Two Towers - Extended DVD

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Absolutely fantastic.



I have one complaint, in the cast commentary Sean Astin and Elijah Wood need to shut the $$$$ up. I'm serious, they need to just shut the $$$$ up. They so enthusiastically offer their 7th-grade-level analysis of the themes of the story while throwing around SAT words I want to kill them.



And all the while Andy Serkis, who would actually be worth listening to, is rolled right over repeatedly.



Jesus Christ, fellas, you were in Encino Man and Flipper, let's just shut the hell up already and let Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd be funny.



Fantastic stuff.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Ah, you've hit upon BRussell's 37th lesson of life: Actor commentaries suck.



    I love commentaries. But actor commentaries? Everyone say it with me now...
  • Reply 2 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Ah, you've hit upon BRussell's 37th lesson of life: Actor commentaries suck.



    I love commentaries. But actor commentaries? Everyone say it with me now...




    i agree, except i do like hugh grant commentaries.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    i agree, except i do like hugh grant commentaries.



    Never heard one.



    But Groverat's right, the difference on the LOTR DVDs between the writers/director, which are fascinating, and the actors, which are pathetic, is quite profound.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    akumulatorakumulator Posts: 1,111member
    I love the extended dvd... both Two Towers and Fellowship. I've never listened to a commentary. I'm not sure why.... just never got around to it.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    SPINAL TAP has good commentaries by the actors...in character.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    The Two Towers extended movie was excellent, especially compared to the travesty that was the Fellowship extended edition.



    What you say? Fellowship of the Ring? Travesty?



    Yeah, I hated the extended version of Fellowship. The theater version was excellent. But the extended version just didn't fit. The added scenes didn't add anything, the pacing was all off, and it just felt too long.



    The Two Towers, however, really benefitted from the extended release. The addition at the beginning of the rendezvous between the Isengard and Morder Orcs was excellent, and added a missing element of the story line. There were also lots of other great little additions.



    So that's my take. Weee, 8 days till Return of the King.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Because those guys are not self-important.



    Dom and Billy (who play Merry and Pippin) were hilarious.



    Self-important actors are the problem.



    I don't give two shits about Sean Astin talking how not being able to whip out his full acting arsenal (YOU WERE RUDY FOR FUCK'S SAKE!) in playing Sam.



    When anyone starts using words like "amazing", "unbelievable" to describe Elijah Wood I want to stab myself in the brain with the remote.



    The only actor out of the bunch that I can think of who could justifiably take himself seriously is Ian McKellen who does fantastic work all the time (Gods and Monsters is greatness), and maybe... MAYBE Andy Serkis hwo I think genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Gollum. Past that Viggo Mortenson could be included, but of those three only Serkis was in the commentary group and he was shouted down incessantly by Rudy and North. The $$$$ers.



    And let me say this; Frodo and Sam are nothing special in these films. Perhaps Frodo will get more complicated in RotK, but Sam is plain as punch, "gung-ho" speech at Osgiliath notwithstanding.



    I'm going to have to watch the Peter, Fran and Phillipa commentary again to get the taste out of my mouth. Yech.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Did they fix up the house of the stewards angle? Faramir, Boromir, Denethor needed some set up in TTT, though some of the TTT Stewards stuff could be moved into the RoTK.
  • Reply 9 of 35
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Ian McKellen completely over-acts throughout LOTRs . . . and you can tell that he knows it too . . . its as if he is smircking at how much of a ham he is being
  • Reply 10 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Denethor is introduced in the extended edition and it shows his antipathy for Faramir. I really don't understand why they left it out of the theatrical version, it was a fantastic scene.



    To mirror what a poster said above, the Two Towers extra scenes are better than FotR's. I liked more Bilbo and Lothlorien from FotR-extended, but the additions don't add what Two Towers' extensions do to the story.



    My god... I'm a geek. Yikes.
  • Reply 11 of 35
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Ian McKellen completely over-acts throughout LOTRs . . . and you can tell that he knows it too . . . its as if he is smircking at how much of a ham he is being



    But don't get me wrong . . .its as if that kind of hammy gestural acting is right for this kind of a movie



    I hope that Jackson has gotten all this moving-the-camera-around-at-every-too-fast-take out of his system for the Return of the King!!!
  • Reply 12 of 35
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I have bought the extended DVD. I have still not finish to watch it, but the extra are helpfull for the understanding of the story.



    I think that the acting is good in LOTR. If people have any doubts about this they should watch Dongeons and Dragons : it's a perfect demonstration of lame acting ...( a pathetic one indeed). Just compare the acting of Christopher lee (as Sarouman) and the one of Jeremy Irons (as Protion) or the one of Gimli opposed to the D&D's dwarf.



    Sam is a simple character in the spirit of the book. It's the archetype of the simple man, generous and courageous : he is there to help Frodo, and he will help anyway. By definition, simple characters means simple acting.



    Frodo is a little bit more complex, due to his historical ground (Bilbo's nephew) and the influence of the ring, but basically he is a tormented mind.



    Pippin and merry are fun, they feature the sympathical burglars.
  • Reply 13 of 35
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Not a good idea to base your idea of what good acting is by looking at terrible acting



    better to look at great acting

    anybody ever seen Fanny And Alexander? . . . . the best acting ever!!!

    Look at that then watch Ian McLellan grumble his pouted lips after getting angry at Bilbo . . . shear camp over-the-top!!! . . . and its not just in that scene, its in every scene
  • Reply 14 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    It's always how I pictured Gandalf, so it doesn't bother me at all.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Not a good idea to base your idea of what good acting is by looking at terrible acting



    better to look at great acting

    anybody ever seen Fanny And Alexander? . . . . the best acting ever!!!

    Look at that then watch Ian McLellan grumble his pouted lips after getting angry at Bilbo . . . shear camp over-the-top!!! . . . and its not just in that scene, its in every scene




    Fanny and Alexander was a great movie, but have nothing to do with heroic Fantasy movie.

    D&G where a typical fantasy movie, but is horrible, let's say terrible or pathetic.

    Excalibur was fantastic, and perhaps the greatest of all. A better comparison will be here.



    As Groverat i have nothing against the way Gandalf is represented, Gandalf is not an human, it's a magician of 7000 years.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Fanny and Alexander was a great movie, but have nothing to do with heroic Fantasy movie.

    D&G where a typical fantasy movie, but is horrible, let's say terrible or pathetic.

    Excalibur was fantastic, and perhaps the greatest of all. A better comparison will be here.



    As Groverat i have nothing against the way Gandalf is represented, Gandalf is not an human, it's a magician of 7000 years.




    I also have nothing against his acting . . . but there is a kind of knowing wink in his acting as if he knows that he is Hamming it up . . . and he is . . . it is over-acted (which is right for the part though) except that it gets a little silly at times . . . .



    I agree with you on Excaliber . . . . that film is a good example of what an all-real-action film has over CGI . . . . never does it feel like you are watching a computer game . . . like it does in LOTRs

    worst decision ever to have Gollum a CGI character!!



    If you think that it is better than a real action character would have been yo are deluded . . . . if you can watch Gollum on screen and NOT think, "boy, that sure is good CGI" then you are Special . . . because that is all that happens when I look at him!!!





    )by the way, I love the movies . . . I'm just being the spoiler . . . .its my duty to do so . . .
  • Reply 17 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    How the hell else would you do Gollum?
  • Reply 18 of 35
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    I also have nothing against his acting . . . but there is a kind of knowing wink in his acting as if he knows that he is Hamming it up . . . and he is . . . it is over-acted (which is right for the part though) except that it gets a little silly at times . . . .



    I agree with you on Excaliber . . . . that film is a good example of what an all-real-action film has over CGI . . . . never does it feel like you are watching a computer game . . . like it does in LOTRs

    worst decision ever to have Gollum a CGI character!!



    If you think that it is better than a real action character would have been yo are deluded . . . . if you can watch Gollum on screen and NOT think, "boy, that sure is good CGI" then you are Special . . . because that is all that happens when I look at him!!!





    )by the way, I love the movies . . . I'm just being the spoiler . . . .its my duty to do so . . .




    You are right for CGI movies, they tend to be artificial. One of the recent worst examples i have in mind is STAR WAR episode 2 : some special effects are very crappy ( very CGI like) like the ocean in the clone planet. In the contrary AI, was brilliant for the special effects althought the scenary was a bit to light ( understand naive story for childs)
  • Reply 19 of 35
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    How the hell else would you do Gollum?



    I bet that some members here will be perfect for the job
  • Reply 20 of 35
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Ah, you've hit upon BRussell's 37th lesson of life: Actor commentaries suck.



    I love commentaries. But actor commentaries? Everyone say it with me now...




    That's why directors direct movies, not actors.



    Andy Serkis rocks, though. Acting a character that's fully CG is a tough task.
Sign In or Register to comment.