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

[Blu Jedi Master]

Is not the green hue only in the Theatrical version of Fellowship of the Ring?

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by dallascowboys1

Is not the green hue only in the Theatrical version of Fellowship of the Ring?

Extended FOTR

[jlou44]

this may have been asked before, but I can't my digital copy codes. Where are they located? Thanks!

[#Darren]

It's not easy being green.

[kemcha]

Purchased Lord of the Rings Extended Blu-ray collection at Best Buy for $15. I'm considering myself very lucky. I purchased a brand new copy of this collection, from a Best Buy store, for $14.99. While I won't be watching it for several days yet, I plan on watching it in about a week. For a set that Best Buy retails at $99.99, it was on sale for $49.99. Best Buy had sent me a free gift card for $35 (because of some problems related to an online order I placed as well as having customer service problems with a local Best Buy store). My final cost was $15. So, I'm happy that I finally have this set in my collection.

jlou44, in order to download your digital copies, your digital codes should have been on a slip of paper that was inserted inside your boxed set. When you opened up your boxed set, there were two inserts. The first insert was a special foldout advertisement for Harry Potter memorabilia. The second insert was a simple single piece of printed glossy paper that includes the digital codes for all three movies. If you threw that slip of paper away, then you're simply out of luck

[The_Donster]

Kemcha, you lucky SOB. That is a great price and around the price I paid for the dvd set a few years back. Hopefully I can eventually track this set down for less than the $50. I should have jumped and had BB price match when Fry's had it for $40.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Bad Boy Dazza

It's not easy being green.

It's The Lord Of The Green

[kemcha]

Thanks, The_Donster. Best Buy still has it on sale for $49.99:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Lord+Of+...0blu&lp=1&cp=1

The only other sets that I'm interested in purchasing are the Jurassic Park Blu-ray collection and the Superman Movie Franchise collection. I have to say that I think the Jurassic Park set is one of the most horribly designed collections ever made. I hate those "open end" boxed set like Jurassic Park and Back to the Future which is why I'm reluctant to purchase them.

[Madness91]

To tell you the truth... I bought the back to future and jurassic park trilogy packs and they are not that bad. While I'd much rather prefer a Bourne Trilogy, or Godfather/Blade Runner type of setup, it's not as bad it seems, especially if you have somewhere to keep your movies such as a shelf etc.

The only real benefit I say you get from having a paper fold-out set is probably the artwork behind the discs.

I still haven't bought the lord of the rings extended set yet, only because I have them on dvd, and that I bought all 3 theatrical blu-ray versions for $4.99 each on a whim at wal-mart. Though I am waiting for them to fix the redundancy of discs. There's no need to have 3 separate dvd's for extra materials when all that SD can easily fit on blu-ray disc. Also I'm hoping they eventually put the entire length of the movies on one disc, like they did with the extended re-release on dvd.

[kemcha]

Well, at least I was able to get the Lord of the Rings boxed set for $15 and now I have Stargate Atlantis on its way for $75, should get that set in next day or so.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by sputter

Heh, and maybe we can get the right ending of the story too...

And Sam needs to go off to the Grey Havens as well... He was a Ring Bearer after all...

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

It depends on what your premise is. If your premise is "the closer to the book, the better the movie", than you can make many valid critiques/suggestions regarding the LOTR trilogy/Hobbit. I'm not 100% certain that's always the case. READING words is different than SEEING moving images for most people, and as such sometimes deviating from a book substantially is the proper course(in order to make a better MOVIE, not a better BOOK). The mediums are so different it's difficult in that which is good for one isn't ALWAYS good for the other(particularly considering the point you made regarding the need for over the top action). I imagine they simply consider which parts contribute to/take away from making a better VISUAL story vs. a WRITTEN one. For example, I thought removing Tom Bombadil from the MOVIES was a good idea. I don't feel he would've really added anything to them(even while reading the books I aways felt like he stuck out like a sore thumb).

While your general premise has some merit, in this case Grand Bob is correct. Leaving out things like Bombadil is one thing. Drastic alterations in the tone and character of a story are quite another. Drastic changes in the personalities and character of persons in the story are also quite another.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by radagast

While your general premise has some merit, in this case Grand Bob is correct. Leaving out things like Bombadil is one thing. Drastic alterations in the tone and character of a story are quite another. Drastic changes in the personalities and character of persons in the story are also quite another.

See, I don't know that there are any DRASTIC changes to characters in the films. You can argue Arwen I suppose, or the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, but these are really speculative-type filling in blanks where there wasn't specifics to begin with.

And of course, the much-maligned (in this thread anyway) showdown between Gandalf and the Witch-King, but in all these cases I thought the alterations fit the story that was being told and they were all still more or less faithful to the tone of the book.

Tom Bombadil is sorely missed, but I agree that he would have felt like a diversion in the streamlined version of the story they set out to tell.

[#Darren]

For me the most painful omission was the scouring of the shire.

[frogmort]

But, but... The Witchking of Angmar was just a ghost of a man, enslaved by a ring. Gandalf was an angelic figure, sent from Valinor; one of the Maiar. He would've stomped his ass.

[kemcha]

Well, it looks like I'll have my hands full over the next two weeks. I'll be jumping into two boxed sets. Stargate Atlantis and Lord of the Rings. Can't wait to start this until tomorrow. I hope the PQ on both sets is spectacular.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by frogmort

But, but... The Witchking of Angmar was just a ghost of a man, enslaved by a ring. Gandalf was an angelic figure, sent from Valinor; one of the Maiar. He would've stomped his ass.

Agreed, but for the films, I think I prefer Gandalf being afraid of him as it serves for higher stakes in the dramatic tension. The pay off with Eowyn is much greater as a result to me. Again. FOR THE FILMS.

And in terms of the films, mention of the Maiar would only have added extra filling to an already amazingly dense and faithful adaptation. The 'Maiar' are really there for the ubernerds (myself included) who scour the Unfinished Tales and the Christopher Tolkien histories for every last detail. They would have only diverted focus from the crux of the story which was to destroy the ring. As would Tom Bombadil. As would the Barrow Wights. As would Frodo waiting till he was 50 to leave the Shire.

To this, I can already hear objections. Why not remain completely faithful to the book? And I'm sure you can already hear my rejoinder: Books and movies are two different things. I happen to like this 'interpretation' of The Lord Of The Rings.

[frogmort]

I think even the most ardent old school book worm guys love the movies, especially the extended versions, but that doesn't mean we mindlessly except everything from PJ & CO.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by happydood

See, I don't know that there are any DRASTIC changes to characters in the films. You can argue Arwen I suppose, or the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, but these are really speculative-type filling in blanks where there wasn't specifics to begin with.

And of course, the much-maligned (in this thread anyway) showdown between Gandalf and the Witch-King, but in all these cases I thought the alterations fit the story that was being told and they were all still more or less faithful to the tone of the book.

Tom Bombadil is sorely missed, but I agree that he would have felt like a diversion in the streamlined version of the story they set out to tell.

Faramir kidnapping the Hobbits?

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Bad Boy Dazza

For me the most painful omission was the scouring of the shire.

They set it up in the first, a little bit, continued it greatly in the second, but also "finished" it in the second as well....
Why spend all that time only to not go through with it?