LotR Two Towers Trailer Online 392
A few people have pointed out that Apple has put a trailer online for
The Two Towers, so if you have broadband and the ability to play video in
Apple's favorite format, you can check it out. I'm 0 for 2, so I guess
I'll wait. Besides, its only a half a year away ;)
The Who Towers? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Who Towers? (Score:5, Funny)
Go see it in the theater. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be silly (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go see it in the theater. (Score:2)
Re:Go see it in the theater. (Score:2, Interesting)
Spoilers in LOTR (Score:5, Funny)
Saruman is Gandalf's father.
Frodo and Samwise are brother and sister.
Legolas? He's an elf.
Liv Tyler is really a genetic experiment to see how hot Steve Tyler's lips look on a woman.
Mordor's primary export? Orcs and spam.
Gimli? He's a dwarf.
Having 1,000,000,000 orcs in your army: 1,000,000,000 gold pieces. Having Strider leading your army? Priceless.
Frodo? He's a hobbit.
Re:Spoilers in LOTR (Score:2, Funny)
*shudder*
And then all the orcs vanish as a sysadmin blackholes Mordor...
Re:Go see it in the theater. (Score:5, Informative)
Or better yet, if it's still playing in your area, go see The Fellowship of the Ring one more time, and see the 3 minute preview for The Two Towers that they tacked on to the end of the last reel of the movie back in March.
There's little in the new trailer that wasn't in the preview, aside from Cate Blanchett's voice over, and there's a lot of cool stuff in the preview that isn't in the trailer.
Re:Go see it in the theater. (Score:2)
There may be some small differences, but they look pretty much the same to me.
Spoiler alert (Score:5, Funny)
Huh. Keep your eyes open for "Entwhistle the White", I guess...
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:5, Funny)
Another obligatory lame "the Who" joke (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the slashdot community (not as a whole, but large portions of it) dislike Apple and or Quicktime and or Sorenson for one of the following reasons:
1) Apple is a bad/evil company, and we don't like them.
2) We don't have Quicktime on Linux, and a few of us use linux while many of us talk about it.
3) We don't have the Sorenson codec in any other players, so the Quicktime player is required, but isn't on linux (see #2).
Therefore, it becomes cool to shun Quicktime, or to be proud of not using it.
Please don't make me say all that again.
-- Reverius
Re:Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:2)
Who here talks about Linux without using it? And why in the world would they bother to do that?
Or are you simply wanting to denigrate Linux zealots for their clear unreasonableness in running Linux? In which case, why do you bother to hang out on the Slashdot boards?
Re:Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:2)
However, they're OSS with Darwin, and are really trying to get into the whole Open Source thing. They're putting out some cool hardware (the XServe is *much* more than just a pretty box). They're really trying to listen to what consumers want (both pro and domestic, which is *hard*), and also what developers need.
I know, I think they should put out QT for Linux. I run FreeBSD servers, I think they should put out packages for their various bits of free software (QuickTime Streaming Server, WebObjects adaptors, etc) for FreeBSD. But they are NOT evil!
And anyway, didn't I see a story the other day about Sorenson coming to Linux? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think Real or Win Media players were available for Linux either?
Re:Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:2)
As for something *good* that Apple's doing with regards video codecs, take their fight against the MPEG board about the 'per-play' license. Apple aren't going to release QT 6 properly until they can talk the MPEG people out of it
Xine looks impressive, BTW.
Apple is a bad/good company (Score:2)
1) Anything that competes with Microsoft is good.
2) With OS X, you have a real Unix system.
3) Did I mention that it's not a Windows company?
On the other hand, they get their share of flak because:
1) They're not going out and GPLing lots of code.
2) They buy software companies and then shut down the non-Mac versions to lock customers in.
3) Apple has close ties to Disney (mostly via Pixar), and Disney brings with it all sorts of baggage (MPAA and such).
4) Apple sold its soul to the devil (that deal with Microsoft a few years ago).
5) Apple has never supported Quicktime/Sorensen for Linux, and though they've pointed fingers as Sorensen, we all believe that with a little pressure from Apple, it would happen.
So expect a mixed opinion of Apple here on
Re:Apple is a bad/good company (Score:2)
This isn't too true anymore, as Pixar's getting out
of its deal with Disney, ostensibly because Disney's
a bunch of double-dealing bastards. And Mike "I am
a human ass" Eisner's "Create a theft" [macworld.com]
speech pretty much says how the powers that be at
The Other Evil Empire feel about Lil' Stevie...
Re:Masses of macses. (Score:2)
No, no, no. Once again I said
appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing
Once again, I'm refering to the a specific set of masses that don't care about mucking with hardware, not the general population. And there are definitely a large number of people who fall into this category. I never said "the masses that want to buy a Mac", you're misunderstanding what I wrote.
I won't comment about your final statement since it's so naive as to be troll bait.
Re:Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:2)
Also, the sound cannot be decoded by Xine in more modern clips for the same reason.
Re:Hmm, not much to see in that preview... (Score:5, Informative)
--Mike
How far we've come.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lord of the Rings Part II !!!WHOHOOO!!!
I definately sense a cultural shift among geeks. Or is it just that PLOT DOES MATTER!!! [aint-it-cool-news.com]
Re:How far we've come.... (Score:2)
Re:How far we've come.... (Score:2)
sPh
Re:How far we've come.... (Score:2)
Hollywood mogul? I thought it was Joseph Campbell, oft quoted. Specifically, I think he was quoted by Opie-- er, Ron Howard-- in the commentary track on the Apollo 13 DVD.
Re:How far we've come.... (Score:2)
J.R.R. Tolkien, Oxford Professor of Anglo-Saxon, is no doubt spinning in his grave. An old-fashioned story -- heaven forfendd
Plot? Got ya covered. (Score:2)
You could say that readers already know what's going to happen in the Rings saga, but there is a huge difference between having already seen the vision on the screen, knowing what will probably happen and seeing a masterfully crafted novel done justice on the screen for the first time especially for those of uswhose first exposure to Rings is that screen. Cultural shift? Nah. Star Wars has lots of plot, but after 100's of sci-fi novels and the poor handling in Ep1 (and Ep2; Distinctly different styles from the originals. Overuse of cut sequences), Starwars has lost it's shine to stale franchise whoring.(watching Yoda command a battlefield full of stormtroopers was an unexpect delight
The Who Towers? (Score:2, Informative)
Linux: mplayer (Score:2)
Re:Linux: mplayer (Score:2)
mplayer-0.90pre5 isn't new enough
Re:Linux: mplayer (Score:5, Informative)
I told my friends not to watch the last trailer because of the spoiler.
Re:Linux: mplayer (Score:2)
Re:Linux: mplayer (Score:2)
So....anyone grabbed the higher-quality version and transcoded it to DivX or something yet? (or even SVQ1, like the lower quality version earlier?)...
Homage to the band (Score:2)
CmdrTaco has already expressed his [very high] opinion of the band 'The Who' so I wonder if this could be an intentional typo?
He stands like a statue... (Score:5, Funny)
Bad spelin's comin' at you
His grammar is obscene
Ain't seen nothin' like him
In any other website at all
That
SPOILER! Plot line revealed! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SPOILER! Plot line revealed! (Score:2, Funny)
No doubt has he made this and the next one up all by himself as well.
Damn! (Score:2, Funny)
I am *SO* disappointed.
Re:Damn! (Score:2)
Gandalph (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Gandalph (Score:2)
:-)
The Who Towers... (Score:3, Funny)
or something..
Same Trailer, Much Higher Quality.... (Score:5, Informative)
also, i saw this after the story was posted last week...from theOneRing.net posted a frame by frame analysis [theonering.net] of the trailer...it's pretty cool, and does a good job analyzing what's going on in the teaser trailer...contains major spoilers though, of course, that only matters if you've never read the book...
Re:Same Trailer, Much Higher Quality.... (Score:2)
Come One, Come All! (Score:5, Funny)
~Ahem~ On the topic, I'm am heartend by the fact by the fact these were all filmed at nearly the same time, by the same director. It'll ensure there is no dumbing down as oft happens in sequels these days... Batman comes to mind... I'm sure Spider Man will suffer the same fate... They go from serious to "lets star Jim Carrie in one of these! Wouldn't that be great?!" or "I like the character design. Name? Ummm.. Jar-Jar. See? Kinda just rolls off the tongue."
Re:Come One, Come All! (Score:2)
Re:Come One, Come All! (Score:2)
Despite the dialogue, Spider-man wasn't that dumb of a movie. The hero had weaknesses, he didn't get the girl (although only because he turned her down out of fear she was going to be Spider bait again), and they didn't shrink away from making the Green Goblin Parker's friend's father or from showing Peter's inaction leading to his uncle's death.
Rename"The Who Towers" To Something Less Offensive (Score:3, Funny)
Those of us who have seen The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring know what an amazing director Peter Jackson is. When I learned that there apparently was to be a sequel, I was overjoyed. However, Peter Jackson has decided to tastelessly name the sequel "The Who Towers". The title is clearly meant to refer to the attacks on the Whorld Trade Center. In this post-September 11 world, it is unforgiveable that this should be allowed to happen. The idea is both offensive and morally repugnant. Hopefully, when Peter Jackson and, more importantly, New Line Cinema see the number of signatures on this petition, the title will be changed to something a little more sensitive.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned [petitiononline.com]
Re:Rename"The Who Towers" To Something Less Offens (Score:5, Informative)
"Please Note: The Two Towers is the title of the JRR Tolkien book originally published in 1954, the second book of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The title was thus established some 47 years prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and there is no evidence to suggest that Peter Jackson meant anything by continuing the same title other than faithfulness to the beloved Tolkien classics. Furthermore, the two distant, opposing towers in the Tolkien classic have very little if anything in common with the two matching towers of the World Trade Center. -- PetitionOnline.com"
Spoiler if you haven't read the novel... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Spoiler if you haven't read the novel... (Score:2)
personally i had never read any of the books before i saw the first movie...since then, i've read "The Hobbit", "Fellowship of the Rings", and "The Two Towers"...i'm getting ready to move on to the 3rd of the trilogy...
Re:Spoiler if you haven't read the novel... (Score:2)
Exactly what I though. I was okay with everything going on until Gandalf showed up, then I felt shivers down my spine. I mean, come on, there are a lot of people out there who watched FOTR before and haven't read TTT before, don't you wanna feel/hear/experience their shock/amazement/etc when Gandalf shows up? The only hope for this is that the scene was extremely short and Gandalf might look different enough (for an old wizard, I mean they all look the same anyhow, heh) for some people to not make the connection. Hopefully everyone will just be amazed and confused at a second LOTR movie and be baffled over the Two Towers title in spite of 9/11 lol
New Topic Suggestion (Score:2)
Thanks
Can Horton Hear 'Em? (Score:3, Funny)
Gandalf Spoiler (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would they show Gandalf in the preview?
I know about 60-75% of the people have read the book, but I still think it doesn't make the preview any better and it spoils it for that 40-25% left. I have many friends that are going to be pissed when they see this
Oh Well, i guess it a movie made mainly for the fans.
Don't you mean... (Score:2, Funny)
-Grant
Codeweaver Crossover Plugin (Score:2)
Xine plays it (Score:2)
Taco, taco, taco. A member of the Xine team reverse engineered the svq1 format, so you CAN watch the Two Towers trailer using Xine. At least, it worked for me.
apt-get install xine-ui
xine LotR-TwoTowers-Teaser.mov
Then, drag the little bar back and forth, stop and start a few times, and watch.
Re:Xine plays it (Score:2)
Don't forget to jiggle the playback-position bar !!
Good place to pick up the trilogy for cheap (Score:2)
Re:Who Towers? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who Towers? (Score:2)
Leave it to Hollywood to find a nice, punchy title to grace this soon-to-be classic sci/fi thriller.
Re:Who Towers? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Who Towers? (Score:2)
Re:Who Towers? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Who Towers? (Score:5, Funny)
-Chris
September 11th name change (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't suprise me if they did change the name to "The Who Towers"
I recall reading a massive rant and online petition asking for the name to be changed 'cos they thought "The Two Towers" had some sort of terrorist connetation.
How anyone can confise New York with the Shires in Middle Earth is beyond me.
Re:The what towers? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The what towers? (Score:2)
Re:The what towers? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The what towers? (Score:2)
Re:The what towers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Congratulations, you are the only one of the hundred people who will point this mistake out who is not redundant.
sadly, a little grammatical mistake makes any discussion on the actual topic impossible. thank you immature slashdotters!
Re:The what towers? (Score:5, Insightful)
How true. Which is why it is so important that editorial control be exercised by individuals who are aware of how small details can ruin an otherwise good submission.
Re:The what towers? (Score:2)
Re:The what towers? (Score:3)
As for the topic of discussion, what exactly is the topic supposed to be. I believe the previous discussion ends up defining the topic more than a headline does anyway. Besides, its not like there are ever any literary discussions or even film discussions worth much around here. Nobody even dares to interpret a work. The deepest they go is to just make sweeping good/bad distinctions. Take the "on topic" comments here. They're not about the quality of the trailer, the pertinence to the book, or even the role of the Who in Rock History. They're quick one liners and talk about how Quicktime/Apple/Sorensen suck.
This may be news for Nerds, but don't kid yourself: it's news for Computer Nerds. Music Nerds, Film Nerds, Book Nerds, etc. aren't included in that statement. But when I say that I'm not upset with Slashdot itself, or the editors, or even the posters (well... not all of the posters
"The who towers", of course (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The what towers? (Score:2)
At this point, I'm confident enough to guess that God's account is now 'entwhistle' instead of 'pete'.
Re:The what towers? (Score:2)
No talent hacks? (Score:2)
The other lame idea factory is to take a subculture and then do a movie "about" it but adding bank robbers and/or a love interest to make it accesible to the common man.
What do you want them to do, actually get people to come up with original ideas to create a movie around?
Re:Why this ? (Score:2)
Simple. Because enough people are willing to pay enough money to see such movies.
The more interesting question is why so many people are willing to pay money to see such movies.
For me, for this particular example, I was willing to pay money because it looked like this particular translation of a story from one artisitic format to another was worthing paying to see. Happily, it turned out that I was correct. (So far, anyway. I hope the next two movies are as enjoyable.)
Re:Why this ? (Score:2)
Because otherwise you'd be complaining about why they always make books based on movies we've already seen.
When I go to see it I already know what's going to happen at the end. No suspense.
I also know what's going to happen at the end when I re-read the LOTR or watch a good movie (or Simpsons episode for that matter) twice. Doesn't stop me from enjoying them the second time though.
I enjoy good movies with plenty of suspense, but I also worry that too many modern filmakers misinterpret or misapply the success of movies like the Sixth Sense and Pulp Fiction to create movies with trick endings while sacrificing the rest of the film.
Some of the best films have obvious or familiar plots and conclusions but distinguish themselves in other ways. And some are just plain silly and fun. LOTR (on film) is probably somewhere in the middle.
Re:slashdotting (Score:2)
Warning - Do not hit links (Score:2)
Re:The links work. Ignore the troll. (Score:2)
The Two Towers (Score:2)
The Gates of the Argonath to whic you refer, while spectacular, play no further part in the plot.
Re:The Two Towers (Score:2)
OK, this is the 1997 Harper Collins paperback. The cover of TTT is a picture drawn by JRRT. From the back cover: "It shows the One Ring above Mount Doom, flanked by the towers of Minas Morgul and Orthanc, while above it flies a Nazgul. The tengwar inscription oin the centre reads, 'In the land of Mordor where the shadwows lie.'"
So I was wrong, but not nearly as wrong as you
Re:This story is a dup (Score:2)
If memory serves correctly, The two towers referred to in the title of the book were the Towers of Minas Anor and Minas Ithil in Gondor. The Nazgul took Minas Ithil and it was renamed Minas Morgul. After the fall of Osgiliath, Minas Anor was renamed Minas Torith.
Now will it be Ringwraith Japanese, Chinese, French, or Italian?
</KAGA>
Re:This story is a dup (Score:2)
Exactly which two towers the title refers to is largely speculative, near as I can tell. Keep in mind the titles for the "trilogy" weren't Tolkien's originally (in particular, he didn't like "Return of the King" since he thought it gave away too much of the plot). Remember, LOTR was meant to be released as a single work and was broken up into three parts due to a shortage of paper at the time.
That said, a case can be made for any number of things to be the actual "Two Towers", but one shouldn't get too worked up over it. :)
Re:This story is a dup (Score:2)
Re:This story is a dup (Score:4, Informative)
There are several interpretations one can make as to which "Two Towers" Tolkien was talking about: Orthanc and Barad-Dûr, Minas Tirith (Anor) and Minas Morgul (Ithil)... I hadn't heard anyone say they were supposed to be the Argonath before, tho...
In any case, there is a very strong case (see item #3) [slimy.com] that the one true interpretation, what Tolkien intended, is for the Two Towers to refer to Orthanc and Minas Morgul, because these are the goals of the split parties of the Fellowship in Books III and IV, respectively. This is in contrast to the above reply that state's Book IV's goal was Barad-Dûr; Frodo and Sam don't even really enter Mordor until Book V. Additionally, the note at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring in the 3-volume edition of LotR refers to Orthanc and Minas Morgul as "The Two Towers", and Tolkien's own illustration for The Two Towers was clearly of those 2 structures.
Re:This story is a dup (Score:2)
That wasn't a typo, it was intentional. I think it was actually suppposed to be some sort of meta-joke. A very bad meta-joke, though.
Re:Some mirrors, for the bandwidth-impaired (Score:2)
Yeah, what else is new.. when's the last time you saw an original news peice on slashdot?
The same time I saw perfect spellink on Slashdot.
Re:The Who's going to be in the two towers? (Score:2)
Nope. Seems that before his death, The Who bassist John Entwistle was cast in the Two Towers. As an Ent. Who whistles.
...k, I'll shut up now...
Re:Misleading? (Score:2)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
At least Lucas had it and lost it; Jackson wouldn't know where to look for it.
TWW
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, that's right. I thought Frodo's character developed in the first book, that Gandalf and Sauman didn't get into a ridiculous punch-up, that the Balrog didn't rescue the fellowship from the orcs, that Frodo defied the Nazgul alone at the ford (thus proving that Gandalf's faith was justified) instead of being rescued, that Galadriel made it clear that Frodo was the doom of the elves but that they still would help him, that the Nazgul were dangerous, that no one had time to stop and play balance-the-5000 ton-pilar-of-rock while escaping from Moria, that the watcher in the lake deliberately locked them into Moria, that the Council of Elrond made some sense, that Aragon's sword was reforged from the shards of Narsil, that The Shire didn't have dancing mountains in it, that the travellers actually noticed the stone trolls in the woods, and that the damn story actually worked.
Silly me, I must be damn near illiterate if I thought I saw all those things in the book when the great Peter "Just Get To The Next Fight Scene" Jackson didn't.
TW
Re:Can't wait till it comes out...(spoiler below) (Score:2)
I am still not really clear about the connection between Tom and the Ents (is his forest where all the Entwives went?), but I have to agree. Just how IS Pippin going to slay the Nazgul without the dagger from the wight's mound? "Oh, that? I just found it on the road..."
Re:Can't wait till it comes out...(spoiler below) (Score:2)
There was a brief flash of one of the hobbits grasping the face of an Ent. It was quick, but was there.