The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Poor Knight]

I've railed about this back in the old LOTR forum, but I'll reair my complaint again here.

By far the biggest complaint I had about the LOTR trilogy was the role of Saruman. In the book, Saruman is corrupted by the ring. I guess one of the messages of the book is that the more powerful and 'wise' you are, the more susceptible you are to corruption by the ring (and perhaps corruption in general). Saruman is so wise and powerful, he gets corrupted even without physical contact with the ring! He is corrupted because he studies ringlore so deeply, and in the end decides to wield it for himself and become master of Middle Earth.

In the movie, they made his mind-boggling betrayal of Middle Earth into just a cowardly, Machievellian decision. He figured Sauron would win, so he wanted to brown nose the Dark Lord. The Saruman from the book would have preferred to die a painful death rather than to bow to anyone, Sauron included. He was rising up AGAINST Sauron, not becoming his willing lieutenant. I recall a dialogue in the LOTR (though I don't recall who said it) where someone regrets that Isengard and Mordor could not be next to each other so the two armies could smash each other to smithereen...but then it is noted (I assume by Gandalf) that the eventual winner would emerge even more powerful.

By unnecessarily changing this aspect, I felt the filmmakers 1) didn't do justice to the character of Saruman from the book and, 2) missed an opportunity to reinforce yet again the power of corruption in the ring.

Related to this is my secondary complaint. My understanding from the book was that the ring COULD be used by anyone powerful enough. They COULD use it to overpower Sauron and become the lord of Middle Earth. The only trouble was they would become corrupted in the process and become dark lords themselves. In the movie, it is claimed, NO ONE can use this ring besides Sauron. The ring only has one master, the ring and Sauron are one and the same. If so, then why does Gandalf ask Frodo to not "tempt" him with the ring? If he can't REALLY use the ring to become powerful anyway? This turned it from a REAL temptation to just some illusion.

[Gandalfs Beard]

You make some interesting points PK, but I think the means of Saruman's corruption might be a matter of perspective. I don't think book Saruman is any less Machiavellian then film Saruman. Jackson's version of Saruman is clearly portrayed as seeking his own aggrandizement first, his surreptitious moves a ploy to distract Sauron as he attempts to capture the Ring for himself. This doesn't contradict your (correct) contention that Book Saruman would bow to none.

As for how Saruman actually becomes corrupted, it isn't his power or "wisdom" which makes him more susceptible, but his Mechanistic nature. He was corrupted not by the Ring, but by his own desire to shatter things into their components to see how they work, and then mistaking the parts for the sum of the whole. Hence, Saruman The White became Saruman of Many Colours.

In LotR, the Book, it is people's own natures that make them more or less corruptible. Strength of Character and Purpose generally decided who would fall most readily to the Power of the Ring. I think this is also a key point in the films.

As to your secondary complaint, I think that there may be a misunderstanding at it's center. In the films, as in the book, the Ring only has One True Master, because that is how it was made, with Sauron putting much of himself into the Ring. Now, indeed, in the books, one could conceivably use the Ring against Sauron--but they would become corrupted and become Dark Lords themselves--just as you suggest. But the films have the same message.

In the films a lot of emphasis is put on the Powerful (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond etc.) "becoming like Dark Lords themselves" if they were to use the Ring. Anyone (powerful that is) COULD indeed take the Ring and use it, but they SHOULD not--which is why Gandalf asks Frodo not to tempt him. The temptation is as "real" in the films as it is in the books.

GB

[Poor Knight]

G'day GB

thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughtful comments.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one I suspect.

"Jackson's version of Saruman is clearly portrayed as seeking his own aggrandizement first, his surreptitious moves a ploy to distract Sauron as he attempts to capture the Ring for himself. This doesn't contradict your (correct) contention that Book Saruman would bow to none."

Well if by "aggrandisement", you mean not being wiped off the map by Sauron, I would agree. But if you refer to the usual definition, I disagree. I didn't see anything in the movie that suggested Saruman was planning to backstab Sauron and grab the ring for himself. He never said to Gandalf: "bow to me, and together we'll overthrow Sauron by grabbing the ring for ourselves", he said (paraphrasing) bow to Sauron and submit to his will, as I have, because he is so big and mighty. The closest thing to the evidence of "aggrandisement" is, as someone else quoted to me in the LOTR forum, his question to the Uruk-hai..."Whom do you serve?" "SARUMAN".
The person who mentioned this was actually hoping that this (in the first movie) indicated Saruman would yet seek to betray Sauron in the second movie (which was not yet out then)...but nothing more came of it. By itself, I don't think it's much of an evidence. If you have others, I would be curious to hear them.

"He was corrupted not by the Ring, but by his own desire to shatter things into their components to see how they work, and then mistaking the parts for the sum of the whole. Hence, Saruman The White became Saruman of Many Colours."

That's fascinating. Is that something from the book? Sounds pretty good.

"As to your secondary complaint, I think that there may be a misunderstanding at it's center. In the films, as in the book, the Ring only has One True Master, because that is how it was made, with Sauron putting much of himself into the Ring. Now, indeed, in the books, one could conceivably use the Ring against Sauron--but they would become corrupted and become Dark Lords themselves--just as you suggest. But the films have the same message. In the films a lot of emphasis is put on the Powerful (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond etc.) "becoming like Dark Lords themselves" if they were to use the Ring. Anyone (powerful that is) COULD indeed take the Ring and use it, but they SHOULD not--which is why Gandalf asks Frodo not to tempt him. The temptation is as "real" in the films as it is in the books."

I respectfully disagree. At the very least, I think the movies didn't make this clear. Sometimes it seemed to suggest a powerful individual could use the ring against Sauron (as when Gandalf asked Frodo not to tempt him), but other times it seemed to suggest NO ONE could use the ring against Sauron (as when Boromir suggests using the ring against Sauron at the Council, and he is flat out told NO ONE can use the ring against Sauron because it only has one master - Sauron himself). If in the movie it was only said "the ring can have only ONE TRUE master", that would leave open the possibility that the master need not be Sauron. However, from memory, the movie stated that the ring only served Sauron (paraphrasing, can't recall the exact quote)...which sounds fairly definitive...so I remain unconvinced.


DISCLAIMER: I read the books about 8 times (not counting the dozens of times I've read chapters here or there) but I confess the last time I read them was about 20 years ago! So I stand ready to be corrected on my memory (including spelling of names!).

[Poor Knight]

As stated above, that was my main complaint about the trilogy...however, I had others as well...but these were more presentational.

1) The death of Boromir is one of my favourite descriptive passages in the books. It had a really heroic poetry kind of grandeur to it...something from mythology. It was a beautiful image...of a proud but broken warrior, outnumbered completely, but fighting as a man possessed (indeed, fighting for his soul) with countless dead piling at his feet.

I generally thought the movie handled it well, and it brings a tear to my eye whenever I see it...but I still (being one of the never-can-be-satisfied-LOTR-fans!) found myself disappointed.

This was supposed to be something epic. One against a thousand. Like the 300 spartans of old. We are supposed to be in awe of how hard Boromir fought. However, the first most striking image we see is of ARAGON facing down the thousand Uruk-hai! And pretty much, we soon find EVERYONE is killing mountains of Uruk-hai quite well thank you very much. So instead of being in awe of Boromir standing up against the avalanche, I found myself wondering whether Boromir wasn't quite up to the challenge of killing cannon fodder as easily as the rest of the Fellowship.

I have more, but my wife is waiting to go out and have dinner...so the others will have to wait till later!

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well, I think all the "Heroes" are made out to be awesome Orc Killers in both media . I'm not sure that really diminishes Boromir's redemptive actions .

It's true that Saruman doesn't explicitly say to Gandalf "Let's take the Ring and Rule ourselves". But it's fairly clear from his duplicitous nature that he intends to keep it for himself should he find it before Sauron. In fact, I am pretty sure his Orcs have orders to bring any Hobbits and their possessions to him rather than to Mordor. There are some lines uttered by Orcs that suggest that very thing, but I'd have to skim through the films to find the scene.

As Gandalf escapes Saruman, Gandalf points out that Sauron does not share power. I think Saruman's expressions and actions make it clear that he knows this full well, and is going along with Sauron for convenience's sake until he has a chance to grab power for himself. Most of my non-book reading friends picked up on this, so I don't think it's something I'm "reading into" the films. But I grant you, that the evidence is ambiguous enough that I wouldn't make a Federal Case out of it .

Back to the books, the scene featuring Saruman of Many Colours does appear in Fellowship as another forum member, Durin, posted. Tolkien himself discusses Saruman's motivations, but for the life of me I can't remember where I read it now . Anyway, the scene as quoted by Durin:

Well here is a Quote right from the Book, "Lord of the Rings". This is from the Fellowship of the Ring, or Part 1, Book 2, Council of Elrond.'"Yes, I have come," I said (Gandalf). " I have come for your aid, Saruman the White." And that title seemed to anger him.

"Have you indeed Gandalf the Grey!" he scoffed.' Well, now I have skipped to a section, not to far from this, maybe Paragraph or so. "' For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colors!'

'I looked then and saw that his robes, which has seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered. "I liked white better" Gandalf Said.

"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white Page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."

*Back to the films*
As to your last point, at the council of Elrond, Gandalf says the Ring is "altogether Evil". Aragorn does say "You cannot wield it, none of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other Master". Gandalf does reply to Boromir at one point that "Aragorn is right, we cannot use it."

On it's face this seems to support your point. But I think the context changes things. Some (i.e. Boromir ) need to be utterly convinced that it would be beyond foolish to use the Ring. So a little Rhetorical embellishment on the part of another character (Aragorn) is certainly called for. And under those circumstances there is no way Gandalf would have corrected him by saying "well, actually we could use it to defeat Sauron, but then we would become as Evil is him". That would have weakened the position they were taking, which was that the Ring must be destroyed under all accounts.

Again, there is just enough ambiguity though, that this scene alone would not be convincing. No, it takes Gandalf's and Galadriel's temptation to make it clear that in Jackson's version, the Ring could just as readily be wielded by another powerful being if they so chose.

In any case, it's been about 3 years since my last reading of LotR (the Hobbit just last year), but my memory isn't always brilliant either, and we're a very forgiving bunch here .

GB

[Poor Knight]

Well, I think all the "Heroes" are made out to be awesome Orc Killers in both media . I'm not sure that really diminishes Boromir's redemptive actions .

You're right, of course. Given that the minions of evil are 1) multitudinous, and 2) hardly kill a member of the Fellowship except poor Boromir, it is hard to represent them as being too much of a threat!

However, I guess that's the magic of reading a book....I still could imagine how strong and vicious those Uruk-hai were.

Also, though they were all AOK (Awesome Orc Killers), I still think that scene belonged to Boromir alone. I would have had the other members of the party fighting scattered groups of Uruk-hai, but save that moment when Aragon looked up, and then the camera panned to reveal masses and masses of Uruk-hai, for Boromir. I would prefer what Boromir achieved to be appreciated as extraordinary, even by the standard of AOKs!


*Back to the films*
As to your last point, at the council of Elrond, Gandalf says the Ring is "altogether Evil". Aragorn does say "You cannot wield it, none of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other Master". Gandalf does reply to Boromir at one point that "Aragorn is right, we cannot use it."

On it's face this seems to support your point. But I think the context changes things. Some (i.e. Boromir ) need to be utterly convinced that it would be beyond foolish to use the Ring. So a little Rhetorical embellishment on the part of another character (Aragorn) is certainly called for. And under those circumstances there is no way Gandalf would have corrected him by saying "well, actually we could use it to defeat Sauron, but then we would become as Evil is him". That would have weakened the position they were taking, which was that the Ring must be destroyed under all accounts.

That's an interesting take on the scene. So Aragon was actually lying to Boromir (and Gandalf, sensing what he was trying to do, jumped in to help), in order to avoid a situation where the Council might decide to use the ring instead of to destroy it (though Boromir seems the only one considering it). I guess, in the end of the day, it was probably true enough for Boromir. I mean, it would have taken someone of some intrinsic power (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, etc) to have used the ring...and I suspect Boromir or Denethor would not have qualified! (unless they decided to turn invisible and backstab Sauron's entire army! lol)

[Poor Knight]

I know I'll be branded a heretic by the loyal LOTR crew and burned at the stake for this, but I have to admit that I wasn't thrilled by the casting for Sam Gamgee. Even my wife loved Sean Astin, and I suspect most people did. Not surprising when the figure of Sam Gamgee is such a sympathetic one. However, there was just something about Sean Astin in the role that annoyed me.

I'll be quick to add here I either liked or loved most of the casting decisions. Bilbo and Gandalf were my favourite, but I also really liked Frodo, Aragon, Boromir, Theoden etc...

I didn't like Sean Astin in the role because he seemed to be a bit too affected in his 'down-to-earth countriness'....it didn't seem natural. And there was a scene in the first movie when they are leaving the Shire when he looks at Frodo, and it seems a very dismissive, kind of condenscending look, which didn't sit well with his character. Anyway, it wasn't SO bad that I wasn't moved in the third movie at Sam's bravery and sacrifice. Just didn't find myself warming to Sean's Sam as much as most of the other characters, which was a shame because he is such a central figure.

[Tar-Palantir]

Hi, i just wanted to say that I agree with you, Poor Knight, about the scene of Boromir's death, it really didn't seem spectacular or heroic enough to me in the film. I think the trouble was that they wanted to show that the other members of the fellowship were "awesome orc killers" too, but the only way to do this without using matrix-style stunts and special effects was to make the Uruk-Hai seem rather feeble. I think that's one of the main problems with the film, because the orcs never really seem all that frightening throughout, whereas in the books they were pretty terrifying. And then, because the orcs had been made a bit too feeble, in order to show that they weren't actually feeble they had to make the soldiers of Gondor seem even worse. While I accept that Gondor had been through many years (I forget how many) of decline, they were still supposed to be valiant soldiers, but they came across as rather pathetic. It all stems from the need to make the fellowship seem more awesome compared to the others.

However, I can't believe you didn't like Sam!!! I thought he was one of the very best (which is saying something). I felt he was as close to perfect as you could get. Each to his own, I guess.

[B'arelyn Dwarf]

Poor Knight I have to disagree with you that Sean Astin was wrong for the role , he (for me) really reflected the character Tokien creates. Astin played a very protective and loyal Sam, although in the book I do think he was a bit wimpier than Astin plays him, I think he definately was the right guy to play Mr. Gamgee. I do agree that his west-country farmer accent was a bit forced, but the tone was right I think. In terms of apperance I think he was perfect. He was a stout sort of person and he definately had Hobbit complextion.

[Odo Banks]

I confess that Sam in the movies bothered me a bit. I think I know what you're saying, Poor Knight. I have to say though, the scene where Sam says he can't carry the Ring, but can carry Frodo, is sheer cinema gold.

The problem I have with the movies is that not many of the characters consistently mirror the ones in the book. I think Ian McKellan was brilliant and the closest to his character in the book. Other characters I thought were excellent; Aragorn for instance; it's just he, like others, wasn't particularly like the Aragorn in the book. In some ways I thought Boromir was better (and different)than in the book - and Arwen too - but that's another story completely!

Overall, the same old is the same old. If Peter had stuck more truly to the book, the film would have been immeasurably better.

Odo

NB PJ might have done another action/fantasy/romance about a Mortal Man falling in love with an Immortal Maid - starring Viggo and Liv - and I would have sat in the front pew at the cinemas to watch it!!! Of course, it would not be a Tolkien adaptation, but who cares?!?!

NB Hey! What about the Story of Luthien and Beren? Now that'd be a great movie idea!