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."
..or does it almost sound as a setup so the fans "must have" the Special Edition? I got the SE of the first, was hidiously expensive, but well... I had to have it. Stayed away from the 2nd SE, we'll see about the third when I've seen the (cut) movie...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Book 6 (Second half of ROTK) would be difficult for the movie, as it's after the climax. I will be very happy to see that part covered a bit more in the extended edition DVD.
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
How does the end make sense without Sharky? Only in Hollywood-world.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
And it's Peter Jackson's film, not yours.
He has every right to edit the film as he sees fit. He didn't think the sequences worked in the context of ROTK, so he cut them.
They'll wind up on the extended DVD. BTW, everyone seems to ignore the fact that Brad Dourif's scenes as Wormtongue were also cut.
I think this stinks, too, but I can see where it might make sense to drop Saruman for this movie if the only other choice was to drop something else. After all, once his army is defeated at Helm's Deep and his factories are trashed by the Ents, he's pretty much out of the picture as a major player in the war. Resolution (as Tolkien wrote it) would be nice, but I can't say this is an especially heinous cut.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
I'm just waiting for the triple-plus-good DVD set with the holographic trading cards, graphic novel of the Similarion, a lock of Elijiah's hair and the Hobbit Digi-Pet keychain.
So empty inside.
It seems like cutting 7 minutes from what, a two and a half hour movie is diminishing returns. I'd rather see what happens to Saruman...
Then again mabye its a conspiricy to get everyone to buy the extended version DVD. Based on the first extended version DVD (Fellowship of the Ring) I thought all the cut stuff should have been left in the movie also. I like getting my moneys worth from a movie ticket, bring on the 3 hour movies.
The scouring of the shire isn't included in the movie at all. Bad choice in my opinion, it drives home the theme that no one and nothing is untouched by war (a lesson some americans need to learn).
I want them to do The Hobbit too. I can't see them passing up the opportunity! It's a ringer!
And yes, I agree, Lee is a great Saruman.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
"The rest is pretty much just a standard action/adventure story - it's the end that makes it special."
You say then, then act surprised that the scouring is left out? Let's face it, what works in a book isn't always exactly what works in a movie. As Jackson commented, there are pacing issues that are different for each medium. The scouring of the shire is semi-comic, where the brave hobbits come back to the shire and make mincemeant of all those nastly little half-orcs and their big boss Sharky. In the book, this worked well and as you point out shows what would have happened to the Shire if Saruman and Sauron had won. But in the movie, this would happen after the main battle and the defeat of Sauron. There it would have been an awkward change of pace between the final victory and the departure for the Grey Havens (I'm assuming they'll keep that, it will make a nice bittersweet farewell segment). Having action/victory/semicomic adventure/sad farewell as the end of the movie will lessen the impact of the action and victory. In a book, which is slower and where the action has less impact, it works, but I say leaving it out of the movie sounds like a good idea.
Actually, the movie is going to end at the Grey Havens with Frodo's departure from Middle Earth. This from Phillipa Boyans. Also very strong hints from other sources that Elanor is going to be included.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Jackson has said that the Scouring of the Shire won't be in RotK, and that most people (like the self-styled "movie snob" who wrote the parent post) will assume that Saruman was killed or otherwise defeated by the Ents. We Tolkien-geeks know that Orthanc is unassailable, but that's something for the special edition.
Folks, Jackson had to cut the movie down from 4+ hours to 3:12 + 8 minutes of credits. Something had to go.
I know this is Slashdot but the conspiracy theories about selling more DVDs are bullshit. Peter Jackson has nothing to gain from crippling his movie so that MAYBE more DVDs are sold. I doubt he sees any additional income based on DVD sales. As a professional editor I find his explanation of the way the Saruman scenes impact the narrative and structure of the 3rd film to make complete sense. As he says - Sauron is now the villain, not Saruman. Films of books are often worse than the books because they are different mediums with different requirments. In order for ROTK to be a great film - and probably the best 3rd in a series ever (no ewoks) - it's only reasonable that the Director makes sacrifices in terms of the original books to ensure the film is as good as it can be. Peter Jackson is not crippling his film in order to sell DVDs. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. He is simply demonstrating his understanding of the feature film medium by adapting the original narrative for the screen. HonkyLips.
Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
I didn't like what Peter was doing with him anyway. Instead of exploring how a force for good was turned to the dark side (sorry, but it's an apropos, if tired, metaphor), Peter simply uses Saruman as a human face for the big red eye. The movie just doesn't give a good feel for the tragedy (in the Greek play sense) that is the fall of Saruman.
It seems to me (drunk at the mo') that the emperor has no clothes on. What's the betting that Jackson has cut seven minutes of plot with Saruman, just to add seven minutes of fight scenes that weren't in the book. I wouldn't be at all suprised, judging by the first two movies.
I think that Jackson has been seriously overrated as a director. Every time he's had to decide between explaining the plot and developing the characters, or directing fight sequences, he seems to have cried, 'cue the orcs!'. To be fair, some parts of the films have been brilliant, but I really think that he's sacrificing story for fights and sfx. Not that there aren't enought fight sequences and cliff-hangers in the book anyway.
OK, drunken rant over, feel free to mod down.
HH
--
First, I'll apologize. I haven't read the rest of the comments, so this may well be redundant. Second, this is late in the commenting process for this and so I doubt anyone will read it. I'm writing for myself. I need to purge my sorrow.
I don't follow LOTR news and so while it may have been common knowledge to most that the scourging of the shire was not part of the movie, I had no idea. I think it is an egregious error on the part of Peter Jackson to leave that key section of the book out. I realize that the movies are long and choices have to be made, but I think that it is the journey home and the scourging that helps the books transcend the greatest other fantasy novels. Needless to say, it is my favorite part of the books.
I don't know how PJ will end the movies, and I am happy with the job he has done so far, but I just don't see how he can communicate the profound change that has come over the characters without the pivotal ending of the book. For those of you who have read the books, the denoumouet (forgive the spelling) is not short - it is a long and drawn out. I guess that is kind of irrelevant, I just think it shows that even Tolkien saw it is a key part of the series.
Seeing how the hobbits, especially Frodo but also contrasting Merry and Pippin (Samwise seems fairly static), have changed...
I can't put it into words. I can only say again that I am heart-broken. I'll see the movie, and I hope that PJ does not end it on a triumphant note. I doubt he will, but I don't think that any other ending could possibly communicate the bittersweet, broadening experience that the quest has been for all the hobbits - and in different ways for each. I'll just have to trust my idol and "wait and hope".
14 digits of Pi are all we need.
perhaps you may have misread the chapter. see this easy: which looks to answer the question, "Who Is Tom Bombadil?"
snippet:
If Tom is Aule, however, there is a moral dimension, indeed, a heightened one, for Tom's appearance in the story, although only a "comment," serves as a sharp and clear contrast to the two evil Maiar, Sauron and Saruman, both of whom were once his servants before turning to evil and darkness. Unlike their former master, these two followed the ways of Melkor, envy, jealousy, excessive pride, and the desire to possess and control.
Tolkien seems to have created a very complete universe, many bits of which have a history which is not immediately obvious, and which may profit from re-reading after a few years.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I remember hearing rumours some time ago that the entire scouring of the shire bit would be cut, though i suppose that doesnt preclude the inclusion of the sailing into the west bit. Theres a scene in the trailer that looks a hell of a lot like aragorn heading into the paths of the dead. And Shelob is definetly in there. (how could she not be, its a great excuse for some cg).
Don't remember seeing anything in the trailer about denethor, its possible he may be cut/saved for the extended edition as i would imagine it would be difficult to develop his character properly, unless Jackson does the same as with Faramir.
And, on a conspiracy note, I suspect Saruman's scenes were cut because Lee's morning greeting to Jackson was: Well, how are you going to rape the books today, Pete?
Everything I've soon so far indicates that these men have the utmost respect for each other.
Beyond that, the wraiths really can't see the Ring persee. They are aware of it's general location. They are certainly aware of the ring when someone uses it. They absoluetly can see who is using it.
Remember the scene where the hobbits hide underneath the road. If the wraiths could absoluetly "see" the ring, then the jig would have been up. This was not an invention of Peter Jackson, it's in the book as well.
Beyond that, the Ring-Wraiths seen to go into "general" mode after they are vanquished in Rivendell. Sauron knows that everybody is out for the ring. When it is used, he is absoluetly aware of it's location. Sauron would also be aware that no one but him (and perhaps Saruman and Gandalf) could wield it.
After they lose track of the ring at Rivendell, the wraiths stop looking. They are set to other tasks dealing with the war. The only reason he sent the wraiths out in the first place is that Golumn told him where the ring was. The ring seeks out Sauron by it's nature.
In the books Gandalf talks about Sauron's great weakness. He assumes that the ring-bearer will use the ring. By using the ring, they will either reveal themselves or become slaves to the rings power (like the wraiths). The ring itself is a disembodied version of Sauron.
Had any mortal man used the ring (especially Aragorn), they would have come under Sauron's power. Sauron's great fault was he did not consider that they would try to DESTROY the ring. Nor did Sauron believe that anyone could resist it's call (as the halflings can for a time).
Remember how the Ring betrayed Isiodor. That was while Sauron was at his very weakest. Imagine how the ring would affect a human when Sauron was at the height of his power???? The ring would not serve a man, it would only betray him to Sauron.
So you see, Frodo making a token gesture to a ring wraith makes no difference. From visual appearance, they can't tell the difference between the one ring and a wedding band. Had Frodo really wanted to turn over the ring, he would have put it on. Then they would have been on him like a flies on shit.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Hi,
the fact that Saruman has been cut is not a huge problem in itself, indeed. It worries me for the palantir which, I hope, will not fall from the golden sky.
But actually this questions the whole process involved in making the trilogy. I am a die-hard fan, and I liked the Felllowship and the Two Towers.
I found that Jackson added too much scenes, that, if they were designed to make the story more understandable and/or the characters cooler, proved to be useless. Let's consider it : first you have the Rohirrim knights slaughtering the Orcs that took away Merry and Pippin. If my memory is ok, I think that Tolkien gives it 4 lines. Jackson, on the other hand gives it at least 5 minutes. Second, we have the destruction of a Rohirrim village ; actually the tale of the little boy who has to leave his mother and then become a warrior to avenge her etc. is, say, sad (/?) but stupid. It takes 5 minutes (Go ! Go! my son Go!). Aragorn wounded after the battle against the vile goat-dog-dragon, saved by his horse, fainting in the setting sun. The death of the fat elven guy at the end, who has no importance but that of being the character that dies at the end. I'm sure I omitted some others, but let's say that it took something like 15-20 minutes. It is *plenty* of time to put other things instead.
Nevertheless I liked the Two Towers. But less than the first one, for there was some very strong misunderstandings between the book and the movie.
- Who *ever* said that Saruman was the vilain ? (I base my comment on the fact that Jackson said that in the ROTK, Sauron was now the vilain) Again if my memory is ok, it is always said, mainly by Gandalf, that Saruman is a pet in the Dark Lord's hands. That Saruman's armies are strenghten by His spirit. Well, in my opinion, it was a complete mistake to present Saruman as the first enemy ; Sauron then seems to be a challengeable partner. We shouldn't forget that he is one of the God's servants.
-Who *ever* said that Gimli was a fucking asshole ? Who *ever* wrote that dwarves needed to be thrown ? This completely kills the Gimli character, and frankly, this is a shame. It relies on the very intuitive human cliche of the fantasy world, in which humans are warriors, elves are archers and clever, and dwarves are axemen and quite stupid beared creatures. I think Tolkien showed that he had much more sharpness in its way of considering the *main* character, and that it could have been underlined in the movie.
For the Lord of the Rings (book) does not cater to intellectuals, and there was absolutely NO need to put some attractive but all the more boring sequences (I've seen the trailer of ROTK, and I was frightened by the scene between crying Eowyn and Aragorn : "No Eowyn, you're never going to see a king's dick").
Cutting was Ok, but adding and shifting the overall sense of the story : no good.
Regards,
Jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
The mirror scene with Frodo was a small fragment of the scouring filmed especially for that scene. I can confirm, Jackson says himself in the commentary with the extended edition of FOTR that scouring isn't included. Yeah I think it sucks too - no doubt its going to have the traditional Hollywood Ending when the ring is destroyed, cut to big celebration when Aragorn becomes king, and everyone lives happily ever after and none of the audience have any psycological challenges to deal with.
On the contrary, reports are that people leave ROTK crying. Elijah Wood says he refuses to watch it, because the first time it was screened for him, he left in tears.
Peter Jackson says his favorite scene of the entire trilogy is the Grey Havens, so rest easy. ROTK will be about loss, mourning, and coping with the aftermath of grief and heroism. He's stated this several times in the past.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I can understand that if you leave out the scouring of the shire, then you also cut out Saruman's part entirely from Return of the King, and that there wasn't time to cover that part. What bothers me about this more is that you never really see that Saruman is defeated in the TT movie (although I haven't seen the extended release of TT yet, so maybe it was in there) After Isengard is flooded and Ent'ed to smithereens, there's still the part where the group parleys with Saruman (and the audience learns of his smoothtalking skills, and, more importantly plot wise, the palantir is dropped and Sauron sees "a hobbit" in it, and is thusly decieved about the ring's whereabouts. It's the cutting of THIS instance of Sauruman that I am most annoyed at. It shows that he is truly defeated, even if they do leave him stuck locked up in the tower and can't get to him - and it would have been a chance to hear Christopher Lee play the smooth-talking "reasonable" evil guy, which would have really rocked.
At the end if TT, I just assumed that the reason we hadn't seen that part yet was the same reason we didn't see Shelob - it was pushed forward into the third movie. Now that I see it won't be, I'm a bit confused by Peter Jackson's decision (as confused as I was by his addition of Faramir taking a long time to change his mind and let Frodo go, dragging him all the way to Osgiloth in the process - That didn't add anything to the story and there's no reason to ADD material to the story when it's already impossible to fit everything in and stuff is being cut all over the place. Those were valuable minutes of footage to fit under the 3 hour cap - minutes that could have been spent on something plot related, like the cut Saruman scenes.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.