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!
In a previous story there was rumors of theatres that would be showing the entire trilogy on the same day... Anybody got any lists of theatres that will be doing this with dates and times....
I hope the local theatre here will be doing this. I will be checking shortly. I guess I am just slow, I won't be seeing the third Matrix until tomorrow.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Check out the video to Ben Hur, there's a 5 minute "interlude" included on the video itself which had me chuckling.
It demands to be honoured. Pop out and relieve yourself, AND make a cup of tea, without using the accursed pause button.
'tis for wimps.
ooooooh! What does this button do? - DeeDee, Dexters Lab.
Who likes buying a DVD and having a movie that is exactly the same as it when first shown in a theatre? While extra scenes and goodies are fun, there is generally a good reason why scenes end up on the the cutting room floor. LOR has gone way overboard trying maximize revenue by marketing an insane amount of releases to their overloyal fans, but people here seem to eat it up.
I know I'm going to get flamed and mod'ed into oblivion for this, but seriously, what's the big deal about LotR? Why do people lash out viciously at movies that actually make an attempt a real depth (Matrix), while simultaneously holding up the LotR as the cinematic "Gold Standard?" I mean, sure, it's a moderately interesting story, but does it need 9+ hours 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 Golem, obviously) that I'm missing?
Why do people bitch and complain that the Matrix 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 LotR is this untouchable masterpiece?
There's this ring. It's evil. It has to be destroyed. That's where we left off after the first one. "Two Towers" and 3 hours later, that's STILL where we are. Still got that ring. Still has to be destroyed.
Why is this such amazing work, while the Wachowskis out-of-the-box conclusion to the Matrix (everyone's pretty pissed, but no one expected it, did they now), is seen as hack-work?
I don't get it. I'm not a Tolkien fanboy, but I watched the first two, and I'll watch the third. But there's really nothing cool to discuss about them, is there? The Matrix 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 LotR "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 the ring really represents, or if maybe, just maybe, the good NEEDS the evil to give it a purpose to exist? The Matrix suggests these kinds of things, but the LotR seems to shy completely away from them, afraid of challenging (and alienating) their audience.
Am I wrong? What gives?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
They are still fantastic movies, of course. But when I watched the Two Towers again, recently, with my wife, every time she asked me, "Was that in the book?" I found that I had to say, "Well, no, not really."
philcrissman.com.
I presume all three movies plus outtakes can be molded into a 12-15 hour special edition. I'd guess there is certain "background material" out there like the description of Hobbittown, the doom of the elves, the earlier wars, etc. that has been filmed, and can be more creatively presented in an expanded edition.
Because he had to justify Liv Tyler's paycheck and put her in every movie even though her character has one paragraph in the book. ;)
I love the movie though. If only they hadn't changed Faramir and, well, the whole ending of TTT... Peter Jackson is still a director I admire. His work is outstanding on many, many levels. And besides, nothing that a guy who directed Dead Alive does can be all bad.
I saw TTT when I was in Turkey last year, and it had an intermission (right before Frodo and Sam see the oliphaunts and get captured by Faramir). It's a common custom there to play an intermission in a movie, even ones only 90 minutes long. Of course, they also have assigned seating when you buy your ticket, no scrambling for four or five seats adjacent to each other, so the whole experience is much more like going to the theater than a movie.
Interesting sidenote: since the movie was in English with Turkish subtitles, it wasn't until I saw the DVD version a few months ago that I knew what people were saying when they were speaking Elvish. Kinda made it easier to enjoy the scenes with Arwen, I didn't have to listen to cheesy dialogue, just check out the pretty girl with the funny ears.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Recently, the Charles Theatre in Baltimore began a Kurosawa marathon. They'll be showing a different one of his movies each week, once on Saturday night and once on Thursday night.
I had actually never seen the Seven Samurai before, so I figured this was the time. My martial arts teacher gave me permission to skip class for something so important ("I would not be completely unhappy if you skipped class to see the Seven Samurai.")
For those who don't know, it's over 3 hours; it started at 9:30 with no ads or trailers, and we got out of the theatre at about 12:40. When that intermission (5 minutes, IIRC) hit in the middle, I was pretty glad, and it looked like at least half of the theatre was too. I had even made sure not to drink vast amounts of anything (I usually drink a lot of water), but of course, Murphy's Law WILL bring the magical feeling upon you right in the middle of a great movie.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
That the Matrix deals with just exactly the issues you're saying it doesn't:
What Neo really represents: Is he human? Is he just another program introduced by the Architect to cull the dissenters from the Matrix and make ever-more-perfect iterations of the simulation world?
Good needing evil and vice versa: Not only in this case does good need evil, evil also needs good. In fact, Neo coming back from "death" and "killing" Agent Smith in the first movie is what showed Smith that the "purpose of life... is to end" but that it the end could come on his own terms, setting him free to pursue his own nefarious goals. Also, Smith's assimilation of first the Oracle and then Neo are what ultimately cause his demise - you can say this is because as total opposites of each other, Smith and Neo cannot exist without each other... or that Smith's "assimilating" Neo's abilities allowed Neo to eliminate him from the inside out. Either way you choose, once Neo dies, so does Smith. (And if the Oracle and Seraph are back at the end of the film, shouldn't that mean that Neo should also? They were all "killed" by Smith's assimilation, and you'd expect that programs would be more irreversably effected by Smith than Neo.)
Not to mention, the whole "world as illusion" motif from the first movie, which certainly took a bit of time to wrap your mind around. At which point, they showed us Neo's ability to sense and act within the two overlapping worlds... gave us the Architect's speech and its ramifications... there's plenty to think about here if you want to look deeper than the very cool fight scenes and special effects.
Last but not least, do a search on Amazon and get a listing of all the books that have sprung up dealing with the series and its origins in (and perspectives on) theologies, mythologies, and general world views...
Having said all that, I whole-heartedly agree that LOTR is a much deeper creation, because it was first created as a book, for which more detail is just a part of the process. (A process which Tolkien took to a much more impressive length than most other authors.) Still, the Matrix movies are fun to watch, and while there may be plot holes and imprefections... when was the last time any action movie really gave you any deep topics to discuss in a coffee shop or theology class?
"Faramir's a great guy, beloved by his people, his men and even the hobbits."
All of which makes for an utterly boring and unbelievable character in the minds of the general audience, that is, those who dont live and breathe Middle-Earth and don't hyperventilate when a character puts the wrong inflection on a line.
So Faramir atones for his lapse of willpower, and *becomes* a great leader and a wonderful guy over the course of the rest of the story - how would that damage anything? Depends on how you define damage, after all.
And it makes the point that *some Men CAN resist the will of the Ring, but all are drawn to it initially*. Given all that's been shown previously, do you really think that a totally unassailable character such as Faramir would be believable? *Everyone* else has felt the temptation of the Ring, even Gandalf the Wizard.
As long as Faramir *ends up* being the Faramir of the books, the story has not been damaged, in my mind. And we get a deeper understanding of the sheer power and corruption of the Ring.
We could have done without some of the Gim[p]li scenes though. I agree with you on that.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
I'll play.
Just because you can not see the details of the depth does not mean that the depth is not there.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
No, we wanted some examples of emotional, philsophical or moral depth in the movie. If you can't see why these are meaningless unanswered questions are "depth", let me translate them into LOTR terms:
1) Barliman Butterbur served ale at the Prancing Pony. Where did he get the ale?
2) The children at Bilbo's birthday party bear a strong resemblance to the children cowering in fear in the caves under Helm's Deep. What is the relationship between hobbit and human children?
3) Elrond says Rivendell does not have the power to hold back both Mordor and Isengard, implying that he had the power to hold back one or the other. Where are all the elvish troops at Rivendell?
4) There is a single dark lord, Sauron, plotting to rule all of Middle Earth. Are there other dark lords? Are there other Middle Earths?
5) Just what does Sauron want? What motivates him to conquer Middle Earth? Did Gandalf insult him back in the first age or something?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!