some opinions requested, please.
1) is the collectors edition (5 DVDs) worth the extra money compared to the extended edition (4 DVDs)
2) is it better to buy 1,2,3 separately or wait to see if a huge 12 or 15 DVD set comes out in the future?
thanking everyone in advance!
in friendship,
prad
the extended DVDs for the first two films were significantly better than the 'theatre' versions, particularly the second film.
As I have those two, I'll be betting the third extended set when its out. But given the extreme marketing / wring every dollars-worth attatude of the film company, I share your 'concern' that they may be holding back a few gems to get a final couple of million from the die-hard fans.
Let's hope its more of a directors cut: with a good few ending scenes cut from the third film...
Originally posted by pradtfHi Prad. We already had LOTR 1,2 & 3 as stand alone DVD's which were double disc ( feature and special effects ,interviews etc)
some opinions requested, please.
1) is the collectors edition (5 DVDs) worth the extra money compared to the extended edition (4 DVDs)
2) is it better to buy 1,2,3 separately or wait to see if a huge 12 or 15 DVD set comes out in the future?
thanking everyone in advance!
in friendship,
prad
I bought the collectors edition ( 5 disc) and it has heaps more. The feature disc's are much longer because they include all those scenes that were controversially cut so its well worth the extra money.
BR's skeeter
Originally posted by Kill The KingI would say: "wait until september", for then the 3 extended versions will come out in one big boxed set. But I won't.
buy1,2, and 3
Buy 1: the cheapest you can get. The extras are not worth it and there's not Bombadil there, no matter how hard you look!
Buy 2: The extended version. The extra 40 minutes of film lift the film from an average fantasy (read: repeat of the first film, but with a bigger battle scene) film to a superb adaptation of "The two towers".
The scenes of WHY Boromir is as he is and the relationship between him, Faramir and the brother are well worth it.
Obviously I still disagree that the "two towers" are Orthanc and Sauron's dark tower. I believe them to be "Minas Morgul" and "Minas Tirith". But that's just me.
As for the third CD. I don't know. I saw the film (return of the king) and there were some very serious omissions.
I presume some of them will be addressed in the extended DVD (like WHERE ON EARTH IS SARUMAN and HOW ON EARTH DID THE GLASS BALL GET IN THE MUD), but I fear that the scouring of the shire will be lost along with old Tom and his beautiful wife.
I'll be getting this special edition 3rd CD for two reasons:
1. We have both the extended versions of the first 2.
2. The extended version of 3 will be 2 hours longer!
But as I've said, the extended version of 1 isn't worth the bother.
I always wait and get the extended special editions.
A lot of the time, besides more battle scenes, etc. there are fun little parts that Jackson just couldn't get into the original cuts.
As Jackson says, these extended versions are the films he would make for the LOTR fans.
They're worth the money as they come out.
For Fellowship and Two Towers I waited and got the Extended Special Editions with the Gift Set (ie. Bookends with Fellowship and a Cool Gollum figure with Two Towers).
Current "word" is that the Gift Set will be available in the Fall.
One Google later..
"Many readers of the Lord of the Rings consider Tom's presence in the first book to be an unnecessary intrusion into the narrative, which could be omitted without loss. Tolkien was aware of their feelings, and in part their judgment was correct. As Tolkien wrote in a letter in 1954, ". . . many have found him an odd and indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already invented him. . . and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out" (Ibid., p. 192). Judging by these remarks, critical readers are correct about the arbitrariness of Tom's introduction into the story; however, as Tolkien continues, he deliberately (nonarbitrary) kept Tom in to fulfill a particular role, to provide an additional dimension."
Full text :
http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html
-Russ
Originally posted by RussI always thought old Tom was there as one of the Maia (or whatever the wizards were called) to show that not everyone seeks opinion.
One Google later..
"Many readers of the Lord of the Rings consider Tom's presence in the first book to be an unnecessary intrusion into the narrative, which could be omitted without loss. Tolkien was aware of their feelings, and in part their judgment was correct. As Tolkien wrote in a letter in 1954, ". . . many have found him an odd and indeed discordan ...[text shortened]... onal dimension."
Full text :
http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html
-Russ
And apart from this, the finding of the weapons by the hobbits after they're trapped in the barrows is of significant importance (as normal weapons could not possibly kill a nazgul). And how does PJ solve this problem? He has Aragorn hand them weapons out of nowhere on top of a hill.
Originally posted by shavixmirAlthough Tom seems a bit of a silly character, I always liked the barrow wight adventure and the doling out of swords by Aragorn stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Plus, there was no explanation of why they were so significant.
I always thought old Tom was there as one of the Maia (or whatever the wizards were called) to show that not everyone seeks opinion.
And apart from this, the finding of the weapons by the hobbits after they're trapped in the barrows is of significant importance (as normal weapons could not possibly kill a nazgul). And how does PJ solve this problem? He has Aragorn hand them weapons out of nowhere on top of a hill.