Return of the Kind extended edition

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm embarassed to admit it, but if Kate Beckinsale is in it... I'd watch it again.

I'd see it just for the airplanes.....and kate beckinsale.

[jigsaw]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'd see it just for the airplanes.....and kate beckinsale.

I think my DVD player is trained to skip any scene not containing one of those two things.

[Engine]

Originally posted by Sandman
Possibly, but the LOTR set was better than nothing... or at the very least, better than this.

No argument there.  I think Jackson's trilogy was absolutely stunning, but I also think it's disrespectful to claim "I'm trying to stay true!" while altering characters and story to the extent that he did.  The weird thing is, many of the changes took more time and weren't as powerful as Tolkien's version.

WTF was up with the hobbits being political ninjas?

[Naso]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I have to say the LOTR series is the best thing to come out of Hollywood in the last 20 years if not ever.
 

I hate to be picky, but one thing MUST be clear.

LOTR it's NOT an Hollywood movie.

I repeat.

It's NOT an Hollywood movie.

Has been filmed, edited, and worked entirely in New Zealand.

It's a kiwi movie.

With the only exception of the soundtrack, recorded in England.

[fd ski]

I have never read the books and do not care how he deviated in minor ways.

I am going to commit Tolkien blasphemy, and say that all three of the extended additions are better then the books. Why? Because I have tried to get through the books so many times and they bore me to tears.

So basically it's "i never eaten vanilla icecream but i licked vanilla once and it definatelly is better then vanilla icecream even if i never tasted it" right ?

I read all 3 books before going to see the movie. The only way i can describe it is:
Movie is a wonderful 3 hours trip into world of fantasy, hobbits and all that other happy crap.

Book ( each one ) is 3 days ( depending on how fast you read ) or 3 weeks trip into the same.

Basically difference between watching porn or having sex yourself

[rpm]

LOTR was interesting when I was a pimply faced teenager. I think I've still got my 12-sided die around somewhere if you want it.

[Pongo]

At one end of the special features you have literary guys saying the genius of tolkien was that he wrote a book in a form that was thought impossible. And all through the extended stuff you have Pete and his cow of a writer saying that you cant make a movie that way.

Most of what they buchered was to pacify the actors. They took long enough to tell the whole story but they chose to add crap to the story and that pushed out alot of Tolkiens story. In no place where they added to the basic story did they improve it.

I loved how Sauruman was now on a 50 ft tower instead of the same tower being 500 ft high in the first movie. They just wanted to add that scene so they did a quick shot of it with the prop they had which was only meant to show the top of the tower.
It was suddenly like a monty python prop.

[wrag]

IMHO Several key happening that were in the book were not in the movie or those happening were altered in a major way.

Example : I do not recall the ghost/spirit army of the people that were cursed for betraying the trust/agreement and that hid under the mountain actually reaching the pellenor fields?  Nor did that spirit army actually attack anyone?

As I recall the battle of the pellenor fields was fought by the men of Gondar and their allies (like Rohan) and only the living were involved on their side against Sauron and his minions.

It is still a good movie but .....

[Charon]

I do not recall the ghost/spirit army of the people that were cursed for betraying the trust/agreement and that hid under the mountain actually reaching the pellenor fields? Nor did that spirit army actually attack anyone?

As I recall the battle of the pellenor fields was fought by the men of Gondar and their allies (like Rohan) and only the living were involved on their side against Sauron and his minions.

That is correct. They appeared and drove the corsairs away from the boats, which were then used to sail the collected army of Gondor and its souther allies and rangers to the battle.

With a work the size of LOTR some changes needed to be made for compression and clarity. Some cuts needed to be made. I suppose it wasn't too bad doing all the equal rights/romance Arowyn stuff. But some changes were made that seemd casual and haphazard as if Jackson had to impart his "vision" to something that really didn't need it.

Charon

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Naso
I hate to be picky, but one thing MUST be clear.

LOTR it's NOT an Hollywood movie.

I repeat.

It's NOT an Hollywood movie.

Has been filmed, edited, and worked entirely in New Zealand.

It's a kiwi movie.

With the only exception of the soundtrack, recorded in England.

It was funded by new line cinema (time warner)  so it has hollyweird roots.

[Elfie]

Considering how badly some movies deviate from the books they are suppossed to portray I dont think LotR movies deviated from the books in a major way.

I have read the books twice now and have seen the movies repeatedly.

I think they did a great job on the movies.