The third is just more of the second...when I watch all in a row I get so bored with the third...and that's not mentioning the issue with it never ending. It's the same siege twice but bigger...ladders in the second, towers in the third...battering ram in the second...oh but the third has a big pigs head...its the same friggin thing!
Aragorn's argument with Boromir is also great because Boromir suggests that Aragorn is afraid of who he is. He may be suggesting that Aragorn deserves to be king, but he's not yet willing to say it outright.
Before watching the video here is my take on the whole Trilogy: The base cuts of LotR are for the casual movie goer. They are ideal for those unfamiliar with Tolkins work, perhaps the ones seeing the movies with no prior knowledged for the first time, and no idea about the extended universe. The extended cuts of LotR are for those HC fans. The ones that have read the books, the ones that know about the Meiar/Valar, the Silmarils, the rings etc. And maybe also just those that love the films to death and just really want a little bit of extra content.
A fantastic analysis of why (almost) all of the new and extended scenes improve an already amazing movie. I thoroughly enjoyed this video and would love to see the same for the other two films!
This guy must have never read The Hobbit book. lol Bilbo *IS NOT* being paranoid about the Sackvilles bro, they legally inherit his home and everything in it when he dies. Also, when everyone thought he was dead at the end of The Hobbit book, Bilbo saw that the Sackvilles were selling all of his possessions off at auction when he got back from his adventure. They 100% cannot be trusted and simply want all of his wealth.
Tbf, it is stated in the begining of the video that further knowledge of the lore in the books would not be considered in the video, basing the analysis just with what can be learned from the movies
Bilbo is actually right about the Sackvilles. They were going to get Baggend when everyone thought he died during the events of the Hobbit and they hated him ever since for returning.
@@modjoe4107 I still remember the apocryphal story of the MTG convention where somebody played the card saying "take any card from your Collection and put it directly into play", so they pulled a Klingon Bird of Prey from a Star Trek CCG, flying and delivered tens of points of damage to everything on the table. ... the idea of LOTR MTG makes me wish a Bird of Prey would do strafing runs on Wizards Of The Coast.
Heh :) of course: "Bilbo's cousins the Sackville-Bagginses were, in fact, busy measuring his rooms to see if their own furniture would fit. In short Bilbo was "Presumed Dead," and not everybody that said so was sorry to find the presumption wrong. ... Many of his silver spoons mysteriously disappeared and were never accounted for. Personally he suspected the Sackville-Bagginses. On their side they never admitted that the returned Baggins was genuine, and they were not on friendly terms with Bilbo ever after. They really had wanted to live in his nice hobbit-hole so very much." The Hobbit ... "'Ours at last!' said Lobelia, as she stepped inside. It was not polite; nor strictly true, for the sale of Bag End did not take effect until midnight. But Lobelia can perhaps be forgiven: she had been obliged to wait about seventy-seven years longer for Bag End than she once hoped. (The Fellowship of the Ring) ... "The Baggins headship then, owing to the strange events, fell into doubt. Otho Sackville-Baggins was heir to this title - quite apart from questions of property that would have arisen if his cousin Bilbo had died intestate; but after the legal fiasco of 1342 (when Bilbo returned alive after being ‘presumed dead’) no one dared to presume his death again. Otho died in 1412, his son Lotho was murdered in 1419, and his wife Lobelia died in 1420. When Master Samwise reported the ‘departure over Sea’ of Bilbo (and Frodo) in 1421, it was still held impossible to presume death; and when Master Samwise became Mayor in 1427, a rule was made that: ‘if any inhabitant of the Shire shall pass over Sea in the presence of a reliable witness, with the expressed intention not to return, or in circumstances plainly implying such an intention, he or she shall be deemed to have relinquished all titles rights or properties previously held or occupied, and the heir or heirs thereof shall forthwith enter into possession of these titles, rights, or properties, as is directed by established custom, or by the will and disposition of the departed, as the case may require.’ Presumably the title of ‘head’ then passed to the descendants of Ponto Baggins - probably Ponto (II)." The legal system of hobbits contains all sorts of interetsing tidbits hehe, adoption, inheritance laws, contracts and agreements (including sale transactions with specific conditions etc.). "The eldest of these, and Bilbo's favourite, was young Frodo Baggins. When Bilbo was ninety-nine, he adopted Frodo as his heir, and brought him to live at Bag End; and the hopes of the Sackville-Bagginses were finally dashed. Bilbo and Frodo happened to have the same birthday, September 22nd. 'You had better come and live here, Frodo my lad,' said Bilbo one day; 'and then we can celebrate our birthday-parties comfortably together.' At that time Frodo was still in his tweens, as the hobbits called the irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three." The Fellowship of the Ring, LoTR Book 1, Ch 1, A Long-expected Party And this seems to be the whole basis for Frodo's right to the property of Bilbo as he departed, even though he was not dead, in any case by all intents and purposes Bilbo left all his property and titles to Frodo. "Otho would have been Bilbo's heir, but for the adoption of Frodo. He read the will carefully and snorted. It was, unfortunately, very clear and correct (according to the legal customs of hobbits, which demand among other things seven signatures of witnesses in red ink)." The Fellowship of the Ring, LoTR Book 1, Ch 1, A Long-expected Party Here follows the section on the headship of the family question: "Customs differed in cases where the 'head' [of a family] died leaving no son. In the Took-family... descent was strictly through the male line. In other great families the headship might pass through a daughter of the deceased to his eldest grandson (irrespective of the daughter's age). This latter custom was usual in families of more recent origin, without ancient records or ancestral mansions. In such cases the heir (if he accepted the courtesy title) took the name of his mother's family - though he often retained that of his father's family also (placed second). This was the case with Otho Sackville-Baggins. For the nominal headship of the Sackvilles had come to him through his mother Camellia. It was his rather absurd ambition to achieve the rare distinction of being 'head' of two families (he would probably then have called himself Baggins-Sackville-Baggins): a situation which will explain his exasperation with the adventures and disappearances of Bilbo, quite apart from any loss of property involved in the adoption of Frodo. I believe it was a moot-point in Hobbit lore (which the ruling of Mayor Samwise prevented from being argued in this particular case) whether 'adoption' by a childless 'head' could affect the descent of the headship. It was agreed that the adoption of a member of a different family could not affect the headship, that being a matter of blood and kinship; but there was an opinion that adoption of a close relative of the same name 1 before he was of age entitled him to all privileges of a son. This opinion (held by Bilbo) was naturally contested by Otho." The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Edited by Humphrey Carpenter, Letter 214 to A. C. Nunn, 1958-59?
I believe one thing about Bilbo's trolls scene is that Sam is trying to use the Trolls as a way to try to get Frodo's attention and keep him present and from slipping away. Though it probably does not change much
I agree, especially considering the emphasis the world in general and sam specifically makes about the importance of stories. And having sam try to bring frodo back by reminding him of those stories was good, but I don't think the scene explains that enough.
Wanted to see if anyone else felt this way. I think a "D" is errorneous based on his grading requirements. I love the addition, but it's inconsequential enough and brief enough that I think a "C" is objectively more reasonable. It's addition does not hurt pacing or structure.
I think it was supposed to show how different Frodo’s journey was from Bilbo’s. As Frodo was in one of his darkest moments, wondering why Gandalf never met him in Bree, he is brought back to Gandalf saving Bildo’s life in that same place. I think it shows that it’s a darker story. I think it also shows Sam learning that the dangers of Bilbo’s stories were real and that the outside world is never safe
I grew up only watching the extended editions of the films, so when I finally saw the theatrical release at a friend's house... It was like a piece of bread without enough butter.
If Random is planning on analysing RoP season 2 then we should all send him as much love and energy as possible to keep him sane while he endures watching it for us.
@@Kaleiddmode That is going to be awesome! I won't be watching the show itself (I couldn't even finish S1) but I'll certainly look forward to Random's analysis!
He watches, so we won't have to, yet because he tells us what happened, not only do we now know the story, we're vastly more entertained than had we watched the drivel itself.
Just watched the extended cuts a few days ago. Honestly, its pretty clear some scenes were cut for a reason. But others should never have been cut, specifically the flashback with Boromir and Faramir, and the death of Saruman.
For me, the scene that should never have been cut was Éomer finding Eowyn seemingly lifeless on the battlefield after the fight was won. Not only was his acting SPOT ON, it really drove home WHY he didn’t want her out there. He’s already lost his uncle and his cousin. At all costs he wants to protect his last family member. Had he known she was out there, his concentration most likely would have been split. Every time she was out of his line of sight, he’d panic and frantically look for her. Every time he saw her about to engage in combat, he’d make every attempt to get in front and protect her. The knowledge that she is in a safer place allows him to just focus fully on the task at hand and ultimately win the war… so to then find her motionless in the middle of the remnants of such chaos and violence, the person who’s safety he’d been fighting for, the last person he ever imagined he might see lying there… his world and his purpose crumbled in an instant and all he could do was scream. Fresh of a battle of such magnitude and THIS is his true horror. Sends chills through me every time 💔
@@haroldhall1517 You either wrong or lying. The death of Saruman was 100% cut from the theatrical versions, and it almost led to a lifelong falling out between the actor and Peter Jackson.
@@SwordOfThruthfulness Misremembering movies on the big screen is easily the most misremembered thing in the world. It gets annoying after a while once you notice it. People are so sure they somehow got a different cut from everyone else. It couldn't possibly be that they watched an extended cut or the deleted scenes after the fact. Kudos to this guy for saying he must've been mistaken. I've seen people reign hell on others for merely bringing up the suggestion.
I would say yes, the vast majority of people who watch it without knowing it before going in and are even remotely intimidated by its run time, are typically saying 'I want more!' by the time it's all done. Yes, Extended is better.
@metoo7557 yeah. Not for my case, i like what came in the theatre's but these extended ones really ruined the pace. Does not help at all when i love games like dark souls, elden rimg, and dnd that i play. All which are inspired one or the other way from the lord of the rings so this extra time feels like boring padding
It is. I dunno even really know where the argument that they weren't really even came from. It seems to be either the extreme wing of the Tolkien purists who say the theatricals are better because they hate every adaptation and therefore there's less movie making up the adaptation, or people who think that like Marvel movies and Disney Star Wars are somehow good. Either way it's people looking to be all contrarian and whiny.
@@Peak_Aussiemani would say I am a big Tolkien purist. I love to point out every change in the movies (there are more than meets the eye). I would even say the movies are bad adaptations in certain situations or regarding certain characters. However. This does not shorten their awesomeness as movies themselves. Not considering adaptation arguments I can't think of one single argument why the movies are bad or why the extended cut should be worse than the cinema versions :p
@@VespasianOfTheThird I'd consider myself a purist too and these movies are awesome, and the tie-in games that came out were a huge part of my childhood. The amount of LOTR games that came out from Fellowship of the Ring to BFME 2 was insane.
@@douglaslamar1530 That's an interesting take, normally the books are considered sacred. It's very very rare you find that the adaption does a better job. It's similar to this trend I've seen emerge where people are now saying that the Harry Potter movies are better then the books. I can only theorise this bizarre phenomenon is the result of people who neither never read the books nor watched the movies when they were coming out. But rather must be coming into contact with both for the first time years later and are choosing the movies. That's fascinating cause it shows the generational divide emerging in real time. Are us zoomers really so aged and decrepit now?
The intro sequence in the Shire makes it infinitely better. This gives a more grounded motivation for Frodo and Sam to do all the things they do. I was shocked when I watched the theatrical cut for the first time during an intercontinental flight. The motivation for Frodo and Sam was very much lacking.
Ngl.. I didn't even know if that was extended or not.. I don't mean to brag but I've only ever watched the extended version. My late uncle bought the extended set from a car boot sale for 99p in 2006. And on that very Sunday we watched the trilogy for the first time.. it took us 13 hours to watch and by the end of it we were getting ready to go to bed for school the next day. One of the happiest days of my life.
@@captainjacksparrow1518 I mean, it's not a brag at all. Or an insult for that matter, you just haven't seen a thing. We've all not seen plenty of things. You got tons of enjoyment out of whatever version you watched. That's the important bit.
@captainjacksparrow1518 the theatrical versions are worth a watch, even if just to see what we all first watched in theatres back then. But yeah, they will feel like someone has quite clumsily edited things out if all you've ever seen are the extended versions.
@@MoldyMojoMonkey I saw the theatre versions and loved them so much I got addicted to the extended, I’m rewatching fellowship right now (Theatrical) and the pacing feels so fast I’m not used to it
The random unrelated clips to maintain telling the story and making the point are making me crack up LOL edit: "Unrelated" meaning not a clip from LOTR. This statement was a compliment lmao
I don't think they are unrelated, and it's nice to have them instead of showing the same clip five times as the analysis is often much longer than the scene.
@@nicholaswoollhead6830 it’s bothering me a lot. it doesn’t ruin the video but it’s worse because of it, a lot of these clips aren’t related at all to what he’s saying, and most of them are just barely relevant.
I actually quite like the little extended scene where the Hobbits leave Bree with Aragorn…I think it adds a little to Frodo (and Merry’s) character as you said, but moreso I also think it’s adds nicely to Aragorns characterisation It shows that he can clearly hear the Hobbits talking about him, discussing whether he is trustworthy or not, badmouthing him almost and he does nothing to respond…yet when he overhears the Hobbits worrying about where he’s leading them, he speaks up. He didn’t care enough about their opinion of him to say anything, he didn’t get upset or tell them to find their own way like other people may have, he only speaks up to reassure them when they are worried about the unknown journey ahead I think it adds to Aragorn personally but I can also totally see what you mean about the benefit of leaving his character ambiguous until a bit later in the story
the thing about deleted scenes is, yes they're often good scenes by themselves, and it might seem like a no brainer to include it, but we're not talking about a collection of scenes, we're talking about a film, and those good scenes might detract from the overall experience
You could also try something new. Else, you'll never know just how far the portal of fire leads... 🔥 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
Love the video! Two mistakes though. When Boromir puts the hilt of Narsil back, he says "No more than a broken heirloom" not "Handle". Haldir tell the fellowship they have entered the realm of the Lady of the Wood, not water. Thats all I picked up though, keep up the good work.
As I understand it, as someone who enjoys the books and the films. The extended editions are generally, without evidence, proclaimed the better of the cuts simply because the fanbase loves the films so much. The simple act of having a cut of the film that includes more of the film, regardless of what it actually adds narratively to the story, is deemed good because the film is held in such high esteem.
The Fellowship is my favorite of The Trilogy. I would say yes the extended is better. The one extended scene that jumps out to me that could be cut is Isildur's ambush in the prologue, I prefer the theatrical one better. I always felt it was more of a surprise to see Bilbo be the first one to use it to disappear from the party. It puts you right in with the shock of the guests. Merry and Pippen singing in the Prancing Pony is the best.
The problem I have with the Isildur scene is that it paints him as a coward who was using the ring to try and flee while his men were attacked by orcs, which was not at all the case in the book.
@@vtubersubs3803I agree with both you and OP, that scene is one of the few I prefer to see left out because it didn’t characterise Isildur accurately and showing the invisibility powers of the ring definitely does lessen the impact at the party I agree with Random that the moment of Isildur in the water where the ring is leaving him adds valuable context to the ring but I don’t think it’s _necessary_ because the will of the ring is made perfectly clear later in the film. I quite like the fact that we don’t know how strong of a pull the ring will have on Frodo from the very beginning…we discover that more as the story progresses so I think this extended scene spoils more storytelling than it adds
He could have been attempting to use the ring to attack the orcs while invisible, thus saving more of his men. It is still a failure on the movie of this was the intent, and it came off differently.
@@qq-wy7zs that definitely could have been what the movie was trying to show…it came off looking more like Isildur was trying to use the ring to hide and escape to me (although I’m sure other viewers may disagree) I guess the scene was ambiguous enough to where viewers may have a different interpretation of the scene than what was intended by the film makers and as you said, that’s a bit of a failure on their end
I'd almost consider the Boromir/Aragorn conversation in front of Narsil critical. It certainly is for Boromir's character. In the theatrical version he comes across as a bit of a weird prick who's strangely hostile towards Aragorn. Now I get why so many people dislike Boromir. In the full extended conversation, his character shifts completely. He reaches his hand to Aragorn before he even knows who he is, while Aragorn ghosts him to his face. Boromir seems much more kind hearted in nature in this version.
I've always interpreted the film as though Gandalf knows Bilbo has 'a' ring, just not 'the' ring, same as in the books. When Bilbo calls the ring, "My Precious," Gandalf even says, "It has been called that before, but not by you." Since the prologue featured Gollum calling the ring, "My Precious," not once but twice, I think the intended conclusion by the audience is that Gandalf knows about both the ring and Gollum. I don't see how else that line is supposed to be interpreted; who else would Gandalf be referring to?
*For clarity, I'm saying Gandalf knows Bilbo won 'a' magic ring in a riddle game from a creature named Gollum who called it, "My Precious." Not that Gandalf knows it is 'the' ring quite yet.
This is correct; initially, Bilbo lied about how he got the ring but gandalf eventually got the true story out of him, which Bilbo relates at the council of Elrond in the books
Gandalf doesn't confirm it's The Ring until he reads Isildur's description of it (calling it a plain gold band with letters revealed by fire, that is 'precious' to him), and then comes back and tests the Ring in Frodo's fireplace. When the ring-verse appears on the ring, that is the moment he knows for sure. From the way Gandalf acts at reading Isildur's description, it seems as if he'd never read that before, and was only now finding proof of a connection between Bilbo's ring and Isildur's. As he later says to Saruman, he can hardly believe THE Ring of Power had been under his nose all this time.
I think a lot of us forget that the theatrical versions came first and they were the ones that first won the praise and the awards. They're more than adequate for viewing and probably flow a little better overall. The Extended Editions are for people who want more. I generally encourage the theatrical version for people intimidated by the run time, and then they can watch the extended if they want.
I agree until the third. I was rather confused and frustrated that Saruman just vanished. I thought it was going to pull a slasher on me; the villain always dies twice, so Saruman would pop up somewhere to ruin things. I kept waiting for resolution.
If you’re trying to get someone who’s hesitant to watch for the first time I’d suggest theatrical fellowship, then extended of the next 2 if the person’s into it. I like the extended more but I’m obsessed with LOTR. The beginning of theatrical fellowship gets newcomers interested quicker imo. I also grew up only watching the theatrical of all 3 and they’re still amazing.
I would argue yes. Spending more time at the Shire and the additional scenes in Lothlorien and Moria made it a more complete experience. Once you’ve seen the extended edition it’s hard to go back to the theatrical cut because it seems so barebones in comparison. The only EE I’d argue actually makes the film worse is The Two Towers (save for the Boromir-Faramir-Denethor flashback).
@@ledanoir1239 a good chunk of the added scenes felt like filler to me, primarily the stuff with Merry, Pippin and the Ents. That said, I love the added scenes for characters like Eomer, Faramir and Saruman.
The flashback sequence in Osgiliath is one of my favourite scenes in the trilogy. Really should have been left in the theatrical version, as I feel like the theatrical version of Fellowship did Boromir dirty. The flashback in Two Towers adds so much context.
Galadriel giving strands of her hair to Gimli is actually a huge deal, as one of the most powerful Elves asked her for a strand and she refused him. Legolas would have known this story and her willingness to do for a Dwarf what she refused for one of the strongest and most important of her own kind is definitely a huge part of why he warms to Gimli and they grow into brothers. Gimli is the only Dwarf in the history of Middle-Earth to sail to the Undying Lands, and while Mandos probably wasn’t happy about that Tolkien suggests that both Legolas and Galadriel would have vouched for him and begged for him to be allowed to spend the rest of his days there, and that Mandos would have accepted their pleas on Gimli’s behalf.
I’ve also heard someone suggest the three hairs she gives him could also represent the three silmarils and/or the three elven rings in the sense that “three” is suggestive both of great meaning and therefore “friendship” on Galadriel’s part, strengthening the gesture between elf and dwarf. I always liked that idea.
Not only did she refuse Feanor but three times he asked her for a single strand and three times she refused him. Gimli asked for a single strand, only once, and she gave him three. The significance from a lore perspective is HUGE and it's one of my favorite scenes in the trilogy.
It also represents a sort of truce or bond between Elves and Dwarves. Gimli braids it into his beard and swears to mount it in rock or crystal maybe? As an 'undying symbol of the union of mountain and wood' (paraphrasing here)
Hey, man, I don't know if you remember my comment from one of your previous videos. Still, I offered some vague and general advice regarding pacing and comedy additions to make your videos even more fun to watch. After watching this, I would say you nailed it completely without losing anything of consequence. I found myself quite literally laughing out loud at the clips and tongue-in-cheek jokes you were making. You have made vast and tasteful improvements in such a short time, and I have noticed it. Keep up the wonderful work!
I'm realizing thanks to this that like you said, Boromir is the one I find suffers the most in the theatrical cut. Being that I haven't seen the theatrical cuts in over a decade, while the extended cuts are what I watch exclusively, I had forgotten how much is missed out on Boromir's story.
Yeah, I haven't seen the theatrical cuts since, well, the theater over two decades ago. It always confused me that so many people disliked Boromir, but seeing here how many of his humanizing moments were originally cut, it makes sense that people didn't connect with him as much as in the extended editions.
My local movie theatre actually organized a marathon of the whole extended trilogy a few years ago. Best cinema experience I've ever had. The extended trilogy is in my opinion the superior way to experience these movies if you're interested in the story and its characters, but it only works because the base foundation is so good that you want more.
31:22 I think I know why they cut these references. In the books, there are hobbits who live in Bree and Butterbur has two hobbit servants who help him run the Prancing Pony. This is all cut in the movie. If I had to guess, they removed those lines as to not confuse the audience, as if hobbits don't leave the Shire much at all, how are the residents of Bree so familiar with them? But that's just my guess, I'm not certain about that
Oh no they hit the 2 towers video with Copyright WTF I was literally watching it an hour ago and went back to it and was likt WTF Guess its back up now?? That was weird
I would argue that the Theatrical cut is easier to digest for someone new to LOTR. And as stated in the video, a lot of the added scenes are world building and « side character » building, which a first time watcher might not enjoy as much as a narrow focus on a main protagonist (Frodo). What I’m essentially saying is that the films are already long, so maybe consider showing someone the theatrical cuts first so they’re less intimidated by the run time and can enjoy the extended edition at a later date, once they’re already invested in the world and characters.
Theatrical was better for the cinema because pacing is important for that setting for many reasons, and extended is better for home viewing, where you are more comfortable, can indulge in the extra length and pause if you need to.
OK, I can only imagine the time and effort that goes into making a video like this, so I'm here to offer my full-hearted support for the project (also my financial one, in terms of extra views, cos your back catalogue is fabulous to fall asleep to). The format is adaptable to a wide range of iconic projects - you've got a huge built-in audience just for LotR and Star Wars alone - and you have a real talent for making detailed film critiques accessible and interesting (not to say very witty). Absolutely, go for it.
I've enjoyed your videos prior to this (especially the ones regarding the Hobbit trilogy), but this definitely my favourite video of yours by a mile. I would absolutely adore videos like this on the remaining two LOTR films, as well as other ones you may wish to do!
All the LOTR extended editions are amazing!! I'm glad to see this finally broken down by RFT who is the perfect person to go through this. Although honestly I really like pretty much all of the extended scenes for all the films, being that I'm a huge fan of the films and books and to me the extended scenes largely just allow for more of the film version to be fleshed out. But I understand as RFT mentions of course these had to be cut regardless because theatrical cuts can't be super long if they want to make money.
DEEPLY excited for the next two parts of this series, which I'm certain is happening. I have a feeling that the answer won't be so easily drawn in the next two films...
I hadn't actually considered before that Bilbo's avoidance of the Sackville-Baggins could come across as paranoia brought on by the ring, pretty neat. I'd read the books before seeing the extended and the Sackville's are fairly unpleasant people in those so he's basically right about them wishing him ill since they'd have inherited all his stuff if he hadn't adopted Frodo.
This was a much needed warm campfire amongst the relentless flood of Acolyte coverage so thank you. I hope this video does well enough for the next two movies!
Thank you for the support! Confident in saying at this point that I will do the latter two movies, although I can't promise when they will be finished.
IMO the only scene from the extended editions that should have been included in the theatrical release is the death of Saruman. And the scene between Boromir and Faramir.
I really understand almost any cut scene. These movies are incedibly long and they were a huge untested gamble back in the early 2000s, some scenes just needed to go, wether they are good or not. But removing Saruman's death was bonkers.
Return of the King is the only one with a few too many "yeah I see why they cut that" scenes for me. But very curious to see what you have to say about it. Please do all 3 . About to listen now
I'm probably in the minority on this one but I think the theatrical RotK is a bit better. The extra scenes with the undead army were not good. Them rushing past Aragorn to attack the corsairs took the air out of it when they did it again.
@@Joe45-91 the whole segment with the undead army really is the downfall of the RotK extended cut. The Extended Edition adds so many great scene, but spoiling the drama of Aragorn's story with the army deflates tension for over 45 minutes and adds nothing in return.
@@theomnitorium7476 Honestly, as much as I realize that establishing a whole second city of Gondor being besieged and somehow having enough troops to turn the tide, I feel like there's something lost by having the army actually able to kill. In the books they underlined something Tolkien found very crucial to show: That evil is cowardly. Peter Jackson, being a horror man first, doesn't want to break the tension he's building, having the army of the dead be an actual ace in the hole they can't use again keeps the tension at the gates, as I suppose does having Aragorn lose his staring match with Sauron when he won it in the books, but I feel it undermines one of LotR's key messages.
I’ll through my hat in preemptively. The answer is yes in some ways and no in others. Many scenes in the extended cut are fairly irrelevant. Who really cares about Merry and Pippin drinking Ent water to grow slightly taller? Some scenes should have been in the theatrical cut, such as the flashback of Boromir and Faramir at Osgiliath or Saruman’s death at Isengard. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King was pretty cool and the Mouth of Sauron raised the stakes for the characters a bit by making them think Frodo was dead. However, some parts detracted from the experience a bit, in my opinion. The council of Elrond scene flows a bit better without Gandalf interjecting the Black Speech, especially since Boromir barely reacts to it in the next cut. Gandalf warning Frodo of threats within the Fellowship before they reach Moria isn’t bad, but a bit on the nose by that point. The big one for me is the scene where Aragorn confronts the Army of the Dead. The theatrical cut ends without him getting an answer and we don’t see them until the black ships reach and Pelennor Fields. It’s treated almost like a suspenseful reveal where the hero arrives at the darkest hour of the battle to turn the tides. The skull avalanche is neat, I guess, and the scenes of the Dead King accepting Aragorns terms and attacking the ships aren’t bad, but I think I prefer the theatrical version. An equivalent would be if, before the Battle at Helm’s Deep kicks off, we get a scene of Gandalf finding Eomer and convincing the Rohirrim to help Theoden. It’s unnecessary and kind of takes away from the climax of the battle if you know that thousands of reinforcements are definitely on their way. Overall, the extended cuts add enough to the experience that I would never go back to the theatrical versions, but I wouldn’t say that they’re objectively better in every way or for every person.
What I find funny is that I prefer everyone talking about the Trolls in the extended edition compared to the book. It's probably because, at the time, Frodo's injury wasn't as serious; he was unable to walk but wasn't dying yet. But they come across the Trolls and Sam sings a song which recounts Bilbo's encounter with them. I completely agree that Sam pointing out "Mr Bilbo's Trolls" had good intentions but it should be at the bottom of his priorities. But imagine him just singing about the trolls while Frodo is wounded and dying and it becomes farcical.
Rando, I think that you’re wrong at 55:00 ish. I don’t think Aragorn was trying to end the fun that Boromir, Merry, and Pippin were having - I think he just wanted to join in and have fun too, but the flock of birds ended that before they could all wrestle together.
Your channel is absolutely stellar! Between the great analysis and reasoning, I have a particular love for the funky interlude tunes. 11/10 would use as my ringtone!
Love the change in avatar lol Also, I'm not sure where the designated 'Saruman's Death Scene' category is. You know, in preparation for Return of the King... should be somewhere above S in the tier list... I must have missed it or something...
Yes. One of the reasons these movies are so rewatchable, why I don't care that the Hobbit trilogy is arguably worse, and why I love the Harry Potter movies so much, is that they just take you to this beautifully crafted fictional world, and any extra minute I can have to stay sucked in this experience is one I will gladly take.
I never noticed it before - and its q. stark difference to me now - how the prologue of Galadriel and the Shire prologue with Bilbo are different. I mean their narrations approach to time. Galadriel tells us about changing world becouse for immortal elves the changes are constant and painfull. From POV of a hobbit such as Bilbo, his little land the Shire is never changing as it have been existing for over 1500 years (1500 for an elf is not as much though, it probably feels like 20 years for a human) :) so Bilbo tells us that "there was always a Baggins under the Hill and always will be" from POV the Shire is constant thing and so the Bagginses in the Shire are smt constant. He tells us that for him there is the centre of his world. For a hobbit few hundred years of stability seems like forever, for an elf few hundred years of stability is like a moment in constant flow of changes and instability and mortality.
For me, FotR is the only entry in the trilogy where this question is even debatable. The extended editions of the other two films include scenes that I consider necessary to the story (Faramir's flashback with his brother and father in TTT, and Saruman's death in RotK). But with FotR, I would say that while I prefer the extended edition and recommend it to newcomers, none of the added scenes are essential. They're just enjoyable to watch.
I'd argue every scene with Boromir they took out was essential just because it completely changes the dynamic of his character and gives him WAY more depth. Which to me is even more important than even Saruman's death
TT does have what I predict to be the singular "Garbage" ranked extended scene, though- that incredibly stupid and pointless sidebar with Merry and Pippin drinking magic tree water.
16:47 I think him being lovable at first and only getting weird once he thinks Gandalf is trying to rob him works better. It really does feel like a very relatable tragedy, like a loved one with an addiction or Alzheimers suddenly snapping at you. You have to make the viewer love Bilbo FIRST and only THEN do you hit them with the tragic addiction.
Great as always. I never realized the reason Bilbo was wanting to go adventure was due to the ring. I just assumed it was his wanderlust, but it makes sense the ring would want him in the wild.
1:25:00 I actually disagree for once. By showing her ring to Frodo, in a way, it present to him something he never seen beforehand - another living being who bears something similar to the One Ring of his. It connects these two, and i imagine has impact on Frodo's suggestion for Galadriel to take the Ring. Because it's clearly stated that One Ring weighs upon him, and no one can understand that burden - and yet, here's another person, out of nowhere, who bears the ring of her own. It's one thing to "imply" something and the other is to tell that. It shows degree of trust and compassion.
Great video - so much thought and effort has clearly gone into this and the result is 2 hours of engaging and passionate enjoyment. Really looking forward to coverage of the other films
I’d love to see the format carried forward for the next two movies. A great subject for a future video/series is “Scavengers Reign”. If you haven’t already seen it I highly recommend you do.
I'm with you. There's alot of new people on the interwebs since LoTR was released and they have to know where we were versus where we're at. RFT is perfect for this, I find breakdowns brilliant and he's less prone to obscene language so it's a fun ride for the whole family, though no ammount of swearing would describe in full my disgust with RoP
@@randomft Mauler's unbridled rages are fun but I wouldn't share them with my niece or nephew. TLP has his way with way words, but still it's 18+ content for better or worse. Drinker is to busy drinking to make the long anymore and Gary forgot about a Star Trek video *wich he promised to release three years ago* ! Once again, RFT, thank you very much for your work... oh wait... is that Fellowship of the Ring blu-ray just sitting there?
I was genuinely disappointed with the theatrical release of the Fellowship. So much so that I didn't bother watching the other two in the cinema upon release and instead waited for their extended editions to come out. After watching the Extended edition of The Fellowship I felt the movie just flowed so much better. Gone was the stilted rhythm to the edit that stopped me from getting fully immersed into that world.
Yes they are. I dunno even really know where the argument that they weren't really even came from. It seems to be either the extreme wing of the Tolkien purists who say the theatricals are better because they hate every adaptation and therefore there's less movie making up the adaptation, or people who think that like Marvel movies and Disney Star Wars are somehow good. Either way it's people looking to be all contrarian and whiny. But in saying that though I did actually watch the theatrical version of the Fellowship recently and believe it or not there actually is stuff in there that isn't in the extended version, which is the version I'm most familiar with by far. So it could be a generational thing or personal preference. But I do like how much fleshing out the extended versions do.
It comes from people like me, that watched the Theatricals so many times they can point out individual scenes where there was a change or a cut, noticing a fair few of the extended scenes are rather clunky. My favorite positive example of shaving just a few seconds in the edit comes from Merry and Pippin singing the drinking song, with the extended having just a few seconds of Pippin making eye contact with Gandalf before being pulled back in by Merry. It's incredibly small, it adds to the characters and I wish it made it into the theatrical. (There are other positive examples of scenes, such as Boromir and Faramir at Osgiliath being a fantastic scene overall that builds on both far more. That it was cut is a shame.) That all said, Bilbo's dialogue about not being sure why he took Frodo in is incredibly blunt and detracts from the overall excellent quality of the film. On top of being unnecessary, the dialogue is incredibly unnatural. Cutting it was the correct choice. Aragorn arguing with Haldir can be cut like in the theatrical with no damage to the film. Cutting those two scenes improves the pacing of the film overall. Keeping the lament for Gandalf in to show the characters STILL grieving works better in the theatrical with the slight cuts to get there without further conflict. Sam's verse for Gandalf does not improve the film. Whether the good additional content is worth the slightly worse pacing is subjective. It absolutely is worth it for me. I'm in for the more book accurate entrance into Lothlorien, even if the film flows better without, because I want that additional lore. Almost none of the cut scenes are bad, and most add to our understanding of at least one character.
I'll throw my hat in the ring. I don't like these movies. I am a book purist and I strongly dislike the changes Jackson made because I believe many were unnecessary at best and story breaking at worst. I genuinely believe that very few improve the story, much less in any substantial way. That being said, that doesn't make the theatrical versions better because they're shorter. I do think the extended editions are overall the better versions outside of maybe RotK (I have a passionate hatred for how the Army of the Dead was used in that movie, especially the skull scene). Even if I have no passion for these movies, I'm also not going to deny objective quality
I started following you after watching your videos dunking on Rebel Moon during a particular surge of interest I had in understanding those movies and their massive failures without having to suffer through them. The way you break things down not only in terms of plot, but even in terms of graphically laying it out in spreadsheets and graphs is truly fascinating to me, and is excellent for conveying exactly what you're talking about and communicating it to the viewer. I then went on to watch the Final Autopsy on Rings of Power, and your full Hobbit series (I would also like to thank you for introducing me to the M4 Book Edit, and thus enabling me to be able to in some way enjoy and acknowledge those films again). I am extremely happy to see you covering such a beloved and breathtaking topic as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It was these movies that have spurred my lifelong interest in Fantasy and writing, alongside being my favorite pieces of film-making ever. I've always been an avid "Extended Edition" Watcher, and about 10 or so years ago, had almost half of the Script memorized. I absolutely love the way you're breaking down these movies and showing the way that (most) of the extended scenes build on or connect in with the plot, and look forward to the rest of this series. I think it's safe to say, I'll now be keeping a close eye on your future content, and have enjoyed all I've seen so far!
I don't really think it's valid to determine if the extended edition is better or not based on if the scenes themselves are great, and make the movie better. Some of them individually yes, but you have to keep in mind the movie as a whole has to flow well, and in general, the less unnecessary material the better. I am personally of the ideology that in most cases, there are of course exceptions, if you can make a story more concise, you should. I honestly like all the extended scenes in the trilogy, except maybe when Faramirs men beat Gollum. Do I think all of them necessarily make the film better? No. Not one bit. For example I LOVE the stuff with Merry and Pippin at the end of the two towers, but we lose that beautiful thematic troughline of the ending with Frodo and Sam while including that.
Was thinking that when he was talking about the Shire scenes, individually they all have merit but keeping all the scenes he praises would mean spending a lot more time in the boring mundane starter zone of the films to express stuff that’s already gotten across in the theatrical version anyway
Awesome video man! One tiny thing you missed at 1:31:11 , the fact Galadriel gave Gimli 3 hairs is a connection to the Silmarillion, where Feanor wanted a tress of Galadriels hair (because her hair inspired him to make the Silmarils) and asked for it 3 times, but she wouldn't give him a single strand. By giving Gimli 3 hairs she not only made a simp for life, as we all are for THIS Galadriel, but also shows a great deal of trust in him which (in my eyes) helps Legolas to overcome the last of his reservations towards Gimli. Again, an awesome video with great points and insights! Keep m coming!
I like the theatrical for introducing people to the movies, and there are certain scenes that i like the pacing of, or the cues in the music mmberter in the theatrical. But for the most part i always watch the extended
For at least fellowship, the extended cut ruins basically all the setup and mystery of the ring, its growing influence on bilbo, and what it actually does. Its corruption of bilbo is what makes Gandalf’s confrontation with him after the party so surprising and unnerving to watch, and showing significantly more signs of what’s to come at the very beginning makes the film feel like it doesn’t respect your intelligence by putting more emphasis something the audience should’ve been allowed to observe and ponder on their own. There’s other examples too, showing what the ring does before even introducing our characters for the film completely changes the contexts of it and removing the later epiphany we would’ve had anyways, Gandalf talking about Mithril and how amazing it is and that bilbo had a mithrol shirt we already saw given to Frodo kills the tension of him being stabbed by the troll, etc. The rest of the films’ extended versions don’t have this to the same degree, at worst the decision of whether or not the ghosts of dunharrow would join Aragorn should have been cut entirely to still only be revealed when the boats land on the corsair’s ships land on shore during the battle of Pelennor fields, but other than that I can’t think of a substantial flaw in the other extended versions. If you watch fellowship of the ring, your first time viewing should DEFINITELY be the theatrical cut not the extended version. As a fan of the movies and books the extended cuts are nice to better understand the motivations of certain characters or details on the lore, but to consider them the best version of the films is just simply not correct for a person experiencing them for the first time, trust the studio’s judgement on what should’ve been left in the films and what should’ve been left for bluray releases meant for diehard fans, in terms of an actual movie experience it is inferior to the theatrical cut
"Trust the studio's judgment" will never be advice I will take. Setting things up properly is more important than "what a twist!" Like, why is Isildur's Bane, Isildur's Bane? Oh, it got him killed? Well, alright, that makes sense now. WTF is mithril and why does Bilbo have it? Oh, he got it from his past adventures and it's a monumentally valuable item from Moria, okay.
Yes, with one major exception- the Army of the dead.. in theatrical version, we are left on a cliffhanger whether they’ll join Grey company or not.. in the extended edition we get a confirmation almost immediately, making the entire battle of Pelenor fields less interesting, knowing that army of invincible ghosts is coming to the rescue (it doesn’t help either that PJ totally missed their point - their main weapon was fear, they couldn’t actually hurt anyone)
In the book they are used to scare Corsairs of Umbar to abandon their ships, then they are dismissed and Aragorn comes to Minas Tirith with reinforcements from southern Gondor only
@@untitled568exactly this. I think their utility to the plot is a bit anticlimactic in the book (they are hyped up and then leave almost immediately, one of the few things that I think could have been improved in the book), but they are too much of a narrative convenience in the movie, which kind of undercuts the narrative significance of the Ride of the Rohirrim. If the Rohirrim had just waited a bit longer, the ghosts would have won the battle without them. . .
@@cuthalion4281 that’s why I like book version more.. having them be just a one trick pony scare tactic creates no plot holes whatsoever and doesn’t undermine anyone else at the Pelenors fields..
Cosmonaut was the first person I've ever heard challenge the idea that the extended versions are 100% superior. I think he's right, first time viewers should watch the theatrical cuts like we all did, then watch the extended cuts for more of what you love. Except the death of Saruman. How the hell was that not in every version???
As a fellow enjoyer of moving pictures, I love the interwoven, unrelated movie clips. The way those clips enhance or contrast talking points greatly improved my watching experience of the already great video. I'm looking forward to the next RTF analysis, as always. Keep up the great work.
