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

[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.

[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?

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