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

[kevin87]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Having an intermission for a 3+ hour film is not a bad idea. You do pee in the toilet right?

the amazing thing about owning a movie is anytime can be intermission with the glorious pause button

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Rambaldi47

I agree. I like the LOTR set as it is. I'd rather have the Extended LOTR set and a Hobbit set (hopefully extended. I'm sure there will be an extended version)

This idea has been mentioned before. And I will say the same thing again. There's no reason, at this point, to think there will be an extended edition of The Hobbit. They are already making two movies. I'm not saying there won't be an extended edition. I'm saying no one should assume there will be.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by radagast

This idea has been mentioned before. And I will say the same thing again. There's no reason, at this point, to think there will be an extended edition of The Hobbit. They are already making two movies. I'm not saying there won't be an extended edition. I'm saying no one should assume there will be.

exactly, one book (with some added stuff from other stories) split across two 2 1/2 - 3 hr films... I doubt Jackson will feel the need to create an extended version like he did with the LotR films. If he does, I'll be there considering The Hobbit is my favorite story of all time, but I'm not going to assume there will be.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by radagast

This idea has been mentioned before. And I will say the same thing again. There's no reason, at this point, to think there will be an extended edition of The Hobbit. They are already making two movies. I'm not saying there won't be an extended edition. I'm saying no one should assume there will be.

I haven't noticed anyone assuming it, to be honest. I think people were saying they'll allow in their plans for the possibility.

I don't know about Lovely Bones, but that one aside, PJ's last six films have all had extended editions released on Blu-ray. It seems to be his way of making a film, to give himself lots of options for the editing room by shooting more scenes than will end up in his final cinema cut. He's already said he's doing the same with The Hobbit, so it's probably reasonable to wonder if we mightn't see extended versions of the films made available, either singly or as a set.

[millwork400]

Originally Posted by scrapser

Anyone else experience this? At about 51:35 into the movie (just before Gandalf the White appears in Fanghorn forest) the sound suddenly quits. Stopping and starting, backing up, or skipping forward does nothing to restore it. The only way to get sound back is to turn the player off and back on again.

I tried inserting the disc and going to the scene selections to the section just after, then backtracking into the scene and that works. It seems to be the only way. I'm hoping this is an isolated issue and returning the movie for a replacement will fix it. But wanted to check here first in case it's a known problem with no solution. If that's the case, I'll return it for a refund.

I have a Panasonic DMP-BD80 player.

Thanks

That's what happens when a Panasonic player is involved. Thankfully mine died years ago before my sound equipment was added to my setup. That was by far the shortest lived electronic device that I have ever bought. Compare that to a Commodore 64 I have that is still hooked up.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I haven't noticed anyone assuming it, to be honest. I think people were saying they'll allow in their plans for the possibility.

I don't know about Lovely Bones, but that one aside, PJ's last six films have all had extended editions released on Blu-ray. It seems to be his way of making a film, to give himself lots of options for the editing room by shooting more scenes than will end up in his final cinema cut. He's already said he's doing the same with The Hobbit, so it's probably reasonable to wonder if we mightn't see extended versions of the films made available, either singly or as a set.

Maybe they can go and film the Tom Bombadil scene now!

[sputter]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Maybe they can go and film the Tom Bombadil scene now!

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

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I haven't noticed anyone assuming it, to be honest. I think people were saying they'll allow in their plans for the possibility.

I don't know about Lovely Bones, but that one aside, PJ's last six films have all had extended editions released on Blu-ray. It seems to be his way of making a film, to give himself lots of options for the editing room by shooting more scenes than will end up in his final cinema cut. He's already said he's doing the same with The Hobbit, so it's probably reasonable to wonder if we mightn't see extended versions of the films made available, either singly or as a set.

In the post Radagast quoted, the OP of the post said he was sure there would be an extended version, so yes, that poster was assuming there will be an extended version of the films. Like I said, I'm not discounting it, but the story itself is already going to be 5-6 hours long, so he may decide not to do it. If he does, I will be the first in line to check it out though!

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by sputter

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

Maybe an altered one seeing as they kileed Sauroman in The Two Towers...
idiots...Not you, Jackson and the other writers...

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I haven't noticed anyone assuming it, to be honest. I think people were saying they'll allow in their plans for the possibility.

I don't know about Lovely Bones, but that one aside, PJ's last six films have all had extended editions released on Blu-ray. It seems to be his way of making a film, to give himself lots of options for the editing room by shooting more scenes than will end up in his final cinema cut. He's already said he's doing the same with The Hobbit, so it's probably reasonable to wonder if we mightn't see extended versions of the films made available, either singly or as a set.

Some time back, I believe in this thread, posters were talking about an extended edition as a foregone conclusion. It isn't inevitable at this point in time. Where did PJ say he was shooting extra scenes that will not be in the theatrical release? Just about every movie has scenes that NEVER make any cut. There were scenes shot of Arwen, in LOTR, that will probably never be released to the public.

And as 350 pointed out, the poster I quoted is sure it's going to happen. If it doesn't there will be many people unhappy and then the complaining will begin. I was just using reason and logic according to the evidence. I should have known better.

[Rambaldi47]

I was just saying that I hope there will be an extended version, not that it was a sure thing. I think the more Middle Earth we can get, the better. I know there's not nearly as much material for The Hobbit was there was LOTR, so IF there is an extended version of The Hobbit, I'm not expecting it to be of the same caliber of LOTR. It would probably be minutes as opposed to the hours added to LOTR.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by radagast

Where did PJ say he was shooting extra scenes that will not be in the theatrical release? Just about every movie has scenes that NEVER make any cut. There were scenes shot of Arwen, in LOTR, that will probably never be released to the public.

Is that a genuine question, or a denial that he did? I've read comments by PJ to this precise end in several interviews, including (but not limited to) TheOneRing.net and Ain't It Cool? News.

I know full well that many movies shoot more than they use. Not many directors are so upfront and sharing about their thoughts on how they make their movies as PJ is, though, and as I pointed out, he's released extended cuts for all of his movies since The Frighteners, with the exception (so far) of The Lovely Bones. Doesn't mean he absolutely will for The Hobbit, but it does seem to be his way. They're generally well received, often better than his cinema versions, and (frankly) for him it's good business.

Plus, he's got all these new toys to play with! Not just the new characters, but the new cameras, and the new framerate, and 3D!! There's no way he'll be able to resist playing with all that as much as he possibly can.

And as 350 pointed out, the poster I quoted is sure it's going to happen. If it doesn't there will be many people unhappy and then the complaining will begin. I was just using reason and logic according to the evidence. I should have known better.

Oh mate, don't go there. I've read Rambaldi's words differently, and said so, but it's a conversation. There's no need to turn it into a "why did I even bother?" thing.

Originally Posted by Rambaldi47

I was just saying that I hope there will be an extended version, not that it was a sure thing. I think the more Middle Earth we can get, the better. I know there's not nearly as much material for The Hobbit was there was LOTR, so IF there is an extended version of The Hobbit, I'm not expecting it to be of the same caliber of LOTR. It would probably be minutes as opposed to the hours added to LOTR.

"More Middle Earth we can get, the better" - I definitely agree.

As to how much more, I think that remains to be seen. I imagine it depends on how much material from the LotR appendices and other writings he's allowed to include in the films. The book itself is really skimpy on some information, even within its own story - the attack on Laketown, for instance, which is over in a few paragraphs in the book but which would surely have to be a major sequence in the second film. And of course, the activities of Gandalf while he's missing from the story in the book, which PJ must be giving some weight to if characters like Galadriel are involved in the film.

Mind's eye, I can imagine two very different releases for this two-part film: one where he sticks to telling the story of The Hobbit much as it's told in the book, though fleshed out for a film-style telling of the story and with a (necessary) nod to the absent activities of Gandalf; and a much lengthier one where he treats the story as a prologue to The Lord of the Rings, where he tells much more of the White Council and the rise of the Necromancer in the first place. I think that would keep both camps happy - the one that says The Hobbit is only a kids' book, and should remain that way; and the one that says it's really the first book of The LotR, and want more context-setting from it.

But I'm not assuming it will happen!!

[aiman04]

I think adapting the book into two 3-hour movies will be just nice. If they allow that running time for the theatrical release, then there won't be extended versions. Unless the studio decides to cap at two hours and release extended versions on home video further down the road, that's marketing.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

As to how much more, I think that remains to be seen. I imagine it depends on how much material from the LotR appendices and other writings he's allowed to include in the films. The book itself is really skimpy on some information, even within its own story - the attack on Laketown, for instance, which is over in a few paragraphs in the book but which would surely have to be a major sequence in the second film. And of course, the activities of Gandalf while he's missing from the story in the book, which PJ must be giving some weight to if characters like Galadriel are involved in the film.

Mind's eye, I can imagine two very different releases for this two-part film: one where he sticks to telling the story of The Hobbit much as it's told in the book, though fleshed out for a film-style telling of the story and with a (necessary) nod to the absent activities of Gandalf; and a much lengthier one where he treats the story as a prologue to The Lord of the Rings, where he tells much more of the White Council and the rise of the Necromancer in the first place. I think that would keep both camps happy - the one that says The Hobbit is only a kids' book, and should remain that way; and the one that says it's really the first book of The LotR, and want more context-setting from it.

As for the fans, I think we can agree that the more Middle-earth related material Jackson adds, the better. What he has to be careful about is what he adds. More material is always welcome IF it reflects upon or adds to the actual story or the characters. As a minor example, an extra scene added in Fellowship shows Sam having a tough time getting to sleep; fans of the book know that Sam was the soundest sleeper in the story, so that wouldn't have happened. Or consider the amount of time the movie spends in Osgiliath, which is barely mentioned in the book, not to mention the fact that Faramir never took Frodo or Sam there in the first place. Wouldn't that time have been better used fleshing out a more important story such as Eowyn and Faramir, which was given perhaps two minutes at the end of the Return of the King EE and wasn't mentioned in the TE's at all?

Also, you mention the attack on Laketown. We can be fairly confident that scene and any other violent scene (Battle of Five Armies, anyone?) will be thoroughly, perhaps excessively, addressed. This was also one of the weaker aspects of LotR, for example the emphasis on the Battle of Helm's Deep, which was the set piece for the movie version of The Two Towers, but only occupied one chapter of the book. Again, it is where Jackson and Boyens throw Tolkien to the wind in favor of their admonishments where the movies become deficient. Perhaps they are afraid viewers wil be bored if there is not continual over-the-top action (how many times do the Hobbits fall, etc.?) Was it necessary to throw in their personal commentary of women and children huddled in the caves, terrorized by the Uruk-hai stomping outside, when of course in the book those people weren't even there? If you are going to include them, what about after the battle? We don't see those people again; as far as the viewer is concerned they are still in the caves. Or women throwing roses in front of the doomed cavalry before it leaves Minas Tirith, etc. etc. etc.

But like you said, there is plenty of material in the actual (real) story and the appendices. If there is extra footage added, I hope it addresses THAT.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

As for the fans, I think we can agree that the more Middle-earth related material Jackson adds, the better. What he has to be careful about is what he adds. More material is always welcome IF it reflects upon or adds to the actual story or the characters. As a minor example, an extra scene added in Fellowship shows Sam having a tough time getting to sleep; fans of the book know that Sam was the soundest sleeper in the story, so that wouldn't have happened. Or consider the amount of time the movie spends in Osgiliath, which is barely mentioned in the book, not to mention the fact that Faramir never took Frodo or Sam there in the first place. Wouldn't that time have been better used fleshing out a more important story such as Eowyn and Faramir, which was given perhaps two minutes at the end of the Return of the King EE and wasn't mentioned in the TE's at all?

Also, you mention the attack on Laketown. We can be fairly confident that scene and any other violent scene (Battle of Five Armies, anyone?) will be thoroughly, perhaps excessively, addressed. This was also one of the weaker aspects of LotR, for example the emphasis on the Battle of Helm's Deep, which was the set piece for the movie version of The Two Towers, but only occupied one chapter of the book. Again, it is where Jackson and Boyens throw Tolkien to the wind in favor of their admonishments where the movies become deficient. Perhaps they are afraid viewers wil be bored if there is not continual over-the-top action (how many times do the Hobbits fall, etc.?) Was it necessary to throw in their personal commentary of women and children huddled in the caves, terrorized by the Uruk-hai stomping outside, when of course in the book those people weren't even there? If you are going to include them, what about after the battle? We don't see those people again; as far as the viewer is concerned they are still in the caves. Or women throwing roses in front of the doomed cavalry before it leaves Minas Tirith, etc. etc. etc.

But like you said, there is plenty of material in the actual (real) story and the appendices. If there is extra footage added, I hope it addresses THAT.

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).

[nathan_393]

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).

This is absolutely right, and I've been saying it for years about these films. On the topic of Tom Bombadil, I remember reading one of Tolkien's letters in which he discusses how even readers were divided by his part in the FOTR story. I think it was actually in the prologue to one of the LOTR collector's editions, although it's been a very long time and I don't rightly remember anymore.

But yes, completely different mediums, which is why adaptations are always so difficult. Books are about the feelings and thoughts of their characters - or at least, good books often are. Films are distinctly visually-based, which means we don't see or hear thoughts very often. It's dialogue and action - that's it. So some compromises obviously have to be made.

For the record, I think they did a wonderfully serviceable job with LOTR - they're amongst my favourite films. Would I welcome a version more accurate to the book? I think it would be interesting, but I'd prefer to see it done as a mini-series on a network that will give them license to do it right (HBO comes to mind after Game of Thrones).

[formula72]

Question????

This might sound nuts, but ((for those of use who don't appreciate the green hue and find it very bothersome)), could we substitute the theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" in place of.... and not miss anything that's in the extended version and continue on? In other words....watching in this order

Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical)
The Two Towers (Extended)
Return of the King (Extended)

Will we miss anything????

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by formula72

Question????

This might sound nuts, but ((for those of use who don't appreciate the green hue and find it very bothersome)), could we substitute the theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" in place of.... and not miss anything that's in the extended version and continue on? In other words....watching in this order

Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical)
The Two Towers (Extended)
Return of the King (Extended)

Will we miss anything????

Apart from the many character moments you'll miss you'll simply be substituting one transfer issue for another. Tint and a darker image (extended) vs. DNR (theatrical). In the end you'll have shortchanged yourself all the additional scenes and just changed what issue is affecting the picture.

[Grand Bob]

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).

For the most part I agree and I have no problem with the director using artistic license to a certain degree; after all, it is his movie. For example, I liked Jackson's inclusion of the Elves at Helm's Deep. The Scouring of the Shire, Ghan-buri-Ghan, the Old Forest, the Barrow-downs, etc. would have been practically impossible to include, even considering the generous time limit allowed for the extended versions of the three movies. Bombadil would have been extremely difficult to film, and I have as yet to see an artistic portrayal of him that matches my expectation of him from the description in the book. Where I draw the line is when the basic personality traits of the characters differ from that of the original story, e.g. Arwen was NOT a "warrior princess", Frodo would NOT have sent Sam home, Aragorn NEVER had any self-doubt concerning the "weakness" of his heritage, Faramir would NEVER have been tempted to take the Ring to Minas Tirith, etc.

Originally Posted by formula72

Question????

This might sound nuts, but ((for those of use who don't appreciate the green hue and find it very bothersome)), could we substitute the theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" in place of.... and not miss anything that's in the extended version and continue on? In other words....watching in this order

Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical)
The Two Towers (Extended)
Return of the King (Extended)

Will we miss anything????

I am one of the (apparent) few who also finds the tint and particularly the darkness of the EE Fellowship objectionable. I have no problem watching the film versions you have listed and have done so last week.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by formula72

Question????

This might sound nuts, but ((for those of use who don't appreciate the green hue and find it very bothersome)), could we substitute the theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" in place of.... and not miss anything that's in the extended version and continue on? In other words....watching in this order

Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical)
The Two Towers (Extended)
Return of the King (Extended)

Will we miss anything????

You miss Galadriel giving gifts to the Fellowship.