ABC said:

Please everyone take a minute and wonder why they didn't make the end of the story (the return in the country) with the concrete buildings ect... Looks too much as where you live ?

In a interview I read shortly after the film was released, Jackson said he's never liked that chapter of the book, so he just left it out of the film.

It is to me the heart of the book. Such a message is 1000 times far powerful and somehow awakening...

It's certainly a very important part of the story. Funny that Jackson says he doesn't like that part of the story. I can't imagine anyone liking it. It's harsh, but it's important in showing the loss of innocence of the heroes - both in what happens to their home, as well as how they deal with it now that they've grown and matured through the story.

Jackson sort of fairy-taled the ending - the boat sailed off and everyone lived happily ever after. That's not how the story ends. Which gets us into a different area of alteration\change discussion - people altering other people's work. I'm not talking about superficial changes for time constraints or combining/removing minor characters. I'm talking about bigger story-changing alterations. Which to me, is what the absence of The Scouring is.

I guess I'm of the mind that if you're going to tell someone else's story - then tell the story. Why alter it to the point of making it a completely different story? Why not just make a similar but different take on the story, the way Lucas did with Star Wars?

Every time I discuss these types of things, I'm immediately reminded of an episode of Emeril Lagasse's cooking show from years ago. He was making a dessert and discussing the ingredients as he went along. When he got to the sweetening portion, he said "use a cup of sugar...if you don't have sugar, use molasses...if you don't have molasses, use Karo syrup...if you don't have Karo syrup - then make a different dessert". His point being - make it correctly or don't make it at all.