Jackson got it right on the Scouring

[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?

[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!

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. 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.

[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.