Scouring of the Shire? out?

[PRH]

Harad,

acutally, I have to think that the more time spent between the destruction of the ring and the scouring the more of a chance it has to work. The reason it seems to work in the book is because so very much happens in that time (3 chapters) and it's about time for another major event. If ROK was a 2:30 hour movie (+ credits), having the destruction of the ring at about 1:45 would allow the scouring to work. However I believe they'll probably put it closer to 2:10 in which case squeezing the scouring in between 2:20-2:25 would just be too soon for another event of this magnitude/type. So, what you have is that you would absolutely need this breathing room before the scouring to make it work but that breathing room would extend the movie so long after the big climax that the movie as a whole might seem anticlimatic.

It's really too bad. This comes from this whole cinematic effort treating LOTR as three distinct books and hence three distinct movies rather than one book and hence one movie (albeit in three parts). Certainly if you sat down with one long nine hour movie the scouring would fit in nicely but to make ROK work on it's own on some level, the scouring just doesn't fit into the dramatic arc.

Still if it's included on the level I described in my previous post, I'll be reasonably satisfied with the compromise.

 

[Jai]

Originally posted by Bucky
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.

Just as we later saw the fellowship wearing the elf cloaks without any mention of the gifts within the movie, I like to think we'll probably see more evidence of Galadriel's gifts in the next movie (i.e., the rope). I'm torn between believing that certain points were not brought out in the movie due to poor or necessary editing vs. the possibility that certain subtleties were intentional as 'gifts' to those of us who are fans of the books and are there not just to see another adventure film.

BTW, Australian vs American endings? What's the point? Great literature/films may be written/directed/acted by people of particular origins, but they are FELT trans-culturally. That's why they're great.

 

[Loiosh]

So, what you're saying is that the ending of the Return of the King in TSOTS is ludicrous and inconsequential?

Have you even read the books?

 

[Mithrandir_II]

now, now... lets stray from childish antics like name-calling...

I guess having TSOTS as a final climax would not work as well as we would all hope, at least not to those unfortunate souls who haven't read LotR.

It would be nice to see though. It kinda puts things into perspective. How the War Of The Ring was a world changing event that effected all the peoples of middle-earth. Sauron was mind was never bent on the destruction of Arda like Melkor was, Sauron was seeking total control of all of Middle-earth (see Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed). The will of Sauron was a presence seeking to enslave the whole world. Even though Saruman may not have known or intended it, and, I always thought that Saruman was still aiding Sauron even when he went to the Shire, having his mind warped by Sauron through the palantir.

So what it comes down to is that The War Of The Ring effected all of arda, nothing within arda was beyond Sauron's grasp in the long run and you can't really portray that and have the Shire remain untouched by everything.

But what works in a book doesn't always work with a movie i guess

 

[Loiosh]

The Scouring of the Shire is not ludicrous, it is not inconsequential, nor is it an anticlimax. It is how JRR chose to resolve the Lord of the Rings. It is a mirror to the epic conflicts in the rest of Middle Earth. War comes home. War is where you live.

Moreover, it is a reflection of the strength of the hobbits, given a conflict without the strength and guidance of Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond and the rest of the characters who taught the hobbits so many lessons.

Less swords does not mean less weight, open your mind.

 

[Loiosh]

Harad,

Lord of the Rings is about hobbits, not Middle Earth.

 

[Mithrandir_II]

Originally posted by Loiosh
Harad,

Lord of the Rings is about hobbits, not Middle Earth.

----------

Originally posted by Harad
Loiosh,

If LOTR was about hobbits (alone), it would be called "The Hobbit."

oh...and Mith2...is the posted statement "childish antics like namecalling" a childish antic like namecalling? Or would you like me after your post to say "Have you even read the book?" You decide.

-----------

In response to these posts

Loiosh and Harad...

The Lord Of The Rings is about the last great events of the third age. It is about how Hobbits came overcame all odds (and criticisms) and influenced the fate of Middle-Earth. So, in a sense, you both are right.

As for the 'childish antics' thing, what is childish is that you don't seem to realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the books and/or movie adaptions, so why insult one another over a difference in opinion. Nothing will ever become of this bickering because you both hold different opinions, and an opinion is not easily swayed. LET IT GO!

 

[Loiosh]

Mithrandir,

Agreed.

 

[Alcathor]

okay the casting of the ring into the fires of doom is very climatic, and cannot be beaten by any events following it, but could not PJ have left the scouring in, but altered its significance somewhat?

Make sarumans presence more obvious, and make it a battle that saves the shire from destruction not enslavement.

It will leave movie go-ers with a far larger amount of good cheer to see frodo, merry, and pippen drive saruman off with their own might, leaving the shire free to many. Anticlimactic, yes, but it does leave the crowd with a sence of accomplishment and contentment.

 

[Alcathor]

i guess what i was trying to say is this:

The audience is basically following the adventures of the 4 hobbits, hence the hobbits become the main characters of the film, for the audience. We grow close to the hobbits and when we see their homeland ruled by the evil saruman, we will in turn feel very dismayed and disheartened.

I guess you can liken it to, US soldiers fighting overseas in say like the vietnam war, compared to if US soldiers were fighting in the direct defence of their homeland (i.e. fighting in or around US soil)

We grow close to the hobbits so that the ring, cool it's destroyed ME is now safe. But when we see the shire overrun, and the hobbits banding together under merry and pippin we've got a real sence of accomplishment and cheer once they've retaken their land.

 

[Mithrandir_II]

Originally posted by Harad
alcathor, youre all right!

even got the meaning of "anticlimactic" correct (some debate about that way above...)

I agree with you. The end of the Ring is a typical movie ending, whereas TSOTS would be a uniquely Tolkien ending. I am afraid tho that some have said that Saruman bites the big one, in TTT. I hope not.

personally, I would be satisfied if Saruman was just stripped of his powers and set free (like what happens in the book) and then just don't mention him any more. A wizard without any powers is kinda worthless and the audience would understand that to be punishment enough for treason.

That would be a decent end for Saruman, better than killing him off in TTT. But thats my opinion.

 

[safari]

harad don't you mean "blockbuster ending" as apposed to an "art house" ending? as ive said before, and been hounded for, i think the credits should roll after the wedding with everyone returning home, then after the credits the sots and grey havens should be told.

(i hope my langague is acceptable to you this time. btw i never said there was a "australian" ending i was comparing to art house)

note: nothing in this posting is intended to cause offence.

 

[Mithrandir_II]

Originally posted by Harad
If Saruman is not in TSOTS, why bother? Ya need a villain there, and who else qualifies?

Of course, with the ending of Saruman described like I did in my last post, there would be no TSOTS.

 

[ReadWryt]

There is one interesting test that you all can do for yourselves...Go on a mad Web Hunt for pictures from the movies. See if you can find ONE picture from the Scouring out there. There are pictures of Helms Deep, Mount Doom...there is even a picture of a fallen Oliphant, but alas not one image from the Scouring...no accounts from "Spies" on OneRing.net...nothing.

 

[PRH]

Harry from AICN told in the tale of his visit to the set that he asked PJ about TSOTS. PJ said it would be in, but it would be rather differently treated than in the book, but it is definitely seen.

This is the only indication we've had that it might be in.

Here's the story - from Dec. 2000

search for the word "scouring" on the page:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=7728

btw - note from this article that Faramir & Eowyn's wedding was shot.

 

[Mithrandir_II]

what Tolkien would have wanted...

In Letter #210 of THE LETTERS OF JRR TOLKIEN Tolkien is responding to a script which was written in the late 1950's. This adaptation was to be animated, but was ultimately rejected by Tolkien. In it Saruman apparently commits suicide after being stripped of his Order and Color.

Tolkien found this solution to the Saruman problem as unacceptable, and I agree. Here is what Tolkien said in response to the adaptation... note that the abbreviation 'Z' stands for Zimmerman (the author of this particular adaptation).

"Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die... If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!' "

LETTERS OF JRR TOLKIEN #210

 

[Harad]

Never!
(Immortal) Life imprisonment is a slap on the wrist. Its got to be capitol punishment.

 

[Mithrandir_II]

well that sparks a new question... when Saruman was excommunicated from the Istari, was he still immortal??? Seems to me he wasn't, but that is just a guess.

 

[Harad]

was he demoted out of maia-hood? to what?

 

[Snaga]

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I've picked up about how Saruman is dealt with in TTT by PJ. The info comes from:

http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movie/two-towers.html

The quote you get there is (don't look if you don't want to know!)

Gandalf faces off with Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. Both Grima and Saruman are killed in the confrontation. As Saruman breathes his last, he relaxes his hand and lets go a small glass sphere, one of the ancient stones of seeing, a palantir.

Nothing in/out as far as spiky wheels are concerned but the Palantir bit is new to me.