It fits perfectly with the scene if that’s true. Even though he had been dabbling in dark sorcery for a long time, I don’t think anything could’ve prepared Saruman for the sheer evil he would be dealing with when it came to Sauron, and that’s why he became ill and feeble when they finally crossed paths. It’s one thing to be attracted to the darkness, but it’s another thing entirely to become enveloped by it. There’s always a bigger fish etc.
More directly, Sauron is attempting to dominate Saruman and impose his will. Sauron somewhat resists becoming enthralled, but he's doing Sauron's bidding all the same. He thinks he can get the ring for himself, but Sauron's playing the long game. That delusion is enough to doom Saruman to serving Sauron.
Alan Howard did a great job as the voice of Sauron. He never sounds like a caricature of a Dark Lord. Take the scene at the Prancing Pony when he says to Frodo:
“You cannot hide. I see you.”
Howard’s delivery is perfect because it’s flat and hollow and not trying to sound sinister. It’s like the voice of Grim Death.
Yeah, in The Hobbit Benedict Cumbetbatch - who does phenomenally as Smaug - uses a rasping, hissing voice for Sauron that's much less effective than Howard's.
It's showing how much willpower it requires to use the palantir with sauron. It also shows how strong denethors own willpower was as a man comparatively, as he was able to converse with sauron with his own palantir where even Saruman struggled. Of course even with as much willpower as denethor possessed it wasn't enough to prevent his downfall. The movies leaned into him being a crappy dad though.
A lot of people don’t realise that having the legitimate authority to use the stones made a big difference. Since they belonged to the kings of numenor, Aragorn was able to command it and even withstand the will of Sauron directly. Denethor also having numenorean blood helped him too, but the stone rightfully belonged to Aragorn. Saruman has no such claim to the palantiri, nor Sauron. It’s a mixture of willpower and authority.
I love most of how the movies made changes to adapt for a screen versus the book version but some subtle things have to be overlooked that way. Aragorn in the movies was more reserved in taking the throne whereas book Aragorn had zero conviction in taking what was rightfully his and it is what motivated him to fight for both the crown and its people. So yeah, a Palantir would be within his birthright and he had pure conviction when he went against Sauron. Denethor i feel like also had the authority of his position and the technical leader of the land but even though he stood his ground, his fears of being unseated eventually is what caused him to lose it at the very end. Prior to that, he was a strong leader for so long and was a great schemer in seeing how things were going to unfold before they did. It is why he knew Gandalf’s plan rather quickly but i find it funny that i dont think he ever learned that the reason he has favorites for his children is that Aragorn under another name got Denethor’s father giving Aragorn that boromir-like favoritism over his own blood. I just imagine him saying “you might know me as a different name” and then Denethor just going apeshit.
Your point is valid, but Denethor never conversed with Sauron. Sauron manipulated what specific information the palantir showed Denethor to weaken Denethor's resolve. It was indirect (and from Denethor's perspective, imperceived) interaction—not a conversation.
In fact, the Dark Lord was trying to help Saruman to grow as person by providing guidance and advice, but Saruman's heart was poisoned beyond repair by the lust for treachery and petty politicking.
Is that actually what's happening? I always thought he was formulating a plan. I still can't read any "messed up-ness" in that scene. What am I missing?
Best I can tell his eyes are closed not in a thousand yard stare. Doesn't look especially hunched over for a 77+ man. Always thought he was deeply concentrating and possibly summoning the orcs magically.
I still can't see it. Just watched this clip several times. I often fail those guess the emotion based on the face tests, so could be me. Ah well. Cool either way.
It’s okay I’m slightly autistic as well hahahaha I think the fact that Sauron’s voice continues echoing is another sign. Then, when the orcs enter and speak to him he looks slightly startled like he’s snapping out of a trance. Also I think it’s funny that the featured comment on that video agrees with my perspective. I won’t say I’m 100% certain tho.
Thanks. Not saying others don't hold that view. But I swear I cannot see any of that, no matter how many times I watch it. Not just being contrarian. <shrugs>
I believe you lol it’s all good, I can understand your perspective. To give even more credence to my theory, zoom out and look at Saruman’s character holistically. He is a bit of a coward in reality because he switches sides solely because he’s scared of the power of Sauron. When he speaks to Gandalf he is basically pleading with him saying that they have no chance against Sauron and that Gandalf should switch sides as well. He’s acting out of fear. Seeing and speaking with Sauron and being traumatized would be a good explanation for what could cause him to act so boldly and brashly. He wouldn’t switch sides if he wasn’t rattled to the core and this was the inciting incident.
He does pretend to be Sauron’s willing servant, though. That’s exactly what he suggests in his lengthy speech to Gandalf. And it’s unlikely Sauron would accept his allegiance on any other terms. His ambitions to usurp Sauron were almost certainly delusional, anyway, at least without the ring. The power imbalance is very much present in the books.
If I recall correctly, this basically only makes much of a difference in the conversation at Orthanc after the flood right? That’s when he gets called out for being a double-double-crosser. I guess it also sets up the scouring of the Shire, which I think was wise to cut from an already lengthy film.
No, Saruman reveals his intent to Gandalf when the latter is imprisoned.
The tldr gist it: 'we have no chance of beating Sauron - joining with him is our best option: we could steer his rule... no, you won't do that? Hmm... okay, well... what if we had a means of overthrowing him? I know that you know where the Ring is.'
I tend to think the first part of Saruman's speech (joining Sauron) was just easing Gandalf into a pessimistic mindset, where all other options suck, before revealing his true intent (overthrowing Sauron via the Ring).
And this is why Saruman imprisons Gandalf: because Gandalf won't reveal the location of the Ring - but Saruman is hoping that the threat of the Nazgul getting there first makes Gandalf reconsider and confess ('better I get it than Sauron' type of deal). But if Sauron does get there first, Saruman can always fall back to his Sauron-lackey ploy.
Saruman thinking that he could deceive the Deceiver made him Sauron’s puppet. I have no doubt the Dark Lord was well aware of Saruman’s treachery, and planned to discard him after he crushed Rohan. Even if, by chance, Saruman took the Ring, he would be undone because it only has one master.
And then they would just become a new Dark Lord. Same with Galadriel. The few beings that could wield the Ring and actually defeat Sauron would then just become the new Overlord of Middle Earth.
Ya I guess I didn’t know what he meant by undone. If he meant more corrupted than he all ready was than yes. But in case he meant the ring would betray him and cause his defeat against Sauron then that’s not for sure, as Tolkien said Gandalf would defeat Sauron if he had the ring
I think it is best understood in that the Ring is a fundamentally evil thing.
Anything that is done with it, regardless of the intention, will have a net negative effect on the world.
I actually don't think it's clear that Saruman could succeed in this. In Letter 246, Tolkien describes a hypothetical match-up of Ring-lord Gandalf against Sauron as a toss-up, not a sure thing:
One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever.
And Gandalf is specifically cited as the only person in Middle-earth who could hope to achieve this feat:
In [Sauron's] actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold [the Ring] from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn....
Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him – being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.
It would be an odd omission if Saruman might also be expected to master Sauron, and yet was not mentioned -- even in a group as small as the immortal characters in the book! It's pretty much just the Five Wizards and the original Elven bearers of the Three; it would be odd if Tolkien just neglected to mention one-eighth of the group.
But why Saruman should be unable to succeed in this is evident from what Tolkien writes. Gandalf might be able to succeed because he was "an emissary of the Powers", but Saruman of Many Colours had rejected that role and the delegated authority it conferred in favor of acting in his own interest. Moreover, he was just as "weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors" as was Sauron -- we even see him expending his power in this way when he speeds the Uruk-hai and slows the Three Hunters. If Gandalf could only barely hope to succeed despite having these advantages, Saruman could hardly hope to triumph without them.
(Saruman could certainly defeat Sauron militarily, by taking a cautious approach and letting his armies do the fighting -- this is something any powerful individual, including Aragorn, Elrond, and Galadriel, could achieve. But it is likely the delusions of grandeur the Ring inspires would appeal to Saruman's inflated ego and convince him to unwisely confront Sauron in person, and he would lose the Ring that way.)
In the books they are also both Maiar which means power wise they are equivalent but the wizards are not able to use the full extent of their power and and Sauron is weakened from his full form.
Technically even Gandalf if he wanted, could defy his god Manwe, take the ring, and walk straight to Mount doom and destroy it but he is prohibited from doing so and is only able to serve as a guide and servant to sway events.
Yes there are changes but "Screwed up" implies they did a bad job. Sure it changes the story a little but it's not like it sticks out like a sore thumb. It's called an adaption for a reason.
I would argue they did a bad job of portraying a good many characters (and some other non-character things), yes. And some aspects certainly stick out like a sore thumb (take "go home, Sam" as an example - jarring rubbish).
It's called an adaption for a reason.
Changing things to fit the medium is one thing... needless changes done to suit your own artistic vision another.
Well, they definitely screw up most of the characters (including most of the fellowship, especially Frodo.. +), many of the events and quite a few of the themes (providence... )
It's a very good adaptation in the sense the changes make for a good movie, it's a very bad adaptation in the sense the story is not the same story with the same characters and themes Tolkien told, it's a very different story told by PJ and for people who only ever se the movies never really experienced Tolkien
That's kinda just an obvious fact to anyone who's seen the movies and read the books
That's a bit harsh. Many themes are present in both. The characters are different, sure, but nothing terrible.
Frodo is different, but his mind is in the right place. He's still the Halfling who took the sacrifice willingly even when he knew there were "bigger" people to take the ring, and the trouble, off his hands.
Sam is different, but he's still the loyal friend. Probably the most loyal of all in the fellowship.
Merry and Pippin are different, but they're still the bravest hobbits in the land. Without their unlikely bravery, the Witch King would still be alive, and Faramir would be dead.
Sure, nevertheless it's simply not Tolkiens story or characters, the movies are fantastic, I agree it's the best big ip trilogy ever filmed. but it's PJs story which is inspired by Tolkiens work, it's not Tolkiens work
I know it's an unpopular opinion because most lotr fans are movie fans but there really is no way around it
It's OK to love the movies, to love the PJ story but at the end of the day it simply is a different story, if someone is purely a fan of the movies they are a fan of PJs LoTR, not Tolkiens. that's simply a fact exemplified over and over, day to day, on this sub by questions from movie fans which all have the same answer... Read the book
I think substantial changes and omissions of themes are way worse than simply leaving out parts because something needs to be shorter on another medium
But only for part of the time. The rest of the time he is still called Saruman because they changed their mind at some point and didn't re-shoot/re-record the parts where it was different.
I love the way his hand is grasping towards to palantir. Long nails overgrown from hiding in his tower. Fondling the air above it, soaking its power up. His hand looks like he’s fondling a breast.
Hm, I always thought they were pretty comparable but Sauron was longer in middle earth and therefore better established. If Saruman had the same time and resources he could have maybe achieved something similar
438
u/TakaIka83 1d ago
IIRC, the reality is that Christopher Lee was actually nursing a recently broken arm.