Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christopher Lee totally cut from Return of the King?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    What boris said.
    urgh.NSFW

    Comment


    • #17
      This is why I thought TTT sucked ass . It ended way too early in the story, because it spent all of its time focusing on the battles. Those battles could have been substantially shortened and they could have added the demise of Saruman, and maybe even put in the 'spider scene' .

      Imagine THAT cliffhanger for people who hadn't read the books.
      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

      Comment


      • #18
        I like the fact that neither movie has ended with a cliffhanger. It would feel entirely too... Hollywood if they did. As it is, while you can't forget that each is simply a part of the whole, the films feel like that can stand on their own separately.
        "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
        "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

        Comment


        • #19
          It's too bad they didn't do the Scouring of the Shire. After all, isn't it the Hobbit homeland one of the major things driving the Hobbit characters on their quest — to preserve what they love, thus undertaking the incredible risk posed by returning the ring to the volcano, where it was first forged?

          It'd be a significant blow to my morale if I were on some mission to save humanity, and received word mid-way through that, hey, the United States got the snot nuked out of it.

          Gatekeeper
          "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

          "Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius

          Comment


          • #20
            I personally like the fact they cut that out. I hated it in the books... When I watch the fellowship, I skip to when they leave town and start watching it from there

            To each their own...
            Keep on Civin'
            RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

            Comment


            • #21
              Yeah. I like fairytale endings. I fully expect one with RotK.
              "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

              "Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius

              Comment


              • #22
                I don't have a problem either with not having the "scouring of the Shire" in the movie. Even in the books it felt more like an epilogue than part of the main story.
                But they should leave in the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman- at least to explain how they get the palantir.
                I'm consitently stupid- Japher
                I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ming
                  Just think, some hack could have done 3 - two hours movies, and left even more out.

                  amen, sir... amen.
                  I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.
                  [Brandon Roderick? You mean Brock's Toadie?][Hanged from Yggdrasil]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Even with cutting out Saruman from film 3, the running time is something like 3 hours, 20 minutes. Some of you who think he should have been left in must have iron asses and gallon-sized bladders.
                    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      How about a nice intermission?
                      I'm consitently stupid- Japher
                      I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        When was the last movie released nationwide that had an intermission? The 60s?
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DanS
                          When was the last movie released nationwide that had an intermission? The 60s?
                          Gettysburg, I believe.
                          Tutto nel mondo è burla

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Yeah, they could include it and DanS, ming and co. can go to the bathroom during those 7 minutes- everyone's happy!

                            The way the second film ended, with no cliffhanger, and barely a hint of danger to the heroes, it looks likely that the good guy are going to win, no problems. And if Mordor really is still such a huge threat then Saruman and his army end up feeling entirely extraneous

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Apologies, the run time in the theater is 3.5 hours (210 minutes), not 3 hours 20 minutes.

                              Damn. We would need two intermissions!
                              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DanS
                                When was the last movie released nationwide that had an intermission? The 60s?
                                Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet had one; of course, at 4 hours 6 minutes, it bloody well ought to.
                                "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                                "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X