The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
22K notes
·
View notes
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
2003, dir. Peter Jackson
2K notes
·
View notes
Monday, December 18.
Willkommen.
History was made on this day, twenty years ago. The last installment in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Return of the King, was released in cinemas. It grossed over $1.1 billion worldwide, making it the second highest-grossing film of all time. It won all eleven Oscars for which it was nominated, including Best Picture (the first fantasy to do so), at the 76th Academy Awards. The sequel to 2002's The Two Towers, and the completion of the story started by The Fellowship of the Ring, it was a cinematic landmark and a pop culture behemoth. Like its two predecessors, the film was widely acclaimed by critics and loved by audiences across the globe. But they were, all of them, deceived—for another film was made.
In 2004, Dominic Monaghan, the actor alias used by renowned German film critic Hans Jensen, interviewed the trilogy's star, Elijah Wood. In these nine bracing minutes of footage, Mr. Jensen probed his interviewee on the matters of the day: losing time within yourself, kicking balls, dolphins, and the wearing of wigs. It makes for quite remarkable viewing almost two decades later.
1K notes
·
View notes
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) dir. Peter Jackson
5K notes
·
View notes
It’s okay to have an unpopular opinion about the Hobbit films. Compared to Amazon Prime’s “The Rings of Power”, The Hobbit films ARE good.
207 notes
·
View notes
It puzzles me that Jackson’s script explicitly describes the ship on which Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf & the Elves leave as “the last ship to leave Middle-earth.” Like, not only is this canonically false, and many more ships left for Valinor in the Fourth Age, but it seems to be trying to erase/ignore the fact that Sam will be allowed to sail West someday. It seems to want to imply that in the movieverse, Sam will never see Frodo again, to which I can’t help but ask … WHY??? Like why cut the line where Frodo tells Sam his time may come, leaving hope for viewers who haven’t read the books???? How does taking out Tolkien’s ray of hope/eventual happy reunion ending and making the goodbye seem permanent serve any purpose???? IMO, it’s one of the worst changes the films made.
92 notes
·
View notes
Spouse and I, watching Return of the King:
Me: hello, Blond Karl Urban
Spouse: is that Karl Urban?
Me: don't you recognize him?
Spouse: well he doesn't look like he normally looks
Me: yeah, he looks really different as Bones
Blond Karl: RIDERS OF ROHAN!!!
Spouse: oh, now I recognize him
Me: when he's yelling?
Spouse: yeah when he's yelling
388 notes
·
View notes
Something I don't like about the current state of the MCU (and DCU) is just how much work it all is. Some pretentious European movie from the 70's didn't require 30 other movies to provide context. You can pretty much watch any James Bond film in any order, there's not a lot of continuity to deal with. LOTR is an incredible series with a long plot but it's still only 3 movies; you only had to watch 2 other movies before Return of the King.
But with the MCU there's just so much! I think most people were following along fine until Endgame, but then it started to branch out too much. We get a new show every week, the multiverse idea just means that there are more and more threads to deal with and I just don't feel like it's working towards anything at all. Like, is She-Hulk required viewing before The Marvels? What context am I missing if I watch Quantumania but I didn't see any of the movies beforehand? Before Endgame there was certainly an issue with too many of the movies feeling like Origin stories, but at least they didn't require a lot of context. But now I'm so far behind that it just feels like a chore to catch up.
DCU has it worse since they keep rebooting everything. If your movie is meant to setup 5 future films and those films never come, then your movie isn't even good on its own. Apparently the next Avengers movie is going to be a soft reboot the MCU, so it's like why bother?
The films have finally grown all the same issues the comics had. Too many plotlines going on at once, constant retconning, and a focus on big events instead of just telling good stories one at a time. I would be so happy if we just kept getting standalone films that didn't really tie into each other so I could just watch them whenever. If they just made a new Batman each year with no plot carrying over I'd watch them all. Why did Columbo get popular again out of nowhere? There's 70 episodes and no plot to carryover so you can just watch one and get a complete story. Literally the best comic book projects to come out recently were fairly standalone or at least didn't need a lot of context. Werewolf by Night, Across the Spiderverse, The Batman and TMNT didn't need 30 movies of backstory and they didn't spend a lot of time just introducing characters for future movies. Spiderverse of course is different in that it is a sequel and a 3rd film is coming to finish the story but 3 movies is a reasonable number of movies to carry a plot over!
And what really gets me is that I did like the MCU a lot up to Endgame. I was pretty much watching them all as they came out in theaters. It was so much easier to do then. I think there are good stories to be told in the comic book superhero genre, but I don't think Hollywood can carry a plot over 40 films and have it work.
55 notes
·
View notes