Beyond the Oscars: 5 Surprising Truths About ‘The Return of the King’

When The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King swept the Academy Awards, winning all 11 Oscars it was nominated for, it cemented its place in cinematic history. To this day, it is celebrated as a monumental achievement and one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. Its breathtaking battle sequences, emotional depth, and masterful conclusion to an epic trilogy are legendary. But even for a film so widely acclaimed and analyzed, there are deeper, more surprising layers to its story, production, and legacy.

Beyond the spectacle and the accolades lies a more complex picture. This is a story whose core messages are often counter-intuitive and whose “perfect” execution is still the subject of fierce debate. Here are five of the most impactful and surprising truths about The Return of the King.

1. True Leadership Is About Serving, Not Ruling

One of the film’s most resonant themes is its depiction of leadership, which it defines not by the wielding of power, but by mercy and a willingness to serve others. The story presents a stark contrast between two leaders facing an overwhelming threat: Aragorn, the returning king, and Denethor, the steward of Gondor.

Denethor, a tragic figure, yields to despair and is ultimately defeated by his own hopelessness. In contrast, Aragorn, described as a wise ruler, inspires those around him to endure against seemingly insurmountable odds. He leads not from a throne but from the front lines, embodying a form of leadership rooted in sacrifice and fellowship rather than command. His speech at the Black Gate is a perfect distillation of this philosophy, focusing on shared fear, brotherhood, and the courage to stand together.

Aragorn: Hold your ground, hold your ground! Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!

This portrayal of a servant-leader, one who endures alongside his people, resonates so deeply because it challenges traditional depictions of power. True authority, the film suggests, is earned through empathy and shared struggle, not inherited or seized.

2. Evil Doesn’t Just Lose—It Destroys Itself

A counter-intuitive yet central idea in The Return of the King is that evil is ultimately self-destructive. While the armies of the West fight bravely, Sauron’s forces are ultimately undone by the very qualities that define them: greed, violence, and an insatiable desire for power. The Fellowship, meanwhile, prevails through acts of kindness, loyalty, and mercy.

The character of Gollum is the ultimate illustration of this theme. His journey is a constant battle between his malevolent desires and fleeting moments of pity. It is these moments of mercy shown to him that change the fate of the world. In the climax at Mount Doom, Frodo succumbs to the Ring’s power, but the quest doesn’t fail. Instead, Gollum’s own greed intercedes. In his final, desperate act to reclaim the Ring, he falls into the fires of the volcano, destroying both himself and the source of his obsession. Evil, in its most concentrated form, literally consumes itself.

3. The Scars of Heroism Don’t Always Fade

While the film ends with triumph and celebration, it doesn’t shy away from the immense cost of that victory. The story powerfully illustrates that heroism comes with “lasting wounds” and that the sacrifices made are not easily forgotten.

This is seen most poignantly in Frodo Baggins. He succeeds in his quest and saves all of Middle-earth, but he does not get a simple, happy ending. He is “deeply scarred by his ordeal” and finds he cannot return to the peaceful, ordinary life in the Shire that he fought to protect. The burden of the Ring, both physical and spiritual, has left a permanent mark. His eventual journey to the Undying Lands is not just a reward, but a necessity—a search for a peace he can no longer find in the mortal world. This adds a layer of profound sadness to the triumphant conclusion, reminding the audience that the greatest victories often come at a permanent, personal price.

4. The Longer ‘Extended Edition’ Isn’t Universally Loved

For many, the four-hour Extended Edition is the definitive cut, yet its existence splinters its audience, celebrated by purists as definitive while being dismissed by critics as a self-indulgent marathon. While it restores fan-requested moments like the death of Saruman, many argue it is a “bloated mess” that damages the theatrical version’s tight narrative structure.

Critics contend that the added scenes dilute the story’s momentum and ruin its pacing. Specific examples are often cited as evidence: the avalanche of skulls in the Paths of the Dead is derided as “over-the-top spectacle”; the Houses of Healing subplot, where Éowyn and Faramir bond, is accused of “killing the narrative urgency”; the drinking contest between Gimli and Legolas is seen as a time-consuming distraction; and the added Mouth of Sauron scene, while visually striking, makes Aragorn seem “a little too quick to violence.” For many viewers, the shorter, more focused theatrical release remains the superior film.

5. The Perfect Masterpiece Has Some Glaring Flaws

Despite its 11 Oscars and near-universal praise, The Return of the King is not without its detractors who point to significant and specific flaws. The film is a fascinating case study in how a work can be both a celebrated masterpiece and the subject of intense criticism. The most common points of negative feedback include:

• The multiple endings: Many viewers feel the film “drags on for about 30 mins” after the climax at Mount Doom. The final hour, filled with a series of goodbyes and resolutions, is often described as “excessive” and “almost boring,” draining the story of its momentum.
• The Army of the Dead: This is considered a major deviation from the book that serves as a convenient plot device. Critics, including J.R.R. Tolkien’s own grandson, argue that the invincible ghost army lessens the stakes of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, undermining the sense of an earned victory.
• Character portrayal: Certain characterizations have drawn sharp criticism. Denethor is seen by many as “one-dimensional and foolish,” while Frodo’s decision to send Sam away after being manipulated by Gollum is viewed as an exaggerated change that undermines the core bond between the two hobbits.
• Aging visual effects: While groundbreaking for its time, the film’s heavy reliance on CGI is a point of criticism for some modern viewers, who note that some of the visuals in large-scale daylight scenes have “aged poorly.”

An Enduring, Imperfect Epic

The Return of the King‘s legacy is more complex than a simple list of awards can convey. It is a film whose deepest themes explore the quiet strength of service, the self-consuming nature of evil, and the permanent scars of sacrifice. Its status as a “perfect” film is complicated by valid criticisms of its pacing, its narrative choices, and the hotly debated merits of its extended version. The film’s ability to sustain such passionate debate is not just a sign of its cultural footprint, but perhaps the ultimate proof that a true masterpiece isn’t one without flaws, but one whose flaws are as compelling as its triumphs.