LOTR: Two Towers Extended Edition Reviewed 626
akahige writes "The Digital Bits has just posted an exhaustive review and analysis of extended edition of The Two Towers, everybody that can't wait to get theirs -- or wait even longer to see the uber-cut in the theatre -- check it out. There's 43 minutes of new footage (not including the extended credits), and comparable extras to the extended version of Fellowship: 4 commentaries, documentaries, behind the scenes, etc. " I felt that FotR's Extended Edition was far superior to the theatrical release- usually these extra cuts add little, but this was the exception. I've been waiting with held breath for this one. I just wish it would ship a few days early!
Theatres showing whole trilogy??? (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope the local theatre here will be doing this. I will be checking shortly. I guess I am just slow, I won't be seeing the third Matrix until tomorrow.
Ben Hur (Score:3, Interesting)
It demands to be honoured. Pop out and relieve yourself, AND make a cup of tea, without using the accursed pause button.
'tis for wimps.
Am I the only one? (Score:0, Interesting)
What's the big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do people bitch and complain that the Matrix was too much gobbledygook (translation: they didn't understand, and hate movies that challenge them to think about it anywhere beyond the concession stand on their way out), then act like LotR is this untouchable masterpiece?
There's this ring. It's evil. It has to be destroyed. That's where we left off after the first one. "Two Towers" and 3 hours later, that's STILL where we are. Still got that ring. Still has to be destroyed.
Why is this such amazing work, while the Wachowskis out-of-the-box conclusion to the Matrix (everyone's pretty pissed, but no one expected it, did they now), is seen as hack-work?
I don't get it. I'm not a Tolkien fanboy, but I watched the first two, and I'll watch the third. But there's really nothing cool to discuss about them, is there? The Matrix movies work because there are so many different interpretations of what they mean and how they all interrelate, and it's fun to discuss. But, as far as I can tell, the LotR "is what it is," isn't it? They lay the whole story out there in front of you, and hold your hand. They don't challenge you to try and figure out what the ring really represents, or if maybe, just maybe, the good NEEDS the evil to give it a purpose to exist? The Matrix suggests these kinds of things, but the LotR seems to shy completely away from them, afraid of challenging (and alienating) their audience.
Am I wrong? What gives?
Yes, but are they going to release... (Score:3, Interesting)
They are still fantastic movies, of course. But when I watched the Two Towers again, recently, with my wife, every time she asked me, "Was that in the book?" I found that I had to say, "Well, no, not really."
Re:Ben Hur (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with you though, I don't like pausing movies and playing musical chairs during them. It takes me out of the emotional experience and interrupts the flow of the film.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because the two Matrix sequels had most of us thinking about all the gigantic plot holes [dynamicobjects.com] that the LotR books and movies didn't have.
Waiting for combo-movie directors cut (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Extended edition (Score:3, Interesting)
I love the movie though. If only they hadn't changed Faramir and, well, the whole ending of TTT... Peter Jackson is still a director I admire. His work is outstanding on many, many levels. And besides, nothing that a guy who directed Dead Alive does can be all bad.
Re:Extended edition (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting sidenote: since the movie was in English with Turkish subtitles, it wasn't until I saw the DVD version a few months ago that I knew what people were saying when they were speaking Elvish. Kinda made it easier to enjoy the scenes with Arwen, I didn't have to listen to cheesy dialogue, just check out the pretty girl with the funny ears.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
My reply to your post:
I think the LOTR movies are very good, but that they still pale in comparison to the depth and beauty of the books. And I don't think I'm going too far when I say that the Lord of the Ring books pound the Matrix into the dust.
The LOTR movies (well, at least the first one...) are loaded with references that only people who have read LOTR will understand and enjoy. The scenes re-added in the extended DVD of Fellowship were generally more of these. The part where Aragorn is singing the Lay of Luthien to himself is a good example. It really adds depth to his character for those of us who know the story of Beren and Luthien, but for everyone else it's an extraneous scene - which is why it was cut out of the theatrical release.
As for the philosophical issues in LOTR, they're there, just not as explicit as in the Matrix. Mostly this is because Tolkien hated allegory. The other reason is that the Wachowski brothers seem to like posing questions, whereas I find Tolkien prefers to answer them. Gollum's role in the story is the most obvious example. The question is asked in Moria (the "It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand..." scene)and answered in the Two Towers and Return of the King.
On an endnote, I you really have to read the books to appreciate Tolkien. The movies are, unavoidably, shallow representations of the actual story.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said that, the movies mostly gloss over the depths of the book, presenting just the adventure tale. Given the magnitute of the book, that's a daunting enough task. However, some character ambivalence does get through, such as the temptation of Galadriel. I would hope that the third movie manages to convey more, such as Gollum's remorse outside Cirith Ungol (Shelob's lair). We'll see.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes, but are they going to release... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not annoying so much to condense something (like Theoden being possesed rather than somewhat brainwashed). Even though I'd have preferred to see the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf face to face (one of my favorite parts of the book), at least I can understand why it had to be condensed.
What bothers me is that that part was condensed so that Faramir could go completely out of character and we can see Arwen again.
I still think the movies are beautiful, it's just sad knowing that they will probably never get a treatment like this again - it was a one shot deal to finally do it right, and not only does it get condensed, but things are fundamentally changed.
Re:Yes, but are they going to release... (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to have a problem, like many, with the Arwen stuff in the first two movies. But think about this - she is not mentioned except in passing reference in the book until she reappears to become queen at the end. They don't have the time in the movies to have Gandalf and Elrond sitting and talking about her for half an hour like in the book, so some liberties were taken to include her to avoid the moviegoer reaction of "Who is this? Uhhh, Aragorn has a girlfriend/wife now? Ok?" at the end.
I'm in agreement with you on Faramir, however. That I can't rationalize
Chris
Seven Samurai (Score:3, Interesting)
I had actually never seen the Seven Samurai before, so I figured this was the time. My martial arts teacher gave me permission to skip class for something so important ("I would not be completely unhappy if you skipped class to see the Seven Samurai.")
For those who don't know, it's over 3 hours; it started at 9:30 with no ads or trailers, and we got out of the theatre at about 12:40. When that intermission (5 minutes, IIRC) hit in the middle, I was pretty glad, and it looked like at least half of the theatre was too. I had even made sure not to drink vast amounts of anything (I usually drink a lot of water), but of course, Murphy's Law WILL bring the magical feeling upon you right in the middle of a great movie.
Re:Ben Hur (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, the pointless things I remember...
The funny thing is... (Score:3, Interesting)
What Neo really represents: Is he human? Is he just another program introduced by the Architect to cull the dissenters from the Matrix and make ever-more-perfect iterations of the simulation world?
Good needing evil and vice versa: Not only in this case does good need evil, evil also needs good. In fact, Neo coming back from "death" and "killing" Agent Smith in the first movie is what showed Smith that the "purpose of life... is to end" but that it the end could come on his own terms, setting him free to pursue his own nefarious goals. Also, Smith's assimilation of first the Oracle and then Neo are what ultimately cause his demise - you can say this is because as total opposites of each other, Smith and Neo cannot exist without each other... or that Smith's "assimilating" Neo's abilities allowed Neo to eliminate him from the inside out. Either way you choose, once Neo dies, so does Smith. (And if the Oracle and Seraph are back at the end of the film, shouldn't that mean that Neo should also? They were all "killed" by Smith's assimilation, and you'd expect that programs would be more irreversably effected by Smith than Neo.)
Not to mention, the whole "world as illusion" motif from the first movie, which certainly took a bit of time to wrap your mind around. At which point, they showed us Neo's ability to sense and act within the two overlapping worlds... gave us the Architect's speech and its ramifications... there's plenty to think about here if you want to look deeper than the very cool fight scenes and special effects.
Last but not least, do a search on Amazon and get a listing of all the books that have sprung up dealing with the series and its origins in (and perspectives on) theologies, mythologies, and general world views...
Having said all that, I whole-heartedly agree that LOTR is a much deeper creation, because it was first created as a book, for which more detail is just a part of the process. (A process which Tolkien took to a much more impressive length than most other authors.) Still, the Matrix movies are fun to watch, and while there may be plot holes and imprefections... when was the last time any action movie really gave you any deep topics to discuss in a coffee shop or theology class?
Re:All you really want to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
All of which makes for an utterly boring and unbelievable character in the minds of the general audience, that is, those who dont live and breathe Middle-Earth and don't hyperventilate when a character puts the wrong inflection on a line.
So Faramir atones for his lapse of willpower, and *becomes* a great leader and a wonderful guy over the course of the rest of the story - how would that damage anything? Depends on how you define damage, after all.
And it makes the point that *some Men CAN resist the will of the Ring, but all are drawn to it initially*. Given all that's been shown previously, do you really think that a totally unassailable character such as Faramir would be believable? *Everyone* else has felt the temptation of the Ring, even Gandalf the Wizard.
As long as Faramir *ends up* being the Faramir of the books, the story has not been damaged, in my mind. And we get a deeper understanding of the sheer power and corruption of the Ring.
We could have done without some of the Gim[p]li scenes though. I agree with you on that.
Re:There is no big deal in the Matrix (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll play.
Just because you can not see the details of the depth does not mean that the depth is not there.
Re:There is no big deal in the Matrix (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Barliman Butterbur served ale at the Prancing Pony. Where did he get the ale?
2) The children at Bilbo's birthday party bear a strong resemblance to the children cowering in fear in the caves under Helm's Deep. What is the relationship between hobbit and human children?
3) Elrond says Rivendell does not have the power to hold back both Mordor and Isengard, implying that he had the power to hold back one or the other. Where are all the elvish troops at Rivendell?
4) There is a single dark lord, Sauron, plotting to rule all of Middle Earth. Are there other dark lords? Are there other Middle Earths?
5) Just what does Sauron want? What motivates him to conquer Middle Earth? Did Gandalf insult him back in the first age or something?