RotK Extended Edition possibly 5 hours long?

[KenM]

Finally, New Line upped it to three 3 hour films, and we got LOTR. Crammed, rushed, theatrical LOTR, but at least it WAS Lord of the Rings.

From what I heard, New Line was the last studio PJ and Co. went to try and get the films made. The proposed two movies, and one of the top guys at New Line said, "You can't do two movies, its based on a triolgy, do three". NL also orginally wanted each movie to be like 2.25-2.5 hours long, but they let them go to 3 hours.
About the blooper stuff, I heard that it will be an extra on RotK: TC DVD, as New Line does not have another LotR movie to pimp.

 

[WizarDru]

From what I heard, New Line was the last studio PJ and Co. went to try and get the films made. The proposed two movies, and one of the top guys at New Line said, "You can't do two movies, its based on a triolgy, do three". NL also orginally wanted each movie to be like 2.25-2.5 hours long, but they let them go to 3 hours.
About the blooper stuff, I heard that it will be an extra on RotK: TC DVD, as New Line does not have another LotR movie to pimp.

This is what I've read and seen. PJ himself says this on one of the documentaries on the extended DVDs, and repeats the information in the current issue of Cinefex. They originally pitched LotR as a two movie series, cutting lots of material (for example, all the Edoras scenes were moved to Helm's Deep) and presented them to Miramax. Miramax dragged their feet, wasn't sure, and decided not to pursue it. At that time, New Line entered the picture and picked it up from Miramax, and CEO Bob Shaye wanted three pictures, particularly because there were three books. (Cinefex 96, Pages 57/58) There was no company before New Line, and it was never planned to do a single 2-hour film.

As to the 5+ hours report, I believe that theonering.net reported that PJ has already commented on the incorrect nature of the report, stating that he said 4 hours and 15 minutes, not 50. They cut a lot of material, but they didn't cut THAT much.

 

[Bass Puppet]

Well, for example, much of the extra footage shot for any given film are the scenes that are already there, from different angles. Repetition is boring. Or, for another (admittedly absurd) example, say they did a 15 minute section of Aragorns teeth. Putting that in would be boring.

Being based on a good book does not ensure that every inch of film is good. Some parts of the bok are less than spectacular themselves. And sometimes the actors just don't get the delivery right. Or the scene as a whole just doesn't work cinematically.

If they have stuff to fill in the story, and that stuff is as good as what we saw on screen, then cool. But I'm sure not interested in extra footage merely for the sake of extra footage.

I understand what you are saying, but I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying all movies, just RotK since that is the topic of discussion. I understand lengthening a rather dull/bad movie won't make it better, that would be a rediculous statement. Nor do I think that repeating information for structure is stregthening it's plot unless it's done with a certian style or originality. Bottom line, if the movie already is excellent and previous installments of the on going story in EE have been prosperous to the films, why not add more of the story? Even tolkein came out with the Book of Lost Tales and The Silmarillion. Unless you don't like the original film and have not enjoyed the EE so far or you simply enjoy short stories over novels. Then, I can see your point.

 

[Umbran]

Bottom line, if the movie already is excellent and previous installments of the on going story in EE have been prosperous to the films, why not add more of the story? Even tolkein came out with the Book of Lost Tales and The Silmarillion.

Yes, but movies aren't like books. You can't go back after production is complete and the sets torn down and simply slip new stuff in. For the most part, if it wasn't in original filming, you're pretty much stuck. A small amount of re-filming can be done post-production, but there's only so much of that you can do.

[edit: oh, yeah, and have you ever tried to read the Silmarillion? I waded through it, but it isn't exactly what most folks consider gripping reading. Perhaps best you don't use it's existance as support for the idea that longer is necessarily a good thing]

Plus, the fact that slight expansions have so far done well does not stretch to saying a huge expansion of RotK will necessarily be good. Even when viewed at home on DVD, there's pacing to be considered. Extend it too much, and you may end up with something boring.

My point in the end is not that they shouldn't do an extended edition - merely that something five hours long seems to me to fly in the face of reasonability and past evidence. They didn't do five hour versions of Fellowship or Towers, so I don't figure they'll do one on King.

 

[Bass Puppet]

Yes, but movies aren't like books. You can't go back after production is complete and the sets torn down and simply slip new stuff in. For the most part, if it wasn't in original filming, you're pretty much stuck. A small amount of re-filming can be done post-production, but there's only so much of that you can do.

[edit: oh, yeah, and have you ever tried to read the Silmarillion? I waded through it, but it isn't exactly what most folks consider gripping reading. Perhaps best you don't use it's existance as support for the idea that longer is necessarily a good thing]

Plus, the fact that slight expansions have so far done well does not stretch to saying a huge expansion of RotK will necessarily be good. Even when viewed at home on DVD, there's pacing to be considered. Extend it too much, and you may end up with something boring.

My point in the end is not that they shouldn't do an extended edition - merely that something five hours long seems to me to fly in the face of reasonability and past evidence. They didn't do five hour versions of Fellowship or Towers, so I don't figure they'll do one on King.

No, they didn't but if they did, I'm sure it would contain more detail of the story and my point being that it has shown to be a good thing so far, why not extend that? And I wasn't suggesting that The book of Lost Tales nor The Silmarillion was a good read, but what they supported was more to the story such as the EE include scenes that contribute to more of the story. Your probably right that they won't do a 5 hour Return of the King, but if they do, I won't mind one bit because PJ has already proven to me that he can "Extend" the story AND it's better than his original production that HIS producers cut for the General Audience.

 

[Squire James]

I think "The Simarillon", even the good parts, is probably out of the scope of mainstream cinema. While the same was once true of "The Hobbit", that certainly isn't so anymore! I'm sure New Line really wished they had bought distribution rights for it back when they were cheap!