The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[NYorker]

Remaster not going happen. 2K is the highest you get with LOTR: EE.
I do wonder if, for the ultimate Hobbit boxset, they'll correct that green tint...

[Fayth]

Originally Posted by radagast

That's what I heard PJ said, when it was announced that there nwould be EE versions. Ironically he completely ruined the scene when Gandalf is preventing the Witch-King from entering Minas Tirith.

Yes. That scene is absolutely disgraceful.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Fayth

Yes. That scene is absolutely disgraceful.

There were several moments throughout these films that didn't sit well against Tolkien's conception of the characters (first that comes to mind is Aragorn's Indiana Jones moment in shrugging and killing the Mouth of Sauron), but maybe I've forgotten this bit of the book: what was amiss about Gandalf's scene with the Witch-King at Minas Tirith?

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

There were several moments throughout these films that didn't sit well against Tolkien's conception of the characters (first that comes to mind is Aragorn's Indiana Jones moment in shrugging and killing the Mouth of Sauron), but maybe I've forgotten this bit of the book: what was amiss about Gandalf's scene with the Witch-King at Minas Tirith?

In the movie, the witch king pwnd Gandalf. That never even happened in the book. Gandalf was a WAY bigger badass and that wouldn't have happened even if the showdown would have occurred. If they were going to change it, they could have at least made it EPIC, but come on, Witch King blowing up Gandalf's staff, and Gandalf falling over like a little beotch? Come on now...

[radagast]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

In the movie, the witch king pwnd Gandalf. That never even happened in the book. Gandalf was a WAY bigger badass and that wouldn't have happened even if the showdown would have occurred. If they were going to change it, they could have at least made it EPIC, but come on, Witch King blowing up Gandalf's staff, and Gandalf falling over like a little beotch? Come on now...

Exactly. Gandalf was an "angelic being" (Maia) from the Undying Lands. The Witch-King was only a man. When Gandalf was Gandalf the Grey, he killed a Balrog, who was also an angelic being (Maia). He drove away several Ringwraiths from Faramir as Gandalf the White. In the book, Gandalf took on several Ringwraiths at Weathertop as Gandalf the Grey. As Gandalf the White he defeated Saruman and cast him form the council and the order of wizards.

The Witch-King was killed by a woman and a hobbit. And you think Gandalf couldn't have taken him?

[MacEachaidh]

threefiftyrocket, radagast, thanks for the clarification and reminder.

I imagine I can kinda see why PJ did it - in the shorthand visual language of a movie, I guess he had to show quickly and economically that the Witch-King was mighty powerful so that we could be impressed when he was then killed, as you say, by a woman and a hobbit. But I hear what you say about how this sold Gandalf short.

I wonder how contentious The Hobbit is going to be with Tolkien cognoscenti?

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

threefiftyrocket, radagast, thanks for the clarification and reminder.

I imagine I can kinda see why PJ did it - in the shorthand visual language of a movie, I guess he had to show quickly and economically that the Witch-King was mighty powerful so that we could be impressed when he was then killed, as you say, by a woman and a hobbit. But I hear what you say about how this sold Gandalf short.

I wonder how contentious The Hobbit is going to be with Tolkien cognoscenti?

The problem was the continuous re-writes that went on every single day during filming... and the re shoots and the pick-ups that were done later on... some things just got muddled, some was because of Phillipa Boyens "improvements" as she put them...

[Fayth]

Well, at least they had the sense not to include Aragorn fighting Sauron at the Black Gate.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Fayth

Well, at least they had the sense not to include Aragorn fighting Sauron at the Black Gate.

+1000

that woulda been a bad bad bad move...

[gl-14]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Oh no, you mentioned the War!!

There are people who'll claim it's not on any of them, but it's there. It's on Fellowship only.

Hahaha the nerve of mine to mention The Unmentionable!! Thanks for that, but now I'm not sure if I should buy the EEs. Not for the green tint issue, but what if a more comprehensive box set comes out for LOTR + The Hobbit + green tint corection?? I may have to wait now...

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by radagast

Exactly. Gandalf was an "angelic being" (Maia) from the Undying Lands. The Witch-King was only a man. When Gandalf was Gandalf the Grey, he killed a Balrog, who was also an angelic being (Maia). He drove away several Ringwraiths from Faramir as Gandalf the White. In the book, Gandalf took on several Ringwraiths at Weathertop as Gandalf the Grey. As Gandalf the White he defeated Saruman and cast him form the council and the order of wizards.

The Witch-King was killed by a woman and a hobbit. And you think Gandalf couldn't have taken him?

Eh, the book is far more ambiguous on who would have won the fight. Even Gandalf admits he's uncertain of the outcome. Indeed, Gandalf was much more powerful... but so was the Witch King. The Witch King's power is diminished in the movies by removing the blades of Arnor ("bound with spells of Westernesse/Numenor") from the Halflings, which is the consequence of removing the Barrow Downs (and Tom Bombadil).

The worst ruining of the scene is the forces of Mordor breaking into the City. The only one to come through the Gate in the books is the Witch King. His confrontation with Gandalf is anti-climactic since the horns of Rohan blow at just that moment and the Witch King withdraws to lay the smack down on Theoden. Gandalf is going to pursue and force the issue but must choose between saving Theoden or Faramir... Ultimately, it doesn't matter which actually lol since Faramir isn't really needed anymore (except to yield to Aragorn?)

One of my biggest beefs with PJ's take is Aragorn's self doubt in the movies. In the books, he has no doubt at all. He's always putting his thang down and telling everyone his lineage and showing off Anduril. Supremely self-confident and none of the doubt Vigo put on screen.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Eh, the book is far more ambiguous on who would have won the fight. Even Gandalf admits he's uncertain of the outcome. Indeed, Gandalf was much more powerful... but so was the Witch King. The Witch King's power is diminished in the movies by removing the blades of Arnor ("bound with spells of Westernesse/Numenor") from the Halflings, which is the consequence of removing the Barrow Downs (and Tom Bombadil).

The worst ruining of the scene is the forces of Mordor breaking into the City. The only one to come through the Gate in the books is the Witch King. His confrontation with Gandalf is anti-climactic since the horns of Rohan blow at just that moment and the Witch King withdraws to lay the smack down on Theoden. Gandalf is going to pursue and force the issue but must choose between saving Theoden or Faramir... Ultimately, it doesn't matter which actually lol since Faramir isn't really needed anymore (except to yield to Aragorn?)

One of my biggest beefs with PJ's take is Aragorn's self doubt in the movies. In the books, he has no doubt at all. He's always putting his thang down and telling everyone his lineage and showing off Anduril. Supremely self-confident and none of the doubt Vigo put on screen.

I'm not sure I would use the word "ambiguous". Since Providence is a subtle theme in the book, I would say that Gandalf was not meant to defeat the Witch-King. However, I have NO DOUBT that he would have had the WK not turned away to fight Rohan.

Tolkien had to write his way out of the confrontation. I think he did it well, as what happened was much better.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

threefiftyrocket, radagast, thanks for the clarification and reminder.

I imagine I can kinda see why PJ did it - in the shorthand visual language of a movie, I guess he had to show quickly and economically that the Witch-King was mighty powerful so that we could be impressed when he was then killed, as you say, by a woman and a hobbit. But I hear what you say about how this sold Gandalf short.

I wonder how contentious The Hobbit is going to be with Tolkien cognoscenti?

I think at this point, most Tolkienites should be expecting the Hobbit movie to be more in tone with the LOTR movies than the Hobbit book. The only issues we would have is major plot changes. Some of the additions are just expanding what is only mentioned, like the White Council and the Necromancer. But that is not a change. It's more of an amplification.

[Uxi]

Specifically look at Gandalf's conversation with Denethor when he talks about the Witch King. Gandalf admits that it will be a test for him. The main issue with the extended scene is the shattering of Gandalf's staff. Everything else, even being tossed from Shadowfax, works.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

No mate, not at all. I'm puzzled how that came out of what I wrote. (Unless this was a leg-pull that I didn't follow ..??)

Assuming you're not ribbing me:
All I meant was that, in holding off on a new release for a while like Disney does, in not having a new version too frequently, it helps to ensure that more people will snaffle the next version when it does come out. The first Hobbit flick is only a year away, which is next to nothing in video-release time, so I reckon we'll probably have a Blu-ray release of An Unexpected Journey on its own around October 2013, and a single release of There and Back Again in October 2014, the two-film set for Christmas 2014, and a Middle Earth: The Complete Saga box set ( !! ) around April 2015.

I've said before in this thread (just a couple of posts among thousands, I realise) that I reckon that, when the LotR films get their next release, we'll find that Fellowship has quietly had a new colour restoration and transfer made from all the pre-colour-grading elements that the somwhat-obsessive aPeter Jackson must have stored somewhere.

My own suspicion is that The Teal wasn't how Jackson and Lesnie "wanted it to look" at all -- that it was a quick-and-dirty solution to a film they knew really needed a more extensive colour restoration treatment, one costly in both time and money, and one the studio wouldn't come at. The response of "this is how the director wanted his film to look" is pure boilerplate, and in the face of the complaints, I think the studio is now stonewalling. Fixing it and doing a disc replacement program now is probably cost-prohibitive for them, and they'd lose too much face; doing another release in a year or so with a "fixed" transfer is only going to cause more uproar from the people who will feel cynically manouevred into buying the set all over again. Their best face-saving move for the studio is to leave it now, and centre a new release around The Hobbit.

But I'm personally frustrated (and frankly, disgusted) at all the Quisling apologists for the studios, the keyboard warriors on the Internet, who make it possible for the studios to ignore complaints by counter-attack arguing with and deriding anyone claiming there's a problem with the transfer and that the studio should have done a better job with this film.

So no, I'm really not saying it doesn't matter !!

(Phew. Aren't you glad you asked?! )

Sorry man, I was a little too buzzed last night, and have no idea what I was talking about. I completely agree with everything you said there. Very nicely said.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Sorry man, I was a little too buzzed last night, and have no idea what I was talking about. I completely agree with everything you said there. Very nicely said.

Is THAT what happened to your posts last night? I was wandering the forums and came across a couple of them and just had a good chuckle here and there. No offense mate - thought you'd gone off your rocker a wee bit

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

Is THAT what happened to your posts last night? I was wandering the forums and came across a couple of them and just had a good chuckle here and there. No offense mate - thought you'd gone off your rocker a wee bit

None taken. And it wasn't a wee bit. I completely fell off my rocker. Work today was not fun at all!


I did find a way to reduce the tint/contrast problem on Fellowship that I had, but apparently not everyone had.
I switched from warm color temp to cool, and increased contrast by +2 and brightness by +3. It's still not perfect, but it does look much better. I think adjustments might fix some problems, but it also creates some other ones too, to some extent. Out of all of my blu-rays and DVDs, this is the only movie that I change any of my video settings for, and since I've spent countless hours trying to get my picture as accurate as I can, there's no way that I would just leave it that way.

These are some of my absolute favorite movies, and even with the problems with FotR, I'm still very, very happy to have this in my collection.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Specifically look at Gandalf's conversation with Denethor when he talks about the Witch King. Gandalf admits that it will be a test for him. The main issue with the extended scene is the shattering of Gandalf's staff. Everything else, even being tossed from Shadowfax, works.

The EE scene between Gandalf and The Witch-King wasn't even a test. Gandalf was totally overcome. You just made my point. And you haven't dealt with the other incidents where Gandalf was not pwned by some powerful adversaries.

Grand Bob should way in on this. In Middle Earth history, The Witch-King ran away from Glorfindel, an elf. I'm also pretty sure that the Istari had the power to challenge Sauron directly, but were forbidden to do so.

So the scene where Gandalf is knocked off the horse AND his staff breaking is spurious. It didn't happen in the book and it shouldn't have been in the movie either. It definitely doesn't work for anyone who loves Tokien's universe.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by radagast

The EE scene between Gandalf and The Witch-King wasn't even a test. Gandalf was totally overcome. You just made my point. And you haven't dealt with the other incidents where Gandalf was not pwned by some powerful adversaries.

Gandalf the Grey didn't get pwnt by the Balrog, sure, but defeating it cost him his life. The Valar sent him back as White. The other Nazgul weren't as strong as the Witch King but IIRC Gandalf mentions he was sorely pressed at Weathertop and admits to fleeing from them after a large pyrotechnics display. But yeah, I disagree with shattering the staff. You're overstating it a bit, but the Witch King was just as much a threat to Gandalf as the Balrog, though.

In Middle Earth history, The Witch-King ran away from Glorfindel, an elf. I'm also pretty sure that the Istari had the power to challenge Sauron directly, but were forbidden to do so.

Something like that. Glorfindel wasn't just any elf, but an Elf Lord 'from a house of princes' who had been to Valinor. He's far more powerful than say... Legolas or Celeborn or your average Noldor, much less any of the Sindar. Only Galadriel and maybe Elrond were more powerful. The Witch King himself was much less powerful then, as well, as his power is tied to that of his Master's, which was in eclipse at that point in time with Sauron dormant. By the time of the siege of Minas Tirith, Sauron had taken form again and his power was waxing.

[Constitution 101]

I also felt that encounter was inconsistent. But then again, they could've just had Garthwaite drop the ring in Mount Doom at the beginning. Then we'd have no conflicts at all!