Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LOTR Director's Cut Reviewed

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the now-with-20%-more-orc dept.

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."

10 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Opiuman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:I don't really see the appeal by Flamerule · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What are you talking about?

    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...

  3. Tom Bombadil by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Tom Bombadil by Jim+Norton · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The main difference between the two is that an in-depth study of LOTR will reveal a richly textured and very interesting character, while an in-depth study of Ep1 will not only underscore how inane Jar Jar really is, but reveal the poverty of the story as a whole.

      While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.

      Still, I don't believe most people hated Jar Jar because he wasn't really an interesting character. They hate him because he's too "cutesy" and annoying. This, to me, is Tom Bombadil in a nutshell, despite how fleshed out either character is (or isn't)

      I was glad to see that the TB storyline was not in the movie. It really would have ruined the dark, erious mood of the movie.

      --
      -- Jim
  4. The Appeal of Knowlege by Thenomain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Random+Bystander · · Score: 4, Insightful
    but what about those scenes that are in the movie that aren't true to the book?
    It's nice to see *any* movie that is true to its book. I've recently been disappointed with The Sum Of All Fears, and The Bourne Identity for being only mildly close to the plot of the book. LoTR on the other hand, is a much better rendition
  6. Oh, come now. by TomatoMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  7. LotR puzzle: Saruman as traitor by ChrisWong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:OK, so we've got some extra scenes... by Quikah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.