It is not unusual to witness criticism aimed at Peter Jackson for omitting parts of J.R.R. Tolkien’s original The Lord of the Rings books. 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: removing Tom Bombadil from The Fellowship of the Ring and totally ignoring The 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 pᴀssages within Peter Jackson’s live-action Middle-earth. On the other hand, criticizing the Lord of the Rings films for 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 to The Lord of the Rings on the big screen. The wonder, awe, and strangeness of the four hobbits enjoying Bombadil’s hospitality would have been unlike anything else in the trilogy, while also hinting at the existence of powers beyond even Sauron 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 from The Lord of the Rings‘ theatrical cut.

Watching the hobbits ride to victory against a wizard without ᴀssistance 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 how The Lord of the Rings demonstrates 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 Ring would have been a far weaker movie if Tom Bomadil had been faithfully included.

Tolkien’s Tom Bombadil pages are a trippy diversion from 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 propel The Lord of the Rings forward.

Imagine if Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring had, 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: would The Lord of the Rings still 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 King is a very long movie, clocking in at a ʙuттock-numbing 3 hours, 20 minutes for the theatrical cut. Done right, the final battle between the hobbits and Saruman would take around 40 minutes, turning The 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 onto The Return of the King after Sauron’s downfall would have very likely drawn criticism from mainstream audiences, denting the trilogy’s reputation and legacy.

Imagine an alternate universe where Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring included Tom Bombadil and his The Return of the King adapted the Scouring of the Shire. There would be a reasonable chance that The Lord of the Rings never became quite as mᴀssive as it did in our world.

The Paradox Of Wishing The Lord Of The Rings Movies Had Included Tom Bombadil & The Scouring Of The Shire

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 appreciate The Lord of the Rings in 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, because if Jackson had woven those elements into his trilogy, the less streamlined movies wouldn’t have enchanted 11-year-old minds quite as effectively. Those same 11-year-old minds then wouldn’t be swayed towards devouring The Lord of the Rings in print, and, consequently, would never find themselves in a position to criticize big omissions from the books.

Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings movies 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 his Lord of the Rings movies, but if he hadn’t, I likely wouldn’t have discovered why those chapters are so great in the first place.