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."

Comments

Key component?

[freeweed]

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 :)

Re:Key component?

[mcb]

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).

Re:Key component?

[Suicyco]

What appeared in frodo's vision isn't anything from the scouring of the shire, nor was it in Sams vision in the book. The visions they had were of after the shire had already been corrupted and turned to industry, Sauron had retrieved the ring in those visions. That hadn't happened in the scouring, there were no orcs in the shire, just men at that time.

Re:Key component?

[the_mad_poster]

A trolling AC posted:

And you are from which country now? I'm sure I can dig up something...

JonMartin posted:

Okay, I'll bite: Canada.

Ouch.... that's easy. Canada's to blame for EVERYTHING. Cripes... you nuts can't even tell bacon from ham and you eat snails and live in igloos.

Crazy penguins.

Re:Key component?

[dfj225]

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.

Re:Key component?

[Dachannien]

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.

I never expected to see anything from book 6

[Megor1]

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.

Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6

[WatertonMan]

a) ROTK, the book, is a bit shorter than the others

No, no, no. It just has endless appendices (sp?) that no one reads.

I hear that the SSE (super-super-extended) version has these, the scouring of the shire, and Bombadil in. Yes, the endless genealogy tables are there, read by Ian McKellan. So for those of you who tremble when you hear your preacher read the genealogies in the Book of Numbers, now you can be relieved to know that the full edition of Lord of the Rings is here. Yeah it drags in a few places and putting every damn song in a foreign language back in seems an odd directorial choice. But it's there.

Be happy.

Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6

[Alienation Capitalis]

The problem with these movies is that while they do a good job of captuing all the action and adventure of the books, they have sacrificed the greater underlying epic themes. This is the end of the third age, the Elves have finally decided to abandon the world they share with the other races. The greatest of the Elvish powers are destroyed with the one ring, and with that they loose their havens of Lothlorien and rivendell.

The greatness of the men of Numenor which was gained from association with the elves of the Blessed Relm (Noldor etc.) is fading, and Aragorn is just a distant echo of how great they were. Soon all in Middle Earth will loose its direct associations the Blessed Relm.

This massive change is underlying all that is going on, giving a bitter-sweet taste of loss to the story. The scouring of the Shire is central to this. The Hobbits must learn to stand without the protection of the Valor and those who undertake their works. Every thing Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin go through leads to this point. They return from death and fire with the maturity to save themselves without help from those wiser and greater.

To leave the scouring of the shire out of the movies, while logical from a film making standpoint (expecially given how the films have to the story to this point) is a tragic ommission, and really amplifies the sacrafices that have been made to the story in order to make the movies. While I personally enjoyed the movies I could not help but cringe when Aragorn behaves like a thug towards Frodo when meeting him, when Arwen replaces Glorfindel at the river, when Gandalf hugs Frodo or when Faramir takes Frodo out of his caves as a prisoner.

And what the hell were those elves doing at helm's Deep??

The BBC radio play does a much better job of telling the story. Check it out some time.

Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6

[drfireman]

It's easy to mistakenly believe that anyone who criticized a divergence from the books thinks movies (or at least these movies) should be literal translations of the original sources. I think that far more often, the criticism is simply that among the enormous numer of translation decisions the filmmaker has to make, one or two were errors. I have zero knowledge of filmmaking, but it only takes a miniscule bit of common sense to appreciate that books can't generally be made into films by 1:1 translation.

I think Peter Jackson overall has exhibited a mind bogglingly deft touch in adapting material to which many people feel very close. But legitimate criticism is possible, even if there's no obvious way to solve certain problems. It's hard to believe Jackson doesn't himself have some reservations about the various cuts of the films. But you can't tinker forever, and you can't go back and work material into movies that have already been released.

In this case, I suspect if he could go back and adjust things a bit, he'd find a way to squeeze the confrontation scene into the second movie, at least into the extended version. It has a worthwhile dramatic impact in the book, and it can be included while still omitting the later shire scenes. It facilitates a potentially very cinematic scene later with the palantir, and gives both Lee and Dourif more screen time. Functionally, it brings Saruman's role in the movie to what feels to me like a more decisive (or at least more personal) end. I can imagine places for cuts, too, but that's another discussion.

Given the fact

[Anonymous Coward]

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?"

Maybe this is because . . .

[EmCeeHawking]

. . . SCO threatened to sue New Line Cinema over unlicensed depictions of their proprietary method of using evil to dominate the world.

Re:Maybe this is because . . .

[Blue Master]

I thought Microsoft had prior art on that one...

Saruman who, again? :)

[isomeme]

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.

For the masses, for the geeks.

[Hi_2k]

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...

Jackson

[cowsgomoo666]

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

Sources

[Jon Abbott]

Multiple News Sources report that Christopher Lee's Character Saurman will not appear in the LOTR: ROTK at all.

Would one of these "multiple sources" be the latest movie leak on Kazaa? :^)

It will be on the DVD

[Gyan]

Here's Peter Jackson's take on it

Re:No Sharky, eh?

[SoVeryWrong]

Scouring of the Shire has been out for a while...
The part they're talking about is when Gandalf goes to Isengard and breaks Saruman's staff. That's gone from the theatrical release (which really should have been at the end of TTT, but wasn't).

What would they have done with him anyhow?

[devphil]

The article links are already /.ed to hell and back, but this doesn't really strike me as a surprise. (book spolier) Normally, Saruman gets kicked out of Isengard, then travels northwest to make life miserable for the Shire, which the hobbits then have to scour on their own.

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.

Re:What would they have done with him anyhow?

[willtsmith]

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.

Ok, none of those articles is the source

[JayBlalock]

This article at Ain't It Cool is where Jackson talks about it, which I'll go on mirror here since AICN's servers have been so touchy lately: (an e-mail from PJ to Harry Knowles)

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.

Re:WTF!

[bman08]

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?

Resolution given in "The Two Towers"

[psiphiorg]

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

Jackson will likely pull it off

[Mr. Flibble]

To everyone currently bitching on /. :

Everyone on /. was up in arms because Arwen replaced Glorfindel, prior to the release of the first movie (Myself included).

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?

Re:Jackson will likely pull it off

[banzai75]

Think about it - do you believe more or fewer people are reading the books now that the first 2 films are out?

I stopped reading after the elves never showed up at Helm's Deep. Who is the Tolkien guy and how dare he mess with a Peter Jackson classic film?

His action figure didn't sell well...

[Denver_80203]

bummer

Oh, I thought you said Sauron

[raider_red]

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.

Re:Oh, I thought you said Sauron

[Altima(BoB)]

"That's no ordinary Dark Lord! It's a viscious eyeball Dark Lord with big pointy teeth..."

And upon Gandalf's return, he shall introduce himself as "Tim."

Gandalf: "You shall not pass! Until you answer me these questions three, what is your name?"
Balrog: "I am a demon of the old gods, the balrog."
Gandalf: "What is your quest?"
Balrog: "I seek to crush your fellowship and burn them.
Gandalf: "What is your favorite color?"
Balrog: "Flame orange! No, blue - AAAEEEIIIII!!!!!!"

There are lots of possibilities, I could go on but then I'd just drive it into the ground.

Re:Is it just me...

[CrowScape]

Plus the SE of the first included free movie tickets to the second. I thought that was a damn good deal, and I used them. Here's hoping the SE of the 2nd does the same!

Re:Is it just me...

[Clock Nova]

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.

I'm a pleb I guess

[eamonman]

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.

You haven't heard the worst of it yet...

[ayjay29]

I'm not too worried about Saruman being cut, it's the addition of this character that scares me.

All hardcore fans will buy the DVD anyway...

[addie]

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.

Re:Nonsense...

[Stormie]

Are they going to completely erase the Shire portion? That would be madness indeed.

Yes, they are going to completely erase the scouring of the Shire, as they have said in every goddamn interview for the last three goddamn years. Christ, Slashdot today is like the Young Ones. "Oh, have we got a video!?"

Re:Is it just me...

[emarkp]

You insightful post is actually wrong. Jackson has said he's not been under any pressure from the studio. See here for more info.

DVD conspiracy...

[HonkyLips]

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.

You're right...

[WTFmonkey]

... but only if you actually take a deeper-than-surface look at what's going on.

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..

This just in!

[ThisIsFred]

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!)

Storyline discussions

[jdifool]

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

Re:7200 Series Only!

[YetAnotherDave]

>>It's not like we've forgotten that you once burned Washington :)

really? I didn't think they taught that in american schools...

Re:WTF!

[kramer2718]

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.