Info on the LOTR:FOTR DVD 551
WonderBoy Cox writes "IGN's FilmForce has an interesting article about the much anticipated Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (LOTR:FOTR) DVD coming in the fall of 2002, and the next two movies. According to Jackson The Two Towers is fairly complete in rough cut and Return of the King is coming along nicely. "Both films will be between two-and-a-half and three hours in length with 500 to 600 effects shots, much like the first movie." But, the best part, is that he DVD will have around 30 to 40 minutes of extra footage! "
Arwen Rewrite (Score:4, Funny)
Justin
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:4, Funny)
Well. I thought the film couldn't have been improved. Apparently, I was wrong.
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:2, Interesting)
That was excellently rendered. And combining Arwen with Glorfindal does NOTHING to wreck the story. (RANT ON)I have really had it with the nit-pickers. 'Oh, the left out Tom Bombadil', 'Oh, Arwen shows up for more than 2 sentences.' For God's Sake, did you want a 10 hour movie? Why don't you just listen to the Books on Tape? I really appreciate what Peter Jackson has done. It is clear that he LOVES the books, and has done a masterful job in CREATING the story for the screen. Just look back at the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit and Return of the King for examples of how NOT to do it. (Oh, also Ralph Bakshe's(sp), POS). I knew what was going to happen, and I still wept when Boromir died. I cheered when when Aragorn said, 'Let's hunt some Orc.'
That is what made this one of the best movies I have seen, and perhaps the best adaptation of the LOTR possible.
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, why not? Besides, in my mind, it wouldn't take an extra 7 hours to add what they missed. I think PJ did an excellent job, however my main complaint was that Jackson focused to much on the 'epic' bits of the story, and so missed out on lots that made the adventure memorable for all the readers.
The problem is, the books are enjoyable because they tell a story, and they tell it well. I don't claim that Tolkien is the best author ever, but his attention to detail made the story more vivid (unlike Jordan's attention to EVERY FUCKING THING EVER which after chapters of talking made me want to burn his books... but I digress). Sure, the epic moments are, well, epic. But the smaller moments make the books feel more like a real story.
The whole Arwen/Glorfindal doesn't really bother me, the movie has to try to appeal to others than us nerds who've actually managed to finish the Silmarillion. However, I missed Legolas and Gimli's little tiffs and growing friendship. It was hinted at during the Counsil of Elrond, but not really explored. During the books, that whole relationship makes for an interesting and sometimes humorus departure from the main storyline.
I personally was pained by the way Lorien was glossed over. In the books, we get a sense of restfulness and relaxation. In the movie, they show up, Galadriel does her crazy weird freaky thing, then they leave. No rest, no relaxation. How about Gimli falling in love with Galadriel? When does he have a chance? He's only in the Woods for like 5 minutes. And that whole blindfolding thing when they enter the woods. That was key character development. arr.
Well, just a couple of things that've been bothering me. All-in-all, it seems to me that that 30-40 minutes of promised extra footage might just do the trick.
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:3, Interesting)
Gonna have to disagree on this. We did not need Yet Another Elf who would show up, do one thing, and vanish without any explanation. It makes a lot of sense to put Glorfindel's role into Arwen's.
The only verb sense of "borking" I can bring to mind is to deny a Supreme Court justice a seat based on his past writings, so I'm not sure how that applies to the ford.
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:5, Insightful)
As a long-time Tolkienophile ;), I was as concerned as anyone with the rumoured revisions to the story. I even penned a message to Jackson a year or so ago about the Arwen change, pleading with him to be true to the book.
After my second viewing, the movie is obviously a labour of love on the part of a true fan. Having read the books umpteen times, each deviation from the text obviously jumps out at me, but I can clearly see how the changes help to convey the essence of the story, within the constraints of the different medium.
Merging the role of Glorfindel and Arwen makes perfect sense when you consider her lineage, and conveys much more Tolkien's sense of the role of women in the struggles of Middle-earth, and the unions of elves and man. It also helps to illuminate the transition of Aragorns character from rootless wanderer to heir of Gondor.
I liked very much the addition of Aragorn wilfully releasing Frodo to travel to Mordor alone, and the ring calling his name in temptation was nice touch. I got perfect chills from the shot of the ring reflecting the arguing councilmembers and faintly reciting its inscription in the tongue of Mordor. Other touches, such as Frodo solving the riddle of the gates of Moria, further conveyed the themes of the book, better perhaps than strict adherence to the original story.
About the only nits I have to pick, which are really more stylistic differences, are the role of Saruman, and the heavy editing of the Lothlorien segment. I think that compelling dialogue and a skillful actor could have made much of Saruman's cunning arts of persuasion, though I will allow that the visual approach is compelling. I have high hopes for the extra footage on the DVD to flesh out the Lothlorien portion. But I have to really work to find criticism, when on the whole I was absolutely thrilled with the movie. The pervasive use of dialogue drawn straight from the book, authentic pronunciation, great casting, acting and direction, all the little touches have produced a classic in its own right.
Peter Jackson thank you!!!
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:4, Interesting)
McKellen [mckellen.com] has this to say in his grey book diary:
Talk about picky...when director's license wasn't changing things for the film media, the care for accuracy is astounding at times...
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of apparently throwaway detail is part of the geeky appeal of the LOTR book, but it contributes nothing to movie making. Movies work better when they use characters more economically. The animated LOTR did something similar -- Aragorn and the Hobbits were met by Legolas. Whatever the weaknesses of the animated version, this detail is seldom criticized despite the fact is makes no sense. The need to do something like this is obvious, once you get away from the fear that the book is being updated for some politically correct feminist agenda.
Using Arwen for this scene was actually (IMO) a stroke of genius, because it avoided introducing a throwaway character and allowed the movie to introduce the Aragorn/Arwen romance, which was canonical but not part of the original book's narrative. I view the problem as this: the material outside of the main narrative (i.e. the appendices) is essential to the book, but unfortunately movies don't come with appendices. Well maybe with DVDs they do, but the movie is better this way than if it had followed the canonical narrative slavishly. This allows the movie to show more of the details of middle-earth in a way that (1) works in a movie, (2) doesn't leave the unititated confused and (3) does no significant damage to the important themes and narrative lines of the book. Sounds like a win to me.
Another instance is how the details of Saruman's treachery were shown rather than told at the Council of Elrond. Jackson rightly pointed out that the book devotes something like thirty or forty pages to what is essentially a committee meeting. The movie medium works better by showing than telling (although I do have some issues with how it was shown).
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:2)
Re:Arwen Rewrite (Score:3, Funny)
Plus, they're pretty good shots, so you just might end up with an arrow in the eye.
Just ask the Yrch.
No bloopers & outtakes? (Score:2, Funny)
Box set (Score:2, Redundant)
I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:5, Funny)
1) Fellowship of the Ring
2) Fellowship of the Ring with extra features
3) Two Towers, with redesigned packaging
4) Fellowship of the ring with packaging to match
4) Two Towers with extra features
5) Return of the King with redesigned packaging
6) Fellowship with packaging to match
7) Two Towers with packaging to match
8) Return of the King with special features
9) Complete boxed set
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:2)
On a side note, when the heck are Lucas and Spielberg going to release an Indiana Jones DVD box set? I've got the VHS edition, but my VCR isn't hooked up and I do so hate turning those coax nuts with my bare fingers... *sigh*
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:2, Informative)
> 3) Two Towers, with redesigned packaging
> 4) Fellowship of the ring with packaging to match
...
How's this any different than what's already done by the publisher for the books? How many different versions (covers, sizes, sets, etc.) of LOTR are there on the shelves at your local Borders *right now*? It's flat-out amazing.
The sad thing is that most of the new paperback copies of LOTR all feature covers with photos from the movie. I used to have a paperback (maybe early 80's) with some really nice artwork, that I'd much prefer to have on hand for casual reading (so I don't damage my nice red-leather copy), but they've disappeared. And they were probably 5 covers ago.
So, really, in a way, it's a new thing that you buy some kind of software (book, movie) in a package that's the same forever. Publishers are (or seem to be ) used to repackaging stuff every now and then...
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:2)
This edition [amazon.com], which comes with the Hobbit, as well, has some semi-groovy, non-movie cover art too. It's the copy I picked up last year at my local B&N.
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:5, Insightful)
10) Two Towers with a scene altered so that it appears that Solo^H^H^H^HFrodo fired in defense.
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:3, Insightful)
Revisionist history isn't only in Star Wars.
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:5, Informative)
As the writing of the Lord of the Rings progressed, it seemed more and more out of character, so Tolkien rewrote the chapter, into the version you described. Tolkien later explained it as the first version being what Bilbo wrote in his own early accounts, at which time he was lying to himself to justify stealing the ring (in the same way that Gollum created the "birthday present" story). The later additions indicated a correction based on better,more accurate manuscripts Tolkien translated.
See http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/changesofh obbit.html [daimi.aau.dk] for more info.
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think I'll wait for the box set... (Score:3, Funny)
And then:
10) Re-release in theatres with special CGI effects, such as: An additional 'ring' of flame exploding around Mount Doom when the ring is finally destroyed; instead of Gandalf destroying the bridge at Khazad-dum, the Balrog takes a potshot at him underneath the table, THEN Gandalf destroys the bridge!
11) Prequel: The Silmarillion. Melkor will be played by Jar Jar Binks, with N-Sync making a special appearance as the Silmarils. (But don't worry, they are only on-screen for a second or so.)
Extra Footage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Extra Footage (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone else out there think that instead of squashing FOTR into one 3 hour movie with cut scenes and modifications, it might have been better to break it up into 2 movies based on the two distinct books within FOTR?
This way there could be two 2-hour movies portraying FOTR more accurately, and not whizzing too many things by. I thought some scenes seemed rushed, even though they were severely truncated already. For instance, at the Prancing Pony.
Of course, there's the issue that the public might get tired of a 6-movie series instead of a trilogy, and thus reduce demand which would rake in less dollars. However, from a fan-of-the-book viewpoint, I think the 6-movie approach would be truer to form and more interesting. Any comments?
"Wait for it on DVD" not an insult? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if in the future, we'll find people saying "I'll wait for it on DVD", because only by viewing it at home with your digital projector and 5.1 sound (minus the local talking idiots)with all the bells and whistles of extra footage can you see it "as the director intended". Maybe at that point movie theatres will only be for people too poor to make a "perfect" experience at home.
That doesn't even get into the possibility of people getting snobish about only watching "their version" (digitally re-edited version) of a movie....
wowee!! (Score:4, Troll)
Whoa! LOTR DVD! forget that! I can't wait! wow!
Re:wowee!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I do remember that there was much noise made, not so long ago, about boycotting -- not just DVD, in fact, but all products of the MPAA. I never went that far, but I haven't yet felt the urge to pay money for the priviledge of surrendering my freedom.
This morning, I heard on the radio that DVD players outsold VCRs for the first time this Christmas (in Canada). The masses don't even understand the fair use and free speech ramifications, and now it seems like those who do understand just don't care anymore.
Are these just different voices I'm hearing, or have people abondoned the boycott? If you have, why?
Is it the fact that CSS was actually broken, and DeCSS widely distributed, in spite of the MPAA's efforts? The fact that this has enabled DVD playback on Linux? Do you feel that you are still protesting by accessing your DVDs in violation of the DMCA (whether for fair use purposes or copyright infringement)? Have you decided to embrace DVD to discourage its replacement by a new, more effectively protected medium? Or perhaps you have just decided that, in light of the mass adoption of the technology, resistance is futile?
I'm really curious to hear what people are thinking about this these days.
Re:wowee!! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing bad about the DVD technology (with regard to "fair use" and "free speech" ramifications) that can't be corrected with more technology. You're not surrendering your freedom in any conceivable way by watching a DVD.
Re:wowee!! (Score:3, Interesting)
It may get me in trouble one day, but I'm not too worried about that.
No offense but people like Tom made it richer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No offense but people like Tom made it richer (Score:2)
Amen. I'm glad to see I am not entirely alone in this... Bombadil was a good cut, IMHO.
Re:No offense but people like Tom made it richer (Score:2)
Lol... I first tried to read FOTR when I was just about 12. I got as far as Tom, got pissed off, and stopped reading it till just last year (I was 25 when I started up again, from the beginning).
Dinivin
How about Tom, Bambadill (Score:5, Funny)
Where were the on my screen-o!
'Tis there a part of you,
Some unheard tune-age,
appearing in the additional footage!?
Seriously, it would have been cool to see some of the swamp/forest/willow/Tom from the book even though it would have extended the time it took for Frodo to find Strider and begin the second part of his adventure...
Re:How about Tom, Bambadill (Score:2)
Plus, no Evil Bill from Bree in the movie... And I so wanted to see Sean Astin whip an apple at somebody.
Re:How about Tom, Bambadill (Score:2)
I actually never even considered who would make a good Tom Bombadill, as it was leaked fairly early on in production that Tom was getting cut for "cinematic constraints" reasons. Hmmmm.
Re:How about Tom, Bambadill (Score:5, Funny)
Think: Busta Rhymes!
Hit you with no delayin so what you sayin yo? (uh)
Silly with my nine milli, what the deally yo? (what?)
When I be on the mic yes I do my duty yo
Wild up in the club like we wild in the stud-io (uh)
You don't wanna VIOLATE nigga really and truly yo (uh)
My main thug nigga named Julio he moody yo (what?)
Type of nigga that'll slap you with the tool-io (blaow!)
Bitch nigga scared to death, act fruity yo (uh)
Fuck that! Look at shorty, she a little cutie yo (yeah)
The way she shake it make me wanna get all in the booty yo (whoo!)
I am Tom Bombadil-yo!
Through the miracle of CGI . . . (Score:4, Funny)
3 Disc DVD! (Score:2, Informative)
VERY disappointed in this movie (Score:4, Funny)
It omitted several of the most important aspects of the novel.
Specifically, there was no island, no conch shell, and no "Piggy". Instead, we got a bunch or fanciful immature swords-and-sorcery dungeons-and-dragons crap.
Far too many dramatic liberties were taken.
Re:VERY disappointed in this movie (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the next revision of Slashcode should allow users to mark their posts as "from the blah blah blah dept." so that everyone could immediately determine the intended tone.
Oh wait. Then that would negate the whole "subtle humo(u)r" thing.
It would open up a whole new world of ironic possibilities though, like ACs annotating their own posts as coming from the "Interesting/Informative dept.".
Re:VERY disappointed in this movie (Score:5, Funny)
Its obvious that this Tolkin hack just read the D&D 2nd addition rules and made up a story set in that universe.
satire requires respect of the author. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT the readers' fault. They've been subtly trained to expect idiotic posts to appear, so when one does it never occurs to them that it might not be what it seems.
This is the same problem usenet has with satire. If you don't have a previous record to go on, you have to assume the poster might really BE a lunatic.
Why does it take (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as the movie i saw it last night and it was great. Unlike star wars the evil characters actually acted and looked evil. Believably evil. Not funny austin powers evil like sw.
Free != For-ever-Free (Score:2)
Once the DVD format is wildly accepted and used, expect to see those "free" stuff being sold separately on (you guessed it) DVDs.
Extra Footage (Score:5, Funny)
IGN Slashdotted (Score:2, Funny)
Obsessing over details is fun! (Score:5, Informative)
And when the DVD comes out, there'll be a revised version of the list, I'm sure. Yeah, I'll pick me up a copy...
Great news but... (Score:5, Funny)
...only you can't even finish the movie yourself!
Format of additional material (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that the will have the "deleted scenes" in the DVD coming out in August. However, I would love to see the extra scenes actually integrated into the movie. We will probably have to wait until the boxed set for that.
I would certainly buy the boxed set if they had a version of the movie without the CGI in Galadriel's ring speech. Cate Blanchett certainly didn't need it and I weep for what the scene could have been...
guess at material... (Score:2, Interesting)
- gifts from Galadriel (Gimli and her hair maybe? The giving of the cloaks and string?)
- more elaboration of race relations with elves/dwarves (the blindfolding prior to entering Lothlorein)
- a few more minutes of sombreness after Gandalf dies, rather than cutting from tears to smiles in Lorien...
Re:guess at material... (Score:2)
Gimili: I can not run all the way to Isengard.
Aragorn: Okay...lets have some of that find lembas that Galadriel gave us before we left Lorien.
or
Hey Merry - those Orcs got you down...well I got my hands free and I still have some of the lembas Galadriel gave me.
My prefered method would have been showing the gifts and cutting the cave troll sequence, or one of the 4000 flash backs to Isildur cutting the ring off.
Favorite scenes in FOTR (Score:3, Interesting)
- Sam
Re:Favorite scenes in FOTR (Score:4, Troll)
Flight to the Ford (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm kind of upset a little that they cut out Glorfindel and had Arwen instead of Elrond raise the ford, but I understand for purposes of the movie why they did that.
The best part I liked in the movie had to be the beginning when they talked about Isildir.
Easy answer: a must buy. (Score:2)
An interesting comment on the movie itself though: As a New Zealander, I only recognised 1 location specifically. There were a lot of nice "top of mountain ranges" that could be anywhere, but just one said to me, I've been there.
I think the river where Arwen challenges the Ringwraiths to follow her across, while ferrying Frodo to Rivendell is the Waikato. Specifically, a rapid called Fuljames, at Ngaaparua (highly questionable spelling). It's just below a hydro power station - no need for special effects shots.
Important Question (Score:5, Funny)
The One Region (Score:5, Funny)
Region 7 for the Dwarf-lords in halls of stone,
Region 9 for Mortal Men doomed to die,
Region 1 for the Dark Lord on this dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
I hope that helps.
Re:The One Region (Score:5, Funny)
But I thought that region 1 was America?
...oh, I see.
Re:Important Question (Score:2)
More F/X in next films? (Score:2)
Woah, left out a crucial bit of info there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that this is Peter "Brain Dead" Jackson. He has done his share to set the bar for film gore. You cna probably expect the fight scenes to be a lot more like BraveHeart and Gladiator on the DVDs.
I'm looking forward to the 40 minutes of character development that hit the floor myself...
Even longer?!? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Goodness. So now you're going to take a movie that was nearly three hours and make it three and a half or so? I was looking at my watch from about the halfway point in this movie. I'll probably lose karma for this (but it's only karma, right?), but this movie really isn't a good movie. There's virtually no character development, the action sequences are usually done badly (i.e. too close), and the storyline is rushed (for obvious reasons).
Gak. If you want to see a good three and a half hour movie, go get the Apocalypse Now Redux.
Please release both movies in 2002! (Score:2)
Just have to add F/X and music.
Please! Pretty please?
I can't wait that long!
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
The Hobbit is more difficult why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay...it is a pretty simple story. Wizard comes with dwarves to hire Buglar Baggins to go recover treasure from a Dragon.
Along the way they have some adventures:
- meet some trolls and find treasure
- meet some elves
- meet some goblins, lose their ponies, get lost
- get saved from said goblins
- Bilbo finds some treasure of his own that makes him invisible
- regroup, meet some more goblins, get saved by Eagles
- go into a scary forest, meet some more monsters, kill monsters, meet more elves
- get captured and escape
- meet people of Dale
- see dragon, annoy dragon, kill dragon
- have big war.
Good lord. If this doesn't sound like an easy Hollywood plot, I don't know what does. 90% of the time, all the main characters stay together (the dwarves and Bilbo) with Gandalf coming and going when needed.
Plenty of special effects and action sequences without all the history of LotR.
Remember, this was a story that JRRT told his kids. With the exception of having "The Greatest Adventure" playing over and over, the Rankin/Bass version did a decent enough job of this already.
If PJ can do a Balrog and tons of Orcs streaming out of Mordor, then Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies should be cake!
Books vs. Movie (Score:5, Interesting)
Gene Siskel complained that one scene (with the Balrog) was extremly short in the book but played out longer on screen. Other people are complaining that their favourite parts of the book were omitted. My question is who cares as long as the movie tells the story.
Going into the theatre there are two kinds of people: those who have and those who have not read the book. I think those of us who have read and enjoyed the book have a different perspective than those who are seeing it all for the first time. I know what scenes are missing and how the book portrays the story differently. These are, afterall, completely different media and there are many that believe that large books such as LoTR cannot be conveyed on the screen - it is a world that exists in the mind of the reader. What I think often happens is that some readers create different understandings of the same material and, when presented with a conflicting view, become all too defensive.
There will never be a definitive Lord of the Rings movie that trancends the silver screen and gives everyone the full experience of the book. The movie is simply one person's description of the taste of the story. It is up to the individual to bite into the book.
I enjoyed the movie for all it's flaws and omissions because what it presented was clear and complete within iteself. I don't think it is necessary to add scenes back in simply to make it more closely resemble the words from the book.
It's an opinion, that is all.
This may not be a kids DVD (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I've heard Jackson filmed the action like he would any other film and just kept cutting it down until he had the rating the studio wanted.
But all bets are off for the DVD, and there is a good chance you'll see a restored DVD version with a lot more gore. That would be my hope at least.
Re:WHat do you think (Score:2)
No Tom Bombadill, no Tom Bombadillo.
No Barrow Wights. *sigh*
Expanded "interaction between the fellowship" and apparently John Rhys-Davies is going to "fall" for Cate Blanchett, errrm, Gimli is going to "fall" for Galadriel, like in the book.
So no Tom Bombadill and no Glorfindel. Fie! Curse Peter Jackson!
Re:WHat do you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, he was on horseback, but Glofindel wasn't with him. It was him going face-to-face with the Nazgul.
That was my biggest gripe with the movie: the way the hobbits were portrayed as wide-eyed, bumbling know-nothings who couldn't fend for themselves if their lives depended on it.
Most people would place Frodo as the "hero" of the books, but I've always been of the opinion that Sam ends up being the truest, most noble hero in the book... Ahhh well.
Character count was high (Score:2)
As it stands now I thought the plotline was only slightly less complex than the Big Sleep -- too many characters, too many drastic scene transitions to make it flow smoothly.
Re:WHat do you think (Score:2)
Um, that's because hobbits are wide-eyed bumbling know-nothings who couldn't fend for themselves if their lives depended on it. I think that's quite clear in the book. Our four hobbits become more than that, but they do so during the journey... they (gasp!) grow into their herohood. It's pretty clear that people in the Shire have it easy and aren't really ready for the roughness of the world.
Re:WHat do you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Dinivin
On the contrary (Score:2)
I personally found that the travels of the hobbits between the Shire and Bree accomplished much character building for me.
Re:On the contrary (Score:2)
Which is fine if you're interested in a history lesson. It's quite tedious, however, if you're interested in the storyline itself.
I personally found that the travels of the hobbits between the Shire and Bree accomplished much character building for me.
I personally found a lot of the events that happened in Bree to accomplish much more character building, and was sorely disappointed to see them cut.
Dinivin
Re:WHat do you think (Score:2, Informative)
Besides, T & A isn't the kind of thing that should go into a movie such as Apocalypse now. It's a different *kind* of movie.
I guess to sum things up, usually what gets cut gets cut for a reason. I'm willing to agree with the producers/directors on what should be cut initially. I'd rather not let the remastering/DVD guys have more say than the original producers!
</end rant>
Re:WHat do you think (Score:2)
"Irony Nazi's Butt: what did you think of the new Apocalypse Now With Added T &A?"
Re:wooo. extra footage (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason the footage isn't in the original cut.
Yup - the moviegoing public has limited patience for 4 hour films.
From the description, the extra bits will be sequences that got cut for time in a film that had to work especially hard to fit a large story into a smaller viewing slot. There's no evidence that these sequences are less well shot - just that G**** falling for G********* and thus changing his opinion of E**** didn't directly relate to FOTR as it did to the Trilogy as a whole, and thus it got cut.
All the other "extras" they claim are in them are just crap.
We'll see. In August. I am looking forward to it. The only big question is whether it'll be spliced into the story or if it'll be set aside.
Re:wooo. extra footage (Score:3, Interesting)
I heard somewhere (maybe from my girlfriend who used to manage a theatre) that they will never show a movie that is longer than 3 Hours in a theatre. I don't remember running times, but I noticed it in Braveheart, which came in just under 3 hours at the theatre, but the VHS copy runs about 200 mins.
Can anyone confirm/deny the 3 hour rule?
Re:wooo. extra footage (Score:3, Funny)
Titanic was 3 hours and 18 minutes. Of course, very few theaters ran that small independent film....
Re:wooo. extra footage (Score:2)
Re:wooo. extra footage (Score:2)
Underlying reason for all the changes and cuts (Score:3, Interesting)
Peter Jackson (in the first film anyway) decided to focus on the corrupting influence of the One Ring, as the central theme of the first movie.
When you view it with this in mind, a lot of reasons for the changes from the book become apparent: Tom Bombadil is beyond the currupting power of the ring, so he was left out as unnecessary to the main theme. Gandalf touches it himself and is visibly shaken by it, even muttering about "precious". Extra emphasis is given to Boromir's lust for the ring; he even holds it on Caradhras. Galadriel's little witch spaz was a little overdone, IMHO. Even Aragorn treads the line, right from his confiding in Arwen at Rivendell about the weakness of his ancestral blood.
This is why Lothlorien was cut so short... once the powerful moderating influence of Gandalf is gone, the rest of the movie is about leading to Boromir's fall... his discomfort in Lorien, Galadriel's warning to Frodo, then the rushed trip down the Anduin to Argonath and Rauros. Anything else would be a distraction from what he was trying to hammer home.
Spoiler warning for Two Towers
I don't see how he can maintain this theme through the Two Towers... unless he really focuses on Gollum and Faramir; but I doubt he will since the story just explodes in so many directions.. Theoden and Wormtongue, Riders of Rohan, Treebeard and the Ents, the White Rider, Helm's Deep and Isengard... all of which really have nothing to do with the currupting influence of the ring.
Re:wooo. extra footage (Score:5, Insightful)
Fanboys and cinemaphiles love the kind of extras in DVD's. While the general public might not care about missing scenes or directors commentary, there is definetley a niche market that does, and I think in the case of FOTR, much of
Re:what is the maximum that a dvd can hold? (Score:2, Informative)
--
What are the main features of the DVD?
Over 2 hours of very high-quality (better than laser disc) video on a single disc
Over 8 hours on a double-sided dual layer disc
Support for wide screen movies
Some DVD movies allow you to select wide screen or standard screen
Up to 8 tracks of digital audio for multiple language support
Up to 32 subtitle/karaoke tracks
Up to 9 different viewing angles (DVD disc must be encoded with the different angles)
Automatic "seamless" branching of video for multiple story lines or different ratings of one movie
Menus and interactive features
Title, Chapter, and track search
Durability
Compact Size
Language choices
Parental lock
Random accessibility
Dolby Digital AC-3 audio
How much data can a DVD-ROM disc hold? How is it possible?
Three advantages allow a DVD-ROM disc to store several times more data than a CD-ROM disc:
The laser that reads a DVD operates at a higher frequency, which enables it to read data packed more densely on the disc. The new laser technology allows 4.7GB of data to be stored on a single side of a DVD-ROM disc.
Some DVD discs have a second recording layer on top of the primary layer. This in turn doubles the storage space potentially giving a DVD-ROM disc 8.5GB of data storage.
Finally, DVD can be recorded on both sides, enabling a maximum of 17GB of storage per disc.
Every DVD drive must be able to read four kinds of discs. These are; single sided single layer (4.7GB), single sided dual layer (8.5GB), double sided single layer (9.4GB), and double sided double layer (17GB).
--
at 8 hours max, and 2.5 hours per movie, I guess that it would be possible, but I don't know how much room menus, extra features, etc, take up...
hope that helps..
Re:what is the maximum that a dvd can hold? (Score:3, Informative)
Personally I'll be quite happy with three discs with some nice extras, a good Dolby Digital (or dts for those with the support) soundtrack and a well-mastered anamorphic image.
Re:Me want more Sauron stomping (Score:2)
Sauron (Score:2)
(In general, I was pretty happy with the movie, despite its missteps.)
Re:Sauron (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sauron (Score:3, Insightful)
But for a movie, the bad guy has to look intimidating and powerful.
In a book, you can simply have someone tell the story about how Sauron was defeated and the One Ring taken.
In a movie, you have to show someone slicing it off the guy's freakin' arm.
No movie has ever been 100% faithful to a book and been good. Simply because it's a movie, not a book.
Re:Sauron (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I diagree, strongly. Movies most often go wrong when they attempt to show Ultimate Evil. (Except Time Bandits, of course, since Ultimate Evil was indeed a named character). Ultimate Evil is best kept in the shadows, so that you sense it viscerally. No amount of Hollywood SFX -- not even these -- can live up to the conception we carry inside.
My usual case in point is Star Wars. Yes, Vader is evil and they show him. But he isn't Ultimate Evil, since it is always intimated that the Emperor is way more evil than him. In the first, the Emperor is hardly there at all. In The Empire Strikes Back, he shows up only as a vague, intimidating hologram.
Then in Return of the Jedi, he becomes an on-screen character and shrinks to merely human proportions. The showing of the Emperor is what undermines Jedi, for my money. Well, that and Ewoks -- just another manifestation of Ultimate Evil.
Re:Sauron (Score:2, Insightful)
If that was the case, then how did Isildur ever manage to hack the ring off such a nebulous entity? Sauron fought man-to-man in the book too.
Re:Me want more Sauron stomping (Score:5, Interesting)
The Ring's power is not to turn people invisible (though it can do that). It's to amplify the bearer and give him what (he thinks) he wants.
When Bilbo first finds the Ring, he most wants to escape
Frodo also puts the Ring on during times he wants to be invisible (in the Prancing Pony, or when trying to escape Ringwraiths, etc.) So it makes him invisible.
But in Mordor, Sam wears the Ring. Sometimes he wants to be invisible, and so he is. But at least once he instead uses the Ring to intimidate an orc, who sees him as some great Captain. At the time, that's what Sam needed done, and so that's what it does.
We can only speculate what Sauron's desire is, although it's pretty clearly dominion. So the Ring gives him dominion over the other rings and over the minds of lesser beings.
The essence of the Ring -- and perhaps, metaphysically, the source of its evil -- is that it gives the Bearer exactly what he wants, with no constraints.
Re:Me want more Sauron stomping (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the Ring was made to hold much of Sauron's power and to control the wearers of the other Rings of Power. Read the book, you'll see that that is the reason that the bearers of the Elf Rings removed theirs immediately when Sauron put his on.
> Frodo also puts the Ring on during times he wants to be invisible (in the Prancing Pony, or when trying to escape Ringwraiths, etc.) So it makes him invisible.
Back to the book again. Frodo does not put the Ring on in The Prancing Pony, it slips onto his finger to reveal itself to those who are looking for it. It is trying to return to Sauron, remember? It turns him invisible at a bad time, not what he would want.
Yes, you can watch the movie without reading the book, but you have to take it for what it is, and at face value. If you're going to ask deeper questions, such as:
> Why didn't Sauron turn invisible when he wore the ring?
You have to read the book. Although it makes no mention of Sauron turning invisible when he wore the Ring, the answer is clearly implied in the Tom Bombadil sequence. Frodo asked Gandalf why Tom didn't turn invisible when HE wore the Ring. Gandalf replied that it was not because Tom had any power over the Ring, but because the Ring had no power over HIM. I would imagine that the Ring would have no power over Sauron either, Sauron being its maker and the source of its power.
(Wow, it's amazing what sticks in the mind, even after twenty some-odd years! Of course, read anything that many times and you'll be hard-pressed to forget it no matter how hard you try.)
Re:Me want more Sauron stomping (Score:3, Funny)
Gollum's problem was that he wanted the ring in and of itself... which is the real problem with the ring. It's near absolute power makes it an object of desire in and of itself ( a perfect circle ), hence his constant hissing "My precious" and his ultimate, venemous hatred for "Baggins, Thief!"
Gollum's desire is the ring.
The ring gives one power over the wills of others. It is an emblem of tyranny... how it enslaves others to it's bearer, and the bearer to others... and itself, my preccccioussssss....
Ooops. Sorry. Going back to lurking and eating homemade sushi now.
Re:Extra footage pros, cons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Split the movies in two! (Score:2)
If all the added scenes keep the production values of the rest of the movie, then I say, have at it, Peter Jackson. If not, well, leave 'em in a separate "Deleted Scenes" menu.
Re:Split the movies in two! (Score:2)
Re:This was expected.... (Score:2)