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!
What you're talking about is the intermission from the original theatrical release. They restored it to the film, including the original score from that segment. Going to the movies to see a big-budget epic was a lot more like going to the theater in those days. Having an entr'acte (opening musical segment) to quiet everyone down, and a scored intermission in the middle, was more common. Many restorations of classic films also include restoring these segments as well.
I'm with you though, I don't like pausing movies and playing musical chairs during them. It takes me out of the emotional experience and interrupts the flow of the film.
That's because the two Matrix sequels had most of us thinking about all the gigantic plot holes that the LotR books and movies didn't have.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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.
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!