Why They Cut The Real Ending Of The Lord Of The Rings

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

Peter Jackson had a reverence for Tolkien while Amazon has shown nothing but contempt for Tolkien

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

"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

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.

Tolkien's ending is a masterpiece. However, as cinema-goers, we understandably needed more catharsis. Thank you for all your videos!

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.

I always adored the bit where the Sheriff tries to arrest them and Frodo pretty much laughs in his face.

...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 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.

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.

I think it really comes down to a difference in Mediums. Tolkien, in the same foreword in which he stated he disliked allegory, also said he intended the Lord of the Rings to be less of a traditional story and more of a comprehensive history. This translates much better to paper than it does to the big screen. Peter Jackson understood the assignment very well, I think, in that creating a movie you need to keep the plot and themes you have established moving forward, and end the story where it feels more natural to the audience. Simply put, pacing is more important in filmmaking because you always run the risk of losing your audience. For this reason I love both the movies and the books and feel like neither did the other any disservice.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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