Slashdot Mirror
Saruman Completely Cut from 'Return of the King'
Dolemite_the_Wiz writes "Multiple News Sources report that Christopher Lee's Character Saruman will not appear in the LOTR: ROTK at all. From what I've been reading, the scenes total seven minutes and is a vital component of the whole storyline that the 'masses' should see in the theatrical cut of ROTK. Of course these scenes will be included in the DVD 'Special Edition' of ROTK. I've got tremendous faith in Peter Jackson's talents as a filmmaker. I've been a fan since his first movie but haven't read the LOTR trilogy books...yet. (I'm waiting for ROTK to hit the theaters) Given the fact that I haven't read the books but am a huge movie snob, how can you not have any sort of resolution of a character that has played a key component in the three movies? Articles on this story can be found at BBC, Christopher Lee Web, and theonering.net."
Sadley Yes, this was said ages ago (I think perhaps somewhere on the 1st Special Eddition DVD)
Stayed away from the 2nd SE
That's not too difficult to do, since it's not even out yet!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
that'd be like cutting Eomer or whatever that Rohan chick's name is! a "minor" character that is totally important. Saruman only is half way responsible for the war, and invades the shire! let me guess? they'll leave out how Frodo &c have to liberate the shire from "sharkey" and his goons like Bill Farney? God damned Hollywood sucks.
Now this is a clever marketing ploy. Sure, you can go see the third episode of your (##th?) favorite trilogy, but its missing an important part... But you can buy the DVD with the parts re-added for only $19.99!
This way, they capitalize off the plebs who hear that the lord of the rings is a good story and capitilize even more off the geeks who love the story already and want despratley to see a film version. Pity the Beatles version never panned out...
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
Wrong. Its J.R.R. Tolken's ideas made into a movie by Peter Jackson.
Movies that seem to get shittier and shittier with each ass rape of the plot, story line, and concept.
The article links are already
Since the scouring was never going to be in the movie, there's not much point to kicking Saruman out... what's he going to do? Where's he going to go? They'd have to use more screen time to explain it. I'm vaguely interested in those seven minutes (of course I'll be viewing the DVD anyhow), but it doesn't completely rewrite the story; Saruman wasn't a major player in the final volume to start with.
There is just one thing... I wonder how they're going to get the palantir out of Isengard? (spoiler) That plays a major role in drawing Sauron out too early. Maybe they just skip the palantir and IM him instead.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Yes, it's just you. The "fans" will buy every special edition anyway... that's why they are called fans. They are fanatical.
I got the SE of the first, was hidiously expensive
Hideously expensive? It was around $25 - $30 for a 4 DVD special edition that included, among many other things, THIRTY MINUTES of new footage.
A typical blockbuster DVD costs $20, so for $5 to $10 more, you got an awesome SE, and it was "hideously expensive"?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
To this viewer, the resolution was implied in The Two Towers: The Ents came smashing in, destroying everything around him, and during that battle, he met a squishy end. I didn't need to see it to understand what was going on; it was very fitting that he was destroyed by the Ents, when he had destroyed so much of the forest.
Therefore, I was quite surprised when I first heard that Saruman was going to be in the third movie--that meant somehow he had escaped the poetic fate that seemed so obvious. And now that he's gone again, I don't see a problem with the removal of those scenes.
davidh
To everyone currently bitching on /. :
/. was up in arms because Arwen replaced Glorfindel, prior to the release of the first movie (Myself included).
Everyone on
Many had fits with a "last alliance of men and elves" at Helm's Deep.
However, the movies have not dissapointed many, other than the die-hard fans.
I will admit that I did not like FOTR after my first watch. Sections of TTT, such as the Warg attack bugged me, however, for those who have not read the books 16x like myself, I found my friends loved the movies.
This is important because Jackson has captured the essence of the books, and the essence of what LOTR is about. Granted, he could have followed the books perfectly - but then only die-hard fans would enjoy it.
Think about it - do you believe more or fewer people are reading the books now that the first 2 films are out?
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Well, I would see a lot of merit in what you say, except that Peter Jackson, in the second film, injected a lot of really dumb, really boring bull that wasn't in the book at the expense of the better material. I'm not saying this on purist grounds that it needs to be word for word perfect adaptation of the book, for instance I thought they made completley the right move by ditching Tom Bombadil. But when good material that people would like is cut for a bunch of standard romance novel calibre scenes involving a stupid love story take precedence, I no longer think it's my kind of movie. Fine for some, not my thing anymore, shame though, because it stated being my kind of thing with the first film :)
Yup...
Nonsense, you need Saruman. In my opinion, Saruman's importance is emphasized far more in the movie than in the book, but still, to keep the "masses" in line, you need to remind them of Saruman.
At least now is the good part: Saruman's already been defeated, you can give some closure by showing Gandalf attempting to give Saruman his freedom, etc. And if you cut Saruman, how are they going to do the final scenes where the Shire is completely decimated (you can see a sneak peek of those when Frodo looks into the water with Galadriel; you can see Frodo, Sam, Merry, and the other hobbit chained up together and forced into a small cottage. Where else would that scene occur than the Shire? And they show Frodo's house, the hill, completely burned away). You need Saruman for those scenes as well. What are they going to do, have some Orcs handle it all by themselves? I don't care what race of Orcs they dream up - no Orc is cunning enough to take over the Shire. Are they going to completely erase the Shire portion? That would be madness indeed.
I guess they're going to "feminize" the movie... After all, Return of the King does feature two marriages (Faramir - Eowyn, Arwen - Aragorn), three if you count Sam and that female hobbit - forgot her name, but you can look it up. All the females are going to love the movie if a quarter of it is just feasting and marriage, etc.
Completely OT, I know, but in my opinion, Eowyn is much prettier than Arwen. Arwen really _flaunts_ it, if you know what I mean, but Eowyn has that "hidden power" stored up inside her - there's much more depth and power to her than Arwen, IMHO
ehh, Saurumon has two small parts in ROTK. I can see why they'd cut him. You could tell the story without him. And easily drop him into the Special edition.
ROTK has a lot of stuff that will needs to go if that movie is going to stand on it's own. (ie: we can't have everyone saying 'goodbye' for an hour and a half).
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Just look at how many people have complained about the first act of Matrix Revolutions, since it really IS just about wrapping up the previous movie...
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
It's only called a ripoff if they don't tell you about the SE DVD before you buy the regular one. If you recall (and you clearly don't) Jackson announced the SE at the same time as the theatrical DVD, and even gave release dates for both so fans could choose which one they wanted to buy. Of course, that didn't stop some geeks from having to buy both, but that was their mistake.
Jackson has also said that their will be NO additional SE releases, though their may be box sets. But those sets will just be bundles of the existing versions, with no added features.
In my opinion, that is quite the opposite of a ripoff.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
"Saruman wasn't a major player in the final volume to start with."
I have to disagree with you there. In my opinion, the Scouring of the Shire is the most important part of the entire trilogy. The rest is pretty much just a standard action/adventure story - it's the end that makes it special. The final desperation that leaves you gasping for air - the story was over, the ending happy, and all of a sudden the greatest trajedy of all (for the hobbits) is revealed.
GL
I'm not sure what the big deal really is.
Like most long-time LOTR fans, I'd love to see the resolution of Saruman. But the fact is, like most long-time LOTR fans, I'm going to buy the DVD special edition when it comes out. In my eyes, the extended versions of FOTR and TTT are the real cuts of the films, not the theatrical cuts. But for most who haven't read the books, the theatrical cuts will be just great!
So this is only an issue to complain about in principal, not in practice. Those of us who actually CARE about the scene will get to see it as it was intended anyway.
So relax. The movie will be good. What we should really be talking about is what Christopher Lee said on TV about the premier of ROTK, and whether he would attend given that he is cut out of the film: "No. What would be the point?" link. THAT is kind of sad, if you ask me.
The thing I really liked in the books is how subtly most of the characters were treated, and how some things were Black and White. The Ring really was evil and you COULD NOT use it, or even hold on to it with out being corrupted by it. Gandalf wouldn't even touch it for fear of what it would do to him. No moral relativism there. And one of the crowningly brilliant monents of the book was when Saruman and Wormtounge were seen wandering the roads, defeated and powerless, bickering at one another. Hating the sight of each other but unable to find anyone else who would take thier company, and so doomed to a fate of constant irritation and unhappiness.
Ah, how subtle. How perfect a fate for one who had given up his honor for power. How unsurprising that even a good filmmaker couldn't resist the urge to "Oh, let's just kill him and be done. Move on to a fight scene, maybe use some CGI. The audience doesn't need that." They are still great movies, but the brilliance, the subtle gems, those things plain and precious are lost.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
Ah crap. No mod points and something insightful that needs modding....isn't that always the way.
There's also the fact that there can be words in songs-- I can think of a few Led Zep candidates; Cream summarized Homer in "Tales of Brave Ulysses."
For paintings, think less about the last couple hundred years' worth; go back to time of frescoed murals and such. Michelangelo painted the story of Genesis on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Huge tapestries have been woven depicting entire wars; the same for paintings.
I understand the spirit of your post, though, and you're right, up to a point. But I think people cheat themselves when they look at an art form expecting to see something else-- you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Like them or hate them, but wasn't that the lesson Americans first learned on 9-11? It seems like most of the actions sense them are based upon that recognition. i.e. get them before they get us.
You can criticize their strategy and ethics. But criticizing them for thinking they can act without being touched by their acts seems...odd.
To the majority of people, the only goal is the destruction of the ring. The movies turn an incredibly deep set of books into the more formulaic "magical item/quest/good guy/bad guy/final showdown/short denoument" series of steps. Most people don't care about the Shire, or what happens to the elves, or what Sauron or the Balrog really were, or where Frodo's going. If the ring is destroyed, the quest succeeds. If the good guy gets the girl, that's a good thing, too, but if the quest succeeds, end of movie.
So can it possibly meet our standards as a faithful representation of the world of Tolkien and capture hearts and minds the way the books did? Of course not. It's not supposed to. The movies are supposed to provide ~3 hours of entertainment each, and they succeeded..
Count them: 1. The ring gets destroyed. 2. Aragorn gets crowned. 3. The scouring of the shire. 4. Sailing to the west. With all that, Film 3 still has to get in some middle, like Shelob, The Witch King's final death, Denethor's pyre scene, maybe even Aragorn's taking the Paths of the Dead. Endings 1 and 2 just about have to be there, as the name of the film is Return of The King, and the build up to the ring's distruction has to be wrapped up. Ending 3 is bitter sweet by itself without 4, or it will have to be dumbed down. Personally I want ending 4 to make it. That will probably wait for the Director's Cut too.
Who is John Cabal?
...until I have seen the movie (and the special edition DVD, I suppose). Turning a book into a movie is hard in most cases, and the LOTR is a challenge indeed. I think Jackson's interpretation of the book is quite good so far, both in the cinema version and the extended version, which (for once) did actually add something worth watching, without short-changing those who only went to see the regular version.
You could say that they're holding out on us in the cinema version in order to sell us the special DVD, but perhaps it is thanks to DVD technology that we get to see the extra footage that simply would not have fit into the cinema version. As for the true fans... they'll buy anything. No need to set them up.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Hence the tragedy of Matrix 3/ Star Wars 6/ Godfather 3/ Police Academy 3?
Actually my understanding was that Gandalf was the last to be sent. He was also considered the least worthy. Perhaps this is a reflection of the humility that he displays.
Saruman, by contrast, is considered the greatest and most likely to succeed. It is reflected in his arrogance and contempt for mortals. The greatest point of contrast is that Gandalf was entrusted with the third of the Elf's rings, the ring of fire.
Saruman was jealous of Gandalf for the respect that he garnered from the peoples of Middle Earth. Most profound was Galadriel's outward rejection of Saruman.
Contrary to your analysis, Gandalf was far more interested in the inhabitants of middle earth than Saruman. Saruman was mostly content to sit in his tower and play chessmaster. It was Gandalf who went out and did all the grunt work.
Saruman's downfall was his arrogance. He assumed that he could read Sauron's mind using the palintir.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
As someone who has read LOTR several times, I'm not too bothered by plot changes: I think most of them are reasonable. Most of my nits are about character changes.
A lot of the extra scenes play up the finer points that you don't really get from the book until the second or third reading (for us thick-headed folks). In fact, much of it draws heavily on the extensive background material provided by Tolkein as indexes in ROTK.
- The extra scenes between Arwen and her father Elrond play up her love and sacrifice, which are only hinted at through most of the book. It also highlights the ending of the Elves' time in Middle Earth, and (I hope eventually) the importance of her decision for the future of humans in Middle-earth.
- I'm not bothered by the preview scene with Aragorn and Eowen. She had the hots for him in the book, but I won't tell you how it is eventually resolved.
- Boromir and Aragorn's last conversation was entirely made up. In the book Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas simply find him shot with arrows with a massive pile or bodies around him. In the movie he gets to vocalize his redemption, because killing a hundred Uruk-hai just isn't enough dammit! The script writer basically said, "that's the converstaion they should have had". The arrogance! But ok, I can hang with it. Writers hate letting a major character die without final words.
- The many extra scenes in Isengard were good, because they better illustrated the depth of Saruman's betrayal, which the reader is mostly left to infer.
- Not wrapping up Saruman's situation in ROTK bothers me some, but isn't a deal-breaker. It oviously leads to some holes, which will likely be dealt with. I guess we'll be left wonding "what ever happened to that guy in the tower"?
For me, the only real problems in Jackson's movie is the *character* changes, which are very disappointing.
- Merry and Pippin come across as utter clowns and bare acquaintances in the movie. In the book they were longtime friends of Sam and Frodo, and conspired with Sam to make sure Frodo didn't leave the Shire alone no matter how hard he tried.
- The movie friendship between Legolas and Gimli is weak. To the repeat reader, it is one of the better rewards of the book.
- Gimli is disappointing, being played for comic relief when we already have the excreble Merry and Pippin. Maybe with M&P away in Fangorn we needed more Dwarf-tossing jokes. On the other hand, his eagreness for battle is undiminished. ("Oh, c'mon! We can take 'em!")
- FARAMIR IS NOT A BAD GUY! In the book he is the smarter, wiser brother who is tragically overlooked by his father (Steward of Gondor) in favor of Boromir. He is perhaps the most insightful human to appear in the entire epic. The movie makes him into power-obsessed idot who comes to his senses sudenly and rather inexplicably. I suppose the writers were trying to play up the corrupting power of the ring, but instead they ruined a great character.
Yeah, those character changes really ticked me off.
Not all random numbers are created equally.
Not only does the scouring of the shire have a good lesson, but it also is important to the overall development of the book. Here we get to see the characters of the hobbits fully developed, especially Merry and Pippin. No longer are they relatively weak hobbits that they were when the left the shire. Now, they are fully dressed in armor and command the respect of everyone around them. To me, this was my favorite part of the whole LoTR series, seeing how they developed and how they were ready to take care of themselves now.
SIGFAULT
The problem is that Jackson is doing 3, 3 hour movies, when he should be doing 6, 2-1/2 hour movies. Tolkien broke it down for him and everything. P.J. dont get my cash in the theatres this year. Fuck him.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
"a lesson some americans need to learn."
What lesson would that be?
War results in bad things happening so we should cower in a corner instead of fight? Maybe you think it's nobel to be a coward.
War results in bad things happening so we should try to minimize the bad things and maximize the good things?
But then nothing good ever came out of war huh? Nothing but our country, the end of slavery, ad nauseum.
Grab a clue, troll. America is quite aware what war is about and we went anyway. I know it's impossible to wrap your mind around.
This is your flawed line of reasoning,
"How could anyone go to war if they knew what happens there?"
Lots of people. War is ugly but war is sometimes necessary. If you don't like it, feel free to surrender when the time comes.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Wrong. The fans do not want to see more of Liv Tyler. Actually, I thought the emphasis of the romance between Arwen and Aragorn almost ruined it. The book didn't emphasis it at all, and the part about Elrond opposing the union ... grrr.
Arwen did not play a big part in the books. I think they only reason that she's playing a big part in the movies is because she's being played by Liv Tyler. Yes, Liv is attractive, but for Christ's sake, these movies cost many millions of dollars to make. Do it right. If I want to see Liv Tyler, I'll look up some pics on the internet.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
You missed a lot of what the Scouring meant, if that's all you got from it.
It showed the reader just how much the four hobbits had grown since they first left the Shire. They had truly gone from four plain, ordinary hobbits to four larger-than-life heroes, true leaders of their own people.
It also showed the reader that when strife happens, even the smallest of us can band together and vanquish evil, if we all work together and stand up against the darkness.
By the way, Tolkien abhorred allegory.
Coz the limit he has is 3 hours 20 minutes. Including 8 minutes of credits.
That is totally the upper limit of how much time most people can stand wactching a movie in theaters.
as a correction, americans were not in favor of joining in ww2 against germany. there was something like 20% public support for war up until pearl harbor. our help in ww2, while pretty much vital to the allied victory, was late in coming, and only because we had been actually threatened.