Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Media Movies Entertainment

Will LOTR:ROTK Extended Edition Hit Cinemas? 285

yootje writes "Two articles today on TheOneRing.net about rumours that the extended edition from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King will come in theaters before the release on DVD. The first article can be found here, the second one here. Both come from people who work in a cinema themselves, one in the UK and one in Denmark."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will LOTR:ROTK Extended Edition Hit Cinemas?

Comments Filter:
  • Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#9636457)
    As long as there's money to be had, you bet they'll do it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:01PM (#9636472)

    For those not familiar with the story...

    Q: Is LoTR really based on Christian Mythology?

    A: Yes. Tolkien wanted to demonstrate that even the mentally and physically challenged were capable of success and that therefore we should love everyone, regardless of their defects.

    Q: So who represents the mentally and physically challenged?

    A: Well obviously the hobbits are the physically challenged ones here, but the central mentally challenged figure is Gandalf, responsible for the most horrible attack plan in literature.

    Q: What's so horrible about a poorly armed team of two hobbits infiltrating Mordor?

    A: Well, basically it ignores the fundamental strengths of the forces of light. Anyone who's played C&C or Warcraft knows that if you have an advantage in air units, you have to use it. Remember that elves can ride eagles, and that elven archers are incredibly potent - early on, Gimli dismounts a Nazgul with a single shot! With about a thousand eagles (given elven archers on each one), the forces of good would have matched up pretty well in the air against Mordor's air units: all nine of them. While the leader of the Nazgul cannot be killed by any living man, this does not prevent a team of twenty eagles from tearing him to little shreds, especially if Gandalf rode along for help. So basically an air battle would have been brief unmitigated slaughter of the Nazgul as about a thousand eagle-mounted elves blew them out of the sky in a hail of arrows.

    Q: But I thought that there was some other book that said that the eagles wouldn't help?

    A: We're not talking about some other stupid book here, we're talking about the Lord of the Rings. And in this book, the eagles most definitely help out, first by flying Gandalf off the tower and secondly by pitching into the Final Battle in full force, attacking ground units (stupid!) at great risk to themselves. So obviously they would have been content to take part in a brief airborne slaughter of the Nazgul.

    Q: Ok so you defeat all Mordor's air units... then what?

    A: Well with air superiority, you command the skies. Which means that you can fly right over Mount Doom and drop anything you want right in there... like a ring. Mordor only had nine airborne units, and with them out of the way Mordor has absolutely no way to prevent anyone from flying anywhere.

    Q: But the ring would corrupt the eagles trying to drop the ring in, silly.

    A: Actually, the ring can only corrupt those who touch it or those in the nearby area. This is a trivial mechanism to defeat. The first step is permanently bind the ring to a weak and helpless creature, like a rat. Second step is of course to put the rat on a long rope, so that the creature holding the rope is out of the sway of the ring. Then the eagle carrying the rope, having total air superiority, flies over Mount Doom and drops the rat in the volcano. An utterly trivial victory.

    Q: Ok, so why the elaborately stupid attack plan? Why send the physical rejects as the only hope of mankind?

    A: The lesson is that, though they succeed at great cost and great risk, they are still capable of success. This, of course, was the lesson of the Holocaust - that we should never feel so superior to the weak or inferior that we decide they have no place. Even idiot tacticians like Gandalf and weak, pathetic creatures like Hobbits can add some value here & there.

    Q: Wait a minute. I just saw the movie, and there's this scene where they're like "this is the last stand of the Men of the West", and all the men of the west are white, and they face of in total war against Indians on Elephants and "black orcs" (er... maybe we just call them "blacks" for short) and the white Men of the West achieve a total genocidal victory. Doesn't that invalidate what you just said?

    A: Well, um, no. That's all fine & good, but remember that in the Holocaust we were committing genocide against white people - which is bad. But I'm not sure Tolkien had a problem with what you describe above - as you said, it's in the book.

    Q: So, basically, we as white western men should never discriminate against our leaders even if their tactics and strategy are totally flawed, because we are inherently good and will always prevail?

    A: Exactly.

  • by Iscariot_ ( 166362 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:01PM (#9636473)
    Hmmmmm... Makes me wonder... Will there be a special edition DVD for the theatrical release of the extended edition DVD?
  • cool beans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamecNO@SPAMumich.edu> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:02PM (#9636476) Homepage Journal
    It'd be great if it did. Nothing quite like a theater viewing of such an epic film.
  • I HOPE SO!!

    I would gladly shell out the money to see the extended edition in the theater.
    • will they have bathroom breaks?

      or an intermission maybe? I guess I could just time my visit to the bathroom say... when the stupid hobbit pledges his allegiance to the old man... or something like that
      • Wow, how many young-uns do we have around here?

        There have always been long long movies. "Gone With the Wind" had an intermission in the middle (right after the "as God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again" speech).

        Ben Hur, The Ten Commandants, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago...all are very long movies.

        It's the media again. They think that only things are happening right now, as if for the first time to "make" the news. Like when these idiots go out on a live remote at an expressway in Chicago when it's snowing as if "what is this white stuff falling from the sky?!?! are the gods angry with us!?!?!". Gee, it's only been snowing in Chicago in the winter for what...10,000 years or so?
        • Intermissions seem to have died though. Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Ten Commandments are all between 210 and 220 minutes which is only a bit longer than the original theatrical cut of RotK (201 minutes), which didn't have an intermission. Doctor Zhivago was even shorter. RotK is under 10 min longer than Titanic (194 min), which also didn't have an intermission. The Right Stuff is 193 minutes, and AFAIK, also had no intermission.

          I don't go to the movies very much, but I don't know of any released a
    • I think I speak for everyone when I say...
      I HOPE SO!!

      I would gladly shell out the money to see the extended edition in the theater.


      I think I speak for everyone blue_adept when I say thanks for offering pay for us all to see the extended version.

      PS I would actually like to watch it in Maui if you dont mind shelling out for a flight and hotel as well that would be well cool.
    • "I would gladly shell out the money to see the extended edition in the theater."

      I would if the picture wasn't as grainy, the seats were more comfortable, I could eat a nice dinner with it, if there was an intermission for a bathroom break, if there wasn't anybody else in the theater, and if it wouldn't bankrupt me to do it.

      Err.. you probably have a better theater than I do, I'll stick with the DVD. :)
  • by psycht ( 233176 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:02PM (#9636489) Homepage Journal
    Now with even MORE endings!
    • by RedA$$edMonkey ( 688732 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:14PM (#9636615)
      ... With all new "Hobbits Gone Wild" footage, uncensored! See what they really mean by hobbit holes.
    • But still not as many as the book!
    • Re:All New ROTK (Score:3, Interesting)

      Now with even MORE endings!

      I hope they flesh out that one ending where Frodo, Bilbo, and Gandalf get on the boat with the elves and sail away. WTF was that all about? It made it seem like they were all going to die, yet Frodo and Gandalf looked fine. Were they committing suicide on the high seas? Maybe it would've been more clear if I had read the books, but the movie should explain it well enough so one doesn't have to resort to that. I don't have time for books anymore which is why I rely on getti

      • Re:All New ROTK (Score:3, Informative)

        by Poeir ( 637508 )
        They were headed across the ocean, to the Grey Havens, where elves go instead of dying. I can't speak with authority on why Frodo and Gandalf were let in, but Gandalf was an Istari (so was Saruman, but he fell from grace) and, like Frodo, was a ring-bearer.
        • Re:All New ROTK (Score:5, Informative)

          by Lane.exe ( 672783 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:09PM (#9637084) Homepage
          Fortunately, I can speak on authority.
          The "Grey Havens" were where they left from. They were going to the Blessed Realm of Aman, specifically to the city of Valinor where the gods live. It's kind of like dying, because 1) it's paradise and 2) you don't get to come back. Gandalf being an Istari (which is just Quenya for wise) means that he was one of the Maiar, a race of demiurgic beings similar to the lower choirs of angels in Christian mythology. He was born in the West, in Valinor, and so he gets to go back. All of the Elves who originally went to Aman from Middle Earth in the First Age (including Galadriel and Elrond) also get to come to the West when they are ready. Frodo and the other Ring-bearers get to go because they touched a ring of power, and this makes them special.
          And actually, yes... I did take a class on this shit.

          • Re:All New ROTK (Score:5, Informative)

            by Colazar ( 707548 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:47PM (#9637383)
            Right on all counts except one.

            All of the Elves who originally went to Aman from Middle Earth in the First Age (including Galadriel and Elrond) also get to come to the West when they are ready.

            Actually, *all* of the Elves get to go to Valinor, even the ones who haven't been there before. Only a very few of the Elves in Middle Earth in the Third Age had ever been to Valinor (Galadriel, for one), most either refused to go in the first place, or have been born since then (like Elrond).

            It's also worth mentioning that Sam eventually goes West, since he was (for a brief time) a ring-bearer. It is also suggested that Gimli goes, too, though I don't remember what allows him to go.

            • +1 Pedantic ;), but also quite correct.
            • Gimli (Score:5, Informative)

              by ThousandStars ( 556222 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:57PM (#9637834) Homepage
              It is also suggested that Gimli goes, too, though I don't remember what allows him to go.

              Actually, it's not suggested that Gimli departs, it's stated in the Appendices to The Return of the King.

              "1541: In this year on March 1st came at last the Passing of King Elessar. It is said that the beds of Meriadoc and Peregrin were set besides the bed of the great king. Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down the Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf. And when that ship passed an end was come in Middle-earth to the Fellowship of the Ring."

              I don't feel like looking it up, but I recall that Gimli was allowed into the West because of his great friendship with Legolas and Galadriel.

              Also, this post addresses a question elsewhere in this thread: there is no hard time limit on when Elves can depart from the Havens; in fact, Galadriel, Elrond and others tarry for a few years in Middle Earth, after the destruction of the One Ring. Those that stay longer, however, were subject to a sort of fading. That is what the Three, the Elven rings, were forged to protect against. Thus those Elves who wielded the rings held the the memory of the Elder days.

              What ultimately happens to Elves who remained in Middle Earth is never explicitly stated so far as I know.

          • The Elves... (Score:5, Informative)

            by devphil ( 51341 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:00PM (#9637482) Homepage


            ...can go to Valinor whenever they feel like it. Frodo and Sam pass such a group in the extended first DVD, and in the books there's a much longer sequence involving them.

            (And there's no rush; the "last ship" in the movies wasn't about to sail, because there was no last ship. Plenty of Elves were left in Middle-Earth, and Cirdan "sail all you want, we'll make more" the Graybearded just kept building the damn things...)

            Galadriel, however, was special. She was the only remaining one of the Noldor who had been banned from Valinor. (The others were dead or had returned.) The ban was rescinded at the end of the First Age. She was still too proud for her own good, though, and refused to accept the invitation. Also, she was one of the first to rebel, so the Valar were not keen on letting her back in.

            Once she had learned how to get along with others, and in reward for her work against Sauron, the invitation was re-extended to her, and she accepted. So in her case, yeah, she had to wait until she was ready.

      • Re:All New ROTK (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Squozen ( 301710 )
        It might have been clear if you'd paid attention to the repeated references throughout all three films of the imminent departure of the elves to the Grey Havens.

        Did you miss the entire leave/stay subplot with Elrond and Arwen?
  • Longer?? (Score:5, Informative)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:03PM (#9636491) Journal
    Extended version would be shown in a select number of cinemas
    As much as I loved LOTR/ROTK, it felt drawn out in places (especially the many endings). I'm not so sure I want to see an even longer version.
    • Re:Longer?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xenophrak ( 457095 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#9636598)

      As with the two films before ROtK, I felt that there were places that were cut poorly, or didn't fit well together.

      Once I saw the finished extended editions, they were a more pleasant experience.

      After the "two-hour" limit is removed (even though ROtK was > 2 hours) it made a good deal of difference to the final output.

      I expect that ROtK EE will be in the same vein.
    • Re:Longer?? (Score:3, Funny)

      by brysnot ( 573631 )
      I hope they draw it out longer. A three hour nap just wasn't long enough.
    • Actually, the extended edition, as strange as it sounds, probably won't feel as drawn out. Why? Well my biggest complaint with the movie is the last half an hour was all this tiresome conclusion and rap up. But, inbetween the crowning at rivendell, and frodos final departure, there is the return to hobbiton, an action packed event. This was filmed and is to be included on the extended edition. So, infact, you won't have to sit through two long scenes of people hugging and crying, back to back
    • Re:Longer?? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dachannien ( 617929 )
      I liked most of the endings. The one that I thought was poorly cut was where Frodo and Sam are on that rock in the middle of a bunch of lava, crying and blubbering and whatnot, and the screen fades to black.... and then fades back in, to the same shot of them still blubbering on the same damn rock!

  • As long as there is more money to be made, or even suspected of being made -- it will be in your local multi-plex someday...
  • I love the movies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:03PM (#9636496)
    But I think I'll watch the extended versions in the confort of my own home. Movie theaters don't have pause buttons.
    • by jdray ( 645332 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:10PM (#9636584) Homepage Journal
      No kidding. I could barely sit through the original theatrical release without having a theatrical release of my own.
    • They should have released the series as 6 x 2 hour movies
  • by demonbug ( 309515 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:04PM (#9636499) Journal
    until I can get the LOTR:ROTK WS EE DVD for my DLP HDTV - I only use DVI IC's for superior IQ.
  • Article Text (Score:5, Informative)

    by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:04PM (#9636505)
    Getting very slow already, so here it is (not much):

    Article one:

    Extended Editions Headed to the Cinema?
    7/06/04, 9:43 pm EST - Xoanon

    Gandalf of Denmark writes: I work in a cinema in Denmark, and on the latest list of releases, it was mentioned that in mid-October Lotr 1,2 & 3 Extended version would be shown in a select number of cinemas. It would seem likely that they are showing the extended versions, a few months ahead of them coming out on dvd, so the December release, seems like a good bet for the dvd's so far.

    Article two:

    Further Evidence ROTK EE Coming to Theaters
    7/07/04, 11:59 am EST - Celeborn

    Ringer Baggins of the Shire sends in this tidbit: I work for Odeon cinema chain in the UK, we recieved a letter on Tuesday 6th July explaining that during October the 3 extended editions of the Lord Of The Rings films will be shown on Sunday's. This means ROTK EE will be shown before it is available to buy on DVD!

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:05PM (#9636518) Homepage
    Hope theres an intermission, or else a free catheter with every ticket. They should do what they did when it was originally released. They showed FotR EE, TTT EE and RotK back to back the day before RotK opened. That sold out around the country in a matter of hours. I'd be even more willing to sit through all 3 EEs in the theatre. With that said i'm still waiting on the RotK EE Platinum Collectors Boxed Set to go with my other two...
  • by eamacnaghten ( 695001 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:07PM (#9636540) Homepage Journal
    Maybe the scene where the Wormtoungue throws the Palantír at the fellowship - one of my favourite scenes from the book - filmed but sadly cur from the film....
  • Holy crap (Score:5, Funny)

    by transient ( 232842 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:08PM (#9636543)
    Extended edition? You mean I saw the short version!?
  • by Cordath ( 581672 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:08PM (#9636546)
    I am willing to bet there will be theaters which offer screenings of all three extended editions, back to back. Let's do the math:

    12 hours of LOTR
    + Pshychotic LOTR-crazed fans
    + several hundred litres of movie-theater pseudo-soda
    + no catheters
    -----
    = one helluva carpet cleaning bill

    and you can bet that those theaters will be full of psychotic LOTR-crazed fans... You can also bet that such a theater would be a great place to sell special movie-theater priced catheters to go with the special movie-theater priced colas...
  • in the cinema? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rickbrodie ( 535715 ) <{gro.irasmas} {ta} {drahcir}> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:10PM (#9636579)
    Well, i live in Britain and I don't recall the cinemas showing the extended versions of the first two films before they were released on dvd. I wish they had, cos that would have been well worth it.

    For each of the three films, i was pretty disappointed when i saw them in the cinema for the first time. Yes, they were pretty spectacular, but they just were not as great as i'd hoped. Yet, several months later, when i bought the extended version on dvd and watched it, i found myself to be much more impressed. Those extra half hours in each of the films makes a very real difference. Getting the chance to see the "proper" version on the big screen would certainly make the wait for the dvd a little more bearable ^_^

    It seems a little strange (assuming my memory is to be trusted on this) that they would choose to show only the last of the trilogy in the cinemas. Unless of course they mean to show all three (now that would be worth waiting for.)

    • well.. umm.. read the article? or at least another one of them?

      "Gandalf of Denmark writes: I work in a cinema in Denmark, and on the latest list of releases, it was mentioned that in mid-October Lotr 1,2 & 3 Extended version would be shown in a select number of cinemas. It would seem likely that they are showing the extended versions, a few months ahead of them coming out on dvd, so the December release, seems like a good bet for the dvd's so far.
      "

  • Ow, it hurts already (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:11PM (#9636590)
    Geez, my ass already hurts just thinking of sitting through this sucker in the theater.

    My wife and I have already spent the GNP of a small African nation going to see these movies (what was it, 5 times for FOTR, 4 for TTT and 3 for ROTK, plus a shyteload of popcorn and hot dogs) and I guess we'll be in the theaters to see this as well.

    I myself have no problem giving my money away to this particular cause though. Damn good movies, and they're absolutely worth every last penny.

  • Festival Setting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ndavidg ( 680217 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:14PM (#9636619)
    This would need to be in a festival-type setting where you can walk around, shop for LOTR-related items, buy a soda, burger or pizza slice, and get sprayed with water.

    Sitting in the theatre for three hours without so much as an intermission was difficult enough, I could not imagine a full day of sitting on my ass without moving. My legs would fall asleep and I would have to crawl out of the theatre.

    Most of the people I've talked to feel that three hours was too long time without an intermission.
  • by plesur ( 655473 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:16PM (#9636636)
    I saw both of the extended versions of Fellowship and Two Towers at a cinema in the UK in the two weeks leading up to the release of ROTK. Well worth seeing first on the big screen, so I'll be looking out for the extended ROTK (and the triple-bill extended all-dayer!)
  • For Comparison... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:19PM (#9636661)
    The first two movies clocked in at around 2 and a half hours. The extended editions put them both around the 3 and a half hours.

    ROTK STARTED at 3 and a half hours... How long is the *extended* edition going to be!?!

    (and will it include the destruction of Hobbiton scenes?)
    • Re:For Comparison... (Score:3, Informative)

      by jimhill ( 7277 )
      sigh

      No, the extended RotK will not include the Scouring of the Shire. It wasn't even filmed.
    • IMDB indicates that the extended edition is 250 minutes.

      http://imdb.com/title/tt0167260/combined
    • ROTK STARTED at 3 and a half hours... How long is the *extended* edition going to be!?!

      I'd be happy if it were about 15 minutes shorter (remove the going-to-the-ships ending, for starters), but I guess I can always hit the skip button on my DVD remote to get the same effect.

    • Re:For Comparison... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jdbo ( 35629 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:33PM (#9637264)
      Here's the general info:

      FOTR theatrical: ~ 3 hours
      FOTR EE: ~ 3 hours, 30 minutes (not counting the "fan credits" tacked to the end, which take a -long- time to run)
      diff: 30 minutes

      TTT theatrical: ~ 3 hours
      TTT EE: ~ 3 hours, 40 minutes
      diff: 40 minutes

      ROTK theatrical: ~ 3 hours, 20 minutes (incl. 8 minutes of credits)
      ROTK EE (announced): ~ 4 hours, 10 minutes
      diff: 50 minutes

      (The "Scouring..." chapter was never filmed (outside of a series of "hommage" shots shown in the "Mirror of Galadriel" sequence of FOTR; however, scenes depicting the fate of Saruman himself have been announced for inclusion.)

      For FOTR and TTT the new footage was re-integrated into the main film, and significant parts of the score re-recorded to accomodate these changes.

      As someone who has watched both the theatrical and EE cuts multiple times (and expierenced the "Trilogy Tuesday" oening of ROTK last December), I am confident that the ROTK EE will improve the pacing and characterization issues of ROTK (that also afflicted FOTR and TTT) in the same way that the EEs improved those films*.

      While additional eye candy and additional treats for those who want to see "more of the books" onscreen are more or less a given for these EEs, it's actually the pacing changes and deeper characterization thatmakes the EEs improvements over the theatrical cuts.

      * For those who wonder about the whole "EEs feel shorter" assertion, here's a quick explanation: while the EEs are longer in timespan, the more measured pacing in the EEs gives more chances to the audience to breathe and "catch up" with the events of the film, while becoming more familiar with the characters; more varied pacing allows the audience to re-engage and become more involved with the characters and their experiences, thereby extending their patience for long sequences and making the film "feel shorter" to them despite the longer running time.
  • by geekwench ( 644364 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @06:20PM (#9636668)
    The fangirl in me is shouting "squeeee!" and hyperventilating like the soon-to-be-ravished heroine of a bodice-ripper romance novel. However, the practical (and far more sensible) part of me is holding out for a release date. I refuse to go back into training for the sit-in-the-uncomfortable-seat-for-3-plus-hours marathon before I absolutely have to.

    (And no, sitting around while reading /. doesn't count. My sofa is very comfortable, thank you.)

    • OK, like much of the Slashdot readership, I had a really difficult time getting past the first sentence. I'm happily reading the latest in geek rants about catheterization when suddenly I'm struck with a comment the references bodice-ripping.

      As much as I appreciate the comment, please, no more, or my wife will regret me coming home from work.

    • The first sentence of that post is one of the sexiest things I have ever read.

  • That in 5 years we will have Lord of the Rings prequil trillogy and see the transformation of the White Wizard into the right hand of ultimate evil??
    • Saurman really was a little hobbit who grew up enslaved in Hobbiton. And Rangers aren't long lived because of their ties to elves, but due to contracting a bacterial infection at an early age.
    • Actually the "prequel" to LOTR is already written, by Tolkien himself. Its called "The Hobbit", and its actually rather good. I've already heard rumblings that it will likely be made into a film.

      So, no need to worry yet. When they've completed The Hobbit, and they're looking for more material, thats when things could get ugly...

      Needless to say I don't trust the hollywood writers to make a watchable movie out of the Silmarillion.
  • I've encountered numerous shows where people don't shower before hand and stink horribly, and thats for a short movie! I can't imagine sitting with geeks that don't believe in personal cleanliness for 4+ hours. Nasty nasty nasty.
  • While extended versions can be great for people who "just can't get enough" of their favourite franchise, they can be annoying to those who just like movies. For example, while I like The Matrix movies, but if that robots-coming-through-the-roof-and-being-shot scene went any longer, I'd be reaching for my fast-forward button.

    Of course the Extended Collectors' Editions are made with fans in mind, but sometimes that's the only one you can buy in the store. I ended up with the Extended edition of The Lion King, for example, that stuff that was new to me and took away from the nostalgia and wanes the kids' attentions pan. Just my $2/100.

    • Generally I'll agree with you, but there's just soo much stuff in the books that aren't in the theatrical cut that it makes LotR different in my opinion. Having not read the books until after seeing TTT and the extended edition of Fellowship, I can say that the latter greatly helped with my understanding of the movie. I'm sure a lot was due to seeing it for the second time too, but there was so much that was explained by the cut scenes that I think it improved the movie immeasurably.
  • by realmolo ( 574068 ) * on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:13PM (#9637558)
    I'm all for anything that keeps all those loser LOTR fans locked up in a dark room for hours on end.
  • LOTR EE (Score:3, Funny)

    by swingwing ( 649601 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @10:19PM (#9638303)
    This is the way it should have happened...... Gandalf: That ring is bad news, Frodo, it must be destroyed. Frodo: How so? Gandalf: It must be placed in the fires of Mount Doom. Frodo: Oh well, I guess that means a lot of walking, camping and then running away from monsters, lots of death and almost losing all my friends? Galdalf: Nah, I know some big eagles that can fly us straight to the mountain and we can drop it in the lava. We'll be home by tea. Frodo: Nice one!

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...