Re: [mythsoc] Jackson version
- At 07:50 AM 11/15/2002 , Steve Schaper wrote:
>I love the new 'directors cut' release. The additional Shire scenes reallyIn the original DVD release, there was a preview of this release, in which
Jackson is adamant that this release is not the 'director's cut'. The
theatrical release was the way he, the director, wanted it. I gather that
his concern was to keep it down to 3 hours. ("If you sit there, my friend,
from beginning to end / Then your bladder better be strong" - Allan
Sherman) What he chose to cut out to reach that length is the problem.
(On the topics of director's cuts in general, see here:
>The commentary suggests that they felt that this distracted from the film,Now this is what I really don't understand. The book's slow opening hasn't
>that they needed to get into the action right away, that they needed the
>prolog so that people watching it would understand that the Ring was
>dangerous and evil.
prevented it from being immensely popular, and this despite the fact that
books move slower by nature. (You can't read _Fellowship_ in 3 hours,
surely.) And don't say that movies have to appeal to a wider audience than
books: they do so anyway, you measure them on different scales. (If the
book were as action-packed as the film, it still wouldn't have been read by
as many people as have seen the film.) In fact, I've seen complaints - by
those used to the standard action films of today - that this film moves too
slowly! So they've satisfied neither the action-fiends nor many of us who
love the book.
>But the Concerning Hobbits scene does that rather better, combined with theApparently not. Which is both sad and surprising, as his film _Heavenly
>Green Dragon scene and the expanded bits in the rest of the beginning.
>Suspense. Jackson must not understand suspense. :-(
Creatures_ was very suspenseful and well-modulated. Suspense is created by
slowly building things up: in this film, the heroes are rushing like mad
before they ever leave the Shire.
>They could have cut the too-early scenes of Isengard and left new peopleAnd in my opinion also.
>wondering about Isengard, wondering if the Rohirrim had gone over or not,
>until the right moments in the story. :-(
>And gotten rid of the non-canonical cloning of Uruk-hai. That would have
>saved them the time, and produced greater suspense and feeling. IMHO.
- David Bratman
- From: "Eleanor Farrell" <emfarrell@...>
> David Bratman wrote:"No,
> >I'm glad you got that straight. One might feel tempted to play with the
> >bookends as with dolls. "So, Isildur, seen any good movies lately?"
> >I can't get in the door with my arm stuck out like this."Chicks......
> Too bad they are both guys. Otherwise they would make great Action
Considering all the times you've dressed Arden up as a woman in the Not
Ready productions, I'm surprised you'd let a little thing like that stop
Berni -- and doesn't David's statement prove that boys play with dolls, too?
They just don't call them that.
- I just watched the 'Extended' version. It was widescreen. It was also a
MUCH better film. It was even somewhat more true (less un-true) to the
'spirit' of the books. It was easily long enough and full enough to have
been two theatrical releases.
- In a message dated 11/15/2002 9:46:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> It was even somewhat more true (less un-true) to theI agree -- although I had real trouble with the added scenes in which
> 'spirit' of the books.
Aragorn's reluctant about his kingship (which I didn't think he ever was in
the book, if only because Elrond had made it the condition of his marrying
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]