Timeline for Did Peter Jackson ever explain why he left out the Scouring of the Shire?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 2 at 16:44 | history | suggested | Steve Estes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
links have expired but the usefulness of the post has not. I retrieved archived links that preserved them.
|
| Aug 2 at 15:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 2 at 16:44 | |||||
| Oct 27, 2016 at 16:20 | comment | added | MissMonicaE | @dlanod Agreed. I thought the Scouring of the Shire was important to the story because it was so local. Defeating the bad guys matters because the bad guys harm people, which ultimately means individual places and people. Everyone fights for home and family in the end. Also, showing the value of hard clean-up work is a nice counterpoint to the glory of battle. | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 15:08 | comment | added | Dan Barron | Agree with your penultimate paragraph. And if it can't be done right, it's better that it not be done at all. To be done right would resonably require at least 20-25 min. | |
| Feb 25, 2012 at 14:09 | history | edited | Janoma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2012 at 19:41 | vote | accept | Major Stackings | ||
| Feb 23, 2012 at 12:14 | comment | added | Janoma | @Raphael Gandalf was "sent back" for a second chance, so why not Saruman? Still, it doesn't have to be consistent, just a separate film :-) | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 11:31 | comment | added | Raphael | Great answer. I like the idea of a short film, too; but who is going to be "the boss" if we stay consistent with the movies? | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 4:55 | comment | added | dlanod | Well, from what he considers to be the climax of the story. Tolkien may have seen things differently. :) | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 4:35 | comment | added | user2952 | I believe Peter Jackson mentioned in the Extended Edition Features that it would have detracted from the real climax of the story, ie. the One Ring is destroyed. | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 1:57 | history | edited | Janoma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2012 at 1:50 | comment | added | Andres F. | +1 for the explanation, though I must say I agree with Peter Jackson on this one; I even thought both sections -- Bombadil and the Scourging -- were out of place in the book. Heresy, I know! :P | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 1:35 | history | edited | Janoma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2012 at 1:16 | history | answered | Janoma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |