Scouring of the Shire? out?

my position has not changed. your emotional reactions to my use of words has. i put forward a way to include tsots into the final book with out the "let down" effect brought up by people on his strand.

Cutting TSOTS would be bad, IMO...

but even worse would be eliminating Frodo and Gandalf at the Grey Havens....

That is the part that make's Frodo's sacrifice and the end of the Third Age so poignant...to me, the book would be much diminished without without its sweet sadness, and the movie would be as well...

dear harad,

i'm still trying to work out what you call my "first insult". i thought the american people were proud of the fact they invented the "blockbuster gene". i think you should sit down with a freind (pref from a neutral country) and read through what has been posted. i've attempted to explain a way that would make scense to do the ending and you cant see that at all. U seem to be bogged down making personal insults against me. I'm sorry your not happy being american if thats the problem. i'm sorry the world doesn't respect americans as much as you would like, if thats the problem. but hey leave me out, i've not ventured an opinion about your country! were we not the first country to stand beside you, during all your recent wars?

or are your postings on this page dirrectly related to my thesis on an other line of disscussion which is not so comfortable for you?

"the only way the scouring of the shire could work is to have it after the credits along with leaving for the GHs. this way those who want a traditional "americian" ending get it those of us who think that tsots is important get it... but don't hold your breath because i'm sure i read in s(c)ript mag that its out...."

please tell me were i said the movie "was/will be "Americanized""? and please tell me what "Americanized" means in your world. i was talking about the two veiws put by people for and against the the inclusion of tsots, i was suggesting a way of including this part of the story and not let down the "big battle followed by happy ending" that "american" audiences likes. (fierce creatures had its ending changed to suit), much discussion has been had on this subject, as by and large this sort of ending is most accepted by the amercian veiwing audience, (yes there are exceptions, most things by david lynch for example, but he's hardly "blockbuster"). (i'm sorry this is based on research, thus it is what is average - highest return - is that stereotyping? it was amercian sources)

as for your comments on S & M and pedophilia, this is a poor line of arguement and putting them beside my thesis only shows ur ignorance.

as my gaffer used to say, "its no good arguing with an fool"

so delude your self futher if you like, however do your self a favour, read what i write. i came here to have a discussion not to be caught up in your vitriol and insecurities.

Dear Harad and Safari,

Nobody cares.

Keep it to LoTR, or pms, no?

Back to the point of the thread:

I noticed a couple things the first time I saw FOTR:
1. Only Frodo's gift from Galadriel was shown. I thought right away that meant there'll be no 'Scouring of the Shire' since the box of dirt & seed Sam got was eliminated.
2. When Frodo was looking in the mirror, he, not Sam, saw the destruction of the Shire. Galadriel replies to Frodo that "all these things will come to pass if your mission fails" or something to that effect.

From a scrictly movie standpoint, it makes alot more sense to end it at the fall of Barad-Dur ot Aragorn & Arwen's wedding.

In that case there will be nothing left of the "true to the book" statement made by Peter Jackson. TSOTS showed the remarkable nature of Hobbits and the widespread consequences of the War of the Ring.
The ending of LOTR is sad, most of the Elves go west, together with some of the important characters. To turn that into a happy ending for film sake's........... Hardly acceptable IMHO.

and Harad and safari, you're way off topic, state your opinions somewhere else please.

But, did you think Peter Jackson would say "I'm cutting complete chapters out & adding & changing characters, not keeping to the book"?

Of course not. He wants to make $$$.

Reminds of a movie Brad Pitt was in a few years ago, forget the name. Stories before the release were saying he hated it, didn't want it released, etc.
So, what's he say to the public?
He's on Entertainment Tonight, Letterman, Leno saying how great it is.

my apologies Loiosh and DGoeij i thought this was the stream for discussing the SotS and its inclusion or exclusion in the RotK. that is what i was posting about but obviously i'm wrong.

Your last posts where about americanization and homosexuality in discussion about that with Harad.

My thoughts exactly.
If Sam doesn't have his blasted dirt, how the hell exactly is he supposed to reseed the Shire, the result being a most fabulous year, especially for corn and weed.
ORRRRRRRRRRRRR
will he just magically get it from his sack??
"Let's see here. Empty Pringles can, strategically placed McDonald's cup, ahhhh! Dirt from Galadriel. What a gal! Ah, and seeds from that Appleseed guy. What luck!"
(Smirks)

I'm pretty sure the 'directors cut' guess is the best one. The Fellowship left Lothlorien with their elven cloaks, both in the movie and in the book, only in the movie their not mentioned. Too bad.
I still have a feeling they did the editing a little hasty, creating problems for the continuation of the entire story. I see it as a shame if the SOTS is completely left out. It shows how much Pippin and merry have changed under influence of their experiences during the War of the Ring and te true nature of Hobbits in general.

Yessssssssssssssssss.
Exactly.
Soooooooo.
We can only hope for the Director's Cut and/or bad editing, or the story is incomplete in SOTS.
I agree about M/P being changed.
Excellent point.
Oh and for crying out loud.
Aussies=Good Guys
Americans=Good Guys
Any questions?
It allowed Frodo to finish his quest, the inter-Orc squabbling.
Aussies are our fabulously faithful friends.
Plus, it's a great country, with phenomenal scenery and culture and on and on.
Oh, plus Midnight Oil. And Men at Work.
And yes, Shrimp on the Barbie. I mean, I wouldn't have come up with that one, and I hail from a long line of shrimpers, from the "birthplace of the modern shrimping industry". Whodathunkit? But it's incredibly tasty.
Plus, 'mate'. And 'happy as a bastard on Father's Day'.
Yeah, when I found out Bombadil was left out, I was happy as a bastard on Father's Day.
Geez..

Surely Bombadil was one of the most annoying characters in the book?
Jackson would have had to make him inot a parody, something like that horrribly iritating character in Episode One SW!

More worrying is that in the film the blades of the Hobbits are given to them in a particularly unimportant scene by Aragon. in the book it is clear that when Merry successfully wounds the Lord of the Ringwraiths that it is prob. the only sword in Middle-Earth that could have harmed him.
To have the enormity of the fateful capture by the Barrow things (can't remember how to spell 'weights' ) missed out is a travesty, removing one of the major themes, the inevitability of fate.

You have GOT to be kidding!
Bombadil, annoying??!
Bombadil was Tolkien's work at its finest.
The development of that character was fabulous.
I think perhaps you meant "simple" or something.
He was simple, in a sense, all-good, etc.
Which is "out" these days. Pun intended.

psssssttt....

I love Bombadil, but he was hardly JRR at his finest...

He threw him in because he wanted to stick in a bit of action at that point, and his inspiration was a toy doll on his desk

And oh yeah, the film hammered home the inevitability of fate.

Gandalf went on at length about it, suggesting that Frodo was meant to have the Ring, and how Gollum had a part to play, and that Bilbo's mercy may rule the fate of men.

Wait, I misspoke. Since I believe no Tolkien is bad Tolkien, it's all his finest to me. Buuuut...
What I should have said was....
That character development was classic Tolkien, so descriptive,etc. You know TB so well.
TB was important in that he yet again drives home the point of relationships to Nature, amongst other things..

I believe Harry Knowles from AICN has read the whole script and I believe I read a quote of his (or was it Moriarty) that said "the scouring is in but it's very short." I just looked for a half an hour trying to find it again but can't.

Anyway, couple this with the reports of a Frodo voiceover after the wedding and I think it'll go something like this:

Wedding...montage epilogue with voiceover showing the more important events of returning home...detached montage of the scouring (something like "then they returned home and to their horror found..whatever...but they were changed hobbits and with little trouble...whatever, whatever..." -- again, showing scenes in montage form)...then Sam gets married and they all settle in Bag End (still montage of course)...Elanor is born (graphic shots of the delivery of course )...all the while we see shots of Frodo looking unhappy or in pain...then the montage stops and the Grey Havens scene ends the movie...OR we see Sam return home after the Grey Havens and deliver the "Well, I'm back" line (which would explain the pictures we've seen of Sam with Elanor running to him).

That's my prediction (or at least compromised hope). This gives us the all-important scouring scene and the significance of it without the episodic anti-climax of doing it like the book (which is awesome in the book - don't get me wrong, it just really wouldn't seem right in a movie). Including the killing of Saruman in this adaption of the scouring scene would be too much (to many specific events to make it work in the montage style) but luckily he's long dead on the spikey wheel (of course we lose the depiction of how low Saruman has sunk but hey, you gotta lose some stuff). If the ending turns out like this, I think I'll be able to live with it. If the scouring is totally lifted, I'll be very disappointed.

Actually...

de·noue·ment also dé·noue·ment (dn-mä)
n.

The final resolution or clarification of a dramatic or narrative plot.
The events following the climax of a drama or novel in which such a resolution or clarification takes place.
The outcome of a sequence of events; the end result.

as opposed to...

an·ti·cli·max (nt-klmks, nt-)
n.
A decline viewed in disappointing contrast with a previous rise: the anticlimax of a brilliant career.
Something trivial or commonplace that concludes a series of significant events: After a week of dramatic negotiations, all that followed was anticlimax.


I don't think JRR had anticlimax in his vocabulary

The Scouring of the Shire is in fact the end of the story, as it resolves the adventures of the hobbits. I sincerely hope it makes the cut.