Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "Would Lord of the Rings have been more satisfying if it had had a different ending?" No, it would have been more satisfying if there was less walking and fewer boring asides   (slate.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, One Ring, joy, Frodo  
•       •       •

1532 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 02 Mar 2014 at 2:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-02 10:11:59 AM  
That is what all those mysterious buttons on the remote are for.
 
2014-03-02 11:29:57 AM  
I think Return of the King would have been more satisfying if it only had one ending instead of seven.
 
2014-03-02 11:49:11 AM  

snocone: That is what all those mysterious buttons on the remote books are for.


FTFY
 
2014-03-02 11:55:11 AM  
I for one will never question the genius of Professor Tolkien because without the works of Middle Earth, Dungeons and Dragons would have never been created. Without D&D, the entire "role paying game" genre probably wouldn't exist.

So, I choose to just be thankful that Tolkien decided to write the stories that inspired modern gaming.

And if you think that I am stretching the truth, here are some examples of which I speak.

http://archives.theonering.net/features/interviews/gary_gygax.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/dungeons-dragons-gave-birth-m od ern-video-game-industry-144157292.html

So, to a lot of us Subby, the "walking" in Middle Earth is where and when the adventures occur and that is the fun of it all.
 
2014-03-02 12:11:55 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-02 12:19:44 PM  
I really didn't like those films. I'd have not gone to the second and third one except for a fit of manners.
 
2014-03-02 12:40:21 PM  
No, because if Frodo died, it would break the religious underpinnings of the story. Frodo needed to heal past the evil of the ring. He had a life yet to live. His reward for bearing the burden of the ring was to live forever in the undying lands. Gollum, if he hadn't been so fundamentally broken by the ring, could have lived as well. But the kindest ending he could have had he received was reclaiming the ring for a brief moment before being destroyed in fire. Gollum, had he lived, would have lived in eternal torment.

And what the hell, the trip to Valinor wasn't a eucatastrophe. That's expected. The Eagles where the eucatastrophe of salvation.

"Does this lighten your heart? Maybe. Maybe not. I used to love a silly rom-com with a happy ending; sorrow has left me unable to bear it."

That's because you're a miserable person. Holy cripes, would you be happier if Sauron won and Middle Earth became a futuristic, fascist utopia?
 
2014-03-02 02:24:43 PM  

palladiate: No, because if Frodo died, it would break the religious underpinnings of the story. Frodo needed to heal past the evil of the ring. He had a life yet to live. His reward for bearing the burden of the ring was to live forever in the undying lands. Gollum, if he hadn't been so fundamentally broken by the ring, could have lived as well. But the kindest ending he could have had he received was reclaiming the ring for a brief moment before being destroyed in fire. Gollum, had he lived, would have lived in eternal torment.

And what the hell, the trip to Valinor wasn't a eucatastrophe. That's expected. The Eagles where the eucatastrophe of salvation.

"Does this lighten your heart? Maybe. Maybe not. I used to love a silly rom-com with a happy ending; sorrow has left me unable to bear it."

That's because you're a miserable person. Holy cripes, would you be happier if Sauron won and Middle Earth became a futuristic, fascist utopia?




Actually, Sam and Frodo both died in Valinor. They were Hobbits, not elves. And elves have a crappy immortality- the are immortal in the sense that they will be only on the physical plane. If they die- they are reincarnated. When creation ends, so do elves as they have no afterlife. Only man was granted that gift.

But yeah, the author missed the point about The Lord of The Rings. And Frodo main objective- protecting the shire, failed. But Tolkien's point that things change...that nothing remains the same forever, is true.

As a funny side note, Tolkien had also said that Frodo failed, as he gave in to the
Ring. In his mind, Sam was the true hero, able to resist the notion of power.
 
2014-03-02 02:42:01 PM  

gaslight: I really didn't like those films. I'd have not gone to the second and third one except for a fit of manners.


Yeah, the Twilight films were so much better right?
 
2014-03-02 02:43:19 PM  
I liked the one that ended in Gandalf Raping Day.
 
2014-03-02 02:48:05 PM  
Loved the trilogy, but wouldn't it have been easier if they just handed the ring to an eagle and they just dropped it straight into Mt. Doom via flyover?
 
2014-03-02 02:48:24 PM  

Shostie: I think Return of the King would have been more satisfying if it only had one ending instead of seven.


This in spades. I remember thinking 'JESUS WHEN IS THIS FU*KING MOVIE GONNA END?'
 
2014-03-02 02:49:03 PM  

palladiate: Holy cripes, would you be happier if Sauron won and Middle Earth became a futuristic, fascist utopia?


I don't remember much democracy in middle-earth.

And well, rural living might look nice, but it's a short, miserable life without medicine and industrialisation.
 
2014-03-02 02:54:19 PM  

Wadded Beef: Loved the trilogy, but wouldn't it have been easier if they just handed the ring to an eagle...


I, for one, welcome our new giant eagle overlords.
 
2014-03-02 02:55:09 PM  
Those movies are horrifyingly overrated.  And walking, walking, walking is part of it.
 
2014-03-02 03:00:15 PM  

Old Man Winter: I liked the one that ended in Gandalf Raping Day.


Gandalf-Raping Day, or Gandalf Raping-Day?

Beerguy: I for one will never question the genius of Professor Tolkien because without the works of Middle Earth, Dungeons and Dragons would have never been created. Without D&D, the entire "role paying game" genre probably wouldn't exist.


I've been a huge fan of Tolkien's works since about Page 5 of the Hobbit, but I gotta say that Fellowship is a goddamn boring book, especially the first half.  It doesn't follow the traditional rising action-climax-denouement of stroytelling.  Everything a bit of plot gets going, something derails it.

Unexpected party --> thirty years of nothing.
Discovery of the ring's backstory, running from Black Riding across the Shire --> three-way Hobbit bath (not nearly as exciting as it sounds)
Black Forest, getting eaten by a tree --> farking Bombadil
Attacked by barrow-wights --> farking Bombadil *again*
mysterious strangers in Bree, attack by Ringwraiths --> trudge, trudge, trudge, Weathertop, trudge, trudge
Attack at the Fords of Bruinen --> Cliffhanger! --> Council of Elrond.

The rest of the book goes on like that.  It took me two or three reads-through to work out what the hell was going on.
 
2014-03-02 03:01:30 PM  
What's wrong with Lord of the Rings? It's both cheaper and has fewer side effects than Ambien.
 
2014-03-02 03:06:22 PM  

Bondith: Everything a bit of plot gets going, something derails it.


I got about 250 pages into it before I threw the book against the wall yelling "F*CK THIS BOOK!"

That was 250 pages of hobbits wandering aimlessly around Middle Earth in the wrong direction.

Couldn't have given Frodo a f*cking map, Gandalf?!?!
 
2014-03-02 03:09:26 PM  

Bondith: The rest of the book goes on like that. It took me two or three reads-through to work out what the hell was going on.


You should try the Silmarillion. It's only work of fiction I've ever read where I had to take notes.
 
2014-03-02 03:14:25 PM  
Like if Sauron wins?
 
2014-03-02 03:27:33 PM  
The cleansing of the Shire was the payoff for slogging through the entire trilogy and as far as I'm concerned that was a very satisfying ending. Still have no idea why it was excluded from the movies.
 
2014-03-02 03:29:34 PM  
Right, because the best movies are the ones where every character just sits in a chair the whole film. Ok, I mean besides "12 Angry Men", obviously.
 
2014-03-02 03:29:46 PM  

Shostie: I got about 250 pages into it before I threw the book against the wall yelling "F*CK THIS BOOK!"


Have to agree with you for the 2nd time in this thread, except I said "F*CK THIS BOOK!" after only 150+ pages.
 
2014-03-02 03:31:48 PM  
Considering that The Lord of the Rings inspired a renaissance in the Fantasy genre and influences writers to this day I would say that Tolkien did pretty well.
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 03:32:17 PM  

rtaylor92: The cleansing of the Shire was the payoff for slogging through the entire trilogy and as far as I'm concerned that was a very satisfying ending. Still have no idea why it was excluded from the movies.


This. The satisfying ending would have been THE ONE THAT TOLKIEN FARKING WROTE
 
2014-03-02 03:34:04 PM  

rtaylor92: The cleansing of the Shire was the payoff for slogging through the entire trilogy and as far as I'm concerned that was a very satisfying ending. Still have no idea why it was excluded from the movies.


This.  The death of Saruman, Wormtongue and the fate of the Sackville-Bagginses would have been worth it.
 
2014-03-02 03:38:15 PM  

Autistic Hiker: rtaylor92: The cleansing of the Shire was the payoff for slogging through the entire trilogy and as far as I'm concerned that was a very satisfying ending. Still have no idea why it was excluded from the movies.

This. The satisfying ending would have been THE ONE THAT TOLKIEN FARKING WROTE


There's something viscerally appealing about the little guy kicking the ever-loving snot out of bullies.

Somewhat unrelated, but I got goosebumps when the Rohirrim line smacked into the Orcs at Pelennor in the third movie.
 
2014-03-02 03:39:55 PM  
I accidentally hit my jog wheel when reading the headlines in Greenlit and ended up with " "Would Lord of the Rings have been more satisfying if it had controlled by a Lesbian "Girl Experience Officer" according to Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart.com" in my brain.

Thanks, Obama.
 
2014-03-02 03:40:17 PM  
If your only knowledge of LoTR is from the movies, then it did have a "different" ending for you.  Or endings rather.

LoTR properly ends not at the eagle rescue, but instead with the hobbits reclaiming the Shire in the Battle of Bywater and confronting the fallen Saurman at Bag End.  The whole thing comes full circle there on Frodo's doorstep with Wormtongue's revenge shanking of the defeated and powerless Saruman, and then himself being killed by the hobbits, concluding the last hostile actions of the War of the Ring.

The movie removing the Tom Bombadil stuff had no impact on the story really, but ending before the Scouring of the Shire is just unconscionable.

/nerdrant
//getoffmyshire
 
2014-03-02 03:44:50 PM  
I am dissappoint that BabyMetal is not on Spotify, Pandora or Slacker. I want to hear more of this stuff.
 
2014-03-02 03:45:27 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: I am dissappoint that BabyMetal is not on Spotify, Pandora or Slacker. I want to hear more of this stuff.


Oops, wrong thread.
 
2014-03-02 03:47:18 PM  
What bugged me even more than the walking was the amount of time the hobbits spend lying on their backs staring up in terror at imminent death. I'm guessing it's because setting up shots with forced perspective to make the hobbits look shorter all the time gets tiresome and eventually the director says "Bugger it, have them lie down so I can move the bloody camera in this shot."

I tried making a drinking game of it, but that's when you find out just how long those movies are.

/Oh, and once you've noticed this, you can't un-notice. So, you're welcome.
 
2014-03-02 03:50:16 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: antidisestablishmentarianism: I am dissappoint that BabyMetal is not on Spotify, Pandora or Slacker. I want to hear more of this stuff.

Oops, wrong thread.


Not being much of a Tolkien fan myself, this made as much sense as anything else in the thread. I just assumed that those were various character or places from the books.

Spotify is one of the comic-relief hobbits, Pandora is an Elf princess, and Slacker is the ranger's lazy younger brother, right?
 
2014-03-02 03:58:56 PM  

czetie: What bugged me even more than the walking was the amount of time the hobbits spend lying on their backs staring up in terror at imminent death. I'm guessing it's because setting up shots with forced perspective to make the hobbits look shorter all the time gets tiresome and eventually the director says "Bugger it, have them lie down so I can move the bloody camera in this shot."

I tried making a drinking game of it, but that's when you find out just how long those movies are.

/Oh, and once you've noticed this, you can't un-notice. So, you're welcome.


That and the RIDICULOUS amount of slow-motion close ups on elves... It was like Peter Jackson had no idea how to convey any type of ethereal majesty so he went with the "fuzzy lens, slow it down, have them whisper their words" approach.  EVERY DAMN TIME.
 
2014-03-02 03:59:30 PM  
The Lord of the Rings would have probably worked better written as a serial. Its basic plot construction is episodic built around a string of small dramatic setpieces... the Barrow-Wights and Tom Bombadil, Bree/Weathertop, Council of Elrond, etc. Each 'episode' has a more or less self-contained dramatic arc and would have the same pleasing level of details while satisfying the human need for immediate plotting. It would make the story more pulp and accessible and kill off the crippling downtime of walking to the next episode.

Tolkien would likely have been horrified at the suggestion but his epic would have been better as a monthly literary feature.
 
2014-03-02 03:59:45 PM  
I'm still pissed that Return Of The King swept the Oscars because of the "We're honoring the trilogy as a whole!" bullshiat. If the two previous movies were that good, they should've won on their own.
 
2014-03-02 04:00:53 PM  
Among the most overrated films of the 2000s.

Archetypes and allegory don't automatically equal great filmmaking (and nor are they an excuse for sloppy filmmaking).
 
2014-03-02 04:03:51 PM  
Yay, I get to post this again:
media.oglaf.com
Oglaf.com has some pretty funny stuff, but is about as NSFW as you can get.
 
2014-03-02 04:20:11 PM  
Return of the King should have had its very last scene when the White Ship left for Valinor. The End. That's when I stood up and started to leave the theater...
 
2014-03-02 04:27:58 PM  
I wonder if there are hobbit-free edits of Two Towers and Return. I'd (re)watch that.

/never could get those who went to theaters to watch the three movies back to back
 
2014-03-02 04:30:15 PM  

Wadded Beef: Loved the trilogy, but wouldn't it have been easier if they just handed the ring to an eagle and they just dropped it straight into Mt. Doom via flyover?


not this shiat again.

i'll skip the long answer and give you the short and the real answer:

Short: the eagles would have attracted the notice of Sauron right off as they would have been very far from their home in the Misty Mountains.

Real answer: what kind of friggen story would that make.
 
2014-03-02 04:30:51 PM  
Uhh, weren't the hobbits supposed to return to a shire in ruins?  I think that counts as a different ending.
 
2014-03-02 04:33:39 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: Uhh, weren't the hobbits supposed to return to a shire in ruins?  I think that counts as a different ending.


Not in ruins just messed the hell up, yeah Saruman's cronies did a lot of damage but the shire  was not as ruined as much as Saruman would have preferred.

Trees cut down and a good attempt at fouling the waters many houses knocked down and people forced to move and the hobbits were opressed making them all the more ready to fight back when Frodo and company returned.
 
2014-03-02 04:34:18 PM  

Wadded Beef: Loved the trilogy, but wouldn't it have been easier if they just handed the ring to an eagle and they just dropped it straight into Mt. Doom via flyover?


No. The eagles would have killed them and taken it for themselves.
 
2014-03-02 04:40:18 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: I'm still pissed that Return Of The King swept the Oscars because of the "We're honoring the trilogy as a whole!" bullshiat. If the two previous movies were that good, they should've won on their own.


Actually, this mentality doesn't only apply to movies... Quite a few gaming sites that have their own awards often don't include games that are "part 1 / episode 1 / 1st act / etc" when it comes to contestants, since even though the games technically separate pieces of software, they are all the same story. I agree with them... Even though the game (or movie) may be 3 separate parts, waiting to judge it in its entirety should be the proper way to do it. If something is offered as "part 1" or the like, we should wait for the entirety to judge it as a whole. Just like plays, movies as a whole have separate acts to them, and in the case of LoTR, each movie essentially served as individual acts. If the whole entirety is good, awesome. But sometimes, that isn't the case, as often the first "act" in a trilogy may be good, but the rest goes to shiat (see: Matrix), and therefore really, the story as a whole is weakened.

Now, again, this really only applies to movies/games/etc. that initially offer themselves up as parts of a whole (trilogy, etc). If a movie does well and there happens to be a sequel that continues the story, that is a bit different. Take Die Hard for example.. the first few? Good. The last one? Sucked. But, it wasn't really offered up as a trilogy (or any sense of a "act 1 movie/ act 2 movie/ etc), so it is ok to judge each one individually. If a movie is offered to us as a trilogy, then we need to examine it as one whole story, just as we judge one movie that offers a story as a whole of 3 acts that are just compressed into a single film.
 
2014-03-02 04:54:12 PM  
My friend and I once watched the extended versions of all three movies in one day...we barely survived. Had it not been for an emergency pizza delivery I don't think I'd be here to tell you about it.
 
2014-03-02 04:55:14 PM  

Zuzax: If your only knowledge of LoTR is from the movies, then it did have a "different" ending for you.  Or endings rather.

LoTR properly ends not at the eagle rescue, but instead with the hobbits reclaiming the Shire in the Battle of Bywater and confronting the fallen Saurman at Bag End.  The whole thing comes full circle there on Frodo's doorstep with Wormtongue's revenge shanking of the defeated and powerless Saruman, and then himself being killed by the hobbits, concluding the last hostile actions of the War of the Ring.

The movie removing the Tom Bombadil stuff had no impact on the story really, but ending before the Scouring of the Shire is just unconscionable.

/nerdrant
//getoffmyshire


People whose only exposure to LoTR is the movies missed out on a lot. The black riders are scary as hell in the books, for instance, and the trip through Khazad-dum was amazing. The movies, while they are well done and enjoyable, don't do the books full justice.
 
2014-03-02 04:55:25 PM  
The movies were technically well-made but fouled so much up. Fight scenes that should have been epic battlefield showpieces were done in close-up after close-up, quick-cut after quick-cut. Denethor was utterly misunderstood, and Théoden's death was a farce. I loved Jackson's earlier movies; LOTR & after? Not so much.

The books? Sure, there are some weak points, but the ending(s) fit his universe, especially when the Silmarillion is taken into account.
 
2014-03-02 04:56:06 PM  

deadsanta: Right, because the best movies are the ones where every character just sits in a chair the whole film. Ok, I mean besides "12 Angry Men", obviously.


Please don't forget the man from earth
 
2014-03-02 04:56:43 PM  
Leave it to a whiny atheist writer to be troubled by Tolkien.

Oh, and Ishkur, if you want fiction with notes, try Ulysses.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report