Questions that need answering

[lady_lorien]

First of all, the elves didn't helped the humans in the battle of Helm's deep, the ents didi it, why did Haldir died??, why did they give Anduril to Elessar in The return of the king and not in the Fellowship??? can anybody explain me what happenes to sAruman in the return of the king???

 

[Lúthien Séregon]

A lot of this has been covered already in a few threads in the movie forums. But these are the likely reasons for the changes in short:

Even though the Elves arrived in the movie, the Huorns also arrived in the Extended version, so I don't think it's too big a deviation anyway. The arrival of the Elves was probably added for more emotional impact. And Haldir's death was added for drama.

Anduril was given to Aragorn in Return of the King probably because Peter Jackson interpreted his receiving of the sword as his receiving of the claim to the throne of Gondor ( especially emphasized in the Paths of the Dead in the movie, when his sword is proof of his heritage ).

Saruman is not in Return of the King because Peter Jackson decided to cut the scene out, as he felt it was wrapping up the Two Towers and not beginning the Return of the King. However, this scene will be included in the Extended cut of the movie.

In any translation of book to film, it is inevitable that changes will be made.

 

[Gildor]

First of all, the elves didn't helped the humans in the battle of Helm's deep, the ents didi it, why did Haldir died??, why did they give Anduril to Elessar in The return of the king and not in the Fellowship???

Because they could.

 

[nthman]

First of all, the elves didn't helped the humans in the battle of Helm's deep, the ents didi it, why did Haldir died??, why did they give Anduril to Elessar in The return of the king and not in the Fellowship??? can anybody explain me what happenes to sAruman in the return of the king???

The elves were sent to Helms Deep in the movie for a few reasons according to the DVD appendices . One was to give a small silver lining to the very dark cloud . Another was to show the fact that the elves were indeed in battle with the enemy and not just sitting on the sidelines. They could not put the attacks on the elven kingdoms into the movie so this was an alternative

Haldir died probably because he was expendable storywise at this point and according to the writers they wanted to show what the elves were giving up by taking on this fight and not just sailing away from the problems of middle earth.

Anduril is an interesting thing. I think in the movies we are supposed to still be doubting the decision Aragorn will make. If he takes the sword in Rivendale there can be no doubt he will take on his birthright and stand as King. I'm not sure it's a good decision but I can see what they were aiming at.

Sarumans demise will be seen on the EE dvd.

 

[joxy]

Sarumans demise will be seen on the EE dvd.

And a month before the release of ROTK the TTT EE made it clear that the scene was going to be the big start to ROTK! It was all filmed and put together, only to be cut out at the last moment, much to C Lee's annoyance, quite understandably. What that says about PJ's competence I leave you to decide.

 

[nthman]

And a month before the release of ROTK the TTT EE made it clear that the scene was going to be the big start to ROTK! It was all filmed and put together, only to be cut out at the last moment, much to C Lee's annoyance, quite understandably. What that says about PJ's competence I leave you to decide.

I'll have to wait and see it. I probably would have rather have seen the deleted scene than Smeagol and Deagol finding the ring. I guess something had to go but I could think of several things I'd rather have seen cut personally.

 

[Firawyn]

I don't think cutting the Smeagol and Deagol scene would have been a good idead. I also think that PJ was really stupid not having the hobbits go back to really save the shire. Off subject. Ok...I think that PJ should have put the Smeagol/Deagol scene in the extended version of the FOTR instaed though.

 

[Elessar II]

...why did Haldir die??

My theory is because someone important had to die. It would have been kind of weird for all of the main characters to survive ( even though they did in the book). It was basically for all of the casual-moviegoers who have never read the books, and would start thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, why, after such a huge battle against immeasurable odds did no one die?"
Haldir, was also, as has already been said before, the only character who was really expendable (and I never really liked the guy anyway).

 

[joxy]

I guess something had to go.

The question is: why, at that stage, a month before the film's release, should anything, that was already made, have to go?!
PJ had been working on the thing for years; he was supposed to have had a master plan for the way he was going to work it all out; he put a massive effort into making the Saruman confrontation scene, he made it clear in the TTT EE, again a month before ROTK release, that it was the big introduction to ROTK; then he left it out altogether, only to make room for a scene which has nothing directly to do with that part of the story, and which should have been told, if it had to be told, long before that stage. Where's the competence here?

 

[Greenwood]

The question is: why, at that stage, a month before the film's release, should anything, that was already made, have to go?!
PJ had been working on the thing for years; he was supposed to have had a master plan for the way he was going to work it all out; he put a massive effort into making the Saruman confrontation scene, he made it clear in the TTT EE, again a month before ROTK release, that it was the big introduction to ROTK; then he left it out altogether, only to make room for a scene which has nothing directly to do with that part of the story, and which should have been told, if it had to be told, long before that stage. Where's the competence here?

joxy,

This sort of thing has happened many times in movie productions, and on a much bigger scale. Alfred Hitchcock, high on any list of great film directors did a movie called Suspicion in 1941 starring Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine (who won an Oscar for her role as Grant's wife). In it Fontaine suspects Grant, who is a bit of a rogue, is also a murderer plotting to kill her. When Hitchcock finished the film Grant was a killer. The studio, the production board and initial test audiences hated it. No one would accept Cary Grant as a murderer. Hitchcock reshot a new ending and the film was a great success.

Another famous movie was Lost Horizon (1937), directed by Frank Capra from the classic James Hilton novel. Capra is another one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. The story goes that when the film was shown to preview audiences, they hated it, particularly the opening section. Capra's response was to throw away the first one to two reels of the film (I don't remember if it was one or two). The film has been considered a classic ever since.

Until probably the 1970's it was not at all unusual for films to be shown to preview audiences before their general release and for scenes to be cut or even whole plot lines changed as a result of the audiences' reaction. Nobody in the film industry (or any film buff) would think anything about PJ cutting something as minor as a seven minute scene from a 3 hr 20 min film a month before it opened. Using something like that to attack PJ's abilities as a fim maker on a film that goes on to make the "year's ten best lists" of the great majority of film critics is one of the reason's the purist's complaints are not taken seriously.

Theatrical productions routinely have "out-of-town" try-outs and long preview runs while the directors rework the production and even the script before their official openings.

You are free to dislike the films, but to say that something like PJ dropping a scene a month before opening proves he is a bad or incompetent director just destroys your credibility.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

The question is: why, at that stage, a month before the film's release, should anything, that was already made, have to go?!
PJ had been working on the thing for years; he was supposed to have had a master plan for the way he was going to work it all out; he put a massive effort into making the Saruman confrontation scene, he made it clear in the TTT EE, again a month before ROTK release, that it was the big introduction to ROTK; then he left it out altogether, only to make room for a scene which has nothing directly to do with that part of the story, and which should have been told, if it had to be told, long before that stage. Where's the competence here?

This has allready been discussed about. I even provided a quote for you that stated BY CHRISTOPHER LEE that they had discussed of the cut allready months beforehand, and it was announced to the public only then.

 

[Warrior]

I don't think cutting the Smeagol and Deagol scene would have been a good idead. I also think that PJ was really stupid not having the hobbits go back to really save the shire. Off subject. Ok...I think that PJ should have put the Smeagol/Deagol scene in the extended version of the FOTR instaed though.

I agree. When I watched FOTR EE, I was disapointed that that scene was left out, because I believe that it would have showed the impact the Ring had on Deagol/Smeagol, because Smeagol was willing and did kill for it.