# The offical ENWorld The Return of the King Extendend Edtion DVD reaction thread.



## KenM (Dec 10, 2004)

Ok, I know people in the UK are getting it on December 10th, but we in the USA  have to wait until the 14th. I'm starting this thread so people that have it/ seen it can post reactions/ discuss.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 10, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Ok, I know people in the UK are getting it on December 10th, but we in the USA  have to wait until the 14th. I'm starting this thread so people that have it/ seen it can post reactions/ discuss.




Watching it now 

-Hyp.


----------



## Zulithe (Dec 10, 2004)

Much jealousy 

 I'm getting the gift set for Christmas.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Watching it now
> 
> -Hyp.



Grrrrrrrr!!!!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 10, 2004)

Heyy, I made the Stunt credits again!  

----

The movie's still not perfect, but it's better 

I won't get into any detail before the US release, though.

-Hyp.


----------



## Krug (Dec 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Heyy, I made the Stunt credits again!
> 
> ----
> 
> ...




So where are you in the movie? I didn't see any little blue men around.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Dec 10, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> So where are you in the movie? I didn't see any little blue men around.




 

Can't wait for this bad boy, even though I know I'll have to wait till Dec 25th.


----------



## Felix (Dec 10, 2004)

You should have seen the crazy-looking light in my brother's eyes when he said:

"When Wade (brother #3) gets into town for Christmas, one Saturday we're going to meet at my house at 8, begin with the FotR: Extended, then move on to TTT: Extended, and finally see the RotK: Extended. That should put us at around 10pm, so afterwards we'll hit the bars!"

My brother is 33, married, has a 17 month-old daughter (who he's arranged to be out of the house with his wife that day) and a responsible job. When he said this, he was 12-years-old.


----------



## Felix (Dec 10, 2004)

_Double Post_


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 10, 2004)

My official reaction: I wish I were watching it right now!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 10, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> So where are you in the movie? I didn't see any little blue men around.




That's the funny thing.

I only worked on the Final Alliance scenes at the start of FotR.  I'm only in the TTT:EE and RotK:EE credits.

'sweird 

-Hyp.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 10, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> So where are you in the movie? I didn't see any little blue men around.




He's all of the Orcs. You think those guys were actually make up? Nah, that was all our little Blue-Screen Compatible Moderator


----------



## KenM (Dec 10, 2004)

I have one question to the people that watched it. When is the break between the DVD's? After what scene?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 11, 2004)

Do the have the scene that was cut where Aragon, Legolis and Gimli confront the pirates?
Do the have the scene that was cut where Saruman goes to Kamino to get more orcs made?
Do the have the scene that was cut where Gandalf confronts Saruman?
Do the have the scene that was cut where the Witch King confronts Gandalf?

What about hidden stuff? What hidden Easter Eggs does it have?
Do they have any clips of out takes or gaffs?


----------



## KenM (Dec 11, 2004)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Do the have the scene that was cut where Aragon, Legolis and Gimli confront the pirates?   YES
> Do the have the scene that was cut where Saruman goes to Kamino to get more orcs made? DON'T THINK SO
> 
> Do the have the scene that was cut where Gandalf confronts Saruman? YES
> ...




 There you go


----------



## Pants (Dec 11, 2004)

Felix said:
			
		

> "When Wade (brother #3) gets into town for Christmas, one Saturday we're going to meet at my house at 8, begin with the FotR: Extended, then move on to TTT: Extended, and finally see the RotK: Extended. That should put us at around 10pm, so afterwards we'll hit the bars!"



That sounds a lot like what my friends and I are planning... except for the bar part, although I could see that happening.


----------



## Allanon (Dec 11, 2004)

Saw it last night, it's definitely better. But as a whole it's still not FotR, which I consider the one true movie .

The break is IMHO badly placed. Right in de middle of all the action at the siege of Gondor. The first disc ends there and the second disc begins with the new extended material of the Corsairs. It definitely throws you right out of the mood. More later...


----------



## ssampier (Dec 11, 2004)

I hate you all 

I'm getting the Special Edition DVD trilogy for Christmas. I can identify with the "twelve year old". I'm 24, a college grad, and I'm just a big kid around Lord of the Rings (Star Wars, too, but the prequels have ruined it for me).


----------



## Mark Oliva (Dec 13, 2004)

*Return of the King Extended - Review*

Tuesday is the official day for the release of the Platinum Extended Edition
of Part 3 of Peter Jackson's LotR, "The Return of the King," in North
America.  However, it already was released on Friday here in continental
Europe and in Great Britain.  For those who'd like some advanced details,
read on.

First of all, Amazon US (www.amazon.com) and Amazon Canada (www.amazon.ca)
are offering the extended edition at very reduced prices for Christmas.
Amazon US is selling it for US$23.99, compared to a list price of $39.99.
Amazon Canada is selling it for CDN$34.99, which Amazon says is 40% off list
price.

The cover ad says that the extended version has 48 minutes more film than
the cinema version.  That checks out.  The seconds are rounded in the times
below.

Cinema Version DVD
------------------
Total running time:      3:13
Film running time:       3:04
Title music at end:      0:09

Platinum Extended Version DVD
-----------------------------
Total running time:      4:12
Film running time:       3:51
Title music at end:      0:21

So, the advertised 48 extra minutes do not include the extra 12 minutes of
titles and title music at the end.  You really get another 48 minutes of
movie.  You also get four CDs instead of two, but I have no comments on the
extras.  I never look at them (One exception: the "Bowling for Columbine"
DVD), and therefore, there's nothing I can say about them.

So, what's in those 48 minutes?

The following scenes were extended:

Finding of the Ring with Smeagol & Deagol, the way to Isengard, the return to Edoras, the palantir, Minas Tirith, Gandalf and Pippin in Minas Tirith, Théoden's decision on going to Minas Tirith, the fall of Osgiliath, Rohan's war camp, Aragorn chooses the Paths of the Dead, the besieging of Gondor, the crypt of the stewards, Denethor's immolation, battle on the Fields of Pelennor, victory at Minas Tirith, Pippin finds Merry (new version), the tower of Cirith Ungol, the last war council, the Land of Shadow, Mount Doom.

The following scenes are new:

The voice of Saruman (see below), Éowyn's dream, the fall of Gondor, the
trail past the fallen king, Sam's warning of Gollum, Denethor's rage at
Faramir over letting the Ring go, Pippin's joining the guard, the Corsars
from Umbar, Merry encourages Éowyn, Gandalf and the Witch King of Angmar
(see below), Aragorn and the palantir (see below), the Houses of Healing,
Faramir and Éowyn, Frodo and Sam forced to march with the orcs, Mouth of
Sauron (see below).

The main additions are the Voice of Saruman, the new material on the Paths
of the Dead, Aragorn and the palantir and the Mouth of Sauron.  Gandalf and
the Witch King of Angmar should be a main addition too, but it is another of
many things with which Peter Jackson had no idea what to do, so instead of
being a strong scene, it fizzles out and creates a glaring inconsistency in
the process.

If Jackson had understood Prof. Tolkien's books and had been true to his
professed commitment to remain faithful to them, the Scouring of the Shire
could and would not have been eliminated.  This ending after the ending has
everything to do with what Prof. Tolkien's tale really is all about.

Without endorsing its omission, one must say that Jackson's method of
dispatching Saruman without the Scourging of the Shire is well executed.
The scene atop Isengard's tower is at the root faithful to the book, until
the end, when Tolkien's death scene from the Shire is shifted to Isengard.
King Théoden's attempts to talk Wormtongue into descending the tower and
returning to the ranks of Rohan is not from the books, but it lends a
Tolkienesque quality to the altered series of events at Orthanc.  Saruman
humiliates Wormtongue atop the tower, and Wormtongue stabs Saruman in the
back with a dagger, slaying him.  An arrow from Legolas ends Wormtongue's
life, as Saruman's corpse falls from the tower onto a waterwheel.

The scene is well run.  When the body hits the waterwheel, it sets it slowly
into motion, like a wheel of fate slowly sinking the fallen wizard's body
into the waters of oblivion, as the palantir Pippin finds falls out of
Saruman's sleeve and into the water.  None of this happened in the book, of
course, but if one is going to deviate from the book, this is a credible and
convincing alternative.  Much better than the cinematic alternative, which
was simply to ignore the fact that there was a Saruman.

Best done is the Mouth of Sauron.  Excellent.  Excellent.  Excellent!  I'll
add no more.  This has to be seen to be appreciated.  For those who saw the
cinema version of RotK, this well may be the highest point of all in the
extended version.

Also superlative is the greatly extended journey down the Paths of the Dead,
suspenseful, scary and exciting, with a great climax as Aragorn, Legolas and
Gimle flee from the tunnel, Aragorn despairing, thinking he has failed, as
villages burn below him.  Only then does the King of the Dead emerge to
swear to serve Aragorn.  Not from Tolkien, but well done.

Less satisfying and more puzzling is Aragorn's encounter with the palantir.
In the book, Aragorn used the palantir atop the High Seat and held his own
against the Dark Lord.  In the extended version, Aragorn is just somewhere
or the other using the palantir.  It ends with him looking like he was an
abject failure about to suffer a nervous breakdown, while Arwen's jewel
falls to the floor and shatters.  Say what?

Strange indeed, because in RotK, one sees clearly that Jackson wants to
picture Aragorn as the dominant figure of stength, confidence and
leadership, while Gandalf becomes ever more uncertain and somewhat
desperate.  At several points, Jackson's Gandalf wants to believe that Frodo
is dead, and it takes the stronger Aragorn to elevate his spirits again.
The abjectly weak Aragorn we see with the palantir simply doesn't fit into
that concept or into any other concept that one finds in the film.

But the weakening Gandalf we see in Jackson's RotK is also the reason that
Mithrandir's encounter with the Witch King of Angmar fizzles into
nothingness.  The Witch King destroys Gandalf's staff and appears to be
about to destroy a desperate and hopeless Gandalf when, instead, the Nazgul
lord flies off to attend to the horns of Rohan.  This important scene, which
was missing in the cinematic version, adds nothing in the extended version,
simply because it fizzles.  Never mind that the staff of Gandalf, which the
Witch King conclusively destroyed in this scene, is back in Gandalf's hands
not too many frames later, and it remains there until the end of the film.

Overall, the extended version is much like its two predecessors.  It rescues
the viewer from the constant chop-chop-chop-but-let-nothing-develop pace of
the cinema versions.  The extended edition still ignores large and important
parts of Tolkien's tale to spend incredible amounts of time running loud,
loud, loud battle scenes, many of which run so long that despite their
attempts to sustain with spectacle, they end up being boring.  And in the
extended versions, the battle scenes, which already were too long in the
cinema version, were extended too.

Technically, Jackson's resources apparently were running out.  For all his
technical marvels, Jackson could do nothing more in the long Mordor scene
than to show us still pictures in the background of Mt. Doom.  The flames
never move.  The smoke never moves.  Ho-hum.  That kind of technical marvel
you already can find in black-and-white in the Marx Brothers films from the
1930s.  One saw this already in the cinema version, but the extended
material makes it come out even more.

All in all, if you want Prof. Tolkien's story, you'll still have to settle
for reading the books.  Jackson didn't understand it and therefore couldn't
recreate it.  Instead, he gives one an exciting action movie that, with the
extended versions, runs for just under 10 hours.  In the extended versions -
if you can put Tolkien's tale aside and take the film on its own qualities,
which I've had considerable difficulty doing - you get one helluva action
film that runs a surface story based on the surface of Tolkien's tale.

The cinema versions are too choppy and too dedicated to not letting anything develop for me to have been able to watch more than once, but the extended editions I can digest, although I still regret at points that Jackson chose to tell his own story rather than Tolkien's better tale.  The extended versions let Jackson's tale breathe and develop.  Despite its remoteness from Tolkien, Jackson's Ring is the best fantasy film you're likely to see for some time.  For those who can take it in that spirit, the extended editions are a good investment.  I intend to keep mine, although I gave away the cinema versions of all three films.

The acting quality in RotK is about the same as in the two previous films.
Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf and Christopher Lee's Saruman are superlative.
That there were no best actor and best supporting actor Oscars for their
portrayals is a crime.  Computerized Gollum also is on that level.

Strong are Miranda Otto's Éowyn, Bernard Hill's Théoden, Andy Serkis as
Smeagol (also the voice of the computerized Gollum) and - surprisingly -
David Wenham as Faramir.  It's hard to do much with the Faramir that came
out of the cinematic versions, but Wenham is given space and time to develop
a three-dimensional, sympathetic charcter in the extended editions.  Orlando
Bloom's Legolas and Sean Astin's Sam belong in this category too, with an
asterik to remind the viewer that the characters Jackson gave them to
develop bear no relationship whatsoever to Tolkien's characters of the same
name. John Noble's portrayal of the absolutely non-Tolkienesque, ravingly
insane Denethor is on this level too.  

Somewhere on the borderline between strong and mediocre is Viggo Mortensen
as Aragorn.  Mediocre, as in the past, are Billy Boyd as Pippin, Dominic
Monaghan as Merry, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, John Rhys-Davies as Gimle and
Karl Urban as Eomer.

For the 3rd film in a row, Elijah Wood as Frodo and Liv Tyler as Arwen win
our where-are-the-afternoon-soap-operas-when-we-really-need-them Oscar for
godawful, lousy acting.  Groucho Marx would have been as credible a Frodo,
and one can easily picture Margaret Dumont as having been able to create a
better Arwen.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 13, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> Tuesday is the official day for the release of the Platinum Extended Edition of Part 3 of Peter Jackson's LotR, "The Return of the King," in North
> America.




Um...the "Official Day" is the 14th as far as I know...


----------



## The_lurkeR (Dec 13, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...the "Official Day" is the 14th as far as I know...




Tuesday is the 14th


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 13, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> Tuesday is the 14th



 Note to self, get new glasses. How did I read that as 'today'?!


----------



## Mark Oliva (Dec 13, 2004)

*The 14th is Tuesday*

According to my calendar, Tuesday is the 14th! ???


----------



## Panthanas (Dec 13, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> Never mind that the staff of Gandalf, which the
> Witch King conclusively destroyed in this scene, is back in Gandalf's hands
> not too many frames later, and it remains there until the end of the film.




Gandalf doesn't have the staff again until the end of the movie when they are all back in Minas Tirith.  It does look like the same staff...he probably used up some XP and made another one...


----------



## Berandor (Dec 13, 2004)

Isn't tuesday the 14th?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 13, 2004)

Hey Mark, thanks for the long review.  Fortunately for me, I'm rarely a purist, and the things you said that you didn't care for I really enjoyed.  So for me, an overall win (although still missing the Scouring).


----------



## dravot (Dec 13, 2004)

I think that Jackson does indeed understand Tolkien's work, but the medium of film required the changes that he made.  While I understand the purpose of the Scouring in the books, it's horribly anti-climactic compared with the rest of the story and wouldn't work on film.

 No biggie.


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 13, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> Tuesday is the 14th





			
				Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> According to my calendar, Tuesday is the 14th! ???





			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Isn't tuesday the 14th?




See, I have an Algebra exam on the 14th, so I'd be almost an expert on Tuesday being the 14th .


----------



## Klaus (Dec 13, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> See, I have an Algebra exam on the 14th, so I'd be almost an expert on Tuesday being the 14th .



 Now when did this thread devolve from "official ENWorld RotK Reaction Thread" to "official ENWorld calendar thread"?

Can't.

Wait.

That's all.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 13, 2004)

*Preparing the buckets to catch the tears of those, who will be seeing the movie*

*Powering up the heart monitors, to watch the fluctuations of those, who view ROTK ExV*

*Must prepare to shell out the cash, for the last of the greatest adventures, forever told in my lifetime.*

IT.
WILL.
BE.
WORTH IT.

  

*_Into the West_...is now playing*


----------



## Mark Oliva (Dec 13, 2004)

*Worth it*

<<IT.
WILL.
BE.
WORTH IT.>>

Despite the negative points in my review, I agree.

I'm not a purist either.  There are several movies I like better than the books.  The key question is, does the movie do it better, as good as or worse than the book.

In the case of Jackson's films, my own verdict is:  Much worse, but still acceptable in the extended editions.

And no, I don't believe that Jackson understood more than the surface of Tolkien.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 13, 2004)

Perhaps not, but Guy Gavriel Kay did.  So how long until we get three feature-length films based on "The Fionavar Tapestry?"


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 13, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> <<IT.< p> WILL.
> BE.
> WORTH IT.>>
> 
> ...



I will rehash something I said a while back.

It is virtually *impossible* to do all of the books, in movie format. Time, money, and the feasibility to recoup the investment, puts the movie making over a field of quality versus quantity(getting the cash back).

I honestly think, and feel free to disagree, if it was another director, Not PJ, I honestly think...it would not be what it is now...a possible bridging between the original writer intent and the film's outlook.

We all know of directors doing what they think is best, in what is possible to do, and sometimes...they miss the point entirely(like ST:Nemsis). The differences with this film, and only this film to me, that all the cast members, director(s), and maybe stagehands , had the books there as reference points.

I have never read the books, and honestly, I don't think I would need to read them, I know, I know, the books speaks more, but I know what Tolkien was doing, illustrating the devastation on what war does, the lost of friends, loyal, trust, and courage that comes forward against the odds that seek to tear you down(my interpretation...forgive me). All of a reflection on his past, seeing that in turn, done through the movie trilogy...I truly understand all of what is being said...it is about our selves, and the power we possess, it is easy to wage war, at a drop of hat. But with that same power, why can't we have enduring peace?

When I get it(DVDs), and watch it...my tears will flow, my nose will honk, and that blanket will be held tight, knowing...that one man, wrote a legacy that has endure for this long, has always capture the spirit of what we human beings can do...but is not. To see partily explained on film...the message is there.

_Change what we are...or be prepared, to loose everything we hold dear._

Again my view...everyones' elses, has a different outlook...we are fickle that way, that is what makes us human.


----------



## KenM (Dec 13, 2004)

Peter Jackson said himself that the books as wrtitten are unfilmable, I agree. I have heard one thing about RotK EE. The drinking contest, Leg o LAME wins it, against a dwarf?  :\ Proves that Peter Jackson is an elf fanboy. Heaven forbid we get ONE FRICKING SCENE in all three movies where the dwarf does something better then the pretty boy elf.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 13, 2004)

Well, chalk that one up to the Professor. In Middle-Earth, elves are better at everything, being the inherently chosen race of the world's creator powers.

Didn't JRR read about Level Adjustment when he made up these folks????


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 14, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson said himself that the books as wrtitten are unfilmable, I agree. I have heard one thing about RotK EE. The drinking contest, Leg o LAME wins it, against a dwarf? :\ Proves that Peter Jackson is an elf fanboy. Heaven forbid we get ONE FRICKING SCENE in all three movies where the dwarf does something then the pretty boy elf.



I didn't know that...mmmmm, hmmm..mmmmm


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 14, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Well, chalk that one up to the Professor. In Middle-Earth, elves are better at everything, being the inherently chosen race of the world's creator powers.
> 
> Didn't JRR read about Level Adjustment when he made up these folks????



 He wrote the books before 3e...damn! If only he'd waited...oh...fifty odd years.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Dec 14, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson said himself that the books as wrtitten are unfilmable, I agree. I have heard one thing about RotK EE. The drinking contest, Leg o LAME wins it, against a dwarf?  :\ Proves that Peter Jackson is an elf fanboy. Heaven forbid we get ONE FRICKING SCENE in all three movies where the dwarf does something then the pretty boy elf.



 Doesn't anyone understand IRONY?  You know, the fundamental basis for comedy?  

 It's funnier if the elf wins.  If I have to explain why...


----------



## KenM (Dec 14, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Doesn't anyone understand IRONY?  You know, the fundamental basis for comedy?
> 
> It's funnier if the elf wins.  If I have to explain why...




  I know its funnier if the elf wins. My problem is that damn elf does EVERYTHING better then the dwarf in all three movies. I would have liked just one scene at some point in the almost 12 hour epic where the dwarf does something better then the elf.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 14, 2004)

At this point, that would be unexpected and thus amusing, I agree.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 14, 2004)

I didn't feel that the changes to the Extended Edition of RotK were are stunning as those in FotR or TTT. They're good, but not so essential.

Still, more Faramir is good. 

Cheers!


----------



## Zulithe (Dec 14, 2004)

Mark Oliva, it's a shame you don't delve into the extras of the Extended Editions, for this is where they REALLY shine, imo, not in the extended cuts of the films themselves.

 But It takes a certain kind of fan to appreciate all of that material, I suppose. Perhaps one with just too much time to spend in front of a screen.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 14, 2004)

well, there was one moment when Gimli outdoes Legolas.... in TTT EE, when they tally up the kills, Gimli wins by one, and then Legolas cheats when he shoots the already dead Uruk-hai that Gimli was sitting on....


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 14, 2004)

Well, a nice package arrived early from coconuts.com today:
The RotK EE DVD, already a steal ordered at $17.00, already made even better with a new-$7 rebate, was just made unreal when it arrived a day early.

First time I've gotten anything early....


----------



## Berandor (Dec 14, 2004)

Well, I think the changes were well done, and combines with a slight rearranging of scenes, make the timing and dramaturgy (is that en English word?) much more obvious. Now it feels like days before Rohan arrives, and again some time passes until Aragorn saves the day, so the Rohirrim *did* buy just enought time for the new king.
Eowyn gets some moments to shine, and the confrontation with the Witchking is better for it (and for the fact that the WK beat Gandalf).

Many more scenes really help the film. It's not FotR EE, but I'd rate it about as high as FotR (cinema version) now.

If only Gimli could have fricking won the drinking contest! I mean, it would have been equally funny if Legolas, after feeling a tingle in his fingertips, fell over. And it would have given the dwarf something to be best in.


----------



## Allanon (Dec 14, 2004)

I still think that Jackson should have stuck to rearranging the scenes without making new ones, with the exception for a few lucky shots (TTT with Gollum talking to himself which was a great scene) most of the Jackson scenes fall flat on their face when compared to the original story. 

I've watched all of the extended material of all three movies where Philipa, Jackson and the actors try to defend some of the changes, but none of them really give any good reasons. I won't argue about leaving out the scouring. Nor the removal of Bombadil. But why does everyone considers FotR EE the best of the three movies? Simple, because Jackson added the least amount of own material to the story. 

I disagree that LotR is unfilmable, it's difficult and a certain amount of culling, cropping and rearranging is necessary but the editing should have stopped there. All the unnecessary extra's he added could have been used to add more time to existing scenes and moments or bringing back real moments from the book.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 14, 2004)

Allanon said:
			
		

> I've watched all of the extended material of all three movies where Philipa, Jackson and the actors try to defend some of the changes, but none of them really give any good reasons.



Than watch them again.
They explained themselves quite plainly, and quite convincingly.

How 'bout these for starters?

* Building up the One Ring as the biggest threat EVER (even one that demigods are terrified of facing), and then having a simple man (Faramir) walk up and not be affected at all by the pull/promise of the Ring does *objectively* weaken the threat they worked so hard to build.

* Having Frodo and Sam be simply by-standers at the conclusion of this epic journey, while Gollum beats them, takes the Ring, then luckily (for all the Good Guys) slips and falls into the lava thereby succeeding in their quest is a much worse ending than having them be active participants.
Their decision to re-write and re-shoot that scene is critical to acheiving a satisfactory conclusion to the quest. The version they decided upon also has the benrfit of further reinforcing the pull of the Ring (Frodo fighting Gollum for possession, dragging them both over, instead of him pushing Gollum off or Gollum falling off).

Those are darn good reason, and quite plain to see, if you are not using the book events as a straitjacket.

BTW:
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there's another MTV Movie Awards Easter Egg in the same place on the RotK EE: Go to the last scene (Fan Credits), and press Down.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 14, 2004)

And the easter egg on disc one is funny, as well.

And I say that as a German.


----------



## Allanon (Dec 14, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Than watch them again.
> They explained themselves quite plainly, and quite convincingly.
> 
> How 'bout these for starters?
> ...




But the reason to have him drag Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath is a weak one. Especially considering that at one moment most of the troops there see the ring yet none of them try to grab it or even reach for it. I do not object to portraying Faramir as corruptible but to the whole BS trip he made them go on. Letting him have is moment without having him drag Frodo and Sam with him would have worked fine, plus why should everyone be corruptible. Gandalf could refuse the ring, so could Aragorn why should Faramir be a lesser man?



> * Having Frodo and Sam be simply bystanders at the conclusion of this epic journey, while Gollum beats them, takes the Ring, then luckily (for all the Good Guys) slips and falls into the lava thereby succeeding in their quest is a much worse ending than having them be active participants.
> Their decision to re-write and re-shoot that scene is critical to achieving a satisfactory conclusion to the quest. The version they decided upon also has the benefit of further reinforcing the pull of the Ring (Frodo fighting Gollum for possession, dragging them both over, instead of him pushing Gollum off or Gollum falling off).




Again why is this better? They had their reasons, but so did Tolkien. Why change it? I don't see the scene as weaker or less critical if Gollum by shear fate/luck/etc. had fallen in with the ring but that could just be me.



> Those are darn good reason, and quite plain to see, if you are not using the book events as a straitjacket.




Those are reasons yes, but darned good? I'm not using the book as a straightjacket but there is a difference between changing and reordering the book to fit the movie and altering the story because you thought you knew better. Neither of the above decisions was taken because of time constraints or the inability to translate something to the white screen. They were taken because Jackson, Philipa thought they knew better.


----------



## Talmun (Dec 14, 2004)

Allanon said:
			
		

> I still think that Jackson should have stuck to rearranging the scenes without making new ones, with the exception for a few lucky shots (TTT with Gollum talking to himself which was a great scene) most of the Jackson scenes fall flat on their face when compared to the original story.
> (snip)




Might I suggest a slight change in point of view?

Every scene in the movie is a 'Jackson scene'.  

Scenes in the movie that you liked may translate what was on the page, but it's filtered through the mind of the director, just as the scenes in the book are filtered through your mind when you read it.  I understand you're saying you prefer sections of the film that draw more directly from the source material, but even in those, there must be additions made by the director, because Tolkien does not describe every minute detail, he (like all good writers) knows what to leave to the readers imagination.  

This isn't to say I’m pleased with all the changes he made, but I understand why he made them.  I also know that, for reasons already mentioned, there will never be a complete page-to-screen filming of the Trilogy (or any other book, for that matter), so I'm willing to over look some perceived rough spots and enjoy one of the best movies ever made.

Now to get the thread back on track:
I’ll be picking the Deluxe set up today, can anyone tell me about the quality of the Minas Tirith mini?


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Dec 14, 2004)

Talmun said:
			
		

> Now to get the thread back on track:
> I’ll be picking the Deluxe set up today, can anyone tell me about the quality of the Minas Tirith mini?




Ah, spoken like a LotR dork.  I was wondering the same thing.  Glad to see you're in our club.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 14, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> And the easter egg on disc one is funny, as well.




So, what are the Easter Eggs? Are there eggs aside from the one of the first disc? Where and what are they?


----------



## Mystery Man (Dec 14, 2004)

*sigh*

 I'm under orders from my wife that under no circumstances am I to buy anything until after Christmas. I *strongly* hinted to her just how much I wanted this movie and that if it's not bought when it's released it is _significantly_ more expensive. So, if I don't get this movie on Christmas I'll be posting to this board from prison.


----------



## Talmun (Dec 14, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> I'm under orders from my wife that under no circumstances am I to buy anything until after Christmas. I *strongly* hinted to her just how much I wanted this movie and that if it's not bought when it's released it is _significantly_ more expensive. So, if I don't get this movie on Christmas I'll be posting to this board from prison.




I had to patiently explain to my wife that this was not a gift, this was a household necessity, and as such, it would be bought as soon as it was available...


----------



## Mystery Man (Dec 14, 2004)

Heh...wife just called from cell phone

 Wife: Say do they have Return of Jafar on sale? I can't find it anywhere? (loud music ad TV sounds in the background)

 Me: Where are you?

 Wife:.......NEVERMIND! *click*


----------



## Berandor (Dec 14, 2004)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> So, what are the Easter Eggs? Are there eggs aside from the one of the first disc? Where and what are they?



 They're in the same place as in the first two movies.

Last scene selection "chapter", scroll down from last scene, klick the ring.
Side A: 



Spoiler



Dominic Monahan (sp?) interviews Elijah Wood as German interviewer "Hans Jensen" via telephone/cable. Elijah can't see Dom, but Dom can see Elijah. We can see both. It's hilarious.


Side B: 



Spoiler



A sketch from MTV Movie Awards where Ben Stiller and Vince Caughn interview Peter Jackson ("may I call you Pedro?") as movie producers and want him to make a sequel to LotR. it's also very funny!


----------



## Mark (Dec 14, 2004)

Side A: 



Spoiler



Flipper is dead?


Side B: 



Spoiler



But what if it wasn't?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 14, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> * Building up the One Ring as the biggest threat EVER (even one that demigods are terrified of facing), and then having a simple man (Faramir) walk up and not be affected at all by the pull/promise of the Ring does *objectively* weaken the threat they worked so hard to build.




Or, as it does in the book, reinforce the goodness of Faramir.



> * Having Frodo and Sam be simply by-standers at the conclusion of this epic journey, while Gollum beats them, takes the Ring, then luckily (for all the Good Guys) slips and falls into the lava thereby succeeding in their quest is a much worse ending than having them be active participants.
> Their decision to re-write and re-shoot that scene is critical to acheiving a satisfactory conclusion to the quest. The version they decided upon also has the benrfit of further reinforcing the pull of the Ring (Frodo fighting Gollum for possession, dragging them both over, instead of him pushing Gollum off or Gollum falling off).




Which misses the point of the story completely. And thus, is a stupid reason to make a change. Middle-Earth is saved _by the grace of God_, not by the hand of man (or hobbit) no matter how humble. Making that change transforms the story into a boring and mundane "adventure" tale. It isn't. And shouldn't be.

Changing the sequence of events at Sammanth Naur was the weakest change in the whole movie, and the one that showed just how little Jackson et al understood about the story of LotR.


----------



## Talmun (Dec 14, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> (snip)
> Changing the sequence of events at Sammanth Naur was the weakest change in the whole movie, and the one that showed just how little Jackson et al understood about the story of LotR.




More accurately and to the point, doesn't it show that Jackson doesn't understand _your interpretation _ of the story of LotR?

Tolkien himself said he abhorred analogy, and preferred that each reader of the story decide what it meant for them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 14, 2004)

Talmun said:
			
		

> More accurately and to the point, doesn't it show that Jackson doesn't understand _your interpretation _ of the story of LotR?




Actually, it means that Jackson didn't understand _Tolkien's_ intent with respect to this element of the story of LotR. Read some excerpts from Tolkien's letters to see for yourself: http://www.mythictruth.com/MainPages/mercy_and_forgiveness_nn.htm



> Tolkien himself said he abhored analogy, and preferred that each reader of the story decide what it meant for them.




Tolkien didn't say he "abhorred analogy", he said he _abhorred allegory_. Middle-Earth being saved by the grace of God (more specifically, in the personification of Eru) is not allegory. Learn what your literary terms mean before you start trying to discuss what Tolkien meant or did not mean.


----------



## dravot (Dec 14, 2004)

I thought that Tolkien abhorred a vacuum.


----------



## Talmun (Dec 14, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Tolkien didn't say he "abhorred analogy", he said he _abhorred allegory_. Middle-Earth being saved by the grace of God (more specifically, in the personification of Eru) is not allegory. Learn what your literary terms mean before you start trying to discuss what Tolkien meant or did not mean.




My point, regardless of incorrect terminology, stands.  You are looking at someone else's interpretation of Tolkein's work and criticizing it because it doesn't highlight what you see there.  There is no evidence, beyond the fact that Tolkein was Catholic, that Eru and the Judeo-Christian idea of God are meant to be the same.

There is nothing wrong with not liking someone else's point of view, but that hardly makes their point of view wrong.


----------



## Talmun (Dec 14, 2004)

I just got the gift set at lunch.  The Minas Tirith model is nice, very detailed.  It opens up to reveal a small, round dish.  They call it a "keepsake compartment" I guess for ticket stubs and what-not.  Still, very nice.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 14, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which misses the point of the story completely. And thus, is a stupid reason to make a change. Middle-Earth is saved _by the grace of God_, not by the hand of man (or hobbit) no matter how humble. Making that change transforms the story into a boring and mundane "adventure" tale. It isn't. And shouldn't be.



Let me get this straight.

a) You actually believe that PJ should have made a LotR film trilogy which made it clear that it was God's will that caused everything to happen?

b) Even though that's not made clear in Tolkein's books?   

(don't concentrate on b) and ignore a), please)


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 14, 2004)

Talmun said:
			
		

> My point, regardless of incorrect terminology, stands.  You are looking at someone else's interpretation of Tolkein's work and criticizing it because it doesn't highlight what you see there.  There is no evidence, beyond the fact that Tolkein was Catholic, that Eru and the Judeo-Christian idea of God are meant to be the same.




Wrong. We have Tolkien's own words to guide us on that score, and he's pretty clear. For example, he explicitly said so:



> _The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally Catholic and Religious work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For *the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism.*_





and



> _It is about God, and his sole right to Divine Honour. The Eldar and the Númenoreans believed in the One..._




As to the scene at Sammanth Naur, Tolkien had a very clear idea of what the meaning of the events as they played out symbolized: 



> _He [gollum] did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at the precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one could have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours..._




and



> _Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely [as an instrument of Providence] and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved._






> There is nothing wrong with not liking someone else's point of view, but that hardly makes their point of view wrong.




It does, when their point of view contradicts the author's own words cocnerning the meaning he intended to convey.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 14, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> a) You actually believe that PJ should have made a LotR film trilogy which made it clear that it was God's will that caused everything to happen?




Given that this was what Tolkien intended, leaving in the scenes in which the point is driven home would have made sense.



> b) Even though that's not made clear in Tolkein's books?




It is very clear, if you pay attention when you are reading the books. It is made undeniable when you read Tolkien's letters about the books.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 14, 2004)

Okay, there seems to be major differences of opinion, on what should or shoud not have been seen in the movies.

*Sidepoint*:The last 6 threads, have remanents of religious overtones, just a word of caution, don't take it to a point of one-sided view, or this thread will be closed.

Now, given the fact, I did say something before about translating such material from a well establish source, is near virtually impossible to do, for film.

If PJ has miss the _point_, as discussed by some, it is known, and said, doing all the books in a movie format, would make it *boring*, who in your opinion could have done the job better or bring to light, the theme of the entire series.

Who would have fought to keep the intergity of the outline.
Who would have the patience to spend almost 10 years of their life, in bringing this film, before the masses.

I understand some, don't like the direction it was done, but you know what, when book work is done, it is just a interpretation from thought, on how they would imagine things to work(usually based on personal experience), PJ is in the same category. I believe it took the author, nearly two decades to finish this great work.

It was a blessing that PJ was the one to do it, now at this time, if not, we could have waited another 10 years or more, for someone else to find the courage to put everything on the line, to do this.

Tolkien may have felt, that he was writing a simple story, with the reflection on humanity as the source...then explain to me, after all this time...why now, do they still strike a chord with us, to this very day.

The trilogy(movie) has only enchance the presence of the books, more so, now than ever(maybe I will buy them, when things slow down for me...LOL).

And the trilogy, are just an interpretation...nothing more, a massive attempt, not actual canon, in my book...that is a world of headache to do...chances were taken, opportunties lost and gain, and in the end, a gamble. A unbelieveable successful one at that.

Let the end results speak for themselves, from now, and to the possible future, if this outline 'verison' will qualify as an interpretation to the author's work.

On that, to each their own.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 15, 2004)

Now that this set is FINALLY available here in the US, I got it and watched it today... here's my initial impressions.
final confrontation with Saruman: good... since they aren't doing the Scouring, this ended his role nicely.
Gandalf vs. Witch King: neat, but damn short.  My biggest beef with it is that the Rohirrim horn blowing that lured the WK away was so faint, I missed it the first time; it looked as if he got bored and left.  I reran that scene and turned up the sound and finally heard it.. they really should have punched up those horns.
Houses of Healing: major disappointment.. I wanted to see Aragorn tending to Eowyn, Faramir, and Merry.  It's one of my favorite scenes in the book.
Pelennor Fields:  most of the additions were fun to watch but didn't add anything to the storyline; still, they are pretty neat.  Eowyn and Merry kick major butt after they get knocked off their horse.  And we finally see just how Gothmog gets what's coming to him.
Mouth of Sauron:  neat neat neat!!!
one point: someone earlier on here complained that the first DVD ended in the middle of the Pelennor battle.  It actually ends when Grond is being hauled forward to the gate...  even in the theatrical version, the movie cut away at this point to go back to Frodo and Sam... in the EE, it goes to the new Corsairs scene instead... so, not a major change here....


----------



## Mark Oliva (Dec 15, 2004)

*Waiting for the Ring*



			
				It was a blessing that PJ was the one to do it said:
			
		

> There are many ways of looking at things.  This is one way.  One also might ask how long PJ now has exclusive rights and thereby has closed the door to anyone else trying to do a better job of it for XX years.  In that case, I well might have preferred a 10-year wait for something better.
> 
> To keep that in perspective, the films aren't bad in heir own right.  But they're far removed from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."  They're Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings."  Nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 15, 2004)

*Loving the RIng...err, wait...just a bit.*



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> *Edited for correction *It was a blessing that PJ was the one to do it, now at this time, if not, we could have waited another 10 years or more, for someone else to find the courage to put everything on the line, to do this.





			
				Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> There are many ways of looking at things. This is one way. One also might ask how long PJ now has exclusive rights and thereby has closed the door to anyone else trying to do a better job of it for XX years. In that case, I well might have preferred a 10-year wait for something better.
> 
> To keep that in perspective, the films aren't bad in heir own right. But they're far removed from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." They're Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings." Nothing more and nothing less.



Yes...it is PJ's for now...an interpretation, just an interpretation.  Darn, I knew I shouldn't have mention that time frame . A better question, could it have been better, given the possible tight fisted movie moguls' views on big budget films these days...there are hits and misses.


----------



## Mark Oliva (Dec 15, 2004)

*Could it have been better?*



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> A better question, could it have been better, given the possible tight fisted movie moguls' views on big budget films these days...there are hits and misses.




That depends upon who the producer is and who the director is.  Steven Spielberg, for instance, could have gotten his way.  However, I use him only as an example.  This shouldn't be interpreted as argument on my part that Spielberg would have done it better, only that he probably could have gotten the freedom to do so.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 15, 2004)

Well all my waiting paid off.  I finally watch Return of the King last night.  The entire time my brother, who saw the theatrical version kept saying over and over, "I can't believe they cut this out!".   It was an excellent movie, MUCH better than TT but still below Fellowship.  Denathorn was a hollow character like he was in the last movie, I'm not sure why PJ felt it necessary to take the depth out of him and make him a simple one dimensional madman.  Cutting the few scenes he & Faramir had together seems stupid to me, it guts the characterization.  I can live without the Scourging of The Shire I suppose.  It was a great finish to the book but with the focus of the book being the ring only I can understand why he thought he had to cut it out.  At least they dealt with Saruman's demise instead of just moving on as they apparently did in the movie version. 

I noticed from the chapter list that PJ pretty much cut all the character devolping scenes out of the theatrical release.  I can understand why people told me it felt rushed and disjointed after they came back from the theaters.

I'd have to give it 3.5 out of 4 stars.  I'm so glad PJ did the EE versions, I didn't care much for TTT at the theater and I would have only liked this one slightly better.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 15, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> To keep that in perspective, the films aren't bad in heir own right.  But they're far removed from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."  They're Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings."  Nothing more and nothing less.



uh, won't this be true of any producer who remakes LOTR in the future?  Unless Tolkien himself comes back from the dead and makes it, of course


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 15, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> uh, won't this be true of any producer who remakes LOTR in the future? Unless Tolkien himself comes back from the dead and makes it, of course



That's it, someone whip out the scroll of _Raise Dead_.  

As to the whole argument about whether PJ did or did not understand Tolkien... all I can say on the matter is I believe that understanding is dependant on the person.  As such, what you take from anything - be it books, movies, art, or life - is neither wrong, nor is it right.  Understanding is.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 15, 2004)

Well you can be wrong as to what you think something means and what the artist intended.  Now the importance of the original intent is up to the viewer of course. 

For example, everytime I've seen Pearl Jam live they have played a song called _Betterman_.  Well each time the couples in the crowd hold each other and get all close and sing along like it's a love song.  It isn't, it's about a woman who is in a loveless relationship and she can't find a better man.  So despite the fact that a lot of people haven't payed attention to the lyrics, nothing anyone can say will make it a love song.  It's clearly not.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 15, 2004)

> Actually, it means that Jackson didn't understand Tolkien's intent with respect to this element of the story of LotR





It could mean that. But I think its more likely it just means that certain things are expected to be a certain way in big motion pictures. I think PJ would have done the scene as it was in the book if it were entirely up to him. But big time movies are expected to have a "hero saves the day" sort of ending, which the original ending of Return of the King is not.


I think since nobody on this thread has (I dont think) met or spoken with Peter Jackson, it might be a good idea not to so easily throw around statements about what he did or did not understand. Obviously as director he had a lot of control, but I'm sure there were things he was made to do that he was not happy with.

Anyway...I was pretty happy with it overall myself. My only big issue was the Gandalf/Witch-King scene which was simply silly on many levels. Gandalf, even with the limits placed on him is many many times more powerful than the WK...and the staff-breaking is just too symbolic.

Also, overall I wish that he hadnt had that tendency to always put Aragorn forth as the strong one, and have Gandalf fade into the back a bit...as in the Mouth of Sauron scene. It was Gandalf who dismissed the Mouth.

Also although it was nifty, I would just as soon had had the MoS be a more or less normal person as he was in the book.


----------



## Mark (Dec 15, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> ...I have no comments on the
> extras.  I never look at them (...), and therefore, there's nothing I can say about them.




Hiya Mark! 

I think that you will be at odds to come to a meeting of the minds over some of your assertions with those who have viewed all of the appendix material.  There is an insight into what PJ (and others) might or might not have been thinking and understanding while making the films.  What can be gained by watching all of that material that is going to crop up again and again as part of the background of thought among those who will likely disagree with your assertions.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 15, 2004)

Yet another Fan vs. Purist debate. I'm staying far away from as much as possible for the simple fact that I do not regard Tolkien's work in the same light as the Holy Bible, Torah, or the Koran, but a mythology, which was what he set out to do in the first place: create an Anglo-Saxon mythology.

As for the Extended Edition _ROTK,_ it was ... okay.

I smiled at the final curtain appearance of Christopher Lee as Saruman, as well as Brad Dourif as Grima.

I like the extended fighting scene for Mirando Otto as Eowyn.

I like the added House of Healing scene as well as an additional scene showing Faramir (played by David Wenham) and Eowyn meeting and falling for each other.

I like the Mouth of Sauron. I've always wondered what happened to Bilbo's mithril mail.

And I like all the extras in the Appendices.

I was kinda disappointed that they never change the ending to include a small scene where Legolas and Gimli took their final journey.

Also, the easter eggs weren't as greatly humorous than the previous easter eggs.

One more thing, I had hope that they would include the live performance of Annie Lennox doing "Into the West" at the Academy Award where they sweep their nominations into wins. I missed the music video that was present in the previous two Theatrical Editions of _FOTR_ and _TTT._

Although one of the easter egg did contain one practical joke, I was hoping for more outtakes and bloopers.

My gripe? Only one.

When I opened my _ROTK_ EE, it has a small pamphlet that tell me I could order a slipcase to house all three of the EE DVD sets. I logged on using the www.lotrdvdbox.com address and my smile turned to frown when it can only accept credit card payment. It's as if I can't make a money order of 3 lousy US dollars and send it in. Bummer!


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 15, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> That's it, someone whip out the scroll of _Raise Dead_.
> 
> As to the whole argument about whether PJ did or did not understand Tolkien... all I can say on the matter is I believe that understanding is dependant on the person. As such, what you take from anything - be it books, movies, art, or life - is neither wrong, nor is it right. Understanding is.



Correction: Resurrection....

And yeah...understanding the understanding, is even better .


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 15, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> That depends upon who the producer is and who the director is. Steven Spielberg, for instance, could have gotten his way. However, I use him only as an example. This shouldn't be interpreted as argument on my part that Spielberg would have done it better, only that he probably could have gotten the freedom to do so.



On that note, I would say this, _It is now done, and for the time being, enjoy on what has presented and represented to the best of our ability, we can bring out._


----------



## TanisFrey (Dec 16, 2004)

*the Scourging of The Shire*



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I can live without the Scourging of The Shire I suppose.




There is a enought matteral left in the books to do a move for the Scourging to The Shire.  They could replay some sceans in flashbacks and alter them accordingly, like the giveing of gifts.


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> On that note, I would say this, _It is now done, and for the time being, enjoy on what has presented and represented to the best of our ability, we can bring out._




[MEGA RANT ENGAGE]

Yes, so let's all just shut up. I mean, the book is not perfect by any means, and as such, taking a LITERAL adaptation from book to film is in no way possible, but to make an even worse movie than we already have (I love these movies, just so there's no confusion about my last comment). There is a difference in cinema versus literary conventions. 

And on another note, the movies were NOT made just for the purists, so grow up and go badger George Lucas about Episodes I and II...

It was made for the general public, and it tried to stay faithful to the best of the directors/producers abilities, but it is a FILM ADAPTATION. 

[MEGA RANT DISENGAGED]

Long story short: If it were made like the book, it wouldn't be so well-loved. For that matter, I'm not even sure it'd be entertaining.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 16, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson said himself that the books as wrtitten are unfilmable, I agree. I have heard one thing about RotK EE. The drinking contest, Leg o LAME wins it, against a dwarf?  :\ Proves that Peter Jackson is an elf fanboy. Heaven forbid we get ONE FRICKING SCENE in all three movies where the dwarf does something then the pretty boy elf.




The worst part being that Legolas is barely affected at all.
Now, if the dwarf had passed out and Legolas said "I guess he didn't know elves are immune to alcohol?" or something, but as is, it's silly.


----------



## KenM (Dec 16, 2004)

I just got done watching the "From book to script" feature in app. 5. They did shot footage of what happens to Legolas and Gimli, but decided not to put it in. They do show very brief clips of it.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 16, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> [MEGA RANT ENGAGE]
> 
> Yes, so let's all just shut up. I mean, the book is not perfect by any means, and as such, taking a LITERAL adaptation from book to film is in no way possible, but to make an even worse movie than we already have (I love these movies, just so there's no confusion about my last comment). There is a difference in cinema versus literary conventions.
> 
> ...



uhmmm, was that meant for me? *having that sadden big-eyes, small cat face look*


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

What, as an attack?


----------



## Trainz (Dec 16, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Long story short: If it were made like the book, it wouldn't be so well-loved. For that matter, I'm not even sure it'd be entertaining.




B.I.N.G.O.

I have met more than one person who has no clue about the books and told me that Fellowship (the movie) was long and boring.

And you want the movies to be even more like the books ?

The movie would have failed, and that would have diminished PJ's career and credibility. Furthermore, most complainers would then say "He shouldn't have put everything from the books, he should have considered that it wouldn't have translated as well in a movie".

With that in mind, the PJ trilogy is quasi-perfect. It has the ideal balance of give and take from the books to create the best movie possible about LotR.


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 16, 2004)

*It's scouring, folks*

Sorry to get all pedantic, but the title of the chapter is "The *Scouring* of the Shire. Not the scourging.

The *Scouring* is what the hobbits have to do upon their return -- scour, or scrub the filth out of the Shire (aka. Sharkey and his band of ruffians).

Scourging means to whip or lash for the purposes of inflicting punishment. I'm guessing that wasn't Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin's intent.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 16, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> What, as an attack?



Oh, just look it over again, it wasn't... but never had a *mega rant* added to one of my quote before.
Its like, ya know...so awesome, and scary too.Like DUDE!!!...that was a great rush!!!

LOL....man, a mega rant, will save this for my personal records .

*levity mood is active*


----------



## David Howery (Dec 16, 2004)

how's this for another LOTR movie idea:  if PJ really wanted to do another one, he could do one on the battle for Dale and the Lonely Mountain, with the deaths of Dain and Brand(?), etc.... to be sure, there's not much info on all this in the books, so he'd have to write up a script for it.  Still, it'd be a neat looking movie anyway.....
or, he could just get the film rights for The Hobbit, I suppose....


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Oh, just look it over again, it wasn't... but never had a *mega rant* added to one my quote before.
> Its like, ya know...so awesome, and scary too.Like DUDE!!!...that was a great rush!!!
> 
> LOL....man, a mega rant, will save this for my personal records .
> ...




I called it a "Mega Rant" because I thought someone would start to disagree with me to the point that they might... um... don't wanna give any ideas here.

I said as an attack, because I'm kinda paranoid because someone will... [see above].


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 16, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I called it a "Mega Rant" because I thought someone would start to disagree with me to the point that they might... um... don't wanna give any ideas here.
> 
> I said as an attack, because I'm kinda paranoid because someone will... [see above].



Understood, didn't mean to paranoid you there...LOL. But in all, everyone has a peeve about something, me...I try to find the common middle ground on subjects like this.

Me, I love the movie(s) of LOTR saga.

Small peeve, wanted more(like a addict).

Middle ground: Enjoy the show now, cause, if and when someone else wants to do it better, they better do it in my lifetime...no kidding. .

I will see mine this Saturday, watch on Sunday, in the glorious 5.1 sound,  7 sound speakers, cranked up on high...with a box of tissues next to me.

_If Frodo is gone, what does your heart tell you?_ *A near, near, quote*


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Understood, didn't mean to paranoid you there...LOL. But in all, everyone has a peeve about something, me...I try to find the common middle ground on subjects like this.




Agreed.



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> _If Frodo is gone, what does your heart tell you?_ *A near, near, quote*




It means that Frodo is Keyser Soze...


----------



## Mark Oliva (Dec 16, 2004)

*A PJ Hobbit?*



			
				David Howery said:
			
		

> he could just get the film rights for The Hobbit, I suppose....




Jackson already has said he would like to do "The Hobbit," but he can't get the rights to it.  Personally, I hope it stays that way.  After Jackson's Trilogy, I'd like to see someone else get a crack at "The Hobbit," recognizing that this other director might do either a better or worse job of it than Jackson.  (At least we probably wouldn't have to put up with Elijah Wood and Liv Tyler again.  Jackson doubtless would find some way to slip them into "The Hobbit" too.)


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 16, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> It means that Frodo is Keyser Soze...



No, don't say that!!! The original movie was shocking enough...eeeeeee!!!!


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> No, don't say that!!! The original movie was shocking enough...eeeeeee!!!!




It's not Frodo, then.


















It's Sam. He's engineered this whole ordeal.


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> Jackson already has said he would like to do "The Hobbit," but he can't get the rights to it.  Personally, I hope it stays that way.  After Jackson's Trilogy, I'd like to see someone else get a crack at "The Hobbit," recognizing that this other director might do either a better or worse job of it than Jackson.  (At least we probably wouldn't have to put up with Elijah Wood and Liv Tyler again.  Jackson doubtless would find some way to slip them into "The Hobbit" too.)




He said that he'd try to do so, and most of the main cast (i.e. Fellowship) would like to have either cameos or play their characters' ancestors.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 16, 2004)

?  not a lot of need for previous actors, as there are only three LOTR characters in the Hobbit: Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond...  IIRC....


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 16, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> ?  not a lot of need for previous actors, as there are only three LOTR characters in the Hobbit: Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond...  IIRC....




... Gollum and Gloin...

-Hyp.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 16, 2004)

was Gloin in the LOTR movie?  One of the unnamed dwarves at Elrond's council?


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 16, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> was Gloin in the LOTR movie?  One of the unnamed dwarves at Elrond's council?




Perhaps he was that gray-haired one.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 17, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> was Gloin in the LOTR movie?  One of the unnamed dwarves at Elrond's council?



I think the idea is for John Rhys-Davies to play Gloin, so he looks the same as Gimli mostly.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 17, 2004)

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the extended edition.  Mouth of Sauron was super creepy.  Most of the additional stuff was spot on, though I thought the Saruman section at Isengard was too short/rushed.  

I would love to see a Peter Jackson "The Hobbit."  Would be a pretty simple movie to do compared to even one of the LotR movies, too, I would imagine -- the biggest challenge, I would think, would be getting Smaug real enough to work as a character as opposed to just a special effect.  But given what they did with Golum, I think they can pull it off.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 17, 2004)

It was great, though the criticisms that popped up into my mind between watching it in the theatre and now are still there. At any rate, I'm looking forward to watching these two chapters in the Appendices:

_"The Journey of Legolas: How D&D Munchkin Peter Jackson's Powergaming Fantasy Made It To the Silver Screen, aka 'Ithn't My Character Tho Kewl?!?!'"_

and

_"Journeying the Journey to the Journey's End, Boy, What a Journey, as Scored By Journey, So Journey to Your Journey-riffic Record Store to Extend The Journey! Journey NOW!"_


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 17, 2004)

Mark Oliva said:
			
		

> Tuesday is the official day for the release of the Platinum Extended Edition
> of Part 3 of Peter Jackson's LotR, "The Return of the King," in North
> America.  However, it already was released on Friday here in continental
> Europe and in Great Britain.  For those who'd like some advanced details,
> ...



That's not really much of a deal, especially if you have to wait for shipping.  I picked it up at Future Shop for $34.99..Best Buy was the same.

Haven't watched it yet though..been getting home from work late 

Banshee


----------



## Wombat (Dec 17, 2004)

Just finished watching it.  

This was the last "first time" for these films, and I savoured every minute of the four hours and 20 minutes of tushy-numbing glory.

And I cried all over again.

This is truly an epic.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 17, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Just finished watching it.
> 
> This was the last "first time" for these films, and I savoured every minute of the four hours and 20 minutes of tushy-numbing glory.
> 
> ...



I will join you, this Sunday coming...no X-Box, PC, or music will be played.

*starting to shake*

Be-still...be-still...just wait...a little more.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 17, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think the idea is for John Rhys-Davies to play Gloin, so he looks the same as Gimli mostly.



He has stated that he will never EVER play a dwarf again. (I don't remeber if it was in Appendix 5 or 6.)


----------



## Allanon (Dec 17, 2004)

That was appendix 6. And can you blame him?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 17, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> And we finally see just how Gothmog gets what's coming to him.
> Mouth of Sauron:  neat neat neat!!!



Why'd they put in a scene from the fall of Gondolin from the 1st age?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 17, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I think since nobody on this thread has (I dont think) met or spoken with Peter Jackson, it might be a good idea not to so easily throw around statements about what he did or did not understand. Obviously as director he had a lot of control, but I'm sure there were things he was made to do that he was not happy with.



Obviously you've never listened to the Peter Jackson with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens commentary tracks that run through all three of the extended edition movies.  It's very easy to make statements on what PJ did or didn't understand, because it's quite clear from what he says on the commentary tracks.

Or for that matter, most of the other extras attached to the movies.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 17, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Why'd they put in a scene from the fall of Gondolin from the 1st age?




uh... what?  Gothmog was the big ugly crippled orc commander at the Pelennor.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 17, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> uh... what?  Gothmog was the big ugly crippled orc commander at the Pelennor.



Did they say that in the movie somewhere?  I haven't seen the extended one, but he didn't seem to ever be named before.

And actually, Gothmog was the "captain" of the balrogs, who was killed by Glorfindel (although he killed him in return) during the Siege of Gondolin some 6000+ years before the Lord of the Rings takes place.


----------



## MulhorandSage (Dec 17, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Did they say that in the movie somewhere?  I haven't seen the extended one, but he didn't seem to ever be named before.
> 
> And actually, Gothmog was the "captain" of the balrogs, who was killed by Glorfindel (although he killed him in return) during the Siege of Gondolin some 6000+ years before the Lord of the Rings takes place.




You're both right. Gothmog was the captain of the balrogs in the Silmarillion, and is also named in LOTR as the lieutenant of Minas Morgul who took over the battle after the fall of the Witch-King.

Between naming their battering ram "Grond" and their lieutenant "Gothmog", you have to admire Mordor's sense of tradition.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 17, 2004)

DFEspite being a bit of a Tolkien purist, I will admit that I shed a tear (or two) over the Extended Edition RotK.

Though I still lament the fact that we didn't get "The Scouring of the Shire", we did get a more complete film with this version.

I was particualrly pleased that they expanded Eowyn's role (as they should have.)  The one scene that particularly tore me up was right before the Rohirrim charged into battle at Minas Tirith, when Eowyn hugs Merry and advised "Courage. Courage for our friends."   Gave me goosebumps.

Of course, I'm still miffed at PJ's portrayal of Gimli as the "comic relief."


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 17, 2004)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> DFEspite being a bit of a Tolkien purist, I will admit that I shed a tear (or two) over the Extended Edition RotK.
> 
> Though I still lament the fact that we didn't get "The Scouring of the Shire", we did get a more complete film with this version.
> 
> ...



As much  as it looks like, nevertheless, Gimli has been kicking the tar out of those who faced him and taking names .


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 18, 2004)

The changes from the narrative of the books aren't half as important as the serious miscasting.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Dec 18, 2004)

Saw it. Loved it. Wanted something more of the battle between Gandalf and the WK, but hey you can't have everything. 

Now, here is hoping we get to see PJs Hobbit in the next ten years.


----------



## Asmo (Dec 18, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The changes from the narrative of the books aren't half as important as the serious miscasting.




Ok, can you expand on this a little bit, please?

Asmo


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 18, 2004)

I want to name a son "Grond."

I found it interesting that Aragorn's confrontation with the palantir made the ending of the film (the coronation) much more powerful.  After confronting Sauron, Aragorn gets a glimpse of Arwen dying. Considering what Elrond told him, he probably thinks that she's lost to him forever.

That means that her hiding behind the flag at the end, and his shocked realization that she's alive, has much more of a payoff.  Same sort of thing as Aragorn saying "for Frodo" right before they charge the Black Gates. With the Mouth of Sauron scene, he's saying it because Frodo is dead, not because they're trying to help him.  Good stuff.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 18, 2004)

A son named Grond?

Well, Jon Bogdanove (Superman artist from the 90s) named his son Kal-El Bogdanove. And his dog is Chewie. He had no luck convincing the Mrs. to have a Han Solo Bogdanove, though...


----------



## David Howery (Dec 19, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Did they say that in the movie somewhere?  I haven't seen the extended one, but he didn't seem to ever be named before.
> 
> And actually, Gothmog was the "captain" of the balrogs, who was killed by Glorfindel (although he killed him in return) during the Siege of Gondolin some 6000+ years before the Lord of the Rings takes place.




hmm... no, I don't think they ever did.  I do know that big ugly orc was named Gothmog in the scripts, but they never did come right out and say so in the movie.  In Game Workshop's LOTR miniature battles game, they name him as Gothmog as well....


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 19, 2004)

Finally got around to watching it tonight, and I absolutely loved it despite the fact that Legolas is the cinematic equivalent of a DM's pet NPC.


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 19, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Finally got around to watching it tonight, and I absolutely loved it despite the fact that Legolas is the cinematic equivalent of a DM's pet NPC.




His precious.


----------



## KenM (Dec 19, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Finally got around to watching it tonight, and I absolutely loved it despite the fact that Legolas is the cinematic equivalent of a DM's pet NPC.




  Or the DM's favorite PC/ Girlfriend, ect.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 19, 2004)

*Today is ROTK day...*

Started at 10:00 a.m., today(12/19./04), now finished at 3;08 p.m.

Many here, have their own views, that is a given.

But for the time being, with all the flaws look at, and the perfection wanted.

I enjoyed all of what it was and is...an interpretation of a greater tale already told.

Lord of the Rings was introduce to me, when I was a young one back then, via, the animated film, no one in my family read it to me, no one had that lightbulb premise to do so.

For the years to follow, time and time again, I saw the two verisons of the LOTR(animated), and still, no matter what, both views still capture me, enthrall my being with the sense of adventure of a forgotten age. (I can say, in earnest, my path for D&D was being prepared in this fashion, unknowingly).

During this entire time...I never read the books, and in the late 80's, I finally found out, that Tolkien had passed away quite some time ago.

But still, the mention of the LOTR, has a special place in my heart, and there was growing desire of it, to hopefully see a movie, but it was on a subconscious level.

That subconscious cry, by many, formed and became an impulse to one individual, who in return, did our desire.

For good or ill, our wish was made true, and done so, with what was at hand.

Those who joined this individual, had their reasons, personal and professional, but hear this, and hear this well.

Look pass the veil, and notice at the great care, love and toil was given to this outlet, I have seen many films, and many were not seen by my eyes.

I have noted the ones that were made with the same examples I have named, and noted the ones that were lack luster from the beginning to end.

By our standards, and the way our lives are, there is no guarantee perfect make of a film, just attempts, of trying to get there.

This is what this trilogy is, and nothing more, it is not the holy grail, just a peek of the impossible, made possible.

After nearly 30 years of my life, the world of Tolkien now, has just been expanded for me, from the animated film I so long, saw ago...

Thank You....


----------



## Dakkareth (Dec 19, 2004)

Let me just say, that I'm royally pissed off at the morons at amazon.de for screwing up my order. I'll be happy, if I get the RotK EE before Christmas AT ALL and my Black Company books sometime in January. Seriously, one would think that they should have mastered this webshop thing by now ...

*deep breath*

Ok, I'm guessing it will be the 26th that we have our 11 hour LotR party. I'm greately heartened by the positive reviews, a little sad about the weaker points and a little pissed off at the inane comments. 

But don't mind me, I'm going to bed now before I break something.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 19, 2004)

Dakkareth said:
			
		

> Let me just say, that I'm royally pissed off at the morons at amazon.de for screwing up my order. I'll be happy, if I get the RotK EE before Christmas AT ALL and my Black Company books sometime in January. Seriously, one would think that they should have mastered this webshop thing by now ...
> 
> *deep breath*
> 
> ...



*handing him  a nerf bat*

Go...nerf to your heart's content...


----------



## Allanon (Dec 20, 2004)

I've finally seen all extended movies and all the extended extras. I've already stated in this thread that I fault Jackson for making some decisions concerning the story line and still think some of the stuff he made up was unnecessary. But I will hand it to him and his crew that if one can be entertained, touched and one can even shed a tear at the end of all the extra's behind the scenes stuff you truly made an epic. Kudos to Jackson for making LotR, and kudos to all the people who made Tolkien's world a visual and audioriffic (is that a word?) epic.


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 20, 2004)

Allanon said:
			
		

> I've finally seen all extended movies and all the extended extras. I've already stated in this thread that I fault Jackson for making some decisions concerning the story line and still think some of the stuff he made up was unnecessary. But I will hand it to him and his crew that if one can be entertained, touched and one can even shed a tear at the end of all the extra's behind the scenes stuff you truly made an epic. Kudos to Jackson for making LotR, and kudos to all the people who made Tolkien's world a visual and audioriffic (is that a word?) epic.




It is if you add a hyphen, lol . And as for the rest of it, good stuff.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 22, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Obviously you've never listened to the Peter Jackson with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens commentary tracks that run through all three of the extended edition movies.  It's very easy to make statements on what PJ did or didn't understand, because it's quite clear from what he says on the commentary tracks.
> 
> Or for that matter, most of the other extras attached to the movies.





Yes, I have watched them. But, first that is not the same as knowing and speaking to the person, or being able to read their mind.

Second, what i said was mainly a response to StormRaven's repeated assertions that PJ didnt understand what tolkien was trying to say or do with this that or the other...especially the scene of the ring's destruction. No where in the special features does Peter Jackson state wether or not he understood or was aware of all the subtexts of that scene. Just because he choose (or was made to) alter it from how it was in the book, doesnt mean he didnt understand it. Doesnt mean he did either. That was my point.


----------



## Dakkareth (Dec 22, 2004)

Ahhh, the preciousss case arrived today. Of course my sister immediately took it and won't let me see or touch it, but as it's technically hers ... I need a few days of build-up anyway. Watching the trailers, remembering the last years, etc. I wanted to *read* the books again before watching RotK EE, but somehow there wasn't enough time. Still, it will be glorious ...


----------



## Zulithe (Dec 28, 2004)

Has it been mentioned that Peter Jackson mentions Dungeons & Dragons durring the director/writer's commentary? It happens durring The Paths of the Dead scene. I'm still working my way through the commentaries.


----------



## Zog (Dec 28, 2004)

Yes precious we likes it my precious.
Except for the stupid Witch King my precious.  Yes my love it was very silly, Gandalf the White who has grown more powerful since when he previously defeated a Balrog, the Maia would not be defeated/thrown down so easily by a pesky wraith-slave, no my love he wouldn't.  And it is also foolish in the light of the first movie, when Aragorn drive off the Witch King, and 4 other Nazgul, with a torch and a normal sword.

I did think that the cut away from Eowyn vs Witch-King to Army of dead arriving and then back was a bad choice.  Let Eowyn have her victory, then let Aragorn arrive.  
Also, the climax at the Cracks of Doom needed to be tightened - Frodo lingered to long before turning and claiming the ring, the ring lingered to long before falling in the lava, it was just all half a second to two second too long.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 28, 2004)

> Except for the stupid Witch King my precious. Yes my love it was very silly, Gandalf the White who has grown more powerful since when he previously defeated a Balrog, the Maia would not be defeated/thrown down so easily by a pesky wraith-slave, no my love he wouldn't. And it is also foolish in the light of the first movie, when Aragorn drive off the Witch King, and 4 other Nazgul, with a torch and a normal sword





Indeed. I would be interested to know why Gandalf was so drastically downplayed in the last 2 movies.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 29, 2004)

I think that having Eowyn smacked down by the WK and then cutting away to show the black ships arriving was done to bring the audience emotion down to it's lowest level; it looks really bad for the good guys at that point (yeah, if you read the books, you know what's coming, but Jackson was also aiming at people who hadn't read the books... and most of the audience was the latter).  Then, the Dead arrive, Eowyn rallies and kills the WK, and the audience is uplifted again....


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 29, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Indeed. I would be interested to know why Gandalf was so drastically downplayed in the last 2 movies.




I'd wager Jackson would say it was because they felt if he was too tough it would take away from Aragorn or something.  

I'm just so glad they didn't do the Sauron vs Aragorn fight they originally planned to do.   That would have killed the whole trilogy for me.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 29, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I'd wager Jackson would say it was because they felt if he was too tough it would take away from Aragorn or something.
> 
> I'm just so glad they didn't do the Sauron vs Aragorn fight they originally planned to do.   That would have killed the whole trilogy for me.



 Though I agree that I'm glad they didn't do that fight, I loved the image of Sauron appearing on the battlefield in his 'true' form.


----------



## Orius (Jan 2, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> I've watched all of the extended material of all three movies where Philipa, Jackson and the actors try to defend some of the changes, but none of them really give any good reasons. I won't argue about leaving out the scouring. Nor the removal of Bombadil. But why does everyone considers FotR EE the best of the three movies? Simple, because Jackson added the least amount of own material to the story.




I more or less agree.  I've followed the commentaries (haven't finished the RotK one yet though) from PJ, Phillipa and Fran, simply because I was interested in hearing their excuses for, ahem, butchering the story. 

One of the biggest changes that really irritated me in the movie was having Frodo send Sam away.  They stated two reasons for it: 1) there wasn't enough drama in the Cirith Ungol scenes, and 2) they wanted Frodo to go into Shelob's tunnel alone.  The thing is I don't really buy either argument.

   More drama?  Do they mean more of the hyper-emotional overacting that gets a bit jarring at times?  I could have done without that.  And yeah, I know nothing really happens for much of Sam and Frodo's journey in the book.  That might make for a dull movie experience, but I find the cinematic inventions designed to heighten the drama, i.e., the Osgiliath side trek and Sam being sent home to be such a glaringly huge departure from the story that I _can't_ suspend disbelief enough to enjoy them on their own.

They say having Frodo going into Shelob's lair alone makes it more suspenseful or scary or something.  Exactly what was wrong with the original, i.e.  Gollum guides them into the lair, and then disappears?  How would that not work?  See, that's my problem with some of these changes.  One minor change is made and maybe it's not a bad change, but then it snowballs creatively, and they find themselves making more and more changes and some of those changes really alter the story.

I also don't like the fact that Denethor is a power crazed lunatic through the movie either, but then he's a minor character, and they don't really have the time to develop the character.

Some people find Tolkien's writing dull, boring whatever.  I have to say though, that some of the scenes and dialog he wrote comes off pretty powerfully on screen.  There are places in all three movies where PJ gets the stuff right, and it shines.   That's what make some of the invented stuff seem so bad, because it doesn't really mesh well with the original stuff.

Gimli losing the drinking contest?   Bah.  Yuck.  God, I hated seeing that.  They should have left that scene out.  I don't have anything against Orlando, but I got so sick of seeing him protraying some ridiculous uber-elf in these movies.  Man, PJ is such an elf fanboy that he lets Legolas shoot him!  

Why'd they leave Gothmog's death out of the theatrical release?  They built him up to be such a hateful, despicable character, that the audience would have definitly cheered there.  I haven't gotten this far in the commentary track, so maybe it will be explained.


----------



## qstor (Jan 3, 2005)

I got it for Christmas and watched it over the holidays. It think overall its great. I wish they didn't have the orcs invade Minas Trias (sp) and put the Lord of the Nazgul scene in the theatrical release. I thought the timing of its inclusion in the Extended version to be a bit off since the orcs where in the city already. It still would have been very cinemnatic to have Gandalf meet him on a horse at the gate.

Also, I'm not sure if Aragorn cut off the head of the Mouth of Sauron in the book?

Just being picky 


Mike


----------



## David Howery (Jan 3, 2005)

qstor said:
			
		

> Also, I'm not sure if Aragorn cut off the head of the Mouth of Sauron in the book?
> 
> Just being picky
> 
> ...



he didn't... Gandalf basically just 'revealed himself in all his awesome glory' and took the mithril shirt (and Sting, IIRC) from the MoS, who fled back through the gate.  Also, the MoS was a normal man, not a demonic looking thing, although his horse was a skull headed demon horse thing.  Still, I loved the look of the MoS in the EE... those teeth.. ugh!...


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Jan 3, 2005)

qstor said:
			
		

> Also, I'm not sure if Aragorn cut off the head of the Mouth of Sauron in the book?




No, he did not.  The fate of the Mouth of Sauron is unknown.  He probably died when the Morannon fell; but I've always thought that he could be the BBEG in the FO (Fourth Age).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 4, 2005)

qstor said:
			
		

> I thought the timing of its inclusion in the Extended version to be a bit off since the orcs where in the city already. It still would have been very cinemnatic to have Gandalf meet him on a horse at the gate.




I think one of the failings of the movie (well, limitations of time frame too) was the city of Minas Tirith. From what I recall, the rings of the city are each on par with a fortress wall, so the bad guys taking the first gate was bad, but then they fall back and fall back, etc. I could be wrong of course, but in the movie they really only had a couple of chokepoints, otherwise it was just random city fighting.


----------



## David Howery (Jan 4, 2005)

having the orcs break their way into the first level of Minas Tirith probably was one of those things PJ did to up the excitment level for the general audience.  I think on here that we tend to forget that the majority of the movie audience hadn't read the books, so PJ likely felt free to play around with the book somewhat (to the irritation of so many on here   )


----------



## Goodsport (Jan 4, 2005)

For those who already have all three Extended Edition DVD sets, you can order the Extended Edition Trilogy DVD Slipcase for only $3 from here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





This is the same slipcase that's included with "The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition DVD Trilogy Pack" currently being sold for about $100 or so. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





-G


----------



## qstor (Jan 4, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> he didn't... Gandalf basically just 'revealed himself in all his awesome glory' and took the mithril shirt (and Sting, IIRC) from the MoS, who fled back through the gate.  Also, the MoS was a normal man, not a demonic looking thing, although his horse was a skull headed demon horse thing.  Still, I loved the look of the MoS in the EE... those teeth.. ugh!...





I was pretty sure he didnt cut off the head of the MoS. Thanks. I was thinking about Aragorns alignment when he did it in the EE..lol..It was a pretty choatic act to kill someone under a flag of truce 

Mike


----------



## Sephiroth (Jan 4, 2005)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> For those who already have all three Extended Edition DVD sets, you can order the Extended Edition Trilogy DVD Slipcase for only $3 from here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Offer good only in the U.S."... Damn. I really wanted one of those.
Any word on where you can get it in Europe/Denmark???


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 4, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> Gimli losing the drinking contest?   Bah.  Yuck.  God, I hated seeing that.  They should have left that scene out.  I don't have anything against Orlando, but I got so sick of seeing him protraying some ridiculous uber-elf in these movies.  Man, PJ is such an elf fanboy that he lets Legolas shoot him!



Meh. It's at this point where one's credibility is entirely lost for me.

Elves are "uber" in LotR. Get over it. This isn't "give me balance or give me death" D&D, for pete's sake.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 5, 2005)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> For those who already have all three Extended Edition DVD sets, you can order the Extended Edition Trilogy DVD Slipcase for only $3 from here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, it only accept credit card payment.  

I emailed them but so far no response.   

What do they have against money orders?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 5, 2005)

Finally watched my copy yesterday, after having it for 2+ weeks.

On the whole, I liked almost everything new, except Gothmog chasing Eowyn around the battlefield, like he's some horror movie stalker.  I mean, really.

Oh, and has anyone decided why there are three eagles going into Mordor at the end?  I just got the idea that, maybe, the third was for Gollum, if he was still around.

Brad


----------



## David Howery (Jan 5, 2005)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Oh, and has anyone decided why there are three eagles going into Mordor at the end?  I just got the idea that, maybe, the third was for Gollum, if he was still around.
> 
> Brad



uh.. two to pick up the hobbits and one to fly cover in case any of the Nazgul survived?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 5, 2005)

Hmm...was Gandalf riding an eagle that picked up one of the hobbits? If not, maybe that's the reason for the third.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jan 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Hmm...was Gandalf riding an eagle that picked up one of the hobbits? If not, maybe that's the reason for the third.




Yes, he was.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 5, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Yes, he was.




However, his eagle picked up Frodo.  The second picked up Sam, and the third looked down, and flew off with the rest.

Brad


----------



## Droogie (Jan 6, 2005)

Zulithe said:
			
		

> Has it been mentioned that Peter Jackson mentions Dungeons & Dragons durring the director/writer's commentary? It happens durring The Paths of the Dead scene. I'm still working my way through the commentaries.




Nope, it hasn't, and your right, he does.

Its official: PJ has outted himself. This is a great day! Geek Power.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 6, 2005)

Droogie said:
			
		

> Nope, it hasn't, and your right, he does.
> 
> Its official: PJ has outted himself. This is a great day! Geek Power.



You're the only person I know who'd listen to the commentaries as the film is being shown.


----------



## thalmin (Jan 6, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You're the only person I know who'd listen to the commentaries as the film is being shown.



Nope. Add me to the list. I have just finished viewing the last of the commentaries. Good stuff there, including teasers.


----------



## Orius (Jan 6, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You're the only person I know who'd listen to the commentaries as the film is being shown.




Nope, like I stated earlier in this thread, I've followed the writers'/director's commentaries.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 6, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Meh. It's at this point where one's credibility is entirely lost for me.
> 
> Elves are "uber" in LotR. Get over it. This isn't "give me balance or give me death" D&D, for pete's sake.



 "anything you can do Elves can do better, they can do anything better than you..."

Yep, Elves are very Uber in ME, that's just the way it is.  Imagine the uproar if one of the really powerful elves had been in the fellowship!


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 6, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Yep, Elves are very Uber in ME, that's just the way it is.  Imagine the uproar if one of the really powerful elves had been in the fellowship!




Legolas is a pretty uber elf. Granted, he's not Noldor, but he is actually, Prince Legolas, son of Thranduil, Elf-King of Mirkwood. Although not explicitly stated, I believe he is a First Age elf (as, unlike most other major characters in LotR, he is given no birthdate in the histories of the Second and Third Ages). The only other individuals for whom this is true are explicitly First Age elves, such as Elrond and Galadriel, which makes Legolas something more than 6.500 years old (and gives the possibility that he fought with the Last Alliance at the end of the Second Age). So, he's pretty uber.


----------



## kingamy (Jan 6, 2005)

Droogie said:
			
		

> Its official: PJ has outted himself. This is a great day! Geek Power.




Yeah, but did you hear what he actually said?  He said he left scenes out because they were "too Dungeons and Dragons" in a very disparaging tone.  It really sounded like a non-gamer speaking of  his stereotypes rather than a gamer embracing his hobby.

I don't think it was a great day for Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## Droogie (Jan 7, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You're the only person I know who'd listen to the commentaries as the film is being shown.




Others here have already replied to you, but to clarify, I don't listen to the commentaries on the first viewing. After that, however, I'll listen to the commentaries on subsequent viewings. 

My favorite is always the cast commentary - it's LOL hilarious at times esp. when Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan are talking; you should give it a try.

Next, I'll listen to the director commentary. I enjoy the play-by-play insight from PJ himself.

Although I'm a special FX geek, I won't listen to the WETA commentary - Richard Taylor's whiny, nasal voice becomes awfully grating. When I want to check out behind the scenes on the FX, I just watch the documentaries.

I don't bother with the producer commentary. (Zzzzzzzzzzz)


----------



## Droogie (Jan 7, 2005)

kingamy said:
			
		

> Yeah, but did you hear what he actually said?  He said he left scenes out because they were "too Dungeons and Dragons" in a very disparaging tone.  It really sounded like a non-gamer speaking of  his stereotypes rather than a gamer embracing his hobby.
> 
> I don't think it was a great day for Dungeons and Dragons.




Thats not the impression I got at all. PJ mentions D&D in the context of the movie heading more into the realm of the 'fantastic' at that point, meaning that the path of the dead sequence was more 'high fantasy' than in previous set pieces of the films (please, no debates on high/low fantasy, gang, just trying to get a point across).

It was never his goal for the fantasy elements to be too over-the-top, as he mentioned in a previous documentary. I assumed it was a matter of preference and a desire to match the tone of the books; it doesn't mean he regards RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons with contempt or that he has no experience with them. I'm a gamer, and I didn't want LotR to get too "D&Dish" either.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounded like he was making references to a campaign he played in or even ran, in which an army of the dead was a featured event.

C'mon, man. PJ is/was a gamer. I feel it in my bones. I feel it in the air, and the water...
Trust your game-dar.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 9, 2005)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Same sort of thing as Aragorn saying "for Frodo" right before they charge the Black Gates. With the Mouth of Sauron scene, he's saying it because Frodo is dead, not because they're trying to help him. Good stuff.



Well, I don't agree with your interpretation here, Pcat.

As I see it, the Mouth of Sauron scene clarified that Aragorn DIDN'T believe that Frodo was dead (that much is fairly clear). He had not given in to despair.

Later, when he charges the host, him saying "For Frodo" (somewhat quietly, even) means to me that he still held out hope for Frodo, and that their fighting (and almost assuredly dying) was to buy Frodo the time and opportunity to destroy the Ring.

This is a sacrifice for the good of Middle-Earth.
Very Kingly actions, those.


----------



## Orius (Jan 9, 2005)

Droogie said:
			
		

> My favorite is always the cast commentary - it's LOL hilarious at times esp. when Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan are talking; you should give it a try.




I'm not a huge fan of the cast commentaries myself, though sometimes they say funny things.  My favorite is from the TTEE, where Frodo catches Sam's saltcellar:

Frodo:  "What's in this?"
Dominic Monaghan: "Marijuana."



> Next, I'll listen to the director commentary. I enjoy the play-by-play insight from PJ himself.




I listen to the director's commentary first, because PJ gives us some insight into why things were done the way they were.  And he also mentions some trivial facts about the actual production which really aren't important to know, but which are interesting to hear about anyway.



> Although I'm a special FX geek, I won't listen to the WETA commentary - Richard Taylor's whiny, nasal voice becomes awfully grating. When I want to check out behind the scenes on the FX, I just watch the documentaries.
> 
> I don't bother with the producer commentary. (Zzzzzzzzzzz)




I've never seen either.  I'm really not interested about what any of those people have to say about the movie.  And also, anything really important is probably mentioned somewhere in the documentaries.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2005)

kingamy said:
			
		

> Yeah, but did you hear what he actually said?  He said he left scenes out because they were "too Dungeons and Dragons" in a very disparaging tone.  It really sounded like a non-gamer speaking of  his stereotypes rather than a gamer embracing his hobby.
> 
> I don't think it was a great day for Dungeons and Dragons.



Unless he's referring to that movie we all hate.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 10, 2005)

Droogie said:
			
		

> I don't bother with the producer commentary. (Zzzzzzzzzzz)



I haven't looked into the details of what extras are on the LotR DVDs... there's a _producer_ commentary? What marketing wank thought that would be a good idea?

"Here's where we thought the scene needed more money, so we threw money at it." "Here's another place where more money was needed." "Whew! hahaha! Remember that sequence? Boy, did it need money!" Or: "It was during this scene that we were glad we hired that production team. That Best Boy was a pro. And the Key Grip was a genius."


----------



## Umbra (Jan 11, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> ... there's a _producer_ commentary? What marketing wank thought that would be a good idea?



Its actual post-production which includes the producers (who also directed, etc), plus Howard Shore (small comments), the sound guys, etc.  I listened to it an enjoyed it.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 17, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Legolas is a pretty uber elf. Granted, he's not Noldor, but he is actually, Prince Legolas, son of Thranduil, Elf-King of Mirkwood. Although not explicitly stated, I believe he is a First Age elf (as, unlike most other major characters in LotR, he is given no birthdate in the histories of the Second and Third Ages). The only other individuals for whom this is true are explicitly First Age elves, such as Elrond and Galadriel, which makes Legolas something more than 6.500 years old (and gives the possibility that he fought with the Last Alliance at the end of the Second Age). So, he's pretty uber.




The credibility of my source is somewhat suspect....but i remember reading the Official Movie Guide for the Fellowship of the Ring, and on pg. 44, Orlando Bloom says "As for Legolas, he has seen teh world.  he is incredibly experienced inmany ways.  Mind you, so he should be - after all, he is 2,931 years old!". 

He's no Tolkien scholar, so I don't know the validity of the statement...but being a member of the cast, he would have had access to Tolkien scholars, so maybe one of the appendices mentions it.  IIRC correctly, I *think* Legolas is mentioned in the Silmarilion.

Banshee


----------



## Merlion (Jan 17, 2005)

Your right banshee, Leggy is a little under 3 millenia old. His dad however, is I believe a 1st generation elf, and therefore somewhere in the 10-25 or so millenia range (time was rather odd in the first age).

This makes him by far the oldest member of the Fellowship, excluding Gandalf (who actually existed before there was any such thing as time.)

But even a young elf is still going to be better at most things than most other people, especially physically.

Elrond isnt first generation, but he was alive during the First Age. Galadriel is 3rd generation...at least 10 thousand years old. Cirdan the Shipwright is 1st generation also...him, Galadriel and Elrond are more or less the oldest/strongest elves remaining in middle earth.


----------



## Merlion (Jan 17, 2005)

I also agree with arn...I'm a bit tired of people saying PJ is an elf "fanboy."

Elves in Tolkien's world are wise, strong and powerful. Thats just how it is in that particular story. Fingolfin, a second generation Noldo, fought one-on one with Melkor-Morgoth, the most powerful being to ever walk Middle Earth, and held his own, inflicting terrible wounds.

Finrod Felagund, Galadriel's older brother, nearly defeated Sauron in a spell-song duel.


So yea...PJ isnt a "fanboy". he's just a tolkien fan.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Jan 17, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson said himself that the books as wrtitten are unfilmable, I agree. I have heard one thing about RotK EE. The drinking contest, Leg o LAME wins it, against a dwarf?  :\ Proves that Peter Jackson is an elf fanboy. Heaven forbid we get ONE FRICKING SCENE in all three movies where the dwarf does something better then the pretty boy elf.




I wholeheartedly agree.  At least Gimli farts better than Legolas.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 17, 2005)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> I wholeheartedly agree.  At least Gimli farts better than Legolas.



If you mean enough wind to clear the Golden Hall of Edoras, then yes.

At least Legolas, like all wood-elves, have that potpourri smell.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jan 17, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> At least Legolas, like all wood-elves, have that potpourri smell.




I would've thought that he'd smell like a pine-scented air freshener.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 18, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I would've thought that he'd smell like a pine-scented air freshener.



No, that would be Galadriel.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jan 18, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> No, that would be Galadriel.




I'm glad you said this:


----------

