Jackson got it right on the Scouring

[Black Breathalizer]

As much as I like the Scouring of the Shire, Peter Jackson is right to exclude it from the Return of the King. The trilogy is about the destruction of the ring. The Scouring, although great, was terribly anticlimatic. I think it would have been better for Tolkien to give the reclaiming of the Shire its own separate focus in the Appendix (like the story of Arwen and Aragorn) and end the book the Jackson will end his movie trilogy.

The brilliant thing about Jackson's move is that he can always bring the actors back sometime in the future and film the Scouring of the Shire as a special extra on a future LOTR DVD. He could do the same thing with Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights.

[Celebriel]

May I ask, how do you know it will not be included in the ROTK? I hope they will. How else would the audience know the end of Frodo?



- Celebriel

[samwise of the shire]

The trilogy is about the destruction of the ring. The Scouring, although great, was terribly anticlimatic. BB, I am trying very hard not to hit you over the head with a frying pan. I would like to point out though that the purpose of the Scouring in the book is to calm the reader down. The Hobbits are going home, they clean stuff up, things start winding down for the conclusion. I honestly wish the great sod would grow some brains when it comes to this and help calm the audience down, it will be needed because they say we're gonna be a LITTLE weepy during the film.
How else would the audience know the end of Frodo? The Scouring is just sort of a cleanup bit. They fix up the rest of seriously evil people and get thing back to normal. It's not the END of Frodo...the "end" comes when he goes to the Grey Havens. The Scouring doesn't really lead up to it. They can take it out...I just think that PJ will loose alot of Tolkienite support. I mean he mauled Treebeard in TTT, and he made Lothlorien into some sort of strange freaky place in FOTR...stands to reason he's gonna hack something to bits in ROTK...probably the end,
Cheers,
Sam
ps. Dont kill me BB. I was stating my opinion, so please dont take offense as to what I said. I merely think that PJ could've done better with some of the scene's in both movies. :)

[Celebriel]

It's not the END of Frodo...

I know the scouring does not symbolize the end of him, I just did not want to spoil his fate for anyone who did not know it.

But I do agree with you on the rest.

Ah, my animes are on. Namaarie!



- Celebriel

[Firekitten2006]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
BB, I am trying very hard not to hit you over the head with a frying pan.
I'll do it for you *wack!*

The Scouring just kinda ties everything up. I love it, and I still hope PJ will pop in even a bit of it.

[Artanis]

You really like to live dangerously, do you Black Breathalizer? :D

Although I do not like it, it seems all rumours support that there will be no scouring of the Shire in the movie. I think it is a pity, because for me that part was essential to the story. In the book it is a tale told from a Hobbit's point of view, it is the Hobbits we get to follow home after the fall of Sauron, and the scouring fits in naturally. Also the changes the four Hobbits undergoes on their quest, and how they (Sam, Merry and Pip) manage to rouse the inhabitants of the Shire to a rebellion is an important part of the book. It shows another side of the merry Shire people.

I can see why PJ cut the part out though, as he seems to have done. If everything I would want to have in the film had been actually taken in, it would have been at least a 'six-logy'. :)

[Nurvingiel]

You can't delete the scouring and make up an ending. Well, you can, but I believe the quality of the movie would be diminished. Due to time constraints, I can understand why he might want to cut this part out. I think he should go ahead and make a four hour movie. People would still go and see it, Fiddler on the Roof is four hours long.

And just imagine... four solid hours of surround sound, special effects, great acting, mideval style battles, wow! Readers and non-readers alike have built up huge loyalty, interest, and fandom with FotR and TTT, we are ready for a really long and excellent finale to the series, so bring on the Scouring!

Cheers .N.

Edit: whoops, typo

[Black Breathalizer]

PJ didn't film the Scouring of the Shire. That has been confirmed by countless sources, including PJ himself.

But you are all missing my point. The point is that Jackson COULD STILL film it. It's part of the LOTR story that they have the movie rights to film. PJ tells the tale of the ring and THEN goes back and tells the hobbit tale we didn't see on screen. Now that the films have become mega-hits, it makes sense.

To paraphrase the immortal words of New Line's Chairman, Bob Shaye: Why settle for three LOTR films when you can make FOUR?

The Lord of the Rings: The Scouring of the Shire.

[Celebréiel]

Although I would completely miss the scouring, with the way PJ has been setting these films up and his style, it wouldnt have worked. (he couldnt have had it work) I think it could have been beautifully done and not an anti-climax, but not for PJ's films . :D :p

[Insidious Rex]

Its a shame really because it works well in the books but from a Hollywood point of view I can definitely see why they wouldnt want to do it. Youve just spent three years pouring all over Middle Earth fighting battles and creatures of amazing power and from the jaws of defeat you snatch victory and youve defeated a super powerful creature of pure evil and saved the world from certain doom and basically hell on earth after the fate of your quest was hanging by a string. A new king of the old blood line is finally crowned and men reunite and peace abounds. And now what do you do? Well you have a little fight with some thugs in the shire. Then you plant some new trees and rebuild some houses and.... eh.... 90% of the viewing public would be thinking whats going on? Isnt it over? Wheres my coat.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The Scouring of the Shire is a symbolic part of the story. Tolkien has stated (a number of times, I believe) that he sees history as one long defeat, with occasional glimpses at the final, Eternal Victory. The destruction of the Ring and the crowning of Aragorn was such a glimpse at the final Victory. The Scouring of the Shire, along with the scene at the Grey Havens, were parts of the continuous Defeat, and showed that the world will not be a perfect, paradisical place after the defeat of Sauron and the destruction of the Ring. But the Scouring was important in and of itself, as it showed how even the Little Folk of the Shire can stand up for what is theirs; it is a part of the theme of how even the smallest people can make a difference.

[Elf.Freak]

you WON'T miss the scouring of the shire?! *goes away pulling hair out*

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The point is that Jackson COULD STILL film it. That would be great if it were done with the same skill and thoroughness as the movies we have already seen. But then why not shoot it as four movies from the beginning?

[Aranwe]

It'd make a rather boring end to the 3 movies for those who haven't read the books. Would be great to see it added, but unfortunately it doesn't look like that's going to happen :(

Maybe if PJ returns to the Tolkien story to do 'The Hobbit' he'll film some extra scenes there, but I doubt it.

The point is that Jackson COULD STILL film it. It's part of the LOTR story that they have the movie rights to film

Wouldn't be worth flying all the actors, crew etc. out to New Zealand just for 20-30 mins of footage to do it on its own. They could make a mini-movie or something but I think an entire movie about the scouring of the shire would basically be crap! :p

[Firekitten2006]

Ya know what I would like to see? (Now that I'm done wacking BB) I would *love* it if they put like an alternate ending in the EE of ROTK, or use the Scouring as a deleted scene in the Theatrical Version, and put it back in in the EE.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Aranwe
It'd make a rather boring end to the 3 movies for those who haven't read the books.

I think non-readers are just as intelligent and preceptive as people who did read the books. In that case, they can appreciate how the story comes full circle in the Scouring. This part of the story starts and ends with hobbits. They can appreciate the importance of the hobbits defeating evil in their own land without any help. The fact that the evil of Mordor penetrated even the Shire is extremely scary and dramatic, and there's also kick ass battles, and humour. What more could you want?

Though, I agree, BB, that he could still film it, I doubt that he will. (I'm still holding out for the fact that PJ's filmed it already, and it will be part of RotK.) PJ is a good director, and organised. This means he probably planned out how and what he was going to film for all three parts in advance of the actual filming. The guy did spend about six years on this project.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I think non-readers are just as intelligent and preceptive as people who did read the books. In that case, they can appreciate how the story comes full circle in the Scouring

eh... I think you give people too much credit unfortunately. Im thinking a lot of viewers would lose focus at this point and think it was a lame ending despite its necessity to the books. I mean you think the movie Jackass made tons of money because people like to have deep meaning and subtle closure themes in their movies? Nah. Unless it was done in such a way which would involve changing things anyway and making it more hollywoody and even that would be extremelly difficult to pull off.

[Elf Girl]

I am not going to argue with BB, as the reason BB joined Entmoot is evidently to be a troublemaker in all ways possible, and my viewpoint has already been expressed. *hits BB over the head with a frying pan by accident* Sorry... instinct....

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Aranwe
They could make a mini-movie or something but I think an entire movie about the scouring of the shire would basically be crap! :p Actually, I agree with you about it making up an entire movie.

But I would bet anybody that New Line is talking about the Scouring of the Shire with PJ now. When Jackson planned and executed the original film shoot, they weren't thinking of ANY extended versions. According to PJ, it was only when he discovered that he had a wealth of good material for the Fellowship of the Ring that would need to be cut from the theatrical release that the idea of an extended version was ever discussed.

Since then, I'm convinced that last year's actor reunion in NZ for additional shooting was as much for the extended edition of TTT as it was for TTT's theatrical release. So the idea of the Scouring being added this summer -- or even the summer of 2004 -- is not completely far-fetched.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I have to agree. I know many people on this board love this part of the books. Personally, I think it is a major let down and somewhat unrealistic. For Saruman to have fallen that far does not strike me as believable.

I also think it would have been better as an appendix. But Tolkien himself has said that with a story that large, it is impossible to please everyone. I am quite thankful for his work!

(Actually, I think that is the one part of LOTR that contains a tad bit of allegory, although JRR denied it.)

[LuthienTinuviel]

not touching this one, no no no.

[IronParrot]

Hmm... I suppose I could dig up my old mega-posts on this subject, and just copy and paste, but maybe a capsule summary will suffice.

I suspected that the Scouring of the Shire would be dumped long before they even filmed the movie, and initially I was outraged, but after a lot of careful analysis - especially seeing what's been done with the first two films - I would agree that leaving it out is the right thing to do.

I could write a whole essay about this, but my key point is that cinema is a fundamentally visual medium. Its dramatic beats are created and transmitted to the audience through a visual means. Therefore, in the interest

Regarding Tolkien's original work, in many ways the Scouring of the Shire was the true climax, when you see the hobbits come into their own. It's got this sort of structure:

hobbit story -> hobbits get involved in the big picture -> big picture story -> Ring is destroyed -> big picture story is over -> hobbit character development is put to the test in final climax.

What's especially important to remember is that throughout the book - at the Prancing Pony before meeting Strider, at the Mirror of Galadriel, or when Merry and Pippin find pipeweed in Isengard, etc. - we are constantly reminded that all may not be well in the Shire. Look at the order by which the characters enter the story. The hobbits are introduced first, Strider and the rest of the Fellowship a fair bit later. The Fellowship finally disbands before the journey home. The Scouring of the Shire essentially serves as a bookend.

Tolkien is able to write it as a climax, because of structure. He is able to make it, in some ways, an even bigger finish than the destruction of the Ring. Why? Because he's working with words alone.

Let's look at the film.

In a film, the climax needs to be visual. (I'm particularly interested in how much room there will be between the destruction of the Ring and the Grey Havens.) My point is, unlike in print, on film there is no way to make the destruction of the Ring a "smaller" or "less significant" event than the fate of the Shire. Peter Jackson and company have committed to portraying LOTR on a large canvas, so it'd better stay on one.

I believe, furthermore, that the way Peter Jackson has done it, he's not shirking the responsibility of focusing on the hobbits and the sanctity of the Shire. I'm not just talking about the Mirror of Galadriel here. I am particularly fond of the scene with Merry and Pippin in The Two Towers after the Ents decide not to do anything, because it reminds us why the hobbits are even in this in the first place. They want to save the Shire. Even in the film of Fellowship, Frodo leaves the Shire with such urgency in the first place because he doesn't want evil to come to it - and that, if anything, is true to the book.

However: if the Scouring of the Shire was to be included - though I don't think it's happening - it would certainly be a good thing, if done right. Anticlimaxes in film can be very powerful if done properly. Exhibit A: Lawrence of Arabia.

Still, with what's been established already, it would seem out of place. There haven't been any clues as to the fate of the Shire, unlike the book. It doesn't make sense to include it now, and tack it on at the end.

Whoops, did I say capsule summary?

[Lizra]

As an emotional wimp, I'll be more than happy NOT to see PJ showing horrendous images of a ruined and raped Shire. Bag End in Galadriel's mirror was awful! (I love that scrabble piece rune!) :)

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lizra
As an emotional wimp, I'll be more than happy NOT to see PJ showing horrendous images of a ruined and raped Shire. Bag End in Galadriel's mirror was awful! (I love that scrabble piece rune!) :)

Bag End in seen through Galadriels mirror was indeed awful.....but it does make me wonder if the Scouring has already been filmed in full....................

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by IronParrot
However: if the Scouring of the Shire was to be included - though I don't think it's happening - it would certainly be a good thing, if done right. Anticlimaxes in film can be very powerful if done properly. Exhibit A: Lawrence of Arabia.

Unfortunately, Peter Jackson is no David Lean. In fact, imho, he isn't worthy of polishing the latter's boots.

Makes me wonder, had a director of Lean's caliber been involved what sort of Middle Earth we would have seen...:(

The Scouring wraps the story up for me, but I can see how a one-dimensional action flick couldn't have it as an ending.

[Gilraen]

Point well taken, IronParrot. I'm not a movie maker, but I've always thought the Scouring would be tricky to include in a commercial release. However, what's to be done about Saruman??

[Aralyn]

Exactly Gilraen!

What's he gonna do about Saruman? I mean they can't have someone else kil them can they?:eek: :eek:

I Love the scouring but it probably wouldn't work in the movie. Which is why the book will always be better than the movie!!:cool: ;) :) :cool:

[Coney]

However, what's to be done about Saruman??

Good question!

Also raises the point of Gandalf (presuming the Grey Havens departure will have a scene).

In the book Gandalf was finished with the affairs of ME after Sauron fell. He "went for a long talk with Bombadil" what will become of Gandalf in the interviening years between the end of the 3rd age and his departure from ME?


Why do I feel RotK ending will be akin to the medal giving ceremony at the end of Star Wars?....only the ending will be Aragorns coronation....with the fellowship standing in front of Aragorns throne, grinning like a set of baboons.

[Aralyn]

Originally posted by Coney

Why do I feel RotK ending will be akin to the medal giving ceremony at the end of Star Wars?....only the ending will be Aragorns coronation....with the fellowship standing in front of Aragorns throne, grinning like a set of baboons. [/B]

Oh please no Oh please no! Another thing to worry about. :eek:
Actually that scene was dissapointing (in star wars)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Coney
Why do I feel RotK ending will be akin to the medal giving ceremony at the end of Star Wars?....only the ending will be Aragorns coronation....with the fellowship standing in front of Aragorns throne, grinning like a set of baboons.

Amazing I thought the exact same thing. But I also saw that scene at the end of Jedi when they are all hanging out in the ewok kingdom and the ghosts of Darth and Obi Won are there with big huge "Yep I saved the universe" smiles on their faces just chumming it up. So imagine this:

Lothlorien. Elves are running about happy and gay as ever. Little hobbits have appeared in the scene for some reason and are running about playing little hobbit games. And theres all our heroes. Smug as ever looking over everything. And theres the ghost of Gollum! Now much mellower and more hobbit like winking over at Frodo who winks back at him. And theres Saruman whose seen the error of his ways and has come back from the dark side. And Legolas give Gimli a playful nudge who responds with a wookie like grunt and everyone laughs as the camera pans backwards. What a finish eh?

[Coney]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Lothlorien. Elves are running about happy and gay as ever. Little hobbits have appeared in the scene for some reason and are running about playing little hobbit games. And theres all our heroes. Smug as ever looking over everything. And theres the ghost of Gollum! Now much mellower and more hobbit like winking over at Frodo who winks back at him. And theres Saruman whose seen the error of his ways and has come back from the dark side. And Legolas give Gimli a playful nudge who responds with a wookie like grunt and everyone laughs as the camera pans backwards. What a finish eh?

:eek: :eek: AAARRGGHHhh!! runs away ---------->

Actually it's this way <-------- but don't tell Black Breathalizer;)

[Gilraen]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Ouch! To your room you go without supper for even VISUALIZING that!!

[Insidious Rex]

*laugh* sorry. I guess you dont want to see my alternate Vegas chorus line ending where Gandolf reveales himself to actually be Wayne Newton.

[Insidious Rex]

Oh! Or the one where Frodo and Sam have destroyed the ring and everything is falling over and fire is spitting out of the ground and Frodo assumes they are doomed and is forlorn and Sam smiles at him and breaks into song: "Dont be so glum Frodo ol pal! The sun'll come out TOO-MOR-OW! BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR THAT TOMORROW! THERE'LL BE SUN! TOMORROW!!! TOMORROW!!! I LOVE YA!! TOMORROW!!! YOURE ALWAYS..." etc.

[IronParrot]

Gollum bites Frodo's finger off - then Frodo awakens. It was all a dream.

[Blackboar]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Gollum bites Frodo's finger off - then Frodo awakens. It was all a dream.


:eek: :eek: :eek:

*speechless*

You had BETTER be kidding!

*Stabs PJ*

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The trilogy is about the destruction of the ring. The Scouring, although great, was terribly anticlimatic.

You're lucky you didn't post that in the LOTR books forum. I understand that you're speaking of the film trilogy. LOTR books are not "about the destruction of the ring", they're much more about the Scouring and the passing of the elves, but Jackson has ignored that (at least in his movies).

[Black Breathalizer]

Wrongo, Fat middle.

The emphasis of both the LOTR books and the movies is CLEARLY about the destruction of the ring. Like all great stories, there are many great subplots too. Many of them are so strong that they can hold the reader's (or the audience's) attention past the end of the primary plot. But they are always secondary to the driving force of the main plotline.

I love ROTK. But there is no avoiding the fact that the book lost much of its edge once the ring was destroyed, the king was crowned and it was time for the crew to head home. I would suspect that Jackson will leave little time wasted between the destruction of the ring and the Grey Havens.

[markedel]

Actually the LOTR is also about the end of the age of myth-and the scouring is symbolic of this ending, this dramatic shift in the workings of the Earth. But when I first read LOTR when I was 11 or 12 I thought it was boring, and since the movies are action set-pieces (beautiful and well-done though they are) to have such a part in would not fit.

But if only...

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by markedel
Actually the LOTR is also about the end of the age of myth-and the scouring is symbolic of this ending, this dramatic shift in the workings of the Earth.I will make a prediction: I'll bet that Jackson's ROTK will beautifully communiate the end of one age and the dawn of dominion of Man without the Scouring of the Shire.

Remember to say "Wow, BB, you were psychic!" next December. ;) :D

[BeardofPants]

Sam: can I borrow your pans?

*Whack!*

Alrighty. Now that BB is out of the way... LOTR is, first and foremost, a story about hobbits. This is why the scouring is an important process of the story -- it shows the maturation of the hobbits as a people.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, I'm almost positive that Tolkien said a number of times that the Lord of the Rings was about Hobbits in his letters.

[Black Breathalizer]

Great books -- and movies -- tell a story. This tale is about hobbits but the story's plot is about what the hobbits do.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, and the Hobbits rose against Saruman's ruffians and freed the Shire from his grasp!

Haha, got you! :D

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I will make a prediction: I'll bet that Jackson's ROTK will beautifully communiate the end of one age and the dawn of dominion of Man without the Scouring of the Shire.

Remember to say "Wow, BB, you were psychic!" next December. ;) :D

I'm sure he'll do a fine job of the ending, and maybe people who didn't read RotK won't even notice the end is abrupt and unfinished. People who have read the books, of course, will rage.

As many people already observed, LotR is not about Men. They are just an instrument to tell a story about hobbits, providing useful plot devices. Men are important in LotR, but it's not about them.

The story starts and ends with hobbits, it comes full circle. It wouldn't make sense to start with hobbits and end with, say, the marriage of Aragorn and Arwen.

So the end can still be good without the Scouring (and this admission was a hard enough comprimise for me) but it will not be great, complete, accurate, perfect, spot on, or amazing.

Remember to say "Wow, Nurvingiel, you were right!" next December. ;) :D

[Black Breathalizer]

The movie trilogy started with the creation of the three elven rings and will end, fittingly enough, with the departure of the three elven rings from Middle-Earth.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Aha! So you admit it isn't really The Lord of the Rings.

[Black Breathalizer]

I beg your pardon. My copy of the Fellowship of the Rings starts with the words "Three rings for the elven kings under the sky." :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, mine starts with 'It's been fifteen years at this writing...'

[BeardofPants]

Hey you two -- stop squabbling or I'll bang your heads together. Ah screw it, I'll settle for smacking BB around the ears. :p

[Nurvingiel]

Why exactly is it right for the Scouring to get deleted? It's perfectly valid to make a 3 1/2 - 4 hour movie, and with all the effort they put into making the rest, I don't think effort is a problem.

Why does Scouring need to go? I'm resigned to seeing it go the way of Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest. In this deletion as well, a little more of the hobbit charm and whimsy was lost.

[cassiopeia]

The Lord of the Rings was also written by hobbits.
I think we have to resign ourselves to the fact that the scouring is out. Unless PJ secretly decides to film it between now and December. *PJ are you listening? Pretty please?* :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The question is, Did PJ Get it Right on the Scouring?

[Nurvingiel]

If LotR is all about hobbits, and the part of LotR where hobbits free The Shire from the influence of Mordor, without help from anyone else, then maybe deleting that part isn't the best plan.

[Black Breathalizer]

Jackson's telling of the tale is focused on the destruction of the Ring, not hobbits. The "concerning hobbits" opening wasn't even in the theatrical release so it's hard to effectively argue that hobbits are the movie's focus.

The same holds true for the original novels. The only difference is that Tolkien was SO detailed with his writing that you could make a compelling case that many of his subplots could have been primary motivations for his work.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, Tolkien's work was definitely about the Hobbits. If you say PJ's trilogy isn't (which it certainly seems to have made Aragorn more important than Frodo in the second movie to me), then you agree that the LOTR movies are not the same as the LOTR book. :)

[olsonm]

PJ has said he didn't like the Scouring in the book. Anti-climatic I believe he called it. I don't think he's right about that but neither do I think it's essential to telling the story. The Scouring is a secondary element that can be included or excluded at the discretion of the adaptor. I would put it in my (non-existent) adaption but PJ's movie'll work just fine without it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sure, it'll work. It'll be good. But it won't be TRUE to the original. It won't be GREAT.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
(which it certainly seems to have made Aragorn more important than Frodo in the second movie to me)Therein lies the difficulty of a live-action adaption: how do you make Frodo and Sam stewing rabbit and wandering the wilderness *seem* more important than the battle of Helm's Deep and still include most of the Western part of the story? Anyway, Sam's character becomes the most important (the real hero of the story according to Tolkien) and I feel he is beginning to emerge as such near the end of the movie. (his character is more developed in the special edition of FOTR)

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Sure, it'll work. It'll be good. But it won't be TRUE to the original. It won't be GREAT. It's greatness (or un-greatness) will be it's own to achieve. Most adaptions, even of historical events, take on a life of their own and become something different. There's a reason Tolkien didn't like adaptions. But still he wasn't against one of his book. PJ's adaption has been radically different from the book since the prologue of FOTR.

Still, I think the meaning of the Scouring will be conveyed to the audience by the vastly changed characters of the four hobbits. I seriously doubt that PJ will show them as unchanged by their adventure. So it's Trueness to the book will rest where PJ has claimed it will: thematically. Tolkien remarked that Drama reduces stories to their "human element.'' I believe he was right. The change in the four hobbits will have to stand in for the change in hobbit worldview. Not that it *has* to be that way, but that PJ can be forgiven for doing it his way.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Sure, it'll work. It'll be good. But it won't be TRUE to the original. It won't be GREAT. That's what I've been saying all along! Good, definately, but not great without the Scouring.

Potential ending. (Warning, severe parody.)

Gollum falls into the Cracks of Doom, shrieking in terror.
"My precious!!!"

Sam carries an injured Frodo outside, to await their doom.

Arwen rides up on Glorfindel's horse. She hops off, places Frodo and Sam on the horse, and then leaps up behind them.

Mount Doom erupts, sending rivers of lava down its slopes.

Arwen, Frodo, and Sam gallop away, barely outreaching the advancing lava.

Now, in Osgiliath, Frodo and Sam wake up, more refreshed.

Aragorn congradulates them on destroying the ring, marries Arwen, and is crowned king.

Merry and Pippin are in the crowd, in the armour of Rohan and Gondor respectively. "Too bad this particular plot device only got a small amount of attention," says Merry, indicating the armour.

"But I got to meet another Harry Potter-style troll on the battle field, and this time I won," responds Pippin.

Back to Frodo and Sam.

"Well Sam, it'll be nice to go back to our pristine, untouched Shire after defeating the evil of Mordor," says Frodo.
"Yes, I'm sure glad Saruman took absolutely no interest in the Shire, and met a premature and untimely death," says Sam.
"Yes, but I think I will go to the Grey Havens inexplicably, no time to explain," blurts Frodo.
"But..." Sam is shocked.
"Sorry Sam, even the book barely had time to explain this," Frodo says sadly.

Shot of Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf and the Elves sailing into the West.

[IronParrot]

To me, leaving out the Scouring of the Shire is no different than a grand film about the Second World War ending with the defeat of Nazi Germany and not really talking about the Japanese theatre at all.

Or like how Lawrence of Arabia doesn't cover all the stuff in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and doesn't extend into talking about Lawrence's life and attempt to return to a low-profile life after the First World War.

Or like how The Prince of freaking Egypt practically ends with the parting of the Red Sea. I didn't hear anybody whine about how it didn't cover the whole Book of Exodus.

Fundamentally, the film has to be recognized as a distinct entity. The destruction of the Ring may not be the Big Idea in the book, but it appears to be so in the film, and just because the film has a different focus doesn't make it "worse".

Tolkien told the story of The Lord of the Rings as if he was recovering a long-lost history that really happened, and faded away with time. The Peter Jackson film takes the same approach, but takes the liberties anybody would take with a given historical epic. I find that the film is based on the same hypothetical history as Tolkien's work, more than Tolkien's work itself.

This approach is thematically faithful to Tolkien's intentions on a whole other level. If The Lord of the Rings has one founding basis, it's the whole idea of timeless storytelling.

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Jackson's telling of the tale is focused on the destruction of the Ring, not hobbits. The "concerning hobbits" opening wasn't even in the theatrical release so it's hard to effectively argue that hobbits are the movie's focus.

The same holds true for the original novels. The only difference is that Tolkien was SO detailed with his writing that you could make a compelling case that many of his subplots could have been primary motivations for his work.

Tolkien said clearly that the books were about death, the relations between Technic and Nature, and something more i cannot remember now. At least those two points cannot be undestood without the Grey Havens and the Scouring.

But you're right about the movies: they're not telling Tolkien's story; they're using to say what PJ judges important: the necessity of human peoples of living in good union; the possibility of defending good against a raising evil...

I think the moment i most hate in the movies is when Frodo asks Sam what is he fighting for and Sam answer he's fighting for the good can reign. In the book Sam fights for the Shire, not for an abstract "good".

[IronParrot]

Um, first of all, most of Sam's spiel at the end of the film of The Two Towers is straight from the book, ironically enough...

Secondly, I don't think the film loses focus on the fact that the hobbits are fighting for the Shire. That's why I like the scene with Merry and Pippin after the Entmoot as much as I do, among others.

Thirdly, I concur with Black Breathalizer's comment that the motives behind Tolkien's work are fully open to analysis.

"Tolkien said clearly that the books were about death, the relations between Technic and Nature, and something more i cannot remember now. At least those two points cannot be undestood without the Grey Havens and the Scouring."
Disagree. The whole "death" idea has a lot more to do with the fading of a glorious past, its "death" in a way, into the recesses of legend. In the film, this is covered from the outset in Galadriel's opening lines in FOTR (which, by the way, were grafted from one of Treebeard's lines in ROTK). As far as the whole technology and nature thing goes, remember that Saruman is still the predominant technocratic villain in the tale, and the film has done itself a service by showing onscreen how he industrializes Isengard. And let's wait and see what Frodo and Sam find in Mordor when we see the final film next December.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay IronParrot, you have me convinced. Jackson is justified is not having the Scouring of the Shire.

I'm still disappointed though, because that was my favourite part of RotK, and I think PJ would have done a cool job of it.

[WallRocker]

Maybe Jackson's Justified, but I still don't think it's right. Let me explain:): The Scouring of the Shire sort of ties everything together; the Hobbits leave the Shire as a safe, comfortable place, and they come back to it as a not so safe, comfortable place. This kind of portrays(IMHO) that Evil touches every aspect of ME. And it shows what happens to Sarumon(although I hear PJ's killing him the beggining of RotK). If PJ cuts out the Scouring, I am not going to be happy:(

[Nurvingiel]

Well I agree with that WallRocker. You'll notice I carefully said "justified" instead of "right". ;)

I guess that's better than Frodo destroying the Ring being taken out eh? :D

[Black Breathalizer]

Get realistic, guys. After the action builds with... (drumroll) ... Shelob ... (drumroll) ... Sam vs. the orcs ... (drumroll) ... Eowyn vs. the Witchking ... (drumroll) ... Gandalf at the gate ... (drumroll) ... the journey to Mount Doom ... (drumroll) ... the mindboggling spectacle of the War of the Ring ... (drumroll) ... then the cracks of doom and the return of Gollum, you want to bring this incredible build-up to a dramatic end with ... (trumpet fanfare) ... Sharky Saurman and Wormtongue vs. the hobbits?!?!?!?!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, I do. And the only reason PJ is 'justified' is that he doesn't really care about the works of Tolkien. He is only interested in money, and putting his name on this classic work loved by millions across the world, IMO.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, I do. And the only reason PJ is 'justified' is that he doesn't really care about the works of Tolkien. He is only interested in money, and putting his name on this classic work loved by millions across the world, IMO. You have every right to disagree with his decisions, but don't disrespect PJ's motiviations. Classics are made from a love for the work itself, not a love of money. There is no question if you've studied how these films were made that Jackson has the same artistic motivations and sensitivities that Tolkien had.

[WallRocker]

GW, I'd have to say that I disagree with you. Even though PJ drives me nuts, I still like the movies:) However, BB, I'd have to say that I disagree with you as well. As good as the LotR movies are, I don't think they will ever become a 'classic':)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by WallRocker
BB, I'd have to say that I disagree with you as well. As good as the LotR movies are, I don't think they will ever become a 'classic':) What cave have you been hiding it, WallRocker? The movies already ARE classics...and the best of them all is still in the can. :)

[Gilraen]

Whoa, wait a minute. What was that comment about killing off Saruman at the beginning of RoTK?? Sigh. I guess I'd rather hear that now and get used to the idea before the movie comes out...

I love PJ's movies as just that, movies. I see them as nice "cousins" to the books, which will always be my favorite pieces of literature. For me, Tolkien's words long ago created images in my mind that no filmmaker, no matter how faithful to the stories, can ever match. I think it is wonderful that the movies have introduced the books to more people. Five years ago I couldn't walk into any book store (in my town anyway) and expect to find much by Tolkien other than The Hobbit or LotR. Now I find entire shelves of literature relating to him! I am in heaven! Okay, enough from me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB, they can't be classics. They aren't even already out yet. A classic is a work which has stood the test of time and pulled through strong.

I agree, I like the movies, they are, as I have stated a number of times, very fun movies. But PJ's motivations do not seem to me to be anything like Tolkien's. PJ's movies are fun; they have wonxderful scenery and very nice battle scenes, as well as CGI. Tolkien's works are not 'fun', they are epic.

[Cirdan]

The movies ceased to be primarily about Hobbits once the Aragorn/Arwen story took center stage. It would be a non-sequitur to include the Scouring at this point. The book is about Hobbits (check the prologue) so the Scouring makes sense and is critical to the central themes of the story. The movies are about the war of the ring, period. Check the percentage of screen time devoted to combat so far: and we haven't even gotten to the most war focused part of the story.

The books broader, and more important themes about the effects of war (lost innocence, destruction of the environment, greater awareness of worldly matters) are manifested in the tale of the Hobbits. The Scouring brings the story full circle and would be incomplete without it. It is the very uniqueness of the progression of the story that is critical in making the LotR a great work. Anyone can follow the English 101 pattern for exposition and conclusion. Great artists make there own path.

This is the difference between Tolkien and PJ. PJ is a great technician of his art, but not one that has broken rules to achieve something greater. PJ tends more to conform to "rules for success" and rarely takes chances. His most adventuresome tack was to film the movies simultaneously. Had Star Wars and others not laid a solid groundwork for the success of serial sequels it is highly unlikely that PJ would have tried this approach.

Of course we book lovers will be dissapointed at it's exclusion since it contains the main ideas of the book. We must remember books are about ideas and imagination; movies are about sitting around slack-jawed, eating popcorn and candy, and looking at the pretty colors.

I would like to see the Scouring included as a vehicle to introducing the Hobbit. It would provide continuity for the movie-goers. It could be introduced by Sam telling "the one about Frodo and the ring" and "where did Bilbo get the ring, daddy?" to his children. I doubt PJ will even consider doing it as he has expressed his "Tolkien fatigue" since completeing the project after ten years.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
This is the difference between Tolkien and PJ. PJ is a great technician of his art, but not one that has broken rules to achieve something greater. PJ tends more to conform to "rules for success" and rarely takes chances.I find these comments particularly odd coming from a poster who has routinely criticised PJ for not providing us with a more literal adaptation of Tolkien's book. Yessiree, Cirdan. Jackson should have followed the rebellous, break the rules, nonconformist lead of director, Chris Columbus, when he filmed his Harry Potter movies straight from the books. Yes, now THAT was inspired film-making! :rolleyes:

I would be fascinated to hear how our resident critic would have advised PJ to break the rules in order to achieve something greater than the two LOTR movies we've seen to date.

[Cirdan]

Our resident misreader BB strikes again. Read again. How do you interpret taking chances in filmaking with specific plot edits? Is the process of film making limited to the screenplay adaptation in your mind? You must be having that kneejerk problem again. You really should see someone about that. If you would get your head out of your arse you might have a chance to see a bit more clearly. One could be extremely innovative in presentation without altering the basic story one iota, as if that matters.

If one listens closely to the directors comments on the DVD it is clear that at many points in the story they decided how to proceed because "this is the way it is done".

Why don't you just try to point out all the dramatically unconventional approaches PJ used. I can think of some. Why can you, his #1 fan? Too quick to the ad hominem attack because you're insecure, maybe?

As for HP the movies suffered from the lack of depth in the source material, not just poor filmaking, per se. A nice story but very linear and simplistic.

Oh, and thanks for the appointment to resident critic. :rolleyes: I would defintely add some mud wrestling scenes for Arwen and Eowyn (al a the fan man thread), maybe film it all in black and white, with a heavy metal sound track and long periods of staring into the camera with no dialog.:p

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Is it just me, or was someone slightly upset...?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Is it just me, or was someone slightly upset...?

No. BB just likes to be rude and I just like to abuse him for it. It's very disfunctional.;)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Gilraen
For me, Tolkien's words long ago created images in my mind that no filmmaker, no matter how faithful to the stories, can ever match. I think it is wonderful that the movies have introduced the books to more people. Five years ago I couldn't walk into any book store (in my town anyway) and expect to find much by Tolkien other than The Hobbit or LotR. Now I find entire shelves of literature relating to him! I am in heaven! Okay, enough from me.

Finally somebody else who understands this. How can something be so bad when it opens up the world of Tolkien so wide? Ive tried to say this before Gilraen but people ignore it and keep arguing about Jackson screwing up the books. Its good to see someone else sees the most important silver lining to all this.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As to 'opening up the world of Middle-earth': the books were around, and have been around, forever. People have been able to. The truth is that a number of people today are downright illiterate, or have very poor reading skills. More can't be bothered to read books, regardless. Even more wouldn't dream of trying to tackle something like LOTR, and would just say 'I've seen the movie, so I know what happens'. While some good has come of it, it still is untrue to the story and the spirit of Tolkien. Doesn't that matter to anyone? If you paint a painting, and someone else makes a torn-up copy, what is the good of showing it to others?

[Insidious Rex]

Its not a copy of a book. Its a movie. Its a fundamentaly different medium. If someone had written a comic book based loosly on lord of the rings that would be equivilant to what you said and you would be more justified in having a fit about it. And be careful most people would read your words here and write you off as simply an elietist Tolkien geek rather then someone who truly loves the art of Tolkiens words and the magic of his written creation which I know you are.

I think what we need here is a control group of people who saw the movies FIRST and that caused them to go out and read the books and see what their opinions of both the movies and the books are. I really wonder how many would say the books were horrible. I bet most people who actually picked up the books BECAUSE of the movie found they loved the books as well.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But how many folk would bother to pick up a book that size? Face it, we're not living in an intellectual or literary world.

[Insidious Rex]

You know in the name of full disclosure I have to admit that before the movies came out I was one of those people who just loved the fact that Tolkien was basically an underground phenomenon and not at all main stream. And that most people were intimidated by the very idea of wading into all the writings. And that somehow made me and fellow readers special and I felt smug about that. But then I kind of lost touch with it for a while and then the fury about the movies started and I rediscovered it all over again so I guess thats why I preach about the good that the movies can do. Because it brought me back to the books. And now Ive read the Silmarillion and others that I never bothered to get through before.

[Cirdan]

There are many younger people who have been drawn to the book by exposure to the film. The sales of the book have benefitted greatly by the publicity. I'm sure there are those that will not read the books even after seeing the movie, but the odds that they would have ever read it is slim anyway.

Some folks just want to see hot elves.:rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

I love your debating style, Cirdan. Whenever someone calls you on a point, you resort to personal attacks. I will be more than happy to talk about PJ's directorial creativity AFTER you tell me exactly how he was supposed to break all the rules to create better movies. I'd love to hear what Master Director Cirdan would have done differently. You made the point, now please defend it.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find these comments particularly odd coming from a poster who has routinely criticised PJ for not providing us with a more literal adaptation of Tolkien's book. Yessiree, Cirdan. Jackson should have followed the rebellous, break the rules, nonconformist lead of director, Chris Columbus, when he filmed his Harry Potter movies straight from the books. Yes, now THAT was inspired film-making! :rolleyes:

I would be fascinated to hear how our resident critic would have advised PJ to break the rules in order to achieve something greater than the two LOTR movies we've seen to date.

Look at your first sentence in your response to my post. You attack me personally without even addressing what I posted. Yesiree? What kind of response do you think that childish sort of language is going to elicit? I posted nothing regarding you in my post. Resident critic? Oh that's not a personal attack. You obviously talking about PJ here, right? I see nothing in this post that even addresses what I posted. I don't think that deriding HP even makes a point whatsoever.

I made the point that PJ's style is conservative and I have posted reasons. You can't come up with anything other than asking me to lay out a different plan for directing the film. Would you like me to build you a theatre as well? This is just a red herring because you apparently have nothing to say in the contrary. I made the point. You're welcome to make the counterpoint, if you can.

[Black Breathalizer]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response, Cirdan. I now feel foolish for not simply accepting your blanket criticisms on face value. I'm going to trust your judgement that Peter Jackson is a conservative director whose directorial decisions lie in stark contrast to those of a true artist who is willing to break the rules and do something daring.

Even though I am still looking for the reasons you've evidently outlined elsewhere on this board, nevertheless, your post has helped me to understand the depth of your knowledge on this subject so much better than I did before.

Your biggest fan,
BB

[Cirdan]

I'm sorry to hear that you need to be spoon feed concepts and the meaning of what a concervative approach to film making means versus a radical approach. Maybe if your responses weren't always derisive and sarcastic, even when you don't comprehend what the other poster has written, people would be interested in sharing details view rather than just basic opinion. As it is it would be a waste of time.

[azalea]

Please be careful everyone. I know you guys enjoy arguing, and I support your posting to defend what you've said, but just don't go over the line.

In respose to IR and GW's conversation: LotR was more mainstream than a lot of us might think. Certainly not as much as it is now, but a lot of people were into it before the movies came out. Also, I met a guy the other night who was in the middle of reading TTT, after he had seen the movies. I think the movies have prompted many people to read the books who might not have otherwise. Besides the two "main" works, it WAS hard to find ME/Tolkien books in bookstores, unless you special ordered -- and now there are large displays of them everywhere. I am glad the movies were made at all -- after a long time of waiting for someone to do a live action version, I thought it would never get done! But there is nothing wrong with critiquing, and one must admit that enough things were changed, and some quite dramatically, for us to be justified in being annoyed.

[Black Breathalizer]

Yep, I crossed the line...I was a baaaad boy. It was just too tempting and easy a target. Sorry Super Moderator :o

People may disagree about some of his screenplay decisions, but it's hard to argue that Jackson's film direction has been anything but brilliant. It is no easy task to film a movie that can be epic AND intimate at the same time. I also love the way he uses his cameras to create a sense of energy and excitement.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That depends on whether or not you considered it to be really an epic film. And anyway, all it takes is a few 'Evenstar' shots and kissing scenes to make it 'intimate'.

[Nurvingiel]

Oh sure BB, take a shot at him in your apology. ;) But it's all good, jolly, LotR times.

Well, I'm sad that the Scouring won't be in RotK, but I will still go and see it, probably more than once. This is because, despite its flaws (which aren't too numerous) they're still great movies. We're just debating the fine points here.

I think the quality of RotK will suffer because of it's lack of hobbit battle action and the proper death of Saruman, but there will still be other great features that will make me love the movie over all.

[Gilraen]

You know, I read LoTR and The Hobbit a long time ago. I really didn't know anyone else who read them and I never had anyone with whom to discuss them. Then many years later, rumors of a live action movie began, and suddenly people around me began talking about Tolkien. I discovered that a lot people I knew HAD in fact read his books. Others ran out and read them after seeing the movies. And now they're reading other Tolkien works, his biography, other fantasy novels. I now have real live people with whom I can discuss all of this. We have very varied opinions on the movie adaptations (Bakshi's included), and some of the ones I've heard put BB & Cirdan's to shame. My point is, many more people are now discussing Tolkien and the books and reading his works. I am actually having dialogues with others (y'all included)! Whether you think PJ is a movie making buffoon or genius, you cannot deny that the movies have gotten some people to READ. Even if it is only 1 person, even if you think the general populace out there is illiterate, it can only be a good thing that someone actually picked up one of his books and read it.

[Nurvingiel]

I think the movies are great too, especially since they got more people to read the books and talk about them.

I also think that RotK would be improved even further if it was four hours long and included the Scouring.

It's true that's only one detail, but this thread is about one detail. In that sense, Jackson did not get it right on the Scouring. This doesn't mean RotK won't be good, it just means it should have the Scouring.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree completely.

[Black Breathalizer]

I honestly believe that the ROTK will be THE BEST movie I will ever see. I also believe that once we all see the third film, it will become crystal clear why Jackson left the Scouring out. For one thing, the film will likely have a running time of 3.5 hours even without the Scouring. Second, it would kill the pacing of the movie.

I personally feel the Scouring would make a GREAT special one hour featurette on the ROTK extended DVD.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's already crystal clear....*mumbles incoherently*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I personally feel the Scouring would make a GREAT special one hour featurette on the ROTK extended DVD.
Well I agree with that, but what's the likelihood that they would film it and not put it in RotK? And what's wrong with a four hour movie? Fiddler on the Roof is four hours long. Wagnerian operas can run at least six hours, they have an intermission and a dinner break.

Wouldn't it be cool to go to RotK in costume, and half way through there was a 15 minute intermission? You could chat with your neighbours and it would be so fun! I mean, you already watch 30 minutes of previews before hand, who will notice 15 more minutes?

(The midnight showing would get out at 5 am! Sweet!)


But destroy the pace? I don't think so. What's wrong with two climactic battles?

[BeardofPants]

Thirty minutes?! Good gravy. We only get ten minutes! :eek:

[Nurvingiel]

Well it might not be thirty but it's at least 15. It sure seems like thirty. I think the Scouring is worth at least as much air time as boring previews. ~_^

[Melko Belcha]

I wonder why PJ showed how beautiful the Shire is in the Fellowship and then not plan on having the Scouring? One of my favorite parts in the book is when Sam talks about how the destruction of the Shire is worse than Mordor because it follows you home. To leave out the Scouring makes showing all the beautiful shoots of the Shire at the begining pointless IMO.

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I don't think the beautiful Shire shots could ever be pointless. But you have to wonder why Frodo (?) saw the Shire being attacked in the Mirror of Galadriel.

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Well it might not be thirty but it's at least 15. It sure seems like thirty. I think the Scouring is worth at least as much air time as boring previews. ~_^

LOL :D Good one, Nurvingiel!

[Mark of Cenla]

I see it as an inexcusable abomination. Here is why:

1. The hobbits left the Shire to keep it from harm. The scouring shows that things do not always go as planned. It also shows how much the four hobbits have matured. It is an essential part of the character development.

2. Return of the King is much shorter than the other two books. Thus, the "there is no room for it" argument is hollow at best.

3. Many recent Hollywood movies have "multiple endings" where it seems as though the movie is going to end, and then something else happens to prolong it. Thus, the "it would not work in the movie" argument is also hollow.

[Insidious Rex]

This thread seems to have become an endless circle really.

"They cant take that part out! [lists a bunch of reasons why its important to the story]"

"Yes but its a FILM. And its anticlimatic and wouldnt work well in a FILM medium. [lists a bunch of reasons why it wouldnt work in a film]"

"So what! The film was inspired by the book! They need to MAKE it work!"

"Well if they force it in somehow it would cause many viewers to wonder what they were thinking and lower the appeal of the movie."

"So what!! Heathens! Let the igrnorant masses walk out! It was a fundamental part of Tolkien's vision!"

"But its Jackson's FILM. Not Tolkien's BOOK. So its only logical to take that part out."

*return again to beginning and continue looping until infinity*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Gee, I wonder which side your on... ;)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Gee, I wonder which side your on... ;)

Oh I never declare sides. Im that guy who sits in the back and throws nuts at the people who think they know what they are talking about. ;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Then let's say which side you favour more. :p

[Mark of Cenla]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
This thread seems to have become an endless circle really.


I beg your pardon. I do not come the this site often and did not read every response in this thread. (I did not know it was required before posting.) I will to sure to stay away as not to offend. Peace.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Mark of Cenla
I beg your pardon. I do not come the this site often and did not read every response in this thread. (I did not know it was required before posting.) I will to sure to stay away as not to offend. Peace.

chill dude. Ive been meaning to say that for a while because the past few pages have pretty much been like that. You just reminded me thats all. And your opinion is just as welcome here as any other. And is no less worthwhile then anyone elses including my own (especiall my own in fact). So stick around and post more. Its all about expression. Never confuse disagreeance with hostility. My mind is open to everyone's thoughts.

[markedel]

This isn't nearly as offensive as some other threads... :o

We really should have a "threads to read first thread" perhaps.

People might think we bite.

[Nurvingiel]

Well I guess you're right Insidious Rex, everything that needs to be said has already been said. You kind of deflated the whole discussion. ;) There's the "Scouring Should Be In RotK" camp, the "Jackson Was Right On Taking Out The Scouring" camp, and one guy throwing peanuts at everyone.

We'll probably never reach an agreement on this, since we are diametrically opposite. (New favourite phrase - read: completely opposed with nothing in common.)

[gimli7410]

i dont ko if were still discussing about the scouring of the shire but im just pissed off that i wont get to see merry and pippin fight.

[Nurvingiel]

Oh you'll get to see them fight, just not in the Scouring battle.

[Black Breathalizer]

Geez, can't you people have a discussion without fighting while I'm away?!?!?!?!

[Artanis]

He-he :p

[Nurvingiel]

*laughs at BB* We're not fighting, we're having a friendly discusison about some friendly hobbits. :p

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB! And here I was thinking you'd deemed us irredeemable! :D

[Black Breathalizer]

Work is keeping me busy right now but I'm an irredeemable mooter. You won't get rid of me this easy...especially with The Greatest Movie Of All Times (ROTK, natch) only nine months away.

As Gandalf would say, I have a part to play -- for good or ill -- before this is over. :D

[Nurvingiel]

Not that we're counting right? ;) When RotK is a month or so away, I'm going to start an hourly countdown. I'll start it when I buy my advance tickets. Scouring or no Scouring, I'm excited.

[druss]

i love hobbits and as such really want to see the scouring of the shire..it shows how far hobbits have come and also how far they have grown up. it is an integral part of the books. however after seeing TTT i was very dubious as to how ROTK would end, so much more to come. PJ should have given the book a quartilogy this would have shown how encompassing the books were and appeased tolkien fans with bombadil, a decent faramir(my biggest bug bear) and a chance to develop the characters as the book portrays.. FOR GODS SAKE if HP is going to go to umpteen films why not give LOTR a decent outing?????

[Valandil]

Why do I feel RotK ending will be akin to the medal giving ceremony at the end of Star Wars?....only the ending will be Aragorns coronation....with the fellowship standing in front of Aragorns throne, grinning like a set of baboons.

Wow - good prediction, made in early 2003. I just stumbled upon it here. :)

[The Gaffer]

Nicely dredged. Spooky stuff. I wonder how many other doomsayers got it right?

* waits for someone else to look them up coz is too lazy to do so himself *

[bropous]

Originally, I loved the LotR films, especially Feloowship. However, as the films progressed, the needless additions and subtractions to the original work really took the gild off the lily for me.

Jackson would have done far better to keep to the original story. He could have left some things out, but his unnecessary (and, one might say, blasphemous) additions/alterations to the original source material ended up taking away from what could have been a truly representative depiction of the greatest work of literature of the twentieth century.

Nowe that I have seen the film treatment of CS Lewis' tome, I am even more disappointed that his drinking buddy's greater work was treated so shabbily by a filmmaker. Had the folks who had done LWW treated the book the same way in the current blockbuster, the part of Lucy, Peter, Edmund and Susan as adults and finding their way back to the "Real World" would have been excluded, and the film would have simply ended after their coronation at Caer Paravel.

With the benefit of hindsight, and a year or two under the belt to think on it, I'd have to give a final opinion of failure on the part of Peter Jackson and Pippa Boyens. The elimination of the Scouring of the Shire and the death of Saruman at Bag End was a great mistake and another unnecessary alteration of the original story. Aside from the really good depiction of the Uruk-Hai and some of the other visual representations, the films absolutely failed, in my humble and semi-literate opinion.

Again, the only true benefit of the films was that they may have spurred a few more people to actually read LotR, but I truly wish that Jackson had never gotten his hands on the rights to make the films, and that some true lover of the books had been the one to present the story on the Big Screen.

[Jon S.]

So sorry you feel this way.

The movies are "based on" the books. They're not "the books."

But even the books are, in a sense, just one writing of the historical reality (the Red Book of Westmarch derivation). I believe Tolkien would have loved the movies because he, himself, believed in the retelling and evolution of myth.

There are some things I'd have done differently from Jackson (one quick example: the Mouth of Sauron scene).

But there are many more places where I understand, and dig, what he changed and why.

I count my blessings every day that it was Jackson, and not Disney or the like, who got to make the movies.

[Nurvingiel]

The movies could have been worse, a lot worse, but I don't think Tolkien would have liked these movies. I don't think he would have liked Bakshi's movie either. This is IMO of course.

I do think he would have like the music in Jackson's music though.

However, the removal of the Scouring is not the worst change in the movie. In some ways, it works. I think I would have put it in myself, but I prefer Jackson's movie Scouring-less. :)

[BeardofPants]

Good god, has the penny not dropped for you people yet? The music SUCKS more than a gigantic hoovering monster. I will freely admit that I did a small snoopy dance of joy when I found out that Howard Freaking Shore was fired from King Kong. *jiggles* :D

[olsonm]

Good god, has the penny not dropped for you people yet? The music SUCKS more than a gigantic hoovering monster.
:eek: The music sucks!?!? What are you deaf or something!?!.....Oh wait you are deaf, I forgot. Sorry. :o :p ;) The Scouring would be very difficult to fit into any movie version.

[CrazySquirrel]

The Scouring as such would be a totally foreign element in the film.

How do you think PJ would change it?

He would make the four hobbits kill lots of ruffians + trolls + dragons + elephants in the Shire all on their own:D .

He would make Frodo lead the battle, wielding sword and riding a white horse.
Also I pretty well see the scene how Frodo kills Saruman in a swordfight. :eek:

No, thanks. I am so happy the Scouring was not despoiled by movie-makers as all the rest of the book.

As for the music... just average, IMO, not that bad, not that good.

[Nurvingiel]

I liked the music, it was good epic-sweeping movie music. Not the kind of classical music I normally listen to, but I don't want a movie distracting me from Dvorak's New World Symphony.

You seem to have a serious hate on for Howard Shore though. :D Don't forget Boppy, that music is subjective! One person's crap is another person's anthem. ;)


edited because apparently i cant spell