Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wired's LOTR III Tech Breakdown

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the i'll-take-2-to-go dept.

Lord of the Rings 419

rjjm writes "Interesting little logistics piece in Wired about the technology WETA used for for The Return of the King." Ya know, now that the Matrix hype vanished into nowhere, I'm glad the LotR hype is gearing up. I think this one will earn it.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

technoglogy (2, Funny)

pbrinich (238041) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557004)

Hmm...must be one of those LOTR words

Re:technoglogy (5, Funny)

lithandie (627181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557072)

trixie technoglogy, we hates it...

Re:technoglogy (-1)

JPelorat (5320) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557193)

It burns us, yes! Shut it off! Pleeeeze, shuts it offfff! *Athlon*! *Athlon*!

Vanished? (3, Funny)

swordboy (472941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557008)

Ya know, now that the Matrix hype vanished into nowhere,

I don't think that it just vanished... it turned into something [boxofficereport.com] .

Nothing New Here (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557012)

Could it possibly be the same technology they used in LOTR I & II ?

Re:Nothing New Here (1)

enigmals1 (667526) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557131)

Exaclty... considering all three are already made and all they have to do it wrap up the production editing for III (and start the DVD junk). I guess some people don't know they were all filmed at the same time and the actors have already moved on to other projects a year ago?

Re:Nothing New Here (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557286)

Well yes and no.
If you'd seen the featurettes on The Two Towers, you'd know that they didn't start working on the CG for TTT until Spring following the release of The Fellowship of the Ring (including entirely redoing all the work they had already completed on Gollum). That being said, they probably didn't finish the CG work long ago, and Jackson will likely be tinkering with the editing until a week before release.

Re:Nothing New Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557393)

The technology used to film the raw footage hasn't changed much in decades. So it doesn't matter if they were all filmed around the same time. It's the technology used in the post production phase that they are talking about.

tsarkon reports the 9 rings of powere in the silmi (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557013)

9 steps to greasing your anus for Yoda Doll Insertion!
v 3.74.0
$YodaBSD: src/release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/yodanotes/9steppro cess.sgml,v 3.74.0 2003/11/24 20:30:25 tsarkon Exp $
  1. Defecate. Preferably after eating senna, ex lax, prunes, cabbage, pickled eggs, and Vietnamese chili garlic sauce. Defecation could be performed in the Return of the Jedi wastebasket for added pleasure. [homestead.com]
  2. Wipe ass with witch hazel, soothes horrific burns. (Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda can use witch-hazel on mouth to soothe the horrific burns from performing so much analingus.
  3. Prime anus with anal ease. [dimout.com] (Now Cherry Flavored for those butthole lick-o-phillic amongst you - very popular with 99% of the Slashdotting public!)
  4. Slather richly a considerable amount of Vaseline and/or other anal lubricants into your rectum at least until the bend and also take your Yoda Doll [starwars-rpg.net] , Yoda Shampoo bottle [homestead.com] or Yoda soap-on-a-rope [homestead.com] and liberally apply the lubricants to the Doll/Shampoo/Soap-on-a-rope.
  5. Pucker your balloon knot several times actuating the sphincter muscle in order to work it in.
  6. Put a nigger do-rag on Yoda's head so the ears don't stick out like daggers! [firstlinemfg.com]
  7. Make sure to have a mechanism by which to fish Yoda out of your rectum, the soap on the rope is especially useful because the retrieval mechanism is built in. [homestead.com]
  8. Slowly rest yourself onto your Yoda figurine. Be careful, he's big! [starwars-rpg.net]
  9. Gyrate gleefully in your computer chair while your fat sexless geek nerd loser fat shit self enjoys the prostate massage you'll be getting. Think about snoodling [urbandictionary.com] with the Sarlaac pit. Read Slashdot. Masturbate to anime. Email one of the editors hoping they will honor you with a reply. Join several more dating services - this time, you don't check the (desired - speaks English) and (desired - literate). You figure you might get a chance then. Order some fucking crap from Think Geek. Get Linux to boot on a Black and Decker Appliance. Wish you could afford a new computer. Argue that IDE is better than SCSI because you can't afford SCSI. Make claims about how Linux rules. Compile a kernel on your 486SX. Claim to hate Windows but use it for Everquest. Admire Ghyslain's courage in making that wonderful star wars movie. Officially convert to the Jedi religion. Talk about how cool Mega Tokyo is. Try and make sure you do your regular 50 story submissions to Slashdot, all of which get rejected because people who aren't fatter than CowboyNeal can't submit. Fondle shrimpy penis while making a Yoda voice and saying, use the force [toysrgus.com] , padawan, feeel the foooorce [toysrgus.com] , hurgm. Yes. Yes. When 900 years you reach [lemonparty.org] , a dick half as big you will not have. [toysrgus.com]
All in a days work with a Yoda figurine rammed up your ass.

I HAVE A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS!

y______________________________YODA_ANUS [goatse.cx]
o_________________.'_:__`.________________y
d____________.-.'`.__;___.'`.-.___________o
a___________/_:____\_;__/____;_\__________d
s_,'__""--.:__;".-.";:_:".-.":__;.--""__`,a
e_:'_`.t""--.._'/@.`;___',@\`_..--""j.'_`;s
x______`:-.._J_'-.-'L___`--_'_L_..-;'_____e
________"-.___;__.-"__"-.__:___.-"________x
y____________L_'_/.------.\_'_J___________y
o_____________"-.___"--"___.-"____________o
d______________.l"-:_TR_;-";._____________d
a_________.-j/'.;__;""""__/_.'\"-.________a
s_______v.'_/:`._"-.:_____.-"_.';__`.v____s
e____.-"__/_;__"-._"-..-"_.-"__:____"-.___e
x_.+"-.__:_:______"-.__.-"______;-.____\__x
_v;_\__`.;_; I Yoda Have A _____:_:_"+._;_
y_:__;___;_;_Greased Up ME In __:_;__:_\:_y
o_;__:___;_:_MY ASS! This Goes__;:___;__:_o
d:_\__;__:__; On FOREVER!______:_;__/__::_d

Because of Yoda's attitude, I usually don't respond to his perversions, but this time I'll make an exception. For starters, the nicest thing that can be said about Yoda's lackeys is that they are goofy insurrectionists out to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. Already, some piteous Neanderthals have begun to fund a vast web of uncontrollable vagabonds, combative slackers, and naive malodorous-types, and with terrifying and tragic results. What tracts will follow from their camp is anyone's guess. Think about that for a moment. Simply put, every morning Yoda asks himself, "How can I fool the masses today?" The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

It is grossly misleading merely to claim that Yoda simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to him over the years. Strange, isn't it, how disrespectful control freaks are always the first to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry? At least 80 percent of the people in this country recognize that he should be locked up. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all.

Does Yoda have trouble living with himself, knowing that Yoda's wheelings and dealings disgust and infuriate me? In my effort to uncover his hidden prejudices, I will need to provide you with vital information which he has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. Stingy feckless lowbrows can go right ahead and convict me for saying that I, for one, am morally and ethically opposed to his sentiments, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting me of all guilt and blame. His solutions are so narrow-minded that if allowed to go unanswered, their final cost would be incalculable. Why doesn't Yoda try doing something constructive for once in his life? Some people have compared impertinent hedonists to illiterate vile morons. I would like to take the comparison one step further. Let me close where I began: This is a frightening realization.

I pledge Allegiance to the Doll
of the Greased Up States of Yodarica
and to the Republic for which it shoves,
one nation under Yoda, rectal intrusion,
with anal lube and ass grease for all.


hello.mpeg lyrics.
I'm doin' this tonight ,
You're probably gonna start a fight .
I know this can't be right .
Hey baby come on,
I loved you endlessly ,
When you weren't there for me.
So now it's time to leave and make it alone .
I know that I can't take no more
It ain't no lie
I wanna see you out that door
Baby , bye, bye, bye...

Re:tsarkon reports the 9 rings of powere in the si (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557143)

And your point being...?

Does he do this on every post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557187)

Just curious.

hype. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557015)

Well yeah, because we all need hype.

try going hypeless! it's theraputic!

Synopsis (-1, Troll)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557016)

Lots of CG fight scenes

Frodo dies

Lots more CG to fill in where the story lacks

The End

Re:Synopsis (1)

junklight (183583) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557081)

yeah - 'cos LOR is a bit on the short side and lacking in narrative delvelopment. They should only have done one film really instead of padding it out for three.

Re:Synopsis (2, Informative)

syrinx (106469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557163)

except of course, he doesn't. the books have been out for 50 years, maybe you should try reading them.

Re:Synopsis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557243)

Maybe you haven't seen the other movies... you know... where they didn't follow the books.

Huh, you call that a spoiler? (2, Funny)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557164)

There's a series of books that were out years ago that were packed full of spoilers for all three films. They even had most of the stuff that's in the special edition DVDs and some of the stuff that didn't even get filmed. Now that's a spoiler.

That Tolkien dude sure had some sweet movie biz contacts. Harry Knowles eat your heart out.

Well, (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557018)

I for one welcome our new Lord of the Rings technology overlords.

Power at your fingertips (2, Funny)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557023)

Looking at the specs for the rendering cluster... The coolest thing is the fact that power like that will be at anyone's disposal in the forseeable future.

Then all I need is an AI to make up for my lack of skill...

Re:Power at your fingertips (4, Funny)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557084)

The coolest thing is the fact that power like that will be at anyone's disposal in the forseeable future.


The saddest thing is that we will need that much power just to run Windows2009 and Doom5

earning it's hype (5, Insightful)

lithandie (627181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557024)

probably not. mainly due to the cutting that has happened already. like the loss of the resolution to the sauruman plot.

Most likely ROTK will not live up to the hype until the extended edition comes out.

And I speak from the experience of two extended editions of the other two films that are both superior to the theatrical releases

Re: earning it's hype (5, Interesting)

thenextpresident (559469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557129)

As a LOTR reader of many, many times, I keep hearing the same problems people have with "what they removed" and "what they changed." And frankly, it's getting old.

From the standpoint of the movies, the Saruman plot is finished, over, and done with. The seven minute scene you refer to is NOT important to the overall plot of the move: getting the ring to Mordor. You can argue all you want, but I remember hearing the same things when people complained about the removal of Tom from the Fellowship. But that hardly ruined the film.

While I agree that the extended editions are much, much better than the theatrical release, ROTK will still be a really damn good movie.

As Fran says in the TT extended edition DVD, this is one group of fants interpretation of the LotR. I never expected a blow by blow account of the retelling. Indeed, one of the scenes I missed (the one with Radagast) was never even brought up!

Put another way, if the books had never been written, and LotR had been simply a movie without a book, would that make a difference. Yes, it would. So rather than judge the movie for what they had to leave out, but rather, for what they put into the movie.

Bombadil would have been LOTR's Jar-Jar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557210)

Or John Cleese's Robin Hood in Time Bandits*: completely out of place.

Either way, being completely faithful to Tolkien by keeping Tom Bombadil would have been incomprehensible to the not-so-well-versed-in-Tolkien-lore masses that had to be in the theaters to make the film commercially viable.

Turning Gimli into comic relief in The Two Towers was inexcusable, however.

* - OK, John Cleese's Robin Hood really wasn't out of place in Time Bandits itself, but then again neither was that 2000-foot-tall giant with a ship hat. LOTR is not a Terry Gilliam film and John Cleese in green tights would not have been a bad Bombabil interpretation....

Re: earning it's hype (5, Insightful)

dark404 (714846) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557303)

From the standpoint of the movies, the Saruman plot is finished, over, and done with. The seven minute scene you refer to is NOT important to the overall plot of the move: getting the ring to Mordor. You can argue all you want, but I remember hearing the same things when people complained about the removal of Tom from the Fellowship. But that hardly ruined the film.

Lord of the Rings is not like other books. The greatness of the book cannot be distilled into a simple plot of ring is found, ring journeys, ring is destroyed. The book is an epic tale with multiple plot lines, and MUST be taken in as an overall story. This book is the progenitor of the fantasy genre, and those of us who loved the book long before the movies were even on the drawing board recognize the overall importance of it in its entirety. If you consider getting the ring to Mordor to be the most important part of LotR, you just don't understand it at all.

Re: earning it's hype (5, Insightful)

JPelorat (5320) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557364)

It's not the most important part of the book, it's the most important part of the movie.

And no, it doesn't have to be taken in as an overall story. You don't have to have it all in there verbatim. You want that? Go read the book again. It doesn't have to be transcribed scene for scene, word for word, for the *point* of the story to be made.

The greatness of the book is shown in the craftsmanship of the props and sets and everything else on the screen.

Re: earning it's hype (3, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557337)

As much as I want ROTK to be a great movie, I really fear leaving that theater in a worse dissapointment than last year.

I dont have any problems with the scenes he left out... I have a real problem with the ones he put in that dont have anything to do with the original story.

We dont want Aragorn doubting if he wants to be king or not.

We dont want any more Dwarf-tossing jokes

We dont want Faramir to be cruel and aloof.

We dont want any 10 minute long dreamy sequences of Liv Tyler... wait a sec. we DO want those, but not in LOTR!

Re: earning it's hype (1)

mst76 (629405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557421)

From the standpoint of the movies, the Saruman plot is finished, over, and done with. The seven minute scene you refer to is NOT important to the overall plot of the move: getting the ring to Mordor.
From the standpoint of the movies, this is true, because the movie is told from a different perspective than the book. The movie is told mainly by an anonymous narrator (but appears to switch from time to time to being told by Galadriel, oddly enough). In the book, the story is told by the Hobbits. This is why the Scouring of the Shire is just as important as the fall of Sauron. Seeing their homeland corrupted affected them more than seeing Gondor on the brink of destruction. And note that Saruman does not come to his end in the scene that will be left out from the theatrical release, but in the Shire in a scene that was probably never shot.

Re: earning it's hype (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557435)

well, most people that bitch haven't heard from somewhere that the end story is cripled to begin with(if it was like in the books, with shire messed up and all, then missing saruman would obviously be quite a big thing). though saruman obviously has had some connections to shire in the extended editions versions at least (merri & pippin found pipeweed)

however saying beforehand that it will be a goddamn good movie is a bit much :), for you have not seen the movie yet..

so if you haven't heard anything else about what's in rotk, bitching about missing saruman is quite understandable.

however if i could use some magic to make some changes.. i would have extended it to be shown in the movie number 2, because rotk/3 is going to be tight packed now..

Wow, average of 2 hours per frame (1)

linux_warp (187395) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557027)

With their hardware, from the article:
"Average time to render one frame: 2 hours"

I guess that means slashdot nerds won't be able to make LOTR quality CG for sometime?

Or... (2, Insightful)

clifgriffin (676199) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557066)

You could assume that they render multiple frames at a time. With all the frames they have to render, at 12 frames a day that requires a few decades to render.

Unless - LOTR - the Slashdot Edition (5, Funny)

Channard (693317) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557090)

You could assume that they render multiple frames at a time. With all the frames they have to render, at 12 frames a day that requires a few decades to render.

That sounds like a call for distributed computing and an LOTR rendering client on each PC. One million slashdot readers willing, we *will* render the Scouring of the Shire...

Re:Unless - LOTR - the Slashdot Edition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557185)

Well.. if you can do your magic with povray, join the Internet Movie Project [imp.org] .

Then you have a lot of machines to do the rendering and you will perhaps find someone to help you out a bit with that project. :)

The first step however is to decide what exactly you want and after that it only needs to be done.

Re:Unless - LOTR - the Slashdot Edition (1)

jacksonyee (590218) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557283)

I know that you meant that as a joke, but that's actually not a bad idea. For everyone who's complaining that the movies don't match the book, why don't we just create our own version? The Star Trek and Matrix parodies have proven that amateur work has risen to the level where very nice productions can be done with readily available hardware and software. The only issues standing in our way is leadership, talent, money... and of course, time. If the community wants to get together and every person contributes in whatever way he or she can, then I don't see these issues being a problem.

Open source movie? It's just a matter of time...

Re:Wow, average of 2 hours per frame (3, Informative)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557092)

"With their hardware, from the article: "Average time to render one frame: 2 hours" I guess that means slashdot nerds won't be able to make LOTR quality CG for sometime?"

That must be "2 processor-hours". With 1400 CG shots and 240 frames per shot minimum, that is at least 336k frames, and 672k hours of rendering. They would have had to start rendering in 1926. If you assume processor-hours, though, it drops to a much more reasonable 210 hours of total rendering time.

Re:Wow, average of 2 hours per frame (1)

PEREGRI (709726) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557093)

But... Why do you need 240 frames per shot? You need 24 frames per second in a film. Then... Why so many frames per shot?

Re:Wow, average of 2 hours per frame (0)

SoVeryWrong (576783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557327)

... because the shot is 10 seconds long ...

Will it really be good? (2, Interesting)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557032)

I wonder if Return of the King will truly earn it, as it looks like it will deviate from the book even more than The Two Towers, having cut out Saruman and all. I fear I will be seeing more Hollywood-style action scenes that take away from the severity of the original story.

Re:Will it really be good? (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557082)

I wonder if Return of the King will truly earn it, as it looks like it will deviate from the book even more than The Two Towers

Agreed. The Two Towers was probably the most disappointing film I've seen in the last 10 years. After FotR, I had high hopes for TTT, only to see Peter Jackson make an ass of himself, and trash what had the promise to be an excellent trilogy. I'll go and see RotK, but I'm not expecting much. From the trailers at least, it looks like it won't be quite as dire as TTT. But I'm not expecting a really good film.

Re:Will it really be good? (3, Funny)

Munk (59689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557126)

Agreed. The Two Towers was probably the most disappointing film I've seen in the last 10 years,

So...I take it you didn't see Matrix Revolutions ;)

Re:Will it really be good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557347)

There was no way for Revolutions to meet expectations. Even if they got Jesus to be in that film...oh wait...

Re:Will it really be good? (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557423)

So...I take it you didn't see Matrix Revolutions ;)

Actually, I did. Yeah, it wasn't great, but my expectations had already been lowered by Reloaded :-)

Re:Will it really be good? (1, Funny)

bheer (633842) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557145)

The Two Towers was probably the most disappointing film I've seen in the last 10 years

Try seeing Terminator 3 and Gigli in quick succession... you'll feel _much_ better about The Two Towers.

Re:Will it really be good? (1)

d_i_r_t_y (156112) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557385)

why on middleearth did you so dislike it? while there are a couple of minor sequences that don't feel "right", the movie as a whole is excellent (IMHO). i find it difficult to believe that people who've read LOTR a few times could not be thrilled with what PJ and co have done. i am so excited about ROTK i can hardly restrain myself from assassinating my local distributor and stealing their copy.

perhaps seeing TTT again might help?

Re:Will it really be good? (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557112)

Do they have a choice?

Re:Will it really be good? (4, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557122)

Saruman is cut from the THEATRICAL release of RoTK. He's right there in the Extended Edition.

I for one enjoyed TTT ALOT. Sure, there were deviations from the book, but they were necessary to keep the story going. You cannot make the movie 1:1 identical with the book.

Re:Will it really be good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557365)

You cannot make the movie 1:1 identical with the book.
No. But you can make it better than 0.0000000001:1, with occasional forays into -1:1 (eg Faramir, Theoden and Treebeard's inexplicable recasting as cowards).

Re:Will it really be good? (2, Insightful)

JPelorat (5320) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557144)

You need to watch the documentaries and listen to the commentaries for FotR and TTT. They have some very good reasons for doing what they did - the main one, which a whole lot of people seem to be forgetting:

Book != film. Some things you can do in a book drop flaming turds on screen, and vice versa.

Re:Will it really be good? (2, Informative)

Captain_Chaos (103843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557165)

Peter Jackson has said that The Two Towers deviated by far the most from the book of the three films. We already knew that the Scouring was out, and given that, the removal of Saruman isn't such a big deal. Leaving out the Scouring is already a pretty big departure from the book, so I anticipate that the rest will be pretty close...

Re:Will it really be good? (1)

thenextpresident (559469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557171)

What? I am sorry, but Fellowship deviated a LOT from the book, and it was still a damn good movie. Frodo's age and the whole timing, how Merry and Pippin were introduced, the whole escaping from the shire, Tom was missing, etc. And that was just the beginning! But even the Theatrical release was damn good.

Simply put, Saruman is not important to the plot of the movie: Getting the ring to mount doom. They could easily remove Saruman from the third movie, and it would still be a good theatrical release.

Rather than be a glass if half full, you can start looking at what they have put into the movie.

I just can't imagine why someone would sit there and say that the movie won't be good because the film makers had to make a choice of which parts were indeed vital to the movie, and what parts to remove.

Saruman was "finished off" in the second movie. Their will be no scouring of the shire, hence why bring him back in at the beginning of the third? It's not vital to the main plot: getting the ring to mount doom.

Sorry for the OT post.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557035)

If someone has "Karma: Good", why would that person still post at 1, does it take "Excellent" to post at a default of 2?

Re:Sorry for the OT post.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557107)

Yes, you need "Excellent" karma to post at a default of 2.

Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557040)

The obligatory beowolf cluster joke

Fahrenheit Weight? (1)

Red Pointy Tail (127601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557041)


Is that like Pascal Length?

LOTR Hype (0, Interesting)

galaga79 (307346) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557044)

Ya know, now that the Matrix hype vanished into nowhere, I'm glad the LotR hype is gearing up. I think this one will earn it.

I hate to rain on your parade but if anything the indications of the Return Of The King have been disappointing. Firstly there is no sign of the Rangers of the North in the trailer even though there is a scene that obviously shows them entering the pass of the dead. Secondly it has been announced they have cut out the scenes with Sauruman, which is certainly going to make things interesting in terms of the seeing stones (I think they are called plantirs).

Re:LOTR Hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557099)

(I think they are called plantirs)
that's palantirs.
and I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Re:LOTR Hype (2, Interesting)

bheer (633842) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557115)

A lot of us felt quite outraged about Tom Bombadil being cut off from FOTR, and the entire fiasco of Arwen and the river. This was at a time when PJ was an unknown quantity, and many feared that he'd screw up the movies.

But somehow, despite the cuts and the departures from the books, the first two movies worked very well. So I'm going to keep my scepticism in check until I actually see the third.

Re:LOTR Hype (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557169)

A lot of us felt quite outraged about Tom Bombadil being cut off from FOTR


I wasn't. When I read that they are making a movie about LOTR, I cheered. 10 seconds after that I though "They movie is going to rule! Except the part with Tom Bombadil". Having Bombadil in the movie would have been worse than Jar Jar Binks x 10.

Re:LOTR Hype (2, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557182)

imo the Tom Bombadil part is boring and pointless.

I don't know why people are so obsessed with it following the book perfectly. if you want what's in the book, then read the fucking book. I think the films are fantastic so far, but then I judge them by how much I enjoy watching them, not by how similar they are to something which has already existed for a very long time.

Re:LOTR Hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557390)

I think the films are fantastic so far, but then I judge them by how much I enjoy watching them
I judge them by how much I enjoy watching them as well, and they're cringe-makingly awful in places, especially The Two Towers.

Re:LOTR Hype (3, Insightful)

SlashdotLemming (640272) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557181)

Firstly there is no sign of the Rangers of the North in the trailer even though there is a scene that obviously shows them entering the pass of the dead.

As a representative of the 95% of people who will see this movie that have not or will never read the books, who the hell are the Rangers of the North, what is the pass of the dead, and why are your firstly and secondly reasons that I will be dissapointed by this film?

Re:LOTR Hype (0)

Rallion (711805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557336)

The Rangers are really just a whole bunch of people as cool as Aragorn that come to help in the huge battle. But I can see why they'd be left out, that battle could get hella confusing.

As for the removal of Saruman, I have my doubts. Though he is important in the third book, that's mostly in the Scouring. But if they go without the Palantir, I will be disappointed.

That didn't help you. My bad. Read the books. Heh.

Re:LOTR Hype (2, Insightful)

Smedrick (466973) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557186)

No Rangers of the North?!?! I'm outraged! Well that's it...I'm boycotting this movie!!

</sarcasm>

He's not rewriting the book. If you want your Rangers, you can pick up the damn book...I can assure you that they'll still be in there. I'll let you in on a little secret... Movies based on books generally serve as COMPANIONS to the books, not replacements.

It's one person's interpretation of the story. He's under no obligation to stay completely true to the books. The man has done an incredible job with cinematography and I've uttlerly enjoyed every second of the first two movies.

Re:LOTR Hype (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557281)

Disappointing to whom? Oh that's right disappointing to the basement trolls who do nothing but read LOTR all day and then, complain about movies and how books are so far superior to movies because of their imaginations, then go and see the movie opening night anyways, just so they can go online and chat on the basement troll network about how much the whole thing sucked.

I'm dissapointed.. (3, Insightful)

clifgriffin (676199) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557045)

I was hoping it was an article on certain effects and how they were accomplished.

Not a tiny list of vital stats. (that didn't seem to impress me somehow) :(

Blogzine.net [blogzine.net]
Fortress of Insanity [homeunix.org]

Nitpick (4, Funny)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557064)

Temperature of equipment rooms: 76 degrees

Well that's specific ... 76C, 76F or 76K? :)

If it's farenhite, then that's quite cool. If it's celcius then holy crap that's hot.

If it's kelvin then I think we've found the new overclocking kings ...

Re:Nitpick (-1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557074)

I guess you just answered your question...

Re:Nitpick (4, Informative)

Red Pointy Tail (127601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557080)

Look at the next line:

Temperature of equipment rooms: 76 degrees
Fahrenheit Weight of air conditioners needed to maintain that temperature: 1/2 ton


The Fahrenheit went there.

Re:Nitpick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557241)

Yeah, well he's a moron, we all knew that.

Re:Nitpick (0)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557255)

Yeah, well he's a moron, we all knew that.

I didn't! .. Oh wait ...

Re:Nitpick (1)

ahillen (45680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557088)

Considering that the next line begins with Fahrenheit Weight of air conditioners, and I don't know of any Fahrenheit Weights, I would assume that the temperature unit is Fahrenheit and it just slipped to the beginning of the next line...

Re:Nitpick (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557116)

Thanks ahillen and Red Pointy Tail!! I missed that completly.

That still makes it oddly cool for a server room. My single Athlon computer can heat up this room quite a bit. They've got 3200 processors!

3200 processors. I can imagine the admin of that watching it, wispering "It's my precious ..."

Re:Nitpick (1)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557325)

That still makes it oddly cool for a server room.

Maybe that's because they've got HALF A TON of air conditioning equipment...

Re:Nitpick (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557176)

Temperature of equipment rooms: 76 degrees

Well that's specific ... 76C, 76F or 76K? :)

If it's farenhite, then that's quite cool. If it's celcius then holy crap that's hot.

If it's kelvin then I think we've found the new overclocking kings ...


It's already been pointed out that it's F, but Kelvin isn't measured in degrees anyway. It's just Kelvin. [/even more nitpicky]

Re:Nitpick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557226)

If it's farenhite, then that's quite cool. If it's celcius then holy crap that's hot.

And if you could spell, or ever got an education, or someday moved out of your trailer park, that would be a miracle - and dramatically out of character.

Go away and finish school. Don't come back until you can write English.

Put it on my WETA Charge! (4, Funny)

PSaltyDS (467134) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557068)

1,600 Servers............. $640,000

10GB network.............. $378,000

35 IT staffers............ $140/hr

420 Visual f/x staffers... $9,800,000.28

Seeing Gollum bite Frodo's finger off with "Photorealism"... Priceless!

Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.

Re:Put it on my WETA Charge! (2, Funny)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557260)

1,600 Servers............. $640,000

10GB network.............. $378,000

35 IT staffers............ $140/hr

40 Visual f/x staffers... $9,800,000.28


Wow, looks like they outsourced the IT to India. :)

Re:Put it on my WETA Charge! (-1)

yotto (590067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557395)

Mod parent down for spoilers.

LOTR 3 = eye candy (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557071)

This movie will be eye candy. Look at the way it's being pitched -- not by the supreme acting ability of it's characters, but by the specs of the render farm used to generate the computer graphics. Even Matrix didn't go that far -- they at least attempted to pass M3 off as a "movie" with a "plot". I definitely enjoyed M3, don't get me wrong, but it was no "usual suspects".

Re:LOTR 3 = eye candy (0)

clifgriffin (676199) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557133)

I think I'll wait to see it before making my judgement.

They hyped up Two Towers as better than the 1st...in many respects it was. The same people made this one and are hyping it up as the best of the 3.

I'm not so quick to pass it off. I'm not going to set myself up for failure...but I'm not going to assume it will be trash.

There's no evidence to support this.

Re:LOTR 3 = eye candy (2, Insightful)

pacsman (629749) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557134)

That's how it's being pitched in Wired, not exactly the publication you'd expect most people to read. This article is aimed at the techno-literate computer crowd that can appreciate what went into the making of the film as far as computers go, not people like my mom who want to see the movie but who could care less about the computing aspect of it's creation.

Re:LOTR 3 = eye candy (2, Insightful)

thenextpresident (559469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557201)

Wired.com is a tech-savvy news website. What did you think they are going to write about? I mean, unless you think Wired is suddenly going to STOP writing tech-savvy articles about movies, and instead, focus on reviewing movies like "She's All That", and talk about the inner struggle between lunacy and sanity.

Yeah, because an article is written about how something is made == whatever is made will obviously suck.

Tired of hearing that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557220)

...anyone that didn't see plot in Matrix 3 didn't see the movie(s). And there were vital story points made in the final movie that led to the ending that occured. The only problem I had at all with the movie is that the final cut needed to have the epic multi-tier battle much like Jedi had and it didn't. It would have been more impressive if the humans were about to be swarmed for the last time and Neo then finished off Smith right then and the machines stopped. The 'end' just occured over too many parts in a scattered fashion, there needed to be one great finish and it WAS there, just cut badly. I can't wait for the DVD to cut my own finish.

And one other thing is you cannot watch it as a single movie, which is why it's part of a trilogy. At least the first part felt like a stand alone movie. Hell LotR can't live up to that, you need to see the other two movies to get a sense of conclusion. At that you need to sit through 3 3-hour long movies to get to that end.

As for 'Usual Suspects', anyone that paid attention knew what was going to happen by the end, just like 'M3'

Re:LOTR 3 = eye candy (1)

PollGuy (707987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557262)

This movie will be eye candy. Look at the way it's being pitched -- not by the supreme acting ability of it's characters, but by the specs of the render farm used to generate the computer graphics.

It's being pitched in Wired on the basis of the technology.

It's being pitched to the academy [theonering.net] on the emotional pull of the story. Just check out the trailer [lordoftherings.net] -- sure, there are FX shots, but they are far outnumbered by people looking nervous, distressed, hopeful. Good drama lies not in the depiction of battle itself but in the anxiety in the buildup to battle -- something Lucas and the Wachowskis don't understand. But if half the trailer goes to those kinds of character moments, it's a good omen.

I'm all for keeping expectations reasonable, but everyone on this thread is being such a downer on the movie without having seen it. Wait until all the facts are in, EE if you have to, and you will understand why PJ & co. made their choices. To the purists: the books are still there on your shelf and the fact that movies are out does not change that. I'm sorry you don't have an open mind but don't spoil it for those of us that do. Besids, it will definitely be the best Part III of any series since Police Academy: Back in Training.

The Mystery of Tom Bombadil Solved! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557138)

Tom Bombadil and the Witch-king of Angmar are the same person.

1. We never hear of Tom at all during the whole of the First Age. The Nine Rings aren't forged until the Second Age. QED.

2. You never see the two of them together.

3. In the first part of Fellowship of the Ring, the Nazgul are sent to the Shire to look for the wandering Baggins. Interestingly, Tom says to Frodo at the dinner-table: "...I was waiting for you. We heard news of you, and learned that you were wandering... But Tom had an errand there, that he dared not hinder" (Fellowship p.137 hardback, note the fear Tom has of his master, Sauron!).

4. In Tom's questioning of the Hobbits, JRRT notes that "there was a glint in his eyes when he heard of the Riders." (Fellowship p. 144) I think he was concerned that his double-life might have been noticed. Interestingly, Tom immediately changes the subject of conversation! Furthermore, the One Ring had no effect on Tom - which seems consistent with Tolkien's observations about how the Nazgul would have handled the same priceless object (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #246): "They were... in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring."

5. It's also interesting to note that Tom could see Frodo clearly while Frodo was wearing the Ring (Fellowship p. 144 hardback) - just as the Witch-king could see Frodo clearly while he was wearing the Ring at Weathertop! (Fellowship p. 208 hardback)

6. Perhaps most damning, however, is the incident with the Barrow-wights (Fellowship pp. 151-155), where Tom - with nothing more than a few simple words (p. 154) - commands the Barrow-wight to leave. And it does, without argument. Why would the Wight be so completely under Tom's control? Because in his alternate guise as the Witch-king of Angmar, Tom ordered the Wight to inhabit the barrow in the first place! Turning to Return of the King, Appendix A, p. 321, "evil spirits out of Angmar... entered into the deserted mounds and dwelt there." Obviously the Witch-king was reponsible for sending the wights there; just as obviously, the Witch-king (disguised as Tom) would be capable of ordering them to leave! (This is related to another passage, which has since been brought to my attention. On Fellowship page 158 hardback, Tom is guiding the Hobbits back towards the Road when he gazes towards the borders of Cardolan. "Tom said that it had once been the boundary of a kingdom, but a very long time ago. He seemed to remember something sad about it, and would not say much." Since Tom, as the Witch-king, was the one who destroyed the kingdom of Cardolan, it's little wonder that he wouldn't say much about his involvement. Perhaps his remembering "something sad" reveals some remorse at being the instrument of Cardolan's destruction...?)

...Yep: I think we have an airtight case here. :)

...It's worth noting that, after the Witch-king was dead, Gandalf said he was "going to have a long talk with Bombadil" (Return of the King, p. 275). Curiously, he never tells anyone about the meeting later... and he's right there at the Grey Havens at the end of the book, undelayed it seems by long conversation. I think we can therefore theorize that Gandalf made it to the Old Forest, but that Tom (once the so-called "Witch-king" had died) was nowhere to be found!

...Of course, all this brings up the curiosity of motive. What would make the Witch-King of Angmar sport such a double identity? I suppose that the Witch-king, once of proud Numenorean ancestry, felt trapped by the guise of evil which Sauron had tricked him into, and in the fullness of time forged this alternate identity for himself so that he could occasionally feel happy, helpful, noble, and more at one with himself and his lineage. The situation is perhaps analagous to a crossdresser who, feeling trapped in a man's body, would occasionally assume the identity of a woman. It therefore makes sense that the Witch-king's other identity would be so peculiarly enigmatic, and perhaps sheds light on JRRT's observation in Letters #144: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

...Who else would be aware of Tom's double-life, I wonder? Since Tom repeatedly claims to have been around "before the river and the trees", and indeed even claims to be older than the Ents (Fellowship p. 142), surely the eldest of the Elves would know he was lying. Elrond plays along with Tom in public, being kind enough not to reveal his secret, but also seems to know that Tom and the Witch-king are one and the same; hence his refusal to give the Ring to Tom for safekeeping (Fellowship p. 278-9): "Power to defy the Enemy is not in him."

Re:The Mystery of Tom Bombadil Solved! (1)

Lovepump (58591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557319)

Interesting, but you need to get out more.

Half a Petabyte (0)

Ba3r (720309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557148)

Thats fuckin cool

Lots of Raw film (5, Insightful)

kongstad (28720) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557204)

For those people who think that ROTK is only about F/X.

I can't remember the amounts but around the time #1 came out they talked about the fact that in a normal picture they shoot about twice or three times more material and then cut it down to what you see.

I LOTR they shot about ten times as much. That is for every minute of finished movie they've shot 10 minutes of film.

So sure there is a lot of CGI going on, but there is still plenty of old fashioned moviemaking involved.

But off course with gollum and a giant orc army (what 100.000 orcs?) they have to rely on CGI. /Soren

What about the CPU's? (1)

Martigan80 (305400) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557206)

Great so the movie is done, what will they do with all that power? I'm sure they can stomp out some SKG competition.

weta liquid: still not released iinto open source? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557209)

there was a /. article where weta pledged to open source its maya to renderman gate called "liquid".

it's been quite a while ago, and i still don't find it anywhere. did they lie?

LOTR vs. Matrix Hype. (4, Insightful)

skywalker107 (220077) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557233)

The hype surronding the LOTR: ROTK is a different Hype than that of the Matrix. Everyone has read LOTR many times over and everyone knows that Peter Jackson just has to follow the storyline of the book and people will be generally happy. Your comparison to the Matrix hype was not a good one.

The Hype surrounding The Matrix was that of unknowing. The story was in a form that this was a first time for everyone. I have to admit I was one of the few that thourghly enjoyed all three episodes and admired them for there story and cinematics. For lord of the rings I already know the story is good, I am just here for the cinematics.

Why so long? (1)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557245)

Average time to render one frame: 2 hours

That's quite a bit of time for 1600 separate computers, isn't it? Anyone know what resolution it is all rendered to?

A cheap, temporary, alternative to plastic surgery (-1)

YoungBonzi (692874) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557280)

You could try out some WETA breast implants to see if it's really for you.

To whomever is writing these headlines (4, Funny)

Asprin (545477) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557290)


When drafting your headlines, please consider that some of the older residents around here have high blood pressure and a low tolerance for extreme panic.

When I read the headline "Wired's LOTR III Tech Breakdown", my first thought was "Aw, crap! ROTK has been delayed because their servers crashed! ARRRRRRRRGH!"

Now I have to go to the restroom to clean up.

A better, LESS INFLAMMATORY headline would have been something like "Wired Breaks Down the Tech Behind ROTK".

My underwears (and my cardiologist) thank you for your consideration.

Saaarumaaan! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7557298)

Nazgul: Describe Sauron for me.
Saruman: Well, he's dark...
Nazgul: And?
Saruman: ...and he's tall...
Nazgul: Does he look like a bitch?
Saruman: What?
*thud* *scream*
Nazgul: DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH!?
Saruman: No!
Nazgul: Then why'd ya try to fuck him like a bitch?

A plea to the moderators (4, Insightful)

Illserve (56215) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557299)

Can you please stop handing out Karma to that unfortunately large body of people who don't yet realize that books and movies are not the same media, and that you can't expect the same story to work equally well on both.

I don't know how it's possible that they haven't yet learned this basic fact, as it's been discussed to complete death by everyone and their grandmother for the past 10-20 years.

Tolkein was not a holy saint. His work is not the Bible. In some places his story telling is actually subpar. Peter Jackson has(for the most part) done a truly excellent job of culling the important elements into a theatrical release that the public can enjoy. His idea of releasing a very different version on DVD for the book fans is sheer genius. He recognizes that you can't please everyone with one version. Why can't you? It's not a hard concept to grasp really.

And if you really have issues with the job Jackson has done, suggest someone else who would have done better. Peter is the perfect choice IMO, as he doesn't have the ego that big producers do, an ego that would have turned LOTR in "Spielberg's LOTR".

NewLine formula for lord of the rings (-1, Troll)

fw3 (523647) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557321)

1. Rename it LOTR

2. Gut the plot, Chapters involving nuance (Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire) are removed. Reduce all cast memebers outside fo the original fellowship to 1-dimensional supporting roles. (Denethor and sons as an '80's flavor dysfunctional family? please!)

3. Release EE's to rake in money from the more die-hard fans, replete with further plot deviations.

4. Enlarge Liv Tyler's <gag> role to be big enough to sign her sorry ass to the film.

Sorry, for my money (and Newline won't be getting any more of it) the Matrix trilogy as *film* stands head and shoulders over what they've done to Tolkein's work. The Fellowship film was well done IMO, the Two Towers film less so and my expectations for the final ... well I'm not going.

Not Bored of the Rings Yet? (-1, Troll)

cut and paste (708970) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557358)

escapist twaddle I say.

As a data center manager (here comes the math)... (3, Informative)

Khyron42 (519298) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557366)

... I wonder how they came up with the numbers here.

A blade chassis full of dual PIII's [dell.com] similar to what they showed in the "render wall" photo will, in my experience, pull 300 to 600 watts of power depending on CPU load and configuration - the maximum power use is 850 W. At least a third of that is turned into heat.

This puts the minimum heat load at around ((1600 servers / 6 servers per chassis) * 150 watts average heat output) = approx. 40,000 watts.

While I've never heard of "farenheit weight" before, "tons refrigeration" is pretty common in the air conditioning world - 40,000 watts heat load = 136,500 BTU/hr = 10 tons of refrigeration (in UK units, 11 in US) [engnetglobal.com] . It's amazing how well that 1/2 ton air conditioner is operating!

The guy is called... (-1)

Captain_Chaos (103843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7557407)

...Saruman, for crying out loud! What's with you people?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?