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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?