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.
Yeah, an extra 50 minutes, but does it have Tom Bombadil?
Damn i now have 25% less on my old version of lotr. Wheres the fellowship in that!
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.]
Here is a preview that talks about exactly what scenes have been added (huge spoilers, of course.)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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.
TheOneRing.net reports on confirmed and presumed new scenes in the extended edition.