# RotK spoilers: The Sauruman Problem



## Pants (Nov 10, 2003)

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

I'm not sure whether to treat this as a rumor or the truth as it is coming from AiCN.  If it's the truth, well then *expletive deleted*.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2003)

That's interesting. But if it's true, that that was really from PJ, his reasons seem fairly sound. But I guess we'll just wait and see!


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 10, 2003)

I would guess it is probably true.  I would have liked to see this in the film, but waiting for DVD is ok for me too, since it doesn't stick close to the book in this regard anyway by all accounts.


----------



## Black Omega (Nov 10, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16462
> 
> I'm not sure whether to treat this as a rumor or the truth as it is coming from AiCN.  If it's the truth, well then *expletive deleted*.




It's AiCN.  It's purely a rumor.  Doesn't mean it's false, but I'd not lose any sleep over it as long as they are the sole source.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Nov 10, 2003)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> It's AiCN.  It's purely a rumor.  Doesn't mean it's false, but I'd not lose any sleep over it as long as they are the sole source.




Hear hear!  I think Penny Arcade sums it up nicely.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-01-27&res=l

-F


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 10, 2003)

It would, I believe, be illegal for Harry to publish something as coming from Peter Jackson it he did not know it came from Peter Jackson. At the very least, Mr. Jackson would be able to sue Harry.

While AICN certainly publishes it's share of questionable material, that's usually in the nature of anonymous spoilers and set reports and reviews. Not emails from particular people.

I say it's legit.


----------



## kengar (Nov 10, 2003)

From a purely narrative perspective (apart from staying "true" to the books), it seems odd to leave out the _entire_ sequence with Saruman at Orthanc after the Ents win. IIRC, in the ROTK Sneak Peek on the TT DVD, there is a scene with Merry explaining to Pippin that the Enemy thinks Pip has the Ring and is coming for him (this ties in -I asssume- with the whole "We will see the Shire again!" clip from the trailer as the two hobbits part). If Gandalf never talks to Saruman and Pippin never looks into the palantir, how does the Enemy know about Pip & how does Pip end up riding with Gandalf to Gondor?  It seems to be a major continuity problem to me. 

It might be that the scene is shortened, but somehow the Merry & Pip need to hook up with Gandalf and it needs to become necessary for Gandalf to take Pippin with him to Minas Tirith.


----------



## 2d6 (Nov 10, 2003)

Perhaps I'm a little off, then again maybe not......

I'm assuming that the sequence they are talking about is the one where gandalf banishes Sauruman and wyrmtongue. 

What about the end when the of RoTK when the hobbits return to Hobbiton and find it enslaved. Will that be in the movie?


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 10, 2003)

*looks to make sure spoiler is mentioned in the thread title*

The whole "scouring of the shire," by all accounts, is missing from the film -- was never filmed, was never intended to be in the film.  

From accounts I've heard, then, Saruman was going to bite it at Orthanc (Wormtongue kills Saruman, then someone, likely Legolas, kills Wormtongue).  Gotta say I wasn't looking forward to that.  

As it is looking now, the whole episode at Orthanc will be axed.  So those who are not familiar with the books will think "ok, so the Ents wiped out Saruman or at least have him trapped in his tower."  

The thing about how they wind up with the Palantir, though..  That's a good point...


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 10, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It would, I believe, be illegal for Harry to publish something as coming from Peter Jackson it he did not know it came from Peter Jackson.




What law would that be?


----------



## Tom Cashel (Nov 10, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> The whole "scouring of the shire," by all accounts, is missing from the film -- was never filmed, was never intended to be in the film.




Yep; PJ has said that Frodo's vision in Lorien (in _FotR_) is a "nod" to that sequence, but that's all of it that will appear in the films.

Which is fine with me; the long denouement of the books would have been dreadfully slow and anticlimactic onscreen.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Tom Cashel is a moron!




So sue me! 

By the way, fellas...SAURON...or...SARUMAN.  The name "Sauruman" really clouds an already cloudy issue...


----------



## 2d6 (Nov 10, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> Yep; PJ has said that Frodo's vision in Lorien (in _FotR_) is a "nod" to that sequence, but that's all of it that will appear in the films.
> 
> Which is fine with me; the long denouement of the books would have been dreadfully slow and anticlimactic onscreen.




I don't know how I feel about that. Even if he just skimmed over it real quick, I'd feel better then having nothing. Makes me wonder how the film will end. 


After the hew and cry over the lack of Tom <however it's spelt> and the Barrow wights, I can only imagine how this will go over.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 10, 2003)

2d6 said:
			
		

> After the hew and cry over the lack of Tom [however it's spelt] and the Barrow wights, I can only imagine how this will go over.



I liked Bombadil (sp), and was disappointed (not raving upset) that he wasn't in it.  My one friend, who hates Bombadil, says that the only reason Tolkien put him in was for his granddaughter.  Does anyone else know that story?  I've only heard it from one friend.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2003)

Eh, so what?  The extended DVD is the only one that'll end up mattering, since that's the one I'm going to actually buy.


----------



## Pants (Nov 10, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> Pants sucks cause he can't spell SARUMAN right.  Naner, naner, naner.



So sue me... and after that quote, I'm sure you will.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 10, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> So sue me... and after that quote, I'm sure you will.



 There! THAT Law! That's the one.

Mistwell -- I don't know for sure that there is a law against publishing statements that are falsely attributed to people. I suspect there is, but I don't know it for a fact.

If somebody knows, I'd be interested.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> There! THAT Law! That's the one.
> 
> Mistwell -- I don't know for sure that there is a law against publishing statements that are falsely attributed to people. I suspect there is, but I don't know it for a fact.
> 
> If somebody knows, I'd be interested.



Are you referring to Libel? That would be writing lies about someone. Attributing false words to someone may be considered the same thing.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 10, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Are you referring to Libel? That would be writing lies about someone. Attributing false words to someone may be considered the same thing.



 Maybe. I don't know. Maybe I'm referring to Libel. If I knew, I would say. But I don't. So I don't.

If that makes sense.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 10, 2003)

Eh that's not that big a deal. With the scene at Orthanic being included in the extended DVD then I can live with him wanting to pick up the pacing and get to the good parts of Return of the King, I won't miss the scene as I know it will show up on the DVD later and the non-book entralled viewers can just assume they died in the tower.

I am glad they cut the scouring of the shire out (talk about anticlimatic), the story is about them destroying the ring, why drag it out in a theater  for 15 more minutes after the ring is destroyed and everybody else lives happily ever after ? Many of the people watching the movies never read the books anyway, why confuse or bore them?


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 10, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I am glad they cut the scouring of the shire out (talk about anticlimatic), the story is about them destroying the ring, why drag it out in a theater  for 15 more minutes after the ring is destroyed and everybody else lives happily ever after ?



 Now THEM'S fighting words.

*fights words, loses*

Dagnabit.

But I will say that the suggestion that after the ring is destroyed everybody lives happily ever after is a massive over-simplification of the book.

*fights words, loses again*

Oh, never mind.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 10, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Eh that's not that big a deal. With the scene at Orthanic being included in the extended DVD then I can live with him wanting to pick up the pacing and get to the good parts of Return of the King, I won't miss the scene as I know it will show up on the DVD later and the non-book entralled viewers can just assume they died in the tower.
> 
> I am glad they cut the scouring of the shire out (talk about anticlimatic), the story is about them destroying the ring, why drag it out in a theater  for 15 more minutes after the ring is destroyed and everybody else lives happily ever after ? Many of the people watching the movies never read the books anyway, why confuse or bore them?




Agreed. I won't miss the Orthanc stuff, but it will be great to see it on the DVD. As for the Scouring of the Shire, it definatly is anti-climatic, but it does show Tolkien's view that the world isn't a "happily ever after". I'd have loved to see the Scouring on the DVD, but I can understand why Peter Jackson didn't even film it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 10, 2003)

I loved Bombadil in the book, but fully understand the need to cut it for time. I also understand leaving out the scouring of the shire as it realy wouldn't work from a pacing point of view in anly length film. But to not wrap up Saruman in the film (even if it will be on the DVD) is a horribly wromg deciscion. Sure from a time point of view cutting it from 8 minutes may be neccesary but leaving it out altogether is just wrong.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 11, 2003)

I'm just going to say it once.

Leaving out the Scouring entirely changes the nature of the story.

I'm not saying you can't make a good film without it (though I remain skeptical), but without the Scouring the story is drastically altered from the book.

I am deeply sorry that I won't get to see a film that is more closely related to the books than these films have become, that offers similar interpretations that the books offer.

But if it's a good movie I'll still see it half-a-dozen times. I feel so cheap.


----------



## durath (Nov 11, 2003)

*Guess I'm in the minority*

Wow, I guess I am in the minority here. The death of Saruman is one of my favorite scenes in the books. I don't mind altering it so that it happens at Orthanc rather than in the shire but to leave it out completely just doesn't feel right to me.

As long as it makes it onto the EE DVD I won't care, I suppose. Still, I challenge those of you who just disregard it as not that important to go back and re-read this little snippit:



> "......but at that something snapped: suddenly Wormtongue rose up, drawing a hidden knife, and then with a snarl like a dog sprang on Saruman's back, jerked his head back, cut his throat, and with a yell ran off down the lane................
> 
> ....To the dismay of those who stood by, about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissloved into nothing."




I suppose I am to much of a Tolkien fan-boy but this scene is awesome. The spirit of Saruman, as it leaves his body, looks to the West. It looks to those who sent him and the other Istari; but the Valar know that of the five Istari they sent,  only Gandalf stayed true to his mission. The spirit of Saruman is not welcomed back to Valinor and is met only with a cold wind.

The one scene I really hope they get right is the final parting at the Grey Havens. That scene always gets to me. Its saying a final good-bye, not only to your friends but to a way of life, the world has changed and there is no going back to the way it was. The end of an era and all that.

That's harsh stuff. I remember the look in my grandparents eyes when they would go back to their childhood farmland where time has removed all traces of what once was...it touches you somehow, I hope they can capture that type of feeling at the Grey Havens.


----------



## KenM (Nov 11, 2003)

IMO leaving out the scouging is a good move, it would be anti climatic after the big battles that are before it. We knew it would not be in the movies for awhile. 
  But, people might wonder what happened to Saruman/ Wormtoungue if the scene at Isengard is cut, also, how are they going to deal with Gandalf getting the palaitiar now?


----------



## jdavis (Nov 11, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Now THEM'S fighting words.
> 
> *fights words, loses*
> 
> ...



Yes I agree but really what are movies made from books if not a simplification of the book to it's most important elements, it's two different medias of storytelling, I got no problem with the scouring It's just that it couldn't be properly presented in a movie in under 15 minutes and how many non-book reading movie fans would really care to see it? Books can have long winded epilogs but they just don't work in movies that well. How would Return of the Jedi of worked with a 15 minute ewok party with it's own separate subplots and story tacked on at the end of the movie? Peter Jackson has made lots of cuts to the story to get it to work (many of which I dislike, like say 1/2 of two towers as a whole) that's just part of how it has to be to get a movie that people who never read the books can enjoy too.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 11, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I got no problem with the scouring It's just that it couldn't be properly presented in a movie in under 15 minutes and how many non-book reading movie fans would really care to see it? Books can have long winded epilogs but they just don't work in movies that well.



Of course it COULD be properly presented. Of course, done right, the non-book-reading movie fans would find it thrilling. Of course it can work -- the idea that the Scouring is an "epilogue" isn't one I find very easy to agree with. The Scouring is the CLIMAX of the story, to me. It's the most satisfying bit in the whole story -- done right, it should be the most satisfying part of the movie, too.


> Peter Jackson has made lots of cuts to the story to get it to work (many of which I dislike, like say 1/2 of two towers as a whole) that's just part of how it has to be to get a movie that people who never read the books can enjoy too.



Of course when translating from one medium to another changes must be made. I am unconvinced that removing the Scouring is a good change -- but of course none of us have seen the movie yet so maybe he's made a work of genius like he did with the first film. It's certainly possible.

It's okay, I'm calm. Move along, folks, nothing to see here...


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 11, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Of course it COULD be properly presented. Of course, done right, the non-book-reading movie fans would find it thrilling. Of course it can work -- the idea that the Scouring is an "epilogue" isn't one I find very easy to agree with. The Scouring is the CLIMAX of the story, to me. It's the most satisfying bit in the whole story -- done right, it should be the most satisfying part of the movie, too.




So I've only read the LotR books once, and it was in French (not my native language). I have no memory of The Scouring, and I'm curious. Care to give me the 50 words or less version of it? I suggest putting it in spoiler tags, but if it's not in the movie, there might not be any point.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 11, 2003)

Spoiler



After the Ring is destroyed, the hobbits return to the Shire, only to find that Saruman has taken over and turned their homey little paradise into an opressive, industrial wasteland. A resistance force is quickly raised and Saruman's forces are speedily dispatched. Saruman himself is allowed to go free by Frodo, but Wormtongue kills his former master and runs off. Sam becomes Mayor and sets about fathering more children than any long-suffering hobbit woman should be asked to bear.  

The reason I always found it so enthralling was the small scale of it all and yet how important, how truly sad it was. Frodo spends the whole time trying to get everyone to avoid fighting, and although he accepts the necessity ("You won't get them to surrender just by looking shocked and sad, my dear Frodo," is I think Merry's line), he never takes part in the battles and, as I said, would even spare Saruman's life when the villain is at last brought to bay.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 12, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hmm, that's very interesting. I could certainly see people being upset at that not being there. On the other hand, he may have left it out just to spare the poor audience. These are exhausting movies, and I suspect the third one will be even more so. Adding that at the end might be cruel and unusual punishment!  I mean, the ring finally gets destroyed (I'm not giving too much away, am I?  ), the war is over...to spring that on the audience at the end, it might be more than is necessary. I think that dynamic would translate much differently on film than it does in a book.

I really don't know, though. I guess we'll just wait and see... 

Thanks for the review on that part, barsoomcore!


----------



## Tom Cashel (Nov 12, 2003)

I'll say it again...I love the books, and I love the Scouring as an ending, but what works in print just does not work on film.

It would amount to an hour-long epilogue.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 12, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I'll say it again...I love the books, and I love the Scouring as an ending, but what works in print just does not work on film.
> 
> It would amount to an hour-long epilogue.




Yeah, I pretty much agree. Though having read the books, yet not remembering a page of them, I'm much easier to please, I suppose. I'm not hindered with comparing the movie to the book.


----------



## KenM (Nov 12, 2003)

Since that won't be in the movie, they were going to put the scene with Wormtongue and Sauruman at the end of Two towers, then they decided to put it at the start of Rotk, now its cut and won't be in until RotK EE.


----------



## rbingham2000 (Nov 12, 2003)

Ah yes, the Scouring of the Shire...

This is where...



Spoiler



Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin return to the Shire to find it enslaved by Wormtongue and Saruman. The hobbits, mad as all hell over returning to this after going through hell to destroy the Ring, raise a resistance force and clean house on Saruman's forces. But when Frodo, in his mercy, allows Saruman to go free, Wormtongue, a true rat bastard if I ever saw one, betrays and kills his former master and tries to get the hell out of Dodge.

Wormtongue doesn't get far, however, and the hobbit resistance force wastes no time in getting medieval on Wormtongue's ass. They turn the bastard into a pincushion with their archers, if I recall correctly...


----------



## kengar (Nov 12, 2003)

I've been pondering the whole Pippin/Palantir issue. In other words, without the "Voice of Saruman" scene, why does Gandalf take off with Pippin to Gondor? The only thing I can come up with that doesn't jar continuity-wise is that Treebeard meets Gandalf, et al at the edge of the forest or by Helm's Deep, bringing the hobbits with him (instead of their meeting at Isengard). Gandalf realizes that the attack on Minas Tirith is imminent and he cannot wait for Rohan to muster (just like in books) he hops on Shadowfax and -this is where I have trouble- takes Pip with him. Why would he burden Shadowfax with another rider (even just a hobbit) if it were unnecessary? What would necessitate Pippin riding ahead with Gandalf other than the Palantir scene or one that would require as much exposition? 

I'm stumped.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 12, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> I've been pondering the whole Pippin/Palantir issue. In other words, without the "Voice of Saruman" scene, why does Gandalf take off with Pippin to Gondor? The only thing I can come up with that doesn't jar continuity-wise is that Treebeard meets Gandalf, et al at the edge of the forest or by Helm's Deep, bringing the hobbits with him (instead of their meeting at Isengard). Gandalf realizes that the attack on Minas Tirith is imminent and he cannot wait for Rohan to muster (just like in books) he hops on Shadowfax and -this is where I have trouble- takes Pip with him. Why would he burden Shadowfax with another rider (even just a hobbit) if it were unnecessary? What would necessitate Pippin riding ahead with Gandalf other than the Palantir scene or one that would require as much exposition?
> 
> I'm stumped.



 I could have sworn I've seen a picture in Theoden's hall with the main characters all around some pillar...possible the palantir is brought there somehow, and then Pipin looks in?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 12, 2003)

I wonder if the Return of the King will be like seeing Matrix Revolutions again?  A sad and dissapointing end to what should have been a great series.   Fellowship of the Ring blew my mind.  It was amazing and bought both DVD sets and watched it 100+ times.   Two Towers was ok, I didn't buy the initial DVD, as the movie wasn't that great.  Too much cut, too much Arwyn nonsence added, and horrid writing that destroyed the characters of Theoden & Faramir.   It just wasn't that great a movie, at least for me, who expected the PJ to be true to the spirit of the second book and not butcher whatever was needed to make Aragorn seem even greater.   I wish I had skipped the theater showing and just waited for the Extended DVD which has a lot of the stuff I thought was left out to the detriment of the story, but which will still have the bad characterization and over Arwynization of the story.    With Return of the King...I'll wait until next November and watch the extended DVD edition when my brother buys it.  I wouldn't be suprised if the final battle is Arwyn and Frodo fighting Sauron with swords...


----------



## KenM (Nov 12, 2003)

One of my friends was very disapointed with TTT because it was not excatly like the book. His own words. I never read the book. But read summaries of it. I understand that PJ had to make changes to make it filmible. It was the hardest one to film. I hear the extras on the extended DVD will explan why they did what they did.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 12, 2003)

I'm not at all concerned about missing the Scouring -- we didn't spend enough time in the Shire to really "know" it well enough to be shocked by how much it changes, the characters affected, and to see how different the four hobbits are on their return.  If it were a long series instead of a movie, sure, do that.

I am a little concerned about the apparent loss of Saruman -- there's no resolution there if we don't get to see it.  I guess having it on DVD is the next best thing, but we got to see Gandalf have the crap beat out of him by the "big S" -- I'd like to see his come-upance.  And it also establishes that Theoden is really and truly finally out of Saruman's grip.


----------



## KenM (Nov 13, 2003)

I also heard that part of the reason Christopher Lee is so mad is because Peter Jackson or anyone from New Line did not tell Him themselves that the scene was cut, He read it on the net.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 13, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Eh, so what?  The extended DVD is the only one that'll end up mattering, since that's the one I'm going to actually buy.




_nods head enthusiastically_

That's how me and most of my friends feel (those that like the movies anyway).  We refer to the theatrical releses as 'extended trailers' for the real versions that come out on DVD


----------



## jdavis (Nov 13, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> I also heard that part of the reason Christopher Lee is so mad is because Peter Jackson or anyone from New Line did not tell Him themselves that the scene was cut, He read it on the net.



 Well that is a little cold, he deserves a little bit of respect.


----------



## Corinth (Nov 13, 2003)

Until I see that confirmed in a legitimate outlet, that is no more than a rumor.  AICN is hardly a credible outlet.


----------



## Welverin (Nov 13, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> but what works in print just does not work on film.




"You only say never because no one ever has."



			
				kengar said:
			
		

> I've been pondering the whole Pippin/Palantir issue. In other words, without the "Voice of Saruman" scene, why does Gandalf take off with Pippin to Gondor? The only thing I can come up with that doesn't jar continuity-wise




Stop right there!

PJ either doesn't care for continuity or is incapable of maintain it, which he so clearly illustrates right off the bat in FotR. Gandalf told Frodo to go to Bree and that he'd be waiting at the Prancing Pony for him. Mind you Gandalf was making detour to _Isengard_ first! Illuvatar himself could beat Frodo to Bree with a detour like that!


----------



## Shadowdancer (Nov 13, 2003)

The Internet Movid Database is saying Lee's scenes cut from RotK, Lee found out about it on Internet, Lee is pissed. The link.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 13, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Until I see that confirmed in a legitimate outlet, that is no more than a rumor. AICN is hardly a credible outlet.



apparently Cinescape thinks they are: http://cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=40116


----------



## KenM (Nov 13, 2003)

I also heard it was some studio head that told PJ to cut the scene. Peter jackson fought as much as He could to keep it in, and New Line bascially said. "Cut the scene with your own people, or our people will cut the film the way we want".


----------



## hong (Nov 13, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Of course it COULD be properly presented. Of course, done right, the non-book-reading movie fans would find it thrilling. Of course it can work -- the idea that the Scouring is an "epilogue" isn't one I find very easy to agree with. The Scouring is the CLIMAX of the story, to me. It's the most satisfying bit in the whole story -- done right, it should be the most satisfying part of the movie, too.




It's not the climax. It's the afterglow.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Nov 13, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be suprised if the final battle is Arwyn and Frodo fighting Sauron with swords...




Dude!  Spoiler tags...!!



			
				Welverin said:
			
		

> "You only say never because no one ever has."




No one's ever made a bad movie by trying to be too loyal to the source material?  Come on, now...


----------



## hong (Nov 13, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> No one's ever made a bad movie by trying to be too loyal to the source material?  Come on, now...




Kenneth Branagh's 4-hour-long Hamlet comes to mind.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 13, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> I'm not sure whether to treat this ...i didn't expect anything but crap from PJ. ;)


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 13, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> One of my friends was very disapointed with TTT because it was not excatly like the book. His own words. I never read the book. But read summaries of it. I understand that PJ had to make changes to make it filmible. It was the hardest one to film. I hear the extras on the extended DVD will explan why they did what they did.




I don't know that TTT as written was exactly unfilmable.  They felt the need to include a star-crossed lover side story, elves coming to the aid of Rohan scene which goes against the theme of the book, IMO, and comedic characters in the form of Gimli and Pippin just to give people a chuckle.  Not to mention the entire Faramir sidetrack.  I understand that the book didn't exactly offer a whole lot as far as Faramir was concerned (at least in terms of what would make for a good movie), but what they decided upon took the character in an entirely different direction.  However, none of these were necessary for the movie.  I'm sure they felt it was necessary in order to appeal to the broadest audience, but in doing so, I think they also insult the audience's intelligence.

Edit: As for cutting Saruman's scene, I don't get how a 5 to 10 minute sequence is so damaging in a film that's already over 3 hours long.  A coda is neccessary here, I believe.  And really, the Extended DVD's are great, but in the end, they aren't the measuring stick that the series is judged by.  Some of the cuts have really damaged continuity in these movies.


----------



## dravot (Nov 13, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *expletive deleted*
> 
> but heck i didn't expect anything but crap from PJ.



Look up 'luddite' in the dictionary and you'll find a cave drawing of diaglo


----------



## diaglo (Nov 13, 2003)

Ned Ludd gets a bad rap. but what do you expect from someone from Leicestershire.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 13, 2003)

OK, I'm going to make a comment, and it will probably tick people off. But it's not directed at anyone in particular.

I think that people who expect/demand that a movie adapted from source material (like a book) be strictly true to the book should be doomed to despise every movie adaptation ever made. Or be forbidden to actually see any of them. 

A movie should only be judged on its own merits, not on how it stacks up to the book upon which it is based. It's just not a fair comparison, and its unreasonable to expect such dedication from a movie.

The best movie adaptation ever made (IMHO) still deviated from its book. That being The Shawshank Redemption. And it's source book was only a 100-page novella. The movie was well over 2 hours long.

Movies are a different medium. Just because you think a scene in a book would make a great scene in a movie, doesn't mean that's the case. Books are allowed to do a lot of things with a story that a movie can't.

Anyway, I'll end my rant. It's all just my opinion, but I think I'd like to actually see RotK before I slam PJ and the gang for leaving out a scene or two.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 13, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> A movie should only be judged on its own merits, not on how it stacks up to the book upon which it is based. It's just not a fair comparison, and its unreasonable to expect such dedication from a movie.




I think this is only partly true.  A movie based upon another work is naturally going to be compared to the original, and though a great number of things may change, whether or not the movie stays true to the themes, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the characters of the original material is a potential point of criticism.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 13, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> I think this is only partly true.  A movie based upon another work is naturally going to be compared to the original, and though a great number of things may change, whether or not the movie stays true to the themes, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the characters of the original material is a potential point of criticism.





esp. when the movie did such a hack job...:whistles:


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 13, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> esp. when the movie did such a hack job...:whistles:




Oh, go back to coloring in your d20 with that little white crayon. ;-)


----------



## Endur (Nov 13, 2003)

I agree that movies are a different medium, but a story is a story, whether it is written, on the radio, a movie, a play, a computer game, or in some other medium.  

The story should not change even if the medium does change.  The original author knew the story far better than any movie adaptation author, and the original author's vision should be "Gospel".

Fellowship of the Ring passed the test of faithfulness to a book.  Yes, there were changes, but they were relatively minor.  Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Wight,  etc. were removed.  

The Two Towers failed the test.  There were several changes to the story that detracted.  A company of elves at Helm's Deep, Aragon being thrown off a cliff, Orcs with a time-bomb, Faramir's decision regarding Frodo, etc.  

I think Return of the King will be true to the original story even if it deleted a few scenes regarding Sauruman.  We shall soon see.  




			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> A movie should only be judged on its own merits, not on how it stacks up to the book upon which it is based. It's just not a fair comparison, and its unreasonable to expect such dedication from a movie.
> 
> Movies are a different medium. Just because you think a scene in a book would make a great scene in a movie, doesn't mean that's the case. Books are allowed to do a lot of things with a story that a movie can't.
> 
> Anyway, I'll end my rant. It's all just my opinion, but I think I'd like to actually see RotK before I slam PJ and the gang for leaving out a scene or two.


----------



## kengar (Nov 13, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> The Two Towers failed the test.  There were several changes to the story that detracted.  A company of elves at Helm's Deep, Aragon being thrown off a cliff, Orcs with a time-bomb, Faramir's decision regarding Frodo, etc.




TTT was definitely not as good a film as FOTR, though I liked it too. I agree that the "Aragorn off the cliff" scene was a bit weird and time will tell on the "adaptation" of Faramir (it is supposed to play into his relationship with his father). However, the orcs at Helm's Deep _did_ have a bomb in the books. Saruman's "blasting fire."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 13, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> OK, I'm going to make a comment, and it will probably tick people off. But it's not directed at anyone in particular.
> 
> I think that people who expect/demand that a movie adapted from source material (like a book) be strictly true to the book should be doomed to despise every movie adaptation ever made. Or be forbidden to actually see any of them.
> 
> ...




I accept that some changes that keep the flow of the story going in a different medium.  But why is Theoden made to be an incompetent fool of a king in the movie?  To build up Aragorn is my only guess.  Why is Helms Deep an act of folly in the movie while it's a solid tactical idea in the book?  To build up Aragorn when he opposes the idea? 

Why is Faramir made to be more like his father and Boromir in the movie when in the book he is clearly unlike them both in mindset.  He doesn't try to take the ring back to his father in the book, he knows better, he's a wiser man than either of them.  But in the book he has to be scared into doing what is right, what he knew he had to do in the book.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 13, 2003)

damn site timeouts!!!!!!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 13, 2003)

oops


----------



## diaglo (Nov 13, 2003)

Why does Flexor the Mighty post the same thing 3 times....


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 13, 2003)

I'm firmly in the camp that believes that a movie does not have to be true to the novel it's based on to be good.  Somebody mentioned the Shawshank redemption already, but I'd like to mention a few more.

Forrest Gump was a mediocre novel that was made into a good movie.  There was a lot of stuff in the movie that wasn't in the novel, and vice-versa.  However, the movie remains much more enjoyable than the novel (if it is a little over-melodramatic at times).

The Thomas Harris novel _Red Dragon_ has two movies based on it: Manhunter and Red Dragon.  There can be little question that Red Dragon is the better movie of the two, despite the fact that Manhunter is more true to the novel.

MASH started out as a novel, but was adapted into a movie.  Soon after, MASH became one of the longest-running and funniest sitcoms in television history (even though the show really did go downhill after they put Alan Alda in charge and it got all depressing and preachy).


----------



## kengar (Nov 13, 2003)

gahh! double post


----------



## kengar (Nov 13, 2003)

> Why is Faramir made to be more like his father and Boromir in the movie when in the book he is clearly unlike them both in mindset. He doesn't try to take the ring back to his father in the book, he knows better, he's a wiser man than either of them. But in the book he has to be scared into doing what is right, what he knew he had to do in the book.




Because in the book, Aragorn is a two-dimensional character at best. He has no conflict or anything to overcome other than external challenges. As a personality, he's static. In the movies, PJ made the decision to make Aragorn more conflicted and -therefore- interesting, IMO. I'm not saying that it's better than the book, but the fact is Strider gets more copy than Frodo, at least for scenes that it makes sense to show in a film. So it made sense to have him be a more "3D" personality.

If you make Aragorn "less perfect", then Faramir needs to be less perfect too. In the books, Faramir is as good as human gets, next to Aragorn. He's better than Boromir, better than his father, better than Eomer or Theoden or Eowyn or anyone except Elessar. They also decided to play up the relationship -and conflict- between Faramir & Denethor in the films. Sadly, most of this was cut from the theatrical release of TTT. Remember, Faramir's temptation wasn't to _wield_ the Ring (he never takes the Ring away from Frodo), but to _deliver it_ in order to earn Denethor's respect. An interesting distinction, I think.


----------



## Pants (Nov 13, 2003)

Theoden is incompetent in tTT?  I never noticed that and I still don't...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 13, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Theoden is incompetent in tTT?  I never noticed that and I still don't...




Well based on his "folly" in taking the people to Helm's Deep he is.  He is told by Aragorn not to take them there, but he does anyway, and in the movie it is a disasterous decision.   He nearly dooms his enter nation because he is too proud to listen to Aragorn.   Somthing that isn't in the book, and somthing that really weakens his character IMO.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 13, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> The Thomas Harris novel _Red Dragon_ has two movies based on it: Manhunter and Red Dragon.  There can be little question that Red Dragon is the better movie of the two, despite the fact that Manhunter is more true to the novel.




Hmmm...While I haven't seen either movie I've heard from several people that Manhunter is better than Red Dragon.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 13, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Hmmm...While I haven't seen either movie I've heard from several people that Manhunter is better than Red Dragon.



They're very, very different. I really enjoyed them both. If push came to shove, I'd give a slight nod to Red Dragon.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 13, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well based on his "folly" in taking the people to Helm's Deep he is.  He is told by Aragorn not to take them there, but he does anyway, and in the movie it is a disasterous decision.   He nearly dooms his enter nation because he is too proud to listen to Aragorn.   Somthing that isn't in the book, and somthing that really weakens his character IMO.



 Actually, he doesn't ignore Aragorn out of pride...think about it. He was just under the control of Sauruman. A puppet...and now after he's free, everyone's suggesting tons of things he SHOULD be doing according to them. Of COURSE he's going to be resistant to being controlled again.


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well based on his "folly" in taking the people to Helm's Deep he is.  He is told by Aragorn not to take them there, but he does anyway, and in the movie it is a disasterous decision.   He nearly dooms his enter nation because he is too proud to listen to Aragorn.   Somthing that isn't in the book, and somthing that really weakens his character IMO.



Where else are they going to go?  Fighting the Uruk armies on the field just wasn't a viable option in the book or the movie.  And since Eomer/Erkenbrand were so far off, they needed to hold out as long as possible.  Helm's Deep was perfect.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Nov 14, 2003)

While I agree that most movie adaptations are better off not trying to stay close to the source material (the first Harry Potter movie immediately comes to mind), there are a few occassions when a movie sticks close to the source material and succeeds.

The best example is probably "Sophie's Choice." While there were things that were in the book that were cut from the movie because of length -- some exposition and some backstory -- what was in the movie stayed very true to the book.


----------



## Welverin (Nov 14, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> No one's ever made a bad movie by trying to be too loyal to the source material?  Come on, now...




Congratulations on successfully ignoring the point.

I did not say that strictly adhering to the original source produces a better movie, I was denying that it can never work. Saying that it has happened doesn't disprove my point.



			
				kengar said:
			
		

> Saruman's "blasting fire."




I have that card!

Anyway what's stupid about that bit isn't the explosion but the dumb ass Olympic flame runner who lights it, along with how he gets there.



			
				kengar said:
			
		

> Remember, Faramir's temptation wasn't to _wield_ the Ring (he never takes the Ring away from Frodo), but to _deliver it_ in order to earn Denethor's respect. An interesting distinction, I think.




One that makes no difference what so ever. Remember, Boromir didn't want the ring for himself either, you wouldn't argue that he wasn't corrupted by it would you?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 14, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Hmmm...While I haven't seen either movie I've heard from several people that Manhunter is better than Red Dragon.




i would say Manhunter is better.   

the only thing Red Dragon had going for it was the better quality of actors...aka...bigger budget.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 14, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i would say Manhunter is better.
> 
> the only thing Red Dragon had going for it was the better quality of actors...aka...bigger budget.




Except that I couldn't get past Edward Norton as Will Graham.  Not after William Petersen, who took the role with him and became Gil Grissom on CSI.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 14, 2003)

you know they filmed part of Manhunter in Atlanta. The High Museum to be exact. the scene with him running around platforms.


----------



## kengar (Nov 14, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Anyway what's stupid about that bit isn't the explosion but the dumb ass Olympic flame runner who lights it, along with how he gets there.




Granted the torch thing was cheesy. My point was that the bombs _were_ in the books.



> One that makes no difference what so ever. Remember, Boromir didn't want the ring for himself either, you wouldn't argue that he wasn't corrupted by it would you?




I wouldn't argue Boromir wasn't corrupted, but you are wrong about his motivation. Boromir wanted the Ring _himself_. Re-read the scene where he is talking to Frodo before he tries to take it (I don't have my copy of FOTR with me). Boromir starts off talking about how the Ring could help Gondor and ends up imagining himself the wielder of the Ring and a great lord. In the movie -which, I grant, the dialog isn't 100% verbatim from the books- he says (to Frodo) "It is not yours save by unhappy chance! It could have been mine. It should have been mine! Give it to me!"

I see a huge difference between the brothers here.

Faramir (in the film) never tries to take actual possession of the Ring but bring it his father and Gondor. That is a HUGE difference. Look at how badly the Ring tempted Galadriel (arguably the wisest person in Middle Earth). Faramir is certainly influenced by the power of the Ring, but not in the same way. One could even make the argument that the Ring knew that Faramir would have resisted a direct "tempting", so the will of the Ring worked around that by playing on Faramir's weakness regarding his father's lack of respect for him.


----------



## kengar (Nov 14, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> you know they filmed part of Manhunter in Atlanta. The High Museum to be exact. the scene with him running around platforms.




Cracked me up to see the High Museum of Art used as the set of an insane asylum.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 14, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> Faramir (in the film) never tries to take actual possession of the Ring but bring it his father and Gondor. That is a HUGE difference. Look at how badly the Ring tempted Galadriel (arguably the wisest person in Middle Earth). Faramir is certainly influenced by the power of the Ring, but not in the same way. One could even make the argument that the Ring knew that Faramir would have resisted a direct "tempting", so the will of the Ring worked around that by playing on Faramir's weakness regarding his father's lack of respect for him.




The problem I have with Faramir is that it's very difficult to distinguish between the two brothers until the end of the movie.  As I watched it in the theater, all I could see was that Faramir wanted to "prove his worth" and return the ring to Gondor.  The difference between Boromir and Faramir here is slight.  Yes, Faramir may not want it for himself, but the motive is still selfish.  The extended DVD may cast more light on Faramir's relationship with his brother and his father, but it's somewhat after the fact.  I wish they hadn't cut the scenes to begin with because the theater version really makes Faramir seem like a emotionless jerk up until the very end.


----------



## kengar (Nov 14, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> The problem I have with Faramir is that it's very difficult to distinguish between the two brothers until the end of the movie.  As I watched it in the theater, all I could see was that Faramir wanted to "prove his worth" and return the ring to Gondor.  The difference between Boromir and Faramir here is slight.  Yes, Faramir may not want it for himself, but the motive is still selfish.  The extended DVD may cast more light on Faramir's relationship with his brother and his father, but it's somewhat after the fact.  I wish they hadn't cut the scenes to begin with because the theater version really makes Faramir seem like a emotionless jerk up until the very end.




No argument that their take on Faramir was hurt by cuttting those scenes. From what I've read, the DVD scenes go a long way to fleshing the character and his conflicts out.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 14, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Where else are they going to go?  Fighting the Uruk armies on the field just wasn't a viable option in the book or the movie.  And since Eomer/Erkenbrand were so far off, they needed to hold out as long as possible.  Helm's Deep was perfect.




I know.  In the book going to Helm's Deep is the best, most logical choice to make a stand.   I don't remember Aragorn and the rest trying to talk him out of it.   In the movie they talk about going there and all of the fellowship people are saying it's a mistake and he won't listen.


----------



## kengar (Nov 14, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I know.  In the book going to Helm's Deep is the best, most logical choice to make a stand.   I don't remember Aragorn and the rest trying to talk him out of it.   In the movie they talk about going there and all of the fellowship people are saying it's a mistake and he won't listen.




In the book, Theoden rides out to meet the orcs on his borders but is met partway there by his men telling him that a huge army of orcs is coming and they've had to retreat. That's the point as which Theoden decides the smart tactic is to head to Helm's Deep and bolster the garrison there.

In the movie, he chooses to go directly to HD and the Fellowship (Gandalf & Aragorn) counsel him to meet the enemy "head on" instead. Theoden is portrayed as trying to play it safe when that's no longer an option. Though truthfully, I think meeting 10,000 Uruk-Hai on the open field would have been a big mistake on Rohan's part but I'm no military strategist.

Personally, I kinda felt like Gandalf (& even Aragorn) were playing Theoden by trying to get him attack in the film. Theoden was thinking of Rohan first. Gandalf & Aragorn were thinking of Middle Earth. While their motives weren't _evil_ it almost felt like they were willing to use Rohan for the greater good. Of course, that's just impressions, YMMV.


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I know.  In the book going to Helm's Deep is the best, most logical choice to make a stand.   I don't remember Aragorn and the rest trying to talk him out of it.   In the movie they talk about going there and all of the fellowship people are saying it's a mistake and he won't listen.



So, following Gandalf and Aragorn's advice of meeting the army in the field was the best choice?  They weren't even aware of the numbers Saruman had and they're urging Theoden to fight in the field.  
Now granted, I take more issue with Gandalf giving Theoden bad advice than I do with Theoden ignoring it.  To me, in the movie, Theoden is wise, he was smart enough to hide behind the most well defended fortress in Rohan.


----------



## Squire James (Nov 15, 2003)

Actually, I wonder how much of that Galadriel scene was really of her being tempted, and how much of it was an act to demonstrate to Frodo why he shouldn't be trying to give the Ring away to every powerful person he met!  If it was the latter, though, it obviously didn't work.  He offers it to Aragorn and even the flying Nazgul.  He's like that little kid "Errand" in the Belgariad... he practically runs around offering it to everyone!

... except poor Boromir, the only guy who actually expressed a desire to have it!


----------



## kengar (Nov 15, 2003)

Squire James said:
			
		

> Actually, I wonder how much of that Galadriel scene was really of her being tempted, and how much of it was an act to demonstrate to Frodo why he shouldn't be trying to give the Ring away to every powerful person he met!  If it was the latter, though, it obviously didn't work.  He offers it to Aragorn and even the flying Nazgul.  He's like that little kid "Errand" in the Belgariad... he practically runs around offering it to everyone!
> 
> ... except poor Boromir, the only guy who actually expressed a desire to have it!




Well (and this is in the books as well as the films) she says she admits her heart has "long desired this (the Ring)" and after she refuses she says "I pass the test. I will diminish and go into the West; and remain Galadriel." This would seem to indicate a level of temptation.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 15, 2003)

Squire James said:
			
		

> Actually, I wonder how much of that Galadriel scene was really of her being tempted, and how much of it was an act to demonstrate to Frodo why he shouldn't be trying to give the Ring away to every powerful person he met!  If it was the latter, though, it obviously didn't work.  He offers it to Aragorn and even the flying Nazgul.  He's like that little kid "Errand" in the Belgariad... he practically runs around offering it to everyone!
> 
> ... except poor Boromir, the only guy who actually expressed a desire to have it!




From what I remember of the books Frodo offers the Ring to people on 3 occations and one of those is really "iffy"

1. To Gandalf when he learns the history of the Ring (as shown in the movie)

2. To Aragorn durning the Council of Elrond when Frodo learns the Ring is Isildur's Bane he says (paraphrasing) "Then it doesn't belong to me at all and is yours" Aragorn declines and says that it is Frodo's duty to hold on to it a little longer.  This is the "iffy" one IMO.

3. To Galadriel and she is tempted.  Her resistance is what allows her to be able to return to the West because she left with most of the Noldor (and is suffering their Doom) and followed Feanor back to Middle Earth (and left her father Finarfin).

IIRC he never offered it to any of the Nazgul and fought them with every fiber of his being till he claimed the Ring for his own in the Sammath Naur.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Nov 15, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> Granted the torch thing was cheesy. My point was that the bombs _were_ in the books.




Actually I thought the silly bit was the fact that the culvert was surrounded by Orcs with torches when the olympic torch-orc rounded the corner.


----------



## DMScott (Nov 15, 2003)

Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> From what I remember of the books Frodo offers the Ring to people on 3 occations and one of those is really "iffy"




There's a fourth - he offers it to Tom Bombadil, who is both uninterested in keeping it and unaffected by it. Elrond's council briefly discusses just giving the ring to Bombadil to keep since he's the only being who could resist the temptation of using it. They eventually decide that it's not good enough to hide the ring, it has to be destroyed.

Bombadil of course didn't make it into the movies at all - too long a side trek.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 16, 2003)

DMScott said:
			
		

> There's a fourth - he offers it to Tom Bombadil, who is both uninterested in keeping it and unaffected by it. Elrond's council briefly discusses just giving the ring to Bombadil to keep since he's the only being who could resist the temptation of using it. They eventually decide that it's not good enough to hide the ring, it has to be destroyed.
> 
> Bombadil of course didn't make it into the movies at all - too long a side trek.




I remember Bombadil putting the Ring on and not being affected by it.  I just don't remember Frodo offering it to him but I do remember the Council thinking that giving him the Ring is one way to keep it from Sauron for a time.  I'll have to go back and take a look at those Bombadil's chapters.


----------



## hong (Nov 16, 2003)

Will you people please stop talking about Frodo offering his ring to anyone who wanted it. This is just not a suitably respectful treatment of J.R.R. Martin's masterpiece.


Hong "everyone knows that the only person who deserves Frodo's ring is Sam" Ooi


----------



## KenM (Nov 16, 2003)

Of course its never really explained why they don't just fly onto Mt. Doom with the giant eagles. The eagles convently show up at the end to save Frodo and Sam, Gandalf asks for help when He is on top of Isengaurd, one comes. The eagles also help out in the Hobbit at some point.  I feel that there should have been some sort of explination on why the eagles don't help out more, or at the end of the Return of the King movie, people are going to wonder why they did not fly in. You have a bunch of elves, gandalf, ect, fly in with Frodo for cover, have great air battles. Or you just have a line with elrond asking Gandalf why the eagles can't go in and He gives a reason, but NOTHING is said.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 16, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> J.R.R. Martin's masterpiece.




J.R.R. Martin?   

Are you talking about _The Lord of Ice and Fire_ or _The Song of the Rings_?


----------



## KenM (Nov 16, 2003)

IMO Martin is a much better writer then JRRT.


----------



## Pants (Nov 16, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> Of course its never really explained why they don't just fly onto Mt. Doom with the giant eagles. The eagles convently show up at the end to save Frodo and Sam, Gandalf asks for help when He is on top of Isengaurd, one comes. The eagles also help out in the Hobbit at some point.  I feel that there should have been some sort of explination on why the eagles don't help out more, or at the end of the Return of the King movie, people are going to wonder why they did not fly in. You have a bunch of elves, gandalf, ect, fly in with Frodo for cover, have great air battles. Or you just have a line with elrond asking Gandalf why the eagles can't go in and He gives a reason, but NOTHING is said.



I'm hoping that the eagles actually get cut out of the end.  They seemed way too deus ex machina to me.  That whole part really bothered me in the books and I hope PJ cuts it.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 17, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> Of course its never really explained why they don't just fly onto Mt. Doom with the giant eagles. The eagles convently show up at the end to save Frodo and Sam, Gandalf asks for help when He is on top of Isengaurd, one comes. The eagles also help out in the Hobbit at some point.  I feel that there should have been some sort of explination on why the eagles don't help out more, or at the end of the Return of the King movie, people are going to wonder why they did not fly in. You have a bunch of elves, gandalf, ect, fly in with Frodo for cover, have great air battles. Or you just have a line with elrond asking Gandalf why the eagles can't go in and He gives a reason, but NOTHING is said.




It's covered in the book. The eagles can't help for the same reason that Gandalf doesn't take Glorfindel in the fellowship. Someone that powerful (or something that obvious, as in the eagles) would simply draw Sauron's attention and he'd squash them as soon as he saw them. Whereas Frodo sneaks in the back way, and by the time Sauron realises he's there, he's already inside Mount Doom. For all their heroism, Gandalf and Aragorn and co. function almost purely as a distraction (and it is specifically to serve that end that Aragorn chooses to go to the gates of Mordor).

Unfortunately, as you point out, none of that is touched upon in the movie. We'll have to wait and see whether PJ simply removes the eagles from the last battle.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 17, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, as you point out, none of that is touched upon in the movie. We'll have to wait and see whether PJ simply removes the eagles from the last battle.




If he does that I wonder how he is going to save Frodo and Sam?


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 17, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that the eagles actually get cut out of the end.  They seemed way too deus ex machina to me.  That whole part really bothered me in the books and I hope PJ cuts it.




Deus ex machina, possibly, but how do you suggest Frodo and Sam escape in the end?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 17, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Deus ex machina, possibly, but how do you suggest Frodo and Sam escape in the end?




they don't. pj has changed the story so much. why not change this.


----------



## Pants (Nov 17, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Deus ex machina, possibly, but how do you suggest Frodo and Sam escape in the end?



I don't know, I'm not the filmmaker, but I've always disliked the Eagles' roles in the books.  They seemed way too overpowered compared to everything else for my tastes.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 17, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> they don't. pj has changed the story so much. why not change this.




Nah, he hasn't changed it that much.  He just cut out all the dumb stuff.  Tolkien needed a better editior.

"Who's this Tom Bumbadeel guy?"

"It's Bombadil."

"Whatever!  He's pointless!  Get rid of him!  And while you're at, can you at least throw in a love scene for the female audience?  Demographics, man!"


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 17, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> I don't know, I'm not the filmmaker, but I've always disliked the Eagles' roles in the books.  They seemed way too overpowered compared to everything else for my tastes.




Maybe the Eagles will get nerfed in LOTR 3.5e. 

Although if anything is overpowered in LOTR, it's the elves.  Ever notice how everything good is of elven-make?


----------



## Salthanas (Nov 17, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> Of course its never really explained why they don't just fly onto Mt. Doom with the giant eagles. The eagles convently show up at the end to save Frodo and Sam, Gandalf asks for help when He is on top of Isengaurd, one comes. The eagles also help out in the Hobbit at some point.  I feel that there should have been some sort of explination on why the eagles don't help out more, or at the end of the Return of the King movie, people are going to wonder why they did not fly in. You have a bunch of elves, gandalf, ect, fly in with Frodo for cover, have great air battles. Or you just have a line with elrond asking Gandalf why the eagles can't go in and He gives a reason, but NOTHING is said.




Perhaps because the Eye of Sauron might just notice a big eagle flying deep into the depths of Mordor and do something about it. It kind of defeats the purpose of trying to get there by stealth if you have a whole troop of eagles bearing riders heading towards Mount Doom. Given that Sauron can govern the storms around Mordor it would be pretty much suicide even without counting the winged Nazgul and the fact that the ring would eventually corrupt whoever was wearing it.


----------



## Pants (Nov 18, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Maybe the Eagles will get nerfed in LOTR 3.5e.
> 
> Although if anything is overpowered in LOTR, it's the elves.  Ever notice how everything good is of elven-make?



Kinda... I guess, but whenever the Eagles come and join a battle, whatever side they join wins.  In the Battle of the Five Armies, they show up and annihilate the orcs.  In the Battle before the Black Gate, in which Gondor had almost no chance of winning, the Eagles show up and proceed to tear apart Sauron's army. 

Maybe if the Eagles went through what the Elves did, then maybe I would bash them less.


----------



## hong (Nov 18, 2003)

Will you people please stop talking about the Eagles in this way. I don't care what some critics think, the Eagles are a great, great band and rock 'n roll would not have been the same without them.


Hong "never left the Hotel California" Ooi


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 18, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Kinda... I guess, but whenever the Eagles come and join a battle, whatever side they join wins.  In the Battle of the Five Armies, they show up and annihilate the orcs.  In the Battle before the Black Gate, in which Gondor had almost no chance of winning, the Eagles show up and proceed to tear apart Sauron's army.




Seriously. Eagles are TOTALLY broken.


----------



## Pants (Nov 18, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Seriously. Eagles are TOTALLY broken.



Stupid Eagles and their twinky PrC's.  Soon, just wait, there are going to be more Eagle Subraces than you can count.  Wood Eagles?  Pah.  Wild Eagles?  Sun Eagles!  And of course you can't forget the munchkin Dark Eagle Rangers would are dual wielding talons.
Blah, I say.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 18, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Stupid Eagles and their twinky PrC's.  Soon, just wait, there are going to be more Eagle Subraces than you can count.  Wood Eagles?  Pah.  Wild Eagles?  Sun Eagles!  And of course you can't forget the munchkin Dark Eagle Rangers would are dual wielding talons.
> Blah, I say.




That is _so_ going in my signature.


----------



## kengar (Nov 18, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Kinda... I guess, but whenever the Eagles come and join a battle, whatever side they join wins.  In the Battle of the Five Armies, they show up and annihilate the orcs.  In the Battle before the Black Gate, in which Gondor had almost no chance of winning, the Eagles show up and proceed to tear apart Sauron's army.
> 
> Maybe if the Eagles went through what the Elves did, then maybe I would bash them less.




FWIW, Aragorn's army is losing the battle in front of the Black Gate even with the eagles. He's getting ready for a last stand when the ring goes into the Fire and Sauron is destroyed. That's what wins the battle, not a bunch of overgrown raptors.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 18, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> Will you people please stop talking about the Eagles in this way. I don't care what some critics think, the Eagles are a great, great band and rock 'n roll would not have been the same without them.
> 
> 
> Hong "never left the Hotel California" Ooi




one of the greatest bands of all time in my opinion.

diaglo "Desperado" grognard


----------



## Pants (Nov 18, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> That is _so_ going in my signature.



W00t.  I've been quoted!   



			
				kengar said:
			
		

> FWIW, Aragorn's army is losing the battle in front of the Black Gate even with the eagles. He's getting ready for a last stand when the ring goes into the Fire and Sauron is destroyed. That's what wins the battle, not a bunch of overgrown raptors.



There's a reason that I'm rereading the series


----------



## kengar (Nov 18, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> There's a reason that I'm rereading the series




I just finished re-reading _The Simarillion_ through _The Return of the King_. So it's fairly fresh in my mind. 

(Actually, this was only the first time I'd read the Simarillion all the way through; but I've read the Hobbit & LOTR at least half a dozen times).


----------



## Farland (Nov 19, 2003)

I too enjoyed the death of Saruman and the scouring of the shire.  I won't feel too cheated though as long as there is a nod to the death in the film, i.e. as long as Wormtongue kills him.

The book, however, is not a "everyone lives happily ever after" thing by any means.  The destruction of the ring is a temporary victory before the eventual defeat.  

We are probably living that defeat now...


----------



## Orius (Nov 23, 2003)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> Hear hear!  I think Penny Arcade sums it up nicely.
> 
> http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-01-27&res=l




Bwaha ha.....

Ok, that's it, I got to start reading this webcomic regularly.  It looks like a riot.

The description of AiCN in that strip is pretty much close to my opinion of that trashy rumor mill.


----------



## Orius (Nov 23, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I'm firmly in the camp that believes that a movie does not have to be true to the novel it's based on to be good.




One excellent example you forgot: _The Princess Bride_]   I only read it once, but watched the movie a large number of times.  I like the movie, it's a fun romp, but the book isn't.  It's a lot more cynical in tone than the movie from what I remember.  I like the theatrical adaptation more than the book.


----------



## Orius (Nov 23, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> In the movie -which, I grant, the dialog isn't 100% verbatim from the books- he says (to Frodo) "It is not yours save by unhappy chance! It could have been mine. It should have been mine! Give it to me!"




That's farily close to what was said in the book.  The Amon Hen scene in the movie follows the book pretty faithfully.  There is dialog cut, presumably because of length, but the important elements of that scene are more or less intact.


----------



## Squire James (Nov 23, 2003)

So, anything about the "Saruman problem", which is after all the topic of this thread?

Frankly, I think they just took out the 2nd most important scene in the entire movie.  There are times I've thought of making up some fake Web news page announcing that "New Line Cinema, in their continuing efforts to shave time off the third movie in their Lord of the Rings series, has decided to remove all parts involving Frodo and Sam from the movie.  Elijah Wood is reported furious."

IMO, they might as well... who cares if it's all going to be in that DVD 1 year from now, right?

Perhaps Christopher Lee had some hopes of supporting actor recognition for his 7 minutes of fame in RotK.  A little far-fetched perhaps, but he said he thought his later stuff was very good...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 23, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Deus ex machina, possibly, but how do you suggest Frodo and Sam escape in the end?




Why do you need to explain how they get to civilization?
They're just there. Maybe Gandalf finally learns Teleport? 

IMO, it's easier to simply *poof* them to where they need to be, rather than opening up the Eagle question.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 23, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> I've been pondering the whole Pippin/Palantir issue. In other words, without the "Voice of Saruman" scene, why does Gandalf take off with Pippin to Gondor? The only thing I can come up with that doesn't jar continuity-wise is that Treebeard meets Gandalf, et al at the edge of the forest or by Helm's Deep, bringing the hobbits with him (instead of their meeting at Isengard). Gandalf realizes that the attack on Minas Tirith is imminent and he cannot wait for Rohan to muster (just like in books) he hops on Shadowfax and -this is where I have trouble- takes Pip with him. Why would he burden Shadowfax with another rider (even just a hobbit) if it were unnecessary? What would necessitate Pippin riding ahead with Gandalf other than the Palantir scene or one that would require as much exposition?
> 
> I'm stumped.





The Riders ARE looking for a hobbit. A comment about using Pippin as a distraction for the Nazgul wouldn't be horrible. The Palantir could be moved to a new location, but I think they should keep it at Isengard. It was shown in the first movie.

But, they could just have the Palantir scene without having to explain Saruman's end. If they show Isengard, have Pippin looking into the Palantir, Gandalf walks in and grabs him, etc.
No need to explain what happens to Saruman, because those that don't know will simply assume the Ent's kept him for punishment. Those that DO know won't have anything contradicting it.


----------

