Slashdot Mirror
LOTR:Return Of The King Trailer
noda132 writes "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King trailer is now available! I just found it on theonering.net. It's only 9mb big, but it's a start." You can also get it from AOL as well. Update: 09/29 20:13 GMT by S : The official site now has the new trailer as well.
Rumors tell that over 3 or maybe 4 hours? Anybody heard anything "official"?
... man, that scene has some real power in it (if you read the books, ofcoz) :)
Regarding the trailer, I think that this will be the most fantastic part of the whole. My favorite scene from the trailer is when Aragorn reclaims the Narsil from Elrond
-- "Turn and Draw!"
Did anyone notice the reforging of the shards of Narcil in the trailer? I was under the impression that aragorn already had his sword, and jackson just cut it out...hmmm, is this anywhere near the chronology of the books? I thought his sword was reforged before this point...
The anti-salmon
Don't get me wrong, I actually thought the first two movies were quite entertaining. I didn't really mind him cutting out Bombadil, and I'm willing to overlook the horrible treatment of Treebeard, but something tells me that they're just going to totally screw up the beauty of the original ending.
Actually, at least in cinemas, each frame is shown twice.
...
So...
Frame 2: See Frame 1.
Frame 4: See Frame 3.
etc.
You may be right.
I open up MS Word XP. I create a new document and save it. File properties, file size? 24,064 bytes. That's right, a blank piece of paper has 24 pages worth of plain text in formatting.
I, for one, do not welcome our bloated overlords.
** SPOILER WARNING FOR THAT THOSE HAVEN'T READ THE BOOKS **
Is it just me or does it look like the movie won't have the rangers of the north? I am making this assumption because the part of the preview (on the Two Towers DVD) that obviously shows them about to enter the Path Of The Dead has Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas but no rangers (or the two elves that come with the rangers).
It will a real bummer if there are no rangers in the film, because not only did they sound like bad ass warriors in the book but they also give Aragorn something very important, which relates to Aragorn and Arwen love story which the movie makes such a big deal about.
aus.music.scrapbook
I will go to the theater and see this movie. I will go because it is very well done, needs to be seen on the big screen, and I live in North Pole, Alaska and my dog sled is up on blocks at the moment.
I don't support Microsoft (ethically) either, yet I have OfficeMac loaded on my Mac because OOo doesn't open some spreadsheets properly for me and I have to be able to coexist with the rest of the world.
I will make use of the products offered by the MPAA and Microsoft when there are no alternatives. In the mean time I will do everything I can to support Indie/Open Source offerings at every oportunity.
BTW, I own the LOTR/Hobbit/Silmarilian books and have read them MANY times. As pleasurable as it is to curl up with a good book, I also like to take my family to the movies and enjoy the experience together.
Though I applaud your dedication to your "ethics", you remind me of the "professional protesters" I pass everday on the way to work (yes, I work. I have to support a family. I have to be able to afford movie tickets.) I see the same people out there protesting about anything and everything for months on end. You have to admire their fortitude - I'd never be able to afford that much time off work. I have to live in the real world. Where do you suppose they get their funding?
If it makes you feel any better, I grumble and complain loudly at paying $7.50 for a ticket. But it must be worth it, because I still pay it for two or three must see movies a year.
Oh, when bandwidth and compression technology are at the point where I can perhaps download a movie and play it at full digital quality on my 42" plasma TV - you may occasionally see me protesting the MPAA more directly. But, all things considered, I'd MUCH prefer to have a legal alternative - I've already proven that I'm willing to pay for it.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
I really like the look in Gollum's eyes (in the trailer) when Sam catches him lying and Frodo doesn't believe it.
I'm not that mad at Peter Jackson, it's just he's the one who had *the* opportunity to do the LOTR right and, while he's doing a fantastic job, he's butchering parts for no good reason.
I still can't imagine how confusing it must be getting for people who haven't read the book. And the dwarf jokes and the Legolas "sexiest elf" stuff are just annoying.
Hey, we couldn't get Tony Hawk so we'll have Legolas slide down the steps on the shield, shooting his bow and arrow - then kick up the pointy shield right at the end into an orc... that'll be kewl! Also the CG part where he swings up onto the horse. Man, that guy is good! Woohoo! Let's pander to the audience, we couldn't possibly enjoy it otherwise.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I liked Jackson's "Fellowship" for its stunning sets and cinematography, but not very much else. However, if it encourages viewers to discover the books for themselves, that's a great positive. Some of the deviations from the narrative of the book are understandable, but most are not. Even foregoing the issue of changes from the text, which have been discussed elsewhere, there were some glaring negatives (in no particular order):
. The balrog of Moria was realized wonderfully, but the end of the bridge scene was a complete disaster. In the book, Aragorn and Boromir stand behind Gandalf and face down the balrog on the bridge, while the rest of the company waits inside the doorway at the end. In the movie, all of them huddle inside the doorway, while Gandalf stands alone on the bridge. In the movie, when the balrog pulls Gandalf down with it, Aragorn (for whatever reason) has all of a minute or two to run over and pull Gandalf up (the way it's filmed..to add to the "tension", presumably) - instead, he restrains Frodo (which is okay, as he has to be protected, but the way it's filmed, it looks like Aragorn has ample opportunity to run over to Gandalf, instead he's portrayed as a coward).
Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly! ' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.
. The long, lingering shots of the vacant expressions on the actors faces (notably Frodo; Gandalf was excellent, and Sam was pretty good too), and the five minute "drowning" scene towards the end could've been replaced with a real scene, such as an explanation of how Aragorn could dole out daggers of Westernesse from a sack.
. Why was Galadriel depicted as suffering from a severe case of radiation poisoning? Cate Blanchett is a great actress, but the director's vision of Galadriel was flawed. All of this is IMO of course, but there are many who agree with me. Anyway, flame on.