Slashdot Mirror
LotR: RotK Extended Edition Preview Available
Topoimagery writes "After months of speculation and a few low-quality bootleg video clips, we finally get some official video from New Line. The Official Lord of the Rings Site has a preview of the upcoming Return of the King EE in Quicktime format. Here are direct links to the small version (4 MB) and large version (9 MB). Highlights include Voice of Saruman, Mouth of Sauron, Houses of Healing, and Aragorn confronting Sauron. Released date is December 14, and you can pre-order now. (For those of you who can't get enough spoilers, here's a site describing all anticipated new scenes on the DVD)."
The director intended the movie to be seen two ways. One version is for the cinema, one is for the home theater, because sitting through a 4 hour movie in the cinema just is not feasible for the average guy, while that is possible in a Home Theater setting.
Did you see the credits run? What was that? Once? Then it had one ending.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
This is the movie as the director intended it.
There have only ever been two versions of each of the Lord of the Rings movie- the theatrical release and the extended release. The extended release reincorporates scenes that were cut out due to time constraints. This has always been the plan, and they've been pretty upfront about it. We all knew this release is coming, and I've specifically held off of buying the theatrical release because of it.
I'm sure that if Peter Jackson were able to get away with releasing the extended editions in the theatre he would have, but even the theatrical releases clock in at about three hours each. Theatres like to get as many showings in as possible, so there's an (unwritten yet present) time limit as to how long a theatrical release can be.
I myself enjoy the extended editions- the first two added scenes that I think added to the film. But I can understand that not everyone wants to commit four hours to watching a movie, and thus those people would prefer the theatrical release.
Exactly. And, the added scenes are usually intended for the readers of the book more than for the general public. Maybe the best example of this is Galadriel's gift giving scene in the first movie. It was abbreviated in the theatrical release since the whole "Gimli hates elves and turns around to almost worship Galadriel" sub-plot adds nothing to the real plot. But, any fan of the books would be really upset to see this left out.
Is it just me, or does this argument/rebuttal happen every single time there is a story posted about one of the LOTR movies. Seriously, go back to the beginning, since Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition was announced, and go back through those posts... I guarantee these will be there, word for word.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
The book (which the movie is supposed to be based on, remember) was NOT an 'action flick'. It was the story of a group of people (the Hobbits) who... grew up. They went from a carefree life to participating in a year-long adventure (even if the movies only seem to cover a few weeks). They went from never leaving their local town to crossing the better part of the known world.
And, they went from being children, to being adults.
The Scouring of the Shire IS the climax of the books. It shows that they have, in effect, grown up and are able to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves. (I'll stop now before the cliche police bust my door down.)
BTW- did you know the entire battle at Pellenor Fields took only ONE chapter in the book, but almost an hour in the movie?
The Arwen story provides a lot of relief from the endless stuggle and angst about Sauron destroying Middle Earth. It also explains the Elves' (lack of) involvement and the Last Ship scene.
I'd also suggest it adds a subtle magical side to the film, which would otherwise be restricted to Galadriel's mirror, The Ring effects & Gandalf's charge at Helm's Deep.
Oh yeah, Arwen is also stunning...
I'd have cut the Aragorn nearly drowning scenes, although they say Viggo nearly did drown. They are utterly useless to the plot.
I bought both editions of the first two and am planning to complete the extended set in December (already have the theatrical ROTK of course). Call me stupid if you must but I am willing to shell out the cash for one simple reason: I belive in sponsoring the things that I particularly like. Hollywood doesn't send me a ballot to let them know that I want more LOTR quality stuff, so I vote with my wallet. I don't buy many DVDs, but I felt this series was worthy of an exception. YMMV.
Oh, and BTW (from grandparent post):
My wife of five years and I are happily expecting our first child in January and we both have enjoyed the trilogy thoroughly. So, I guess that's just one more moronic theory out the window -- or else the universe is about the end -- I leave it to the reader to judge.
I agree, but would take it even a step further. The fact that she shire needed scouring in the book showed how EVERYONE was affected by this war. Nobody escaped, even the idyllic Hobbiton felt the press of the dark lord. And Frodo and Co. returned as heros who retake the shire.
In the movie though, the shire was never really aware of the war. And we see how it's difficult for the hobbits to readjust to living once again in their isolated, idylic home.
They really are two very different conclusions. I think they both make valid points, but it's the one place where the movie really failed to be faithful to the themes of the books.
The point is that the movie needs to make money.
...BORED with the Arwen dream-sequences.
And cutting back 5 (or, god forbid, 10) minutes of battle scenes and Arwen dream-sequences to insert the Scouring would have made all the three movies flops that lost money, right? I mean, no one would EVER go see the third movie if it actually contained a scene from the last quarter of the book, would they?
If the audience don't like it or gets bored with it, the movie will not be profitable.
Personally I watched and liked the movie, even though I was... what was the word?
The Scouring of the Shire IS the climax of the books. It shows that they have, in effect, grown up and are able to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves.
Hear hear!
My gripe is that one of the points of Tolkien's book is that evil was pervasive and had to be rooted out everywhere. The perversion of the Shire was what brought it all home, and the Scouring is where it was set right through great effort.
Without the Scouring, the movie makes it look like the hobbits came back from their tremendous struggle to a shire that had sat out the whole war without a blade of grass touched.
The Switzerland of Middle Earth? Even Switzerland didn't fare that well in WW II. (And they got off as lightly as they did because every last one of them was trained, armed, and prepared to ambush and repell anybody who tried to come through THEIR mountains - quite unlike the carefree fuzzy-footed little villagers portrayed in both the book and the movie.) "Switzerland doesn't HAVE an army - it IS an army."
By omitting the Scouring but showing the companions drinking together at a pub in an apparently undamaged and uncaring homeland, the movie commits extreme revisionism on the original work.
Which is not to say it's trash. It's AMAZING that so much of Tolkein's work made it so well to the silver screen. But even if it made the movie "impossible" for the theaters I really think at least some tiny bit of The Scouring should have been filmed and included in the extended edition. (Isn't that what extended editions are for?)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Making films and writing books are two different things. Like it or not, a movie has to keep an audience more or less paying attention. It's interesting to watch the movies with the director's and screenwriter's commentaries. They explain many of the changes they made and why they made them. You can't just take a book and translate the text straight into screenplay. It doesn't work.