[Olog-hai]

Tom Bombadil is nowhere to be found—that one mysterious figure who could put on the Ring with no effect, who could give it back without flinching (Sam gave it back, but he flinched) and who—according to Gandalf—would be the last man standing should Sauron lay waste to the rest of Middle Earth.

And absent Bombadil, we also lost the Barrow Downs and the wights.

But perhaps the most glaring omission in Jackson’s trilogy was the ending—the return of the four Hobbits to the Shire where Saruman had set up his miniature tyranny. Without going into great detail, this was the final straw for me when watching The Return of the King. The homecoming was important. The reactions of Frodo and Pippin and Merry were fundamental to bringing Tolkien’s tale full circle. …

Heh. I remember these types when the LOTR movies were still new, especially Return Of The King. Even the extended editions of these movies were over four hours long each; I missed the Scouring too, but could we really sit in the theater for six hours while that level of exposition went on?

[BenLurkin]

Was at the theater for ROTK. As the film ground more and more slowly to its conclusion, a young man in the audience shouted "End already!"

I couldn't have agreed more.

[a fool in paradise]

Even the extended editions of these movies were over four hours long each; I missed the Scouring too, but could we really sit in the theater for six hours while that level of exposition went on?

Something that Hollywood has lost the skill of is telling a story. Especially an epic tale but storytelling in general.

Time was when a movie was over 2 hours, there would be several "acts" to the presentation, so that the audience got a dedicated break to use the restroom, get more popcorn since you will be in your chair another hour, call the babysitter, stretch your legs, grab a cigarette, etc.

It also helped audiences to process what they've just taken in, talk to their crowd, etc.

Now the stories just go on and on and on and on without taking a definite turn or any closure (until the end).

Theater owners think that breaks in the film would cut down on the number of screenings. (A) you can charge more for a 3 hour or 4 hour film, (B) the audience is more likely to buy some snacks midway in if they think they are going to be seated another 1:20. Instead, Hollywood doesn't give a damn when you step out to "take care of business". You pro'lly won't miss anything important. If it was, you'd be given opportunity to go at another time or strong warning signs that "something you don't wanna miss" is coming up.

Then again, people watch movies at home a lot now, so take a break every 15 minutes if you want, and you'll never be fully immersed in the tale. It's only a movie. It's only a movie...

[ctdonath2]

Indeed. The totality of the director’s cut is TWELVE HOURS for what is really just one long movie in 3 chapters. ...and that’s not much more than a summary of the book. Add in Tom, poetry, the scouring, etc and you’ll get a miniseries so long few will watch it and few can afford it (with such top-end production values).

[dragonblustar]

could we really sit in the theater for six hours while that level of exposition went on?

For the diehards, that wouldn't be a problem. Ever see the line up for a new i-phone? People pitch tents for that.