LOTR: TTT - Platinum Series Special Extended Edition (2 Viewers)

[Jeff Kleist]

Conroy, since the books are the source of the movies, and have been around about 50 years longer it's not a beauty, but IMO your loss that you've missed out on them thus far

And if rumors are true, the destruction wreaked in TTT will pale in compare to the outright raping that ROTK is getting.

 

[Eric Berger]

Looks like a fantastic set. I, for one, am thrilled they are going to have four commentaries on this set as well.

 

[Matt<>Broon]

And if rumors are true, the destruction wreaked in TTT will pale in compare to the outright raping that ROTK is getting.

Oh dear. Normally I stay clear of spoilers but if you can point me in the direction of these rumours that would be great.

I was horrified at some of the changes in TTT and had hoped RotK would be a welcome return to being mostly faithful to the book. :frowning:

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

And if rumors are true, the destruction wreaked in TTT will pale in compare to the outright raping that ROTK is getting.

Spoken with the hyperbolic manner only Jeff Kleist could muster!
That said, while I am normally one for giving adaptations room to breathe, all the changes mentioned in this thread (plus the contradictions forced upon the Ents) are to the severe detriment of the final product.


And is it just me, or do the extras on the Appendices look close to exactly the same as those found on the FOTR set?

 

[Craig S]

...if you can point me in the direction of these rumours that would be great.

The One Ring.net tracks these things pretty closely. There's also much rumor discussion in the TTT/RotK spoiler thread over in the movies section.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

OK, I hadn't seen a debunk on the spoilered rumor, but if it's official and confirmed to be untrue I will tone down from "raping"

However, the Scouring should NEVER have been taken out. I could cut it down to less than 10 minutes of screentime, and the invented "solution" to it is HIGHLY unsatisfactory.

 

[FredK]

And if rumors are true, the destruction wreaked in TTT will pale in compare to the outright raping that ROTK is getting.

I hope not, even some of the actors were surprised by what was filmed and what was shown, it went from a powerful drama to an (IMO pretty good) action film.

I'll get the EE, no gift set. I'm surprised everything about Gollum isn't part of the appendices, he's about the only thing I'm still interested in. The FOTR set was enough for me, and the TTT:EE material does look similar. Will ROTK:EE be more stale without the possibility of a Gollum like cinematic accomplishment?

On the other hand about TTT:EE, the commentaries have me pretty excited.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Jeff,
That's the price you pay for living in a society that has not 100% read the source book. PJ must serve BOTH audiences as best he can. They have to take some stuff they don't want, and you have to accept some changes.

It might not be the best film FOR YOU, but it seems to suit the different audiences. I trust what PJ is doing. I called him where I thought he failed THE FILM in TTT. But he hasn't failed the book.

IMO,
Chuck

 

[Jeff Kleist]

That's the price you pay for living in a society that has not 100% read the source book. PJ must serve BOTH audiences as best he can. They have to take some stuff they don't want, and you have to accept some changes.

There was no need to make said changes though, 100% no need, just PJ's need to change things to fit his personal whims.

 

[Richard Kim]

However, the Scouring should NEVER have been taken out. I could cut it down to less than 10 minutes of screentime, and the invented "solution" to it is HIGHLY unsatisfactory.

I agree 100% with Jeff on this one. I was very dissapointed when I heard the Scouring was not to be included in the film.

Hopefully, the theatrical TT DVD will include the rebate for the EE, like they did with FOTR.

 

[Jeff Adams]

Can't wait till 11/18!!!! Another great dvd! Can you say DVD of the year? FOTR EE is easily one of my favorite dvd's in my entire 400 disc collection if not the best. I am hoping TTT EE adds some more depth to the movie as it did with FOTR. I thoroughly enjoyed both films and it is really hard to compare TTT to FOTR, IMO they are both totally different movies and FOTR was a masterpiece. FredK put it perfect.

even some of the actors were surprised by what was filmed and what was shown, it went from a powerful drama to an (IMO pretty good) action film

That is exactly how I feel. FOTR was an epic drama that I don't think will ever be matched and TTT transitions from a drama into a really good action movie. Anyway, I am anxiously waiting for TTT EE, it will be everything in my power not to buy the first edeition coming out soon.

 

[Neil Joseph]

it will be everything in my power not to buy the first edeition coming out soon.

I wish I could say the same. I missed TTT theatrically and that still amazes me so unfortunately I will have to buy the SE version then sell it in November.

 

[Jeff Adams]

I didn't miss TTT at the theater. I saw it 4 times so a rental for me will hold me over till November. I might still buy it though now that my friend buys all my old dvd movies.

 

[Jack _Webster]

I don't know where the exact article is, but I know for a fact that PJ is quoted as saying that RotK would be the film that remained closest to the book.

 

[Brent Hutto]

I have my own list of unfortunate "they didn't have to do that" differences between Peter Jackson's movie and Tolkien's book. That said, Tolkien created Middle Earth in part because he felt that English-speaking people lacked a shared mythology that was uniquely their own. So the fact that PJ chose to tell his own story, set against that mythological backdrop, is hardly unfair usage of the source material. I'm certainly happy to have his movie in existence because I enjoy it greatly.

None of that dulls the disappointment when a favorite character or scene (from the book) shows up on the screen except--it's not the character or scene that you were looking forward to at all! That disappointment doesn't make it a bad movie or mean that Jackson is doing violence to Tolkien's work but it sure does seem like such as waste in so many cases.

Just to name one, the Theoden "exorcism". Is there anyone who doesn't believe that Bernard Hill could have found a way through actual "acting" to convey Theoden's transfomation from an old, weak man poisoned by whispered lies and seductive half-truths into a warrior king when confronted with the truth in the person of Gandalf? Hey, it wouldn't be quite like a Hollywood monster movie and you wouldn't get to see Saruman knocked on his butt 100 miles away by Gandalf's staff pointed at Theoden but it would be a very affecting scene.

I really think that most of my disappointments with Peter Jackson stem from his lack of trust in his actors to convey the interior flow that Tolkien puts into the minds of his characters. Hey, Tolkien was no great character dramatist and he managed to do it on paper. Fine actors working with a good director and screenwriter could do it on the big screen. This movie has really, really top-drawer acting talent but except for Frodo and Sam it tends to be frittered away whenever Jackson dumbs down the plot.

 

[Gary->dee]

I haven't read the books so I'm accepting Jackson's version as the great cinematic experience that it is. I have an ex-gf who refused to see these movies because she did read the books and can't accept any changes. Anyway I'll be holding out for the EE as I did a year ago with FOTR EE. No rental of the theatrical version for me!

 

[Marvin Richardson]

I'm just glad I can seperate the two of them in my mind. "The Lord of the Rings" is my all-time favorite novel (I read it once a year...for the last 17 years), and now "The Lord of the Rings" is my all-time favorite movie. And guess what, they aren't the same. GASP! Oh no, Peter Jackson should be strung up! Next he'll be bastardizing King Kong! He has no creativity!

 

[Ricardo C]

Thanks for the condescension there, Marvin

What's acceptable to you isn't necessarily acceptable to me, and neither position is "right" or "wrong". If a liberal adaptation of the text pleases you, more power to you. I'd rather Jackson didn't introduce unnecessary changes to the plot, something he (for the most part) successfully managed with FOTR.

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

*sigh* More bitching about the changes made in the films. IMHO, the best solution is to throw out any belief you had/have that an LOTR movie should be a perfect, 100% faithful adaptation of the book. It cannot be done, it will not be done, and Peter Jackson never intended to do it.

In fact, I'd love to see what your reactions would have been if one of the earlier drafts were filmed; from the changes I've read about that were later reversed, bringing the film closer to the book, you'd practically be flying to New Zealand to set fire to Jackson's office, you'd be so angry. Be grateful that we got an adaptation this faithful to the book (it's one of the most faithful film adaptations of a novel that I have ever seen).

The movies are not the books on film. They're creations of Peter Jackson, based on Tolkien's books. End of rant.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Thanks for the condescension there, Marvin

You're welcome. Sorry if I offended you. Seriously...was just being sarcastic.

Seems to me though, if you go into a movie based on a book and sit there comparing it to the book thinking "Why did they change that? It was fine the way it was!" you are never going to enjoy the movie as its own being. It isn't taking over or corrupting Tolkien's vision, its an interpretation of it. If you want to get technical about it, any die-hard Tolkien purist should boycott the movie on general principal, as Tolkien hated movies and wouldn't have approved of the movie even if it had been a word for word translation and had run 30 hours.