Forever?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.

I am sure that Jackson has not spent as much time analysing every detail of the books in the way that some of us do here. I understand, however, that he has been a fan of the book since childhood, so he no doubt has given some thought to what it means to him. And it is clear to me from the films themselves that he understood many of the themes impicit in the books. The same goes for his co-writers, I should imagine. Whether he has read The Silmarillion or not, I cannot tell. But then again, I would speculate that only something like 10% of those who have read LotR have gone on to read Tolkien's other works (The Hobbit aside). Apart from those on this forum (which is a special case, let's face it), of those people that I know who have read LotR and The Hobbit (and there are a fair few), none have read The Silmarillion or any of the other works.

What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire?

Largely for reasons of film pacing, as I understand it. Jackson is on record as having said that this is one of his favourite parts of the book. I too have great affection for this Chapter, but I can see the sense in omitting what would have been, in effect, a mini-story following the main climax.

went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima?

This was filmed and originally intended for inclusion in the theatrical release (although at Orthanc, rather than in The Shire), but was omitted for reasons of timing. There are those who would say that it should have been included at the expense of other material, and I would be one of them, but Jackson obviously felt different.

I think Son of Numenor is on to something which deserves to be discussed more than simply as an effect of movie making or of some readers' ignorance of TheSilm. Did Jackson miss the big picture?

Well, there are clearly a great many aspects of the book that were omitted for "film-making" reasons (whether that be timing, pacing, anticipated audience reaction or whatever). And I would be fairly confident in speculating that there are themes that Jackson (and his writing team) were aware of but omitted, either because there was not sufficient time to develop them or because they simply did not resonate with them. I can see the sense in focussing on a limited number of themes, given the time available to develop them. Rightly or wrongly, these films are first and foremost "action" films, and the intricate web of themes that Tolkien was able to weave in the book would have over-complicated them unnecessarily and hindered the action. In light of this, I personally feel that it is to Jackson's credit that he was able to include so many of Tolkien's themes, to capture the "spirit of Tolkien" as Christopher Lee put it (although I am fully aware that there are many who would disagree with me on this).

Did Jackson miss any of the themes of the book? Well, I am sure that he did. But then, so did I before I joined this site (despite having read the book a number of times, and long before the films came out).

As to the theme which is the subject of this thread though, I still think that it really goes without saying that Sauron's destruction will not represent an end to all evil forever, and that Galadriel's words can be interpreted accordingly.

One further thought (again). I do think that we are rather lucky to have had the Grey Havens scene, which I do see very much as a bittersweet moment (as far as both the Elves and Frodo are concerned). It is not really necessary in the context of the films, but Jackson nevertheless felt it sufficiently important to include. Of course, its omission would have been an anathema to us Tolkien fans, but I am sure that the films would still have been greatly enjoyed by the majority of those who went to see them, and just as successful, without it. Indeed, it might be argued that "the politics of Box-office movie-making" would dictate the omission of this scene. I have seen a number of reviews of RotK (the film) which criticise it for the length of its ending. As davem suggests, most film-goers would have expected it to end with Aragorn's coronation and the honouring of the Hobbits. That would certainly have been the more traditional "Hollywood" approach.