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

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Bucky

if they are spreading the films over two discs why dont they include both versions of the films? i am personally waiting for the set that has both the theatrical and extended versions of the films included to be released.

that is the only way i'd double dip on these as well.

i've still got my EE dvd copies and only really bought those for the extra's.

if there's a set that includes the TE and EE's on blu, then i'd jump on that version.

[myanks12]

I'll buy this set only because I sold back all of my dvds for a good price so I'll only have to add a little bit more to get them back in this set with the blu ray edition. But I'm still waiting for a blu ray release with additional special features and hopefully that will come out once these Hobbit films are completed.

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by radagast

Yet here you are.

Perhaps you would be more excited at the idea of a reboot if Michael F-ING Bay did it.

OMG We can only DREAM!!! Maybe Optimus Prime could play Balrog!!!! and Bruce Willis could play Frodo!!!!!

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Rizor

Five discs for each film seems pretty wasteful and unecessary to me. If they're gonna split the movies over two BDs, why don't they spread the extras over them as well? The longest one is ROTK. With two hours on each disc, there should be more than enough space to fit 7 GBs or so of SD extras on each, especially since WB never fills their discs to capacity anyway.

That is a good point. Also, the LotR EE's set the standard for special features when they were released, not only for quantity, but also for quality. Therefore, I don't understand why New Line (or Warner or whoever) wouldn't include the special features in high-definition on a Blu-ray disc. Perhaps that will be accomplished with the (hopefully not too distant) "ultimate edition" that actually has previously unreleased special features?

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by radagast

Yet here you are.

Perhaps you would be more excited at the idea of a reboot if Michael F-ING Bay did it.

Oh man, that was just funny...

And I do agree with you Benny, I personally don't want to see a new adaptation of these movies... yet... if it happens it happens but I think now is too soon, UNLESS it is something of a BBC radio adaptation or something, that may be a cool idea. I do agree with every point you make Benny EXCEPT the Bombadil thing... I LOVE that part mainly in what Bombadil is representing. When you look at Saruman and how his story/character echoes the industrial revolution, Bombadil is pretty much the exact opposite of that, and I really enjoy his character. I think it SHOULD be left out of the movies tho, b/c Tom woulda just confused the $hit out of a lot of viewers... and his role (I don't believe) can be conveyed properly on film.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by R3P0

You do realize in the appendices of the EE they explain why certain elements were changed.

I do realize because I own the EE. Doesn't mean I agree with all the changes or that all the changes were explained. Some are understandable (Bombadil, The Barrows, the House of Anarion, Arnor, "Dernhelm," etc)

Some of them are just dumb (elves at Helms Deep, the gate of Gondor and Gandalf confronting the Witch King, Arwen's whole role, Gandalf being reticent to go into Moria instead of Aragorn, the effect of wearing the Ring anywhere except Amon Hen, etc)

Animated and/or Mini-series would be far better suited to a 'definitive' interpretation than any theatrical presentation. There's too much material for a trilogy of even 3 hour movies.

[R3P0]

I agree so what if ppl like Bays movies, I enjoy them for what they are summertime fun. I have no problems whatsoever with most of what bay directs. Transformers 2 and the Island aside. Loved the rock, transformers 1, bad boys 1 and sometimes 2, also loved armageddon

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Uxi

I do realize because I own the EE. Doesn't mean I agree with all the changes or that all the changes were explained. Some are understandable (Bombadil, The Barrows, the House of Anarion, Arnor, "Dernhelm," etc)

Some of them are just dumb (elves at Helms Deep, the gate of Gondor and Gandalf confronting the Witch King, Arwen's whole role, Gandalf being reticent to go into Moria instead of Aragorn, the effect of wearing the Ring anywhere except Amon Hen, etc)

Animated and/or Mini-series would be far better suited to a 'definitive' interpretation than any theatrical presentation. There's too much material for a trilogy of even 3 hour movies.

Most of the stuff that you disagree with came from the appendacies of the book not from jacksons mind, fact is all the Arweyn Aragon stuff came from LOTR book, in those appendacies

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

and by the way.....the bombadil chapter in the book is by far the worst part of the series.

I have heard others voice similar complaints, and I don't fault Jackson for leaving him out, because his part did not directly affect the plot concerning the Ring. But, as indicated in his letters, Tolkien was adamant about including him in the story. Note that the story is basically about the struggle for power between Good and Evil, with the Ring as the means of total domination of others, and therefore is the actual physical manifestation of Evil. For Tolkien, Bombadil was the exception to this in the story, because he had no desire to dominate anyone or anything, or as he wrote in a letter:

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.

Although portrayed comically, he is something of an ideal being. Along with the chapter on Lothlorien, I refer to these as Tolkien's "Zen chapters", because they are something one might expect a Buddhist to write instead of a devout Roman Catholic. (Example: when Frodo asks Goldberry who Bombadil is, she replies "He is".)

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by R3P0

Most of the stuff that you disagree with came from the appendacies of the book not from jacksons mind, fact is all the Arweyn Aragon stuff came from LOTR book, in those appendacies

The love story is in the appendices, but not Arwen taking the place of Glorfindel or having her life force bound to the Ring or whatever nonsense PJ put in there to give Liv Tyler a bigger role.

None of the rest of what I mentioned is in the appendices at all...

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I have heard others voice similar complaints, and I don't fault Jackson for leaving him out, because his part did not directly affect the plot concerning the Ring.

Right, Bombadil just isn't necessary. The Barrow Downs and Merry being able to wound the Witch King with a Dunedain blade would have been nice... but they need Bombadil to get out of the Barrow... in the films, Aragorn gives them the blades, so their origin could have been explained in one line as he gives them the blades and meet the same criteria.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I LOVE that part mainly in what Bombadil is representing. When you look at Saruman and how his story/character echoes the industrial revolution, Bombadil is pretty much the exact opposite of that, and I really enjoy his character. I think it SHOULD be left out of the movies tho, b/c Tom woulda just confused the $hit out of a lot of viewers... and his role (I don't believe) can be conveyed properly on film.

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.

That’s just it…..he’s such an odd-ball character out of left field and he comes out of nowhere in the book.

I had a really hard time understanding why he was even in the book the 1st time I read them…..i just think it would take a bit to explain why he was there to make sense when it comes to relation to the over all story.

Yeah, it makes sense when u type it out saying “he represents what is good and saruman represents what is evil” but how do u convey that in a movie w/o making it blatantly obvious or spelling it out for people??

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Arwen taking the place of Glorfindel or having her life force bound to the Ring or whatever nonsense PJ put in there to give Liv Tyler a bigger role.

As much as I really love these films, as I have stated before, this was my biggest gripe. They added all this MAJOR stuff for Arwen to make her role bigger, I guess partially because they wanted the love story between her and Aragorn, but also because they wanted a lead female role. THEY ALREADY HAD ONE!!! Eowyn was AWESOME! And personally, Miranda Otto was a much better actress IMO... I didn't mind most of the other changes though that people had problems with (Elves at Helms Deep for instance).

Regardless, these will always be my favorite films, along with Star Wars (even with the changes that Lucas made). I'm a big fan, very thankful for the hard work that everyone put into these films to bring them to the screen, and definitely excited about seeing the EE's in glorious glorious HD (even if it may suffer the same problems that the TE's did). I for one can't wait.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

Yeah, it makes sense when u type it out saying “he represents what is good and saruman represents what is evil” but how do u convey that in a movie w/o making it blatantly obvious or spelling it out for people??

and that's why I was glad they left him out. He didn't appear out of left field though, he was in The Hobbit as well. He was also in many of Tolkien's other writings. I can understand if you haven't read any of Tolkien's other stuff or even the hobbit how he seems out of place, but A LOT of Tolkien's stuff is out of place or odd. Putting parts of the story in, in a language that Tolkien himself wrote, and not translating it, is pretty bold and out of left field. That's just one thing, there are MANY things in those stories that are just out of place and don't make sense unless you look at the author first, and WHY he wrote this story.

[Jumpman]

rocket,

I don't mind the Arwen in Fellowship of the Ring. I think it works extremely well. But, for the rest of the trilogy? Not even remotely needed.

Had they just left her appearance to Fellowship and the very end of Return of the King, the love story would've resonated even more.

I've always felt it was pretty terrible to shoehorn Arwen in Towers and the first half of King.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

and that's why I was glad they left him out. He didn't appear out of left field though, he was in The Hobbit as well. He was also in many of Tolkien's other writings. I can understand if you haven't read any of Tolkien's other stuff or even the hobbit how he seems out of place, but A LOT of Tolkien's stuff is out of place or odd. Putting parts of the story in, in a language that Tolkien himself wrote, and not translating it, is pretty bold and out of left field. That's just one thing, there are MANY things in those stories that are just out of place and don't make sense unless you look at the author first, and WHY he wrote this story.

I just finished reading the hobbit and can’t for the life of me remember him being in it.

i will admit, tolkien's style of writing is something i don't care for.....so much detail.....which isn't necessarily a bad thing.....but so much stuff in a story that is just over kill to me.

i tried reading the similarion and couldn't get into it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i actually loathe the idea of these being rebooted.....and so what if i like bay's films???

and if a narrative is put over any future movie, it's just going to be pegged as hollywood dumbing it down for the audience....just like in blade runner.

You liking MB's movies is immaterial. I put that in because of your avatar.

Any narrative wouldn't be the same as the narrating in Blade Runner. It would only be needed to incorporate book material. So there would be no "dumbing down".

Like it or not, at some point in the future they will be redone, because there will be big bucks in it.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by radagast

You liking MB's movies is immaterial. I put that in because of your avatar.

Any narrative wouldn't be the same as the narrating in Blade Runner. It would only be needed to incorporate book material. So there would be no "dumbing down".

Like it or not, at some point in the future they will be redone, because there will be big bucks in it.

so it was a little extra jab @ me??

how much more could they have really fit into these movies already....being 3+ hours each and people still want more??

i still think jackson did a phenominal job w/these.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

I just finished reading the hobbit and can’t for the life of me remember him being in it.

i will admit, tolkien's style of writing is something i don't care for.....so much detail.....which isn't necessarily a bad thing.....but so much stuff in a story that is just over kill to me.

i tried reading the similarion and couldn't get into it.

I'm sorry, I was confused... I was thinking of Beorn... I'm sorry its been awhile since I've read The Hobbit. That is my error... Tolkien did conceive of Tom WAY before LotR though

Sorry for the confusion Benny

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I'm sorry, I was confused... I was thinking of Beorn... I'm sorry its been awhile since I've read The Hobbit. That is my error... Tolkien did conceive of Tom WAY before LotR though

Sorry for the confusion Benny

i was gonna say, i've read it 2x now and couldn't remember where he was in there.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i was gonna say, i've read it 2x now and couldn't remember where he was in there.

Yeah, I've read LotR a couple times since the last time I read The Hobbit, and I guess Bombadil got slipped into my mind and replaced my memories of Beorn... But Tom can't turn into a Bear though, that's WICKED COOL!