back to article The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Blu-ray extended edition

26 Hours of extras, 15 discs, 3 movies, one ring. Finally, the extended Blu-ray version of Peter Jackson’s The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy has been released. Time to finally Orc-up and buy. The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy: Extended Edition Long player: The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy – Extended Edition Like many, I steered clear …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Eponymous Cowherd


    that's my Birthday Present sorted.

  2. Jules75

    Time to double dip

    I already own the extended trilogy on DVD, and as a rule I won't double dip on movies I already own on DVD, but this BR conversion has to be the exception.

    I actually watched all three extended movies back to back once, and it was enjoyable but hard going. I think with these even longer versions, I'll have to split it over a few days.

    1. technome

      Read it again...

      These are the same versions as the extended DVD, but in HD.

  3. John70

    Storage Media

    Looks like the tech companies will have to come up with a new storage media to replace Blu-ray that can put a full extended version on LotR onto 1 disc instead of splitting it over 2 discs.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      re Storage Media

      Didn't you get the memo?

      You know the one that says getting your grubby little hands on a copy of the file is a thing of the past.

      You know the one where Hollywood will charge you per viewing.

      you know the one where you can only download a DRM'd to oblivion time limited, viewing limited copy for the same price as the DVD?

      Sorry, go and sit on the naughty step.

      I'm off for a beer.

      1. Greg 16

        re Storage media

        Didn't you get the memo?

        You know the one that says getting your grubby little hands on a copy of the file is a thing of the past.

        The one where its totally free.

        Damn - its a big download though!

    2. Anon E Mus

      Discs are only a transport media

      Once you've got the discs I'm sure a little ripping and splicing can be used to put the films back in one piece.

      1. LaeMing


        then the disks go into the fire-safe (or at least a moisture-proof container) to stay as pristine as possible (well, it is the box you are keeping away from the moisture, the disks away from scratches and grubby human fingers).

        This is technically illegal, not becasue you made a play-copy to protect origional media, but because you bypassed DRM to do so.

        Sux to be under the machine. :-(

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      400GB PS3...'s-1tb-blu-ray-discs-could-work-in-ps3?=37463

      The Uber upgradable PS3 looks like it might also be fist to be taking on the new high capacity BD disks too...

  4. Jedit Silver badge

    A note on the extras

    It wasn't mentioned in the review, but the extras in this box (including the commentaries) are the same as those in the original DVD extended edition sets. All this box set does is upgrade the movies to full HD and 6.1 sound.

    That said, the upgrade is very much worth it if you have an AV rig that can handle it.

  5. Ken 16 Silver badge

    So how long is the bloody thing now?

    I fell asleep in the Cinema for 2 out of 3 of the films anyway

    1. Jim 59

      Impossible to sleep

      because all cinema operators set their volume knob to "defeaning".

  6. Fuzz

    2 discs per movie?

    What a joke, 50GB is more than enough room for 4 hours of well encoded HD.

    The container format used on BR is extremely inefficient. If you rip a bluray into MKV with no editing or recoding of the data the files are around 40% smaller.

    1. Citizen Kaned


      is that with true HD sound? or just dolby digital 5.1? there is a huge difference if you have higher quality home cinema.

      also, is the MKV exactly the same image? i dont know much about MKV as i actually buy media still and if i were to store all my blu-ray and dvds on HDDs i would need a server farm ;) around 2500 DVDs and 300 blu-rays.

  7. lawndart

    The Return Of The King

    Do we get Saruman's attempt to take over the Shire?

    1. KroSha

      The Scouring of the Shire

      Nope, because Saruman dies when the Rohirrim take Isengard. The Scouring is only shown is a vision to Frodo when he looks in Galadrielle's Mirror </geek>

      1. ukbabz


        Not in the books.. The ending of the films spoiled it for me, the lack of the scouring of the shire was scouring of the triology..

  8. ulf molin

    That should be...


  9. Graham Bartlett

    Extended edition mostly good

    For Fellowship, the extended version is the "definitive" one. Tons of essential plot and character details cut. Two Towers, the extended version is good too.

    But Return of the King, far too much is gratuitous "look how cool our digital FX are" shots tracking bits of rock being thrown through the air. It does have some important bits of plot - death of Saruman, the Witch-King breaking Gandalf's staff, council of war explaining exactly *why* they were attacking the Black Gate, meeting the Voice of Sauron. But mostly that extra time is FX shots which should have stayed cut.

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

      Luddite that I am

      I just read the books. Nothing about Gandalf's staff broken by the Witch-king in there (though only a purist would complain). I only got to see the Fellowship, and liked the more active role given to Arwen, so I will not say all changes are for the worse. I did feel the fighting was a bit much, compared to the more sedate pace of the book. However, if you kept to that pace, the film would have to become a (very long) series.

      Regarding the increased length, Tolkien said in the preface to the book that the main criticism he agreed with is that it was too short.

      1. Jim 59

        Agee with Luddite

        Right on. Gandalf's staff was never originally broken. The witch king just escaped a good shoeing from Gandalf when their confrontation was interrupted at the gate. A dramatic scene that did not, as I remember, make the film.

        I agree with your post and with JRR when he said the book was too short. LOTR shows well the difference between books and films. Both are good, but the film is (has to be) a much more brief, superficial experience. A film made verbatim from a book would be awful. Then again, LOTR is not quite like any other book.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    BD performing miracles?

    Can the extra visual and audio presentation make Elijah Wood act? Can it make Sam lose any weight on a year-long trek halfway across a continent? Can it change the disrespectfully comic Gimli? Can it change Faramir back to an honourable man instead of a traitor? Does it have Tom Bombadil?

    No? Then what's the bloody point? :-\

    1. Martin

      Tom Bombadil?

      I was entirely with you until you mentioned that irritating so-and-so.

    2. IsJustabloke

      I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!

      I was with you right up to the "Does it have Tom Bombadil?" at which point I wished you a long and painful death to the accompiamnet of stupid ryhming couplets.

      A somewhat controversial view but the books are utter shite... a fantastic story ruined and rendered all but unreadable ( believe me I've tried 5 times!) by stupid fucking "elven poetry", "Dwarven songs" and Tom Bombadil, none of which added a single iota to the overal plot/ story.

      Jackson took the essentail story elements of the books and created the stories that shold have been told.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Two words


      2. Jason Hall


        "rendered all but unreadable"

        To those of you with tiny attention spans, and no feel for the way stories could be told.

        Hundreds of millions(?) of people would argue that they are very readable.

        1. LaeMing

          I found the books

          a damned hard slog, but well worth the effort (all 3 times I have read through them).

          1. BoldMan

            They are badly written!

            I've read and re-read them many times when I was younger and then put them aside for decently written books. I read them again when the first movie came out and it reminded me just how bad they are. Tolkien wrote them in the way that sagas were written 500 years ago. There is very little attempt at pacing, proper narrative structure and dramatic tension. The very device of splitting the story into two sections then following each section exclusively as in Tow towers and Return of the King is deeply annoying.

            The blandness of the descriptive passages gets tedious - everything "good" is "silvery" or "golden", everything bad is "black" and "dark". The pointless distractions of "and then they came to xyz which in elvish was named abc, the Numenrorians called 123 and the dwarfs called "gimmemorebeer"" YAWN!! yes I know he was a professor of Medieval English etc but give me a sodding break!

            As for Tom Bombadil, I remember hearing the BBC radio adaptation when it first came out in the early 80s while at University and we all rejoiced that they had skipped Tom Bombadil! What a twat! Its a pointless diversion in the book AND its a plot destroyer... so you spend half a book building up the "Its SO EVIL that none can withstand it!" and then introduce a character almost immediately it has NO EFFECT on! Bang, narrative tension utterly destroyed.

            Finally... Eagles. Why walk all that fucking way through orc infested lands when you could have flown across it on sodding eagles and dive-bombed Frodo into mount doom???

            By the way I also play Lord of the Rings Online and after 4 years play we've still only got as far as Lothlorien, ie end of Vol 1!! Later this year we get Isengard...

            1. Jim 59

              Badly written

              So you hate LOTR but your life has had a large involvement with it: the books, the films, the radio adaptation, the game and now discussing all 4 at some length. In 2000 you read all 1200 terrible pages again, just as a penance, before playing LOTR online for 4 years and still playing. Your whole life is spent in LOTR purgatory. No wonder you hate it.

              Guy, if you are gonna troll, don't go overboard. Special effects are okay but a believable story is more important.

          2. KroSha


            Now try the Silmarillion!

            1. Anonymous Coward


              Good God!

              Now THAT was possibly the single hardest book ive ever had the pleasure of reading, i swear that it was easier reading "Trainspotting" and "Porno" whilst trying to understand all the 'burgh' words


              Good read though, adds a lot to the series, if your capable of reading it that is :)

              here, assuming youve read it, have a pint, i get the feeling there isnt many of us!

              1. Jim 59


                I read the Silmarillion and it was hard. The Silmarillion is more of a reference work, a support structure for the LOTR and Hobit, and as such it is not surprising that JRRT never published it in his lifetime. It wasn't meant to be read as a story IMO.

        2. IsJustabloke

          I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!

          no need for rudeness :-)

          I did say it was a somewhat controversial view.

          Very few people have ever found the books anything other than hard work in my experience.

          I tried to read them for the first time when I was 13 ... having been utterly entralled by The Hobbit. LOTR's was a huge let down for me. I've tried several times since..

          fellowship, is a great book (apart from the bits I've already mentioned) , Two Towers is s good book, return is tedious in the extreme.

          Great story, badly executed by a poor writer that would have benefited from a stronger editor.

  11. Ru

    Pre-order the Hobbit?

    That would be daft. You should wait until the original, extended and special editions have all been released, and then wait patiently til the super deluxe edition equivalent to this LotR release goes on sale.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Blu-ray versions are longer than DVD extended editions

    Special Extended Edition DVD: 682 minutes

    Special Extended Edition Blu-Ray: 726 minutes

    1. Jim_aka_Jim

      An extra 44 mins...

      ... of additional credits for the millions of people thanked for helping put the movie on to BlueRay

    2. Bit Brain

      Difference in running time

      Probably due to the BD versions being 24fps and the PAL DVDs being 25fps.

      1. Martin Eyles

        The rest of the difference in running time

        The slower running speed accounts for about 28 minutes of running time. With the remaining 16 minutes split across three films, does that make 5 minutes of extra credits per film? Perhaps there's just a tiny bit of extra footage, but if not, at least we get some extra music to listen to! :-)

  13. Bassey


    Now I get the other two - they are great films and quite a lot happens. I'm not so enamoured with them to regard them as "landmark" and, already having the original trilogy on DVD for less than a tenner, I have no intention to re-buy them but they are good films.

    But the fellowship? 30 minutes extra? Nothing happens in the original 72-hour cut. The plot is "Small village, wizard arrives. Group sets off with a ring". That is it. Litterally NOTHING else happens. It could have been shown as a five minute short before the second film.

    1. F111F

      You Misssed...

      a Balrog and the fall of Gandalf, the flight/fight in Moria, 2 preciousss Elven women (Tyler, Blanchett), Weathertop, and Hugo Weaving playing the good guy for once.

      Icon for Cate...worth the price of admission alone.

  14. Blake St. Claire


    HD. 6.1 sound?

    I already own the extended editions. I even made the mistake of buying the first FotR before the extended edition came out.

    Tell me where I can send my DVDs for a credit on on the BDs and I might take the bait.

    Oh, and BTW, I already own three copies (original VHS, special edition VHS, DVD) of Star Wars 4, 5, and 6, plus DVD of 1, 2, and 3. When Lucas releases on BD I won't be buying those either. One of these days I need to convert the original VHSs to DVDs, because Han shoots first.

    1. jason 7

      People still buy this stuff?

      I've dumped most of my DVD collection as only about 15 of them had been watched more than once. Just not worth it. No BDs for me either.

      Dump your unwatched collection into the charity shop, freeing up space for some other crap, then rent the DVD/BD from the local library for £2.

      Job done.

      1. Blake St. Claire

        Apparently they do

        That seems to be what the long shelves of DVDs in Costco, Best Buy, and elsewhere are for.

        Me? I'm pretty selective about the titles I buy. I only buy titles I know will be watched multiple times and I'm usually content to wait a while for the price to come down. The rest I get from netflix or stream from netflix or hulu. The library? YMBJ. My wife has borrowed books on CD to listen to on trips in the car but they're usually so beat up they're impossible to listen to. Would DVDs be any better? Not sure I can be bothered to drive there and back twice to find out.

        And then some things I own, e.g. Avatar and the Star Trek reboot I have because someone gave it to me as a gift. My wife and kids have a strange sense of what they think I'll like.

      2. David Paul Morgan

        Traded them in...

        ... at CeX. All the bogof's and bogo-half-price some with the wrappers on.

        We only keep the special film collections now and rent by post with Blockbuster.

        Extended versions? I love the novel (except Tom B) but you'll need a special chair and rations to watch this.

    2. Dan Crichton

      ... double tray BD player required??

      @Blake, you could have picked up the SW DVDs that contained two discs per film, one with the special edition and one with the original theatrical cut - the latter not being anamorphic and only 2.0 audio, but much better than a VHS conversion.

      As to LotR, I was looking forward to the BD extendeds because I'm a lazy git and don't want to have to switch discs halfway through the films like I do with the extended DVDs. But thanks to the inclusion of 4 commentaries on each film they've been split across 2 discs each again. I don't give a stuff about commentaries; I'd be much happier with the extended movies on 3 BDs without the duplicated discs from the DVD releases (I've got those already too from the collectors DVD sets as well as Minas Morgul and the King's crown that were available for a limited time from Sideshow with the order form in Return of the King).

  15. jason 7

    Noooo not a longer Return of the King????

    The cinema version was 30 minutes too long. The perfect ending for that movie with all the build up would have been at the ceremony where he says "no my friends you bow to no man!"

    They all bow the camera pans back aaannnndddddddd CUT!


    But no we get another 30 mins of seat jiffle inducing crap that just kills the ending dead.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Noooo not a longer Return of the King????

      You see thats the problem, the world that was made around the books was far more complicated than the films could ever portray.

      a film on the books was never going to work and take the full story in to account, perhaps they would have done better to make a film based on the books but do a hollywood special on it. IE change it in to something completely unrecognisable.

      Im totally divided on this one i have to say, it overlooks i,portant parts in the story and also makes a hash of the story in some scenes of the film.

      I suppose, i enjoy watching the parts of the film thats done very well, and try and overlook the parts that are crap ie "Shelob stung Frodo" to name one of many!

  16. Marky W

    Worlds lamest comment

    Had to share the brain-dribblings of this Amazon commentard:


    "I've been waiting a long time to see the complete extended version of Lord Of the Rings on single discs, it was going to be the excuse for me to finally buy a flat screen HD tv and a blue-ray player. Now I'm not going to bother, I'll stick with the orginal version on video."


    Yup, that's right, he's sticking with his VHS and fish-bowl CRT because one third of this trilogy comes on two discs. Tard indeed.

    1. Giles Jones Gold badge


      The whole reason DVD took off and VCD didn't was the capacity. VCDs required two discs or flipping the disc.

      This is 2011 and such lame 1990s concepts are outmoded.

  17. Chris Miller
    IT Angle

    Tolkien Ring Network

    One Node to rule them all

    One Ping to find them

    One LAN to bring them all

    And in the darkness BIND them

    1. Alien8n

      New keyboard please

      You sir are a swine, a swine I say!

  18. DZ-Jay

    Not cutting-room detritus

    As I remember, Peter Jackson claimed that the "Special Editions" were the actual movies made, and that due to contract requirements with the studios, they needed to trim them at specific lengths for theatrical release. He specifically said that the additional scenes were not "extra" nor "deleted" scenes, but the actual flow of each scene, completed with the same post production quality as everything else.


  19. Anonymous Coward

    Won't help

    Jackson's direction and dialogue will just suck in higher definition.

  20. -tim

    Bit rates?

    Years ago I bought a new DVD player since my bottom shelf brand one had a bit of trouble dealing with the battle of Mordor scene. I'm guessing that wasn't redone to push the bit rates of modern equipment.

  21. dubnde

    Why £70 in review when it says £44.99 on the amazon link provided?

    see title

    1. Chris 244


      Ever hear of a "suggested retail price"?

      "Although ostensibly priced at around £70, you should be able to find it available for £50 or thereabouts."

  22. system11
    Thumb Up

    Excellent stuff

    I picked this up on release day, and having never seen the extended versions before, I didn't feel like any of them dragged on at all, they're just good, long films. The black gate scene made sense this time around.

  23. Anonymous Coward

    Decisions decisions,...

    Already have the extended DVD editions, but would need to get a proper Bluray player, HD-TV and sound system (not the poxy one in my computer). Will wait until I move back to NZ before purcashing (and saves on unzoning the DVD player).

    Lived in Wellington while they were filming, one of the girls at work (who was nicknamed "Mimi" cos she was really bad at putting on makeup) said she and Liv Tyler wore the same eye-liner brand, so I has to ask "and what is the American word for trowel?"

    Anon cos Sarah B may still be lurking somewhere.

  24. Graham Jordan

    726 minutes too long

    Ok maybe it's because I haven't read the books, maybe it's because I prefer ninja's to homosexual dwarf like people with hairy feet, maybe it's because it never occurred to anyone to fly Frodo on one of those eagle type things over the volcano in the first movie thus negating the need for several hours of Orlando bland, but the whole trilogy was shit.

    Controversial opinion perhaps? Do I just “not get it”? Maybe. But having once done a marathon of all three extended editions in a weekend I sincerely wanted to pull my own face off and beat Peter Jackson with it.

    Roll on the revisited 3D editions in about four years time.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      re: 726 minutes...

      Oh yeah, nobody would notice a freaking huge Eagle carrying a hobbit and the source of half of your power (and the single reason why you still live), flying straight towards the only place where it can be destroyed, and take measures to shoot it down on sight.

      Specially when you are embodied in a huge flaming eye in a tower next to it. No sir.

      This is Captain Obvious, signing off.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Well, actually...

        In Jackson's version no one noticed Frodo standing in plain sight in front of a Nazgul holding out the "source of half of your power (and the single reason why you still live)", so I don't imagine that a single eagle would have attracted any attention either.

        Maybe someone who could write should have been put in charge of the screenplay, no?

  25. Anonymous Coward

    Re: Re: Decisions Decisions

    I am smart enough to know when I am flogging a dead horse and to give up (the only thing this woman could put on to make her more attractive was Distance, and lots of it).

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    I'll wait until they're $10 in the bargain bin around Christmas time (this year or next) since popular movies end up there eventually. I was dumb enough to buy the first on dvd when it came out. As much as I like the series, I did enjoy Kevin Smith's take on the series in 'Clerks II'.

    1. Greg 16

      Cherks II LOTR

      Yup - pretty much sums it up.

  27. OrsonX
    Thumb Down

    Is the plot the same in HD then? i.e....

    fight something

    run away

    fight something

    run away

    fight something

    ....and so on, ad nauseam....?

  28. Anonymous Coward

    You all know it's not real, don't you?

    Just asking. Some of the comments worry me a little, that's all.

    1. John Bailey


      Some of these people have been known to carry replica weapons you know..

  29. Mark York 3 Silver badge

    I'll wait until the boxset is in the bargain bucket bin, but.....

    I prefered the extended editions to the theatricals, they gave more detail & the whole thing flowed much quicker, where as the theatricals dragged. Seems odd though that BD still has to spread the movies over two disc's same as the DVD's.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely any additional "in-film" material

    will just be more tedious fucking hours of Sam and Frodo in thee mountains with Sam telling Frodo how much he "loves you, Mr. Frodo".

    Some of the cinematography was excellent but Peter Jackson's butchering of what was already a pretty badly written (but exceptionally imagined) trilogy just makes me weep for mankind.

  31. Anonymous Coward

    not usually a fan...

    I am not usually a fan of this genre of film but at some point I had to watch it to see what all the hype was about....

    Was I disappointed? Initially no... It was a bit of a log winded yarn, with overtones of brokeback! nothing that spoiled the movie. (would frodo and friends sexuality need to be questioned in this move?). I have to say, I did enjoy the whole saga and at the end of each moie ....


    When you start to reflect on it, there are far too many holes in the plot and a lot of the movie was there for the sake of it being there.... a bit like the long winded descriptive passages in the books that serve no other purpose than to show off your descriptive writing skills. (or lack of).

    I did try to read The hobbit once, but when it took 15 pages to describe a room with a trunk in it, going into every tiny detail of the room is not necessary. do I need to know the life story of the ant with the club foot and his suffering as he struggle across the room towards the shelf where you would expect the key for the trunk to be, but was not? do i then need another 1000 words to describe the knot in the wood of the door? not unless its really important to the story and most of it was not..... Room, trunk, no key, lets go find it.....

    I do understand the appeal of the whole LOTR/Hobbit saga to some. but I find the appeal of a girlfriend better...

    1. Stuart Duel

      Actually I don't believe for a moment... tried to read The Hobbit, unless you have the reading ability of a 4 year old. I found it a pleasure to read and an easy read which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone since it was a children's book afterall.

      The middle earth languages were a pain and translations would have been handy because it's otherwise meaningless gibberish.

      LotR was a much harder slog to read but also well worth the many hours of exercising my imagination. Some bits didn't really add anything to the story - ol' Tom - but an adventure will have odd little diversions.

  32. Jolyon Smith

    @DZ Jay - you never heard that

    Jackson has repeatedly said that the THEATRICAL EDITIONS are the definitive and are the films he wanted to make. This is why the extended versions are called EXTENDED VERSIONS and not "DIRECTOR'S CUTS" for example - he made them for the fans.

    He considers the theatrical versions to be the "Director's Cut".

    Footnote: I too am disappointed that these discs have the films split over two discs. Grrrr....

  33. Saucerhead Tharpe

    Some of you are missing the point

    Firstly the end of RoTK. One of Tolkien's points is that stories never end, at least not cleanly, people drop in and out of them. One of his other points is that experiences change people, possibly a view he got on the Western Front and the aftermath. Frodo may have succeeded, but there was no 'home fit for heroes' for him, he probably felt a failure and his injuries stopped him having a peaceful life.

    The ending WAS cut down (no Scouring of the Shire) but it is essential to the story that Frodo gets some kind of resolution, there is no 'Happy ever after' for him.

    As to the Eagles, as emissaries of Manwë ( effectively an Angelic Spirt) such an act would have been counter to a 'non-interference' policy. What the eagles did was close enough

  34. Alexander 3
    Thumb Down

    Pity about the box...

    That box looks real nice ... except for that ghastly, completely out-of-place BluRay band on the top. Whey couldn't they have been a little subtler, like they were on the spine? Even the age advisories are eyesores...

    Then again, I've always been bitter about BR since they dropped the "e" from "Blue" and haven't used physical media in years. Always seems so ... quaint..

  35. paul 97


    Anyone know when these may be available for rental via love film or brick and mortar stores?

  36. Graham Bartlett

    @Saucerhead Tharpe

    Beat me to it.

    Aragorn is the big hero. He goes through swordfights and all kind of manly stuff, comes out unscathed, gets the girl and the kingdom. Everyone cheers. Yay.

    Frodo meantime is the one who actually brings down the bad guys. He plods along through the mud, does his thing, and his reward is the loss of his sanity, exile to obscurity, and the company of wasters back home who can't ever possibly understand what he's been through. As written by a guy who survived the trenches in WWI.

    Re the eagles, they *do* interfere. "The Hobbit" has them actively fighting the orcs/goblins, for starters. But the idea is to sneak into Mordor undetected. A mass aerial assault is not quite the idea...

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the save a hospital ward edition

    If only the LOTR fanbase was big enough to save the UK economy. New imaginative packaging every couple of weeks at £70 a go would surely see us back in the black.

  38. Zog The Undeniable

    Is the car still there?

    FOTR, top right of the screen, just after Sam says to Frodo (or is it the other way round?) that he's never been so far out of The Shire before. Dust cloud and brake lights.

    Tom Bombadil is indeed a tedious character*, but the episode with the barrow-wights is how they get the special swords that can kill a fell beast; a bit of a plot hole in the movies, clumsily addressed by Aragorn saying "hey, here are some cool swords I happened to be carrying".

    *although Goldberry sounds like a right goer and I don't know why she hangs out with him

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Alexander 3 - The BluRay thing is a slip cover

    IIRC when I got ours, that is a slip cover that comes off

  40. Saucerhead Tharpe

    @Graham Bartlett - The Eagles

    The Hobbit is a different beast lightly revived to fit LoTR

    LoTR could do with a bit of revision according to the Silmarillion, but that is by the by

    The Eagles have other reaons for not directly interfering,

    1) None of the Wise thougth of that or, if they did, they envisaged it as being a bit obvious

    2) The Range of the Eagles is limited. They live in the Mistly mountains and turn up at thwe battle of the Five Armies, the top of Durin's Stair and from their to Rohan

    The journey to Mordor is longer and might well be a multi-day or one way journey, requiring a rest, thus making an aerial trip unfeasible

    3) The Eagles were already doing other things, seeking information for Gandalf as requested, and they could not contact them

    4) They were all on their holidays and had the mobile phone switched off

  41. Paul Naylor
    Thumb Up


    Received mine this morning. Found on for £42, so snapped it up. Now all I need is a Blu Ray player! Was going to wait until next month but I think a trip to Comet/Amazon/Richer Sounds is in order some time later...

This topic is closed for new posts.