RotK spoilers: The Sauruman Problem

[Tom Cashel]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.