Slashdot Mirror


LoTR RoTK Extended Edition Specs Released

It's pre-pre-Christmas season, and ThePrinceofWands writes "OMG! It's official, 25% more unbelievable greatness in this version." The linked description (on the official LotR site) starts "DISCS 1-2: The Feature FEATURE (approx. 250 minutes) - A new version of the final installment in the epic trilogy! The Academy-Award winning film now has 50 minutes of never-before-seen footage incorporated into the film for this highly-anticipated video release." The extended version can be ordered starting on Oct 1st.

388 comments

  1. These things keep getting longer and longer... by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jesus. Does the extended edition come with a coffee machine?

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

    1. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Gigantor009 · · Score: 0

      It will now take about 12 hours to watch all three movies now, so along with the coffee machine you would also need a bed pan as well!

      Will they be releasing the extended version in cinemas as well?

    2. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      No coffee, but plenty of deleted naked hobbit footage... uhhh, i mean furry hobbit footage

    3. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by KitFox · · Score: 5, Funny
      Dear Creased Shirt,

      Thank you for asking whether this edition comes with a coffee machine. We considered adding this feature for a while, however in testing, we discovered that the caffeine levels consumed combined with over four hours of feature film resulted in too many trips to the restroom. This not only had the downside of random interruptions for everybody when multiple people were viewing the movie at the same time, but it also caused the premature failure of numerous 'Pause' buttons on DVD player remotes.

      When technology allows for remote control buttons with higher life expectancies, we will reconsider this feature. This will likely be around the time we release the Uber Mega Ultra Extended Beyond All Possible Belief And Sanity Edition. We highly recommend that you begin accruing a year's worth of vacation time so you may fully enjoy this upcoming release in one sitting.

      Sincerely, Middle Earth Marketing Department

      --

      @Whee

    4. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by m1chael · · Score: 0

      But if you buy in the next 15 minutes you get a free Gollum nappy. You don't have you go to the trouble of interrupting your viewing by going to the toilet.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    5. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good question. I never thought I'd say this but Peter Jackson has made me glad that Tolkien limited LotR to just three volumes.

    6. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Middle Earth Marketing Department,

      what the hell did you learn at marketing school, if they didn't teach you that making an announcement NOW and starting accepting orders FOUR DAYS from now will make the whole announcement useless. Who will remember that he wanted to order something a week ago...

    7. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by hype7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the subject of talking to the marketing department, I wish they'd release "Requiem for a Tower" - it's a piece of music that was originally from Requiem for a Dream, but they totally rescored it for The Two Towers trailer. It's awesome! I've emailed to get it released, and if you're at all interested in getting this cool piece of music to see the light of day, send feedback here:
      http://www.lordoftherings.net/feedback.html
      and send email here:
      info@theantfarm.net
      who rescored the music.

      it just shits me these damn copyright laws - that art can be created and then hidden from those who love it.

      -- james

    8. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by KitFox · · Score: 5, Funny
      Dear Middle Earth Marketing Department,

      what the hell did you learn at marketing school, if they didn't teach you that making an announcement NOW and starting accepting orders FOUR DAYS from now will make the whole announcement useless. Who will remember that he wanted to order something a week ago...

      Dear Mr. Coward,

      While we appreciate your concern for our marketing strategies, we do observe a number of factors. The first being that there are seven days in a week, not four. The second being that we knew that upon making this announcement, the Slashdot crew would have an article up within a matter of moments. Had we been accepting orders at this time, our order system would have been tremendously overwhelmed by what is fondly known as the Slashdot Effect, and the vast majority of our other customers would be unable to wade through the tide of Slashdot readers attempting to order our merchandise. The losses due to negative word of mouth publicity would have been substantial.

      By creating a four-day buffer, we are able to encertain that the initial flood of Slahsdot readers will have ALMOST forgotten, but still have a three day period within which to remember to order this horrendously long movie. Thus, the orders stemming from them will be spread over a larger time period as neurons begin to fire and they remember.

      Overall, we appreciate your input, and have we will be sending you a free coffee maker in a show of our gratitude. (We recommend that you alternate between the pause button on the remote and the pause button on the DVD player itself while watching the movie when needing to use the restroom. It will help to prevent premature failure of your remote.)

      Sincerely, Middle Earth Marketing Department

      --

      @Whee

    9. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      Thank god I'm not the only one that noticed that! All of my friends told me I was crazy when I told them that there was music in the Two Towers lifted from Requiem for a Dream.

    10. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by orcrist · · Score: 1

      P.S. When you've made even 1/10th the money we've made on the merchandising alone for these movies, then you can come back and apply for the job of telling us how to do our marketing.

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    11. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by binarybum · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe you're right, I'm sure these guys are going to forget all about it.

      --
      ôó
    12. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the 9 hour special editions of FotR, TTT, and RotK. In the new editions, Gandalf shoots first, the Ents do a musical number when they destroy Isengard, and Gollum has been replaced with a lovable fruit bat.

      Yeah, like Peter Jackson is going to be immune. You just wait and see. Your heros will crumble too!

    13. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Spytap · · Score: 1

      I found my copy under the title of "requiem of the rings"

    14. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Dear Middle Earth Marketing Department,

      I have experienced this problem many times when drinking coffee. In my opinion, the solution to this problem could come from a high-tech NASA spin-off, involving a funnel and a plastic bag.

      Sincerely,
      Mr2cents

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    15. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone notice they added Spanish subtitles? I found that extremely annoying in the first two movies since my wife and her family are from Argentina. While my wife it okay, her mother is not. So, now she can watch the RotK and try to figure out what the hell everyone was talking about.

    16. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Jesus is out of the office right now. Please leave a message.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    17. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it just shits me these damn copyright laws - that art can be created and then hidden from those who love it.

      I agree. Copyright should promote the creation of art (this is the reason the U.S. Constitution allows for it). It's purpose is not to restrict availability, but to ensure compensation. Years ago the means of distribution were limited enough that it sometimes made sense to simply not distribute something, because it was too expensive. But now, they could at least offer it on iTunes or something like that.

      I wish that there was a way to compel the copyright holder to distribute something, or else lose some of their copyright protection, thus allowing people to copy and distribute as long as it is not for profit. Or even require unofficial distributers to pay some kind of fixed royalty to the copyright holder. I guess this would be similar in some ways to Statutory Licensing, which allows performance of a copyrighted work without permission as long as royalties are paid (this is what allows bands to cover other artists' songs, for example).

    18. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I wish that there was a way to compel the copyright holder to distribute something, or else lose some of their copyright protection, thus allowing people to copy and distribute as long as it is not for profit.

      Until just a few years back when the US con-gress passed the NET (no electronic theft) Act, it was completely legal to redistribute copyrighted material. The NET Act was written in response to the DoJ's inability to charge Robert LaMacchia (I think that was the guy) at MIT with any crime for operating a warez FTP site. Since he was giving it away for free, it was completely legal at the time.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A solution for everyone. Next edition comes with a coffee machine AND a bedpan!

    20. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      By creating a four-day buffer, we are able to encertain that the initial flood of Slahsdot readers will have ALMOST forgotten, but still have a three day period within which to remember to order this horrendously long movie. Thus, the orders stemming from them will be spread over a larger time period as neurons begin to fire and they remember.

      Nope the dupe will get posted about four days from now, and their online ordering page will get slashdotted into oblivion...

    21. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I know this is a joke, but I think one of the big differences between LotR and Star Wars is that Star Wars is the (increasingly neurotic) vision of one man. LotR is one man bringing another's vision to life.

      Peter Jackson undoubtedly loves Tolkien's work, and it shows in the quality of his movies. Lucas is primarily in love with himself, and this too shows in the quality of his work.

    22. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by erik's+dad · · Score: 1
      Statutory licensing combined with modern ease of distribution could potentially be a moneymaker for talented cover bands: Identify out of print albums for which sufficient demand exists [a level that still needs to be determined], re-record the whole thing note for note, and sell it over the internet.

      You could really rile the boys from Metallica with this approach. Although maybe the fees from statutory licensing are enough to keep them in whatever state passes for happy with them.

    23. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      All humor is a smooth, easy-to-swallow coating around a seed of truth.

      Lucas was in love so much with filming the Messiah complex that he acquired one. Same thing with the Wachowskis, though it took them far less time to succomb. Peter Jackson is limited for the time being because he's not working from original material. But if King Kong and his next series of movies don't take off, and he's stuck reworking LotR for the rest of his career, he's going to do some bonehead things too. After all, in the movies Saruman is never killed...

      When rent was due, and his kids needed the money, Coppola broke down and made Godfather 3. As the LotR books end with RotK, what is to stop a pennyless and destitute Peter Jackson from having Saruman become the embodyment of a resurrected Sauron, with the hope of mankind falling to a pair of simple-minded Santa Monica time traveling teenagers?

      Oh yes, your heroes will fall. And what a mighty Thud it will be.

    24. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory. FWIW, Saruman's death was cut for time -- it will no doubt be in the ROTK extended edition.

    25. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by Zab+UvWxy · · Score: 1

      Just a thought.... but Tolkien's estate might have something to say about Jackson perverting JRR's works. At least, more than he already has (there was a grand total of ONE FRIGGIN' ELF at Helm's Deep in TTT for chrissakes!!! [rant off]).

      That's the thing about one bringing substance to another's vision: no Lucasing after the fact without one HELL of a legal battle. The Minas Tirith of all legal battles, if you will.

      --
      "I don't get it." -- ObviousGuy
    26. Re:These things keep getting longer and longer... by tassii · · Score: 1

      Nah.. he still has "The Hobbit" and "The Simillrion" to finish first.

      --
      "I drank what?" - Socrates
  2. In this version... by CrackedButter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Frodo bit his finger first

    1. Re:In this version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least you can look forward to the Super Ultra Mega Longer Extended Edition, where they bite each other's fingers at almost the same time.

    2. Re:In this version... by Krakhan · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought it was changed so that Gollum that threw the first punch.

  3. taters by Korgrath · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard they even added some tater recipies!

    --
    Theory of flight?! I'll teach you the theory of fist!!
    1. Re:taters by golgotha007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh dear god, i'm crying with laughter!

  4. Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now with 25% more "Oh, Sam!"

  5. Wow, just wow by apsio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was planning on having a all-day LOTR showing on my 36" widescreen for a few friends. But with it now pushing probably 14 hours with mealtimes and whatnot...jeez. Any ideas?

    1. Re:Wow, just wow by CrackedButter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Charge them for the meals.

    2. Re:Wow, just wow by KitFox · · Score: 1

      Umm... X-Drinx?

      --

      @Whee

    3. Re:Wow, just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      By "few friends" I assume you mean mom and dad? If so, mom could probably bring a dish or two. Dad will just brind his attitude, especially after he finds out you made off with his TV.

    4. Re:Wow, just wow by big-shoulders · · Score: 5, Funny

      OK, we did this just yesterday. We had a party for Bilbo's Birthday (9/22 of course) and screened all three movies (the first two in extended editions, the third in theatrical release) We started at 8AM, took short intermissions (at the changing of the disks) and meal breaks in between (including a lambas bread bake-off) and finished at 11PM. I must say it was exhausting. I don't know if we'd have made it with the extra 50 min. You are thinking that we are major LOtR geeks and you'd be right (3-4 hobbit costumes in the bunch) but we had 20 - 30 people in the house to watch it. Everyone had a great time.

    5. Re:Wow, just wow by zzyzx · · Score: 1

      This is what the day after Thanksgiving will be for me starting with next year. Day off, extra food, no plans for it. Why not watch 13 hours worth of movies?

    6. Re:Wow, just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been planning the same thing for a while too. I'm sorry but if you didn't already know it was going to be this long then you're quite stupid.

    7. Re:Wow, just wow by uberdave · · Score: 1

      13hrs? You're only going to watch two out of the three then?

    8. Re:Wow, just wow by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's cool. I'm not being sarcastic. I think that's really cool.

      HBH

      --
      "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
    9. Re:Wow, just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invite them for breakfast, plug in the crock pots, take short breaks, and make sure they don't drink so much they can't drive home at midnight.

    10. Re:Wow, just wow by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Funny

      From now on, when some people say I'm obsessed with LotR because I wear a One Ring replica and own a few sword replicas from the movies, I'll just have to link to your post and appear perfectly normal.

      Thank you.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    11. Re:Wow, just wow by big-shoulders · · Score: 1

      Actually, link to Bilbosbirthdayhttp://www.bilbosbirthday.com/ Not only are we geeky enough to watch all the movies in one day, we have a web site about it. (Yes, there were even girls there... well a few)

    12. Re:Wow, just wow by Badfysh · · Score: 1

      I just ordered the theatrical release box set from Amazon, just for marathons. So I've already got the EE's, so what? Convenience comes at a price...

      --

      I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.

    13. Re:Wow, just wow by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      I was planning on having a all-day LOTR showing on my 36" widescreen for a few friends. But with it now pushing probably 14 hours with mealtimes and whatnot...jeez.

      /me smiles knowingly, notes that it is now almost 8pm here, and puts away his DVD box set of "24". :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    14. Re:Wow, just wow by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      You need to put pictures on that web site.

      Just to clarify, I find it nice to do a LotR party and watch all three movies. It's the hobbit disguise which I find a bit much. And doing it on September 22nd (or close to).

      I went to Trilogy Tuesday BTW, so I know what it's like watching all three in the same day, in a row.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    15. Re:Wow, just wow by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      I was planning on having a all-day LOTR showing on my 36" widescreen for a few friends.

      I have nothing but pity for those poor schmoes who still measure their TV set in inches.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    16. Re:Wow, just wow by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      We run movie marathons at home now, I think the longest we've done in a single sitting to date was "The Prisoner". We had to split "Twin Peaks" over two weekends.

      In Australia there is a chain of cinemas with a 'prestige' screening room called Gold Class - they are small cinema's - seat 28, with waiter service and big recliner chairs. We arranged a group booking for the last three years for the theatrical screenings of LotR, with a session at home with the extended editions the weekend prior. We are definately planning an Extended Edition LotR marathon.

      If you don't have cinema seating I would recommend either getting a mass of cushions/matresses for the floor or tell people to bring their own. Get disposable cups, tell people to BYO snacks and drinks. Make sure you have extra on hand anyway. Have planned intermissions - change of discs are a good time, and make sure everyone knows it's going to happen.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  6. Suckers! by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

    I held off buying the first release, then the extended edition, and I'll hold off buying this one too. Let me know when the "Director's Uncut: Raw Unedited Footage" DVD edition comes out. *Then* I'll be sure that I haven't squandered my money by buying a stripped down version.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:Suckers! by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Informative
      The trouble is, you can wait forever for the best version.

      To be pragmatic, take a view of the "best version you will like". I've held off buying some DVDs because I heard a rumour of a decent special edition with cleaned up picture/sound, directors cuts etc (like I'll get the next editions of Kill Bill, not the current ones).

      But for me, that is that. I don't care enough to get that extra 1% of value which is "new cast commentary".

      Unless a DVD comes straight out as an excellent set, I hold off, rent the basic version and then buy the decent version.

      I've held off buying the 2 disc editions of LOTR and not yet even seen ROTK, because I wanted to see the extended version.

    2. Re:Suckers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke will be on you when, the following year, they release the High Definition version.

    3. Re:Suckers! by halowolf · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I've held off buying the 2 disc editions of LOTR and not yet even seen ROTK, because I wanted to see the extended version.

      Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the LOTR movies and have the previous 2 extended editions. However I did think that the theatrical release of ROTK did suffer a little from its editing. Now I have read the books and know what things have been missing from the movies and such, but I thought that there were a number of instances in ROTK where it was bloody obvious that a scene was missing and that did (at least to me) seem to interrupt the flow of the movie just a little.

      It's great to see an extended editiong offering some great additions that improve the quality of the movie as a whole, as so many DVD's don't offer many feature at all. The commentaries so far have been good as well and I enjoy listening to them.

    4. Re:Suckers! by nastro · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't want to see the raw and unedited version. It's just a bunch of guys standing around a green room. And Andy Serkis running around in what looks like scuba gear, with wires attatched. Not that interesting, really, IMHO.

    5. Re:Suckers! by Gherald · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The joke will be on you when, the following year, they release the High Definition version.

      I'm for one am waiting for HDTV Star Wars and LotR both. Who's with me?!?

    6. Re:Suckers! by elmegil · · Score: 1

      At least Jackson isn't revising his movies after the fact--he's just putting cut footage back in.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    7. Re:Suckers! by jfengel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that was less true for Fellowship. When the extended Fellowship came out, Jackson said repeatedly that the theatrical version was the "real" one and that the extended one was for fanboys who couldn't get enough. And in most senses he was right: the additional footage added almost nothing to the story.

      He kinda dropped that line of reasoning when Two Towers came out extended. Important plot points had been cut. If you're gonna mess with the character of Faramir, at least show us your entire reworking of his story; otherwise, he just comes off looking like a jerk.

      There are certainly places where RotK needs additional footage, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

    8. Re:Suckers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and forget about Gandalf's final confrontation with Saruman (even though if you've built up the latter to be the story's main villian, as Jackson suggested in one of his commentaries, it's pretty inexusable to have him dealt with offstage). What about Gandalf's stand-off with the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith? That is probably the most iconic moment of the whole trilogy, and yet they skipped it so that they could give an extended (and completely fabricated) action scene to Legolas to remind the teenie-boopers what a stud he is.

    9. Re:Suckers! by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I hugely disagree. The extra footage moved it from a good movie to a great movie. The non-extended versions with the first two are inferior, even people who've never read the books agree with that.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  7. Extended edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jesus Harold Christ. What version was that long-ass movie I watched last year?

  8. Wait a minute ... by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

    Those who've read the book will know that the Return of the King is (almost exactly!) 1/4th a set of exhaustive appendices of every king of the humans, elves and dwarves, a guide to elven, notes on the script, et cetera ad nauseum ... hmmm ...

    Arwen teaching high elven, eh ... ?

    1. Re:Wait a minute ... by shokk · · Score: 1

      Scouring of the Shire...
      Scouring of the Shire...
      Scouring of the Shire...

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    2. Re:Wait a minute ... by niall2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Didn't film it. Not going to happen unfortunately. No I think most notibly what is put back in is confronting Saruman at Isengard but there will be no Scouring.

      --
      Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
    3. Re:Wait a minute ... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Arwen speaks Sindarin. High elven is Quenya. I would say, "I win," but in reality knowing this means that I have lost :)

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  9. Yeah... by jstrain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, an extra 50 minutes, but does it have Tom Bombadil?

    1. Re:Yeah... by Trent05 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, an extra 50 minutes, but does it have Tom Bombadil?

      Sadly no. The extra 50 minutes are broken up into 14 more ending sequences, for those who felt the original theatrical release's was hurriedly thrown in there...wait a minute, that was half the fucking movie!!

      --


      --
      The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
    2. Re:Yeah... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      More proof that Tolkien was a terrible editor of his own material. He put the love story in the appendix and instead included a "Green Man" that sticks out like a sore thumb - just how many of these "old god" types do we need running around in the storyline? Tom is a useless character that Jackson was smart enough to leave out.

      Tolkien = good. Tolkien as retold by Jackson, et al = better.

    3. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Tom Bombadil... the fabulous elven chip dip? Take a look on the tables during the wedding scene.

      Mmmmmmm.

    4. Re:Yeah... by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, this is more proof that you just don't really understand what Tom was about. Tolkien originally wrote of him many years prior as a 'Green Man', i.e. man of the woods in a volume of poetry. In it, Bombadil exerted rather absurd amounts of power over the world, much as he does in LotR. Later, writing LotR, Tollkien included him for the simple reason that he doesn't clearly fit in the mythos of the world: he's not a living thing (since Treebeard is referred to as the Oldest Living thing), and he's not an maia, so much discussion was whether he was the Creator (although Tolkien specifically refuted this). The point is, he's unknown. He's there to remind you that we never have a full grasp of what's going on, and that's something that admittedly wouldn't translate easily to a movie but still has significant value.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    5. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thank god they took the gods out of Troy... now it is...like how it really happened y'know!

      Tolkien said in a few interviews that he felt Tom was one of the most important messages in the story, from amythopoetic standpoint.

      Tom's character unfortunately would have required too much suspension of belief... which is true, and messed up all at the same time, but simply for the fact that it would require that in a cinematic sense... Tom, like the gods of the greeks, is necessary for the stories to be told in their truest form.

    6. Re:Yeah... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I think Tom's inclusion in the book was a bit awkward. Tolkien introduces a character that could easily handle the one ring, and than provides some rather lame excuses for not giving it to him.

    7. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he would have been given the ring freely, Tom would have turned into a warmongering, imperialist bastard, kind of like George W. Bush.

    8. Re:Yeah... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The excuse is not lame. He says Tom B. wouldn't wage war against Sauron because he wouldn't know how. What would happen is that Sauron would simply ignore Tom's tiny realm and overrun everything else. Sure Sauron wouldn't get his ring back but he wouldn't need it either, he would win over Middle-Earth just the same.

      Moreover Tolkien says the ring simply has no power over Tom. This implies it doesn't grant Tom any other power that he doesn't already have, and as thing stand Tom only has power over things in his small realm.

      Giving the ring to Tom would achieve exactly nothing.

    9. Re:Yeah... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I think the excuse given was more along the line that Tom would misplace it.

      The fact that the ring has no power over him is his unique qualification for having it.

      I disagree with your conclusion about what Sauron could accomplish without the ring. The fundamental premise of the story is that Sauron needs the ring to rule. If the only truth of the ring was that Sauron would die if it were destroyed, then the ring would have arranged to be lost. Instead Sauron is calling to it even though doing so actually puts him in more danger. His desire to rule the world is greater than his fear of destruction.

  10. And then the complete set will come out... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get the Return of the King Extended version, and soon after they will release a complete box set of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King, that have even more footage than all the previous extended versions combined. Have they even released a complete set yet? It's obviously going to happen.

    1. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by ThePilgrim · · Score: 1

      Tesre is a boxed set of the theatrical eddition out with all three episodes in it

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    2. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by KitFox · · Score: 1

      12 DVDs is a frightening prospect, honestly. And when they have Yet More Footage, maybe it'll be closer to 24.

      --

      @Whee

    3. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by IKEA-Boy · · Score: 1

      Have they even released a complete set yet? It's obviously going to happen.

      A quick search on Amazon returned this. This is the normal theatrical version though, not the extended edition. So it still leaves room for the Ultra-super-take-a-short-holiday-to-see-it version.

    4. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      I have the first 2 EE's, if they release anything after the 3rd, I'm getting it off the net.

    5. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      I've thought about this too. I bought TFotR boxed set with the book-ends and all the other stuff. I thought about getting TTT just for the figurine.

      If they do release an uber edition, it will probably be different from those boxes.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    6. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the set I'm waiting for. You know it's coming, 20 DVDs of pure greatness...

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    7. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by tedgyz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That is what I am waiting for. After I got burned on the 2 versions of FotR, I resolved myself to wait for the trilogy box set.

      Of course, I couldn't wait THAT long. So I bought the theatrical versions of TT and RotK.

      Anyway you slice it, the money grubbing dept. is in full gear in Middle Earth.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    8. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by jd142 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I were them, I'd wait until after they film the Hobbit. Release an extended version of that, then a year later release the 4 movie set.

      I know, I know, there's been no official word about the Hobbit. But please, LoTR was one of the biggest grossing trilogy, movie, genre movie, or just about any other metric you care to use. With a ready made prequel how can they pass it up? The beauty is that the only 2 cast members who need to return are Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis. Ian McKellen would play a reduced role in the Hobbit since Gandalf isn't nearly as big of a character, so the fact that he'd be almost 70 by the time shooting got under way would not be a big deal.

      Just make the movie for crying out loud. We all wants it, we needs it.

    9. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by BobLenon · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yea ... in 20 years, jackson will re-release it and add tom babdill. then he'll edit the sequene between frodo and greedo ....

      damn! ;)

      --

      /* Lobster Stick To Magnet!*/
    10. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Anyway you slice it, the money grubbing dept. is in full gear in Middle Earth."

      Why? Are you seriously claiming you didn't know that there would be an extended version of this movie released? It's not as though it's been any kind of a secret.

      Hell, if they'd only released the extended version people would be complaining that they couldn't buy the theatrical cut.

    11. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by hattig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hear that next Christmas' "Full Edition on HD-DVD" will be 1 long 12 hour film. However to make it authentic, they will be breaking it up into ~2 hour sections. You start watching the film after you've have second breakfast (obviously you've got to let your guests have their first breakfast, and then come around your place to watch the marathon film session), and then at the first break you can have elevenses. Another 2 hours of film followed by lunch. Then you watch some more, and then have afternoon tea. Following that you watch some more, then have tea, then more, then dinner, then some more followed by supper.

    12. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why I downloaded the laserdisc versions of Star Wars, waiting for Lucas to release the original trilogy DVD's. I'll do the same thing now, except I'm downloading the EE's.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    13. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by bfree · · Score: 1

      Peter Jackson has it made on LOTR. He has gotten everyone (bar a couple of foaming mouthed idiots imho) to happily accept 2 editions of the films from the outset, a "short" theatrical version and an extended DVD version. He has not only sold many extra copies of the films to people who have bought them films twice, he's even managed to get more cash out of thetrical releases of the DVD/extended edition. By making the extended editions, he has also created a double sales line for hdvd and repeated cinema showings.

      Reworking the films costs serious money (impacting the bottom line) and if Jackson does it, he risks alienating the fans who have up to know supported him wholeheartedly. Instead he will wait for new formats, and release again both editions on each format, perhaps with more and more of the documentary footage they shot. The work is done on LOTR, from now on it's all just profit!

      Of course perhaps he will decide that Bombadil (and hence the "swords" gathered from the barrow which allow the hobbits to survive the attack on weathertop) and Saruman's messing with the Shire are both required and then completely recut the entire trilogy (Saruman and the Shire is for me the great ommission from the films, it's the reason the ending just plain sucks, and it has a major impact on the entire trilogy) in which case we can all start foaming at the mouth about how we have lost our memories while we wonder if the new films are actually an improvement or not!

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    14. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      So it still leaves room for the Ultra-super-take-a-short-holiday-to-see-it version.

      FUCK! I'm so tired of this shit you nerds are spewing! There are TWO versions: the theatrical and the extended. Peter Jackson has promised repeatedly that there will always be two versions. There will be no other releases except when the formats change so FUCK OFF with these tired jokes!

    15. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Get the Return of the King Extended version, and soon after they will release a complete box set of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King, that have even more footage than all the previous extended versions combined"

      All that footage, yet still no Tom Bombadil...

    16. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by MagicDude · · Score: 1

      They probably will release a complete box set with all three movies, but I'm not all that inclined to buy it unless it has more movie. I for one don't particularly care for 8 hours of behind the scenes footage. Occasionally I may watch the movie with commentary, but that's really it. If this combined set is just the three extended edition bundled together with an aditional DVD of interviews with the 3rd Unit Producer and the assistant to the executive editor, then I think I'll pass on it.

    17. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by orcrist · · Score: 1

      After I got burned on the 2 versions of FotR

      You mean after you burned yourself?!?! Were you stuck in Moria when they announced the extended versions? I mean it was announced before the very first DVD that they would all be released 2 times.

      -1 Ignorant fucking whiner.

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    18. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by eegad · · Score: 2, Funny

      and soon after they will release a complete box set

      Included in this set will be a bonus disc with a running time of 1 hour 24 minutes of Peter Jackson laughing all the way to the bank.

      Hey...I'll buy it.

    19. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      You are so kind. I never implied that I didn't know. What I didn't explicitly say is that I felt the financial pinch when I bought the extended FotR. I realized I was going to spend many more $$ if I followed the same pattern.

      I would rather they released the extended version with the original theatrical release as a separate disc. Or, if they actually used the full DVD spec, they could run both versions off the same disc. With proper use of branching, this can be done. But I digress...

      For the effort they put into the behind the scenese crap, they could get the extended version out in time for an initial DVD release.

      I really don't need to spend a weekend watching someone else do their job. I should force Peter Jackson to watch 24 hours of footage showing me writing software.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    20. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by cybpunks3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see this happening.

      There isn't much more footage that can be intercut.

      Remember that in most cases, the additional footage also required new effects and new scoring, and editing decisions on which take to use, etc..

      PJ was busy enough with King Kong that it seemed to me like he was somehow rushing the ROTK EE out the door so he could get on with the new project.

      I don't think he wants to revisit the material anymore. And Howard Shore and everyone else are on other projects too.

      I think an HD edition is inevitable (hopefully blu-ray instead of hyper-compressed MPEG4 HDDVD) but I don't see much in the way of special material. The only "fix" I'd like to see is reducing Frodo's size when he looks out the balcony in Rivendell. I think they goofed the proportions up on that one.

      There is a dream sequence where Frodo turns into a Gollum-like creature. It's not really necessary.

      I'd love to see some way to insert Radagast into the picture, but that would be pretty expensive to pull off, I think.

      I would like them to insert a cut-in of Denethor's palantir. Suppodely that was deliberately not shot and I think that's a big creative mistake on PJ's part, one they repeatedly make excuses about.

      I'd rather have footage with Denethor's palantir vs. Aragorn's.

      I'd also like them to re-insert the scene where
      Eowyn kills an orc in the glittering caves. That was taken out in order to hold back on showing Eowyn as a warrior, but I also think that was a creative mistake.

      But most of the unused footage left over would not fit in with the chosen continuity of the adaptation. You have Arwen at Helm's Deep, Aragorn fighting Sauron, perhaps alternate death scenes for Saruman. Stuff like that.

      50 minutes of additional footage is not a marketing gimmick. That's an enormous amount of new footage to add to a film and I'm sure it's all worth it as all the theatrical versions, as long as they are, have rushed pacing (up to the epilogue of ROTK).

      The fact of the matter is that PJ filmed the equivalent of more like 6 movies vs. 3, and that's why they are so long. There is an established maximum running time even for epics and PJ just decided to go over the limit, knowing that this was the only chance we were likely ever going to have to film this stuff.

      What may have seen like a risky luxury at the time on the part of the studios will return huge dividends in the end. PJ got his actors together and rolled film endlessly (not to mention multiple pickup sessions) which is what I or any other Tolkien fan probably would have done in that case. The allure of Lord of the Rings is the immersion into the world and you only get that feeling when you're in there for a while and feel like a part of the journey. You don't get that book-like feeling with even 3 90-minute movies. Regardless of the limitations of theatrical movies (no pause button), DVD is the ultimate venue for this sort of extended immersion.

      You really are not supposed to try to digest the entire story in one large feast.

      You really have to watch the films episodically over a longer span of time, which is how most people read the trilogy in book-form.

      It's just that so many people have such poor memories and their lives are so hard to schedule that they'd have a hard time committing to follow a storyline that took 12+ hours to watch over the course of a week or two of viewings.

    21. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

      How in hell can you get 'burned' on buying something you obviously wanted? (I'm taking it for granted that you wouldn't have bought it if you didn't want it). Besides, NO ONE could say that they didn't know that there would later be released some extended editions of the movies.
      Tho.. If you actually didn't know this? It's still obvious that you thought the movies were so good that you did want the on DVD. IF there later came a special edition of the movie, I would have considered that release a 'bonus' I could wish for/buy/rent at a later time.

      "the money grubbing dept. is in full gear in Middle Earth" -WTF?! If people didn't make things you wanted to buy, what the f### would you spend money on? Saving them for the day you die?

    22. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Promises can be broken.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    23. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by orcrist · · Score: 1

      You are so kind.

      Actually, that's probably the meanest thing I've ever said on Slashdot ;-)

      I never implied that I didn't know.

      Getting burned is passive, something you can't avoid. Either someone held a gun to your head or you didn't know...

      I really don't need to spend a weekend watching someone else do their job.

      Ummmm... then don't.

      I should force Peter Jackson to watch 24 hours of footage showing me writing software.

      You were forced? Call the cops, not slashdot!! Otherwise, if you can get Peter Jackson to buy a DVD containing scenes of you programming, then the more power to you.

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    24. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      Hell, if they'd only released the extended version people would be complaining that they couldn't buy the theatrical cut.

      Not just that, if they had ONLY released the extended version at the theaters from the start everyone would complain that the movie was too freakin' long!

      Wait, people already DO complain about that!

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    25. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by bsartist · · Score: 1

      The beauty is that the only 2 cast members who need to return are Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis.

      There's also Ian Holme - you know, Bilbo. Bilbo and company spends some time in Rivendell and talk to Elrond, which means Hugo Weaving. Casting John Rhys Davies as Gloin - Gimli's father - would be a good choice too, but if I recall correctly he had an allergic reaction to the makeup or something, so probably wouldn't be too interested.

      And that's the major parts. Ophelia and Lotho Baggins appear at Bilbo's party, and they're at the end of The Hobbit too.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    26. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      Ok ok. Maybe burned was a strong word. Maybe you need to chill out.

      The money grubbing dept. comes from releasing two versions of the film, knowing full well that people will buy them. As I stated in another response, they could get a single version out, instead of two.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    27. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One version!? What do you want the movie spread across 3 disks because of the branching chapters!? The only version out costing $40 MSRP because it is on so many disks? If it cost that, some people would complain about the price being to high and that New Line/Peter Jackson were "money grubbing."

    28. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is "Ian Holm" not "Ian Holme" please get it right or I will have to ask you to turn in your Tolkien fanclub membership card and your Slashdot membership. Thank you, The Management

    29. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ian Holm is too old to play Bilbo in The Hobbit. Since dwarves and old wizards are not sexy, Orlando Bloom will have to play Biblo.

    30. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Well hopefully you have a good connection...

    31. Re:And then the complete set will come out... by Justus · · Score: 1

      Wow, those guys really know how to milk their customers! Releasing two versions and telling everyone about it, knowing full well that they'll be powerless to resist the urge to buy every version of the movies ever created and released!

      But wait! It seems that I, an ordinary fellow, have managed to avoid their devilish plot and buy only the extended editions that I actually wanted! Either I have singlehandedly thwarted their brilliant scheme, or perhaps I just have some fucking self-control.

  11. Trilogy DVD? by antdude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are there any plans for the all three movies to be bundled? I would love to get that set.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Trilogy DVD? by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      It would probably take up an entire standard sized store shelf.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    2. Re:Trilogy DVD? by Badfysh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well that's what the collectors editions are really, with the first set you got a nice pair of bookends to complement the book-like packaging and with the final instalment you have a beautiful trilogy box set.

      --

      I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.

  12. Fellowship by davro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn i now have 25% less on my old version of lotr. Wheres the fellowship in that!

    1. Re:Fellowship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, actually, 200 minutes is 20% less than 250 minutes. :) *Runsaway!*

    2. Re:Fellowship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get outta here you!

      There's no place for math or general nerdery on this site!

    3. Re:Fellowship by YowzaTheYuzzum · · Score: 1

      Erm.. You mean 20% less, right?

      (100-x)/100 = 100/125
      100 - x = 10000/125
      100 - x = 80
      x = 100 - 80
      x = 20

  13. 50 Minutes! by AndrewStephens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its a pity that the link doesn't go into more detail, but the more the merrier. The extended editions of the first two movies were great improvements on already excellent films (especially the first one), so I have high hopes for Return of the King.
    On a totally unrelated note, here is some sophisticated LotR humor in the form of a 2meg wmv file.

    --
    sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    1. Re:50 Minutes! by hanssprudel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is a preview that talks about exactly what scenes have been added (huge spoilers, of course.)

    2. Re:50 Minutes! by CGP314 · · Score: 3, Funny

      (huge spoilers, of course.)

      Not for those of us who can read.


      -Colin

  14. What.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no alternate endings?
    I'm dissapointed.

  15. What exactly is new: by ggvaidya · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the website:
    1. Disc intro by director Peter Jackson
    2. "J.R.R. Tolkien: The Legacy of Middle-earth" documentary hmmmm ...
    3. From Book to Script:
      1. "From Book to Script: Forging the Final Chapter" documentary
      2. Abandoned Concept: Aragorn Battles Sauron (ehhhhhh???)
    4. Designing and Building Middle-earth
      1. "Designing Middle-earth" documentary
      2. "Big-atures" documentary
      3. "Weta Workshop" documentary
      4. "Costume Design" documentary
    5. Design Galleries - 2,123 images
      1. The Peoples of Middle-earth (galleries with docent audio)
      2. The Realms of Middle-earth (galleries with docent audio)
      3. Miniatures (galleries with docent audio)
    6. "Home of the Horse Lords" documentary
    7. "Middle-earth Atlas: Tracing the Journeys of the Fellowship" interactive map
    8. "New Zealand as Middle-earth" interactive map w/on-location footage
    1. Re:What exactly is new: by AndrewStephens · · Score: 3, Insightful
      2. Abandoned Concept: Aragorn Battles Sauron (ehhhhhh???)
      I'll love to know more details about this. My guess it was meant to be some sort of faceoff to represent the battle of wits between Aragorn and Sauron though those magic seeing balls.

      I guess I will have to wait for the release to find out.

      --
      sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    2. Re:What exactly is new: by lgftsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kinda like the armoured knights that Egg Shen and Lo Pan manifested in the pre-climactic free for all melee in the underground throne room/wedding hall?

      Some movies don't need millions of dollars of CGI. Flying elementals, midair swordfights and great big floating eyeballs. Now that's a work of Art!

    3. Re:What exactly is new: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Palantir? Just like in the book...
      Do ya think?

    4. Re:What exactly is new: by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Abandoned Concept: Aragorn Battles Sauron (ehhhhhh???)

      Probably refers to the battle with the palantir, doesn't it?

    5. Re:What exactly is new: by legirons · · Score: 1

      ""Middle-earth Atlas: Tracing the Journeys of the Fellowship" interactive map
      "New Zealand as Middle-earth" interactive map w/on-location footage"


      Putting an actual physical map in the box would probably add a fair amount of value to these things... wonder if they'll consider that in future releases?

    6. Re:What exactly is new: by wuice · · Score: 1

      Well, Aragorn does present himself to Sauron using the Palantir. It's not like they're just making shit up willy nilly.. Except for the worg battle, Pippin sneaking around lighting beacons, the Ents deciding to hell with all this fighting stuff and go have a picnic, and Faramir being a total dick..

      Actually, nevermind.

  16. Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LOTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite all the arguments to the contrary, Tom Bombadil is not really an important character in LOTR. Yes, he's an interesting character and probably is used as a foreshadowing of future events, but when it comes down to the actual plot, he is just a short meander off the main line.

    God knows the main plot is long enough as it is, why in the world would you want to make it longer by adding an insignficant character? This is a movie, not a book. The point of a movie is to tell a good story at a fast enough pace so that the viewer feels he got his money's worth. A book allows the author to do all the meandering he likes and the reader to take as much time as is necessary to absorb it all.

  17. Patience by EngrBohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Patients, we is. Yes, patients. We waits for our boxed set, our preciousssss.

    --
    cb
    Oooh! What does this button do!?
  18. Extended?Oh. by oddmake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really want to see...Saruman's demise.

    1. Re:Extended?Oh. by Mortiss · · Score: 1

      It was said many times before.... Not a chance.
      Not even in Uber ultra mega extended edition...

    2. Re:Extended?Oh. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      You mean Sharkey's end.

      -Peter

  19. Cue in all the bashers of "numerous" editions.. by Zarhan · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...despite the fact that the standard/extended edition cycles were announced like year before Fellowship of the Ring's (first film!) DVD release.

    And even if you missed that, by now you should know how it will go..pattern recognition, anyone?

    Yes, there will be a boxed set with all the extended editions bundled into one nice compilation, but nothing beyond that. And if the Hobbit ever comes, they might also release a new box set with the Hobbit included. And they will release Bluray/HD-DVD versions when the formats become available.

    However, the actual *content* will not change. There's the extended cut and the theatrical cut. No need to bash Peter Jackson about squeezing money out of gazillion different editions..So there will not be a "hook" to upgrade to the later box set releases (HDTV resolution on the next format might be enough, of course...but then you probably are not going to feel ripped off).

    1. Re:Cue in all the bashers of "numerous" editions.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there will not be a "hook" to upgrade to the later box set../

      We I wouldnt be suprised to se a LOTR MiniSeries... and a corresponding DVD release.

      No need to bash Peter Jackson about squeezing money out of gazillion different editions.

      So what if he did squeeze money out of a gazillion different editions. Market economy and all that.... If somebody doesnt like it then fight for a change the system, dont berate a single individual for using the system that enabled the fils to be made in the first place.

    2. Re:Cue in all the bashers of "numerous" editions.. by bathmann · · Score: 1
      you mean Sauron isn't in fact George Lucas and the master-plan to overtake Middle-Earth is not a trick to produce more director's cuts versions of the original Star Wars' trilogy?

      Man, so what are we, Westerners, fighting for?

      Ps: note that by rearranging the letters in George Lucas' name you can write Sauron. Well, except for the "n" but that's a trick to get you to think there is no trick. That tricky is the dark side of the Force of the One ring thingy. And Yoda is a hobbit who ate to much vegetables.

  20. Tom? by mattr · · Score: 0, Troll

    I boycotted LoTR films after realizing they cut my favorite scene in the entire series - the valley of Tom Bombadil. I'll buy the whole thing on DVD though if all his scenes are in there. Is it worth hoping for?

    1. Re:Tom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >Is it worth hoping for?

      Since they were never filmed, I'd have to say "no".

    2. Re:Tom? by Savves · · Score: 0, Troll
      > I boycotted LoTR films after realizing they cut my favorite scene in the entire series - the valley of Tom Bombadil.

      heh, same here.

      and also the hobbits' return to the shire... hmm what about that one? was it filmed at all?

    3. Re:Tom? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      While having Tom Baker (Dr Who #4) as Tom Bombadil may have been interesting, I don't think the movies lost anything significant from having that scene deleted.

      Thank goodness that the LOTR: ROTK extended edition will be out for Christmas, because seeing the movies (preferably the first screening on New Year's Day when the cinema is nearly empty) has become something of a ritual the last few years, and it will be sorely missed (unlike Star Wars Episode 3, which will be best forgotten...)

    4. Re:Tom? by miu · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'll buy the whole thing on DVD though if all his scenes are in there. Is it worth hoping for?

      Oh sure they filmed a half hour of singing and spoken word poetry just for the .05% of their audience that would demand it.

      Purists are never going to be happy with a modern adaptation of Tolkiens work, he wrote some wonderful stuff and created the modern fantasy novel - but he was racist and sexist as most people in his time and society were, he had an appreciation for poetry that is inaccesible and boring to modern audiences.

      I love the books (I've read them more than 20 times since I was a child) but I really enjoy the movies too - but they are are alternate forms of the same story. The details and presentation must change between the two.

      I personally believe that had Tolkien lived and changed with the times he would have loved the movies that have been made so far. I'm looking forward to the Hobbit eventually.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    5. Re:Tom? by Hast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well they have repeatedly said that Scourging of the Shire wasn't filmed; both in interviews and eg in the commentary track to FOTR (during the scene with Galadriels mirror which is a homage to the last chapter). There is also a lot of talk about why they did this and all that.

      Personally I think it's a big conspiracy though. In 20 years time we will get a new release of LOTR the way "it was ment to be". Complete with 10 extra hours of songs in elvish noone understands, and in the new version Gandalf screams as he falls with the Balrog.

      Seriously though, if you don't see the movies because of the lack of a specific scene then you're just stupid. Particularly the first movie is very beautiful and even the one with least digressions from the original story. Get the extended editions though.

      Very few appreciate Tom Bombadil on the first read through. In order to understand his character you first need to know quite a bit about the world of middle-earth, and at that point on your first read through you still don't have that knowledge. (Just like the hobbits.) Considering that severe cutting had to be done it's no surprise that the 30+ minutes part which actually doesn't have any meaning in the rest of the movie was cut.

      Scouring was cut for similar reasons. It is just yet an example of how the media differ. There are other changes I don't agree with in the movies, but these two I understand and agree with.

    6. Re:Tom? by big-shoulders · · Score: 1

      Peter Jackson has said clearly that he doesn't like the scouring of the Shire and that it would not be included.
      The script wasn't written, the scenes weren't shot, it's not going to happen
      Besides, do you really want the end of the move to be any L O N G E R ?

    7. Re:Tom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and he will be played by Jim Carrey!

    8. Re:Tom? by hypnagogue · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good news! Peter Jackson is currently producing the story of Tom Bombadil. Unfortunately for us hard-core Tom Bombadil fans, I have heard rumors that the role of Tom is being played by a 60 foot tall ape.

      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    9. Re:Tom? by paul_pick1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      he wrote some wonderful stuff and created the modern fantasy novel - but he was racist and sexist as most people in his time and society were

      I'm not so sure about racist bit but I think he's defendable on the sexist charge. His female characters, while few, are strong. Who kills the witch king, after all?

      I personally believe that had Tolkien lived and changed with the times he would have loved the movies

      It's not like Tolkien was in sync with popular culture and entertainment forms in his own time. Why should he be enamoured of ours?

      --
      http://www.switch2firefox.com/
    10. Re:Tom? by Aaron_Pike · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that had Tolkien lived and changed with the times he would have loved the movies that have been made so far. I'm looking forward to the Hobbit eventually.

      I'm just worried that I'll be disappointed when Jackson edits it so that Bard shoots first.

    11. Re:Tom? by warrped · · Score: 1

      Regarding Tom Bombadil, one of the things the screenwriters mention in TTT commentary is that they switched a lot of the expository dialogue between characters if the tone remained the same. So, in TTT extended, Treebeard actually has some of Tom Bombadil's speeches (for example, it's Tom Bombadil's poem he recites to calm the tree that entangles Merry and Pippin). John Rhys-Davies (voice of Treebeard) also has some improvised lines in the movie, like about enjoying going South (it feels like walking downhill).

      It's a testament to PJ's love and understanding of the original text that allows him to incorporate these rearrangements into his story without ruining the tone of the movies.

      --
      - Bachelorhood is the father of necessity.
    12. Re:Tom? by miu · · Score: 1
      It's not like Tolkien was in sync with popular culture and entertainment forms in his own time. Why should he be enamoured of ours?

      I don't think he would be in love with the popular culture of our time (I mostly hate it myself), but I think the movies would impressed him (except that stupid snowboarding shield scene and maybe PJs take on Faramir). Jackson manages to be tell a somewhat sophisticated story about good and evil without political preaching, allegory, or telling it in such a way that depended on the audience having read the books.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    13. Re:Tom? by miu · · Score: 1
      I'm just worried that I'll be disappointed when Jackson edits it so that Bard shoots first.

      ...and edits in a stupid CG of Sauruman wandering around the Shire during the preparations for Bilbo's birthday party.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    14. Re:Tom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, if you don't see the movies because of the lack of a specific scene then you're just stupid.

      With movies lacking scenes it's not like with cash, when if you're missing 1% out of $100, you still have nice $99. It's more like with computers, if you have 1% of your RAM broken, the box is broken and it by crashing every 2 minutes it will completely spoil your experience. Or like food, you miss 1% of the compositrion, which happens to be salt and it's just icky.

    15. Re:Tom? by SatanMat · · Score: 1

      okay having just turned in my LOTR cred... Who is this Tom Bombadil? but you LOTR geeks and Tolken's dense writing are a bit too much for me could you dumb it down a bit for me and explain why he is important.... I got that he may be an immortal or something.... help?

    16. Re:Tom? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that had Tolkien lived and changed with the times he would have loved the movies that have been made so far. I'm looking forward to the Hobbit eventually.

      I believe you are absolutely correct in this regard. Tolkien has an excellent preface to the version of LOTR that I have, and in it he discusses how LOTR is not a parralell of World War II. He also discusses how he hates allagory it all its forms. He also then makes brief mention (and perhaps it is also in the Tolkien letters, but I cannot remember) that he has no problem with changing a story to fit a format. There is much in that preface that suggests that he would have made similar changes to what Jackson has done.

      One can argue that the LOTR books are "pure" and should be left unchanged in a movie format. However, for those of you who are hung up on this, I suggest you read the rough drafts published by Christopher Tolkien for LOTR. Here is a pre-warning though - you will seriously spoil the magic of the story. Here is a minor spoiler:

      Aragorn was originally a hobbit, and his name was "Trotter" not Strider. Tolkien also had no idea what the characters would do after they reached bree, but he knew that they should head on to bree. After that, there was no story at all.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    17. Re:Tom? by mattr · · Score: 1

      > Seriously though, if you don't see the
      > movies because of the lack of a
      > specific scene then you're just stupid

      This is you being serious? Okay you could be right. But personally that was the only scene I wanted to see, I am not a big LoTR fanatic but I know what I like, and I fell in love with this scene and read it over and over in the book. I don't remember it to be full of windy speeches, what I remember is a truly magical, wonderful place that had more care and majesty built into it than most any other work I can remember. (Perhaps there are other good parts of Tolkien's books, if so please let me know). Perhaps there was some sexism in there, I don't remember from the years ago when I read it, but I do remember quite well the woman in the valley, and his love and longing for her. Perhaps I misinterpreted it at the time?

      I'm the kind of guy who likes the first 5 or 10 minutes of movies the best, when things are quiet and the director takes the time to build his world up for you. If I see enchanting environments - there were some in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen too - I would like to see more of them and just enjoy being shown around them. Maybe I'm part of a demographic of future full-immersive media one day.

      I didn't stop seeing LoTR because it was just "missing one scene". It struck me while watching the movie that it was filmed in a relatively crass way to me, in particular I felt that the parts that would have required the most imagination and probably the most financial investment in computer graphics, were simply dropped. To me (wrong or not) Tom Bombadil's valley would have been a masterpiece if done by a true artist with an unlimited budget (or maybe just a true artist with just an ordinary budget, you know?), and it felt like a total cop-out. Other parts of the film caused this realization to resonate in me and I was not looking forward to seeing more of what just seemed like characters being forced to slog from one scene to another in relatively uninspired fashion.

      So I realize this is coming from someone who is not perhaps a major LoTR fan, nor even knowledgeable enough about the trilogy to argue intelligently about it or its directors, and I probably will buy the extended set one day. But personally - and there just might be more like me out there - I would pay 5 times the normal entrance fee for the film if I could just see the quiet, beautiful parts of the film, and if Tom Bombadil was done right.

    18. Re:Tom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question...
      who is Tom Bombadil?

      Tom is sorta an enigma, he just doesnt fit the narrative much at all...

      some people say he is the long lost brother of Tim Benzedrine!

    19. Re:Tom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this Tom Bombadil?

      Short version: Nobody knows, and that's why he's cool.

      Long version: There's no definitive answer as to who he is, what he represents, etc. He's a random guy they meet in the woods on the way to Bree. He's not affected by the ring, he's the oldest entity in the world (though Treebeard is the oldest living thing, so what does that make Tom?), he has nearly infinite power within his woodlands, but, if I recall correctly, his power would be essentially nonexistant outside of his forest area.

      but you LOTR geeks and Tolken's dense writing are a bit too much for me
      Eh. I skimmed through most of the scene the first time I read the books. It seemed pointless and boring, really. However, after having read the whole thing and coming back to him, he's really an intriguing fellow.

    20. Re:Tom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read and find out, WIMP ASS!

    21. Re:Tom? by Hast · · Score: 1
      But personally that was the only scene I wanted to see, I am not a big LoTR fanatic but I know what I like, and I fell in love with this scene and read it over and over in the book. I don't remember it to be full of windy speeches, what I remember is a truly magical, wonderful place that had more care and majesty built into it than most any other work I can remember. (Perhaps there are other good parts of Tolkien's books, if so please let me know).

      Well if you did feel that the first time you read the book then I believe you are in a small minority. I don't think I've ever met anyone before that actually enjoyed the parts with Tom Bombadil in the beginning. Same really goes for the parts at the Shire in the beginning. Most people I've talked to feel it's just 200 pages of nothing before things happen. (I disagree with them, but it's been so long since the first time I read it I really can't recall what I though then. Since I as pretty young I imagine I just wanted them to get on with it, I stuck to it though.)

      In order to see what is special about Bombadil you first have to understand the power of the one ring. At your first read through this it quite impossible since it's powers have barely been shown at that time. Furthermore you need to understand that even all the other powerful and old creatures are influenced by it. It wasn't until I re-read the books after watching the first movie that I noticed that Tom Bombadil is completely uninfluenced by it. You probably should read some of the additional material too in order to see what a peculiar thing that Tom Bombadil is.

      Personally I much prefered the parts in the Shire (particularly on subsequent reads), Rivendell, Lothlorien and even Mordor (it wasn't nice, but that's interesting too) to Tom Bombadil on my first times through.

      To me (wrong or not) Tom Bombadil's valley would have been a masterpiece if done by a true artist with an unlimited budget (or maybe just a true artist with just an ordinary budget, you know?), and it felt like a total cop-out.

      The biggest problem is naturally time and money. If they could add another 30 minutes or an hour to the movie I'm sure they could add Tom Bombadil. OTOH I'm still not sure that is the best place to put those resources.

      The fact remains that a movie and a book are two different things. You can't make them identical and expect both results to be good. Personally I'm content with reading the books and having that a slightly different experience from the movies.

      In many ways that makes them both more precious.
    22. Re:Tom? by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to the Book of Lost Tales, Saruman did secretly wander around the Shire for a time. He was marking out routes for his operatives later, and gathering up sources of leaf. He had to hide his interest in that area to avoid being embarassed by Gandalf.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    23. Re:Tom? by mattr · · Score: 1

      Dear Hast,

      Thank you very, very much for your considerate, detailed reply. I think your comment is great!

      I'll take your advice. I do remember the first time I touched Tolkien I was probably way too young, and had the same experience as with Marion Zimmerman Bradley (Halcion, I think?) - that it was way too boring. I'll put all the Tolkien books back on my reading list for one day and look forward to seeing all the movies on the extended set on a vacation some time.

      Thanks!

      Matt

  21. 50 more mins by ThePilgrim · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh Great, now we get almost an houre of volcanoes blowing up.

    Did any one else think that the ending after the ring was destroied was far to looooooong

    --
    Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    1. Re:50 more mins by EricHop · · Score: 1

      [Quote]
      Did any one else think that the ending after the ring was destroied was far to looooooong
      [/Quote]

      Yep, I did ! They had the perfect ending when Aragorn was honoring the Hobbits and then all of a sudden they started these slightly related short stories featuring some of the main characters...

    2. Re:50 more mins by geeber · · Score: 1

      Given that that is how the book ends - no! I was disappointed that the ending was not longer. The Scouring of the Shire was always one of my favorite parts and I was very sad when Jackson announced that it would not appear in the Extended Edition.

      Oh well, I am still eagerly awaiting the Extended Edition. My plan is to watch all three EE's back to back. We'll see if I actually have the stamina to pull it off, though....

    3. Re:50 more mins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, wait'll you see Titanic. You know, at the end of THAT movie, the boat sinks. *put on body armour and runs like mad*

    4. Re:50 more mins by arodland · · Score: 1

      Obviously you're one of those moviegoer types that they cut the ending down for :)

    5. Re:50 more mins by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Yea, I had to take a piss while at the theater, and I have to say, every minute counted. Every single ending. Never ending....

      But beside drinking too much pop, my wife cried during EVERY ending version. So... it's probably not that bad.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    6. Re:50 more mins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack survives the actual sinking, but freezes to death. The girl lives, but has the clap.

    7. Re:50 more mins by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1

      Only on slashdot will we hear someone questioning his stamina as regards a day-long movie marathon.

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    8. Re:50 more mins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did any one else think that the ending after the ring was destroied was far to looooooong

      Nope.

    9. Re:50 more mins by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      No, I think it was the edits that cut out any smooth transitions between the last four or five scenes that made it seem like it was too long and a bit unfocused. If the EE fills in those breaks then it will be an improvement.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  22. Hmmmm by ggvaidya · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I suppose with all the backstories and history, JRRT will be particularly amenable to this ... if you look at the "extras", about half are production details, the rest is documentaries on Middle Earth and how they brought it to life ... very interesting, but I'd rather wait for Discovery Channel's "How they did it" and chat about the series with my other nerdy friends.

  23. What? by wobblie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If I can think of one movie that definitely DOES NOT need an extra "50 minutes", it's ROTK.

    "50 minutes" of what? 50 minutes more ass kicking and butt ass big elephant stomping, or 50 minutes more misty-eyed, silent glances?

    1. Re:What? by architimmy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, just to troll a bit, but I remember people laughing at the end of ROTK in the theater... and not the "har, that was a funny movie" laughter, but the "god, this is painfully embarrassing to be in the same theater as this movie and I can either laugher or cry" laughter. Jackson would have done best to just stick with the book (Scouring of the Shire). That's what made Fellowship the best movie of the three (and that folks, is entirely my own opinion).

      Now... to figure out how to integrate blue into my dvd collection... I was honestly expecting brown, yellowish tan, or some shade of greyish something... Blue?

    2. Re:What? by Kippesoep · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I, for one, would love to see the things that were missing. The scourging of the Shire, the actual defeat of Saruman. Christopher Lee's scenes really should've been in the theatrical version! At least the EE will allow us to see those parts.

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, blue. First one: Green. Second one: Red. Last one: Blue.

      If you had trouble seeing the colours, then I suggest (as I suggested to another person who thought the first two boxes were various shades of brown) that you get your eyes tested for red-green colourblindness or a form of it.

      Up to 5% of all males have some form of colour deficiency apparently, and red-green is the most common form...

      There are online tests you can take to check. Have fun :)

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No scourging filmed. It'd be a bit of a downer after the whole destroying the Ring and all. You can write it, but you can't film it successfully. The two forms of media are just different that way.

      The defeat of Saruman... now that'll be fun :)

  24. badgers? by wobblie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Were all the badger scenes restored, or what?

    1. Re:badgers? by BlackMagi · · Score: 1

      Extreme .... weirdness... warp engines canna take it ... transporter malfunction .... I'll never be rude to a gin an tonic again!

      --
      http://melbournephilosophy.com/
    2. Re:badgers? by Coppit · · Score: 1
      Were all the badger scenes restored, or what?
      Badgers? We don't need not stinkin' badgers!
  25. Box colours, still wrong... by beeglebug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now I know it's not the end of the world, they are still greats films and all, but this one thing just bugs me about the extended DVD's. I just can't get my head around the decision to make the boxes Green, Red then Blue.

    Green for Fellowship is fine, it's the most nature centric of the trilogy, so it makes sense. To me though, The Two Towers predominant colour is blue, the film is full of old stone, dark forests, and rainy battles, it's a very cold film. Likewise, the color of ROTK is red. The film is full of fire, lava, blood, passion and anger. So why flip those two around?

    Am I on my own on this one?

    1. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Ivan+Todoroski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Am I on my own on this one?

      Yup, pretty much.

    2. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by beeglebug · · Score: 1

      Surely there is someone else out there with artistic sensibilities who gets irked by this?

    3. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by dazed-n-confused · · Score: 1

      No, I agree with you. I find it a baffling decision.

    4. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Archwyrm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes!! Why, oh why..? Oh the humanity..

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    5. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by psavo · · Score: 1

      I think it would've made sense if scourging of shire were filmed and shown (rather lenghty anti-climax). As it is, it's claimed to have too long and slow ending (haven't seen it yet, waiting for extended).

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    6. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because I thought the decisions were just fine. You might as well get angry that they didn't put them in the order from ROYGBIV.

      Artistic sensibilities? (I saw your post further down) If you're going down that road, you had better give up now. Art is so incredibly subjective that one person's opinion is just as valid as the next one's. So they went Green for what could be lost, Red for the increasing war, Blue for the final victory and Return of the King. So what?

      (BTW, that was probably their motivation for a regal blue to finish. Return of the King. You know, the title of the book/film. The triumph after the bloodshed. You can't have the middle not have the colour of war and blood. You can't have the end suffer from that when it should be a resolution. But who knows.)

    7. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by beeglebug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if you look at almost all editions of the books (many of which will have been personally approved by Tolkien himself) they went with Green/Blue/Red 90% of the time... which to me seemed far more logical, for the reasons I stated above. But hey, like so many things, its just MHO

    8. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Kumochisonan · · Score: 1

      Personally, I was expecting a yellowing parchment look for RoTK, similar to the Indiana Jones boxed set.

      --
      kill elrond
      take elrond
      put elrond in cupboard
    9. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The box color for ROTK fits perfectly, blue is a color of royalty.

    10. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It's not 'artistic sensibilities', it YOUR version on 'artistic sensibilities; that you expect everyone else on the plant to follow that the problem.

      Damn artists! ;->

    11. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait for it... wait for it...

      Get a life! Who cares about a box?!!??!

      *rimshot*

    12. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 1

      I have a set of paperback BOOKS that follow this color scheme: Fellowship=Blue, Two Towers=Green, Return of King=Red (and The Hobbit=Yellow). Not sure what that has to do with anything since they still aren't the same...interesting that those are the colors represented, though.

    13. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      The paperback versions of the books I bought when I was 13 were Blue, Green, then Red.

      Blue for, I don't know blue. Fellowship feels like blue.
      Green for the ents.
      Red for the war.

    14. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you expect everyone in the world to conform to your worldview, I assume you must be an American!?

    15. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Green is, as you said, a good color for FOTR's box.

      Brown is kind of a dead-looking color, and kind of fits with the stark coldness of TTT.

      The box on ROTK is the exact color I guessed it would be. Having it blue makes sense, since it's about a king, and there always seems to be a lot of blue stuff in the vicinity of any self-respecting king.

    16. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Ojamin · · Score: 1

      Blue is the color of royalty.

    17. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fellowship feels like blue!? Philistine!
      Tolkien, on page 232 of The Epic Tome of Lost Footnotes: Volume 4, said that the Fellowship was meant to feel, and I quote, "Indigo."

    18. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by belrick · · Score: 1

      The box colours match the authorized editions of the books that I have (1977, A Magnum Book, Methuen Publications, Toronto, London, Syndey, Wellington).

    19. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again the civilised world is better than YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDISTAN!

    20. Re: Box colours, still wrong... by gidds · · Score: 1
      FWIW, the paperbacks I read were green, then blue, then tan. And that was a very old Allen & Unwin copy. Probably not a first edition, but I doubt many of the other paperbacks being waved hereabouts predate it.

      Not that either are conclusive, of course...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    21. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Purple is the color of British royalty, innit?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RED, as in the blood of innocent brown peoples, is the colour of YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDISTAN. No country other than YIB matters.

    23. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Am I on my own on this one?

      Not exactly, I can see where you're going with that, but the problem is probably that you have these colors to match to the moods after the fact. They were probably chosen because some marketdroids thought they looked good that way. A coin toss could have reversed the two you don't like.

    24. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by jdbo · · Score: 1

      You're spot-on, re: green.; however, it also represents to starting point of the trilogy - the peaceful, abundantly green shire. While this doesn't represent the whole movie, it is where all the characters (whom we follow) start from.

      Red typically represent warning/emergency/alert/etc.; "Towers" role in the trilogy was to demonstrate how the whole of Middle Earth, esp. humans whose role had not yet been very well established, were affected. In other words, the goal of the second movie was to raise the stakes on the first movie; hence, red.

      Blue shows the return of serenity and calm under the new King, i.e. the state subsequent to the triumph over Sauron; it is not a return to green, as the (the multitiude of endings demonstrate) it is impossible to return home again. Thus, blue represents calm AND change.

      Anyway, this is just my interp.; you're free to your own.

    25. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be purple

    26. Re:Box colours, still wrong... by Ondo · · Score: 1

      Well, if you look at almost all editions of the books (many of which will have been personally approved by Tolkien himself) they went with Green/Blue/Red 90% of the time...

      Actually, of the 5 editions of LotR I have none are Green/Blue/Red. The two oldest (I think) don't change colors between volumes. The other three are Green/Purple/Red, Red/Purple/Green, and Blue/Green/Red.

  26. Return of... by henrik · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where are the usual SW bashers?

    Shouldn't it be LOTR: Return of the Merchandising with this movie series as well?

    Fun that everyone bashes Lucas for his multiple releases but it is quite silent about Jackson.

    1. Re:Return of... by Hinhule · · Score: 0

      Quite possibly because Jackson is adding content, not altering their favourite scenes.

    2. Re:Return of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because PJ stated from the begining that there would only be the theatrical and extended versions. And that's all there will be, you just buy the one you want. How is that like all the differnt versions of Star Wars that GL keeps pumping out?

    3. Re:Return of... by humblecoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am willing to cut Jackson some slack, mainly because we, the consumers, knew ahead of time that there was going to be both a theatrical version AND an extended version. Therefore, we were able to decide which version we wanted to buy. It's not like he release the theatrical version, and then after everyone had scarfed up that, decided to spring the extended version on us. He told us up front that there was going to be an extended version and that if we wanted to, we could wait until that one came out.

      Plus, if I remember correctly, there was a rebate for those who bought both versions. So if you really couldn't wait the extra 6 months for the extended version, you could buy the regular version and get a little bit of a break on the extended version.

      If Jackson's goal was really to maximize profits, he would have released the theatrical versions, waited a few years for everyone to buy that, and then announce the extended version after profits from the theatrical version had tapered off. Plus, he would make people who bought both pay full price, rather than offer a little bit of a rebate.

      Personally I find his attitude a lot more palatable than George Lucas who is obviously out to milk the Star Wars franchise for all its worth.

    4. Re:Return of... by henrik · · Score: 1

      Well, Jackson has Lucas to thank for being able to do the movies in the first place.

      I would cut Lucas some slack, he is leading the development and introduction of new movie-making technology.

      If there weren't a consumer demand for the products he puts out, then nobody would be buying them right? So if people are buying the stuff he produces, then there is a demand and he is doing the right thing in producing them?

      We all knew there would be a special edition of Star Wars long before 1997. And we knew there would be a DVD re-release as well, long before it was officially announced. And there will be a Blu-Ray HD release as well in a few years.

      So cut Lucas some slack, he is acutally investing the money I (and maybe you) put in his pocket to a great extend in pushing movie-making technology forward. Last I heard, it is not like he is sitting in a palace bathing in his dollar bills and going to fancy-smancy rich people parties, right?

    5. Re:Return of... by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      Personally I find his attitude a lot more palatable than George Lucas who is obviously out to milk the Star Wars franchise for all its worth.

      Obviously, huh? I've been watching the SW DVDs for the last week and, while some of the changes come as a bit of a shock for a long-time SW fanatic like me, I'm having a hard time arguing that the changes should not have been made. Most of them improve the films whether those of us overprotective of our childhood memories like it or not. Why are you so confident that Lucas is simply milking the movies? Try to consider the circumstances surrounding Lucas's movies versus those surrounds the LOTR movies. It's easy to see why Lucas has dared to alter the most holy of trilogies now. He didn't have a chance to do it back then the way Jackson gets to now.

      No real difference.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    6. Re:Return of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Lucas had every opportunity in the 70's to have Greedo shoot first. Thankfully, he somewhat corrected that bit of idiocy in the extra-special dvd edition, but I refuse to accept the bullshit that "he didn't have a chance to do it back then" for some of his changes. On the other hand, unlike some, I have no problem with the added Jabba scene since he couldn't technologically add it in back then. I also enjoy the digital enhancements and other technical improvements. It just irks me that he made Greedo shoot first without giving anything resembling a sensible excuse for it. And no, I don't think he stole my childhood, and I'm still buying the DVDs. I'll buy the original editions if/when he decides to release them on DVD, and I'll probably buy the HDDVD versions he'll release in a few years. Why? Because most of the changes are improvements; however, I still think it's fair to complain about the times he totally ruined scenes.

      Oh, and killing the Ewok teddybear picnic scene to replace it with the galactic partying was a good idea. That scene deserved to be butchered.

    7. Re:Return of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the offical novelisation ghost written by Alan Dean Foster, it never says who fires at all. All it says is something like there is a bunch of blasts and Han walks away.

    8. Re:Return of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and killing the Ewok teddybear picnic scene to replace it with the galactic partying was a good idea. That scene deserved to be butchered. Even though the new ending has the line "weesa free" said by Jar-Jar in the DVD extended version?

    9. Re:Return of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, why trash someone or a company from making money? Should I disrespect you for working for a living?

      Second, Jackson is adding material that was cut from the theater version which is available. You don't have to buy either/or of them.

      Third, LotR has a lot less merchandise than SW ever did. Remember the late 70's and early 80's?

      Fourth, in an era were multiple editions are possible, why not? Maybe theater release is for video stores and those new fans while expanded is for diehard fans.

      Fifth, comparing Lucas' act to Jackson's is stupid since Jackson said there will be 2 editions of the films while Lucas changed SW films and said that he ignores his fans since they shouldn't have an voice.

      Shut up, troll monger.

  27. In Other News... by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Funny

    A distraught Lord Of The Rings fan has climbed Buckingham Palace disguised as Batman to protest the absence of the valley of Tom Bombadil in the popular movie trilogy.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:In Other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, I thought he did that because the Brits are turning into YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDS. The YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDS from YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDISTAN are bad enough.

  28. Not many people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why the cineamtic release was shorter. Spread it over a week if you are not "24 in 24" hardcore.

  29. Re:Who finds time for this? by Hinhule · · Score: 0

    How about the people who think that the only way to make the 24 series justice is to watch it in one sitting? They will have no problem watching the 3 LOTR films in one sitting.

  30. Director's License by architimmy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hayden Christensen isn't at the end of the extended version is he?

    1. Re:Director's License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he shoukd joinn the LOTR fan club to get a "credit" at the end of Return of the King like he didn't in Return of the Jedi?

    2. Re:Director's License by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Hayden Christensen isn't at the end of the extended version is he?

      No, but Aragorn and Arwen honeymoon on Naboo at the Jar Jar Arms.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  31. never-before-seen? by tomee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never-before-seen footage doesn't sound good. I insist that Peter Jackson look at the footage before releasing it. There just has to be at least some level of quality assurance before these things can be released to the masses.

    1. Re:never-before-seen? by alien_blueprint · · Score: 4, Funny

      There just has to be at least some level of quality assurance before these things can be released to the masses.

      Why start now?

      *ducks* ;)

  32. DIRECT LINK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bypassing the link with a suspicious referrer query string Or do you want to spend all day clicking the monkey for Prince of Wands? Editors, are you allowing this?

  33. The box is Blue!! by kiwioddBall · · Score: 1, Informative

    I mean its Blue - not brown.

    That is going to look really good beside the two brown previous boxsets. Admittedly the two previous shades of brown were slightly different, but this is a very blue shade of brown.

    1. Re:The box is Blue!! by hostyle · · Score: 0

      Strange. Mine are green and brown ...

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    2. Re:The box is Blue!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your eyes tested. You might be red-green insensitive. Perhaps even red-green colourblind.

      Very common in males. And some can suffer from minor symptoms of it, where they have some red-green perception... Unless this is a troll :)

      First one dull green. Second one dull red. Third one dull blue. That's how they look :)

    3. Re:The box is Blue!! by execom · · Score: 1

      You take the blue box and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe.

      You take the brown box and you stay in the Middle-Earth Lands and I show you how deep the hobbit-hole goes.

      --
      I need a Sino-Logic 16. Sogo-7 data-gloves, a GPL stealth module...
    4. Re:The box is Blue!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be horrible being colorblind.. because the two previous sets were green and red, not brown

    5. Re:The box is Blue!! by kiwioddBall · · Score: 1

      Really?? I am indeed Red/Green colourblind... They both look brown to me. I'll have another look tonight.

  34. Re:DIRECT LINK: OOOPS mod me Troll -1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I got confused.

  35. Jackson vs. Lucas by H_Fisher · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You, sir or madam, may be a troll, but it's Sunday and my wits need exercising. :)

    Fun that everyone bashes Lucas for his multiple releases but it is quite silent about Jackson.

    The difference is the handling of the whole thing. Lucas created a story with the original theatrical releases of the Star Wars trilogy - he wasn't using a story that'd been around in one form or another more > 50 years. After he created his story, he went back and changed the story around - making some changes that seem to have pissed off a couple of people here and there...

    Biggest difference with LOTR is the attitude behind the DVD marketing. The changes & omissions from LOTR (especially the cutting of Saruman from ROTK) pissed off some people as badly as Greedo "shooting first." But instead of hiding behind artistic license or "piracy concerns" a la Lucas, Jackson's giving people a choice. He's releasing versions which reincorporate scenes that got cut - AND he's still marketing the theatrical versions for those who want them. (Do thank Jackson for not wetting on your childhood memories when you can load up your DVD, or your BD-ROM rip or whatever, of the original LOTR in 25 years.)

    It's shrewd marketing, of course. Plenty of people will buy the LOTR theatrical disks and then go back and buy the expanded triology. Say what you will about Lucas and his rights to do what he wants with his movies, but I think Jackson's creating a better public image than Lucas - AND he's getting paid for it.

    1. Re:Jackson vs. Lucas by jrumney · · Score: 1
      The difference is the handling of the whole thing. Lucas created a story with the original theatrical releases of the Star Wars trilogy - he wasn't using a story that'd been around in one form or another more > 50 years.

      Granted, neither "The Hero with a thousand faces" nor "Hidden Fortress" had been around for > 50 years when Lucas wrote the screenplay for Star Wars, but they had been around > 35 and > 25 years respectively, and neither was written by Lucas.

    2. Re:Jackson vs. Lucas by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Plus there is one more thing: Peter Jackson will NOT try to do another version of the three films with even longer cuts than the Extended Editions; he already understands the controversy caused by George Lucas making all those changes to the the original three Star Wars films and don't want a repeat.

      Expect a release of all three Extended Editions in a box set some time in 2005.

    3. Re:Jackson vs. Lucas by Xpilot · · Score: 1

      After he created his story, he went back and changed the story around - making some changes that seem to have pissed off a couple of people here and there...

      Big deal. Even Tolkien was also guilty of revisionist history. He changed the Gollum scene in "The Hobbit" after it was published to be better in line with the sequel (in the original, Gollum freely gives away the magic ring as a gift instead of having Bilbo run off with it to Gollum's dismay).

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    4. Re:Jackson vs. Lucas by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Granted, neither "The Hero with a thousand faces" nor "Hidden Fortress" had been around for > 50 years when Lucas wrote the screenplay for Star Wars, but they had been around > 35 and > 25 years respectively, and neither was written by Lucas.

      Have you seen Hidden Fortress? There is a slight resemblance but it is fairly vague. It's not like anyone is going to notice Lucas "messing with the story" because it was already so badly messed up.

      Jedidiah.

    5. Re:Jackson vs. Lucas by Jott42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Tolkien changed a (small) part of Bilbo. But there are some critical differences between this change and the revisions being made by Lucas. Tolkien only changed it once. The first version of Bibo was printed in 1937, the second in 1951. The LoTR was printed in 1954, after the revision of Bilbo. And there, when the groundwork of the sequel was laid, Tolkien stopped.

      Another small detail is that in the frame of how "the Red Book", of which the book "the Hobbit" is supposed to be a part, is presented in the trilogi: It is the story as told and written by Bilbo Baggins (and others), it is not inconcievable that he would write two separate versions, one where he looked nice and one more true. Which still fits within the framework of the world designed by Tolkien. The difference here with Star Wars is that films typically present an "objective" point of view into another reality, and thus presents what "actually" happend, and not what someone remembers. Which makes it more disturbing when they changes.

    6. Re:Jackson vs. Lucas by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      For me, the main difference is announcements.

      You knew, from almost the very beginning, that there would be two realeases. They planned that well before the first movie was even in the theaters, maybe even before filming (too dang long ago to remember exactly).

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with editing a "short" version for theaters - how many are going to run a 250 minute movie - while filming for a long version on home video. Especially if you announce it.

      I purchased several of the editions of Star Wars thinking that each time I had what was the "final" form - or at least close too it. I didn't purchase the last version, not because of the irritants in it (while there, it was minor), but because it seemed to be a money grabber. "Look - here is the greatest edition - get them before they are gone forever!" repeated for each release. In the end, had Lucas been up front with his plans on release I may still have purchased multiple editions because each one had something different I liked, OTOH I do not like feeling like I got screwed so I quit purchasing them.

      Jackson did none of that, it was public and easy to find that they planned multiple releases. I knew I wanted to wait and I did. Now, should PJ serially release updated versions without saying so - then I will not buy them.

      That being said, I guess I'm still goign to get the Star Wars dvd's in some fashion (purchase or copy, haven't decided what it is worth to have a more durable version that I can actually watch - my VCR bit the dust a while back and "Star Wars" is pretty much the only tapes I care about watching). I just wish I had a capture board for the VCR tapes so I could burn to a DVD instead.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  36. Rave scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Did they "extend the rave scene in the cave" to give the movie "more depth"?

    1. Re:Rave scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think your confused with teh matrix

  37. Commentary track(s)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are there commentary track(s) on the special editions? If so, any good?

    1. Re:Commentary track(s)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can answer myself in part, there are four:

      Audio Commentary 1: The Director and Writers
      Peter Jackson (Director/Co-Writer/Producer)
      Fran Walsh (Writer/Co-Producer)
      Philippa Boyens (Co-Write)

      Audio Commentary 2: The Design Team
      Richard Taylor (WETA Workshop Creative Supervisor)
      Tania Rodger (WETA Workshop Manager)
      Grant Major (Production Designer)
      Ngila Dickson (Costume Designer)
      Alan Lee (Conceptual Designer)
      John Howe (Conceptual Designer)
      Dan Hennah (Supervising Art Director/Set Decorator)
      Chris Hennah (Art Department Manager)

      Audio Commentary 3: The Production/Post-Production Team
      Barrie Osborne (Producer)
      Mark Ordesky (Executive Producer)
      Andrew Lesnie (Director of Photography)
      Mike Horton and Jabez Olssen (Editors)
      Rick Porras (Co-Producer)
      Howard Shore (Composer)
      Jim Rygiel (Visual Effects Supervisor)
      Joe Letteri (WETA Digital Effects Supervisor)
      Ethan Van der Ryn (Supervising Sound Editor/Co-Designer)
      Mike Hopkins (Supervising Sound Editor)
      Randy Cook (WETA Animation Designer & Supervisor)
      Christian Rivers (WETA VFX Art Director)
      Brian Van't Hull (WETA VFX Cinematographer)
      Alex Funke (Miniatures Director of Photography)

      Audio Commentary 4: The Cast
      Elijah Wood (Frodo)
      Liv Tyler (Arwen)
      Sean Astin (Sam)
      John Rhys-Davies (Gimli)
      Billy Boyd (Pippin)
      Dominic Monaghan (Merry)
      Orlando Bloom (Legolas)
      Christopher Lee (Saruman)
      Sean Bean (Boromir)
      Bernard Hill (Théoden)
      Miranda Otto (Éowyn)
      David Wenham (Faramir)
      Brad Dourif (Grima)
      Karl Urban (Éomer)
      John Noble (Denethor)

    2. Re:Commentary track(s)? by darthtrevino · · Score: 1

      I read elsewhere that there is a commentary with gollum and smeagol. You know, andy serkis doing the whole bit.... Honestly.. I really hope not. It would be too much like bubba-ho-tep's "The King COmmentary"..and that just wasnt funny,.

  38. Pity those that don't RTFA by Psykechan · · Score: 1

    That was useful. Chalk up another great /. review.

    ThePrinceofWands writes "This DVD set will eviscerate you with pleasure. You will bleed to death."

  39. Whiny Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't be using MY money to buy this. Or many other DVD's either. Why should I have any of my money go to the MPAA so they can buy off my congress-kritters to pass laws which are then used to beat me over the head.

    Too bad other consumers lack the backbone to hit these corporations the only way they understand - in the pocketbook. I guess the lure of the shiny disk on thier finger to get 250 mins of escape from their dreary existance is too powerful.

  40. Specs, eh? by Arivia · · Score: 1

    RotK Extended Edition System Requirements: -A DVD Player -1 Day of Spare Time -$77.95 or such

    --
    The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
  41. I like my taters raw and wriggley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The always invokes a slack jawed open mouthed response from the counter clerks at McD's. But then that's their response to anything.

  42. Link is wrong by Blairby · · Score: 1

    The link in the article is wrong... the correct link is http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_400_hv_home.ht ml

    1. Re:Link is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is yours.

  43. 25% More Fake Endings! by Mulletproof · · Score: 2, Funny

    25% more? How many times will this movie end now?? I was only fooled into getting out of my seat, what, three times in the normal version before the movie really ended...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by Zarhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Movies do not end until the credits have finished and the projector has been switched off. I hate it when everybody just starts getting up when "Directed by" flashes into the screen and getting their jackets and starting to call their friends on their cellphones etc.

      When credits roll, you have time to digest and go through the movie experience, relax, and reflect, while still maintaining the 'mood' that the movie has created. (Especially if you happen to be on a date and watching a 'chick-flick' - you can keep the nice, romantic feeling going instead of rushing into the jam-packed exits and stepping on other people's toes). Granted, this may not apply to all brainless actionflicks, but I digress..

      I'm glad that more recently, more and more movies are putting stuff (some little joke or something) after the credits (Pirates of the Caribbean:Undead monkey comes at you, Phantom Menace: Darth Vader's breath, etc. See IMDB:s "crazy credits" for more details.). Makes more folks stay PUT until the movie is really finished. Of course, people like Jackie Chan have always inserted bloopers to the credits sequence..keeps people in their seats.

      So, if you got up at the end of RoTK for three times...well, too bad! If you really were in such a hurry why didn't you leave on the first time? You could at least wait through the initial credits sequence (Director, cast etc) if you are not interested in names of key grips and listening to the soundtrack in the theatre is not good enough for you.

    2. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When credits roll, you have time to digest and go through the movie experience, relax, and reflect, while still maintaining the 'mood' that the movie has created

      Some people don't like mull over what they just saw, like a cow chewing crud.

      If a movie leaves you breathless and speechless and touches you so deep that you simply need time to compose yourself, that's another matter. But as a self-serving display of fake sensitivity it's just a waste of time.

    3. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had to take a piss really bad but just doesn't want to admit it.

    4. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Simple fix: When you see credits, get up. Not before.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    5. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      No offense, but your post comes off as one of those fellas who just got out of film school.

      The credit sequence is designed for just that ... to give credit to those who worked on the film. It is not part of the story. Sure, they might incorporate story like elements to asist this mundane sequence but at the end of your typical movie (dare I say film), the story ends at FADE OUT (which confused the fuck out of a gazillion people in ROTK because the movie faded out like seven times) Usually, the people who get miffed at those audience members who leave are the ones who brought coffee to the director, woked as an assistant wardrobe, or just got out of film school. As an audience member, the only useful information I am aquiring from the credits is basic cocktail conversation ammo (oh, did you know this person did such and such on that movie). Sure, you might see some witty footage aimed for those people who do sit through it, but let's face it, it's just a gag.

      Now, I know some movies play around with this sequence. Take the latest Dawn of the Dead where the movie continued during the credit sequence and brought closure to the story. That is a case where you'd be correct. Otherwise, you come off sounding pretentious.

    6. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Ah, I was wondering who that other person sitting alone in that row over there was as the masses went fleeing for the exit. Now I know, and I'm glad to meetcha.

      I completely agree with what you said. Oh, there are some movies I don't care for and so I get up right away. But usually I like to stay for the credits, and mostly for the reason you gave: to stay in the movie state for as long as I can. We enter a different conscious state when we watch movies. That state is broken when the movie ends, and is really broken when you turn around up the aisle and start jostling the crowds as you flee for your car. If you have just watched a great movie, what's the rush? Why not enjoy the end music that is designed to encapsulate the mood of the movie? If it's a modern day drama, you can see where it was filmed, you can catch the music credits to see who is singing those songs (hey, whaddya know, the cast of Chicago really did their own singing!), you can see in the credits who played that third guy from the left whose face seemed so familiar but you can't quite put a name to his face, and so on.

      And with RoTK, if you left early you left without seeing those beautiful paintings of the main characters, and as the only time the end song was played. Those were worth staying for. So let people snipe at you by saying, 'Duh, I can think about those things as I drive away in my car' (in a totally different state of mind while you obey traffic laws), or 'Dude, you're stuck up cuz you think you're better than me' (when this is not a comparison of people with people). Staying for the end credits is worth doing.

    7. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by wuice · · Score: 1

      If this is how you feel about the movie, don't ever read the book. You might put it down five or six times thinking it's "over" before it really is.

    8. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Now, I know some movies play around with this sequence. Take the latest Dawn of the Dead where the movie continued during the credit sequence and brought closure to the story. That is a case where you'd be correct. Otherwise, you come off sounding pretentious.


      I often sit through the credits at the end of the film. Noting cast, director and screenwriter can be useful information to know (for when you see their names cropping up advertsising a new film), but the reason I tend to stay to the end is song and soundtrack information - if I particularly enjoyed the score, or noted a song used that i liked, or was familiar its always nice to be able to see exactly what it was and who it was by, and whether a soundtrack is available. All of that information is in the credits, but it is almost always at the end.

      I agree the "but you must stay for the artistic integrity" is kind of pretentious, but the credits do contain information worth knowing.

      Jedidiah.

    9. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Except in Around the World in 80 Days, a Jackie Chan movie that had NO OUTTAKES! Biggest rip-off in history.

    10. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by fmita · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the original poster's point. Plot action in a traditional story climaxes and then has a resolution. This movie had a climax (and what a climax it was), but way too many instances of resolution. He doesn't mean (I think) the explicit credits-roll defition of ending. He means they're just going to toy with our emotions again and give us a sense of closure...then a sense of closure for that sense of closure...and so on.

    11. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it did, the whole movie was a giant, long outtake.

    12. Re:25% More Fake Endings! by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1

      I got what the original poster was saying, and know it was RoTK specific, and that's cool. I was commenting on what the other guy said, however. I'm so used to seeing the entire theatre mass up as one to exit, that I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who enjoys sitting there and then exiting at my leisure without any crowds at all.

  44. THE SECRET DIARY OF ARAGORN SON OF ARATHORN by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Day One:
    Ringwraiths killed: 4. V. good.
    Met up with Hobbits. Walked forty miles. Skinned a squirrel and ate it.
    Still not King.

    Day Four:
    Stuck on mountain with Hobbits. Boromir really annoying.
    Not King yet.

    Day Six:
    Orcs killed: none. Disappointing. Stubble update: I look rugged and manly.
    Yes!
    Keep wanting to drop-kick Gimli. Holding myself back.
    Still not King.

    Day Ten:
    Sorry no entries lately. V. dark in Mines of Moria. Big Baelrog.
    Not King today either.

    Day Eleven:
    Orcs killed: 7. V. good. Stubble update: Looking mangy.
    Legolas may be hotter than me.
    I wonder if he would like me if I was King?

    Day 28:
    Beginning to find Frodo disturbingly attractive. Have a feeling if I make
    a move, Sam would kill me. Also, hairy feet kind of a turn-off.
    Still not King.

    Day 30:
    In Lothlorien. Think Galadriel was hitting on me. Saucy wench.
    Nice chat with Boromir. He's not so bad.
    Took a shower. Yay!
    But still not King.

    Day 32:
    Orcs killed: none. Stubble update: subtly hairy.
    Legolas told me that a shadow and a threat had been growing in his mind.
    I think Legolas might be kinda gay.
    Nope, not King.

    Day 33:
    Orcs killed: Countless thousands. V. good.
    Boromir killed by Orcs. Bummer. Though he died bravely in my arms, am now
    quite sure that he was very definitely gay.
    Not so sure about Gimli either.
    RIP Boromir.
    Still not King, but at least Boromir seemed to think I was. Might however
    have been blood loss.

    Day 34:
    Frodo went to Mordor. Said he was going alone, but took Sam with him. Why?
    My God, is everyone in this movie gay but me?
    Not so sure about me either.
    Still not King, goddammit.

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    1. Re:THE SECRET DIARY OF ARAGORN SON OF ARATHORN by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Meh. If you want to read the rest: LOTR Diary Joke

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    2. Re:THE SECRET DIARY OF ARAGORN SON OF ARATHORN by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Day 42:
      Beginning to wonder how long this whole ordeal is going to be.
      I heard a voice in the sky saying the word "crossover", I don't know what that means. Ran into some squidy looking character trying to convince me it was, is his words, "a trap".
      Still not King, but suddenly feel compeled to investigate something called the "force".

    3. Re:THE SECRET DIARY OF ARAGORN SON OF ARATHORN by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0

      Is there any point in posting? This has turned into a viscious cycle of:
      Step 1) People moderate the parent up +1 funny
      Step 2) Someone else moderates down with: Overrated (-1).

      My karma has just turned from good to bad for this. Thoughts?

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  45. I'm sorry for my lack of sources by Lifix · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry for my lack of sources, but.... I was under the impression from reading IMDB and a few other web sites that ROTK wasn't going to come out on DVD until they put the extended addition back out in theaters. I had thought that they planned to send ROTK back to theaters to announce that they were finally done with the film the way Peter Jackson wanted it to be and that the Extended Editions werer the real versions.

    anyone?

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
    1. Re:I'm sorry for my lack of sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Extended Editions werer the real versions.

      Peter Jackson has stated on record that the original versions released in theatres are the "real" versions. He said in the commentary to (I think) Two Towers that they filmed so much stuff simply because it was cool!

      The Extended Editions are simply an acknowledgement that LOTR is simply too huge and deep to compress into even three long films. Most people won't be interested in the extra stuff the Extended Editions have to offer, but they're being released so the people who do want to see them have the chance to do so.

  46. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TO ALCOHOL!

    The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.

  47. LOTR by Dance+Macabre · · Score: 1

    This is the movie that I have been wanting to see.. and for all you trolls out there at least Peter is releasing it to DVD when compared to that George guy...

  48. Episode I by michaeldot · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Peter Jackson does get the rights/funding to make The Hobbit, then that will in effect be Episode I of the LOTR saga.

    I can't wait to see the cynicism from the cognoscenti once they learn there's a prequel in the works: "the actor who plays young Bilbo is terrible and he doesn't even sound like James Earl Jones, why did they have to destroy my childhood?"

    1. Re:Episode I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Young Bilbo" should be played by Ian Holm.
      Like Gandalf says when he first sees Bilbo in the shire: "You haven't aged a day".

  49. I may have missed something but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    may I translate the article into proper english?

    Here we go:

    The Object Modeling Group has just released "25%"! - More unbelievable greatness, version code named LotR and ROTFL!

    The epic trilogy has now a final installer!

    A video how to install it is distributed with the software, it has won many academy awards. The film is about 250 minutes long, a 50 minute long descriptions shows how to install it into GNOME ("footage").

    We thank BMG, Time/Warner and Microsoft for making the DISCS 1-2 available!

    Order now under ...

    Heaven, I thought that slashdot was a good news site, but now its time to feel sorry for the slashdot folks...

    [EOF]

  50. Does it have... by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...more Liv Tyler? I'd pay to have more Liv. Liv Tyler is really hot. That's what I found was lacking in the original DVD set. Not enough Liv Tyler. Did I mention I like Liv Tyler?

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:Does it have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why? Miranda Otto is way prettier than Liv. Oh, and she can fight too.

      Turbo Smorgreff

    2. Re:Does it have... by Justin205 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if it comforts you, she seems to have plans to do a nude photo shoot early next year, after childbirth...

      --
      "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  51. Re:Lord of the retail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you really that dumb?

    The movie pushed 3 hours long itself in the theatrical release. Leaving out the extra footage was done in the interest of time. I personally welcome the multiple versions, as not everyone is HARDCORE about seeing every detail and sitting through a 4-hour movie. This isn't some trick to suck the money out of people, it's meant to cater to all types of viewers.

    Let's not confuse Peter Jackson and George Lucas.

    Additionally, if you don't see the extra value in the extended edition, then don't buy it. It's pretty simple...

  52. Extended Edition? That means it's time to... by Performaman · · Score: 1

    break out the Depends and catheters.

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  53. Release date? by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something... but where does it say when this Extended Edition will actually be released? It says it can be pre-ordered as of October 1, but when does it ship?

    1. Re:Release date? by Badfysh · · Score: 1

      In the UK it's the 22nd of November, I assume it's the same for the rest of the World since we can also pre-order in October. http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/edv9251.htm

      --

      I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.

  54. Re:You know... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If any of the stuff they cut actually made the movie better they would have left it in the theatrical edition.

    What you mean is "If any of the stuff they cut actually made the movie better in theaters they would have left it in the theatrical edition."

    DVD is not theater - different audience (fans), different viewing environment (couch, pause button, etc), all of which means that the judgement of what is "best" is different. And it seems to favour longer movies, with more extras.

    e.g. for the first 2 LotR movies, the DVD versions are in my opinion far superior, but I don't know if I could have sat through either in a cinema.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  55. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, no, it does make it better. At least, it did with both the previous two. Sad fact is, you cannot push long movies into theaters any more... they are so frightened to lose a single dollar that they insist on getting in as many showings per day as they can. Just the theatrical release was too long for their liking. Your last statement is wrong here, too. The extended scenes were worked on AFTER the thatrical release, even some filming has been done for them after it. Sorry your experiences with other "director's cuts" were bad (and I know what you're describing is common), but it's just not true in this case.

  56. It's like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little trail of marketing crumbs, and you can just follow right behind them, picking them up the whole way. In the old days, people found their way out of labryniths and forests, just like that.

    Hmmmmm...are we being led out, or in?

  57. Ahh...plagarism... by Zanthany · · Score: 4, Informative

    The good ol' Pervy Hobbit Fancier's Diary.

    If you want to read the originals, direct from the original author, pleased to be visiting http://www.livejournal.com/users/cassieclaire/.

    Thanking you.

  58. Appropriate pvponline.com Comic Strip by bajan_on_ice · · Score: 1
    --
    "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
  59. Re:You know... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    "If any of the stuff they cut actually made the movie better they would have left it in the theatrical edition."

    Mmm, no the theatrical version was cut for time because you can't show a 4+ hour movie in a cinema today. Had there been no time limit, this probably would have been the version in the cinema.

    "Remember these are not director's cuts where the director is given the freedom to include (or leave out, think Blade Runner) whatever he wants in the film"

    Um, yes, it is.

    So that post is 'insightful'? Should be moderated '-5, Talking Out Of Backside', IMHO.

  60. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because Tom Bombadil is, by far, the most interesting character in all of Middle-Earth.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  61. CASSANDRA CLAIRE is the original author. by SemperUbi · · Score: 1
  62. you are so gay by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    When credits roll, you have time to digest and go through the movie experience, relax, and reflect, while still maintaining the 'mood' that the movie has created.

    And what is preventing you from doing this on your way out to the car along with the rest of the non-anal-retentive audience?

    You could at least wait through the initial credits sequence

    Why? Should we take notes on who the 10 co-executive producers are?

    Look, if you want to hang around to the end of the credits, that's your business. But don't put on airs of superiority just because your time is so worthless that you have to sit around through a list of a thousand names of people that are completely irrelevant to your existence.

  63. Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound ??? by alacar · · Score: 0
    From the site: Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound

    Did they remix the center rear channel into the right and left rear speaker or what???

    1. Re:Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound ??? by gr8dalmatian · · Score: 1

      You're right. I hope that was a typo.

    2. Re:Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound ??? by martinthebrit · · Score: 1

      >Did they remix the center rear channel into the >right and left rear speaker or what??? Er, yes. DD EX's 6th channel is matrixed into the SR and SL channels, so, strictly speaking, there are only 6 (5.1) discreet channels. If you have a 6th speaker and compatible reciever, the matrixed channel is extracted, as a Dolby Surround/Pro Logic track is.

  64. Now if only... by crashnbur · · Score: 1

    Now if only they would move that last weird sequence of scenes -- everything after Frodo and Sam are saved from Mount Doom -- to the end of the credits, then I would feel like I have watched a single, massive, coherent movie.

    As it stands, the last 20 minutes really irk me. The silly laughing and and slow motion and curtain-call-like greetings are way overdone, such that they do not belong within the context of the actual movie... in my opinion.

  65. blah blah blah by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You should be Bush's press secretary if he gets reelected, so you can bitch about things that no one is complaining about.

    You seem to think you are very clever by pointing out that Jackson announced two different versions long before release. Well guess what Scooter, did you honestly think we didn't know this already?

    STFU and go back to begging to be allowed into your local Mensa chapter with your pseudo-cleverness.

  66. To be released December 14 by crashnbur · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know tons of LOTR fans already know the release date, but I hadn't bothered to look yet since I was waiting on announcements about this specific edition. So for those not in the know, the Extended Edition of Return of the King will be available December 14.

  67. Re:You know... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
    What exactly did they add in the extended editions? The first had an extra beginning (with Bilbo reading his book). Did that add anything to the story? No. Did it hurt the story? In my opinion, yes. Two introductions to the Shire (Bilbo's reading and then Frodo and Gandalf) are redundant, and just mean that it just takes forever to get to the actual story. In the second, they added a funeral scene for the King's son (his name escapes me for the moment). It was a nice scene, but did it help the movie? No, in fact it killed the next scene. Instead of cutting from Theoden asking "Where is my son?" straight to the flower rising on his grave (which makes for a very nice emotional cut), it is diluted by the funeral scene. And then there are many other scenes which serve no purpose other than screwing the timing. Cutting those are decisions the editor makes, and for good reasons.

    Even on a DVD, these are still movies. And thus they need to take in account needs that the medium require. If you want the full story, turn off the TV, go to your local library, and read the damn books.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  68. Pre-order link takes you to the theatrical release by Zemrec · · Score: 1

    Hasn't anyone else noticed that the pre-order link brings up the widescreen theatrical release, and NOT the extended edition?
    WTF?

    And I tried looking on Newline's site but can't find it there either.

    WTF?

    Preciousssss I's needs the PRECIOUSSSSS WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  69. Um, no. What a fucking troll. by devphil · · Score: 1


    that have even more footage than all the previous extended versions combined.

    Oh, give it a fucking rest. Jackson is done with the project. Unlike Lucas, he knows how to move on with his professional life. Besides, the scenes on the on the extended editions involve a fair amount more work than just dropping in some digital footage a la Lucas. That limits the number of times it can be done to "once".

    Of course they're going to release a complete boxed set. The DVD content will be what you can get now. I imagine they'll throw in some extras in the packaging (posters or whatnot), but they're hardly going to be able to slip in extra dialogue or scenes.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  70. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by wuice · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Important is a relative term. It's an opinion. Tom Bombadil, for many people, is one of the most memorable and entertaining characters in Lord of the Rings. I believe sacrifices must be made in movies.

    To me, the loss of Tom Bombadil doesn't make the movies suffer so much for missing Tom Bombadil himself, but more the fact that they're never in the Barrow-Downs, Merry never recieves his Westernesse-enchanted blade, and the ability of him and Eowyn to kill the Witch King of Angmar makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But maybe only a Tolkien nerd would care about that.

    The only downside to making movies of these wonderful books is that so much of the essence of the story in Lord of the Rings isn't about the destination, but the journey. In a movie, the journey is the first thing on the cutting room floor.

  71. Re:Israel did it! by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

    Someone throw this guy into Mount Doom for me.

  72. Here's the name of the file you want....... by Turboglh · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I first heard it on the trailer for the two towers I almost wet myself, thats almost, took a while but the full mix is out there. Two Towers - Lux Aeterna Orchesta Remix.mp3

  73. Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by inkswamp · · Score: 1
    Yeah, we're all going to explain away the double-standard of praising Jackson while denouncing George Lucas for creating new versions of the movies. Like it or not, it's basically the same thing. You can argue the finer points, the rationale behind it, the impact it has on your childhood memories, etc., etc., but both are still changing the theatrical release to suit their preference. It's the same no matter how you slice it. (And remember, the "old" versions of the SW trilogy are available, just not on DVD so that argument doesn't hold water.)

    And one thing to keep in mind: if George Lucas hadn't pioneered the path first, filmmakers like Jackson would have a much more difficult time getting studios to go along with such massive projects and additional, extended DVD releases. Praise Jackson all you want, but maybe next time, tone down the screams of anguish and accusations of hypocrisy directed at George Lucas. His trilogy was made in much more difficult circumstances, using a great deal of his own money, while trying to change the playing field with the corporate studios. He never had the kind of opportunities to release extended versions shortly after the theatrical releases came to video, and the only reason directors like Jackson even stand a chance is because guys like Lucas showed that those kinds of films can be wildly profitable.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by Jott42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the (big!) difference is that in the case of LoTR, you have a choice: both versions are or will be available. With Star Wars you have no choice: only the "revised" version is available. (In shops. Now. In a current format. etc.)

    2. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      You do have a choice, but you are limited to formats other than DVD. I agree that it sucks, but when you get right down to it, it's the same thing: each director changed the theatrical release. I mean, if that's the way they preferred the film to be, why didn't they release it that way to the theater in the first place? That's a rhetorical question, btw. That's the argument used against Lucas but quickly discarded when it comes to Jackson.

      This argument cuts both ways and because George Lucas is the current villain of Slashdot and Peter Jackson is the current knight in shining armor, nobody cops to it.

      So now I'm curious to hear from the Slashdot crowd whether George Lucas isn't quite as evil as he was last week or whether Peter Jackson is now the anti-Christ for daring to alter the precious theatrical releases of his trilogy.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    3. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by Jott42 · · Score: 1

      I do not have the choice: The "original" version is not marketed by anyone right now. I have to try to find it second-hand. Which is not the same thing.

      And the fundamental difference is that films of LoTR is, by necessity, an intrepretation of an already existing piece of fiction. But the first Star Wars defined the story. Then any alterations to that story becomes an alteration the the viewers concept of the "star wars"-reality. And such alterations strains the suspension of disbelief.

      I am sorry, but I do not find the two cases even remotly similar.

    4. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by Ryunosuke · · Score: 1

      I understand what you're saying, and while I think you're making perfect sense; stop and think for a moment. We all knew when they were in the theater that an "uncut" version was due some time after the movie(s) were out, yes? This was not the case with Star Wars. In fact, as far as I can tell, he's not editing and changing scenes (in LOTR), but adding in things that had to be cut for the theater. While similar, these two events should not be compared to each other, unless you're trying to troll.

    5. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You do have a choice, but you are limited to formats other than DVD. I agree that it sucks, but when you get right down to it, it's the same thing: each director changed the theatrical release.

      Jackson come right out and says that the theatrical version is the version that he considers to be his best effort, while the extended version is something he produced for the enjoyment of the hard core fans. This is completely different from Lucas who does have any consideration whatsoever for the people who prefer the original version. With him you must take my version, if you don't like it tough. If the fans like the original, too bad, because you aren't going to get it.

      LD is not a realistic option. While there are used copies out there they don't look that great (I know, I own a set), are starting to go bad in storage (my EpIV won't play the last 10 minutes), and keeping the LD players going is becoming a chore. I believe that there is only one LD player currently in production, and it costs about $1000. A long time ago I purchased DVD versions of the movies in my LD collection for simple reason that it was cheaper and they look better on DVD. Now do you know what were the ONLY films I couldn't get in nice high-res DVD? The original Star Wars trilogy.

      A big pie in the face for you, George!

      And a small one for you for not being able to see the difference between Lucas and Jackson.

    6. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by bhima · · Score: 1

      I can explain it simply: there is no "Jar Jar Binks" in the LotR trilogy.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    7. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      There is actually a big difference though. Aside from the fact that Jackson announced before the first DVD release that he was going to be releasing the extended editions, his changes are also just recuts. That is, scenes were added, removed, and cut together differently. Lucas actually changed scenes, such as the wonderful "Greedo Shoots First" debacle, whereas Jackson is only adding scenes. If Lucas were just adding things, I, for one, and I'm sure many others, would have no problems with the new editions. For that matter, replacing the dewbacs with CJ so they could move, digital touchups of a lot of the battle scenes, and general technical improvements, are also okay. It's just changing the actual content of a scene that really makes a lot of us mad at Lucas. Plus, since Jackson told us ahead of time about the extended editions of LotR, I've always seen the theatrical releases as previews of the "real" movie which is straight-to-DVD. Then again, that's because having read the books, viewing the theatrical releases as the "real" movies would make me extremely angry.

    8. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, if that's the way they preferred the film to be, why didn't they release it that way to the theater in the first place?

      Because you can't seriously get away with releasing 4 hour movies to the theatre? The extended editions have always been intended for the die-hard fans who want every scrap they can get hold of, not for the regular cinema-going audience. And while the former are a big enough market to make it worth releasing the extended version, it's too small a market to make a movie just for them that no one else will want to see.

    9. Re:Before we all gang up on George Lucas again by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      There was a transfer to DVD from LaserDisc of the original theatrical versions floating around at one stage - we got a copy from a friend. They include the special features disc from the LD version also.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  74. No, I think we get to see that anyhow... by devphil · · Score: 2, Interesting


    One of the teaser-trailer-for-TV clips, I think, showed Aragorn holding a palantir wrapped in a towel and saying something sound-bite-ish. Since all of that segment of story was moved from TTT to ROTK, it would make sense for this scene to be in their third film as well.

    Counter-argument: in the movie, Aragorn and Co are surprised by Sauron's attack on Minas Tirith. In the book, Aragorn uses the palantir to let Sauron know that he is alive and kicking, in order to jolt Sauron into attacking before his armies are fully prepared. So if the movie shows Aragorn flipping Sauron the bird via one of the Stones, then Aragorn shouldn't be so surprised later on.

    (Related to the "Aragorn Battles Sauron" concept: did you notice than just before Aragorn leads the final charge, Sauron speaks to him? Calls him once by his name, and then a second time by his title. That was a nice nod.)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  75. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  76. Re:You know... by wuice · · Score: 1

    It's called catering to different markets. Nobody's forcing you to buy the extended editing. And I highly doubt they're throwing in *every* cut scene. Each movie would probably be 4 hours long if that were the case.

  77. Question to those LOTR Diehards by prozac79 · · Score: 1

    I have intentionally not bought any of the extended editions until all three of them are out. Now, for those of you in the know, are there plans to bundle all three extended editions into one boxed set to have some sort of definitive edition, or will owning the three extended editions individually give me the same content? I can't imagine that there is possibly anything more that can be put into the DVD's, but I want to know what Jackson's plans are. I can't wait to own all three standard editions, but I just want to make sure that I don't buy the three individually only to learn that a super-duper boxed set is around the corner. I know we can't fortell the future, but has anyone read or heard what the plans are?

    --
    "Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
  78. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody would give a shit about Lucas' recutting his movies if he made the original ones available on DVD. And not only are they unavailable on DVD, you can't even buy the digitally remastered ones except in his fucked up recut. Doubly inferior.

    1. Re:YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      Oh, I see, because they aren't on the format you prefer, then it's all different. Still, a double standard. You know it too, otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a childish response as an AC.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up. Lucas owns the SW copyright and can do as he pleases. If he wants SW never to be released again for 200 years, it's his choice. SW fans really need to grow up and let Lucas alter the films as he sees fit. Once he gets enough feedback (sales), he'll release the originals but who cares? I like the added material in SW and the Greedo shoots first arguement is gay since Lucas done something cool: Han is Force sensitive.

      Watch the scene and look where Han puts his left hand on the wall. H looks like he is scratching a spot on the wall. Then Han and Greedo shoot. Greedo shoots the spot where Han was scratching the wall. When Han chases the stormtroopers and runs back, he scared them with the Force. Until Empire, we don't have an idea he can use the Force subconciously till he navigates the astroid field.

      SW fans tends to be dumber than Star Trek fans. All hail LOTR!

  79. It could be worse.... 9/22 ain't 9/22 by devphil · · Score: 4, Insightful


    A truly hopelessly geeky Tolkien nerd would point out that the Shire calendar was offset from the British calendar by several days. Tolkien described it all in the Appendices.

    Damn, now I've outed myself.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  80. I also wait until the end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since I typically drive, my friends end up waiting too.

    But you sound like an even bigger ass than the last guy.

    I'm glad you two like watching credits. I do too. But it use up to either to you to tell other people how to enjoy a movie.

    1. Re:I also wait until the end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But it use up to either to you to tell other people how to enjoy a movie.

      Given the number of incorrectly chosen words in this sentence, you might as well just have written "But...". The meaning of the rest has to be guessed in any case.

    2. Re:I also wait until the end... by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1
      I support everyone's right to do whatever they want. I'm not telling anyone how to enjoy a movie. I'm talking about how I enjoy a movie. If you want to examine my reasons and see if it applies to you, go for it. If you want to reject my reasons, that's cool.

      That's the beauty of opinions. We all have them, and we can back them up with our reasons why. What works for you may not work for me, and there ain't nothing wrong with that. But since you also wait unti the end, and you also like watching credits, I would think you could at least comment on my reasons in support of my opinion, or tell us why you like to wait, rather than call me a name.

  81. Re:You know... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    What exactly did they add in the extended editions? The first had an extra beginning (with Bilbo reading his book). Did that add anything to the story? No. Did it hurt the story? In my opinion, yes.

    Well, I thought that the pacing of the DVD versions of FotR and T2T was better, less rushed and choppy. Your milage may vary.

    If you want the full story, turn off the TV, go to your local library, and read the damn books.

    Been there, done that several times. That's part of why I like the longer films.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  82. The first two were red and green... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you insensitive clod.

  83. Movie Trilogy of the Beast by pudge · · Score: 3, Funny

    Extended edition running times of FotR: 208, tTT: 208, LotR: 250. Combined: 666.

    1. Re:Movie Trilogy of the Beast by earlgreen · · Score: 1
      Extended edition running times of FotR: 208, tTT: 208, LotR: 250. Combined: 666.

      Right, and the website forgets to mention Bill Gate's cameo as Sauron.

  84. Does this mean no room for easter eggs? by Bob+Bitchen · · Score: 1

    I'd be really dissappointed if they added the 50 min. and left no room on the DVD for easter eggs. Or will that come on a separate DVD?

    Don't laugh until you hear the laugh track.

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/3t236
  85. Re:You know... by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

    PJ said that he wanted Frodo to be the focus of the theatrical editions, the character and the changes he goes through.

    The EE is more all-encompassing, giving more importance to the various places, people, and things to help flesh out the world.

    The irony here is that the pacing of the theatrical editions also wound up removing some of the slower, more character-driven scenes that would have benefitted a more character-centric edit.

    So in addition to these expository "diversions" like the Bilbo scene you have many other details like the extended fencing thing with Boromir that really help make the characters more three-dimensional rather than just running from one chase to another.

  86. Re:You know... by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree with you. The average running time of movies is going up, driven largely by Titanic and other movies that claim to be epics.

    It's just that once you pass the 3 hour mark you really limit how many times you can show a movie. However, up to that point you can compensate pretty easily by dedicating multiple screens to the same movie.

    Kill Bill was never epic enough to justify Tarantino's requested running time, which is why it was split into two.

    I also think the two Civil War movies that Ted Turner did went over the line on running time.

    But in general I think the studios are okay with releasing movies up to 3 hours long if they are genuine spectacles.

  87. BITTORRENT LINK RIGHT HERE!!! REAL! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1

    Just kidding :)

    Go out and buy it you sneaky bastards!

  88. Re:You know... by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

    That's not true. Scriptwriters generally know how long a movie is going to be when they are writing it. It's roughly 1 minute per page average.

    While most movies have at least one or two cut scenes, they are usually only a few minutes long total.

    This extended edition stuff is probably only going to be the domain of adaptations that require a lot of cutting down for screentime, and only in the case of productions which intentionally shoot large chunks of story they know they can't get into the theatrical edition.

    Perhaps PJ will influence this kind of moviemaking, but not everyone follows that path.

    Compare the cut scene percentage of LOTR vs. the Harry Potter DVDs for instance.

    Most filmmakers are too disciplined to shoot so much footage they know can only potentially be shown on DVD. It won't happen unless there is a mandate from the studios to spend the time and effort on it.

    Lensing the pages of LOTR was seen as a civic duty by PJ which is why he pushed to do it that way. Most other literature adapted to screen is seen more as a product and not so much a sacred cultural artifact.

  89. Carelessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ria* is suing 12 year olds, but look at this new shiny imusic player and new song downloading services. The mpa* is using dark vision goggles in cinemas, but "OMG! It's official, 25% more unbelievable greatness in this version."

    They both use DRM and re-write copyright laws, but oh look at the shiny contents they're selling. Ironic is a lesson in the story has taught nothing.

  90. Hobbit Love by xombo · · Score: 2

    Maybe they'll extend that cheesy love scene between Sam and Frodo at the end, we all know where it was going. "Oh Sam" C'mon.

  91. You care who the assistant to the key grip was? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sit through enough crap at the beginning of a movie that lists virtually everything important. Directors, producers, headliners. If there's a particularly good supporting actor I migh stick around to find out who they were, but that's it. And I certainly won't feel beholden to do so.

    How many electricians/plumbers/caterers do you know? Do you honestly believe this enhances your movie going pleasure? Hey look! the caterers for RotK were the same as in Two towers! It's gotta be good!

    The only case where I want to see the dribble in the credits is when there is new content (i.e. out-takes).

    I abhor sitting around like a moron waiting for the sound-track information to come by, because if that's what I want, I'll go buy the damn sound-track.
    but you have at least one good point... if that guy gets up 3 times before the end, then he's an idiot too.

  92. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by RWerp · · Score: 1

    Merry never recieves his Westernesse-enchanted blade, and the ability of him and Eowyn to kill the Witch King of Angmar makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    In the movie, the hobbits get their blades from Aragorn. As a Dunedain, he could have some Westernesse-enchanted blades. Makes sense to me.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  93. New scenes by Earlybird · · Score: 4, Informative

    TheOneRing.net reports on confirmed and presumed new scenes in the extended edition.

  94. So, when does the... by Cyn · · Score: 1

    "I just want to watch all 3 back to back like they appeared in the goddamned theatre" edition come out?

    That's the one I want. So it doesn't feel like work.

    --
    cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
    1. Re:So, when does the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been out for a while. Check amazon.com or your local store that sells DVDs. There has been a box set of the theatrical editions for a while now that just packages the original theatrical dvd packs in a box.

  95. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always thought the fact that Merry and Eowyn are not Men was the critical factor. Anduril is a much more powerful weapon than Merry's, but I doubt Aragorn could have used it to kill the Witch King.

  96. This is the 50 missing minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Gandalf vs Saruman showdown. Ends up with Saruman being impaled on a big wheel, and Wormtongue throwing the Palantir from the tower

    - Witchking of Angmar vs Gandalf showdown. WoA lands with a Fell Beast on the wall and confronts Gandalf. Swords are clashed, ends when the Rohirrim charges and WoA leaves

    - Aragorn & Gandalf confronts Mouth of Sauron at the Gates of Mordor

    - More Battle of Pelennor Fields

    - More Battle of Pelennor Fields

    - Death of Gothmog at the hands of Eomer at Pelennor Fields

    - More Battle of Pelennor Fields

    - Easterlings at Battle of Pelennor Fields

    - More Battle of Pelennor Fields

    - More Battle of Pelennor Fields

    - Romance between Eowyn and Faramir at Houses of Healing

    - More Paths of the Dead

    and a few extended scenes

  97. Fuck It! by multiplexo · · Score: 1
    I'm going to buy both versions of the trilogy, the theatrical release and the super-duper footage engorged versions. Sure, people will think I'm weird and obsessive, but then hey, I'm a 39 year old man who lives alone with a collection of guns and comic books who spends lots of time on /. so it's not like they don't think that already.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  98. Re:You know... by K8Fan · · Score: 1
    for the first 2 LotR movies, the DVD versions are in my opinion far superior, but I don't know if I could have sat through either in a cinema.

    My wife and I did and we loved it. Trilogy Tuesday, we were able to see the extended versions of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers before the premiere of The Return of the King. Most people would think you'd have to be insane to want to spend 12 hours in a theater. Luckliy, none of those people were there in the theater with us. It was our 21st anniversary, and we spent it in the company of 400 other people who loved the same thing we did. Best audience I've ever seen a movie with.

    I wish they'd promote the DVD release by doing it again this year and show all three extended films in a row. I'd happily pay $50 a ticket for the privilege.

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  99. Re:You know... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
    Once again, if what you want is three-dimensional characters, I've got a few books for you to read.

    Yeah, I know some of the scenes in the extended editions were good, but others just ruined them. I already mentioned the opening scene and the funeral scene, but another that comes to mind is the flashback with Faramir and Boromir before Boromir leaves. That particular scene was not accurate to what the book said and only served to make Faramir look like a whiny little brat, which is very different than how he is portreyed in the books.

    Again, an actual director's cut with only the scenes that bring something positive to the movie (or swapping in cut scenes for redundant existing scenes) would be nice, but don't fool yourself into thinking that is what you are buying when you get the extended edition.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  100. This time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombadil shoots first!

  101. The importance of Tom Bombadil by GeorgeVW · · Score: 1

    Just one man's opinion, of course, but to me, the significance of Tom Bombadil's cameo appearance in LOTR is the revelation that the Ring of Power does not, in fact, hold sway over all of Middle Earth.

    1. Re:The importance of Tom Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well a similar scene was included on the fellowship extended DVD. Jack Black got himself a nice penial enhancement and the ring obviously didn't do anything to him.

  102. Netcraft confirms it by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
    Rather, a /. nerd would point out this:
    Cortana:~ christophermeyer$ grep "Bilbo's birthday" /usr/share/calendar/calendar.history
    09/14 Frodo & Bilbo's birthday (LOTR)
    --
    English is easier said than done.
    1. Re:Netcraft confirms it by devphil · · Score: 1


      Cool, didn't know that file was there. I have it, but it doesn't contain anything about Bilbo. Must go look for updates...

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  103. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

    But the point is that they were made in Arnor during the war against the Witch-King, and thus were made specifically to fight him. Of course this is a pretty hair-splitting point if there ever was one. Still, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this :)

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  104. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, they also receive daggers or short swords or some similar bladed weapon from Galadriel in the Extended Edition of FotR

  105. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, many of the scenes were cut to keep the movies short enough for theaters to show them without an intermission and to increase showings/day. There are scenes which were left cut. Jackson edited two movies, the theatrical edition for theater considerations, and the extended DVDs to have the his version of the whole story.

  106. The Hobbit: a bad idea now by gidds · · Score: 2, Informative
    I doubt that would be a good commercial decision; I also suspect that it would leave many disappointed.

    The Hobbit is an excellent children's story, but it is a children's story. Compared to LoTR, the characters are thin, the plot episodic, and the background underdeveloped. It doesn't have the wealth of historical detail, the layers of meaning and significance, the depth of character, the grand themes of loss of innocence, betrayal, loyalty, corruption, redemption, evil, fate, epic struggle, and so on.

    I don't doubt that they could make a very entertaining film (though I suspect that many of the episodes would need to be shortened or cut, and it would probably need further closure added in the form of foreshadowings and other references). Had LoTR not been filmed, it would probably have been reasonably successful, too. But LoTR is such a grander work that people will inevitably have false expectations of a prequel, and so it'd be bound to disappoint many.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    1. Re:The Hobbit: a bad idea now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LoTR has no wealth of historical detail, layers of meaning and significance, depth of character, etc. the whole book is about Aragorn trying to get laid by some elf chick.

  107. Re:BITTORRENT LINK RIGHT HERE!!! REAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Download it free?! Why not? I mean, free is great. Why buy anything and actually help the conomy? Down with capitalism, up with....er...my....

  108. Yes! by sbszine · · Score: 1

    I read an interview with the LoTR sound geeks in Audio Technology (Australia) magazine and they said they'd been working on stuff for the extended edition bundle. All the box art, special features etc are apparently already complete. My guess is that it'll be out next xmas, if this season's product is the stand alone RoTK.

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  109. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I highly doubt they're throwing in *every* cut scene. Each movie would probably be 4 hours long if that were the case.

    According to the summary, the RotK extended edition *is* 4 hours long.

  110. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please forgive the grandparent, they are most likely USian and, therefore, bad at math.

  111. & how many bloody endings will it have by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    The threatre release itself went through 63 different bloody endings before the film actually finished.

    1. Re:& how many bloody endings will it have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either a liar or you fell asleep, there were 96 endings.

  112. Let me guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're pissed about Tom Bombadil and the distinct lack of scouring, eh?

  113. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by wuice · · Score: 1

    I can't believe I'm doing this -- I'm going to look nerdy even for Slashdot.

    The reason they say that no man can kill the Witch King is because of Glorfindel (you may have remembered him from the movie, but his part in the book was given to Liv Tyler instead) who prophesized that not by the hand of man would he fall. The reason Eowyn was able to make good the prophecy is because the blade Merry stabbed the witch king with was made long ago by the Numenorians to defeat him specifically when Angmar was at war with them.

  114. Re:You know... by wuice · · Score: 1

    Actually, believe it or not, RotK is not "each movie," the term used in my comment. But very funny!

  115. pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more about completing the experience, sitting back and enjoying the closing music, and basking in the aftermath of the movie you've just enjoyed, rather than rushing straight out to fight traffic with the rest of the lemmings.

    1. Re:pot, kettle, black by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Enjoying the music? Basking in the aftermath? You masturbate in the tub while listening to Kenny G, don't you?

  116. What happens when hobbits get home? by robmandu · · Score: 1

    In the LOTR ROTK book, the hobbits return home to Hobbiton only to find it mastered by Saruman, Wormtongue, and their scoundrels. The battle-hardened hobbits set to and clear out the vermin in no time. They've grown in wisdom and experience. In a lot of ways, this helps put a successful close on an important part of their individual life journeys.

    Now, some of you might remember that Christopher Lee's Saruman character was completely cut from the ROTK film. Apparently, a surprise to him at the time.

    Has anyone else seen whether those deleted scenes made their way into this superfly, extended, crazy, huge DVD box set-a-rama?

    --

    --
    Break the rules. Keep the faith. Fight for love.
  117. You fucking shithead by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The only highly rated comment is bitching about the same damn thing the parent is - the non-existent mass of fickle Slashdotters who are bitching about Jackson making two different versions of the movie. Stick that in your cock and smoke it.

  118. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    Well, since Merry is not a man either and it was he rather than Eowyn that had the blade in question, then Eowyn was not really needed by your theory. The Witch King himself knew he couldn't be defeated by a man and I doubt he knew anything of the prophecy.

  119. Waiting for complete edition... by Maavin · · Score: 1

    I will be waiting for the "Full Trilogy Extended Ultra Edition" in a big treasure chest, and a Realdoll(TM) version of Galadriel

    There will also be versions with Arwen, Eowyn, Legolas, Frodo and Gilmi to meet personal taste...

    --


    Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
  120. Marathon party! by arothmanmusic · · Score: 1

    I'm planning to have a marathon 12 hour party with all three extended DVDs when this comes out. Gotta get surround before then...

  121. Re:Tom Bombadil is not important to the plot of LO by wuice · · Score: 1

    It's niggling, and they both "aren't men" and they both killed him together. My understanding of the text is that Merry's blow sundered his protective sorceries and Eowyn finished him off.