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.
Jesus. Does the extended edition come with a coffee machine?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Frodo bit his finger first
Jonathanjk.com
I heard they even added some tater recipies!
Theory of flight?! I'll teach you the theory of fist!!
Now with 25% more "Oh, Sam!"
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?
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.
Jesus Harold Christ. What version was that long-ass movie I watched last year?
Yeah, an extra 50 minutes, but does it have Tom Bombadil?
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.
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).
Damn i now have 25% less on my old version of lotr. Wheres the fellowship in that!
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.
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.
Patients, we is. Yes, patients. We waits for our boxed set, our preciousssss.
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
I really want to see...Saruman's demise.
...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).
Were all the badger scenes restored, or what?
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?
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.
Hayden Christensen isn't at the end of the extended version is he?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
The always invokes a slack jawed open mouthed response from the counter clerks at McD's. But then that's their response to anything.
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.
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
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.
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?"
...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/
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.
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.
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
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.
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/
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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.)
Extended edition running times of FotR: 208, tTT: 208, LotR: 250. Combined: 666.
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.
TheOneRing.net reports on confirmed and presumed new scenes in the extended edition.
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.
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.