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:
Saruman talks to the Council about the Seven Rings in this production video
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

zarqui2
Registered User

Jan 1 2013, 11:55pm

Post #51 of 68 (318 views)
Shortcut
But Sir. Lee.. [In reply to] Can't Post

But Saruman appears in the other two films, right?

In this video, Sir C.Lee talks of 4 days filming in "both" films. (pre-trilogy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0r1d7uE4-E


Aragalen the Green
Gondor


Jan 2 2013, 12:16am

Post #52 of 68 (317 views)
Shortcut
Gandalf meeting Thrain twice. [In reply to] Can't Post

I had speculated in a previous thread that this could happen, although a little differently than you suggested. I thought (having seen a scene where Gandalf appears to be fighting Thrain in Dol Guldur, and has no sword) that this was the first meeting, and after Gandalf somehow subdues Thrain, he gives Gandalf the key and the map. Gandalf has no idea who Thrain is or the significance of the key and map until Thorin mentions it in the movie ( I think this is what happens in AUJ, correct me if I'm wrong; I only saw AUJ once). Gandalf is aware of evil in Dol Guldur when he meets Thrain, but perhaps in a general way--or Nazgul influence? rather than a specific evil (Sauron/Necromancer).

So Radagast's news of a Necromancer would surprise Gandalf.

The second time is when he goes back to explore Radagast's claims of a "Necromancer". He has Glamdring then (as also seen in at least one of the trailers?) and meets Thrain again, then Thrain dies. That would fit in with your idea of Thrain telling Gandalf about his Ring at the second meeting, and connect to the later White Council meeting where Saruman is talking about the Seven.

Of course, we have already seen that some things in the trailers were not seen in AUJ unless they end up in EE's. Things may change.

Anyway these were my humble thoughts on your post. And as some may say, stretching a bit :)

" Well well!", said a voice. "Just look! Bilbo the hobbit on a pony, my dear! Isn't it delicious!"
"Most astonishing wonderful!"


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Jan 2 2013, 1:03am

Post #53 of 68 (285 views)
Shortcut
i think its going to be twice too [In reply to] Can't Post

maybe Gandalf just knocks Thrain out and finds the key...the second time he is able to cast a spell (like with Theoden) and Thrain tells Gandalf about the ring than dies.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!


MistyMountainHop
Registered User

Jan 2 2013, 3:55am

Post #54 of 68 (244 views)
Shortcut
Isengard? [In reply to] Can't Post

Not sure if its already been mentioned but to me the most logical place for a second meeting would be in or around Orthanc.

I know distance-wise its actually further from Gandalf's current position than Rivendell, but given the geography of the Misty Mountains I'd say it would be rather more convenient, particularly if he goes straight there after checking out Dol Guldur.

I do realise this seems unlikely since I don't think we've heard anything that would suggest the appropriate location shooting. Still, given that Saruman is head of the council, his place would seem like a good place to meet. And anything that allows for more Christopher Lee laying down the law (or attempting to) would be great in my opinion. Personally I'd love to see a meeting of the wise in pre-industrial Isengard.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Long-time lurker, first-time poster.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jan 2 2013, 10:21am

Post #55 of 68 (212 views)
Shortcut
He could've filmed many other things that didn't involve McCoy [In reply to] Can't Post

There may well be another meeting in Rivendell at some point. Or perhaps it was some a bridge scene - perhaps they will show Saruman's descent?

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Lightice
Lorien

Jan 2 2013, 11:39am

Post #56 of 68 (213 views)
Shortcut
A nice idea in terms of style, but... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I know distance-wise its actually further from Gandalf's current position than Rivendell, but given the geography of the Misty Mountains I'd say it would be rather more convenient, particularly if he goes straight there after checking out Dol Guldur.


...I fear that it would confuse the Middle-Earth geography a bit too much. I'm afraid that people who have seen the first trilogy would end up mistaking Mirkwood with Fangorn if they were brought back to the familiar sights from Two Towers.

If a second Rivendell meeting doesn't happen with the aid of mental projection or something in that vein, then Beorn's hall would seem like the best bet, but that place has yet another stylistic problem. From what we've seen in the production pictures, everything in that house is built to Beorn's proportions, meaning that it's enormous even compared to normal humans, let alone Bilbo and the dwarves. It would hurt the dignity of the Council if they ended up looking like children compared to the furniture around them.

I still think that Rivendell is the best bet, but only time will tell.


RalphDamiani
Rivendell

Jan 2 2013, 12:05pm

Post #57 of 68 (206 views)
Shortcut
This may be only [In reply to] Can't Post

The part where Saruman continues to talk while Galadriel and Gandalf communicate through thoughts.

It's obvious they wrote lines we can't hear.

I think it's a false alarm. And I really don't think there will be a second meeting because that not only involves impossible geographic restrictions (Gandalf won't cross the mountains again or pull off Jedi tricks), but it's also repeated a scene. Book fans like us would love it, but there audience has already seen it, it's not good cinema.

Gandalf will come to Dol Guldur, get in trouble and Galadriel will come to his aid with an army without explanation (maybe she carries that mirror around. :P)

If there are extra scenes with Sir Cristopher Lee, I bet they're small intimate moments between him and whoever is left in Rivendell or monologues in Orthanc, where he can be easily placed. I don't think Sir Cristopher was (unfortunately) healthy enough even to stand up and do something overly dramatic.

And I sustain my theory he'll have to something to do with Radagast's ultimate disappearence and the passing of the staff before it's all over.


(This post was edited by RalphDamiani on Jan 2 2013, 12:06pm)


Lightice
Lorien

Jan 2 2013, 12:25pm

Post #58 of 68 (213 views)
Shortcut
Very doubtful. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think it's a false alarm. And I really don't think there will be a second meeting because that not only involves impossible geographic restrictions (Gandalf won't cross the mountains again or pull off Jedi tricks), but it's also repeated a scene.



There are always geographic restrictions between the members of the White Council. They live thousands of miles apart. But more importantly, it would enormous waste of dramatic tension to reduce the entire Dol Guldur subplot to nothing but a random violent encounter in the second film. We are talking about the Dark Lord Sauron, here. He isn't a minor, secondary nuisance. He is Gandalf's entire motivation for helping the dwarves in the first place.

The scene is not repeated if cinematography and the script are handled sufficiently differently from the first meeting. Greater tension, more dynamic exchange and shorter span are quite enough to give the scene a completely different feel. The White Council needs to convene again to give a proper weight to the fact that Sauron has returned and is again seeking the Rings of Power. I believe that PJ is going to tie the Necromancer together with Smaug by either having them actually ally with each other like Gandalf feared, or at least show a serious threat of this happening. It's also more than likely that Sauron will be tied to the Bo5A somehow, to avoid story fatigue after the presumed main villain, Smaug, is killed off.


Quote
I don't think Sir Cristopher was (unfortunately) healthy enough even to stand up and do something overly dramatic.



A body double can be used if he needs to do something active, but to support the White Council he really doesn't need more than to make piercing stares and magical chants to provide favourable weather conditions, possess enemies to attack each other, or something in those lines.


In Reply To
And I sustain my theory he'll have to something to do with Radagast's ultimate disappearence and the passing of the staff before it's all over.



And I continue to seriously doubt this wild theory. It has no basis on any information we have about the films, and contradicts some of it. Not to mention that it would completely ruin the dramatic reveal of Saruman's treachery in FotR. If Radagast is to die, which I doubt in itself, it's going to be in battle against the forces of Dol Guldur.


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jan 2 2013, 5:51pm

Post #59 of 68 (170 views)
Shortcut
Let's hope there's (a lot) more about the Great Rings, all of them. [In reply to] Can't Post

 

http://energyfromthorium.com/


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 2:56am

Post #60 of 68 (152 views)
Shortcut
No no no, Saruman is EVIL in the Hobbit. Order of movies. [In reply to] Can't Post

LOTR -> The Hobbit.
They are obviously intended to be seen in this order.

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Lightice
Lorien

Jan 3 2013, 12:59pm

Post #61 of 68 (134 views)
Shortcut
Obviously? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
LOTR -> The Hobbit.
They are obviously intended to be seen in this order.


There is nothing "obvious" about this. A good prequel can be watched before the main series without losing anything of either experience. I seem to recall an interview where PJ specifically mentioned that you can watch the two trilogies in either order and make as much sense of them.

But insisting that Saruman is "obviously" evil in The Hobbit with this reasoning is far less rational, still. Do you know how a story arc works? Do you know how Chekhov's Gun needs to be used in good storytelling? Saruman suddenly turning out to be evil would do nothing to serve the story of The Hobbit because there could be no payoff, no conclusion for this arc, and it would make the reveal in the FotR redundant, both for people who have seen the LotR-trilogy beforehand and those who haven't, yet.

It would end up as nothing but meaningless fanservice with no place in the story that The Hobbit-trilogy is attempting to tell. It's no different from arbitrarily relocating Tom Bombadil to Mirkwood in a misguided attempt to satisfy the fans of the books. It would add nothing to the story but loss of focus and unnecessary confusion.


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 4:38pm

Post #62 of 68 (122 views)
Shortcut
LOTR->TH=Saruman (great) evil (character). TH->LOTR=Saruman a complete fool [In reply to] Can't Post

Watching the movies in the correct order, LOTR first, I mean, leaves untuched the surprise of Saruman.
Watching the Hobbit first you istantly understand there's something wrong with him, or he is a complete fool who doesn't understand anything.
Having seen LOTR first, we know he is evil, so we know why he behaved like that at the White Council; the other characters of course do not so that's accepptable.
But watching the Hobbit first, Saruman behavior is meaningless because we KNOW there's something evil in Dol Guldur.
I would agree with you if there were no scene there with the witch king and Sauron himself and we had only the words of Radagast to base our conjectures.

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Lightice
Lorien

Jan 3 2013, 5:50pm

Post #63 of 68 (112 views)
Shortcut
So character perspectives are meaningless now? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Having seen LOTR first, we know he is evil, so we know why he behaved like that at the White Council; the other characters of course do not so that's accepptable.
But watching the Hobbit first, Saruman behavior is meaningless because we KNOW there's something evil in Dol Guldur.
I would agree with you if there were no scene there with the witch king and Sauron himself and we had only the words of Radagast to base our conjectures.


Insisting that LotR first is the "correct order" is not helping your case.

Saruman is being depicted as a stiff-necked conservative who has a hard time dealing with changes in the status quo or admitting being wrong. He has no firsthand proof like the viewers, so his opinion is not completely unjustified. I suppose that you also think that Elrond is also evil or a fool since he agrees with Saruman?

But anyway, in terms of storytelling conventions you can't show a loaded shotgun in the first act and then never use it. If Saruman would be explicitly be revealed as being evil, there would have to be a storyline dealing with it within The Hobbit-trilogy. But this can't happen because this storyline is already used in the LotR-trilogy. Thus, the best that Peter Jackson can do with Saruman's moral compass is to be ambiguous about it, leaving viewers to decide what motivates him to be contrarian towards Gandalf and Radagast.


irasel
The Shire


Jan 3 2013, 6:28pm

Post #64 of 68 (115 views)
Shortcut
Christopher Lee said Saruman is not corrupted yet in The Hobbit Movies [In reply to] Can't Post

He talks about The Hobbit movies at 6:00 in this 2011 videoblog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0r1d7uE4-E

I think that his motivations in The Hobbit will remain more or less ambiguous.

I believe he is de facto starting his downfall but he is not yet conscious and thinks he is doing the right things. I agree with Lightice that it's more "cinematic" this way.

Anyway, I think the two trilogies are primarily meant to be seen in the order they were filmed (that's indeed the case for the current generation of moviegoers). We don't know what future generations will do. It's open to debate and personal tastes. Nevertheless I agree you should be able to watch TH first and be meaningful without the LOTR movies.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 3 2013, 9:41pm

Post #65 of 68 (118 views)
Shortcut
Oh, no, no no. That would only serve to muddle the story. It would be, I daresay [In reply to] Can't Post

deleterious! Wink lol. I am just ribbing you. Everyone has there own pet project aspect of the lore, it seems. I actually agree, I think it would be an oversight to ignore Thrain's Great Ring and the connection it had to Sauron's interest in and hostility towards Durin's House. I actually do think it would be damaging to leave that entirely out, though less so than entirely ignoring the role a certain other Maia Demon played in the fall of Durin and the ruining and cursing of Khazad-Dum.

As to Saruman being evil in The Hobbit, and LOTR being intended to be viewed first. . . can't agree with either. Though odd that you would say as much, considering your stance on other topics. Crazy

In Reply To


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 3 2013, 10:01pm

Post #66 of 68 (104 views)
Shortcut
I am inclined to think it will be in the second film. [In reply to] Can't Post

Here Saruman speaks, seemingly, with acceptance of it being Sauron, possibly, but of The Ring of Durin/Thrain not being enough to properly empower him. Remember, Saruman is going to look the same in any scene, and whatever material they shot for him would have been done in the same time span.

It is almost essential that the Council meet again. . . they have to be seen to accept the threat of Dol Guldur and to decide upon a course of action. Since Elrond et al are put into the scene with him anyway, tis easy enough for them to change Elrond's outfit and perhaps Galadriel's as well, and violla! No possible mistaking it for being the same scene, unless the audience is to assume that the Elves have a Diana Ross type penchant for changing outfits during the same event.

As to Gandalf getting back to Rivendell. . . well, to quote the charming Bofur, "he's a Wizard! He does as he pleases," (seemed like a little nod to the old Animated version, I must say). That is part of his mystical mystery, and we saw traces of it even in Fellowship. The way he moved around Bilbo's home, unnoticed and often in a manner that disoriented Bilbo, or his arriving there before Bilbo, after Bilbo slips on the Ring. We don't see him go rushing past the unseen Bilbo, nor fiddling with the Hobbit's lock. One minute the Wizard is seated with an vexed expression, and the next, he is cooly awaiting Bilbo by the fireside in Bag End. He reaches Isengard before Frodo and Sam can get beyond the East Farthing, and that is before we see him being chauferred by Gwaihir. I think if how a Wizard gets from point A to point B is the biggest continuity issue the film presents us with, we are in for smooth sailing.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 12:38am

Post #67 of 68 (88 views)
Shortcut
See? We agree on something! [In reply to] Can't Post

Why did you say its strange for me to talk about the order of the movies?
I think it would be senseless to see them in chronological order for the simple reason that a lot of the major characters have their perfect introduction in FOTR, where in the Hobbit they just appear from nowhere... well.. like the book... which I don't like that much...
Let alone the Ring of power, right there in the "o" of the title... people would think what the heck is that... unlike a certain other thing in FOTR which I can't rememeber now... Wink

As for the Great Rings, one of the major flaws, dare I say the only one? is the little time they spent on them... it's THE LORD OF THE RINGS for god sake and you do not talk about the Rings?
PJ has this great opportunity to fix this omission... I hope he can do it.

PS: excuse my English, but it's not my mother language...

http://energyfromthorium.com/


MistyMountainHop
Registered User

Jan 4 2013, 12:53am

Post #68 of 68 (105 views)
Shortcut
Fair points. [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose you can never really underestimate the regular movie-goer... haha.

Agreed on the problems of Beorn's house, wouldn't want to downplay the seriousness of a meeting. But as others have discussed there seems to equal problems with Rivendell, Lorien, Rhosgobel and now Isengard. In reality I think the very occurence of a second meeting will be problematic, but I do still hope they work out an effective way to include it.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 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.