Lotr: Ee

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I got the other two EE for about 25 bucks each, not too bad. The collector's set with whatever item they throw in is much more, though.
 
It's not really expensive. The gift set version is. I can't wait to buy it! I bought the Two Towers EE mainly for the Sean Bean (Boromir :drool:) and David Wenham (Faramir) scene. I still have to buy the FOTR EE.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
Would anyone kill me if I said the normal editions are more than enough for me? :uhoh:

Yeah, somebody might. Have you ever seen them? They are ungodly long but add a lot of depth. You have to already be a big fan though.
 
Looking forward to the special edition. I'm not a HUGE fan of the movies but I do like them. They are perfect for that crappy weather day when there is nothing to do. ROTK Special edition is on my Christmas list, should be interesting to see the additional 50 minutes. I thought the additional footage in FOTR was great but didnt really add much in TT.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
Would anyone kill me if I said the normal editions are more than enough for me? :uhoh:

Of course not!

But there's more Aragorn in the extended editions!

ROTK is going to be lots and lots more, since they cut much of his role, so you should definitely see that one...!
 
I promised myself not to get the DVDs until they came in a box set, and now they'll have extra scenes!
Yeah, its expensive, but worth every penny!
 
Can't wait to see the Eowyn/Faramir scenes! I love that couple in the books and was quite annoyed it wasn't in the movie, but now I can't wait for the EE! :D
 
Christopher Lee was pretty pissed when "The Scouring Of The Shire" was cut, as I recall.
 
speedracer said:
Christopher Lee was pretty pissed when "The Scouring Of The Shire" was cut, as I recall.

Christopher Lee was pretty pissed that he was cut out of ROTK entirely, and rightfully so.
 
I'm glad the Scouring wasn't in the film, but I did not like Saruman being completely excised from the theatrical version. The scouring of the Shire is entirely anticlimactic in terms of what would and would not work in a film. Books are more suited for falling action, films tend to end much sooner after the climax. I think the last portion of the film was about as good as it could have been
 
UnforgettableLemon said:
Chronicles of Narnia starts in December 2005. :up:

Really??? Who's in this? Who's directing? I had no idea they were filming these!
Things are looking up!!!
 
UnforgettableLemon said:
I'm glad the Scouring wasn't in the film, but I did not like Saruman being completely excised from the theatrical version. The scouring of the Shire is entirely anticlimactic in terms of what would and would not work in a film. Books are more suited for falling action, films tend to end much sooner after the climax. I think the last portion of the film was about as good as it could have been

I'm glad the Scouring wasn't there, either. I liked the message (no place was safe from the evil of the Ring) but I thought it was so contrived of Tolkein compared to the rest of the book. Look, there's Saruman, we'll let him go. Oh, we passed him on the road--eh, he means no harm. Oh no, he took over the Shire!

I liked the ending of ROTK initially, but when I look back, I find it odd what Jackson chose to save for the DVD and what he left in. Sam's wedding was sweet, but it should have been saved for the extended. Post-coronation, it should have really been trimmed tighter, with Frodo's great voice over, until the Gray Havens. (The biggest tear-jerker of 2004... :sad: )

I can't *wait* to see the palantir, the Houses of Healing and the Mouth of Sauron. That stuff should have been left in! I think it's a shame that Jackson allowed himself to be so swayed by popular reaction that he expanded Gollum's role to the extreme, and cut stuff from the book that audiences would have preferred to see.
 
AvsGirl41 said:



I can't *wait* to see the palantir, the Houses of Healing and the Mouth of Sauron. That stuff should have been left in! I think it's a shame that Jackson allowed himself to be so swayed by popular reaction that he expanded Gollum's role to the extreme, and cut stuff from the book that audiences would have preferred to see.

I don't think you can really say he expanded Gollum's role do to reaction. The stuff that was filmed was filmed altogether, with the exception of a few days of pick-up shoots here and there. I think it's reasonable to say that some of the decisions on what was removed from the footage shot may have been to enhance Gollum's prominence, but I don't know. I mean, Andy Serkis was brilliant as Gollum.

Oh and yes, Houses of Healing, Mouth of Sauron, everything :drool:
 
I saw the LOTR exhibit over the summer, it was so cool :drool: So many movie artifacts and videos about making the movie. Of course the ring was there too.

I don't know if it will ever be touring again, but it's definitely worth seeing if it does.
 
UnforgettableLemon said:


I don't think you can really say he expanded Gollum's role do to reaction. The stuff that was filmed was filmed altogether, with the exception of a few days of pick-up shoots here and there. I think it's reasonable to say that some of the decisions on what was removed from the footage shot may have been to enhance Gollum's prominence, but I don't know. I mean, Andy Serkis was brilliant as Gollum.

No, things were actually filmed and added based on the reaction to the film before it. It's in Sean Astin's book (which is actually crap except for a few LOTR tidbits). Besides more Gollum, one of the scenes added in was Legolas sliding down the trunk of the oliphaunt, due to Legolas' overwhelming (and unpredicted) popularity. Sam's speech at the end of The Two Towers was another addition, not based so much on popularity, but the world post 9/11.

I was surprised, as I imagined most of the stuff had been filmed except for pick-up shots. But I always suspected the Gollum thing, as that was just too coincidental.
 
elffriend said:


What??????

How can you compare that crap to Lord of the Rings, sacrelidge!!! :tsk:

I'd hardly call them crap. They lack the complexity of Tolkien's universe, absolutely. But they're brilliant children's books, maybe a bit didactic, but quite enjoyable nevertheless.
 
i saw the display poster for ROTK EE at walmart this morning. i so wanted to take it.

what is chronicles of narnia?
 
icelle said:
i saw the display poster for ROTK EE at walmart this morning. i so wanted to take it.

what is chronicles of narnia?

Chronicles of Narnia is a series of Children's High Fantasy written by Tolkien's close friend and colleague, C.S. Lewis (author of "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters" as well). They are about a world that runs parallel to our own, and border on Christian allegory. Lewis denies that was his intent, although he did say it was to explore what it would be like if God had other worlds that worked on similar principles. So, they're not so much allegory as Christian symbols and motifs transposed to a fantasy world inhabited by characters from Greco-Roman, Germanic, and Norse myth.

But, if that's too heavy-handed, they're also just a lot of fun to read.
 
Back
Top Bottom