I saw RotK in theaters when it came out. I didn't give the multiple endings much thought, but have relatives who still, twenty years later, can't get over it.
As for the Scouring of the Shire...personally glad it wasn't added. The movies played around with the timing of story and character arcs (Faramir, Shelob, etc.), and it made sense n…
I saw RotK in theaters when it came out. I didn't give the multiple endings much thought, but have relatives who still, twenty years later, can't get over it.
As for the Scouring of the Shire...personally glad it wasn't added. The movies played around with the timing of story and character arcs (Faramir, Shelob, etc.), and it made sense not to have a final battle of seemingly lower stakes after the ring is destroyed. The Scouring seemed somewhat out of place to me in the books, but I understand why Tolkien put it in as part of the coming home/character arc of the hobbits. Would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the Scouring in general.
Of course, if Peter J treated the Scouring like The Hobbit, we could have gotten a whole movie just about it...
ahahaha, ohhh man you're so right about the Scouring being its own movie if he'd treated the trilogy like The Hobbit.
I get the reasoning from a filmmaking/cinematic point of view for why the Scouring wasn't including, but in terms of the overall story and themes of the books it really is crucial for demonstrating just how far the Hobbits have come and changed(physically and personally) on their journey, the true cost of war, closing out the arcs of the hobbits like you mentioned, and more. Instead of simply returning to an idyllic home that's saved from the effects of the war and evil, they come home to find that even the Shire did not escape untouched. They didn't save the Shire just by defeating some far away evil, they have to save the Shire (personally) in addition to that far away victory.
But those themes and arcs don't quite fit within the framing of the story as Peter Jackson told it, which is more the typical action/adventure lens. So I get it
I saw RotK in theaters when it came out. I didn't give the multiple endings much thought, but have relatives who still, twenty years later, can't get over it.
As for the Scouring of the Shire...personally glad it wasn't added. The movies played around with the timing of story and character arcs (Faramir, Shelob, etc.), and it made sense not to have a final battle of seemingly lower stakes after the ring is destroyed. The Scouring seemed somewhat out of place to me in the books, but I understand why Tolkien put it in as part of the coming home/character arc of the hobbits. Would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the Scouring in general.
Of course, if Peter J treated the Scouring like The Hobbit, we could have gotten a whole movie just about it...
ahahaha, ohhh man you're so right about the Scouring being its own movie if he'd treated the trilogy like The Hobbit.
I get the reasoning from a filmmaking/cinematic point of view for why the Scouring wasn't including, but in terms of the overall story and themes of the books it really is crucial for demonstrating just how far the Hobbits have come and changed(physically and personally) on their journey, the true cost of war, closing out the arcs of the hobbits like you mentioned, and more. Instead of simply returning to an idyllic home that's saved from the effects of the war and evil, they come home to find that even the Shire did not escape untouched. They didn't save the Shire just by defeating some far away evil, they have to save the Shire (personally) in addition to that far away victory.
But those themes and arcs don't quite fit within the framing of the story as Peter Jackson told it, which is more the typical action/adventure lens. So I get it