Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Saruman Completely Cut from 'Return of the King'

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the still-ticked-at-trilogy-ticket-snafu dept.

Lord of the Rings 979

Dolemite_the_Wiz writes "Multiple News Sources report that Christopher Lee's Character Saruman will not appear in the LOTR: ROTK at all. From what I've been reading, the scenes total seven minutes and is a vital component of the whole storyline that the 'masses' should see in the theatrical cut of ROTK. Of course these scenes will be included in the DVD 'Special Edition' of ROTK. I've got tremendous faith in Peter Jackson's talents as a filmmaker. I've been a fan since his first movie but haven't read the LOTR trilogy books...yet. (I'm waiting for ROTK to hit the theaters) Given the fact that I haven't read the books but am a huge movie snob, how can you not have any sort of resolution of a character that has played a key component in the three movies? Articles on this story can be found at BBC, Christopher Lee Web, and theonering.net."

cancel ×

979 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Snob???? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458601)

Given the fact that I haven't read the books but am a huge movie snob,

Well, I am a reading snob who can't fathom how someone who doesn't like to read can qualify as a snob of any sort. The books have been out for 50 years, fucktard! How 'bout I whap you upside the head with a clue-by-four just like you deserve?

OT: RSS feed providers - watch out! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458607)

Spammers have started gathering RSS/RDF/XML news/blog/whatever feeds and harvesting email addresses from them. Make sure yours is spam-proofed!

Filst Pwst. (-1, Offtopic)

Mr Haxalot (723260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458608)

I have a greaced LOTR doll up my ass!

K THNX BAI (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458610)

FP K THNX BAI

SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (-1, Flamebait)

Doomrat (615771) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458616)

So I'm guessing that the classic ending of the series back in the Shire is going to be nixed completely? Fuckers. Illiterate, exploitative mother-fuckers.

Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458639)

Umm, it's been known since practicaly the beginning the The Burning of the Shire would not appear in the movies.

Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458824)

Umm, it's been known since practicaly the beginning the The Burning of the Shire would not appear in the movies.

Dang, I'll just have to go read the books again to get the full story. I really haven't kept up with LOTR film news at all; for some reason, I just don't care about movie news.

Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (1)

Ethan Butterfield (7481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458646)

Actually, the entire "Scouring of the Shire" part was never going to be in the movie from the get-go. What they're talking about here is the aftermath of the Battle of Isengard, where Saruman and Wormtongue are thrown out of Orthanc, and Wormtongue throws the palantir at the Fellowship.

Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (2, Insightful)

brownaroo (682715) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458654)

So I'm guessing that the classic ending of the series back in the Shire is going to be nixed completely? Fuckers. Illiterate, exploitative mother-fuckers.

Sadley Yes, this was said ages ago (I think perhaps somewhere on the 1st Special Eddition DVD)

Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (1, Interesting)

naktekh (517517) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458661)

And it's Peter Jackson's film, not yours.

He has every right to edit the film as he sees fit. He didn't think the sequences worked in the context of ROTK, so he cut them.

They'll wind up on the extended DVD. BTW, everyone seems to ignore the fact that Brad Dourif's scenes as Wormtongue were also cut.

Re:SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ (2, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458689)

Wrong. Its J.R.R. Tolken's ideas made into a movie by Peter Jackson.

Movies that seem to get shittier and shittier with each ass rape of the plot, story line, and concept.

WTF! (1, Funny)

REDNOROCK (597025) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458619)

How the hell can they cut out Saurumon? (sp)

Re:WTF! (4, Informative)

bman08 (239376) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458705)

Come on. All that happens is gandalf breaks his staff and expels him from the wizarding club. The only important plot element is wormtongue throwing the palantir out the window. They have to leave plenty of room for liv tyler dream sequences because that's what the fans want... am I right?

Re:WTF! (2, Informative)

jasonbowen (683345) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458772)

Easy, they aren't even going to cover the book past the final battle. Him and wormtounge appear in the shire at the end of the book.

He didn't have a big part (3, Insightful)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458819)

ehh, Saurumon has two small parts in ROTK. I can see why they'd cut him. You could tell the story without him. And easily drop him into the Special edition.

ROTK has a lot of stuff that will needs to go if that movie is going to stand on it's own. (ie: we can't have everyone saying 'goodbye' for an hour and a half).

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458622)

FOTR was awesome.
TTT was a letdown. What's worse, it made flaws in FOTR obvious.
No expectations for ROTK. Sorry :(

Re:meh (1)

Ugot2BkidNme (632036) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458813)

FOTR was a disapointment
no Tom Bombadil No Barrow Wits Strider just gives them all swords yeah cute.
TTT was even worse
The battle for Helms deep was total crap is this the Trees saved them not They didn't even have the Spider demon.
ROTK probably another dissapointment

Key component? (5, Funny)

freeweed (309734) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458633)

how can you not have any sort of resolution of a character that has played a key component in the three movies?

I'd say he was only been a key compnent in two movies, now :)

Re:Key component? (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458812)

What!!?

No Sharkey in the Scouring of the Shire?

That's tied right into Sam's vision in Galadriel's mirror...

Boy. I'm a Geek!

Is it just me... (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458638)

..or does it almost sound as a setup so the fans "must have" the Special Edition? I got the SE of the first, was hidiously expensive, but well... I had to have it. Stayed away from the 2nd SE, we'll see about the third when I've seen the (cut) movie...

Kjella

Re:Is it just me... (2, Insightful)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458659)

Stayed away from the 2nd SE

That's not too difficult to do, since it's not even out yet!

Re:Is it just me... (-1, Troll)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458680)

It's a setup for the purists. The SEs are basically what Jackson would have released in theatres, without ANY cutting. New Line forced a 3 hour limit on him so they had to rework things somewhat, which meant that a lot of stuff that Jackson wanted to show would end up in the SEs for the "real" fans to see.

It still sUx0rzZ, though -- I like Christopher Lee as Saruman.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458685)

The 2nd SE comes out next week...we've all stayed away from it...so far.

And as far as SE DVDs go...I think the Fellowship SE with all those extra features was well worth the money.

Re:Is it just me... (2, Insightful)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458703)

..or does it almost sound as a setup so the fans "must have" the Special Edition?

Yes, it's just you. The "fans" will buy every special edition anyway... that's why they are called fans. They are fanatical.

I got the SE of the first, was hidiously expensive

Hideously expensive? It was around $25 - $30 for a 4 DVD special edition that included, among many other things, THIRTY MINUTES of new footage.

A typical blockbuster DVD costs $20, so for $5 to $10 more, you got an awesome SE, and it was "hideously expensive"?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0 00 067DNF/002-0542429-9019251?v=glance

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458814)

Well, TP could have bought the special edition with plastic statues deal for $80 or whatever that retailed for.

But that was for true suckers. I got mine!

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458810)

it's called, "ripping off people" , ie first the release the normal version DVD, then the SE DVD, then they release a DVD box with all 3 LOTR, and lateron they'll release a SE DVD with all 3 LOTR's..

I never expected to see anything from book 6 (5, Interesting)

Megor1 (621918) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458640)

Book 6 (Second half of ROTK) would be difficult for the movie, as it's after the climax. I will be very happy to see that part covered a bit more in the extended edition DVD.

Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (1, Funny)

Bame Flait (672982) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458791)

scenes total seven minutes and is a vital component

I think the real story here is that subject-verb agreement, a vital component of the English language, has been cut from slashdot posts.

Re:I never expected to see anything from book 6 (2, Insightful)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458823)

(sigh) Nice to see that a few people here have knowledge of filmmaking to the point of understanding that a 1:1 translation of any book to film is impossible. I'm saddened that the scene is gone too, but as PJ describes it, I can completely see why he decided to take it out.

Just look at how many people have complained about the first act of Matrix Revolutions, since it really IS just about wrapping up the previous movie...

Given the fact (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458641)

That you haven't read Lord of the Rings, I demand you get off Slashdot now. Next you'll be saying "Star Trek? What's that?"

Re:Given the fact (1)

bluethundr (562578) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458795)

Next you'll be saying "Star Trek? What's that?"

I recently took a programming class at NYU. The class was pretty evenly divided between older and younger students. By some strange roundabout of discussion the topic of Star Trek came up. Of the several people who were under 20 not a single one had ANY idea what the fuck we were talking about. They were all like "Star Trek? What's that?" I was literally astounded, simply blown away by that.

Sign the petition (2, Informative)

baximus (552800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458642)

If you want Lee's character back, SIGN THE PETITION! [petitiononline.com]

Re:Sign the petition (1)

sweede (563231) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458708)

oh ya, that'll work real good.

yeah like it'll happen (1)

fullmetal55 (698310) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458756)

the movie's out in a month, not enough time to reverse any cuts. plus this is RUMOUR, not fact. unless this person can show me the theatrical release of rotk tomorrow, I won't believe it until I see the movie on Dec 16th. i know certain scenes have been cut, and several of them have a lot to do with Saruman's character, but I've also heard of Saruman being in ROTK in only one scene. frankly this is very reactionary and very late. They don't have time to edit the film, especially when its probabally already gone for duplication.

Re:Sign the petition (1)

EvilFrog (559066) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458799)

Especially considering they've probably already started having it duplicated to send to theatres...

I've never understood the point of starting petitions that don't have even the slightest chance of having any effect.

Online petitions are pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458758)

Sign this petition [petitiononline.com] to end online petitions!

Re:Sign the petition (1)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458828)

Look. The premiere is on the 1st of December in Wellington. According to New Zealand media and a few people I know who work in and around Weta, PJ has wanted to make small changes to parts of the movie, but it's too late, as New Line is taking it in sections to be printed.

That was the buzz two weeks ago, so if you think a petition has a shit show of changing something that's already happened, you are badly out of luck.

What surprises me is the fact that Christopher Lee is having such a hissy fit over the whole thing. "<whineyVoice>Uh, since they cut my scene I'm not going to the premiere anymore! Ngya!</whineyVoice> Grow up, you ancient old man!

No Sharky, eh? (2, Interesting)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458644)

How does the end make sense without Sharky? Only in Hollywood-world.

Re:No Sharky, eh? (4, Informative)

SoVeryWrong (576783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458696)

Scouring of the Shire has been out for a while...
The part they're talking about is when Gandalf goes to Isengard and breaks Saruman's staff. That's gone from the theatrical release (which really should have been at the end of TTT, but wasn't).

TRINITY DIES AT THE END OF ROTK! (-1, Flamebait)

Mr Haxalot (723260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458652)

It's true. Read above -1 if youdo not want to read this fact.

Peter Jackson has lost the Tao. (2, Informative)

F34nor (321515) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458656)

The fact that he now appears to belive his own bullshit regarding The lord of the Rings means that he has lost the Tao and gained some hubris.

Remeber that he made a movie about not beliving your own bullshit called "Heavenly Creatures" which makes it not the least bit ironic.

Maybe this is because . . . (4, Funny)

EmCeeHawking (720424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458660)

. . . SCO threatened to sue New Line Cinema over unlicensed depictions of their proprietary method of using evil to dominate the world.

how can the cut Saruman? (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458663)

that'd be like cutting Eomer or whatever that Rohan chick's name is! a "minor" character that is totally important. Saruman only is half way responsible for the war, and invades the shire! let me guess? they'll leave out how Frodo &c have to liberate the shire from "sharkey" and his goons like Bill Farney? God damned Hollywood sucks.

Wookies Ewoks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458665)

As long as they don't change the story completely by putting in ewoks instead of wookies.... oops wrong movie..

Saruman who, again? :) (5, Interesting)

isomeme (177414) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458669)

I think this stinks, too, but I can see where it might make sense to drop Saruman for this movie if the only other choice was to drop something else. After all, once his army is defeated at Helm's Deep and his factories are trashed by the Ents, he's pretty much out of the picture as a major player in the war. Resolution (as Tolkien wrote it) would be nice, but I can't say this is an especially heinous cut.

Re:Saruman who, again? :) (1, Insightful)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458777)

Well, I would see a lot of merit in what you say, except that Peter Jackson, in the second film, injected a lot of really dumb, really boring bull that wasn't in the book at the expense of the better material. I'm not saying this on purist grounds that it needs to be word for word perfect adaptation of the book, for instance I thought they made completley the right move by ditching Tom Bombadil. But when good material that people would like is cut for a bunch of standard romance novel calibre scenes involving a stupid love story take precedence, I no longer think it's my kind of movie. Fine for some, not my thing anymore, shame though, because it stated being my kind of thing with the first film :)

Oh, I thought you said Sauron (5, Funny)

raider_red (156642) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458783)

When I first read the headline, my dislexia kicked in and I thought they said that Sauron had been cut from the third movie. My first thought was that he was being replaced by a little white rabbit with very sharp teeth.

For the masses, for the geeks. (4, Insightful)

Hi_2k (567317) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458673)

Now this is a clever marketing ploy. Sure, you can go see the third episode of your (##th?) favorite trilogy, but its missing an important part... But you can buy the DVD with the parts re-added for only $19.99!

This way, they capitalize off the plebs who hear that the lord of the rings is a good story and capitilize even more off the geeks who love the story already and want despratley to see a film version. Pity the Beatles version never panned out...

I call upon the slashdot effect (1)

Spyro VII (666885) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458675)

Sign the petition! [petitiononline.com]

Wowzers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458676)

Golly, I'm so glad that X-Windows has transparent windows now. Hmmm Windows 2000 had that 4 years ago. Oh yeah, and they didnt need all these weird "extensions" and "managers" to do it... Please!! When adding features to your OS amounts to hideous hacks, you SERIOUSLY have to be worried...

Jackson (5, Informative)

cowsgomoo666 (663881) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458681)

Jackson has said that Lee's parts were cut from the 3rd film because they should really be part of the 2nd, but he didn't want to start off with wrapping up the 2nd movie. They wanted to start off fresh. See: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/031110.htm

How old are you? (1)

Christopher_G_Lewis (260977) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458684)

I've been a fan since his first movie but haven't read the LOTR trilogy books...yet.

Slashdot must be excepting atricles from 8 year olds :-).

I have to say 8, because my neighbor's 9 year old has been trudging through the books this summer. She's finishing the third (well, 5 & 6 :-) right now.

Re:How old are you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458759)

I'm in my late 20s and I haven't read the trilogy...I don't plan on it because they're wordy as fuck. Tolkien created an extremely interesting world, but he needed to work on his writing skills a bit.

OHMYGOD! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458686)

something new and uninteresting I could add to my "who gives a flying fuck" section of my brain!!! Thanks timothy!

Sources (5, Funny)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458688)

Multiple News Sources report that Christopher Lee's Character Saurman will not appear in the LOTR: ROTK at all.
Would one of these "multiple sources" be the latest movie leak on Kazaa? :^)

Re:Sources (1)

CanadaDave (544515) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458739)

Is it there? Send me *.sig's please

I boycott the MPAA! What about you?! (1, Interesting)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458691)

You media-consuming whores!

I'm just waiting for the triple-plus-good DVD set with the holographic trading cards, graphic novel of the Similarion, a lock of Elijiah's hair and the Hobbit Digi-Pet keychain.

So empty inside.

Re:I boycott the MPAA! What about you?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458753)

yuo = fagot

Re:I boycott the MPAA! What about you?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458793)

no, it's:

yuo = fag0rt

get it right

It will be on the DVD (5, Informative)

Gyan (6853) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458692)

Here's Peter Jackson's take [theonering.net] on it

Saurman's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458693)

What does Saurman even do in the 5th and 6th books? It has been about 4 years since I read the books, so I cannot remember every detail. I remember him in the burning of the shire (already said not to be in this movie), but what else did he do? The end of the story has more to do with Sauron and the ring, and nothing to do with Sauron's tool Saurman.

What would they have done with him anyhow? (5, Insightful)

devphil (51341) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458697)


The article links are already /.ed to hell and back, but this doesn't really strike me as a surprise. (book spolier) Normally, Saruman gets kicked out of Isengard, then travels northwest to make life miserable for the Shire, which the hobbits then have to scour on their own.

Since the scouring was never going to be in the movie, there's not much point to kicking Saruman out... what's he going to do? Where's he going to go? They'd have to use more screen time to explain it. I'm vaguely interested in those seven minutes (of course I'll be viewing the DVD anyhow), but it doesn't completely rewrite the story; Saruman wasn't a major player in the final volume to start with.

There is just one thing... I wonder how they're going to get the palantir out of Isengard? (spoiler) That plays a major role in drawing Sauron out too early. Maybe they just skip the palantir and IM him instead.

Goddamit (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458698)

Well, it won't be for time reasons. They've proven that already!

It won't be for budget reasons - they've already made it!

I can't believe it's for artistic/plot reasons, it is in the book...

So, it's because then we'll all buy the SE DVD, and they'll make more money.

Oh. That's a surprise.

Sheesh.

Simon.

Ok, none of those articles is the source (5, Informative)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458700)

This article at Ain't It Cool [aint-it-cool-news.com] is where Jackson talks about it, which I'll go on mirror here since AICN's servers have been so touchy lately: (an e-mail from PJ to Harry Knowles)

Saruman thing you describe is a muddle of half-truths.

We have decided to save the Saruman sequence for the DVD. It's a great little scene. 7 mins long. Chris is wonderful, as usual. Brad is in about 6 shots. It was a film maker decision - nothing to do with the studio.

The problem is that the sequence was originally shot for The Two Towers, as it is in the book. Since The Two Towers couldn't sustain a 7 min "wrap" after Helm's Deep, we thought it would be a good idea to save it for the beginning of the Return of the King. The trouble is, when we viewed various ROTK cuts over the last few weeks, it feels like the first scenes are wrapping last year's movie, instead of starting the new one. We felt it got ROTK off to an uncertain beginning, since Saruman plays no role in the events of ROTK (we don't have the Scouring later, as the book does), yet we dwell in Isengard for quite a long time before our new story kicks off.

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.

It was a very similar situation to last year when we decided to take a nice Boromir/Denethor flashback out of The Two Towers, and put it in the DVD. It was causing us pacing problems in the theatrical version, but with the Extended Cut just coming out now, fans can see this great little scene. Thank God for DVD, since it does mean that a version of the movie, which has different pacing requirements, can be released later. The Saruman sequence will definately be a highlight of the Extended ROTK DVD.

We have a lot of great DVD material this time around. As we crafted the movie, we reduced it from an over 4 hour running time, down to 3.12 (without credits - about 8 mins long). This was done by us. There were no studio cutting notes. We now have a movie with a pace that fells ok for it's theatrical release. One more week to go. We are nearly there. Will we still be standing? It's going to be a close run thing.

Cheers,

Peter J

As he describes it, it definately sounds like just One of Those Things that happens when you're adapting books to film.

MOD THIS KARMA WHORE DOWN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458757)

By the way, your sister Jolene is a damn fine woman!

no boycott (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458706)

contrary to the beeb article, lee will not be boycotting the premier. check lee's website, which is now /.'d.

figures .. (1)

jest3r (458429) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458711)

can anyone say:

The Lord of the Rings: Revolutions.

?

This is really annoying (1)

Exmet Paff Daxx (535601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458714)

It was like how they cut Tom Bombadil out of the first one, or the Weirding Modules out of Dune. This is crucial stuff, people!

Re:This is really annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458788)

I just cannot see how they will remove the interactions that Saruman has with Boromir, son of Faramir. I'm really concerned that by catering for the masses, Tolkein has been betrayed.

Re:This is really annoying (2, Informative)

mfago (514801) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458806)

or the Weirding Modules out of Dune

God DAMN it: there are NO "wierding modules" in any written version of Dune. They are just a David Lynch appeasement for the moronic masses.

Sorry: hit a sore point. Those abominations, and the fuckin rain at the end of Lynch's version ruined an otherwise fantastic movie.

I heard an interview with Christopher Lee... (1)

PinglePongle (8734) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458717)

on the BBC (radio 4, Midweek, 5 Nov 2003, I think) in which he told the interviewer he had an absolutely crucial scene in the final episode - he seemed to believe it was going to be in the film, I'm sure !

I'm not going to watch the ROTK (0, Flamebait)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458720)

I think the movies are perhaps an interesting story, but they are *not* The Lord of the Rings.

The mistake they made was not making 6 movies (one for each book), and doing every single line of dialog exactly like the book, and shooting each shot exactly the way the book describes it, and fleshing out the images the way we imagined it. So what if most people don't like it -- it would rock.

Maybe Bravo or some independent director can do it properly in a few years when killer CGI is cheap.

Re:I'm not going to watch the ROTK (1)

CanadaDave (544515) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458792)

This kind of shit sucks. They did it with Hamlet and it is the most boring thing I have ever seen. Or maybe it's just because I hate Kenneth Branaugh.

Who cares? (1)

WayTooOldForThis (628083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458721)

. . . Not me.

How About a Link to the explanation from pj? (1)

BathTub (75720) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458726)

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16462

One.. (1)

OzPhIsH (560038) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458730)

One director to ruin it all, one director to.....
Ack I can't think of a good finish. I just wanted to get this joke out of the way early. In typical Slashdot fashion, I anticipate 10 more like it in 5..4..3.....

it's purely a bywater joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458731)

to refer to this as Sharky's end

Rankin Bass Animated Feature (1)

AllergicToMilk (653529) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458735)

Actually, they cut Saruman out of the Rankin-Bass animated version of the RotK and unless you'd have read the story and knew what to expect, I don't think you'd have noticed it. Saruman was also marginalized in the Ralph Bakshi version of the LotR which really only went through the Two Towers, quickly summarizing the RotK.

Dialog from deleted scene with Saruman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458737)

In a pouring rain, surrounded by hundreds of Elrond clones:
Elrond: Welcome back, Mister Saruman. We missed you.

does the time saved really matter? (1, Interesting)

dslbrian (318993) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458738)

It seems like cutting 7 minutes from what, a two and a half hour movie is diminishing returns. I'd rather see what happens to Saruman...

Then again mabye its a conspiricy to get everyone to buy the extended version DVD. Based on the first extended version DVD (Fellowship of the Ring) I thought all the cut stuff should have been left in the movie also. I like getting my moneys worth from a movie ticket, bring on the 3 hour movies.

At the Matrix the other night. (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458740)

They showed that weird, hybrid movie/game trailer at the Matrix the other night. I turned to my friend and said, "If that mother fucker cuts the Scouring of the Shire he's going to have to answer to me."

You hear me Peter! YOU HEAR ME!

I was willing to let the fact that you cut Tom Bombadil slide. Yeah, I wanted to see Bill Murray as Bomadil. My little fantasy shot. But it was okay because you were doing an good job over all.

But if Sharky doesn't buy it in front of you-know-where and the hand of you-know-who I'm going to be ROYALLY PISSED!

-Peter

I doubt It (1)

ajberg (657689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458742)

Peter Jackson has to put somthing in. But the movies are never as good as the books LOTR is no exption. They have a lot of ground to cover in three hours. Even if he isn't in the theatucal release that dosnt mean he won't be in Extended Edtion. I'm relly loking fowad to ROTK. It wold be ashame if he messed up not.

Resolution given in "The Two Towers" (5, Insightful)

psiphiorg (566033) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458744)

To this viewer, the resolution was implied in The Two Towers: The Ents came smashing in, destroying everything around him, and during that battle, he met a squishy end. I didn't need to see it to understand what was going on; it was very fitting that he was destroyed by the Ents, when he had destroyed so much of the forest.

Therefore, I was quite surprised when I first heard that Saruman was going to be in the third movie--that meant somehow he had escaped the poetic fate that seemed so obvious. And now that he's gone again, I don't see a problem with the removal of those scenes.

davidh

He's got a different role now. (0)

NotoriousBob (700016) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458747)

He serves people on this [allscifi.com] website now.

Saruman of any color! (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458749)

Come out! -Gandalf said....

And then, blah blah blah blah.....then gandalf said...

Saruman, Your staff is broken! (all your staff is belong to us)....

You get the point. Its a tremendously important culmination of the first part of the war.

Jackson will likely pull it off (4, Insightful)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458751)

To everyone currently bitching on /. :

Everyone on /. was up in arms because Arwen replaced Glorfindel, prior to the release of the first movie (Myself included).

Many had fits with a "last alliance of men and elves" at Helm's Deep.

However, the movies have not dissapointed many, other than the die-hard fans.

I will admit that I did not like FOTR after my first watch. Sections of TTT, such as the Warg attack bugged me, however, for those who have not read the books 16x like myself, I found my friends loved the movies.

This is important because Jackson has captured the essence of the books, and the essence of what LOTR is about. Granted, he could have followed the books perfectly - but then only die-hard fans would enjoy it.

Think about it - do you believe more or fewer people are reading the books now that the first 2 films are out?

What Peter Jackson Forgot... (1)

F34nor (321515) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458760)

Gilgald was an Elven King,
Oh him the harpers sadly sing,
the last whose relm was fair and free
between the mountains and the sea

His sword was long and this lance was keen
his shining helm afar was seen
the countless stars of heaven's field
were mirrored in his silver shield

But where he deweleth non can say
for long ago he went away
into darkness fell his star
in the land of mordor where the shadows are.

That gives me the fucking goose bumps, not Liv Tyler, not making Faramir "more exciting" not cutting characters, FUCKING POETRY!.

FUCK YOU ILLERTERATE ASSWIPES!

Scouring of the Shire (small spoiler) (1)

fiori (45848) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458765)

The return of Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin to the Shire is a slow, but necessary part of the end of the trilogy. Despite the attempts by people to find analogies in it ("it symbolizes the spread of socialism in Europe after World War II"), it shows the aftermath of a large conflict and how the hobbits must fight to reclaim their homes.

I doubted that Peter Jackson would include much, if any, of Book Six. Without showing the final destruction of Saruman and Wormtongue, it leaves a few loose storylines in the movie.

His action figure didn't sell well... (5, Funny)

Denver_80203 (570689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458766)

bummer

Plausible (1)

Soong (7225) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458768)

Having just finished reading Return of the King, this is plausible. I think I can see how the can make a perfectly fine story of the ending without Saruman. The assumption could be that he was left to rot in his tower. There are still plenty of Heroes to smite plenty of Villains.

In a way, taking Saruman out of the ending gives for a happier ending. He's a piece of the old evil. Making it seem as if that was thoroughly crushed at an earlier point makes the final victory more of a mopping up action than a continuation of the epic Good vs. Evil fight of the trilogy.

Eh. I'm just rationalizing. Having listened to the commentary tracks on the extended versions, and how much they moan about what they have to cut, every minute of those long movies is hard won and not without scrutiny. Give'm a break. Sit back, and enjoy the show.

That doesn't make any sense. (1)

death to hanzosan (669177) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458781)

But this is a crucial plot element. Wormtounge throws the eye out of the tower, where it is recovered and then Frodo looks into it and the eye consumes him... how will we see this showdown now? And anyway since Saruman is the son of Faramir I think that Faramir's dissapointment won't be as telling.

Pretty simple solution, don't go see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7458784)

Just wait for the DVD to come out. I'm so damned sick of these edits totally undermining the story for NO apparent reason.

Let's be blunt. The masses would be MORE than happy to go see a movie that was 20 minutes longer. Why do Peter Jackson and the assorted minds behind this thing INSIST on cutting CORE material from the movie? Because the longer film won't allow them to have three shows in a night at a theater, and they would rather have more shows than a movie that stays true to the book.

So if this kind of crap pisses you off just do what I do and don't go see it in the theater. Vote with your checkbook and just wait for the full release on DVD.

-rt

Nonsense... (2, Insightful)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458794)

Nonsense, you need Saruman. In my opinion, Saruman's importance is emphasized far more in the movie than in the book, but still, to keep the "masses" in line, you need to remind them of Saruman.

At least now is the good part: Saruman's already been defeated, you can give some closure by showing Gandalf attempting to give Saruman his freedom, etc. And if you cut Saruman, how are they going to do the final scenes where the Shire is completely decimated (you can see a sneak peek of those when Frodo looks into the water with Galadriel; you can see Frodo, Sam, Merry, and the other hobbit chained up together and forced into a small cottage. Where else would that scene occur than the Shire? And they show Frodo's house, the hill, completely burned away). You need Saruman for those scenes as well. What are they going to do, have some Orcs handle it all by themselves? I don't care what race of Orcs they dream up - no Orc is cunning enough to take over the Shire. Are they going to completely erase the Shire portion? That would be madness indeed.

I guess they're going to "feminize" the movie... After all, Return of the King does feature two marriages (Faramir - Eowyn, Arwen - Aragorn), three if you count Sam and that female hobbit - forgot her name, but you can look it up. All the females are going to love the movie if a quarter of it is just feasting and marriage, etc.

Completely OT, I know, but in my opinion, Eowyn is much prettier than Arwen. Arwen really _flaunts_ it, if you know what I mean, but Eowyn has that "hidden power" stored up inside her - there's much more depth and power to her than Arwen, IMHO

It's been awhile since I read them... (1)

El_Smack (267329) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458798)

... but Saruman is hardly in the books at all. Of course he is the driving force behind all the antagonists in the story, but he never strides out and speaks, except in the backstory of how the ring was lost. So not having him seen in the movie seems to be very minor. It even may be a Good Thing, keeping the character more as a "Force in the World", and less of a "Guy who just needs his ass whipped by our plucky band of Heroes".

Peter's Choice (1)

Corbin Dallas (165835) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458800)

In an email to Knowles, Peter Jackson specified that this was his call. He didn't want to start the third film by cleaning up after the second. He also reasoned that most filmgoers already assumed he died after the ent invasion.

I understand and respect his choice, and I no doubt will still love watching Return of the King in the theater. However, I can't help think that perhaps he should have seen this comming and resolved Saruman's involvment at the end of the Two Towers. Oh well.

Link to the Knowles Email [aintitcoolnews.com]

More than he got in the book (1)

DarkVein (5418) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458802)

Saruman gets perhaps less than seven minutes of "screentime" in the book itself. Saruman is dealt with in a nearly self-contained story after the resolution of the war with Sauron. Nearly, because you can't understand the motives of some characters or the rather un-hobbity behavior of some particular hobbits without Lord of the Rings.

I wouldn't be surprised if the entire story were cut out for time, and the flow of the movie. It was hinted at in Fellowship, but also dismissed, possibly as a test of desire. (Sam's vision in Galadriel's Mirror)

My 2 Cents (1)

DaytonCIM (100144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458805)

If you don't understand the importance of Saruman the White and Grima Wormtongue in Return of the King, then you need to read the book.

Both characters continue to wreck havoc after they are defeated. To leave out the Saruman / Wormtongue & Hobbits meeting in the Shire is simply wrong.

Tom Bombadil? (1)

hethatishere (674234) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458811)

Well, at least they aren't putting Tom Bombadil back in his place.

Saruman is fairly unimportant (1)

chenzhen (532755) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458821)

He is more of a literary device than an important piece of the epic. In the books, having this kind of completion makes the story seem more real, but in a movie, it is awkward and out of place. We have seen his reign broken in TTT, so it would be little more than the tossing of a bone to the book readers to see anything more of him onscreen. The real enemy is far greater and more interesting, and the journey ends perfectly well without him.

well fuck that (1)

fw3 (523647) | more than 10 years ago | (#7458826)

newline/jackson can forget getting any money from this quarter.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?