Saruman/Grima Out???

[HCIsland]

This is bound to stir up a hornets' nest and personally, I'm not sure I'm reading to buy it but it is a source of concern.<P>This is an e-mail from PJ himself at <A HREF="http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16462" TARGET=_blank>Ain't It Cool News</A>.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saruman thing you describe is a muddle of half-truths. <P>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. <P>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. <P>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. <P>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. <P>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. <P>Cheers, <P>Peter J <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The problem is, the argument makes sense. The biggest issue I see has to do with the Palantir, but likely something lame could be invented to get it into Gandalf's hands.<P>H.C.

[Sleepy Ranger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The biggest issue I see has to do with the Palantir, but likely something lame could be invented to get it into Gandalf's hands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Perhaps Theoden gives it to Gndalf saying Grima left this behind? It is pretty much the same as Grima throwing it outta Orthanc.

[ainur]

Disturbing indeed. I was looking forward to it, though, as you say, the arguments make sense.<P>As for the Palantir, Pippin can no doubt find it among the wreckage to establish its return just as easily as Grima throwing it out the window.<P>It's all a pity, though.

[Morquesse]

I'm pretty okay with it, exept for two things:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The problem is, the argument makes sense. The biggest issue I see has to do with the Palantir, but likely something lame could be invented to get it into Gandalf's hands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Quite likely, or they'll just have Gandalf magically have the orb, like his loss and regaining of his staff in FotR. <P>The second thing is:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know it's more likely, but I wanted the extra 31 minutes, not 8. <BR>See you later!<BR>~M

[HCIsland]

Well, I've come to accept this is legit. As I mentioned before, the reasoning is sound and many of us were guessing that The Voice of Saruman chapter was going to be problematic no matter how it was dealt with.<P>I'm more disappointed about my curiousity not being sated for another year as to how they were going to do this scene as opposed to being bummed about missing a scene I was truly looking forward to.<P>H.C.

[Elvish Archer]

Out of curiosity, in the books, Pippin picks up the Palantir just before it rolls into the water. That's how all his trouble started. Hows that dynamic gonna work w/o this scene?

[The Ninth Valar]

Him finding it in the wreckage is as good an idea as any. Perhaps they filmed a scene where Gandalf picks it up off the ground and placing it in a blanket, a little quick shot with Pippin looking on, intrigued. This leads to him looking at it at night. <P>I wonder as well how they'd handle it. Maybe they'll put an even shorter version (less than 7min) it back in at the last minute, before the prints go out, finding it adding a sense of closure for Sauruman, albeit brief. We could come in mid-speech with Gandalf...:<P>Wide shot of Orthanc with dialogue over it, cut to Gandalf at the stairs, Sauruman rambling, the palantir on the ground. Then Grima rushes forward and pitches his master over the edge in a mad frenzy, being downed himself by an archer. The old man dies of the fall, gets impaled, blah blah blah, and Pippin picks the palantir off the ground only to have Gandalf take it away. You could do that in three minutes, if you join the scene en medias res.

[Essex]

My bigest pity from this is we will not see Lee's attempt to 'act them all off the stage' with his performance at orthanc. this really could have put him up for a shot at best supporting actor at the oscars, but now, with the most used excuse for these 3 films, it has been removed becuase of 'pacing'. when will jackson realise that pacing is not a great problem in these films? oh, hang on, never, coz he's finished them!

[Northman]

If they cut out the Isengard sequence, how will pippin and merry rejoin everyone else?

[HCIsland]

Actually, I would consider pacing one of the greatest obstacles PJ had to face. Us Ringnuts would be pleased with just scene after scene out of the book, but everyone else would just be checking their watches and wondering when they can go home.<P>Pacing is important.<P>H.C.

[The Ninth Valar]

A brief bit of dialogue ("Ah, Theoden, here are two of my diminuitive charges picked up outside Isengard/sent down by the ents after the sack of Isengard. Care to make a pet of one?) explains it all.

[Finwe]

Well, I'm sure that PJ has reasons for doing what he did. I mean, he made sense to me. I can see why he wouldn't want to put much of the Isengard scene at the beginning of RotK because it would make it seem like a continuation of TTT, not a further development of the overall story. It would become a continuation of the second "chapter," and wouldn't let it develop into the third "chapter."

[The Only Real Estel]

I really don't think it's a good idea to leave the audience guessing. Either:<BR>#1-The movie-goers will be wondering where in all this mess Saruman is & what he's up to (I know I would if I hadn't read the books).<BR> -or-<BR>#2-PJ will allude to Saruman's death (likely), which will make people want to see it, & wonder how it happened. I <I>still</I> don't see an un-lame way that PJ can get the Palantir into the hands or Gandalf, Aragorn, <B>Pippin</B>, & co. without it coming out strangly. He can get it done, but I wonder if he will...I just think there was probably an oppurtunity to stick it into RotK, not to early but not to late.

[The Saucepan Man]

This actually quite upsets me.<P>I can understand why they do not want to make too much of Saruman, given that he will not feature much in the final film. But he has been a big part of the first two. Some resolution of his role would, to my mind, have been in order. And Wormtongue, too, although less so. Non-Book viewers will be left wondering what happened to that guy who was the major villain in the last two films.<P>I would have thought that "the Voice of Saruman" could be dealt with fairly briefly at the beginning of the film. And it does leave whatever device they may use for getting the Palantir into Gandalf's (and Pippin's) hands fairly weak (particularly if they are going to work these scenes back into the Extended Version).<P>Saruman is a big part of the trilogy (of films) and he should be given a suitable send-off. I can understand the omission of the Scouring, so this is the first big disappointment of RotK for me. But, I suppose it's best to get the disappointment out of the way before taking my seat in the cinema.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But, I suppose it's best to get the disappointment out of the way before taking my seat in the cinema. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's getting excedingly harder to put these 'desappointments' away, though. I can do it, but they'll still re-surface once the movie is under way, I know that for sure .

[Arwen1858]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Perhaps they filmed a scene where Gandalf picks it up off the ground and placing it in a blanket, a little quick shot with Pippin looking on, intrigued. This leads to him looking at it at night. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>But that wouldn't be the same. I think Pippin needs to pick it up. That's what got his curiosity going the most. I think they should show him find it and pick it up first, then maybe Gandalf take it away. Especially in the movie, so they could show Pippin feeling drawn to it a bit. And I really wish they would show his death! The audience will want to know exactly what happened. Who wouldn't want to see the villain they've been following for 2 movies die?? How can you not show the villains death?

[Gorwingel]

I don't know what to think of this. Part of me thinks it is okay, but the other is quite worried. I am actually worried about what the non-book people are going to think. They did make quite a deal about Saruman for TTT (he is the one and only charater on one of the theatrical posters), so I do think that some people are going to wonder what happened to him. I hope they at least say that he was killed so people don't think that he is just sitting in Orthanc doing nothing.

[The Ninth Valar]

Ah, think of it this way. <P>Where do we see Saruman last? Amid the wreck of the Ring of Isengard, fearful and frantic. Perhaps we can assume he has been dealt with by the ents and is no more; they seem capable of dispatching him. <P>Or maybe when Pippin picks up the palantir, there will be a group of archers at the stairs, a slumped Grima over the railing of the balcony and Saruman lying broken and dead on the steps/wheel/machinery. <P>I really think there will be a small reference where Jackson will leave the audience, trusting them in this, to assume Saruman has died or been otherwise handled. Given the end of TTT, this is a reasonable assumption.

[HCIsland]

Just on the whole confusing the audience thing, on another board where a number of the posters haven't read the books, we are getting threads like: what's this deal with Saruman being cut? I thought he was dead. I really don't think this will cause confusion for the non-book audience.<P>As for the scene being cut, I have mixed feelings. Like everyone, I was really looking forward to Christopher Lee doing the Voice of Saruman. This was the time for the audience to really see the workings of this guys mind. At the same time I knew they would be rushed with this. Then I'm hearing rumours of Legolas shooting an arrow past a laughing Wormtongue, the arrow arching in the air and coming down through the back of Wormy's skull. This didn't exactly fill me with anticipation.<P>I know multiple deaths were shot for these characters (likely in anticipation of the problems this scene was going to create). The good side of this is that without the same pacing presures on the DVD, we are far more likely to get a satisfying scene out of this in the end. I would rather wait a year for it to be done right than to see a hack job squeezed into the film just so Jackson feels he's getting that base covered.<P>H.C.

[Olorin_TLA]

***SPOILERS!!!!***<P>But why ride to Isnegard if Saru's not doing anything?<P>MAYBE (this is the only gleam of hope) they meant that they cut out Grima killing Saru.<P>If they cut out Isengard, it's $%&%*(%£&^ed up. Firstly, "***?! Where is Saruman?! THis film is confusing!" THat's one reaction that'll appear, and put a damper on the film. Secondly, how do Merry and Pippin appear?<BR>Thirdly, since the Treegarth of Orthanc won't amke it if this won't, the Ents will also seems to "disappear" in RotK (a distasteful phenomenon which happened to an extent to Sauron and Sarumna (personally) in TTT). Which would seem pathetic to viewers.<BR>Also: how do they know Gondor's in trouble? Ok, so they guess, for instance, that Sauron will attack Godnor. But they don't know. NO reason (speed) to take Paths of Dead, NO tension in Ride of the Rohirrim...not even Aragorn's challenge to Sauron in the plantír which explains his too-hasty attack (they cut loads of stuff like this to dumb the films down, and it suffers noticably for it because it make them seem stupid).<P><BR>This sucks.

[HCIsland]

No one has said all the Isengard scenes are gone.<P>They still will go to Isengard to check on Saruman and find Merry and Pippin there. What happens next is anyone's guess. It has been suggested that they simply find Saruman's body and the palantir in the rubble and will let the audience make their own conclusions, but obviously this is guess work.<P>Somehow, Merry and Pippin will be reunited with Gandalf, Aragorn and company and the palantir will end up in their hands. That's pretty much fact, so after that point the film can progress as normal.<P>How well this all works really cannot be judged until we've seen the film.<P>H.C.

[Lyta_Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Or maybe when Pippin picks up the palantir, there will be a group of archers at the stairs, a slumped Grima over the railing of the balcony and Saruman lying broken and dead on the steps/wheel/machinery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or perhaps Grima's killing of Saruman will be implied and Pippin will be scavenging the ruins and find Saruman dead, palantir in hand. He'll remove said palantir and see Grima overhead in Orthanc, looking down at the scene...of course this begs the question of where are the archers...Pippin could be scavenging when they arrive.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>NO reason (speed) to take Paths of Dead, NO tension in Ride of the Rohirrim...not even Aragorn's challenge to Sauron in the plantír which explains his too-hasty attack (they cut loads of stuff like this to dumb the films down, and it suffers noticably for it because it make them seem stupid).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I suppose this tension depends on when and "where" Aragorn looks into the palantir. It appears from some of the preliminary photos, that Pippin steals it at Edoras. Sauron assumes the scene is at Orthanc, due to the palantir's presence, and that perhaps the halfling Ringbearer has been captured. This would speed up Sauron's efforts in itself. Right after that (I hope they don't wait too long!), Aragorn looks into the palantir and Sauron fears the Ring is in his hands and he means to challenge him. Aragorn made himself known to Sauron as Isildur's heir and shows him Anduril, thus validating the claim. This speeds up the need to strike at Gondor, and quickly, before Aragorn can get from "Orthanc" to Minas Tirith with his "army," before the Rohirrim can be mustered to help, etc.! I hope that makes sense. I can see it working, but yes, it will be rushed and a lot left out. Maybe the Paths of the Dead is just the quickest way to raise an army that hasn't been recently decimated (Helm's Deep). I'll judge when I see!<P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Right after that (I hope they don't wait too long!), Aragorn looks into the palantir and Sauron fears the Ring is in his hands and he means to challenge him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm 90% sure Aragorn will not be looking into the Palantir until after the Battle of Pelennor Fields. <P>In the films, Aragorn is still not sure he wants to take on the mantle of leadership and I believe that PJ will be using the Paths of the Dead as Aragorns trial and rebirth. It doesn't make sense for Aragorn to challenge Sauron until he is prepared to be King.<P>H.C.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Or perhaps Grima's killing of Saruman will be implied <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It will probably be implied, but that doesn't help it a whole lot :/.

[Lyta_Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It doesn't make sense for Aragorn to challenge Sauron until he is prepared to be King.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You're right, <B>HC</B>, I had forgotten about the "indecisive Aragorn" of the films. It will be interesting to see how the Paths of the Dead affect him. I wonder if it will be a dramatization of the complete humbling effect that Gimli described after the fact. Again, we'll see!<P>Perhaps, also, since the Aragorn palantir episode is not supposed to happen until after Pelennor Fields (?), the tension is created simply by Mordor being on schedule for an attack on Gondor and Aragorn trying to muster help, the Rohirrim trying to recover and get to the battle and all. I'm not sure I like the sequence of Aragorn's development, but I imagine PJ will make it work logically, at least! Maybe there is some hint of the Ring going to Gondor when the "indecisive Nazgul" that waved 'Hi!' to Frodo in TTT reports back...I must say I'm pretty clueless though! Just enjoy speculating out loud!<P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I really don't think this will cause confusion for the non-book audience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Really, HC? Do you not think that people will feel cheated at not seeing the major villain of a large part of the two previous films getting his come-uppance? Whatever might be said in forums, I really think that this will rankle with audiences when they see it played out on the screen.<P>To me, if this is true, it will be Jackson's biggest mistake of the trilogy so far.

[The Ninth Valar]

I don't think the average moviegoer will even know there WAS a Saruman/Grima scene cut out. Probably less than 10% of the viewing audience - I'd wager less than 5% - even read online movie news. <P>They won't know, won't care and will love the movie just fine.

[Gorwingel]

Well TheOneRing.net just posted this little thing<BR><A HREF="http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1068347495" TARGET=_blank>TheOneRing.net</A><P>It is from Empire magazine who had a short interview with one of the hobbit extras during reshoots. He talks about how he has played all these different peoples of Middle Earth in the movie, including a hobbit. It then goes on to say that they are interviewing him during lunch and he is about to go back to film a "Shire Party Scene" for the end of the movie.<P>The person who sent this in then goes on to speculate that maybe they are making a last minute change to kill of Saurman in the Shire (like the Scouring) at the party. <P>Now this is all pure speculation, and I doubt that it would be true. But, who knows?

[Olorin_TLA]

NinthValar, they won't know it was cut out, but they'll be wondering what the hell happened to the main bad guy for the past 6 hours, and this will leave a bitter taste in their mouths!

[HCIsland]

Just as a test, my wife went over to a friend's house and asked her, "what happened to Saruman at the end of the last movie?"<P>"Didn't he die?"<P>If they show Saruman's corpse at the foot of Orthanc, especially with the palantir nearby, folks will assume he leeped to his death in despair. I know this is a gross simplification of what is supposed to happen, but I doubt it will cause confusion with anyone who hasn't read the book. 90% of the audience will swallow this and move on.<P>As for the secret party scene, don't you think it's a bit of a stretch that a pick-up shot last July means that Saruman's death will now take place at the Shire? Talk about clutching at straws. <P>Likely the party scene has more to do with showing the detachment of Frodo than with anything else. It actually will form a nice contrast with Bilbo's party at the beginning of Fellowship where Frodo was in the middle of it enjoying himself.<P>Editted to add: The removal of a great scene in order to improve the flow of a film is not that uncommon, it's just most of the time we never hear of it. There is a great discussion with Ron Shelton on the director's commentary on the Bull Durham DVD where he describes what he felt was the best scene in the movie. He said that Susan Sarandon was absolutely brilliant and that it was a real show stopper. He cut it because of the fact that it was so strong that it disrupted the flow of the rest of the film which ultimately wasn't about Sarandon's character but Costner's.<P>The truly sad thing is the scene is gone. Once it hit the cutting room floor it was never to be seen again. I think perhaps we should be thankful for the presence of this extended edition format.<P>A film is not simply a sum of it's parts and often it is made stronger through deletion, even of a strong scene. PJ is the one with the rough cut infront of him, not us. If he feels the film is stronger with the scene out, then I for one am not in a position to doubt that.<P>H.C.<p>[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Olorin_TLA]

Yep, Saruman's presence would mean No Parties (Rule 198 of THE RULES.)<P>Oh, here's a petition. Hopefully it might at least wake PJ up. At worst it's not like it harms you to sign it. <A HREF="http://www.petitiononline.com/smanrotk/petition.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.petitiononline.com/smanrotk/petition.html</A>

[LePetitChoux]

It surprises me that everybody here has taken this seriously.<BR>I mean, this isn't a NewLine endorsed website, it has <i>nothing</i> to do with LotR, and there is absolutely <i>no</i> proof whatsoever that this is a genuine document. In fact, I would say this was most certainly <i>not</i> real. Would Harry Whatchamacallim really use that kind of language? He may do in private conversations, but he wouldn't in something as public as this. Also, this is him <i>showing a private email</i> of Peter Jackson's o the entire world, when new line have been so secretive all this time. The even made tORn remove a picture of the hobbits in armour in what is presumably the Shire, with just grass as a backdrop. They wouldn't give out such an important, revealing letter. Hey, we even had a member who said he was PJ when the downs first started out, it's not that difficult to do a well-written fake. I think that PJ would <i>never</i> cut the Saruman scene out (he went as far as to change it from throat-slitting to machine-impalement, he wouldn't put the final straw on Bill the Pony's back. (hehe)<BR>That's what I think, anyway.

[jonathan32]

I hope it's not true. tghis was one of my favorite scenes from the book and I don't see how it would hurt the flow of the movie at all seven minutes is not that long a time to resolve what happens to the villian of two three hour films! They could even do it in less, as an intro scene, such as they have had in both films before the title comes up (Galadriel's back history and Frodo's flashback in TTT). Those were both a few minutes long, and I think if they opened the movie with Gandalf and Saruaman on the steps already in conversation ...they could end this intro with the death of Sauraman and/or the throwing of the planitir and show a cloesup of the plainitir on the steps with the title "The Return of the King" over it. It would be similar in my mind to the "teasers" they used to have in the James Bond movies ... a well respected cinematic device which would not interfere with the "flow" of the movie at all. it would start the movie with a dramatic moment, rather than another redundant shot of Sam and Frodo trudging along towards Mordor and it would explain to everyone in five minutes or so what really happened at Isengard. And it would put the planitir, which is so important to this episode right up front and focus attention on it. I just don't buy that the flow of this movie would be hurt by wrapping up Sauraman ... especially when the second movie started with a flashback of a scene from the middle of the first, and was filled with unneeded flashbacks to Aragorn and Arwen in the middle of the movie. Please excuse my spelling, I've had five beers tonight, but I think that excluding what was probably one of the MOST filmable scenes in the books is a big mistake and it makes me sad.

[Olorin_TLA]

"It surprises me that everybody here has taken this seriously.<BR>I mean, this isn't a NewLine endorsed website, it has nothing to do with LotR,"<P>Ain't It Cool News is a movie news site, and has tracked LotR since it was announced - Harry and others have even been invited for a few days on set during filming to report some of what they saw.<P>"and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that this is a genuine document. In fact, I would say this was most certainly not real. Would Harry Whatchamacallim really use that kind of language? He may do in private conversations, but he wouldn't in something as public as this."<P>Actually...he ALWAYS uses that strength of alnguage on the site. <P>"Also, this is him showing a private email of Peter Jackson's o the entire world, when new line have been so secretive all this time. The even made tORn remove a picture of the hobbits in armour in what is presumably the Shire, with just grass as a backdrop. They wouldn't give out such an important, revealing letter. Hey, we even had a member who said he was PJ when the downs first started out, it's not that difficult to do a well-written fake. I think that PJ would never cut the Saruman scene out (he went as far as to change it from throat-slitting to machine-impalement, he wouldn't put the final straw on Bill the Pony's back. (hehe)<BR>That's what I think, anyway."<P>Well, Chris Lee conveyed via his web site a few days before this Saruman thing was revelealed that someone was trying to leak a major point about his character's plot in RotK. Then they did...and now Chris Lee has conveyed via his official site that all mention of him in the credits (hmm...I worte cretins there...subconcious triumphs) has been eliminated.<P>So this is pretty conclusive. :'( "Trust PJ"...like a snake...you can neither leave it behind with the source texts, or take it with you in case it ties you to the cutting room floor. I guess Grima WAS an allogory...albeit a foresighted one...

[Morquesse]

I would like to note, (to add to the jumble of news and theories) that <A HREF="http://imdb.com" TARGET=_blank>Internet Movie Database.com</A>, a respected movie site, shows Saruman the White in the credits, though not Grima.<BR>See for yourself:<P><A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/fullcredits" TARGET=_blank>RotK full credits</A><P>See you later!<BR>~M

[Lyta_Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Internet Movie Database.com, a respected movie site, shows Saruman the White in the credits, though not Grima.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I wouldn't take IMDB at their word all the time! They listed Sir Ian McKellen in the role of Dumbledore for Prisoner of Azkaban for several days! I think I'll just wait and see, myself! <P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta

[Essex]

HCIsland<P>Re <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pacing is important. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But not if it is to the detriment of the film. As Jonathon32 quoted<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I just don't buy that the flow of this movie would be hurt by wrapping up Sauraman ... especially when the second movie started with a flashback of a scene from the middle of the first, and was filled with unneeded flashbacks to Aragorn and Arwen in the middle of the movie.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jackson wasn’t THAT bothered about pacing there, was he? The film just drops DEAD at the aragorn/arwen point and on my DVD now I skip to the next scene (and sometimes skip Elrond / arwen as well). It just bugs me that he uses the pacing excuse EVERY time he takes something out.<P>Finwe<P>Re <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can see why he wouldn't want to put much of the Isengard scene at the beginning of RotK because it would make it seem like a continuation of TTT, not a further development of the overall story. It would become a continuation of the second "chapter," and wouldn't let it develop into the third "chapter." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Of course, because IT’S NOT MEANT TO BE PART OF ROTK!!!!! It’s because we had a detour to osgilliath and a long helm’s deep scene that this was not added in to TT. No doubt Jackson would have made the same excuse of ‘pacing’ if he COULD have fit it on to the end of TT. Indeed, the title of the 2 Towers movie should have been 1 Tower anyway, as we don’t see Cirith Ungol (again because of the same reasons).<P>The ninth valar<P>Re <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't think the average moviegoer will even know there WAS a Saruman/Grima scene cut out. Probably less than 10% of the viewing audience - I'd wager less than 5% - even read online movie news. They won't know, won't care and will love the movie just fine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ok, imagine the scene. Darth Vader throws the Emperor into the chasm and then we next cut to luke leaving the death star just before it blows up. We then move to the celebration scene and see Anakin Skywalker smiling at Luke. You think people wouldn’t have minded this? The main ‘baddie’ in a film not having his death scene shown and his fac unmasked? People WILL care, even non readers who we all seem to think are thick and can’t understand the gist of a movie without reading a novel first!<P><BR>I put it to you all that one of the main reasons for it’s removal is that Jackson has been forced to cut to get the film to a workable time (no matter what he says the laws of money come into it – longer film, less number of plays each day at the cinema) by Newline and he needs to cut. I’m in no doubt that the battle for pellenor fields and at the black gate will take up a large amount of film time, as did Helm’s Deep in TT. Why can’t he cut back on this and not Saruman?<P>Sorry for my rant, I needed to get it off my chest. I'm worrying now that, like tt, I will leave the cinema dissapointed for the first viewing, and only learn to love the film after I've stomached the changes.<P>I just don't trust Jackson when he says for the ROTK film he won't change the events in the book much..........<P>ps I love the movies, jackson has done a tremendous job etc etc etc.<p>[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[HCIsland]

Essex, why does every cut have to be about shortening the film? Last I heard the film is three hours and twenty minutes long! I think it's obvious that he is given a tremendous amount of latitude when it comes to the length of these movies. You complain about him using the excuse of pacing, but pacing is extremely important, especially in such a long film. Personally, I don't know where the time goes when I sit and watch Rings on the screen.<P>There are natural times for movies to slow down and ramp up. I'm sorry you hate the Arwen scenes so much but they occur in natural places in the film. Dealing with Saruman after the movie has already climaxed is not the natural place.<P>You bring up the example of Darth Vader's death and it is a perfect illustration of when a villian should be killed. PJ could have followed this model. It would have been so easy. As the Ents are bashing Isengard the palantir shakes loose from it's pedestal and rolls across the floor. Saruman chases it but can't get there in time. The stone goes over the edge, Saruman reaches, loses his balance, and plundges to his death.<P>There, solved. The fact is Jackson didn't do this because he has respect for this character and tried to give him an end that reflects the spirit of what was in the book. The problem is, in the end, he obviously felt it wasn't working. Now which would you rather have? The lame-*** easy solution (and trust me, there is many a director that would have done something similar to that) or the scene Jackson intended, albeit we have to wait for it.<P>Actually, watching Mr. Lee's Saruman on screen, I suspect it is the very strength of the scene that is the problem. It is likely powerful and memorable but the problem is it doesn't lead anywhere and in the end only serves to distract the non-initiated viewer away from the story in King.<P>There are no indications that this cut was made for any other reason than to stregthen the film. I know we would love nothing better than to see nothing but a parade of scenes representing what was presented in the text, like a glorified illustrated version of the book, but Jackson is trying to make a movie here. A movie that stands up on it's own for both fans and non-fans of the book and personally, I think he's done a damn good job of it.<P>H.C.

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is likely powerful and memorable but the problem is it doesn't lead anywhere <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes it does lead somewhere. It gives us a reason to show 1/ Gandalf is in charge now 2/ pippin is tempted by the palantir<P>now we won't see Gandalf's change in power and we will have a lame**** reason for Pippin picking up the palantir. 'ooh, look what I'VE found.' This is a key part of the plot and will have to be fiddled with, especially as jackson tells us it's in the ee.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> and in the end only serves to distract the non-initiated viewer away from the story in King.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why do we always diss the movie going public whop haven't read the book? Why do we always think they are stupid. purleasse, give them SOME modicum of intelligence. I told my wife (who hasn't read the books) that saruman wouldn't be in it, and she was pretty miffed that he wasn't.<P>Again, one of my main moans is that christopher lee won't have a shot at a best supporting actor.....

[Olorin_TLA]

Ditto. My sister and best friend, who haven;t read the books, think this is stupid...they want to know what happens to Saruman.<P>My sis in fact said that they might as well cut out the Ring or Frodo. Frankly, she's right.

[dwalin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why do we always diss the movie going public whop haven't read the book? Why do we always think they are stupid. purleasse, give them SOME modicum of intelligence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In case you hadn't noticed, LotR has a LOT of names, dates, facts, and characters...in addition to an intricate plotline. Now in a book, this is just fine; I can reread a name as often as it takes to get it into my head. But in a movie, you hear what someone says once, and then it's gone. So it is no insult to anyone's intelligence to cut some of the unneccesary names, themes, plot twists, etc. for the sake of clarity and comprehension, especially if said cuts will improve the overall quality of the film.<P>Also, PJ needs to do some character control here; the first two movies set Saruman up as the "main" badguy. Sure, they "said" Sauron was bad news; but he was more like a distant threat rather than an immediate one. However, now we come to RotK and Saruman kicks the bucket in the first ten minutes of film. All of a sudden, Sauron is front and center, but we don't really know much about him; we don't really care. PJ seems to have decided that he needs to now focus on Sauron and his "evil-ness" and a Saruman death scene would detract from that. If it is assumed Saruman died before RotK, then PJ can establish the third movie as a "new" chapter of the story with the "true" villain now on the scene. And anyway, in my experience, most non-bookies think Saruman is dead already anyway.

[Kalimac]

I don't know about having Saruman die offstage; logically I can see why they might need it but I'm not sure that a non-LOTR reading audience would get it. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, it's just that having a main villain die offstage is very unconventional and people might be thrown by it. However, there are a lot of occasions where the villain *appears* to die offstage, only to come back two scenes later (AHA! Thought you'd beaten me, did you?) and finally proceeds to die in a close-up shot so that the audience knows that this time it's for real. If I had not read LOTR, I'd probably spend most of ROTK thinking "OK, when's Saruman going to pop up and wreak havoc?"<P>As for Pippin and the Palantir - that wouldn't be too difficult; you can always have him find it in the wreckage (assuming that it was in a room low enough to be flooded, which seems counterinstinctual somehow). But Pippin absolutely must touch it before Gandalf takes it. To have him know no more of it than Merry does, and yet succeed in making 2000% more havoc with it, makes Pippin look like the clueless character of FOTR, and surely he's more grown up than that now.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... but Jackson is trying to make a movie here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, he is actually making a trilogy of films. And to quietly dispose of the principal "villain" of the first two films without having the main protagonists confront him, and without any real explanation, seems to me to be cheating the audience.<P>The worst situation will be if the audience is just left to assume that he has died. As Kalimac says, this will leave them wondering whether he is going to make a comeback later in the film in true Hollywood style. But it is little better to show his prone body or have another character simply relate what happened. Audiences will want to see what happens to this principal character, not just be told obliquely that he has died.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... in the end only serves to distract the non-initiated viewer away from the story in King. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But I am talking about the "non-initiated" viewers here. They are the ones will be left wondering what happened to him, how it happened, and why such an important character was so easily dismissed. And most of them will not have the satisfaction of having this fully explained in the extended edition.<P>TTT began with that wonderful sequence of Gandalf fighting the Balrog. We only saw the Balrog for a few minutes in FotR, and he has no relevance in TTT save for his role in Gandalf's transformation. This sequence worked well and has been widely praised. In light of that, would it really distract audiences from the story told in RotK too much to spend a few moments at the beginning of the film resolving the story of a character who has played a major part in the first two films (and another charcacter who played a significant part in the second)? As Essex says, Gandalf's confrontation of Saruman at Orthanc marks another stage in his development, which is an important aspect of the trilogy (of films) and sets up his later confrontation with the Witch King nicely.<P>I am still not so sure that this is anything but a nasty rumour. But, if there is anything to it, it surely is a huge mistake - not just as far as us Book fans are concerned, but in terms of the wider audience too.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am still not so sure that this is anything but a nasty rumour. But, if there is anything to it, it surely is a huge mistake - not just as far as us Book fans are concerned, but in terms of the wider audience too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree that this may just be rumour but apparently Christopher Lee’s official website have confirmed that he will not appear. Haven’t checked this myself though.<BR>For me it will be more of a loss because of Christopher Lee’s portrayal though, which was very good and will be missed. I think that there are elements of the films that make the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman less necessary though.<P>As far as indicating Gandalf’s superiority over Saruman goes I do not think it necessary. Because of the “exorcism” scene this is already clear. The audience is already aware that Gandalf is now the stronger. You do not need the confrontation to resolve that.<P>As to the sudden disappearance of a major character? Well yes that is an issue but the audience can see from the last shot of him that he is trapped in his fortress, surrounded by enemies, with all his creations destroyed. That is pretty final.<P>Overall I am willing to trust PJ. He is the one making these films and the first two have been excellent (possibly two of my favourite films of all time) and have made major cash. I think he knows what he is doing.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well <A HREF="http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1068655898" TARGET=_blank>here it is</A>, straight from the Wizard's mouth, as it were (ToRN's report on Christopher Lee's appearance on a UK daytime television show). <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He has also just stated he won't be going to the premiere, so it would appear he was cut without being asked, he seems greatly dissapointed. He said there is no point for me or Brad Dourif to go to the premiere we're not in the movie! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The poor chap seems to be rather shocked and disgusted with this development, as I am at receiving this confirmation of the rumour. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Overall I am willing to trust PJ. He is the one making these films and the first two have been excellent (possibly two of my favourite films of all time) and have made major cash. I think he knows what he is doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Normally I would agree with you, Eurytus, but now I am beginning to wonder ...

[HCIsland]

Actually, I find the most surprising thing in all this is that no one informed Lee before an e-mail was sent to AICN.<P>I'm sure the Voice of Saruman is Lee's finest moment in the whole series, so certainly it would be a shock to have it go, but having scenes cut out of movies (even entire characters) is not unusual. The sad thing is, this could have easily been the finest performance of his career.<P>H.C.<p>[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Liriodendron]

I feel some heartburn coming on. Just when I had assimilated and reconciled all the "bad" changes...This!

[Eurytus]

On the removal of Saruman I will admit that of all the changes that PJ has made to the books this is the one that worries me the most. However I think I will trust PJ until shown otherwise.<P>As for Christopher Lee's reaction. Well I'd start by saying that Lee is one of my favourite actors. He has been superb in the films and I loved him in Sleepy Hollow and back in the Hammer Films and The Wicker Man. A class actor all the way.<BR>However his reaction is to be expected from an actor. After all their primary concern is that all their scenes be up there on the finished work. Other actors have faired far worse including Johnny Depp being cut pretty much totally out of Platoon.<BR>So I would expect Lee to be upset. However PJ's concern is not any one actor but the overall films. That being the case he is entitled to make any change he feels necessary and does not need to feel concerned about his actors reactions.<BR>And moreover I think that Christopher Lee has done OK out of the films. If you view the first two films, especially FOTR, then Saruman's part has been bulked up already in terms of screen time. He features a lot more in FOTR than he does in the book where he is off stage at all times and only appears in one flashback at the Council of Elrond. He then appear once in the Two Towers and twice in the ROTK. So overall I do not think his part has been overally poorly treated when taken over all the films to date.<P>And I am sure that he will come out of the EE OK.

[Arathiriel]

<B>Ai Elbereth!</B><P>I hope that this is not true at all as I was looking forward to seeing this sequence on big screen! <P>If this is true PJ better be prepared to get some flack <B>BIG TIME</B> by the fans, and mostly the critics too! And if this is true they've cut the Saruman/Grima's sequence, then I will definitely want to question PJ's intelligence because believe it or not the audience is more than capable of sitting through another Isengard sequence, especially if it spells out the end for Saruman and Grima!<P>Yeesh!

[ArathorofBarahir]

So does this mean we don't get to see Saruman die?

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So does this mean we don't get to see Saruman die? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Looks like it. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> However I think I will trust PJ until shown otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Believe me, I would like to. But, whichever way I look at it, I cannot see how he can work this in a way that will not leave audiences feeling cheated at not seeing the final moments of the main villain of the last two films.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So I would expect Lee to be upset. However PJ's concern is not any one actor but the overall films. That being the case he is entitled to make any change he feels necessary and does not need to feel concerned about his actors reactions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with the sentiment. But, if it is right that this has come as such a shock to Lee, it does seem rather heartless of Jackson not to have discussed it with him beforehand. All the more so given Lee's personal interest in these films (as an original fan of the books and as the one cast member who has met Tolkien) and his staunch support (up to now) of Jackson's interpretation of the books.

[Kalimac]

To paraphrase the FOTR movie: "NOOOOOOOO! P.J.!"<P>Well, it wouldn't be as disastrous a move as Evil Faramir, but it sure wouldn't be that great, either.<P>I suppose the ultimate test will be what the non-LOTR readers make of it. We have one coming to our own ROTK party, so I'll have to see how she reacts. Still, I wish he'd leave Saruman in. Come on, PJ, we can handle two villains in one movie.

[HCIsland]

<A HREF="http://www.christopherleeweb.com/" TARGET=_blank>Link</A><P>I think there is a lot of missinformation swirling around on this.<P>On whether Lee knew before-hand, here is the quote from the BBC interview.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "As far as I'm concerned, I'm o*nly telling you this because it has been revealed o*n the internet, someone has talked and it certainly wasn't me," he [Lee] told the UK TV show. "If you want to know why you would have to ask the company New Line or director Peter Jackson and his associates because I still don't really know why. " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>There is nothing here suggesting that no one let him know he was cut. He also flat out denies that he said he was boycotting the premiere.<P>H.C.

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

Well, as for boycotting the premiere:<P>In today's (13th Nov) Daily Telegraph (UK Broadsheet), there is this article:<BR> Lee's evil wizard does vanishing act<BR>The actor Christopher Lee said yesterday that he was "shocked" to be cut out of the new Lord of the Rings film after filming scenes as the evil white wizard Saruman. The 81-year-old, noted for his role as Count Dracula in blood-spattered Hammer Films, said he had expected a pivotal role in the climax of The Return of the King, which is likely to be one of the biggest Christmas cinema hits.<BR>In the JRR Tolkien book, Saruman has his throat cut, his spirit rises like smoke, and he disappears with the wind. Lee has been acclaimed by the critics of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, which grossed £710 million worldwide. He was last seen trapped in the Tower of Orthanc.<BR>However, his scenes, filmed in New Zealand, have ended up on the cutting room floor.<BR>Lee said he would boycott next month's West End opening. He said: "What's the point of going? None at all." He added: "I am very shocked, that's all I can say."<BR>Peter Jackson, the director of the trilogy, said he had been forced to cut the scenes after viewing "various cuts over the last few weeks". <P>Does this mean the running time will be shorter?

[HCIsland]

<A HREF="http://www.christopherleeweb.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=16&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0" TARGET=_blank>Christopher Lee's Own Webpage</A><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ITV and the BBC have retracted comments which were attributed wrongly to Mr. Lee and which he never made. The original source of these comments was the Press Association and we would like to make very clear that neither ITV nor the BBC can be faulted. <P><B>A lot of websites and newspapers published the same statement, some word for word, while others exaggerated it even more. </B> There cannot be any doubts o*n what he really said, since it was during a live TV show. The original fabrication said:"He now plans to boycott the film's première in December this year". ITV has changed it to:<B>"Lee has however denied reports that he would be boycotting the film's premiere in December, as previously carried in this story".</B> While the BBC simply just took that comment out completely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>H.C.

[Liriodendron]

Well, I will go fully expecting to see Saruman and Grima. Hopefully it's a looney leak. If they are not there, my enjoyment will be diminished. It is what it is, though. And there will always be the ex ed! <p>[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[HCIsland]

<A HREF="http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1068758010.html" TARGET=_blank>A rather even tempered take from OneRing.</A><P>H.C.

[The Only Real Estel]

I don't think we can pass this off as a 'rumour' anymore. Obviously it's been relagated to the EE version, a sad mistake in most all of our opinions. I would think that boycotting the premiere might be a little extreme for Lee (& quotes have pretty well proven that he probably never said he would), but I wouldn't blame him if he didn't go. I mean, it's hard enough for what was probably his biggest stage in any of these LotR movies to be cut, but as others have said, for him not to be told about it right away is flat-out outrageous.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However I think I will trust PJ until shown otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm with Saucy. I'd like nothing more than to trust PJ, but it's just getting to hard to really give him the 100% benefit of the doubt anymore. I disagree with the statements about his quality of directing, because: <P>1- Before LotR he never did any major movie (don't tell me that that's only because he wasn't picked for the good ones, if he wasn't there must've been a reason for it ).<BR>2- Although he's done a fairly admirable job on FotR & TTT (especially FotR, he is certainly not above making a grave mistake. The brothers that produced the Matrix movies where all great directors, until the 2nd & 3rd movies came out, now their labeled as 'busts'. Any director can make mistakes & go through highs & lows, & PJ isn't exempt for them.<BR> Wow, this is getting really long, I'll end it now. <p>[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[HCIsland]

Well to Jackson's defence, he is very much a boot strap director, getting started completely with his own money. He is still relatively early in his career, really working in the independent scene until fairly recently.<P>Heavenly Creatures, his only other "serious" outing, was extremely well respected. His other films are horror outings (well Frighteners is a horror/adventure/comedy sort of thing) that definately have their following.<P>The Wachowski brothers' only have one other film to their directing credits and that is Bound. It is a good film, but speaking personally, not as bold and ambitious as Heavenly Creatures.<P>I think it is far too early in either of these careers to make judgements on them.<P>H.C.<p>[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think it is far too early in either of these careers to make judgements on them.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Very true. They could certainly become very good directors & they are both off to rather good starts, I think. I'm just saying that PJ isn't has exempt at making mistakes as some people seem to think he is. The only reason I brought up the 'Wachowski' thing is because it was simliar in that people didn't think it was possible to mess up any parts of any of the Matrix movies. But PJ still has lots of time...

[Finwe]

Honestly, I agree with the author of the TORn article. Complaining about it does make LotR fans sound like a bunch of whiny babies. Just because we don't agree with a cut he's made, doesn't mean that we have the right to ask him to edit it. It's HIS movie, not OURS. He is the one who's putting some years of his life into its creation, NOT us. Therefore, he should be the only one to have the right to say what should be in the movie and what shouldn't. We just have to deal with it.<P>Besides, if Chris Lee, who is the actor who would be most affected by the cut, isn't going all ballistic on PJ, why should we? I think he has a greater right to overreact than we do. He's being calm and professional about it, and relegating the job of the director/editor to the director/editor, PJ. So should we.<p>[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Finwe ]

[Arwen_Evenstar]

Hey, <BR>I dont know if anyone has posted about this yet, i haven't had time to read over all the other posts, but I heard that Christopher Lee is boycotting the Premiere of ROTK cause he was cut out. <BR>My brother told me he heard this on the radio, so it may not be reliable, but still...<P>Personally i am a little peeved. Understanding, but peeved. It was bad enough that The Scouring was cut, but this is terrible...and what about him falling onto that giant spikey wheel? <BR>Ah well, i guess its understandable, poor peter does have alot of tough desiscions to make. But i also feel sorry for Christopher; he was SPECTACULAR as Sauruman...but what I'm missing most is the Conversation With Sauruman...i wanted to see Gandalf laughing at him, and Grima getting whipped for dropping the Palantir...<BR>Oh well.<BR>Thats my two cents<BR> <BR>Have a nice day.

[Gorwingel]

Oh right now all I am thinking is that I wish none of this had happened. All I hope is that Jackson does something that will help non-book audiences understand so that they are not confused. I am also sad that everyone is so mad about this (which is understandable). It is just that I don't want people to not like ROTK just because of the cuts that were made. I want people to love this film, and I want my LOTR friends to love it too.<P>I do feel sorry for Christopher and Brad. It is not fair that they had to be cut out of a film that they had put so much hard work into. But hopefully it is for the best. I know they will do something in the film to make this better, they have too. I just don't want everyone to be sad. This whole situation has made me really mad because it has taken what should be a very exciting and fun time into a time that is filled with anger and dissapointment (which is still understandable). Though maybe I don't understand, I came to the films much, much later than many of you, and some of you have waited for years to hopefully see this scene in the cinema. I just hope things quiet down. I don't want people to be mad

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I dont know if anyone has posted about this yet, i haven't had time to read over all the other posts, but I heard that Christopher Lee is boycotting the Premiere of ROTK cause he was cut out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Arwen_Evenstar, it's always worth reading the other posts before posting yourself. Had you done so, you would have seen that this story has been retracted by most news outlets.<P>Yes, it does seem pretty clear now that Jackson did discuss the omission of Lee's scene with him before the rumour got out. Nevertheless Lee does, by all accounts still seem to be pretty disgruntled about it. And I can understand why. I suppose that, if I didn't think that omitting this scene was such a mistake myself, I would probably have less sympathy for Lee and tend more to the view expressed by Eurytus earlier. However, I do still think that it is a terrible shame that an actor who has played such an important role in the first two films, and a man with such an obvious affinity for Tolkien and his works, will not be appearing in the final instalment, and that he will, to a degree, not be sharing in the acclaim that will no doubt be surrounding it.<P>As for the reports of Lee "boycotting" the premiere, I did think this to be somewhat of an exaggeration based upon what he said on the "This Morning" programme. Nevertheless, he did clearly say that there is no point in him going to the premiere as he is not in the film, whereas he probably would have attended had the scene been retained.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Honestly, I agree with the author of the TORn article. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, I thought that it was very fair and even-balanced. I don't hold with signing petitions on these sorts of issues, largely for the reasons stated in the ToRN article.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Complaining about it does make LotR fans sound like a bunch of whiny babies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm not so sure that I agree with this, though. Granted, it is Jackson's right to edit his film how he sees fit, and we can't do anything to change that. But that doesn't mean that we have to agree with it. I still think that it is a big mistake. I might change my view on seeing the film, but I find it difficult at the moment to see how. And what are forums like this for if we cannot express our opinions on matters such as this.

[jonathan32]

TORN Article: I read it too, and couldn't disagree more with it. It is true that film making is not a democracy and that signing petitions online is futile. That doesn't mean, however, that people should not express their disappointment or even disgust, with this inexplicable decision. The TORN site is interesting and useful, but the article referenced was condescending in my opinion, basically telling everyone to shut up and continue being good cheeerleaders for Peter Jackson. It's sort of like "disension might hurt the movie's reputation, let's not upset the party line." TORN will print article after article of ga-ga fans gushing over PJ and wetting their pants for the film, but when any criticism gets too intense they inform us that filmmaking decisions are not our busy - we are simply supposed to sit back and praise this "brilliant" man and droll over pictures. They seemt to be a New Line / Peter Jackson organ

[Eurytus]

Then surely the answer is to not go and see it and instead wait for the EE.<P>Problem solved.

[jonathan32]

Yes, and probably I will not only go see the movie but buy the EEDVSD. It's a little irritating, though to have to wait a year to see the "real" movie. And I know that it's not my film and that all this posting is useless venting, but my post was mostly about TORN's article ... we have a right to vent .. it makes us feel good, and the more you care about the movies the more likely you are to need to vent when you hear about crap like this.

[Morquesse]

You know, at first I was okay with it, but now that I have read all you guys' comments, I feel that it IS a neccesary scene. It's published in magazines as a thing to anticipate. To back out now and say it's not there is like saying "oh, sorry, no Pathes of the Dead in theater version, you'll have to wait for the Extendie".<BR>To not include the scene to finish TTT off, then you have created a bit of a "closure" with little to continue with in RotK.<BR>I may be a stubborn fool, but I refuse to believe that PJ would skip Saruman's (and possibly Gandalf's) finest scene.<BR>Thank ya, thank ya very much.<BR>~M

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Complaining about it does make LotR fans sound like a bunch of whiny babies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> I have a bunch of stuff I want to comment on here, but not enough time, so I'll just touch quickly on the above quote from Finwe.<P> I really don't think that we are being whiners here, & I do agree with the SMan (again) that PJ is the director but we don't have to agree with the changes he straps onto the movies. It might be considered whining to whine about how the Fellowship wasn't pursued by wolves to Moria or something ridiculous like that, but I think that a change of this magnitude should warrant some discussion/anger. Or whining. Whichever you prefer.

[Liriodendron]

This whole theatrical release/extended edition business is getting on my nerves.

[Finwe]

I agree with what you're saying Saucy, and I believe that we have a right to discuss issues like that where we feel that things aren't being done fairly. It is an important part of being a fan, and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the degree to which some people are going, by saying things like "PJ's becoming a horrible director" and "his changes are destroying the quality of the films" (comments that I've heard on other forums and from my non-BD fellow Tolkien fan friends). I, personally, disagree with the decision that PJ has made, because I think that the audience does indeed need to know what happened to Saruman, especially the non-Tolkienites (toward whom I think the theatrical version is geared). I just think that in the end, we should leave the editing decisions to the guy who put in blood, sweat, and tears into the production (a.k.a PJ).

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

All I have to say is, while it's rough having to wait a year to see Jackson's take on Saruman's fall, it's not like it's the ultra-finale for the white wizard it was in the books, and I'm not that dissappointed not to see it in theaters. If I wanted something completely accurate toward Tolkien's books, I'll just read the books. Over and over and over again. Meanwhile, I'll just enjoy the movie for what it is - more notably the extended editions. When ROTK comes out on extended edition dvd, I'm sure the EE versions will probably all be played in theaters anyway, so the scene will be seen on the big screen. As for those people who need a finish for Saruman, they can wait. All I can say (very biased, I admit) is people who have no idea should be reading the books anyway, and wait. It'll all be fixed in due time.

[The Only Real Estel]

Well, I dont' think any of us are trying to <B>change</B> the movies by getting involved with editing or anything. I can't speak for everyone else, but when I talk about what is IMO a 'bad move' (that's on the biggish side), I'm still leaving it up to the guy who wears shorts all the time (ie: PJ), but I'm still going to discuss it :/. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>it's not like it's the ultra-finale for the white wizard it was in the books <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's not? I mean, I agree with part of that; the main white-wizard showdown was with Gandalf vs. Saruman/Theoden in Edoras, where PJ shows us that Gandalf has taken Saruman's spot as the ultimate whitey, but not all of your statment. I still think that it is a rather important part of the movie, & that the non-Tolkien reading fans should <B>not</B> have to wait a year for it (approx.). People usually dont' have the time or disire to read the books, certainly not as much as they have to watch the movies.

[Essex]

Eurytus,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As far as indicating Gandalf’s superiority over Saruman goes I do not think it necessary. Because of the “exorcism” scene this is already clear. The audience is already aware that Gandalf is now the stronger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, this does not show he is stronger. This, my dear Eurytus, to compare to a game of football, is 1-1 at half time. Saruman scored a great goal in the first ten minutes by whipping Gandalf’s ar*e in Orthanc, while Gandalf has bundled in a goal on the stroke of half time by exorcising Saurman from Theoden.<P>Removing Saruman’s control over Theoden shows a shift in power but not total control. Gandalf going to orthanc and ORDERING Saruman back and then breaking his staff shows that he is indeed the HEAD of the order of wizards now. <P>And<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Then surely the answer is to not go and see it and instead wait for the EE. Problem solved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Jackson is not stupid. He knows people will go see the movie WHATEVER it’s reported he’s done to it. They will then also add to his wallet by buying the sexed up EE version. He can do whatever he likes unfortunately. We would still go to see it. As Galadriel says to Celeborn:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If our folk had been exiled long and far from Lothlórien, who of the Galadhrim, even Celeborn the Wise, would pass nigh and would not wish to look upon their ancient home, though it had become an abode of dragons?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Jackson knows we feel the same about his films, unfortunately.<p>[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[Finwe]

Why is it so unfortunate? PJ knows that he's making a movie and thus, has a bit of creative license. Movies cannot follow books that they are based on line by line, event by event. It just will not work. Some changes do have to be made. If you want something that follows the books exactly, I suggest buying the audio version of LotR. You can't be disappointed with that.

[Liriodendron]

Yes, but a big deal was made over Saruman in the first two movies, and the exorcism was not final enough for me.....he left, but he wasn't finished off. And I think most everyone is wondering where Grima is going to pop up. Just leaving them inside Orthanc seems "undone" They've got to come out, or be dealt with! They need to put a large notice at the bottom of the credits.."To find out what happens to other characters, please watch the extended edition" I'd bet most casual movie goers don't really "get" the ex ed thing. I'm not sure if I'm "getting it", at this point!<p>[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[jonathan32]

I agree. The Extended Edition was a cool device for adding character development and nice scenes in FOTR but even there it had some problems. Galadriel's gift scene, for instance, was totally left out and then we see Frodo with an invisibility cloak in TTT with no explanation to the audience where it came from. This was minor, however, compared to leaving out the resolution of a battle that has been the main focus of SIX HOURS of CINEMA TIME. Extended Editions are cool, but it should not be necesarry to watch them to see key elements of the storyline.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'd bet most casual movie goers don't really "get" the ex ed thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't think most casual movie goers have any problem with the theatrical films anyway. The absence of extended editions would not mean that those scenes would have ended up in the theatrical release. They are already plenty long enough. It would just mean we wouldn't see those scenes at all.<P>H.C.<p>[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Galadriel's gift scene, for instance, was totally left out and then we see Frodo with an invisibility cloak in TTT with no explanation to the audience where it came from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I disagree here (again). Surely the audience can make the connection that the company didn't have the cloaks until <I>after</I> they left Lothlorien, thus presuming they got them there? That idea can only be aided by the fact that the cloaks are fastened with an elvish looking brooch...lets not short-change the non-book readers.

[Liriodendron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't think most casual movie goers have any problem with the theatrical films anyway. The absence of extended editions would not mean that those scenes would have ended up in the theatrical release. They are already plenty long enough. It would just mean we wouldn't see those scenes at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That could very well be, but with this new twist on Saruman and Grima, the movie veiwing process is getting a little too cluttered for my taste. We are having to watch and wait six different times here. I really like the movies, but in my opinion, less action oriented stuff and more plot intricacies would have been more pleasurable. I know! It's his movie but it's my opinion. <p>[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Essex]

Finwe,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why is it so unfortunate? PJ knows that he's making a movie and thus, has a bit of creative license. Movies cannot follow books that they are based on line by line, event by event. It just will not work. Some changes do have to be made. If you want something that follows the books exactly, I suggest buying the audio version of LotR. You can't be disappointed with that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm beginning to understand Eurtyus's viewpoint on us Tolkien egg heads who can't admit Tolkien does no wrong, becasue now I understand that some people think JACKSON can do no wrong. To cast aside a villain as important as Saruman? What if he did the same to the Witch King? Would you mind leaving HIS demise out if Jackson did this? How far can he go? He bowed to pressure on Arwen at helm's deep, you never know, he may bow at the last hour on Saruman. (not!!!!!) I will no doubt go to see rotk at the cinema. I hope to God I enjoy it. I've been waiting all year for it, but now there is a seed of doubt in my mind......<P>PS I have the cd audio thank you. At least they have the scouring in THAT version. <P>You see, people come up with the excuse that Jackson is doing a brilliant job on the movies, which he no doubt is. This does not give him licence to do what he pleases carte blanche though. Oh, hang on, it does because there's nothing we can really do about it but bleat on in these forums (which helps....)

[HCIsland]

You know, there is a difference between excuses and reasons. I can except PJ's reasons for cutting Saruman - like I really have a choice anyway.<P>Undoubtably I'm disappointed that I won't be seeing this scene for another year. As far as whether PJ made a mistake or not, we can't make that judgement until the film is released. Personally, I suspect this will be largely a non-issue with the majority of movie goers. As too whether the film is stronger or weaker with the scene gone, I will have to wait to see the film myself before I can make that judgement. <P>Actually, there's a good chance I won't be able to make the judgement until the Extended Edition when I will finally get to see this scene in context with the rest of the film. A luxury that PJ has that the rest of us certainly do not.<P>Editted to add: I for one won't let on missing scene towards the front of the film ruin my appreciation of the rest of the movie.<P>H.C.<p>[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>To paraphrase the FOTR movie: "NOOOOOOOO! P.J.!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why FotR?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Besides, if Chris Lee, who is the actor who would be most affected by the cut, isn't going all ballistic on PJ, why should we? I think he has a greater right to overreact than we do. He's being calm and professional about it, and relegating the job of the director/editor to the director/editor, PJ. So should we.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> Actually Christopher Lee would probably like nothing more than to vent some frustration. Do you think that he hasn't because he's fine with the move? He hasn't 'over-reacted' or 'gone balistic on PJ' because he can't. He's an actor with more screen-credits than anyone in history, he really doesn't have the option to go public. Would you want to cast Lee for a future spot if you knew that he was going to go public with his frustration on a bad cut? He has to think about his own future as an actor, but he's gone as close to venting as he can by saying that he's not going to the premiere of a movie (RotK) that he isn't in. Serioulsy, when it comes to actors & their feelings, you have to read between the lines...because they can't fill them in for you.<p>[ 10:43 PM December 03, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Rose Cotton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I know we would love nothing better than to see nothing but a parade of scenes representing what was presented in the text, like a glorified illustrated version of the book, but Jackson is trying to make a movie here. A movie that stands up on it's own for both fans and non-fans of the book and personally, I think he's done a damn good job of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I totally agree with HCIsland on this matter. Although I'm dissapointed at losing the Voice of Sauruman scene I accept the decition and can't wait to see it on the DVD.<P>As for the question of how they will do the Palatir and the joining of the hobbits with the rest of the company here is my idea on what they might do.<P>Even back in january when I was writing my own little script of ROTK I felt that the best place to start was to have Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf and all the Rohirum ariving at Isengard. I think that they will still do this.<P>After opening up with sweeping camera shots of a flooded Orthanc we could then have a shot of all the riders entering the area. Treebeard would show up and they would have a conversation which would remind us what everyone's name is and who they are. Treebeard would also inform everyone that Sauruman is finished and that Merry and Pippin have should be wandering around somewhere.<P>Cut to Merry and Pippin walking about Orthanc. As they hear their friends approaching they start to run to them. Just then Pippin notices somthing buried in the rubble. He walks over to it and picks it up. It's the Palantir. As Pippin holds it, it starts to glow and swirl. He starts to become entranced. Suddenly the Palantir is taken from him by Gandalf. <P>It could be worse, Aragorn could be going head to head with a carnate form of Sauron.<BR>

[doug*platypus]

Well, perhaps cutting this scene from ROTK will work well for that movie. There's been <B>far</B> too much emphasis to date on Saruman as the villain, to the detriment of Sauron's character as the <B>real</B> enemy. Without the Scouring of the Shire, there seems to be little point to Saruman being in the third film, and he would consume time required for all the many other plots.<P><B>But</B> one thing I have to say about PJs lack of planning is this:<P><B>WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THAT SCENE IN THE TWO TOWERS?!?!@?!#@!?!</B><P>He wouldn't be short of time if he didn't waste precious seconds on rubbish like Haldir and the elves at Helm's Deep, or Aragorn's little side trip. Sigh. That is the closest to <B>angry</B> at PJ I have become during this whole book-to-film emotional rollercoaster.

[Frodo2968thewhite]

Although PJ does have a point, I cannot believe he cut Saruman! Christopher Lee is my favorite actor ever! Not to mention, for the people that have not read the books (like a few of my friends), are left hanging until next November!!!!

[Evisse the Blue]

I don't buy the 'consuming time theory'. There's no time for a 5-minute or so Saruman scene, but there is time for<BR> ~~~:: POSSIBLE SPOILER:: ~~~~<P> a Boromir scene?? Or at least that's what I gather from seeing Sean Bean listed in the Cast for ROTK, according to IMDB. Not that I have anything against seeing Sean Bean. Actually, if I hadn't read the books, I'd rather see him than Chris Lee (maybe that was PJ's idea too). But as it is, I was really looking forward to the Gandalf-Saruman confruntation, like so many of you.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There's no time for a 5-minute or so Saruman scene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, it'd take more than that to be done right (it'd be almost worse to have PJ not give it enough time to turn out properly than it would be for him to do it right in the EE), but your point is obvious.

[Gilthalion]

First of all, I do agree that the deletion even from a theatrical version is a mistake. Even so, I'm sure ROTK will be worth seeing and that I'll see it multiple times before buying the XROTK.<P>Someone did point out, but I thought I'd reiterate that fan reaction DID change the entire conception of Arwen's part in TTT.<P>My question for the better informed: Did this tempest even begin in time for the deletion to be reinserted?<P>Perhaps it is no coincidence that one of the earliest of these controversies was Saruman's death on the giant spiked cog wheel. Many, many such controversies later, I say, three cheers for PJ & Co. if this last controversy is a hoax! Such ungrateful and continuous whiners and complainers and spoilers deserve it! (After all, the entire thing might have been handled by Disney! Then where would we be?)

[Noldorin King]

ok, kids. let's just hope that ROTK wouldn't cut off our favorite parts (like in TT, shelob's lair, anyone?')i hope very much that it's worth watching and not whining. As for Saruman, well, the actor himself wasn't so happy about it...PJ's goin' on about Tolkien's novels being under nourished in terms of their love story, that explains why there's too much Evenstar and Elessar...Does anyone know if Prince Imrahil's joining the battle in Pelennor? he wasn't in TT either..

[steve]

Saruman and Grima are going to be taken out of the threatrical version of the movie, but they will be in the extended edition as well as the houses of healing

[The Saucepan Man]

Saruman and Wormtongue in the Houses of Healing!!??!! Now that's just one change too many ...<P>

[mark12_30]

Speaking of Saruman, I'm about to (try to) submit an essay of sorts to GreenBooks at TheOneRing.net. The rough draft is <A HREF="http://members.cox.net/hrwright61/SarumanFrodo.rtf" TARGET=_blank>Here.</A> If anyone would like to peruse it and give me feedback before I send it in, I would be very deeply grateful... <P>Regards, --mark12_30

[doug*platypus]

Very interesting idea, Helen. You're absolutely right about Saruman's death in the book being critical for the character of Frodo. However, I can't imagine an ending for Saruman without the scene at Isengard. The last couple of times I have read the book, that scene really stood out as monumental. <P>I'm <I>kind of</I> looking forward to seeing it in the EE, but I really wish that it had been at the end of the last movie to bring closure to that chapter of the story. Needless to say, it will be <B>very</B> weird seeing Flotsam and Jetsam without The Voice of Saruman!