Obviously Jackson felt that cinematic flow was more important overall and I'd happily agree in this case , but it still brings up the important question on how movies should properly deal with everything that they need to present in a wholly different medium. Sauron moves to strike Minas Tirith. Two of his short films are featured and they're both quite good. Is film a technical endeavor for you, or an emotional one? Even as a Jackson apologist, I have trouble with some of the changes exacted on Tolkien's text. The eye of the enemy is moving. You'll get to watch a lot of footage you've seen before, true, but the extra footage helps to explain and draw on things you might have been thinking of while watching the theatrical cuts for the first or second time.
I'm not here to start a fight about superhero films; surely we can agree that they've turned into something much slower and more dramatic than they used to be. Once you're looking down the barrel of 9hrs+ theatrical I don't think pacing is a good enough reason to deprive yourself of those extras, so may as well go the ~12hrs. I care about those characters, I want to see more of them, and I think that it's better to have longer scenes a lot of the time. Unlike the extended versions of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, The Return of the King is a better film for all of its additions, and it's next to impossible to revisit Jackson's theatrical cut without feeling as if its innards have been ripped out. Yet on video, they think it's better. But it makes for a terrible movie ending. In any case, these preferences probably influenced my opinions listed above.
Edit: I am not good at tags on reddit. As is the case with his previous production documentaries, it isn't nearly as extensive as the Appendices content, but it approaches everything from a completely different direction. To my knowledge it was only special effects and the depiction of the future yeah yeah its really the past but ssshhh that were groundbreaking. Environmental ambience never relents the Paths of the Dead! The result is a plodding, aimless story that may be closer to the book, but lacks any of the excitement and drive of the theatrical edition. Howard Shore's masterful score is perfectly prioritized beneath the film's soundscape, gut punch revelations are as pitch-perfect as they are emotional, restless armies will make viewers turn their heads, and the terrifying clamor of orcs, ghosts, beasts of burden, war trolls and more will unsettle the most steely listener.
I would not watch their theatrical cuts again. Meanwhile, The Return of the King is my favorite of the books; I guess I just preferred how Tolkien handled the final battles over Jackson's approach. Instead, I believe you are either trolling or somehow became offended by my assessment. Leaving the second Hobbit movie on a classically cheap cliffhanger? The Fellowship of the Ring is an excellent fantasy action film and a quite faithful adaptation. And I enjoy Peter Jackson, respect him as a director, but wasn't he rather enthused by high frame rate filming? Once again, the only downside is that it's presented in non-anamorphic widescreen. Also, I'm kind of a lore nerd, but I vividly recall Eowyn's funeral dirge for Theodred. The battle between Gandalf and the Witch-king? It still isn't as perfect an adaptation or as consistent a film as its predecessors, though.
There's an expectation of patience that wasn't there for that genre in the 90's. There simply can't be time for them all, and if you want those details you may as well read the books but it does not make it a better movie. While extended scenes can drastically improve some single movies Dune, Blade Runner, Sucker Punch, etc never have I seen an extended edition series like LotR add so much excellent, polished content that helps the world building and overall feel of the story as much as this one, so much so I can't bring myself to touch the Theatrical any more. Star Wars showed what is possible with the combination of special effects and good cinematography. So I do these extended cuts thinking that people will like to see these scenes. But please, watch them all extended.
What you see as loss in the extended version in terms of pacing and tone, I see as gain. Cinematography and set design in Star Wars were groundbreaking and are still breathtaking, and it was made in 1977. The Return of the King isn't always as refined as The Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers, but it remains a gripping, altogether momentous end to a truly magnificent piece of cinema. It demands more time and a deeper connection to its audience. I completely disagree with this on multiple levels. These aren't just things fans care about; the whole film is diminished without them. It is an experience that occupies most of the waking day, but it's really a must-do in my book.
Watching helplessly as the poor Hobbit is dashed on the rocks of betrayal is a difficult ordeal; watching his eyes quiver and his mouth tighten as Frodo succumbs to madness even more so. Not pixel-perfect, but about as close as it could. It's just that your hyperbole seemed to be completely off the scale. I disagree that LotR has better direction and editing. Everyone would have criticized it for being too long. You can watch it over two nights or you can pause it and make a cup of tea. Disclaimer: The Two Towers remains my favorite of the trilogy, even though it is the least faithful to the books.
It gives Helm's Deep the weight and gravitas it deserves. Jackson overcomes nearly every hurdle his final adaptation places in his way, and his extended cut is as revealing as it is rewarding. On more than one occasion, filmmaker Peter Jackson has emphatically declared that The Return of the King is his favorite film in his near-reverential adaptation of J. But it is not this day. I have to say, where Jackson adds extra scenes in the extended editions that give better context and explain where certain items used later come from, in the Hobbit, Jackson just makes really long scenes. The final chapter of one of the most beloved trilogies of all time finds our characters picking up where they left off.
They will watch a 20hr cut if it existed. To me Peter Jackskn is still stuck in extended edition mode and this is why the Hobbit movies have not been good. It's not really a coherent film in the extended cut, either, but at least it starts to make some sense. It was the most Extended-Edition of the Theatrical releases, if that makes sense. The Return of the King makes a triumphant entrance, stealing past The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers on its way to the throne. So I don't get the comparison. I agree that acting is generally better in the LotR films, although there's more overacting, too.
Hi, thanks for the request! The Lord of the Rings represents the rarest of productions: an effects-laden fantasy epic with genuine heart, tremendous power and incalculable cinematic value. It's not Game of Thrones, it's a feature film. In the extended edition, too many extra scenes seriously, how long do we need to spend hearing Treebeard drone on to Merry and Pippin? Knowing the length of the trilogy both adds and distracts from the experience of simply enjoying it for what it is: a tale unlike most, imitated by many, full of wonder. Aragorn struggles to fulfill his legacy as he leads his outnumbered followers against the growing power of the Dark Lord Sauron, so that the Ring-bearer may complete his quest. It hews a bit closer to the book while keeping the excellent spirit and general structure of the theatrical cut intact. 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. Everything -- literally everything, from the scale and scope of the tale to Jackson's direction, the fragrant dialogue and poetic storytelling, and Weta's visual effects -- comes to fruition in a grand, gripping multi-stage tour de force that doesn't relent until silence falls, hearts pound and tears flow.