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

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Lope de Aguirre

Again fully agreed. And I'm not really familiar with the books (read "The Hobbit" and Fellowship but not the other books) just as movies I think FOTR is easily the best and TTT clearly the weakest.



Are you a huge fan of the LOTR books? Otherwise I can't really understand one critizising the last two Ring movies but enjoying the first two SW prequels.

Agreed, the SW prequels have some of the worst uses of CGI in recorded history.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Agreed, the SW prequels have some of the worst uses of CGI in recorded history.

Does that include ROTS ? i really enjoyed it when it came out

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

...the Mouth of Sauron should've always been in the theatrical cut of King. Also, Aragorn revealing himself to Sauron using the Palantir should've also been in the theatrical cut as well.

I agree that those scenes should have been included in the TE, but as with most of the other EE scenes, there usually seems to be a caveat. The Mouth of Sauron scene was well done and creepily effective, illustrating the characteristic and evil nature that one would associate with Mordor - excellent! But then, of course, the inevitable, over-the-top, sensationalist move of ending the scene with Aragorn chopping off his head. This is something that Aragorn, being a man of high honor, absolutely would never have done, anymore than representatives at the United Nations would chop off an ambassador's head, regardless of what dictatorship he represented or how uncouth the person might be.

Likewise with Aragorn and the palantir - a great dramatic scene that was pivotal to the story. Consider Aragorn's account as stated in the book:

"Nay, my friends, I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough - barely... It was a bitter struggle, and the weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I deem; for he knew it not till now... Sauron has not forgotten Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed; for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him."

OK, so the key point of this episode is that instead of the free peoples of Middle-earth that are constantly being beaten down, it is Sauron that is finally afraid! This is where "the tide" starts to turn. But we can't leave well-enough alone (and you knew it was coming) ...whoops - in the film we are committed to having Arwen involved whenever an opportunity arises, so Aragorn ends up as the one being afraid and drops the palantir. Question to Jackson/Boyens - was the ruining of this scene (and so many others) which started out as a great idea really necessary?

[Beast]

You call it "Ruining A Scene", I call it Improving on the Source Material. Just my honest opinion.

I think what Jackson/Boyens did improved a lot of what was seriously lacking in the original Source Material.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by joliefan

Does that include ROTS ? i really enjoyed it when it came out

Yes.

I don't mean just poor CGI, which TPM was very guilty of, I mean overuse, over-reliance on CGI. General Grievous, for example.

ROTS is the best of the three in pretty much every regard, but the trilogy as a whole is a textbook example of what happens when a producer/director puts frills and gimmicks over human stories, emotions and character development.

I still like the prequels for what they are, but I don't think LOTR falls into the same category in terms of CGI at all, even in the big battle scenes. I think they balanced the seriousness with the silliness perfectly. It seems it's only book snobs who really had a problem with Legolas and Gimli competing and things like that - and I could be wrong, but didn't they also count their kills in the book? As far as I can tell, LOTR was never supposed to be a suuuper seeeerious IP, and I don't think they ever descended into anything cringe-worthy. For what they are, I think the LOTR trilogy is as close to perfect as you can get for a big budget epic like that. There will always be armchair critics with nitpicks, but FWIW I think it's pretty much all unwarranted in this particular case.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Not to derail the topic any further but it doesn't make any sense to talk about the SW Prequels in comparison to the LotR movies on even the basest level because the prequels are all awful, awful films whereas the LotR films are not. The Prequels could've had the best CGI in the world (and they didn't, it was bad, but even so) and they still would've been bad movies.

Anyway, I do agree with some critiques of the films. I love them. Are they perfect? Absolutely not.

That being said, the books are also equally beautifully imperfect. That's the whole point - people are making them out to be absolutely flawless when they're not in any regard.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I agree that those scenes should have been included in the TE, but as with most of the other EE scenes, there usually seems to be a caveat. The Mouth of Sauron scene was well done and creepily effective, illustrating the characteristic and evil nature that one would associate with Mordor - excellent! But then, of course, the inevitable, over-the-top, sensationalist move of ending the scene with Aragorn chopping off his head. This is something that Aragorn, being a man of high honor, absolutely would never have done, anymore than representatives at the United Nations would chop off an ambassador's head, regardless of what dictatorship he represented or how uncouth the person might be.

Likewise with Aragorn and the palantir - a great dramatic scene that was pivotal to the story. Consider Aragorn's account as stated in the book:

"Nay, my friends, I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough - barely... It was a bitter struggle, and the weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I deem; for he knew it not till now... Sauron has not forgotten Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed; for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him."

OK, so the key point of this episode is that instead of the free peoples of Middle-earth that are constantly being beaten down, it is Sauron that is finally afraid! This is where "the tide" starts to turn. But we can't leave well-enough alone (and you knew it was coming) ...whoops - in the film we are committed to having Arwen involved whenever an opportunity arises, so Aragorn ends up as the one being afraid and drops the palantir. Question to Jackson/Boyens - was the ruining of this scene (and so many others) which started out as a great idea really necessary?

Totally agree with the ending of both scenes. I don't get the choices in either case.

And fellas, let's not pretend the Rings Trilogy didn't have awful uses of CG. Almost 7 years later, Sith's CG is still virtually seamless. We can go back and forth on the uses of CG in both trilogies. And frankly, Lucas used way more models than people give him credit for. Fact; Episode I used more models than the Original Trilogy COMBINED.

And they used more as the trilogy went on.

[El_Jay]

Well I guess it's time to agree to disagree then, because I think LOTR's CGI, or special FX in general I guess is a better summation, is vastly superior to what's on display in the SW prequels, and as I said it's not just the execution, it's the decision to use or not use CGI just for the sake of it.

[Bill Clay]

I can understand the fans of the books not liking some of Jackson's choices for the movies. But the thing to remember is they're Jackson's movies, not Tolkien's. It wasn't about him making a 100% faithful adaptation of the books. But more like his vision of them.

I like the EE's. I prefer them to the theatrical versions. I'm happy to just have them. It's a unique thing to see a whole new version of a movie, much less three of them. I tried reading the books years ago, but I just couldn't get into them.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Well I guess it's time to agree to disagree then, because I think LOTR's CGI, or special FX in general I guess is a better summation, is vastly superior to what's on display in the SW prequels, and as I said it's not just the execution, it's the decision to use or not use CGI just for the sake of it.

It was easier for Jackson, consider the environment he inheritied for Tolkien. Plus, for Lucas, the Prequels were a test of the digital backlot idea he'd been pushing for years.

In my opinion, he mostly succeeded, even if I wished he gone more practical in some areas. Still, Sith and Menace are virtually seamless.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

I honestly can't imagine anyone watching any of the prequels and finding the CG "seamless."

To me it looked exactly like a prolonged PS2 cutscene with live action incorporated into it - all 3 of them.

The whole 6 hour long taxi chase scene thing in the beginning of Attack of the Clones looked excruciatingly bad to me.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

The thing I find most frustrating about the Lord of the Rings viewing experience is that once you've seen the EE's, it's almost impossible to watch the theatrical cuts, especially the first two. You pick up on so many continuity errors that are essentially fixed in the EE's.

At the same time, the EE's add stuff that either hurt, help, or are odd additions that make the EE's a weird viewing experience.

That's why I dig both cuts. The theatricals are a more streamlined experience, paced like proper movies, whereas the EEs tend to meander along in a mini-series stylee and allow you to wallow in Middle Earth that little bit longer. Depends on how numb you want your arse to get, really.

Your second point is a very pertinent one, what with all the talk about the quality of the adaptation itself; people love to wax lyrical about how the EEs add so much more from the book blah blah, but the EEs also add a heck of a lot of useless fluff, which is why I don't see them as any sort of 'definitive' version.

And +1 to the other comment about the Pelennor Fields CG, 'cause it just didn't work for me either. Looked too soft and rubbery, whereas most of the other stuff in the films is excellent. I've always loved that shot in Two Towers where Legolas switches from Orlando Bloom to a digital double as he does that one-handed swing up onto the horse, in slow motion, in broad daylight. It's not perfect but it's a magnificent effort.

[Bunker]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I honestly can't imagine anyone watching any of the prequels and finding the CG "seamless."

To me it looked exactly like a prolonged PS2 cutscene with live action incorporated into it - all 3 of them.

The whole 6 hour long taxi chase scene thing in the beginning of Attack of the Clones looked excruciatingly bad to me.

They look dated and awful now. I guess that's what happens when you have a director more concerned with finishing on-time and under-budget, rather than a true visionary director like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, etc. Oddly enough, The Phantom Menace is probably my "favorite" of the prequel trilogy because they actually used real sets and props in most of the scenes, rather than just blue screening everything.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I honestly can't imagine anyone watching any of the prequels and finding the CG "seamless."

To me it looked exactly like a prolonged PS2 cutscene with live action incorporated into it - all 3 of them.

The whole 6 hour long taxi chase scene thing in the beginning of Attack of the Clones looked excruciatingly bad to me.

Imagine how dated they will look in 10-20 years.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Yes.

I don't mean just poor CGI, which TPM was very guilty of, I mean overuse, over-reliance on CGI. General Grievous, for example.

ROTS is the best of the three in pretty much every regard, but the trilogy as a whole is a textbook example of what happens when a producer/director puts frills and gimmicks over human stories, emotions and character development.

I still like the prequels for what they are, but I don't think LOTR falls into the same category in terms of CGI at all, even in the big battle scenes. I think they balanced the seriousness with the silliness perfectly. It seems it's only book snobs who really had a problem with Legolas and Gimli competing and things like that - and I could be wrong, but didn't they also count their kills in the book? As far as I can tell, LOTR was never supposed to be a suuuper seeeerious IP, and I don't think they ever descended into anything cringe-worthy. For what they are, I think the LOTR trilogy is as close to perfect as you can get for a big budget epic like that. There will always be armchair critics with nitpicks, but FWIW I think it's pretty much all unwarranted in this particular case.

I agree here. I enjoy the SW prequels but sometimes am a little disappointed at how some it turned out. Ah well.

Back on track with LOTR

Originally Posted by Cook

Imagine how dated they will look in 10-20 years.

This is quite possible. Lets be honest, plenty of movies from earlier eras do look bad these days.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I agree here. I enjoy the SW prequels but sometimes am a little disappointed at how some it turned out. Ah well.

Back on track with LOTR



This is quite possible. Lets be honest, plenty of movies from earlier eras do look bad these days.

That they do, but its ironic because Lucas was trying to jump ahead of everyone and be cutting edge and it will end up making his films look more dated than they would have if he would have used real sets. He chose a cutting edge underdeveloped style over a more lasting approach.

[riverbelow]

Man get better screens or calibrate them to utilize blu-ray?

The CGI in LOTR holds up for my setup. In DVD it was kinda iffy at times.

LOTR has not one second of bad use of CG. Anything they chose to CG absolutely could not be done practically...

[NYorker]

I will say this for the LOTR theatricals: seeing FOTR for the first time in the cinema, it was just an amazing experience. Those three hours went by so fast, by the end of the film you couldn't wait for next Christmast to arrive!
Now that I've seen the EE, however, I don't think I could go back to the TE...
Like I mentioned in a previous post, expanded editions, like LOTR EE, AVATAR or KINGDOM of HEAVEN DC are best enjoyed at home. Some, like KOH would probably not see the light of day without it - which would be a real shame.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Cook

That they do, but its ironic because Lucas was trying to jump ahead of everyone and be cutting edge and it will end up making his films look more dated than they would have if he would have used real sets. He chose a cutting edge underdeveloped style over a more lasting approach.

Hes overdone the CGI to many special effects and a weak story line. whats even worse is there gonna be show in 3D.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I honestly can't imagine anyone watching any of the prequels and finding the CG "seamless."

To me it looked exactly like a prolonged PS2 cutscene with live action incorporated into it - all 3 of them.

The whole 6 hour long taxi chase scene thing in the beginning of Attack of the Clones looked excruciatingly bad to me.

Hes overdone the CGI to many special effects and a weak story line. whats even worse is there gonna be shown in 3D.