PDA

View Full Version : Return of the King Promotion Stills!!!! (Heavy Spoilers)



Oriadin
Jan 8th, 2003, 06:19:25 AM
For some reason the thumbnails didnt work for me but if you click on them they display the full picture.

Look here http://www.cinecon.com/news.php?id=0301082

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 08:43:10 AM
I added (Heavy Spoilers) to the title, because once again the makers have decided that they wont bother keeping things that spoil the non-reader hidden.

Oriadin
Jan 8th, 2003, 08:51:05 AM
Ok thanks. I wasnt sure if I should say that or not but its possible that the pictures arent actually giving anything away. Im not sure. Thanks anyways :)

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 08:54:29 AM
Oh, Im pretty sure that most are quite harmless, but at least one of them could be a pretty major spoiler. And if they do it for TTT, they can do it for ROTK.




BTW, they say the cinema release will be the shortest of the cuts they've made.

Oriadin
Jan 8th, 2003, 08:58:38 AM
Which one did they do for TTT?

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 09:05:07 AM
Not a clue. I'd suspect the shortest.


From what I'm hearing there are 3 initial edits for Peter to begin looking at. A 3 hour cut, a 3 and a half hour cut and a 4 and a half hour cut. The version that was screened to Elijah, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan was the 3 hour cut.

Oriadin
Jan 8th, 2003, 09:17:11 AM
There is no way they would do a four and a half hour cut. Take your sleeping bags with you to the cinema otherwise!

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 09:35:52 AM
Why, is it majority Frodo scenes? ;)

Diego Van Derveld
Jan 8th, 2003, 09:47:50 AM
If its 4 and a half hours...I'll wait for the DVD. No way am I sitting in a movie theater for that long.

JMK
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:14:52 AM
I'd sit for 6 hours for a LotR movie.

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:20:30 AM
Well, least I'd leave the cinema not thinking it felt incomplete :)

Darth Viscera
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:02:07 PM
ROTK might NEED 4 1/2 hours, seeing as how they only got 60% or so of the way through TTT in the movie. There's still a lot more stuff that needs to happen, and I can't imagine it all crammed into 3 hours.

JMK
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:06:59 PM
Nor can I. The longer the better! :lol

Marcus Telcontar
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:15:56 PM
I'm hearing 3.5 hours a lot.

Remmebr ROTK is the shortest book and they are not doing the final chapters (Scouring and the journey home). The stuff in TTT not seen can be done fairly quick.

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:19:01 PM
And besides, they have to be able to make more money out of fans by releasing two versions ;)

JMK
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:21:27 PM
Have you seen the pictures Marcus? What was with Sam's face when he's holding Frodo? As if you would know at this point, but if anyone knows, it's you.

BTW, what's Elessar mean?

Marcus Telcontar
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:46:43 PM
I know exactly where and why. It's Mt Doom after the Ring has been thrown in. Frodo has had his finger bitte off and they think they are about to tdie with Mt Doom basically blowing up all around them. Lack of cloaks and equipment is a giveaway

Elessar - It means Elfstone

JMK
Jan 8th, 2003, 10:58:12 PM
Ah, makes total sense. I was thinking its when Frodo gets stung by Shelob and Sam thiks he's dead. But still, what's wrong with Sam's face??? It looks like he's 100 years older. Is that from the effects of him having to carry the ring for a while?

Marcus Telcontar
Jan 8th, 2003, 11:00:31 PM
Ash, dust, filth, Mordor air..... Lots of things

Darth23
Jan 8th, 2003, 11:36:38 PM
I disagree :p


Not really, I just wanted to say somethign in hidden text.


Anything longer than 3 hours needs an intermission.

Jedi Master Carr
Jan 8th, 2003, 11:39:41 PM
LOL, I am sure it won't be more than 3 hours and like 15 minutes or so, because 3.5 is just way long heck with the 4th Harry Potter movie they are thinking about splitting into 2 movies because of that very reason. I think its better if the DVD is 3.5 hours long that would work better.

Darth23
Jan 8th, 2003, 11:47:01 PM
I felt the 3 hours length for FOTR, but I really didn't for TTT. I think one reason is that there are so many beginnings of the story in FOTR.

Marcus Telcontar
Jan 8th, 2003, 11:54:28 PM
ROTK will probably go at a gazillion miles n hour, I doubt many are goign to be complaing about 3.5 hours. Besides, if it gives us a better movie, I'm for it

ReaperFett
Jan 8th, 2003, 11:56:58 PM
TTT started soooooooooooooooooooo slow, but picked up for me.

Marcus Telcontar
Jan 9th, 2003, 12:05:28 AM
You have a bizarre definition of slow

ReaperFett
Jan 9th, 2003, 12:09:34 AM
I looked at my watch twice, and was looking round the screen for something intresting :)

Oriadin
Jan 9th, 2003, 03:28:14 AM
I did that in FOTR at a second viewing but not for TTT. Im even tempted to see TTT for a third time at the cinema but I doubt I will. Probably just wait for it to come out on DVD now.

JMK
Jan 9th, 2003, 08:04:37 AM
I'll definetly be seeing TTT again. Actually I loved the first 30-45 minutes with Frodo, Gollum, Sam and the other 3 tracking the Uruk-Hai. It picks up just where Fellowship drops off.

Gav Mortis
Jan 9th, 2003, 08:50:44 AM
It drives me mad when people say they were looking at their watches. It's a long film, you know it's a long film, so if you're not going to sit down and enjoy the acting and dialogue and scenery and music then what are you going to the cinema for? "The Two Towers" has a story to tell on top of the Helm's Deep battle sequence.

ReaperFett
Jan 9th, 2003, 10:25:21 AM
Because I was worried that Sam/Frodo had taken up over an hour! :)

Darth Viscera
Jan 9th, 2003, 12:55:28 PM
I kept looking at my watch, but it was for a different reason. I kept fearing that there was only 15 minutes left, etc. I was afraid for most of the 3 hours that the movie was about to end.

Marcus Telcontar
Jan 9th, 2003, 04:28:00 PM
What Gav and Vis said, I agree fully.