Return of the King: Extended Edition

[JennRose]

Well, we Americans are going to get this final, souped-up DVD set tomorrow. (I'm not sure of its release dates in other countries)

I for one am so, so excited! This was one, if not THE, best series of films I have ever seen and will buy it on payday. Anyone seen the extended version yet? Anyone else excited? Comments?

Edited December 14, 2004 by JennRose

[JennRose]

Oh, and if you hated the movies, feel free to share that...just beware my wrath!

[Mad Manfred]

They were very good...just a couple things bugged me overall.

1 - Leaving things out and adding things in...for example; taking out Tom and giving Arwyn a more prominent role.

2 - Jackson taking alot of his ideas from the LOTR cartoon movies that came out in the 80's. Watch them. They're identical right down to the last detail.

Other than those I have no real concerns.

I haven't bought these extended versions since Fellowship as they're a waste of your time and money. Why on earth would you want 40 extra hours of Jackman talking about how brilliant he is or Wood describing for us once more how uncomfortable Hobbit feet are?

[JennRose]

They were very good...just a couple things bugged me overall.

1 - Leaving things out and adding things in...for example; taking out Tom and giving Arwyn a more prominent role.

2 - Jackson taking alot of his ideas from the LOTR cartoon movies that came out in the 80's. Watch them. They're identical right down to the last detail.

Other than those I have no real concerns.

I haven't bought these extended versions since Fellowship as they're a waste of your time and money. Why on earth would you want 40 extra hours of Jackman talking about how brilliant he is or Wood describing for us once more how uncomfortable Hobbit feet are?

402874[/snapback]

1.-- While Bombadil was an interesting character to read about, he really served no purpose to further the plot. Tolkien originally started LOTR as more of a children's book, so the whimsical character was more "at home" early in the book. And, from a woman's standpoint, there was so little input from female characters that it was nice to have one a little more developed. It also helped to keep the narrative from being cluttered by too many characters on film.

2.--He actually did some of the scenes from Fellowship as a tribute to the Bashki films. Very much intended to be recognized. It wasn't done in a sneaky way--it was an homage and he talked about it on several interviews.

And I promise there isn't that much cast shenanigans or director bragging on the extended versions. For such a 'big' name and being so totally rich, Peter Jackson is very humble and just an overall nice person (I met him in Austin last year). The main behind the scene stuff involves the 'whys' and 'hows', not 'look what we did'...a must have for movie freaks. Plus the additional footage is great.

I promise I am not a studio plant trying to help this DVD sell, I'm just a really big fan.

Edited December 14, 2004 by JennRose

[BurnSide]

The are NOT a waste of time Manfred, believe me. The extra footage is so worth it, it's like watching an entirely new movie. Tons that was cut out of the books is put back in, it makes the movies at least 30% better.

Plus, the extra's and specially are absolutely stunning. For example in Two Twoers there's a good 2 hour thing on the making of gollum that was literally jaw-dropping.

Don't bash it unless you've watched it all. Not at any point does Jackson simply sit around and praise his work, all the specials are more than worth the extra 10 bucks.

I'm so excited for the RotK extended edition. My god, i've waited three years without buying these movies and simply borrowing them so i could buy an extended edition box set, then have a marathon of 12+ hours of lord of the rings. !!!

[Subtemperate]

I have watched the special editions, of all three, and believe me they are very worth it. You get greater character Depth, and often little bits are put in which now makes things make a bit more sense.

I for one would hate the two towers, without the scene where all the uruk's run into the forest.... after gandalf and co arrive.....

Number 3 is very good, and some bits which Jackson did change are necessary..... Some are not, but I doubt anyone could have made a better trilogy then what he did....

[Dowdy]

i got my copy on the 11th Dec. Spent all day watching it - i really mean ALL DAY

The scene with gandalf and saruman i really liked

[Seraphina]

I was very happy with it too...a lot of loose ends were nicely tied up (the most obvious being Saruman's death). And, although I'm not altogether happy with the way they cut him out as "Sharky"...I do understand Jackson's point that it wouldn't really work in a movie: You can't just restart telling the story after it's supposed to have ended

It was nice to see them pick up a lot of the threads that seemed to have been left dangling...Although they also added in a lot of stuff that I think was better left on the cutting room floor (I much prefered the way they introduced the army of the dead staight into the Pelenor feilds, than give it away so early that they'd be there....then again...the dead weren't actually AT Pelenor in the books).

[Subtemperate]

I actually preferred the way they they showed the army of the dead in the extended edition. In the theatre realise, it was still obvious they were going to be turning up, because Gandalf told Aragorn about them, and when it turned up..... it was empty.... So you did know what was coming anyway......

[Seraphina]

lol, it's not about the surprise (heck, I wasn't surprised...I've read the books several dozen times)...it's about how dramatic it was Seeing the army of the dead appear from the ships I actually teared up It was had so much less...omph...in the "You and who's army!?" moment...which seemed very cheesy to me

[Subtemperate]

The line was cheesy, but the moments before that actually added something to the film, instead of us believing the ghosts answered aragorn with a "ok...we'll do it"... and following him out the door......

[Cpt.InsaneO]

Well im glad im not the only one looking forward to the extended versions.

three very good movies from three very good books.

[neo cloud 8900]

i want to get this set, after i get the other two.

[Seraphina]

Oh, I forgot to mention....the Mouth of Sauron was the most hideous thing I have ever seen Absolutely awesome

[Guest]

I'm very much looking forward to the extended edition! The first two were awesome, I'm sure that RotK will be the best one of the three.

[Subtemperate]

Yes, Mick Jagger was great.... pity they couldnt give him make-up

[BurnSide]

What!?

The part with the Army of the Dead appearing behind Aragorn was priceless! That sucks that they ruined that.

But i'm glad they actually did show what happened to Saruman at the end. I agree with Sera that it was good that Jackson took out the 'Sharky' destroying the shire part, as she said, you can't start retelling the story once it's ended.

[ChrisC098]

I want all of them. They will be my precious.

[DC09]

I guess I'm one of the few who found the LoTR movies utterly boring.

The books were good, but the movies were way too drawn out.

[Tillghast]

OMG!!!!

They were the best! The Witch King kicked ass, The Siege of Minas Tyrith was awesome and Shelob was pretty cool.

They should have had Saroun come to life and start walking around and kill somone before Gollum falls in Mt. Doom.

[Talon]

While Bombadil was an interesting character to read about, he really served no purpose to further the plot. Tolkien originally started LOTR as more of a children's book, so the whimsical character was more "at home" early in the book. And, from a woman's standpoint, there was so little input from female characters that it was nice to have one a little more developed. It also helped to keep the narrative from being cluttered by too many characters on film.

I agree on Bombadil, he was a waste of space. I disagree on Arwyn as in the book Eowyn was the main female and Arwyn's increased role (from not even appearing in the book aside from being refered to by other people to becoming a main character) took that from her. Another thing, the story wasn't attempting to be a politically correct male and female equality story it was supposed to be a story based in a feudal pre-recorded time Europequse land and so represented ideas concurent with that time frame. Tolkien didn't write that many strong characters into the books because realistically the time he was writting about wouldn't have had them. If anything Eowyn represented an element of equality between the sexes in the book in her wish to go to war, then going nontheless when she was told she wasn't allowed. But this was ruined by the fact that we'd already seen Arwyn doing the same think the previous movie.

Also Arwyn was so annoying. All she did was whisper in that pathetic voice and sulk, and since she was barely in the book she was essentially a made up character in relation to her personality. Eowyn was a far better main female lead, and a far better character.

And, although I'm not altogether happy with the way they cut him out as "Sharky"...I do understand Jackson's point that it wouldn't really work in a movie: You can't just restart telling the story after it's supposed to have ended

I feel they could have recorded it for the extended DVD though as tribute to all the fans. As for the cinema, I don't get why they didn't have the Sauroman death scene in it, as it was only an extra 6 mninutes.

[Subtemperate]

I agree with you, however as Arwen was such a big part of Aragorn.... As a movie you need to show how powerful a motive his love for her is for him.... and the best way to do that is exactly the way PJ did it.

[BurnSide]

I agree with Subby on that. Arwens role was vital in the movies in showing what drove Aragorn forward. Throughout the whole ordeal she was always in his thoughts, and then he finally gets her at the end, well, it has a bigger impact on the viewer than just having this woman randomly referred too by other characters.

[Talon]

I'm not saying otherwise, but I do resent her undermining Eowyn's character. They could have made her a love interest without making her annoying and stealing Eowyn's thunder.

[Subtemperate]

How so? If your asking the average person who is not a book fan to name characters in the film (I have done this with a few friends) then Eowyn usually comes up....Arwen hardly at all..... Eowyn is a far more important person in peoples minds, then arwen.....

How does Arwen undermine Eowyn's character..... She is in a total of two passages in current time in all three movies (i think).... the rest are all in the thoughts of aragorn..... Arwen's role in the movie is to help build Aragorns character, and he is far more important then Eowyn....