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

[Milambian]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I copied that from the (rather extensive) program notes - including some of the musical score - that came with the recording. If you are a fan of the soundtrack, the complete recordings are the versions to get.

Thanks for the info! I'll have to look into the complete soundtrack!

Originally Posted by Max_Genus

Too true, Grand Bob!

Milambian: You used to be able to download the annotations from the Complete Recordings, in PDF format, at the official soundtrack website without purchasing the sets:
http://www.lordoftherings-soundtrack..._complete.html

EDIT: The links are still there, but I just tried each of the PDF links and all three result in 404 Not Found errors.

Update: Okay, thanks to Google I found the correct URL to Fellowship's PDF: http://www.lordoftherings-soundtrack...ed_score_2.pdf
And, a nice Rohan & Gondor map: http://www.lordoftherings-soundtrack...maps/rohan.pdf

I finally found Return of the King - over at Warner Bros.: http://download.wbr.com/lordoftherin...ated_score.pdf

Have not been able to find an official or safe address for Two Towers. I have the copy I downloaded in 2007 - but don't know if it would get anyone's feathers ruffled if I were to upload it.

Oh, and I'd forgotten about the book released last year: http://www.amazon.com/Music-Lord-Rin...5835825&sr=1-1
"The Musica of The Lord of the Rings Films: A Comprehensive Account of Howard Shore's Scores" by Doug Williams. Illustrations by John Howe & Alan Lee.

VERY cool, thank you! Don't worry about uploading anything, no reason to possibly annoy someone over it. If they are still officially released for people to download I'm sure I can find it eventually. Also, that book looks very interesting, I added it to my wishlist for a possible impulse-buy someday.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Peter Jackson had complete control over the theatrical cuts, not New Line. It's also known they're his preferred versions of the films. The extended cuts are meant for the home video audience. That's why they're called "Extended Editions" and not "Director's Cut".

No.

Peter Jackson has NEVER stated that he prefers the theatricals to the extended versions of his Lord of the Rings films - he goes out of his way to not throw either version under the bus. He stands by *both*. That's why he doesn't call the extended or theatricals "director's cuts", as they imply he wasn't behind what he delivered theatrically, or later on home video.

Now, Viggo Mortensen - that's a completely different story. He's on record stating that he doesn't consider the theatrical versions to be "true" or "real" versions of the films.

Peter Jackson, though, has never stated a preference and has been careful not to.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No.

Peter Jackson has NEVER stated that he prefers the theatricals to the extended versions of his Lord of the Rings films - he goes out of his way to not throw either version under the bus. He stands by *both*. That's why he doesn't call the extended or theatricals "director's cuts", as they imply he wasn't behind what he delivered theatrically, or later on home video.

Now, Viggo Mortensen - that's a completely different story. He's on record stating that he doesn't consider the theatrical versions to be "true" or "real" versions of the films.

Peter Jackson, though, has never stated a preference and has been careful not to.

From what I understand, Jackson's theatrical cuts were specifically designed by him to be seen in a single sitting at the theater, as far as pacing goes. I remember in an interview way back when the EE's were being released he mentioned that the Extended Cuts worked at home because you could pause the movie, or take break between discs, so pacing wasn't as much of a concern (another reason I'm actually glad the Blu-Ray versions are remaining split between two discs).

Tying this back on topic-- typically, scenes were deleted for a reason. I don't believe Lucas ever intended for those scenes to appear in a final cut of the film (although he can always change his mind on the next version )

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No.

Peter Jackson has NEVER stated that he prefers the theatricals to the extended versions of his Lord of the Rings films - he goes out of his way to not throw either version under the bus. He stands by *both*. That's why he doesn't call the extended or theatricals "director's cuts", as they imply he wasn't behind what he delivered theatrically, or later on home video.

Now, Viggo Mortensen - that's a completely different story. He's on record stating that he doesn't consider the theatrical versions to be "true" or "real" versions of the films.

Peter Jackson, though, has never stated a preference and has been careful not to.

Sorry, but incorrect:

JACKSON: The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material.

Source: http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/445/445262p4.html

I respect Jackson's opinion as the film maker, I still prefer the extended versions though. Regardless, he has most definitely said on more than one occasion that the theatrical cuts are the "director's cuts" for all intents and purposes.

With regards to Star Wars, I don't want to see the extra scenes added in. They were left out for a reason, whether it be performance, pacing etc. For that reason they should stay out. I can enjoy them all the same as long as they're on a disc somewhere in the set.

[Ernest Rister]

[QUOTE=atexp80;4751719]Sorry, but incorrect:



Source: http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/445/445262p4.html

Jackson went on and on - in very public ways - about how there was no preferred or definitive version of the Lord of the Rings, he stood behind both versions. I'm sure internet sleuthing will find the old videos from LordOfTheRings.Net with Jackson defending both and saying neither is a preferred version. In your article, prior to the release of the awful King Kong, he states the theatricals are the definitive versions. Don't know what to say.

Thanks, Pete.

[motorheadache95]

[quote=Ernest Rister;4751806]

Originally Posted by atexp80

Sorry, but incorrect:



Source: http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/445/445262p4.html

Wow, as if I didn't need another reason to lose respect for Jackson - now he's a demonstrable liar on top of being a regrettably indulgent filmmaker. He went on and on - in very public ways - about how there was no preferred or definitive version of the Lord of the Rings, he stood behind both versions. In that article, prior to the release of the awful King Kong, he states the theatricals are the definitive versions.

That's nice.

Thanks, Pete.

I don't think it's such a big deal. Maybe he changed his mind a bit, or things were taken out of context. I know he's talked about the theatrical cuts in terms of pacing (as I said earlier), so maybe he was talking about that.

But besides what he thinks, does it really matter? Do we have to prefer what the director prefers? Certainly not me in the case of the Star Wars films (see how I keep these things relevant? )

Just like with Blade Runner, in the intro to the theatrical cut, Ridley Scott mentions that this isn't his preferred version, but he knows this cut has it's fans. You don't HAVE to agree with the film director, that's part of the beauty of art-- everyone takes something different away from a work.

If it were otherwise, we'd all automatically like the Director's Cut of, say, Donnie Darko. Exactly how many people prefer the Director's Cut of THAT film? (Not too many, from my experience).

[Beast]

What's wrong with the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko? I like it a lot more than the Theatrical.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Beast

What's wrong with the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko? I like it a lot more than the Theatrical.

I actually like both cuts myself, but a lot of people seem to hate that version-- some people prefer the vagueness of the theatrical more.

An example of a "director's preferred" version I don't really like is the Aliens: Special Edition (Cameron has gone on record that he prefers this cut). I think it slows the movie down too much, and most of the scenes I don't consider important (except for maybe the one involving Ripley's daughter).

My point though of course is that if you prefer a cut that isn't exactly in line with the director's preference, or true "vision" if you will, it's okay. So it really doesn't matter if Peter Jackson thinks the theatrical cuts are the "true" movies, even though I don't think that is necessarily the case anyway despite his words in that interview posted earlier.

[Beast]

Oh, agreed. I like both cuts myself. But I think the Director's Cut flows better.

It also fixes a few other issues with the Theatrical version. Yes, it does lay things out a lot more straightforward, but I think it works better that way. With the pages from the Time Travel book being like chapter headings for the various scenes. In fact, I may rewatch it now.

[nametag]

[quote=motorheadache95;4751944]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Just like with Blade Runner, in the intro to the theatrical cut, Ridley Scott mentions that this isn't his preferred version, but he knows this cut has it's fans. You don't HAVE to agree with the film director, that's part of the beauty of art-- everyone takes something different away from a work.

Well yeah, that's the point... once something gets released to the public filmmakers should respect that those versions have their fans and have had their own significant historical impact.

[Ernest Rister]

Besides, if the theatrical versions are the "definitive" version, then how the hell did Frodo learn Gollum's true name (Smeagol) in the theatrical cut of The Two Towers? Frodo learns it in a scene extended in the Fellowship of the Ring (and a very good scene, at that). If the theatricals are definitive, then they are also definitely full of rather large plot holes.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Besides, if the theatrical versions are the "definitive" version, then how the hell did Frodo learn Gollum's true name (Smeagol) in the theatrical cut of The Two Towers? Frodo learns it in a scene extended in the Fellowship of the Ring (and a very good scene, at that). If the theatricals are definitive, then they are also definitely full of rather large plot holes.

What large plot holes? Frodo could've found out from Gandalf in a scene that's not in the theatrical version, it's not terribly important.

I really like the extended versions, but the pacing sometimes is absolutely horrible.

[Jumpman]

Ernest,

That's always bugged me on my first viewing of the theatrical cuts. Another thing that bugged me is the use of lambas bread. In the theatrical cut of the Fellowship of the Ring, we don't see them get it. But, at the very opening of the Two Towers, it's highlighted as an important point that they use through out the rest of the trilogy.

This is why I always watch the extended cut of the Fellowship of the Ring, followed by the theatrical cuts of the last two. Watching Fellowship extended, it almost eliminates all of the plot holes that show up later in the trilogy.

Just watched the theatrical cut of the Two Towers last night for the first time in six years and it's just a much better film than the extended of the Two Towers. The pacing is so much better. While yes, there are a few character beats we missed from the extended, it still eliminates a lot of the stuff that had no business being in the film to begin with. The ultimate problem with Two Towers still stems from the script. In order for it to really work and not mess with Return of the King's time, it needed a page one rewrite.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Peter Jackson had complete control over the theatrical cuts, not New Line.

Peter Jackson had control over the editing, but he was still contractually obligated to meet a certain time limit for the theatrical versions. How he cut the films down to meet that limit was at his discretion. Admittedly the time limit was relaxed for ROTK after the first two films were successful.

[jimmy98]

For anyone interested in this ... Best Buy has a Lord of the Rings trilogy Ring gift with purchase of their extended versions of the film.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....questid=230392

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by jimmy98

For anyone interested in this ... Best Buy has a Lord of the Rings trilogy Ring gift with purchase of their extended versions of the film.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....questid=230392

What's weird about that is it's listed as:

Our Price: $10.00

Format: Blu-ray Disc

Genre: General Comedies

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by frogmort

What's weird about that is it's listed as:

Our Price: $10.00

Format: Blu-ray Disc

Genre: General Comedies

I see the title listed as: Lord Of The Rings Trilogy Ring Gwp- Blu-ray Disc
SKU: 2684342 | Release Date: 6/5/2011. What is the meaning of "Gwp"? "Gollum Wants Precious"? "Get With (the) Program"? For $10.00, I am tempted to give it a shot.

[SleeperAgent]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I see the title listed as: Lord Of The Rings Trilogy Ring Gwp- Blu-ray Disc
SKU: 2684342 | Release Date: 6/5/2011. What is the meaning of "Gwp"? "Gollum Wants Precious"? "Get With (the) Program"? For $10.00, I am tempted to give it a shot.

Gift With Purchase is what I took it as.

[snowball_iv]

It looks like a Gandalf staff pen.

[AutomaticDriver]

With each movie going to be on 2-disc. I have a question.

I will be using my ps3. With a PS3(maybe the same with 360). Anytime you take a disc out, you should go to your XMB first. Then eject the disc.

So I am wondering, will I have to do that process each time? (Going to the XMB, then eject the disc). Or can I just eject the disc as soon as the "Switch to disc 2" screen comes up?

The reason why I am asking, is because I dont want to do anything that could mess up my ps3.