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

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

A LOT of Tolkien's stuff is out of place or odd. Putting parts of the story in, in a language that Tolkien himself wrote, and not translating it, is pretty bold and out of left field. That's just one thing, there are MANY things in those stories that are just out of place and don't make sense unless you look at the author first, and WHY he wrote this story.

One thing is for sure - there is too much material in the book for three movies, as is evidenced by the fact that even three EE's cannot properly cover the material. For example, Bombadil was expendable in an abridged-version sense because he did not affect the main plot - but was very important in a thematic sense because he was the only being in Middle-earth that could not be corrupted by the Ring; the omission of Glorfindel, who makes only a couple of brief appearences, but nonetheless was immensely important because (along with Galadriel) was one of the very few remaining Elves in Middle-earth that had actually seen the light of the Two Trees of Valinor, etc. Therefore (since it seems to be a topic of the day), if the story was to be filmed in a proper comprehensive manner that included all of the major information Tolkien was attempting to convey, I wonder how that could be accomplished? Six movies, as per the Star Wars saga? An HBO-type series? Go for broke and film all three ages (my preference)? The interest (e.g. profits) in the saga certainly seem to be there, so I must assume that "someday" it will happen.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

One thing is for sure - there is too much material in the book for three movies, as is evidenced by the fact that even three EE's cannot properly cover the material. For example, Bombadil was expendable in an abridged-version sense because he did not affect the main plot - but was very important in a thematic sense because he was the only being in Middle-earth that could not be corrupted by the Ring; the omission of Glorfindel, who makes only a couple of brief appearences, but nonetheless was immensely important because (along with Galadriel) was one of the very few remaining Elves in Middle-earth that had actually seen the light of the Two Trees of Valinor, etc. Therefore (since it seems to be a topic of the day), if the story was to be filmed in a proper comprehensive manner that included all of the major information Tolkien was attempting to convey, I wonder how that could be accomplished? Six movies, as per the Star Wars saga? An HBO-type series? Go for broke and film all three ages (my preference)? The interest (e.g. profits) in the saga certainly seem to be there, so I must assume that "someday" it will happen.

My thinking is 2015, most Tolkien fans I've asked think 2021 though, so 20 years after the theatrical release of the Fellowship of the Ring. Not sure how good they would be though, asking people to sit through so much Tolkien could probably wear thin fast.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

rocket,

I don't mind the Arwen in Fellowship of the Ring. I think it works extremely well. But, for the rest of the trilogy? Not even remotely needed.

Had they just left her appearance to Fellowship and the very end of Return of the King, the love story would've resonated even more.

I've always felt it was pretty terrible to shoehorn Arwen in Towers and the first half of King.

I agree except for at the Ford... I LOATHE that part of the Fellowship... its cringe worthy... I guess its b/c that's one of my favorite parts in the books so... I just don't like it...

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

One thing is for sure - there is too much material in the book for three movies, as is evidenced by the fact that even three EE's cannot properly cover the material. For example, Bombadil was expendable in an abridged-version sense because he did not affect the main plot - but was very important in a thematic sense because he was the only being in Middle-earth that could not be corrupted by the Ring; the omission of Glorfindel, who makes only a couple of brief appearences, but nonetheless was immensely important because (along with Galadriel) was one of the very few remaining Elves in Middle-earth that had actually seen the light of the Two Trees of Valinor, etc. Therefore (since it seems to be a topic of the day), if the story was to be filmed in a proper comprehensive manner that included all of the major information Tolkien was attempting to convey, I wonder how that could be accomplished? Six movies, as per the Star Wars saga? An HBO-type series? Go for broke and film all three ages (my preference)? The interest (e.g. profits) in the saga certainly seem to be there, so I must assume that "someday" it will happen.

6 MOVIES!!! One for each "book" YES I like your thinking Grand Bob!

[myuzickman]

I will be buying for sure. Already pre-ordered; I am looking foward to the digital copies, too. they will go great on the iPad!!!

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Bucky

if they are spreading the films over two discs why dont they include both versions of the films? i am personally waiting for the set that has both the theatrical and extended versions of the films included to be released.

This kind of perspective on the LOTR franchise completely eludes me. With any other film where the "Director's Cut" or "Extended Cut" is branched with the "Theatrical Cut" it's no big deal as there is only a 5-15 minute difference in runtime/content. That's understandable to be able to have both available. However, with the LOTR films I can't ever see wanting to have both available to me. That 90+ minutes of additional content turns the franchise into 3 completely new films entirely seperate from the theatrical cuts. I never want to watch the theatrical edits again.

So, why bother with the seamless braching work when most people would choose the extended cuts anyways? That programming code to implement the branching could very well force a downgrade in video quality due to space limitations on the disc. I'd rather know that I have the only version of the film I'll ever watch ever again on a disc by itself where it has the maximum bitrate potentials for HD video and HD audio.

[Darth Fredius]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6027&page=

Here's what I have guessed:

6 BDs - Films
6 DVDs - Special Features
3 DVDs - from the limited Editions

Digital Copies are online per the article.

Special features on DVD !!

What a STUPID choice !!!

We all aready have theses ones on previous DVD editions.

We want Blu-ray discs.

We want HIGH DEFINITION SPECIAL FEATURES !!

When will Warner decide to make something PERFECT for everybody ?

[Bucky]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

This kind of perspective on the LOTR franchise completely eludes me. With any other film where the "Director's Cut" or "Extended Cut" is branched with the "Theatrical Cut" it's no big deal as there is only a 5-15 minute difference in runtime/content. That's understandable to be able to have both available. However, with the LOTR films I can't ever see wanting to have both available to me. That 90+ minutes of additional content turns the franchise into 3 completely new films entirely seperate from the theatrical cuts. I never want to watch the theatrical edits again.

So, why bother with the seamless braching work when most people would choose the extended cuts anyways? That programming code to implement the branching could very well force a downgrade in video quality due to space limitations on the disc. I'd rather know that I have the only version of the film I'll ever watch ever again on a disc by itself where it has the maximum bitrate potentials for HD video and HD audio.

Because some people like to be able to choose which version of the film they are going to watch. I personally prefer the theatrical versions because I feel like the extended versions drag too much, with the exception perhaps of The Two Towers. If the theatrical release of The Fellowship of the Ring had good video quality I would have happily gotten that set.

[Bullseye]

No doubt this has already been posted:

Originally Posted by JLM

Nice.

[Falaskan]

It looks like 2 bluray discs per film. Can anyone confirm that?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

so it was a little extra jab @ me??

how much more could they have really fit into these movies already....being 3+ hours each and people still want more??

i still think jackson did a phenominal job w/these.

I wouldn't call it a jab. I edited my original post when I looked at your avatar and thought I would give you a sarcastic incentive to have them done over.

The movies wouldn't have to be longer. Just drop the extra crap and keep to the book in the areas of the story he did film.

[Uber12]

I sold my extended edition DVDs on the weekend and as I was handing them to the guy buying them, I was admiring the packaging and lamenting that I was letting them go. Personally, I preferred the DVD boxes, but ultimately it's the PQ/AQ that matter so I'll be picking up the Blu-rays.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I'm sorry, I was confused... I was thinking of Beorn... I'm sorry its been awhile since I've read The Hobbit. That is my error... Tolkien did conceive of Tom WAY before LotR though

Sorry for the confusion Benny

It's funny you should say that. When I first read LOTR as a teenager, right after having read the Hobbit for the first time, my first impression of Bombadil was "here is another Beorn". But of course that changed quickly.

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

6 MOVIES!!! One for each "book" YES I like your thinking Grand Bob!

Now that LOTR has been established as a winning franchise, this has a more credible chance of happening someday. Remember that early on, when Jackson pitched the idea to other studios, the studios wanted to do it in one movie. ARGH!!!! When Jackson pitched it to New Line, he asked for 2 movies, not thinking he had a chance of 3. They said no, which disappointed Jackson until they continued by saying they wanted to do 3 movies.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Uber12

I sold my extended edition DVDs on the weekend and as I was handing them to the guy buying them, I was admiring the packaging and lamenting that I was letting them go. Personally, I preferred the DVD boxes, but ultimately it's the PQ/AQ that matter so I'll be picking up the Blu-rays.

I will get the EE BDs, but I don't know if I have the strength to let go of the DVDs.

I even have all 6 movies on VHS.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by radagast

I will get the EE BDs, but I don't know if I have the strength to let go of the DVDs.

I even have all 6 movies on VHS.

now that is dedication!!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

This kind of perspective on the LOTR franchise completely eludes me. With any other film where the "Director's Cut" or "Extended Cut" is branched with the "Theatrical Cut" it's no big deal as there is only a 5-15 minute difference in runtime/content. That's understandable to be able to have both available. However, with the LOTR films I can't ever see wanting to have both available to me. That 90+ minutes of additional content turns the franchise into 3 completely new films entirely seperate from the theatrical cuts. I never want to watch the theatrical edits again.

So, why bother with the seamless braching work when most people would choose the extended cuts anyways? That programming code to implement the branching could very well force a downgrade in video quality due to space limitations on the disc. I'd rather know that I have the only version of the film I'll ever watch ever again on a disc by itself where it has the maximum bitrate potentials for HD video and HD audio.

You don't want them, fine. But other folks do.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so concerned about the original versions of Star Wars, taking the high road about 'preserving' them and whatnot. Yet the theatrical editions of LOTR - multi-award winning, with a worldwide take of nearly $3 billion - wouldn't be pissed on if they were on fire.

They may not be as important as Star Wars, but they're not far off IMO. I'd hate it if the fantasy film which equalled Titanic and Ben Hur's record Oscar haul was only known by the bloated Extended Edition.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

now that is dedication!!!

Yeah. I have a love/hate relationship with the movies. You should see my LOTR book collection. Grand Bob has a good collection too, I hear.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so concerned about the original versions of Star Wars, taking the high road about 'preserving' them and whatnot. Yet the theatrical editions of LOTR - multi-award winning, with a worldwide take of nearly $3 billion - wouldn't be pissed on if they were on fire.

There's an important difference. Star Wars was created by Lucas. So there is an emotional attachment to the OT there. LOTR was already in existence because it was a book. Also note that the OT and EEs of LOTR are readily available (Or will be. I guess the EE DVDs are OOP) whereas the OT of Star Wars isn't readily available.

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You don't want them, fine. But other folks do.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so concerned about the original versions of Star Wars, taking the high road about 'preserving' them and whatnot. Yet the theatrical editions of LOTR - multi-award winning, with a worldwide take of nearly $3 billion - wouldn't be pissed on if they were on fire.

They may not be as important as Star Wars, but they're not far off IMO. I'd hate it if the fantasy film which equalled Titanic and Ben Hur's record Oscar haul was only known by the bloated Extended Edition.

The important factor is that if anyone wants the theatrical versions of Lord of the Rings, they're easily available... unlike the Star Wars trilogy. I'm glad the extended version are coming out. I also have the theatrical versions because I love those too. It all depends on the mood I am in when I watch one of those (and how much time I have to spend).

[Geoff D]

You guys are missing my point. Of course the theatricals of LOTR are available, and thank **** for that. But I've lost count of the posts on various forums all stating that 'they'd never watch the LOTR theatricals again', 'why did they release them on BD when the true fans just want the EEs' etc etc, while in the adjacent Star Wars threads many of the same people bleat about Lucas NOT giving them the option. Hypocrisy, thy name is fandom.

[Cinemaddict]

The biggest disappointment of all is the number of discs. Why are the movies still split across two discs? Is there any reason they can't be on one disc? "Watchmen: Ultimate Cut" and "Gone with the Wind" were on one disc and both looked excellent. These transfers had better be awesome.

Same with the extras. I would assume that most of the footage in the EE extras was not shot in HD, so I see no reason the extras for each film cannot fit on one disc.

This should be a 9-disc set with the same content.