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."
Is it just me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Kjella
I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:5, Interesting)
No Sharky, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Saruman who, again? :) (Score:5, Interesting)
I boycott the MPAA! What about you?! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
does the time saved really matter? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Key component? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about you but... (Score:4, Interesting)
And yes, I agree, Lee is a great Saruman.
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
MAJOR SPOILER (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Key component? (Score:2, Interesting)
Folks, Jackson had to cut the movie down from 4+ hours to 3:12 + 8 minutes of credits. Something had to go.
DVD conspiracy... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sorry Saruman got cut (Score:2, Interesting)
drunk and pissed off (Score:2, Interesting)
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
--
Unbearable Sadness (Score:3, Interesting)
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".
Re:WTF! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The book has four endings. (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:What would they have done with him anyhow? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Storyline discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
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:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Storyline discussions (Score:2, Interesting)
Between Arwen and Elrond, I think that there is no sacrifice of the entire elven people. It's just about Arwen and Aragorn. Elves are fleeing Middle-Earth, as they fled already during part of the Third Age, and even before when they entrenched in Nargothrond.
Aragorn and Eowyn just look like Santa Barbara. Eowyn in the book is much more like a warrior with a thin skin of a lover ; not a lover that can handle a sword with the force of love.
I agree with the Boromir/Aragorn conversation. Of course it wasn't in the book, and PJ may have been, as many readers, frustrated not to have any verbal explanation about Boromir's failure. He did it well.
In my opinion, Isengard scenes are so useless ("will burn in the fire of industry" pfff), just to see zombie-like creatures to spawn out of fucking nasty cocoon. It's ok, nothing to see, move on. Saruman, again is important, because he defines what is Gandalf, not because it has any importance in the storyline. This is *all* about Sauron.
About Saruman being cut, no problem for me, except for the palantir. The palantir is fucking important.
And eventually about the changes on characters, fucking shame.
Of course this only involves my personal point of view on the book. I've seen some of friends interpretating the story between Frodo/Sam as a gay come out...
Regards,
Jdif
Sauruman's defeat in TT was not shown (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:3, Interesting)
The only change that's REALY irked me so far (although this C. Lee news is not great) has been Faramir dragging Frodo back to Osgiliath. (Again, the ring's evil is amplified) That strikes me as a fundamental shift in his nature. Apparently they did that to give Faramir's character more of a "journey". (They seem to want that for all the characters.. which perhaps helps explain early Aragorn's "thug" behaviour as you describe)
They are really going for satisfying cinematic experience, not perfect novel plot accuracy... although no expense has been spared at making all the details of Middle Earth authentic. Personally I've been more than thrilled with the job they've done so far, and have tremendous faith that I will love their treatment of RotK. It's a pity about Mr. Lee though, he's obviously quite upset about it, and I don't blame him. You'd think they could find a few minutes for the palantir encounter.