ROTK: Extended Version...

Post by **Best First** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:11 pm

has just shipped....

woo woo!

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:31 pm

Wow that was early. I thought it wasn't officially available until the 10th?

Did you get it from Play, Sendit or other?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:09 pm

RoTK extended edition I have high hopes will be the greatest thing I've ever watched.

And worryingly I don't think I'm going to be disappointed!

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:22 pm

Cool.

I dunno, though. I was more disappointed in the third than the other two. Which means it was still ten thousand times better than any other movie I've ever seen.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:03 pm

Auntie Slag wrote: Did you get it from Play, Sendit or other?

Play - they usually ship early in my experience.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:32 pm

cant wait!
48 extra mins?
Wicked!

bobaprime85 · Post by **bobaprime85** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:36 pm

I haven't been paying attention, but has there been any word about the Scouring of the Shire being on the extended version? I probably won't bother if it isn't.

I should be getting Legion's coat for that last statement, shouldn't I?

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:11 am

The scouring of the shire was never filmed. IT does however include Aragorn's mental showdown with Sauron via the palantir, Gandalf Vs. The Lord of the Nazgul and much more goodness besides!

bobaprime85 · Post by **bobaprime85** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:12 am

Karl Lynch wrote:The scouring of the shire was never filmed.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:23 am

Well, to be fair, they did film about everything else in what is possibly the largest single mythology ever committed to celluloid!

'Cept Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wites. But maybe they will film those and the scouring of the shire in time for the uber-extended-super boxed set, which I would expect in about 2 years.

Bender · Post by **Bender** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:35 am

Karl Lynch wrote:Well, to be fair, they did film about everything else in what is possibly the largest single mythology ever committed to celluloid!

'Cept Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wites. But maybe they will film those and the scouring of the shire in time for the uber-extended-super boxed set, which I would expect in about 2 years.

I agree with the former, but I doubt they will be filming Bombadil and the Scouring.

I would love to see the scouring, and Bombadil would be nice, but as far as the main story goes, they are comparatively unimportant.

Anyone know if they're going to have a gift edition with some kind of statue, like they did for the first two?

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am

Karl Lynch wrote: 'Cept Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wites. But maybe they will film those and the scouring of the shire in time for the uber-extended-super boxed set, which I would expect in about 2 years.

That will be added in later with CGI for the 20th anniversary theatrical release. Jar Jar Binks will be playing Bombadil.

Bender · Post by **Bender** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:54 am

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote: 'Cept Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wites. But maybe they will film those and the scouring of the shire in time for the uber-extended-super boxed set, which I would expect in about 2 years.
That will be added in later with CGI for the 20th anniversary theatrical release. Jar Jar Binks will be playing Bombadil.

Please don't even joke about that

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:02 am

*Is counting the days*

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:16 am

Best First wrote:Play - they usually ship early in my experience.

Cor. Aren't they just the best company in the universe?

I used to feel this way about Special Reserve, but its nice that Play are so good and worry and hassle free AAAAAND they deliver your favourite goods early.

Top.

[Edit] Yeah I'm pretty sure there will/is going to be a gift edition. For anyone whose interested you can also get the Two Towers gift edition for the mad as a kettle of fish price of £12.99

£12.99!!!!!!! The bloody thing was about 45 squid this time last year!
I'd like to believe I could wait until this time next year to get ROTK:EE for £12.99 but what are the odds?

And Sendit.com are selling it right now for £17.99
What are they like? Presumably they must be ok or they'd be out of business by now, and I've got an idea that Play, Sendit and the others are get their wares from the same warehouses anyway.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:20 am

Auntie Slag wrote:
Best First wrote:Play - they usually ship early in my experience.
Cor. Aren't they just the best company in the universe?

after the people who make jam, yes.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:55 am

Best First wrote:
Auntie Slag wrote:
Best First wrote:Play - they usually ship early in my experience.
Cor. Aren't they just the best company in the universe?
after the people who make jam, yes.

Jam is good - but it requires the best thing, sliced bread, so...

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:17 am

I'm looking at ROTK:EE on Sendit.com

It says its £17.99 there.

Isn't there another page on Sendit where you can get an extra few quid off to bring it down to £15.49?

I can't see that bit at the moment. I mean, £17.99 is great and everything, but I wanna really take the buscuit and get it for £15.49 if possible.

[Edit] There was/is a £2 off voucher floating around Sendit somewhere, bringing it down to £15.99

I don't know if the voucher was a one-week promotional thing or what.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:28 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Best First wrote:
Auntie Slag wrote: Cor. Aren't they just the best company in the universe?
after the people who make jam, yes.
Jam is good - but it requires the best thing, sliced bread, so...

You've obviously never chugged jam. Good as a chaser for a mouthful of cream cheese.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:06 am

Ordered it light night after a fit of Robbie Coltraine induced Barclaycard paying. My first ever dealing with Sendit.com, though if you check the rules and regs page it says they're based in Jersey as well, no doubt sharing the same warehouse as Play.

I just couldn't wait till after christmas. I'm so weak.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:38 pm

Auntie Slag wrote:though if you check the rules and regs page it says they're based in Jersey as well, no doubt sharing the same warehouse as Play.

I thought Jersey was the warehouse for play.

I haven't met anybody from Jersey since play started, not that anybody would notice.

Post by **snarl** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:59 am

Bergerac runs play.

Click here to see Play's advert:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/tv/titl ... itle.shtml

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:40 am

seriously - I love bergerac, I dont know why, but I can watch that all day - it reminds me of when I was young... hmm around the same time Transformers were the best thing ever...

Post by **snarl** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:41 am

The music is wicked!

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:50 pm

Don't forget Liza Goddard. I loved her as a young Slag. When I was a young slag I mean.

And then she was the Mum in Woof!

Woof!

It was around the time Julia Sawalaharaha was in Press Gang.

Mmmm, Julia Sawalaharaha. Liza Goddard.

Great days.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:24 am

having just finished watching it, I can safely say...

I think it's ******* awesome.

IMO the greatest thing I have ever seen committed to cellulloid, or am likely to see.

Several thoughts though...

SPOILERINOS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\/

Firstly I'm reasonably sure there's going to be an uber extended set of all three films, if only to correct all the continuity errors I noticed. There seem to be more problems fitting the new footage into RoTK than the other two.

Three that I noticed.

Firstly the mouth of Sauron (nice design, I thought) when he gets beheaded... his body vanishes from extended cut to normal cut.

The houses of the healing- either Faramir and Eowyn heal from their injuries within a few hours (before evening) and given Faramir took two arrows in the gut that doesn't seem very plausible, or the scene with Pippin hunting for Merry should have come before rather than after that scene.

And lastly... I noticed several times that daylight and evening seem to fall rather quickly. Firstly when Krog (the giant battering ram) is brought up to the gates it is broad daylight, next thing when it starts smashing the gates it's pitch dark. Then again when pippin is hunting for Gandalf... night time, night time, nightime... suddenly it's broad daylight!

I'm sure they'll fix these next time round.

Is it my imagination or does the homoeroticism between Sam and Frodo get more and more explicit the more scenes get added to these films? Same things for the looks legolas keeps giving aragorn...

Only other thing that caught my eye was the weirdness with the palantiri... the reason Denethor went crazy and believed they were doomed was because he had his own seeing stone and what he saw was being corrupted by Sauron (who also had one in Baradur), it's a shame that wasn't included... but I sense an extended extended scene there.

Also why did Aragorn drop the palantir when he saw Arwen in it? Was she dead, i.e. a corrupted future from Sauron? Or was it just "aarg! Live Tyler!" ...And why did his necklace suddenly break its chain and fall...?

Some of the extra effects were fantastic... some I'm sure weren't there before. The ghost when Aragorn looks into the path to the dimholt is new, I'm convinced Shelob had more effects on her than previously (mainly to do with her jaws) and I'm sure the oliphants were improved... mainly because one of them now has a shlong!

I couldn't help but notice... suddenly I realised I was thinking "wow... that oliphant is pretty well endo- wait a minute..."

Anyhoo, even with the weird little continuity questions I still think its genius.

Fingers crossed for the Hobbit maybe one day. The silmarillion and the unfinished tales would be wishful thinking

although I think some of the stories would make brilliant fodder for a high-budget tv show, with a different story each episode.

Master_Fwiffo · Post by **Master_Fwiffo** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:37 am

Karl Lynch wrote:Is it my imagination or does the homoeroticism between Sam and Frodo get more and more explicit the more scenes get added to these films? Same things for the looks legolas keeps giving aragorn...

ARRRRRGHHHHHHHH *beats head against wall*

SAM AND FRODO ARE NOT GAY! *bashes hole into wall*

-edit- I suppose I should clarify my position more, and I know this is going to get me into trouble, but I have to let it out.

One of my biggest problems with the gay movement (no offense Karl) is the absolute and other ****ing disgusting distortion it puts on close friendships between men. This right here is the biggest and most obvious example. Im going to try really hard to keep religion, politics ect. out of this, but it ****ing pisses me off.

WHY is it when two men have a close, loving friendship, it is immidiatly assumed they are homosexual? Does it reallysuddenly mean that they are atracted to each other and want to knock each other up in the bedroom because their ready to give their ****ing lives up for each other?

There is a MASSIVE diffrence between 'love' and 'homosexual atraction'. Im not saying Homosexuals can't love each other, but because two guys are the closest dearest freinds on Earth, DOESNT MAKE THEM ****ING GAY.

Look, Sam and Frodo went through ****ing hell together. Frodo is half ****ing dead, and both beleive they are never going to ****ing get home again. WOuldn't you cry? Hell, I know I'd cry like a ****ing baby, and if my best freind in the world is there, yeah, I'd hold on to him too.

Now before you spit out at me that I don't know what I'm talking about, yes, I do have a friend like that. We've cried, we've hugged, and we both spend more time together then with anyone else (except our families) Yes, we are that close- he is my best friend in the world, and we both know that we would do anything to help the other. DOES THAT MAKE US ****ING GAY?????? Never mind that we're both steady and (he at least) is currently dating members of the opposite sex (I'm single), but we arn't gay.

Sam and Frodo have nearly the exact same relationship we have. If my friend and I were going to Mount Doom together, we'd probably end up acting the same way. And it pisses me off when people say, OMG SAM AND FRODO = TEH GAY because their either mindless homophobes who can't deal with a loving freindships, or homosexuals looking for validation where it's not (not that they can't get validation elsewhere, its just NOT IN THIS ****ING CASE)

There. I said it. Karl, I am sorry for getting on your case, but as I said, that really, REALLY pisses me off.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:23 am

Why do you consider love to be somehow insulting? I didn't read any further than that tbh as I thought it best I work out why someone would find it upsetting to be thought of as gay first.

If Sam were a girl would you have the same things to say about it, or would the idea of the two having feelings other than manly comradeship be now more acceptable?

Or perhaps more succinctly why all relationships in TV and media must by default be heterosexual, other than the reason that unless they are given semblance of such they will be unacceptable to a portion of the public, as you just demonstrated above?

It's not wrong to think, by any stretch, that they are just friends. I'm trying to get my head around your 'beats head against wall' reaction to the idea that someone else might think they are not; there isn't one perspective on these things.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:50 am

why must every issue turn to this subject?

Master_Fwiffo · Post by **Master_Fwiffo** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:19 am

Karl Lynch wrote:Why do you consider love to be somehow insulting? I didn't read any further than that tbh as I thought it best I work out why someone would find it upsetting to be thought of as gay first.

Well if youll read the rest of my post, Im pretty sure I made it clear I dont find love insulting, I find the notion that all love between men immidiatly = homosexuality. Im sure J.R.R would have a few things to say about that idea.

If Sam were a girl would you have the same things to say about it, or would the idea of the two having feelings other than manly comradeship be now more acceptable?

Now that is a valid point. It depends on how it looks. Being as its late at night and Im tired I dont have the mental energy to wrap my head around the idea, so Ill get back to you.

Or perhaps more succinctly why all relationships in TV and media must by default be heterosexual, other than the reason that unless they are given semblance of such they will be unacceptable to a portion of the public, as you just demonstrated above?

Nononono, you misunderstood me completly. I have no problem with media protraying homosexual relationships (well I do, but for the sake of this thread, I don't). My problem comes in when people see two guys get emotional and they immidiatly assume they are gay. Of all people, I think you two should be offended by that notion- isnt that slapping a stereotype on people like you?

It's not wrong to think, by any stretch, that they are just friends. I'm trying to get my head around your 'beats head against wall' reaction to the idea that someone else might think they are not; there isn't one perspective on these things.

Mostly because I am damned sick and tired of the FRODO AND SAM ARE TEH GAY reactions Ive seen everywhere (mostly from homophobic bigots, true, but it still irratates the bloody hell out of me for reasons I stated in my above post).], when there SHOULD be absolutly no reason to even consider it.