Why did Peter Jackson leave Scouring of the Shire out of the movie? It's one of the most important parts of the story

Why did Peter Jackson leave Scouring of the Shire out of the movie? It's one of the most important parts of the story

Attached: 685f73840ca79901404cbb68152edbda.jpg (481x800, 127K)

Time constraint.

it would be a whole another movie in itself tbf

I think Samwise had a vision of it hapening so you see a brief glimpse of it.

because it already felt like the ending was dragging on

Because he was only contracted to make 3 movies.
If he had included EVERYTHING, then each movie would be 12 hours each.
He had to include other shit to captivate the audiences that weren't familiar with the books, because some people don't appreciate good story telling and need to have pure action and shit to keep their interest.

I love the book, but I think Jackson did as well as he could have done.
Obviously I'm annoyed some things got left out, but he had to look at the bigger picture to get as many people to watch it as possible.

its in there, you goof

Why did Peter Jackson leave Tom Bombadill out of the movie? He's one of the most important characters in the story

no he's not you faggot

The Two Towers actually lags with regards to Sam and Frodo’s plot.

The entire Shelob sequence should have been in it rather than in ROTK.

If they knew Lotr would have been so successful, they would have done 4-6 movies. See how much they tried to stretch The Hobbit.
But back then they didn't, so no Imrahil and no Scouring (as an example).
Is true that the Scouring shows very well how much the Hobbit grew up, but the four of them still had a clear arc. And people already complain RotK has "too many endings" or similar bullshit.
Also, compared to all the stuff it happens before, is a bit anticlimactic.
So yeah. Sad, but it had to go.

then people would know the nazgul dies because of the dagger that tom gave to merry, and not because of the strong womyn

>Oh i could solve your problem, the ring has no power over me, i deal with it so that you wont have to go to Mordor
>But it'm a lazy idiot who would forget about it
>Not git out, Goldberry has been a bad girl and needs punishment

She still delivers the final blow and was part of the prophecy in the original story, you obsessed incel.

Non-meme answer:

Thematically it would not have worked on film. The whole point of the movies is that the Hobbits go out of their comfort zone in the Shire to fight and protect the Shire from being eventually being taken by darkness

If they came home from the war and the shire was burnt and in a struggle for survival that would have made the journey pointless and the movie would have taken a dark turn

highly this it only works in books not on screen

however it does leave things a bit strange; the 4 hobbits became the leaders of the shire because of how they acted in the scourging
if it wasnt for that theyd just be ignored as weirdos with funny foreigb clothes, as it is in the movies; they just sit quietly in the green dragon drinking and no one knows anything about them

>one of the most important

There were enough fake endings already

>If they came home from the war and the shire was burnt and in a struggle for survival that would have made the journey pointless and the movie would have taken a dark turn
based retard

He's not wrong, it would completely fuck with any pacing the movie had. It's a good book chapter but would be very anti-climactic. Remember that side boss that was defeated in the 2nd movie? Yeah he's a small town thug boss now.

>Tolkien
>good story telling

user.... You need to KYS

I'd say it works better leaving it out of the books as well, if it were the case. The stories are kind of based on the world war, so them coming home and home is basically unchanged but they themselves are totally changed, and no one can understand or relate to them, is like how it was.

Ruining the pacing is kinda the point though
It's to remind you that the Shire is not some heaven-land where nothing bad ever happens, and that things actually happened there while the hobbits were away, and that just because you defeat the great evil doesnt mean all of the world is saved automatically by that

Had to make room for Arwen’s bullshit side-story and scenes.

Which is good for a book but not the final movie of a trilogy.

>Where've you been? On nights?

Attached: 1551210993502.png (2160x714, 29K)

>The one about his own dad not giving a shit

Attached: EE723041-4772-4622-A4EC-5E693710E7F6.png (183x200, 45K)

this isn't so much as a remark on the differences between literature and film, rather it speaks to the huge difference in the audiences of each

You are now thinking a female teenage hobbit virgin getting rammed by uruk cock.

because it was shit
>oh btw the shire has been taken over by some random dudes
>oh its okay we beat them haha
what an epic end

It would only be 30 mins, but 2019 Jackson would make it a full 3 hour movie because he's sold out to the studios and become a hack.

True but it would have doubled the run time nearly, meaning a 4th film would have been necessary, which just fucks with any pacing.

the extended edition is already way too long as it is

are you actually retarded?

>some random dudes
>Sharky

>meaning a 4th film would have been necessary
Thank god these films were made before studios started splitting final book movies into Parts 1 & 2.

Based and riverpilled

Why does RotK have such terrible pacing?
They even put the Shelob thing at the beginning instead of putting it at the end of TT