Page 1 of 3

Yet Another Helping of LOTR

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:44 am
by jgraphix
So looks like were getting some new "editions" of the LOTR trilogy....
it does have some pretty nifty extras though...

Here is the story with pix!

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/lord-of-the-rings6.html

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:47 am
by King Psyz
Peter Jackson is a blood sucking leech bastard. And I'll probablly buy these...

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:47 am
by The Vicar
"300 minutes of never before seen footage"?

I need more information on that.

Otherwise, I've got all the LOTR I need.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:48 am
by jgraphix
Yeah, the 300 minute thing is the only reason I would even consider buying them.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:49 am
by TheBaxter
i'm waiting for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray before i buy any more SW or LOTR DVDs

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:09 pm
by sonnyboo
Yeah, it looks like an "all new documentary" is all we have to look forward too... but on 2 discs instead of 4 including BOTH versions of the movies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060622/film_nm/rings_ dc;_ylt=AutQIFrTufhHQd0J3_o_saAwFxkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBj MHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--


LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - There hasn't been a new "Lord of the Rings" movie in nearly three years.

But that hasn't stopped New Line Home Entertainment from preparing new DVD versions of all three films in the franchise, which generated more than $1 billion in U.S. theaters and won 17 Academy Awards.

Three "The Lord of the Rings Limited Edition" sets, one for each movie, will roll out August 29. Each two-disc set will include the original theatrical and the extended versions of the film, along with Costa Botes' feature-length documentary on each film's creation.

Both versions of the three films -- 2001's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," 2002's "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" and 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" -- have previously been released on DVD.

"But this is the first time they are available together, which we feel will appeal to the first-time buyer," New Line executive vp marketing Matt Lasorsa said.

New to DVD are the documentaries, in which director Peter Jackson and his crew gave Botes full access to the set for hours of behind-the-scenes footage.

"It's something fans have been asking for," Lasorsa said. "Costa was hired a year before principal photography began, and his job was to capture all the production, relate his personal experiences and provide his perspective for Peter."

Except for the first documentary's screening at the New Zealand Film Festival, none of the three video production diaries have been seen anywhere, Lasorsa said.

"New Line has owned these documentaries and waited to make them available to the general public," Lasorsa said. "The style of these documentaries is quite different from the documentaries on the extended-edition DVDs. These are more organic, and had they come out sooner people might have been confused."

While first-time buyers might be intrigued by the two versions of the film, ardent "Rings" fans who already own the two previous DVD releases might be enticed to buy a third just for the documentaries.

"It gives us the chance to refresh the franchise," Lasorsa said.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Money GRabbing Bastards wrote:"It gives us the chance to refresh the franchise," Lasorsa said.


In other words "We're trying to milk even MORE money from fans...

No commentary tracks, dissing the documentaries ont he 4 disc sets.... I think I'll pass. This pisses me off.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:35 pm
by Doc Holliday
Man there's only one thing I hate more than being played. And thats knowing I'm being played and yet meekly allowing it to happen (starts rummaging around for wallet)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:49 pm
by iamthevillain
I already habe the speacial edition sets, and that's enought for me. As long as theres a way to make money, these guys will do it... Talk about whoring a movie!

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:53 pm
by MasterWhedon
That cover art is really pretty. I really want to get the theatrical cuts of these films at some point, as all I have are the extended ones now, but I want the trailers and shit which are only on the first releases.

I'll likely just rent these for the documentaries, though I don't know what else there is to cover after sitting through all of the Appendicies. Maybe those deleted scenes we got glimpses of...

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:56 pm
by TheBaxter
even if i wasn't waiting for the HD versions, i couldn't see buying this set. $30 for what, a new documentary? i've got all the extended editions, and i've watched all the docs on there once, and probably won't bother watching them again. i just can't get excited about watching a new documentary when i feel like i've already seen more than enough behind-the-scenes stuff on those films. and since i prefer the extended editions to the theatrical films, i have no desire to add the theatrical versions to my library (and if i did, i'd just buy the original theatrical dvds for a lot cheaper).

one other thing: the extended film is so long they had to put it on two dvd's. this new set is two dvd's, and it doesn't say how or if the film is split over two discs or on one disc. if the whole film is on one disc though, they would have had to really squeeze it on there, which means the video quality would be compromised compared to the extended edition version.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:01 pm
by MasterWhedon
TheBaxter wrote:one other thing: the extended film is so long they had to put it on two dvd's. this new set is two dvd's, and it doesn't say how or if the film is split over two discs or on one disc. if the whole film is on one disc though, they would have had to really squeeze it on there, which means the video quality would be compromised compared to the extended edition version.

I read both the theatrical and extended cuts are on the first disc, via some sort of "branching" system, and that the second disc was only for the documentary. Not sure HOW that works...

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:17 pm
by Chairman Kaga
It's funny how people have been down on the two DVD versions of Star Wars so far (what with that edition featuring the originals on the horizon) yet LOTR, which is no where near as old, is already up to their third version.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:18 pm
by Lady Sheridan
ARRGGG!!

I won't...I won't buy them!! Maybe I can find someone to burn me the documentaries. I still feel denied all those mysterious deleted scenes...of course, considering the hideousness of "the stew scene" perhaps they are things best left unwatched.

I don't get it--I know it's just plain greed, but the fans were such an integral part of the experience and success of the LOTR films that you would think Jackson could throw us a bone...release a set like this, but also package up the documentaries (and a blooper reel!) for those of us who already have the extended edition.

Don't turn into Lucas, PJ! No one likes a George Lucas.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:19 pm
by TheBaxter
well then, they would have to really compress the video to get all that on a single dvd, even with the branching. so the video quality will certainly suffer, though it's probably only noticable if you watch on a big screen.

that is, unless they made it a flipper disc with half the movie on one side and half on the other.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:22 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Lady Sheridan wrote:Don't turn into Lucas, PJ! No one likes a George Lucas.

I like George. I think he gets a bad rep simply because he wants to make money off his own intellectual property. It's not his fault people keep buying every toy, lunchbox, toilet paper, flamethrower etc he puts out. If people stopped buying that shit it would dry up real fast. Blame the idiot "completionist" fans.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:22 pm
by TheBaxter
Chairman Kaga wrote:It's funny how people have been down on the two DVD versions of Star Wars so far (what with that edition featuring the originals on the horizon) yet LOTR, which is no where near as old, is already up to their third version.


most of the SW bitching is based on HOW the original versions are being released, not because they're being released at all. the fact they can't even bother to do a new transfer, and are sticking everyone with a crappy 10+ year old laserdisc transfer, just shows how much disdain Lucas has for his fans and for the original films.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:23 pm
by tapehead
There's only one good reason to get these -


Tom Bombadil


- I mean, am I the only one who kept hoping he'd turn up in 'Fellowship', and then kept dreaming in vain they might squeeze him in to 'Towers', or say a goodbye to him in 'Return'... or include him anywhere at all?
Oh Tom Bombadil, where fore art thou? how you let PJ treat you like that?

Maybe, just maybe, there's a deleted scene or two?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:25 pm
by Chairman Kaga
I am just the guy to hate in this thread....

I didn't miss Tom Bombadil. The only thing I thought he did that was really cool was interacting with the Ring with no obvious effects otherwise I don't think it would have added anything to the movie.....flame on!

TheBaxter wrote:most of the SW bitching is based on HOW the original versions are being released, not because they're being released at all. the fact they can't even bother to do a new transfer, and are sticking everyone with a crappy 10+ year old laserdisc transfer, just shows how much disdain Lucas has for his fans and for the original films.

I was refering to the double dipping bitching which seemed the loudest round the web.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:29 pm
by tapehead
Go on - go all Werewolf of London on me :wink:
I loved him in the book, and always wondered how Jackson might have shown him in the movie - But I didn't like treebeard and the Ents in the films that much anyway, so, maybe it's better he and his missus got left out.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:34 pm
by TheBaxter
i saw the first LOTR before i read the books, so when i got to tom bombadil in the books, i was like "c'mon, stop wasting my time with this hippie douche, i want to get to the mines of moria and the balrog and stuff"

even if i hadn't seen the film, i don't think i would've cared for tom bombadil. though i enjoy the LOTR books, i've never been able to get through 'the hobbit' and a lot of what annoys me about the hobbit is exemplified in the tomb bombadil portion of FOTR.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:35 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Wasn't there a Tom Bombadil trading card with a guy made up in a costume? He seemed pretty plain....it may have even been PJ himself dressed up.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:35 pm
by tapehead
So, not a fan then?

Chairman Kaga wrote:Wasn't there a Tom Bombadil trading card with a guy made up in a costume? He seemed pretty plain....it may have even been PJ himself dressed up.


Never saw this, but I'd be interested - Tom's rather big in the book, and kind of has some import to the proceedings, at least in Fellowship.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:39 pm
by Chairman Kaga
tapehead wrote:So, not a fan then?

Chairman Kaga wrote:Wasn't there a Tom Bombadil trading card with a guy made up in a costume? He seemed pretty plain....it may have even been PJ himself dressed up.


Never saw this, but I'd be interested - Tom's rather big in the book, and kind of has some import to the proceedings, at least in Fellowship.


Found it

Image

I'm with Baxter I was never into the sing songy parts of LOTR or more so The Hobbit.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:39 pm
by Lady Sheridan
I never liked Tom Bombadil and I was glad he was left out. He really added nothing to the overall story. I love just about everything in the LOTR books and wanted to see it all onscreen--except Tom Bombadil!

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:41 pm
by Chairman Kaga
LS you should end every post with an exclamation point. It fits well with your avatar. Just to make sure you get your point across!!

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:48 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
Lady Sheridan wrote:ARRGGG!!

I won't...I won't buy them!! Maybe I can find someone to burn me the documentaries. I still feel denied all those mysterious deleted scenes...of course, considering the hideousness of "the stew scene" perhaps they are things best left unwatched.

I don't get it--I know it's just plain greed, but the fans were such an integral part of the experience and success of the LOTR films that you would think Jackson could throw us a bone...release a set like this, but also package up the documentaries (and a blooper reel!) for those of us who already have the extended edition.

Don't turn into Lucas, PJ! No one likes a George Lucas.


Same old story, Lady. As long as they think there's a viable market, the filmmakers and producers of these kind of films will fleece the fans as much as they can. They might argue that no one forces anyone to purchase these 'special/extra/unseen etc etc editions' and strictly speaking that's true. But it's a hollow argument. Most loyal fans probably will go out and buy that 'new' edition - and they know it. Big time. Like they know they'll buy the 'new' edition after that and the one after that and the one after that......

They'll feed you a few crumbs, then a few more, then a few more. Just enough to make you a little hungry for more.... it's an old and tested marketing formula and always pretty successful. As Mr Lucas and now Mr Jackson would no doubt concur.
At your cost, of course.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:52 pm
by Seppuku
If the original extended editions were crumbs, they were lembas bread crumbs.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever watch the theatrical versions again. I just see no need whatsoever.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:56 pm
by Chairman Kaga
HollywoodBabylon wrote: They might argue that no one forces anyone to purchase these 'special/extra/unseen etc etc editions' and strictly speaking that's true. But it's a hollow argument. Most loyal fans probably will go out and buy that 'new' edition - and they know it.

How is it a hollow argument? It's true. No one forces anyone to buy these. Obviously they know people want them thus they want to make money off what the fans will purchase. These aren't something people need they are a luxury item. No reason not to fleece the fans. After all they are not communists.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:57 pm
by The Vicar
If they really gave a shit about us,
they'd release the 300 minutes of unseen footage, and new documentary, on a separate DVD disc.

I am not buying three different versions of the same *&^% film.

God I hated Tom Bombadil.
He kept the story from going anywhere.
And it went on for bloody chapters, it seems.
Just when you think the Hobbits are free of him, here he comes singing some wanky, fruity tune.
It was starting to get like Groundhog Day.
I nearly gave up on the book, but then the Fellowship made it into Moria & things took right off.
They should have had Richard Simmons play Tom.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:58 pm
by Chairman Kaga
We need a Tom Bombadil haters club!

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:59 pm
by Brocktune
Lady Sheridan wrote:ARRGGG!!

I won't...I won't buy them!! Maybe I can find someone to burn me the documentaries.


amen sister.

you're looking at your man right here.
this greedy and feduciarily gluttonous triple dip is as nauseating as it is aggravating. upon the release of these, i will get them from netflix, rip the shit out of the bonus features, and promptly send a copy your way. ill be damned, if im going to fork out another 90 bucks to these fucking whores.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:01 pm
by Brocktune
Lady Sheridan wrote:I never liked Tom Bombadil and I was glad he was left out. He really added nothing to the overall story. I love just about everything in the LOTR books and wanted to see it all onscreen--except Tom Bombadil!


word to that.
not that i didnt like him in the books, but lets face it, that part of the book alone is gonna take like another hour of screen time. and as much as i like long movies, 5 hours would be getting a little pretentious.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:02 pm
by tapehead
Chairman Kaga wrote:We need a Tom Bombadil haters club!



I can only find 'appreciation societies' on the 'net so far, but I'm sure there's a big club of intelligent, sophisticated individuals who hate a character from a novel and want badly to share that hate, out there somewhere

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:03 pm
by Seppuku
I like him. He's like one of your granddad's long-winded, rambling stories in humanoid form. And you could say that he was the epitome of the words "salt of the earth"; he's how Tolkien wished man really was- a minstrel who lives in the forest. Instead of these overly-political, urbane socialites, who are riding the gnarly wave of encroachment. Which is pretty much why the hippies clung onto Lord of The Rings in the first place- to escape what they saw the world was turning into.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:05 pm
by tapehead
Seppuku - I like Tom Bombadil too, but I have to ask; are you a minstrel who lives in the forest?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:09 pm
by Chairman Kaga
With a high speed WiFi..

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:13 pm
by Seppuku
tapehead wrote:Seppuku - I like Tom Bombadil too, but I have to ask; are you a minstrel who lives in the forest?


Yeah I tried that, but the Amazonian Government said that they'd have to cut down 78,087 trees in order to hook my hut up with a dial-up connection.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:19 pm
by Bob Samonkey
Chairman Kaga wrote:I'm with Baxter I was never into the sing songy parts of LOTR or more so The Hobbit.


What about the old cartoon movie:

Frodo of the nine fingers,
And the ring of doooom....

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:20 pm
by Flumm
I love this. A Tom Bambaldi conversation. What is it about that character that is inately hillarious? I just can't think of him without laughing. He JUST somehow sucker punches any Punky Power from the atmosphere around him.

That being said, I understand why tapehead and Sepp like him. When I first read the books, it was all so new, the films were only a distant dream away, and the strangess of this world unfolding really got to me. I love stories that take characters, and have them jarred from their existance, from what their normality is, and set off on an unexpected path. And this was the ultimate example of it that I had read outside Robert Louis Stevenson. Just the simplicity of the idea. I loved the feeling of Frodo and teh Hobbit crew having to walk across fields they had never walked across before. I mean how often does that happen? How often do people travel to the places they see on the horizon? We just stick to teh roads, the paths, following others. I remember it was part of the thing as a young teenager that made me get off my arse, and want to travel around and explore where I lived, walking around country trails, exploring coastlines, through villiages, and old...

*car tyers screeching, needle scratching, window breaking*

Hang on, wtf am I talking about?!


The Vicar wrote:Just when you think the Hobbits are free of him, here he comes singing some wanky, fruity tune.


This sums it up entirely. :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:22 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:I'm with Baxter I was never into the sing songy parts of LOTR or more so The Hobbit.


What about the old cartoon movie:

Frodo of the nine fingers,
And the ring of doooom....

Maybe the Goblin/Orcs music but that is pushing it.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:28 pm
by The Vicar
For a novel a character like that is okay, if you've the patience for him or some affection.

But he would have ground LOTR to a dead halt, and the story really needed to get its ass moving.

And another nice take from Brother Flumm.
Airbag deploy?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:44 pm
by Flumm
I think one of the things he servess quite well, is the magical side of Midddle Earth. Something we didn't really have much time invested in with the often grander themes at play, and subtexts being weaved in here and there. Without substantial powers shown by, or eleborated on for Gandalf, the Elves, Sauron, or the ring even, things like that stand quite vividly on the landscape I think. Afterall, those things are the things that are often are most compelling in fantasy, at least to me - what the author does with the fantastical. How the magic is manifested. He fleshes out the idea that there mythical beings beyond the mainstay races. I quite liked that. It's something to savour amid everything else going on. The idea of a real, living breathing world, yet with creatures and things that you can't quite explain still hidden in the shadows. He's like the anti Balrog. Something that doesn't really have an explanation and is beyond the realms of understanding.

He's still a but of a fruity wanker though. :P

(Sigh, I'm so picturing a Bambidil VS Balrog showdown about now, with anciant flames of death, and showtunes and eveything...)



EDIT:
The Vicar wrote:And another nice take from Brother Flumm.
Airbag deploy?


Mmm, I can't remember... I'll have to wait till my exclusive Extended Edition DVD documentary comes out I guess. :?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:12 pm
by The Vicar
:lol: :lol: :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:22 pm
by so sorry
I believe Tom Bombadil was an early (pre-LOTR) fairy tale that Tolkein wrote, and he squeezed him into the Fellowship 'cuase good o' JRR like him alot (there has to be a Tolkein historian amongst us to confirm, eh?).
taht being said, fuck tom bombadillio up his stupid ass (and that trading card above is laughably bad).

as for buying the new and improved DVDs, maybe i'll do it and donate my current copies to Screech.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:26 pm
by buster00
Among the highlights of the unseen footage:

Tom Bombadil wipes out an entire batallion of Uruk-Hai...with pure love, man.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:28 pm
by wonkabar
How could you hate on poor Tom?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:52 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Same way I hate Jesus.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:59 pm
by The Vicar
wonkabar wrote:How could you hate on poor Tom?


The one thing LOTRs didn't need was freaking Tiny Tim.
And I am not referring to the Christmas Carol.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:02 pm
by tapehead
That trading card is not how I pictured him; I think I imagined him as giant, stoned tom waits, stumbling and dancing, a little fruity, sure, but a little funky too..... I really like ol' Tom Bombadil, do your worst

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:12 pm
by so sorry
wonkabar wrote:How could you hate on poor Tom?


"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow."

"Hey dol! merry dol!ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo"

any other questions?