# Anyone Seen Return of the King Yet?



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

What were your impressions? Plan on seeing this on Christmas day when the crowds won't be quite as long.


----------



## John Corn (Mar 21, 2002)

I saw it last night.....I really liked it!! If you seen 1 and 2 you'll like the last one. Last one is good Jim.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

great movie..but the ending is a little long(i wont spoil it)


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I saw it last night, and loved it! It was definitely the best movie of the 3 (theatrical versions), but once again, I left after sitting there for more than 3 1/2 hours thinking that it would have been better with the additional 45 minutes or so of footage that will be in the extended edition release on DVD.

But, it's definitely fantastic seeing it on the big screen, and well worth the time!


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

I have both Fellowship and Towers on DVD both the theatrical and extended editions. Am looking forward to King on Christmas day. Thanks for the response. I know the ending is a bit long but what the hell...it probably will be fixed in the "extended" dvd release...but like the others I will get both...I am a marketeers dream.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

...well, it isn't that the ending isn't so long as there are about six of them...lol-but you have to have at least five of them to tie up the plots...

It, and the subsequent films, are a unique achievement in filmmaking and the Return of the King is a wonderful film.

I liked it a lot, but i didn't like as MUCH as i thought i would(if that makes any sense)...

no spoilers here, but my biggest problem was the disposition of saruman character-it did leave a BIG hole in the film that the sauron concept(you really can't call that eye a character)couldn't carry it alone(plus-you HAVE an actor like christopher lee-you should damn well use him, tho his edited scenes will be in the dvd extended version)...and while Viggo Morteson ably portrayed a man wrestling with the legacy of his birthright in the earlier films, he was strangely uninvolving when it came time to embrace the legacy in this film(again, this is no spoiler, as the movie IS called "The return of the king"...lol)...I would have liked to see arwyn used a bit more strongly in this film, tho i don't know how...

in it's use of special effects, editing, cinematography, set design, it is a stunningly created film and it speaks well of peter jackson that the characters aren't lost in the spectacle....

and if the aragon character is the heart of the film, then sean astin as samwise gangee is certainly the soul- a performance that is worthy of at least an oscer nod in february...

i envy those that had the time to see all three together on trilogy tuesday, as that's how this film should be watched....

and somehow, the thought of King Kong as Jackson's next christmas film as opposed to a new Lord of the Rings film is kinda sad-it's been fun looking forward to them each year and maybe, if all the rights can be worked out, we can see the hobbit by christmas of 2006....


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

All I can same is "incrediable".

On a disturbing note, thedigitalbits web site is reporting a RUMOR that New Line may try and cheap the effects rendering for the extended edition release of ROTK.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

I re-watched the first two of the series on Sunday in preparation to see ROTK tonite. I have just bought the standard theater release so far. My plan has been to wait until they come out with the 22 disk super grand ultimate collectors version about a year from now rather than buy all the other various versions/sets in the meantime. :lol:


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

Bogy, watching the extended versions of both films tonight in anticipation of ROTK tomorrow (I hope that is not blasphemous to you). Stellar films. I am a bit old to be a "fan boy" 48 next month but Jackson did achieve something to be proud of.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

alfbinet said:


> Bogy, watching the extended versions of both films tonight in anticipation of ROTK tomorrow (I hope that is not blasphemous to you). Stellar films. I am a bit old to be a "fan boy" 48 next month but Jackson did achieve something to be proud of.


I have absolutely no problem with the extended versions. I'm looking forward to seeing them myself. As far as I am concerned Jackson can add three hours to every film. I'm just not going to buy every version they release.

As far as being a fan, I am only a about a month and a half short of being 50, and I am a huge fan. Of both the books, and the films. I've had several sets of paperbacks, the leather-bound collectors editions, and yes, I pirated copies for my PDA, since I have bought enough legitimate copies of the books over the years so that I don't feel I am greatly harming JRRT's estate. As my wife told our kids Tuesday evening after seeing ROTK, "Your dad has been waiting to see this movie for over 35 years."

And speaking of ROTK, this is one of the greatest movies ever made. It doesn't matter to me that there are now two similar but separate canons, the books and the films. Even with various elements dropped for time, with other elements placed in a different chronology or location, the message and feel of the books comes through loud and clear. Too many endings? Or as I heard someone comment as we left the theater, "anti-climatic", have people who say these things read the book? The only problem I have with the ending is that it wasn't long enough. One of my favorite parts of the book was left out of the film, in the return to the Shire. Perhaps the extended version will do it right. 

The only real disappointment I had was that I was the only one who yelled "FRODO LIVES!" when the movie was over. Is there no sense of tradition left? Was I the only old Frodo fan there? :lol:


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

Bogy, have to go up for dinner now but I will say I loved the film. Was thinking during the first half that I though Fellowship was better. By the end I think this film was. The thought "Frodo Lives" went through my mind as well as I watched the end of the film. Must be our age.

Jackson has made an epic. Sad to see it end. I looked forward to this Christmas time treat. But he ended it in style. And I know I am probably in the minority...on a number of issues and lifestyles but I thought the ending was appropriate. I could see where the first ending could end the film in a satisfying way but I thought all of them were excellent.


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

Bogy and jrjcd: great comments about the film. I think we three are in sync about this film. Bogy: about the blasphemous comments about "Return of the King" I come from a "Assembly of God" background and naming anything Return of the King, much less a movie (which we were not supposed to watch) was blasphemous. The Assembly is just a smidge right of Southern Baptists.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

alfbinet said:


> Bogy and jrjcd: great comments about the film. I think we three are in sync about this film. Bogy: about the blasphemous comments about "Return of the King" I come from a "Assembly of God" background and naming anything Return of the King, much less a movie (which we were not supposed to watch) was blasphemous. The Assembly is just a smidge right of Southern Baptists.


I got my son two "Lord of the Kings" t-shirts for Christmas. Neat take offs on the Lord of the Rings. One of them reads something like, "One king to rule them all, one king to find them, one spirit to bring them all, and one Lord to bind them." JRRT definitely wrote a book with deep theological implications, as a person of faith. He and C.S. Lewis corresponded regularly about their books. No coincidence that both both Tolkien and Lewis wrote about middle earth.
Fantastic epic of the struggle between good and evil.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

I tried to get up at the first ending, but the boss made me set for the final 30 minutes of the movie. This movie needed an intermission. it was exhausting. My sleep rater place this movie second to part two.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

I had purposely avoided watching both Fellowship and The Two Towers (I know.... the willpower). I bought the extended versions of both.

Yesterday morning I started watching Fellowship. Then The Two Towers. And then I caught the 9:30 PM show last night.

I'm a twitching mass of goo right now, but wow. THAT is how you do it. Now I get to play with all the extra features on the first two movies' DVDs. Great film, and the third was the best of the three thanks to the massive battles, plot twists, and heroism.

The only pacing problem was the 20 minute epilogue which dragged a little long. Otherwise, a GREAT trilogy that people will still be raving about 25 years from now. BTW, according to Variety's email in my inbox, it has already passed $220 million domestic, so look for this one to be the first to break a Billion worldwide since Titanic came out. I guess their $300 million gamble turned out OK.


----------



## CoriBright (May 30, 2002)

Bob I'd just like to say I agree with every word...

Our extended DVDs arrived on Christmas Eve, we spent Christmas Day watching both.... and then went to the 12.15pm showing on the Friday.....

I'm just angry the Academy never sees fit to class science fiction and fantasy in the same category as drama. But it certainly outranks Star Wars in my opinion and probably just below in my husband's opinion (there are some who will never be swayed!) Now just how long will we have to wait for the extended ROTK on DVD.... sigh! However many months it is, it will be TOO long.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

personally, i would hope that the academy might see fit to award a special oscar to jackson for his singular achievement-not to be beaton with a wet noodle here, but unfortunately, there were a few movies in 2003 that i would consider better films if put up to ROTK as a stand alone(mystic river, cold mountain, and seabiscuit come to mind), but getting an award for the whole effort would be appropriate, i think...


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

As much as I see why they ignored the first two, I expect them to clean up this year. A great story, a great ensemble, perfect direction, and a movie with more heart than ANYTHING that came out last year. Every now and then, the Academy throws the great unwashed masses a bone and picks a popular film. Name one film that deserves to stand above the Trilogy.

This was the movie they said couldn't be made anymore. I hope they finally acknowledge everyone involved. Out of all the movies made last year, how many do you think that you will want to pull off the shelf and watch 25 years from now. Tom Cruise in Dances with Samurai? Uh uh.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Speculation has been that the academy was waiting until the trilogy was done before they gave the oscars that this whole series has deserved. Personally, I think this is a fantasy film in which the special effects add to the characters portrayed, instead of overwhelming them.


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

The academy needs to look at the three films as a whole...the way Jackson envisioned them as he was making them. This was a phenomominal achievement (jrjcd). The other films may have merit (jrjrcd) but this film put the pieces into a whole. Deserves best picture and best direction.l


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

I guess I am a 47 soon to be 48 (next month) fan boy! Spectacular.


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

We saw RotK on Friday....Incredible. I wish I had had the time to watch TTT again before seeing it, because the first 10-20 minutes of RotK, I was like, Okay, where is everybody again? But I got into it pretty quick. And I am eagerly awaiting the DVD release and a free weekend to watch them all 'at once.'
This/these really were an awesome movie/s. Beautifully shot, classic story, the characters are so real and full of personality. 
Minor nitpicks/various comments:
* This could be due to the style of other movies, but there were a *lot* of characters, combine that with the fact that they all have unique names and accents, and in some cases, I forgot who was who namewise. You'd be hard pressed to find a typical Hollywood movie with more than, say, 6 major characters. 
* Eowyn's climactic battle line seemed a little 'typical', ie, Hollywoodish catchphrase to me, and somewhat jarred me out of the reverie slightly.
* Endings: Yes, the ending sequences were rather long, but really, they were wrapping together ~9 hours worth of movie and varied, intense storylines. If it had just 'ended' "And everyone lived happily ever after", I think we would have been disappointed [What? That's it?] Also, that time was well-used to get the audience to relax and calm the emotions/adrenaline down. Plus it had one of the most moving scenes/lines in the whole series, I thought [Aragorn to Frodo and the Hobbits at the ceremony--I got chills at that scene.]

I've got the theatrical release of FotR and the EE of TTT [got it for 7 bucks with Amazon gift certificate.] After watching RotK, I might try to find the EE of FotR, and wait for the EE of RotK, just because this was such an awesome cinematic experience, I want more : )

These are the movies to show when someone says 'Movies are not worth watching anymore.'


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

dtcarson said:


> Minor nitpicks/various comments:
> * This could be due to the style of other movies, but there were a *lot* of characters, combine that with the fact that they all have unique names and accents, and in some cases, I forgot who was who namewise. You'd be hard pressed to find a typical Hollywood movie with more than, say, 6 major characters.


You don't say if you are familiar with the books or not, but while the movies contain all the main characters, and many "supporting" characters, there were also many minor characters and subplots which were not included. While I missed some of those characters and plot lines unless Jackson was going to make 30 hours of movie, there was no way to include everyone and everything. Even in the books the names are unfamiliar and sometimes very similar, which adds to the confusion. As someone who considers himself very familiar with the story, without crossing the line into obsession (not to far anyway), I felt Jackson did a good job in cutting without losing the continuity of the story line.

This is just another good reason to watch these movies again and again, until you get all the names straight.


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

Heh--one of many reasons ; )
I have actually never read the books. I read The Hobbit way back when, and of course knew the basics of the storyline before seeing the movies. After seeing FotR, I did buy an omnibus edition of the three parts of the book making up the movies, but didn't want to read them until seeing all the movies [generally I enjoy both the book and the movie if I see the movie first; whereas if I read the book first, I nitpick at the movie.] 
I also don't hear so well, so that was a part of it--in a book, I can visually see the names and pronounce them in my own head, and on DVD, I usually have subtitles on which helps, but in a movie theater, sometimes I'm not sure if they said Arwen or Eowyn or Ewyn or Bob [well, not that bad, but you see what I mean.]

Maybe the Super-Extended Edition will be the 30-hour movie ; )


----------



## sorahl (Oct 24, 2002)

bogy,
unfortunatly, Peter chose not to 'film' the Scouring of the Shire . I wish he had because that was my favourite part of the books. I don't think we'll see it on the screen but the whole work he did is worth the few losses.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

sorahl said:


> bogy,
> unfortunatly, Peter chose not to 'film' the Scouring of the Shire . I wish he had because that was my favourite part of the books. I don't think we'll see it on the screen but the whole work he did is worth the few losses.


That's the part I missed the most. One of my favorite parts of the books as well. But to do it right it could have easily added 20 to 30 minutes to the movie, partly because to have done it right would have required other scenes earlier in the movies to set up that scene (The other Rangers who also rode through the Mountain of the Dead, who were no longer protecting the Shire, allowing Saruman and Wormtongue to do their dirty work; that Merry and Pippin came back to the Shire the tallest Hobbits on record, due to drinking Treebeards water "food"). So I understand why it wasn't included, but I still miss it.

I don't think I spoiled anything for anyone who as of yet as not seen ROTK, since this is stuff that ISN'T in the move, unless you were expecting it.


----------



## Anthony (Dec 16, 2002)

Can someone please explain where Frodo, Bilbo and the others were going when they sailed off at the end of the movie.


----------



## sorahl (Oct 24, 2002)

The same place that the elves go to, the Grey Havens, the undying lands. the magic has left Middle Earth. If you notice the scenes of Rivendell it looks as if it is the end of fall, the leaves are all dull colours and dry and falling. The age of the elves and of magic is ending and with the leaving of the last boat (with Bilbo and Frodo as Ring Bearers along as well) the Fourth Age (the age of Man) has started.
 sorry i'm doing NO justice to the Silmarillian here...


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

...actually, they were sailing off to the New Line pay office to get their final checks....


----------

