It is not unusual to witness criticism aimed at Peter Jackson for omitting parts of J.R.R. Tolkien’s originalThe Lord of the Ringsbooks. In the grand scheme of Hollywood, however, one must acknowledge that Jackson’s movie adaptations tackled their meaty source material with far more fidelity than many book-to-screen translations manage.
Many of Jackson’s changes are either superficial (turning Sauron into a giant flaming eye) or understandable (giving Glorfindel the boot in order to boost Arwen’s role). There are, however, two big cuts that attract more ire than most: removingTom Bombadil fromThe Fellowship of the Ringand totally ignoringThe Return of the King’s “The Scouring of the Shire” ending.
Reading Tolkien’s original works, an undeniable frustration arises over how tantalizingly close the world came to glimpsing these fascinating, vital passages within Peter Jackson’s live-action Middle-earth. On the other hand, criticizingtheLord of the Ringsfilmsfor removing them creates something of a hypocritical paradox, at least for some.
Tom Bombadil & The Scouring Of The Shire Would Have Been Wonderful In Live-Action
In many ways,The Lord of the Rings' hobbit quartet meeting Tom Bombadil represents the distilled essence of Tolkien’s story. Whimsical, mysterious, folk-y, and a mixture of unbridled joy with terrifying power. Quite how Peter Jackson would have presented Bombadil’s realm - not to mention his ethereal wife, Goldberry - is an intriguing “what if…?” to ponder.
Had Jackson pulled off the sheer oddness of Tolkien’s Tom Bombadil, the sequence would have brought a very different, albeit welcome, flavor toThe Lord of the Ringson the big screen. The wonder, awe, and strangeness ofthe four hobbits enjoying Bombadil’s hospitality would have been unlike anything else in the trilogy, while also hinting at the existence of powers beyond evenSauron and the One Ring.
Meeting Tom also serves as an opportunity for characterization. When Tolkien gives the hobbits a few days to rest at Bombadil’s abode, the author uses that space to offer more insight into each protagonist, their relationships with each other, and Frodo’s early feelings about carrying the One Ring. Had the movie followed suit, audiences may have found themselves even more emotionally invested in the halflings' journey.
The Scouring of the Shire is arguably even more well-suited for the live-action treatment. Tolkien’s epilogue, in which the four main hobbits wrestle control of the Shire back from Saruman, could have provided Christopher Lee’s villain with a proper farewell after his movie death was excised fromThe Lord of the Rings' theatrical cut.
Watching the hobbits ride to victory against a wizard without assistance from more powerful races is what truly cements their growth in the books - a factor the movies overlook by showing Frodo and his friends returning to normal life once their quest is over. Reclaiming the Shire is howThe Lord of the Ringsdemonstrates the end product of all the trials and hardships Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin go through.
The Lord of the Rings' book ending is a far more fitting one for all involved, and with Hobbiton by far the most iconic New Zealand set used during production, a full-scale battle set in the Shire would surely have been a sight to behold. It is, of course, a sight Frodo glimpses during a disturbing vision when looking into Galadriel’s mirror, but without adapting the Scouring of the Shire in live-action, that foreshadowing amounts to nil.
Why Peter Jackson Was Still Right To Cut Tom Bombadil & The Scouring Of The Shire
Irrespective of everything said in the previous section,The Fellowship of the Ringwould have been a far weaker movie if Tom Bomadil had been faithfully included.
Tolkien’s Tom Bombadil pages are a trippy diversionfrom the main plot, and bear no influence whatsoever upon the events leading up to Sauron’s defeat. The Tom character is brilliant, tonally speaking, but he doesn’t do a single thing to propelThe Lord of the Ringsforward.
Imagine if Peter Jackson’sThe Fellowship of the Ringhad, somewhere between the hobbits leaving Bag End and being found by Strider, taken 20-30 minutes to just chill out with a character who never gets explained, never comes back, and never does anything hugely significant. Tom’s involvement would have risked killing the movie’s momentum completely.
At that point, the question must be asked: wouldThe Lord of the Ringsstill have become a cultural phenomenon in 2001 with Tom Bombadil included? Convincing casual audiences, younger viewers, and Middle-earth newcomers to tolerate a lengthy interlude when the story has barely started would have been no easy feat - especially when said interlude feels like something The Beatles dreamed up during their experimental years.
And the same can be said for the Scouring of the Shire.The Return of the Kingis a very long movie, clocking in at a buttock-numbing 3 hours, 20 minutes for the theatrical cut. Done right,the final battle between the hobbits and Saruman would take around 40 minutes, turningThe Lord of the Rings' final installment into a 4-hour movie - and pushing the extended edition to a whopping 5 hours.
Tacking this mini-movie ontoThe Return of the Kingafter Sauron’s downfallwould have very likely drawn criticism from mainstream audiences, denting the trilogy’s reputation and legacy.
Imagine an alternate universe where Peter Jackson’sThe Fellowship of the Ringincluded Tom Bombadil and hisThe Return of the Kingadapted the Scouring of the Shire. There would be a reasonable chance thatThe Lord of the Ringsnever became quite as massive as it did in our world.
Peter Jackson’s movies most likely represented the first true foray into Middle-earth for anyone currently in their thirties or younger. From that cinematic starting point, fans may have been inspired to pick up Tolkien’s books and appreciateThe Lord of the Ringsin its full, unedited glory, just as the author intended. After doing so, maybe those same fans found themselves wishing Jackson had brought Bombadil and the Scouring into live-action.
This creates something of a paradox, becauseif Jackson had woven those elements into his trilogy, the less streamlined movies wouldn’t have enchanted 11-year-old mindsquite as effectively. Those same 11-year-old minds then wouldn’t be swayed towards devouringThe Lord of the Ringsin print, and, consequently, would never find themselves in a position to criticize big omissions from the books.
Peter Jackson’sTheLord of the Ringsmovies are not fully accurate to Tolkien’s vision. Even putting the cuts aside, they lean far too heavily toward pure action. But the film trilogy is just about as perfect a gateway into Tolkien’s legendarium as one could wish for. A gateway that entire generations have happily walked through over the past 24 years.
I may be slightly annoyed that Peter Jackson left two amazing chapters out of hisLord of the Ringsmovies, but if he hadn’t, I likely wouldn’t have discovered why those chapters are so great in the first place.
The Lord of the Rings
The Lord of the Rings is a multimedia franchise consisting of several movies and a TV show released by Amazon titled The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. The franchise is based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s book series that began in 1954 with The Fellowship of the Ring. The Lord of the Rings saw mainstream popularity with Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies.
