Yes and no. I agree the character deserved more than a throwaway line as closure. I know PJ was worried about slowing the momentum of the movie but they still had to go to Isengard to collect the Hobbits so it comes off as awkward that they just don't include him. That said I don't think the scene as it is in the EE works very well. It's too long and doesn't really make much sense.
I agree with much of what you say, and I think you've hit on something. Ever since viewing the ROTK extended cut, this is a sequence that has always interested me. As I understand it, the death of Saruman was originally intended to conclude The Two Towers, but at some point during post-production, ROTK began "inheriting" substantial amounts of TT material. For instance, according to Jackson somewhere on the DVD extras, the encounter with Shelob was originally to be inter-cut with the Battle of Helms Deep. Also originally intended for the second film was the Smeagol/Deagol flashback. According to Jackson, both Shelob and the Voice of Saruman moved to ROTK for pacing/structural reasons, in that it was too much going on at once, and too awkward to spend screen time going back to Isengard and having a long denouement with Saruman after the film had already climaxed with the Battle of Helms Deep.
The problem with shunting some of this material into ROTK is that A) The third film already had tremendous ground to cover, without picking up substantial amounts of material from TT, and B) With TT essentially structured around Rohan and Helm's Deep, there's suddenly lots of screen time, but the feeling of not all that much going on, story-wise, in the second film. There have often been complaints that The Two Towers feels like it has the most filler and covers the least amount of essential story material of the three films (not a problem you want to have in the second of three acts...), and I think one reason for that is the amount of significant story material that was moved to ROTK. Meanwhile, TT still runs very long, with lengthy battles; the Arwen/Aragorn/Galadriel scenes that may be important for character purposes but don't seem to advance the main plot lines; and the Faramir subplot dragging on.
In other words, some problems with ROTK can traced back to decisions made in the structuring of TT, and a restructuring of the second film may have been the only thing that could have alleviated some of these problem spots, including the death of Saruman.
About Saruman's final scene, I think it basically has some good dramatic ideas but the execution is troubled. You say the scene goes on too long, and yet I don't think there's adequate build-up to Grima's betrayal of Saruman. Throughout the scene, Grima has one word of dialogue total ("no!"), and that stands out badly to me. His character doesn't get sufficient dramatic payoff: it's not completely explained why he's doing what he's doing, and I'm not sure I'm convinced about his motives for turning on Saruman at that point. We need to see the wheels turning in Grima's head, his emotional journey--and I'm not sure we get that here or anywhere in either film.
So the scene is too long for pacing purposes, but the dramatic execution feels rushed and glossed-over at points. Ultimately, I think it's a problem there's no easy solution to.
Om Shanti
reply
share
electric_storm
8 years ago
For instance, according to Jackson somewhere on the DVD extras, the encounter with Shelob was originally to be inter-cut with the Battle of Helms Deep.
Actually they said they never intended to include Shelob in the movie because they felt TTT had enough material to cover, the Shelob encounter would clash alongside Helm's Deep and chronologically it didn't fit as they were supposed to encounter her at the same time as Pelennor (I've always found this dubious as they ended up cross-cutting it with a big battle anyway). Plus in the book there isn't much left for Frodo and Sam to do post-Shelob.
I think it was a good decision to make Frodo and Sam's journey in TTT simply about Frodo falling under the influence of the ring and turning on Sam and Gollum's arc. It's true TTT doesn't progress the plot too much but I actually like that because without needing to set things up or wind them down TTT really focuses on developing the characters and taking the story from being an intimate adventure tale about one Hobbit into an epic involving a whole world. Also by structuring TTT the way they did it also allowed some improvement on the book in that we really get to know Rohan, its characters and the context of the war there before Helm's Deep which really raises the stakes and gets us invested.
You have to remember that while we look back on it as one continuous journey today at the time the filmmakers were concerned with making each film stand alone. I think the decisions they made were in the best interests of TTT. Did this negatively impact ROTK? Yes and no, it did rush some things but I don't think you can entirely lay that movie's pacing problems at TTT's feet. Only one chapter post-Helm's Deep made it into the theatrical editions; The Palantir, and the only events from the other half of the story that made it into ROTK were Shelob and Sam taking the ring.
ROTK spends an awful lot of time in its first half spinning its wheels and making even more stuff up (going back to Edoras, Frodo sending Sam away, Arwen is dying, lighting the beacons etc...). Not to mention if you remove the appendices its actually the shortest book and they cut down the entire final third of the book into about 20 minutes.
That said some things were sacrificed. The Voice of Saruman was definitely one, the rushed and silly Cirith Ungol sequence was another and my biggest regret is they didn't take time to flesh out the story with the Corsairs to develop Gondor more and have Aragorn rescuing the men of Pelargir and leading them into battle saving us from the awful Army of the Dead nonsense.
You're right that to make all this work properly a full page one restructuring of both films would likely have been required.
reply
share
Troll_Dahl
8 years ago
I may have come across a little harsher on TTT than I intended. The focus on Rohan does have its benefits, and as the middle segment, it was always going to be the trickiest to structure, with no clear beginning or ending because it's... well... the middle.
What I mean is that in a trilogy, or a three-act structure of any kind, one generally looks for Act II to up the stakes or throw a wrench in the works; heighten the drama, provide new twists and turns, etc., which are then resolved in the final act. Basically, the middle of three acts has to maintain the momentum of the story (which was hopefully established with the first act), and if it doesn't have some real meat to it, it can easily feel like dead weight plodding along to the story's climax. Did TTT maintain the momentum of FOTR, preparing us for the climax of ROTK? For me, the answer is a complex and unsatisfying mixture of "yes" and "no". But as you point it out, there's enough spinning of the wheels in the mud throughout the trilogy, so it's hardly fair to fault one installment any more than the others on those grounds. Some of that "spinning" was probably necessary to make each installment structurally complete and satisfying to the moviegoer, but any movie that approaches (or exceeds) 180 minutes in running time is liable to fatigue its audience at some points. So, yes, TTT made for pretty satisfying viewing in the cinema the first time around and I can understand why it was structured as it was, but I also understand why people find some parts of it to be a bit padded out (Aragorn going over the cliff and so on).
If there's one thing I enjoy about TTT, it's the ents. Which may be a little ironic, since here I am complaining about things progressing too slowly ("don't be hasty!") I know Treebeard is part of what some viewers feel makes the movie seemingly interminable, but they clearly put a lot of work into bringing Fangorn and the ents to life, and I think it succeeded. The destruction of Isengard is one of the most satisfying elements of TTT for me, and well-executed from a dramatic viewpoint. I suppose that between Rohan and Fangorn, there was really enough action and space was freed for Frodo/Sam/Gollum to be paced a little more sedately, allowing the characters to be a bit more contemplative. This allows the audience, in turn, to get inside their heads a bit more: the Smeagol/Gollum scene is another highlight of the film. Andy Serkis is very powerful and the editing, on initial viewing, actually left me a bit disoriented--which I suspect was the point, mirroring Gollum's mental state. The slower Frodo/Sam/Gollum scenes actually become something of a quiet relief from all the action and kinetic energy elsewhere.
Thanks for refreshing me on Shelob. Probably time I looked at the Appendices again over the holiday.
Om Shanti
reply
share
electric_storm
8 years ago
The way I see three act structures:
Act 1: Set-up
Act 2: Conflict
Act 3: Resolution
I think LOTR follows this pretty closely. FotR introduces the characters and has the exposition, RotK has the climax and emotional ending and TTT is where all the characters have to face their darkest moments, overcome obstacles and develop. Where cultures and societies are at war. Frodo is seduced by the ring and is rescued by Sam. Gollum has the opposite arc, he is almost freed of the ring's hold over him but his sense of betrayal turns him back. Merry and Pippin stop being happy-go-lucky sidekicks and begin to understand what's at stake and take an active role in the war. Aragorn returns from near death and in rebirth takes on his mantle as a leader of men. Faramir wrestles with temptation, Arwen has to choose between a life of regret or a life of loneliness, Theoden breaks free of Saruman and attempts to prove his worth as a King etc...
reply
share
magpie930
8 years ago
pokes head in to say... love your user name! :-)
Not sure if the troll part is internet troll or not. I prefer to think of it as the Norwegian troll... in honor of Roald's heritage.
reply
share
Harold_of_Whoa
8 years ago
I was thinking the same thing...minus the Norwegian aspect.
The name made me smile, and based on posting content, if that's being a troll, then we could do with a bit more trolling in these parts, as the Gaffer might say.
reply
share
Troll_Dahl
8 years ago
Well... I'm pleased that my screen name has given a couple of people some laughs/smiles. Others have actually been confused by it in the past, I suspect for the very reason Harold_of_Whoa points out: nothing I write is intended to be taken in a troll-ish spirit and, therefore, hopefully does not read like trolling. I've been using the name for long enough that I don't entirely recall my thought processes surrounding its selection, but I think it was mostly simple wordplay mixed with a joking/satirical reference to the notion of internet trolls.
Om Shanti
reply
share
magpie930
8 years ago
I love Harold's name, as well. It took me forever to 'get' the play in indygoblue's name.
My name is more literal. I'm a collector of tiny shiny things. My husband gave me this nickname quite outside the world of the internet.
The secondary meaning for magpie also fits at times: loquacious talker.
reply
share
magpie930
8 years ago
I think the Norwegian=troll connection was strengthened (in my mind) by having watched Trolljegeren (2010) recently.
Plus I live in the state with the highest percentage (in the US) of people with Norwegian heritage and the Sons of Norway organization is just up the street from me. :-)
Uff-da.
reply
share
Theoden_of_ODU
8 years ago
I think deep down, many of the things you mentioned in your post is why I didn't like ROTK all that much. Fellowship of the Ring is a near perfect film adaptation for me - with just a handful of minor gripes I have with changes they made.
If I'm remembering correctly (and I might not be - this is from over 10 years ago), Philippa Boyens tried to justify the massive changes to ROTK, making the claim that there were more changes to FOTR than there were to ROTK. The problem was not the actual number of changes, but the impact of those changes.
That said some things were sacrificed. The Voice of Saruman was definitely one, the rushed and silly Cirith Ungol sequence was another and my biggest regret is they didn't take time to flesh out the story with the Corsairs to develop Gondor more and have Aragorn rescuing the men of Pelargir and leading them into battle saving us from the awful Army of the Dead nonsense.
Voice of Saruman was a huge knock to the film, especially since he was so prominent in the first two movies.
Cirith Ungol could have been so menacing, but it comes across a bit too goofy. It truly is rushed (as is everything that occurs *in* Mordor). I remember reading that sequence for the first time and the filmed version doesn't even do brief summaries of the sequence from book justice.
Denethor's madness is poorly handled especially with the missed opportunity to show that in part his madness was due to having his own palantÃr. Wasn't a line left in the movie that implies that Denethor knows certain things? That may have been an EE addition, but either way - it shouldn't be there because they didn't bother touching upon it.
Regarding the extended version, I hated the portrayal of the Mouth of Sauron. Way too disfigured and it seems to be intended to be gross more than anything else. Apparently most of that was done with CGI. I'd love to see the raw footage of what he looked like before Jackson made that particular change. The murder of the Mouth of Sauron by Aragorn would be considered incredibly dishonorable among not only his enemies but his own men, even given the circumstances. In fact, the book even has The Mouth of Sauron point out that he's not to be harmed with Gandalf agreeing that he safe in their company.
But the "green ghost warriors" (Army of the Dead)... I understand they did it that way for the sake of tension for the audience and to showcase some "cool" effects. The tension felt cheap and the "army of glowing ants" effect wasn't even all that convincing back in 2003 to me.
Also, I thought it totally undermined the Human victory of the battle. It also doesn't help that they actually had Gimli suggest that Aragron not release them until they've been completely victorious against the orcs. And you know what? Gimli's right - at least with the way that the movie presents the evidence. They vanquished the Corsair fleet and the Orcs, shouldn't that have been enough? Why not let them fight one final fight? And then one more? Could the Army really say no at that point other to gripe about how they are supposed to be freed?
Aragorn should have released them immediately after the destruction of the Corsair fleet, like they were in the book. The now empty ships should have been then manned by men of Gondor. Instead of having a "surprise" for the audience it should have instead been a ticking clock situation where the audience isn't sure if Aragorn and his reinforcements will make it there in time. It also would show Aragorn's growing skills at leading his own countrymen before he ultimately takes them into a final showdown.
No, not the mind probe!
reply
share
Movie_Buff_Brad
8 years ago
As I understand it, the death of Saruman was originally intended to conclude The Two Towers, but at some point during post-production, ROTK began "inheriting" substantial amounts of TT material.
I always thought they should have put that scene at the end of TTT. While it's my favorite entry of the three films (at least as far as the extended editions go), I get the complaint that it doesn't really push the story forward. Ending it with Pippin/Merry rejoining the others (who had been looking for them) and Saruman's death would have given it some closure the actual ending of the film fairly lacks.
---
reply
share