A "Fellowship" for Fanatics
December 3rd, 2002
Laura Miller gives a balanced view of the merits of the Extended Edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
The value of the extended DVD edition of Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is a tricky matter. Without a doubt, the theatrically released version of the film is a superior movie, quicker off the dime and less likely to dawdle over intriguing peripheries like one of those friends who insists on stopping to investigate every garage sale on the way to Sunday brunch. A filmgoer who has no investment in J.R.R. Tolkien's novel and thought the movie was pretty good should be perfectly satisfied with the DVD of that version of the film, released earlier this year. How far beyond that you want to go depends on just how geekish you're feeling.[...]
Mostly, though, I marveled at how the movie hasn't paled for me, even though I had to watch it three times in fairly close succession to check out the commentaries. Either I'm a lot geekier than I realized or Jackson and company are even better filmmakers than I suspected. (Or both.) Just one more question you'll have to answer for yourself.
I just dread to think what happens a couple of years hence when the trilogy is re-released in an Super Extended Director's Cut DVD Box Set Edition. How will I be able to resist?
December 3rd, 2002 at 13:18
Really? I'm not a huge fan of the movie, but the extended version didn't feel quite as long as the regular one. More character development instead of just run, sleep, run, fight, run some more.
December 3rd, 2002 at 22:35
I agree that the theatrical version was tremendously busy, with barely time to breathe from one crisis to the next. I enjoyed the extra time to build characters and see a little more of Hobbiton and what have you, but I don't know that it would have worked for a general theatrical audience. The dirty little secret of film adaptations of even quite well-known novels is that they'll never make a profit by just getting fans of the book into the cinema, so the film-makers need to take account of the sensibilities of the general audience. I think a three-and-a-half hour FOTR might have been too much of a sit for casual fans, not to mention a problem for the modern multiplex which tries to fit as many showings in per day as possible.
The reason I liked the Salon article was that it recognised that the extended edition, for all the merits of the additional footage, documentaries and so on, isn't the "proper" version of the theatrical release: a more honest subtitle might have been "The Geek's Cut." (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)
December 4th, 2002 at 15:08
I think you're right, it wouldn't have worked for the majority of people. After seeing this and the bootleg cut of Almost Famous, I want to stand up and scream "more of this kind of thing!"
December 4th, 2002 at 23:25
My take on the idea of extended editions in general is that as long as the studios are open about their plans to release multiple versions of a film (preferably simultaneously, though I appreciate that sometimes putting together extras and doing a thorough re-edit will require considerable effort) then I have no problem with the concept. Bring 'em on, I say.