Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

New Trailer For The Two Towers 405

Posted by timothy from the admirable dept.
Drakkar writes "As most of you know, the new trailer for the Two Towers was online last night for AOL users, but the link was given on the official site, LordofTheRings.net. It's in real player format. A new trailer with higher quality will be up tonight, midnight ET. This new piece of film is awesome. (the song at the end of the trailer isn't from the TTT soundtrack, it's from the movie Requiem for a Dream)" xTK-421x points to more links: "Now available is the new 3 minute trailer for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Available here in MOV and here in RM. Reported first at Aint It Cool News."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Trailer For The Two Towers More

New Trailer For The Two Towers

Comments Filter:

  • holy bandwidth, batman (Score:3, Funny)

    by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @01:51PM (#4361059)
    that MOV link from AOL came in at 400 Kbps. fastest download from a slashdot-linked site, ever?

  • not so impressive (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    considering that the full-length film of "return of the king" can now be downloaded.

    • Re:not so impressive (Score:2, Informative)

      by JR ( 87651 )
      I highly doubt that "Return of the King" can be downloaded since it isn't finished as of yet.

      Just as with the upcoming "The Two Towers", there is more work (largely effects and editing) to be completed on "Return of the King" before its late 2003 release.

  • Yippeee! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DeadEye ( 6229 )
    I work at Stormfront Studios in San Rafael, CA and I'd also like to note here that our game based on the first and second movies comes out on October 22nd in North America. I only mention here because this is the first game for me and I am very proud of our team. It is published by EA and will be available for the PS2. We're all fiending to see the second movie as we've gotten to see only bits and pieces along the way and are dying to see the finished product! I've been a Slashdot lurker for quite a few years now and finally have something worth posting! Congrats to the whole team.

  • Hi-Res Trailer (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by smoondog ( 85133 )
    Does anyone have a higher res version?

    -Sean

  • music (Score:2, Informative)

    by k2enemy ( 555744 )
    the song is by clint mansell [clintatthecontrols.com], who also did the music for pi.
    • Naah, the music for Requiem for a Dream was Clint Mansell and the Kronos Quartet. Clint did the beepy bits, the Quartet did the cello bits. The bit in the trailer is definitely a string instrument.

  • What format (Score:3, Insightful)

    by johnburton ( 21870 ) <johnb@jbmail.com> on Monday September 30, 2002 @01:56PM (#4361126) Homepage
    Bah, it's in RM and MOV formats....!
    After the amount of junk the players for both of those installed on my machine last time I tried them I won't have them on my machine.

    Anyone know any software for windows that will play either of those formats without installing a whole load of junk as well?

    • Re:What format (Score:3, Insightful)

      by miracle69 ( 34841 )
      Linux
      VM Ware
      Then have as many virtual Windows sessions as you like, crap be-gone.

      Or...

      Linux
      Crossweavers

      Or...
      Linux
      Real Media on a temporary account.

      Or...

      Wait, you don't have options in the Winders werld...

    • Re:What format (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Erik Fish ( 106896 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:49PM (#4361605) Journal
      Screw those formats. Anybody have a DIVX, XVID or even just plain-jane MPEG copy of this trailer??

    • Anyone know any software for windows that will play either of those formats without installing a whole load of junk as well?

      I've never heard of Windows software that will do anything without installing a whole load of additional junk.

  • Two Towers: Now In Convenient Book Form! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shuh ( 13578 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @01:56PM (#4361127) Journal
    If you just can't stand not knowing what's coming up in the next movie, rumor has it the 2nd book (and even the 3rd and final book) are out now! ;c)

  • Frame by Frame (Score:5, Informative)

    by Grip3n ( 470031 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:00PM (#4361160) Homepage
    For us LotR addicts, a frame by frame analysis is available at:

    http://www.theonering.net/movie/preview/ttt_093002 _01.html [theonering.net]

    Additionally there is official frame by frame footage available at Lordoftherings.net [lordoftherings.net]

  • What was wrong with the old trailer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311@@@yahoo...com> on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:03PM (#4361192) Homepage
    And what kind of horsepower do you need to pull two towers anyway?

    Seems like it would just be easier to just screw the trailer and leave the towers in the same spot.

  • The First glimpses... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cOdEgUru ( 181536 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:03PM (#4361199) Homepage Journal
    Of Gandalf's final fight with the Demon

    Of Gandalf's new kickass horse

    Of how Gollum compares to the hobbits in size (he is smaller)

    Of Treebeard

    Even the eye looks slightly different this time.
    • gollum is a hobbit

      the warg riding orcs are bad ass and so was the half second clip of hte elephant, i'm already impressed (never ever ever happens by a trailer) and for hte first time in a long time i'm actually looking forward to seeing a movie

      it's about fucking time good old school fantasy gets made into quality movies
  • It is from a track called "Zoo York", one of the best tracks on an excellent album "Bunkka".

    It was indeed used in Requiem.

    • Re:The music is Paul Oakenfold (Score:5, Informative)

      by XyouthX ( 194451 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:18PM (#4361321) Homepage
      No, the track is called Lux Aeterna, composed by Clint Mansell who wrote the entire score for RFAD.

      • Re:The music is Paul Oakenfold (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Triv ( 181010 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:40PM (#4361505) Journal
        This sort of thing, reusing a soundtrack, happens all the time. Usually, when a trailer needs to be released to promote a new flick, the soundtrack for the movie hasn't been finalized yet. Whatever music you hear in a trailer is just filler (there's gotta be something there) - I just saw a preview (I can't remember what for - the trailer was before "Secretary")that used the "American Beauty Theme". It's a solid bet that "Lux Aeterna" won't appear anywhere in the finished movie.

        Triv
    • The name sounds like it could have almost been the name of a character in LOTR. Thanks for the information. Has anyone found a source of the music on the early trailer for the first movie. I beleive it was 'Gothic Power' but never could find it.
    • Are you sure? "Requiem for a Dream" credits Clint Mansell with the soundtrack composition, the song in question being "Lux Aeterna," and it was performed by the Kronos Quartet in that film.

      AFAIK Oakenfold's work is a remix.

      Many previews use old soundtracks ("Bishop's Countdown" being the best example) that aren't in the final film, but this one sounded to me like an orchestra performance and not the Kronos original.

    • It is from a track called "Zoo York", one of the best tracks on an excellent album "Bunkka".

      It is pretty common for movie houses to temporarily score films with off-the-shelf music (how many trailers have you seen using music from Carmina Burana, for example...) until the real score is ready, since it's tough to score a film without having it mostly editted so the score follows the action on the screen. Trailers will often use this temporary score, or use some other piece of off-the-shelf music.

      Useless trivia: The score in 2001: A Space Odyssey is supposedly this temporary score. They'd hired a composer to do an original score for the movie, and the composer annoyed Kubrick, so they decided to stick with the classical pieces they'd chosen for the temporary score.

      I can't begin to imagine the monolith without "Also Sprach Zarathustra"...

    • Re:The music is Paul Oakenfold (Score:4, Informative)

      by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrvNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:39PM (#4361491) Homepage

      Paul Oakenfold owes a debt then to Clint Mansell (former Pop Will Eat Itself frontman) and the Kronos Quartet, who originally composed and performed all of the themes used in Requiem for a Dream. Oakenfold used their music, they didn't use his.

      In fact, there's a remix album [clintatthecontrols.com] for Requiem For A Dream's soundtrack coming out this October, which features a track by Oakenfold.

      As an aside: The original promotional website [requiemforadream.com] for Requiem for a Dream is one of the best flash sites ever produced, and it's still up as of this writing.

  • Spoilers (Score:3, Informative)

    by Skiboo ( 306467 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:05PM (#4361217) Homepage
    I'm aware that most people who care have read the novel (I know I have)... but this trailer spoils almost every major plot point in the thing!

    *SPOILER WARNING*
    It's got the group meeting Gandalf again, Gandalf talking with the king, the city evacuating and going to war at helm's deep, it's got gollum attacking frodo and slam, then eventually leading them to mordor. and more.
    *END SPOILER*

    I mean, way to lone gunmen are dead the thing.

  • You people aren't doing your jobs. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Phoenix ( 2762 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:11PM (#4361267)
    What the hell is going on here? I was actually able to go to the link and actually see the content of the article. Hell I was even able to see the trailer.

    You people are slacking! That site should have been /.'ed 30 comments ago. What are you people doing for heaven sake? Working?

  • I'm for once loooking forward to a couple of sci-fi flicks. Oddly(?), they are both sequels. LOTR/FOTR and Matrix both gave us acting (or casting, in Keanu Reeve's case), storyline and character development. I hope the Sci-fi community notices that the stakes are higher now. We are developing a taste for quality beyond expensive effects.

    The fact that the plots in both movies were without gaping holes also contributed to a good experience.

  • And Three Seconds Later... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:30PM (#4361414) Homepage Journal
    It was on all the P2P networks, mis-named to "LOTR:The Two Towers.Yes.This.Is.Real.And.Not.A.Trailer.DivX.avi "
  • I'm excited about these movies mainly because of the spectacle and look of the things...not because I don't know how the movie turns out. I'm starting to really _hate_ trailers that show all the groovy bits of a movie before their opening day...to the point where I deliberately look away and don't watch them when they appear in the theatre or on TV. In some cases, I've attended movies that gave very little more than the trailers did...one of my fave comments to the wife now is 'I guess we don't have to see _that_ movie now...'...and we don't!

    I want my first sight of a great movie to actually be _in_ the movie theatre when it starts to roll. Am I weird?

  • See the whole movie using your computer! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BMonger ( 68213 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @02:50PM (#4361618)
    Go to the bookstore. Buy the book "The Two Towers". Turn all the lights in your computer room to off. Turn the brightness on your monitor way up and make sure energy saving features and screen savers are turned off. Turn the book so the text is facing the monitor. RTFB. When you come to a part you want to visualize, stop reading, close your eyes, and pretend.
  • In case you didn't know, the site also streams the movie soundtrack around the clock. Nice. Click Here [shoutcast.com] to listen.
  • They'll just use the money you spend on this movie to try to take away computers. Have a little self-respect for goodness' sake.
  • The rings website reported there was some consideration by Peter Jackson of renaming the middle movie. e.g. "War of the Rings", because of connotations to the World Trade Center "Twin Towers". But I'd guess the anniversary media saturation has been cathartic to many and they can move on.
    For a while there it was hard to watch movies like Independence Day or Star Wars and not think of 9-11.

    • Hold on Bucko (Score:4, Insightful)

      by doublem ( 118724 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @10:31PM (#4364629) Homepage Journal
      Star Wars?

      Star Wars?

      You know, there are just some people who WANT to be reminded, and any excuse to be reminded will do it for them.

      When you lose someone you care about, everything reminds you of them, even things that make absolutely no sense as something to trigger the memory.

      Personally, I would have taken as an insult to Americans and the human race if he had changed the title of The Two Towers. Why? Simple, it would have been claiming we can't heal. It would be announcing to the world that Jackson didn't think Americans could recover from tragedy.

      You know what? In the grand scheme of things, 9-11 was NOT that massive a disaster. True, it killed thousands of people, and yes it changed the country, but worse things happen all over the world, and the rest of the planet recovers. The people learn to live life without the people they lost. Did you hear about the recent bout of floods in China? How about the starvation that's ravaging Africa? Hell, what about AIDS in Africa. Yes, losing over 3,000 people in one day is terrible, but it happens all over the world. Americans are just too ethnocentric to see the rest of the planet as anything other than the Disney / Hollywood sanitized tourist attraction on TV. Terrorism is nothing new, it's as old as human conflict. Human conflict has been going on since the dawn of the species itself. From the moment our ancestors first picked up a weapon in the Fertile Crescent, we've been killing each other.

      Clearchannel releasing a list of songs that might offend, people being chastised for speaking out against the ongoing war and every other patronizing thing that's been going on disgusts me.

      People don't heal or recover from emotional trauma if they don't face reality. Those who retreat into a shell where all traumatic stimulus is hidden wither and die.

      There were times in the last year where I saw the entire country morphing into Ms. Havisham from Great Expectations. Unable to deal with the groom running away on her wedding day, she locks herself in her room and never emerges. She withers and dies in her wedding gown. The windows are shut and the curtains sealed to prevent light from entering. She froze herself and her memories at a time just before her loss, when she was still filled with the promise of marriage and a family.

      Erasing the WTC from photos and movies, pretending it didn't exist, is no different than what Ms. Havisham did. It's hiding from reality, letting the wounds fester. We've been bitten by a rattlesnake and are refusing to drain the poison. Refusing to think about what has happened, the poison works its way into our blood and kills us.

      We have to face reality, and that means picking up the things we enjoyed before the disaster and enjoying them again. If a man loses his wife, he can't shut himself up forever and never see the sun again.

      Yes, changing the name of a movie is a small thing in the grand scheme of things, but it is one step on a road we must not take.

      The saying "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" is more true than people realize. Physically, most the country is unharmed, but if we crawl into holes and let our liberties be drained away and our lives become a mass of traumatic material that must be avoided, we will wither and die. The events will not have made us stronger. We will have died inside.
  • And no one has mentioned the lack of Tom Bombadil yet? My favorite hippy-freakout character excised from the movie. I was planning to laugh my ass off.

    Of course, this may have been discussed in one of the previous umpteen LOTR threads I have completely ignored.

  • Gandalf in the Trailer? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Monday September 30, 2002 @08:52PM (#4364155)

    Is anyone else horribly dissappointed at further appearances of Gandalf in the trailers? The first one I saw showed him for a split second and then focused on the other characters in astonishment to see Gandalf. It left some suspicion as to what was actually happening with Gandalf, although it revealed more than I would have preferred (for other people, since I already know what happens). I was unhappy to see that in the preview, but figured that perhaps not all was lost. However, this trailer clearly shows that Gandalf has indeed returned, after seemingly falling/fighting to his death. It seems like it is a huge spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the books yet, and although it might bring in just a few more ticket sales, the experience that could have been felt at seeing Gandalf return has now been lost. I am extremely dissappointed to see this in the trailer, anyone else have any thoughts on this?

    On another note that people have been discussing thus far, I am happy with the story taking place in the movie versus the story taking place in the book. I was discussing this with the group of friends that I went to see the 12:01 showing of FOTR with - that the story that the movie tells doesn't necessarily need to mirror the story told in the book. We came to this conclusion because the gist of the LOTR as well as other stories of similar-type eras is relatively constant. There is good and evil, heroes and villains, battling, love stories, history (of conflict, of development) etc. What then makes a good story is how you tell your particular interpretation of a particular set of events of the era (or of a particular setting - ie think of multiple copies of the same universe, taking on different courses of events to conclude on different worlds with different races, towns, events, goods, evils, etc but still with the same themes at heart as the other worlds). So, the fact that Peter Jackson hasn't mirrored the exact events, settings, and dialogues of the actual LOTR book is not a problem, because although he is basing his interpretation on the sum whole of events in the LOTR book, he is actually making mild interpretations of the world at hand, but still working the same main themes, just with a slight Peter Jackson touch. The movies are not necessarily supposed to be Tolkein's LOTR on screen, they are supposed to be the LOTR story told on screen by Peter Jackson based on Tolkein's interpretation of LOTR ideas and events (since, really, the LOTR story is not Tolkein's, he just provided his grand interpretation and visualization of events that so many people have thought about). Not that I'm knocking Tolkein down or anything, I think he did a great job, I just think that comments on the movie like "he missed this" or "the book wasn't like that" are fruitless - pointless, even. Anyone else want to comment?

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close