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

[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?

Originally Posted by Kransha[/QUOTE

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:

Originally Posted by Estel

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.

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.