TTT extended Edition

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Here's the cool part: sometime last year, this one IP caught my attention. It was "morannon.wetafx.co.nz" and they were viewing the thread called "Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien".

It's nice to know that PJ enjoys reading profound and insightful board commentary about his films.

[Dúnedain]

I think I found a mistake on one of the maps. In the scene when Faramir is discussing the movements of Saruon's Army and Saruman's Army (chapter 40 on the DVD), they are looking at a map. You can see it in two spots, the very beginning of the scene when they put the map on the table and when the camera pans from Rohan to Gondor, you also see on the map, Emyn Muil, The Dead Marshes and "DagorlaNd". It should say Dagorlad and not DagorlaNd...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It's nice to know that PJ enjoys reading profound and insightful board commentary about his films.

It's even nicer to know that we the outspoken "purist" have him rethinking and having to defend his decisions. If everyone was lik you - he would have had Arwen at Helms Deep.

[azalea]

I really got the feeling watching the commentary that they had seen Entmoot. I don't go to any other boards, but some of the things they said felt like they were directly addressing some things that have been said here (I know similar things are said on other boards, but it was too close to not at least think they'd seen and read stuff on here). Some of the things include the use of the word "purist," references to things we've complained about. I think they probably visited many boards, but I think ours must have been among them. Plus, the way PJ says "Entmoot" when they come to that scene. It's probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it's fun to think what we say has a little influence on what they say or think about things. Who knows?

My comments on the EE: Many of the added scenes I felt were unnecessary and I could see why they were left out, but then again, it was hard to see why some weren't just left in since they added only a second or two to the time ("I am Saruman, at least Saruman as he should have been"). Other stuff was great to see (I liked the Old Man Willow part), but it all still felt so rushed, even for this part of the story. I know editing this movie was very difficult, but I still felt they could have made it seem less choppy. One thing I think modern filmmakers do to keep the audience's attention is to constantly cut back and forth between characters talking, and not linger more than a few seconds on any one shot. But that is unnecessary when you have a good story and this level of quality in terms of energy being put into making the film. I think letting the camera linger a little more would have done a lot to lessen the choppy feel, esp. since it's already cutting between three storylines.
I felt the FotR EE was better, but then again, I thought that movie was better. What gave me a better feeling about it was when I watched it w/ the directors' commentary...

My thoughts on the commentary: I found it somewhat humorous because a lot of the last hour of the commentary felt like their apology for some of the major changes we didn't like, esp. Faramir (my big peeve). Phillipa in particular kept saying "If we had had more time, we definately might have taken his storyline in a diff. direction," etc. She implied that they realized too late (yeah, like after the movie came out and they saw the outrage on the net ) that his character was too great a departure from the book, but by then they'd already shot everything, and it was too late to change it. They did as someone mentioned above say that they had to make resisting the Ring difficult for him because it would "kill" the Ring if he resisted it so easily. My reply to this would be if they had even mentioned Faramir's close relationship with Gandalf it would be easily explained in that he knew ahead of time from working with Gandalf that the Ring could not be ultimately used for good purposes. This could have been accomplished with a little dialog, perhaps even showing him at some point (either in FotR or as a flashback in TTT) with Gandalf in the room in Gondor going over the old docs. Furthermore, Denethor could have mentioned it in the flashback we see in this EE (I do think that scene was well done, if misplaced -- in Osgiliath rather than Minas Tirith. It was nice to see Sean Bean again).
Another thing that they talked about was the elves coming to Helm's Deep. It was quite funny because the women both had an uproar about how this was all PJ's doing, and they were told to make it work. They said it was because they wanted to show that elves were also involved in the fighting, but couldn't show the battles taking place elsewhere (I disagree). So then one of them mentions how Lothlorien was fighting its own battle, and PJ said "Oh, really? We should shoot that to include in the RotK EE" or something like that, at which the women groaned.
They tried to justify Aragorn's fall by saying they needed a way to make him essential to the story in this movie, and to give some extra tension to it. Plus (they said), "if we didn't have something like that happen, it would have rendered the warg attack unnecessary!" to which I laughed out loud -- "So why didn't you leave that out as well!?"
Not much was said about Theoden's exorcism aside from what I had already guessed -- they needed a way to make it clear that it was because of Saruman's influence that Theoden was like that. I of course think the viewers would be able to discern that without making it so...like it was.

Continuing in next post...

[azalea]

They mentioned how they werew originally going to have Elrond and Arwen go to Lothlorien to consult with Galadriel, which is how we ended up with her talking to Elrond. I think thye should have just left in a little of it so it would look like the flashback it's supposed to be rather than a psychic message. I think Liv Tyler got upset about how fans were talking about her role, because apparently she pushed for some changes to be made (less warrior, more elvish woman) to return the character to how it is written. THEN they talked about how they had filmed a whole sequence in Lothlorien about her and Aragorn meeting for the first time!!!!!! But they aren't including it in anything!!! I would really like to see that, even if it's just included as an "extra" on the RotK dvd -- not even part of the movie, just a special section on the dvd.

They talked about how they changed the fact that going to war was the ents' idea to being the hobbits' because they needed for them to be more essential to the plot, rather than "baggage," which is how they see themselves in the book. But the point is that it is when Pippin looks into the palantir to throw Sauron off, then they each join one of the armies that they become essential and experience emotional growth.
PJ of course went on about how he wanted to show buildup to the battle, blah, blah. He even called that one orc the "Olympic torch bearer, and said how he was a bezerker, both things we said here at Entmoot (another reason I thought he might have been on here at some point).
I think it's obvious that he hasn't read the book in a long time, because he kept having to ask "that wasn't in the book was it?" or "Wasn't that line in the book?"
He said how showing the attack on Isengard was kind of last minute, and I think that was one of the best scenes in the movie. One funny thing: he said how they were hesitant about setting the one ent on fire, because it might disturb the kids, but then they fixed it by having him put himself out. My comment is: that is one of the least disturbing things in all of the battles! I think more disturbing is Gollum himself, the graphic scenes in Helm's Deep any shot of an orc. And he worries that THAT out of everything else is disturbing? It's rated PG-13 here, because it has distrubing scenes and characters. I wouldn't worry about what kids under 13 find scary, their parents whouldn't let them see it if they think their kid will be too disturbed.
They said the Huorns weren't included in the theatrical because it would be too much, but even in the EE it wasn't lingered on for very long, I think it could have been in the theatrical.
Flotsam and Jetsam he said would be too anti climactic. I do think in this movie he made Pippin and Merry a little too silly. The first movie he needed to set some things up so it wasn't a big deal to me. But in this one, he was using it SOLELY for comic relief, but I agree with what others have said -- just use the humorous lines that already existed in the book, and refrain from making it too clownish.

Finally, he talked about how the confrontation with Saruman was moved to RotK. But of course now we have rumors that it will not be in the theatrical release.
Throughout the commentary, they seem apologetic about the film, and call different parts "a slight departure from the book" in a half-joking kind of way. They seem to say that RotK will make us happier than TTT did. I'm sure I'll enjoy it no matter what, but it would be nice if they stuck to the story a little better than in this one.

One last thing, they kind of had an "in your face" moment at the fans when they mentioned how it wasn't Eomer that came to the "rescue" but Erkenbrand, but that how no one ever complaines about that. That made me think that maybe they hadn't been here, because that has been mentioned by several people. Maybe they just didn't see it. And they also said something like "we'll have to go on the internet tomorrow to see how people liked this." So they DO get feedback from the net, even if they don't come here in particular. I still think someone does, or has.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Azalea
Another thing that they talked about was the elves coming to Helm's Deep. It was quite funny because the women both had an uproar about how this was all PJ's doing, and they were told to make it work. They said it was because they wanted to show that elves were also involved in the fighting, but couldn't show the battles taking place elsewhere (I disagree). So then one of them mentions how Lothlorien was fighting its own battle, and PJ said "Oh, really? We should shoot that to include in the RotK EE" or something like that, at which the women groaned.
___________________________________________

So much for women not being of great importance in the affairs of Middle-earth! (that is, in numbers of important players as opposed to quality of importance). I haven't listened to the directors commentary yet of TT, but my impression from the FOTR commentary was similar, that PB and FW seem to have an understanding of Middle-earth, and sympathy with, beyond PJ's. Think of what the movies might have been like without their input

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
My thoughts on the commentary: I found it somewhat humorous because a lot of the last hour of the commentary felt like their apology for some of the major changes we didn't like, esp. Faramir (my big peeve).

Apologizing? I think not. It seemed to me the filmmakers were making it very clear they knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. In the parts of the EE I've seen, they made it very clear they had very definite reasons for doing what they did with Faramir. These included:

1. Giving Faramir a story arc. If Faramir had been exactly the same from the beginning to the end of TTT, it would have been deadly dull on screen. Please don't respond by saying "he didn't need a story arc" because every strong film character does.

2. By moving Shelob to ROTK, it meant that Faramir had to be seen as a greater obstacle in TTT than he was in the book. As Phillipa said, if Faramir 'sort of interrogated them and then offered them a spot of tea and all the help he could give', what was the drama for the audience in that?

3. It would have destroyed the evil nature of the ring that has been built up over one and a half movies to have Faramir resist it so easily. With all due respect to azalea, her "Gandalf warned Faramir" scenario is ridiculous. Boromir "knew" from the Council of Elrond of the ring's evil lure too but it didn't keep him from falling under its influence.

4. Having Frodo brought to Osgiliath increased the danger to the ringbearer (and tension for the audience) but it also layed the groundwork for a very dramatic set of scenes in ROTK. As we know from the books, Faramir basically goes out to Osgiliath on a sucidal mission to save the city. Having the additional Osgiliath scenes in TTT will help to set this up.

[Sween]

From the extras one thing that came across loud and clear was that the warg attack was very rushed, difficult to film and in the end i think its clear that they didnt like it very much

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Apologizing? I think not. It seemed to me the filmmakers were making it very clear they knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. In the parts of the EE I've seen, they made it very clear they had very definite reasons for doing what they did with Faramir. These included:

No - from what Azalea has said and I will trust her before I trust you - the filmmakers were making excuses.

1. Giving Faramir a story arc. If Faramir had been exactly the same from the beginning to the end of TTT, it would have been deadly dull on screen. Please don't respond by saying "he didn't need a story arc" because every strong film character does.

I've asked you this before - how mnay films have you made since you seem to be such an expert? As for making Faramir's character dull - it wouldn't have. There is plenty of time in RotK to build up his character. He was noble and generous and understanding in books. In the movies - Jackson just turned him into an asshole.

2. By moving Shelob to ROTK, it meant that Faramir had to be seen as a greater obstacle in TTT than he was in the book. As Phillipa said, if Faramir 'sort of interrogated them and then offered them a spot of tea and all the help he could give', what was the drama for the audience in that?

There was plenty of other obstacles they could have used.

3. It would have destroyed the evil nature of the ring that has been built up over one and a half movies to have Faramir resist it so easily. With all due respect to azalea, her "Gandalf warned Faramir" scenario is ridiculous. Boromir "knew" from the Council of Elrond of the ring's evil lure too but it didn't keep him from falling under its influence.

Why is that so unbelievable for you? Aragorn folded Frodo's damn hands over the Ring and you haven't criticized them for that. Yet you claim that the only way to demonstrate the evil of the Ring was to have faramir desire it. Give me a break.

4. Having Frodo brought to Osgiliath increased the danger to the ringbearer (and tension for the audience) but it also layed the groundwork for a very dramatic set of scenes in ROTK. As we know from the books, Faramir basically goes out to Osgiliath on a sucidal mission to save the city. Having the additional Osgiliath scenes in TTT will help to set this up.

It completely takes away from the character of Faramir to have dragged the hobbits there - not to mention completely destroyed the power of the nazgul. There is NO WAY that the Nazgul would have just flown off without the Ring when it was being held out to them two in front of them. Talk about things that don't make sense.

[BeardofPants]

Just a question for those that have seen TT more than I, but have some scenes from the theatrical release been deleted in the extended edition? It's just that in a few scenes I could have sworn that there was more to it, but it just wasn't there.

[azalea]

In response, what I meant was that Gandalf would have done more than warn him of the Ring's power. Faramir would have been studying alongside Gandalf, and would have had a firmer mental grasp about its nature. Boromir, lest we forget, was a different person than Faramir, and was of a very different nature, aside from the fact that he wasn't well versed in Ring lore.
Hey, I see what they were trying to do, but IMO, as I've said before, he didn't need to be shown as a second Boromir. What they did, they did, but I believe in my heart it could have been different successfully. They could have set up his character differently, which could have led to his immediate resistance to the Ring being a plausible avenue. It works for me in the book, and I think they could have made it work for the general viewing audience in the film. Heck, they could even have made him very tempted, and played up his ultimate resistance even more, and still come out with a character that was shown to have more noble characteristics/ a more "successful" POV than Boromir, a theme that runs through the book. The reason he resists the Ring is not because he sees something or hears something from the hobbits that changes his mind. The reason he resists is because of his character. Though still weak as any man, he has a mental POV that allows him to understand the folly of desiring the Ring. Boromir didn't have that. Aragorn did, and Faramir did. I see it at times as Tolkien's homage to "book learning," and the value to be gained from studying the past.
I saw Phillipa's comments to be her way of trying to apologize to the book fans about the changes made to Faramir's "storyline." She kept saying they would have done it differently if they'd had time. [Obviously I still liked the movie. Whenever I offer criticism, I'm mainly stating the ways I would have done it differently had I been making it, and critiquing the movie as an adaptation of the original.]

[azalea]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Just a question for those that have seen TT more than I, but have some scenes from the theatrical release been deleted in the extended edition? It's just that in a few scenes I could have sworn that there was more to it, but it just wasn't there.

I think there were a couple of scenes that were changed from the theatrical, rather than just added to (similar to the beginning of the FotR EE). I can't think what they were right now, though.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
Hey, I see what they were trying to do, but IMO, as I've said before, he (Faramir) didn't need to be shown as a second Boromir.

The movie Faramir was far from being a second Boromir. We learned in the EE that his decision to hold Frodo hostage was an effort to please his father and not because of his own lust for the ring's power. When it became clear to him that the ring was evil and that bringing "a mighty gift" to his father would not save Gondor, he decided to let the hobbits go even though his chief advisor was clearly against it. As Sam himself said about Faramir, "you showed your quality...and it is the very best."

This 'Faramir tries to please his father' storyline will be expanded upon when he attempts to defend Osgiliath against overwhelming odds in ROTK.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The movie Faramir was far from being a second Boromir. We learned in the EE that his decision to hold Frodo hostage was an effort to please his father and not because of his own lust for the ring's power. When it became clear to him that the ring was evil and that bringing "a mighty gift" to his father would not save Gondor, he decided to let the hobbits go even though his chief advisor was clearly against it. As Sam himself said about Faramir, "you showed your quality...and it is the very best."

This 'Faramir tries to please his father' storyline will be expanded upon when he attempts to defend Osgiliath against overwhelming odds in ROTK.

Well I thought that about the movie Faramir before the TTT EE. I knew he was doing that to please his father. I understand why people call Faramir an a*****e, but I don't understand why they can't let it go, because he totally redeems himself in the end which gives us who Faramir truly is. The way I look at it is that the only reason he brought them to Osgiliath was to gain some respect from his father, but then he realizes that he has betrayed himself and who he is, where he then decides it is the wrong thing to do and lets them go. He let's them go not only for those reasons I just stated, but he let's them go because he is a noble prince of men, which in my opinion is shown in that instance...

P.S. I do agree that the EE sets it up well for those that don't know the books as much...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This 'Faramir tries to please his father' storyline will be expanded upon when he attempts to defend Osgiliath against overwhelming odds in ROTK.

You seem to know an aweful lot of what jackson will do in RotK.

It's funny who you tell me and others that we shouldn't have any criticisms for the movie since we haven't see it yet. So don't you think you should wait until AFTER you see the film before saying what jackson will do with Faramir's character? Or do you just like to praise jackson?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well I thought that about the movie Faramir before the TTT EE. I knew he was doing that to please his father. I understand why people call Faramir an asshole, but I don't understand why they can't let it go, because he totally redeems himself in the end which gives us who Faramir truly is. The way I look at it is that the only reason he brought them to Osgiliath was to gain some respect from his father, but then he realizes that he has betrayed himself and who he is, where he then decides it is the wrong thing to do and lets them go. He let's them go not only for those reasons I just stated, but he let's them go because he is a noble prince of men, which in my opinion is shown in that instance...

P.S. I do agree that the EE sets it up well for those that don't know the books as much...

Anyway, Faramir in the books was smarter.
I think all of this Faramir-taking-Frodo-to-Osgiliath was a waste, since it's longer and makes you hate Faramir in the movies.
If someone didn't read the book nor took a TTT EE, how does he suppose to know Faramir wasn't mean, on purpuse, becuase the hobbits didn't say what they were doing?

And how exactly Frodo and Sam suppose to get to Cirith Ungol on time?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
Anyway, Faramir in the books was smarter.
I think all of this Faramir-taking-Frodo-to-Osgiliath was a waste, since it's longer and makes you hate Faramir in the movies.
If someone didn't read the book nor took a TTT EE, how does he suppose to know Faramir wasn't mean, on purpuse, becuase the hobbits didn't say what they were doing?

And how exactly Frodo and Sam suppose to get to Cirith Ungol on time?

Get to Cirith Ungol on time for what? lol

By the way, as JD and I talked earlier Osgiliath and Cirith Ungol are not far from each other, it is not that much longer...

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Don't you think you should wait until AFTER you see the film before saying what jackson will do with Faramir's character?

The scene I was referring to was reviewed in the 20 minute clip from ROTK that some film critics (including folks from TORn and aintitcoolnews.com) were shown a couple of weeks ago.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The scene I was referring to was reviewed in the 20 minute clip from ROTK that some film critics (including folks from TORn and aintitcoolnews.com) were shown a couple of weeks ago.

Is there a link for it or do you have it?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Get to Cirith Ungol on time for what? lol

By the way, as JD and I talked earlier Osgiliath and Cirith Ungol are not far from each other, it is not that much longer...

Yes, they're pretty close - but it would still take more few days to go to Osgiliath and back to Cirith Ungol.

On time to destroy the ring. Before Sauron destroys The aremy of Gondor.