Saruman's ending (PJ's way) P.S. Spoilers!

[Boromir88]

In ROTK EE we are to see more of Saruman, all the way to his death in the Tower of Orthanc. I've heard from various sources (unfortunately, I can't find them right now but I will get that to everyone), that Grima pushes Saruman out of Orthanc and Saruman falls to his death upon his own machinery. So I ask how do you all feel about this ending? Like it? Dislike it?

As for me if PJ had included The Scouring, I would have rather seen Saruman die the way Tolkien had written. But, since he didn't, this ending of Saruman falling to his death on his own machinery I think it works well. In fact, I will go out to say, that since there is no Scouring this is the best possible way to "kill" Saruman.

As we all know, Tolkien hated "machinery," "industrialization," he thought it was the cause of war. Which, I can see what he means. But, my point is, is Saruman's death of falling to his death on his own machinery a good way of doing it? I would say yes, and is the best way of doing it (besides The Scouring) since it comes to me as symbolizing Saruman was killed by the own machines he built.

[Imladris]

The irony of justice...

I think it's a perfectly fine way to do it...very fitting. As long as Grima had something to do with it I really don't think it's that major of a tweak -- the heart is still kept in it.

[Elianna]

I like the idea of Gríma pushing him off best. More character development for him. But then there've been those pictures of Gríma pulling out his knife, and I've heard bad things about how Gríma dies....who knows what they're going to do?

[Encaitare]

I agree with Imladris and Elianna -- so long as Grima kills him, I can live with it. He's got to have that one moment of almost-but-not-quite-redemption.

POTENTIAL SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!

In one of the other RotK EE threads, someone said that Legolas was going to shoot Grima... I desperately hope not.

[Imladris]

In one of the other RotK EE threads, someone said that Legolas was going to shoot Grima... I desperately hope not.

Why? The Hobbit folk shot him in the Shire with their bows, however, Merry and Pippin didn't have bows on their journey -- it'd be weird to have them carry bows for that one scene...As far as I can see, he's the only logical choice to do it, unless you want Aragorn to?

[The Only Real Estel]

I like the idea of Gríma pushing him off best. More character development for him. But then there've been those pictures of Gríma pulling out his knife

Supposedly he pulls a knife, stabs Saruman, & then pushes him off to his spikey death. I actually like that idea a little better than him just pushing him off.

In one of the other RotK EE threads, someone said that Legolas was going to shoot Grima... I desperately hope not

What's worse is the way it happens. The arrow 'soars high above Grima's head' & then as Grima is 'laughing at the seeming inaccuracy of Legolas', it crashes down through his skull. If it becomes a death that people will laugh at when they see it, I think PJ will have failed miserably.

[gorthaur_cruel]

What's worse is the way it happens. The arrow 'soars high above Grima's head' & then as Grima is 'laughing at the seeming inaccuracy of Legolas', it crashes down through his skull. If it becomes a death that people will laugh at when they see it, I think PJ will have failed miserably.

Really? Where'd you hear that? I sure haven't heard that before...
BTW, how can you shoot an arrow all the way up to the top of Orthanc, which is presumably around 300m high? Unless Elves have EXTREME power as well as accuracy, surely it won't reach that high before coming back down.

...which reminds me. Anybody have the faintest idea why they made Saruman talk from the top of Orthanc as opposed to his balcony (as in the book)? I fail to see how his almost-whispers such as "You are all going to die" from the EE is supposed to be heard all the way down. Even his shouts shouldn't be heard easily. :rolleyes:

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

This discussion came up on a previous thread but I can't for the life of me find it anywhere. I remember arguing that the potential for Grima's death in the film was quite frightening. To have Legolas (or Aragorn, Theoden, Eowyn or Eomer) kill Grima would be utterly horrible. The reason it was important for an anonymous Hobbit archer to kill Grima was so as not to put another spin on events. The life and death of Grima was tragic in itself.

Picture the scene in the movies where Legolas, say, kills Grima, and all the people in the cinema cheer and holler. That would encourage the audience to completely miss and ignore the point of Grima's pitiful end. This is not some nameless Orc for one of the good guys to slice open. Rather this is an important representation of a hopeless and pathetic man. This death is a genuinely melancholy one, and needs the proper treatment which Tolkien gave it.

I see no reason why the different setting should change things dramatically, though. It should stay pretty much the same way as it was in the book. Have Grima kill Saruman, attempt an escape and then be picked off by the soldiers of Rohan.

[Boromir88]

I agree with Estel and Eomer, I would have to say Legolas killing Grima, only makes it seem as Eomer puts it....
some nameless Orc for one of the good guys to slice open.
There is much more to Grima then that. I originally thought a good way of Grima ending his life (besides random hobbit archers shooting at him) would be Grima killing himself. But I like Eomer's idea, of Grima's attempt to escape, and then instead of the hobbits (since they don't have bows) having random Rohan soldiers shoot him down, that's I feel is the best way of ending Grima, besides the way in the book.

P.S. Maybe I should change the thread name to "Grima's end" since it appears we all can agree Saruman's ending will be fine if Grima kills him. lol.

[Elianna]

I have probably the most reliable source (pre-movie) of Legolas killing Grima: The LotR Trivia Pursuit game. One of the questions is "Who kills Grime Wormtongue?" Answer: "Legolas" Can't get much more straightforward than that.


Not a spoiler:

I do really hate the idea of Legolas killing Wormie. We concern is if they were going to have mercy on Saruman, then how can they not have mercy on Grima, merely his pupil?

[Essex]

Hang on, we're not taking into account PJ's penchant for changing things here. We seem to think grima will get shot because he tries to escape. Do you really think PJ would have Legolas shoot him in the back? I think not. What might happen is that Grima either gets shot:

1/ whilst attempting (and succeding) to kill Saruman.
2/ whilst attacking another member of the fellowship.

for number 1, legolas might be tring to save saruman's life.

for number 2, we could have Legolas see Grima flinging the palantir down towards the fellowship and tries to stop him by shooting him.


We will see whether I'm right or totally wrong in less than 2 months...........

[Boromir88]

I will admit Essex, your view of how the scene will be done, does sort of lighten the fact that it is Legolas who kills Grima. I still feel Legolas already gets enough credit for things he didn't do, and I still stick with Eomer's idea. You are right, we will have to wait and see in two months, :bites fingers:.

[Nimrodel_9]

I was playing LotR Trivial Pursuit with my sister last December, when we came upon the card that asks, "Who kills Grima Wormtongue?" When I discovered that it was Legolas, I was very put out. I told my friend at school, and she (being a Leggy-Lover) was over joyed to learn that her handsome prince was to be the one who kills Grima. I argued this over with her for quite some time, and she still dosen`t see why it shouldn`t be him. I knew why it shouldn`t be him, but I never really could explain to her. So, with your permission, Eomer, I shall like to steal your words, seeing how I couldn`t find them myself. ;)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Gather round, my children, and bask in the warm glow of the only popular post I ever made! :D

Having said what I did though, I was always fearful that they would do the scene badly in the film. Nevertheless, I will not criticise on the basis of rumours (despite being unhappily convincing rumours).

There's no need to change the title Boromir, apparently they filmed about 5 different endings for ol' Curunir. Plenty to debate.

[Encaitare]

I have probably the most reliable source (pre-movie) of Legolas killing Grima: The LotR Trivia Pursuit game. One of the questions is "Who kills Grime Wormtongue?" Answer: "Legolas" Can't get much more straightforward than that.

Blast.

As far as I can see, he's the only logical choice to do it, unless you want Aragorn to?

The logical choice? I suppose so. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. :p I don't think Aragorn would kill him, since he did spare him at Edoras. Theoden would kill him if he had the chance... in fact, I'm not sure what I do want. What Essex said about Legolas shooting Grima after he threw the Palantir is fine by me, I guess. I'll have to think on it. I just don't want to see him laughing like a maniac and then having the arrow crash down into his skull, like Estel said it might be.

Picture the scene in the movies where Legolas, say, kills Grima, and all the people in the cinema cheer and holler. That would encourage the audience to completely miss and ignore the point of Grima's pitiful end. This is not some nameless Orc for one of the good guys to slice open. Rather this is an important representation of a hopeless and pathetic man. This death is a genuinely melancholy one, and needs the proper treatment which Tolkien gave it.

As the lone Grima fangirl, I take off my hat to you, Eomer.

[Elianna]

As the lone Grime fangirl...

You stand not alone. It's very strange, and I can't explain it, but you stand not alone.

[Encaitare]

Well, I was pondering this last night, and I've come to the following conclusion: however terrible PJ's version of Grima's death is, I figure I will grow to tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it, as we tolerate XenArwen and Gimli somehow knowing whata nervous system is.

It's very strange, and I can't explain it

Nor can I. :p Grima fangirls unite!

[Elianna]

Along the lines of a question gorthaur_cruel brought up:how can you shoot an arrow to the top of Orthanc?

I looked it up: Lego's bow, strung with elf-hair and carved from mallorn wood, has a maximum effective range of 400 yards. Orthanc is "only" about 170 yards tall. He could make it easily.

I agree with Encaitare. Whatever they end up doing, I'll eventually get over it. At least now, with the new promo I've seen of the EE, I'm looking forward to Dec. 14 instead of dreading it because of what they were going to do with Saruman and Gríma.

[Encaitare]

I looked it up: Lego's bow, strung with elf-hair and carved from mallorn wood, has a maximum effective range of 400 yards. Orthanc is "only" about 170 yards tall. He could make it easily.

I assume you found the bit about the bow in "Weapons and Warfare," but where did you find Orthanc's height? 170 yards really isn't all that tall, if you think about it... less than two football fields. I always imagined it being taller.

[Elianna]

Yeah, I got Lego's bow range from "Weapons and Warfare". I got the height of Orthanc from the same place; it actually said 500 feet, but I decided to put both numbers in the same measurement so: 170 yards.

[Boromir88]

Encaitare I think you said it best.

I figure I will grow to tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it,

Of course we all must "tolerate" it if we continue to watch the movies, like I do. Even the things that make me most angry (Leggy's supermanism, the bad view on Denethor, Elves at Helm's Deep, the Green Slime), we must all tolerate it if we continue to view, and LIKE the movies. Well said!

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course we all must "tolerate" it if we continue to watch the movies, like I do. Even the things that make me most angry (Leggy's supermanism, the bad view on Denethor, Elves at Helm's Deep, the Green Slime), we must all tolerate it if we continue to view, and LIKE the movies.I must say that I find this to be a very strange statement. Whatever misgivings I may have about particular aspects of the films (and they are few), I enjoy the films wholly when I watch them. I find it difficult to see how anyone can enjoy a film if they are merely "tolerating" aspects of it.

If, in Jackson's adaptation of LotR, Wormtongue is killed by an arrow from Legolas' bow, then so be it. I can accept that. It will not detract from the film for me. Perhaps I am oddity amongst LotR fans, but I do not find myself constantly thinking how they could or should have been done when I am watching the films. I simply suspend my book-based sensibilities and enjoy ... :p :)

[Boromir88]

but I do not find myself constantly thinking how they could or should have been done when I am watching the films. I simply suspend my book-based sensibilities and enjoy

SpM, I must admit you can restrain yourself more then me :) . I always think, PJ should have stuck with the book on this, or on that. Then there's some things where I can understand why PJ changed, whether it was to appeal to a wider fan base, or an example of adding in a little extra Arwen to show the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen. I give PJ credit because I don't know who could have done a better job and at the same time attract such a large fan base, he please the Tolkien readers (most of them) and he also adds in the "girl" crowd with Mr. Bloom and Mr. Wood. Once it gets to the bottom of it, it really is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time (and probably the most watched I've ever seen). The biggest thing I give PJ the thumbs up to is bringing new readers into the "LOTR" world.

[gorthaur_cruel]

Lego's bow, strung with elf-hair and carved from mallorn wood, has a maximum effective range of 400 yards. Orthanc is "only" about 170 yards tall. He could make it easily.

Shooting a bow up goes against gravity...

[Imladris]

Shooting a bow up goes against gravity...

Does throwing a ball over the roof of a house go against gravity?

It only breaks the law when it doesn't come down again.

[Kransha]

Time for my opinion. I warn y'all, it's long-winded. Saruman and Grima are two of my favorite characters, and Saruman is the most favored, in my eyes. So, I have a very aggressive stance on this. As far as canon logic goes, I was dismissive of certain things. I resented the cinematic exaggeration of the Arwen/Aragorn romance, since, if it and the Strider-Tumbles-Off-A-Cliff Subplot had been diminished in the second film, more room would've been made for the important, canonical, and far more interesting subplots. But, I took a more objective stance on the lack of Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Ghan-buri-Ghan, Beregond, Imrahil, et cetera. This, however, required, and still requires, my feeble, miserly attentions.

I am not outraged...nor am I pleased.

In detail, I've studied what PJ planned to do. It was more than obvious that he would seek finalization with Saruman and Grima. I knew he would leave out the Scouring of the Shire, I also knew, after some research that Legolas would be the one to slay Grima, after the Worm had killed Saruman, probably ala defenestration. I've seen several clips of the EE that point to these things, and others. My opinion is a bit hostile, as of now, because of PJ's reduction of the magnificent Curunir, Saruman of the Many Colors, and his faithful Worm.

For those of you who don't know, or haven't figured out yet, the "wheel-impaling" death of Saruman is a bit of creative homage to Christopher Lee's days in the Hammer-Horror Double Features, when cinema was something that could be so immensely corny it was good. Christopher Lee's most memorable role, before Saruman and the more recents, was as Dracula. In that, he was (several times) impaled on wheel spikes. This is all well and good, but the impaling of Saruman is, in my opinion, not. The circumstance of a "falling death" reduces Saruman's character to impotency. It is a classically "megolamaniacal supervillain" death, the kind Saruman does not deserve. Similarly Grima's death gives him to much potency. When the audience sees that the overly loved 'Leggy' has slain Grima, there will be cheers for the Elf, boos for the Worm. Grima is not fit for that. He will be maligned as 'that wicked old coot' who 'brave Legolas' slew 'bravely' with his 'bravery.' There is, so far, no good reason for Legolas to kill Grima, on technicality, and Legolas' little bow skillz should be rendered null and void.

Some other notes, which I have not seen mentioned. Saruman is going to get a bit 'magical' in his finale scene. I do not know how much the discussion frequents these boards, but it was personally revolting to find out that cinematic Saruman is actually going to shoot a fireball from his staff at Gandalf. Saruman's power, as stated by C. Lee himself, lies in his voice, Yes, he is Istari, but, even in his last desperate moments, is he really the character who go out in a melodramatic, ridiculous, fairy-tale-villain blaze of fury like that? At least give him back his immortal "Gibbets and crows!" speech, to infer that he still has his eminent talent. Saruman is still a tempter, and I hope he gets to do some tempting, instead of just spouting villainous movie drivel at Gandalf and Co.

I am currently unsure of how the palantir is actually going to get down to ground level, and curious about it as well. In one shot of the EE, Saruman actually shows the palantir to Gandalf, from atop Orthanc. Most people have speculated that Saruman is going to drop it when he falls, but this no longer makes sense, when weighed against another shot, just before Saruman's death, in which he is not holding the palantir, and is rather busy with the whole fireball business. My sense of inner continuity may be way off, but I think the whole situation presents a secondary problem. Not a large one, merely a problem of neatness, and proper cinematic cropping. How does one make this over and underwrought scene work. For a really good villain, or two, such dramatism is useless. Saruman deserves a just end, and PJ is, no doubt, trying his hardest. I only hope he can work his directorial magic one last time. Grima, though, is not a potent villain, as I've stated, and should not be nobly slain as such. Milord Eomer of the Rohirrim said it best, and I will leave you all with that.

[Boromir88]

Kransha, wonderful post, I do agree with you on most points, so here's my response.

I resented the cinematic exaggeration of the Arwen/Aragorn romance, since, if it and the Strider-Tumbles-Off-A-Cliff Subplot had been diminished in the second film, more room would've been made for the important, canonical, and far more interesting subplots. But, I took a more objective stance on the lack of Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Ghan-buri-Ghan, Beregond, Imrahil, et cetera. This, however, required, and still requires, my feeble, miserly attentions.

Yes the Aragorn's near-death-tumble-off-a-cliff-floating-down-a-river was over the board. I would have also liked to see some of the other characters (I mean instead of the made up Lurtz, or Faramir's made up Lieutenant Madril) you could have added in some of the real Characters. Leaving out Beregond and Imrahil you lose a face of Gondor, you lose the strength in the Knights of Dol Amroth, and you lose the compassion for poor Faramir. As for the other characters, sure I would have liked to have seen them too, but in the end it's not something I'm devastated about, I can live with it.

For those of you who don't know, or haven't figured out yet, the "wheel-impaling" death of Saruman is a bit of creative homage to Christopher Lee's days in the Hammer-Horror Double Features, when cinema was something that could be so immensely corny it was good. Christopher Lee's most memorable role, before Saruman and the more recents, was as Dracula. In that, he was (several times) impaled on wheel spikes. This is all well and good, but the impaling of Saruman is, in my opinion, not. The circumstance of a "falling death" reduces Saruman's character to impotency.

That's interesting info about Dracula, I like it. Now Saruman's wheel-impailing, I take as symbolic. As if Saruman created those machines and so it's fitting that he dies on those machines. Knowing that Tolkien disliked Industry, and was a nature person, I think it's fitting. But then I look at PJ, and realize oh he just did it for the blood and gore, there's no symbolism in it (but I still like to think he intended it for symbolic purposes lol).

Similarly Grima's death gives him to much potency. When the audience sees that the overly loved 'Leggy' has slain Grima, there will be cheers for the Elf, boos for the Worm. Grima is not fit for that.

Agree with you 100%.

do not know how much the discussion frequents these boards, but it was personally revolting to find out that cinematic Saruman is actually going to shoot a fireball from his staff at Gandalf. Saruman's power, as stated by C. Lee himself, lies in his voice, Yes, he is Istari, but, even in his last desperate moments,

I will close my eyes during the Fireball part, there is no doubt about that. Yes, Saruman's power lies in his voice, he can be powerful and scary, to get that "fear factor" or he could be sweet and honeyed to fill you with "false promises" in order to join him. Anyway the Istari were forbidden to match their power with Sauron's power, or to use it in order to seek dominion over Elves and Men. I absolutely hate that question when people ask "Why doesn't Gandalf shoot a laser ray out of his staff to kill all the orcs?" First off it's too hard to explain because someone who hasn't read the books won't understand the Istari, and plus it's just annoying. As discussed many times the Istari weren't some fairy Harry Potter karblasto wizards.

P.S. yes, I do too hope they have the sympathetic Saruman, not the insulting old man. Here's a quote from The Voice of Saruman.
The Window closed. They waited. Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke (Eomer, Theoden, Gimli) they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice (Saruman's voice), anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell.

The one's underneath the spell were obviously the Rohirrim outside of the tower, for they wondered why Theoden, Eomer...etc would reject Saruman's plea. As it says, there's no more power in Saruman's voice, he doesn't have that "fear factor" anymore, he's more pitiable, sort of like a beggar. He comes off as sorryful, and telling Theoden he's sorry, he misunderstood, and the one's under the spell, take these words as "wise" and reasonable. Then when they hear Gimli, Eomer, Theoden, reject and not listen to Saruman's words, anger groes in their hearts, for it doesn't seem "reasonable." Of course, Saruman isn't really sorry, he's just using his own power to his advantage. He's trying to come off as pitiable just to get what he wants. So I hope we get to see that side of Saruman.

[Imladris]

But then I look at PJ, and realize oh he just did it for the blood and gore, there's no symbolism in it (but I still like to think he intended it for symbolic purposes lol).

I think it's a bit wrong to say that about PJ. It's an assumption, and assumptions are never good. Did he quote that somewhere?

For those of you who don't know, or haven't figured out yet, the "wheel-impaling" death of Saruman is a bit of creative homage to Christopher Lee's days in the Hammer-Horror Double Features, when cinema was something that could be so immensely corny it was good. Christopher Lee's most memorable role, before Saruman and the more recents, was as Dracula. In that, he was (several times) impaled on wheel spikes. This is all well and good, but the impaling of Saruman is, in my opinion, not. The circumstance of a "falling death" reduces Saruman's character to impotency.

Apparently:

Supposedly he pulls a knife, stabs Saruman, & then pushes him off to his spikey death. I actually like that idea a little better than him just pushing him off.

So, Saruman is probably already dead. There is nothing wrong with a nod of appreciation to various actors. Heck, even Tolkien gave his nods of appreciation to Beowulf, etc.

Similarly Grima's death gives him to much potency. When the audience sees that the overly loved 'Leggy' has slain Grima, there will be cheers for the Elf, boos for the Worm. Grima is not fit for that.

I do not understand how being shot by Legolas is any different than being shot by Grima. When Legolas kills Grima the only people who will squee and swoon and won't "get it" will be the rabid fan girls, who, incidently, don't get the story at all.

PJ is not responsible for how the audience reacts. And yes, it is sad that he couldn't bring the Scouring of the Shire to film, but you can't bring everything to film.

Some other notes, which I have not seen mentioned. Saruman is going to get a bit 'magical' in his finale scene. I do not know how much the discussion frequents these boards, but it was personally revolting to find out that cinematic Saruman is actually going to shoot a fireball from his staff at Gandalf. Saruman's power, as stated by C. Lee himself, lies in his voice, Yes, he is Istari, but, even in his last desperate moments, is he really the character who go out in a melodramatic, ridiculous, fairy-tale-villain blaze of fury like that? At least give him back his immortal "Gibbets and crows!" speech, to infer that he still has his eminent talent. Saruman is still a tempter, and I hope he gets to do some tempting, instead of just spouting villainous movie drivel at Gandalf and Co.

Is this true, or this is like an Arwen-showing-up-at-Helm's-Deep thing (where PJ was going to do it then decided against it). And even if he did I would totally understand why PJ did it. Saruman's power is his voice -- that is his "magic" (the elves might call it gift I don't know). His voice stirs something inside you (typical fairy tale), it decieves you, it plays upon your thoughts. Can you honestly imagine this being portrayed on screen? So, I'm not happy about it, but I can understand it.

[Boromir88]

What I mean by symbolism is that it would be rather fitting that Saruman falls onto and is sliced up by his own machinery. Symbolizing that he built these machines so he "dies" upon them. Also, seeing that Tolkien disliked industrial growth, connecting that with Saruman falling to a spiky death.

What I mean by the "PJ probably just did it for the blood and gore," was he didn't intend it for those symbolic purposes. I actually commented how I liked the bit of Dracula information, and he probably very well did it for those reasons. I'm saying that he probably didn't intend it to be my symbolistic view of Saruman creating, then falling, upon his own machines that he created. But that's just how I viewed it, as a bit of Tolkien connection, with the fact that he thought industrial growth caused WW1.

[Imladris]

What I mean by the "PJ probably just did it for the blood and gore," was he didn't intend it for those symbolic purposes.

And I'm asking what is your basis for that statement. :) In other words, why do you think he did for the blood and gore and didn't intend it for thsoe symbolic purposes?

[Boromir88]

I think just by some of the movies he produced or directed.

Bad Taste-a movie with aliens that hunt for "human flesh." (Rated a C)

Jack Brown Genius- A sci-fi movie dealing with a 10th century monk who crashes his plane, and something about an evil villain who wants to suck out his soul. )Said to be the worst movie ever made in New Zealand).

Heavenly creatures- A true story about a crime, and murder. How parents seperate these two girls and they seek revenge. (Rated C)

The Frighteners- An R rated horror movie. One of those psychic, ghost, poltergeist, serial killer movies. (Rated a C+)

Also, critics as well as some barrowdowners have said Jackson made ROTK battle focused instead of concentrating on character developement. The ratings also I think go to show, there isn't much depth in the movies, just one of those typical hack-em up, psycho horror movies.

[Imladris]

Just because he made horror flicks doesn't mean that he didn't use Saruman's death as symbolism. This is what you are saying:

PJ made lots of horror flicks
PJ's horror flicks had lots of gore
PJ's focus for RotK is gore.

Logical fallacy. It echoes of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Assuming that since A (PJ made lots of horror flicks) happened before B (PJ made LotR and is influenced by gore and whatnot), A must have caused B.

Also, critics as well as some barrowdowners have said Jackson made ROTK battle focused instead of concentrating on character developement. The ratings also I think go to show, there isn't much depth in the movies, just one of those typical hack-em up, psycho horror movies.

It almost sounds as if you are doing another logical fallacy: namely faulty appeal to authority/people.

Ah, we haven't seen the Extended Edition yet...unless you think that those don't have more character developement. Either way, the EE has always had more character developement.

So...the end scene (which was very similiar to the end of RotK) is typical hack-em up, psycho horror movies? The grief of Samwise at being abandoned by Frodo (yes, exaggerated, but that was too show the Ring's power -- either way that change doesn't make the film a horror movie) is typical horror? The marriage of Arwen was typical horror? My mum has seen horror flicks...and she definitely didn't (and wouldn't) classify it as typical horror.

And I could go on, but I won't because I'll never convince you. However, PJ is a rabid Tolkien fan just like us (I believe he read it extremely often). Because people are different, we see thing differently -- different people get different things out of books. Saying that he made it into a typical horror, slash-em up movie because he didn't agree with you or focus on the thing that he should have been focusing on is very bad form. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but it sure sounds like it.

On the flip side of the different views of the books, there are different views of the movies as well and we obviously view them in a different light. However, this is the first time I've heard that it's no better than a typical horror movie. ;)

[Boromir88]

You're probably right, you won't convince me. I don't see any reason why all of a suddenly PJ would not intend it to be something other then Saruman's death for gore purposes (if he has a history of doing it). Anyway, I rated his previous movies, not ROTK, ROTK isn't a hack em up psycho movie, his other movies are :) . This isn't going anywhere, so I'm done as well.

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually, Heavenly Creatures is anything but a blood 'n gore film. It is a sensitive study of the disturbing friendship between two teenage girls with an intense fantasy life, and the tragedy which ensues when their parents try to separate them. It is based upon a true story. Not much blood and gore in sight, as far as I recall.

On the other hand, you missed out Braindead, which is one of the goriest films that I have ever seen, although very low budget and wonderfully tongue-in-cheek. Well worth a watch, if you can stand the gore.

Again, I don't really that think that Saruman shooting a fireball down from Orthanc is something to get overly concerned about. The films are already replete with spectacular special effects such as this, designed to thrill audiences (something which they have been incredibly effective in achieving). Non-book audiences will expect a cornered wizard to hurl the odd fireball, and Jackson has to cater for them too. These are not just "our" films. :p ;)

Also, I had read that it was with much reluctance that Jackson omitted this scene from the cinema release, in view of the wonderful way in which Christopher Lee delivered his dialogue. So I have high hopes that the "Voice of Saruman" will be present. It's hardly surprising that they included a spectacular moment in the trailer.

But (and I'm sure that I'm beginning to sound like a stuck record with this line) I really think that it's worth bearing in mind that these films are not meant to represent a facsimile of the book, but an adaptation of the book on screen. The intended audience is wider, the story told is different, the characters are different (in some cases, quite significantly) and the themes that the film-makers have chosen to emphasise are different.

I do think that it's best to sit back and enjoy them for what they are: well-made blockbuster films based on the book by Tolkien. Then go back and read the book. :)

[Boromir88]

I can't find a way to describe this SpM, besides that I partially agree, and I partially don't. I agree to the extent that these are adaptations, and it's only one (or a small group of people's views), not everyone's. So of course I anticipated changes, for good or for bad. And most of the changes are understandable to me, there's just a few where I don't see how PJ rationalized to pull that off, or it was "overboard." Anyway, the part where my view breaks off is, eventhough it is an adaptation, we still have the right to complain. If someone wants to be a purist, and slam PJ on every little subject, that's his own view. (I'm not saying you mean that, just getting out my thoughts, but I think by now everyone can understand them fairly well :)).

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted By SpM

I must say that I find this to be a very strange statement. Whatever misgivings I may have about particular aspects of the films (and they are few), I enjoy the films wholly when I watch them. I find it difficult to see how anyone can enjoy a film if they are merely "tolerating" aspects of it.

If, in Jackson's adaptation of LotR, Wormtongue is killed by an arrow from Legolas' bow, then so be it. I can accept that. It will not detract from the film for me. Perhaps I am oddity amongst LotR fans, but I do not find myself constantly thinking how they could or should have been done when I am watching the films. I simply suspend my book-based sensibilities and enjoy ...

Well, there are some things in the movies which I have come to accept as just a different version of canon; for example, the Elves at Helm's Deep/Haldir's death or Frodo hanging off the cliff in Mount Doom or the apathy of the Ents or Aragorn's unwillingness to be king, etc. Most changes don't bother me. There are a few things I find a bit cringe-worthy, but it doesn't spoil the overall movie experience. The movies are brilliant, and I'm sure I will love the RotK EE ... I just don't want PJ to mess with my favorite character too much.

Did that make any sense? :p

[radagastly]

Boromir88:
But then I look at PJ, and realize oh he just did it for the blood and gore, there's no symbolism in it (but I still like to think he intended it for symbolic purposes lol).

This is actually a difference that makes no difference. Consider the sculptures that line the Acropolis or Notre Dame. The artist is unknown, so no one can know their intentions. That doesn't take anything away from what they make you feel or think when you see them.

Or for that matter, consider a major influence on Tolkien, Beowulf. Who wrote it? By all accounts, it was composed by committee, of sorts. Everyone who sang it added their own two cents to the mix. It wasn't "fixed" in text until it was written down. The same for the "Ilyad" and the "Oddysey." In that case, there was no one "intent" because there was no one artist.

For what it's worth, I think Tolkien made better artistic decisions than Peter Jackson when telling this story for the most part. His characters are better developed (mostly) than Jackson's, and the magic of Middle Earth is more mysterious and subtle (certainly) than Jackson's. But differences are bound to appear when speaking in different mediums. Literature isn't movies (and vice-versa).

P.S. I made a similar comment on this thread--Popularist or Literati (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11282) Check it out. It's worth a read, and says some very applicable things about the book/movie argument.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Imladris, it does appear that you are being bullied on this thread, but such is the price you pay for daring to take a more radical line. :)

I suppose in the grand scheme of things, it matters not to Saruman who kills him (ignoring all wild theories about the afterlife and Ainur and the like). However, the relationship between Saruman and Grima surely demanded that, for the purposes of a great story, it was Grima who delivered the death blow, as opposed to an indistinct member of the general plot.

Surely the only reason Legolas has been inducted into this killing lark is because he happens to be played by a beautiful and highly popular actor and is no more than a fine action hero who the fans will cheer.

[Imladris]

Imladris, it does appear that you are being bullied on this thread, but such is the price you pay for daring to take a more radical line. :)

Awww, at least someone noticed... ;) No...really...I just love to argue. And I bit...hehehe.

To be somewhat on topic...I take the stance of SpM.

[gorthaur_cruel]

Does throwing a ball over the roof of a house go against gravity?

It only breaks the law when it doesn't come down again.

You misunderstood me. :)

I merely meant that even if a bow would usually go 400 yards, it doesn't mean it would fly 400 yards directly upwards, as it moves against gravity. The arrow would eventually slow to a crawl, stop, then come back down before reaching Orthanc.

[The Only Real Estel]

I merely meant that even if a bow would usually go 400 yards, it doesn't mean it would fly 400 yards directly upwards, as it moves against gravity. The arrow would eventually slow to a crawl, stop, then come back down before reaching Orthanc

Given that it's all just good fantasy fun n' games I'm sure the bow would have no problem.
On a more Tolkienish note, I'm sure that a bow given to Legolas by Galadriel herself would be somewhat magical & would probably have very few limitations (realisticly).

[Boromir88]

Estel, not JUST the bow, we also know Legolas has an ability to just replenish arrows in his quiver, so they too are magical. I wonder if they also defy the law of gravity, lol. ;)

[gorthaur_cruel]

Well, yes. There's that. :cool:

But I still don't understand why they moved Saruman to the top of Orthanc as opposed to his balcony, as in the book. I can think of several reasons why Saruman would not talk to them from the top of Orthanc; none as to why he would. :p

[Elianna]

I made the physics calculations and Lego couldn't shoot an arrow to the top of Orthanc. (Even using the amazing 150 lbs. draw strength of his spiffy Lothlórien bow.) The arrow couldn't be able to withstand the amazing amount of acceleration needed to get it to the top. (Even notched with the spiffy flint only found in the Silverlode.)

So we return to: Why on top of Orthanc? The balcony makes so much more sense...

[The Saucepan Man]

So we return to: Why on top of Orthanc?Presumably for reasons of dramatic effect, courtesy of artistic licence.

As The Only Real Estel impied, in a world where Orcs, Elves, Dwarves and Elephant-sized spiders exist, why shouldn't an arrow defy gravity in such a manner?

[Boromir88]

Elianna, also, you have to imagine Saruman would deflect the arrow, like Gandalf did when Legolas shot at him ;).

I have no idea why Saruman is on the top of Orthanc, all I can think of is PJ did it because he can :) .

[The Saucepan Man]

Elianna, also, you have to imagine Saruman would deflect the arrow, like Gandalf did when Legolas shot at him Er. Isn't he dead by this point?

[Encaitare]

Wait a second -- he's at the top of Orthanc? As in the same place where he did those crazy magic tricks to make the avalanche on Caradhras?

That's bogus. Doesn't he know he's got a nifty balcony for the express purpose of berating unwanted visitors?

[Imladris]

Does it really matter where Saruman talks to them just as long as he talks to them?

[gorthaur_cruel]

Wait a second -- he's at the top of Orthanc? As in the same place where he did those crazy magic tricks to make the avalanche on Caradhras?

Judging by everything from the trailers and screenshots, yes.

Does it really matter where Saruman talks to them just as long as he talks to them?

No, but I'm just curious. I think this is one of those moments where PJ changed the book for no reason at all. It's not like having him talk from the top of Orthanc will impress anybody more than talking from the balcony. In fact, it actually does matter, in a way. In addition to Legolas' arrow not reaching Wormtongue, how are they supposed to hear the infamous voice of Saruman? ;) :D

[Boromir88]

Er. Isn't he dead by this point?

SpM, lol yes, it would appear as if I had a mindlapse there for a moment, thanks for catching it, lol ;) .

Imladris, ya, I really don't see the big deal about having Saruman talk on the top, or from the balcony. I'm more interested to see how the Tolkienist Chris Lee portrays Saruman's voice. Whether it be the powerful, commanding Saruman, or the "honeyed" beggar Saruman.

gorthaur:
No, but I'm just curious. I think this is one of those moments where PJ changed the book for no reason at all. It's not like having him talk from the top of Orthanc will impress anybody more than talking from the balcony. In fact, it actually does matter, in a way. In addition to Legolas' arrow not reaching Wormtongue, how are they supposed to hear the infamous voice of Saruman?

It is an "unnecessary" change, but I don't see the relevance on where Saruman speaks from. Even if Legolas' arrow can't reach Wormtongue (mathematically), there have been stranger things in Tolkien, duh duh duh. For instance, talking swords. Point I'm trying to make, is, it's not a big deal thing that Saruman will speak from the top, and not the balcony. (Atleast in my opinion).

[Encaitare]

In addition to Legolas' arrow not reaching Wormtongue, how are they supposed to hear the infamous voice of Saruman?

My question exactly. So Orthanc is supposed to be around 170 yards tall -- not particularly huge for a tower, but an awfully long distance for holding a conversation. He'll have to shout down at them if he wants to be heard!

[Nuindacilien]

So the scouring isn't going to be in the EE? I heard somewhere that it was. Hm. I guess we'll just have to wait.
I guess that way of killing Saruman is okay. It's a little weird, though. PJ really should have put the Scouring in there. I was looking forward to that and HoH!

~Nuindacilien

[The Saucepan Man]

So the scouring isn't going to be in the EE? I heard somewhere that it was. No. I am pretty sure that it was never filmed (other than for the vision that Frodo saw in Galadriel's Mirror). In any event, if the additional 50 minutes of material in the EE was to include the Scouring, then there would be a lot less room for the other material that we all eagerly anticipate.

[Boromir88]

Well said SpM, we would all have liked to see the Scouring. But I feel, like the Voice of Saruman chapter is a necessity (since he was extint in the original), also included will be Gandalf's encounter with the WK, the HOH scenes (which I would just love to see Eowyn happy after getting denied), as well as the Mouth of Sauron, (on a PJ moment, Aragorn comes and decapitates Gothmog)-seems to be a recurring theme, first the little orc in Moria, then Lurtz, and now Gothmog?

[Nuindacilien]

Sounds interesting. :) I also heard that PJ will be making an appearance as one of the Men from the black ships (I can't recall their name at the moment :rolleyes: ). That should be funny. And he also gets killed by Legolas, I think. :eek: That would be a bit funny, though, to see him in the movie.

~Nuindacilien

[Boromir88]

Sounds interesting. I also heard that PJ will be making an appearance as one of the Men from the black ships (I can't recall their name at the moment ). That should be funny. And he also gets killed by Legolas, I think. That would be a bit funny, though, to see him in the movie.

Nuin, yes PJ does make cameo appearances in the LOTR movies. In FOTR he was the man chomping on the carrot in Bree, TTT, one of the soldiers from Rohan throwing rocks. In fact, in you do get to see him in the original ROTK as a cameo, he was the corsair I haven't heard that he will get killed by Legolas, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. :)

[Essex]

listening to the directors' commentary on the two towers dvd, I believe pj mentions that they had to nick a bit of saruman on the balcony from the voice of sarumans scenes, to use in the bit where we see isengard flooded, as pj didn't realise he would have a flooding scene, and it was too late to use christopher lee in pickups.

In other words, I think saruman will be on the balcony.

PS on a tangent regarding the commentary, isn't Phillipa Boyens a bitter woman in the controversy she has helped cause with the changes to TT? At least Fran Walsh admits they've made some drastic changes that tolkienists won't like, but PB keeps going on about how they were neccesarry. especially in the helms deep scene where we see eomer instead of erkenbrand. she was insinuating that that change was worse than the faramir changes but no one really moaned about it! :D Hillarious!

[Boromir88]

especially in the helms deep scene where we see eomer instead of erkenbrand. she was insinuating that that change was worse than the faramir changes but no one really moaned about it! Hillarious!

Essex, that is rather funny. I wasn't bothered by them putting in Eomer, instead of Erkenbrand. I think people would be confused, who and where this Erkenbrand came from. It's just a great climatic set up, when the expelled Eomer, riding away, happens to come in the nick-of-time to save the day. It does take away from Eomer's fighting that he did at Helm's Deep, with Gimli, but I feel it was a nice set up. It just happens to be the "thrown out" nephew of Theoden who comes to save the day. That didn't bother me at all, I was bothered by the change in Faramir, and don't see how it was necessary to take the ring to Osgiliath, but I can still live with it :) .

[Nuindacilien]

Nuin, yes PJ does make cameo appearances in the LOTR movies. In FOTR he was the man chomping on the carrot in Bree, TTT, one of the soldiers from Rohan throwing rocks. In fact, in you do get to see him in the original ROTK as a cameo, he was the corsair I haven't heard that he will get killed by Legolas, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. :)

Well, I guess I need to pay more attention! I never noticed him in there. Thanks for telling me, though. I'll be sure to look for him! :D

The changes that were made didn't really bother me that much. What upset me the most was the changes in FOTR. I actually saw the movie before I read the books, and when I finished reading FOTR, I was surprised that Boromir had already been killed, and that Merry and Pippin were taken away. It doesn't bother me now, but I was just surprised when I first finished the book.

~Nuindacilien

[The Only Real Estel]

on a PJ moment, Aragorn comes and decapitates Gothmog

Don't know whether it's been mentioned already or not, but it seems as if Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron as well. I'm not liking that idea, so I'm still hoping there will be no such thing...

[Elmo]

I was quite sickened by Legolas' murder of Grima. It just seemed so cold blooded. Was Grima much of a threat at the time to them, I don't know but something about it made me slightly uncomfortable.

[Elfchick7]

I actually felt that Saruman's end was a little too gruesome. Then again, that is just PJ's style. Oddly, I don't recall Grima's death at all. I guess it's time to pull out the good ol' extended edition. Yay! *does a happy jig*

[jezebelus]

They should show that scene in the movie. I mean Saruman't death. The last scene I remember was on his tower while tree-man were destroying his empire.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I have the EE RotK and heres how it goes...

Gandalf comes to Isengaurd for info and Saurman pulls out the Palantir and Wormtounge comes up and Theoden convinces him to come down and so Grima starts to, then Saurman smacks him, Grima falls pulls his dagger from the sheath stabs Saurman in the back 3 times Legolas shoots him with his bow and arrow, in the heart, Saurman falls onto his machinery, and so ends Saurman.

Hope this helps.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Don't know whether it's been mentioned already or not, but it seems as if Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron as well. I'm not liking that idea, so I'm still hoping there will be no such thing...

Yes he does. He cuts off his head.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Well, yes. There's that. :cool:

But I still don't understand why they moved Saruman to the top of Orthanc as opposed to his balcony, as in the book. I can think of several reasons why Saruman would not talk to them from the top of Orthanc; none as to why he would. :p

So he could fall.

[sallkid]

Really? Where'd you hear that? I sure haven't heard that before...
BTW, how can you shoot an arrow all the way up to the top of Orthanc, which is presumably around 300m high? Unless Elves have EXTREME power as well as accuracy, surely it won't reach that high before coming back down.

Just read this post and it reminded me of this old chestnut...
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v111/249/59/554130127/n554130127_965545_7432.jpg
That's why Legolas can fire an arrow to the top of orthanc, single handedly kill a mumak and outdrink a dwarf (the drinking annoyed me the most, i prefer my elves with delicate constitutions)

As for the death of Grima, it just didn't occur to me until now that it shouldn't have been legolas who killed him, now it has and it's gnawing at me.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Did I help?

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Well said SpM, we would all have liked to see the Scouring. But I feel, like the Voice of Saruman chapter is a necessity (since he was extint in the original), also included will be Gandalf's encounter with the WK, the HOH scenes (which I would just love to see Eowyn happy after getting denied), as well as the Mouth of Sauron, (on a PJ moment, Aragorn comes and decapitates Gothmog)-seems to be a recurring theme, first the little orc in Moria, then Lurtz, and now Gothmog?

Aragorn did not kill Gothmog, Eowyn did.

[Sir Kohran]

Aragorn did not kill Gothmog, Eowyn did.

No, Eowyn wounds him, and later he comes after her when she's weak from the fight with the Witch King, but Aragorn and Gimli come in just in time to finish him off.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

TGEW, everyone knows. It's an old film.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

No, Eowyn wounds him, and later he comes after her when she's weak from the fight with the Witch King, but Aragorn and Gimli come in just in time to finish him off.

Oops, I keep on getting these things wrong sounds like its time to watch the movies again... YAY!!!!!!

[Celegost]

Has anyone actually considered that these are probably the reasons why it is a deleted scene?? :rolleyes: