The prologue for 12 hours of LOTR trilogy is 5 minutes. The prologue for 10 hours of ROP is 20 minutes. The difference in skill between the writers is astonishing.
The 5 minute mark has Isildur just claiming the ring, with 2 more minutes to explain he lost it, Gollum found it, lost it, then Bilbo found it for a 7 minute prologue. If we're going to **** on RoP, we need to be accurate about it.
19:22 Dunlendings were part of Saruman's army at Helms Deep. After the defeat of Saruman's army in the battle, many Dunlendings surrendered and were spared by the Rohirrim, who put them to work repairing the broken walls of the Hornburg. After which, they were released on condition that they never enter Rohan again carrying weapons. This surprised the Dunlendings as Saruman had told them the Rohirrim burned their captives alive. After this, there was peace between Rohan and Dunland.
Extended, always. Theatricals are still great, but the additions in the extended versions are exactly that, additions, giving more context and develpment to the characters and plot. Hands down the better versions, IMO.
except for when the Witch King shatter’s Gandalf’s staff… what was the deal with that? he could’ve just knocked him off the horse and that would’ve been enough 🤷🏻♂️
Okay look, there is ONE ASPECT in which the theatrical cut has a point over extended. And that is in Return of the King, when Aragorn makes his proposition to the undead army, "WHAT SAY YOU!", it hard cuts away and all of the escape from the underground, the capturing of the corsair ships, all of that is cut. And I think that really works well, because the next moment we see him, its out of NOWHERE AND ITS THE MOST BADASS ENTRANCE OF ALL TIME. The fact that it was at the lowest possible moment, and so much has happened since we last saw the Aragorn party, wondering what has happened, the anxiety of that the peril of the current moment, all relieved at once in what is to me one of the greatest moments in all of cinema. And I just feel like that's undercut slightly by the fact that we see the whole escape and capturing of the ships right after. We already know from that point that, at least the battle of Minas Tirith, is gonna work out. That's literally the only aspect in which I prefer the theatrical cut. If I could have that one aspect and keep everything else about the extended versions I would be so happy.
11:35 The purpose of Tom Bombadil in the story (and his insulation from the effects of the ring) is to illustrate the evils that can occur when powerful people bear no consequences for their actions or inactions. Tom won't destroy the ring because it doesn't matter to him. He is eternal. I think it's a deeper point than most people can intuit when watching/reading the story. That's why they think he's silly, they don't understand the LITERARY purpose of Tom.
When I was a kid I thought the Gandalf opening for two towers was just showing how he died. I thought it was awesome and then I think I was quite surprised when he came back.
I think the whole scene with Tom Bombadil could have been kept, but instead of the extended meeting, Tom's there because the trees told him about The Hobbit's passing through the Barrow Wight's graves, and Tom not only rescuing them but also giving them guidance on a path to go.
15:03 unlike in the movies, where he just quietly hands over the sword that cut Sauron’s finger off, he actually cares about his sword and warns the rohirrim that any man who try’s to draw the blade of isildur will be doomed
I am glad we will always have these to remind ourselves that yes. Writers can be good and directing as well when PASSION and CARE is there. Tolkiens work is a treasure and it saddens me to see what they are doing with the IP
None of these guys have read the books recently 14:42 Aragon is wracked with doubt from Moria to isenguard, and he is very careful not to force his claim to the throne. Jesus now I remember why I never finished the full videos of these the clips are triggering enough as it is
I don't think anyone will actually read this, but I always liked the Tom Bombadil section for basically exactly the reason that everyone else hates it: it has nothing to do with their overall quest. I love both the books and the movies, as well as Tolkien's world generally, but in the movies it does kind of come across like everything in the world revolves around the quest. This is actually a bit of a problem with the Silmarillion as well -- it sort of gives the impression that everything that happens in the world ties back to the Valar and the ancient battle between good and evil, whereas in basically all of the Hobbit and the Bombadil section of LOTR, you get the idea that this is a big magical world and if you go on an adventure, sometimes you'll just stumble into a magical scenario that doesn't actually involve your problems in any way, and you just have to make it through that to get on with your business. Tom Bombadil does not make LOTR better, but he does make Middle Earth better.
Wait what? Didn't Aragorn refuse to enter Minas Tirith out of respect for Denethor after the battle. He only entered after the news of his death and that Eowyn needed healing with his Kingly healing abilities. Sounds pretty humble to me. Although i do also agree certain things were done better in the movies. Faramir not being effected by the ring although explained in the books, in the movies their was simply not time to go into the power numernorean blood and with that said showing Boromir and Faramirs relationship was so much better. The books were filled with so much meaning in everything it's very hard to fit it all in like Merry's sword and it's effect on the Witch King. Also Theoden was done very well in the movies.
Aragorn refused to enter Minas Tirith because he didn't want to challenge Denethor's authority at that time and cause friction. By then, Gondor had been ruled by Stewards for a thousand years. He entered Minas Tirith when Gandalf asked him to, so that he could tend to Faramir and Eowyn, but only one time and disguised. He didn't enter Minas Tirith again until after he was crowned. The movies are better than the books at being stupid, loud and embarrassing.
I never liked the Glowing Galadriel scene, because they had _Kate Blanchett_ on set, and didn't _need_ all the floops and fleems. Contrast with Mighty Morfydd Power Elf, which no amount of costumes, score, CGI or editing can fix.
I did miss the Scouring of the Shire, but yeah it wouldn't have worked for these movies. And I agree that Aragorn, Faramir and Theoden were better characterized in the movies.
A lot of this is just "I like, I like, I like." I wish you guys would have someone on that would be a bit more critical in comparisons between novels and adaptation and why particular writing decisions were made. It all just comes off as cheerleading at times, especially to those who find the novels to have better writing decisions and for the movie's direction to be fine at best. I of course get the idea that ultimately when judging a movie objectively, what matters is purely the execution within the work itself, but if we are going to have a discussion about adaptation, then I wish you'd include someone not so readily to say, "Yeah, it's not in the books, but I like it anyway just because I really like these movies."
I've noticed that many people, including efap and myself, are objective when discussing films they don't like or don't particularly care about, but become very subjective when discussing films they love. The book has far superior writing compared to the movies. As adaptations, the movies make some baffling changes.
I'm not the kind of person to tell folks they're watching movies wrong but if you're not binging the extended editions you might not be watching these particular films in a way that optimizes your viewing pleasure
The Bombadil takes from the clip are really cringe. I have no problem leaving him out of the movies, but those chapters were great. Plus, at the Council of Elrond (in the book) they didn’t discuss Bombadil taking the ring to Mordor… only if they should leave it with him.
@Sam_T2000 you could do some establishing shots of Emyn Muil to really show what a jagged maze of rocks it is. You could sweep in to where Sam and Frodo are going down the rope and pick up there. You save the Gandalf scene for when Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli meet him in Fangorn. It accomplishes the same thing, ditches what is a potential (if not probable) spoiler, and makes Gandalf's return even more epic because you see more of the battle than just him stabbing the Balrog.
@@tool4132 - the other two films have a prologue section, so it would be odd if _Two Towers_ didn’t, and just had an establishing shot. - it reminds the audience that Gandalf was a major character, and what happened to him in the first movie. - it transitions to the main story well, where it seems like the scene could’ve been a nightmare Frodo was having… - and also, it’s based on a book that had been out for fifty years… most viewers knew Gandalf would return.
@Sam_T2000 @Sam_T2000 assuming everyone that entered the cinema had read the books would have been extremely silly. They had to know that while a majority had, there's still a large chunk that hadn't. So using the fall of Gandalf as your prologue or recap begs the question of why you would show his fall, especially when its in the context of Frodo dreaming. Why would he dream of events that he had no way of seeing? It shows that there is more that happened after his fall, and it opens up questions of what happened after. And to further poke a friendly hole in your previous comment, if you're catering your screenplay to people that have read the books then there is no need of reminding the viewer that Gandalf is a major character. They already know. Surely a better prologue or recap for fans and casuals alike would have been Amon Hen and the breaking of the fellowship. It reminds the viewer of our characters and where we left them. But I much prefer my original suggestion. If you wanted to work in reminders of Gandalf you could work in bits of dialogue that would have been significant to Frodo from Fellowship during the establishing shots that include Gandalf, Galadriel, and Sam. As you close in on Frodo you can give the impression that these are things Frodo is thinking of to keep himself going. Again, if you're going to have a big surprise reveal of Gandalf, it would make the surprise better if you weren't expecting something from the opening scene.
Can gary discuss the difference in adaptations of the isom car scene? thats what we reeally need right now. Gary and az, you gave us ISOM kind of like how Snyder gave us ezra. Should people treat you both just like how you treat Snyder? You did give Snyder a platform to call us all racists and bigots. You did give Eric a platform to call us all haterz and destractorz.
Theatricals have better pacing and a fair few of the extended scenes are superfluous or can be immersion breaking (why does Gimli have a concept of what a nervous system is?) The films aren't made better by including the Ent Draughts scene. There are only two scenes I can think of from extended cuts that significantly improve the trilogy (Osgiliath retaken flashback and Saruman's death), both of which I can make a solid argument for being cut. The Osgiliath flashback builds and gives further insight to an already dead character, so losing it doesn't harm the trilogy. (Including it IS better, especially knowing that context when watching Fellowship.) Saruman's death happens a few hundred pages later in the Shire in the books, so Saruman staying in Orthanc and NOT dying there is an open plot thread the theatrical never closes by removing the scouring of the Shire. Even with the scene cut, it's clear that the threat of Saruman has been removed, again making it a scene that adds to the film, but doesn't create a problem by cutting. Even so, if you love the trilogy, the extended will be the definitive versions because you're just spending more time enjoying them.
@@someeejit Both lines pull me right out, though menu has far older historical roots. Menu dates back at least 2900 years, where nervous system is only 300 years. Considering swords/spears/bows were the weaponry 3000 years ago while guns were taking over 300 years ago, one is much closer to a medieval fantasy setting. In terms of humor, that's really just subjective and I'm glad you enjoy them.
DASBOSCHI could come back now with the crappiest video you've ever made and it would get views. The success of that dumb Skibidi Toilet "content" probably means you'd get tons of views just from these kids recognizing that Gmod face. Somebody tell him about that if he's not already aware.
Theatrical's are the better version to go to when you're showing these movies to someone for the first time. Respect your friends' time. Don't make them watch 4 hour movies.
I'm so glad they cut Tom Bombadil. He was the worst part of the books. He undermines the threat of the ring and his character is wildly inconsistent. He's a jolly, helpful, good-natured fellow and yet he couldn't care less if Sauron devastates the entirety of Middle Earth which suggests a deeply apathetic character who would certainly not bother with helping a few random hobbits escape from Old Man Willow and the barrow wights. He's beyond everything, all the affairs of the world are petty little nothings to him and yet he also loves simple Earthly pleasures so much that he chooses to live the life of a farmer. He loves his cattle but apparently wouldn't care if Sauron turned the world into Mordor and his cows all starved. It's like if a hyper-powerful version of superman is in your story, he's perfectly friendly, he stops runaway trolleys, but when Darkseid invades he couldn't care less, even though Darkseid is no threat to him whatsoever because this version of superman is just that hyper-powerful.
Extended Editions suck balls. I'll say it. The only one remotely watchable is Fellowship. Every other scene in the rest of the extended bits was removed for a MAJORLY good reason. I actually believe they make the films mediocre with their addition. Every additional aspect is worthless cringe trash where characters walk up and tell someone they're actually 200 years old for no reason, spout about their vast knowledge of the central nervous system for way too long, or literally ruin the reveal of the trio's fate before the final battle. It's just so so awful. Please EFAP watch them and compare and tell me that the additions aren't dog water filler designed to get dorks to point at the TV and "did you know" to their friends.
@@Mr_Monolith Better pacing, less filler. The extra scenes are good to know, but they’re not necessary for the main story. Also, the theatrical version for Return of the King has a better reveal for the ghost army helping the war, as opposed to the extended edition that just lets the audience know they’re gonna help before they actually fight
@@Mr_Monolith it was the Theatrical Experience being with tons of fans seeing the new Film for the first time and reacting with the same enthusiasm and excitement, the battle at helms deep, charge of the rohirrim, or Gondor’s defense were amazing scenes to see on the big screen
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The prologue for 12 hours of LOTR trilogy is 5 minutes. The prologue for 10 hours of ROP is 20 minutes. The difference in skill between the writers is astonishing.
The 5 minute mark has Isildur just claiming the ring, with 2 more minutes to explain he lost it, Gollum found it, lost it, then Bilbo found it for a 7 minute prologue. If we're going to **** on RoP, we need to be accurate about it.
@@SquallLionhart409 thank you for the correction.
I don't see any difference in skill between the Jackson, Walsh & Boyens on one hand, and the writers of RoP on the other hand.
19:22 Dunlendings were part of Saruman's army at Helms Deep. After the defeat of Saruman's army in the battle, many Dunlendings surrendered and were spared by the Rohirrim, who put them to work repairing the broken walls of the Hornburg. After which, they were released on condition that they never enter Rohan again carrying weapons. This surprised the Dunlendings as Saruman had told them the Rohirrim burned their captives alive. After this, there was peace between Rohan and Dunland.
Extended, always. Theatricals are still great, but the additions in the extended versions are exactly that, additions, giving more context and develpment to the characters and plot. Hands down the better versions, IMO.
except for when the Witch King shatter’s Gandalf’s staff… what was the deal with that? he could’ve just knocked him off the horse and that would’ve been enough 🤷🏻♂️
Except for Aragorn committing a war crime
@@Mrmumps-tb4no - when he do that?
@@Mrmumps-tb4no It would have been awful in the book, but in the context of the movie, there wasn't anything wrong with it.
@@Sam_T2000 killing the mouth of Sauron
Okay look, there is ONE ASPECT in which the theatrical cut has a point over extended. And that is in Return of the King, when Aragorn makes his proposition to the undead army, "WHAT SAY YOU!", it hard cuts away and all of the escape from the underground, the capturing of the corsair ships, all of that is cut. And I think that really works well, because the next moment we see him, its out of NOWHERE AND ITS THE MOST BADASS ENTRANCE OF ALL TIME. The fact that it was at the lowest possible moment, and so much has happened since we last saw the Aragorn party, wondering what has happened, the anxiety of that the peril of the current moment, all relieved at once in what is to me one of the greatest moments in all of cinema. And I just feel like that's undercut slightly by the fact that we see the whole escape and capturing of the ships right after. We already know from that point that, at least the battle of Minas Tirith, is gonna work out.
That's literally the only aspect in which I prefer the theatrical cut. If I could have that one aspect and keep everything else about the extended versions I would be so happy.
11:35 The purpose of Tom Bombadil in the story (and his insulation from the effects of the ring) is to illustrate the evils that can occur when powerful people bear no consequences for their actions or inactions. Tom won't destroy the ring because it doesn't matter to him. He is eternal.
I think it's a deeper point than most people can intuit when watching/reading the story. That's why they think he's silly, they don't understand the LITERARY purpose of Tom.
When it comes to LOTR its always extended edition...its religion...
Always the book
When I was a kid I thought the Gandalf opening for two towers was just showing how he died. I thought it was awesome and then I think I was quite surprised when he came back.
I think the whole scene with Tom Bombadil could have been kept, but instead of the extended meeting, Tom's there because the trees told him about The Hobbit's passing through the Barrow Wight's graves, and Tom not only rescuing them but also giving them guidance on a path to go.
15:03 unlike in the movies, where he just quietly hands over the sword that cut Sauron’s finger off, he actually cares about his sword and warns the rohirrim that any man who try’s to draw the blade of isildur will be doomed
Going to see it in cinema for the first time tomorrow
I am glad we will always have these to remind ourselves that yes. Writers can be good and directing as well when PASSION and CARE is there.
Tolkiens work is a treasure and it saddens me to see what they are doing with the IP
None of these guys have read the books recently 14:42 Aragon is wracked with doubt from Moria to isenguard, and he is very careful not to force his claim to the throne. Jesus now I remember why I never finished the full videos of these the clips are triggering enough as it is
I don't think anyone will actually read this, but I always liked the Tom Bombadil section for basically exactly the reason that everyone else hates it: it has nothing to do with their overall quest. I love both the books and the movies, as well as Tolkien's world generally, but in the movies it does kind of come across like everything in the world revolves around the quest. This is actually a bit of a problem with the Silmarillion as well -- it sort of gives the impression that everything that happens in the world ties back to the Valar and the ancient battle between good and evil, whereas in basically all of the Hobbit and the Bombadil section of LOTR, you get the idea that this is a big magical world and if you go on an adventure, sometimes you'll just stumble into a magical scenario that doesn't actually involve your problems in any way, and you just have to make it through that to get on with your business.
Tom Bombadil does not make LOTR better, but he does make Middle Earth better.
Wait what? Didn't Aragorn refuse to enter Minas Tirith out of respect for Denethor after the battle. He only entered after the news of his death and that Eowyn needed healing with his Kingly healing abilities. Sounds pretty humble to me. Although i do also agree certain things were done better in the movies. Faramir not being effected by the ring although explained in the books, in the movies their was simply not time to go into the power numernorean blood and with that said showing Boromir and Faramirs relationship was so much better. The books were filled with so much meaning in everything it's very hard to fit it all in like Merry's sword and it's effect on the Witch King. Also Theoden was done very well in the movies.
Aragorn refused to enter Minas Tirith because he didn't want to challenge Denethor's authority at that time and cause friction. By then, Gondor had been ruled by Stewards for a thousand years. He entered Minas Tirith when Gandalf asked him to, so that he could tend to Faramir and Eowyn, but only one time and disguised. He didn't enter Minas Tirith again until after he was crowned.
The movies are better than the books at being stupid, loud and embarrassing.
I never liked the Glowing Galadriel scene, because they had _Kate Blanchett_ on set, and didn't _need_ all the floops and fleems.
Contrast with Mighty Morfydd Power Elf, which no amount of costumes, score, CGI or editing can fix.
The Silmarillion was an amazing read, I enjoyed it a lot more than the tedium of a lot of the Lord of the Rings.
I saw the theatrical’s first so I have a Soft spot for them, seeing them in theaters with fans for the first time was an awesome experience in itself
I'd love to see EFAP's opinions of the Arcane trailer!
yes boulder yes
I miss the weed jokes
Also "who are you?" "Are you frightened?"
Aslo the bit about Gandalf scaring frodo waiting in his house is great.
Gandalf Spinning on the floor in an abandoned warehouse hallucinating an evil wizard? Good times
@@MediumRareOpinions "who the fuck is saruman?"
Sup Haldir
Extended... The more Lord of the Rings we can have the better. That's an easy choice.
20 minutes? This should be an Efap Nano, not mini
I did miss the Scouring of the Shire, but yeah it wouldn't have worked for these movies. And I agree that Aragorn, Faramir and Theoden were better characterized in the movies.
woohoo
A lot of this is just "I like, I like, I like." I wish you guys would have someone on that would be a bit more critical in comparisons between novels and adaptation and why particular writing decisions were made. It all just comes off as cheerleading at times, especially to those who find the novels to have better writing decisions and for the movie's direction to be fine at best. I of course get the idea that ultimately when judging a movie objectively, what matters is purely the execution within the work itself, but if we are going to have a discussion about adaptation, then I wish you'd include someone not so readily to say, "Yeah, it's not in the books, but I like it anyway just because I really like these movies."
I've noticed that many people, including efap and myself, are objective when discussing films they don't like or don't particularly care about, but become very subjective when discussing films they love.
The book has far superior writing compared to the movies. As adaptations, the movies make some baffling changes.
13:07 L take, book does everything better story wise
I'm not the kind of person to tell folks they're watching movies wrong but if you're not binging the extended editions you might not be watching these particular films in a way that optimizes your viewing pleasure
The Bombadil takes from the clip are really cringe. I have no problem leaving him out of the movies, but those chapters were great. Plus, at the Council of Elrond (in the book) they didn’t discuss Bombadil taking the ring to Mordor… only if they should leave it with him.
Really cringe 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
They're briefly discussing whilst trying to pay attention to the film - relax you fucking dork
EFAP and guests basically don’t know shit about the books
No More!!
I'm with Drinker, the beginning of 2T didn't need the Gandalf sequence.
it’s the “previously, on _LOTR”_ thing, and it’s badass, too.
what other opening bit would’ve been better?
@Sam_T2000 you could do some establishing shots of Emyn Muil to really show what a jagged maze of rocks it is. You could sweep in to where Sam and Frodo are going down the rope and pick up there. You save the Gandalf scene for when Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli meet him in Fangorn. It accomplishes the same thing, ditches what is a potential (if not probable) spoiler, and makes Gandalf's return even more epic because you see more of the battle than just him stabbing the Balrog.
@@tool4132 - the other two films have a prologue section, so it would be odd if _Two Towers_ didn’t, and just had an establishing shot.
- it reminds the audience that Gandalf was a major character, and what happened to him in the first movie.
- it transitions to the main story well, where it seems like the scene could’ve been a nightmare Frodo was having…
- and also, it’s based on a book that had been out for fifty years… most viewers knew Gandalf would return.
@Sam_T2000 @Sam_T2000 assuming everyone that entered the cinema had read the books would have been extremely silly. They had to know that while a majority had, there's still a large chunk that hadn't. So using the fall of Gandalf as your prologue or recap begs the question of why you would show his fall, especially when its in the context of Frodo dreaming. Why would he dream of events that he had no way of seeing? It shows that there is more that happened after his fall, and it opens up questions of what happened after. And to further poke a friendly hole in your previous comment, if you're catering your screenplay to people that have read the books then there is no need of reminding the viewer that Gandalf is a major character. They already know. Surely a better prologue or recap for fans and casuals alike would have been Amon Hen and the breaking of the fellowship. It reminds the viewer of our characters and where we left them. But I much prefer my original suggestion. If you wanted to work in reminders of Gandalf you could work in bits of dialogue that would have been significant to Frodo from Fellowship during the establishing shots that include Gandalf, Galadriel, and Sam. As you close in on Frodo you can give the impression that these are things Frodo is thinking of to keep himself going.
Again, if you're going to have a big surprise reveal of Gandalf, it would make the surprise better if you weren't expecting something from the opening scene.
Can gary discuss the difference in adaptations of the isom car scene? thats what we reeally need right now.
Gary and az, you gave us ISOM kind of like how Snyder gave us ezra. Should people treat you both just like how you treat Snyder?
You did give Snyder a platform to call us all racists and bigots.
You did give Eric a platform to call us all haterz and destractorz.
What a strange vocabulary to use without irony
Short EFAP answer is that adaptation is irrelevant to a movie's quality and should not be considered except subjectively.
Unless it's Halo, then adaptation/source material matters to them
Theatricals have better pacing and a fair few of the extended scenes are superfluous or can be immersion breaking (why does Gimli have a concept of what a nervous system is?) The films aren't made better by including the Ent Draughts scene.
There are only two scenes I can think of from extended cuts that significantly improve the trilogy (Osgiliath retaken flashback and Saruman's death), both of which I can make a solid argument for being cut. The Osgiliath flashback builds and gives further insight to an already dead character, so losing it doesn't harm the trilogy. (Including it IS better, especially knowing that context when watching Fellowship.) Saruman's death happens a few hundred pages later in the Shire in the books, so Saruman staying in Orthanc and NOT dying there is an open plot thread the theatrical never closes by removing the scouring of the Shire. Even with the scene cut, it's clear that the threat of Saruman has been removed, again making it a scene that adds to the film, but doesn't create a problem by cutting.
Even so, if you love the trilogy, the extended will be the definitive versions because you're just spending more time enjoying them.
Gimli knowing what a nervous system is is funny to me for the same reason the Uruk hai knowing what a menu is
@@someeejit Both lines pull me right out, though menu has far older historical roots. Menu dates back at least 2900 years, where nervous system is only 300 years. Considering swords/spears/bows were the weaponry 3000 years ago while guns were taking over 300 years ago, one is much closer to a medieval fantasy setting.
In terms of humor, that's really just subjective and I'm glad you enjoy them.
DASBOSCHI could come back now with the crappiest video you've ever made and it would get views. The success of that dumb Skibidi Toilet "content" probably means you'd get tons of views just from these kids recognizing that Gmod face.
Somebody tell him about that if he's not already aware.
Theatrical's are the better version to go to when you're showing these movies to someone for the first time. Respect your friends' time. Don't make them watch 4 hour movies.
I'm so glad they cut Tom Bombadil. He was the worst part of the books. He undermines the threat of the ring and his character is wildly inconsistent.
He's a jolly, helpful, good-natured fellow and yet he couldn't care less if Sauron devastates the entirety of Middle Earth which suggests a deeply apathetic character who would certainly not bother with helping a few random hobbits escape from Old Man Willow and the barrow wights.
He's beyond everything, all the affairs of the world are petty little nothings to him and yet he also loves simple Earthly pleasures so much that he chooses to live the life of a farmer. He loves his cattle but apparently wouldn't care if Sauron turned the world into Mordor and his cows all starved.
It's like if a hyper-powerful version of superman is in your story, he's perfectly friendly, he stops runaway trolleys, but when Darkseid invades he couldn't care less, even though Darkseid is no threat to him whatsoever because this version of superman is just that hyper-powerful.
Ugh another notification for efap repeats 🙄 Surely it's gotta be better to make shooters from various long videos rather than this
Bluds i get it , LOTR is great, i love it too but for the love of god get over it
Extended Editions suck balls. I'll say it. The only one remotely watchable is Fellowship. Every other scene in the rest of the extended bits was removed for a MAJORLY good reason.
I actually believe they make the films mediocre with their addition.
Every additional aspect is worthless cringe trash where characters walk up and tell someone they're actually 200 years old for no reason, spout about their vast knowledge of the central nervous system for way too long, or literally ruin the reveal of the trio's fate before the final battle.
It's just so so awful. Please EFAP watch them and compare and tell me that the additions aren't dog water filler designed to get dorks to point at the TV and "did you know" to their friends.
your on crack
Nobody likes a purist.
Theatricals are better.
Yes!!!
Agreed!
Literally in what way?
@@Mr_Monolith Better pacing, less filler. The extra scenes are good to know, but they’re not necessary for the main story. Also, the theatrical version for Return of the King has a better reveal for the ghost army helping the war, as opposed to the extended edition that just lets the audience know they’re gonna help before they actually fight
@@Mr_Monolith it was the Theatrical Experience being with tons of fans seeing the new Film for the first time and reacting with the same enthusiasm and excitement, the battle at helms deep, charge of the rohirrim, or Gondor’s defense were amazing scenes to see on the big screen