i love the flaming eye yeah it's not too accurate but along with vader's breathing it has become one of the most instantly recognisable symbols of evil in fiction.
One of the things I really enjoyed about the movies is that it wasn't just a "hero vs. bad guy 1-on-1 fight" in the end. Seeing Sauron in physical form in the end wouldn't really have added anything of great value to the movie
I'm trying not to overthink things when it comes to that kind of thing but you're right. I think Peter Jackson did a great job. Most people managed to really screw things up when they interfere but he did not in my mind.
I agree. That initial scene in the first movie was epic though. The way he tossed men and elves around with that mace was visually stunning. Great scene.
Yes, it would. It would parallel the prologue from the Fellowship of the Ring and would nicely tie together the theme of failure of the past generation which Aragorn had to live with. Way more interesting than some stupid troll fight. Peter Jackson is a weird director. He overthinks stuff like that, trying to find phylosophical reason for why not to do it, but then will have pointless subplots like Aragorn falling into the river when fighting Warg and being presumed dead for 10 minutes. Not to mention the love triangle with the blonde chick, which should've been cut out.
I’m actually glad he did not show up in physical form, as well. It would not have added anything and it very well may have even removed some continuity for the films sake; the entire time Sauron did not have the ring, therefore he did not have the “full” power to return to his physical form and become “peak” Sauron, if you will. This would have not made sense because Frodo and Sam are still on their way up mount doom/fighting Gollum inside, as everyone knows. That’s just following the films, of course. I agree with your comment completely!
One of the selling points for Movie Sauron for me as a 13-year-old in 2001 was the Black Knight look. I love that look. But after researching his entire story, I like both versions. I don't think the movie changes were that drastic, nothing to have a conniption over. They both serve the character well depending on the medium he's being presented in.
Even Rankin Bass used the Flaming Eye in their animated ROTK. So, I'm okay with that. The movies needed a representation of Sauron and the "Eye" gives him a sense of near omnipresent malevolence.
Tbh, movie Sauron was very effective for “non book” audiences. I remember I was really afraid when the Eye catched Frodo in the summit of Amon Hen, after Frodo was being chased by corrupted Boromir. For the characterization, obviously the book version, won
I think the representation of him in the Hobbit movies was actually the best. After Gandalf forced him to reveal himself he was represented both as a flaming eye and and a dark figure within the flame with an outline of how he looked in his armor
The reason that Sauron only appears as a flaming eye in the movies is due to a misunderstanding of Peter Jackson. He thought that Sauron really was "just a flaming eye" and discovered his mistake after the fact, therefore the comprimise of the Hobbit were you can see his book version form, coming from Tolkien's description of "a burned man" (his hand were black which Gollum also descripes). In a unused concept art, you can see Sauron unmasked in the bonus features, which follows Tolkien's description, a black humanoid creature with no ears, slits instead of a nose, a horrible mouth and eyes that resembles his Flaming Eye form. I find it weird that the Necromancer weren't descriped or talked about in this video as technically he IS Sauron in a disguised form.
@@jacobkov1243 I believe it was a leftover from the concept of Sauron actually appearing at The Battle of Moranon and duels Aragorn, which as you know was changed into a battle against the Olog Hai (the battle troll). But then again Saruman did say to Gandalf: "He cannot YET take physical form...", though because of Sauron is still the eye in the films, I assume he would get his body back if he got the Ring back.
@@mevb Oh yes very true, but in my opinion Sauron was somewhat physical, considering he had the ability to behold a Palantir, And if he wasn't physical he wouldn't of reacted to the way he did to Isildurs sword. Gollum even says "Yes, He has only four fingers on the Black Hand, but they are enough" regarding his encounter with Sauron when tortured at baradur. he was also rebuilding power since he was the necromancer, from that ,to the time of the rings destruction id gather he'd be pretty powerful.
So, did Peter Jackson actually know from the beginning that Sauron did have a physical form in the book or did he actually think Sauron was a literal eye? I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson thought he was an eye because Jackson doesn't pick up on subtlety well.
When reading the books i always imagined him like a cross of king Haggard from the last Unicorn,Phantom Ganon from Zelda and the future spirit from muppets Christmas Carol.. even though i liked my vision of Sauron and can find it again when reading the books ..Peter Jacksons interpretation and symbolism of the eye is just clever..the design of the armour fantastic and it all works...Bravo Peter Jackson.
I see some Sauron in Ganon too. But the pig demon thing lol. Maybe it would be more fair to say Demise? Or maybe Demise could be compared a little to Melkor
@@NeoConker626 Hey i dont see "normal" Ganon or Ganondorf (pig) in Sauron at all just slightley Phantom Ganon from the Forest temple in ocarina of time when he has a Mask with horns n armour..when i read the books back in early 2000s i was playing the OOT around the same period wich i think influenced my vision as a kid..if i where to read them for the First Time now that im in my late 20s vision would be totally different and probably Just a shadow with eyes or the Peter Jackson interpretation. Demise does remind me of melkor now that you mentioned.
I would have liked seeing a thread of energy or "will" going from the "eye" down through the center of Barad-Dur to it's depths, revealing a "will cocoon" where he progressively forms a body that is nearly complete by the end of ROTK, only to be destroyed on screen as Barad-Dur falls
Movie Sauron just because I watched the trilogy as a kid first. When I read the books I see the knight depicted in the movie. Great content as usual, I hope I can reach that level some day
I think both interpretations are great in their own ways. The Eye, as portrayed in the movies, is iconic and the ultimate symbol of evil. If he had a body, we would expect more physical interaction with the story, which we just don't see in the movie. In that way, the movie's Eye was pretty much perfect. I don't know if it is better than the book version, but we really don't see much of Sauron in the book anyway, so...
Book Sauron. I love how terrifying Sauron looks in the prologue, but I was never crazy about him being a flaming eye for the rest of the movies. Both depictions are fine, but I have a definite preference for the book version. That said, I can't think of any other way (outside of awkward expositional dialogue, aka "telling" instead of "showing") to keep casual moviegoers from wondering why Sauron wasn't more "front and center" in the story, so I think Jackson probably made the right call.
Agree. It also highlights the importance of the ring. Its easier to get behind the idea of the ring being destroyed taking out and preventing this being from manifesting ever again. But if he had a body it would be weird for that to just collapse with the destruction of the ring.
I felt that in the movie the threat of him returning to corporeal form upon regaining the ring helped stress just how dire the situation was, especially because we saw him mowing down an army as a nigh unstoppable force in the beginning, I also felt that the eye was a nice metaphor/ representation of his malice and role
I would have loved to see a twisted form manipulating the palantir in order to manifest the great eye, also the idea of him watching as gallium was tortured and pressing him with questions
It's been very very long time since I've watched these movies and even longer time when I read the books, but as a scriptwriter and director myself I have to give this to Jackson. He showed Saurons might in the prologue well enough so the audience understands what he is and simultaneously gave room for the rest of the cast to shine. By the wise words of H.P. Lovecraft: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the olderst and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." In my opinion it was a stroke of brilliance by Jackson to keep Sauron as a metaphysical entity without a true form or physical body, he amplified Saurons might and presence throughout the whole Middle Earth. We all felt his power when we saw the movie first time, yet Sauron stayed as a metaphysical, static entity whom no evil being dared to question nor deny and whom might reached from east to west and north to south. I personally like Jackson's depiction therefore more as if the quest failed the results were unimaginable whereas if he was in his physical form & capable on same deeds as without form, he would have lost A LOT of the menace he radiated in the movies. All done simply with an eye in top of a tall tower, so I have to say *Movie Sauron* even though I remember being bit underwhelmed in the theater after watching the movies as I had read the books in second grade and fell in love with 'em. Gladly there's extended editions of them.
Book Sauron was so mysterious which is why he was cooler. But the movies version is still super menacing. I like what they did with him in the Hobbit movies. Personally, I pictured Sauron as a hollow physician being. He’s been beaten over and over again, that would make anyone look sick and weak in physical form. That doesn’t mean his magic isn’t powerful or that he’s not feared. It’s the opposite. Like an old god residing in a mortal form not of his choosing, most of his power being used in other places to manipulate middle earth. In short, he would be a tall skinny elf who’s skin is black as coal and flaking off of him. He covers himself in large pieces of armor and robes to hide his diminishing form and spends most of his time sitting on his throne, almost dormant,collecting dust. His eye sockets would be empty and all the shadows in the room would be tied together there. I could go on but that’s my basic idea. He’s pissed. Always.
I was expecting to say I prefer Book Sauron when I first saw the title because Sauron in the Movies isn’t really a character, he’s a big metal dude who eventually becomes a big fiery eye while in the Simarillion he’s an actual character. But if we’re just talking about how he’s described in the events of LOTR then I got to give it to Movie Sauron, the Incorporeal Fiery Eye is too iconic of an image and it helps alleviate Sauron’s Big Bad on a Throne Syndrome (AKA the trend for Dark Lords to sit around in their Throne Room all story until the they’re inevitable confrontation with the Hero)
I would love a scene where Sauron had a form where he was talking to the Mouth of Sauron and the Witch King in his throne room.. maybe Sauron could just be a shadow or a flame but I doubt that would've been lore-accurate but yeah I would still prefer to see his physical form.
I had always thought the Mouth of Sauron was actually Sauron speaking through this man/creature. Like the man/creature was a conduit. I first read the books when I was a teenager and I'm not certain if I knew for certain if Sauron was supposed to have physical form. I think I must have not really been sure because I think I remember hoping for a duel between Aragorn and Sauron in the book but we got The Mouth of Sauron instead. I think I would have thought Sauron was just a spirit at this point and never questioned it again.
In Conquest, there’s a level where you can actually play as Sauron in the black knight armor! Freaking insane! Remember having soo much fun with this game back on the PS3!
It's hard not to say movie because the design was so amazing. I think the movie version elevates the book version, being able to see how powerful and awesome he was in his prime. Whether or not he has a body during the war of the ring feels irrelevant to me since it doesn't really change the story or outcome.
The movie annotation is the only version I ever knew until I started learning more about the lore but from the perspective of a casual LOTR fan I think that Sauron not having a body increased the stakes and motivation for him to find the ring... so for me, just a casual fan, it made sense! If he still had a body the plot would look to me more like another evil super villain seeking more power just for power’s sake but in the case Sauron it was interesting to believe that by only obtaining the ring was the only way he could materialize into the physical realm.
Most definitely the book version! Love Jackson's film adaptation with Sauron personified as an all watching eye as well. But it would have been much more immersive for me to see him also be able to take physical form.
I'm perfectly fine with both versions, but for the movies I may have gone with perhaps a greatly weakened body. Like perhaps his spirit is strong enough to form a body, but that body can't do very much without the Ring to "complete" him, if that makes sense. It would've given us a physical form to be a bit more book-accurate while also going pretty far to explain for a movie audience both why he wants the Ring so badly in that sense as well as why he doesn't appear physically in any battles outside of the prologue.
There are things I like about both Book Sauron and Movie Sauron, but I think I lean more towards the book. But maybe a change to the Peter Jackson films is to have given Sauron an ethereal/spirit form, nothing solid, but similar to his necromancer form in the Hobbit. Either way, much love for both interpretations and enjoying the channel’s content!
@@spangelicious837 Saruman was my biggest disappointment in the movies. It's like Peter Jackson just got tired and decided to change the entire end of the story. I would rather had a 4th movie than end it like he did. Tolkien was tuning in his grave me thinks.
@@jefff8106 Oh, yes the spiky wheel. What an embarrassment. And they didn't even put it in the theatrical release. But at least he was still the same character as in the book.
In the extended scene of Aragon looking into the palantír, Sauron is shown holding his own. The literal eye of Sauron is cool, but I prefer his physical form shown with the eye being his way in seeing all of Mordor and Middle Earth. Or (despite him maybe having a body during the Hobbit) show his sprit form in the Hobbit films as he was already in the films, and then show Sauron having his physical form in LOTRs as a sign of his growing power, before his defeat.
Book Sauron. I mean, great eye is cool and scarry, but I would really love to see just a short scene of Sauron with the body, for examole he is in Barad Dur and he is like ordering his commanders where they will send their troops their armies where they will attack and in that scene I would mention an armies that attack Erebor, Mirkwood and so on.... If anything of this does have sense.... Guys as always great video, how is your fan film going on?
The fact that Sauron was an unseen malice in the movies other than the eye really let my imagination paint a really terrifying image, especially watching the movies when I was really young. It’s the same with the books but if you get an exact adaptation it would take away that picture from the people imagined when reading the books. Both were done perfectly
Book Sauron He is much more complex and imposing, and I found the idea of a floating eye sounds silly. It was for me never a problem that Sauron did not act in conventional way. What we hear about him in the books make him impressive enough. He is above many "ordinary" enemies in other books who has to come foreward and batter and humiliate their enemies by themself. For his servants he was already much more agod than a commander, and he acted as one. He has not to lead from the front, but his will is enough to send his armies into war, and the way his presence is decribes is very terryfing. That many people did not even want to use the name of his land or the name his enemies have given to him say enough.
I'm of the opinion that Isildur killed Sauron as it says in the Silmarillion "was it not I who dealt the death blow" as well I believe that Sauron had a "form" but not a body similarly to how the Balrogs most likely in Tolkien's original view on the subject didn't have wings
I like the idea proposed in the movies that Sauron can't take physical form without the ring. So much of his power is tied to the ring that when it was severed from his body he lost his physical form, so it makes sense that he would not be able to retake his physical form until he had the ring.
may be floating shadow figure could have been a alte, like the first view of sauron in the hobbit movie, when gandalf sees him from dist through the entrance type thing.
Book Sauron. The film whilst very good never captured his back story or depth of power. How was he able to get all those people to fight for him? He wasn’t at the front, but leading at the back. Why were the Nazgul unable to serve anyone else or even themselves? In the Hobbit movie Galadriel vs Sauron goes a good way to show how much power was needed to verse him.
The design of the eye came from Tolkein's own picture of what Frodo saw in the mirror of Galadriel, so the eye didn't come from nowhere. I don't recall mention of the eye literally being at the top of Barad-dur, but I'm sure that there was mention of a light like a searchlight at the top of the tower as Sauron bent his gaze towards a place, and Frodo and Gollum could feel Sauron's gaze moving across the land. The idea of Sauron in the battle with Gilgalad being bigger than an elf is entirely a movie invention, although if you think of Sauron in an evil form being similar in size to a Balrog, maybe it makes sense?
I liked both, but I wish that in the end of the movie, they added Saurons physical form almost completing in the middle of the eye before the ring gets destroyed.
Great vid bruh, really interesting. I got to nitpick though, can't help myself. At the 7:13 mark your heading reads "Elfs of the Last Alliance," but in Tolkien's world it should always be spelled "elves". The man was quite insistent with his editors about this, lol
When i read the books, i always imagined him like a cross of the Horned King from the Black Cauldron, Bolvar Fordragon from World of Warcraft and Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. But i do love Peter Jackson's interpretation, even though its more closer to how i imagined Morgoth looked.
I would like to see a video about the battle of Gundabad and more specifically what happen to Legolas mother. Is this mentioned only in the movie? (Have not read the books yet)
I prefer the version in the books. Another point about the fight with Gil-Galad: it seems like Sauron killed him just by touching him, since it’s mentioned in Fellowship that Sauron’s hand “was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed.” I’ve always thought that was a cool image.
I would have preferred an embodied but very rarely seen Sauron; a large humanoid shape on a black throne, wreathed in shadows, never to be fully beheld until possibly the very end. The Great Eye should remain a metaphor, but a potent one. Sauron as an actual burning eye on top of a tower instead makes him vaguely resemble an angry lighthouse guarding a prison yard. The body chosen for him in the movie prologue I find pretty good, however, if perhaps a touch robotic. I don't quite get the feeling that there is a person inside of that armor. Come to think of it, that would be similar to my - again very slight - criticism of the movie's Balrog of Moria, who is just a bit too much fire golem and too little "human" in his appearance to truly scary.
I love both but book Sauron clearly. His actions somehow seems more logical if he is a physical presence with a palantir he is struggling with rather than a magical eye. If nothing else because his final defeat as the great storm cloud dispersed was a HUGE missed opportunity in the film, although the tower falling and the eye winking out was a beautifully conceived visual shorthand. Movies still did a great job with the character though.
I think that Sauron's death scene really did him poorly. His original defeat contrasted neatly with Morgoth's; where the elder Dark Lord cowered in his deepest halls, Sauron simply flipped off his enemies when he was about to die.
I really like both versions. I think I might actually prefer Peter Jackson's lidless eye more. Also I think a cool video idea would be Sauron vs Gothmog. Both in terms of 1 on 1 strength. And commanding an army. Most people would probably say Gothmog. But honestly I think there's a reason Sauron was appointed Melkor's right hand lieutenant instead of gothmog. Would be an interesting video. Keep up the good work man. Love your channel.
Both versions of Sauron are great. Tolkien left many important details vague or unspoken. Since Sauron never directly confronts his enemies in the book, it was necessary for Peter Jackson to portray Sauron's limitations in a visually significant way
Saurons form is also visible in the scene of Argon looking into Saruman's plantir, He is seen holding in the middle of the eye holding his own plantir. It comes across that the flaming eye was just a projection sauron was using to strike fear and to watch over mordor.
Not sure I can pick one. I like the idea of Sauron not yet in a physical form during the time of the Fellowship. Peter Jackson only showing him in the beginning was a wise choice I believe. I wish the movies could have given more of the lore of the character. Once I learned Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron were essentially of the same race of "angels" it blew my mind. Hard to relate that in film without some awkward exposition though. I guess movie then, lol.
I think they’re both great depictions and I think getting upset by the differences isn’t worthwhile. The eye of Sauron in the movie is so iconic that it’s inaccuracy is easily excused
I feel like his first appearance in the movies literally inspired generations of "Sauron-like" dark lord characters in other forms of visual media despite only appearing in the first few opening minutes in the first movie. Even now that first image is iconic and recognizable. The eye as well is, ofcourse, iconic. Regardless of how you feel it compares to the book it is undeniable that Peter Jackson's original depiction of " The Dark Lord" has stood the test of time even now in my opinion.
I always imagined him in form like the Warlock Lord from Terry Brooks Sword of Shannara. Disembodied but able to coalesce on demand of his will as needed since his body had been destroyed. I read LOTR first as I am older than both works, but I immediately saw the parallels between their physical forms.
I would have there be a light atop his tower that, combined with the hornlike turrets, looked like a great eye. But when you got close you saw it was Sauron atop his tower, with his hand constantly on the Palantir; which, like when Denethor used his, glows
I think I would have done more of a mix of what was done in the movie and how Tolkien wanted it. Shown glimpses of Sauron in his tower, but then show him conjuring the eye in order to look about. Maybe hint that he is still weakened so that people wouldn't question why he won't come and deal with the good guys himself.
They could have retconned some way for sauron to take over and control a nazgul, but whenever he does he is stuck in that vessel, so it would make sense as why he waited for the very last minute to show up at the gate. Could have even added a minute or two of dialogue explaining how his original back up plan was to take over the witch king, which would also explain why the witch king was made so much more powerful in the 3rd movie and could break Gandalf’s staff, preparing him to be stronger in case sauron ever needed to take over
I really like them both. I do have to say, though that seeing saurons body was a pretty powerful scene in the fellowship. I also totally understand why he was the eye because it was eluded to all through out that sauron needed the ring to regain his full power therefore he was just the eye looking from afar
I think both are good. The movies only have so much time to keep a wider audience not only interested but tell a coherent story with as few holes as possible. For a wider audience I think he was portrayed just fine and I enjoy both 100%
movie sauron and I think the flaming eye is so memorable there couldn't have really been any better way, I would have loved to see him in action but I think it would have possible ruined part of the sensation you had while watching. I think the films are great the way they are, I just keep wanting to see more of the stuff you tell me about xD
If I had to make the decision, I think Jackson's eye floating over the tower is f'ing cool... I would just add a weakened physical body in the base of the tower on a thrown in a dimly lit chamber
‘Book Sauron ; I am always asked about the implosion that takes place during the unbinding of the ring’s power, and that of Sauron himself. The fight that takes place, and the aftermath there of it, is much more sensible in the book than in the movie. Cheers,
At one point in, I think ROTK film, you can see Sauron embodied through the black slit of the eye, implying that he does indeed have a body, but without the ring it is much weaker which is why he doesn't leave Bara-dur (probably spelled that wrong). Either way, I understand why they made it the way they did in the movies.
Book Sauron is my favorite. Although the great eye is extremely iconic, I do wish he was done a little bit differently in the films. I think they could have made him have a body, but have it explained (by someone like Gandalf or Galadriel) that he is extremely weak without it, and thus can't take part in battle. I mean, Saruman was powerful, but he didn't directlytake part in any battles, so perhaps the viewer would be more open to Sauron not actually fighting physically.
i like the flaming eye for the majority of the movie, however i wish they would of given him a body for some of it, just lurking around. a cripple limping around or just a shadow floating around and without the armour.
I think I heard somewhere that the decision to take out Aragorns fight with Sauron was because Peter Jackson concluded it would distract from the main hero's journey, the main hero being Frodo.
Considering the fact that I first read the books in 6th grade, I’m a huge fan of Sauron in the book. I have a ridiculously over active imagination, so the movie is a smidge lack luster of what I imagined. I like the reference to Sauron being beautiful, similarly to Lucifer. It’s nice to see the depth of his character as he falls deeper into darkness. The eye in the movie is iconic, if you saw the movie first.
I’ve definitely always hated that he was depicted as a giant eye, even though I understood why (as you said: Jackson couldn’t reconcile having Sauron with his powerful body NOT physically fighting at the Battle of the Black Gate). I don’t know why it would lessen Sauron as a villain to direct his forces away from the front: was FDR less of a leader because he didn’t land on the beaches of Normandy? Heck, was Eisenhower less of a general because he directed those landings from Britain and not from Omaha Beach? Depicting Sauron as a giant eyeball is the equivalent of depicting Saruman as a giant white hand. Addition: I do love Jackson’s depiction of Dark Lord Sauron at the end of the Second Age. It was so memorable and badass that it sticks with the viewer from all 3-films, and remains a potent warning of what would happen if Sauron got the Ring back (even though his defeat in the film was dumb chance, reaching for Isildur for no reason, instead of having an awesome 2 on 1 fight against Gil-Galad and Elendil).
Even as a kid watching the movies I thought the eye of sauron as a metaphor or magic he used so I think it still works just as well in maintaining the mystery of the villain of the story
![[UNCUT]"ตุลามรณะ"ย้อนฟังคำทำนาย หมอดูทุกสาย ดวงเมืองร้อน (หมอปลาย ฟองสนาน อ.โอเล่)I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
i love the flaming eye yeah it's not too accurate but along with vader's breathing it has become one of the most instantly recognisable symbols of evil in fiction.
One of the things I really enjoyed about the movies is that it wasn't just a "hero vs. bad guy 1-on-1 fight" in the end. Seeing Sauron in physical form in the end wouldn't really have added anything of great value to the movie
I'm trying not to overthink things when it comes to that kind of thing but you're right. I think Peter Jackson did a great job. Most people managed to really screw things up when they interfere but he did not in my mind.
I agree. That initial scene in the first movie was epic though. The way he tossed men and elves around with that mace was visually stunning. Great scene.
Yes, it would. It would parallel the prologue from the Fellowship of the Ring and would nicely tie together the theme of failure of the past generation which Aragorn had to live with. Way more interesting than some stupid troll fight. Peter Jackson is a weird director. He overthinks stuff like that, trying to find phylosophical reason for why not to do it, but then will have pointless subplots like Aragorn falling into the river when fighting Warg and being presumed dead for 10 minutes. Not to mention the love triangle with the blonde chick, which should've been cut out.
I’m actually glad he did not show up in physical form, as well. It would not have added anything and it very well may have even removed some continuity for the films sake; the entire time Sauron did not have the ring, therefore he did not have the “full” power to return to his physical form and become “peak” Sauron, if you will. This would have not made sense because Frodo and Sam are still on their way up mount doom/fighting Gollum inside, as everyone knows. That’s just following the films, of course.
I agree with your comment completely!
That wasn't in the book, either.
No preference: Perfect in both media due to the needs and capacities of each.
Exactly
I completely agree
This is the based answer
Same
Agreed
Book Sauron. But his depiction in the film was also epic.
Agree😀
Much less epic.
An unspeakable formless evil that can not be seen but always felt... always watching. It's reality, and that's what makes the movie(s) so powerful.
One of the selling points for Movie Sauron for me as a 13-year-old in 2001 was the Black Knight look. I love that look. But after researching his entire story, I like both versions. I don't think the movie changes were that drastic, nothing to have a conniption over. They both serve the character well depending on the medium he's being presented in.
Even Rankin Bass used the Flaming Eye in their animated ROTK. So, I'm okay with that. The movies needed a representation of Sauron and the "Eye" gives him a sense of near omnipresent malevolence.
I think Peter Jackson and his writing team made many good decisions that made the adaptation improved for the medium of film.
Nope. They butchered the story.
@@Waking_Abyssal You cope. My opinion in this case is fact.
Tbh, movie Sauron was very effective for “non book” audiences. I remember I was really afraid when the Eye catched Frodo in the summit of Amon Hen, after Frodo was being chased by corrupted Boromir. For the characterization, obviously the book version, won
I think the representation of him in the Hobbit movies was actually the best. After Gandalf forced him to reveal himself he was represented both as a flaming eye and and a dark figure within the flame with an outline of how he looked in his armor
I agree I liked sauron in the hobbit more
Yeah hobbit sauron is terrifying
The reason that Sauron only appears as a flaming eye in the movies is due to a misunderstanding of Peter Jackson. He thought that Sauron really was "just a flaming eye" and discovered his mistake after the fact, therefore the comprimise of the Hobbit were you can see his book version form, coming from Tolkien's description of "a burned man" (his hand were black which Gollum also descripes). In a unused concept art, you can see Sauron unmasked in the bonus features, which follows Tolkien's description, a black humanoid creature with no ears, slits instead of a nose, a horrible mouth and eyes that resembles his Flaming Eye form.
I find it weird that the Necromancer weren't descriped or talked about in this video as technically he IS Sauron in a disguised form.
Kinda his Necromancer form was nothing like what his armored form was. Even the he was in robes and had an armored helm in the Necromancer form
but the scene were Aragon looks into the plantir, you can sauron himself in the eye.
@@jacobkov1243 I believe it was a leftover from the concept of Sauron actually appearing at The Battle of Moranon and duels Aragorn, which as you know was changed into a battle against the Olog Hai (the battle troll). But then again Saruman did say to Gandalf: "He cannot YET take physical form...", though because of Sauron is still the eye in the films, I assume he would get his body back if he got the Ring back.
@@mevb Oh yes very true, but in my opinion Sauron was somewhat physical, considering he had the ability to behold a Palantir, And if he wasn't physical he wouldn't of reacted to the way he did to Isildurs sword. Gollum even says "Yes, He has only four fingers on the Black Hand, but they are enough" regarding his encounter with Sauron when tortured at baradur. he was also rebuilding power since he was the necromancer, from that ,to the time of the rings destruction id gather he'd be pretty powerful.
So, did Peter Jackson actually know from the beginning that Sauron did have a physical form in the book or did he actually think Sauron was a literal eye? I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson thought he was an eye because Jackson doesn't pick up on subtlety well.
When reading the books i always imagined him like a cross of king Haggard from the last Unicorn,Phantom Ganon from Zelda and the future spirit from muppets Christmas Carol.. even though i liked my vision of Sauron and can find it again when reading the books ..Peter Jacksons interpretation and symbolism of the eye is just clever..the design of the armour fantastic and it all works...Bravo Peter Jackson.
I see some Sauron in Ganon too. But the pig demon thing lol.
Maybe it would be more fair to say Demise? Or maybe Demise could be compared a little to Melkor
@@NeoConker626 Hey i dont see "normal" Ganon or Ganondorf (pig) in Sauron at all just slightley Phantom Ganon from the Forest temple in ocarina of time when he has a Mask with horns n armour..when i read the books back in early 2000s i was playing the OOT around the same period wich i think influenced my vision as a kid..if i where to read them for the First Time now that im in my late 20s vision would be totally different and probably Just a shadow with eyes or the Peter Jackson interpretation. Demise does remind me of melkor now that you mentioned.
I'm less enthused about the armor, but otherwise agree.
@@NeoConker626 Demise to Melkor forsure
I would have liked seeing a thread of energy or "will" going from the "eye" down through the center of Barad-Dur to it's depths, revealing a "will cocoon" where he progressively forms a body that is nearly complete by the end of ROTK, only to be destroyed on screen as Barad-Dur falls
I love all the deception 2nd age Sauron gets to. Tricking the elves & giving out the rings & corrupting Numemour
I'd love to see him back when he could take on any form
Movie Sauron just because I watched the trilogy as a kid first. When I read the books I see the knight depicted in the movie.
Great content as usual, I hope I can reach that level some day
Book Sauron. Especially when you have the Sillmarilion knowledge to back his character.
The black armour clad figure from the film is what I imagined while reading the books.
Book Sauron, only because in the third film he looks like an angry lighthouse and thus a bit silly with Frodo and Sam walking past him
Come to think of it, Barad-dur is just a really angry lighthouse
I love Sauron in the book because of his ominous presence and mysterious description. It leaves his appearance almost completely up to the reader
I think both interpretations are great in their own ways. The Eye, as portrayed in the movies, is iconic and the ultimate symbol of evil. If he had a body, we would expect more physical interaction with the story, which we just don't see in the movie. In that way, the movie's Eye was pretty much perfect. I don't know if it is better than the book version, but we really don't see much of Sauron in the book anyway, so...
Do a most powerful men video, similar to the elves video!!!
Woudnt it just be numenorians
@@georgen3515 probably but would be cool i think either way
They could do two lists, one for numenoreans and one for ordinary men.
Actually thats sounds like a great idea
If half-man, half-elf count, it should be Earendil.🌟
Book Sauron. I love how terrifying Sauron looks in the prologue, but I was never crazy about him being a flaming eye for the rest of the movies. Both depictions are fine, but I have a definite preference for the book version.
That said, I can't think of any other way (outside of awkward expositional dialogue, aka "telling" instead of "showing") to keep casual moviegoers from wondering why Sauron wasn't more "front and center" in the story, so I think Jackson probably made the right call.
Book Sauron was perfect for the book and Film Sauron was perfect for the films.
I wouldn't change a thing. Greatest movie trilogy ever made
AGREED !!!!!
I kind of like the disembodied eye as it makes them seem like they are fighting a more god-like force that can't be overcome through stabbing.
Agree. It also highlights the importance of the ring. Its easier to get behind the idea of the ring being destroyed taking out and preventing this being from manifesting ever again. But if he had a body it would be weird for that to just collapse with the destruction of the ring.
I felt that in the movie the threat of him returning to corporeal form upon regaining the ring helped stress just how dire the situation was, especially because we saw him mowing down an army as a nigh unstoppable force in the beginning, I also felt that the eye was a nice metaphor/ representation of his malice and role
Sauron’s a persistent son of a gun that’s for sure. I get exhausted just thinking about spending 3000 years regaining my former power.
Imagine all the propane that flaming eye must use, I tell ya what.
@@EricHeidenAuthor
So you don't think it's methane from all those orcs, then?
I would have loved to see a twisted form manipulating the palantir in order to manifest the great eye, also the idea of him watching as gallium was tortured and pressing him with questions
It's been very very long time since I've watched these movies and even longer time when I read the books, but as a scriptwriter and director myself I have to give this to Jackson.
He showed Saurons might in the prologue well enough so the audience understands what he is and simultaneously gave room for the rest of the cast to shine.
By the wise words of H.P. Lovecraft: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the olderst and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
In my opinion it was a stroke of brilliance by Jackson to keep Sauron as a metaphysical entity without a true form or physical body, he amplified Saurons might and presence throughout the whole Middle Earth. We all felt his power when we saw the movie first time, yet Sauron stayed as a metaphysical, static entity whom no evil being dared to question nor deny and whom might reached from east to west and north to south.
I personally like Jackson's depiction therefore more as if the quest failed the results were unimaginable whereas if he was in his physical form & capable on same deeds as without form, he would have lost A LOT of the menace he radiated in the movies. All done simply with an eye in top of a tall tower, so I have to say *Movie Sauron* even though I remember being bit underwhelmed in the theater after watching the movies as I had read the books in second grade and fell in love with 'em.
Gladly there's extended editions of them.
Book Sauron is so much more interesting given the amount of content.
Book Sauron was so mysterious which is why he was cooler. But the movies version is still super menacing. I like what they did with him in the Hobbit movies. Personally, I pictured Sauron as a hollow physician being. He’s been beaten over and over again, that would make anyone look sick and weak in physical form. That doesn’t mean his magic isn’t powerful or that he’s not feared. It’s the opposite. Like an old god residing in a mortal form not of his choosing, most of his power being used in other places to manipulate middle earth. In short, he would be a tall skinny elf who’s skin is black as coal and flaking off of him. He covers himself in large pieces of armor and robes to hide his diminishing form and spends most of his time sitting on his throne, almost dormant,collecting dust. His eye sockets would be empty and all the shadows in the room would be tied together there. I could go on but that’s my basic idea. He’s pissed. Always.
I was expecting to say I prefer Book Sauron when I first saw the title because Sauron in the Movies isn’t really a character, he’s a big metal dude who eventually becomes a big fiery eye while in the Simarillion he’s an actual character. But if we’re just talking about how he’s described in the events of LOTR then I got to give it to Movie Sauron, the Incorporeal Fiery Eye is too iconic of an image and it helps alleviate Sauron’s Big Bad on a Throne Syndrome (AKA the trend for Dark Lords to sit around in their Throne Room all story until the they’re inevitable confrontation with the Hero)
I would love a scene where Sauron had a form where he was talking to the Mouth of Sauron and the Witch King in his throne room.. maybe Sauron could just be a shadow or a flame but I doubt that would've been lore-accurate but yeah I would still prefer to see his physical form.
I had always thought the Mouth of Sauron was actually Sauron speaking through this man/creature. Like the man/creature was a conduit. I first read the books when I was a teenager and I'm not certain if I knew for certain if Sauron was supposed to have physical form. I think I must have not really been sure because I think I remember hoping for a duel between Aragorn and Sauron in the book but we got The Mouth of Sauron instead. I think I would have thought Sauron was just a spirit at this point and never questioned it again.
Watching these make me miss Lord of The Rings Conquest. Most fun Lord of The Rings game, outside of the GameCube ones.
battle for middle earth RTS games though! haha
In Conquest, there’s a level where you can actually play as Sauron in the black knight armor! Freaking insane! Remember having soo much fun with this game back on the PS3!
It's hard not to say movie because the design was so amazing. I think the movie version elevates the book version, being able to see how powerful and awesome he was in his prime. Whether or not he has a body during the war of the ring feels irrelevant to me since it doesn't really change the story or outcome.
Can u do videos on the military strength of each race throughout the ages
that’s very broad
The movie annotation is the only version I ever knew until I started learning more about the lore but from the perspective of a casual LOTR fan I think that Sauron not having a body increased the stakes and motivation for him to find the ring... so for me, just a casual fan, it made sense! If he still had a body the plot would look to me more like another evil super villain seeking more power just for power’s sake but in the case Sauron it was interesting to believe that by only obtaining the ring was the only way he could materialize into the physical realm.
Most definitely the book version!
Love Jackson's film adaptation with Sauron personified as an all watching eye as well. But it would have been much more immersive for me to see him also be able to take physical form.
I'm perfectly fine with both versions, but for the movies I may have gone with perhaps a greatly weakened body. Like perhaps his spirit is strong enough to form a body, but that body can't do very much without the Ring to "complete" him, if that makes sense. It would've given us a physical form to be a bit more book-accurate while also going pretty far to explain for a movie audience both why he wants the Ring so badly in that sense as well as why he doesn't appear physically in any battles outside of the prologue.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" -- The Wizard of Mordor
There are things I like about both Book Sauron and Movie Sauron, but I think I lean more towards the book. But maybe a change to the Peter Jackson films is to have given Sauron an ethereal/spirit form, nothing solid, but similar to his necromancer form in the Hobbit. Either way, much love for both interpretations and enjoying the channel’s content!
Characters Peter Jackson totally got wrong; Faramir, Elrond, and Arwen…..all would be good videos, especially Faramir.
And Denethor and Frodo.
@@spangelicious837 Saruman was my biggest disappointment in the movies. It's like Peter Jackson just got tired and decided to change the entire end of the story. I would rather had a 4th movie than end it like he did. Tolkien was tuning in his grave me thinks.
@@jefff8106 Oh, yes the spiky wheel. What an embarrassment. And they didn't even put it in the theatrical release. But at least he was still the same character as in the book.
And Aragorn,...especially Aragorn.
In the extended scene of Aragon looking into the palantír, Sauron is shown holding his own. The literal eye of Sauron is cool, but I prefer his physical form shown with the eye being his way in seeing all of Mordor and Middle Earth. Or (despite him maybe having a body during the Hobbit) show his sprit form in the Hobbit films as he was already in the films, and then show Sauron having his physical form in LOTRs as a sign of his growing power, before his defeat.
Until today, I always thought he needed the ring to reform bodily. I dipped my toes in Lord of the Rings with the movies so I enjoy that depiction
Book Sauron. I mean, great eye is cool and scarry, but I would really love to see just a short scene of Sauron with the body, for examole he is in Barad Dur and he is like ordering his commanders where they will send their troops their armies where they will attack and in that scene I would mention an armies that attack Erebor, Mirkwood and so on....
If anything of this does have sense....
Guys as always great video, how is your fan film going on?
Book Sauron. Yet I think that The visual solution adopted by Peter Jackson is quite effective in representing his malice
The fact that Sauron was an unseen malice in the movies other than the eye really let my imagination paint a really terrifying image, especially watching the movies when I was really young. It’s the same with the books but if you get an exact adaptation it would take away that picture from the people imagined when reading the books. Both were done perfectly
Book Sauron
He is much more complex and imposing, and I found the idea of a floating eye sounds silly. It was for me never a problem that Sauron did not act in conventional way. What we hear about him in the books make him impressive enough. He is above many "ordinary" enemies in other books who has to come foreward and batter and humiliate their enemies by themself. For his servants he was already much more agod than a commander, and he acted as one.
He has not to lead from the front, but his will is enough to send his armies into war, and the way his presence is decribes is very terryfing. That many people did not even want to use the name of his land or the name his enemies have given to him say enough.
I'm of the opinion that Isildur killed Sauron as it says in the Silmarillion "was it not I who dealt the death blow" as well I believe that Sauron had a "form" but not a body similarly to how the Balrogs most likely in Tolkien's original view on the subject didn't have wings
He could be saying that just to justify his keeping the ring due to its influence. Just Like Smeagol saying it's his birthday present.
I like the idea proposed in the movies that Sauron can't take physical form without the ring. So much of his power is tied to the ring that when it was severed from his body he lost his physical form, so it makes sense that he would not be able to retake his physical form until he had the ring.
Book sauron
Also, great vídeo, i hope you keep up with this séries.
My favorite dark lord and book dark lord !
Thank you for using the "Build me an army worthy of Mordor"
may be floating shadow figure could have been a alte, like the first view of sauron in the hobbit movie, when gandalf sees him from dist through the entrance type thing.
Book Sauron. The film whilst very good never captured his back story or depth of power. How was he able to get all those people to fight for him? He wasn’t at the front, but leading at the back. Why were the Nazgul unable to serve anyone else or even themselves? In the Hobbit movie Galadriel vs Sauron goes a good way to show how much power was needed to verse him.
The design of the eye came from Tolkein's own picture of what Frodo saw in the mirror of Galadriel, so the eye didn't come from nowhere. I don't recall mention of the eye literally being at the top of Barad-dur, but I'm sure that there was mention of a light like a searchlight at the top of the tower as Sauron bent his gaze towards a place, and Frodo and Gollum could feel Sauron's gaze moving across the land. The idea of Sauron in the battle with Gilgalad being bigger than an elf is entirely a movie invention, although if you think of Sauron in an evil form being similar in size to a Balrog, maybe it makes sense?
I liked both, but I wish that in the end of the movie, they added Saurons physical form almost completing in the middle of the eye before the ring gets destroyed.
Book Sauron!
Great vid bruh, really interesting. I got to nitpick though, can't help myself. At the 7:13 mark your heading reads "Elfs of the Last Alliance," but in Tolkien's world it should always be spelled "elves". The man was quite insistent with his editors about this, lol
When i read the books, i always imagined him like a cross of the Horned King from the Black Cauldron, Bolvar Fordragon from World of Warcraft and Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. But i do love Peter Jackson's interpretation, even though its more closer to how i imagined Morgoth looked.
Interesting imagination and interpretation/comparisons you have there too...Its what the power of a book without pictures can do.
I would like to see a video about the battle of Gundabad and more specifically what happen to Legolas mother. Is this mentioned only in the movie? (Have not read the books yet)
I prefer the version in the books. Another point about the fight with Gil-Galad: it seems like Sauron killed him just by touching him, since it’s mentioned in Fellowship that Sauron’s hand “was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed.” I’ve always thought that was a cool image.
I would have preferred an embodied but very rarely seen Sauron; a large humanoid shape on a black throne, wreathed in shadows, never to be fully beheld until possibly the very end. The Great Eye should remain a metaphor, but a potent one. Sauron as an actual burning eye on top of a tower instead makes him vaguely resemble an angry lighthouse guarding a prison yard. The body chosen for him in the movie prologue I find pretty good, however, if perhaps a touch robotic. I don't quite get the feeling that there is a person inside of that armor. Come to think of it, that would be similar to my - again very slight - criticism of the movie's Balrog of Moria, who is just a bit too much fire golem and too little "human" in his appearance to truly scary.
I really hope we get sexy Sauron as Annatar in the Amazon TV series!
Philipa Boyens lines make Movie Sauron sound like a total cartoon character.
I love both but book Sauron clearly.
His actions somehow seems more logical if he is a physical presence with a palantir he is struggling with rather than a magical eye.
If nothing else because his final defeat as the great storm cloud dispersed was a HUGE missed opportunity in the film, although the tower falling and the eye winking out was a beautifully conceived visual shorthand.
Movies still did a great job with the character though.
I think that Sauron's death scene really did him poorly. His original defeat contrasted neatly with Morgoth's; where the elder Dark Lord cowered in his deepest halls, Sauron simply flipped off his enemies when he was about to die.
I really like both versions. I think I might actually prefer Peter Jackson's lidless eye more.
Also I think a cool video idea would be Sauron vs Gothmog. Both in terms of 1 on 1 strength. And commanding an army. Most people would probably say Gothmog. But honestly I think there's a reason Sauron was appointed Melkor's right hand lieutenant instead of gothmog. Would be an interesting video. Keep up the good work man. Love your channel.
Both versions of Sauron are great. Tolkien left many important details vague or unspoken. Since Sauron never directly confronts his enemies in the book, it was necessary for Peter Jackson to portray Sauron's limitations in a visually significant way
Saurons form is also visible in the scene of Argon looking into Saruman's plantir, He is seen holding in the middle of the eye holding his own plantir. It comes across that the flaming eye was just a projection sauron was using to strike fear and to watch over mordor.
Not sure I can pick one. I like the idea of Sauron not yet in a physical form during the time of the Fellowship. Peter Jackson only showing him in the beginning was a wise choice I believe. I wish the movies could have given more of the lore of the character. Once I learned Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron were essentially of the same race of "angels" it blew my mind. Hard to relate that in film without some awkward exposition though. I guess movie then, lol.
I think they’re both great depictions and I think getting upset by the differences isn’t worthwhile. The eye of Sauron in the movie is so iconic that it’s inaccuracy is easily excused
I feel like his first appearance in the movies literally inspired generations of "Sauron-like" dark lord characters in other forms of visual media despite only appearing in the first few opening minutes in the first movie. Even now that first image is iconic and recognizable. The eye as well is, ofcourse, iconic. Regardless of how you feel it compares to the book it is undeniable that Peter Jackson's original depiction of " The Dark Lord" has stood the test of time even now in my opinion.
Book Sauron
Book Sauron. Especially given what we know of him from The Silmarillion.
Thank you for the upload! As someone who is too dumb to get through the books; I appreciate these type of videos the most
The book says he was hot enough (literally, like temperature-wise) to kill with a touch, so have his armor glowing red and giving off heat mirages.
For Myself.... I choose C ..... The Broken Sword's Art choices are Excellent.... You guys find Wonderful Artists for EVERY Video You guys put out !!!!
Movie Sauron. I love how they simplified it. It worked so well.
You could do a movie vs books character comparison of Tom Bombadil. Oh, wait.
Peter Jackson himself would've made a great Tom Bombadil.🤪
What-if video idea for you to do:
What if Gandalf never fell at the Bridge of Khazad-dum and continued with the fellowship to Lothlorien and forward?
Book Sauron, for sure!!
I always imagined him in form like the Warlock Lord from Terry Brooks Sword of Shannara. Disembodied but able to coalesce on demand of his will as needed since his body had been destroyed. I read LOTR first as I am older than both works, but I immediately saw the parallels between their physical forms.
I would have there be a light atop his tower that, combined with the hornlike turrets, looked like a great eye. But when you got close you saw it was Sauron atop his tower, with his hand constantly on the Palantir; which, like when Denethor used his, glows
I think I would have done more of a mix of what was done in the movie and how Tolkien wanted it. Shown glimpses of Sauron in his tower, but then show him conjuring the eye in order to look about. Maybe hint that he is still weakened so that people wouldn't question why he won't come and deal with the good guys himself.
They could have retconned some way for sauron to take over and control a nazgul, but whenever he does he is stuck in that vessel, so it would make sense as why he waited for the very last minute to show up at the gate. Could have even added a minute or two of dialogue explaining how his original back up plan was to take over the witch king, which would also explain why the witch king was made so much more powerful in the 3rd movie and could break Gandalf’s staff, preparing him to be stronger in case sauron ever needed to take over
I really like them both. I do have to say, though that seeing saurons body was a pretty powerful scene in the fellowship. I also totally understand why he was the eye because it was eluded to all through out that sauron needed the ring to regain his full power therefore he was just the eye looking from afar
After Sauron's deception and corruptionn of Numenor, I think it fitting that a scene that would have otherwise included him, instead made him a troll.
I think both are good. The movies only have so much time to keep a wider audience not only interested but tell a coherent story with as few holes as possible. For a wider audience I think he was portrayed just fine and I enjoy both 100%
movie sauron and I think the flaming eye is so memorable there couldn't have really been any better way, I would have loved to see him in action but I think it would have possible ruined part of the sensation you had while watching. I think the films are great the way they are, I just keep wanting to see more of the stuff you tell me about xD
If I had to make the decision, I think Jackson's eye floating over the tower is f'ing cool... I would just add a weakened physical body in the base of the tower on a thrown in a dimly lit chamber
Very interesting video
Loving the book v. movie series
I’d love to see a video on the battle of riddles between Gollum and Bilbo done in this series
‘Book Sauron ; I am always asked about the implosion that takes place during the unbinding of the ring’s power, and that of Sauron himself. The fight that takes place, and the aftermath there of it, is much more sensible in the book than in the movie. Cheers,
At one point in, I think ROTK film, you can see Sauron embodied through the black slit of the eye, implying that he does indeed have a body, but without the ring it is much weaker which is why he doesn't leave Bara-dur (probably spelled that wrong). Either way, I understand why they made it the way they did in the movies.
Book Sauron is my favorite. Although the great eye is extremely iconic, I do wish he was done a little bit differently in the films. I think they could have made him have a body, but have it explained (by someone like Gandalf or Galadriel) that he is extremely weak without it, and thus can't take part in battle. I mean, Saruman was powerful, but he didn't directlytake part in any battles, so perhaps the viewer would be more open to Sauron not actually fighting physically.
i like the flaming eye for the majority of the movie, however i wish they would of given him a body for some of it, just lurking around. a cripple limping around or just a shadow floating around and without the armour.
I think I heard somewhere that the decision to take out Aragorns fight with Sauron was because Peter Jackson concluded it would distract from the main hero's journey, the main hero being Frodo.
As a kid in the 70s reading the book right after the animated movie, it always seemed Sauron had no body anymore.
Books i mean tho it was hard to get past Felliwship being pretty young.
Considering the fact that I first read the books in 6th grade, I’m a huge fan of Sauron in the book. I have a ridiculously over active imagination, so the movie is a smidge lack luster of what I imagined. I like the reference to Sauron being beautiful, similarly to Lucifer. It’s nice to see the depth of his character as he falls deeper into darkness. The eye in the movie is iconic, if you saw the movie first.
I’ve definitely always hated that he was depicted as a giant eye, even though I understood why (as you said: Jackson couldn’t reconcile having Sauron with his powerful body NOT physically fighting at the Battle of the Black Gate). I don’t know why it would lessen Sauron as a villain to direct his forces away from the front: was FDR less of a leader because he didn’t land on the beaches of Normandy? Heck, was Eisenhower less of a general because he directed those landings from Britain and not from Omaha Beach?
Depicting Sauron as a giant eyeball is the equivalent of depicting Saruman as a giant white hand.
Addition: I do love Jackson’s depiction of Dark Lord Sauron at the end of the Second Age. It was so memorable and badass that it sticks with the viewer from all 3-films, and remains a potent warning of what would happen if Sauron got the Ring back (even though his defeat in the film was dumb chance, reaching for Isildur for no reason, instead of having an awesome 2 on 1 fight against Gil-Galad and Elendil).
Even as a kid watching the movies I thought the eye of sauron as a metaphor or magic he used so I think it still works just as well in maintaining the mystery of the villain of the story