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.

Comments

Obligatory analysis

[TopShelf]

The frame-by-frame analysis can also be found here.

Re:Obligatory analysis

[gowen]

I'm not entirely sure thats frame-by-frame...

Frame 2: Very like Frame 1. Everyone has moved very slightly...

Frame 3: Very like Frame 2. The camera has started to move. Very slowly...

Re:Obligatory analysis

[NanoGator]

Too bad Tyler Durden didn't release the teaser. There'd have been an easter egg for all those frame analyzers out there.

Re:Obligatory analysis

[Vindicator9000]

didn't seem like it had any shots of the Shire after the battle and the destruction of the ring... Does anyone else think that Peter Jackson is going to totally screw up the original ending *really bad*? I keep hoping that he keeps it more or less as written (I'd love to see a small army of Hobbits trouncing Sauruman's henchmen), but given what he has cut out already as "non-essential," I can't help but have some misgivings.

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.

Re:Obligatory analysis

[bzzzt]

I believe it was announced 2 years ago that the movies would not contain the "scouring of the shire" chapter...

Re:Obligatory analysis

[Rallion]

Yeah, all the changes have been rather...too bad. But I can accept all of them, as much as it bothers me to see Faramir being...not so nice. In a movie, you really have to keep the action moving, and make the climax at the END, which means that the removal of Bombadil, and even the Scouring, are necessary. And I can understand why Faramir was changed, too. In the movie, it's far more difficult to show the ring as an evil thing. You can't just use subtleties, you have to come out and say it. And if Faramir had been all nice about it, the idea wouldn't have come across at all.

Ah, still. It makes me sad.

Re:Obligatory analysis

[CaseyB]

Under the premise that "Scouring" scenes have been shot at all, some "Extended DVD Collection" will contain the "bonus" ending scenes.

Shots of ruined Hobbiton were shot, at least, for Frodo's vision in the mirror.

Re:Obligatory analysis

[Apreche]

I was just thinking about that.

Nooooooo! That's the best chapter. Whit Saruman being all old and stuff. It's hilarious.

Hopefully they'll at least put it on the extended DVD version. They at least have to show the trip to the gray havens in some fashion. Ring falling in volcano != end of story.

Re:Obligatory analysis

[bziman]

but something tells me that they're just going to totally screw up the beauty of the original ending.

Dude, PJ has already said he axed the Cleansing. From what he said, they didn't even film it for the extended edition. Too bad. I'm looking forward to the "Phantom Edit" equivalent for LotR.

how long will be ROTK ?

[Tybalta]

Rumors tell that over 3 or maybe 4 hours? Anybody heard anything "official"?

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 ... man, that scene has some real power in it (if you read the books, ofcoz) :)

Re:how long will be ROTK ?

[akpcep]

"Tolkien fans seem to forget that when Tolkien's works were first released, critics thought they were utter shit. "

VanGogh only sold one painting in his lifetime.

Re:how long will be ROTK ?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Yeah, you're a troll, but in this case the answer comes from beyond the grave:

"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

- J.R.R. Tolkien, on critics

Re:how long will be ROTK ?

[dswensen]

What I want to know is, will they call it Anduril?

I think the whole point is that Jackson is trying to draw the transformation of Aragorn from ranger to king closer to the climax of the story. I can see the appeal of that.

Aragorn in the books is a flawless, comic-book hero by the time of the Council of Elrond, and is waving Anduril around at every opportunity (at Eomer, at Hama, etc.) The only real moment of any drama concerning Aragorn (as far as I'm concerned) is where he shows himself to Sauron and the Paths of the Dead. I think both moments become more interesting if Aragorn is a more vulnerable, conflicted character than he is in the books.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the book version of Aragorn, but I think the movie version of Aragorn is just a bit more interesting. He's more conflicted. I like that. And the sword ties into that vulnerability. Jackson has made it symbolic of his transformation, and delayed that transformation enough to make it interesting.

Read the book first

[Davak]

Am I the only one that saw the first LOTR movies before reading the book? What was I thinking?

It totally destroyed the experience for me as the movie's images were stuck in my head as I read.

At least I didn't screw it completely up and read the book before this last one.

Davak

Re:Read the book first

[davebarz]

It's much worse a phenomenon than that. Prior to the movies, I'd read the whole trilogy at least 5 or 6 times. Nevertheless, when I read it now, I still picture all the movie characters. I can't even remember how I used to picture them. On one hand, it's a testament to the quality and immersive brilliance of the movies. On the other hand, it's really annoying that they stole from me the images of characers I've treasured since childhood.

Re:Read the book first

[TopShelf]

They should just release a new printing of the books, and call it "The Author's Cut."

As for myself, I've probably read LOTR 15 times or so, and have been blown away with how good a job they've done with the films. Sure, there are things to complain about (I'll reserve my judgement on the whole Faramir thing until I see the extended DVD this fall), but by and large Jackson took on a monumental task and succeeded admirably.

Re:Read the book first

[the_consumer]

My internal images of the characters are still dominated by Ralph Bakshi's animated version, particularly the hobbits. Fortunately the narrative and charcterizations of that version have been wiped from my mind through subsequent readings.

Re:Read the book first

[robbo]

I agree completely. Now, whenever I read the Council of Elrond, I mentally insert a threatening "Mr Anderson" every time Elrond speaks.

Bittorent?

[Sandman1971]

Has anyone seeded this on a bittorrent tracker yet?

Re:Bittorent?

[ob1knob777]

Yep, I spent awhile trying to d/l it on theonering.net only to find out I could have got it through bittorrent a whole lot quicker. There are already 79 people seeding it over on suprnova. suprnova

Re:Bittorent?

[Covener]

My mplayer didn't mind, using ffsvq3 as the codec.

Re:Bittorent?

[John3]

Available here.

ONLY! 9Mb

[MosesJones]

I know that isn't really very big, but it did make me realise how much the internet has kicked on in the last few years, and how high-compression technologies like Wavelets etc have been superceeded thanks to broadband connections.

9Mb isn't huge by todays standards, but it is worth considering for a second how much our viewing habits have been changed. No-longer do we go to a movie JUST to see the trailer... we download it. We all know that soon you'll see 100Mb full quality trailers being available.

Prediction of the day.... within 3 years someone will post on Slashdot that a trailer is "only" 100Mb.

Worst Idea ever...

[mschoolbus]

Please do not put direct links to movies on slashdot...

Unless you find some movies on SCO's page, then feel free.

Re:Worst Idea ever...

[Croaker]

Unless you find some movies on SCO's page, then feel free.

Wha? Will AOL not do as a stand-in for SCO, or have they been rehabilitated?

Torrent here!

[arnoroefs2000]

Here's the .torrent for the new trailer as all the sites are bogged down already.
Be sure to keep your download running to help others with their download!

Re:Torrent here!

[jrest]

My download through this torrent link is corrupt. At 1:42 into the movie the sound becomes distorted and video stops.
I'm using BitTorrent 3.3, the newest as far as I'm aware.
I tried it twice. Did not help. Is anyone else having problems?

Japaneese version has been around for weeks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japaneese version of this trailer (identical but with subtitles and ads on the side) has been available for weeks around the net.

Also, the quality on this seems funky but if it's on AOL streaming, I guess it's for real.

Also: 12 minute preview

[bigmouth_strikes]

Here's the torrent for a 12 min preview by Peter Jackson. It includes most of what is in the trailer and then some background goodies.

http://bittorrentmovies.de/~supernova/torrents/2 33 /ROTK_Preview_(12mins).torrent

hmmm

[fjordboy]

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...

Re:hmmm

[fireduck]

no, it is no where near the chronology of the books. as i recall, in the text, Aragorn took the re-forged Narsil with him when he left Rivendell. The elves then don't show up until after the final battle when Aragorn and Liv Tyler get married. I think Jackson wanted to keep the love story at the forefront so the eowin (sp) storyline would be more bittersweet, and so shifted this aspect of the story.

Re:hmmm

[Angostura]

Jackson has done a fair amount of tinkering with the chronology and action in other parts of the film. For the most part I think he has done a splendid job in bringing out aspects of the story which Tolkien left un-developed. It is rather like seeing the same story through the eyes of a different story teller.

In this case, I think that the tinkerage with the chronology could be rather fine - in the books the reforging of Narsil is a rather ho-hum affair. But Jackson appears to be bringing it center stage to mark out another step in Aragorn's development from ranger to King.

I really like the way he manages to stay true to the original while adapting it to the screen.

----

The only part I really find fault with was the end of Fellowship. In the book Aragorn is beset with doubt - he doesn't know where Frodo has gone, whether he has been captured, or what to do.

In the film its like "Oh, there goes Frodo and Sam, well, by chaps. Lets chase after the others".

Re:hmmm

[ddimas]

Narsil was reforged before the fellowship left Rivendell. Aragorn made a big stink about leaving it at the door at Edoras.

Yes, it is corrupt.

[kiddailey]

The mirror that TORN put up is a corrupt download, so my bet is that that is what the torrent is :( Bummer... I've been trying to get it from another site for over an hour now.

Norwegian mirror

[Stig_Soleng]

You can get it from http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~stigespe/lotr3_trlr_dl.mo v

Some clarity on the trailer versions

[kiddailey]

There are at least three versions of the trailer floating around that are NOT the 12 minute preview or the short montage that was part of that preview (from TTT DVD)

• There's a very poor quality, so-dark-you-can-hardly-see-it version with Asian type all over the frames (ROTK_Trailer.mpeg)
  
  
• There's the better quality, 320x240 version that AOL released last night at midnight EST (lotr3_trlr_dl.mov)
  
  
• A Danish site released a BEAUTIFUL, 19MB, 480x280 version (rotk_trailer_480x280.mov) ... but it's downloading at 2.8k/s at the moment :(
  
  
• TORN mirrored the file from the Danish site, but it was corrupt and was cut short at 11MB. They've temporarily removed the link.
  
  
• There's a few Torrent links mentioned here for the 480x280, but it is a copy of the corrupt version. Make sure the one you're grabbing is 19MB

Re:Some clarity on the trailer versions

[asuzuki]

Ok, here's a direct HTTP link to the fixed version, as posted on TORN.

However, there seem's to be a problem with mplayer, it crashes instantly, strange because it seemed to player SVQ3 files with no problems whatsoever.

Anyway for all you Windows/Mac Users, a friend of mine confirmed that it works fine with Quicktime 6.

Here you go:

http://n.ethz.ch/student/asuzuki/download/rotk_tra iler_480x280_fixed.mov [20MB]

Have fun,
Alex

PS: If anybody could convert it to DivX or something, let me know, I want to see it aswell!! :-/

Re:Yah MPAA!!

[Silverhammer]

Blockquoth the poster:

Yah! Lord of the Rings and Matrix trailers! Yah we love the MPAA this week 'cause they made stuff geeks like! Yah! Next week we'll go back to hating them for being evil! yah consitency!!

Read the FAQ.

Only 9MB???

[SteelX]

I'm downloading your "only 9MB" file on 28.8Kbps dial-up, you insensitive clod! :-)

I don't wanna watch it

[cyranoVR]

I started to watch the trailer, but I couldn't finish. I just couldn't...I want to save all my enthusiasm for the actual movie which - based on both the last two movies and what happens in the book - can't NOT be good. I was watching the trailer and I was like "I don't need a trailer to know that this movie is going to ROCK." So you guyz can have my bandwidth :)

Another mirror

[Mayk]

Another mirror to /.

My biggest gripe with PJ...

[epicstruggle]

... is the inclusion of any significant number of elves to battle sauron. The reason armies of elves should not be there for me, is that this is where humans are supposed to redeem themselves for the mistake of Isildur, who should have destroyed the ring when he had the chance.

Does it bother anyone else? Its minor, but why not bring an army of dwarves too, if we are rewritting things.

All in all, still a great adaptation. You go PJ.

later
epic

Re:My biggest gripe with PJ...

[dswensen]

That's totally unfair and uncalled-for. Peter Jackson is an ENORMOUS Lord of the Rings fan, and that's about the only reason you're not hearing Frodo say "talk to the hand" and Gandalf drinking a refreshing Pepsi-Cola (TM).

Stanley Kubrick himself once called the Lord of the Rings completely unfilmable -- and, in the books' original form, he's right. Many things which make the book great will simply not fly in a movie medium. You might think they will -- thirty minutes of a guy in a yellow jacket and pointy shoes talking about sheep and Goldberry, and Faramir finding Frodo and Sam in Morder and going "aw shucks! Get out of here with that Ring of Power, you scamps!" In a lengthy, leisurely book like Lord of the Rings, that's fine, but in a movie that already clocks in at three hours a pop with tons of stuff cut out, you'd be bored out of your nitpicking skull. I love Tolkien dearly, but most of his material is as dramatic as a flapjack, because Tolkien was ultimately a lover of the slow and pastoral life of the English countryside. Which is great, but doesn't make good film. Sorry.

Consider how moving and exciting the Lord of the Nazgul scenes from RotK would be if Jackson adapted them faithfully. He rides into Gondor, Gandalf says "you cannot come in here," a rooster crows, some trumpets play, and the Nazgul turns and leaves. Yeah. Thrilling stuff. The crowd would be on the edge of their seats.

Listen to Jackson's DVD commentary on Fellowship sometime, with the other two writers, and how much they agonized and labored over every change that they made, and how many things Jackson wanted to leave in but simply couldn't and deeply regrets. He even laments having to take out Glorfindel and Gildor Inglorion.

I am a big fan of the books, and I was disappointed with a few of the changes too, especially in Two Towers. But Jackson and everyone else have labored very hard to bring as faithful a movie adaptation as they could to a book that is, fact's a fact, completely impossible to adapt faithfully and still have it be any good. Go watch the Rankin-Bass or Ralph Bakshi adaptations of LotR sometime if you want to see how truly, awfully BAD an adaptation could have been. Tolkien fans got very, very lucky when Peter Jackson landed this project, and sorry -- he deserves better than "oh he probably never even READ the books." That is pure bunk.

Re:My biggest gripe with PJ...

[dswensen]

If you want to make a point, try doing it without the ad hominem attacks next time, thanks. You have no idea what I do or don't understand, or my appreciation of subtlety, so let's not pretend you do.

I understand perfectly well how literature can be translated to the screen. I also understand part of the reason for LotR's enduring popularity is that it is different things to different people, and additionally, that any film adaptation of a work of literature is the interpretation of one person, or, in this case, three (Jackson, Boyens, Walsh). Jackson's vision of Lord of the Rings is not the same as my own, nor should it be.

Insofar as the scenes mentioned are concerned -- in some sense you are preaching to the choir. The changes made to Faramir, especially the trip to Osgiliath, was by far my biggest gripe with Two Towers. I was extremely irate about it, but on further reflection, could understand why Jackson made the decision. I just wish he could have handled it differently. For my part, I found the encounter with Faramir in the books to be devoid of suspense -- but likewise found the movie version swung too far in the opposite direction. Because I support Jackson's privilege to make changes to the original doesn't mean I worship them all as immaculate.

As far as the Lord of the Nazgul scene goes, that remains to be determined -- I am anxious to see what Jackson does with it. In my opinion, the strength of the written word is that it can support the sort of subtle, existential horror and dread such as you describe far more reliably than a visual medium, because they rely on the reader's imagination.

You can bank on that tension more or less forever in the written word -- in Tolkien's work, the Nazgul are mostly a non-existent threat until the (very brief) confrontation on the Pelennor Fields, where the fearsome Lord is undone by a stab to the ankle and one swipe from a sword. To his credit, Tolkien still manages to pull them off as dreadful despite the fact that they never actually do much but ride around and slaughter the occasional Prancing Pony bed-bolster.

While this approach might work for the die-hard enthusiast (as might a 15- or 20-hour faithful adaptation of the work), the LotR film is an expensive project that needs to make a profit, and that means placating the majority of moviegoers who expect a bit more action from their fantasy films. I think it's the price we pay for having a film adaptation at all, and though I have problems with Jackson's interpretation as well, I think we as an audience could come off much worse than we have. Again, I point to Jackson's precursors, Bakshi and Rankin-Bass. You want to see a filmmaker taking some liberties with the story? Watch Bakshi's LotR sometime. Saruman becomes "Ahriman" (sometimes), Treebeard is supremely comical, Elrond wears a tee-shirt to the council at Imladris, and Boromir is a shrieky nincompoop who dresses like Hagar the Horrible. Jackson is a purist by comparison.

I didn't go into the Lord of the Rings movies expecting the book to be retold in movie form. Not only is that impossible, it would hold few if any surprises for someone who's read the books as many times as I have. If I wanted that precise experience, I'd just read the book again. Instead, I got to see Boromir as a slightly more sympathetic character, Faramir as slightly less (again, that didn't work out so well), Aragorn a bit more conflicted, and the Nazgul a little more active, and a pretty fantastic Watcher in the Water, while still (in my opinion) maintaining quite a few (not all) of the book's original themes.

It's not a faithful adaptation, but I don't believe a faithful adaptation could or should be filmed, nor would it be interesting even if it was. That's just my opinion. I believe that people who want the experience of the novel should read the novel. A movie of the novel is going to involve some retelling and some shuffling of the elements, because one medium is of the eye and ear, the other is of the imagination. Anyone goin

Re:My biggest gripe with PJ...

[gfxguy]

I disagree - some of the changes obviously would have just belabored the point, but some of the changes make no sense.

Let's look at leaving out the gift giving in FOTR. Yes, it was included in the extended version, but that's not really quite fair to the movie going public. Who, after seeing it in the theater once or twice, and then maybe renting it when it was available, has seen the extended version? Why, it's the big fans - the ones who already read the books and knew about the gift giving, left in or not. Now, the FOTR had a lot of long, beautiful, yet somewhat boring shots. Some of what was left in could easily have been cut to fit in things more important to the story.

The worse part, again, is the Faramir part. Here they added stuff that wasn't in the book - made those scenes LONGER to put stuff into the movie that wasn't in the story. In other words, they went out of their way to change the story, as opposed to going out of their way to make it follow the book.

Me, I'm sure he read the books. I'm sure he loves them. And like a lot of "artists", he wanted to add his own ideas to it, much to the chagrin of the fans of the story. I mean, if your band covers someone elses song, if it sounds EXACTLY the same, then what's the point? You cover it to add your own flair to it. Some people might like it better, some might not like it as much.

The problem is that here, instead of creatively cutting down on stuff so that the movie flows along better, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure he didn't follow the books.

Not only that scene, but the whole Aragorn thing when he goes over the cliff. That was a huge time wasting departure... and the point was? To give Liv Tyler an even bigger role than she should have had?

I saw TTT on it's first day of release. I had a friend who went to a midnight showing, and I talked to him in the morning before I saw it (in the afternoon). He said it was good, but Jackson made it a "movie" instead of a "film", and my first thoughts were "that's pretty pretentious of you, you elitist bastard." Then I saw the movie and was very dissappointed - the Dwarf jokes, the Legolas estrogen brigade...

Don't get me wrong, I loved it! I will be getting the extended version. I have the cinematic version (only from the free Blockbuster rental deal) that I'll be giving away. I loved the movie, but was so dissappointed because it could have been so much more, more faithful, and even more interesting. Not all the changes were to help the flow of the movie, a lot of them simply made no sense to me.

Re:My biggest gripe with PJ...

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:My biggest gripe with PJ...

[topologist]

I'd agree with that comment if you substituted "Tolkien geeks" with "geeks". Unless you're a member of the Tolkien Society or the like, I don't see how you can claim to speak for the Tolkien geek collective :-)

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.

Apology for the truncated 11MB version...

[Anonymous Coward]

I set the 19MB 'official' version rsyncing before we noticed that /. had linked - and the upload stream onto our binary server disintegrated resulting in the truncated upload which ended up being live for 30 minutes or so. This has been fixed now - see http://www.theonering.net for more information - and once you've got a connection to Apache on our binaries server it's actually quite fast. (You have to queue to get a connection atm, however). This is definitely the version to get, however - any of the 19MB bittorrents is probably the best way to go. -- Arathorn (theonering.net sysadmin)

Hello?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Someone asks this in every LOTR article.

For the last time, Peter Jackson announced years ago that there would be no Scouring. They included an homage to it in the Mirror of Galadriel scene.

The reason is because he didn't want another story after the main climax.

Re:Hello?

[I am Kobayashi]

One sequence that will not make it from the book into the film despite the hopes of many fans, according to repeated statements by Jackson, is the "Scouring of the Shire", in which the Hobbits return home at the end of their quest to find they have some cleaning up to do. The fall of Saruman originally takes place at the end of this scene, so it is not clear where it will occur in the movie.

From: Wikipedia

I agree that it should have been filmed and put in an extended DVD version (if not the theatrical release)... Who knows maybe they will film it solely for a DVD release (if they calculate it will be profitable -- and given the success of the movies perhaps it would be).

Re:Mirror

[size1one]

I've posted it on my site. Please, be gentle.

Don't worry /.ers stampede in an orderly fashion.

Fixed (and working) link

[Otto]

That particular server is always down. Never works right. Try this one instead.

http://www.emptylogic.com/suprnova/torrents/233/RO TK_Preview_(12mins).torrent

Rangers from the north cut out?

[galaga79]

** 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.

swedish mirror

[asuzuki]

There's a swedish mirror site up now aswell, pretty fast.

http://farbror.acc.umu.se/pub/test/maswan/rotk_tra iler_480x280_fixed.mov

Part of a flashback, maybe?

[thefinite]

It was reforged and given to him when he left Rivendell, but I think what is seen in the trailer may just be part of a flashback. I don't think that is a terrible idea, because it is more topical in "Return of the King" anyway, especially when you consider that those who see the movies and don't read the book might forget the significance of Narsil.

I watched the Japanese version, but it's corrupted

[UncleMediocre]

But the dialogue is strangely out of sync with the actor's lip movements. Also, here is how mine started:

Gollum: Frodo-san, please to give me ring.
Frodo: I am not liking tone you are! Be soap.
Gollum: Can you not see my fervor?
Frodo: All your ring are belong to us!
Gollum: EKEKEKEKEK

I didn't hear the rest because of the overdubbed techno-music.

ffmpeg workaround

[noda132]

ffmpeg's SVQ3 decompression seems to crash with the 19MB version of the trailer. The workaround: use the win32 dlls. For mplayer:

mplayer return_of_the_king_trailer_480x280_fixed.mov -vc qtsvq3 -vf pp=al

DivX version - direct link

[asuzuki]

I had problems viewing the 19MB Quicktime (SVQ3) File with mplayer, and no, it wasn't the corrupted version posted early on TORN and seeded via bittorrent.

Anyway, a colleague converted it to DivX, for your viewing pleasure...

http://n.ethz.ch/student/asuzuki/download/rotk_tra iler.avi

Enjoy.

Re:Do you support the MPAA?

[NtroP]

The problem is that there aren't any alternatives - for me. Is there an Indie release of LOTR? Will they do as good a job at entertaining me as this one [probably] will?

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.

Spolier Alert (Answer to your question)

[The Closet Optimist]

ANSWER/SPOILERS below!

The Scourging of the shire is not in the movie. Instead Saruman is killed at Orthanc (roughly in the same way).

Before people flame PJ for such a "betrayal" of the story, consider this departure from a cinematic perspective: 9 hours of movie lead up to the spectacular ending of the ring only to lead off into another hour to cover The Scourging?

This unfortunately just wouldn't fly from the cinematic perspective, even though the book lovers like most of us want to get every little last bit out of the story of Middle Earth. It is a film adaptation after all.