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.
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 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
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.
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
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.
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 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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
In The Return of the King Extended Edition, “Aragorn Masters the Palantir:” It SHOWS Sauron in his armored form from behind his Eye. That could possibly HINT that Sauron did have a body in the Movies as well...
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 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 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.
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
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
In the film Fellowship, the eye as it is shown is a great visual metaphor for Sauron. You only really see it in visions such as Galadriel's mirror, the palantir or when Frodo puts on the ring. It's an effective and scary representation of Sauron's ever watching spirit. Come The Two Towers, it begins to be explicitly shown in the physical plane atop Barad Dur. As a result it looks a whole lot goofier to me, and puts an end to any thinking that the eye was just how Sauron appeared in people's minds. Instead it confirms that this is absolutely Sauron's form. At this stage I still don't hate it, but it's lost a lot of power for me. And then they introduce "searchlight" Sauron in RoTK. There are no words for that one. So, I think they certainly got some things right in giving Sauron a presence for the audience, but maybe should have kept the more subtle approach they started with.
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%
Gollum even comments about the Dark Lord missing fingers on his black hand(after "escaping" his torture) It's always pissed me off when some people are adamant he never retained a body in the books. He had a body, and destroying the Ring didn't "kill" him, it made him a completely useless spirit unable to ever take any form again. I personally would have liked to see Saurons injured hand as his avatar, inge films(sparingly used)Seeing it on the palantir, resting on his throne, giving out orders while gesturing.
I think there's one more difference between book and movie Sauron: the intro to The Fellowship of the Ring shows Sauron in Mount Doom as if he's just finished forging the One Ring, and he appears the same as he does in the battle against the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. Book Sauron would have still been in his *"Annatar"* guise when he made the ring. The change was obviously necessary, since they're compressing two thirds of the Second Age into two minutes of screen time: no time for Sauron to be found out by the elves, murder Celebrimbor, reclaim half of the rings, hand them out to greedy humans, lose to Númenor, corrupt Númenor from within, lose his body, make himself a new, evil-looking body, and wage war against half of Middle-Earth.
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
'Demonic' possession. Give the Eye of Sauron the power to project his will to inhabit and control the body of a living minion. A final example could be in the final battle of Return of the King. The troll sees Aragorn on the field of battle then his eyes begin to glow red then a third eye appears in its forhead. For a moment Aragorn sees Sauron's true form superimposed over the troll's body then his armored form (for the audiences benefit) just before the troll attacks him. Aragorn defeats Sauron, thanks to his vulnerability to Narsil (now Andúril) but before Eye of Sauron can possess another the ring is revealed and the events play out as in the movie.
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 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.
Sauron sees the world through the palantir and doesn't leave his fortress to fight because he lacks the ring and even with the ring he lost the first time. He didn't even have to fully appear or be a realized character, just a known form in the tallest office of Barad Dur gazing into the palantir as his only means of viewing the outside world which is important - because it emphasizes why it is so significant when Pippin takes the palantir and Gandalf uses that gambit. Further, what kills Sauron finally is not the ring's destruction.. it's that barad-dur was built with the ring's power, and when the ring is destroyed the fortress collapses and Sauron is simply crushed. Finally though and this is just my opinion, the 'eye' as a current of energy between two spokes on Barad-Dur looked silly and when the ring was destroyed and the eye scanned around helplessly was more comical than epic.
Book Sauron but I have no complaints about what Jackson did in the films other than not showing that it was Elendil and Gil-Galad that actually took Sauron down.
I think one important point of evil in Tolkien's work is that they aren't brave, at least most of the times. Morgoth fought against Fingolfin not because he wanted, but because otherwise his servant would had seen how cowardly he is (and the fight didn't went well for him either). When Numenor came to Mordor with their whole might, Sauron didn't even fight back, but surrender, only to destroy Numenor from inside. During the Last Alliance he only came to fight as desperate last resort after 7 years of sieging of Barad-dur. Neither Morgoth nor Sauron are type of characters who leads their armies personally, preferring to order their minions to go and kill and die for him. I think it's also worth noting that "power" in these fantasy stories doesn't necessarily meant great fighting powers. Sauron is very powerful Maia, but that doesn't mean he can't lose to the wolfhound in one-on-one fight.
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.
In hindsight, I probably would have had The Eye of Sauron just be a menacing symbol, like a swastika, a subtle/not so subtle way of telling the characters and the audience that nothing escapes Sauron's view, and in turn emphasise the role of the Palanthiers and left Sauron's form and physical state a complete mystery to the audience. In fact, I would probably have went a step further and expanded on Sauron's role as a Satanic character and seeded into the minds of the audience at least if Sauron was "alive" to begin with. Or to put it in real world terms, Hitler is long since dead and defeated but his Spirit lives on in the hearts of his followers.
The problem with the movie sauron is while the eye is a really effective iconic representation of omnipresent evil it did gave the impression to a large amount of people that Sauron was an only a flaming eye- what is wrong. His initial movie appearance is more than fine but later on he should have been visible one or two times. The scene with the palantir does in fact show a physical form and the necromancer battle scene in the following movies reinforces that. A pity jackson didn't made a scene with Gollum being tortured with glimpses of a scarred humanoid form, even if not fully detailed - similar to what George Lucas did with Vader in the empire strikes back movie.
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
Sauron became a lot like his former master.....a coward who much prefered to act through his many servants than risk his own physical form in battle. After all, it took him 7 years of a siege before he finally came forward to fight in person.
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)
In the context of the movies, I think movie Sauron is best. In the context of the books, I think book Sauron is best. I can't say which is better overall because, in their respective mediums, I think they're perfect.
To be honest, I think it is obvious, if one only watches the first trilogy, that Sauron is a spirit with an appearance of an eye. But speaking about representation, if we were to depict Sauron in a much more book loyal way, I think Peter should have shot scenes of him (for example Sauron plotting or using the Palantir in Barad-Úr, while appearing weak yet commanding utmost loyalty and fear from his subjects, the orcs). The Hildegard brothers did an almost perfect picture on the appearance of Sauron... a hooded figure sitting on his dark throne in the land of shadows, fearing his missing finger on his right hand...
Jackson’s depiction was good. Yes, it makes literal the image of the eye, but that’s an important image. Since Sauron doesn’t appear in the open in the book, there’s no serious contradiction. I grew up with the books and I thought the flaming eye in the movie, while it wasn’t how I had imagined Sauron when reading the books, captured a repeated image and therefore a significant quality of Sauron, if only one. The image of the eye is made very significant in the Mirror of Galadriel. Not only is that what Frodo sees, then and later, it is what Galadriel had seen, she says. The oaks refer to the eye as well. However metaphorical the eye may be, it seems to be a powerful one that multiple people in the story can relate to, and it is the most consistent image for an otherwise unseen character.
Book Sauron, simply becuase it seemed more plausible. However the menacing presence of Sauron as something more he cant be construed as just another being as middle earth. No one would make an assumption that sauron was an elf or man, but people sometimes appear to thing Gandalf is less than he is, when in reality he is the same level of power effectively as Sauron. They are both Maia.
I wonder if in the movies, he could only become incarnate once more, due to his waning spirit energy, and didn’t want to risk it. Or I wonder if he could surface for brief periods of time, only to lose his body again after a short while, needing the ring to permanently restore himself.
Leaving Sauron ambiguous and unseen was in my opinion the best choice they could have made for cinema. A superpowerful, semi-divine, megalomaniac tyrant who considers himself above direct confrontation and delegates everything to his armies is taken down by hobbits, creatures he barely even knew existed and never spared a thought for. We didn't need a "this isn't even my final form!!" moment because that would have been missing the point of Sauron as an antagonist. Although, they could have made it more obvious that he did have an actual physical body.
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!
I think just because the eye is depicted visually in the film, it doesn’t mean it is necessarily a literal interpretation. It could be a visual metaphor.
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.
my first contact with Lord of the Rings was through the movies, which is strange, since i read from an early age yet i don't remember coming across the books... Anyway, long story short, the one downside to the movies was i never truly understood was Sauron being being an entity everyone was scared off.
Movie Sauron. Gave him a non-corporeal representation but still corporeal enough to influence and follow. What better way than a big flaming eye on top of a tower.
I always imagined him as a burned figure, one eyed, very frail and thin with nine fingers... That is the later Sauron.The early Sauronni imagine as a very beautiful, young, red-haired and pail man wirh a slight red burn in his eyes.
I think the book Sauron has a lot more going for him with his entire history in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. The movie version worked in that it gave Sauron a recognizable design, as well as the flaming eye, which has become synonymous with omnipresent evil. On the other hand, I get why some people may not like these designs and feel the books left more to imagination, as everyone has their own interpretation of what Sauron may have looked like. Even a flaming eye can be perceived differently, depending on how you describe it.
Movie Sauron worked better I think. The great flaming Eye atop Barad-dur didn't make me think that the Eye was Sauron himself. It merely provided a visual embodiment of Sauron and his watchfulness, but whose actual physical form was hiding inside of the tower. Remember that he had been defeated in physical form as far back as the tale of Beren and Luthien. So, from a literary perspective he was *never* actually invincible. This is why the Witch-King led the assault on Minas Tirith in RotK. Especially without the One Ring in his possession, Sauron was not strong enough to dominate the battlefield. He was relying on the resources he had acquired across the Ages, including Barad-dur itself. In my opinion, showing him onscreen, in person, would have reduced him to a generic bad guy. Especially after the Witch-King (another shadowy armoured figure) was killed by Merry and Eowyn. The Eye made him seem more awesome, but also more untouchable. Thus, destroying the One Ring was so important because Aragorn couldn't just defeat Sauron on the battlefield.
I dont think that the two kings slew Sauron, I always interpreted "overthrown" as being quite litteraly a reference to Sauron falling to his knees after killing the two of them, expecially since Tolkien describes the fight as them "wrestling Sauron." So I always imagined Sauron falling to the ground wounded and tired, and while he's trying to get up Isildur runs over with his fathers sword and cuts off his finger.
You can tell the two kings killed Sauron by how it's written and choice of wording. "But at the last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth; and he wrestled with Gil-Galad and Elendil, and they both were slain, and the sword of Elendil broke under him as he fell. But Sauron also was thrown down." All that is stated BEFORE Isildur is mentioned, and the key words are "ALSO WAS" that puts "thrown down" into the prior happening of Gil-Galad, Elendil, and the sentence containing "slain", and yes, "thrown down" is also a older way of saying "killed" or "destroyed". Just like "fly" used to mean "flee" or "run away" back in the day.
I like both , but I’m partial towards the movie version. It just felt more epic to me. It felt like they where up against an unknowable evil; that if he got his body would spread unspeakable death , destruction ,and terror. I liked him having a body in the beginning and it being destroyed in the last great alliance. To me it showed off his power better that he this weak but able to do this .
I think that if Sauron had a physical body in the movie then there would had to have been a fight to the death between Aragorn and Sauron. Things that work in a book don't always work for a movie and vice versa. Also, if Aragorn had physically killed Sauron then I think it would have taken away from Frodo throwing the ring into Mt Doom. I mean, everything in all three movies is centered around destroying the ring. What would it have seemed like if the ring fell into the lava and Sauron just got angry or something? Would have been kind of a let down. The ring sinking into the lava actually destroying eyeball Sauron, causing the tower to collapse and caused the earthquake that killed the orcs... that had a good impact on the viewer and gave a sense of completeness.
I kind of prefer the book Sauron, but I can understand why Peter Jackson needed to make a visible representation of him for the movies. Still, I think having him be shown briefly in a few scenes as having a body, with dialog to explain why he doesn't just come out and fight himself. Like until he has the One Ring back on his finger, his physical form is not yet stable enough to do open battle or something like that, but show his danger in his ability to see far and wide and influence others through his Palantir, and his powerful will and ability to coerce and threaten others into doing his bidding.
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.
Have him be like Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars), commanding from the shadows but actually seeing him not engage in direct confrontation. But I did like the approach in the movies.
THANK YOU. Difference #1: SAURON HAD ALREADY TAKEN PHYSICAL FORM! He had a “body.” Period. End of story. To paraphrase JRR Tolkien “A ring wouldn’t do much good without a finger to wield it.”
Back when i first saw the movies, I thought the Sauron stayed in the tower was he was too weak to leave it without his ring and the eye was his window to Middle Earth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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 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
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.
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 black armour clad figure from the film is what I imagined while reading the books.
Book Sauron. Especially when you have the Sillmarilion knowledge to back his character.
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
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.🌟
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I love Sauron in the book because of his ominous presence and mysterious description. It leaves his appearance almost completely up to the reader
6:10 but we see Sauron in Body in the movies. In return of the King when Aragon struggles with him through the Palantirie.
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 !!!!
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
Thank you for using the "Build me an army worthy of Mordor"
I wouldn't change a thing. Greatest movie trilogy ever made
AGREED !!!!!
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 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
Philipa Boyens lines make Movie Sauron sound like a total cartoon character.
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.
In The Return of the King Extended Edition, “Aragorn Masters the Palantir:” It SHOWS Sauron in his armored form from behind his Eye. That could possibly HINT that Sauron did have a body in the Movies as well...
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 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 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.
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
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
Thank you for the upload! As someone who is too dumb to get through the books; I appreciate these type of videos the most
In the film Fellowship, the eye as it is shown is a great visual metaphor for Sauron. You only really see it in visions such as Galadriel's mirror, the palantir or when Frodo puts on the ring. It's an effective and scary representation of Sauron's ever watching spirit. Come The Two Towers, it begins to be explicitly shown in the physical plane atop Barad Dur. As a result it looks a whole lot goofier to me, and puts an end to any thinking that the eye was just how Sauron appeared in people's minds. Instead it confirms that this is absolutely Sauron's form. At this stage I still don't hate it, but it's lost a lot of power for me. And then they introduce "searchlight" Sauron in RoTK. There are no words for that one.
So, I think they certainly got some things right in giving Sauron a presence for the audience, but maybe should have kept the more subtle approach they started with.
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%
Gollum even comments about the Dark Lord missing fingers on his black hand(after "escaping" his torture)
It's always pissed me off when some people are adamant he never retained a body in the books. He had a body, and destroying the Ring didn't "kill" him, it made him a completely useless spirit unable to ever take any form again.
I personally would have liked to see Saurons injured hand as his avatar, inge films(sparingly used)Seeing it on the palantir, resting on his throne, giving out orders while gesturing.
I think there's one more difference between book and movie Sauron: the intro to The Fellowship of the Ring shows Sauron in Mount Doom as if he's just finished forging the One Ring, and he appears the same as he does in the battle against the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. Book Sauron would have still been in his *"Annatar"* guise when he made the ring.
The change was obviously necessary, since they're compressing two thirds of the Second Age into two minutes of screen time: no time for Sauron to be found out by the elves, murder Celebrimbor, reclaim half of the rings, hand them out to greedy humans, lose to Númenor, corrupt Númenor from within, lose his body, make himself a new, evil-looking body, and wage war against half of Middle-Earth.
Movie Sauron. I love how they simplified it. It worked so well.
Book Sauron was perfect for the book and Film Sauron was perfect for the films.
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
'Demonic' possession. Give the Eye of Sauron the power to project his will to inhabit and control the body of a living minion. A final example could be in the final battle of Return of the King. The troll sees Aragorn on the field of battle then his eyes begin to glow red then a third eye appears in its forhead. For a moment Aragorn sees Sauron's true form superimposed over the troll's body then his armored form (for the audiences benefit) just before the troll attacks him. Aragorn defeats Sauron, thanks to his vulnerability to Narsil (now Andúril) but before Eye of Sauron can possess another the ring is revealed and the events play out as in the movie.
Nice work dude thanks
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.
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.
Can u do videos on the military strength of each race throughout the ages
that’s very broad
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 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.
Sauron sees the world through the palantir and doesn't leave his fortress to fight because he lacks the ring and even with the ring he lost the first time. He didn't even have to fully appear or be a realized character, just a known form in the tallest office of Barad Dur gazing into the palantir as his only means of viewing the outside world which is important - because it emphasizes why it is so significant when Pippin takes the palantir and Gandalf uses that gambit. Further, what kills Sauron finally is not the ring's destruction.. it's that barad-dur was built with the ring's power, and when the ring is destroyed the fortress collapses and Sauron is simply crushed. Finally though and this is just my opinion, the 'eye' as a current of energy between two spokes on Barad-Dur looked silly and when the ring was destroyed and the eye scanned around helplessly was more comical than epic.
Book Sauron but I have no complaints about what Jackson did in the films other than not showing that it was Elendil and Gil-Galad that actually took Sauron down.
I think one important point of evil in Tolkien's work is that they aren't brave, at least most of the times. Morgoth fought against Fingolfin not because he wanted, but because otherwise his servant would had seen how cowardly he is (and the fight didn't went well for him either).
When Numenor came to Mordor with their whole might, Sauron didn't even fight back, but surrender, only to destroy Numenor from inside. During the Last Alliance he only came to fight as desperate last resort after 7 years of sieging of Barad-dur. Neither Morgoth nor Sauron are type of characters who leads their armies personally, preferring to order their minions to go and kill and die for him.
I think it's also worth noting that "power" in these fantasy stories doesn't necessarily meant great fighting powers. Sauron is very powerful Maia, but that doesn't mean he can't lose to the wolfhound in one-on-one fight.
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.
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.
Movie Sauron!!! I think these guys did a perfect job in the movie. I don't think it could have done any better than I can think of and that's rare.
always good stuff thank you.
In hindsight, I probably would have had The Eye of Sauron just be a menacing symbol, like a swastika, a subtle/not so subtle way of telling the characters and the audience that nothing escapes Sauron's view, and in turn emphasise the role of the Palanthiers and left Sauron's form and physical state a complete mystery to the audience.
In fact, I would probably have went a step further and expanded on Sauron's role as a Satanic character and seeded into the minds of the audience at least if Sauron was "alive" to begin with. Or to put it in real world terms, Hitler is long since dead and defeated but his Spirit lives on in the hearts of his followers.
The problem with the movie sauron is while the eye is a really effective iconic representation of omnipresent evil it did gave the impression to a large amount of people that Sauron was an only a flaming eye- what is wrong. His initial movie appearance is more than fine but later on he should have been visible one or two times. The scene with the palantir does in fact show a physical form and the necromancer battle scene in the following movies reinforces that. A pity jackson didn't made a scene with Gollum being tortured with glimpses of a scarred humanoid form, even if not fully detailed - similar to what George Lucas did with Vader in the empire strikes back movie.
cool vid James Movie Sauron i think they nailed it
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
Sauron became a lot like his former master.....a coward who much prefered to act through his many servants than risk his own physical form in battle. After all, it took him 7 years of a siege before he finally came forward to fight in person.
Book Sauron. How Gollum describing him as having only 9 fingers, which is how Frodo also ends up. A bit ironic.
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)
In the context of the movies, I think movie Sauron is best. In the context of the books, I think book Sauron is best. I can't say which is better overall because, in their respective mediums, I think they're perfect.
To be honest, I think it is obvious, if one only watches the first trilogy, that Sauron is a spirit with an appearance of an eye. But speaking about representation, if we were to depict Sauron in a much more book loyal way, I think Peter should have shot scenes of him (for example Sauron plotting or using the Palantir in Barad-Úr, while appearing weak yet commanding utmost loyalty and fear from his subjects, the orcs). The Hildegard brothers did an almost perfect picture on the appearance of Sauron... a hooded figure sitting on his dark throne in the land of shadows, fearing his missing finger on his right hand...
Jackson’s depiction was good. Yes, it makes literal the image of the eye, but that’s an important image. Since Sauron doesn’t appear in the open in the book, there’s no serious contradiction. I grew up with the books and I thought the flaming eye in the movie, while it wasn’t how I had imagined Sauron when reading the books, captured a repeated image and therefore a significant quality of Sauron, if only one. The image of the eye is made very significant in the Mirror of Galadriel. Not only is that what Frodo sees, then and later, it is what Galadriel had seen, she says. The oaks refer to the eye as well. However metaphorical the eye may be, it seems to be a powerful one that multiple people in the story can relate to, and it is the most consistent image for an otherwise unseen character.
Book Sauron, simply becuase it seemed more plausible. However the menacing presence of Sauron as something more he cant be construed as just another being as middle earth. No one would make an assumption that sauron was an elf or man, but people sometimes appear to thing Gandalf is less than he is, when in reality he is the same level of power effectively as Sauron. They are both Maia.
I wonder if in the movies, he could only become incarnate once more, due to his waning spirit energy, and didn’t want to risk it. Or I wonder if he could surface for brief periods of time, only to lose his body again after a short while, needing the ring to permanently restore himself.
Leaving Sauron ambiguous and unseen was in my opinion the best choice they could have made for cinema. A superpowerful, semi-divine, megalomaniac tyrant who considers himself above direct confrontation and delegates everything to his armies is taken down by hobbits, creatures he barely even knew existed and never spared a thought for. We didn't need a "this isn't even my final form!!" moment because that would have been missing the point of Sauron as an antagonist.
Although, they could have made it more obvious that he did have an actual physical body.
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!
I think just because the eye is depicted visually in the film, it doesn’t mean it is necessarily a literal interpretation. It could be a visual metaphor.
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.
my first contact with Lord of the Rings was through the movies, which is strange, since i read from an early age yet i don't remember coming across the books... Anyway, long story short, the one downside to the movies was i never truly understood was Sauron being being an entity everyone was scared off.
Movie Sauron. Gave him a non-corporeal representation but still corporeal enough to influence and follow. What better way than a big flaming eye on top of a tower.
I always imagined him as a burned figure, one eyed, very frail and thin with nine fingers...
That is the later Sauron.The early Sauronni imagine as a very beautiful, young, red-haired and pail man wirh a slight red burn in his eyes.
Theres also a painting showing sauron by JRRT himself..
Book sauron
Also, great vídeo, i hope you keep up with this séries.
I think the book Sauron has a lot more going for him with his entire history in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. The movie version worked in that it gave Sauron a recognizable design, as well as the flaming eye, which has become synonymous with omnipresent evil. On the other hand, I get why some people may not like these designs and feel the books left more to imagination, as everyone has their own interpretation of what Sauron may have looked like. Even a flaming eye can be perceived differently, depending on how you describe it.
Movie Sauron worked better I think. The great flaming Eye atop Barad-dur didn't make me think that the Eye was Sauron himself. It merely provided a visual embodiment of Sauron and his watchfulness, but whose actual physical form was hiding inside of the tower. Remember that he had been defeated in physical form as far back as the tale of Beren and Luthien. So, from a literary perspective he was *never* actually invincible. This is why the Witch-King led the assault on Minas Tirith in RotK. Especially without the One Ring in his possession, Sauron was not strong enough to dominate the battlefield. He was relying on the resources he had acquired across the Ages, including Barad-dur itself. In my opinion, showing him onscreen, in person, would have reduced him to a generic bad guy. Especially after the Witch-King (another shadowy armoured figure) was killed by Merry and Eowyn. The Eye made him seem more awesome, but also more untouchable. Thus, destroying the One Ring was so important because Aragorn couldn't just defeat Sauron on the battlefield.
A shadowy but large and humanoid figure with intense flaming eyes- what I thought Sauron looked like while reading the book!
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.
i kinda like to think that sauron had a body in the movies too but just had the eye on the tower as a kind of projection
I dont think that the two kings slew Sauron, I always interpreted "overthrown" as being quite litteraly a reference to Sauron falling to his knees after killing the two of them, expecially since Tolkien describes the fight as them "wrestling Sauron."
So I always imagined Sauron falling to the ground wounded and tired, and while he's trying to get up Isildur runs over with his fathers sword and cuts off his finger.
You can tell the two kings killed Sauron by how it's written and choice of wording. "But at the last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth; and he wrestled with Gil-Galad and Elendil, and they both were slain, and the sword of Elendil broke under him as he fell. But Sauron also was thrown down."
All that is stated BEFORE Isildur is mentioned, and the key words are "ALSO WAS" that puts "thrown down" into the prior happening of Gil-Galad, Elendil, and the sentence containing "slain", and yes, "thrown down" is also a older way of saying "killed" or "destroyed". Just like "fly" used to mean "flee" or "run away" back in the day.
I like both , but I’m partial towards the movie version. It just felt more epic to me. It felt like they where up against an unknowable evil; that if he got his body would spread unspeakable death , destruction ,and terror. I liked him having a body in the beginning and it being destroyed in the last great alliance. To me it showed off his power better that he this weak but able to do this .
I would make Sauron a bit of a mix with the book and hobbit.
Flaming eye with his figure in the middle and inside of mordor an actual physical form
I think that if Sauron had a physical body in the movie then there would had to have been a fight to the death between Aragorn and Sauron. Things that work in a book don't always work for a movie and vice versa. Also, if Aragorn had physically killed Sauron then I think it would have taken away from Frodo throwing the ring into Mt Doom. I mean, everything in all three movies is centered around destroying the ring. What would it have seemed like if the ring fell into the lava and Sauron just got angry or something? Would have been kind of a let down. The ring sinking into the lava actually destroying eyeball Sauron, causing the tower to collapse and caused the earthquake that killed the orcs... that had a good impact on the viewer and gave a sense of completeness.
I kind of prefer the book Sauron, but I can understand why Peter Jackson needed to make a visible representation of him for the movies. Still, I think having him be shown briefly in a few scenes as having a body, with dialog to explain why he doesn't just come out and fight himself. Like until he has the One Ring back on his finger, his physical form is not yet stable enough to do open battle or something like that, but show his danger in his ability to see far and wide and influence others through his Palantir, and his powerful will and ability to coerce and threaten others into doing his bidding.
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.
Anyone know what the music which starts at 1:06 is?
Have him be like Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars), commanding from the shadows but actually seeing him not engage in direct confrontation. But I did like the approach in the movies.
Definitivly Book Sauron. I would love him walk around in armor or even in physical Form intriguing Middle-Earth
THANK YOU. Difference #1: SAURON HAD ALREADY TAKEN PHYSICAL FORM! He had a “body.” Period. End of story.
To paraphrase JRR Tolkien “A ring wouldn’t do much good without a finger to wield it.”
I always thought Sauron never fought with Aragorn because he was the king and thought everyone was beneath him.
Back when i first saw the movies, I thought the Sauron stayed in the tower was he was too weak to leave it without his ring and the eye was his window to Middle Earth.
That would have made sense if they had done that for sure!