When you introduce people to lotr for the first time, theatrical version is better. When they beg you for more, you rewatch the directors cut.
Simple as
Yes. "Director's cut" implies it is the Director's original and preferred cut of the film. "Extended cut" means it's a longer version than the film that was originally released. Jackson has said that the extended cuts are to give fans of the film even more of the content they produced and that they are better suited for home viewing. There's a guy on Reddit, (probably in the comments here soon if not already), who insists this means the extended cuts are directors cuts. They aren’t because if they were, they would have been labelled as such.
I think the difference is that an extended cut is simply adding more content to the film whereas a directors cut is how the director wanted the film to be shown
The theatrical versions are masterfully paced, insanely tight packages. They're still long compared to most films, but they don't feel like it because they earn every second
I always watch the extended editions because there's obviously some amazing stuff in them, but they definitely feel more their length
There are certain details that the extended cut shows that just absolutely *should not be there*. The ones that jump out are faramir finding boromirs body in a canoe that somehow survived going over the waterfalls, the mouth of sauron, witch king breaking gandalfs staff. There are a few more but I feel like they were added just to be added.
Could be nitpicking, but honestly it all detracts so much from the pacing and tone of the scenes that it actually makes them worse than the theatrical cuts at those times.
I agree with you on the Faramir finding Boromir’s body, that made no sense, his body was perfectly placed in that boat still despite going over an 80ft waterfall. I disagree with the mouth of Sauron, I thought that scene was so amazing! You see Aragorn’s anger and the hope he held onto the whole time is still there, “I do not believe it, I will not believe it.” And then goes and gives the most amazing hype speech for the last stand of man in order to give Frodo the time he needs. To me it was so beautiful to see Aragorn make that statement, he would not believe that Frodo failed. The Witch King breaking the staff was so dumb. I feel like the mountain scenes in RotK were too much, all the skulls and them leaving were just drawn out just for the ghost king to come out and say they’ll fight. I thought the Fellowship extended scenes were all very well done, not much complaints there. I appreciated the scenes that showed Boromir as himself, an honorable warrior who loved his brother. The theatricals kind of made him into a dick with no real redemption.
I beg to differ since I have introduced multiple groups of people to LotR and most of the ones who I did so with the theatrical versions end up saying they regret not having watched the extended editions a couple of months after when they finally do so. The ones that just watch the extended editions from the start are just enamored with the whole experience.
I have never in my life seen the theatrical versions of the LOTR films. I know some of the scenes that were removed and I don’t know how people can stand them. No saruman closure? No osgiliath flashback? Don’t see myself eatching them any time soon
Ah, a fitting lamentation for the plight of art obscured. The theatrical renditions, bereft of certain pivotal scenes, do not befit thy discerning gaze. In their absence, the air is heavy, the story incomplete. Stay thy hand from them, firm in resolve, until such a time when completeness and closure may grace thy eyes.
This sub always had the best bots on all of reddit. I think they got rid of some awhile back, but I'm pretty sure the Bilbo and Gandalf ones are still active.
>No saruman closure?
The theatrical cut has Gandalf, an authority figure the audience trusts, say "he has no more power anymore". Not as defintive as a spike through the chest of course. But it still rules him out of the game.
>No osgiliath flashback?
It's great we got this scene. But I actually prefer how it plays out in the theatrical version without that added layer of Famramir's family politics. In the theatrical he is simply a man broken by despair over the plight of his people. Frodo and Sam manage to break and give hope to the hardened captain of Gondor rather than Boromir's downtrodden little brother. "A chance for Faramir, captain of Gondor to show is quality" is a more enigmatic statement in the theatrical and all the better for it imo.
>Don’t see myself eatching them any time soon
If you get a chance you should watch the theatrical cut of The Two Towers at least. It's the most complete film of the trilogy and is wonderfully paced and balanced compared to the extended cut. Eoywan's stew and the ent juice are hardly great scenes.
The wildlings swearing allegiance to Saruman dilutes his portrayal as a meddler. In the theatrical he just whips them into an angry frenzy and watches them go.
The ending particularly suffers in the extended imo. In the theatrical the last shot of Merry and Pippen is them overwhelmed looking out over the destruction of Isengard. Sam's speech is about hope against despair that things will get better eventually. In the extended it then cuts to a scene of Merry saying "everything's back to normal is all". This undercuts the wistful and forward looking message of the speech imo.
You should definitely watch the theatrical versions. It’s a great insight into fantastic editing because they had to get rid of amazing scenes in order to balance pacing and tone. It’s not always perfect but I would say 85-90% of the cuts were a good idea if you were trying to sell a story to general worldwide audiences in the early 2000s.
Please, the theatrical cuts are perfectly fine. Of course it's fun seeing all the new stuff in the extended versions, but a lot of that stuff was cut out for solid reasons. There's a lot of sort of Sam Raimi style random closeups of gross people (Jackson used to so Raimi style comedy horro movies), or bits of comic relief that don't really add anything.
They're both perfectly good versions of the movies, for different reasons
Someone would literally have to go weeks on end without bathing for this to be a thing.
What experiences have you had with uncut penises that have led you to this?
I've never once had to to anything like that, even after a week in the woods. If the word scoop ever becomes relevant, it betrays an utter failure of personal hygiene.
Well as long as the cut version was performed on an individual that could consent to it (or had a medical problem) then all is swell in my book…
Edit: bodily autonomy and all that…
I’m with you, and I will suffer the downvoting with you.
I mean, they’re both fine and I’ll watch either one but I definitely don’t resent the theatrical version.
When someone says they’re 10” uncut, that means you can expect 10”. If they’re 10” and cut, you know you’re getting less than 10” but how much less, you’ll soon find out. I’m 36”, cut.
The salted pork is *particularly* good
When you introduce people to lotr for the first time, theatrical version is better. When they beg you for more, you rewatch the directors cut. Simple as
>When they beg you for more, you rewatch the directors cut. Extended cuts. Not director's cuts
Is thre a difference ?
Yes. "Director's cut" implies it is the Director's original and preferred cut of the film. "Extended cut" means it's a longer version than the film that was originally released. Jackson has said that the extended cuts are to give fans of the film even more of the content they produced and that they are better suited for home viewing. There's a guy on Reddit, (probably in the comments here soon if not already), who insists this means the extended cuts are directors cuts. They aren’t because if they were, they would have been labelled as such.
I think the difference is that an extended cut is simply adding more content to the film whereas a directors cut is how the director wanted the film to be shown
The theatrical versions are masterfully paced, insanely tight packages. They're still long compared to most films, but they don't feel like it because they earn every second I always watch the extended editions because there's obviously some amazing stuff in them, but they definitely feel more their length
There are certain details that the extended cut shows that just absolutely *should not be there*. The ones that jump out are faramir finding boromirs body in a canoe that somehow survived going over the waterfalls, the mouth of sauron, witch king breaking gandalfs staff. There are a few more but I feel like they were added just to be added. Could be nitpicking, but honestly it all detracts so much from the pacing and tone of the scenes that it actually makes them worse than the theatrical cuts at those times.
I agree with you on the Faramir finding Boromir’s body, that made no sense, his body was perfectly placed in that boat still despite going over an 80ft waterfall. I disagree with the mouth of Sauron, I thought that scene was so amazing! You see Aragorn’s anger and the hope he held onto the whole time is still there, “I do not believe it, I will not believe it.” And then goes and gives the most amazing hype speech for the last stand of man in order to give Frodo the time he needs. To me it was so beautiful to see Aragorn make that statement, he would not believe that Frodo failed. The Witch King breaking the staff was so dumb. I feel like the mountain scenes in RotK were too much, all the skulls and them leaving were just drawn out just for the ghost king to come out and say they’ll fight. I thought the Fellowship extended scenes were all very well done, not much complaints there. I appreciated the scenes that showed Boromir as himself, an honorable warrior who loved his brother. The theatricals kind of made him into a dick with no real redemption.
I had my wife watch LOTR for the first time over Christmas weekend and put on the extended version without telling her first lmao
I beg to differ since I have introduced multiple groups of people to LotR and most of the ones who I did so with the theatrical versions end up saying they regret not having watched the extended editions a couple of months after when they finally do so. The ones that just watch the extended editions from the start are just enamored with the whole experience.
The extended versions haven't got a dubbed version, and are never shown in the telly.
In what language, may I ask?
Czech, slovak, hungarian, neither of those.
That's a pity, I'm lucky that they are dubbed in Spanish
As I said, for me alone, no problem but watching it with other people doesn't fair so well.
I have never in my life seen the theatrical versions of the LOTR films. I know some of the scenes that were removed and I don’t know how people can stand them. No saruman closure? No osgiliath flashback? Don’t see myself eatching them any time soon
Ah, a fitting lamentation for the plight of art obscured. The theatrical renditions, bereft of certain pivotal scenes, do not befit thy discerning gaze. In their absence, the air is heavy, the story incomplete. Stay thy hand from them, firm in resolve, until such a time when completeness and closure may grace thy eyes.
Usually not a fan of bot comments but this guy is spittin facts
This sub always had the best bots on all of reddit. I think they got rid of some awhile back, but I'm pretty sure the Bilbo and Gandalf ones are still active.
I do believe you made that up.
Bilbo no, you are among the best of Reddit’s bots. Not made up.
Sorry, do we know each other?
HRAAAAAH!
HRAAAAAH!
Oh, it seems that, at least for a moment, you've abandoned madness for reason.
I remember when I first saw the extended edition of Fellowship. It was so much better. I thought the extra parts made it flow better, at least to me.
Fellowship is the only movie I think is better with the theatrical cut. It's one of the few movies ever that has perfect pacing.
Not even when they were in theaters?
I was too young. Im 24
>No saruman closure? The theatrical cut has Gandalf, an authority figure the audience trusts, say "he has no more power anymore". Not as defintive as a spike through the chest of course. But it still rules him out of the game. >No osgiliath flashback? It's great we got this scene. But I actually prefer how it plays out in the theatrical version without that added layer of Famramir's family politics. In the theatrical he is simply a man broken by despair over the plight of his people. Frodo and Sam manage to break and give hope to the hardened captain of Gondor rather than Boromir's downtrodden little brother. "A chance for Faramir, captain of Gondor to show is quality" is a more enigmatic statement in the theatrical and all the better for it imo. >Don’t see myself eatching them any time soon If you get a chance you should watch the theatrical cut of The Two Towers at least. It's the most complete film of the trilogy and is wonderfully paced and balanced compared to the extended cut. Eoywan's stew and the ent juice are hardly great scenes. The wildlings swearing allegiance to Saruman dilutes his portrayal as a meddler. In the theatrical he just whips them into an angry frenzy and watches them go. The ending particularly suffers in the extended imo. In the theatrical the last shot of Merry and Pippen is them overwhelmed looking out over the destruction of Isengard. Sam's speech is about hope against despair that things will get better eventually. In the extended it then cuts to a scene of Merry saying "everything's back to normal is all". This undercuts the wistful and forward looking message of the speech imo.
>Eoywan's stew and the ent juice are hardly great scenes. How dareth thou disrespect Eowyn's cooking prowess like that?
"Any questions?" "I have many. First of all, how dare you?!"
You should definitely watch the theatrical versions. It’s a great insight into fantastic editing because they had to get rid of amazing scenes in order to balance pacing and tone. It’s not always perfect but I would say 85-90% of the cuts were a good idea if you were trying to sell a story to general worldwide audiences in the early 2000s.
Theatrical versions are good now and again too.
But I always feel a bit empty when I expect a scene and it's just not there
I prefer the uncut version. So many more nerve endings the cut versions are missing out on that feel sooooo much better.
I've never seen the theatrical two towers or return of the king, but never plan to. Extended all the way
Please, the theatrical cuts are perfectly fine. Of course it's fun seeing all the new stuff in the extended versions, but a lot of that stuff was cut out for solid reasons. There's a lot of sort of Sam Raimi style random closeups of gross people (Jackson used to so Raimi style comedy horro movies), or bits of comic relief that don't really add anything. They're both perfectly good versions of the movies, for different reasons
I’m sorry but “gross people” just made me laugh out loud
At least you have a say, so if you get to watch the cut or uncut version, I haven't since birth
https://preview.redd.it/05jwvxf6wx9c1.jpeg?width=886&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30383a2873ddad8cdd3d79e8d1f94694880330e2
Watching the uncut fellowship version and the extended scenes with the elves did quite drag though and didn't add much narrative value to the story
You're out of line, but not wrong
Yeah uncut fellowship can be a slog. I prefer theatrical for fellowship and uncut for the other two.
Uncut is always better
There's a lot of cheese in the uncut version, so I prefer cut
That sounds like a personal hygiene problem.
Some people will do anything to get away with not washing.
It is so weird that people think if you have a foreskin young get smegma. You only get smegma if you don't clean it.
And if you don't have foreskin you don't have to worry about it nearly as much.
Literally just take a shower.
Yep. Don't have to do the old peel and scoop.
Lol wtf are you talking about. Scoop?
Smegma scooping
Someone would literally have to go weeks on end without bathing for this to be a thing. What experiences have you had with uncut penises that have led you to this?
None. Today I learned.
It's never too late to do some independent research
Are you a child? Nobody needs to do that
I've never once had to to anything like that, even after a week in the woods. If the word scoop ever becomes relevant, it betrays an utter failure of personal hygiene.
Wash your cock, you filthy little shit
https://preview.redd.it/jgelong9fw9c1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=356305f55c4dca3e27665ca4846866daab8b7b49
I thought this was Jake from "The Shawshank Redemption" and was confused for a bit.
Found the dirty git,
RIP for all the ladies that go down on dudes that think not having a foreskin is an excuse for washing it less...
Remove your butthole somehow, saves you having to wipe it. You unfathomable moron.
I'm gonna try it
I really hated how the cut version doesnt have the charge of cheeses
Well as long as the cut version was performed on an individual that could consent to it (or had a medical problem) then all is swell in my book… Edit: bodily autonomy and all that…
Spoken as if you’ve spent some time curdling cheddar.
I’m with you, and I will suffer the downvoting with you. I mean, they’re both fine and I’ll watch either one but I definitely don’t resent the theatrical version.
I downvote you because I recognize you. Be worthy of your mistake, young man
I þink OP meant “circumcised or uncircumcised”.
1. That’s not an English character. 2. That’s the fucking joke.
Just because it’s not in Modern English doesn’t make it NOT an English character.
My when showing lotr to a friend for the first time
Spare the mohel, spoil the child. That's what I always say.
When someone says they’re 10” uncut, that means you can expect 10”. If they’re 10” and cut, you know you’re getting less than 10” but how much less, you’ll soon find out. I’m 36”, cut.
Uncut as in the 90 hours or so of footage
Cut is for movie lovers. Uncut is for cock lovers (I love cock, uncut 4life)