Lord of The Curry Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 So according to theonering.net and aintitcoolnews, New Line Cinema has instructed Jackson to edit the entire beggining scene of the ROTK, which is the fellowship riding to Isengard and the subsequent death of Saruman and Grima (Scouring of The Shire isn't in the movie.) So no Christopher Lee for anybody who was looking forward to seeing Saruman in ROTK. "We reluctantly made the decision to save this sequence for the DVD. The choice was made on the basis that most people will assume that Saruman was vanquished by the Helm's Deep events, and Ent attack. We can now crack straight into setting up the narrative tension of ROTK, which features Sauron as the villian. " - PJ This is such utter bullshit.
Tawren Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 So according to theonering.net and aintitcoolnews, New Line Cinema has instructed Jackson to edit the entire beggining scene of the ROTK, which is the fellowship riding to Isengard and the subsequent death of Saruman and Grima (Scouring of The Shire isn't in the movie.) So no Christopher Lee for anybody who was looking forward to seeing Saruman in ROTK. "We reluctantly made the decision to save this sequence for the DVD. The choice was made on the basis that most people will assume that Saruman was vanquished by the Helm's Deep events, and Ent attack. We can now crack straight into setting up the narrative tension of ROTK, which features Sauron as the villian. " - PJ This is such utter bullshit. That better not mean what I think it means.
Lightning Flik Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 So basically, they are re-writing ROTK? More or less to suit their own needs? ...wonderful. Exactly what I didn't want them to do.
RavishingRickRudo Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 So does that mean Liv Tyler makes a big heel turn and kills Sam???
Mole Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 I never read any of the books, so this doesn't mean much for me.
HollywoodSpikeJenkins Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 So does that mean Liv Tyler makes a big heel turn and kills Sam??? Where do you get that from?
RavishingRickRudo Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Liv Tyler was basically written in to the movie, rather than being true to the book. She is the personification of Peter Jackson's raping of LOTRs. And Sam is considered by some to be the true hero of the book and an integral character - so his death would just add more fuel to the fires of hate. Of course, I'm not tied to the book so I don't care. I was just being a smartass.
Kahran Ramsus Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 I never read any of the books, so this doesn't mean much for me. It should mean more to those who didn't read the books. We know what happened. Those that don't know what happens in the books will be wondering what the hell happened to the #2 heel.
Mole Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 I was thinking how he got out of the tower anyway. I know he is a wizard, but still.
Lil' Bitch Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 I'm buying ROTK Special Edition DVD next year anyway so no big loss.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 This is pretty minor compared to the fact that they written Liv into being a much more important character than she is and waiting till this movie to reforge the broken sword.
cabbageboy Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 I've read all sorts of rumors lately (ranging from imdb.com to aintitcoolnews.com) saying that Saruman has been completely cut out of Return of the King. No big death scene for him, nothing. Christopher Lee has just been cut from the final theatrical print. What does everyone think of this idea? I really hope this isn't true, since it would be throwing aside the guy who has been essentially the main heel in the first two movies with no fanfare. Unless they are restoring this to the EE DVD when that comes out.
Kaertos Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 That is exactly what is happening. One way or the other, from what I read it was a 7 minute scene that justr killed the end of TT and slowed the beginning of ROTK too much.
Guest El Satanico Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 I still don't see what the big deal is. I'm sure most people assumed he died in the final battle of Two Towers, so I don't see why not seeing his death is so major.
dubq Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 Ah well, I'm sure it will be in the Special Edition DVD..
cabbageboy Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 That is really the only way it could work. Just show Saruman and Grima both dead amidst the ruins of Isengard. I almost wonder why Tolkien himself just didn't kill off Saruman at that point (instead of the Scouring of the Shire in the book). But in ROTK I'd hope to at least see him dead.
HollywoodSpikeJenkins Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 How do they die in the book?
Kahran Ramsus Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 How do they die in the book? After the Scouring of the Shire, Saruman sells out Wormtongue by telling the Hobbits that he killed Lotho Sacksville-Baggins (he was under Saruman's orders). Wormtongue snaps from Saruman ordering him around all the time and he jumps him from behind and slips his throat. The Hobbit Archers then kill Wormtongue when he tries to escape.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 It seems like there's a lot of material to cover in the ROTK movie, and I was wondering how it was going to be made up in the final movie -- doesn't what happen to Frodo in regards to the "trap" Gollum sets up at the end of the film version of TTT actually occur at the end of TTT's book?...
dubq Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 So basically, they are re-writing ROTK? More or less to suit their own needs? ...wonderful. Exactly what I didn't want them to do. Uh, no. They're eliminating a scene. It doesn't say anything about re-writing it.
cabbageboy Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 First off, a Saruman death scene doesn't need 7 minutes. You could have a short scene of Grima being pissed and they argue, then Grima goes for the knife, stabs him, then Legolas or someone kills Grima. Don't they at least HAVE to show Saruman dead though? I've seen a pic of him impaled on a wheel, at least show him dead and have the heroes mention him a bit. Then move on.
cabbageboy Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 Oh, in regards to the Sauron thing if they aren't having Saruman in the movie at all do they have any choice but to show Sauron? I mean, they'd have literally no main heel and can you imagine a 3 1/2 hour closing film not even having a main heel?
Kahran Ramsus Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 Don't they at least HAVE to show Saruman dead though? I've seen a pic of him impaled on a wheel, at least show him dead and have the heroes mention him a bit. Then move on. Yeah this is the thing. Somehow the audience has to told or preferably shown that Saruman & Grima are dead. There has to be closure to this issue in the theatrical version. They can change it in the DVD version later to show the longer version. Sort of like how the way the Terminator learns in T2 is different in the theatrical version from the Special Edition. My personally feelings is that it should have been in the Two Towers, but since I will be getting the EE anyways, but I am worried for those that haven't read the books.
Lightning Flik Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 So basically, they are re-writing ROTK? More or less to suit their own needs? ...wonderful. Exactly what I didn't want them to do. Uh, no. They're eliminating a scene. It doesn't say anything about re-writing it. Excuse me then. They eliminated a scene to just keep up the pace of the series because it was slow. Mind you 7 minutes for a death scene is a tad too much.
cabbageboy Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 I'm baffled as to why they would cut this. To be honest there isn't a real good way to kill off Saruman. The book ending is unsatisfactory for a film, and anticlimactic to boot. Having Grima turn on Saruman early in ROTK is somewhat of a distraction and would mean the death of a major heel in the first half hour (which is never a real good thing). In all honesty they probably should have just had Saruman die in the Ent attack of Isengard in The Two Towers. Then in ROTK they just find his body.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 Oh, in regards to the Sauron thing if they aren't having Saruman in the movie at all do they have any choice but to show Sauron? I mean, they'd have literally no main heel and can you imagine a 3 1/2 hour closing film not even having a main heel? The King of the Nazgul will become a more important part of the series. He'll be in charge of the battle at Minas Tirith. Sauron is just an eye. You'll meet the Mouth of Sauron as well.
Lightning Flik Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 It seems like there's a lot of material to cover in the ROTK movie, and I was wondering how it was going to be made up in the final movie -- doesn't what happen to Frodo in regards to the "trap" Gollum sets up at the end of the film version of TTT actually occur at the end of TTT's book?... Because my post that I was making before got BALEETED~!, I'm just going to cut to the chase. No. It's not. The trap is probably about half way through. The other half of the book tidies things up for probably a followup to LotR or something. Yah, there's a lot of differences between the films and the books if the "trap" is the finish. They cut off quite a bit then.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 The book ends with Frodo being carried into the tower and Sam still on the outside.
dubq Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 Hmm, I wonder if they'll shorten it into a little montage of clips, kind of like they did for Gandalf vs Balrog in The Two Towers...
cabbageboy Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 I'm sorry, but this whole "Sauron is an eye" crap just won't cut it with me. Especially not after Saruman being chopped out of the final film. There is one huge, overriding problem with not showing Sauron: We've seen the guy. If Jackson hadn't already shown us Sauron in the first part of FOTR we'd have no real expectations of seeing him again. Besides, in ROTK Sauron DOES have a body so there is no excuse not to have him in the movie. He is not just an eye. The major problem of cutting out Saruman is that he's literally the only heel that anyone cares about. Everyone else is just some sort of orc, goblin, troll, wraith etc. that is easily defeated. In wrestling terms TTT didn't exactly leave the heels with all that much heat. They basically got the shit kicked out of them by 3 guys. I'm not saying Sauron has to start fighting people like those goofy Sauron vs. Aragorn rumors, but he does need to at least SHOW UP.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now