One part of Saruman’s death that I find very impactful is what happens after he dies. It says “…about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a cold sigh dissolved into nothing.” I take this to mean that he became his immortal Maia form and longed to return to Valinor, but because he had been corrupted and fought against the cause of Valinor he was rejected and banished by Manwë himself. I love this. It a very tragic end to a once noble fallen character, and I feel like this doesn’t get talked about enough
that pub scene hits me in the feels, coming back from deployment, I finally understood why my uncles and grandfathers weren't as jovial at family barbeques and gatherings. They would sit quietly in chairs and just watch the kids play
Which is weird, because my grandfather was the opposite. He was the life of every party despite having been a POW for more than 2 years. He also had no problem answering us grandkids when we asked him about the war. Maybe it was because he was Air Force and not Army infantry, because I don’t think he had PTSD like a lot of WWII vets.
@@Spectacular_Insanity my dad (USN 1942-46) told the same five or six stories in unvarying detail but would sometimes tear up, meaning there were details left unsaid. I also knew a GI who had made a combat jump into France and would talk the night away about the most graphic details.
@@Spectacular_Insanity I had one grandfather who was the same way. B-17 bombardier who was shot down and taken prisoner in 1943 and he would talk about it all the time. His only rule was we could not watch "Hogan's Heroes" in his presence. My other grandfather was a glider infantryman and was wounded fighting in Italy shortly after the Salerno landings. He almost never talked with me about any of his service except for some generalities about being in N. Africa (no combat there). I had to learn from my grandmother that he had been bayoneted in the hip during hand-to-hand combat while his best friend was killed right next to him.
@@tex148th It was actually worse for the Vietnam vets than the WW2 vets - at the end of WW2, many soldiers spent weeks on ships with other vets who knew what they'd been through. Korea and Vietnam? They flew back and were dumped back into civilian life very abruptly.
So many people complain that the ending was too long and never stopped...but as far as I am concerned, it was wonderful. I would have loved to have seen the Scouring of the Shire, but I understand why it was cut from the film. I always hoped that they secretly filmed it, but never added the CGI or sound track.
i looked for it when i saw it the first time and it was not there. WTF. Grave error in not putting it in. As to length. I found all three movies to short and they many things felt out to make them a short as they are. I would of like a much longer movie for all three and all the story told not just 70% as it was done.. I think that ppl who did not read the books lost out on a lot of the story b/c of the parts left out. Some even went so far as to say they didnt know why this or that happened b/c the part explaining it was left out
Yes, I so much wanted to see Sam plant the Mallorn nut from Lothlorien and the blooming of the Shire that following spring after Sam had distributed grains of soil from Lothlorien all over the Shire.
@@fredeerickbays What... aren't the theatrical releases all like 3 hours already? And they get ridiculous with the extended cuts. You'd be a terrible director if you think people are going to sit through 5 hour movies.
I also get why it was cut…. From the theatrical cut. However not the extended cut. I think they should have included both the scouring and the grey company in the extended cut. ROTK EXT should have been 5hrs long
@@majorpwner241 you are right who wants a perfectly grilled sirloin tri tip with creamy sour cream potatoes and onions perfectly caramelized for four hours in clarified butter and apple juice over a low open flame when they could just sit on a toilet and eat their own shit?
For me one of the best moments of the book was when one of the ruffians scoffs at the idea of a King's Man coming to the Shire. Then Pippin casts back his traveling cloak, revealing the livery of Gondor, and shouts, "I'm a King's Man!" And they all run away.
For me, one of the greatest moments of the entire story can be found in the scouring of the Shire....is after the battle and the hobbits are facing Saruman and deciding his fate. The reaction and the look on Saruman';s face when he truly sees Frodo as what he has become. There is astonishment and profound respect for Frodo. Saruman sees that Frodo has become even greater and wiser that he EVER was - even at his most powerful. Saruman's perplexing demeaner at this revelation and Frodo's sincere humble nature speaks volumes of Frodo's importance to the entire middle Earth. Reading this scene in the book gave me a powerful understanding of true greatness and the kind of sacrifice that sometimes is required to propel humankind forward. For this reason, I would have welcomed an entire 2 hour movie to the final chapter. And, they still could have filmed the final 30 mins of goodbyes.
The Prancing Pony Pod is covering Scouring right now. I must admit it is not a chapter I have gone back and reread but listening to passages and the commentary does make it seem more important than I used to think.
I love when Sam sees Rosie when he goes to get her father and brothers, and she comments that he's not with Frodo "just as things are getting dangerous", and he cant even begin to answer.
The most heartwarming moment comesafter the most heartbreaking. Saruman has wantonly chopped down trees all over tThe Shire, including the Party Tree. Sam takes the box of soil from Lady Galadriel and walks all over the Shire, planting acorns everywhere, adding a bit of soil from the box to each one. The next year, saplings spring forth all over. Moreover it is a baby boom, with an unusual number of golden-haired children born. Tolkien tells ibetter than I do.
At the bottom of the box was a nut from a mallorn which he planted to replace the party tree. It grew to become the only mallorn outside Lothlorien and after the elves abandoned the forest might well have been the last one.
I actually love the way the movie perfectly reflects the pub scene. In the Fellowship, they sing and are dancing and happy; in Return, they are in the same pub but are more quiet and among themselves, really shows they've changed.
I think the Tolkien Professor stumbled across an interesting idea a few months back. The standard construction of a work of fiction usually is nested conflict. If you set up conflict a, conflict b and conflict c in the start of the book, you're going to typically wrap those conflicts up in reverse order: Resolve conflict c, then b, then a. In Fellowship, the story starts off as a very hobbit story. The first chapter is a play on the first chapter in the Hobbit. While the ring is present, we are introduced to the idea of Frodo and the Shire and his place in the shire before we are introduced to the conflict of the ring. So when it comes time to resolve the last conflict of the book is that of fighting for the shire, because that is where the book started off. In the movie, however, Jackson starts off with the story of the ring before going to the shire. Which means that when the ring is destroyed, you've closed the a-plot. Anything that happens after that is just dragging the story on, which is why a lot of people find the ending tedious. Because the main conflict? Is finished. So, while I dislike Jackson for skipping the scouring of the shire, I understand it. That said, I'm one of those who feels the Scouring of the Shire is the whole purpose of the book. It is where LotR subverts the Hobbit's comic construction. In a traditional comedy, the idea was that a character would go away on an adventure, and returned mostly unchanged to the place they were at the start of the story. It's a circle, like Bilbo returning to the Shire in the Hobbit. In LotR, the scouring of the shire subverts that comic construction, turning it into a drama. The hobbits return, to find that not only have they changed, but the Shire has, too. And, unlike the Hobbit, where Bard is the one to slay the dragon, because Bilbo doesn't belong to the epic world of dragons, the returning hobbits have become, in some small way, a part of that epic world as well. They do not win the battle of Pelanor Field-that is still outside their world-nor do they even really participate in it, but when they return to their world, they are able to defeat the bits of the outside, epic world that have invaded it. The movie ending does away with that sense of the Hobbit's growth and change for a message of hope.
Very nice structural analysis. So, though I've read the trilogy at least 5 or 6 times, I confess the movies seem to sometimes supplant the books in my memory now. Does Merry not help slay the Black Captain in the book? Is that just a Jackson addition? Pippin does do some fighting for the palace guard, does he not? They are not completely outside that world, and of course, Sam does take out his share of orcs in saving Frodo.
@@davidc.2878yes, you are right on both counts. Merry stabs the witch king in the foot, though Tolkien is at pains to point out that it is the magic of the blade, and not the strength of Merry’s arm that is what undoes the Witch King. And he strikes him in the foot, the lowest, least triumphal spot. It is an important moment and it turns the tide in the battle with the Witch King, but it feels less about Merry taking his place in this mythic world and more about his hobbit courage allowing him to accomplish this one small thing. It is Eowyn, shield maiden, who delivers the killing blow. But as I said, through the quest they have gained some measure of belonging in this world. They are not the Heroes, but Merry is part of the ride of the Roherim; Pippen does swear fealty to Denathor. They become small but important cogs on which the grand story turns.
I was terribly disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't included. To me that chapter was the whole point of the entire epic. The four hobbits were basically children when they left, having no idea what they were going to face. What came back were adults, tested under fire, ready to face down one last challenge--for which they might have expected, but were well and truly able to face. Four boys left, four leaders returned. Hobbits are sturdy and strong, but too accustomed to the comforts of their fertile and and settled land. They hadn't had to face a real threat for many generations. But even the silliest among them are brave and far more dangerous than anyone (except maybe Gandalf) could ever have expected. Neither of the human men in the fellowship recognized what they actually had at the beginning of the the adventure. Aragorn, of course, had some inkling having been part of the Shire's secret guardians for m any years, but even he was amazed. Saruman's forces, OTOH, learned the hard way what an angry, armed, and battle-ready hobbit is really capable of. IMO, that battle would have been worth another half hour of film to tell and magnificent as the whole is--it would have been all the richer.
The most impactful part to me about the Scouring was when the first hobbit died. Because.. Hobbits don't do that. In all the media I'd had prior, 6 movies, 3 previous books, no hobbits had been actually killed. They felt safe before.
@@skynotaname2229 Gimli & Legolas were your favorite part of the Scouring of the Shire? OP didn't say the end of RotK or anything like that, they specifically said the Scouring.
In the films, a Nazgûl killed a hobbit while riding through the shire. In the books, prior to the Scouring, we learn that Lotho Sackville-Baggins was killed and eaten by Grima Wormtongue.
I do not disagree with you. But I would like to point out that it is something completely different to have several pages in such manner at the end of the very long tale in the book than several minutes in the long movie, even trilogy. It hits you in a completely different way.
@@bobbobertbobberton1073 I’m sure you have some sort of arguement you’re trying to make, but unfortunately it seems you don’t know how to speak english, or at least not coherently 💀
"End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it. White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise..." -Gandalf
Jackson also conveniently left out the fact that mortal men and hobbits do not share this fate, and cannot live in Valinor, nor can they ever win physical immortality. Not by gift or force can the Valar bestow immortality on a mortal. Not within their power. The hope and final fate of men is utterly unknown to anyone but Illuvitar. And Jackaon was right to leave that fact out of the film. The ambiguity of men's fate causes them a whole lot of problems. I imagine those problems would also carry a lot of resentment, especially if you're around elves a lot of the time.
A conversation that never happened in the book. Pippin would never get to see what Gandalf is describing. It's actually taken from the description of a dream Frodo had and later when he leaves the Grey Havens and reaches the Blessed Realm.
I love that quote. The concept is echoed in the book _The Last Battle_ by C.S. Lewis, at the end of the Narnia series. I think both authors felt they had to say something about how no battle ever solves everything and there will always be more battles to fight until the world ends.
I get it. Once when I was stationed at Hurlburt Field in Florida, several of us had dinner one night at a local restaurant. As we sat there I saw an MH-53J helicopter pass by a window headed for the training area. No one except our little group noticed. Everyone else continued eating, drinking, and laughing. At first I was annoyed. Don't they know there are people on the wall (so to speak)? Then I realized, that's the way it should be. Frodo and his mates know, as they sit at the table and drink their ales. And we knew. Jackson made the right decision.
The point, as I saw it when I read it 47 years ago, was that the return to the Shire was there to finish back where things started. The hobbits began their perilous venture in the Shire (and evil in the form of the dark riders had already made their way into the Shire). Bringing it back to their returns to the origin. I saw their heroics, skills and competence in the Scouring of the Shire as cleansing the Shire, even if it would take tends of years to repair the damage the war had caused. It also let the Hobbits as a people's need to understand that *it mattered* that these 4 young hobbits went out into true mortal risk because the cause was just and necessary. It also showed the Hobbits of the Shire that their heroes were now people of deep experience and a wisdom that only hard times and loss can provide. This would explain how they came to positions of respect with Sam being the Mayor of Hobbiton. In a way, when they cut this out, they left the circle from ever being complete. If you look at the Shire folk and how they treated Gandalf and anything vaguely different, without a reason and an experience like the occupation, they would likely never have really approved of them, much as they never really accepted Bilbo after he came home. It took the insulated, totally oblivious Hobbits having a lot of eye opening to show their own (as a people) gumption and courage in the face of real enemies - that fact (the courage of the larger body of Hobbits), the courage of the larger body of Hobbits is also elided from the story. When they did that, it left the 4 Hobbits as exceptional and strange to their own homes and kin. What the written version's ending did was show that, to at least some degree, EVERY Hobbit has some of that courage and resilience. That too was taken from the viewer of the movie. I realize this may not have been how Tolkien himself thought of it, but it fits to me. Even if he didn't intentionally show these parts, they fit in well with what did happen and it would have filled out the story of the Shire and its people (not just the heroes). The view that there are places that are safe, as the narrator called it, is a fantasy. Wars come into the houses and the cities of modern cities even now. For what it's worth, the occupation of the Shire remind me of a number of regions that have been occupied by despots and dictators in the modern world. I also didn't like sending Haldir and his Company in place of the Dunedain to Helm's Deep. Aragorn's Dunedain were largely washed out of the trilogy. And these are the people who had continued watching for the foe and struggling while everyone else except maybe a few elves, had given up on a return of the dark lord.
The Scouring of the Shire may be from Tolkien's understanding from Beowulf that the struggle never ends. There is always a new challenge to deal with. But books can survive narrative sprawl a lot better than movies can.
Exactly. It worked in the book, but I don't think it would work at all in the movies. If the story was told over many seasons in a miniseries maybe, but the movies captured the essence perfectly.
@tileux By his own claim, he "doesn't do allegory" though (lol), so he can't use that as an excuse for why it fits into a good story, since he insisted on pretending everything you just said was "wrong"
It's not narrative sprawl for the seasoned heroic Hobbits to dispatch the diminished Maiar Saroman and their crew. In fact, it shows that courage against bigger foes is the duty of all, regardless of size.
...I think what many people forget... is the Scouring of the Shire represents something VERY important: The Battle Never Ends... you can be hopeful, you can have great success... but you must always fight to keep the things you cherish... and when you are gone from somewhere for long enough that you've been effectively neglecting, you can't be surprised to see it decay unless you left stalwart protectors. It also reminds us that truly, nothing is actually 'Safe', everything changes and everything faces adversary, even the people in the sleepy little towns along the road.
I always thought it had to do with the hobbits being welcomed as heroes back to their homeland rather than the way it was in the film - where they come back almost as strangers, and no one celebrates or understands what they have been through. I'm quite surprised that theory isn't included in this video as to me that's the obvious one - the hobbits get welcomed home as heroes!
Not only is that not important, but it's not even true at all. The battle did end, and battles do in real life end all the time. "This wasn't the last battle of any sort ever in history" is obvious and didn't need to be taught to anyone with two braincells to rub together, and simply belongs in a different story about the other different battle.
@@sparkfire22223 l think it mentions that veterans weren't always welcomed as heroes after returning from war and also how they felt disconnected from civilians (and even their own family and friends) who didn't have their shared experience of warfare, which is what Peter Jackson chose to show instead.
@@gavinjenkins899 Ooft that's a little harsh don't you think? The point being made is that battles are always on the horizon. The commenter here is making the point that once one battle ends you have to always still be ready that another one might come at you at any moment. A reminder that we could be faced with a battle at any moment - in my book - is always welcome. Your approach of 'it is obvious' is exactly what makes it so easy to be complacent and forget the need to be ready all the time.
Aragorn's restoration as King of Gondor was not the symbol of hope and renewal that Tolkien intended. The Scouring was the rite of passage for our hobbit heroes who brought their fellowship home to redeem their people who had fallen to the malice of a debased Saruman while they were busy doing their parts to save Middle Earth. It was the story within the story, the heroes journey coming full circle.
Excellent comment! "The Scouring of the Shire" is a coda, a second ending to a literary or musical work. When your denouement is so overpowering emotionally, artists will also include a coda or second ending, think of it as Second Breakfast. It is a way of easing into a muted ending to your Epic story. Also there is a pragmatic side to the Scouring, in that it is done with no magic at all, and in that sense is a "realistic' ending to a huge fantasy epic as the author returns you to your own life. If the Hobbits can do it on their own, so can you.
That has nothing to do with the classic hero's journey and is not the last step of it. Which is precisely why it's so out of place. It doesn't fit ANY classic, well proven narrative pattern.
@@gavinjenkins899 The Scouring has everything to do with a classic hero's journey. As @hvymettle aptly says, it's "the rite of passage for our hobbit heroes." This is the part of the book where they truly become men. They have to lead and make hard choices in morally ambiguous circumstances. The quest to destroy the Ring required bravery, loyalty and perseverance. Those are important virtues, but they can be the virtues of boys (which is why Peter Jackson liked only that part of the story, but not the Scouring). Recapturing the Shire required the virtues of men.
@@botaskyusagi8271 Anyone saying that crawling through a volcano sacrificing yourself to save humanity after navigating through the wilderness for hundreds of miles with ghost assassins hunting you "isn't a real man" is a complete moron. If your definitions don't fit that, obviously your definitions are the part at fault. Fix your definitions, don't ruin a story.
@@gavinjenkins899The Scouring of the Shire is not about the hobbits "becoming men" It's not about them making sacrifices or learning courage. It's about them using what they've learnt to save their home. Could any of the hobbits have defeated Saruman and his men, if they had never been on the journey they all went on? No. Of course not. They were simple people who enjoyed the simple pleasures and comforts of life. War, corruption, tyranny and ruin were completely alien in The Shire. They HAD to go on their respective journeys to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to combat the evil they are faced with at home, once they return. The point of the Scouring of the Shire is to give them those challenges. What purpose does it serve to have characters learn and suffer for nothing. Yes, they ultimately help the rest of Middle-Earth during their adventures, but the real test is waiting for them at home. That's where it hits hardest and matters most. Tolkien knew what he was doing with The Scouring of the Shire. It serves a purpose and is the whole point of the story. If you think you know better than Tolkien, then show us the masterpiece you've written and published, which still gets discussed nearly a century later.
Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. 'You have grown, Halfling,' he said. 'Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. you have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell.
"Reverence" is a bit of a stretch. You don't completely omit the entire point of the story and feel or claim to have done that story justice. The Scouring of the Shire WAS the whole point. Tolkien said it was. I think Tolkien would be fuming that any adaptation made of his story would neglect THE critical chapter of the whole thing.
Sure, but from a perspective of the average movie viewer, just like how bombadil adds more questions, the scouring is more of an epilogue. The overarching story was concluded, I love the scouring, but I think that removing it and bombadil made the movies more digest-able for the average viewer.
@@SeanBook001 Maybe. But is that the point of an adaptation? To make it digestible? And if it doesn't really do justice to the original material, how successful can it be? If you have to make so many changes to make it appealing to the average audience member, then perhaps it shouldn't have been adapted in the first place. That could be why Christopher fought so hard to stop a movie adaptation. He knew it wasn't going to be his father's creation, but mangled version. It's not even just cutting out critical components. Dialogue was changed and given to other characters. Whole sections were grossly distorted. That is not the actions of someone who shows reverence for the source material.
@@QueenMonny I get where you are coming from, but also think, how many people never knew about LOTR who were introduced to it through the movies, who then got to go read the novels and get to enjoy them in their entirety. Atop that, changing dialogue and what not, I don't blame them for removing some, for instance some of the songs tolken put in them, many of them, while great and I love them while reading, would feel like a huge speed bump to these already lengthy movies. I think if an adaptation can be made that makes it more digestible through different mediums, I think it can be very good. One example of a change I do like that I think the movies did well was changing glorfindal (I am going off of memory and can't remember how to spell his name) to Aeowyn (Aragon's love interest) I think flushed out her character and their relationship more than in the books. One other change I think made Narcil, then Anduril, feel more impactful, was having it be reforged later, this also helped Aragon's character have some more development, originally turned away from his royal heritage, to then come to accept his responsibility. To me, the broken blade in the books was brought up and repaired in a few pages, if that in the book. Yes then Aragorn gets to carry it through the series. But I think the change highlights how important not only Narcil is, but isildurs whole story as well. He like Narcil was originally intact, a weapon against sauron, then shattered by the ring, only once his heir accepts his responsibility in the rings destruction, and to reclaim his throne is both the blade reforged and the royal seat reacquired. I think that some parts of the story were polished and expressed more efficiently. But others were definitely lost. I think the films were great, and the books were great. I think there were parts that the movies did better, and there were parts that the books definitely did better. I think that an adaptation like these movies stayed quite true to the movies, while allowing the director to put his own artistic spin on it. It's still LOTR, but it's his interpretation of it. I think these movies did a WAY better job of staying true to the original source and I think that is one reason why so many people love them, the director didn't rewrite the story, or characters, he added or pruned some parts, but I think he did that to try to give more of the feeling you get from these characters over the days you read the books in, in a far more condensed timeline of hours in the movies. I think he did really well conveying who these characters are in a far shorter amount of time. Compare the LOTR films to the books, then compare the Wheel of time series to their TV "adaptation" I think one actually did justice to the source material, and the other tried to jam a wheel of time shaped peg, into a game of thrones shaped hole.
For me the Scouring of the Shire was a favourite chapter in my many readings of the LOTR... remember Gandalf's gentle admonishment to Frodo to think twice over his outburst wishing ill over Gollum... then see his growth when he holds back his friends' intended retaliation after his Mithral coat has turned Saruman's blade... can't recall his comments, but suffice to say that scene is all the more a poignant lesson for me, a reader and admirer Tolkien's books. Gandaulf foretold the world would soon learn (the great deeds) of the little people... the Hobbits. Be well everyone 🙏
I somewhat disagree with this take. I think it was appropriate to cut the scouring of the shire but mostly because the chapter could be an entire movie by itself. But the more important thing about the chapter is the rebuilding of The Shire that is described in the end. When I would read that chapter I was always moved by the fact that the party tree at Bag End had been cut down by Sharky and his men. It seemed the symbol of the violation of the Shire. But it comes full circle when Sam uses the gift he received from Galadriel all the way back in The Fellowship of the Ring to plant a new tree, the only Mallorn east of the sea and west of the mountains. This new party tree would be a way for the glory of the elves and the Valinar to live on through the hobbits. The shire is shown as growing more powerful and beautiful and all because of the leadership of Frodo and his friends as well as the gifts that they received. It's a bummer that couldn't be shown but like I said, it would require almost an entire movie to get that.
If they filmed it, it would have to be the Extended Edition since that would at least add another 40 minutes if not an hour. I think they might have shot it had they known how successful the Extended Editions were going to be, but they got away with so much that I’m just happy what we got.
I almost feel like this could be assumed to have happened and that the pub scene was simply long enough after the events of the Scouring Shire that others were celebrating but the Four know the larger scale of the story and may have stronger emotional effects because of it. Sometimes I wonder if they could included it as an addendum with an edit that removes the death of Saruman and Grima at Orthanc and puts it in The Shire, and adds a montage similar to what was filmed for the vision at Loth Lorien, perhaps with new CGI to extend the story with voice overs by the surviving actors.
5:35 i never really liked the movies. The were well made and the acting was fine, but i always felt the hobbits were depicted as little more than children or baggage, and it tried too hard to be emotional. My wife didn’t understand, she loved them. Then i read her the book and now she feels the same way. The hobbits went off to war not knowing anything, it was just a big adventure. They came home warriors who weren’t going to simply roll over for anyone. They learned how to look after themselves and the shire would never be reliant on outside protection again. Cutting that out missed the whole point of the story. It wasn’t about the ring, it was about the journey and how it changes things.
In the movie, Frodo's "vision" of the Scouring of the Shire implied an alternative future that would befall the Shire if Frodo failed in his mission to destroy the Ring of Sauron. Giving Frodo an added impetus to succeed.
In a sense, the Scouring of the Shire was the whole point of the book. Gandalf's remark to the Hobbits at the breaking of the Fellowship says as much. " You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.” The omission of the Scouring of the Shire and the decision to make Eowyn into a damsel were great disappointments.
No it is realistic that people at home have no clue about the pain dangers and sacrifices made at war. It is more poignant the Hobbits never know what Frodo, Sam Merry and Pippin went through.
I think Peter Jackson did the best thing he could to ensure the movie flowed smoothly. I loved the books growing up in the 70's, and I read them regularly still, but when I saw the movies, I was very impressed. As a fan of the books, I went into the theater with much trepidation, but was thrilled to find the films to be awesome!!
I couldn't enjoy the movie the Fellowship first time I saw it - I was so so so afraid it would be F-ed up at some point. But it wasn't... And as much as I loved the books - the movies are a truly spectacular version.
No he did not. He made up a lot of things that were not in the books. He should have stuck to the source material. Shelob's Lair belonged in The Two Towers, not The Return of the King.
@@CathieSoli Whatever. We are entitled to our respective opinions. Perhaps I understand about movie-making a little better. These movies did't win all these awards & thrill (most) TLOTR fans by being mediocre.
"I remember well the splendor of their banners." he said "It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand. So many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and elves deemed that evil was ended forever. And it was not so." "You remember?" Said Frodo, speaking his thought aloud in astonishment. "But I thought..." He stammered as Elrond turned toward him. "I thought the fall of Gil-galad was long ages ago." "So it was, indeed." Answered Elrond gravely. "But my memory reaches back even to the Elder Days. Eärendil was my sire, who was born in Gondolin before its fall. My mother was Elwing daughter of Dior, son of Lúthien of Doriath. I have seen three ages of the West of the world. And many defeats, and many fruitless victories." Many defeats, and many fruitless victories. If ever there was a summary of all of Tolkien's writing in one sentence, that would be it.
The reason that it exists is stated, very clearly, in the first book. the shire never changes. Bad things happen in the world, and the shire stays the same. This thing, this event in the history of middle earth was so big, it touched even the shire. Jackson got the first part, but the missed the second part.
"The shire never changes" is barely impressed upon the reader in the first place earlier in the story. Maybe there's a throwaway line about it somewhere, but it was not crucial even if so, or hammered home in any way, or relevant to the story. 90% of people never read the Silmarillion or whatever where such things might be stated further, either. So that's a ""rule""/fact that almost no readers noticed or knew or cared about, and thus violating that ""rule"" has very little impact and doesn't make much sense. In order to shock anyone by violating a rule, you needed to HAMMER it home earlier over and over. He didn't. It is an un-earned "twist" and doesn't convey anything all that impactful. It just seems awkward and pointless like he doesn't know how to write an ending. Even if I did notice everything you said, your end conclusion still doesn't make any sense as a thing to "teach" the reader. Why would I need to be taught that this was a big event in history? Duh, the entire book was just about that. If you didn't realize it was a huge event in history until the scouring of the shire, you would have severe issues.
@@gavinjenkins899 “a throw away line”? Tolkien, a man known for detailed world building, perhaps too detailed, and you think he used a throw away line to setup the shire? I don’t even need to pull my copy of the book off the shelf to know this is wrong.
@@khatdubell Yes, and if it was really a line that made a big impression on you, you wouldn't NEED to pull out your copy. You'd just remember it... it having no impression on you is precisely why it falls flat to allude to it several books later.
There are many aspects of The Two Towers and The Return of the King that Jackson misjudged. Another example of his teams writing hubris was eliminating the key fact that it was MEN that won the battle of the Pelinor Fields. Not an army of the undead. That was a pivotal plot point in the original book. Also having Faramir bring Frodo to Osgiliath in the Extended Edition is completely out of character for him as well. While I thought Fellowship was about perfect, I would give it a 95% (and would have been 99% with the inclusion of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs), I have to say that Two Towers would go down slightly to 90% (Gimli was not meant to be comic relief) and Return of the King even further to about 75%. So overall still great movies, but far from perfect scores. Ring of Power... 20%
@gavinjenkins899 Even if people haven't read the Silmarillion, or H.O.M.E, Tolkien wrote them (Christopher compiled and edited), and they round out the world. The stuff in them is relevant and matters. The Scouring of the Shire is the whole point of the story of LOTR. It's not just a way to show the full circle journey of the hobbits. It shows the resolution of the themes of the whole story. Not just that war touches everywhere, but courage, compassion, wisdom, forgiveness, understanding even your enemies. I don't care that it would have upset the flow of the movie or potentially confused the audience who hadn't read the books. That scene serves a function and should have been included. If Tolkien thought it was necessary, who were they [writers/director] to decide it wasn't?
I'm still sad they left it out. Even with the trauma inflicted upon the Hobbits when the scouring occurs, it's not the same as the trauma of war the the four went through. The books noted that after the scouring, the people of the Shire revered Merry and Pippin, and Sam, but didn't seem to think as much of Frodo. There's still plenty of room for the pub scene: the sense in coming home of the difference between the solders and the civilians. The Scouring of the Shire doesn't negate that. And the Scouring was rich in meaning. So much left out. I loved The Fellowship, from the from the Two Towers on, it became clear to me that Jackson had shifted the focus from the Hobbits' tale, to the tale of Aragorn as told from a Hobbit's perspective.
you took a good time to address the matter, thank you for bringing again these scenes and comparing the passages of books, refreshing what we have been able to campare in years past. I agree with what directors decided, also tolkien had the liberty to widen his story to make it a legacy for their heirs, if I remeber well there is an article where he says it was his sole purpose. Then again yeah, all in all wars have devastaton effects in the entire globe, it is to all clear, makes this a masterpiece story
The Scouring of the Shire is more about industrialization of England and the end of “the simple way of life” that Tolkien grew up in. The Second Industrial Revolution is not often focused on in our history lessons, but it had a major impact of the day to day lives of people, and it occurred right when Tolkien was growing up.
It was more impactful to me to show the hobbits have changed while The Shire stayed the same. It made Frodo’s mindset in leaving for the Undying Lands have a more digestible reasoning for mass audiences imo. They will never truly be the same, even though everything they fought to protect goes on like it was before they left. It reinforces the idea that once Frodo and Bilbo had seen the world firsthand they would never feel as comfortable with themselves at The Shire compared to on an adventure.
I think it is just a question of craft, which is different between a novel and a movie. The Scouring of the Shire works well in the book for all the said reasons, in a film that is already over 3 hours long (4 if you count the extended cut), that is ending a trilogy that is already well over 9 hours (over 12 in the extended cut), and has had huge battles and an overall satisfying climax, you just cannot go further than that by adding a small skirmish, that would just feel off. I don´t think themes etc. have anything to do with the decision to cut that part of the book, it is just a decision that had to be taken while adapting the story for a different medium. There are other changes and omissions from the films that I think would have been better included in the final work.
Honestly, it should be a mini-series. That would've been a good tie-in. Sadly, Christopher Lee is long dead and much of the cast is aged by this point. If only it happened instead of the Hobbit trilogy.
Also, in the book, the Scouring of the Shire happens after a long exhale after the ring is destroyed. Tolkien wraps up every character’s tale as the Hobbits head back to the Shire and it takes multiple chapters. The Scouring chapter naturally flows from that, as the Hobbits have to finish the task of saving the Shire on their own. The movies just couldn’t do that, and it just wouldn’t have worked for the pacing of cinema. Jackson & co made the right decision.
I thought the "Scouring of the Shire" would be yet another movie. Love Tolkien and the wonderful lands he created. He was probably not thinking about movies and scripts and all that entails! Probably!! Blessed 🐝 his Spirit, and family and all involved in such an awesome undertaking, including us fans!
The lord of the Rings doesn't end with the scouring of the Shire. It ends with the death of Aragorn, and Arwen Evenstar returning to a deserted Lorien, where the leaves are falling but spring has not yet come.
If Peter Jackson made LOTR at the same material density of the thr Hobbit, it would have filled 10-12 movies and the Scouring would have had its own movie!
That would be hilarious. Hobbits flipping around like Prequel Yoda, Saruman giving a ten-minute speech until Radagast arrived on a Sandworm and stunning diverse elves twerking on a pile of bodies. Lengthy flashbacks of the original party of dwarves washing plates. Sackville-Bagginses everywhere! And we finally learn how Rosie Cotton went back in time to found the Shire and invent Lembas
For me, it is the Scouring that makes LOTR a true masterpiece. It is poignant, "it comes home to you!" as the hobbits put it, it shows that the story and the struggle against evil never end and that the evil of war is never contained strictly on the battlefield but, most importantly of all, is shows you what it was all about! "Remember the Shire?" The Scouring makes the huge, vague themes of the conflict tangible and personal. Remember, this was written by a WW1 veteran who saw his son serve in WW2. "What did we fight for?" Not a flag, not a vague notion of honour etc but something real, tangible, intimate! IMO cutting the Scouring from the films is understandable as it is unforgivable
The bar scene works because the Hobbits are oblivious to the cost of their freedom. It is more poignant that the other Hobbits have no clue the danger and pain Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin been through to save them.
Personally, I wish he had filmed it and included it in the extended edition. The chapter, to me, represented the growth of the four main characters. To someone binge watching all three movies, the added content would be a welcome addition.
What a bullshit. You can't make two versions of the same movie where in the first one they come back to their home peaceful and unchanged, and in the other their home is an industrial burning hell full of orcs and enslaved by Saruman. Not everyone is as insane as you and I'm glad Jackson was smart enough to don't do this.
The Scouring of the Shire has always been my FAVORITE part of the whole series. These little hobbits return home to troubles. And Merry and Pippin get PISSED off. They take down the entire organization of Sarumon, and his thugs like the soldiers they had become. Using leadership, courage, and strategic experience. In my opinion the final chapter of the most interesting and greatest character growth arc in the entire series. By far, the BEST and most satisfying chapter in the Series. (edit: I realized I wrote "Souramon" (facepalms) sheesh)
I like it except for the quick easy defeat of Saruman, who has become a cackling villain. He's basically at their mercy the moment they meet, and he's living in Frodo's house.
Peter Jackson did well here, beyond what we could have asked for. It is cinematic perfection and stays true to Tolkien's theme of hope rising above all else.
I disagree. He made up so much that wasn't in the source material. The scouring could have been in there had he not so. As well as other things. Shelob's Lair belongs in The Two Towers, not the Return of the King. All that stuff with Gollum and the lembas bread was just a bunch of hooey.
Agreed. The story doesn’t need yet another battle, after we’d had Moria, Helm’s Deep, Osgiliath, Minas Tirith and numerous smaller battles with orcs. It would have been more of the same and Jackson was right to say anticlimactic, after the destruction of the ring. Saruman wasn’t even the principal enemy, let alone a diminished version of Saruman.
Cutting out the Scouring cut out the heart of the story which wasn't about the great and powerful but about the small, ordinary, people whose lives are impacted the most by war both as the men who fight and the communities that are directly and indirectly hurt. That even the Shire could be hurt by the war is both realistic and a gut punch to the readers. The hobbits of the Fellowship also learn as did many that the end of a war, not even the War to End All War (WWI) doesn't mean the end of all evil and that there were still fights left to fight. And yes, we then get to see how far these characters have grown as they lead the fight to retake the Shire and this is the end of their personal arcs. Sam was a simple gardener, Merry and Pippin were idle rich pranksters, Frodo was a quiet scholar. Now they're all experienced fighters and after leading their people to victory Sam becomes a multi-term Mayor of Hobbiton and both Merry and PIppin become important political leaders as well as liaisons with Aragorn's new government. The Shire is healed and become even more beautiful than it was before in the same way that these characters became stronger due to what they had faced. Only Frodo doesn't recover and he represents the significant percentage of soldiers who never got treatment for their PTSD and suffered the pain of war for the rest of their lives while they had to see everyone else move on. By cutting the Scouring they cut out the overall, underlying, theme of the evil of war and what it does and how people can be destroyed or strengthened by it and in it's place we get the standard fantasy heroes taking part in grand adventures and great battles with a happy ever after for the good guys. Except for Frodo and Arwen of course and I'm really glad they didn't change that. I have nothing against such stories and even enjoy them, I enjoyed the movies, but what elevated LotRs above standard fantasy wasn't just Professor Tolkien's conlangs and detailed world building but the way it addressed these deeper issues.
Having read the books as a preteen, then again as a young adult, I know that the scouring of the shire is just depressing. They were going home to the wondrous blissful shire to be confronted with a foul smelling and looking industrial village. Ruled by evil. Very depressing when they thought, and we all thought, reading the books, that Frodo had defeated the ultimate evil so evil should be gone from the world - not showing up in the one place that never hosted evil before. I read it early because The Hobbit was the one and only book my older brother gave to me. Then talking about it excitedly at school, my teacher mentioned that while they are separate stories, there is a trilogy that continues shortly after The Hobbit ends. I had a library card, and found them, figured out the order, and seeing how large they were, checked out just one at a time, reading them in order. I later bought paperback versions of the 3 books, so I could reread and share. That would not have happened, had I not spent my 10 year old summer at my grandparents while my mother finished her bachelor's degree. Of course, I ran out of things I found fun to do. Prior trips were usually 1 week, sometimes 2 weeks, and I NEVER ran out of things to do, but the whole summer is much longer, and my older siblings (5 of them) went home with Dad, leaving me to actually experience being the oldest of me and my 3 younger siblings. One day I complained of being bored and that there was nothing to do. My grandfather insisted I needed to read books that they had in the foyer (the former porch, a new porch added in front of it, it was enclosed and had an upright piano and a set of built in bookshelves. He picked Tom Sawyer off the shelf for me to start with. Then, when I was done with that, and the book itself recommended continuing the story with Huckleberry Finn, they also had this. Funny because of their 7 children, only 1 was a boy.
"....the one place that never hosted evil before." The Shire had the One Ring for over half a century and Black Riders roaming around searching for Frodo. The Shire had hosted some of the greatest evil known to Middle Earth.
I was sad when Tom Bombadil didn't make it into the film. I was furious the "The Scouring of the Shire" was not included. For years I have held on to this disappoint. After watching this video it was the best decision. It hits way harder now. Good job!
Its like Tolkien and Jackson wrote an RPG with choices that matters. A) choose to kill Saruman and Grima at Orthanc then you get less XP but a happy ending. B) release Saruman and Grima and see the consequences, more XP and loot but bad ending C) kill Saruman but release Grima
Why would they get more XP for (a) than (b)? It should be the same amount as both achieve the same objective. Also, in the film none of these options applies. Instead, Grima kills Saruman, but is then killed by Legolas.
@@GonzoTehGreat only way I can see it is that sparing Saruman [ultimately] gives you more XP because it opens up another questline to be completed later (the scouring) and after completing that questline you have more XP than you would have if you hadn’t have had to do that questline at all
@@yomamma.ismydaddy216 Sure, but that's _potential_ XP, in the future, not _actual_ XP for not killing him/them. Also, killing them could equally lead to earning more XP... For example, Saruman's death ends the spell uniting the surviving Orcs under his control who consequently disband, (after some in-fighting), but then start marauding and raiding nearby settlements, so need to be stopped by the party.
Actually B) is not a bad ending. Mind you, Samwise went on to restore the Shire with the earth and Mallorn Tree seed he received from Galadriel (in the book as opposed to the rope in the film) more beautiful than before. And it establishes Sam, Merry and Pippin as new Leaders of the Shire... oh and provides the greedy Sackville Bagginses with a redemption arc.
except that Tolkien wrote option B. I just really hate movies that actually lie about the plot. Lying about the time and place of the death of a key character such as Saruman has no good justification.
I've been called a heretic for saying this but there are differences in the movies I prefer to the books. The scouring is one of those. I like that scene where the Hobbits are sitting at the pub, looking around at everyone in the Shire who are oblivious to what they have been through and how much they sacrificed for their beloved homeland. It's a bit like the scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where Paul comes home on leave and discovers that on the surface it appears nothing has changed in his village but he knows things have actually changed a lot and that he'll never be able to go home again because his home is in now the in the trenches. Rather than argue with anyone he simply lets them have their discussion on things they know nothing about and when it's time to return to the line he does so willingly. It's a bit different but it strikes the same chord. I also think the movies did a better job fleshing out the relationships between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, but that's an argument for another thread. Nice review. The books and movies are only slightly different but Jackson and company stayed true to the theme, that good can triumph over evil and more times than not it's the simple foot soldier who makes all the difference.
The scouring was about change and even Hobbiton wasn't immune. As it is a tale of industry and exploitation of the hobbits is what they came back to. If left in the movie would have ended bitter sweet. A happy home would have been not possible. Like in today's wars. The soldiers are rarely welcomed home with the praise they might of thought. Unsung heros. As Sam was left to continue the story and the tell of history.
I think it is crucial to include the scouring of the shire in the Extended cut. I completely understand not doing so in the theatrical. However the extended cut was designed for just such an ending. We missed Merry and Pippen leading an army of Tooks and Brandybucks.
The scouring of the shire is something which could - and should - be included in any serialised retelling of LotR for TV. However, it would have been an extra half hour of storytelling at the already long end to a movie ending a trilogy. I was more upset that Saruman’s death scene was completely cut from the theatrical release - that was inexcusable - when they could have cut a smidge from the battle scenes to easily fit it in.
Even thou the movies are very long, I always thought "The Scouring of the Shire" was central to the story. From the point of view of Frodo and company: Gandalf takes these 4 Hobbits out of there ideal lives and shows them what is happening in the world, it is only just that they get to apply what they learned, that the Shire sees the benefit of them leaving. Being exposed to evil makes you tougher. From the point of view of Middle Earth: The end of the age affects everything. Evil is still present, even without the ring. The defeat of evil can be taken up by good people everywhere, but the longer it takes, the bigger a battle is.
Couldn't agree more. For me the scouring is also far more important. Like many books the Hobbits are the stand-in for us. They don't know what's going on, who Sauron or Saruman are, who Aragorn is, nothing of Rohan, Gondor or whatever else, and their ignorance allows us, the reader, to learn of this greater world and have some courage among big folk where they were recognized for their bravery. But now they've (we've) been on this incredible Journey, they (we) return to our safe little homes where all is well. But all is not well. Evil is still present, and there is yet an effectual struggle to be made. The scouring of the shire isn't about Hobbits, it's about us. The powerful evils, rendered toothless by wars fought by strong Kings far beyond our borders and often beyond our ken, still lurk in our lives, but with courage and teamwork they will be overcome.
7:26 This scene makes me think of what the Hero’s Shade went through in Twilight Princess, where Link had done so much, just to be returned to his childhood with no one knowing of his heroics.
I agree that it doesn’t fit normal storytelling and issues with pace, but Tolkien himself said it was essential to the meaning of the whole work. Furthermore, I don’t agree that it undercuts themes of hope in the work
Perhaps the Scouring could have been included as a separate epilogue to what was presented in the three movies. It could have been padded out a bit by introducing scenes from the Silmarillion. Frodo and Sam could have had nightmares which depicted the scouring. What they endured would have given anyone nightmares.
I think it all comes down to a "full circle" type of structure...the trilogy in some ways begins with the 4 Hobbits before they EVER form the Fellowship...so in theory, the idea that at the end of the story, it would come down to the 4 Hobbits having to defend their own home WITHOUT any of the Fellowship. It kind of works. Again, it would require one to sort of structure your screenplays differently, the trilogy as a whole, to make it feel like it is organically and properly building to "Hobbits vs Sarumon in the Shire" as a final epilogue of sorts. Jackson wanted the entire thing to revolve around the ring, and that the ring being destroyed is the "climax" and in many ways it is. But again, taken with a different framing, the scouring of the shire might have felt like exactly the type of conclusion the story needed. Also...if someone takes the position that "Sauron and the ring are not truly a compelling, personified villain that our heroes get to defeat".....well, if you change the framing of the adaptation a little bit...and make it out more like SARUMAN is the "main villain" for the trilogy...then the narrative finally coming down to the Hobbits and Saruman COULD be done in a way where it very much feels like the proper conclusion to the story...achieving a bit of a "full circle" moment. You sort of use the Shire sequences as a framing device, as a juxtaposition to one another. They leave the Shire in peace, go on this grand voyage across the world, to save the world, then return to find it in ruin, and must use their skills and heroism to save it, to win one final battle for their very own home, and not just fighting for the world at large. I think Jackson viewed it as something that was simply "tacked on" and if inserted into the film that way, that is what it would have felt like and it wouldn't have worked. But if you played the structural and editorial cards right...the scouring might have felt like the perfect conclusion.
Thank you, Nerdstalgic, for sharing this tidbit of information about the true ending as it is in the book. I have been really opposed to some things that were omitted from the movies and other things which were added; however, in this case, I can definitely see there was wisdom in this choice to use creative license in the way they chose to tie up the ending of the trilogy.
Excellent video, but I radically disagree with your conclusion. The "scouring' is an absolutely vital part of the story & should have been included in the film.
I totally agree. I was disappointed that it wasn't included. I believe they said it would make up about 8 minutes of screen time. Again, I disagree. It was fully worth another movie. And, anyone who actually read the Trilogy (IMO) would agree that this was as important a scene as the reclaiming of Isengard or the reawakening of the King of Rohan.
The Scouring of the Shire was a necessary cut. When I read the book I found it interesting but was a huge and anti climatic deviation from the destruction of the ring. Jackson improved on Tolkien's story telling by leaving it out of the film. Easy decision for a master director.
I'll beg to disagree here. While I appreciate Jackson's reasoning about preserving themes of hope, the scouring also ends with the reconstruction of the shire. Sam uses the box he gets from Galadriel to replant spoiled gardens, and grow beloved trees, all of the ugly buildings are cleared, and the year after sees a bumper harvest. Tolkien was very much a Catholic, in his faith and his legendarium, only the divine beyond the world is truly pure and eternally perfect. of course, war touches the shire, but the hope is that with love and hard work, and memories of the past, something beautiful can still be built! Sam himself has lines to this effect in the two towers film with Frodo, and it would be the perfect expression of that to end with the scouring and the reconstruction afterwards. Indeed, in our own time of division, destruction and constant cultural vandalism, a message about reconstructing what has been broken and learning from the past rather than tearing it down , is far more relevent than the idea of having an eternally preserved rustic haven which never changes.
Just before returning to the Shire, Gandalf departs from them and tells them this return is what they've been training for. It doesn't make sense to them when he says it, but when they see the scourge they understand the adventure they had was preparation for taking back their land.
The LOTR Trilogy is a classic now. However, remember, it was a tremendous gamble. They made 3 expensive “fantasy” movies at once - and the studio was nervous. The Movies were already very long and adding the scouring segment would have made them longer. However, It would’ve nice if they could’ve added it to the extended version.
The books started in the Shire and ended there. Anyone who doesn’t see the Scouring SS the payoff either didn’t read the books p or missed the point. Its absence doesn’t ruin the films especially for non book readers but for careful book readers it was a flaw.
If they ended the movie like the book, it would feel like this: "Everyone lived happily ever after. Until they died. Which they all did. Yes, pretty much everyone died. THE END." - 25 mins of credits - "Also, may I interest you in the family tree of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Anyone? Hello?"
in the end all 4 hobbits left the shire again; the story of Merry and Pippin also leaving was omitted. they died in Gondor and rest in Rath Dinen in the royal vault. the strange part is that Arwen left Gondor and died in Lothlorien; we would expect her to stay in Minas Tirith.
@@rivenoak What's strange about the death of Arwen? She chose mortal life for love of Aragorn, and after Aragorn was gone, she went to Lothlorien, the birthplace of her mother and the realm of her grandmother, to reconnect with her Elven past. But the Elves had already left for Undying Lands and Lothlorien, while still beautiful, was now empty and silent. She roamed there for a while until she lay on a mound and gave up her life.
@@oskariratinen1213 After Aragorn died she still had a family, consisting of her son and his children, yet she chose to leave them to die alone, so her return to Lothlorien suggests she never fully embraced her choice to become mortal, as part of her always wished to return to her people...
@@GonzoTehGreat her children were mortals as well, and it's not like they were toddlers anymore either. Their son Eldarion was 120 years old when Aragorn died. There were also at least two daughters that Tolkien never named, and it's very likely they were around the same age too. What was Arwen supposed to do, hang around and watch her children and grandchildren die before her? It's natural for us mortal men to see our parents die, and Arwen chose to live as a mortal when she became Queen of Gondor.
@@oskariratinen1213 "In the year 121 of the Fourth Age, after Aragorn's death, Arwen died of a broken heart at Cerin Amroth in Lórien, and was buried there one year after the death of Aragorn, to whom she had been wedded for 122 years. She was 2901 years old." So she died of a broken heart less than a year after Aragorn, yet she died alone in Lorien, not with their family, and she was buried there, not beside her husband, probably at her own request. Clearly, she had not put her elven heritage completely behind her...
I think that removing the scouring was an important let down. They could/should have removed some of the pomp and circumstance at the end in favor of including it. There is just something heartbreakingly critical about them coming home to find the mess and clean it up on their own. Saruman himself summed it up when talking to the hobbits when he has been unmasked. His level of evil isn't ever really overthrown. There will always be more/new evils to face in this world.
Strange. I always took The Scouring of the Shire to be a physical representation of Shell Shock. You can't come home and everything is fine. It felt to me like an external representation of what the soldier goes through internally. For me it accomplished exactly what Jackson was aiming for with the 4 of them around the table.
The books were a different experience from the films. They are both magnificent standing on their own merits. I admit, I loved Jackson’s version. I cried at the coronation scene.
I really like that after the Hobbits get rid of the men and their influence, and the Shire is devastated... That Sam actually use the seeds given by Galadrielle to revitalize the Shire. I seem to remember different characters nodding to the fact it shows an uncanny ressemblance to an elven forest. Also does not the boat come back for Sam after a very long life too? to bring the last ring bearer to the other shores ? (Even tho it was for a small time, he DID wear the ring). Been decades since I read the full thing, my memory might be wrong. I wish more books would dedicate a chapter to our hero's lives after the main story ends.
That was a mistake in the movie. As long as there were elves in middle-Earth that wanted to go to the undying lands there would be a ship built or ready to set sail. That was the task of Círdan the shipwright, who dwelled at the grey havens. Tolkien broadly hinted that Sam ultimately did go (to Eldamar, the Island of the Noldor). There is a lovely foretaste of that in the unpublished Epilogue-it’s actually what was supposed to be the final sentence of the LOTR until JRRT was convinced to pull the epilogue at the last minute (a decision he later regretted). Note that the epilogue is just that: an epilogue. It’s a short closing text years later that brings some closure to the weighty story just ended. The ending proper is the one we’re all familiar with. Curiously, both the final chapter and epilogue end at Bagend, and with Sam.
@@Francois424 I believe King Elessar (Aragorn) established the ban against “big people” (men) with the approval of the hobbits, a ban he honored according to the unpublished epilogue. But yes, both significant and uplifting elements to the story you reference and only possible because of the horror in/to the Shire Saruman wrought. Galadriel’s gift to Sam only makes sense in that context: she foresaw Saruman’s likely downfall, the devastation to the Shire and Sam the gardener becoming a healer of the land-for an elf there can be little higher praise, and I think we can measure the value of her gift to him accordingly (which I believe was bestowed with potent elvish magic and not mere soil). Sam the hero indeed!
There's a particular reading of the whole trilogy that keeps being removed from YT. It is the best by far, and, after watching the films, you can have the whole thing play again to that particular narration, and easily picture all the chapters and characters as if the 36+ hours is a film in your mind. It's truly amazing, particularly the Scouring of the Shire, the Grey Havens, and the epilogue.
In the theatrical version of TROTK film, it never shows what happens to Saruman and Grimma Wormtongue. Only in the extended edition of TROTK film does it show that Saruman is killed by Grimma Wormtongue at Isengard and Grimma Wormtongue gets killed by Legolas. It's too bad that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't included in TROTK film. Merry and Pippin rallied the Hobbits to fight the ruffians. Frodo became wise by telling the Hobbits that they need not to listen to Sharkey, showed mercy to Sharkey. However Grimma had enough of Saruman and stabbed him, the Hobbits shot Grimma Wormtongue with arrows from their bows. Another detail that was left out of the film was that Frodo gave Sam the Red Book and the keys to Bag End.
Merry and Pippin were also about a foot taller from drinking at the well, while they kicked back with Tree Beard. They towered over their fellow Hobbits and were much better fights due to their increased size. I don't see that mentioned either. It was integral to the final Hobbit battle.
I like the change. It's fine. I understand the reason behind it. Also - sometimes it's ok to deviate from he original story because it actually prompts people who never read the original to read it to see the differences and enjoy a different take. Not all movies are accurate portrayal's of Stephen King's stories either, but there have been a few that King himself stated he liked better than his own and actually wished he had ended them the way the film's did. I can go out on a limb and state that maybe Tolkien might like the way Jackson ended his story (even better than he wrote it) which is the case for many writers. Peter Benchley's "Jaws" was much different in many aspects of the movie by Spielberg - yet both are iconic stories and both are awesome by their own right. Personally I like the movie better in both cases - but a movie is a movie and a book is a book - they are two different mediums and sometimes (not always) - but sometimes you just have to change the stories to fit the aspect and nature of the medium to make it work.
I mind this absence greatly, I hate the last movie for it. Jackson instead has this overly sentimental long drawn out boring ending. The Scouring is an essential part of the story. It was an artistic crime to leave it out of the movie.
Good video - as a fan of Tolkien - I happen to agree with Peter Jackson's adaptation here because it would have felt anti-climatic especially after all the fade to black scenes we did get. That and not talking about Tom Bombadil (sp) - also I believe would have changed the theme of Fellowship especially, too much.
Removing the Scouring highlights the willful watering down or simply misunderstanding by Jackson and the screenwriters of Tolkien’s themes: death, the vain pursuit of deathlessness, the initial beauty of creation that wanes and fades over time, the heritage we all have with the fight against evil and though its initial history and glory is rooted in events and beings far beyond us (battles of the Valar), the struggle continues over the ages in ever diminishing forms - first age battles less massive, second age battles even smaller, third age smaller yet - culminating into the climax that is smallest and most personal of all : Gandalf (about to leave them before they get to the Shire) says this was all to prepare you for the trouble to face at home - the damage is more painful personally, and the victory much more important personally. This was the crux of the story, but Jackson was not brave enough to pitch it, and with the waning of our own western civilization… we are too collectively soft to confront such hard themes of sacrifice and our mortality. The foundation for Tolkien's inspiration came from a desire to have an Anglo-Saxon mythology, hypothetically which would have been erased by the Normans…. hence the languages Tolkien created and depth of the universe he built. Jackson’s adaptation is surface level at best and opts to rely on themes of loyalty and courage against great odds. Those are fine but barely scratch the surface. A BIG part of why LOTR works as written is the depth when the mythology is constantly called back - songs to remember what once was, and where they came from - this was the many threads that held things together. For Jackson, those things are simply easter eggs to show with no context.
very well said. I think Tolkien would have destroyed the master version of the last film if he had known the Scouring was cut out. It was an artistic crime to leave it out. Instead a boring insipid, long, overly sentimental ending.
Yes, that was particularly stupid. Jackson made a point to film the party tree being cut down but then didn't ever intend to show it being replaced. WTF?
The scouring of the Shire is an essential part of the story. They go home expecting home to be untouched, and it is partially ruined. It was an artistic crime to leave it out. Instead Jackson has this overly sentimental boring long drawn out ending. This sentimental drippy part could be much shorter. Saruman is an essential villain in the story and once Sauron is dealt with, he is the last hidden challenge. The social commentary with the new rules and the Hobbit police enforcing them. The bad architecture and trees destroyed. Sam's role in restoring the Shire with a little help from Galadriel is another key part.
@@shauntempley9757 The Scouring is totally essential and actually there is a clue to why in your phrase "start of undoing of all he did to Middle Earth". Sauron and the ring corrupted Saruman who then defiled the Shire as much as he could. So the Scouring is about realizing and then undoing the damage Sauron himself did to the Shire. The Shire is the home of the Hobbits!! It is more important than any other place in Middle Earth (to the hobbits). It is what Frodo tries to visualize but can't while the ring exists but then can as soon as the ring is destroyed. Preservation of the Shire and the Hobbit way of life is the whole reason why the hobbits are in this quest.
@@russmarkham2197 I am talking of the Rings films, where the Scouring was not needed. Not when it was dealt with in Rohan with Wormtongue, an din Gondor with Denethor. The books for my taste, only just get away with doing it, when to show that impact of Sauron's influence, is showing the Shire in permanent ruins, no different than Moria, to show he is no less dangerous than his master was.
@@shauntempley9757 Not sure which the "Rings Films" are? If that is the Amazon "Rings" I avoided it like the plague. Reviews were terrible. I saw one hilarious bad review. As for the LOTR trilogy of films, the Shire is of particular significance to the Hobbits and to Tolkien. The fate of the Shire is so much more central to the story than what happens to Moria or even Lorien. The Shire is "home". No place more important.
I felt that it should have been included. The War was far reaching and the Shire was not untouched by it as evidenced by the south farthing pipe weed and salted pork being enjoyed by Merry and Pippin after the destruction of the Tower. In order for the four to return and end the evil that had come so far, the routing of the half orcs had to be done and Sam's box of enchanted soil given to him by Galadriel had to be spread and show the rehabilitation and recovery of the shire in ways more beautiful than before. It also made the locals very aware of the heroism of those who left, fought, and returned to help them overcome those evil people sent by Saruman. Hobbits previous to Frodo's and Sam's adventure were treated with disdain if they had a traveling bent. It made for an understanding of what it takes to be free for the locals and dispelled the willful apathy of the halflings who had never given much thought to the outside world before. I think it made them more appreciative of what they had since they actually had to fight someone to keep it.
I'm glad it wasn't added, I think it would have been anti-climatic, especially since their was already like 5 fake out endings that stretched on for like 30 minutes
Tell us you didn't read the books without telling us that you didn't read the books. There were no "fake out" endings. You sound like some of those idiot movie reviewers who never watch the movies they review.
i think the saddest part about the LotR trilogy was the DRASTC difference between our introduction to the shire where we see Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin having fun, drinkin, dancing and singing. Versus the last shot we see of them before Frodo sets sail with Bilbo and Galdalf, where all four just sit at their Old table... not singing, not dancing, and not really smiling but just, looking at each other in a really disheartened way... that crushed me a bit.
6:33 this scene... so morose... and heart breaking in a way. its as if their innocence is completely lost and they are now plagued forever with the pain of knowledge of how cruel and dark the world is, even after winning the war of the ring...
@@jmichna1 i know that's the point of the scene. right now i'm worried about one of my old friends that i haven't seen in years cuz the last time i saw him, his gf (most likely ex gf when i spoke to her) said he got arrested after taking her to the ER/hospital cuz he snapped and beat the brakes off her. due to a PTSD attack from his several tours in afghanistan, iraq, etc. when i first met him, during the first few days of meeting him via mutual friend who GREW UP with him, this was YEARS n YEARS AGO, he was arguing with a different girlfriend at the time that he had left NY to come visit us in NC, and had their cat. as to "whose" cat it was is irrelevant, but i could hear her screeching over the phone "bring me my cat back" and he snapped to the point he walked outside where i was (to get away from hearing them argue) and he's mad tall, and lanky, 6'4-6'6 + his loooong arm length, he walked outside on the concrete porch and took the cat from high height+arm length height and SLAMMED The cat and it didn't bounce (idk why i thought it would....) nor did it land on its feet... it just hit the concrete and stayed like a peace of lead. lifeless. and walked back inside saying, "you don't gotta worry bout that f**kin cat anymore b***h." and i'm just like..... uhhhhhh wtf. i soon left. another situation was weeks later after we kinda ignored what happened, and got to know each other properly, we started being work-out bros, since his childhood friend who was letting him stay with him for the time, well with him and dudes wife at the time (she later got rid of his @$$ due to him being a PoS lying junkie and they've moved and said he's been kicked out and even cut off from their family, lost his job and last she heard from the dude i knew before meeting my vet friend from our 20 year loss :\ ) so back to the main character of his story i feel bad for him cuz he CLEARLY needed help and the VA kept turning him down and i didn't believe it. so i personally offered to take him, so i took him, i took him to the VA almost FIFTEEN times and they legitimately declined him every time, REFUSED to HELP him and its so sad. cuz before i started trying to get him help at the VA, we were all chillin and watchin dude play his console game at his house while he passed around a big blunt that we were smokin (obviously broskis smoke free) - he randomly got up out of nowhere and walked out the front door. didn't say anything. i asked dude, who owned the house, "yo, where'd so and so go?" and he acted like he didn't care.... said "he'll be back." and i'm like man, its raining outside and he just walked out and i checked the front and idk where he went. in the backyard goes to miles and miles of forest/trees/etc. after 30min go by i tell him, "Bro go get your friend something isn't right." - he does nothing. another 30min go by and i said F it , i'll brb then! i go outside again and now he's finally back but not on the porch, he's crouched down NEXT to the concrete porch, 6-7 or so steps, balled up and obviously had been crying if not crying his eyes. all he kept sayin was "where were you guys, why didn't you come find me, why didn't you come look for me?" and at this point i had only known him for like 10-11 days.... i didn't know he was a vet then or anything. so i just said, bro, i told [name of mutual friend] to come get you after 15min, then again at 30min, then again at 45min, and after an hour he still didn't care to get up so i came out. and that's how our friendship started. but like i said i haven't seen or heard from him since his ex gf showed me the pics of what she looked like after he beat her. she was knocked out, her eye was swollen shut, cracked her jaw, had a neck brace, she was tiny and he thought he had killed her... i hope he's ok. VA should've helped him.. he truly obviously needed it and it bothers me so much that he never got it. now another one of my friends i recently met playing WoW, he's SO YOUNG vs me, i'm 34, he's barely 22 or 23, and he was supposed to go to D1 college football (or w/e the best kind of football college) and that got messed up from a wombo combo of knee injury and an argument/push fight with a teammate one practice that the coaches saw. so that was the end of his football career.... and i BEGGED HIM, LITERALLY BEGGED HIM NOT TO SIGN UP TO THE MILITARY... sadly, he did. i AM happy for him cuz apparently it made him happy PLUS he said becoming a Marine was easier than he thought it would be... but the fact that there's 2-3 wars going on that our stupid government might start sending troops. i worry SO MUCH about him... i don't want him to go to war. he has such a massive heart and he's an amazing dude... it kills me that he's a machine gunner now and soon israel will call for US troops... or Iran might try to attack us hereon our home soil from 12-18k person illegally crossing the border DAILY. along with chinese people. we could have an uprising here from that immigration, it's worrisome. at any rate... trust me i know. and it break the heart, mind and soul.
It’s been a long time since I read it, but the thing I remember about the scouring of the shire was that Merry and Pippen received all of the honor, and Frodo was largely overlooked by the rest of the village. It felt so unfair, but real at the same time.
And yet Frodo was the moral center of the resistance, the one who spared the Men after the battle, and the one who faced down Sharkey in the end. I think the point was that Frodo was kind of beyond glory at that point.
Although I admire the work that Jackson and his team did to bring the trilogy to life, there were a number of changes (both subtractions and additions) that I truly despised. Tolkien wrote a pretty good story. The events that took place after the destruction of the One Ring were a fairly significant part of that story. Leaving them completely out of the film was like reading the book with a couple chapters missing near the end.
I had always thought that chapter was to show the warriors that Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin had become. They weren't just your average hobbits who loved to dance and drink any longer. They were some seriously scary mofos.
The Shire always felt like home to me, when watching the movies, even though you don't really see it that much past the first half hour of the film, aside from a few minutes in ROTK. There was a simple yet safe feeling of connection to that home feeling regardless of where the story took them, no matter what dangers they were forced to overcome. As a war veteran myself, I can tell you, you long for the simplicity of home, the slow paced and comforting family feel, I often spent my days imagining being back at the family dairy farm, even though the farm was sold several years before I deployed. I can see both sides of the discussion but I do like the movie version myself, and that scene around the table, I can remember at a yellow ribbon event 90 days after our return, family and friends all came together, but it felt disconnected, much like sam, frodo, etc felt sitting at the table. You do find yourself looking around wondering if things can ever feel completely normal again. Thankfully almost 20 years later, I can tell you, while you may never be the same person, you do gain a new sense of normalcy :)
This part of the book being removed pissed off everyone who read the books way before the movies. I was pissed at Shelob being in Return Of The King instead of the end of the second movie AS IT IS IN THE BOOKS, but they only did about a third of Return Of The King. There's a whole section where Aragorn had to find a plant to cure a human woman and a Hobbit male, who were dumb enough (or crazy enough) to stab a Nazgul. Props to Eowyn and Merry of course, but in the book they were severely wounded from stabbing him.
My feeling on the scouring of the Shire was that it was Tolkien commenting on the industrialisation of the place he lived in. People come up with their own theories, but probably best to listen to the author's take on things.
One part of Saruman’s death that I find very impactful is what happens after he dies. It says “…about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a cold sigh dissolved into nothing.” I take this to mean that he became his immortal Maia form and longed to return to Valinor, but because he had been corrupted and fought against the cause of Valinor he was rejected and banished by Manwë himself. I love this. It a very tragic end to a once noble fallen character, and I feel like this doesn’t get talked about enough
wow....that's an incredible viewpoint!
wow I just got chills reading this passage. powerfully spiritual!
Very, very nice analysis.
That’s how I read it too.
@@AvnerRosenstein-ULTRA-LXV Its not a viewpoint, its just a description of what happens in the book. Its not some hidden meaning. Its very deliberate.
that pub scene hits me in the feels, coming back from deployment, I finally understood why my uncles and grandfathers weren't as jovial at family barbeques and gatherings. They would sit quietly in chairs and just watch the kids play
True enough.
From Nam, back to "Stateside".....they just don't know....and words would have been useless...still are....
Fuck it...
Which is weird, because my grandfather was the opposite. He was the life of every party despite having been a POW for more than 2 years. He also had no problem answering us grandkids when we asked him about the war. Maybe it was because he was Air Force and not Army infantry, because I don’t think he had PTSD like a lot of WWII vets.
@@Spectacular_Insanity my dad (USN 1942-46) told the same five or six stories in unvarying detail but would sometimes tear up, meaning there were details left unsaid. I also knew a GI who had made a combat jump into France and would talk the night away about the most graphic details.
@@Spectacular_Insanity I had one grandfather who was the same way. B-17 bombardier who was shot down and taken prisoner in 1943 and he would talk about it all the time. His only rule was we could not watch "Hogan's Heroes" in his presence. My other grandfather was a glider infantryman and was wounded fighting in Italy shortly after the Salerno landings. He almost never talked with me about any of his service except for some generalities about being in N. Africa (no combat there). I had to learn from my grandmother that he had been bayoneted in the hip during hand-to-hand combat while his best friend was killed right next to him.
@@tex148th It was actually worse for the Vietnam vets than the WW2 vets - at the end of WW2, many soldiers spent weeks on ships with other vets who knew what they'd been through.
Korea and Vietnam? They flew back and were dumped back into civilian life very abruptly.
So many people complain that the ending was too long and never stopped...but as far as I am concerned, it was wonderful. I would have loved to have seen the Scouring of the Shire, but I understand why it was cut from the film. I always hoped that they secretly filmed it, but never added the CGI or sound track.
i looked for it when i saw it the first time and it was not there. WTF. Grave error in not putting it in.
As to length. I found all three movies to short and they many things felt out to make them a short as they are. I would of like a much longer movie for all three and all the story told not just 70% as it was done.. I think that ppl who did not read the books lost out on a lot of the story b/c of the parts left out. Some even went so far as to say they didnt know why this or that happened b/c the part explaining it was left out
Yes, I so much wanted to see Sam plant the Mallorn nut from Lothlorien and the blooming of the Shire that following spring after Sam had distributed grains of soil from Lothlorien all over the Shire.
@@fredeerickbays What... aren't the theatrical releases all like 3 hours already? And they get ridiculous with the extended cuts. You'd be a terrible director if you think people are going to sit through 5 hour movies.
I also get why it was cut…. From the theatrical cut. However not the extended cut. I think they should have included both the scouring and the grey company in the extended cut. ROTK EXT should have been 5hrs long
@@majorpwner241 you are right who wants a perfectly grilled sirloin tri tip with creamy sour cream potatoes and onions perfectly caramelized for four hours in clarified butter and apple juice over a low open flame when they could just sit on a toilet and eat their own shit?
For me one of the best moments of the book was when one of the ruffians scoffs at the idea of a King's Man coming to the Shire. Then Pippin casts back his traveling cloak, revealing the livery of Gondor, and shouts, "I'm a King's Man!" And they all run away.
For me, one of the greatest moments of the entire story can be found in the scouring of the Shire....is after the battle and the hobbits are facing Saruman and deciding his fate. The reaction and the look on Saruman';s face when he truly sees Frodo as what he has become. There is astonishment and profound respect for Frodo. Saruman sees that Frodo has become even greater and wiser that he EVER was - even at his most powerful. Saruman's perplexing demeaner at this revelation and Frodo's sincere humble nature speaks volumes of Frodo's importance to the entire middle Earth. Reading this scene in the book gave me a powerful understanding of true greatness and the kind of sacrifice that sometimes is required to propel humankind forward. For this reason, I would have welcomed an entire 2 hour movie to the final chapter. And, they still could have filmed the final 30 mins of goodbyes.
I always adored the bit where the Sheriff tries to arrest them and Frodo pretty much laughs in his face.
The Prancing Pony Pod is covering Scouring right now. I must admit it is not a chapter I have gone back and reread but listening to passages and the commentary does make it seem more important than I used to think.
I love when Sam sees Rosie when he goes to get her father and brothers, and she comments that he's not with Frodo "just as things are getting dangerous", and he cant even begin to answer.
@@michaelminervini1908 Oh yeah! Something like 'it needed a month-long answer or none'
The Scouring also helps make the statement that war's damage and influence touches all, even as far away as the Shire.
Fun fact-the word “Sheriff” is a conjunction of the title, “Shire Reeve”.
The most heartwarming moment comesafter the most heartbreaking. Saruman has wantonly chopped down trees all over tThe Shire, including the Party Tree. Sam takes the box of soil from Lady Galadriel and walks all over the Shire, planting acorns everywhere, adding a bit of soil from the box to each one. The next year, saplings spring forth all over. Moreover it is a baby boom, with an unusual number of golden-haired children born. Tolkien tells ibetter than I do.
At the bottom of the box was a nut from a mallorn which he planted to replace the party tree. It grew to become the only mallorn outside Lothlorien and after the elves abandoned the forest might well have been the last one.
@@Heike-- 😂what was the notoriously golden haired individual Mr. Sam Gamgee up to... wandering aboot the shire planting his seeds?😉
I actually love the way the movie perfectly reflects the pub scene. In the Fellowship, they sing and are dancing and happy; in Return, they are in the same pub but are more quiet and among themselves, really shows they've changed.
Sure but the literally whole point of Tolkien story is the scouring
@@Henbot there is so much hyperbole in that sentence.
@@Henbot No, it's not.
They changed too much, like the death and rebirth of the tree of Gondor and how Aragon finds the new one.
@@GonzoTehGreat people don't agree with you, it seems. Time to actually have some arguments instead of hyperbolic opinions.
I think the Tolkien Professor stumbled across an interesting idea a few months back. The standard construction of a work of fiction usually is nested conflict. If you set up conflict a, conflict b and conflict c in the start of the book, you're going to typically wrap those conflicts up in reverse order: Resolve conflict c, then b, then a.
In Fellowship, the story starts off as a very hobbit story. The first chapter is a play on the first chapter in the Hobbit. While the ring is present, we are introduced to the idea of Frodo and the Shire and his place in the shire before we are introduced to the conflict of the ring. So when it comes time to resolve the last conflict of the book is that of fighting for the shire, because that is where the book started off.
In the movie, however, Jackson starts off with the story of the ring before going to the shire. Which means that when the ring is destroyed, you've closed the a-plot. Anything that happens after that is just dragging the story on, which is why a lot of people find the ending tedious. Because the main conflict? Is finished.
So, while I dislike Jackson for skipping the scouring of the shire, I understand it.
That said, I'm one of those who feels the Scouring of the Shire is the whole purpose of the book. It is where LotR subverts the Hobbit's comic construction. In a traditional comedy, the idea was that a character would go away on an adventure, and returned mostly unchanged to the place they were at the start of the story. It's a circle, like Bilbo returning to the Shire in the Hobbit. In LotR, the scouring of the shire subverts that comic construction, turning it into a drama. The hobbits return, to find that not only have they changed, but the Shire has, too.
And, unlike the Hobbit, where Bard is the one to slay the dragon, because Bilbo doesn't belong to the epic world of dragons, the returning hobbits have become, in some small way, a part of that epic world as well. They do not win the battle of Pelanor Field-that is still outside their world-nor do they even really participate in it, but when they return to their world, they are able to defeat the bits of the outside, epic world that have invaded it. The movie ending does away with that sense of the Hobbit's growth and change for a message of hope.
100 % this. Thank you.
Very nice structural analysis. So, though I've read the trilogy at least 5 or 6 times, I confess the movies seem to sometimes supplant the books in my memory now. Does Merry not help slay the Black Captain in the book? Is that just a Jackson addition? Pippin does do some fighting for the palace guard, does he not? They are not completely outside that world, and of course, Sam does take out his share of orcs in saving Frodo.
@@davidc.2878yes, you are right on both counts. Merry stabs the witch king in the foot, though Tolkien is at pains to point out that it is the magic of the blade, and not the strength of Merry’s arm that is what undoes the Witch King. And he strikes him in the foot, the lowest, least triumphal spot. It is an important moment and it turns the tide in the battle with the Witch King, but it feels less about Merry taking his place in this mythic world and more about his hobbit courage allowing him to accomplish this one small thing. It is Eowyn, shield maiden, who delivers the killing blow.
But as I said, through the quest they have gained some measure of belonging in this world. They are not the Heroes, but Merry is part of the ride of the Roherim; Pippen does swear fealty to Denathor. They become small but important cogs on which the grand story turns.
I was terribly disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't included. To me that chapter was the whole point of the entire epic. The four hobbits were basically children when they left, having no idea what they were going to face. What came back were adults, tested under fire, ready to face down one last challenge--for which they might have expected, but were well and truly able to face. Four boys left, four leaders returned. Hobbits are sturdy and strong, but too accustomed to the comforts of their fertile and and settled land. They hadn't had to face a real threat for many generations. But even the silliest among them are brave and far more dangerous than anyone (except maybe Gandalf) could ever have expected.
Neither of the human men in the fellowship recognized what they actually had at the beginning of the the adventure. Aragorn, of course, had some inkling having been part of the Shire's secret guardians for m any years, but even he was amazed. Saruman's forces, OTOH, learned the hard way what an angry, armed, and battle-ready hobbit is really capable of.
IMO, that battle would have been worth another half hour of film to tell and magnificent as the whole is--it would have been all the richer.
The most impactful part to me about the Scouring was when the first hobbit died. Because.. Hobbits don't do that. In all the media I'd had prior, 6 movies, 3 previous books, no hobbits had been actually killed. They felt safe before.
For me it was gimli and legolas basically having their own adventure together.
@@skynotaname2229
Gimli & Legolas were your favorite part of the Scouring of the Shire?
OP didn't say the end of RotK or anything like that, they specifically said the Scouring.
In the films, a Nazgûl killed a hobbit while riding through the shire.
In the books, prior to the Scouring, we learn that Lotho Sackville-Baggins was killed and eaten by Grima Wormtongue.
First hobbit died, what about Deagol and Smeagol (aka Gollum)?
@@nmv881 I thought we find that out at the Scouring when Saruman is chatting with Frodo
Tolkien's ending is a masterpiece. However, as cinema-goers, we understandably needed more catharsis. Thank you for all your videos!
Is it fuck, its the worst ending of all cinema. The ending was a film in and of itself.
I do not disagree with you. But I would like to point out that it is something completely different to have several pages in such manner at the end of the very long tale in the book than several minutes in the long movie, even trilogy. It hits you in a completely different way.
@@bobbobertbobberton1073 I’m sure you have some sort of arguement you’re trying to make, but unfortunately it seems you don’t know how to speak english, or at least not coherently 💀
@@bobbobertbobberton1073.. I think you may be outnumbered against that opinion. By maybe a couple of million to one?
@@nidh1109 Only by people who didn't actually read the story.
"End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it.
White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise..." -Gandalf
Jackson also conveniently left out the fact that mortal men and hobbits do not share this fate, and cannot live in Valinor, nor can they ever win physical immortality. Not by gift or force can the Valar bestow immortality on a mortal. Not within their power. The hope and final fate of men is utterly unknown to anyone but Illuvitar. And Jackaon was right to leave that fact out of the film. The ambiguity of men's fate causes them a whole lot of problems. I imagine those problems would also carry a lot of resentment, especially if you're around elves a lot of the time.
A conversation that never happened in the book. Pippin would never get to see what Gandalf is describing. It's actually taken from the description of a dream Frodo had and later when he leaves the Grey Havens and reaches the Blessed Realm.
@@JeremyKenny-h9p
Pippin: “That doesn’t sound so bad.”
Gandalf: “Oh, that’s where I’m going. Yours is probably darkness & nothingness.”
@@alexshank1414 oh, you.... you... made me laugh so hard I choked on my coffee. Thanks, I guess. xoxo
I love that quote. The concept is echoed in the book _The Last Battle_ by C.S. Lewis, at the end of the Narnia series. I think both authors felt they had to say something about how no battle ever solves everything and there will always be more battles to fight until the world ends.
I get it. Once when I was stationed at Hurlburt Field in Florida, several of us had dinner one night at a local restaurant. As we sat there I saw an MH-53J helicopter pass by a window headed for the training area. No one except our little group noticed. Everyone else continued eating, drinking, and laughing. At first I was annoyed. Don't they know there are people on the wall (so to speak)? Then I realized, that's the way it should be. Frodo and his mates know, as they sit at the table and drink their ales. And we knew. Jackson made the right decision.
The point, as I saw it when I read it 47 years ago, was that the return to the Shire was there to finish back where things started. The hobbits began their perilous venture in the Shire (and evil in the form of the dark riders had already made their way into the Shire). Bringing it back to their returns to the origin.
I saw their heroics, skills and competence in the Scouring of the Shire as cleansing the Shire, even if it would take tends of years to repair the damage the war had caused. It also let the Hobbits as a people's need to understand that *it mattered* that these 4 young hobbits went out into true mortal risk because the cause was just and necessary. It also showed the Hobbits of the Shire that their heroes were now people of deep experience and a wisdom that only hard times and loss can provide. This would explain how they came to positions of respect with Sam being the Mayor of Hobbiton. In a way, when they cut this out, they left the circle from ever being complete.
If you look at the Shire folk and how they treated Gandalf and anything vaguely different, without a reason and an experience like the occupation, they would likely never have really approved of them, much as they never really accepted Bilbo after he came home. It took the insulated, totally oblivious Hobbits having a lot of eye opening to show their own (as a people) gumption and courage in the face of real enemies - that fact (the courage of the larger body of Hobbits), the courage of the larger body of Hobbits is also elided from the story. When they did that, it left the 4 Hobbits as exceptional and strange to their own homes and kin. What the written version's ending did was show that, to at least some degree, EVERY Hobbit has some of that courage and resilience. That too was taken from the viewer of the movie.
I realize this may not have been how Tolkien himself thought of it, but it fits to me. Even if he didn't intentionally show these parts, they fit in well with what did happen and it would have filled out the story of the Shire and its people (not just the heroes).
The view that there are places that are safe, as the narrator called it, is a fantasy. Wars come into the houses and the cities of modern cities even now. For what it's worth, the occupation of the Shire remind me of a number of regions that have been occupied by despots and dictators in the modern world.
I also didn't like sending Haldir and his Company in place of the Dunedain to Helm's Deep. Aragorn's Dunedain were largely washed out of the trilogy. And these are the people who had continued watching for the foe and struggling while everyone else except maybe a few elves, had given up on a return of the dark lord.
The Scouring of the Shire may be from Tolkien's understanding from Beowulf that the struggle never ends. There is always a new challenge to deal with.
But books can survive narrative sprawl a lot better than movies can.
That does tie in with the plans he was fumbling around for in the 4th age conflict.
Exactly. It worked in the book, but I don't think it would work at all in the movies. If the story was told over many seasons in a miniseries maybe, but the movies captured the essence perfectly.
@tileux By his own claim, he "doesn't do allegory" though (lol), so he can't use that as an excuse for why it fits into a good story, since he insisted on pretending everything you just said was "wrong"
Very true.
It's not narrative sprawl for the seasoned heroic Hobbits to dispatch the diminished Maiar Saroman and their crew. In fact, it shows that courage against bigger foes is the duty of all, regardless of size.
...I think what many people forget... is the Scouring of the Shire represents something VERY important: The Battle Never Ends... you can be hopeful, you can have great success... but you must always fight to keep the things you cherish... and when you are gone from somewhere for long enough that you've been effectively neglecting, you can't be surprised to see it decay unless you left stalwart protectors.
It also reminds us that truly, nothing is actually 'Safe', everything changes and everything faces adversary, even the people in the sleepy little towns along the road.
I always thought it had to do with the hobbits being welcomed as heroes back to their homeland rather than the way it was in the film - where they come back almost as strangers, and no one celebrates or understands what they have been through.
I'm quite surprised that theory isn't included in this video as to me that's the obvious one - the hobbits get welcomed home as heroes!
Not only is that not important, but it's not even true at all. The battle did end, and battles do in real life end all the time. "This wasn't the last battle of any sort ever in history" is obvious and didn't need to be taught to anyone with two braincells to rub together, and simply belongs in a different story about the other different battle.
@@sparkfire22223 l think it mentions that veterans weren't always welcomed as heroes after returning from war and also how they felt disconnected from civilians (and even their own family and friends) who didn't have their shared experience of warfare, which is what Peter Jackson chose to show instead.
@@GonzoTehGreat And to be fair to Peter Jackson - it makes much more sense. I felt the endings made sense both for the book and movies.
@@gavinjenkins899 Ooft that's a little harsh don't you think? The point being made is that battles are always on the horizon. The commenter here is making the point that once one battle ends you have to always still be ready that another one might come at you at any moment.
A reminder that we could be faced with a battle at any moment - in my book - is always welcome. Your approach of 'it is obvious' is exactly what makes it so easy to be complacent and forget the need to be ready all the time.
Aragorn's restoration as King of Gondor was not the symbol of hope and renewal that Tolkien intended. The Scouring was the rite of passage for our hobbit heroes who brought their fellowship home to redeem their people who had fallen to the malice of a debased Saruman while they were busy doing their parts to save Middle Earth. It was the story within the story, the heroes journey coming full circle.
Excellent comment! "The Scouring of the Shire" is a coda, a second ending to a literary or musical work. When your denouement is so overpowering emotionally, artists will also include a coda or second ending, think of it as Second Breakfast. It is a way of easing into a muted ending to your Epic story. Also there is a pragmatic side to the Scouring, in that it is done with no magic at all, and in that sense is a "realistic' ending to a huge fantasy epic as the author returns you to your own life. If the Hobbits can do it on their own, so can you.
That has nothing to do with the classic hero's journey and is not the last step of it. Which is precisely why it's so out of place. It doesn't fit ANY classic, well proven narrative pattern.
@@gavinjenkins899 The Scouring has everything to do with a classic hero's journey. As @hvymettle aptly says, it's "the rite of passage for our hobbit heroes." This is the part of the book where they truly become men. They have to lead and make hard choices in morally ambiguous circumstances. The quest to destroy the Ring required bravery, loyalty and perseverance. Those are important virtues, but they can be the virtues of boys (which is why Peter Jackson liked only that part of the story, but not the Scouring). Recapturing the Shire required the virtues of men.
@@botaskyusagi8271 Anyone saying that crawling through a volcano sacrificing yourself to save humanity after navigating through the wilderness for hundreds of miles with ghost assassins hunting you "isn't a real man" is a complete moron. If your definitions don't fit that, obviously your definitions are the part at fault. Fix your definitions, don't ruin a story.
@@gavinjenkins899The Scouring of the Shire is not about the hobbits "becoming men"
It's not about them making sacrifices or learning courage.
It's about them using what they've learnt to save their home. Could any of the hobbits have defeated Saruman and his men, if they had never been on the journey they all went on?
No. Of course not. They were simple people who enjoyed the simple pleasures and comforts of life. War, corruption, tyranny and ruin were completely alien in The Shire. They HAD to go on their respective journeys to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to combat the evil they are faced with at home, once they return.
The point of the Scouring of the Shire is to give them those challenges. What purpose does it serve to have characters learn and suffer for nothing. Yes, they ultimately help the rest of Middle-Earth during their adventures, but the real test is waiting for them at home.
That's where it hits hardest and matters most. Tolkien knew what he was doing with The Scouring of the Shire. It serves a purpose and is the whole point of the story.
If you think you know better than Tolkien, then show us the masterpiece you've written and published, which still gets discussed nearly a century later.
Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. 'You have grown, Halfling,' he said. 'Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. you have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell.
Peter Jackson had a reverence for Tolkien while Amazon has shown nothing but contempt for Tolkien
"Reverence" is a bit of a stretch.
You don't completely omit the entire point of the story and feel or claim to have done that story justice. The Scouring of the Shire WAS the whole point. Tolkien said it was. I think Tolkien would be fuming that any adaptation made of his story would neglect THE critical chapter of the whole thing.
Sure, but from a perspective of the average movie viewer, just like how bombadil adds more questions, the scouring is more of an epilogue. The overarching story was concluded, I love the scouring, but I think that removing it and bombadil made the movies more digest-able for the average viewer.
@@SeanBook001 Maybe.
But is that the point of an adaptation? To make it digestible?
And if it doesn't really do justice to the original material, how successful can it be?
If you have to make so many changes to make it appealing to the average audience member, then perhaps it shouldn't have been adapted in the first place.
That could be why Christopher fought so hard to stop a movie adaptation. He knew it wasn't going to be his father's creation, but mangled version.
It's not even just cutting out critical components.
Dialogue was changed and given to other characters. Whole sections were grossly distorted.
That is not the actions of someone who shows reverence for the source material.
@@QueenMonny I get where you are coming from, but also think, how many people never knew about LOTR who were introduced to it through the movies, who then got to go read the novels and get to enjoy them in their entirety.
Atop that, changing dialogue and what not, I don't blame them for removing some, for instance some of the songs tolken put in them, many of them, while great and I love them while reading, would feel like a huge speed bump to these already lengthy movies.
I think if an adaptation can be made that makes it more digestible through different mediums, I think it can be very good.
One example of a change I do like that I think the movies did well was changing glorfindal (I am going off of memory and can't remember how to spell his name) to Aeowyn (Aragon's love interest) I think flushed out her character and their relationship more than in the books.
One other change I think made Narcil, then Anduril, feel more impactful, was having it be reforged later, this also helped Aragon's character have some more development, originally turned away from his royal heritage, to then come to accept his responsibility.
To me, the broken blade in the books was brought up and repaired in a few pages, if that in the book. Yes then Aragorn gets to carry it through the series. But I think the change highlights how important not only Narcil is, but isildurs whole story as well. He like Narcil was originally intact, a weapon against sauron, then shattered by the ring, only once his heir accepts his responsibility in the rings destruction, and to reclaim his throne is both the blade reforged and the royal seat reacquired.
I think that some parts of the story were polished and expressed more efficiently. But others were definitely lost. I think the films were great, and the books were great. I think there were parts that the movies did better, and there were parts that the books definitely did better.
I think that an adaptation like these movies stayed quite true to the movies, while allowing the director to put his own artistic spin on it. It's still LOTR, but it's his interpretation of it.
I think these movies did a WAY better job of staying true to the original source and I think that is one reason why so many people love them, the director didn't rewrite the story, or characters, he added or pruned some parts, but I think he did that to try to give more of the feeling you get from these characters over the days you read the books in, in a far more condensed timeline of hours in the movies. I think he did really well conveying who these characters are in a far shorter amount of time.
Compare the LOTR films to the books, then compare the Wheel of time series to their TV "adaptation"
I think one actually did justice to the source material, and the other tried to jam a wheel of time shaped peg, into a game of thrones shaped hole.
@@QueenMonny then there is the crap that is the Hobbit trilogy.... They only got Bilbo's casting right, everything else.... Terrible.
For me the Scouring of the Shire was a favourite chapter in my many readings of the LOTR... remember Gandalf's gentle admonishment to Frodo to think twice over his outburst wishing ill over Gollum... then see his growth when he holds back his friends'
intended retaliation after his Mithral coat has turned Saruman's blade... can't recall his comments, but suffice to say that scene is all the more a poignant lesson for me, a reader and admirer Tolkien's books.
Gandaulf foretold the world would soon learn (the great deeds)
of the little people... the Hobbits. Be well everyone 🙏
I somewhat disagree with this take. I think it was appropriate to cut the scouring of the shire but mostly because the chapter could be an entire movie by itself. But the more important thing about the chapter is the rebuilding of The Shire that is described in the end. When I would read that chapter I was always moved by the fact that the party tree at Bag End had been cut down by Sharky and his men. It seemed the symbol of the violation of the Shire. But it comes full circle when Sam uses the gift he received from Galadriel all the way back in The Fellowship of the Ring to plant a new tree, the only Mallorn east of the sea and west of the mountains. This new party tree would be a way for the glory of the elves and the Valinar to live on through the hobbits. The shire is shown as growing more powerful and beautiful and all because of the leadership of Frodo and his friends as well as the gifts that they received. It's a bummer that couldn't be shown but like I said, it would require almost an entire movie to get that.
If they filmed it, it would have to be the Extended Edition since that would at least add another 40 minutes if not an hour. I think they might have shot it had they known how successful the Extended Editions were going to be, but they got away with so much that I’m just happy what we got.
Beautiful post 🥲👏🏻‼
I almost feel like this could be assumed to have happened and that the pub scene was simply long enough after the events of the Scouring Shire that others were celebrating but the Four know the larger scale of the story and may have stronger emotional effects because of it.
Sometimes I wonder if they could included it as an addendum with an edit that removes the death of Saruman and Grima at Orthanc and puts it in The Shire, and adds a montage similar to what was filmed for the vision at Loth Lorien, perhaps with new CGI to extend the story with voice overs by the surviving actors.
5:35 i never really liked the movies. The were well made and the acting was fine, but i always felt the hobbits were depicted as little more than children or baggage, and it tried too hard to be emotional.
My wife didn’t understand, she loved them. Then i read her the book and now she feels the same way.
The hobbits went off to war not knowing anything, it was just a big adventure. They came home warriors who weren’t going to simply roll over for anyone. They learned how to look after themselves and the shire would never be reliant on outside protection again.
Cutting that out missed the whole point of the story. It wasn’t about the ring, it was about the journey and how it changes things.
@@python27au”then I read her the book” lmao 🤡
I've always seen it as Peter Jackson and Company recognizing that the audience was getting tired and wanted to go home and get some sleep.
my mom fell asleep when she took me to Two Towers LOL. She said: "Those trees talk sooo slow..." LOL
🤣
In the movie, Frodo's "vision" of the Scouring of the Shire implied an alternative future that would befall the Shire if Frodo failed in his mission to destroy the Ring of Sauron. Giving Frodo an added impetus to succeed.
In a sense, the Scouring of the Shire was the whole point of the book. Gandalf's remark to the Hobbits at the breaking of the Fellowship says as much. " You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.”
The omission of the Scouring of the Shire and the decision to make Eowyn into a damsel were great disappointments.
No it is realistic that people at home have no clue about the pain dangers and sacrifices made at war. It is more poignant the Hobbits never know what Frodo, Sam Merry and Pippin went through.
I think Peter Jackson did the best thing he could to ensure the movie flowed smoothly. I loved the books growing up in the 70's, and I read them regularly still, but when I saw the movies, I was very impressed. As a fan of the books, I went into the theater with much trepidation, but was thrilled to find the films to be awesome!!
Dear Beverly. I took my then-wife to see Fellowship. Her response - "I hated it." I knew we were in trouble, then!
I couldn't enjoy the movie the Fellowship first time I saw it - I was so so so afraid it would be F-ed up at some point. But it wasn't... And as much as I loved the books - the movies are a truly spectacular version.
Jackson screwed it.
No he did not. He made up a lot of things that were not in the books. He should have stuck to the source material. Shelob's Lair belonged in The Two Towers, not The Return of the King.
@@CathieSoli Whatever. We are entitled to our respective opinions. Perhaps I understand about movie-making a little better. These movies did't win all these awards & thrill (most) TLOTR fans by being mediocre.
"I remember well the splendor of their banners." he said "It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand. So many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and elves deemed that evil was ended forever. And it was not so."
"You remember?" Said Frodo, speaking his thought aloud in astonishment. "But I thought..." He stammered as Elrond turned toward him. "I thought the fall of Gil-galad was long ages ago."
"So it was, indeed." Answered Elrond gravely. "But my memory reaches back even to the Elder Days. Eärendil was my sire, who was born in Gondolin before its fall. My mother was Elwing daughter of Dior, son of Lúthien of Doriath. I have seen three ages of the West of the world. And many defeats, and many fruitless victories."
Many defeats, and many fruitless victories. If ever there was a summary of all of Tolkien's writing in one sentence, that would be it.
The reason that it exists is stated, very clearly, in the first book.
the shire never changes.
Bad things happen in the world, and the shire stays the same.
This thing, this event in the history of middle earth was so big, it touched even the shire.
Jackson got the first part, but the missed the second part.
"The shire never changes" is barely impressed upon the reader in the first place earlier in the story. Maybe there's a throwaway line about it somewhere, but it was not crucial even if so, or hammered home in any way, or relevant to the story. 90% of people never read the Silmarillion or whatever where such things might be stated further, either. So that's a ""rule""/fact that almost no readers noticed or knew or cared about, and thus violating that ""rule"" has very little impact and doesn't make much sense. In order to shock anyone by violating a rule, you needed to HAMMER it home earlier over and over. He didn't. It is an un-earned "twist" and doesn't convey anything all that impactful. It just seems awkward and pointless like he doesn't know how to write an ending. Even if I did notice everything you said, your end conclusion still doesn't make any sense as a thing to "teach" the reader. Why would I need to be taught that this was a big event in history? Duh, the entire book was just about that. If you didn't realize it was a huge event in history until the scouring of the shire, you would have severe issues.
@@gavinjenkins899 “a throw away line”? Tolkien, a man known for detailed world building, perhaps too detailed, and you think he used a throw away line to setup the shire?
I don’t even need to pull my copy of the book off the shelf to know this is wrong.
@@khatdubell Yes, and if it was really a line that made a big impression on you, you wouldn't NEED to pull out your copy. You'd just remember it... it having no impression on you is precisely why it falls flat to allude to it several books later.
There are many aspects of The Two Towers and The Return of the King that Jackson misjudged. Another example of his teams writing hubris was eliminating the key fact that it was MEN that won the battle of the Pelinor Fields. Not an army of the undead. That was a pivotal plot point in the original book. Also having Faramir bring Frodo to Osgiliath in the Extended Edition is completely out of character for him as well. While I thought Fellowship was about perfect, I would give it a 95% (and would have been 99% with the inclusion of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs), I have to say that Two Towers would go down slightly to 90% (Gimli was not meant to be comic relief) and Return of the King even further to about 75%. So overall still great movies, but far from perfect scores.
Ring of Power... 20%
@gavinjenkins899 Even if people haven't read the Silmarillion, or H.O.M.E, Tolkien wrote them (Christopher compiled and edited), and they round out the world. The stuff in them is relevant and matters. The Scouring of the Shire is the whole point of the story of LOTR. It's not just a way to show the full circle journey of the hobbits. It shows the resolution of the themes of the whole story. Not just that war touches everywhere, but courage, compassion, wisdom, forgiveness, understanding even your enemies. I don't care that it would have upset the flow of the movie or potentially confused the audience who hadn't read the books. That scene serves a function and should have been included. If Tolkien thought it was necessary, who were they [writers/director] to decide it wasn't?
I'm still sad they left it out. Even with the trauma inflicted upon the Hobbits when the scouring occurs, it's not the same as the trauma of war the the four went through. The books noted that after the scouring, the people of the Shire revered Merry and Pippin, and Sam, but didn't seem to think as much of Frodo. There's still plenty of room for the pub scene: the sense in coming home of the difference between the solders and the civilians. The Scouring of the Shire doesn't negate that. And the Scouring was rich in meaning. So much left out. I loved The Fellowship, from the from the Two Towers on, it became clear to me that Jackson had shifted the focus from the Hobbits' tale, to the tale of Aragorn as told from a Hobbit's perspective.
you took a good time to address the matter, thank you for bringing again these scenes and comparing the passages of books, refreshing what we have been able to campare in years past. I agree with what directors decided, also tolkien had the liberty to widen his story to make it a legacy for their heirs, if I remeber well there is an article where he says it was his sole purpose. Then again yeah, all in all wars have devastaton effects in the entire globe, it is to all clear, makes this a masterpiece story
The Scouring of the Shire is more about industrialization of England and the end of “the simple way of life” that Tolkien grew up in. The Second Industrial Revolution is not often focused on in our history lessons, but it had a major impact of the day to day lives of people, and it occurred right when Tolkien was growing up.
How Green Was My Valley would have been a film that Tolkien understood very well, if he'd been disposed to watch films.
This is the truth. I thought it was known. Tolkien was anti industrialization.
Yep this youtuber did not do his research.
It is also a message against tyranny and central planning. With rulers, the balance in the Shire was deranged.
Like Larkrise to Candelford😂😂😂😂😂😂
It was more impactful to me to show the hobbits have changed while The Shire stayed the same. It made Frodo’s mindset in leaving for the Undying Lands have a more digestible reasoning for mass audiences imo. They will never truly be the same, even though everything they fought to protect goes on like it was before they left. It reinforces the idea that once Frodo and Bilbo had seen the world firsthand they would never feel as comfortable with themselves at The Shire compared to on an adventure.
100% agree
this is diversity nonsense
"it was more impactful for me..."
says someone who has only seen the movies. Clearly.
I think it is just a question of craft, which is different between a novel and a movie. The Scouring of the Shire works well in the book for all the said reasons, in a film that is already over 3 hours long (4 if you count the extended cut), that is ending a trilogy that is already well over 9 hours (over 12 in the extended cut), and has had huge battles and an overall satisfying climax, you just cannot go further than that by adding a small skirmish, that would just feel off.
I don´t think themes etc. have anything to do with the decision to cut that part of the book, it is just a decision that had to be taken while adapting the story for a different medium. There are other changes and omissions from the films that I think would have been better included in the final work.
Honestly, it should be a mini-series. That would've been a good tie-in. Sadly, Christopher Lee is long dead and much of the cast is aged by this point. If only it happened instead of the Hobbit trilogy.
Also, in the book, the Scouring of the Shire happens after a long exhale after the ring is destroyed. Tolkien wraps up every character’s tale as the Hobbits head back to the Shire and it takes multiple chapters. The Scouring chapter naturally flows from that, as the Hobbits have to finish the task of saving the Shire on their own. The movies just couldn’t do that, and it just wouldn’t have worked for the pacing of cinema. Jackson & co made the right decision.
@@slizzysluzzerthe hobbit movies definitely still should have happened they just needed to be handled better
I thought the "Scouring of the Shire" would be yet another movie. Love Tolkien and the wonderful lands he created. He was probably not thinking about movies and scripts and all that entails! Probably!!
Blessed 🐝 his Spirit, and family and all involved in such an awesome undertaking, including us fans!
The lord of the Rings doesn't end with the scouring of the Shire.
It ends with the death of Aragorn, and Arwen Evenstar returning to a deserted Lorien, where the leaves are falling but spring has not yet come.
I just saw the movie for the first time in 20 years, and wondered why The Scouring of the Shire wasn't there... Thank you!
If Peter Jackson made LOTR at the same material density of the thr Hobbit, it would have filled 10-12 movies and the Scouring would have had its own movie!
That would be hilarious. Hobbits flipping around like Prequel Yoda, Saruman giving a ten-minute speech until Radagast arrived on a Sandworm and stunning diverse elves twerking on a pile of bodies. Lengthy flashbacks of the original party of dwarves washing plates. Sackville-Bagginses everywhere! And we finally learn how Rosie Cotton went back in time to found the Shire and invent Lembas
@@ikept_the_jethryk2421 Gods, the horror!!!
@@ikept_the_jethryk2421 ok...i'm not saying I want this to happen.....but I kinda want to see this happen! 🤣🤣
@@ikept_the_jethryk2421 Stunning and brave!
the world is fortunate that Studio heads had confidence in Peter Jackson and bankrolled three movies.
For me, it is the Scouring that makes LOTR a true masterpiece. It is poignant, "it comes home to you!" as the hobbits put it, it shows that the story and the struggle against evil never end and that the evil of war is never contained strictly on the battlefield but, most importantly of all, is shows you what it was all about! "Remember the Shire?"
The Scouring makes the huge, vague themes of the conflict tangible and personal. Remember, this was written by a WW1 veteran who saw his son serve in WW2. "What did we fight for?" Not a flag, not a vague notion of honour etc but something real, tangible, intimate!
IMO cutting the Scouring from the films is understandable as it is unforgivable
The bar scene works because the Hobbits are oblivious to the cost of their freedom.
It is more poignant that the other Hobbits have no clue the danger and pain Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin been through to save them.
well said. fully agree
Personally, I wish he had filmed it and included it in the extended edition. The chapter, to me, represented the growth of the four main characters. To someone binge watching all three movies, the added content would be a welcome addition.
Can fit one skinny book into 3 movies, Can't do more than 3 movies for 3 thick books.
The growth of the four Hobbits is literally in every of the three books. No need to include another ending, which is just anticlimactic.
100%
What a bullshit. You can't make two versions of the same movie where in the first one they come back to their home peaceful and unchanged, and in the other their home is an industrial burning hell full of orcs and enslaved by Saruman. Not everyone is as insane as you and I'm glad Jackson was smart enough to don't do this.
Yeah honestly, the extended version should have covered it.
In the pub scene at the end, it seems that Frodo grew a new finger. Well that's cool, now we know hobbits gotta be killed with fire 😛
The Scouring of the Shire has always been my FAVORITE part of the whole series. These little hobbits return home to troubles. And Merry and Pippin get PISSED off. They take down the entire organization of Sarumon, and his thugs like the soldiers they had become. Using leadership, courage, and strategic experience. In my opinion the final chapter of the most interesting and greatest character growth arc in the entire series. By far, the BEST and most satisfying chapter in the Series. (edit: I realized I wrote "Souramon" (facepalms) sheesh)
I like it except for the quick easy defeat of Saruman, who has become a cackling villain. He's basically at their mercy the moment they meet, and he's living in Frodo's house.
Peter Jackson did well here, beyond what we could have asked for. It is cinematic perfection and stays true to Tolkien's theme of hope rising above all else.
I disagree. He made up so much that wasn't in the source material. The scouring could have been in there had he not so. As well as other things. Shelob's Lair belongs in The Two Towers, not the Return of the King. All that stuff with Gollum and the lembas bread was just a bunch of hooey.
Agreed. The story doesn’t need yet another battle, after we’d had Moria, Helm’s Deep, Osgiliath, Minas Tirith and numerous smaller battles with orcs. It would have been more of the same and Jackson was right to say anticlimactic, after the destruction of the ring. Saruman wasn’t even the principal enemy, let alone a diminished version of Saruman.
Cutting out the Scouring cut out the heart of the story which wasn't about the great and powerful but about the small, ordinary, people whose lives are impacted the most by war both as the men who fight and the communities that are directly and indirectly hurt. That even the Shire could be hurt by the war is both realistic and a gut punch to the readers. The hobbits of the Fellowship also learn as did many that the end of a war, not even the War to End All War (WWI) doesn't mean the end of all evil and that there were still fights left to fight.
And yes, we then get to see how far these characters have grown as they lead the fight to retake the Shire and this is the end of their personal arcs. Sam was a simple gardener, Merry and Pippin were idle rich pranksters, Frodo was a quiet scholar. Now they're all experienced fighters and after leading their people to victory Sam becomes a multi-term Mayor of Hobbiton and both Merry and PIppin become important political leaders as well as liaisons with Aragorn's new government. The Shire is healed and become even more beautiful than it was before in the same way that these characters became stronger due to what they had faced. Only Frodo doesn't recover and he represents the significant percentage of soldiers who never got treatment for their PTSD and suffered the pain of war for the rest of their lives while they had to see everyone else move on.
By cutting the Scouring they cut out the overall, underlying, theme of the evil of war and what it does and how people can be destroyed or strengthened by it and in it's place we get the standard fantasy heroes taking part in grand adventures and great battles with a happy ever after for the good guys. Except for Frodo and Arwen of course and I'm really glad they didn't change that. I have nothing against such stories and even enjoy them, I enjoyed the movies, but what elevated LotRs above standard fantasy wasn't just Professor Tolkien's conlangs and detailed world building but the way it addressed these deeper issues.
Lisan al Gaib!!
Thanks for making such a lovely video essay. I'm so happy that these films are being kept alive in this way.
Having read the books as a preteen, then again as a young adult, I know that the scouring of the shire is just depressing. They were going home to the wondrous blissful shire to be confronted with a foul smelling and looking industrial village. Ruled by evil. Very depressing when they thought, and we all thought, reading the books, that Frodo had defeated the ultimate evil so evil should be gone from the world - not showing up in the one place that never hosted evil before.
I read it early because The Hobbit was the one and only book my older brother gave to me. Then talking about it excitedly at school, my teacher mentioned that while they are separate stories, there is a trilogy that continues shortly after The Hobbit ends. I had a library card, and found them, figured out the order, and seeing how large they were, checked out just one at a time, reading them in order. I later bought paperback versions of the 3 books, so I could reread and share.
That would not have happened, had I not spent my 10 year old summer at my grandparents while my mother finished her bachelor's degree. Of course, I ran out of things I found fun to do. Prior trips were usually 1 week, sometimes 2 weeks, and I NEVER ran out of things to do, but the whole summer is much longer, and my older siblings (5 of them) went home with Dad, leaving me to actually experience being the oldest of me and my 3 younger siblings. One day I complained of being bored and that there was nothing to do. My grandfather insisted I needed to read books that they had in the foyer (the former porch, a new porch added in front of it, it was enclosed and had an upright piano and a set of built in bookshelves. He picked Tom Sawyer off the shelf for me to start with. Then, when I was done with that, and the book itself recommended continuing the story with Huckleberry Finn, they also had this. Funny because of their 7 children, only 1 was a boy.
"....the one place that never hosted evil before." The Shire had the One Ring for over half a century and Black Riders roaming around searching for Frodo. The Shire had hosted some of the greatest evil known to Middle Earth.
I was sad when Tom Bombadil didn't make it into the film. I was furious the "The Scouring of the Shire" was not included. For years I have held on to this disappoint. After watching this video it was the best decision. It hits way harder now. Good job!
Its like Tolkien and Jackson wrote an RPG with choices that matters.
A) choose to kill Saruman and Grima at Orthanc then you get less XP but a happy ending.
B) release Saruman and Grima and see the consequences, more XP and loot but bad ending
C) kill Saruman but release Grima
Why would they get more XP for (a) than (b)? It should be the same amount as both achieve the same objective.
Also, in the film none of these options applies. Instead, Grima kills Saruman, but is then killed by Legolas.
@@GonzoTehGreat only way I can see it is that sparing Saruman [ultimately] gives you more XP because it opens up another questline to be completed later (the scouring) and after completing that questline you have more XP than you would have if you hadn’t have had to do that questline at all
@@yomamma.ismydaddy216 Sure, but that's _potential_ XP, in the future, not _actual_ XP for not killing him/them.
Also, killing them could equally lead to earning more XP...
For example, Saruman's death ends the spell uniting the surviving Orcs under his control who consequently disband, (after some in-fighting), but then start marauding and raiding nearby settlements, so need to be stopped by the party.
Actually B) is not a bad ending. Mind you, Samwise went on to restore the Shire with the earth and Mallorn Tree seed he received from Galadriel (in the book as opposed to the rope in the film) more beautiful than before. And it establishes Sam, Merry and Pippin as new Leaders of the Shire... oh and provides the greedy Sackville Bagginses with a redemption arc.
except that Tolkien wrote option B. I just really hate movies that actually lie about the plot. Lying about the time and place of the death of a key character such as Saruman has no good justification.
Rare W from Nerdstalgic, releasing video so late on midnight.
Nerdstalgic Ws ain’t rare
It's not midnight for everyone American
@@Essdynit is however midnight for this American TH-cam channel, so swing and a miss here
I've been called a heretic for saying this but there are differences in the movies I prefer to the books. The scouring is one of those. I like that scene where the Hobbits are sitting at the pub, looking around at everyone in the Shire who are oblivious to what they have been through and how much they sacrificed for their beloved homeland. It's a bit like the scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where Paul comes home on leave and discovers that on the surface it appears nothing has changed in his village but he knows things have actually changed a lot and that he'll never be able to go home again because his home is in now the in the trenches. Rather than argue with anyone he simply lets them have their discussion on things they know nothing about and when it's time to return to the line he does so willingly. It's a bit different but it strikes the same chord. I also think the movies did a better job fleshing out the relationships between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, but that's an argument for another thread.
Nice review. The books and movies are only slightly different but Jackson and company stayed true to the theme, that good can triumph over evil and more times than not it's the simple foot soldier who makes all the difference.
The scouring was about change and even Hobbiton wasn't immune. As it is a tale of industry and exploitation of the hobbits is what they came back to. If left in the movie would have ended bitter sweet. A happy home would have been not possible. Like in today's wars. The soldiers are rarely welcomed home with the praise they might of thought. Unsung heros. As Sam was left to continue the story and the tell of history.
So important to keep it in the story.😎🙏
I think it is crucial to include the scouring of the shire in the Extended cut. I completely understand not doing so in the theatrical. However the extended cut was designed for just such an ending.
We missed Merry and Pippen leading an army of Tooks and Brandybucks.
The scouring of the shire is something which could - and should - be included in any serialised retelling of LotR for TV. However, it would have been an extra half hour of storytelling at the already long end to a movie ending a trilogy.
I was more upset that Saruman’s death scene was completely cut from the theatrical release - that was inexcusable - when they could have cut a smidge from the battle scenes to easily fit it in.
But this cutted something even more important, the mallorn that was able to grow in the Shire thanks to Sam's present gave to him by Galadriel.
Cutted?
@@jaythor70 He meant "encuttened".
It is there. The tree will not last forever.
@IAmAlgolei That's also not a word. The word is cut.
Edit: Sorry, I just realized that was probably a joke.
Even thou the movies are very long, I always thought "The Scouring of the Shire" was central to the story.
From the point of view of Frodo and company: Gandalf takes these 4 Hobbits out of there ideal lives and shows them what is happening in the world, it is only just that they get to apply what they learned, that the Shire sees the benefit of them leaving. Being exposed to evil makes you tougher.
From the point of view of Middle Earth: The end of the age affects everything. Evil is still present, even without the ring. The defeat of evil can be taken up by good people everywhere, but the longer it takes, the bigger a battle is.
It literally is central and the whole point to me at least
Couldn't agree more. For me the scouring is also far more important. Like many books the Hobbits are the stand-in for us. They don't know what's going on, who Sauron or Saruman are, who Aragorn is, nothing of Rohan, Gondor or whatever else, and their ignorance allows us, the reader, to learn of this greater world and have some courage among big folk where they were recognized for their bravery.
But now they've (we've) been on this incredible Journey, they (we) return to our safe little homes where all is well. But all is not well. Evil is still present, and there is yet an effectual struggle to be made.
The scouring of the shire isn't about Hobbits, it's about us. The powerful evils, rendered toothless by wars fought by strong Kings far beyond our borders and often beyond our ken, still lurk in our lives, but with courage and teamwork they will be overcome.
Tolkien agreed with you that the Scouring was essential to the whole tale.
7:26 This scene makes me think of what the Hero’s Shade went through in Twilight Princess, where Link had done so much, just to be returned to his childhood with no one knowing of his heroics.
Keep the LOR content coming! Compared to what's out there doing tangential deep-dives of this masterpiece is always welcome.
I agree that it doesn’t fit normal storytelling and issues with pace, but Tolkien himself said it was essential to the meaning of the whole work. Furthermore, I don’t agree that it undercuts themes of hope in the work
Perhaps the Scouring could have been included as a separate epilogue to what was presented in the three movies. It could have been padded out a bit by introducing scenes from the Silmarillion. Frodo and Sam could have had nightmares which depicted the scouring. What they endured would have given anyone nightmares.
I think it all comes down to a "full circle" type of structure...the trilogy in some ways begins with the 4 Hobbits before they EVER form the Fellowship...so in theory, the idea that at the end of the story, it would come down to the 4 Hobbits having to defend their own home WITHOUT any of the Fellowship. It kind of works. Again, it would require one to sort of structure your screenplays differently, the trilogy as a whole, to make it feel like it is organically and properly building to "Hobbits vs Sarumon in the Shire" as a final epilogue of sorts.
Jackson wanted the entire thing to revolve around the ring, and that the ring being destroyed is the "climax" and in many ways it is. But again, taken with a different framing, the scouring of the shire might have felt like exactly the type of conclusion the story needed.
Also...if someone takes the position that "Sauron and the ring are not truly a compelling, personified villain that our heroes get to defeat".....well, if you change the framing of the adaptation a little bit...and make it out more like SARUMAN is the "main villain" for the trilogy...then the narrative finally coming down to the Hobbits and Saruman COULD be done in a way where it very much feels like the proper conclusion to the story...achieving a bit of a "full circle" moment.
You sort of use the Shire sequences as a framing device, as a juxtaposition to one another. They leave the Shire in peace, go on this grand voyage across the world, to save the world, then return to find it in ruin, and must use their skills and heroism to save it, to win one final battle for their very own home, and not just fighting for the world at large.
I think Jackson viewed it as something that was simply "tacked on" and if inserted into the film that way, that is what it would have felt like and it wouldn't have worked.
But if you played the structural and editorial cards right...the scouring might have felt like the perfect conclusion.
I love the idea of Saruman as the real villain, the broken who was once white
Amen 🙏🏼
We have seen other films try that with their adaptations of other media.
It never works out well, unless you have a full grip of the source material.
Thank you, Nerdstalgic, for sharing this tidbit of information about the true ending as it is in the book.
I have been really opposed to some things that were omitted from the movies and other things which were added; however, in this case, I can definitely see there was wisdom in this choice to use creative license in the way they chose to tie up the ending of the trilogy.
Excellent video, but I radically disagree with your conclusion. The "scouring' is an absolutely vital part of the story & should have been included in the film.
I totally agree. I was disappointed that it wasn't included. I believe they said it would make up about 8 minutes of screen time. Again, I disagree. It was fully worth another movie. And, anyone who actually read the Trilogy (IMO) would agree that this was as important a scene as the reclaiming of Isengard or the reawakening of the King of Rohan.
The Scouring of the Shire was a necessary cut. When I read the book I found it interesting but was a huge and anti climatic deviation from the destruction of the ring. Jackson improved on Tolkien's story telling by leaving it out of the film. Easy decision for a master director.
I'll beg to disagree here.
While I appreciate Jackson's reasoning about preserving themes of hope, the scouring also ends with the reconstruction of the shire.
Sam uses the box he gets from Galadriel to replant spoiled gardens, and grow beloved trees, all of the ugly buildings are cleared, and the year after sees a bumper harvest.
Tolkien was very much a Catholic, in his faith and his legendarium, only the divine beyond the world is truly pure and eternally perfect.
of course, war touches the shire, but the hope is that with love and hard work, and memories of the past, something beautiful can still be built!
Sam himself has lines to this effect in the two towers film with Frodo, and it would be the perfect expression of that to end with the scouring and the reconstruction afterwards.
Indeed, in our own time of division, destruction and constant cultural vandalism, a message about reconstructing what has been broken and learning from the past rather than tearing it down , is far more relevent than the idea of having an eternally preserved rustic haven which never changes.
Agreed, Galadriel's legacy lived on in the Shire
Beautifully said.
This is perfect timing I just finished rewatching the extended trilogy last night
Same!
same here! after taking two weeks to watch it with my children, 30 minutes a night :P
How did youtube know we just watched this!?! lol
Just before returning to the Shire, Gandalf departs from them and tells them this return is what they've been training for. It doesn't make sense to them when he says it, but when they see the scourge they understand the adventure they had was preparation for taking back their land.
The LOTR Trilogy is a classic now. However, remember, it was a tremendous gamble. They made 3 expensive “fantasy” movies at once - and the studio was nervous. The Movies were already very long and adding the scouring segment would have made them longer. However, It would’ve nice if they could’ve added it to the extended version.
The books started in the Shire and ended there. Anyone who doesn’t see the Scouring SS the payoff either didn’t read the books p or missed the point. Its absence doesn’t ruin the films especially for non book readers but for careful book readers it was a flaw.
I always thought the heck with the critics, there should have been a 4th movie: The Scouring of the Shire. I’d of gone!
If they ended the movie like the book, it would feel like this:
"Everyone lived happily ever after. Until they died. Which they all did.
Yes, pretty much everyone died. THE END."
- 25 mins of credits -
"Also, may I interest you in the family tree of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Anyone?
Hello?"
in the end all 4 hobbits left the shire again; the story of Merry and Pippin also leaving was omitted. they died in Gondor and rest in Rath Dinen in the royal vault.
the strange part is that Arwen left Gondor and died in Lothlorien; we would expect her to stay in Minas Tirith.
@@rivenoak What's strange about the death of Arwen? She chose mortal life for love of Aragorn, and after Aragorn was gone, she went to Lothlorien, the birthplace of her mother and the realm of her grandmother, to reconnect with her Elven past. But the Elves had already left for Undying Lands and Lothlorien, while still beautiful, was now empty and silent. She roamed there for a while until she lay on a mound and gave up her life.
@@oskariratinen1213 After Aragorn died she still had a family, consisting of her son and his children, yet she chose to leave them to die alone, so her return to Lothlorien suggests she never fully embraced her choice to become mortal, as part of her always wished to return to her people...
@@GonzoTehGreat her children were mortals as well, and it's not like they were toddlers anymore either. Their son Eldarion was 120 years old when Aragorn died. There were also at least two daughters that Tolkien never named, and it's very likely they were around the same age too. What was Arwen supposed to do, hang around and watch her children and grandchildren die before her? It's natural for us mortal men to see our parents die, and Arwen chose to live as a mortal when she became Queen of Gondor.
@@oskariratinen1213 "In the year 121 of the Fourth Age, after Aragorn's death, Arwen died of a broken heart at Cerin Amroth in Lórien, and was buried there one year after the death of Aragorn, to whom she had been wedded for 122 years. She was 2901 years old."
So she died of a broken heart less than a year after Aragorn, yet she died alone in Lorien, not with their family, and she was buried there, not beside her husband, probably at her own request.
Clearly, she had not put her elven heritage completely behind her...
I think that removing the scouring was an important let down. They could/should have removed some of the pomp and circumstance at the end in favor of including it. There is just something heartbreakingly critical about them coming home to find the mess and clean it up on their own. Saruman himself summed it up when talking to the hobbits when he has been unmasked. His level of evil isn't ever really overthrown. There will always be more/new evils to face in this world.
very well said. I also disliked the "pomp and circumstance" at the end, which I described as sentimental, insipid and boring. Cut it please!
Strange. I always took The Scouring of the Shire to be a physical representation of Shell Shock. You can't come home and everything is fine. It felt to me like an external representation of what the soldier goes through internally. For me it accomplished exactly what Jackson was aiming for with the 4 of them around the table.
The books were a different experience from the films. They are both magnificent standing on their own merits. I admit, I loved Jackson’s version. I cried at the coronation scene.
I really like that after the Hobbits get rid of the men and their influence, and the Shire is devastated... That Sam actually use the seeds given by Galadrielle to revitalize the Shire.
I seem to remember different characters nodding to the fact it shows an uncanny ressemblance to an elven forest. Also does not the boat come back for Sam after a very long life too? to bring the last ring bearer to the other shores ? (Even tho it was for a small time, he DID wear the ring).
Been decades since I read the full thing, my memory might be wrong.
I wish more books would dedicate a chapter to our hero's lives after the main story ends.
That was a mistake in the movie. As long as there were elves in middle-Earth that wanted to go to the undying lands there would be a ship built or ready to set sail. That was the task of Círdan the shipwright, who dwelled at the grey havens. Tolkien broadly hinted that Sam ultimately did go (to Eldamar, the Island of the Noldor). There is a lovely foretaste of that in the unpublished Epilogue-it’s actually what was supposed to be the final sentence of the LOTR until JRRT was convinced to pull the epilogue at the last minute (a decision he later regretted). Note that the epilogue is just that: an epilogue. It’s a short closing text years later that brings some closure to the weighty story just ended. The ending proper is the one we’re all familiar with. Curiously, both the final chapter and epilogue end at Bagend, and with Sam.
@@Francois424 I believe King Elessar (Aragorn) established the ban against “big people” (men) with the approval of the hobbits, a ban he honored according to the unpublished epilogue. But yes, both significant and uplifting elements to the story you reference and only possible because of the horror in/to the Shire Saruman wrought. Galadriel’s gift to Sam only makes sense in that context: she foresaw Saruman’s likely downfall, the devastation to the Shire and Sam the gardener becoming a healer of the land-for an elf there can be little higher praise, and I think we can measure the value of her gift to him accordingly (which I believe was bestowed with potent elvish magic and not mere soil). Sam the hero indeed!
There's a particular reading of the whole trilogy that keeps being removed from YT.
It is the best by far, and, after watching the films, you can have the whole thing play again to that particular narration, and easily picture all the chapters and characters as if the 36+ hours is a film in your mind.
It's truly amazing, particularly the Scouring of the Shire, the Grey Havens, and the epilogue.
Yes they should have included it. As they should have included Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Whites in the first film.
I agree, the death of "the witch King of Angmar" doesn't work without Tom Bombdli.
In the theatrical version of TROTK film, it never shows what happens to Saruman and Grimma Wormtongue. Only in the extended edition of TROTK film does it show that Saruman is killed by Grimma Wormtongue at Isengard and Grimma Wormtongue gets killed by Legolas. It's too bad that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't included in TROTK film. Merry and Pippin rallied the Hobbits to fight the ruffians. Frodo became wise by telling the Hobbits that they need not to listen to Sharkey, showed mercy to Sharkey. However Grimma had enough of Saruman and stabbed him, the Hobbits shot Grimma Wormtongue with arrows from their bows. Another detail that was left out of the film was that Frodo gave Sam the Red Book and the keys to Bag End.
Always did wonder why they left Sam in that little house, instead of having him move to Bag End.
Merry and Pippin were also about a foot taller from drinking at the well, while they kicked back with Tree Beard. They towered over their fellow Hobbits and were much better fights due to their increased size. I don't see that mentioned either. It was integral to the final Hobbit battle.
I like the change. It's fine. I understand the reason behind it. Also - sometimes it's ok to deviate from he original story because it actually prompts people who never read the original to read it to see the differences and enjoy a different take.
Not all movies are accurate portrayal's of Stephen King's stories either, but there have been a few that King himself stated he liked better than his own and actually wished he had ended them the way the film's did. I can go out on a limb and state that maybe Tolkien might like the way Jackson ended his story (even better than he wrote it) which is the case for many writers.
Peter Benchley's "Jaws" was much different in many aspects of the movie by Spielberg - yet both are iconic stories and both are awesome by their own right. Personally I like the movie better in both cases - but a movie is a movie and a book is a book - they are two different mediums and sometimes (not always) - but sometimes you just have to change the stories to fit the aspect and nature of the medium to make it work.
The Scouring is my favorite part of the books, but I don't mind it's absence in the films (which are already quite different in many other ways)
I mind this absence greatly, I hate the last movie for it. Jackson instead has this overly sentimental long drawn out boring ending. The Scouring is an essential part of the story. It was an artistic crime to leave it out of the movie.
@@russmarkham2197 yeah it could have been a vast way to let Jackson's overly comic Pippin be the hero he was in the books too
@@SpiritLife good point
Guy finally releases a video for the night owls like myself.
I still think they should make a stand-alone movie while the 4 actors are still around
Good video - as a fan of Tolkien - I happen to agree with Peter Jackson's adaptation here because it would have felt anti-climatic especially after all the fade to black scenes we did get. That and not talking about Tom Bombadil (sp) - also I believe would have changed the theme of Fellowship especially, too much.
Nice that somebody finally addressed this. Sad that so many will only hear about it here, instead of actually reading it, first hand.
Removing the Scouring highlights the willful watering down or simply misunderstanding by Jackson and the screenwriters of Tolkien’s themes: death, the vain pursuit of deathlessness, the initial beauty of creation that wanes and fades over time, the heritage we all have with the fight against evil and though its initial history and glory is rooted in events and beings far beyond us (battles of the Valar), the struggle continues over the ages in ever diminishing forms - first age battles less massive, second age battles even smaller, third age smaller yet - culminating into the climax that is smallest and most personal of all : Gandalf (about to leave them before they get to the Shire) says this was all to prepare you for the trouble to face at home - the damage is more painful personally, and the victory much more important personally. This was the crux of the story, but Jackson was not brave enough to pitch it, and with the waning of our own western civilization… we are too collectively soft to confront such hard themes of sacrifice and our mortality. The foundation for Tolkien's inspiration came from a desire to have an Anglo-Saxon mythology, hypothetically which would have been erased by the Normans…. hence the languages Tolkien created and depth of the universe he built. Jackson’s adaptation is surface level at best and opts to rely on themes of loyalty and courage against great odds. Those are fine but barely scratch the surface. A BIG part of why LOTR works as written is the depth when the mythology is constantly called back - songs to remember what once was, and where they came from - this was the many threads that held things together. For Jackson, those things are simply easter eggs to show with no context.
very well said. I think Tolkien would have destroyed the master version of the last film if he had known the Scouring was cut out. It was an artistic crime to leave it out. Instead a boring insipid, long, overly sentimental ending.
Finally 🎉 thanks 🙏🏼 didn’t say it better myself 🙇♂️ truer words have never been written, amen … 😂 but seriously I couldn’t agree more 👌
No mallorn seed, no replacement party tree
So sad 😢
Yes, that was particularly stupid. Jackson made a point to film the party tree being cut down but then didn't ever intend to show it being replaced. WTF?
@@margarethorrall8621 the same reason his editing room door has a photo of him as a lumberjack, sawing a big log.
The scouring of the Shire is an essential part of the story. They go home expecting home to be untouched, and it is partially ruined. It was an artistic crime to leave it out. Instead Jackson has this overly sentimental boring long drawn out ending. This sentimental drippy part could be much shorter. Saruman is an essential villain in the story and once Sauron is dealt with, he is the last hidden challenge. The social commentary with the new rules and the Hobbit police enforcing them. The bad architecture and trees destroyed. Sam's role in restoring the Shire with a little help from Galadriel is another key part.
It is not an essential part at all.
The essential part of the story is Sauron's Ring, and start the undoing of all he did to Middle Earth.
@@shauntempley9757 The Scouring is totally essential and actually there is a clue to why in your phrase "start of undoing of all he did to Middle Earth". Sauron and the ring corrupted Saruman who then defiled the Shire as much as he could. So the Scouring is about realizing and then undoing the damage Sauron himself did to the Shire. The Shire is the home of the Hobbits!! It is more important than any other place in Middle Earth (to the hobbits). It is what Frodo tries to visualize but can't while the ring exists but then can as soon as the ring is destroyed. Preservation of the Shire and the Hobbit way of life is the whole reason why the hobbits are in this quest.
@@russmarkham2197 I am talking of the Rings films, where the Scouring was not needed.
Not when it was dealt with in Rohan with Wormtongue, an din Gondor with Denethor.
The books for my taste, only just get away with doing it, when to show that impact of Sauron's influence, is showing the Shire in permanent ruins, no different than Moria, to show he is no less dangerous than his master was.
@@shauntempley9757 Not sure which the "Rings Films" are? If that is the Amazon "Rings" I avoided it like the plague. Reviews were terrible. I saw one hilarious bad review. As for the LOTR trilogy of films, the Shire is of particular significance to the Hobbits and to Tolkien. The fate of the Shire is so much more central to the story than what happens to Moria or even Lorien. The Shire is "home". No place more important.
Where did you get all the footage from??? AI or deleted scenes, confusing.
I felt that it should have been included. The War was far reaching and the Shire was not untouched by it as evidenced by the south farthing pipe weed and salted pork being enjoyed by Merry and Pippin after the destruction of the Tower. In order for the four to return and end the evil that had come so far, the routing of the half orcs had to be done and Sam's box of enchanted soil given to him by Galadriel had to be spread and show the rehabilitation and recovery of the shire in ways more beautiful than before. It also made the locals very aware of the heroism of those who left, fought, and returned to help them overcome those evil people sent by Saruman. Hobbits previous to Frodo's and Sam's adventure were treated with disdain if they had a traveling bent. It made for an understanding of what it takes to be free for the locals and dispelled the willful apathy of the halflings who had never given much thought to the outside world before. I think it made them more appreciative of what they had since they actually had to fight someone to keep it.
W midnight upload
I'm glad it wasn't added, I think it would have been anti-climatic, especially since their was already like 5 fake out endings that stretched on for like 30 minutes
I felt they definitely could have shortened some of those up and included the scouring..
Tell us you didn't read the books without telling us that you didn't read the books. There were no "fake out" endings. You sound like some of those idiot movie reviewers who never watch the movies they review.
Greatest movie trilogy of all time, still holds up to this day.
Back to the future
@@317tempest brother WHAT 😭
i think the saddest part about the LotR trilogy was the DRASTC difference between our introduction to the shire where we see Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin having fun, drinkin, dancing and singing. Versus the last shot we see of them before Frodo sets sail with Bilbo and Galdalf, where all four just sit at their Old table... not singing, not dancing, and not really smiling but just, looking at each other in a really disheartened way...
that crushed me a bit.
6:33 this scene... so morose... and heart breaking in a way. its as if their innocence is completely lost and they are now plagued forever with the pain of knowledge of how cruel and dark the world is, even after winning the war of the ring...
It shows, in its own way, veterans of combat sharing thoughts and emotions - and a brotherhood - no civilian can understand.
@@jmichna1 i know that's the point of the scene.
right now i'm worried about one of my old friends that i haven't seen in years cuz the last time i saw him, his gf (most likely ex gf when i spoke to her) said he got arrested after taking her to the ER/hospital cuz he snapped and beat the brakes off her.
due to a PTSD attack from his several tours in afghanistan, iraq, etc.
when i first met him, during the first few days of meeting him via mutual friend who GREW UP with him, this was YEARS n YEARS AGO, he was arguing with a different girlfriend at the time that he had left NY to come visit us in NC, and had their cat.
as to "whose" cat it was is irrelevant, but i could hear her screeching over the phone "bring me my cat back" and he snapped to the point he walked outside where i was (to get away from hearing them argue) and he's mad tall, and lanky, 6'4-6'6 + his loooong arm length, he walked outside on the concrete porch and took the cat from high height+arm length height and SLAMMED The cat and it didn't bounce (idk why i thought it would....) nor did it land on its feet... it just hit the concrete and stayed like a peace of lead. lifeless. and walked back inside saying, "you don't gotta worry bout that f**kin cat anymore b***h."
and i'm just like..... uhhhhhh wtf.
i soon left.
another situation was weeks later after we kinda ignored what happened, and got to know each other properly, we started being work-out bros, since his childhood friend who was letting him stay with him for the time, well with him and dudes wife at the time (she later got rid of his @$$ due to him being a PoS lying junkie and they've moved and said he's been kicked out and even cut off from their family, lost his job and last she heard from the dude i knew before meeting my vet friend from our 20 year loss :\ )
so back to the main character of his story
i feel bad for him cuz he CLEARLY needed help and the VA kept turning him down and i didn't believe it. so i personally offered to take him, so i took him, i took him to the VA almost FIFTEEN times and they legitimately declined him every time, REFUSED to HELP him and its so sad.
cuz before i started trying to get him help at the VA, we were all chillin and watchin dude play his console game at his house while he passed around a big blunt that we were smokin (obviously broskis smoke free) - he randomly got up out of nowhere and walked out the front door. didn't say anything.
i asked dude, who owned the house, "yo, where'd so and so go?" and he acted like he didn't care.... said "he'll be back."
and i'm like man, its raining outside and he just walked out and i checked the front and idk where he went. in the backyard goes to miles and miles of forest/trees/etc.
after 30min go by i tell him, "Bro go get your friend something isn't right." - he does nothing. another 30min go by and i said F it , i'll brb then!
i go outside again and now he's finally back but not on the porch, he's crouched down NEXT to the concrete porch, 6-7 or so steps, balled up and obviously had been crying if not crying his eyes. all he kept sayin was "where were you guys, why didn't you come find me, why didn't you come look for me?" and at this point i had only known him for like 10-11 days.... i didn't know he was a vet then or anything.
so i just said, bro, i told [name of mutual friend] to come get you after 15min, then again at 30min, then again at 45min, and after an hour he still didn't care to get up so i came out. and that's how our friendship started.
but like i said i haven't seen or heard from him since his ex gf showed me the pics of what she looked like after he beat her. she was knocked out, her eye was swollen shut, cracked her jaw, had a neck brace, she was tiny and he thought he had killed her... i hope he's ok. VA should've helped him.. he
truly obviously needed it and it bothers me so much that he never got it.
now another one of my friends i recently met playing WoW, he's SO YOUNG vs me, i'm 34, he's barely 22 or 23, and he was supposed to go to D1 college football (or w/e the best kind of football college) and that got messed up from a wombo combo of knee injury and an argument/push fight with a teammate one practice that the coaches saw. so that was the end of his football career.... and i BEGGED HIM, LITERALLY BEGGED HIM NOT TO SIGN UP TO THE MILITARY... sadly, he did.
i AM happy for him cuz apparently it made him happy PLUS he said becoming a Marine was easier than he thought it would be... but the fact that there's 2-3 wars going on that our stupid government might start sending troops. i worry SO MUCH about him... i don't want him to go to war. he has such a massive heart and he's an amazing dude... it kills me that he's a machine gunner now and soon israel will call for US troops... or Iran might try to attack us hereon our home soil from 12-18k person illegally crossing the border DAILY. along with chinese people. we could have an uprising here from that immigration, it's worrisome.
at any rate... trust me i know. and it break the heart, mind and soul.
It’s been a long time since I read it, but the thing I remember about the scouring of the shire was that Merry and Pippen received all of the honor, and Frodo was largely overlooked by the rest of the village. It felt so unfair, but real at the same time.
And yet Frodo was the moral center of the resistance, the one who spared the Men after the battle, and the one who faced down Sharkey in the end. I think the point was that Frodo was kind of beyond glory at that point.
Although I admire the work that Jackson and his team did to bring the trilogy to life, there were a number of changes (both subtractions and additions) that I truly despised. Tolkien wrote a pretty good story. The events that took place after the destruction of the One Ring were a fairly significant part of that story. Leaving them completely out of the film was like reading the book with a couple chapters missing near the end.
Yes. It was very annoying what was done to Treebeard. It did not save run time, and seemed like making a change just because they could.
I had always thought that chapter was to show the warriors that Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin had become. They weren't just your average hobbits who loved to dance and drink any longer. They were some seriously scary mofos.
I love the books so much, but I have to stand with Jackson in this one: that chapter wouldn't fit in that movie. They made the right call there.
The Shire always felt like home to me, when watching the movies, even though you don't really see it that much past the first half hour of the film, aside from a few minutes in ROTK. There was a simple yet safe feeling of connection to that home feeling regardless of where the story took them, no matter what dangers they were forced to overcome. As a war veteran myself, I can tell you, you long for the simplicity of home, the slow paced and comforting family feel, I often spent my days imagining being back at the family dairy farm, even though the farm was sold several years before I deployed.
I can see both sides of the discussion but I do like the movie version myself, and that scene around the table, I can remember at a yellow ribbon event 90 days after our return, family and friends all came together, but it felt disconnected, much like sam, frodo, etc felt sitting at the table. You do find yourself looking around wondering if things can ever feel completely normal again. Thankfully almost 20 years later, I can tell you, while you may never be the same person, you do gain a new sense of normalcy :)
This part of the book being removed pissed off everyone who read the books way before the movies. I was pissed at Shelob being in Return Of The King instead of the end of the second movie AS IT IS IN THE BOOKS, but they only did about a third of Return Of The King. There's a whole section where Aragorn had to find a plant to cure a human woman and a Hobbit male, who were dumb enough (or crazy enough) to stab a Nazgul. Props to Eowyn and Merry of course, but in the book they were severely wounded from stabbing him.
There's something very unsettling about watching LOTR clips without the music.
yea I thought the same! shows how much music affects every scene
Cant sleep gang where you at?
well you can't really have a Scouring when both Saruman and Grima were offed right at the start of ROTK. 🤣🤣🤣
They weren't killed off in the theatrical version. They were left up on the tower being babysat by the Ents.
Bawhahaha 😂too true, I remember wondering how they’d handle the scouring without those two and felt ripped off 😠 after, soooo disappointed ☹️
My feeling on the scouring of the Shire was that it was Tolkien commenting on the industrialisation of the place he lived in. People come up with their own theories, but probably best to listen to the author's take on things.
I’ll never get over them cutting The scouring of The Shire. It boils my blood to this day.