Recently, a discussion exploded among fans of “The Lord of the Rings” movies regarding a particular critique from conservative commentator Matt Walsh. Many viewers know the movies as monumental achievements, showcasing the epic journey of hobbits, wizards, and men in the fight against the dark lord Sauron. However, Walsh has set fire to this appreciation by suggesting that the story’s core plot—regarding why the characters did not simply ride giant eagles to Mordor—creates a significant narrative hole. This article will examine this critique and defend the incredible cinematic triumph that is Peter Jackson’s adaptation.
To begin with, it is essential to acknowledge the sheer scope and complexity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s work. The “Lord of the Rings” series is over a thousand pages long, packed with intricate storytelling, rich character arcs, and elaborate histories. Even if one only considers the pacing and structure of the films, it is clear that they remain faithful to the spirit of Tolkien’s literary creation. Arguments that criticize the plot device of eagles, while humorous, overlook the profound world-building and depth that the films so masterfully convey. They do not merely provide thrills; they create an engaging universe that captures the imagination.
However, Walsh’s critique does raise some interesting points for discussion, albeit wrapped in a light-hearted jest. The logistics of why the Fellowship chose not to use the eagles more strategically deserves scrutiny, yet it’s a plot thread that serves a greater purpose within the narrative. The eagles represent freedom and power—giving them a simple ride to Mordor would undermine the struggles faced by the characters. The battles fought and the friendships forged on the journey are the real essence of the story, offering viewers a testament to resilience and bravery against overwhelming odds.
From the perspective of cinema, the adaptability and interpretation of source material is not a straightforward task. When translating a tome as dense as “The Lord of the Rings” into a feature-length format, creative choices need to be made. The inclusion of the “Army of the Dead,” for instance, creates compelling visuals and drama. Though these plot devices could lead to rapid resolutions that potentially simplify complex battles, they also showcase the overarching clash of good versus evil. Ultimately, the films invite viewers to witness the struggle and realize that no battle—or good deed—is ever truly straightforward or easy.
Furthermore, in moments where Walsh implies the runtime of these films is excessive, one must ask: isn’t extended storytelling often necessary to capture a complex narrative? The cinematic interpretations of these narratives allow for deep emotional engagement and world exploration, steering clear of the pitfalls of rushed storytelling. When viewers participate in lengthy epics, they become part of that world, allowing their imaginations to run wild. After all, isn’t it preferable to immerse oneself fully in rich detail rather than skimming over the surface?
In summary, while Walsh’s critique offers an amusing perspective, it reflects a misunderstanding of what makes “The Lord of the Rings” a masterpiece. The movies embody the spirit of adventure, sacrifice, and the battle against darkness, bolstered by expert world-building that respects Tolkien’s original vision. Though some may debate elements of its storytelling, the lasting impact these films have had on popular culture is undeniable. If critics fancy engaging in logical contradictions and plot holes, there are certainly more fruitful targets than a beloved series that has stood the test of time. Let us appreciate the artistry of these films rather than nitpick them into oblivion!
