[Imladris]

But then I look at PJ, and realize oh he just did it for the blood and gore, there's no symbolism in it (but I still like to think he intended it for symbolic purposes lol).

I think it's a bit wrong to say that about PJ. It's an assumption, and assumptions are never good. Did he quote that somewhere?

Originally Posted by Kransha[/QUOTE

For those of you who don't know, or haven't figured out yet, the "wheel-impaling" death of Saruman is a bit of creative homage to Christopher Lee's days in the Hammer-Horror Double Features, when cinema was something that could be so immensely corny it was good. Christopher Lee's most memorable role, before Saruman and the more recents, was as Dracula. In that, he was (several times) impaled on wheel spikes. This is all well and good, but the impaling of Saruman is, in my opinion, not. The circumstance of a "falling death" reduces Saruman's character to impotency.

Apparently:

Originally Posted by Estel

Supposedly he pulls a knife, stabs Saruman, & then pushes him off to his spikey death. I actually like that idea a little better than him just pushing him off.

So, Saruman is probably already dead. There is nothing wrong with a nod of appreciation to various actors. Heck, even Tolkien gave his nods of appreciation to Beowulf, etc.

Similarly Grima's death gives him to much potency. When the audience sees that the overly loved 'Leggy' has slain Grima, there will be cheers for the Elf, boos for the Worm. Grima is not fit for that.

I do not understand how being shot by Legolas is any different than being shot by Grima. When Legolas kills Grima the only people who will squee and swoon and won't "get it" will be the rabid fan girls, who, incidently, don't get the story at all.

PJ is not responsible for how the audience reacts. And yes, it is sad that he couldn't bring the Scouring of the Shire to film, but you can't bring everything to film.

Some other notes, which I have not seen mentioned. Saruman is going to get a bit 'magical' in his finale scene. I do not know how much the discussion frequents these boards, but it was personally revolting to find out that cinematic Saruman is actually going to shoot a fireball from his staff at Gandalf. Saruman's power, as stated by C. Lee himself, lies in his voice, Yes, he is Istari, but, even in his last desperate moments, is he really the character who go out in a melodramatic, ridiculous, fairy-tale-villain blaze of fury like that? At least give him back his immortal "Gibbets and crows!" speech, to infer that he still has his eminent talent. Saruman is still a tempter, and I hope he gets to do some tempting, instead of just spouting villainous movie drivel at Gandalf and Co.

Is this true, or this is like an Arwen-showing-up-at-Helm's-Deep thing (where PJ was going to do it then decided against it). And even if he did I would totally understand why PJ did it. Saruman's power is his voice -- that is his "magic" (the elves might call it gift I don't know). His voice stirs something inside you (typical fairy tale), it decieves you, it plays upon your thoughts. Can you honestly imagine this being portrayed on screen? So, I'm not happy about it, but I can understand it.