Talk:The Return of the King (1980 film)

Just me?

I don't want to change this without asking, because I think I might just be nitpicking, but this quote doesn't fit for me: "However, others regard it with disdain, comparing it unfavorably to Ralph Bakshi's earlier animated film and Peter Jackson's later live-action film." How could people compare it to a movie that came out over 20 years later? -Unknownwarrior33 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing stops people from unfavorably comparing things that are over 20 years old... Agreed the comment seems a bit odd, though. --Lurlock 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather easily. If the complaints are technology based than its unfair. But....I really doubt thats the case. Age has nothing to do with adaptation or basic quality.

I disagree. Technology is very important to Sci Fi and Fantasy films. Had Star Wars been made 20 years earlier by the same people it would have been nowhere near as good. 69.215.130.15 (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But were the Star War movies made 20 years later that much better? I think this only proves the point about basic quality.

Exactly. I hate when people use the ridiculous "It was made decades ago, therefore you can't criticize it" to try to invalidate people's opinion of old works. And in this case, that argument would only hold water if the whole criticism was aimed at the aged animation, which isn't the case - most people criticize this film for the changes it made to the source material, the character designs, and the way it was handled overall.

Strange description

"(R)eprising his darkly spoken role of Gollum was the grumpily dangerous Brother Theodore" - what on Earth does "grumpily dangerous" mean in this context? Dangerous to whom? Is his voice so grumpy that it could cause physical damage to the listener's hearing? I'm minded to delete these adjectives - does anyone have any strong feelings, or suggestions for replacing them? Dom Kaos (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Take 'em out. Heck, take "darkly spoken" out too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done :-) Dom Kaos (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception

None of the entries in "Reception" are contemporary to the films release, all three are modern online entries rather than published media. I am adding an addendum to that noting that these are modern reactions rather than at the time reactions.

I will see if I can dig up some. I know there ere reviews in TV guide, Fangoria, Starlog and other magazines. Omega2064 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1980 or 1979?

If this first aired in 11/79 why is the article called "The Return of the King (1980 film)?" Ttenchantr (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Should be retitled. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Restored version"

Clarification is needed for the statement that the 1980 home video release is "the restored version". What was restored? This is not discussed further. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The Return of the King (1980 film) → The Return of the King (1979 film) – In case some incorrect information has made its way into the article, the film was released on TV on November 11, 1979, which makes this a 1979 film, regardless of how close it is to 1980. Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm striking out trying to find a contemporary source online to confirm the November 1979 air date. Frankly, I think that is right (it matches what I remember about it – that it aired in the Fall). But I'd feel a lot better about it if I could find a contemporaneous source to verify it. Somebody may need to hit a library, or Newspapers.com at least... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how to check online 1979 printed news archives, but some book sources do use the 1979 date such as this and this, but that doesn't help if we have other sources claiming the 1980 date. --Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Still hoping to find a contemporary source. I'm hoping the Wikipedia Library can help. I'm working on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have access to Newspapers.com and I can find no mention of this released in 1979, but an extensive amount of press leading to the airing on May 11, 1980 on ABC. I've clipped an in-depth article from the LA Times for viewing (1 & 2). This is a good source as the article currently doesn't cover the legal trouble around the release. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Added comment - it looks like the May 11, 1980 release was correct throughout this page's history until a series of edits by an IP user changed it. No sources for this change, so no way to know why they did it. -- Netoholic @ 15:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for Newspapers.com access so I can try to confirm. But this was my suspicion – that this was date vandalism from an IP. It's all too common... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what sources the book sources I linked to used. Both were written 2003-04, so way before this edit ever happened. Maybe there was some pre-release somewhere? --Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The copyright date is 1979 as can be seen in this video. Maybe they used that date? --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Very likely.. and the book sources probably are referencing the copyright date (which I think is assigned based on the completed screenplay, not the film's final completion or release). It does anyway seem like it was intended to be released in 1979, but the airing was delayed due to the legal challenge. In any case, WP:PRIMARYFILM goes by first confirmed release, not copyright dates in credits, so this RM can only result in no move. Consider withdrawing? -- Netoholic @ 12:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Not near a computer, so can only leave this comment from phone. Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find only one other source in Newspapers.com (though I couldn't view it), and it seems to confirm the May 11, 1980 airing date. Nothing pops up about this from 1979. (Oddly, I also don't find it in the U.S. Copyright Office database...) So I agree with Netoholic – it looks like it didn't air in 1979 (even if it was originally planned to), and ultimately aired in May of 1980. So I would also advise with withdrawing the RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment / Oppose without ironclad source - @Netoholic: for "why someone would do this", there's a vandal at large on the Internet in general whose specific gig is changing film dates. I won't go into more so as not to valorize vandals, but they're very active on IMDb as well, and they've also done some sneaky attempt-to-change release dates by claiming secret early releases elsewhere. That IP was probably the same person. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources needed on cast lists between films

An editor is removing citation needed tags without agreement. Here, the issue is continuity of cast between films, which requires two sources for the two films, or one source that describes the continuity. This is not an "it's obvious" sky-is-blue thing, but requires detailed knowledge of sources about the casts, only one of which is listed in this article. We can't take the other film article as a source as Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)