Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Backstory for the Necromancer *spoilers*
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

DeadRabbits
Lorien


Jul 15 2013, 12:00pm

Post #1 of 30 (1482 views)
Shortcut
Backstory for the Necromancer *spoilers* Can't Post

Jackson: 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.

The quote is from an interview in Empire Magazine, conducted in early 2009, when GDT was still attached to the project and he, PJ, FW and PB were in the middle of writing the scripts. I know that the scripts have been revised many times since then, but it still seems like PJ was very determined to give us a backstory for Sauron. If this turns out to be true, could we even get to see Benedict Cumberbatch as Annatar, and maybe even some of his other guises?

Sauron is one of my favorite Middle-Earth characters and to see PJ & Co dive a bit deeper into his past than in LOTR would be a dream come true - especially since people in general seem to think that he's nothing more than a big flaming eyeball.

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


Shagrat
Gondor

Jul 15 2013, 12:33pm

Post #2 of 30 (700 views)
Shortcut
I truly hope to see such flashbacks [In reply to] Can't Post

But I wonder where they'd put them? The opening of one of the next two films is possible, but I wonder if they might be saved for possible Galadriel narration during a White Council meeting


DeadRabbits
Lorien


Jul 15 2013, 12:52pm

Post #3 of 30 (656 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, a White Council meeting seems likely [In reply to] Can't Post

I'll keep my fingers crossed for this...

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jul 15 2013, 1:22pm

Post #4 of 30 (635 views)
Shortcut
Where should I sign to sell my soul for something like this? [In reply to] Can't Post

Knowing the backstory of Sauron, maybe going into more details about the forging of the Rings... it would be THE flashback.
Cumberbatch would be an incredible elvish Sauron.

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 15 2013, 1:28pm

Post #5 of 30 (642 views)
Shortcut
Honestly I hope not [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit even as Jackson's films shouldn't be about Sauron. They should be about Bilbo and the dwarfs journey and not worry about what should be minor characters who come into more importance later in the tale (LOTR). Sauron gets his day in LOTR it might not have been satisfying for those who wanted something different but why should those who want the Hobbit on film and do not care about a minor character only mentioned in two sentences in the book have to endure something which really has no relevance on Bilbo's journey. The only thing the Necromancer did in the Hobbit was explain in some small way where and what Gandalf was up to while away from the dwarfs but its not and shouldn't be IMO a major part of the story of Bilbo's journey.


DeadRabbits
Lorien


Jul 15 2013, 1:42pm

Post #6 of 30 (622 views)
Shortcut
But PJ obviously intented these films to be about so much more than just Bilbo's journey... [In reply to] Can't Post

... and the Necromancer/White Council subplot is a big part of that. And if PJ is going to tell the story about the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur, then why not give the audience some insights about the villain they're dealing with?

Yes, the Necromancer doesn't get more than a couple of sentences in the book, but it can hardly come as a surprise that PJ has decided to expand upon this? Which, IMO, makes perfect sense movie-wise, since the viewers would wonder what Gandalf is up to for such a long period of time if it wasn't included.

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 15 2013, 1:49pm

Post #7 of 30 (600 views)
Shortcut
Because Sauron is of little importance until LOTR IMO [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
why not give the audience some insights about the villain they're dealing with?

Honestly I think he should deliberately be left vague and mysterious. Sauron and his forging of the rings, his past forms has no place in the Hobbit other than fandom wishfullness and what some people want to see but really don't need to see. I'm sorry I just can't see the need to expand on the character too much since IMO he shouldn't be the main villain anyways. And making him so IMO just takes everything the Hobbit (the book) was about completely out of context.



DeadRabbits
Lorien


Jul 15 2013, 2:05pm

Post #8 of 30 (566 views)
Shortcut
Point taken [In reply to] Can't Post

I can see where you're coming from. However, I see it a bit differently, feeling that Sauron maybe was left a little too vague and mysterious. We get to know next to nothing about him, except that he's super evil, forged a powerful ring, used to be a giant armor-clad warrior who became an eyeball, and wants dominion over Middle-Earth. I wouldn't mind a little backstory and character development.

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jul 15 2013, 2:12pm

Post #9 of 30 (567 views)
Shortcut
Well, try looking at it this way... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Honestly I think he should deliberately be left vague and mysterious. Sauron and his forging of the rings, his past forms has no place in the Hobbit other than fandom wishfullness and what some people want to see but really don't need to see. I'm sorry I just can't see the need to expand on the character too much since IMO he shouldn't be the main villain anyways. And making him so IMO just takes everything the Hobbit (the book) was about completely out of context.



The Necromancer's presence and the plans of the Council might help to explain why Thorin could not find any great "heroes" to help him plan Smaug's demise. The great Elven heroes remaining in Middle-earth were all associated with the White Council, while the Rangers of the North tried to stay under the radar of the general public (and may have been aiding the Council as well).

Also, the threat posed by the Necromancer was enough to pull Gandalf away from the company, making the character worth a closer look.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 15 2013, 2:30pm

Post #10 of 30 (552 views)
Shortcut
IMO they should have done that in LOTR not the Hobbit. [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess I would chalk it up to a missed opportunity if I were in the wanting more Sauron camp. I really do think those wanting more of him got cheated in LOTR, but I don't think the Hobbit is the place to try and rectify it. That's my opinion though. I just find it a distraction from the actual story they are supposed to be adapting. Plus the other issue I have is the BO5A is not that big a battle in middle earth, more of a skirmish really, it decided the fate of nothing. To bring Sauron into the mix, which maybe they wont include him in the BO5A (I hope). But Cumberbatches comments about Sauron and the 7 legions army are disheartening.... But the ousting of the Necromancer wasn't that big a deal at the time of the Hobbit, that anyone knew of, other than the White council. But for Jackson to put all that on film he's going to have to try and out do himself making the battles in LOTR which should have been epic the defining battles for domination over middle earth, end up seeming small and insignificant if he decides to be OTT and make thing bigger, bolder, and more in your face. If thats the case I would rather things just be left alone be vague and mysterious


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


Jul 15 2013, 2:40pm

Post #11 of 30 (591 views)
Shortcut
Seeing Benedict playing Annatar and having a cruel trasformation in a flashback ala Gollum in ROTK? [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes please

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


malickfan
Gondor


Jul 15 2013, 3:36pm

Post #12 of 30 (559 views)
Shortcut
Was Sauron's backstory even covered in the LOTR? [In reply to] Can't Post

As far I can remember Annatar etc was only really covered in The Silmarillion. Much like those crazy Gondolin rumours it could be cool to see on screen, but really would be glorifed fan fiction further bastardising and stretching out the tone of the Hobbit into places it never really needed to go.

I'm with Sinister on this, Yes it could be cool to see on screen, but I really liked the mystery of Sauron in the book, and as Jackson made the descision to call these films The Hobbit (Not the Quest for Erebor, The Rise of the Necromancer or The War of Mirkwood etc) he should be putting more ficus on the characters and purprose of the story featured in the book.

I actually read The Hobbit after reading LOTR and Unfinished Tales, so I got the backstory to the narrartive first...and you know what? I didn't feel it was necessary to enjoy Bilbo's story, and I loved the tonal differences (it was nice to read a simple gateway story into middle earth that wasn't bogged down with rambling description or tedious history) everything that makes The Hobbit enjoyable to me is what is contained within its own covers (I think Tolkien's desiscion to abandon the 1960 rewrite was one of the best he ever made), and I wanted to see that story on screen primarily.

But I will reserve judgemnt until more info is revealed...as long as PJ dosen't try to claim it was in the appendices or somehting Tolkien always intended to do...

The Talking Purse is Awesome, deal with it.

But he isn't quite as aweome as Cirdan.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 15 2013, 3:54pm

Post #13 of 30 (527 views)
Shortcut
Interesting idea - I like it ... but ... [In reply to] Can't Post

Would it make people sympathetic to Sauron, seeing him cruelly transformed from Annatar to Sauron/the Eye? Should we feel sorry for him?

Normally, in these transformation flashbacks, we're supposed to feel sorry for the character (Gollum, and I suppose even Anakin/Darth Vader). I don't really want to feel sorry for Sauron.

Coming soon! The first TORn Amateur Symposium, starts Sunday 21st July in the Reading Room. Closing date for essay submission Sunday 14th July, but even if you don't submit, join us for some interesting discussion on some different and personal ways of looking at Tolkien's work.




(This post was edited by DanielLB on Jul 15 2013, 3:55pm)


DeadRabbits
Lorien


Jul 15 2013, 4:10pm

Post #14 of 30 (476 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, they should have delved a little deeper into Sauron in LOTR... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but since that didn't happen, it will be - IMO of course - a nice addition to the Dol Guldur/White Council storyline and a chance for the audience to get to know him a little better. Judging from the interview, it seems like PJ regrets the decision to omit Sauron's backstory from LOTR, and that he wants to compensate for that now, which I don't have a problem with.

That is something we are absolutely dealing with, much more than in the book. You have to. People will be expecting it. It's before The Lord of the Rings, so we are going to learn a bit more about X, Y, and Z. We're trying to make sure that we're delivering what they expect, but in a way that's kind of surprising. (PJ on the Necromancer/Sauron backstory in Empire Magazine)

When it comes to the Battle of the Five Armies, I don't really have a problem with it being grander than in the books either. We all know PJ by now, and you could see it coming from miles away. I don't think it will be big enough to put the Battle of Pelennor to shame, but it sure will be fun to watch something more magnificent than a skirmish. Not faithful the book, but more fun to watch. And yes, the Necromancer/Sauron will probably be involved somehow, which is hardly surprising since Azog, Bolg and the Gundabad orcs most likely are connected to him somehow. Again, not faithful to the book, but I guess that PJ wants to connect the Erebor and Dol Guldur storylines, and that could be good way to do it.

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


Jul 15 2013, 4:34pm

Post #15 of 30 (505 views)
Shortcut
About Silmarilion rights [In reply to] Can't Post

That´s not necessary to happen. I wonder if they would be able to show some hints of Numennor, it is mentioned in LOTR books, but also is part of Simlarilion , I wonder if they have the right to use it. . But would beinteresting how he´s been f****** up people trough out ages. But in the meantime Sauron was actually a fair being corrupted by Morgoth, so...

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jul 15 2013, 4:54pm

Post #16 of 30 (476 views)
Shortcut
Well, not "ala Gollum" of course. So much potential in The Hobbit... I just don't get it. [In reply to] Can't Post

Sauron should just take his normal form back when the forging of the Rings is done and he doens't need his elvish form any longer.
It should be a transformation to be feared, not to induce pity.
But I think you just meant a transformation from good to evil.

My God, there so much potential in this movies... I just can't understand why people just want the plain story of the Hobbit. I'm so glad PJ and co. chose this other way.

The Hobbit is just a nightmare:
1-story too similar to LOTR
2-too many plot holes
3-too many similar characters
4-too childish
5-too many talking animals
6-too many "easy way outs"
7-it's been done AFTER the H-bomb which was LOTR trilogy (movies)

it might work on paper (not for me, for sure) but on the big screen it would have been a disaster.

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


Jul 15 2013, 5:29pm

Post #17 of 30 (447 views)
Shortcut
Well I´m not so sure that a plain adaptation of TH to the screen would have been so terrible [In reply to] Can't Post

It would turned out a fantastic single movie of adventures. IMO

Now regarding Sauron, I meant that by the article the OP makes reference that it seems that they are going to show Anatar. I dont think that having Benedict at hand they will just use him for mocap and voice only. He is a very famous actor now, and his face is a reclame for Sherlock´s fans. Andy for example wasn´t so famous, and still they showed up Smeagol, wich wasn´t strictly necessary. And well having Sauron here, who is no less tan the lord of the rings I feel they will show up Annatar, not in his elvish form, for he was no elf, but something very interesting I hope

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!

(This post was edited by isaac on Jul 15 2013, 5:30pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 15 2013, 6:23pm

Post #18 of 30 (448 views)
Shortcut
You're right, Sauron wasn't always "evil". [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien says, in letter 183:


Quote
In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.


But regardless, I do not think we should be sympathetic to Sauron, or any other tyrant for that matter. He had the plenty of opportunity to repent after the War of the Wrath - he chose not to.

Coming soon! The first TORn Amateur Symposium, starts Sunday 21st July in the Reading Room. Closing date for essay submission Sunday 14th July, but even if you don't submit, join us for some interesting discussion on some different and personal ways of looking at Tolkien's work.




droidsocket
Rivendell

Jul 15 2013, 7:19pm

Post #19 of 30 (402 views)
Shortcut
In my opinion.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Pre LotR it could/would have been successful. But not following as we have it now.


Rostron2
Gondor


Jul 15 2013, 8:44pm

Post #20 of 30 (351 views)
Shortcut
+1 on this point // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jul 15 2013, 11:18pm

Post #21 of 30 (340 views)
Shortcut
Sauron can take any form. [In reply to] Can't Post

I said elvish form because I had in mind his form when he tricked the Elves... so I guess he was disguised as a beautiful elf...
I know he is not an elf, come on :)
Maybe they'll show us his true form before being corrupted by Melkor... who knows.
I hope you are right. Calling Benedict to New Zealand just for mocap and voice over? Yeah, I hope you are right friend.
:)

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


Jul 16 2013, 10:32am

Post #22 of 30 (265 views)
Shortcut
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Imean SAUUUROOOOOOOOOOON!!! hehehe It would be great to see this kind of blink to that momento, though its completely unnecessary, but I can imagina Gandalf saying it when he realices who the Necromancer is. It would be the ´You shall not pass!!!´ of the Hobbit trilogy Tongue

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 16 2013, 2:52pm

Post #23 of 30 (230 views)
Shortcut
the magazine article your quoting is... [In reply to] Can't Post

from when DelToro was still attached to the project if I remember correctly. SO much has changed since then though. The whole thing was basically rewritten. So to say that quote still applies would IMO be not so accurate.

Like I said earlier I sympathize with those who wanted more of what could have been a cool character and ended up a floating flaming eyeball that just mumbled But I still don't see he Hobbit as a place to change that. IMO the White Council material should be less important than the dwarfs quest. The Necromancer should be nothing more than a second even third level villain and not be dwelt upon too much. Some visual hints, maybe his name used once in passing, some kind of cool visuals and let the film keep moving on.

Granted something will be shown I don't have major issues with something being shown. Just not too much. Personally I prefer that he only be referred to as the Necromancer and let the audience figure it out. But thats just me I guess


BlackCountry
Rivendell


Jul 16 2013, 6:12pm

Post #24 of 30 (210 views)
Shortcut
Combining his body of characters.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Sherlock Holmes, Sauron-remancer, Smaug, Khan.

SHAO KAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!!!!! :D

I do not want what it is not mine.... I only want what comes from within....


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Jul 16 2013, 11:22pm

Post #25 of 30 (174 views)
Shortcut
I'm afraid of this too... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
he's going to have to try and out do himself making the battles in LOTR which should have been epic the defining battles for domination over middle earth, end up seeming small and insignificant


I have a feeling that the Battle of 5 Armies is going to end up dwarfing both the Battle of the Pelennor Fields and the Battle of the Black Gate, and that SHOULD NOT be the case, not in any way, shape, or form. The Bo5A is a little skirmish compared to the seige of Gondor and the march on the Black Gate. But I'm sure Jackson is going to want to out-do his LOTR films, so I'm not hopeful that he will keep things in the proper perspective.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.