If you don't want to do the marathon viewing for the premiere of RotK, I think the Special Edititon versions will be playing in the previous 2 weeks leading to opening night. Don't know which theaters though.
"From December 5 - 11, the studio will release 100-150 35mm prints of the Special Extended Edition of The Fellowship of the Ring in cities across the country. On December 12 - 15, these prints will be replaced with Special Extended Edition prints of The Two Towers. On Monday, December 8, and Monday, December 15, both films will be presented back-to-back. Then, on Tuesday, December 16, participating theaters will show a one-time-only marathon of both Extended Edition prints followed by an 11pm screening of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The official opening of the film will commence at 12:01 AM on Wednesday, December 17, 2003."
The story line modifications in TT were just too much and uncalled for.
What? You got a problem with Frodo in Osgiliath You got a problem with Faramir being a total ass? You got a problem with Elves and Helms Deep? You got a problem with Samwise giving Pep Speeches!
Just another thought about how PJ (as we have so effctionately come to call him) could have taken care of a big dose of my complaints:
LOTRs is essentially about the LAND of middle earth . . . one thing that makes these films so close to succeeding completely is that PJ actually understands this to a small extent and uses a landscape worthy of the action.
The problem is is that he doesn't allow the landscape a voice of its own: its chopped into little fly by sequences and quick-pans.
If you don't understand what I m saying then I think you might be missing one of the important emotions that the LotRs books is about: the endurance of the LAND: the ancientness of the story of which this episode is merely a blurb.
He needs to have at least some establishing shots where the landsccape is still (or slow-panned) from a distance, with little or no music, at least once for every major scene shift.
For instance they spend a shiitload of money to build the Roharim's castle to scale on that beautiful hillside yet the scenes are so fast that it might as well have been a a CG model. You don't get the sense that it is a place that has endured and been there, or is in anyway noteworthy and worth feeling an emotion over:
... if you could establish this sense of place then the depth of the characters and their special qualities (*Hier to the race of Numenor" " king of the horse-riders" ancient race of Elves, etc etc) would find a resonance
as it stands most people feel these things simply because they know the books and carry it into the movies
(movie one was awesome because of Kate Blanchet's Voice over: she provided that sense of granduer and ancient landscape . . . and her Voice Overs in the TT were the best parts of that movie as well)
Once thing I missed was the indignance. In TTT the first meeting with the Rohan Riders was much more intense. This set a precedence. That Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas would not submit to anyone on this quest. Sure Gimli talked some smack and Legolas backed him up but the scene could have been more powerful.
In that same vein PJ whiffed on the "crew" entering Rohan to meet Theoden. In the book they ALL refuse to surrender their weapons. Aragorn even promises death to anyone who touches Narsil. That's a bold statement. A statement worthy of a "King" who realizes the bloodlines of that storied Sword. I felt Aragorn came off too sympathetic in the scenes..the indignance wasn't there. I want more attitude...more edge in RotK. I can't wait.
I looks like the extended DVD might save TTT. Can't much fix Frodo in Osgiliath, though it really wouldn't harm the story if they fleshed it out right -- ie, faramir's struggle with the ring. Putting him in Osgiliath is one way to show that he's thinking about it, or dramatically demonstrate that he's about to give it up to his father, but the scene comes off confused and flat. If the extended version can do a better job here, at explaining Boromir/Faramir and setting up the Steward ('s madness), it might come off as PJ initially intended, be truer despite the geography, and repair the portrayal of Faramir.
Likewise, TTT extended can get a little more time for the intrigue of Rohan's court (not badly done, actually) but still give Eowen-Theoden-Aragorn some more time/lines to make the character adjustments stick.
Samwise? Can't fix the speechifying, unless they edit it out! HAHA, never liked Sean Astin much myself, and have my doubts about whether he can really become "the great elven warrior" post Shelob's Lair. We'll see what they conjure for RoTK.
CGI Gollum, pretty good as far as I'm concerned.
Could get a little more Ent time.
There really is a lot to do in TTT, and some fancy compression is needed to cover time, geography, character and plot. Would we have done better? I might have, but there is the possibility of being too faithful in the same way that Branagh can butcher a Shakespearean production, sorry, but it's true. A script, or a textual source for an adapted script still requires a great deal of creativity and change, literal reproductions tend to be boring. Which is not to say that some of you haven't suggested stylistic improvements, you have, and some of them could have been better, but generally I think that regardless of PJ tells us in the DVD supplemental material, the "REAL" films are the extended versions, and the theatrical releases just had to bow to the pressure of condensing the story down to 3 hours. Any more and they would lose one additional screening each day, and time for trailers, and that means less box office potential. I hope they have some balls and just make the "theatrical version" of RoTK the true, complete, extended version.
In that respect, we still don't have reason to believe that certain aspects can't survive the translation to film in RoTK. FoTR was a great intro and well done in both theatrical and extended versions. TTT was weak by comparison, but it is not unsalvagable if the extended version makes the right adjustments.
"Go Ape" days, when the Planet of the apes series was in full swing, many theaters would have these back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back screenings all day, you pay one intial cost, stay for whichever ones you want, get snacks in between...etc.
Just another thought about how PJ (as we have so effctionately come to call him) could have taken care of a big dose of my complaints:
LOTRs is essentially about the LAND of middle earth . . . one thing that makes these films so close to succeeding completely is that PJ actually understands this to a small extent and uses a landscape worthy of the action. ...
I don't agree with that at all. The journey is only the back drop to the real story about the races of middle earth. It is of course a reflection of human nature. So it's essentially about humanity and the land is only the pin ball game they bounce around in.
I don't agree with that at all. The journey is only the back drop to the real story about the races of middle earth. It is of course a reflection of human nature. So it's essentially about humanity and the land is only the pin ball game they bounce around in.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but Tolkein didn't believe it was anything specific. He believe that whatever it meant to you was what it meant for you.
Just out of curiosity, how many have read the book? For those who have read it, what are your opinions? LoTR was voted book of the century in England in 1997 and I believe it was later voted book of the century and millenium in the US. I agree with those sentiments. I've read it, and because of that I believe that the ROTK will be better the the first two combined.
Also, I read that some select theaters will be showing back to back screenings.
I have read the book - hundreds of times. The movies have been a let down. The are just plain action movies. The history and feeling are missing. The major sense of loss - the loss of an innocent time - is not apparent in the movies at all. I agree with the rest of England. The best, no doubt.
I have read the book - hundreds of times. The movies have been a let down. The are just plain action movies. The history and feeling are missing. The major sense of loss - the loss of an innocent time - is not apparent in the movies at all. I agree with the rest of England. The best, no doubt.
I can understand your sentiments. I saw the first two movies before I read the books. I couldn't wait a year to find out what happened, so for Christmas I received a really nice copy of the trilogy and read them plus the Hobbit in about a 3 week time span.
If I had read the books before seeing the films, like you, I may have been disappointed (actually, I know I would've), but fortunately I didn't and as much as I liked the movies, the books just added the extra details that typically get left out when Hollywood makes a movie about a book. Afterall, everyone always says that books are better than the movies made about them.
The reason I know I would've been disappointed was because before seeing The Two Towers (check that link out) a friend told me that Haldir and the elves didn't actually fight at Helmes Deep, and so when I saw that in the film I was initially disappointed but figured Peter Jackson included them for some reason (I can only speculate as to why).
I still love the movies, though. They're the best movies I've ever seen and I believe the reason I can so easily disregard the slight modifications in LoTR is because I understand the Peter Jackson had to condense the books into three 3 hour movies, which would be a difficult task and still make them good. Also, I read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies; as you can tell from my responses above, I thought the director did a terrible job of capturing the book unless you're a child and don't care about the details that make a movie good, e.g. character devolopement and plot developement.
I can understand your sentiments. I saw the first two movies before I read the books. I couldn't wait a year to find out what happened, so for Christmas I received a really nice copy of the trilogy and read them plus the Hobbit in about a 3 week time span.
If I had read the books before seeing the films, like you, I may have been disappointed (actually, I know I would've), but fortunately I didn't and as much as I liked the movies, the books just added the extra details that typically get left out when Hollywood makes a movie about a book. Afterall, everyone always says that books are better than the movies made about them.
The reason I know I would've been disappointed was because before seeing The Two Towers (check that link out) a friend told me that Haldir and the elves didn't actually fight at Helmes Deep, and so when I saw that in the film I was initially disappointed but figured Peter Jackson included them for some reason (I can only speculate as to why).
I still love the movies, though. They're the best movies I've ever seen and I believe the reason I can so easily disregard the slight modifications in LoTR is because I understand the Peter Jackson had to condense the books into three 3 hour movies, which would be a difficult task and still make them good. Also, I read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies; as you can tell from my responses above, I thought the director did a terrible job of capturing the book unless you're a child and don't care about the details that make a movie good, e.g. character devolopement and plot developement.
I agree with you in many ways. It is almost impossible to get the best aspects of a book into a movie. PJ had to make a movie that would sell - and these movies have tied to strike a balance between honoring the book and pleasing the masses. I guess they do that well.
I do own the extended FOTR DVD and find it a much better movie. I still don't like the cast much but it is a much better film. I will also buy the TT extended DVD and rush out to see the ROTK.
If anyone's interested, the trailer that's been in theaters for a couple of weeks is supposed to be posted later today (Monday) at http://www.lordoftherings.net .
IMO the real let down from the books to the movie is the way the different races interact. Why are elves immortal and humans not. Why are hobbits seemingly immune to the power of the ring? Where do the dwarves fit in with the other two. What is the dawn of men and why are the elves fading away. It's all lost.
How much does LOTR really get into all that stuff anyway? There's the Appendixes, but don't you have to read the Silmarillion to really understand all that?
Nothing is more difficult to make a movie from a giant saga like LOTR. The movie tend to be more simplistic than the book, especially if the book is incredibely rich.
The movie has choosen to be narrative, and elude the metaphysical and the spiritual aspects of the book. But could it be different. It could have, but at the risk to make the story obscure.
Remember the movie Dune from Lynch, did someone who did not read the book understandsomething to it ? It was gorgious images, metaphysical views, but it was impossible to get the storie of Dune in that movie. Impossible to understand the Fremen, their culture, the interelations between the guilds ...
Dune is an universe in itself, like LOTR, movie can only discribe a small part or some aspects of it. Don't expect to replace a book by a movie, just enjoy them in a different way.
The RotK trailer is going to have to be good. The Matrix Revolutions trailer was better than I thought it would be. I know there are a few goodies that PJ will let us see for this trailer. I can't wait!
Comments
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1061833596
This paragraph from the above link has me stoked:
"From December 5 - 11, the studio will release 100-150 35mm prints of the Special Extended Edition of The Fellowship of the Ring in cities across the country. On December 12 - 15, these prints will be replaced with Special Extended Edition prints of The Two Towers. On Monday, December 8, and Monday, December 15, both films will be presented back-to-back. Then, on Tuesday, December 16, participating theaters will show a one-time-only marathon of both Extended Edition prints followed by an 11pm screening of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The official opening of the film will commence at 12:01 AM on Wednesday, December 17, 2003."
Can't wait!!
Originally posted by Scott
The story line modifications in TT were just too much and uncalled for.
What? You got a problem with Frodo in Osgiliath
LOTRs is essentially about the LAND of middle earth . . . one thing that makes these films so close to succeeding completely is that PJ actually understands this to a small extent and uses a landscape worthy of the action.
The problem is is that he doesn't allow the landscape a voice of its own: its chopped into little fly by sequences and quick-pans.
If you don't understand what I m saying then I think you might be missing one of the important emotions that the LotRs books is about: the endurance of the LAND: the ancientness of the story of which this episode is merely a blurb.
He needs to have at least some establishing shots where the landsccape is still (or slow-panned) from a distance, with little or no music, at least once for every major scene shift.
For instance they spend a shiitload of money to build the Roharim's castle to scale on that beautiful hillside yet the scenes are so fast that it might as well have been a a CG model. You don't get the sense that it is a place that has endured and been there, or is in anyway noteworthy and worth feeling an emotion over:
... if you could establish this sense of place then the depth of the characters and their special qualities (*Hier to the race of Numenor" " king of the horse-riders" ancient race of Elves, etc etc) would find a resonance
as it stands most people feel these things simply because they know the books and carry it into the movies
(movie one was awesome because of Kate Blanchet's Voice over: she provided that sense of granduer and ancient landscape . . . and her Voice Overs in the TT were the best parts of that movie as well)
Once thing I missed was the indignance. In TTT the first meeting with the Rohan Riders was much more intense. This set a precedence. That Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas would not submit to anyone on this quest. Sure Gimli talked some smack and Legolas backed him up but the scene could have been more powerful.
In that same vein PJ whiffed on the "crew" entering Rohan to meet Theoden. In the book they ALL refuse to surrender their weapons. Aragorn even promises death to anyone who touches Narsil. That's a bold statement. A statement worthy of a "King" who realizes the bloodlines of that storied Sword. I felt Aragorn came off too sympathetic in the scenes..the indignance wasn't there. I want more attitude...more edge in RotK. I can't wait.
Likewise, TTT extended can get a little more time for the intrigue of Rohan's court (not badly done, actually) but still give Eowen-Theoden-Aragorn some more time/lines to make the character adjustments stick.
Samwise? Can't fix the speechifying, unless they edit it out! HAHA, never liked Sean Astin much myself, and have my doubts about whether he can really become "the great elven warrior" post Shelob's Lair. We'll see what they conjure for RoTK.
CGI Gollum, pretty good as far as I'm concerned.
Could get a little more Ent time.
There really is a lot to do in TTT, and some fancy compression is needed to cover time, geography, character and plot. Would we have done better? I might have, but there is the possibility of being too faithful in the same way that Branagh can butcher a Shakespearean production, sorry, but it's true. A script, or a textual source for an adapted script still requires a great deal of creativity and change, literal reproductions tend to be boring. Which is not to say that some of you haven't suggested stylistic improvements, you have, and some of them could have been better, but generally I think that regardless of PJ tells us in the DVD supplemental material, the "REAL" films are the extended versions, and the theatrical releases just had to bow to the pressure of condensing the story down to 3 hours. Any more and they would lose one additional screening each day, and time for trailers, and that means less box office potential. I hope they have some balls and just make the "theatrical version" of RoTK the true, complete, extended version.
In that respect, we still don't have reason to believe that certain aspects can't survive the translation to film in RoTK. FoTR was a great intro and well done in both theatrical and extended versions. TTT was weak by comparison, but it is not unsalvagable if the extended version makes the right adjustments.
"Go Ape" days, when the Planet of the apes series was in full swing, many theaters would have these back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back screenings all day, you pay one intial cost, stay for whichever ones you want, get snacks in between...etc.
Here's to a "go nerd" day for the LotR trilogy
Originally posted by pfflam
Just another thought about how PJ (as we have so effctionately come to call him) could have taken care of a big dose of my complaints:
LOTRs is essentially about the LAND of middle earth . . . one thing that makes these films so close to succeeding completely is that PJ actually understands this to a small extent and uses a landscape worthy of the action. ...
I don't agree with that at all. The journey is only the back drop to the real story about the races of middle earth. It is of course a reflection of human nature. So it's essentially about humanity and the land is only the pin ball game they bounce around in.
Originally posted by Scott
I don't agree with that at all. The journey is only the back drop to the real story about the races of middle earth. It is of course a reflection of human nature. So it's essentially about humanity and the land is only the pin ball game they bounce around in.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but Tolkein didn't believe it was anything specific. He believe that whatever it meant to you was what it meant for you.
Originally posted by X X
Just out of curiosity, how many have read the book? For those who have read it, what are your opinions? LoTR was voted book of the century in England in 1997 and I believe it was later voted book of the century and millenium in the US. I agree with those sentiments. I've read it, and because of that I believe that the ROTK will be better the the first two combined.
Also, I read that some select theaters will be showing back to back screenings.
I have read the book - hundreds of times. The movies have been a let down. The are just plain action movies. The history and feeling are missing. The major sense of loss - the loss of an innocent time - is not apparent in the movies at all. I agree with the rest of England. The best, no doubt.
Originally posted by anand
I have read the book - hundreds of times. The movies have been a let down. The are just plain action movies. The history and feeling are missing. The major sense of loss - the loss of an innocent time - is not apparent in the movies at all. I agree with the rest of England. The best, no doubt.
I can understand your sentiments. I saw the first two movies before I read the books. I couldn't wait a year to find out what happened, so for Christmas I received a really nice copy of the trilogy and read them plus the Hobbit in about a 3 week time span.
If I had read the books before seeing the films, like you, I may have been disappointed (actually, I know I would've), but fortunately I didn't and as much as I liked the movies, the books just added the extra details that typically get left out when Hollywood makes a movie about a book. Afterall, everyone always says that books are better than the movies made about them.
The reason I know I would've been disappointed was because before seeing The Two Towers (check that link out) a friend told me that Haldir and the elves didn't actually fight at Helmes Deep, and so when I saw that in the film I was initially disappointed but figured Peter Jackson included them for some reason (I can only speculate as to why).
I still love the movies, though. They're the best movies I've ever seen and I believe the reason I can so easily disregard the slight modifications in LoTR is because I understand the Peter Jackson had to condense the books into three 3 hour movies, which would be a difficult task and still make them good. Also, I read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies; as you can tell from my responses above, I thought the director did a terrible job of capturing the book unless you're a child and don't care about the details that make a movie good, e.g. character devolopement and plot developement.
Originally posted by X X
I can understand your sentiments. I saw the first two movies before I read the books. I couldn't wait a year to find out what happened, so for Christmas I received a really nice copy of the trilogy and read them plus the Hobbit in about a 3 week time span.
If I had read the books before seeing the films, like you, I may have been disappointed (actually, I know I would've), but fortunately I didn't and as much as I liked the movies, the books just added the extra details that typically get left out when Hollywood makes a movie about a book. Afterall, everyone always says that books are better than the movies made about them.
The reason I know I would've been disappointed was because before seeing The Two Towers (check that link out) a friend told me that Haldir and the elves didn't actually fight at Helmes Deep, and so when I saw that in the film I was initially disappointed but figured Peter Jackson included them for some reason (I can only speculate as to why).
I still love the movies, though. They're the best movies I've ever seen and I believe the reason I can so easily disregard the slight modifications in LoTR is because I understand the Peter Jackson had to condense the books into three 3 hour movies, which would be a difficult task and still make them good. Also, I read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies; as you can tell from my responses above, I thought the director did a terrible job of capturing the book unless you're a child and don't care about the details that make a movie good, e.g. character devolopement and plot developement.
I agree with you in many ways. It is almost impossible to get the best aspects of a book into a movie. PJ had to make a movie that would sell - and these movies have tied to strike a balance between honoring the book and pleasing the masses. I guess they do that well.
I do own the extended FOTR DVD and find it a much better movie. I still don't like the cast much but it is a much better film. I will also buy the TT extended DVD and rush out to see the ROTK.
Originally posted by anand
I have read the book - hundreds of times.
Originally posted by BRussell
And yes, I did not get laid untill I was 25!
The movie has choosen to be narrative, and elude the metaphysical and the spiritual aspects of the book. But could it be different. It could have, but at the risk to make the story obscure.
Remember the movie Dune from Lynch, did someone who did not read the book understandsomething to it ? It was gorgious images, metaphysical views, but it was impossible to get the storie of Dune in that movie. Impossible to understand the Fremen, their culture, the interelations between the guilds ...
Dune is an universe in itself, like LOTR, movie can only discribe a small part or some aspects of it. Don't expect to replace a book by a movie, just enjoy them in a different way.