Return of the King

[Cozmo]

The end of an incredible trilogy. Return of the King alone is close to making 1 billion dollars worldwide very soon. Less than 14 million shy to be exact.

Do you think it is worth the hype?
Which of the 3 was your most favorite?
Do you think they'll try to release "The Hobbit" now? There are talks about it. If they do, do you think it'll be as successful?

God bless!

 

[William Nunn]

I love the trilogy as a whole. I'm sure RotK could earn 14 million more. I would see it in the theatre again if I could!

My favorite is still FotR though. I don't know why, but I just love the whole set up of the story, and all the great little chaacter moments (especially in the extended DVD).

There are a few things I didn't like though. As you can see from my signature, I'm a big fan of Tom Bombadil. In my opinion, he is perhaps the most fascinating character in the books. I understand, conceptually, why they couldn't put him in the movie, but I still missed him.

A BIG problem I had with RotK was the absence of a resolution to the Saruman storyline. After Tom Bombadil, Saruman is my favorite character from the books - and he is played PERFECTLY by Christopher Lee. So when Peter Jackson said they couldn't spare the 6 or 7 minutes that would be needed to include Saruman's death in the theatrical release of RotK, I thought "There better not be any stupid wastes of time if they can't include something as important and cool as that." And lo and behold, there are plenty of bits that I could think of that should be shortened. The entire end sequence that took like twenty minutes (after the coronation of Aragorn) could have been cut back a bit. A few minutes of stock battle footage here and there could've been cut back too. So I didn't like that at all, and I'm waiting anxiously to see the extended DVD edition since Saruman's death will be in there.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Peter Jackson is one happy guy right now. He made lots of money and fans that took George Lucas and Steven Spielberg decades to do. I myself feel the LOTR movies are the best beating out Star Wars, which took me awhile to realize. I love the extended DVD's with all the extra footage it really gives you more storyline which I felt some of the extended material in The Two Towers should have been included to lead up to more about The Return Of the King. Anyways if Peter Jackson does do decide to do The Hobbit it will be awhile because he is doing King Kong (2005) (pre-production) (producer) I am not a big King Kong fan so maybe I will have to wait for some previews to hype it up for me.

 

[princess_ballet]

ROTK was well worth it and I think the best of the three movies. In FOTR I came almost to tears at the end. In TTT my eyes got watery. And in ROTK I cried for the last hour of the movie.

I also cried the second time I saw it.

If a movie is good enough that it makes me cry that much? It is WELL worth it!

 

[Blessed-one]

dunno.. maybe the special effect is worth it, but the third part of the series is all about fighting, and that gets boring at times.
the first movie is my favourite.

 

[RazorX]

I think the 'Two Towers' was the best of the three.

 

[AngelAmidala]

Return of the King was my favorite of the 3...because of all the battles and stuff.

hehe...forgot to say...I hope they make a Hobbit movie too.

 

[Job24]

I heard they were going to make a hobbit movie. that is a very exciting flick as well because it involves SMOG the dragon and that should be very interesting.

all around, I think most girls liked the first one due to the introduction of characters and the romance portion. but the third one seems to be the fav for the guys due to the action

 

[Lizzi4Christ]

I was VERY happy with Return of the King. Two Towers was the worst because it barely stuck to the book. Fellowship and Return of the King were a lot better.

I heard they cannot do the Hobbit because Christopher Tolkien will not give them the rights to do it, based on his father's wish. Of course, I'm not sure. I'll look for proof to see if what I heard is right.

I, personally, did not like the romance in the story. Too much of it. Yes, I AM a girl . I just liked the battle scenes and the friendship scenes more. It was great seeing the characters grow.

 

[twosteppin]

i liked ROTK but the ending dragged on. by the very end, I wasnt left with the good feeling you get after you see a great movie, i was like "its about time" that whole sam-wise story at the end was annoying. it was like, who cares. but thats just me
FOTR is my favorite. great storyline and dialogue.

 

[Blessed-one]

lol. lots of people say the ending drags too, but really, it's a very good ending. It wraps everything up and gives a clear direction to where the parts we don't get to see are going. Actually, the ending shown in the movie has already been shortened compared to the ending in the book.

 

[biblebeliever]

I saw them all in the movie theater (not all at once ) and never left my seat at one of them. I loved all three of the movies, but I think ROTK was my favorite because of the way they tied everything up.

 

[faerieevaH]

I loved FOTR, liked TTT, and was VERY dissapointed in ROTK. I was one of the fans who was there for the midnight release. On a LOTR fan site, my review was the first of an audience of worldwide fans (because of the time difference, he he). We had the entire marathon: FOTR, then TTT, then ROTK. We were there with a small group of fans (three for the entire marathon, 5 for the premiere). Just to give a picture of the fact that I am really a fan.

What was I dissapointed about in ROTK: the fact that so much of the storyline was cut. I have an M.A. in theatre, film and TV-science. I know it's necesary at times to change parts of the storyline to fit the different medium, when you translate literature to the big (or small) screen.
The changes and omissions didn't bother me in FOTR, nor in TTT. In ROTK however, they had not just cut in Tolkiens story, they had just cut in the movie: sections of it barely hung together and some things were hardly explained.
For example: Eowyn and Faramir standing side by side, beaming at eachother in the crowning scene in MT at the end. For people that have not read the book it's quite of a 'deus ex machina' that brings those two all of a sudden standing there, beaming with health and love, while last we saw them they were at least half death and hadn't even met eachother.
I know that these 'missing scenes' will be found on the Extended Edition DVD, but the fact that an extended edition dvd will be published does not release the director from the obligation to present the cinema audience with a complete movie in itsself.

My main complaints about ROTK are these:
- special effects taking presedence to the storyline.
- sloppy editing
- the movie had something I would call 'a hollywood sheen'.. a layer of unnecesary melodramatics and corny lines.
- lack of credibility at certain points. For a movie with so much incredible detail, some things were done horribly. 'Super Eowyn' who rides through the oliphaunts legs and with ONE double slash severs the hind hamstrings? I don't think so. Legolas who kills the big beast with a three arrow notched bow? Not really... and then I'm not even talking about the way the Gondorian military is portrayed.

The strange thing is... I have no doubt about Peter Jacksons talent. He has proven in the FOTR that he CAN make a wonderful rendition of this masterwork. I've watched that movie several times with a Tolkien scolar who had a lot of praise for it. In ROTK you can only see glimpses of that talent, like in the scene in which you see the crosscuts between Denethor eating, and Faramir and the Osgilliath cavalry attacking.
As I said in one of my first reviews of this movie: I have no doubt whatsoever about Peter Jacksons talent. I'm just wondering which alien lifeform has temporarily taken over his body while he was directing this.

 

[JahRawks]

If you like TTT, and FOTR, you should've like ROTK almost as much as FOTR, I HATED absolutely HATED the way they portrayed TTT, it was probably less than 50% accurate to the books, I understand needing action, but if you're going to make a movie based on a book, make it accurate, especially after you've proven how accurate you can be. ROTK on the other hand was probably 90% accurate, and FOTR was 95% accurate to the books, Peter Jackson proved with those two movies that he could keep a story line in a movie accurate to that of the book, but why couldn't he pull it off with the second movie???? Just curious why you have to burn ROTK when it was almost as accurate to the book as FOTR was, and you still like TTT.

 

[Lizzi4Christ]

Two Towers was much worse then ROTK.

-They made Faramir into everyother guy. He never took Frodo and Sam to Gondor. He let them go after fighting himself inwardly. He never gave into his desire to have the ring.
-They put far too much emphais on the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn. Arwen is only in the book two or three times. They shouldn't have included all the scenes that they did.
-The warg riders attacking the people of Rohan never took place in the book. Aragorn never fell off a cliff. He went straight to Helms Deep with the people of Rohan.
-The elven army that came to Helm's Deep to help Rohan. Nope. That never happened either. They didn't call the huge battle with Sauron "The Last Alliance of Men and Elves" for nothing.

For how much they screwed up with Two Towers, they did a great job including what should have been in TT, in ROTK. The ending was accurate. While FOTR was the best when it comes to accuracy, ROTK was second and TT was in last. So, I was happy with ROTK.

 

[princess_ballet]

All of those are very important parts to the movie though! They were crucial to turn the movie around!

-They made Faramir into everyother guy. He never took Frodo and Sam to Gondor. He let them go after fighting himself inwardly. He never gave into his desire to have the ring.

How do you show someone fighting inwardly first off. Secondly, if he never was tempted by the ring, the ring would have held absolutely no power whatsoever. If he could walk right past it and not think twice about it, the ring was over, you ruined the moive, you ruined the storyline. He HAD to deal with it. Pete gave him a character line!

-They put far too much emphais on the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn. Arwen is only in the book two or three times. They shouldn't have included all the scenes that they did.

Yet she was part of Aragorn's life and thoughts? Of course she should have been in there! A big part of the appendix is dedicated to her (Tolkien's favorite part). These parts were spliced beautifully into the movie and gave it a great flow. Without these parts you lost part of who Aragorn was and who is character was.

-The warg riders attacking the people of Rohan never took place in the book. Aragorn never fell off a cliff. He went straight to Helms Deep with the people of Rohan.

Again, you need a part to get Aragorn away from the group and get him to a place that he can take the lead because later on he has to have the upper hand over Theoden. This gives him a chance to find out about the orcs and start planning the defense.

-The elven army that came to Helm's Deep to help Rohan. Nope. That never happened either. They didn't call the huge battle with Sauron "The Last Alliance of Men and Elves" for nothing.

Doesn't it even move you just a little that these guys could have gone off to Valenor and not had to worry about death or anything else, yet they decided to go help the men? Weren't you in the movie theater? Didn't you feel that relief when they arrived? I'm sure the rest of the audience did because when I saw it the whole audience went applause crazy when the elves arrived.

i liked ROTK but the ending dragged on. by the very end, I wasnt left with the good feeling you get after you see a great movie, i was like "its about time" that whole sam-wise story at the end was annoying. it was like, who cares. but thats just me

How could you feel like that? I didn't want it to end! I guess some people just don't understand that emotional attachement and emotional bond with these characters that gets you to the place where you want to keep watching.

All the movies were awesome, like I said before.

 

[twosteppin]

im talking about like the second time they shot sam-wise going home to his kids. it was redundent.

 

[Lizzi4Christ]

All of those are very important parts to the movie though! They were crucial to turn the movie around!

But Tolkien is the author! He's the one who wrote the story! His book was good enough to move the story.

How do you show someone fighting inwardly first off. Secondly, if he never was tempted by the ring, the ring would have held absolutely no power whatsoever. If he could walk right past it and not think twice about it, the ring was over, you ruined the moive, you ruined the storyline. He HAD to deal with it. Pete gave him a character line!

You could see the struggle inside of him before he took them to Gondor. And if he had walked away, it doesn't mean the ring didn't hold any power. Aragorn was around the ring much longer, yet he never took the ring. I'm not saying that he wasn't tempted. But he was still able to walk away, but with much difficulty. And THe thing about Faramir, is that it was to show a contrast between him and Boromir. When they made him take Frodo to Gondor, they showed all men from Gondor as theives, as desperate, without any honor. When Faramir let them go, even though he really wanted it, it broke this train of thinking. It makes you think "Wow. He's a guy other then Aragorn that is nobel and has character."

Yet she was part of Aragorn's life and thoughts? Of course she should have been in there! A big part of the appendix is dedicated to her (Tolkien's favorite part). These parts were spliced beautifully into the movie and gave it a great flow. Without these parts you lost part of who Aragorn was and who is character was.

I'm not saying that she shouldn't have been in there! I'm saying they had TOO much of her. I agree that they had too show more of her, but it was just too much.

Again, you need a part to get Aragorn away from the group and get him to a place that he can take the lead because later on he has to have the upper hand over Theoden. This gives him a chance to find out about the orcs and start planning the defense.

But this isn't in the book. Tolkien didn't think it was necasary, and he is the one who wrote the whole thing. So it didn't need to happen, because Tolkien didn't write it like that.

Doesn't it even move you just a little that these guys could have gone off to Valenor and not had to worry about death or anything else, yet they decided to go help the men? Weren't you in the movie theater? Didn't you feel that relief when they arrived? I'm sure the rest of the audience did because when I saw it the whole audience went applause crazy when the elves arrived.

Again, Tolkien didn't write it like that. No, I wasn't moved that they came. I thought "what the heck? That's not how it happened." I thought it was better when the men alone, who had no hope of winning, was able to defeat an army that was much, much larger then themselves. They had no help, but they still defeated the army. It would have been cooler if they were able to defeat the army on thier own, because that's the way Tolkien wrote it.

I'm not debating, I'm just telling you my thoughts I'm a huge Tolkien fan. I'm the kind of person who wants to see movies stick to the books, especially when it's an amazingly fantastic book. The movies in general left out a lot of details that would have made the story super cool. Tolkien knew more then Jackson did, because Tolkien wrote it. I think some changes needed to be made.But I think they shouldn't have changed TT *so much* because Tolkien knew more then Jackson did

 

[faerieevaH]

If you like TTT, and FOTR, you should've like ROTK almost as much as FOTR, I HATED absolutely HATED the way they portrayed TTT, it was probably less than 50% accurate to the books, I understand needing action, but if you're going to make a movie based on a book, make it accurate, especially after you've proven how accurate you can be. ROTK on the other hand was probably 90% accurate, and FOTR was 95% accurate to the books, Peter Jackson proved with those two movies that he could keep a story line in a movie accurate to that of the book, but why couldn't he pull it off with the second movie???? Just curious why you have to burn ROTK when it was almost as accurate to the book as FOTR was, and you still like TTT.

In adapting a literary work to the big screen (or the small screen) alterations need to be made. SOme of them are simply necesary, others are less necesary but don't hamper my enjoyment. Some of them make me sigh a bit or lift up my eyes and chuckle (like the insertion of Arwen in TTT) but as long as they don't interfear with the big story and plotlines, I don't really mind.

What I disliked about ROTK I've written about in great detail above: the fact that they simply cut out necessary parts of the storyline for example. Not just Tolkiens story, but the simple storyline of their own movie. Showing two people who have never met in the movie both at deaths door so to speak and then have them turn up for a cameo shot an hour later again, beaming with health and love at eachother is simply bad filmmaking.

I'm taking less offence to inacurateness to Tolkiens story (though I really detested the fact that they made Frodo send Sam away), and I'm taking more offence to the fact that he made a bad movie. If I want to just sit back and be dazzled by special effects: I'm going to see the Matrix or something. If I just want to see fighting, I'll go see the next Bruce Lee movie. (or whoever is the current actionhero. *L*). If I'm going to see a work like Return of the King, I at least expect the story to take the foreground on the special effects. Special effects are there to help tell the story. The story should not be a vehicle for special effects.

Apart from that there are unnecesary moments of corny and fake heroïsm to satisfy a lust for cheap glamourmoments by fans. Like 'super Eowyn' or 'Oliphaunt surfing Legolas'.

 

[princess_ballet]

Showing two people who have never met in the movie both at deaths door so to speak and then have them turn up for a cameo shot an hour later again, beaming with health and love at eachother is simply bad filmmaking.

Not really though. I didn't know about the House of Healing before I saw the movie, and I assumed that the shot was some time after what had happened (obviously it was) and that they had just got better and they had somehow met. I honestly though "Wow, that was a match I never thought of." Never did "God, Jackson sucks!" cross my mind. I think he deserves more credit than that!