Oh, yeah...
Oh, yeah...
Can't wait!
--





I hope they have a box set of all the extended movies!
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
^THAT is something I would most definitely buy!!
I saw the other two boxsets in Best Buy and BJ's Wholesale the other day. Hours upon hours of additional footage and other goodies. I wouldn't recommend attempting to watch them in one sitting.
Second it's out i intend to do just that. Lord of the rings was the first book i ever read (I was like 12).Originally Posted by RedZ28
The extended edition of Two Towers is on in the background as we speak...![]()
There's only us. There's only this. Forget regret, or life is yours to miss... --RENT
Do not taunt happy fun ball.![]()





Return of the King.... my favourite "book" of the Triliogy... and now my favourite movie of the trilogy.... Long live LoTR!
(and SW: OT for that matter...)
enter: E3167322D9 for your 10% discount
This one is a six minute trailer...
Ah Yeah!
--Georg Christoph Litchenberg
Damn. I can't wait.
it's coming - it's coming!great! I loved this one most of the three!
I am soooo curious whats extra in there - what do you all think?
I really expect some christopher lee - saruman in there. I missed the old guy in the cinema version.
I can't wait to get my hands on it!




This is super news. Thanks, Madcap!
I was really disappointed when the confrontation between Gandalf and the Nazgul King at the Gates of Gondor, one of the most dramatic scenes in the whole trilogy, was left out of the theatrical release. I knew it had to have been filmed at least.
Btw, have "extended edition" versions of the first two LOTR movies already been released? If so, is there enough additional material to make them worth buying? I assume that Tom Bombadil was not in the DVD version of Fellowship either, else I would have heard before now.
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
The first two extended versions are worth it, yes. There's some good background that's been added - but nothing like the 50 minutes for the third, it sounds like.
Ol' Singing Tom does not appear in any of the three.
The lack of Bombadil in any of the extended versions is a major disappointment...But then I guess something had to be left out...
There's only us. There's only this. Forget regret, or life is yours to miss... --RENT
Do not taunt happy fun ball.![]()
I don't think Bombadil had much to add to the story on film. Some of his lines made it into TTT, though.
--
Agreed, but the character was great. Plus I always liked the "Fog on Barrow-Downs" chapter...Originally Posted by SeppeSai
There's only us. There's only this. Forget regret, or life is yours to miss... --RENT
Do not taunt happy fun ball.![]()





250 mins long.......................DAMN and we thought 200mins was long! When I get them I'm going to watch all 3 back to back. I can't wait. They are going to have a box set of the extended movies........SWEET!
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Tom Bombadil is kinda the definition of a throwaway character. He pops up, does his thing, vanishes, and has no effect (and only one mention, during the council of Elrond) on any of the rest of the story.
I'd have ditched him, too. Him AND the scouring of the Shire.
The extended editions are twice as good as the theatrical releases. More of the book gets through. My favorite thing about the books (Legolas and Gimli's competition re slain orcs) gets really expanded upon...
I read these books before i had pubic hair, these books are why i have that bottom sig (telling you what i'm reading, they literally changed my life) if anything could have made them better... It's these movies.




In case anyone is interested, there is an old discussion of LOTR that took place shortly after its theatrical release at a web site which has content and participants overlaping with this one at
http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/t17238.html
It includes discussion of Bombadil and other elements/scenes left out of the movies, including some that are apparently restored in the DVD extended edition version.
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
Okay, sorry to wake this thread up from the dead, but I just need to vent.I just saw the Return of the King extended edition, and I am so offended about what they did with Gandalf in some of the scenes. Over and over again the movie makes Gandalf out to be simpering and impotent, where the book most definitely presents him as noble and of great (if veiled) power.
For example, what is this crap about the Witch King (head of the Nazgul) shattering Gandalf's staff and driving him off Shadowfax to the ground. This most definitely does not happen in the book. Similarly, in the "Mouth of Sauron" scene, Gandalf is made to look like an emotional cripple, while Aragorn slices off the messenger's head. In the book it is Gandalf who, in his strength and poise, commands the messenger to leave. These are just two of many examples in which Peter Jackson has chosen to degrade the character of Gandalf in order to make Aragorn appear more potent. IMO, this is a totally unnecessary twisting of the book, and most definitely detracted from my enjoyment of the extended version of the film.Not to be a purist, but one of the hallmarks of the final book for me is the conflict from afar between Gandalf the White and Sauron--a conflict which is totally distorted by the choices made by Jackson in the third movie.
Sorry I'll stop venting now...back to your regularly scheduled program...
There's only us. There's only this. Forget regret, or life is yours to miss... --RENT
Do not taunt happy fun ball.![]()
In the book, Gandalf is visibly anguished when the Voice shows them the Mithril shirt. He is convinced that Frodo was taken, and that all is lost. Aragorn slicing the dude's head off is just his version of the same emotions. Gandalf is introspective while Aragorn lashes out. In the book Aragorn doesn't do anything but glare at the Voice of Sauron.
The Witch King of Angmar shattering Gandalf's staff and pitching him from Shadowfax is a little different. You have to remember, as an Istari (Elvish word for Wizard), Gandalf is forbidden by the Valar from matching Sauron power for power (The two of them, along with Saruman, even belong to the same classification, Maiar, if you've read the Silmarillion). The Witch King is directly linked to Sauron via the Rings of Power wich is why he has his, kind of borrowed, magic. In the short run, he probably IS more powerful than Gandalf (who was the wisest of the order of Wizards, not the most powerful, a position held by Saruman), it's just that Gandalf can look to the long term and the King of Minas Morgul can't as evidenced by his accepting the Ring he once wore from Sauron in the first place (Sauron has all the nine rings gifted to Humans, not the Ringwraiths).
Hope any of that made sense, as much of it relies on the Silmarillion rather then the actual story the films were based on. Gandalf simply wasn't as powerful as his opponent (Sauron, servant of Melkor, was the most powerful Maia), and the Witch King was a direct link to the power of Melkor kind of like the Balrog (Also Maia), and Sauron himself, was.
If anyone's interested, here's some stills from the just-released DVD.
http://lotr.darthscreencapture.com/rotk.html
TTT
http://lotr.darthscreencapture.com/ttt.html
and FOTR
http://lotr.darthscreencapture.com/fotr.html
--
True, Gandalf was not as powerful as Sauron, by edict. He was forbidden to match his opponent in raw power. However, there is no such statement regarding the Witch King, and indeed, in the RTK (book) is is clear that the two are much more evenly matched. In the book, it is clear that both Shadowfax and Gandalf stand firm--the only ones able to do so--in the presence of the King of the Nazgul. One a more esoteric note, it is likely that both Gandalf and Sauran are, as you indicate, Maia. This places them both at a higher level of potency than the Nazgul, who were originally mortal men.Originally Posted by Madcap
More importantly, however, one of the primary roles of Gandalf--as the wearer of the Elven Ring Narya (the red ring)--is to kindle men's spirits. The book describes how the armies of Gondor are immediately uplifted when the White Rider approached. "Wherever he came men's hearts would lift again, and the winged shadows pass from memory." It is the power of Gandalf and the Red Ring to inspire the hearts of others. This, IMHO, is in direct opposition to the situation presented in the book, in which it is Aragorn who takes on this role. As another example, consider that in the book, it is Gandalf who advises the final attack on the black gate as a means to divert the attention of Sauron. In the movie, it is Aragorn who convinces a downcast Gandalf to engage in the same tactic. Again, this is a fundamental shift in character.
Regarding the situation at the black gate...the quote regading Gandalf is: "He cast aside his cloak and a white light shone forth like a sword in that black place. Before his upraised hand the Messenger recoiled..." From another perspective, it is just plain wrong for Aragorn to behead the messenger--because it was a violation of the rules of engagement in war. One does not slice of the head of one who has come to discuss terms or negotiate--even if they are an agent of the enemy. Hence, Aragorn's action--in the movie--is not one of nobility and lordship, but actually one that shows lack of restraint and lack of respect for tradition and the rules of war.
I know this is Jackson's interpretation, but I think that in this case it is an incorrect interpretation.
There's only us. There's only this. Forget regret, or life is yours to miss... --RENT
Do not taunt happy fun ball.![]()
Actually, in the Silmarillion it states flat out that Gandalf (Olarin by name, at that time) was a Maia, along with both Saruman, the Balrog, and Sauron. And it's true that the sequence with the Witch King goes a lot differently in the book, however, the King of Morgul is still a manifestation of Sauron's (Or Melkor's, rather) power. You'll note that even in the book Gandalf didn't fight him, just told him to go away.Originally Posted by DeepGreen
Also, consider this... When making a movie you don't have narrative to explain just how bad ass the Witch King really is. Filming it word for word would make the Witch King look, eh, less than intimidating. He's also in the book for about five pages total. You don't have Sauron, he never appears. Movies need a visible villain.
Got me there. Maybe Jackson was trying to indicate the ascention of Humans on the scene.As another example, consider that in the book, it is Gandalf who advises the final attack on the black gate as a means to divert the attention of Sauron. In the movie, it is Aragorn who convinces a downcast Gandalf to engage in the same tactic. Again, this is a fundamental shift in character.
In the real world those rules were followed about 1% of the time (Middle Earth would use Medieval rules). Plus, when dealing with an army of slavering Orcs hell bent on breaking the will of the the entire world the rules of war modify a little bit. I can't see Elves taking Orc POW's, and these are ELVES i am talking about. Humans would be a LOT more ruthless.it is just plain wrong for Aragorn to behead the messenger--because it was a violation of the rules of engagement in war. One does not slice of the head of one who has come to discuss terms or negotiate--even if they are an agent of the enemy. Hence, Aragorn's action--in the movie--is not one of nobility and lordship, but actually one that shows lack of restraint and lack of respect for tradition and the rules of war.
Bookmarks