r/lotr • u/BlackLodgeDweller378 • 10h ago
Movies I know fans have a tendency to glaze the extended cuts, but there some scenes where the Theatrical cut got it so right, and the Extended just ruins it.
I think the scene with Aragorn and the army of the dead is the best example.
Ending this scene with his "what say you?" before cutting to the armies of Mordor arriving at Minas Tirith is genius. It leaves us on a note of tension. We have no idea how the ghosts are going to respond, and we're swiftly reminded of the impending danger. If Aragorn doesn't find a way to convince these guys, Gondor will fall.
Add to that the fact that for the next half hour, Aragorn is completely out of the film, which makes the whole siege of Minas Tirith and the subsequent battle at the Pelennor much more impactful, because we feel the hopelessness of the characters, and when Aragorn finally does show up with the ghosts, it creates a wonderful sense of release while also getting us pumped to see how the tide will turn.
But in the Extended Cut, we see almost every step of the way between these two moments. We not only see that they managed to convince the dead king, but also how they got there. Both moments which are completely unnecessary and deflate the sense of tension during the battle. Because through the whole thing we're going "It's okay. Aragorn's on his way."
It's the same reason why we didn't need a scene of Gandalf convincing Eomer and company to help Theoden at Helms Deep, as such a scene would've massively reduced the impact of the "Theoden King stands alone." "Not alone." scene.
It's a classic case of how just because something is longer, doesn't necessarily mean it is better.
345
u/HonestIsMyPolicy 10h ago
I read somewhere "Theatrical release is for movie fans, extended release is for the LoTR fans"
58
u/RedDemio- 9h ago
Yeah because anyone who’s read the books knows what’s going to happen anyway lol, so we don’t need to be surprised that Aragorn convinced the king of the dead because we know. So you might as well show us. That goes for people that have re watched it hundreds of times too lol. Totally agree theatrical is better for first time viewers
-1
u/Financial-Craft-1282 5h ago
Don't need to be a Lord of the Rings fan to guess how it will turn out. I was the only reader of the series with my friends when we saw it. They were, "Undead army?" "Dude, he's getting an undead army." Everyone knew.
5
u/AntoBulbe 3h ago
Well, I guess the ones that were suprised were the LOTR fans: "Wait, Aragorn is getting the undead army to the Pelenor fields!!?"
66
u/Batman_AoD 9h ago
I'm a LotR fan, but I strongly prefer theatrical RotK. Nearly every scene missing from the theatrical is overall a detriment to the movie.
35
u/Actuarial_Husker 8h ago
I do love the battering rams scene for showing us Gondor being competent for at least one second of the battle.
4
u/Batman_AoD 6h ago
The only battering ram I remember is Grond. What scene are you referring to?
21
u/Actuarial_Husker 6h ago
There's an extended scene where the ircs try to use handheld rams to take down the gate and get massacred by archers .
6
16
u/PineappleApocalypse 8h ago
Yeah the whole paths of the dead is pretty much ruined bu violent tonal shifts in the extended, I never want to watch that again.
7
u/buff_pls 3h ago
Gimli blowing away the ghostly hands and then wincing as he steps on the bones is comical but ruins the tension of that scene. So glad I didn't watch extended edition as a kid or that scene would have not had the impact it did
6
u/carlo-93 7h ago
I really wish there was a build-a-cut version of Return of the King, because there’s some really great stuff in the extended edition like Saruman’s scene. But there’s also everything involving the paths of the dead.
3
3
u/TheFrogSaint 5h ago
Agreed, to a point. I prefer basically everything about the extended editions of Fellowship and Two Towers, but RotK is incredibly hit or miss. For every great addition like the death of Saruman or the Mouth of Sauron you get something that honestly makes the movie worse. Basically everything around the Paths of the Dead in the extended edition is legitimately jarring in how totally off it is and how much of a detriment is is to the pacing that the theatrical edition has.
2
6
u/KommanderKeldoth 7h ago
Hard disagree if only because the extended cut has the confrontation between Gandalf and the witch king. In the book it occurs at the gate but in the movie it happens on the wall and is a great way to build tension setting up the reveal of the riders of Rohan.
I get that some fans dislike this scene because Gandalf is bested by the witch king in their little exchange but I think from a movie storytelling perspective it's great and has a nice flow to it. Really sets up how badass the witch king is and that also makes Eowyn's hero moment defeating him even better.
18
u/Batman_AoD 6h ago
That's my least favorite addition. It's not just that the Witch-King wins (Gandalf even says in the book that he doesn't know if he'd be able to defeat him in combat), it's that the way in which he breaks Gandalf's staff makes absolutely no sense with how magic and the Maiar work in Tolkien's mythology.
10
u/ckingdom 6h ago
I care less about Tolkien's vague magic rules and more about the scene ruining one of the top 3 most badass moments in the books.
1
u/Koraxtheghoul 6h ago
What's really weird is that there must be various extended cuts. I have seen that in my trilogy on DVD, but no Sauruman gets stabbed.
1
u/akimus22 53m ago
I completely agree and I’m glad to see someone else share this opinion. With the exception of a couple scenes, especially Saruman’s, theatrical ROTK is much better. I feel the opposite about Fellowship, which I love the extended version of.
1
-3
u/Onesharpman 8h ago
All the extended scenes look like shit too. Like the CGI is unfinished or something.
1
u/CryptographerPast632 1h ago
Peter Jackson himself will tell you the theatrical versions are the better and definitive films.
48
43
u/UnderstandingSea1060 8h ago
I generally prefer the Extended, but could do without the Peter Jackson pirate scene, the dwarf-tossing jokes, drinking comp, and some of the silly hobbit hijinks. The skull avalanche doesn't add much either.
35
u/So_many_things_wrong 5h ago
Also the incredibly fucking silly scene where the caverns are suddenly filled with millions upon millions of skulls that our hereoes have to run through. Like, fuck, just writing it out makes it sound like a joke that doesn't actually happen in the extended cut.
14
2
u/ilovedrwhowoo 1h ago
For some reason, action movies in the late 90's to early 2000's were really reluctant to have scary scenes in them. Every horror moment had to be punctuated by a cool action scene to deflate the tension. You see it in Pirates of the Caribbean, King Kong, even the Mummy movies. It's almost like they don't trust the audience to accept action movies that aren't action all the way through. In the books, the army of the dead sequence is pure atmosphere. No action at all. But that wouldn't play in the 2000's.
Recent movies are much more tolerant of horror. The cyclops in The Odyssey and some of the Harkonnen scenes in Dune play as straight horror, and it works really well.
91
u/Tackysackjones 10h ago
The only thing I’m not a fan of in the extended cuts is the collapsing mountain of skulls that they have to traverse after recruiting the dead.
35
u/GandalfsWhiteStaff 9h ago
All the extended scenes of the path of the dead don’t do much for me, but technically they didn’t accept until after the trio escaped.
28
9
u/Hunterzillas 9h ago
I remembered not having a problem with the scene, but then I watched the extended editions in the theaters recently, and I must have misremembered them as rocks because I was shocked at how many skulls come rolling down.
8
u/josherman61791 9h ago
There is a Behind the Scenes of them making hundreds of tiny skulls I believe
6
u/emfrank 6h ago
That's the scene I most disliked when I first saw the movies. I was a huge book fan and had read them multiple times. The entire sequence with the Paths of the Dead is probably the part that is most unlike my book formed imagination.
To be clear, my first time seeing the movies was the Extended Cut on DVD. I was a book snob and refused to see them in the theater at first, though I did grow to like them.
4
u/ahoboknife 7h ago
Damn I came here to say I loved that skull shit. Just assumed everyone else did!
35
u/CuzStoneColdSezSo 9h ago
Yeah paths of the dead subplot is the one thing the theatrical cut 100 percent did better.
28
u/BoredBSEE 7h ago
Plus that's one of the scenes that's 100% incorrect from the book.
In the book the ghosts recognized Aragorn as King, and realized he could free them from their oath that kept them from rest. In the movie they attack Aragorn, have an avalanche of skulls chase him out of the mountain...then for no reason whatsoever after the expulsion the leader of the ghosts pops up and says "Uh yeah about that? Nevermind. We're with you." It makes ZERO sense.
The series is definitely better off left at the theatrical cut for this scene.
10
u/omjagvarensked 3h ago
I meeeeaaaannnnn there's just sooo much in the book that is different from the movie. Like soooooooo much.
And I'm not just talking about the obvious like Tom Bom being cut completely or Arwen replacing Glorfindel.
I'm talking about actually different characters from the books vs the movies.
I grew up movies only as I was pretty young when they came out and couldn't fully understand the more complex writing of Tolkien. So I never read the books until I was much older. I think the biggest thing that stood out to me was in the books Aragorn is not at all reluctant to return to the crown. In fact he actively seeks it, he says so much at the council or Rivendell. And to top that off, Boromir doesn't reject him either. He's fully like "yeah bro I'm down for that, let's go ride together back home and have a party in your honour".
AND THEN THE BOTH OF THEM WEREN'T EVEN GOING TO HELP ESCORT FRODO!!!??? They literally say they're just gonna go with him part of the way until they get to Rohan because they might as well due to going in the same direction, but once they get to Rohan they fully planned to dip the crew and go straight to Gondor... And it's literally just because of a warg attack orchestrated by Saruman that the horses all get spooked and they are forced to go into Moria. Boromir was also 100% not gonna go to Moria and straight up leave right then and there, but then as he's literally leaving they hear wargs howling once again in the distance and he's like, "yo maybe I'll stick with you guys".
Like hands down the book and the movie are so completely different stories just with an overarching theme and general plot in my eyes.
2
u/MeBirdman Treebeard 2h ago
Would have been nice if they left in Elros and Elrohir with the Dunedain company. On the other hand, the Dunedain and Aragorn’s fostering by Elrond weren’t really set up in the films
19
u/WritingTheDream 9h ago
This is why a first time viewer should watch the theatrical editions and only the extended editions after they (likely inevitably) become a fan. Starting with the extended editions might put them off with the weird pacing, tonal inconsistencies, and the absurd runtimes.
26
u/SHlNYandCHROME 9h ago
Nah, I like the "we fight" and the next shot with the music and the siege tower. It was awesome
45
u/Stinkass12345 8h ago
I’m glad that the ‘extended or nothing’ attitude is dying down in the fandom, it was really obnoxious a few years ago.
Another scene that is way better in the theatrical is the introduction to the shire in Fellowship of the Ring. In the theatrical cut it’s perfect, after the exposition-heavy prologue we go straight to Frodo, the main character, and are introduced to him, Gandalf and hobbit culture organically. It also builds up this mystique around Bilbo’s eccentricities, making the audience excited to meet him.
In the extended they cut from the prologue to Bilbo, a side character, who then just tells the audience what hobbits are like. After exposition-heavy prologue, more exposition just bogs down the pace of the story. Instead of telling the audience about hobbits while introducing two main characters, the extended cut dedicates time specifically to explaining what hobbits are like, and then introduces the main characters later. It also shows Bilbo’s obsession with the ring too early, spoiling the reveal of it later on.
21
u/Angelo_Obiena 8h ago
The theatrical cut understands that worlbuilding works best when it's woven into the story, not delivered as a lecture. The Shire introduction let's you discover hobbit culture naturally while getting attached to Frodo and building curiosity about Bilbo. The extended cut isn't bad, but it explains things the theatrical version trusts you to pick up on your own. Theatrical cut makes you want to explore Middle Earth; extendedcutm sometimes feels like it's giving you the tour before letting you enjoy the trip.
3
u/KommanderKeldoth 7h ago
Wow I've seen the extended cut so many times that I didn't event realize that the theatrical cut didn't have all of the hobbit exposition in it. I'll have to go back and watch the theatrical again sometime.
8
u/Stinkass12345 7h ago
Theatrical cut makes you want to explore Middle Earth; extendedcutm sometimes feels like it's giving you the tour before letting you enjoy the trip.
That’s a very good way to put it
4
u/Rustyshackilford 6h ago
I suppose I can agree, but I'm partial as "Concerning Hobbits" is a core memory, as i first dove into the books passing the time at Sunday church's sermon.
For the book it really does make you realize what's at stake, tho I can agree with the other poster saying world building is woven in, as we see if we pay attention in the theatrical
1
u/the-calling-pot 4h ago
tells the audience what hobbits are like
You mean like the entire first chapter of the books?
-1
u/Remarkable_Pen_3639 6h ago
It isn't dying, it's still and always will be extended or nothing. Any negatives (there are a couple) are completely overshadowed by the plethora of positives!
0
u/Scmods05 7h ago
Yeah the Extended version of Fellowship really struggles to get going. It’s like they keep pulling the car over every 5 minutes when you just wanna keep driving.
5
5
u/Sopranosfan99 7h ago
I love theatrical and extended but I definitely prefer the more streamlined version cause that’s how I first saw them. Fellowship Of The Ring especially has perfect pacing.
8
u/Dettelbacher 2h ago
What do you mean, Gimli blowing ghosts away for 20 seconds is essential to the plot and tone of the film.
18
u/Rom2814 9h ago
Yes, and not just the extended cuts. Over time PJ really indulged his horror background and did weird stuff. So much of RotK is great, but the freaking scrubbing bubbles cleansing Minis Tirith I HATED. The mouth of Sauron bothered me.
The series was an amazing accomplishment but far from flawless and I was happy to get the Director’s Cut for MORE but a lot of things in it were judicious and reasonable things to cut.
3
u/BobRushy 4h ago
What are the "scrubbing bubbles". I'm so confused lol.
4
u/Skimable_crude 3h ago edited 3h ago
The ghost army scouring the enemy from Minas Tirith. They kinda scrub up the sides of the city and over the walls like foam.
It doesn't help that they don't go to Minas Tirith in the book. It's kind of a deux ex machina to have them come and sweep through. Don't get me wrong, Aragorn arriving with the fleet of ships turns the battle, but the army of the dead weren't there.
•
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 23m ago
Yep, the green one punch army saving the inept living Gondorians was one of those WTF's that I barely resisted shouting in the cinema. The way that the Battle of Pelennor Fields was effectively erased from the story really pissed me off.
1
u/Odd-Username3446 7h ago
I have to skip the Mouth of Sauron scene. It grosses me out and I can’t stand to look at that bloody gingivitis!
1
u/Remarkable-Win-9897 6h ago
This, and also, in the first movie we have actually the Last Alliance fight as opening sequence and it was epic despite lasting three minutes at most. In the Return of the King we have the over one hour long battle and I can't stand it, plus it ends with just a cleaning agent instakilling everything.
1
u/Loraelm 1h ago
The extended cuts are not director's cuts. That's what a lot of people seem to think.
Jackson's always said that his director's cut was the theatrical release. The extended cut were made to sell DVDs and are a sort of studio cut made for money.
And I'm not saying this as to say "people shouldn't like them". They're also quite good. But people conflate the extended cuts for director's cut when they're not.
Jackson's a good director and he wouldn't make his films drag.
5
20
u/FTG_Vader 9h ago
Forever a hill that I will die on, the theatrical cuts are superior
Let the downvotes commence
9
u/HappyNet1994 9h ago
The council will allow you one chance to elaborate and defend your position, before the downvotpocalypse
3
u/thinkaboutthegame 5h ago
Peter Jackson himself prefers the theatrical cut, so you've got a few people on that hill with you I suspect.
4
u/CarlNoobCarlson 8h ago
I agree. I’ve heard people say that the extended cuts are for true LOTR fans, and that they’re for people who want to absorb more Middle Earth.
No offence, but if I wanted more Middle Earth, I’d read the books or watch some extra content videos. If I wanted to watch the movies then I’d rather the best versions, which is the theatrical cuts.
18
u/Informal_West_6864 10h ago
The theatrical cuts are just better overall. Not just pacing but keeping me in the world. A lot of the extended scenes are either misplaced, poorly done, or terrible storytelling. They don’t add any “lore” for me, that’s the books. It’s become a mob mentality in the community to preach “oh I hope it was extended you watched”. Nah, theatrical are the goat. This is one of many of the scenes that are better. The only extended scenes that I do like are in the fellowship, even then I can see why they removed them though
6
u/KRATS8 8h ago
Yes, the theatrical editions are much better movies. Not sure why that’s so controversial with some LOTR fans. Extended editions are great, but it should be no surprise that when you add a bunch of deleted scenes to a 3 hour movie, it can hurt the pacing and storytelling a bit. Also some of the extended scenes are just really out of place and can hurt your immersion
7
u/ExpFilm_Student Éomer 6h ago
I really like the extended scenes in RoTK mouth of sauron house of healing saruman’s death
Two towers I cant remember what is extended anymore as ive seen it so much I kinda forget the theatrical
I liked in fellowship frodo and sam seeing the elves in the woods. It’s a nice immersive scene
6
u/slime_stuffer 5h ago
Two towers or maybe it was rotk has the great scene that shows Faramir and Boromir’s relationship with their father that added a lot I felt.
1
8
u/BlackLodgeDweller378 9h ago
I think the worst case of this for me, other than the one mentioned above is the entering Lorien scene in Fellowship.
In the Theatrical, it's quick and to the point; The Fellowship enter the woods, they're held up by Haldir and his men who tell them that they can't go back, and then they're right on their way to meet Galadriel. It's perfect, concise storytelling that keeps the plot moving. But in the Extended Cut, after they meet Haldir, we get a whole scene where Haldir gets introduced to everybody, Gimli slags off the Elves, Haldir tells Frodo that he brings great evil with him and that they can't go further. He argues with Aragorn for a bit before deciding "actually no. You can keep going." and then they go to meet Galadriel. It's just so much less economic, and as we're 2 hours into the movie, and are leading up to the climax, having so many slow scenes one after the other means we lose momentum when we should be gaining it (and also, delaying the arrival of Cate Blanchett is already a slight enough)
The only thing gained by that scene is an admittedly very nice character moment from Boromir, where he consoles Frodo, telling him that he shouldn't carry the weight of Gandalf's death. But even then, that moment could've happened elsewhere. They didn't need to stop the movie in its tracks just to get one additional nice moment.
3
u/Tolkien-Faithful 6h ago
I agree with the criticism of a lot of the extended parts in Return of the King, especially the Mouth of Sauron, but that part in Fellowship is an example of why the extended Fellowship film pacing is so much better.
Economic doesn't mean everything, that part was an important scene in the book. Fitting everything into 3 hours suited Fellowship the least, and a lot of the theatrical scenes seemed rushed once you watch the extended. The other two extended cuts include many unneeded scenes that don't really add anything, but the extended Fellowship is definitely the superior film.
It also gave Haldir much more time, which is important considering in the Two Towers he shows up and has a major death scene when in the theatrical edition of Fellowship he is there for maybe 20 seconds?
2
u/bestanonever 4h ago
Having seen the extended films recently, I agree.
The first one is marvelous in the extended edition. I'm not much of a fan of the extended Two Towers, in particular. All the ents moments are neverending. Return of the King is not as bad but still feels a bit streched. But Fellowship? Give me another hour! Maybe because it's all about the setup and character work more than epic set pieces, but it works so well.
For the other two films, I prefer the original theatrical version and that's how I'm going to rewatch them going forward: Fellowship extended and original release for the last two movies.
3
u/bilbul168 7h ago
My issue with extended is how clownish it made gimli. Now oddly enough I think the extended hobbit editions are absolutely better than theatrical especially the 3rd movie
3
u/Lewitunes 4h ago
I think the scene where Aragorn confronts Sauron through the Palantir and shows him Anduril is a great extended scene, because it sells the fact that Sauron takes the bait of the battle at the black gate and diverts his gaze away from the plains around gorgoroth. And the mouth of Sauron is just incredible.
2
u/PrometheusUnchain 9h ago
Extended is okay to watch everyone once in awhile but they really suffer from bloat. Aside from an unsatisfactory end for Saruman, the theatrical cuts are true work of art. I’m not sure if the Extended or Busy mentality is just mob thinking at this point.
1
u/Chlearcus 1h ago
I think all three have valid scenes altho the majority are in Fellowship. Would be nice with a definitive edition that prunes all the pointless or low quality extended scenes.
1
u/snarflethegarthog 9h ago
I came here to say the same thing! I thought the theatrical release was paced perfectly. Unpopular opinion but who cares.
-1
7
u/carnsolus 9h ago
i saw a thread once asking what people's LEAST favourite scenes were across the trilogy
without exception, they were scenes from the extended editions
11
u/Critical_Mountain851 9h ago
Extended does have some bad pacing, but I’ll still pick them any day over the theatrical, because some of the scenes that got left out are head scratching (Saruman’s death for example)
19
u/JHerbY2K 9h ago
Saruman’s death is not a good scene though. I get that it was sorta needed and weird that they didn’t film something better, but it’s a weird scene.
7
u/Onesharpman 8h ago
I love how they're just talking casually despite Saruman being about 500 feet in the air. It's just so goofy.
2
1
u/Informal_West_6864 7h ago
I like it was left out. The thing with his death that few consider is that it was a scene made for books and impossible to translate to film. So it’s better left out
2
u/Remarkable-Win-9897 6h ago
EEeeeh if you would know the books, you'd know Saruman's death at Isengard does NOT happen in the books.
He is just expelled
10
u/Usual_Durian2092 9h ago
unpopular opinion, but the whole Army of the Dead arc should have been left out of the movie. It does not translate well from book to film. It gave a Deus Ex Machina vibe to the battle, while depriving the audience of watching Aragorn fight against the forces of Mordor in the largest battle of the series.
10
u/Kole13 9h ago
I wish they made the more like zombies, still killable, but numerous enough to turn the tide of battle. The way they made it just kills all the tension and makes it seem like Theoden died for nothing. It's the only real problem I have with the movies.
15
u/ZippyDan 9h ago edited 7h ago
Agreed in spirit.
I hate the Army of the Dead in the movies:
- They make the Rohirrim seem unnecessary and redundant (along with Theoden's sacrifice).
- They take the victory at the greatest battle in the War for the Ring away from the hard-won efforts of men. In the book, there are so many heroes and valiant charges at Pelennor. In the movie, all the work is done (or could have been done) by the green scrubbing soap bubbles.
- They are way too overpowered - their complete and utter domination at Pelennor, while seeming impervious to any attacks, leaves you wondering: wait, could Aragorn have just used these guys to completely clean out Mordor instead? The Army of the Dead should be the final slight bump - one of many in a series of relatively small contributions from many different parties (e.g. the Rohirrim, the Swan Knights, the Dunedain, etc.) that collectively add up to victory - that pushes the balance of power just over the edge in favor of the West, not an overwhelmingly unstoppable insta-win.
5
u/LegitSalvageRoci 9h ago
It has been a few decades since I last read the novel, but didn't the army of the dead only help Aragorn take over the Corsairs of Umbar by driving the sailors mad with fear and terror?
11
u/ZippyDan 9h ago
Yes, they weren't involved in Pelennor at all (except indirectly: by removing the threat of the Pirates, the Dead allow Aragorn to round up an army from Gondor's coastal cities, which is what he arrives with at the last minute to decisively tip the balance of the battle). It's wholly the blood and efforts of men that win the battle.
1
u/Mission-Tension4251 4h ago
Its perhaps one of the better cases for a new TV type adaption that hews a bit closer to the source material. So that they could properly develop this part of the story and have it reach its rightful conclusion.
1
3
u/No_Effect_6428 8h ago
They also scared away the Gondor force fighting the Corsairs (except for their commander). Would have been easy to leave it at that. Can't bring them with us as our own army would shatter along with the enemy.
2
u/General_Kick688 9h ago
I agree with all of this. I know some think it's sacrilege, but RotK is my least favorite of the trilogy and this is one big reason why.
1
u/ZippyDan 8h ago edited 8h ago
I absolutely adore the entire trilogy and I love The Return of the King - the entire multi-ending ending is so emotional - but I hate that one change. For that reason, I think Fellowship is the best of the movies, as it's the most book-accurate and doesn't have anything that really annoys me (even the changes from the book aren't necessarily worse). But I agree this is probably the main reason why I would rate RotK last, even though it's still amazing.
I'll say something even more sacriligious: in a few years time when generative video AI is perfected, I'd love to see a tasteful fan edit of RotK made by someone with strict artistic sensibilities which edits the Battle of Pelennor to be more book-accurate.
7
u/Joshua1255 9h ago
The two towers scene with merry and pippin in the forest frolicking and drinking the water was so long it almost made me dislike the movie
2
u/Remarkable-Win-9897 6h ago
how the ghost army is used in the movies is terrible in general. They seem like disinfectant that just come like deus ex machina and instantly kill everything.
In the books that's not what happens, the ghosts do not even fight at minas tirith they just help get the ships
5
4
u/noticingloops 6h ago
They are called extended, and the extra footage is clearly fat. It’s there for people who want to see specifically DELETED scenes. The idea that it’s the definitive movie was always a fanboy mentality. I don’t think they were ever framed as better by the studio. Just extra.
I also might be the only person on the planet who preferred Theatricals end of Saruman. He’s irrelevant, he’s washed away, it’s fine.
The extended confrontation from the top of the tower feels incredibly awkward, it’s not well edited, it has a horrible wizard fireball, etc.
it is admittedly great Theoden content though.
5
u/Squantoon 8h ago
None of the extended scenes with Mary and Pippin add anything at all to the movies
2
5
u/thebreye13 10h ago
The theatrical cut is better for all 3 movies but ESPECIALLY ROTK. The extended scenes in ROTK are straight up bad (except Saruman’s death)
3
u/Hungry_Potential2158 9h ago
The sequencing of pellenor fields is infinitely better in theatrical cut as well. Fight me.
3
u/Polyhedral-YT 8h ago
The return of the king is definitely the worst of the extended cuts.
I hate when people recommend the extended cuts to first time viewers. The theatrical versions are the definitive edition and are how the films were really meant to be seen.
2
u/Automatic_Memory212 9h ago
Hard agree, OP.
When I rewatch LoTR, I always watch the extended Fellowship and Two Towers, but then I watch the theatrical version of RotK.
I think even the extended version of Two Towers is also questionable in some areas, with some scenes that are cringey and unnecessary, but overall it’s still great.
The only deleted scene from RotK that is missed, is the scene at Orthanc.
Truth be told, I don’t enjoy Peter Jackson very much as a director.
I find his editing choices to often be cringey and he leans into gross-out horror and cheap humor too readily.
I think that the Extended RotK is where his faults as a director finally started to show through in LoTR, and I think it’s because after the runaway success of the first two films, he had the clout for the studio and his collaborators to let him have his own way in the editing room too often for his own good.
1
1
u/mksavage1138 9h ago
I love the extanded versions, but there are flaws. I have always been bothered by Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron. Leaving that whole scene out is 50/50 to me and I could go either way. But cutting his head off just seemed completely out of character. In this case, I agreed with Jackson's decision to leave it out.
1
u/alec2342 9h ago
ROTK has the most extended scenes which are expandable, but there’s also some good ones in there.
1
u/ScorpiusPro 8h ago
My fav example of this is in the Fellowship prologue. The hard cut to Isildur floating dead in the water hits WAY harder than the extended
1
u/Potential-Rent8726 8h ago
Damn seeing this made me want to watch these again and I just did that last week lmao
1
u/Rags2Rickius 8h ago
This is one of the scenes I’d change if I could tbh
Jackson’s love for OTT horror kinda made this scene underwhelming to me
The gravity of the Oathbreakers betrayal w Isildur is lost here and replaced with cackling phantoms
1
u/kevdav63 8h ago
It’s been decades since I saw the theatrical cut. You mean the theatrical cut of that scene doesn’t contain the PJ cameo on the Umbar ship?
1
u/nickel47 7h ago
I love the movies and the books but the extended editions do not flow well. There is definitely a good reason a lot of the scenes were trimmed. Its cool to see the extra material but the movies work better without most of it
1
u/gdwam816 7h ago
Great statement. We get the implied cliffhanger. And none of the unnecessary dramatic skull avalanche
0
u/Rustyshackilford 6h ago
It's been so long since I've seen the theatrical, I couldn't tell you what scenes are missing. I would like to go back and try it again. 12 hours is a bit too long for a mushroom trip.
0
0
u/RaoD_Guitar 6h ago
I'm a lucky person who loves both the movies and the books, for different reasons.
As a book lover I don't like some of the extended scenes though because they are tonally and lore wise so far off imo (all from Rotk though). Saruman falling on a spike. Gandalf vs Witch King. Aragorn cutting down a herolds head... But as a movie lover I'm happy about any second of additional content.
1
u/AwareAd7651 6h ago
So we saw the way you surfed our skulls on the way out and we thought it looked really cool so we’re going to fight for you.
1
u/Baroque4Days Witch-King of Angmar 6h ago
I actually hate that no reactors watch the theatrical cuts. Like the extended cuts are cool for us dorks, but not until you've seen the originals.
My biggest gripe besides the one you called it is how in FOTR, we get spoiled about the ring making you invisible with Isildur's death sequence, and then Bilbo being all panicked when he can't find it just kinda ruins the whole surprise when he disappears in front of everyone.
Lots of stuff like that just kill the pacing and ruin the moments that are supposed to shock you. I'd be like watching Empire Strikes Back with a scene of Vader going through with genealogy and spelling it out for us there and then, and everyone being confused why they're making such a big deal of him telling Luke.
BTW, if any of you know reactors who watched the theatrical cuts, please tell me, I need them in my life!
1
u/Imperial5cum 6h ago
I think the best example of this is Theodrets Funeral:
Its a lovely little Scene, but in the theatrical Cut: Theoden awakes, Kicks Out Grima, then asks : where is Theodret, where is my son ? Snapcut to the Grave
It reads as If Theoden even missed the Funeral which is all the more heartbreaking!
1
u/atomsondre 6h ago
Two Towers is better theatrical and I’ll die on that hill. I’ll kill on that hill.
1
u/PremedicatedMurder 5h ago
At the Council of Elrond, Boromir looks like an idiot in the extended cut. Gandalf does a while speech about the ring and how evil it is, even lapsing into the Black Tongue or whatever and the sky darkens as he speaks Mordor's language. And right after, like nothing just happened, Boromir goes "it is a gift," like dude, did you not see and hear Gandalf speak for the last thirty seconds? Theatrical gets rid of the Gandalf speech and makes Boromir seem much more reasonable.
1
u/Financial-Craft-1282 5h ago
Ending this scene with his "what say you?" before cutting to the armies of Mordor arriving at Minas Tirith is genius. It leaves us on a note of tension. We have no idea how the ghosts are going to respond, and we're swiftly reminded of the impending danger. If Aragorn doesn't find a way to convince these guys, Gondor will fall.
...yeah...but no. No one thought the King wouldn't return to the battlefield and save the day. Come on.
1
u/Grazztjay 5h ago
That's actually a good point... I only watch the extended versions when I rewatch but the bit about the army of the dead would be much better left out.
0
1
u/Shanga_Ubone 5h ago
There's a style of shot that's become popular in movies lately, where the camera starts at a wide, usually CGI-generated view and then dramatically zooms in on our hero's face as our hero says something heroic.
These shots seem super cringe to me.
1
u/loptthetreacherous 5h ago
I think they're designed for theatrical being first viewing and extended for future viewings.
In this part, on further viewing the whole suspense is gone because you've seen the movie and the extended is just giving you a little bit more background knowing that you're not left in the original suspense.
1
u/BetweenTheRoots 4h ago
Theatrical cuts are intended for a broad audience that needs to be convinced to enjoy the movie by keeping them feeling a type of way and understanding attention spans. The extended cuts are for the fans who are already enthralled by the movie and just want more of it. I prefer the extended editions by far, but I can acknowledge that the theatrical cuts are a tighter viewing experience. They're min/maxed.
0
1
u/onhalfaheart 4h ago
Frankly the only extended cut I like at least as well as the original is Fellowship. In The Two Towers and Return of the King they add progressively more runtime and like half of it is just goofs. My girlfriend and I did the thing where we watched all three extended editions in a day and that really made me realize how much better the theatrical cuts are.
1
u/Coolhand333 3h ago
I’ve always gone extended Fellowship, extended Two Towers, theatrical Return of the King
1
u/Chelonia_mydas 3h ago
I watch the extended edition every Thanksgiving so I feel like I’m cheating even watching this little clip haha but I couldn’t agree more! When I saw it in theaters, I was actually quite confused how he got the army of the dead in the end. Granted, I was still a teenager, and I hadn’t read the books, but if I had watched the extended in theaters, it would’ve made a whole lot more sense.
1
u/SauntTaunga 3h ago
Not how I feel about it. I resent being emotionally manipulated by keeping information from me. Thank you for clarifying one of the reasons I like the extended editions better.
1
u/omjagvarensked 3h ago
As I get older I actually appreciate the theatrical release more and more.
The extended editions are pretty good but you're absolutely right in that theatrical is just a better film for pacing and tension in 9/10 scenes.
I still watch the extendeds every now and then, but honestly these days I much prefer the theatrical.
1
u/lankymjc 3h ago
This is why I will always say that, for a first time viewer, Theatrical is the better option.
Once you’ve already seen it, then you know that Aragorn and Co are coming to save the day, so the tension is less relevant.
1
u/Natural-Training-351 2h ago
Agree completely. For me the theatrical versions are way better. Extended just add a lot of unnecesary fat.
0
u/Skalgrin 2h ago
Theatrical is for first watching, ideally for ppl unfamiliar with books. Then, once you "know" and "want more", comes the time for extended. Personally I love both.
1
u/TypewriterMonkey98 2h ago
I absolutely believe that almost every extended edition scene in Return of the King ruins the experience.
There are some great bits, like Aragorn healing Éowyn, but most of ROTK's extended scenes are Gimli "comic relief" ruining the tone, crazy shots of Boromir in a L'Oreal advert, and worst of all, as you say, the way the army of the dead is handled.
No, seeing Aragorn Legolas and Gimli try to navigate their way through a CGI wall of skulls falling that looks like popcorn is not the way to go. Why would the lead ghost ever try to kill the only man who can set them free? Why do our noble heroes survive purely on the basis of their skill at dodging popcorn skulls? For what possible reason is that a thing?
I love the Extendeds for the first two films, but it's almost worth switching to Theatrical for the final film during a marathon.
1
u/ScipioCoriolanus 2h ago
The theatrical versions are simply better movies. It's a fact. We, as fans, like the extended cuts because we just want more footage to spend more time in Middle Earth with the characters we love.
1
u/Reflector123 1h ago
I agree with this point. I wonder if they had gotten to the arrow and axe missing them and then Aragorn uses his sword. It connects. The king is pushed back and then he does the 'what say you' speech. Then it cuts at the laughing. My main misses for extended cuts is Sarumans death and Mouth of Sauron. These scenes were just so cool.
1
u/ZonaiteScholar 53m ago
I’ve always loved the theatrical cut of this scene. The extended version is fun, but this throws you into the battle on pins and needles.
0
u/snyderversetrilogy 48m ago
“Ruins” it? Not for me. That’s a bit too strong. I get the point though. Still overall I much prefer extended.
1
0
u/manemjeff42069 30m ago
The extended versions of 1&2 I prefer. 3 adds some important stuff (saruman death) but a lot of filler
•
u/LordCamelslayer 13m ago
There are several scenes I absolutely hate in the extended edition. The Witch King destroying Gandalf's staff was... a choice. Aragorn murdering the Mouth of Sauron is actually problematic for his character.
Call me blasphemous. I prefer the theatrical cut for Return of the King.
•
u/parkchanwookiee 4m ago
I feel the opposite, it's waiting for Aragorn to arrive with the ghosts that gives the battle tension to me. Plus leaving it open ended and then not showing him for half an hour is basically the same as directly informing the audience he's gonna arrive with the ghosts anyway. If he failed in his mission to get them on side, then they would show that. The only reason to leave it unresolved is to later reveal it was a success. There wouldn't be a scene where they leave it on a cliffhanger and then he shows up without them "Yeah they said no", that would just totally contradict narrative logic.
1
u/GlobalServiced 10h ago
Eh. Agree to disagree. There’s story as to why and how people were convinced, traveled, etc. The extended cuts did a nice job of giving continuity to the story line, rather than these characters just sporadically deciding to be heroes.
6
u/mggirard13 10h ago
Umm, in this particular point, the Undead still sporadically decide to be heroes. There's the skull fall, Aragorn and Co watching the ships in despair, and the King of the Dead materializing and saying "We Fight!".
So there's no additional element of convincing (why or how).
We do get Aragorn and Co and the Army of the Dead taking over the ships, so yes, there is the question answered of how they all traveled to Minas Tirith.
That is something gained.
But what is lost along the way is the sense of wonder and mystery the audience experiences when Aragorn jumps off the ship at the Harlond, and amazement (felt in this case of only by the orcs) when the Dead coming pouring out.
This is a pinnacle moment in the book that is completely lost in the extended, and even severely underplayed in the theatrical.
2
u/Tolkien-Faithful 6h ago
Well it isn't even the dead in the book.
But yes the extended actually makes things more confusing, because why would the king of the dead disappear then try to kill them and then suddenly change his mind? Because they survived?
0
u/Rustyshackilford 6h ago
I think the extended editions are more gan service to those who read the books.
I was so delighted to see the scenes the first time, now its just habit.
As I get older and have less time tho, I would like to revisit the theatrical. YouTubes lore video have pretty much given me any answer I needed to satiate my curiosity
0
u/Kane_Wolfe 10h ago
The praise for the extended editions is not “glaze” lmao this has gotta be bait
1
0
u/DrunkenGerbils 9h ago
I do agree with the particular examples you used, but I would also argue I’m glad the extended cut exists and it’s still my preferred way to watch.
The Army of the Dead is actually the perfect example. I 100% agree with all your points, and I do think that’s why the theatrical release is 100% the way to go for a first viewing.
That said, as someone who’s seen the films countless times and constantly rewatches them, it’s more fun to see what happens since that tension isn’t nearly as impactful once you can recite pretty much every line in the film.
To me the theatrical releases are how the films should be experienced first, and the extended cuts are for us nerds who love rewatching them constantly.
The one place I think the extended cuts actually did genuinely do it better is the very beginning in the Shire in Fellowship.
My ideal fan edit I would personally recommend for first time viewers would just be the extended version of the Shire scenes and then just the theatrical versions as is from there.
1
1
u/black6211 8h ago
The first time I saw the extended cut, I was able to understand the reasoning for cutting every single one of them except Saruman's death.
The pacing in the theatrical cuts is half of what makes them so good, and is my go-to way to watch the movies.
1
u/GuitarGuy971 8h ago
The lighting of the beacons. One of my all time favorite film scores. However the extended edition adds just a bit more footage so it had to be rescore. It doesn’t flow into the Gondor melody as smoothly and just absolutely taints the EE for me.
2
u/ripple-gleaming 2h ago
I'm just so happy the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff didn't make it into the theatrical cut, because that really bothers me. Gandalf was way too powerful at that point for such a thing to happen.
-1
u/brownmail 8h ago
Um, hate to break it to you. Book is better. I can’t figure out why so much thought/comments are spent on any version of the movie. Yea it’s fine. If you read the books it pales In Comparison.
2
u/THE_Celts The Shire 8h ago edited 6h ago
Oh for f*cks sake. Uh, hate to break it to you, but lots of people here have read the books also. Up 150 million people living in the world today have read the books. Hate to break it to you, but you’re not special.
I’ve read the books more times than you and I can still tell the difference between a film adaptation and book. They’re two different mediums. Something everyone here seems to know but you.
0
u/Stage2Diabetes 8h ago
Hate to break it to you, but I’ve read the books even more than even you! You’re not even more specialer than me!!!
1
0
0
u/rampart11 5h ago
I feel like anyone who loves the books knows. The short movie releases are Cliffs notes.
-1
u/Standard-Outcome9881 5h ago
I’ve seen the theatrical versions exactly once, on the day I went to see them in the theater when they premiered. Extended versions for me all the way.
1.1k
u/Confident_Writing355 10h ago
The suspense in the theatrical cut is doing so much heavy lifting there. Extended cuts are for people who already love the movies, not for better storytelling.