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

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

Most likely a mistake in ADR.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I noticed that with the DVD EEs a couple years ago and I would imagine that it was simply an ADR problem.

Thanks guys! I have seen the EE DVDs many, many times and I've never noticed it. I guess HD reveals some flaws along with the better detail.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Thanks guys! I have seen the EE DVDs many, many times and I've never noticed it. I guess HD reveals some flaws along with the better detail.

No problem.

[Gilrod]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

Most likely a mistake in ADR.

I noticed it during the theatrical screening last week. I wouldn't say it's an ADR problem exactly. More likely, the editor liked that shot for that particular part of the speech (probably due to the direction Aragorn's face is turned) regardless of what words he was originally saying. It's a common trick to use shots from slightly different times from which they were filmed.

For example, watch any scene of any movie where two characters are talking to each other in over-the-shoulder (OTS) shots. You'll often see the head of the character who's offscreen moving despite no words coming out. This was done because the editor liked the performance or reaction of the other character whose face can actually be scene. This happens prominently in "The Fellowship of the Ring," actually. Watch the scene in Moria in which Frodo and Gandalf are discussing Gollum. In the OTS shots of Frodo, Gandalf's head is often nodding or moving as if talking...even if no words are coming out. It's the kind of thing you usually wouldn't notice watching the film the first time since you'll probably be watching Frodo's performance.

In this case, I think the editor made a similar decision. It's distracting once you notice it, but I had watched the extended edition multiple times without realizing it.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

While I get why you and others hated that addition of the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff, I actually kind of liked that change.

I always had issues with how powerful Gandalf seemed in the books, and how little he did directly to defeat Sauron.

I just never bought the arguments that he (or other strong figures like Galadriel or Elrond etc.) couldn't have destroyed the ring.

Gollum and Bilbo both had it for years and never used it for evil, nor took it to Sauron. Nor did Frodo.

If those characters could do it, it's tough to make an argument that Gandalf or Elrond couldn't have gotten rid of it alone or in tandem etc.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Gollum and Bilbo didn't really know what they had. They didn't understand what it truly was, other than a magic ring. Others who came to the ring did know its true nature and the potential for power it offered them. As a result, the prospect of power became a source of terrible temptation.

The Hobbits were also particularly resistant because Hobbits weren't interested in accumulating or wielding power. Even when Frodo succumbs, I believe it's because he simply wants the ring for himself. Not because he desires to gain power from it.

[gregmasciola]

I know others have already said this, but I'm glad we seem to have gotten past the green/cyan arguing. It's great to mostly just be talking about the movies and the book again. It's a much more enjoyable discussion.
I've been watching most of the making of stuff again over the last few days. I must say, I'm glad that even though they felt they had already finished designing Gollum they decided to go back and fix him up a bit because their original design just seemed too filthy to me. It's also interesting to see how they achieved most of the scale effects, like how they used "forced perspective" to make the hobbits seem smaller. I can't tell at all that Frodo is actually sitting 5 or 6 feet (I don't remember exactly how far) behind Gandalf in the wagon and at the table in Bag End. Very fascinating.

[frogmort]

I just watched the 'easter egg' on FOTR disc 1. I think that I heard it was on the EE DVD, but I have never seen it before. Man, that was absolutely hilarious!

If you haven't seen it, click on 'special features', then scroll left or right to click on the ring.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just watched the 'easter egg' on FOTR disc 1. I think that I heard it was on the EE DVD, but I have never seen it before. Man, that was absolutely hilarious!

If you haven't seen it, click on 'special features', then scroll left or right to click on the ring.

+1

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just watched the 'easter egg' on FOTR disc 1. I think that I heard it was on the EE DVD, but I have never seen it before. Man, that was absolutely hilarious!

If you haven't seen it, click on 'special features', then scroll left or right to click on the ring.

Oh Man! That is funny. I had seen that back when I first got the dvds. Every fan should see this.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I always had issues with how powerful Gandalf seemed in the books, and how little he did directly to defeat Sauron.

I just never bought the arguments that he (or other strong figures like Galadriel or Elrond etc.) couldn't have destroyed the ring.

Gollum and Bilbo both had it for years and never used it for evil, nor took it to Sauron. Nor did Frodo.

If those characters could do it, it's tough to make an argument that Gandalf or Elrond couldn't have gotten rid of it alone or in tandem etc.

Or that they wouldn't have the will power to use it to destroy Sauron. Some argue they would just become a new dark lord. But if the ring was infused with Sauron's power and evil, wouldn't destroying him rob the ring of it's power anyway?

What is important to note here is one of the major themes of the story that is not made clear in the movies. Specifically, force is not to be defeated by force. In other words, Good does not triumph over Evil by becoming equally ruthless. If that were the case, Gandalf, as a representative of God, could easily have been sent from Valinor to Middle-earth with greater power than Sauron and quickly concluded the affair. "Good" always acts from love, compassion, mercy, and fellowship. The love between the free races of Middle-earth and the mercy shown to Gollum, who ultimately destroyed the Ring, was the vehicle of accomplishment. It is also the reason that Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Faramir, and Galadriel would never have taken the Ring, which they could have used to devastating effect. This is the moral of the story, and the method through which Evil - although more physically capable and dominating - was defeated (thus the quote "I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still"). There was never another option.

[42041]

Just watched Two Towers. Pleasing image overall, really wish they used less DNR though, it's really distracting when they keep cutting between natural-looking shots and ones with smeary details and odd-looking grain.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

What is important to note here is one of the major themes of the story that is not made clear in the movies. Specifically, force is not to be defeated by force. In other words, Good does not triumph over Evil by becoming equally ruthless. If that were the case, Gandalf, as a representative of God, could easily have been sent from Valinor to Middle-earth with greater power than Sauron and quickly concluded the affair. "Good" always acts from love, compassion, mercy, and fellowship. The love between the free races of Middle-earth and the mercy shown to Gollum, who ultimately destroyed the Ring, was the vehicle of accomplishment. It is also the reason that Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Faramir, and Galadriel would never have taken the Ring, which they could have used to devastating effect. This is the moral of the story, and the method through which Evil - although more physically capable and dominating - was defeated (thus the quote "I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still"). There was never another option.

Another superbly worded explanation GB, as usual.

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I did notice an audio error. When Aragorn is asking the Army of the Dead to fight for him. It is from 1:56:26 to 1:56:28. The words that Aragorn is saying doesn't match his mouth at all. Anyone else notice this?

Wouldn't it be ironic if a disc replacement program was implemented for an issue that had nothing to do with the green tint in FotR?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

What is important to note here is one of the major themes of the story that is not made clear in the movies. Specifically, force is not to be defeated by force. In other words, Good does not triumph over Evil by becoming equally ruthless. If that were the case, Gandalf, as a representative of God, could easily have been sent from Valinor to Middle-earth with greater power than Sauron and quickly concluded the affair. "Good" always acts from love, compassion, mercy, and fellowship. The love between the free races of Middle-earth and the mercy shown to Gollum, who ultimately destroyed the Ring, was the vehicle of accomplishment. It is also the reason that Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Faramir, and Galadriel would never have taken the Ring, which they could have used to devastating effect. This is the moral of the story, and the method through which Evil - although more physically capable and dominating - was defeated (thus the quote "I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still"). There was never another option.

Excellent analysis. I always thoroughly enjoy reading your posts on these matters

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

The questions about why sending the Army of the Dead away early was more or less a rhetorical question brought in part by the plot hole introduced with PJ and Co changed part of the original story to suit their version.

What do you refer to?

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by greg_achen

Wouldn't it be ironic if a disc replacement program was implemented for an issue that had nothing to do with the green tint in FotR?

Well apparently it was on the EE DVD too, so I doubt that would happen. I would much rather have the contrast/tint fixed in FotR.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

More dramatic, yes, but at the expense of trivializing the plot and negating a primary thematic issue.

Possibly, but I still think it worked in the context of the film. It wouldn't have felt right if Tolkien had done the same thing in the novel, though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by radagast

They could have done other things for dramatic effect, like destroying Hobbiton, having a dragon show up and toast all the good guys. Just because a scene succeeds at being dramatic doesn't justify it, or mean it's the best choice.

True, of course, but it's consistent with Jackson's overall vision. It doesn't feel out of place, at least not to me.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

True, of course, but it's consistent with Jackson's overall vision. It doesn't feel out of place, at least not to me.

That's what is so awesome about LOTR films. They have glaring inaccuracies when compared to the books, but, what's on the screen more than makes up for it. Even if Jackson took some creative licence with the material it is still, by far, one of the most amazing film adaptions I've ever seen.

[Jimmy Bro]

Originally Posted by HeKS

Holy shit! Such a huge difference between TE and EE???

WTF have they done to this movie?

I really hope they fix this

[Jimmy Bro]

Has Peter Jackson addressed this issue yet?

If so, link?