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

[retablo]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

I will believe that when I see it. You can be anyone behind a computer, but in real life you are just another person. No I am not a writer and I don't care to be. You can watch any movie and see plot holes, the point about a movie is entertainment not dissecting it to find plot holes.

I don't care if you believe me or not. And I AM just another person, just one who's repped and working in Hollywood. I never professed to be anyone special, you started all that by challenging me, then refusing to believe the truth. So it seems the problem is yours, not mine. Would you like the name of my agent?

I was merely stating the obvious. And I'm sure you've NEVER complained about a plot hole before ...

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

the point about a movie is entertainment not dissecting it to find plot holes

Why does it need to be an either/or? That's lowest-common-denominator thinking.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

No I am not a writer and I don't care to be. You can watch any movie and see plot holes, the point about a movie is entertainment not dissecting it to find plot holes.

Here's a list of agents to make it easier on you so you dont have to Google it

http://www.hollywoodscriptexpress.co..._agencies.html

Cute how you "edited" your post to add the agency link after I posted my reply asking if you wanted the name of my agent. Quick, but not quick enough. Nice try though. FYI, My agent is on page "M". His name is Bob.

Funny how you also have no desire to be a "writer" nor to dissect films, yet you have 5 reviews posted here. The purpose of a review IS to dissect a film for its strengths and weaknesses, and relay that to the public so they make make an informed decision as to whether or not to see it. But its so odd that you state you don't do this, yet you do. Hypocritical much?

Anyway, since you derailed the thread with personal attacks, I'll let it get back to discussing the FILMS... both their plot strengths AND weaknesses.

[Jumpman]

How is it a plot hole in the Dark Knight with Lau burning at the top of the money pile that Joker set on fire?

Do we have to see exactly what happened to him. Joker lit the money on fire as Lau was covered in gasoline. What do we think happened to him?

Nolan doesn't dwell on it....

And as the years go on from the trilogy, I yearn more and more for Jackson to do a true director's cut of the films because there are certain sequences that definitely needed to be in the theatrical cut to clear up details here and there while there are other scenes that do add a single thing to the experience of the trilogy.

The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Cut is the only one that goes unscathed.

If I'm being completely honest, I wish Jackson and his writing team would go back to the drawing board and redo the scripts for Towers and King. It's at the script stage where Towers and King falter.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

How is it a plot hole in the Dark Knight with Lau burning at the top of the money pile that Joker set on fire?

Do we have to see exactly what happened to him. Joker lit the money on fire as Lau was covered in gasoline. What do we think happened to him?

Nolan doesn't dwell on it....

Exactly. It's thrown in for no good reason, and the fact that it's NOT dwelled on is my point. It serves no purpose; it's a setup without a payoff. As is the other scene I mentioned in which the Joker at the party was conveniently forgotten.

I used it as a comparison to Saruman being left in the tower forgotten in the TE ROTK.

Originally Posted by Jumpman

It's at the script stage where Towers and King falter.

Possibly, but having worked on several films, often times plot holes come in the the editing stage, not the script stage. I haven't read the books nor Jackson's shooting scripts, but it's more than likely certain scenes were edited for pacing/time/etc and that created plot holes here and there.

All I was saying in the first place, before being rudely "called out", was that people will nitpick something like Transformers 3 to death, pointing out every flaw in the editing and story, yet find phantom defenses when it comes to their favorite movies to try and gloss over the fact that MANY films have inconsistencies. As my point was proven, someone quickly jumped on me and took it personally. Usually it takes longer to prove a point, lol.

[Jumpman]

I wouldn't say it was thrown in there for no good reason. It's set up in the film how Lau betrays the mob. Joker breaks him out and his reward for betraying the mob is death. I don't see how Lau doesn't get a pay off, but anyhoo....

As for the last two Rings pictures, it's in the scripting. Jackson's mistake was bloating out the Two Towers in the script stage.

Cut out Merry and Pippin's worthless scenes, get rid of Arwen entirely (the flashbacks, the present day scenes with her father), get rid of the Warg attack and leave it as it was written in the text (which would also get rid of the ridiculous "Aragorn is dead" silliness), write Faramir as he was written (because the previous film did show that one man could resist the Ring-Aragorn...and by writing Faramir as he was written, we don't have Sam and Frodo go to Osgilith where the most ridiculous thing happens-Frodo presenting the Ring to the Ring Wraith...and no Boromir flashback, which stunk.), re-write and add Sauraman's demise and the cliffhanger of Pippin at the end of the Two Towers (which in turn works as a double cliffhanger with Gollum's reference to Shelob) and you have a picture in it's extended form that's probably three hours max and has the proper pacing.

Not to mention, it doesn't bloat out King. Cut out Arwen's fate tied to the Ring entirely and just reveal her at Aragorn's coronation, for starters. With that said, all Jackson really needed to do with King is cut out some of the silliness he adds in the extended cut and re-do the ending of the film.

The series would've ended on such a better note had Blanchett's character does a voice-over of the epilogue with a montage of images right until they get to the Gray Havens part. And the reason I say this is because it creates a symmetry to the trilogy. Blanchett does the prologue and sort of a middle-logue in the Two Towers. She needed to be the one to do the epilogue in King.

Just my subjective opinion of course. But, it's become increasing difficult to get through the last two films in both the theatrical and extended cut.

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I think Jackson addressed that at the time. As I recall, he said there was no place for that sequence at the end of TTT, and he also felt it dragged things out too much at the start of RotK to include it there (in the cinema cut, anyway).

I thought it was a pity Christopher Lee got so personal about it. Scenes get cut all the time, and almost never is it intended as a slight to the actor(s) involved.

Is Lee filming any scenes for The Hobbit, does anyone know? Presumably it'll be a somewhat diminished role – the pre-Palantir Saruman would have been more involved at Dol Guldur than Lee is probably up for, these days.

I remember PJ discussing it at the time, and of course it wasn't personal, but I believe that was why Christopher Lee didn't show up for the premiere. How personal he took it, I don't know, but he was upset about it.

[MacEachaidh]

I think not showing up for the première is taking things fairly personally!

Anyway, I wasn't slagging him for it, I just thought it was a pity that feelings seemed to run high over what was (rightly or wrongly) an editorial decision, not a judgemental one. If I remember correctly, Lee was also unhappy that the Scouring of the Shire didn't make it into the film, but specifically from a story-based point of view. I do get that he's a passionate Tolkien enthusiast, and understood that when I made my previous comment.

I guess all of us who aren't Peter Jackson have the luxury of second-guessing his choices! (Not that it'll make a bit of difference, of course.)

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by retablo

Exactly. It's thrown in for no good reason, and the fact that it's NOT dwelled on is my point. It serves no purpose; it's a setup without a payoff. As is the other scene I mentioned in which the Joker at the party was conveniently forgotten.

I used it as a comparison to Saruman being left in the tower forgotten in the TE ROTK.



Possibly, but having worked on several films, often times plot holes come in the the editing stage, not the script stage. I haven't read the books nor Jackson's shooting scripts, but it's more than likely certain scenes were edited for pacing/time/etc and that created plot holes here and there.

All I was saying in the first place, before being rudely "called out", was that people will nitpick something like Transformers 3 to death, pointing out every flaw in the editing and story, yet find phantom defenses when it comes to their favorite movies to try and gloss over the fact that MANY films have inconsistencies. As my point was proven, someone quickly jumped on me and took it personally. Usually it takes longer to prove a point, lol.

Well, that's because some movies receive critical acclaim(the Nolan Batman series), and some don't(Transformers 3). The recent Batman series is one of my all-time favorites. Despite having watched them several times, I didn't even catch the hole w/ the Joker at the party. Why not? It simply works. Most people probably didn't notice it, and Nolan probably realized that. It's a tribute to the film maker for being able to pull off a hole that glaring and have people who love the film miss it. It sounds weird to say, but sometimes a hole just doesn't matter if it's a great film(and the directors/writers are clever enough). Sure, the fanboys are there, but that doesn't negate the film maker's ability make a hole go(for the most part) unnoticed. I assume you being in the profession catch it a lot, but in great films like TDK/LOTR, I don't think it matters to people all that much. The more well-recieved a film is, the more you can get away with. Do I think Batman(who has no superpowers) should be able to beat up 10 thugs? No, but it works when I(and most people) watch it. Let's watch that same scene in some low-budget flick, and the 1st thing you're thinking is "gimme a break, there's no way he'd take out all those guys". Hell, in the LOTR, why didn't they just have the giant eagles drop the ring into Mt. Doom and be done w/ it? You don't see many people pointing that hole out. Just my amateur 2 cents...

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by retablo

The irony is that, in any other film, the omission of the fate of Saruman would be construed as a plot hole, and argued incessantly. But not for LOTR fanboys - heck, the Academy even gave the film 11 Oscars. Kind of like the guy Nolan left atop the burning pile of cash in TDK that everyone seemed to forget about.

What omission? Saruman being stuck potentially indefinitely atop the tower is by design, IMO. Him being stranded up there is actually a worse fate than being killed as he is in the EE. I actually like that the TE lets this be ambiguous. Im not defending any LOTR issues or possible plot holes - Im not a blind fanboy. But, this Saruman thing isnt really an issue, IMO.

If ya wanna talk issues and stuff I didnt care for:

- Too many fake deaths, especially for Frodo
- Gollum gets beat up too often
- People always talking in incredibly "deep", philosphical ways to each other, It doesnt always sound realistic
- The bad guys being stoopid, lazy, and inneffective. I know that "henchmen" in movies have to be easy prey for our heroes...but my goodness they are just useless. The Urah-Kai are a little better but they too are incompetent boobs for the most part.

- The Ghosts that come yo help at the end battle of Minnis Tirith. Very convenient and sort of cheap.

Still, love em all nonetheless.

[MacEachaidh]

I haven't seen this discussed here, and I couldn't find it raised in a search of the thread:

I was a bit disappointed to see that the subtitles for translating the Elvish are player-generated, and come in a white, blocky generic text font. On the EE DVDs, the Elvish translations came in a Tolkienesque typeface, so it's a pity that they appear to have dropped that approach for this set.

Or have they? The typeface used for any subtitle varies from player to player, but does anyone here actually get the Elvish speech subtitled in a Tolkien font with these BDs? If so, what player are you using?

[Delgue]

My first post here, and my first blu-ray just bought last night to launch in the new year.

Story line transgressions aside, it definitely blows away my DVD set.

[WhySoCereal]

Originally Posted by Delgue

My first post here, and my first blu-ray just bought last night to launch in the new year.

Story line transgressions aside, it definitely blows away my DVD set.

Welcome to the world of Blu, you'll be out of money in no time.

[Falconer]

Sorry for not scouring through 574 pages of posts to find out, but...

Is there a DVD-to-Blu comparison anywhere that specifically highlights the video changes made to Fellowship of the Ring? I hear much talk, but have yet to see exactly what the fuss is about.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Sorry for not scouring through 574 pages of posts to find out, but...

Is there a DVD-to-Blu comparison anywhere that specifically highlights the video changes made to Fellowship of the Ring? I hear much talk, but have yet to see exactly what the fuss is about.

This one highlights the increased resolution by comparing the DVD and BD releases of the Extended Editions. It also shows the differences with the tint applied:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...he_rings_1_bd2


This one also highlights the often discussed tint by comparing Theatrical and Extended BDs:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...he_rings_1_bd1

As you can see the Blu-ray offers an obvious resolution increase, the theatrical BD has DNR applied and the extended BD has had an overall tint applied which is not present on TTT or ROTK (or The Hobbit trailer).

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by atexp80

This one highlights the increased resolution by comparing the DVD and BD releases of the Extended Editions. It also shows the differences with the tint applied:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...he_rings_1_bd2


This one also highlights the often discussed tint by comparing Theatrical and Extended BDs:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...he_rings_1_bd1

As you can see the Blu-ray offers an obvious resolution increase, the theatrical BD has DNR applied and the extended BD has had an overall tint applied which is not present on TTT or ROTK (or The Hobbit trailer).

Thanks for the info!

I gotta say, after comparing...the extended versions...yeah, that's completely awful.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

What omission? Saruman being stuck potentially indefinitely atop the tower is by design, IMO. Him being stranded up there is actually a worse fate than being killed as he is in the EE. I actually like that the TE lets this be ambiguous. Im not defending any LOTR issues or possible plot holes - Im not a blind fanboy. But, this Saruman thing isnt really an issue, IMO.

If ya wanna talk issues and stuff I didnt care for:

- Too many fake deaths, especially for Frodo
- Gollum gets beat up too often
- People always talking in incredibly "deep", philosphical ways to each other, It doesnt always sound realistic
- The bad guys being stoopid, lazy, and inneffective. I know that "henchmen" in movies have to be easy prey for our heroes...but my goodness they are just useless. The Urah-Kai are a little better but they too are incompetent boobs for the most part.
- The Ghosts that come yo help at the end battle of Minnis Tirith. Very convenient and sort of cheap.
- The seemingly hopeless battle, but behold, in the darkest hour there are reinforcements!

Still, love em all nonetheless.

Added one. Ironically enough King Kong also has 2 of these moments, where everything appears to be lost but suddenly the crew is there to help them..

[Andrew-Kenneth]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Please give an example of cat. 3, as I couldn't find many... actually I found one - not that it made the film worse but it was unnecessary: In the ROTK EE, after Aragon & co. leave the Kingdom of the Dead, the King shows up, telling him they will join him. Kind of spoils the impact when they do show up a few minutes later.

Btw I think cat. 2 can be eliminated, since the films are longer in any case, whether you agree/disagree with their inclusion...

I do think that the one scen PJ absolutely should have left in the TE is the downfall of Saruman. I think it was absolutely essential for the story and I missed it in the film. I also felt bad for Christopher Lee - I think he deserved better.

some Cat. 3 examples.
- The Fellowship prologue "concerning hobbits" with the oafish looking hobbit picking his ear. It's supposed to be LotR not The Smurfs.
- In the beginning of Fellowship there's this scene where Gandalf and Frodo are riding though the Shire in Gandalf's carriage. In the TE they're chatting jovialy. The EE expands this scene by inserting a short snippet where Frodo worries about Bilbo's strange behaviour. When the EE-expansion is over, a split-second later they're resuming their jolly conversation again as if the EE-extension of this scene never happened.
- The Two Towers-EE contains the, in my opinion, most cringe-worthy addition. Grima is arguing with Eomer. The discussion becomes heated and then Grima just happens to whip out a document signed by the king. A signed document - never leave home without it.

Cat. 2 is there for those scenes that don't improve or worsen the films. They just affect pacing and make the ride longer.

In Fellowship I think the EE-Lorien scenes improve the film.
Two Towers- TE is just fine as it is.
And in RotK I would not mind the inclusion of the scenes depicting Sarumans demise and the scenes of Frodo & Sam marching through Mordor together with the Orc army. (In the TE Mordor seemed too empty)

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I haven't seen this discussed here, and I couldn't find it raised in a search of the thread:

I was a bit disappointed to see that the subtitles for translating the Elvish are player-generated, and come in a white, blocky generic text font. On the EE DVDs, the Elvish translations came in a Tolkienesque typeface, so it's a pity that they appear to have dropped that approach for this set.

Or have they? The typeface used for any subtitle varies from player to player, but does anyone here actually get the Elvish speech subtitled in a Tolkien font with these BDs? If so, what player are you using?

Darn it, I must have been typing in invisible ink again.

Does no-one have any comment on this, please?

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Thanks for the info!

I gotta say, after comparing...the extended versions...yeah, that's completely awful.

99% of people who actually watch the Extended Edition Blu-ray of FOTR on their own screens says that the internet comparisons are ridiculous and misrepresent the effect. I personally didn't see any green tint at all on my TV. What I did see was a few short scenes that were a shade sarker in image tone than my DVD version.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND giving them a try and not basing a decision on the internet comparisons.