Extended LotR versions

[Darth_Schmarth]

I'd make a poll but I'm more interested in chit-chatty input. I just bought the whole extended-DVD trilogy and have now watched them, one each night. I have to say I was scared that the movies might feel a touch too long, and I also heard that Peter Jackson said that the shorter versions really were how he intended them anyway.

 

But I like these new versions better than the ones shown at the theatres, simply because LotR is supposed to feel long, detailed and epic. I loved all the extra little things that added some flesh to the overall story-line, and now I simply wonder what you, my nice friends (right?), have to say about it? Were they too long or just too awesome?

[LadyCrimson]

My opinion is: if you've read the books or just like more details, you'll generally like the extra content/bits of the extended versions, and they won't seem "too long." What's nice about them is they add those little bits that seemed like a horrible omission in the theater releases, such as the talk with the wizard in his tower, and the 'trees' being part of the end of the Orcs at the end of the first battle, etc. Nothing in-depth, but it was enough to satisfy my sense of "it doesn't make as much sense without at least a hint of those things".

 

There's still a lot missing of course - and altered from the book, which I don't neccesarily think is a bad thing...but I think the extended films make them more complete.

[Darth_Schmarth]

There's still a lot missing of course - and altered from the book,  which I don't neccesarily think is a bad thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. The things he omitted/changed were the ones not related to the ring, such as Tom Bombadil and the clearing-up of the Shire when returning from the adventure. The latter bit in particular was sensible to leave out, especially seeing as the ending was very drawn out (it was to the point of laughter in the theatre when the movie just refused to end). It might have worked in the book, but in the movie it probably wouldn't have fitted so Jackson simply had Saruman killed in the beginning of the third movie. I was surprised to see that particular scene left out in the theatre version, though, since it left a bit of a plot hole: what happened to Saruman?

[Bulgarian Jedi]

Well, I have never seen the extended DVD versions of the LotR movies. I have read the books, and I noticed that some moments were cut. In the first two movies it was no such big deal, because what was left was not that important, but I didn't like that they cut Saruman (whose part was about 10-15 min) from "The Return of the King". He was a main villain, so the audience has to know waht happened to him. I know what happens to him because I've read the book, but I would still like to see it.

 

As far as I have heard these extra scenes add about 30 minutes to each movie.

Concider the fact each of the movies is approximately 3 hours and many people would not be able to stand it. I thought sitting for 3 hours would not be a big deal, but during the last 45 minutes or so, I desperately needed to move my legs, not to mention the I got headache.

 

Still, it is good the cut scenes were included in the DVDs. You can always have a pause when you are watching at home.

[Diamond]

I didn't read the books, but extended version is definitely better and makes some things a bit clearer.

[LadyCrimson]

Concider the fact each of the movies is approximately 3 hours and many people would not be able to stand it. I thought sitting for 3 hours would not be a big deal, but during the last 45 minutes or so, I desperately needed to move my legs, not to mention the I got headache.

 

Isn't it funny how sometimes one can sit for hours watching TV or on the computer (or for work) and yet sitting in a theater for 3+ hours is grating?

I personally wasn't bothered by the theater-length at all...I hardly noticed...but I certainly know plenty who are.

 

 

The latter bit in particular was sensible to leave out, especially seeing as the ending was very drawn out

 

Hehe, yeah, the ending of the 3rd went on too long for filmdom. What works in a book doesn't always work in a movie, no matter how you try to shortcut it. I think Jackson did a great job picking what to include and what not, plus his plot/sequence alterations were generally fine.

Except for the Ents motivation to "go to war" - that one annoyed me a lot. But I got over it eventually.

Edited December 30, 2005 by LadyCrimson

[Darth_Schmarth]

I didn't like that they cut Saruman (whose part was about 10-15 min) from "The Return of the King". He was a main villain, so the audience  has to know waht happened to him. I know what happens to him because I've read the book, but I would still like to see it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They actually changed his fate in the movies.

[Moose]

Given only the devout fans will have bought and watched the extended editions, you're likely to not find much negative feedback about them.

[Darth_Schmarth]

I don't think only the most devoted fans will have bought them, but indeed whoever bought them will know what they're in for. But people may have watched a marathon at a friend's place or whatever and loathed it. I bought them because I thought I really should have them, and I was pleased to find the extended versions even better than the theatre ones.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I havent actually seen the "normal" version of the Trilogy for sale for some time now. The extended versions do contain material that should never have been cut out in the first place like the entire scene with Saruman in RotK.

 

 

But I dont think theyre good enough to buy anyway, Ive go the book, dont need the hollywood dung.

[LadyCrimson]

I am definitely not a devout fan. I don't even like the books all that much. But the films are entertaining fantasy, and there's so few of those to choose from...I liked them, and more of what I like is always good...kinda like chocolate...

[Bulgarian Jedi]

I don't think only the most devoted fans will have bought them, but indeed whoever bought them will know what they're in for. But people may have watched a marathon at a friend's place or whatever and loathed it. I bought them because I thought I really should have them, and I was pleased to find the extended versions even better than the theatre ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does he appear at all in the extended version, and if he does, what happens to him.

[kalimeeri]

The first two theatrical releases were adequate; they were good movies in their own right. The third installment was a mess. Too much content had to be cut to fit into the time alotted. I watched it once, and really thought Jackson had choked on the final, most important, portion. I held out for the extended version DVD to watch it again--had to buy it to complete the set, but didn't have a lot of hope. It is much better--but it is still too short to cover all of the material. IMO (even though it would have been a big deviation from Tolkein's work) more of that interminable ending should have been cut in order to fill out the real story--little bits of the love triangle that were left out, and the 'battle flag' that Arwen made and sent to the front, etc. My favorite of the three still remains The Two Towers, which is odd, considering that it's the middle part--ROTK's battle still feels anticlimactic after Helm's Deep.

 

I think that the extended versions are the movie he wanted to make, but was forced to trim down for the theatre. Very impressive.

[Gorth]

My favorite of the three still remains The Two Towers, which is odd, considering that it's the middle part--ROTK's battle still feels anticlimactic after Helm's Deep.

Funny. I feel very much the same way. I loved the first two movies and found the third one to be an unforgivable piece of crap.

 

It might have been the over the top long and overdone sentimental ending that ruined the impression, hard to say really.

 

Was I the only one who cringed when Elrond made that ridiculous flourished movement when presenting Narsil to Aragorn ?

 

If Jackson had just cut the honey dripping Shire ending (which was about 60 minutes too long) and added the scouring of the Shire instead...

 

At least Saruman does bite the dust in the extended version, even if it's at the wrong time and place

Edited December 30, 2005 by Gorth

[Darth_Schmarth]

I don't think only the most devoted fans will have bought them, but indeed whoever bought them will know what they're in for. But people may have watched a marathon at a friend's place or whatever and loathed it. I bought them because I thought I really should have them, and I was pleased to find the extended versions even better than the theatre ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does he appear at all in the extended version, and if he does, what happens to him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Grima stabs him in the back and I can't remember if he falls or if he's pushed, but he is run through by a pole as he lands on a water wheel. Thus he is eliminated as a possible future threat to the Shire.

 

It happens in the Isengard confrontation with Gandalf and the lot.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Darth_Schmarth

[kalimeeri]

Hehe, yeah, the ending of the 3rd went on too long for filmdom. What works in a book doesn't always work in a movie, no matter how you try to shortcut it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In this instance, I don't think it even worked in the book. Waaaay too long. The story was over, but it almost seems like Tolkein couldn't let go. I seriously doubt that this (these?) book(s) would even have been published, in modern times.

 

But I do agree, for the most part, Peter Jackson made the story what it could have been (which is how I have to read the books). I do still take issue with the role reversal of Faramir and Boromir; I don't see that it served much purpose.

[Darth_Schmarth]

Role reversal? What role reversal?

[Judge Hades]

I like the extended cut better.

[Kor Qel Droma]

One of the discs for TTT has an extra clip of Gollum/ Andy Circus from the MTV Movie awards, its a good laugh.

[Gabrielle]

Extended versions are usually always better. I liked the LotR extended versions. Usually it's character stuff that gets cut from a film and not action, so you get more character stuff.

[Judge Hades]

Exactly. I remember watiching the extended version of Chronicles of Riddick for the first time and man, it was far superior to the original cut. It actually explained the real back story of the character far better and gives Riddick a better motivation to do what he does.

[Gabrielle]

That's the problem with movies these days. Lets keep the action in but cut character development when it comes down to editing a film.

[Dark Moth]

Extended versions are way better. Now that I have the extended editions, I find myself watching them only instead of the theatrical versions. They're longer, but the extra scenes really add to the film (in content, not just length).

Edited December 31, 2005 by Mothman

[Surreptishus]

How many hours have you spent watching LoTR in total? Including theatrical release.

Edited December 31, 2005 by Surreptishus

[Plano Skywalker]

in terms of shear action and excitement, the 3rd one was good....perhaps my favorite part of the trilogy was when the Witch King was forced from his mount and started throwing that morning star around (just image being hit with that thing!).

 

but I really liked the dry, archaic, creepiness of the first one....the idea that evil is all around and yet hard to pin down...and how you really can't trust anyone...that was good stuff.

 

I agree that the sappy Hollywoodish ending was way overdone. Not sure if the Saruman ending would have been a good idea though....it would have been anticlimatic and may have confused the audience.

 

I still haven't seen the extended cuts but that is on my shopping list.