That sort of happened. They actually did that. When they returned they found out that the Shire was under a brutal occupation of a group of thugs led by saruman and they fought against them and raised Shire to rebel. It was a declaration that no matter what you have to fight for peace and your homeland and the hobbits could not remain happy go lucky. Peter jackson didnt add that to the movies just like they didnt add one of the most awesome characters called tom bombadil
You know much young one.....impressive. I forgot if it was you I also discussed a bunch on discord with about it....I know I did with SHOX.
Disclaimer: LOTR Nerd Alert
Honestly I was fine with them leaving out the shire scourging (movie had alternate ending for saruman where he just dies at the tower instead, that was added only in extended edition later) and also bombadil....and stuff like the ent moot (though the way the movie did it made it more reactionary for a valid reason I feel).
This was because they were already compressing everything into 1 movie per volume. If they had 2 - 3 (standard length) movies per volume, it would have been better imo, then you can add more to the story. Without it, cuts had to be made.....so I get why the director did that.
What I cannot tolerate is far-away-from-the-story-ir....where the very basic nature of the character is changed. I was absolutely livid they did that (still am). It was very clear tolkien wanted him to contrast with his brother as far as possible (in fact contrast with mankind itself). Faramir actually reminds me of a couple early humans in the silmarillion....that is an element of 2nd born decline (over time, if you know the origins of the nazgul) that Tolkien was harnessing.
/LOTR Nerd Alert