Slashdot Mirror
LOTR Director's Cut Reviewed
popala writes "The first review is in on Home Theater Forum. There are a few screenshots from the unseen scenes and the whole thing is reviewed dvd by dvd! Although I don't like the review itself - I think it is a bit dry and not very journalistic, I do think it is still worth a read - even just a glance of the screenshots from cut scenes."
I've been waiting for the director's cut for what feels like ages. And it has just the scenes that I felt the lack of most in the original release... Too bad we can't view them in a proper cinema -- maybe in the 25th anniversary re-release, or something...
I wish it weren't still missing the whole Tom Bombadil sub-plot... But the 'spirit' of the book is there.
While I do agree that Hollywood has been working on quite a few attempts to "sell us something that we've already got" sometimes the director doesn't have final say in the choice of final release cut. He may have one vision for the film but the studios decided that the public will handle another version better.
The group is handed cloaks and food by the elves
as well as parting advice. Galadriel gives gifts
to each of the members. Gimli has a very
unlikely request. Wait till you hear what he
receives.
I wonder... Could it be a strand of hair? He forgets, most people have read the book and are eagerly waiting for those cut parts to be re-introduced into the film.
Tournament Management Online &
A director's cut is an edition of a film with scenes added or modified from the theatrical release -- presumably the suits forced modifications on the director, which he remedies on the DVD/video release. It's "what the director wanted". You're complaining about "Behind the Scenes" documentaries or something...
Usually bean counters, nervous nellies, studio bigwigs who don't think the public will "get it", etc. Basically the people you can thank for you eventually having two or more versions of the same movie on home video. e.g. Theater Cut, "Directors Cut", Real Directors Cut, Boxed Set of Trilogy, Boxed Set or "Directors Cuts", Boxed Set of Real Directors Cuts.
And they wonder aloud why there's so much P2P sharing of video...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
While he may have been an untewrtesting diversion in the book, he is one of the many aspects of LoTR that would make it a bad film. films need a lot more focus, and a long section that doesn't really affect the plot would put viewers off in droves.
Heaven forbid that people expand their education, or that a popular movie offer an in-depth look at what goes into filming on this scale. Even if they go to show that making a movie is no different than day-to-day living in some areas, that's still something I, at least, didn't know before. Education, instruction and de-hyping Hollywood sounds like positive goals, to me. I'm looking forward to it.
If you don't care, or if you already knew, then do what a lot of people are going to do anyway: Get a copy from a friend who shelled out the extra bucks for the Director's Cut. (Or get the Cut and don't watch the extra footage.) No one's forcing you to watch it, just to pay for it, and not necessarily even that.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Knock,knock people - if it can hold up to the traffic to get us to 150 posts it isn't going to get slashdotted.
Maybe the server won't be overwhelmed, but it is possible that the bandwidth allotted to a site may be exceeded. Some smaller hosters allow X gigs of "traffic" a la yahoo and geocities, etc.
Delayed slashdotting _is_ possible.
I agree we didn't get enough Gimli, and I'm as eager as anyone to see more of his experience with Galadriel (and I hear it's there, but I'm not reading the spoilers). But we get glimpses of him: his no-nonsense attempt to destroy the ring at the Council; his firey resolve at Balin's tomb; his (not enough, but observable) booty-kicking in the end battle. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be. Yes, he went for the easy laugh in Lothlorien with the "eyes of a fox - oop!" thing, but that's not entirely out of character with the dwarves' and elves' assessment of each other, even though it wasn't in the book.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Since we have a bunch of LotR fans here, perhaps somebody could answer a question that has been bugging me after the first movie. In the movie, Count Dooku^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Saruman merely asks Gandalf to join Sauron's side. In the book, he asks Gandalf to join *him* as a force independent of Sauron. In other words, the guy who betrays both sides in the book only betrays one in the movie. Why was this change made? It hardly seemed necessary, whereas other changes have some arguments in their favor.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
rather than simply going 'Hey! Its a Balrog' she will some idea why running away is a really good course of action
It's a giant demon dripping fire from its skin looking really pissed off. You need a better reason than that to run away?
Q.