RotK spoilers: The Sauruman Problem

[diaglo]

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]

That is so going in my signature.

W00t. I've been quoted!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.