Differences...

[sil]

As this thread was named Lotr vs. PJ's Lotr I'd like to know
whether anyone anywhere listed them? Some say they were four
or so, but I could see hundreds!

There the major ones:

- the legend
1) Those who have not read the book have no imagination what
is Middle-earth, who are elves, dwarves or orcs/goblins or
even hobits
2) Sauron-knight was rather Melkor's picture
3) creature Gollum wasn't a creature first-the ring made him
4) Bilbo met and spoke to Gollum (many non-raders say "How do
hobbits know about Gollum?)

- the beginning
1) birthday party and stolen fireworks rocket...
2) there are 4 not 2 hobbits starting the journey, no stolen
vegetables...
3) missing scene when they met elves for the first (dark rider)
Btw there Frodo learned elvish which he used against the
riders
4) Saruman vs. Gandalf (terrible!)

- to the valley
1) they were afraid of Aragorn, riddle was missing, how could
they know Aragorn is Gandalf's friend?
2) Tom Bambadill .... have you been thinking where Aragorn
found the swords he gave them? It'd be hard job bearing
3 even hobbit-sized swords on the road...
3) Gandalf's flashes when he was ambushed by riders
4) Aragorn's fight against riders ... ;) he wasn't that good!
5) Arwen...no!

- Elrond council
1) Aragorn didn't reveal he is Isuldir's heir
2) No love scenes only sadness in their eyes
3) No broken sword on an altar
4) the length...
5) Boromir pictured as an arogant and untrustworthy man.
He had a graet repect for Elrond and the decision of council
indeed. He disliked Aragorn as he didn't know he is his king!
If he had known (as the movie showed) he would have died
for him at once!
6) what for the gods sake is mithril? (and the hunger of
dwarves for it...)

- Moria
1) Saruman and the snowfall
2) Who was for and against the passage throught Moria...
3) octupus...
4) long fight against the cave troll, Stinger injuring it.
btw, there were more trolls and less orcs
5) the first Balrog's challange of Gandalf when trying to lock
the door
6) wobbling bridge

Now I am tired - would anyone go on? ;)

sil

[Elfarmari]

One of the changes I really don't understand (other than Arwen) is having Gandalf prefer Caradhras and Aragorn prefer Moria, instead of the other way around. That didn't make much sense to me. Does anyone know the reason for doing this, or adding Saruman as the cause of their trouble?

[B Proudfoot]

Trying to include all about Tom Bombidil would have been a nightmare for the film. Sacrifices have to be made surely? I went to see the film with non-readers and felt shocked when one of them said that the first hour wasn't really required!!! But thinking about it, anybody who tackles and work of this magnitude is always going to get the really rough end of the deal from purists. Don't get me wrong, I am one as a previous reply shows, but I'm also a realist. For me the film adds to my imagination for the last 20 odd years especially the effects used when Frodo puts on the ring! The film hightens my enjoyment of the written word and nothing will ever beat reading it!

"Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so."

[ReadWryt]

Frodo's adventures in Wraith Space were indeed a pleasant surprise for me. I thought they did a wonderfull job of showing the scary place that the Ring made visible, and it left me thinking in retrospect that Bilbo would have had to have been very brave to go into that every time he slipped on the ring to avoid the Sackville Baggins'...

[sil]

Originally posted by Nienor
One of the changes I really don't understand (other than Arwen) is having Gandalf prefer Caradhras and Aragorn prefer Moria, instead of the other way around. That didn't make much sense to me. Does anyone know the reason for doing this, or adding Saruman as the cause of their trouble?

Well, as far as I remember Mines of Moria were deserted for a
quite long time, due to something which Gimli, Gandalf and
Legolas were afraid of... (orcs say 'ghash' - 'fire')
Gimli knew in fact there was no dwarf alive - why the scene
on the altar then? In the book they found a lost tomb of a
dwarvish king - one of the ring possessors Durin (I have not read
the book in English so I am not sure about the spelling).

I am still not sure (a friend of mine stole me the book! my preciousss..;-) whether it was Aragorn who was for Moria. IMHO
Boromir was the one - it would have quicken their way to Gonder.

So the answer is - another of the things/changes that do not
make a sense and every reader asks why....

[sil]

Originally posted by B Proudfoot
Trying to include all about Tom Bombidil would have been a nightmare for the film. Sacrifices have to be made surely? I went to see the film with non-readers and felt shocked when one of them said that the first hour wasn't really required!!! But thinking about it, anybody who tackles and work of this magnitude is always going to get the really rough end of the deal from purists. Don't get me wrong, I am one as a previous reply shows, but I'm also a realist. For me the film adds to my imagination for the last 20 odd years especially the effects used when Frodo puts on the ring! The film hightens my enjoyment of the written word and nothing will ever beat reading it!


To that point I agree - as long as TB was a fairytale character
which JRRT added to make the story attractive for children. Tehre
should be a story he wrote (or a poem?) about him.
Nevertheless I heard TB was a puppet Tolkien's son owned - kind
of Dutch man with a hat on with bleu feather.

As for me, I admit hobbits had to be Dutch. Haven't you seen they were smoking all the time and the things they saw then...:D

BTW my view of the movie is probably the same as of the others -
it was not The Lord of The Rings but The Pictures from The Lord of The Rings. Breathtaking sceneries and effects making a hotch-potch together. Non-readers confused and either was I ;)

sil

[Bill the Pony]

Eeuhh Sil, Gandalf wanted Moria, Aragorn wanted Redhorn and Boromir wanted Gap of Rohan.

From 'A journey in the Dark'
There is a way that we may attempt,' said Gandalf. `I thought from the beginning, when first I considered this journey, that we should try it. But it is not a pleasant way, and I have not spoken of it to the Company before. Aragorn was against it, until the pass over the mountains had at least been tried.'
<snip>
It is a name of ill omen,' said Boromir. `Nor do I see the need to go there. If we cannot cross the mountains, let us journey southwards, until we come to the Gap of Rohan, where men are friendly to my people, taking the road that I followed on my way hither. Or we might pass by and cross the Isen into Langstrand and Lebennin, and so come to Gondor from the regions nigh to the sea.'

I can not find a quote that states explicitly whether Gimli believed that Balin was still alive, but Gandalf mentions the possibility
There is even a chance that Dwarves are there, and that in some deep hall of his fathers, Balin son of Fundin may be found. However it may prove, one must tread the path that need chooses!'
'I will tread the path with you, Gandalf! ' said Gimli. 'I will go and look on the halls of Durin, whatever may wait there-if you can find the doors that are shut.'


originally posted by Sil
As for me, I admit hobbits had to be Dutch. Haven't you seen they were smoking all the time and the things they saw then
Ah yes, the old prejudice, just because we legalize the use of soft drugs, that must mean the whole country is constantly high...
Ah well, we've been called worse than a hobbit. I wouldn't mind being one

[sil]

Oh thanx,

how much can be forgoten? Perhaps I should,
instead of for my Czech one, look for the English
book - even names of places were translated
and I cannot follow the discussion here as I would
want to.

Is Tolkien's English tough for a non-native speaker?
I tried to read some Terry Pratchet's books but I was
lost on the first page and I can bet I have not caught
more than 1/3 of jokes there...

sil

[starlight]

The biggest and most diffucult ommissions to the movie are probably stuff that we as readers just assumed happened.

1) There is no mention of the reforging of Narsil, and Aragon carries his old sword out of Rivendell?


2) There is no mention of Galadrial's gift to Sam (the little box with the dirt and the Mallorn Nut) How will Sam heal the Shire without recieving it?

I assume that these events will probably be taken care of in the other movies but......

[Thorin]

Originally posted by starlight
There is no mention of Galadrial's gift to Sam (the little box with the dirt and the Mallorn Nut) How will Sam heal the Shire without recieving it?

I assume that these events will probably be taken care of in the other movies but......

Though I believe that the gift giving scenes were edited and will probably be shown in the DVD release, I don't believe Sam will get his box of dirt because the Scourging of the Shire and events following are not in the movie.

Because Sam plants his seeds to restore the Shire to what it was before the scourging, my guess is that is not included as well.

[starlight]

What!!

No Scourging of the Shire?! ...... I'm hurt ...... deeply....

Thats the saddest and most beautiful part. Where darkness can hurt the most innocent. Where Merry and Pippen realize what they have been trained for. Where Sam can use his skills as a simple gardner to heal the hurt that has happened. Where the last death of the war falls a the dorstep of bag end. :(

(ok, realing it in now)

I'm waiting as fast as I can for the DVD because I want all those precious scenes that fell on the cutting room floor. Sad really. I don't care that the movie is 4 hours long.

[Eol]

This change was the major shift in the alliances in the film. They changed Saruman from a self-serving double (and triple)-crosser to being a simple tool of Sauron. So instead of having Sauron and the baddies on one side, Gandalf and the goodies on the other, and Saruman playing them off against each other, we get a VERY simplistic Good vs Evil. Can't wait to see what they make of that later on. Also that "Make me an army" thing was pointless and just wasted film.

I was also wondering why the need for the Sauron-is-an-ethereal-eye bit? The book refers to the eye, but it doesn't by any means mean that he IS one. Nor does it say he wasn't in corporeal form.

Also, much as I thought the effects for the great battle at the beginning were cool, there was this problem in that it seemed that Sauron was all powerful and that the ring finger being snicked off was more accidental. Other things in the movie tended to compound this "Sauron is invincible" bit. He was VERY powerful, but remember that the Numenoreans defeated him while he had ring (ok, more precisely, he barely resisted knowing he would fail, so he hid the ring and worked on treachery instead). The point is, there were great people who could stand up to Sauron. In fact Sauron fears that one of these may seize the ring and defeat him.

Also in the book the ring wasn't removed until AFTER Sauron was defeated. Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him. Isilder fights Sauron and kills him. Then, with the hilt-shard of Narsil, cut the ring from his finger "as a weregild for his father and brother".

Remember also that Sauron was a Maia, as was Gandalf and Saruman. They were all of the same kind. Both powerful elves and men can and did stand up to them. The problem was more that the side of good was just outnumbered and that in time Sauron would eventually wear them down (remember also that when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron in the Palantir and showed him Narsil re-forged that Sauron was afraid).

Oh well, I personally was disappointed. The movie is there to sell product and has more to do with marketing than telling the story. Just toss it in the same pile as Dune, The Haunting, and a myriad other movies that "supposedly" are true to the original book.

Eol - The Dark Elf

[Harad]

This change was the major shift in the alliances in the film. They changed Saruman from a self-serving double (and triple)-crosser to being a simple tool of Sauron.

Its a pleasure to see all these old chestnuts taken out for roasting.

Where were Merry and Pippen being taken?

[sil]

Eol: I agree, especially with your last paragraph. Tolkien's was THE
WORK and Jackson's a movie...pity.
BTW I have been thinking 'bout book to movies remakes and it
is obviously hard to find a good pair. Perhaps 'Conan I',
'Pets Cemetary' or '1984'...

Harad: To Saruman. Hi reckons one of them could have the ring for
his dark purposes. Therefore, in the book of course, he
commanded Skurut-hai not to harm hobbits and not to
search for anything (he wants to keep it secret!).

But in the movie Merry and Pippen are them most worthless
characters. Just Disney-like babbering 'really funny, isn't it
dear' persons without a goal and sense. Intro with the dragon
rocket... :( makes me sick.

sil

[ReadWryt]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the 14 foot tall Sauron in the begining of the film...what the heck was THAT about?

[sil]

Well, I did not so mind personalising Sauron as a knight.
I reckon it might be a cross-joint of Sauron and
Melkor. Could you see the helmet as there were three
spikes, it reminded me about his crown where sillmarils
were embedded...

For people who hadn't even heard the legend it was
a great scene indeed - but asking me "Who was that big
fellow?" they run me into trouble :) ... after all,
the movie was not so great as I expected and not so bad
as I worried. Taking it as another version of LOTR
makes me feel better...

sil

[ReadWryt]

Oh, don't get me wrong! I felt that displaying Sauron in Armour was a great way to avoid the inevitable arguments that "That is not what Sauron looks like!" no matter HOW they portrayed him, but he was not gigantic in any way. It's just another example of how a director of cheesey horror movies goes for what he knows when attempting to instill fear in his audience...

[Harad]

1) There is no mention of the reforging of Narsil, and Aragon carries his old sword out of Rivendell?

Aragorn has no "old sword," either in the book or the movie. In the book Narsil is reforged in Anduril after the CoE. In the movie the reforging is TBD. The book, yes the perfect book, has problems explaining what Aragorn's real weapon was before CoE.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=57490#post57490


Harad: To Saruman. Hi reckons one of them could have the ring for his dark purposes. Therefore, in the book of course, he commanded Skurut-hai not to harm hobbits and not to search for anything (he wants to keep it secret!).

But in the movie Merry and Pippen are them most worthless characters. Just Disney-like babbering 'really funny, isn't it dear' persons without a goal and sense. Intro with the dragon rocket... makes me sick.

Sil: I dont know what you are trying to say here. In both the book and the movie Saruman tells his troops to capture Hobbits. In both the book and the movie M&P have minor roles in FOTR. The movie even expands their roles by having them take a hand in rescuing Frodo at Parth Galen.

If you referring to my point about Saruman, I am merely casting asparagus on the "idea" that Saruman in the movie is a complete toady of Sauron. Why then would he bring the Hobbits back to Isengard instead of taking them to Morrrrdorrr?

I realize this is a movie-bashing thread, but occasional doses of reality might help.

[armeda]

I just saw the movie and I loved it. The feeling I got from the movie was the same and most of the scenes and places were almost exactly how I had them pictured in my mind. You all have brought out some good points. Putting that aside, what I thought should have been brought more, sort of on a comedic side note, is the fact that hobits are Always hungry. They are constantly mentioning it in the book but only noticed one scene in the movie. Also the scenes with the elves and Lady of the wood. No mention of the hobits having a crush on her. No mention of the mistrust and dislike between Drarves/Gimli and the Elves and the fact that they insisted he be blindfolded when they left and the anger. How all agreed to be blindfolded. All in all, they did a wonderful job. They could have messed it up real bad.

Armeda

[baraka]

When i see these posts about changes in the movie, how come no one ever notices that PJ changed the name of Bilbo´s book. Am I the only one who notices it, or people just don´t care. Can someone please explain why was the change necessary.

[PRH]

Oh I definitely noticed that. Maybe for some odd reason PJ thought the word "holiday" wasn't relatable or was silly (like Aragorn pulling out a broken sword at Bree)...I don't know. Pretty lame change.

[ReadWryt]

Actually I believe that Jackson made an assumption, and mind you this is merely my own personal speculation, that American Audiences would get confused by the different meanings that the word Holliday have in the U.S. and elsewhere. Here in the States we use Holliday to represent a special re-occuring event like Christmas or Presidents Day, and it may be that P.J. figured we Yanks wouldn't catch the fact that in England and British Protectorate nations like New Zealand and Australia it can simply mean what we in the States call a Vacation...*Shrug* I just tossed that into the same catagory as raising the banner that said "Happy Birthday Bilbo Baggins" in English instead of whatever written language the Hobbits used to spell things in Westron...Mildly distracting but not completely annoying.

[Ged]

Sil,
You said:
They changed Saruman from a self-serving double (and triple)-crosser to being a simple tool of Sauron.

I didn't read Saruman as a "simple tool of Sauron" at all. As Harad has pointed out, if he was a simple tool why did he order the Uruk-hai to bring the halflings back to Orthanc?

IMO the film is portraying him very close to the book. In the book he does look in the Palantir and communicate with Sauron and is trapped and dominated thereby. There is a quote from Gandalf soon after the Palantir is tossed out by Wormtongue referring to Sauron as "Saruman's new master".

But of course, Saruman wanted the ring for himself; he was trying to hide this part of his thought from Sauron whilst at the same time hoping to grab the ring. I hope we see more of this side of Saruman (i.e. double crossing Sauron) in TTT.

[Thorin]

As I've said before....If PJ wanted to give that impression, he contradicted himself....By having Saruman tell Gandalf that he (Gandalf) must join Sauron or die and they must ally with him makes Saruman his crony....This, of course, is totally opposite what the book portrays...Then PJ has the orcs carrying Merry and Pippin away to Saruman (which is in the book)...Definite contradiction for the Tolkien-unaware....

And baraka,

When PJ botches Orthanc, Saruman, Arwen and Bree, the last thing that would bother me is the name change of an insignificant book. ;)

[baraka]

When PJ botches Orthanc, Saruman, Arwen and Bree, the last thing that would bother me is the name change of an insignificant book.
I know that it´s a small change but it´s a matter of principle. :(

[Varda]

I noticed some more things:
Bill the Pony is entirely left out--he is mentioned once when they get to Moria but no one knows the real loss felt by poor Sam.
(I personally think PJ spent too much time on the fighting scenes and not enough on the important details we have been mentioning)

When they get to the door of Moria, it is not Frodo who finally figures out the riddle, but Gandalf.

[WarriorMay]

In the book it said that the elves made their own rings. But in the movie, the rings were given to them. Just something I noticed after watching a it a few times.

[sil]

To Ged: I suppose I have mentioned it but again - Saruman WAS NOT
dominated! He looked (probably several times) into a Palandir
and saw the things. But the things can't be untrue, he only]
realized how The Enemy is powerful and numerous. He was
misled, deceived, perhaps feared, but never a servant of
the Dark Lord. He might have pretended he would serve and
we shall surely see in the next part :) but be aware, aftere
all it is still a holywood...

To Varda: Sad to say you are right (i am not sure 'bout the moonlite)
These minor changes don't bother me much but seeing them
as completely unnecessary they could be a pain in ...

To WarriorMay: Good point! I hate meeting people who read the book
and hearing "There were not much changes at all!"

BTW, it gave me a good start to think 'bout how many different ways
one can see (may be feel?) a book.

sil

P.S. One more point, as read it in my own language only I still be
thinking about how the translation might have chenged my feel. I
found the book poetic, nostalgic as it arose from a past and sad
indeed. The humorous scenes were really few...

[DGoeij]

Just another change that occured to me when re-reading TTT.

Before Gimli and the others leave for Helms Deep, Gimli recieves a round shield and a helmet from King Theoden. In the movie though, I realized then, that Gimli was already wearing a helmet when he left Rivendell.

I just wanted to mention it. No big deal.:rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Unfortunately, all the "no big deals" are going to turn into one big deal: the fact that JRR Tolkien's book will be altered so much that it won't even be reasonable, and that no FAD will be able to justify all the changes....

Or will they? That's what scares me the most....Judging from the many that seem to be on PJ's payroll, I don't think there will be anything PJ can do to the book that will raise the ire of all the FADs.

[Harad]

A hopeless case. Any number of insignificant changes add up to:

An insignificant change.

Gimli has a helmet, the name of the book is changed from "Holiday," Legolas hair is dirty blonde rather than dark, and on and on.

Its fine to list these differences but if you think they add up to a hill of beans "difference" in whether the movie tells the story of LOTR then...

you're Thorin.

[DGoeij]

I differ from opinion with you there. Just the fact that all these insignificant changes are there, somehow gives me the feeling the movie-makers didn't care all that much for Tolkien-details. Personally I think this movie would have felt better if these details would have been taken into account. I mean, if you mention Bilbo's book, why not make sure the title is correct too?
In the other hand, details in the landscape and such were magnificent. So they cared for that very clearly.

They were darn close with this movie, but some things brought the thing down IMHO, not up. In contrast off course there are changes that added to the story. Like Boromir teaching Pippin and Merry swordfighting. Or the skeleton that was pushed in the well instead of a mere rock that was thrown down.

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
By having Saruman tell Gandalf that he (Gandalf) must join Sauron or die and they must ally with him makes Saruman his crony....This, of course, is totally opposite what the book portrays...

Thorin

What book have you been reading? From Gandalf's account of his meeting with Saruman in The Council of Elrond chapter of FOTR:


' "And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!" he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means." '

How is this different from the Saruman portrayed in the movie? Some of the language is even the same. If you have doubts as to what the "Power" is that Saruman refers to, Gandalf did not. In the book he responds to Saruman:


' "Saruman," I said, "I have heard speeches of this kind before, but only in the mouths of emissaries sent from Mordor to deceive the ignorant. ...." '

The movie does a good job, I think in following the books portrayal of Saruman. If you are going to declare yourself a purist and attack other Tolkien fans for not being pure enough, you should at least show that you know what the book itself says.


Quote by Varda
And i dont remember anything about the door reflecting moonlight--that was in The Hobbit.

In front of the doors of Moria, at first the Fellowship could see nothing on the doors, but then Ganadalf "passed his hands to and fro, muttering words under his breath." Then the inscription on the doors appeared. It is specifically stated: "The Moon now shone upon the grey face of the rock". After all see the inscription, Gandalf says: "They are wrought of ithildin that mirrors only starlight and moonlight, and sleeps until it is touched by one who speakes words now long forgotten in Middle-earth."

[baraka]

I differ from opinion with you there. Just the fact that all these insignificant changes are there, somehow gives me the feeling the movie-makers didn't care all that much for Tolkien-details. Personally I think this movie would have felt better if these details would have been taken into account. I mean, if you mention Bilbo's book, why not make sure the title is correct too?
I greatly agree with both your points there.:)

[sil]

Greenwood:

What words have you been writing? ;) Saruman says "direct"
and "control" the Power - not to serve it! He is quite
clever tricker playing on both sides. In the movie, IMHO
he was depicted as a fooled old fanatic. No chance of
fighting with Gandalf - he trapped him by a trick instead
such a forcing...might have he thought he would persuade
Gandalf later and with knowledge of his they may overcome
or bind and then replace The Enemy? He surely might and
did!

After all, it's not a question of being a purist
- all the complaints refer to the only point - our feelings when reading the book completely differ with that one we had seeing the
movie. Ok?

[Greenwood]

Sil

Here again is the quote from FOTR (note the bold-faced passages):

' "And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!" he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means." '

This is what Saruman also says in the movie, in some cases using the same words. Yes, Saruman also talks about influencing the Power, but that is because Saruman is, of course, also hoping to get the Ring for himself and thus set himself up as the new Dark Lord. In both the book and the movie, Saruman is playing a double game. Gandalf seems to understand this. I do not have my books with me right now, but I seem to remember that when Gandalf talks with Saruman after the Ents have destroyed Isengard, Gandalf says something like: "The last time I was here you were the jailer of Mordor."

[Thorin]

All of Gandalf's comments to Saruman about Mordor were more of the "spirit" of Mordor...In other words, though Saruman thought he was in it for himself, he was really just a pawn being used by Sauron. It wasn't like Saruman went to Sauron and said, "Hey, let me be your jailer!"

In the book (and your quotes), Saruman is making it obvious he wants to use Sauron as a means to an end (to have the wizards rule). He does not desire to be a crony of Sauron's but because Sauron had the most power, pretending to be on his side was the most obvious step to power...Yes, I will admit that there was reference to Sauron and allying with him in the book, but not the way the movie portrayed it.

The movie made it "Join with Sauron or die." There is no inticement of Gandalf by Saruman of the wizards coming to rule with the ring....Where was that most important part to show Saruman's true intentions?

The movie contradicted itself and could have made things much more clear if it had followed your quotes to the tee, Greenwood.

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
By having Saruman tell Gandalf that he (Gandalf) must join Sauron or die and they must ally with him makes Saruman his crony....This, of course, is totally opposite what the book portrays...Then PJ has the orcs carrying Merry and Pippin away to Saruman

.....

Yes, I will admit that there was reference to Sauron and allying with him in the book, but not the way the movie portrayed it.

The movie made it "Join with Sauron or die." There is no inticement of Gandalf by Saruman of the wizards coming to rule with the ring....Where was that most important part to show Saruman's true intentions?

Thorin

I have provided quotes from the book that the movie mirrors quite closely in which Saruman tells Gandalf they must ally themselves with Sauron. Thus you statement that the movie is "totally opposite" from the book in this regard is not correct. Then your later statement says it was not the way the movie portrayed it. How was it different? As for your question of where in the movie does it show Saruman's true intentions, did you see the scene in which Saruman demands of his Uruk-hai: "Who do you serve?"? I thought it was fairly obvious in the movie that Saruman was playing a double game, just as he was in the book.

[Thorin]

I'll admit that saying that it was totally opposite from the book was a bit of an overstatement....I made it plain where the difference was in the book and movie.

Saruman asking Lurtz (that true to Tolkien character) whom he served didn't mean anything....If you would have asked an American soldier who he served during WWII he would have said, "The United States of America ,SIR!" Not, "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Allied Forces!" despite the fact that all of North America and England were battling the Nazis together as an allied front.

Just because Lurtz served Saruman, doesn't mean that Saruman still didn't serve Sauron...

It was ambiguous in the movie and the book made it much clearer.

[Ged]

Thorin,

With respect, IMHO you're batting on a sticky wicket here, old chap.
If you said "that character just didn't feel right", many people might sympathise or at least accept that you have your view. The thing is, when you start pointing out so-called factual innacuracies in the film you really DO have to be certain of your ground.

There were scenes in the film that on first viewing I though "hey, that never happened". On second thoughts, though, in almost every case I realised this was not the case. There are many scenes in the movie which Tolkien did not include in LoTR, but which MUST HAVE HAPPENED anyway. An example of this is Saruman communicating with Sauron through the Palantir.

As far as I am aware, the ONLY scene concerning Saruman which MAY have diverged from the book is him summoning up the weather. However, we discussed this in some depth in another thread and came to the conclusion that Tolkien did not make clear WHO was responsible for the bad weather on Caradhras. In this case, my friend, Peter Jackson's interpretation has just as much merit as yours or anyone else's.

As for Lurtz: okay, an extra character was added so that the Uruk-hai would not be portrayed as nameless. I don't see this as a big deal.

[Greenwood]

Quote by Thorin
If you would have asked an American soldier who he served during WWII he would have said, "The United States of America ,SIR!" Not, "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Allied Forces!" despite the fact that all of North America and England were battling the Nazis together as an allied front.

And the American soldier would have been absolutely correct. And a British soldier I expect would have said, "His Majesty, The King, SIR!" A French soldier (unless he served Vichy) would have said, "France, MONSIEUR!", etc. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a post-war alliance. History lesson aside, I really don't think very many viewers of the film were in much doubt that Saruman was playing a double game.

[Ged]

ReadWryt,
You said Oh, don't get me wrong! I felt that displaying Sauron in Armour was a great way to avoid the inevitable arguments that "That is not what Sauron looks like!" no matter HOW they portrayed him, but he was not gigantic in any way.

I'd be interested to know the evidence you have for this statement that "Sauron was not gigantic in any way". Are there any quotes that say words to the effect that "Sauron was not particularly tall"?

I must admit I can't remember now whether or not he still had the power at the end of the second age to change his appearance. If he did, then to appear in a battle as a VERY tall warrior is not exactly dumb. If in any case he did't have that power and was essentially appearing as he really was, then he may have been very tall. He was a Maiar, and isn't there a quote somewhere in the Sil that the Maiar (in their normal form) were very tall. Or at least when the first elves came along they were tall, but not as tall as the Maiar.

I'm sitting at work late at night so can't chase this up, but maybe somebody can help me.

[Bill the Pony]

Letter # 246 is my favorite

The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance
So this implies he was not gigantic, and could no longer change his shape at will.

[Ged]

You need to give more background about letter #246 BtP. What age is it referring to for instance?

I haven't read the quote, but I note the choice of words "the form that he took", implying choice.

[Bill the Pony]

Letter # 246 talks about what would have happened if Frodo had claimed the ring, so we're talking end of third age.

[Ged]

Well, with respect, the argument was to whether or not Sauron was (or could appear to be) gigantic at the end of the second age. So I'm not sure that this letter has taken us any further.

[Harad]

In any case the letter states:

The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.

Is there a dispute whether the Movie Sauron in the First Alliance fit this description? I think he did.

[Bill the Pony]

Sorry Ged, you're absolutely right. I did not read your post properly.
I can't really find a description of Sauron at the end of the second age. The closest I can get is from the Sil (but I did not check HoME)


There now he brooded in the dark, until he had wrought for himself a new shape; and it was terrible, for his fair semblance had departed for ever when he was cast into the abyss at the drowning of Númenor. He took up again the great Ring and clothed himself in power; and the malice of the Eye of Sauron few even of the great among Elves and Men could endure.
The only thing I can infer from this is that it took quite some time to create a new shape, and maybe it was difficult to change it as well?

[sil]

Ged,
well I admit there could be a possibility the weather-changer might
have been Saruman. But man, it should have been a fantasy movie -
where is the mist it requires to challenge and evoke your mind and
imagination? There is no clear explanation in the book, who spoiled
the weather. As far as I remember, they say the mountains themselves
don't want to let them pass - why PJ didn't follow that line?
It's a twisted fortune, nothing more nothing less, and let everybody
decide. For (some) US audience it would have been unacceptable puzzle-
so he decided explain (well - "explain") everything word by word,
scene by scene. This is the case of displaying GxS fight. Why couldn't be it as in the book? No mentioning Gandalf till Frodo wakes
up at Elrond's?

To Palantir communication channel - Saruman looked into the stone to
see the things as they were. And he did. It was not only a wireless
connection with Mordor but The Dark Lord might adjust the direction
where a seer's eye was brought to.
I suppose, and it IS my speculation, Saruman fought Sauron and Sauron
found him strong enough not to mess with him personally. In fact, the way Saruman wants to persuade Gandalf has been trod before when Sauron talked to Saruman. Just a thought ...

sil

P.S. BTW I realized you are shortening Silmarilion as Sil. Belive or not,
my nickname wasn't meant that way... ;)

[Ged]

sil
I agree with you that PJ decided that someone had to be seen to have caused the storm. I don't think we should criticize him for this for two reasons:
a) Tolkien didn't make it clear, so PJ is entitled to put his version on events, and
b) As a film that many non-Tolkien readers would have watched, it has to make sense in its own right, without recourse to the book. We can't expect PJ to have left things in that would have puzzled some of the audience.

As for Saruman and Sauron and the palantir. Well, as I said before, I think PJ just visualised a scene which must have happened. It's clear to me at least that Sauron expected Saruman's cooperation and obedience. When Gandalf and Pippin are riding to Minas Tirith don't they see a Nazgul fly over them towards Isengard? And Gandalf comments that Saruman will be in a tricky situation, not having the Palantir to communicate with Sauron, and not having a hobbit to hand over to him. So it will seem to Sauron as if Saruman is treacherous.

[Ged]

BtP,

Somebody may come along at any time with a killer quote proving that Sauron was not of the stature displayed in the film. I suspect not, though, because I don't think Tolkien directly quoted on this.

So PJ has used his own imagination, which he is entitled to do. If this clashes with individual readers' visualisations I can see why they are unhappy. But it doesn't make the film factually incorrect.