Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 80 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 28, 2010 3:08:33 PM PST
Watcher says:
http://tbhl.theonering.net/peter/interviews/igninterview.html

Q: What happens on the extended version of this one?

JACKSON: The extended versions are interesting because I do the extended versions for the fans, really. To me every time I put a scene in it, it's mucking up the momentum. The theatrical versions are very carefully worked out. We spent a whole year trying to get the best possible cut. I do the extended cuts because we have 30-40 minutes of footage that people are interested in, fans of the books. It's usually related to something that's in the book. It's a legitimate part of the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and you can either have it lost forever or you can put an extended cut out. So I do these extended cuts thinking that people will like to see these scenes. But I'm aware every time I put something in [that] the momentum of the scene going to be slow. This is going to slow the first act down. Every time I think I'm spoiling the film, but I'm doing it because people want to see it and they'll see it in their home. The DVD has a different dynamic. You can watch it over two nights or you can pause it and make a cup of tea. The whole pacing on the DVD seems to have a different requirement or level of commitment from the audience. Then I read these reviews that say this is so much better than the theatrical version. And I think, 'Oh God!' The big question is, if you took this 3 hour and 40 minute version of the Two Towers and released it in the cinemas, what would people have thought of it? Everyone would have criticized it for being too long. Yet on video, they think it's better. I'm finding it fascinating because it's new. It's a whole different development in filmmaking that's because of the new technology and the way DVDs are establishing themselves. Packages for fans, the documentary materials, it's interesting. I don't know quite what the rules are.

Q: How do you address how long to make the extended versions?

JACKSON: I read criticism about us with the discs, but I don't know quite what the answer is. I don't know what it is that people want in actual fact so I don't know what the criticism is. If people are saying, 'Why can't we have a set that has the theatrical version and the extended version?' I'm not sure it's what they want, because if you do that it's going to cost more money. If we release a four-disc set, if you want the theatrical version and the other stuff, it's going to be a six-disc set and you're going to be charged for a six-disc set. What we're trying to do, we've tried deliberately to be good people. We put out the theatrical version for people who just want the movie in their collection. That's done with a disc with special features, so they have extra stuff and they have the theatrical version and it's as cheap as it can possibly be. Then we think the only people who are going to want to have the six hours of documentaries are going to be the aficionados and presumably they're going to be happy that we're giving them an alternative version of the film. If the theatrical version is all you want then that's the only one you'll have to buy. If you want everything, you're going to get charged for it.

Q: What's the definitive version of these films?

JACKSON: The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material.

=========================================

MAN, THE TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT?! ;)

Posted on Jan 28, 2010 11:55:05 PM PST
ToonForever says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 29, 2010 1:54:15 PM PST
GLG says:
I'm a big fan of the theatrical versions but after seeing the extended versions it's hard to go back and watch the originals. It feels like something's missing. I want to buy a definitive blu-ray version of LOTR that has both versions. The argument seems to be that the consumers should be given the choice from the start. Offer the theatrical cut versions at the cheaper price, but at the same time offer the collector edition with both versions and charge more for them. The rip-off we feel is having to wait for the latter version because the bean counters are waiting until sales of the theatrical version die down before soaking buyers some more.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 2:44:02 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 3:28:04 PM PST
GLG says:
These movies have already made a ton of money (I've seen them in the theaters twice, bought the theatrical DVD's and also the extended edition DVD's) so I don't understand your "flippant" remark. Even so, I guess they have every right to squeeze as many dollars they can from consumers. Some of us are just a bit dismayed by their tactics (I work at a Hollywood studio and I assure you that it IS their tactic). Many of us understand that and we'll voice our objection by not buying either version.

Posted on Jan 29, 2010 7:04:26 PM PST
ToonForever says:
*These movies have already made a ton of money*

So WHAT!? You ARE being flippant. How did you become the arbiter of what's 'enough?' You can only say that because you're not the one keeping a multi-million dollar studio running successfully, raising money to continue producing quality movies, etc. So if YOU have an asset that could make your company another $100 million, or another $150 million, depending on how you release it. What are you going to do? If you pick $100 million, you're a liar, period.

Of *course* that's their tactic, and suuuuuuuuure you work at a Hollywood studio. If *that* were true you'd get it. Not one person here on either side of the argument thinks that's somehow NOT their tactic. Of course it is. The argument is whether they have a right to maximize their profit from the asset they invested hundreds of millions into...

Posted on Jan 29, 2010 9:30:24 PM PST
J. jenkins says:
This is a blatant LIE... the DVD and Blu-Ray players can use scene jumps to have two versions of any given movie/tv/content. With the 25GB-50GB of Buu-Ray it is insulting to think the studios could not have one box set with the theatrical and extended edition. From the main menu you would select one or the other and the player would know what chapters to play in what order. What an insult!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2010 9:51:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2010 9:54:24 PM PST
GLG says:
Hey, Tony, don't get your panties in a bunch. Yes, we all know this is their tactic and if they want to squeeze every drop of cash from the consumers THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. But isn't it my right not to fall for it? If I choose not to purchase their product how is that any skin off your nose? Unless, of course, you work for New Line.

Posted on Jan 29, 2010 11:18:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2010 11:19:06 PM PST
ToonForever says:
It's Anthony, thank you.

There's nothing to fall for, GLG. You get whichever one you want, or none. That is my entire point. Don't give a rip what you buy or don't. It's the moronic one-star campaign that irks.

It does so just because it's spectacularly annoying, and is completely destroying the usefulness of the page for those that are actually interested in these movies.

Of course I don't work for New Line any more than you work for a big Hollywood studio. Yet another of the tired tropes trotted out by those out of arguments.

Hell, if I worked for New Line in a position in which the success of this product really mattered to me, I certainly wouldn't hide it. I'd be proud of it and would probably be really annoying at parties as I took every opportunity to name drop and say things like, "By the way, did I mention I work for New Line?"

Posted on Jan 31, 2010 3:51:19 PM PST
vgsmike says:
I don't understand his argument. I don't see anybody talking about the price. People are willing to pay for the extended cut + bonus content. That's why they're fans. What they DON'T want is to wait 1-2 more years beyond the Theatrical release for it.

Posted on Feb 1, 2010 12:53:00 PM PST
T. Walls says:
Interesting statement from Mr. Jackson. Nice to have his point of view on it. I'll get the theatrical version because I want to see it in BD. I am curious how Gollum will turn out on BD. I have seen movies that incorporate graphic characters and they can stick out like sore thumbs when they're in HD/Blu-ray. I may get the extended package when it comes out (I have the DVD extended set now) but being so far down the road yet, I haven't decided.

Posted on Feb 1, 2010 7:09:24 PM PST
The thing about the extended versions is that some of the sceens are critical that were left out of the normal version. I would say about half are critical while the other half could be cut. That is what this is really about and I guess Mr. Jackson just does not see it that way. His perspective is all on the art and the film,not the story or the movie, but the film and how it packages together by filming standards.

Posted on Feb 1, 2010 11:42:38 PM PST
T. Tomczak says:
I recently watched the Final Cut of Blade Runner on Blu-ray and heard Ridley Scott comment on the reasons for the release of yet another version of his movie. He said, the theatrical editions always have some kind of studio restraints, and are almost never entirely how the director wishes them to be. However, once the film is ready to be released on DVD/Blu-ray, the director has more creative license over the material and can give us, the fans, additional versions, created the way they were meant to be. I think the additional scenes in LOTR extended edition make a good movie, a great one.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2010 8:02:51 AM PST
Glen R says:
Scott didn't make the LOTR movies now did he? The issues he had with Blade Runner were varied and entirely different from Jackson's experience with New Line. But hey why let these little facts get in the way.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2010 6:46:51 AM PST
T. Tomczak says:
I am well aware that Ridely Scott didn't direct LOTR, but the reasons for Peter Jackson's release of the extended movies may have a striking resemblance to Scott's.

Posted on Feb 5, 2010 8:34:58 AM PST
ToonForever says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 6, 2010 8:07:44 AM PST
You guys are dorks getting so mad about this. Who cares? Buy the movie if you want it or hold out if you don't. Why is it really something to argue about?

Posted on Feb 8, 2010 1:42:52 PM PST
T. Steed says:
Of COURSE the theatrical versions are the "definitive versions". If the EE was the "definitive version", what idiot would buy the shorter, "non-definitive" version? PJ knows how to make money, and he's really good at it.

You people crack me up. :)

Posted on Feb 14, 2010 5:18:27 AM PST
The long delay waiting for the Extended Edition on Blu-Ray is frustrating, but it's there. The question is, what are they going to do with the extra time? They could just re-release exactly the same material from the DVD EE, and with all the extras still in Standard Definition. Or they could take those 2 years and produce new documentaries, or even new short film(s) to add. There's been years of fan activity since the original EE, there should be a enough for a whole new documentary right there. Or a "Where are they now, wWt have they done since" movie about the key artists, actors, Weta Studios, and Peter Jackson himself! What is happening in the New Zealand locations and what happened to the original props and costumes? Did some get auctioned, taken home a souveneers, or donated to museums? Part of the reward for waiting soooo long for the EE last time was that they had time to produce a mountain of -GOOD- new material to enjoy. How about the website community and all they've done? Jackson's working on The Hobbit, so they could delve into the preparations for that. My great hope is that this is happening again and that this Blu-Ray EE will provide hours of new enjoyment. This could be an extension of the journey into Middle Earth, not just a clearer revisit of the same hallowed ground. If they -use- the wait for the EE to extend the LOTR world, it will be well worth the wait.
But if this Blu-Ray EE is just the DVD EE in higher resolution, then a great opportunity will have been lost. This is Peter Jackson's masterpiece, and the thing he will be remembered for the way Orson Wells is remembered for Citizen Kane. Many of the actors and artists may know no better shining height, and this is their legacy too. Thousands of people gave their heart and soul and the best who they are to LOTR including extras, costumers, jewelers, armorers, set builders, and countless support people who's efforts didn't create something seen on the screen, but without whom the job couldn't have been done. This is their legacy too.
Peter Jackson, please use this time and make us proud.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 7:22:12 AM PST
Glen R says:
One thing I'm sure of is that they didn't destroy the extra scenes not included in the extended version. I'm curious as to whether the instant gratification crowd are willing to sacrifice the possibility of some additions and improvements to the current extended cut that could be made when the post production crews are ramped back up for the Hobbit..

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 10:23:47 AM PST
I am amazed at how much time you "Defenders of the Studio" spend researching articles and starting new threads. You're just as fanatical as the "whiners".

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 3:40:59 PM PST
ToonForever says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 8:42:14 PM PST
Fel says:
With Blu-ray disc already supporting 50gb of data (more than 7 DVDs) it shouldn't cost extra to have both the Theatrical and Extended versions in a single disc!

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 11:30:51 PM PST
ToonForever says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2010 9:41:32 AM PST
"Yeah, all one or two of them. Oh, that's so much! How stupid. What, are you drones running out of crap to whine about?"

Okay, Anthoney Toohey, whatever you say. I will just let you pretend that this post makes sense. Do me a favor, take about an hour or two and total up all of your posts in all of the discussions relating to this topic. You seriously need to find something else to do with your time. For your own health and sanity. I'm being totally serious. This can't be good for you.

Pour yourself a drink, put your feet up, put on some Enya...
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  38
Total posts:  80
Initial post:  Jan 28, 2010
Latest post:  Apr 5, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Widescreen Edition)
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Widescreen Edition) by Viggo Mortensen (DVD - 2004)
3.0 out of 5 stars   (7,086)