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."
Snob???? (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Key component? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say he was only been a key compnent in two movies, now
Re:Key component? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Key component? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Funny)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, and those bastards killed Kenny, too.
Oh...
Re:7200 Series Only! (Score:5, Funny)
really? I didn't think they taught that in american schools...
Re:Key component? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary, r
Re:Key component? (Score:4, Funny)
Is it just me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Kjella
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not too difficult to do, since it's not even out yet!
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 e
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:3, Informative)
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 specia
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.
I don't know about you but... (Score:4, Interesting)
And yes, I agree, Lee is a great Saruman.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:4, Informative)
Please don't spread FUD.
I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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
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, Funny)
Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (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.
Given the fact (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Given the fact (Score:2)
I recently took a programming class at NYU. The class was pretty evenly divided between older and younger students. By some strange roundabout of discussion the topic of Star Trek came up. Of the several people who were under 20 not a single one had ANY idea what the fuck we were talking about. They were all like "Star Trek? What's that?" I was literally astounded, simply blown away by that.
Sign the petition (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sign the petition (Score:2)
I've never understood the point of starting petitions that don't have even the slightest chance of having any effect.
No Sharky, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Sharky, eh? (Score:4, Informative)
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).
Peter Jackson has lost the Tao. (Score:2, Informative)
Remeber that he made a movie about not beliving your own bullshit called "Heavenly Creatures" which makes it not the least bit ironic.
Maybe this is because . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Maybe this is because . . . (Score:5, Funny)
how can the cut Saruman? (Score:2, Insightful)
Saruman who, again? :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Saruman who, again? :) (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, I thought you said Sauron (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, I thought you said Sauron (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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...
I'm a pleb I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For the masses, for the geeks. (Score:3, Informative)
The last two Matrix films? Marketting ploy. Star Wars...no
Jackson (Score:5, Informative)
How old are you? (Score:2)
Slashdot must be excepting atricles from 8 year olds
I have to say 8, because my neighbor's 9 year old has been trudging through the books this summer. She's finishing the third (well, 5 & 6
Sources (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sources (Score:2)
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.
It will be on the DVD (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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 boo
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ending the Series Right (rather than "accurately") (Score:3, Informative)
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 se
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: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 l
Goddamit (Score:2)
It won't be for budget reasons - they've already made it!
I can't believe it's for artistic/plot reasons, it is in the book...
So, it's because then we'll all buy the SE DVD, and they'll make more money.
Oh. That's a surprise.
Sheesh.
Simon.
Ok, none of those articles is the source (Score:5, Informative)
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.
figures .. (Score:2)
The Lord of the Rings: Revolutions.
?
This is really annoying (Score:2)
Re:This is really annoying (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I heard an interview with Christopher Lee... (Score:2)
One.. (Score:2)
Ack I can't think of a good finish. I just wanted to get this joke out of the way early. In typical Slashdot fashion, I anticipate 10 more like it in 5..4..3.....
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:Jackson will likely pull it off (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:Jackson will likely pull it off (Score:3, Insightful)
His action figure didn't sell well... (Score:5, Funny)
Plausible (Score:2)
In a way, taking Saruman out of the ending gives for a happier ending. He's a piece of the old evil. Making it seem as if that was thoroughly crushed at an earlier point makes the final victory more of a mopping up action than a co
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
Re:Nonsense... (Score:5, Funny)
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!?"
It's been awhile since I read them... (Score:2)
Peter's Choice (Score:2)
I understand and respect his choice, and I no doubt will still love watching Return of the King in the theater. However, I can't help think that perhaps he should have seen this comming and resolved Saruman's involvment at the end of the Two Towers. Oh well.
Link to the Knowles Ema [aintitcoolnews.com]
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
More than he got in the book (Score:2)
Saruman gets perhaps less than seven minutes of "screentime" in the book itself. Saruman is dealt with in a nearly self-contained story after the resolution of the war with Sauron. Nearly, because you can't understand the motives of some characters or the rather un-hobbity behavior of some particular hobbits without Lord of the Rings.
I wouldn't be surprised if the entire story were cut out for time, and the flow of the movie. It was hinted at in Fellowship, but also dismissed, possibly as a test of des
You haven't heard the worst of it yet... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not too worried about Saruman being cut, it's the addition of this character [bbspot.com] that scares me.
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.
Here's how to show 'em! (Score:4, Funny)
That way I'll get the best seat...and I won't have to wait in line!
-h-
DVD conspiracy... (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
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:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (Score:2)
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: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.
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 Si
Re:WTF! (Score:4, Informative)
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: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:WTF! (Score:3, Informative)
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 Mi
Re:WTF! (Score:2, Informative)
MAJOR SPOILER (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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 c
Re:I'm not going to watch the ROTK (Score:2)
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..
Re:meh (Score:4, Funny)
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.