Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 13:35:18 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 16:03:26, Roy Eassa wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 15:52:37, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On December 19, 2002 at 13:58:26, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>>On December 19, 2002 at 12:55:40, Colin Frayn wrote: >>> >>>>On December 19, 2002 at 10:11:17, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks for the advice. We have a large pile of DVDs we bought on sale but >>>>>haven't watched yet. I'll move that one to the top of the pile (sorry >>>>>Goldmember, you'll have to wait!). >>>> >>>>Definitely watch that asap too. Especially if you are a Bond fan or an >>>>Anglophile. There are some fantastic scenes. However, only watch it after the >>>>first two Austin Powers films. >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>Col >>> >>> >>>OK, this will be a Christmas priority. We must watch Goldmember (we have indeed >>>seen the first 2 in the series) and Lord of the Rings #1, >> >>See the extended version, and not the theatrical release. >> > > >Well, we bought the "normal" version long before the extended came out, and >we're not about to buy another version. How much difference is there? 30 minutes of film, a bunch of "special features," and some $$. I'll get flamed for saying it, but I found the extended version more annoying than the original. Little of the additional film develops the characters, and they're what Lord of the Rings is really about. It does explain a few things, and it raises even more questions for the person who hasn't read the book. Not even anything on my theatrical release "wishlist" -- a list of what I deemed as crucial plot/character development scenes in the books that were excluded from the movies -- was in the extended version. Just my opinion. I might actually be the only person on the face of the planet who dislikes the extended version. -Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.