nothing special
New member
does this mean there will be even more time to devote to Frodo, well, wandering about a bit......
Iain
Iain
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Return of the King - Christopher Lee snub
- Thread starter nothing special
- Start date
What are everyone's thoughts on the news that Mr Lee's 7 mins as Saruman in the last film have been cut.
Plot wise, having not read the book, I'd have thought it was problematic to dispose of a major player.
On a more human level I thought it was a bit sad as Lee has championed the project enthusiastically.
G
Plot wise, having not read the book, I'd have thought it was problematic to dispose of a major player.
On a more human level I thought it was a bit sad as Lee has championed the project enthusiastically.
G
redraiderbass
New member
And what other things that you don't know are in the book should be in the film?
Films are not easy ways of absorbing a book, they can never be long enough to do that.
PJ got it right if the only reason people are aware things are missing are becuase they read the book and if those without knowledge of the book can enjoy the films and understand the story as shown in the film.
Even films not based on books leave you wonderng about what happened to the characters before and after the story in the film.
That dosn't mean the film had scenes missing.
Films are not easy ways of absorbing a book, they can never be long enough to do that.
PJ got it right if the only reason people are aware things are missing are becuase they read the book and if those without knowledge of the book can enjoy the films and understand the story as shown in the film.
Even films not based on books leave you wonderng about what happened to the characters before and after the story in the film.
That dosn't mean the film had scenes missing.
From what i remember of that bit of Two Towers you don't really see that much of Sarauman anyway, he's just heard throwing Wormtongue around. I did hear that those 7 minutes are going to be part of the extra 1/2 hour or so added for the extended dvd release. The cinema release is apparently confirmed to be 3 1/2 hours anyway. Whether that's before or after the cut i don't know.
Dumbbell Nebula
New member
Lot's of scenes in every film have to be cut. It's not as if Chris went to New Zealand to film those scenes specifically. The reality is that his scenes where removed from the last third of the production.
If those scenes should have been in the Two towers I would ask the question "how many people missed them and lost the plot because of it?"
They might appear in the DVD.
Jackson has said in one of the DVD doumanataries that in the end editing came to telling the story of the ring and frodo's journey to destroy it. If scenes didn't contribute to that they where left out. That's why theres no Tom Bombodil, one of many peoples favourite LOTR characters.
If those scenes should have been in the Two towers I would ask the question "how many people missed them and lost the plot because of it?"
They might appear in the DVD.
Jackson has said in one of the DVD doumanataries that in the end editing came to telling the story of the ring and frodo's journey to destroy it. If scenes didn't contribute to that they where left out. That's why theres no Tom Bombodil, one of many peoples favourite LOTR characters.
girlygirl1400
New member
All three films where filmed at the same time and scenes do not get filmed in order. So the scenes with sharkey and Hobbiton would have been filmed straight after the scenes with Hobitton in good nick, and then the sets removed.
No preplanning system has yet been devised that can estimate how long scenes in the storyboard will last in terms of film time. The net result is that they get to editing and find that the total time for all the scenes filmed might be too long to be sensible.
They then have to review what they have and decide what "story" can be told when scenes are removed. PJ has said that in the end his story became the stort of the Ring and Frodo's journey to destroy it. Anything not relevent to telling that story could be removed.
No preplanning system has yet been devised that can estimate how long scenes in the storyboard will last in terms of film time. The net result is that they get to editing and find that the total time for all the scenes filmed might be too long to be sensible.
They then have to review what they have and decide what "story" can be told when scenes are removed. PJ has said that in the end his story became the stort of the Ring and Frodo's journey to destroy it. Anything not relevent to telling that story could be removed.
You are definitely not getting my point here. From what I can tell of what happens in the books, Jackson has already bent them or added to them enough already. Most importantly he added a LOT of stuff about Saruman to the first and second films, he built the character up, he made him important, he made the audience want to see him get it at the end of the film. Of course Saruman survived and the audience doesn't get to see the payoff of Saruman being "vanquished" however it is done. What happened in the books is very unimportant to the movie.
Look I'll give you an example. The character of the Uruk-hai Lurtz wasn't in the books, another thing Jackson has added. So in FOTR, Lurtz was built up to be the "leader" of the Uruk who attack the Fellowship, and he was designed to be an apparent figure for the entire group of Uruk that attacks. The audience sees him, begins to dislike him. The Uruk-hai attack and Lurtz is the most apparent attacker in this respect because he's the only one the audience in any way knows, so he bears the brunt of audience hatred. Then Lurtz himself pierces Boromir with 4 arrows, providing an even greater need within the audience to see this character truly destroyed and then BANG Aragorn decapitates him, and story is paid off, and audience feels happy because that has happened. Not happy because the story ended happy, but happy because the story ended.
Now compare this with Saruman's (of the movie, forget the books exist) story. When we first see him, we don't know he's a bad guy, thinking that because he's a wizard like Gandalf he might be good. So then Saruman attacks Gandalf without warning, and nearly kills the guy, but he doesn't. Instead he imprisons him and "tortures" the man. Then he destroys a whole load of trees, and begins to build a massive army of ugly looking things called Uruk-hai. He also tries to thwart the fellowship by changing the weather and nearly killing them on the mountains. Then in the second film, we see a lot more of him creating armies which then go and attack Helm's Deep, nearly killing our heroes in the process. Now forgetting about the books, what we should see now should be some sort of scene where Gandalf gets revenge, vanquishes Saruman and then rises to become Gandalf the White, and the story is complete with regard to those two characters' battle with each other. Now because that didn't happen we have the situation where we still need that payoff for Saruman. I'm not worried about not having payoff with Grima, because he was only in it for a short time, and not built as such a major threat. But the man who creates the Uruk armies, nearly destroys Gandalf, nearly kills the Fellowship, and senRAB the Uruk to destroy the people of Helm's Deep, neeRAB a payoff, neeRAB to be killed/stripped of his power/magiked away. But no, we're left with what happened in the Two Towers? Perhaps this is all a rumour blown out of all proportion, or indeed a coverup by Jackson, because otherwise it'll make sure one part of the story makes very little sense at all.
Look I'll give you an example. The character of the Uruk-hai Lurtz wasn't in the books, another thing Jackson has added. So in FOTR, Lurtz was built up to be the "leader" of the Uruk who attack the Fellowship, and he was designed to be an apparent figure for the entire group of Uruk that attacks. The audience sees him, begins to dislike him. The Uruk-hai attack and Lurtz is the most apparent attacker in this respect because he's the only one the audience in any way knows, so he bears the brunt of audience hatred. Then Lurtz himself pierces Boromir with 4 arrows, providing an even greater need within the audience to see this character truly destroyed and then BANG Aragorn decapitates him, and story is paid off, and audience feels happy because that has happened. Not happy because the story ended happy, but happy because the story ended.
Now compare this with Saruman's (of the movie, forget the books exist) story. When we first see him, we don't know he's a bad guy, thinking that because he's a wizard like Gandalf he might be good. So then Saruman attacks Gandalf without warning, and nearly kills the guy, but he doesn't. Instead he imprisons him and "tortures" the man. Then he destroys a whole load of trees, and begins to build a massive army of ugly looking things called Uruk-hai. He also tries to thwart the fellowship by changing the weather and nearly killing them on the mountains. Then in the second film, we see a lot more of him creating armies which then go and attack Helm's Deep, nearly killing our heroes in the process. Now forgetting about the books, what we should see now should be some sort of scene where Gandalf gets revenge, vanquishes Saruman and then rises to become Gandalf the White, and the story is complete with regard to those two characters' battle with each other. Now because that didn't happen we have the situation where we still need that payoff for Saruman. I'm not worried about not having payoff with Grima, because he was only in it for a short time, and not built as such a major threat. But the man who creates the Uruk armies, nearly destroys Gandalf, nearly kills the Fellowship, and senRAB the Uruk to destroy the people of Helm's Deep, neeRAB a payoff, neeRAB to be killed/stripped of his power/magiked away. But no, we're left with what happened in the Two Towers? Perhaps this is all a rumour blown out of all proportion, or indeed a coverup by Jackson, because otherwise it'll make sure one part of the story makes very little sense at all.
Those without knowledge of the books can accept that he was killed in his tower, especially as he dosn't appear in the final film. Only those who become aware that he lives beyond the Ent attack in the book will be bothered by his absence.
What happens in Hobbiton after Frodo leaves does not add to the story that PJ is telling. I've already explained that PJ had to change the story after editing commenced, and why the original end sceens of film 3 would have been in the can soon after the beggining scenes of film 1 where filmed.
What happens in Hobbiton after Frodo leaves does not add to the story that PJ is telling. I've already explained that PJ had to change the story after editing commenced, and why the original end sceens of film 3 would have been in the can soon after the beggining scenes of film 1 where filmed.
Those without knowledge of the books (I'm one of them or at least I was until I read this news) will not simply accept that he was killed in the tower because we didn't see it happen! Even if it was only a mention in passing or a discovery of his body it would make more sense. Now people will be saying to themselves "Saruman didn't die in the last one did he?" "I don't know, we didn't see him die, I dont think he was". Trust me they won't just accept he's dead. **SPOILER** People couldn't even accept that Neo was dead at the end of Revolutions for goodness sake.
candle-wax
New member
That is a weakness but they probably didn't realise the third film wass too long untill after the second was released. If they had waited and edited all three films together they could have realised this weakness and refilmed a new scene for Two Towers which showed Saruman dying .
Clealy the production relied on earning revenue from the previous films and so these editing problems arose. It still dosn't detract from the film.
Lots of films suffer from lost scenes during editing. Gladiator for example shows Maximus doing everthing he can to hide his identity and yet when he asks if anyone had been in the army at the battle in the arena someone replies they had fought with him. So when did he reveal his identity to his fellow gladiators?
SounRAB like a missing scene to me.
Clealy the production relied on earning revenue from the previous films and so these editing problems arose. It still dosn't detract from the film.
Lots of films suffer from lost scenes during editing. Gladiator for example shows Maximus doing everthing he can to hide his identity and yet when he asks if anyone had been in the army at the battle in the arena someone replies they had fought with him. So when did he reveal his identity to his fellow gladiators?
SounRAB like a missing scene to me.
yearlyattitude
New member
Or they recognised his face?
Anyway the problem with leaving that scene out of ROTK is that seven minutes which includes the death of Saruman is to me not going ruin the pace of the film, but I haven't seen it of course. Still it should be in the film in some form.
Anyway the problem with leaving that scene out of ROTK is that seven minutes which includes the death of Saruman is to me not going ruin the pace of the film, but I haven't seen it of course. Still it should be in the film in some form.
I've said this elsewhere but I think this a stupid idea. The people who aren't big LOTR fans (a great lot of people) will have no idea what happened to Saruman. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if he wasn't such a major villian to some of the audience. He smacked Gandalf around a lot, nearly killed him, tried to kill the Fellowship and hindered them at every turn, unleashed the Orcs. Now he's just disappeared. Of course this isn't a normal film being based on a book, but they've stretched the book parallels enough already. Normally this would conclude with someone getting retribution on Saruman preferably Gandalf, but now we're just supposed to accept he's gone? Saying its on the DVD is all well and good, but not everyone sees the DVD, and a lot will simply not understand whats going on. Leaving out backstory and details of characters (or simply leaving out characters altogether) is fine, but leaving a major thread just hanging? A bad move I think.
Oba no cchio
New member
You can only say that if you beleive that's all that's been left out. Lot's have been left out from the book. To me it dosn't matter if it was left out before or after filming. It would appear that some people think becuase it was filmed it should be in. If you where a Tolkien fan you would know that the most missed charecter is Tom Bombadil. As PJ explained, they don't say they didn't meet him, they just havn't included it in the film (as if didn't help the story one jot). They leave it you imagination as to complete everything which might have happened between leaving Hobbiton and arriving at Bree. So just leave it to your imagination as to what might happen after the ring is destroyed, (or whatever other point PJ enRAB the movie)
And what this about "pace". Including this would have added another 7 minutes to the "length" and has nothing to do with "pace" , and may also have required other scenes to link to Sarumen's later involment which where also excluded. The films would have been to long, and many already complain they are too long as they are.
And what this about "pace". Including this would have added another 7 minutes to the "length" and has nothing to do with "pace" , and may also have required other scenes to link to Sarumen's later involment which where also excluded. The films would have been to long, and many already complain they are too long as they are.
The Answer Is Jesus
New member
peter jackson has said he will be on the extended DVD nextyear for ROTK
It seems that a lot of people are getting miffed that the 7 minutes are going to be left out meerly because you aren't told that Saruman dies.
It has only been confirmed so far that the scenes are missing, there has been nothing to say that a voice over (like at the beginning of the first two) won't tell us some back story and mention Sarumans passing.
Just a thought. Voice over woman tells us he's dead, everyones happy, story moves on.
It has only been confirmed so far that the scenes are missing, there has been nothing to say that a voice over (like at the beginning of the first two) won't tell us some back story and mention Sarumans passing.
Just a thought. Voice over woman tells us he's dead, everyones happy, story moves on.
3
<3t0Ki0 h0t3l f0 Sh0 :]
Guest
It seems that a lot of people are getting miffed that the 7 minutes are going to be left out meerly because you aren't told that Saruman dies.
its not just that ,it sets up the scene with pippin and the palantir
which makes me wonder how this is gonna be achieved or if its gonna be in it at all.which also makes pippin going to minas tirith pretty defunct so its a knock on affect.
its not just that ,it sets up the scene with pippin and the palantir
which makes me wonder how this is gonna be achieved or if its gonna be in it at all.which also makes pippin going to minas tirith pretty defunct so its a knock on affect.
The scenes in question should have been at the end of The Two Towers, and were filmed with the full intention of putting them there.
Peter Jackson cut them from TTT as he felt they elongated and overcomplicated the ending, but now he's in a position where they don't really fit into the start of ROTK either so they're history.
Peter Jackson cut them from TTT as he felt they elongated and overcomplicated the ending, but now he's in a position where they don't really fit into the start of ROTK either so they're history.