Should I watch Lord of the Rings online?

[j d worthington]

well we know for a fact that Jackson had absolutely no intention of including the scouring of the shire in the final film. from what i've seen in interviews and in behind-the-scenes stuff, he was under the impression, throughout most of the production - until at least half-way through filming that ARAGORN was the HERO of the books. WTF?!?!?!?!?!? he may be a king in hiding and swing a fancy sword around, but he's not the hero. He's an elaborate distraction and a living banner of defiance in the face of Mordor. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Hero, indeed Heroes, of Lord of the Rings are the Hobbits... particularly (but not forgetting Merry and Pippin's own efforts) Frodo and Sam. Jackson did everything possible to paint Frodo as a whiny wimp, which readers know is anything BUT the case, and Sam as the not-quite-bright-bumbling-Hero-who-saves-his-master. Which is perhaps a little closer to Tolkein, though Sam in the books isn't particularly bumbling.

Well... they did film footage for the scouring of the Shire -- we see a small bit of it in Galadriel's mirror (and I'll return to this in a moment); according to various interviews, the decision to not go ahead with it was because of the concerns about having so many anticlimactic endings for a modern moviegoing audience at the end of what they knew could not help but be a long film to begin with.

As for the bit about Aragorn... Tolkien himself has indicated that he came to see Aragorn as the actual focus of the piece in many ways, because of his position as the heir of Gondor and the chance for the Men of the West to redeem their high heritage. So this idea is not as far off as it may at first sound.

Done properly or not, I don't think it would have worked. Especially with the majority of the public. There where already loads of endings to pick from. Such as:
The Great Evil has been vanquished and the world saved.
The heroes have been saved from certain death.
The King has got his kingdom and got the girl.
The heroes have returned home (already unusual by film standards - most films cut before they go home)
The hero receives his prize of immortality.

Now this is just IMHO, but the films, far more than the books, where much more about saving the world from evil than about Hobbits in a changing world. The Scouring of the Shire, in the film, wouldn't be a last moment twist. Nor a shocking turn about. Or a demonstration that the Hobbits can now stand on thier own in the world. It would be straight out of the left field.

I agree with Ktabic. There were a lot of scenes that could have been taken as endings. In fact too much, the last film was ruined to some extent for people in the cinema as it just drags on and on after the ring has been destroyed. After this happened showing the hobbits at the crowning of Aragorn would have been well enough.
The scouring of the Shire is just a side story when it comes to what makes a good film.

Harebrain and some others are nitpicking too. It is Tolkein's story, not Peter Jackson's. There would always be some differences when taken to film. Yes we can say the book is better but I can definitely say I could not have hoped for a better film.

I can see where many of you (and Jackson & Co.) are coming from on this point; but I happen to disagree. There have been films with "anticlimactic endings" which worked quite well, and held an audience's interest; as I said, it depends on how well it is done. As for the scouring of the Shire being so negligible... given that we do see that image in Galadriel's mirror, you already have the set-up for it early on; again, done properly, that could be played on and the shock to the audience could very well drive home dramatically that because the big battle is over in no way means that the fight is done. It could nail with great poignancy and considerable surprise (for those who had not read the book) the repercussions at home... drawing (as Tolkien himself drew on) for the audience the long reach of such a war and how it tears apart even the most seemingly stable societies. What is more, as Tolkien knew (and pointed out in the book) it becomes even more hard to bear because it is home that is so torn.

So, no, I don't think it would have been either superfluous or boring if done well. If anything, it could have been turned to great dramatic advantage and woke people up following a long lull by giving them a secondary climax which had a truly strong dramatic punch they weren't expecting. What makes the end of The Return of the King seem to drag so is that you have several very quiet sub-endings; there is no true dramatic contrast going on here, just a series of good-byes. You don't have anything other than peaceful goodbyes, you have nothing truly wrenching the heart to drive home the loss. That is something the scouring of the Shire could have accomplished in relatively little time and with great impact, serving as the perfect sort of contrast needed at that point.

And I'm sorry, but I could very easily have expected a much better film (or set of films), by simply staying true to Tolkien's characters in places where Jackson diverged so widely (generally making them, frankly, sillier than hell when he did); and ditto with such things as the gigantic game of ninepins with Aragorn & Co. and the skulls as the balls with the Paths of the Dead sequence. That was just plain idiotic, and grates on my nerves every time I come across it.

Reasonable dramatic changes are just fine; they are, after all, two very different media. But changes like this brought both the tale and the tone of the film down from something high and almost painfully poignant to the extremely low-brow sort of buffoonery one sees with the "comic" sequences in, say, Marlow's The Tragedy of Doctor Faustus. It becomes sheer farce, and degrades much of the beauty and power of what has gone before (or follows after).

Don't get me wrong; in many ways I love the films, and I think it would be extremely difficult to do a better job... but not impossible. And Jackson's flaws as a director in general are largely to blame for what problem exist here; not a need to make changes for better visual presentation, but the sheer manic nonsense so prevalent in much of Jackson's work as a whole.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The problem with Jackson is not as much what he ommitted , but what he added. The story needed neither padding nor embellishment in the way that he did. I'm fine with his decision to leave out parts of the tale (although losig The Scouring demonstrates either a lack of understanding or total disregard for Tolkein's vision) , but to alter the timeline and plot - for absolutely no reason at all - is unforgivable.

Going back to the Scouring , it certainly COULD have been the great climax to the story , given that the destruction of Sauron and his minions is finally acheived with no climatic battle scene. A short sequence showing Aragorn being crowned would swiftly move on to the Hobbits return to their idyllic home - and here's the twist because everything has changed. The TRUE test of the Hobbit's mettle lies in front of them , and would make for a much more fitting ending - and also make sense of the vision in Galadriel's mirror.

As for Aragorn...hmmm... the story is one for Hobbits , but it is also the tale of the rise to domination of Men , and as such he is an intergral part ; but we mustnt forget that this is a Hobbit's tale , and whilst this monumentous shift in power from the other races of Middle Earth to Men it pales into insignificance against the apocalyptical vision of their beloved Shire.

The closest comparison in film I can think of is The Deer Hunter - without covering the return home and rehabilitation into normal life of the main protagonits , the movie would miss its whole point.

 

[mr kite]

Not on line no !
Shame you can`t watched them at the cinema but you gotta see these movies now !
I watched the Fellowship twice Two Towers just once and The Return Of The King twice at the cinema and if I ever get the chance I would do it all over again .
The Rings stands up as the greatest film trilogy ever in my eyes and will never be bettered.

On line ! no way !

 

[Hober Mallow]

I read The Hobbit + LoTR trilogy several times over the course of twenty years before watching the movies in the theater and on DVD. The books were great but the movies were so impressive, they've pretty much overshadowed the books, IMO. Having said that, the DVD extended versions were better and truer to the novels but I wouldn't recommend the extended versions for new-comers, as each movie is over four hours long. I almost forgot the book ending was different until reading comments here.

I'd recommend reading the books first, then watch the movies.

 

[Judderman]

The scouring of th eshire would have been a good option for putting into the DVD extended version or alternate ending. At least with DVDs you can pause and take a break so can watch longer films at your leisure.

 

[Menion]

Yes! end of, although I'd tell you to either buy or rent the films and watch them on your tv on the sofa with some popcorn and a few beers, insted of on the internet.