Jackson got it right on the Scouring

[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!

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.