No news on the Hobbit as far as I am aware. The Saruman storyline is tied up at the start of The Return Of The King when Gandalf and co arrive at Isengard after its destruction by the Ents. After a 2 minute conversation from the top of the tower with Gandalf, Gandalf destroys Sarumans staff. Saruman then slaps Wormtongue, Wormtongue stabs Saruman in the back, Legolas shoots Wormtongue dead and Saruman falls from the top of the tower all the way down on to a spiked wheel which impales him right through his chest. Quality. Totally changed from the book of course but well done nonetheless. Sorry if this has ruined it for people who wanted to see it first, but hey, Jarryd asked.
Originally posted by soulbyThat was lamentable as the scouring of the shire provides a lot of the message of the books. They just totally ignore it.
yes they deal with him at the begining of the film, but the way in which he is killed is pretty much like the book, its just not in the shire as they omitted the Scouring of the Shire from the trilogy
Bring back Tom Bombadill thats what I say...sigh.
Originally posted by jarrydI have reaqd the books and I know how saruman was dealt with. Does that count?
Does anyone know if Peter Jackson is going to film The Hobbit? Has anyone seen the extended DVD of The Return of the King and know how Saruman is dealt with, as it was omitted in the cinema version.
Originally posted by daharvesterOi!
No news on the Hobbit as far as I am aware. The Saruman storyline is tied up at the start of The Return Of The King when Gandalf and co arrive at Isengard after its destruction by the Ents. After a 2 minute conversation from the top of the tower with Gandalf, Gandalf destroys Sarumans staff. Saruman then slaps Wormtongue, Wormtongue stabs Saruman in the ...[text shortened]... eless. Sorry if this has ruined it for people who wanted to see it first, but hey, Jarryd asked.
You just ruined it for meh!ðŸ˜
I agree Rags...it would have bored us all to tears. I loved the books, but the end of the "Return of the king" film just was boring...
Frodo smiles, then Sam smiles, then Merry smiles, then Pippin smiles, then Gandalf smiles, then Aragorn smiles....EISH!
🙂😀😉🙂😀😉🙂😀😉🙂😀😉🙂😀😉
Even Gollum smiled when he died...
The questions you have to ask:
What where they taking?
Where can we get some?
I think as movie adaptations go, these three do as well as
could ever be expected. The book trilogy is very dense, very
complicated, involves a lot of characters who are developed
very well in prose, but would seem tawdry on screen without
lots of exposition -- exposition that would slow down rather
than develop an already long cycle of movies.
I found that the scene additions, particularly with Treebeard
to be very helpful.
The Scouring of the Shire was very much a side-plot issue;
it had more to do with Merry and Pippin than with Frodo,
and had little to do with the ring. It would have required
another 20 minutes of preparation beforehand in the film,
and probably 30 minutes of Shire-time. Cuts had to be
made and, yes, the Scouring had to go, so did Tom
Bombadil (who is at best enigmatic in the books), and
a few other minor characters.
Four things bothered me about the films, and one in
the added scenes:
1) The ring goes to Osgiliath? I find the way that they
handle Faramir to be a little disappointing. He turns
Boromir-eque in the movie whereas in the book he is
a true hero, the hero that Denethor, Son of Ecthelion
thought Boromir was (and should have been).
2) Elves at Helms Deep? Sure the elves don't have
a lot to do in the movies, but I find their addition to
be superfluous eye candy.
3) The Dead fight at Minas Tirith? Again, unnecessary
eye candy. The added scene (where Aragorn claims
them) is very effective and smooths out the awkward
way in which this was handled in the theatre.
4) Gollum gets pushed over the edge? Bad form.
The point was that no Ring Bearer could destroy the
Ring; consumed with greed, the Ring's influence was
too mighty. Gollum's desparation and madness was
critical to the destruction of the Ring, but it makes
Frodo out to be a little more of a hero in the movie.
It makes Gandalf's comment that Gollum may yet
have a part to play rather ineffective.
5) The Mouth of Sauron gets killed? This was the
biggest disappointment, I think. I don't think that
they handled the character or the dialogue faithfully,
and Legolas' essential murder of the Mouth was totally
out of character.
Nemesio
thanks for all that info everyone. Well fingers crossed for The Hobbit. I think Jackson did a masterful job of the films but i agree the ending of the final film was too drawn out. After destroying the ring, a quick coronation and sailing away at the grey havens would have sufficed.
Still Jackson in Bree, at Helms Deep, and as a corsair were all amusing. Keep an eye out! If you like Tolkien why not join our front page clan!
Originally posted by NemesioAgree with all this and I'd like to add a few more to this:
I think as movie adaptations go, these three do as well as
could ever be expected. The book trilogy is very dense, very
complicated, involves a lot of characters who are developed
very well in prose, but would seem tawdry on screen without
lots of exposition -- exposition that would slow down rather
than develop an already long cycle of movies.
I ...[text shortened]... ithfully,
and Legolas' essential murder of the Mouth was totally
out of character.
Nemesio
1) The depiction of Arwen as the elf that carried Frodo to Rivendell is unnecessary, Glorfindel was the real rider and one that could quite easily have been included in these scenes.
2) Celeborn is utterly ignored
3) When the party enters Loth Lorien, the elves demand that Gimli be blindfolded, as there is great hatred between their respective races. Legolas says that if Gimli is to be blindfolded, then he will suffer the same indignation. This is a turning point in not just their friendship, but that of the two races. A mending of ways between elves and dwarves is suggested in the book following their travels together when the war of the ring is finished.
Other than that I thought the films were a damn fine attempt at the greatest fantasy story ever written. Lets not forget that Tolkein spent his entire life writing the hobbit, the trilogy and background histories etc. He was attempting to create folklore for a country that has no indigenous folklore, it must have been an incredibly daunting task to cram a life's work (and one of such quality) into three films. Peter Jackson deserves much accolade in my opinion, I severely doubt anyone could have done better.
Originally posted by Starrman
1) The depiction of Arwen as the elf that carried Frodo to Rivendell is unnecessary, Glorfindel was the real rider and one that could quite easily have been included in these scenes.
I didn't have a problem with this. In the book, Glorfindel is a
rather important minor character. The scene at the river helps
to establish his importance. By contrast, Arwen is a minor
character, largely mentioned in the Appendix (as I recall). This,
I think, was a reasonable sacrifice for the cinema. Is it perfect?
No. Is it better than the book? No. But the introduction of too
many undeveloped characters would be confusing to the audience
(except nerds like us) and developing each character reasonably
would be impossible.
2) Celeborn is utterly ignored
Um. Did you really miss him? I mean, he doesn't even have a
major role in the book; that is, Galadriel is always the focus,
she is tempted by the ring, she interacts with Frodo, she gives
her locks of hair to Gimli, she has Nenya, one of the elven rings.
I don't think the movies unduly suffered from his lack of dialogue.
3) When the party enters Loth Lorien, the elves demand that Gimli be blindfolded, as there is great hatred between their respective races. Legolas says that if Gimli is to be blindfolded, then he will suffer the same indignation. This is a turning point in not just their friendship, but that of the two races. A mending of ways between elves and dwarves is suggested in the book following their travels together when the war of the ring is finished.
This would have been a nice touch, but the movie doesn't make
much of the residual tensions between dwarves and elves. It's a
side plot in the book, a sort of background racial tension thing that
needs prose to work. The vast majority of the tensions in the movie
were at the selecting of the Fellowship; we don't really have an
opportunity to let the develop outside of the Gimli-Legolas relationship.
I think it would have been very hard to communicate that on screen;
prose has a lot of advantages in this regard. So, while it would have
been a nice line to add (it wouldn't have taken long, for sure), its
significance would not have been the same to the general audience
(nerds excepted, of course).
Other than that I thought the films were a damn fine attempt at the greatest fantasy story ever written.
I think it was a heroic and largely successful effort. I think that the
most objectionable stuff was not what he omitted, but the stuff he
unnecessarily changed.
Nemesio