I've always felt the theatrical cut was the "action" version of a much better film. And I think I was correct in that opinion.

Why Peter Jackson shuffled part of THE TWO TOWERS to the beginning of ROTK, and started things off on an somewhat grimmer note then needed, and cut the scene of the confrontation with Saruman escapes me.

It is a major scene. Besides the resolution of the only visible major villain, it also reveals some further details and increases the sense of urgency.

Again, a mad decision to cut this. I'd much rather Jackson would have cut the opening scene and put it in THE TWO TOWERS as a flashback, where it rightly belongs, and opened with this instead.

Many other scenes have been restored, including a major action scene which is simply beautiful, significantly increasing character development and also deepening the impact of the story considerably.

This reminds me if when I was younger and would always try and seek out the longest version of the films I liked, even in rough form. As I got older and learned more about filmmaking, I stopped a bit because quite frankly many longer cuts are just that. Dario Argento's OPERA comes to mind, though I do watch the directors cut of that out of respect for Argento's vision.

Not so here. Again, this is a major improvement. And helped by a superior transfer then that of the theatrical cut. I haven't gotten a chance to listen to the commentaries yet, but I'm very interested in hearing Jackson's reasoning behind some of the edits. He really did make some bizaare decisions, imo.

I just hope that anyone who saw THE RETURN OF THE KING watches the extended version. Imo, all of the extended versions of THE LORD OF THE RINGS are really directors cuts. I think Jackson is just defending the theatrical cuts in deference to the studio.

You'll notice that Jackson was most vocal in defending the theatrical cuts when he was simultaneously promoting both TTT:EE and ROTK:TE. As this was also Oscar season, and LOTR's last shot for a Best Picture/Best Director win, I think Jackson was being careful to not give the impression that Academy members were to be voting on a compromised work. I think in the end, he wanted the Oscar. And I certainly can't begrudge him that. These remarkable (and that's the word - whatever you may think of them, as a massive undertaking they're undeniably remarkable) films deserved every prize awarded them.

I think Jeffrey's probably right. I watched the EE last night and it flows much, much better than the TE. The drinking game is an embarrassment and the Mouth of Sauron segment is as bad as I feared, but on the whole the additions are worthwhile and give it a bigger sense of scope. I particularly liked the bits of Aragorn defying Sauron with the palantir and the added footage in Mordor, a segmetn that seemed unduly brief given the length of the journey beforehand.

Wow, you didn't like the Mouth of Sauron? That was one of the creepiest things I've seen on film in a long, LONG time. While watching the scene and being seriously creeped out by the Mouth of Sauron himself, I kept wondering, "How the hell did they do that?", because it clearly was not a CGI effect, it just looked too organic, but yet, I couldn't imagine somebody having a mouth that big. In the commentary, Jackson explains it, and it's a simple merging of a prosthetic and CGI resizing and it really damn effective. I love the fact that Jackson used ALL effects techniques in these films, and didn't just go 100% CGI like some filmmakers, and the Mouth of Sauron scene is a great example of using traditional techniques and CGI to compliment and augment each other, and the result really gave me the willies...

I'm also shocked that Domenick prefers the Orion cut of OPERA. While SOME of their edits I actually do agree with, on the whole, the Argento cut works much, much better. For example, the little girl who's crawling around the heating ducts actually makes sense in Argento's version of the film, and there isn't a sloppy music edit in the middle of the scene where Julia is looking for the scissors. I'll take those few additional scenes that I don't miss in the Orion version along with all the stuff I *DO* miss anyday over the truncated Orion edit as a whole.

Vincent

Oh yes, The Mouth Of Sauron scene was incredibly creepy and a major moment. Now that it's back in, the emotional impact of the final rush at the balck gates makes a lot more sense. Just a shame that's a bit on the brief side. With so much having been shot, I have this funny feeling that we'll get some kind of uber version of LOTR once it hits high-def dvd.


I still watch the Argento cut of OPERA,and haven't bothered seeing the Orion cut in some years. Yes, there are some awful edits in there, but I felt that many scenes had a more intense pace to them. I dunno, I'd have to look at both cuts again. Maybe something in between Argento's cut and Orion's might work.

Domenick:

Jackson actually remarks a few times during the commentary about scenes that haven't even been restored to the E.E. edition of ROTK, and jokingly "reminds" Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyans to remind HIM of the existance of those scenes for when he's putting together "the 25th Anniversary Edition" of the trilogy :-)

As for OPERA, I guess I kind of agree with you- since I do like some of the editing choices in the Orion cut vs. Argento's cut, I think a version somewhere between those two cuts would probably be ideal- just like a cut of PHENOMENA somewhere between the CREEPERS edit and Argento's cut would probably be the best version of that film, too :-)

Vincent

To clarify, I don't object to the Mouth of Sauron scene until the abrupt ending.

SPOILER












It seems completely out of character for Aragorn to decapitate an ambassador, even an evil one. He certainly does no such thing in the book. The only historical parallel I can think of is to Vlad the Impaler, who used to do that sort of thing or worse to ambassadors, and that's not the sort of analogy you want to draw. Tolkien would have been shocked and horrified to see his honorable king do something like this.