How do you feel about the LotR extended edition releases?

[0rganism]

Poll question: How do you feel about the LotR extended edition releases?

(edited for clarity and enhanced neutrality)

I'll admit it in advance: this is really pissing me off. The extended editions are better in every way, so why not make them primary releases? I'll tell you what my guess is: New Line can nearly double their DVD sales by releasing two versions of the movie. And, as we've seen this past week, they can sell extra movie tickets too. It reminds me of software companies agressively releasing bugware and then selling patches for what they should have fixed in the first place.

What's your take?

[beyurslf]

1. Pisses me off every time. They always pull out one good

scene and save it for the extended release.

[davidinalameda]

2. I've bought the regular versions and the extended of both

so far

I think they're great

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I just love them

and I have the sneaky that the Return of the King was the extended
alraedy

By the way, we also went and watched them again in the theater, the extended versions

[regnaD kciN]

21. No, the extended RotK will include...

...Saruman's demise. (Peter Jackson has already confirmed this.)

I also predict that it will include more of the Eowyn/Faramir story, which is pretty much absent in the theatrical version.

[fujiyama]

22. WTF?

Why the hell couldn't he have included that in the theatrical release?

I can tell ya most people woulda rather seen that than what to many (not including myself) seemed like a dragged out ending!

[ibegurpard]

4. I thought it sucked at first

because I bought "The Fellowship of the Ring" when it first came out on DVD only to be faced with the extended edition later. Now, I just don't buy it until I know whether an extended edition is coming out or not. It's definitely a rip-off but if we don't buy the sub-standard one then maybe they'll get the message.

[Beetwasher]

5. Yes, of course it's a marketing gimmick, however

I find that the extended versions contain what are IMO, very important scenes...

[0rganism]

7. Right, so why not put those scenes in the originals?

Because... It's a marketing gimmick.

So essentially, you're being given an inferior product at the theatre. The studio KNOWS it's inferior, they have a superior one ready to sell you, six months down the road. They know you'll buy it, JUST TO SEE THE SCENES THEY INTENTIONALLY OMITTED to sell you the extended version.

Don't you feel just a little bit cheated?

[Liberal Veteran]

10. Well, let's be realistic. All three movies clocked 3 hours in the theatre

And that's considered a long movie and frowned upon by most studios that would prefer 90 minute movies (more showings and the belief in the short attention span).

So they trim the movie here and there so you aren't sitting in the theatre for 4 hours.

If anything, blame the big theatre chains and movie studios that want shorter movies, but don't just believe it is all a marketing ploy to sell you a longer dvd.

[Beetwasher]

13. Yeah, sure...I'm not defending it

It may not be purely a marketing gimmick though. It might also have been done for time issues. Even though I would sit through it, some people might have a problem with a 3 1/2-4 hour movie in the theatres. It's much easier to watch something that long at home...Scenes get cut from movies all the time and not necessarily as marketing gimmicks...

[stopthegop]

16. if you feel cheated ...don't buy it..

you're responsible for your own decisions...they can't cheat you (that way) unless you help them...and scenes are left out all the time....see almost any DVD

[LanternWaste]

28. I think in this case...

I think in this case, the scenes deleted from the theatrical release films were because the studio's came down pretty hard on PJ, in effect telling him, "We've already let this film go on 33% longer than most films and you want to extend it? Are you mad? That's one or two less showings per theater that each film have and that translates into a lot of lost dough to us in the suit-seats!"

My opinion is that the extended versions were PJ's original vision of the films and we saw the watered-down versions in the theaters due to management.

Cheated? Yeah. Cheated by the studio exec's, not by the director, though.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. I'm willing to let Jackson off

for what seems like double-billing. I'll wait for the final boxed set to come out and buy that one for whatever he's charging. I figure I've only paid him about $20 total, at most, for having seen his movies. Judging from the quality of movie he made, i feel that I personally owe Jackson around $120 - because my life is enriched by having seen the movies.

[Westegg]

8. Money money money money

It's not QUITE that sinister, though. I think we have to give credit to New Line for taking on this wildy ambitous, expensive project in the first place. Had the film trilogy tanked, it could have sunk the studio.

I agree that the longer "director's cut" versions are better, as they often are. But I guess the "Rings" releases aren't truly "director's cuts," because that usually means a director has shortened a film against his will for the theatrical release and wants his original version to be available for home viewing. As far as I know, Peter Jackson hasn't complained about the deleted theatrical scenes in "LOTR." And I've interviewed him a few times, and asked him about that.

But shorter theatrical releases mean more showings of the film each day---and more money. Also, with films this expensive, the studio wanted to appeal to average film-goers, not just major "Rings" fans. And those average viewers aren't as likely to notice if things are missing from the films.

And, like you said, different versions of the DVD mean more sales. I'm wondering, however, why someone, unless he/she is a "Rings" completist, would need to buy both versions of the DVD. Assuming the longers versions are better, and more complete (and I think so with "Rings"), what's the point of having both? Color me curious.

[0rganism]

12. I think this project was low-risk

If it really was so damn speculative, New Line wouldn't have done it in the first place. Tolkien is a huge seller, right up there with the Bible. There's a massive guaranteed audience, not just in the USA but around the world. The New Line producers saw that by spending big on the costuming and attention to set detail, they'd have an excellent draw -- high opportunity cost, but a high ROI. I wouldn't be surprised if the New Zealand CoC gave them some subsidies, as well.

For those of us who only saw the primary release in the theatre, the extended edition is a big cheat -- they cut important scenes from the originals, truly plot-enriching material, for the sake of raking in the extra cash.

What if every production company starts doing this with its major films? Will we ever see a completed masterpiece in a theatre again?

[Westegg]

17. Low risk?

That wasn't the scuttlebutt in Hollywood at the time. It was seen as a big risk, particulary since Jackson shot all three films at once, so there was, essentially, no turning back or cutting losses.

You're right that the prospects for a hit were there, but that simply wasn't the conventional wisdom at the time. Sure, we all know what conventional wisdom is worth but alas, in Hollywood, it pretty much rules the place. That's why so few films take chances.

[jpgray]

19. No, it was very high risk--if it tanked, New Line would have gone too (nt)

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. it's more than a marketing gimmick

If they left those scenes in there, then the movie would run 4 hours. Who wants to sit in a theater for 4 hours.

After ROTK ended, at the 3 1/2 hour mark my butt was so numb an ork could have taken a bite out of it and I wouldn't have noticed.

The extended versions are for the TRUE fans. Of which I am one - and they are to be enjoyed in the comfort of your own home - where I can pause it to go to the bathroom.

:D

[0rganism]

15. I saw people packing the theatres for the extended releases, last 2 weeks

Numb butts and all, those "TRUE fans" seem to outnumber the other theatre-goers about 10-to-1. The "extra" scenes maybe added 20 minutes tops to a 3-hour movie; my inkling is, those who would pay to see the original would have paid for the extended release too.

[geniph]

11. Some people prefer the theatrical releases

and want copies of those. Others, like me, want the extended editions. Releasing both is just fine with me. Hell, there's some people that actually prefer cropped versions of movies to wide-screen. While that baffles me (why would you not want to see the whole movie???), to each his own. I don't think the studio is doing anything wrong by catering to people's preferences in this regard.

Hell, it's not like they're releasing director's cuts of Gigli and Battlefield Earth...

[grannylib]

14. My daughter and I really enjoy watching the extended versions; the

extra scenes are nice little extras, and we love the behind-the-scenes stuff as well.
We watched the extended versions of Fellowship and Two Towers before we went and sat in line for good seats at the midnight run of Return of the King, and we had a great time.

[jpgray]

18. Considering special effects + rescored music + post production

Forty minutes more *completed* footage is like half of a lesser movie. In other words, it's not the most profitable "super ultimate edition" I've seen out there. The scenes get the same treatment due to the hard work of scores of people, and the profit margin isn't so high that it seems outrageous.

AS for the EE beign the "real" movie, I agree, but New Line would *never* allow a movie to run for four hours, it just would not happen.

[roguevalley]

20. PJ had to fight for the length of Fellowship, trimming scenes that he knew

they would not allow for the length. He had more latitude
in Two Towers and King. He had to put in scenes and take
out others because it made the length too long and often
would pull down the narrative. so he put them in in the
final extended versions.

There is talk that they will take all three, make them
fatter with other things they always wanted in and release
them at some point like the Godfather set.

I can't wait. Whatever he releases, I will buy. These
movies are wonderful.

[fujiyama]

23. I have been patient enough...

to hold off not buying the theatrical (why any fan would buy these is beyond me, except when the fellowship was 1st released...that can be excused for simply not knowing about the ees coming out later) and extended editions, for i know after all three have run their theatrical course, a package with all three will be made, extended and everything.

I did however catch the extended edition on starz and was impressed. I honestly don't remember the film very well the 1st and only time i saw it in the theatre...and having seen the other two, i thought the story flowed very nicely...the various story lines seemed make much more sense afterward.

of course, when i first saw the fellowship, being that i never read the books, i was more fascinated and awestruck by what i saw on screen that i really didn't pay attention to the various storylines, beyond the big picture...

[Kamika]

24. I dont like them at all, cinema is becomming a promo for dvd's

It's like they PLAN to release extre scenes whiel theyre editing the movie.. THATS not how it is supposed to be.

A movie should be edited as the movie should be. Shown on cinemas etc with NO intentin of selling dvds. Removing sauron is totally cash only. Had the dvd medium not existed they would have never edited him out.


I don't like it at all

[0rganism]

25. Yup, that's the feeling I get too

> Removing sauron is totally cash only.

You mean the removal of Saruman, right? They totally chopped all the footage that wraps the storyline for Christopher Lee's Saruman, "but it will be in the extended edition, we promise."

Riiiiiight.

Personally, I think it's totally compromising the medium.

[Kamika]

26. yes sorry

I always mix those two guys up..

two bad guys both starting with a S and have u's in them..


Anyway yes it is bad when they use Dvd's like this.. Dvd's shoudl be to include the scenes the movie freaks wanted.. not what the general audience wanted..


Like Aliens.. they finally included those missing scenes that you had to watch with like dutch subtitles when only VHS existed.. that was great but it was a Bonus.. the real movie had been released in what? 86?

Back then it was.. "You get the real movie now, in some years when we invent the dvd youl'l get an even COOLER movie"

Now its like.. "you get the crap movie now.. then wait one year and get the real movie, while we practicly force you to cough up a atleast a hundred bucks for both"

[LanternWaste]

29. Without trying to sound like an apologist

Without trying to sound like an apologist for the studio exec's (which I'm not, so stop saying that...lol), there's a fine line they walk in movie length (related to dollars, of course). If a movie clocks in a two hours, a theater can show 6-7 showings of that film per day. If the movie is twice as long (as we all wanted LotR to be), the theaters can only show 3-5 showings per day, resulting in much lower ticket sales. Yeah, it sucks royally, but I don't really look at it as a teaser for the DVD.

In my perfect world, LotR would have been a theatrically released mini-series; seven movies, each two and half hours long. That's probably why I don't work in Hollywood...hehe


edited for spelling

[supernova]

27. Waiting for the definitive set

I'm waiting for the multi-mega, compliations, all inclusive, no-holds barred, all-access back stage pass,320-volume DVD set from all 3 LotR movies. :D