# The Return of the King



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2003)

OK folks ... I just got back from the 10:30 show... and will shortly be leaving (with the family) for the 7:05 show.

It is a must see. Many of the same points mentioned in the Two Towers thread hold true in ROTK. Gimli gets most of the good lines. The Battle scenes are impressive, but not as much as I expected. The score is wonderful. 

They had to edit some of the stuff to make the story work, of course, but for those familiar with the books, it does a really good job. 

I think the movie will seem extra long to those who have not read the book. Several of the people sitting near me made comments to that effect.

Perhaps my biggest disappointment is that Jackson never fully reveals who holds the Three Elvish rings, and even hints in the wrong direction.

Oh, yeah .... and Bilbo, in his final scene, looks an awful lot like Noonian Sung from Star Trek the Next Generation (He created Data and Lore and was played by Brent Spiner in heavy makeup).

Enjoy - Mike


----------



## TheRustyOne (Dec 17, 2003)

*bounce* I loved it! My sister and I went to the 11:45 show, first show of the morning. It was way better than I thought it could be...and the Paths of the Dead scene was wonderiferous! Done so well...


He kind of hinted as to who owned the Elvish Rings. I think you've seen them on Galariel, Elrond and Gandalf's fingers in the previous movie.

Wonderful! Worth seeing again! *fangirl grin*


----------



## TheRustyOne (Dec 17, 2003)

And there's nothing like arguing about the books (including Silmarillion) with fellow fans in line while waiting for them to start selling tickets...and getting weird looks from the sibling...hehe!



They could make the Silmarillion into a movie...the first half would have to be a musical, tho...since that's how Illuvitar made the world....


----------



## Aikikitty (Dec 18, 2003)

We went to see the 10:30 showing yesterday morning and we loved it!  After it was over, we couldn't hardly speak and our brains just felt totally overwhelmed!  We're trying to figure out when we can see it again and I can't wait until the Extended Version with the extra scenes comes out!!!

Robyn :asian:


----------



## clapping_tiger (Dec 18, 2003)

I went and saw it last night. And even though I enjoyed most of the movie and give the Movie version the "thumbs up". I thought that the end really dragged on. After all that action and excitement and the incredible battle scene, to have to sit through the ending was tough. They bring you in and keep you at such a high point, they should try to have you leave the theatre in that mood, not let that feeling pass. When it comes to movies I don't think it is a good idea to put the audience through that. Especially if they are not hardcore fans (which I do not consider myself, I only read 2 of the books). The best thing to have done, in my opinion, would have been to wrap things up in just a few minutes. After all the good stuff they cut out of the books, I was confused on why they showed all they did in the end, they should have saved it for the extended version DVD. The movie could have been at least 20 minutes shorter I think. But don't get me wrong, I really liked the movie and will be seeing it again I am sure.

Just one side note, Sam is the bravest character in the movie. What do you think?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2003)

Long Ending ... 

If you haven't read the end of the book, it certainly does seem like a long ending. The book ends with several lengthy chapters that wind down the events of the 4 hobbits.

From the book point of view ... Jackson cut *a lot* from the ending of the movie to keep it as short as he did.


----------



## Shodan (Dec 19, 2003)

Gonna see this movie Saturday night........can hardly wait!!

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## KenpoTess (Dec 22, 2003)

Seig bought our tickets for yesterday's showing at 4:20 on the phone, good thing cuz they were sold out when we got to the theater.   And those front row seats sure aren't good spots.. Gawd I had to sit with my self all scrunched down and they left the mini lights on straight above our heads all the while.  It was an excellent movie and I tend to agree the ending scene did drag out.  I definitely will have it to add to our collection as soon as it comes out on DVD


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 22, 2003)

> Sam is the bravest character in the movie. What do you think?



I'd say Eowyn.  If the Witch King was in front of me, only thing he'd be looking at is my bum running away.  Of course...Theoden was in trouble...soo.

SPOILER ALERT 

I was really disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire was taken out.  Jackson apparently never liked that part of the story.  The way he laid everything out, it completely leaves you hanging on what happens to Saruman, etc.  Didn't care for that.

He also never explained how Meri was able to injure the Witch King....again...it just didn't make a lot of sense (to people that never read the books).  The Witch King standing there boasting (as well as Gandalf saying the same) that no man can kill him, then he's dropped to the knees by a hobbit and killed by Eowyn.  A few people in the theater near me said, "Huh???" right about that time.

The struggle with Frodo and Gollum dragged on.  I just sat there thinking, "FALL ALREADY".

Otherwise, I loved it.  I can't wait to see the extended version...maybe some things that I'd hoped to see in the movie will show up...except the Shire battle


----------



## KenpoTess (Dec 22, 2003)

Eowyn didn't get the recognition deserved.  I agree with you Jay she was very brave~!
I guess not many 'saw' her kill the Witch King... so she wasn't even 'recognized at the end'


----------



## Blindside (Dec 22, 2003)

I was disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire was left off as well, it was always one of my favorite chapters.

Regarding the Witchking death, without the Barrowdowns in Fellowship you don't have the Arnor-origins of the blades that Sam, Merry, and Pippin carry.  Blades that were in part created to oppose the forces of Angmar.  It was this weapon that was able to wound the Witchking.

Glorfindel sometime in the second age made the prophecy that "no mortal man" could kill the Witchking.  Merry is not a Man, he is a Hobbit.  Eowyn is not a man, she is a woman (talk about a stupid clarification, as every guy in the audience knows who the real woman in the LOTR is, but I digress....)  

Theoden did not proclaim Eomer to be his heir, nor does the movie bring out the relationship between Theodon and Merry, oh well, every extended version has been better than the original, I suspect this one will be as well.

I liked this movie, but it doesn't have the same appeal to me as Fellowship did.

Lamont


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2003)

We're leaving to see it in an hour!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2003)

SPOILER - 


Its about a Ring.

Oh wait...you knew that.  


Def. a good movie....am planning on seeing it again....next time possibly on the local IMAX.... (Definately want an IMAX theater in my mansion....)


----------



## TheRustyOne (Dec 22, 2003)

Did anyone else really wanna smack Elrond throughout all three??


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 22, 2003)

I guess I am the only one who is 

"BORED OF THE RINGS"

Hahahaha

Ok, I admit it... I stole that line from a parody book title.

heh heh.  I actully really liked these movies.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 22, 2003)

Saw it and LOVED IT! Will consider seeing it again (when it's captioned  ). 
Battle scenes were very well done considering. I too was bummed out by the missing "Scouring of the Shire" which I felt was very important as it helped establish how the entire journey had affected the four hobbits. Before you could scatter them to the four points of the compass with a simple "BOO!" but now... they won't take crap from no-body.  

Samwise Gamgee definitely the bravest of them all. Eowyn yes definitely brave for standing up to the Witchking and defying her Uncle's orders to remain behind. Merry's part could've been played out longer as well. Pippin's was given reasonable due but could've use a few more moments. Hopefully all of it will be on the expanded version of the DVD. 

Great movie without a doubt. Rumors abound that the studio plans to release all three again at once to marathon showings around the country... time to stock up on the caffine.


----------



## TheRustyOne (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Technopunk _
> *I guess I am the only one who is
> 
> "BORED OF THE RINGS"
> ...




I think I've read that...

somewhere I have "Roadkill of Middle Earth." really funny stuff!


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2003)

Samwise Gamgee stole the show in my opinion.


----------



## oldnewbie (Dec 23, 2003)

Saw it on Sunday... great movie.

I agree with the Elrond opinion. He was not like that in the books, neither was Arowen (sp). Did anyone else think that she was stong in the first half of Fellowship? After that she went into "lip-quiver" mode.

Also during the Eowyn moment, when the line "I am NOT a MAN" came out, all the females in the theatre cheered!


Waiting on DVD


----------



## Seig (Dec 23, 2003)

At the very end, a group of kids started talking loudly and I had a vision of me going through them like a troll through dwarves......


----------



## TheRustyOne (Dec 23, 2003)

There was the baby in theater that kept crying, the mother tried NOT to shush it, despite being yelled at by about half the ppl in the theater, and took it out of the theater (finally) about 15 minutes till the end of the movie


----------



## Elfan (Dec 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Long Ending ...
> 
> If you haven't read the end of the book, it certainly does seem like a long ending. The book ends with several lengthy chapters that wind down the events of the 4 hobbits.
> ...



About half the book was straight out cut to be precise.


----------



## Seig (Dec 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *About half the book was straight out cut to be precise. *


And it was still 3 1/2 hours long.......


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 26, 2003)

> And it was still 3 1/2 hours long.......


 Even as big a fanatic as Pete Jackson was he didn't have any choice but cut huge pieces of the book out to keep it to a length that people would sit through.  I'd think that had every thing been left in (Tom Bobadill, the Scouring of the Shire and such) each movie would have been six or seven hours long.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 26, 2003)

Last night watched the EXPANDED edition of the Fellowship on DVD and it had an additonal 30 minutes of footage which (IMO) REALLY helped the film along in terms of story line. The Two Towers added 43/46 minutes on the DVD and the same applies. 

The absence of secondary characters (i.e. Tom Bombadill and Merry Goldweather) and other events does subtract from the (TRUE) Tolkien fan's memory of the books. 

All in all still it's doubtful that anyone for a long time to come will be able to top Pete Jackson's work.  

Now he's off to Skull Island to remake Kong then it's said he's going to work on the Hobbit


----------



## TheRustyOne (Dec 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *And it was still 3 1/2 hours long....... *




I counted 4 hrs...


----------



## Ender (Dec 26, 2003)

Damn..and I thot this was an ELVIS thread...*kicking dirt


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2003)

I loved it, I haven't really been too in to the series, but I got to see this one the monday before it opened at a screaning, and it was pretty dang awesome.

7sm


----------



## OULobo (Dec 29, 2003)

I was miffed at the loss of Tom in the movies. He was undoubtably my favorite character from the books. I always love someone who fits in between the lines and answers to no one, but himself. I was also asked by a friend how a hobbit with a knife could harm someone that "could not be killed by any man." I told him that Jackson dropped the ball on that one. 

Without throwing up a contraversey, did anyone else get a little bit of ethnicity to the oliphant riders and their army, that could be construed as racist. I mean the oliphant riders had an central african flavor to them and the oliphant crews had a north african / arabic flavor to them.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 29, 2003)

I really don't like the Tom Bombadil chapter in Fellowship, even as a kid I usually skipped that part.  In this respect, the movie version was just fine for me.

The accusation of Tolkien of racial stereotyping is an old one.  He was trying to create a mythology for northern Europe and for England in particular.  He describes the Easterlings (a race of men who followed Sauron) as swarthy and bearded like dwarves.  Construe that any way you want.  

Lamont


----------



## OULobo (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *I really don't like the Tom Bombadil chapter in Fellowship, even as a kid I usually skipped that part.  In this respect, the movie version was just fine for me.
> 
> The accusation of Tolkien of racial stereotyping is an old one.  He was trying to create a mythology for northern Europe and for England in particular.  He describes the Easterlings (a race of men who followed Sauron) as swarthy and bearded like dwarves.  Construe that any way you want.
> ...



How can you dislike Tom, he was a classic example of the character that brings to the table the reality that the quest of the protagonist is not the end of the world. Just their world. It left another story to explore. Some people say that the first Matrix was the best of the three for the same reason. 

I'm just wondering why Mr. Jackson chose to portray the Easterlings in the manner he did. Tolkien may have alluded to the appearance of the Easterlings, but it was Jackson that gave them the visual appearance of Africans. Personally, I think that it is his right as an artist to portray them anyway he feels and I salute his gumption in continuing despite possible public distastes. I also don't think Tolkien cared much about claims of racisim when he penned the epic, and he realized his vision and the saga it became are what they are for better or worse and despite any criticism.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *Without throwing up a contraversey, did anyone else get a little bit of ethnicity to the oliphant riders and their army, that could be construed as racist. I mean the oliphant riders had an central african flavor to them and the oliphant crews had a north african / arabic flavor to them. *



My copy of The Lord of the Rings (Red Book ISBN 0-395-19395-8) describes the Haradrim in 4 different ways:
1 - Easterlings with axes
2 - Variags of Khand
3 - Southrons in scarlet
4 - and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues.

This comes from the chapter 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields' on page 121 of my copy of the book.

Certainly not a very flattering view of what the man fighting in Saurons army. And in today's world it may be racist. I don't know about Tolkien's world. I think the bigger controversy is all the smoking that goes on ... by the good guys.

Peace - Mike


----------



## Blindside (Dec 29, 2003)

> I think the bigger controversy is all the smoking that goes on ... by the good guys.



And you wonder why the hobbits had the munchies all the time....


----------



## Seig (Dec 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *And you wonder why the hobbits had the munchies all the time.... *


Yes, but what about second breakfast?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 30, 2003)

I went to the 12:01 a.m. show when it was released here.

The charge of the Rohirrim nearly had me standing up and shouting.  When Bernard Law led them in a cheer I nearly lost it.  I fell in love with Eowyn about then.

GREAT MOVIE. GREAT BOOKS.  GREAT DIRECTOR.  GREAT AUTHOR.

For the Glory of Gondor,


Steve


----------



## Andi (Dec 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *The charge of the Rohirrim nearly had me standing up and shouting. *



YES. That was brilliant. My favourite bit of all the battle scenes so far I think. Can you imagine having 6000 angry horseman screaming "DEATH!!!" charging you? I want to go the cinema now.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 31, 2003)

> Yes, but what about second breakfast?


 and elevensies, and afternoon tea.... and supper and dinner?





> Can you imagine having 6000 angry horseman screaming "DEATH!!!" charging you?


 Sure, when I have a couple of cave trolls to hide behind.

I imagine that the oliphant riders were garbed as they were to fit as much with Tolkiens concept (I'm sure there were drawings somewhere) as to contrast with the nordic look of the Riders of Rohan.  Personally, I think they looked a lot like some of the 1980s punk rockers I knew.  To point to these movies and think that they were racially motivated in any way seems to be a bit paranoid to me.  They were entertainment, take it on that level.


----------



## Andi (Jan 1, 2004)

Talking about the Oliphaunts, did anybody else think that when the Riders were trying to take them down, it was all a bit Star Wars trying to take down the AT-ATs? If only Eomer had Sam's magical elvish rope.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 1, 2004)

Yes, I couldn't get that Star Wars picture out of my mind!


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 1, 2004)

I half expected Legolas to whip out a lightsaber and slit the thing's belly open.

Cthulhu


----------



## arnisador (Jan 1, 2004)

The "It still only counts as one!" line was pretty funny, though the running theme throughout the films of "dwarves are the comic relief of Middle-Earth" was a bit distracting. The way he was portrayed, I never came away feeling that he was a great fighter--just a complaining side-kick.

The special effects of shrinking John Rhys-Davies down to that size were very effective, though.


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 1, 2004)

I was rather surprised to see alot of 'likeness' of LOTR Return of the King to Diablo II .. if you've played it the game  and watched the movie.. maybe you'll know what I mean.. The Elephants carrying around the hard to kill dudes in the Frigid plains of Diablo.. and quite a few other things ..


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 2, 2004)

> I was rather surprised to see alot of 'likeness' of LOTR Return of the King to Diablo II .. if you've played it the game and watched the movie.. maybe you'll know what I mean.. The Elephants carrying around the hard to kill dudes in the Frigid plains of Diablo.. and quite a few other things ..



"Diablo" is a D and D based game.  D and D takes much of its inspiration from LOTR.

I loved the movies, regardless of their flaws.  The only thing I note that bothers me is the tendency for arrows to not only knock people down...but BACK.  The opening battle scene where the elves shoot at the orcs...they get blown back as if they'd stepped on land mines.  This is a problem in movies wherein people get shot with guns and get thrown through windows, etc.  The worst case I've seen of it was in the film "Into the Night" with Jeff Goldblum.  John Landis has a guy get shot with a shotgun in an airport.  He is physically lifted up thrown back about fifteen or twenty feet.  

Maybe it was a magic Elvish shotgun?

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Jan 5, 2004)

I was just waiting to hear "Rouge Group, use your harpoons and tow cables. Go for the legs. It might be our only chance of stopping them." And actually riding between the legs and taking out the tendons...hmmmm...me wonders.


----------

