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."
Given the fact that I haven't read the books but am a huge movie snob,
Well, I am a reading snob who can't fathom how someone who doesn't like to read can qualify as a snob of any sort. The books have been out for 50 years, fucktard! How 'bout I whap you upside the head with a clue-by-four just like you deserve?
how can you not have any sort of resolution of a character that has played a key component in the three movies?
:)
I'd say he was only been a key compnent in two movies, now
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
..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
That you haven't read Lord of the Rings, I demand you get off Slashdot now. Next you'll be saying "Star Trek? What's that?"
If you want Lee's character back, SIGN THE PETITION!
How does the end make sense without Sharky? Only in Hollywood-world.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Sadley Yes, this was said ages ago (I think perhaps somewhere on the 1st Special Eddition DVD)
The fact that he now appears to belive his own bullshit regarding The lord of the Rings means that he has lost the Tao and gained some hubris.
Remeber that he made a movie about not beliving your own bullshit called "Heavenly Creatures" which makes it not the least bit ironic.
. . . SCO threatened to sue New Line Cinema over unlicensed depictions of their proprietary method of using evil to dominate the world.
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.
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.
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.
Jackson has said that Lee's parts were cut from the 3rd film because they should really be part of the 2nd, but he didn't want to start off with wrapping up the 2nd movie. They wanted to start off fresh. See: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/031110.htm
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
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.
Here's Peter Jackson's take on it
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)
Saruman thing you describe is a muddle of half-truths.
We have decided to save the Saruman sequence for the DVD. It's a great little scene. 7 mins long. Chris is wonderful, as usual. Brad is in about 6 shots. It was a film maker decision - nothing to do with the studio.
The problem is that the sequence was originally shot for The Two Towers, as it is in the book. Since The Two Towers couldn't sustain a 7 min "wrap" after Helm's Deep, we thought it would be a good idea to save it for the beginning of the Return of the King. The trouble is, when we viewed various ROTK cuts over the last few weeks, it feels like the first scenes are wrapping last year's movie, instead of starting the new one. We felt it got ROTK off to an uncertain beginning, since Saruman plays no role in the events of ROTK (we don't have the Scouring later, as the book does), yet we dwell in Isengard for quite a long time before our new story kicks off.
We reluctantly made the decision to save this sequence for the DVD. The choice was made on the basis that most people will assume that Saruman was vanquished by the Helm's Deep events, and Ent attack. We can now crack straight into setting up the narrative tension of ROTK, which features Sauron as the villian.
It was a very similar situation to last year when we decided to take a nice Boromir/Denethor flashback out of The Two Towers, and put it in the DVD. It was causing us pacing problems in the theatrical version, but with the Extended Cut just coming out now, fans can see this great little scene. Thank God for DVD, since it does mean that a version of the movie, which has different pacing requirements, can be released later. The Saruman sequence will definately be a highlight of the Extended ROTK DVD.
We have a lot of great DVD material this time around. As we crafted the movie, we reduced it from an over 4 hour running time, down to 3.12 (without credits - about 8 mins long). This was done by us. There were no studio cutting notes. We now have a movie with a pace that fells ok for it's theatrical release. One more week to go. We are nearly there. Will we still be standing? It's going to be a close run thing.
Cheers,
Peter J
As he describes it, it definately sounds like just One of Those Things that happens when you're adapting books to film.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Come on. All that happens is gandalf breaks his staff and expels him from the wizarding club. The only important plot element is wormtongue throwing the palantir out the window. They have to leave plenty of room for liv tyler dream sequences because that's what the fans want... am I right?
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!
bummer
Easy, they aren't even going to cover the book past the final battle. Him and wormtounge appear in the shire at the end of the book.
When I first read the headline, my dislexia kicked in and I thought they said that Sauron had been cut from the third movie. My first thought was that he was being replaced by a little white rabbit with very sharp teeth.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
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
or the Weirding Modules out of Dune
God DAMN it: there are NO "wierding modules" in any written version of Dune. They are just a David Lynch appeasement for the moronic masses.
Sorry: hit a sore point. Those abominations, and the fuckin rain at the end of Lynch's version ruined an otherwise fantastic movie.
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!"
The decision was made by PJ himself. And since we didn't explicitly see Saruman's demise in TTT, this won't affect the storyline for the average movie-goer. More here.
Oh well, I'm going to be a little pleb and buy the Super-Hyper-Extended-Platinum-Zero-Limited Edition LOTR 15 Disc Box Set when it comes out and pay whatever they want me to pay. Sure, you could buy all the other versions and little parts of the whole, but I think it's best if you just wait and get everything in one massive, matching box set that injures your mailman.
0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
I'm not too worried about Saruman being cut, it's the addition of this character that scares me.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
"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.
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 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.
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!
That way I'll get the best seat...and I won't have to wait in line!
-h-
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.
They already made a big deal of the palantir in FotR and TTT, so I think they can give the audience some credit and let them assume that our heroes already dispensed of Sauraman and looted his tower between the two films.
Also, a lot of people have been complaining that Sam foresaw the scouring of the Shire in his mirror...well, I think it was strongly implied in the movie that the Mirror was showing him the future if they failed in their quest. IIRC, Galadriel says something like "the future is not yet set." There was nothing to imply in the movie that they were foreseeing the Scouring, therefore, no audience member (excluding die-hards) will feel as if something is missing at the end.
Additionally, I am going to take the controversial position that the Scouring would make for an anti-climactic ending and is best left out the movie altogether.
Why?
Spoiler
A movie epilogue (of the non-"avant guarde" genre) should last 5-10 minutes. To do the Scouring justice would take 10-20 minutes of screen time. That means less 10-20 minutes less of Battle of Minas Tirith, Mt. Doom, Black Gate, etc.(if they want to keep it under 3 hours).
The Real Story that these movies have portrayed to the audience is the destruction of the Ring...so once that plotline is resolved, said audience is going to get fidgety. Introducing a whole new mini-plotline (Scouring of Shire) right after the resolution of the Trilogy would really make the movie "drag" for the vast majority. Better to wrap things up as quickly as possible and leave a tear in the audiences' collective eye if possible.
I just hope they end it with Frodo and Bilbo going West and Sam returning to his family - "Well, I'm back." If they end abruptly after the destruction of the Ring, it's going to suck.
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.
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.
by the beginning of ROTK. I'm not sure that he has any role in the story at all until after the final battle with Sauron is already over. I believe that the original poster overstated his importance to the plot.
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..
Multiple news sources just confirmed that Aragorn has been completely cut from `Return of the King'. Now, I have complete faith in Peter Jackson as filmmaker, and the 60 minutes of deleted footage will return in next year's RotK special edition DVD release. But, this does bring the theatrical release running time down to a more manageable 241 minutes. Rumour has it that the film contains 78 minutes of scenes not in the book involving Liv Tyler, some of which detail a surprising romantic relationship between the she-elf and Sauron. (Oops! Sorry about the spoiler!)
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
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...
Symphonie Fantastique was composed by Berlioz, based on an opium-induced nightmare. It's successes like that which convince me I need to take more drugs.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
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"
Next, I'd pretty much figured that they'd put her in the third film, since they were pretty much locked into it once Gollum did his soliloqy/agrument-with-self about giving the hobbits to "her".
The problem I have with that is that, to put Shelob in ROTK, they'll have to leave out even more stuff from the actual ROTK *book* than they would have left out otherwise. It's like they're running a deficit and they're borrowing film frames from the next movie.
I don't know how they're going to fix this without spilling into *another* movie. Good heavens... if we get ROTK:Reloaded and ROTK:Revolutions I'm gonna hurt somebody.
And... for the record, I'm pretty miffed that they left out Tom Bombadill. If I had read the book in print, I probably would have gotten pretty bored. Instead, I listened to the unabridged audiobook with Robert Inglis, and I think he really made Tom a pretty fun character to imagine.
But... oh well. Based on how badly most films stray from their original books, I figure we should just be thankful they left in that Gandalf guy.... and that sub-plot about that "one ring" and all.
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!!!
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."
This doesn't exactly peg Gandalf as Olorin, though a connection seems likely, as Gandalf is mentioned many times as having much pity upon others. However, in The Two Towers, Gandalf mentions once having the name Olorin. Finally, in one of Tolkien's letters that were later published (I can't remember if that one was in the collection compiled by Humphrey Carpenter or not) he explicitly states that the two were one and the same.
(Hmm... from the preview it seems that accented characters are converted to the "normal" versions and entities don't work. Poop.)
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."
>>It's not like we've forgotten that you once burned Washington :)
really? I didn't think they taught that in american schools...
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.
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