The two Towers
The extended cut still adds a bunch of stuff that's unnecessary.
Unlike Fellowship, it moves better.
The extended cut still adds a bunch of stuff that's unnecessary.
Unlike Fellowship, it moves better.
You know what? Blowjobs are unnecessary, too, but they sure are nice.
If you meant that there was extraneous material that slowed the pace or bored the audience or something like that, then say so.
OOOH@@@!...R KANE SCHOOLED YO ASS@!@!@
shareNah, it was a dumb comparison.
shareNearly everything posted by Kane is stupid.
Why would a normal human block nearly everyone and just post random vitriol for no reason.
I doubt Kane had a mission as a young man, no financial plans, no pension or TDA figured out, no retirement package set up, so now he posts nonsense to everyone.
When I realized he put me on ignore, I was wondering what I said. Then when I found out he had Mojo on ignore, that's when I realized he was just an idiot.
shareYup, there is NO reason to ignore Mojo, he's like Glenellyn, always cool and positive.
Kane is an oddball, I could say worse but why bother.
I'm thinking that R_Kane made a pass at him and Mojo shut him down bad.
shareMaybe, but the way he tells it Kane is the biggest stud and electronics salesman in the greater Boston area so he will walk it off like a champ.
shareHe's from Boston? As someone from Toronto, I can't support that.
shareYep.
He packs his caa in Havaadd Yaad.
He's also a self proclaimed gym rat (what fucking weirdo wants to be called that!?!), an expert Samurai swordsmen for some reason, also a total lady's man and a grammar Nazi that fucks up in every post.
What a douche.
I found the last 2 theatrical versions boring when I watched them in the theater because they showed endless battle scenes. The extended versions add story and character development and make them watchable for me.
shareWe'll see what happens. I wasn't bored in theaters. But that was 20 years ago.
shareTry watching Hobbit trilogy next. Now, that's a borefest. They have little to do with the actual book.
share"The Lord of the Rings" was written as a trilogy. "The Hobbit" is a short novel which stands alone. To turn "The Hobbit" into a trilogy is just overkill and milking it for money.
shareI read and enjoyed The Hobbit book. The movies were an attempt to rip-off The Lord of the Rings success by copying its story and characters. What a cringe-worthy mess!
shareI loved reading "The Lord of the Rings" so much as a kid that I don't think the movies gave it justice.
shareI attempted to read it after I enjoyed The Hobbit. I found it confusing so after a few pages I gave up. I didn't understand any "Rings" movie until Jackson's which I consider a masterpiece. Probably all of the funny names and multiple characters confused me.
shareIt's an odd book in that it just slowly prods along, there are pages and pages where they just walk through the woods. It's a definite literary experience. Lol.
shareI agree. IMHO the first film is the only one where the extended cut makes for a better overall film than the theatrical release, although of course I appreciate the fan service in the long versions. I love fan service, which is why my favorite TV show is "The Mandalorian"!
The 2nd and 3rd show tge problems with editing start up and get going, before that he knew when to stop with the stuff he thought was cool. Those editing problems got worse and worse with time, and are a big part of why " The Hobbit" socks so much. But maybe PJ is working on that, tge recent documentary "Get Back" was all about editing, and it was good.
Fan service is fine but I really hate how it's extending everything into a series since the Lord of the Rings.
shareThe Two Towers has its own page on MovieChat!
https://moviechat.org/tt0167261/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Two-Towers
Wow, just wow!
Yep. I didn't care to use it.
share