Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

They are amazing with the extended scenes.

In the smallest of cases, the additions add simple action but in the most drastic ones, they change the entire story. It's well worth it in my opinion and it's a richer experience.

But if you're simply a casual fan of the films that's never read the books, perhaps you won't mind.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

The extra footage mostly fleshes out character development, stuff I wouldn't miss for the world now that I've seen them. Though there are some scenes that are a bit unnecessary (a lot of silly Gimli comic relief) I still prefer the Extended versions. I keep the theatricals just to have them, but I don't see myself going back to them.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I definitely prefer the pacing of the FOTR:TE to the FOTR:EE, but I seem to remember favoring TTT:EE over the TTT:TE. The jury is still out on ROTK:EE, as I haven't seen it yet.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

On the whole, I prefer the theatrical versions - the FotR: theatrical is MUCH better paced than the extended (leaner and tighter exactly when it needs to be), and the RotK: EE is just plain LONG (4 hours+). Both are worth watching in their extended forms, just to see the scenes that were excised, and certainly worth owning for the extras, which are still the high water mark for special features in a recent release.

That being said, I also prefer the TTT: Extended to its theatrical cousin. Of all the films, this one can afford to be given room to breathe, and breathe it does. Being a completist, I've got the theatricals and extendeds of all three. But if I had to choose just one set, it'd be the theatricals.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

The extended editions are worth keeping for the extras alone, fantastic!

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

The EEs are definitely the superior versions. Having read the books, there is much less "missing" from the EEs than the theatrical releases and the DTS-ES track is also worth it IMO, not to mention the extras. The EEs are definitely slower at times (ROTK in particular), but they are also providing significant details in many cases, that lend to a better telling of the story IMO.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Speaking as someone who never read the books, I prefer the EEs of all three films. For me they helped with what was going on better.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Hmm.. I have exactly the opposite feeling. FOTR EE and ROTK EE add back alot of vital story and character information from the books that were sadly missing from the theatrical versions. TT: EE contains alot more new and unnecessary footage not in the books than the other two films. It is also the slowest moving EE as the 1st half of TT really drags in the EE. But I would still take the EE's of any of the three over the Theatricals. The Theatricals are only for archive purposes now. I believe the EE's are musts for the book readers but for non-readers it seems to vary based on your patience level and love/hate for longer more detailed films and love of these particular films.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I thought the FOTR: EE was a huge improvement over the theatrical, and thought the extra footage really allowed the story to develop greater momentum and impact. I'll never go back to the theatrical for this one.

I also thought TTT: EE was a strong improvement as I found the extra scenes again quite important and worthwhile. There's something quite grand and moving about the extended version of TTT that the theatrical, for me, didn't quite match up to.

The ROTK: EE has a lot of amazing extra scenes but it's almost an embarrassment of riches. A lot of the new scenes are tremendous but the film itself is so long with them that I've never actually managed to get through the whole thing in one sitting. (I will one day, but you pretty much need a full afternoon to get through the extended version of this one). The bottom line for me though is that all three extended editions are extremely worthwhile and you should certainly try to watch them if you can - especially if you already own them! There's bound to be scenes in some or all of them where you'll go "Wow, why did they cut THAT out? This is great!", and you should find the viewings reward your time and attention.

As a side note, the extras (i.e the docos) are also outstanding if you haven't made your way through them yet, as are some of the commentart tracks.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I have never read the books, and I view the theatricals as "cliff notes" to the extended versions. I am a completist as well, and have all of the theatrical and extended cuts. The only reason I have the theatricals is for the extras (most notably the trailers), and I also do not see myself revisiting them. The only additional scene that almost serves to undermine what I saw in the theater is the premature reveal (IMO) of the army of the dead. I didn't have a problem with the Gimli stuff (not having read the books - except the first half of FotR - I had no preconceptions as to the character), but I was (am) very thankful that PJ left out Tom Bombadil (SP?). So, it really depends on what your expectations are.

Couldn't have said it better myself....

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

A book is a book and a movie is a movie. I've read the books and love them as much as the next person, and the movies just as much. But anyone who knows anything about editing knows that more isn't necessarily better just because it's more.

For me, the theatrical version of the FotR just flat-out moves better, where as the additional material brings the thing to a crawl where it should really be lean and quick.

As for RotK, some of the extra material is great stuff (Saruman's death, for example), some is redundant(the extra Corsair scenes) and some is neither necessary nor unnecessary (Eowyn and Faramir), but it's just a case where the additional material adds so much length to an already-long film, I prefer the more concise version.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I think LOTR has always been one of the few exceptions to that Book is a Book and a film is a film rule. This is a case of plot and character details and explanations being necessary for the understanding of the film and the characters for non-book readers and that detail being there to please book readers. So many non-book readers I talked too either scratched their heads or misunderstood so many parts of the theatrical editions but seeing the EE's explained most of those parts for them. I can't tell you how many times I heard non-book readers who had no idea what the stories were about refer to Frodo and the other hobbits as little boys (as in 10 year old kids). How could you blame them since the Theatrical Version left out the very important "concerning hobbits" segment that explains what a hobbit is just like the book did. Just one of many examples of why the EE's are much better. Showing the Gift Giving scene by Galadriel is another key part necessary for credibility later in the story so that it does not seem as if our hero's always have some special gadget to pull out of their back pocket whenever they need it.
Your reasons for FOTR and ROTK could be applied to TT as well since that film was already long and has the slowest pace of the 3 and the many unecessary added scenes to that EE make it even slower and feel like the longest film.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Bingo.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Out of both the theatrical and extended versions of all films, my favorite of the lot is the extended version of The Two Towers. I'm not sure exactly why, it just is.

Though both versions of each film are both long, for each of the theatricals, I found myself getting antsy sitting in the theater watching them. But when they released the extended versions of FOTR and TTT in theatres, I checked those out, and they actually felt shorter. Obviously that's not the case, but I thought the character and story development and pacing was so much better in the longer versions. I can't imagine watching the theatricals again.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

My post would be a virtual duplicate of Mark VH's original post, so I'll just refer you back to him.

When I rewatch the films, I do tend to go with the extended versions, tolerating the filler and the sheer length for the sake of those EE scenes that I find indispensible - the gift-giving, Faramir's backstory, Saruman's death, etc.

Owning the longer versions is a no-brainer. Any fan should. The real question is whether New Line will be able to compress the films skillfully enough in these new editions to make the previous ones redundant, or perhaps even inferior (for anyone just interested in the film's presentation, and not the exhaustive supplements included with the EEs). I'd let the eventual reviews of image quality guide my decision.

--Jefferson Morris

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

He was required to keep them under a certain time limit (3 hours, IIRC) in order to allow a certain number of viewings per screen per day. He knew up front that he'd be able to re-cut them for DVD however he liked.

I haven't watched either version of ROTK yet (read the books though), and I don't remember the differences in the two versions of FOTR, but the extra Faramir-related backstory in the extended cut of TTT is a MUST. It completely changes that subplot (by rendering it comprehensible!).

Ironically, TTT was the only one of the super-duper gift sets that I didn't buy. That Gollum figure was really goofy and the extra disc was lame. The statues and extra discs in the other two sets were great!

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Jon, try reading the books first. They're very good. However, if you find that they drag for you, don't give up on the films.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I thought the extended version of FOTR was perfect. Maybe it stretches things out a bit unnecessarily, but with a few exceptions, when I think on it, I can't even remember what was added.

The EE for TTT just felt a bit like overkill, but it may be due to the nature of the film. Basically, the filmmakers took TTT, the shortest of the three books, moved some of its matetrial into FOTR and a good hour or so worth of material into ROTK and beefed up a virtually nonexistent plot into a pretty good movie. I think the extended edition adds some good material, but the fan in me just wants it to end.

I have some mixed feelings about the extended editions of ROTK. I love most of the material they added, but it's just way too long. Actually, maybe it's best to just consider the EE of ROTK a two-part movie. Either way, I think most of the additions add to the story and really helped to balance it out. The theatrical version gave us too much at the beginning, sped right over the climax and slowed to a grinding hault for its resolution. Now, at least it feels like it's going at more or less the same speed throughout.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I think another thing people need to remember is - DVD and film are two different mediums, and as such are treated differently in many cases. Especially with these films. With tons of extras and added footage, these are meant to be enjoyed at your leisure, quite unlike a theater experience where you sit down at 1:00 and the film ends at 3:00. (Or whenever.)

When Peter Jackson went about editing these extended editions together, he wasn't (obviously) held to the same kind of constraints he was when editing the theatricals together, in terms of pairing them down to a specific length. My point is, of course there's going to be a difference with the various versions and how they "flow." They simply weren't constructed with the same mind set.

But there's nothing wrong with either version. It's OK to like the theatricals more, and it's certainly ok to prefer the extended editions. One is easily viewed in one sitting while the other isn't for many, other than the LOTR faithful. Although I'm sure there are exceptions to either rule.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I've always watched the EEs as if they were a mini-series. One disc per night which for me makes for a great viewing experience.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

As an LoTR novel fan, I clearly prefer the EEs. My parents, who have never read the books and probably never will, also preferred the EEs for just about every reason already stated (explained a lot, character development, etc.).

And every person I've had over to watch the EEs, whether they had read the novel or not, expressed mild to extreme preference of the EEs over the TEs.

I know it's only anecdotal evidence, but I thought I'd post it anyway just to add to the court of public opinion.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

EE's for me. FOTR in EE form is one of my favorite movies of all time. An ablosutely PERFECT movie. TTT was also improved greatly with the EE. I was actually a little dissapointed with the movie when I saw it in theaters, but it's grown on me over time, and the EE really helped with that. But one scene I didn't like was with Merry and Pippin on the Orc's backs with that little scenes that never made much sense to me. With ROTK, there's one thing I didn't like they put back in, all the extra stuff with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli with the ghosts. I thought it was better with it cutting away with Aragorn asking for help, then a surprise with them coming from the boat.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

FOTR - EE I prefer. Somehow, the movie flows much better. Having the concerning Hobbits in there is nice, (Though they actually cut some Frodo-Gandalf dialog for it. I only noticed when rewatching some scenes from my theatrical DVD) and I especially enjoy the dramatic beats added for the Fellowship leaving Rivendale, and then the gift giving scenes. The sense of time is also conveyed a little better. In the theatrical, it almost appears as if they leave Lothlorien, and then the breaking of the fellowship occurs in the very same day. Time has clearly passed in the EE though.

TTT - I almost think the theatrical cut flowed a bit better. Most of the Merry-Pippen stuff was fun the first time, but it doesn't do much for me on repeats. It seems to me that Two Towers was strong enough on its own in it's 2:50 original running time.

ROTK - This one I think is vastly superior in it's EE form in every way. I love the additional character moments we get for everyone. All the little bits between Aragorn and Eowyn, between Pippen and Gandalf, and of course Sam and Gollum add so much texture to the film that I realy love.

I also find the EE really sells the drama of the final stage of Frodo and Sam's journey through Mordor. Again in the books it took days to cross, yet in the film it appears to have been just a few hours. This being the toughing task done by hobbit kind in all history, I felt it was important to show just how difficult this really is, and all the added scenes here make the sequence stronger.

I am also impressed with one of the cosmetic changes, the scene where Pippen finds Merry on the battlefield. It was a great scene in the theatrical, but in the EE, it starts first with Pippen finding Merry's Lothlorien leaf dropped in battle, and then beginning his search. After the house of healing montage, we cut back to Pippen searching for Merry still, the same scene as from the theatrical, (a tad longer) but now colour timed differently so that it's dusk that he finds him at. With this cosmetic change, the passage of time is implied, and it is now clear that Pippen has been searching for hours for his friend, refusing to give up. The impact that makes is startling.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

First off, to clarify:

Peter Jackson's contract stipulates all three films run no more than 120 minutes. That's what the contract says (according to PJ himself). Those cuts don't work. The theatrical cuts include those scenes that round the film out and make it work - hence, these are the best working cuts in his opinion.

I agree - the theatrical cuts make the most sense and are the most elegantly edited versions. The extended cuts have fitful stop-go pacing and hairpin tonal shifts that the theatrical cuts don't have. They are also sloppy, contain redundancies and red herrings, and get sidetracked into issues that go nowhere and add nothing to the overall story.

They do gratify fans of the books, and fans of the films who want "more of the same" regardless of the esthetic consequences.

Exceptions: The Return of the King theatrical cut was already overlong. If I were PJ's editor, I would beg him to let me cut another 30-40 minutes out of the theatrical cut. The extended DVD would be ok at 3:20 minutes...but at 4 hours plus, King is a catastrophe.

The Two Towers extended cut has a couple of nice additions - if they had extended it by ten minutes it would have been the best of the three films. With 40 minutes of additions, the extended cut gains emotional resonance but loses momentum and coherance.

That's my opinion...

Fellowship - theatrical: A+ extended: A-
Two Towers - theatrical: A- extended: A
Return of the King - theatrical: A extended B-

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

Or they just don't agree there are any asthetic consequences.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

The theatricals are much better to me. I don't compare them to the books, I think of them as their own movies. With that in mind, I think the theatricals have much better pacing and the EE has alot of unnecessary scenes. Some are good though, but overall the theatricals are much better films to me.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

I think you would be confused by certain things in ROTK if you did not see the EE of FOTR and TTT.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

That's not in the TE of FOTR if memory serves...

I say EE of FOTR and TTT, TE of ROTK. Some of the additions in ROTK slowed things down and disrupted the flow of the story IMHO. Plus, it changed alot of the meaning of what was happening toward the end, and not for the better. PLus, wasn't it long enough already? I think it was a perfect cut, as is.

Re: Lord of the Rings Extended vs. Theatrical

It was. That's the only gift you see given.


In my mind, the theatrical cuts are only superior to the extended cuts if you MUST watch one of the films in a single sitting. The pacing keeps the momentum going so that it doesn't feel like three hours.

As for my own viewing - I do it Epic style. Watch the first half one night, and finish it the next. These movies are too long to watch at once (IMO), but that in no way hinders the quality of the films if you ask me. I watch all my favorite big epics this way - Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Gettysburg, Hamlet, etc. It makes it all so much more of an event than a simple movie - and why not? LotR is my very favorite story, after all.