https://preview.redd.it/s8e16bgbod6d1.jpeg?width=1277&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bd254d60d37fa3e466bf1c0aec7a64df47744838
I also prefer this way of looking at the films and here is the shot for anyone curious about the Aragorn scene you referenced.
Oh interesting! In Jamaica "Shirley" is like a generic name that we sometimes use to be sarcastic (in exactly the way you used it!). Wonder if there's any link there
It really tickled me. Not sure why I got downvoted for it though:-)
>It really tickled me. Not sure why I got downvoted for it though:-)
Because reddit loves the surely/Shirley joke, probably.
You should watch that movie, "Airplane!". It's fantastic.
It's more of a vessel to hold his spirit than just armour. Similar to the robes and armour that the ringwraiths wear it helps Sauron influence the mundane world and cause fear. He can no longer take a beautiful form after he died during the sinking of Numenor so his raiment being spiky mithril armour makes total sense. Kind of like if you can't fool anyone into thinking you're good then you might as well go full badass and put the fear of Morgoth into their hearts.
A bit that goes against /u/kaeyrne 's theory, though, is that aragorn is not using the palantir as described in the book. He's not looking through it like a telescope towards Mordor. He's looking down into his hands. So this palantir works differently from aragorn's. When saruman has it, he also doesn't use it as OP describes Sauron using it in their theory.
To clarify what I meant by the telescope analogy, the sight of the Palantiri is directional and does not grant an omnipresent viewpoint of anything one wishes to see. In other words, if Saruman in Orthanc looked east towards the Argonath, he would see the west-facing sides of the statues. He would not see the faces of the statues looking north as the Fellowship did as they came south.
I agree, what I'm saying is Saruman and Aragorn aren't looking west towards Mordor. They are both looking down at the palantir in their hands or on a table. The movies make the palantirs seem more like FaceTime than a telescope, which it was in the books. There's also Pippin's fiasco.
More so, Aragorn is facing the throne, which faces east (mostly), like the city, which means that Aragorn is not only looking down, he is looking the opposite way.
While the Palantirs obviously don’t work exactly like the books, I think they are based on intent and mind for observation and communication. Aragorn reached out to Sauron, and Sauron responded.
I thought it was cool, the first time I saw the movies. And the movies introduced me to Tolkien. Film and book are two different mediums. A giant fiery lidless eye works perfectly on the big screen.
It certainly wasn't the worst take Jackson could have given Sauron, and it did allow for the expediency required by the films. And given that Sauron doesn't really physically appear to those in the book, it did little to harm Sauron's character. The main problem I see is the inconsistencies it creates leading to questions that are easily answered by the fact that Sauron did indeed have a physical form.
>A giant fiery lidless eye works perfectly on the big screen.
I mean, there still is a giant fiery lidless eye in the books. You experience it through people's visions and dreams for the most part. Sometimes, you read snipets of Sauron's actual form, whether he's overlooking the torture of Gollum or whether he's brooding atop his tower.
The vision's and dreams serve as an extension of Sauron's evil presence. So the books have both.
I just imagined him like the main character of Overlord videogame. He was definitely intended to be Sauron, but it now tainted (or enhanced) my perception of actual Sauron.
Yeah, it's obvious that it worked since people who haven't even seen the movies know the iconic red eye. It's just superb imagery for a villain in a movie series.
I really liked the portrayal of the eye, except at the end of ROTK when the eye is this giant spotlight zooming around. I liked it better when it was just…there, an almost omnipresent force. Then it turns out to be more like a guy standing up there with a flashlight. It just felt…odd.
I've always thought similar. It's a very literal depiction of what could be assumed to be Sauron scrying, that I dont think it added anything to the movie. It helped to build tension while they're in Mordor. However, it could have been removed and replaced in the theatrical version, with the extended scenes where Sam and Frodo almost get caught by orcs.
They could have also simply changed Sarumans line from "he cannot take physical form" to simply "he is still far too weak to face us himself" to keep the emphasis of Sauron needing the ring to get to full strength.
The eye was an incredibly good visual that became iconic that unfortunately suffered oversights, which resulted in criticism from book purists.
Saruman’s words make no sense given Sauron’s true form (physical form) was discovered by Gandalf at Dol Guldur when he unearthed the true identity of the Necromancer. Pointless lying to the eye witness.
The troll Aragorn fights at the black gate was originally meant to be Sauron, but they added the troll in with CGI.
I think revealing Sauron in the last film only for him to die 10 minutes later would have been a terrible idea, and I like to think someone finally piped up and said it after it was filmed.
Some things just don't work in film when using a story originally from a book series, especially one as long winded and detailed as the LOTR.
Honestly, watching the movies as a kid ( I was 12 when fellowship released), I never got the impression that the Eye was meant to be Sauron himself. It was more like a representation of his power and will, while the actual physical Sauron was somewhere inside the tower.
Exactly what I thought.
my own headcanon that Sauron was sitting right below the eye on his throne and used his magic to conjure this eye atop of Barad-dûr.
I think that it is more about NOT portraying Sauron rather than portraying it.
Sauron is mostly abscent in the books, yet you need to make a movie where he is the villain. They could, and even filmed, Sauron going out in the last battle, gladly they kept him out.
Yet, they need to make, for visual adaptation purposes, something fearsome and impactful while keeping the "abscence" of Sauron still be something. Thus instead of having a red windown on top of Barad-Dur, put it a big flaming eye. That makes sense IMO.
OFC, we can nitpick all day. I would not make that eye serve as a prison spotlight tracking Frodo as a radar while in Mordor. It should be more of a "presence" rather a sort of radar as the movies made it look like. Also, during the amazing destruction of Barad-Dur, I would add a small shot going inside a window in Barad-Dur and actually show Sauron, maybe in a shadowy form, exploding or whatever, and then cuts back to outside with the exact same scene of Barad-dur destruction. It would be nice to also add the "malice shadow" getting out of Barad-dur. Maybe as something they did in, cof cof dont downvote me for this, Rings of Power for Melkor destroying the two trees.
That's what I meant. It was likely the easiest way to ensure the audience knew who Sauron was and reinforcing him as a real and present threat, while riffing off of something that was in the book, ala the 'Eye of Sauron.' It certainly wasn't the worst way to go about things, honestly. Especially, as you mentioned, Sauron doesn't physically appear to any of the POV characters in the books, so it doesn't do much to take away his agency as a character. The most annoying aspect I've found is the misconceptions it has created, when the answer is the simple fact that Sauron does indeed have a physical form.
Not sure I agree there. In the films, it's made clear that they think Sauron believes that Pippin has the ring. And Sauron doesn't realize what's going on until Frodo puts the ring on in Sammath Naur. And it's not like Sauron needed to come down and deal with Aragorn in person.
Maybe, but last time, he was faced by Elendil and Gil-Galad. Two of the greatest men of their age. When men and elves were greater. And even then, they died in the process. Barring Gandalf (who may not have confronted Sauron in the first place if he appeared), I doubt any of the captains of the west could match Sauron. There's no doubt that Sauron held some apprehension of taking the field in the first place, but it's a moot point considering that it wasn't remotely needed in the first place.
Yeah, given the movies don't really go beyond surface level hints at the maiar and high beings, the eye gives the impression sauron isn't just some scary mortal lich dude
Everyone here is forgetting that there was an actual deleted scene from ROTK where Sauron fights in the battle of the black gates. In the final cut he was replaced with a troll. He absolutely had a physical form.
It was more impactful for him to be an apparently omniscient nonhuman being. When they began to edit the deleted scene they realized the stakes felt lower the moment Sauron stepped on the battlefield as a “man” (he’s technically not but they did not bother to explain Maiar in the films so it would be lost on general audiences).
Interesting, I was thinking it would be something similar. The same way sometimes sequels reveal a secret and destroy the mister - it feels more menacing when something is invisible, unreachable.
>When Aragorn uses the Palantir to reveal himself to Sauron in order to draw his attention and bait out the armies of Morder, what does Aragorn see? He sees in a room, in the topmost tower of Barad-Dûr, Sauron, in his physical form, holding a Palantir.
I forgot about this scene. You have some fairly good points. However, one side of me is thinking that clip is just leftovers from a time when Jackson wanted a physical Sauron to be shown. I doubt he left that clip in there to hint that Sauron also has a body because, let's face it, Jackson isn't the best at subtlety.
The other side of me is probably going to accept your explanation as a movie-headcanon. I often take changes made in the movies and try steer it towards something that more resembles what happened in the books because I believe Tolkien's telling of the story often make more sense. Like the 17 year gap? It's my headcanon for the movies that the 17 year gap actually happens in the compilation of scenes we see of Gandalf travelling to research about the ring. It all happens on screen for a few seconds, but I believe that's just a time-lapse of 17 years worth of events. It makes sense to me and adds more scale to the world of Middle Earth instead of making everything happen over the course of a few weeks.
Regarding the 17 years situation, I agree with you on how you perceive it in the movies.
The one thing that makes me feel like the 17 year gap did actually happen is the fact that Frodo has to go tearing through one of his chests to find the ring. I feel like if it had only been a few days/weeks then Frodo would be able to quickly retrieve it.
The fact that it was mixed and buried with a bunch of other stuff makes me think Frodo at one point just threw it in there and more or less forgot about it.
This may be a stupid way to add weight to your theory but it makes sense in my mind.
I didn't realize this was a "theory." I thought we were just meant to assume that gap does happen but isn't explicitly stated because it would just add unnecessary confusion for movie-only viewers. Outside of the much more expanded context of the book that huge gap doesn't really have any impact story-wise. As we can clearly see in the film.
Hobbits age slower than humans. In the book, Frodo is 33 at the start of it which in hobbit lore is the equivalent to a human turning 18 as hobbits recognize you as an adult at 33. When they set off for Rivendell he's 50, the equivalent of a human being in their mid to late twenties.
I always took it as the hobbits having different understandings of maturity then specific aging changes, like how we consider a 30 year old more mature than a 20 year old
Yeah I know, but (except for Frodo) Hobbits still visibly age. We see Sam, Merry and Pippin at Bilbo's party at the start of the film so if what that person is saying is true we should see them age at least a little bit in the 17 years between Gandalf leaving and coming back.
What that person is saying is that they, in their head, do little “corrections” to liberties taken in the movies. In this case, their “correction” is that they imagine those 17 years have taken place, even if the divergence of the movies was that they were not going to have 17 years between Gandalf’s initial visit and his last. Frodo is explicitly stated in the books to not have aged much at all from the moment he accepted the Ring, so it can explain Elijah’s very young face. For the others, you can add a bit of liberty in your head that 17 years in the comfort of the Shire didn’t age the hobbits much.
Yeah but they still get older. 17 Hobbit years is at least 10 human years and there's not many people who don't visibly look different after a decade, especially if they're starting off fairly young like Merry and Pippin.
Also, If we're going to use the visual look as a frame of reference, all the Hobbits go on a journey for a year. Sam spends several weeks rationing his food. Yet none of them visually look like they lost weight over this 1 year journey?
So, if one can overlook that, I don't think it's unreasonable to overlook the small 17 year gap/ageing issue.
Well there's the small case of:
- Bilbo's physical appearance at 111
- Bilbo's only mildly aged appearance at 128
- Bilbo's absolutely decrepit appearance at 132
You don't need a reason to make it up anyway! That's the cool thing about headcanon. You can slot in whatever you want from the books.
That's why I don't mind the Rings of Power. Because it gives me cool visuals like Morgoth, Valinor, Feanor's Oath, Glorfindel and the Balrog etc. Stuff that I wouldn't have had if the show wasn't made.
Actually based reply from someone who doesn't blatantly hate on everything and anything.
As for Bilbo, my own head cannon is that PJ and crew's intent was to say "hey Bilbo lost the ring, so now he's aging and you can see it"
Other than that, it clearly shows there was a massive time skip yeah and it sure as hell wasn't post adventure because frodo clearly says it was a year (uhh or more? Idr) since being stabbed atop weathertop before handing the book to Sam.
Ok follow up question on the 17 years thing. I’m sure there’s a simple answer for this. But if Frodo has the ring for 17 years why does it line up so perfectly that them leaving the shire for Rivendell coincides perfectly with the Nazgûl entering the shire?
This entire theory hinges on a character lying who, in this instance at least, has no reason to.
Sauron is the Eye. It's just a different interpretation from the movie. This tracks with all the other changes the movies made too.
I agree. I like the theory, and I definitely headcanon Sauron as having a physical body in addition to the Eye, but it doesn't make sense for Saruman to lie here.
Prior to now, he has lied to Gandalf to keep him complacent. He wanted Gandalf to believe Sauron was not an imminent threat, so that he would not mess up Saruman's plans. But when he says this, he is trying to convince Gandalf of the *opposite* -- that Sauron is actually an unbeatable threat, and the two wizards should join him rather than be crushed in a futile last stand. The fact that Sauron can't take physical form yet actually undermines the point Saruman is trying to make!
There's also no reason to believe Saruman is misinformed, in my opinion. Sauron is trying to project strength toward him, to make Saruman believe... well, exactly the above point, that Sauron is inevitable and submission is the only hope of survival. He has no reason to pretend he can't incarnate if he actually can.
Again, I like the theory, and I'm definitely imagining a little man at the top of the tower under the eyeball. But I don't think the movies (in their final form) envisage him like that.
For me saruman has no reason to downplay in this situation. He is trying to convince Gandalf on how hopeless resistance is and how powerful their foe has already become, why should he hold back and not tell him, that sauron would have his physical form back already
I wonder if it could also be both - perhaps how the Nazgûl look in the shadow world is different than middle earth.
It’s different in that Sauron is reduced to an eye and appears as a version of himself before the ring was cut off, but didn’t Jackson depict him poofing into a cloud wisp or black smoke too?
My head canon has long been that Sauron does indeed have a physical, albeit weak, form even in the films and that he has holed himself away in Barad Dur. I did not consider the angle that his eye atop Barad Dur is actually an amplified use of his Palantir, but I can certainly dig that interpretation.
The Hobbit films seemed to imply that his physical form is at the center of the flaming “eye”, his body being the dark pupil within the eye form, which was kind of a neat interpretation. But I doubt Sauron would be levitating atop Barad Dur for the entirety of the War of the Ring haha
I agree with your version, but Jackson depicted Sauron poofing into black smoke wisps after the ring was cut off.
Maybe his little doom cloud was floating around up there, and all he could manifest himself into was an eyeball and shadow of his former self.
I like the idea of him being depicted as an eye symbolizing his envy of others’ power. It’s a reduction to his lowest form and greatest desire.
Except that, in the fall of Barad-dur, the “eye” is struggling as though entrapped all the way down. This implies some physical manifestation of Sauron within the context of the movie. As a lover of the books I hate that eye as a representation of Sauron in this context. But it sure looks like the intent
Maybe Sauron is desperately running downstairs while holding his precious Palantir but he can't keep balance so it looks like the eye is struggling lol
That is a good point. It's definitely not a fool proof theory but it's the one I choose to believe because I too hate the "Sauron is a big ole eyeball" depiction.
Only thing I would disagree with is that it doesn't make sense to me that Saruman would lie in this context. He wants to convince Gandalf that Sauron is too powerful to resist so they must join him. If anything Saruman would want to exaggerate Sauron's power.
Not to say that you're wrong, or even that Saruman didn't lie - just don't think it wouldve been on purpose. I could see Sauron not revealing to Saruman his true strength once he has his allegiance. Sauron probably assumes Saruman will eventually betray him so Sauron would want to lure Saruman into a false sense of security, thinking he actually has the strength to challenge Sauron.
when I was a child my older brother told me Sauron can change into whatever he wants but chose an eye to look for the Ring so I asked if he could change into a cow then? of course he said yes. I imagined a cow in between the tower spokes. Just funny how older brothers get away with so many “truths”
Well he is (was, not anymore during the time of the movies) a really good shape shifter...
He could if he wanted to. Thanks for that funny mental image btw. I think he changed into a snake once? And a huge wolf. Am I missing any animal-like form?
In the Extended Edition extras, Peter Jackson repeatedly rues how Sauron is a giant disembodied eye in the books; prior to the films, there were other Tolkien-related works (David Day's 'Tolkien Encylopedia', at least) which took Tolkien's descriptions to mean that Sauron took the form of a huge, flaming eye.
Ted Nasmith, whom Jackson wanted onboard the films with John Howe and Alan Lee, had also depicted Barad-Dur's summit with an ambiguous giant eye at the top (though this was perhaps/likely intended to be a window).
[https://www.tednasmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TN-The\_Nazgul.jpg](https://www.tednasmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TN-The_Nazgul.jpg)
I've always got the feeling that Jackson added the footage of Sauron's embodied form into the ROTK dvds because he realised, late, that depicting Sauron directly was possible. It's not specially shot footage - it's reused from the FOTR prologue, with the palantir digitally inserted.
Sauron's depiction in The Hobbit films - a shadow that can assume a physical shape which then becomes the Eye's pupil - also seems like a gentle, and pretty elegant, way of reworking the Eye depiction.
TLDR: Jackson sincerely thought Sauron was, as of TA 3018-19, a huge flaming eye. And he wasn't the only one.
The extended films are a separate thing. Originally PJ was going to have Sauron physically fight Aragorn until the last second, and the cut palantir scene is a remnant of that aborted decision
And he is definitely the eye. He is referred to as it multiple times by multiple characters. The eye itself is trapped on the tower as it falls. And the eye is also inconsistent because his gaze is supposed to pierce everything but he can’t see Frodo hiding behind a rock. It’s just bad writing
It’s just a choice they made because PJ assumed audiences wouldn’t react well to a villain that’s entirely offscreen the way he is in the books. There’s better ways he could have done it, as well as many other of the poor changes in those movies. The “eye” in the books is a metaphor for Sauron having spies everywhere and PJ made it literal
I get the urge to want to defend the films but I just disagree with your take. There’s a lot of very poor adaptation in the movies that get glossed over because people have nostalgia for them. I didn’t see them til many years later so I personally don’t have that experience and I feel like it makes it easier to see all the flaws
It’s all subjective to a point though :)
Your whole theory rests on the assumption, evidence for which there is *none*, that Saruman is lying.
A head canon is fun, because that's what this really is. It's not a theory.
Sure you're not wrong. But if you want to argue about symantics I never used either the word "theory" or "head canon". This is simply how I choose to view the depiction of Sauron in the films and everyone else is welcome to view it however makes best sense to them.
I’m not convinced that Saruman is downplaying Sauron’s strength, as you say, in that scene. Quite the opposite. He’s trying to convince Gandalf that joining with Sauron is the only way to survive because Sauron will take middle earth. The line just before the quote in your post is Saruman asking Gandalf rhetorically, “What time do you think we have?”
Saruman’s saying it’s over, it’s Sauron or bust, babycakes.
It's interesting, we know that Sauron tortured Gollum himself. Gollum states that "...he has four fingers on the black hand, but they are enough". Maybe he is a wraith or he does in fact have physical form. There is an unreleased scene of Aragon fighting Sauron at the black gates. I always thought the flaming eye was a metaphor but Jackson took it literally
The Hobbit Battle of the Five Armies fixed this. The eye is Sauron, the black pupil is his form and he has this burning cape/aura around the void.
Before the Hobbit movie I always had my own headcanon that Sauron was sitting right below the eye on his throne and used his magic to conjure this eye atop of Barad-dûr.
I always assumed that as a powerful Maia, it was an ability of Sauron that any physical form was purely optional and assumed at will. He channelled much of his personal power into the Ring, and after the sinking of Númenor, was restricted in what shape that form could take. After his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance and the loss of the Ring he was weakened to the point where he was unable to assume a physical form at all, but in the years leading up to the War of the Ring was regaining some of his power and was once again able to take shape, possibly only intermittently and for limited periods and perhaps not a form that was physically powerful. In LOTR I thought of Sauron as taking physical form when he felt like it, essentially, rather than living in it full time. The Eye, as an aspect of Sauron, was partly a metaphor for the various ways, sorcerous and otherwise, that he watched the world, including by using the palantir, and partly a visual image that he projected. I don’t have any problem with your conception of it as a device or “spell”.
I also didn’t envisage the palantiri as working the same for everyone or necessarily in any fixed manner - I thought that the ways in which they could be used would be quite flexible and depend on who was using them, their personal power, intent and method. Whatever was seen by Saruman, Pippin, Denethor and Aragorn when communicating with Sauron was as likely to be a projection of Sauron’s mind as his actual physical form, with the strength of the projection partly depending on the strength of the person receiving the image, hence Pippin seeing only the Eye and Aragorn speaking of “wrenching” the palantir to his will.
I remember going into the films and seeing the giant flaming eye for the first time and being really disappointed. That is not how I interpreted the books. It has been a long time since I read them, but I always thought it was meant to be an intense feeling of being watched, extreme paranoia, LIKE a giant eye was tracking your every movement. Not a literal giant eye.
It makes sense, I guess. Although in my head I always pictured the eye as a representation of how people perceived Sauron (likely on purpose). In other words, it was magic.
Regarding his physical form, I also always assumed that he HAS a physical form (what Aragorn saw in the Palantir) but he can't HOLD it for long, and won't be able to until he gets the ring back. And whatever that form was allowed him to flee from Mirkwood to Mordor.
I guess it never even occurred to me that people thought the Eye WAS Sauron, since the film referred to it as "the Eye of Sauron" implying that the Eye is not Sauron himself.
The eye is a metaphor and not something physical like Palantir.
As the most simple antithesis Frodo also encounters the eye many times without ever seeing a Palantir in his life. Eye of Sauron means just the presence of Sauron at its fullest but Peter Jackson decided to make it a literal flaming eye on top of Barad Dur to deliver the message to total newbies of LotR but also because it looks fucking awesome.
Jackson also considered a literal humanoid physical form Sauron fighting Aragorn but removed the idea to replace Sauron with a CGI troll for also two reasons:
1. Frodo and Sam are the hero of that story while Aragorn is a perfect companion who is willing to throw himself and his new earned king title if it meant to give them a shot.
2. Eye of Sauron being a flaming eye above Barad Dur didn't break anything from original story because that being's movement was extremely limited and it was still a mere presence. But when Sauron in his humanoid form is back it's the "somehow Palpatine returned" type lazy approach.
I think he means when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron through the Palantir - he was taunting Sauron to distract him.
Unless I am getting the scene placement wrong too.
It can just be the manifestation of some sort of scrying spell, Tolkien pretty vague on the details of how magic works but that's a pretty plausible interpretation. The Eye that is.
Sauron is portrayed as a literal eye in the films because PJ designed it that way to better convey the figurative "Eye of Sauron" concept from the novel to the screen for the benefit of the general, movie-going audience, who were not expected to be familiar with the books. Aesthetically, there is no other purpose behind this, particularly when the filmmakers went out of their way to avoid portraying Sauron as a figure (such as editing out the duel between Sauron & Aragorn, and making the palantir confrontation an extended edition/deleted scene) beyond the prologue.
The Palantir hypothesis doesn't work because Sauron had the Ithil-stone, which was one of the minor stones (as well as the Orthanc and Anor stones) and was only about one foot in diameter and was a "perfect sphere... made of solid glass or crystal deep black in hue," (The Palantiri, Unfinished Tales); the Great Eye in the films, by contrast, was a massive eye made of fire, and that was considerably different from the film's portrayal of the Orthanc-stone, which was quite in-line with the lore description of the Palantiri.
Furthermore, it does not stand that the Great Eye is a palantir based-off the extended-edition scene of Aragorn revealing himself to Sauron with the Orthanc-stone and seeing Sauron holding the Ithil-stone itself: how can the Great Eye be the Ithil-stone if Sauron is depicted holding the stone itself? It can't. It is worth noting that 1) this scene was relegated to the extended edition, not the theatrical edition, and 2) Sauron is very clearly using the palantir to manipulate Aragorn, like Denethor before him, to give him visions of despair regarding Arwen; in other words, nothing Aragorn sees in the palantir in relation to Sauron can be trusted as reliable because it is a manipulation on the part of the latter. From a cinematography standpoint, this depiction is rather a bit of a continuity error, similar in vein to the abandoned footage of the Aragorn and Sauron duel before the Black Gate.
The films went to such great lengths to portray Sauron as the Great Eye atop Barad-dur that depicting him otherwise would have completely undermined the entire purpose of the Eye of Sauron being used in such a manner in the first place, and, at that point, would have better served the films to abandon the Eye imagery almost altogether.
Do you mind expanding more on why it’s a continuity error? I thought it was more Sauron giving Aragorn visions of what Sauron wanted to happen.
That said, I’m not sure how much the Nazgûl witnessed between Aragorn and Arwen when transferring Frodo.
It seemed more like a spell that made Aragorn visualize his worst fears, rather than Sauron being omniscient with possible futures. This would be consistent with the same type of magic as Galadrial’s mirror.
I'm wasn't talking about the vision of Arwen being a continuity error, but rather Sauron's body being shown in the scene (and the dropped Aragorn & Sauron duel footage at the Black Gate) as being incongruous with what the film has previously established as Sauron's present "form" (the Great Eye) to the audience.
As for the bit with Arwen, we know that Sauron couldn't dominate the will of Denethor, so he instead began manipulating the latter with visions of Mordor's might to lead him into despair, and PJ obviously knew this when making the films, so in the scene when Aragorn confronts Sauron in the palantir, Sauron can't dominate the will of Aragorn via the palantiri because Aragorn is 1) a righteous man and 2) the rightful user of all palantiri as Elendil's heir; so, instead, as he did with Denethor before Aragorn, Sauron chooses to try and manipulate him by showing him Arwen "fading" or "diminishing" (since in the film narrative Arwen's life-force is bound with the quest of the Ring) because the Dark Lord is something of a petty prick when he can't get his way.
I would have been pissed off if Sauron as physical knight had shown up to fight Aragorn at the end, as some suggest the plan was.
I had read the books many times prior to the movies coming out, and I don't remember ever imagining Sauron as an actual humanoid form. He's always been just the eye.
>There are even deleted scenes from the films in which it is Sauron himself who comes out to fight Aragorn at the Battle of the Black Gate, although he is later cut out and replaced with the troll.
The reasoning behind this was that Jackson didn't want too much emphasis taken away from the hobbit's struggle with the ring. This makes no sense to me. Sauron thought Aragorn had the ring, so it makes sense that he would be down there, taking it for himself, getting it as soon as possible.
Nah. A physical sauron would have fought Aragorn in the finale
To undo your reasoning: Saruman was pitching to Gandalf to join forces with Sauron. „He is mighty, he will win, we must join“. There was no incentive to downplay
Focussing on the implosion of the eye when the ring was destroyed is another good hint
Also that alleged lie had no consequences
Sauron had no physical form in the movies.
there was a scene where Sauron fought Aragorn in the black gate but it got deleted for some reason
anyway heres the scene but edited and in better quality --> https://youtu.be/Vm-sA8R3QCA?si=7gN7W6FtXnsbqyfC
"He's doing the same thing here, not wanting Gandalf to know how strong Sauron already is. "
This doesn't make sense. Sarumans entire strategy with Gandalf Is " He's invincible and too powerful, our only chance is to join him"
Hes never downplaying how strong Sauron is. His argument rests on the fact that Sauron can't be beat.
Most people already know that the troll that Aragorn fights in Return was originally Sauron himself, but Peter Jackson decided to CGI the troll in the fight instead. I don’t particularly mind, but I would have loved seeing Aragorn face off and, mostly, hold his own against the Lord of Mordor.
If 99% of the audience shares the misconception, the film probably wasn’t good at conveying its points. For all intents and purposes (other than conspiracy theorists on the internet 20 years later), Sauron was ACTUALLY a big fuckin eye.
In my head cannon Sauron hasn't regained his physical form yet.
Gollum saw him? Ok, but he isn't the safest of characters and after years of corruption by the Ring probably somewhat sensitive to the non-physical world. The palantir showed a form? Maybe more than the physical reality was transferred.
But the main reason I like a non-corporal Sauron is that he makes the scarier villain - the great evil that cannot be slain and uses creatures and sorcery as his eyes, mouth and limb. A mighty warrior fighting at the black gate or a scheming person holed up in his tower just doesn't hit as hard.
There is a deleted scene where you see Aragorn fight Sauron in return of the king that was cut/changed so he is there physically. But they would then have to explain the eye and not enough time to do it. So I think they cut it for consistency.
Are we all just going to ignore that he takes on a humanoid form in the hobbit movies, and then reveals that the pupil of the eye *is* his humanoid form in silhouette?
The lore clearly says, that Sauron lost his body in the fall of Numenor in the second age (e.g. Silmarillion). Specifically he is no longer able to appear in the form of the children of Illuvatar, like he did for example to influence the elves working on the rings of power. His spirit escaped the fall and he can still interact with real objects, like we see in the opening scene of the first film where the last battle at the end of the second age is shown. He uses the set of armor to fight in a physical way, but we see that after Isildur cuts the ring from his finger, he looses the power to manifest in this way and we see that the armor is empty.
The stronger Sauron gets the easier he can assume a more physical form, but he can no longer assume any form elves or men would find beautiful, that he could use to trick them.
His manifestations always reflect the evil of his mind and will.
I just don't think your reasoning is convincing at all.
Of course, with sauron being nothing more than a spirit and all, it's probably hard to pin down what he actually _is_, but I just don't see any real hints that he has a physical form in the movies. I think it wouldn't make any sense from a narrative point of view and is definitely not what Jackson intended.
You also didn't really put forward any real evidence, you basically just said that existing counter-evidence is a lie.
Even the deleted scene at the black gate suggests that Sauron didn't have a physical form _until this point_ as he magically transforms into a physical form out of thin air (I'm glad Jackson deleted this scene).
That's fair enough. I'm not really trying to convince anyone. This is just how I perceived it.
And I too agree that removing that scene was the right choice but there's definitely no question of what Sauron is. That is extremely well documented.
He’s the Eye in the films, plain and simple. The films are an adaptation, and not a great one at that (though don’t get me wrong they *are* fantastic films that I love). There are going to be changes, and they exist in a separate universe from the books.
Yeah it's an adaptation not a direct translation. I feel like there's no winning though. If we did get a direct translation we'd be dealing with other arguments in the vein of "why didn't the eagles just fly Frodo to Mordor?", that would be "why didn't Sauron come out and just start bonking people with his mace like he did before?", and then there'd be a debate about whether or not his physical strength at his height comes from the ring or is just natural for him.
I think the eye fits the medium well enough, it's just *different* and that's okay. And there are certainly worse adaptations out there. I can enjoy both the books and the movies. There are some adaptations of IPs that have far far less integrity.
I love the films, I even mentioned that much, I’ve been watching them all in theaters this weekend. I think they are great films, but they are not great adaptations. They are ok, as you say there are much worse adaptations (looking at you 2008 Eragon movie), but terrible adaptations existing doesn’t make the LOTR films better adaptations than they actually are.
Sure there are things that were acceptable to be cut or altered to fit a 3 film series better (such as cutting the Old Forest in Fellowship) but there are plenty of things that were changed/added that alters the story and characters that didn’t need to be done. So much so that you really *have* to look at them as the “Film Universe” compared to the “Book Universe” and I don’t think a *great* adaptation would need to be thought of in those terms the way LOTR does.
As far as Sauron and the Eye go, the books do just fine at letting us believe Sauron is a threat and a great power without him actually being present physically in any scenes. The flaming eye on top of Barad Dur not existing doesn’t mean the alternative was have Sauron physically march out there and throw people around with his mace during the Black Gate sequence.
Sauron was depicted as poofing into black smoke, so it’s not a stretch of the imagination to think he could only reform as an angry eyeball.
Saruman would not have said that Sauron could not take physical form as a way to convince Aragorn - it’s not a way to convince someone that your side is more powerful.
So, that Sauron could or could not manifest himself was left ambiguous. An eyeball was an elegant solution that was both malevolent and plausible.
Others upthread have pointed out book references.
Book references huh?
You mean like when Frodo actually sees the great flaming eye on top of Barad Dur and is terrified it saw them, but it's looking in the wrong direction?
Or do you mean the illustration of Barad Dur in the Tolkien Centenary edition of Lord of the Rings that has the eye?
Peter Jackson didn't invent they Eye of Sauron being present on top of Barad Dur.
If im not wrong they did plan for aaragorn to fight a kind of avatar of sauron at the end of return of the king but they scrapped it for a fight against a troll or something instead.
It's not depicting Sauron as an eye that I object to, it's how they did it.
Early appearances of the eye are quite effective but the giant fiery searchlight looks stupid. It made me laugh at a point in the movies when I should not be laughing.
Ok so no. I literally asked this very question ages ago. So my understanding of it is this:
The eye of Sauron isn't Sauron. It's both a symbol on his banners AND him projecting his power through his necromancy as he secretly was able to keep his full powers. Which is why unlike every other person in his class is either weaker, frail, or not much help. (Gandalf the white is just a resurrection at full strength with added magic access to mage him the jew white wizard. So it doesn't count.) Sauron himself doesn't actually have a physical form. In LOTR he is likely either a wraith form or like just barely able to touch things like a ghost moving a door. More likely he is wraith because we see him with armor inside is flaming eye projecting himself places. (the Hobbit bit) But in reality the "eye of Sauron" is the equivalent of a magical searchlight/beacon/lighthouse light all in one. But imagine it's connected directly to him in some sorta weird magical I can see what the eye sees. Which is probably why when he was focused on Aragorn at the gates and felt frodo claim the ring the eye bugged out and we heard him scream.
Whether you‘re right or not doesn‘t really matter since almost everyone watching the movie will think he is an eye. If he is supposed to be more similar to the books, the movies communicate it so poorly that the average viewer won‘t get it.
You're right it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds or shift the established paradigms of Tolkien media. It's just an interesting idea I thought I'd share.
People didn’t understand that? They actually thought the eye was Sauron? Haha I was a kid and I understood the meaning. Like you said a telescope. His surveillance camera so to speak.
I think it was because Sauron casts his eye on middle earth seeking the one ring. The Eye in the movies is a visceral interpretation of that, makes it easier to create a mood and Sauron's presence in a powerful and poignant way that raises tension for the viewer. Without it we might not be aware of Sauron's presence, with it we are always aware without having it spelled out.
It's a really useful visual tool, we all know exactly what it means and represents without wasting precious time.
https://preview.redd.it/s8e16bgbod6d1.jpeg?width=1277&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bd254d60d37fa3e466bf1c0aec7a64df47744838 I also prefer this way of looking at the films and here is the shot for anyone curious about the Aragorn scene you referenced.
I never noticed the palantir in his hand. This is awesome.
Very awesome. His eyes glowing make him look more terrifying.
I need a red stick figure here or something - I could never tell what it was
My guy WHAT AM I LOOKING AT??? It looks like a fucking marble, I don’t see shit.
I'm so glad it's not just me after that eyes comment, Huh? What are these people seeing that I'm not lol
Right? EYES?! MF WHAT? And they made a little stick figure to point him out and… I don’t see any eyes still lol
I saw the eyes after the stick figure actually lol it def helps but you gotta look CLOSE lol it is pretty cool once you can see it
Do you mind drawing a stick figure and a circle for the ball? I can’t figure this out visually
https://preview.redd.it/3bq57xmshg6d1.jpeg?width=1277&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ca217ed291d58c9d5ab65ea401f1f79ca8bb999 Does this help?
Thank you!
That's how I hold my phone while facetiming too!
Sauron in stick figure form. New nightmares emerge.
Surely he wouldn’t wear his suit all the time?
he has a shit flap in the back so that he CAN wear it all the time
Imagine being the orc tasked with cleaning said shit flap. I mean, I'm sure there's always some splatter.
Yes he does. And don't call me Shirley.
>And don't call me Shirley. Are you Jamaican? Cus this has got me dying 🤣😭🤣
https://youtu.be/KM2K7sV-K74?si=nkHfdWo8ddcTWNGl
Oh interesting! In Jamaica "Shirley" is like a generic name that we sometimes use to be sarcastic (in exactly the way you used it!). Wonder if there's any link there It really tickled me. Not sure why I got downvoted for it though:-)
>It really tickled me. Not sure why I got downvoted for it though:-) Because reddit loves the surely/Shirley joke, probably. You should watch that movie, "Airplane!". It's fantastic.
Noted! Thanks! :-)
It's more of a vessel to hold his spirit than just armour. Similar to the robes and armour that the ringwraiths wear it helps Sauron influence the mundane world and cause fear. He can no longer take a beautiful form after he died during the sinking of Numenor so his raiment being spiky mithril armour makes total sense. Kind of like if you can't fool anyone into thinking you're good then you might as well go full badass and put the fear of Morgoth into their hearts.
Well his spirit has to take a big fat stinky dump sometimes too!
Do we know that anyone uses the bathroom in Arda? I don't think there are any mentions of it.
A bit that goes against /u/kaeyrne 's theory, though, is that aragorn is not using the palantir as described in the book. He's not looking through it like a telescope towards Mordor. He's looking down into his hands. So this palantir works differently from aragorn's. When saruman has it, he also doesn't use it as OP describes Sauron using it in their theory.
To clarify what I meant by the telescope analogy, the sight of the Palantiri is directional and does not grant an omnipresent viewpoint of anything one wishes to see. In other words, if Saruman in Orthanc looked east towards the Argonath, he would see the west-facing sides of the statues. He would not see the faces of the statues looking north as the Fellowship did as they came south.
I agree, what I'm saying is Saruman and Aragorn aren't looking west towards Mordor. They are both looking down at the palantir in their hands or on a table. The movies make the palantirs seem more like FaceTime than a telescope, which it was in the books. There's also Pippin's fiasco.
More so, Aragorn is facing the throne, which faces east (mostly), like the city, which means that Aragorn is not only looking down, he is looking the opposite way. While the Palantirs obviously don’t work exactly like the books, I think they are based on intent and mind for observation and communication. Aragorn reached out to Sauron, and Sauron responded.
I agree. Movie palantiri are more like FaceTime than telescopes.
Agree - you’d only see an extreme close up an eye
I can't make out anything in this picture lol
Me either - the one time we need a red arrow, but in this case, a stick figure
I think the more likely answer is that it was the easier way for Jackson to portray Sauron for someone who had never read the books before.
I thought it was cool, the first time I saw the movies. And the movies introduced me to Tolkien. Film and book are two different mediums. A giant fiery lidless eye works perfectly on the big screen.
You mean the malevolent lighthouse
The Spotlight of Sauron
The Peeping Parapet
Anger Belfry
Wrathful watchtower
It certainly wasn't the worst take Jackson could have given Sauron, and it did allow for the expediency required by the films. And given that Sauron doesn't really physically appear to those in the book, it did little to harm Sauron's character. The main problem I see is the inconsistencies it creates leading to questions that are easily answered by the fact that Sauron did indeed have a physical form.
Oh yeah, absolutely agree.
>A giant fiery lidless eye works perfectly on the big screen. I mean, there still is a giant fiery lidless eye in the books. You experience it through people's visions and dreams for the most part. Sometimes, you read snipets of Sauron's actual form, whether he's overlooking the torture of Gollum or whether he's brooding atop his tower. The vision's and dreams serve as an extension of Sauron's evil presence. So the books have both.
I just imagined him like the main character of Overlord videogame. He was definitely intended to be Sauron, but it now tainted (or enhanced) my perception of actual Sauron.
Yeah, it's obvious that it worked since people who haven't even seen the movies know the iconic red eye. It's just superb imagery for a villain in a movie series.
I really liked the portrayal of the eye, except at the end of ROTK when the eye is this giant spotlight zooming around. I liked it better when it was just…there, an almost omnipresent force. Then it turns out to be more like a guy standing up there with a flashlight. It just felt…odd.
I've always thought similar. It's a very literal depiction of what could be assumed to be Sauron scrying, that I dont think it added anything to the movie. It helped to build tension while they're in Mordor. However, it could have been removed and replaced in the theatrical version, with the extended scenes where Sam and Frodo almost get caught by orcs. They could have also simply changed Sarumans line from "he cannot take physical form" to simply "he is still far too weak to face us himself" to keep the emphasis of Sauron needing the ring to get to full strength. The eye was an incredibly good visual that became iconic that unfortunately suffered oversights, which resulted in criticism from book purists.
Saruman is also a liar who said the ring had washed out to sea, so I could see this as misleading.
Saruman’s words make no sense given Sauron’s true form (physical form) was discovered by Gandalf at Dol Guldur when he unearthed the true identity of the Necromancer. Pointless lying to the eye witness.
That's definitely true! I forgot about that
The troll Aragorn fights at the black gate was originally meant to be Sauron, but they added the troll in with CGI. I think revealing Sauron in the last film only for him to die 10 minutes later would have been a terrible idea, and I like to think someone finally piped up and said it after it was filmed. Some things just don't work in film when using a story originally from a book series, especially one as long winded and detailed as the LOTR.
Honestly, watching the movies as a kid ( I was 12 when fellowship released), I never got the impression that the Eye was meant to be Sauron himself. It was more like a representation of his power and will, while the actual physical Sauron was somewhere inside the tower.
Exactly what I thought. my own headcanon that Sauron was sitting right below the eye on his throne and used his magic to conjure this eye atop of Barad-dûr.
I think that it is more about NOT portraying Sauron rather than portraying it. Sauron is mostly abscent in the books, yet you need to make a movie where he is the villain. They could, and even filmed, Sauron going out in the last battle, gladly they kept him out. Yet, they need to make, for visual adaptation purposes, something fearsome and impactful while keeping the "abscence" of Sauron still be something. Thus instead of having a red windown on top of Barad-Dur, put it a big flaming eye. That makes sense IMO. OFC, we can nitpick all day. I would not make that eye serve as a prison spotlight tracking Frodo as a radar while in Mordor. It should be more of a "presence" rather a sort of radar as the movies made it look like. Also, during the amazing destruction of Barad-Dur, I would add a small shot going inside a window in Barad-Dur and actually show Sauron, maybe in a shadowy form, exploding or whatever, and then cuts back to outside with the exact same scene of Barad-dur destruction. It would be nice to also add the "malice shadow" getting out of Barad-dur. Maybe as something they did in, cof cof dont downvote me for this, Rings of Power for Melkor destroying the two trees.
That's what I meant. It was likely the easiest way to ensure the audience knew who Sauron was and reinforcing him as a real and present threat, while riffing off of something that was in the book, ala the 'Eye of Sauron.' It certainly wasn't the worst way to go about things, honestly. Especially, as you mentioned, Sauron doesn't physically appear to any of the POV characters in the books, so it doesn't do much to take away his agency as a character. The most annoying aspect I've found is the misconceptions it has created, when the answer is the simple fact that Sauron does indeed have a physical form.
Yeah, it's really as simple as film is a visual medium, therefore you need a striking visual representation of your main villain.
You know, for all of Jackson’s wonky interpretations of certain things from the books, I found the eye to be pretty cool.
Yeah, it’s a creative and elegant solution
It's better because, in terms of the films at least, it would be just odd for him to be lounging in Barad Dur while the ring gets destroyed.
Not sure I agree there. In the films, it's made clear that they think Sauron believes that Pippin has the ring. And Sauron doesn't realize what's going on until Frodo puts the ring on in Sammath Naur. And it's not like Sauron needed to come down and deal with Aragorn in person.
I think it was more that he didn’t or couldn’t risk coming down - given what happened when he tried to deal with it himself last time.
Maybe, but last time, he was faced by Elendil and Gil-Galad. Two of the greatest men of their age. When men and elves were greater. And even then, they died in the process. Barring Gandalf (who may not have confronted Sauron in the first place if he appeared), I doubt any of the captains of the west could match Sauron. There's no doubt that Sauron held some apprehension of taking the field in the first place, but it's a moot point considering that it wasn't remotely needed in the first place.
Yeah, given the movies don't really go beyond surface level hints at the maiar and high beings, the eye gives the impression sauron isn't just some scary mortal lich dude
Everyone here is forgetting that there was an actual deleted scene from ROTK where Sauron fights in the battle of the black gates. In the final cut he was replaced with a troll. He absolutely had a physical form.
This is the only answer
Sauron appears as the eye in the Lego Batman Movie. That's all the evidence I need that Sauron being just the eye is canon.
I base my entire way of life on the Lego movies. Damn right it’s canon
Very true. All my well laid theories are brought to ruin.
However, Sauron can be seen walking around in his physical form while the Eye is visible on top of Barad-dûr in Lego Dimensions.
Counter point, the new Barad-Dur LEGO set features the eye at the top of the tower but also a physical Sauron figure
Foiled again!
PJ himself attests otherwise in the commentaries, when he explains that they decided against that deleted scene in ROTK for various reasons.
Could you please summarize the reasons?
It was more impactful for him to be an apparently omniscient nonhuman being. When they began to edit the deleted scene they realized the stakes felt lower the moment Sauron stepped on the battlefield as a “man” (he’s technically not but they did not bother to explain Maiar in the films so it would be lost on general audiences).
Interesting, I was thinking it would be something similar. The same way sometimes sequels reveal a secret and destroy the mister - it feels more menacing when something is invisible, unreachable.
>When Aragorn uses the Palantir to reveal himself to Sauron in order to draw his attention and bait out the armies of Morder, what does Aragorn see? He sees in a room, in the topmost tower of Barad-Dûr, Sauron, in his physical form, holding a Palantir. I forgot about this scene. You have some fairly good points. However, one side of me is thinking that clip is just leftovers from a time when Jackson wanted a physical Sauron to be shown. I doubt he left that clip in there to hint that Sauron also has a body because, let's face it, Jackson isn't the best at subtlety. The other side of me is probably going to accept your explanation as a movie-headcanon. I often take changes made in the movies and try steer it towards something that more resembles what happened in the books because I believe Tolkien's telling of the story often make more sense. Like the 17 year gap? It's my headcanon for the movies that the 17 year gap actually happens in the compilation of scenes we see of Gandalf travelling to research about the ring. It all happens on screen for a few seconds, but I believe that's just a time-lapse of 17 years worth of events. It makes sense to me and adds more scale to the world of Middle Earth instead of making everything happen over the course of a few weeks.
Regarding the 17 years situation, I agree with you on how you perceive it in the movies. The one thing that makes me feel like the 17 year gap did actually happen is the fact that Frodo has to go tearing through one of his chests to find the ring. I feel like if it had only been a few days/weeks then Frodo would be able to quickly retrieve it. The fact that it was mixed and buried with a bunch of other stuff makes me think Frodo at one point just threw it in there and more or less forgot about it. This may be a stupid way to add weight to your theory but it makes sense in my mind.
I didn't realize this was a "theory." I thought we were just meant to assume that gap does happen but isn't explicitly stated because it would just add unnecessary confusion for movie-only viewers. Outside of the much more expanded context of the book that huge gap doesn't really have any impact story-wise. As we can clearly see in the film.
I have that same head canon! As far as I'm concerned it's a 17 year montage. Edit: spelling
How could it be 17 years though when Merry, Pippin and Sam don't visibly age at all?
Hobbits age slower than humans. In the book, Frodo is 33 at the start of it which in hobbit lore is the equivalent to a human turning 18 as hobbits recognize you as an adult at 33. When they set off for Rivendell he's 50, the equivalent of a human being in their mid to late twenties.
I always took it as the hobbits having different understandings of maturity then specific aging changes, like how we consider a 30 year old more mature than a 20 year old
Yeah I know, but (except for Frodo) Hobbits still visibly age. We see Sam, Merry and Pippin at Bilbo's party at the start of the film so if what that person is saying is true we should see them age at least a little bit in the 17 years between Gandalf leaving and coming back.
What that person is saying is that they, in their head, do little “corrections” to liberties taken in the movies. In this case, their “correction” is that they imagine those 17 years have taken place, even if the divergence of the movies was that they were not going to have 17 years between Gandalf’s initial visit and his last. Frodo is explicitly stated in the books to not have aged much at all from the moment he accepted the Ring, so it can explain Elijah’s very young face. For the others, you can add a bit of liberty in your head that 17 years in the comfort of the Shire didn’t age the hobbits much.
They're Hobbits. I don't think they age with the same scaling as a normal human ageing.
Yeah but they still get older. 17 Hobbit years is at least 10 human years and there's not many people who don't visibly look different after a decade, especially if they're starting off fairly young like Merry and Pippin.
Also, If we're going to use the visual look as a frame of reference, all the Hobbits go on a journey for a year. Sam spends several weeks rationing his food. Yet none of them visually look like they lost weight over this 1 year journey? So, if one can overlook that, I don't think it's unreasonable to overlook the small 17 year gap/ageing issue.
Aragorns beard doesn't grow untill the very end.
Well there's the small case of: - Bilbo's physical appearance at 111 - Bilbo's only mildly aged appearance at 128 - Bilbo's absolutely decrepit appearance at 132 You don't need a reason to make it up anyway! That's the cool thing about headcanon. You can slot in whatever you want from the books. That's why I don't mind the Rings of Power. Because it gives me cool visuals like Morgoth, Valinor, Feanor's Oath, Glorfindel and the Balrog etc. Stuff that I wouldn't have had if the show wasn't made.
Actually based reply from someone who doesn't blatantly hate on everything and anything. As for Bilbo, my own head cannon is that PJ and crew's intent was to say "hey Bilbo lost the ring, so now he's aging and you can see it" Other than that, it clearly shows there was a massive time skip yeah and it sure as hell wasn't post adventure because frodo clearly says it was a year (uhh or more? Idr) since being stabbed atop weathertop before handing the book to Sam.
Ok follow up question on the 17 years thing. I’m sure there’s a simple answer for this. But if Frodo has the ring for 17 years why does it line up so perfectly that them leaving the shire for Rivendell coincides perfectly with the Nazgûl entering the shire?
This entire theory hinges on a character lying who, in this instance at least, has no reason to. Sauron is the Eye. It's just a different interpretation from the movie. This tracks with all the other changes the movies made too.
I agree. I like the theory, and I definitely headcanon Sauron as having a physical body in addition to the Eye, but it doesn't make sense for Saruman to lie here. Prior to now, he has lied to Gandalf to keep him complacent. He wanted Gandalf to believe Sauron was not an imminent threat, so that he would not mess up Saruman's plans. But when he says this, he is trying to convince Gandalf of the *opposite* -- that Sauron is actually an unbeatable threat, and the two wizards should join him rather than be crushed in a futile last stand. The fact that Sauron can't take physical form yet actually undermines the point Saruman is trying to make! There's also no reason to believe Saruman is misinformed, in my opinion. Sauron is trying to project strength toward him, to make Saruman believe... well, exactly the above point, that Sauron is inevitable and submission is the only hope of survival. He has no reason to pretend he can't incarnate if he actually can. Again, I like the theory, and I'm definitely imagining a little man at the top of the tower under the eyeball. But I don't think the movies (in their final form) envisage him like that.
One could headcanon it as "can't take physical form outside of barad-dur". That way we get Sauron with his body and nobody is lying to anyone.
For me saruman has no reason to downplay in this situation. He is trying to convince Gandalf on how hopeless resistance is and how powerful their foe has already become, why should he hold back and not tell him, that sauron would have his physical form back already
Lying or just being wrong. There was still much regarding Sauron that the white council did not know for certain.
I wonder if it could also be both - perhaps how the Nazgûl look in the shadow world is different than middle earth. It’s different in that Sauron is reduced to an eye and appears as a version of himself before the ring was cut off, but didn’t Jackson depict him poofing into a cloud wisp or black smoke too?
My head canon has long been that Sauron does indeed have a physical, albeit weak, form even in the films and that he has holed himself away in Barad Dur. I did not consider the angle that his eye atop Barad Dur is actually an amplified use of his Palantir, but I can certainly dig that interpretation. The Hobbit films seemed to imply that his physical form is at the center of the flaming “eye”, his body being the dark pupil within the eye form, which was kind of a neat interpretation. But I doubt Sauron would be levitating atop Barad Dur for the entirety of the War of the Ring haha
I agree with your version, but Jackson depicted Sauron poofing into black smoke wisps after the ring was cut off. Maybe his little doom cloud was floating around up there, and all he could manifest himself into was an eyeball and shadow of his former self. I like the idea of him being depicted as an eye symbolizing his envy of others’ power. It’s a reduction to his lowest form and greatest desire.
Could be that he can create a body inside barad-dur but can't maintain it outside of his tower
Just like Voldemort becoming a whispy spirit when his spell against Harry backfired Now picturing Saruman with Sauron hidden on the back of his head 🙄
Except that, in the fall of Barad-dur, the “eye” is struggling as though entrapped all the way down. This implies some physical manifestation of Sauron within the context of the movie. As a lover of the books I hate that eye as a representation of Sauron in this context. But it sure looks like the intent
Maybe Sauron is desperately running downstairs while holding his precious Palantir but he can't keep balance so it looks like the eye is struggling lol
LOL it’s like he’s awkwardly trying to figure out how to turn off facetime
Front facing camera mode! 😂
This is such a funny mental picture….thanks for the laugh 😂
Okay I NEED this in a comedy parody sketch
That is a good point. It's definitely not a fool proof theory but it's the one I choose to believe because I too hate the "Sauron is a big ole eyeball" depiction.
Check out the final battle of the game "LOTR: the Third Age". Just do it.
I can get behind this theory. I certainly like the idea more than the Eye begin the only physical reference to Sauron's form in the films.
Only thing I would disagree with is that it doesn't make sense to me that Saruman would lie in this context. He wants to convince Gandalf that Sauron is too powerful to resist so they must join him. If anything Saruman would want to exaggerate Sauron's power. Not to say that you're wrong, or even that Saruman didn't lie - just don't think it wouldve been on purpose. I could see Sauron not revealing to Saruman his true strength once he has his allegiance. Sauron probably assumes Saruman will eventually betray him so Sauron would want to lure Saruman into a false sense of security, thinking he actually has the strength to challenge Sauron.
Agreed. If we want OP to be correct, it makes more sense that Sauruman had bad information rather than was lying.
when I was a child my older brother told me Sauron can change into whatever he wants but chose an eye to look for the Ring so I asked if he could change into a cow then? of course he said yes. I imagined a cow in between the tower spokes. Just funny how older brothers get away with so many “truths”
Well he is (was, not anymore during the time of the movies) a really good shape shifter... He could if he wanted to. Thanks for that funny mental image btw. I think he changed into a snake once? And a huge wolf. Am I missing any animal-like form?
Vampire bat
These are the kinds of posts that keep me on this reddit (far too often). Thank you for the solid analysis, it provides an essay on the craft.
Thanks! It seems my opinion is not a popular one but I knew this would be something of a hot take. I still enjoy seeing all the discourse about it.
Very interesting indeed. You might be onto something.
In the Extended Edition extras, Peter Jackson repeatedly rues how Sauron is a giant disembodied eye in the books; prior to the films, there were other Tolkien-related works (David Day's 'Tolkien Encylopedia', at least) which took Tolkien's descriptions to mean that Sauron took the form of a huge, flaming eye. Ted Nasmith, whom Jackson wanted onboard the films with John Howe and Alan Lee, had also depicted Barad-Dur's summit with an ambiguous giant eye at the top (though this was perhaps/likely intended to be a window). [https://www.tednasmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TN-The\_Nazgul.jpg](https://www.tednasmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TN-The_Nazgul.jpg) I've always got the feeling that Jackson added the footage of Sauron's embodied form into the ROTK dvds because he realised, late, that depicting Sauron directly was possible. It's not specially shot footage - it's reused from the FOTR prologue, with the palantir digitally inserted. Sauron's depiction in The Hobbit films - a shadow that can assume a physical shape which then becomes the Eye's pupil - also seems like a gentle, and pretty elegant, way of reworking the Eye depiction. TLDR: Jackson sincerely thought Sauron was, as of TA 3018-19, a huge flaming eye. And he wasn't the only one.
The extended films are a separate thing. Originally PJ was going to have Sauron physically fight Aragorn until the last second, and the cut palantir scene is a remnant of that aborted decision And he is definitely the eye. He is referred to as it multiple times by multiple characters. The eye itself is trapped on the tower as it falls. And the eye is also inconsistent because his gaze is supposed to pierce everything but he can’t see Frodo hiding behind a rock. It’s just bad writing It’s just a choice they made because PJ assumed audiences wouldn’t react well to a villain that’s entirely offscreen the way he is in the books. There’s better ways he could have done it, as well as many other of the poor changes in those movies. The “eye” in the books is a metaphor for Sauron having spies everywhere and PJ made it literal I get the urge to want to defend the films but I just disagree with your take. There’s a lot of very poor adaptation in the movies that get glossed over because people have nostalgia for them. I didn’t see them til many years later so I personally don’t have that experience and I feel like it makes it easier to see all the flaws It’s all subjective to a point though :)
I can’t help but picture the eye when the tower falls as being the palantir in front facing camera mode
Your whole theory rests on the assumption, evidence for which there is *none*, that Saruman is lying. A head canon is fun, because that's what this really is. It's not a theory.
Sure you're not wrong. But if you want to argue about symantics I never used either the word "theory" or "head canon". This is simply how I choose to view the depiction of Sauron in the films and everyone else is welcome to view it however makes best sense to them.
Nah you “posited”… to put forward as a basis as fact or argument, therefore invited the criticism.
Yes I put forward an idea and you can agree with it or not. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds.
I’m not convinced that Saruman is downplaying Sauron’s strength, as you say, in that scene. Quite the opposite. He’s trying to convince Gandalf that joining with Sauron is the only way to survive because Sauron will take middle earth. The line just before the quote in your post is Saruman asking Gandalf rhetorically, “What time do you think we have?” Saruman’s saying it’s over, it’s Sauron or bust, babycakes.
It's interesting, we know that Sauron tortured Gollum himself. Gollum states that "...he has four fingers on the black hand, but they are enough". Maybe he is a wraith or he does in fact have physical form. There is an unreleased scene of Aragon fighting Sauron at the black gates. I always thought the flaming eye was a metaphor but Jackson took it literally
Awesome stuff man, really enjoyed this and I agree!
The Hobbit Battle of the Five Armies fixed this. The eye is Sauron, the black pupil is his form and he has this burning cape/aura around the void. Before the Hobbit movie I always had my own headcanon that Sauron was sitting right below the eye on his throne and used his magic to conjure this eye atop of Barad-dûr.
I always assumed that as a powerful Maia, it was an ability of Sauron that any physical form was purely optional and assumed at will. He channelled much of his personal power into the Ring, and after the sinking of Númenor, was restricted in what shape that form could take. After his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance and the loss of the Ring he was weakened to the point where he was unable to assume a physical form at all, but in the years leading up to the War of the Ring was regaining some of his power and was once again able to take shape, possibly only intermittently and for limited periods and perhaps not a form that was physically powerful. In LOTR I thought of Sauron as taking physical form when he felt like it, essentially, rather than living in it full time. The Eye, as an aspect of Sauron, was partly a metaphor for the various ways, sorcerous and otherwise, that he watched the world, including by using the palantir, and partly a visual image that he projected. I don’t have any problem with your conception of it as a device or “spell”. I also didn’t envisage the palantiri as working the same for everyone or necessarily in any fixed manner - I thought that the ways in which they could be used would be quite flexible and depend on who was using them, their personal power, intent and method. Whatever was seen by Saruman, Pippin, Denethor and Aragorn when communicating with Sauron was as likely to be a projection of Sauron’s mind as his actual physical form, with the strength of the projection partly depending on the strength of the person receiving the image, hence Pippin seeing only the Eye and Aragorn speaking of “wrenching” the palantir to his will.
I remember going into the films and seeing the giant flaming eye for the first time and being really disappointed. That is not how I interpreted the books. It has been a long time since I read them, but I always thought it was meant to be an intense feeling of being watched, extreme paranoia, LIKE a giant eye was tracking your every movement. Not a literal giant eye.
This piece of stupidity about Sauron being represented as an eye is one of the things that puts me off the films.
It makes sense, I guess. Although in my head I always pictured the eye as a representation of how people perceived Sauron (likely on purpose). In other words, it was magic. Regarding his physical form, I also always assumed that he HAS a physical form (what Aragorn saw in the Palantir) but he can't HOLD it for long, and won't be able to until he gets the ring back. And whatever that form was allowed him to flee from Mirkwood to Mordor.
I like to think that the Eye is an amplification of Sauron himself. So, while he can have a physical form, the Eye is still him, in a way.
I guess it never even occurred to me that people thought the Eye WAS Sauron, since the film referred to it as "the Eye of Sauron" implying that the Eye is not Sauron himself.
The eye is a metaphor and not something physical like Palantir. As the most simple antithesis Frodo also encounters the eye many times without ever seeing a Palantir in his life. Eye of Sauron means just the presence of Sauron at its fullest but Peter Jackson decided to make it a literal flaming eye on top of Barad Dur to deliver the message to total newbies of LotR but also because it looks fucking awesome. Jackson also considered a literal humanoid physical form Sauron fighting Aragorn but removed the idea to replace Sauron with a CGI troll for also two reasons: 1. Frodo and Sam are the hero of that story while Aragorn is a perfect companion who is willing to throw himself and his new earned king title if it meant to give them a shot. 2. Eye of Sauron being a flaming eye above Barad Dur didn't break anything from original story because that being's movement was extremely limited and it was still a mere presence. But when Sauron in his humanoid form is back it's the "somehow Palpatine returned" type lazy approach.
where do you see Sauron in RoTk ? wtf?
I think he means when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron through the Palantir - he was taunting Sauron to distract him. Unless I am getting the scene placement wrong too.
It can just be the manifestation of some sort of scrying spell, Tolkien pretty vague on the details of how magic works but that's a pretty plausible interpretation. The Eye that is.
Sauron is portrayed as a literal eye in the films because PJ designed it that way to better convey the figurative "Eye of Sauron" concept from the novel to the screen for the benefit of the general, movie-going audience, who were not expected to be familiar with the books. Aesthetically, there is no other purpose behind this, particularly when the filmmakers went out of their way to avoid portraying Sauron as a figure (such as editing out the duel between Sauron & Aragorn, and making the palantir confrontation an extended edition/deleted scene) beyond the prologue. The Palantir hypothesis doesn't work because Sauron had the Ithil-stone, which was one of the minor stones (as well as the Orthanc and Anor stones) and was only about one foot in diameter and was a "perfect sphere... made of solid glass or crystal deep black in hue," (The Palantiri, Unfinished Tales); the Great Eye in the films, by contrast, was a massive eye made of fire, and that was considerably different from the film's portrayal of the Orthanc-stone, which was quite in-line with the lore description of the Palantiri. Furthermore, it does not stand that the Great Eye is a palantir based-off the extended-edition scene of Aragorn revealing himself to Sauron with the Orthanc-stone and seeing Sauron holding the Ithil-stone itself: how can the Great Eye be the Ithil-stone if Sauron is depicted holding the stone itself? It can't. It is worth noting that 1) this scene was relegated to the extended edition, not the theatrical edition, and 2) Sauron is very clearly using the palantir to manipulate Aragorn, like Denethor before him, to give him visions of despair regarding Arwen; in other words, nothing Aragorn sees in the palantir in relation to Sauron can be trusted as reliable because it is a manipulation on the part of the latter. From a cinematography standpoint, this depiction is rather a bit of a continuity error, similar in vein to the abandoned footage of the Aragorn and Sauron duel before the Black Gate. The films went to such great lengths to portray Sauron as the Great Eye atop Barad-dur that depicting him otherwise would have completely undermined the entire purpose of the Eye of Sauron being used in such a manner in the first place, and, at that point, would have better served the films to abandon the Eye imagery almost altogether.
Do you mind expanding more on why it’s a continuity error? I thought it was more Sauron giving Aragorn visions of what Sauron wanted to happen. That said, I’m not sure how much the Nazgûl witnessed between Aragorn and Arwen when transferring Frodo. It seemed more like a spell that made Aragorn visualize his worst fears, rather than Sauron being omniscient with possible futures. This would be consistent with the same type of magic as Galadrial’s mirror.
I'm wasn't talking about the vision of Arwen being a continuity error, but rather Sauron's body being shown in the scene (and the dropped Aragorn & Sauron duel footage at the Black Gate) as being incongruous with what the film has previously established as Sauron's present "form" (the Great Eye) to the audience. As for the bit with Arwen, we know that Sauron couldn't dominate the will of Denethor, so he instead began manipulating the latter with visions of Mordor's might to lead him into despair, and PJ obviously knew this when making the films, so in the scene when Aragorn confronts Sauron in the palantir, Sauron can't dominate the will of Aragorn via the palantiri because Aragorn is 1) a righteous man and 2) the rightful user of all palantiri as Elendil's heir; so, instead, as he did with Denethor before Aragorn, Sauron chooses to try and manipulate him by showing him Arwen "fading" or "diminishing" (since in the film narrative Arwen's life-force is bound with the quest of the Ring) because the Dark Lord is something of a petty prick when he can't get his way.
I would have been pissed off if Sauron as physical knight had shown up to fight Aragorn at the end, as some suggest the plan was. I had read the books many times prior to the movies coming out, and I don't remember ever imagining Sauron as an actual humanoid form. He's always been just the eye.
>There are even deleted scenes from the films in which it is Sauron himself who comes out to fight Aragorn at the Battle of the Black Gate, although he is later cut out and replaced with the troll. The reasoning behind this was that Jackson didn't want too much emphasis taken away from the hobbit's struggle with the ring. This makes no sense to me. Sauron thought Aragorn had the ring, so it makes sense that he would be down there, taking it for himself, getting it as soon as possible.
Nah. A physical sauron would have fought Aragorn in the finale To undo your reasoning: Saruman was pitching to Gandalf to join forces with Sauron. „He is mighty, he will win, we must join“. There was no incentive to downplay Focussing on the implosion of the eye when the ring was destroyed is another good hint Also that alleged lie had no consequences Sauron had no physical form in the movies.
there was a scene where Sauron fought Aragorn in the black gate but it got deleted for some reason anyway heres the scene but edited and in better quality --> https://youtu.be/Vm-sA8R3QCA?si=7gN7W6FtXnsbqyfC
I know that
yes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm-sA8R3QCA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm-sA8R3QCA)
"He's doing the same thing here, not wanting Gandalf to know how strong Sauron already is. " This doesn't make sense. Sarumans entire strategy with Gandalf Is " He's invincible and too powerful, our only chance is to join him" Hes never downplaying how strong Sauron is. His argument rests on the fact that Sauron can't be beat.
Most people already know that the troll that Aragorn fights in Return was originally Sauron himself, but Peter Jackson decided to CGI the troll in the fight instead. I don’t particularly mind, but I would have loved seeing Aragorn face off and, mostly, hold his own against the Lord of Mordor.
If 99% of the audience shares the misconception, the film probably wasn’t good at conveying its points. For all intents and purposes (other than conspiracy theorists on the internet 20 years later), Sauron was ACTUALLY a big fuckin eye.
In my head cannon Sauron hasn't regained his physical form yet. Gollum saw him? Ok, but he isn't the safest of characters and after years of corruption by the Ring probably somewhat sensitive to the non-physical world. The palantir showed a form? Maybe more than the physical reality was transferred. But the main reason I like a non-corporal Sauron is that he makes the scarier villain - the great evil that cannot be slain and uses creatures and sorcery as his eyes, mouth and limb. A mighty warrior fighting at the black gate or a scheming person holed up in his tower just doesn't hit as hard.
Thank you for sharing this 🙏
I really enjoyed this theory, thanks for sharing!
There is a deleted scene where you see Aragorn fight Sauron in return of the king that was cut/changed so he is there physically. But they would then have to explain the eye and not enough time to do it. So I think they cut it for consistency.
This was an excellent post to wake up to. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great stuff OP thank you for sharing your thoughts!
" His spirit has lost none of it's potency." He is a powerful entity. The eye is just a symbol of how powerful an entity he is.
Somehow, Sauron returned
If I rememner corectly Sauron in books needed ring to get physical form. And creature in crown was herold of something ?
Great post.
Are we all just going to ignore that he takes on a humanoid form in the hobbit movies, and then reveals that the pupil of the eye *is* his humanoid form in silhouette?
The lore clearly says, that Sauron lost his body in the fall of Numenor in the second age (e.g. Silmarillion). Specifically he is no longer able to appear in the form of the children of Illuvatar, like he did for example to influence the elves working on the rings of power. His spirit escaped the fall and he can still interact with real objects, like we see in the opening scene of the first film where the last battle at the end of the second age is shown. He uses the set of armor to fight in a physical way, but we see that after Isildur cuts the ring from his finger, he looses the power to manifest in this way and we see that the armor is empty. The stronger Sauron gets the easier he can assume a more physical form, but he can no longer assume any form elves or men would find beautiful, that he could use to trick them. His manifestations always reflect the evil of his mind and will.
Cool.
Fun fact: In the 2004 RPG The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, you actually fight the eye itself as the end boss.
No.
Thank you for your well reasoned contribution.
I just don't think your reasoning is convincing at all. Of course, with sauron being nothing more than a spirit and all, it's probably hard to pin down what he actually _is_, but I just don't see any real hints that he has a physical form in the movies. I think it wouldn't make any sense from a narrative point of view and is definitely not what Jackson intended. You also didn't really put forward any real evidence, you basically just said that existing counter-evidence is a lie. Even the deleted scene at the black gate suggests that Sauron didn't have a physical form _until this point_ as he magically transforms into a physical form out of thin air (I'm glad Jackson deleted this scene).
That's fair enough. I'm not really trying to convince anyone. This is just how I perceived it. And I too agree that removing that scene was the right choice but there's definitely no question of what Sauron is. That is extremely well documented.
He’s the Eye in the films, plain and simple. The films are an adaptation, and not a great one at that (though don’t get me wrong they *are* fantastic films that I love). There are going to be changes, and they exist in a separate universe from the books.
Yeah it's an adaptation not a direct translation. I feel like there's no winning though. If we did get a direct translation we'd be dealing with other arguments in the vein of "why didn't the eagles just fly Frodo to Mordor?", that would be "why didn't Sauron come out and just start bonking people with his mace like he did before?", and then there'd be a debate about whether or not his physical strength at his height comes from the ring or is just natural for him. I think the eye fits the medium well enough, it's just *different* and that's okay. And there are certainly worse adaptations out there. I can enjoy both the books and the movies. There are some adaptations of IPs that have far far less integrity.
I love the films, I even mentioned that much, I’ve been watching them all in theaters this weekend. I think they are great films, but they are not great adaptations. They are ok, as you say there are much worse adaptations (looking at you 2008 Eragon movie), but terrible adaptations existing doesn’t make the LOTR films better adaptations than they actually are. Sure there are things that were acceptable to be cut or altered to fit a 3 film series better (such as cutting the Old Forest in Fellowship) but there are plenty of things that were changed/added that alters the story and characters that didn’t need to be done. So much so that you really *have* to look at them as the “Film Universe” compared to the “Book Universe” and I don’t think a *great* adaptation would need to be thought of in those terms the way LOTR does. As far as Sauron and the Eye go, the books do just fine at letting us believe Sauron is a threat and a great power without him actually being present physically in any scenes. The flaming eye on top of Barad Dur not existing doesn’t mean the alternative was have Sauron physically march out there and throw people around with his mace during the Black Gate sequence.
It's a giant security camera mounted on a gimbal.
It’s an eye.
Wait... there are people that actually thin Sauron is the eye? Really?
Sauron was depicted as poofing into black smoke, so it’s not a stretch of the imagination to think he could only reform as an angry eyeball. Saruman would not have said that Sauron could not take physical form as a way to convince Aragorn - it’s not a way to convince someone that your side is more powerful. So, that Sauron could or could not manifest himself was left ambiguous. An eyeball was an elegant solution that was both malevolent and plausible. Others upthread have pointed out book references.
Book references huh? You mean like when Frodo actually sees the great flaming eye on top of Barad Dur and is terrified it saw them, but it's looking in the wrong direction? Or do you mean the illustration of Barad Dur in the Tolkien Centenary edition of Lord of the Rings that has the eye? Peter Jackson didn't invent they Eye of Sauron being present on top of Barad Dur.
Thank you - I agree
If im not wrong they did plan for aaragorn to fight a kind of avatar of sauron at the end of return of the king but they scrapped it for a fight against a troll or something instead.
It's not depicting Sauron as an eye that I object to, it's how they did it. Early appearances of the eye are quite effective but the giant fiery searchlight looks stupid. It made me laugh at a point in the movies when I should not be laughing.
hot take, and I like it
Ok so no. I literally asked this very question ages ago. So my understanding of it is this: The eye of Sauron isn't Sauron. It's both a symbol on his banners AND him projecting his power through his necromancy as he secretly was able to keep his full powers. Which is why unlike every other person in his class is either weaker, frail, or not much help. (Gandalf the white is just a resurrection at full strength with added magic access to mage him the jew white wizard. So it doesn't count.) Sauron himself doesn't actually have a physical form. In LOTR he is likely either a wraith form or like just barely able to touch things like a ghost moving a door. More likely he is wraith because we see him with armor inside is flaming eye projecting himself places. (the Hobbit bit) But in reality the "eye of Sauron" is the equivalent of a magical searchlight/beacon/lighthouse light all in one. But imagine it's connected directly to him in some sorta weird magical I can see what the eye sees. Which is probably why when he was focused on Aragorn at the gates and felt frodo claim the ring the eye bugged out and we heard him scream.
Whether you‘re right or not doesn‘t really matter since almost everyone watching the movie will think he is an eye. If he is supposed to be more similar to the books, the movies communicate it so poorly that the average viewer won‘t get it.
You're right it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds or shift the established paradigms of Tolkien media. It's just an interesting idea I thought I'd share.
People didn’t understand that? They actually thought the eye was Sauron? Haha I was a kid and I understood the meaning. Like you said a telescope. His surveillance camera so to speak.
I think it was because Sauron casts his eye on middle earth seeking the one ring. The Eye in the movies is a visceral interpretation of that, makes it easier to create a mood and Sauron's presence in a powerful and poignant way that raises tension for the viewer. Without it we might not be aware of Sauron's presence, with it we are always aware without having it spelled out. It's a really useful visual tool, we all know exactly what it means and represents without wasting precious time.
This is basically the route Shadow of Mordor takes
Ffs it's Mordor not Morder
Oh no my phone autocorrected a word... Better just delete my whole post.
Yeah it autocorrected 3 times or more and you simply couldnt change it not a single time