Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Media Movies

The Trilogy as One 441

Posted by michael from the my-precious dept.
jmays writes "New Line is re-releasing 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' except this time, in their respective extended versions. When? Once each week for the two weeks prior to the opening of 'The Return of the King.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Trilogy as One More

The Trilogy as One

Comments Filter:

  • That will be fun (Score:5, Informative)

    by (54)T-Dub ( 642521 ) * <tpaine.gmail@com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:17PM (#6767679) Journal
    I felt that the extended edition of fellowship was a lot better than the studio version. It will be fun to see it in the theaters.

    I'm less excited about Two Towers since I found the movie to be a disappointment. I'll still go check it out though. (who am i kidding, i'll still probably buy the dvd Tolkien whore that I am).

    I don't know about the Dec 16th all day marathon though. Something about going to a movie at 3pm and leaving after midnight. Besides, my GF has enough trouble staying awake in a 1.5 hour long movie.

  • Dec. 16th Marathons (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chaltek ( 610920 ) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:18PM (#6767688) Homepage
    Perhaps more exciting than the extended edition re-releases is the promise of marathon showings December 16th.
    FOTR @ 1500
    TTT @ 1900
    ROTK @ 2300

    Not only can you to see the entire story at once, but beat all the other line-standing fans by 1 whole hour!
    That must count for some serious geek points in the grand scheme of things.

    Call your favorite theater today and request that they carry this special engagement. If they won't, drive to a big city, this ought to be worth it!

  • Not my cup of tea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JohnGrahamCumming ( 684871 ) * <slashdot@ j g c . o rg> on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:18PM (#6767695) Homepage Journal
    I know that I'm probably going to get flamed by the /. faithful but I really
    did not enjoy the first LOTR film and decided to not bother with the rest of
    the trilogy. I couldn't imagine the tedium of sitting through an extended
    version.

    The problem with them was that they were quite simply boring. Although the
    filmmakers had done this incredible technical job of putting the world of
    Middle Earth on the screen it felt horribly sterile. Of course it's often
    the case that a film doesn't work as well as the way you imagined the book,
    but in the case of LOTR the film seemed to have little merit. It was a
    long road movie without the depth of the Middle Earth world and relationships
    between the characters and the different type of characters lost in the
    filming.

    Not trying to troll, just that the film had all the look of Middle Earth
    without any of the feeling. A bit like Matrix Reloaded: all shiny but
    hollow at the same time.

    John.

    (Of course there was the incomparable Liv Tyler [imdb.com]
    so it wasn't a totally wasted 3 hours :-)
    • You just didn't get Matrix Reloaded. :-)
      • A movie can have many layers of "meaning," and still be a bad movie. Matrix Reloaded is, at best, a mediocre movie, whatever little philosophical widgets they tossed into it.
    • I felt the same way after seeing the first film in the theatre, but I gave it another shot when the extended version came out on DVD... I watched it and then watched the extended version of the Two Towers... I enjoyed the 2nd movie much more than the first, but having never read the books, the history and background the first movie provides helped me enjoy the 2nd movie that much more.....
      • I watched it and then watched the extended version of the Two Towers.

        Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the extended version of Two Towers hasn't been released yet, right?

      • Yes, oh, yes (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mckwant ( 65143 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:40PM (#6767963)
        Complete concurrance. I can't make it through the books. I've tried three times, and I always get bored/apathetic/annoyed after they leave the mushroom farmer guy for another 100 pages of trail walking.

        The first movie felt very true to the books. Long, dull, lots of walking and hiding. To paraphrase John Goodman in Barton Fink, my butt was sore after the first 45 minutes.

        The second movie (to which I was drug by my wife) was actually quite good, IMHO. I'd highly recommend it to anyone. The Gollum/Smegiel (sp?) sequences have to be seen to be believed.

    • Re:Not my cup of tea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by brakk ( 93385 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:37PM (#6767929) Homepage
      Everybody always says that about any movie that comes out that was made from a book. "OMG, the book was so much better. blah blah blah. I'm such an elitist bastard blah blah blah" There is no way they can fit a book into a two hour screen play. Yes, I think LOTR felt a bit rushed trying to squeeze everything they could into it, even at three hours. But you have to look at them as two separate entities or just not see it in the first place because you know they could never do a decent book justice.

      • Re:Not my cup of tea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by slipstick ( 579587 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:45PM (#6768592)
        You don't try to fit the book into the film, you create a screen-play from the book. It is a "based on" type of thing. It is entirely possible to create a film that is as good or better than a book if you do it right.

        Now having said that I was slightly disappointed with the way the films have portrayed the main point of the book, e.g. the destroying of evil to preserve good. Don't get me wrong I loved the films but they have lost a certain element that really comes through in the narrative of the books. Basically the films are much more dark than the books are. As dire as the book seems some times there always seems to be a chapter thrown in of happiness to reenforce just exactly what they are fighting for.

        This didn't have to happen. Peter Jackson has done a great job of special effects and making this in to a great action flick but he lost some of the feeling and it was sooooo easy to fix. Instead of starting "The Fellowship of the Ring" with the story of the ring it should have started as the book did, Bilbo's birthday party. You can easily fill in the audience when Gandalf finds out exactly what the ring is. In fact this leaves some suspense for 1/2 hour while the audience is settling in and enjoying the scenery. Than when Gandalf comes back and tells Frodo the story you could have inserted the action sequence from the beginning of the film using Gandalf's voice for the voice over which would have lent more "harshness" to it.

        For as great as the books are, and I absolutely love them, they still come down to good vs evil and we all know how that will end we just don't know the details. The point is to make those who don't know anything about the books to fall in love with the simplicity and naivety of the Shire(recalling childhood), the majesty of the elves(the ability to believe that there are benevolent "gods"), the incredible variety and wonder of nature(the absolute silliness but child like qualities of Tom Bombadil, Gandalf's friendship with Shadowfax, Legolas falling in love with Fanghorn, Gimli falling in love with Helm's deep). The idea that man is soooo small in compared to the age of the universe or even the earth, e.g. the Ents are Old beyond imagining but this doesn't come through.

        Almost all of this went missing from the films.

        And last but not least, how dare anyone but the King of Gondor touch the sword of Isildir! That was simply unneeded, sure it doesn't mean anything to a person who hasn't read the books but for those who have, that incident alone should make them question Jackson's real commitment to the character of the books. Hell, once again there was simply NO NEED FOR IT. Why didn't Aragorn have the sword when Frodo met him just like in the book? There's no need to explain in detail as the book did. It is the thing that makes Frodo "recognize" Aragorn and that's easily done in a line or two or three.

        Anyway, enough analysis, suffice it to say that I think the books are great the films in their own way are great but that they miss the character of the book for no good reason.
        • Frankly, my problem with the whole sword-incident was that Strider even handles a full sword besides Narsil. There was such implied power in a "ranger" who never actually needed a real sword [as evinced by the fact he never handles one, nor carries one, until his own true sword is reforged]. Jackson, despite creating a beautiful and great series, lost a few points from me when he robbed Aragorn of that quiet dignity.

          Speaking of robbing of dignity, who's seen the trailer for that god-awful movie Viggo i

    • Re:Not my cup of tea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:38PM (#6767942) Homepage
      John-
      I'm sorry to hear that you didn't knjoy the movie. However, if your main criticism is "it was boring" then you really need to re-evaluate the film. If the acting were bad, the plot simple and the effects horrible, then you can say it was a bad movie. But "boring" is too much the result of either too little imagination, sleepiness/depression, or misunderstanding. I once saw a movie while I was in a very bad mood, and I pretty much hated it. Upon seeing the same movie later in a better mood, I loved it.

      With that in mind, you may want to watch the movie again.

    • It's an outrage! (Score:5, Funny)

      by ChuckleBug ( 5201 ) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:39PM (#6767957) Journal
      How DARE you express such an opinion! I flame thee, sir! Feel my flame! I liked the movies and will not tolerate your going on a PUBLIC forum and having the UNMITIGATED GALL to state a difference in taste! Flame! Take that! And that!

      FLAME FLAME FLAME

      - Just wanted to make your prophecy come true...

    • It's the format (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:45PM (#6768012) Journal
      They never should have made the movies. If they wanted to bring it to the screen, they should have done it in a series format. 1hr * 52wks * 3yrs would have given plenty of time to do the books justice...

      • Re:It's the format (Score:3, Informative)

        by babbage ( 61057 )
        Three years? Surely you're joking. The plot arc of both "LOTR" and "The Hobbit" is one calendar year: "The Hobbit" begins one spring & finishes the following spring, while LOTR begins & ends in the fall. By stretching it out over 3 years, you're effectively making it three times slower than molasses. Sounds like a blast... :-)

        • Re:It's the format (Score:4, Informative)

          by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:26PM (#6768365) Journal
          LOTR begins when Frodo is 33 and Bilbo is 111. The first chapter concerns with their joint birthday party and Bilbo's departure from the Shire.

          Fast-forward 17 years, to when Frodo is 50 and Bilbo is 128. Gandalf shows up in the *spring*, tells Frodo all about the One Ring, and then says, I'll be back by fall (of 3018).

          The hobbits have their adventures and return to the Shire around November 1st of the *following* year (3019). Then there's a handful more pages, and in 3021, Frodo, Bilbo, and the Three Keepers (Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel) leave Middle-Earth. Sam returns home shortly thereafter, and *that's* when LOTR ends. Technically, the book encompasses a bit over 20 years, although the bulk of the action occurs within a span of about a year and a half.

          <pedantic mode=off>

      • Re:It's the format (Score:5, Funny)

        by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:10PM (#6768205) Homepage Journal
        August 22nd, 8:00pm PST: "The Fellowship of the Ring"

        In tonight's episode, Aragorn relates the tale of Tinuviel to Frodo, as the other hobbits sleep. Insider scoop: according to New Line Television, the actual Tinuviel backstory was filmed, but due to protests by geeks it was dropped in favor of a true-to-book one hour narration by Viggo Mortensen.

  • Any Idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by corgicorgi ( 692903 )
    Anyone has clue to what scenes will be added to the extend version of TTT?

    • Re:Any Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by jmays ( 450770 ) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:20PM (#6767721)
      Check out this [slashdot.org] Slashdot article.

    • Re:Any Idea (Score:3, Informative)

      by soundofthemoon ( 623369 )
      I haven't heard anything, but you might want to check out http://theonering.net/ - they are a good place for LOTR rumors etc.

      Personally, I'm hoping to see a bit more character development of Eomer. All that got lost in the theatrical release.

    • Re:Any Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by theefer ( 467185 ) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:30PM (#6767852) Homepage
      I don't know, but I had the chance to see (and got my book signed by ;-)) John Howe in Geneva earlier this year. Well amongst an awful lot of interesting things, he said he had seen (all or part of?) the new scenes that would form the extended version, and he totally loved it. He added they really pushed the movie to a new standard, even making it look like a new movie. The new footages is 42 minutes long.

      Besides this, he addressed interesting issues (people could ask questions) like the presence of Elves in Helm's Deep and such other things. He answered really calmly and smartly, with precise and interesting arguments.

      I really doubt PJ could even manage to do a bad movie with RotK after having seen the two other ones, but I can't wait to find out. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

    • Re:Any Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by EvilNight ( 11001 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:26PM (#6768359)
      For those too lazy to click a few links. ;)

      - Extended opening, in which the hobbits scale a cliff face using the rope Galadriel gave Sam, including a better build-up to the arrival of Gollum.

      - More friction between the Uruk-Hai and the Orcs as they transport Merry and Pippin back to Isengard, which better sets up the fight over food that takes place later.

      - More scenes of Saruman breeding his army, creating better pacing as the invasion of Rohan begins

      - Terrific scene in which Eomer finds the body of Theodred, Theodens son.

      - Additional scenes with Merry and Pippin, including extensions to existing Treebeard scenes and the Ent Draught sequence, in which the hobbits grow. In another scene, Treebeards soporific poetry works its magic.

      - Theodreds funeral scene, with Eowyn singing a lament.

      - A wonderful introduction to Aragorns horse Brego, who we learn was Theodreds horse. Aragorn requests Brego be set free, which places his later rescue in better context.

      - Additional scenes between Eowyn and Aragorn, including one in which he attempts to eat a bowl of evil-looking stew.

      - More scenes between Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, which expand upon the films politics (including the union between the two towers Gandalf scene from the trailer, though that line is missing from what I can remember).

      - More of Sarumans musings, setting up themes that will be explored in The Return of the King.

      - Flashback to the circumstances surrounding Boromir being sent to Rivendell for the Council of Elrond, taking place during the re-taking of Osgiliath by the Gondorian army. This sequence briefly introduces John Noble as Denethor, a major character in The Return of the King. I was worried this sequence would seem like an indulgence, but its difficult to imagine the film without it; not only is the character of Faramir, much maligned by fans of the book, given added depth, so too is Boromir enriched by this addition.

      - Just before the Ents storming of Isengard, the Huorns mobilise and leave to attend to business elsewhere; they reappear at Helms Deep to kill the Uruk-Hai as they flee.

      - New ending, with Merry and Pippin finding a larder at Isengard, including two barrels of pipe-weed; a hilarious scene in which Gimli and Legolas compare their scores after the battle of Helms Deep; Frodo, Sam and Gollum are shown the way out of Osgiliath by Faramir, who threatens Gollum; theres even a brief moment in which Sam and Gollum appear to make peace.

      - Along with all these major additions, many more scenes are subtly extended to give more information or reinforce themes already present.

  • God (Score:5, Funny)

    by govtcheez ( 524087 ) <govtcheez03@hotmail.com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:19PM (#6767702) Homepage
    As if most slashdot members didn't have a bad enough case of office ass...

  • woods (Score:2, Funny)

    by noah_fense ( 593142 )

    Great, 30 more minutes of them running through the woods. On two DVDs with millions of features i'll never even consider watching.

    -n
  • When are they planning to show RotK in it's extended version?

    • Re:One question... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cromac ( 610264 )
      Probably Nov 2004, right around when they're likely to release the extended version on DVD...3 months after the theatrical version on DVD...10 months after it first hits the threaters.

  • Slashdotted already (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chaltek ( 610920 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:21PM (#6767729) Homepage

    Before any king can return, New Line Cinema will re-release of the first two "Lord of the Rings" pics worldwide, this time with additional scenes and footage added.

    Just two weeks before the Dec. 17 release of "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" -- the final installment of the Peter Jackson [theonering.net]-helmed epic trilogy -- the first two "Ring" entries will be unspooling worldwide.

    In memoranda sent to exhibitors on Wednesday, New Line laid out a game plan to promote the third film by refreshing filmgoers' memories with "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers."

    Plan calls for putting the films on 100-150 screens in top 10 U.S. markets. Many other U.S. cities will have one cinema participating in the special extended edition screenings. Running times for the extended editions are 208 minutes for "Fellowship of the Ring" and 214 minutes for "The Two Towers."

    Advanced ticket sales are scheduled to begin in late September or early October on exhibitor Web sites and movie ticketing sites like Fandango, MovieFone and Movietickets.com.

    "The release of the third film affords us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give audiences a compelling new theatrical experience of Peter Jackson [theonering.net]'s sprawling vision for this trilogy," said Rolf Mittweg, prexy and chief operating officer for worldwide distribution and marketing.

    The cost, one New Line insider estimated, will be between $10 million and $15 million. Due to the extended length of the new prints, the move is being cast as a promotional tool rather than a moneymaker.

    "It is important to note," the memo says, "that these events are produced as a marketing/publicity stunt and not as a revenue generating opportunity" and that media support will be limited largely to the Internet and participating theaters.

    Starting the week of Dec. 5, the extended DVD cut of "Fellowship of the Ring" will be released in some 100 or so theaters in the U.S. and in 20 theaters in Canada.

    Then, the week of Dec. 12, sequel "Two Towers" will unspool, just a month after having preemed on DVD, leading up to a worldwide Dec. 16 daylong marathon, during which all three films will be shown back-to-back. Exhib guidelines call for a 3 p.m. showing of "Fellowship" followed by a 7 p.m. screening of "Two Towers" and then an 11 p.m. screening of "Return of the King," which will carry over into Dec. 17 -- the day of its global release.

    Overseas, it's not yet clear whether all exhibs will be showing the new footage-added prints of the previous "Rings" pics. According to one New Line insider, the decision is being left to exhibs, which will make their requests known to New Line in the next few weeks.

    Italy and Japan will not immediately be included in the foreign promotional blitz. Italo comedies dominate that country around the holidays, and corporate sibling Warner Bros. will be carpeting Japan with the next "Harry Potter" pic. Triad of "Rings" pics will instead screen in January in Italy and February in Japan.

    "King" is produced by Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh and Jackson, with a screenplay by Walsh & Philippa Boyens and Jackson, based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien.

  • Call me a pawn of 'the man', but . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jack William Bell ( 84469 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:21PM (#6767732) Homepage Journal
    Call me a pawn of 'the man', but I will be there in the theaters for both of them. The military-entertainment complex will thank me, but my bladder won't.

    Three and half hours... Why don't they have intermissions anymore?

  • Theaters. (Score:5, Informative)

    by hirebrand ( 543514 ) <hirebrand@NoSpam.yahoo.com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:22PM (#6767736) Homepage

    Just to be clear, these are being released in the theaters. Not on VHS / DVD, which was my immediate thought.

    Plan calls for putting the films on 100-150 screens in top 10 U.S. markets. Many other U.S. cities will have one cinema participating in the special extended edition screenings. Running times for the extended editions are 208 minutes for "Fellowship of the Ring" and 214 minutes for "The Two Towers."
    • Then, the week of Dec. 12, sequel "Two Towers" will unspool, just a month after having preemed on DVD,

      The extended version of FOTR has been out since last year, when I bought it, just before TTT was release. And again they will release last year's movie on extended DVD before showing ROTK.

  • FoxTrot (Score:5, Funny)

    by ceswiedler ( 165311 ) * <chris@swiedler.org> on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:23PM (#6767743)
    Reminds me of an old Foxtrot cartoon....

    The sister asks her kid brother and his friend where they are going. They say they're going to watch 3 Star Wars movies. She says, "All three? back-to-back?" They reply, "No, all three...three times in a row."

  • My only... (Score:5, Funny)

    by paranode ( 671698 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:23PM (#6767748)
    Tricksters New Lines... they's trying to sell my precious again... we not likes them....

    My only... my precious...

  • Because this time, we really wanted a dozen walkers in the background and thousands of Ewoks scurrying around in the foreground!
  • Ah yes, milk the moneycow till it drops dead. I'm sure Peter Jackson is not George Lucas, and the guilty party here is the New Line execs, but I hope it won't over-expose people to LotR. The title of the /. article had me expecting that they were going to release a 10 hour film, but I guess that would be too long, and the movies would make less profit. Instead they can make a 3 movie marathon and have everybody pay 3 times as much!

    Will Warner Bros. be doing the same for the Matrix Trilogy?
    • The cost, one New Line insider estimated, will be between $10 million and $15 million. Due to the extended length of the new prints, the move is being cast as a promotional tool rather than a moneymaker.

      Ah yes, those greedy bastards.

    • So? New Line was forward thinking enough to take a leap of faith and let Jackson film all three at once (with obvious benefits to the viewers). Why not let them reap the rewards of their big millions gamble (it could have flopped. big.)

    • Re:Milking the Cow (Score:5, Informative)

      by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:51PM (#6768056)
      As the article points out, this is not meant to be an attempt to generate revenue, but merely a promotional tool.

      Releasing 3+ hour long movies in 3 successive weeks in few select theatres with little fanfaire (at least according to the article) doesn't sound like over-exposure. Sounds more like a treat for the fans.

      As for a 10 hour movie, while that certainly would be interesting, it would a) involve lots of work by jackson et al. to interweave the films (rather than simply playing back to back) and b) would be expensive as hell. (as two sets of different prints would have to be sent out to the theatres, depending if they were showing ROTK or the entire trilogy movie, or both if they having two different sets.) and c) would be financially disasterous for the movie theaters. (as a 10 hour movie for the price of one, means they are losing admission on at least 2 to 4 films).

      As for other arguments regarding milking the cow, New Line and Jackson have ALL along stated that each DVD would be released as a theatrical and an extended edition. True fans who wanted both could buy both, others could pick which one to get. as I recall, there were even signs up at the stores (or stickers on the dvd) when FOTR came out reminding people that the extended version was still to be released.

  • Yay! (Score:3, Funny)

    by blitzoid ( 618964 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:24PM (#6767760) Homepage
    Holy shit I had dreamed about something like this happening.

    Months ago I had said to my friends "Since I can't do it in theaters, I'm gonna get all the extended DVDs when they come out and watch them in a row.". Now I CAN do it in theaters. Hurray.

    • Re:Yay! (Score:3, Informative)

      by drivers ( 45076 )
      Yes but the ROTK in theatres this year isn't going to be the extended version. I'd assume you'd have to wait 11 months or so to get the extended ROTK DVD.

  • All in one? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mansa ( 94579 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:24PM (#6767769)
    I've heard Tolkien originally wanted the three series into one large book. The title of this submission "The Trilogy as One" got me thinking. I wonder if they'll splice all three movies together when the next generation DVD comes out. Then you could take it all in as JRR intended. Sure, it'd be a marathon... but I think lots of geeks would dig it.
    • They are in one book! I bought it for my kid. It has the hobbit in it too, as a kind of a preface.

      It's about three feet thick, and the most awkward reading experience you'll ever have. I'd rather have a nice set.

    • Re:All in one? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Universal Nerd ( 579391 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:51PM (#6768057)
      As far as I can remember, (it's been a while) the original title was "The Fall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King".

      Sound familiar? It should be, it's the title of the Red Book that Frodo leaves with Sam at the Grey Havens.

      The sublty of this moment, slighty smudged by the fact that the book is divided in 3, is, to me, the greatest of the whole story... I was not reading a book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, I was reading a book started by Bilbo Baggins then by Frodo with Peregrin Took, Samwise Gamee and Meriadoc Brandybuck and later translated by Mr. Tolkien.

      I always shudder at that point in the story when, yet again, I realize that the story is a tale of a quest performed by the bold little people of the Shire.
    • It would be just like watching the directors cut of Dune!

      (that's a poor attempt at humor, for those of you so-impaired)
  • I won't be going to the extended editions in the cinema.

    graspee

    • I'll own the DVDs, and I'd rather throw a co-ed pizza/beer/LOTR party than sit in a theatre for ten hours. I don't think I'll be seeing them in theatres either.

      However, that 11:00 showing of Return of the King on December 16 is looking attractive...

  • ... exactly why do I even bother watching it when it first comes out?

  • Bring a bedpan and pack a lunch (Score:4, Funny)

    by RumpRoast ( 635348 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:27PM (#6767799)
    Man that theatre is going to smell bad. Dec 16th = Smelly LOTR day.
  • I saw both movies, because I see at least 80% of movies that come out purley out of boredom.

    Yet I must admit that I was quite excieted about LOTR, only to be disapointed.

    Maybe I expected too much, maybe I allowed myself to be a victim of the hype. Maybe it'd be better had I gone in expecting nothing like I did with Fight Club and come out feeling that I had just seen the best movie of the year if not the decade without expecting it.

    I am not saying that LOTR is bad, it certainly deserves an A+ for effort,

  • a guess (Score:4, Insightful)

    by prichardson ( 603676 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:27PM (#6767811) Journal
    I'm going to take a wild guess and say that New Line is going to release the ultra mega super insane LOTR pack about a year after LOTR:ROTK comes out. I am waiting until then to buy the dvd. This dvd will contain all the full length movies and a huge stack of extras. They might even throw in a big full color map or something like that. It will probably be unbearable expensive, too.

  • Food? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:28PM (#6767819) Journal
    I'm NOT gonna survive on theater popcorn, hotdogs and mega-jumbo Cokes for 11 hours. I hope they have intermissions between the films so we can hit the mall food court...

    • Re:Food? (Score:5, Funny)

      by sehryan ( 412731 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:04PM (#6768163)
      I'm NOT gonna survive on theater popcorn, hotdogs and mega-jumbo Cokes for 11 hours. I hope they have intermissions between the films so we can hit the mall food court...

      So you can pick up a greasy burger, salty fries, and a mega-jumbo coke instead?
    • I'm NOT gonna survive on theater popcorn, hotdogs and mega-jumbo Cokes for 11 hours. I hope they have intermissions between the films so we can hit the mall food court...

      How NOT to smuggle food into the movies [amishrobot.com]...
  • Will old Tom Bombadil be in the extended versions?
  • ...that portrayed faramir correctly. I can forgive all the other stuff they messed up in the two towers but the whole faramir business and taking the poor hobbit back to gondor just drives me crazy...kind of like Jar Jar did when I saw EP 1.

    Alas I'll still buy the videos.
  • They are ruining our right to privacy and have bought off corrupt politicians and death to all the capitalist dogs who.. Oh quick, another special edition release of LOTR! WHERES MAH CHECKBOOK.

    Who buys a movie they've seen anyways, that's something I've never understood.

  • Reuters 7:40pm: A number of individuals have filed suit against New Line cinemas after their bladders exploded due to a marathon session of watching all 3 LOTR movies, a particular predilection for Coke and salt-topped foods, and a distaste for hanging their weenie out in cinema urinals which were cleaned sometime last decade.

  • Here's a summary of TTT for those who missed it (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Lord of the Rings by Jack "Rockin'-Robin" Tolkein

    Part II

    At that very moment, some wood elves were making an important discovery. Gollum had vanished!

    Could it be that he found the ring from Isildur who fell into a swamp and floated down the stream? Gandalf frowned.

    "Uruk-hai!" shouted Aragorn. "Gazundheit" said Gimli. "Orcs!" shouted Aragorn, and four hundred and twenty thousand orcs thundered down on the tiny camp. The Man Who Would Be King rolled on the ground, grappling with the murderous bea

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by OneIsNotPrime ( 609963 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:37PM (#6767939)
    catheter sales expected to rise 1200% for the month of December.

  • how to avoid the bathroom while watching the movie (Score:5, Funny)

    by frankmu ( 68782 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:39PM (#6767960) Homepage
    teach your self how to self catheterize your self during the movie

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/ 00 3972.htm

  • I totally agree - The Two Towers was an absolute disappointment. If I ever make tons of cash, I'll 1) help as many underprivileged as I can and 2) make a manly LOTR movie trilogy that is TOTALLY faithful to books (sans the tunes, maybe ;) ).

  • R Rating? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by detritus. ( 46421 ) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:53PM (#6768075)
    I remember there was talk about how they initially left out some scenes in the FOTR theatrical release because it would have given them an "R" rating. One has to wonder if the extended-edition DVD release of the FOTR (which still had a PG-13 rating) still cut out the violent scenes from all releases, or if the MPAA changed their mind, or if they will include the violent scenes in the re-release and give it an "R" rating?

  • I predict... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:54PM (#6768080) Homepage Journal
    ... that 9 months from December, we'll see a sharp decline in the number of babies born.

  • Maybe a Rant, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greymond ( 539980 ) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:57PM (#6768105) Homepage Journal
    I'm so glad I didn't buy any of the DVD's for the LOTR trilogy, just because I feel really bad for all the fans who have a "sucky" version or have spent tons of cash on all the different versions of the dvd's. Because of this i'm just gonna wait till the summer after ROTK to buy whatever becomes the "almost-most-fulfilling-3-dvd-set-of-themoment" then at least i'll have all 3 and of only paid one price instead of owning 6 versions of each of the first movies AND the trilogy as a set.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close