LotR - extended version and what not.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:50 am

A week ago I saw (the original version) The Fellowship of the ring on tv.
Quality movie, so I borrowed The Two Towers and Return of the King (extended versions) from a friend.
Great movies both of them. Wellmade, etc.

I've always "sided" with the Star Wars side when it comes to the "Star Wars VS LotR" threads - but after watching TTT and RotK again I'll have to say that LotR is the better trilogy/film serie (however, because of nostalgic reasons Star Wars will always be my number one pick, if somebody asks me "Wanna see SW or Lotr?").

I've never liked the ewoks in Return of the Jedi (in fact, I hated that whole part. I wish to god that David Lynch would've agreed to direct Episode VI

) - but thats the only thing I find annoying in the SW saga (if I watch the movies again I'll probably find more annoying stuff).

The things I didn't like in the LotR saga;
The constant flashbacks;
Frodo pulls out the "bottle of light" he got from Galadriel (when he encounters the Shelob), and it's voice over time! "This will light your darkest hour".
Yes. We know. You said that in the first movie, I don't need to get reminded of every ******* little thing (there are more flashbacks, but I dont think I have to mention them all).

The humour;
I still don't like Gimli and the way he is used as comic relief (I havent read the books, so I don't know how he's treated there).
He goes cross eyed and falls over when he drinks beer, he says "Nobody tosses a dwarf", he is short and cant see whats going on because he is standing behind a wall, etc (because of this I dont get the feeling that he is this great dwarven warrior)
The comedy is too much "in your face".
I like the more subtle humour. I cant remember a specifik moment right now, but one of the hobbits said a funny thing that made me go "Heh..." (and not "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA" when it's Gimli-time, like the audience at the theater did when I saw RotK almost two years ago).
I think that kind of subtle humour fits the story better.

Return of the king;
To long and sometimes a little slow paced.

But overall; yes, better movies than Star Wars (old and new trilogy). I finally admit it

But as I said, Star Wars has a nostalgic grip on me - so they are still my favourites (old trilogy. The new trilogy is poo).

There's really nothing to discuss here - just wanted to vent.

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:58 pm

In defence of the flashbacks, if you watched the movies at the cinema, a year apart, maybe you would need a little reminding what that little bottle was all about.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:06 pm

I dont think its better the the orginal StarWars

I can watch SW over and over - where as LoTR I cannot bring myself to endure it again. part 1 is good but parts 2 and 3 lack structure and to be honest, a story.

Hound · Post by **Hound** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:00 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:part 1 is good but parts 2 and 3 lack structure and to be honest, a story.

Star Wars commits this crime over the course of 6 films!!!

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:12 pm

no way, films 4,5,6 are pefectly weighted, LOTr films 2 and 3 just jump from big battle to big battle to much for my liking.
I actually find them quite a bore. the first film is so much better balanced, its an adventure, it has good pacing and you follow a journey and a story.

SW achives very much the same, oh and not to mention SW has a decent script. think about the other day when we were listing quotes from SW, there are so many cool quotes u can do it for ages. now tell me a quote from LoTR thats cool?

Now im not saying LoTR is a crap film I just find it hard to get through, its not so much its length but its pacing in places, especially the last 2 films. SW just runs so much easier.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:32 pm

I think RotK is slow and badly paced in the theatrical version. Extended was a bit better, but you can't treat it as one movie or you'll go insane because it's so long. I like watching the Extendeds as a TV series-- that is, you watch what you can until you have to stop and go do human stuff.

Having watched both SW and LotR lately, LotR leaves SW in the dust. The Ring cycle (so to speak) has its flaws, especially the slow pacing, the bad humor, and the multiple flashbacks and overdramatization. But it reaches for transcendence, whereas SW just produces excitement.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:35 pm

I watched The Two Towers -> heated some dinner in the microwave -> ate it -> saw Return of the King.
It feels like I have watched one really long movie.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:39 pm

I prefer LotRs mroe than SW. Maybe because I didn't really see a whole SW film until the special editions. I still don't rate Return of the Jedi very highly but out of all the film The Empire Strikes back is the single best film of the lot with LotRs being a better franchise film.

In defence of the flashbacks over the course of 12 hours the average film viewer wouldn't rememeber every detail of what happened especially as the non-extended editions only show this very briefly.

Obfleur, you should also know that Paul Verhoeven was also in the running to direct "Return of the Jedi" but Lucas freaked out about if he put "sexual undertones" between characters (Not that he would know what that is).

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:42 pm

Return of the Jedi is my least favourite.
Stupid George not letting Paul V do it

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:43 pm

I think SW (orignal 3) is better then LoTR in almost every respect bar special effects, obviously... it doesnt do bad tho.

Its got a better script, better plot, better pacing better story, stronger characters, better actors.
Yep generally better.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:09 pm

Obfleur wrote:Return of the Jedi is my least favourite.
Stupid George not letting Paul V do it

I think Richard Marquand (RIP) was a talented director. Think of that Luke/Leia scene where Luke says, "I'm your brother... oh, and Vader's our father... oh, and you have Force powers..."

Imagine how **** that scene would've been if it was in one of the new films directed by Lucas. But in ROTJ it just works!

Plus the stuff with Luke/Vader/Emperor on the Death Star is really nicely played (Lets face it, Hamill isn't a good actor but ROTJ's the only film he really didnt put a foot wrong in. Worst haircut tho).

So, er, don't blame the director for those bloody ewoks!

Anyway, LOTR is brill.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:14 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I think SW (orignal 3) is better then LoTR in almost every respect bar special effects, obviously... it doesnt do bad tho.

Its got a better script, better plot, better pacing better story, stronger characters, better actors.
Yep generally better.

Better actors?

Lets see we have Alec Guiness, Ian McDiarmid and Harrison Ford yes, but Kenny Baker, Anthony Daniels, Mark Hamil, Carrie Fisher, David Prowse, Jeremy Bulloch, Frank Oz, Peter Mayhew and the voice of James Earl Jones.

vs

Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Billy Boyd, John Rhys-Davies, Sean Austin, Elijiah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Hugo Weaving, David Wenham, Miranda Otto, Bernard Hill and Andy Serkis

OK, many categories will be subjetive but I've argued in favour of SW many times against nay sayers but I'd never boast about the quality of the cast.

Better script?:

"ROARAAAAWE"

"Boy you said it Chewie"

There are many classic lines for those of us who are Sci-fi inclined but the overall script is commonly deemed the weakest part of SW. Even the actors themselves said a lot of it was s###.

Better plot? Thats not fair as half of it is ripped from a Japanese film and the other half from LotRs itself. And since when did RotJ actually have a plot? LotRs is far more character driven.

stronger characters Whiney Luke? camp 3po? Yes there is Han and R2 but Han's character is basically written out of RotJ for all intents and purposes and Leia has to fawn over Teddy bears most of the time.

Look Star Wars may be your favorite but some of those statement, particulary about the actors, characters and script are very misplaced.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:01 pm

Better actors - yes, because they protray thier characters better.

Better Script - Saying 'Roar' is a bit stupid because I can just say grunt grunt, for an ork or somthing. the script is strong with SW because it has a trillion decent lines that everyone recalls. even the actors liked it actually.

Better plot - the plot is lifted from a jpn film, so what? its better.
Lotr is set piece driven, the charaters dont do anything after the first film they just fight battles whilst gimili cracks some lame jokes.
SW wins hands down.

Plot of lotr stretched over 9 hours!!! destroy the ******* ring. done.

Stronger characters - for sure, in ever respect every character is better. the only decent character in RotJ is Gandalf because Ian is a decent actor.
Han-Solo alone is better then all of them.

Its a pointless argument really, its all conjecture.
For me SW is a far better film. the mere fact I have watched probaly 30 times since Lotr says its all - i wated the first Lotr about 20 times as that is cool, and actually has a story, two towers is so boring untill helmsdeep I almost died, and once u have seenthat battle 2 i never watched again because there is no character to it at all. as for the last film, again, chop and change, untill the big battle, which is partially cool, but drawn out.
RotJ is over looked far to easily, at least its finnal battle actually builds in a cumlative fasion that is far better directed then RotK.

LotR isnt bad but for me it comes no where near the orignal SW its lacks everything SW has - no argument can change my mind because its conjecture.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:12 pm

I saw Serenity on Friday and I think that beats both of them. Stick that in your leaf-pipe and smoke it.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:12 pm

i still havent seen that, and i want to

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:17 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:the only decent character in RotJ is Gandalf because Ian is a decent actor.

Gandalf was in Return of the Jedi? was that a deleted scene, or have you had a sneak preview of the upcoming ultrasuper-ultimate director's cut special edition of RotJ?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:20 pm

bah there so many bloody ROtJK SW RT ESB its easy to slip up

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:31 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Stronger characters - for sure, in ever respect every character is better. the only decent character in RotJ is Gandalf because Ian is a decent actor.

Gandalf in RotJ?!!?? Must be a new definitive special edition. The Tolkien family should sue.

This is gonna cause more discussion than Gredo shooting first.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:35 pm

In the LOTR films, Frodo finds the ring weighs heavier around his neck as time goes on, until he barely has any energy left. Did it affect Gollum in the same way?

I haven’t read the books in ages, but nowhere in the film did Gollum recall the ring weighing a ton when he had it. The same with Isildur. If anyone says that Isildur didn’t have it long enough to feel the effects, well, Frodo could only have had it on his person (and by ‘person’ I mean around his neck, smut fiends), for less than 13 months. All the time before that he kept it in a sealed envelope.

Is there mention in the Hobbit or any other Tolkein book about the ring weighing down a person the way it did Frodo? Or does it affect everyone differently?

I’m asking this here because I remember when the last film came out there was a lot of banter on this forum from very knowledgeable people, and I don’t want to sign up at some random LOTR forum as Billythor_86201 for one post.

I was watching the extras disc to ROTK a couple of days ago and it helped settle another silly thing, where Denethor, burning like a torch, manages to run about half a mile from the Cemetary thing round the back of Minas Tirith, all the way along the prow to finally throw himself off. Peter Jackson said “Yeah, that was just a bit of artistic licence, as I thought it would look cool”.

Mind you, the game is like Golden Axe. Mindless hack-slashery against a million opponents. Quite fun if you like that sort of thing, and I loved Golden Axe.

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:37 pm

I took it to be that the ring got heavier as he got closer to sauron, rather than being the length of time he had it. Which was something the others never faced as sauron was dissipated

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:41 pm

I thought the ring just corrupted you over time - hobbits are natrually more resitant to its effects

Post by **Best First** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:47 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Its got a better script, better plot, better pacing better story, stronger characters, better actors.

i love SW, but...

be serious.

Agree about Serenity.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:03 pm

I am being totaly serious.
SW is a better then LoTR.

I think its funny that ppl think otherwise

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:05 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I am being totaly serious.
SW is a better then LoTR.

Come on, me and Besty are in agreement here. So either you are totally wrong or it's the end of the Universe.

Admit at least SW doesn't have the better actors.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:08 pm

No chance.

Han-Solo alone wins that by himself.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:15 pm

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=lotr1

Post by **Best First** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:47 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I am being totaly serious.
SW is a better then LoTR.

I think its funny that ppl think otherwise

i think its funny you think:

sci fi chase move has better plot than fantasy chase movie.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:31 pm

Best First wrote:Agree about Serenity.

Me too. Though my opinion doesn't count for much on that, seeing as I'm hideously biased on all three fronts.

Dunno how well Serenity stands up without having seen Firefly, though. Or without being accustomed to the Whedonesque approach to pathos.

Don't really care about that, though, as I've seen it four times already and never gave enough of a toss to bother with SW or LotR that many times.

Sci-Fi Space Chase Movie with Morena Baccarin > All others

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:51 pm

The script for ESB beats any LOTR movie hands down IMO.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:57 pm

I love you - I know
Scrufy looking nerf-hearder
I want that ship not excuses
Impresive, most impresive
No Luke, I am your father! NOOOoooo

ESB is one of them great films where at the end u are left with so many different feelings over whats going to happen next.
class film

Seriously I ant watch LoTR anymore - i mightwatch the odd battle but thats about it. everyone laughs when someone says "shall we watch this?"

stick SW in, any of them, and everyone gos "aahhhhh!"

its got the magic.