3 ms·

Same for the 100 endings of LOTR that were completely unnecessary. You cant fake being faithful to the books if you dont even include the scouring of the Shire.

Same for the 100 endings of LOTR that were completely unnecessary. You cant fake being faithful to the books if you dont even include the scouring of the Shire. Worst endings ever.

delecti 4y ago
I can't agree. Even viewed as a single film (Tolkien viewed LotR more as one big book, and the movies reflect that), in the 3:20 movie (3:10 before the "The End" screen) there's only 20 minutes between Frodo getting grabbed by the Eagle and that "The End" screen. I think the movie needed all of that 20 minutes of catharsis. I absolutely think the 9-10 hour trilogy as a whole needed that 20 minutes. The math looks even better with the extended editions, where that 20 minute ending is only about 22 minutes, where the single movie is an hour longer, and the trilogy is ~3 longer.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > I think the movie needed all of that 20 minutes of catharsis. I absolutely think the 9-10 hour trilogy as a whole needed that 20 minutes. You could have 20 minutes, but not 5 endings wrapped together with no introduction at all that make absolutely no sense the way they are rushed at the end. And again, missing the Scouring of the Shire, which is a big no-no.
ghaff 4y ago
Lord of the Rings was great in general. However, the actual ending was in an appendix and the scouring of the shire was an unnecessary epilogue in the actual book. It was a great fantasy series but it was also a bit of a mess at the end. Faithful to the books should never be a primary goal of film.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > the scouring of the shire was an unnecessary epilogue in the actual book. You are missing the point. The scouring of the Shire is extremely important, story-wise. It shows that no matter how good and successful you were at your quest, you cannot prevent every bad occurrence in the world, and that you have to live with that fact.

3 ms·

Same for the 100 endings of LOTR that were completely unnecessary. You cant fake being faithful to the books if you dont even include the scouring of the Shire.

by ekianjo 4y ago

Same for the 100 endings of LOTR that were completely unnecessary. You cant fake being faithful to the books if you dont even include the scouring of the Shire. Worst endings ever.

delecti 4y ago
I can't agree. Even viewed as a single film (Tolkien viewed LotR more as one big book, and the movies reflect that), in the 3:20 movie (3:10 before the "The End" screen) there's only 20 minutes between Frodo getting grabbed by the Eagle and that "The End" screen. I think the movie needed all of that 20 minutes of catharsis. I absolutely think the 9-10 hour trilogy as a whole needed that 20 minutes. The math looks even better with the extended editions, where that 20 minute ending is only about 22 minutes, where the single movie is an hour longer, and the trilogy is ~3 longer.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > I think the movie needed all of that 20 minutes of catharsis. I absolutely think the 9-10 hour trilogy as a whole needed that 20 minutes. You could have 20 minutes, but not 5 endings wrapped together with no introduction at all that make absolutely no sense the way they are rushed at the end. And again, missing the Scouring of the Shire, which is a big no-no.
ghaff 4y ago
Lord of the Rings was great in general. However, the actual ending was in an appendix and the scouring of the shire was an unnecessary epilogue in the actual book. It was a great fantasy series but it was also a bit of a mess at the end. Faithful to the books should never be a primary goal of film.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > the scouring of the shire was an unnecessary epilogue in the actual book. You are missing the point. The scouring of the Shire is extremely important, story-wise. It shows that no matter how good and successful you were at your quest, you cannot prevent every bad occurrence in the world, and that you have to live with that fact.