The Lord Of The Rings Theatrical Version That’s Better Than The Extended

By Michileen Martin | Published

return of the king

The Lord of the Rings has had a huge influence on my life since I first read the trilogy at the age of 11. But while I prefer the extended editions of most of Peter Jackson’s Tolkien films to the theatrical versions, and as much as I know many fans will find what I have to say sacrilege (at the very least, I know the late Christopher Lee would disagree with me), there is one film in Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy that was better as it appeared in the theater—I’ll take the theatrical version of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King over the extended edition any day.

The Length

It’s a predictable argument but that doesn’t render it any less relevant—the extended edition of The Return of the King takes an already bladder-killing 3+ hour long film and turns it into a 4 hour monster.

When you’ve got a film that’s long enough to make the Russo Brothers say “okay, maybe you should trim a bit,” maybe accept that 3 hours is enough.

Sure, it’s different if you’re watching the extended edition of The Return of the King at home. You can pause and play as you like. And if you’re like me and you’ve seen the thing a few dozen times already, you may not even bother pausing since you can probably recite the whole thing by memory and so can afford to miss a shot or two.

But what no one could ever convince me of is that the extended version of The Return of the King is the version that should have screened when the film was originally released (which is precisely why Jackson himself insisted on calling them “extended” rather than director’s cuts, because the latter suggests they were the version he would’ve preferred, which isn’t the case).

I remember seeing the theatrical version for the first time on the big screen and wondering, as the armies approached the Black Gate, if I’d be able to stop myself from going to the men’s room until the end. Add an hour to that and it just wouldn’t have been fair.

The Theatrical Version Rightly Hides Poor Decisions

return of the king

When it comes to extended editions of the other two films, I treasure just about every extra scene and shot that was added, but I tend to feel the exact opposite for much of what was added to The Return of the King.

Perhaps the best example of this is the confrontation between the Witch King of Angmar and Gandalf during the Siege of Minas Tirith.

In the extended edition of The Return of the King, just before the epic Ride of the Rohirrim, Gandalf and Pippin are trying to reach the mad Denethor when the Witch King lands in front of them. The Nazgul unsheathes a fiery sword which unleashes a power that, all on its own, smashes Gandalf’s staff to pieces.

Not only does this not happen in the source material, but in the book after Gandalf learns that Eowyn is dying after her battle with the Witch King, he regrets that he wasn’t the one to face the Nazgul, believing he may have been meant to do so.

And before you quote the “no man can kill him” rule, that’s true. But in Tolkien’s mythos, wizards aren’t like they are in Harry Potter—humans who learn magic. Wizards are angelic beings and so aren’t “men” in the sense that they aren’t human. In that sense Gandalf is just as much “no man” as Eowyn is, and likely could’ve defeated the Witch King.

It would be one thing to have Gandalf and the Witch King have an epic clash in the extended edition of The Return of the King that Gandalf ultimately might lose (while surviving). But to have his staff destroyed just by the other dude pulling out his sword? No—give them a real fight or just skip it altogether.

Little Hairy Women

return of the king

Maybe I’m in the minority but I think the drinking contest in the extended edition of The Return of the King is just kind of dumb, which is probably why it didn’t make the theatrical cut.

It just tries too hard and it doesn’t make sense. When Gimli drunkenly says “the dwarfs go swimmin’…with little hairy women!” Well, yeah. Dwarf women are hairy. If you’re a dwarf, why would you point it out?

Kind of like in The Two Towers when Aragorn calls out, “Legolas, what do your elf eyes see?” Why are you reminding him he’s an elf? What other eyes would he be using? Has all the running made you stupid? Take a break. Have a coffee.

Confusing Additions

Some of the additions to the extended edition of The Return of the King seem so thoroughly unnecessary that when I first saw it, I wondered if they actually didn’t have anything worthwhile to “extend” and just threw in whatever they could think of.

For example, very early in the film, the scene in which Merry and Pippin are reunited with Aragorn, Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas is extended just enough to make it feel downright weird.

We get just a bit more dialogue between Merry and Pippin before the others show up, with the Hobbits reminiscing about the Shire. It does nothing but make the scene a little bit longer and render the pacing a whole lot more awkward.

I’m Not Saying There Isn’t Good Stuff

I’m not saying there isn’t good stuff in the extended edition of The Return of the King. It’s good to see Merry swear loyalty to Theoden, to see Saruman get a proper conclusion to his story, the Mouth of Sauron is perfect, and there’s some great extra shots in the Siege of Minas Tirith.

But while there isn’t a single extra scene or shot I would take out of the extended editions of the other Lord of the Rings films, when Jackson extended The Return of the King, he gave us far too much of a mixed bag.