Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cereal_killerxx t1_iyckoiq wrote

Reply to comment by BenefitPale in Someone explain me why LOTR movies are so highly regarded by BenefitPale

The extended versions are WAY better and closer to the books. I would watch those first before making a final verdict.

0

BenefitPale OP t1_iycl46f wrote

Well is it that much of a difference to reflect on the quality of movies. Normally extended versions are something like cherry on top on the already baked cake it shouldn't be like i need the cherry on top to appreciate the cake.

I mean it should stand on it's own right without the extended edition. I'm just curious what the extended edition improves over the standard ones

0

weebeardedman t1_iycpiws wrote

The extended version adds like 2 hours+ of screen time, with a lot of "necessary" content to fully understand the story. Why is it like this? Because even with 11 hours, it's still missing a lot of critical info from the books, it's the best they could do

So...yea. You're missing a lot of plot

1

BenefitPale OP t1_iyd78ro wrote

Damn, why didn't they made a movie or two more, seems like it would've really helped by how you are describing, looks like they really wanted it to be a trilogy.

1

weebeardedman t1_iydb18g wrote

Because we've created an environment where creatives require outside financing they are beholden to; publicly traded companies will never treat creators consistently

1

cereal_killerxx t1_iycl7gz wrote

I felt the same way about the movies until I saw the extended versions.

0

Otakuma575 t1_iyckzvj wrote

Each entry would have to be six movies each to be anywhere near the books... They cut entire plot lines.

−1

cereal_killerxx t1_iyclj6n wrote

They didn't cut out that much. Tom Bombadil and a few other unnecessary things.

2

Otakuma575 t1_iycm0vc wrote

There's so much more than that, lol. The Barrow Downs, the wild men that Aragorn recruited, about 30 years of stuff in the Shire, meeting the elves in the woods, pretty much all of Aragorn's plot is wrong ( he has Narsil from the beginning, he's supposed to be much older, and he doesn't even use the Palantir to challenge Sauron, etc) the other rangers and the Swan Knights are absent... It's a very long and detailed list of inaccuracies and cut jobs.

1

BenefitPale OP t1_iycla1x wrote

So like did they rush the movies. Should they've split into more movies is what are you saying?

0

Otakuma575 t1_iyclnl3 wrote

They did an OK job streamlining the main story for film, but most of the side arcs are completely missing and they made some weird changes with the characters (i.e Frodo is in his 50's in the books, not early 20's). Honestly they did a worse job with The Hobbit, they made a short book into three movies and somehow still missed half the book.

1

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_iycy0l5 wrote

Book fans always have scenes they wish were kept in and which scenes they want varies, but to give you an idea of just how much they cut for the films, in the books Sam and Frodo spend a week at the house of that farmer, who is just a scythe waving above the crops in the movie.

1