Summary of "My Thoughts On The Lord Of the Rings Movies" Episode from The Matt Walsh Show

Podcast Title: The Matt Walsh Show
Host/Author: The Daily Wire
Episode Title: My Thoughts On The Lord Of The Rings Movies
Release Date: March 8, 2025

In this engaging episode of The Matt Walsh Show, hosts Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, and Andrew Klavan delve into a critical analysis of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. The discussion primarily focuses on the length of the movies, narrative choices, and perceived plot inconsistencies. Below is a detailed breakdown of the key points, enriched with notable quotes and timestamps for reference.

1. Critique of Movie Length

The conversation opens with Matt Walsh addressing the pervasive issue of lengthy films, specifically targeting the extended runtimes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

• Matt Walsh [00:02]:
  "Each Lord of the Rings movie is three and a half hours long or longer, and that's more than justified."
  While acknowledging the epic scope of the series, Matt concedes that maintaining such length in other movies might not be as justifiable.

• Ben Shapiro [00:22]:
  "Lord of the Rings was mentioned by several people. Sorry. Not only is Lord of the Rings not an exception, but it's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about."
  Ben counters by asserting that the trilogy exemplifies the very issue Matt points out, arguing that the extended durations are excessive.

2. Extended Cuts and Length Justification

Ben Shapiro elaborates on his stance regarding the extended editions of Return of the King, the final installment in the trilogy.

• Ben Shapiro [00:48]:
  "The theatrical release of Return of the King was about three and a half hours long. [...] And extended cuts that are a half hour longer are just obscene. That's so insanely long."
  He criticizes the additional content in the extended cuts, labeling them as unnecessarily lengthy and offensive to viewers.

• Ben Shapiro [01:35]:
  "You could have cut Return of the King. You could have cut at least 45 minutes out of that movie. And it would have been a better movie."
  Ben advocates for a significant reduction in runtime, suggesting that a tighter narrative would enhance the film's quality.

3. Plot Holes: The Eagles' Role

The hosts transition to discussing a well-known plot hole in the trilogy: the absence of timely intervention by the Eagles.

• Ben Shapiro [02:16]:
  "Why didn't they just ride the bird to Mordor? [...] It could have been 30 minutes total if they just hopped on the bird, go drop the ring off in the volcano or whatever and they'd be fine."
  He questions the narrative decision to exclude the Eagles from playing a pivotal role in the climax, positing that their involvement could have streamlined the story.

• Andrew Klavan [02:24]:
  "I get this same question. Why didn't they just fly the eagles to Mordor? You know, Shut up."
  Andrew echoes the sentiment, albeit humorously dismissing the suggestion.

4. Subplot of the Ghost Soldiers

Ben Shapiro critiques the introduction and execution of the ghost soldiers subplot in Return of the King.

• Ben Shapiro [02:48]:
  "You could have cut the whole subplot of the ghost soldiers [...] and that would have saved you 40 minutes or so, probably."
  He argues that the ghost soldiers' entrance during the climactic battle was both unnecessary and poorly timed.

• Ben Shapiro [04:00]:
  "The ghost soldiers show up halfway through the battle. I don't know why they're late. [...] It's a little much."
  Ben points out the illogical timing and lack of stakes associated with the ghost soldiers, questioning their narrative purpose.

• Ben Shapiro [05:19]:
  "You could have had the ghost soldiers fight every battle through all three movies. The movie's over in an hour."
  He suggests that the consistent involvement of ghost soldiers would have not only expedited the conflict resolution but also maintained narrative coherence.

5. Character Analysis: Frodo’s Portrayal

The hosts discuss the characterization of Frodo Baggins, particularly his demeanor and decision-making throughout the saga.

• Ben Shapiro [02:24]:
  "Frodo didn't even do a good job in the first place. He whined like a baby the entire time."
  Ben criticizes Frodo's portrayal as indecisive and overly emotional, which he believes detracts from the character's heroism.

• Ben Shapiro [03:10]:
  "He tried to turn back at the last moment and not even do the job. And it only happened because Gollum tackled him."
  He highlights Frodo's reluctance to complete his mission, attributing his success to external intervention rather than personal resolve.

6. Overall Critique and Conclusion

In wrapping up his analysis, Ben Shapiro expresses his overall disappointment with the trilogy's execution.

• Ben Shapiro [05:45]:
  "I've complained about Lord of the Rings, and it has taken as long for me to complain about it as the movie is also. So this has just been a total waste of time."
  He summarizes his critique by labeling the experience as unproductive, despite the trilogy's monumental status in cinema.

7. Final Remarks

Andrew Klavan provides a contrasting opinion, briefly mentioning his appreciation for the franchise.

• Andrew Klavan [06:27]:
  "I'm a huge uber Lord of the Rings fan. I watched all the extras on the extended version. But which is the best film franchise of these three? I'll say this one."
  Andrew declares his favoritism towards The Lord of the Rings franchise, acknowledging its depth and extended content.

Conclusion

This episode offers a critical perspective on The Lord of the Rings movies, primarily focusing on their extended runtimes and perceived narrative flaws. While Ben Shapiro presents a thorough critique of specific elements such as plot holes and character development, Andrew Klavan provides a counterpoint appreciating the franchise's depth. Matt Walsh facilitates the discussion, highlighting the tension between cinematic ambition and storytelling efficiency. Listeners gain insight into the complexities of adapting epic literature to film, balancing fidelity to source material with audience engagement.