|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 1:58am
Post #1 of 127
(1177 views)
Shortcut
|
If The Necromancer / Sauron is shown in the Hobbit movies
|
Can't Post
|
|
How do you think he will be depicted?
Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Feb 17 2010, 2:48am
Post #2 of 127
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
How do you think he will be depicted?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well, The Eye was younger then. Maybe he'll just be The Pupil.
""I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy." -- Charles Manson
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 2:50am
Post #3 of 127
(672 views)
Shortcut
|
Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
dzuidhof
The Shire
Feb 17 2010, 3:17am
Post #4 of 127
(701 views)
Shortcut
|
The Necromancer/Sauron will not be depicted
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't see Sauron or the Necromancer being depicted at all, In the lotr he was just an ominous eye. Side tracking from Bilbo and the 13 dwarves would only serve to distract from the real story. Yes Gandalf goes off and deals with this issue of the Necromancer, and I think this can be adressed in the film if need be, but to show who the necromancer is as some sort of incarnation is superfluous. The Necromancer should really only act as the reason for thorin and co going through mirkwood as opposed to under. I really think if any attention is given to expanding the story beyond the book it should be to expand what is happening in Gundabad with the goblins because that is directly relevent to bilbo. I hope my first post isn't to noobie
|
|
|
CreativeWriter
The Shire
Feb 17 2010, 4:30am
Post #5 of 127
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
Not noobish at all! The question speaks to the likelihood/probability of some aspects of the second film being included for continuity (with LotR). I'm inclined to think the Necromancer will play a major role in the second film, perhaps even as its main villain, whether the Smaug drama is completed or not by film 2. The movement from Bilbo/Smaug to Gandalf/Necromancer could be part of the general shift from local adventuring to geopolitcs taking place with the battle of five armies and Bilbo's choice with the Arkenstone. While nasty goblin kings and other monsters can make for visceral enemies, there's real potential drama in the "human" monster, the Necromancer personified, perhaps in a "pleasing form," as I posited in the Ewan McGregor thread. There's even a possibility that we can "explain" Sauron's existence as an eye in LotR via some kind of transmutation/desoulment scene towards the end of The Hobbit: part 2 that depicts the Necromancer's "death." This is the part of the movie that PJ and Guillermo have the most freedom to play with, and I'd think the temptation to extend this sequence would be overwhelming. As a writer, it would be terribly difficult to practice restraint and keep focused on the parts of The Hobbit that Tolkien dramatized. One of the principle arguments against a "bridge film" might be that the Necromancer parts allow the filmmakers the kind of leeway they would have in a bridge film without the added difficulty of inventing entirely new fiction/plot/characters. I'm sure my position is a minority one, since we have many purists/Tolkien new critics (now there's an old critical theory term), but I'm looking forward most to what the team creates for these scenes. It's a chance for us to be surprised, and there may be fewer of those moments in The Hobbit than in the LotR, since there's the possibility that virtually every major scene from the book may be present in the two movies. I'm of the opinion that The Hobbit is a "lesser work" (the writing is certainly inferior to LotR), and I'm less concerned with canonical accuracy. So, for me, I'd like to see the Necromancer incarnate and unmasked, played by a human actor, maybe even interacting with Gandalf (briefly and in a way that the Necromancer's transmutation into an eye is unknown/obscured to Gandalf). If Christopher Lee will not reprise Saruman, we may need a second "wizard" to act as foil (yes, Saruman would not have "fallen" yet, but Lee could always play him as combative/contrarian/abrasive). In The Hobbit, Gandalf acts in a more openly "magical" way, and it might make some sense to give him an equally powerful, magical foe. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Feb 17 2010, 4:55am
Post #6 of 127
(658 views)
Shortcut
|
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..." Dwarves: "Pretty rings..." Men: "Pretty rings..." Sauron: "Mine's better." "Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak. Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
DeadRabbits
Rohan
Feb 17 2010, 9:12am
Post #7 of 127
(698 views)
Shortcut
|
The Necromancer will be depicted in TH
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Jackson said the following in an interview with Empire Magazine: We're developing a lot more character and personality in the villain side of the story, too. We are having to deal with Sauron a little bit more specifically in this; how exactly he manifests himself and what form he's in, and how that is ultimately going to lead into what he becomes in the trilogy - and what he has been in the ancient past. That is something we are absolutely dealing with, much more so than what's in the book. http://deltorofilms.blogspot.com/...magazine-hobbit.html
Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought
|
|
|
Twit
Lorien
Feb 17 2010, 11:50am
Post #8 of 127
(620 views)
Shortcut
|
a twirly moustache, and us seeing him on a horse galloping away to Mordor. He possibly stops and laughs [mwahahah] waving his hat at us, all seen from a window where Gandalf has just arrived a little too late having been though spooky and dangerous 'things' to get to said vantage point. 'Tis all on a thread back there somewhere.. [waves vaguely in the direction of Ye olde threades] At the end of the day, I think this is going to be one of those things that people either love or hate, akin perhaps to Faramir's storyline adjustment, some will get it and say 'ok' others will hate it.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 2:54pm
Post #9 of 127
(621 views)
Shortcut
|
The Angel, The Eye & The Daemon.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I believe that the writers of the Hobbit script have chosen to construct a story with multiple plot lines that interlace, each supporting the progress of all. The central plot focuses on the "Quest for Erabor" with the Dwarves and Bilbo Baggins journeying from Hobbiton to the lonely mountain in an attempt to regain the Dwarves lost treasure and Kingdom Under the Mountain. This plot has several potential threads. First there is the History of The Lonely Mountain, the Dwarves and the Dragon Smaug. Secondarily there is the historic struggle between the Dwarves and Goblin / Orcs for the control of Khazad-dum (Moria), Thorin Oakenshield and Dain Ironfoot are both directly involved in both of these threads. The third potential thread involves the history of The Kingdom of the Woodland Elves and the forth thread would involve the Men of the Lake & The Men of Dale. The main secondary plot line I will call "The Doll Guldur Problem" is focused on the Return of Sauron as the Necromancer of DolGuldur and the attempts of The Councile of the Wise (The White Council) to eliminate the evil that is growing in southern Mirkwood. This involves the intrigue of the Necromancer 's true idenity, the search for the one ring and Saruman's betrayal. It involves the history of the Elves, the broad history of men (including the fall of Numinor). Two things directly connect these two main plot lines. Gandalf moves between the two as they develop in real time and the One Ring / Bilbo's ring of invisibility with its role in the Quest of Bilbo and as the object of Saruman's and Sauron's desires. spirit Now a word on the appearance of the Necromancer / Sauron. The infamous Eye was not Sauron, but a Manifestation created by Sauron. Sauron is a Maia spirit that occupies a body that is human in shape. According to Tolkien, after the fall of Numenor Sauron could no longer take a pleasing form. Therefore if you follow this as a directive he is not going to be Angelic or even pleasing to look at. It was the corporeal Sauron that occupied the magnificent armor in the movie prologue to the Fellowship of the Rings. (But rember that the prologue battle is ancient history.) The body that Sauron occupies at the time of the Hobbit might not be fully rebuilt or it might be just finishing the process. The body must be rebuilt before Sauron can come to his full power and he will still be limited by the lack of The One Ring even then. It is this body in process that is of my interest. How will GDT chose to reveal this to us?
Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
DeadRabbits
Rohan
Feb 17 2010, 3:26pm
Post #10 of 127
(599 views)
Shortcut
|
It is this body in process that is of my interest. How will GDT chose to reveal this to us? He will try to use Doug Jones. You know of whom I speak...
Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought
|
|
|
Elladan
Rivendell
Feb 17 2010, 4:14pm
Post #11 of 127
(598 views)
Shortcut
|
The central plot focuses on the "Quest for Erabor" with the Dwarves and Bilbo Baggins journeying from Hobbiton to the lonely mountain in an attempt to regain the Dwarves lost treasure and Kingdom Under the Mountain. This plot has several potential threads. First there is the History of The Lonely Mountain, the Dwarves and the Dragon Smaug. Secondarily there is the historic struggle between the Dwarves and Goblin / Orcs for the control of Khazad-dum (Moria), Thorin Oakenshield and Dain Ironfoot are both directly involved in both of these threads. The third potential thread involves the history of The Kingdom of the Woodland Elves and the forth thread would involve the Men of the Lake & The Men of Dale. The main secondary plot line I will call "The Dol Guldur Problem" is focused on the Return of Sauron as the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the attempts of The Councile of the Wise (The White Council) to eliminate the evil that is growing in southern Mirkwood. This involves the intrigue of the Necromancer 's true idenity, the search for the one ring and Saruman's betrayal. It involves the history of the Elves, the broad history of men (including the fall of Numinor). Noo. I want to see all of this, such a shame they dont have the rights to it, that and the films would be too long. I was of the assumption that even in tLotR Sauron could not take a solid form, and so had assumed again we would not see Sauron in any physical form, but instead have his presence alluded too and perhaps witness some of the Wring wraiths. I do however have 1 concern as to how the writers might link the threads of these stories, having all the climaxes to the various stories occur towards the end of film 2 no only makes no chronological sense, as Gandalf cannot be in 2 places as once, but it would also turns the white council in film 1 into a nonsensical side plot of old men and elves talking about unknown historical events and aggressors. Sure to a tolkien fan it would make sense, but to anyone watching the film with out prior knowledge of the books, they would find it too be a boring and irrelevant side scene. Which leads me too assume this film will feature less of the intersplicing film element of tTT or RotK, and more direct story lines as they happen owing to any and all side plots being historical filler and or short lived.
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 17 2010, 5:49pm
Post #12 of 127
(580 views)
Shortcut
|
The infamous Eye was not Sauron, but a Manifestation created by Sauron. Sauron is a Maia spirit that occupies a body that is human in shape. According to Tolkien, after the fall of Numenor Sauron could no longer take a pleasing form. In the book the Eye is not a manifestation; it's just Sauron's symbol. It may have some metaphysical significance (I've read some debates on this but my personal thoughts regarding the metaphysical nature are noncommittal), but the important part is that Sauron had a physical body. In the movies though, Sauron didn't. Saruman clearly states that Sauron "cannot yet take physical form", and the Eye is consistently implied to be Sauron himself. If the Hobbit movies are to be consistent with the LotR movies (as I think they should be, if they are to be all one series), then Sauron shouldn't have a physical body. Perhaps he could have some non-physical form other than the eye, or better yet, not be shown on screen in any form.
And as we wind on down the road Our shadows taller than our soul There walks a lady we all know Who shines white light and wants to show How everything still turns to gold And if you listen very hard The truth will come to you at last When all are one and one is all To be a rock and not to roll
|
|
|
guitarzankansasfan
Lorien
Feb 17 2010, 5:56pm
Post #13 of 127
(562 views)
Shortcut
|
It's interesting to speculate on what Sauron does to create the eye & how that could be portrayed. I can envision a scene where you see Sauron's ugly evil spirit-hand being placed on the palantir, and then cut to the eye appearing at the top of the Dol Guldur tower & looking around.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 17 2010, 6:07pm
Post #14 of 127
(557 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe use a classic image from LOTR?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One classic image from LOTR that the films didnt use was Sauron's shadowy form rising up above the Mordor landscape, why not use that somehow in The Hobbit? Seems like it would solve alot of problems for me, Sauron wouldnt actually have a physical body and as a vast shadow his presense in the story could he felt without his direct involvement.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 6:07pm
Post #15 of 127
(555 views)
Shortcut
|
1. an act of manifesting. 2. the state of being manifested. 3. outward or perceptible indication; materialization. 4. a public demonstration, as for political effect. 5. Spiritualism. a materialization. Related Words: materialisation, materialization, expression, reflection, reflexion. I believe the eye falls within these definitions. In the movies though, Sauron didn't. Saruman clearly states that Sauron "cannot yet take physical form", and the Eye is consistently implied to be Sauron himself. I belive you but I will have to look at the salient scene. Also he could have been wrong as I am certain Sauron was not chatting up Saruman on this point. Saruman was wrong on several other key issues as well. Also "not be shown on screen in any form" is a viable option and would be my choice if I were director. Oft times unseen things can be scarier than things seen all too clearly. Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Feb 17 2010, 6:37pm)
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 17 2010, 7:06pm
Post #16 of 127
(531 views)
Shortcut
|
1. an act of manifesting. 2. the state of being manifested. 3. outward or perceptible indication; materialization. 4. a public demonstration, as for political effect. 5. Spiritualism. a materialization. Related Words: materialisation, materialization, expression, reflection, reflexion. I believe the eye falls within these definitions. Definitions 1 and 2 aren't particularly helpful to me since they fall back on manifesting/ed as the definition. I disagree that 3 and 4 apply to the Eye; Sauron was not (in the book) pretending to be merely an Eye. It was a symbol, yes, just as the Black Hand (and the White Hand for Saruman) was. About the possibility for Saruman being mistaken, it is possible, but I see no reason to suspect that in this case. (As a side-note, what issues were you thinking of about Saruman being wrong?) PJ made it clear that he thought Sauron was just an eyeball in some of the documentary footage as well.
Oft times unseen things can be scarier than things seen all too clearly. Agreed entirely.
And as we wind on down the road Our shadows taller than our soul There walks a lady we all know Who shines white light and wants to show How everything still turns to gold And if you listen very hard The truth will come to you at last When all are one and one is all To be a rock and not to roll
|
|
|
CreativeWriter
The Shire
Feb 17 2010, 8:27pm
Post #17 of 127
(530 views)
Shortcut
|
"cannot yet take physical form"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If we see Sauron's "path to power" as following a spirit -> body -> defeated back to spirit cycle, Saruman's "cannot yet take physical form" line can simply be interpreted as "cannot yet take physical form again." While this does create some confusion about Sauron's relative strength in The Hobbit vs. LotR, the benefit of having a "corporeal" central villain (for me) outweighs the metaphysical question of power invested in different "states."
|
|
|
Finrod
Rohan
Feb 17 2010, 8:28pm
Post #18 of 127
(551 views)
Shortcut
|
“Lord of werewolf and of ghost”
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
No. I want to see all of this, such a shame they don't have the rights to it, that and the films would be too long. Not to worry. Even though they may not have secured the rights to the authentic Tolkien material you long for (or they may; we aren't privy to private negotiations), they are authorized to make up anything they darned well please. So you can rest assured that they’ll have plenty of creative elaboration. With the rights holders’ blessing, this will be canonical elaboration. Barring that, it will be fanfic elaboration. But it shall certainly occur one way of the other. They have the rights to make up anything they care to on their own. It is a sad and sorry shame that blocking canonical material does precisely the opposite of what one would think the intent is: that is, it promotes fanfic. One might hope the rights holders would prefer canon to non-canon, but we are not likely to see any results of further private negotiations on this until the film is ready—if even then.
I was of the assumption that even in tLotR Sauron could not take a solid form, and so had assumed again we would not see Sauron in any physical form, but instead have his presence alluded too and perhaps witness some of the Wring wraiths. I don’t believe that’s correct. After the fall of Númenor, Sauron was unable to ever again put on a fair shape, such as the one he’d worn as Annatar when he deceived the Noldorin smiths of Eregion. That does not mean he had no shape at all. It is difficult to contemplate an incorporeal spirit slipping the One upon an incorporeal hand. Gollum, who you must remember has met Sauron in person, said that Sauron had only four fingers on his Black Hand. Remember also that the movie’s portrayal of Isildur cutting the One from Sauron’s hand took ahem, creative liberties over the book’s story. It should have been a dead hand. Sauron fell beneath the mastery of Narsil and Aeglos. It was a vanquished and broken body from which Isildur cut the One. There was no serendipitous slicing from a living Sauron’s menacing form. Elendil and Gil-Galad won that battle, but like Sauron, perished in it. This is misrepresented on screen, although not unartfully. We do not know what form the Necromancer wore during his residence(s) at Dol Guldur. We are told in the Tale of Years that:- in TA c. 1100, the Wise were becoming suspicious of Dol Guldur;
- that in 2063 Gandalf entered Dol Guldur, before whom Sauron was said to retreat taking refuge in the East;
- that Sauron returned to Dol Guldur in 2450;
- and that it was not until 2850 upon Gandalf’s second foray into Sorceror’s Head that he at last fully apprehended that the Necromancer was indeed the ancient foe of Tol‐in‐Gaurhoth, Sauron himself.
Tol‐in‐Gaurhoth from the First Age was clearly Tolkien’s model for Mirkwood in the Third. Everyone thinks of Sauron as Annatar or the Black Hand, but there are even more interesting hames with which he of old was wont to cloak himself. Remember that Sauron’s ancient forms included those of the werewolf and the vampire. I believe using one or both of these forms could enhance his portrayal in The Hobbit movies. There would be a clear connection between the more faithfully rendered wargs that GdT intends to craft, and Sauron/Gorthaur/the Necromancer.
There Morgoth’s servants fast him caught and he was cruelly bound, and brought to Sauron captain of the host, the lord of werewolf and of ghost, most fowl and fell of all who knelt at Morgoth’s throne. In might he dwelt on Gaurhoth Isle; but now had ridden with strength abroad, by Morgoth bidden to find the rebel Barahir. [...] To Nargothrond no more he came but thither swiftly ran the fame of their dead king and his great deed, how Lúthien the Isle had freed: the Werewolf Lord was overthrown, and broken were his towers of stone. For many now came home at last who long ago to shadow passed; and like a shadow had returned Huan the hound, though scant he earned or praise or thanks of Celegorm.
The vampire form that Sauron wore when fleeing Huan into Dorthonion is also useful. It could help underlie a darker haunting for Mirkwood. Bats and spiders seem to go together, no? The shapechanger element is already present in The Hobbit, and this ancient tale from the forgotten realms of elfland gives better insight into the later one. Certainly The Hobbit always was much more a tale out of Faërie than was The Lord of the Rings, which is more of a heroic romance. An older version of the Lay, in which Sauron is named Thû, intriguingly runs: Men called him Thû, and as a god in after days beneath his rod bewildered bowed to him, and made the ghastly temples in the shade. Not yet by Men enthralled adored, now was he Morgoth’s mightiest lord, Master of Wolves, whose shivering howl for ever echoed in the hills, and foul enchantments and dark sigaldry did weave and wield. In glamoury that necromancer held his hosts of phantoms and of wandering ghosts, of misbehotten or spell‐wronged monsters that about him thronged, working his bidding dark and vile: the werewolves of the Wizard’s Isle. Can there be any question of Tolkien’s source for the Necromancer that haunted Dol Guldur? No. It is the same dark wizard detailed above. The elder tale may even provide inspiration for casting out the sorcerer from his dark tower, whence he was banished by the power of Lúthien, “half immortal and half divine”. Nigh the foul spirit Morgoth made and bred of evil shuddering strayed from its dark house, when Lúthien rose and shivering looked upon his throes. ‘O demon dark, O phantom vile of foulness wrought, of lies and guile, here shalt thou die, thy spirit roam quaking back to thy master’s home his scorn and fury to endure thee he will in the bowels immure of groaning earth, and in a hole everlasting thy naked soul shall wail and gibber—this shall be, unless the keys thou render me of thy black fortress, and the spell that bindeth stone to stone thou tell, and speak the words of opening.’ With gasping breath and shuddering he spake, an yielded as must, and vanquished betrayed his master’s trust. Lo! by the bridge a gleam of light like star descended from the night to burn and tremble here below. There wide her warms did Lúthien throw and called aloud with voice as clear as still at whiles may mortal hear long elvish trumpets o’er the hill echo, when all the world is still. The dawn peered over mountains wan, their grey heads silent looked thereon. The hill trembled; the citadel crumbled, and all its towers fell; the rocks yawed and the bridge broke, And Sirion spumed in sudden smoke. Like ghosts the owls were flying seen hooting in the dawn, and bats unclean went skimming dark through the cold airs shrieking thinly to find new lairs in Deadly Nightshade’s branches dread. The wolves whimpering and yammering fled like dusky shadows. Out there creep pale forms and ragged as from sleep, crawling, and shielding blinded eyes: the captives in fear and in surprise from dolour long in clinging night beyond all hope set free to light.
The Lay of Leithian, 2770–2815 Is that not a beautiful rendering of the eternal “Release From Bondage” theme? Unlike the Istari, though, Tinúviel’s divine nature did not walk cloaked from the eyes of the Children. Like Sauron moreso than Beorn, she too was a shapechanger, taking up the vampire Thuringwethil’s shape to deceive Morgoth’s servants. Then again, even that restriction was rescinded when battling foes beyond mortal ken: consider Gandalf when driving off the Nazgûl to rescue Faramir, and when holding off Balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm. Yes, these forms are beyond the scope of our understanding of the filmmakers’ licensed rights. So some exception would have to be made. One can only it would be. Remember, no exception need be granted for them to portray Sauron as a flying purple monkey or a cackling harpy. They can make up anything they please. Let us hope that it pleases the powers that be to grant them access to legitimate source material that they not be forced to resort to embarrassing fanfic and so diminish Tolkien’s public image.
…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.The Silmarillion, pp 150-151 while Felagund laughs beneath the treesin Valinor and comes no more to this grey world of tears and war.The Lays of Beleriand, p 311
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 8:31pm
Post #19 of 127
(538 views)
Shortcut
|
Saruman was wrong about pretty much everything he believed to be true.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He was also wrong about: 1. The usefulness of the one ring to anyone but Sauron. 2. The ability to beat Rohan. 3. The security of Orthanc. 4. The wisdom of cutting a deal with Sauron.. & I can go on.
Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
CreativeWriter
The Shire
Feb 17 2010, 8:47pm
Post #20 of 127
(517 views)
Shortcut
|
According to Tolkien, after the fall of Numenor Sauron could no longer take a pleasing form. Therefore if you follow this as a directive he is not going to be Angelic or even pleasing to look at.
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 17 2010, 8:48pm
Post #21 of 127
(512 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm more concerned about continuity...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...than metaphysics. Even if we were to tack "again" on to Saruman's statement, I don't think it makes sense to assume that Sauron was corporeal in The Hobbit but somehow lost his form *yet again* before Fellowship. Also, I think corporeal "minor" villains (the Great Goblin, Bolg, maybe a Nazgul at Dol Guldur, etc.) would work fine for providing the forward face of villainy. LOTR, the movies, worked just fine without a corporeal villain.
And as we wind on down the road Our shadows taller than our soul There walks a lady we all know Who shines white light and wants to show How everything still turns to gold And if you listen very hard The truth will come to you at last When all are one and one is all To be a rock and not to roll
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 8:48pm
Post #22 of 127
(518 views)
Shortcut
|
I was hoping the question would draw your response. I knew your knowledge and insight would illuminate this subject. Thanks. I wonder what others are thinking. I know some have stated that they would rather have the movie(s) stick to the book, but if they do in deed depict Sauron whatfor them would be an acceptable vision?
Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 17 2010, 8:52pm
Post #23 of 127
(515 views)
Shortcut
|
Okay, I'll concede some points
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. Movie Saruman was far more a servant of Sauron than a wannabe rebel. He wasn't trying to become the Ring-lord (...yet). 2. He had the ability to beat Rohan, and would have were it not for the intervention of the Ents and Huorns. His troops fled Helm's Deep but most of them survived, and they would have regrouped and reattacked if they weren't slaughtered by the forest. 3. Conceded. 4. Conceded. That said, those points do not cover "pretty much everything he believed to be true", and all four stem from his hubris. I don't see a hubristic reason to believe that Sauron was incorporeal (particularly since he acknowledged that "[Sauron's] spirit has lost none of its potency").
And as we wind on down the road Our shadows taller than our soul There walks a lady we all know Who shines white light and wants to show How everything still turns to gold And if you listen very hard The truth will come to you at last When all are one and one is all To be a rock and not to roll
|
|
|
CreativeWriter
The Shire
Feb 17 2010, 8:59pm
Post #24 of 127
(502 views)
Shortcut
|
My apologies for the incomplete post above. I'm having trouble with the "quote" function. I'm with you for the first part of that sentence. I agree Sauron should not appear angelic or even as some kind of "white wizard" analogue, but I'm not convinced he could not (to use the double negative) appear "beautiful" or "sublime" (beauty through terror), but it's been years since I last read the Sil. Perhaps I'm forgetting something. It may be that Smaug the Magnificent is our "pleasing form" villain, allowing Sauron to be some Frankenstein's Monster, but I hope not. I like the complexity of attractive evil. It's why Boromir, who appears so worthy of admiration, is a far more dangerous foe for Frodo than any number of twisted orcs. It's also why the "nuclear Galadriel" scene is so tense. It's exciting to see Guillermo mention "beautiful monsters" a few months back, though there was something confusing about that quote (a missing "not"), if I remember correctly. More importantly, do we think the filmmakers will limit themselves to the canonical "directives" (interesting diction) from the source material? As a writer, I'd follow them wherever convenient and abandon them if my film needed a human foil for Gandalf. Again, I know this is probably a minority viewpoint on TORN.
(This post was edited by CreativeWriter on Feb 17 2010, 9:01pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 17 2010, 9:05pm
Post #25 of 127
(503 views)
Shortcut
|
A Werewolf Vampire would be right up Guillermo del Toro's Alley.//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Kangi Ska At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
|
|