Christopher Lee...MAD!!! [Archive]

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Who is CT? I can guess that CL is Christopher Lee.

I think they should have had the Gandalf/Theoden vs. Saruman confrontation in TT. Then after that go to Cirith Ungol (sp?) ending with the Sam thinking that Frodo is dead.

Just my 2 cents worth. :D
Well that's pretty much what I thought too- but you know jackson needed his Eowyn/Arwen/Aragorn love triangle set up - not to mention the huge Helms Deep battle. All that really didn't leave much time for much else. Oh yeah - forgot about the wonderful Osgiliath scene too. :rolleyes:

Pippin looking into the Palantir is actually one of my favorite parts of the books. I'm really disappointed they have cut this out.

Tuor of Gondolin - you see the marketing ploys they are using on the extended editions too?

Katherine

11-20-2003, 11:53 AM

Hi ... new member here ........

Its been awhile since I read the books ... but if CL scenes were cut does that mean they are changing the ending of the book?

Beor

11-20-2003, 11:55 AM

Yeah, I'd imagine they'd have to cut out the whole Scouring of the Shire, which seems like a ridiculous plan...:(

Gwaimir Windgem

11-20-2003, 12:01 PM

Ach, that's old as old can be. The fact that the Scouring is cut is barely more disputable than the fact that Jackson has a nose.

Welcome to the 'Moot, Katherine. :) Hope you have a great time here, meet plenty of new people, and all that fun stuff. :p

Beor

11-20-2003, 12:03 PM

Jackson has a nose?! ;)

I'm still upset about it (the Scouring, i dont care if the man has a nose :p )

Katherine

11-20-2003, 12:08 PM

Sorry! ....... I didn't realize that it was already known that this was cut ... we've avoided things that would clue my husband into what was coming because he hasn't read the book ....

Well I suppose for a movie it works better for a "happily ever after" ending ..........

Gwaimir Windgem

11-20-2003, 12:12 PM

No need to apologise at all. :)

Elvengirl

11-20-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Pippin looking into the Palantir is actually one of my favorite parts of the books. I'm really disappointed they have cut this out.

Do you mean they are cutting it out completely? I know I was disappointed it wasn't in TT, but they can't do that in ROTK, can they? I wouldn't be surprised, but it was one of my favs too.

I think it would would be confusing to non-book-readers not having the Gandalf/Saruman confrontation. Gandalf is going to go to Isengard to get Merry and Pippin anyway, right? And he's not going to see Saruman? It's incomplete and makes no sense. Of, course they should have included it in TT (among other things) but it should be in ROTK now. PJ screwed up with not using his time wisely and putting in scenes that really mattered, but of course we all think that right? :D

Tuor of Gondolin

11-20-2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Katherine
... we've avoided things that would clue my husband into what was coming because he hasn't read the book ....
_________________________________________

Hmmm. Reading the book first is a debatable point. Personally, I prefer rather have read it and had images fixed in mind before seeing it. Is there a difference in perception, evaluation of the movies by you and your husband?

P.S. Beware of entangling movie arguments between JerseyDevil and Black Breathalizer
:eek: :eek: :eek:

P.P.S. I believe Christopher lee has said he's read LOTR once a year for a long time and had long-ago tentative approval by JRRT to be Gandalf in a LOTR movie.

Katherine

11-20-2003, 12:34 PM

Jeff's a great and wonderful man ....but he doesn't read books much .... I prefer reading the books first (no matter what movie it is) so that I can get the actual concept the author had. But then I'm addicted to reading ....

I'd forgotten about Gandalf going to Isengard to get Merry and Pippin !!

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Pippin looking into the Palantir is actually one of my favorite parts of the books. I'm really disappointed they have cut this out.

They haven't it's going to be in RotK...

Elvengirl

11-20-2003, 12:51 PM

Oh yes, reading the books first are waay better than seeing the movies. That way you get the true story fixed in your mind the way Tolkien would have wanted and you are not swayed or confused by another's interpretation. Plus books are always, always better than movies, at least IMO. :)

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
[BP.P.S. I believe Christopher lee has said he's read LOTR once a year for a long time and had long-ago tentative approval by JRRT to be Gandalf in a LOTR movie. [/B]

Yes I have heard the same. I think there was a discussion about whether CL would have been a better Gandalf. I personally think he's better as being Saruman.

Katherine

11-20-2003, 12:58 PM

Yes I have heard the same. I think there was a discussion about whether CL would have been a better Gandalf. I personally think he's better as being Saruman.

I agree ........ he has one of those "evil faces" .....

I'm just shocked really that the ending has been changed ...

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
They haven't it's going to be in RotK...
Well that's what I originally thought - but then it seems as if what people are saying - is that he might have cut this out.

I should have said...

"I'm really disappointed IF they have cut this out."

Katherine

11-20-2003, 01:10 PM

hmmm..... Have they cut the gathering at the western shore with Frodo and Bilbo leaving for Valinor with the elves?

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Katherine
hmmm..... Have they cut the gathering at the western shore with Frodo and Bilbo leaving for Valinor with the elves?
The Grey Havens are in - unless jackson decides to put them in the extended RotK version. He might have determined that for the theatrical version that the ending is too sad for the ignorant movie goer. :p :confused: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: <- didn't know what feeling I should have regarding jackson. :)

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well that's what I originally thought - but then it seems as if what people are saying - is that he might have cut this out.

I should have said...

"I'm really disappointed IF they have cut this out."

Yeah I've been wondering as well how they will do it if the Saruman scenes are cut. Is it certain that Saruman is cut?

Tuor of Gondolin

11-20-2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Dunedain
Yeah I've been wondering as well how they will do it if the Saruman scenes are cut. Is it certain that Saruman is cut?
_________________________________________-

Yes. Without the Saruman/Gandalf confrontation how do they get the Palantir and Merry and Pippin with Gandalf? Do they just pop up unexplained?:confused:

Also, i thought the best reason for having Christopher lee as Saruman is for his doing the Voice of Saruman at Orthanc. That could have been really interesting.

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 01:45 PM

Ok I just read something interesting that will hopefully clear it up a bit :D

From TheOneRing.net:

Most of the outcomes of the confrontation at Isengard are plot trivialities with no great plot implications - except the Palantir. We've seen images of Aragorn holding it, and the implication is that Pippin does use it at Meduseld. I'll be keen to see how effectively Walsh, Boyens and Jackson rework that.

Melko Belcha

11-20-2003, 01:53 PM

There is a pentition out trying to get the scenes put back in. It probably won't do any good, but here's a link.

http://www.christopherleeweb.com/

Katherine

11-20-2003, 01:55 PM

Is it certain Lee's scenes were cut? ........ Yes .......
see here:

http://www.nbc10.com/entertainment/2642152/detail.html

Also I found this interesting

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2729778a11,00.html

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
There is a pentition out trying to get the scenes put back in. It probably won't do any good, but here's a link.

http://www.christopherleeweb.com/

I just signed it :D

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Katherine
Is it certain Lee's scenes were cut? ........ Yes .......
see here:

http://www.nbc10.com/entertainment/2642152/detail.html

Also I found this interesting

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2729778a11,00.html
I signed and this was my statement...

I think it's outrageous that the scenes were cut but I'm not at all surprised. Jackson is a hack who created dumbed down hollywoodized action movies. After what he did to Flight to the Ford and the creation of Xena-Elf aka Arwen - I don't understand why people are surprised. You can read how I feel about Jackson and his movies at http://www.entmoot.com as JerseyDevil.

mithrand1r

11-20-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I signed and this was my statement...

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think it's outrageous that the scenes were cut but I'm not at all surprised. Jackson is a hack who created dumbed down hollywoodized action movies. After what he did to Flight to the Ford and the creation of Xena-Elf aka Arwen - I don't understand why people are surprised. You can read how I feel about Jackson and his movies at http://www.entmoot.com as JerseyDevil.

Good for you JD. Hopefully someone may visit the sight and get a full range of opinions regarding LOTR and the Movies.

I doubt anything will result from signing the petition on the web, but you never know for certain.

I have heard that someone went to the trouble of cutting/pasting PJ's movies to make it closer to the book. I have know Idea how that went. (I do not have high hopes for that doing well. {not even thinking about the copyright issues})

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Good for you JD. Hopefully someone may visit the sight and get a full range of opinions regarding LOTR and the Movies.

I felt it was important for people to see that not everyone loves the movies and that they should come to Entmoot if they want to hear other people's opinions.

I doubt anything will result from signing the petition on the web, but you never know for certain.

i doubt it too - anyway - it's too late to get it into the theatrical version - the movie is being mass produced right now for the theaters - if it hasn't already.

I have heard that someone went to the trouble of cutting/pasting PJ's movies to make it closer to the book. I have know Idea how that went. (I do not have high hopes for that doing well. {not even thinking about the copyright issues})
I wouldn't think it would be very good. First a lot my problems have to do with serious departures from the book. There is no amount of cutting and pasting that will fix the Fligth to the Ford scene or make Pippin and Merry not moronic idiots.

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 02:40 PM

I think it is ridiculous to be signing petitions and creating an uproar about a movie that hasn't even been SEEN yet.

If you watch the movie and dislike it, THEN you can complain about this particular cut (even though we've already been told it will be in the EE). Until you see the movie, this is just another excuse to be negative here.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 02:41 PM

Melko Belcha

11-20-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think it is ridiculous to be signing petitions and creating an uproar about a movie that hasn't even been SEEN yet.

If you watch the movie and dislike it, THEN you can complain about this particular cut (even though we've already been told it will be in the EE). Until you see the movie, this is just another excuse to be negative here.

It is not ridiculous to complain when they are removing a MAJOR scene. The scene between Gandalf and Saruman is as important to me as the Ring being destroyed. The Voice of Saruman is a key moment in the book, and has much to do with the story. But I guess seven minutes is just to much time for PJ to give up any of his additions, which will probably take up no less then 30 minutes of the film. And don't act like there won't be additions, because there will be, and every minute wasted with additions are minutes that could be used for the Saruman scene.

And remember that not everybody watches the EE, is Saruman's part of the story just not going to be finished for those people? I know more people that have not seen, or care to see, the EE of FotR then have seen it. There are alot of people that the theater version of the films is all they know, so should these people not see what happens to Saruman just because they don't watch the EE?

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 02:58 PM

Jerseydevil, I'm confused as to why you are so upset by the removal of the Saruman scene from the theatrical release.

You are on record as hating the film series soooooo...

Why do you care?

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Jerseydevil, I'm confused as to why you are so upset by the removal of the Saruman scene from the theatrical release.

You are on record as hating the film series soooooo...

Why do you care?
Becuase I WANTED the films to be good and this is just another example of Jackson screwing with stuff just to make the movies more action oriented. I'm sure the wars and battles will be great. :rolleyes:

Also - as a tolkien fan - it is my RIGHT to complain about things I don't like. And I don't HATE the film series - I have given it a C as movies go. Of course an adaptation to Tolkien I give it an F.

Also - if Saruman doesn't appear in this movie. What the hell happens to him? Does he just disappear into nothing? It seems like Saruman is completely cut out of this movie with no explanation as to what happens to Saruman.

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
It is not ridiculous to complain when they are removing a MAJOR scene. It is certainly NOT a major scene. It's only significance to the film version of the story would be because of the appearance of the palantir. It is clear from all we've heard that the palantir is still in the film so waiting for the EE release of ROTK is not that big of deal.

When Jackson haters like jerseydevil are up in arms about it, you know this is simply just another excuse to bash the films and the filmmakers.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
When Jackson haters like jerseydevil are up in arms about it, you know this is simply just another excuse to bash the films and the filmmakers.
Oh - of course - because my opinions don't have any merit - unlike yours. :rolleyes: What - [Flame Deleted]?

BeardofPants

11-20-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think it is ridiculous to be signing petitions and creating an uproar about a movie that hasn't even been SEEN yet.

How so? All our complaining here about Arwen appearing at Helms Deep meant that they rethought their approach, and found something more "real". I would have thought you'd have been all for that. :rolleyes:

Melko Belcha

11-20-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It is clear from all we've heard that the palantir is still in the film so waiting for the EE release of ROTK is not that big of deal.

And what about all the people who will not see the EE? Do those people not matter? Don't assume that every one will watch the EE, because they won't.

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It is certainly NOT a major scene. It's only significance to the film version of the story would be because of the appearance of the palantir. It is clear from all we've heard that the palantir is still in the film so waiting for the EE release of ROTK is not that big of deal.

It is a major scene man, it's a very pivotal moment in the quest because it sets a lot of stuff up that happen later on...

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
How so? All our complaining here about Arwen appearing at Helms Deep meant that they rethought their approach, and found something more "real". I would have thought you'd have been all for that. :rolleyes: We are talking here about whether the same seven minutes of film showing the end of Saruman are first shown in the theatrical release or the extended DVD version next fall. Period.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
We are talking here about whether the same seven minutes of film showing the end of Saruman are first shown in the theatrical release or the extended DVD version next fall. Period.
Avoiding the question I see - because BoP has a good point. :rolleyes:

Katherine

11-20-2003, 03:34 PM

oh boy! .............. ~ahem~

While I can agree that some complaints I've seen on the net are a bit nit picky ... after all we've all seen books done as movies before and should realize that some things will change .... *however* deleting Saruman from RotK leaves a hole in the storyline ....

Are we to believe that he is still just sitting in his ruined tower with Wormtounge? He's too powerful a person to just disappear like that and I doubt if the viewing public will understand why he is just gone.... with a person like that there is always a backlash he's too used to power and control to just go silently away .... and personally so what if it would seem like a "wrapping up" of TTT? .... The movies and the books should not be viewed as seperate creations but as a whole .... I'm sure that when the last movie is released on DVD there will be many a loooooong weekend of viewing the movies back to back and I can't imagine we're alone in that ....

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 03:41 PM

A film to a director is like a painting to an artist. All artists strive for perfection. Please give Peter Jackson the latitude to craft the perfect ROTK movie.

PJ felt it would be a better film without Saruman. Until I see the movie, I will wait and see and avoid the temptation to whine about something we all know nothing about.

Katherine

11-20-2003, 03:51 PM

Whine?

I thought I was expressing an opinion .......which I thought I had every right to do .... you certainly seem to think you have that right .... odd that you would not extend the same to others ...

Oh well .......... I just received a new research paper on an archaeological dig on paleoindians ........ that seems more interesting to me at the moment so I'll bow out of this discussion which I seem to not have a right to discuss ....

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Katherine
I thought I was expressing an opinion .......which I thought I had every right to do .... you certainly seem to think you have that right .... odd that you would not extend the same to others ...I never said you couldn't whine if you wanted to. By all means, whine away. :) If you want to rail against a film decision you know nothing about, be my guest.

Melko Belcha

11-20-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
A film to a director is like a painting to an artist. All artists strive for perfection. Please give Peter Jackson the latitude to craft the perfect ROTK movie.

PJ felt it would be a better film without Saruman. Until I see the movie, I will wait and see and avoid the temptation to whine about something we all know nothing about.

It's just to bad that PJ has a paint-by-the-numbers, but he seems not to be able to follow the numbers.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Katherine
Whine?

I thought I was expressing an opinion .......which I thought I had every right to do .... you certainly seem to think you have that right .... odd that you would not extend the same to others ...

Oh well .......... I just received a new research paper on an archaeological dig on paleoindians ........ that seems more interesting to me at the moment so I'll bow out of this discussion which I seem to not have a right to discuss ....
Don't worry about him. He thinks no one should express their opinion unless it's to praise Jackson. But you have to learn - he doesn't feel he has opinions - he only has facts and if you don't agree with them - then you are obviously wrong.

azalea

11-20-2003, 04:11 PM

While like most everyone, I can see his point about "moving on" to the next movie, I (predictably) think it should be left in. It is necessary to wrap up his storyline for the audience, since we won't have the Scouring. Aside from that, I sure would like to see it on the big screen, and not on my little one when the EE comes out. Not everyone can go to whatever special screenings they might have next year, nor can everyone afford a big screen tv. Part of the beauty of movies is the "big screen" experience, and every time something is moved to the dvd, we lose that experience for those scenes. I think he underestimates the audience's ability to appreciate having that in, rather he seems to think the audience will see it as an "intrusion." Doesn't he know by now that it won't be?
My guess is that he keeps moving this stuff because in post production, they do all the added CG stuff, and he wants to put that in, but must cut from elsewhere to keep to the allotted time.

Katherine, of course you can post your opinions here. If you find that anyone in particular continually offends you, you can always put them on your "ignore" list. Don't let anyone get on your nerves to the point that you feel "strongarmed" into not posting. If you choose not to post, do it because you don't want to, not because of what others are saying.:) And welcome to Entmoot.:)
(Also, after you hang around here a while you'll get used to the posting styles of all the different mooters)

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I never said you couldn't whine if you wanted to. By all means, whine away. :) If you want to rail against a film decision you know nothing about, be my guest.
And BB - how do you defend your support for film decisions you know nothing about? :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
It's just to bad that PJ has a paint-by-the-numbers, but he seems not to be able to follow the numbers.
My feelings exactly. He took a lot of stuff from film class 101. Too bad he didn't take the 500 series classes. :p

thranduil

11-20-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Katherine
Whine?

I thought I was expressing an opinion .......which I thought I had every right to do .... you certainly seem to think you have that right .... odd that you would not extend the same to others ...

Oh well .......... I just received a new research paper on an archaeological dig on paleoindians ........ that seems more interesting to me at the moment so I'll bow out of this discussion which I seem to not have a right to discuss ....

Don't worry about it. When I first came here (not to long ago) some "people" wanted to boycott my posts. Hows that for not being able to share your opinion.:D Although I think that the movie will still work and make sense, (like faramir in EE) i still signed the petition.

Radagast The Brown

11-20-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
A film to a director is like a painting to an artist. All artists strive for perfection. Please give Peter Jackson the latitude to craft the perfect ROTK movie. Not exactly - he's more like an artist that illustartes a book - he had the story written already.
Or, if you want, he paints a picture that was already drawn. He didn't need to think much about what the characters will say or do.

Black Breathalizer

11-20-2003, 06:02 PM

Saruman's orc soldiers are destroyed, his orc-making caves have been flooded, and he's left alone with Wormtongue in Orthanc. Most of the non-Tolkien audience would assume from these facts that he's been defeated. So I can understand why Peter Jackson felt he could eliminate it from the theatrical cut as long as he had a way to deal with the discovery of the palantir.

Like other lovers of the books, I question this decision too but I'm not going to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to it until I see exactly how he's handled it. His goal is to create the best film possible.

The stakes are incredibly high. He's shooting for a final LOTR film that:
1) ties the three films together;
2) remains faithful to Tolkien's vision;
3) wins the Academy Award for Best Picture; and
4) becomes only the second movie in film history to gross over a billion dollars at the box office.

jerseydevil

11-20-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Saruman's orc soldiers are destroyed, his orc-making caves have been flooded, and he's left alone with Wormtongue in Orthanc. Most of the non-Tolkien audience would assume from these facts that he's been defeated. So I can understand why Peter Jackson felt he could eliminate it from the theatrical cut as long as he had a way to deal with the discovery of the palantir.

Of course you do. ;rolleyes:

Like other lovers of the books, I question this decision too but I'm not going to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to it until I see exactly how he's handled it. His goal is to create the best film possible.

Why lie and just admit now that you'll think he handled it in the only way possible and in no way could it have been better. Throw in a couple of jackson is a pure genius in there while you're at it to. :rolleyes:

The stakes are incredibly high. He's shooting for a final LOTR film that:
1) ties the three films together;
2) remains faithful to Tolkien's vision;
3) wins the Academy Award for Best Picture; and
4) becomes only the second movie in film history to gross over a billion dollars at the box office.
Why stay faithful now - he hasn't through any of the other films. :rolleyes: The goal of a good director shouldn't be to win best picture - it should be to produce a good movie and HOPEFULLY they will win the best picture. It should not be a goal though. Also- being a top grossing film - because todays top grossers don't compare to the top grossers of the past. When you compare them in todays dollars - the films of today don't come close to the money the old films brought in. Also - a film that makes a lot - isn't necessarily good anyone.

cassiopeia

11-20-2003, 08:48 PM

I know why everybody's dissapointed: they wanted to see Saruman die on the big, spiky wheel. :D

Seriously, I am wondering now what will happen if, as it seems, Pippin doesn't get his hands on the palantir. In the book he looks in and Sauron thinks Pippin has the Ring. All of Sauron's thoughts are bent away from Sam and Frodo, but if he doesn't think Pippin has the Ring, he will be searching other places. Add this to the fact that he probably knows the Ring is near or at Osgiliath (since Frodo practically handed the Nazgul the Ring), and you have a major plot problem. Why doesn't Sauron send all his servants to Osgiliath to claim the Ring? Why even bother sending his armies to Minas Tirith?

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I know why everybody's dissapointed: they wanted to see Saruman die on the big, spiky wheel. :D

Seriously, I am wondering now what will happen if, as it seems, Pippin doesn't get his hands on the palantir. In the book he looks in and Sauron thinks Pippin has the Ring. All of Sauron's thoughts are bent away from Sam and Frodo, but if he doesn't think Pippin has the Ring, he will be searching other places. Add this to the fact that he probably knows the Ring is near or at Osgiliath (since Frodo practically handed the Nazgul the Ring), and you have a major plot problem. Why doesn't Sauron send all his servants to Osgiliath to claim the Ring? Why even bother sending his armies to Minas Tirith?

They never said they were cutting Pippin and the palatir, apparently he will be looking into it at Meduseld from what I read. I posted the quote in this thread too...

From TheOneRing.net:

Most of the outcomes of the confrontation at Isengard are plot trivialities with no great plot implications - except the Palantir. We've seen images of Aragorn holding it, and the implication is that Pippin does use it at Meduseld. I'll be keen to see how effectively Walsh, Boyens and Jackson rework that.

cassiopeia

11-20-2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
They never said they were cutting Pippin and the palatir, apparently he will be looking into it at Meduseld from what I read. I posted the quote in this thread too...

But how will Gandalf get it if it's sitting in Orthanc? Surely Saruman will put up a fight for it?

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
But how will Gandalf get it if it's sitting in Orthanc? Surely Saruman will put up a fight for it?

That's what we are trying to figure out now that the Saruman scene is cut :(

I'm guessing they will only mention it or something, but I honestly have no idea :(

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 10:15 PM

Here is something that was taken from the Return of the King production notes:

As The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King begins, Pippin's (Billy Boyd) curiosity places his hands on the Palantir at Isengard, a device that links him to Sauron's eye, convincing the Dark Lord that Pippin is The Ringbearer. "After Pippin takes the Palintir, Gandalf realizes Pippin is in grave danger and decides that the only safe place they can go to is Minis Tirith," says Billy Boyd. "So, Pippin finds himself in another country and a new adventure."
It is the first time that Merry and Pippin have been separated since their journey began. "They are two friends who operate almost as one," comments Philippa Boyens. "But even when ripped apart, they stay true to each other, because of what they've learned from each other, which is one of the gifts of friendship."

Tuor of Gondolin

11-20-2003, 10:30 PM

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cassiopeia
But how will Gandalf get it if it's sitting in Orthanc? Surely Saruman will put up a fight for it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I imagine it will be something like:
Gandalf: "Well, Saruman's obsession with the Ring has destroyed him. Look what Treebeard has sent us." yadda, yadda, yadda.:(

Gerbil

11-21-2003, 07:48 AM

The stakes are incredibly high. He's shooting for a final LOTR film that:
1) ties the three films together;
2) remains faithful to Tolkien's vision;
3) wins the Academy Award for Best Picture; and
4) becomes only the second movie in film history to gross over a billion dollars at the box office.
Wow, it's been a while since I've had to be [Flame Deleted] since he's on my ignore list and has been for over a year I think :) But people quoting him was just too tempting not to reply to :)

Using BB's quote above, he's destroyed his own defence / attack - n1. The good thing about this place is the trolls are sub-standard compared to the rest of the internet.

1) Leaving a MAJOR (biggest to date) plot-line unresolved. Also making no reference to the culmination to the biggest event (to date) seems like a great way to tie the films together right?
2) If it wasn't so early in the morning that me laughing wouldn't wake my girlfriend, I'd be doing it out loud. Again, removing a key scene obviously keeps it faithful to the book. Jackson has done enough hacks though that this won't bother him, even though it's pissed off one of the best actors in the film. Having said that, does anyone remember when FotR came out and the casting notes were made public, that Saruman was pencilled in only for the first two films? Obviously at that time PJ thought he'd wrap up TTT properly. Which he didn't.
3) This is for the film studio to decide, not Jackson. It's perfectly conceivable (although highly unlikely in this case) that New Line pushes some other film of theirs for BP and hushes up RotK. Jackson won't have to worry - RotK will win, and if not, his next pic will. The Academy has a long tradition of not awarded BP to the most deserving film, but to whoever 'feels' right to win.
4) Again this is something for NewLine to worry about (it's their marketing / funding behind it). If it doesn't break a billion, I somehow doubt NL and PJ will be crying all the way to the bank...
Anyway, the best way to make a lot of money is to make the best movie you can. Cutting scenes like this (undoubtedly because of PJ's own created sideline 'plots') will NOT help matters.

Personally I think the screenplay writers / adapters have been on one long power trip. They take arguably one of the best and most influential books of all time, and their egos tell them they can improve upon it. Sadly, in this case, their egos massively overreached their abilities.

Black Breathalizer

11-21-2003, 11:32 AM

I find it interesting how often I'm criticized for my "you purists" talk when outright attacks like Gerbil's above are okay here. I guess its okay to be hateful and negative as long as you do it in the name of Tolkien. Originally posted by Gerbil
1) Leaving a MAJOR (biggest to date) plot-line unresolved. Also making no reference to the culmination to the biggest event (to date) seems like a great way to tie the films together right? I've been told the true Tolkien way is not to show everything. If Tolkien doesn't have to show us the Ent attack, why does Jackson have to show Saruman's end? Anyone with half a brain understood that Saruman was defeated at the end of TTT. Talk about being spoon-fed!!!

The Return of the King is a Sauron film, not a Saruman one.

mithrand1r

11-21-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find it interesting how often I'm criticized for my "you purists" talk when outright attacks like Gerbil's above are okay here. I guess its okay to be hateful and negative as long as you do it in the name of Tolkien. I've been told the true Tolkien way is not to show everything. If Tolkien doesn't have to show us the Ent attack, why does Jackson have to show Saruman's end? Anyone with half a brain understood that Saruman was defeated at the end of TTT. Talk about being spoon-fed!!!

The Return of the King is a Sauron film, not a Saruman one.

Touche! :D (Although I do not think that is a direct attack on you personally, just on what you are saying and how you say it)
As the quote from Forrest goes: St*p*d is as St*p*d does.

From now on all will refrain from the use of the word St*p*d*ty. (Anyone care to buy a vowel. ;))

If you wish the movies to be judged soley as movies alone, then I think Gerbil's comment has merit

1) Leaving a MAJOR (biggest to date) plot-line unresolved. Also making no reference to the culmination to the biggest event (to date) seems like a great way to tie the films together right?

If you wish the movies to be judged as part of the JRRT LOTR mosaic, the movies must take some hits for how the film adapts JRRT LOTR novel to screen. (any additions and/or omissions of the stories will and can be critique by others for how well they stay true to the spirit of JRRT's novel.)

I do not think that you can have it both ways.

I, on the whole, enjoyed (so far) PJ&co LOTR, even with the many problems (primarily due to how the film adapted LOTR) I have with the films. I still think it could have been much better.

Even if the films are critiqued as stand alone movies, I have some problems with them. (the hastiness of the ents to name one area)

squinteyedsoutherner

11-21-2003, 12:07 PM

I've been told the true Tolkien way is not to show everything. If Tolkien doesn't have to show us the Ent attack, why does Jackson have to show Saruman's end? Anyone with half a brain understood that Saruman was defeated at the end of TTT. Talk about being spoon-fed!!!

No, Saruman's army has been destroyed, Saruman the "wizard" is still intact, with all his former power. In fact one following the films, not having read the book, might now wonder why Saruman does not try to possess Denethor making Sauron's attack on Gondor easier.

The Return of the King is a Sauron film, not a Saruman one.

The best arguement for why it should have been resolved in the previous film.

Gerbil

11-21-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
[B]I find it interesting how often I'm criticized for my "you purists" talk when outright attacks like Gerbil's above are okay here.
Aw poor BB, I see you still haven't grown up in the year since I blocked you :)

I guess its okay to be hateful and negative as long as you do it in the name of Tolkien. No it's 'ok' to do it as long as you are making a coherent point, which you weren't, which I easily pointed out. The fact I got a few cheap jibes in is merely a 'bonus' ;)

I've been told the true Tolkien way is not to show everything. If Tolkien doesn't have to show us the Ent attack, why does Jackson have to show Saruman's end?
So two wrongs make a right then eh? I'd have been happier with the ents attack being out (although huorns please, and not in any EE crap), and Saruman's defeat being in (even if it's the butchered 'on a spike' rubbish). Tolkien wrote about what he wrote about, and I'd have preferred PJ to stick a bit closer to the source - if not in scripting / scene for scene, then at least in a general notion, not simply inventing his own rubbish and deleting important book scenes elsewhere.

Anyone with half a brain understood that Saruman was defeated at the end of TTT.
Depends now, this is quite complex regarding the book, but for film viewers only, it's possible - since Saruman has not displayed any of the powers we know from the book he has (bar possessing someone, oops was that PJ getting all inventive again?), eg his voice, nor is it shown that he's more than just a human (astute film onlys could get this from Gandalf -> Saruman, but it's not that clear). Nor of course does he do anything after Orthanc unlike the book.
I'd say simply that for a filmic person, if anything, he won't really care because Saruman was simply a speed-bump in the road to the final film and big climactic ending.
Us book-lovers know otherwise of course, but PJ has done a remarkable job of downplaying the role, only to be thwarted by Lee's commendable acting.

The Return of the King is a Sauron film, not a Saruman one.
Old squinty eye'd answered this point to perfection above me.

The thing is, the third film opens with Pippin in Orthanc with the Palantir. Now, film viewers being idiots or not, they are going to ask where the wizard who used to be in charge of it is.
This, of course, assumes we take CL on a literal wording of his issues - that he is not in ANY scenes (or by implication has no voice overs). To be honest I can't see how that's possible, but I'm sure PJ will hack it.

My main sadness is it would have made a great start to RotK - remember how TTT started with Gandalf's fight with the Balrog? An epic confrontation that I still rate as probably the best bit from the films so far. We could have had another 'big' start to a LotR film with Saruman's death. That there's no battle to go with it for a truly epic start is simply down to what appears to be PJ's crap uncertainty of how RotK would start when TTT was finally edited.

Saruman's end could fittingly go either at the start of RotK or at the end of TTT. It's at neither, and that IS annoying.

Damn board forgetting my login, BB wasn't blocked. Still, got another chance to have a bash, so it can't be all bad.

Could be worse, you could all be here where I'll have to wait until December the 25th for RotK to be released. Lucky they celebrate Xmas on the 24th - I'll be spending the 25th 'giving myself a couple of Christmas presents' (I intend to see it twice in a row like wot I did with FotR and TTT :))

azalea

11-21-2003, 03:59 PM

I think we'll get something along these lines:
Gandalf and Co. arrive in Isengard and find M & P. The palantir floats by(? this is probably wrong, because obviously it's too heavy, but I don't think it'll be in the storeroom. So maybe it'll be ON something that's floating OR they'll actually go in and it'll be somewhere in there) with a lot of other stuff from the first few floors of Orthanc. Pippin grabs it and looks into it, then Gandalf grabs it, yada yada yada. OR maybe Gandalf will get it first, and they'll have it at their encampment (with Aragron either looking into it before or after Pippin), and the action proceeds from there.

[I deleted the flame above, BB. Please understand that I can't be on all the time, so it may be a while before I find posts that need editing.
As mithrandir said, we all need to stop calling people stupid. That is a flame. Furthermore, if anyone sees a flame directed against themselves or anyone else, they can use the button that says "report this post to a moderator," and that will alert us of the problem post more quickly. Arguing about it with the poster will only lead to off topic bickering that might then escalate. Better to say nothing, and either ignore it or report the post, or even PM the person about it directly first if they have their PM turned on and ask them to remove it because it is offensive to you.]

Cirdan

11-21-2003, 05:58 PM

I doubt it will be anything that complex. Remember, they don't cut out anything from the theatrical version . I think it will be something like,"Hey, I can't believe Saruman threw the palantir." in some later scene. This would allow the deleted scene to be spliced in later for the EE.

thranduil

11-21-2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
. Remember, they don't cut out anything from the theatrical version . I think it will be something like,"Hey, I can't believe Saruman threw the palantir." in some later scene. This would allow the deleted scene to be spliced in later for the EE.

You are wrong. IF you watch TT EE there are scenes missing that were released in the theater. But I'm going for your theory of how they will do finding the palantir :D

Dúnedain

11-21-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by thranduil
You are wrong. IF you watch TT EE there are scenes missing that were released in the theater. But I'm going for your theory of how they will do finding the palantir :D

Actually it was my theory, I posted it earlier in the thread :p

Nurvingiel

11-21-2003, 11:24 PM

Jumping into the thread... whee!

I don't get it. If (and we can't be sure until we've actually seen the movie) Saruman has been cut, how will Pippin get the Palantir? I guess it could be cut too, but it was such a useful plot device. That's why Merry and Pippin were split up. Without the Palantir, there would be no reason to.
Wrapping up unresolved plot lines isn't necessarily spoon feeding the audience.

Cirdan

11-21-2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Actually it was my theory, I posted it earlier in the thread :p

I don't see your post (maybe a different thread). I didn't notice missing scenes but then I didn't buy both DVDs. I did watch the TR several times however. Which scene do you think is missing?

Dúnedain

11-22-2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Cirdan
I don't see your post (maybe a different thread).

hehe, maybe it is in another thread then :D But either way I agree, I am sure they will just mention it somehow. Word has it, pippin looks into the palantir in Meduseld...

Cirdan

11-22-2003, 03:16 AM

I see. I think I was unclear in my post. I meant the extended edition version on DVD will have all the scenes from the theatrical release plus the ones deleted and new" ones. I don't think they will do alternate scenes in the EE.

Black Breathalizer

11-22-2003, 10:17 AM

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the EE versions are for true Tolkien fans. So Peter Jackson DOES feel he can have it both ways: He can craft a theatrical version that he feels is the best while knowing that he can add the any deleted scenes back into the EE editions.

The reality is that after all three DVDs come out, the three films will always be marketed together as the books have been over the years. Arguments about deleted scenes like the gift-giving scene and Saurman's end will be mute because they will be a part of the full Lord of the Rings story that will be in fans' movie libraries.

Tuor of Gondolin

11-22-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Arguments about deleted scenes like the gift-giving scene and Saurman's end will be mute because they will be a part of the full Lord of the Rings story that will be in fans' movie libraries.
_________________________________________

Your suggestion is arguably a valid one for some, but...

only if they fork out hundreds of dollars for complete sets of the three movies theatrical version and the three movies extended dvd version. And, for many people, purchasing a dvd converter or new television is big $$$$$$$$$$$$.

There are people who either don't want, don't understand, can't afford, etc. dvd hardware and software just to see a different interpretive LOTR version then the theatrical one. And the thatrical viewing "experience" would still be lost.

Nurvingiel

11-29-2003, 03:27 PM

In addition, Jackson didn’t even film the Scouring of the Shire. Apparently, he didn’t like that part of the book – it happens to be my favourite part!

I would certainly appreciate that gift giving scene though. Maybe he cares about us Tolkienites a little bit. :)

Dunedan:

Word has it, pippin looks into the palantir in Meduseld...
If that's true I'm going to be choked. If Saruman really is cut, I suppose this is as good as they could get that.

cassiopeia

11-30-2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
In addition, Jackson didn’t even film the Scouring of the Shire. Apparently, he didn’t like that part of the book – it happens to be my favourite part!

He said that on TTT DVD, didn't he? I almost choked when I heard it! I love that part of the book -- it shows how much the hobbits have grown.

I have heard at least one review of the ROTK say that it felt like the Saruman angle wasn't tied up properly. Won't ordinary viewers, who would not buy the ROTK EE, wonder what happened to him? He is a powerful wizard -- it's too much to assume he wouldn't make trouble after Isengard is flooded. I would prefer that he landed on the big, spiky wheel than nothing at all! And what about Grima?

Nurvingiel

11-30-2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
He said that on TTT DVD, didn't he? I almost choked when I heard it! I love that part of the book -- it shows how much the hobbits have grown.
I know! That's one of the reasons I love that part! Jackson doesn't like that part, ha! He probably lost interest in the book and stopped reading before he got that far. Maybe because Aragorn wasn't in that part. Arrr.

I have heard at least one review of the ROTK say that it felt like the Saruman angle wasn't tied up properly. Won't ordinary viewers, who would not buy the ROTK EE, wonder what happened to him? He is a powerful wizard -- it's too much to assume he wouldn't make trouble after Isengard is flooded. I would prefer that he landed on the big, spiky wheel than nothing at all! And what about Grima?
The jury's out until December 17th.

kennebecc

11-30-2003, 02:15 AM

It seems ages since being shocked by the Saruman cut . . here are some more:

No Voice of Saruman

No Aragorn-Sauron Confrontation via Palantir

No Crossroads

No reference to Palantir in Minas Tirith (Denethor doesn't have it)

No Ghan-Buri-Ghan, Beregond, Bergil, Ioreth, Prince Imrahil

No Gandalf-Witch King Confrontation at the Gates of MT

No Mouth of Sauron

No Houses of Healing, no Aragorn as healer

No Faramir-Eowyn romance nor wedding

No Galadriel at Aragorn/Arwen's wedding

No Scouring of the Shire

I understand that most of these scenes were filmed and will be in the Special Edition . . but, still . . . :(

Nurvingiel

11-30-2003, 02:22 AM

Well what the heck! :mad: At least Frodo will destroy the Ring... right? There was a lot of important stuff in those scenes though, no wonder Christopher Lee's mad. Can I infer from all these cuts that the Battle of Pelennor Fields will take up half the movie? The other half will grudgingly be devoted to Frodo's quest.

kennebecc

11-30-2003, 09:02 AM

Reports from people who have seen the movie indicate that the battle is big, long, and interspersed with the hobbits quest to destroy the Ring. They're saying the the hobbits side of the tale is powerful and holds its own with the battle on the Pelennor. Which is good news.

The cuts basically represent a streamlined ROTK which concentrates solely on the battle for Middle-earth that includes the only way to stop the war is through the destruction of the Ring. Audiences seem to love it.

Elvengirl

11-30-2003, 01:46 PM

I just read that the House of Healing is cut out of the theatrical version. It really is very upsetting.
sorry if off topic

kennebecc

11-30-2003, 06:26 PM

Yes. But it was filmed and so it will be restored in the ROTK: SE. I know it's a bummer, but . . all the cuts are. :(

Dúnedain

11-30-2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by kennebecc
It seems ages since being shocked by the Saruman cut . . here are some more:

No Voice of Saruman

No Aragorn-Sauron Confrontation via Palantir

No Crossroads

No reference to Palantir in Minas Tirith (Denethor doesn't have it)

No Ghan-Buri-Ghan, Beregond, Bergil, Ioreth, Prince Imrahil

No Gandalf-Witch King Confrontation at the Gates of MT

No Mouth of Sauron

No Houses of Healing, no Aragorn as healer

No Faramir-Eowyn romance nor wedding

No Galadriel at Aragorn/Arwen's wedding

No Scouring of the Shire

I understand that most of these scenes were filmed and will be in the Special Edition . . but, still . . . :(

You are wrong on half of those!

Go to imdb.com and you will see that both the Mouth of Sauron and Ghan-Buri-Ghan are on the cast list. Aragorn does defy Sauron in the Palantir from what I've read. I've also read that the Houses of Healing is in there...

Elessar the Elfstone

12-01-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well that's what I originally thought - but then it seems as if what people are saying - is that he might have cut this out.

I should have said...

"I'm really disappointed IF they have cut this out."

the pelantier scene will be in rotk if you watch the rotk preview in the ttt dvd you see a little bit of a conversation between merry and pippin merry says someting like "don't you see? the enemy thinks you have the ring." so pippin and souron must see each other in the pelantier.

sorry if not connected with the houses of healing bit!

Dúnedain

12-01-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
You are wrong on half of those!

Go to imdb.com and you will see that both the Mouth of Sauron and Ghan-Buri-Ghan are on the cast list. Aragorn does defy Sauron in the Palantir from what I've read. I've also read that the Houses of Healing is in there...

I stand corrected :( imdb.com has an updated cast listing and Ghan-Buri-Ghan is no longer there :( The Mouth of Sauron is though, and there are some other additions I didn't expect...

BeardofPants

12-01-2003, 07:04 PM

Now that Saruman has been written out of ROTK, I guess it really pulls the rug out from under BB's argument that it was necessary to show the wizard duel before Gandalf gets imprisoned in Orthanc. :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

12-01-2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Now that Saruman has been written out of ROTK, I guess it really pulls the rug out from under BB's argument that it was necessary to show the wizard duel before Gandalf gets imprisoned in Orthanc. :rolleyes:
Do you REALLY think that BB will admit that jackson didn't do anything right? Surely cutting out Saruman was the absolute best decision and Jackson was pure genius - even at the risk of angering the ignorant purists who don't know anything about movie making. :rolleyes: Anyway - it will be shoved into RotK: EE - so what is the big deal? (double :rolleyes: )

Khamûl

12-02-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Elessar the Elfstone
the pelantier scene will be in rotk if you watch the rotk preview in the ttt dvd you see a little bit of a conversation between merry and pippin merry says someting like "don't you see? the enemy thinks you have the ring." so pippin and souron must see each other in the pelantier.
Are you sure that wasn't in the preview for TTT:EE? I seem to remember those lines from the extended scene with Merry, Pippin, and the Uruks.

justaregularguy

12-02-2003, 01:35 PM

Wow, I don't think I've ever read more "the glass is half empty" posts in one thread in my life!

At a minimum, BB is right about this: chill 'til you've at least seen the movie once. Time is a finite commodity in the cinema. For everything that's added, something must be cut.

If you see the movie and basically like everything in it but still miss the cut scenes, that, to me, validates the strategy of trimming the theatrical version and restoring the cuts in the EE. If you see the movie and consider a significant portion of it wasted filler, that's OK, too - tell us what you think should have been deleted and replaced with what.

But without the perspective of knowing what made the theatrical cut and what didn't in the context of the whole, I simply see no basis at this time for gloom and doom.

BB, you and I've gotta go get ourselves a couple of pints sometime and wax positive about the half full portion of the glass. Until then, keep your cool - it's only life, after all. :)

kennebecc

12-02-2003, 05:07 PM

>>You are wrong on half of those! Go to imdb.com and you will see that both the Mouth of Sauron and Ghan-Buri-Ghan are on the cast list. Aragorn does defy Sauron in the Palantir from what I've read. I've also read that the Houses of Healing is in there<<

All of the above 'spoilers' mentioned are coming from people who have already seen the movie.

The IMDb is a fan site not an 'official' site . . anyone can add any type of information. It is not reliable. Sorry.

jerseydevil

12-02-2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by kennebecc
All of the above 'spoilers' mentioned are coming from people who have already seen the movie.

The IMDb is a fan site not an 'official' site . . anyone can add any type of information. It is not reliable. Sorry.
IMDB isn't a fan site. It's the International Movie Database. As information about movies becomes available - it goes in there. The cast may change - in which case I think it did in this case. Not just anyone can add to that information. It does have a message board now where people can discuss things - but the cast and movie information is supplied by the studios.

Dúnedain

12-02-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
IMDB isn't a fan site. It's the International Movie Database. As information about movies becomes available - it goes in there. The cast may change - in which case I think it did in this case. Not just anyone can add to that information. It does have a message board now where people can discuss things - but the cast and movie information is supplied by the studios.

Yup, not sure why he thought it was a fan site, oh well. But it's "Internet Movie Database" so you were close JD :p

And yes the cast list for RotK did change, there were a couple people listed previously who are gone and some new ones that are on there now...

jerseydevil

12-02-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Yup, not sure why he thought it was a fan site, oh well. But it's "Internet Movie Database" so you were close JD :p

I knew it was "internet" - but I always say "international" for some reason.

bropous

12-02-2003, 06:22 PM

Christopher Lee is a man whose opinions I respect. If he embargoed the premiere, then it wasn't just some silly actor's primadonna snit. Mr. Lee is a REAL Tolkienite, he passed up his own premiere, and I think this spells very bad news for those of us who were holding out some hope for the final film.

kennebecc

12-02-2003, 09:37 PM

>>but the cast and movie information is supplied by the studios.<<

I do work in the search engine field and have done reviews on IMDB, it is a fan based website. One of the problems with the data is that it is often inaccurate.

Internet Movie Data Base:

Who We Are
The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) was started in 1990 on the rec.arts.movies newsgroup by a group of movie fans. Before the first web browser was being widely distributed, it was a set of scripts and files that allowed you to build your own local copy of the database on your own Unix-based computer.

Since then, the IMDb has grown exponentially and also gradually become easier to use. Our goal is to be the most fun and useful resource on the internet for movie fans around the world. With our improvements in the recent redesign, we've continued to move forward with that.

In April 1998, the IMDb became a part of the Amazon.com family of companies. We are proud to be a part of Amazon.com, not because they're big or growing-fast, but because they live up to their goal of being the most customer-centered company on the internet and encourage our efforts to better serve our own visitors.

IMDb: Who we are (http://www.imdb.com/Help/introduction)

Captain Stern

12-03-2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Gerbil: Personally I think the screenplay writers / adapters have been on one long power trip. They take arguably one of the best and most influential books of all time, and their egos tell them they can improve upon it. Sadly, in this case, their egos massively overreached their abilities.

That sums up the entire Peter Jackson farce for me.

Dúnedain

12-03-2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by kennebecc
>>but the cast and movie information is supplied by the studios.<<

I do work in the search engine field and have done reviews on IMDB, it is a fan based website. One of the problems with the data is that it is often inaccurate.

IMDb: Who we are (http://www.imdb.com/Help/introduction)

Yes it started as a fan based site, but it is no longer...

Of course, amazon.com wasn't coming in as a white knight, throwing money at the IMDb in an altruistic gesture. Amazon had a plan to expand into selling video tapes and DVD's, and they saw the IMDb as a resource. There was an amazing amount of raw data in our files, great expertise and talent in our staff/shareholders, and millions of potential customers in our visitor traffic. A deal was struck for the IMDb to be purchased and become an amazon.com company, finally giving the people who had worked so hard on the database a real return on all the time they had invested.

A significant core of the IMDb's shareholders stayed on after the purchase. Now that the IMDb had the financial ability to pay salaries, a few of them who had been giving evenings and weekends to the project left their day jobs and came to work on the project full-time. Others who kept their Mon-Fri jobs were put on the payroll as part-timers. More staff was hired, though at a slow pace, bringing on additional people to assist with managing the data and free up some of the staff with strong programming skills to spend more time on site improvements.

Heading into later 1998, the IMDb, with new resources, planned a significant redesign of the web interface. The data wouldn't change, but they planned to better organize the data and improve navigation. Editorial features were implemented, such as a few columns, the Movie of the Day on the front page, our "Cool Today" page and daily newsletter with a daily movie quote, a celebrity birthdays blurb, and a daily trivia question.

And now, as we look back on our recently-passed ninth birthday and forward into our tenth year, the IMDb's mission has not changed: "provide useful and up to date movie information freely available online across as many platforms as possible." Our efforts remain dedicated to being not only the best, but the most useful entity on the internet for both hardcore and casual movie fans. In our latest redesign, we have upgraded and expanded the bulletin boards we implemented in May of 1999, added new content sections to help our users get better at-a-glance access to the most popular and exciting information in the database, put more fun items right on the front page, improved our search engine for finding information in the database, and are building our most comprehensive and easy-to-understand set of online help documentation to date, the IMDb University.

The IMDb didn't start as a dream to build a business or a web site. It started as a dream to make a tool that we, as movie fans, would find really useful and fun. Over the years, millions of other movie fans have found it useful and fun too. For the original shareholders who are now privileged enough to make a living from running and maintaining it, it is one of the great examples of "do what you love and the money will follow." We consider ourselves truly blessed to be a part of it and to share it with movie fans like you. Thank you ever so much for being a part of our dream.

Yes there are fans that contribute, but it is run by people who are paid to do it, plus you also have this aspect here:

If you work in the film industry or are an authorized representative of someone who does and are having problems updating your (or your client's) credits, there is a special guide available.

Do fans write reviews and rate the movies? Yes. Do the fans give them the cast listings and things like that? No.

kennebecc

12-03-2003, 06:09 PM

>>Do the fans give them the cast listings and things like that<<

Yes. The point is that anyone can add cast and crew listings down to every single extra that walks on the set.

This is a fan driven site. This is not a film industry site. This is not to say that for marketing purposes a professional might not give out some information. But, that is not where they get the information that drives IMDb.

How to Add Information to the IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/Help/Classes/Senior/adds)

It will be interesting to match the IMDb list with the official cast list once it's released. I've noticed that IMDb has constantly changed the list for the past year . . one that I know is incorrect is Baby Gamgee . . a baby does not appear in the movie . . only Alexandra Astin as Elanor Gamgee makes an appearance. They did get Eldarion right though. ;)