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

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by goeagles5039

I have never used a DC before but if it says it expired in 2012 is it really expired or will it let someone use it still? Thanks.

Sometimes they still work when it's past exp date, or if they are expired and don't work you can contact the company that released it and they almost always give you a new code.

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by hd goofnut

as i much as i like what you've done here i honestly prefer the gold packaging and black cases of the extended set. I paid $70 for it shortly after release and i don't regret it a bit as that set has definitely gotten its money's worth in my house. I also decided to keep all 9 discs because i enjoy the extras on the extended set much more than on the theatrical releases. I picked up the theatrical trilogy in a single case black friday of 2012 at wal-mart for $9.96, which forgoes the extras dvd for each, but as you said i have watched those enough times as well.

+1

[Jar Jar Stinks]

I just bought the extended edition set. Is there any reason to keep the theatrical versions?

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I just bought the extended edition set. Is there any reason to keep the theatrical versions?

Completions sake. For me, once I saw the extended cuts, I could never go back to the theatrical cuts.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I just bought the extended edition set. Is there any reason to keep the theatrical versions?

100% no, however the extras on the theatrical ones are different than the extended so I kept both.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I just bought the extended edition set. Is there any reason to keep the theatrical versions?

I haven't seen the extendeds yet, but when I was asking about them, some preferred the color timing of the Theatricals and some watched them when they wanted a "quickie". Best bet : watch the extendeds and then judge for yerself.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I just bought the extended edition set. Is there any reason to keep the theatrical versions?

Some different extra features is really the only thing to entice a person to hold onto the theatrical editions. But, with all of the extras included in the EE set, I'm certain there is enough to satisfy almost any LOTR fan's needs.

[HarcourtMudd]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Some different extra features is really the only thing to entice a person to hold onto the theatrical editions. But, with all of the extras included in the EE set, I'm certain there is enough to satisfy almost any LOTR fan's needs.

For me, my most wanted extra is the original advertising materials, namely the trailers. I bought the theatrical versions after the extended for just that (and only that)...

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by HarcourtMudd

For me, my most wanted extra is the original advertising materials, namely the trailers. I bought the theatrical versions after the extended for just that (and only that)...

Well, in that case, you might be happy with the cheap, new Theatrical set (was $12.96). The only included extras are the same 5-6 trailers on each disc (+ online crap if you're into that).

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-L...Blu-ray/92735/

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I just bought the extended edition set. Is there any reason to keep the theatrical versions?

yes, the theatrical version are much better for the 1st and 3rd film. ESPECIALLY the 3rd film. it's hard to watch that one in the extended version. the Two towers benefits from the extended scenes and the 1st one is only slightly better in the theatrical. slight trade off

[ckenisell]

As you can tell, it's obviously a very personal decision. Everybody has their own opinion as to which is "better".

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ESPECIALLY the 3rd film. it's hard to watch that one in the extended version.

Except that the story isn't anywhere near complete without Sarumans demise, the house of healing, Merry offering his services to Theodon, Gandalf vs. the Witchking, and especially the mouth of Sauron. These are essential scenes you don't get in the far less superior theatrical cut.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Except that the story isn't anywhere near complete without Saruman's demise, the house of healing, Merry offering his services to Théoden, Gandalf vs. the Witchking, and especially the mouth of Sauron. These are essential scenes you don't get in the far less superior theatrical cut.

I don't disagree with you - in fact the parts they left out from the book (such as the scourging of the Shire ) are similarly essential. However, the Theatrical does contain "Merry offering his services to Théoden" - although there is nothing of Théoden's acceptance, it cuts right to Merry talking to Gandalf about it. Love to see how they cover "Saruman's demise" w/o the scourging of the Shire ...

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

I don't disagree with you - in fact the parts they left out from the book (such as the scourging of the Shire ) are similarly essential. However, the Theatrical does contain "Merry offering his services to Théoden" - although there is nothing of Théoden's acceptance, it cuts right to Merry talking to Gandalf about it. Love to see how they cover "Saruman's demise" w/o the scourging of the Shire ...

The scouring isn't really needed as it would have only been another so called "tacked on" ending. Plus, it gets referenced and shown in the mirror of Galadriel so we still have it. Albeit briefly.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Except that the story isn't anywhere near complete without Sarumans demise, the house of healing, Merry offering his services to Theodon, Gandalf vs. the Witchking, and especially the mouth of Sauron. These are essential scenes you don't get in the far less superior theatrical cut.

Also, the Extended Edition of Fellowship explains how Frodo knew Gollum's name was Smeagol in The Two Towers. Small thing, but welcome.

[rexcrk]

The Extended Editions are definitely better than the theatrical cuts IMO, but I still like owning the original theatrical cuts of the trilogy too, mostly for completionists' sake lol but they DO have different bonus features so that's a plus. And sometimes I'll put the movies on in the background while I'm doing other stuff and it's nice that I don't have to switch discs to finish the movie.

[mrr1]

I only own the extendeds.

As for the length, I usually only watch one half a movie at a time (makes the series a nice, digestible 2 hours at a time)

[cubs_2000]

I just picked up the extended versions last week but have not seen them yet. Looking forward to seeing the additional parts. They are a bit long but watching them in two hour sessions is a great idea. Can't wait for the extended Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by cubs_2000

I just picked up the extended versions last week but have not seen them yet. Looking forward to seeing the additional parts. They are a bit long but watching them in two hour sessions is a great idea. Can't wait for the extended Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.

Enjoy them. They are so much better.

[amoergosum]

"Anybody who says they knew it was going to be the success it was, I don’t think it's really true," Mortensen told Tim Robey in a new interview with The Telegraph. "They didn't have an inkling until they showed 20 minutes in Cannes, in May of 2001."

According to Mortensen, before that footage preview, "The Fellowship of the Ring" had become a money pit, with director Peter Jackson having spent "a lot" to finish the film. "Really, the second and third ones were a mess," Mortensen said of the "Two Towers" and "Return of the King," which followed "The Fellowship of the Ring. "It was very sloppy –- it just wasn't done at all. It needed massive reshoots, which we did, year after year. But he would have never been given the extra money to do those if the first one hadn't been a huge success. The second and third ones would have been straight to video."

"The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects," Mortensen said. "It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with 'The Hobbit,' one and two, it's like that to the power of 10."

Mortensen was not involved in "The Hobbit" trilogy that Jackson produced for Warner Bros., but not because of any bad blood.

"Before they started shooting, back in 2008, one of the producers did ask if I would be interested," Mortensen told The Guardian last year. "I said, 'You do know, don't you, that Aragorn isn't in The Hobbit? That there is a 60-year gap between the books?'"

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5337320.html