74 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

Maybe you should take a look at this from the perspective of an actor Loomis. He doesn't need either the employment or the money. He does it cause he can, cause he wants to be seen. So when he doesn't appear on screen, yes, that's being told his services were needed!  

I don't say that Lee doesn't have the right to be upset, but shooting his mouth off to the media has lost him any sympathy he might have had from me. Maybe you should take a look at this from the perspective of a filmmaker like Jackson, Blue Eyes. I agree with Jaelle that "what Jackson has accomplished is astonishing. He's managed to adapt a huge complex story to the screen and yet still keep its integrity overall." Now, that involved not only a phenomenal amount of hard work over an extremely long period of time, but also a huge number of incredibly tough and sometimes painful decisions.

[DLibrasnow]

I'm with gkgyver and Blue Eyes on this. Peter Jackson should apologise not just to Lee, but also to "Rings" fans around the world.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Loomis
Maybe you should take a look at this from the perspective of a filmmaker like Jackson, Blue Eyes. I agree with Jaelle that "what Jackson has accomplished is astonishing. He's managed to adapt a huge complex story to the screen and yet still keep its integrity overall." Now, that involved not only a phenomenal amount of hard work over an extremely long period of time, but also a huge number of incredibly tough and sometimes painful decisions.

I never argued for the scenes inclusion one way or the other, only that Lee should have received better feedback and it should be made clear to him why he's not in there.

While I think Jackson has done a great job, the perfect job would be to include Lee's scenes in one way or another. If they can't in their current format, then the fault lies originally with Jackson for poor scripting/direction. It's not like he couldn't have seen such a reaction coming.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

he still has every right to be told why he won't appear in the final print of the film. It's simple courtesy.

I agree that Lee is due an explanation, but the impression I'm getting is that he's miffed because Jackson (who probably has a million and one things to do right now since ROTK will open shortly - he must be running around like a blue-arsed fly on various promotional and admin duties along with hours on end of work painstakingly putting the finishing touches to the final cut) is proving difficult to get hold of on the phone. Evidently a man with a fragile ego, Lee immediately assumes the worst (i.e. that Jackson hated his performance) and goes into an almighty strop, publicly threatening to boycott the premiere. Childish. Whatever happened to solidarity and benefit of the doubt? Isn't it great that he's determined to ruin the party for all his old colleagues at the final LOTR premiere? What ought to be an evening of triumph and happiness for all concerned will be ruined. Classy, Chris.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Peter Jackson should apologise not just to Lee, but also to "Rings" fans around the world.  

But why? What for?

[Triton]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


But would you at least want to know why?

Yes, and sometimes I don't necessarily agree with the decision or think that it was a sound one. But when you are creating work-for-hire, you have to accept the editorial judgment of others above you or those who hold the purse. You cannot be attached to the work, or take it personally if someone decides to modify or remove parts of it according to their needs.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

While I think Jackson has done a great job, the perfect job would be to include Lee's scenes in one way or another. If they can't in their current format, then the fault lies originally with Jackson for poor scripting/direction.  

That presupposes that the inclusion of Lee at all costs should have been one of Jackson's essential aims when making RETURN OF THE KING. Why is it automatically a case of "poor scripting/direction" if Jackson (whose film, after all, this is) comes to feel that the film would be better without Lee? (In that case, the "poor scripting/direction" would lie in Jackson's original decision to film scenes with Lee.)

[Blue Eyes]

It's a case of poor scripting/direction because Lee's character was always going to be a major one. There are going ot be a lot of people miffed at the characters disappearance. Jackson also had a very big character on his hands.

This is the third act and things have to be rounded off, especially so of larger characters.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

There are going ot be a lot of people miffed at the characters disappearance.

Well, they'll just have to get over it, then. And at least they've got the extended DVD version to look forward to. If only us Bond fans were so lucky with our favourite franchise, knowing that along with the DVD release of the theatrical version of a film we'd also get a super-duper full-length cut on DVD.

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

This is the third act and things have to be rounded off, especially so of larger characters.  

Yes, well, I'm sure that Jackson knows what he's doing.

[Triton]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
I'm with gkgyver and Blue Eyes on this. Peter Jackson should apologise not just to Lee, but also to "Rings" fans around the world.

Why should Peter Jackson apologise to anyone? Jackson is exercising his editorial judgment for which he was hired. We may or may not agree with his decision if we had seen the earlier cut of The Return of the King, but as director, it's his responsibility to make decisions that in his judgment are the best for the film.

Do you expect an apology when an editor cuts or modifies your reviews for the newspaper?

[SeanValen00V]

His scenes will appear in the extended edition on dvd.

It's not that big a loss, his scenes were not important enough, the film is already longer then the first 2 for cinema.

[TGO]

I agree with Triton and Loomis on this one. I would be upset if my scenes were cut in a movie, but to bitch about it to the media AND boycott the premier? My respect for Christopher Lee is starting to wane. Peter Jackson is the director, and as the director, he can cut the scene along with his editor anyway he chooses. Their reason beknownst only to them, if they choose. He felt that the pacing was wrong, so he cut the scene out. Simple. It will be on the extended DVD.

I can feel the emotion from this cut coming out from the fans collective pores. And that, I believe, is not the way to think.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I'm very dissapointed. It wasn't clear he was vanquished in the Two towers(I didn't read the books) so this leaves what should be a masterpiece with a huge whole hole in it. And I don't want to buy the *second* issue DVD to see it. new Line is starting to look like Lucas film. :mad:

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
It's a case of poor scripting/direction because Lee's character was always going to be a major one. There are going ot be a lot of people miffed at the characters disappearance. Jackson also had a very big character on his hands.

This is the third act and things have to be rounded off, especially so of larger characters.

Yes a large portion of the audience will see the loose end as a major continuation flaw of the movie...

[CommanderBond]

the whole boycotting thing is a lil bit too much but if you found out from the media and not the director that your major scenes were cut out. i wouldnt be so happy myself

[Triton]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
I'm very dissapointed. It wasn't clear he was vanquished in the Two towers(I didn't read the books) so this leaves what should be a masterpiece with a huge whole hole in it. And I don't want to buy the *second* issue DVD to see it. new Line is starting to look like Lucas film. :mad:

I think that it's strange that Peter Jackson releases the theatrical cut in theaters and almost a year later releases an Extended Edition cut of the film on DVD. Although Jackson insists that the theatrical cut is what he intended all along for theaters, it does make you wonder if film exhibitors are exerting pressure on New Line, and then Peter Jackson, about the long running times of these films.

If Jackson's artistic vision is indeed in the theatrical cut, why does he feel that it's necessary to create new music, special effects, and add 30 to 40 minutes of unseen footage into the Extended Edition cuts on DVD?

We could be cynical and say that Peter Jackson and New Line DVD are trying to get more dollars out of fans. But perhaps the Extended Edition cuts are what Jackson hoped to show in theaters all along but couldn't because of the demands of exhibitors. Exhibitors only have so many seats and screens on which to show a motion picture and they have yet to implement different admission prices for certain films. They make their money by serving as many patrons as possible while the film is in general release. The more showings a day they can offer, the happier they are.

There may also be other politics going on behind the scenes that are affecting the cut of the film, but Jackson is too much of professional to comment about them. He would only be shooting himself in the head if he voiced his frustrations in public or with the press. It's far better that he come out and assure everyone that the theatrical product is what he intended all along. After all, he needs to support the studio, and I imagine that he is grateful for the opportunity to tell The Lord of the Rings story in three films instead of the two he first pitched to New Line.

In the end, I am sure we will see the fate of Saruman. Perhaps Jackson or the studio will relent, and re-insert the seven minutes of footage, or we will see the footage as part of the Extended Edition cut on DVD.

Perhaps several years from now, we will hear from Peter Jackson the real story of the making of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the pressures and frustrations he had when making the films.

[Triton]

PS-- Didn't Alfred Hitchcock say that a film could only be as long as the endurance of the human bladder?

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Yes a large portion of the audience will see the loose end as a major continuation flaw of the movie...

Especially when most people won't read of the scenes axing. Jackson has commented most people will think that the character is killed by the trees. I doubt it.

I'm also surprised at the lack of exploration between the physical incarnations of Good vs Evil in the film. Can you imagine Star Wars Ep III without Yoda facing off Palpatine?

[Bondian]

And I thought 'the king' was Elvis Presley!!!.

Cheers,

Ian

[Genrewriter]

Originally posted by Bondian
And I thought 'the king' was Elvis Presley!!!.

Cheers,

Ian

Y-y-you mean he's not? Oh god, my life has been a lie! A big, giant lie!

Ahem, anyhow.

I'm not surprised by Lee's reaction as he's always approached his work with a strong sense of pride. Naturally, something like this would irk him in the extreme. As for Jackson, it surprises me that a capable storyteller like him would not be able to solve this problem in a different way. That being said, I do think that attaching the last portion of Lee's performance onto the end of Two Towers wouldn't have worked seeing as the film was the middle part of a trilogy. Narratively speaking, it sinmply wouldn't flow.

[brendan007]

Originally posted by Jaelle
and he's a cousin of Tolkien's after all.  

Really?? Is Fleming related to him too, or is it a different set of cousins.
As for the deletion of scenes, coming from someone who has never read the books and is watching the movies with no prior knowledge/expectations, if Jackson feels it needs to be deleted, then it should be deleted.
I think actors (and defenitely Lee in this case) need a reality check. They may think of themselves as artists, but we think of them as our entertainers. Most of the time we couldnt give a **** if they feel challenged etc as an actor, as long as they're entertaining us we're happy.
So Lee's ego might be bruised and he might be extremely upset about this decision. But what he needs to understand is this isnt about what he wants, its about what the movie-going public wants. And if Jackson feels he needs to delete the scenes to please the movie-goers than he should damn well do it.
I for one (as an ordinary viewer, not a fan) will not miss it. If i had no prior knowledge I might miss Lee from the third movie, but I'll probably be more pre-occupied with the fact that im going to have to sit in the same damn seat for the next 3 hours and a half.

PS Not relevant to this subject at all, but this quote from Matt Le Blanc from friends perfectly sums up my point.
When asked about why he's returning with a spin-off show featuring Joey, he replied. "It's for the audience. They've watched me for the last ten years and have enjoyed the character. If i was to turn up in a new show suddenly and say 'ok forget Joey, im now Steve and im a fireman' the audience will tell me to 'Bugger off, we want Joey'"
Finally an actor who understand what hes there for, to damn well entertain us. Actors may think they're artists, but they are here solely for our amusement.

[Matt O'S oo4]

Ahem.

Okay.

I've scaned through the majority of the posts listed and seem to get the picture.

1. Lee is behaving in a manner many find, for lack of a better word: Unprofessional.

2. The films pace and climatic moments would be not in keeping with the driector or the studio or whoever -

3. The missing scenes will be added to the DVD upon is release.

4. Jackson did not inform Lee of the alteration, instead Lee has to find out through a third party.

5. The integrity of the Tolkein Trilogy will be disrupted by the loss of a key and integral portion of the story.

6. Everyone is SHOCKED. (or maybe just a little miffed)

Blah.

Sigh.

Ah...Marketing. Business. Film making. Actors.

Lee is 81. Although he is still a powerful actor at his age, and he may have another 20 years to go, any job that you do in this profession is for public consumption. When that is taken away - OUCH!

Albeit 7 minutes is not a lot of screen time, but can be a tremendous amout of work to complete that little 7 minutes.

On the DVD. What a load. Also, an an actor and as a lover of fim and an audience participant, the big screen at the cinema with that fantastic sound system is NOTHING comparted to a 31" television at home, even if you DO have the surround sound system. He loses. WE lose a little bit as well.

But then, what better way to SELL the DVD?

Granted, my philosophy as an actor is: Never Let Unprofessional People Make You Behave Unprofessionally.

Jackson, if he IS actually on the road to cutting Lee's scenes, probably out of professional courtesy should have informed Lee. Unless he was instructed NOT to do so. Who knows the why.

I am curious about one thing. Wasn't the film, all three episodes, all filmed at once. Don't you think they had all the rough footage BEFORE and had some sort of loose idea about what absolutely had to stay and what should go? Rather odd, don't you think?

And last, not least, the integrity of the story. The whole idea behind the making of the film in the first place. Why would they create such a problem for themselves and the audience? Curious. Don't suppose this kind of press would make you go to see the film - or would it keep you away? I wonder?

With the first two parts LOTR and TTT, you could put those two peices together and it would look seamless. The quality didn't even begin to lag, in my opinion. A fantastic acheivement in quality (especially by todays standards of sequels).

So, the real question is WHY? Why cut the ear off the film?

I agree that 7 minutes plus of minus makes little difference to us in the audience, but the theatres showing the film...would it have that dreastic of an impact on them that they would not be able to show it one extra time per day. Nevermind that in most 16 cinema-plexes, it is running on four to six screens.

Sigh.

The loss is those of us in the theatre and those of us who know the story and FOR ONCE want the filmaker to remain as true to it as possible.

I do understand Lee's feelings, although I still feel that "boycotting" the film is a bit over the top for an actor of his long experience and credits.

Ah, well. Someone is making a fantastic buck out of all of this.

Pity it isn't us.

004

[ray t]

lee...a cousin of fleming AND tolkien? wow!

quite the bloodline...

[gkgyver]

>>Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Peter Jackson should apologise not just to Lee, but also to "Rings" fans around the world.



But why? What for? <<

Let me tell you this: all the way through the trilogy, every time it was possible, Jackson claimed he stayed as true to Tolkien as he could.
"Look at this deatail" "It's build how it is described in the book"
I believed him when I saw FOTR, I startet to doubt it after TTT.

But : these statements in combination with this behavior of PJ/New Line against Lee just makes me sick.

He continues to claim "it's so true to Tolkien", and then he does THIS, although the problem could have easily been spotted during rewriting the script.

[Genrewriter]

Well put Matt, very well put indeed.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by gkgyver

the problem could have easily been spotted during rewriting the script.

But surely Jackson was always planning to include Lee in the extended DVD version, and therefore needed to shoot his scenes, and therefore should have done exactly what he did. I'm afraid Lee's complaints smack of pure ego. After all, we didn't hear Sean Bean moan about not being included in the theatrical cut of THE TWO TOWERS.

[gkgyver]

Sure. Why should he? This whole sequence with Boromir isn't essential for TTT. Voice Of Saruman is.

And no, PJ did not intend to cut it out from the very beginning, since a few weeks ago Lee still said that there was a little sequence at the beginning that was crucial for ROTK.

[SeanValen00V]

I don't see not attending the film as boycotting it, his scenes will appear in extended edition, he'll probabley promote that when it comes out, sign autographs, loads of actors don't attend premiers, don't mean there there boycotting it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by gkgyver

And no, PJ did not intend to cut it out from the very beginning, since a few weeks ago Lee still said that there was a little sequence at the beginning that was crucial for ROTK.  

Perhaps Lee was misinformed. Or perhaps Jackson changed his mind, which he's surely entitled to do. Look, do you really think that Jackson doesn't know what he's doing? You say that "Voice Of Saruman" is essential to the theatrical release, but wouldn't you reckon that Jackson, who has spent years writing, shooting and editing the LOTR films, knows best?

Sean, it's pretty clear from the article in my original post that Lee plans not to attend the premiere as a protest. It is a boycott.

[Qwerty]

This is big news... I'm no major Rings fan, but I have seen the movies and I think Lee is a bit of fine casting. I have to read the books to really get a sense of the series.

[Matt O'S oo4]

Originally posted by Loomis


But surely Jackson was always planning to include Lee in the extended DVD version, and therefore needed to shoot his scenes, and therefore should have done exactly what he did. I'm afraid Lee's complaints smack of pure ego. After all, we didn't hear Sean Bean moan about not being included in the theatrical cut of THE TWO TOWERS.

No intention of arguing the point, Loomis.

As actors tend to go...ego is what GOT them there in the first place. We may fault his attitude, but the driving force that made him and gave him the very desire to BECOME an actor, was that very trait. EGO. How is is displayed by the media may or may not reflect his true feelings.

I don't agree with not going to the film as he was a integral part of the series. But, I understand why he might feel that way.

Wrong or otherwise.

004