BAD news about ROTK [some unmasked spoilers] [Archive]

Rognan Dar

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:08:50 PM

Originally posted by ReaperFett
I don't like the fact that they remove important scene(s) with the attitude that they'll be on the DVD if you want to see them. Imagine ROTJ had we not seen Vader die!

That would really suck. There wouldn't be a point to it either. I can't imagine what it would be like to wait and see if Vader died or not.

Well, now it'll be 2 weeks past that date

What does that mean? Are they falling behind in their work?

I may just not remember, but what scene is it that they are talking about?

Figrin D'an

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:20:00 PM

I still don't understand why they didn't put the Ride to Isengard and Gandalf's parlay with Saruman into TTT. Cut the Aragorn Falling over the Cliff scene, make a couple of other minor cuts, and add the 7 minutes needed to complete that part of the story.

This is annoying. This completely screws with the setup for the rest of the story. Not only do we have the issue with Aragorn, as Marcus mentioned, but what about Pippin gazing into the Palantir and revealing himself to Sauron, thus making Sauron think Pippin is the Ring Bearer, and providing reason why Gandalf takes him to Minas Tirith ahead of everyone else? How is that going to be explained?

Jedieb

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:23:10 PM

This doesn't bug me as much as it does Marcus. At least I'll get to see it when I get the extended version next year. Cuts have to be made somewhere. This doesn't seem like too bad of a cut.

ReaperFett

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:26:01 PM

Eb, when they start adding in subplots for no reason, surely they have no excuse to start cutting more scenes?

Jedieb

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:32:22 PM

There have been some changes that have bothered me, but the way I look at it, they're inevitable. A literal translation just isn't possible. I've gotten the important elements found in the books that I've wanted. You can't please everyone. IMO, Jackson's captured the spirit of the books.

I think the subplots have been added to strengthen certain elements of the story. Jackson has made a point of reinforcing Aragon's love for... Elf Tyler... The cliff scene is part of that. I would have loved to have seen Gandalf and Saruman going at each other for a bit after the Ents attacked, but I can see why it's been cut. At least we'll get this scene on the DVD.

Whoever would have filmed this would have made changes. Most of the ones so far haven't bugged me. Hell, I still don't like what Jackson did with Faramir but you can't have everything.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:38:26 PM

But the Gandalf / sauman scene IS important. Very much so. It's not a Bombadil offshoot, this is a very substansial part they are cutting.

AND I WAS SOOOOO LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING GANDALF SAYING "SAUMAN, YOUR STAFF IS BROKEN!!!" Aggggghhh! It's literally my favorite chapter!

How the hell Jackson gets out of this mess, I have no idea. Least we knw the movie is 3h12m right now.

Rognan Dar

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:43:54 PM

Heck, I wouldn't mind a 4 hour movie if I get to see more or they put more in.

The way I see it is that they should have made 6 movies (though, thats stretching it a bit). Make each part of the books a movie instead of making each book a movie. That way, they would be able to cover more. And I think it would make more money that way, too, but also take more.

Ardath Bey

Nov 7th, 2003, 05:44:00 PM

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
I still don't understand why they didn't put the Ride to Isengard and Gandalf's parlay with Saruman into TTT. Cut the Aragorn Falling over the Cliff scene, make a couple of other minor cuts, and add the 7 minutes needed to complete that part of the story.

This is annoying. This completely screws with the setup for the rest of the story. Not only do we have the issue with Aragorn, as Marcus mentioned, but what about Pippin gazing into the Palantir and revealing himself to Sauron, thus making Sauron think Pippin is the Ring Bearer, and providing reason why Gandalf takes him to Minas Tirith ahead of everyone else? How is that going to be explained?

The Gandalf-Saruman parley at Isengard is one of my favorite moments in the whole saga. 'Saruman ... your staff is broken.' Alot of symbolic impact there. Jackson started making too many unneccessary changes since the last movie, my sympathies go to the purists on this. Boo PJ!

Jedieb

Nov 7th, 2003, 06:02:12 PM

But the Gandalf / sauman scene IS important. Very much so. It's not a Bombadil offshoot, this is a very substansial part they are cutting.

AND I WAS SOOOOO LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING GANDALF SAYING "SAUMAN, YOUR STAFF IS BROKEN!!!" Aggggghhh! It's literally my favorite chapter!
It is a GREAT scene. But from what I read of Jackson's statement, he has a pretty good reason for cutting it. If we weren't getting it on the Extended DVD I would be more upset.

Figrin D'an

Nov 7th, 2003, 06:15:55 PM

I'm with Marcus on this one.

I'm far from a hardcore purist. Yes, I'm a big fan of Tolkien's work; I've read his books and short stories many many times. But I do understand that changes have to be made when trying to translate his text into a visual format. I completely agree that a literal, verbatum adaptation of the Lord of the Rings would suck. I have no doubt of that. Many (not all) of the changes in the first two films, I have approved of, or at least acknowledged as being necessary.

This cut, however, is just plain wrong. The events at Isengard, post-Helm's Deep, are extremely important to the story...

- It shows that Gandalf is indeed now the most powerful of the Istari, and that Saruman's power is broken.

- It give us the Palantir, which is pivotal to future events concerning both Aragorn and Pippin.

- It sets up Saruman's displeasure with Grima, and provides the basis for why he later kills Saruman during the Scouring of the Shire. (yes, I know... not in the film... *grumble grumble*)

- It sets up Gandalf's ride to Minas Tirith, and the reason why Pippin goes with him.

- It give us the basis for the developing friendship between Theoden and Merriadoc, which comes into play when Merry faces, and slays, the Witch King.

This isn't just minor detail being cut... this is a key scene in the entire story. This is, IMO, worse than cutting the Scouring of the Shire.

And, as I said before, this all could have been solved if they just would have shown this in TTT, rather than cutting that branch of the story off at the end of Helm's Deep.

Jedi Master Carr

Nov 7th, 2003, 06:19:59 PM

I agree with you Jedieb things have to be cut to get to around 3 hours I guess its going to be 3 hours 12 minutes which is better for moviegoers. It doesn't bother me, Saurman is not the main bad guy in ROTK, it is Sauron so I agree with that angle. Sure they should have tacked it on to TTT by cutting out the cliff thing which I agree was pointless, I would even have cut down the sam's speech deal to get it.

Jedieb

Nov 7th, 2003, 06:32:55 PM

I think cutting this scene is going to hurt readers of the books more than those who are only seeing the films. I completely understand why this cut upsets some people, but at least we're all going to be able to see it when the Extended version comes along. I honestly enjoy the LOTR films more on DVD because I can watch them multiple times in the comfort of my own home. So having this showdown on DVD works out better for me.

Jedi Master Carr

Nov 7th, 2003, 06:47:37 PM

I agree people who have never read the books aren't going to care really.

ReaperFett

Nov 8th, 2003, 09:49:38 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I agree people who have never read the books aren't going to care really.

But....how did Sauruman die in my eyes? BADLY :)

Lilaena De'Ville

Nov 8th, 2003, 11:45:42 AM

Good grief, does no one care about the people who haven't read the books? Spoiler tags, people!!

Jedi Master Carr

Nov 8th, 2003, 12:36:27 PM

Well I think most people in the audience won't particular care about Sauraman he was finished after the trees took out his orcs and most people in the audience will probably think he was captured or something.

Morgan Evanar

Nov 8th, 2003, 06:35:24 PM

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Good grief, does no one care about the people who haven't read the books? Spoiler tags, people!! No.

Syo

Nov 8th, 2003, 10:37:40 PM

I am beginning to seriously question Jackson as a director of these movies as they have progressed he has seriously marred the movies.

The whole death of Aragorn in the Two Towers was an insult to movie viewers and Faramir being forced in his decision to release Frodo rather than finding the strength in himself like in the books was like spitting on Tolkiens grave.

Don't get me wrong I love the LOTR's movies but it just seems like Jackson is so full of himself he is forgetting to be true to the vision of Tolkien.

JMK

Nov 8th, 2003, 11:22:16 PM

I don't think it has anything to do with PJ's 'ego' at all. He's had to make some difficult choices with these movies and I think he's done a spectacular job with them so far.

The whole death of Aragorn in the Two Towers
Huh?
That scene exists in the book, as an appendix called "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen". I thought that was an incredibly smart move on PJ's part. Unless you're talking about something different altogether.

Jedi Master Carr

Nov 8th, 2003, 11:50:38 PM

I liked that too it is what happens in the book. Unless you mean him falling off the cliff deal which I think should have been left out.

JMK

Nov 8th, 2003, 11:54:40 PM

Yeah, I thought that was rather pointless.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:11:59 AM

Originally posted by Syo
I am beginning to seriously question Jackson as a director of these movies as they have progressed he has seriously marred the movies.

The whole death of Aragorn in the Two Towers was an insult to movie viewers and Faramir being forced in his decision to release Frodo rather than finding the strength in himself like in the books was like spitting on Tolkiens grave.

Don't get me wrong I love the LOTR's movies but it just seems like Jackson is so full of himself he is forgetting to be true to the vision of Tolkien.

Someone has already pointed out you are wrong. I back them up

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I liked that too it is what happens in the book. Unless you mean him falling off the cliff deal which I think should have been left out.

Yes, pointless, agreed. I dont quite get why he did that.
Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Good grief, does no one care about the people who haven't read the books? Spoiler tags, people!!

The book has been availibe for 50 years. It's the widest read fiction book of all time. There has to be a point where something is fair game and I consider LOTR the book to be more than resonable fair game.

Syo

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:24:03 AM

I was referring to him falling off the cliff not to the fortelling of him growing old and dieing.

Its that little cliffhanger that they tried to put in there like he had died that angered me to no end, it did not serve any purpose and I hold strong that it was an insult to any movie goer who had read the books or was intellegent enough to realize what a piece of rubbish it was.

Jedi Master Carr

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:40:01 AM

I agree there not sure what he was trying to do cause suspense for the movie goers??? It really didn't fit, IMO.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 9th, 2003, 02:23:52 AM

Originally posted by Syo
Its that little cliffhanger that they tried to put in there like he had died that angered me to no end, it did not serve any purpose and I hold strong that it was an insult to any movie goer who had read the books or was intellegent enough to realize what a piece of rubbish it was.

Riiiight. Then he can insult me again, because while there really wasnt much point IMO because I am a Tolkieen geek, it still wasn't a bad sequence on a film level. It still wasnt as bad a mistake as other book to movie translations have been. It is nowhere near as bad as you try to make out

It certainly really pales with leaving out The Voice of Saruman

Syo

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:09:03 PM

Well to me I thought the worse editing decision he made was to move Shelob's cave from the end of The Two Towers to the front of Return of the King.

The way TTT's ended felt exactly like it began, Frodo and Sam are on their way to Mordor and nothing has been accomplished in three hours. The reason Tolkien ended TTT with Frodo captured by the Orcs and Sam needing to rescue him was the suspense and leading into the third book.

If Jackson need suspsense he could have left the suspense of the books in instead of inventing his own with the fake Aragorn death.

If you look at the first two books they end with cliffhangers and for good reason to lead into the subsequent books. Jackson killed that suspense by acomplishing nothing in Frodo and Sam's joruney towards Mordor.

Lilaena De'Ville

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:11:32 PM

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Good grief, does no one care about the people who haven't read the books? Spoiler tags, people!! Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
No.

^_^; just checking

Dasquian Belargic

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:19:46 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I agree there not sure what he was trying to do cause suspense for the movie goers??? It really didn't fit, IMO.

my mum hadn't read the book and she genuinely thought he was dead. I think it made the movie more interesting for her.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 9th, 2003, 01:38:45 PM

The reason Tolkien ended TTT with Frodo captured by the Orcs and Sam needing to rescue him was the suspense and leading into the third book.

Wrong. Tolkien never intended for the 'books' to be seperate. He always wanted them to be together. It was a publisher decision.

Well to me I thought the worse editing decision he made was to move Shelob's cave from the end of The Two Towers to the front of Return of the King.

And if you knew why Jackson did that, you would find it very resonable. Just what would Frodo and Sam be doing in the third moive? Basically nothing. He shifted the final chapters of book 4 to balance out ROTK. That is quite resonable and I look forward to the final result. We're goign to see ROTK as per the LOTR timeline

Syo

Nov 9th, 2003, 02:30:32 PM

No he added Shelob's cave to the front of ROTK because he is cutting a third of the book out of the scouring of the shire. He might be doing it because of balance but it is still a wrong headed decision.

Mortaniuss

Nov 9th, 2003, 03:17:15 PM

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Good grief, does no one care about the people who haven't read the books? Spoiler tags, people!! Scenes that were cut from the theatrical version are spoilers? :huh

Lilaena De'Ville

Nov 9th, 2003, 04:15:26 PM

Hmmm. That's a good point. They're not in the movie so it's not really a spoiler. :uhoh

I have no idea what I was on. Never mind me. :)

About the news addressed in this thread: it sucks. :cry I'm glad it'll be in the EE version of RotK, but....for all the reasons everyone has already stated, it's sucky.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 9th, 2003, 04:18:27 PM

Originally posted by Syo
No he added Shelob's cave to the front of ROTK because he is cutting a third of the book out of the scouring of the shire. He might be doing it because of balance but it is still a wrong headed decision.

I pretty much quoted Jackson verbatim. And you will be proved quite wrong on hte 17th December, I am confident of that. Despite my questioning of the remvoal of the Vice of Saruman fron the teatrical version, I'm very confident the decision for Jackson to shift Shelob is going to work.

Master Yoghurt

Nov 9th, 2003, 04:51:16 PM

You know what I am thinking? Despite this editing decision and whatever else pops up, I am confident; overall, ROTK will rock the sox out of me and everyone else :)

Syo

Nov 9th, 2003, 11:19:17 PM

Yea but we have to have something to argue about while we wait the next month for the release of the movie.

ReaperFett

Nov 12th, 2003, 12:22:00 PM

This is apparently from a chat with Chris Lee on This Morning, a daytime TV show in the UK (He definately was on it, but didn't see it). It apparently went:

"And of course Return of the King's coming out. Which I wont be in, of course (annoyed). And Brad Dourif, who plays Wormtongue won't be in it either.(slightly outraged). They've removed us from it."

Fern: "Will you still go to the premiere?"

Lee: " No.(firmly) What's the point? (resigned and disappointed..pause) Whats the point."

Figrin D'an

Nov 12th, 2003, 12:43:51 PM

I'd be upset and disappointed as well, were I in that position. I mean, to give 18+ months of your life to a filming project, plus pickups and media events, then find out that you aren't even going to be in the theatre version of the final film? That really sucks. It has to be even more painful for Lee because he's such a fan of Tolkien's work, and being in that project was a dream come true for him.

JMK

Nov 12th, 2003, 01:09:46 PM

I just thank the maker that I read the book. I think a lot of the general public will be lost as to what happened to Saruman. Sure his army was routed, but is this enough for moviegoers who haven't read the book to realize that he's out of the picture permanently? I'm not so sure and am even less sure that this is the right choice, but we'll see.

Charley

Nov 12th, 2003, 01:16:37 PM

So, Saruman won't be in RotK?

Well, that takes out 50% of why I wanted to see this movie. Fantastic.

JMK

Nov 12th, 2003, 03:31:11 PM

Sounds like it. :\

ReaperFett

Nov 12th, 2003, 03:46:38 PM

It just seems a bad way IMO because a tired and hungry Gandalf can escape a tower, but a powerful and at full strength Saruman is killed due to floods?

JMK

Nov 12th, 2003, 04:12:59 PM

Maybe not killed but sufficiently subdued to render him useless.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 12th, 2003, 04:24:11 PM

If you know your Tolkein, Saruman is well and truly impotent, he has lost his power except for his voice. He had the ability to use Arts (Nature), he gave that up for Power (machine). When his machines are destroyed, he has lost Arts and Power.

The only Art he has left is Voice.

but a powerful and at full strength Saruman is killed due to floods?

Or by about 100 odd angry Ents beating the crap out of you?

Well, I guess thinking about it, I can see how the average movie goer would be okay with the change or wouldnt know. It's really book geeks like me who wanted to see the end of Saruman, but I guess others wanted to see Bombadil just as bad.

Oh well. I'm sure the rest of the movie's going to rox my sox.

JMK

Nov 12th, 2003, 04:53:33 PM

Did you want to see Bombadil? I was glad they left him out of the movie altogether.

Figrin D'an

Nov 12th, 2003, 05:12:45 PM

Bombadil was a nearly complete side-story within the main plot, though. That cut from FOTR seems a lot more appropriate than this one. With this cut, there a couple of significant plot points that will have to be explained somehow in order for the story to make sense.

I'm still not thrilled about this. This is the first major "cut" change I've read about that irks me.

JMK

Nov 12th, 2003, 06:02:28 PM

I'm beginning more and more to agree and to be bothered by this.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 12th, 2003, 06:29:54 PM

Originally posted by JMK
Did you want to see Bombadil? I was glad they left him out of the movie altogether.

Nope. It was able to be left out. I wasnt bothered at all.

Now, I just had a bit of a thought how they could do it. Pippin and Merry were at Isengard, so they have to be picked up somewhere. My guess is Pippin will 'have' the Palantir, picked out of the wreckage of Isengard.

Or it's 'found' in the wreckage, Pippin sees it, and you can roll the story forward as per the end of Voice of saruman.

Actually, I can think of three or four different ways to do this and be logical.

Okay, so it's doable, even within the confines of book accuracy. Leaving aside my desire to see saruman smacked down, I can see how it can be made to work now.

JMK

Nov 12th, 2003, 08:02:28 PM

Did PJ think of that though? I was under the impression that he had done that scene but just cut it out?

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 12th, 2003, 08:10:58 PM

Who knows. My guess is that he and his core group had a very big discussion on what to do and how to do it. Jackson doesnt strike me as one to remove something willy nilly

Jedieb

Nov 12th, 2003, 08:15:51 PM

Aragon and 'The Cliff'
My understand of this scene is that Jackson again wanted to reinforce the relationship between Arwen and Aragon. It's definitely a decision made for those that haven't read the novels. It's a bit of a distraction, but I can live with it.

I can see why Lee is upset. He's been quoted as saying he re-reads the novels on a yearly basis because he's such a fan of them. To have the part of Saruman must have been a dream come true. To be cut from the theatrical cut must have been heartbreaking. Again, because it'll be on the DVD I'm happy. That'll be the version I end up watching multiple times anyway.

I think cutting Frodo and Sam's confrontation with the spider's who's name I can't remember was a good decision because they really don't have much to do in ROTK. Especially if their return to the Shire is going to be cut.

Marcus Telcontar

Nov 12th, 2003, 08:40:33 PM

SHELOB!

Jedieb

Nov 12th, 2003, 09:02:47 PM

:lol
I'm sorry. Whenever I forget to take my pills my memory is the first thing to... to... who the hell are YOU?

Figrin D'an

Nov 15th, 2003, 10:41:14 PM

To switch modes for a little bit, I thought I'd post a link to an article (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2003/11/16/lord_of_the_gold_ring/) I read regarding Tolkien's legacy, and the commercialism of his name and work in recent years.

I'm sure many people around here know about the nearly insane lengths to which Christopher Tolkien goes to protect his father's name and reputation. Generally, in the past, I've regarded his attitude as... well... just that. Insane. He did, after all, practically disown his own son, Simon, and removed him from the Tolkien Estate board of directors for expressing an interest in cooperating with New Line and Peter Jackson on the recent films.

I have to admit, though, I've recently been thinking about how the past few years have played out, in respect to the hype (and success) of the films, and the subsiquent marketing blitz, in which anything and everything imaginable has a LOTR-related image slapped onto it and is crammed onto the shelves of your local Wal-Mart. I'm starting to empathize with Christopher Tolkien's position on this a little bit. I still think he's overzealous, especially with what happened with his own son. But, really, considering that the movie/TV rights for LOTR and The Hobbit haven't been under family control since 1969, it's now much easier to understand exactly what the Tolkien family has been trying to guard against for the past 30 years.

I guess the extremism with which the Tolkien Estate handles it's affairs may have seemed offputting in the past, but given the extremism of modern day commercialist explotation, they kind of balance one another out. I just hope that, once the hype and fandom of the films calms down in another year or so, that all those people that jumped on the bandwagon for the ride will take the time to remember why that, well before Jackson's films, the stories by J.R.R. Tolkien were considered among the finest of the 20th century.

ReaperFett

Nov 15th, 2003, 10:53:01 PM

But would Tolkein object neccesarily to, say, kids enjoying action figures based on his work?

Figrin D'an

Nov 15th, 2003, 11:01:45 PM

Originally posted by ReaperFett
But would Tolkein object neccesarily to, say, kids enjoying action figures based on his work?

That's part of the problem... no one really knows. He never commented on the commercial possibilities of his work. His family kind of assumes that, because of his rather reclusive nature (outside of teaching), he wouldn't want attention in that sort of manner... that he would mearly want people to read his books.

The main concern, though, is that his literary prowess might get lost in the marketing bonanza that is currently taking place. I guess my general point is that, to a degree, I can understand why his family so vigorously tries to protect his name and legacy, and it took observing what has occured over the past couple of years for me to appreciate the reasoning.