The Scouring of the Shire: Should it have been in the Film?

Indeed Hopefully newbies will find us here. Shouldn't be a problem, though, I reckon they'll find us through google once the number of posts go up

By the way, Inaugural is spelled with one "N."

(Let's at least try to get it right in topic titles. Don't worry, I won't be annoying about obvious typos though).

GB

Google Chrome spell-check lied to me!

And the Scouring wouldn't have been anticlimactic if they had planned for it along, as it ties up the Hobbits' stories beautifully. I do agree that it would bad if it was just slapped on to the end of PJ's LOTR, which is in many ways its own creature.

The only way the Scouring would work is if the destroying of the ring was so anti-climatic, that it needed more excitement! Then you would all be complaining that the ring being destroyed (i.e the whole point of the book) was ruined by this idiotic man from New Zealand! How can you have all those epic battles and long struggle against mordor- then go to a few hobbits fighting some nasty Ruffians and then The Battle of Greenfields...I mean how would that work?

The destruction of the Ring doesn't have to be anticlimactic, but I think part of the point of the ending of the book is that everything doesn't get wrapped up neatly all at once. The Ring is - obviously - extremely important, but both the story and the world go on after that.

But, and let me play devil's advocate here, Sam does see the destruction of the shire in the the Mirror of Galadriel, so the viewer knows that Shire is affected and Aragorn being crowned King, and Frodo and co leaving for the Gray Havens, mean that the important loose ends are tied up nicely!

You make a good point about the loose ends the movie does tie up, and I'm grateful that PJ took as much time as he did to do so (I think he gets unfairly criticized for it by a lot of movie critics). I think the destruction of the Shire scene in the Mirror was more of a potentiality for the future should the Ring not be destroyed. The Shire does, after all, look pretty much the same as ever it was in ROTK, suggesting that it wasn't affected by the War.

Ally wrote:But, and let me play devil's advocate here, Sam does see the destruction of the shire in the the Mirror of Galadriel, so the viewer knows that Shire is affected and Aragorn being crowned King, and Frodo and co leaving for the Gray Havens, mean that the important loose ends are tied up nicely!

EXACTLY (except it's Frodo who sees it); that's always been my argument. I figured that reference was a brilliant way to reference the Scouring without actually spoiling the ending of the films (in much the same way as Old Man Willow was moved to Fangorn Forest.

GB

Eldorion wrote:You make a good point about the loose ends the movie does tie up, and I'm grateful that PJ took as much time as he did to do so (I think he gets unfairly criticized for it by a lot of movie critics). I think the destruction of the Shire scene in the Mirror was more of a potentiality for the future should the Ring not be destroyed. The Shire does, after all, look pretty much the same as ever it was in ROTK, suggesting that it wasn't affected by the War.

But by having it in the mirror as a potential future, it does indicate that the Shire would be affected by the war if the Ring wasn't destroyed.

GB

Certainly, though I think that sends a rather different message than Tolkien's melancholy theme, which is that everything (even the hero's homes) will be affected by the war, regardless of who wins. It's reflected in a particularly beautiful line by Theoden that is my favourite in the whole book, and that I would have liked to see in the film, though the thematic differences might have made it out of place.

The Two Towers, Book III, Chapter 8 wrote:'Yet also I should be sad,' said Theoden. 'For however the fortune of war shall go, may it not so end that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass for ever out of Middle-earth?'

You do have a fair point, but I think the ending is bittersweet as it was. It always makes me cry to think that the Gandalf, the Elves, and Frodo and Bilbo leave Middle Earth.

(Though I've had a bit of my Fan-Fic idea in the back of my head for decades to assuage my feelings. Itaril was the missing part though that tied my ideas together).

GB

There is a level of bittersweet to the film ending, and I tend to get a little sad when Frodo gets on the ship. However, while Frodo gets a rough deal, I think that the rest of Middle-earth is in a distinctly more positive situation, at least compared to the book. Perhaps PJ wanted to focus the sacrifice on Frodo, but maybe I'm reading too much into the implications of his changes.

A little sad? I'm still brought to tears by the ending! And I've seen it a hundreds of times! I'd say at the end of the book and movie most of Middle Earth is in a good shape. Sam/Merry/Pippin are handling the Shire well, aided by the dust of Galadriel, Gondor has a new King worshipped by the locals, as well as Rohan. All of which I think is covered in the Movie! (I think anyway...)

Of course the Scouring should have been in!!!!!!
I have to say I am a purist where this is concerned, messed up the whole point of the hobbits 'personal journey' (horrible phrase I know). And the scouring also completes the understanding of just how far Saruman had fallen.

Realised I'd put this in the wrong thread so copied my commment here!

Ally wrote:I'd say at the end of the book and movie most of Middle Earth is in a good shape. Sam/Merry/Pippin are handling the Shire well, aided by the dust of Galadriel

I do have to concede that one, though at least in the book they had to work to rebuild the Shire instead of coming home to find it as it was.

Consider how Tolkien wrote. It has been compared to the incoming of the tide. He wrote so far into the stroy, abandoned it, began again, reached a little further, abandoned it, began again, reached a little further....and so on.
Anyone who has read the early published drafts with Trotter and co can be in little doubt Tolkien made a lot of big changes between each of these drafts on the road to the book we love.
In Letters he says of Aragorn that he had no more idea of who he was when he first appeared than the hobbits did. Think about that for a moment. How important Aragorn is to the story, to the link with the histories, and Tolkien didn't even plan on him being there.

What's this got to do with the Scouring? In the introduction to FotR Tolkien when speaking of allegory says of the Scouring that it is 'an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the even modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without'

'foreseen from the outset'- he didn't know about Aragorn but he knew how the war was going to end. That's how important the author felt it was, surely PJ should have respected that.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
In Letters he says of Aragorn that he had no more idea of who he was when he first appeared than the hobbits did. Think about that for a moment. How important Aragorn is to the story, to the link with the histories, and Tolkien didn't even plan on him being there.

Sounds to me like he didn't have it all planned and chiseled in stone when he began writing! Much like a certain Peter Jackson... one would almost think even Tolkien made script changes along the way?

Sounds to me like he didn't have it all planned and chiseled in stone when he began writing!

No what it shows is the central overiding story within the book at conception was the journey of the Hobbits. Although this story is darker and more serious it is essentially concieved as an idea about that journey and for that reason to omit the scouring is to fail to finish the primary story (I admit it is one of many stories, but this is the one around which the book formed and so is the essential one to get right).

It's like adapting Pride and Prejudice and finishing after Bingley and Jane have got engaged, but before Darcy and Elizabeth have (the couple the book is really about!

Tolkien had plenty of time to make revisions though, and he re-wrote all of the chapters, often many times. The criticism of PJ is less that he didn't have everything planned out and more that he was making changes so late into production that the actors didn't have time to even read the script revisions before coming to set.

Kafria wrote:

Sounds to me like he didn't have it all planned and chiseled in stone when he began writing!

No what it shows is the central overiding story within the book at conception was the journey of the Hobbits.

I agree I wasn't being very serious, I just wanted to point out to Petty, who has often criticized Jackson for making changes to the script/not having a complete script ready for filming, that even Tolkien didn't have it all planned when he started ;)Still, I see how having a finished script for a film with a deadline is more important than having outlined every plot and chapter in a book with no deadline. Just wanted to point it out

Sorry

I am reveling in my current and new found Purism!! It's fun to be a bit crabbit!

Keep on fighting the good fight, Kafria!

Love your Pride & Prejudice analogy Kafria! And that's coming from a young Tolkien liberal!

one of my other favourite authors!