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

[2awesome4apossum]

I'm interested by that interview, because I have long-maintained that the first LOTR is the best, but I always assumed it was because the script was a lot tighter, and it had a thriving "chase" element. Granted, it sounds like that's part of what he's saying, but he seems to blame a lot of it on technology, which I'm not sure I'd agree with. Because it wasn't the visual effects that took me out of the second and third films, it was the writing.

That said, I wonder how he feels about some of the sillier "stunts," and the insane length of some of the battle scenes, which I certainly feel stronger about than the visual effects.

In the second movie you have stuff like the warg battle, where Aragorn lightly swings his sword around and orcs heads pop off right and left. Then, with Helm's Deep, you have him jump off the wall with a ladder and he lands on the soft Uruk-Hai at the bottom (nice of them to catch him). And then more head-popping and Legolas doing insane things (hard to imagine crazier than jumping on the back of a cave troll, but they definitely made it happen).

I understand that the first film definitely had an element of silly stunts, and simple limb-slash-head removal (although they had a few spurts of blood, and it looked like they at least put effort into their sword swings, which was appreciated), but the next two movies definitely took it over the top.

I also feel like part of the success of the first film is not knowing that there would be an "extended" version to dump scenes into. I remember pre-ordering the FOTR DVD and at the time, deleted scenes (particularly some with Aragorn and the shards of narsil) were listed as special features. (You can still look the specs up, thanks to the Wayback machine.)

This was changed as soon as they knew there was going to be an extended version, but it makes me wonder what the second and third films would have looked like if they had deleted scenes to put on the DVD instead of an alternate cut of the movie.

Does anyone think that Saruman's death might have been left in at least ONE of the films if that was the case? I sure do. I imagine that the movies would have been tighter, because there are some scenes too good to leave out of the film, and since there would be no extended version, they'd just tighten the current scenes to make room. The battle of Minas Tirith would have been SO much better if it focused more on battle tension than battle "eye candy."

Alas, it's all speculation.

[Geoff D]

I agree, the theatrical version of Fellowship is the best film of the bunch simply because they had no idea whether it would be a hit, whether they'd be able to put in all that extra stuff, so they simply made the best film that they could.

The subsequent EE and the other films suffer for Jackson's profligacy, and what Mortensen said about the shoots being a mess and that the first film was a 'money pit' isn't the first time I've heard such things about Jackson's, ah, method. He shoots and shoots and shoots and ends up with very little narratively coherent material, but the studios can't just pull the plug because they've spent hundreds of millions already, so they throw even more money at him to finish it.

I should think that his 'fly-by-night' style of filmmaking was doubly obvious after what happened with The Hobbit: they knew they were making two films, but after looking at what they'd originally shot they realised that they needed more than a few weeks of reshoots to rescue the project, so they petitioned Warners to let them make another entire movie - and what choice did Warners have?

Whether it's because Jackson's ambition always exceeds his reach or that he's just plain arrogant, safe in the knowledge that he'll always be bailed out, is unclear. But it'd be nice to seem him reined in once in a while.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

It's unfortunate the Mortensen's words have given LotR haters a rallying cry across the internet (from what I've seen) when they're more a critique on his part regarding the mayhem of the shoot and the action-adventure nature of the films versus his preference of intimate dramas. The whole thing has overshadowed what he wanted to get across in his interviews, which was to promote his new film. I don't agree with his Rings comments at all, but I do feel bad for him that the press has latched onto what should have been a footnote.

Regarding the extended cuts, I love them dearly and have always eagerly enjoyed every morsel of the story we got with them. However, on a recent rewatch of the RotK EE, the one scene that did not fare well with me was the Corsairs scene. Between the shoddy greenscreen work and the over-the-top "acting" (namely from PJ & the other crew cameos), it really is a sore spot. Definitely glad it didn't make it into the final film.

Despite my love of most of the added material, I've never been able to shake my adoration for the original cuts of each film - even if there were certain scenes that I would have loved to have made it in (the gift giving, the Boromir flashback, etc). Maybe it's just nostalgia, but I like the feel of watching those versions (which I feel strike the right balance between being tightly edited and conveying just the right about of heart and emotion).

I just wish they would have released those editions with better PQ. I suppose, at this point, it's not likely to happen anytime in the near future.

[Geoff D]

Well said sir. I've always maintained that the theatricals are the best movies that could've been made out of this material, neatly balancing the demands of the story with the demands of a three-hour running time (especially FOTR). "So what are the EE's then, if not movies?", I hear you ask. To me they're more like a sprawling 6-part mini-series which undoubtedly adds more richness and depth (and some farting), but it's at the expense of things like pacing and dramatic tension. I hate the way that the Dead Army reveal is telegraphed in the EE of ROTK.

I own both, and I'm glad I was given the choice. I watched the theatrical BDs not too long ago (Hobbit: AUJ got me jonesing for LOTR again) and FOTR holds up pretty well. I know it's come in for a lot of stick, but the DNR and whatnot isn't grossly offensive. And because TTT and ROTK were derived from the DIs anyway, there isn't a great deal of difference between them and the EE's in terms of picture quality.

[HeavyHitter]

After watching the extended versions so many times, then watching the theatricals - they just feel so incomplete and less fulfilling to me. With that said, I do wish the extended version of Return of the King was a bit more trimmed down but I am still fine with it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

After watching the extended versions so many times, then watching the theatricals - they just feel so incomplete and less fulfilling to me. With that said, I do wish the extended version of Return of the King was a bit more trimmed down but I am still fine with it.

That's about how I feel as well. The EEs of FOTR and TTT are virtually flawless. However, ROTK really is a bloated mess when compared to the first two.

[Geoff D]

That's fair enough guys, I'm not trying to convert anyone. If you watch anything enough times, going back to a shorter edition is gonna be jarring. But aside from couple of exceptions I like to balance my viewing of theatrical/extended editions (not just LOTR) because it's fascinating to me to see how editorial decisions can change a movie for better or worse. And it makes watching an extended version that much more interesting (even if I don't agree with every change) because I haven't memorised every beat.

[JavaJulien]

Honestly, the only thing I don't like about the Theatrical Cuts is that Sarumon disappears completely from the story after Two Towers.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

Honestly, the only thing I don't like about the Theatrical Cuts is that Sarumon disappears completely from the story after Two Towers.

That always bothered me as well.

[Geoff D]

Well, the same thing does actually happen in the books, it's just that without the Scouring of The Shire we don't get informed of Saruman's ultimate fate. I can live with that.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, the same thing does actually happen in the books, it's just that without the Scouring of The Shire we don't get informed of Saruman's ultimate fate. I can live with that.

That's very true. Though we're still missing a confrontation with Saruman, which we get at that point in the book. But as far as Saruman being left as a prisoner in the tower, you're right - it's accurate with the books.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But aside from couple of exceptions I like to balance my viewing of theatrical/extended editions (not just LOTR) because it's fascinating to me to see how editorial decisions can change a movie for better or worse.

Yes, that's one of the things I love about having both versions. There are different cuts and transitions in each version that I'm quite fond of that result in different reactions.

For instance, I love the cut in the TTT Extended Cut when Gandalf and Aragorn talk about Sam going with Frodo and then it goes right to Sam climbing up the rocks to the front gate of Mordor. It seems so natural.

Conversely, I love certain cuts in the theatrical editions - such as Gimli's "What are we waiting for?" as Howard Shore's music crescendos and it goes right into the march of the host from Minas Tirith.

I also agree with you that the Army of Dead is handled very poorly in the Extended Cut of RotK. Another theatrical cut transition I love is Aragorn's "What say you?!" to the Siege of Gondor. Then we're left hanging until they show up later at the battle (which is a great surprise reveal). This is spoiled in the Extended Cut.

Picking up on what HD Goofnut said about the Extended Cuts of FotR and TTT versus RotK, I have always found it interesting that in the commentary track for RotK, the filmmakers sound much less enthusiastic about the restored material than on the other two films. I can't help but imagine that PJ felt the need to up the ante on extended footage, as TTT had added 43 minutes compared to Fellowship's 30. He probably should have adopted a more disciplined attitude toward that final extended cut.

I own both, and I'm glad I was given the choice. I watched the theatrical BDs not too long ago (Hobbit: AUJ got me jonesing for LOTR again) and FOTR holds up pretty well. I know it's come in for a lot of stick, but the DNR and whatnot isn't grossly offensive. And because TTT and ROTK were derived from the DIs anyway, there isn't a great deal of difference between them and the EE's in terms of picture quality.

The picture quality is less problematic to me than when I initially viewed the discs (I'm quite sure I'm extra picky the first couple times I view any transfer). But FotR definitely suffers in the detail department compared to the EE. On it's plus side, though, it does have the original color grading - which is very nice.

[The Fallen Deity]

It's all about the EE's imo.

The Theatrical Cut's are great too but the longer versions are just on a whole other level of awesomeness.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

I also agree with you that the Army of Dead is handled very poorly in the Extended Cut of RotK. Another theatrical cut transition I love is Aragorn's "What say you?!" to the Siege of Gondor. Then we're left hanging until they show up later at the battle (which is a great surprise reveal). This is spoiled in the Extended Cut.

Agreed. The theatrical cut works much better becaue of the element of surprise later in the film. BUT: I think the best version would be a mix of the two official versions. Imo it would work best if they included the scenes where the dead army disappears and our heroes escape from the their territory. Then Aragorn sees all the ships and gives us that desperate look, like all hope is gone. They should inlcude all that and just cut out the last bit where the dead army reappears and agrees to fight.

[Geoff D]

It's interesting how they all fare in the EE versions. FOTR feels like a natural extension, TTT is like a completely different film, and ROTK is a tiresome overindulgence.

I wonder if the Hobbit EE's will follow the same path?

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's interesting how they all fare in the EE versions. FOTR feels like a natural extension, TTT is like a completely different film, and ROTK is a tiresome overindulgence.

I think I'd actually agree (even though there's a fair amount of stuff I really like from the RotK EE). I remember, after getting the RotK Theatrical Edition on DVD, I watched the first two EE followed by RotK TE, and it was such a perfect viewing experience. In retrospect, I don't know that I've ever warmed to the EE of RotK like the other two (which may very well have to do with what you've written above).

I wonder if the Hobbit EE's will suffer the same fate?

I'm inclined to be less critical of bloated Hobbit EEs since they're already fairly bloated, and since I don't hold the theatrical cuts in the esteem that I hold the earlier trilogy.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Regarding the extended cuts, I love them dearly and have always eagerly enjoyed every morsel of the story we got with them. However, on a recent rewatch of the RotK EE, the one scene that did not fare well with me was the Corsairs scene. Between the shoddy greenscreen work and the over-the-top "acting" (namely from PJ & the other crew cameos), it really is a sore spot. Definitely glad it didn't make it into the final film.

Hah, yeah, I agree something does seem kind of "off" about that scene... but it's so short so it's not even that big a deal lol.

I'll always prefer the extended cuts to the theatricals though, especially for Two Towers (which I think has the best new and extended scenes of the trilogy). But sometimes I like to put on the theatricals just for s***ts and giggles or if I have them on in the background while I'm doing something else and don't feel like switching discs to finish the movie. And I hate that Saruman was cut out of RotK's theatrical cut. They should've left that scene in for no other reason than out of respect for Brad Dourif and (especially) Christopher Lee. Saruman was such a big presence in the first two movies, for him to not be in the third was a little odd. Especially because it was in the beginning of the movie, so it's not like another "tacked on" ending that people would've been bored of.

As for Viggo's comments, I agree that Fellowship of the Ring is the best of the three, because it DOES feel more "real". That's why I LOVE the battle at Amon Hen, because it's really just guys in (absolutely amazing) makeup, costumes, and armor battling. But it works within the narrative of the story because there aren't any huge battle scenes other than the prologue.

I'm a little "forgiving" when it comes to the Hobbit movies, I'll admit. I give Peter Jackson a big benefit of the doubt, because I know he didn't even WANT to direct the Hobbit movies originally and it almost seemed like it was thrust upon him. I feel like if he had more time to really do it his way, we'd have gotten more practical effects and less green screen. But at least even with CGI characters, he's still using motion capture which still works really well (like with the goblin king, the three trolls, and of course Gollum).
And let's not forget that they still use some amazing locations and makeup (like for all the dwarves! they all look great!). I admit that some of the action can be a bit over the top (one of my complaints about the first movie) but I think it all worked incredibly well in the Desolation of Smaug.

[2awesome4apossum]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's interesting how they all fare in the EE versions. FOTR feels like a natural extension, TTT is like a completely different film, and ROTK is a tiresome overindulgence.

I agree that The Two Towers feels like a completely different film, but the big standout in FOTR is that scene as they're entering Lothlorien and everyone looks different (mostly wardrobe and makeup, but it looks like it was shot differently too). That should have been put separately as a deleted scene -- nice to see, but doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. The extended ROTK is most definitely an over-indulgence, but there are a few fantastic deleted scenes, like that one with the "Witch King" that heightens the tension.

I wonder if the Hobbit EE's will follow the same path?

Considering that you could cut 70 minutes out of The Desolation of Smaug and literally lose no story content, I have my doubts ... though I can't understand why they didn't show us the Feast of Starlight? Hopefully that makes it back in. You could probably cut a full 20 from the first one, and the extended version didn't seem all that different (but the scenes they added were all things I wanted to see.) So who knows.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

I find that the theatricals are absolute crap in every way since I first saw the Extended Editions.

Just my opinion though.

[BaerGriggs]

I enjoy both the theatrical and the extended editions of these movies, but I admit I like watching the EE's much more. I love both the books and movies but I never really got too upset about any changes Jackson made. I can't really explain it, but I have a really hard time criticizing Jackson's work on the movies...I completely understand people's complaints about how they're too bloated, but I never complain about movies being too long, and more film time in Middle-Earth is always a plus to me. I've said before, I think Tolkien would have hated any film adaptation of his books because much of the nuance in his writing is extremely hard to put on the big screen. Just like Game of Thrones and other book->films, I just view the book and movie as separate entities and enjoy them equally.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

Hah, yeah, I agree something does seem kind of "off" about that scene... but it's so short so it's not even that big a deal lol.

Oh, absolutely. It's very brief. And, honestly, I couldn't ask for a better scene to take issue with, because it's at the very beginning of the disc - and easily edited out, if I choose, by starting with Chapter 2. (I do something similar when watching the full Kill Bill - I cut off the last chapter of Volume I and the first chapter of Volume II, making for a seamless 4 hour epic. ).

As I said, I love both. As much as I'm going on about my love of the Theatrical Cuts, if I'm completely honest it goes back and forth depending on my mood.

The theatrical cuts are like a security blanket because I memorized every beat of them in the holiday seasons of 2001-2003, seeing each one in theaters at least 10+ times. Meanwhile, the Extended Cuts are 10 course meal of various deserts and treats. It's the thing that makes these cuts so unique - that they feel like very different films. Very few director's/extended cuts are like that (Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind).