LOTR -DVD Info

[geoschmo]

Although there is something to be said for an author leaving some things to the imagination. Knowing only bits and pieces of the history can add to the mystery and discovery of reading the books. Of course this is just a guess, since I haven't actually read the books.

[Gandalph]

All the afore mentioned stuff is cool, as is this phenominal epic recreated on the screen, but I will wait until it is a complete set. I can picture myself already, a rainy Saturday in Olympia (which happens often in the Northwest) sitting on the couch and watching all three movies in order. PARADISE!!!

[Atrocities]

You know I have to chime in hear and say that I for one feel cheated by what they pulled here. I wanted to buy only one DVD, not two. For them to release the first DVD without the extra footage, only to be releasing it in 3 months from now is a cheep and down right dirty trick. If I had not tossed the reciept, I would have returned the movie immedately. Now, I am only going to rent the next release, not buy it. It was a dirty will trick, and one that should not be tolerated. It was a cheep little way to exploite more money out of people. It was cheep and insulting.

[tesco samoa]

AT... I mentioned that in the orginal post... That there will be a second release later on in the year.... They announced that right from the beginning.... Sugar that was March 28th... were did this year go...

Tesco runs off and looks under the couch... not there...

[CNCRaymond]

He forgets things. Just let it go. He will remeber something you told him a year ago sometime next year.

[Instar]

I got the precioussses DVD's...
much awesomeness

and waaaaaaaaaay OT but Tesco your pic looks like a pimp... sorry he just looks like a pimp to me
(and Ive been playing GTA3 some and now Im trained to shoot pimp looking type peoples)

[Singollo]

Yes, I too felt cheated by the release of a "non-extra-footage" DVD. I suppose that if I had done my homework, I would have known about the extended edition to be released in November. Oh, well, I'm a sucker for this sort of thing anyway...I own at least five different copies of the Star Wars videos.

Yes, it's great to see so many things from Tolkien's work made into cinematic images. But it's also impossible to make proper images of many of them, and also impossible to tell the whole story without making at least six movies, not three.

The amount of material left out, and changed, is definitely a big big problem for the story. That isn't even my main objection, though. By definition--stated and implied--the material that Tolkien is writing about cannot be visualized. The act of picturing, of grasping with the physical senses, corrupts and destroys the very essence of the subject matter that makes it so powerful and beautiful. We are not supposed to "see" an Elf. We are not supposed to be able to comprehend the beauty of Arwen, or the stature of Galadriel. We are not supposed to be able to grasp the terror of the Nazgul, or the horror of the Balrog, etc., etc. The central theme to Tolkien's work is that of the fading of magic and power and beauty from the world, from the splendor of the First Age to the muted fantasy of the Third Age, to the mundane world that we live in now. The characters and events from the earlier Ages are attainable only by imagination, and by fleeting glimpses; the very idea of throwing Arwen up onto a screen, of saying "hey, this is Arwen, check her out"...it tramples upon everything that Tolkien was doing. It's repugnant.

So, yeah....complicated feelings all around. Admiration and respect for this particular movie clashes with abhorrence and deep loathing of the idea of making a movie of the story.

Singollo, that is why I said "mostly written".

True. I'm nitpicking, I know. Still, it bears saying: not a word of what appears in The Silmarillion was written before LotR, so technically, even "mostly written" is incorrect.