Slashdot Log In
LOTR:Return Of The King Trailer
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Sep 29, 2003 07:01 AM
from the one-ring-to-make-AOL's-q4-profits dept.
from the one-ring-to-make-AOL's-q4-profits dept.
noda132 writes "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King trailer is now available! I just found it on theonering.net. It's only 9mb big, but it's a start." You can also get it from AOL as well. Update: 09/29 20:13 GMT by S : The official site now has the new trailer as well.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Obligatory analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obligatory analysis (Score:5, Funny)
Frame 2: Very like Frame 1. Everyone has moved very slightly...
Frame 3: Very like Frame 2. The camera has started to move. Very slowly...
Parent
Re:Obligatory analysis (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Obligatory analysis (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I actually thought the first two movies were quite entertaining. I didn't really mind him cutting out Bombadil, and I'm willing to overlook the horrible treatment of Treebeard, but something tells me that they're just going to totally screw up the beauty of the original ending.
Parent
Re:Obligatory analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obligatory analysis (Score:3, Informative)
Shots of ruined Hobbiton were shot, at least, for Frodo's vision in the mirror.
Hello? (Score:3, Informative)
For the last time, Peter Jackson announced years ago that there would be no Scouring. They included an homage to it in the Mirror of Galadriel scene.
The reason is because he didn't want another story after the main climax.
Re:Hello? (Score:3)
From: Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
I agree that it should have been filmed and put in an extended DVD version (if not the theatrical
Re:Obligatory analysis (Score:3, Informative)
Try AOL, principles aside (Score:2)
how long will be ROTK ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Regarding the trailer, I think that this will be the most fantastic part of the whole. My favorite scene from the trailer is when Aragorn reclaims the Narsil from Elrond
Re:how long will be ROTK ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:how long will be ROTK ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the whole point is that Jackson is trying to draw the transformation of Aragorn from ranger to king closer to the climax of the story. I can see the appeal of that.
Aragorn in the books is a flawless, comic-book hero by the time of the Council of Elrond, and is waving Anduril around at every opportunity (at Eomer, at Hama, etc.) The only real moment of any drama concerning Aragorn (as far as I'm concerned) is where he shows himself to Sauron and the
Read the book first (Score:3, Insightful)
It totally destroyed the experience for me as the movie's images were stuck in my head as I read.
At least I didn't screw it completely up and read the book before this last one.
Davak
Re:Read the book first (Score:2)
At least I didn't screw it completely up since I read the book before this last one.
Davak
Re:Read the book first (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Read the book first (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Read the book first (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Read the book first (Score:3, Insightful)
As for myself, I've probably read LOTR 15 times or so, and have been blown away with how good a job they've done with the films. Sure, there are things to complain about (I'll reserve my judgement on the whole Faramir thing until I see the extended DVD this fall), but by and large Jackson took on a monumental task and succeeded admirably.
Use AOL (Score:2)
seriously though, I got the trailer in seconds fom there, one ring is only 1/4 through and I've allready watched it!
now I just have to wait till december 17th
Bittorent? (Score:3)
Re:Bittorent? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Bittorent? (Score:3, Informative)
ONLY! 9Mb (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that isn't really very big, but it did make me realise how much the internet has kicked on in the last few years, and how high-compression technologies like Wavelets etc have been superceeded thanks to broadband connections.
9Mb isn't huge by todays standards, but it is worth considering for a second how much our viewing habits have been changed. No-longer do we go to a movie JUST to see the trailer... we download it. We all know that soon you'll see 100Mb full quality trailers being available.
Prediction of the day.... within 3 years someone will post on Slashdot that a trailer is "only" 100Mb.
Only 9MB??? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Worst Idea ever... (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you find some movies on SCO's page, then feel free.
Re:Worst Idea ever... (Score:3, Funny)
Wha? Will AOL not do as a stand-in for SCO, or have they been rehabilitated?
Torrent here! (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the
Be sure to keep your download running to help others with their download!
Re:Torrent here! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm using BitTorrent 3.3, the newest as far as I'm aware.
I tried it twice. Did not help. Is anyone else having problems?
Parent
Yes, it is corrupt. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Japaneese version has been around for weeks (Score:2, Informative)
Also, the quality on this seems funky but if it's on AOL streaming, I guess it's for real.
Also: 12 minute preview (Score:5, Informative)
http://bittorrentmovies.de/~supernova/torrents/
Fixed (and working) link (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.emptylogic.com/suprnova/torrents/233/R
Parent
hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I think that the tinkerage with the chronology could be rather fine - in the books the reforging of Narsil is a rather ho-hum affair. But Jackson appears to be bringing it center stage
Part of a flashback, maybe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Norwegian mirror (Score:3, Informative)
Some clarity on the trailer versions (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Some clarity on the trailer versions (Score:3, Informative)
However, there seem's to be a problem with mplayer, it crashes instantly, strange because it seemed to player SVQ3 files with no problems whatsoever.
Anyway for all you Windows/Mac Users, a friend of mine confirmed that it works fine with Quicktime 6.
Here you go:
http://n.ethz.ch/student/asuzuki/download/rotk_tra iler_480x280_fixed.mov [n.ethz.ch] [20MB]
Have fun,
Alex
PS: If anybody could convert it to DivX or something, let me know, I want to
I don't wanna watch it (Score:5, Insightful)
Another mirror (Score:3, Informative)
My biggest gripe with PJ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it bother anyone else? Its minor, but why not bring an army of dwarves too, if we are rewritting things.
All in all, still a great adaptation. You go PJ.
later
epic
Re:My biggest gripe with PJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stanley Kubrick himself once called the Lord of the Rings completely unfilmable -- and, in the books' original form, he's right. Many things which make the book great will simply not fly in a movie medium. You might think they will -- thirty minutes of a guy in a yellow jacket and pointy shoes talking about sheep and Goldberry, and Faramir finding Frodo and Sam in Morder and going "aw shucks! Get out of here with that Ring of Power, you scamps!" In a lengthy, leisurely book like Lord of the Rings, that's fine, but in a movie that already clocks in at three hours a pop with tons of stuff cut out, you'd be bored out of your nitpicking skull. I love Tolkien dearly, but most of his material is as dramatic as a flapjack, because Tolkien was ultimately a lover of the slow and pastoral life of the English countryside. Which is great, but doesn't make good film. Sorry.
Consider how moving and exciting the Lord of the Nazgul scenes from RotK would be if Jackson adapted them faithfully. He rides into Gondor, Gandalf says "you cannot come in here," a rooster crows, some trumpets play, and the Nazgul turns and leaves. Yeah. Thrilling stuff. The crowd would be on the edge of their seats.
Listen to Jackson's DVD commentary on Fellowship sometime, with the other two writers, and how much they agonized and labored over every change that they made, and how many things Jackson wanted to leave in but simply couldn't and deeply regrets. He even laments having to take out Glorfindel and Gildor Inglorion.
I am a big fan of the books, and I was disappointed with a few of the changes too, especially in Two Towers. But Jackson and everyone else have labored very hard to bring as faithful a movie adaptation as they could to a book that is, fact's a fact, completely impossible to adapt faithfully and still have it be any good. Go watch the Rankin-Bass or Ralph Bakshi adaptations of LotR sometime if you want to see how truly, awfully BAD an adaptation could have been. Tolkien fans got very, very lucky when Peter Jackson landed this project, and sorry -- he deserves better than "oh he probably never even READ the books." That is pure bunk.
Parent
Re:My biggest gripe with PJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand perfectly well how literature can be translated to the screen. I also understand part of the reason for LotR's enduring popularity is that it is different things to different people, and additionally, that any film adaptation of a work of literature is the interpretation of one person, or, in this case, three (Jackson, Boyens, Walsh). Jackson's vision of Lord of the Rings is not the same as my own, nor should it be.
Insofar as the scenes mentioned are concerned -- in some sense you are preaching to the choir. The changes made to Faramir, especially the trip to Osgiliath, was by far my biggest gripe with Two Towers. I was extremely irate about it, but on further reflection, could understand why Jackson made the decision. I just wish he could have handled it differently. For my part, I found the encounter with Faramir in the books to be devoid of suspense -- but likewise found the movie version swung too far in the opposite direction. Because I support Jackson's privilege to make changes to the original doesn't mean I worship them all as immaculate.
As far as the Lord of the Nazgul scene goes, that remains to be determined -- I am anxious to see what Jackson does with it. In my opinion, the strength of the written word is that it can support the sort of subtle, existential horror and dread such as you describe far more reliably than a visual medium, because they rely on the reader's imagination.
You can bank on that tension more or less forever in the written word -- in Tolkien's work, the Nazgul are mostly a non-existent threat until the (very brief) confrontation on the Pelennor Fields, where the fearsome Lord is undone by a stab to the ankle and one swipe from a sword. To his credit, Tolkien still manages to pull them off as dreadful despite the fact that they never actually do much but ride around and slaughter the occasional Prancing Pony bed-bolster.
While this approach might work for the die-hard enthusiast (as might a 15- or 20-hour faithful adaptation of the work), the LotR film is an expensive project that needs to make a profit, and that means placating the majority of moviegoers who expect a bit more action from their fantasy films. I think it's the price we pay for having a film adaptation at all, and though I have problems with Jackson's interpretation as well, I think we as an audience could come off much worse than we have. Again, I point to Jackson's precursors, Bakshi and Rankin-Bass. You want to see a filmmaker taking some liberties with the story? Watch Bakshi's LotR sometime. Saruman becomes "Ahriman" (sometimes), Treebeard is supremely comical, Elrond wears a tee-shirt to the council at Imladris, and Boromir is a shrieky nincompoop who dresses like Hagar the Horrible. Jackson is a purist by comparison.
I didn't go into the Lord of the Rings movies expecting the book to be retold in movie form. Not only is that impossible, it would hold few if any surprises for someone who's read the books as many times as I have. If I wanted that precise experience, I'd just read the book again. Instead, I got to see Boromir as a slightly more sympathetic character, Faramir as slightly less (again, that didn't work out so well), Aragorn a bit more conflicted, and the Nazgul a little more active, and a pretty fantastic Watcher in the Water, while still (in my opinion) maintaining quite a few (not all) of the book's original themes.
It's not a faithful adaptation, but I don't believe a faithful adaptation could or should be filmed, nor would it be interesting even if it was. That's just my opinion. I believe that people who want the experience of the novel should read the novel. A movie of the novel is going to involve some retelling and some shuffling of the elements, because one medium is of the eye and ear, the other is of the imagination. Anyone goin
Parent
Re:My biggest gripe with PJ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I liked Jackson's "Fellowship" for its stunning sets and cinematography, but not very much else. However, if it encourages viewers to discover the books for themselves, that's a great positive. Some of the deviations from the narrative of the book are understandable, but most are not. Even foregoin
Rangers from the north cut out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it just me or does it look like the movie won't have the rangers of the north? I am making this assumption because the part of the preview (on the Two Towers DVD) that obviously shows them about to enter the Path Of The Dead has Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas but no rangers (or the two elves that come with the rangers).
It will a real bummer if there are no rangers in the film, because not only did they sound like bad ass warriors in the book but they also give Aragorn something very important, which relates to Aragorn and Arwen love story which the movie makes such a big deal about.
ffmpeg workaround (Score:3, Informative)
mplayer return_of_the_king_trailer_480x280_fixed.mov -vc qtsvq3 -vf pp=al
Re:did it get hammered allready ??? (Score:2)
Told you /. is too americanocentric.
Re:Yah MPAA!! (Score:5, Informative)
Blockquoth the poster:
Read the FAQ. [slashdot.org]
Parent