Lord of the Rings Theatrical Trailer 334
BadmanX writes: "The brand new Lord of the Rings trailer that ran on several shows tonight (including the season premier of Angel) is available for download from Apple's Quicktime site." Hmmm. Mirrors definitely needed.
/.ed? (Score:1)
Re:/.ed? (Score:2, Funny)
Hmph (Score:1)
From the trailers I have seen however i'm still incredibly impressed.
Mirrors - DivX and Real Video as well!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mirrors - DivX and Real Video as well!! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.tolkien-movies.com/media/officialtraile rs.shtml
[tolkien-movies.com]
Re:Mirrors - DivX and Real Video as well!! (Score:3, Informative)
shut up man
Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if they'll even explain how Merry and Pippin get their Numenorean blades... but my guess is that they will be gifts from Elrond.
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:2)
If they tried to film the book accurately, I think the movies would end being 15-20 hours long. The BBC cut out Bombadil for their radio version, and it's still about 13 hours long.
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:2, Informative)
You can't cut Bombadil. Bombadil is not unimportant. This almost made me weep, Tom Bombadil is my absolute favorite character in all of Tolkien's book, including Silmarillion and the Book of Lost Tales series.
Bombadil's elvish name, Iarwain Ben-Adar, translates roughly to the oldest without father, because he was in Middle Earth before the elves came the first time. Some even think Bombadil is one of the Maiar or even the Valar.
Personally, I think he might be a Vala, because the other mighty Maiar in Middle Earth were affected by the ring, while Bombadil was not.
Whatever he is, though, things such as Bombadil are in my opinion what makes Tolkien's stories as great as they are. If it wasn't for these "meaningless" passages, The Trilogy could have been any fantasy book out there. It is all the strange, elaborate stuff surrounding the main story that makes Tolkien's universe as magic as it is.
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:2, Insightful)
In that context, I think it makes more sense to cut out things like Bombadil, and perhaps (hopefully?) this is what Peter Jackson and his crew were thinking as well. Hopefully it wasn't just to "dumb it down" for the masses.
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh huh.
It wasn't until after I read the trilogy and was discussing it with my friends who are serious Tolkein-heads that I discovered all the details about Bombadil. Until then, I thought it was a too-long interlude in a section in desperate need of editing, and it focused on a character who had trouble being coherent. Yawn.
Now, if you focused on that and spent a while, you might do it justice, but really, talking about the Elvish name of a character, and their place in the cosmos, before you actually meet an elf even, is kinda silly.
I think Tolkein's books are best read the second time, after you've read everything else he's written at least once. Unfortunately, the movie can't do it.
But, all hope is not lost, for purists such as yourself... I heard a rumor (said to be fairly accurate) that the movies were ~2 hours for theatre, but the DVD was going to come with that version and a directors cut with an extra hour, all the little snipped bits that they didn't think would play well for the lay-person.
Now, that's likely going to mostly be 30s bits here and there, that they chopped for pacing, but it might also include some scenes which were shot but later cut. And one of those might be Bombadil.
I don't think they'd have shot it, if they planned to not use it, but they might have shot it early on and cut it early.
I didn't see an actor playing Bombadil, so it's not terribly likely, but might be worth paying attention.
Something has to give (Score:3, Insightful)
Then what do you cut?
Art is about constraints. Moviemakers have different contraints than book writers. Peter Jackson gets to use CGI, but Tolkein didn't. Tolkein got to use hundreds of pages for whatever he wanted, but Jackson has time limits carved in stone. Something has to give, and whoever is doing it, has hard choices to make. I guess Jackson's choices were different than yours. Probably after I see the movie, I'll decide his choices were different than mine too. But it's really a no-win situation; no matter what he cuts, it's going to make someone unhappy.
Maybe it is theoretically possible to make a 30 hour LOTR movie that has everything from Tolkein's story and is all things to all fans. But that wouldn't fit the patterns and traditions (as arbitrary as they may be) for theatrical movies, which means that even then it won't be all things to all people: it won't serve the people who are funding it.
Re:Hopefully it's not all straight from the script (Score:2)
OT (Pedantic, Annoying) (Score:2)
And actually, Oppenheimer quoted it as "the Shatterer or Worlds."
Re:OT (Pedantic, Annoying) (Score:2)
Oppenheimer ain't around to ask anymore, but I believe he said 'destroyer'. Since the Bhagavad Gita wasn't written in English, it is doubtful that anyone can definitively say that the correct word is shatterer. Shatterer is more poetic to me, but pretty much everything I can find on the subject says that Oppenheimer said the words I'm quoting.
If I had more than 120 characters to work with, I might have the quote followed by "J. R. Oppenheimer, leader of the Manhattan Project, (possibly mis-)quoting Vishnu in the Baghavad Gita, upon successful first test of a nuclear device at Trinity test site, Alamogordo, New Mexico". If I had more room, I would likely also include Bainbridge's quote, which I really like.
Now we're way off topic and the only reason that I'm posting this is because I've had several questions about it. I don't mind the questions. I think it's a relevant quote even for Lord of the Rings. It's easy for me to think of the ring as a nuclear device. None of the good guys want to use it except Boromir. How many of us would be able to resist the temptation to put on the ring? Think of all the good you could do with it. :) Think of all the evil that you would unleash if you did use it. Tolkien was teaching us, as do all good storytellers. Power corrupts. Ultimate power corrupts absolutely.
I'm out. Peace.
Umm... don't we know the plot already? (Score:3, Insightful)
Phantom Menace was a different deal. The trailer showed the fabulous visuals, but didn't clue you in to the fact that the plot sucked and the dialog was lame. With FOTR, we know the story is great. The trailer sure shows that the visuals are great, too.
Re:Spoilage? (Score:2)
Re:Spoilage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I am so disappointed that the story is altered. I don't want to go see what some hollywood producer wants to say -- I want to see what the author has to say.
You can -- by reading the originals. Tolkein didn't make movies, he wrote books, and thus there is no way that a movie could possibly be "what the author had to say." The movie is a different work of art, created by different people.
Re:Spoilage? (Score:2)
Honestly, I am so disappointed that the story is altered. I don't want to go see what some hollywood producer wants to say -- I want to see what the author has to say.
Peter Jackson, a Hollywood producer? *snicker* Yeah, he's a regular Mr Hollywood. Have you seen his films? None of them say "Hollywood" in the least to me.
And if you thought the story was going to stay verbatim, you're silly. No-one is ever going to make a movie from a book that everyone's happy with. A picture may paint a thousand words, but give a thousand words to a number of painters, and no two paintings will be exactly the same.
In the end, you're a storyteller. You've got a story to tell, and a limited amount of time to tell it in. Peter Jackson knows the story, loves the story, and realises there's a lot of fans out there who love the story just as much as he does (if not more). He's got a story that needs to be told, but he knows he can't tell it exactly the same way as Tolkien did. Different media, different constraints.
Some of those hard decisions are going to piss people off, no matter what he does, but I'm fairly confident that he's trying to make the best damned movies he can. Anything else would be in Bad Taste, and completely Brain Dead. If you want to see what the author has to say, read a book.
on a related note... (Score:1)
I'm thinking about selling it on Ebay. Anyone interested?
I swear... (Score:5, Funny)
Damn you! Damn you for toying with out hopes and emotions!!! *sob* Don't you think next time it might be a good idea to use something more powerful than an LCIII and an Appletalk cable for a web server, you sadistic bastard!?!?!
/me bangs head on desk/
Be gentle with me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly -- this isn't a troll. I know we all read the books, but I can't quite grok how much of the anticipatory hype is grass-roots and how much is media manipulation. (I also recall a similar feeling before the release of "Dune", so I don't wanna get my hopes up too much).
Re:Be gentle with me. (Score:2)
Why is this generating so much anticipation?
One word: Marketing.
It works though - I'm salivating with anticipatory excitement as much as the next sheep......
The cartoon from a few years ago (underrated in my opinion) was unfinished, because they ran out of cash. Hence no marketing, hence a flop.
Re:Be gentle with me. (Score:2)
It generated so much anticipation when it was still Slash-style rumours and whispers back in 1997 (or earlier) that they were thinking of making LOTR movies.
The reason is simply because the source novels are by far and away the greatest fantasy work of all time (in fact, they created the genre), and it has won countless large readers' polls as Best book of all time.
Re:Be gentle with me. (Score:2)
- Why is this generating so much anticipation?
One word: Marketing.That's three words, and it's not true anyway from where I'm sitting. I haven't seen one paid ad for this anywhere, and yet I'm still twitching like a loon.
Re:Be gentle with me. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a major thing - I believe it's going to be as big as (or bigger than) Star Wars.
The book (Tolkiens trilogy, The Lord of the Rings) has been awarded as the book of the century. The previous trailers has been the most downloaded trailer ever, beating The Phantom Menace. It will, IIRC, have premiere in more than 10.000 cinemas all over the world - again, many more than The Phantom Menace.
For more info - hit the fansite TheOneRing.net [theonering.net].
Star Wars for adults (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as one who eagerly stood by with the remote last night, waiting to tape the preview as it came on, and watching my wife literally jump up and down in excitement when it did, this is a big thing.
This is the fantasy story that started a whole genre. Try and find a fantasy novel today that doesn't have _some_ type of resemblance to LOTR. It can be done, but it isn't easy. I started reading the books for the first time when I was 10, and I haven't stopped since. They are that good.
The reason everyone is so excited by this is that, as far as we've been able to determine, they're doing it right. The casting looks right. The look of the characters, of the land, of the people (elves, dwarves, hobbits, wizards), looks right. It looks like they're finally going to make this story get up, and walk out of the pages of the book, and work on the big screen.
In regard to casting, I think they made an excellent choice by NOT casting big stars -- this way the audience doesn't have a preconcieved notion of who the actors are, and can see them as only Tolkien's characters. In much the same way that Mark Hamill will always be Luke Skywalker, and Carrie Fisher will always be Princess Leia, I suspect that these actors will be typecast by this movie.
Another reason people are excited is that the state of special effects has finally arrived to the point where the special effects can be seamlessly integrated into the movie. We can watch Gandalf fighting the Balrog without being impressed by how real the Balrog looks, or by how impressively they were able to model the caverns. We've become used to seeing the impressive effects, and we can now watch them as part of the movie, without wondering how they're done, or being jarred by their unreality.
With regard to the screenplay, we already know that they've decided to take a bit of license with the story line, and increase Arwen's role (she's a lead character's love interest). They decided to do so because she really doesn't have much of a role in the story -- with the possible exception of Galadrial, no female character does. I personally don't think it'll be a big problem, and if it's the only concession they're making to the "normal" movie going public (as opposed to the geeks & uber geeks that are eagerly watching every move leading up to this production), I'll be happy.
I also recall a similar feeling before the release of "Dune", so I don't wanna get my hopes up too much.
Dune wasn't the same - I don't think we'll ever see a really good theatrical interpretation of Dune (the recent Sci-Fi channel series was pretty good, but I still think it missed a lot). The reason for that is that Dune is a very complex story. There is a lot of background, a lot of character development, and a different culture to assimilate. LOTR is essentially a good vs. evil story. The story line is very simple. We won't have to worry about extensive flashbacks, or narratives to explain complex plot points. There are good guys, and bad guys. The bad guys appears stronger, but the good guys eventually win in the end. That means that it will translate a heck of a lot better into a movie medium.
I'm really looking forward to this movie.
Re:Star Wars for adults (Score:2)
Re:Star Wars for adults (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, when it comes to the Aeneid, Virgil was merely attempting to link the founding of Rome to the fall of Troy. This pseudo-historical was little more than Virgil endeavouring to glorify Rome from from its very beginning. In effect, it is a work of propaganda.
Tolkein, on the other hand, "created" a world from scratch, or at least from a couple of languages he developed (Sindarin & Quenya). While the basic laws of physics and biology appear to be the same, with a bit of magic thrown in, Middle Earth is an entirely fictional creation. That is where the originality, the brilliance, of Tolekein's work's lie.
Re:Star Wars for adults (Score:2, Insightful)
No? I believe that Eowyn is a pretty substantial character. After all, she kills the Nazgul king and stuff. She also has a love story to offer, though hers is not as teenage-stupid-girl-goes-wooh as the Arwen-and-Aragorn thing is going to be.
I'm also looking forward to the movies, but focussing a bit more on Eowyn instead of putting in a cheesy happy ending with the Elven girl would have been better IMO.
Re:Star Wars for adults (Score:2)
Well, she is a lead character's love interest, we just don't get to see her in the book.
Eowen? If Minis Tirith falls, what's anybody coming home to? Actually, when I heard that Kate Blanchett was featured, I thought "Wow, great casting for Eowen!". When I found out she's playing Galadriel, I had a bit of a think, and came up with "Wow, great casting for Galadriel!". I love when films feature actual actors rather than stars.
Yup, and in response to the poster below who points out Homer, I'd have to say that Lord of the Rings is much closer to the Norse sagas in terms of setting, character, language and ambience. Gutteral lyricism, cleaving and hewing. You never feel that the characters are safe, and when [spoiler deleted] is killed, it feels grim and right. Oooh, I have to go and read it again! ;)
2 reasons: (Score:2)
Second, when have you EVER seen a good fantasy movie? There are legions of people who have grown up on Tolkien, Dungeons and Dragons (and its assorted spawn), and King Arthur, but never has a truly good movie been made with these elements. Excalibur was passable, I think (or maybe I just think that because it's one of the first movies I saw with nudity as a pre-teen), but this has the potential to be downright GOOD.
Those are the reasons I'm interested in it anyway.
Re:2 reasons: (Score:2)
Conan the Barbarian. Pared down, no bullshit. Conan the Destroyer to a lesser extent, but you have to give credit for the line "Enough talk! [thunk, aargh!]"
I'm hoping for a similar "less is more" feel to LotR. In fact, it's looking so good right now that if anyone grins or cracks a witty quip or goes "Uh oh!" (or "Now this is pod racing!") in any of the combat scenes, I might very well throw up.
Re:2 reasons: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, I do a lot of living history stuff, and really hate watching broadswords being used for Errol Flynn style fencing, complete with witty quips. So, I ding any fantasy that has cheesy moments (Barbarian only had one), and credit for every scene where it's made clear that steel weapon combat is brutal and nasty (big ticks for both Conan films and Excalibur). Good talky bits are nice, but really, I prefer my fantasy like a Norse saga: deeds, not words.
Why the sorensen site? (Score:2)
Re:Why the sorensen site? (Score:2)
Recommended fansite (Score:4, Informative)
If you are in search for more information - I highly recommend TheOneRing.net [theonering.net]. It's a really cool site, updated very often.
General Tolkein Info (Score:2, Interesting)
general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, the pronunciation is always fun, fits in with that whole thing about reading a book first and having the film shatter your imagined choices on how the characters would look and talk...
It will be dead funny as per usual for all the heroes to have American accents (though I guess the money came from the USA and they made the film so why not, and it's no more or less valid than any other accent). The best bit though is I hear a lot of the filming was done in New Zealand, for the big scenes they pretty well rounded up anybody who could ride a horse to be in it, some of our pals got jobs. So, imagine the scene from the film:
A battle, outside the gates of Mordor (or summink)...
Gandalf (our hero, in a Texas accent): "I will vanquish thee, oh evil spawn of darkness, back to whence thy came!"
Evil orc dressed in gothicky black wielding dead big axe (in broad Kiwi accent): "No worries mate! Choice!"
Not sure what the answer is but it always cracks me up...
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:2)
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:2)
LOL
But you are wrong - they will not have an American accent.
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:3, Informative)
British
Sean Bean (Boromir)
Ian Holm (Bilbo)
Ian McKellen (Gandalf)
Billy Boyd (Pippin)
Dominic Monaghan (Merry)
Orlando Bloom (Legolas)
Christopher Lee (Saruman)
John Rhys-Davies (Gimli)
Bernard Hill (Theoden)
The voice of Andy Serkis (Gollum)
Australian
Cate Blanchett (Galadriel)
Miranda Otto (Eowyn)
Hugo Weaving (Elrond)
John Noble (Denethor)
David Wenham (Faramir)
New Zealand
Martin Czokas (Celeborn)
Karl Urban (Eomer)
American
Elijah Wood (Frodo)
Sean Astin (Sam)
Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn)
Liv Tyler (Arwen)
Brad Dourif (Wormtongue)
As for pronouncing it as Tolkein put in the appendix, the purists have lost that one - the trailers definitely pronounce Gandalf as Gandalf, not Gandolv.
It's a shame only the Americans will invest in movies. Since half the actors are Brits, the top Hollywood cinematographers are Brits, and the book was written by a Brit, you'd reckon you could drum up some finance in Britain. But no... Silly buggers, money-men.
Grab.
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:2)
(plus, among other Kiwis): Robert Gillies (armour/weapons technician), Ngila Dickson (costume design) and Weta SFX productions, all of whom worked on Xena: Warrior Princess or Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. Battle on, Frodo! ;)
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:2)
Grab.
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:2)
Off the top of my head, isn't that how it would be pronounced if it were an elven name, but it isn't, so it isn't?
Besides, Christopher Lee is a rabid LotR fanatic, pronounciation and all, and was actually correcting the dialogue coaches on set, so I doubt if we'll hear too many fox paws. At least, not in any scenes with him in them. ;)
Re:general accent giggle - US or what? (Score:2)
Actually, that appendix applies *only* to the Elven words. Tolkien very specifically states that the (human) languages of the north of Middle-earth(from which the Rohirrim, the men of Bree, the Beorningas, and the Hobbits all came) were meant to be more Old English.
So Gandalf is pronounced correctly by Frodo in the trailer ("Do they... do they Gandalf").
And not all 'C's are hard. Scatha the Worm is pronounced "Shatha". But Celeborn is certainly pronounced "Keleborn" and Celebrian is pronounced "Kelebrian".
And to whomever said that Gandolf was British? No, he was Istari.
The person was refering to the *actor* who plays Gandalf as being British... not Gandalf himself.
Lesson In Distribution (Score:5, Informative)
It's all freaking simple, people.
shut up man
Re:Lesson In Distribution (Score:2)
Just one comment - it is actually available for download - in several versions/sizes.
Re:Lesson In Distribution (Score:2)
and
are the same, really. Akamai provides a great network for posting stuff like this. Akamai is your friend.
Allow downloads, instead of streaming-only distribution. Golf claps for doing this for the latest LoTR trailer, but big boos for messing the rest up.
I agree with this. It's very inefficient. If you want to play the trailer again, you have to request all the data again, and I don't believe many places proxy and cache streaming media requests.
P2P distribution is also a good idea, but I don't think the studios want to look like they are legitimising the practise. It's all about appearances.
They ARE using Akamai!! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the HTML of the link to the file:
<a href="http://squeeze.sorenson.com/video/fellowshi
Note that they ARE using Akamai -- for the 449 byte image used for the link. It's only the 30 Meg movie that's on the dial-up iMac.
Re:They ARE using Akamai!! (Score:2)
"It's only the 30 Meg movie that's on the dial-up iMac."
I can't comment on the bandwidth available to them, but that's no iMac. Netcraft [netcraft.com] say:
Having said that, they could probably achieve similar results with an iMac running OS X, or indeed a 386 running Windows 3.1, serving a "Server Unavailable" page.
if indeed you are wondering what the big deal is.. (Score:2, Informative)
hell, half the posts i have read already quote it word for word... interestingly without giving credit...
MIRROR: I just put it on Morpheus (Score:5, Informative)
search Morpheus for "fellowshipoftherings_fs.mov"
it's the full screen version, and *hell*yes*it*rocks*
I've throttled the max uploads to save myself, if you get it, spread it around...
Re:MIRROR: I just put it on Morpheus (Score:2)
Bryguy
Re:MIRROR: I just put it on Morpheus (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MIRROR: I just put it on Morpheus (Score:2, Funny)
Try this link (Score:2, Informative)
the easiest way to get these files is always P2P (Score:4, Informative)
2. Install and run it.
3. Select "Video" and search for "Lord of the rings"
4. then you should be able to get in a few mins. The problem is figuring out what the hell the file is called.
With apples shit site, I have to upgrade to a new version of quicktime, which took me forever and it still doesn't work. I wanted to get the zip file from the sorensen server... but it's dead.
... or you can just view the file here:
http://homepage.mac.com/johnemdall/.Movies/lotr
9/6 Trailer is not 9/24 Trailer (Score:5, Informative)
To my knowledge none of the mirror sites have it yet (although that could change). TheOneRing.Net just posts a link to the broken Apple/Sorenson server. They may be available on the Morpheous/Kazaa network; I'm at work and haven't been able to check. I'd post a mirror, too, except I haven't been able to get the latest trailer myself
I've set up a mirror... (Score:5, Informative)
http://lotr.infernix.net/ [infernix.net]
Note: PLEASE SATURATE THIS LINK.
I repeat: PLEASE SATURATE THIS LINK.
It's our (yet) unused new uplink and I'd like to stress-test it.
Thanks
infernix
The FULLSCREEN version is UP (and it's DIFFERENT!) (Score:2, Informative)
The fullscreen version starts with a storyteller while viewing a horse and wagon walking on a bridge. It's 2:51 long and has a nice progress bar (some Quicktime feature I think).
I think the 480x204 version is some other (older?) trailer, but one thing is for sure:
The FULLSCREEN version and the 480x204 version on my mirror http://lotr.infernix.net/ [infernix.net] are DIFFERENT!
And I like the fullscreen one a whole lot better, so you better get 'em both
Regards,
infernix
---> Note to moderators: please mod this up as high as my first post. Thanks
Re:I've set up a mirror... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a fast mirror (the one in the parent message is horribly saturated).
WAIT! (Score:2)
I'm 24 and reading LOTR for the first time. I was hesitant at first because fantasy books arent really my thing but I'm actually enjoying the read. When I was younger the size of the books would have put me off (even though I was an avid reader), but now I'm able to approach it as both a first-time reader and as an educated individual. Now I see why there's such a following, the characters don't have a huge amount of depth just yet but it's easy to identify with them.
Once I finish with the book(s) I'll see the movies, the order things were intended to happen. Perhaps the movies will add to the story instead of destroying it like so many other book-into-movie projects.
Re:WAIT! (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath. LotR is an astonishing work, but it's in the saga tradition where characters are defined by their deeds, not by their introspections.
Got it from Gnutella in 5 minutes (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.limewire.com
http://www.limewire.org
Search on fellowshipofthering
several t3 speed sites have it....
Mirroring Advice - Post in a binary newsgroup!!! (Score:2, Informative)
morpheus / kazaa / p2p (Score:2, Insightful)
share the original file, then it will spread quickly!
fellowshipoftherings_fs.mov
Unfuck^H^H^H^Hsorensenize it! (Score:2)
--Bob
true fullscreen mirror (Score:2, Informative)
and
http://lotr.infernix.net/fellowshipoftherings_fs.
How do I watch trailer fullscreen...? (Score:2)
Thank you in advance for a reply.
Well, you'll need an odd-shaped screen... (Score:2)
Anyway, if you have QT player Pro, you can turn off that stuff by choosing 'Enable Tracks' from the 'Edit' menu, and turning off everything but 'Video 1' and 'Sound 1'. Then you can play full screen with Present Movie.
Re:Well, you'll need an odd-shaped screen... (Score:2)
Re:mirror (Score:2)
Re:mirror (Score:1)
or maybe I'm wrong... If so someone correct me.
Re:mirror (Score:3, Informative)
follow the link and it just takes you to the apple site
big DOH
however, it does have a scene by scene account with pictures here:
http://www.theonering.net/
Yes, i know its not the same, but it looks pretty cool just from the pics....
Re:mirror (Score:2)
I feel like a cheap karma whore now (probably true
Anyways, mod me back down if you feel angered by this....
Soz all.
!mirror (Score:1)
This, of course ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Swedish site (Score:2)
Re:What's the deal with LOTR? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because any such attempt would have been smashed to pulp by Sauron's own army. Also, the nature of the ring is such that those who possess it for any length of time, however short are unable to destroy it. Sauron, in his lust for the ring was unable to imagine that anyone would want to destroy it. Thus the decision was to try and sneak the ring into Mordor. That means low key, powerful elves with magic swords aren't exactly low key.
Also there was an element of fate in it. Elrond said as much in the council. I'd give you a quote now but my copy of LOTR is an 8 hour flight away and I can't recall it off the top of my head.
That's my (in my opinion) pathetic attempt to answer your question. Hope it helped.
Re:What's the deal with LOTR? (Score:2)
Re:What's the deal with LOTR? (Score:3, Informative)
The only way to victory lay in sneaking undetected into Orodruin and depositing the ring. The hobbits were chosen because they were hardy and the most likely to overcome the temptation of the ring. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel etc. declined to take on the ring because they thought they would be unable to resist the temptation to use it.
Also, the elves had departed from the affairs of men after the Last Alliance (it wasn't call the _Last_ one for no reason). Many of them had already departed Middle-Earth; there were only a few left and they certainly had no plans to engage in a war.
Re:What's the deal with LOTR? (Score:2)
Re:What's the deal with LOTR? (Score:2)
I mean, jeez, they just picked up the ring and stomped off. Did you hear word one about health benefits? If I were going to stomp through Sauron's turf with the one thing he wanted most of all, damn straight I'd be asking about death and dismemberment benefits.
Re:What's the deal with LOTR? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Grrr ... QuackTime (Score:2)
Why not something open and widespread like MPEG, MPEG2 or MPEG4? That way people on all kinds of platforms can see it without having to install crap software.
Well, actually.. quicktime is less crappy than windoze mediaplayer.
Second, believe it or not but the official MPEG4 standard is based on.... quicktime!!!
Not that not standardised crap like DVIX or so.
Re:Grrr ... QuackTime (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's a matter of taste, really. I don't think either of them are particularly great. Same with RealWhatever. Roll on DiVX and MPEG!
Second, believe it or not but the official MPEG4 standard is based on.... quicktime!!!
IIRC, they didn't use the codec, just the data format. Most QT movie trailers use the Sorenson codec.
Personally, I think they should release trailers in as many format as possible. MPEG1, MPEG4, WinMedia, Real and QT. Cover all the bases, and you get some form of inherent mirroring as well (MSN would host the WM on their site, Apple would host the QT, and so on)
Re:Grrr ... QuackTime (Score:2)
Re:Grrr ... QuackTime (Score:2)
In any case, this is a great partnership idea from Apple's standpoint. I'm not sure what their end of the bargain was for the exclusive QT5 release, but I sure hope it wasn't handling the distribution, because if that's the case, New Line got the short end of that stick.
Simple... (Score:2)
Or so I hear anyway (someone knows more?)
What can we do about it? Nothing. I know it sucks. If someone has any constructive idea... (And no, modding down as 'troll' someone who's just rightfully angry doesn't count as 'constructive' in my book. Sorry.)
Re:Quick Time support for Linux (Score:2)
Although I haven't tried it with this movie yet, you might want to check out Codeweavers' CrossOver Plugin [codeweavers.com]. It's a hacked version of WINE that serves as an environment for running MS Windows plugins on x86 Linux. Costs $20 or $30 if I recall. I'll give it a try tonight on this particular clip and post a followup regarding success (assuming I remember to do it, am successful at downloading the clip, etc).
Re:Quick Time support for Linux (Score:2)
Alas, no. It is commercial software available from CodeWeavers.
As I understand it, revenue from the sales of this plugin is an important source of funding for their work on the WINE project. So if you want to help WINE or if you really want to see Sorensen QTs (and other things) play on x86 Linux or you just want to marvel at a hack, and $20 isn't too much for you, head over to their web site with your credit card number [codeweavers.com] and you'll be downloading it in just a few minutes.
If $20 is too much for "just a browser plugin" and WINE development is not of interest to you or you refuse to "pollute" your system with non-free software, then CrossOver will not be useful to you.
As with many things, we all share the powers and responsiblities.
Re:Quick Time support for Linux (Score:2)
Apple OWNS the licensing rights to the codec, and they are doing EVERYTHING they can to retain control of video distribution on the internet. They have NOT released Quicktime for linux, unix, FreeBSD, or anything other than Windows and MacOS. Nor will they.
Quicktime supports many codecs, and few are protected like the Sorenson codec. Apple uses this specifically, because there are other equally good unprotected codecs in use. So they KNOW a priori that when they get something released using the Sorenson codec, then the consumer may only view it using software that Apple chooses to provide. And they choose to provide NOTHING for linux.
Xanim, for example, is a quicktime player for linux. But whereas it can play Radius and Intel codecs, it cannot play apple sorenson codecs.
And that is how Apple wants it. Contacts with Sorenson result in them stating bluntly that Apple has ALL the rights. I am wholely against patent protection of common media distribution format. It was screwed up with GIFs, and it is screwed up with Quicktime.
If someone could save the movie as an MPEG, I would be mighty thankful. I really want to see it, but I do not have access to a Sorenson compatible Quicktime viewer.
Re:Quick Time support for Linux (Score:2)
I do not own a copy of Windows.
If you do not own or license a Microsoft or Mac operating system, you cannot play the Sorenson codec Quicktime movies. There are no work-arounds that are free.
It would be against patent law otherwise.
Re:Quick Time support for Linux (Score:2)
It is true that it requires the Windows version of the plugin. But you do not need a copy of Windows in order to use it. Codeweavers' installation software will help you download (or if you buy the CrossOver CD, it comes on that) the Windows version of the plugin, and then it will install that plugin for you, into it's weird hacked internal WINE environment.
Not true. I do not own or license (or pirate) MS (and didn't use anything from my MacOSs that I have sitting around somewhere), and I played Sorenson codec Quicktime movies on my x86 Linux box.
That is correct, as far as I know. CrossOver is not Free.
Nay. While it is true that no one can independently implement a Sorenson decoder w/out breaking patent, there's nothing in patent law that prohibits what Codeweavers did: write an OS emulator wrapper, so that you run Apple's licensed decoder for MS Windows under Linux.
IMHO what they did was very clever, and it's a way of using/abusing WINE that I never would have thought of. ..Which is why I'm shamelessly plugging this plugin all over this thread. :-)
Works with CrossOver on x86 Linux (Score:2)
Just got home and confirmed it. With the CrossOver plugin installed, I just opened the .mov file with Netscape Navigator (I assume it would work
with Mozilla, Galeon, etc too) and it played flawlessly.
This situation is, of course, not as good as them using a standard codec, but at least x86 Linux users do have a way to watch it.
Re:small version is UP! (Score:2)