Lord Of The Rings Theatrical vs. Extended!

[kdawq]

Why is everyone in a tiff over new line releasing the theatrical versions of these movies over the extended. I mean I understand "MORE" movie but really isnt 3 hrs each movie enough!!!!..LOL.....

[Tok]

It's called double dipping aka maximizing profits.

The problem is that really LOTR films should have been released as seamless branching options on single discs. It's not like the extended editions are never coming, but I don't like the posturing by the studio that the extended cuts are not coming to Blu until the Hobbit reaches the theater. Basically they are trying to scare the fans that really have to have it NOW.

I really want the extended trilogy, but I have already spent enough on LOTR that I can wait. If Warner/NL wants my cash they will put out a BD extended trilogy.

[kdawq]

But speaking as someone who has only seen the theater versions...am I missing a big chunk of the story by NOT seeing the extended or am I okay with having seen the theater version only.

[jakeneff]

You are missing enormous chunks of story...timewise, a whole movie's worth over the span of the trilogy. I refuse to watch the theatrical versions.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by jakeneff

You are missing enormous chunks of story...timewise, a whole movie's worth over the span of the trilogy. I refuse to watch the theatrical versions.

Agreed. The Theatrical Editions are trimmed down versions of the directors intent, which are the extended cuts. They did this to allow theaters to maximize profits at the box office. If the films were 4 hrs long it would have eliminated quite a few showings and reduced the box office revenue for theaters and the studio.

If you have watched the extended cuts you would understand why they are superior in every way. Almost every cut sequence is significant to the story and more closely reflects that of the books they were based on.

As far as I am concerned, there is only one way to watch Lord of the Rings and that is the Extended cuts. Period.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Extended versions (More awesome scenes = Win)

[boz55]

Extended is the only way to see it!

[Monolithium]

What is this "theatrical edition" you speak of?

[Daaark]

I only own the theatricals myself. I couldn't imagine myself watching 4 hour movies, especially re-watching them.

Is there that much of a difference?

[Hayabusa85]

Of course there is that much of a difference. Not like some extended cut that adds 5 minutes you don't even realize. There is a lot added and anybody that has read the books with the theatrical versions could easily pick out a lot missing so the extended versions get a lot of that content in it. Even then there is stuff missing though. Can only imagine how long they would have been if they managed to squeeze in every last detail from the book

That being said just like I did with the DVD's I am more than happy double dipping and getting to enjoy some version of these as soon as I can instead of holding out.

[butcher2008]

Just wanted to say thanks to all for the information in this thread. Keep the guns at bay, but I haven't seen any of the LOTR movies . I also had no clue why there was so much commotion regarding the theatrical vs extended cuts. Now I know. Thanks again everyone!

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Spinoff360

That being said just like I did with the DVD's I am more than happy double dipping and getting to enjoy some version of these as soon as I can instead of holding out.

Really though there isn't much point. Are you going to watch the Theatrical after you own the Extended? Its kinda of a waste of money. Plus, the Extended on DVD are probably the highest picture quality DVD's that exist. So, I don't think its honestly worth it. Double dipping on it just tells the studios to do it again in the future. Please don't give them reason to double dip.

[bludhound]

They should have release one set with seamless branching. I guess that was too much to ask.

[Daaark]

Originally Posted by Spinoff360

Of course there is that much of a difference. Not like some extended cut that adds 5 minutes you don't even realize.

I understand that, but I still fail to see why I should care, as I've not read the books, and I never intend to. The films in their theatrical cuts seemed fine to me. I never felt like there was something missing. I already find the theatrical cuts to be very long. It'd be hard to sit through the overly long extended cuts. Especially the whole trilogy. 12 hours? lol no way.

Originally Posted by butcher2008

Keep the guns at bay, but I haven't seen any of the LOTR movies

You should. The theatricals are usually less than 10$ on DVD here.

[butcher2008]

Originally Posted by Daaark

You should. The theatricals are usually less than 10$ on DVD here.

I'll probably have a friend Netflix them on DVD sometime in the near future. I've heard great things, just haven't gotten around to seeing them.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by kdawq

Why is everyone in a tiff over new line releasing the theatrical versions of these movies over the extended. I mean I understand "MORE" movie but really isnt 3 hrs each movie enough!!!!..LOL.....

The theatrical cuts are incomplete movies to me. Its that simple.

Imagine your favorite movie of all time. Now think of it being released for the first time on Blu-ray. But instead of the entire movie it has various scenes missing. Thats how I feel about the theatrical cuts of LotR.

[Geoff D]

Bah. Even the mighty EE's are pale imitations of the book. The theatrical editions will do me just fine for now.

[aimforsilence]

Originally Posted by jakeneff

You are missing enormous chunks of story...timewise, a whole movie's worth over the span of the trilogy. I refuse to watch the theatrical versions.

I agree, ROTK is like an extra hour longer and adds so much more depth to the story, same with the first 2 films!

[Daaark]

Originally Posted by aimforsilence

an extra hour longer

Don't shoot me, but I find the theatrical cuts to drone on too long already. I'll defer to Kevin Smith who refers to it as 9 hours of watching people walking.

Books and movies are different types of media. With a book, you read bits at a time and set it aside and it doesn't matter how long it is. And Fantasy literature is famous for taking a paper thin plot and padding it with pages of useless information.

If Die Hard were written in the style of fantasy epic, the main villian would have 50 pages of back story detailing the history of his blood line, to be expanded upon in a set of 6 prequel books.

Bruce Willis would have hundreds of pages of fluff about being someone special, and being destined to save everyone, and his back story would be told in a further prequel trilogy.

The building they fight in would have a long drawn out history. You'd know who built it, what conflict had to be resolved to settle the town that it was built, the long, drawn out, made up religions of the builders, etc...

You'd end up with Die Hard + 5 hours of fluff.

LOTR is best suited for a mini-series. As a movie, it's 6 hours of some midgets on a hike, with 150 unimportant subplots playing out around them.

[BLUCanadian]

Originally Posted by Daaark

Don't shoot me, but I find the theatrical cuts to drone on too long already. I'll defer to Kevin Smith who refers to it as 9 hours of watching people walking.

Books and movies are different types of media. With a book, you read bits at a time and set it aside and it doesn't matter how long it is. And Fantasy literature is famous for taking a paper thin plot and padding it with pages of useless information.

If Die Hard were written in the style of fantasy epic, the main villian would have 50 pages of back story detailing the history of his blood line, to be expanded upon in a set of 6 prequel books.

Bruce Willis would have hundreds of pages of fluff about being someone special, and being destined to save everyone, and his back story would be told in a further prequel trilogy.

The building they fight in would have a long drawn out history. You'd know who built it, what conflict had to be resolved to settle the town that it was built, the long, drawn out, made up religions of the builders, etc...

You'd end up with Die Hard + 5 hours of fluff.

LOTR is best suited for a mini-series. As a movie, it's 6 hours of some midgets on a hike, with 150 unimportant subplots playing out around them.

LOL... so I am just wondering... why do you even own these movies??