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!
You mean they've made the movie even longer?
I hope the new DVD has an extra-special "toilet break" feature!
I'm waiting for the 36 hour super extended expansive authorative double wide big mac and fries too many pies massive elongated turgid spactular extravaganza sustained another beer please endless superbit DVD release.
You aren't a true fan unless you buy one. And with every purchase you get a free Lucasarts (tm) branded marquee to store it in.
Beep beep.
Here are the added/lengthened scenes:
"Among the new treasures in store for fans are several more moments with Gollum, more background on the Ents and additional scenes involving Treebeard in Fangorn Forest, Gandalf telling Aragorn that Sauron is afraid of what he may one day become, Theodred's funeral at Edoras, more of Faramir capturing Frodo and Sam, new scenes between Aragorn and Eowyn on the road to Helm's Deep, more intense footage during all of the major battles... and this is just scratching the surface. There's also a major new flashback scene in which we see Faramir with his brother, Boromir, and their father, Denethor, who is the Steward of Gondor. We learn why Boromir tried to take the Ring from Frodo in the last film, and why Faramir struggles with the same decision here. It's fantastic stuff that really fleshes out both Faramir and Boromir. It's also important for introducing us to the character of Denethor, who plays a larger part in the forthcoming Return of the King."
I've been waiting with held breath for this one. I just wish it would ship a few days early!
Let's put it this way... if you're holding your breath, and it doesn't ship a few days early, you're not going to get a chance to see it.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
one movie, TWO movies, the second movie extended, and when i was the library the other day i realized there was even a book about this stuff!
Not to mention the bizzarre little side plot of the Warg battle and Aragorn falling down.
And Theoden being posessed instead of manipulated.
and fscking elves at the battle.
To think they cut out good Ent time for that.
A complete listing of showings for the marathon can be seen here
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
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.
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.
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.
Actually the "Good Reason" that those scenes ended up being cut is that Peter Jackson was contractually obligated to deliver movies that were only 3 hours in length,(so theaters could maximize the number of times they could show it per day) with the understanding that he could then release DVD's with the special stuff later on. In a sense, they are not just taking scenes and sticking them back in, but really developing two different versions of the same film, the theatrical to appeal to the general audience and the extended DVD to appeal to the fans.
The FotR Extended version added so much to the movie that I know I could never appreciate the theatrical version again, and I'm willing to bet that Two Towers will be even better.
>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.
Answer: running time. The movies have shifted end points because the books are of different length, RotK being the shortest. Any time you make a film for theatrical distribution, running time is a huge problem, because long run times cut down on the number of screenings per day, which cuts into ticket sales revenue potential.
It is to Jackson's credit that he is taking full advantage of the DVD to release a version of each film that does not take theatrical scheduling into account.
You'll get the spider in December.
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
You can drink. You see, the cup they give you can have more than one use. Just be creative.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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?
From digitalbits.com:
Discs 1 and 2
[tech stuff snipped]
"It is an army bred for a single purpose... to destroy the world of men."
And so we come to the crossroads. The Two Towers is the second installment in Peter Jackson's epic film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings - the installment poised to make or break the trilogy. Could Jackson and company follow up on the blockbuster success of 2001's The Fellowship of the Ring? Would the film continue with the same level of quality? Would the momentum of the story build upon the climax of the first film, and prepare audiences for the ultimate confrontation between good and evil in the soon to be released final chapter, The Return of the King? The answer to all of these questions, of course, is a resounding yes.
As the film opens, we find ourselves plunged into the dark mines of Moria, to relive a few moments of Gandalf's confrontation with the fiery Balrog. But instead of playing out as we remember it in Fellowship of the Ring, this time, when Gandalf falls into the abyss, we fall with him to watch as his fight continues. The consequences of these moments will resound throughout much of the remainder of the story, as Frodo and Sam continue their quest to carry the One Ring into Mordor, and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli race to save Merry and Pippin from the orcs. Along the way, two important new story elements come into play. The first is the character of Gollum, who is bound to the Ring in such a way that he simply must follow it to Mordor. As we watch, Gollum's dual personalities fight for dominance, one wishing to help Frodo and Sam in their quest, and the other seeking to kill them and take back the Ring that was stolen from him (as told in The Hobbit). Meanwhile, Aragorn and company have made their way into the horse realm of Rohan, whose king has fallen under Saruman's dark spell. The people of Rohan are made to suffer too, for Saruman has built a army of murderous orcs numbering ten thousand strong. Together, the white wizard and the dark lord, Sauron, mean to rule Middle-earth, and their first step in this conquest is to wipe out the kingdom of Rohan, and all of Mankind, once and for all. What follows is nothing less than a truly epic battle, in which the fate of both Middle-earth and the Quest of the Ring literally hang in the balance. Trust me when I say, it's like nothing you've ever seen before on film.
What I appreciate most about The Two Towers is that Jackson has made no compromises for the audience. Middle-earth is a world where violence is commonplace, much blood is shed and evil stands a very real chance of winning and must be confronted head-on. There is no sugar coating on these bitter pills to make them easier to digest. As a result, the journey one takes in this film is just that much more satisfying. An additional compromise that Jackson manages to avoid is obvious right from the opening frames of The Two Towers. You simply MUST have seen the previous film in order to understand what's going on, because there is no recap of the action. Other than the very brief opening flashback, this film launches you immediately into the story, picking up right where Fellowship left you hanging. And the pace throughout much of the film is relentless, pausing only occasionally to let you catch your breath.
In addition to Jackson's deft direction, the savvy adaptation and great performances by cast members new and old, there is much technically to be impressed with here as well. The character of Gollum, entirely created by computer graphics, is astonishing. At last, we have a CG character that gives a real dramatic performance on screen. This is thanks to the work of WETA Digital, as well as the strong acting of Andy Serkis. Serkis not only provides Gollum his voice, but his movent as well thanks to the process of motion capture. Serkis also performed the character on set with the actors, lending the final digital creation a particular presence and immediacy it would otherwise have lacke
I'm a theater employee, and I can sympathize with you on the bladder-capacity issue. If I have even the smallest amount of soda, I will inevitably have to run the the bathroom. I got lucky in LotR:FotR -- even though I didn't buy any concessions, I still had to dash, and got back just in time to watch Gandalf's fight with the Balrog. (The upside is that concessions can make certain movies more bearable, however.)
if they want to make money on me, they have one of two options, charge less for concessions, or charge more for the ticket.
Sadly, the second option isn't available to us -- the studio wants its cut of the ticket, whether we charge $4 or $10, because in that case we're making money off "their" movie. This is why groups can't passes for a fundraiser (ie. they buy $4 passes and sell for $5), because the studio wants that money. We make nothing off the tickets regardless of how much we sell them for -- every theater is a popcorn-and-pop shop that happens to show movies, which is why we can't charge much less for concessions either.
I know the situation sucks, but there's not really a whole lot the theaters can do about it. Blame the studios, not us.