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.
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?
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).
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?
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.]
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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."
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.