advice for those who are going to see "Return of the King"

Ugly · 12-31-2003, 03:09 PM

When you're watching the movie, and a main character says at one point, "Its over, its done": When you hear that, just walk out of the theatre.

Seriously, just up and leave.

Your ass will thank you for it, you'll beat the post-movie-getout-mini-traffic-jam in the theatre parking lot and, most importantly, you'll leave thinking you just saw a much better movie then if you stuck around for another half-hour.

Just some advice. Listen well and you'll be happy.

Nimrod's Son · 12-31-2003, 03:35 PM

I'm going next week.

Ensoul · 12-31-2003, 03:50 PM

I walk home and back so it didn't matter for me.

Ugly · 12-31-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I'm going next week.

Remember: "Its over, its done." Just bail. You got your money's worth by that point. Everyone I've talked too who've seen it already agrees. So very, very long and drawn out.

wounded · 12-31-2003, 05:17 PM

he should have just picked one ending. saved the same getting married stuff for the ee.

Injektilo · 12-31-2003, 05:31 PM

yeah, i saw it last night. the end was horribly drawn out. the last 20 minutes were absolutly pointless. how fucking long does the goodbye need to be? and it was all in slow motion too!

DevilSaint · 12-31-2003, 05:41 PM

I really didn't mind. They've said all along that this is essentially one big movie, so 30 minutes out of over 9 hours of movie (and thats not even including the extended editions) really isn't all that much.

relaxor! · 12-31-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DevilSaint
I really didn't mind. They've said all along that this is essentially one big movie, so 30 minutes out of over 9 hours of movie (and thats not even including the extended editions) really isn't all that much.

Agreed.

Geek USA · 12-31-2003, 05:46 PM

I was like DEAR GOD shut up and die

relaxor! · 12-31-2003, 05:48 PM

Hahahaha, nobody was dying in any of the scenes!

wounded · 12-31-2003, 05:49 PM

it wouldn't have been that bad, but i had to piss bad. i just kept thinking, get on the fucking boat already.

i guess it really didn't bother me though. i mean they did have to wrap things up a 9 + hour story

Ihaman · 12-31-2003, 05:57 PM

I agree!

sawdust restaurants · 12-31-2003, 06:04 PM

I heartily disagree. One of the primary reasons for the success of the films is the fact that Peter Jackson, though visionary himself, in a big way stuck to Tolkein's tone, themes and characters (allowing for the occasional lapse for the sake of making a movie adaptations). The ending is long, yes, but it's not drawn out; if anything, it feels more like an homage to the creator of the epic as opposed to a needlessly melodramatic denouement. Half of the third book comprises the tying up of loose ends; I think 30 minutes at the end of a three-and-a-half hour movie is more than suitable and feels like a fitting end as well as a tip of the cap to Tolkein.

Geek USA · 12-31-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by relaxor!
Hahahaha, nobody was dying in any of the scenes!

hehe i was just being stupid

i thought it was fine.

relaxor! · 12-31-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geek USA

hehe i was just being stupid

i thought it was fine.

Ah, fair enough.

Esty · 12-31-2003, 06:15 PM

I didn't think it was that bad. It sure didn't seem like 20/30 minutes of filler to me. It was fine.

Lie · 12-31-2003, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
I heartily disagree. One of the primary reasons for the success of the films is the fact that Peter Jackson, though visionary himself, in a big way stuck to Tolkein's tone, themes and characters (allowing for the occasional lapse for the sake of making a movie adaptations). The ending is long, yes, but it's not drawn out; if anything, it feels more like an homage to the creator of the epic as opposed to a needlessly melodramatic denouement. Half of the third book comprises the tying up of loose ends; I think 30 minutes at the end of a three-and-a-half hour movie is more than suitable and feels like a fitting end as well as a tip of the cap to Tolkein.

It was still like seven minutes too long.

morphinebitch · 12-31-2003, 10:33 PM

i gave up with the first.
couldn't read it, can't watch it.

Hillzy · 12-31-2003, 10:41 PM

My advice to anyone seeing this movie is to piss first.
It doesn't matter if you don't need to go - just empty as much of your bladder as possible and squeeze every last drop of moisture out of your urethra, because by the end of the movie you will be absolutely busting to piss again.

Hillzy · 12-31-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by morphinebitch
i gave up with the first.
couldn't read it, can't watch it.

fuck off troll

strange_one · 12-31-2003, 11:38 PM

the film ending was nowhere near as drawn out as the book ending

Ugly · 01-01-2004, 06:37 AM

k, I'll try to be coherent right now cuz I'm really drunk and its 5:30 AM now, but hey:

anyway, yeah, what ticks me off about the ending is the deliberate attempt by Jackson to turn on the waterworks in the audience. I mean, he's totally trying to get an emotional reaction out of them. If you watch closely, the ring falls into mount doom a full 25 minutes before the ending (I timed it on my 2nd time watching the movie). In those 25 minutes, there is not ONE break in the musical score aside from when Frodo was writting "The Lord of the Rings" in his manuscript, and that break in the musical score was, about, I dunno, half a minute.

So what the hell does the music have to do with a drawn out ending? EVERYTHING. The music is going straight for 25 minutes, basically, since the ring falls in mount doom. Overplaying it means the director "WANTS THE AUDIENCE TO FEEL THIS EMOTION BECAUSE THE MUSIC IS PLAYING". I know that sounds fucked up, but that's how music works in films most of the time. Its the director deliberately trying to mainuplate the emotions of the audience to get them invested in the film.

And it doesn't work. At all. Its overty sentimental, sappy and drawn out. Aside from people on Netphoria and Ain't It Cool News, EVERYONE I've talked too has said the EXACT same thing: the ending is way too fucking long. Its Jackson trying to draw ou the emotions. Its fucking cheap.

I seriously don't care about the hobbits. I watched those films to see orc smashing. And there's a fucking ALOT of orc smashing and killing in ROTK. And its awesome. But the film just fucking BEATS you over the head with sentimentality at the end, trying desperately to make the audience care for the entire journey.

And it doesn't work. Its too drawn out. Its too fucking long. It kills the momentum of the flick, and it hurts the film in the end. And everybody hates it. (aside from a few hardcores here and there)

I totally agree with S.Tasty about the ending should have been editited much tighter. You see, this is how I think the ending should have gone.

---RING FALLS INTO MOUNT DOOM
---FRODO AND SAM PASS OUT ON THE EDGE OF MOUNT DOOM, MINUS THE SAM "Gee, I hope I marry that ugly broad in Hobbiton" talk.
--EGALES PICK THEM UP
--ARAGON IS CROWNED KING, MINUS THE SINGING AND THE KISS WITH LIV TYLER, THE SCENE IS EDITED DOWN TO HIS SPEECH AND THE KNEELING TO THE HOBBITS
---CUT TO HOBBITS IN HOBBITON, SHARING A BEER
---CUT TO FRODO GOING ON THE BOAT
---FADE OUT TO WHITE FROM THE BOAT GOING OUT TO SEA

Well, the editing would make it smoother, but if all that crap was cut out from the theatrical release, would you have missed it? Would you have missed a three minute scene where the fucking hobbits were humping frodo on the bed and Sam walks in and they share and extremely silent gay moment between each other?

simple answer: Hell no.

Its needlessly drawn out and it hurts the film in the end. There is some extremely cool shit, but the ending is like getting your fucking teeth pulled.

I realize its not a three hour flick, its a nine hour flick ---- but dammit, ROTK is still an individual flick. It has to stand on its own merits, not in the context of the other two films. Its all about the three and a half hours you're going to invest in that theatre. And by the end, it doesn't feel fullfilling, it feels like punishment.

I know alot of people on the Internet may disagree, but the Internet is not the general moviegoing public. And from what I've sampled of people who are my friends and just in "real" life, they all think the ending is bullshit and drawn out. And I agree with them.

So, back to my main point: walk out when Frodo says "Its over, its done." You'll be much happier and the film will seem alot better if you hadn't stuck around for 25 minutes.

Infandum · 01-01-2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graveflower
the only problem was the fading out

it was edited poorly i think

like they kept the screen black for too long and it looked like it was over and they should have made them flow together more smoothly because it really did get annoying but who cares it's still the best movie

Yes.

In-Valid · 01-01-2004, 11:05 AM

That was the consensus with the 4 other people I went to watch the movie with. Your back & arse will be a tad sore after the movie & god forbid you had to pee during the movie and didn't want to miss any scenes because your kidney's will be in dire straits afterwards.

I also noticed more than a few people leave the theatre early & heard some complaints .

I'm all for the ending as is + more for the DVD where you are in the comfort of your on home (nice comfy bed or couch, can pause movie to stretch, relax, take a drink, go to the washroom, etc) but in a movie theatre where the seats (even in the fancy new megaplexes) aren't exactly made for 3 hours plus sitting it will become a physical bother watching the final scenes playout.

wangcomputers · 01-21-2004, 12:11 AM

i saw the movie yesterday, so i've only just read this thread. (spoiler evasion)
but yeah, i pretty much agree that the ending was drawn-out. It wasn't the length of the movie that was the problem, but it's pace and balance.
Throughout all three movies it's pretty evident that they're trying to squeeze in as much story as possible, and you can appreciate and become used to the speed of the scenes.

But at the end it's crawls along at a snail's pace and is extremely eventless.

While a drawn out ending may work in the books, as their length and detail is more deserved of an epic ending, it's disproportionately long in consideration for the movies themselves and it just doesn't work well in that context.
And yeah, the goodbye scene is especially notable for that. I'm certain fans of the books like it, but for the mere movie-goers, it didn't feel there was enough to warrant that amount of sentimentality and appreciation purely for the hobbit characters.

Anyway, it was still an enjoyable movie, but it also feels somewhat incomplete due to Saruman's absence.

Axis of Action · 01-21-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
I heartily disagree. One of the primary reasons for the success of the films is the fact that Peter Jackson, though visionary himself, in a big way stuck to Tolkein's tone, themes and characters (allowing for the occasional lapse for the sake of making a movie adaptations). The ending is long, yes, but it's not drawn out; if anything, it feels more like an homage to the creator of the epic as opposed to a needlessly melodramatic denouement. Half of the third book comprises the tying up of loose ends; I think 30 minutes at the end of a three-and-a-half hour movie is more than suitable and feels like a fitting end as well as a tip of the cap to Tolkein.

Agreed. If you clock the movies in extended form, it's 11+ hours; I think 20-30 minutes for an ending is entirely called for.

12-31-2003, 03:09 PM	#1
Ugly Immortal Location: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed Posts: 21,249	advice for those who are going to see "Return of the King" When you're watching the movie, and a main character says at one point, "Its over, its done": When you hear that, just walk out of the theatre. Seriously, just up and leave. Your ass will thank you for it, you'll beat the post-movie-getout-mini-traffic-jam in the theatre parking lot and, most importantly, you'll leave thinking you just saw a much better movie then if you stuck around for another half-hour. Just some advice. Listen well and you'll be happy. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

12-31-2003, 03:35 PM	#2
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	I'm going next week. __________________ - Nimrod's Son: Problem Solver!

12-31-2003, 05:46 PM	#9
Geek USA car wash cunt Location: cuyler ave Posts: 39,762	I was like DEAR GOD shut up and die __________________ well.

01-01-2004, 06:37 AM	#22
Ugly Immortal Location: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed Posts: 21,249	spoiler post, do not read if have not seen the film k, I'll try to be coherent right now cuz I'm really drunk and its 5:30 AM now, but hey: anyway, yeah, what ticks me off about the ending is the deliberate attempt by Jackson to turn on the waterworks in the audience. I mean, he's totally trying to get an emotional reaction out of them. If you watch closely, the ring falls into mount doom a full 25 minutes before the ending (I timed it on my 2nd time watching the movie). In those 25 minutes, there is not ONE break in the musical score aside from when Frodo was writting "The Lord of the Rings" in his manuscript, and that break in the musical score was, about, I dunno, half a minute. So what the hell does the music have to do with a drawn out ending? EVERYTHING. The music is going straight for 25 minutes, basically, since the ring falls in mount doom. Overplaying it means the director "WANTS THE AUDIENCE TO FEEL THIS EMOTION BECAUSE THE MUSIC IS PLAYING". I know that sounds fucked up, but that's how music works in films most of the time. Its the director deliberately trying to mainuplate the emotions of the audience to get them invested in the film. And it doesn't work. At all. Its overty sentimental, sappy and drawn out. Aside from people on Netphoria and Ain't It Cool News, EVERYONE I've talked too has said the EXACT same thing: the ending is way too fucking long. Its Jackson trying to draw ou the emotions. Its fucking cheap. I seriously don't care about the hobbits. I watched those films to see orc smashing. And there's a fucking ALOT of orc smashing and killing in ROTK. And its awesome. But the film just fucking BEATS you over the head with sentimentality at the end, trying desperately to make the audience care for the entire journey. And it doesn't work. Its too drawn out. Its too fucking long. It kills the momentum of the flick, and it hurts the film in the end. And everybody hates it. (aside from a few hardcores here and there) I totally agree with S.Tasty about the ending should have been editited much tighter. You see, this is how I think the ending should have gone. ---RING FALLS INTO MOUNT DOOM ---FRODO AND SAM PASS OUT ON THE EDGE OF MOUNT DOOM, MINUS THE SAM "Gee, I hope I marry that ugly broad in Hobbiton" talk. --EGALES PICK THEM UP --ARAGON IS CROWNED KING, MINUS THE SINGING AND THE KISS WITH LIV TYLER, THE SCENE IS EDITED DOWN TO HIS SPEECH AND THE KNEELING TO THE HOBBITS ---CUT TO HOBBITS IN HOBBITON, SHARING A BEER ---CUT TO FRODO GOING ON THE BOAT ---FADE OUT TO WHITE FROM THE BOAT GOING OUT TO SEA Well, the editing would make it smoother, but if all that crap was cut out from the theatrical release, would you have missed it? Would you have missed a three minute scene where the fucking hobbits were humping frodo on the bed and Sam walks in and they share and extremely silent gay moment between each other? simple answer: Hell no. Its needlessly drawn out and it hurts the film in the end. There is some extremely cool shit, but the ending is like getting your fucking teeth pulled. I realize its not a three hour flick, its a nine hour flick ---- but dammit, ROTK is still an individual flick. It has to stand on its own merits, not in the context of the other two films. Its all about the three and a half hours you're going to invest in that theatre. And by the end, it doesn't feel fullfilling, it feels like punishment. I know alot of people on the Internet may disagree, but the Internet is not the general moviegoing public. And from what I've sampled of people who are my friends and just in "real" life, they all think the ending is bullshit and drawn out. And I agree with them. So, back to my main point: walk out when Frodo says "Its over, its done." You'll be much happier and the film will seem alot better if you hadn't stuck around for 25 minutes. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-31-2003, 03:50 PM	#3
Ensoul Apocalyptic Poster Location: New Jersey Posts: 4,245	I walk home and back so it didn't matter for me.

12-31-2003, 05:17 PM	#5
wounded Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 3,773	he should have just picked one ending. saved the same getting married stuff for the ee.

12-31-2003, 05:31 PM	#6
Injektilo twenty some years.... Location: the isle of the cheetah Posts: 5,066	yeah, i saw it last night. the end was horribly drawn out. the last 20 minutes were absolutly pointless. how fucking long does the goodbye need to be? and it was all in slow motion too!

12-31-2003, 05:41 PM	#7
DevilSaint Apocalyptic Poster Location: Not Here Anymore Posts: 1,612	I really didn't mind. They've said all along that this is essentially one big movie, so 30 minutes out of over 9 hours of movie (and thats not even including the extended editions) really isn't all that much.

12-31-2003, 05:48 PM	#10
relaxor! Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 3,688	Hahahaha, nobody was dying in any of the scenes!

12-31-2003, 05:49 PM	#11
wounded Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 3,773	it wouldn't have been that bad, but i had to piss bad. i just kept thinking, get on the fucking boat already. i guess it really didn't bother me though. i mean they did have to wrap things up a 9 + hour story

12-31-2003, 05:57 PM	#12
Ihaman Sometimes, though. Location: Hazard, California Posts: 21,274	I agree!

12-31-2003, 06:04 PM	#13
sawdust restaurants Fucking Creep Location: On the East Coast Posts: 5,992	I heartily disagree. One of the primary reasons for the success of the films is the fact that Peter Jackson, though visionary himself, in a big way stuck to Tolkein's tone, themes and characters (allowing for the occasional lapse for the sake of making a movie adaptations). The ending is long, yes, but it's not drawn out; if anything, it feels more like an homage to the creator of the epic as opposed to a needlessly melodramatic denouement. Half of the third book comprises the tying up of loose ends; I think 30 minutes at the end of a three-and-a-half hour movie is more than suitable and feels like a fitting end as well as a tip of the cap to Tolkein.

12-31-2003, 06:15 PM	#16
Esty Netphorian of the Decade Location: Waiting in line for his geranium kiss Posts: 15,478	I didn't think it was that bad. It sure didn't seem like 20/30 minutes of filler to me. It was fine.

12-31-2003, 10:33 PM	#18
morphinebitch Apocalyptic Poster Location: breathe out, so i can breathe you in Posts: 2,561	i gave up with the first. couldn't read it, can't watch it.

12-31-2003, 10:41 PM	#19
Hillzy Apocalyptic Poster Location: Posting Rules You may post new threads You may post replies You may post attachments You may edit your posts Posts: 4,184	My advice to anyone seeing this movie is to piss first. It doesn't matter if you don't need to go - just empty as much of your bladder as possible and squeeze every last drop of moisture out of your urethra, because by the end of the movie you will be absolutely busting to piss again.

12-31-2003, 11:38 PM	#21
strange_one No Chance Location: Here Posts: 13,788	the film ending was nowhere near as drawn out as the book ending

01-01-2004, 11:05 AM	#24
In-Valid Ownz Location: sitting on my hands Posts: 726	That was the consensus with the 4 other people I went to watch the movie with. Your back & arse will be a tad sore after the movie & god forbid you had to pee during the movie and didn't want to miss any scenes because your kidney's will be in dire straits afterwards. I also noticed more than a few people leave the theatre early & heard some complaints . I'm all for the ending as is + more for the DVD where you are in the comfort of your on home (nice comfy bed or couch, can pause movie to stretch, relax, take a drink, go to the washroom, etc) but in a movie theatre where the seats (even in the fancy new megaplexes) aren't exactly made for 3 hours plus sitting it will become a physical bother watching the final scenes playout.

01-21-2004, 12:11 AM	#25
wangcomputers Apocalyptic Poster Location: UK Posts: 4,058	i saw the movie yesterday, so i've only just read this thread. (spoiler evasion) but yeah, i pretty much agree that the ending was drawn-out. It wasn't the length of the movie that was the problem, but it's pace and balance. Throughout all three movies it's pretty evident that they're trying to squeeze in as much story as possible, and you can appreciate and become used to the speed of the scenes. But at the end it's crawls along at a snail's pace and is extremely eventless. While a drawn out ending may work in the books, as their length and detail is more deserved of an epic ending, it's disproportionately long in consideration for the movies themselves and it just doesn't work well in that context. And yeah, the goodbye scene is especially notable for that. I'm certain fans of the books like it, but for the mere movie-goers, it didn't feel there was enough to warrant that amount of sentimentality and appreciation purely for the hobbit characters. Anyway, it was still an enjoyable movie, but it also feels somewhat incomplete due to Saruman's absence.