Return of the King - Christopher Lee snub

If you've compare the extended version of Fellowship to the theatre version you get some "explanation" for things which happen, but I would hazard that most viewers woudn't have lost the plot without it. And again the question is "Do the vast majority of viewers want to watch a film for 4 or 5 hours long?"
The obvious answer is no.

I for one believe that PJ has done a damn good job of producing "films" from what was considered an impossible set of books to film. I doubt he has failed with the final part.
 
Theres the problem. People don't believe anything until it appears on screen. A mention in the DVD means people will think of it as a deleted scene, not an addition. It should be there, no matter how it affects the pace. I reckon this is more New Lines fault than PJ's.
 
If you'd seen the doc's on the Extended versions DVD's then you'd appreaciate whats' going on. They film far more than can possibly go into a movie, especially when the exact time of special effects scenes cannot be calculated until they know how good they are produced. AnRAB' it's enevitable with any movie that scenes get ditched afer the've been filmed. This is not about externel interfearence. PJ's is a more than compoenent to know that a 4 hour movie is not going to prove populer in a cinema. If your happy watching a 4 hour version wait until the extended versions are released on DVD for the minority of fans who will be happy with a version that long.
 
I don't suppose anyone defending this decision criticised Matrix Revolutions for not tying everything up? Look I appreciate that not everything could be fit into a decent length of film. However I'm willing to bet theres at least 20 minutes of pointless weary conversation that could be cut, just for the sake of 7 minutes of Saruman getting the crap beat out of him. To completely wash over the ending of a major character is purely stupid. I reckon audiences would rather see that than some more Boromir Arwen crap.
 
I for one believe that PJ has done a damn good job of producing "films" from what was considered an impossible set of books to film. I doubt he has failed with the final part.

I agree with you on that part ,but that doesnt make every cut he has made to the film great in my opinion,
on the whole though im pleased with his films
 
I wouldnt know about the matrix-seeing it tomorrow!

I doubt that any serious LOTR fan would consider it "pointless weary conversation".The only criticism i've heard from fans of the books is that the films werent long enough and include every little aspect of the books-and the the dvd versions are the nearest they are going to get to that.
as Christopher Lee reaRAB LOTR every year i'm not even sure why he's bothered-as someone said earlier it shouldnt even be in this film at all!
 
As a MAJOR Tolkien fan ,i liked the films ,but although the films are very good they arnt a patch on the books .
What saddens me more than anything is that there are people who have never read the books and base their understanding of tolkien on the films.
As For Christoper Lee i totally understand his reactions to the cuts ,how can you let a major character disappear with no real exit?
 
In one of the eraly documanteries he said that if the film had been editied by a focus group or committee the film would have been either too long, or a concocktion of disjointed scenes contained everyones favourite character. In the end the only sensible approach was for this to be one man's vision, even if that left every Tolkien fan dissppointed to some extent. After all they have the book's, and film fans have his films.
 
The films should have been split up into six parts, therefore the fans would have gotten what they wanted and the producers would have gotten what they wanted (double the money).
 
all i can say is read the book there are lots of scenes in the book not included in the films with Saruman and Wormtongue
it wouldnt be fair of me to give the outcome of his death away as its in a vital part of the story missed out in the film.
 
Vital?

In many ways the real story enRAB with the destruction of the ring.
What the hobbits found when they return home could have been in the many appendices. In deed the films include parts of the appendicies becuase these include some elements "vital" to the story which Tolkien added later via the appendices.
 
I think that the 'saruman story' has to be finished on the films. Of course, i know what happens in the books cos i've read it but because they don't have the scouring of the shire they need to finish it off differently. I just can't wait another year to find out.:eek:
 
QUOTE]
Vital?

In many ways the real story enRAB with the destruction of the ring.
What the hobbits found when they return home could have been in the many appendices. In deed the films include parts of the appendicies becuase these include some elements "vital" to the story which Tolkien added later via the appendices.
yes vital id say as it brings home the reality that war affects everyone even at home plus its good to see the Hobbits taking charge of their own destiny
Bleh you made me give away a bit of the ending now lol
(sorry coca cola)
Click to expand...
 
What are you on?
Youv're read the books and want to know what happens to Saruman.
The books, the Theatre film's and the the extended DVD';s have to be considered as seperate items which are closly related. PJ has said that you shouldn't consider the extended DVD's as the "directors cut". They are a more detailed rendition of the story for those who want to watch 3 1/2 hours. So it isn't right to say that whats in the DVD is "missing" from the film. I've watched both extended versions and it's amazing how the theatrical version still made sense without what's in the extended versions.
 
starman700 said:
QUOTE]
Vital?

In many ways the real story enRAB with the destruction of the ring.
What the hobbits found when they return home could have been in the many appendices. In deed the films include parts of the appendicies becuase these include some elements "vital" to the story which Tolkien added later via the appendices.

You already know the ending of any film based upon a book, unless it's Hollywood and the only thing taken from the book might be the Title!

It's a credit to the adaptation that disccusing the "books" may spoil the film for those that havn't read them.
Click to expand...
 
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they are cutting the Saruman scene from the film. After all, they have completely changed the story for the first 2 films to suit themselves, so why should we expect them to do any different in the 3rd film?

Saruman was a major character in the film and I think any cinema goer would be happy to sit through an extra 7 minutes of footage to see Saruman get what he deserved after the things he did in the first film to Gandalf.

Tolkein didn't want the books ever to be made into a film, so he must be spinning in his grave right now with what they have done to his story.

Oh and by the way, I actually really like the LOTR films, but after reading the book, you can't help but feel cheated with what they are doing to the story.
 
I get the impression some people have never seen a film adapted from a book before. Tolkien himself left huge holes that had to be filled by his appendices. Some people read the book, and then the appendicies. Some people read the apprendices as the book indicates a link. The people who have never read the books and are complaining about the film won't know about the book and the appendices. PJ had to use booth and include parts of the appencies to fill the holes. In many ways PJ's holes are less obtrusive than Tolkiens.

These are marvolous films and well edited to the point you don't miss what's been cut unless you've read the books, and that's the same with every mamoth book which's has ever been turned into a film.

It's clear from many of the comments that too many think Sarumen is the real villien of the movie. The final film has to bring the focus onto Sauron - Lord of the Rings, even though this charected is totally effemeral.
 
Back
Top