Friday, November 6, 2015

Movie Discussion

We’ve definitely mentioned this in class more than once but I thought I would ask outright on the blog (judgment free zone) if you guys have seen/prefer the extended editions? I know that several people saw the regular edition movies before reading the books- do some of the differences/additional scenes surprise you? We discussed some of the differences in character, like Aragorn, and how the movie portrayals were rather different than those in the book- are there any more notable differences?

As for myself I prefer the extended editions- when showing them to a friend of mine she pointed out that many of the plot points make much more sense in the extended editions when compared to the regular movies. As for differences in portrayal I thought that the movie Éowyn was somewhat more annoying about her massive crush on Aragorn. Thoughts?


Tulkas said...

I will always watch the extended editions. The others aren't even worth considering! The most notable character difference I see is the ages of the Hobbits, mainly Frodo. Elijah Wood was 18 or 19 when he started filming (don't quote me on that.) In the books Frodo is 33 in the opening chapter. By the Council of Elrond he is already 50. Sam is said to be 38, Merry is 36, and Pippin is 28. For the majority of the Hobbits in the movies, the actors portraying them were significantly younger. The biggest surprises for me when reading the books were mainly in The Fellowship of the Ring. These included Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow (and his location in the Old Forest rather than Fangorn,) and the Barrow-wights. This portion was entirely cut from the films, and is probably the single largest abridgment we see. Another big surprise was the scouring of the Shire. I always thought Saruman died falling off Orthanc!

Aulë said...

I agree with Tulkas: extended editions all the way! To be honest, I don't really remember whether I read the books or saw the movies first, but one of my favorite things about the movies is how much of the dialogue is taken 100 percent, word-for-word, from the books. Somehow, it just adds so much more to the movies for me, and I think it also makes me a little more likely to forgive the things they left out because they are usually nodded to in some way. For example, Treebeard in the movies has many lines that belong to Tom Bombadil in the books; since Tom probably wouldn't have fit with the tone Peter Jackson wanted for the movies, he fused him with Fangorn instead rather than leaving him out entirely, and I just love the stuff like that. Too bad the same careful attention to detail didn't happen with the Hobbit movies.... However, Martin Freeman is a great Bilbo and the movies are still alright as their own, separate, elaborative entity, so I will probably end up buying the Blu-ray extended addition with all the commentaries and features trilogy to match my LOTR trilogy regardless of my frustrations.

Yavanna said...

Similarly, I watch the Extended Version more than the Theatrical Version, they add so much in terms of plot, tone, and character development that the cut versions aren't even the same.

I actually am perfectly fine with the alterations within the movies, unlike some people, because they are separate entities. Jackson was appealing to modern sensibilities, as Tolkien was appealing to older ones, and so the changes and shifts make sense but keep to the original heart of the story.

All in all, the movies are great fun and I'm not going to bash on them a bit because I think they are great, amongst the best movies ever made.

Ulmo said...

I have never seen the extended version,. However, I do still tremendously enjoy the movies. I would agree with these comments, though, in that there are plot holes missing in these movies which can be found in the books and (some) in seemingly the extended versions. The movies are just so long to begin with that any extra time at all is frankly intimidating and I figure that if I want the full, true experience, I'll read the books.