As for the DVD thing. I waited and purchased the Extended Edition of the FOTR. I actually enjoyed it. I still had complaints, but the majority were resolved in the extended release.

      Jackon's The Two Towers is just so far gone, there's no recovery--I'm just not interested. I'd rather watch the old cartoon version and save a few hours for something more constructive.

    7. Re:Screw the Movie... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the scenes so much as the character/Theme assassinations. Tolkien's book was about the power of evil and its seductive nature. It was about the craven who embrace it, the cost of redemption for those who are seduced by it (Boromir), the nobility of those who refuse its call (Faramir), the innocence, humility and love that provides a shield against it (Samwise), the selflessness that allows one to fight it (Frodo).

      It is about the fall and decline that occurs to man when he embraces pride (the fall of Numenor/Denethor).

      It is about the lies people tell themselves and others that seduce them to evil (Saruman).

      To Jackson, all it was about was sword fights, and stereotypes. Me grunt Aragorn. Handle sword well. Kick Orc butt. Don't want to be King. Me wicked kung-fu master Legolas. Me comic relief Gimli, Merry and Pippin. Me cowardly, bumbling Frodo. Me country hick Samwise. Watch us go destroy ring that only Sauron can use. Have much fun on way. Me, Aragorn, get to kiss lots with Arwen and have cute blonde Eowyn chase after me! Hubba Hubba!

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    8. Re:Screw the Movie... by Vej · · Score: 1

      I think there's a fine line between trying too hard to represent something and letting the audience grasp a meaning on their own.

    9. Re:Screw the Movie... by SkankhodBeeblebrox · · Score: 1

      "Is anyone else as sick to death as I am about hearing how amazing Gollum was, how he should have won an academy award, been knighted by the Queen, been elected supreme ruler of Earth, etc.?"

      Amen!!

      The Gollum 'dialog' with himself was kind of entertaining, the rest I thought was lackluster at best...

    10. Re:Screw the Movie... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Apparently, we'll even get to see Sauron in physical form. The actor who played him in the prologue of the first one has done reshoots for the third movie.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    11. Re:Screw the Movie... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that Sauron is never seen in person in the novels; the most direct contact we ever have is when his servant quotes him to (I think) Gloin, which Gloin relates at the Council of Elrond.

      Of course Sauron and his actions are referred to numerous times, but we never see him. I was suprised by this fact when I first read LOTR, mainly because I already know that the name "Lord of the Rings" referred to Sauron before I started reading it. I got to the end, and thought, "Wait a minute, we never saw Sauron!"

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    12. Re:Screw the Movie... by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The dead marshes scene, where gollum keeps talking about not following the lights.. that weren't there.

      I think he was referring to the flames coming out of the ground. (Took me a second viewing to figure that out.)

      "Don't follow the lights. Careful now, or Hobbits go down to join the dead ones and light little candles of their own."

    13. Re:Screw the Movie... by amorsen · · Score: 1
      Actually I feel that Saruman is the one getting screwed in both movies so far. He is reduced to being a puppet of Sauron.

      Also, for a wise guy he acts really stupidly. For one thing he makes a big dam, but places all his manufacturing and even his tower below a dam he built.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    14. Re:Screw the Movie... by Number14 · · Score: 1

      But, in the books we see the Eye take a more active role- when Frodo puts on the ring to escape Boromir, the eye is actively searching for him, trying to find him, and he removes the ring just in time.

    15. Re:Screw the Movie... by malex23 · · Score: 1
      True, Aragorn dieing (!) and Faramir taking them to Gondor (!!!) were different from the books, and probably not nesesecessary, but we can't do anything about that, can we?

      It's as if Jackson wanted to give every character a Missing In Action Presumed Dead moment.

      At any rate, Faramir wasn't supposed to give in to temptation, the Elves were not supposed to be at Helm's Deep, the Ents were not supposed to be Switzerland until tricked into hasty action by clever hobbits, and Gimli is supposed to have some goddamn dignity. These are the plot deviations I cannot get my geeky head around.

    16. Re:Screw the Movie... by jonabbey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's crap. In the books, the lights were more like will-o-the-wisp's, that flickered and moved and beckoned and enticed.

      Not little static gas jets strewn here and there.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. You should wait beyond that.... by reverendG · · Score: 1

    For the Ultimate Dragon Tiger Super Edition!

    blatant PVP online quote. www.pvponline.com

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
    1. Re:You should wait beyond that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Re:I'm thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25

  18. No more extra scenes of Gollum??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... And I was looking so forward to seeing more scenes of Jar Jar Gollum. I've been following his carreer ever since he first starred in Star Wars: Phantom Menace. He has made a point of stealing any movie he appears in. If they don't add more scenes of Jar Jar, Me's a thinking I'm gonna die.

  19. well, just think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with all the extra scenes added, maybe now it won't end in the middle of the book!!! I for one wanted to see Frodo get smacked around by the spider lady

    1. Re:well, just think by pilot1 · · Score: 1

      Of course it's still going to end in the middle of the book - it has too!

      There isn't nearly enough material in RotK alone to make another movie out of - otherwise PJ would have.

      Think about it, what ending would have been better for PJ, everyone thinking Frodo was dead, or the ending from TTT?

    2. Re:well, just think by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Well, there is enough material in RotK, except they are gutting the hobbiton parts from the movie. That was the number one thing I was looking forward to.

      WHEN HOBBITS ATTACK!!!

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    3. Re:well, just think by EvanED · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I think Return is the shortest of the three parts once you lop off the appendices, so even if they include the battles for Hobbiton there isn't as much material as there is for the other movies.

      But they're getting rid of the battles for Hobbiton? :-(

    4. Re:well, just think by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Check "the one ring" or google for more details. But apparently they will be killing sauruman at the beginning of RotK, so... And Peter Jackson has mentioned cutting it after crowning the king.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  20. More scenes? by DrXym · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I actually thought the cinematic release of TTT could have done with less scenes. All that flashback crap containing Arwen completely dragged down the middle segment. A five minute trim would have made it a better picture.


    Now the extended edition does appear to introduce some interesting new stuff, but I wonder if yet more flashbacks concerning Boromir and Faramir is just compounding the error. Enough with the flashbacks!

    1. Re:More scenes? by mattdm · · Score: 1

      Also it needed about a 37-minute trim to the Helm's Deep battle sequence.

    2. Re:More scenes? by Snowspinner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know I'm unpopular in this view, but I think the Arwen sections are totally necessary to the LoTR films.

      In the books, Arwen's marriage to Aragorn in the end comes out of nowhere. In some ways it is powerful because of this, but it really would not work in a movie, where people have been watching this story for two years. The payoff of a marriage at the end (And Jackson has confirmed, I believe, that RoTK ends with the marriage, and not with the return to the Shire) needs to actually be a payoff. That can only happen if Aragorn marries someone he's been developed as having some tie to. Arwen cannot come out of nowhere, nor can she be absent from Two Towers, or else it's been two years since we've seen her, and she is no longer adequately developed.

    3. Re:More scenes? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      The problem was the scenes were forced and too long. I'm sure a few second shot of smiling Arwen as Arargorn lay dazed holding his amulet, plus a sentence or two such as "I love her more than life itself" or whatever would have conveyed the same message.

    4. Re:More scenes? by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      thought she was adequately developed from the first scene she appeared

    5. Re:More scenes? by redtail1 · · Score: 1

      Return of the King is probably going to end with a ride into the sunset on the ship. I think they'll skip from the wedding right over the scouring of the Shire, which I'm hoping will show up on the DVD but I'm not holding my breath.

    6. Re:More scenes? by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the Lord of the Rings novel, there are several lengthy appendices, one of which details the story of Arwen and Aragorn. Most of the details of this story are not in the main novel; we simply learn that they are betrothed (I think) but little more. As you pointed out, their marriage almost comes out of the blue in the novel.

      As it would not be practical to include this appendix in its entirety in the films, a little more backstory is needed. (Granted, they changed it a bit from what happened in the novel, which may or may not have been advisable, but hey.)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    7. Re:More scenes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I'm unpopular in this view, but I think the Arwen sections are totally necessary to the LoTR films.

      I agree - movies that long need a bathroom break in the middle.

    8. Re:More scenes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see no reason why an excellent movie can't spend a few minutes on a completely hot elf-girl. drool...

    9. Re:More scenes? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Leave out the "Scouring of the Shire"? I will lose much respect for Jackson and crew if they do that. I already lost some when they transformed Faramir into a petty, grabby, opportunist. They'd also better include the "Voice of Saruman" in the final movie, as it was conspicuously missing from TTT.

    10. Re:More scenes? by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      She would have been acceptably developled if she was going to marry Aragorn that film. But, in audience time, it was going to be two years before she married Aragorn. She needed to appear as early as she did, since Aragorn is the main male lead, and she needed to appear in all three movies, or else her return to marry Aragorn in RoTK would seem deus ex machina.

    11. Re:More scenes? by Snowspinner · · Score: 1

      Though the Scourging of the Shire is thematically important, I think it would be very hard to include it without really messing up the pacing of the third film. Movies tend to need to end with climactic resolution, which Aragorn's wedding provides. The scourging of the shire and Frodo's return is much more anticlimactic, and I think it would wind up disappointing far more of the audience than it would satisfy.

    12. Re:More scenes? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      You're probably right about disappointing the audience, since most of the audience probably won't have read the original.Perhaps the sequence of the plot could be reordered to make a good movie while not losing too much of the original. TTT interleaved the plot of Frodo and Sam with that of the others for better flow. Hopefully, the Scourging will be included in the 4 disc set.

  21. Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I felt that TTT was cut more harshly than FOTR was ... things didn't flow as smoothly, things were more jarring.

    I'm hoping that some of that extra 43 minutes is invested into smoothing out some of those rough edges and making it flow just a little better.

    But who am I kidding? I'll buy it anyway, and I'll buy the regular cut, and I'll buy both editions of ROTK, and if (when) they come out with some uber-box-set with all three movies, a copy of the books, a lifesize inflatable Balrog, and new commentary by Christopher Tolkien (heh, yeah right!) I'll buy that too.

    At least they're telling us up front about the different editions, so buyers can make the right choices.

    Let's just hope PJ doesn't release digitally altered (kindler, gentler) versions of the movies in twenty years :).

    --
    Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
    1. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by avelth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't hear any mention of them fixing the atrocious plot changes, so I'm really hopeless.

      The Ents are tricked into attacking?

      Faramir is a prick?

      What happened here!?!

    2. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by cjpez · · Score: 3, Informative
      Faramir is a prick?
      The article mentioned that the new cut would feature some explanations as to why exactly they turned Faramir into an asshole. I'm rather looking forward to that. That was pretty much my one major gripe with it.

      But yeah, the Ent thing would be nice too.

    3. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      I felt that TTT was cut more harshly than FOTR was ... things didn't flow as smoothly, things were more jarring.

      I don't think there was really any way to avoid this, as unlike FOTR the heroes are split into several groups. In FOTR you're just following the fellowship and the villains, in TTT there are Frodo/Sam/Gollum, Merry and Pippin, and the events in Rohan.

    4. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by Torulf · · Score: 1

      But who am I kidding? I'll buy it anyway, and I'll buy the regular cut, and I'll buy both editions of ROTK, and if (when) they come out with some uber-box-set with all three movies, a copy of the books, a lifesize inflatable Balrog, and new commentary by Christopher Tolkien (heh, yeah right!) I'll buy that too.

      At least they're telling us up front about the different editions, so buyers can make the right choices.


      Like the one you're making?

    5. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by buffy · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...a lifesize inflatable Balrog...

      I'm going to hold out for the Lifesize Inflatable FLAMING Balrog(TM).

      -db

    6. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Bascially, they'll have to re-write the Denethor character, too.

      That's what you get when you start mucking with an intrivately woven novel. You screw one character up (for who knows what reason) and you've got to make a thousand changes everywhere else to repair the mess you just made.

      expect RTK do be so far removed from the book to be almost unrecognizable.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    7. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      Me too, in the same way a parent looks forward to hearing their child explain how sneaking out in at 3 am on a school night and having to be picked up at the police station isnt their fault.

      Should be worth a few laughs.

      But I guess now I have my answer to how the omition of Bombadil could work in the final movie. For those less familiar, Gandalf goes to visit Tom on the way back to Hobbiton, leaving the hobbits to continue on alone. But, no return to the shire, problem solved. I probably wont go see Return of the King in the theatre at all.

      At the very least PJ must be thanked for uncovering the origin of all sports involving travel via standing on a flat surface. The Elves invinted it all, skis, surfing, skateboarding, you name it, it was all the Elves idea. hehe

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    8. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      I'm going to hold out for the Lifesize Inflatable FLAMING Balrog(TM).
      I think you'll find that Gandalf is the flaming one. (The paragraph below the animation in the upper-right.)

      :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    9. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by danila · · Score: 2, Informative

      As was suggested here, may be the Purist Edit can help ease your pain.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    10. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Bascially, they'll have to re-write the Denethor character, too.

      Why? We don't know what Denethor's added parts are going to be like yet. And as long as he's a bigger prick than Boromir or Farimir were depicted as, it'll be ok.

      My only real grip about the movies is that there wont be a scouring of the shire.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    11. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by Wench · · Score: 1

      I don't see why at all.

      We tragic fan-girls already know that Denethor loved Boromir best, and thought Faramir was a bit of a wussy boy in comparison; and that's why Boromir got the exciting and politically relevant trip to Rivendell and Faramir got the semi-exile of the orc patrol in Ithilien. And also that this will have further ramifications in RotK...

      I think this could well improve things a lot. Extending Faramir's temptation from the few minutes to the few days is OK by me; but I was annoyed at the character shown. If that is improved then hurrah, that fixes one major gripe.
      And a sight of Huorns at Helms Deep will fix another major one.

      Now if only Gimli could be less comical.

      --
      No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
    12. Re:Just as excited (but I'm hopeless) by Jonner · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with Gimli being comical? The comedy element, especially between Gimli and Legolas was quite a bit more in the movies than the original, but I don't think it detracts from the characters.

      What they did to Faramir, however, is unexcusable. In the original, he is portrayed as noble and gracious above all else. He only opposed the Hobbits because of his duty to the law.

      I also noticed the conspicuously missing Huorns. The Voice of Saruman also needs to be heard.

  22. Ents!!! by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 1

    I thought the Ents were wonderful, more of them will make it worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.

  23. Article author never read Tolkein by EricWright · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently, the author was surprised to learn that in the Jackson version of LotR, Aragorn is 87 years old. As anyone who has read the books knows, Aragorn is Dunedan (sp?), a race of men who once lived for 500+ years, but in the days of LotR, live a relatively short 180-200 years.

    1. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by squidfood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As anyone who has read the books knows...

      Okay fanboy, if you look at the Book of the Years (Appendix Whatever) you'll see that at the time of LOTR, Aragorn is just a little older than Denethor, and in fact visits and fights for Gondor (under an assumed name) when he and Denethor are both young (and Denethor is still a prince).

      This worries a young Denethor that this Gandalf-loving outsider is after the throne, thus setting up Denethor's distrust for Gandalf (and Faramir) in ROTK.

      Aragorn lives a while after LOTR into the hundreds. But in LOTR he is indeed in his eighties-- movie got it right.

      So there.

    2. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by squidfood · · Score: 1

      But in LOTR he is indeed in his eighties-- Whups my apologies to the original poster, I thought you were amusedly talking about the author of the LOTR (Tolkien) being surprised at the movie's goof at making Aragorn too young, not the author of the article being surprised...

    3. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by CaseyB · · Score: 2, Funny
      I thought you were amusedly talking about the author of the LOTR (Tolkien) being surprised at the movie's goof

      Anyone who read the books would probably be aware that Tolkein has been dead for 30 years.

    4. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by EricWright · · Score: 1

      That is indeed what I meant. I thought I remembered the number as 77, not 87. I'm not that big of a fanboy, but enough to know a) he's Dunedan, and b) they're older than they look ;)

    5. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Nept · · Score: 1

      and that arwen is a few thousand years old ...

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    6. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      AND is related to Aragorn! Check it out! Perfect for Jerry Springer....

    7. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      maybe I'm Dunedan? I'm in my 30s and still get carded

    8. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And Galadrial was born in Valinor and is likely one of the oldest 'people' in Middle Earth. Yeah, Bombodil is the oldest (Maya that went native?) and the Ents were placed by Yahvanna to protect the woods after elves were awoke (dwarves awoke?).

      Wished FotR had stressed more how Elrond was the banner carrier to the last Elvish High King, Gil-Galad and how Elendil (with his sons) had come from Numenor. Oh well. Maybe in the Ãoeber Box set, there will be the story of Numenor. Would be cool if there was some shot of Arwen being around then, just so people'll realize how old she is in relation to Aragorn.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    9. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Nept · · Score: 1

      And Galadrial was born in Valinor and is likely one of the oldest 'people' in Middle Earth.

      Well...maybe. It's been a while since I've really read the HofME - but I believe the Wizards are older. Wasn't Gandalf called directly by Lluvutar, or was that Manwe who called him to go down to Middle Earth? It says nothing of his past history, but I had the impression that he had already existed for a long time prior to being called to go to Middle Earth.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    10. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      By 'people', I meant someone born of the world. The Istari (wizards), Maia (demi-gods), Vanya (God-like caretakers of the world), balrogs, Schlob(corrupted Maia), Bombodil (Maia gone native?) and such came from out of the world. While not really mortal, the elves are still not divine in the sense that those from out of the world of Arda are.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Stormie · · Score: 1

      Aragorn lives a while after LOTR into the hundreds. But in LOTR he is indeed in his eighties-- movie got it right.

      The original commenter never said otherwise! He merely dissed the journalist for being surprised at this fact - because, as we all well know, a lack of knowledge of Tolkien minutiae renders one unfit to write for USA Today.

    12. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Number14 · · Score: 1

      Shelob is a sticky point- she's descended from Ungoliant, who isn't of any of the above categories.

      As for Bombodil, if he's Maia gone native he's either a liar or was the first of the Maiar to enter Middle Earth- he says he was first. My favorite theory is that he, like Goldberry, is a nature spirit, but while she's a spirit of that river, he's the spirit of all of middle earth...
      See Essays on Tolkien Topics for that theory. :)

    13. Re:Article author never read Tolkein by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      That's right. I was getting Shelob confused with Ungoliant. I thought Ungoliant was another Maia that went native, in a bad way. Didn't Morgoth go and find her in the southern mountains of Aman? From her sprang all the giant spiders that were in the Mirkwood, as well as Shelob and the spiders on the border of Melian's land?

      As for Bombodil, first there were the Valar who entered Arda and then the lesser spirits that kind of aligned themselves with Valar that matched their power or orientation. Bombodil could have been aligned with Yahvanna, being the green earth goddess. After the destruction of the first continent (overthrow of the towers of light), didn't the Valar move to Aman and leave Middle Earth alone. Only Yahvanna and Oromà went over; she to plant and heal and Oromà to hunt fell things? I imagine that maybe Bombodil stayed in Middle Earth, just grooving with the trees and such.

      Goldberry, was the daughter of the river. Didn't Ãoelmo send maia up the rivers to keep watch on the lands over there and help out? I suppose Goldberry was the daughter of one of the river maia that stayed there too.

      All these things would have happened before the sun and the moon, so it's hard to apply any type of time frame to this but it was likely several ages of the world as it was measured later. Bombodil would likely be 10's of thousands of years old. Even over 100,000?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  24. Good! by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So, they put the Ent-draught back in, eh? Now _that's_ good news. Merry and Pippin becoming unusually large for hobbits was only of any significance when they returned to the Shire and cleared out Saruman and his shambolic mob. Which suggests that the Scouring of the Shire will be left in the Return of the King - at least in the extended DVD, if not the cinema release.

    I doubt there'll be any good excuse for the monstrous character assassination they committed on Faramir, though.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:Good! by joeytsai · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're correct, the Scouring of the Shire won't happen in Return of the King. In the Fellowship DVD, when Frodo looks into Galadriel's mirror, and they see the Shire, I think I remember Peter Jackson mentioning that that was the most we'd see of that. That does make sense, though - I was a bit surprised when I read that there were still several more chapters after the ring had been destroyed. (Sorry if that was a spoiler).

      --
      http://www.talknerdy.org
    2. Re:Good! by gdr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Which suggests that the Scouring of the Shire will be left in the Return of the King - at least in the extended DVD, if not the cinema release.
      IMO the Souring of the Shire is the most important chapter in the LotR. It shows both the development of the hobbits and also that wars don't just end, there's always some cleaning up to be done.

      The inclusion or otherwise of this chapter in the RotK movie will make up my mind as to whether Peter Jackson "gets" the book. Partial credit if it's only in the Extended Edition.

    3. Re:Good! by _Neurotic · · Score: 1

      I doubt there'll be any good excuse for the monstrous character assassination they committed on Faramir, though.

      Right on there! Even now when I think of that my hair stands on end! What a snowjob!

    4. Re:Good! by bulletman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more with the character assination of Faramir.

      The question is: Why? So the audience could see a ring wraith bob on top of an oversized fruit bat in front of Frodo?

      Faramir wasn't allowed to show the nobility of his character, and present the contrast of his personality and wizard-influenced choices with that of his brother's.

      The other big gripe I concerns the ending. Gandalf, Eomer, and a couple of hundred riders wipe out 10,000 orcs? In the book it took thousands of hurons to do that.

      I'm not totally down on the film (Gandalf's fight with the balrog at the beginning was magnificent), but I'm wincing at the "liberties" I imagine Jackson is going to take with the third film.

    5. Re:Good! by FroMan · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd voice over the ents before they attacked Isengard. It'd be nice to have them make the "right" choice right off the bat, instead of being stupid.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    6. Re:Good! by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      "The other big gripe I concerns the ending. Gandalf, Eomer, and a couple of hundred riders wipe out 10,000 orcs? In the book it took thousands of hurons to do that."

      Gandalf, Erkenbrand, and a small force of Rohirrim turned up more or less as in the film. Erkenbrand was merged with Eomer in the movie, a change I found fairly reasonable. They did so at about the same time that Theoden and Aragorn led the charge out of Helm's Deep. This caused the Orcs to panic and flee into the forest of Huorns.

      Now, watching the end of TTT, we don't actually see the Orcs flee Helm's Deep - we only see Gandalf and the Rohirrim engaging them. The Orcs certainly haven't panicked yet; they form an orderly line of pikes to hold off the horsemen. The last we see of the battle is Gandalf the White kicking a great deal of arse. Presumably the Orcs will realise they're up against something awful (you have a Maia who's just killed the Balrog of Moria, wielding the ancient sword of Turgon of Gondolin - not something you really want to try fighting) and break - at which point the Huorns come into play. They didn't actually engage the army, they just exterminated the ones that tried to run.

      The battle of Helm's Deep was reasonably faithful to the book - apart from the party of Elves. That was completely uncalled-for.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:Good! by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

      Yea, but they were magic horsies. Didn't you see how steep that cliff was they galloped down?

    8. Re:Good! by syle · · Score: 1
      I first read the books about a year ago. Bad geek, I know.

      But, I remember reading that part and thinking, "What the hell? End the book! The story is OVER!"

      I, for one, hope it gets left out of the movie.

      --

      /syle

    9. Re:Good! by CaseyB · · Score: 1
      In the book it took thousands of hurons to do that.

      Wierd. I totally don't remember any native Americans in the book.

    10. Re:Good! by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      Well, different strokes for different strokes, but IMNSHO... :)

      Those chapters are the most anticlimactic part of the book. It redeemed itself at the end with Frodo sailing away, but I did not appreciate reading Frodo and Sam prance around, acting like cocky, world-conquering bastards. The book ended for me at Aragorn's crowning and wedding, the rest should have been part of the appendix, or something.

      I know no one will probably agree with me, but hey, that's the fun of message boards.

      Chris

    11. Re:Good! by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      I know it is better that its left out, because it wont work in a movie.
      But in the book it has the real message: heroes cant just go an a quest and come back as if nothing had happened. And the final leaftaking of frodo and to last line of sam made me cry.
      But i know that other people found that way to end the book horrible.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    12. Re:Good! by andyt · · Score: 1

      IMO the Souring of the Shire is the most important chapter in the LotR. It shows both the development of the hobbits and also that wars don't just end, there's always some cleaning up to be done.

      But.. but surely wars just end? Y'know like computer games? We invade a country, win and thats it? Everyone comes home.

      You mean FOX have been lying to me???

    13. Re:Good! by Molz · · Score: 1

      Although they might have been better off labeled as an epilog, they were a great way of wrapping up the story and rounding out the character developement of the hobits. It did a good deal to show that after his experiences, Frodo just didn't belong with the rest of the hobbit community anymore, and that Sam had become a man, as well as a leader.

      Oh, and it was Merry and Pippin that pranced around as world-conquering bastards, as you put it.

      I don't know how well it would play out in the movie, but they should atleast show Frodo sailing off with Bilbo and company at the end.

      --
      Can I Play With Madness?
    14. Re:Good! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      >>I'm wincing at the "liberties" I imagine Jackson is going to take with the third film.

      Fortunately Jackson was quoted somewhere as saying that TTT was where he really chose to depart from the books. So Return of the King will probably be closer, back to Fellowship standards, with the exception of the lack of the battles for the Shire.

    15. Re:Good! by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1
      At first I thought the same, but it turns out that horses CAN do that. I've had a few experienced horsemen look at that clip, and they claim that a well trained horse and experienced rider should have no problem charging down a hill that steep. Supposedly the Rohirrim are the best horsemen and have the best horses in middle earth.

      Also, watch the movie Tombstone. There is a brief scene in which Wyatt Earp and someone else run their horses down an equaly steep, albiet smaller, hill. That wasn't CG.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    16. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant! I thought everyone here loved FOX News and then, bam, you come along with your well placed sarcasm. Now tell everyone how much you hate GWB and your baptism to typical overweight slashdot.org poster/loser who lives in his moms basement will be complete.

    17. Re:Good! by BlightThePower · · Score: 1
      Two points.


      First, yeah there will be no scouring of the shire. As is said above, Peter Jackson in the extended DVD says so. Also Sam gets given a rope by Galadriel as his parting gift instead of a box of earth with a seed in. (IIRC, in the book Sam just finds the rope in the boat?) Thus there is nothing to repair the damage done back at the shire.


      Second, I agree the scouring is one of the most important parts of the book. I strongly suspect Tolkien would tell you that as well. Its not only about "cleaning up". Its about returning from war to a changed world. Certainly Tolkien himself felt that upon returning to England after his service in the First World War (which included the Battle of the Somme). The world had moved on and what he fought to protect no longer survived as he remembered it. And many who came back were too traumatised to ever feel settled in what they had risked all to preserve (cf. Frodo). Both are cruel ironies indeed but true for many of his generation. This is also tied in with Tolkien's general dislike of industrialisation itself and his pain at what was happening to the area where he grew up. Its a popular myth incidentally that Tolkien said his stories were totally unconnected to anything in the real world. What he really said was they were not allegorical particularly with regard to WW2 or nuclear war. In the introduction to the 2nd Ed of LoTR (IIRC) he makes it clear how much is based on his experiences in France and in later interviews, how he felt about environmental issues and "progress".

      For me, the Scouring of the Shire is in many ways the single part of the book that has some emotional depth, despite the fact it is here more than anywhere else in book that you can hear the author more of less hectoring you through the mouths of his characters. Whilst I understand filmmakers are under constraints, I hope RoTK doesnt end in pure triumphalism as that would I feel betray a big part of the spirit of the book.
      --
      Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
    18. Re:Good! by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      I have to be honest with you: I think the elves showing up at helm's deep was a change for the better. It was one of the most moving points of the film, imho, and really made the scene. Not all changes are good, and not all changes are necessary, but this one truly worked for the movie, and made the movie a better one. That is, of course, just my opinion, but of the liberties this movie takes with the book, this is the one that I stand behind most solidly as a great idea.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    19. Re:Good! by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

      Yea, I keep looking at that clip from Tombstone, but I can't see where he's attemping that steep decent surrounded by thousands of others in full battle mail.

    20. Re:Good! by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1
      It's just a proof of concept. Yeah, it sure would suck to be stuck in the front and have your horse trip, that would probably take out a significant fraction of the calvary.

      But come on, it's an epic movie.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    21. Re:Good! by Fryboy · · Score: 1

      The Scouring always seemed a bit tacked on at the end for me, like something from Movie in a Minute.

      "..and then there is A PLOT TWIST..."

      Fry

    22. Re:Good! by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1

      True. Funny I would harp on this. Instead of a wizard jumping on the back of an eagle. An eagle sent due ot a message delivered from a moth.

    23. Re:Good! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, that epic movies are supposed to be larger than life?

      In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics young lady!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  25. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they had to leave him out for purposes of keeping patrons from self mutilation.

  26. To those who are wondering . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Troll

    . . . what the fuck an "ent" is, it's apparently the name of those big-ass trees.

    1. Re:To those who are wondering . . . by Restil · · Score: 4, Funny

      The finer points of dating might be lost on some of this crowd, but I'm quite certain the great majority know what ents are. :)

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    2. Re:To those who are wondering . . . by Animixer · · Score: 1

      Go back to #povray you troll. ;)

      ^scatha^

      --
      man tunefs | grep fish
  27. You're Only Feeding the RIAA by goldspider · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Just remember folks, for every version of these LotR movies you buy, that's more money to the RIAA.

    So are you MPAA-boycotters out there gonna stick to your guns and not buy ANY of these DVDs? Or are you going to set your principles aside and buy these movies.

    I'm betting on the latter.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:You're Only Feeding the RIAA by suavivity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i have no problem paying for something that is WORTH paying for. TTT wasn't one 10 minute action scene in the middle of 3 hours worth of fluff. besides, they're only gonna make more good fantasy movies like this if they make money on them.

    2. Re:You're Only Feeding the RIAA by tid242 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "So are you MPAA-boycotters out there gonna stick to your guns and not buy ANY of these DVDs? Or are you going to set your principles aside and buy these movies."

      One of the advantages of living in a house with 4 other guys, either someone will buy it, or their girlfriend/mom/dad/brother/grandmother/aunt/etc/et c certainly will, either way i still get to see it :) ...

      in any event, there's always the option of buying it used, while it could be argued that buying used DVDs supports the MPAA via creating a secondary market demand for their products, i personally think that it's a happy medium between being devoid of art in life and supporting one of the world's most evil empires. Also it should be noted that someone who buys a DVD for $25 and sells it to a disc-whorehouse for $5 probably isn't considerably driven by the market demand for his/her used product...

      And (as a sort of sales pitch), EVERYONE who sells a movie or CD isn't necessarily affiliated with the MPAA or RIAA, as an example i am certainly purchasing (brand new) the 'Ohgr' CD (Nivek Ogre and Mark Walk) being released by spitfire records on July 1, and they are not affiliated with the RIAA (according to something i read a while back)... So don't let your boycotts hurt the innocents (like all of those idiots who said they'd boycott Heineken beer because it is German, after the fallout of an Iraq war resolution...)

      Sorry, i'm mumbling again...

      -tid242

      --

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

    3. Re:You're Only Feeding the RIAA by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      One of the advantages of living in a house with 4 other guys, either someone will buy it, or their girlfriend/mom/dad/brother/grandmother/aunt/etc certainly will

      Yeah, but does that outweigh always having to fish pubes out of your keyboard?

    4. Re:You're Only Feeding the RIAA by joaodk · · Score: 1
      whoever is really concerned about this should read lawrence lessigÂs challenge.

      http://luke.francl.org/lessig-challenge/

      It might be an interesting idea to apply this against the DMCA and eventually RIAA and MPAA, if you feel like it.

    5. Re:You're Only Feeding the RIAA by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't own a DVD player or any DVDs, so there you go.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re:You're Only Feeding the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >(like all of those idiots who said they'd
      >boycott Heineken beer because it is German,
      >after the fallout of an Iraq war resolution...)

      Idiots, indeed, isn't Heineken Dutch?

  28. ents by tid242 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "More ent scenes so it'll be worth watching for the special effects alone. Sadly it looks like there will be no extra gollum scenes. I can't say I'm as excited about this one as the FotR EE."

    i for one would have to disagree with this opinion, i've seen enough of Gollum and am bordering on thinking of him as a more refined (albeit less nauseating) Jar Jar. There were/are several facets of TTT which bothered me, but despite the obviously flawed story-line deviations i would have to say the top two on my list are: 1) the character degredation of Farimir, and 2) the inability of TTT to portray Ents as being very ancient and very wise beyond the comprehension of the fast-paced lives of the more mortal (i know 'mortal' is a qualitative measurement, but you know what i mean by 'more mortal') races.

    Perhaps some of the cut scenes will allay some of these grumblings and restore to the Ents what i have always seen as their greatest virtue.

    -tid242

    --

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

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

      More Ents?

      How can I lose!

    2. Re:ents by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I agree. I thought FotR's deviations were excusable and made sense. TTT's deviations were just bewildering and I didn't see what the pragmatic reasons for them were. (Well, except for one line: "We're not supposed to be here!")

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:ents by _Neurotic · · Score: 1

      1) the character degredation of Farimir, and 2) the inability of TTT to portray Ents as being very ancient and very wise beyond the comprehension of the fast-paced lives of the more mortal

      Yep. These are my top two as well. Abso-freaking-lutely inexcusable.

    4. Re:ents by ccnull · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hear hear! The ents were about as realistic and impressive as the Hamburgler. They are embarassing in their Muppet-ness, not to mention the pathetic green-screening when the Hobbits are riding atop them... looked straight out of 1980.

    5. Re:ents by Kaiwen · · Score: 1
      the top two on my list are: 1) the character degredation of Farimir....

      While I also found the changes to Faramir disturbing, they only rank third on my TTT peeve list. 2) is the camp "What are we fighting for?" speech Sam is saddled with at the end of the movie; as much as I enjoyed TTT, I cringe every time I see this scene.

      For my money, however, by far the most egregious alteration was -- excuse me? -- elves at Helm's Deep. Pointless as it was even within the context of the movie, it was grossly out of character for the elves who, like the Ents, were invested by their immortality with an ageless wisdom that prevented them from understanding, let alone concerning themselves with the affairs of, short-lived men (indeed, one of the elves' many names for men was the Inscrutable). Of all the problems on the elvish plate at the end of the Third Age, yet another war of men was of little consequence.

      The only reason the elves were concerned with the War of the Ring at all was because it was the final battle of the Long Defeat they had been fighting since the First Age, when Sauron was but the lieutenant of Morgoth.

      Jackson's attempted cover -- "An alliance once existed between elves and men.... We come to honor that allegiance." -- is revisionist. The alliance was not between elves and men, but between the elves and the Edain, the First House of men, from whom the Numenoreans are descended. The Rohirrimï who are not Edain, have no part in that alliance; thus any elven army sent to honor the alliance would have gone to Gondor, not Rohan.

      Despite that flaw, I remain in utter awe of the Helm's Deep battle scenes. As a piece of movie crafting it is absolutely superb. Not since Akira Kurosawa's gave us "Ran" has cinema seen the likes of Jackson's fair. Theodon's ominous soliloquy ("Where is the horse and the rider?") as the orc hordes approach is one of the great cinematic moments; my hat's off to Bernard Hill's performance. It is a testimony to the vapidity of Hollywood that such a cinematic master-work was so roundly snubbed.

      Lee Kaiwen,
      Taiwan, ROC

    6. Re:ents by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 1

      The exorcism scene bothered me the most. It seems that due to time requirements they couldn't have Gandalf go to Isengard to confront Saruman, so they combined the Theodin and Saruman scenes into one. But in doing so, they really hollywood-ized magic in Middle Earth. In the books, mind control magic was subtle yet powerful trickery. Less like The Exorcist and more like manufacturing support for a war in Iraq.

    7. Re:ents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "not to mention the pathetic green-screening when the Hobbits are riding atop them..."

      Oh great another one of those I could see the "green fringes" people. Maybe you could see green fringes But since Peter Jackson used a blue screen and not a green screen it had nothing to do with the compositing. May be it was that in a forest things are green thing.

    8. Re:ents by L0rdJagged · · Score: 1

      The Exorcism scene really bothered me too. It just doesn't seem right. It is like Galadriel's bit in FotR where she suddenly turns green. I thought that was totally uncalled for and watching it makes me cringe. She could have conveyed it much better by her tone of voice I think. The worst change in TTT in my opinion is the scene where Aragorn falls off the cliff and takes forever riding back to tell everyone that the orcs are coming. It isn't like that wasn't the reason they were headed to Helm's Deep or anything. Since in the book they all got there together just fine, it seemed really really pointless. Whenever I hear people say something was left out because they didn't have time I wonder what scenes in particular were cut out so everyone could be astonished that one of the main characters was't killed off camera, then watch him take forever riding to rejoin the group when he could've just been there in the first place.

    9. Re:ents by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      I agree. Faramir was too angry for me. I got the impression in the book he was a nice guy. His bro boromir was the angry one.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  29. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not that I won't be subjected to another 3 months (more, really, considering RotK is coming in Dec) of my girlfriend saying, "Isn't he dreamy?...I love Legolas!...He's so handsome, won't you learn Elvish, honey?"

    I feel your pain.

    When I went to see TTT on the first midnight showing, most of the people in the audience were in their twenties. One of the previews was for "Pirates of the Carribean", and when Orlando Bloom's name came up there were distinct shrieks. When Legolas jumped onto the moving horse, I swear I could feel the estrogen surge. I thought girls were going to start flinging panties at the screen. One woman posted online that when she saw this scene for the first time, "I think I got pregnant."

    On the bright side, if you're not entirely joking, it's now officially studly to have learned Elvish, although the thought of bespectacled Tolkein geeks trying to pick up girls by quoting Legolas is more than a little disturbing.

  30. OOPS! I mean MPAA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry about that one folks!

  31. I'm gonna direct a movie! by NeB_Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    With the recent advent of everyone turning anything in print into a movie (LotR, Spiderman, The Hulk, Daredevil, etc...) in order to appeal to a more illiterate society, and to advertise more products. I have decided to turn FreeBSD Unleashed (2nd Edition) into a feature film. It will feature bullet-time animation, and Beastie travelling through 3-dimensional telnet and ssh sessions to successfully configure his beowulf community.

    I will be sure not to use any phrases such as Unix, Linux, SCO, or FSF so that I am not sued.

    Then, I will release a DVD edition, then an extended edition with an interview with some programmers on how to configure you first box.



    All trademarks are owned by their respective copyright holders, please don't sue me.
    FreeBSD Unleashed: The Movie patent pending.

    1. Re:I'm gonna direct a movie! by spudchucker · · Score: 1

      Where are you going to shoot the movie? In Soviet Russia?

    2. Re:I'm gonna direct a movie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, in Soviet Russia the movie would shoot him :P

    3. Re:I'm gonna direct a movie! by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      WIll there be the /. avengers backing him up.

      Maybe

      1.Idea for movie.
      2.????
      3.Profit

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    4. Re:I'm gonna direct a movie! by FlynnMP3 · · Score: 1

      What is really sad, is that I would probably buy your movie. Well, the extended version anyway. /sigh

  32. Ents suck by jj_johny · · Score: 0
    I got the extended edition of fellowship. In it Peter Jackson goes on about how he doesn't want you to look at a shot and be distracted by if its CG, an actor or if other visual effects. Looking at fellowship there was not much that was distracting but TTT was loaded with visually distracting junk.

    Ents - Grade: F - completely unbelievable and dragged the story Gollum - Grade: B+ - pretty believable and well integrated most of the time .....the rest - Grade: A - very good and seamless

    1. Re:Ents suck by Xpilot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. Real walking trees don't look anything like that!

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Ents suck by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      The problem you're having is not that Jackson did not handle the Ents well. The problem is that there are giant, moving, slow-talking trees (or tree-like beings) that play a pivotal role in the story. Some people have even suggested that Tolkein designed the Ents specifically so that the books could never be translated to a visual medium like film. You give them an F in the film, but can you even think about what another director or less-talented effects house would have done? You have to give them at least a C- for effort.

  33. Obligitory AOLer comment by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 1

    Me too!

    Seriously though, I'll enjoy being able to show my forthcoming children (first due in the Fall) the different edits of the movie, how they all fit together, contrasts between them, etc. Kinda like how I'm annoyed they refuse to release the original version of Star Wars as we saw it as children, its all repackaged Ewoks-with-walkie-talkies fluff.

    1. Re:Obligitory AOLer comment by CaseyB · · Score: 2, Informative
      its all repackaged Ewoks-with-walkie-talkies fluff.

      It's hard to believe, but those annoying, out of place, obviously-merchandise-driven Ewok scenes were actually in the original theatrical release!

      It's true. If you can find a copy of the original you can see for yourself.

  34. please! FOTR scenes were bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i saw both version of the fellowship of the ring. and with the exception of the different "round table" scene i was glad they cut out all those scenes. they were pointless and the added nothing but tolkeins bad poetry to a brilliant version of the movie. after reading the books and seeing the movie i wish i had just watched the movie. less garbage in movie.

    1. Re:please! FOTR scenes were bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Betcha loved Last Action Hero too, eh?

    2. Re:please! FOTR scenes were bad by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Had you read the book before watching?

  35. More ents...good by Snodgrass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My opinion after seeing it in the theater was that we were short-changed on the Ents. They play a very important role in the book (aren't they actually the ones that win Helm's deep? Sneak in at night and rip the orc armies to bits?)

    While it's not heavy on details it mentions the Ent's draught and Merry and Pippin getting taller, which I thought would have been worth putting in the movie. Glad to see it will be there now.

    I think I'm actually looking more forward to the TTT Special Edition than I was FotR because I've seen how much extra goodness was added to FotR.

    1. Re:More ents...good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. More like the orcs in flight disappear into a forest, and none ever leave it.

      Sort of incidental to the story, although I *was* looking forward to seeing it.

    2. Re:More ents...good by apdt · · Score: 1

      According to this the extended edition will include the bit with the Huorns at Helm's Deep.

      --
      I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
    3. Re:More ents...good by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe it'd be nice to see Grimtongue throwing the crystal ball (brain fart on the name of it) down at Gandalf. I know the ents weren't there then, but they might be hanging out there now.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    4. Re:More ents...good by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      My impression was that scene would be near the beginning of ROTK, since no part of it is in TTT. Maybe you're right, though.

      Chris

    5. Re:More ents...good by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Yes; that's after Gandalf and company arrive at Isengard, which does not appear in TTT movie. They would have had to add much more than just that to make that scene reasonable. (Though I do wish that that episode had been in the movie.)

    6. Re:More ents...good by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      I agree the ent juice was very important. In the book merry or pippin (can't remember which one) joins the Gondor arny and returns home to the shire almost human in size.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  36. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From reading the article (I know, how dare I) it sounds like the added scenes will help those who haven't read the books. I know when my wife saw the extended FotR, things "clicked" a little better...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  37. Seamless branching would be nice by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would not be difficult to load a seperate table of contents which would allow one to watch the theatrical version and extended cut off the same set of dvds.

    I cant think of a technical reason why this isn't possible, unless there are different versions of the same scene instead of different length cuts of the same scene.

    A 5th disc with the original cut wouldnt be hard to add either. I wonder if a superbit version will ever come out?

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:Seamless branching would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The score was redone for the extended version so you couldn't just hack scenes around.

    2. Re:Seamless branching would be nice by JayBlalock · · Score: 1

      Did you not see the FOTR extended edition? He didn't just add scenes in ala Cameron, he extensively reedited huge chunks of the movie. (often quite subtlely) Seamless branching wouldn't work; your player would be hopping back and forth between versions every 10 seconds.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    3. Re:Seamless branching would be nice by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      I own it actually. I don't see any reason why you cant still jump around. Mosts dvds pause for a 1/4 second when there is a layer change in a disc, so i don't really have a problem with it. PLus the movie itself on 2 discs(though i can't remember if extras were on those as well or just on the 2 features discs), there should be plenty of room for yet another audio track and alternate versions of the scenes. What it would likely require is a different end point for the first and second disc.

      The t2 extended version has 3 different versions of the movie (i believe there is a 4th "hidden version" too) 2 of which are on the same disc, seamless branching is used. The import shaloin soccer has totally different scenes which are signalled by a little icon and can be played. Why isn't this possible?

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    4. Re:Seamless branching would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not possible if only because the rerecorded the entire score soundtrack for the EE, as well as changed the lengths of some scenes.

    5. Re:Seamless branching would be nice by bakes · · Score: 1

      Technically it's possible - take a look at the Robocop collectors/extended edition. When I went to, ummm, "back it up" with DVDx I found that the first six chapters were the extended edition 'replacements' for other original chapters in the movie. So when watching the movie the player started at chapter 7, played a bit, jumped back to chapter 1, played two chapters, then back to chapter 10 or 11 or something to continue. If you started the movie at chapter seven and let it run you got the original version.

      I've explained this poorly - rent the DVD and take a look at it.

      Practically it's not possible with TTT, as other posters replying to your comment have explained.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
  38. kings live for centuries by peter303 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The original race of men in Toklein's universe live for centuries like the Biblical patriarchs. Their lifespans declined as the original high civilization declined. Also the line of kings has immortal Elvish ancestors, which confers additional longevity.
    Aragon's 87 years pales compared to his betrothed Arwen's many centuries. She is practically cradle-robbing. And her father, Agent Smith, no I mean Elrond, is an immortal Elf and many thousands of years old. Because Elrond and Arwen have some human blood, they can choose to become human, age, and die.

    1. Re:kings live for centuries by Adrenochrome · · Score: 1

      "Agent Smith, no I mean Elrond, is an immortal Elf and many thousands of years old."

      Half-Elf, actually. He and his brother were given the choice of a mortal or an immortal life. Quenta Silmarillion...

      Nit-picky, I know...

    2. Re:kings live for centuries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Half-Elf, actually.

      Actually, Half-Elf is just an approximation:

      Elrond's father was Earendil.

      Earendil's father was Tuor, a pure Human, and his mother was Idril, a pure Elf. Thus, Earendil was half-Elf and half-Human.

      Elrond's mother was Elwing.

      Elwing's mother was Nimloth, who was pure Elf.

      Elwing's father was Dior.

      Dior's father was Beren, who was pure Human.

      Dior's mother was Luthien.

      Luthien's father was Thingol, a fascist asshole of the first caliber, and pure Elf.

      Luthien's mother was Melian, the most beautiful thing to ever grace middle earth, and pure Maia (angel).

      Thus, Luthien was half Maia and half Elf.

      Thus, Dior was 1-fourth Elf, 1-fourth Maia, and 1-half Human.

      Thus, Elwing was 5-eighths Elf, 1-eighth Maia, and 1-fourth Human.

      And thus, Elrond was 9-sixteenths Elf, 1-sixteenth Maia (angel), and three-eighths human.

    3. Re:kings live for centuries by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      'Seems that whenever someone is given the choice, they then 'are' that race. Elrond's brother, Elohir, chose to become human. He and his decendents were given lifespans three times that of the rest of men, if they went to Numenor. This was reported to be over 500 years for some, so it seems that the Edain (three tribe/clans who came to Beleriand) already had a longer life span. This could be due to the fact that men were still fairly new in the world or that contact with the Elves helped extend their lives (lots of stories in western lit about people finding time has passed them by while they were with the elves or in fey lands).

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  39. Re: FotR EE? (Kaiburr Crystal alert) by Bartacus · · Score: 1

    Even though I knew it was "Fellowship ...", for some reason, Fall of the Republic was the first title that came to mind.

    --
    -- he's not heavy, he's my sysadmin!
  40. o? by ed.han · · Score: 2, Interesting

    you've clearly never compared the extended FOTR to the theatrical release version. the extended edition was a vastly superior film and also helps explain why in TT gollum keeps whimpering about the rope.

    btw: am i the only one who had to put the captions on to understand what galadriel is saying during her temptation scene?

    ed

    1. Re:o? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i just smoked some good bc bud and figured it out that way...

      the effects also looked better in that scene :-)

    2. Re:o? by tvalley000 · · Score: 1

      btw: am i the only one who had to put the captions on to understand what galadriel is saying during her temptation scene?

      Even with captions on, I find it hard to pay attention to anything else when she's outfitted in that steel breastplate.

    3. Re:o? by Hitch · · Score: 1

      no. you're not.

      --
      You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
      http://propheteer.org
  41. Re:You're Only Feeding the MPAA by goldspider · · Score: 0, Troll
    That wasn't the point I was making.

    There are plenty of people who say (over and over again) that the MPAA is bad, but when movies like this come out, they have no problem with bending over for the industry with each regular, special, and extra-special version of a movie they put out. That's called hypocricy, and the fact that my post was modbombed in mere seconds only demonstrates (to me at least) that it touched a nerve on the very hypocrites I was addressing.

    It's no surprise to me that they are armed with mod points to squash all dissenting opinion, or posts that correctly identify them.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  42. Time difference... by stienman · · Score: 4, Funny
    First thing I wanted to know is how much longer is it really?

    The original TT is 179 minutes, just a hair under 3 hours. That makes the extended edition 43 minutes longer at 222 minutes.

    In those 43 minutes you could
    • Make and bake 3 batches of cookies
    • Order and eat one medium pizza
    • Lay sod down in a 200 square foot yard
    • Makeworld your FreeBSD
    • Fax 20 government representatives digital copyright
    • View all of the easter eggs on the FotR extended set 4 times (including the saturday night live version of the council)
    • Bicycle 15 miles
    • Bookmark and replay Boromir's death fight 8 times

    Or look at new ent scenes, watch merry and pippin grow inches from ent draught, get more info about the theoden family and boramir's father and brother, etc, etc.

    Me?

    DIE BOROMIR, DIE!!! "My K...-rewind- THAP! "ARRRGH" THAP! THAP!

    -Adam
  43. Re:You're Only Feeding the MPAA by goldspider · · Score: 1
    I'm not saying that the MPAA necessarily should be boycotted, or that people shouldn't buy indie flicks. I'm just calling out those who DO think the MPAA should be boycotted to stick to their principles.

    And no, balancing a diet of MPAA with Indie doesn't count, and neither does buying them used. Boycott means you don't buy any, period.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  44. GIve in to the temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know you want it. Why torture yourself? There's so much extra in each one, it's so very much worth it.

    1. Re:GIve in to the temptation by Zelet · · Score: 1

      But if I do, it will corrupt my wife and make her an evil wench that will bitch at me about money!

      The one box set will corrupt those that carry it. Include the ones around them.

      --
      ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
  45. Re:I'm thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you FOOL, It was 42!! That is the only true number between 1 and 50.

  46. Extended scenes are essential to a complete story by jonesy16 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok ok, so I understand that some of you haven't read the books and believe that the additional scenes in FotR were trivial. But come on, leaving out the reforging of Aragorn's sword by the elves? Tolkein's poetry? Crack open the book for one minute and see how many poems you come across. This man invented (documented) 10,000 years of history, constructed a couple languages from scratch, and wrote countless songs and poems to complete the world of Lord of the Rings and Jackson all but throws it away. The extended edition of Lord of the Rings did exactly what I wanted it to, it completed the parts of the movie that I thought were missing from the book. It will be a harder challenge for TTT:EE to do the same, but I look forward to the "small" details being put back in so that the people who have read and enjoyed the books can see it in action.

  47. yeah, i mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're only EXPLICITLY TOLD in the movie; "I am no tree, I am an ent." and then they say it like 8 more times throughout the movie.

  48. book pacing vs. film pacing by ed.han · · Score: 2, Informative

    i would argue that there are fundamental differences in pacing b/n a film and a book.

    in a book, the author has the luxury of assuming he has your undivided attention and that he or she can describe certain things in extended, loving detail (e.g., the infamous whitenes of the whale chapter in moby dick).

    in addition, most books take longer (for some, a lot longer) to experience than a movie. i'm a very fast reader and can usually knock off a 500 or so page book (fiction) in an evening. by contrast, my wife generally stretches the same book out over several evenings.

    contrast this with a movie. most movies are around 2 hours long or so. this puts a huge burden upon the director, to convey the basic concepts of the film in a very efficient manner. while a picture may be worth a thousand words, some authors take a thousand words just to clear their throats (e.g., stephen king).

    as a result, the pacing of works in these 2 very different media by definition *has* to be different.

    a friend of mine once observed that at best, a film adaptation of a book is an abridgement. i don't know if that's his own observation or one he appropriated from another source, but the wisdom of that statement is abundantly clear every time i watch a good adaptation.

    JMHO.

    ed

  49. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Randolpho · · Score: 1

    My wife is more into Aragorn. To her, Legolas == silly skateboard punk type while Aragorn == rugged ranger type.

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
  50. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Informative
    Aragorn is one of the last of the Dunedain, a long-lived race of Men, descended from Elros the half-elf, brother of Elrond. Over the millennia their life expectancies have declined; Elros lived for five hundred years, while Aragorn lived to 190.

    Elrond and Elros are called the Half-elven, but strictly that isn't quite true. It's all rather messy and incestuous. Beren (a legendary human hero) married Luthien (daughter of an elven-king and a Maia - a minor deity like Sauron but not evil), had many adventures, died, came back to life as ordinary humans, and then died again of natural causes; their son, Dior, an elf, married Nimloth, another elf, and their daughter was Elwing.

    Meanwhile, Belegund, Beren's cousin, had a daughter Rian, who married Huor, another hero; Tuor, Huor's son, went into the heroic family business; he ended up in the hidden elven-city of Gondolin and married the princess, Idril. Their son was Earendil.

    Earendil married Elwing, and their sons were Elrond and Elros. Now, all this was terribly confusing, because nobody was entirely certain what species they were. So the Valar (the major gods) said that Earendil, Elwing, Elrond and Elros would each get to choose their species. Earendil and Elwing both chose to be elves, and went on to start new careers as the planets Venus and Mercury respectively. Elrond also chose to be an elf, and became the great elf-lord we know so well from Rivendell. Elros chose to be human, and was the first King of Numenor, and is an ancestor of Aragorn - which was the point of this long digression.

    Aragorn's long life, then, comes from his being, in a small part, Elvish, and in an even smaller part, divine - and also from the general favour of the gods on his people. However, Elrond frowns on his plan to bring up again the whole problem of the Half-Elves. Elros' children were all human, and Elrond's children were all elves, but what happens if Elros' descendant Aragorn marries Elrond's descendant Arwen? I don't think the exact policy of the Valar was ever made explicitly, but the most likely outcome is that if Elrond sails West and Arwen stays behind and marries a human, she will become mortal as well, and will die with him in Middle-earth.

    On his deathbed, Aragorn suggested that Arwen might still have the choice to follow her father Elrond to the West, and live forever there - she says that the only reason she cannot is that there are no ships to take her back, and she is stranded. But we know that Legolas sailed with Gimli into the West after the death of Aragorn, so there was at least one sailing available.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  51. it's all agent smith's fault! by ed.han · · Score: 1

    that brings to mind the fact that this entire darned thing is elrond's fault. why he didn't just kill the king and dump the stupid ring into mount doom after sauron's apparent destruction eludes me.

    darned pointy-eared twit.

    ed

    1. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      why he didn't just kill the king and dump the stupid ring into mount doom after sauron's apparent destruction eludes me.

      Duh. So he could pursue a career in a cross dressing cabaret act under the name "Mitzi Del Bra." (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert)

      Wierd trivia for that flick. The three principle actors (stamp, weaving, and pearce) next major film went on to become a blockbuster, academy award winner. (Terrance Stamp did Episode 1, Guy Pearce did L.A. Confidential, and Hugo Weaving did that computer movie with the lousy sequel)

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by tuffy · · Score: 1
      that brings to mind the fact that this entire darned thing is elrond's fault. why he didn't just kill the king and dump the stupid ring into mount doom after sauron's apparent destruction eludes me.

      If Elrond had killed Isildur and taken the ring from him, he wouldn't have chosen to throw it in either. That's just the corrupting nature of the ring. In the movies Elrond is a lot more bitter about its non-destruction, but I'd wager that's because he knows he couldn't have destroyed it either.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    3. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by drix · · Score: 1

      Bollucks. We all saw that little jut-out they were standing on inside Mt. Doom in the FotR intro. It was, what, maybe ten feet long by four feet wide? A little trip of the foot, a little nudge of the elbow, voila, no more Isildur, and they ring goes down with him. If a wimpy manila envelope is enough to thwart Gandalf's ringlust at Bag End, then I daresay Elrond could have summoned up the willpower to chuck some dude off a cliff.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    4. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Sometimes I think the elitists are right in that most people don't get it.

      The kind of person who would murder another being in the name of a "higher cause" is the same kind of person who would seize the ring.

      Read the books. That's how the ring seduced people to use it: the Ends Justifies the Means argument. It worked on Boromir and Saruman (and he never even saw the ring, just studied about it.) It tried with Sam and failed. Gandalf knew it would work on him and was terrified to touch the ring. Galadriel almost succumbed to it and was only saved by a tremendous effort of will on her part.

      If Elrond had decided to push Isildur into the pit to destroy the ring, the ring would have taken hold of him at that moment. Instead, he would have drawn his sword, slain Isildur and claimed the ring for himself. He would have then immediately begun rationalizing his decision, claiming that the ring was safer with him than with a frail human. He would have then told himself, he would destroy it at a more opportune time; right now he had a war to finish cleaning up after. Later, when things were quiet and organized, he would destroy the ring. Etc. Etc. Etc.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    5. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by drix · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Sometimes I think the elitists are right in that most people don't get it.

      And most of the time I think the rest of the world is right in that Slashdot readers are the densest, most pathetically humorless bunch of sods on the planet. It was a joke. Funny, he haw, laugh chuckle, ya' know?

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    6. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      No it wasn't and saying it was just to cover your embarrassment is typical slashdot reader.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    7. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      It was pity that stayed him...

      "It's a pity I've run out of bullets" said Dildo.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a typical 10 year old.

    9. Re:it's all agent smith's fault! by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Thats what I always thought. He ahd his bow and sword. cut him down. If and one asks he trip and fell in.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    10. re:it's all agent smith's fault! by ed.han · · Score: 1

      "the kind of person who would murder another being in the name of a "higher cause" is the same kind of person who would seize the ring."

      except that almost anybody is susceptible to the temptation of its power.

      but if that doesn't fly, fine: then elrond could martyr himself and knock isildur over so they both went flying into the pit, thereby avoiding the temptation and simultaneously destroying the dark lord forever.

      either way, elrond's choice was muy bad.

      ed

  52. Re:You're Only Feeding the MPAA by suavivity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i hear you on that.

    it seems to me that there may be a good chunk of people that separate the MPAA and RIAA into two different ideological entities. while it is true that both are pursuing lawsuits and a boycott of one inevitably calls for the boycott of the other, the subject matter they deal with is inherently different. the RIAA either puts out a good song bundled with crap music or force feeds us a lack of viable options, and the only way to change that is by not buying any their prdoucts forcing them to change business strategy. the MPAA on the other hand provides many options, pays their artists well, and creates a more diverse set of art than the RIAA does.

    all i'm saying is that maybe the ill feelings towards the MPAA aren't as bad as you implied. just MHO.

  53. Revelation?? by utdpenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big revelation is that Aragorn is old?? Well DUH. He is decended from the Numenoreans and has elvish blood. Elrond is like his super great uncle. I wish these movies had never been made. All of a sudden Im being forced into "Tolkien Conversations" with people who have never read the book. Back in the day when I talked LOTR the other person at least new the _real_ non-holywoodized version.

    Ok ok. I KNOW Im ranting in a crazy fashion. I appologize. It is just that I am a Tolkien fanatic. Imagine (linux geeks) if all of a sudden everyone was using lindows and talking about how great linux was and if you tried to tell them about debian, suse or whatever distro you liek they were like "hunh? thats not linux."

    Im goign to go drink something very strong and try to regain my composure. Thank you for reading this rant.

    --
    In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    1. Re:Revelation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does his being old explain why in one scene he can put his ear to the ground and hear orcs two miles away but in another scene is taken totally by surprise by a hundred horses running behind him?

    2. Re:Revelation?? by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      I wish these movies had never been made. All of a sudden Im being forced into "Tolkien Conversations" with people who have never read the book.

      Forced into conversations? Maybe you should take off the "Tolkien Rules" t-shirt, Comic Book Guy.

    3. Re:Revelation?? by duggy_92127 · · Score: 1

      I recently had an experience like this. I was talking with a bunch of people on-line through the limited Yahoo Groups Chat, and they wanted a better way to chat. Somebody suggested "mirc".

      I'm on a Linux box. There is no mIRC. There are many IRC clients, however. It's a minor point, but I mentioned it because they sounded stupid when they would ask me "Are you in mirc now?" "No, I'm in IRC, though." "Huh?"

      Doug

    4. Re:Revelation?? by Jack+Comics · · Score: 1

      You mean that people are releasing operating systems based on Lindows, but calling them Linux instead? Huh. How about that. Learn something new every day I suppose. Is Michael Robertson backing them too, or are they bastardizing Lindows and trying to get a free ride off of its good name? I mean Lindows, Linux... they're so similar in name.

      --
      "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Revelation?? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Ok ok. I KNOW Im ranting in a crazy fashion. I appologize. It is just that I am a Tolkien fanatic. Imagine (linux geeks) if all of a sudden everyone was using lindows and talking about how great linux was and if you tried to tell them about debian, suse or whatever distro you liek they were like "hunh? thats not linux."
      I avoid the problem by not being a fanatic about it in the first place.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re:Revelation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, you just like to feel smarter than others, despite the fact that you can't spell descended, or tell the difference between new and knew?

    7. Re:Revelation?? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      or Gandalf for President. When are we going to see those bumper stickers again?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Revelation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty common for not-so-computer-literate people.

      Frankly, it's quite understandable that people can have a difficult time understanding the difference between services and the clients used to access them, especially because this is how companies like to present their proprietary services.

      Things like standards and interoperability are good, but they are not intuitive.

  54. Gollum MTV easter egg? by KFury · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering the LotR:FotR enhanced DVD had the risque Jack Black MTV skit as an easter egg, I wonder if they'll incorporate the Gollum MTV acceptance speech in this set.

    Anyone have difinitive word? Does Weta even know yet?

  55. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by tuffy · · Score: 1
    she says that the only reason she cannot is that there are no ships to take her back, and she is stranded. But we know that Legolas sailed with Gimli into the West after the death of Aragorn, so there was at least one sailing available.

    <pedant mode>
    Arwen actually says there are no ships that will sail her home, surely because she's chosen to live as a mortal and has no business sailing to the undying lands in the west.
    </pedant mode>

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  56. Where are the outtakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bilbo dancing with Gollum? Gandalf visiting the gay bar? There has to be some outtakes from these movies that could've been added to the special edition DVDs. Wait, don't tell me there's going to be another edition released?

    1. Re:Where are the outtakes? by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the Special Edition Greedo, er, Gollem shoots first.

  57. spoiler by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2, Funny

    "(Sorry if that was a spoiler)."

    Nah, a spoiler is like "Sauron is Frodo's real father".

    Join me, and together we can rule Middle Earth as father and son!

    graspee

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

      Agent Smith cuts off Neo's finger and falls into Mount Doom.

    2. Re:spoiler by Jonner · · Score: 1

      In addition, it turns out that not only did Sauron create the One Ring, but it's the sixth One. Also, Gandalf had a hand in its creation and didn't mention that destroying it will also destroy all of Middle Earth. In the end, Frodo decides he must destroy the One Ring anyway to save Sam. Meanwhile, Gollum hates Frodo for being kind to him and tries to kill him at every step.

  58. Gandalf at the end by rf0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing I would like to see, and something that dissapointed me at the cinema is that battle of helmsdeep. They way I remeber it basically gandalf turns up with a load of people, next scene they have one. Surely 30 second worth of Gandalf kicking arse wouldn't be to much to ask..

    Rus

    1. Re:Gandalf at the end by dylan-htmf · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Gandalf is old. But I agree, they should have shown a good fight seen after he showed up.

      --
      http://dylan.hackingthemainframe.com
    2. Re:Gandalf at the end by OrangeGoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nevermind Gandalf at Helm's Deep; what were the elves doing there? So far, that's the only aspect of either of the movies that really bothered me - everything else was understandable, but that... whatever happened to the "Last Alliance of Men and Elves"? :P

    3. Re:Gandalf at the end by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      That didn't bother me so much as Faramir holding on to Frodo and taking him back to Minas Tirith (or some outpost there-abouts, whatever). That was completely wrong and a major plot deviation, whereas the elves showing up were just some kind of "feel good" moment that Jackson slapped on.

      Granted, we could have done without, but what happened to Frodo at the end is a MAJOR plot deviation. Not only that, but Faramir acquiesces to Frodo's request to be let go at just the moment Frodo shows how vulnerable he is. It's like, "oh look, he's ready to just hand the ring over to a wraith, I guess I better let him go on his own."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Gandalf at the end by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      There was heavy, heavy cutting on the Faramir plot line and especially at Osgiliath. It's unclear how much of it will be restored but we will see a lot of backstory with Faramir and a deeper understanding of his motivations to take the ring back to his father.

      The ring in Osgiliath is a deviation, but I think it is a good one. The wraiths found the ring in Osgiliath, and thus Sauron believes that the ring is being taken to Denethor. This would be a better justification for him to unleash his armies, if he believes that Gondor will soon be under his power. It also provides further cover for Frodo, since Sauron believes that he knows what is happening with the ring, instead of just searching for it and not knowing.

      It's not quite the events as they played out in Tolkein's mind, but I think it works out better in the end.

    5. Re:Gandalf at the end by HopeUnknown · · Score: 1
      basically gandalf turns up with a load of people, next scene they have one.

      Only one? What happened to the load of people???

  59. Special effects alone? by Gossy · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but the scenes when Merry & Pippin are riding on the top of Treebeard, the special effects are awful. I hope there's not more of that, because it was simply shockingly bad.

    The ents weren't too badly done overall though, but I wouldn't say the effects of the ents alone would be worth paying out for the extended edition. I haven't read the books (*ducks*), and I've read they're more important in the books though, so I suppose it could add a bit to the story if we get interesting scenes rather than extraneous special effects.

  60. Change the end of the movie by Mithrilhall · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I think PJ should change the end of ROTK. I know I'm going to get hell for that (and YES I read the fucking books - Silmarillion included). I think he should make Gollum jump in rather than fall in. Just my 2cp...

    1. Re:Change the end of the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for clearly labeling that spoiler.

    2. Re:Change the end of the movie by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are suggesting here is not ridiculous. In fact, I believe that > 1 person suggested the same thing to Peter Jackson. However, I also believe that PJ told them to go away and let him make his movies.

      What PJ has done with these movies is taken the books and distilled them into their essential stories. He has done this in order to "fit" into the public's perception of what a movie can be. He's pushed it to three hours, but that's as far as he's willing to go: LoTR has to be financially viable, or New Line would never have ponied up the dough. The only way he could have done a page-by-page remake of the book is as a mini-series, which would not have had the same financial upside, therefore New Line does not pony up the dough, the effects get cheaper, the cast is suddenly Canadian, etc.

      These are the conditions under which he is working, but the ultimate goal is to tell the story of the Lord of the Rings.

      The change which is suggested is not designed to meet this goal under the constraints involved. It is an attempt to change the story. "But," you say, "all I'm suggesting is a minor change of stepping off instead of falling." The key here is INTENT. Since you want Gollum to INTENTIONALLY COMMIT SUICIDE, you need to build up to it. The audience has to believe that Gollum would do such a thing. You need to lay the groundwork with lots of indications that Gollum might consider suicide, that he has a noble spirit which would seek the Roman way out. In other words, take a lot of time to warp the Gollum character away from Tolkien's writings.

      If this is not done, you are faced with deus ex machina: the character suddenly does something completely out of character to resolve the conflict in the story. This is the biggest mistake an author can make, unless they are Greek and are writing in 200 B.C. So in order to make this small change, PJ would have to devote significant parts of his cinematic 3 hours to build up to Gollum as the tragic hero instead of Gollum as the tragic villain.

      That's what I think. I still don't think that this is a bad idea, and perhaps the original Gollum character might have been better with this suggestion. However, posting it to Slashdot isn't the same as jumping in your time machine to 1940's Britain, shouldering C.S. Lewis out of the way and saying "Ronald! I've got this great idea for your book!" :-)

      --
      "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
    3. Re:Change the end of the movie by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Or like Bored of the Rings, when Frito and Spam show their kindly nature and throw him in after kneeing him in the groin.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:Change the end of the movie by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Why should gollum jump? Neither good nor evil gollum have any reason...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:Change the end of the movie by Mithrilhall · · Score: 1

      I can agree with what you wrote. I agree that you would need a build up of Gollum as a character. I always hoped while reading the book that Gollum would overcome the power of the ring for just a moment and realize what it has done to his life. At that point he jumps in. I thought I saw a glimmer of compasion in Smeagol's eyes in the movie. It's something I also picked up while reading the books.

  61. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "minor deity like Sauron but not evil"

    I'd say minor deity doesn't quite fit the bill. Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman were also Maiar. They're all more the equivalent of angels, if you want to throw other mythologies at it.

    Anyhow, enough pedantism. I'd like to point out that I believe the parent post is the most intelligent post ever attached to a Tolkien discussion on Slashdot.

    Crazy, I tell you.

  62. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Informative
    Hmm... From Appendix A, a part of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen...

    "I speak no confort to you, for there is no confort for such pain within the circles of the world. The uttermost choice is before you: to repent and go to the Havens and bear away into the West the memory of our days together that shall there be evergreen but never more than memory; or else to abide the Doom of Men."
    "Nay, dear lord," she said, "that choice is long over. There is now no ship that would bear me hence, and I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nill: the loss and the silence."

    I think this can be read either way. It may be that her choice is not truly made until this moment; we are told that 'the light of her eyes was quenched; and it seemed to her people that she had become cold and grey as nightfall in winter that comes without a star' - or it may be that her choice was made when Elrond sailed away without her, or a variety of other possibilities.

    Arwen would probably be able to sail to the West if she decided to do so - Gimli made it, as did Frodo and Bilbo. Whether Aragorn was right and she still had the chance of immortality, or whether even in the West she would die, is something we'll probably never know...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  63. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by ringbarer · · Score: 0

    That's no way to treat your mother!

    --
    "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
  64. Don't feed the trolls by siskbc · · Score: 1

    Or do, it's pretty entertaining either way.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Don't feed the trolls by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 1

      I was going to feed the trolls, but they argued for so long about how to cook me that the sun came up and they turned to stone. :)

  65. Re:I'm thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it 42?

  66. muppet ents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't like the closeup scenes of the ents. The other shots were ok but the closeups looked like something from the muppet show. horrible imo.

  67. Trilogy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this pace of "extras" (only designed to suck even more money out of us - of course), this is more starting to look like a trollogy. ;-)

  68. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    One woman posted online that when she saw this scene for the first time, "I think I got pregnant."

    Or as the saying goes: "Not a dry seat in the house."
  69. So FotR ME will have awful GUI and limited IO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ditto

  70. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by tuffy · · Score: 1
    rwen would probably be able to sail to the West if she decided to do so - Gimli made it, as did Frodo and Bilbo. Whether Aragorn was right and she still had the chance of immortality, or whether even in the West she would die, is something we'll probably never know...

    But Elros didn't go back, and neither did LÃthien. It seems the West has a "guests allowed" policy, but no ex-firstborn. Perhaps once someone decides to accept the gift of men, they can't give it back again or go to the West. Still, that's just my interpretation.

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  71. Jackson's private screening room by AdamBa · · Score: 1
    "USA TODAY got an early preview in Wellington, New Zealand, last week at director Peter Jackson's private screening room".

    Is that private screening room the recreation of Bag End in a New Zealand hillside that he talked about in the FOTR EE director's commentary?

    - adam

  72. Two Towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well my two toweers work ok, and they do so for more than 40 minuts

  73. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And of course, Boromir and Faramir are also Dunedain, although not as pure-bred as Aragorn. That's what bothered me most when I read LOTR again this year -- in Middle-Earth your abilities depend so clearly on your genetic purity.

  74. The actor's name was by fohidac · · Score: 0

    Fulton McKay

  75. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Not that I won't be subjected to another 3 months (more, really, considering RotK is coming in Dec) of my girlfriend saying, "Isn't he dreamy?...I love Legolas!...He's so handsome, won't you learn Elvish, honey?"

    Tolkien geeks have girlfriends? How is that possible?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  76. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by XSforMe · · Score: 1

    My wife has not read the book, and she also suffers from the "isn't he lovely?" syndrome.

    I constantly tease her telling her that Legolas will be disfigured in the RoTK trying to save Frodo. Je je je. It always gets her.

    --
    My other OS is the MCP!
  77. Re:You're Only Feeding the MPAA by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1
    I'd have to agree. There seems to be quite a bit difference between the MPAA and RIAA.

    I don't see contracts that limit the actors from doing stuff on broadway, etc. I don't see actors needing to pay back the industry for "using their sets". I don't see the industry owning all the distribution, all the movie theaters, etc.

    When an independent film gets recognition, I don't see the industry snapping up the director or actors into signing their life away with a million-year, 0-dollar contract.

    I also see their product as being somewhat diverse and affordable: Movie theators, DVD rentals. DVD purchase. (which I might add is the same price as a CD)

    That all said, I guess that sums up their business model, which is much better than the music industry. As far as being political bullies, I will agree that their activity towards DECSS, and legislation isn't very cool. And it could go even more sour if and when they are in the same boat as the RIAA faces (which won't happen until bandwidth is faster, and DVD-R burners get cheaper). History shows they're aren't very cool either...with the blacklist back in the McCarthian days. ANyway, my knowledge isn't up to snuff as some of the things I've researched about the music biz.

  78. Thank God for DVDs by Phoenix666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The thought of all great movies getting dumbed down to the level of Peoria, IL, always made me cry. Now there can be two levels of mass entertainment: one for the sheep and one for us. I'm looking forward to seeing the extended TTT DVD. Faramir was a great character, and they didn't do him justice in the cinematic release.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  79. Oh, why did you have to say that? by reverendG · · Score: 1

    I'm just studly(?) enough to know how to say "Beer, please" in Elvish, but that doesn't mean that the images you conjured didn't just ruin my breakfast :)

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
    1. Re:Oh, why did you have to say that? by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      "Beer, please" in Elvish

      Oh, please share!

  80. Re:Extended scenes are essential to a complete sto by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

    TTT:EE? Sounds like some new computer acronymn. Telnet Terminal (Traditional): Entering Executable... On the other hand, it also looks like somebody just held down too long on the keyboard... ...But what do I know?...

    --
    Online Starcraft RPG? At
    Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  81. Re:Extended scenes are essential to a complete sto by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

    The only way to be completely faithful to the books would be to make the movies 48 hours long each. Plus there are some things you can do in text that simply do not work in movies, like explaining large amounts of world history.

  82. Mod Parent UP by Foamy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Agreed 100%. I went to the midnight showing with my GF (who also lusts after Legolas btw) and I almost fell asleep during the Helm's Deep battle. The first 2 minutes were cool, but after about 5 it's like "Seen that. Move on."

    For me, the story is the pull of the books and the movies, not some super-duper, whiz-bang, computer animated battle. Yawn. I will undoubtedly fast forward through that scene in the DVD (or go make some popcorn).

    1. Re:Mod Parent UP by mattdm · · Score: 1

      I was really afraid that the special edition would be an extra hour of yet more battle -- I'm encouraged to see that it apparently isn't.

  83. She's into video games, too.... by reverendG · · Score: 1

    AND is outdoorsie. Did I ever luck out!

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
  84. wait, I thought this was 'News for Nerds' by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So instead of spending $7+/person +snacks for an overall lowsy movie experience, I just wait, and rent/buy the movie.

    Seriously, TTT rules the big screen. The resolution is so much better than what NTSC can provide - it's really a better experience, and worth $7 (if I get pop-corn I have to get soda, then I have to pee before the show is over).

    Granted, Legally Blonde 2 can wait for NTSC.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  85. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    Between Viggo and Hugh Jackman in X-men, I think if I could have adamantium Narsil shards come out my wrist, I'd be set for life :) Or perhaps the scruffy hair/beard that sticks up (though half the head will need to be shaved for the Vin Disiel look as well)

    I just wished they would have ended TTT with Shelob - it would have made for a much more dramatic ending.

    But for some reason PJ feels the need to hammer in that men can't handle the ring.

    I am also waiting to see how Denethor is handled...hopefully his madness will be done well in RotK.

  86. Watch more Southpark by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 2, Informative

    .. then you'll understand my comment.

    I don't think extended / directors-cut editions of movies are bad, in fact for the most-part I like them, but I don't agree with _only_ releasing alternative cuts of movies and not the original.

    1. Re:Watch more Southpark by nicodaemos · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. Blade Runner, The Director's Cut was interesting but I really want to see the original Blade Runner (the one I saw in the theater) that I still have fond memories of.

  87. Re:ents (from a non-LOTR fan) by gosand · · Score: 1
    i for one would have to disagree with this opinion, i've seen enough of Gollum and am bordering on thinking of him as a more refined (albeit less nauseating) Jar Jar. There were/are several facets of TTT which bothered me, but despite the obviously flawed story-line deviations i would have to say the top two on my list are: 1) the character degredation of Farimir, and 2) the inability of TTT to portray Ents as being very ancient and very wise beyond the comprehension of the fast-paced lives of the more mortal (i know 'mortal' is a qualitative measurement, but you know what i mean by 'more mortal') races. Perhaps some of the cut scenes will allay some of these grumblings and restore to the Ents what i have always seen as their greatest virtue.

    I have never read LOTR (yeah, yeah, sue me), so I can speak about the movies with little prejedice. TTT was OK, but not as good as the FoTR. It dind't flow as well. From talking to a couple of friends who are into LoTR, I gained some insight on the "real deal" behind the movie. I thought the Ents were cool, and I know other people (non-LoTR people too) thought they were downright stupid. From what I have gathered, they are very important and worthy characters in the books. In the movie I thought they came off cartoonish, and it felt like they were just thrown into the story. After being "educated" by my friend one night over a few beers, I now know that there is so much more to them than the movie portrayed.

    And thanks for the Gollum/Jar Jar comparison. I don't know what the whole hubub about Gollum is. Interesting character - nothing more. Maybe there is more in the book, but I don't see why everyone is Gollum-crazy. I actually thought his character got kind of annoying in the movie after a while. No way he should have been recognized at the Academy Awards, like a bunch of people were up in arms about. I guess I just see the movies through non-fanboi eyes.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  88. Re:Way too many by japhmi · · Score: 1

    So instead of spending $7+/person +snacks for an overall lowsy movie experience, I just wait, and rent/buy the movie (but not until it's down to $10/movie or less)...

    I actually like going to the movies. It's a night away from home with the wife, it's a lot better than my TV set as far as sound, etc. Besides, it's not $7/person everywhere. And we bring our own snacks. (The theater people really don't care - and if they throw a stink tell them that you have a special diet and that you can't eat what they sell).

    --
    "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
  89. You do realise..... by EGSonikku · · Score: 1

    It's just a movie ;-)

    But seriously I'm a rabid fan of the books and am still able to enjoy the movies for what they are. I find that if you treat them as different subjects and don't force yourself into comparing one to the other, you will get more enjoyment out of both.

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  90. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by japhmi · · Score: 1

    Tolkien geeks have girlfriends? How is that possible?

    It gets worse, this Tolkien geek has a wife.

    Of course, the fact that she's a Tolkien geek too helped. FotR was the first movie we saw in the theater after we got engaged.

    --
    "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
  91. this is what i'm saying! by ed.han · · Score: 1

    precisely what i was thinking.

    ed

  92. I think the extended edition is a great idea by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    Because immediately it's out, the cinematic release drops to under 10 UKP so I can afford it. I'm sorry, but given how much stuff is missing from the films compared to the books, another 30 minutes of random scenes won't help much.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  93. Faramir & Frodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That didn't bother me so much as Faramir holding on to Frodo and taking him back to Minas Tirith (or some outpost there-abouts, whatever). That was completely wrong and a major plot deviation

    That was Osgiliath, and it wasn't a plot deviation. Go read the books again, twit, and pay attention this time.

    1. Re:Faramir & Frodo by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You're mixing up your geography. Faramir never takes Frodo out of Ithilien.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    2. Re:Faramir & Frodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite - that bit _really_ doesn't make sense. They stay in Ithilien, but are on the Gondor side of the river, defending orc attack from the bank! The geography doesn't work - Gondor is protected from Ithilien (overrun by Sauron's forces) by the great river. Therefore, to get to the Gondor side of Osgiliath from Mordor, you have to cross the river.
      That bit really annoyed me.

  94. You need to have women in your movie to make money by cbuskirk · · Score: 1

    They had to add a lot of screen time in the movie with women. In the book all female characters except Galadriel were footnotes, and that won't work when half of the movie going audience is female. Granted they might have paced it a little better, but they needed those extra scenes to make money. And on thier own they were good scenes.

  95. OKAY THERE'S SOME BIG FREAKING SPOILERS ABOVE by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

    Please, why can't people on slashdot realize that not everyone in the world has read the books? Is putting a tiny bit of spoiler space really that hard?

    I just can't get away from this. It's completely awful. First there was learning about gandalf before seeing the 2nd movie, and now learning about aragorn, gimli, and legolas's fates in (i'm assuming) the 3rd book/movie. What the hell people!!

    --
    The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    1. Re:OKAY THERE'S SOME BIG FREAKING SPOILERS ABOVE by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, these are appendix things. Then it's not so bad.

      but still

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
  96. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by Reaper9889 · · Score: 1

    I think you overlooked Islidur. He was more "pure" then Aragorn (he was before - not so many otheres before him...), but not a 1/10 as good...

  97. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by onree · · Score: 1

    "Earendil married Elwing, and their sons were Elrond and Elros. Now, all this was terribly confusing, because nobody was entirely certain what species they were. So the Valar (the major gods) said that Earendil, Elwing, Elrond and Elros would each get to choose their species." I'm no expert on the Tolkein mythology but the "this was terribly confusing" is all very confusing -- why exactly was it so important for the species distinctions to be made, to the extent that mixed race individuals had to choose? Was there no real miscegenation, and why were half-elves a problem that had to be resolved instead of a just a mix-breed with attributes and traits of each parent species? Drawing a racial analogy here would make it rather creepy.

  98. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by dwvanstone · · Score: 1
    Not that I won't be subjected to another 3 months (more, really, considering RotK is coming in Dec)

    Actually, Return of the King won't be coming until May 2004.

  99. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by dwvanstone · · Score: 1
    Okay. I just figured out today that the article was an April Fool's joke. Please forget my last posting.

    It all balances out, though. I get embarrassed by believing the One Ring post, but I discover I get to see RotK five months earlier than I had previously thought!

  100. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by hikerhat · · Score: 1

    Well, studly to bespectacled pulp fantasy reading Tolkein geek chicks anyway. Probably hasn't reached the status of general studlyness though.

  101. Scenes by LuckyLeprechaun31 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone happen to know what the extra scenes are in the special edition?

  102. Saruman building a tower below a dam by amorsen · · Score: 1

    So much for being the wisest. The only redeeming feature about TTT is Gollum.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Saruman building a tower below a dam by cjpez · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, when he moved in it wasn't there. It just kind of built up around him. That's one of the dangers of being one of the first people to move into a subdivision, you never know how it's going to turn out. I bet he protested pretty loudly at the town meetings, but after all he was probably still Mostly Good back then and wouldn't intimidate people to stop the dam. Too bad, really.

    2. Re:Saruman building a tower below a dam by amorsen · · Score: 1

      *laugh*. Nice explanation. I do think it is pretty clear that he built the damn dam himself. In the widest possible sense of the word "himself" of course - just like Alexander the Great himself beat the Persians.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Saruman building a tower below a dam by cjpez · · Score: 1

      Sssssh! You'll let out the secret!

  103. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by Molz · · Score: 1

    The way I read it, it was more about that elusive quality of imortality that had to be decided. From what I read it seemed that Elros remained an Elf, its just that he chose to become mortal and live with the humans; similar to how Arwen becomes mortal by staying behind after her father leaves (which was part of the deal with the Valar, once he decides to leave, his children must leave or become mortal), she is still an Elf and has Elf features and traits, but she is now mortal and will eventually die.

    So it seems to me that Tolkien wasn't trying to have the Valar enforce some sort of racial purity rules, but more of working out the imortality sticking point. Of course I could have read that wrong, but thats who I interpreted what he wrote.

    --
    Can I Play With Madness?
  104. Re:Extended scenes are essential to a complete sto by EvanED · · Score: 1

    >>Ok ok, so I understand that some of you haven't read the books and believe that the additional scenes in FotR were trivial.

    I take the opposite opinion... I hadn't read the books as of my viewing of the Fellowship extended version, and many of the extra scenes I felt did wonders to the understandability or the story.

  105. OH MY GOD PLEASE STOP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...SPELLING TOLKIEN INCORRECTLY!!!

    It's TOLKIEN.. T O L K I E N.. I before E.. GET IT RIGHT ALREADY!

    k, I'm done.

  106. Extra scenes can't fix Two towers by zhevek · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I loved the extra scenes from FotR, because they added parts of the book that have been removed to make the movie shorter.

    Unfortunately for Two Towers, the movie version is so different that the book, extra scenes won't do anything to fix all the story changes already made. Those story changes are one of the main reasons I did not like TT much.

  107. Aragorn: 87 years old by crashnbur · · Score: 1
    I had a lengthy debate with a friend about how great Aragorn truly is for a specific reason: he is as great a warrior as Legolas, and Legolas has a couple milliennia of experience behind him.

    But now that Aragorn is 87 instead of 37, well, I understand! After all, man learns and develops so incredibly well in childhood and young adulthood, so if that period of his life was drawn out, then I can see where he gets it.

  108. Must have kids (OT) by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

    From the ashes of disaster, grow the roses of success!

    My daughter and I watched CCBB a couple of nights ago. Just when I'd stopped that song from occupying a slot in my brain's process table, your .sig comes along. Doh!

  109. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you read the Silmarillion, you'll find that the creator, Iluvatar, created two races, Elves, the firstborn, and Men. The elves were very powerful beings (even before going to the undying lands), but they were immortal. Men were given the gift of mortality.

    The Silmarillion makes it clear that this is a major and very fundamental disctinction between the two races and plays a large part in the final destiny of each. It also makes it clear that mortality is A Big Thing. A great gift, and it is only the fear and ignorance of man that have turned it into a thing of terror. It is said that even the elves will come to envy the Gift of Men as the ages wear on.

    Therefore, when elves and men marry and have offspring, it becomes essential to see which inheritance they will receive: The inheritance of the elves, or the gift of men and the inheritance reserved for them?

    The Valar gave the half-elves the choice as to which inheritence they would receive.

    Those who chose mortality were, nonetheless, granted a longer life than normal men.

    And to the person who made comments on racial purity. The Numenoreans were beings of power, not so much because of their ancestors, but because of their proximity to the Valar, and their faithfulness to the Valar.

    The line of Numenor dwindled not because of time passing, but because of their disobedience to the Valar, their pride, and their eventual assault on the undying lands.

    Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and he works many Catholic Christian themes into his LOTR books, esp. the Silmarillion backstory.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  110. USA Today by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    the newspaper for people who can't read!

  111. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Xaemyl · · Score: 1

    Same thing with my wife. She digs Aragorn (and for that matter Viggo's Lucifer from the Prophecy). She refers to Legolas as "Fagolas" heheh

  112. There is no Scouring by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Peter Jackson has been saying this for at least the past three years, in interview after interview.

    There is no Scouring of the Shire. The movie ends with the Grey Havens.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  113. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2, Informative
    If I remember correctly from the Silmarillion, the major reason why they had to choose was to determine what would happen when/if they die.

    When Elves die, they go to the Halls of Mandos, on Arda (earth), where they wait for the end of the world. Elves truly are immortal, in that even if you slay them, they still exist in some form on Arda until the end.

    It is different for the race of Men. When Men die, they do not go to the Halls of Mandos... I don't remember exactly what happens to them, but I think that nobody else on Arda did either. It was just said that they would have some part to play "in the end".

    So I think that this was the reason that they had to choose, because Mandos wanted to be sure what would happen when they die.

    By the way, Dwarves were never really meant to exist. One of the Valar, Aule (deity who made things of metal and stone), in slight defiance of Eru (The Creator) made the Dwarves that would enjoy the things that he did. I think that it is said that they "return to the stone" or something like that when they die.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  114. Re:Yes.... nooo... by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

    masterful job done on FotR Extended??! They didn't cut out that unfortunately memorable line of Mortensen's (since he was completely out of character, I couldn't possibly think of him as Aragorn) wherein he declaimed "Let's go hunt some Orc!" at the riverside. That, if nothing else, prevented me from purchasing FotR Extended.

    You will note that my superb DivX rip, coming soon to a newsgroup near you, does _not_ contain such Americanisms as "Let's go hunt some Orc." Thank you very much.

  115. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by belthezar · · Score: 1

    Ahh hahahah!

    LMAO

  116. So when are they going to be including... by ZipR · · Score: 1

    An extended version of my life, so I can find the time to watch all of this stuff? Are you listening Jackson????

  117. Umm - you *did* read the books, right?? by geekwench · · Score: 2, Funny
    • In the book all female characters except Galadriel were footnotes...
    I would hardly call Eowyn a footnote, given that she's one of the most pivotal characters in the books.

    Or it could be that you just have a thing for pointy ears... ;)

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
  118. yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    O joy. Another hour of helms deep hacking and slashing to add to the 3 hours of helms deep hacking and slashing already there.

  119. Re:Yes.... nooo... by Edgewize · · Score: 1

    That strikes me as incredibly stupid, for several reasons.

    1) The line is 'Let's hunt some Orc', and it is not out of character when you consider that it's one of the few times he is opening up and talking to characters that he feels at ease with. With the elves, he must be proper; with Boromir, he is slightly distrustful. With Frodo, he feels overbearing responsibility. Now at last he is with two good friends who need some cheering up and some motivation, and he can speak plainly to them. OK, the wording is hardly Tolkein-esque, but then again, Tolkein's was never good at writing plain, friendly dialogue.

    2) Please explain how this line is an Americanism when the screenplay was written, storyboarded, filmed, produced, edited, and audio-mastered in New Zealand.

  120. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    Arwen was being literal. Once she made her choice, it was game over as far as going into the West was concerned. She kept up her immortaility until Aragorn's death then later passed on, succumbing to the Doom of Men (death.) That's somewhere in the appenxices of LOTR, but I'm at work and can't just jump to get it.

    Such is love: bittersweet.

  121. I'm Short! (HAHAHAHA) by sohp · · Score: 1

    If anything, I hope they cut some of Gimli's "comedy relief" scenes. Particularly the one with him standing on top of the wall at Helm's Deep -- it did nothing but spoil the build-up of tension to the battle.

  122. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    This page pretty much explains it all.

  123. Lord of the Ring STINKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both the LOTR movies are the most retarded pieces of crap ever

  124. I live in Peoria... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

    ... you insensitive clod!

  125. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like i'm reading an expert on theology :P Sorry man, really impressive you know that, but its true ^_^;

  126. Re:Yes.... nooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot.

    Sorry, but it's true. You contribute absolutely nothing to the human race, and should be shredded and fed to cattle as a protein supplement. At least then the resultant milk, beef, methane, and combustible offal would be of some value.

  127. 3/4, 1/2 or 1/4 elven by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Arwen is 3/4 then, but still has the choice to decide. So do her brothers. Does one of her brothers get killed at Helm's Deep in the movie?

    A & A's children are only 1/4 Elven (plus the smidgen from Aragon's side). They dont have a choice.

  128. Death is the "Gift of Men" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The original humanoid races were "the music of Eru", inherently goody-goody, and immortal. There is some suggestion if they were killed in war or accident they could reincarnate in Middle Earth, or their spirits dwelt in Valinor, the home of the god-like beings who ran the show.

    Men, and other similar races like the hobbits, were both good and evil. They could choose either. However, they died and their spirits left Middle Earth to where God only knows. Death was considered potentially a benefit by immortals who grew weary with time.

    1. Re:Death is the "Gift of Men" by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And just where did the hobbits come from? They seem very human, but with a dash of elvish blood in them (quiet, disappere in the wink of an eye, sharp of eye and ear, etc.). Maybe they're the result of a union of Dwarf and Elf (lot's of beer and wine at that party)?

      The only info is that they started out as hole dwellers along the Anduin, fishing and eating eggs, raw. Are they Muskrats that evolved?

      As for Dwarve's death, I thought there was mention that they believed they had their own halls of Mandos to go to.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  129. Sean Bean by Mark+Dentari · · Score: 1

    It's always good to see more of Sean Bean. He helped contribute to Fellowships many themes in brotherhood and friendship. More footage of a movie that should probably even be longer is a good thing. It can't arrive soon enough.

  130. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by rodgerd · · Score: 1

    My observation is that Legolas appeals to younger women, Aragorn to older. It's interesting to watch the swooning change with age...

  131. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

    What, you didn't notice the testosterone surge as well? Heterosexist! :-)

    The theater I saw it in (in Texas) was at least 10% gay, including my buddies from the gay rugby team... anytime Legolas or Aragorn was on screen, the testosterone surged...

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  132. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by betis70 · · Score: 1

    Yikes, that reminds me of Deuteronomy.

    Did I just get transported back to my Catholic High School religion class?

    --
    I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
  133. Re:Extended scenes are essential to a complete sto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The less of Tolkien's awful poetry, the better!

  134. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    "Did I just get transported back to my Catholic High School religion class?" I don't know, but I'm having flashbacks to mine...

    Tolkien himself was a pretty firm Catholic, and though he denied having written any message or allegory into his world, it's clear enough that his religion and worldview influenced his creation.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  135. Re:Aragorn is 87 years old? by doghouse41 · · Score: 1

    As I understand the business of the ships that take the elves into the west (to Valinor), an elven ship bearing elves that sailed into the west would sail on the Straight Road to Valinor (as they would have before the drowning of Numenor), whereas a ship bearing mortals would follow the curvature of the earth and so never come to Valinor. (As described in the Silmarillion at the very end of the Akallabeth)

    The important words are There is now no ship that would bear me hence. I think that what Arwen means by this is that having chosen a mortal life, and being mortal herself, were she to sail on any ship going into the west then it would follow the mortal path and never reach Valinor.

    The only mortals ever permitted to pass into the West on elvish ships (by special favour of the Valar) were the ringbearers (Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise)

    Of course this begs the question of where Legolas and Gimli ended up (given that dwarves, while being far more long-lived than men, are still essentially mortal)

  136. Oh please god by malex23 · · Score: 1

    "Other DVD additions to the middle tale that heighten the drama and lighten the mood" nomoredwarfjokesnomoredwarfjokesnomoredwarfjokesno moredwarfjokesnomoredwarfjokes....

  137. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, if statistics are to be believed, about 10% of people are gay. Or did you mean openly gay? That could be different (except in the bay area).

  138. Re:Yes.... nooo... by Jonner · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of things you can complain about in the movies, but that has to be one of the least significant. You give nit-pickers a bad name.

  139. Re:They don't mention much extra Legolas footage.. by Jonner · · Score: 1

    Well, many normal could be equally enchanted with elvish gracing Arwen's lips.

  140. Thank you. by Docdawolf · · Score: 0

    I was worried that they weren't going to do another disk for TTT with extra features and movie scenes. I loved the first one cause it makes the story much more clear and gives the movie more kick. I really hope they do the same for the Return of the King. I love LOTR and TTT was very good, so I prefer to wait for the extended version of the DVD because it gives us more of the characters and more of the story. TTT is also a great book if I may add. Well, until ROTK comes out, all praise TTT. See you in the theater, or at FYE to get the extend version.

    --
    To all who had witness let me give this upon you in one of my favorite terms "PH34R MY M4D SKILLZ!!!"
  141. Sorry, no Scouring (SPOILER WARNING) by mh101 · · Score: 1

    I recall reading somewhere that in the movie Saruman dies, so there's no way the Scouring of the Shire chapter could happen unless his death scene was removed from the extended DVD.

    --
    Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
  142. $$$ from sales by digtl88 · · Score: 1

    I am sure that they will make a lot of money with thier sales by offering this.

  143. Re:Yes.... nooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Viggo Mortensen == Yankee loser. The line fit so poorly into the movie that it was obviously an ad-lib that slipped past editorial screening.

  144. Re:Yes.... nooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nitpicking the nitpicker gives nitpicked nitpickers nitpicking nitpicks a bad name :P

  145. Fate of Elves by stewate4 · · Score: 1


    When Elves die, they go to the Halls of Mandos, on Arda (earth), where they wait for the end of the world

    Almost right. What actually happens is they wait in Mandos for a variable period, then reincarnate, though not by being born as baby elves, (too confusing as to who your parents are), but by taking on copies of their old bodies. One example is Glorfindel, he is killed in the fall of Gondolin, but you see him again in LotR. LotR the book that is, in the film he doesn't appear.
    As for the Dwarves, they had their own stories, which as far as I can remember had them staying in their own section of Mandos.