Slashdot Mirror


ROTK:EE Trailer Released

artemis67 writes "A six-minute trailer for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Extended Edition, has been released, and it's quite good. We get to see some snippets of the final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman, as well as some other intriguing scenes that will add a lot of depth to the final movie. The Extended Edition will add an additional 50 minutes to the film, bring the total for the Extended trilogy to 11 hours and 20 minutes."

454 comments

  1. Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by theefer · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    theefer
    1. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Funny

      For my 30th birthday, I am going to indulge myself in couch-potato madness and watch all 3 trilogies in sequence. 11hr and 20 min is a significant investment of time, but I think it can be done.

      7am: friends arrive, pancake breakfast.
      8am: Fellowship of the Ring (~4+ hrs)
      12:30pm: Lunch
      2:00pm: The Two Towers (~3 1/2 hrs)
      5:30pm: Dinner
      7:00pm: Return of the King (~ 4 1/2 hrs)
      11:30pm: Eyes ooze out of our sockets, bedsores open on our asses.

      Our first baby is on the way, so I know I'll never get to do something this irresponsible and useless again. :)

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and watch all 3 trilogies in sequence

      wow... Back to the Future, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings... that'll be a hell of a party.

    3. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by static0verdrive · · Score: 1

      Your assessment of the "ooze-eyes" condition sounds about right - I was coming it to post about all those of us who will go ahead and try to marathon it, only to be wasted by the excessive radiation and junk food... ugh! the thought is putrid but I can't stop myself from planning it!

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    4. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      LOL - touche'!

      In fairness, I'd watch the Indiana Jones or Godfather trilogies before BttF...although my subsequent choices might be lacking in the 'geek' factor since they're not SF. And given the putrid mess of The Matrix sequels i can't be bothered considering them...

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    5. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Funny

      Our first baby is on the way,

      Are you sure it's yours ? I mean, look at what you do with your time :)

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    6. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by 3terrabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should have it over by 8 pm. What you need to do is not take 1.5 hour breaks, and just order pizzas or something and spill pepporoni on the couch while eating & watching.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    7. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      My wife's cat's name is Strider, and the one before that was Wicket.

      I think my legacy is assured...;)

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    8. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by damiam · · Score: 0, Redundant
      watch all 3 trilogies in sequence

      The major current movie trilogies are LoTR, Matrix, and Star Wars. Watching them all would take a bit more then 11 hours. :-)

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    9. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you were a true Godfather fan you would not speak of a "Godfather trilogy". Just forget the third one.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    10. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by M.+Silver · · Score: 1

      And given the putrid mess of The Matrix sequels i can't be bothered considering them...

      It might be time to resurrect the watch-a-movie-trilogy tradition for our New Year's Eve party. And maybe the Matrix stuff *is* the right thing for that... in past years we've watched the Cannonball Run movies, things like that. (Being that we usually played board games and whatnot too, the movies have to be something that don't *require* actually watching, just laughing at occasionally.)

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    11. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Khomar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would blame it on the long wait between the theatrical release and the extended edition.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    12. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Khomar · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Our first baby is on the way, so I know I'll never get to do something this irresponsible and useless again.

      Funny, our son will be 5 1/2 months old by the time we have our LOTR party, but we are going through with it anyway. It has been a tradition in my house for the past two years to watch whatever extended editions existed at the time (my wife and I actually met at the first one). We look at it as a good time to get together with friends and hang out for a weekend (we will be watching the movies over two days).

      Kids don't end the fun; they just change the parameters a bit.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    13. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Police Academy!

    14. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by aoteoroa · · Score: 1

      Our first baby is on the way, so I know I'll never get to do something this irresponsible and useless again. :)

      On the contrary you might find yourself sitting at home with friends watching DVDs more than ever before. What disappears is the ability for you and your wife to make a spur of the moment decision to go dancing, or *out* to a movie because you have to find a sitter.

    15. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by microTodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember when RotK was first released, some theaters did a "Trilogy Tuesday" where they played all three back-to-back-to-back. My wife and I drove 150 miles to a theater to participate. It was great! We got free gifts from New Line, the theater brought in catered free food from Sonny's BBQ, and theonering.net reps were there giving away gifts.

      Ah, a very fond memory. I still have the tickets (and lanyard pass) hanging on my cube wall.

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    16. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Alan · · Score: 1

      Uhmm.... don't forget Indiana Jones please, another great trilogy.

    17. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see a problem with your schedule.

      7am: Friends arrive, pancake breakfast.
      Yeah, how about
      7:am Pankcake breakfast

      I kid I kid, I'm sure I'll sit down and watch them all back to back too, when I get the RotK(EE)

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    18. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's not quite insightful, as much as it it "Your Mileage May Vary". For myself, taking long breaks would be necessary if I was to endure watching anything for > 3 hours. Plus, I'd suggest eating something a little more healthy than pizza, as if you'd be amongst a group of friends for 11 hours, the gas would potentially be horrible :)

    19. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by ken-doh · · Score: 1

      you dont have a gf do you

    20. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by isecore · · Score: 1

      I still have the tickets (and lanyard pass) hanging on my cube wall.

      Ahem, according to Starfleet medical research... Borg implants can cause severe skin irritations. Perhaps you'd like an analgesic cream?

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    21. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you don't.

    22. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by QuiK_ChaoS · · Score: 1

      I am going to attempt a DivX feat of mass proportions. I am going to rip all 3 extended editions, cut the credits off the first 2, and splice them onto the end. It will awesome! A 4GB 860 minute DivX movie. Mmmmmmmmamma.

    23. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by elhaf · · Score: 1

      Just in time for my new home theater projector! (although this does exceed the recommended run time of the projector for any one stretch) Good thinking scheduling food breaks; I don't think most humans can really take 12 straight hours in front of the tube, as appealing as it sounds on the surface.

      p.s., having reasons for things is overrated. teach that to your baby.

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    24. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and back to the future! lol! :)

    25. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by antoy · · Score: 1

      And Back to the Future!

    26. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and back to the future!

    27. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      yeah, and while we're at it, don't forget the Godfather trilogy

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    28. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      That's not so bad. My girlfriend comes to me with questions like: "if we had a kid, would it be mean to name him Spock? I mean, would other kids make fun of him?" poor kid.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    29. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt he has a girlfriend. His wife would probably object to that.

    30. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by boinger · · Score: 1

      Most people I know disavow all knowledge of a third "Godfather" movie. ;)

      --
      Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
    31. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      That's because the universe needs balance. We have a 5-book Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy, clearly we need some 2-movie trilogies like The Godfather to even it out. How many years was Star Wars a 3-movie sextilogy (yeesh, that sounds like a porno), and how many fans think it was better that way?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    32. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Funny
      Funny, our son will be 5 1/2 months old by the time we have our LOTR party, but we are going through with it anyway. It has been a tradition in my house for the past two years to watch whatever extended editions existed at the time (my wife and I actually met at the first one). We look at it as a good time to get together with friends and hang out for a weekend (we will be watching the movies over two days).


      Let's do some math here. You met at the first EE party, which was November 12, 2002.

      Rotk:EE is released mid-December. Your son will be 5 1/2 months old by that time. So, he's got a birthday near the beginning of July. Minus nine months means conception was at the end of September, 2003.

      You mean we're supposed to be believe the following order of events, each more ludicrous than the previous...

      1. You attended an event with a female
      2. ...who goes to LOTR events
      3. ...who you were somehow able to talk to
      4. ...and get in the sack
      5. ...in under 11 months?

      Turn in your geek badge, sir. Turn it in.
      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    33. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And given the putrid mess of The Matrix sequels i can't be bothered considering them...

      The Matrix triolgy was NOT a putrid mess, the last two movies where tons better than the first, if only because they were so much deeper. Those who hate the last two movies, etheir don't understand the movies, or they went way over there heads...

      of course I have to post this anonymously or I would get Karama bashed into oblivion, for current /. think tells us we MUST hate the last two Matrix movies, (and also the Star Wars Prequils).

    34. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Khomar · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's pretty much it. We were married in August 2003. *sigh* Here's my badge....

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    35. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by JedKrieg · · Score: 1

      I could do you one better. I realized some time between the release of Two Towers and Two Towers: Ex. Edition that the six DVDs fit nicely around the following meal plan:

      Breakfast
      - The Fellowship of the Ring: Part 1
      Second Breakfast
      - The Fellowship of the Ring: Part 2
      Elevenses
      - The Two Towers: Part 1
      Luncheon
      - The Two Towers: Part 2
      Afternoon Tea
      - Return of the King: Part 1
      Dinner
      - Return of the King: Part 2
      Supper

      -- Slip into coma as cinematographic and culinary bliss envelop your senses.

      So there you have it: all eleven and a half hours of Peter Jackson's masterpiece, interspersed with all seven of the traditional hobbit meals. Of course, one should examine http://theonering.net/ for good hobbity meals!

    36. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it have liberation of Shire?

    37. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by gvonk · · Score: 1

      Our cat's name is Rosie (as in Cotton). It was the least-dorky name I could pitch to my wife from the book.

      --


      El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
    38. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by tgoodmannz · · Score: 1

      Hey are you kidding? I proposed to my now wife as "The End" came up in ROTK, being viewed at The Embassy theatre in Wellington NZ, part owned in the hometown of the great man, Peter Jackson, himself... The EE will sit nicely next to the wedding DVD ....

    39. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Cplus · · Score: 1

      I think people are unfairly harsh on the third Godfather film. It does lose its way, but it is still quite good. It's only when compared with how wonderful the first two are that it loses its luster. Francis For Coppola has given us four or five of the best movies ever made, it's only a let-down when he's not absolutely amazing.

      Those four or five? Godfather I, Godfather II, Rumblefish (if you haven't seen it, do), Apocalypse Now, and Dracula (depending on your taste). I say for these contributions we take Godfather III as it is, and try to pretend that 'Jack' was never made.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    40. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by damiam · · Score: 1

      The IJ trilogy was finished in 1989. I wouldn't exactly call it a "current" trilogy.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    41. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Not sure why it being a "current" trilogy is so important, but Indiana Jones supposedly isn't finished - Spielberg and Ford have publicly committed to making a fourth. Of course, if that does happen then it will be current, but no longer a trilogy ...

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    42. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The final confrontation of Gandalf with Sauraman in the wilderness heading towards Rivendell after the Ring was destroyed? I missed that part, too! Especially since they didn't show *any* of the return trip in the original movie.

    43. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      thats right; some nyquil in their apple juice knocks em right out...kids love juice, bwahaa!

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    44. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      They're going to remake it, changing all the guns to cell-phones.

    45. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Funny, our son will be 5 1/2 months old by the time we have our LOTR party

      I couldn't sworn you were going to say, "Funny, our son wil be 5 1/2 months old by the time we get through watching this trilogy."

    46. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would get Karama bashed into oblivion

      One would think that someone who rants about deep and sophisticated those movies are might know enough to spell that properly...

    47. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Our first baby is on the way, so I know I'll never get to do something this irresponsible and useless again. :) "

      --Not true!! Last year my wife and I took our high school age kids out of school for "Trilogy Tuesday". Who needs midterms anyway?

    48. Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      wow, that sounds like a great day! i wish i knew you guys to join you!! and it is SOOO NOT useless!!

  2. Already ordered it! by MoonFog · · Score: 0

    And I can hardly wait for a LOTR marathon, all three movies in succession!
    Seriously though, I've been looking forward to seeing the extra scenes, plus, you get Minas Thirit with the special extended DVD package!

    1. Re:Already ordered it! by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Funny

      In Korea, only old people have seen all three extended editions. Seriously, it takes that long.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:Already ordered it! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      On a totaly unrelated note, has there been any rumors on when a complete "box set" containing the director's cut of all three films will be released?

      I was kind of hoping that it would be out in time for Christmas, but it is not looking too likely.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:Already ordered it! by MoonFog · · Score: 1

      Haven't heard about any yet, definitely not before xmas. My guess would be xmas time next year, that'd fit in with how they've released things so far (more or less).

    4. Re:Already ordered it! by bhima · · Score: 1, Funny
      You mean if I buy the "special extended DVD package" I get the whole city of Minas Thirit thrown in!?!

      Do I get to be the mayor or steward or what? Is a throne room included in the package or do I have to have that built?

      What about the existing nobles and their families... are they put to the sword?

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    5. Re:Already ordered it! by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 2

      Is Minas Thirit where Sauroman lives?

    6. Re:Already ordered it! by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ask and ye shall receive.

      Looks like it's coming out December 14th, same day that ROTK:EE ships.

    7. Re:Already ordered it! by Tassach · · Score: 0, Redundant
      has there been any rumors on when a complete "box set" containing the director's cut of all three films will be released
      Not until everyone who bought the theatrical version has bought the extended version... then they'll release the super-extended-box-set. Why sell a person a DVD once when you can sell it to them three times?
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    8. Re:Already ordered it! by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Both Amazon UK and Amazon US have it down for release December 10th, 2004 so it is indeed out in time for Christmas. You don't get the statues or the "bonus" DVDs that come with the second and third parts though.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    9. Re:Already ordered it! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Thanks to those who replied. Maybe if I beg and plead, Santa will have mercy on me.

      But I must admit being somewhat shocked at the price difference between Amazon and Circuit City.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    10. Re:Already ordered it! by MoonFog · · Score: 1

      And you know as well as they that we will buy it ...

    11. Re:Already ordered it! by beuges · · Score: 2, Informative
    12. Re:Already ordered it! by static0verdrive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. (Actually it's Minas Tirith, not Thirit...) Saruman lived at Orthanc, the tower at Isengard. Check out this list of towers for a better understanding.

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    13. Re:Already ordered it! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      It's a joke ;-)

      Note that your grandparent misspelled Tirith, and your parent saw the Sauroman misspelling of the OP, so he made the joke.

    14. Re:Already ordered it! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Funny

      Check out this list of towers for a better understanding.

      Rubbish list. Doesn't mention any Fawlty Towers whatsoever... :-P

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    15. Re:Already ordered it! by msim · · Score: 1

      I saw the original releases in a movie marathon.

      It was so bloody long my girlfriend gave birth to twins, and she wasn't even pregnant when we went in!!!

      Nah seriously she fell asleep for a hour or two during the two towers and still managed to understand it and only ask me five times "what's happening now?". But it was bloody long, i wouldn't do it in one sitting ever again.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    16. Re:Already ordered it! by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      Geez, what a dork you are! Spouting Tolkien nonsense.

      Or, as the Klingons would say...

    17. Re:Already ordered it! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      You mean if I buy the "special extended DVD package" I get the whole city of Minas Thirit thrown in!?!

      Yep, you get the whole city, with ballistae and everything. You might want to check the number for your local "noisy neighbour" hotline before moving in, though. Apparently there are some fields nearby, and the crowd can get a bit rowdy.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:Already ordered it! by bhima · · Score: 1

      That's OK I've been centrifuing ring-tetrachloride for enrichment for years.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    19. Re:Already ordered it! by Scrab · · Score: 1

      I thought Morgul translated to "Black wraith", not "black Magic", with Morg meaning black, and ul meaning wraith. Which is why Nazg + ul give us Nazgul, which means Ringwraith.

      --
      RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
    20. Re:Already ordered it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! You've successfully used the "In Korea, only old people..." joke format. Feel superior to those who fail at such an attempt. Your T-shirt is in the mail.

    21. Re:Already ordered it! by wronski · · Score: 1

      You know, ROTK really means Republic Of The Korea ;-)

  3. I can not wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just can not wait to buy the DVD Trilogy special edition with 26 DVD's

    lol

    1. Re:I can not wait... by Fuz_42 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I was wondering about that. Now that all the EE are out, when is the Special Extended Trilogy DVD pack coming out, with MORE unseen footage.

      Personally I want to see where Hugo Weaving says, "Mr Frodo, I see you've been living two lives..."

      --
      I am. A Digital Monk.
    2. Re:I can not wait... by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the special "The Hobbit" featurette bonus disc!

      --
      Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    3. Re:I can not wait... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I actually i am waiting for the

      Collectors Platium Special extended edition triliogy DVD pack

      Hollywood is so predictble in it's use of adjectives.

      Now to find someone rich to uy it for me.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Interesting

    With popcorn/bathroom breaks, 12 hours is about the amount of time to read the original 6 books (in 3 well-known volumes). I'd like to see a correlation between events in "booktime" to "movietime".

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Realtime by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      12 hours is about the amount of time to read the original 6 books (in 3 well-known volumes)
      Ah.. speedreader are we?

    2. Re:Realtime by Sinus0idal · · Score: 4, Funny

      In Korea, old people read faster than YOU!

    3. Re:Realtime by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its around 1200 pages, right? (I can't remember for sure off the top of my head). Well, that'd mean around 100 pages per hour. I read 1-3 pages per minute, depending on the content, so thats somewhat reasonable. Of course, it'd be exhausting.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    4. Re:Realtime by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      I remember that when i first read the books (like 10 years ago) I read each one in a "single session", but it was more like 12 (or more) hours each one of them.

    5. Re:Realtime by pklong · · Score: 1

      You have not a hope in hell of reading all that in 12 hours. Its a big, big book.

      Philip

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

    6. Re:Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Maybe - I've read the books about 8 times each, since the late 1970s. So reading it now would take only a minute for each couple of pages, if I were keeping up with action on a screen. Reading silently, with a stream of dialog playing speeds up the scan as much as >/dev/null :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what they told Frodo, too. I've read the big, big book 8 times already, and I'm talking about reading it while the dialog/action is flying by onscreen. Bed and breakfast in Isengard, while I devour the tomes!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Realtime by Svennig · · Score: 1

      I dunno man, Its taken me 10 years so far to read that book. I still havent got very far...

    9. Re:Realtime by vidarh · · Score: 1
      So? When I read it the first time (at about 10, I think) I spent about an hour on it each day, and completed it in 10 days (bet with my dad - if I did it in less than two weeks AND could answer questions about it afterwards, I'd get the C64 game) for a little more that 100 pages per hour. Reading it in one sitting would be tough, but then I've read it a few times by now and wouldn't need to spend as much time per page.

      It's not that big :)

    10. Re:Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It took them 63 years (1938-2001) to finish the movie, after the book was finished. You're still ahead - don't give up hope, you can make it to the Cracks of Doom :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Realtime by vidarh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm really curious as to what would be a typical average reading speed for a native English speaker. For me it's my second language, and I don't have much problem with +/- 100 pages an hour depending on typesetting and language, and provided I start out reasonably rested. My fiancee who grew up speaking English reads a lot faster. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she could finish LOTR in 7-8 hours and still remember it better than me.

    12. Re:Realtime by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      Ah.. speedreader are we?

      Yep. I've read LOTR straight through once and I do read quite a lot faster than most people.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    13. Re:Realtime by Gallamine · · Score: 1

      I think not. I did it last Christmas. I'm a fast reader but it ended up taking me 28hrs and 43minutes. You start to slow down. I blogged it on my website. Go look in the archives.

      --
      RobotBox - Robot projects from around the world
    14. Re:Realtime by fitten · · Score: 2, Informative

      I typically read at about 1 page per minute with a new book. At least, that's the estimate I use when considering a new book (hmmm... 300 pages, around 300 minutes of reading). I also tend to read and reread some parts to make sure I get what's going on.

      On books that I've read before (I rarely read any book twice, and very rarely read it more than twice... I can only think of three series that I've read more than twice) I can get a bit faster because it's more like jogging my memory instead of absorbing it the first time.

    15. Re:Realtime by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in (communist) North Korea, YOU read faster than old people up the bomb!!

      --
      Free as in mason.
    16. Re:Realtime by youknowmewell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Soviet Russia, old Koreans read YOU!

    17. Re:Realtime by jasonbowen · · Score: 1

      When the movie was coming out I remember 40 hours being thrown out as the estimated time for the average person to read it. Frankly I read it slowly each time I read. Reading fast can be like glancing quickly at a picture, you have an idea of what you saw but didn't really take it in.

    18. Re:Realtime by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " You have not a hope in hell of reading all that in 12 hours. Its a big, big book."

      Why would someone want to read LoTR in 12 hours anyway, even if they were in fact a speed reader? I like to stretch it out over some weeks because it's so enjoyable. I don't want it to be done quickly! Often when I finish my Nth iteration of reading the book, I pick up The Hobbit again because I don't want to leave that world just yet.

    19. Re:Realtime by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I read 1-3 pages per minute, depending on the content

      And that's the catch, the content. I can easily read 3 pages per minute of large font Harry Potter-grade shlock. Tolkien, on the other hand, has a much more dense writing style. (not to mention a smaller font to make it all fit in ~1200 pages) Personally, I consider myself a pretty strong reader, and I usually average about 50 pages per hour on Tolkien. YMMV, of course ;)

    20. Re:Realtime by pklong · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Also by speed reading it, you are not really reading the report in depth. You are not thinking about what you are reading, you are just scanning the text.

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

    21. Re:Realtime by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Harry Potter is fiction aimed at young adults. I'd hardly call it "schlock", any more than Chronicles of Narnia is "schlock".

      Yes, it's popular. It also happens to be good.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:Realtime by superpenguin · · Score: 1

      On an standard mass-market paperback, I average about 100 pages per hour. Oddly enough, with Tolkien, that goes up to about 120 pages per hour. Something about the way his writing style flows makes it a faster read for me. Plus, let's not forget that half of RotK is appendices (okay, not quite half, but a lot of it). So 12 hours is not at all unreasonable if you're a fast reader.

    23. Re:Realtime by irokitt · · Score: 1

      I actually read the three books in the space of a two-day weekend (having read The Hobbit on Friday afternoon). And I had large gaps where I put the book down for a coouple hours at a time. I think all told I probably read them in about 14 hours. So it is possible.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    24. Re:Realtime by pyrros · · Score: 1

      >I average about 100 pages per hour. Oddly enough, with >Tolkien, that goes up to about 120 pages per hour

      It also helps if you skip over all the songs and poems ;-)

    25. Re:Realtime by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      You're right, I picked a poor word to describe Rowling's writing style. It's not schlock, but it is a much simpler style and easier to digest. When I first read LOTR in middle school, I often had to read passages several times to fully understand them. Heck, I know some adults who still can't make it through the series because of Tolkien's writing style.

    26. Re:Realtime by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I've read LotR a couple times, and I always have to grit my teeth and press on through when the plot comes to a SCREECHING halt for 40 pages.

      Council of Elrond...ugh.

      I don't think I have a short attention span, but LotR can be painful. Rewarding, but painful.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    27. Re:Realtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can meet many former 'homosexuals'; you will never meet a former 'African-American'." - Legislating Morality

      There are no legitimate 'former homosexuals' ... only current homosexuals who have decided to go back into the closet, or bisexuals who have decided to supress half their person. There are no real proven examples of any homosexual being 'converted' to heterosexuality. I find your sig ignorant and offensive.

    28. Re:Realtime by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Years ago I read it out loud, to a girlfriend who was into fantasy but had never picked up Tolkien. I took it upon myself to make sure she was introduced properly. It took us almost exactly a month, reading every day for hours each day after work. Very satisfying experience for both of us. She went and got her own copy the day after we finished so she could read it again herself, and did so twice more in succession at that time. The experience really 'took'. The slower pace of reading aloud, combined with doing character voices and such, made it the most enjoyable reading of that story I'd ever done, before or since. I would be reaching the end of a chapter, and be hoping she'd want to let me go on, and on the other side she would be hoping I could keep going, at least one more chapter tonight please? I highly recommend this activity, if you have a listener that can stay patiently listening.

      I can read in my head very quickly, but usually prefer not to. Unless I'm trying to study something, that I will fly through. For me it's not just about retaining what happened, that's easy, but savoring an experience takes more time. It is not enough for me to remember later that such and such happened in the story. To me it feels like reading fast just leaves me with access to memories of stored information. Taking the time to fully savor what is happening, pacing one's progress through a scene closer to the real-time of the characters, leaves me with memories of an experience that I actually lived through.

    29. Re:Realtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or shoving a delectable meal down your throat in 3 minutes, rather than savoring each bite.

    30. Re:Realtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had sex with my wife in the space of a two-day weekend.

    31. Re:Realtime by dcam · · Score: 1

      I think I'd be able to get through them in a little less than 12 hours. Maybe 8?

      We didn't have a TV when I grew up so I read instead.

      --
      meh
    32. Re:Realtime by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to read it so fast? Don't you want to savour the experience? Or think about what you've read?

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    33. Re:Realtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The children's version don't count. ;P

      I tend to read at about 20 pages per hour. Yes, I take my time, because there is no reason to hurry through the second most read book on the planet.

      Any third of the book takes the average reader(key word: AVERAGE READER; remember, there isn't many readers to begin with) about 15 hours. That includes eating, excreting waste from your system, sharing a passage from the book with a significant other or nearby friend.

    34. Re:Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I was a child when they released _The Silmarillion_, and I read that in about 20 hours. If I read it again, with a LoTR-quality movie running behind it, I'd probably do it in 3 or 4.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  5. Here's a direct link to the Quicktime file... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

    ...right here.

    PLUG: Ruby-DOOM

  6. Eleven hours and twenty minutes. by vidstudent · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and you know what, folks? We are all *SO THERE*. ^____^

    --

    Nicholas Eckert
    vidstudent

    1. Re:Eleven hours and twenty minutes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it have the Aragon/Legolas "Hungry Eyes" spoof in it? Would love to get my hands on that one.

  7. sigh by kalpol · · Score: 1, Funny
    We get to see some snippets of the final confrontation between Gandalf and Sauroman

    It's Saruman, not Sauroman. sigh...trying to review a movie and can't even spell Saruman. What kind of LOTR geek are you anyway?

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:sigh by MoThugz · · Score: 1

      Bargh... yet another so-called "geek" behind the times.

      If you REALLY are a fan, you'll know that Sauroman is the absolutely EVIL embodiment of an Orc and a Dark Elf crossbreed!

      <humour />

    2. Re:sigh by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      I read that as a comment on Christopher Lee's absence from the vanilla ROTK and figured he'd appear in ROTK:EE as a composite of Sauron and Saruman... but I've not had enough coffee today. ;)

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:sigh by Himring · · Score: 1

      What kind of LOTR geek are you anyway?

      I don't know what kind he is, but I think I'm one. Let's see. Here it is, off the top of my head, the original names of each of the Istari:

      Olorin=Gandalf
      Curumo=Saruman
      Eiwendel=Radagast
      Palando=N/A
      Alatar=N/A


      I'll go even further -- again, off the top of my head and with nothing up my sleeves folks -- and describe each, original, name:

      Olorin=wise one -- as in an advisor, counselor, seer. Gandalf was meant to be a unifying counselor which he indeed was. He was the only one of the 5 Istari to complete his mission. All others failed.

      Curumo=Saruman=craft, builder -- Saruman was meant to engineer for war. As Gandalf pulled the forces of good from all parts of middle earth together, Saruman was to help them build for war, but, alas, he failed and instead built a splendid army for Sauron.

      Eiwendel=I think this means "bird lover," but I argued in depth that it could be translated "lover of the holy maiden." He was never intended to go, and was pushed onto the effort by, um, forget her name -- anyhow, the Valar lady who really loved the little animals. As Saruman said of him, "that bird tamer" or whatever....

      Palando=K, these two Istari are the blue wizards of course, and most information on them is outside LOTR. One's name means, "far wanderer" and the other is "one who enlightens." That is, they were meant to go to those dark regions in the south, etc., and educate the peoples there as to the plight of middle earth. I do believe Palando means "far wanderer" and Alatar is "bringer of light" or "enlightens" or something. Again, they would bring the forces that Sauran ended up getting instead because these two Istari, wizards, failed. Tolkien suggests that they failed along the lines of Saruman and sought power for themselves. We do not know their M.E. names....

      Alatar= See above.

      The wizards, of course, were Istari and were Maiar, or, "the people of the valar." They each served a Valar. Of course, in UT Christopher reveals Tolkien's suggestion that Gandalf was indeed Eru himself come to reclaim the world personally and not put it again through the tragedy of the earlier ages....

      Tada! No sources sought, but maybe I should have. Just from readings I've done over the years and before a movie made the professor's work legit.

      If I mispelled any of the names, then fuck you :) I got enough friends....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    4. Re:sigh by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered what those other two wizards were doing during the Third Age, but the most I've ever found is that they went south and their stories "are not told." I'd love to know where you got this info, as it does not appear in either LotR or The Silmarillion. I have several of Christopher Tolkien's Histories of Middle Earth; I assume you must have gotten this info from one of them?

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    5. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, dude. It didn't actually HAPPEN. It's FICTION. Make up whatever the fuck you wanted them to do.

    6. Re:sigh by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      Since it is not my story, I would rather hear what Prof. Tolkien wanted them to do, first. Barring that, my imagination is perfectly capable of making up something interesting.

      But thanks for the tip.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
  8. It's Saruman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh well... if you don't know LOTR, what do you know ?

  9. EE by da2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Did anyone else read the title as "Return of The King: Electronic Engineer" Trailer Released

    1. Re:EE by Per+Abich · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but as Return of the King: Enterprise Edition ;-)

    2. Re:EE by djward · · Score: 1

      No. But I am waiting eagerly for CSI: Middle Earth.

    3. Re:EE by aggieben · · Score: 1

      Yes, I read it as Return of the King: Electrical Engineer.

      Aragorn defeats Sauron with long-range sensors, radar, and rail guns. Also, he hacked into Saurons crystal-ball network and defaced the flaming eye thing by making it blue and writing "OWNAD1!!! OMG WTF GRETZ 2 MAH BOYS L3GOLAS GIMLI GANDALF FRODO AND MAH BABY ARW3N!!1! WTF LOL" across the middle.

      --
      Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
    4. Re:EE by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Return of the King: Enterprise Edition ;-)

      Standard version missing basic functionality: check.

      Enterprise edition includes essential missing features: check.

      Enterprise edition costs a lot more: check.

      Enterprise edition comes on more discs: check.

      Sounds about right so far...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:EE by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I read it as "Rot Key."

      Then I realized that it was an acronym, and that I had to guess what "EE" meant.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  10. Only 11h??? by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please, wake me up when a New Super Extended Platinum 24h long Edition will be available.

    1. Re:Only 11h??? by Chas · · Score: 2, Funny
      Please, wake me up when a New Super Extended Platinum 24h long Edition will be available.

      Is that the one that comes with the urethral catheter kit?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:Only 11h??? by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      Coming in December 2007 -- The Lord of the Rings Special Extended Masochistically Over Realtime Edition!(LOTR SE-MORE). While past editions have been limited to theatrical versions, and the meager additions of edited footage, this new, unseen SE-MORE composite edition contains nearly 4 years of footage as chronicled throughout the books! Watch the entire 8 hours of the Battle of the Hornburg! See the full 48 hour attempt to pass by the snow-filled Caradhras! Don't miss out on the weeks of wedding preparations and ceremony for King Elessar and Arwen!

      Includes long forgotten scenes such as:
      -"Denethor has a Difficult Bowel Movement" (backed by a new song by Billy Boyd, "Free as the Wind on Weathertop")
      -"Grima Wormtongue Gets Caught 'Killing Kittens'"
      -"Bilbo and Sam, The Next Morning"
      -"Saruman Iz No Playa-Hata -- whys Bitches Be Frontin Him in Izengard"
      -"Aragorn and Arwen Pick a Caterer"

      New Characters(along with casting) include:
      -Tom Bombadil (Jack Black)
      -Buddy the Elf (Will Ferrell)
      -IronWood the Ent (Ron Jeremy)

      Order now and we'll send you a free Viggo Mortenson autographed replica codpiece!
      Order two copies and also receive two free tickets to the Battle for Middle Earth on Ice, as performed by locked out NHL players! Act now!

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    3. Re:Only 11h??? by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      It's not the length that matters, its how you view it.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    4. Re:Only 11h??? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Is that the one that comes with the urethral catheter kit?

      Since the first three didn't come with the Clockwork Orange style eye-opener kits to make me watch them, I'm pretty sure you can forget any hopes for a catheter. The good news is that the LOTR movies are natural sedatives, so you probably won't even mind. If you're still conscious after 10 minutes that is.

  11. Sauroman??? by TopShelf · · Score: 1, Funny

    Did they tighten things up by just combining the baddies in Orthanc and Barad-dur?

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Sauroman??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup. Sauron decided that Saruman looked more pimp, so they fused into one in Dragon Ball Z style.

    2. Re:Sauroman??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, the fusion only lasts 30 minutes, unless the have the proper accessories.

      I think I'll post this one Anonymously.

    3. Re:Sauroman??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Did they tighten things up by just combining the baddies in Orthanc and Barad-dur?"

      Yes, and now he looks like Godzilla. Because he's a SAURoman, you see. Oh, I laugh merrily far into the night.

  12. Make way by Neo's+Nemesis · · Score: 1

    the trailer sets the mood for more great time with LOTR.
    lots of CGI (as usual), and I'm sure the edition would sell very well. collectors beware and be alert.

  13. BLADOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is why I don't buy movies anymore. They always release something 'bigger and better' than the one before just to make bigger bucks... Pretty pathetic I think!

    1. Re:BLADOW! by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      It's especially a waste because aside from non-movie extras, all of those scenes could have been on the original dvds, with an option to include them. I considered buying Lord of the Rings on DVD, but the shameless money grubbing disgusts me.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:BLADOW! by Tassach · · Score: 1

      That's why I refused to by the RoTK DVD until the extended version came out.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    3. Re:BLADOW! by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      That comment makes no sense. How, exactly, is this money grubbing? Some people enjoy the theatrical release, and as such purchase that. Some, like myself, really want to see what did not get included in the theatrical release, and so, we wait to purchase the extended version. The primary reason there are two versions is this: time. It takes quite some time to finish those cut scenes: fx, music, etc, put together the monster documentaries and extras that are on the ee disks and so on and so forth. Now, if they wanted to, I am sure they could have put those deleted scenes on the original disk with crude fx and no music like you see on every other DVD release. But if you want to see those scenes as part of the integral whole with music and everything, then you have to wait. Meanwhile, for financial reasons and to satisfy fans content with the theatrical version, they put out the original version DVD release. Not exactly money grubbing. Just good business practices.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    4. Re:BLADOW! by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      2 things:

      1. Render time. This stuff isn't like Doom where it renders on the fly. You prioritize to get the stuff you want in time for the theatrical release.

      2. Editing. Adding that stuff back in takes creative effort. The FotR EE actually has footage removed from it in places to make way for different footage.

      The EE tells the same story in a different way. If you've got the patience (and bladder) to watch 11:20 of movie, then this is for you. (I plan on doing it, though maybe over three days.) If not, you'd enjoy the theatrical discs more.

    5. Re:BLADOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the delay for this release has been getting the actors back for commentary. All of the extra scenes existed, it's just the extras that has been the hold up!

    6. Re:BLADOW! by harrkev · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is why I don't buy movies anymore. They always release something 'bigger and better' than the one before just to make bigger bucks... Pretty pathetic I think!

      I feel the same way about science. I thought that Newton was great, and then this Einstein guy came along. Out goes Newton. Then, this whole "quantum" thing came along. Now everybody is talking about "strings" but even if you use dental floss, those strings are still not small enough to make up all matter. For that matter, even thread is too big. If a string is made of atoms, and atoms are made of strings, where does it stop. I have gone back to Newton as the ultimate authority, and I am sticking with Newton until the final theory of everything comes out.

      OK. The above post is meant to be humorous. But there is a point. If you like a movie, then buy it. If you suspect that a better version MIGHT come along, then wait. Most movies are only released once. It seems like only the mega-blockbusters come out in more than one version (Terminator, Star Wars, LOTR, etc.) Have you seen an extended director's cut of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. So buy movies, and have fun!
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    7. Re:BLADOW! by lameland · · Score: 1

      > Have you seen an extended director's cut of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure

      Yeah, and in the extra footage we get to see the basement in the Alamo!

    8. Re:BLADOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you've not bought either version, nor watched them both to see the time and effort that went into the DVD production, you're not qualified to judge anything to do with the matter. Especially when you consider that people have a CHOICE in the matter. If some are happy with the theatrical version, fine. I bought that version for 2 reasons, 1, I HAD to see it over, and over and over and couldn't wait for the EE's to come out.., and 2, it's good when you want to watch a version that doesn't require getting up and changing the disk in the middle of the movie.. (ie bedtime). The EE is then easily worth the extra buy, as you get not only around 1/4 more movie, but much more special features, with the whole thing wrapped up with excellent production quality, for less than $10 more than what a normal DVD costs. If they were money grubbing they'd whack us $40ish per EE... and get it.

    9. Re:BLADOW! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      that is kind of a Lame excuse. just because you can't constrain yourself long enough to wait for the extended edition, which EVERYONE knew was coming, does not mean that having a special edition is a bad thing. some people like to get those SE sets, some do not. why not have both? then there are the crazy fans who buy everything.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:BLADOW! by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      In many cases you're absolutely right. However in the case of LOTR I don't agree.

      First and foremost because I, at least, knew there would be an extended edition of all the movies coming out a bit after the regular DVD. I never ran out and bought the regular and then went "oh shit, now I have to buy another, extended copy!" Even if I had fallen for that the first time, it certainly wouldn't have gotten me with the second two videos.

      But also because the LOTR movies are so incredibly long. They're about what, nine hours long total--and I'm talking regular releases? I don't see anything wrong with providing those already long but shorter releases--cheaper--to the people who aren't interested in an extra 45 minutes per movie in background information. For those who love the movies and want the extra, or who loved the books and feel the things that got cut out were absolute blasphemy to begin with, wait a few months, pay an extra $10 and get the bigger version.

      What's the problem, really? I mean even with other series', I understand being somewhat upset buying the regular version and then finding out a directors cut or something will be released later--but this stops you from buying movies why exactly? You must have liked the movie if you bought it in the first place. I don't see why not getting EXTRA footage ruins a good movie for you.

    11. Re:BLADOW! by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 1

      So buy movies, and have fun!

      Own stock in New Line, eh? ;-)

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
    12. Re:BLADOW! by {LF}Ceres · · Score: 1

      You do know that they actually re-shot and re-scored some footage especially for the EEs (after the fact) right?

      Those things take time and money and those are the reasons why they shouldn't be included with the original. If the original cost $35 US and that was the only version you could get, I'm sure you would be bitching about the "shameless money grubbing" then as well.

      Ceres

    13. Re:BLADOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's the fact that I am paying twice for the non-extended parts.

      And as an additional gripe, the EE only contains the EE version. Period.

      Given a normal evening, I need to start watching four hours before I go to bed. Any later, and I cannot watch the whole movie. Experience tells me that if I manage to watch half, it'll be three weeks before I get around to the second half. Not good.

      I cannot choose to watch the shorter version which would not even have taken up extra space thanks to the technical possibilities of DVDs.

      Will I pay extra for the short version just for this reason? No way.

    14. Re:BLADOW! by berj · · Score: 1

      Have people on Slashdot never heard of *renting* a movie? You don't *have* to buy anything. We've all known well in advance that the EE was coming -- the producers have never been shy about that. The way I see it, there are at least four choices: 1) don't buy either.. rent 'em both 2) buy the theatrical version, rent the EE 3) rent the theatrical version, wait and buy the EE 4) buy both. There isn't some magical force that's causing your wallet to pop out and buy these things. Why is this so hard for people to deal with?

  14. Re:I was very disappointed to find out... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1, Funny

    You mean the king of rotk and roll ?

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  15. 11 hours 20 minutes ... by YetAnotherName · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yikes ... that's a lot of pizza.

    1. Re:11 hours 20 minutes ... by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

      It's even more cheetos and mountain dew!

  16. what I want to know by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is noew line and the theatres not tapping the opportunity to make gobs of cash?

    special event all 3 extended films in the theatre would sell out for 2 weeks solid. It's guarenteeing that every seat in that theatre will buy 3 movie tickets, they will eat gobs of popcorn, and the delay between film changes will be welcomed for bathroom and smoke breaks.

    it is a fricking gold mine waiting to be tapped, hell, starwars fanatics pale in comparison to LOTR fanatics... they couldn't sell out the trilogy running back to back here but the single night they ran the LOTR movies they oversold it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:what I want to know by PhuCknuT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would you buy a ticket if it cost twice what they do now? Showing a 4 hour movie for the same price as a 1.5 hour movie means you can only show it like 1/3 as many times in a day, and therefore not make much money on it. That's the reason there are 'theatrical' and 'extended' editions of LOTR in the first place. It wasn't to make twice as much selling DVDs, it was because theaters don't like long ass movies.

    2. Re:what I want to know by TheToon · · Score: 1

      We've had an event like that already, but with the standard editions. Not the extended versions.

      And yes, they sold out :) Was like 20-30 minutes breaks between each movie and the whole thing lasted for 12 hours or about that. AFAIK, the Oslo, Norway cinema was the first one that had an event like that. They tried to get the extended versions, but the movie company said no.

      --
      //TheToon
    3. Re:what I want to know by Snowbeam · · Score: 1

      It's the raw smell that they'd have to deal with afterwards that worries them. That stench would keep business away for months afterwards ;)

      --
      I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
    4. Re:what I want to know by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

      The Trilogy Tuesday showings in the US last year had the EE version for the first two films, followed by the theatrical release of RotK, and (with breaks, and not counting waiting in line for seating order) you were in the theater for 13 hours. The only theater in our area doing it sold all the seats out in less than 10 minutes.

      It was, without a doubt, the most satisfying movie-going event of my entire life, and if they'd do it again I'd shell out the cash again in a heartbeat.

      --
      The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    5. Re:what I want to know by addie · · Score: 1

      Because in that space of time they can show 5 shorter movies. Charge $13 for each of those and they're looking at $75. Not too many LOTR fans are going to spend that much cash for a marathon, or at least not enough of them to justify using an entire theatre.

      I agree that it would be great to be able to see the full extended set on a large screen, but I don't necessarily agree that it's in the theatre's best interests.

    6. Re:what I want to know by tuanjim_2001 · · Score: 1
      If they really want to bring in the money sell the tickets for all three extended editions, with an intermession during them as well as between them. That is something like 13 hours. Have two meals during them, one light and one large and also if local laws allow it sell beer. You could charge $50 a ticket and still pack them in for at least a week probably 2 or 3.

      --
      "If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
    7. Re:what I want to know by bebec · · Score: 1

      Yeah, for $75 it makes sense to buy all three extended version DVDs, call up a friend with an LCD projector, and make a day of it in his/her living room. Invite friends, order pizza, drink beer, the works. I think it would be much better to do the marathon sitting in couches and beanbag chairs than being cramped into movie theatre seats.

    8. Re:what I want to know by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      > tapping the opportunity to make gobs of cash?

      Scott Adams reffered to his earnings for books to be 'gobs of cash' and if you feel lucky [google] for his email (scottadams@aol.com) the email discourse listed reffers to this fact.

      Are you Scott Adams disguised?

      > will eat gobs of popcorn

      Gob in the UK means phlegmy saliva.

      Yum.

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    9. Re:what I want to know by abb3w · · Score: 1
      Would you buy a ticket if it cost twice what they do now?

      For most things, no. For this, maybe. The market would be limited; probably a single weekend run, three weekends max. However, tickets for the "Trillogy Tuesday" were higher than average-- listed at $50 (IIR), and scalped on EBay anywhere from $100 up to $800 (some popular theatre in LA).

      Also remember, theatres don't get much of the ticket cover; 15% maybe, if their distribution agent is a seriously hot negotiator; 5-10% more often. They'd probably be up for it if long movies had intermissions again; while the logistics of letting people in and out of the theatre are tricky, that gives moviegoers time to buy more snacks. Popcorn is where the real money is-- legal, addictive, cheap and easy to make, and sells at a 1000% markup-- most of which is on the paper tub.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    10. Re:what I want to know by analog_line · · Score: 1

      Would you buy a ticket if it cost twice what they do now?

      If it was a special 12 hour showing of all three extended editions, I'd easily pay 6 times what I normally pay to see a movie.

    11. Re:what I want to know by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      So, how many theatres have packed showings at every one of their screens (most are multi-plexes these days) right now? Toss out one of the lower attended movies (theatre less than half-full) and toss in the LOTR trilogy. A packed house for the trilogy will pay more than a shorter movie with less than half the seats sold.

    12. Re:what I want to know by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      Charge $13 for each of those and they're looking at $75.
      Where the heck do you live that it costs $13 a movie? At a more typical $10 per movie, that's only $50, which is about what the original-trilogy movie showings cost. The theater will probably even do a little better than average on food sales for those people.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    13. Re:what I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the U.S., we call that a loogey.

    14. Re:what I want to know by addie · · Score: 1

      In Ottawa, Canada. All the major theatres charge $13 for a movie, which I suppose works out to somewhere around $10 US.

      BTW, my math of course was wrong, and 5 x 13 is $65. Ooops.

    15. Re:what I want to know by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      they were charging 3.5X the price and still had it oversold and it was for the standard theatre editions back to back.

      so yes, lots and lots of people would... they happily shelled out 30 bucks for each ticket to that showing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:what I want to know by malice78 · · Score: 1

      Either way you slice it, it still boils down to the ever elusive "Them" making more money.

    17. Re:what I want to know by microTodd · · Score: 1

      Actually, when New Line did "Trilogy Tuesday" it was a very successful event. I wish that more companies did that --- Star Wars, Matrix, wait a second...never mind.

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    18. Re:what I want to know by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      it was because theaters don't like long ass movies

      Asses don't like long movies in the theatre either. :)

    19. Re:what I want to know by jdbo · · Score: 1

      This is generally true, but in this particular case New Line DID hold "Trilogy" screenings (in a limited number of theaters) last year upon the release of ROTK (FOTR EE , TTT RR, followed by the theatrical ROTK).

      This apparently was profitable for the theaters, even when preceded by a few weeks(or weekends?) of showings of the FOTR and TTT EEs, to build up anticipation. I'm guessing that the studios subsidized the screenings as a publicity cost.

      I'm assuming that the studios don't think that the publicity payoff will be worth the costs this time around, esp. as this is a special edition of a movie that the hard-core fans have already seen 75% of.

      It's too bad; I gathered a big group to attend last year's Trilogy screening and had a heck of a time (the tolkien community who turned out were great, and the theater-staff were excellent).

      Still, I can understand the studio's hesistation to go all-out promoting a DVD release in the same way that they would a film release.

  17. Words don't come easy... by d95adam · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...between Gandalf and Sauroman

    Dubya, is that you posting here on Slashdot? :)

    1. Re:Words don't come easy... by RPoet · · Score: 1, Funny

      He's posting on all the slashdots.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:Words don't come easy... by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1

      I thought it a pretty clever construction - Sauron and Saruman in one.

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    3. Re:Words don't come easy... by Scrab · · Score: 1

      Nah, he didn't call Saruman "Osama bin Sauroman"

      --
      RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
  18. Long? Uncut? by Piranhaa · · Score: 0

    Seems a little too long and uncut for my liking

    1. Re:Long? Uncut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uncut seems like they're just splicing in every experimental piece of film they shot whether or not it actually adds to the film. I prefer the wide-screen director's cut of a movie for my DVD collection. The director's cut will have all the 'good stuff' but nothing that really *was* better left out.

    2. Re:Long? Uncut? by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

      Now... where have I heard that before???

    3. Re:Long? Uncut? by rishistar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Seems a little too long and uncut for my liking

      Its what my Jewish girlfriend keeps telling me...

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    4. Re:Long? Uncut? by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you say "girlfriend"? You must be an alien, after all this is Slashdot!

    5. Re:Long? Uncut? by NaveWeiss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Keep your foreskin! Losing your foreskin will cause you to lose the smegma, which is good for your girlfriend. But it'll also cause you to lose a lot of stimuli and will make you numb...

      --
      Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
      Nave H. Weiss
  19. Extended Versions by KrancHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To preempt the whining that accompanied every article about previous Lord of the Rings extended version DVD releases: I know some complain that studios release special, super-duper extended versions in a scheme to make more money from people willing to buy multiple versions of a movie. I really don't think that this is the case for the extended version of Return of the King. Its not as if they didn't tell us a extended version was on its way. The wait between the DVD release of the theatrical version an this release is a bit annoying, but I believe it is worth holding off purchasing for. And that's the key phrase... nobody makes you buy every single version of a movie that comes out. if you want the regular version, buy that. If not, wait for the extended movie.

    --
    Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    1. Re:Extended Versions by rotor · · Score: 1

      While the wait between theatrical and extended is annoying, it's also necessary. I don't know the particulars of this one, but I know on the first two there were new shots done, much editing, and the entire score was reworked so it would be continuous over the new edits. This all takes time.

      --
      Addlepated - punk & metal
    2. Re:Extended Versions by supertsaar · · Score: 1

      I saw ROTK 2 disc DVD on sale for 5 in my local supermarket.
      Still did not buy it because I want the super-duper extended version for Christmas :)
      The point being that if you wait long enough the price of 'just the movie' will drop so much that that in itself is worth waiting for also.

      --
      The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
    3. Re:Extended Versions by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      This all takes time.

      Right. Exactly. I made that same point in a reply further down to the inevitable "money grubbers won't get my money" post. And I know cynicism is the "in" thing round about these parts (I don't exactly trust corporate motives myself), but sheesh.. the griping gets old.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    4. Re:Extended Versions by Gudlyf · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Although, I believe I read an interview with Peter Jackson somewhere where he says that even these extended releases don't have everything he'd like in them, and that when they release the full extended edition boxed set, he suspects there will be even more footage.

      If that is true, then people will be really pissed off.

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    5. Re:Extended Versions by stanmann · · Score: 1

      And in order to have the complete extras, you must buy both sets.. EE and theatrical.You do want all the special features..RIGHT?

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    6. Re:Extended Versions by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I won't. Anything that means more LOTR is okay with me.

      As long as they're up front about it, I'll buy it again. I don't mind spending the money, because you see, I really enjoy the movies. No one is forcing me to buy the newer versions -- but they're there, if I want to see more material.

      Jackson and New Line have been very honest with their buying audience, Unlike, say, another filmmaker who shall not be named, but who keeps royally screwing up his own films so that people can't buy the version they want.

    7. Re:Extended Versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Included with the first 2 extended movies there was an interview somewhere (with Elijah Wood) which explicitly made reference to a 3rd (even longer) release of the movie.

    8. Re:Extended Versions by Eil · · Score: 1


      I really don't think that this is the case for the extended version of Return of the King. Its not as if they didn't tell us a extended version was on its way.

      In one of the special features on the FOTR extended DVD set, there's a scene where Peter Jackson is staking out the location where hobbiton was eventually built. He has his little handheld camcorder and you hear him say something like, "Yup, this is going into the DVD." This leads me to believe that Peter Jackson knew right from the very beginning that he wanted the home version of the movie to contain lots of extra stuff that the theatrical version didn't. One could even speculate that he knew full well all along that the extended DVD editions would comprise the "real" movie.

    9. Re:Extended Versions by Gudlyf · · Score: 1
      You won't be pissed off that you bought all of the extended releases, thinking you got all of the footage that could possibly be released, only to learn later that, "oops, we forgot to tell you -- there's more footage, and you need to by the $200+ full boxed set to see it!"

      Everyone who thinks they have the complete set of DVDs already (except you it seems): "Shit."

      Where are they being up front about that? Like I said, I read/heard that Peter Jackson interview somewhere and I can't remember where, so how the hell is being obscure the same as being up front?

      Now, if they release the extra footage alone on a seperate DVD, then I'd bite for sure.

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    10. Re:Extended Versions by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      I think most of the excessiveness in Hollywood's production of uncut/special dvd releases is in response to the success that the LOTR franchise has had with the model. I would not fault LOTR, but rather the unimaginative, bandwagoning ad-wizards that think they can get more money from we-the-consumers by selling edited versions and non-edited versions.

      BTW, aren't the words "Edited" and "Mastered" usually used interchangeably in this profession?

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    11. Re:Extended Versions by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Well, if what you say is true and not just anti-Jackson rumor-mongering, I will have heard about it years before the fact, wouldn't I? Plenty of time to watch my existing editions to my satisfaction.

      And if it's not true, this whole discussion is meaningless. So either way, I'm not too worried about it.

      And I'm not so naive as to believe that the EEs contain all the footage that could possibly be released. Peter Jackson has said repeatedly, in interviews and commentaries on both the FOTR and TTT DVDs, that he left out even more material that he'd like to put in later. So this comes as no shock to me.

      Besides, most filmmakers have tons of footage, a lot of which just gets tossed or destroyed. I think with the advent of "director's cut" DVDs, we're going to see a lot more of that, previously useless, footage brought out to pad the entertainment values of DVD releases.

      The other point being, I'm a big LotR fan, and if there's more of it to be had, that's OK with me. If and when this mythical box set comes out, I'll look at it, see if the added features make it worth buying, and if so, I'll buy it. If not, not. But I don't look at it from the perspective of being a completist. In this day and age that's just absurd.

    12. Re:Extended Versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      That's not true (for the time being). There will be a boxed set with the EE versions of the movies, it's going to be released in December, but the movies themselves are identical to the individually sold EE versions.

      Of course, Peter Jackson might revisit the subject in a few years (after he has done The Hobbit), but for now, you're perfectly safe buying RotK EE.

  20. yess, yess, the precious if near :) by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    According to the place where I ordered my LOTR3 EE box set (preordered so many months ago, I can't even recall the exact date :) ), they'll ship it on dec10, so I'm counting the days already. A marathon with my friends has already been discussed after LOTR2 :) so I'm looking forward to it also :) Will be hell of a day, 12+ hours of LOTR :) Kewlest ever :)

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:yess, yess, the precious if near :) by clontzman · · Score: 1

      I have a dumb question, only mildly offtopic: why would you preorder something that you'll have no trouble finding in stores? I don't think I've ever preordered anything (unless the deal was too good to pass up) because usually the incentives to buy in-store on opening week are better than what you'd have been offered six months in advance.

      Is it just fanboy enthusiasm (which is a completely legitimate reason), or is there some other reason that I'm missing?

      [I'm really not asking to be an ass -- I'm genuinely curious.]

    2. Re:yess, yess, the precious if near :) by Quarters · · Score: 1
      they'll ship it on dec10, so I'm counting the days already.

      The answer is 10. Buy a calendar, it'll make your life easier.

    3. Re:yess, yess, the precious if near :) by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      I don't think I've ever preordered anything (unless the deal was too good to pass up) because usually the incentives to buy in-store on opening week are better than what you'd have been offered six months in advance.
      Some places often sell things cheaper during the preorder period. Although that's kind of hit and miss, since occasionally they will put something out for a super-low price on the opening week. (Given that the other extended editions were going for $25-$30 when I bought them, though, $22 for RotK sounded like a pretty decent deal.)

      The other reason is that it's easier to preorder and forget about it than to rush to the store on release day. I probably won't even remember that it's out between the time it's released and the time it shows up at my door.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:yess, yess, the precious if near :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they'll ship it on dec10

      Where did you get this, praytell?

  21. Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    We get to see some snippets of the final confrontation between Gandalf and Sauroman, as well as some other intriguing scenes that will add a lot of depth to the final movie.

    WTF? Saruman was killed by Wormtongue during the Scouring of the Shire.

    1. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but, during the confrontation, Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, thus removing almost all of Saruman's power (except his voice). But who knows what Jackson will dream up, maybe the elves will have to show up again to save Gandalf.

    2. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by szo · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the scene when Gandalf sends him away ("Saruman, your staff has broken")

      Szo

      --
      Red Leader Standing By!
    3. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by sgant · · Score: 1

      No scouring of the shire was ever filmed. It doesn't happen.

      For one, no way in HELL would it have worked in a filmed version...even the extended version as the pacing would be all off. I mean, a HUGE battle at Minas Tirith...then another battle at the Black Gate...then the crowning, the journey home with all the winding down and BAM another hour or so with the telling of the Scouring that totally has nothing to do really with the Ring, but just Sauroman being a dick. There is only so much conflict a movie can have in it before it just makes you numb and quite frankly, bored. The novel is different of course because the pacing is totally different and there it CAN work.

      And who's to say that Wormtongue doesn't in fact kill Sauroman in this extended version?

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    4. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Here you are, telling people what can and cannot work in a movie, and you still can't spell the villain's name correctly. Criminy.

    5. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Ubergrendle · · Score: 3, Informative

      The scouring of the shrie is NOT in the EE due to dramatic pacing for the big screen (according to Jackson) ~and~ considerations regarding length.

      SPOILER

      Until I see the movie I can't say for sure, but likely Wormtongue will still be the one to kill off Saurman. And instead of the Hobbit milita shooting down Wormtongue, it will probably be numerous unnamed Rohan horseriders(sp).

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    6. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by sgant · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey, I blame Tolkien. Would it have killed him to think up better names for the two main bad guys in the books? I mean, really...

      Sauronuman or Sarum....I can picture the Tolkien's book editor now saying "hey Tolk...you're killing us with the names here babe...change the Wizard guy in the tower's name to Zenon or something, ok my man?"

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    7. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "There is only so much conflict a movie can have in it before it just makes you numb and quite frankly, bored."

      There's also only so much knowledge you can hammer into a yank's head regarding the distopian society produced by the industrialisation impinging on the English Countryside and the death of 'Merrie England', which is essentially what the scouring of the shire is about. Your comment is entirely indicative that any Hollywood historical adaptations should come with a mandatory quantity of salt, or possibly Ritalin.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    8. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If you read that again, you'll see it says "final confrontation between Gandalf and Sauroman [sic]", meaning the final confrontation between those two, not necessarily between either of those two and anyone/anything else, meaning someone doesn't have to die.

    9. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by sgant · · Score: 1

      Um...ok.

      Lighten up. A movie is suppose to be entertainment. Something that seems lost on you. This isn't an "historical adaptation" either, no matter what your poly-sci prof is spouting. Read up on Tolkien a little also and you'll know that everything you just rattled off was DENIED by Tolkien. He wasn't writing anything about that. But if you see these things in his writings, then so be it. Some people saw the Vietnam War or WW1 or WW2 or ______(insert favorite war here) in LotR. He denied all of them.

      But you sound like the time of chap that knows everything, so what could I possibly tell you that you would belive?

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    10. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      No scouring of the shire was ever filmed. It doesn't happen.

      Really? I had heard the reson the 'shire' wasn't still down in NZ to visit, was that they had to burn it down in the souring of the shire scene. Otherwise, wouldn't the shire be a huge tourist attraction there?

    11. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      Oops, I guess it is still there. I had heard it was gone....

      http://www.freep.com/features/travel/hobbit23_2003 0323.htm

    12. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Whispers_in_the_dark · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled "dystopian"

    14. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Kosi · · Score: 1

      The scouring of the shrie is NOT in the EE

      This can't be true! It's the whole end of the story and contains a lot of the message that Tolkien has put into LOTR.

      It was a big, big flaw that it was left out in the cinema version, but I can't imagine P. Jackson being such a complete idiot that he wholly omits such an important part of the story. OTOH, he was idiot enough to inflate the Aragorn-Arwen lovestory so annoyingly, so who knows?

      And about the considerations of length: If I have enough movie-time that I can even waste it with a big bloat of the lovestory, there must be enough time to let the movie have the correct ending.

    15. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      Let's not be pedantic. I may not know how to spell an ice skater's name, or the names of the tricks she pulls, but I can tell you when she screws up.

    16. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by SECProto · · Score: 0

      As far as I remember, which may be wrong, the scouring of the shire took longer in the book than the battle out on those plains down by Minas Tirith. but I'm just going by memory. It would've worked in the film version and not added a million hours if they made the other battle shorter.

    17. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      The scouring of the shrie is NOT in the EE due to dramatic pacing for the big screen (according to Jackson) ~and~ considerations regarding length.

      Huh? EE on big screen? You must be talking about the version for the theaters, not EE.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    18. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by djp928 · · Score: 1

      Believe it. The Scouring of the Shire scenes weren't even shot, so there's no way they're in the EE.

      -- Dave

    19. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by mwheeler01 · · Score: 1

      Tolkein quite thouhrougly denies any allegory in his works, but thanks for trying. He said he was telling a story for the sake of telling a story. In fact he hates allegory. That said, he said that life experience is bound to influence anybodies work. His experiences in World War I probably influenced his writing of the Dead Marshes but he was not trying to make any sort of symbolism. So before you go spouting out big words and dissing people who can only take so much conflict you may wish to check your facts... or perhaps your ritalin ran out before you could do that.

      That said, I happen to like the scouring of the Shire because it shows that the hobbits aren't the pansies the movies make them out to be.

      --
      Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
    20. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by dancingmad · · Score: 1

      The footage from the Saruman/Ganfalf fight was in the Gameboy Advance ROTK game. Wormtongue defintely kills Saruman at Orthanc.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    21. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      A movie is suppose to be entertainment.

      Maybe *this* movie is, but not all movies are.

      There was a time when books and movies were made to let people think about what is happening in their society. For example Metropolis, 1984 and Fahrenheit911.

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    22. Re:Gandalf -v- Saruman??? by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      No, but the stuff in the EEs wasn't specially filmed for the EEs, it's stuff that was filmed for the theatrical version but got cut. So because the Scouring was dropped from the script for length and pacing reasons early on (ie well before filming), there was never any chance of EE footage of it. Sadly.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  22. Sharkey and the Shire? by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know if the EE covers all the stuff with "Mr Sharkey" (have I remembered correctly?) and the Shire? Did they even film that stuff?

    1. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by yack0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All stories have said that "The Scouring of the Shire" has not been included in the movie, at all.

      However, I'm hoping an early christmas present will be that Mr. Jackson left the vision of that event in the Mirror of Galadriel scene for a reason.

      I can hope, but won't hope too much.

      --
      -- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
    2. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      No, and no.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Informative
      "Does anyone know if the EE covers all the stuff with "Mr Sharkey" (have I remembered correctly?) and the Shire? Did they even film that stuff?"

      They did not film any of the Scouring of the Shire, so no, you won't find that in the EE. I'm not saying I agree with their decision, as I found that chapter in the book to be the perfect way to show the changes in the Shire during their absence, and how evil crept in even there. But I am sympathetic to the idea that movies are not the same thing as books, and I at least understand their motive in not creating another conflict after the big resolution earlier. I know I personally got tired of all those "7 endings" wisecracks. I can only imagine the complaints from people if the Scouring of the Shire were in the movie after what they thought was the ending.

      But for all you purists out there, I can tell you one thing with certainty: That chapter is right where it always was, in the book.

    4. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by rotor · · Score: 0

      No. They didn't (as has been discussed extensively on Slashdot, but I'm to lazy to look up references).

      --
      Addlepated - punk & metal
    5. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by gowen · · Score: 1
      They did not film any of the Scouring of The Shire
      ... except for the tiny bit Frodo sees in the Mirror of Galadriel.

      A pedant.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Well they did show the Shire overrun and burning when he saw the future in the fountain.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    7. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1

      Granted, they did show that, but I know Jackson said they never filmed the Scouring of the Shire. Perhaps the fountain scene showed bits of the burning of Rohan adapted to make it look like the Shire?

    8. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by tuffy · · Score: 1
      Granted, they did show that, but I know Jackson said they never filmed the Scouring of the Shire. Perhaps the fountain scene showed bits of the burning of Rohan adapted to make it look like the Shire?

      It's likely they filmed a little bit of burning Shire for the fountain scene, but that's it. The rest of the chapter never made it to film at all and will never make it into the theatrical LotR any more than Bombadil will. It's just a necessary compromise when adapting a book for a film.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    9. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by dafz1 · · Score: 1

      Elrond: That future is almost gone.

      Elrond: Nothing is certain.

      Numerous times, even the elven foresight(the above lines taken from the RoTK debate between Arwen and Elrond) can't be guaranteed(ex. "The quest will claim his [Frodo's] life."). It was more of a "kick in the pants" from Galadriel to inspire Frodo to continue his journey. If he saw the Shire was in grave danger, he would go to Mt. Doom. If I remember correctly, the Wraiths were shown tearing up the Shire, not Sharkey's men.

    10. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      I agree. I only wish that they'd ended the movie much earlier, in that case; everything after the final reunion of the surviving main characters is pretty pointless without the Scouring.

    11. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think I'll write a version of Lord of the Rings told entirely from the point-of-view of Tom Bombadil:

      The Fellowship of the Ring: Bombadil Style -- Tom wanders around the forest singing, and briefly visits with some hobbits carrying a trinket of little interest.

      The Two Towers: Neither of Which Bombadil Lives In -- Goldberry makes tasty treats while Tom cleans his boots.

      The Return of the King: Someone Bombadil Thinks he Knows -- Tom and Old Man Willow discuss philosophy and sing songs. Some strange doings down south make the sky turn dark, but then it's all light again, and that calls for some drink! The end.

    12. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by MixmastaKooz · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot:

      The Return of the King: Someone Bombadil Thinks he Knows -- Tom and Old Man Willow discuss philosophy and sing songs. Some strange doings down south make the sky turn dark, but then it's all light again, and that calls for some drink! And then I had a long chat with that wizard guy who changed his color scheme from grey to white. He must have went to that Versace shop in Moria. The end.

    13. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      even the elven foresight...can't be guaranteed(ex. "The quest will claim his [Frodo's] life.").

      I've always seen it the other way: the quest did claim Frodo's life. He was never the same afterward; the Ring had worked its way into his mind in such a way that he could never be content and the Morgul blade left a wound that would never fully heal. These are the exact reasons why Frodo was allowed to take the White Ship into the West and live out the remainder of his days in Valinor.

      He lost his life; he just did not die.

    14. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by Cerv · · Score: 1

      Gandalf went to visit Tom towards the end of RotK (the book).

      --
      sig
    15. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Bravo!

      I will probably be flamed into oblivion for saying this but I've never understood why some fans get so wound up over Tom Bombadil. I am currently more than half way through the 12-volume History of Middle-Earth (HOME) (I've completed volumes 1-4, 6, 7 and am more than half-way through volume 5. Volumes 6-8 deal with Lord of the Rings) and Bombadil did not factor into any of Tolkien's pre-LOTR Middle-Earth writings. Yes, there were a few poems and such that were written but these were outside the mythology and early history of Middle-Earth.

      Tom Bombadil always struck me as little-more than a deus ex machina and I've never particularly cared for him.

      From what I have read, Tolkien struggled to find a story to write (he was under pressure from his publisher to produce a Hobbit sequel) and did not have a strong grasp of what the tale would be until Elrond's Council (which, I believe, explains why the story got very focused after that point). The material prior to the Council, in my opinion, reflects this struggle to find a story. Do not mistake me, the Old Forest and the Barrow-Wights were cool [book] scenes that did turn out to serve a purpose later but, as Jackson has demonstrated, they could easily be written out (e.g. replace Barrow-Wight (Numenorean/Dunedain?) blades with Noldoli daggers given by Galadriel, remove Old Forest and explain that trees could be more than just silent stalks of wood in Fangorn, etc.)

      If you are an aspiring fantasy author, like critical analysis or constructed languages or if you would simply enjoy reading about the evolution of Middle-Earth, I would highly recommend the HOME books. They are not for the non-Middle-Earth geek; I've tried getting other people to read them and so far I've failed - I think you really have to have an interest in Middle-Earth (as a literary creation) in order to tolerate reading and re-reading the same stories over and over as they are emended from draft to draft. I've read and re-read versions of the Silmarillion (the Quenta, the Silmarillion, the Quenta-Silmarillion, *must...keep...sanity*) so many times with so many minor changes that it is difficult, at times, to keep the canon straight from the evolving story.

    16. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by Futaba-chan · · Score: 1

      You left out the part about Gandalf dropping by for a chat at the end of RotK:SBTHK....

    17. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by DG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is, however, a side-effect of this whole "finding the story" process that you have (accurately) described.

      The tone of the book is very much "Hobbit" like in the first chapters, but as we wend our way towards Rivendell, the tone grows darker and more "adult".

      This winds up mirroring a similar journey for the hobbits, who start off as childlike and neive (like the tone) but get much more worldly as they get exposed to the real world.

      Bombadil works in the book, because he shows up near the start when the hobbits are still in juvenile fairy-tale mode. If he were a denizen of Ithlien, he would seem jarring and out of place.

      And I agree that it made perfect sense to cut him from the movie.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    18. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      The tone of the book is very much "Hobbit" like in the first chapters, but as we wend our way towards Rivendell, the tone grows darker and more "adult".

      This winds up mirroring a similar journey for the hobbits, who start off as childlike and neive (like the tone) but get much more worldly as they get exposed to the real world.

      Bombadil works in the book, because he shows up near the start when the hobbits are still in juvenile fairy-tale mode.

      While I still don't care for the Bombadil side-story, if I had mod-points I would have to mark you up 1. You insight has merit.

      After some consideration, I think you've hit upon the precise reason why I don't care for Bombadil's presence in LOTR.

      The dual-tones are likely side-effects resulting from Tolkien's struggle to write a Hobbit sequel that did not revolve around Bilbo (who "lived happily ever after, to the end of his days.").

    19. Re:Sharkey and the Shire? by MrHops · · Score: 1

      As I recall, Gandalf only said that he was going to talk to Tom; I guess it could be argued that since it was Gandalf saying that, then it probably happened. (This is from memory, but since I have been a Tolkien geek for about 33 years, it should be close...)

  23. 11 hours, 20 minutes?? by NSash · · Score: 1

    Holy crap, I could probably re-read the trilogy in less time than that!

  24. 50 Minutes of added footage.... by Chineseyes · · Score: 0

    and millions of dollars milked out of a few poor bastards pockets. This was a decent film and I don't mean to troll at all but I am kind of sick of the "Extreme Ending Edition" DVDs they put out now. I think I'll save my dollars for the super enhanced HD-DVD version to come out in 5 years which will probably come out about the same time that the super enhanced star wars HD-DVD with 2 hours of bonus footage of Lucas taking a shit on his fans and whiping his ass with the money they are giving him to do it.

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    1. Re:50 Minutes of added footage.... by Derkec · · Score: 1

      I pay my 15 bucks at theatres for my wife and I to go see the short version. I then pay some more to buy the long version for keeps. If they didn't make the long version, I'd be buying the short one. I don't spend much more to get a version I'll like better and for something to compliment some of my favorite books, it's just not a big deal.

      Just because someone is making money does not mean that they are evil.

  25. Re: Box Set by qubezz · · Score: 1

    Lord Of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy [12 Discs] - 12/14/2004. Do you think they would wait until next christmas??

  26. Need a torrent link please! by rsletten · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bah, why bother try downloading without a torrent. Anyone got a torrent link?

  27. With 20 extra minutes of carrying Frodo by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    See them carry Frodo in ways you didn't see in the theater.

    1. Re:With 20 extra minutes of carrying Frodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to see the extra-long slow-motion pillow fight between the hobbits at Minas Tirith after the world is saved.

  28. Not the first and won't be the last to say this... by Malfourmed · · Score: 4, Funny

    LOTR: ROTK Extended Edition: Now with even more endings!

  29. Re:Extended Edition Screening by BDaniels · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um. No. That was the theater showings last year before the theatrical release of RotK. (Hint: check the expiration date on the poster offer).

  30. Water scenes by catalupus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope the extra 50 minutes comes BEFORE the part where Mr Jackson decided to have 3 false endings with lots of running water going on. Evil, Evil, Evil....

    1. Re:Water scenes by Aero · · Score: 1

      James Cameron still holds the record for Most Evil Ending Ever for Titanic. 3+ hours of movie, and the whole second half was full of rushing water!

      --
      We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.
    2. Re:Water scenes by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the actual ending of Titanic wasn't exactly a surprise, I hope.

    3. Re:Water scenes by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Yeah but the actual ending of Titanic wasn't exactly a surprise, I hope.

      No, it wasn't. Some idiot went and told me what happens on the way into the film and spoiled it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Water scenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may think you're joking, but I remember seeing the trailer for Titanic a few months before it came out. After the trailer finished, some dopey lady next to me said "I can't believe they gave away the ending!"

      IDIOT! These are the same people who love every single big budget Hollywood crapfest and keep the industry going in that direction, rather than focusing on the rare good flick that bombs financially. LoTR was an exception, but mainly because of Jackson and his team, + great source material.

  31. Shipping for Minas Tirith is exorbitant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus "some assembly required" would be putting it mildly. Hopefully you selected "Let us assemble it for you" to get a qualified crew of dwarves to help you.

  32. 11 hours and 20 minutes by wiredog · · Score: 2, Funny

    My ass gets numb just thinking about that. Might be good for a NYC to Tokyo flight, however.

  33. Jackson has totally changed everything again! by sgant · · Score: 5, Funny

    Added scene showing Sauron (digitally placed in over an actor), talking to Denethor inside the olephant hanger.

    Changed the title to "Revenge of the King"

    Totally changes the concept of The Ring. In this changed version they explain that everyone has Rings inside of them, yet Frodo is a special case because he has extra Rings inside making him the most powerful Ring Bearer ever.

    Now Sauroman shoots first!

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by sgant · · Score: 1

      And I still can't spell Saruman...damn "u" jumping around on me...DAMN "U"!

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    2. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What I particularly liked was the extra three hours of endings. Viewers of the original may remember that the film only ended about eighted times, over the space of half an hour. Apparently Peter Jackson wanted to put in more, to remain faithful to the book, but the studios balked at the idea. The extended edition has the film end, and then inexplicitly continue, another 78 times.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by jaredbpd · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't forget, Bilbo has no actual father, he was formed by the midiringians on his mother's side...

      Oh, I just don't have the energy to make fun of George Lucas.

    4. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor oliphant, neither!

    5. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by SkyWalk423 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's spelled "oliphaunt."

    6. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by f0rt0r · · Score: 2, Funny

      In addition, all weapons have been replaced with walkie-talkies ( pacify anti-war activists ), horses are replaced with broomsticks ( pacify animal-rights activists ),and hobbits are now the same height as everyone else ( pacify midget-rights activists ).

      Finally, the title has been changed to "Return of the Ring",with the word "King" replaced by "popularly elected representative of the people" thoughout the movies dialogues. This is to pacify groups that felt the movie threatened democracy by glorifying the monarchy type of government.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    7. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by jcoleman · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the part where Sauron tells Frodo that he has survived all of Frodo's predecessors and will surely survive him.

    8. Re:Jackson has totally changed everything again! by Brian_Confucius · · Score: 1

      Now Sauroman shoots first!

      Actually, the trailer showed Saruman tossing a fireball down at Gandalf. That entire scene, compared to the book, will be as bad as the debacle with Greedo and George Lucas.

  34. Re:Extended Edition Screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does it say "Return of the King" on that page?

    (That's from last year, fool)

  35. question by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    Very well, good point. Do the extended editions have menu options to watch the original theatrical release ?

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    1. Re:question by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      Do the extended editions have menu options to watch the original theatrical release ?

      And that is a good point too. No, they don't, as you know. My only rebuttal I guess is that Jackson and co. thought the demand would be dichotomous, that is, either a fan would want the theatrical version or the extended version, not both. Like I mentioned, financial considerations play into their decision-making certainly,and that is nothing to be ashamed of, but I still don't believe it is appropriate to accuse them of 'money-grubbing'.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
  36. Oh yes... by emplynx · · Score: 1

    I love the Lord of the Rings. Yes I do. It is so wonderful. Peter Jackson is so beautiful. I cannot wait for the extended edition.

    --
    -Tim
  37. HawaiiTime by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    12 hours is about the amount of time to read the original 6 books

    It's also about how long it takes to fly from the East Coast to Hawaii.

    I claim patent rights on that business model.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:HawaiiTime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Sir,

      Our corporation owns the patent rights to "a planet rotating near a star in 24 hours". You are infringing our protected derivative rights in the "day" that is consequential from the "diurnal" phases noted in fig. XLVII.2a. Please cease and desist from producing either products, goods, services or claims in these rights, or we will stop your world, and order you off. Thank you for your prompt compliance in this important matter.

      Sincerely,
      The Dwarves

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  38. I dunno.... by east+coast · · Score: 0

    I'm really just hoping it's not more "epic battle" filler. I know, I know, the kids like it. It just seems to me that something about LOTR got lost in more being paid in detail to the fighting and battles than the general culture that JRRT created.

    Hack and slash is good at the D&D table but it gets old quick in a (now) four hour film.

    It'd be like extending the second Matrix film to include more of the 48 minute car chase scene or adding another 15 minutes on to the fight scene in They Live.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:I dunno.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most of the scenes that were cut were non battle scenes, so the EE should be full of the good stuff, the houses of healing for example

    2. Re:I dunno.... by Harald74 · · Score: 1

      Well, they didn't put a lot more battles in the earlier EEs. Galadriel's presents springs to mind as an example.

      --
      A)bort, R)etry or S)elf-destruct?
    3. Re:I dunno.... by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the extra scenes in the previous EE's were mostly NOT battle-scenes (were there ANY new battle-scenes in 'em?). So I have to ask: what the hell are you blathering about? Have you even seen the past EE's?

      Looking at "Fellowship of the Ring", I can remember these new scenes (found in the usenet):

      *A new addition to the opening sequence in which Bilbo provides background on Hobbits and their history in voice-over as he writes his memoirs.

      *A new introduction to Samwise Gamgee, seen in his capacity as a gardener.

      *A scene taking place at the Green Dragon Inn, which introduces us to the camaraderie of the Hobbits (we see them singing together) and sets up the geopolitics of the story.

      *The Hobbits witnessing the departure of the Elves from Middle Earth on the way to Bree.

      *Aragorn watching over the sleeping Hobbits, singing the ballad of Beren and Luthien to himself in the night.

      *Aragorn at his mother's grave, in which we learn that he was raised by Elves and that Sauron has long hunted him.

      *Two new moments during the departure from Rivendale, one in which we see Arwen's emotional reaction to Aragorn's leaving, and another in which Elrond sees the Fellowship off.

      *A scene with the Fellowship in the mines of Moria, in which we learn how the Dwarves themselves unleashed the fire-demon that eventually destroyed them.

      *A scene at Lothlorien, where Galadriel bestows upon each of the Fellowship a gift which will play an important role later in the Trilogy.

      *And finally, more footage of the battle at Amon Hen. This is not particularly bloody footage, but its addition will likely result in this cut
      of the film receiving an R-rating.

      Oh yes, that's LOTS of "new battle-scenes"! NOT!

      Two Towers is similar. Very little battle-scenes, but lots of background material.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:I dunno.... by Khomar · · Score: 1

      I am not sure of all of the changes, but most of them are not "epic battle" scenes. One of the big ones is the final confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf at Orthanc which is mostly dialog. Also, the scenes at the house of healing will be added which is also dramatic in theme (Eowyn and Faramir). The only battle element I have heard rumors of is the fight between Gandalf and the Witch King, but I have not seen this confirmed.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    5. Re:I dunno.... by east+coast · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh yes, that's LOTS of "new battle-scenes"! NOT!

      Flames get modded as insightful? God help slashdot... I NEVER said the other EEs included battle filler. learn to read. I said I hope that's not what they were including the 50 minutes as it takes away from JRRTs writings. Sheesh. Stop and think before making an ass of yourself.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:I dunno.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, why would you "hope not" when so far, with the other 2/3's of the EE's it's already been demonstrated that that's not the case? Thinking that it would be battle filler would have never crossed my mind, knowing how much deeper the DVD's have been made in the previous ones. Guess you feel like you can talk about the stuff, but yet you've not seen the previous ones to judge the quality of addition that the EE's bring. Tsk tsk. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

    7. Re:I dunno.... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Well, why would you "hope not" when so far, with the other 2/3's of the EE's it's already been demonstrated that that's not the case?

      Yet again, I never said the others did this. But what is fact is that more and more the series leaned twords long drawn out epic battles. I certainly do not want to see more of this. My thoughts, which I have stated before, is that the series had gotten away from the original nature of the books the further into the series you go. Hence why I mentioned JRRT.

      Guess you feel like you can talk about the stuff, but yet you've not seen the previous ones to judge the quality of addition that the EE's bring.

      Guess you feel like you can talk about stuff, but you don't know me. I have seen the previous ones.

      Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

      I dunno, you tell me.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    8. Re:I dunno.... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      But what is fact is that more and more the series leaned twords long drawn out epic battles.


      Could that be because the BOOKS also had more and more "drawn out epic battles"?

      I certainly do not want to see more of this.


      Too bad, since those battles were in the books as well. I for one had been pretty pissed if they had given Pelennor fields a whopping 5 minutes of screen-time.

      Yes I know that Pelennor fields got relatively little time in the book. But regardless: it WAS one of the highlights of the book, and it looks great on the silver-scree. That is why it's longer in the movie as well. Movies usually have the "big end-fight" or something similar. And in LOTR, it was Pelennor Fields.

      My thoughts, which I have stated before, is that the series had gotten away from the original nature of the books the further into the series you go.


      The EE's are closer to the original than the theatrical releases, and we have to wait and see what the ROTK-EE looks like. Two Towers was a bit different from the book, but that was because the book itself was so busy (following three separate groups of people) that doing a 1:1 movie-conversion would have been BAD. The EE improved the pacing considerably and made the whole movie better.

      Remember: we are not talking about books here, we are talking about movies. You simply cannot do 1:1 migration from book to movie. And that is why LOTR the book and LOTR the movie are different from time to time. If they made a movie that was similar to the book and closer to the "original nature" of 'em, it would have been a bad MOVIE. They are not making a book here, they are making a MOVIE. And they have to adapt the story to fit the requirements and limitations of the media. Had they made the movie like you wished it was, Pelennor Fields would have been a marginal incident, and most of the time would have been spent watching Sam and Frodo walk towards Mount Doom. That might work in the book, but it would not work in a movie!
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    9. Re:I dunno.... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Had they made the movie like you wished it was, Pelennor Fields would have been a marginal incident, and most of the time would have been spent watching Sam and Frodo walk towards Mount Doom. That might work in the book, but it would not work in a movie!

      Perhaps not for you. And even by your own words you're admitting that Jackson is taking away from the original flavor of JRRT. So what was your bitch about anyway?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    10. Re:I dunno.... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm "bitching" about the fact that some people want to make the movies identical to the books. And while that might satisfy few gung-ho Tolkien-fans (I consider myself to be a fan, having read the books over dozen times), it would have been a crappy movie. Great book, yes, but a terrible movie. And Peter Jackson was not making a book, he was making a MOVIE. His goal was to make a great movie, while staying as close to the books as possible. And as far as I'm concerned, he succeeded magnificently.

      Had he tried to preserve the "original flavor" of the books 100%, he would have made a crappy movie. That is a fact. He preserved it 90%, the 10% was sacrificed due to limitations of the medium. What works in a book, might not work in a movie. And that is certainly true to book like LOTR.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    11. Re:I dunno.... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm "bitching" about the fact that some people want to make the movies identical to the books.

      Odd. It seems to me that you were bitching that I was somehow saying that the earlier EEs were little more than battle filler. Which I never did and which you now seem to faithfully affirm. It's sad that I got modded down for my opinion on this matter because I was misrepresented by your post and the posts of a few like you.

      His goal was to make a great movie, while staying as close to the books as possible.

      I don't know about that either. Perhaps it was a great series for what it was but there are a number of points that Jackson went out of his way to change some events from the books. This wasn't done in the interest of making a film that covered the same material while still not getting overbearing. Nor was it done for the reason of cutting out a section of the book that would have added too much time to the film. Point in case; Treebeard and the ents. These changes were not done with making up for a portion of cut book but rather for comical purposes. As I recall this was a big bitch about Episode One with Jar Jar.

      And as far as I'm concerned, he succeeded magnificently.

      In some ways he did a great job. It's a hard task to take on. I still didn't want to see it degrade to the point that it did. Perhaps the final EE will make it a lot better but I still say there was too much attnetion paid to the battles and not enough to the one on one levels that JRRT embraced.

      Had he tried to preserve the "original flavor" of the books 100%, he would have made a crappy movie. That is a fact.

      No, that's an opinion.

      He preserved it 90%, the 10% was sacrificed due to limitations of the medium.

      90% is a far throw. He may have kept with many of the major points of the books. Perhaps 75% of the major points. But at the same time he distorted certain points of view that makes JRRT worth reading over the latest '12-book-a-year' D&D writer.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  39. Good thing I'm already married by Electric+Eye · · Score: 0

    My good friend and I plan on spending an entire day watching the entire extended trilogy sometime this month. It's a good thing we're both married, as this wouldn't exactly attract the womens.

    Although, I have to admit I never got it on with a geek babe...

    Anyway, the LOTR trilogy will likely be the greatest movie series ever done. IMO, it is far, far, far superior to Stars Wars, old and new.

    1. Re:Good thing I'm already married by east+coast · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      it is far, far, far superior to Stars Wars, old and new.

      So was the Cannonball Run movies... it really didn't take much.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  40. This was released months ago by kisea · · Score: 1

    I have watched this so many times already, and it seems that I first read about it on /.

  41. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  42. Mod system by momerath2003 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Moderate the ridiculous off-site voting system

    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Troll
    Redundant

    --
    I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  43. It's even longer??? by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You serious? They managed to add 50 minutes to this?
    Let me guess, they managed to over extend the already exhaustingly long ending.
    So now there are 30 points where the movie can end rather than 18, right?

  44. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by gameboyhippo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly! I went through an emotional roller coaster in the theater. "Ah! That was a great movie! ... No wait! There's more! Hey that was pretty good ... Huh!? There's more! Is this the end? Guess not... Hmmm... " And it went on like that for the last 7 hours of the movie. I was conflicted between wanting to learn more and wanting to relive myself at the restroom.

  45. And it's worth it. by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    And why wouldn't we?

    It's all about the joy of owning it right?

    That's why I, for one, paid $55 each for my Leather bound Tolkien Classic series from Easton Press. They are beautiful, and they make the reading experience more pleasant. The feel and smell of thick pages and rich binding make the whole thing more engrossing.

    The comparisons to Lucas aren't fair. Jackson made a reduced slightly less satisfying version of the film for the theatres to show and the full on artistic vision for the fans. The whole time he said in advance there'd be the long version and the full version. Personally, I only get the extended box sets, so all three won't look garish and plasticy next to my books.

  46. What? by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 4, Funny


    I can hear a thousand wives screaming out in agony....

    "Get to the mountain you little bastards! ARrrgh! You picked this? Alright, I get THREE picks for this one!"

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

      wives?

    2. Re:What? by Kosi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I miss the point here completely. Would someone please be so kind to explain the fun in the parent to me?

    3. Re:What? by orcrist · · Score: 1

      ^
      |
      |_ Unmarried

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know.. I have it on my wish list that I gave to my husband. It's a great story with some manly eye candy for the ladies.

    5. Re:What? by keytoe · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been to a rental house with a wife/girlfriend/significant other.

      It works like this: You both pick a movie to watch, because you can never agree on anything. Then, when you get home you watch her movie and decide to save your movie for another night. This never actually happens. Finally, you take them back and get charged for having two late movies.

      It's great!

    6. Re:What? by Kosi · · Score: 1

      because you can never agree on anything.

      Then it would have been the better idea to stay single. Or at least one should be clever enough not to watch movies with SWMBO.

  47. ROTK? by statixz · · Score: 1

    The first thing when I saw ROTK I was thinking Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Another story that they can make an extended special limited gold 20-hour edition bonus DVD.

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

      Does anyone else remember this game from Koei? I spent hours and hours and hours playing it.

  48. We got almost the same plan ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except we intend to start mid saturday afternoon and get going till sunday.

    I provide the flat, the xga video projector (Epson EMP 710), the 2.0*1.5 meter screen and episode 1 extended + 5.2 home theater (5.2, as in two subwoofers + 5*100W as every speaker gets a full 100W...4 columns and a central speaker...)

    They provide the two other LOTR dvd boxes and the drinks/food...

    It will be quite a party, as we even had some of our parents interested in the projection...(they WILL provide better booze !)

    On the irresponsible / useless front, well, we are 30ish (at last), have some money (at last, too) and have to get some fun :)

    On a side note, I will probably use your menu in reverse, as in pizza, snacks, pancakes...

    Anyone knows if I can cook the pancakes the saturday and eat them on sunday morning ? I mean, does it go stale fast ?

  49. My wife and I are eagerly awaiting this. by mandrake*rpgdx · · Score: 1

    Anyone have a ballpark (USD) for the price? I'm glad they added in some stuff that was desperately missing (like Sam and Frodo disguised as Orcs). Can't wait.

    1. Re:My wife and I are eagerly awaiting this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess the same as the other two EE's, 'round $25. No clue on the boxed set of 3, since I already have the other 2 there would have to be some serious bonus attached, so I've not even been interested in looking for that.

    2. Re:My wife and I are eagerly awaiting this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got it at Coconuts.com when they were having a sale for $16 shipped. :)

    3. Re:My wife and I are eagerly awaiting this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, one of my computers is named coconuts. How ironic.

    4. Re:My wife and I are eagerly awaiting this. by joelb1 · · Score: 1

      the new line site says roughly 90 for the complete 3 movie extended collection, and the high/mid 20s just ROTK.

  50. and now... by DeathByDuke · · Score: 0

    Gandalf shoots last.

  51. RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by mihalis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just don't understand how Peter Jackson thought the following were optional :-

    • Gandalf/Saruman rematch at Orthanc
    • Aragorn reveals himself in Palantir of Orthanc
    • Gandalf confronts Witch-King at Minas Tirith
    • Voice of Sauron at the Black Gate

    Luckily they are ALL in the EE! I can't wait

    1. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they were tough, but cut for time. There was plenty of complaining about the run-time as it was, especially given the (admittedly) long denoument of the third film. If you read the reviews, the biggest critical complaint leveled at the film is the run-time. So a lot had to go.

      The one thing I think is funny is the first scene when the Witch-King speaks:

      Orc: "What about the wizard?"
      Witch-King: "I will break him!"

      Very chilling, but of course in the theatrical version they never even come close to each other, so this scene is meaningless. When I'm watching the movie with friends, I change this line to "I will snub him!"

      But I deeply missed the Saruman confrontation and Voice of Sauron. Frankly, I think they could easily have cut some of the material at the end to make more room for these far more interesting scenes.

    2. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by limabone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt he cut them out of the movie without alot of soul searching. Of those 4 scenes I would say that only the mouth of Sauron and Aragorn revealing himself to sauron should have remained in the movie (theatrical version). Aragorn revealing himself to Sauron puts the seed of doubt in Saurons mind and kept his gaze more focused on the black gate than searching for the ring (he probably assumes that Aragorn actually has the ring, since I believe it either explains in the book or the appendices that Sauron's contempt for the free people of Middle Earth that anyone would consider actually destroying the ring).
      The mouth of Sauron scene is critical because it makes it more emotional in that Sauron wants them to believe that the spy has been captured and killed, but Gandalf uses this information against Sauron because of Frodo had truly been captured Sauron would have the ring already and they wouldn't even be having that conversation. It also makes the scene in the theatrical version make more sense when Aragorn turns to face his army and looks like he has been crying and says 'For Frodo' or something like that.

      Gandalf and Saruman meeting doesn't really do much..Saruman's part in the main storyline is already over (the scouring of the shire is a great part of the book but absolutely unnecessary in the movie, the same way Tom Bombadils section is beautiful, but doesn't bring the plot forward or develop any of the main characters).
      Gandalf meeting the witch king at Minas Tirith is pure geek fodder but doesn't do much for the story as a whole.
      I just want Peter Jackson to do The Hobbit while he is still on the A-List. If King Kong bombs he might do it to regain his cache in Hollywood, or conversly if King Kong is a success they might throw so much damn money at him for the hobbit that he can't refuse!

    3. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by Spencerian · · Score: 1

      Mod points to you, sir, if I could.

      After the winning destruction his movies did at the Oscars (as well as the money made) it is virtually a lock that Peter J. will be given carte blanche for directing "The Hobbit", or producing it to maintain creative reins while handling other projects. New Line is happy. The Tolkien estate is happy. Hollywood is happy.

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    4. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      If you read the reviews, the biggest critical complaint leveled at the film is the run-time.

      But other parts of the story were extended for no reason. Look at the ongoing Frodo-Gollum wrestling match over the volcano: it was supposed to be a few seconds, and it ballooned out to minutes (also changing the meaning of what happened, from accident to intent)

      One of many things that didn't need to take so long.

    5. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I think an ending of "The ring is mine! -- oops" *ploop* would have been very galling to conventional movie audiences after nine hours of build-up. While I as a Tolkien geek would have been fine with the traditional ending, I don't think padding it was an unforgivable offense.

      I also don't think it changed it from accident to intent, just involved Frodo in that accident, which is a questionable decision, but one I as a filmgoer can live with.

    6. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by mihalis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's how these good bits could have made it into RoTK cinematic release easily :

      Put Shelob back into the Two Towers where she belongs. By the end of that book, Sam is lying senseless outside the orc stronghold and Frodo has been taken by the enemy. That would have been a fine ending for the film.

      Find the time for this, in turn, by drastically shortening the Helms Deep stuff. It's dull.

      You can dump the Aragorn falls off a cliff guff too.

      See, easy-peasy!

      Disclaimer : IHNDMOEHM (I have not directed my own 11 hour movie)

    7. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by mihalis · · Score: 1

      Gandalf and Saruman meeting doesn't really do much.

      I think we'll have to agree to differ on this. It's my biggest regret of PJ's entire adaptation. I have to admit, it's rather short and easy to gloss over in the book, but the last time I read it I tried to visualise Christopher Lee's Saturman being forced to walk back to his balcony by the force of Gandalf the White's willpower, and his staff cracking in his hand.

      "Wow!" I thought, "I can't wait!!". Little did I know how long I'd have to wait.

      Gandalf meeting the witch king at Minas Tirith is pure geek fodder but doesn't do much for the story as a whole.

      Maybe, but after he put it in the RoTK trailers last year, I felt cheated by that too.

    8. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I also don't think it changed it from accident to intent, just involved Frodo in that accident,

      No. Frodo was always involved. Originally, the "accident" was Gollum biting off Frodo's finger, ignoring that it was the only thing holding him up. He fell into the lava immediately afterwards.

      In the movie, they both recovered to the ground and went back & forth fighting afterwards, making it not Gollum's mistake which killed him, but Frodo's violence.

    9. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the book, Gollum dances to the edge of the pit in a delerium over recovering the Ring, and then falls in. Biting Frodo's finger off isn't holding him up (?)

      And in the movie, they both fall off the cliff, not just Gollum -- Frodo just happens to catch himself, where Gollum does not, again, because he's totally obsessed with the ring -- which I think maintains something of the spirit of the book's point.

    10. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh. The Tolkien estate is most definitely NOT happy about any of this. They've made that abundantly clear over the last few years. I think they're just pissed off that their father sold the rights to the movie for a piddly sum decades ago, and now they can't get in on the action.

    11. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by mihalis · · Score: 1

      I forgot one more way to save time in RoTK.

      As my wife pithily put it "Frodo, hurry up and get on the fucking boat"

    12. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by Spencerian · · Score: 1

      Interesting. But they still control publishing rights, but no movie rights? Hm. Source?

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    13. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      It is not possible to put Shelob into the end of The Two Towers movie. The time lines between the two stories do not match up. So in the books the end of the Merry, Pippin, Aragorn etc story happens much earlier in time than the Shelob incident.

      The movies shows this timeline correctly.

    14. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      That may be as is, but so what? By that argument, Tolkien couldn't have put Shelob at the end of the Two Towers, and yet he did.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    15. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by geekwench · · Score: 1
      Ask and ye shall recieve: Article from The Guardian.

      There are further details out there for the Googling. Short version: J.R.R. Tolkien sold the film rights to Saul Zaentz (who is listed in the credits, and is the owner of Tolkien Enterprises) back in '69. Certain members of the family (namely Christopher) have been smarting about this pretty much ever since. This is why the family refused to "officially"** endorse the films: the estate didn't have creative control.


      **Unofficially is a different story; Simon, Christopher's son, has been estranged from his father for years for saying that the estate should loosen up a little. Simon is also a fan of the films, and his son (whose name I've forgotten) has a bit part as one of the Riders of Rohan. Yes, I include Tolkien in my various geekdoms; books and movies. Why do you ask? ;)

      --
      Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
    16. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      That argument is stupid.

      The book is completely different to the movie in the way it presents the story. The book seperated the two stories. First you read book 3 which covered merry pippin etc etc. Then once finished with their story you read book 4 which covered Frodo and Sam. The timelines don't intermix.

      But in the movie you can't present the stories that way, it would be confusing. They interwove all the events together, as such all the timelines had to match each other or they would not be accurate. That means in the movie it is not possible to put Shelob at the end of TTT because those event correspond do not correspond with the rest of the events.

    17. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      No, your argument is stupider. Where did you get the idea that because its a film it has to be some sort of chronologically perfect construction, as though it were some sort of historical record? It's not: you put scenes in whatever order you want to achieve the desired effect - in this case, to heighten the drama. (Example: In Silence of the Lambs, do you think it matters if Clarice knocks on Buffalo Bill's door at the precise instant that the other FBI agents are raiding the wrong house? Do you think its even likely that it is taking place at the same time? Of course not, but that's the way it's presented - because it is dramatically far more powerful that way.) What does it matter to the audience whether or not the encounter with Shelob happened at the same time as the Ent attack on Orthanc, or a few days later or whatever? The one plotline has nothing to do with the other, which is why Tolkien could split them up, and Jackson could have also. I understand he had his reasons for filming it the way he did, but chronological accuracy is not a good one.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    18. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      PS I shouldn't have said "Jackson could have also" [split them up], I agree that intermixing the plots was a far better idea for the films. What I should have said was that Jackson could have interpolated them however he saw fit, ie because the plotlines don't connect.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    19. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      you obviously don't understand the hard core lotr fans. They take these books and stories Far more seriously than any historical event. If jackson had screwed with the timeline of the books then they would of had his head. They whined enough as it is about the small changes he made.

      There are entire books written about frodo's journey and the events that are happening in other parts of the world. People will have read them, and they will be pissed if jackson changed it. Cry's of "Tolkien spinning in his grave".

      Also the events do connect. Obviously the battle outside mordor happens just as Frodo chucks the ring into mount doom. Also the signal of the attack on minas tirith (sp?) both parties saw.

    20. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      Well, I consider myself fairly hardcore, I've read the trilogy about 8 or 9 times over the last 20 years, and I'm quite happy to nitpick Jackson's version of Tolkien. But I recognise it's a movie, and is going to be different to the books. Just in this case, I think Shelob would have been a far better ending than what we got. Anyway, it's quite clear that Jackson would have screwed with the timeline if he felt it served his purposes, no matter what the diehard fans thought - he butchered Faramir's character and took Frodo and the Ring to Osgiliath. He didn't make the films for the obsessive Tolkien geeks. At any rate, I don't think even most diehard fans would care that much about the precise timing compared to major changes like Faramir and Osgiliath - especially when, in the books, you'd only pick up the relative timing of events if you were paying attention. It's not an obvious aspect of the story at all.

      And yes, the plotlines do reconnect - but only right at the end. Jackson could easily have varied the pacing as needed in the middle, and joined them back up at the end.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    21. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      you really should watch the directors commentary of TTT. They explain why they made all the changes they did.

      They changed Faramir's character because they spent the entire first movie building up the power of the ring and how desirable it is. Even Gandalf doesn't watch to touch it because he fears being corrupted. To then have the Faramir character from the books appear and say "I would not pick up the ring if it lay by the side of the road" would destroy all power the ring is supposed to have.

    22. Re:RoTK with the good bits restored (finally!) by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      I did watch it. I was not convinced. Again, the way Faramir behaved in the book did not destroy the power of the Ring, so there's no reason why it necessarily would have in the film either.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  52. Wai. Did you say STAR WARS MARATHON?! by celerityfm · · Score: 1

    I think its time we start the drum beat for a LoTR-like showing of all the Star Wars movies for the premiere of Episode 3 this May.

    But what order should they show them? What order, hmm.

    Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope - May 25, 1977
    Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back - May 21, 1980
    Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi - May 25, 1983
    Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace - May 19, 1999
    Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones - May 16, 2002
    Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith - May 19, 2005

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
  53. This would be the second. by rdunnell · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original theatrical version was released (3 parts) and this is the third part of the director's cut.

    Not really milking... they announced up front that they would have both editions, so people would know whether they wanted the original or wanted to wait for the extended.

  54. Re:George Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    would be proud. How many editions of the LOTR trilogy does this make? 3 or 4? Milk that trilogy for all it's worth Jackson! Milk it dry!!


    It only makes 2, jackass. The theatrical releases and the extended releases of all 3 films. Grow up.

  55. Extended discomfort by ader · · Score: 1

    Comment from friend to whom I just emailed this link:

    > Does this come with a tube of preparation H and a blow up ring?

    Ade_
    /

    --
    Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
  56. Final confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman by bradvoy · · Score: 1

    Does Saruman shoot first in this version?

  57. AVI/MPG? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    Anybody have this in a format the rest of the world can view without downloading software that bothers you with ads to purchase the "pro" version every time it opens?

    1. Re:AVI/MPG? by ginsu · · Score: 1

      You can download/run mplayer on pretty much any platform you can run "real" quicktime... I don't get any popups other than my video starting :)

    2. Re:AVI/MPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The the Videolan player. It does quicktime playback better than apple's player.

      http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

    3. Re:AVI/MPG? by MadPhatTim · · Score: 1

      VLC will play Quicktime files (and many others, including DVDs) without asking you to buy the pro version. It will also play fullscreen, unlike the standard Quicktime player. It's a remarkably good piece of software.

    4. Re:AVI/MPG? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      The "rest of the world" uses Quicktime. You say it like Quicktime is some sort of niche, and you are the majority. Sorry, the rest of the world looks at you as the niche.

      Ok. I'll bite. Now you get to back it up with sources.

  58. hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many hours if we count the several making-of and the rest of the stuff?

  59. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by stanmann · · Score: 1

    But still missing the most important ending.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  60. How about a special shortened edition? by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

    Those of us with attention-deficit disorder need help.

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

    1. Re:How about a special shortened edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I concur. I mean, could they have spent any more time with close shots of teary-eyed Frodo at the end of RotK?

    2. Re:How about a special shortened edition? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Yeah I completely agree. It's important to oooo look at the pretty shiny thing! Damn I'm hungry, I wonder what's on TV. Time to do laundry! Now where did I put that retroencabulator?

    3. Re:How about a special shortened edition? by CaptRespect · · Score: 1

      Ok here you go:
      Lord of the Rings, The
      The entire 3 films wrapped up in a little over 2 hours!.

    4. Re:How about a special shortened edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! I know what you

    5. Re:How about a special shortened edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FRODO: Nice party, Bilbo. What's that?

      BILBO: Oh, just some ring. Gotta go, bye!

      GANDALF: So, Frodo, as I was saying to Sam here, you ought to go take this ring over to Elrond's. And why, here's Merry and Pippin to join you!

      TOM BOMBADIL: Hey ho, the -- hey, come back!

      ELROND: Take this to Mordor. Watch out for Sauron!

      BOROMIR: Gimme! Arrrggh!

      GOLLUM: Gollum. Gimme! Chomp. Arrgh!

      GWAHIR: Need a ride, sailor?

      ARAGORN: I'm king. You can go home now.

      FRODO: Wow, everything's changed. Think I'll mope around for just a bit more, though.

      CIRDAN: Last boat! All aboard!

      SAM: And about bloody time, too.

  61. Oh, damn, by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    I've gone and soiled my armor. Again. Damned creaming pants reflex.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  62. Trilogy set? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Will there be a DVD trilogy set or must one need to buy each extended DVD separately?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Trilogy set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you've not bought the others already? Shame on you.

    2. Re:Trilogy set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon.com, (are we still boycotting them?) are selling it for $78. It's so unfair that you americans get things cheaper.

      Play.com in the Channel Islands have a 12 disc box set for 72/£45. And it's for sale on the same day. Choicesdirect (and Amazon.co.uk) have it for £44.

      Hope this makes you as happy as it makes me!

      Ronan

      http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&ti tle=490271&p=57&g=72

  63. Best b-day present ever by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Amazon.com estimated delivery date for me is the day before my birthday... I know what I am doing that weekend.. can't wait!

  64. reminds me of Futurama 2ACV11 by roka · · Score: 1

    [Scene: Outside Central Bureaucracy. The building is a huge white cube with "Central Bureaucracy Est. 2159 A.D. License Pending" engraved on it. The queue to get in snakes back for miles. Fry, Leela, Farnsworth, Amy and Bender join the end of it behind an old man with a Methusala-like beard.]

    Fry: Man, how long is this gonna take?

    Old Man: I'm still waiting on my birth certificate.

    Farnsworth: Well it doesn't look like I'll make it inside with the rest of you. Uh but good luck. Just leave me where I drop.

    [The queue moves backwards.]

    Old Man: Oh great, someone had a baby!

  65. Enterprise Edition by ry4an · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just read that a Return of the King: Enterprise Edition. I've been doing this software thing for way too long.

  66. surely you meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else read the title as "Return of The King: Electronic Engineer" Trailer Released

    Surely you meant, Electrical Engineer. What type of geek ARE you?

  67. Add Tom by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    I wish they'd extend it enough to add Tom Bombadil back in.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Add Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      More time spent frolicking in the forest of faggotry is not what the movies need. In fact I'm glad they cut out all the hobbit singing & mealtime poetry slams.

    2. Re:Add Tom by thelenm · · Score: 1

      He's there in the FotR. If you look closely in the scene where Frodo and Sam are in the cornfield with the scarecrow, you can just make out a guy in a blue jacket and yellow boots skipping down the road in the background. Or maybe he was driving a car, I don't remember. I think it was edited out for the DVD, though.

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
  68. Guess only a Koei game fan like me... by cylcyl · · Score: 1

    would read this as Romance of Three Kingdoms: Extreme Edition...

    1. Re:Guess only a Koei game fan like me... by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh, sanity! Thanks.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  69. Play quicktimes without nagware by egarland · · Score: 1

    QuickTime is annoying but MOV is still the best quality low bit rate format. What I do is install QuickTime, disable it's system tray icon and then have Media Player Classic take over all it's file associations. MPC can use the libraries that QuickTime installs to play MOV files but is much lighter weight and has better playback controls (And doesn't ask you to upgrade to the pro version every time). It can replace QuickTime, real player, and windows media player (apparently, it uses their libraries) and is better than all of them.

    Get Media Player Classic from sourceforge.

    Check out the "Touch Window from Outside" feature: View -> Video Frame -> Touch Window from Outside. It's great for video with black bands on top and bottom.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  70. Strangely enough, but... by tarsi210 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Background: I am a rabid LOTR fan, have been since I first read the trilogy when I was 11. I went to the midnight showings of each of the three movies and own the EEs of each of the first two.

    I've only seen ROTK once. In the theatre, at midnight.

    I'm not entirely sure why, really, because I loved it. I *shivered* as the movie started from the sheer excitement of it all. The world disappeared as I watched, fully captivated by PJ's amazing artistry.

    But, I think I'm waiting. I think I'm waiting for those pieces that will really complete the movie the way PJ really intended it to be and yet was hampered by the movie industry. Character development? Hell yes! Give me more of it. I want to see more of what makes each of them tick. Eowyn's character -- only touched upon, with so much depth left to explore. I want to see those little nuances that only the avid fans of the book will catch. I want to see the vision as it was intended.

    I don't agree with everything PJ has done to the story itself, but I give him his leeway given what he had to try to accomplish. But if I'm going to bother seeing it, I want to see it the way he wanted me to.

    Right now, I'm planning an all-day marathon to watch all three EEs in a row with my ex-roommate. I think I shall shiver again.

  71. Selfish glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This timing makes the final stretch of our basement remodel (with the 12' movie screen on a 23' throw) all the more worth it.

    Methinks the grand opening of our homer movie theatre will be a red carpet event for a bunch of very dust covered geeeks!

  72. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    There was a line at the restroom (for the guys this time) after the movie...I kept enjoying the more and more endings (though a lot of tear-jerking) but man, my bladder was crying...

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  73. You call yourself a couch potato? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not very hobbit-ish of you. The proper sequence is:

    First breakfast
    FOTR disk 1
    Second breakfast
    FOTR disk 2
    Elevenses
    TT 1
    Luncheon
    TT 2
    Afternoon tea
    ROTK 1
    Supper
    ROTK 2
    Stomach pumping.

  74. Jason Fox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and friend did this too. Went to the theater with his friend to see the original star wars trilogy back to back to back.

    Nine hours right? Nooooo, the TRILOGY, back to back to back....

  75. What about second breakfast? by groundswells · · Score: 1

    I guess if Merry & Pippin don't get one, niether do you.

  76. cantwaitcantwaitcantwait by jazman · · Score: 1

    For the first time ever I've actually preordered something. Don't normally believe in that sort of crap, but I have so enjoyed the first two films. Even with the differences from the book, IMO Jacko's done a stunning job and I can't wait to see the extended rotk.

    I'm also planning on hosting a back-to-back extended ringathon (no goatse jokes please) via projector for my friends.

    1. Re:cantwaitcantwaitcantwait by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Amazon will be delivering my copy the day before my birthday, so I will be having a ring-a-thon, too...

      cantwaitcantwaitcantwaitcantwaitcantwait

  77. what about DVD's by gunix · · Score: 1

    They are going to sell a 12 DVD box with the three extended versions, but are they going to sell a box with the extended versions WITHOUT all the extra features (making of the film, etc.)?
    Does anybody know that?

    --
    Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
  78. Things I got from the trailer: by dswensen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love Sean Astin. He is such a movie nerd, and so unabashedly enthusiastic about what he's doing. On the commentary and in the interviews, he's kind of dorky, but I just can't help but dig him.

    Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King gives me chills just from the trailer. I am so excited about that.

    I once again have to hand it to Andy Serkis for having to spend so much time in that goofy-looking blue-screen outfit, give a great performance, and then be essentially removed from the film digitally. Serkis is awesome.

    Looks like Merry gets to fight Sloth! "Baby Ruth! Baby Ruth!"

  79. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by SnapShot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Also, including the new comedy short LOTR:ROTF (LMAO)

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  80. Massive super box edition by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if they've announced a supermega pack of DVD's - meaning all the extended editions in one couch-potato special version?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Massive super box edition by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. You can buy it on Amazon.com for $77.98...

  81. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOTR is primarily a "milieu" story. That is, rather than more common story types that focus on character development, or plot and action, the idea is to wander around and explore the background. Other classic examples might be Gulliver's Travels or, in part, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

    One reason there's so much travel in the book is to get to lots of different places so that you can see them rather than just hear about them. Bombadil is in there not because he's crucial to the resolution of the plot, but because he's part of the milieu. The quest goes through Rivendell and Lorien and ducks through Khazad-dum to show off the milieu as much as anything else.

    One reason most characters are shallow, or at least archetypes, is that they're standing in for their piece of the milieu. The Fellowship exists so that you can see some comparison and contrast between what men, elves, and dwaves are typically like, not because they're interesting and eccentric characters in and of themselves. Legolas is Everyelf and Gimli is Everydwarf by design, not lack of literary skill.

    Since milieu stories involve temporarily visiting a milieu, the actual ending occurs when the explorer finally returns home after having seen everything he's going to see. The multiple "endings" in the movie are resolutions of sub-plots, but not a conclusion of the initial problem, which is exploring the milieu. It's not an accident that the hobbits return to the Shire, rather than remaining in Gondor, Rohan, or whereever. And it's no accident that Frodo says goodbye to Middle Earth, just as the readers do.

    The movies are a bit more plot-oriented than the book, which explains some of the editing changes. Cutting Bombadil out affects the plot not a whit, but deeply wounds fans in love with the milieu itself. The Scouring of the Shire affects the theme strongly, but is not that relevant to a defeat-Sauron plot.

  82. Same feelings... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I loved the third movie more than any of them, but like you I only saw it once... it just makes sense to wait and see the thing in as complete a state as possible. From watching the video it seems like a good choice as there have been many fantastic momets from the book added back in!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Same feelings... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I cheated and saw it in the theater twice. I was so amazingly stunned by my first viewing that I had to go back and catch all of the things that I was sure I had missed. Oddly enough, I was so amazingly stunned the second time around that I am sure I still missed a lot. I can't wait to see the REAL edition when UPS faithfully delivers my package from amazon. I can't freakin' wait..

    2. Re:Same feelings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK critic Paul Ross asked the man sitting next to him in RoTK why he was crying and he replied "Because I'll never see this for the first time again".

  83. So does it have extra footage? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    One thing I was wondering but cannot tell is if the boxed set has extra footage, or if it's basically just a gathering of all the EE editions in one set.

    Does anyone know?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So does it have extra footage? by Mr_Huber · · Score: 1

      Look at the DVD Features section of the description:

      * The extended versions of all three films boxed in a slipcase
      * See individual DVDs for complete details
      * (c)MMIII New Line Productions, Inc. (c)MMIV New Line Home Entertainment, Inc. (tm)Tolkien Enterprises under license to New Line Productions, Inc. All Rights Reserved
      * Number of discs: 12

      I'd say its just a boxed set of the three EE movies. This fits with what PJ has said from the beginning, the EE movies are the last word. There is simply no more useable footage to put in.

  84. Just for once... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Just for once, it looks like the UK is ahead of the US on this one. Amazon UK have what looks like the equivalent (albeit with a different name?) out on 10 December 2004, also the same day the extended edition of ROTK is out over here.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  85. Extended != better for everyone by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    You talk about the extended edition as if it's THE only desirable version of the movie.

    For some people, it is. For others, the theatrical cuts are what they want, nothing more.

    That is why both exist.

    The reason theatrical versions are cut down as they are is because 3 hours is about all of the movie watching some people can tolerate.

    More isn't better for everyone. The EE's of the movies were known about well ahead of time.

    Anyone complaining about buying the movies more than once needs to learn to stop blaming others for their lack of self-control.

  86. Yet another "extended adjective" joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, all, me again. I reply to every one of these.

    Every time we have an Extended Edition article, someone posts with a random, adjective-filled, "Super Duper Mega Extended Pack Edition" joke, as though making up as many words as possible makes the joke clever or witty.

    There have always been two versions--Standard and Extended. This release schedule has been known since 2001, and Peter Jackson and New Line have announced this since the very beginning. For close to four years now, it's been the same schedule. Standard, then Extended.

    Yet, every article, there are people who come on and make a "Magma Shiny Super Platinum Bonus Extended Remix Edition" joke to get a +5 Funny. It's not funny, and it's not accurate.

  87. Only on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only on /. is misspelling "Saruman" some sort of major typographical error warranting mention of the President. And said comment gets modded up as funny.

  88. To be shown in theatres? by taradfong · · Score: 1

    I had heard a rumor that they were going to screen the EE for all three films in theatres this winter. Has this been announced/denounced?

    --
    Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
  89. mithril edition? by mkmoose · · Score: 1

    I am not going to buy that one either! I would just end up spending more money on the mithril edition.

  90. over sentamentality by doctorfaustus · · Score: 1

    I hope the trailer doesn't include all the sickening sentimental goodbye crap that was at the end of the flick. If I were doing a director's cut, I'd squash that crap.

  91. baby on the way by MykePagan · · Score: 1

    Don't count the trilogy out after the baby. My second one is 2 months old right now, and you need SOMETHING to do during the seemingly endless hours of nursing (either the wife nursing, which takes longer, or you with the bottle). Plus, entertaining a months-old baby only takes about 5% of the adult human brain, so you need something to occupy the other 95%. Then they sleep, which is free time.

    Once they're old enough to crawl, THAT'S when your free time ends.

    1. Re:baby on the way by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      I second this. I learnt fairly early on in parenhood that it's crucial to have a DVD sitting in the player ready to go so you don't have to bash your brains with infomercials and Benny Hinn.

      Don't put a movie on though---if Junior goes to sleep quickly enough you don't want to ahve to ait an hour before the end (I mean, you can't leave a good movie half way through!)

      Personally, I find Black Adder and Red Dwarf to be the best at that time of day(?). Sometimes I'd forget to check the player before turning in for the night and I'd find myself watching my wife's Will and Grace DVD, which became strangely addictive. (Changing DVDs with a nearly asleep six month old in your arms can be quite difficult.)

      Documentaries are also good, but they have only so much replay value.

      When you start to buy your movies based on Junior's sleeping patterns, though, you know that this little bundle of joy nearly owns you. When you start to buy The Wiggles, the transtition has been, I'm afraid, thoroughly completed. Don't worry though, you get to inflict it all on the grandkids in thirty or so years.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

  92. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never understood the complaints about this. I felt like it had exactly one ending - everything else was just tying up a few loose ends. It would have felt abrupt and unfinished otherwise. Then again, I read the books, so the movie's ending was miniscule compared to the book. Whoopee!!

  93. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to end the night with the hot and steamy remake, Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String.

    In the mythical realm of Diddle Earth, diminutive yet delectable Throbbit Dildo Saggins is sent by Smirnoff the Wizard to destroy the legendary G-String - most powerful weapon in the land. The G-String was forged by the ancient villainess Horspank, and those who possess the slinky and sexy under-garment experience supreme invincibility - and untold sensual pleasures. ...

    I actually caught it on Showtime a while back. Stupid but kind of funny in a real campy sort of way.

  94. Direct link (please use the Coral cache!) by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 1

    Grab the trailer here(Coral cache), or here (direct link, but extremely slow for me).

  95. but is it worth it? by maniac/dev/null · · Score: 1

    ...but is it worth upgrading from my copy of Lord of the Rings with HyperThreading?

  96. Thanks by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I was looking over the technical details on Amazon but did not see those lines.

    That makes me feel a lot better about just getting the ROTK EE, and not getting the boxed set when I already have the other two EEs.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  97. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

    Honestly? I think we're conditioned by the way in which 99.9% of Hollywood movies (especially action-adventure movies) end: climax, brief 2-3 minute denoument, roll credits. As you note, that's not at all the way the book is, in no small part because the book aimed at something different from a simple action-adventure. Peter Jackson didn't do a by-rote reproduction of the book, of course; but he did drift a little away from the standard action-adventure, or aspire to do more than what a-a's do. But the movie came across as one, so many people expected it to end the way action-adventure movies typically end.

  98. so how is this different from : by 2mcm · · Score: 0
  99. you'll STARVE! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    7am: friends arrive, pancake breakfast.
    8am: Fellowship of the Ring (~4+ hrs)
    12:30pm: Lunch
    2:00pm: The Two Towers (~3 1/2 hrs)
    5:30pm: Dinner
    7:00pm: Return of the King (~ 4 1/2 hrs)
    11:30pm: Eyes ooze out of our sockets, bedsores open on our asses.


    But what about second breakfast? And elevensies? And the 4 o'clock snack? and at five, you simply must have tea and biscuits and jams and jellies and muffins...

    And I assume that you are going to drink beer and smoke hobbit's weed throughout the day, of course.

    Sounds like a fun, light day : )

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  100. 30th birthday? by runamok1 · · Score: 1

    I was going to go to Europe for 2 weeks for my 30th birthday.

    But oooh, bedsores sound pretty tempting!

  101. odiferous... by runamok1 · · Score: 1

    I cannot imagine how horrible that place would smell after 11 hours or so.

    You could not pay ME to endure that.

  102. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait - it was so long that it made you want to begin your life anew in the toilets?

  103. Re:Not the first and won't be the last to say this by toddhunter · · Score: 1

    The problem for me was I was stuck down the front of the theatre doing the neck straight up type thing.
    Which was fine until I thought the movie was almost over so I relaxed the muscles and allowed them to start hurting (which I had been ignoring since then)....but of course it wasn't over and still had an hour to go...

  104. How many hours? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    The Extended Edition will add an additional 50 minutes to the film, bring the total for the Extended trilogy to 11 hours and 20 minutes.

    Only 11h20m? Wasn't the neverending ending for ROTK longer than that by itself?

  105. Slow Motion by cparisi · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of the extra 50 minutes are in slow motion?