A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Announcements / LOTR Movie Clip

Jeff
User ID: 8813033 Apr 6th 10:18 PM
The pre-preview clip from New Line Cinema's upcoming Lord of the Rings Trilogy supposedly will be available at New Line's LOTR site, lordoftherings.net, on April 7, at 12:01 a.m., EST. My guess is that their server will be a tad busy.

Ser Benjen
User ID: 2122084 Apr 7th 8:54 AM
It looks awesome!!!!!!

Here is where you can find it.

http://www.lordoftherings.net/previews/

You'll need Quicktime 4 to see it.

Jeff
User ID: 8813033 Apr 9th 9:58 PM
Finally saw it. Wow.

StarkWolf
User ID: 1634094 Apr 10th 6:18 AM
Yeah...It really kicks ass...a pity I can't save it on my computer though...But as far as I've seen, Arwen will save Frodo at the ford, instead of Glorfindel...why would they have done that?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Apr 10th 8:19 AM
To give Arwen a broader role in the film, to make her seem less of a secondary character. And, of course, to give her more time to be on-screen with Aragorn so that the relationship can be played up. It's one of those changes necessary, I suspect, to get the studio willing to fund the project -- because, otherwise, there's really no extensively-present female character in the books, and there's certainly little enough romance.

Mind, I think LotR is perfectly fine the way it is. I'm not hung up on the issue. But I can see the point of the studios being hung up on it, and not wanting to throw millions of dollars to a film that won't appeal to a broad demographic.

Arwen will also be, BTW, at the battle at Helm's Deep. And, apparently, at Pelennor as well.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 10th 10:00 AM
I read an article yesterday describing how Liv Tyler has freaked out at a few of the battle scenes. Cripe, its only a movie.

I'm with Ran, though. Nor thrilled about the expanded Arwen role but I don't see it as a real problem. There's no Bombadil either.

Glorfindel's reduced role bothers me a bit more. He is important because, as a High Elven lord, he is a symbol of the power that was capable of opposing Sauron militarily during the Second Age. "We can't hope for a military victory over Sauron because we barely beat him even when we had a whole army of High Elves." But it's still no big deal. Getting a studio to agree to make all three movies and putting so much money behind them is a miracle in itself.

Dirjj
User ID: 1954724 Apr 11th 0:46 AM
I'm bummed. I haven't seen the clip yet. I screwed up my computer Friday night trying to get the Trailer to run. I didn't know it would take so long to load up, and thought something went wrong. I tried to re-download QuickTime, and now i can't get in. I keep getting an error saying that quicktime failed to initialize, error 2093. I'm at a loss. Can anyone help out a computer novice down on his luck. Damn me but the quicktime site has all kinds of trailers on it that I want to see. Especially the Battlefield Earth one.

ab

Tom R.
User ID: 3647314 Apr 13th 6:04 AM
The clip took a long time to download, but it was definitely worth it. The movie(s) looks very cool, and it looks like maybe, just maybe, they are going to make LOTR really "work" on film.

From what I could tell, the ringwraiths looked particularly cool, and I also was impressed by Elijah Wood as Frodo. He looked very hobbit-like, I thought.

I was surprised by the end of the trailer, however. I thought the original plan was to release these 3 films within 6 months of each other (12/00, 6/01, and 12/01), not a full year apart (i.e., three successive Decembers). What happened to the original release schedule, I wonder?

Tom R.
User ID: 3647314 Apr 13th 6:06 AM
P.S. BTW, I'm glad they axed Tom Bombadil. I always found that part of LOTR to be kind of immaterial to the rest of the story and the Bombadil character was kind of annoying anyway.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 13th 9:38 AM
Don't know what happened to the original release schedule. I suspect maybe they figured that they could make more money by doing a rerelease of the previous film in the month or so before the next one shows. That's more likely to work if they're spaced a year apart.

Bombadil "annoying"?!?!?! Immaterial?!?!?! Glad he was "axed"?!?!?!

Uh, I agree. :-)) I always skip over his parts when I'm rereading. But there are folks that would consider that blasphemy.

Padraig
User ID: 9481773 Apr 13th 4:37 PM
Maybe they thought it was too much effort to produce 3 films in 1 year.

Dirjj
User ID: 6960173 Apr 17th 3:06 PM
Hoo Rah. Finally saw the clip. Saw it yesterday morning (downloaded it over night). Had to do it at my friends house, as I still can't get mine to work right. Almost there though, I just have to get the plug-in's to work now. It was much worse before.

Anyhow, I was shocked when I saw the release schedule. I thought the first movie was coming out this december. Now we have to wait another year. bummer. I liked the trailer, but I wasn't impressed all that much. Well, the silver marching army looked hot. Almost Excaliburish. I didn't understand that part though, as there were no pitched battles or large troop movements in the first book. Unless they're showing that in flashback type sequences, or showing what's transpiring in Gondor. Wow, I'm starting to get excited. I may have to read LOTR again.

ab

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 17th 3:16 PM
Dirjj, they're shooting the 3 movies simultaneously, so that could easily be a shot from the second or third book. Plus, its only a test shot of the MASSIVE software used to simulate huge amounts of troops, so that shot might not be in any of the movies.

My understanding is that they are going to shoot a "flashback" to the confrontation between the Last Alliance and Sauron that ended the Second Age. So that will be at least one huge battle scene in the first movie.

WeissVan
User ID: 8374593 Apr 18th 10:00 AM
I just have to say that the casting is really getting me excited. They could not have cast a better Gandalf than Sir Ian McKellen. Viggo Mortensen looks great as Aragorn. And the thought of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel sends shivers up and down my spine. *shiver* See?

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 19th 2:55 PM
I'm a bit curious as to the effect Arwen's expanded role will have on Eowyn's role. I can't see Eowyn lusting after Aragorn when Arwen is right there. That would look more like catty jealousy and would diminish Eowyn's dignity. And is it going to be Arwen or Eowyn that battles the Lord of the Nazgul at the Pellenor Fields? Too bad, really, because I thought Eowyn had a pretty good role in the books. They could have jazzed her up a bit, maybe had a _little_ bit of a connection between her and Aragorn that he resists, and appealed to a broader audience that way.

WeissVan, I've got to agree about Blanchett being Galadriel. Can't imagine a better choice. As for McKellen, he seems a great choice. The only better one would have been Sir Alec Guinness, but I think the Obi-Wan Kenobi stuff made that impossible.

I'm not sure who Denethor is, but, if he were alive, that would have been the perfect role for Richard Burton. But, being dead, I think they'll probably go with someone else. :-))

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 20th 10:01 AM
On the other hand, having William Shatner play Denethor would have been hilarious and worth the price of admission alone. Just imagine the tremendous possibilities for horrendous over-acting when Denethor self-immolates.

Blackstone
User ID: 2107894 Apr 20th 10:40 AM
I was not originally concerned with an expanded role for Arwen, a lot of great material could come out of the Appendices. And would help put Aragorn character in proper perspective and round him out.

I am not concerned with the quite editing of Tom Bombadil. His most important role, IMHO, is that his custodianship of the Ring was an alternative that was considered but rejected in the end.

I am more concerned with the seeming combination of the roles of Arwen and Eowyn. This is not good. Eowyn is a great character and deserves full treatment. Is Arwen going to be a part of the Fellowship of the Ring? This is nuts.

The argument that this needs to appeal to a broader demographic is crap. Terminator 2 appealed to a very narrow demographic and yet was wildly successful.

Lord of the Rings is probably the most widely read book in the 20th century, and one of the most original stories ever told. If they have butchered the story I will have to add to my list of movies that I will never ever watch.

Ser Benjen
User ID: 2122084 Apr 20th 10:45 AM
As far as I've read, Arwen will not be one of the Fellowship (that would be awful), and Eowyn has been cast so I would imagine her part is still intact.

There is a good deal of info on what has been changed, and a great deal of other info at:

http://www.theonering.net/movie/faq/index.html

Check it out before you get too discouraged.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 20th 12:50 PM
I've been checking the big fan sites, including theonering.net, and the role of Arwen seems to be the biggest point of concern that I have seen. I have no problem with fleshing out the romance angle, adding a few scenes, etc. that romance was not developed in the books yet clearly must have been significant given the marriage and the price Arwen paid. So expansion of that romantic angle seems fine with be.

My only grip is that we know that she is involved in actual coembat at Helms Deep, which is a pretty significant deviation. Eowyn is in the movies, but I can't see her relationship to Aragorn being the same with Arwen hanging around. And I suppose Arwen is going on the Paths of the Dead, etc., where I imagine her "elven magic" will be the thing that preserves that group. One of the things that made Aragorn's character more interesting was how he sacrificed much of his life to hard struggles for a cause. Having his girlfriend hang around during the the battles just seems a bit too "90's" to me.

But I'll still go see the moview.

Jeff User ID: 8813033	Apr 6th 10:18 PM The pre-preview clip from New Line Cinema's upcoming Lord of the Rings Trilogy supposedly will be available at New Line's LOTR site, lordoftherings.net, on April 7, at 12:01 a.m., EST. My guess is that their server will be a tad busy.
Ser Benjen User ID: 2122084	Apr 7th 8:54 AM It looks awesome!!!!!! Here is where you can find it. http://www.lordoftherings.net/previews/ You'll need Quicktime 4 to see it.
Jeff User ID: 8813033	Apr 9th 9:58 PM Finally saw it. Wow.
StarkWolf User ID: 1634094	Apr 10th 6:18 AM Yeah...It really kicks ass...a pity I can't save it on my computer though...But as far as I've seen, Arwen will save Frodo at the ford, instead of Glorfindel...why would they have done that?
Ran User ID: 0867924	Apr 10th 8:19 AM To give Arwen a broader role in the film, to make her seem less of a secondary character. And, of course, to give her more time to be on-screen with Aragorn so that the relationship can be played up. It's one of those changes necessary, I suspect, to get the studio willing to fund the project -- because, otherwise, there's really no extensively-present female character in the books, and there's certainly little enough romance. Mind, I think LotR is perfectly fine the way it is. I'm not hung up on the issue. But I can see the point of the studios being hung up on it, and not wanting to throw millions of dollars to a film that won't appeal to a broad demographic. Arwen will also be, BTW, at the battle at Helm's Deep. And, apparently, at Pelennor as well.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 10th 10:00 AM I read an article yesterday describing how Liv Tyler has freaked out at a few of the battle scenes. Cripe, its only a movie. I'm with Ran, though. Nor thrilled about the expanded Arwen role but I don't see it as a real problem. There's no Bombadil either. Glorfindel's reduced role bothers me a bit more. He is important because, as a High Elven lord, he is a symbol of the power that was capable of opposing Sauron militarily during the Second Age. "We can't hope for a military victory over Sauron because we barely beat him even when we had a whole army of High Elves." But it's still no big deal. Getting a studio to agree to make all three movies and putting so much money behind them is a miracle in itself.
Dirjj User ID: 1954724	Apr 11th 0:46 AM I'm bummed. I haven't seen the clip yet. I screwed up my computer Friday night trying to get the Trailer to run. I didn't know it would take so long to load up, and thought something went wrong. I tried to re-download QuickTime, and now i can't get in. I keep getting an error saying that quicktime failed to initialize, error 2093. I'm at a loss. Can anyone help out a computer novice down on his luck. Damn me but the quicktime site has all kinds of trailers on it that I want to see. Especially the Battlefield Earth one. ab
Tom R. User ID: 3647314	Apr 13th 6:04 AM The clip took a long time to download, but it was definitely worth it. The movie(s) looks very cool, and it looks like maybe, just maybe, they are going to make LOTR really "work" on film. From what I could tell, the ringwraiths looked particularly cool, and I also was impressed by Elijah Wood as Frodo. He looked very hobbit-like, I thought. I was surprised by the end of the trailer, however. I thought the original plan was to release these 3 films within 6 months of each other (12/00, 6/01, and 12/01), not a full year apart (i.e., three successive Decembers). What happened to the original release schedule, I wonder?
Tom R. User ID: 3647314	Apr 13th 6:06 AM P.S. BTW, I'm glad they axed Tom Bombadil. I always found that part of LOTR to be kind of immaterial to the rest of the story and the Bombadil character was kind of annoying anyway.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 13th 9:38 AM Don't know what happened to the original release schedule. I suspect maybe they figured that they could make more money by doing a rerelease of the previous film in the month or so before the next one shows. That's more likely to work if they're spaced a year apart. Bombadil "annoying"?!?!?! Immaterial?!?!?! Glad he was "axed"?!?!?! Uh, I agree. :-)) I always skip over his parts when I'm rereading. But there are folks that would consider that blasphemy.
Padraig User ID: 9481773	Apr 13th 4:37 PM Maybe they thought it was too much effort to produce 3 films in 1 year.
Dirjj User ID: 6960173	Apr 17th 3:06 PM Hoo Rah. Finally saw the clip. Saw it yesterday morning (downloaded it over night). Had to do it at my friends house, as I still can't get mine to work right. Almost there though, I just have to get the plug-in's to work now. It was much worse before. Anyhow, I was shocked when I saw the release schedule. I thought the first movie was coming out this december. Now we have to wait another year. bummer. I liked the trailer, but I wasn't impressed all that much. Well, the silver marching army looked hot. Almost Excaliburish. I didn't understand that part though, as there were no pitched battles or large troop movements in the first book. Unless they're showing that in flashback type sequences, or showing what's transpiring in Gondor. Wow, I'm starting to get excited. I may have to read LOTR again. ab
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 17th 3:16 PM Dirjj, they're shooting the 3 movies simultaneously, so that could easily be a shot from the second or third book. Plus, its only a test shot of the MASSIVE software used to simulate huge amounts of troops, so that shot might not be in any of the movies. My understanding is that they are going to shoot a "flashback" to the confrontation between the Last Alliance and Sauron that ended the Second Age. So that will be at least one huge battle scene in the first movie.
WeissVan User ID: 8374593	Apr 18th 10:00 AM I just have to say that the casting is really getting me excited. They could not have cast a better Gandalf than Sir Ian McKellen. Viggo Mortensen looks great as Aragorn. And the thought of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel sends shivers up and down my spine. shiver See?
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 19th 2:55 PM I'm a bit curious as to the effect Arwen's expanded role will have on Eowyn's role. I can't see Eowyn lusting after Aragorn when Arwen is right there. That would look more like catty jealousy and would diminish Eowyn's dignity. And is it going to be Arwen or Eowyn that battles the Lord of the Nazgul at the Pellenor Fields? Too bad, really, because I thought Eowyn had a pretty good role in the books. They could have jazzed her up a bit, maybe had a _little_ bit of a connection between her and Aragorn that he resists, and appealed to a broader audience that way. WeissVan, I've got to agree about Blanchett being Galadriel. Can't imagine a better choice. As for McKellen, he seems a great choice. The only better one would have been Sir Alec Guinness, but I think the Obi-Wan Kenobi stuff made that impossible. I'm not sure who Denethor is, but, if he were alive, that would have been the perfect role for Richard Burton. But, being dead, I think they'll probably go with someone else. :-))
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 20th 10:01 AM On the other hand, having William Shatner play Denethor would have been hilarious and worth the price of admission alone. Just imagine the tremendous possibilities for horrendous over-acting when Denethor self-immolates.
Blackstone User ID: 2107894	Apr 20th 10:40 AM I was not originally concerned with an expanded role for Arwen, a lot of great material could come out of the Appendices. And would help put Aragorn character in proper perspective and round him out. I am not concerned with the quite editing of Tom Bombadil. His most important role, IMHO, is that his custodianship of the Ring was an alternative that was considered but rejected in the end. I am more concerned with the seeming combination of the roles of Arwen and Eowyn. This is not good. Eowyn is a great character and deserves full treatment. Is Arwen going to be a part of the Fellowship of the Ring? This is nuts. The argument that this needs to appeal to a broader demographic is crap. Terminator 2 appealed to a very narrow demographic and yet was wildly successful. Lord of the Rings is probably the most widely read book in the 20th century, and one of the most original stories ever told. If they have butchered the story I will have to add to my list of movies that I will never ever watch.
Ser Benjen User ID: 2122084	Apr 20th 10:45 AM As far as I've read, Arwen will not be one of the Fellowship (that would be awful), and Eowyn has been cast so I would imagine her part is still intact. There is a good deal of info on what has been changed, and a great deal of other info at: http://www.theonering.net/movie/faq/index.html Check it out before you get too discouraged.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 20th 12:50 PM I've been checking the big fan sites, including theonering.net, and the role of Arwen seems to be the biggest point of concern that I have seen. I have no problem with fleshing out the romance angle, adding a few scenes, etc. that romance was not developed in the books yet clearly must have been significant given the marriage and the price Arwen paid. So expansion of that romantic angle seems fine with be. My only grip is that we know that she is involved in actual coembat at Helms Deep, which is a pretty significant deviation. Eowyn is in the movies, but I can't see her relationship to Aragorn being the same with Arwen hanging around. And I suppose Arwen is going on the Paths of the Dead, etc., where I imagine her "elven magic" will be the thing that preserves that group. One of the things that made Aragorn's character more interesting was how he sacrificed much of his life to hard struggles for a cause. Having his girlfriend hang around during the the battles just seems a bit too "90's" to me. But I'll still go see the moview.