Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Extra Scenes in FotR Special Edition DVD

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-desire dept.

gdr writes "Lights Out Entertainment have an article on the extra scenes that will be in the Fellowship of the Ring special edition DVD. It will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit. I'm not sure the final battle scene really needs to be any longer." There are quite a few bits mentioned for the extra 30 minutes of footage that I'm looking forward to seeing. Just be careful to buy the November 12 release and not the august release if you want the extra mojo. I'll be waiting.

7 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong Battlescene? by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I heard the battlescene that was supposed to be extended was the battle with Sauron at the beginning. I heard it was to be, not only elongated, but a lot more gory, giving the movie an "R" rating.

    This is just heresay, though.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  2. One thing missing? - 'The Sword That Was Broken' by cprice · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only one who thinks they could have spent
    2 more minutes talking about the 'Sword Of Elendil'? They show the sword in the preface cutting the hand of Sauron, and then they show Boromir doing his 'Still Sharp(e)' shtick. I think a quick scene with Elrond presenting the re-forged sword 'Anduril' to Aragorn would have been a worthy plot addition ('The sword that was broken goes to war'). To me, its part of the 'Aragorn claims his birthright' story within the story.

  3. Tom by zephc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the people complaining about Tom Bombadil, he wasn't really NEEDED in a movie version. The enigma of Tom is that he represented the *reader*. He was a safety net of sorts for the reader, a character of goodness who could remained unharmed by the evils in Middle-earth, even from Sauron et al.

    Here is a great analysis of Tom

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    1. Re:Tom by WNight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tom, a safety net? You're right and truly cracked.

      Tom was an accident and a toy's cameo, so says Tolkien himself. He started writing a more humorous book where Tom was appropriate (similar Bifur, Bofur, Bombur type naming in The Hobbit) and it gradually turned darker and more serious. He said he wouldn't have put him in, if he had it to do again.

      Also, Bombadil is a name he'd given to one of his kid's toys, and he wanted basically to give the toy a cameo. He admit in his letters that Bombadil doesn't have anything to do with the story, but says that he liked the idea of the world having some mystery, so he never explained Tom's presense.

      Making up some crap about how he represents the reader, etc... That's not only painfully wrong, but it's elitist, egotistical, and above all, against documented fact. Try lecturing about how the ring represents technology, that's another symbolism that Tolkien vehemently denied.

  4. Re:Please no Tom by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was extremely glad they cut out the Tom Bombadil scenes from the book.

    I disagree. Tom Bombadil was a fascinating character because he was completely carefree yet had powers that were obviously immense. He was the antithesis of the Wizards in attitude yet had tremendous power that you get the feeling was only hinted at.

    Also, I don't think that second-guessing Tolkien is something that I'd condone. Tolkien was arguably one of the most brilliant writers of the last century (note that I said "one of"). It's not like the director of LoTR was charged with making a movie out of yet another tired Saturday Night Live sketch. To some extent, I view a director as a conductor. I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.

  5. The Original Cut? by drdink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to IMDB, the original cut "ran four hours and thirty minutes." If this is truely the case, I'd like to get my hands on all of that extra footage and see what else we missed. Sure would be nice if Tom Bombadil was in there somewhere.

    --
    Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
  6. Re:Please no Tom by Nos. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd oppose that argument. Tolkien's books were badly paced, his storyline brought in new elements with little or no forshadowing, and the climactic scene of entire story took place in book 5/6, and was solved by a villian. And the fact that the ending is brought about by a villian (even if accidental) is one of the things I loved most about this story. The fact that the hero, in the end, was corrupted. Its not your typical movie where in the end, the hero always makes the right choice and saves the day. Here, we know the hero wouldn't or couldn't have.