Scouring of the Shire? out? [Archive]

Elin

01-04-2002, 10:48 PM

I understand what some of you may mean by calling the Scouring an anti-climatic ending, but I think it's very integral to the theme of the whole Tale. Remember, as they come to Bywater, "...there they had their first really painful shock. This was Frodo and Sam's own country, and they found out now that they cared about it more than any other place in the world."

Think in terms of an English soldier in WWII, coming home after many battles, and finding that his London home was demolished in the Blitz. The emotions inherent in this scene could be a powerful part of a movie - why not?

In the very end of the story, Frodo has to leave the Shire. As he states, "I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me."

If the Shire was left untouched during the entire War of the Ring, it's as though all hobbitry were allowed to continue living completely oblivious to the existence of the evil around them. But if indeed they suffered as well, then they have the opportunity to learn to appreciate their "tight little island" all the more, something that really comes out in the book, I believe. And it makes Frodo's sacrifice all that more poignant.

From one point of view, I can see that the story is really about hobbits (it's supposedly written by one) and how they see themselves in the world. The Scouring of the Shire might not fit into PJ's action picture, but it's an essential chapter in the Red Book.

Elin

Orin

01-05-2002, 03:28 PM

The scouring of the Shire was my favorite part as well. Now that I've read the book at least 20 times, I find myself just reading selected bits. And, the Scouring is always one of those bits. In the mirror of Galadriel, they showed Sam's vision of the Shire to Frodo with the orcs leading hobbits in chains. do you think they are going to leave that unaddressed and leave the Scouring out?

Elin

01-05-2002, 07:10 PM

Orin, I wondered about this, also. But I suppose that what Frodo saw in the mirror (what Sam saw, in the book) could be used just as a warning. In the movie, doesn't Galadriel say to Frodo something like, "This is what MIGHT happen if you don't succeed." Therefore, it never has to actually take place.

Harad, yeah, I agree with what you said. WRT ending with the Grey Havens, I suppose they could find a way to put that in after a short bit about the hobbits returning to the (unscathed) Shire. Guess we'll just have to hope and wait! :)

Mithrandir_II

01-05-2002, 09:50 PM

If the scouring is out... do you think maybe instead of going back to the shire, pippen stays in Gondor and Merry goes to Rohan. Frodo goes to the Havens and Sam goes back to the Shire?

Merry and Pippen certainly wouldn't fit in in an untouched Shire...
they changed so much. Frodo may go back for a while before departing for the Havens and Sam is the only one with much of a reason for going back (Rosie).

I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud -- er -- on-line...

ReadWryt

01-05-2002, 09:55 PM

...if you can find a copy of Sauron Defeated, which is the 9th book in the History of Middle-earth series, then you should take a good look in there because it has something like 4 different drafts of the Scouring. It's really telling of the adoration and respect that Tolkien had for the Hobbits, and how much he wanted to get it just right. It also has an alternate ending, an Epilogue, in which Sam is sitting in his house with Elanor on the evening in March of 1436. It's Elanor's birthday and he is reading aloud from The Red Book to young Frodo, Merry and Pippin (his sons) and Rosie and Elanor. It's a very touching scene, as you might suspect, because Sam dearly misses his Master Frodo. I suspect that Jackson is going to make this, or some version of it, the ending...I have no real evidence other then the credit of Elanor Gamgee in the cast listing...*Shrug* I can think of worse things to do then fade from Frodo, Bilbo, Elrond and Galadriel sailing off to the west to an older Sam (18 years have passed!) entertaining his older kids with tales of wonder and adventure...

Thorin

01-05-2002, 11:02 PM

I had heard rumor that the ending of the movie was going to be a voice over (and described scenes) of Frodo (Elijah) telling of the death of Aragorn and the going to Lorien and death of Arwen (Hence the footage of Liv Tyler on a bed of rose petals or something like that??). My guess is after Aragorn and Arwen are wed (after the "you may kiss the bride" scene which is inevitable), the Frodo voice over begins and sums up the story.

Ragnarok

01-06-2002, 05:05 AM

IT ENDS WITH THE LAST SCENE AS THE MARRIAGE!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!!? ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That would be too much, I would boo. And just throw popcorn at everything and be like, WTF! Worst ending ever!

They have to put Scouring in, that was the best. Its cool how Tolkien did that. I hope it ends with Sam 'Well, Im back.' Its my favorite line.

ReadWryt

01-06-2002, 08:53 AM

There is no way they are going to slam the breaks on the film with the Scouring...It makes for great reading, but it would drag the ending down and make for a real let down after everything preceeding...

Dengen-Goroth

01-06-2002, 09:04 PM

The Last Scene will not be the wedding. As far as I've heard Frodo will sum up the rest, and I think the last scene would be the curtain of rain unurling and seeing at last Vainor in the distance.

Elin

01-06-2002, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Dengen-Goroth
The Last Scene will not be the wedding. As far as I've heard Frodo will sum up the rest, and I think the last scene would be the curtain of rain unurling and seeing at last Vainor in the distance.

Now THAT is something I would love to see.

Elin

safari

01-07-2002, 03:08 AM

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

safari

01-07-2002, 08:05 AM

dear harad,

i've watched a lot of world cinema, and most american films stick to the formula of "big battle" as climax and "everyone is happy" as final moments. Australian cinema to my knowledge has never finnished with a "prawn on the barbeque" (yes they had to change a prawn into a shrimp, so the usa could understand), if you could tell us all what films your refering too i would be most pleased, if not your comments will be taken as more racist dogma ( i do note that you don't tell people where your based).

safari

01-07-2002, 08:45 AM

as you have put "world" in inverted commas so i also put "amercian" in inverted commas to indicate the prodominate hollywood block buster gene that LOTR is labled as. And as such i should have been more specific about my definitions but my basic thesis still holds true... big action scene... happy ever after...

but harad which australian films end with a bbq? u've not answered that...

safari

01-07-2002, 11:20 AM

i'm rather amused, you've once again ignored what was a comment that compared the two lines of thinking on these pages. why r u so touchy about america's place in the world? i wasn't having a go at blockbusters, lotr falls into that category. just because a film fits the "blockbuster" formula doesn't make it good or bad cinema.

i thought this was a place to debate aspects of the film.

DGoeij

01-07-2002, 11:44 AM

Can we leave cross-Pacific Ocean quarrels to personal messages?

Here a post of my own, originally a comment on a thread called "Elves at Helms Deep?" Covers this subject also pretty well:

>>>> Why not let Arwen the Mighty, piggy-ride Frodo into Mordor, tossing him with Ring and all into the fires of mount Doom, while Sam is being eaten by Shelob?
Merry gets slain by the Lord of the Nazgul, so Arwen gets the chance to stick a sword up the neck of the number one ringwraight.
Pippin ends up as a M.I.A. after the battle at the Morannon (big Olog-Hai, very hungry, small hobbit, y'know).
No hobbits returning home, no need for a scouring of the Shire.
Or am I letting go my sarcasm too much? <<<<<

Hope it will work out a little better than this.:D

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 09:22 PM

I thought that "shimp on the barbie" joke was funny, but judging by the hammer and tongs incident that's passed now I'm not so sure. To be honest I'm not sure if I want the film to end with Frod, Gandalf and Bilbo all going to the grey Havens, it makes me feel so sad that they don't just all stay in the Shire. But then again, not sure what Frodo would think, living in Bag End with Sam, Rosie and 13 kids|!

safari

01-07-2002, 11:42 PM

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

Bryheinnen

01-08-2002, 03:54 AM

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

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

safari

01-08-2002, 05:57 AM

dear harad,

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

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

safari

01-08-2002, 06:26 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Loiosh

01-08-2002, 06:57 AM

Dear Harad and Safari,

Nobody cares.

Keep it to LoTR, or pms, no?

Bucky

01-08-2002, 07:04 AM

Back to the point of the thread:

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

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

DGoeij

01-08-2002, 12:45 PM

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

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

Bucky

01-08-2002, 05:22 PM

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

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

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

safari

01-08-2002, 10:58 PM

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

DGoeij

01-09-2002, 12:57 PM

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

WARDNINE

01-10-2002, 04:33 AM

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

DGoeij

01-10-2002, 10:24 AM

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

WARDNINE

01-10-2002, 10:49 AM

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

Ganfromir

01-10-2002, 11:12 AM

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

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

WARDNINE

01-11-2002, 10:08 AM

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

Loiosh

01-11-2002, 10:27 AM

psssssttt....

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

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

Loiosh

01-11-2002, 10:31 AM

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

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

WARDNINE

01-12-2002, 03:56 AM

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

PRH

01-12-2002, 04:32 AM

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

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

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

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

Loiosh

01-12-2002, 05:03 AM

Actually...

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

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

as opposed to...

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

I don't think JRR had anticlimax in his vocabulary :)

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

PRH

01-12-2002, 06:12 AM

Harad,

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

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

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

Jai

01-12-2002, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Bucky
Back to the point of the thread:

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

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

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

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

Loiosh

01-12-2002, 09:39 AM

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

Have you even read the books?

Mithrandir_II

01-12-2002, 09:42 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Loiosh

01-13-2002, 12:51 AM

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

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

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

Loiosh

01-13-2002, 01:45 AM

Harad,

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

Mithrandir_II

01-13-2002, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Loiosh
Harad,

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

----------

Originally posted by Harad
Loiosh,

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

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

-----------

In response to these posts

Loiosh and Harad...

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

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

Loiosh

01-13-2002, 05:41 PM

Mithrandir,

Agreed.

Alcathor

01-16-2002, 06:52 AM

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

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

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

Alcathor

01-16-2002, 07:10 AM

i guess what i was trying to say is this:

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

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

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

Mithrandir_II

01-17-2002, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Harad
alcathor, youre all right!

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

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

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

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

safari

01-17-2002, 11:04 PM

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

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

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

Mithrandir_II

01-18-2002, 01:24 AM

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

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

ReadWryt

01-21-2002, 07:17 AM

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

PRH

01-21-2002, 04:22 PM

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

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

Here's the story - from Dec. 2000

search for the word "scouring" on the page:

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

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

Mithrandir_II

01-24-2002, 05:34 PM

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

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

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

LETTERS OF JRR TOLKIEN #210

Harad

01-24-2002, 05:41 PM

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

Mithrandir_II

01-24-2002, 05:53 PM

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

Harad

01-24-2002, 06:46 PM

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

Snaga

01-25-2002, 02:06 AM

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

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

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

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

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

PRH

01-25-2002, 09:30 PM

I treat spoilers for LOTR much differently than I do for say...Star Wars movies (i.e. EP 2). I don't know much of the plot of Ep 2 and I'd like to keep it that way and basically be surprised the first time I see it. As far as LOTR, I know the entirety of the story already and the idea of going in fresh from plot spoilers seems a little ridiculous. I want to know beforehand where the big changes take place so I can be prepared for them rather than having them ruin the experience when I finally see it.

This can go a little far if I'm fully aware of how every scene plays out. Seeing for instance, the intrepretation of the Dead Marshes on screen for the first time will be exhilirating - I know it'll be there but not exactly how it'll look and feel. On the other hand, if Gandalf's confrontation with Saruman takes a crazy twist with Saruman ending up dead at Orthanc (as seems will be the case) I want to know about it beforehand, lest I be totally aghast.

Harad

01-25-2002, 09:35 PM

Thats a tricky moral problem. tick..tick..tick..I still dont want to know.

After FOTR I know that changes are possible--inevitable--and I still can enjoy the movie and believe it was true to the spirit. So that is enuf preparation. For the rest, I would like to have some of the wonder of Tolkien virgins for at least the parts that I did not know were coming.

PRH

01-25-2002, 11:29 PM

Should I be posting spoiler warnings?

btw Harad - your on an absolute tear - up to 96 posts again already?!

ANB614

02-01-2002, 02:03 AM

I've heard the argument that the scene comes after the big climax of the book (film), but I still think it is a very important part of the story. It shows how the hobbits have changed due to their experiences. The people of the Shire aren't very well aware of what has been happening to Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, of what greatness they have achieved in other places. The Scouring of the Shire is a scene where this is revealed to them.
Also, it shows the audience what Saruman has been up to while the Fellowship believed him powerless and incapable of being effectively evil :) Plus, his death is in the chapter. I don't know if it's just me, but I find these things all important. Another victory for good

I hope that wasn't too cheesy

baraka

02-28-2002, 12:08 AM

I hope that the Scouring of the Shire is included in the book. It tells of the final stage of Frodo´s development. It is a chance to see the evolution of all the hobbits after their adventures in their own home and it shows us the extent of the war and all the regios it covered.

Why would PJ left it out! If that is not butchering, then i don´t know what is?

daisy

02-28-2002, 12:18 AM

baraka - Scouring of the Shire is out, as far as I know - also, you mean film not book don't you, because it is already in the book!

baraka

02-28-2002, 01:00 AM

Thanks for the correction.:)

Sherri

03-05-2002, 06:46 PM

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

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

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

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

Ok i looked at that link and read the plot for TTT but then i read the plot for ROTK and it said that when they were going home that they overtook Sauruman on the way home and that he then went to the shire. What's going on?

PRH

03-06-2002, 12:41 AM

Those descriptions seem to gradually transition from known stuff about the movie to the book plot when the movie is unknown. All they seems to say is that FOTR is all correct and TTT & ROTK are speculative.

ReadWryt

03-10-2002, 08:19 AM

Well, after the events at the Ford I don't think we have to worry too much about Frodo getting a lot of time to show his Individual Fortitude too much in the rest of the movie, so I really am not surprised that the Scouring is out anyways. It really would kill the pace of the movie though, as much as the fans would love to see it. Unless you are one of the folks who feels that the exclusion of Tom Bombadil was the absolute ruination of the first film it really won't make much difference to the bulk of the readers in the end...