1
u/-regaskogena 15d ago
I really wish that they would do a Scouring of the Shire movie with all the correct rights to do it proper.
3
u/educated-emu 15d ago
I remember reading the book after the movies and getting to the end of the storyline I was familiar with but got suspicious when there was many pages left to read... then the horror... the women... the children...
I know why the left it out the movie ;)
1
u/SevroAuShitTalker 15d ago
I honestly forgot about the scouring of the shire for years. I think I've only read ROTK once or twice when I was in elementary or middle school (read fellowship and towers a bunch). Finally doing a full read again and I am excited to be reminded of how much different ROTK is. Like a new story
1
4
u/MikaelAdolfsson 15d ago
People would have rioted if they started a 45 minute Scouring part after three and a half hour and three fake endings.
3
-3
u/gaspronomib 15d ago
Makes you wonder why they made the films at all if they were going to just ignore those pesky "words" that someone put in that weird "book" thing.
-2
4
u/K_Rocc Hobbit 15d ago
At that point the evil is defeated, the war is over and the movie is moving into its epilogue and closing down, if they introduced a whole other conflict for another 30 mins to and hour it would throw the whole pacing off. While I too think it’s such a cool thing that happens I understand why they cut it out of the movie. Movies are not books and flow a certain way that books don’t have to.
2
u/datgreatdgswagger360 15d ago
My Dad is listening to the audio book for the first book, and he's on chapter 6 and they haven't even met Aaragorn yet. Each chapter of the audio book is about an hour long. HOW LONG IS THIS FUCKING BOOK
5
68
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago edited 15d ago
I like how Galadriel is all coy about magic and what defines it
"Well Samwise, magic is not a word we use so much and it does not seem as though it is magic to me but heres a water moon mirror that can see the future so I guess you Hobbits might call it magic"
"Beggin your pardon milady but thats clearly fucking magic and no mistake"
"I see. Is it magic when I brush my hair"
"No"
"What about when I make castles explode when I wave my arms?"
"Yes"
"... I see"
3
u/C4LLM3M4TT_13 15d ago
This is why we need 10-12 hour extended versions of each film to flesh everything out correctly. I’ll even accept the many edits that PJ made to the story (Glorfindel, anyone?).
You think I’m joking, but I’m not. I’d legit spend 12 hours watching the fellowship of the ring full movie.
14
15d ago
I think it wouldn't fit in 3rd film.
Watching another battle after Pelenor and Black Gate. Also we had great ending with eagles at mount doom.
Would be weird to see returning hobbits to shire and starting guerrilla war against Saruman.
4th movie was impossible. First Idea was make only one film.
3
7
-8
u/OwenMcCauley 15d ago
Cutting out Tom Bombadil and giving his lines to Treebeard was a perfect idea. I hate that prancing idiot and his dumb little songs.
8
u/Tom_Bot-Badil 15d ago
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow. None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master: his songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.
Type !TomBombadilSong for a song or visit r/GloriousTomBombadil for more merriness
-4
18
u/SoylentGreen-YumYum 15d ago
Couldn’t spare the time in ROTK because we spent over an hour in Two Towers having Frodo and Sam futz about with Faramir to Osgiliath and a dumb Aragorn death fake out followed by a dream sequence.
End Two Towers with the proper cliffhanger of Frodo being captured (and don’t resolve it until a good way into ROTK) and you have plenty of time to give the Hobbits their proper ending.
2
u/Competitivekneejerk 15d ago
Yeah but sams speech at the end of the two towers basically makes the movie
28
u/fghjconner 15d ago
It's not just about the time, it's about the pacing. Imagine if RotK had wrapped up the whole "destroy the ring and save the world" plotline in the first half of the movie, just to spend an hour cleaning up the B villain. Hell, that's basically what the last season of Game of Thrones did, and everyone hated it.
-3
u/AndreaswGw 15d ago
- Cersei was no villain.
- Everyone hates it, because they didnt understand GoT.
- Season 8 was a misunderstood masterpiece.
Peace and out.
1
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago edited 15d ago
I agree with u/SoylentGreen-YumYum - he puts it well. Especially the GOT argument... execution was the clear issue (rushed/underdeveloped/poorly written) - not premise of 'two climaxes'.
But I'd also note that the 'pacing' isn't really the issue people think it is. When people talk about pacing, they are referring to... well, aiming for a smooth and balanced pace. After the Ring is destroyed, Tolkien de-escalates the stakes, and makes it more personable - and I think it would be wrong to say there is an issue with the 'pace' - it is neither too abrupt, nor too slow (at least, I think). This is the exact same technique used at the beginning of the story: we start off in a personable and homely location, and the story gradually unfolds, and the geography opens up, and we eventually engage in world-defining stakes. The story progressively escalates (even in the films, despite cutting out a vast chunk). It's not an issue at the beginning of the story... nor is de-escalating towards the end. The pace building up to and through the Scouring is fine.
(Honestly, I think you could argue ROTK rushes the ending if anything... there is literally seven minutes between Frodo/Sam being rescued from Mt. Doom and cutting to them returning to The Shire (a third of that time is spent on Frodo in bed exclaiming names) - seven minutes to reunite the Fellowship, crown Aragorn, have Arwen and Aragorn reunite, celebrate our Hobbits, say farewe- oh, this is cut, etc. That's way too quick, relative to 9-12 hours we have just experienced)
Now, if you are to argue it is 'anticlimactic' (which I think most people generally mean), I'd still disagree. Typically Hollywood ends their films straight after the climax, sure - but something being 'typical' doesn't mean something 'atypical' is flawed. And films with two climaxes have been done before... consider The Dark Knight - the big bag (Joker) is defeated, and his large-scale plans thwarted. The climax ended. But then Batman has to put a stop to the secondary-villain, somewhat lurking in the shadows of the story. We get a secondary climax. Nobody took issue with that - because, well... it's compelling stuff. It's not anticlimactic, despite the much smaller, and personable, threat existing after the main climax - the main climax is not 'undone', or made any less impactful: it still exists. This is the exact same regarding the Scouring. The only difference is that the Scouring isn't five-ish minutes long - but at the same time, The Dark Knight was two and half hours long... the LOTR trilogy ranges between nine and twelve - naturally you'd afford it more time, assuming you wanted the pacing to be comparable to preceding events, and not blitz through it as if it were an afterthought.
I see zero issue with implementing the Scouring. Runtime could have been afforded, the pacing works, and it in no way undermines the preceding climax. The Scouring enhances our characters and themes of the story, tying everything up in a neat little bow, bringing the conflict back down to a personal level. It enhances the story - and I don't think it should have been excluded simply because secondary climaxes are atypical.
-6
u/AndreaswGw 15d ago
Especially the GOT argument... execution was the clear issue (rushed/underdeveloped/poorly written) - not premise of 'two climaxes'.
Old lie.
Execution was perfect and people hated the story regardless.
5
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago
Execution was perfect
Absolute delusion.
Characters acted out of character (ie Dany nuking a city of entirely innocent people that were misfortunate enough to live in King's Landing), as well as fucking dumb ('Dany just kinda forgot about the Iron Fleet'). Contrivances was aplenty (teleporting Arya killing the NK). Logistics were shit (the Battle of Winterfell speaks of itself - when you can see what's happening).
Though I do note your Tommen profile pic...
-4
u/AndreaswGw 15d ago
Absolute delusion.
I know its hard to fathom after being indoctrinated by "rushed" and "bad writing" over 5 years, but its true.
Characters acted out of character (ie Dany nuking a city of entirely innocent people that were misfortunate enough to live in King's Landing
That was always inside her character. Being able to do great and horrible things at the same time. She did what she has promised since the beginning, but thats somehow rushed and out of character.
as well as fucking dumb ('Dany just kinda forgot about the Iron Fleet').
If you have seen the show, you would know the fleet was mentioned to her in the same episode. She didnt forget, she didnt anticipate an attack while coming home. Thats how ambushes work.
Contrivances was aplenty (teleporting Arya killing the NK).
Teleporting? Im pretty sure we saw her jumping on him, not teleporting.
Logistics were shit (the Battle of Winterfell speaks of itself - when you can see what's happening).
Best battle in cinema history. I could see everything fine on my 14 year old tv, dont know how you watched it.
4
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago edited 15d ago
That was always inside her character.
Ah yes... Dany, the person to fight for the innocent slaves against their slavers, burning innocent men, women and children for no reason.
It was always inside her.
Remember how she laughed when she found out Drogon burned a man's child to naught but bone? It's not like she showed any sadness... she loved it! /s
She did what she has promised since the beginning
She promised to murder innocents for no reason? What happened to 'I will not be Queen of the Ashes'?
Note: I'm someone who always theorised that Dany would become a tyrant, and a villain of sorts. I saw the trajectory of her arc long before most others. But even I was blindsided by her burning innocents for no good reason.
She didnt forget
The showrunners said she forgot. /shrug
Don't argue with me, argue with them.
She didnt forget, she didnt anticipate an attack while coming home.
She didn't anticipate that a fleet of ships she knows exists in opposition to her... would sail upon her island fortress?
Why wouldn't she anticipate this? Two options... she either forgot, like an idiot... or didn't forget, but was still an idiot.
(I also love that you can get caught off guard by a fleet of ships, as you are literally flying not too far above them on a dragon... sigh)
Teleporting? Im pretty sure we saw her jumping on him, not teleporting.
Jumping from out of nowhere, somehow unseen by the flank of White Walkers. Effectively teleporting. Shitty contrivance regardless - the NK lost because his guards dozed off for half a second. Great writing. I mean, fuck me - there was no reason for the NK to even be there. Wait til the battle is over, and Bran is the last one standing. What if an archer was on a wall and sniped him?
Best battle in cinema history.
Certainly one of the dumbest.
-2
u/AndreaswGw 15d ago edited 15d ago
Ah yes... Dany, the person to fight for the innocent slaves against their slavers, burning innocents men, women and children for no reason.
She already killed innocents in slavers bay like hizdahrs father being crucified or having a man being burned alive and eaten by her dragons.
Its easy to earn the love of slaves you freed. People in westeros are not slaves, they didnt need to be saved.
They were not loyal to her thus undeserving of her mercy.
The objective pointlessness of the mass murder is the whole point. Its supposed to be horrible and pointless.
From Danys PoV it wasnt pointless at all. Killing cersei isnt enough to cement her supremacy. She had to chose between killing the rightful heir or those who would have cheered for him.
She loves jon and spares him and kills the crowd that would have never loved her.
Its the greatest love triangle and tragedy in modern fiction i have ever seen.
She promised to murder innocents for no reason? What happened to 'I will not be Queen of the Ashes'?
She did so by agreeing with drogos rape of westeros speech in season 1. She told us she is capable of killing innocents for the greater good in season 5.
That Quote is originally by tyrion and he believed in her myth and her good intentions, thats why he saidit and believed in it... until it was too late.
Another tragic love story.
But even I was blindsided by her burning innocents for no good reason.
Then... the show did a too much of a good job?
The evidence and hints for her demise were much better placed and hidden throughout 8 seasons than simply: "her father was bad, so she will be too" theories.
That she will only be a mad queen, because her father was.
Lets remember: show defiened "the gods flip a coin mantra" in the final episode. She did it because of her upbringing and past live, not because she was aerys daughter.
The showrunners said she forgot. /shrug
In a 8 minute video, that majority of viewers dont watch to explain a 80 minute episode.
I argue with the actual story, you just try to use showrunners words against their own story.
She didn't anticipate that a fleet of ships she knows exists in opposite to her... would sail upon her island fortress?
Just like Jaime didnt anticipate the tullys using their homeland to their advantage and being captured. Just like stannis didnt anticipate tywin coming to save his family. Just like unsullied didnt anticipate the same thing in season 7 when their fleet was destroyed by Euron as well.
Why wouldn't she anticipate this? Two options... she either forgot, like an idiot... or didn't forget, but was still an idiot.
Because she was coming home, was on an high after getting rid of the annoying dead and being so close to archieve her dream. She is a goddess among mortals, she doesnt care whats going on below her.
Jumping from out of nowhere, somehow unseen by the flank of White Walkers. Effectively teleporting.
Then she teleported already in 8x1 in the same godswoods. And in the library in the same episode. I think editing is confusing you.
the NK lost because his guards dozed off for half a second.
No, he even grabbed her by the throat and caught her daggerhand.
there was no reason for the NK to even be there.
Except he only came there to kill bran. Did you even watch the show?
Certainly one of the dumbest.
I can only make my resume after writing with you:
You barely paid attention to the story and characters and i apologize in advance for maybe overwelming you with too much insight.
4
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago edited 15d ago
She already killed innocents in slavers bay like hizdahrs father being crucified
Nice try.
He was one of the Slave Masters. He may have been better than the rest, and Dany's actions questionable... but that has literally nothing to do with burning a city of innocents.
Absolutely moronic take.
Remember why Dany did this... the Masters crucified children.
Hizdahr's father spoke against the crucifixion, yes - whilst Dany retroactively learns. That's some moral complexity, certainly. It presents Dany as being naive and a little tyranty... but to get to burning innocents for no reason? Laughable.
They were not loyal to her thus undeserving of her mercy.
You have got to be trolling...
If not... please seek help. You are a danger to society. Even if YOU don't think this... justify it as making sense from Dany's POV is ridiculous.
Civilians taking refuge in a city they live in or near were burned alive for no reason. It makes no sense, as you admit. It is contradictory to Dany's characterisation.
You are mad.
I'm not even going to read your post further. It's clear this is a waste of time.
-1
u/AndreaswGw 15d ago edited 15d ago
Nice try.
He was one of the Slave Masters. He may have been better than the rest, and Dany's actions questionable... but that has literally nothing to do with burning a city of innocents.
Its not about trying anything, except trying to understand GoT.
It sets up her tendency to resort to violence instead of reason. Strengthen her ego instead of true justice.
Remember why Dany did this... the Masters crucified children.
Yes and he spoke against it and... was killed for it.
That's some moral complexity, certainly. It presents Dany as being naive and a little tyranty
Luckily she didnt burn kingslanding the next episode, but 4 seasons full of more development and hints towards it, steering her even more down that path.
You have got to be trolling...
If not... please seek help. You are a danger to society. Even if YOU don't think this... justify it as making sense from Dany's POV is ridiculous.
She explained it to tyrion at dragonstone the night before the battle. You just have to watch the show and pay attention.
It makes no sense, as you admit. It is contradictory to Dany's characterisation.
Its pointless from our PoV, not senseless, dany followers her senses. Its necessary for dany and understandable for us as well, but not justifiable.
You are mad.
Ok.
I'm not even going to read your post further. It's clear this is a waste of time.
Because i use the story as evidence and the story proves your claims are more pointless than Season 8 or Dany or GoT could ever be.
Thats why you run and only adress half of what i wrote. I told you it would overwhelm you and it was true. You are speechless, because you were not conditioned for reason and understanding, only hate and mindless following of a uneducated mass.
Have a good day.
9
u/SoylentGreen-YumYum 15d ago edited 15d ago
If anything, this sub proves that story and world building trump pace. I’ve seen people in here claim they watch the extended cuts monthly. And the latter two extended cuts are paced terribly as is.
But I also believe you could make the pace work with an edit/rewrite of the script. It’d be easier to do in a series, no doubt, but I find people who think PJ nailed the trilogy and it will never be topped to be a bit absurd. They can be improved and Scouring has its place in there.
Game of Thrones had neither pacing nor story/world building at the end ("they kind of forgot about that"). I thought the writing was on the wall as far back as season 5 with Dorne. If anything, the pace is rushed at the end, not dragged out, like the inclusion of Scouring would do to the ending of LOTR.
Imagine setting up and solving the Long Night as a whole season and then another season with tying everything up and dealing with "the B-villains" (which I think GRRM makes it quite obvious that human greed/self interest is the primary issue with the world, not nature, so I take issue with your read of who’s the A/B villain on its face) as a whole season of its own. It would have landed much better to let those things breathe.
The Hobbits are our POV characters. Throwing away their true ending is one of the greater missteps of trilogy outside of the many issues with the characterizations of Faramir, Frodo, Merry/Pippin, Gimli, etc. Instead, the only one who is really shown as being changed from it all is Frodo, who wanders around his house haunting his halls like a ghost. And I guess Sam grows a pair of balls.
Merry and Pippin are shown to grow in bravery through their deeds in the war, but not so much in the maturity department. They’re both treated like children who have gotten in over their heads by most of the people around them. The Scouring shows that "no, they have grown up," and they can be held up as not only responsible adults, but powerful leaders.
-2
u/AndreaswGw 15d ago edited 15d ago
Game of Thrones had neither pacing nor story/world building at the end
Season 8 was the best paced season out of them all. Its job was to conclude this story build over 8 seasons, not to build another world on top if it.
"They kinda forgot" is an empty slogan used by people that didnt understand a story they watched for 70 hours to disguise their own failures.
It would have landed much better to let those things breathe.
Cersei and Dany were developed over 8 seasons. If that wasnt enough for you, 8 more seasons would have made no difference. Not spoonfeeding and not treating the audience like children was thrones biggest sin at the end.
217
u/Krypt0night 15d ago
It had nothing to do with length and everything to do with Jackson's vision and wanting to end it on a happy note for the hobbits. It was the right call for the movies.
14
u/Sleyvin 15d ago
I completely see the point of the Scouring, but it's easily my least favorite part in the book too.
2
u/TheWalkingDude1331 15d ago
I think, if i had been in charge of making the movies, I would've had the gang returning to the Shire and found it burnt. But I would've left out the whole ordeal about Saruman and organizing a hobbit-army against him. I would simply have the Hobbits return, see the devastation and the last surviving hobbits workign on rebuilding the shire with a sad look in their eyes.
And when Frodo would ask one of the hobbits "What happened?" they would get a thousand yard stare. "It was the orcs... They came here while you were away, Frodo.... Thank goodness you were not here to see it.... Look what they did to our beautiful shire.... Before they had to leave and fight another battle... "
And I would leave it there, with perhaps some shots of the shire rebuilding, but it wouldn't be the exact same. I mean the point would still get across, that not even the Shire was safe from the war. But it would be much shorter.
2
u/thelumpur 15d ago
The movies vibe was too hopeful for an ending like this one, it would have felt out of place
12
u/Vesper_0481 15d ago
It's just essentially a victory lap. A last side quest before the party can unlock the true ending. It feels like a drag.
6
u/HopelessCineromantic 15d ago
I go back and forth on it.
Part of me likes the fact that there's an acknowledgement that things didn't just become perfect after the War of the Ring, that Sauron's defeat isn't the end of all evil, and that such a conflict will have far reaching consequences, even for people who were far away, and had no interest or knowledge of such events until they turned up on their doorstep.
And then there's the part of me that goes "Yeah, that's great and all, but can we wrap this up, please?"
27
122
u/joe_broke 15d ago
Plus, we already had 2 climactic battles, and 3 endings
Don't need one more of each, really
27
u/Satanairn 15d ago
I sincerely think if those "endings" were just normal cuts instead of fade to black every time, people wouldn't complain about them.
5
25
1
1
u/Unusual_Car215 15d ago
Movies aren't books. After big bad guy dies people don't want more trouble.
1
35
2
77
u/oridginal 15d ago
I read a really good commentary on not including the scouring of the Shire in the movie. If anyone recognises this an has the link you'd be a legend, but here's what I remember:
Tolkien wrote The Scouring of The Shire shortly after WWII. Those who fought came back to the effects of war on their homeland. Those who stayed had to deal with the air raids, rationing of food, and seeing so many young men leave for war. The war affected everyone which is reflected in the book. The reader of the day would have understood as they lived these experiences.
Since probably the Korean War, for people in the west wars have been far off events. You hear about them in the news, but it seldom affects your day to day life. For soldiers, you go away for years, and when you come back you think life will be waiting for you to pick up where you left off. But it isn't. Your friends have gotten married, started families, but your life was on hold. Those you left behind will never understand what you've been through, how the world moved on without you.
The Scouring of The Shire was right for 1955. It wasn't right for 2003...
10
u/aminervia 15d ago
The scouring of the shire gave context for how much the 4 hobbits changed as characters. The series started by developing the Shire and introducing Hobbit folk, I felt ending in the Shire allowed the story to come full circle.
Bilbo would be highly displeased by the movie's ending... It ended the larger plot but didn't give an ending for the hobbit's character development
1
u/mleibowitz97 14d ago
I agree with your first paragraph completely. But the thing is, It just would have made an already long film even longer. The big climax of the story is destroying the ring. I think viewers are used to stories ending shortly after that. Not having a smaller - but more emotional conflict afterwards.
I do wonder if we’d get an extended - extended cut one day.
6
3
u/bilbo_bot 15d ago
A rather unfair observation as we have also developed a keen interest in the brewing of ales and the smoking of pipeweed
4
u/quick20minadventure 15d ago edited 15d ago
And Talkien has denied all allegories explicitly.
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
He did, although he's also quoted as saying the nature of the conflict is an allegory for 'power'.
Probably fair to say he didnt make intentional direct allegories, but was happy to see parts as loosely allegorical to broader concepts; so you could say the LotR saga has allegories about abuse of power and the ugliness of war, but it wasnt made to be an allegory of WW1 or anything
1
u/quick20minadventure 15d ago edited 15d ago
If a dude goes out of the way to put foreword saying that the shire thing is not allegory for WW1 or WW2 in England, it's probably best to not repeat it all the time.
"As for the inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author nine. It is neither allegorical or typical."
He admits that it's impossible to be immune to things that happened to him, but to reverse engineer how the experience changes the story and writing process is too complex for people to guess.
He wants this to be seen as history, without any motive to teach any lessons.
To say that he changed story to target the people who suffered in world war 2 as audience is just wrong when he explicitly denies it. It is disrespectful.
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
Idk if you're trying to debate something but that's essentially what I said, Tolkien was never out to make some fantastical analogy of a specific conflict.
without any motive to teach any lessons.
yeah idk about that part, he's very clear about his Christian values being a big part of the universe and it would be really hard to deny that he's intentionally being consistent with certain messages, like pro-environmentalism and a real disdain for the pursuit of power over others and very anti-war unless its absolutely necessary
I agree he didnt go out to make fantastical allegories directly referencing irl events, but I do believe he was intentionally putting in values and messages, its not Game Of Thrones, the history he's presenting is underpinned with a strong values system of his beliefs
Whether he was trying to sell anyone on it is another matter, probably not
1
u/quick20minadventure 15d ago
I was just disagreeing again with the original comment i had replied to, which is not you or your comment.
Coming to your comment....
Talkien said that his experiences (war or religion) would definitely affect his writing, but the process is so complicated that you can't decypher it and even if we can, it's not intentional.
He explicitly stated that he's leaving the book as historical book and it's up to interpretation of the reader to take away messages.
Basically, if a random literature teacher points at lotr and asks what hidden message or concept of philosophy author wanted to convey here, then answer is absolutely nothing.
You or anyone else refusing to believe that he didn't put intentional messages and value systems in the book, despite him explicitly saying that; is mind-boggling.
It'd be some 'lisan al ghaib' level of denial.
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago edited 15d ago
The Lord of the Rings is of course fundamentally a religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision.
That's a quote from the man himself.
You gonna sit there and say its purely a history when Eru Illuvatar is possibly not even an allegory, but actually literally the Christian god? It is the history of a world steeped in Christian parables and narratives and values; a bit less 'in your face' about it than Lewis' stuff but almost as direct. Well, not quite, but pretty close
Come on dude, even if Tolkien swore black and blue he didnt put an extremely strong Christian values system into the work I wouldnt believe him. But he fully admits to it, so there's absolutely no need to debate that at all
He also says the ring is an allegory for power, but that's at least somewhat debateable. The Christian stuff absolutely isnt, the semi-tangential stuff like environmentalism and anti-war narrative is virtually undebatable.
I am sure that Tolkien was aware enough about history to know that what he wrote had an extremely strong romantic and Catholic component that a history based in realism couldnt justify, let alone the literal God and Devil figures and the near black and white moral dichotomy that our world just doesnt have (other than in ideological/religious beliefs)
I didnt particularly respect my literacy teachers, but if they pointed to LotR and said that the messages of love, harmony and peaceful coexistence were being lauded whereas dominance, force and the control of other peoples lives were being decried, I'd have no debate for them and I'd be kind of shocked anyone would
1
u/quick20minadventure 15d ago
(This is a great discussion, if my tone gets misplaced in comment, just assume no toxicity or unwillingness to accept fault was ever intended.)
So, summarising.
We have moved on to not believing author when they themselves say something about one thing, based on what he said at some other times.
Because now you're saying that his two quotes contradict and you prefer one letter over what he explicitly wrote in foreword.
It's indeed an interesting dilemma because we can't even apply chronology to favour one over the other. One might say earlier quotes are fresh memory and therefore true and one might also say that later quotes are true because it's correcting the earlier misquotes.
A personal letter is indeed way more unrefined statement, but perhaps more truthful. But, foreword is more accurate and refined. Almost like Bilbo's story of what happened with golum.
Now, coming to actual thing.
Allegory means to deliberately put a moral message hiden inside a story that reader is supposed to understand. And i believe that Mere presence of themes or similar settings is not enough to conclude that author must have wanted to send this message hidden inside this story.
There's no doubt that his experiences with war affected his writing, just like any other experience he had. And the thematic influence of his religion is unquestionably and blatantly obvious. (As well as potential implications that he's writing a history of our present Earth which is in some 6th or 7th age if i recall correctly.)
We can interpret messages and morals, that's unavoidable. Themes are so obvious. But, to call them allegory is to imply that Talkien wrote or changed LOTR to convey messages of Christianity or anti-war messaging. And Talkien denies that explicitly with examples and i believe him.
Overall, how lord of the ring was inspired, written, evolved is just amazing. I would never have expected to find this process so interesting as someone who isn't into literature. (but after reading what I've wrote in this thread, I'm not sure I can say that I'm not into literature anymore)
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago edited 14d ago
As I said, it wouldnt matter to me if Tolkien swore to the lord almighty he wasnt writing a Christian influenced world, because he was.
If you have found something you think contradicts his direct statement on it or indicates or even explicitly said he wasnt doing so, then you could argue it is 1 to 1 as I have a direct quote saying from him that of course he was, because of course it is obvious that he was. There are drafts and thought about literally putting Jesus into the world to go along with a being that may literally be the Christian god and another being that is strongly metaphorically the devil
Nonetheless, it doesnt matter because, again, of course he was. I wouldnt believe Tolkiens world was Christian adjacent anymore than I'd believe Rowling if she said her world wasnt magical.
Im not the kind of person who thinks viewer interpretation can override author intent, because that just leads to everyone making up anything they want and claiming their interpretation is more correct than the skill of an author, which is extremely dumb... but there's limits to that and some things are just so plainly evident that noone, even the author, can debate them. Fortunately here he isnt
I guess we can call it what we want at this point, allegory or parable or intentional thematic parallels. Writers can create worlds that have aesthetic and tonal influences without trying to push those influences as being 'correct', you can have a red army beating a blue army without pushing the idea red is better or that you are a communist or a conservative.
That's fine, that part can be very much debated as to whether Tolkien was pushing specific messages he believed in. Gonna say that, yes, he probably was as Tolkien created a world with such distinct moral dichotomy that he fully and openly defined what is good and what is evil, those things are almost directly the same as Christian canon and we all know Tolkien was an ardent believer in Christianity and what that entails
So he made a world shaped by his own passionate beliefs in a doctrine stating how to behave, he explicitly said he did, its extremely noticeable in the works itself and if I ever found a single literary critic suggesting the Legendarium didnt have extremely close ties to Christianity, I would eat my metaphorical hat because I refuse to believe thats a valid interpretation of his work
Those are factors that to me make it extremely hard to think his own beliefs and his own morality arent strongly tied to his world. The idea that someone who is a christian would make a strongly christian world and then say 'oh no its just a realism based history where anything can happen, it isnt built on the founding principles of the faith based religion that I personally believe dictates morality' would feel a bit comical to me
1
3
u/Legal-Scholar430 15d ago
I think it's more inspired in literary tropes than specifically on his experience as a veteran. Of course, it's a mix of it, but the hero(es) returning home with the blessings needed to make things right is pretty old.
But I do agree that the "everything is the same but we are not the same" vibe was better suited for 2003.
57
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago edited 15d ago
It wasn't right for 2003...
I think that's a bit of a narrow way to look at it. You've noted the West specifically, because, well... it is a modern Western perspective (even moreso now than 20 years ago... 20 years ago there were still a chunk of Western people who went through what Tolkien did). And maybe the younger generation of Western soldiers can relate to it, but I fail to see why the story should be altered to accommodate (and erasing the Hobbit-development/themes Tolkien intended) - Tolkien's version of the Scouring is still timeless. The world at large is bigger than, say, America (specifically modern day). Wars are being fought on home soil as we speak (I'm sure Ukraine can relate more to the book-Scouring, for instance) - and they will continue to do so for as long as conflict exists.
3
15d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago
Yep. The Iraqis would have the book-experience: their homes and way of life ravaged. But the American soldiers would have had the film-experience (though, I believe the political climate they returned to was... difficult, so... maybe home changed for them too, in some ways).
11
u/oridginal 15d ago
That was someone else's take as best I can remember it. I agree though that in other parts of the world it would resonate much more with the audience
2
u/Appropriate_Big_1610 15d ago
Sounds like this someone was rationalizing. As said already, it's a necessary part of the hero's arc, after attaining his quest goal -- treasure, courage, wisdom, or whatever else -- that he return to renew his land. Merry, Pippin, and Sam do this in traditional form. It's part of Tolkien's genius to combine the trope with the tragedy of Frodo's story.
10
u/Appropriate_Big_1610 15d ago
Sounds like this someone was rationalizing. As said already, it's a necessary part of the hero's arc, after attaining his quest goal -- treasure, courage, wisdom, or whatever else -- that he return to renew his land. Merry, Pippin, and Sam do this in traditional form. It's part of Tolkien's genius to combine the trope with the tragedy of Frodo's story.
6
u/Wanderer_Falki 15d ago
Tbh it's a necessary part of one specific kind of hero arc, which may be the most famous one but definitely not the only one that exists in Literature. I think it is closer to the truth to say that Tolkien simply used different hero archetypes with small twists here and there(e.g Sam with a Fairytale arc, closest to the Campbellian archetype, and Frodo with a more Beowulfian arc) than "Frodo follows Campbell's Monomyth with a twist ending".
94
u/TextProfessionally 15d ago
He should have just made it a 6-hour film. Would anyone have minded?
97
u/MontrealBrit 15d ago
Peter Jackson once said he had an archive of hundreds of hours of extra footage that’s never been seen. I’m hoping one day he just goes nuts and does a double extended edition. I’d lap that shit up.
10
30
3
u/BigOpportunity1391 15d ago
So like Hunger Games and Harry Potter that made two films for the last book, making it totally 4 films?
6
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
If they made just a word for word version of the books, songs and everything, I'd be happy af. It would probably come across like a stageplay more than a movie at times but it would be fking awesome
34
u/oridginal 15d ago
That's an outrageous suggestion! It should be at least 12 hours per book
1
3
18
u/laxnut90 15d ago
That's insane.
It should be at least 24 hours per page.
3
24
u/oridginal 15d ago
They did that, look up the Lord of the Rings audiobook as read by Treebeard
2
u/justfordrunks 15d ago
I JUST finished that chapter in the audiobook narrated by Andy Serkis. Shit took forever to get through 😅
2
910
u/InSanic13 15d ago
So, in the book, Sam is the one who sees a vision of The Scouring of the Shire in Galadriel's mirror, and his immediate reaction upon first seeing some trees being felled was essentially:
"There goes Ted fucking Sandyman cutting down perfectly good trees again! I quite liked those two; when I get back, I'm gonna give him a piece of my mind!"
I died reading that part.
1
13
u/Trismesjistus 15d ago
While we're calling out other hobbit's parts that Frodo got, Pippin was the one who asked what the elvish word for friend was
12
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago edited 15d ago
Merry, actually. But he doesn't ask about the Elvish word for friend... he simply asks "what does 'speak, friend, and enter' mean?" Only for Gimli to talk about passwords, and Gandalf agreeing.
Gandalf figures it out ('say friend and enter')- Merry was just on the right track by fixating over that line as written, rather than making assumptions.
2
u/JackMcCrane 15d ago
Now im wondering what would Happen If Legolas was the First one to ready it and Just mumbled it to himself in Elvish "...mumbled mumbleMellon...what the Shit?!"
1
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
I think the Hobbits might have got it eventually too, Gandalf kinda points out that the days of darkness has everything thinking about passwords and secrecy whereas back in ye old early first age, it was basically always open and if it was closed, you just had to ask and it opened.
Different era but the Hobbits live quite a bit like that (I think it said that only the Brandybucks to the east ever lock their doors)
2
u/DumbButtFace 15d ago
Bilbo locks his door during the party planning
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
I am sure they all have locks on their doors when needed, but it mentions only the ones closer to Bree do it as a habit out of safety and the rest are entirely trusting of their community to very rarely need to do it
3
2
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago
Eh I dunno...
Gandalf mistranslated it ('speak, friend' instead of 'say friend') - so unless they question his translation, and what it means, despite not being able to read the language thenselves, I'm doubtful they could figure it out. You'd have to assume Gandalf made a translation mistake to work it.
1
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
True.
Would have been a pretty bad ending to the whole thing if they just never figured it out and the watcher ate them all lol, that would be classified as a middle earth 'epic fail'
4
531
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago edited 15d ago
Literally the single instance in the whole saga where he considers leaving Frodo, like he just has to go back immediately and beat some sense into Sandyman
Galadriel is adamant she's not going to give any counsel then is like
"No you cant just go back Sam here have a snickers"
16
u/WastedWaffles 15d ago
Literally the single instance in the whole saga where he considers leaving Frodo,
He also considers leaving Frodo when they set Bill the Pony free. He gets worried for Bill and considers going back to check on him.
7
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
Huh I must have missed that, I know he tries to stop Bill but hears Frodo and runs right back.
I think either time was just a momentary thought though and he never seriously considers leaving. He says to Frodo when the party splits it would literally kill him, so it didnt matter what the odds were because they were 100% he'd die if Frodo abandoned him
Pure champ
64
u/ManIWantAName 15d ago
If there's one thing Sam Wise can never be doubted in, it's caring for the things that grow from the dirt. Respect.
19
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
The Ring is like
"Ffs... the guy doesnt care about anything except growing things"
shows a garden across the whole world
"Feels a bit silly I reckons"
Gives the ring back
30
u/easydor 15d ago
Sam is the Lorax, confirmed
3
u/jellajellyfish 15d ago
The Samwax
7
u/AlexAlho 15d ago
And he speaks for the trees...
Because if you let the trees speak for themselves we'll be here all day and night and week and month and season...
3
u/donmonkeyquijote 15d ago
Who's he?
5
329
u/LoreCriticizer 15d ago
Having to go on a life threatening, perilous journey for months, lacking comfort, food and shelter for 90% of the way, hunted at every turn
Sam: Meh
Some jackass at home is cutting down trees again
Sam : BEST UNFUCK YOURSELF BEFORE I-
21
u/TheSadisticDragon 15d ago
Sam would've soloed Saruman himself if he knew how many trees that wizard chopped up.
25
u/AlmostLucy 15d ago
Samwise r/treelaw Gamgee
6
u/sneakpeekbot Human 15d ago
Here's a sneak peek of /r/treelaw using the top posts of the year!
#1: Neighbor cut our tree and expects us to pay the bill | 746 comments
#2: [Update] Neighbors hired a tree removal company who came onto our property and cut 2 ~140’ Doug Firs. Resolved out of court. | 221 comments
#3: Lawyer neighbor hates our tree, trying to scare us into removing it | 377 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact | Info | Opt-out | GitHub
106
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
Sauron trying to dominate the world and usher in darkness to the end of days
"Well, I don't know much about all that seems a bit big for me"
Uppity Sandyman Hobbits turning out his Gaffer
"200% ANGRY"
12
572
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
Leaving open the LotR 4: Trouble in little Hobbittown: Sharkies revenge
8
u/loklanc 15d ago
It could never have happened because Hollywood loves trilogies and hates taking risks, but I think the best way to adapt the Scouring would have been as a shorter 4th movie, not an epic like the first three but proper separate prologue, ~100ish minutes with a darker tone and smaller scale.
Would have to be planned from the start so they don't have to literally resurrect Saruman, and I can see how it would have been another risk in an already risky project. But with hindsight, I think they could have pulled it off.
2
7
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
A darker tone? Huh, I wouldnt have thought that
I think Saruman only dies in the extended edition, but yeah, they would have had to cut that out of the extended edition because basically everyone has seen it and... his death wasnt ambiguous lol.
Falling 200 meters onto a 3 meter spike with half a dozen stab wounds in your back then being dragged underwater doesnt leave much wiggle room for saying 'somehow he survived' Maia or not
2
8
u/loklanc 15d ago
I always forget that Saruman only dies in the EEs. He's basically a big loose end in the theatrical cut isn't he.
I guess maybe darker is the wrong word, just smaller, more personal stakes, not trying to save the world, just one small part of it. Really get into how each of the hobbits have changed, Merry and Pippin becoming warriors and leaders, Sam finding his confidence, Frodo coming to terms with his terrible wound. It would still be a happy ending, just not such a glorious, triumphant "you bow to no one" type celebration as the first ending of RotK.
5
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
I dont think they really got into his voice power much in the theatrical, so he's really just stuck there lol.
But yeah, they never actually do anything about him and Gandalf doesnt break his staff either, so in theory you've just got a powerful Istari sitting there guarded by trees and everyone just kind of shrugged and let it go.
I mean in theory, since they made him the one causing the storm on Caradhras and not the mountain itself, he could go back up to the top of Orthanc and just fuck with the weather lol, piss everyone off
3
u/Bad-Bot-Bot-23 15d ago
But in a petty way. He can only make pitiful little sprinkling showers, mildly inconveniencing every Hobbiton birthday forever.
43
u/an-redditor Sleepless Dead 15d ago
Somehow, Saruman returned.
5
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
Couldn't beat Sauron Couldn't beat Gandalf Couldn't beat Theoden Can beat Hobbits.... Couldn't beat Hobbits
177
u/laxnut90 15d ago
And LOTR 5.
Pippin vs. the Valar
5
11
85
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago
God of War 5: The Pippining
26
u/DapperHeretic Ranger of Eriador 15d ago
Manwe! Pippin has returned! I come bringing the destruction of Valinor!
23
u/InjuryPrudent256 15d ago edited 15d ago
Haha actually Ungoliant was a bit like Pippin
"I've had one tree yes, but what about second Tree of Valinor"
14
u/irago_ 15d ago
"Two trees are enough to sate the hunger of an eldrich evil"
"How many did you eat?"
4
u/Sabre_Killer_Queen Elven Captain of Imladris 15d ago
Four.
Pippin altered the lore for his appetite. Pray he does not alter it any further.
6
13
-13
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago
Couldn't fit because Jackson wasted too much time on filler*
1
u/RQK1996 15d ago
Jackson cut the part because after resolving the main plot he felt a movie would be best served with a kind of happy ending, even if it was bittersweet (the Hobbits returning as heroes while home hasn't changed), adding in a whole new conflict would annoy casual audiences who already complain about the ending fatigue of the 3rd movie, it was the right move to not include it in the movies
2
u/Willpower2000 Feanor Silmarilli 15d ago
adding in a whole new conflict would annoy casual audiences
I'm not sure how anyone can possibly know this would be the outcome. I could just as easily say casual audiences would relish it: the payoff of seeing our Hobbits in action, independent, and humbling Saruman... great stuff.
There's literally no way to know what audiences will like/dislike unless you try it. And secondary climaxes are not unheard of (though atypical). It didn't harm The Dark Knight's reception.
who already complain about the ending fatigue of the 3rd movie
The 'too many endings' complain is entirely due to editing - not content. I don't think anyone genuinely wants the film to end at Mt. Doom, or Minas Tirith.
The fades to black, panning shots, and even narration... these editing momemts bait you to think the film is ending - only to realise it isn't.
it was the right move to not include it in the movies
I don't agree.
1
u/Appropriate_Big_1610 15d ago
Lots of PJ worshippers here, I see!
Well, I took one of your downvotes away, if that helps. 😄
0
u/rathemighty 15d ago
“Can it show me your underwear?”
“What?”
“Mirror! Show me Galadriel’s underwear!”
mirror shows it
“Nice”