Saruman/Grima Out???

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

[Kalimac]

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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

[Eurytus]

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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

[HCIsland]

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

[Liriodendron]

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

[Eurytus]

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

[Arathiriel]

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

[ArathorofBarahir]

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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

[Kalimac]

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

[HCIsland]

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

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

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

[HCIsland]

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

[Liriodendron]

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

[HCIsland]

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

[The Only Real Estel]

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

[HCIsland]

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

[The Only Real Estel]

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

[Finwe]

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

[Arwen_Evenstar]

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

[Gorwingel]

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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

[jonathan32]

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

[Eurytus]

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

[jonathan32]

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

[Morquesse]

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

[The Only Real Estel]

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

[Liriodendron]

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

[Finwe]

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

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

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

[The Only Real Estel]

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

[Essex]

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

[Finwe]

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

[Liriodendron]

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

[jonathan32]

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

[HCIsland]

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

[The Only Real Estel]

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

[Liriodendron]

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