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 probably won't be buying this, but I hope someday to have a friend who does (take that, MPAA!) so that I can see the scene where Galadriel dispenses her gifts. Frankly, one of the biggest disapointments of FotR (which, largely, I really enjoyed) was the reduction of Gimli from character to caricature. I'd hope to see in that scene some glimmer of the Gimli that, IMHO, should have been, or have confirmed that Jackson simply had no idea of what to do with a dwarf and decided to settle for Stupid Dwarf Jokes.
Which is why Peter Jackson has been adamant that this is not a "Director's Cut", but a special 'Extended Edition'. The theatrical cut was the director's cut. The extended edition is what the director's cut would have been if he had thought that general audiences would sit through an additional 30 min. of material. That, and a (rather effective) ploy to get us to spend more money. As for who's interested in the 'making of' stuff, well, I am. I'm an amateur costumer, and I would probably buy this just for the 12 min. segment on the costumes for the film. But I was getting it anyway :)
...but what about those scenes that are in the movie that aren't true to the book? Personally, I'd rather see the extra length offset a bit by cutting some of the things that are untrue to the book. Like all the Aragorn-Arwen stuff and the things that weren't supposed to be revealed until later. I mean, this edition is meant to appease those that wanted more from the books in the movie, right?
Well I think it's very interesting, it's the equivalent of a copy of 1984 that I saw (and would have bought if I had the cash at the time), which was basically a copy of the original manuscripts, with the author's and editor's comments scribbled all over them.
When there's really a work of art that fascinates you, don't you feel an urge to know what went into putting it together?
-- Pete.
Monochrome - Probably the UK's largest internet BBS
You should check out some of the books edited by Tolkien's son Christopher. They don't really go into detail about pencil weights, but they do give a fascinating (YMMV) insight into the processes that went into writing LOTR and the different shapes the narrative took until it was given its final form.
Disclaimer: this is only recommended for the hard-core or those who like a peek (OK, more than a peek; an exhaustive examination) into how a writer performs his craft. To the casual fan the whole project starts to seem like your dry-ceaning analogy.
The sad thing is they have two dual-proc servers with RAID arrays, on round-robin DNS, and it's still getting the living crap hammered out of it.
(I admin their servers...)
My personal favorite of these if you get the chance, try watching the "Highlander: Endgame" 2 disc set. The first disc is the theatrical version. The second is the full version. The theatrical version had the interference of the studios and five (FIVE!!!?!?!?!?!) unrelated editors. The editors literally pulled setups to jokes out of the movie and left the punchlines at times. The fight scenes seem to be cut of the most exciting and interesting frames (why cut 1.5 seconds when someone's being kicked?). On second thought, these Highlander editors are pretty bad to start. Ever seen Highlander 2?
Fear the editors and studios. They have a lot more pull than you could imagine.
"If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka
Of course, Tom Bombadil did give one of the hobbits the sword that killed Sauron's general in the last book. The only reason the sword killed him was that it was an ancient sword of his enemies that came from those burial mound things.