Lord of the Rings films. Theatrical or Extended Edition
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Dude...the Extended Editions are the DEFINITIVE editions. They aren't just deleted material; they're edited back in. Nor are there "conflicts" set up by this new material; it all fits in.....and MANY scenes from the Theatrical are not understandable without the extra info.
....is ANYONE seriously going to say Theatrical ROTK without Saruman was BETTER?
Is ANYONE here going to argue that, given the passage of time and that we're seeing it at home and not in theaters, that the Theatrical Version is better than the Extended Edition?
....is ANYONE seriously going to say Theatrical ROTK without Saruman was BETTER?
Is ANYONE here going to argue that, given the passage of time and that we're seeing it at home and not in theaters, that the Theatrical Version is better than the Extended Edition?
I definitely think that FOTR and TTT Extended Editions are better. However, I honestly think that it's a wash with ROTK.
And yes, ROTK was better without Saruman. However, I think that Saruman should have been in TTT, and the movie should have ended with the Nazgul coming and Gandalf taking Pippen away. Why Jackson thought that ending the movie where he did was a good idea is beyond me.
Plus, it would have meant that there'd be no reason to add that "Aragorn's dead" plotline that went nowhere and did nothing.
And yes, ROTK was better without Saruman. However, I think that Saruman should have been in TTT, and the movie should have ended with the Nazgul coming and Gandalf taking Pippen away. Why Jackson thought that ending the movie where he did was a good idea is beyond me.
Plus, it would have meant that there'd be no reason to add that "Aragorn's dead" plotline that went nowhere and did nothing.
Agreed completely. I love the extended FOTR, especially the added bit as the Fellowship leaves Rivendell and Frodo asks Gandalf which way Mordor is. But the extended TTT and ROTK are just too much for me to take, at least in one sitting. I do like that flashback scene with Boromir and Faramir from extended TTT, though.
I'd have to say the extended editions as well, each one improves on the earlier version of the film. Not only did they all add greater depth and breath to the films - integrated so seamlessly that these days watching the extended editions I often forget which parts were added more recently - they sometimes correct critiques I had with the theatrical version. The cave troll fight in the original FOTR was jumpy, in the extended version it's a significant improvement.
I've seen some interesting arguments critiquing the ROTK release on other grounds, such as Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron in cold blood. That never sat well with me, it seemed to go by the action movie logic that 'well, he's venal and repulsive, so cutting off his head is way cool'. You simply don't execute messengers, it violates the diplomatic ethic. The same goes for kicking them into bottomless chasms while snarling with idiotic bravado, incidentally.
Of course, actually getting the Mouth of Sauron at all was very neat, I always thought he was a fascinating if fleeting enigma in the novels. So it all balances out.
And we could have done without most of the additions to the ghost army plotline. Especially the cave-in of skulls; but also the revelation that he was joining Aragorn. That works a lot better later in the film when Aragorn and company jump off the boat.
As for The Hobbit and the other movie, show me the theatrical editions and I'll give you my answer. If I feel The Hobbit tells all it needs to tell - or, god forbid, goes on too long like King Kong - then I'll probably be against an extended edition. And vice versa.
I've seen some interesting arguments critiquing the ROTK release on other grounds, such as Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron in cold blood. That never sat well with me, it seemed to go by the action movie logic that 'well, he's venal and repulsive, so cutting off his head is way cool'. You simply don't execute messengers, it violates the diplomatic ethic. The same goes for kicking them into bottomless chasms while snarling with idiotic bravado, incidentally.
Of course, actually getting the Mouth of Sauron at all was very neat, I always thought he was a fascinating if fleeting enigma in the novels. So it all balances out.
And we could have done without most of the additions to the ghost army plotline. Especially the cave-in of skulls; but also the revelation that he was joining Aragorn. That works a lot better later in the film when Aragorn and company jump off the boat.
As for The Hobbit and the other movie, show me the theatrical editions and I'll give you my answer. If I feel The Hobbit tells all it needs to tell - or, god forbid, goes on too long like King Kong - then I'll probably be against an extended edition. And vice versa.
EE every time. Heck, there are things in the EE of the first movie that set up things in the theatrical version of the third film (Galadrial's gifts, for example). Each goes on for as long as it should, and it never feels like it's "too long". Except perhaps for the end credits of Return of the King.
Having just been snowed in by a nor'easter and watched all three extended DVDs, I was glad I had 'em!
Theatrical versions have to take in to consideration the amount of time people can sit still in a movie theater [bladder issues].
Extended versions, for me, can have pacing issues and wander off into deleted scenes. More story telling of a movie that I liked, and want more of. If they just had longer action sequences or more nudity I probably wouldn't be interested [depending on the nude person involved].
Theatrical versions have to take in to consideration the amount of time people can sit still in a movie theater [bladder issues].
Extended versions, for me, can have pacing issues and wander off into deleted scenes. More story telling of a movie that I liked, and want more of. If they just had longer action sequences or more nudity I probably wouldn't be interested [depending on the nude person involved].
Those end credits really are a bit much. I'm usually so emotional after the great ending that I sit there and watch the credits and listen the wonderful score, but I definitely don't have the patience to sit through the entire fanclub slowly move by. Oh, and I've always loved how the cast is listed in alphabetical order, and Frodo the hero of Middle Earth is listed dead last thanks to Elijah Wood's unfortunate place in the alphabet.
The extended versions by far. The tree's attack at Helm's Deep was brilliant. And I hate how Saruman was left out of ROTK (theatrical) even more after seeing how kickass it is. Plus the longer fight scene at Minas Turith made much better sence. And we see the Pirate ships boarded, the choice of the dead king, the confrontation at the black gate, etc.
The only one that could've stayed in shortened form without too much damage is FOTR. But the extended version is better for it too, mostly.
As far as I'm concerned, the extended versions are the only versions.
The only one that could've stayed in shortened form without too much damage is FOTR. But the extended version is better for it too, mostly.
As far as I'm concerned, the extended versions are the only versions.
Extended Editions all the way. Of course, I came into LOTR totally backwards... apart from a very rambunctious showing of Fellowship from which I remember nothing apart from the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, I didn't see the films until I borrowed the EE trilogy from the library on a whim. Then I read the novels. And I've since caught the TE's on TNT or TBS.
That diplomatic ethic might not have existed in the Third Age, and even if it did, we don't know that Gondor extended diplomatic courtesy to Mordor. Probably not, since the Witch-King reneged on his challenge to fight Earnur in single combat and instead took him to Minas Morgul to torture. Even if Gondor and Mordor had recognized diplomatic customs, we don't know that those customs extended to the Mouth in particular; he didn't exactly ride out of Morder presenting diplomatic credentials or a flag of truce. And even at his most generous Aragorn could not have possibly expected the least bit of reciprocation from Sauron; he came to Mordor to destroy it, not to seek a modus vivendi with them.
Anyhow, in the book Gandalf threatens to kill the Mouth. PJ just realized something that was hinted at in the text.
Edit: Got last king of Arnor confused with last king of Gondor.
No, more was better; you seem to have missed the point: they weren't trying to "pace" the film for viewing in one sitting (except by obsessives who don't mind) when they knew it was a DVD you could pause or watch over more than a 4 hour time block.
It grew beyond the bounds of a simple "movie" and became an "experience" unrestrained by typical rules; i.e. "we're at the 1 hour 40 minute mark, things should be wrapping up"
everything they added in added to the story
A
Avilos
Guest
Well can I can my money back for wasting my time at the theater then?
Similar threads
