Slashdot Mirror
LOTR: Two Towers Extended Edition Reviewed
akahige writes "The Digital Bits has just posted an exhaustive review and analysis of extended edition of The Two Towers, everybody that can't wait to get theirs -- or wait even longer to see the uber-cut in the theatre -- check it out. There's 43 minutes of new footage (not including the extended credits), and comparable extras to the extended version of Fellowship: 4 commentaries, documentaries, behind the scenes, etc. " I felt that FotR's Extended Edition was far superior to the theatrical release- usually these extra cuts add little, but this was the exception. I've been waiting with held breath for this one. I just wish it would ship a few days early!
It does, if it's done in the same way as the FOTR extended edition. The film itself comes on two disks :-)
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
Do you think they could offer a version that returns to the book continuity, without the gratuitous appearance of Arwen in Rohan and the silly Aragorn dream sequence?
Or am I asking too much?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Crap, now I actually want to see it. I really didn't like TTT, mostly because rather than actually doing the plot of the books, it was a 3 hour battle scene with only the slightest trimmings of the plot thrown in - and the battles just got really old with time. You know that somethings wrong when the ents are less boring than the battles.
Now I have to see it, 'cause they actually put the plot back in the film.
Yes, you are the only one. So go buy it already. That version has been available since August.
Any other questions?I am usually of the same opinion, but for this movie, there is a good reason to have the extended editions and the extras on the disc... it would be *impossible* to fully develop the plot and subtleties of LotR to even reasonable standards within the 9 hours of the normal film. This is PJ's way of giving more to the fans of the book (which he is also). These scenes were cut simply because of time constraints, not because they sucked. Try watching the extended edition of "The Abyss" sometime as another example of a film that was shortened by time. In many ways, this is the exact opposite of what you claim, they are correcting and making up for the fact that they tried to make too much money by making the films shorter and more palatable to a theatre audience, rather than achieving their full vision.
LotR is impressive not necessarily because of the story, but because Tolkien CREATED THREE OR FOUR LANGUAGES and then the entire history to explain them and their cultures. He was a linguistics professor.
The Matrix doesn't really do anything new. It's a watered-down version of lots of different philosophy with imagery from various religions thrown in. If you look at it like a kung fu movie with western sci-fi trappings, it works, but it ISN'T a deep story, and all the questions it asks were taken from somewhere else.
In Toklein's TTT, the cliff-hanger ending is Shelob the spider almost ends the quest. I guess Jackson moved this to the part III for some reason or the other.
Personally, I think of each movie as being a 6-disc special edition. If they released it that way all at once, the total cost would end up about the same, so what difference does it make?
LordBodak's journal.
How is it rude?
Is it rude for Nissan to offer 3 versions of the Z-350? Or is it extra rude for Cadillac to come out with a V-6 version of the CTS and then release a more expensive V-8 CTS. Or horrors GM comes out with a 70K Corvette called the XLR then later comes out with the real Corvetter for 55K.
"Its a sick way to make $$ and a slap in the face to the fans."
It's not like anyone is forcing anyone to go buy both versions of TTT or FoTR.
The first version is for your casual consumer. The second has extra stuff for your serious fanboy.
Sorry if someone actually coming out with different versions of a DVD for different tastes bothers you to your core.
Well, part of the problem is that LOTR is being judged differently than the Matrix. When I judge LOTR, I look for how well it captures the book (poorly in some cases), and its cinematography (amazing throughout both of movies). With the Matrix, I judge it by how good the story is and by the cinematography. The problem from my view is that in the Matrix (though I have not seen the last one), the Wachowskis concentrated on the special effects. They're amazing, but they do very little to help the story, and I really don't need to see another fight with 200 Smiths. And then there were many points during Reloaded that I just sat in my seat and asked "When will this end and the story begin" (like the whole dance/sex scene). LOTR just seems to keep me on the edge of my seat the whole time, even though I mostly know the stor already.
So overall, yes, LOTR doesn't have as much philosophy. But the philosophy of the Matrix becomes overshadowed by the lack of good movies. Reloaded seemed more like an action movie than a philosophy movie (which is what the first matrix was really like). LOTR already has a script, and since they're following it pretty closely, most people judge it by its cinematography, while the Matrix needs to have a good script as well.
is it too much to ask for patience? do what alot of the rest of us did, wait for the collectors edition. he told us from the start that there would be 2 versions, if you wanted the version with everything all you had to do was wait a few months.
I would say that he isn't just tryinhg to make money there are two different audiences for the lotr films, the normal moviegoers who want it as they saw it, and the lotr fans who want the full thing. he's catering for both and everyone knew it.
so don't complain that he's ripping you off just because you didn't have the patience to wait for the version you wanted when it was well known that it would be around a few months later.
dave
I've seen only a portion of the trilogy (saw part of "The Two Towers" while snowbound at a con in Baltimore), but my feeling has been to wait until "Return of the King" comes out on DVD, and then collect the set in a Super Extended mode.
My wife brought up a good point: if the DVD(s) is will be stoked with so many "extra features", how much of an effect will that have on getting people to see the movie? Why bother going at all?
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Pretentiousness
That's what separates the Rings trilogy from the Matrix's gobbledygook.
They are both fantasy stories, but Rings doesn't try to be much else. Rings isn't trying to mix heavy religious themes, moral allegory (Tolkien himself hated allegory) and pseudo-philosophy into it's storyline. It's just a cool fantasy story.
The Matrix on the other hand, tries to look "deep" and "heavy" where in reality, the themes and ideas it presents have already been exhaustively discussed in PHIL 101. The Matrix trilogy tries so hard to be important that it ends up a parody of itself.
Perhaps because not all stories can be condensed into 90 minutes without losing significant parts. Personally I wouldn't mind if they continue to make films even longer - it would help justify in my mind the exorbitant cost of a movie ticket these days, plus I hate when important plot or character development is glossed over for the sake of cutting down to 90 minutes. (although an intermission in the 3+ hrs films would be nice)
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
While matrix has some interesting things to say... I don't think you can compare it to LOTR in it's depth. Maybe it's because I've read the books... but LOTR has much more subtlety, sub-plots, and sub-text than Matrix does. The plot isn't just about that there is a ring that's evil... it's about power, and how it affects people, it's about destiny and fate, it's about the every-man having to step in and do the right thing at his own expense, it's about putting aside differences for the common good, and it's about so much more.
And while the Matrix has some innovative things... you can't really think that all their ideas were totally original can you? much of it is an amalgamation of various sci-fi/fantasy classics like Dune, 1984, and even Lord of the Rings, and mixed in with some eastern philosophy and anime traditions.
The LOTR movies have strayed from the books at times... but have done at least a DECENT job of portraying the story and feel and emotion of the books, and THAT is why they're being held up as such a standard, because the BOOKS are such a standard. And let's be honest... Matrix is largely known for the great fight sequences for a reason... they ARE the bigger part of the movie.
Ok... I'll shut up now, I like both, just don't think Matrix trilogy is as powerful as LOTR.
wordtrip.com
Tolkien created a world with such stunning depth that it would take a lifetime to get to know intimately.
It has languages, thousands of years of detailed histories, many epic tales as well as intense and interesting characters. Stories end and then stories begin.
The Wachowki's created a world in which people with cables in their brains become supermen and kick the crap out of computer programs. There is one interesting concept, how do we know that the world we experience with our senses exists away from our senses?
The rest of the Matrix "philosophy" is a mishmash of words or plays on words that imitate depth through ambiguity. Playing on words and their meanings is sophistry, not philosophy.
All in all the Matrix backstory is just to give geeks an excuse to proclaim the Matrix as cool not just because its about a hacker with a girlfriend that dresses in leather who learns kung-fu through a ROM chip and gets to shoot a lot of guns. Sex AND violence packaged with a nice 'deep' wrapper. Wow.
Give me five examples of depth in the Matrix?
Five from the Lord of Rings:
a) Boromir wants to use the ring to defeat Sauron. But the ring will warp its wielder to its masters will. The tool becomes the end.
b) The rebels of Rohan leave their king out of their love for their king.
c) The elves of Middle Earth help the men of Middle Earth even though they are leaving that land. Elves are immortal in normal circumstances but they do not flinch from death in combat.
d) Gondor is a shadow of itself at its height and in turn is a shadow of Numenor (the kingdom left by Gondor exiles when Sauron corrupted it). There is a rich and vibrant history behind everything. The films do not convey all of this but there is a complete absence of history behind the Matrix (apart from 30 mins of Animatrix).
e) Sauron is not defeated by force of arms but by a combination of luck (Gollum falls into Mount Doom) and heroism (Frodo and Sam). The interesting thing is that Frodo is not a messianic pure strong hero, at the end he betrays the trust in him by wielding the ring. Gollum seals Sauron's doom.
>there is generally a good reason why scenes end up on the the cutting room floor.
From what was added to the extended version of the first movie, there was no good reason except that it made the movie longer.
For me, that isn't a good reason. Tell me how long it is beforehand, keep it good and interesting and you can make it as long as you want.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
> My wife brought up a good point: if the DVD(s) is will be stoked with so many "extra features", how much of an effect will that have on getting people to see the movie? Why bother going at all?
Because some of us don't have 20ft wide TV screens and high quality sound systems.
- MugginsM
what moderator has no sense of humor? Do any of them have a sense of humor? IF anything about /. cared about humor, mods as funny would count towards Karma and a single -1 mod wouldnt drive a new user's karma to bad.
I know I'm going to get flamed and mod'ed into oblivion for this, but seriously, what's the big deal about The Matrix? Why do people lash out viciously at movies that actually make an attempt a real depth (LOTR), while simultaneously holding up the Matrix as the cinematic "Gold Standard?" I mean, sure, it's a moderately interesting story, but does it need more than 10 minutes to be told? Sure, some interesting fights happen along the way, and the effects are great, but are there subtle metaphors, philosophical references, and character dualities (besides the obvious Keanu=Christ thing, obviously) that I'm missing?
Why do people bitch and complain that LOTR was too much gobbledygook (translation: they didn't understand, and hate movies that challenge them to think about it anywhere beyond the concession stand on their way out), then act like The Matrix is this untouchable masterpiece?
There's this bunch of machines. They're evil. They has to be destroyed. That's where we left off after the first one. "Matrix Revisited" and 3 hours later, that's STILL where we are. Still got those evil thingies. Still has to be destroyed.
Why is this such amazing work, while Peter Jackson's out-of-the-book conclusion to LOTR is seen as hack-work?
I don't get it. I'm not a Matrix fanboy, but I watched the first one, and I'll watch the second and third (when they reach TV). But there's really nothing cool to discuss about them, is there? The LOTR movies work because there are so many different interpretations of what they mean and how they all interrelate, and it's fun to discuss. But, as far as I can tell, the Matrix trilogy "is what it is," isn't it? They lay the whole story out there in front of you, and hold your hand. They don't challenge you to try and figure out what Neo really represents, or if maybe, just maybe, the good NEEDS the evil to give it a purpose to exist? The LOTR suggests these kinds of things, but the Matrix seems to shy completely away from them, afraid of challenging (and alienating) their audience.
Am I wrong? What gives?
In so far as the basic plot of the movie is concerned you are right.
The ring needs to be destroyed.
The question of originality in essence you are also correct about. The Matrix is new and `original.' While LOTR is based upon books published in the 1930s.
But those books have been read by generations of people and have held a special place in the hearts of those people.
We've watched the previous attempts to bring the story to the big screen and for the most part we've watched them fail.
Trying to bring to life something that has held so strong a position in the imagination is very difficult. We all see the characters, the environment, in a different way in our mind's eye.
To satisfy so many people with what has been shown in this version of LOTR is amazing.
True, there were a lot of changes to the story, but the essence is there, the feeling is there. Especially in the Extended Edition of the movie.
As for the concepts behind LOTR. Tolkien created an entire world, languages (actual working languages also), people, history. There is therefore in some ways more there than can be seen in other movies.
LOTR is just a part of the story.
There's plenty there to discuss in terms of scholastic material. Sources, original ideas, the study of the languages that Tolien created...
It's a different kind of thing though.
The Matrix asks questions about reality that it presents. LOTR presents a history.
In essence that is the difference and the answer to your question. One is philosophy adapted to the movie, the other is created history.
So the Matrix brings up the question of good/evil and their interaction, because that's the point of the movie. That's the question that drives it, if you will.
The LOTR doesn't bring it up directly because that's not what it is about. It is a story, told by Tolkien to his kids and then published. It contains good and evil and their fight and it deals with war, conflict, some say the fight between industrialism and ruralism...
They both do different things as they are meant to.
I would agree, except that they TOLD YOU FROM THE OUTSET they were going to do this. If you were a bit pissed when they did it for FoTR, I would agree to an extent because I got "screwed" with it too that time. This time though, the two releases were not hidden facts in the least, they actually told you the exact release dates for each edition right up front! If you bought the first edition, you have no right to be pissed because you KNEW what was going to happen, you should have waited if you didn't want to pay twice. It's not like you have been living under a rock and didn't know what was going on, were you?!?
Also, most people I know love this story so much and love how these movies have been done that paying twice doesn't bother us in the least. When artists produce something of this caliber, paying them twice (five times in my case, the twice I saw it in the theater, the once I rented it and now the twice I've purchased it) is not a problem to me, they deserve it.
Besides, do like I did with FoTR: the first one is now a Christmas present for someone you love. Not a bad deal really.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Which edition of the DVD do I need to buy to see the scene where Faramir passes the test and lets Frodo and Sam go without taking them to Osgiliath?
--
E_NOSIG
That's one thing that really annoys me. That's why I don't buy food at the theaters, I don't WANT 32-64 ounces of pop and a giant tub of popcorn. A 12 ounce can, and a small thing of popcorn would be enough, thanks, but since I can't buy the sizes I want, I buy nothing, I just make sure I eat before I go to the theater.
:)
They give you massive quantities so they can justify charging you up out the ass for it, it's just annoying. I know the arguement behind it, the theater makes all their money on the consessions, well too bad, if they want to make money on me, they have one of two options, charge less for concessions, or charge more for the ticket.
Sure you could argue that I buy the big gulp and not drink all of it, but I'm just a dumb animal, I'll eat/drink whatever's put in front of me to completion, which leaves me needing the pit stop. And wait a minute, it took you 15 minutes to take a piss, or did you drop the kids off at the pool while you were at it?
The Matrix didn't push the envelope in any single area, except maybe cinematography. What it did extremely well was to blend in Bruckheimer-style "blow shit up" mechanisms with a good plot and some interesting highbrow philosophical overtones.
You can get better philosophy from an arthouse flick, sure. But how many movies do you know of that have flannel-shirted, trucker-hatted, shitkicker-clad rednecks walking out discussing ubermenschen and brain-in-a-vat theories? While not exactly pioneering anything, it was a masterful blend of many different styles of film.
Hamster