WMN: t3_2qrbaf_t1_cn9jetq--TIO1

[TITLE]

CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.

[RYouNotEntertained]

I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies. I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. (The hobbit movies can S my D though.) IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story. When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie. They break the fourth wall, if you will. Peter Jackson agrees with me: [STA-CITE]>The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [END-CITE]The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better. Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling. The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time *precisely because* they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces (Helms's Deep) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely (Tom Bombadil). Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent **movies,** instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a **book,** and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard. Books and movies are not the same, and in general, **the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be.** This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material. I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR. Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[turole]

So I saw you gave a delta anyways but I'll throw my opinions out there. I haven't read the books and honestly can't be bothered, I have a lot of stuff to read and they're low on my list. With that perspective I enjoyed the extended editions more than the shortened. I felt like I was learning more about the world and characters in at. As far as pacing goes, both versions are slow and can drag outside the immediate action scenes. Look at the second movie, walking and talking to a short fight to walking and talking to a long fight. Adding the extra 40 minutes didn't significantly chance the pacing to me. It's still a long movie, I still care about the characters, and the fights are still cool. As far as Peter Jackson's opinion, the opinion of the author or producers of a content doesn't dictate how it should be interpreted. He is a person who thinks A, that doesn't mean that A is the be all and end all. Like any piece of media once it's released into the public it becomes its own beast that can have its interpretations judged by others. I agree with you that the quality of the movie matters, but if both versions are good movies and didn't make unnecessary changes then I think they are different rather than one being better.

[RYouNotEntertained]

[STA-CITE]>I felt like I was learning more about the world and characters in at [END-CITE]Since you haven't read the books, let me assure you that the extended cuts don't even scratch the surface of the world or characters.

[Toyan_Dicch]

Aren't the books the 'definitive editions'?

[RYouNotEntertained]

Definitive movie versions

[whoneedsthumbs]

Toilken was in love with middle earth. He wrote the simarillion for Pete's sake. Can the story be told with the theatrical versions? Yes. Is it slightly better with more details? Arguable. It immerses you in the world, creates more connection emotionally to characters. I imagine it's an exponential growth and the added stuff is small, but makes that extra difference from 98%-100%.

[RYouNotEntertained]

[STA-CITE]> Is it slightly better with more details? Arguable. It immerses you in the world, creates more connection emotionally to characters. [END-CITE]I feel exactly the opposite.

[whoneedsthumbs]

You think it pulls away?

[RYouNotEntertained]

Yeah, I said in the OP the extra footage throws off the pacing enough that it breaks the "fourth wall," meaning I'm reminded I'm watching a movie. A good movie should allow you to forget that what you're watching isn't real.

[whoneedsthumbs]

I might need examples. I don't see places breaking the fourth wall. Also remember that if these were out in the theatrical movie they may have been tweaked to alter small things. They didn't make the movie due to time constraints mostly but still very good work that deserves to be seen

[RYouNotEntertained]

I don't mean breaking the fourth wall in that Frodo turns and talks into the camera, Ferris Beuhler style. I just mean *I'm* reminded because of how it throws the story off. I keep coming back to this, but one of my least favorite extended scenes is Gandalf riding to the Minas Tirith library to research when he suspects Frodo's ring is the one ring, in Fellowship. In the theatrical cut, we get the impression that Gandalf suspects something at Bilbo's party, but we're not sure what. Then we sort of forget about it as we see Frodo going about normal life, until BAM, Gandalf's on the doorstep, wild-eyed, asking, "Is it secret?? Is it safe??" We as the viewer are surprised, thrown off guard. Gandalf left the shire... why is he back so soon? It's an "oh fuck" moment for Frodo, and for the audience. Most importantly, **we get to discover what the ring really is at the same time as Frodo does.** This is a classic story-telling device in movies for a reason. Think about Neo discovering what the Matrix is. Would that scene carry as much weight if we the audience already knew the truth, and it was just being explained to Neo? Of course not. It's exciting because we're finding out along with Neo. The extended cut of Fellowship ruins this. Plus, it ruins what is otherwise an awesome reveal of Minas Tirith in Return of the King. The audience is like, no big deal, already saw that shit two movies ago. This is where you'll probably come back and say that it doesn't matter, since as a book reader, you already know that Frodo's ring is the one ring. But we have to judge a movie based on how well it tells a story, not what you as an individual viewer already know. In this instance, the extra scene is not only unnecessary and distracting, it's detrimental to the story telling.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

Is this view open to change on a movie by movie basis? I'll absolutely grant you The Two Towers, for example, where the added scenes include some weird anachronisms and humor that doesn't match the tone of the film. But the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring has some of the series' most touching moments, like Bilbo's introduction to The Shire. It's full of reminders that you're looking at a living, breathing world, which is part of the point of The Lord of the Rings in the first place.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Good point, although IMO that scene in fellowship with Gandalf is one of the most offensive in the extended cuts. I'm totally open to the argument that *some* scenes from the extenders should have been included, but to me it doesn't make them better overall.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

That's understandable, but then it boils down too much to personal taste. That's a view that can only be changed organically, assuming it even needs to be changed at all. I can give you plenty of reasons why someone else would prefer the extended cuts, but I don't think that would make you enjoy them more.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Yeah, this is a tough opinion to change. I think people's preference largely boils down to how much they worship the source material. I'm in a weird, small camp where I love the books but am totally ok with the movies leaving out a lot.

[Wehavecrashed]

I've only ever seen the extended editions and I have no desire to see what is in my view a cut down version. At this point for me the cuts would be jarring enough for it to take me out of the film. I also prefer the length, Whenever I watch the trilogy it isn't because I'm looking for a nights entertainment, I usually watch the whole thing when I'm sick or im on a long journey. I don't need to be switched on and it lasts for ages. In fact at this point I would prefer even more scenes, anything of the same quality of the scenes already there to extend the trilogy at this point, the more the better. I remember hearing once that Jackson wanted to add in scenes of dwarves, elves and humans fighting orcs in other locations to show this was a large scale invasion. I would have loved to have seen that, even if it was an extra half an hour.

[RYouNotEntertained]

This is a pretty good reply. My only response is that longer does not equal better. To me, the extended scenes are lower quality than the rest of the films - that's why they were cut. They dilute the necessary scenes. I wonder if I'd feel differently if I'd seen the extended cuts first. Except that means YOU NEVER SAW RETURN OF THE KING IN THEATERS!!!!! Dude. You have to.

[Wehavecrashed]

I saw rotk in theatres actually, I would have been like 7/8 though and I think that all the Extra scenes are as good as the rest.

[RYouNotEntertained]

I think we have to judge which is better to a first-time viewer. It's not exactly fair to say you'd prefer more material because you've seen the old material so many times. A guy who's been married for twenty years wants to bang other chicks, but his wife was still the best option when he married her.

[Wehavecrashed]

I think the films are good enough that their quality and overall entertainment value will be very similar whether a first time watches the extended or theatrical cuts and really I think if they were to watch the extended cuts first (in the right mind set) will rather the extended and won't throw off the pacing or break the 4th wall for them and viceversa. Could you give me some examples of where those 4th wall breaks and pacing issues are for you? Also I have no problem with the hobbit adaptations, if you accept them for what they are.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Sure, I've said this a few times in the thread, but one of the more offensive scenes to me is Gandalf going to the library in Minas Tirith in Fellowship. I wrote a long thing about it [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2qrbaf/cmv_the_theatrical_cuts_of_lord_of_the_rings_are/cnar58p). It belongs on the cutting room floor for several reasons, and to me making a good movie is more important than giving nerds something to jerk off to.

[Mavericgamer]

I want to point out that I absolutely **could not** stand to read the LotR trilogy. And I tried. I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot. I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule (this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with "Harry Potter and the..." but that's an exception), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I *want to know* but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore. I *love* that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation, because most of the answers to that on the internet before were "If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub!" because nerds are like that sometimes.

[RYouNotEntertained]

∆ Thank God you make an exception for HP ;) Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mavericgamer. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Mavericgamer)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[praxulus]

∆ I didn't agree with OP, but I thought this was a 100% subjective opinion that could never be changed either way. You gave a more or less objective reason to prefer the extended cuts. Now go read the damn books, scrub!

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mavericgamer. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Mavericgamer)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[tctimomothy]

I feel that this attitude could be a short attention span when watching movies. When I watched the extended cut, I felt that it adapted the book very well, and filled in some necessary holes. It is a reflection of the book. For example, in the battle of Minas Tirith in the book, tolkien goes on for a few pages about kingsfoil (what author would ever do that? for anyone but tolien it would be literary suicide), in the middle of a raging battle. Tolkien's pacing and the extended cuts do not fit into the cookie cutter dramatic arcs that is fed to us in every action movie we watch, but goes outside of that format. It is different, and that is why it is superior.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Different does not equal superior. Tolkien is *barely* able to get away with those diversions, IMO, and it's mostly because of the strength of his prose and the consistency of his pacing throughout the book. The right author can pull stunts like that. That sort of pacing doesn't translate to film. It just doesn't. Attempting it betrays a lack of insight into the strengths and weaknesses of film as a medium. Jackson understands the medium, which is why he cut it the way he did. I want LOTR the be good *movies,* not good *adaptations of books.*

[tctimomothy]

why can't it translate into film? I would find it refreshing as compared to the standard climax structure that is never deviated from. Edit: It is also about exploring the world of middle earth, which is exceptional, not because of the plot (which is only decent) but because of its depth and complexity.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Do you want to watch 20 minutes of film about kingsfoil, or 20 minutes of Gandalf sitting in a library? Of course not. Think about it in reverse: what if you tried to take a Michael Bay movie and adapt it into a book. Would you spend pages and pages describing each explosion? Of course not. You'd devote plenty of ink to what the characters were thinking and feeling, what they noticed about their surroundings. All the things that books are capable of that film is not. Anyway, the theatrical cuts of LOTR *do* deviate from cookie-cutter structures. There's no rule that says the more deviation the better. By that logic I could film a brick wall for three hours and you'd call it high art.

[tctimomothy]

well what do you want from a movie, world exploration, or orcs getting their heads chopped off?

[RYouNotEntertained]

I want an appropriate balance of both that lends itself to the strengths of the medium we call film. IMO that balance was struck with the theatrical cuts. It's not an either/or proposition. Tolkien's world-building is insane. Could you imagine a page-by-page film adaptation? It would be unwatchable.

[illusionslayer]

Have you ever seen Samsara?

[RYouNotEntertained]

Nope

[illusionslayer]

It's the slowest film I've ever seen. It's really hard to get in to, but it is definitely one of the most beautiful pieces I've ever seen. Because I realize that some people are looking for action, I can't recommend it to everyone, but if someone's looking for a visually stunning piece, it's nearly always at the top of my list. My point being that there are tons of people that really want to see all/most of Tolkein's work on screen and are willing to endure some slow pacing to get that since the source itself is slow.

[RYouNotEntertained]

I'm not against slow pacing. I wouldn't even consider the theatrical versions fast paced. I'm more into correct pacing. Like Primer is one of the slowest movies, but it's *correctly* paced.

[illusionslayer]

Movies aren't always all about the actual story they tell. I like the extended cuts because they provide additional insight in to Peter Jackson's interpretation of the source material. If not for their existence, we would not know that Jackson did have something to say about certain scenes, and that, despite actually having said those things, did not ultimately think they fit his narrative. They provide further detail to the entire Lord of the Rings story.

[RYouNotEntertained]

By Jackson's own words it seems like the extra footage was just a nod to the fans though, not something he had a great interest in interpreting. Anyway, a lot of the extended stuff is fluff. Consider the 20 minute tangent in Fellowship where Gandalf rides to Minas Tirith and sits in a library. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[illusionslayer]

That nod to the fans is important. He didn't have to. No one made him. He did it anyway. That some of the stuff is 'fluffier' than what made the theatrical cut is important, if not exactly pleasurable.

[RYouNotEntertained]

I'm more interested in LOTR being the best movies they could possibly be than appeasing the types of fans who are going to be critical no matter what.

[illusionslayer]

Then you have to define best. To me, we've yet to see the best interpretation of LOTR. Some people like the theatrical cut, some like the extended cut. The best version would be universally considered as such. That neither of these cuts are universally considered the best LOTR interpretation is indicative of the fact that neither are as good as they could be.

[RYouNotEntertained]

I didn't say the theatrical cuts are the best, I just said they're better. There's no such thing as a perfect movie. It's probably worth pointing out the Return of the King won Best Picture for it's theatrical cut though.

[illusionslayer]

[STA-CITE]> I'm more interested in LOTR being the best movies they could possibly be [END-CITE]Who gave it Best Picture?

[RYouNotEntertained]

The Academy. Best Picture doesn't mean it was the best possible adaptation of Tolkien's work... it means it was better than all the other pictures that year.

[illusionslayer]

I understand. Your claim is that the theatrical cuts of Jackson's interpretation of Tolkein's Lord of The Rings series are the definitive, and therefore best, film adaption of the source. That's not the case since the best version would be considered as such by everyone.

[RyGuy997]

That is not how 'best' works.

[RYouNotEntertained]

So something can only be considered better than something else if the opinion is unanimous?

[Wehavecrashed]

It's like 2 minutes.

[RYouNotEntertained]

However long it is, they were clearly right to ax it. Think about it this way. What if in the shawshank redemption, there were two minutes of Andy Dufrain just chipping away in his tunnel. Or two minutes of him reading his mail, or taking a shit or something. Wouldn't you find it unnecessary to the story and agree the movie was better without it? The only reason people feel differently about LOTR is because they love the books so much and haven't considered the challenge of adapting to a different medium.

[illusionslayer]

I prefer it with the scene. It gives the viewer a moment to sink in and adjust to the reality of the characters. It was a massively time consuming mission. "Gandalf rode off and came back with the answer several scenes later." is not satisfying.

[RYouNotEntertained]

It's satisfying to everyone who saw it in theaters and liked it. I find it much more satisfying. One, because I don't have to sit through it, two, because it is more exhilarating when Gandalf shows up back in Frodo's place, and three, because it pushes the awesome reveal of Minas Tirith back to Return of the King, where it belongs. Things happen off-screen in movies all the time.

[Wehavecrashed]

If you have already seen the trilogy, how does the reveal of minas tirith make either one more definitive?

[RYouNotEntertained]

You've seen the sixth sense... Would you prefer a version where you're told Bruce Willis is dead ten minutes in?

[Wehavecrashed]

That example is completely different to revealing what a location looks like. Seeing Minas Tirith is cool, but it isn't a huge twist that makes you want to re watch the hole movie.

[RYouNotEntertained]

My point was it doesn't matter if you've already seen it or not. Information is revealed at certain times for a reason.

[illusionslayer]

But there are still people who prefer the extended cut. As it stands, you've provided no reason that those people are incorrect, which is what you have to do since you're the one making the claim that they're wrong. "I like x more than y" is very different from "all people should like x more than y."

[RYouNotEntertained]

I'm not saying anyone *should* do anything. You have a very strange idea of how opinions work.

[illusionslayer]

[STA-CITE]>should be considered the definitive versions [END-CITE]Are you saying "and I should consider them the definitive versions" or "and you should consider them the definitive versions"?

[RYouNotEntertained]

They *are* the definitive versions, according to the guy who made them. Which you like better isn't a should or should not scenario.

[urbeker]

How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against? I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against. I would argue that the better one depends on context. I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.

[RYouNotEntertained]

This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2qq013/cmv_men_should_sit_down_to_urinate_in_any_private/) I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ;)

[ghostmcspiritwolf]

I think the entire point of this sub is that people hold views which cannot be considered objectively true or false. They aren't looking for a rigorous proof that their view is wrong, they're looking for (and being open to) the opposing view's most compelling arguments.

[illusionslayer]

[STA-CITE]>Change My View (CMV): For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view. [END-CITE]-sidebar

[IChoseAUsernameToday]

That quote is given so much leeway on this forum that it may as well not exist. [STA-CITE]> accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view. [END-CITE]2 conditions that should be made clear in every posting. Almost every post, including this one, screams of the I'm right, you're wrong variety, and are just looking to argue. There is no lingering doubt or fence sitting, just an air of- this is what I believe, and I'll trash every comment made against my view.

[RYouNotEntertained]

That's not true at all. I'm looking for reasons that have not occurred to me on why someone could prefer the extended cuts. You might notice that I've given out a delta.

[kingpatzer]

Ok - how's this: The notion of "definitive version" of two distinctly different products is flawed. The different editorial choices result in different products that serve different purposes and even different audiences. The theatrical release was aimed at the average fantasy movie goer who may or may not have been a fan of the original books. Many aspects of the story were changed in ways that fans of the books found fundamentally shifted the story in unacceptable ways -- see your aforementioned Tom Bombadil. The extended cut version was a DVD release aimed at those people who were both fans of the theatrical release and fans of the book and who would want to see more of the original material. As well, I am sure, as a smaller market of people who are interested in the art of film making who might use them as study material. The result is two different versions of the same story that serve two different purposes and two different but often overlapping markets. Saying one is superior to the other presumes an underlying similarity of purpose and an underlying similarity of audience that can not be fully assumed. If I am a film student, for example, watching for the purpose of understanding how to make pacing decisions in a final edit, then neither alone serves my purpose and neither alone is the best for my needs. Rather, I need both to exist in order for my viewing purpose to be realized. As a fan of the books, I like the extended cut better. As a fan of fantasy movies, I like the theatrical release better. Presuming one is unconditionally and always superior to the other, however, presumes that I can only watch the product in a context or for a purpose that always favors one over the other.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Yeah, I've said elsewhere on the thread that which edition is "definitive" is really up to the creator. So maybe that part should have been left out of the OP, except that so many people consider the extended cuts to be his intention, which is false. Of course, you're welcome to prefer any version you like at any time. I just find myself unable to appreciate the extended cuts. I *am* a fan of the books, and that's one reason why I like the shorter versions. They tell the story I love from the books in the way that best recognizes the limitations of film as a medium. For example, take Tom Bombadil. I've even heard book fans argue that it should have been left out of the books altogether, since it's so superfluous to the story, but I rather like it. It reminds you of how in-depth the world building is beyond the story being told. It reminds you how old and mysterious middle-earth is and how many things even the wise don't understand about it. It's the kind of thing that a book allows that a film doesn't. A book is a journey; you spend months consuming it instead of hours. You're willing to be diverted if the story is strong enough. A film is more like a one night stand to a books long-term relationship. As such, certain diversions don't work as well, and to include them shows a lack of understanding about film as a medium and makes for films that are closer to the source material, but not necessarily better *films.*