Do we have one?

Watched the extended stuff on blu-ray over the weekend and wanted to know peoples' ideas of it were.

I don't believe we do. Haven't seen BD - didn't realise they were extended. But I've watched the extended DVD's many times. Lengthy, but superior in almost every way in my opinion. That said, it's been so long since I've seen the theatrical versions, that I almost forgot they were ever released. Would like to see what the transfer's like with the BD. A lot of other things from that time period aren't worth the money for the poor uspcaling job.

They did the same trick they did with the DVD's - issued the 'theatrical editions' and then issued the 'extended editions' a few months later.

Jon

Anyone who fell for that deserves to be out of pocket.

There are a lot of people on Amazon who seemed to be miffed at the Blu-Ray Extended Editions. All of the 1- and 2- star ratings seem to be either about the fact that it's been released on blu-ray, or that each film is spread across two blu-ray discs.

What, no Blu-ray player with multi-disc cartridges on the market yet?

How much crap is there on the discs for it to need two discs?

The extra DVD discs were full of good stuff. Almost more interestingthan the films themselves.

Really?? La gente estan muy loca! What, the, [LIFTED]?!

The extended DVDs are two discs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting up to change discs at the halfway point of a FOUR HOUR MOVIE. Seriously innit?! And bobbdobbs is right, anybody who buys theatrical is a dick. Have some patience.

TBH I've almost never bothered with extras on DVDs. The only exception has been my Knight Rider boxset.

Anyway, I thought the film was quite well done though there were parts where I felt it would have come across better in the book than on the film. Otherwise, loved the HD quality, the audio (once I figured out how to stop my TV from automatically adjusting the volume up and down), and much of the action. The humour didn't feel out of place or awkward, like it does in some action-based films.

Acting - could have been better. Was disappointed by Frodo - didn't seem to say or do much. I felt even Samwise had more of an active role. Loved how the Took twins went from being annoying and bratty to being somewhat respectable. The other main characters were okay, but became weaker as the film went on - eg Elrond (or Agent Smith as I will forever remember Weaving) had a good strong role at the beginning and his acting was better than towards the end.

Some of the CGI was fantastically done and although you knew it was CGI, you didn't care. Example was the final battle thing with the stampede of horses.

Gonna go read up and see what they missed out/altered.

Cousins I believe.

bratty -

Sorry man, didn't realise that you hadn't seen them before! Thought we were comparing BD with DVD, and theatrical with extended. Of course, my extended DVDs are better than any BDs coz I've got collectors boxes

Don't read up. Be happy. Reading just causes unhappiness. The movies are fantastic epics, fully worthy of the word. The books may well be classics, but we all know that books ruin movies

Honestly, it was something I've never bothered watching. I tend not to get dragged into hype these days. So this was my first full-on exposure to LOTR.

One day, I'll watch that other one. With the black helmet dude and the danish-pastry-haired chick.

That sounds rather like a movie you wouldn't watch in polite company .

I'm currently listening to the unabridged audio books (in German). I read the books when I was a teenager and it is amazing how much they have left out (and how much in the film is not canon), now that I am listening to the books.