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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

I agree with Estel and Eomer, I would have to say Legolas killing Grima, only makes it seem as Eomer puts it....
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.

Magno Spoiler Warning!!!!!!
 

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?

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...........

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:.

I share your idea, Eomer.
 

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. ;)

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.

Argh.
 

Blast.

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.

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

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

Enca's Grim Conclusion
 

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.

Nor can I. :p Grima fangirls unite!

Along the lines of a question gorthaur_cruel brought up: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.

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.

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.

Encaitare I think you said it best.

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!

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 :)

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.

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.

Sharkey Shishcabob
 

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.

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

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.

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).

Agree with you 100%.

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 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.

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?

Apparently:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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. :)

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 :)).

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

Boromir88:
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 Check it out. It's worth a read, and says some very applicable things about the book/movie argument.

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.

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.

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.