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

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Wasn't Arda formed by the songs the Valar sung in glory and worship of Illuvatar? And then Melkor, out of jealousy, introduced discord and disharmony and was cast out, and then proceeded to do the same thing on Eregion? Sorry if I'm not more confident with this, as I only read Chapter 1 of The Silmarillion once - it is incredibly beautiful, but also dense and challenging stuff. But i never got the impression the Valar or the Maiar were Gods - just angels, and lesser-angels. Powerful, sure, but not Gods. Gandalf's "healing and light and wisdom" powers fit perfectly with that idea - and it explains why Gandalf would be so cautious with the Ring. His nature is wisdom, his powers are light and life and protection, the Ring allows a powerful person to bend others to his will, to "dominate all life". Gandalf, in the films, says he would be sorely tempted by the Ring to "do good", but the Ring is cursed and evil, and in the end, it would dominate Gandalf by warping Gandalf into a tyrant. No Good can come from using the Ring.

It is easy to justify tyrrany under the guise of benevolence ("I'm only doing it because I care" sort of thing). I've seen it with my own eyes, so has every 16 year-old suffering through the condescension and strong hand of their high school administrators.

Tolkien wrote that the Istari (wizards) were not so much wizards in the popular sense, but part of an "angelic order".

And you are right. History has shown that when one tyrant is defeated, he or she is sometimes replaced by another tyrant.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Yes, I understand.

But didn’t want to come across as whining and moaning (had enough of that earlier ) about inconsistencies of the movie.

And it’s not even inconsistencies, just something I never understood why Gandalf did not do more, that’s all. thethingwithnoname actually cleared it up a bit with his quote from The Silmarillion. I did not realize Gandalf was actually considered as a god. So I can see him not wanting to be as active as he could be.

Gandalf, Saruman, Balrog, Sauron, they are more closer to Angels than Gods. Grand Bob said Gandalf could be a servant of God, not God himself.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

What I have heard is that there were complaints about there being too many "endings" already in ROTK. And with even the TE being a rather long movie, well...

Yep, it was just too long a movie to fit in the scouring of the shire and do it any justice.

I always thought that was somewhat of an unecessary part of the story anyway. We already know how much the Hobbits have grown over their quest, so showing them return home and be able to successfully lead a rebellion to throw the evil men led by Saurman out of the Shire didn't really show us anything new. It just reinforced how much they had grown from the simple Hobbits they were at the beginning of the story.

So I don't think it was something that needed to be added on to a 4 hour movie as it would probably take at least 20 minutes of running time to tell that part of the story sufficiently.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I believe that Tolkien refer to them as such in a letter, maybe to CS Lewis. Grand Bob might know?

IIRC it was also mentioned in the essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yep, it was just too long a movie to fit in the scouring of the shire and do it any justice.

I always thought that was somewhat of an unecessary part of the story anyway. We already know how much the Hobbits have grown over their quest, so showing them return home and be able to successfully lead a rebellion to throw the evil men led by Saurman out of the Shire didn't really show us anything new. It just reinforced how much they had grown from the simple Hobbits they were at the beginning of the story.

So I don't think it was something that needed to be added on to a 4 hour movie as it would probably take at least 20 minutes of running time to tell that part of the story sufficiently.

You know that scene at the end of Die Hard, where a crazy terrorist everyone forgot about suddenly rears up with a machine gun, and a character not accustomed to using his weapon takes him down?

That's the Scouring of the Shire. You think the story is over, but Tolkien has one last jolt, one last surprise in store for you.

That's why Saruman's demise doesn't really work even in the extended cut of Return of the King. It works in the book, but the film's ending would have to be restructured into a journey home and many goodbyes, only to come upon the Shire, and then everyone has a "WTF?!?" moment to see it turned into an industiralized hell-hole, and the resulting revolution and death of Saruman. I don't buy the idea that it couldn't work on film - it would have taken some will power, but it also would have taken the heat off the sense the last 20 mnutes of ROTK is nothing more than falling action.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You know that scene at the end of Die Hard, where a crazy terrorist everyone forgot about suddenly rears up with a machine gun, and a character not accustomed to using his weapon takes him down?

That's the Scouring of the Shire. You think the story is over, but Tolkien has one last jolt, one last surprise in store for you.

That's why Saruman's demise doesn't really work even in the extended cut of Return of the King. It works in the book, but the film's ending would have to be restructured into a journey home and many goodbyes, only to come upon the Shire, and then everyone has a "WTF?!?" moment to see it turned into an industiralized hell-hole, and the resulting revolution and death of Saruman. I don't buy the idea that it couldn't work on film - it would have taken some will power, but it also would have taken the heat off the sense the last 20 mnutes of ROTK is nothing more than falling action.

I think the scene could work on film. The movie was just already too long for many was the problem.

They could really only have fit it in if they went the Harry Potter route and split ROTK into two movies released 6 months apart. That way they could easily get more running time without annoying movie goers and theater owners (longer movies=fewer showings per day=less money) as each movie could be say 2 1/2 hours or so.

[thethingwithnoname]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Gandalf, Saruman, Balrog, Sauron, they are more closer to Angels than Gods. Grand Bob said Gandalf could be a servant of God, not God himself.

as far as i remember they were all of the order of Maiar anyway (e.g. Sauron and Gandalf were of the same order. Sauron was a lieutenant of Melkor (Morgoth) and the Istari were all Maiar.
I think Gothmog - head of the Balrogs was too? not so sure on that one though

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You know that scene at the end of Die Hard, where a crazy terrorist everyone forgot about suddenly rears up with a machine gun, and a character not accustomed to using his weapon takes him down?

That's the Scouring of the Shire. You think the story is over, but Tolkien has one last jolt, one last surprise in store for you.

That's why Saruman's demise doesn't really work even in the extended cut of Return of the King. It works in the book, but the film's ending would have to be restructured into a journey home and many goodbyes, only to come upon the Shire, and then everyone has a "WTF?!?" moment to see it turned into an industiralized hell-hole, and the resulting revolution and death of Saruman. I don't buy the idea that it couldn't work on film - it would have taken some will power, but it also would have taken the heat off the sense the last 20 mnutes of ROTK is nothing more than falling action.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I think the scene could work on film. The movie was just already too long for many was the problem.

They could really only have fit it in if they went the Harry Potter route and split ROTK into two movies released 6 months apart. That way they could easily get more running time without annoying movie goers and theater owners (longer movies=fewer showings per day=less money) as each movie could be say 2 1/2 hours or so.

Since LOTR is in "six books", perhaps the best way to film this again someday is in six movies.

I recall that PJ was amazed that any studio was willing to go beyond 2 movies with this book. Now with it being a proven franchise, maybe 6 movies someday is not out of the question.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by radagast

Since LOTR is in "six books", perhaps the best way to film this again someday is in six movies.

I recall that PJ was amazed that any studio was willing to go beyond 2 movies with this book. Now with it being a proven franchise, maybe 6 movies someday is not out of the question.

I will say one thing about the technical aspects. As this is my first time ever seeing The Return of the King and only ever seeing The Two Towers in the theater, universal green tint aside, at least Fellowship looks like a film. TT and ROTK both look like they were shot on a camcorder, wide gamma, very bright and pale and lifeless. I'll take a universal green tint if it finally makes a film look good.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

I recall that PJ was amazed that any studio was willing to go beyond 2 movies with this book. Now with it being a proven franchise, maybe 6 movies someday is not out of the question.

That would have been ideal. Have them 2.5 hours a piece and then they have 15 hours to work with--roughly 4 hours more than the EEs currently and can easily deal with things like the scouring of the shire, Bombadil etc.

Some could probably be shorter and closer to 2 hours as they probably don't need 15 hours.

I doubt we'll see this re-made anytime soon though anyway. I won't hold my breath on it getting remade while I'm alive even.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That would have been ideal. Have them 2.5 hours a piece and then they have 15 hours to work with--roughly 4 hours more than the EEs currently and can easily deal with things like the scouring of the shire, Bombadil etc.

Some could probably be shorter and closer to 2 hours as they probably don't need 15 hours.

I doubt we'll see this re-made anytime soon though anyway. I won't hold my breath on it getting remade while I'm alive even.

Yeah, this is the best we're going to get on film, and I'm fine with that, because indelicate quotes from Boyens aside, I still think everyone's heart was in the right place, and the lapses in taste can be forgiven, though they will annoy Tolkien readers from now until the end of time.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That would have been ideal. Have them 2.5 hours a piece and then they have 15 hours to work with--roughly 4 hours more than the EEs currently and can easily deal with things like the scouring of the shire, Bombadil etc.

Some could probably be shorter and closer to 2 hours as they probably don't need 15 hours.

I doubt we'll see this re-made anytime soon though anyway. I won't hold my breath on it getting remade while I'm alive even.

I doubt we'll see it within the next 5 years; but I see it as a very real possibility within 10.

Hollywood doesn't seem to have an original thought left in them; it's a proven money maker and look at where special effects will be in another 5+ years.

I see WB jumping on the chance to release 6 films over the course of 6 years (or maybe the tighten them up to 1 per 6 months and do 3 years). Factor in home video sales on a theatrical release, and for s***s and giggles they'd do a EE version. Killing$ to be made.

[42041]

Wow, good thing I haven't read the books since I was like 14 and barely remember a thing about them, all this plot nitpicking is making my head spin

[Eismagier]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

I doubt we'll see it within the next 5 years; but I see it as a very real possibility within 10.

Hollywood doesn't seem to have an original thought left in them; it's a proven money maker and look at where special effects will be in another 5+ years.

I see WB jumping on the chance to release 6 films over the course of 6 years (or maybe the tighten them up to 1 per 6 months and do 3 years). Factor in home video sales on a theatrical release, and for s***s and giggles they'd do a EE version. Killing$ to be made.

At the current rate, they'll still be milking the current movies in 10 years.

Hobbit 1 Theatrical
Hobbit 1 Theatrical Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Theatrical
Hobbit 2 Theatrical Blu-ray
Hobbit + LOTR Theatrical Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 1 Extended Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Extended Blu-ray
Hobbit 1+2 Extended Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 2 Extended Blu-ray with a red tint
Hobbit + LOTR Extended Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 1 Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit 1+2 Ultimate Blu-ray box set
LOTR Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit + LOTR Ultimate Blu-ray box set

[goodluckchuck]

Originally Posted by Eismagier

At the current rate, they'll still be milking the current movies in 10 years.

Hobbit 1 Theatrical
Hobbit 1 Theatrical Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Theatrical
Hobbit 2 Theatrical Blu-ray
Hobbit + LOTR Theatrical Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 1 Extended Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Extended Blu-ray
Hobbit 1+2 Extended Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 2 Extended Blu-ray with a red tint
Hobbit + LOTR Extended Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 1 Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit 1+2 Ultimate Blu-ray box set
LOTR Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit + LOTR Ultimate Blu-ray box set

Love it!

[Velmeran]

I wouldn't count on any extended editions for The Hobbit; the source material is significantly shorter than that of LotR and we're already getting 2 films.

Also not sure I'd hold out much hope on "Ultimate Editions" -- what's left as far as extras are concerned? Not like they have a significant amount of deleted scenes to put back in (ala HP and the original hope for the UE's); and really how much more documentary/behind-the-scenes stuff can they have/do we want?

Packaging on the LotR EE's was also top notch as it is.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Eismagier

At the current rate, they'll still be milking the current movies in 10 years.

Hobbit 1 Theatrical
Hobbit 1 Theatrical Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Theatrical
Hobbit 2 Theatrical Blu-ray
Hobbit + LOTR Theatrical Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 1 Extended Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Extended Blu-ray
Hobbit 1+2 Extended Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 2 Extended Blu-ray with a red tint
Hobbit + LOTR Extended Blu-ray box set
Hobbit 1 Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit 2 Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit 1+2 Ultimate Blu-ray box set
LOTR Ultimate Blu-ray
Hobbit + LOTR Ultimate Blu-ray box set

Thats assuming there will be Hobbit Extended Versions. With the film split into 2 parts, maybe 2 1/2 to 3 hours each, there may be no need for extended versions...

[mredman]

Originally Posted by nefilim

joke ? right ?!

[this whole thread should be dead and buried]

yeah must be. Because the rivendell scenes is just WAY better in the EE blu rays. Almost all agree on that one.

[lolarocks]

OK I seriously need help. I have two BD players in my house a Sony for my living rooms big screen and a Samsung for my room. While my Sony plays the first discs of each movie , it fails to play any of the second discs for any of the movies, instead it has the traditional WB disc loading symbol and then it goes to a black screen and the pause button appears. I have tried everything I can think of to get them to play and they just won't. Has this happened to anyone else or does anyone know what I should do?

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by lolarocks

OK I seriously need help. I have two BD players in my house a Sony for my living rooms big screen and a Samsung for my room. While my Sony plays the first discs of each movie , it fails to play any of the second discs for any of the movies, instead it has the traditional WB disc loading symbol and then it goes to a black screen and the pause button appears. I have tried everything I can think of to get them to play and they just won't. Has this happened to anyone else or does anyone know what I should do?

is it a BDP S570? A lot of reports having trouble with the BD's in that model...