Budget Cuts (and spoiler)

[Rochelle]

As we all know, the movies didn't quite do the books justice. Time and again I've heard Peter Jackson say things were left out because of budget cuts.<P>What did you notice that should have been included (yet still maintaining the movieline) but was left out?<P>One thing for sure was the fact that Glamdring was not shining blue. It was seen for a mere instance in the battle at Moria, but it was as if it was any other sword.<P>Another is that the Scourging of the Shire will not be included in the movie. Peter Jackson mentioned that the reason you could see the shire in the mirror of Galadriel was because they wanted to show what would happen if Sauron got the ring, and the fact that the scourging would not be included.

[Peri]

They really should have left the Scouring of the Shire in. It's a big part of the book and a lot occurs. I don't want to spoil it for anyone whose reading the books (don't read if you are!) but what are they going to do about Wormtongue murdering Saruman and all that? It's a shame.

[dunadan_aragorn]

I saw two photos, and heard a rumour. Apparently, Wormtongue stabs Saruman, and throws him off Orthanc. One picture I located was Wormtongue with a knife, looking very angry, and another was Saruman driven through one of the spikes at Orthanc.

[Lossenorodion]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!!!<BR>Scourgin is out no way that cant just be!!!<BR>Thats my favorite part of the book dam!!!<P>hey y doesnt everyon give 1 dollar to make the scourgin?? could work

[mollecon]

I really don't think PJ's major problem with making these movies was the budget - it was time. Not the time he had to film, but the time each movie would have on screen, a little less than 3 hours each... In reality, that's not much for such a huge story.

[Rochelle]

I completely agree with you. I think PJ did an excellent jobs with the film. He took the basic storyline but he had a few liberties in order to make it more appealing to those who have not read the books. I think leaving out things like Tom Bombadil, the scourging of the shire, and adding elves at Helm's Deep attracted a bigger audience, and helped get more people interested in Tolkein's work (I am one of them).<P>I did see that picture with a spike through Saroman. I heard that they did three different deaths for him, but I'm pretty sure they'll stick with Grima being his bane. Let's hope so at least!<P>And did you know that PJ had to fight to have the Watcher in the Water kept in the movie? Imagine how long we would have gone without any action if it had been cut...

[Rynoah, the Overly-Happy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One thing for sure was the fact that Glamdring was not shining blue. It was seen for a mere instance in the battle at Moria, but it was as if it was any other sword.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I noticed this as well. Also, Frodo's Sting stopped glowing halfway through that scene. Pay attention to it during the scenes where Frodo is being attacked by the cave troll.

[Iarhen]

Great!!!<P>I HATE the Scouring of the Shire. Its so damn boring...

[Silmarien]

I just hope they keep Éowyn and Faramir in. If that was out I'd be angry for a lot longer than I was about TTT. I've seen the picture with Saruman on the wheel, it looked pretty fake though.

[Rochelle]

I hope they keep in Eowyn and Faramir as well. I can just see them high above in Minas Tirith professing their love for each other *Lol* PJ was so into having the correct backgrounds and scenery...I hope it's as my mind pictures it!

[Gorwingel]

With the way that they have had the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn in the films, I doubt they would forget about Faramir and Eowyn. Unless Faramir continues to have the attitude that he had with poor Sam and Frodo, then I would understand why Eowyn would not want to be with him.

[Rynoah, the Overly-Happy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Unless Faramir continues to have the attitude that he had with poor Sam and Frodo, then I would understand why Eowyn would not want to be with him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>*cackles* Indeed.

[harlindon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I saw two photos, and heard a rumour. Apparently, Wormtongue stabs Saruman, and throws him off Orthanc. One picture I located was Wormtongue with a knife, looking very angry, and another was Saruman driven through one of the spikes at Orthanc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah heared this too. I saw thoes pics too. Small world, heheh. Yeah and Farimir is going to be @ Minis Tirith not waht his name(stars with a B but it escapes me at the moment andi dont feel likr looking it up, im so lazy, bad) But yeah and Aragorngs coranation as king is going to be a double wedding with Arwen. yep yep.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

[Sleeping Beauty]

lol.....Very cute. A moral lesson about cleaning up our language and a laugh as well. *hands the skwerl a glass of wine while she posts*<P>Yeah, I saw the swords as well. But I have to hand it to them though. You try putting together a multi-layer fight scene that not only includes shots of the actors, but the stunt doubles, the scale doubles, people dressed as orcs and goblins, CGI Orcs/Goblins, and top it off a CGI cave troll. Plus, it was all being organized on not just one computer, but many across the several special effects crews at WETA. They didn't exactly have a checklist saying "All right you Steven, make sure you can hear Sam's pans, or you Jake make sure the elven swords are glowing blue." Some little details can be overlooked. It matters that the scene was put together flawlessly. And it's very nice, I enjoyed watching Sam resorting to using his pans, and Gimli jumping off the grave to get him some orc hide. Though I do say Frodo was a little too weak in that scene, but that's my personal opinion. <P>Btw, where is everyone hearing about the budget? I never heard a word about it and there was nothing in the extras on the dvd as far as I can remember...

[Rochelle]

The budget was referred to jokingly by Phillipa, Fran and Peter on the reason why Glamdring wasn't glowing blue in Moria And then referred to again a bit more seriously when Peter was saying he had to fight to keep certain scenes in like the watcher.<P>I also found out that Sean Bean had to fight to keep in the line "I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king." Apparently it was on the chopping block before the theatrical version was pieced together!

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yeah, I saw the swords as well. But I have to hand it to them though. You try putting together a multi-layer fight scene that not only includes shots of the actors, but the stunt doubles, the scale doubles, people dressed as orcs and goblins, CGI Orcs/Goblins, and top it off a CGI cave troll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Plus it was shot with a hand held camera to give it that combat footage feel. That's gotta add more work the the CG people.<P>As for why Glamdring doesn't glow, I strongly suspect this was a conscious decision to further simplify a film that is already clogged with detail. More folks would have noticed Glamdring glowing then it not glowing and then the non-book audience would be wondering, "why is Gandalf's sword glowing?" "Did they screw up". All this distracts from what they should be doing which is just sitting back and enjoying a very well done battle scene.<P>H.C.

[The Flame Of Anor]

My two cents say Glamdring wasnt glowing because they forgot. I dont think its mentioned specificly in the LOTR that it glows (except durring battles, where it gets lost in the action).

[Rochelle]

It mentions that Glamdring glows in the Hobbit whenever orcs are near. Just like Sting So I'd assume it would've been glowing during the battles in Moria *lol*

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I think a lot of people are being very hard on PJ! It would be difficult to turn the book into a movie and make everyone pleased, and so far I think he's done a great job. I LOVE the books, and I stand by them like brick. What is written in the book GOES. But the movies were done wonderfully and I LOVE them too! I judge them as two seperate things. Also, at least PJ hasn't murdered LotR. Yes, he changed a few things (I would have prefered Glorfindel to Arwen but I'm sure he had his reasons...) but he hasn't completely chopped the story to bits. I think he's doing wonderfully and some people are just being too hard on him! Obviously he's a true fan - he reads the book before every shooting. And think about how much work and effort was put into this movie - no half-fan would have put up with that if they weren't truley in love with LotR!

[Rochelle]

*lol* I agree in the fact that people are hard on PJ. I for one would have never read the books had it not been for the movies. I think they were masterfully done, and I enjoyed every part of them (I have watched the SE FOTR countless times). <P>This wasn't meant to get after PJ, but rather to take notice of things that were left out, either by budget cuts (as Phillipa states about Glamdring) or by mistake, or by simple rewrite.<P>I liked having Arwen instead of Glorfindel because it helped develop her persona a lot more. Glorfindel was a character that really didn't pertain to the main story event. <P>Thats my honest opinion.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I didn't mean to say that YOU were being hard on Petet Jackson I think this is an interesting thread. I was reading the books before I saw the movie, but I was finding the beginning very slow and was about to lose interest, when the movie captivating me so much that I love the books now I was younger and I just couldn't see past the slow moving beggining (now I love the beggining). I see why PJ put Arwen instead of Glorfindel. Her role is more vital in RotK, and she becomes kind of important. After the council of Elrond, Glorfindel is no longer important. If they had used Glorfindel in the movie, when Arwen just popped outta no where and married Aragorn in RotK, movie-lovers-only would be like 'WHA? WHO'S THAT CHICK?!' And they would be confused.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

So, pretty much, they NEEDED to use Arwen. It was a wise choice, in my opinion, for the movie. I don't beleive they were defying Tolkien or anything by putting Arwen in Glorfindel's place - they were just doing what they figured would be best for the people who wanted to watch the movies only. Like, honestly, some people would just have too much trouble reading the book. What else can they do?

[Aratlithiel]

The one and only thing that REALLY upset me that was not included in the film was Frodo's resistance to the Nazgul @ Weathertop. I will <I>never</I> understand why they had him drop his sword and fall down rather than go down swinging as Tolkien wrote him. Can't be time constraints as it would take just as much time for him to swing his sword as to drop it...as for budget - I don't know, does it <I>really</I> cost more to swing than drop? Are they removing all of Frodo's dignity, courage and nobility for a reason?

[Ruler of the Frogs]

Perhaps they did that to show that Frodo was somewhat weak in the beginning. He didn't know very much. Perhaps by the end, in RotK, you will see him stronger and more noble. It might be a way to show his growth over the course of his journey. Or maybe they want to make Frodo look like a chicken. I don't know, but I think they are just trying to visually present Frodo's change and growth over his quest.

[Rochelle]

I was wondering about that sequence as well. Perhaps it is to show his progress as a hobbit, but usually the ring makes you weaker *lol* ah, who knows...<P>It's seems to be a common theme running through the LOTR theatrical version that the characters are weaker then Tolkien had written them. I.e. Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir...<P>Hopefully by the end of the third movie we will understand the full logic that PJ went by

[Ruler of the Frogs]

Also, the characters being strong worked in the books. Tolkien's words and the nature of words in general allow the characters to be strong. But in the movies, the audience is actually seeing it. Maybe PJ toned down the characters strength in order to avoid making the movie look like just another hero-filled, gawdy fantasy film.

[HCIsland]

I think we're drifting of the topic of this thread but, oh well. <P>I would have liked to see a more agressive Frodo as well, though here I think I can see what PJ is doing. Audiences draw their emotions in a movie from the emotions of the characters. In that scene, the first where the hobbits are forced to face a taste what they are up against, I would think the emotion you would want to get across was the absolute hopelessness of what they are doing. This is carried especially well in that wonderfull overhead shot as the five ring wraiths point their swords at the hobbits.<P>The audience picks up it's emotional cues from Frodo in these scene. If Frodo thinks there is hope, the audience will think there is hope. Here, emotionally, I think having Frodo drop his sword in dispair was the right decision. It helps to underscore the incredible bravery in the later scenes where he takes the quest to himself, in Rivendell and at the end of the film at the foot of Amon Hen, having seen the face of the enemy. He overcomes his fear in these scenes.<P>I just wish PJ could have had Frodo swing a sword at another point in the film. I think his best opportunity was in Balin's Tomb. The other hobbits got kills, why not Frodo? Wouldn't it have been great if, when the Troll was reaching for Frodo, Frodo instead was on his feet and attacking. PJ could still have had the scene end in the same way. Oh well.<P>H.C.

[Aratlithiel]

Ugh! It's my night to disagree with H.C. - sorry, but since I agree with you most of the time, I guess the law of averages saw this coming.<P>I had the opportunity to view the 1st movie with a Tolkien non-reader and she did not see hopelessness and despair - she saw fear and cowardice which made the later act of bravery at the Council seem out of place and out of character. Her thoughts were that if she were Aragorn and had witnessed Frodo's behavior @ Weathertop and then saw him volunteer for the Quest, she would have told Elrond to pick someone else.<P>You will never get me to believe that Frodo dropping his sword was the right decision - it completely changed the tone and personality of this character. When we move on to RotK, the scene at Sammath Naur should leave the audience shocked and horrified - with this Frodo, I think it will almost be expected.<P>Sad, sad, sad.

[HCIsland]

I'm not trying to change people's minds about what they like and don't like. I'm just trying to get into PJ and companies heads as to why the change. Although I liked the dropping of the sword at Amon Hen, I've mentioned that I would like to have seen a more aggressive Frodo as well. My wife and I joke that the only place we see Sting being used is in a little defensive chop when the Cave Troll grabs Frodo.<P>I think what also might be happening here is an introduction of more of a late twentieth century idea of warfare in cinima. In a film like this (or any war film) the film maker needs to be careful that the battles aren't too glorified and romantic. You don't want it to get too escapist. You want to keep an edge of realism that war is terrible. If you don't do this, most of the audience becomes detached and the film becomes eye candy.<P>One way to do this is to make the battle truly horrific and another is to show the main characters in the battle showing fear, doubt or sadness. Physical pain isn't good enough, as that is just John Wayne gritting his teeth and blasting ahead. A film that almost everyone has likely scene that does this very effectively is Saving Private Ryan which, after the opening sequence, makes the audience feel like they've just been through a war.<P>In most of his battle scenes, PJ does this very well, though he is limited with how horrific he can make it knowing that kids will be seeing the film. I think he pushes the gruesome envelope about as far as he is aloud to go (I would love to see some of his very early films - Bad Taste and Dead & Alive - apparently he and Weta are very well know for dishing out the gore, but I digress). So he shows his characters in fear and dismay in all of his battle scenes (even the prologue). Even in Helm's Deep he did this. Legolas' dispair before the battle, close ups of young soldiers in oversized helmets (I loved the scene between Aragorn and the kid and his sword), Haldir's death and even the breeching of the Deeping Well wall. All these moments are designed to draw the audience in and elevate the film about just another fantasy-adventure. What he doesn't want is the audience members fantasizing about how great it would be to be one of these characters (although that's likely to happen with some folks anyway). He's trying to make it less fantasy and more real.<P>I'm not asking you to agree with everytime he does this, but at least see why he is portraying Frodo the way he is.<P>By the way, I think every non-book reader will be shocked at the Cracks-of-Doom. His portrayal of Frodo and expectations of steriotypical story telling will just increase the shock because this is supposed to be the part where the little Hobbit balls up his courage and shows us what he's made of. Audiences expect twists at the end and if he showed us nothing but brave Frodo, then it would make the ending more obvious, not less.<P>H.C.