Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King/Archive 1

Movies made at the same time in a series
The article says that the LOTR trilogy was the only movies where the installments were filmed at the same time.. Weren't Back to the Future II and III filmed simultaneously? Weren't Matrix Reloaded and Revelations filmed simultaneously? kona1611 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the article specifies that it is the only film trilogy, written and shot simultaneously. The Back to the Future and Matrix movies had their first instalment written and filmed separately, and because of their success, the two subsequent sequels were then produced and filmed simultaneously. I hope you see the difference. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian influence?
WHAT russian influence from Alexander Nevsky? Gondor is not inspired by MEDIEVAL RUSSIA, it is inspired by the Byzantine Empire! Read the Gondor wiki entry. The whole thing represents Byzantium: case in point, A)  the towers of Minas Tirith are capped with Byzantine-style domes and B) during the coronation scene, the noblewomen of Gondor are dressed in HEAVY Byzantine-style jewelry. This needs to be changed.


 * This is what you inserted (and I removed): [ This is blatantly wrong, Gondor is modeled on Byzantium, not Russia ]. If you can correct the article, just correct it. You are free to do so&mdash;that's how Wikipedia works! Although you were right to post about it here on the talk page as well&mdash;welcome! (Can you cite a source for this? That would be best.) I do find the Russia connection to be somewhat odd. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah  ")]] 22:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gondor is referred to by Tolkien as the "bulwark of the West", which was the rather well-known nickname for the Byzantine Empire. Everything else falls into place. Arnor is reflective of the lost Western empire. The angst about disunity and reunification reflects Europe's 1500 year long (and continuing) obsession with recovering the unity and order lost when Rome fall apart. -- Mark, 15 Dec 2006
 * This looks like OR. See Middle-earth. Uthanc 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Gondor looks like Byzantium, with Mordor as Turkey which overthrew the Byzantine Empire in 1453. The passage in the book about the Hobbit swearing fealty to Denethor sounds like the tale of the Varangian Guards, Vikings who came to Byzantium. Tolkien might be expected to have a soft spot for the Varangians in particular and Byzantium in general. HOWEVER, guys, Michael White's biography "Tolkien" (p. 204) says that Tolkien refers in a letter to Venice as "Gondor" and told a journalist that Mordor was "roughly in the Balkans". This is amazing, because Venice was the enemy (commercial rival) of Byzantium and instigated the sack of Byzantium in the 1204 Crusade.


 * Yeah, I think I messed up in conflating the Soviet influence on the film with the Byzantine influence on Gondor. Note, however, that medieval Russia is linked to Byzantium through the cultural influence and symbolism of the Eastern Orthodox Church; I think probably both eastern empires influenced the depiction in the film, if not in the book as well.  And IMO the influence of Eisenstein is still obvious in the RotK movie.  Particularly John Noble's Denethor is a dead ringer for Nikolai Cherkasov's Ivan the Terrible.  Battle scene similarities to Alexander Nevsky, particularly the horseback close-up sequences, are also striking.  If you watch these movies I think you'll see what I mean; I'm not too doubtful about it, but I suppose until some authority corroborates the note it doesn't belong in the article.  --Chinasaur

Sorry, it's just that few ever read the discussion page, and with the upcoming release of the DVD EE I felt it should be repaired as soon as possible. Sorry, should have gone in wiki order, etc., etc. I'm just going to delete most of that thing. Maybe the Denethor thing wasn't completely wrong; comparing the battle scens WAS wrong; that's like saying LOTR's monster scenes were based on those of Harryhausen; Jackson admited they were, but that guy's work was so pervasive that no monster movies made since then can claim they weren't influenced by it (i.e. you can't claim a slasher movie is directly inspired by "Pshycho" just because it's a slasher; if founded the genre, etc.)  Someone else needs to iron out this article though.

If the film's video release follows the pattern of the first two movies, the theatrical version will be released on VHS and a DVD featuring a bonus disc with behind-the-scenes material, in late August, 2004. This will be followed in November 2004 by a special extended edition featuring additional scenes. The DVD will be a 4-disc set with four sets of additional commentaries and many hours of additional behind the scenes footage and other special features. There will also be a de luxe edition in a large collectors' box containing a souvenir reproduction of some prominent object or character from the movie.

Again, Middle-earth. Uthanc 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dubious character?
The cast list includes: I can find neither the character nor the actor on Google or Yahoo, and the actor is not recorded on IMDB. Where has this entry come from? Phil 11:50, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * Ainariel Arnatuille: Bryna Bess


 * It was inserted in the edit at 0113 on 19 DEC 2003, by 66.76.99.242 -- note that this IP address has only ever been used to create the article on this "character" and edit the movies' entry to link to it. Note the actress name also cannot be found anywhere on Google. I am highly suspicious! Arwel 01:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * P.S. The article also claims that the movie states something about this character which I can flatly state (after having seen it twice) it does not. I'm not now suspicious of this entry, I'm convinced that it's false! Arwel 01:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * The only Google entry on Ainariel Arnatuille refers to you've guessed it the Wikipedia ROTK movie entry...
 * I noticed! That's why I've been bold and taken the line out of the cast list here -- I've left the main Ainariel Arnatuille article but it's on VfD so hopefully it'll get zapped sometime over Christmas. Arwel 01:16, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Removed the following from 'Cuts and alterations:


 * Faramir and Eowyn fall in love in the Houses of Healing, where they are recuperating from battle wounds; Merry may also be recuperating there from his hurt in stabbing the Witch King

As far as I could see in the movie, Merry and &Eacute;owyn (not wishing to be pedantic, but watch those accents, people) are BOTH present at the Last Battle at the Black Gate, which they weren't in the book. In the film, all of the six members of the Fellowship who travelled west (Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry and Pippin) end up at the climactic battle. Listen to the soundtrack: the final version of the Fellowship Theme plays out over the battle. Lee M 01:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, but during Aragorn's coronation, you can see Faramir and Eowyn together, so they must have fallen in love somewhere :) Adam Bishop 01:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * &Eacute;owyn is not present for the battle at the Towers of the Teeth. I feel confident in asserting (rather than suggesting) it based o 4 viewings of the movie, and the fact that &Eacute;owyn and Faramir's obvious couplehood at Aragorn's coronation suggests strongly that their blossoming love had to happen at some point....presumably when she enters the Houses of Healing.  I am going to watch the film for the 5th time tonight, and will try to pay attention on this point....if I see the Rohan warrioress, I will undo the change I made. Jwrosenzweig 01:52, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right, I'm wrong. (Damn.) &Eacute;owyn isn't in the final battle. Only took me 3 viewings to spot it. Lee M 02:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm very dubious about the poster illustration that's been included in the article today, it is without doubt copyright of New Line Cinema. Arwel 10:40, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I have always believed that movie posters, being publicity material, are fair use in that wherever they appear they give free publicity for the film, so the copyright owners are unlikely to oppose their use. Lee M 04:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well there is a market for selling movie posters, so that isn't completely correct. But the low res pic we have could never be made into a marketable poster, so I think it is fair use. --mav 03:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Then again, even a picture of a historic movie poster for sale in a catalogue serves to remind people of the movie, i.e. even when removed from its context it's still advertising. Lee M 18:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair use depends on the use. While it is most likely fair to illustrate an article with this image, it very well might not be fair to use the image by itself. --mav

I've attached a photo I took in Japan (Image:Return of the King (Tokyo).jpg). I'm releasing it under the GFDL, though I can't honestly say I am absolutely certain it does not contradict Japanese copyright laws. A-giau 00:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Days of the week
There is not really any significance to the fact that the Extended Edition is scheduled for release on a Tuesday (or whatever day it was&mdash;I've forgotten already). I removed several superfluous day of the week additions.

I left in a couple: First, Wednesday releases for films are, I think, still just barely unusual enough to be worth mentioning. Also, the reference to the box office results between the Academy Awards and a little later is marginally useful. Although on second reading, I'm thinking that may be superfluous as well. (And expanding the dates needlessly just makes them more difficult to read when strung into lists.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, DVDs are usually released on Mondays in Britain, but the ROTK extended edition came out on the Friday BEFORE its US release. Friday releases are unusual but not unheard of. Spider-Man 2 and the Harry Potter films also came out on Fridays in the UK. Lee M 19:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In that case, it's definitely worth commenting that it came out a week prior to its release in the U.S. (I'm not convinced that the day of the week for DVD releases is significant enough to mention, though. It's not the same as film releases. At least, I don't think it is. Are films usually released on Fridays in the UK?) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 19:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, my  copy of the DVD was posted from Jersey on 4 December, as sendit.com's email told me, but it didn't arrive at my house until the following Tuesday, (I was most annoyed as I was expecting to see it on the Monday!). Sarah -- the cinema week in the UK usually runs from Friday to Thursday, so yes, most films do appear on Fridays over here (absent early previews and suchlike -- ROTK of course appeared on the Wednesday). -- Arwel 22:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * With things like books and DVDs, there tends to be a bit of fuzziness about the actual release date. The official release date in the U.S. is the 17th, isn't it? If the official release is earlier in the UK, that's interesting (it's a U.S. film company, after all). The difficulty is that often individual stores will sell things before the official release date. I don't follow DVD releases, but it happens with books all the time. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 23:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I just checked the sendit.com site -- the official release date in the UK is the 10th. I was quite pleased to get my copy for £17.49, postage included, when the recommended price is £34.99. I see they've also issued a box set of all three extended editions for £43.99 (sendit) or £64.99 (recommended) -- apparently it's no. 4 on sendit's sales chart, while ROTK is no. 1; I'm surprised that there's anyone who's interested in the extended editions who doesn't already have the first two... -- Arwel 23:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New topic. "there is a scene after the Battle of Pelennor Fields, where Aragorn finds a Palantir in Denethor's cloak in the throne room and reveals himself to Sauron"

Surely the Palantir that Aragorn uses is the Orthanc stone, not Denethor's, which is not mentioned in the film.­
 * Does it specify where he finds it? (Maybe I wasn't paying attention.) It could theoretically be the one that Denethor had, but I imagine that movie-viewers are supposed to imagine that it's the one from Orthanc, since Denethor's hasn't been mentioned. --Aranel (" Sarah ") 03:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not in Denethor's robes, just in scraps of cloth like what Gandalf used to cover it at Edoras, etc. I think the assumption is that Gandalf left it there, but any scene of Aragorn telling the other to leave the room or of Gandalf giving it to him isn't in. But there's no hint at being in Denethor's robes.

Cuts/Alterations
Not nearly as important as the other sections of the entry. Could someone trim this down a lot?


 * I really don't understand why it's formatted as two different parts. One part as  books ;  movies , and the other as bulletized form. Maeglin Lómion 03:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * First I would ask you to not remove legitimate comments/questions by other people.
 * I agree with your comments about that section tho. It definitely needs some clean up. LG-&#29356;&#22812;&#21449; 03:21, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Length of extended edition: in the box it is stated as 251 minutes, in the first paragraph under Cuts/Alterations, it is 250 minutes - could someone who has the extended edition please correct the one that's wrong

article title
I want to bring to attention the fact that an anonymous user has requested a move for this article, as well as every other article pertaining to the trilogy (books and movies). I think that this article (and the other movie articles) should be named according to the full US release title (which includes the 'TLOTR:'), the books should stay at 'title (book)' and 'title' should remain a disambig. page to point people to the other articles. That way, anyone searching for 'The Return of the King', book or movie, can find the article they want, and the articles can be at the most accurate title possible. Lachatdelarue (talk) 18:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. Upon clicking on The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King i was redirected here, even though that name is the official' title of the film. - Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 06:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

politics
Didn't some people compare Denethor the Steward of Gondor to GW Bush?

grazon 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope.

Complaints
I found this section of the trilogy to be less objectionable than the others in that it avoided the gratuitous misrepresentation of characters from the original source material found in the other two movies. However, I really missed the scouring of the Shire. I thought that, as Elrond and Gandalf both felt that this was what the hobbits had been trained for, this should have been the climax of the film. The hobbits are very down-to-earth people who have been transported into a world of high fantasy and adventure. During their struggle to help the people of that world, they have learned a lot about their own capacities and their love for their homeland. Returning to the real world, they discover that some of the same problems they encountered in the fantasy world have analogies there, and they deal with them using their new skills and character strengths. The Shire is more "real" than the rest of the world, to hobbits. The outcome there was of incomparably greater importance to the average hobbit than any great doings in the world of men and elves. It should be important to us, the viewing public, as it was to the author, who described himself as a large hobbit. On another point, I thought it was quite odd that Minas Tirith, seemingly a great city, existed without any surrounding settlement at all. The Pelennor Fields around the town were just empty prairie. Where are all the people? Medieval cities needed nearby farmland inhabited by many times as many farmers as there were inhabitants in the city. If Minas Tirith is really based on Byzantium, then there ought to be room for millions of farmers in the vicinity to feed the hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. If, as I suspect, Minas Tirith is more like late imperial Rome, a once-great city with a declining population, there still ought to be many thousands of small farms surrounding the city, as well as a vibrant river port bringing in food from farther away. Tolkien didn't worry too much about economy and society in his myth-making but he wouldn't have gone to this extreme. The dwarves in Moria were fed from Eriador, the elves in Mirkwood from the Lake-men, and so forth. The interdependence between city and countryside is one of the basic themes of medieval life and of stories about it. The vast void around Minas Tirith in the film interfered with my suspension of disbelief (never very easy to sustain with these turkeys of films...) - Unsigned

I guess the talk page is not the place, but most of Gondor's population lived on the densely populated south coast, Minas Tirith, although the political capital, was just a fortified border outpost, hence the lack of people. I can't think of a perfect real world analogy, Brasilia, Washington DC during the Civil War, Jerusalem in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, maybe. In the book, Gondor keeps most of it's huge army on the coast to defend against the corsairs. --217.43.68.72 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Palantir
"In the theatrical version there is no explanation as to how the Palantír fell into the water." Actually, if you pay attention, after Saruman is impaled upon the spikes, as the wheel turns, the palantir falls from Saruamn's robes (he may have been holding it, I'll have to recheck my copy). Pippin notices the splash it makes. Perhaps this was one of the extended scenes? CFLeon 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That was indeed in the extended edition DVD, in the theatrical release (the version seen in cinema's and the first DVD release) there was no footage of Saruman's death or of the Palantir falling from his robes. Dan 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot way too detailed
This is a good example of some contributors going to extremes on the plot or synopsis sections of books or movies. Do you really need BOTH a plot and synopsis section? Just the bare outline is necessary; three or four paragraphs telling the main action (especially major deviations from the original source). Wikipedia is not really the proper venue to publish a novelization of the film, especially a current film that probably a majority of the readers have seen or at least are familiar with. Also, the deviations section dwells way too much on the release of the extended DVD without giving much info on the deviations themselves, unlike the sections for the previous two movies. I see that you have a separate page linked for this, but is it really necessary when the original section serves the purpose for the other two films? CFLeon 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind having long plots, though I agree that theres no reason to have separate plot and synopsis sections. -- Astrokey44 |talk 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Having copy-edited the Fellowship and Two Towers film articles, I can't believe how concise they were compared to this monster! I'd like to pare it down to a more manageable level, but at this point it's hard to see where to start... Chris 42 13:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well for a start, what to do with a synopsis that is anything but? The only part of it that relates to the plot is a list of highlights. This needs a very condensed version of the narrative, to keep it consistent with the other two trilogy articles. I know someone has put a lot of effort into giving us chapter and verse about the plot, but I can see no need for it. I don't look up a film in a reference book expecting to find an entire scene-by-scene breakdown. I would be in favour of cutting it right down to the important details and move it in place of the existing synopsis. Those non-synoptic details currently contained in the "Synopsis" section should still be kept, but moved elsewhere. However, it's a major edit, and I wouldn't want it to go ahead without some sort of consensus. Chris 42 14:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To hell with it, I've been bold! This article needed a major tidy-up and I've done it. The synopsis now contains one, I've removed the plot (sorry to whoever wrote it, but it was just too much detail), the Awards section has been moved further down, everything else has now been (hopefully) put into relevant sections. Apologies again if this upsets anyone, but if you look at the wider picture and the other two main articles on the film trilogy, you can see that it had to be done for consistency's sake. Chris 42 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, funny, the film needs a full synopsis or the full article doesn't make much sense. Wiki-newbie 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what Chris 42 has done is excellent. A good read of the synopsis article is recommended to anyone thinking of assisting on a fiction article. A good guideline is that if it is more than what would fit in a browser window on a 1024x700 screen would be TL;DR. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mate, just look at any film article. The one I wrote is sufficient enough without being a novelization. Wiki-newbie 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The current version (your edit BTW) is just fine. Most film articles on the 'pedia go into too much detail to be called a synopsis, so they're really bad examples. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deviations from the book
This section mostly has nothing to do with the title. --61.68.102.75 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. The 'Deviations from the Book' section is present for all three films - while I appreciate the time someone has invested in documenting these changes, this page specifically is about the film called Lord of the Rings, not the book. I would recommend the section be moved to its own page - if there are no objections, I will do this. --General Hard 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Warner Brothers
This page says the film was distributed outside of the U.S. by Warner Brothers. I know WB has the distribution rights for the animated films, but I've never heard anything about them being associated with the Peter Jackson films. Where did this information come from? Even though I'm in the U.S. I think I would have heard about it. I'd be willing to be a steak dinner that the live films are New Line Cinema all the way - made by them and distributed by them everywhere.

Criticisms
Should it be mentioned that by many Lords of the Rings is viewed as being the most overated trilogy of all time?
 * Not unless you can provide a source for that, and even then it should be mentioned in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, not here. JRM · Talk 14:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Country
Shouldn't New Zealand be listed instead of or next to the USA? The directors and Design Team were all New Zealanders, as well as much of the minor cast, and the whole movie was filmed there.

Filming Locations
The article is missing filming locations. Dy yol 07:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather, I'm describing it in Principal Photography. Wiki-newbie 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

 * 1) Well written?: Pass
 * 2) Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3) Broad in its coverage?: Pass
 * 4) Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5) Stable?: Pass
 * 6) Images?: Pass

Great article. Good job! Nat91 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How can it be neutral without at least a mention of readers' reactions? Uthanc 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Well, if you insist of keeping the film articles free of these, at least the main trilogy article has comments from both sides anyway... Uthanc 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the added (film)?
To my knowledge, the book is never marketed separately as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, just The Two Towers. This goes for the other two too. While meant to be helpful, (see above) the title just adds misinformation and confusion. I've asked this for the other two films' talk pages. Uthanc 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. But before we move, we need a vote first. So I'll start some. At the bottom of this page there will be votes. TheBlazikenMaster 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Influence on Popular Culture
Shouldn't this article have a section on Influence on Popular Culture? Shouldn't all of the LotR articles have a section on Influence on Popular Culture? Ealgian 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See the The Lord of the Rings in popular culture article. The Rings film trilogy is pretty young to have lots of cultural references. There is a 'Legacy' section though in the Trilogy article. Wiki-newbie 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Something you have failed to see!"
I have a question regarding "Scene 4" of the Special Extended Edition - "The Voice of Saruman". During this scene Saruman looks into the palantir, and says to Gandalf,"Something festers in the heart of Middle-earth. Something you have failed to see. But the Great Eye has seen it. Even now he presses his advantage." Does anyone know what Saruman is referring to when he says this. It does not seem to be revealed in either the threatrical or the extended versions of the film. The only thing I could think of are the secret fleet of ships sailing to attack Minas Tirith. This doesn't seem logical though, as Gandalf [and Elrond apparently] does know about the Corsairs of Umbar. This is evident in his telling Aragorn to take a different path to Minas Tirith, meaning he must confront the black ships with the army of the dead. Besides, Sauron is the one who set this fleet up, so it does not make sense for Saruman to say "but the Great Eye has seen it". A more reasonable explanation would be the fact that Lord Denethor also possesses a palantir, and Sauron is using it to plan his assault on Minas Tirith, and also to break Denethor's mind. However, Denethor's palantir is never mentioned in the film. Does anyone know, or have some idea, as to what Saruman is refering to when he gives Gandalf this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.159.97.130 (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

It's the fact Sauron is planning to invade Gondor. Also, please do not use this site as a forum. I'm being nice, but take it up somewhere else like IMDb. Thank you. Wiki-newbie 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote for movement.
From current title to "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"

I will move this page or go to "requested moves" but first I need all you guys' votes. All you have to do is add yourselves to lists using that: # symbol on either sub-sections. Keep in mind that it will expire May 26th, 2007, that's the time when I will make the move. If I get more supporters than opposers. Oh and by the way, when you see this make sure you announce it to a WikiProject, talk pages, or some other puplic places so the move won't come out of stupidity because of less than 5 voters, and most of them supported. TheBlazikenMaster 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to what? Alientraveller 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How silly of me. I will add that info. TheBlazikenMaster 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion about moving is closed. No further edits should be made. 

Supporters

 * 1) I support, because the book's name is "The Return Of The King" at least acording to some people. TheBlazikenMaster 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, on the condition that we know for sure the books are simply known by their subtitles, and not as "LOTR:....." The pages are not named that way, but how are the books named. If they are simply "The Two Towers", then all of the film articles should not have the (film) attached to their names.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, since the articles titled both The Lord of the Rings and The Return of the King lead to the book, the proposed article name can be used for the film. There are several references in the article to the book it is based on so I see no reasons why it would cause any confusion about what it is about. Besides, the suggested name is not the title of the book, as its shortened title is simply The Return of the King, and full title goes: The Return of the King being the third part of The Lord of the Rings. CCMichalZ 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, I agree with CCMichalZ's assessment; having (film) at the end is not necessary. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposers

 * 1) Oppose - As per WP:NAME, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." So the question is not "what is the exact proper title of the book or film?" The question is, what would an average reader who has awareness (but not much else) of the book and movie expect? Were someone to ask what an article titled "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is about, I would guess the book. The issue here is not about literalism, it's about reasonable expectations from non-specialists. Girolamo Savonarola 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We do have hatnotes saying "This article is about the film. See ___ for other uses." or similar lines. Uthanc 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The point is what is a reasonable expectation for a curious non-specialist. I would presume there to be dabs and whatnot at the top no matter where the article was. As for whether or not an article has a parenthetical, I believe that is a personal vanity issue, not a burden. Girolamo Savonarola 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments (doesn't count with the final results)

 * 1) Comment This issue is not new. There's The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (video game); likewise for the two others so (film) may be justified as User:Wiki-newbie pointed out to me on Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (film) . But as User:CBDunkerson wrote on Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film). the films are more likely to be linked to anyway, so it might be better to have the articles at the non-(film) titles. If you type "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" you'll go to the books, but they all have hatnotes which link to at least The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation), The Two Towers (disambiguation) and The Return of the King (disambiguation), and sometimes to the Jackson films as well. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation), etc. exist but redirect to their disambiguation counterparts without "The Lord of the Rings" in the titles. I do agree with you, but (film) or no (film), as long as it's clear that the book is not really titled that (like not calling 300 The 300 Spartans as is done on YouTube), it's okay with me (sort of). If it's moved. we'll have to make sure the page histories are complete. Uthanc 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Final result
Supporters: 80% Opposers: 20% Final result: Move
 * ''The following discussion about moving is closed. No further edits should be made.

Apology
I'm sorry about making a move request improperly. I hope some of you guys will forgive me. I've never made a move request before. TheBlazikenMaster 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Critics
As an article listed as a GA, the first paragraph of this section needs to be cleaned up. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. As mentioned above and below, the encyclopedia is meant to be optimized for readers, and even if superfluous from some technical perspectives, the parenthetical will be helpful for users. Dekimasu よ! 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) User:TheBlazikenMaster posted to WP:RM requesting The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film) → The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. There does not appear to be a section on this talk page for it. The above section about a rename does not seem to have appeared at WP:RM, so I don't see how valid it is, as it closed before the nomination at WP:RM. 70.55.86.83 14:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose current title is just fine. 70.55.86.83 14:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Because most often the book is just called "return of the king". TheBlazikenMaster 22:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - The fact that the game shares the name is irrelevant, because it has "game" attached to it. The film is more well known than the game, which is simply an adaptation of the film. You change Spider-Man 3 to Spider-Man 3 (film) just because there is a game with the same title, because the game is an adaptation of the film. Since the books were called simply "TFotR", "TTT", and "TRotK", then it's fine to have the title of the film be "TLotR: TRotK", because that was the title of the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To most Tolkien fans, "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the king", ignoring details of wording and case of letters, means firstly the book. For the film, a name ending in .."(film)" is clearer and should remain. Anthony Appleyard 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose As someone who is not a Tolkien fan, I also agree that a title ending in (film) is much more clear. I had no idea that the book was not referred to by its full title and if I were searching for the film I would definitely tag (film) on my search. FilmFemme 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think the previous section of May 18 2007 is invalid because it was not posted at WP:RM. Or atleast it was improperly closed, since the start date is May 26, and 5 days hence is June 1. 70.55.86.83 14:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it's the first time I requested a move. TheBlazikenMaster 22:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "'To most Tolkien fans, 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the king', ignoring details of wording and case of letters, means firstly the book. For the film, a name ending in ..'(film)' is clearer and should remain. Anthony Appleyard 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)'" But that's not how naming conventions work. It's based on what it is actually called. If the books are only called "The Fellowship.." "The Two Towers", and "The Return...", and "The Lord of the Rings" does not actually precede it, then what fans call it is irrelevant to its actual name. If it does, that's a different story, and that means that the book articles need to be renamed. I personally do not immediately think of the books. I know the books exist, but they are not in the forefront of my mind, and since Jackson's films, you cannot simply say they are in the forefront of everyone elses minds either.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And besides, Wikipedia is meant to have info that applies to non-fans. TheBlazikenMaster 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah well, unless there will be two more persons that support, there is no way the "(film)" will be removed. TheBlazikenMaster 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Zealand/USA
Should not the UK be mentioned seeing as most of the major actors are British and its based on a British concept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freeminder (talk • contribs).
 * Apart from being what it was scored, no. Alientraveller 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Country' refers only to the producers of the film, not everybody involved in making it. Cop 663 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman 2
Does that movie have any connection to this one besides being able to defeat LORTR:TROTK in getting more money? I noticed that some kind of info was removed quickly because it failed one of the policies, so I'm wondering how Spiderman 2 is any more notable to be mentioned in this article than the fifth Harry Potter movie.

Keep in mind, I'm just wondering, I'm not complaining or anything, but I wanted an answer to my question, so I chose this talk page, since it's the best place to ask something related to the article. TheBlazikenMaster 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SS. A record is a record until broken. So Spider-Man 2 broke ROTK's record, and that's that. Alientraveller 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured.
This article is great to me. Now try more than ever to update it and source the unsourced stuff. I have feeling that it won't be long now until this article gets featured. TheBlazikenMaster 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The plot could be trimmed a bit. The movie may be long, but the plot is not complicated in the least. They spend the majority of the movies walking; we don't need to detail all that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a to do list, I know I didn't do it the right way. I will try to make it a real to do list. TheBlazikenMaster 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I didn't notice we already have one. Removed the irrelevant message. TheBlazikenMaster 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Get this article out of the unsourced category
It's so close in getting featured, that category ruins that chance. TheBlazikenMaster 14:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph of critics
It's harder to find a source than I thought. Anyway, after about four hours I will nominate it for featured article candidate. (unless a good source can be found a lot earlier) It has been unsourced since March, I would get rid of it, but I wanna give it a little more time. So should I keep the unsourced statements or just get rid of them?

By the way, great job dudes. Now there is only one thing on the To-do list for this article. TheBlazikenMaster 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Finding sources is easy. Find them or don't nominate it for FAC. Alientraveller 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't seem easy to me. I found plenty of movie databases, but I have yet to find a good website where the persons themselves are having an interview. Ok, I will give it a little more time, but I can feel it that this article is almost ready. TheBlazikenMaster 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it's ready for FA myself. There's much we can find on criticism, both positive and negative (well, less on that) and overall merging of reception and cleaning up unnecessary info in production. I wrote this article when I was an amateur. Alientraveller 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, then I suggest you edit this. If it's not close you can edit that statement. But updating the to do list would be good. TheBlazikenMaster 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want quotes from film critics, go to MetaCritic.com, and search for ROTK. In fact, here's the link right here for your convenience. You will find numerous newspaper and magazine reviews held there. Read them all, or at least the ones from major publications, choose some representative quotes, positive and negative, and there you go. It will vastly improve the 'critics' section, which is pretty thin at the moment. Cop 663 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Body count
I found it somewhat amusing that according to MovieBodyCounts.com, the film has the highest onscreen body count in a single movie ever. Maybe that could be incorporated somewhere in the article? Just a suggestion, though. :) --Koveras ☭ 17:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find rather trivial and a bit of an assumption: do people actually count how many people there on the Death Stars in Star Wars? Do we know how many Haradrim or Gondorians there were in this film? I'm very "meh" to this whole "title". Alientraveller (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i believe the difference is that movie body count works on the basis of onscreen kills (or immediately implied kills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.52.117.251 (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved article / possible disambiguation page
Hallo! I did a little cleanup by moving this article from "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film)" to "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"--that is to say, I simply removed the unnecessary "film" parenthetical from the end. The version without it was simply a redirect, so there was no need for any disambiguation. I have also repaired the double redirects.

That being said, everything along the lines of "Return of the King (film)" is redirecting here, but that's not exactly correct; they might be looking for the animated film). The standard seems to be to have a disambiguation page, such as the ones at The Hobbit (film) and The Lord of the Rings (film). If no one protests, I plan to make a similar disambiguation page and shuffle those redirects to it for consistency. --Masamage ♫ 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you did. Last year, I made a poll here (as you can see at the top of the page) it was the first time I got a page moved, so I didn't make the poll in the proper way. If I did it right to begin with the result would be support, so thanks for doing that. Good thing you're an admin, otherwise it'd be impossible to move this page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The manual of style gives instructions about keeping the titles down to the simplest correct name, so that's what I was following, otherwise I'd have polled it, too. Shouldn't be any confusion, though, as all these related articles (book, film, cartoon) interlink to each other. Keep up the good work! --Masamage ♫ 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a disambiguation page already exists at The Return of the King (film), so I changed all the ambiguous redirects there and left the obvious ones pointing here. --Masamage ♫ 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What book it's based off
Regarding the assertion that the film is "primarily based on the third volume of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings" technically, this may be true, but I think it's a misleading statement. About 1/3 of the film is based of The Two Towers book. (In fact, the bulk of Sam and Frodo's story, considered by Tolkien to be the center of the tale, is taken from The Two Towers - about 65%.) I'm changing the article to say that the film is based off of both The Two Towers and the Return of the King books. I think that's much more accurate. 68.254.160.116 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about one thing...
I know it's obvious that this movie is the only fantasy movie that got the Best Picture award, but where does it say that specifically? It's not a big issue, I'm just curious. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin - surely British as well?
Considering that the novel was British (and thus, the whole story is also, apart from the occasional changes), and the fact that almost every single character is played by a British actor, surely the film should be listed as British as well as from New Zealand and America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Viggo headbutted everyone?!
The Pick-Ups section currently states that Viggo headbutted the stunt team, is this true? I think it may have been Hongi and whoever wrote that didn't know about hongi and so decided to describe it as headbutting. I could be wrong though...Kansaikiwi (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch the DVD. It's hilarious. Alientraveller (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Excess wiki-links
I've removed and excess of wiki links from the article. For some reason the edit summary box is not visible when I edit pages so I've written it here Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Country
I'm confused. The article uses imdb to source New Zealand as a production country, which I am okay with, but imdb also cites the United States. Also, the production companies New Line Cinema and The Saul Zaentaz Film Center are all American companies. So, what gives? BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the list on imdb is that New Line Cinema is the distributor and thus did not contribute significantly to the making of the film. The Saul Zaentaz Film Center was the licensor which held the rights to the property. You could argue that the movie could not have been made without the rights being licensed but they did not directly produce any part of the movie. I tried to find valid links to production companies in the United States but I couldn't find any. I welcome any additional references, but people have been putting the United States there without specifically referencing any specific company. Inomyabcs (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. Using imdb's list of companies, we have Tweak Films, Sandbox F/X, Rhythm and Hues, Gentle Giant Studios, Motion Works, XYZ-RGB, AON/Albert G. Ruben Insurance Services, Chapman/Leonard Studio Equipment, Company Wide Shut, Dolby Laboratories, EFilm, Giant Studios, International Film Guarantors, Mi Casa Multimedia, Pacific Title, Packair Airfreight, Reprise Records, Spacecam Systems, WMG Soundtracks, Warner Music Group and Wescam USA. Also New Line Cinema is more than just the distributor, they funded most of the project. That was good enough when WB funded the Harry Potter series to make it a co-production. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Movie Categories
Please do not add the category "2000s action films". From my research this should be lumped into "fantasy" and "adventure" predominantly. This isn't Die Hard. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think people are confusing action scenes with an action movie Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . First of, the second source lists the movie as action "Rated 12 | Action | 2003", second, die hard is citizen kane compared to rotk and tt. ROTK has way more action than Die Hard, what do you call those battle at gondor scenes? they are not adventure, they are ACTION!!!! How many times have you watched LOTR andrzej?? and third, Allmovie is not reliable, they list batman as fantasy and Heat (1995 film) as thriller when it is just a thriller as Godfather is a comedy. 189.18.30.2 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And forth, The Dark Knight is not even an action movie, it doesn't have the necessary action time for to be considered an action movie. 189.18.30.2 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Second source clearly says "Adventure" in it's opening paragraph. The rest of your argument is just your opinion which is against the rules. Please follow the rules and discuss before editing. We aren't here to discuss The Godfather or The Dark Knight, this is for this article. We've had to lock the other articles due vandalism of this sort, so let's not go through this again. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ROTK has more action than the dark knight, and you didn't answer my question. What you're doing is reverting, the 2000s action films is in this article since a long time, why do you think a movie full of action can't be an action movie? 201.43.37.8 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If films that contained a lot of action scenes were considered action film, than there would be no difference between Die Hard and Saving Private Ryan. There is more to genre and style than just counting on your hand how many action scenes you saw. Here are some brief explanations of the genre, , , ). The last one even mentions the lord of the rings as a fantasy film. There is no blazing guns, broken glass, quick one-liners and such as described in these books and articles. Please do not re-add the category without some sort of research. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it has action, it is an action movie, you mf serbian. it doesn't need blazing guns, broken glass, quick one liners. All it needs is action, and saving private ryan is an action movie, if you fucking croatian. 201.68.112.15 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And just for your information, the matrix is more adventure than rotk is adventure. An adventure movie doesn't need to be on fantastic landscapes, or exoctic locales, heck, little miss sunshine is an adventure film. do a little bit of research before you remove older-than-life cats. 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.112.15 (talk)
 * I appreciate your gusto, but I remind you again you again that are not providing reliable sources for these claims. I have. I've done my research with the links provided above. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, please don't insult and/or attack other editors, discussion comes before editing. Don't just give your reasoning, revert the page, wait till the other editor does the same and start at the beginning again.
 * While I'm not all that familiar with the official naming and categorizing of movies into sections, I personally would say the Lord of the Rings trilogy is an action-adventure series. But that's just my opinion. IMDb puts this movie in the action category, although, IMDb is partially user submitted, for example future television episodes air dates are considered unreliable. I'm unfamiliar with what parts are considerd reliable, and which not. I do believe that IMDb has become more editor based and less user submitted for the "past". Amazon also puts this movie in the Action & adventure category, but that could be just because they don't have separate categories for both (no idea). Personally I would probably put most adventure movies in both action and adventure. But it's not up to my opinion. So either find some reliable sources or don't put it in. In any case stop edit warring and insulting other editors. On side note, I'm not quite sure why you call Andrzejbanas Croatian, as User:Andrzejbanas clearly states the user is from Canada.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Xeworlebi, I wouldn't use IMDb's film ratings as it's user submitted and often there genres go on forever. This user above me before was arguing with this before even when that site did say action for the genre. We should not take imdb into consideration for this reason. I wouldn't trust sites that are not film centric such as Amazon as it is for much more basic categorizing and not really solid source for genre specific information. From the book definitions of the action genre in the books I've cited above, I don't believe this film or the rest of the series fall into it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey andrzej, what about star wars movies, do your sources indicate that they are action films? 200.158.245.10 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss Star Wars, discuss it on the Star Wars article or discuss it on my talk page. You have not backed up any statements with your opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . "There is no blazing guns, broken glass, quick one-liners" Wow, that was the lamest argument why Lord of the rings rotk wasn't an action movie I've ever seen. He may as well think dthat dramas need to have crying and romance films need to have kissing all the time to be romance films. 201.13.196.43 (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I just read about topics and their themes instead of going against WP:OR. Your slander against me here is not really appreciated either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What Happens To Faramir???
This article is wrong and unfinished. It stated that Faramir "went on a suicide mission to reclaim the city of Osgiliath, and that "he and his knights are apparently killed by the masses of Orcs waiting in the ruined city". However, in the film, he was dragged back to Minas Tirith by his horse and was near to death, and was healed at The Houses of Healing. Please, can somebody correct it?

79 awards and 117 nominations
Prizes and Awards Won by Lord of the Rings: Return of the King as listed in Appendix A of James F. English's ''The Economy of Prestige. Prizes, Awards and the Circulation of Cultural Value,'' Harvard University Press, 2008. It has won more cultural awards than any other film in history, as of 2008.


 * 11 Academy Awards
 * 1 American Boy Scouts Good Scout Humanitarian Award
 * 1 American Cinema Editors nomination
 * 1 American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers Award
 * 1 Art Directors Guild
 * 5 BAFTA Awards
 * 4 BFCA Awards
 * 3 Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
 * 1 Costume Designers Guild Award
 * 3 Dallas–Forth Worth Film Critics Association Awards
 * 1 Directors Guild of America Award
 * 3 Empire Awards
 * 3 Florida Film Critics Circle Awards
 * 1 Gabon National Honor of Merit Award
 * 4 Golden Globe Awards
 * 1 Golden Satellite Award
 * 1 Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild Award
 * 2 Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award
 * 8 Las Vegas Film Critics Society Sierra Awards
 * 2 Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards
 * 1 National Board of Review Award
 * 1 New York Film Critics Circle Award
 * 9 Online Film Critics Society Awards
 * 1 Producers Guild of America Golden Laurel Award
 * 1 San Diego Film Critics Society Award
 * 1 San Francisco Film Critics Circle Award
 * 8 Saturn Awards
 * 1 Screen Actors Guild Award
 * 2 Seattle Film Critics Awards
 * 2 Southwestern Film Critics Association Awards
 * 1 Toronto Film Critics Association Award
 * 1 USC Scriptor Award
 * 1 Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award
 * 4 Visual Effects Society Awards

I've listed them here in case anyone doubt's the claim and wants to verify, or ideally, has the time to add them to the article Awards section (not in a list format though). Green Cardamom (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sequels winning Best Picture
In the awards and nominations section of this page I attempted to edit a line that was in reference to Lord of the Rings: Return of the King being only the second sequel to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. In actual fact its the third sequel to win Best Picture, The Silence of the Lambs being a sequel to the movie Manhunter. My edit was removed on the grounds that it was "unencylopedic trivia" and restored to the original line which made no sense whatsoever seeing as regardless of whether it was the second or third film the fact itself would have remained "unencyclopedic trivia". When I re-added the change it was again removed this time with the original line removed too. I don't understand firstly how this particular fact gets removed only when I try to correct it but that it is removed at all when there are numerous other instances of "unencyclopedic trivia" througout the article such as the movie being the only fantasy film to win Best Picture or all the sweep stakes figures that was quoted. While I personally don't see the need to remove these particular facts, the page itselfs is far less interesting if they are removed. Anotoriousbug (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the silence of the lambs an actual sequel or does it just happen to have been made using the same series as a source? For example no-one would consider the Peter Jackson version of the Lord of the Rings as a sequel to Rankin/Bass Hobbit film.. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well in this instance The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a sequel to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers so one couldnt say the same for this film but technically yes it could be a considered a sequel to the earlier version of the Hobbit. I wouldnt have included it though seeing as the animated version of Lord of the Rings would have suited the title of sequel to that particular adaptation a lot more. Anotoriousbug (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Starring
Isn't the "starring" list a little too long? We could at least cut out a few. -- Glimmer721  talk  22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)