Lord of the Rings, The: The Return of the King [Extended Cut, Special Edition]

Dam, i was hopeing for November but December is fine "not like we have a choice", should be great with 50 minutes of extra footage, can't wait for this to come out and complete the entrie trilogy " well except for the Hobbit.


Good Lord that would be hard to sit the hole time threw and watch all 3 movies of the Extended Version. but ya i am going to try it.

Um, Robert... I hate to call you on this, but this IS the entire trilogy. Trilogy means a grouping of three. ;)

Ya, Ya I meant that it would be great to OWN the entire 3 movie Trilogy of the Extended Edition's.
8)

"The Hobbit DVD" would round out a great trilogyEE.
"The Hobbit: EE DVD" would round out a great EE trilogyEE.

[ trilogyEE=4 ]...

I intend to pace myself...watch FOTR: EE DVD up to two weeks before, and TTT: EE DVD up to one week before, ROTK: EE DVD.

Wouldn't that be series and series EE? After all, the "LOTR" movies are a "trilogy", and four movies can't possibly constitute a trilogy, lol.

ya, but we will have to wait along time for the hobbit, till then I think 3 movies each almost 3 or mor hours long, will have to do.

Man I cant wait for this one. This is gonna to improve on the theatrical cut tremendously and I think that version is almost perfect. The blue box will look really nice sitting next to the green and red boxes from the previous sets.
Just a little heads up, New Line supposubly is going to announce the "official" release date Friday and the host of features that are gonna be on it.

hey i am new here i did not even know this site existed untill a couple of days ago! Just thought you would like to know Best buy is saying the official release date is December 7! thats better than what i have been reading someone told me or i read it somewhere that it was the 23 but i am glad it is comming out at the beggining the month instead of the end!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello!
Yeah me too! I'm a Lord of the Rings fan and am looking forward to this release.
I think the best releases of 2004 is ROTK:EE and Aladdin

yeah agree it will be the best release of 2004! CAN'T WAIT!!!!!!!!!!

Actually - if Peter Jackson and the crew of "LotR" went back and did "The Hobbit", the trilogy would techinically become a "Quadrilogy", like what they did with Alien - which although it was impressive, it was also somewhat misguided.

And for something really cool, check out this fan trailer to "The Hobbit". It really kicks and the music is "Requiem for a Dream" melody.

http://www.lathamfilms.com/hobbit.html

-C-

LOL @ this:

"Cast commentary also features dialogue between split-personality characters Gollum and Smeagol (Andy Serkis)!"

Ok so, when is this going to actually be available for pre-order? Are they going to wait until the day before? The last two were available for pre-order in May or earlier, so what's the deal with this one?

It will be available for pre-order on October 1st. Try clicking on the "Buy This DVD" button under the cover.

Check out the Gift Set version, I really like the Minas Tirth mini. Its awesome. I can't wait till Dec. for this. The Extended Editions of the previous two movies were well worth buying and I expect the same for this one.

finally the specs i just love taking the little books from the first two and comparing them to whats gonna be in RotK


i cant wait

In the new screenshots, can anyone tell me where Gandalf is standing?

I believe he's standing at the Grey Havens right before he leaves with Frodo, Bilbo, and the elves for the Undying Lands. I definately hope there's more added to that scene!

Yes, that's it! Thanks.

If anyone wants to see a preview for the Extended Edition, go to the official movie site (www.lordoftherings.net) and on the bottom left is a "New Video" square, click on it and enjoy!

8) 8)

that video clip rules8)8)8)

Doesn't it though? I think I've watched it way too many times already, it's just addicting! How the hell are we going to wait until December 14th???!

someone needs to invent a time machine

OK, you get working on the Flux Capacitor and I'll go on ebay motors and purchase a DeLorean...

I'll get on that project after I'm done feeding the dog. ;)

8)...These are rumored to be included:

Much MORE Denethor. Also, more Faramir, Meriry, and Eowyn. Boromir gets something extra.
The Corsairs - extended + more fighting
There's more about the history of Minas Tirith

Yeah, here's a link to a review by someone who's supposed to have seen the Extended Edition and all the extras:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1098845508

Haha! Is this Peter Jackson?

<img src=http://www.dvdtown.com/media/screenshots/big/12523_17.jpg>

Yep, and poor PJ meets his doom in this one

god damn am i looking forward to this. seeing the preview clip has just whetted my appetite even more.....get ready fans, its gonna be a beauty!

Thank you so much for the preview DVD Town! Best line: Billy Boyd "So when we have kids, not together of course (Gestures towards Dominique)... we can say 'look how beautiful I am!' (At this Domique turns round as if to say: 'what the hell are you saying?'" Oh, memories!

Hmmm,
Did PJ get a haircut and beard trim for that shot?;)

Eddie, in your review you mentioned that Lord of the Rings seems very drawn out for a story that only spans a "few months". In actuality, the story actually takes place over a little more than a year. So looking at it in that sense the story doesn't seem drawn out at all. Understand that for all intents and purposes, Middle Earth is HUGE and for a good chunk of the time many of the characters are travelling on foot. A year and a few months is very feasible considering the land mass and the mode of transportation the characters use.

I cringed when I discovered that the review I would be reading of Return of the King: EE is being written by Eddie. Criticism is a good thing, especially in art like film, but it just seems to me he too much enjoys tearing movies apart. Not only that, but reviews are the opinion of one person. This does not come across in Eddie's reviews, seeming that he believes his opinion IS fact. I know reviews are subjective by nature, but a good review should have objective AND subjective parts clearly differentiated. Just my two cents.

Actually, all reviews are subjective. The only objective parts would be undeniable facts (such as who directed a movie, who acted in it, etc.). Plus, you contradict yourself by saying that I'm both subjective and that I think that I'm objective (when in fact I'm the first to admit that every review is subjective). An entirely "objective" review would be nothing more than plot synopsis.

I don't enjoy tearing apart movies. When I love a movie, I say it. When a movie wastes my time, I feel despair about my time being wasted--no pleasure at all is derived from watching movies that I don't like. Besides, it's not my fault that the vast majority of movies are not excellent.

Dargon,

There've been two-hour movies with stories that span decades, and because of the breadth of their coverage, I didn't feel as if I were watching the same things over and over again. However, like I wrote, I got tired of watching the same small band of heroes killing thousands of bad guys. It's repetitive and annoying. I know that Legolas is a skilled warrior--one demonstration is sufficient.

Eddie

I think Eddie gave 7/10 more than it deserves. This movie is nothing by a sequential battle mess. There are some truly great scenes in the movies no doubt about it but 4 hours is a waste. This review honestly expresses what I felt after seeing it in theaters last year. The only thing I got from the movie - battles!. It is also good Eddie gave it a 7 rather than 10 because we see the flaws with the movie which otherwise is considered to be flawless.

Those who do, do. Those who do not preach. Think about it.

This is a terrible review. You're giving too much of your opinion and not enough of what new things are in the movie. Your reasons for not liking it are painfully typical anyway. Im so tired of people saying they don't like how long it is.

If you thought the first was too long, you should have found someone else to review the EE.

As much as I tend to disagree with Eddie, I feel that he makes a valid point in stating that all reviews are based on the personal opinion of the reviewer. In that sense, it actually makes it easy to discern whether you would like the movie or not, given the reviewers taste. So for all the ripping and shreading Eddie does to this movie, it just lets me better realize how much I love it. And I will end with a double contradiction, or a paradox, or a conundrum, or whatever the hell it's called: "If you don't like the way the film was done: do it yourself! Or don't watch it." yet at the same moment "If you don't like the way the review was written: write it yourself! Or don't read it." Think about it, you're criticizing his criticism... does it really matter that he didn't like it? Will you like it less because the film didn't attain a 10?

And I thought the purpose of a review was to give an opinion, otherwise, what have you got?

Although I liked the film quite a bit more than Eddie did (or at least I liked the regular theatrical version; I haven't seen the extended version yet), I can understand all of Eddie's criticisms. It is a long movie and there is definitely some redundancy. But it's still pretty close to the book as I remember it, and it's still the grandest epic to come along in years. I'm looking forward to a long weekend of watching all three extended versions back-to-back. (OK, I doubt Eddie would want to sit through such an ordeal, but, Eddie, if you're reading this, you're invited).

As a movie reviewer, I also sympathize with other reviewers who get the same criticisms leveled against them that are leveled occasionally against me. Namely, if you didn't like the movie, why did you review it? And why didn't you let someone who did like the movie review it? And you don't like anything. And you're a good reviewer and you wrote a good review when I agree with it, and you're a terrible reviewer and you wrote a terrible review when I don't agree with it.

You can see the fallacies in each of these criticisms. Yet they're repeated over and over. As Eddie says, reviews ARE subjective; they're opinions. The "good" or the "bad" of a review should not be in the actual opinion but in how well the opinion is explained and supported. That's where Eddie's reviews are always good. I don't always agree with him, but I always grasp why HE believes what he does.

John

John,

The best is the "Those who can--do; those who can't--teach" mantra. I don't want to make movies--this doesn't mean that I can't make them or want to teach others how to make movies. Specifically, I've always wanted to watch and write about movies, plain and simple--I hate the moviemaking process, and I'm much too quick-tempered to be a good teacher.

Then again, what else can we expect from people who think that people who disagree with their likes/dis-likes are "mean"?

Eddie

Do you think in the Future, hopefully not to far from now, we will ever get a straight answer about if the Hobbit will be made or not. If so, that would sure be nice, and if it does happen I still think along with many other people that the only person who could do it would be Peter Jackson

Ya, I know it is also about the legal aspects, but you would think with the amount of money they made with the first 3 movies they would finally do the beginning Book.

Stop picking on my friend, Eddie. It's not his fault he has bad taste. He was just born that way. You don't make fun of Stephen Hawking for not being able to run the Boston Marathon, do you?

Chris,

I do, but it's only because I have absolutely no social tact.

I agree with Eddie that this movie was redundant, and I found myself checking my watch several times when I saw RotK theatrically, and I'm not really sure that this version will improve the problems I noticed which resided in the editing (some scenes were rushed, others seemed to linger past the point they were interesting, such as battles). The movie just kept going when I was hoping for a resolution.

The extended versions of both the first LotR films enhanced my enjoyment of them and I'm hoping for the same when my copy of Return of the King arrives in the mail, Eddie be damned.

Justin,

Dude, if the 3.5-hour theatrical cut tested your patience, then imagine what the 4-hour cut will do to you. ;)

Eddie

Robertw7373,

The amount of money made by the "LOTR" cycle is actually something that'll prevent "The Hobbit" from being made--everyone with a piece of the legal action will want a large slice of the profits pie, which will cripple the production.

Now, had Warner bought MGM, then the vast majority of rights would've been in one hand. Instead, the rights are split up between the two lead rivals in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray format war, so we can all kiss "The Hobbit" good-bye for at least the next ten years.

Eddie

It's not the whole me I'm worried about, it's my poor bladder!!

I don't know about you guys, but i'm really scared.

Thank's Eddie that's a good point, But I sure hope you are wrong about this one..

That would suck waiting a good couple of years.

Eddie,

I respect your review, I really do, and I agree with some of your points. But, honestly, without trying to begin a flame war, I disagree that people in Hollywood ???did not connect with the actors in ???LOTR??? and did not find themselves wholly engaged with the story.??? Firstly, I think this is because it is a movie without leads. It is an ensemble piece and it is a shame the Academy does not recognize them (much more useful than Original Song). Secondly, LOTR has won three very prestigious acting awards for outstanding performance as a cast, with honours from the NBR, SAG (beating out Mystic River) and the BFCA. One of these groups, SAG, has many more members than AMPAS. This is not to mention individual awards for Sir Ian McKellen and Sean Astin by reputable associations such as BAFTA. The Oscars are not the sole indicator as to whether a film engages its audience-in or out of the Hollywood circle. The aforementioned awards are a testimony to that and I think just mentioning the Oscars does not paint the entire picture. Thirdly, not being able to ???connect with the actors??? is something separate from not being ???engaged with the story.??? I think awarding the screenwriters the Best Screenplay Oscar must mean that they are engaged with the story. And, yes, you could argue that the win was only because they were able to successfully pull it off with unimaginable box office success, but even this qualifies that they were ???engaged with the story.??? Unless of course you???d like to argue that you???re talking about an ???emotional engagement,??? in which case, I don???t think you have the telekinetic ability to judge the emotions of AMPAS members. Good review though! (and just for old time sakes, can we expect a review from John?)

Actually, the pattern has been:
1) John and I review the theatrical releases.
2) I review the extended editions.

This maintains a consistency of view across the entire series.

As for ensemble acting...the actors in "Mystic River" got singled out individually even though the movie would not have worked had everyone not been uniformly excellent. This goes for other movies like "The English Patient", "American Beauty", "Shakespeare in Love", etc.--all movies with more than a handful of important parts and all movies with more Oscar acting nominations than three "LOTR" movies combined.

I'm aware that the Oscars aren't the only awards given for acting. However, bear in mind that I was specifically talking about the Oscars and wasn't making a blanket statement about every acting award under the sun. As for my comments about "emotional engagement", it is a well-known fact that (American) Oscar voters tend to vote for actors who affect them emotionally or who emote mightily. This has been seen throughout decades of Oscar voting (how else to explain why so many winners have huge crying fits in their movies?).

The SAG ensemble award is that guild's equivalent of a "best picture" honor, so a win in that category has the potential to be mis-leading or to be mis-understood. Also, it's true that there are more actors in SAG than there are actors in the AMPAS, but again, I was talking about the AMPAS and not actors in general.

posters5
**I also hated the way the witch king was sent packing.
**I believe you are way too pessimistic about "The Hobbit" being made. (Or maybe you would rather it not be made at all?).;)
Rivals are always putting their differences aside for common goals. (ex.: Satlin, Roosevelt, & Churchill--Reagan & Bush--Kerry & Edwards--Spock & McKoy--Frodo & Gollum)
**>>>"...(how else to explain why so many winners have huge crying fits in their movies?). "<<<
Not to mention all the huge crying fits during the Oscar "speeches".
**I believe the EE's are much better and expect the same the third time around. For ROTK, I expect Sauraman to be worth the wait (although it should have been at the end of TTT theatrical). Also the "paths of the dead" should be more like the book. The other chapters look good too.

mra,

i don't mind a movie adaptation of "the hobbit" being made. however, time warner (which owns new line) is in the hd-dvd camp, and sony (which is buying mgm, which owns the adaptation rights to "the hobbit") is in the blu-ray camp. this is a very bitter issue, and these companies would have to agree on a next-gen optical disc format first before they'd be willing to collaborate on any more movies. remember--billions are at stake given the movies that already have been made, but movies yet to be made (like "the hobbit") are speculative at best in terms of profitability.

eddie

I agree with many of your points Eddie, great review really... The way I think about the Extended editions is that we get more of what should have been included (for instance Faramir and Eowyn), instead of all the fighting, and Arwen...

By the way, what do you think about "the Mouth of Sauron", outside the Black Gates?

I still want to see "The Hobbit" done as a 10-part miniseries like "Band of Brothers" on HBO. Done like that, it would be perfect.

The "Mouth of Sauron" sequence is cool only for the part about the heroes seeing Frodo's armor, but it is still redundant. We already know that Sauron has managed to make Aragorn feel some amount of despair and fear, but the EE shows that at least three times (when Aragorn touches one of the glass balls, for instance)!!! This after it's been shown that Sauron has made EVERYONE feel despair and fear. Like I wrote elsewhere, I got the point, so let's move on...

there is always the option to not watch this movie, please be aware of that fact.

Onijay,

Thank you for being the master of the obvious.

Eddie

It's what I don't get paid for ;)

Thought the Comment's were going to about a movie soon to be released, not about one person's review and if it was or was not something you liked, I enjoy reading his (Eddie's) comment's but I along with a few other people are the only one's who relize it is an review on the mind of Eddie, which is not written is stone, just get of the back of Eddie and his personal review.

re: Blue Ray and HD DVD
If they see profit$ from "The Hobbit" they should be able to agree on something like putting it out on both formats, or just one with some compensation.
[Britain and France had to compromise on many things to make the chunnell train a go.]

I completely agree with Eddie's review of the LOTR: ROTK extended edtion. Actually, since I have yet to see the extended version of the film, I can't quite say that. But I can say that I agree with the comment that the Fellowship of the Ring is the best film of the three. There are many reasons for my opinion. First of all, Gandalf was much better when he was "Grey." Ian McKellen was more full of life than he was in the Two Towers and the Return of the King. He was more human, more like Obi-Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. Secondly, Frodo was optimistic about his journey to destroy the ring...and so was Sam. I understand that "things have changed along the way--of course they're more depressed", but that doesn't mean I have to ENJOY their depression. I mean, come on--when Sam says something along the lines of "Mister Frodo, save some food for the jouney home," and Frodo looks at his friend with bloodshot eyes and sullenly says "Sam, I really don't think there will be a journey home," that doesn't exactly boost the viewer's morale. It's better when Frodo, in The Fellowship of the Ring, VOLUNTEERS for the job of taking the Ring to Mordor. Just a thought.
The marketing for ROTK was terrible. This may seem irrelevant, but it is not; marketing sets up a viewer's entire attitude towards a film, and ROTK set up the entirely WRONG attitude for me. The worst part of it all was that the tagline for the film was "The Journey Ends." It's awful. A marketing campaign should not, in my opinion, inform the viewer that "It's all over. It's the end." That makes them feel unexcited to see the film. "The Journey ENDS." Would anybody see a movie called "The End" or "This is It--It's OVER!"??? I think not. Also, the trailer was bad. The Two Towers' trailer had been EXCELLENT; the best action/adventure preview I've ever seen. The music (which was Howard Shore's riff on his previously written theme song for Requim For a Dream) that played with it was perfect--it was ANTICIPATORY. It was a preview of things to come. The Return of the King preview was just the opposite (and just like its tagline)--it didn't excite. Instead, it exuded a feeling of finality, like the film was already over. The ROTK preview felt like the celebratory advertisement for a film AFTER it's won all its Oscars. It felt, sounded, and looked like it was congratulating the stars, director, and everybody else on a job well done. The truth is that the movie WASN'T over!--It hadn't even begun showing in theaters yet! In my opinion, it was the worst way to build up to the theatrical release.

The Fellowship of the Ring, to get back to my main point, was and is a perfect example of excellent BALANCE between action and character development. The Two Towers was all buildup, which is good for a movie like The Passion of the Christ, but that was under two hours and the Two Towers was over three. The Two Towers was also the most boring of the three. It featured the least character development (and no, just because characters TALK a lot, wait around a lot, and look at each other meaningfully does not mean it constitutes character development) and the most "slow scenes." In the Fellowship of the Ring, there were no "slow scenes," at least in my opinion. The dialogues were all important and interesting because they MOVED THE STORY FORWARD. Also, as I previously stated, the sense of optimism exuded by not just Frodo, but by the very way Peter Jackson directed it, was crucial to the optimism of the audience. In the Two Towers, the first time we see Frodo and Sam they look like they've just gotten out of drug rehab and have now turned to alcohol instead. In the Two Towers, I was not moved emotionally either. The most moving moment in all three LOTR films was in the Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf plunges to his death (which the Two Towers later "continued" as a mere action sequence). That gave me the biggest feeling of sadness I've ever felt during all three films. I think it was because Frodo, who was full of hope, had lost his mentor--much like, as I mentioned earlier, Obi-Wan Kenobi was lost to Luke Skywalker in A New Hope. But Star Wars didn't play into the emotional part of it as much as The Fellowship of the Ring did.
--Plus, the acting in the Fellowship of the Ring was the best of the three LOTR films. (although Sean Astin should have been nominated for ROTK)

And I'm spent!

I agree with everything you sai except for the theatrical campaing for ROTK. I thought it was adequate and suitable. What else are they supposed to say? See you next year for another installment? By telling you the journey was ending, you realized this would be your last adventure with these characters that you had come to know and love. And it's not like saying the journey is ending is a surprise to anyone. The books have been out for 50 years, we know that the trilogy ended with three installments, that's why they called it a TRILOGY. If anything, riff about the Matrix Revolutions tagline, all they do is point out some extraneous crap that everyone knows from real life, although the ending of something is always the beginning of another, so nothing ever truly ends, merely leasds way to something else. Anyway, "the journey ends" is a simple, yet efffective way of revealing to everyone how things are gonna go down in this movie, everything will be tied up and resolved. I've got some more arguements for this debate, just not yet, in the meantime :@...

Eddie, about you not contradicting yourself, how's this? In you r review of LOTR:TTT you complained about the cutting away from battles to other scenes(Helm's Deep then to the Ents). Then in your review of ROTK you complain of the focus staying on the battles. Is there no satisfying you? Just say you hate LOTR. Come on you know you do. Don't have the rest of us coming up with more stuff to say to your comments. Just say it already

Legolas,

The editing problems in "LOTR 2" are not the same as the editing problems in "LOTR 3". In "LOTR 2", the edits cut away from scenes just as things were getting interesting. In "LOTR 3", we get interminable blobs of fighting, fighting, and fighting.

Why should I admit to hating "LOTR" when I enjoyed "LOTR 1"? I rated "LOTR 3" a "7", which is above average, and I even enjoyed some moments in "LOTR 2".

Besides, I'm not making you say anything; you're more than welcome to contribute constructive comments or to stay away from DVD Town--no one is making you do anything.

Eddie

So, now that several fanboys are finished bashing Eddie for his well-written review that clearly supports the reason that he gave this DVD a "7," a better than average rating I might add, does anyone have any gripes about the DVD itself. All the extras worth it, or is it overkill? From personal experience, I would kind of like a set similar to the Theatrical Releases' extras with the Extended Edition cuts of the movie. If I want to know this much about Middle Earth, I'll read the books...

Sean (actually...that's not true...reading is highly overrated what with all the learning and all...) ;)

Sean,

Actually, the extras are very comprehensive and worth a look, even for casual fans like me. However, like you, I like the extras that were on Disc 2s of the theatrical cuts.

Eddie

Well, it's not like we're on VHS stuck on one track, you can choose what you want to view and what not to.

I would rather want the option of choosing from a multitude of extras, than not getting enough

And I would rather just watch the damn movie! ;)

Tim

Eddie,
I guess for me it's just a bit too much at times. The first two Extended Editions are so imposing with all of their extras that it's been not just difficult, but downright impossible for me to get through them all. When I got the Fellowship 2-disc, I was able to whiz through the supplements no problem, but I haven't been able to bring myself to watch all of what's included on the EEs.

Ben and Tim,
Me, I'm a supplement hound, but sheesh, these movies have as many appendices as the books! Just a bit daunting for me in this case.

Sean (we won't talk about all the other kinds of hound I am...)

You guys forgot the two "The"s on the title. The previous two DVD sets has "The"s on their titles. Just wanna be consistent here. :@ (And yes. The movie is too long.)

This is probably the biggest and most popular DVD set this year, other than The Matrix set that will take up 20 years of your life to watch. Anyway, now that there has been a big budget production of The Lord of the Rings, it would be cool if a little later on down the road some independent film studio decides to remake it, knowing that it won't be as close to the books or these Peter Jackson films, thus taking liberty with the characters and story to make it more interesting.

"You guys forgot the two "The"s on the title. The previous two DVD sets has "The"s on their titles. Just wanna be consistent here." --Poseur

Thanks much, Poseur.

John

Now that the last of the Extended Editions is out, taken as a whole, it plays less like a movie trilogy and more like an epic 12 hour cinematic miniseries. And a pretty damned good one at that.

All the scenes I sorely missed in the original cut are in this edition. Most notably the downfall of Saruman, the Mouth of Sauron, and Gandalf vs. The Witch King.

The latter scene finally follows through on the Witch King's line, "I will break him," which should have been deleted from the original cut if they weren't going to show the battle between them.

Yes, it is long. Yes, certain scenes are redundant. Yes, casual fans of the films may end up begging for the thing to end. But keep in mind that these extended editions are made primarily for fans of the books.

As a huge fan of the books I would love it if Jackson went back and filled in the two most glaring omissions: Tom Bombadil and The Scouring Of The Shire. But I know that won't happen and I'm quite satisfied with the final result.

The Scouring would probably add another 40 minutes, at least. That would be getting near the 5 hour mark. I would love it, but that is too much for most people.