Lord of the Rings - Theatrical vs Extended Cut

[futurefields]

Which versions do you like better?

 

[shortylickens]

the theater version is too long for one sitting. Thats why they had an intermission.

For home, I like the extended versions. You can always hit Pause and go tinkle if you need.

 

[brianmanahan]

definitely extended

 

[Captante]

Extended feels a bit dis-jointed in parts but also has a few scenes that really need to be included.

 

[Ricochet]

Casual movie goers should stick to Theatrical. Extended seems long winded & bloated in parts but I'm a fan so I definitely prefer it.

I have to say the intro for Fellowship of the Ring where the title displays above Frodo sitting against the tree in the lush green forest was a perfect scene. It is in the Theatrical version but not in the Extended as it would be too long into the movie.

 

[datalink7]

Extended feels a bit dis-jointed in parts but also has a few scenes that really need to be included.

Yes. Like the giving of the gifts.

 

[mikeymikec]

Poll error: Lacking 'neither' option.

 

[Sonikku]

I think the extended version is important because it fuckin' sucks not knowing how Sarumon ends up for the casuals not into the books. He was basically like the face of the bad guys throughout the trilogy. It would be like watching Star Wars with Vader's final fate happening off screen. Guy may not have been the big cheese but he sure as heck was a big deal.

 

[Possessed Freak]

How many ending points does Return of the King have in either edition. That might have been the most annoying part of the entire series. The shots where there was an obvious stoppage point in film and then it jarringly advanced somewhere else.

 

[KeithTalent]

Extended is where it's at yo.

KT

 

[Pacfanweb]

Extended. Fills in a lot of details.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Watching either makes you wish he never touched The Hobbit.

 

[gururu2]

I could not get enough of these movies, so every spare, corny, nonessential, and frivolous minute was taken with delight.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Watching either makes you wish he never touched The Hobbit.

There's a fan edit of The Hobbit that cuts Jackson's 10 hour nightmare into a more manageable 4 hours and it's a lot more enjoyable. Even that feels a little bloated in spots and could probably stand to lose another 30-40 minutes. I feel the same way about the extended versions of LOTR. There's a lot of fat that could be trimmed away to improve pacing. Real Tolkien geeks might see the merit in the extended versions that try to pack in every detail, but the casual fan would get more enjoyment out of the leaner, tighter and better paced theatrical cuts. Sometimes less is more and never is that more true than in "epic" movies.

 

[Oyeve]

I can never tell what regular and whats extended. And I dont feel like making notes and watching both versions again. They are rather boring to watch IMO. Almost as boring as reading the damn books. Sorry, I could never get into LOTR. I tried and tried for over 40 years but no.

 

[clamum]

I think I've only seen the theatrical versions of the films. I'll probably one day pick up the Blu-ray trilogy though so I'll have to check out the extended ones.

Watching either makes you wish he never touched The Hobbit.

Yeah I didn't enjoy the Hobbit movies nearly as much. Wayyyy too long, IMO. I'm reminded of that dinner scene with the dwarves (don't remember if it was in the first or second movie; I think first)... ugh. The final one I found to be the most enjoyable though.

 

[poofyhairguy]

There's a fan edit of The Hobbit that cuts Jackson's 10 hour nightmare into a more manageable 4 hours and it's a lot more enjoyable.

Yeah I have seen it, but that doesn't really capture the childhood magic of the book.

The problem with the Hobbit series is he saw it more as a homage to his previously liked work more than a compelling (and should be more light hearted) children's story. Heck the Hobbit movies basically try to do everything they can to be prequels to the LOTR trilogy, and what they succeed at is showing how dated the LOTR pure good vs pure evil concept is.

 

[Sonikku]

I think I've only seen the theatrical versions of the films. I'll probably one day pick up the Blu-ray trilogy though so I'll have to check out the extended ones.


Yeah I didn't enjoy the Hobbit movies nearly as much. Wayyyy too long, IMO. I'm reminded of that dinner scene with the dwarves (don't remember if it was in the first or second movie; I think first)... ugh. The final one I found to be the most enjoyable though.

The shortest book stretched over three movies. This is what happens when the suits advocate the model for the most profit over the means for the best product. We're rapidly approaching an age where making the best product is far from being the most profitable way to run a business.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Yeah I have seen it, but that doesn't really capture the childhood magic of the book.

The problem with the Hobbit series is he saw it more as a homage to his previously liked work more than a compelling (and should be more light hearted) children's story. Heck the Hobbit movies basically try to do everything they can to be prequels to the LOTR trilogy, and what they succeed at is showing how dated the LOTR pure good vs pure evil concept is.

I wouldn't call the pure good vs pure evil concept "dated". But you're right that it's more of a Children's story. That's one of the things I found unappealing about Tolkien, it was a very simplistic approach to epic fantasy. Everything was black or white, the good guys were unfailingly noble and the bad guys were evil through and through. And almost nobody died. The only member of the original fellowship that croaked was Boromir and he was the only one that slipped being perfectly good. That couldn't have been coincidental.

The Hobbit most definitely should have been more light hearted, at least up until the Battle of the Five Armies. The series might have been better if The Hobbit was done first.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I wouldn't call the pure good vs pure evil concept "dated". But you're right that it's more of a Children's story.

Yeah, that is what I meant. It is dated for fantasy targeted at adults (which LOTR is compared to the Hobbit). Nowadays adults want flawed heroes, and complicated villains. And we can deal with killing a main character or having a bad guy win every now and then. For kids you have to keep things simple.

Basically Game of Thrones dated the LOTR movies in the adult fantasy world the same way the Battlestar Galactica reboot exposed almost all of the 90's space operas as over-the-top cheese. I couldn't even imagine following a new space opera today that wasn't dirty or gritty, just like I couldn't believe I was sitting there in the third Hobbit movie watching our "heroes" slay yet another paper mache Orc.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yeah, that is what I meant. It is dated for fantasy targeted at adults (which LOTR is compared to the Hobbit). Nowadays adults want flawed heroes, and complicated villains. And we can deal with killing a main character or having a bad guy win every now and then. For kids you have to keep things simple.

Basically Game of Thrones dated the LOTR movies in the adult fantasy world the same way the Battlestar Galactica reboot exposed almost all of the 90's space operas as over-the-top cheese. I couldn't even imagine following a new space opera today that wasn't dirty or gritty, just like I couldn't believe I was sitting there in the third Hobbit movie watching our "heroes" slay yet another paper mache Orc.

They do? People say that but a lot of characters that people love are simplistic as hell (at least as simplistic as LotR characters). LotR is a very flawed story absolutely, but let's stop pretending that characters now are that deep. Just because they cuss and fuck doesn't make them deeper. In fact, I'd say if you're complaining about the simplistic characters of LotR you kinda missed a major point of the overall story, which is that ones like the elves were effectively demigods and left and that flawed men inherited the world. Yes Aragorn took over as king (and married the elven princess) and men proved their valor in the end, but, they made it very clear that things have changed and that wouldn't always be good (hell the Hobbits return home to the Shire being turned into a wasteland by Sauraman and have to fight to take it back). Isildur, Boromir, Faramir, Theoden, and Eowyn are every bit as deep as most of the characters we have now (and a lot of the Game of Thrones ones). Don't get me wrong, LotR is a deeply flawed story and plenty of the characters are one dimensional archetypes to a t (which considering it in many ways created those archetypes though), but I feel like people are just deluding themselves if they think things are really any better now just because characters are "deeper" (which often just means given a dark backstory to justify them being psychopaths like Walter White). They might have more explanation for their actions and those might be more realistic (although personally for me the way that Game of Thrones mixes the fantasy stuff with that gritty realism, I think is actually pretty terrible and makes the overall result worse; I think it would be a much better if they cut out the fantasy zombies and dragons stuff; I feel like we're getting a really long drawn out situation like the ghost army from LotR, or the battle of five armies from the end of Hobbit).

The Hobbit movies sucked for a different reason (seriously, there are behind the scenes stuff where Peter Jackson straight up goes "I don't know what is happening"; the Hobbit got ruined because Del Toro dropped out and then Jackson had to rush out something without proper thought or planning). Del Toro's vision was really interesting and I think would have added real depth to the story. It also would have contrasted that with whimsical that was often lacking (even in the LotR, but especially in the Hobbit) which made it great (Peter Jackson's had that, in fact that opening when the dwarves show up and then do the song, and then we basically got little if any more of that).