Saruman Completely Cut from 'Return of the King' 979
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."
Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadley Yes, this was said ages ago (I think perhaps somewhere on the 1st Special Eddition DVD)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not too difficult to do, since it's not even out yet!
how can the cut Saruman? (Score:2, Insightful)
For the masses, for the geeks. (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (Score:2, Insightful)
Movies that seem to get shittier and shittier with each ass rape of the plot, story line, and concept.
What would they have done with him anyhow? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Resolution given in "The Two Towers" (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Saruman who, again? :) (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
He didn't have a big part (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
All hardcore fans will buy the DVD anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [darkhorizons.com]. THAT is kind of sad, if you ask me.
Re:Peter's Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Key component? (Score:1, Insightful)
Just arguing for fun (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jackson will likely pull it off (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Key component? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
The book has four endings. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll reserve judgment on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What would they have done with him anyhow? (Score:3, Insightful)
All in all I can understand cutting the scouring. I don't like it and never will seeing as the first two were so succesfull in avoiding the cut of any major plot lines ( with the arguable exception of Bombadill ) but I understand the pacing issues that would be involved in the long wrap up and in some ways unsatisfying return to a spoiled Hobbiton... But in the end leaving it out seems to me like running the marathon only to quit with the finish line in sight because it is so dreadfully difficult and your almost there anyway. To the millions enjoying the epic tale being unfolded for the first time the lack of the scouring will likely be a victimless crime as ignorance is bliss. Many will or would undoubtebly thank Jackson for its absence as it is likely to make the ending more 'liked' and certainly more decisive. However, to the other Millions already familiar with the tale it will make the whole adventure seem unfinished, a broken masterpiece, a magnificent Marathon run that came up one mile short and that is a pity. book
I havn't given up hope. Jackson has already far and away surpassed my expectations and if the release cut it unsatisfactory its entirly possible the EE will make up for it so there will be no telling for certain until its relase. As the old saying goes, "in a year many things can happen, the king could die, I could die, or the Ass could learn to speak". The first two give me reasonable hope that "the ass will speak". If not then it has still be an enjoyable ride anyway and I will always be gratefull someone at least tried to do it right when there were so many possible ways to do it wrong.
Re:I can't imagine that (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:He didn't have a big part (Score:3, Insightful)
What I can't figure out is why they would cut the breaking of Saruman's staff and Frodo on the Stairs to Cirith Ungol, and then waste 5 minutes in that completely unnecessary sequence with Aragorn falling into the river and another 5 minutes dragging Frodo to Osgiliath--neither of which add a damn thing to the story and don't occur in the book! They don't even add to character development; the whole Osgiliath thing actually takes the development of Frodo and Faramir in a completely wrong direction. The Two Towers was a slow book with really only three major events happening: The awakening of Rohan, the Fall of Saruman, and Frodo entering Mordor. Somehow, they managed to miss two of those, but I had assumed they were going to use them in the third movie.
Looks like they may have screwed it up after all...
Re:Storyline discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Key component? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:meh (Score:2, Insightful)
That makes absolutly no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Key component? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Key component? (Score:2, Insightful)
That is totally the upper limit of how much time most people can stand wactching a movie in theaters.
Re:Key component? (Score:2, Insightful)