Replies

...Jackson plods through twenty minutes of concluding material AFTER the big battles have passed. It's an old film adage: once the action has finished, roll the credits. Purists will appreciate the film's faithful rendition...Mythologically speaking, it's far more important to see the bad guy meet his fate than to watch the protracted ending, not to mention the first would have been far more interesting to watch.

As a non-purist wrt the films, I was disappointed to hear that the "Scouring of the Shire" was not to be included in the film. The greatness of the LoTR lies not just in the majesty Middle Earth, and the affirmation of eternal verities, but very much in showing the evolution of the world (the ending of the Third Age) and the costs imposed. This is most satisfyingly done in the return to the shire by the transformed hobbits. Perhaps it is asking too much of a movie audience to attend to--but I'm begging you, if you like the films, and haven't read the books, please do so.

Also, the LoTR (novels) is often criticized as a story that takes forever to get going, and as having endless endings. This criticism is justified from typical fiction point of view, but not from the standpoint of myth creation--at which it succeeds masterfully. A world in transition is created, not just a story told.

Scouring of the Shire and the demise of Saruman will be included in the extended version. Jackson has said since the beginning that the theater version was for fans plus the non-readers of the book (like action, don't care about details) while the extended version is for us. I get the feeling that he could have made each movie 5 hours. In fact, I hope that in 5 years he re-releases the entire three movies, each with another 60 minutes of film.