LORD OF THE RINGS . . . TELL ME THE STORY

[The Burgomaster]

When they released FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING on DVD, I waited to buy it because I knew they were planning to release the director's cut several months later (which I bought).

Is the same thing planned for the sequel? Should I buy it right away or is there a director's cut looming on the horizon? (I could research this myself, but laziness prevents me from doing so).



Post Edited (05-20-03 11:25)

[raj]

Oh gawd there will be a director's cut version. $$$$

And once the Return of the King's director's cut version is out, there will be a super duper boxed set with extended director's cuts of all three.

And then there will be the 25th anniversary edition. . .

[Dr. X, Yyz, Sr..]

Oh yay!!!! Even MORE scenes to be rewritten by Peter Jackoff!!! Man can he screw up a classic story line or what??????

[JohnL]

Don't forget the super-platinum boxed set, and the extended, mega-platinum collector's edition, and the ultra-super-mega-platinum extended director's cut, and...

[Nathan Shumate]

The answer is "yes," with about 40 minutes of additional footage (much of with Treebeard).

[Evan3]

YOu know, I bought the extended director's cut of LOTR and let me tell you, the editors of this film did a helluva job editing the movie and deserve an award. With that being said, I will not buy the directors cut again since You Can not watch the movie without the deleted scenes, and I regret this fact verily.

[raj]

Just wait.  In a couple of years they'll have the director's cut in the theaters.  Right about the time of the super-duper titatinum extra special edition comes out on dvd.

Hell, I'd go see them.  I'm finally going to plop down this weekend and watch the dvd of the Fellowship director's cut.

[Dr. X, Yyz, Sr. .]

Peter J. really screwed up, you see.....he had the PERFECT opportunity to make movie hystory by putting LOTR on film. But this was not to be......He needs to be euthanized for destroying Tolkien's masterpiece.

[Bernie]

I have to respectfully disagree -- and I'm someone who rereads the whole damn thing every year or two -- it's been said before but -- movies and books are two different media, adapting from one to the other necessitates changes -- I think Jackson did a phenomenal job, his love and respect for the material permeates every frame -- is it a perfect adaptation?  Probably not, because there is no such thing.  Is it definitive?  IMHO, yes.

[Brother Ragnarok]

I have to agree with Bernie.  If Two Towers was made entirely like the book it would have been boring as hell.  Tiny bit of action spread out by 150 pages of walking around talking about being hungry.  Not exactly exciting movie material.

Brother R

[raj]

Not to mention that each movie would be about ten hours long.

[The Burgomaster]

Bernie wrote:

"movies and books are two different media, adapting from one to the other necessitates changes"

This is a 100% true statement. Novels and screenplays are completely different forms of writing. A novel may have a chapter that goes on for 20, 30 or more pages. Scenes in screenplays generally run from 1 to 3 pages. There is no way to reconcile the two forms of storytelling.

Also, movies MUST be visual. Novels can internalize things by getting into the minds of the characters. An entire chapter of a novel might consist of a character walking around, observing things, and thinking. The author can describe the person's emotions. There is no way to do this in film. (Unless you want to use long, rambling voiceovers . . . which still won't achieve the same thing). So screenwriters and directors need to find ways to replace inner thoughts with crisp dialogue and striking visuals. And to tell a 500, 600 or 1,000 page story in 90, 120 or maybe 180 minutes.

If a movie were EXACTLY like the book, what would be the point of making the movie? The filmmakers are telling a story, THEIR OWN STORY, which may not be the same as the novelist's story.

And that's okay.