Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

The Hard Truths of Editing RETURN OF THE KING info from Peter Jackson Himself!!!

Damn it, I really wanted to see Saruman get his by Terry_1978	Nov 7th, 2003 03:37:31 PM
People that have been watching since the first one are probably dying to see the old boy get his comeuppance, but ah well....
Lee should gnaw Jackson's legs off at the knees after Douriff pu by Fred	Nov 7th, 2003 03:37:54 PM

does this mean no palantir? by noteboom	Nov 7th, 2003 03:41:20 PM
Isn't that kind of a major plot device? I'm sure the movie will be cool, but this strikes me as a serious departure from the book.
Saruman's Demise by BigBadBalls	Nov 7th, 2003 03:42:09 PM
That is a huge assumption to make considering you never see anything happen to Orthanc in the theatrical version. It is still standing. Also, does that mean that the Palantir that Saruman owns is never ends up in Gandalf's hands? Because the dialogue I have heard in various previews implies that it does.
TOBY SKLUTE IS FIRST ALWAYS by turbonerd	Nov 7th, 2003 03:42:24 PM

First, bitches! P.S. PJ you rule! by JohnnyBlueJeans	Nov 7th, 2003 03:43:12 PM
ah yeah
Third by DietCodeRed	Nov 7th, 2003 03:43:55 PM
I just got done sitting in nerd spooo while seeing Revolutions, and Now I will sit and listn to the whining abot ROTK. God help us all.
the scouring by Wheel99	Nov 7th, 2003 03:45:25 PM
would be an anti climax. After seeing the kick ass battle at the end of this movie we are supposed to watch another 15 minutes of Merry Pippin and Sam slugging it out in the Shire. Jackson was right to cut this out of the book and the Sauramon edit sounds like it makes sense too. I'll see it on DVD.
Scouring should be gone by Laimbrane	Nov 7th, 2003 03:48:08 PM
I'll admit that the sacking of the Shire provides an interesting ending to the books, but it would be extremely out of place in the movies. You have to remember that while the movies are intended to be viewed as a whole, you're still only sitting down and watching 3 hours and some change of film in this one sitting, and the movie therefore has to stand on its own. The novels were strutctured as a series, and as such an entire chapter of that series could be devoted to the epilogue, but for a movie trilogy, the sacking of the shire would just seem out of place and clunky.
No scouring of the Shire? by eternal76	Nov 7th, 2003 03:48:19 PM
Damn!!! No slitting Saruman's throat... No four hobbits returning, hardened by battle, and kicking ass back in their home towns... I was looking forward to that... I loved the fact that there are really two climatic points in Return of The King... I was curious to see how Peter Jackson handled those. Hey, but I don't blame the guy, I'm sure if it were up to him we'd have a "Shogun" saga to see, rather than a 3 hour film. I've enjoyed the films so far and think he has done a kick ass job. I'm sure this will be no different.
The Saruman story has to be resolved somehow (SPOILERS) by Nordling	Nov 7th, 2003 03:49:20 PM
Because Aragorn uses Saruman's palintir to reveal himself to Sauron, and this palintir is the same one Pippin peeks into that gets ol Saurie all fired up and sends his armies to Minas Tirith. What, will there be voice over?
MPAA by sano orbis	Nov 7th, 2003 03:50:31 PM
What the heck did the MPAA view to give it it's PG-13 rating, then, if they haven't seen the final print. How do they know PJ won't slip in a few extra beheadings, eh?
Can't wait by BrianBoru	Nov 7th, 2003 03:54:48 PM
For both the EV TTT and ROTK!
Can't wait by BrianBoru	Nov 7th, 2003 03:55:51 PM
For both the EV TTT and ROTK!
It's cool and it sucks...like life! by 33.3rpm	Nov 7th, 2003 03:58:41 PM
Saruman was incredibly cool and menacing. Actually, I wouldn't have "assumed" the Ents kicked his sack. I would have been going "Where's Chris?" I'm glad I read this posting.
Christopher Lee is Gunno be mighty pissed for sure - He was on t by darth_billy	Nov 7th, 2003 04:08:35 PM
Christopher Lee was on the Simon Mayo show today (on radio 5 live, a UK station). He was talking about how he really doesn't enjoy watching his own roles in movies. He did, however, say that he is REALLY looking forward to seeing ROTK, as he has not seen it, and his character has a critical role in the film. That the film plot hinges on this scene that is going to be in ROTK. The thing is, he sounded really nice, and very enthusiastic about it. I knida feel sorry for him, and I hope to god somebody let's him know that his scene eas cut, so that he doesn't end up feeling like David Prowse after watching TESB for the first time at the cinema. Anyhows, Christopher Lee was saying that he really admires and respects PJ, so I am sure that he will uunderstand that it is for the good of the film, but still, you gotta feel for the man.
Book vs. movie... by Dru	Nov 7th, 2003 04:55:50 PM
I don't know what the stats are, but how many people who watch these movies have already read the books? In terms of pacing, yeah, the Scouring would be an awkward ending to the movie (they'll opt for the pastoral, everyone-standing-around-cheer ing-at-Lothlorien-ending-a-la- Star-Wars-movies ending instead.) However, like someone already said, the Scouring is ulimately the point of the whole book. Cutting it won't trivialize the whole trilogy, but it won't give it the same kind of closure. Or maybe I'm just tired. Out.
I'm pissed & relieved at the same time. by Nice Marmot	Nov 7th, 2003 04:58:05 PM
Pissed that its happening & relieved I don't have to find out in the theater; I will be prepared for it. I feel like Lee already got the shaft in TTT. We barely saw him. Now we won't see him at all in ROTK??? What a let down. As for leaving out the Palantir, this is possible because of the story shift at the end of the TTT film. In the book, Sauron knew their were Hobbits in Minis Tirith because of Pippin & the Palantir. In the films he knows because of the Nazgul seeing Frodo in Minis Tirith. I still hate that they took him there. Because of this they don't need to have Pippin look into the Palantir.
Thats utterly bullshit by Thumper2k1	Nov 7th, 2003 05:34:38 PM
How can they not show the death of one of the main villians in the story? I'm no purist but even I can see that not showing it is something that is going to make everyone say "WTF?". Not showing what happens him would be like not showing how emperor palpatine dies in Return of the jedi. We, the audience, could just assume Luke takes care of him after he defeats Vader but that is no way to tell a story. Not to mention that fact that Gandalf and company have to go to Isengard anyways to pick up Merry, Pippin, and the palantir. Good god, it looks like Peter Jackson is well on his way to do the impossible and fuck up ROTK into Matrix Revolution proportions.
Actually... by snorfle	Nov 7th, 2003 05:38:09 PM
...Frodo went to Osgiliath, not Minas-Tirith. So I imagine the Palantir is still going to be a part of the movies. Still pissed about the cutting of this scene, though, are they going to throw in a voiceover or something, because I doubt most people would assume the Ents killed him or something, HE'S A FRIGGIN WIZARD
Best Director, my ass by MiserableRainGod	Nov 7th, 2003 05:52:05 PM
So the last thing we see of Saruman is what, him full of fear from the Ents? Big deal. After all that talk of Gandalf being "what Saruman should have been" they need to confront each other. Hell, it'd be nice to see that Saruman's powers extend beyond his Thunder-Punch He-Man telekinesis (his Voice). And the Scouring is needed, to, for plot. Merry and Pippin find Shire pipe-weed at Orthanc...THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED! You see, no one else in the world knows or cares about hobbits. (That's why Gandalf loves them so much. They're still pure.). Saruman, at the beginning, looks down on smoking. Why is he smoking now, and what does that mean for the Shire? That's plot screw ups. If PJ wasn't going to do the Scouring, he shouldn't have spent 45 minutes in the Shire in Fellowship setting up the tragedy. And to leave out the Scouring also screws up the biggest themes in the movie/book - that you have to grow up, that you have to make tough decisions, that you have to fight to keep things beautiful in the world, that you have to make your own future, that you have to see the world in order to grow. That you have to stand up for right. That you have to live. And what about the Grey Havens? Are they in, or is PJ gonna leave that out, too? Still, to have the Haven's without the Scouring. It isn't right. It just isn't right, PJ. The tragedy of the Scouring would be enough to keep us there for 20 minutes after the Houses of Healing.
This is fucking disasterous... by Skyway Moaters	Nov 7th, 2003 06:06:50 PM
... I have been a staunch supporter of PJ's adaptations, but this, man I just don't understand aome of the decisions that were made for T2T at all in light of this development. You could have easily fit this sequence into T2T in lieu of some of the invented stuff and a few shots of terrified Rohirrim women and children. How in blue blazes does Gandalf get the Palantir without the confrontation at Orthanc for god's sake?! More invented crap off screen? Could this be a hoax? If this is true, I am VERY dissapointed; me who has been one of the faithful, chanting: "Trust PJ". I think ROTK will still be a very good if not great film regardless, but this really leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
by red_xavier	Nov 7th, 2003 06:12:38 PM
Harry - How about showing us the whole letter? It either wasn't addressed to you, or you've been had by some jackass fan posing as PJ. You're friends with him? Right...
We're saving it for the DVD. Ugh, As much as I love the extended by xavier masterson	Nov 7th, 2003 06:12:57 PM
And heres an idea...If the seven minutes of footage of Saruman and Grima wasn't suited for the beginning of ROTK as Peter says then why not put it in the Two Towers extended edition?**I think this just goes to show how important it was to wrap up the Saruman storyline in Two Towers instead of moving the last third of TT the book to the beginning of ROTK. Sure Peter could have left Shelob for ROTK but he really shot himself in the foot by waiting to show Gandalf and Saruman's final confrontation for the third chapter. Bad,bad judgment. So I guess we won't see the true end of this epic story until around Nov 2005 when the extended edition of ROTK comes out.*** I really hate to bitch about Jacksons handling of this as I think he's done a wonderful job of adapting the books and just making all of us happy by creating a truly emotional set of films instead of mindless actioners out of this. Oh well, Nov. 2005 it is.
PETER JACKSON RAPED MY CHILDHOOD@! by Chet Hudson	Nov 7th, 2003 06:15:11 PM
Puh-leez. If PJ was going to wreck LOTR, he would have done it 2 films ago. Oh ye of little faith! It's going to wind up on the DVD set that you're going to wait in line at midnight to buy, so just chill. Sheesh.
Editing by SpikedBuffy	Nov 7th, 2003 06:15:51 PM
This does blow, i understand the pacing problems it presents. but i wonder why it is going to the extended cut of ROTK instead of TTT. it belongs in TTT anyway. I love hearing that people have been crying for an hour of the picture, that's exactly what i want the movie to do for audiences when it arrives in theaters.
The more I hear of RoTK, the more I think its going to suck. Her by Effigy2002	Nov 7th, 2003 06:16:24 PM
I'd known way back since Fellowship that the Scouring wasnt gouing to be in this film, and I'd come to terms with it. As cool and as pivotal a scene as it was, I cant help but agree with Jackson that it was sort of an anti climax to the books main story, and that the majority of vacuous film goers out there won't 'get' it. HOWEVER... taking out Sauraman, and the pivotal scene where Gandalf break his wand and expels him from Isengaurd is just the most f*ked up decision, ever. Well, then again, I've also heard that Aaragorn has a sword fight with a re-embodied Sauron at the end of the film, which if true is actually* the most f**ked up decision ever. Peter Jackson, if you're reading this, and the Sauron thing is true, I implore you to cut that instead, and leave Sauraman's scenes in, if only so we can see more of Christopher Lee's brilliant acting. If its not true that Sauron and Aaragorn have a sword fight (thank gawd), I'd suggest cutting some of the crap that didnt happen in the book, of which I'm sure you have plenty of in RoTK. As a good starting point, I might suggest anything that has to do with Aaragorn and Arwens love story. Oh, and please make sure that the Witch King rides into Gondor, rather than flies in, cause that scene as played in the book is way cool. As a final thought, and speaking as a fan of the book (a purist if you will), I have to say that what I'm hearing of RoTK does not fill me with hope. Then again, ever since the travesty that was Two Towers, I didnt have much hope left anyway.
This is BAD, really really bad. by naughtius	Nov 7th, 2003 06:17:24 PM
It was a mistake not to include Voice of Saruman in TTT. And now they are going to remove it totally?? How can they discard such a dramatic moment? How can they they believe audience will buy that the major villain of TTT just simply be "vanquished"? So disappointing. If it is true, I am going to skin that giant Panda!
Oh boy. (SPOILERS for those who haven't read the book) by Ye-Baar	Nov 7th, 2003 06:21:00 PM
Here we go again. I'm not going to make a judgement about (just about) any movie without seeing it first, but I have chip in my opinion: I, like so many others here, felt that the changes made to FOTR were good and necessary, and kept not only the spirit of the books, but the continuity of the story. However, many of the changes made to TTT, while cool in some spots (and necessary at times too), contradicted the novel too blatantly. People on this site, like raw_bean have done a very good job of explaining to me how the adjustments PJ made here don't necessarily jeopardize the continuity of the story, but still, a lot of Tolkien seems to be missing and in place is a lot of PJ, most notably the WARG sequence, while a nifty little action sequence in it's own right, saps time from other things that WERE in the book that he could have spent more time on. Not only that, it sets up another FAKE DEATH SEQUENCE which I think some people will tire of (this characters dead, cue the slow-mo and a close up of someone with one tear running down their cheek and get those vienna boys singing, oh wait, no, HE'S ALIVE, SURPRISE!! What's that? You're not surprised?), especially since Tolkien already threw in enough of those to choke a horse on without PJ adding in more. You can say what you like about this and you're entitled to disagree, but I think it was a mistake. Anyway, now that he's wasted a bunch of time in TTT, he has a lot to make up for in ROTK. When I heard that the scouring was being cut, it didn't bug me one bit. Why? Like Tom Bombadil, it was a necessary cut. It's like a mini-climax after the real climax, and that really doesn't translate well filmically (sp?). And I realize, yea, even as I type this, that this means they would have to alter the death sequence of Saruman, and again, I was fine with that. NECESSARY. Key word. But if they cut the death of Saruman, it will accomplish a couple of things: 1-The majority of people I know who are more casual fans of the movie (and who haven't read the books) really look forward to seeing Saruman's demise. PJ beefed up his role so much that some people forget and think he's the main villain. They're going to be totally bewildered when they see this. They will NOT assume that the ents did him in. I promise. 2-Another "My brother Boromir's dead" inconsistancy could be created (absent a voice over or another unforeseen adjustment) and again, people who don't know the story already, even if they're paying attention will be confused. Anyways, I know that in posting this I may come across as a "purist" or a hater, but in truth I'm neither. I just worry about these films, who have so much potential, going downhill due to the strain of deadlines and some poor decision making. PJ did a fantastic job with the first and a good, but imperfect job with the second, so lets hope it all comes out in the wash.
Just another plot hole...no big deal by Rupee88	Nov 7th, 2003 06:22:45 PM
There are already tons of plot holes in this series...one more won't make a big difference.
chill out by Gorf	Nov 7th, 2003 06:24:39 PM
All you babies bitching about PJ's decision should really quit your crying and chill out. PJ has delivered 2 great movies so far and the buzz is strong that ROTK will be the best of the three. He has certianly proved that he knows what he is doing, so why not give him a chance? If you want to bitch, fine, but at least wait until you've seen the movie and you know how the thing actually plays out.
Man, I love these movies so much more than The Matrix movies... by HardcoreRocker	Nov 7th, 2003 06:29:36 PM
...yet strangely, I kind of had a guilty-pleasure good time at Matrix Revolutions. My review for my website took me a million years to write, cuz it wasn't a great movie, yet I had fun. I'm still torn. Siiiigh. All I know is Hugo Weaving = God. www.rockithardcore.com
Basically what Jackson is saying is that he screwed up. by xavier masterson	Nov 7th, 2003 06:29:39 PM
Hmmm, so the scenes with Saruman and Grima when Gandalf and company arrive at Isengard after the Ent attack didn't belong after the attack of Helm's deep but they also don't belong at the beginning of ROTK. So where do they belong? They belong exactly where thay should have been in the first place...THE TWO TOWERS. These are the scenes that should be put in the Two Towers extended edition and now that I think that Jackson realizes it... it's too late. The TT EE is too close to it's release date to recall them and add the scenes to them. You also have to question why Jackson thinks these scenes won't work in the theatrical cut of ROTK as he feels it seems more like a wrap up than a beginning to the new film yet he thinks they will work on the extended cut. Either they work or they don't.**** I don't know if I want to believe that this was Jackson's decision but do you really think he would cut Christopher Lee's scenes? I think Peter is just trying to spin it and this really was New line's decision. Jackson is too smart to make these sort of story decisions that forces the audience to fill in such a huge gap as to the fate of Saruman and Grima.
See, Pete, That's Where You Make the Mistake... by hipcheck13	Nov 7th, 2003 06:30:10 PM
I never read ANY of the books - so I NEVER would've assumed Saruman gets whacked by the Ents/whatever. You DEFINATELY need resolution to his storyline; hell, I'm not a purist and even I agree it's necessary. Otherwise those of us who haven't read the books are thinking "what happened to Saruman? Did he abandon the town and jet to the Long White Beards Resort or something?" Seriously - especially after Gandalf gets his ass handed to him by Saruman in FOTR - you NEED to have these two square off and settle things, once and for all, for resolution of the storyline.
You people worry about the stupidest things... by LukeShelton	Nov 7th, 2003 06:34:50 PM
You people crack me up. Does it really matter? No, it doesn't. Peter Jackson has made 2 monumental films, and you're worried about him leaving out a 7 minute scene that was altered from the book anyways? Get over it! Like PJ said in all the interviews and commentaries: The plot of the movie is to get Frodo to Mount Doom and destroy the Ring. ROTK is going to ge great, so just get over all the rumors and just enjoy the freakin movie. And onother thing: Don't complain about a movie that you nor anyone else has seen yet. And don't complain if you can't even spell the character's names correctly. The Scouring of the Shire was NOT the 'main point' of the whole story. Frodo sacrificing everything to save Middle Earth is the 'main point', morons.
I trust Peter enough to reserve judgement until after i've seen by 007-11	Nov 7th, 2003 06:37:20 PM
He treats a fan right, unlike the Wachowskis's, DON'T SEE REVOLTUIONS!
At the end of TTT Saruman's backyard is flooded and he's freakin by JAGUART	Nov 7th, 2003 06:38:02 PM
And the Ents are rampaging. Its sounds plausible that they did him in. What I can't understand is what is so important between him and Grima that takes 7 minutes of screen time? That's pretty long. After watching the film many times, I feel the film "wraps" a bit too quickly, esp right after Gandalf and Eomer show up and save the day. It looks like 1,000's of Orcs just disappear. They could have easily tacked on 3 minutes of the Saruman/Grima scene.
What cracks me up... by Effigy2002	Nov 7th, 2003 06:40:58 PM
.... is when morons who havent read the book (or infact, anyone for that matter) says that Peter Jacksons made "two great films" when infact he has only made one great film... and it now seems he just got lucky with Fellowship. He completely fucked up TTT, and after the editing choices he made in that shambolic disaster of a film, I wont trust him with anything ever again. A 7 minute scene it may only be, but its also an important, and downright cool one. I want RoTK to be a 'Return of the Greatness' we saw in Fellowship, but I doubt very much, from what I've heard and todays news, that it will be.
JackMercy says... by Be like water	Nov 7th, 2003 06:45:37 PM
...I'm saying things people have said already but...This is poo. Stinky poo. I can understand the loss of The Scouring-- but this? There's a faint hope in my head that this choice will change at the last minute. I love Mr. Jackson for ideals and all of his films -- but cutting out the death scene of Lee's Saruman (after Lee was already a bit shafted in The Two Towers) sounds very disappointing. Even if Saruman's role was originally largened for the films. And NO, the general audience WILL NOT assume or understand that Saruman was "vanquished" (what are we, on Buffy here?!) by the Ents at the end of TTT. Though ironically I'm actually glad I know this sad fact now, as otherwise I would have spent half the running time of my first viewing of ROTK wondering where the hell Saruman was, and what Lee himself must be thinking right now. In fact I'm REALLY interested to see what Lee will think of Jackson now (especially after that apparent UK radio interview where he waxed joyfully about Jackson, the new film and his scenes). Sad, sad, sad. JM signing off...
Cut PJ some slack and have a little faith! He's poured his heart by Niphredil bloom	Nov 7th, 2003 06:48:24 PM
I understand that these scenes are crucial to the books, but many of you forget that cinema is a totally different form of story-telling, and when you take into account the limits of theatrical running time, adjustments will have to be made and scenes cut - even the crucial ones. Surely you understand how hard PJ's worked on these films, and how much passion he's poured into them? Ultimately he's got to make some hard decisions that are going to disappoint people, but do you honestly think he
Palantir scene cut too ehh? by TS Thomas	Nov 7th, 2003 06:50:42 PM
So I guess this by necessity means Aragorn looking into the palantir will be cut also, after all, if they don't go to Isengard to see Saruman they shouldn't have the palantir either ehhh? No biggie, after seeing The Two Towers theatrical I assumed Return of The King would be messed up in similar fashion.
Explain this decision to me, Peter Jackson by Brody Armstrong	Nov 7th, 2003 06:52:47 PM
You cut out a 7 minute scene showing us the fate of Saruman. An important character to the whole trilogy who NEEDS closure. Yet, in TTT we get a completely uninteresting 7 minute scene of Galadriel that was so not needed. Let's see! Boring and worthless recap of the story sofar VS the great Christopher Lee. Petey, you fucked up big.
PJ raped Saruman's childhood! by devil0509	Nov 7th, 2003 06:54:20 PM
Let the outcry commence. I think this has become an annual event. Exactly 2 years ago people were having angina over the lack of Bombadil or the cut of Galadriel's gift giving scene, both of which would have killed the pace of the movie. Exactly 1 year ago people were actually being admitted to cardiac ICUs for MIs over the lack of Shelob. Now I'm sensing alot of geeks knocking off myocytes over this one. PJ has had to do this with each movie, kicking great material to the DVD in order to bring in a theatrical release running about 3 hours with a good, evenly building narrative drive to it. What I've liked from the get go is his up front and rational decisions regarding the choices he makes. He's probably right - as much as we'd like to see Sharkey's End, the movie will probably have a better flow without it.
Palantir scene cut too ehh? Part 2 by TS Thomas	Nov 7th, 2003 06:55:16 PM
Ack. Just thought on the matter further, that'll affect a good few scenes, such as one of the hobbits looking into the Palantir & getting a nasty sight (& I know I recall reading of that being in the film). Well, like I said, after seeing The Two Towers I can't say something like this was too unexpected. It's just a pity the Extended Editions never get any cinema screenings (Over here in Ireland anyway) so I can see a proper version of the film. Best Director Oscar for Peter Jackson my ass.
Woah people... by Kraken	Nov 7th, 2003 06:56:48 PM
You know, I'm just as sad that this scene had to go as anyone. I'm sure this scene had some real beautiful moments in it that will be missed (PJ said as much). But since we know that this wasn't a studio thing, but Peter's choice, I breath a little eaiser. Peter has been good to this story and we at least need to give him credit enough to SEE what he has put in RoTK before we start screaming Lucas at him. Even with Christopher Lee missing, this movie is going to knock people over.
I agree that the Scouring is the whole point of the book. by DufusyteII	Nov 7th, 2003 06:57:15 PM
The hobbits are primarily trying to save the shire. For the hobbits, and for Prof Tolkien himself, and for anybody who has Tolkien's spirit, the whole point of the epic is really to save the Shire.
Hey Harry drop a few more names.... by Sketchy	Nov 7th, 2003 06:59:05 PM
This post by harry was merely a way to show what good friends he is with "Pete" Jackson and to show all of his other connections. There was very little actual substance in his post. WE GET IT HARRY, YOU HAVE TONS AND TONS OF CONNECTIONS IN THE MOVIE INDUSTRY!! Are you that insecure that you have to keep brining it up? Do something yourself instead of swinging on the tip of everyone in hollywood. it makes me sick.
So I guess he just flees on his Speeder Bike? by JAGUART	Nov 7th, 2003 07:04:49 PM
Damn, and I really wanted to see him and Yoda battle it out.
I can't believe that Peter Jackson spelled it "definately" by Han Ol' Buddy	Nov 7th, 2003 07:05:04 PM

It reminds me of the transition from Aliens to Alien 3 by juscan	Nov 7th, 2003 07:05:09 PM
Many audience members who will not have read the books will wonder what the hell happened to Saruman by the time the movie ends. When Alien 3 started with the death of Newt and Hicks, I was shocked and pissed off because I was hoping for a continuation of their story arc. I felt that was a huge cop-out. In the case of ROTK, who cares if this Saruman scene overlaps from part of TTT? As so many people have become invested in these films, they will want to know what the hell happens to Saruman. We are looking at these films as part of one complete story. I didnt mind that Saruman was going to be killed off early in the film, because I read the book and knew he dies anyway - but to excise it completely from the theatrical release? I think that both PJ and New Line underestimate the fans who have supported these films. I hope that they are not doing this just to entice people to buy another extended DVD. Or, God forbid, that we find Saruman at the Black Gates and have HIM fight Gandalf and Aragorn. I still have faith that this will be a great film, however. PJ, please put this scene back in the theatrical release!
I think PJ makes some good points there, actually.... and I agre by Talimon	Nov 7th, 2003 07:06:32 PM
If you think about it, it would actually be really rediculous to start RotK with Saruman. It would just be the most horrible beginning to the film. I don't even see how it will work on the RotK EE, to be honest. Unless you see all the films as one long movie, it doesn't really make sense to even have that scene in RotK at all. It doesn't establish anything except the Palantir. NOTHING else is established by that scene that comes home later. I really think this should have been put into the TTT EE. I can see how PJ, who edited the TTT EE way back in the beginning of the year, probably didn't realize this in time. But I think if he could have had things his way Saruman's thread would have been finished that way, rather than stuck in the beginning of RotK. I have nothing against it going into the RotK EE per se, but I actually think it should be kept in the vaults until some future "ultimate edition" with the 4-hour versions of the films is released. Then it should be transfered to TTT. With some good editing, I actually think PJ could have stuck to the Helm's Deep thread much longer, and gone with it all the way to Isengard. Then he could have returned to Frodo, and made the whole scene in Osgiliath the films "final" climax. I think that would have addressed the films weakest element (the jerky editing between threads during Helms Deep), while at the same time offering a more emotional climax. By the way, we have to remember that Gandalf and co. will still be visiting Isengard in RotK. Unless PJ wants to create a plot-hole of monumental proportions, he'll have to pick up Merry and Pippin. And I think it will be impossible to have them picked up from Isengard without at least a reference to Saruman. And how can PJ reference to Saruman without discussing his death? I don't know. It seems to me like PJ may be relying on the EE-format too much this time around. He'll be creating a precedent for the EE's in terms of how much he changes the plot. Having a charachter die in one version of the film is quite different from having him just "disappear." I think once we're 20 minutes into RotK, however, we really won't give a shit. Like PJ says, this plot line doesn't ring again throughout the film. So once we get over that skipped beat, the film should roll on just fine. And assuming PJ edits it well (please tell me the editor for RotK is better than the TTT one...), we might not even notice it to begin with. I guess if I had to say one thing to PJ it would be to cut out Saruman whole, and not even mention his demise. The worst possible thing would be to mention his death in the movie in passing (a la Faramir mentioning Boromir's death in TTT. That was horrid).
This is totally Warner's doing by Geek, Esq.	Nov 7th, 2003 07:07:23 PM
PJ said "theatrical pacing." That means "We had to cut the time down so that people wouldn't be scared by the length so we could sell more tickets so that this can make more money for New Line, who passes that money on to Warner, who has lost a bundle because of AOL." Fuck you, New Line and Warner. Greedy, soulless bastards.
Well.. by Enigma7	Nov 7th, 2003 07:08:14 PM
To all who think PJ fucked up with TTT, please watch the Extended Edition and then see if that changes your mind. BTW, if you think ROTK is gonna suck just don't go and see it. It's that simple. Always remember that these movies are ADAPTATIONS of the novel by Tolkein and not a exact reproduction. So long as the spirit and the main elements of the story are there does it matter that PJ changes little bits here and there? If you don't like what he does just don't watch the movies and go back and read the books. It really is that simple.
Her'es what peter Jackson MUST do! by Effigy2002	Nov 7th, 2003 07:15:13 PM
Dammit, dont you Peter Jackson apologists get it? He dosent make great editing choices! Look at The Two Towers, for how cough 'great' his editing choices are. he threw in a whole tonne of stuff that had no right to be in there, and now hes paying for it in RotK with the possible demise of a scene that fans (both those who have read the book and those who havent) will demand to see. "Poochie Died on the way back to his Planet" indeed! So here's what Peter Jackson MUST do. He must show this scene, in the theatrical release no less, and cut out anything that wasnt in the book. This will make sure we see Sauraman get his, it will provide the closure we need on his story (since we're not getting the Scouring) and most importantly, it will be a closer adaptation to the book than TTT could ever hope to be. If Jackson follows this advice, he'll have his 3.12 hour film, and we'll all be happy.
Just one more example of how Jackson is ill equiped to take on s by son of stik	Nov 7th, 2003 07:17:17 PM
Notch em up. If Jackson would simply cut down on unecessary story insertions ala Aragorns faux death scene and those overlong, oversentimental 'emotional' scenes he'd actually have room FOR THE FUCKING STORY. What a mess. Still the dumb masses will lap it up.
Get over it by Kungfumanchu	Nov 7th, 2003 07:21:56 PM
The things you are obsessing about are BOOKS.PJ is a MOVIE maker.Can you not understand these have different paces? If everything in the books were in these movies,what would they run,maybe 5 hours each? I've seen very few movies that I thought were 100% faithful to the book they were based on.It's hard enough on short books,much less very detailed books such as these.I love the books & have read them many times & will do so again.Some of you act like someone's going to come into your house and take the books away because a few of your favorite book sequences aren't included.Please.Are these important book events?Yes.Movies?Not really.Yeah,it's a bitch to wait,but at least these will see the light of day on the extended dvds,unlike "lost" scenes from movies in the past.What all of us LOR fans should be grateful for is that New Line used a director with a genuine passion for these books & a great f/x production company.If you don't like these,imagine what a shit-fest these would be if a hack like Paul Anderson had done them on a typical Hollywood budget & none of the resources filming in New Zealand provided.Now that would be something to get upset about.
PJ is brilliant. Just fucking brilliant. by tribe2003	Nov 7th, 2003 07:26:59 PM
My respect for the losers who filmed LOTR goes up exponentially every day. First, they have the brilliant insight that Tolkien is an 'amateur' writer (I suppose they're the 'professionals' - Ha!) Then, they cannot except that a character (such as Faramir) might be NOBLE, so they fuck up every good character that Tolkien ever created. Then, if a character is taking too much of their precious time (they can't be concerned about ours, since they KNOW we are willing to sit through more than 12 hours of LOTR), they just drop the story line and leave it hanging. Then, they have fun fucking with the storyline just for kicks. For example, Hmm, let's have the Elves at Helm's Deep, let's have an Aragorn near death scene, let's have Frodo and Sam take an Osgiliath detour, let's have Arwen become an elf warrior, let's have Saruman - well, Saruman is causing too much trouble, so let's just get rid of him and let the audience speculate about where he went. Note: I have read the stories. Twelve times to be precise. And yet, I still will be WONDERING this because I have no idea where Saruman is supposed to be in PJ's FUCKED UP VERSION of Tolkien's Middle Earth. Last year, on December 18, I returned from TTT and had this to say: For a long time, I have regretted that Tolkien is dead, especially that he died before he could finish the Silmarillion and perhaps, a sequel to LOTR describing the Fourth Age and the time of Men. Tonight, I am glad he is dead, and that he couldn't see what was done to the epic to which he devoted most of his free time over seventeen years of his life. Tonight, Christopher Tolkien is Saruman, and Peter Jackson is Sauron
Dear Peter J, please put back in the deleted Tom Bombadil scene! by JAGUART	Nov 7th, 2003 07:27:57 PM
They, the Hobbits, Frodo, Merry, Sam and Pippin stepped out of the Old Forest and found a wide sweep of grass welling up before them. The river, now small and swift, was leaping merrily down to meet them, glinting here and there in the light of the stars, which were already shinning the sky. The grass under their feet was smooth and short, as if it has been mown or shaven. The eaves of the Forest behind were clipped, and trim as a hedge. The path was now plain before them, well tended and bordered with stone. It wound up on top of a grassy knoll, now grey under the pale starry night; and there, still high above them on a further slope they saw the twinkling lights of a house. Down again the path went, and then up again, up a long smooth hillside of turf, towards the light. Suddenly a wide yellow beam flowed out brightly from a door that was open. There was Tom Bombadil's house before them, up, down, under hill. The hobbits stood and gazed when suddenly Frodo cried "The House of Tom Bombadil!" Merry and Pippin chimed in "Tom Bombadil's!" and Sam added wryly "Its only a model".....There was a moment of silence when Frodo announced "On second thought, let's not go to Tom Bombadil's. Tis' a silly place."
There are endings, and there are ENDINGS!!!!!!!!! by Miami Mofo	Nov 7th, 2003 07:32:42 PM
First of all, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. Why? I'll get to that in a minute. *Here is something I just read in the October, 2003 issue of 'Empire Magazine' from a report that was written as filming was drawing to a close in July, 2003: 'Hobbit extra Peter Eastwood (no relation to Clint), a naturally diminutive tax inspector from Auckland blessed with startingly large eyes, stubs out a cigarette and grins from ear to pointy ear. "I was going to be Sean Astin's stand-in," he announces to anyone in the vicinity whom he suspects to be a member of the press, "but I've been a Hobbit, another Hobbit and a Dwarf at the Council of Elrond, and now I'm that first Hobbit again." During lunch, waiting to be rustled back to finish a secret 'Shire party scene' for the end of the movie, the Hobbits tend to stick together. ...' A SECRET SHIRE PARTY SCENE????????? Do you know what this could mean? I don't, but it sure raises the possibility that some sort of Scouring "could" be added to the SEV DVD. **As for Saruman not meeting his demise as expected, as I said, this is not necessarily a bad thing. If he meets his demise at the hands of Grima in the Shire, even if it's just in the SEV DVD and not in the theatrical version, then I'll have no problem with that because I find that much more preferable than the impaled Wizard on the wheel or even just Grima slashing Saruman's throat at Isengard.
Spikey Wheel is out?! by greenleaf	Nov 7th, 2003 07:39:57 PM
DAMN!! TOUGH DECISION, PJ!!
RotK Cuts by Mr. Wulf	Nov 7th, 2003 07:43:24 PM
So now all hate people here hate Peter Jackson. And there are long winded speeches (tribe), how he has desecrated Tolkiens book. I can't take this people for serious. They would hate every movie-version of the Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson did a wonderful work, he, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh demonstrated a detailed knowledge of the books, but for god's sake they did a movie adaptation, they had to change some things! Even if they have a manifestation of Sauron fighting Aragorn, I will accept it. Let us agree then, Tolkien would hate the movies, they are (sometimes) not true to the book, but they are great touching movies, far superior to the recent Star Wars-Episodes or Matrix Revolutions. They are great on their own. Sure, all Tolkien-purists will start a crusade against Jackson for giving Sauron corporeal form, leaving out the scouring of the shire, giving Aragorn and Faramir more depth, adding a superficial warg battle. Nevertheless, the good outweighs the bad. I will enjoy the movies more than any other in a long time!
One movie, one book. NOT THREE. by MiserableRainGod	Nov 7th, 2003 07:45:15 PM
OK folks, I hate to tell you - The Lord of the Rings is NOT A TRILOGY. Not the books, nor the films. A trilogy consists of 3 parts, separate but related. The "books" are actually a single book, split into 3 parts (6 if you want to get technical), for binding/sales purposes. There is one beginning, 1 end. The films are 1 movie split into 3, for the same reasons. No part of them stands alone. We do not have 3 cohesive wholes, here. We have 1 very long epic. So I don't give a crap WHERE the Saruman/Gandalf scene goes - it fits in at either point: the end of movie 2 or the beginning of movie 3. All I know is it belongs. It ends Saruman's story, it ends Gandalf's growth from lowly Grey Wizard to the Strongest Wizard on the World. It shows that he has a chance at finally completed his mission on Middle-Earth and vanquishing Sauron. To me, That's important to establish before the 3rd movie. The greatest Wizard (they're angels, really) in the word is going against the greatest demon (Sauron). You NEED that.
ROTK by Playhouse	Nov 7th, 2003 07:46:33 PM
Let's see the movie first before we start calling it a piece of shit. Geez...
It's not just that it's a bad adaptation.... by son of stik	Nov 7th, 2003 07:50:43 PM
it's fucking bad FILMAKING. What do you apologists not understand about that???? He's suddenly made a villain of two movies disappear - geddit?! Zero payoff. And for the record it IS a fucking terrible adaptation so far, old Petey poo's got himself in a right knot especially with this decision. Gotta love the wide birth a lot of folk are giving PJ here, especially Harry who would nail anyone else for this disasterous call. I put it down to battered wife syndrome.
"The main point is that Frodo loses everything to destroy the ri by MiserableRainGod	Nov 7th, 2003 07:50:47 PM
Someone in the talkback said that the Scouring is not the most important thing - it's that Frodo has to sacrifice everything to destroy the ring. That's true - Frodo has to lose EVERYTHING, including his home. His home, the Shire, which was the light at the end of the tunnel for our 4 miniature friends. So if he doesn't lose the Shire, he really still has something left. The only REAL tragedy in Tolkien's story is, in my opinion, Saruman's enslavement of the Shire. (Well, OK...that and the loss of elves from the world.)
A shame by b-rock	Nov 7th, 2003 07:54:59 PM
Hi, I
johnny blue jeans by neckbone	Nov 7th, 2003 07:58:09 PM
great call on the 'first'. by my count you were actually 8th. that's gotta be a record for the biggest face plant in aicn history. bitch.
told you so by Ryalto 3.0	Nov 7th, 2003 08:02:29 PM
Wasn't i saying a year ago that PJ had royally fucked up in TTT by not advancing the storyline far enough, and thus, would have to cut important pieces of ROTK? why yes, I was. Add the lack of a Saruman resolution to PJs ever increasing list of asinine changes. And remember kids, this all could have been avoided if he'd flushed that useless middle hour of TTT down the toilet and stuck to his fucking source material. this is what happens when you let a director known for b-movie shlock, his wife, and their friend, adapt a classic literary work for the screen.
tribe2003, you are a freak by devil0509	Nov 7th, 2003 08:19:37 PM
Somehow I don't think Tolkein is spinning in his grave over these movies. If there is an afterlife, Tolkein's walking through Gondolin at the height of the city's greatness and snickering at the flicks and all the anxiety going on over which scene is cut and which is invented. These movies aren't going to kill or ruin the books. Sure, plenty of people will never read the books and think the movies are what Tolkein wrote. Of course, without the movies they wouldn't have read the books anyway. The books are what you make of them, and the movies are one man's vision. You may think it's a horrible, twisted vision, that's your opinion. Go get a bankroll and make your own movie. Whatever. You've read the books 12 times? Good for you. You probably shouldn't tell the cute blonde at the party about that, but good for you anyway. I, myself, have read these books more times than my wife finds remotely rational, and it's still not something I mention when she's wearing her skimpy black panties and telling me she's in the mood. My vision is not PJ's. If I were scripting the movie, I'd do some things differently. But I'm not scripting the movie, and god knows I'm not directing it either. All in all I'm pretty damned arrogant. I KNOW I'm a fucking good doctor. I KNOW I can put in a central line or do a lumbar puncture or run a code as well as anybody in the hospital. I KNOW my job is profoundly more important than anything Jackson and the rest of the overpaid imbecils in the movie industry will ever do, and they couldn't in a million years do my job as well as I do it. And I also KNOW that if I tried to turn LOTR into a movie trilogy, it would be NOWHERE as good as what Jackson has put togethter. You and the rest of the self-righteous morons crying about how this guy has usurped YOUR story and fucked it up need to get some perspective and realize that this is NOT your story and these certainly are NOT your movies.
tribe2003, by raw_bean	Nov 7th, 2003 08:22:33 PM
It was Prof. Tolkien himself and NOT his son Christopher who sold the film rights to LOTR, and Tolkien tried writing a Fourth Age sequel to LOTR, (see the History of Middle Earth compiled by Christopher Tolien, volume 12 I think,) but quickly realised it was a soulless and pointless project, that could never come to anything good. --- To those worried about the Palantir, it's definately in, (as is the Grey Havens,) but I'm not sure how they'll explain it.
Thanks, sniff, sniff, anyway, Harry. And to Dov: The Scouring wa by elanor	Nov 7th, 2003 08:23:46 PM
Unfortunately, although I agree with you about the importance of the Scouring to the story, I also see the point about leaving it out of the film, even though I am sure you and I would not be the only ones happy to sit through it, no matter how anti-climactic it might feel. But, what's done is done, or in this case, what's not been done cannot be done now.*To the doubters, Harry does indeed know PJ and does indeed talk to him via e-mail. This report sounds true to me, unwelcome news though it may be. I also mourn the loss of the Voice of Saruman scene and wonder how Gandalf will come into possession of the palantir. I think we have seen too many referrences to it for it to be cut so I have to believe PJ has a plan. I hope PJ had the decency to call Christopher Lee himself and tell him the bad news. It would suck if he found out from a news report. But really, folks, this was not a "trim it for time" decision. He is trying to make a cut or ROTK that will play as well as it can given what has come before and where this one is going. I do think this is part of the fallout from the hugeness of the project - the "laying the tracks while the train is moving" phenomenon. In hindsight, another six months of pre-production to work out the middle movie would have probably resulted in the inclusion of both the Boromir-Faramir flashback, the huorns and the Voice of Saruman sequence. Once upon a time they were going to end T2T with Saruman on a spiky wheel. I don't know how that would have played. PJ thought he could begin ROTK where T2T leaves off. He cut it that way, looked at it and now has changed his mind. I won't be able to judge until I experience the cut he made. One of these days we'll watch the three films as one story and then it will be great because VOS will be in it's proper place. I do see a silver lining in this sad news: this is the first conclusive proof that there WILL be an extended ROTK version which I was worried might be abandoned in lieu of the need to start up on King Kong. So we again have something to look forward to after the film's release!I also think, having just seen the extended T2T, that it will be the extended versions that will be played in festivals and retrospectives in the years to come.to the TETBers: elanor is boo-hooing, and sniff-sniffing. No offense to the mighty wit of Ingold but I thought it was ME who named "Marilyn MonRohan".Special for Moaters, Bean, Pallando and MorG: Moaters, you ninnyhammer! bean was joking - he even put a smiley face at the end of his faux diatribe (you even included it when you quoted him!) Now go stand red-faced in the corner and repeat after me: "I will always look for smiley faces before I TATOW". Clearly the halfling's leaf has dulled your mind. 8~)Still love ya, though.**Miami! What a great tidbit you unearthed! That gives me hope indeed, and gives the lie to my subject line!
You apologists make me sick. by Effigy2002	Nov 7th, 2003 08:24:48 PM
Its people like you who say "oh, its great despite the plot holes, inconsitencies and the changes from the book" who allow 2 bit hacks like Peter Jackson to think that they can get away with the wholesale destruction of things as great as the LotR trilogy. Now, admit he fucked up big time, (as evidenced by the problems of TTT and now, the removal of Sauraman's scenes in RotK as a consequnce) and I'll forgive you.
I still look forward to the movie by dan_ca2003	Nov 7th, 2003 08:24:57 PM
Although I think it is a mistake to cut the Saruman scene, I still look forward to the movie and don't think it will change my opinion of the movie overall. I have read the books and enjoyed them immensely; but one thing I am tired of are all these Tolkien geeks whining and crying about the changes the movies have made. These are movies people, and changes have to be made in adapting the books. Although, I have not agreed with all the changes PJ has made, I find that some of them have worked. For example, the Elves at Helms Deep worked; the Faramir character, bland as wet bread in the books, actually had more dimension in the film ( I know a lot of you Tolkienites are shaking your fist in anger right now);and the Scouring of the Shire IS ANTCLIMATIC IN THE BOOK and would have been even more so in the movie. So, go ahead and consult with "Tolkien's Spirit" or be thankful that he is not here to see the alleged travesty of the movies, as one of you moronically said. Better yet, grow up and quit sniveling.
MiserableRainGod, good point BUT... by raw_bean	Nov 7th, 2003 08:28:53 PM
even when the Scouring of the Shire is over, and the Shire is being healed, it is still lost to Frodo. The Shire is not lost to Frodo because it has changed, but because HE has changed. The Shire can be peaceful and wonderful, either because the Scouring never happened OR because Samwise Gamgee is mayor and is busy healing its hurts, Frodo STILL cannot be happy there because he still feels the hurt of the wounds he's taken, the sacrifices he's made, and the torment he's gone through carrying the Ring. Either way, he's lost his home and his innocence and he can only go into the West to try and heal his heart.
this is a problem... by Dragonfire	Nov 7th, 2003 08:29:55 PM
I understand how the Saruman scene could affect the pacing, and why PJ would cut it, because the focus of ROTK should be Sauron afterall, but this is a massive shame because it means we get no Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff, no palantir and no psychological warfare between Aragorn and Sauron through the palantir (one of my favourite parts in the book). Like someone said they have to go to Orthanc to get Merry and Pippin as well. ROTK just gonna start with Gandalf and Pippin arriving at Gondor? Bit of a big hole there. Guess we should have seen this coming, how could he possibly have crammed all this stuff into ROTK, he's got a big enough job as is. He should have ended TTT with this Saruman scene. He really should have. As much as I love PJ for the love and effort him and his team have put into these movies, I'll always be pissed off about how badly Aragorn, Merry and Pippin were introduced in FOTR and I'll probably always be pissed off about this as well. I just hope the Smeagol to Gollum scenes are in there though. Those are scenes I'm really looking forward to.
Man, fuck Peter Jackson. by Mr. High	Nov 7th, 2003 08:31:48 PM
If he wasn't so obsessed with wringing every possible variation on Middle Earth through CGI, he would've had to take into consideration that by stuffing these flicks chock full OF NEEDLESS FUCKING CARTOONS HE WAS CUTTING IMPORTANT SHIT FROM THE STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! "TTT" was horrible and you can say it's a movie, not the book all you want, you CAN'T FUCKING MAKE A MOVIE OUT OF A BOOK LIKE THIS WITHOUT TELLING THE FUCKING STORY THAT WAS IN THE GODDAMN BOOK!!!!!!!!!! Fuck Peter Jackson , fuck his z-grade movie sensibilities, fuck his stupid wife, but most of all fuck him. Fuck Peter Jackson. I knew he'd FUCK IT UP!!!!!!!! Christ, another crappy LOTR movie and a shit worthless Matrix flick in the same season. The only decent flick I've seen since "X-2" was "Kill Bill", I'm not even sure why anyone makes fucking movies anymore.
Man, fuck Peter Jackson part 2. by Mr. High	Nov 7th, 2003 08:34:10 PM

b-rock, I realise its sad to see the Scouring of the Shire go, by raw_bean	Nov 7th, 2003 08:34:25 PM
but a lot of what you listed as the right way to end LOTR IS still in, ie. the Grey Havens and Frodo sailing into the West. You say: "the joy felt at the defeat of Sauron is replaced with the sad realization that it
Man, fuck Peter Jackson part 3. by Mr. High	Nov 7th, 2003 08:38:21 PM
Goddamn, your site is slow as shit, Harry, SLOW AS SHIT! Anyway, what I was going to say is, FUCK THE SCOURING OF THE SHIRE! IT IS ANTI-CLIMATIC!!!!! Who cares anyway? That's where I always stopped reading in the book, it was like Tolkein got to the end and just couldn't stop writing. But, to reiterate my original point, FUCK PETER JACKSON! FUCK HIM IN HIS FAT FUCKING ASS!!!!!! Hope the fucker eats one chimichanga too many at the premiere and chokes on his own vomit. Maybe by some miracle, George Lucas will be there and will drown in the massive explosion of regurgitation coming from Fat Pete's oversized piehole and 2005 will be looking UP!
Well, thank you elanor! by raw_bean	Nov 7th, 2003 08:45:39 PM
Although, it has to be said, I was only half joking. The tone I used was very school ma'am-ish, but the actual opint of the post was genuine. :) --- Dragonfire, the Palantir is in (see TTT DVD Agragorn:"He has gone unchallenged long enough.", and also images from the ROTK visual companion, showing Aragorn with Palantir, and Pippin steaing it from Mithrandir), as is Merry and Pippin being rescued and then separated (see all the trailers so far and their "We shall see the Shire again."; Pippin and Merry splitting up as Pippin heads for Minas Tirith), although I can't see how PJ will resolve this, fears in the past (XenArwen at Helm's Deep, and such) have been proved unfounded, and I have faith that PJ will deliver the best Rings film yet, despite this editing decision here.
good god by Thumper2k1	Nov 7th, 2003 08:47:29 PM
What people don't understand, even when pointed out several times, is we aren't complaining that ROTK is 100% faithful to the book. Infact, Saruman's death scene has been changed. It's the fact that PJ isn't resolving the Saruman storyline. Leaving it for the dvd is pure fucking bullshit. How do build up a major villian decide to not show what happens to him?
lotr licks balls by thedude4life360	Nov 7th, 2003 08:49:55 PM

by thedude4life360	Nov 7th, 2003 08:50:57 PM
lotr movies lick balls they arent intersting at all playa p jackson can suck on my junk and you best belie dat dere
If Saruman hadn't kicked Gandalf's booty all over FOTR it wouldn by Terry_1978	Nov 7th, 2003 08:52:15 PM
But now that he's Gandalf the White, people in the theatre who have been watching since the first one are gonna want to see him use his new powers on the one that tore him up so badly in the first flick. I know my father hasn't read the books but has seen the first two and told me the other day, "man, when this third one comes out, saruman better watch himself!"LOL, sadly that's gonna be the mindset of a lot of the mainstream audience.
Anyway, by raw_bean	Nov 7th, 2003 08:52:18 PM
that's enough stamping fires of worried Ring fans for tonight. Its 1:50am here in the UK and I'm still drunk, so I'll leave you all to it, I'll just part with: If you've liked the LOTR films so far, try not to worry, PJ has managed (on the whole) not to screw this up, despite many changes that on paper made us all howl in indignation. If you've NOT liked the films so far, then you wouldn't like the final film either way, and so it's kind of pointless posting your diatribe here (specifically aimed at the trolling idiots who just post to get a rise out of others, not just anyone who doesn't like LOTR films). :) 'Night all.
Not a choice I'd make, but...we all need to chill by Davdaman	Nov 7th, 2003 09:00:55 PM
I am personally sorry that movie-going audiences won't get to see the Sauraman / Gandalf scene from TTT - it is one of my favorites from the book. IF, that is, IF indeed this news is true and doesn't change. And I do believe the scene would fit better into TTT, after the battle of Helm's Deep, and if I was editing the films both Helm's Deep and the Frodo / Sam conversation regarding heroes at the end would have been shortened to fit S vs G in. But that said: Does my (or your) disagreement with PJ's decision make him a horrible filmmaker? A hack? No, the films are (to me at least) highly enjoyable, some of the best coming out in today's cinema. In one of the DVD documentaries, Jackson says something to the effect that if you filmed the entire novel and all of the characters / events, LOTR would become unfilmable. He's right too - and that is borne out by the lack of previous attempts to make these into movies. And it's not just the advent of CGI that made these adaptations possible - it was an adaptation built on the key story elements, removing some of the smaller components / characters from the books. And I am surprised that 4 years later people are still in denial about the necessity of these changes... it is just...well ...REALITY. You just simply couldn't fit all of LOTR into 12 hours of films and have everything work - and on top of that, you wouldn't like the end result anyway because books don't carry the same weight on the screen (and vice versa). Aside from the story changes, I do believe that these movies are highly faithful adaptations of a 50+ year old book, and where not faithful to the plot they are faithful to the spirit of the story. And to those that think some of us are "apologists", that is a simplification. I would argue the reverse - some of you are getting lost in the details, expecting everything to be included in the movie. That is not realistic. Us "apologists" just recognize that when Hollywood makes a film of a book, there are going to be significant changes. And when you compare this literary adaption with the many horrible Hollywood adaptions of literary works, Peter Jackson's films hold up incredibly well. In fact, I do believe that FOTR was one of the best films of 2001, and if ROTK is almost as good (or better, let's hope) then I am hopeful it will take home the Best Picture Oscar. I also find it funny that people would suggest that dropping the S vs. G confrontation will eliminate any chances of a Best Director / Best Film Oscar for ROTK. Why? Is that because every single Oscar voter is an anal-retentive literary fan that doesn't understand how film editing works? They're actually going to hold the disapearance of this scene against Peter Jackson for his direction or for the overall quality of the film? The only place where these sorts of changes affect awards is related to adapted screenplays. Fanboy frothing aside, ROTK will win or lose the other awards on its own filmic merits, not on what was included / not included from the book. Oh, and some fairly-reliable ROTK movie spoilers from the main fan site, to answer a few questions posted above. Check out www.lordoftherings.net for more info - it's all there: Scouring the Shire was never filmed, according to every public statement by anyone associated with the film. Also, Jackson said during the FOTR EE commentary that he included footage of it during the Mirror of Galadriel scene as an homage to a chapter that would not make it into the film for the sake of pacing. ROTK does indeed end the same way as the book - with the Grey Havens scene. From what's been revealed so far, it is at least 10 minutes long and most of the people that have seen it have said it is amazing (Peter Jackson has said recently in interviews that it is his favorite scene from all three pictures). Apparently, in the original ROTK script Sauraman was indeed killed by Grima, possibly at Isengard, and Grima is shot down by an arrow from Legolas. While no one is sure, the most recent rumors suggest that Sauron in fact does NOT take physical form in ROTK, and that Aragorn dukes it out instead with the Mouth Of Sauron. While I agree that this latest development is disappointing news, it is not the end of the world. ROTK should still be a good film. How good? I predict it will be the best of the three, although we will all find out soon enough.
So let me get this straight, PJ thought it would be better to cu by TheGinger Twit	Nov 7th, 2003 09:01:09 PM
This is the great and unstoppable Peter Jackson you fanboys always cream over??
Saurman by TS Thomas	Nov 7th, 2003 09:03:54 PM
The thing about the film V the book is that in the book Saurman plays a fairly minor role, by minor I mean he doesn't appear too much, in Fellowship & The Two Towers a good deal was added to his role, e.g. we get to see him creating his "bomb" & sending off the army, or he's the one creating the bad weather on Carahadras in Fellowship. That ain't in the books. It's a significant oversight on Peter Jacksons part (& the other writers I guess) to build up a bad guy like that & then have no real resolution to the character in Return of the King.
I just don't get it, PJ will release (of each film) a 3+ hour ci by TheGinger Twit	Nov 7th, 2003 09:27:33 PM
I'm going slightly maaaaad
Going backwards by Dave Bowman	Nov 7th, 2003 09:35:27 PM
I don't consider PJ's point about the beginning of ROTK resolving the end of TTT to be valid. So what? Let us recall that TTT itself begins by revisiting a scene that occurs about halfway into FOTR, showing some of the same footage, and then carrying that storyline forward. I fail to see how that differs from resolving Saruman in the beginning of ROTK.
Oh, please... by Kanyn22	Nov 7th, 2003 09:56:07 PM
So the last time we see Saruman, he's in his tower getting attacked by Ents. His armies, factories, everything is destroyed and overthrown. Why do we need to see him die? He's not applicable to the story anymore. Who cares what happens to him when the threat he poses is gone. And the 'scouring of the shire' is a little stupid anyway. "It's the theme of the whole book, these hobbits can defend their own homeland without help from anyone." They just saved Middle Earth! Destroyed the one ring, fought in the war, etc. Why do we need to see them chase a crazy old man out of the Shire to prove their independence and strength. To me the scene just demonstrates that they passed the strong qualities they had gained on their quest to the rest of the hobbit community, cool and all, but necessary? No. Peter Jackson is trying to make the best possible movie he can, and he's not making it just for the people who check this site all day.
getting right down to brass tacks man... by acidhorse	Nov 7th, 2003 10:04:46 PM
first time post here. listening to the rants and raves, im starting to picture that scene in 'jay and silent bob strike back' where they read the poop shoot and get all pissed off. ha! well, here's how i look at it (as if anyone cares). the scouring of the shire was quite a kool payoff literary-wise and i would've assumed it'd be in the flick instead of the grey havens scene. the voice of Sauruman part is definitely an essential plot point and will be seen in one way or another. i guess Jackson worked so hard on making the battles in the third one so kick ass (i mean have you seen that shot of Legolas climbing up the side of the war oiliphant? or the fell beast swooping down on the Rohirrim?) that he did some major re-arranging. i mean shit, i didnt think he'd even bother with the paths of the dead, but there it is in the trailer. (the video game preview showed a cool part with some ghosts flying around while they stand over an abyss - ill have to see that to believe its in the movie though). I guess it makes up for not having the hobbits buried alive in the first book. Sauruman's plot line won't be dropped. I assure you. the first flick got me reading the other two books, then back to the first one. then the hobbit. now i just can't get enough. as long as we get both the assault on pelinnor fields AND the taking of the battle to the black gates, i'll be happy, Jackson has us right where he wants us. Waiting, drooling with anticipation....
The Council...who will take the ring? by BDT	Nov 7th, 2003 10:08:42 PM
I have said it a gazillion times... a movie is a different art form than a book. You get different things from it. I am grateful for Peter Jackson's vision. What he has given this story in movie form has been so much fun, and very inspiring for me. Even if you don't you agree with his editing decisions, I think most people can see that the end result is a fantastic movie that stands on its own in its own medium. Sitting in the heart of fandom for the movies and the books, I read everything I can get a look at...and sometimes it seems that those who love the book think they are temporarily loaning it to Peter Jackson to make these movies and that he owes them their emotional investment and plus interest. If you want an exact replica of the book, it is still there, just read it and let your imagination do it's work. The things I love most about the book is how these little guys put love of their home and kin and loyalty to one another to work in the bigger world and come out the real heros. Then one of the little guys takes up an incredible burden and, against all odds, gets farther than anyone could expect or hope....a thing no other could do, regardless of wisdom, strength , magic or power. The very themes l love about the book are mirrored in the efforts of those folks in NZ. Bless 'em all! I love these movies and I admire and respect the entire cast and crew for the effort. I have no doubts that RotK is gonna be great.
Pete's playing a trick by Moxy	Nov 7th, 2003 10:11:14 PM
I think Peter Jackson might be telling a little white lie. I think he did remove Saruman's death from the beginning of the ROTK because in recent pickups he filmed another version of Saruman's death. In other words I think Pete filmed "The Scouring Of The Shire" very recently, albeit probably an extremely abbreviated version of it, and this will be what we'll see in the ROTK Theatrical version. We'll still see Saruman die at Orthanc on the ROTK EE DVD, but it will only be in the supplements, so Peter wasn't lying outright. Just a theory.
nobody is going to understand it!!!! by catwise	Nov 7th, 2003 10:11:56 PM
Sorry but people who doesn't read the book are not going to understand what the hell happend with saruman. It will be a great mistake to omit Saruman's destiny. Also there will be many senseless things in the whole movie immediately after this omission. They can put elfs, dwarfs and dead men in pelennor, but Saruman is indispensable in this movie. the last movie. Forget the DVD please!!!!!!!!
You'll still see it. by GrammarPolice	Nov 7th, 2003 10:20:07 PM
Purists amaze me. If you think PJ screwed the trilogy into the ground, then just don't go see the damn flick. I'm sure the 4 guys that decide to stay home and play Dungeons and Dragons in protest will absolutely destroy the boxoffice results. Truth is, the pseudo-intelligencia that obsesses about LOTR doesn't elevate these books above mere works of fiction. Great books, admittedly. Just realize, you guys frustrate talkbackers in the same way Muslims and Christians frustrate everybody else. ...wow, that was offensive. Sorry.
is not about the Scouring by catwise	Nov 7th, 2003 10:22:45 PM
we Already knew that this part it would not be in the movie and I understand it. But to omit Saruman is another thing. Then there is no meeting with Saruman and Gandalf, and neither the palantir exists. Where it is supposed that they find the palantir? In the way? Do they find it in the pantries? This does not make sense, though they change the place and the moment and the way in that Saruman dies, he has to appear in the movie
You whining purists are the biggest fucking babies on planet ear by King_Midas	Nov 7th, 2003 10:28:44 PM

Hipocrite Fanboys! by Lavaman	Nov 7th, 2003 10:44:14 PM
Where is all the Fanboy wrath against Peter Jackson! If George Lucas did something like this, everybody would be throwing the usual insults at him. Hipocrites! After the hard work and respect Christopher Lee has given Peter Jackson he gets cut out of the THEATRICAL REALEASE! At least Lucas won't cut Christopher Lee's (Count Dooku) scene out of Episode III! Peter Jackson should be called out on this, what crap!
To devil0509 and raw_bean by tribe2003	Nov 7th, 2003 10:55:11 PM
raw_bean: Apologize for my ignorance. I am ashamed to admit I am only on the first book of HoME, so I didn't know about the Fourth Age thing. As to Christopher Tolkien - completely my fault, sorry about that! devil0509: I am sorry that I came across as a "self-righteous moron"; that was not my intention. I also realize that the story has Tolkien's name and the movie has Jackson's name; neither has my name. I am what you would call a purist; in some senses, I classify myself among the so-called "uber-purists". I love reading anything Tolkien - I am just now reading the HoME in detail, reading the letters of Tolkien, and reading several biographies of his to get a better feel for whom this man was, and this has sparked my outrage as to what Jackson has done further. Let me briefly explain, in the hope of partially vindicating myself ;) Yes, Tolkien's not literally spinning in his grave (that was written at around 3 AM 12/19 after seeing TTT, and before I had any chance to calm down). Yes, the books aren't going to kill or ruin the movies. Yes, some people might have misconceptions about what Tolkien wrote, but oh well. If they don't care enough to read the books, I have a feeling JRRT wouldn't have been too worried about their beliefs and neither am I. My problem is this and only this: There will almost certainly never be another LOTR movie made, certainly not on this scale. PJ and colleagues had this one chance to communicate to the world the grandeur of Tolkien's vision; the depth of the characters, etc. He had this one chance to make it accessible to the world, and he blew it. This is not my vision that he blew, or yours. It's Tolkien's vision. Sure, you say, anyone can go and read the books, and I agree with you. Yet, it's the sheer arrogance of the filmmakers that gets to me. "Tolkien was essentially an 'amateur'", apparently PB states on the LOTR:TTT EE DVD. They appear to me to be so convinced that they know what is right that they can't conceive of the fact that Tolkien might have gotten it right. Particular gripes here are Faramir (the not so noble), Eowyn (way too infatuated with Aragorn), Arwen (ZenArwen, as she has been called), Aragorn (I don't want that power - I have never wanted it. Huh?) One final gripe - On one hand, I'm an uber-purist; on the other, I was born on Earth and have some trace of realism. I understand that the 1180 page book can't be reproduced verbatim on screen, if you will, unless we're willing to sit through as many hours of film. Here, what annoys me is the unnecessary changes. For example, if Pippin realizes the answer to the "mellon" Moria riddle, why have Frodo say it in the film? Honestly, did EW need to have that one line? Does Theoden really have to say Aragorn's "Where is the horse and the rider..." poem? Etc. These sort of changes are trivial, but had they not made them, their argument that they tried to stay true to the story, only making changes that are absolutely necessary, would have been more plausible. Look - I know we're not going to agree on this, because your outlook is too radically different from mine. I have a feeling you will read most of the above and say "So what?", so I'm not going to hash out the arguments in greater detail, although I have made more convincing ones in the past. This is very much an agree to disagree situation, which is fine. Just wanted to clarify, since you seemed to take offense primarily to the part of my post reproduced from the post LOTR:TTT journal entry. Just in closing, I wanted to say that the movies are in and of themselves marvels, although (I think) a near desecration of much the books stood for. I have been able to watch and appreciate them many times once I was able to distance myself from the fact that they were supposed to be interpretations of the books. Also, my main objections were with TTT; I was able to swallow most of the FOTR changes the first time, even Tom Bombadil. Have a nice night!
you know... by PolyesterRage	Nov 7th, 2003 10:58:44 PM
sometimes im just so happy that i havent read the books. now i wont have to sit through the whole movie going "ok, and they left that out, and that, how could they leave that out?! but he was such a blah blah character and blah blahliurhfleuge..." i can watch the movies untainted. but i do plan to read the books after i see rotk.
Saruman is out, but Gimli's de-pantsing is still in by GypsyTRobot	Nov 7th, 2003 10:58:49 PM
Go on, call for help. No one's going to help you now! You PJ apologists, you've never adequately apologized for the really bad Nazgul voice in the first movie. I won't list anything else that bothers me. Just this one. Please defend it, rationalize it, explain why they couldn't get a voice synthesizer or just someone talking in a normal whisper. If you don't, I promise to embarrass the geekiverse by harassing PJ at a con with this issue at some unspecified time in the future.
Ugh. PJ, don't do this... by Caerdwyn	Nov 7th, 2003 11:10:06 PM
I'm all for extended edition DVDs and extra footage, but this... THIS is a mistake. PJ botched Two Towers (theatrical) by adding in bits that really didn't belong (Aragorn falling in the river, elves at Helms Deep) and left out the more important stuff (Ents at Helms Deep, the end of Saruman's reign). I like how much of this material is going back into the extended DVD for TTT, but there will STILL be no summary of the Saruman events until the RotK Ext DVD? That's shoddy work, in my opinion. Especially considering how damn important the Saruman bit at Isengard is to the rest of RotK's storyline! The scouring I can live without. As many have said, it is TACKED ON to the end of RotK. It works in the book because you can effectively do anything you want in a book, no constraints. In a movie, there are more constraints and the audience wants ONE climax. The Scouring was important to rounding out the hobbit characters, but not the story of man's triumph over the dark forces. Saruman's scenes at Isengard directly effect the main storyline and should NOT be deleted or shifted around. :/
Saruman/Grima by PEPELOCON	Nov 7th, 2003 11:13:20 PM
PJ said '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.' my question is could this mean the voice of saruman is in, but what had to go was the death of Saruman and grima, since there is no scouring of the shire in the ROTK movie?
And one more thing . . . by GypsyTRobot	Nov 7th, 2003 11:20:50 PM
if PJ pimps his bad-acting kids in RotK, I'm gonna hurl my Junior Mints all over the theater and start belting out "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way".
tribe2003...on a less caustic note by devil0509	Nov 7th, 2003 11:24:29 PM
We have a fundamental difference in views. You seem to regard the films as a missed opportunity - given the budget and freedom necessary to make a film version of LOTR, Jackson has made mistakes that you view to be critical. He has failed in a rare and golden opportunity to truly capture the spirit of the books. If that's your feeling, in a way I agree with you. There are moments in the movie that I find grating, one (Galadriel's bizarre freaky-chick moment) which is almost embarrassing, and changes which may be ill advised, or certainly aren't really necessary. Like I wrote earlier, if I were scripting it, I would do things differently. All that being said, I still take exception to the outcries of this man somehow destroying Tolkein, ruining his work, desecrating his vision. My diatribe earlier wasn't designed to advertise what I do for a living. My point was to state that, as a person who has no lack of self-confidence, and who does a hard job, I appreciate when someone else does something better than I think I could do it. Give me 300 million dollars, or whatever the budget for this was. Give me 4 years. I still could not adapt this book to movies as well as Jackson has done. As lovers of Tolkein's books, I think we should be appreciative of the fact that another person out there has the talent and the love for the story to take his best shot at it. Jackson may or may not have referred to Tolkein as an amateur author. I do know he's referred to Tolkein's "amazing vision" and described Tolkein's work as something he loves passionately. I really don't think the changes he's made to adapt the story to film are about his own ego or his disrespect for Tolkein. I think they're changes he feels (rightly or wrongly) are necessary to make the movie as good as possible. In the end, I feel like I've won on all counts. When I want to lose myself in Tolkein's world, I just pick up his book. When I want to enjoy Jackson's, I just pop in the DVD. Sadly enough, I rarely have enough free time to do either. (you all wondering how I can say that and spend as much time on this talkback as I have today - I am having a VERY easy night in the ICU, but I knock on wood even as I type that)
Oh.. by Caerdwyn	Nov 7th, 2003 11:30:37 PM
And another thing... when did a Special Edition DVD become a safety net for bad editing? Yes, I said bad editing. For a long time now, SE DVDs have largely included 'additional footage' that was almost wholly unnecessary to the overall movie. Additional character moments, special effects, or outtakes. Entire IMPORTANT scenes should not just be dumped to the DVD. Fellowship's SE DVD added nice bits and pieces here and there, mostly additional but not required character development, but everything important was already in the flick. TTT... not so lucky. Because somebody goofed, many of the 'book moments' got shoved onto the SE DVD. Now, it is apparent that the same route is being taken with RotK. God help me, if there is ANY scene in RotK that was not in the book, I'll spit nails. If something completely new and non-Tolkien can get into the movie, and yet Saruman's final moments at Isengard will get cut and shoved back another year, I'll have someone's head.
Geez, guys. Relax. by tbrosz	Nov 7th, 2003 11:30:38 PM
It seems like such a short time ago when everyone was worried that Saruman would die impaled on some spikes, a total non-canon scene. I'm withholding my judgment until the Extended Version of "Return of the King" comes out in a year or so. When that happens, me and about a billion other geeks are going to haul all three extended versions down and not be seen outdoors for two days as we watch the REAL Jackson vision--a 12 hour movie.
devil0509, right back at ya :) by tribe2003	Nov 7th, 2003 11:38:08 PM
We do have a fundamental difference in views, but I don't think they're as different as they originally seemed. Yes, I do regard the films as a missed opportunity, and I think you summarized my view nicely in your first few sentences. I can understand how you, particularly in the medical field, could field as you do about others with no conception of what is involved second-guessing your work, or PJ's. (This is particularly true since I am in law school and we just did a unit in my civil procedure class on settlement, focusing on medical malpractice - I was thinking just what you said about people with no conception judging others in a large number of cases. Oh, and don't hate me for being in law school, please ;) But I digress. You are right that Tolkien's world and Jackson's world suit different moods of ours, and that they can both be enjoyed, perhaps when we are in different moods. You are also right that in many senses, it is good that someone had the vision and direction to adapt such a large and epic book to screen, and that we have a lot there to be thankful for. Finally, that most if not all of us could not even have done the job that Jackson has done in adapting. All true. But - and you knew there was a but here - I still have that lingering sense of missed opportunity every time I watch those DVDs. I still wish that someone who could really get inside the characters as TOLKIEN wrote them, rather than focusing on exploiting battle scenes that aren't the focus of the books to the utmost (not that they shouldn't be there, but they should not be the be all and end all), had made the movie rather than PJ. If only we had had this hypothetical director with the resources that PJ had, can you imagine? I respect PJ's efforts and applaud his dedication, but every time I see those movies, I will wonder "What if?" It's just the purist in me, I guess. Hope your night at the ICU continues to be uneventful - much better to be on AICN than dealing with catastrophes!
Tribe2003...how did I end up arguing with a lawyer?! by devil0509	Nov 7th, 2003 11:48:53 PM
Just take those medical malpractice lectures and go into the noble work of defending the poor, unappreciated, underpaid, and overworked doctors from the vicious spectre of frivolous and malicious litigation, and I'll be happy ; ) (please note the hint of sarcasm in the above; but if anyone wants to skewer me for calling doctors underpaid, just know I'm currently earning about $40,000 per year and work 30 hour stretches every 4 days. Welcome to the joys of residency) Right now I'm just looking forward to getting off work tomorrow afternoon and leaning back next to my son and watching another great movie that is DEFINITELY NOT a desecration of a great literary work...Finding Nemo. Cheers and good night.
LOL by tribe2003	Nov 7th, 2003 11:53:49 PM
You flatter me - I'm a first year law school student, not a lawyer. My doctors still view me with alarm already - the moment I say that I'm in LS, they stiffen! I'm not interested in med malpractice at all - I want to do IP law/Internet related issues, perhaps mixed with some entertainment. Ahh, residency - those are rotten hours. That's one reason I chosen law over medicine, even though I was premed as an undergrad. I didn't want those insanely long stretches of work, particularly where someone's life could be in my hands but I could be too exhausted to think. In Biglaw, you might have the long hours, but the worst that happens is that you bill your client for a few less than productive hours because of exhaustion --> a much better outcome ;) Oh well, see you around on this board, maybe. Have a good night -I'm going to get off the Net and hopefully be productive. Contracts and Property reading await.
Re: As someone from another movie once said. "I've got a bad fee by Indiana Clones	Nov 8th, 2003 12:17:57 AM
I love that movie.
See... by DarthCorleone	Nov 8th, 2003 12:39:52 AM
...everyone can get along. How heartwarming to see the doctor/lawyer battle resolved in a friendly fashion. That makes this unemployed bum feel that there could be hope for the world. Of course, I sort of lost track of the cogent arguments when the doctor started talking about his wife's black panties.
Makes Sense by Ribbons	Nov 8th, 2003 12:40:48 AM
I don't know what everyboy's losing their cool over
You people read things that were not written. by Malan	Nov 8th, 2003 12:42:04 AM
Stop freaking out. Peter didn't say Saruman's death scene was out, he said his scene with grima was out. BIG DIFFERENCE. Yes, he says people will have to assume he got vanquished. But note that he used the word vanquished, not killed. Hence Return of the King might start with his death scene, whatever that will be. And we'll have to assume he's killing himself himself, or is in the hands of his ennemy because he was vanquished at Helm's Deep and by the Ents at isengard. Wait until you see the film.
Bring On EPIII by AlwaysThere	Nov 8th, 2003 01:08:29 AM
Peter Jackson just shot himself in the foot.
Just a couple of days ago, I said that everything, by Conan_the_Humble	Nov 8th, 2003 01:43:18 AM
I have seen about ROTK was good. Now... (it seems somewhat different.) To have one of the major bad guys from the first two movies not even die on screen, but just sort of be overlooked for the last movie is downright stupid. Irregardless of tolkien and his story, imagine if Star Wars in ROTJ decided to "overlook" Darth Vader's demise and decided to concentrate on Luke vs the Emperor. It would change (and unbalance) the entire story. I'm a purist through and through, but this is ridiculous. I hope this is a 'test' by PJ because if this goes ahead in this form, it could 'wreck' the entire movie, for me at least anyhoo. Cheers.
The time to get it right is NOW, PJ!!! by Phildogger	Nov 8th, 2003 02:12:24 AM
Hey, I'm not a LOTR geek, I almost didnt bother to watch these films, but I did, and I liked them. But I am now concerned that key Plot points will be left out, so we can see more of Liv Tyler, etc. FUCK THAT!!!! Get it Right, PJ, and all you fanboys who worship at the altar of Geekdom, get a life! Don't tell me to have faith in the man, when what we are facing is a grave mistake! I once trusted Lucas, too, and now my asshole is still bleeding!!!
Grrr! by cheeselouise	Nov 8th, 2003 02:19:00 AM
I'm sick of hearing you people whine and complain about PJ and what's going on with ROTK. Especially those of you who are bad-mouthing PJ... calling him a bastard and such, you just remember that if it weren't for him these movies probably would never have been made and you wouldn't have a THING to bitch complain about! He's as big a fan of the books as we are (probably even moreso to even consider making them into movies), and he wouldn't make changes unless he and the whole production team thought it was best! Can you think of anyone else who would be willing to take on a project of this magnitude? And if YOU had to deal with things like time constraints and trying to make the book fans happy, how much better would all of you do? Honestly. Get over yourselves! Oh Wah! I hate PJ, he took this out and that out and wah wah wah!This movie is gonna suck! Well, dammit, if you think the movie is gonna suck so badly, then just shut the hell up and don't see it! And another thing, the movies are BASED on the books. That does not mean that the movies must follow the books exactly.
I better not have to wait by Captain Comet	Nov 8th, 2003 02:35:58 AM
until november fucking 2004 to see my favorite scene in all of LOTR (meaning the Reckoning with Saruman of course) if they dont issue the extended DVD until then like they have with the rest of these movies, i will EXPLODE
The screenplays have been the "DOWNFALL" of the first two films. by MattO	Nov 8th, 2003 02:39:02 AM
...and I suspect this will be the case with the third as well.///Let's re-cap. PJ says that the VoS sequence couldn't be shown after the Helm's Deep victory, at the end of TTT, due to "pacing" problems. (Let's try to forget the cheesy phantom sequence under the Dead Marshes, Aragorn's cliff diving, river floating and time-consuming "lone rider" return routine, Arwen's constant inclusions, the needless introduction to the Rohirrim THAT RUINED OUR SENSE OF DISCOVERY, etc.) NOW PJ says VoS can't be shown at the beginning of RoTK, again for "pacing" problems. What's the bottom line? The fromage-a-trois screenwriting committee of PJ, Fran and Chunky COULDN'T WRITE AN ADAPTATION THAT INCLUDED ONE OF THE BEST SCENES FROM THE NOVEL.
Who is this "Barry Meyer" dude!?! by MattO	Nov 8th, 2003 02:47:53 AM
And why has he decided to cut the VoS sequence from RoTK?///Who is this ASS-Monkey?!?
We want Saruman back, Barry!!! by MattO	Nov 8th, 2003 02:50:52 AM
You shouldn't diss Chris Lee like that!!! Meyer, your staff is broken!!! Barry Meyer/// Chairman and CEO, Warner Bros./// 4000 Warner Boulevard/// Burbank CA 91522/// Email: Barry.meyer@warnerbros.com/// Phone: 818-954-1464/// Fax: 818-954-6794
Ouch and ouch!!! by the swede	Nov 8th, 2003 02:58:00 AM
Well, the only good thing about this is that it lowers my expectations about the film. 1) The Witch kings entrance into Minas Thirit on his "dragon" instead of on horse back - just misses the high drama in the book. 2) That Sarumans demise was not in TTT. That would not have been anti climatic, I think. I think PJ is trying too much. Is getting too concerned with the results and is thus losing his intuition. Come on, PJ, it
Please let Saruman's death in the theatrical by Jon E Cin	Nov 8th, 2003 03:14:55 AM
Everyone I talk to does not assume his reign is over.. WE NEED CLOSURE!
fanfuckingtabulous by acidhorse	Nov 8th, 2003 03:27:59 AM
ahh...what a wonderful world we live in when a resident doctor and an undergrad lawyer can duke it out like the best of us for what they feel is the right direction this magnificent story should take! i mean, jesus....what a great time it is we live in, where something so ingrained and secure (mainly a fifty-year old fairy tale) can evoke such passions in people who's jobs it is to carry on our normal, modern way of life....ahhhh....i love it. this is the stuff that really gets to the heart of literary/movie geekdom. ROTK is going to be fucking great, any way you slice it. PJ is going to focus on the crazy shit. the stuff that you could only imagine in the book. the stuff that wasn't specified, but alluded to. "a company of hill trolls breaking out of the gates and onto the forces of the west..." do you kats realize that we're going to get one of the largest land battles ever to be portrayed onscreen in December for our popcorn-popping enjoyment? we get to see all the good shit. just imagine....the mines of moria sequence/Balin's tomb on a HUGE scale! trolls and nazgul fucking it up royally! how can you not be excited, no matter what the rumors are?
Listen you fanboy biatches, this is CHRISTOPHER LEE here! Why is by Spacesheik	Nov 8th, 2003 03:32:02 AM
I don't understand this. Gandalf gets his ass kicked all over the place in LOTR by Saruman and he doesn't even get a final chance to teach Christopher Lee a lesson?!! This is bullshit. I'll take them over drab CGI tedious Gollum scenes any day.
jesus christ, give me PJ's email! by bryanharley	Nov 8th, 2003 03:33:17 AM

sorry by acidhorse	Nov 8th, 2003 03:38:37 AM
appy-polly-logies for the arrogant-sounding post. i reckon i just get passionate about this stuff, given that i'm a motion picture set tech. yeah, that's right...i'm a grip and an electrician. not to mention rabid moviegoer. i've tried to get roger ebert's job, only to get turned down because the Richmond, VA newspaper sux ass and the resident film critic is a LOTR HATER and really has nothing good to say about most movies whatsoever. he really needs to die. whoops, did i say that? just kidding...hehehe....
Geeze talk about thowing the AICN Trolls and Haters red meat! by TallScott	Nov 8th, 2003 03:47:35 AM
Harry and Moriarty just threw a batch of red meat to the trolls of ACIN..I can see them bitching about a friggin 7 minute cut for years now..It will be on the ROTK: EE dummys its not like its in the cutting room garbage can..The film will be fine!.although i do kinda feel bad for the great Cris Lee he really did a great job in the last 2
D.VADER you are SPOT ON mate! by Spacesheik	Nov 8th, 2003 04:02:30 AM
"An assumed offscreen death for both just will NOT work. I'm more worried about the non-fans who know nothing about the story. How are they going to feel when this "heavy" is suddenly absent from the story with no explanation? Unless they've shot Treebeard saying "Yes, we've dealt with Saruman..." I don't see how the non-fans are going to understand what happened. Does noone suspect they are going to cry out "What the hell happened to that evil wizard?" or if they hear Treebeard say "We took care of them" won't they reply "HOW?! We wanna #@$%ing see it!" Either way, I just think its bad bad bad. If its only 7 minutes long-- so what? There must be a way you can make it work. I just can't believe a character this important to the films, the mastermind behind the events of Helms Deep, is going to quietly disappear offscreen. Its so depressing. I can't imagine how Peter feels having to cut it....so then I ask....just do us all a favor and keep it in!" YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE FILMGOERS DEMAND AN EXPLANATION. A COP OUT LIKE THIS FOR SARUMAN AND WORMTONGUE IS UNNACCEPTEABLE. To save time and pacing?!!! What pacing?!! Endless CGI Gollum Jeckyll and Hyde scenes?!!!
Moot MY AZZZZZZZZZZZZZ by the lasadorian	Nov 8th, 2003 04:22:05 AM
oh come on!!!! maybe it should ahve been at the end of the TTT but it wasnt. So KEEP IT IN ROTK... i dont care if its not the best way to start the movie.. but guess what.. its 7 mins.... and everyone that says they dont need it is as full of crap as i am about how starwars has ended up.. you love for these flicks cannot forgive the fact that we have a huge badguy with no ending...PUT it in the theatrical release.... no reason such a scene isnt in the movie.... its like making a godzilla movie..... gozilla vs mothra and rodan.... we see godilla fight with mothra at the end of the movie... and are told oh yah that rodan character thats in the movie... he died when he ate some bad eggplant... it just doesnt work... put the scene back in
devil0509, you are right (IMHO) by Mr. Wulf	Nov 8th, 2003 04:47:30 AM
I appreciate someone with a more realistic perspective. When I watched the Special Features on the Extendend Edition of Fellowship, I got the impression, that PJ, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh know Tolkien extremly well. Soemtimes I even welcomed the changes (like Aragorn hesitating to take on his role at heir of Isildur). When I heard first about the Huorns being back in the extended Edition of Two Towers, I thought it was a fanboy rumor, but what do I see in the preview: The marching wood is in TT!! PJ did so much changes to squeeze the main plot in three 3-hour-movies. Sure he made a mistake with Two Towers, I agree on that. With all the material, he could do a final cut, which makes more sense and integrated the death of Saruman. But with this mammoth project, I grant him the right of making mistakes. And Tribe2003, I cringed at your first speech, but your later entries made me understand, how you feel. The difference between you and me is the ability to see the movies on their own.

Talkbacks

The Hard Truths of Editing RETURN OF THE KING info from Peter Jackson Himself!!!