|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
duats
Hithlum
May 4 2011, 12:00am
Post #1 of 117
(4183 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The issue of Sauron's appearance
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was reading up on some articles regarding Sauron, and a few things caught my eye.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauron#Appearance
1) "Like Morgoth, Sauron eventually lost the ability to change his physical form (his hröa). After the destruction of his fair form in the fall of Númenor, Sauron was unable to take a pleasing appearance or veil his power again. Thereafter, at the end of the Second Age and again in the Third, he always took the shape of a terrible dark lord. His first incarnation after the Downfall of Númenor was extremely hideous, "an image of malice and hatred made visible". Isildur recorded that Sauron's hand "was black, and yet burned like fire..." Gil-galad perished from Sauron's heat."
2) "Gollum (who was tortured by Sauron in person) tells Frodo that Sauron has, at least, a "Black Hand" with four fingers. The missing finger was cut off when Isildur took the Ring, and the finger was still missing when Sauron reappeared centuries later. (Similarly, the injury to Sauron's throat in the much earlier battle with Lúthien and Huan is maintained even after his transformation.)"
3) In one of his letters Tolkien does state that Sauron had a physical form in the Third Age:
"...in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. ... Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic."
4) J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator includes Tolkien's own drawing of Sauron, showing him as a humanoid with literally black skin:
http://i254.photobucket.com/...ualweasel/Sauron.jpg
Having read all of this, I have come to the conclusion that Sauron did have a physical (albeit weakened) manifestation during the Lord of the Rings: that of a inhumanly tall man with jet-black skin and four fingers on his right hand. For that, I think PJ missed the mark with his interpretation of Sauron throughout the trilogy. But what's done is done, and I'm not going to dwell on that.
But now we move onto The Hobbit, and the issue of what shape Sauron will take as the Necromancer. I know that in the Design Galleries for FoTR, there were a few designs of Sauron where he appeared as a deformed, grotesque humanoid creature - which, according to the passages above, may very well be more faithful to what Tolkien envisioned than what we actually got on film.
I think it's a safe assumption that Sauron/The Necromancer will not appear as a giant flaming eye in The Hobbit. So it makes me curious as to whether or not we will actually get a physical manifestation, and how close it will be to the vague descriptions we have of The Dark Lord (nine-fingered, black-skinned, ugly humanoid form).
Thoughts?
(This post was edited by duats on May 4 2011, 12:01am)
|
|
|
Estel78
Dor-Lomin
May 4 2011, 12:16am
Post #2 of 117
(2898 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But how can he be in physical form in Hobbit when he was not in LOTR?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Shouldn't he be even weaker in Hobbit?
I agree that Sauron - the lighthouse, was one of the rare things they screwed up in LOTR.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
May 4 2011, 12:22am
Post #3 of 117
(2929 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But he was in physical form Lord of the Rings
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If you are real good you can see him at least once in Two Towers EE. In the Palantir when Aragorn confronts him.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
duats
Hithlum
May 4 2011, 12:26am
Post #4 of 117
(2913 views)
Shortcut
|
As Sauron projecting a vision of himself to Aragorn. If I recall correctly, The Palantir shows him lifting his hand - revealing that he had reclaimed the Ring. And then it shows Arwen dying. It was all meant to taunt Aragorn and fill him with doubt.
Sauron appearing in the Palantir is not the same as him actually having a physical form.
(This post was edited by duats on May 4 2011, 12:26am)
|
|
|
duats
Hithlum
May 4 2011, 12:28am
Post #5 of 117
(2723 views)
Shortcut
|
Man, the giant flaming eyeball route really dug them into a hole  .
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
May 4 2011, 12:30am
Post #6 of 117
(2847 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Can you prove it is not what he looks like.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Add to that Gollums testimonial about the black hand and...
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Nargothrond
May 4 2011, 12:32am
Post #7 of 117
(2756 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wasn't much of a fan of the lighthouse either
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think it might have been better if the eye didn't appear at the top of the tower until later when Frodo's in Mordor and it looks at him. It would've felt more like a big reveal of Sauron since no one has seen him yet except for the palantir and the ring world and most people would probably just expect he's sitting up in the highest room plotting his take over but when a fiery eye suddenly forms up there it would be like a "oh hot dayum!" moment. Isn't there actually a beam of light coming from the highest window of BaradDur in the book? As for Sauron in TH I have absolutely no idea how they'll do it, it will be epic though whatever they do.
|
|
|
duats
Hithlum
May 4 2011, 12:45am
Post #8 of 117
(2717 views)
Shortcut
|
Frodo sees a beam of red light coming from a high window in Barad-Dur. Now, it could have been an actual eye looking out the window, or the red light could have simply looked like an eye to Frodo. Tolkien leaves it pretty vague.
And Kangi, two things:
1) Remember that Sauron was originally going to appear during the final battle outside of the Black Gate, and how PJ ultimately tossed that footage out? If I recall correctly, one of his reasons for doing so was that it didn't make sense for Sauron to have a physical form after appearing as a giant flaming eyeball throughout the entire trilogy.
Can I prove it? No. But it's not a question of proof. Other than the Prologue, Sauron only appears as a giant flaming eyeball atop Barad-Dur. I don't think what we see in the Palantir is confirmation of a physical form. If he had a physical form, why didn't he come out to challenge Aragorn?
2) Gollum never mentions a black hand in the movies. Like the other characters, the only description Gollum ever gives is "The Great Eye."
(This post was edited by duats on May 4 2011, 12:48am)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
May 4 2011, 1:26am
Post #9 of 117
(2721 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But all that you say is inconclusive
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as if all appearances in the films were simply manifested by Sauron then he could have a body. So I go with the written version and say that he did even if it was not shown.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Ruijor
Nargothrond
May 4 2011, 2:27am
Post #10 of 117
(2683 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I too have a problem with this...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1) Remember that Sauron was originally going to appear during the final battle outside of the Black Gate, and how PJ ultimately tossed that footage out? If I recall correctly, one of his reasons for doing so was that it didn't make sense for Sauron to have a physical form after appearing as a giant flaming eyeball throughout the entire trilogy.
Can I prove it? No. But it's not a question of proof. Other than the Prologue, Sauron only appears as a giant flaming eyeball atop Barad-Dur. I don't think what we see in the Palantir is confirmation of a physical form. If he had a physical form, why didn't he come out to challenge Aragorn?
In my opinion the all Black Gate scene ended up a big of a mess really; the non-inclusion of a physical Sauron to confront Aragorn only to be replaced by Mouth of Sauron was a let down. I remember them at one pont wanting to use the armoured Sauron from the Prologue which would seem redundant and lazy. Peter must have thought it was and cut it off. Still I think they should have come up with a revamped physical Dark Lord at that scene since it would be poignant to see Sauron face Isildur´s heir...
Saruman states in FOTR that "Sauron as regained much of his former strenght, he cannot yet take physical form" which could support that by the time of the Battle of Pelennor he would be capable of doing so...
Regarding The Hobbit it would be confusing seeing The Necromancer assuming more than a ghostly form at the light of Saruman´s dialogue.
(This post was edited by Ruijor on May 4 2011, 2:29am)
|
|
|
Gorgori
Lindon
May 4 2011, 3:08am
Post #11 of 117
(2703 views)
Shortcut
|
If I remember correctly, in the documentary in the extended edition, Peter said that ultimately he decided that the scene with "physical form dark lord" detracted from what Aragorn was trying to do: buy time for Frodo. If the scene was made to be about the "Dark Lord VS Aragorn" then that would take away from the self-sacrificing spirit that they were trying to portray in Aragorn.
I agree with Pete on this one; after hearing his reasons, picturing that scene realized in the film seemed campy or at least less genuine or congruent with Aragorn's values and spirit. Also, as Pete also mentioned, those "20 ft monster VS man" scenes have to be used sparingly, or else it seems over the top and not believeable...
(This post was edited by Gorgori on May 4 2011, 3:11am)
|
|
|
Ruijor
Nargothrond
May 4 2011, 3:45am
Post #12 of 117
(2677 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well that argument is kind of silly in my opinion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Aragorn´s plan was to concentrate Sauron´s attention in him so that Frodo could reach Mount Doom.I don´t see how showing Sauron at the Gate would contradict Aragorn´s values when all he wanted was to distract Sauron.
About the believability of a fight between Aragorn and Sauron - They didn´t have to engage a physical sword fight. To me the role of Mouth of Sauron character should have been given to Sauron himself. It would have been much more epic to see the gates opening and seen The Dark Lord instead of a servant...
|
|
|
marillaraina
Nargothrond
May 4 2011, 4:22am
Post #13 of 117
(2664 views)
Shortcut
|
I admit it's been a while since I read LOTR, but I don't recall Sauron at the Black Gate confronting Aragorn in the books, so why would he be there in the films? In the books the plan was to distract Sauron's attention with a battle at the Gate, which is what happened in the films and there was no Sauron present at the battle in the books except at the very in a last gasp after the ring is thrown into Mt Doom where he appears as a sort of massive black shadow trying to grasp at his enemies' army.
Now I realize they changed a lot of things between books and films but I'm not sure why Sauron appearing in physical form at the battle would improved things any. I don't think any sort of real physical form would have been anything but a disappointment and a let down - while the "Eye" was a bit lighthouse-ish, I think it was sufficiently strange and supernatural seeming and gigantic to work decently well especially when it was mostly scene either through the "ring world" or the palantir.
(This post was edited by marillaraina on May 4 2011, 4:23am)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
May 4 2011, 5:07am
Post #14 of 117
(2652 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We don't know that he didn't have a physical form
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...in LotR. The fact that we only saw him as a lighthouse doesn't mean he didn't have a physical form. After all, we did see one in the Prologue. I would assume that once he retreated to his fortress in Mordor from Dol Guldur he chose not to reveal himself further. That is a move from strength, not weakness.
So Peter can do whatever he wishes (and probably will).
Join us in the Reading Room for LotR The Two Towers, Book IV!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
RoseCotton
Menegroth
May 4 2011, 5:43am
Post #15 of 117
(2663 views)
Shortcut
|
... and first read LOTR, Sauron was made hugely more <pick your own adjective>... but threatening, sinister, frightening, malevolent and perhaps, most of all, mysterious (I *knew* I should've stuck with letting you pick your own adjective!  ) than I think he ever would have if Tolkien had revealed him in anything more than an equivocal way.
I couldn't (and can't) think of any physical, or even ethereal, manifestation of Sauron that beats the effect he has on me due to the novel's occasional hints and suggestions -- basically, by Sauron's almost complete absence.
I haven't thought through the needs of the movies particularly, and I recall PJ saying that he thought having Sauron as merely a Lighthouse-Eye (let alone being absent altogether) as being bad movie practice for an arch-enemy, but I think the brief snatches of Sauron-Eye (when Gandalf stoops to pick up the One Ring in Bag End, for example) are much scarier than actually seeing any 'full-frontal' of Sauron.
The moral of the story for me is that, the less of Sauron we see, the more <insert that adjective again> he is!
|
|
|
Barrel-Rider
Nevrast
May 4 2011, 6:28am
Post #16 of 117
(2623 views)
Shortcut
|
I quite agree Rose. Sauron is far more effective as a threat of menace than he is in anny physical form.
We also have a problem of inconsistency due to Isildur cutting four of Sauron's fingers off in the prologue to the FOTR rather than just the one. Peter Jackson has made it rather hard to go back to just the one digit cut off. I think PJ must have thought that the force needed to cut off the finger would have removed more than one digit.
I also read yesterday that unless Narsil had been dipped in liquid nitrogen it would not have broken into the many bits that are shown in the films. It would also have been near impossible to reforge.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
May 4 2011, 7:58am
Post #17 of 117
(2596 views)
Shortcut
|
Give Sauron a physical form, no matter how ghastly, and you immediately put boundaries round him. In the film clips they didn't use of Aragorn fighting Sauron at the Black Gate the limitations become obvious - it's just Aragorn fighting a big bloke in a helmet. But an eye that sees everything and a voice in your mind, now that's really scary. I think they'd be well advised not to define what Sauron looks like completely. Maybe a glimpse - a shadow - a hand - the terror on the face of someone who can see what the audience can't. But not the whole outline - better to leave space where the imagination can work.
|
|
|
Steerpike
Nevrast
May 4 2011, 9:19am
Post #18 of 117
(2556 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it will be a problem.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When Sauron lost the ring at the Battle of the Last Alliance he also lost the ability to maintain a physical form. But such abilities can be regained with time - several thousand years it seems. By the time of The Hobbit I suspect he will have nearly - but not quite - regained a physical presence. (Perhaps we will see him as something akin to a ringwraith).
But his confrontation and defeat the the hands of the White Council (I'm sure he won't just slip out the back door when he sees them coming) will rob him of this ability and reduce him once again to a purely spiritual form. I suspect that we will also get some hint as to the way he might manifest himself the next time we see him (ie. the giant eyeball on a stick), in order to remind the casual audience that this is the same big bad guy from The Lord of the Rings and to explain why - in those movies - he remains so vague and aloof. I think Peter will jump on this opportunity to tie up some of those loose ends - before they happen, if you follow me - and improve the overall consistency of the whole five film epic.
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
May 4 2011, 9:33am
Post #19 of 117
(2559 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it depends on the situation...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Lighthouse Sauron" was IMHO very effective most of the time, the only problem was I'd say that to be effective the shots had to be choosen carefully. The manjority of them did for me but there were a few in ROTK that looked a bit too mundane, the first roving lighthouse shot as Frodo and Sam desend into Mordor for example or his gaze switching to Mt Doom when Frodo puts on the ring. Compair say that first roving lighthouse shot to the scene were he has Frodo and Sam pinned down, the latter is a much more dramatic shot and more effective for it.
One Scene I thought was a bit of a missed opportunity though was Aragorn looking into the Palantir, that would have been a great time to have Sauron in a physical form since it was only a vision. Maybe something similar to the Annatar design we saw trying to convince Aragorn to side with him before being angered by his defience and taking on a more obviously evil form.
(This post was edited by moreorless on May 4 2011, 9:41am)
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
May 4 2011, 9:53am
Post #20 of 117
(2574 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could his defeat in the Hobbit maybe replace the fall in Númenor ?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Jacksons comments that events in the Hobbit would explain Saurons form in LOTR does suggest to me that maybe the case. That is that the White Councils defeat of Sauron robs him of his ability to shift form just as the destruction of Númenor did.
I could see that being effective if he's shape shifting isnt presented as being more "powerful" but rather a tool for deception and hiding his true nature. He could perhaps not have any solid form in a similar fashion to the Nazgul which would get round the idea of him needing the ring to return to it aswell.
(This post was edited by moreorless on May 4 2011, 9:54am)
|
|
|
Vangalad
Menegroth
May 4 2011, 10:58am
Post #21 of 117
(2587 views)
Shortcut
|
This is a clip from the interviews of ROTK EE with P.Jackson,the actors,the crew and at 09.18 they start discussing Sauron's presence in the films, including the Sauron the fair-Annatar concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJrwDE4pC0
P.Jackson actually admits he had problems with Sauron's visualization and this explains why they decided to stay with the 'eye'concept without further interpreting and creating the true form of Sauron.
In ROTK, it feels like they prefered to stay true to the book ,rather than show Sauron armored fighting Aragorn.Not showing Sauron's true form translates to the creators not being satisfied with what they had developed so far concerning it.They did not take the risk,had not enough time,whatever it was, they just decided to show the 'eye' as how Sauron was seen/perceived from anyone in middle earth,leaving his true appearance covered in a shroud of mystery, open to our imagination.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
May 4 2011, 12:27pm
Post #22 of 117
(2522 views)
Shortcut
|
I am with you on this as I tried to say the same thing above but seem to have been ignored. There is no evidence in in the films that Sauron is completely unable have a body even given Saruman's statement. I have always thought of him as a super wraith that is in the process of becoming rather than fading.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
DrDeath153
Menegroth
May 4 2011, 12:52pm
Post #23 of 117
(2544 views)
Shortcut
|
I have something of an objection to make against the 'assumed wisdom' that Sauron actually does have a physical form at the time of the War of the Ring in the books, and this reflects the belief i share with Rosie here that Sauron is so much more potent and fearful as a villain without one. The fact is that none of the evidence that is so often cited as proof that he was corporeal at that time really stacks up- in particular the statement of Gollum. It is nowhere said (to my knowledge) that Gollum actually was tortured by Sauron 'in person'- people seem to just read 'Black Hand' and assume that the rest of him must be there. But take note of the capitalisation of the term- here we are not talking about a literal body-part, but a symbol, like the Red Eye or the White Hand. As a symbol, the Black Hand represents his ability to manipulate (note the Latin root word mannus- hand) things. We hear endless numbers of body metaphors in regards to Sauron- one of the fellowship (i believe Gimli) mentions that his arm must have grown long if he can reach them and hinder them on the pass of Caradhras- obviously he is not talking about a physical arm reaching across several hundred-miles to fiddle with the mountain like some malevolent Stretch Armstrong. Equally, at various points, the Ring it seems projects an image of his eye onto the subconscious of those who encounter it- obviously Sauron's physical eye is not there actually watching them, but this psychic projection nevertheless remains with them as an identifiable image.
This i believe is what happened with Gollum and Sauron's 'Black Hand': this is the image with which Barad-dur was suffused and which infiltrated the minds of those being tortured there. The projection of his maimed hand only increases his fearfulness- if he is so powerful even when so maimed, imagine how horrible his powers must be if he wasn't. It also represents a metaphor for the total command Sauron has over his minions- they are at his command just as much as his own literal hand is- he has a hand in many operations, he has fingers in many pies, his arm stretches far and wide, he has eyes everywhere, then of course there's the Mouth of Sauron. All of Sauron's vassels are in a sense parts of his body, the body of power he commands; it can be moving, it can be static, but it is always ready to take commands from he who sits at it's head- Sauron the Great.
I'm kind of guffing around here with all the superlatives, but for me at least, that 'smoking gun' is nothing of the sort, and i think it's consistent misinterpretation as being meant irrefutably literally should be eradicated from the common wisdom of Tolkien scholarship.
Dr Death
|
|
|
Estel78
Dor-Lomin
May 4 2011, 1:10pm
Post #24 of 117
(2513 views)
Shortcut
|
I haven't seen them in a while. As for prologue Sauron, well, of course, he still had the ring at that time.
We don't know that he didn't have a physical form in LotR. The fact that we only saw him as a lighthouse doesn't mean he didn't have a physical form. After all, we did see one in the Prologue.
But sometimes i perceived it as almost comical, an eye trapped at the top of the tower.
But an eye that sees everything and a voice in your mind, now that's really scary.
That could be one way of explaining it, yeah.
But his confrontation and defeat the the hands of the White Council (I'm sure he won't just slip out the back door when he sees them coming) will rob him of this ability and reduce him once again to a purely spiritual form.
|
|
|
Ruijor
Nargothrond
May 4 2011, 1:29pm
Post #25 of 117
(2481 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
