LOTR Return of the King with intermission?

[Federico Dib]

I just saw that movie... and in the most inapropiate time and scene, and with a very abrupt cut... they threw in an intermission.

It was so ugly that made me wonder if this is happening worldwide or is it just around here?

I find it very annoying, and actually got me angry... I mean, most theaters these days are very comfortable seats(even for me, that I get severe back pains if not properly seated)...

- If you can´t stop smoking for three hours.. then don´t go to the movies (if you have ever been to Spain, you´ll know why I wrote this point)
.
- And the bathroom excuse.. well I don´t buy it.. when you travel by bus most of the times the first stop is way past the third hour...

So I don´t see why the intermission...

Well just got it out... I feel lighter allready...

[Nicholi Brossia]

I saw it a couple weeks ago, and there wasn't an intermission. 3 1/2 hours straight... hope I didn't get any of those "sit still for too long" blood clots ;).

[Alex Taylor]

I've heard of theatres doing that.. but they didn't do it when I saw it, luckily.

I remember a few years ago when we were watching "The World is Not Enough" (in the same theatre, actually) and there was an impromptu "intermission" two-thirds of the way through when the projector broke down.

[Rob Lohman]

Here in my city one of the theatres always plays movies without
intermission (thank them for that). So I'm always going to that
theatre. The only movies they do have an intermission I think is
with the children movies in the afternoon.

Great service! Just saw LoTR: ROTK last night (first time, great
movie) without any intermission at all. Yeah!

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

There is no intended intermission in Return of the King... so either your projector broke down, or your theater's projectionist follows Spanish business hours* and forgot to switch the reel over, prompting a delay...

*14:00 to 15:00 every third Thursday.

[Federico Dib]

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : There is no intended intermission in Return of the King... so either your projector broke down, or your theater's projectionist follows Spanish business hours* and forgot to switch the reel over, prompting a delay...

*14:00 to 15:00 every third Thursday. -->>>

Oh no..

It was not a broken projector (I´ve seen too many of those.. but that should be in another thread in another forum where I can swear my heart out without being deleted or banned)...

this guys inteded it... after the black cut.... on screen appeared "DESCANSO" (that´s REST in spanish)...
And everyone who has seen it here has had the intermission...

If I was the director and saw it.. I´d probably had a heart attack or some kind of seizure...

And I´m pretty sure the intermission is not there because of the kids excuse..
I saw the movie around 9:30 P.M. on a tuesday, so that´s no time to take a kid to a movie on school day.

Well I keep hearing around here "Spain is different".. well they sure are...

[Joe Gioielli]

Some theatres did indeed have an "intermission." YIKES! What is this world coming too.

Mine didn't and we seemed to manage ok. The only grumbles I heard were from people grousing about the "mini endings" but I think even that was bogus. Folks just heard some movie critic comment on it so they thought they should too. I didn't have a problem. It was a big story with many pots lines to be resolved. Big deal.

Good film.

[Rob Lohman]

I didn't even a problem with the ending either. Though it wouldn't
have minded if they cut the latest bit with Sam walking to his
house, I thought the piece before that would have been a bit
better to close on. But hey, I ain't no Peter Jackson.

[Joe Gioielli]

Interesting, Rob. I agree. I didn't really care for the "home and harth" shot. It can off a little hokey. The baby hobbits with the rubber feet, just a little much. But I guess that was Tolkien's point. Home, family, furry feet.

The scene I really wanted to change was when they go to the Prancing Pony. They walk in, detached and removed from all of the other's who have little or no idea of what has happened. Sit down, drink their beer with each other. Great. Then Sam gets all hot in the pants for Rosie (I think) and all the lads chuckle. I really didn't want that. I felt it killed the scene.

Maybe hobbits don't have existential moments. But I really wanted Frodo to have his.

Sad to say I identify with the poor little guy. No, I've never had to do battle with the forces of evil, but I've had some interesting moments. You go, take care of some goahawful task that changes you forever, and you friends think you can get back into the "Lets go drink 'buttery nipples' at Club Ovo." life. I wanted to see Frodo chain smoke a pack of Marlboros and smash up the garbage tip out back.

Forget about it, Frodo. It's Hobbiton.

[Michael Wisniewski]

Yeah the ending was a little disjointed. It suffered a lot from the omission of the Hobbit uprising.

In the book, the Hobbits come back to the Shire and have to combat one last evil. But they skipped it in the movie so we never get see them bring their experiences/knowledge back to their own land/country.

Hopefully, they'll add it to the extended version.

Re: Intermission:
I don't think an intermission is a bad thing, as long as they warn you ahead of time and cut at a reasonable spot in the story.

But, if they cut right in the middle of a battle scene and switch on the lights, I can see how that would be really annoying.

[Chris Hurd]

Like Michael, I would like to have seen the missing "Scouring of the Shire" chapter but I don't think it was even filmed. According to the Dec/Jan issue of Premiere magazine, the "LOTR special" with the four hobbit actors on the cover, Dominic Monaghan talks about it a little bit. They were all eager to do that sequence, but in a meeting with Jackson, they were convinced that with the quest of the Ring being the focus of the movie, extending the running time past the final objective (the ring, in which the audience is invested) would confuse the audience. He said, "you can't take them through three films and have the final destiny of the ring resolved and then expect to keep them involved for another 40 minutes." So I guess there comes a point where literary accuracy is forsaken for the realities of the modern collective moviegoing experience.

[Rob Lohman]

I haven't read the books, yet... So I don't know what all of this
is with evil in the shire. If someone can shoot me an e-mail about
that would be great.

I didn't have too much problems with the "drinking scene", but
I can see your points, Joe.

Actually I don't think intermission is acceptable with any movie.
A movie is just not meant to be such a broken viewing experience,
especially for the first run. It can only work (in my mind) with
movies without almost any story or movies that were designed
around this break (interesting idea), which probably only Quentin
Tarantino could get away with <g>.

[Chris Hurd]

Rob, from an obscure online reference:

"The last battle is fought, Aragorn is crowned King of Rohan and the Hobbits all return home.

But when they return to the Shire, they discover that Saurman has come there and taken up residence. He has enslaved the hobbits and trashed Hobbiton. Saruman's power is weak, the Hobbits could have defeated him, but they bow to his will and let him "push them around" with his thugs. Hobbits aren't fighters by nature unless they are GREATLY roused, and Saruman's takeover was gradual and insidious.

This is the point in the book where we see how much Merry, Pippin and Sam have been changed by their journey. They are no longer helpless meek hobbits. They rouse the populace and throw down Saruman and Grima... fight their thugs and toss the pair of them out of town... where in the rags of defeat, Grima stabs and kills Saruman.

That is the Scouring of the Shire.

This is in effect the final portion of Lord of the Rings, afterwards the hobbits settle down, Sam gets married, he and Merry and Pippin go on to do great things. Frodo is a broken hobbit though and forever damaged by the ring. In the end, he goes off to the Grey Havens and sails to the Undying Lands with the final Elves leaving middle earth."

I can understand why some people complain about the multiple endings. Watching the movie, I thought the whole thing could have ended the first time around with Frodo and Sam stuck on the side of the mountain with lava flowing all around -- "oh, but to see home one more time." But Tolkein was always careful to wrap up all the character's storylines, so you have about five or six linear endings there. I felt that Jackson could have gone just a bit farther in showing how Frodo was irreparably broken from the entire experience, and, between us, I could have used an intermission like the old days of "Ben Hur" and "Tora Tora Tora." But the flow works so much better without one, even though I can't hold a large Coke for that long.

Hope this helps without spoiling your reading,

[Rob Lohman]

Thanks for explaining that. The sauruman line was indeed not
wrapped up at all. I do know that in the extended edition there
will be a scene with sauruman at the beginning of the movie
(which they cut for length for the theatercal version).

Would've been interesting to see the last battle though. Although
I do find it a bit odd. Why would sauruman attack the hobbits at
all. He should know that he won't win that (since Frodo and the
rest of the fellowship just proved how strong they are).

I also thought about the same thing when Frodo & Sam where
sitting in the lava flow. I knew it would go on, but it wouldn't
have been a bad ending.

Funny thing: I just talked to a friend of mine a couple of hours
ago and we both didn't really understand why Frodo left to go
the Grey Havens. I understand that Frodo has deep scars, but
why does he go there specifically?

Oh well... it left a lot less thought over what happened then
The Matrix trilogy did. That's for sure!