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

[28BlusLater]

The PQ on this trilogy box set seems to be pretty controversial. I get it in the mail tomorrow and will see what I think about it. I'm not sure when I'll get around to it though.

I won't be having the theatrical edition and extended cuts side by side so I'm sure I'll be pleased. I'm a bit more into audio than video though, so I'm sure it will look great to me, from what I read from Blu-Ray.com's review.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bro

Has Peter Jackson addressed this issue yet?

If so, link?

I think he has an official statement coming on Sept.31 Don't tell anyone.

[NYorker]

Regarding the EE of ROTK, I don't think it was necessary to expand the Army of the Dead sequence- specifically, the scene where they agree. I think it takes away the surprise and suspense element.

I also think PJ's biggest mistake was taking out Saruman from the start of the film. I think it was very important to the story, and I also felt bad for Christopher Lee, who was just amazing in these films.

[Jumpman]

Saruman's demise should've been placed at the end of the Two Towers.

It feels like leftovers when attached to the opening of King EE.

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it; Jackson and company never, ever quite figured out the script to the Two Towers and Return of the King suffers for it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Troy73

That's what is so awesome about LOTR films. They have glaring inaccuracies when compared to the books, but, what's on the screen more than makes up for it. Even if Jackson took some creative licence with the material it is still, by far, one of the most amazing film adaptions I've ever seen.

I first read the novels in the early 1980s, and again many times since then. I love Jackson's interpretation, even if it doesn't always follow Tolkien's canon. In fact, I'm impressed with how Jackson created films that appealed to a broad spectrum of people without losing sight of the essential spirit of Tolkien's creation. That's not an easy balance to achieve.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Saruman's demise should've been placed at the end of the Two Towers.

I'm okay with it being in ROTK. That's the book where it happened, even if the details were changed for the film. My biggest complaint was it being left out of the TE.

[nefilim]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bro

Holy shit! Such a huge difference between TE and EE???

WTF have they done to this movie?

I really hope they fix this

joke ? right ?!

[this whole thread should be dead and buried]

[Jumpman]

Well, I don't mind at all that he changed Saruman's demise from the book because it totally makes sense to cut out the Scourging of the Shire for general audiences. You can't have them go through this epic 13 hour journey and then have the Hobbits homes in piece when they get back, considering all they've done for Middle-Earth. I get that.

But, Saruman's story is over at the end of Two Towers. Placing him at the opening of King feels redundant. Had Jackson cut down the fat from the Two Towers in the scripting phase, we would've gotten closure to the second chapter with Saruman's demise capping the film with two cliffhangers; Pippin and the Palantir and Gollum and his secret trap for Sam and Frodo.

That makes the most sense, cinematically.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Well, I don't mind at all that he changed Saruman's demise from the book because it totally makes sense to cut out the Scourging of the Shire for general audiences. You can't have them go through this epic 13 hour journey and then have the Hobbits homes in piece when they get back, considering all they've done for Middle-Earth. I get that.

Not to mention adding to the already long running time with what is essentially an anti-climactic ending. Honestly, that has always been my least favorite part of the novel. Saruman calling himself Sharkey and hiding out in the Shire has always seemed a bit silly.

But, Saruman's story is over at the end of Two Towers. Placing him at the opening of King feels redundant. Had Jackson cut down the fat from the Two Towers in the scripting phase, we would've gotten closure to the second chapter with Saruman's demise capping the film with two cliffhangers; Pippin and the Palantir and Gollum and his secret trap for Sam and Frodo.

I'm okay with where it was placed, but I do see your point. The ending of TTT and the beginning of ROTK don't have an entirely natural flow to them.

[Lope de Aguirre]

How were the Ents joining the fight and the Undead Army handled in the books?

and although I only read "The Hobbit" and parts of "The Fellowhip of the Ring" I really wish they would have filmed the devastated Shire and the battle for it.

And from what changes between book and movie adaptation I know of til now I really dispise the depiction of Denethor - he is really silly, dumb and flat out villainous.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Lope de Aguirre

How were the Ents joining the fight and the Undead Army handled in the books?

and although I only read "The Hobbit" and parts of "The Fellowhip of the Ring" I really wish they would have filmed the devastated Shire and the battle for it.

And from what changes between book and movie adaptation I know of til now I really dispise the depiction of Denethor - he is really silly, dumb and flat out villainous.

I'm with you about Denethor. I was so glad when he was killed off in ROTK. His attitude made him seem more like the emperor in Return Of The Jedi.

[Hobbun]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

What is important to note here is one of the major themes of the story that is not made clear in the movies. Specifically, force is not to be defeated by force. In other words, Good does not triumph over Evil by becoming equally ruthless. If that were the case, Gandalf, as a representative of God, could easily have been sent from Valinor to Middle-earth with greater power than Sauron and quickly concluded the affair. "Good" always acts from love, compassion, mercy, and fellowship. The love between the free races of Middle-earth and the mercy shown to Gollum, who ultimately destroyed the Ring, was the vehicle of accomplishment. It is also the reason that Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Faramir, and Galadriel would never have taken the Ring, which they could have used to devastating effect. This is the moral of the story, and the method through which Evil - although more physically capable and dominating - was defeated (thus the quote "I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still"). There was never another option.

Yes, I understand mercy (and therefore restraint at times) is needed to distinguish between “good” and “evil”.

But we aren’t talking about Gandalf ruthlessly killing people. It's one thing showing mercy to Gollum, or Saurman, who were previously good people. He is killing monsters, evil to the core, and is doing so in defense of Middle Earth. Why could he not kill those large pockets of orcs/Cave Trolls (with spells) attacking Helms Deep and Minas Tirith? Why could he not blast down those Nazguls on their flying mounts (besides the lead one, I know he could not be killed by any man)? I know the Nazguls and their flying mounts killed hundreds alone scooping soldiers off the parapets a dozen at a time a dropping them to their death. Why could he not at least destroy the siege equipment with spells to prevent them from boarding the walls of Minas Tirith, or destroy the flaming wolfhead battering ram?

I don’t see Gandalf flinging his spells and killing orcs and the like is any more ‘evil’ than Aragorn taking off their heads, Legalos putting an arrow between the eyes or Gimli burying his axe in their chest. Yes, Gandalf would have killed many with his spells. But they were evil creatures, and in the process, would have also saved thousands.

Unless there was something established in the books that indicated the more ‘good’ magic-users use their magic, the more evil they become?

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Yes, I understand mercy (and therefore restraint at times) is needed to distinguish between “good” and “evil”.

But we aren’t talking about Gandalf ruthlessly killing people. He is killing monsters and is doing so in defense of Middle Earth. Why could he not kill those large pockets of orcs/Cave Trolls (with spells) attacking Helms Deep and Minas Tirith? Why could he not blast down those Nazguls on their flying mounts (besides the lead one, I know he could not be killed by any man)? I know the Nazguls and their flying mounts killed hundreds alone scooping soldiers off the parapets a dozen at a time a dropping them to their death. Why could he not at least destroy the siege equipment with spells to prevent them from boarding the walls of Minas Tirith, or destroy the flaming wolfhead battering ram?

I don’t see Gandalf flinging his spells and killing orcs and the like is any more ‘evil’ than Aragorn taking off their heads, Legalos putting an arrow between the eyes or Gimli burying his axe in their chest. Yes, Gandalf would have killed many with his spells. But they were evil creatures, and in the process, would have also saved thousands.

Unless there was something established in the books that indicated the more ‘good’ magic-users use their magic, the more evil they become?

Interesting comments about Gandalf - it does seem that he could have done more to help the cause with his magic powers. Of course, that wouldnt have worked for the film since you possibly lose some of the huge battle scenes but it certainly makes you wonder. He takes out the Balrog in an epic scene and that was cool. But, like you said - no using magic in any other key areas was suspect. Its like "Feel free to get rid of that damned Boars Head thing if you arent too busy."

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Yes, I understand mercy (and therefore restraint at times) is needed to distinguish between “good” and “evil”.

But we aren’t talking about Gandalf ruthlessly killing people. It's one thing showing mercy to Gollum, or Saurman, who were previously good people. He is killing monsters, evil to the core, and is doing so in defense of Middle Earth. Why could he not kill those large pockets of orcs/Cave Trolls (with spells) attacking Helms Deep and Minas Tirith? Why could he not blast down those Nazguls on their flying mounts (besides the lead one, I know he could not be killed by any man)? I know the Nazguls and their flying mounts killed hundreds alone scooping soldiers off the parapets a dozen at a time a dropping them to their death. Why could he not at least destroy the siege equipment with spells to prevent them from boarding the walls of Minas Tirith, or destroy the flaming wolfhead battering ram?

I don’t see Gandalf flinging his spells and killing orcs and the like is any more ‘evil’ than Aragorn taking off their heads, Legalos putting an arrow between the eyes or Gimli burying his axe in their chest. Yes, Gandalf would have killed many with his spells. But they were evil creatures, and in the process, would have also saved thousands.

Unless there was something established in the books that indicated the more ‘good’ magic-users use their magic, the more evil they become?

Well, in the book I remember that the battering ram was covered with evil spells (literally engraved in the metal) so I don't think Gandalf's powers would have been strong enough to nullify the ram. I think Gandalf's concern was primarily to rally the defenders, though if he chose he could have killed orcs and such with spells, but the defenders would have been quickly overcome and the city would have fallen.

[TruBlu06]

It also said in the Fellowship that it took concentration to use spells. For example, when the Balrog was in pursuit of the Fellowship, there was a large wooden door that Gandalf was holding shut with a spell. When the Balrog tried to push it open, it used a more powerful spell and the door started swinging open. Gandalf tried to keep the door shut by using another spell, but the strain was too much on the door and it burst to pieces. Plus, the spells must be in an appropriate language, so he would have had to use all the spells in Orc, which he was a little rusty in.

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Saruman's demise should've been placed at the end of the Two Towers.

It feels like leftovers when attached to the opening of King EE.

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it; Jackson and company never, ever quite figured out the script to the Two Towers and Return of the King suffers for it.

I don't know if killing Saruman would have been needed at the end of Two Towers because we already saw his defeat by the Ents. You may have had a scene with Wormtongue killing Saruman in this time, but I wouldn't have wanted the Fellowship joining Merry and Pippin at the end of Two Towers.

Unfortunately, I just wasn't a big fan of how the death of Saruman played out in the film. Saruman is basically played as an old man yelling at the Fellowship to get off his lawn. Just a weird sequence considering this is the same wizard who had the power to take down a mountain from miles away.

I know, I know. Just don't think too hard about it or else all the films break down.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

I don't know if killing Saruman would have been needed at the end of Two Towers because we already saw his defeat by the Ents. You may have had a scene with Wormtongue killing Saruman in this time, but I wouldn't have wanted the Fellowship joining Merry and Pippin at the end of Two Towers.

Unfortunately, I just wasn't a big fan of how the death of Saruman played out in the film. Saruman is basically played as an old man yelling at the Fellowship to get off his lawn. Just a weird sequence considering this is the same wizard who had the power to take down a mountain from miles away.

I know, I know. Just don't think too hard about it or else all the films break down.

You have to consider Saruman's little "empire of evil" was reduced to dust and he had met his match with Gandalf, who was now the more powerful of the two. Plus, Gandalf broke Saruman's staff.

[Hobbun]

Originally Posted by TruBlu06

I think Gandalf's concern was primarily to rally the defenders, though if he chose he could have killed orcs and such with spells, but the defenders would have been quickly overcome and the city would have fallen.

Well, I guess so.

Although I think if Gandalf sent a well placed area effect spell to wipe out a large contingent of orcs/Cave Trolls, that would have been just as effective way to rally the troops, if not even more so.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Well, I guess so.

Although I think if Gandalf sent a well placed area effect spell to wipe out a large contingent of orcs/Cave Trolls, that would have been just as effective way to rally the troops, if not even more so.

Does Gandalf ever cast anything like devastating offensive spells capable of wiping out a hundered Orcs? I don't think so...Isn't his magic more in the vein of protection, medicine, healing, languages and defense, with a dash of light bursts, sunlight, magic lighting, etc.? He's sort of a "Green Power" wizard, not an "Atom Bomb" wizard. Or is that too simplistic?

[MerrickG]

I want to say thanks for answering the questions about Gandalf and his power.

This is a great debate it has sparked.

I am now thoroughly confused as to how he didn't do more to help in the battle against Sauron. In the animated version of The Hobbit from Rankin/Bass he seemed like a god who could do anything.

There were also several things that bugged me in the film that maybe made more sense in the book:

I think the Fellowship too easily allowed Frodo to go on his own at the end of FotR.

How the Nazgul couldn't be killed by a man.

It was confusing as to who Galadriel actually was.

Who was more powerful? Galadriel or Gandalf?

What did it exactly mean when it was said" the time of the elves have passed" and its not "time for men"?